Resolution 329-1997
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 329
-1997
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
EVIDENCING THE BOARD'S APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CERTAIN SPECIFIED
REVISIONS, OF A RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF VESTED
RIGHTS PROMULGATED BY THE VESTED RIGHTS HEARING OFFICER, , IN RE:
THE APPLICATION OF LAMAR LOUISE CURRY, AS TRUSTEE (PLAT OF CORAL
COAST, PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 60)
1<'"
"
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 COn;1prehenMe
I "
Plan became effective; and
C,.)
-:,-..,
, I
WHEREAS, development applications "in the pipeline" as of January=~;"1:996 me .
~, en I
> ''', .'-:; :".,)
subject to a determination of vested rights pursuant to Policy 1 0 1.18.1 of the' Plan; and
WHEREAS, a hearing on the application of Lamar Louise Curry, as Trustee (Plat of
CORAL COAST, PB 7, P 60) for determination of vested rights was held before the
County's Vested Rights Hearing Officer, Randy Sadtler, Esq, on May 15, 1997; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to that hearing, the Hearing Officer promulgated a
Recommended Order regarding that application for determination of vested rights;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Board of County Commissioners on
August 19, 1997, at which meeting certain revisions to the Recommended Order of the
Hearing Officer, as enumerated herein, were determined to be necessary to conform
the Recommended Order to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1, The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in the
Recommended Order of the Vested Rights Hearing Officer are approved, The
re.commendations of the Hearing Officer (Paragraphs 27-32) are approved, subject to
the following revisions:
A, Paragraph 29 of the Recommended Order is rejected. However, nothing
herein shall preclude approval of a Development Agreement exempting Applicant in
whole or in part from consistency or concurrency provisions of the Monroe County Year
2010 Comprehensive Plan,
B, Paragraph 31 of the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer IS
amended to read as follows:
31. Pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Policy 101,18.4, the existing
building permits for Lots 1-13 and 15 shall remain valid for a term of five
(5) years. Certificates of Occupancy for single-family homes on Lots 1-
13 and 15 must be applied for and issued within five years from the date
of this Resolution, tolling any period(s) for appeals,
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe
County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 17th day of
September
,1997,
Mayor Douglass
Commissioner Freeman
/.,.~missioner Harvey
.r, '.'" '~,
/Comrriissioner London
. ~ li_~ < ..
(. I~:.. ~--;p~. l'1Jissioner Reich
...,.f"."" \\ r'
\-... O/!"' " " , ~~ I
1....1 't '.'. "". \. I,. " .
\\- &-- ::-.' \. .
,-" " . \
f~.. , I:t-:~ \./
Afle~~Y L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
'..,.',;;.;.,',..._;;... 'f~-
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MON OE OUNTY, FLORIDA
BY.u~ QQ.. ~~~
Deputy Clerk
By
jresvr
.
..
BEFORE THE VESTED RIGHTS HEARING OFFICER FOR
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN RE:
THE APPLICATION OF
LAMAR LOUISE CURRY, AS TRUSTEE
(PLAT OF CORAL COAST, PB 7, P 60)
RECOMMENDED ORDER GRANTING VESTED RIGHTS
This cause came on to be heard by the Monroe County Vested
Rights Hearing Officer who reviewed the application and exhibits,
heard oral presentation of the witnesses, and after considering
the argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises makes the following finding of fact and conclusions of
law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Preliminary Plat Approval
1. The subject property consists of approximately 24 acres
of property located on the island of Key Largo, Monroe County,
Florida. Applicant's father A. Bates Curry purchased the property
in 1913. His widow, Stobo dePas Curry conveyed a one-half
interest in the property to Miss Curry in 1948. Miss Curry
acquired the remainder of the parcel when her mother passed away
in 1969.
2. Prior to the 1986 Land Use Plan the property was zoned
General Use (GU), which allowed one unit per acre. GU zoning was
a holding zone, until a zoning application was submi tted. The
property is between the Sheraton Hotel and Buttonwood Bay condo-
minium to the South and single family homes to the north, In
1986, the property was rezoned to Suburban Residential which per-
mitted one unit per acre as of right. With transferable develop-
ment rights, it was possible to build up to 10 units per
buildable acre.
3. On May 7, 1987, Applicant submi tted an application for
plat approval for the Coral Coast Subdivision, under the County's
plat approval regulations, ~~ 9.5-81, et seq., MCC (1987).
4. On February 24, 1988, the Monroe County Development Re-
view Committee (DRC) convened to consider Applicant's application
for preliminary plat approval. On September 13, 1988, in response
to recommendations of the DRC, Applicant submi tted an amended
application and an amended preliminary plat. On October 19, 1988,
the amended application and preliminary plat were reviewed by the
DRC. The DRC subsequently recommended the preliminary plat be
approved by the Planning Commission.
