ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2423: Request for variance from Article V of the Land Development Code to allow for a 44’ setback from the Mean High-Water Line (MHWL) in lieu of the required 50’ to allow for construction of an in-ground swimming pool at 1901 South Riverside Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Monica Turnblacer
PROPOSED USE:
Swimming Pool
REQUESTED ACTION(S):
1. Article V, Section 21-50.02 Table V-01 Footnotes: To allow a 44’ setback from the mean high-water line.
PARCEL ID:
8402-38-01-0040
AREA:
+19,500 SQ. FT.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residence
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-1, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Two - Council Person Gigi Bennington
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a variance from Article V of the Land Development Code to allow for construction of an in-ground swimming pool 44’ from the Mean High Water Line (MHWL) in lieu of the required 50’ at 1901 South Riverside Drive.
Applicant description: “The riprock is not a straight line. The pool deck is in compliance with the exception of one area where the riprock curves in six feet. We respectfully request a variance to allow a straight pool deck even though it encroaches in this one area. The 3-foot straight line deck is essential to the installation of the safety pool cover that complies with ASTM FL346 specifications.
Aerial Exhibit:
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: “The pool deck encroaches 6’ into the rear easement”
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.
ii. Coastal Management Policy 1.2.4: Shoreline Protection Buffer. A shoreline protection buffer shall be maintained for a distance extending 50-feet laterally upland from the mean high water line within the buffer zone and 25-feet from wetland vegetation, except that reasonable access be permitted.
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. Will not create use which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area”
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses. Staff found the following nearby addresses with swimming pools encroaching into the 50’ MHWL buffer:
i. 1905 S Riverside Drive
ii. 1909 S Riverside Drive
iii. 2117 S Riverside Drive
iv. 207 Virginia Street
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.
b. Staff’s response: No. The applicant could decrease the size of the pool to meet the setback.
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. Adjacent lots have existing pools closer than 50 feet.
b. Staff’s response: No, this lot is conforming, meeting the minimum required width and depth for R-1 Zoning.
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. Homeowner purchased the home on existing lot prior to 50ft. setback requirement.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is requesting to build within the 50’ MHWL setback for an accessory use.
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. There are existing pools on adjacent lots that do not comply with 50 foot setbacks.
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.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on October 30, 2024. In addition, Public Notices were mailed to all addresses within 500’ of the proposed project.
Staff Comments:
The Technical Review Committee had no comments or concerns regarding the variance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2423 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.