ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2507: Request to amend Variance VA-2507 to allow for a 3 foot front yard setback and increase the size of an accessory structure conditioned by the Planning and Zoning Board to be 16 feet in width and 40 feet in length.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Fredrick M Peters
PROPOSED USE:
Applicant is requesting to amend the variance approved by the Planning and Zoning Board by allowing him to increase the size of the garage.
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Amend the previous approved Planning and Zoning Variance requiring the structure not to be larger than 16’ by 40’ to 18’ by 40’.
2. Article III, Section 21-36.02(h) and per Article V, Table V-1, to allow a three foot front yard setback in lieu of the approved four foot front yard setback granted by the Planning and Zoning Board.
PARCEL ID:
8402-28-01-0052
AREA:
.21 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residence
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-3, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Council Person Charlotte Gillis
Discussion:
Previously the Planning and Zoning Board approved several variances for a detached garagve, however conditioned that the detached garage be no greater than 16’ x 40’. City staff have provided a screenshot of the recorded variance approved by the Planning and Zoning Boar don July 9th, 2025.
However, after further research it was determined by the applicant that the contractor would be charging him for an 18’ by 40’ then reduce the size to 16’. Therefore, the applicant is asking for leniency from the board to allow him to pay and place an 18’ wide detached garage instead of the previous approved 16 foot wide garage.
Aerial:
Original 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: “So I can remove two sheds and large carport. Stand-alone garage for antique vehicles & misc. yard equipment storage. Adding a 16’ wide X 40’ long X 14’ tall building. Where building placement would be located needs to have 4’ variance from property line. 4’ off established fence.”
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, my property line backyard and side back up to commercial property that is established with buildings present.”
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 within the setbacks and locations.
1. 1702 Edgewater Drive
2. 1718 Edgewater 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.”
b. Staff’s response: The applicant has use of a residential dwelling on the property which is a reasonable use of the property. The board has already granted several variances to the applicant making even more reasonable use of the property.
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, corner lot.”
b. Staff’s response: While the subject property is a non-conforming lot, there are several adjacent properties that also are grandfathered as non-conforming. There are no topographic or boundary constraints to the property beyond the small lot size limiting expansion of structures on the property.
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: “Yes, action proposed.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is seeking to remove the two current sheds and a carport then replace them with a larger detached garage. The applicant received approval for a larger detached garage and is now requesting an even larger garage.
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: 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-2507 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.