Resolution 175-1999
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 175 -1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, EVIDENCING THE BOARD'S DENIAL OF A RECOMMENDED VESTED
RIGHTS DETERMINATION PROMULGATED BY THE VESTED RIGHTS HEARING
OFFICER, IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF GALLEON BAY CORPORATION
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 Galleon Bay Corporation for determination of vested rights
was heard by Vested Rights Hearing Officer Larry 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 DENIED and the Vested Rights
application of Galleon Bay Corporation 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
.1~~helmin~ Harvey
_;/;"€Ql!jm~~oT1er Shirley Freeman
.,......~d?rnmissi6rier George Neugent
.~~<>mmissioner Mary Kay Reich
~:,:\~CQmmissioner Nora Williams
..,,:,"~~.~~.
"'41~t~~ '-
(SEAL ".:' "~/
Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
14 th day of
\D .."
'" -
~9~
-< 0
no
yes
yes
no
yes
-0
::J:
<tl
w'
0\
BvJkolL~c" ~~
Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
---~~.r:r..p,.._{t\'--..~
~~","\. ." ~
By
Mayor/Chairman
jvrgalleon
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
In Re: the application of: Galleon Bay Corporation,
a Florida Corporation, Lots 1-11, 13, 14, revised Plat
of Galleon bay Subdivision.
/
FINAL VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION DENYING VESTED RIGHTS
The above entitled matter was originally heard at a duly-advertised and regularly
scheduled, public hearing on April 27 and 28, 1998, by Larry Erskine, designated Vested
Rights Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer reviewed the application and exhibits, and
heard the testimony of the applicant and Alicia Putney, an adjoining property owner, who
also submitted a five page letter. The hearing Officer also heard argument of counsel on
behalf of the applicant and Momoe County. Subsequent to the hearing, the following
were also received and reviewed:
(a) Memorandum of Law submitted by the applicant;
(b) Response to the Applicant's Memorandum of Law submitted on behalf of
Momoe County;
(c) Post-Hearing Memorandum filed by Richard Grosso, Esq., on behalf of
Dr. Snell and Alicia Putney;
(d) transcript ofthe hearing consisting of approximately 130 pages;
The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are hereby adopted:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In 1966, Wolfgang Schleu began acquiring property known as
Government Lots 1 and 2 in Section 8, Township 66 South, Range 30 East, located on No
Name Key.
2. Wolfgang Schleu passed away in 1984. At that time, his assets passed to
his wife, Hannelore K. Schleu. Also, at that time, Mrs. Schleu's daughter, Vivienne
Schleu, took over management of the family assets, including the subject property.
3. Hannelore and Vivienne Schleu formed a Florida Corporation, Galleon
Bay Corporation to carry out the development of the subject property. Vivienne Schleu
acted as President.
4. In 1988, the applicant began to incur substantial expenses in connection
with subdividing the subject property. The applicant expended fees for services
including legal, engineering, surveying, planning and site-plan design. These expenses
are clearly documented by the summary of expenses attached to the application and are
attributable to the subdivision as a whole rather than the individual subject lots.
5. The applicant submitted an application to subdivide the subject property,
which application was approved by Monroe County in 1991. On May 20, 1991, the
subdivision plat was recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 59, of the Public Records of Monroe
County.
6. The Department of Community Affairs appealed the plat approval referred
to in the preceding paragraph, which resulted in the recording of the Revised Plat of
Galleon Bay on April 21, 1994, at plat Book 7, page 65, of the Public Records of Monroe
County.
7. The Revised Plat referred to in the preceding paragraph consists of 14 lots
approved for single-family dwellings.
8. During the period beginning with the initial plat approval in 1991 and
continuing through the recording of the Revised plat of 1994, the applicant continued to
expend considerable funds in connection with subdividing the subject property as
referred to in paragraph 4 above. Again, these expenses are clearly documented.
9. Pursuant to the plat approval referred to herein above, the applicant
expended additional funds to satisfy the infrastructure requirements imposed by the plat
approval, including placement of roads as well as the removal of exotic vegetation.
