Resolution 177-1999 County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 17-7'-1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, EVIDENCING THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A RECOMMENDED
VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION PROMULGATED BY THE VESTED RIGHTS
HEARING OFFICER, IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF RUDY AND ROSEANNE
KRUASE
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 101.18.1 of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the matter of Rudy and Roseanne Krause for determination of vested rights
was heard by Vested Rights Hearing Officer Larry Erskine, now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are APPROVED and the Vested
Rights application of Rudy and Roseanne Krause is accordingly, DENIED.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 14tr, day of April , 1999.
Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey yes -:;� a
Commissioner Shirley Freeman yes rri
r-5,�--; -< o
Commissioner Gee - . ugent yes ` -,�
c�c CD
Commissioner lu1c, j ch yes `� CI Xf
Commissioner NG yes 3rri
(SEAL) J BOARD OF COUNTY CiFYMNISSMNEF4
Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By c • ate-4..) By
Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairman
APPROVED AST FQRM
jvrkrause A
lEG Y.
BY
OBERT ,Wp
DATE. 4C"
•
BEFORE THE VESTED RIGHTS HEARING OFFICER
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
In Re: the application of: Rudy and Roseanne Krause;
Lots 63, 72, 73, 75, 76, Block 2, Breezeswept Beach
Estates, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat
Book 4, Page 143 and Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Ramrod Shores
Marina, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 6,
Page 22, and Lot 22, Block 9, Ramrod Shores, First Addition,
according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4,
Page 51, and Lots 9 & 10, Block 24, Sands Subdivision,
according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 1,
Page 65; all of the Public Records of Monroe County,
Florida.
RECOMMENDED ORDER DENYING VESTED RIGHTS
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard by the Monroe County Vested Rights Hearing Officer
on April 27 and 28, 1998. The undersigned reviewed the application and exhibits, and heard the
testimony of the applicants. Finally, the undersigned heard argument of counsel on behalf of the
applicants and Monroe County. Subsequent to the hearing referred to hereinabove, the
undersigned received and reviewed the following:
a. A Memorandum of Law submitted by the Applicants;
b. A Response to the Applicant's Memorandum of Law submitted on behalf of
Monroe County;
c. A transcript of the hearing.
Page 1
Being fully advised in the premises, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact
and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicants purchased five of the subject lots in 1973, three of the subject lots in
1980, and the remaining two lots in 1983.
2. During the period beginning in 1979 and ending in 1983, the Applicants expended
funds to clear, add fill, and place seawalls on eight of the subject lots.
3. The Applicants have made no expenditures or improvements since 1983. Further, the
Applicants did not apply for a Vested Rights Determination under the 1986 Comprehensive Plan
or the 1992 ROGO Vested Rights Provision.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. In order to obtain a determination of vested rights, the Applicants must first establish
they reasonably relied upon an official act by the County. The recordation of a subdivision plat
may constitute such an official act, and Applicants rely upon same.
5. Next, the Applicants must demonstrate that, acting in good faith, they made such a
substantial change of position or they have incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that
it would be highly inequitable or unjust to affect those rights by requiring them to now conform to
the current comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Although the Applicants did,
in fact, make expenditures between 1979 and 1983, those expenditures are insufficient to establish
vested rights on the subject lots. Further, the Applicants did not timely move for a vested rights
determination under the 1986 Comprehensive Plan or the 1992 ROGO Vested Rights Provision.
6. Under the third prong of the vested rights provision, the Applicants have the burden of
establishing "that the development has commenced and has continued in good faith without
substantial interruption." Inasmuch as the Applicants have made no expenditures or
improvements since 1983, the passage of approximately fifteen years would constitute a
substantial interruption.
Page 2
IT IS THEREFORE, the recommendation of the undersigned that:
7. The Applicants'Request For Vested Rights be denied.
8. Further, the Applicants' request for relief based on Applicants' interpretation of
Section 380.05(18), Florida Statutes, be denied in accordance with the ruling of the undersigned
in RE: the applications of: ABBOTT, et al.
DONE AND ORDERED in Monroe County, Florida, this /Z day of November, 1998.
LARRY R. ERSKINE, ESQ.
VESTED RIGHTS OFFICER
FLORIDA BAR#313521
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and exact copy of the foregoing was mailed via U.S.
Mail to: James Mattson, Esq., Mattson & Tobin, P.O. Box 586, Key Largo, FL 33037 and
Karen Cabanas, Esq., Morgan & Hendrick, 317 Whitehead Street, Key West, FL 33040; this
/Z day of November, 1998.
LARRY R. ERSKINE, ESQ.
MEYER&ERSKINE
31211 AVENUE A
BIG PINE KEY, FL 33043
(305) 872-3400
• (305) 872-4822 FAX
Page 3