My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/7/2000
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2000
>
3/7/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:14:17 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 4:14:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/07/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />Coastal Construction Regulations <br />Since the early eighties, the State of Florida has regulated coastal construction in Indian River <br />County. In 1981, the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) established the county's first <br />coastal construction control line. That line was revised, and in many cases moved significantly <br />landward, in 1987. Both the 1981 and 1987 lines are lines of regulation. Seaward of those lines, the <br />Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), successor agency to DNR, regulates all construction <br />activity. While DEP does not pre-empt local regulation seaward of the CCCL, DEP does not allow <br />construction in that zone unless permitted by DEP. <br />The county's land development regulations (LDRs) address coastal construction, dune vegetation, <br />sea turtle, and similar environmental oceanfront regulations on oceanfront parcels. For instance, <br />the county has designated the 1981 CCCL as the county's Dune Stabilization Setback Line (DSSL) <br />and has prohibited construction seaward of that line except for certain structures such as dune cross- <br />overs. County staff has verified that the proposed project meets the county's DSSL requirements. <br />In addition to the DSSL regulation, county ordinances address the 1987 CCCL, which is located <br />landward of the 1981 CCCL (now DSSL). LDR section 932.06(3) states that, in regard to <br />development seaward of the 1987 Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), "...the FDNB [staff <br />note: now D.E.P.] and Indian River County may permit construction activity" (see attachment #3). <br />Because LDR section 932.06(3) states that the county may permit construction activity seaward of <br />the 1987 CCCL, the county appears to have the discretion to not approve such construction. <br />Consequently, both DEP and the county have regulatory authority and discretion regarding <br />construction activities seaward of the 1987 CCCL. In the past, it has been county policy to let the <br />DEP determine the extent to which a proposed structure may project seaward of the 1987 CCCL and <br />the type of construction and conditions it must meet in order to be so located. This policy of deferral <br />to the DEP has been applied to single-family structures as well as construction proposed as part of <br />site plan, PD, and subdivision projects. The policy is predicated on the DEP's expertise in the <br />review and permitting of coastal structures and the county's comparative lack of expertise in such <br />matters. In terms of county project reviews, the policy requires DEP approval prior to site plan <br />release for site plan projects, and prior to county building permit issuance for single-family homes. <br />The county's land development regulations (LDRs) provide criteria for the Board to use in its review <br />of the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision on the site plan and preliminary <br />plat applications. These criteria, based on LDR section 902.07 (see attachment #5), are as follows: <br />(1) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to follow the appropriate review <br />procedures? <br />(2) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? <br />(3) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects of <br />the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public <br />health, safety and welfare? <br />(4) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to evaluate the application with <br />respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River <br />County? <br />March 7, 2000 <br />47 <br />punny�hA <br />UUI.'il �, c p <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.