Loading...
Item Q1 Board of County Commissioners AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY :lite: March 17, 2004 Division: County Attorney rEM WORDING: Public Hearing on Resolution of Recommended Order of Beneficial Use on the applications of: 1. Thomas & Carmel Cunningham, Big Torch Key' 2. Michael Land & Lisa McCafferty, Big Torch Key./ 3. Robert Schneider, Ramrod Key / 4. James E. Lewis, Jr., Ramrod Key' 5. Hubert and Marilyn Tost, Summerland Key./ 6. Robert A. Lomrance, Big Torch Key / ~~L ~ fD'd' . D //pG.1J --IT 7. Renell Maiersperger/Ocean Isle Trust, Key Largo.' 8. Nora and EG Rodrigues, Key Largo,- 9. Rodolfo & Alina GiI, Key Largo 10. Ernesto Iglesias, Key Largo / 11. Jack & Dorothy Hill, Key Largo I ITEM BACKGROUND: Special Master John J. Wolfe issued a Recommended Order of Beneficial Use Determination. . PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Adoption of Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan and RaGa. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. TOTAL COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes - No - Cost to County: N/ A APPROVED BY: County Attorney X OMB/Purchasing Risk Management DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL~ ~r CX.L, DOCUMENTAnON: Included ---1L- To Follow _ Not required AGENDA ITEM # Ql County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. -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 AUNA 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 Se<:tion 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 17th day of March, 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tern Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk ~~ORNEY JBURodriguez/Gil AP TO FORM: R N. WOLFE CHIE~ _ S~~OUp(TY t/TORNEY Oat. .. - " Bl:NEFlClALUSE MONROE COUNlY SPEOAL MASTER In Re: Nora Rodriguez and E.G. Rodriguez Emesto Iglesias Rodolfo & Alina GiJ Jack Hill and Dorothy Hill -Beneficial Use Applications / PROPOSED BENEFICIAL USE DE:rERMINA TlON 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 TobiJr represented 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 Jots, and whether the Applicants are entitled to reliefunderPolicies contained in Objective lOt. J 8.5 ofthe Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Monroe County Code (the "Code"). FINDINGS OF FACT J. 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 Jots 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. IO.IS~ 00442090-000000 & Block 3 Rodriguez/R.odolfo & 18,23,24 Bloc 0 and 00442100-000000 & Lots - Alina Gi1 Lots II, 12, J4, Block 3, 0044215~00000& 11/1981 Thompson's Subdivision 00442160-000000 & Block 10 00442170-000000 & 00442180-000000 & Lots - 00442230-000000& 4/1982 00442240-000000 & 00440320-000000 & 00440330-000000 & 00440350-000000& Emesto Iglesias Lots 24, 25 & 27, Block 00440470-000000 & 2/1984 3, Thompson's 00440480-000000 & SubdMsion 00440500-000000 Jack & Dorothy HiD Lots 1,21 & 22, Block 9, 00441780-000000 . 1 OIJ 984 Thompson's Subdivision . 3. Thompson's Subdivision is primarily a "paper subdivision" with littJe infrastructure in place. 4. Policy 102.1.1 and Policy 204.2.1 of the PIan include a 100% open space requirement for mangTove 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 transferable development rights. 6. All Lots in Blocks 9 & 10, except Lots 16 & 17 ofBJock 10, were detennined to be Mangrove and Salt Marsh Wetlands - predominantly Mangrove, which prohibits development under any circumstances. 7. Lots 16 & 17 ofBJock 10 are characterized as disnlTbed 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 allows one residential dwelling per two acres. 9. The provisions of Policy 102.1.1 and policy 204.2.1 of the Plan provide that no ponion 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 SaIt Marsh 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 development 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 cODtained in the Plan is government purchase of the property for just compensation. . 14. The Applicants and the Planning 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 RE:MEDIAL ACTION In accordance with the provisions ofScction 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 detennination 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_. . ~111 John J. W Special County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. -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: RENELL MAIERSPERGER/OCEAN ISLE TRUST WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective; and WHEREAS, the application of RENELL MAIERSPERGER 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' 2, 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 her 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 lots, to the extent that they are above mean high water, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Plan and the Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 17th day of March, 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tern Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairperson jresmaiersperger - ~._............ BENEFICIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re: Renell Maiersperger/ Ocean Isle Trust -Beneficial Use Application / PROPOSED BENEFICIALUSEDETERNDNATION 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 Application for a Determination of Beneficial Use was filed by Renell Maiersperger, Individually and as beneficiary of the Ocean Isle Trust (the "Applicant"). Andrew Tobin represented the Applicant. 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 Applicant has been denied all reasonable economic use of the 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 and whether the Applicants are entitled to relief under Policies contained in Objective 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Monroe County Code (the "Code"). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property of the Applicant subject to this Hearing are unimproved lots located in the Ocean Isle Estates Subdivision, in Key Largo and is zoned Suburban Residential (SR). The lots are: Lots 3-16 and 34-49, Block 9, and 1-15 and 34-50, Block 10 (the "Lots"). 