Resolution 278-2003
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 278 -2003
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: HARLEY EVANS
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became
effective; and
WHEREAS, the application of Harley Evans for determination of beneficial use was heard
by Special Master J. Jefferson Overby on March 24,2003; now therefore:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Special Master as
set forth in the proposed determination are APPROVED and the application of Harley Evans is
accordingly APPROVED, subject to the conditions listed in the attached Proposed Beneficial Use
Determination, dated May 15,2003.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida,
at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 15th day of July, 2003. ';'; "
__'J<. (:',.:~J.
Cl '.-J r-
z '- rr1
3~,:': c C)
P1 ::1'~ -< I" "
~?;,::' 0
/"" -,- :::<)
;;;::?',.. -0 ;;,)
_"h f'.,
(--:
Mayor Spehar
Mayor Pro T em Nelson
Commissioner McCoy
~sioner Neugent
ComtnlS$.~ner Rice
yes
Yf'f'l
yes
yes
yes
=~)c:>
~; ~ {~~
ol._."J
r-,J
a.
-
i::J
(SEAL}
Attest:.DANNXJ;.. KOLHAGE, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNlY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNlY, FLORIDA
BG~
Deput(Clerk
L~)~ >n ~
By
Mayor/Chairman
BENEFICIAL USE
MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
In Re: Harley Evans- Beneficial Use
Application
/
PROPOSED
BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION
The matter was heard at a duly advertised and regularly scheduled, public hearing
on March 24,2003, at the Government Center, Marathon. This case was assigned to 1.
Jefferson Overby, designated Beneficial Use Special Master. The Applicant represented
himself. Assistant County Attorney John Wolfe and Planning Director K. Marlene
Conaway, Director of Planning, and Rob Will, Planner, represented Monroe County.
ISSUE
Whether the applicant will be denied all reasonable economic use of his property
by application of Policies 203.1.3 and 204.24 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, and
Moratorium- Objective 301.2 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Section 9.5-292
of the Land Development Regulations and whether the applicant is 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 Applicant is the owner of record, which is a lot of record, located at
Lot 42,Block 2, Eden Pines Colony, Big Pine Key. The lot is zoned "Improved
Subdivision" and is currently vacant.
2. The applicant has previously received a RaGa allocation and building
permit for the lot ( Permit # 96-1-1361). The applicant has been prevented from
constructing a dwelling unit because the level of service on US #1 on Big Pine Key.
Additionally, on May 23,2002, at another Beneficial Use Hearing, the applicant was
issued a building permit.
3. The applicant is requesting that the county allow him to transfer the RaGa
allocation previously granted on Lot 42, Block 2, Eden Pines Colony to Lots 5 and 6,
Block 22 Eden Pines Colony. These two lots (5 and 6) are considered "upland disturbed",
are in a platted subdivision currently zoned the same ( IS), which would allow one single
family residential dwelling and accessory uses on the lots, and are served by paved roads,
water, and electric. The lots have been aggregated and are considered one lot for the
purposes of development under RE # 00271170-000000.( IS lots may not be subdivided
into two separate IS lots.)
4. The applicant is proposing to sell lot 42 (above) to an adjacent property
owner with restrictive covenants ( i.e. a conservation easement) that would retire the
development rights on lot 42.
5. The new site has no TDR value as it is in an improved subdivision, under
the current code.
6. This is an upland scarified lot and therefore has no environmental
constraints to development.
2
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7. The Applicant's lot is designated Improved Subdivision, which allows one
residential dwelling and accessory uses to be permitted on this lot, except for the changes
now occasioned by the 2010 Plan.
8. Application of Moratorium - Objective 301-2 and Policy 203.1.3 of the
2010 Comprehensive Plan has rendered the lot un-buildable.
A. As an Improved Subdivision lot the subject property has no TDR
value.
B. Applicant already has a building permit for lot 42.
C. The unique combination of environmental constraints and lack of
adequate LOS ( level of service) on US # 1 has denied the applicant all reasonable
economic use of his property.
D. The transfer of the building rights to the new lot and the retirement
ofthe rights on lot 42 will not increase density in the area, but merely relocate it to a
better location within the IS subdivision.
E. The current property is an aggregated in Tier Two lot, which
could qualify for a building permit in the future.
9. 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, which is located within an Improved Subdivision; and
B. the extent to which the regulations have interfered with the
3
applicants' reasonable investment-backed expectation that some use could be made of
this lot.
C. staff recommendations.
10. The lot is located within an improved subdivision that is partly developed.
11. A strict application of Policy 203.1.3 and Policy would prevent or prohibit
the applicant from developing a single family dwelling on this lot.
12. Although just compensation is the preferred option under Policy
101.18.5,207.7.3 and 207.7.4, neither the applicants are interested in selling, nor the land
authority are interested in acquisition of this lot.
13. 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 applicant shall resubmit a building permit application
including revised building and, if necessary, site plans, including written approval by the
Department of Health of the on-site wastewater disposal and treatment system.
2. This Beneficial use determination shall not exceed five (5) years
and is contingent upon the applicant's releasing Monroe County from all liability, if any,
past, present and future, with regards to the subject property.
3. The subject property and proposed residence shall be required to
4
meet all provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations,
and of the Monroe County Code.
4. The applicant shall be required to pay any impact fees for his
building permit.
5. The applicant shall be exempt from ROGO, because his permit was
previously issued to lot 42.
6. All development rights associated with Lot 42 be retired by either
placing a conservation easement on the entire parcel.
7. That the development rights previously issued to Lot 42 be
transferred to the aggregated lots 5 and 6 (this one time only).
DONE AND ORDERED this May 15, 2003
5