Resolution 330-1998
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 330 -1998
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 BENEFICIAL USE
HEARING OFFICER, IN RE: MARY STERLING AND RAY HOWE BENEFICIAL USE
APPLICATION.
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became
effective; and
WHEREAS, the application of Mary Sterling and Ray Howe for determination of beneficial use
was heard on January 23, 1998, and was continued to May 28, 1998 by J. Jefferson Overby,
Hearing Officer, now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BYTHE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Beneficial Use
Determination of the Hearing Officer are APPROVED, and the application of Mary Sterling and
Ray Howe is accordingly APPROVED, subject to the restrictions contained in the Beneficial Use
Determination, dated July 29, 1998.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at
yes
.'
yes
absent
yes
yes
-""
i5 2
%. ~-
;0 C"') ::-,..:
or-'''.~
f"11 ~ ---.
("")', r-
o~'__
C......,ro.
%:"""0
-l r
-<("):;e
. :-' )>-
.."
r' G>
J> ('11
U)
co
~
en
N
...,
-
.-
(T1
Q
...,
_ 0
?Q
:::0
f'T\
("')
o
:::0
o
~
~
(,.)
N
a regular meeting of the Board held on the
12th
day of August, 1998.
Y L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE O~NTY, FLORIDA
"--.
~-
By
jbusterling
Mayor/Chairman
A~NPPRO\l, D/~/o ~PKM
y,
B.
. "",d;~) .
~ ' L
DATE ~ :S--S;a
-
BENEFICIAL USE
MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
In Re: Mary Sterling and Ray Howe- Beneficial Use
Application
/
PROPOSED
BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION
The above entitled matter was originally heard at a duly-advertised and regularly
scheduled, public hearing on January 23, 1998 and was continued to May 28, 1998, at the
request of the applicants, by J. Jefferson Overby, designated Vested Rights Special
Master. Mary Sterling, Applicant, represented herself and her co-applicant Ray Howe.
Assistant County Attorney Garth Coller and Planning Director Timothy J. McGarry,
Director of Planning represented Monroe County.
ISSUE
Whether the applicants will be denied all reasonable economic use of their
property by application of Policy 101.4.21 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 June/July, 1993, which
is a lot of record, located at Lot 17, Block 7, Coco Plum Beach Subdivision, Fat Deer
Key (RE #17-363780). The 15,620 square foot lot is zoned Suburban Residential (SR)
and is currently vacant. The lot is characterized as disturbed with Brazilian Pepper, an
invasive exotic.
2. The Applicants have already received a permit approval from:
a) the Monroe County planning department in September
1990, Minor Conditional Use Development Order #28-90, which provided for the transfer
of sufficient development rights to construct a single family house on the lot prior to the
2010 Plan.
3. County records show no other permits or other development approvals.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. The Applicant's lot is designated Suburban Residential (SR), which allows
one residential dwelling on this lot, except for the changes now occasioned by the 2010
Plan.
5. Application of Policy 101.4.21 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan has
rendered the lot unbuildable.
A. The applicants purchased sufficient TDR's to permit the building
of a single family detached residential dwelling prior to the 2010 Plan.
B. Development of a residential dwelling on the applicants' lot is
prohibited, because the subject lot is of insufficient size (less than 17,424 square feet) to
2
be in compliance with the allocated or maximum net densities allowed under Policy
101.4.21.
C. The New comprehensive plan had the effect of reducing the TDR
value of the property by 50%.
D. There are no variances or other administrative options are
available, because the current lot size would still render the property unbuildable.
6. 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, although the applicants have received a Minor
Conditional Use permit for development of this lot, which is located within an Suburban
Residential (SR) Subdivision; and
B. the extent to which the regulations have interfered with the
applicants' reasonable investment-backed expectation that some use could be made of
this lot.
7. The lot is located within an improved subdivision that is partly developed.
8. A strict application of Policy 101.4.21 would prevent or prohibit the
applicant from developing a single family dwelling on this lot.
9. Although just compensation is the preferred option under Policy 101.18.5,
neither the applicants nor the land authority are interested in acquisition of this isolated,
disturbed lot, which is located within the interior of a mostly-developed, small-lot
subdivision.
3
10. 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 applicants shall submit a complete application for a dwelling
unit allocation within six months.
2. This Beneficial use determination shall not exceed ten years and is
contingent upon the applicants' releasing Monroe County from all liability , if any, past,
present and future, with regards to the subject property.
3. The applicants shall be required to go through the County's Rate of
Growth Ordinance and shall be bound by all current and future County Land
Development Regulations, except as provided for in this determination to allow
construction of the single family residence.
4. The applicants shall have two-years from the date of their ROGO
award allocation to complete construction of the proposed dwelling.
DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of July, 199 .
4