2. The Applicant acquired the Lots as successorlheir to the developer ofthe Subdivision and has been in the family since before 1959. 3. Policy 102.1.1 and Policy 204.2.1 of the Plan include a 100% 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. 4. The Lots were determined to be Mangrove and Salt Marsh Wetlands - predominantly Mangrove, which prohibits development under any circumstances. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5. The Lots are designated Suburban Residential (SR), which allows one single family residential dwelling per two acres. 6. The provisions of Policy 102.1.1 and policy 204.2.1 of the Plan provide that no portion of the Lots may be filled and they must remain in a natural condition. Accordingly, the Lots have been rendered unbuildable. Thus, the Applicant has been deprived of all reasonable economic use of their Lots. 7. There are no variances or other administrative options available to the Applicant for development of the Lots. 8. 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 or application of Division 8 of the Land Development Regulations is government purchase of the property for just compensation. This would apply to only the portion of the Lots above mean high water as the submerged lands are owned by the State. 9. The Applicant and the Planning Director have agreed that this is the preferred relief. PROPOSED DETERMINATION . AND STATEMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION In accordance with the provisions of Section 9.5-171 of the Code, my proposed determination is that the Applicant has been deprived of all reasonable economic use of the 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 Lots, to the extent that they are above mean high water, in accordance with applicable provisions of the Plan and the Code. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2003. ., l ! 4'~<-A/l . County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. -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: ROBERT A. LOMRANCE WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective; and WHEREAS, the application of ROBERT A. LOMRANCE 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 2, 2003, are APPROVED. It is determined that in accordance with the provisions of Se~ion 9.5-171 of the Code, the applicant has been deprived of all economic use of his 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 lots in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Plan and the Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 17th day of March, 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tern Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairperson jreslomrance MONROE COUN"fY AnOi1NI:,. AB o FORM: TN. WOLFE CH~SSI TANgO~TOANEY Oat. ~ Z- _ . ' BENEFICIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re: Robert A Lomrance -Beneficial Use Application / PROPOSED BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINA nON 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 Application for a Determination of Beneficial Use filed by Robert A Lomrance (the "Applicant"). Andrew Tobin represented 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 Applicant has been denied all reasonable economic use of the property by application of Policy 102.1.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), Policy 204.2.1 which includes a 1000.10 open space requirement for mangrove and salt marsh wetlands, and Policy 205.2.6 which requires an 800.10 open space ratio for high quality hammock, and whether the Applicant is entitled to relief under Policies contained in Objective 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Monroe County Code (the "Code"). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property of the Applicant subject to this Hearing consists of Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 2, Rainbow Beach Estates, Big Torch Key, all of which are unimproved are zoned Native Area (NA). . The Applicant purchased the Lots on May 13, 1981. The RE Numbers are 00234650-680. 3. The Native designation of the Lots and the characterization as hammock requires a 4 acre lot for one house. The Lot size is 50' by 100'. Combining all 4 lots is only ~ acre. Policy 102.1.1 and Policy 204.2.1 includes a one hundred percent open space requirement for undisturbed wetlands. Policy 205.2.6 requires an eighty percent open space for high quality hammock. 4. The Lots would score -52 points under the Rate of Growth ordinance scoring system for being in a CARL acquisition area and consisting of habitat and endangered and threatened animal speCIes. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5. The Lots are designated Native Area - (NA), which allows one single family residential dwelling unit per 2 acres, and is further restricted due to the hammock designation. 6. The provisions of Policy 102.1.1 of the Plan and Policy 204.2.1, both of which impose a one hundred percent open space requirement for wetlands, and Policy 205.2.6 which requires an 800.10 open space ratio for high quality hammock together with application of the negative points under the Rate of Growth Ordinance and the low density of the Native Area zoning make the Lots unbuildable. Thus, the Applicant has been deprived of all reasonable economic use of the Lots. 7. There are no variances or other administrative options available to the Applicant for development of the Lots. 8. 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 or application of Division 8 of the Land Development Regulations is government purchase of the property for just compensation. 9. The Applicant and the Planning Director have agreed that this is the preferred relief PROPOSED DETERMINATION . AND STATEMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION In accordance with the provisions of Section 9.5-171 of the Code, my proposed detennination is that the Applicant has been deprived of all reasonable economic use of the 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 Lots in accordance with applicable provisions of the Plan and the Code. