Laserfiche WebLink
JUN 02 1992 <br />:irF° --,I <br />X00 Cel <br />• Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate <br />review procedures? <br />• Did the reviewing official act in an arbitrary or <br />capricious manner? <br />• Did the reviewing official fail to consider adequately <br />the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding <br />properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety <br />and welfare? <br />• Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the <br />application with respect to the comprehensive plan and <br />land development regulations of Indian River County? <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS <br />The focus of Mr. O'Haire's appeal is the contention that <br />environmental planning staff ("the reviewing official") failed to <br />evaluate the application with respect to the county comprehensive <br />plan and land development regulations. <br />It is staff's position that the Krovocheck wetland resource permit <br />was reviewed and issued in an appropriate manner in accordance with <br />the comprehensive plan and county land development regulations, <br />taking into consideration public health, safety and welfare. <br />In this section, Mr. O'Haire's points of appeal are analyzed along <br />with an explanation of staff's permit review findings. <br />Future Land Use Policies 1.5, 1.31, and Conservation Policy 5.1: <br />requirement of planned development for residential development in <br />C-2. <br />The referenced comprehensive plan policies provide that all <br />estuarine wetlands and deepwater habitat are "environmentally <br />sensitive", having a C-2 conservation land use designation. <br />Moreover, Land Use Policy 1.5 sets forth that no residential <br />development shall occur within C-2 areas unless approved as a <br />planned development. <br />Staff interpret the planned development requirement of Policy 1.5 <br />as applying to development where principal structures are proposed <br />in C-2 areas, which is not the case here. The wetland resource <br />permit as issued necessitates that any proposed principal <br />residential structures will be located outside of the existing <br />location of the C-2 area, due to required yard setbacks, drainage <br />easement width, and wetland edge buffer. <br />The main reason for the requirement of planned development in C-2 <br />areas is to provide a mechanism for the transfer of dwelling unit <br />density from sensitive wetlands to non -sensitive uplands. <br />Application of the planned development requirement to categories of <br />residential development other than principal structures in C-2 is <br />not practical. Otherwise, common structures such as single family <br />docks would trigger the planned development requirement, whereby a <br />literal interpretation of the policy would have each waterfront <br />property in the county subject to planned development site plan <br />review and requirements, which is not practical nor the intent of <br />the provision. <br />10 <br />