ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2613: Request for a variance to reduce the front yard setback to 10 feet on the east side, 14 feet of the southeast side, and 24 feet on the south of the property, as well as, increase the Max build to 40.88% for the property located at 121 Valencia Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Zurny Ford/ Hartfield Complete Services, Applicant.
PROPOSED USE:
To reduce the front yard setbacks of a non-conforming lot to 10 feet on the east side, 14 feet of the southeast side, and 24 feet on the south of the property, as well as, increase the Max build to 40.88%.
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article V, Table V-1, allow a front yard setback on the east side of the property of 10 feet in lieu of the 30-foot requirement.
2. Per Article V, Table V-1, allow a front yard setback on the southeast side of the property of 14 feet in lieu of the 30-foot requirement.
3. Per Article V, Table V-1, allow a front yard setback on the south side of the property of 24 feet in lieu of the 30-foot requirement.
4. Per Article V, Table V-1, allow a max build of 40.88% in lieu of the 30% max currently required.
5. Per Article VII, Section 21-71.04 (c), Variance of yard dimensions and requirements shall be obtained only through action of the Planning and Zoning Board.
PARCEL ID:
7451-02-05-0070
AREA:
0.1 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Single Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-3, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District one - Council Person: Charlotte Hope Gillis
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting development approval for an existing non-conforming lot located at 121 Valencia Drive. Specifically, the applicant seeks variance relief from the Land Development Code (LDC) for the following modifications:
• Setback Reductions: A front yard setback reduction of 10 feet along the east property line, 14 feet along the southeast property line, and 24 feet along the south property line.
• Maximum Lot Build: An increase in the maximum allowable build coverage to 40.88%.
Alternatively, the applicant is eligible to reestablish the structure within the exact footprint of the previous single-family residence, provided the new construction does not create any further encroachment or increase the existing degree of non-conformity. Pursuant to LDC Article VII, the Planning and Zoning Board maintains exclusive authority to review and approve adjustments to yard dimensions, lot requirements, and associated non-conforming lot standards.
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: “Proposed Use: Construction of a new approximately 3014 sq ft two-story single-family residence with attached one car carport, covered porch and associated site improvements on an existing non-conforming corner lot. Description of request: Request for non-administrative variance relief from required front setback requirements due to the unique configuration and curvature of the subject corner lot. The proposed residence encroaches into the required front setback area as shown on the submitted conceptual site plan. Explanation of hardship: The parcel is a legally non-conforming lot with an irregular and highly unusual shape that creates significant limitations on the buildable area, Due to the geometry of the lot, strict application of the current front setback requirements who substantially reduce the usable footprint and make it
extremely difficult, if not impossible to construct a reasonable sized residence consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood. We are requesting the following variances: A 10-foot setback variance along one front property line. A 14-foot setback variance along the second front property line. Because this is a corner lot with two front yard setbacks, the impact of applying the standard 30-foot setbacks to both frontages is particularly restrictive.”
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, the proposed use remains a single-family residential structure consistent with the surrounding neighborhood uses and zoning patterns.”
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 non-conforming structures:
1. 120 Valencia Drive
2. 118 Valencia Drive
3. 115 Valencia 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, the requested setback relief represents the minimum variance necessary to accommodate a functional residential layout while respecting the unique constraints of the lot configuration.”
b. Staff’s response: No. The request appears to be based on the site design preference rather than a hardship preventing reasonable residential use.
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, the property contains an irregular curved frontage & non-conforming lot configuration that creates dimensional limitations not commonly found on standard interior lots in the area.”
b. Staff’s response: No, while the lot and its previous structure are non-conforming, the site's physical size and configuration are consistent with surrounding residential parcels and do not possess unique characteristics absent from adjacent properties.
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, the need for the variance is due to the pre-existing shape, dimensions, and configuration of the lot and the application of setback requirements.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the need for the variance is directly created by actions proposed by the applicant, as the request stems from the specific design layout of the proposed structure rather than any inherent physical constraints of the property.
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, the proposed variance will not adversely affect public welfare, traffic circulation, drainage, or adjacent properties. The request allows reasonable residential development while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood character.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. While granting the proposed variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare, it would impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code, specifically Article V, which establishes minimum standards to implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan and ensure compatibility of development patterns.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments:
Fire Comment: No concerns or comments.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on, May 27, 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-2613 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