Skip to main content
File #: VA-2322    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Planning Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 10/31/2023 In control: Planning and Zoning Board
On agenda: 11/8/2023 Final action:
Title: VA-2322: Request for variances from Article 3, Section 21-36.02, to allow an accessory use without a principle use and to allow an accessory use without a principle structure for the property located at 431 Live Oak Street.
Attachments: 1. Survey, 2. Plans, 3. Aerial Map
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2322: Request for variances from Article 3, Section 21-36.02, to allow an accessory use without a principle use and to allow an accessory use without a principle structure for the property located at 431 Live Oak Street.
Body
OWNER:
Mark Pernell

APPLICANT:
Dannie Shields III

REQUESTED ACTION:
1. To allow an accessory use without a principle use in lieu of the requirement for a principle use prior to an accessory use according to Article III, Section 21-36.02(a).
2. To allow an accessory use without a principal structure in lieu of the requirement for a principle use with a principal structure prior to allowance of an accessory use according to Article III, Section 21-36.02(b).

LOT SIZE:
86.92 feet in width by 179.69 feet in length = 15,618 square feet.

PROPOSED USE:
Outdoor Truck and Equipment Storage for Tree Trimming Company

CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant

FLUM DESIGNATION:
Commercial

ZONING DISTRICT:
B-3, Highway Commercial

VOTING DISTRICT:
District 1, Councilwoman Charlotte Gillis

SURROUNDING AREA:


Current Land Use
FLUM Designation
Zoning District
North
Vacant
Commercial

B-3
East
Boat Repair
Commercial

B-3
South
Vacant
Commercial
B-3
West
Single-Family Home
High Density Residential
R-5
Explanation of hardship by applicant: Would like to leave trees and if I was to develop with a small office, I would have to remove trees onsite.

According to 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&ZB 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 characteristic...

Click here for full text