Laserfiche WebLink
(1) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to follow the appropriate review <br />procedures? <br />- The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the application at a <br />regularly scheduled meeting. In fact, the Commission several times approved <br />requests by the applicant to postpone consideration of the proposal. At the <br />September 14, 2000 meeting, the Commission heard comments from and <br />questioned staff, the applicant's representatives, and interested parties and <br />gave lengthy consideration to the proposal. The motion to deny was properly <br />made, and a vote was taken as reflected in the meeting minutes (see <br />attachment #2). In addition, staff has coordinated with the appellant and has <br />followed proper timeframes and procedures regarding the appeal. All <br />appropriate review procedures have been followed. Therefore, the Planning <br />and Zoning Commission did not fail to follow the appropriate review <br />procedures. <br />(2) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? <br />During consideration of the application, the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission questioned staff, interested parties, and the applicant's <br />representatives regarding factual matters, planning issues, the LDRs, <br />engineering, and legal issues. The Commission acted on a clear presentation <br />and understanding of the facts, LDRs, and legal requirements. The <br />Commission's action was based upon logical fmdings that the application <br />failed to meet applicable LDR standards. Thus, the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission did not 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 />The Commission heard from adjacent property owners and considered the <br />LDR standards related to impacts on surrounding properties. In addition, the <br />Commission considered the recommendation of the County Traffic Engineer <br />to deny the application based upon a failure to meet a site access traffic <br />standard. In addition, the Commission considered analysis presented by staff <br />that showed that the application failed to satisfy a mining project access <br />criterion. Thus, the Commission did not fail to consider adequately the <br />effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic <br />circulation or public 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 />The Commission based its decision on the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs. <br />In regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the site's AG -1 land use designation <br />November 7, 2000 <br />167 <br />BK 1 15 PG 876 <br />A <br />