Resolution 176-1999
FILED FOR RECORD
99 HAY I 0 PH 2:1 9
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 176 -1999
l}j~a~A!riP'r}1~ THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
ooeflf'COU!M1V)~ft.lNG THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A RECOMMENDED
VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION PROMULGATED BY THE VESTED RIGHTS
HEARING OFFICER. IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF CHARLES, JR. AND SUSAN M.
PEABODY
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 Charles, Jr. and Susan M. Peabody 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 APPROVED and the Vested
Rights application of Charles, Jr. and Susan M. Peabody 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.
yes
yes
ye!=;
yes
yes
, . Y L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
B~~C. ~~~
Deputy Clerk
'~.. A ~~ ~
By ~ ~ ~'"" 7....v ~ ""'-...r \" .....-
Mayor/Chairman
jvrpeabody
•
BEFORE THE VESTED RIGHTS HEARING OFFICER
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
In Re: the application of: Charles Peabody, Jr. and
Susan M. Peabody; Lots 26, 27, 28, Block 5 and Lot 22,
Block 7, Doctor's Arm Subdivision, First Addition, according
to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 149 of
the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida.
RECOMMENDED ORDER DENYING VESTED RIGHTS
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard by the Monroe County Vested Rights Hearing Officer
on April 27 and 28, 1998. The undersigned reviewed the application and exhibits, and heard the
testimony of the applicants. Finally, the undersigned heard argument of counsel on behalf of the
applicants and Monroe County. Subsequent to the hearing referred to hereinabove, the
undersigned received and reviewed the following:
a. A Memorandum of Law submitted by the applicant;
b. A Response to the Applicant's Memorandum of Law submitted on behalf of
Monroe County;
c. A transcript of the hearing.
Being fully advised in the premises, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact
and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicants acquired Lot 22, Block 7 in 1985 and acquired Lots 26, 27, 28, Block
5, in 1994.
Page 1
•
2. In March of 1996, the Applicants expended approximately $9,800.00 to construct a
seawall on Lots 26, 27, and 28, Block 5.
3. In 1996, the Applicants expended approximately $7,000.00 toward obtaining a
building permit on Lots 27 and 28, resulting in the issuance of a ROGO allocation award on July
13, 1996.
4. The moratorium which has prevented the issuance of the Applicants' building permit
was adopted in 1986. Inasmuch as the Applicants purchased Lots 27 and 28 in 1994, they are
presumed to have known about the concurancy portion of the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, and are
not eligible for relief under the Vested Rights Provision of the current Plan. For this reason, the
Applicants have requested that their requests for relief as to all the subject lots be considered
pursuant to the consolidated Section 380.05(18) Petitions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IT IS THEREFORE, the recommendation of the undersigned that:
5. The Applicants' request for relief based on Applicants' interpretation of Section
380.05(18), Florida Statutes, be denied in accordance with the ruling of the undersigned in RE:
the applications of: ABBOTT, et al.
DONE AND ORDERED in Monroe County, Florida, this /� day of November, 1998.
LARRY R. ERSKINE, ESQ.
VESTED RIGHTS OFFICER
FLORIDA BAR#313521
Page 2
J