Item J6
10/18/00
2000/318
Commissioner Harvey
Commissioner Neugent
Commissioner Reich
Commissioner Williams
Mayor Freeman
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
, ;
<ol ~
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A Public Hearing was held concerning adoption of a Resolution evidencing the Board's
approval of a recommended Beneficial Use Determination promulgated by the Special Master, In
Re: The application of Milius and Lori Skidmore. Growth Management Director Tim McGarry
and Mr. Hendrick addressed the Board. The Board accepted public input with the following
individuals addressing the Board: Attorney John Wolfe, representing the Applicants and Dwight
Skidmore. After discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Reich and seconded by
Commissioner Harvey to approve the action of Hearing OffiCV,.I. Jefferson Overby dated June
5, 2000 and directing the County Attorney to recast the Recommended Order as a Vested Rights
Order. Roll call vote was unanimous.
RESOLUTION NO. 433-2000
See Res. Book No. 145, which is incorporated herein by reference.
A Public Hearing was held concerning adoption ofan Ordinance repealing Chapter 6.3,
Articles I and II, Monroe County Code, "Code Enforcement"; Repealing existing provisions and
creating new provisions establishing and regulating the Department of Code Enforcement;
Providing Applicability; Providing Definitions; Providing for Penalties; Providing methods for
notification; Providing for the creation of the Position of Monroe County Code Enforcement
Special Master; Providing for Severability; Providing for inclusion in the Monroe County Code
and Providing an effective date. Assistant County Attorney Stuart Schurr addressed the Board.
There was no public input. Motion was made by Commissioner Williams and seconded by
Commissioner Neugent to adopt the following Ordinance. Roll call vote was taken with the
following results:
Commissioner Harvey Yes
Commissioner Neugent Yes
Commissioner Reich No
Commissioner Williams Yes
Mayor Freeman Yes
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 050-2000
See Ordinance Book No. 54 incorporated herein by reference
I.. J(P
Board of County Commissioners
AGENDA rrEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: October 18, 2000
Division: County Attorney
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Public Hearing on Resolution of Recommended Order of Beneficial Use on the
application of Milius and Lori Skidmore,
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Hearing Officer J. Jefferson Overby issued a Recommended Order of Beneficial Use
Determination on June 5, 2000.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
Adoption of Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan and ROGO,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
TOTAL COST:
BUDGETED: Yes
No
Cost to County:
APPROVED BY:
County Attorney
x
OMB/Purchasing
Risk Management
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVA~~
DOCUMENTATION: Included -L To Follow _ Not required
AGENDA ITEM #
l-pa
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO.
-20000
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNlY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNlY. EVIDENaNG THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A
RECOMMENDED BENEFIaAl USE DETERMINATION PROMULGATED BY
THE SPEaAl MASTER. IN RE: THE APPUCATION OF MILLUS AND LORI
SKIDMORE
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
became effective: and
WHEREAS, the application of MILlUS and lORI SKIDMORE for determination of
beneficial use was heard by Special Master J, Jefferson Overby on October 27, 1999: now
therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Special Master
as set forth in the proposed determination are ADOPTED awarding the addition of six ROGa
points to MILLUS and LORI SKIDMORE, This approval is subject to the conditions listed in the
attached Proposed Beneficial Use Determination, dated June 5,2000,
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the day of October, 2000.
Mayor Shirley Freeman
Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich
Commissioner Nora Williams
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
" -""
By
Deputy Clerk
jdbuskidmore
F
. . .
BENEFICIAL USE
MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
ffi(' -
Ii
l..!
JUL 2 1 2000 '--
INRE:
MilIus and Lori Skidmore - Beneficial
Use Application
I
PROPOSED BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION
The above-entitled matter was originally heard at a duly advertised and regularly scheduled,
public hearing on October 27, 1999. The matter was originally filed for a determination of Vested
Rights and Beneficial Use pursuant to Section 9.5-181 et. seq. of the Monroe County Code.
Pursuant to an agreement between the Applicants and the Monroe County staff, the "Vested Rights"
case was convened into a Beneficial Use case which was duly advertised and regularly scheduled.
Attorney John 1. Wolfe, of Cunningham, Albritton, Miller, Heffernan and Wolf, represented
the applicants, MilIus and Lori Skidmore, and Assistant County Attorney, Garth Coller, Planning
Director, K. Marlene Conaway, and Biologist, Dianna Stevenson, represented Monroe County.
ISSUE
Whether the applicant will be denied all reasonable economic use of his property by
application of Policy 204.2.6 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, and whether the applicant is
entitled to relief under Policies contained in Objective 101.18 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan (as administered and implemented in the "Agreement between the Department of
Community Affairs and Monroe County" dated February 23, 1998), the approved portions of
Ordinance 052-1997 and the Monroe County Code.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Applicants purchased the Subject property, Lot 46, Revised Plat of Amended Plat
of Sugarloaf Shores (RE#00166976-004600), a platted subdivision on SugarloafKey on June 7,
1997. At the time of the purchase there were no "imminent" or "pending" changes to the RaGa.
It is a scarified and filled lot. There are no on-site environmental constraints to development.
