Item M3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: January 18,2006
Bulk Item: Yes No -L
Division: Growth Management
Department: Building
Staff Contact Person: Dianne Bair, CFM
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Public hearing to consider an application submitted by Dr. Tracey M. Baker to appeal the denial of an
After-the-Fact bullding permit application #051-3669 to remove drywall and install cement board in a
pre-FIRM ground level building.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
On June 24, 2005, Dr. Baker submitted an After-the-Fact building permit application (#051-3669) to
resolve a Stop Work Order placed on his property at 15 Boulder Dr., Saddlebunch Key, by Code
Enforcement on August 2003. The application for removal of drywall and installation of cement board
was denied by the Growth Management Division, because the pre-FIRM structure had been previously
determined to be a substantially improved. Prior to Dr. Baker's purchase of the property on June 23,
2003, his attorney Frank Greenman, requested a letter of determination of the status of the property. In
a May 14, 2003, letter issued by Ms. Bair, CFM, Special Projects Administrator, Mr. Greenman was
advised that the subject building had been substantially improved without benefit of permits and,
although these unlawful improvements were protected by the four-year statute of limitations on code
enforcement proceedings, no further permits could be issued unless the property were brought into
compliance with all applicable codes. The May 14, 2003, letter of determination was not appealed by
the applicant. The applicant also did not appeal the denial of an After-the-Fact building permit
application previously submitted by the applicant on January 26, 2004, which was denied for the same
reasons as the subject permit.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
None
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial
TOTAL COST: -0-
BUDGETED: Yes No ~o-
COST TO COUNTY: -0-
SOURCE OF FUNDS: -0-
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No L AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
DOCUMENT A TION:
Included X
APPROVED BY: County Atty X
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS DENYING A REQUEST BY TRACY M. BAKER
TO OVERTURN THE DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT 051-3669
BASED ON THE DETEIarllNA TION BY THE MONROE COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION THAT THE STRUCTURE HAS
PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED WITHOUT
MEETING CURRENT REGULATIONS INCLUDING BUILDING
CODES AND ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS.
WHEREAS, Tracy M. Baker submitted a building permit application 051-3669
requesting improvements to a pre-FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map) ground level
building to address a code enforcement '"finding of violation" on a building deemed
substantially improved without benefits of permit and without meeting current codes; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located at 15 Boulder Drive, Bay Point,
Florida and legally described as Block 7, Lot 8, Bay Point Amended Plat, Saddlebunch
Keys PB 3-75; Township 67, Range 28 and having real estate number 00161250-000000;
and
WHEREAS, the application filed is a request to appeal the decision by Dianne
Bair, CFM, Special Projects Administrator, denying permit application 051-3669 in a
letter dated June 30, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the denial for the application 051-3669 was based on a previously
written determination in a letter dated May 14,2003 which was not appealed; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-317(a) states: Generally: No building permit for
proposed construction within an area of special flood hazard shall be granted unless [he
proposed construction is in compliance with the standards set forth in this division; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-317(b)(1)(a.) states: New construction or substantial
improvements of any residential structure shall have the lowestfloorfor zones AI-3D, AE
and AH or the bottom of the lowest supporting members for zones Vi-3D, VE or V
elevated at or above the base flood elevation level; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-316.1 states: except as provided for the elevated
portion of a nonconforming residential structure by sec. 9.5-317(a)(10), no structure or
manufactured home hereafter shall he located, extended, converted or structurally
altered without filll compliance with the terms of this division in addition to other
applicable regulations of this chapter; and
P41-05
Page 10f2
WHEREAS, Section 6-l8( c) states: A building permit shall only be issued if the
building official finds it consistent with the Florida Building Codes and this chapter and
is compliant with chapter 9.5 of this Code, as determined by the Planning Director; and
WHEREAS, the applicant was infonned in letters dated May 14, 2003 and
January 24, 2004, that the building had been substantially improved and permits may
only be issued if the structure is elevated to or above the required base flood elevation
and brought into compliance with all applicable building and development codes; and
WHEREAS, Policy 101.8.10 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
requires non-conforming structures requiring substantial improvements to comply wit all
code provisions; and
WHEREAS, Policy 217.1.6 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan requires
enforcement of federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to promote
protection and safety of life and property; and
WHEREAS, the following material has been entered into the record and
considered by the Board of County Commissioners.
] . An Application for an Administrative Appeal received August ] I, 2005 by the
Monroe County Planning Department and filed by Franklin D. Greenman, Esq.;
and
2. The staff report prepared on October 13, 2005 by K. Dianne Bair, CFM Special
Projects Administrator; and
3. A copy of the Monroe County Property Appraiser's Property Record Card, dated
1/27/2004, with a notation that "The SRF has been gutted and is being rebuilt plus
an addition. The sale was more or less a land purchase."; and
4. The May 14, 2003 substantial improvement determination, the January 26, 2004
letter of denial and the June 30, 2005 letter of denial letter; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the preceding Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law support its decision to DENY the Administrative Appeal by
Tracy M. Baker and affirm the decision of the Growth Management Division.
PASSED AND ADOPTED By the Board of County Commission of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of January 2006.
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Mayor Pro Tem Murray Nelson
Commissioner Dixie Spehar
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner David P. Rice
MOHROe COUNTY AlTOANEY
~PFROVeO,~~Q F9~ ~
Date: c;"'r ~,~ {if if, 'j l~~( ~~:::'( ,.
P41-05
Page 2 of2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A:
Staff Report
Staff r;:xhibits
property tax card
code enforcement chronolob'Y
progressive increase in values
letter dated rvlay 14, 2003
letter dated January 26, 2004
PART B:
l\.dministrative .i\ppeal Application
Surrounding Property Owners
Applicant's Basis for Appeal
Staff Determination being .i\ppealed
PART C:
Photo's
Receipt and Fees
PART A:
STAFF REPORT
Growth Mana~ement Division
2798 Overseas Hwy. Suite 410
Marathon, FL 33050
Tel: (305) 289-2500
Fax: (305) 295-2536
Board of County Connnissioners
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dis1. 3
Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson, Dist. 5
Corom. Dixie Spehar, Dist. 1
Corom. George Neugent, Dist. 2
Cornm. David P. Rice, Dist. 4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Tim McGarry, Director, Growth Management Division
FROM:
Dianne Bair, CFM Special Projects Administrator
DATE:
October 13, 2005
RE:
Tracy Baker Administrative Appeal
MEETING DATE:
January 18, 2006
REQUEST:
A. Description of Project:
Dr. Baker applied to the Monroe County Planning and Building Department for an after
the fact pennit to complete a storage area using flood resistant material on existing walls
on June 24, 2005. The after the fact application was a result of a Notice of Violation and
stop work order placed on the property by Code Enforcement on August 25, 2003. This
application was denied because the structure had previously been determined to be a
substantial improvement on May 14, 2003. The substantial improvement occurred
without benefit of permits and without meeting elevation requirements or current building
code requirements. The initial substantial improvement is protected by Judge Richard G.
Payne's circuit court ruling on the four-year statute of limitations. In a letter dated May
14, 2003, prior to purchasing the property, the applicant was advised that after the fact
and to complete permits may only be issued if the structure was elevated to or above the
base flood elevation.
B. Location of Property:
The property is located on Saddlebunch Keys, Block 7, Lot 8 Bay Point Amended Plat,
S8, T67, R27 Monroe County, Florida. The Real Estate Number is 00161250.000000.
The physical address for the parcel is 15 Boulder Drive. This is a one story ground level
house built in 1958. The structure lies in a split flood zone ofVE-12 and AE 10 and the
average grade is between 3 to 5 feet above mean sea leveL
C. Applicant/Appellant! Appellant Agent:
Applicant/Owner: Tracy M. Baker
Appellant Tracy M. Baker
Agent: Franklin D. Greenman, Attorney at Law, Gulfside Village, Suite 40, 5800
Overseas Highway, Marathon, FL 33050
D. Precise Decision Being Appealed:
A letter from Dianne Bair, CFM, Special Projects Administrator, Growth Management
Division dated June 30,2005, to Tracy M. Baker denying after the fact application 051-
3369 to remove drywall below base flood elevation and replace with flood resistant
material in order to complete the storage area.
Section 9.5-3l(a) Generally: No building permit for proposed construction within an
area of special flood hazard shall be granted unless the proposed construction is in
compliance with the standards set forth in this division.
The building was substantially improved and the lowest floor is not elevated to or above
the required base flood elevation. After-the Fact removal of drywall and installation of
cement board is not in compliance with the substantial improvement requirements of the
Floodplain Management Ordinance.
Section 9.5-317(b)(1 )a. New construction or substantial improvements of any residential
structure shall have the lowest floor for zones A 1-30, AE and AH or bottom of the lowest
supporting member jor zones Vi-30, VE or V elevated at or above the base flood
elevation level.
The building was substantially improved and lowest floor is not at or above base flood
elevation. A determination that the building is substantially improved was issued in a
letter dated May 14, 2003. The letter set forth notice that no after the fact or new
permits may be issued unless the building is elevated at or above the base flood elevation
and brought into compliance with all applicable building and development codes. This
detern1ination was not appealed.
Section 9.5-316.1 Except as provided for the elevated portion of a nonconforming
residential structure by sec. 9.5-3 i 7(a)(1 0), no structure or manufactured home hereafter
shall be located, extended, converted or structurally altered without full compliance with
the terms of this division in addition to other applicable regulations of this chapter.
The appellant states "He converted what was previously a substandard apartment into a
storage area". This conversion was the subject of a stop work order and a violation was
found by the Special Master on May 26, 2005. The conversion is not in full compliance
2
with the terms of this division and other applicable regulations of this chapter. The
building is not elevated and it is unknown whether or not the un-permitted rehabilitation
meets the safety standards required by Florida Building Codes.
