12/1/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I QOOK 107 PACE 755' • Appellant's Argument for Appeal Mosby & Associates, Inc., on behalf of the applicant has submitted a letter appealing the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission (see attachment #4). It is based upon the following two items: 1. The building setback encroachment along 1" Street S.W. is an existing, legally created, site related nonconformity. 2. The site's eastern driveway 183' from 10 Street S.W. is existing; 230' is required to satisfy LDR standards It is the appellant's position that the site plan and administrative permit use application satisfy the specific land use criteria in regard to setbacks and driveway separation distances. • Staff's Response to the Appeal Although the site plan proposes the use of an existing structure on the site, the structure does not satisfy the 30' minimum setback from all property lines (e.g. 19 Street S.W.). The structure was permitted as a barn only, even though it appears to have been used illegally as a packinghouse at certain times in the past. The Planning and Zoning Commission properly found that changing the approved use of the structure from a barn to a packinghouse would increase the intensity, and thus the degree of nonconformity on the site. Such an intensification of the use of a nonconfotming stuctre is contrary to LDR section 904.05. Furthermore, it was noted by the Commission that the site plan does not provide the required minimum separation distance between the site's easternmost driveway and the intersection of 1° Street S.W. and 58th Avenue for commercial development. Therefore, the Commission denied the administrative permit/site plan application. • Board of County Commissioners Review Guidelines for Appeals Section 902.07 provides guidelines for the Board's review of this appeal. Under section 902.07, the Board is to review the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision and make findings in the following four review areas: 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to follow the appropriate review procedures? Response: There does not appear to be any contention regarding review procedures. Staffs review and the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission were in accordance with the applicable procedures. 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? Response: The Commission did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner because it relied on specific land development regulations in its review and decision to deny. The application clearly violates a specific nonconformity provision (LDR section 904.05) and a driveway separation standard (LDR section 952.12). Thus, the Commission's denial is based on clear violations of applicable LDR provisions. 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 did not fail consider the impact of the requested administrative permit on surrounding properties. Several property owners adjacent to the proposed packinghouse attended the meeting and vocalized their opposition to the proposed packing house as well as the proposed agricultural business. Specifically, the Commission's finding that the application failed to satisfy driveway separation standards demonstrates that traffic safety, potential adverse effects on surrounding properties, were taken into account by the Commission. 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? DECEMBER 1, 1998