3/7/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK FACE° The Board is to consider each of these criteria and make findings in all 4 areas addressed by the criteria staff's analysis of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision in regard to the 4 criteria are as follows: (1) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to follow the appropriate review procedures? - The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the application at a regularly scheduled meeting, heard comments from staff and all interested parties, and had lengthy discussion before making a decision. The motion was Properly made, and a vote was taken as reflected in the meeting minutes (see attachment #2). In addition, proper timeframes and procedures have been followed regarding the appeal. Procedurally, the Commission appears to have conducted an appropriate review of the applications. (2) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? - During consideration of the site plan and preliminary plat applications. the Planning and Zoning Commission questioned the staff attomev as to matters of law and questioned the applicant's engineer as to matters of fact. In response to questions, the staff attorney indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had the discretion to make a decision regarding the proposed construction seaward of the CCCL based on LDR section 932.06(3). In questioning the applicant's engineer, the Commission inquired as to various matters of fact, including the DEP's method for determining how far seaward of the 1987 CCCL a structure is generally allowed to extend, setbacks used for development within the Town of Orchid and Windsor, and methods of construction used in such coastal locations. Also, several Planning and Zoning Commissioners used their knowledge of the area to give specific examples of coastal erosion in the subject area and to explain why this area was an erosion "hot spot" for the county. March 7, 2000 After reviewing the referenced information and discussing the applications, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the applications because the Commission felt that development in this area of the county should not occur seaward of the CCCL. This decision was arbitrary because: The CCCL was never established as a line of prohibition and no evidence was presented that the CCCL is the appropriate line seaward of which construction should be prohibited. The prohibition of construction seaward of the CCCL on the subject property will not be consistently applied to other oceanfront parcels, because construction of single-family homes on oceanfront lots are reviewed and approved by staff, and current LDRs do not allow staff to restrict construction of single-family homes seaward of the CCCL. There was no evidence presented to challenge the fact the DEP's CCCL permitting process ensures that structures built seaward of the CCCL will be adequately engineered for oceanfront conditions, thereby obviating the need for more of a setback from the ocean. 48 I