7/12/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

conditions should be set out in clearly stated regulations. Compliance with those regulations should be capable of objective determination in an administrative proceeding. While the burden may be on the property owner to demonstrate compliance, no legislative discretion is involved in resolving the issue of compliance." Attorney Vitunac suggested to the Board that if they want to deny the site plan, the reasons for denial should be based on objectionable determinable requirements, i.e., median cut, driveway issue, parking -- something that can be quantified and resolved without resorting to legislative requirements as the City of Delray Beach has done. There has to be a certainty to site plans, because the site plan is about the third or fourth level down from the Comp Plan, at which point a property owner should have some idea that after compliance with listed requirements he will be able to develop his property in accordance with the Code. Likewise, the property owner has the burden of proof to show that he has met all the LDRs. There has been testimony tonight based on objectively determinable ideas, and he is not saying you have to approve the site plan or not. He is saying that if you do not approve it, your reasons should not be on the zoning type issues or what should be there, or something that doesn't have a specific quantifiable objective to it. There was evidence presented on both sides tonight. He felt the issue was fairly presented to the Board on whether the developer has met his LDR requirements. If he has, he is in compliance with the Comp Plan, because the entire Indian River County Code is in compliance with the Comp Plan, and has been since 1990. Commissioner Bird felt that perhaps we should have considered the compatibility issue more at the time we placed the CL zoning there. Maybe it is too late to do that, but there have been some points raised by the opposition that there are areas of the LDRs and the site plan review procedures that require compatibility. Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Vitunac to elaborate on the how much weight should be given to compatibility of the site plan. Commissioner Bird also asked staff to specifically address the three points that Mr. MacLean raised in objection to the site plan. Attorney Vitunac advised that compatibility as to use already had been determined by the Board this morning. There are incidents of a supermarket which cause harm and the County previously adopted July 12, 1994 114 ma 92 PAu 888.