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2003. ! !/ John 1. lfe Special: aster County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. -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: HUBERT S. TOST AND MARILYN N. TOST WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective; and WHEREAS, the application of HUBERT TOST AND MARILYN TOST 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 applicants have 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 lot, to the extent that it is above mean high water, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Plan and the Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 17th day of March, 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tern Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairperson jrestost MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY ~ORM: CHIEF A~~BE N. WOLFE Dale ':'? - ~ C~TStTTOANEY BENEFICIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re: Hubert S. Tost and Marilyn N. Tost -Beneficial Use Application 1 PROPOSED BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINA nON 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 Application for a Determination of Beneficial Use was filed by Hubert & Marilyn Tost (the "Applicant"). Andrew Tobin represented the Applicant. 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 Applicant has been denied all reasonable economic use of the 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 and whether the Applicants are entitled to relief under Policies contained in Objective 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Monroe County Code (the "Code"). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property of the Applicant subject to this Hearing is an unimproved 8.8 acre tract located on Niles Channel in Summerland Key, and is zoned Sparsely Settled - Native Area (SS-NA). 2. The Applicant purchased the tract located in Part of Government Lot 2, Sect 25, T. 66S., R. 28E (8.8 acre tract on Niles Channel), RE # 00114550-001000, which is the subject of this Hearing (the "Lot"), on October 17, 1968. 3. Policy 102.1.1 and Policy 204.2.1 of the Plan include a 100% 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. 4. The Lot was determined to be Mangrove and Salt Marsh Wetlands - predominantly Mangrove, which prohibits development under any circumstances CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5. The Lot is designated Sparsely Settled - Native Area (SS-NA). The Sparsely Settled designation allows one single family residential dwelling unit per two acres. 6. The provisions of Policy 102.1.1 and policy 204.2.1 of the Plan provide that no portion of the Lot may be filled and it must remain in a natural condition. Accordingly, the Lot has been rendered unbuildable. Thus, the Applicant has been deprived ofall reasonable economic use of their Lots. 7. There are no variances or other administrative options available to the Applicant for development of the Lot. 8. 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 or application of Division 8 of the Land Development Regulations is government purchase of the property for just compensation. 9. The Applicant and the Planning Director have agreed that this is the preferred relief PROPOSED DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION . In accordance with the provisions of Section 9.5-171 of the Code, my proposed determination is that the Applicant has been deprived of all reasonable economic use of the 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 Lot, to the extent that it is above mean high water, in accordance with applicable provisions of the Plan and the Code. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2003. (, i'! 1 /. , John J. ~fe I Special ,Master County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. -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: JAMES E. LEWIS, JR. WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective; and WHEREAS, the application of JAMES E. LEWIS, JR. 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 his Rroperty 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 lot, to the extent that it is above mean high water, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Plan and the Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 17th day of March, 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tern Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairperson jreslewis MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY ~~FORM: . .OlFE D~t~I~~S~ ~~!tTTORHEY ~.....__.~.~~----- - .. - ._"._--_..~._..~._-~----~-_._--- . BENEFICIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re: James E. Lewis, Jr. -Beneficial Use Application / PROPOSED BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINA nON 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 Application for a Determination of Beneficial Use was filed by James E. Lewis, Jr. (the "Applicant"). Andrew Tobin represented the Applicant. 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 Applicant has been denied all reasonable economic use of their property by application of Policy 102.1.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), as implemented by a 1999 Memorandum of Agreement between Department of Community Affairs and Monroe County (the "Memorandum"), and Section 9.5-343 of the Monroe County Code (the "Code"), and whether the Applicant is entitled to relief under Policies contained in Objective 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Code. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property of the Applicant subject to this Hearing is an unimproved lot located in Ramrod Shores Subdivision, Ramrod Key, and is zoned Improved Subdivision - Native Area Districtl Improved Subdivision (IS-NA). 2. The Applicant purchased Lot 5, a Portion of Tract A, Ramrod Shores Third Addition, RE # 00209971-004604, which is the subject of this Hearing (the "Lot"), on September 30, 1977. 