Section 6-18(c) A building permit shall only be issued, if the building official finds it
consistent with the Florida Building Codes and this chapter and is compliant with
chapter 9,5 of this Code, as determined by the planning director.
The building is substantially improved, not elevated, not in compliance with 9.5.-317,
substantial improvements, and questionable as to what liability rests with the County in
issuing an "after-the-facf' building permit in a portion of a structure where it is unknown
whether or not major un-permitted reconstruction and additions meet the safety standards
required by Florida Building Codes and that has not had the benefit of a certificate of
occupancy.
E. Date of Decision:
June 30, 2005
F. Additional Information
· 2003 Mr. Franklin D. Greenman, attorney for the applicant requested a
determination from the County as to the status of the residence before the
applicant purchased the property.
· May 14, 2003 a letter was issued by Dianne Bair, CFM, Special Projects
Administrator determining that the residence had been substantially improved.
The letter advised that "after the fact and to complete permits may only be issued
iEthe structure is elevated to or above the base flood elevation."
· May 24, 2003 Mr. Greenman advised Dr. Baker of the County's position and that
code enforcement prosecutions for the un-permitted activity (the substantial
improvement) was barred by the statutes oflimitations.
· June 23, 2003. Dr. Baker purchased the property.
· August 25, 2003 a "stop work order" was posted on the property for work in
progress without a permit. On January 26, 2004 Dr. Baker made an application
for an "after the fact" permit 041-306 for "repairs and awning removal, replace
damaged drywall, trim and paint and replace 400 square foot of tile".
Application 041-306 was denied under the same basis as this permit 051-3369
being appealed,
G. Applicant/Appellant's Desired Solution:
To allow the applicant to obtain an after-the-fact permit to complete the storage area
using flood resistant dry wall on the pre-existing walls.
3
Applicant/Appellant's Basis of Appeal:
Appellant's first argument is as follows:
Section 9.5-3162 allows "Market Value" to be established by the property appraisals
submitted by the applicant. In the June 30 letter, the County relies on the Afonroe County
Property Appraisers valuation for the determination of "market value" before Hurricane
Georges at $69,923.00. In the same letter, reference is made to the private appraisal that
the applicant provided for 1 99 7, over a year before Hurricane Georges that established the
value of the home at $325,000. There is no reason given why the lower Property Appraisers
value was utilized in determining Market Value in light of the qualified appraisal provided.
Staff response to the applicant/appellant's first argument:
In contradiction to the appellant's statements, the June 30, 2005 denial letter specifically
states that the 1997 private appraisal and a 2003 private appraisal were in fact used in
conjunction with the property appraiser's information for the 2003 substantial improvement
determination. However, the $325,000.00 value quoted by the appellant is total property
value including land and miscellaneous improvements, not just the building value. The
$69,923.00 building is the only value that can be considered in substantial/non-substantial
determinations. The May 14, 2003 substantial improvement determination was never
appealed and still stands. Therefore the appellant is barred from basing his appeal of the
denial of penuit 051-3369 on the issue of substantial improvement As the building had
been determined to be substantially improved on May 14, 2003, which was not appealed by
the applicant, the County had no other option than to deny permit 051-3369 pursuant to
County floodplain regulations.
Appellant's second argument is as follows:
There is no attempt in the June 30 letter to place a value on the construction improvements to
the house, The determination that it is a "Substantial Improvement" in excess of 50% of the
value of the property has no basis in fact presented by the applicant or the county.
Staff response to the applicant/appellant's second argument:
The June 30 2005 letter denies permit application 051-3369 because the substantial
improvement determination was made in 2003 and addressed in a letter dated May 14,2003,
a month prior to the purchase of the property by the current owner. This decision was never
appealed. However, the value on the construction improvements to the house is in the June
30, 2005 denial letter on page two (1, (2. and (3.
4
Appellant's third argument is as follows:
Section 9.5-316.2 allows the County Building Official to consider the cost approach in
determining the value of the construction "consistent with local construction costs ". The
County has made no effort whatsoever to determine the value of the construction. That
section goes to state, "Where the cost approach is not accepted by the staff because it
appears to be inconsistent }vith local construction costs, an applicant may request review by
an independent third party appraiser duly authorized by the County". The property owner
was not afforded the opportunity for third-par(v review that is authorized by the code.
Staff response to the applicant/appellant third argument:
Contrary to the agent's allegations, both an appraisal submitted by the applicant AND the
property appraisers records were utilized and supported the substantial improvement
determination of2003. This was noted in item (3. page two of the June 30, 2005 denial letter.
However, the SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT definition, requires determinations be made
before the improvement is started or if the structure has been damaged and is being
repaired, before the damage occurred. No requests were submitted to the County before the
improvements or repair began. The improvements leading to the 2003 determination were all
"after the fact" and protected by the four-year statute of limitations. This precludes
consideration of an appraisal seven years after the improvements began and the rehabilitation
is complete.
Appellant's fourth argument is as follows:
The post Hurricane Georges increase in value is attributed entirely to the alleged
construction improvements with no consideration whatsoever for the substantial increase in
property values that occurred throughout the County.
Staff response to the applicant/appellant fourth argument:
This argument addresses the 2003 substantial improvement determination rather than the 2005
denial of the permit and cannot be a basis of this appeal. However, for informational
purposes, the valuations used for the 2003 substantial improvement determination, did
consider increase in property values that occur throughout the County, The 1998 building
value was $69,923.00 and the 1999 building value is $74,746.00. This is a 7% increase. The
1999 building value is $74,746.00 and the 2000 building is $79,568.00. This is a 6%
increase. The 2000 and 2001 building values remained the same. The 2001 building value is
$79,568.00 and the 2002 building value is $144,998,00. This is an 82% increase. This
progression of property values was considered in the 2003 substantial improvement
determination. Additionally, the notation from an on site visit from the property appraiser
was significant in the determination that the improvements to this building were not from a
5
general increase in values that occurred throughout the County. The appraiser's notes on the
property tax card state: "The SFR has been gutted and is being rebuilt plus an addition.
The sale was more or less a land purchase. "
Appellant's fifth argument is as follows:
The county has failed to take into consideration that the construction improvements alleged to
be a "Substantia/Improvement" in excess of 50% of the value of the home was in fact the
demolition of a pre-existing below flood residential apartment and its replacement with a
dedicated storage area using flood resistant materials. The property owner's activity seems
to be more consistent with the policies and purposes of our Code and Comprehensive Plan
that is taken into consideration in the June 30 letter,
Staff response to the applicant/appellant fifth argument:
The construction improvements consisting of the demolition of a pre-existing below flood
residential apartment and replacement with a dedicated storage area are the result of a stop
work order and Notice of Violation which was for work in progress, not protected by the four-
year statute of limitations. This work is located in a building that has previously been deemed
substantially improved and where the property owner had previously been advised that after-
the-fact and to complete permits may only be issued if the structure is elevated to or above the
base flood elevation. The demolition of the pre-existing residential apartment and
replacement with a dedicated storage area had not begun at the time the building was
determined to be substantially improved, which was prior to the applicant purchasing the
property. This construction occurred after the applicant purchased the property. It would be
more consistent with the policies and purposes of the Code and Comprehensive plan for the
converted "storage" area to remain unfinished except for protective paint.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deny by approving the attached resolution and findings of fact.
6
PART A:
STAFF EXHIBITS
Property tax card
Code enforcement chronology
Progressive increase in values
Letter dated May 14, 2003
Letter dated January 26, 2004
);:t
~'_'
:::Gt:'
:t.~! -c;
J-.-~ ;......"
z
~ >..; '" i
):)
"--'4o-i;..
0:>
7J
':t>
~.
,...,
~
f......,'
> (n
'lj f-r~
"rjh
::O<~
::> 01
~
::-r
z
',,-
~.
F
'"'-
!'x)
CJ
~.
01
F
Z
;J~ i
'CJ
Mt
>---3
',~..J
:t:f
~
l""j
Z
t'1
:x:
?J
t'1
"'.:::;
H
'"
-:2
r-'
'"'-
o
c~
'"
C,)
~.
'~....j
[f.)
'D
hj
""
:--'
>-'
"'"
.-
~
i-'
""-
::u
i-'
"""
o
F
,L
o
'D
hj
w
c;
.c;.
~
o
""-
t"'
-..J
c;
N
W
t"""'
('.0
o
"0
hj
N
:::::;
i-'
N
t"""'
/J1
N
o
f-'
::u
en
N
o
w
~
,
/J1
CD
~
O:J
I-'
0..
cO
"'"
I-'
i-'
e-'
Ul
N
o
-..J
1:"""'
N
1'0
N
{...)
:;xl
i-'
C;
o
H;
f-'
'-
""-
:;xl
-..J
o
""-
;:0
o
>-'
C
w
o
tS'
;
'''' ~-um
Q
~;
i',.j
""
_.-
1--"':'
Ki
o
.."
.."
N
.n..,,;::__.._
b::l
d
....
I-'
0.
1-"
~
\Q
(J)
;.or
ID
rt
n
::r'
t"""'t"'
...,><
zz
~t::1u
c
Oc:>
i-'Ul....,
OttJJ::i
~
"'1
A
0>-'
Z
0"'"
C
t"J
"0
...,
O:J;;
tIJ
--JZ
o
t"''"'J
CDi:'J
v,
N
w
O"*'
N
G"1:::::;
Z
OH
O~
Ul'"'J
"'p<
"0
t'1
;;
>-3
t"J1
o
i-"-{"!j
tv
0....,
OX
>-' r-<
b
m n-
o
i-'
U)
O::C
0"0
O;i
m.....;;
O(/'J
o l:l:P-+
::u !:>l -
I--' ('"J
lft--3G"l
... :>
I--'t"'t"""'
~"io
--3OJrrJ
ttI co
lJ'I~n
~I'<~
~'I:l'U
0"'"
OHH
"zO
l-'~Z
~~
~~
o-.t>i
wo
~
~~
~>-a
OJ
t-+
:>
Ul
Ul
e~
--30
Nt"'
OJt>i
Itl:I
~g
o-.n
~::x::
n
~&i
~><
(/)
e
~m
<.ow
01
0'l--3
lU1
--.l
we
::u
Q~
(DO
- I
t->.>
t->.>
IJ>
f6
C\
It)
i-'
I
\JI
....
