Loading...
Resolution 429-2001 County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 429 -2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, EVIDENCING THE BOARD'S APPAOV AL OF A RECOMMENDED BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION PROMULGATED BY THE SPECIAL MASTER, IN RE: THE APPUCATION OF ANDY AND CAROL SAMUL WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective; and WHEREAS, the application of Andy and Carol Samul for determination of beneficial use was heard by Special Master John J. Wolfe on June 29, 2001; 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 Beneficial Use Determination are APPROVED and the ROGO allocation received for the Lot be transferred to the Alternate Lots, subject to the conditions listed in the attached Proposed Beneficial Use Determination, dated September 18, 2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 18th day of October, 2001. Mayor George Neugent yor Pro Tem Nora Williams .ssioner Murray Nelson ioner Dixie Spehar ner Charles McCoy r-..) 3: ~ "Tl <=' C".J ~ :z :l> r- ~" 2;; :z: ,." yeR 0 C ".,r--:; -<: yes :::-;'"' "Tl (")' I , 0 yes 0'" N C:x;;;:a:: ::0 yes z. 0 -0 ::0 -i". ::J:: yes :<-j:I: I"T1 ""1l . J;>. N n . G') 0 )> rri W ::0 0 C .... , NY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk ~-.~ - uty.ci rk . ~o RD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By f)- e ~~d Mayor/Chairman - jbusomul 09/19/2001 15:05 305-289-2536 PLANNING DEPT PAGE 03 BENEDCIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re: Andy & Carol S.uul -Beneficial Use Application j, PROPOSED BEIq:FIClAL USE DRT.lJlp4.TION The above eatitlGd matter WI8 heard at a duly-advertiKd aDd rcguledy scheduled. public hearins on June 29, 2001, before JQhn J. Wolfe, dcaipted Bcocficial UIe Special Master. The , Application for a Determination of Bcneficil1 Use wu filed. by the IppJicants (the M Applicants"). in December. 2000. The Applicants appeared on their own behalf. Director of Planning. Marlene Conaway and Assistant to the PIRnnmg Director, Julie Thomson MpR;SCIlted Monroe COWlty. ISSUE Whether the Applicants have been denied all reasonable economic use oltheir property by . application of Objective 301.2 of the Year 2010 Comprchenaive Plan (the ""Plan''). and Section 9.S~ : 292 of the Monroe Cmmty Code: (the "Code''), and whether the AppIicanta are entitled to reliefunder Policies contained in Objective 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Code. FINDINGS OF FACI' 1. The property of the Applicants mbject to this Hearing is Lot 8, Block 58. Port Pine Heights 2nd Addition. Big Pine Key and ill an unimproved lot (the "Lot"). The Lot is zoned Improved Subdivision (IS). The Applicants purchased the Lot in August, 1995. 2. The Applicants ~ived an allocation under the Rat. of Growth Ordinance procedures in April. 1996. but as a result of the Moratorium discussed in paragraph 4 below, have been prevented from building during the five years which have elapsed since receiving the award. 3. 'lbe Lot is an upland scarified lot, and, as such, does not have on site enviromnental constraints to development. 4. There cmrcntly exists a moratorium (the .. Moratorium") on all development activities on Big Pine Key which could pnerate additional triP5. The Moratorium exists pursuant to Objective 301.2 of the Plan and Section 9.5-292 of the Code. Objective 301.2 directs the County to .fEnsure that all roads havc sufficient capacity to serve developmental the adopted LOS standards concurrent with the impact of said development." Section 9.5,292 cstabliabC8 a minimum Level of Service 09/19/2001 15:05 305-289-2536 PLANNING DEPT PAGE 04 ("LOS") C for each road segment oiUS. Highway 1. The Big Pine Key segment is below the LOS C threshold. Therefor, the segment is considered inadequate and subject to the Moratorium. s. A Habitat Conservation Plan is being prepared for Big Pine Key which win include requests for pemtita from the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service for road improvel11ents which should improve the LOS on US. Highway 1. However, completion of such plan and permitting approvals may be several years in the future. Even if approval is obtained, funding. design and construction will further increase the time before improvements can be made to the road segment. 6. The Applicants received their ROGO allocation in April, 1996 over five yeara prior to the ~kof~sH~. ' 7. The Lot is in an area proposed for acquisition by governmental agencies. and the State of Florida hIlS made an offer to purchase the Lot 8. The Applicants have purchased Lots 10 and 11, Block 3, Center Island, Duck Key as an alternative building site (the "Alternate Lota'1- The Lots are upland and disturbed and do Dot have OD site environmental constrain.ts to development. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 9- The Lot is designated Improved Subdivision (IS), which allows one residential dwelling per lot. 10. The provisions of Objective 301.2 of the Plin and Section 9.5-292 oftbc Code, have resulted in the Moratorium. As a result, the Applicants arc not able to obtain a building permit.wco though they obtaincxi a ROGO allocation over five years ago. Any relief from the Moratorium is wtlikely before the passage of at least several mol'e years due to the uncertainty sunounding the Habitat Co~tion Plan being prepared iUld what effect it may have on future development. Thus. as the Planning Department agrees with, due to the combination of the Moratorium and the unique environmentalconslraints affecting Big Pine Key, the Applicants have been denied all reasonable economic use of the Lots within the meaning of Policy 101.18.5 11. Policy 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Code both provide that when beneficial use has been deprived, the relief to be granted may include such relief as the County detennines is appropriate and adequate. Granting relief othet than development of the Lot is consistent with Policies 207.7.3 and 207.7.4 of the Plan to identify key deer habitat areas as priority acquisition sites and to coordinate programs for acquisition with federal. state and non-profit conservation organ~tion5. 12. The Applicants and the Planning Director have agreed that due to the unique situation ofthe Applieants in that they have been awarded a ROGO allocation, but'are unable to obtain a building permit, that transfer of their ROGO allocation from the Lot to the Alternate Lom is the type of approprinte and adequate relief contemplated by the Plan and the Code. 09/19/2001 15:05 305-289-2536 PLANNING DEPT PAGE 05 PROPOSED DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF PEMEDIAL ACTION In accordance with the provisions of Section 9.5.171 of the Code, my proposed detennination is that the ApPlicants have been deprived of all reasonable economic use of their property by the operation of the Plan and Land Development ~gulations of tbe Code. and that the appropriate remedial action is transfer of the ROGO allocation received for the Lot to the ..bJtemate Lots. The Applicants would be required to follow all other applicable laws, regulations and conditions in developing the Alternate Lots. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of September, 2001.