Resolution 250-1999
VR
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO.250 -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
LEROY AND JOANNE SWOPE
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 LeRoy and JoAnne Swope 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 LeRoy and JoAnne Swope 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 9 th
day of June, 1999.
BY~~ A<)
Depu Clerk '7--
yes
yes
yes
yes 3:
yes ~ ~ ~ ~
;7,:l-' Co- r-
<:) n::~ c: ",
BOARD OF COUNTY COMm~fQN~ CJ
OF MONROE COUNTY, FL~ll\ F\) d
c: 33 ::f: :::0
.. Jl: C 1:lII ;0
By ~ ".tI~"--L~~" L~~~~
Mayor/Chairman~ ~ c..a ,. ::0
. Q CJ
jvrswope
VESTED RIGHTS
MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
IN RE: LeRoy & JoAnne Swope- Vested Rights
Application
/
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 J. Jefferson Overby, designated Vested
Rights Special Master. LeRoy Swope, applicant, represented himself. Assistant County
Attorney Karen Cabanas and Planning Director Timothy 1. McGarry, Director of
Planning represented Monroe County.
ISSUE
Whether the applicants have demonstrated that their subject properties are 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 applicants are 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(s) purchased Lot 8, Block 3, Mate's Beach Plat No.6 in,
April 1969, and purchased Lot 7, Block 45, Second Addition to Pine Heights on May 4th,
1982. ( both in Big Pine Key). The application demonstrates that plats were approved in
1960 for both parcels and that various improvements were made to the subdivision.
2. At the time of purchase, the properties were zoned Improved Subdivision
(IS).
3. There is no record nor did the applicants supply any building permit
applications nor any information of other applications to the hearing officer or the county.
4. In June, 1997, the applicant(s) filed their vested rights application with
the County.
5. The Applicant(s) have not received any permit approvals or other
development approvals from any government agency.
6. Applicants have stated that their only costs have been: property maintenance
as required by Monroe county Code 8-30. All other expenses were made by the developer
( canals dug, land cleared, lots filled and graded, roads paved, water and electricity brought
to site) and vested rights application fees ( other than original purchase price).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7. The Applicants' lots are designated Improved Subdivision (IS), which allows
for building on a combination of these lots, except for the changes now occasioned by the
2010 Plan.
8. Application of Policy 10 1.18.1 of the Comprehensive Plan has specified the
criteria and standards for making the proper determination of Vested Rights:
A. Time limitations on submission. The applicants needed to apply for
vested rights determination prior to the one year deadline imposed by the plan or before
2
September 15, 1997. This they have complied with.
B. Existence of a valid unexpired official act. The applicants are
required to document that a valid, unexpired "official act", approving the proposed
development occurred prior to the effective date of the Plan. This they have not done, nor
have they demonstrated that the subject properties meet any ofthe 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 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 applicants have failed to demonstrate that the 2010 Plan prohibits or
prevents development of their combined lots.
WHEREFORE, I recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that a final
vested rights determination be entered denying vesting of the subject prop
DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of
3