Resolution 249-1999
VR
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 249 -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 SPECIAL MASTER, IN
RE: THE APPLICATION OF CHERYL WIERZBA CAMPBELL
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 Cheryl Wierzba Campbell for determination of vested rights
was heard by Vested Rights Special Master J. Jefferson Overby on January 25, 1999; 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 Cheryl Wierzba Campbell 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 9th
day'of June, 1999.
Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey
Commissioner Shirley Freeman
_ ommissioner George Neugent
,':' ;,..;;'-!;:~o missioner Mary Kay Reich
,r}~,.'/''-~:it~J:~~'.'..'.?m. .... r\,1issioner Nora Williams
.W; .1 fj/" . ..
'f"&:"'" : '
- :~l\~:'"
, ""f. -". s~" NN? L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
~\;'":~~'.~...; ~~,' /,,/
yes
yes
yes
yet;
,,,.
:J: \D "T1
yes ~ ~ \D _
::0 Cj Z c.... r-
o r- ;j~ c:: ",
BOARD OF COUNTY C~SI~E!8J
OF MONROE COUNTY,~ID,w ~
z. ,-, :z-
-i Cj~- :z :::0
. ... ;<~ ~
By ~ .~\\..J ~'V..~;::tc, "~~o ,
Mayor/Chairm5n ", ~ ~
. .
B~-7idA)~M4<)
Deputy Clerk
jvrcampbell
B
VESTED RIGHTS
MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
IN RE: CHERYL WIERZBA CAMPBELL- Vested Rights
Application
1
PROPOSED
DENIAL OF VESTED RIGHTS APPLICATION
The above entitled matter was heard at a duly-advertised and regularly scheduled,
public hearing on January 25, 1999, before 1. Jefferson Overby, designated Vested
Rights Special Master, Cheryl Wierzba-Campbell, applicant, represented herself.
Assistant County Attorney Karen Cabanas and Planning Director Timothy J, McGarry,
Director of Planning represented Monroe County.
ISSUE
Whether the applicant has demonstrated that her subject property is eligible for
vesting 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, October 1994, which is a
lot(s) of record, located at Lot 18, Section A, Doctor's Arm Subdivision, Third Addition,
as recorded on Plat Book 6, Page 3:) (in Big Pine Key), The property is currently zoned
Improved Subdivision (IS),
2, At the time of purchase, the property was zoned IS. The property was
originally platted in May 1970.
3, In January 6, 1997, the County received the applicant's paperwork for a
vested rights determination,
4, The Applicant has not sought or received any permit approvals or other
development approvals from any government agency.
5, Applicant has stated that her only costs have been a topographic survey and
vested rights application fees ( other than original purchase price).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
6. The Applicant's lot is designated Improved Subdivision (IS), which allows
for building on a 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 she 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 she has not done, nor
has she demonstrated that the subject property meets any of the criteria that constitute a
2
"valid ,unexpired official act ofthe County.(for the sake of the record they are listed next)
1. Good faith reliance on an official act of the County.
2. Incurred substantial obligations in reliance of representations and
changed positions as a result,
3. The development has commenced and continued in good faith
without substantial interruption.
9. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the 2010 Plan prohibits or
prevents development of her lot.
WHEREFORE, I recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that a final
vested rights determination be entered denying vesting of the subject property.
DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of Fe
3