Loading...
Resolution 206-1999 County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 206 -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 HEARING OFFICER, IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF GEORGE RAYMOND PARKS 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 George Raymond Parks for determination of vested rights was heard by Vested Rights Hearing Officer J. Jefferson Overby on October 26, 1998;, 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 George Raymond Parks is accordingly, DENIED. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe CO':!f.'ty, FloriQj:l, ot,.p C> 0 \D - ..,~ j;,o r regular meeting of the Board held on the 12 th day of May, 1999. ~pS~': ~ ~ Pl;X-:' (J . r" N ..." 0("')' (X) 0 s;;: 33 ::i,~ :::0 ~. (.:: ~ ::0 -<(J rr1 . ;-l ;r:: (.,,).. C"') .."..> 0 r C) N :::0 "?' CT\ 0 CJ Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey Commissioner Shirley Freeman .,,,. GOlJ:lmissioner George Neugent / / Com~sioner Mary Kay Reich Commis.oner Nora Williams yes yes yes yes yes BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA . .. ~ ~,t\~...\\--_._.- . 'II .. --.....- By Mayor/Chairman jvrparks VESTED RIGHTS MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re: MAJOR GEORGE RAYMOND P ARKS- Vested Rights Application / PROPOSED DENIAL OF VESTED RIGHTS APPLICATION The above entitled matter was originally heard at a duly-advertised and regularly scheduled, public hearing before the former Hearing Officer, Randy Sadler. Major Parks appealed the decision to the Board of County Commissioners and on August 12, 1998, the Board referred the applicant's vested rights determination case back to the undersigned to be re-heard "de novo". It was heard on the duly advertised and regularly scheduled, public hearing on October 26, 1998 before J. Jefferson Overby, designated Vested Rights Special Master. Major Parks, applicant, represented himself. Assistant County Attorney Garth Coller and Planning Director Timothy J. McGarry, Director of Planning represented Monroe County. ISSUE Whether the applicant has demonstrated that his subject property is eligible for vesting for a duplex by application of Policy 101.18.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, and sections 9.5-183(a)-(b) of the Land Development Regulations of Monroe County and whether the applicant is entitled to relief under Policies contained in 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 purchased the subject property in, 1969, which is a lot of record, located at Lot 38, Block 7, Ocean Isle Estates, in Key Largo. The property is approximately 0.5 acres in size and has oceanfront access, and is zoned Improved Subdivision (IS) and is currently occupied by a single family dwelling. 2. At the time of purchase, the property was zoned RU-3, which allowed for the construction of multi-family dwellings. In 1986, the subject property was re-zoned to its current zoning oflmproved Subdivision(IS) due to the adoption ofthe, then new, Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. 3. In 1987, the applicant filed an application to re-zone the property from Improved Subdivision (IS) to Improved Subdivision- Duplex. This application was held up by the County until 1993 while the Comprehensive Plan was being prepared. 4. On November 22, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners voted to deny the applicant's request (4-1). 5. The Applicant has already received permit approvals from: a) The Monroe County Building Department in December 1990, Permit # 90-3-2312, which permitted the applicant to construct a single family dwelling on the subject property (Which he did complete in a manner that it could be converted to a duplex). b) The Monroe County Building Department, in November 1994, Permit # 94-3-2460, which permitted the applicant to construct a roof over his 2 single family dwelling (For which there has never been a final inspection). c) One ofthe applicant's attachments to his application states that he also received permits for a dock for "multiple family use" in 1982 and fencing and landscaping in 1986, however, these permits or their numbers were not produced or admitted by the County. 6. County records show no other permits or other development approvals. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 7. The Applicant's lot is designated Improved Subdivision (IS), which allows one residential dwelling on this lot, except for the changes now occasioned by the 2010 Plan. 8. Application of Policy 101.18.1 of the Comprehensive Plan has specified the criteria and standards for making the proper determination of Vested Rights: A. Time limitations on submission. The applicant needed to apply for vested rights determination prior to the one year deadline imposed by the plan or before September 15, 1997. This he complied with. B. Existence of a valid unexpired official act. The applicant is required to document that a valid, unexpired "official act", approving the proposed development occurred prior to the effective date of the Plan. This he has not done, nor has he demonstrated that the subject property meets any of the criteria that constitute a "valid ,unexpired official act of the County.(for the sake of the record they are listed next) 1. Good faith reliance on representations of the County. 2. Incurred substantial obligations in reliance of representations. 3 3. Partial Development of the project. Since he never received approval for a duplex, he cannot claim partial development of the duplex. 9. The applicant might achieve his desired result ifhe applies through the Future Land Use and Zoning maps amendment process. WHEREFORE, I recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that a final vested rights determination be entered denying vesting of the subject property as a duplex. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of Febru 4