Resolution 251-1999
VR
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO.2 51 -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 TERENCE H. WILLIAMS
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 Terence H. Williams 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 Terence H. Williams 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
" Co.r:nmissioner George Neugent
,\ Y;",li Com"missioner Mary Kay Reich
~~ ~.:;'~.) tomm~sioner Nora Williams
a .
. 1\.
, \:;.
~:1 '. ,if
::' DANNY,L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
,,'
...
is 0 \0 .."
2:~" \0_
::t) C") =~ t- r-
0,.;,:: 5: (TJ
rt1~_( _ 0
g;-, r- ~ .."
BOARD OF COUNTY C~SIQ..NE~
OF MONROE COUNTy'e:~~D~ ~
r- c;") .. ("")
l> t:t'trl CIlI' 0
By \'u.,\\".J --:.,,-~,\,~.~
Mayor /Chairma n
yes
yes
yes
yes
Y~'6
By ~}~~41)
Depu y Cler
jvrwilliams
VESTED RIGHTS
MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
IN RE: TERENCE H. WILLIAMS- 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. Mark H. Gregg, Esq., represented the applicant. Karen Cabanas,
Esq., of Morgan and Hendrick 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 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: Lot 8, Block 1 KNIGHTS
KEY VILLAGE (MARATHON) in June 1989 , as recorded on Plat Book 5, Page 84. The
property is currently zoned Improved Subdivision (IS).
2. At the time of purchase, the property was zoned Sc. The property was
originally platted in 1979.
3. Other than the original platting, any work done to the subject property
(the sea wall) occurred prior to the applicant's purchase. There have been no conditional
use or other approvals.
4. On January 3, 1997, the applicant filed his vested rights application with
the County.
5. The Applicant has not received any permit approvals or other
development approvals from any government agency.
6. Applicant has stated that his only costs have been a survey and vested rights
application fees (other than original purchase price).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7. The Applicant's lot is designated Improved Subdivision (IS), which allows
for building 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
2
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 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 his lot.
WHEREFORE, I recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that a final
vested rights determination be entered denying vesting of the subject properties.
DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of Fe
3
,//