09/22/2020 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's Decision As outlined in LDR Section 902.07(5), at any time within 21 days following action by the PZC, the appellant may seek further appeals from actions by the PZC to the BCC. On July 28, 2020, Mr. Allenbaugh submitted a formal request to appeal the PZC's decision to the BCC. The procedures outlined for the BCC's consideration of the requested appeal are the same as those outlined for the PZC (see Attachment 5). At this time, the BCC is to consider the appeal under guidelines provided in Section 902.07. In doing so, the BCC may uphold, amend, or reverse wholly or partly the decision by the PZC. The decision of the BCC shall be final. ANALYSIS In this case, the subject appeal is based on the appellant's assertion that the dwelling. setback requirement of 971.44(1)(g), requiring dwelling setbacks a distance of 300% of the tower height (1,500 feet), was established in 1997, after the subject tower was built, and therefore should not apply when considering an increase in the nonconformity. Since the regulations as revised in 1997 no longer allow such towers in A-1 zoning districts, Mr. Allenbaugh contends it is moot and inappropriate to apply the revised setback tied to the now -prohibited use in the district. Rather, the setbacks required at the time the tower was built in 1990 should apply (i.e., 110% of the tower height or other approved design fall radius, 200' in this case) when considering an increase in the nonconformity. Mr. Allenbaugh also contends that it is inequitable that dwellings on parcels other than the subject property can be (and have been) built within 1,500 feet of the tower, but a dwelling is not allowed to be built on the property itself within the 1,500 feet. Notwithstanding Mr. Allenbaugh's assertions, staff's position is that building a dwelling on the subject property would conflict with County Code Subsection 904.05(3), which does not allow structures on property with a site -related nonconformity that would increase the degree of the existing site -related nonconformity. Although the dwelling setback distance of 300% of the tower height was established after the subject tower was built, construction of a residence on the property would clearly increase the degree of nonconformity under the County's current tower -dwelling setback requirements. BCC Review Guidelines for Appeals Section 902.07 provides guidelines for the BCC's review of an appeal of a PZC decision (see Attachment 5). Under Section 902.07(5), the BCC is to review the PZC decision and make findings in the following three areas. In accordance with 902.07(4), the BCC may make additional findings of fact. 1. Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate review procedures? If so, what procedural error was made? Staffs Response: Staff and the reviewing official followed the appropriate review procedures in establishing its position that construction of a dwelling on the subject tower property is not allowed under County regulations. In making its decision, staff reviewed aerial photos, County records, County regulations, and information provided by the appellant. Staff then reviewed all available information and rendered a determination in a timely manner. In addition, the 172