5. On December 8, 1988, the Monroe County Planning Commis-
sion reviewed Applicant's application and preliminary plat at a
public hearing. The Planning Commission granted preliminary plat
approval by Resolution 3-88, dated January 27, 1989. As part of
the preliminary plat approval process, the DRC and the Planning
Commission were required to determine that the proposed plat of
Coral Coast "was consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives
and standards of the Monroe County Land Use Plan."
Final Plat Approval
6. In accordance wi th ~ 9.5-84, MCC, Applicant submi tted
an appl i ca t ion for final plat approval, together wi th the final
plat, construction plans, all required certi ficates from other
agencies and utilities, and all information requested by the
planning director.
7. On June 28, 1989, Applicant I s application was reviewed
by the DRC, which recommended approval of the final plat. On July
6, 1989, at a public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended
final plat approval to the Board of County Commissioners, as em-
bodied in Planning Commission Resolution 5-89.
8. On August 9, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC), by Resolution 410-1989, granted final plat approval for
Coral Coast. The plat was recorded initially in Plat Book 7, page
55, and re-recorded in Plat Book 7, page 60 of the public records
of Monroe County, Florida.
Dedication for Single-Family Residences Only
9. Pursuant to certain conditions imposed by Monroe
County, as a condi tion of plat approval, Applicant was required
to, and did, restrict the use of all of the lots in the subdivi-
sion to single-family homes and accessory uses. As a further con-
dition of plat approval, Applicant agreed to preserve and main-
tain 80% of the Coral Coast subdivision in its native state. As a
further condi t ion 0 f plat approval, Appl i can t was required to,
and did, construct and install the road and uti 1 i ty 1 ines at
Coral Coast within two years of final plat approval.
Infrastructure
10. As a condition of plat approval, Applicant was required
to, and did, post an improvement guarantee in the form of an ir-
revocable letter of credit in the amount of $275,000.00, to guar-
antee the completion of the improvements.
11. To obtain a building permit to clear the property and
to install the road and utility lines (infrastructure), Applicant
was required to, and did, submit an application for a minor con-
ditional use permit together with a tree transplantation plan.
12. Applicant spent over $300,000 to install and construct
the required infrastructure, including expenditures for engi-
neers, surveyors, attorneys, and biologists to comply with the
County's platting requirements.
DCA Appeal of Road Clearing Permit
13. On December 19, 1989, after reviewing Applicant I s ap-
plication and plans, the Director of Planning issued Minor Con-
di t ional Use Order 30-89, to clear the property and install the
improvements. On February 8, 1990, the County issued a building
permi t for land clearing and to install the road and uti 1 i ty
lines. On September 23, 1988, the South Florida Water Management
District approved Applicant's storm water management plan. On
October 6, 1989, the Florida Department of Transportation ap-
proved Applicant's application for a driveway connection permit.
14. On March 30, 1990, pursuant to ~ 380.07(2), Fla. Stat.
(1989), the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) appealed Coral
Coast I s February 8, 1990, clearing and infrastructure building
permit to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission.
15. On April 20, 1990, Applicant and DCA entered into a
settlement agreement that resulted in the dismissal of the ap-
peal. As an additional condition Applicant was required by DCA,
and by the County's zoning regulations, to purchase 1179 hardwood
hammock trees, and to donate said trees, along with 115 Gumbo
Limbo trees, to the State of Florida for transplantation on
State-owned lands remote from Coral Coast. The purchase and
transplantation of these trees cost Applicant $12,000.
RaGa Exemption
16. On August 4, 1993, Applicant requested an exemption
from the Rate of Growth Ordinance (RaGa), provided for in ~ 9.5-
121(E)(3). On September 7, 1993, the BOCC denied Applicant's re-
quest for an exemption. On August 8, 1995, an Agreed Order was
entered in Curry v Monroe County, Case No. 93-20-062, whereby
the BOCC would reconsider Applicant's request for an exemption.
On August 15, 1995, the BOCC, in Resolution No. 297-1995, granted
the exemption provided for at ~9. 5-121, MCC, and ordered the
Growth Management Division not to apply the provisions in ~~9.5-
120 to 9.5-124 to the lots in Coral Coast.
17. On October 15, 1995, Applicant submitted building plans
and permi t applications for 15 single family homes. Applicant
spent in excess of $16,000 for the services of an engineer to
prepare the necessary construction drawings and plans.
18. Thereafter, on December 22, 1995, Monroe County issued
15 building permits for single family homes. The permits became
effective February 10, 1996, when the DCA appeal period expired.
