Laserfiche WebLink
Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that the <br />planned development issue is a narrow issue relating to wetland <br />resource and is not the consideration here. <br />Commissioner Bird recalled that during the discussion on the <br />rezoning he supported Mr. Krovocheck's position and had not <br />expected Mr. Krovocheck to proceed with the project. However, Mr. <br />Krovocheck is going through the process, and our Planning & Zoning <br />Commission has approved the issuance of the permit. Commissioner <br />Bird felt the P&Z's decision should be upheld unless we have <br />additional information which they did not have benefit of or if <br />staff was erroneous in their conclusions and in their reviewing the <br />application. He could not find that either of these two situations <br />are in effect and felt the Board should uphold the P&Z decision. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Bird, to deny the appeal based on <br />the following: The official did follow appropriate <br />review procedures; the official did not act in an <br />arbitrary or capricious manner; the official did <br />consider adequately the effect of the proposed <br />development upon surrounding properties; and the <br />reviewing official did evaluate the application with <br />respect to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock agreed with <br />Commissioner Bird that there has not been any additional <br />information to override the decision of the Planning & Zoning <br />Commission. He felt that the other agencies which are comprised of <br />environmentalists and scientists acting independently will <br />represent the public interest. <br />Commissioner Bowman thought that while they are not creating <br />lots they are enhancing the real estate that is there, and they are <br />asking to convert wetland for non -water related purposes, which <br />contravenes EPA regulations. She also thought staff failed to <br />evaluate the application with respect to the Comp Plan and Land <br />Development Regulations of Indian River County by contravening the <br />Conservation Policy 2.1(d), which prohibits shoreline alteration <br />adjacent to the Indian River Aquatic Preserve. In her opinion, the <br />subject water body is within the aquatic preserve. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt confident that the Army Corps of <br />Engineers would make that determination, and Director Keating <br />advised that the Army Corps of Engineers did make the determination <br />that this lagoon is not in the aquatic preserve. <br />23 <br />EOOK b5, <br />