12/17/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•Cons iderat4on,.of the Appeal The letter of appeal does not allege that staff either acted improperly or that staff mis-applied any ordinance. The appeal is made on grounds of "fairness" in light of the circumstances. Pursuant to section 902.07(4) of the LDRs, the Board of County Commissioners is to uphold, amend, or reverse wholly or partly the Planning and Zoning Commission's determination based upon certain findings. The Board, as did the Planning and Zoning Commission, is to make findings in the four following areas: 1. Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate review procedures? 2. Did the reviewing official act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? 3. Did the reviewing official fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding Properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare? 4. Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County? In staff's opinion, as well as the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the staff did not fail in any of these four areas. - 1. Staff did not fail to follow appropriate review procedures. Mr. Schlitt's parcel split problem came to staff's attention recently through the routine building permit review process. It was during such review that staff determined that a second residence was being proposed on the 15 acre parcel and that a parcel under f5 acres in size was being proposed. Staff immediately contacted the building permit applicant (contract buyer Michael Schlitt) who contacted the owner. Subsequently, two meetings were held by staff with the Schlitt's. Following the last meeting, Bob Schlitt sent staff additional information and an "appeal" letter (see attachment #4). Staff responded in writing (see attachment #3) and scheduled the appeal for the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 2. Staff did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. All normae procedures were folTowed, and the county attorneys. - office was consulted throughout the staff determination process. Staff's determination is based upon existing comprehensive plan standards and the effective date of the ...existing comprehensive plan. Staff's determination is also based on the need to equitably and consistently apply the comprehensive plan standards -to the subject propezty as well =_ as to surrounding. property owners. 1 Surrounding property owners, as well as Mr. Schlitt, are made to comply with the comprehensive plan standards in effect at the time of --any development proposal such as a rezoning request or a division of property. It would be arbitrary and capricious to -not apply the standard to Mr. Schlitt.' - 3. Staff did not fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health safety and welfare. By applying the land use plan standards, staff is implementing all of the traffic, health, safety and welfare aspects of the comprehensive plan as expressed in the land use plan. Furthermore, staff's uniform treatment of all property owners, including Mr. Schlitt, ensures that no special privilege is granted Mr. Schlitt that is not given to the surrounding property owners. 27 L� DEC 17 1991 r� p 01P J F,„�L d U)