Item G1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: March 18, 2009 Division: Public Works ____________
Bulk Item: Yes No X Department: Engineering Services__________
Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Judy Clarke X4329_
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Appeal of denial of after the fact right of way permit application to
install additional 70 ft X 14ft of brick pavers along the right of way.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
The resident exceeded the scope of the right of way permit that was issued
for a 24 foot wide driveway connection. During the code enforcement process he applied for an after
the fact permit for the additional work and was denied a permit. He is appealing the denial of the
application as allowed by Monroe County Code Section 16-30. Appeals.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
n/a
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
n/a
__________________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: ______________BUDGETED:
n/a YesNo___
COST TO COUNTY:SOURCE OF FUNDS:
____________________
REVENUE PRODUCING:AMOUNT PER MONTHYear ____
Yes No
APPROVED BY:
County Atty X OMB/Purchasing Risk Management ____
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X Not Required____
DISPOSITION:AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 1/09
Engineering Division
MEMORANDUM
To:
Board of County Commissioners
From:
Judy Clarke, P.E. Director of Engineering Services
Date:
March 3, 2009
Re:
Haskell: Appeal of After the Fact Right of Way Permit Application
This item is an appeal of Engineering staff’s denial of an after the fact right of way permit
application to install approximately 980 square feet of brick pavers on the Coral Drive right of
way. Staff denied the application because the County does not allow residents to install pavers
(or other impervious material) on the right of way, with the exception of a driveway connection
that may have a maximum width of 24 feet per the Monroe County Public Works Manual and
Section 16-26, Construction Standards and Specifications of the Monroe County Codes.
Mr. Haskell applied for a driveway connection permit for a 28-ft wide driveway in September
2006. After staff informed Mr. Haskell that the maximum permitted width for a residential
driveway was 24 feet, he revised his application and staff issued Permit #2276 for a 24-ft. wide
driveway (application and permit attached). Engineering staff inspected the work in April 2007
and determined that the scope of the driveway connection permit had been exceeded. In addition
to the 24-ft. wide driveway, Mr. Haskell had graded a 14 ft. x 70 ft. section of the right of way to
slope towards the asphalt roadway and had installed brick pavers over the entire area (see
attached picture).
This type of work is not permitted on the right of way because it 1) creates an unsafe condition
on County roads and 2) is contrary to Monroe County’s stormwater practices. Asphalt roads are
constructed with a crown so that stormwater flows off of the driving surface of the road and onto
the unpaved shoulder where it infiltrates into the subsurface. Paving the shoulder prevents
infiltration of stormwater and creates a drainage problem; grading the impervious shoulder to
drain towards the road increases the amount of water that will pond on the driving surface of the
road. The 24-ft. width limitation in the Monroe County Code is there because in addition to
creating unsafe conditions, increasing the impervious surface is contrary to Monroe County
stormwater management practices, which seek to reduce runoff. In fact, stormwater
accumulation is already a major problem on Sugarloaf Key, where the property in question is
located. The failure of property owners to adhere to the 24-ft. width limitation will exacerbate
the problem. The County is unlikely to be able to force subsequent owners of the property to
remove pavers if necessary in the future. Thus, it must either enforce the rules against the
property owner who failed to comply with the permit guidelines by asking the owner to remove
the additional pavers, or resign itself to the fact that County (rather than the property owner) will
have to pay to remove the pavers and/or spend additional money on stormwater management in
the future.
March 3, 2009
Engineering staff referred the matter to Code Enforcement for handling (email attached). As part
of the Code Enforcement proceedings, Mr. Haskell submitted the first after the fact permit
application on January 28, 2008. This application indicated that the additional paved area was for
“parking/handicap access”. Staff denied the application on February 20, 2008, as noted above
(application and denial letter attached). Subsequently the Special Magistrate issued a Finding of
Fact in the Code Enforcement case in March 2008.
Mr. Owen Trepanier contacted Engineering staff on behalf of Mr. Haskell in June 2008 about
appealing the denial. Staff informed him that the 30 day appeal period had expired and that the
case had resulted in a Finding of Fact by Special Magistrate in March 2008.
In October 2008 staff from Owen Trepanier, Inc. submitted a second after the fact permit
application for handicapped parking on Mr. Haskell’s behalf. The County Attorney determined
that the County Code did not preclude the owner from submitting the second application, thereby
starting another 30 day period in which to appeal the denial in accordance with Section 16-30 of
the Monroe County Codes.
The County has applied its 24-ft. maximum width rule against property owners uniformly. The
property owner in this instance has identified additional properties with more square footage than
the area now covered by pavers on this property. However, each one of the ROW permits listed
on the chart was approved with a maximum 24-ft. width.
Page 2 of 2