5/24/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MqY 2 4` 1994 Boa 92 FxE 525 3. Staff's interpretation and the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision did not fail to take into account the effects of the interpretation on generaltraffic circulation and properties surrounding lot splits. In fact, staff's interpretation recognizes that the importance of the subject regulation is to ensure proper road right-of-way frontage to serve newly created parcels and that the regulation has been consistently applied for many years. The appellant's interpretation would actually provide property owners with an incentive to create parcels without proper road frontage. Such an incentive would be contrary to the county's objective of ensuring that every newly created lot has adequate access. 4. Since the purpose and intent of the LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure adequate access and traffic circulation to serve new -development, staff's interpretation is consistent with the Plan and the LDRs. Therefore, staff did not fail to evaluate the applicant's request in light of the LDRs and Comprehensive Plan. •Request to Waive Fee For Appeal On October 23, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed administrative fees charged for project reviews and other planning division functions, including the processing of appeals. At the 1990 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 90-165, which established a $500.00 review fee for appeals of staff determinations. The Board's policy at the time of adopting the review fees was to have fees cover most of staff's costs in processing various request types. The basis for the $500.00 fee for determination of appeals and variances is indicated in the attached 1990 report (see attachment #11). Since appeals are almost always heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners (as is the case with the Barkett appeal), more staff time is involved than indicated in the 1990 back-up material staff time chart. Thus, the present fee seems justified based upon the amount of staff time spent -processing an appeal. In essence, the $500.00 appeal fee is indicative of the costs of processing an appeal. There is no basis for distinguishing the Barkett appeal from other appeals, in terms of the review fee. Therefore, in staff's opinion, the fee waiver request should be denied. 'Summary In staff's opinion, its reading of 913.06(1) and the Planning and Zoning Commission's action are logical and have a logical result. The applicant's way of reading 913.06(.1) has an illogical result in relation to the purpose and intent of the road frontage requirement. Staff's position is that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail in relation to any of the four appeal review criteria. Therefore, the appeal should be denied, and staff's interpretation should be upheld. Furthermore, in regards to the appeal fee waiver request, the current fee appears justified and should not be waived. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Make a finding that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail in any of the four review areas. 2. Deny the appeal and uphold staff's interpretation. 3. Deny the request to waive the administrative fee for appeals of staff determinations. 80 ® M r