6/2/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Summary of Mr. O'Haire's Points of Appeal As previously referenced, Mr. O'Haire has submitted two letters of appeal: a February 19, 1992 letter (appealing to the Planning and Zoning Commission), and an April 24, 1992 letter (appealing to the Board). The letters contain overlapping but different points of appeal. Following is a summary of the points in Mr. O'Haire's combined letters. 1. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Policies 1.5, 1.31, and Conservation Policy 5.1: Mr. O'Haire contends that the issued permit conflicts with Land Use Policy 1.5 which provides that "no residential development in C-2 or C-3 areas shall occur unless such development is approved as a planned development." 2. Comprehensive Plan Conservation Policy 2.8: Mr. O'Haire contends that the issued permit conflicts with Conservation Policy 2.8 which provides that "excavation of any existing canal shall not be for the purpose of obtaining fill." 3. Comprehensive Plan Conservation Policy 7.2: Mr. O'Haire contends that the issued permit conflicts with Conservation Policy 7.21 which states: "for developments on property known to support endangered or threatened species of plants or animals, or on property expected to significantly contribute to such species' habitat needs, the developer shall be required to notify the GFC and the USFWS and provide proper protection to the extent feasible, to the satisfaction of the county and wildlife agencies." 4. Comprehensive Plan Conservation Policy 2.1(d): Mr. O'Haire contends that the issued permit contravenes Conservation Policy 2.1(d) which prohibits shoreline alteration for "development in or adjacent to the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve... unless it is in the public interest, repairs erosion damage or provides reasonable access to the water, and does not adversely impact water quality, natural habitat or adjacent shoreline uses". 5. LDR Section 928.05(1): Mr. O'Haire contends that the proposed wetland and deepwater habitat alteration fails to satisfy any one of the three parameters that would allow for alteration, -those parameters being: (1) the elimination of a public hazard; (2) the provision of public benefits dictated by a public need; or (3) the alteration of a degraded habitat whereby preservation of the habitat is not in the public interest (paraphrased). 6. LDR Subsections 928.01(2) and 928.06(1)(b): Mr. O'Haire contends that the proposed wetland/deepwater habitat alteration is not the development alternative of least impact, and therefore the permit should not have been issued. 7. LDR Subsection 930.07(2)(d): Mr. O'Haire contends that the issued permit does not address the replacement of flood plain storage capacity, contrary to LDR Subsection 930.07(2)(d). LDR Chapter 902 Appeal Review Parameters Section 902.07(5) of the County Code, relating to appeals of planning and zoning commission actions, provides that "the board of county commissioners may, in conformity with the provisions of law and [these] land development regulations, uphold, amend, or reverse wholly or partly, the decision of the planning and zoning commission which is being appealed." Moreover, Section 902.07(4) provides that findings must be made in the following areas: 9 JUR 02 199 J