Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board deadlocks on Juniper Drive variance for 5,000‑square‑foot lot
Summary
The Edgewater Planning & Zoning Board rejected a developer’s request to allow a 5,000 sq ft lot, expanded building coverage and a 5‑foot side setback on Juniper Drive after a 3–3 tie; board members cited precedent and drainage concerns.
The Edgewater Planning & Zoning Board declined to approve a variance to allow a 5,000‑square‑foot lot and reduced side setback on Juniper Drive after a 3–3 tie on Wednesday.
The request, labeled VA 2509, sought three variances: recognition of the lot as a legal nonconforming lot in R‑2, an increase in allowable building coverage from 30% to 45%, and a reduction in the side‑yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. City staff (Staff member, S4) reviewed the application against the Land Development Code and recommended denial, saying the applicant could not meet the six criteria for a variance.
The staff report noted the lot is one of a handful of single 40‑by‑125‑foot parcels in the formerly platted Florida Shores community annexed in 1957. Staff recommended denial but advised that, if the board were to grant relief, conditions such as a stem wall or piling foundation should be required because of the tight lot footprint.
Resident Barbara Samples (S2), who gave her address as 2943 Juniper Drive, asked what a stem wall is and raised concerns about how raising the finished floor would affect a lower neighbor who already floods. The applicant’s representative and neighbors said the proposed house would be the homeowner’s primary residence and that it must be built on a stem wall rather than as a slab on grade to meet elevation needs.
Board debate focused on precedent and drainage. Several committee members said they regularly approve modest setback variances on larger lots but were reluctant to allow a 5‑foot side setback on a 40‑foot‑wide lot. One committee member said allowing a 5‑foot setback here would establish a precedent for similar undersized lots in Florida Shores; another emphasized potential runoff and water‑retention impacts from placing a larger house on a much smaller parcel.
Committee member S6 moved to approve VA 2509 "version 2 with the stipulation of what the staff had"; the motion failed by a 3–3 split after a roll call. The presiding officer (Chair, S1) then followed staff advice to move on; several board members suggested the applicant could reapply with revised plans that keep a 10‑foot setback or otherwise reduce the house footprint.
What happens next: The variance application was denied by tie, and the applicant may rework the plans and resubmit. The board did not take a formal vote to deny the application; instead the motion to approve failed for lack of a majority, leaving the current code requirements in effect.
