ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2606: Request for a variance from Article V to allow a 20-foot landscape buffer instead of a 35-foot and a chain-link fence around the perimeter of the parcel for the property at 2611-2623 Guava Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Storch Law Firm c/o A. Joseph Posey, Jr., Applicant.
PROPOSED USE:
Light Industrial/ Commercial.
REQUESTED ACTION: (Change to current code)
1. Per Article V, Table V-4 allow a decreased rear yard landscape buffer of 20-feet (Class B) in lieu of the 35-foot (Class D (3)) required for a multifamily to light industrial zoned parcel.
2. Per Article V, Table V-3 footnote (3) allow an opaque chain-link fence along the rear property line that faces a multifamily zoning district in lieu of the 6-foot-high decorative masonry wall or fence required for a multifamily to light industrial zoned parcel.
PARCEL ID:
8402-01-06-6730, 8402-01-06-6750, and 8402-01-06-6770
AREA:
0.60 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant Commercial
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Commercial
ZONING DISTRICT:
B-2, Neighborhood Business
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Three - Council Person Debbie Dolbow
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a variance for the landscape buffer requirements from the Land Development Code Table V-3 and V-4, which requires a 35-foot rear landscape buffer and a 6-foot-high masonry wall or fence between multifamily and light industrial zoned properties. Applicant put in a request in 2023 for a variance (VA-2309) and was approved for a 20-foot landscape buffer yard. However, per the same variance, the Planning and Zoning Board required a 6-foot privacy fence. The new proposed variance before the Planning and Zoning Board is to reduce the landscaping buffer and allow a chain-link fence along the perimeter of the remaining lot.
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 P. & Z. 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: “This firm represents the owner of the above-referenced parcels located on Guava Drive regarding the enclosed variance petition. As you know, a portion of this property was previously granted variances pursuant to VA-2018, allowing for: a rear setback of twenty (20) feet in lieu of fifty (50) feet; removal of the fifteen (15) foot vehicle backup area and maneuver radius; and the removal of the requirement for an enclosed dumpster with a six (6) foot-high stockade fence or masonry wall and gate. The current request seeks approval of the same variances granted in 2023, but applied to the above combined parcels to facilitate cohesive site planning and redevelopment of the property.
As to the justification for the variances, the proposed warehouse building is appropriately scaled for the site and will not create a peculiar benefit to the owner. A substantial portion of the property is needed for stormwater infrastructure, as the project is designed to function as a closed basin system meeting regulatory standards that are more stringent than those in place when nearby properties were originally developed. These requirements significantly limit the buildable area and create practical design constraints that necessitate the requested relief.”
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 1.5.6: Maintaining a Landscape Ordinance. The City shall maintain a Landscape Ordinance that requires adequate buffering between transitional uses. [9J-5.006 (3)(c)2., 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. Granting the requested variance will not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Rather, the variance supports planning objectives that discourage urban sprawl while encouraging infill development and redevelopment within established light industrial areas. The subject parcels are located within an existing industrial corridor, and the requested relief promotes the efficient use of property already served by infrastructure without extending development into undeveloped areas.”
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 neighborhood properties currently have neither a 35-foot landscape buffer nor a decorative high wall or fence within the City limits of Edgewater.
1. 2605 Guava Drive
2. 2529 Guava Drive
3. 2427 Guava 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: “No. The requested variance has previously been determined to be compatible with surrounding development patterns along Guava Drive. Staff has identified multiple similar variances in the immediate vicinity, demonstrating an established development character within this corridor. The proposed warehouse use is consistent with nearby industrial operations and will not introduce any incompatible activity.”
b. Staff’s response: The applicant could place a smaller structure on the parcel.
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 requested variances represent the minimum relief necessary to allow reasonable and functional use of the unified parcels. Strict application of the Land Development Code would impose site design limitations that would significantly restrict building placement, circulation, and operational efficiency, thereby creating the type of practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships for which variances are intended. The relief requested enables a logical and efficient site layout while maintaining compatibility with surrounding properties and previously approved development standards.”
b. Staff’s response: The subject property is a conforming lot meeting the minimum lot size, width, and depth.
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 arises from the physical characteristics and configuration of the parcels, as well as the established development pattern along Guava Drive. These conditions were not created by the Applicant. Instead, the request reflects a reasonable effort to unify the parcels and redevelop the site in a manner consistent with prior approvals and existing area conditions.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is looking to decrease the buffer yard and place a chain-link fence in lieu of the required decorative wall or fence on the 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. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare nor impair the intent of the Land Development Code. The relief requested has already been evaluated and approved for a portion of the property, demonstrating that it can be implemented without adverse impacts. The proposed development will improve the property, support economic activity, and maintain orderly development consistent with the surrounding industrial area. Moreover, the variance supports investment in the property, encourages economic activity, and advances the City's planning objectives without introducing incompatible uses or hazards.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, though granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare it will impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code Article V.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments:
No comments or concerns.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on April 1, 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-2606 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.