ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2403: Request for variances from Article III to allow for the construction of a detached garage totaling 2,572 square feet for the property at 1890 Old Mission Road.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Jack and Carolee Lawson
PROPOSED USE:
Detached Garage
Principle Structure is 3,184 square feet. Proposed detached garage is 2,572 square feet or 80.77 percent of the principle structure.
Principle Structure is 16 feet tall. Proposed detached garage is 22’10” tall.
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Article III, Section 21-36.02(c): To allow an accessory structure (detached garage) to exceed the height of the principle structure.
2. Article III, Section 21-36.02(g): To allow an accessory structure (detached garage) to be located in the front yard setback.
3. Article III, Section 21-36.02(k): To allow an accessory structure (detached garage) to exceed 60 percent of the total square feet of the principle structure.
4. Article III, Section 21-36.02(h): To allow an accessory structure to be located 10 feet from the front yard setback in lieu of the required 40-foot setback in the Rural Transition zoning district.
PARCEL ID:
734411000040
AREA:
2.12 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family Home
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Transition with Conservation Overlay
ZONING DISTRICT:
Rural Transition (RT)
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Councilwoman Charlotte Gillis
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: No other location on 2.12 Acres of property allows for this structure to be built. This is primarily due to wetland setbacks & property loss of .38 ac due to Eminent Domain Action.
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.
1. 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, No changes to property
b. Staff’s response: No, the immediate vicinity is undeveloped and rural beyond the Oakleaf Preserve Subdivision furth east on Old Mission Road.
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, in order to provide coverage for additional existing equipment on the property.
b. Staff’s response: No, owner has use of the property with a single0family dwelling with a garage.
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: Yes, Wetlands surround the property only provide for a building site as requested.
b. Staff’s response: Although the subject property is encumbered by wetlands, the applicant did pay to mitigate wetlands when constructing the home. The applicant was aware of the presence of wetlands and the limitation and financial cost associated with the mitigation of wetlands to develop the property to its fullest extent. The subject property has been affected by eminent domain actions by Volusia County for the expansion of Old Mission Road. As such, the property is not unique, being encumbered by wetlands nor is it unique in the sense that Volusia County did acquire property from all adjacent property owners.
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: No, Natural wetland location to the property dictate that this building site be in accordance to Wetland setbacks thus location is only location available.
b. Staff’s response: No, the circumstances that created the need for the variance were a direct result of eminent domain and wetland encroachment.
This criterion has 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, no substantial detriment to the land will be impacted.
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 Summary
Staff received the following feedback from City Departments:
• Environmental Services:
o After reviewing the submittals for the subject variance, the request does not interfere with the function of traffic, stormwater, or other services within the purview of the Environmental Services Department. Environmental Services does not object to the requested variance.
• Fire:
o No Comments or Concerns
Staff does not recommend approval of the Variance for application VA-2403 because all six (6) criteria could be met in accordance with Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance.
Variance general requirement for the Board’s consideration:
Economic, personal, or any other hardship that is self-imposed shall not be sufficient justification to grant a variance. Hardship for the purpose of this section is defined as a restriction on property so unreasonable that it results in an arbitrary and/or capricious interference with basic property rights. Hardship relates to the physical characteristics of the property, not the personal circumstances of the owner or user, and the property is rendered unusable without the granting of a variance.