3. In 1998, Monroe County completed a study, Advanced Identification of Wetlands (the "ADID Study"), as directed in Policy 204.1.1 of the Plan which included a method to "score" lots/properties with wetlands characteristics and assign a numeric value reflecting the quality of the wetlands found on such lots/properties. The scoring methodology was implemented by the adoption of interim standards for development in disturbed wetlands as set forth in the Memorandum. Wetlands which score at 7.0 or higher are considered high functional capacity wetlands, and are so-called "red- flag" wetlands, because development of such wetlands is prohibited under any circumstances. Wetlands which score below 7.0, but greater than or equal to 4.6 are considered moderate functional capacity wetlands. Wetlands which score less than 4.6 are considered low functional capacity wetlands. Moderate and low functional capacity wetlands are suitable for development with appropriate mitigation. The Memorandum specifically provides that the interim standards are to be strictly construed. 4. The Lot was determined by the ADID Study to be "Red-Flag" wetlands, which are defined in the Memorandum to be "those wetlands whose high level of functional capacity and lack of disturbance prohibit development under any circumstances." CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5. The Lot is designated Improved Subdivision - (IS-NA). The Improved Subdivision designation allows one single family residential dwelling on the Lot. 6. The provisions of Policy 102.1.1 of the Plan and Section 9.5-343 of the Code, both of which impose a one hundred percent open space requirement for wetlands, as implemented by the terms of the Memorandum, have rendered the Lot unbuildable in that development is expressly prohibited under any circumstances by the Memorandum. Thus, the Applicant has been deprived of all reasonable economic use of the Lot. 7. There are no variances or other administrative options available to the Applicant for development of the Lot. 8. 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 or application of Division 8 of the Land Development Regulations (Section 9.5- 343 is contained in Division 8 of the Land Development Regulations), is government purchase of the property for just compensation. 9. The Applicant and the Planning Director have agreed that this is the preferred relief PROPOSED DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION In accordance with the provisions of Section 9.5-171 of the Code, my proposed determination is that the Applicant has been deprived ofall reasonable economic use of the Lot 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 Lot in accordance with applicable provisions of the Plan and the Code. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2003. / ? o ; I 'i/ ;1//~//:/_ John J. %lfe/Special Master 1 County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. -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: ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective; and WHEREAS, the application of ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER 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 Sef;tion 9.5-171 of the Code, the applicant has been deprived of all economic use of his 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 lot, to the extent that it is above mean high water, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Plan and the Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 17th day of March, 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tern Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairperson jresschneider M~~ROE COUNTY ATTORNEY FORM: BENEFICIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re: Robert J. Schneider -Beneficial Use Application / PROPOSED BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINA nON 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 Application for a Determination of Beneficial Use was filed by Robert 1. Schneider (the "Applicant"). It was unclear at the Hearing whether the property was still in the name of the Applicant or his children, but it was agreed that this determination would be applicable in either case. Andrew Tobin represented the Applicant. Assistant County Attorney Karen Cabanas, Director ofplanning, Marlene Conaway, Assistant to the Planning Director, Julie Thomson, and Biologist, Ralph Gouldy, represented Monroe County. ISSUE . Whether the Applicant has been denied all reasonable economic use of the property by application of Policy 102.1.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), and Policy 204.2.1 which includes a 100% open space requirement for mangrove and salt marsh wetlands and whether the Applicants are entitled to relief under Policies contained in Objective 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Monroe County Code (the "Code"). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property of the Applicant subject to this Hearing are unimproved lots located in Silver Shores Subdivision, Ramrod Key, and is zoned Native Area District (NA). 2. The Applicant purchased Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, Silver Shores Estates, RE # 00211250- 000000, which is the subject of this Hearing (the "Lots"), on September 8, 1964. 3. Policy 102.1.1 and Policy 204.2.1 of the Plan include a 1000.10 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. 4. The Lots were determined to be Mangrove and Salt Marsh Wetlands - predominantly Mangrove, which prohibits development under any circumstances. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5. The Lots are designated Native Area - (NA), which allows one single family residential dwelling per two acres. 6. The provisions of Policy 102.1.1 and policy 204.2. 1 of the Plan provide that no portion of the Lots may be filled and they must remain in a natural condition. Accordingly, the Lots have been rendered unbuildable. Thus, the Applicant has been deprived of all reasonable economic use of their Lots. 7. There are no variances or other administrative options available to the Applicant for development of the Lots. 8. 