10/21/1998
BENEFICIAL USE
MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
In Re: Fredrick & Ruth Martin- Beneficial Use
Application
50 \0
:.e .:t> CD
:On:!: 2:
Or:~ <:)
"., ~ --< <
n.
o {} r- ......,
c: :::: :X.
:.r: ...4..,1 ::.-' -0
-.~;=: :E
:<~::t:
.".:> ~.
r- C") ,;c-
)>fT1 '"
/
FINAL
BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION
The above entitled matter was originally heard at a duly-advertised and regularly
scheduled, public hearing on August 13, 1998, by J. Jefferson Overby, designated
Beneficial Use Special Master. Frederick Martin, Applicant, represented himself and his
wife/ co-applicant Ruth Martin. Assistant County Attorney Garth Coller, Planning
Director Timothy J. McGarry, and Environmental Resources Director Ross Alliston
represented Monroe County.
ISSUE
Whether the Applicants will be denied all reasonable economic use of their
property by application of Policies 203.1.3 and 204.24 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan, and whether the applicants are entitled to relief under Policies contained in
Objective 101.18 ofthe 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.
."
;=
,."
o
.."
(;)
;0
::0
I'T1
n
o
.:0
o
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicants purchased the subject property in July 5,1994, which is a
lot of record, located at Lot 4, Block 6, Winston Waterway #2 Subdivision, Plat Book 5
Page 29 Monroe County (RE# 00546750-000000). The 60 x 90 ft. lot (5400 square feet)
is zoned "Improved Subdivision" and is currently vacant. The lot is characterized as
"wetlands" and "disturbed salt marsh."
2. The Applicants submitted an application for a residential building permit
in July, 1997. That application was denied by letter July 17, 1997.
3. According to the Property Appraiser, the 1997 assessed value of the
property was $50.00 after being assessed at $33,000.00 in 1996.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. The Applicants' lot is designated Improved Subdivision, which allows one
residential dwelling and accessory uses to be permitted on this lot, except for the changes
now occasioned by the 2010 Plan.
5. Application of Policy 203.1.3 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan has
rendered the lot unbuildable.
A. As an Improved Subdivision lot the subject property has no TDR
value.
B. Development of a residential dwelling on the Applicants' lot is
prohibited, because the subject lot is of insufficient size (less than 17,424 square feet) to
be in compliance with the setback requirements required under 2010 Comprehensive Plan
203.1.3.
2
C. The new comprehensive plan had the effect of reducing the TDR
value of the property to zero and the value of the property to $50.00.
D. There are no variances or other administrative options available,
because the current lot size would still render the property unbuildable.
6. Pursuant to Policy 101.18.5 and Section 4(D) of the Agreement between
DCA and Monroe County, the BOCC has considered:
A. the economic impact of the Policy (or regulation) that prohibits
development on the Applicants' lot, which is located within an Improved Subdivision;
and
B. the extent to which the regulations have interfered with the
Applicants' reasonable investment-backed expectation that some use could be made of
this lot.
7. The lot is located within an Improved Subdivision that is partly developed.
8. A strict application of Policy 203.1.3 and Policy would prevent or prohibit
the Applicants from developing a single family dwelling on this lot.
9. Althoughjust compensation is the preferred option under Policy 101.18.5,
neither the Applicants are interested in selling, nor the land authority are interested in
acquisition of this wetland, disturbed salt marsh lot, which is located along the canal
shoreline of a mostly-developed, small-lot subdivision.
10. Limited development of this lot should be approved as the minimum
necessary to avoid a taking based on current land use case law, and this lot is suitable for
limited development under specific conditions.
3
11. It is likely that the property would ultimately be allowed to fill in all but
20% open space due the low score/value assigned to its wetlands.
WHEREFORE, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners enters this
final beneficial use determination approving limited development on this lot subject to
the following conditions:
1. The Applicants shall be allowed to submit a building permit application
for construction of a single-family dwelling unit on the subject lot.
2. This Beneficial Use Determination shall not exceed five (5) years and is
contingent upon the Applicants releasing Monroe County from all liability, if any, past,
present and future, with regards to the subject property.
3. The Applicants shall be required to obtain an allocation under the
County's Rate of Growth Ordinance (RaGa) and shall be bound by all current and
future County Land Development Regulations, except Comprehensive Plan Policies
203.1.3 and 204.24, and then only as conditioned and provided for in this Beneficial Use
Determination to allow the construction of a single-family residence.
4. The Applicants shall have two-years from the date of their RaGa award
allocation to complete construction of the proposed dwelling.
