Resolution 027-1999
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 027-1999
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 APPLICATION OF
JAMES W. DAVIDSON AND W. GREGORY ROBERTSON
...... \D."
..... CJ \D -
~ ).:'"' .." r
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Co~e1D'e @an
M:;X;-: I -rt
became effective; and g~~'''- N C>
WHEREAS, the application of James W, Davidson and W, Greg~~b~oior
..,., .. 0
r- (;')0 ::::0
determination of beneficial use was heard on August 18, 1998, by J. Jefferson?bv~by~pegal
Master, now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,
FLORIDA:
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Beneficial Use
Determination of the Special Master are APPROVED, and the application of James W.
Davidson and W. Gregory Robertson 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 13th day of
.January , 1999.
yes
yes
yes
no
ye.s
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY\?'~~~~~M.J
Depu Cler
.- ". ..'-.- ~
B~ .t.~.'--.-,_.~" .....~
Mayor/Chairman
jvrdavidson2
~.",
~ '.,,' "
BERT N. ~~
DATE /2 - Ii: ," Y"'Y;
BENEFICIAL USE
MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
In Re: James W. Davidson and
W. Gregory Robertson
Beneficial Use Application
/
FINAL BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION
The above entitled matter was originally heard at a duly advertised regularly scheduled.
public hearing in Marathon. Florida. on August 18. 1998. by J. Jefferson Overby. designated Beneficial
Use Special Master. James W. Davidson. Applicant. represented himself and the co-applicant W.
Gregory Robertson and Garth Coller. Esq. and Timothy J. McGarry. Planning Director represented
Monroe County.
ISSUE
Whether the applicants will be denied all reasonable economic use of this property by
application of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. and whether the applicants are 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 No. 052-1997 and the
Monroe County Code.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicants purchased the subject property in November. 1982. which are four (4)
contiguous lots of record. located in Coco Plum Beach Subdivision: Lot 1-A. Block 8; Lot 1-B. Block 8;
Lot 19-A. Block 7; and Lot 19-B. Block 7. All four lots are vacant. have waterfront access to canal or
Bonefish Bay. and are accessed by Avenue D. All lots are zoned Suburban Residential. The lot sizes
are: Lot 19-A. 14.250 sq. feet; Lot 19-B. 14.154 sq, feet; Lot 1-B. 24.233 sq. feet; Lot 1-A. 13.152 sq. feet.
The lots are generally scarified with some exotics.
2. The applicant. James W. Davidson. testified that he and his partner have paid
approximately $37.000 in costs to develop the property ($7.000 for attorney fees. $1.200 for survey.
$25.000 for transfer of TDR's. in excess of $6.000 for road and paving work).
3. The applicants received an approval of Development Order #23-93 on November 9.
1993 (this order granted the approval of the transfer of 2.489 development rights to the subject
property). In 1993. the applicants also received approval to re-plat Lots 19. Block 7 and Lot 1 into
two lots each. for a total of four lots.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. The applicants' property is zoned Suburban Residential (SR). SR zoning allows
detached dwellings and accessory uses. of as right; attached dwellings and low intensity
public/institutional uses. public and community parks as minor and major conditional uses. A
minimum lot size of two acres is required for construction of a single family dwelling. unless sufficient
TDR's are transferred to this site. Prior to the enactment of the 2010 Plan. in 1996. only one acre was
required. Therefore. no single family dwellings may be built. as is. on these four lots.
5. Application of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan has not rendered the property
unbuildable (except Lot 1-B is greater than the minimum size requirement of 17.424 sq. feet making it
eligible for development LE an additional 0.5 TDR is obtained). It should be noted that if Lot l-B is
used for affordable housing, no additional TDR's would be required. Although the remaining lots, as
configured, are not developable, they could be reconfigured/replatted or possibly rezoned and/or
developed for low intensity public and institutional uses.
A. The applicants' intentions, as evidence by their own testimony and their
expenditures of funds for infrastructure and TDR's and the obtaining of County permits, were to
develop four single family residences on the individually platted lots.
B. Because the applicants' lots are too small and due to the current zoning,
setback and open space requirements prevents or prohibits development of four residential
dwellings on this subject property.
C. The applicants could develop these properties for other than single family uses.
The applicants have never submitted an application or proposals for any other types of
development.
D. The lots have some reasonable economic use in terms of non-single family
development or for sale of partial TDR's.
E. Based upon the criteria as specified in Sec. 9.5-172(7) (physical continuity, unity
of ownership, and unity of use) the individual parcels should be considered as one parcel. rather
than four separate parcels.
6. The applicants have neither sought nor exhausted any relief afforded to all
applicants, such as variances or administrative appeals, exemptions, etc.
7. The current properties could also be aggregated with abutting/contiguous properties
to provide combined parcels of sufficient size to allow development as multiple single family
residences and other allowable uses.
8. Pursuant to Policy 101.18.5 and Section 4{D) of the Agreement between DCA and
Monroe County, the Board of County Commissioners considered:
A. the economic impact of the Policy (or regulations) that prohibits development
on the applicants' property; and
B. the extent to which the regulation has interfered with the applicants'
reasonable investment-backed expectation that some use could be made of this property.
