Resolution 195-1998
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 195 -1998
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, EVIDENCING THE BOARD'S APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO A SPECIFIED
REVISION, OF A RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF VESTED RIGHTS
PROMULGATED BY THE VESTED RIGHTS HEARING OFFICER, IN RE: THE
APPLICATION OF FRANK AND EDITH PARMER.
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
became effective; and
WHEREAS, development applications "in the pipeline" as of January 4, 1996 are subject
to a determination of vested rights pursuant to Policy 10 1.18.1 of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, a hearing on the application of Frank and Edith Parmer for determination of
vested rights was scheduled and held before the County's Vested Rights Hearing Officer, Mr.
Randy Sadtler, Esq.; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a review of the application and attached exhibits, and having
heard argument, the Hearing Officer promulgated on April 21, 1998 an Order regarding that
application for determination of vested rights; and
WHEREAS, Paragraph 3(a} of the Order fails to define the geographic scope of the
determination with sufficient specificity; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,
approved, subject to the following revision of Paragraph 3(a):
FLORIDA: is 0 \0 __
;r: )> CO ..:.!
~:,,: .~. r-
The Findings of Fact set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 8 of the Recommen~flrd6lJCof ~e
("') '., I\)
0("): _ ~
Vested Rights Hearing Officer are approved. Paragraphs 1 - 3 of the Recom~ OrdeC8re
~C'>r- ~ ;0
;, :-i~ I'\) ,...,
r-C)~. g
> I'P) en ;::0
. \0 0
The geographic scope of this determination is limited to Lots 5, 6, 7,8, 9 and 10, MATES
BEACH, Little Torch Key, Plat Book 2, Page 131, Public Records of Monroe County, Florida.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 13th day of May, 1998.
Mayor Jack London
Commissioner Keith Douglass
Commissioner Shirley Freeman
Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich
yes
yes
yes
absent
yes
f" "./ ..~ " __'"
f /ft
i 'r;' . "\
\\j\~~1)\ '. '
~t~~t:)tt~N~Y L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
~,..,,_.~~.V
B:~'~~1:. QAA .
Deputy Cle (S-
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF M E COUNTY, FLORIDA
~J
jvrrespmmer
----_._~.,.-
VESTED RIGHTS PROPOSED ORDER
BEFORE
THE VESTED RIGHTS HEARING OFFICER
IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN RE:
Frank and Edith Parmer
Parmer's Resort - Little Torch Key
This cause came on to be heard by the Vested Rights Hearing Officer, who after having
reviewed the application and exhibits and heard oral presentation of the Applicant and
his/her attorney, if any, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. The Parmer family acquired the resort property in question in 1973. Since that time, the
property has been continually upgraded with improvements, all constructed with County
building permits. The present Parmer's Place is simply a consolidation of existing
transient rental units into one project operating on Little Torch Key long before the
adoption of the 1986 Comprehensive Plan.
2. Prior to the 5 January date of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, approvals were obtained
from the County for integral parts of the total redevelopment of the entire parcel. There
were approximately 24 permits issued with multiple parts dating from 1977 to 1995.
These provided additions to and improvements to the 40 units that make up the resort.
These were copied and supplied along with copies of all pertinent state and local licenses
to the Monroe County Planning Department on 7 November by Donald Craig, planner
for the Applicant.
3. Based upon the information provided and research of County records, the County's
Growth Management Director, Mr. Robert Herman, issued a letter on 13 January 1997,
which said in part, "Based on the information submitted and the permitted density and
intensity in the Mixed Use District, it appears that Parmer's Place is a legal and
conforming use as a commercial lodging facility. The County agrees that Parmer's place
contains 40 lawfully established transient units operating as a conditional use according
to Section 9.5-2(c) of the Monroe County Code."
4. Based upon the approvals for the additions and improvements, the Applicant
significantly changed its position and expended in excess of $1,200,000.00 to complete
the construction, for which approvals were obtained. These amounts do not include the
architectural and engineering fees for completion of the remainder of the assumed
conditional use approval (Section 9.5-2(c)) of the Monroe County Code.
5. Testimony and evidence, including copies of all building permits presented at the
hearing, indicate the improvements subject to the building permits listed above have in
fact been completed.
6. The Applicant has been diligent and acting in good faith in pursuing the permit sought.
7. The Applicant, directly or indirectly, had taken the following action to obtain approval
for the development sought:
a. Applied for and received the permits named above.
b. Applied for and received confirmation of the status of the resort as complying with
County Code.
8. The development (application process) has commenced and has continued in good faith
without interruption.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Items 1 through 3 above constitute approvals upon which the Applicant did justifiably
rely and significantly change his position in reliance upon such approvals. Monroe
County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 101.18,2(1).
2. It would be highly inequitable or unjust to affect the rights of the Applicant by requiring
the Applicant to conform with the Plan. County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan,
Policy 101. 18.2(2)(b).
3. The Applicant's request for Vested Rights is Granted subject to the following
restrictions:
a. The geographic scope of this Determination is limited to the scope relative to the
total area of the development site as contemplated by the original building permit
applications and the area of the Major Conditional Use Approval presumed by
section 9,5-2(c) of the Code,
b. The duration of this Determination and its termination shall be as contemplated by
the original applications and the Major Conditional Use beginning with the effective
date of this finding of vested rights.
c. The substantive scope of this Determination shall be as contemplated by the original
applications and the Major Conditional Use.
d. By virtue of this Determination, the Applicant is entitled to development as
contemplated by the plans as approved and subject to the Monroe County Land
Development Regulations existing January 4, 1996; however, amendments to the
Monroe County Land Development Regulations shall apply if such amendment
would have applied to the development notwithstanding Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan.
e. The Applicant is entitled to the construction contemplated by the original
applications so long as the construction is commenced timely and subject to
quarterly reporting to ensure that development is continuing in good faith.
DONE AND ORDERED at Marathon, Monroe County, Florida this ;1//
d~Of~ 19~
Randolph W, S
FBN 377163
Vested Rights Hearing Officer