ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2617: VA-2617: Request for a Non-Administrative Variance to allow a fourth accessory structure to exceed the maximum allowance of two (2) accessory structures per parcel and to allow an accessory structure greater than 350 square feet to not match the façade of the primary residence for the property located at 2729 Lime Tree Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Nancy Conrey, Owner/Applicant
PROPOSED USE:
To allow a fourth accessory structure (14’ x 30’ shed).
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article III, Section 21-36.02 (j) allow an after-the-fact increase of accessory structures from 2 to 4 for the current parcel.
2. Per Article III, Section 21-36.02 (m) remove the requirement to have the exterior match the primary structure in architectural design, roofline, exterior construction materials or façade treatment, and color.
PARCEL ID:
8402-01-09-8600
AREA:
0.34± acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-2, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Three - Council Person: Debbie Dolbow
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a Non-Administrative Variance to allow a fourth accessory structure on the subject parcel located at 2729 Lime Tree Drive. The parcel currently contains one (1) primary single-family dwelling and three (3) pre-existing accessory structures, as well as, a 14 foot wide by 30-foot long shed which was placed without an approved Building Department permit. The applicant has stated several times to Planning and Zoning Department she would be willing to remove the large bird aviary located within the rear yard. However, no demolition building permit has been filed to date. Furthermore, due to the 30-foot structure having a garage door there is a requirement to have an apron paved three feet onto the property then a stabilized path to the structure. This as well has not been applied for by the applicant.
The applicant states that the justification for the additional structure is to provide extra storage space due to her daughter and grandson moving into the primary residence. The Land Development Code explicitly restricts residential parcels to a maximum of two (2) accessory structures. The applicant also purchased the prefabricated shed which exceeds 350 square feet and does not match the existing façade of the single family residence.
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 Planning and Zoning 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: “I needed extra storage due to my daughter and grandson moving in with me.”
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. [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.”
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
i. The following neighboring properties have more than two structures:
1. 2809 Lime Tree Drive
This criterion has not 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: No, the property already has a primary residence and three accessory structures, which allows reasonable use of the parcel. Alternate minimum actions could include expanding one of the existing structures (subject to standard size limitations) or utilizing internal storage, rather than adding a fourth freestanding structure.
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: Staff agrees with the applicant. The subject property consists of standard, flat platted lots within the Florida Shores subdivision, displaying identical physical features to neighboring residential parcels. No unique topographical or environmental features exist that justify a variance.
This criterion has 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 request stems from the applicant's choice to add another structure to accommodate personal living adjustments. The circumstance is self-created and not imposed by the strict application of the zoning code on an irregular parcel.
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. Granting a variance where no property-based hardship exists sets an undesirable precedent that undermines the enforcement of Chapter 21 of the Land Development Code, which explicitly seeks to limit the density and proliferation of accessory structures on single residential lots.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments:
Fire Comment: No concerns or comments.
Public Notice:
In strict accordance with Florida Statutes Chapter 166.041 and local municipal ordinances, a physical Public Notice sign was prominently posted on the front of the site facing west on Lime Tree Drive on July, 1 2026. In addition, official written Public Notices were compiled and mailed via USPS to all property owners of record located within a 500-foot buffer radius of the project boundary lines.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2617 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. Further the Planning Department is requesting, should the variance be approved, the board add the above-mentioned conditions.