ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2618: Request for a Non-Administrative Variance to allow a 10-foot side yard buffer, a reduction in the landscaping requirement, and a max build ratio of 32.2% for the property located at 2224 Hibiscus Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Brent Merilson, Owner/Applicant
PROPOSED USE:
Warehouse Construction
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article V, Table V-1, Allow a max build ratio of 32.2% in lieu of the 30% allowed.
2. Per Article V, Table V-3 and Table V-4, request a reduction of Landscaping buffer from 15 ft to 10 ft. Planting quantities will be met for the Type A landscape buffer from Table V-4.
PARCEL ID:
8402-01-06-8680
AREA:
0.314± acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant Commercial
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Commercial
ZONING DISTRICT:
B-2, Neighborhood Business
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Two - Council Person: Mike Thomas
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a Non-Administrative Variance due to being notified by Planning Staff that the building exceeded the maximum building coverage in the 1st Technical Review Committee response to Site Plan SP-2608. The applicant is proposing a 4,380 square foot steel warehouse on a 13,680 square foot lot. The B-2 zoning district allows for a maximum building coverage of 30% or 4,104 square feet. The applicant is requesting to allow a 10-foot side yard buffer which is due to City staff oversight when making code changes. The B-2 zoning district has a 10 foot side yard building setback, not a 15 foot building setback, and as such, when City Staff changed the landscape buffer from ten (10) feet to fifteen (15) feet for the Class A buffer, an incompatibility was created. Based upon the first review, all other site dimension requirements are being met under SP-2608.
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: “Engineering thought he was told 32%. All the mechanical engineering has been done and paid for.”
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.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance will result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
i. Currently, the neighboring properties do not have max building coverage percentages higher than allowable ratios.
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.”
b. Staff’s response: The applicant could comply with the more stringent criterion of the Class A landscape buffer in lieu of the building setback and the applicant could design a smaller 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: No, the lot size, width and length are average for the neighborhood and meet the L.D.C.s conforming requirements.
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 applicant is requesting the adjustment to prevent future expense.
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: No.
This criterion has 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 east on Hibiscus Drive on July 29, 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-2618 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.