1/16/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

stated that the county did not have the knowledge or policies in place to approve the project . - After reviewing the referenced information and discussing the applications , the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the application, by failing to approve it . The commissioners who voted against the motion to approve the project did not give specific reasons for their vote . However, discussion during the meeting indicated that commissioners had concerns that the project area is an erosion "hot spot", that the county has the discretion under the LDRs to not approve construction seaward of the 1987 CCCL , and that the county does not have the knowledge and expertise to evaluate the construction proposed seaward of the 1987 CCCL . These concerns appear to be the basis of the denial . In staffs opinion, the decision to deny was arbitrary because : * The 1987 CCCL was never established as a line of prohibition and no evidence was presented that the 1987 CCCL is the appropriate line seaward of which construction should be prohibited for this property . * The prohibition of construction seaward of the 1987 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 1987 CCCL . • There was no evidence presented to challenge the fact the DEP ' s 1987 CCCL permitting process ensures that structures built seaward of the 1987 CCCL will be adequately engineered for oceanfront conditions , thereby obviating the need for more of a setback from the ocean . The decision to deny the application raises two policy questions . What is the objective of location restrictions along the coastline? What is the purpose of the 1987 CCCL and how does DEP apply its regulations seaward of that line ? If the objective of the denial is to move the proposed units landward to protect them from coastal erosion, then the issue of construction standards must be considered . Because stringent DEP construction standards do not apply to structures that are located entirely landward of the 1987 CCCL , structures may be better protected by being built seaward of the 1987 CCCL and built to a higher construction standard, than structures built to the lower standard and located immediately landward of the 1987 CCCL . Requiring the higher construction standards for structures partially or wholly seaward of the 1-987 CCCL puts the DEP in a much better position to deny future seawall permits for such structures, since the structures are designed and built to stand-up under storm events . If the objective of the denial is to convert the 1987 CCCL from a line of regulation to a line of prohibition in areas that appear to be significantly eroding , then the gathering of substantial competent evidence is necessary . If the 1987 CCCL becomes a line of prohibition rather than a line of regulation without some competent substantial data to support it as a line of prohibition, such use of the line becomes arbitrary . In establishing the 198 , CCCL , the DEP used the best science available at the time to predict coastdi erosion and arrive at a line of regulation . Through the permitting process , the DEP can apply its criteria on a site- by-site basis to establish the conditions JANUARY 16 , 2001 BI a - 26 -