3/20/2001 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Emx (3) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties. traffic circulation or public health. safety and welfare? (4) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County? The Board is to consider each of these criteria and make findings in all 4 areas addressed by the criteria. Staffs analysis of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision in regard to the 4 criteria is as follows: (1) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to follow the appropriate review procedures? The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the request at a regularly scheduled meeting and discussed the request in some detail. There were planning and public works staff available at the meeting to respond to questions. A motion to approve was properly made and the motion failed. thus denying the request. Therefore, in staff's opinion, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to follow proper procedures in consideration of the subject request (2) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? During consideration of the request. the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed concerns regarding possible "light pollution" that might occur within the Buffer Preserve if the hours of operation were extended. During discussion. staff indicated that the lights could be turned off at 9:00 p.m., which would limit the hours of artificial lighting. Despite the proposed time limitation on outdoor lighting Commissioners expressed concerns that any outdoor lighting could pose an intrusion into a conservation area. In conjunction with these concerns, Commissioners expressed doubts that any nighttime use of the site is necessary. Thus, the rationale- for the Commission's denial was that the potential for light pollution effects should be avoided all together since nighttime use of the range. and corresponding outdoor lighting. seemed unnecessary. The applicant has stated that operation of the facility until 9:00 p.m. is needed to accommodate "the working public.' that primarily consists of daytime workers. At the Commission meeting there was no evidence presented or argument made to refute the applicant's assertion that nighttime use is necessary to accommodate the public gun range use. Therefore. staff s analysis is that the Commission's conclusion that there is no need for nighttime gun range use was arbitrary. (3) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties. traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare? March 20, 2001 The Commission's concerns appear to have been founded on possible negative effects that nighttime lighting until 9:00 p.m. could have on 187 B{ 11? PG 659