Loading...
Resolution 204-1990 c, ..- 0::: ~ C <o:::t c..'" 0- L", D 0\ w-- - c S?E u ::e:: 0 LiJ --I ~ - l.L Commissioner Gene Lytton RESOLUTION NO. 204 -1990 ';t{:; RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS- ~ONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REVERSING 'ffiE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION I S RESOLUTION NO. 10-90, IN WHICH THEY DENIED A DIMENSIONAL (HEIGHT) VARIANCE TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND MONROE COUNTY FOR A PROPOSED GOVERNMENT CENTER TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXI- ~~TELY MILE MARKER 48.5 IN MARATHON. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners was presented with information via the four appellants' arguments; their written briefs in support of their appeals; the transcript of the Planning Commission proceedings; the minutes, resolutions and agenda of the Planning Commission; the application for the variance: the notice to property owners and applicants; the Site Plan; and the Exhibits which were entered into the record by those persons testifying both for and against the variance; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, support their decision to overturn the Planning Commission and grant the requested height variances. Section 1. This Commission finds that the Petitioners fall within the category of entities who may initiate an appeal under Section 9.5-521(b). Section 2. This Commission has reviewed the Planning Commission record which caused them to deny the request for the variance by a 3-2 vote. Section 3. This Commission finds that this appeal was timely filed under the requirements of Paragraph 9.5-521(c), of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations (MCLDR). Section 4. This Commission finds that the notice of appeal was in the form prescribed by the director of planning and had been filed with county administrator and with the department rendering the initial decision, in a timely fashion, as was required by Section 9.5-521(e), MCLDR. Section 5. This Commission finds that the notice of appeal was accompanied by the addresses of the owner, applicant, property owner and adjacent property owners, as required by Section 9.5-521(c), MCLDR. Section 6. This Commission finds that the written Notice of Appeal was sent to the owner and adjacent property owners and the adjacent property owners within five (5) working days of receipt of the notice of appeal, as required by Section 9.5-521(c), MCLDR. Section 7. This Commission finds that any and all records concerning the subject matter of this appeal had been forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners members, within five (5) working days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal, as required by Section 9.5-521(c), MCLDR. Section 8. This Commission finds that the appellants had provided the filing fee, as required by Section 9.5-222(b), MCLDR. Section 9. This Commission finds that the Planning Commission failed to follow the essential requirements of the law, in that the Planning Commission did not follow the procedure which governs the actions of decision-making bodies. That is, Section 9.5-47, MCLDR requires that n(a)ll decisions shall be in writing and adopted by resolution and shall include at least the following elements: ...(3) A clear statement of specific findings of fact and a statement of the basis upon which such facts were determined, with specific reference to the relevant standards set forth in this chapter ...n (emphasis added). Section 10. This Commission finds that, in the Planning Commission1s motion to deny, they listed only the relevant stan- dards to be used, while no clear statement of specific findings of fact were included, in violation of the requirements of 9.5-47, MCLDR. Section 11. This Commission finds that the record below supports a finding that the decision of the Planning Commission 2 was not supported by substantial and competent evidence. This Board further finds that there was substantial and competent evidence provided that the variance request did meet all the requirements of law (9.5-523(e)) and that there was no substan- tial or competent evidence countering the evidence submitted against the variance application. Section 12. Specifically, this Commission finds that all of the elements needed to support the approval of a variance in Section 9.5-523 (e), MCLDR were met and evidenced in the record below. Section 13. This Commission finds that there was a showing of good and sufficient cause shown at the Planning Commission hearing record, which was unrebutted by opponents of the variance. Section 14. This Commission finds from the record that there was evidence that it is in the health, safety and welfare interests of the citizens of Monroe County to have a cul- tural/performing arts center, a hurricane evacuation emergency center and a "one stop" government permitting center, and that the roof designs with its height requirements is integral to the design of the buildings. Section 15. This Commission finds that there was ample evidence presented in the record which supported the need for a height variance, to accomplish those health, safety and welfare requirements. Section 16. This Commission finds that the record below