10
'-
n
o
"
-J
tv
--.l
I
W
1.0
N
f5
--.l
1.0
N
!
--.]
O'l
ob.
c..,
c:::
en
...,
<:
:>
r
c
[<l
:;<::>-'
!:'1<J1
.....;;
to
:::sO
t'1c
Ulr
~v
M
!'-rJ:;:!
t-+
,...,
wSD
w
to
>-
::>::
M
A'
)>:
p!
-I:
m'
::tI(
er
p(
-I(
m(
;;c;: ~
m.
-<
,,.
'-:>
~
n
><
J;:
o
"'"
o
1--'1
N
o
O'l
(J)
N
N
H
t:l
ttp-o > 'D
c'-t::!.:.^">,
li:i>-<:'"'JCXJ
f-'.1Jj n
::IH::<;M
mOt1Jr
u} :> >-<:
Ulr 0
o
Zpf-'i-'
tlJONG\
:300>-'
ill :;0 cYd0
.. co U"1
NO
>-' N 1
Cll 0
o
cr.tJ;:0
OHO
c~o
t"'t"'0
o
crl8
::aXle
'Dffi
v 1
:,...<..; r----> C1
i-' ....)
01
(")1'0
....)
o
-.J
CD
::0
c
i-'
......
N
......
t'.
'-
C
.b
~
f0-
e
~
::s
'D
nz
r:rJ
o:::r:::
l-'O
'l:
OJ
<Q
(t
o
"
l-'
o
It)
o
1
co
<Xl
W
n
(/)
'd
w
-..J
i-'
c
Z
H
,....,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~OOOOOOOOOOOOCCOO~~J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~XO
,."~"~~",,,,~,,.~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
w~~~~illill~~OOOOrororooorow>O
m~~(n~WN~O~OO~m~~WN~~
<~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
X
r ~
'--I tD
Cr
U:~
~ocwmrooooomm~~~WWW[~~0 <
~L~~G~~~~~~~OON~~~~~>
~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~~~>~
~J~~~NN~N~~~W~mGNZC
~WWWwwwwwro~ill~~~~~OM
;..)~
,...,
Z
~,OCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
a~~~~h~b~~~WWWWN~W
GW~~~~roromN~~NNWWOtD
~WN~~N~b~~O~~OOOX~~
~N~~~~~~~NOO~ro~~~$C
WW~n OON~~~W~~~~OO~8
"-
M
wmOOOOW~~~~~A~~~~~~O
lrm~~o~ooOWWWWWWWWH
WW~roffi~~~~~~~W~~~ID~
~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~
~~~~wwwwwoooam~&mU1<
mmoow~~~~~~~rnW~~Ln>
~N~~~~Www~~~~m~~0~
~N~~OW~~~~W~~~~~0jC
0~~~~N~~~O~Oro~OC~~j
,~
\,Dr-.u- W
C) 1.,.}1 1---' Ui
\.0 CD F-' (')1
m~~roocoOooOOCOOOCM
~N~NMNNNNNNNNNNNN~
l.~~P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GM
OCOOCOOOOOOOOOOOO~
aooooooOOOOOOOOOO~
OOCOCOOODOOOOOOCO~
I--"--'f-,..IJ..--.l;-.-,-.-.'\--+,~~~l-'-'
~~~ oocoooom~bWWt~W<
N~~~roffi~~~~~~oroffimo>
~mAO~Al0ww~~~~m~~~~
OAWCOW~&~~W~~~~~wc
~woo~~w~~o~cro~OC~M
~v
0h0
o 7;
(,.J Z::S:
~c
I--.j :;: ;.-~::
cx; bJ 0';
Nt?J
;..;::~... 7:
~
~"
N>---<
"'- G,
, ,
~
to::.f}
C)C
)y
Gl
'j;
-8~
('"<"
rX) :s:
'--...... ~D
r<r
l '.j ~.~
---......._~
N r-j
o
'.........'
(--".~
3:
:j.-.--i
tr)
'---I
C
?:
UJ
en
G
<~
>
....:;
>
X
;--~; f-----'
c'
~.,- ~c
~ >---<
tr1 >---<
:,', .,
'~~
'" ....fo,
e,
,,\.
.~ -'c'"
p~
):"l
'c'
>
""
',-;
.;~
"-'
'n
f"r-']
c_
o,:?,
c'.'
'"
:::cz
rr:
r~
v~ m
~ ::d
M $;
S YO
>
'..u tIJ
~J
Z tzj
0 Z
';J
" c
-0 ~
~ ...,
Crt
M 0
-
UJ Z
y.,i t7
c~ H
~
'..!~
H
>- tc
Z t+1
'"
h;;<
~>
~ u-, en ,;.:;. G.: >,) I--' ~ ~~
~0~;1~i~~~
u:; \'-...) r-0 t'-..) ~i NW hJ l-l
7:l GJ~
::c z
~-';-'-"'-'; ~;.--'.......'Xr1
v
r7 ,"'"
>-....... Iy..
:;;:
t.J-.-' y-~
m ---;-'"
z
~
[rj
i!,
X?iJ
"-_A 0"', i___} ;.-0.-'" ::t-~
0:)08",""".)CO
~--'C)OOCOZ<
~tr::
OOOOOO~2
C,OO(:;)OC(/)~
c CJ:i U1 C0 CJ:i (;': ~? ~
~r-1:J1""11~~~~t/)
r!j
tri
t-'
[>1
J::;..'~N,b.. Z
; '8G~,O~OC;C:
c-:::) C~ Cj 0 C~, (,) :r:~
:'S
~......} F~
O~(Y,C..n~Co
f-2
000000::::
N,.......l!-'-~Ni--l-~
C\.Oi..{)OO\...Ctrj
\.Di--OOO--.l~
..i::;:.\J)'J:);........> 'v;,^.-'
rv~;........:>t'-.J~l----'c--.(:
,~ t..:.,-') v C:: Ci \..!.) ?:J
O~l-.DOC~
CQ Cf::, 0 C""UI c:
'-'
Z
:j
f'-.0. ~] ~. ........ ["0 (7)
~
o
M
i.,..0L,.0 0U'
C~OOC)C;Ot-i
:r~i
~T"!
~~-'Jj
...':"::.
(J) f-2 H '"'1 ::c ?J v:: if.; 0 C "1 >-3
:::v>-<zeoot"'''O''O'1Jt">-<:(J)
Gf"!j~C:OCCJ~f'rj~~ro/::j
t"'J Z"1"1GJ triO
~ "'10 .."
[>1:I;H):;!()>-3_ H
J:o![>1Zf-20>-< HO
F:JVHH<'1:I ""'WNI-'CJZ
-j(f.;OttJM
::;:::Z;;o
:::atL
I-'
0000
:8 :JJU10U"iln
,L;..~>.r:::...c,..t'..)t'1n on
~ tTj~
t"" HDJ DJDJ
z.
A t1:j (j] U1 (I)
::;::.
"1 rrJ
H Z
o ~
o (f)
::c
w
X""-WNto
h:J '''':1'"'1 "1 t"l
HHHHO
XXXX::C
>-3totJJtoO
C;J:;<v;-PO
AI f-2 ~] ,..., :s:
trJ:::t:;:::::cif.;
(J)
WONG!'...)
(J)H<O"'l
[>1Z;J>HH
()>-3 0 CIl;:O
C[>1C::CM
:::V?Jc:e:'""d
H(")3;;-Pr-<
f-20 if.;~
>-<3: ::r:o
[>1M
::cu
00000
~
OGl;t;m
O>'HO
3:>C?JH
'1JtJ:IOt""
;Jo<pO,...,
C')G)Zl
>-3triOH
o HZ
::00>-3
HH::A:
t00H
ecZ.."
OHO
UZ::r:
pGitrJ
t-' Z
ooZo
0
0 'cJ
....~J Cn S
"-
0 G:
1-" ;~c ~,
',~ ~ """. :"D'
.'".
C) 0
0 c g
~. ~
.;.{..'" :J;-:<
" ~^", h-.-j
\.D ~
1--'
0 '~""'i ''';.- 'J
;Jo< t11 .~~ "7
H
/-.
, J
L'5 7J I
~ H
M ~
<; re h
~t:~ ,~
c--.j ,~
t'1 ,~
4^'
~
z
:;:-J
~.
tz:;
rei
<;
~
,...,
:...
'-
t'TJ
'-"'-J
.-'
,.~,;
~"J;,
CI.i
>-3
,...... ,.....'1...... i-' 0 Z
;.uto
OOOOH?J
OOOOtri
to
NNt0.... ?J
o 0 enD >-< 0
OOO~?Jt-'
,..............co t-'
"1>'
OOOOH>-3
Z>-3
OOOOHH
0000(1)0
'"'"
OJ
P
U)
0000 tri
3:
0000 [>1
0000 Z
>-3
'*'
tJ:I"1
;t;H
OOOO(l}Z
trJH
00003:(J)
00 00 tr1:I::
Z[>1
>-30
c>f'
i'...)
