Laserfiche WebLink
would be accepted for review under the old LDRs. Staff has <br />consistently and strictly adhered to the grace period deadline <br />with all subsequent submittals. <br />The County Attorney's Office has indicated that staff -could <br />apply the new LDR's to any new proposal or any proposal made <br />complete after September 21, 1990. <br />Summary of Staff's Determination <br />Based upon sections 23.1(e)(2) and 23.2(a) of the site plan <br />ordinance, as well as a ruling made by the Board of Adjustment in <br />1988 on staff's application of and interpretation of those <br />sections, staff determined that the appellant's September 10, 1990 <br />submittal was incomplete. Staff then informed the applicant that <br />the submittal must be made complete by submitting an environmental <br />survey, and that the submittal could not be processed for review <br />unless and until it was made complete. <br />An environmental survey was required by the adopted comprehensive <br />plan Coastal Management Element Policy 1.4 and section <br />23.3(f)(1)(a) of the old site plan ordinance but was not satisfied <br />by the submittal. Wetland area acreages and basic vegetation <br />characteristics of a large portion of the site were lacking and <br />rendered the submittal incomplete for review. Staff recommended <br />that the applicant telephone environmental planning chief Roland <br />DeBlois to discuss how the submittal could be made complete. Mr. <br />DeBlois was not contacted by the applicant. Finally, it should be <br />noted that the original submittal was not revised and resubmitted <br />until- October 30, 1990, after the- October 10th grace period <br />deadline. In fact, the submittal is still not complete, and when <br />the submittal .is made complete the application can only be reviewed <br />under the new LDRs. The new LDR's also require an environmental <br />survey (Chapter 928.04). <br />Board of County Commissioners Consideration of the Appeal <br />Both the appeal of staff's rejection of the application and the <br />appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision were filed <br />by the appellant pursuant to Section 902.07 of the new LDRs. <br />Section 902.07 establishes the items that the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission considered in its decision and that the Board must now <br />consider in its review. According to section 902.07, the Board may <br />uphold, amend, or reverse wholly or in part the action(s) being <br />appealed, and is to make findings in the four following areas <br />regarding staff's decisions: <br />"(a) Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate <br />review procedures? <br />(b) Did the reviewing official act in an arbitrary or capricious <br />manner? <br />(c) Did the reviewing official `fail to consider adequately the <br />effects of the proposed development upon surrounding <br />properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and <br />welfare? <br />(d) Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the application <br />with respect to the Comprehensive Plan and land development <br />regulations of Indian River County?" <br />In staff's opinion, the Board should uphold the Planning and Zoning <br />Commissions decision and find that: <br />(a) The reviewing official did not fail to follow the appropriate <br />review procedures. As previously evidenced, sections <br />23.1(e) (2 ) and 23.2 (a) of the site plan ordinance require that <br />planning staff only route complete application materials for <br />review. "Screening -out" incomplete submittals is consistent <br />19 <br />P <br />P00lr U4 F'�911 I <br />