9.
4, 1997.
The applicants have missed the deadline for filing for Vested Rights relief as of January
__WHEREFORE, after due consideration, the Board of County Commissioners hereby enters its
FiQetermination of Beneficial Use as follows:
/~'t..~'-'. .;~...
1/ ~;ln;e'Applicants' Request for Beneficial Use is hereby DENIED.
J
. ' =-,~' 1
._._::-_,~ .:..;,~~ ~:.,.,,;ti
'~:>J)1~,~N L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
.-:~~-.~...,~
By V. ITel ~~ NLt fl-.tI\.-;
Dep Cle ~
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA
By \..U ".~~...J "tV -:.. "-~ ~
Mayor/Chairman
BENEFICIAL USE
MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
In Re: James W. Davidson and W, Gregory Robertson-
Beneficial Use Application
I
PROPOSED DENIAL OF
BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION
The above entitled matter was originally heard at a duly-advertised and regularly
scheduled, public hearing in Marathon, Florida, on August 18, 1998, by J. Jefferson
Overby, designated Beneficial Use Special Master. James W. Davidson, Applicant,
represented himself and the co- applicant W, Gregory Robertson and Garth Collier, Esq,
and Planning Director Timothy J. McGarry, Director of Planning represented Monroe
County,
ISSUE
Whether the applicants will be denied all reasonable economic use of this property
by application of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, and whether the applicants are
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 Applicants purchased the subject property in November, 1982, which
are four (4) contiguous lots of record, located in Coco Plum Beach Subdivision: Lot I-A,
Block 8; Lot I-B, Block 8; Lot 19-A, Block 7; and Lot 19-B, Block 7. All four lots are
vacant, have waterfront access to canal or Bonefish Bay, and are accessed by Avenue D.
All lots are zoned Suburban Residential. The lot sizes are: Lot 19-A, 14,250 square feet;
Lot 19-B, 14,154 sq, feet; Lot I-B, 24,233 sq. ft.; and Lot I-A, 13,152 sq. ft. The lots are
generally scarified with some exotics,
2. The applicant, James W, Davidson, testified that he and his partner have
paid approximately $37,000 in costs to develop the properties ($7,000.00 for attorney
fees, $1,200.00 for survey, $25,000,00 for transfer ofTDR's, in excess of $6,000.00 for
road and paving work).
3, The applicants received an approval of Development Order #23-93 on
November 9, 1993 (this order granted the approval of the transfer of2.489 development
rights to the subject property) In 1993, the applicants also received approval to re-plat
Lots 19, Block 7 and Lot 1 into two lots each, for a total of four lots,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4, The Applicant's property is zoned Suburban Residential (SR). SR zoning
allows detached dwellings and accessory uses, as of right; attached dwellings and low
intensity public/institutional uses, public and community parks as minor and major
conditional uses, A minimum lot size of two acres is required for construction of a single
family dwelling, unless sufficient TDR's are transferred to this site, Prior to the
enactment of the 2010 Plan, in 1996, only one acre was required. Therefore, no single
family dwellings may be built, as is. on these 4 lots,
2
5. Application of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan has not rendered the
property unbuildable (except Lot I-B is greater than the minimum size requirement of
17,424 sq,ft, making it eligible for development IF an additional 0,5 TDR is obtained,) It
should be noted that if Lot I-B is used for affordable housing, no additional TDR's would
be required, Although the remaining lots, as configured, are not developable; they could
be reconfigured/ replatted or possibly rezoned and/or developed for low intensity public
and institutional uses.
A. The applicants' intentions, as evidenced by their own testimony
and their expenditure of funds for infrastructure and TDR's and the obtaining of County
permits, were to develop four single family residences on the individually platted lots.
B, Because the applicants' lots are too small and due to the current
zoning, setback and open space requirements prevents or prohibits development of four
residential dwellings on this subject property.
C. The applicants could develop these properties for other than single
family uses, The applicants have never submitted any applications or proposals for any
other types of development.
D. The lots have some reasonable economic use in terms of non-
single family development or for sale of partial TDR's.
E. Based upon the criteria as specified in Section 9.5-172 (7)
(physical continuity, unity of ownership, and unity of use ) the individual parcels should
be considered as one parcel, rather than four separate parcels.
6. The applicants have neither sought nor exhausted any reliefs afforded to
3
all applicants, such as variances or administrative appeals, exemptions, etc.
7, The current properties could also be aggregated with abutting/contiguous
properties to provide combined parcels of sufficient size to allow development as
multiple single family residences and other allowable uses.
8. 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 regulations) that prohibits
development on the applicant's property; and
B, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with the
applicant's reasonable investment-backed expectation that some use could be made of
this property.
9. The applicants have missed the deadline for filing for Vested Rights relief
as of January 4, 1997.
WHEREFORE, I recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that a final
beneficial use determination be denied as the applicants have failed to demonstrate that
this property has met the criteria for eligibility as set for in Section 9.5-171 (a) - (d) of the
Monroe County Code,
DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1998.
4