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 or application of Division 8 of the Land Development Regulations is government purchase of the property for just compensation. This would apply to only the portion of the Lots above mean high water as the submerged lands are owned by the State. 9. The Applicant and the Planning Director have agreed that this is the preferred relief . PROPOSED DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION In accordance with the provisions of Section 9.5-171 of the Code, my proposed detennination is that the Applicant has been deprived of all reasonable economic use of the 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 Lots, to the extent that they are above mean high water, in accordance with applicable provisions of the Plan and the Code. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of May, ;003., I V I (j //1/,4~ , ,". ( olfe aster .J County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. -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: MICHAEL A. LANG AND LISA MICHELLE MCCAFFERTY WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective; and WHEREAS, the application of MICHAEL A. LANG AND USA MICHELLE MCCAFFERTY 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 th~ Special Master as set forth in the Proposed Denial of Beneficial Use, dated April 30, 2003, are APPROVED and the application of MICHAEL A. LANG AND USA MICHELLE MCCAFFERTY 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 17th day of March, 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tem Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairperson jreslang R N. WOLFE D~t~I~~S~T ~~N~ ATTORNEY ------------------- BENEFICIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re:~~8h~~~t€armeltS~€un11ingham .. '. -;fo,.,f,,(... -1' Michael A. Lang and Lisa Michelle McCafferty -Beneficial Use Application 1 PROPOSED DENIAL OF BENEFICIAL USE 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 Tobin represented the Applicants. Assistant County Attorney Karen Cabanas, Director of Planning, MarJene 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 oftheir property by application of Policy 101.5.1 ofthe Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), and the County's Rate of Growth Ordinance (Section 9.5-120 et seq. ofthe Monroe County Code) (the "Code"), and whether the Applicants are entitled to relief under Policies contained in Objective 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Code. Specifically, whether the evaluation criteria of Section 9.5- 122.3 deny them the ten points for platted, recorded subdivisions with infrastructure. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All properties ofthe Applicants subject to this Hearing are unimproved lots located in the Torchwood West Unit One and Two subdivisions, Big Torch Key, and are zoned Improved Subdivision (IS). 2. The Applicants purchased their respective lots which are the subject of this Hearing (the "Lots"), as shown below on the dates shown below: Applicant(s) Lot. Block RE Number Purchase Date Thomas J. Cunningham Lot 11 and 11 a, Block 1, 002436210-000000 1/15/96 and Carmel S. Torchwood West Unit 1 Cunningham Michael A. Land and Lisa Lot 10 and the North ~ 00243622-002300& 7/21171 Michelle McCafferty of Lot 9, Block 2, 00243622-002200 Torchwood West Unit 2 I 3. The Lots are scarified upland canal lots on Big Torch Key which are eligible to submit applications pursuant to the Rate of Growth Ordinance. The subdivisions do not have potable water which raises the issue as to whether they qualify for the ten points pursuant to the evaluation Criteria of Section 9.5-122.3 ofthe Code. The County previously made the determination that if an applicant provides an additional cistern, the Lots will score plus ten (+ 1 0) points for infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW . 4. The Lots are designated Improved Subdivision (IS), which allows one single family residential dwelling per lot. 5. The Applicants have not been deprived of all reasonable economic use of the Lots by the application of Policy 102.1.1 of the Plan and the County's Rate of Growth Ordinance. The Applicants may provide an additional cistern and receive the plus ten (+ 10) points for infrastructure available under the Rate of Growth Ordinance scoring system. PROPOSED DETERMINATION WHEREFORE, I recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that a final beneficial use determination be entered denying Applicants' beneficial use applications. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2003. John J. SpecilJ BENEFICIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re: Thomas J. Cunningham and Carmel S. Cunningham iMfchaetA:Langfahd,EisaMichelle McCaffeny.J -Beneficial Use Application / PROPOSED DENIAL OF BENEFICIAL USE 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 Tobin represented 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 101.5.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), and the County's Rate of Growth Ordinance (Section 9.5-120 et seq. of the Monroe County Code) (the "Code"), and whether the Applicants are entitled to relief under Policies contained in Objective 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Code. Specifically, whether the evaluation criteria of Section 9.5- 122.3 deny them the ten points for platted, recorded subdivisions with infrastructure. