Resolution 127-2004
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 127
-2004
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: NORA RODRIGUEZ AND E.G.
RODRIGUEZ, RODOLFO AND ALINA GIL
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
became effective; and
WHEREAS, the application of NORA RODRIGUEZ AND E.G. RODRIGUEZ, RODOLFO
AND ALINA GIL for determination of beneficial use was heard by Special Master John J.
Wolfe on December 18, 2000; now therefore:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Special Master
as set forth in the Proposed Beneficial Use Determination, dated May 1, 2003, are
APPROVED. It is determined that in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.5-171 of
the Code, the applicant has been deprived of all economic use of their property by the
operation of the Plan and Land Development Regulations of the Code, and that the
appropriate remedial action is just compensation by purchase of the following lots, to the
extent that it is above mean high water, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
Plan and the Code:
Lots 9, 10, 15, 18, 23, 24, Block 10 and
Lots 11, 12, 14, Block 3, Thompson's Subdivision.
It is determined that Lots 16 and 17, Block 10, Thompson's Subdivision are buildable
and the Applicants have not been deprived of all reasonable economic use of their Lots.
(SEAL)
~ttest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk
Bl:3~~
DeputYClerk
JBURodriguez/Gil
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of tjonroe QJunty,
Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 17th day of March, 20~..~ ~ ~
:.: ,? :J!: :tlIa ",
C r- ::;c --0 '
Mayor Nelson yes ,...,~-< =0 a
M. "r-'''''
ayor Pro Tem Rice yes ;2r?' -.....J c)
,Commissioner McCoy ves ~~f2:r.:a;:tj
~'Coq'1miSSioner Neugent ves ~'~~5;'~:X ~~
'COmmissioner Spehar yes r - 'f?~-.
,':> ___.J
.. ;':.:;
.:....>
BOARD OF COUNlY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNlY, FLORIDA
MONROECO~~Y:/~
A V FORM:
BENEFICIAL USE
MONROE COlJN1Y SPECIAL MASTER
In Re: Nora Rodriguez and E. G. Rodriguez
Emesto Iglesias
RodoJfo &. Alina GiJ
Jack Hill and Dorothy Hill
-Beneficial Use Applications
I
PROPOSED
BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION
The above entitled matter was heard at a duly-advertised and regularly scheduled, public
hearing on December 18,2000, before John J. Wolfe, designated Beneficial Use Special Master. The
Applications for a Determination of Beneficial Use filed by each of the above applicants (the
<<Applicants"), involve substantially identical issues and were consolidated for purposes of this
Hearing by agreement of the Applicants and Monroe County. Andrew T obiIr represemed the
Applicants. Assistant County Attorney Karen Cabanas, Director of Planning, Marlene Conaway,
Assistant to the Planning Director, Julie Thomson, and Biologist, Ralph Gouldy, represented Monroe
County.
ISSUE
Whether the Applicants have been denied all reasonable economic use of their property by
application of Policy 102.1.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), and Policy 204,2.1
which includes a 1000,10 open space requirement for mangrove and salt marsh wetlands, with respect
to certain lots, the land use density requirements for other lots, and whether the Applicants are
entitled to reliefunder Policies contained in Objective 101. ) 8.5 ofthe Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the
Monroe County Code (the "Code").
FINDINGS OF FACT
]. All properties of the Applicants subject to this Hearing are unimproved lots located on
Thompson's Subdivision, Key Largo, and are zoned Suburban Residential (SR).
2, The Applicants purchased their respective lots which are the subject of this Hearing (the
"Lots"), as shown below on the dates indicated below:
ADDlicant(s) Lot.. Block RE Number Purchase
Date
Nora Rodriguez and E. G. Lots 9, 10, 15m 00442090-000000 & Block 3
RodriguezlR.odolfo & 18,23,24 Bloc and 00442100-000000 & Lots -
Alina Gil Lots 11, 12, J4, Block: 3, 00442150-000000 & 11/1981
Thompson's Subdivision 00442160-000000 & Block 10
00442170-000000 & Lots -
00442180-000000 &
00442230-000000 & 4/1982
00442240-000000 &
00440320-000000 &
00440330-000000 &
00440350-000000 &
Emesto Iglesias Lots 24, 25 & 27, Block 00440470-000000 & 2/1 984
3, Thompson's 00440480-000000 &
SubclMsion 00440500-000000
Jack & Dorothy Hill Lots 1,21 & 22, Block 9, 0044 I 780-000000 . 1 O/J 984
Thompson's Subdivision
3. Thompson's Subdivision is primarily a "paper subdivision" with little infrastJlJcture in
place.
4. Policy 102.1.1 and Policy 204.2. I of the Plan include a lOOOt'o open space requirement for
mangrove and salt marsh wetlands. Allocated density may be assigned to salt marsh wetlands for use
as transferable development rights; mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity.
Mangrove habitat has no development value and is protected by Federal and state regulations.
5. The Lots in Block 3 are all characterized as hardwood hammock, are too small to build on
due to the combination of SR zoning and the fact that they are too small to accept tr8J18ferable
development rights.
6, All Lots in Blocks 9 & 10, except Lots 16 & 17 of Block 10, were detennined to be
Mangrove and Salt Marsh Wetlands - predominantly Mangrove, which prohibits development under
any circumstances.
7. Lots 16 & 17 of Block 10 are characterized as disttrrbed with exotics and are capable of
submitting ROGo applications and receiving ROGO allocations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
8. The Lots are designated Suburban residential (SR), which aJlows one residential dwelling
per two acres.
9. The provisions of Policy 102.1. I and policy 204.2.1 of the Plan provide that no portion of
the Lots on Blocks 9 & 10, except Lots 16 & 17 of Block 10, may be filled and they must remain in a
natural condition due to their characterization as Mangrove and Salt MMsh wetlands. Accordingly,
these Lots have been rendered unbuildable. Thus, the Applicant has been deprived of all reasonable
economic use of all Lots on Block 9 and all Lots on Block 10 except Lots 16 & 17.
10. The Lots in Block 3 are all hardwood hammock and are unbuildable, because they are
too small to accept IDRs.
11. Lots 16 & 17 are buildable.
12. There are no variances or other administrative options available to the Applicants for
developmem of the Lots.
13, The preferred relief under Policy 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Code,
when beneficial use has been deprived by operation of the environmental policies or objectives
contained in the Plan is government purchase of the property for just compensation.
14. The Applicants and the Plaruting Director have agreed that this is the preferred relieffor
all of the Lots except Lots 16 & 17 of Block 10.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION
AND
STA TEMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION
In accordance with the provisions of Section 9.5-171 of the Code, my Proposed determination
with respect to all of the Lots except Lots 16 & 17 of Block 10, is that the Applicants have been
deprived of all reasonable economic use of their propeny by the operation of the Plan and Land
Development Regulations of the Code, and that the appropriate remedial action is just compensation
by purchase of the Lots, to the extent they are above mean high water, in accordance with applicable
provisions of the Plan and the Code.
With respect Lots 16 & 17, Block 10, my proposed determination is that they are buildable
and that the Applicants have not been deprived of all reasonable economic use of the Lots.
DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2003..
. 11 II (1
. II fA !.
10hn J. W
Special ster