Resolution 256-1999
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO.2 5 6 -1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, EVIDENCING THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A RECOMMENDED
BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION PROMULGATED BY THE SPECIAL MASTER, IN
RE: THE APPLICATION OF JESUS ALBERTO CHAPELLlN
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
beca me effective; and
WHEREAS, the application of Jesus Alberto Chapellin for determination of beneficial
use was heard by Special Master 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 and recommendations of the Special
Master as set forth in the proposed determination are APPROVED recommending purchase
of the subject property by the County's Land Authority at a fair market price.
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.
'~ .~'ANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
-....
<5 0 \t) .."
yes 2: :>> \t) ;=
yes ::0 ('") :=t:: c... ",
yes g:.:::: ~ 0
('") . -- "-> .."
yt::s ac;: I\,) <::>
:;;;0': ::0
yes ~. (,:) :b
('") r- :z ::0
:< ~ ::r: r'l1
" . ;::... \.0 ("")
BOARD OF COUNTY c;JM~ISSAGN~
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORID5!? 0
-;,,/
By .te_tLltJ~~
Deput Clerk
. .~
By \.,.~ .tl~u~AIV"-'~_ ~p ~
Mayor/Chairman
jvrchapellin
B
BENEFICIAL USE
MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
In Re: Jesus Alberto Chapellin- Beneficial Use
Application
/
PROPOSED
BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION
The above entitled matter was originally heard at a duly-advertised and regularly
scheduled, public hearing on October 26, 1998, by J. Jefferson Overby, designated
Beneficial Use Special Master. Jesus A. Chapellin, applicant, represented himself by
mail and Assistant County Attorney Garth Coller, Planning Director Timothy J.
McGarry, Director of Planning and Ross Alliston, Director of Monroe County Division
of Environmental Resources, represented Monroe County.
ISSUE
Whether the applicant will be denied all reasonable economic use of his property
by application of Policy 204.2.6 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, and whether the
applicant is entitled to relief under Policies contained in Objective 101.18 of 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 1980, which is a lot of
record, located at Lot 12, Block 9, Duck Key Center Island (RE #00381100). The subject
l~t is vacant with no access to water and is zoned Improved Subdivision (IS). The lot is
characterized as "native oligohaline" freshwater wetlands.
2. The Applicant has no permitting history other than the recording ofthe
subdivision plat.
3. The Improved Subdivision zoning of the subject property allows one
residential dwelling and accessory uses to be permitted on the lot, but for the
implementation of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The subject lot has no TDR value.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. The Applicant's lot is designated Improved Subdivision (IS), which allows
one residential dwelling on this lot.
5. Application of Policy 204.2.6 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan has
rendered the lot unbuildable.
A. The Monroe Land Development Regulations and the
comprehensive Plan require 100% open space for freshwater wetlands.
B. The applicant has no ability for obtaining a variance from the
regulations for this lot which prevent development.
C. The applicant filed a timely application for determination of
beneficial use.
D. The subject property has been identified as unsuitable for
development using the Keys Wetland Evaluation Procedure (KEYWEP).
6. Pursuant to Policy 101.18.5 and Section 4(D) of the Agreement between
2
DCA and Monroe County, I have considered:
A. the economic impact of the Policy (or regulation) that prohibits
development on the applicant's lot, which is located within an Improved Subdivision;
and
B. the extent to which the regulation has interfered with the
applicant's reasonable investment-backed expectation that some use could be made of
this lot.
7. The Planning Department has admitted that the applicant has been denied
all reasonable economic use of his property.
8. A strict application of Policy 204.2.6 would prevent or prohibit the
applicant from developing a single family dwelling on this lot.
9. Since just compensation is the preferred option under Policy 101.18.5, and
the applicant is interested in selling and the land authority is interested in acquisition of
this isolated, freshwater wetland lot, purchase is the preferred option.
WHEREFORE, I recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that a final
beneficial use determination be entered recommending purchase of the subject property
by the County's land authority at a fair market price.
DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of February, 1999.
3