Loading...
Item X2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Agenda Item Summary Meeting Date July 15, 2003 Division County Attorney AGENDA ITEM WORDING Public Hearing of Resolution of the Recommended Beneficial Use Determination of Harley Evans. ITEM BACKGROUND: Hearing Officer J. Jefferson Overby issued a Proposed Beneficial Use Determination. .~. - PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Adoption of Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and ROGO. CONTRACT/AGREEMENTCHANGES N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Approval. TOTAL COST COST TO COUNlY BUDGETED Yes No SOURCE OF FUNDS APPROVED BY: County Attorney - OMB/Purchasing 0 Risk Management 0 DIVISION DIRECTORAPPROVAL~~~ J. R. NS DOCUMENTATION: Included 0 To Follow 0 Not Required 0 AGENDA ITEM # X2- County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. - 2003 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: HARLEY EVANS WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective; and WHEREAS, the application of Harley Evans for determination of beneficial use was heard by Special Master J. Jefferson Overby on March 24,2003; 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 Harley Evans is accordingly APPROVED, subject to the conditions listed in the attached Proposed Beneficial Use Determination, dated May 15, 2003. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 15th day of July, 2003. Mayor Spehar Mayor Pro Tem Nelson Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Rice (SEAL) Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk BOARD OF COUNlY COMMISSIONERS . OF MONROE COUNlY, FLORIDA By Deputy Clerk By Mayor/Chairman BENEFICIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re: Harley Evans- Beneficial Use Application / PROPOSED BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION The matter was heard at a duly advertised and regularly scheduled, public hearing on March 24, 2003, at the Government Center, Marathon. This case was assigned to J. Jefferson Overby, designated Beneficial Use Special Master. The Applicant represented himself. Assistant County Attorney John Wolfe and Planning Director K. Marlene Conaway, Director of Planning, and Rob Will, Planner, 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 Moratorium- Objective 301.2 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations 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 I. The Applicant is the owner of record, which is a lot of record, located at Lot 42,Block 2, Eden Pines Colony, Big Pine Key. The lot is zoned "Improved Subdivision" and is currently vacant. 2. The applicant has previously received a ROGO allocation and building permit for the lot ( Permit # 96-1-1361). The applicant has been prevented from constructing a dwelling unit because the level of service on US #1 on Big Pine Key. Additionally, on May 23,2002, at another Beneficial Use Hearing, the applicant was issued a building permit. 3. The applicant is requesting that the county allow him to transfer the ROGO allocation previously granted on Lot 42, Block 2, Eden Pines Colony to Lots 5 and 6, Block 22 Eden Pines Colony. These two lots (5 and 6) are considered "upland disturbed", are in a platted subdivision currently zoned the same ( IS), which would allow one single family residential dwelling and accessory uses on the lots, and are served by paved roads, water, and electric. The lots have been aggregated and are considered one lot for the purposes of development under RE # 00271170-000000.( IS lots may not be subdivided into two separate IS lots.) 4. The applicant is proposing to sell lot 42 (above) to an adjacent property owner with restrictive covenants ( i.e. a conservation easement) that would retire the development rights on lot 42. 5. The new site has no TDR value as it is in an improved subdivision, under the current code. 6. This is an upland scarified lot and therefore has no environmental constraints to development. 2 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 7. 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. 8. Application of Moratorium - Objective 301-2 and Policy 203.1.3 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan has rendered the lot un-buildable. A. As an Improved Subdivision lot the subject property has no TDR value. B. Applicant already has a building permit for lot 42. C. The unique combination of environmental constraints and lack of adequate LOS ( level of service) on US # 1 has denied the applicant all Ieasonable economic use of his property. D. The transfer of the building rights to the new lot and the retirement of the rights on lot 42 will not increase density in the area, but merely relocate it to a better location within the IS subdivision. E. The current property is an aggregated in Tier Two lot, which could qualify for a building permit in the future. 9. 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 3 applicants' reasonable investment-backed expectation that some use could be made of this lot. C. staff recommendations. 10. The lot is located within an improved subdivision that is partly developed. 11. 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. 12. Although just compensation is the preferred option under Policy 101.18.5,207.7.3 and 207.7.4, neither the applicants are interested in selling, nor the land authority are interested in acquisition of this lot. 13. 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 beneficial use determination be entered approving limited development on this lot subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall resubmit a building permit application including revised building and, if necessary, site plans, including written approval by the Department of Health of the on-site wastewater disposal and treatment system. 2. This Beneficial use determination shall not exceed five (5) years 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. 3. The subject property and proposed residence shall be required to 4 meet all provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, and of the Monroe County Code. 4. The applicant shall be required to pay any impact fees for his building permit. 5. The applicant shall be exempt from ROGO, because his permit was previously issued to lot 42. 6. All development rights associated with Lot 42 be retired by either placing a conservation easement on the entire parcel . 7. That the development rights previously issued to Lot 42 be transferred to the aggregated lots 5 and 6 (this one time only). DONE AND ORDERED this May 15,2003 J. e r Overby Special Master 5