Laserfiche WebLink
FEB 5 1991 BOOK 8? F,A H � <br />with that regulation and is the standard operating procedure <br />that has been used for the past five years. Staff properly <br />held the submittal and contacted the appellant to inform him <br />by phone and in writing of how he could make the application <br />complete. <br />(b) The reviewing official did not act in an arbitrary or <br />capricious manner. In fact, the staff's action was consistent <br />with the comprehensive plan, the site plan ordinance, and <br />established county policies as previously evidenced in this <br />report. Furthermore, staff coordinated with the County <br />Attorney's Office prior to issuing each written determination <br />to the applicant. <br />(c & d) <br />The reviewing official did not fail to consider adequately the <br />effects of the proposed development upon surrounding <br />properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and <br />welfare. The reviewing official did not fail to evaluate the <br />application with respect to the Comprehensive Plan and land <br />development regulations of Indian River County. Rather, the <br />Comprehensive Plan and the LDR's were used to guide each <br />determination. It was the very intent of Section <br />23.3(f)(1)(a) and comprehensive plan Coastal Element policy <br />1.4 to require a complete environmental survey as part of any <br />application submittal proposing to develop lands designated as <br />environmentally sensitive. The survey requirement is to <br />ensure that staff's review would be meaningful and informed so <br />that the environmental effects and impacts of the proposed <br />development would be properly regulated. <br />_R_ECOMMENDATION <br />Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission.deny the <br />appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's action and <br />uphold staff's determinations as summarized in this report. Staff <br />recommends -that- the Board of County Commissioners make the <br />following specific findings and conclusions: - <br />FINDINGS OF FACT <br />(a) The reviewing official did not fail to follow the <br />appropriate review procedures. <br />(b) The reviewing official did not act in an arbitrary or <br />capricious manner. <br />(c) The reviewing official did not fail to consider <br />adequately the effects of the proposed development upon <br />surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public <br />health, safety and welfare. <br />(d) The reviewing official did not fail to evaluate the <br />application with respect to the Comprehensive Plan and <br />land development regulations of Indian River County. <br />CONCLUSIONS <br />(a) Staff properly determined that the application submittal <br />was incomplete, and properly determined not to accept the <br />incomplete application for review. <br />(b) Staff properly determined that an adequate environmental <br />survey was required to make the application complete. <br />(c) Staff is now properly applying the new LDR's to any <br />complete application submitted by the appellant. <br />20 <br />