ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2608: Request for a variance to allow a maximum building coverage of 31.1% for the property located at 1210 Willow Oak Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Richard T. Impson Jr.
PROPOSED USE:
Residence
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article V, Table V-1, the maximum building coverage permitted within the R-2 Zoning District is 30%. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an increase in maximum building coverage to 31.1%.
PARCEL ID:
8402-01-03-0540
AREA:
0.23 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-2 - Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District 1 - Council Person: Charlotte Hope Gillis
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a maximum building coverage of 31.1.%. Per Article V, Table V-1, the maximum building coverage permitted within the R-2 Zoning District is 30%.
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: “Airport lots with hangers along Willow Oak Drive require more space to provide a reasonable residence footprint.”
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 1.5.7: 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.
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.”
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
i. The following neighborhood properties currently have max build percentages greater than 30% within the City limits of Edgewater.
1. 3032 Unity Tree Drive
2. 2401 India Palm Drive
3. 3114 India Palm Drive
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: “Yes.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the proposed variance represents the minimum action necessary to permit reasonable use of the property, as the requested increase in building coverage from 30% to 31.1% is minimal and limited to the proposed carport extension.
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 the minimum lot size, width, and depth.
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 circumstances creating the need for the variance are the result of the applicant’s proposed residence with hanger.
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. While granting the proposed variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public welfare, it would impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments:
Fire Comment: No comments or concerns.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on, April 29, 2026. In addition, Public Notices were mailed to all addresses within 500’ of the proposed project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2608 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.