ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2609: Request for a variance to allow the construction of a home on a non-conforming lot with a side yard setback of 7.5 feet, a front yard setback of 35 feet, and a maximum building height of 35 feet for the property located at 603 N. Riverside Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Olivia and James Fleenor
PROPOSED USE:
Residence
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article V, Table V-1, allow a 35 foot house in lieu of the maximum building height of 26-feet within a R-1 Zoning District.
2. Per Article V, Table V-1 (5), allow a 7.5-foot side yard setback in lieu of the required 15-foot for a two-story dwelling on a river within an R-1 Zoning District.
3. Per Article V, Table V-1, allow a 35-foot front yard setback in lieu of the 40-foot required by the Land Development Code within a R-1 Zoning District.
PARCEL ID:
7450-06-00-0144
AREA:
0.44 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-1 - Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District 1 - Council Person: Charlotte Hope Gillis
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a residence on a non-conforming lot with a side yard setback of 7.5 feet, a front yard setback of 35 feet, and a maximum building height limit of 35 feet. Per Article V, Table V-1, of the Land Development Code, the minimum required side yard setback is 15 feet, the minimum front yard setback is 40 feet, and has a maximum building height permitted within the R-1 Zoning District is 26 feet. The applicant had originally requested a height variance up to 42’ in height. City staff have revised the variance since the City Charter limiting residential building height to 35 feet east of US 1 cannot be waived.
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: “Due to the unique, narrow width of this lot (only 60' wide), the combination of mandatory 15' side setbacks, 40' front yard setbacks, a maximum height of 26', and retaining wall and retention area requirements for storm water control, a reasonable residential structure cannot be built without a height variance, side set back variance, and front yard set-back variance. Strict enforcement of these ordinances restricts the building area to a non-functional size. This hardship is not self-created, but is a direct result of the unique topography and location of this specific parcel. We have strategically worked with Joe Young of BCS, local architect Ian Ratliff, and Civil Engineer, Matt Dowst, of Dowst & Associates to ensure we are coming up with the best, most reasonable site plan and structure plan ensuring we are minimizing wetlands impacts and negative impact to our neighbors.”
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. [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.”
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 max build percentages greater than 30% within the City limits of Edgewater.
1. 216 N. Riverside Drive
2. 1921 S. Riverside Drive
3. 218 N. Riverside 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: “Yes.”
b. Staff’s response: No, While the non-conforming nature of the lot may necessitate some relief from the required setbacks, the proposed variance does not represent the minimum action necessary to permit 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. The lot is narrow and the backside of the lot is wetlands.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. The subject property exhibits unique physical characteristics, including a narrow lot configuration and the presence of wetlands to the rear, which limit the buildable area and are not present on all adjacent properties.
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.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. The circumstances creating the need for the variance are the result of the applicant’s proposed residence.
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. 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.
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 29, 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-2609 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.