4/3/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

commercial versus another form of residential. He believed the PZC had failed to follow the appropriate review procedures criteria (1) under Analysis on the third page of staff's memorandum, in that they looked into thero'ect and not P J out. He also thought that the t PZC had failed in number (3) because they did not adequately (emphasis on adequately) consider the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties because this condominium would be the one and only of its kind in that area, a non sequitur to the nature of the neighborhood. He thought that (4) also had some items of concern and it could not be separated from (3). MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to uphold the appeal of the applicant based on the failures of the PZC to apply items (1) and (3) to the extent that they could have been applied. Under discussion, Vice Chairman Stanbridge recalled that back in January Deputy County Attorney Collins advised that the Board had the discretion to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare. She understood that to mean the Board has the discretion to go outside what Mr. Evans considers the legal ramifications to consider other things. She believed that the PZC did fail to consider adequately the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding properties which could be concluded, in her opinion, to be the health, safety, and welfare of the public and the property values the Board was talking about. Commissioner Tippin wished he did not have to vote on issues such as this. He was born in the county and lived through hurricanes for 67 years; he would not live there even if he could afford it. He liked it much better when a 4 -wheel drive vehicle was necessary to get to Wabasso Beach. He postulated that the law is the law until it is changed and commented he was in a horrible quandary. County Attorney Bangel understood the motion was reversing the PZC's decision. April 3, 2001 � i l b 160 72