....... 0"\0 P
c..oNNW ?J
m():).t">(:O M
p
trJ
X
....:;
M
;;0
H
o
;;0
~
t-'
t-'
HO[>1O:;
3:;C"1C
rcP"1>-<
;.u...... H
O~PO
<>-30H
tri><MZ..
3:. Gl
MGJGl
Z;.u;;oZ
>-3 >'0 ttJ
OC;:C
~tt1ro
>-<
'V
[>1
l>~
r.~
....,e:
m~
"C
jZr
..:>C'
-l(
me
.,::;:;
m~
-<~
lJ1
o
?JC'Wf--l
,......
i-'
t'0
o
0'\
<:0
to
to
>-3
><
~
i:'1
>'
rc::CO
i:'100
;:c:r:z
H 0
3:0H
tTltT1Wn3
--31J)~
~HO
"c;z
Z
N )'$
,......
m
>-<
GJ t:1
;:c P
z ;:c
o
tJj
'"'l C
r-' H
;;0 t""'
....:;
H
d
o
~
/Xl
)'$
::c
tri
>'
,......
\.;;
lJ"1
co
;c
c
"'
N
~
w
co
"-
~
"'1
,.....
7:J
'"'l
Z C
o Z
?:I n
3:t'""'f-2
po
t"OO
(;0
00(1)
[>1(;00
rv (.>) r-<
"0['1
t-' {..'")
[>1
O(f)
('f
~.
:3
"
~,
c
'""
t--..
(1)
tri
()
F:J
H
o
Z
N 0
U1 0
Q' 0
00
o
o
.,.
"
"
~
-.l1-'1-'.......o:lO(j)
\.0 (J\ -.l \.D O' ;t;
N'-'NOO;:ot'""'
I-' co cr\ :::<:. l'1
(i)
-.n.... 0 0 '"0 0 ::c
ffi-.l\.OO;t;. H
"'" U1 -.l -.l (;") ;:0 V~
U10\WM' >-3
o
;:0
-<
Gi A \.0 O"'l
'-- '-- " "
OO,.....q......
~J.Y""'-...c>.W:.
'--'''''--OW
I-'I-'NN;t;:t>
\D\COOHt'""'
-.J ~ 0 C~r:tJ1 tTJ
\D 00 I-' vT
O~~;:E
0000
() ~ ::e .:..:'
0>>>
Z ;:0 ;:0 ;t:l,
~~$~
;:oZZZ
Ul>-:l>-:l""'l
H-<-<>-<
o 0>-:1
Z000071
00000:>>
MZ
CO
03:00zc
0>
Ct'""'
...o;:l..o.o::r.:<
CCCCt""
PJf--'OJ\"l;
r-'rtr-'f--'
",,'f--.I-"f-'.
H{O ,...,., H,
f--' r-' f--. f-'.
(D(1)(tJ{1)
Q. Q.Q.H<
3:>
HHHH'OO
;:0
tv (J', 0--.
C~ (fl tv \.0 '0
-.l(flU1'-D;:OW
~ ~ ~ ~ H>
OOOCOt""
OCOOt'1M
0000
N(J\
N-..J
O"\N<
~ ~ >>
WO"\t""''"1:I
OWC'"1:I
OOmNM;:O
I-'
r-' I-'
'-- " " "
01-'
C"\NO
" '"-., --.. " > 0
NN>-3::C
OOtIJC]
00
~~
l--"~~>-q......l
r-o f---4 f--' 1--' ~
,............--........."'~
OOCCO
!__q_q_q....J 1-1-
'----..-....--..,
!"VNNN~'"
OCOO\D
0000\0
WNI-'O\D
)>
l""
.....,
rr
~
fZ
...
l--I!--l.i--l~j--l
rr
~
....
1,..,.H'0 !--'
CD \.0 """ '..D ill
WI..C0"lNL""':
i-'WOm>l'>
WNV1-JN
m (J1 CO 0'. W
l-'
tv
o
CI\
00
tv
tv
H
Z
Ul
>-3
;::;
2
trl
Z
>-3
00000
f-' I-'
(I)A--1-....J-J
N""'W'.D"'"
Ln\OlJ'i'J1-J
\O\.OOlm.l:>
(J1 co CD cc 0'.
ffi-J>-,
t.,O~d1\DCD
OOCOO-.l
!--l-OCO:i-J\....Cl
U>""'N............
-.J L;1 N -J 01
N !-l G\ W i-'
0--.",""""'>-'0
wwo~~
N>-'Olcnm
00000
00000
U1""::"Nf-If--'
-.J lJ1 N -.l 0'.
t'0 j.-l C'> l....H......
O'I""-WI-'O
WWO~.C.
tv ,..... 0', lJ1 CD
CODEENFORCEMRVTCHRONOLOGY
INSPECTIONS/EVENTS DETAIL
DATE TIME INSPjEVE TYPE INSTRUCTIONS
12/1/2005 14:07:03 SM CASE CONTINUED NO ACTION CONTINUED TO 01/26/06 APPEAL TO PLANNING
COMf'.1ISSION
11/23/2005 16:49:31 REINSPECTION FOR HEARING
11/4/2005 16:49:42 REMINDER lETTER SENT LTR TO ATIY RE: 12/01/05 HEARING
8/18/2005 08:51:24 REINSPECTION FOR HEARING UNDER APPEAL
ON JULY 28TH 2005, THE SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE IMPOSED THE PENAL TV IN THE
7/28/2005 08:39:26 IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AMOUNT OF $250 PER DAY TO BEGIN ON
08/25;05 IF NOT COMPLIANT. THE CASE
WAS CONTINUED TO 08/25/05
7/21/2005 14:47:04 REINSPECTION FOR HEARING NEEDS TO DEMO INTERIOR
6/2/2005 10:54:44 COlvlMENT CODE LIEN RECORDED 06/02/05 FOR 100,00
BOOK PAGE
FOUND IN VIOLATION $100 ADMIN COSTS IMP.
5/26/2005 10:09:43 FINDING OF FACT RESERVED ON FINES. CHARGE OF 9.5-111(A)
AMENDED TO 9.5-111(1). COf'.1P. 07/21/05
HEARING 07/28/05
2/24/2005 07:47: 15 SM CASE CONTINUED NO ACTION THE CASE WAS CONTINUED TO OS/26/05
12/2/2004 17:27:03 SM CASE CONTINUED NO ACTION CONTINUED TO 01/27/05
COMPLIANCE 01/20/05
11/3/2004 14:38:39 CERTIFIED ON HEARING NOTICE SERVICE GOOD, GREEN CARD RETURNED
10/28/2004 15:22:33 SENT 10 LIAISON SET FOR DEC HEARING
10/28/2004 15:16:34 SENT TO DIRECTOR FOR REVIEW SET FOR DEC HEARING
11/21/2003 11:39:42 NOV HRTIFIED RETURNED CERTIFIED RECPT RET'D - GOOD SERVICE
7002 1000 0004 8085 2636
NOTICE OF VIOLATION SENT TO ALTERNATE
11/5/2003 09:25:38 NOTICE OF VIOLATION ADDRESS - C/O BAKER PLASTIC SURGERY
9155 S. DADELAND BLVD., MAIMI, FL 33010
9/24/2003 08:30:24 NOV CERTIFIED RETURNED CERTIFIED NOV RET'D - "UNCLAIMED"
9/4/2003 10:43:03 NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF VIOLATION SENT TO PROPERTY
OWNER
TC TO DR, BAKER- UNABLE TO MAKE CONTACT
9/412003 09:58:42 COMI1f;iNT CODE ON HORE THAN ONE OCCASION
WILL SEND NOV
8/27/2003 10:32:24 STOP WORK ORDER STOP WORK ORDER POSTED AT SITE
8/27/2003 10:31:44 REINSPECTION REINSPECTION OF SITE - PHOTOS TAKEN
8/25/2003 13:47:29 CREATE A CASE IIIOLATION RECORDED NORf'.1ANR
8/21/2003 13:50:40 INITIAL INSPECTION TYPE INITIAL INSPECTION-BLACK P/UP WITH
INSULATION ON SITE, NO ONE ANSWERED DOOR
8/21/2003 13:47:53 INITIAL INSPECTION TYPE SITE VISIT - PHOTOS TAKEN .
Growth Management Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 400
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: (305) 289-2500
FAX: (305) 289-2536
County of Monroe
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dist. 3
Mayor Pro Tem Murray Nelson, Dist. 5
Comm. Dixie Spehar, Dist. 1
Comm. David P. Rice, Dist. 2
Comm. Murray Nelson, Dist 5
Progressive Increase in property valuations vs improvement valuations
1998
1999
Increase
1999
2000
Increase
2000
2001
2001
2002
Increase
2002
2003
Increase
$69,923.00
$74,746.00
4,823.00
$74,746.00
$79.568.00
4,822
$79,568.00
$79,568.00
$79,568.00
$144.998.00
65,430.00
$144,998.00
$182.595.00
37,597
7%
60/0
-0-
82%
26%
County of Monroe
Growtb Manaeement Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 400
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: (305) 289-2500
FAX: (305) 289-2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Dixie Spehar, Dist. I
Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson, Dist. 5
Cornm. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dist. 3
Comm. George Neugent, Dist. 2
Comrn. David P. Rice, Dist. 4
May 14,2003
Frank Greenman Esq.
Gulfside Village, Suite 40
Marathon, FL 33050
Dear Mr. Greenman:
I have reviewed the information you have provided to me in order to determine
whether or not the after the fact rehabilitation that occurred on this structure
constitutes a substantial or a non substantial improvement. My review included
comparing an April 18, 1997 appraisal, prepared by Mike Russo, a state registered
REA, to a February 10, 2003 appraisal prepared by Robert J. Tedesco, state
registered residential REA. I also compared the values on the property tax card
from the year 1997 to the year 2002 using the current formula of property
appraiser's depreciated building value plus twenty percent (20%) to determine
whether the after the fact improvements exceeded the 50% improvement threshold.