supports a finding that the failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant. Section 17. This Commission finds that the denial of these facilities that provide such vital health, safety and welfare concerns such a government permitting, civil defense, code enforcement, marine sciences, marine patrol, hurricane preparedness, civil defense and a host of other public services most certainly would result in an exceptional hardship to the applicant (the citizens of Monroe County, through their agents 3 the political subdivisions of Monroe County and the State of Florida.) Section 18. This Commission also finds in the record below that the failure to grant a variance would create a con- stant exceptional hardship on the public, by not allowing the county to consolidate its office functions, to create an emergen- cy operations center capable of surviving a major hurricane and to take advantage of millions of dollars in state funding. Section 19. This Commission finds evidence in the record that the granting of the variance will not result in additional threats to public expense which would not otherwise occur, (9.5-523(e)(3), MCLDR). Furthermore, we find evidence that this entire project will result in a large savings of public expense. Also, that some evidence supports a finding that for the public, there would be a reduction in the costs associated with complying with the laws and rules of government such as getting permits, seeking documents, attending hearings, paying fees, etc.) because the public would have a central, one-stop government center, and we believe that there will likely be fewer trips on the highway due to this centralization. Section 20. This Commission finds that the record below supports a finding that the variance will not" create a nuisance; or cause fraud or victimization of the public." (Sec- tion 9.5-523(e)(3), MCLDR). This finding was further evidenced by testimony where even neighbors of the project, both commercial and residential sought approval of the height variances. We also consider that in this instance it is the public applying for the variance, which makes the possibility of fraud or vic- timization of the public most unlikely. Section 21. This Commission finds that the record below supports a finding that there are unique and peculiar circum- stances and conditions which apply to this property but which do not apply to other properties in the same land use district, (MCLDR 9.5-523(e)(4)). We find that the Planning Commission had both the power and the duty to authorize a variance from the terms of the ordinances where 1) it will not be contrary to the 4 public interest and 2) where the literal enforcement of the MCLDR would result in unnecessary and undue hardship in the same land use district. Here, we have concluded that the record supports a finding that each of the buildings serve unique health, safety and welfare needs, and that because of those needs, there were certain design requirements which forced them to be above the code's normal height maximum. Specifically we found compelling, the testimony that the performing arts center must have a height variance if it is to perform its function as a "performing arts center." Also we find that the variance requested is the minimum required to accomplish its purpose and that the height variance is necessary in large part due to such facts as the unique geologic structure of the Keys and to the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) regu- lations which would prohibit any "dropping" of scenery, etc. to a subbasement. We also find the fact that both the State and County buildings require extensive conduit access between the ceiling and floors, to provide access to, and space for, the emergency and scientific cabling, etc. require an increase in each floor to ceiling depth, thereby increasing the cumulative height that is required for those buildings to adequately perform their functions. Section 22. This Commission finds that when you consider the record as to whether there are any the "additional or lessened costs of providing governmental services if the variance is or is not granted," (9.5-523(f)(SIC)(7), that the only conclu- sion that can be drawn is that there will be a considerable savings to the citizens of this County. Section 23. This Commission finds that the granting of this variance would not confer upon the applicant any special privilege which would be denied, by these regulations, to other properties in the same land use district. (9.5-523(e)(4)). We find that the record below supports a finding that there are no other buildings within the same land use district which are governed by such dire health, safety and welfare imperatives. 5 We also find that the record reflects no evidence that there is any special privilege being granted by this variance because the entire population is to be served by this regional service center. Section 24. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Department of Community Affairs. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 13th day of March, 1990. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By ,. (SEAL) A'1\.T1\TV 1... KOLHAGE, Clerk Attest :DiUU't.l. J).~ APPROVE,n .45 TO FORM ~ .., ANDLEG",' S/{lf-I(..'I ~L BY f ---- . 6