ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2510: Request for variances from Article III, Section 21-36.02, to allow four accessory structures in lieu of the limit of two, allow the accessory structures to exceed the total square footage of the primary residence by 102.63%, and allow the accessory structure in the front yard for the property at 1902 Air Park Avenue.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Anthony Lancellotta
PROPOSED USE:
Applicant is requesting to add a 30’ x 40’ accessory structure for storage.
REQUESTED ACTION: (Change to current code)
1. Per Article III, Section 21-36.02 (g), allow for a third front yard accessory structure (Garage, Proposed Storage Shed, and Pump House).
2. Per Article III, Section 21-36.02 (j), allow 4 accessory structures total for this parcel.
3. Per Article III, Section 21-36.02 (k), allow the accessory structures square footage to exceed the primary structures square footage by 102.63%.
PARCEL ID:
8438-03-00-0209
AREA:
1.50 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residence
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Transitional
ZONING DISTRICT:
RT, Rural Transitional
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Two - Council Person Mike Thomas
Discussion:
Applicant is requesting to add an accessory structure in the front yard on a lot that currently has 3 accessory structures, this will bring the total accessory structures to 4. The principal structure is 2,736 square feet. The existing three accessory structures combined are 1,608 square feet. The addition of the proposed 30’ x 40’ accessory structure has a square footage of 1,200 square feet. The total square footage of the accessory structures would be 2,808 square feet. This is 102.63% of the primary residence, both of which is incompatible with Article III, Section 21-36.02 (g), (j), and (k).
Aerial:
Site Plan:
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: “1) allow more than 2 structures, 2) exceed 60% sq ft. to allow an additional storage approx. 400 sq ft for vehicles and equipment. This will exceed the 60% limit.”
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.
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.
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, this will not affect adjacent areas, our 1.5 acres is semi-secluded.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
i. Currently the neighboring properties have built accessory structures in their front yards.
1. 2941 Oak Trail
2. 2951 Oak Trail
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.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant has several options, staff have noted some below that would reduce the number of variances requested and would help meet the intent of the land development code. Applicant could reduce number of equipment or store equipment off site. Applicant could reduce the number of variances by building an addition to the existing accessory structures. Applicant could reduce increase the request for additional square feet to accommodate the removal of the metal shed not meeting setback requirements.
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, other adjacent properties have same/ similar structures.”
b. Staff’s response: Applicant has 3 accessory structures currently and is looking to add the proposed.
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 size of the accessory structure is minimal of what is needed for use.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, Applicant is requesting to increase size and number of accessory structures.
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, we have 1.5 acres that is off-road, partially wooded area on two sides. Adjacent properties are a distance away. There will not be any interference or cause detriment to public, nor endanger any persons, or wildlife in the area. *The sideline setbacks will be 25+ ft as required.”
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:
Staff received no comments from other Departments.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on July 29th, 2025. In addition, Public Notices were mailed to all addresses within 500’ of the proposed project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2510 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.
City staff would request the Planning and Zoning Board condition the approval of any variance, should one be granted, subject to the applicant moving the metal shed onto their property and be required to place said shed 5 feet from the rear and side yard setbacks.