As you know the property tax card appraiser notes say the home has been gutted and
rebuilt plus an addition. There were many discrepancies in the documentation I had
to review and the 1997 appraisal did not have a breakdo\Vll between the building
valuation and the land valuation. The 1997 market value was $325,000 and the
2003 market value is 575,000. This is a 57% increase, but it is inconsequential to
the building value review.
The current property record card indicated that a 782 SF enclosed porch had been
rehabilitated into floor living area. However this appears to be incorrect because
the 1997 appraisal shows this is living area except for 493 square feet, which was an
attached garage. There is a 624 square foot screened porch addition and a 165
square foot porch addition. These additions and the interior rehabilitation were
done after hurricane Georges and without pemrits.
County of Monroe
The 1997 depreciated building value was $48)23,00. Using current methods
pursuant to the Monroe County Code adding 20% to this value the total would be
$57,867.00. Forty-nine.nine percent of that value is $77,098.00 This would be
non-substantial because the 2002 depreciated building value is $72, 286.00. The
structure would still have $4,812.00 before the substantial threshold has been
reached. However the additions of the 624 SF screen porch and the 196 SF porch
must be considered.
Iv1eans Construction Manual calculates an average porch at 24.10 per square foot.
820 SF x $24.10/SF totals an improvement value of $19,620.00. This would
exceed the non-substantial threshold. Additionally several potential buyers have
said that the 701 square foot storagelbath part of the structure is not in very good
condition. Some indicated there were some cracked walls. This repair would still
need to be figured into the calculations.
This type of after the fact review is difficult at best. However, based upon the
information you provided and the Ivlonroe County tax records, it is my opinion that
this structure has been substantially improved and after the fact and to complete
pennits may only be issued if this structure is elevated to or above the base flood
elevation.
If you have any questions or additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (305) 289-2518.
Dianne Bair, CF
Floodplain Administrator
cc: Timothy J. McGarry, Director, Growth l\1anagement
2
County of Monroe
Growth Mana\;!ement Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 400
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: (305) 289.2500
FAX: (305) 289.2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Murray Nelson, DisL 5
Mayor Pro Tern David P. Rice, Dis1. 4
Comm. Dixie Spehar, Dist. 1
Corom. George Neugent, Dist. 2
Carom. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dis1. 3
January 26, 2004
Tracy M. Baker
15 Boulder Drive
Bay Point, FL 33040
RE: permit application 041-306, RE#OO 161250 000000
Dear Mr. Baker
This letter is to inform you that the structure referenced above built before the
current elevation requirements were in effect is nonconforming to the elevation
requirements contained in Section 9.5-317 of the Monroe County Code and subject
to non substantial improvements requirements, more commonly known as the 500/0
rule. These ground level structures are knmvn as pre-FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate
Map) structures.
Federal law, state law and the MOlioe County Floodplain Management Ordinance
require that improvements to pre-FIRM ground level structures be limited to less
than 50% of the market value of the existing structure without being subject to the
elevation requirements. The Malioe County Floodplain Management Ordinance
defines market value as the Monroe County Property Appraiser's depreciated value
of the structure plus 20%.
I am enclosing a letter to !\1r. Frank Greenman, attorney at law, dated May 14, 2003
from me. Mr. Greenman requested a determination as to whether or not the
building had been substantially damaged during hurricane Georges. The review of
the information he provided resulted in a determination that the structure had been
substantially damaged and some work had been done to repair the structure and add
to the structure without benefit of a permit The end result is that "after the fact"
County of Monroe
and "to complete" permits may only be issued if the structure is brought into
compliance with the elevation requirement for substantially damaged buildings.
I
You have the right to appeal this decision. If you choose to do so, please obtain an
application form from the Planning Coordinator's office (305) 289-2500. An appeal
must be filed within 30 working days of this decision and be accompanied by all
non-refundable applicable filing fees.
If you would like to discuss your situation you may contact Dianne Bair at (305)
289-2518
Sincerely,
Dianne Ba'
Special Projects Administrator
2
PART B:
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
APPLICATION
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
TO PLANNTNG COMMISSION
Please note that the evidence and record which forms the basis for the appeal must be submitted with this
application.
If new evidence or the basis for appeal is submitted at the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning
Staff will request that the hearing be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting in the area (six
weeks) so that the staff has the opportunity to prepare a response to the new evidence.
If the applicant does not submit the basis for the appeal with the application, the Planning Staff will
recommend denial of the appeaL
PLEASE COMPLETE ALL OF THE FOLLO\\-lNG INFORMATION:
1) DECISION BEING APPEALED:_Denial ofpennit application
2)
DATE OF DECISION BEING APPEALED:
June 30, 2005
3) APPELLANT:
Name:_.Tracy M. Baker
Address:_15 BouJderDrive
City/StatelZip:_Baypoint, FL 33040
Phone Number: (Home)
(Work)
(Fax)
4) AGENT (If Applicable) :
Name:
Franklln D. Greenman, Esq.
Address:
5800 Overseas Highway, Suite 40
City/State/Zip:_ Marathon, FL 33050
Phone Number:(Home)
(Work)_(305)743-2351_(Fax)~(305)743-6523
APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT A NOTARIZED LETTER AUTHORIZING THE AGENT
TO ACT ON HIS BEHALF AND STATING THE AGENT'S NAME~ ADDRESS, PHONE
AND FAX NUMBER.
Page I of4
H:\Greenman\Active\Baker, Trncy\App!ication for Administratiye Appeal to Planning Commission. wpd
. 1/2005
5) OWNER:
Name:_Same as applicant
Address:
City /State/Zip:
Phone Number: (Home)
(Work)
(Fax)
6)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Lot:_8
Block: 7
Subdivision:_Bay Point Amended Plat, Saddlebunch Keys, PB3, page 75
If in metes and bounds, attach legal description on separate sheet. Also,
KEY:
MM:
7)
A)
LAND USE DESIGNATION,_IS
B) REAL ESTATE NUl\'ffiER(S):_ 00161250-000000 Alternate Key #1206822
8) A COpy OF THE BASIS FOR THE APPEAL IN THE NATURE OF AN INITIAL BRIEF
AND ANY EVIDENCE INCLUDING TESTIMONY, AFFIDAVITS AND THE
CURRICULUM VITAE OF ANY EXPERT WITNESS THAT WILL BE CALLED MUST
BE ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION The brief must at a minimum state aU
grounds for the appeal, including, but not limited to, the law being appealed and any facts
necessary interpretation of those laws. (Attach additional sheets of paper if necessary.)
9) NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL EXPERT\\-1TNESSES THAT YOU PROPOSE TO
CALL AT THE HEARING:
Appraisers, Construction Value Appraisers and Licensed Contractors
10)
Are there any pending codes violations on the property? Yes_....
No
If yes, please explain: _50% rule asserted without factual basis.
Page 2 of 4
H:\Grecnmanv\ctive\Baker, Trncy\Application for Administrative Appeal!o Planning Commission,v.-pd
1/2005
~
11) A copy ofthe document(s), which comprise the administrative decision being appealed.
A copy of the letter from Dianne Bair dated June 30, 2005 is attached hereto.
12) TYPED NAME AND ADDRESS MAILING LABELS of all adjacent landowners must accompany
this application. Also; please provide the listing of the names, subdivision name, lot and
block # and the RE #'s for each address and note those that are adjacent to the property.
(Adjacent landowner means an owner of land sharing a boundary with another parcel of
land. An intervening road, right-of-way, easement or canal does not destroy the adjacency
of tbe two parcels.) ATTACHED
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of
my knowledge such information is true, complete and accurate.
S-\\~o~
Date
Sworn bAore me this
of .,_JC~ \,.) S\-
-t41
\ \ day
,20 OS-
A.D.
JENNIfER MAZZEO
MY COMMISSION f DO 226251
EXPIRES: June 24, 2007
BondodThruN<:<\aly~~
[5J1E ~ IE ~ Wi IE ~
trn AUG 1 2 2005 lW
MONROE CO, PLANNING DEPT.
Page 3 of 4
H:\Greenman'Active\Bakcr, Tracy\Application for Administrative Appeal to Planning Commission. wpd
li200S
THE FOLLO\\'L"l"G INFORl\lATION l\lAY BE REQUIRED WITH YOUR APPLICATION:
Note: If supporting data such as blueprints or surveys are larger than 8 ~ x 14 inches, tbe
applicant shall submit sixteen (16) copies of each.
. 16 Photographs ofthe subject property.
· Surveyor site plan showing aU proposed structures or subjects of this appeal.
APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR AND WITH THE PLANNli~G COORDINATOR WITBL~ 30 WORKING
DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
THE It'OLLOWING NON-REFUNDABLE FEES MUST ACCOMPANY ALL APPEAL
APPLICATIONS:
a) $250.00 Appeal Application Fee
b) $3.00 Notification fee per adjacent property owner.
c) $245.00 per Newspaper advertisement. ( X 3 newspapers).
Your check should be made payable to: "Monroe County Planning Department" and submitted
with your application to:
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Attn: Planning Commission Coordinator
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410
Marathon, FL 33050-2227
AND
A copy of the application to:
Tom Willi, Monroe County Administrator
The Gato Building
1100 Simonton Street, Key West, FL 33040
PURSUAt"llT TO SECTION 286.0105, FLORIDA STATUTES, NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT IF A
PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WITH RESPECT TO A.NY MATTER CONSIDERED AT SUCH HEARING OR MEETING, THAT
PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT, FOR SUCH PURPOSE
THAT PERSON MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. SUCR RECORD TO BE AT THE COST OF THE
APPELLANT. ALSO, MONROE COUNTY RESOLUTION #131-1992 REQlJIRES THAT "IF A
PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HE
SHALL PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING BEFORE THE PLA.NNING
COMMISSION, PREPARED BY A COlJRT REPORTER AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE,
WHICH TRANSCRIPT SHALL BE FILED AS PART OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL WITHIN
THE TIME PROVIDED Ll\i SECTION 9.5-521(f), MONROE COUNTY CODE."