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All properties of the Applicants subject to this Hearing are unimproved lots located in the Torchwood West Unit One and Two subdivisions, Big Torch Key, and are zoned Improved Subdivision (IS). . _. -- 2. The Applicants purchased their respective lots which are the subject of this Hearing (the "Lots"), as shown below on the dates shown below: Applicant( s) Lot. Block RE Number Purchase Date Thomas J. Cunningham Lot 11 and 11 a, Block 1, 002436210-000000 1/15/96 and Cannel S. T orchwood West Unit 1 Cunningham Michael A. Land and Lisa Lot 10 and the North Y2 00243622-002300& 7/21171 Michelle McCafferty of Lot 9, Block 2, 00243622-002200 Torchwood West Unit 2 3. The Lots are scarified upland canal lots on Big Torch Key which are eligible to submit applications pursuant to the Rate of Growth Ordinance. The subdivisions do not have potable water which raises the issue as to whether they qualify for the ten points pursuant to the evaluation Criteria of Section 9.5-122.3 ofthe Code. The County previously made the determination that if an applicant provides an additional cistern, the Lots will score plus ten (+ 1 0) points for infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW . 4. The Lots are designated Improved Subdivision (IS), which allows one single family residential dwelling per lot. 5. The Applicants have not been deprived of all reasonable economic use of the Lots by the application of Policy 102.1.1 of the Plan and the County's Rate of Growth Ordinance. The Applicants may provide an additional cistern and receive the plus ten (+ 1 0) points for infrastructure available under the Rate of Growth Ordinance scoring system. PROPOSED DETERMINATION WHEREFORE, I recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that a final beneficial use determination be entered denying Applicants' beneficial use applications. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2003. / ./ / ~ I . . - . John J. Wolfe Speci'll Master .-.-.--...".'.--.--.. _._-~.__._- -.,.- -~---~~~----_..._- -~~_.~..-.,.,-_. County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. -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: THOMAS J. CUNNINGHAM AND CARMEL S. CUNNINGHAM WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective; and WHEREAS, the application of THOMAS J. CUNNINGHAM AND CARMEL S. CUNNINGHAM 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 Denial of Beneficial Use, dated April 30, 2003; are APPROVED and the application of THOMAS J. CUNNINGHAM AND CARMEL S. CUNNINGHAM 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 17th day of March, 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tern Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairperson jrescunningham MONROE COUNlY ATTORNEY ~~FOAM RO . WOLFE D~t~IE~S~lo/~ ~~ATTORNEY County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. -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: ERNESTO IGLESIAS WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective; and WHEREAS, the application of ERNESTO IGLESIAS 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 his 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 lot, to the extent that it is above mean high water, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Plan and the Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 17th day of March, 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tem Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairperson jresiglesias BENEFICIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re: Nora Rodriguez and E. G. Rodriguez Emesto Iglesias Rodolfo & Alina GiJ lack Hill and Dorothy Hill -Beneficial Use Applications / PROPOSED BENEFICIAL USE DE:rERMlNA TlON 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 Tobin represented 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 "PIan"), 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 10 1.18. 5 ofthe Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Monroe County Code (the "Code"). FINDINGS OF FACf ]. All propemes 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. Lots9,10, 15~ 00442090-000000 & Block 3 RodriguezlRodolfo & 18, 23, 24 Bloc 0 and 00442100-000000 & Lots - Alina Gi1 Lots II, 12, 14, Block 3, 00442150-000000 & 11/1981 Thompson's Subdivision 00442160-000000 & Block 10 00442170-000000 & 00442180-000000 & Lots - 00442230-000000 & 4/1982 00442240-000000 & 00440320-000000 & 00440330-000000& 00440350-000000 & Emesto Iglesias Lots 24,25 & 27, Block 00440470-000000 & 2/1984 3, Thompson's 00440480-000000 & Subdivision 00440500-000000 Jack & Dorothy Hill Lots 1,21 & 22, Block 9, 00441780-000000 . lOll 984 Thompson's Subdivision . 3. Thompson's Subdivision is primarily a <<paper subdivision" with little infrastructure in place. 4. Policy 102.1.1 and Policy 204.2.1 of the Plan include a 100% 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 transferable 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 disnrrbed 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 allows one residential dwelling per two acres. 9. The provisions of Policy 102.1.1 and policy 204.2.1 of the Plan provide that no ponion 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 Marsh wetlands. Accordingly, these Lots bave 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 unbuiJdable, because they are too small to accept TDRs. 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 compensatiQn. 14. The Applicants and the Planning Director have agreed that this is the preferred relieffor all of the LOIS 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 aU 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.. . ~ II[ John 1. W Special -- - County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. -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: JACK AND DOROTHY HILL WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective; and WHEREAS, the application of JACK AND DOROTHY HILL 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 lot, to the extent that it is above mean high water, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Plan and the Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 17th day of March, 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tem Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairperson jresHill . WOLFE ~\1~TTORNEY ~ BENEFICIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re: Nora Rodriguez and E.G. Rodriguez Emesto Iglesias RodoJfo & Alina GiJ Jack Hill and Dorothy Hill -Beneficial Use Applications / PROPOSED BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATION The above entitled matter was heard at a duly-advenised and