3/24/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? Response: Two previously approved non-commercial kennels in the vicinity of the subject site each contained approximately 5 acres- The most recently approved kennel was the subject of considerable discussion by the Planning and Zoning Commission pertaining to the size of the parcel and the number of animals. In regard to that proposal, a non-commercial kennel was initially proposed on a .3 acre parcel but the Planning and Zoning Commission imposed a condition of approval that required that applicant to expand and secure a total of 5 acres within the boundaries of the kennel site in order to mitigate the impact of the kennel on surrounding properties. Thus, the Planning and Zoning Commission is already on record as requiring a larger site for a non-commercial kennel request. The Planning and Zoning Commission has demonstrated a consistent interpretation of the intent of the administrative permit process in regard to non-commercial kennels to ensure surrounding property owners are not adversely impacted by kennels on small parcels. In addition, under LDR section 971.04, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to apply limitations and conditions relating to site size and number and types of animals. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission has not acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and has acted in accordance with its authority as allowed for in the LDRs. 3. Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, public health, safety and welfare? Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission must consider the impact of the requested administrative permit on surrounding properties. Several property owners adjacent to the proposed kennel attended the meeting and vocalized their opposition to the proposed kennel. In rendering its denial, the Planning and Zoning Commission took into account the small size of the subject property (.3 acre), the like size of surrounding properties, input from both the applicant and surrounding properties, and the general habits and behavior of the animals proposed to be kept in the kennel. It was the Planning and Zoning Commission's determination that the site is too small to adequately mitigate the impact of the proposed kennel on neighboring properties. Also, the Commission recognized that, with very minor changes to the site plan and a small reduction in the current animal population on site, and elimination of the pigs, the applicant could have a reasonable number of pets on site without an administrative permit. Thus, the Commission found a reasonable balance between the appellant's desire for animals on site and the impacts of such animals on surrounding properties. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to consider adequately the impact of the proposed kennel upon surrounding properties, or reasonable alternatives for the applicant. 4. Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County? Response: Although the applicant contends that certain criteria were not reasonably applied, staff s analysis has shown adequate justification for the Planning and Zoning Commission's findings, under the administrative permit review criteria. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and LDRs. In staffs opinion, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail in any of these four areas in its decision to deny the Riddle's site plan application and administrative permit application for a non- commercial kennel. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: Make a finding that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail in any of the appeal review guidelines outlined in LDR section 902.07 and this report. 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to deny the administrative permit use. MARCH 24, 1998 -28- I