Please Note: A transcript made from recordings or other secondary means does not provide
a sufficiently accurate record of all the speakers. Therefore, such "secondary" transcripts
Page 4 of 4
H:\Greenman\Active\Baker, Tracy\.-'\pplication for Admimstrative Appelllto Planning Commission.wpd
li2005
may not be accepted as a valid verbatim transcript.
Page 5 of 4
H:\Grccnman\Active\Bakcr, Tracy\Application for Auminisl1""'...{ive Appeal to Planning Commission, wpd
If2005
PART B:
SURROUNDING PROPERTY
OWNERS
:>mooth Feed Sheets™
i
~
I
I
B
.
~
:f
~
;;
!
~
f
~'
~
f"
~
~
Zc
'~
i
I
! . dDonald R. &Suzanne Dobeasky
I 19 Boulder Drive
, Key West, FL 33040
Jacques C. & Colette Vivien
10 Boulder Drive
Key West, FL 33040
. Donald R &Suzanne Dobeasky
19 Boulder Drive
Key West, FL 33040
Jacques C. & Colette Vivien
10 Boulder Drive
Key West, FL 33040
Jacques C. & Colette Vivien
10 Boulder Drive
Key West, FL 33040
Donald R. &Suzanne Dobeasky
19 Boulder Drive
Key West, FL 33040
8AVERY@
Address labels
Gail M. Blair
1000 River Beach Dr, #415
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33315-1171
Gail M. Blair
1000 River Beach Dr, #415
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315~ 1171
Gail M. Blair
1000 River Beach Dr, #415
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315-1171
Use template for 5160@
Gary D. Parker
13 Boulder Drive
Key West, FL33040
Gary D. Parker
13 Boulder Drive
Key West, FL 33040
Gary D. Parker
13 Boulder Drive
Key West, FL 33040
las~r
"1 ,:;.o@
Property Information for 1206822
Page 1 of2
HQI!l~
.P~I!B1:lrn.ltoll
E.um.p1lq.M
91tfi.llJ:J:!.~t;LCCJJtg~
Form!!:
Alll: 1;;. 100S '}:42.\M
C9.l1!il~tth~.Y,'c\lIu'!~wr .
ONLINE DATA CENTER
RECORDS SEARCH
PROPERTY INFORMATION FOR:
Alternate Key; 1206822
RE Number: 00161250-000000
{ . Print J t Search Again. 1
[
Email this office about this parcel.
J
Property Details
(
]
Show Property Map
OWNER OF RECORD
BAKERTRACYM
15 BOtJLDERDR
KEY WEST FL 3304(J
PHYSICAL LOCATION
f 5 BOULDER DR SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BK 7 L1' 8 BA Y POINT AMENDED PLAT SADDLEBUNCH KEYS PB3-75 OR580-226 OR691-54Q!C OR727-392 OR792-764
OR1090-883(CSP) OR J 511-1755(ND) OR l609-2363(JMH) OR 1728-976(CH) OR 1906-73(CMS)
SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE
08 - 67 - 27
MILLAGE GROUP
lJOC
[EstimateTaHes]
PC CODE
Ol - SINGLE FAMILY
Buildin!! Details
NUMBER OF BUILDINGS
I
Nu",mER OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
o
TOTAL LIVING AREA
2038
YEAR BUILT
1958
Land Details
LA.lIiD USE CODE
OIOW - RES WATERFRONT
r Parcel Value History
TAX ROLL YEAR BUILDING MISCELLANEOUS LAND JUST EXEMPTIONS (NOT TAXABLE
IMPROVEME1'."TS INeU/DING SENIORS)
2004 200,629 16,662 460,500 677.791 0 677.791
2003 J82,595 6,901 383,l36 572.632 () 572,632
2002 144,998 7.108 299,325 451,4]] 0 45L431
r ~~~~~~ ~~;~~{~(~::l:: ARE TYPICALLY TWO TO THRU;MONTIlS 11[lI1N1) FROM THE llATE OF SALE. IF A RECENT SALE DOES
LA."!D AREA
23025 SF
http://v.'Ww .mcpafl.org/ datacenterlsearchlrecord.asp
8115/2005
Property Information for 1206971
MONROE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER
Page 1 of 1
PROPERTY INFORMATION FOR:
Alternate Key: 1206971
RE Number: 00161400-000000
Property Details
Q~~.!t1l.QEJ:U:J;QRQ
PKOrERTYMM
llOC
rCCQ.I"!'I;
I
I
/
/
t
VIVIEN JACQUES C & COLETTE
10 BOULDER DR
KEY \VEST FL 33040
PRXSI{;M,J,,!J)c~]IQN.
10 BOULDER DR SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
LJj:GAl,Jl~!l:~lln'T!Q['I
BK 7 L T 23 BAY POINT AMENDED PLA T
SADDLEBUNCH KEYS PB-3-75 OR458.267/268 OR600.
659DfC OR 784.307 OR905-1659 OR 1987" J I 76Q/C(LGl
SIj:QlQN. TQWJSSHU',RANG.l!;
08 - 67 - 27
M!M.AGK.GRmL!':
160840
1812g(}
01" SINGLE FAMILY
Building Details
NVMJ!!i;'!~_QE.BJiUJ!It':GS
1
N!.JMJUUtOF.CQM.M.ERQALJl!JUA)lNQS
o
T9IAL}AYH'iGARtA
960
Ylj:ARB1JJLT
1979
Land Details
LA)",JU,lSf;(:QQ!j:
OIOC - RESIDENT tAL CANAL
Parcel Value History
LA1~ltA~A
14600 SF
TA:\:RQ!"J,X~AR
6!J.!LVJi'!.G
1~1JSCEL1A)',-f;mJS
IMrRQ\:'El\lENTS.
2,492
2,545
2,610
L.A!'!P
,fYS]'
E~.":!'!IJ>TIQ,~S.(NQI
IN~I,.t!JJ'NGSC!\;N'QRS)
25,GOO
25.000
25.00{)
TA~Al!L(
2004 125,740
2003 125.740
2002 153,508
Parcel Sales History
NDTK.-.QrRJl,~(:QRnS.,c\ltE "[n'J(:A!'L):.IWQ!JtTHIU:Kl\:lQN:nj$l!~UU"PXR9~:l:m~::..Q,.ru;mS,:\.l,f::,
1'SQT,':t!:l.m!IJ!'J'Lf.;.3+~ J:. .GJU;QFRQf!-IU:T VtIL!.J!J'RQ<.;;ESS .11..
QFII.(lAl.,RI;;.CQI.W$
BQQ.KfPA.GE
219.000
102,200
80.300
347,232
230.485
236,4 18
128,019
125.166
121.647
. IF Am;q;~r ..S,-\l..E PQ!;"5
S,4J,.l,': .PATIj:
PRICE
INSTltlJi\lEl'iT
03/1984
90Sil659
784/307
HlOOOO
13500
WI)
00
0311979
http://www.mcpaflorg!datacenter/search/record.asp
7/27/2005
Property Information for 1206962
MONROE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER
Page 1 of 1
PROPERTY INFORJ'\1ATION FOR:
Alternate Key: 1206962
RE Number: 00161390-000000
Property Details
QWNER.Qf.RIf.cQ.R~
BLAIR GAIL /vi
1000 RIVER REACH DR #415
r'T LAUDERDALE FL 33315-1171
P!:!YS.KM,UtCATJ9.l\'
SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
LEGAJ"..P~.CID.IT!QN
BK 7 LT 22 BA Y POfNT AMENDED PLAT
SADDLEBUNCH KEYS PB3-75 OR450-663!64 OR784-
1360/61 (UNR Die ON FILE-BLAIR ROBERT JAMES)
eMS
SEQIQN.IQWK!lJ!!!.'.RANGE
08-67-27
Mn,MGEGRQYP
!Joe
PC.c.QJJfj;
00 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL
Land Details
PRQI'F.:.RT'L.MAJ.'
1(J1:J70
::\)
l,J.\;,,!Q.A.REA
12295 SF
.LAN!UJ$J;; J';QQf,
M 1 OC - RESIDENTIAL CANAL
Parcel Value History
Parcel Sales History
i'.{QIE.-(lU~.RELQRP'~,:!gK]:n~t(~A!".kL]}\!Q..m:mR,f;K,~m~JJ:Is.!!l':1:lJN!~.~]{Qt\-!JliE._JlATEQI'.S,~k_E, _.IF ,.1'_ Rf;<::l':NT.SA-I>E.POES
ri([L.s!;UJ~:.lLl:'.nMI:>E__mYJ:;QI!RQEf1(t._T!.M.j:;IQPRili~t~~_ .IT.
QffI.ClA1.RE,CQRQS
BOOK[PAgli;
784/1360
TAitROl"I,.YtAR
2004
2003
2002
!\-tJ~C:!CMAI"J;QlJS
JJ'1P...RQYI:;~U;NTS
o
o
o
Bun.,JJ:I.N(;
o
o
o
LMP
122,950
73,770
49,180
EX~MITJQN$.(NQT
INC:~!'!PlNGSE.NIQR$)
o
o
o
73,770
49,1&0
JUST
122,950
73,770
49.180
T AXA8.LE
122,950
SALIf IM-,n:
03/1979
PRICE
INs:nH1M.ENT
12500
00
http://www .mcpafl.org! datacenter! search/record. asp
7/27/2005
Property Information for 1206814
MONROE COUNTY PROPERTY ApPRAISER
Page 1 of 1
PROPERTY INFORMATION FOR:
Alternate Key: 1206814
RE Number: 00161240-000000
Property Details
Q"'Nf,RQf.'J:~ECQR!!