regularly scheduled, public hearing on December 18, 2000, before John J. W oJfe, 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 obiI)' represented 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 "Plann), and Policy 204.2.1 which includes a 100% open space requirement for mangrove and salt marsh wetlands, with respect to certain Jots, the land use density requirements for other lots, and whether the Applicants are entjtled to reliefunderPolicies contained in Objective 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Monroe County Code (the "Code"). FINDINGS OF FACT ]. All propenies 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, IS~ 00442090-000000 & Block 3 RodriguezlRodolfo & 18,23,24 Bloc 0 and 00442100-000000 & Lots - Alina Gil Lots 11, 12, 14, Block 3, 00442150-000000 & 11/1981 Thompson's Subdivision 00442160-000000 & Block 10 00442170-000000 & 00442180-000000 & Lots - 00442230-000000 & 4/1982 00442240-000000 & 00440320-000000 & 00440330-000000& 00440350-000000 & Emesto Iglesias Lots 24, 25 & 27, Block 00440470-000000 & 2/1984 3, Thompson's 00440480-000000 & Subdivision 00440500-000000 Jack & Dorothy Hill Lots 1,21 & 22, Block 9, 00441780-000000 . . 1 OIJ 984 Thompson's Subdivision 3. Thompson's Subdivision is primarily a "paper subdivision" with little infrastructure in place. 4. Policy 102.1.1 and Policy 204.2.1 of the Plan include a 100% 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 transferable 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 ofBJock 10 are characterized as disnlTbed 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 allows one residential dwelling per two acres. 9. The provisions of Policy 102.1.1 and policy 204.2.1 of the Plan provide that DO 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 Marsh wetlands. Accordingly, these Lots have been rendered unbuildable. Thus, the Applicant has been deprived of all reasonable economic use ofall 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 TDRs. II. Lots 16 & 17 are buildable. 12. There are no variances or other administrative options available to the Applicants for development 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 enviromnental policies or objectives cODtained in the Plan is government purchase of the property for just compensation. . 14. The Applicants and the Planning 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 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 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_. . ~I (1 . \ I. 10hn 1. W Special " .. MAR-II-04 13,45 FROM,MONROE COUNTY ATTY OFFICE 10,3052823516 PAGE 2/4 BENDICIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In h: Nora Rodriguez and E.G. Rodriguez Emesto Iglesias Rodolfo" Alina Oil Jack HiD and Dorothy Hill -Benefieial Use Applications I PIlOPOSED BENEftCIAL USE DE1:pywNA nON The above entitled matter was heard at a duty-advertised aDd regularly scbeduIed. public beariDgonDecember 18,2000" before JohnJ. Wolfe. designated Beneficpd Use SpecialMaster. The Applications for a DetermiDation of Btmeficial Use filed by each of the above appJieants (the "Applicant$i. involve substantially identical issues and were consolidated for pwposes of this Heariug by agreement of the ApplicantS and Monroe County. An~ TobiQ' represented the AppliC2D1S. AsslstalU County Attorney Karen Cabanas, Director of Planning. Marlene Cooaway. Assistant to the Planning Di1ectOT. Julie 1bo~ and Biologist. Ralph Gouldy, represented Monroe Couuty. ISSUE Whether the Applicants have been denied all reasonable economic use of their property by application ofPolicy 102.1.1 ofme Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), aD4 Policy 204.2.1 which includes a. 1000.4 open space requirement for mangrove and uk marsh wetlands. with respect to certaitt lo~ the land use density requirements for other lots. and whether the Applicants are entitled to reJiefunder Policies contained in Objective 101.18.5 ofthe Plan and Section 9.5w 173 oftbe Monroe County Code (the '.Code"). FINDINGS OF FACf ]. AU properties of tbe Applicants subject to this Hearing are unimproved lotS located on Thompson's Subdivision, Key Lar80~ and are zoned Suburban Residential (SR). 2. The ApplicantS purchased their respective lots which are the subject ofmis Hearing (the "Lota"1 as shown below on the dates indicated below: MAR-II-04 13,45 FROM.MONROE COUNTY ATTY OFFICE 10,3052823518 PAGE 3/4 ADDlicP#" LoL Bleck HE NumbFt hft.e Dm Nora Rodriguez and E. G. Lots 9, 10, I~ 00442090-000000 &. Block 3 RodriguezlRodolfo & 18,23,2491 and 004421OO-OOOOOO" Lots - Alina Gi1 Lots II, 12, 14, Block 3:> 00442150-000000 & 11/1981 Thompson's Subdivision 00442160-000000 &. Blodt 10 00442170-000000 " Lots - 00442180.000000 " 00442230.00000o & 4/1982 00442240-000000 &. 00440320-000000 &, 00440330-000000 & 00440350-000000 &. Emesto Iglesias Lots 24, 2S & 27~ Block 00440470-000000 " 211984 3, Thompson's 00440480-000000 &. Subdivision 00440500-000oo0 Jack &. Dorothy Hill Lots 1,21 It 22, Block 9, 00441780-000000 .. 1011984 Thompson's Subdivision , 3. Thompson's Subdivision is primarily a "paper subdivisiosi' with little iDftastructure in place. 4. Policy 102.1.1 and Policy 204.2.1 of the Plan lndude a 1000.4 open space requircmeat for uumgrove and salt marsh wet1auds. .AUoca.ted density alay be assigned to salt marsh Wf'tlands for use as t!anSferable development rights; mangroves sbaJl not be a~ any density or imcosity. Mangrove habitat has no development wlue and is protected by Federal and state regulations. S. The Lots in Block 3 are aU characterized as hardwood banunock, are too small to build on due to the combination of SR zoning and the fact that they arc too small to accept uam.faable development rights. 6. All Lots in Blocks 9 & 10, except Lots 16 & 17 of Block 10. were detenniued to be Mangrove and Salt Marsh Wetlands - predolbioant1y Mangrove, which prohibits development UDder any circumstances. 