Laserfiche WebLink
appellant has not raised an objection to any procedural item. Therefore, staff and the reviewing <br />official did not fail to follow appropriate review procedures. <br />2. Did the reviewing official fail to properly interpret or apply the applicable zoning district <br />regulations? If so, what error was made? <br />Staffs Response: Staff and the reviewing official did properly apply the applicable zoning <br />district regulations. In this case, the nonconformity requirements of County Code Chapter 904 <br />apply relating to the communications tower on-site, including the tower -dwelling setback <br />requirements of LDR Section 971.44(1). <br />3. Did the reviewing official fail to properly evaluate the application or request with respect <br />to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County? If <br />so, what error was made? <br />Staffs Response: Staff and the reviewing official did properly evaluate the issue with respect to <br />the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations. As previously referenced herein, <br />LDR Subsections 904.05(3), 971.44(1)(d) and 971.44(1)(g)1. apply and support staff's <br />conclusion that a dwelling on the subject property would increase the site -related nonconformity <br />and is therefore not allowed. Moreover, Policy 10.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of <br />the County Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment 6) reads as follows: <br />Polio: Indian River County land development regulations shall allow legally <br />established non -conforming uses to continue until ceased. When a non -conforming use <br />has ceased, it can be replaced only with a conforming use. All new development, even <br />development associated with non -conforming structures, must meet current <br />regulations. [Bold font emphasis added] <br />Policy 10.1 provides that all new development, including development associated with non- <br />conforming structures, must meet current regulations. Building a dwelling on the subject <br />property with the tower nonconformity would not meet the current on-site dwelling -tower <br />setback requirement, and therefore would not be consistent with FLUE Policy 10.1. <br />SUMMARY <br />Staff and the PZC has considered Mr. Allenbaugh's inquiry as to the regulatory allowance of building a <br />residential dwelling on the subject tower property, and after thorough review of County records, <br />regulations, and other information, has concluded that construction of a dwelling on the subject property <br />is not allowed under County nonconformity regulations. Mr. Allenbaugh has raised issues as to the <br />equity of not allowing a dwelling on-site within 1,500 feet of the tower when off-site dwellings are <br />allowed within the 1,500 foot setback. Also, he has raised the point that the 1,500 foot setback does not <br />reflect the design fall radius of the tower, and therefore goes beyond a setback required for safety <br />reasons. Notwithstanding Mr. Allenbaugh's points, it is staff and the PZC's position that to allow a <br />dwelling on the property would be contrary to County requirements and is not allowed under current <br />County regulations. <br />173 <br />