PARKER GARY D
l3 BOULDER DR
KEY WEST FL 33040
f'.UYS.ICA,t,.J.A2CAUQN
JJ BOULDER DR SADDLEBUNCH KEY
LEQALD!';$_(:RlfTIQN
BK 7 L1 7 HAY POINT AMENDED PLAT PH3-75
SADDLEBUNCH KEYS OR580-226 OR691-54-QiC
OR I09U-S83(CSP) OR 151 1-1755(ND) OR 1565-366(CW}
OR 1 754-1640{CTT) OR 1759-985/86QC!MR(JMH)
SJ,:(,:::npJS._IQWN.~HIP'"RANGE
08 - 67 - 27
~ULkAQK.G..RQl'r
1I0e
K.C.QJ)~
01 - SINGLE FAMILY
Building Details
NJJM!!!i!!'Qt:.B!-J1!,Q1N,(!S
1
Nl'MP.KR.QECQMME!!.t:;;IM. Jl~u'J)l!'!G~
(}
('RVl'Elrl'YMA!'
./
/
1612aq
"1240
. '!l,4>-
,'Q'\
~r
7
TQIAI,_L!YJl'~(G .ARfA
1686
Y!';ARBU!!"T
2001
La nd Details
LAN!l.LLSI:..CQJ)f
OWv.'. RES WATERFRONT
Parcel Value History
LANPAR!';A
13888 SF
Jiv!1P!NG.
JVSI
2004 233,856
2003 233,856
2002 207,880
Parcel Sales History
t'j(![[-.Q !}R...R!t:~PJ!J>'$,AR!'::.:rX~IL~.U,)'!'Y>:QIQ..Tl:!fI.!;;r.,\'mNJIL!i ..!I~.IIJNJ>'. fgQM,:m.E.p,~T!;:.m:.S,:~!f,
NQT sHO'LEe.!.'.Ll':ASF; <;lYE Q!IRQf:"fIC[:T!iI'r~ TO !'RQ(F;~;UT,
QHJ(;:~AL..REmgp5
BOOK/PAGE
1754/1640
15651366
1511/1755
TA,l!.:...RQJ.,I,YE;i\R
MlSCJi;.L.L^,~EQl)$
Ill-.1J'I:l.QYKMJi:NIS
12,492
12,954
7,604
LAc"!P
E..\.EM.f:!IQNS.CNQT
IN(J,!JPH~G_SJi:NI()I!$)
25,000
25,000
o
TA){;\BLE
410,473
402.354
29 L 868
347.200
180,544
76384
593,548
427354
291,868
SAl.~;J);\.J:I~
() !/2002
03! 1999
04/1998
IfAltr<:fNTSALE H9E.S
PRlC!;;
li'I~TRl,!MKNT
550000
80000
I
WI)
WD
WD
http://www .rncpafl.org/ datacenter! search/record. asp
7/27/2005
Property Information for 1206849
MONROE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER
Page 1 of I
PROPERTY INFOR,\1ATlON FOR:
Alternate Key: 1206849
RE Number: 00i61270-000000
Property Details
Q~lSEJLQfRE.CORQ
DOBEASKY DONALD R AND SUZANNE
19 BOULDER DR
KEY WEST FL 33040
l'ID'$ICALL9<'-<.\II9N
19 BOULDER DR SADDLEBUNCH KEY
LEGJ\.!.".DES~InLO.N"
BK 7 LOTS 9 & 10 BAY POINT AMENDED PLAT PB3-
75 SADDLE BUNCH KEYS ORI03-284!285 OR471.659
OR654--686 OR 754-67} OR905-1361 Die OR908-976D/C
OR 1046-605 OR1154-2435 OR1524-1090RfS OR2
SECTIW"J~.IQWNSJmJ.....RA,.~(',&
08 - 67 - 27
MUA,b~..LGB9H
HOC
r.C.C9P..E
01 . SINGLE F AMIL Y
Building Details
Ny~iBJ:;R~Qf.BJ/Jl.!ut'iG~
I
NUM~E!LQI.C9MMEB~.IAL.BlJJ1m.N:Qi:i
o
rRQP!;:BJ]:,MA.I'
T.Q.T.~k.LJYJlS.!.i.A.IDkA
1828
nARB.!JU...T
1958
Land Details
kfu"{P_ USECQI~!,;
o I OW - RES WATERFRONT
MlOW - RES WATERFRONT
Parcel Value History
LA"{Q.A~A
1 2594 SF
14988 SF
BE!J,PJNG
J.UST
2004 134.620
2003 134,620
2002 104.696
Parcel Sales History
NQr!:; .~.. QE!L!i.H;QR!.1~..~.g~..D:J:'JI~A!,t.-..Y.:nn.LrQ!JJJu':.!,:.~fQ],f[t!!'i.JH;JUN.Q..fR.n.M..TUKJ1~:[t.()ESc\.U;.,
l'DT..$.liQ~Y ..t!,J~L}:;'$t;.GJyt:..QJJB.QIfJ~~..T!~!.)'LT..Q..rHQ(~;;,<;.J'r,
QEflGAL..REm@$
699!0'I'.AG!!=
I 524!1090
[ 154/2435
471/659
TA'!(.RQJ,J"..Y..!!:AB
MIS{:!;.t.-J.AN'&QUS
IlYl.J).R9Y.EME.l'!IS
7,186
7,454
7,712
LANP
E~Ji~I\1rIlQNS.{NQI
L"{CL.!JPIN.Q)$tt'imR1!)
o
o
o
T;\x.Alll.E,
621,524
440,688
373,552
479,718
298,614
26],144
621,524
440,688
373.55:2
SAbl':D.ATE
06/1 998
12/1990
02!197 1
http://www .mcpafl.org/ datacenter/searchlrecord.asp
Jr.^- .B,L(.t;~T..S,\I,EJ)(}J;S
PRtCE
J1'l.~:Rl.iMf;NT
360000
215000
17000
WD
WD
00
7/27/2005
PART B:
APPLICANT'S BASIS FOR APPEAL
The Appellant, Dr . Tracy Baker, removed a below foot area kitchen and interior partition
walls, and a bathroom, and porch. He converted what was previously a substandard apartment
into a storage area. He replaced the damaged original flooring with flood resistant tHe on the
floor but failed to use flood resistant dry walL The demolition of this sum said apartment, and
its conversion into a storage area was done without benefit of a permit. The purpose of this
appeal is to allow him to obtain an after-the-fact permit to complete the storage area using flood
resistant dry wall on the pre-existing walls.. It is uncontroverted that the removal of the kitchen,
porch and bathroom, flooring, and partition walls greatly exceed in value the replacement of
flood resistant floor tiles and wallboard and the conversion of this former living area into a
storage area
The "substantial improvement" criteria found in section 9.5-317 are inappropriately and
incorrectly applied in the June 30 letter. The effect of the letter is to require the destruction of
substantial portion ofthe property owner's residence. More significantly, the property owner was
not given an opportunity to present any information or evidence that would alter the
conclusions based on incorrect assumptions found in the June 30 letter. The private appraisals
provided were disregarded because they did not match the conclusions predetermined in the
letter. Specifically;
1. Section 9.5-316.2 allows "Market Value" to be established by property appraisals
submitted by the applicant. In the June 30 letter, the County relies on the
Monroe County Property Appraisers valuation for the determination of "market
value" before hurricane George at $69,923. In that same letterreference is made
to the private appraisal that the applicant provided for 1997, over a year before
Hurricane Georges, that established the value of the home at $325,000. There
is no reason given why the lower Property Appraisers value was utilized in
determining Market Value in light of the qualified appraisal provided.
2. There is no attempt in the June 30 letter to place a value on the construction
improvements to the house. The determination that it is a "Substantial
Improvement" in excess of 50% of the value of the property has no basis in fact
presented by the applicant or the county.
3. Section 9.5-316.2 allows the County Building Official to consider the cost
approach in determining the value of the construction "consistent with local
construction costs. The County has made no effort whatsoever to determine the
value of the construction. That section goes to state, "where the cost approach
is not accepted by the staff because it appears to be inconsistent with local
construction costs, an applicant may request review by an independent third-
party appraiser duly authorized by the County." The property owner was not
only not given any value for the construction improvements I but he was not
afforded the opportunity for third-party review that is authorized by the Code.
4. The post Hurricane Georges increase in value is attributed entirely to the alleged
construction improvements with no consideration whatsoever for the substantial
increase in property values that has occurred throughout the County.
5. The county is failed to take into consideration that the construction
improvements alleged to be a "Substantial Improvement" in excess of 50% of the
value of the home was in fact the demolition of a pre.existing below flood
residential apartment and its replacement with a dedicated storage area using
flood resistant materials. The property owner's activity seems to be more
consistent with the policies and purposes of our Code and Comprehensive Plan
than is taken into consideration in the June 30 letter.
PART B:
STAFF DETERMINATION BEING
APPEALED
County of Monroe
/,Ii! I. /1 t"
, -> V i f ~ ..
V ~
"j{
:':1.;'
!
Growth MAnill!:ement Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 400
Marathon. Florida 33050
Voice' (305) 289-2500
FAX: {3(5) 289-25%
Iloard of County Commissionep;
Mayor Dixie Spehar, Dlst. 1
Mayor Pro Tem Charl~ "Sonny. McCoy. Dist 3
Comm. George Neugent. Disl. 2
Comm. David P. Ri<:e. Pist. 4
Comm, Murray Nel.s<:>n. Dist 5
June 30, 2005
Tracy M. Baker
15 Boulder Drive
Baypoint, FL 33040
RE: Permit application 05-1-3369: RE#OOI61250-0000000
Dear Mr .Baker:
This letter is to inform you that your application for a permit to remove drywall
below base flood elevation and replace it ,vith flood resistant material is denied.