During 1995, the applicant applied for and received permits from Monroe County to
construct roads and clear invasive exotics. Again, these expenditures are attributable to
the subdivision as a whole rather than the individual subject lots.
10. On September 28, 1995, the applicant conveyed Lot 12 to Dorothy Sue
Abbott. Accordingly, Lot 12 is no longer owned by the applicant and, therefore, that lot
is not included as part of this determination.
11. The Petitioners did not apply for a vested rights determination pursuant to
the 1986 Comprehensive Plan or the ROGO Vested Rights provision that became
effective in 1992.
12. On January 4, 1996, the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective.
13. During 1996, the applicant spent $35,062.00 in connection with the
preparation and submission of applications for permit to construct single-family
dwellings on the thirteen lots owned by the applicant, which applications were submitted
in September, 1996, after the effective date of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
14. The thirteen applications were placed in the ROGO que in January, 1997,
and remain pending as of the date of this determination.
15. On January 3, 1997, the applicant timely filed its application for vested
rights pursuant to Policy 101.18.2 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
2
16. During the period beginning with the initial plat approval on May 20,
1991, and ending on April 27, 1998, the applicant expended and obligated the sum of
$578,670.00 to develop, permit, and sell the subject lots.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17. The applicant has satisfied the first element of Policy 10 1.18.2 in that the
applicant has reasonably relied upon an official act of Momoe County. Specifically, the
applicant relied on the recordation of the subdivision plat in 1991 and its 1994 revision,
which act is included within the list of official acts enumerated in the Policy.
18. However, Policy 101.18.2.1 specifically states that "[t]he determination of
vested rights shall be limited to the development expressly contemplated by said permits
or approvals." Here, such development is limited to the infrastructure necessary to
complete subdivision of the plat approved in 1991. The approved plat approval
authorized only improvement to an existing dirt road and the sale of lots. Approval of a
preliminary plat does not vest a developer as to specific uses not specified in that plan.
See, City of Miami Beach v. 8701 Collins Ave., Inc, 77 So.2d 428 (Fla. 1954). Petitioners
did not attempt development of the individual subject lots until ROGO applications were
filed in September 1996, after the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan.
19. To satisfy the second element of Policy 101.18.2, the Petitioners must
demonstrate that, acting in good faith, they made such a substantial change of position or
have incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable
or unjust to affect those rights by requiring them to now conform to the current
comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Although the Petitioners
expended funds in reliance on the 1991 plat approval, these expenditures benefited the
development of the subdivision as a whole. The expenditures possibly attributable to the
individual lots in question do not rise to the level such that it would be inequitable to vest
the Petitioners' rights based on those expenditures.
20. The applicant has also failed to satisfy the third element of Policy 101.18.2
in that the development of the individual subject lots has not commenced and continued
in good faith without substantial interruption. While the "development" consisting of the
subdivision of the plat as approved in 1991 and revised in 1994 was commenced and
continued, no action was taken as to development of the individual subject lots until
ROGO applications were filed in September, 1996, after the effective date of the 2010
Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREFORE, the Momoe County Board of County Commissioners enters this
final vested rights determination:
21. The Petitioners' Request for Vested Rights is hereby DENIED.
22. Further, the Petitioners' request for relief based on Petitioners'
interpretation of Section 380.05(18), Fla. Stat., is also DENIED in accordance with the
ruling on the applications of Abbott, et al.
3
.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe
County, Florida, at a meeting of the Board held on the 14 day of
April
, A.D., 1999.
Mayor Harvey
No
Mayor Pro Tern Freeman
YQii
~</:.c~;::.":?
. /J..: or.C).' -. '.')"'.'"
~)ib~ '-v,.
//~ ii . '''''.
./<: 23 '\ \
If...'., ._~ \23~~,'N'
"r~,~-\ i ,:;.f'.. ,
:""",.. .'.~.. ...."
. ~t '
Commissioner Neugent
Yes
Commissioner Williams
YeR.
Commissioner Reich
No
(SEAL)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
B~~~~~O~CH~AN~~
ATTEST: DANNY KOLHAGE, CLERK
~o.kLC.~~
DEPUTY CLERK
4