Resolution 174-1999
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 174_1999
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 THOMAS FRANKLIN
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 matter of Thomas Franklin for determination of vested rights was heard by
Vested Rights Hearing Officer Larry R. Erskine; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are APPROVED and the Vested Rights application
of Thomas Franklin 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
14th day of
April ,1999.
Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey
Commissioner Shirley Freeman
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich
Commissioner Nora Williams
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
3: 0 \.0 ."
l..'? \.0 -
-;'# l.'> r-
""- :x
;;:0 ('") :1~ I"TJ
O,~l' >
-< 0
rrJ A -. I ."
('") . ro'
o ('") . .. C)
c:: - _. :::0
:z :::0-:::,' -0
-i . (...; ::r: :::0
('")1 ,."
=<-l::T.:
". ::r:- ~ ("')
r- C> W 0
J> rrJ :::0
0\ 0
~;~"\ KOLHAGE. Clerk
,'" "'!/'.1~".J"J ,;, '\
""'"'t A_.,
~ ,,:i ~,.,~ ~ .
',"-' It ,il. '''', ~ \
\:B~l '. ~
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
,::;;.:., · .. ~..... e.,.t\....... _, ~
~'\,.,",\\'--'"'......... -y-
~ ~
Mayor IChairman
jvrfranklin
~.
BEFORE THE VESTED RIGHTS HEARING OFFICER
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
In Re: the application of: Thomas Franklin
Dom's Subdivision, Lot 17, Big Torch Key
I
RECOMMENDED ORDER DENYING VESTED RIGHTS
TIllS CAUSE came on to be heard by the Monroe county Vested Rights Hearing Officer on April
27 and 28, 1998. Tne Applicant had previously appeared before Randolph W. Sadtler, Esq., then Hea..ring
Officer. At that previous hearing, and subsequently documented by three handwritten letters, the
Applicant asked that his request for vested rights be decided with the consolidated ~ 380.05(18) .,
applications in Abbott, et ai. The undersigned reviewed the application and exhibits, and in the absence of
the Applicant, heard and considered argument of counsel on behalf of the applicants and Monroe County
in the cases referred to hereinabove.
Being fully advised in the premises, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact and
conclusions oflaw:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
The Applicant purchased the lot in 1971.
2. The Applicant has made no expenditures or improvements since 1971. Further, the
Applicant did not apply for a Vested Rights Detennination under the 1986 comprehensive Plan or the
1992 ROGO Vested Rights Provision.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3. In order to obtain a determination of vested rights, the Applicant must fIrst establish
that he reasonably relied upon an official act by the County. The recordation of a subdivision plat may
constitute such an official act, and Applicant relies upon same.
4. Next, the Applicant must demonstrate that, acting in good faith, he made such a
substantial change of position or he has incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be
highly inequitable or unjust to affect those rights by requiring him to now conform to the current
comprehensive plan and land development regulations. The Applicant provided no documentation of
expenditures to establish vested rights on the subject lot. Further, the Applicant did not timely move for a
vested rights determination under the 1986 Comprehensive Plan or the 1992 ROGO Vested Rights
Provision.
1
5. Under the third prong of the vested rights provision, the Applicant has the burden of
establishing "that the development has commended and has continued in good faith without substantial
interruption. Inasmuch as the Applicant has made no expenditures or improvements since 1971, the
passage of approximately twenty-seven years would constitute a substantial interruption.
IT IS THEREFORE, the recommendation of the undersigned that:
6. The Applicant's Request For Vested Rights be denied.
7. Further, the Applicant's request for relief based on Applicant's intexpretation of Section
380.05(18), Florida Statutes, be denied in accordance with the ruling of the undersigned in RE: the
applications of: ABB01T, et ai.
DONE AND ORDERED in Monroe County, Florida, this ! / rl1 day of January, 1999.
~
LARRY R ERSKINE, ESQ.
VESTED RIGHTS OFFICER
FLORIDA BAR #313521
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and exact copy of the foregoing was mailed via U.S. Mail to:
Thomas Franklin, 3403 S. Gardenia Drive, Tampa, Florida 33629-8207 and Karen Cabanas, Esq.,
Morgan & Hendrick, 317 Whitehead Street, Key West, FL 33040; this .l.f!:!...day of January, 1999.
LARRY R ERSKINE, ESQ.
MEYER & ERSKINE
31211 AVENUE A
BIG PINE KEY, FL 33043
(305) 872-3400
(305) 872-4822 FAX
2