This letter follows a previous denial letter dated February 11, 2004, regarding
permit application 04-1-306 for an after the fact lower enclosure flood repairs and
removal of a damaged shed roof.
As you are aware, I have been providing infonnation to your attorney Mr. Frank
Greenman and you on a periodic basis since 2003, with regard to the issues of this
home being substantially improved without benefit of permits. While the
substantial improvements made to the structure immediately after Hurricane
Georges are protected from code enforcement proceedings by the four. year statute
of limitations, the building department cannot issue permits for a substantially
improved building below base flood elevation unless it comes into compliance with
the Florida Building t-ode and County Code.
The structure referenced above was built in 1958, before the current elevation
requirements were in effect and is nonconforming to the floodplain elevation
requirements of Section 9.5-317, Monroe County Code. It is subject to the
substantial improvement regulations, more commonly knO\VIl as the 50% rule, that
apply to ground level structures built prior to the County's participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program. Federal and state laws and the Monroe County
if
County of Monroe
floodplain regulations governing these structures require that improvements to
ground level structures pre-existing prior to the County's participation be limited to
less than 50% of the market value of the existing structure without being subject to
the elevation requirements.
In my letter to Mr. Greenman, dated May 14, 2003, the following facts led to my
determination that the structure was substantially improved after Hurricane
Georges.
(1. The 2003 Property Tax Card contained the following appraiser's notes;
"The SFR has been gutted, and is being rebuilt plus an addition. The sale
was more or less a land purchase, " The Property Appraiser's buildmg
values for the structure in 1998 (pre Hurricane Georges) and 2002 were
$69,923 and $144,998 respectively. 49.9 percent of $69,923 yields a figure
of $34,891, which is the maximum value of improvement that would be
allowed under the County's regulations to be considered a non-substantial
improvement. Therefore, the 2002 building value of $144,998, which was
without benefit of any permits, is substantially beyond this threshold.
(2. The 1997 property tax card and the 2003 property tax card showed different
building layouts for the structure, including additions.
(3. The 1997 and 2003 appraisals showed different interior layouts including
additions. The Area Calculation Sununary for the 1997 and 2003 appraisals
had the gross living area (GLA 1) at 1511.50 square feet and 1738.50 square
feet respectively. The estimated market value in the 1997 appraisal was
$325,000 and $525,000 in the 2003 appraisal with the depreciated building
value in 2003 of 165,580.
The work in progress on the structure, which was stopped by code enforcement, is
not subject to the statute of limitations regarding the improvements made over four-
years ago. Mr. Greenman was advised by Ronda Norman, Director of Code
Enforcement, that based on the substantial damage determination of the May 14,
2003 letter, the remedy to settle the code enforcement case is to bring that portion of
the structure subject to the code enforcement proceedings, back to its original block
wall construction. No after-the-fact or new permits can be issued to authorize the
cited unlawful improvements, as the building has been determined to be
substantially improved, unless the building is elevated to or above base flood
2
County of Monroe
elevation and brought into compliance with all applicable building and development
codes.
You have the right to appeal this decision. I have enclosed an application for your
convenience. An appeal must be filed within 30 working days of this decision and
be accompanied by a non-refundable filing fee of $250.00, a non-refundable
newspaper advertising fee of $245.00 for each newspaper ($245.00 x 3, $735.00)
and a non-refundable notification fee of $3.00 for each adjacent property owner. If
you do not appeal this decision your application \'liB be closed.
Your application will be placed on hold pending notification from you as to how
you ,'lish to proceed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (305) 289-2518.
Sincerely,
IJ~~
Dianne Bair, CFM
Special Projects Administrator
Growth Management Division
Cc: Pennitting File
Ronda Norman, Director, Code Enforcement
Procraft of South Florida
PO Box 1964
Big Pine Key, FL 33043
3
1J'
PARTe:
PHOTOS
PART C:
FEES AND RECEIPT
'g;n ro
~ t(~ ill
'~J !-c'" ;K
.-:! tlJ I\}
M ~ f"'i
;:d ...:s
p'r
'0
Of--' 'U
en co (\)
I ~., 'C'iJ
f--' t"0 }......J
(.J1
0'\ I
I
H";r.:j :1J
Q., ri Q.,
I.Q 0; 0-
n r"
'< f"
!-_.
tJj 0
OJ ~
x- OJ
ill 1--'
H
H-,
f-"
3:: I--'
f-'.
:::l
U t.Q
H"1
ill
ill
N
X
::l
(D
:s
~
'U
OJ
'd
(\)
. <' H
",0::1..
~3i: ill
):0> ,. Q.,
:o~~ <:
~~~r ill
. ;n~~ H
It
~.~~ f-'.
Ol
'-'4{/) (l)
.~
:3
(\)
::l
rt
'I
(lJ'
.... 0:.
0 0..
0 t:-".
r rt
p.
.JJ b
u.J :::l
1.P ~
Ih-<
"io
1fT>'
- Jf"
.. '"
0 f!.-I.
Q":l :D
-...:I <4:1'
0 tttJ
0 rD
.c (I)'
M.I .,...ioo,:..
OJ r0
0 1
-
.. ::il
(l)
U1 ::E:
0 iJ)
'D'
-...:I l>>
0 'tl
- C1'J
l.P '1
-
OJ
M.I
0
l.P
....
OJ'-,'::::.:':" ,".-:':',:: :,0 '~-~:,:_:,'-- :-::-: ,'_.' .: .
Pl...... "064:'0 ."
~..' "T1::oq~
(D....... .......~......
H ." ",.....
....... .......:0111
_.Oi'. ' i::;;:.Nr3:i .
.vPJ..:..J O.
'E' . '.Ii" \0 ;:J
~ . QJillK
~ rf ...0'
f--' :.TO ill
0<:
'::l(!) ()
, H 0
.. Ul r::
"1(Dti
.DO; rt
tJ) ':<. .'
w., u'
w::i:l..tt:1.
Of-'- f--'
(hu:::l. Pi
o ::r ::l
..J~.:::l
N.:PJ../-'.
N'< '.:J
N" ..0
-..J.'
[j)tJ
.>:;:(1).
f-'.ttj .
rtm
(!}:N
~
,c,.:3
+.... <D
"'0::;
It
>;-
*
*.
>I-
.*
'>1-
'>1-
*'.
*
*"
*"
*"
*
*.
*
>I-
*
'"
*
*
>I-
*
*".
>l-
*"
.>1-.
*
*
*
*
>I-
>I-
:>I-
>I-
*
o :
~ >I-
m *
*'
*
*
*
>I-
*
>I-
>I-
*
>I-
'0
o
'-
>l-'
3'::0
@o
Z
.-1
I
!
I
, .
i
,
o
jJ
N
m
c
I;/}
i5
z
:'!:j
C
::a
m
-tJ:l.
~
'\0
o
o
o
)
I
;
i
.~
ro:P'::c<nu
::C<03:::X:::C<
!-100M...::!
aoe M
ez
>--3Z>--3'#:
o >-3: ..
.{J}
Whi8:,:N3::G),l:>.O:J>
wt-iPJ-.....lOM\O.lO>C
o H '-C ::l Z 0 '-Ci.Q
U1 illcoHM' W
o rt" 0 "0011-"
I ::rortl:PO U1
1'0 o<:or .......
N ::JrDo 01'0
N H
-..J Ol C 0
ro ;::::l N U1
PJ It
UJ'<
::r:'""Cl
1--" I--'
t.Q~
::r,..;
:s :.:::l
PJ f-'.
,<::l
... I.Q
I'j)O
e ill
1-" 'Tj
rtO!
ill H
rt
~:3
I..->(l)
, :::l
Crt
c
c
+:::
((
u:
CT
003322
003322
GREENMAN & MANZ, A PARTNERSHIP
OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, IOTA TRUST ACCOUNT
5800 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, SUITE 40
MARATHON, FLORIDA 33050
(305) 743.2351
rhree Hundred Fifty *************************************************
63-928l6iO
4
00/100
DATE
Aug 12/2005
AMOUNT
$350.00
PAY
TOTHEMonroe County Planning Dept.
8~DEA
u.OO:l ;) 2 2111 1:0 b 700 'i 2801: 5070. b ,. 110
-Bf
3a ker appeal
..]:1 [<'II ~ 1"': .W=:(..:41: t:~"JI ~ .]11" W -:0:" J =1,l~ :(<'1 ;,01 ~l~ 't):.l :ll~i l::t .1:..l~1 t!:1 ::ti'il! ~.,. ;1:f~ToilWi:I:l'1 j,l::t ;aoi=l.... ~m,"";...iiI... ,.......",,-
11B ElANK OF THE KEYS 0 0 4 9 3 5
YOUR COMMUNITY !lANK
KEY LARGO, FL 33037
GREENMAN & MANZ, A PARTNERSHIP
OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
5SOO OVERSEAS HIGHWAY. SUITE 40
MARATHON, FLORIDA 33050
(305) 743.2351
One Hundred Seventy Five ******************************************** 00/100
fl3.{l281670
4
DATE
Aug 12/2005
AMOUNT
$175.00
ffi\HE r'1onroe County Planning Department
8~OER 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410
Marathon, FL 33050-2227
EO SIGNATURE
Baker appeal
e' Nt>
.._.c,..~ ___~~ .'____~_~_..__~__'-.-'--~_~~'_"..-..<_.-~<<
u'OO"'11 3 Su' 1:0 b 700 q 2801: so 70 ~ b .820(;11'