Laserfiche WebLink
M <br />2. Are all objectively determinable standards met? <br />These standards are specifically enumerated in the code and can be <br />objectively determined. By the time this appeal is heard the County <br />staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission may have made a <br />recommendation for approval or not based on the objectively determinable <br />standards issues. County policy is to have the applicant re -work the <br />site plan until the County staff finds that all requirements are in <br />order. Therefore, it is not expected that objectively determinable <br />standards requirements will be a decisional issue. However, if they do <br />become an issue the burden of proof is on the applicant to present <br />competent, substantial evidence showing compliance with each objectively <br />determinable standards requirement. This review by the BCC is quasi- <br />judicial. This means that, once unrebutted proof has been made showing <br />compliance with each requirement of the Code, the Board is required to <br />grant the permit applied for, at least in so far as this objectively <br />determinable standards issue is concerned. <br />3. Is the site plan consistent with the comprehensiveplan? <br />State law requires that all land use decisions be consistent with the <br />comprehensive plan. There are no exceptions. A site plan_ approval is <br />such a land use decision. <br />How does Indian River County ensure that its site plan decisions are <br />consistent with the comprehensive plan? <br />"Consistency" is defined in Section 163.3194(3)(a), F.S., as follows: <br />A development order or land development regulation shall be <br />consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities <br />or intensities, and other as ct of the development permitted by <br />such order or regulation compatible with and further the <br />objectives, p6licies, land uses, and densities or intensities in <br />the comprehensive plan and if it meets with all other criteria <br />enumerated by the local government. <br />In the first instance, the County relies on Section 163.3213(3), F.S., <br />which directs that any challenges to the consistency of the Land <br />Development Regulations (LDRs) with the comprehensive plan must be filed <br />within 12 months of the date of LDR adoption and are thereafter barred. <br />Since this time has elapsed without challenges a person may not now <br />claim that the LDRs are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and <br />there is a presumption that the LDRs are consistent with the <br />comprehensive plan. The Board may take notice of the numerous public <br />hearings, both during the day and at night, by both the Planning and <br />Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, which were held <br />to ensure that the County LDRs were made consistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br />The second means is the thorough review by staff professionals of the <br />proposed site plan and its relation to the LDRs, zoning code, and <br />comprehensive plan --all done with public input. The County land use <br />professionals have all determined that the site plan is consistent with <br />the comprehensive plan. <br />As a third means of ensuring compliance the County has established the <br />following hierarchy of land use controls: <br />General Outline of Land Use Controls ("controls") <br />A. Comprehensive Plan <br />B. Zoning Regulations <br />54L'0K.9 2f--". <br />July 12, 1994 <br />