2. A Building pennit application was submitted on September 12th, 1997. The
Monroe County Building Department approved the residential construction plans as being in
compliance with the Monroe County Code on October 20, 1997. Other pennits were applied for
and issued: On Site Disposal System (OSDS) COnstruction Pennit and payment of the then
$225.00 fee (June 23, 1997) for which a pennit was issued July 24, 1997 (Pennit # K 95-97).
Applicants also submitted plans and a pennit application for a seawall and purchased a cesspool
credit, all at an additional, significant expense.
3. On October 30th, 1997, as a result of the County's change of position regarding
ROGO, the County caused to be advertised the proposed changes in the Keynoter, the first such
notice that the applicants had that their position would possibly be changing regarding ROGO.
At the time the applicants purchased the property, there did not exist the current negative points
for development within the 'V' zones on the FEMA flood Insurance rate map. (It should be noted
that only eleven other applicants lost six points for proposed development within the 'V' zone.)
4. The applicants' position is that they had an investment backed expectation and
further expended significant monies to apply for and obtain pennits prior to the announcement
that the pre-November 1997 ROGO point regulations would be changed. The announced changes
were adopted by Monroe County in late May, of the following year.
2
5. Solely because of the changes to Section 9.5-127, the applicants, in order to
obtain additional points to compete for ROGO, would now have to go to the further
unanticipated expense of raising the structure and/or purchasing and transferring development
rights from another parcel (which they would have to obtain at their expense).
6, At the time the applicants applied for and entered the ROGO process, they were in
compliance and complete with all applicable regulations and were most likely to be near the top
of the list for ROGO except for the changes occasioned by the six negative points which were
assigned to the 'V' flood zone.
7. The applicants have been in the system for over two years. Section 9.5-129 only
provides for administrative relief for those applicants that have been denied an allocation award
for four successive years.
8. Applicants would not be eligible for Vested Rights because they have been unable
to show that they acquired rights prior to the adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan simply
because they purchased their lot in 1997 (after the adoption of the Plan on January 4, 1996),
therefore the applicants are unable to establish their eligibility for vested rights.
9. To deny beneficial use would essentially deprive the applicants, Milius and Lori
Skidmore, of any economically reasonable beneficial use of the property and their reasonably
incurred expenses, not including the cost of the land itself.
10. Without a Beneficial Use Determination in favor of the applicants, the completion
of the structure on Sugarloaf Key would be impossible in the foreseeable future and denial of
beneficial use would be a denial of any reasonable economic use at this time.
3
11. To subtract six points from the applicants' ROGO score after they had
substantially completed the entire permitting process would be unjust and inequitable given the
circumstances of this case.
12. Although the applicants, purchased the property in 1997, just after Monroe
County's adoption of the Year 20 I 0 Comprehensive Plan, the applicants, had every reason to
expect they would be allowed to construct a single family home on the subject property.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. The applicants' property is in a platted subdivision currently being surrounded
with single family residences. There exists all necessary infrastructure including water, electricity
and paved roads and the application of the 20 I 0 Comprehensive Plan and the present ROGO has
rendered the applicants' property currently un-buildable.
2. The original permits and the subsequent permits issued with regard to the
construction of the proposed building on the property were issued prior to Monroe County's
adoption of the present Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) It would be unfair and
unreasonable, and an inequitable financial burden on the applicants to require them to bear the
additional costs and delays of waiting four years for an administrative hearing or then requiring
the applicants to enter the County's Commercial ROGO system with the 'negative six points'.
3. Pursuant to the Objective and Policy #101.18 adopted by Monroe County for the
purpose of the determination of beneficial use and for the effect of such determination, I have
considered the economic impact of the policy or regulations that prohibit the construction of the
4
a single family residence on the applicants' property and have considered the extent to which
present Monroe County regulations have interfered with the applicants' reasonable investment
backed expectations.
4. Although just compensation could be the "preferred option" under Policy
101.18.5, there is no evidence that the Land Authority is interested in acquisition of the lot which
is located in the developed residential area of Sugarloaf.
5. The addition of six (6) ROGO points should be approved as the minimum
necessary to avoid a "taking" based on current land-use case law.
WHEREFORE, I recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that a Final
Beneficial Use Determination be adopted awardine the addition of six ROGO points to the
applicants, on the subject property, due to the applicants' having met the criteria for eligibility set
forth at 9.5-172 Monroe County Code. This approval should be subject to the following
conditions:
A. The applicants' additional points shall be applied to their original building permit
application using the original plans and footprint, and must include if not previously submitted,
written approval by the Department of Health for a waste water disposal and treatment system.
B. This Beneficial Use Determination shall not exceed five (5) years and is
contingent upon the applicants releasing Monroe County from any and all liability , past, present
and future, with regard to the subject property and improvements thereon.
C. The applicants shall not be exempt from Monroe County's C
Growth Ordinance because the original permits were issued and the applican
property after the adoption by Monroe County of its Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance.
5
D. Should the addition of the six points not place the applicants in the position of being
issued a building pennit, they may still obtain other points in the same manner as any other
applicant for the purpose of moving the applicants closer to the "top of the list".
DONE AND ORDERED this 511.. day of June, 2000.
6