VA-2503: Request for several variances from Article V, Table V-1 to construct a new single family home for the property located on 216 N Riverside Drive.

ITEM DESCRIPTION: Title VA-2503: Request for several variances from Article V, Table V-1 to construct a new single family home for the property located on 216 N Riverside Drive. Body OWNER/APPLICANT: Clayton Smeltz PROPOSED USE: Applicant is requesting a variance to account for the Mean-High water line, Wetlands Vegetation/ Conservation area, side yard setbacks, and size of lot to allow for the construction of a single-family home. REQUESTED ACTION: (Change to current code) 1. Per Article V, Table V-1 - Site Dimensions footnote (5) to request a reduction of the minimum 2 story side yard river side setback from 15' to 10'. 2. Per Article V, Table V-1- Site Dimensions reduce the minimum lot size from 12,000 Sq. Ft. to 10,087 Sq. Ft. thereby reducing the lot without the conservation land to 91 by 95. 3. Per Article V, Table V-1- Site Dimensions footnote (1) and 21-41.04 (a) in lieu of the 50-ft required setback the applicant would like to be located 26 feet from the closest point of the Mean-High water line. 4. Per Article V, Table V-1- Site Dimensions footnote (4) and 21-41.04 (a) allow the wetlands vegetation to be immediately adjacent in lieu of the required 25 ft. PARCEL ID: 7452-01-00-0050 AREA: 0.23 acres CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family Dwelling FLUM DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DISTRICT: R-1, Single-Family Residential VOTING DISTRICT: District One - Council Person Charlotte Gillis Discussion: The applicant is requesting a variance from Article V, Table V-1. The proposed variance will be to reduce the size of the lot requirement from 12,000 to 10,087 Sq. Ft., which will reduce the usable land to 91 by 95 without the onsite conservation easement. Further per Table V-1 footnote (5) to reduce the 2 story side yard river setback from the required 15' to 10'. As well as, reduce the Mean-High water line setback from the required 50' to 26' from the closest point and allow the wetland vegetation to be immediately adjacent to the coquina rock retainer in lieu of the required 25'. Aerial: 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: "Reinstate previously approved Variance -VA-2203. A variance is needed due to the current building code and a "non-conforming" status. We originally owned the waterfront lot with the Green's, my wife's parents, and later did a minor lot split with a variance. We then had to go through the FDEP to establish a building area suitable for our home. That process took over two years after which we did the improvements to build up the area for a home. Just after the FDEP approval the world was rocked with a virus increasing the cost to build by 30-40%. We then combined the lots back with the original lot so our family could enjoy the water access. Fast forward to today and we have lost both of my wife's parents and will need to sell their home, which is why we need to separate our waterfront lot. The lot area we once had a variance for is all we are asking to reinstate so we can finally move forward." 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. 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. iii. Conservation Policy 1.6.2: Upland Buffer Requirement. A minimum 25-foot upland buffer will be required from the wetland boundaries in the City. iv. Conservation Policy 1.6.3: Dedication of Conservation Easements. Wetlands and respective buffer areas must be dedicated to the City via a conservation easement. v. Conservation Policy 1.4.2: 100-year Floodplain and Priority of Conservation Areas. The 100- year floodplain shall be given high priority in the selection of conservation areas within the City and for public acquisition of lands for conservation and recreational purposes. 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 adjacent properties seem to built out to what appears to be the maximum allowable." 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 Mean-High water line and/ or conservation areas. 1. 217 N Riverside Drive 2. 417 N Riverside Drive 3. 423 N Riverside Drive 4. 503 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: "no, We intentionally did the least possible to impact the area which is why we are requesting the variance again now." b. Staff's response: The applicant could meet the setbacks buffers with a smaller one-story building. 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: "No, We didn't want to fill in the wetlands like so many other property owner in the area." b. Staff's response: If approved the subject property would not be a conforming lot meeting the minimum lot size, width, and depth; however, this lot and the surrounding lots have a unique design due to the conservation/ Mean-High water line buffers which predates the current setbacks within the Land Development Code, not making this parcel unique. 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 city code is part of the reason and when we bought the property years ago to build a home we went through the process a couple times." b. Staff's response: Yes, the applicant is looking to reinstate a previous issued variance which was approved before the applicant combined the lot with the adjacent property. Once the property was combined with the property across the street it became conforming and met the Land Development Code. 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: "I'm no expert but I see properties in the area that seem to have done just that at a much grander scale." 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 April 30th, 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-2503 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.