ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2610: Request for a variance to allow for a 33-foot front yard setback and a 33.16% max build ratio for the property located at 2003 12th Street.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Clayton Smeltz, Owner.
PROPOSED USE:
“Creation of a covered porch/overhang to keep out of weather during entry/exit of home. We need to build an overhang structure 10' into front setback.”
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article V, Table V-1, to allow a 33-foot front yard setback in lieu of the required 40-foot.
2. Per Article V, Table V-1, to allow a max build of 33.16% in lieu of the 30% allowed by right.
PARCEL ID:
7432-10-00-0080
AREA:
0.29± acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-1, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Council Person: Charlotte Hope Gillis
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the required Forty-foot front yard setback to Thirty-Three-Feet and a max build of 33.16% Per Article V, Table V-1 of the Land Development Code to allow for a covered porch and entryway.
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: “Home owner in wheelchair and reworked front porch to add a ramp, the overhang will keep him out of the rain.”
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, no impact on adjacent areas.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance will result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
i. There are no adjacent neighboring properties in the R-1 zoning district which have an entryway within the 40-foot front yard setback.
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: “No, we are proposing a simple overhang.”
b. Staff’s response: No, the structure could be redesigned on a smaller scale.
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, adjacent properties have a similar covered entrys.”
b. Staff’s response: No, The lot appears consistent in size and configuration with surrounding residential parcels and the land development code.
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, owner in wheelchair, the front porch was reworked with the addition of a ramp.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. The requested reduction of the front yard setback and the max build is based on the layout of the proposed structure in relation to the current structure rather than a physical constraint 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.”
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 lot size, max building, and dimensional 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-2610 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.