Laserfiche WebLink
for any given site, especially sites where significant erosion is occurring . 1 he <br /> DEP has adopted the line as a line of regulation to review construction <br /> proposals on a site-bv-site basis . Thus, there is a process in place for experts <br /> to review proposed construction on a site -bv- site basis . The Planning and <br /> Zoning Commission ' s decision would eliminate such a review without <br /> underlying expert evidence . <br /> The staff is continuing to coordinate with the DEP on a revision to the 1987 <br /> CCCL line in critically eroded areas . Any revision to the 1987 CCCL will <br /> need to be based on substantial competent data. Until anv new line is <br /> established, it would be premature to start denying applications based on <br /> improvements located east of the 1987 CCCL . <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 /> The Planning and Zoning Commission decision was based on the same code <br /> section (932 . 06 [3 ] ) as its previous decision regarding the Boston <br /> Homes/Orchid Dunes application ( see attachment #3 ) . The Planning and <br /> Zoning Commission did discuss the applicable LDRs related to the proposed <br /> project and how the LDRs applied to the application . Therefore, the Planning <br /> and Zoning Commission did not fail to review the project with respect to the <br /> applicable county LDRs . <br /> SUMMARY - <br /> The Commission ' s denial "sent a message" that Commission members continue to be concerned <br /> about the county ' s DEP deferral policy in areas where coastal erosion appears to be significant . In <br /> so doing , commissioners expressed concerns that DEP requirements may not be stringent enough <br /> in areas of significant coastal erosion and that it may be best to make these decisions locally . After <br /> two applications on this site, discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and review <br /> of the subject appeal , staff s conclusion is that a great deal of study and on-going expertise would <br /> be needed if the county decides to regulate coastal construction above and beyond DEP permitting <br /> requirements . It is also staffs opinion that technically justified, specific criteria would need to be <br /> established by the county to fairly and uniformly apply the "discretion " given in LDR section <br /> 932 . 06(3 ) . Staff also notes that there are numerous structures and entire lots that are located seaward <br /> of the 1987 CCCL that would need to be carefully considered if the county "goes beyond" DEP <br /> regulation of such structures and properties . <br /> JANUARY 16 , 2001 SK l i .a6 PG 7 4 ! <br /> - 27 - <br />