Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />The decision to deny the applications raises two policy questions. What is <br />the objective of location restrictions along the coastline? What is the purpose <br />of the 1987 CCCL and how does DEP apply its regulations seaward of that <br />line? <br />If the objective of the denial is to move the proposed units landward to <br />protect them from coastal erosion, then the issue of construction standards <br />must be considered. Because stringent DEP construction standards do not <br />apply to structures that are located entirely landward of the 1987 CCCL, <br />structures may be better protected by being built seaward of the 1987 CCCL <br />and built to a higher construction standard. Requiring the higher construction <br />standards for structures partially or wholly seaward of the 1987 CCCL puts <br />the DEP in a much better position to deny future seawall permits for such <br />structures, since the structures are designed and built to stand-up under storm <br />events. <br />If the objective of the denial is to convert the 1987 CCCL from a line of <br />regulation to a line of prohibition in areas that appear io be significantly <br />eroding, then the gathering of substantial competent evidence is necessary. <br />If the 1987 CCCL becomes a line of prohibition rather than a line of <br />regulation without some competent substantial data to support it as a line of <br />prohibition, such use of the line becomes arbitrary. In establishing the 1987 <br />CCCL, the DEP used the best science available at the time to predict coastal <br />erosion and arrive at a line of regulation. Through the permitting process, the <br />DEP can apply its criteria on a site -by -site basis to establish the conditions <br />for any given site, especially sites where significant erosion is occurring. The <br />DEP has adopted the line as a line of regulation to review construction <br />proposals on a site -by -site basis. Thus, there is a process in place for experts <br />to review proposed construction on a site -by -site basis. The Planning and <br />Zoning Commission's decision would eliminate such a review without <br />underlying expert evidence. <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 />The Planning and Zoning Commission heard from representatives of the <br />adjacent property owners regarding the effects that the proposed development <br />would have on surrounding properties. Most of the comments from the <br />property owner representatives centered on the erosion issue and the possible <br />public health, safety, and welfare concerns that the erosion may cause. There <br />was also discussion regarding the impact of locations of existing and <br />proposed residences on ocean views. Thus, the record indicates that the <br />Planning and Zoning Commission did consider the effects of the proposed <br />development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation, and health, <br />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 />49 <br />• <br />