5. The subject lot shall be required to retain a twenty (20%) percent open
space requirement and no filling shall be allowed within that designated open space in
perpetuity.
4
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a meeting of the Board held on the 21th day of October, A.D., 1998.
:.:.._......./.
ATTEST: DANNY KOLHAGE, CLERK
..o...~ Co. ~~ ~
DEPUTY CLERK
Mayor London yes
Mayor Pro Tern Harvey yes
Commissioner Douglass yes
Commissioner Freeman yes
Commissioner Reich yes
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFR CIENCY
5
BENEFICIAL USE
MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
In Re: Frederick & Ruth Martin- Beneficial Use
Application
/
PROPOSED
BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION
The above entitled matter was originally heard at a duly-advertised and regularly
scheduled, public hearing on August 13, 1998, by 1. Jefferson Overby, designated
Beneficial Use Special Master. Frederick Martin, Applicant, represented himself and his
wife/ co-applicant Ruth Martin. Assistant County Attorney Garth Coller and Planning
Director Timothy J. McGarry, Director of Planning represented Monroe County.
ISSUE
Whether the applicants will be denied all reasonable economic use of their
property by application of Policies 203.1.3 and 204.24 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan, and whether the applicants are 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
1. The Applicants purchased the subject property in July 5, 1994, which is a
lot of record, located at Lot 4, Block 6, Winston Waterway #2 Subdivision, Plat Book 5
Page 29 Monroe County (RE# 00546750-000000). The 60 x90 ft lot (5400 square feet) is
zoned "Improved Subdivision" and is currently vacant. The lot is characterized as
"wetlands" and "disturbed salt marsh".
2. The Applicants have submitted an application for a residential building
permit in July, 1997. This was denied by letter July 17, 1997.
3. According to the property Appraiser, the 1997 assessed value of the
property was $50.00 after being assessed at $33,000.00 in 1996.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. The Applicant's lot is designated Improved Subdivision, which allows one
residential dwelling and accessory uses to be permitted on this lot, except for the changes
now occasioned by the 2010 Plan.
5. Application of Policy 203.1.3 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan has
rendered the lot unbuildable.
A. As an Improved Subdivision lot the subject property has no TDR
value.
B. Development of a residential dwelling on the applicants' lot is
prohibited, because the subject lot is of insufficient size (less than 17,424 square feet) to
be in compliance with the setback requirements required under 2010 Comprehensive Plan
203.1.3.
2
C. The New comprehensive plan had the effect of reducing the TDR
value of the property to zero and the value of the property to $50.00.
D. There are no variances or other administrative options are
available, because the current lot size would still render the property unbuildable.
6. Pursuant to Policy 101.18.5 and Section 4(D) of the Agreement between
DCA and Monroe County, I have considered:
A. the economic impact of the Policy (or regulation) that prohibits
development on the applicants' lot, which is located within an Improved Subdivision; and
B. the extent to which the regulations have interfered with the
applicants' reasonable investment-backed expectation that some use could be made of
this lot.
7. The lot is located within an improved subdivision that is partly developed.
8. A strict application of Policy 203.1.3 and Policy would prevent or prohibit
the applicant from developing a single family dwelling on this lot.
9. Although just compensation is the preferred option under Policy 101.18.5,
neither the applicants are interested in selling, nor the land authority are interested in
acquisition of this wetland, disturbed salt marsh lot, which is located along the canal
shoreline of a mostly-developed, small-lot subdivision.
10. Limited development of this lot should be approved as the minimum
necessary to avoid a taking based on current land use case law, and that this lot is suitable
for development under specific conditions.
WHEREFORE, I recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that a final
3
beneficial use determination be entered approving limited development on this lot
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicants shall be allowed to submit a building permit
application for construction of a single family dwelling unit on the subject lot.
2. This Beneficial use determination shall not exceed five (5) years
and is contingent upon the applicants' releasing Monroe County from all liability, if any,
past, present and future, with regar~s to the subject property.
3 · The applicants shall be required to obtain and allocation under the
County's Rate of Growth Ordinance (RaGa) and shall be bound by all current and future
County Land Development Regulations, except Comprehensive Plan Policies 203.1.3 and
204.24, and then only as conditioned and provided for in this Beneficial Use
Determination to allow the construction of a single family residence.
4. The applicants shall have two-years from the date of their ROGO
award allocation to complete construction of the proposed dwelling.
5. The subject lot shall be required to retain a twenty(20%)percent
open space requirement and no filling shall be allowed within the
designated open space in perpetuity.
DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of October,
/
I
4