Item R5
Board of County Commissioners
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date:
August 16, 2000
Division: County Attorney
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Public Hearing on Resolution of Recommended Order of Beneficial Use on the
application of Joseph J. Oliveros.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Hearing Officer J. Jefferson Overby issued a Recommended Order of Beneficial Use
Determination on May 14, 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 -X- To Follow Not required
AGENDA ITEM #
) .. rl.l;
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO.
- 20000
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY. EVIDENCING THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A
RECOMMENDED BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION PROMULGATED BY
THE SPECIAL MASTER. IN RE: THE APPUCA TION OF JOSEPH J.
OUVEROS
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
became effective: and
WHEREAS, the application of JOSEPH J. OLIVEROS for determination of beneficial
use was heard by Special Master J. Jefferson Overby on February 16, 2000: 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 APPROVED and the application of JOSEPH J.
OLIVEROS is accordingly APPROVED, subject to the conditions listed in the attached Proposed
Beneficial Use Determination, dated May 14, 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 August, 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
......, ,{',
C-- "!Iot
, "'"'.
Mayor/ Chairman
If
,
.'. ~
B
ROBERT N. W. . E
DATE 9- 26-Cll
Jbuoliveros
.
s~~~ [)ltdh~
BENEFICIAL USE
MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
In Re: Joseph J. Oliveros- Beneficial Use
Application
/
PROPOSED
BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION
The above entitled matter was heard at a duly-advertised and regularly scheduled,
public hearing on February 16,2000 by the undersigned Special Master, at the Marathon
Government Center, Marathon. Hal Fried, as agent, represented the applicant, who was
present. Assistant County Attorney Garth Coller and Planning Director K. Marlene
Conaway, Director of Planning, represented Monroe County.
ISSUE
Whether the applicant will be denied all reasonable economic use of his property
by application of Policies 203.1.3 and 204.24 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
1. The Applicant purchased the subject property in November 30, 1990,
which is a lot of record, located at Lot 1, Block 2, Seaside Addition #1, Tavernier, FL.
The lot is approximately .2 acres) and is zoned "Recreational Vehic1e District" (R V) and
'.
is currently "tropical hardwood hammock", however, no Habitat Evaluation Indexes
(HEI) are on file with the county that would show the quality of the hammock on this lot.
2. Section 9.5 -123(h) of the Land Development Regulations established a
moratorium on all transient units, including RVs until January 1,2002 and Policy 101.3.1
of the Year 2010 Plan placed a moratorium on all commercial development. Therefore
the options for this property owner are significantly reduced.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3. The Applicant's lot is designated Recreational Vehicle District (RV), and
the current County Code prohibits any new or additional recreational vehicles to be
parked on this property.
4. Application of Policy 101.3.1 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan has
rendered the lot unusable.
A. As an Recreational Vehicle District lot, the subject property has no
TDR value.
B. Although the County Planning Department has initiated
amendments to the Zoning and Future Use maps that would possibly effect this property,
this process will not be completed for at least one year, and only will be approved ifboth
the County and the State approve the proposed changes
5. 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 applicant's lot, which is located within an Recreational Vehicle
2
and is contingent upon the applicant's releasing Monroe County from all liability , if any,
past, present and future, with regards to the subject property.
S,:-~
3. The subject property and propose~ shall be required to meet
all other provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations.
4. Thc (1ppl~"i:UlL c:l.o.Ges that he shaillcllluvc :said H::;"'l~a:t~UUa1
<: vdl1cle whew]! Ii.,- 1:011~.O Mti 18l1d tl3G nlllp dli:Ulge:s iamendmems are approved by both
~h,- Col:Ult) aud Ii." Stat".__
DONE AND ORDERED this May 14,2000.
4
District; and
B. the extent to which the regulations have interfered with the
applicant's reasonable investment-backed expectation that some use could be made of
this lot.
C. staff recommendations.
6. The lot is located within an Recreational Vehicle District that is partly
developed consisting of primarily non-conforming homes.
7. A strict application of Policy 101.3.1 and 9.5-123(h) of the current Land
Development Regulations would prevent or prohibit the applicant from parking a
recreational vehicle on this property.
8. Although just compensation is the preferred option under Policy 101.18.5,
neither the applicant is interested in selling, nor the land authority is interested in
acquisition of this lot.
9. 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 ;fc
beneficial use determination be entered approving limited development on this lot
subject to the following conditions:
?1"Y p;". ('wN~If"" (~
1. The applicant shall be permitted to "taee SHe peereatie.nal ~"hiek
SI'ralP-F*lntt1y ,f~1Il&u #h./lf "~"",t,,.
on ihblet, ~....~et tr the County's Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO), wkk. 1110.4,. 61'J?/J
fJ~s~" L."/ tJ'St ~ Ane",(rM--- rh -r//6CifJ 9M uH-
2. This Beneficial use determination shall not exceed five (5) years
3