Applicant paid Monroe County building permit fees and impact fees
in excess of $44,112.44. Applicant was also required to agree to
a transplantation program to clear the lots at a cost of $46,024.
(Septic permi ts = $3,150 @ $210; building permi ts = $11,250 @
$750; clearing permits = $1,725 @ $115).
19. As of the date of the hearing, and in reliance of the
building permits, Applicant spent in excess of $198,361 to begin
construct ion, clear the lots, construct an en trance gate, auger
foundations, landscape the property, and secure water and elec-
tric utili ties. Applicant also expended in excess of $8,000 to
secure approval from DEP for the docks.
Docks
20. Applicant submi tted applications to the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) for consent of use for a single
fami 1 Y dock on each Lot. On September 30, 1996, DEP denied the
applications. Petitioner timely appealed the denial, and on Feb-
ruary 17, 1997, the DEP agreed to authorize a dock at each lot at
such time as the lots are sold.
21. Applicant was unable to obtain permits from Monroe
County to build docks that exceed 100 feet because the County had
not adopted a variance policy. On May 1997, the County and De-
partment of Community Affairs agreed to "interim dock regula-
tions" which will now allow the Applicant to obtain permi ts to
build docks.
22. Applicant has a legitimate concern that the 2010 Com-
prehensive Plan may reduce density from one unit per acre to one
unit per two acres. There are numerous other provisions of the
2010 Comprehensive Plan, which if applied, would substantially
affect Applicant's rights to build single family homes as contem-
pIa ted by the condi t ions 0 f the pIa t and the bui Iding permi ts
issued, i. e. setbacks, open space requirements, densi ty reduc-
tions, environmental regulations, etc.
23, The Applicant has been diligent and acting ln good
faith in pursuing the permit sought and has substantially changed
it's position by continuing to expend sums or incur obligations
in reliance on approvals by Monroe County.
24. The development (application process) has commenced and
has continued in good faith without interruption.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
23. Applicant reasonably relied on numerous official acts
by Monroe County in platting Coral Coast Subdivision, including
bu t not 1 imi ted to: a) Resol u t ion 5-89 (prel iminary plat ap-
proval); b) Resolution 410-1989 (final plat approval); c) Minor
Condi t ional Use Order 30-89 ( clear ing and in frastructure); d)
Resolution No. 297-1995, (ROGO exemption); and e) building per-
mits for Lots 1-13 and Lot 15.
24. Applicant, acting in good faith, has made such a sub-
stantial change of position, and has incurred such extensive ob-
ligations and expenses that it would be highly inequi table and
unjust to affect such rights by requiring Applicant to now con-
form to the consistency or concurrency requirements in the 2010
Comprehensive Plan, or to any land development regulations
adopted after the plat was approved.
25. Development of the Coral Coast Subdivision has com-
menced and has continued in good faith without substantial inter-
ruption.
26. Applicant has also argued the
~380.05(18), Fla. Stat., to support her claim.
applicabili ty of
In as much as this
matter may be resolved under the criteria in Policy 101.18.2 and
common law vesting, it is not necessary to decide that issue.
IT IS THEREFORE, the recommendation of the Hearing Officer
that:
27. Applicant's request for Vested Rights be GRANTED.
28. The development rights as contemplated by Resolution
5-89 (preliminary plat approval); Resolution 410-1989 (final plat
approval); Minor Conditional Use Order 30-89 (clearing and infra-
structure); Resolution No. 297-1995, (ROGO exemption); and the
building permits for a single family home on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and Lot 15; including land use, den-
sity, setbacks, open space, and concurrency be vested as of the
date of said permits or approvals.
29. Applicant shall be exempt from the consistency or con-
currency provisions in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan, including the pol i cies set forth under Obj ect i ve 101.1;
Objective 101.2; Objective 101.4, and Objective 101.5. The fail-
ure to specifically mention a Goal, Objective or Policy of the
2010 Comprehensive Plan shall in no way be construed to impair
the rights granted hereby.
30. That neither the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, nor any
amendments to the land development regulations adopted subsequent
to the pIa t approval, shall affect the vested r igh ts granted
hereby.
31. Pursuant to Policy 101.18.4, I find that it is reason-
able to require the vested rights granted hereby to be valid for
a term of ten years and to require that certificates of occupancy
for single family homes on Lots 1-13, and Lot 15 be issued within
10 years from the effective date of any final order granting
vested rights, tolling any periods for appeals.
32. Applicant shall report semi-annually to ensure that de-
velopment is continuing in good faith.
of
DONE AND ORDERED
~
in Monroe County, Florida this ~
day
, 1997.
6Ph-<<:~
Vested Rights Officer
FBN 377163