|
e^ k « 4
<br /> H S
<br /> mb '+ ' , .F... . .ry ,y,._: ' �,.e > .. at2,¢ . ,, + + a . . j » . r >„ = C • :' . . .. i. �-..
<br />, :.crh$
<br /> ,.. €� ..,, , s m .i✓..� ,>,a .• ,: -.,, «�,"'3'. , „ . ,_�:.-, . i3"a,l•... �u t t?` .Y.r (t : :..,w .tt 3:> p F
<br /> .. , s ��
<br /> rx ��' &� r41" ��i%,
<br /> i
<br /> given, and that there are no other legally constructed 6' front yard fences in the Laurel Oaks
<br /> subdivision. About a block away from the subject site, there appears to be a 6 ' tall front yard fence
<br /> that was located contrary to approved permits . That apparent violation is now being addressed
<br /> through code enforcement action. Thus, there is no legal precedent for allowing 6 ' front yard fences
<br /> in Laurel Oaks and no visual compatibility as outlined in LDR section 917 . 06 ( 12 ) .
<br /> • Planning and Zoning Commission Review Guidelines for Appeals
<br /> Section 902 . 07 provides guidelines for the Board of County Commissioners ' review of the appeal .
<br /> Under section 902 . 07 , the Board of County Commissioners is to review the Planning and Zoning
<br /> Commission ' s decision and make findings in the following four review areas :
<br /> 1 . Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning Commission) fail to follow the appropriate
<br /> 41 review procedures ?
<br /> Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to follow the appropriate
<br /> administrative approval and appeal review procedures, and there appears to be no
<br /> contention regarding the procedures that have been followed.
<br /> 2 . Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning Commission) act in an arbitrary or capricious
<br /> manner?
<br /> Response : The Planning and Zoning Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously , but
<br /> acted on the clear wording and guidelines of LDR section 917 . 06( 12) . Staff has
<br /> equally applied these standards to many other requests and inquiries over the years,
<br /> regarding front yard fence height allowances . Also , the result of applying the
<br /> regulations on the subject lot has a reasonable result, namely an 80' wide play area
<br /> enclosed by a 6 ' high privacy wood fence . Such fenced play area is non-nal for a
<br /> typical RS - 3 lot .
<br /> 3 . Did the reviewing official fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development
<br /> upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety , and welfare?
<br /> Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to consider adequately effects on
<br /> surrounding properties . The Planning and Zoning Commission ' s decision ensured
<br /> that the LDR standards applicable to other properties in Laurel Oaks and the RS - 3
<br /> district were applied to the subject request.
<br /> 4 . Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan
<br /> and land development regulations of Indian River County ?
<br /> Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to evaluate the application with
<br /> respect to the LDRs and Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, a clear
<br /> application of the fence height regulations, which includes the security and visual
<br /> compatibility tests , was the basis of the denial . Under the LDRs, there is no
<br /> justification for granting approval of Mrs . Carlton ' s request, since there are no
<br /> existing legal 6 ' front yard fences in the neighborhood and, therefore , there is no
<br /> visual compatibility as defined in LDR section 917 . 06( 12 ) .
<br /> In summary, the Planning and Zoning Commission ' s decision to deny the request was guided by
<br /> the 917 . 06( 12) review criteria and the facts of the case . Staffs conclusion is that there is no
<br /> justification for the request in terms of security and visual compatibility . Therefore, the appeal
<br /> should be denied.
<br /> September 4 , 2001
<br /> 53
<br /> B1
<br /> 1E PG331
<br />
|