Resolution 331-1998
RESOLUTION NO. 331 -1998
County Attorney
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY. EVIDENCING THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A RECOMMENDED
VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION PROMULGATED BY THE VESTED RIGHTS
HEARING OFFICER. IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF LAWRENCE GRAPENTINE
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
became effective; and
WHEREAS, development applications "in the pipeline" as of January 4, 1996 are
subject to a determination of vested rights pursuant to Policy 101.18.1 of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the application of Lawrence Grapentine for determination of vested rights
was heard on April 27, 1998, by J. Jefferson Overby, Vested Rights Hearing Officer, 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 Vested Rights
Determination of the Vested Rights Hearing Officer are APPROVED, and the application of
Lawrence Grapentine 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 12th day of Au~s~ ':19;B.
::::0 n ::<:: c:: ",
g,z a") 0
yes CJ~~ N .."
yes on: 0
absent ~:;o;:-~: :::0
--.. 0 :-
Yes -inr:X:::O
:< -i::t: - CT1
Y l:! ~ " . 1> <;? C"')
r-C'>w 0
~ ,." ...... ::0
. ,- 0
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MO OE COUNTY, FLORIDA
~-
Mayor/Chairman
BEFORE THE VESTED RIGHTS HEARING OFFICER
Monroe County, Florida
InRe:
Grapentine, Lawrence
Eden Pines Colony, Lot 15, Big Pine Key
/
RECOMMENDED VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION
The vested rights application of Lawrence Grapentine was heard at a duly advertised and
regularly scheduled public hearing on April 27, 1998. The applicant was not present. RalfG.
Brookes, Esq. andTimothy J. McGarry, Director of Planning represented Monroe County.
Issue
Whether the applicant has demonstrated vested rights to develop this lot under the
policies set forth in the Year 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Objective 101.18, the
approved portions of Ordinance 052-1997 and Monroe County Code Sections 9.5-181 et.seq. (to
be administered and implemented as set forth in the "Agreement between the Department of
Community Affairs and Monroe County" dated February 23, 1998).
Pursuant to the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 101.18(2), the applicant "shall
have the burden of proving:"
(a) "the applicant has reasonably relied upon an official act of Monroe County,"
but also that:
(b) that the applicant made a "substantial change in position...; and
(c) that "development has commenced and continued in good faith without
substantial interruption."
Findings of Fact
The application states that the current owner purchased this lot in 1993, but is not
"financially able to build for several years to come." The application also states: "I do not have
any project history." (emphasis added). The application demonstrates that the owner never
applied for a building permit or ROGO allocation; stating "since the permits have expiration
dates, and I am not ready to build, I never applied."
Conclusions of Law
Platting alone is insufficient to demonstrate an act approving construction of a home on
this lot prior to the effective date ofthe 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Although a recorded plat
may constitute an official act under Policy 101. 1 8(2)(a), this applicant did not demonstrate any
reasonable reliance or a substantial change of position required to qualify for vested rights.
Further, the applicant did not demonstrate that development of this platted lot has commenced
and continued without substantial interruption under the third prong of the vested rights
analyses set forth in Policy 101.18(2)(c). Since this applicant purchased this lot nearly five (5)
years ago, the applicant has not shown any individual efforts to develop his lot with regard to
construction of a home on this lot, this applicant has not demonstrated that he has "commenced
and has continued in good faith without substantial interruption." Policy 101.18.2(2)( c). In
addition, the applicant purchased the lot after the effective date of the Rate of Growth Ordinance
(Code ~9.5-121), and never sought a ROGO allocation or vesting from ROGO under 9.5-121(d)
("Exempt and Vested Development"). Because he does "not have any project history," this
applicant will have to comply with the rules that are in effect at the time he eventually seeks
approval of a building permit.
WHEREFORE, as Monroe County Vested Rights Hearing Officer, I must recommend to
the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners that this vested rights application be
DENIED.
-A
DONE AND ORDERED this 2 Y day of June, 1998.