ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2605: Request for a variance to allow a six-foot (6’) fence on the property line in lieu of the required ten-foot (10’) side corner yard setback for the property located at 202 Hubbell Street, Edgewater, FL 32132.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Thad Harty
PROPOSED USE:
Corner lot fence height (6’) for yard and side property line.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Per Article III, Section 21-38.02 (d.) to allow a six-foot (6’) opaque fence on the property line in lieu of the side corner yard setback of 10 feet for the Lamont side of the parcel.
PARCEL ID:
7452-10-00-0051
AREA:
0.28 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-3, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Council Person: Charlotte Hope Gillis
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a six-foot (6’) fence on the property line in lieu of the required ten-foot (10’) side corner yard setback. Per Article III, Section 21-38.02, General Requirements, (d.), of the Land Development Code, fences located within a side corner yard are required to maintain a minimum setback of ten feet (10’) from the property line. Applicant previously got an approved variance to construct a new residential home ten feet (10’) from the property line.
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: “Application of the full fence setback reduces the use of the side yard along Lamont Street and creates a less safe environment for children and family pets.”
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 variance will not create or continue a non-compatible use with adjacent properties. The requested fence location will provide approximately 17’ from the edge of pavement to the fence. Furthermore, the proposed fence location exceeds the 50’ visibility triangle requirements.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance would result in creating a condition that is not compatible with adjacent properties in the area. While fences are permitted within side corner yards, they are limited to four feet in height and must be non-opaque.
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: “Yes, the proposed request is only 2’ taller than the allowable fence height but provides much more reasonable safety for children and pets using the backyard along Lamont Street.”
b. Staff’s response: No, a four-foot non-opaque fence is permitted within the side corner yard and would allow for reasonable use of the yard area. The request for a six-foot opaque fence within the required ten-foot setback represents a preference for increased privacy and enclosure rather than a necessity.
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 subject property has 160’ of length along Lamont Street, which is significantly larger than the other corner residential lot on Lamont and Hubbell Street. Additionally, the subject property has a larger area than the similar lot. The longer lot length and larger lot area allow the property to easily accommodate the required visibility triangle.”
b. Staff’s response: No, while the lot may have greater frontage and area than some nearby parcels, a similar lot exists directly across the street, and these characteristics do not create a hardship but instead provide additional flexibility for site design in compliance with 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, the unique characteristics of the subject property’s dimensions allow for the variance request, which would not be present on a smaller lot.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the circumstances creating the need for the variance are the result of the applicant’s proposed fence design. The property could be developed in compliance with the Land Development Code by installing a fence that meets the height, opacity, and setback requirements.
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 substantial detriment will be created by approval of the variance request, and the request is reasonable and compatible with the intent of the Land Development Code. The request does not hinder any public safety requirement and will help maintain privacy for adjoining neighbors.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. While granting the proposed variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public welfare, it would impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code. Article III, Section 21-38.02, General Requirements, establishes side corner yard fence standards to maintain visibility, promote public safety, and preserve an open streetscape, which would be compromised by the requested six-foot opaque fence within the required ten-foot setback.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments:
Fire Comment: 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-2605 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.