Laserfiche WebLink
- M <br />(2) Now or in the future the applicant may apply for a land use <br />plan amendment and rezoning that would allow a one time split <br />of the property into two separate, legal, buildable parcels. <br />(3) The Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of the subject <br />appeal may be .allowed to stand. If the appeal stands, the <br />applicant would be allowed to replace the mobile home with a <br />site -built residence. <br />Alternatives 1 and 2 are not affected by any action involving the <br />appeal. Neither of these alternatives would conflict with the <br />intent of the nonconformities section and the established standards <br />of the land use plan and LDRs, and neither would change previous <br />county policy or interpretation of nonconformities regulations. <br />The third alternative, however, would affect present county policy <br />and interpretations. <br />Consideration of the Appeal <br />Pursuant to section 902.07(4) of the LDRs, the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission had the authority to uphold, amend, or reverse wholly or <br />partly staff's determination and decision to deny the applicant's <br />proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated staff's <br />decision and made findings in four areas. The four areas are as <br />follows: <br />1. Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate <br />review procedures? <br />2. Did the reviewing official act in an arbitrary or capricious <br />manner? <br />3. 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 />4. 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 />Pursuant to the provisions of section 902.07(4), the Board is now <br />to evaluate staff's decision in regards to these four areas. In <br />staff's opinion, staff did not fail in any of these four areas. <br />1. Staff did not fail to follow appropriate review procedures. <br />Upon receipt of an initial inquiry by Mr. Barkett, staff <br />researched the relevant issues and responded in writing in a <br />timely manner (see attachment #4). Staff also recommended to <br />Mr. Barkett an appropriate course of action to appeal staff's <br />decision. To staff's knowledge, the applicant does not <br />contend that staff failed in relation to review procedures. <br />2. 'Staff did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. <br />Staff's determination is based upon logic and the stated <br />intent and the appropriate sections of the nonconformities <br />chapter of the LDRs. The applicant asserts that staff's <br />determination is simply erroneous in that the applicant's <br />proposal reduces the degree of nonconformity on the site by <br />reducing the number of types of nonconformities. The <br />applicant also asserts that staff's characterization of mobile <br />homes as "temporary" in comparison to site -built homes is <br />erroneous. <br />53 <br />APR 2 81992 MOK <br />L <br />