ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2615: Request for a Non-Administrative Variance to allow a shed to be four feet higher than the primary structure and one (1) foot setback from the property line on the Edgewater Drive side of parcel for the property located at 203 Eaton Road.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Fredrick Peters, Owner
PROPOSED USE:
To allow a shed to be four feet higher than the primary structure and 1 foot setback from the property line on Edgewater Drive side of parcel.
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article V, Table V-1 of the Land Development Code (LDC) to permit construction of a shed 1 foot from the property line fence on the east side of parcel facing Edgewater Drive.
2. Per Article III, Section 21-36-02 (c) of the Land Development Code (LDC) to allow an accessory structure with a height of 18 feet, where the primary residence has a height of 14 feet, within a residential zoning district.
PARCEL ID:
8402-28-01-0052
AREA:
0.21± acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-3, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Council Person: Charlotte Hope Gillis
Discussion:
The applicant is seeking two items of relief to construct a detached shed. The applicant originally applied for a variance and was granted a two variances by the Planning and Zoning Board through VA-2507. The Planning and Zoning Board granted the following variances:
1. Amend the previous approved Planning and Zoning Variance requiring the structure not to be larger than 16’ by 40’ to 18’ by 40’.
2. Article III, Section 21-36.02(h) and per Article V, Table V-1, to allow a three foot front yard setback in lieu of the approved four-foot front yard setback granted by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The applicant proceeded with construction based upon the original variance. However, at the time of erecting the building, City staff noticed several issues requiring additional variances. First, under Article V, Table V-1, they are requesting a reduced setback of 1 foot from the eastern property line fence. Second, per Article III, Section 21-36-02(c), they are requesting a height variance. Our current code states that an accessory structure cannot exceed the height of the primary structure. In this case, the main home sits at 14 feet, and the proposed shed is 18 feet tall to accommodate a specific roof pitch and internal storage. Staff notes that while the height exceeds the primary home, the total height remains below the maximum absolute height limit for the zoning district itself. However, because it surpasses the primary structure, a variance is strictly required.
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: “Shed height higher than primary residence.”
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.].
ii. Coastal Management Element Policy 1.1.11: Development Adjacent to Estuarine and Riverine Shoreline Areas. Development adjacent to estuarine and riverine shoreline areas shall maintain a habitat buffer zone to protect or conserve the canopy, understory and ground cover of native upland vegetation and wetlands.
iii. Coastal Management Element Policy 1.2.1: Hardening of the Estuarine Shoreline. Hardening of the estuarine shoreline shall be allowed only when erosion is causing a significant threat to life or property. When hardening of the shoreline is approved, stabilization methods other than vertical seawalls and bulkheads shall be used.
iv. Coastal Management Element Policy 1.2.3: Shoreline Protection Buffer. A shoreline protection buffer shall be maintained for a distance extending 50-feet laterally upland from the mean high-water line within the buffer zone and 25-feet from wetland vegetation, except that reasonable access shall be permitted.
v. Conservation Element Policy 1.2.1: Enforcing Stormwater Management and Shoreline Protection Ordinances. The City shall continue to enforce its existing stormwater management and shoreline protection ordinances.
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: “Yes and No, neighbor has the same issue.”
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 neighboring properties have structures higher than the primary residence:
1. 598 Eaton 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: “No.”
b. Staff’s response: No, it is not the minimum action necessary. The property already maintains a reasonable residential use, and a smaller storage structure could easily be built on-site in full compliance with standard LDC setback and height limits.
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: No, the site’s physical characteristics are typical of the surrounding neighborhood. The lot shares the same general shape, topography, and dimensions as adjacent properties, meaning any difficulty in meeting code requirements is not inherent to the land itself.
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.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the circumstances creating the need for the variance are entirely the result of actions proposed by the applicant. The property possesses no unique shape, topographical constraints, or physical hardships that prevent compliance with standard zoning regulations. Instead, the need for relief arises solely from the applicant’s self-created design proposal to construct a custom 18-foot-tall accessory structure and place it within 1 foot of the eastern property line.
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, it impairs the intent of the Code. While it poses no safety hazard, reducing the setback to 1 foot and increasing the structure height to 18 feet creates an atypical vertical mass on the property line that conflicts with standard dimensional separation and residential visual harmony.
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 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-2615 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.