ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2505: Request for variances from Article V, Table V-1- Site Dimensions, to increase the maximum building area to 42% from the required 30% and decrease the front yard setback from 25 ft. to 15.5 ft. for the property located on 817 Starboard Avenue.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Donald Jackson
PROPOSED USE:
Applicant is requesting a variance to increase the max build of the property to 42% and reduce the front yard setback to 15.5 feet.
REQUESTED ACTION: (Change to current code)
1. Per Article V, Table V-1- Site Dimensions- allow a max build of 42% in lieu of the required 30%.
2. Per Article V, Table V-1- Site Dimensions- allow a 15.5 ft front yard setback in lieu of the 25 ft.
PARCEL ID:
8401-02-00-2910
AREA:
.11 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Manufactured Home Subdivision
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Medium Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
MH-2, Manufactured Home Subdivision
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Council Person Eric Rainbird
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a variance from Article V, Table V-1- Site Dimensions, Max Build increased to 42% from the required 30% Maximum and decrease the front yard setback from 25 ft. to 15.5 ft.
Aerial:
Site Plan:
Staff Review:
According to Article IX, Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance, City of Edgewater’s Land Development Code;
In order to grant a non-administrative variance, the P. & Z. Board shall make the following findings of fact:
1. That granting of the proposed variance is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan;
2. That granting of the proposed variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area;
3. That granting of the proposed variance is the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property;
4. That the physical characteristics of the subject site are unique and not present on adjacent sites; and
5. That the circumstances creating the need for the variance are not the result of actions by the applicant, actions proposed by the applicant or actions by the previous property owner(s).
6. That granting of the proposed variance(s) will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code.
Explanation of hardship by applicant: “Park cars and supplies out of weather.”
1. Will granting the proposed variance result in a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan?
a. Staff’s response: After review, Staff has determined that granting the variance would result in a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
i. Future Land Use Policy 1.2.9: Stormwater Management. The City shall continue to enforce the stormwater management requirements in the Land Development Code, which provide specific standards for the design of on-site stormwater systems, as well as strategies and measures to minimize runoff into the Indian River Lagoon. [9J-5.006 (3)(c)4., F.A.C.]
ii. Future Land Use Policy 1.5.7: Maintaining Site Design Requirements and Subdivision Regulations. The City shall maintain site design requirements and subdivision regulations in the Land Development Code, which adequately address the impacts of new development on adjacent properties in all land use categories and zoning districts. [9J-5.006 (3)(c)1. and (3)(c)2., F.A.C.]
This criterion has not been met.
2. Will the granting of the proposed variance result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area?
a. Applicant’s Response: “No, will be conforming to what everybody else already has throughout the park.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
i. Currently the neighboring properties have built within the same setbacks.
1. 815 Starboard Avenue
2. 803 Masthead Lane
3. 800 Masthead Lane
This criterion has been met.
3. Is the proposed action the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property?
a. Applicant’s response: “No.”
b. Staff’s response: This lot could accommodate a smaller garage or have the current carport enclosed to create the garage the applicant is requesting.
This criterion has not been met.
4. Are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites?
a. Applicant’s response: “No.”
b. Staff’s response: The subject property is a conforming lot meeting minimum lot size, width, and depth requirements.
This criterion has not been met.
5. Are the circumstances creating the need for the variance the result of actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant?
a. Applicant’s response: “Yes.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is seeking to remove the current carport and replace it with a larger garage with a breezeway between structures.
This criterion has not been met.
6. Will the granting of the proposed variance cause substantial detriment to public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code?
a. Applicant’s response: “No.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, though granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare it will impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code Article V.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments:
Staff received no comments from other Departments.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on June 25th, 2025. In addition, Public Notices were mailed to all addresses within 500’ of the proposed project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2505 because the applicant could not meet all six criteria of Article IX, Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance, City of Edgewater’s Land Development Code.