Resolution 372-1998
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO.3 7 2 -1998
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 VESTED RIGHTS HEARING
OFFICER, IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF SCOTT HASKELL AND THOMAS STUMP
~ 0 ~ ~
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comii-~ns~ ~n
0,""- -0 0
ro1:;:s.:-( _ ."
became effective; and g~:- ..... 0
c __ -.: :;0
z?' 0 ::z=- ::0
WHEREAS, development applications "in the pipeline" as of January 4, ~~re~bj{q:t
"Tl':l> .. 0
to a determination of vested rights pursuant to Policy 101.18.1 of the Plan; and ?= ~ ~., ~
WHEREAS, the matter of Scott Haskell and Thomas Stump for determination of vested
rights was heard by Vested Rights Hearing Officer Randolph W. Sadtler, 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 Scott Haskell and Thomas Stump is accordingly, APPROVED.
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 September ,1998.
Mayor Jack London
Commissioner Keith Douglass
E:-ommissioner Shirley Freeman
'Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey
Cornmirsioner Mary Kay Reich
yes
yes
yes
yes
yel';
~ ,...
(SEAL),. ,
Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MON E COUNTY, FLORIDA
B~<:'~~'C. LG-?-;jc~~
-
Deputy Clerk
~
Mayor/Chairman
jvrhaskell
BEFORE THE VESTED RIGHTS
HEARING OFFICER IN AND FOR
MONROE, COUNTY FLORIDA
INRE:
THE VESTED RIGHTS APPLICA nON OF:
Scott Haskell and Thomas Stump.
/
This cause came on to be heard by the Vested Rights Hearing Officer, who, after having reviewed
the application and exhibits, heard oral presentation of the Applicant and his/her attorney, if any, makes the
following findings offact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1, The Applicant has taken the following actions to obtain approval for the development sought:
a. May 25, 1995, the Applicant was issued Minor Conditional Use Development Order
#5-95;
b. The Minor Conditional Use Development Order approved development of a structure
consisting of a 1000 square foot low intensity office building and a single family residence;
c. Pursuant to the terms of the development order, building permit #95-1-606 was issued
permitting the construction of the commercial portion of the structure;
d. The residential portion of the structure was in the Rate of Growth Ordinance process
at the time this application was submitted
2, The Applicant has been diligent and acting in good faith in pursuing the permit sought and has
substantially changed it's position by continuing to expend a substantial sum since commencing the
conditional use approval and has expended funds and incurred obligations by commencing the commercial
portion of the project.
3. The development (application process) has commenced and has continued in good faith without
interruption,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. Items 1 a and c above constitute approvals upon which the Applicant could justifiably rely,
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 101.18.2 (1)
5, It would be highly inequitable or unjust to affect the rights of the Applicant by requiring the
Applicant to conform with the Plan. Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 101.18.2
(2)(b ).
6. The Applicant's request for Vested Rights is Granted subject to the following restrictions:
a, The geographic scope of this Determination is limited to the scope relative to the total
area of the development site as contemplated by Minor Conditional Use Development Order #5-95;
b. The duration of this Determination and its termination shall be as contemplated by
Minor Conditional Use Development Order #5-95;
c. The substantive scope of this Determination shall be as contemplated by Minor
Conditional Use Development Order #5-95;
d. By virtue of this determination, the Applicant is entitled to development as
contemplated by the plans as approved and subject to the Monroe County Land Development Regulations
existing January 4, 1996, however, amendments to the Monroe County Land Development Regulations shall
apply if such amendments would have applied to the development notwithstanding Monroe County Year
2010 Comprehensive Plan
e, The Applicant is entitled to the construction contemplated by the Minor Conditional
Use Development Order #5-95 so long as the construction is timely commenced and subject to quarterly
reporting to ensure that development is continuing in good faith,
Florida this ~ay of
DONE AND ORDERED at Marathon, Monroe County,
~1998.