7. Lots 16 & 17 of Block 10 are characterized as disturbed with exotics and are capable of submitting 1lOOO applications and receiving ROGO allocations. MAR-11-04 13,45 FROM,MONROE COUNTY ATTY OFFICE 10,3052823516 PAGE 4/4 CONCL1JSIONS OF LAW 8. The Lots are desig1t.,.ecl Subwban rcsiclentiaJ (SA)t which allows one rcsidcolial dwelliDg per two acres. 9. The proYisioos oiPoJiey 102.1.1 aud policy 204.2. 1 of the Plan providetbat no portion of the Lot$ on Blocks 9 & 10. except Lots 16" 17 ofBlock 10J may be filled and they must remain ill a natural condi1:ion due to their cbaracterizaUon as Mansmve and Salt Marsh wetlauds. AcconJiDgly, these Lots have been rendered unbuildable. Thus. the AppHc:ant bas been deprived ofall reuonable ec:cmomic use at aU Lots on BlocIc 9 8Dd all Lots on B10dc 10 except Lots 16 lit. 17_ 10. The Lots in Block 3 are all hardwood hammock and are unbuildable, because they are too small to accept 1D~. 11. Lots 16 & 17 ~ buildable. 12. There are no variances or other administrative optious available to the App1i~Dts for clevelopmeut of tile Lots. 13. The pr=led relief under Policy 101.18.5 oftbePlanarxl Section 9.5-173 oftbeCode, when beneficial use bas been deprived by opera1ion of the enviromneotal policies or objectives c~ in the Plan is government pUTCbase of the property for just compensation. 14. The App1ieants and the Planning Director have agreed that this is the preferred relieffbr all of the Lots except Lots 16 & 17 of Block 10. PROPOSED DETERMINATION AND STATEMENT OF REMEDIAL AcnON In accordance with thepnMsions ofScction 9.5-171 of the Code. myproposed~nd'~1l with respect to all of the Lou except Lots 16 & 17 of Block 10, is that the Applicants have been deprived of all reasonable 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 compeosation by purc;hase oftbe Lots. to the extent they are above mean high water, in accordance with applicable provisions of the Plan aad the Code. Wnh respt:Qt Lots 16 &. 17. Block 10, my proposed detcnnination 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. _ . n /11 John J. W Special MAR-11-04 13,44 FROM,MONROE COUNTY ATTY OFFICE 10,3052823516 PAGE 1/4 County Attorney ~eSOLUTION 80. -2004 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNlY, EVIDENCING THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A RECOMMENDED BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINAnON 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 AUNA 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 COUNlY, 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 17th day of March, 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tem Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By 8y Deputy Clerk. ~ORNEY JBURodrigueZ/Gil AP TO FOAM: Q~ &(-; County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. -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 AUNA 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 AUNA 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 Se<:t=ion 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 17th day of March, 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tern Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk ~~ORNEY J BU Rodriguez/Gil AP TO FORM: R N. WOLFE cHIE~ _ S~~OUp(TYqORNEY Oat. . - Q . . . BENEFICIAL USE MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER In Re: Nora Rodriguez and E. G. Rodriguez Emesto Iglesias RodoJfo & Alina GiJ Jack Hill and Dorothy Hill -Beneficial Use Applications / PROPOSED BENEFICIAL USE DETEBMlNA TlON The above entitled matter was heard at a duly-advertised and regularly scheduled. public hearing on December 18,2000, before John J. WoJfe, 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 Tobi!f represented 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. I 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 lOt.] 8.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Monroe County Code (the "Code"). FINDINGS OF FACf J. All propenies 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 Jots which are the subject oftms Hearing (the "Lots"), as shown below on the dates indicated below: , . . ,,-~ . .. . ADDlic:ant(s) LoL Block RE Number Purchase Date Nora Rodriguez and E. G. Lots 9, 10, 15~ 00442090-000000 & Block 3 RodriguezlRodolfo & 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 & 2/1984 3, Thompson's 00440480-000000& Subdivision 00440500-000000 Jack & Dorothy Hill Lots 1,21 & 22, Block 9, 00441780-000000 . lOll 984 Thompson'sSub~on 3. Thompson's Subdivision is primarily a <<paper subdivision" with little infrastructure in place. 4. Policy 102.1.1 and Policy 204.2.1 of the Plan include a 100% 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 transferable development rights. 6. All Lots in Blocks 9 & 10, except Lots 16 & 17 of Block to, were determined 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 allows one residential dwelling per two acres. 9. The provisions of Policy 102.1.1 and policy 204.2.1 oftbe Plan provide that no portion of the Lots on Blocks 9 & 10, ""cept Lots 16 & 11 of Block 10, may be tiDed and they must remain in a natuI2I condition due to their clIaracterizati as Mansrove and Salt MMsh wetlands. Ac:cordingIy, these Lots have been rendered unbuiIdable. Thus, the Applicanr 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 aD hardwood hammock and are unbuildable, because they are too small to accept TDRs. 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 pm'erred refief under Pofiey 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-113 of the Code, when beneficial use has been deprived by operation of the environmental pofities or objectives contained in the Plan is government purchase of the property for just compensation. 14. The Applicants and the Planning 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 aD of the Lots except Lots 16 & 17 of Block 10, is that the Applicants have been deprived of aD reasonable 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 purcbase of the Lots, to the Ol<tenl 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 detennination 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_. . ~111 . 'I. John 1. W Special - .. -'-~""'"'-"'"">>""'-'''''^-'".,..~"