Resolution 686-1988
, .
Monroe County Commission
RESOLUTION NO. 686 -1988
a
0::
o
U
\.I..
0.::
a:
o
u
o
W
....J
u...
N
N
0'\
ex::
A. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
S50NERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING
At;m ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLU-
,sroNS OF LAW AND ORDER CONCERNING THE VESTED
. )......-.
?:~HTS HEARING OF KEY COLONY BEACH CLUB,
~ .-:-tSC., JOHN AND RALPH SMITH.
'L-.-
c.;) :e::, .
LLJ \............
o ''''''-0
~c (-) a:::
<t Z
~EREA', on October 25, 1988, a vested rights hearing was
held in Key West, Monroe County, Florida, concerning Key Colony
Beach Club, Inc., John and Ralph Smith, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with said hearing, John E. Bigler,
Jr., Hearing Officer for Monroe County, Florida, entered a
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order concerning said
Key Colony Beach Club, Inc., John and Ralph Smith, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, now desires to accept and adopt said Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order concerning said Key Colony Beach
Club, Inc., John and Ralph Smith, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The Board hereby accepts and adopts, pursuant to Section
8-302(b)(5) of the Florida Keys Comprehensive Plan's Land
Development Regulations, the said Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law and Order entered by John E. Bigler, Jr., Hearing Officer,
concerning Key Colony Beach Club, Inc., John and Ralph Smith, a
copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to
forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Department of
Community Affairs, P.O. Box 990, Key West, Florida 33041.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held
on the 20th day of December, A.D. 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY, ~~~~
M R I N
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
APPROVED AS TO'"
ANDLEGALSU~_~
8a~L:;:P.~ .~/
Attorney's 0IIice
~,~~.~~L
::H- .
"..-<>>
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MONROE
Petitioners,
--..
(I.' '-' " ...... n
REC t. \.\1 'r_ \J
.. :\J '2. ~ '<l,~?>,. .'
\~G.. ,',ill
..", f".'I ., \. \ .
"1\~Or: ..,,<-: '..a'
MOi''',~... '""":::._ I'.
nl ~ !\If',
r""i'" ~
KEY COLONY BEACH CLUB, INC.,
JOHN and RALPH SMITH,
vs.
8'1
MONROE COUNTY,
Respondent.
/
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
Pursuant to notice, this cause was heard before John E.
Bigler, Jr., A duly designated hearing officer, on Tuesday,
October 25, 1988, at 10:00 a.m. in the Grand Jury Room in Key
West, Florida. Appearances were:
For Petitioners: Ralph F. Smith
Key Colony Beach Club, Inc.
P.O. Box 716
Key Colony Beach, FL 33051
For Respondent:
Ruth Grover
County Planner
5825 Junior College Road
Key West, FL 33040
George W. Quinnell, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney
310 Fleming Street
Key West, FL 33040
This cause arose upon the filing of an application for
determination of vested rights on September 2, 1987, amended on
October 25, 1988, by Ralph F. Smith on behalf of Petitioners, who
claim ownership of Lot 13, Block 13 and Lot 11, Block 14 of Coco
Palm Beach, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 166,
Monroe County records. The hearing was held pursuant to Section
4-107 and Chapter 8, Volume 3, Florida Keys Comprehensive Plan
and was conducted under the rules of procedure set forth in
Chapter 28-5 of the Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 120
of the Florida statutes.
The hearing was open to the public, and Petitioners called
Ralph F. Smith as their only witness.
Exhibits introduced into
evidence were:
1. Maps of subject property;
ot -
2. Mac of state lands;
1. Map of dike removal;
4. E:~hibi t H (bJO applic<:1ticns);
5. Pro forma p~esentation;
6. Letter dated 9/2/87;
7. Letter dated 10/18/u8;
8. Amended application;
9. Affidavit of notice;
10. Photograph of site, 1972;
11. Photograph of site, 1985;
12. Composite - four deeds to state of Florida;
13. Diagram of Avenue K. Lots 12-20 inclusive;
The issue to be resolved was whether Petitioners had met the
standards for vested rights as set forth in Chapter 9.5, Article
VI, Division 3 of the Monroe County Code.
Ralph F. SMith, a non-attorney, presented his case and
personally testified. Every courtesy was extended to Mr. Smith
to reopen his case, make additions, to cross examine and to fully
express himself as he saw fit. Great liberality was granted by
the Hearing Officer in permitting Mr. Smith to express his
frustration with his perception of the bureaucratic process in
his attempts to use his property as he saw fit.
At the
conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Smith was invited to present his
own proposed findings and conclusions to the Hearing Officer and
was given until 15 November 1988 to do so.
Mr. Smith was
encouraged to review his presentation and consult with an
attorney to present his proposed findings and conclusions.
This
Hearing Officer made it amply clear that the official file, with
exhibits, was available at all times for this preparation.
Petitioners failed and/or did not elect to present any proposed
findings or conclusions for consideration by
Officer.
this Hearing
FINDINGS OF FACT
Ralph F. Smith testified as follows in response to questions
posed by the County:
1. In 1972 Petitioners received a dredge-and-fill permit
/
Y
/
.:
for two canals in the vicinity of the
1974 received an additional permit for
area; however a permit authorizing
subject prop~rty and in
furthsr di"edging
. , .
J,n 'cne
the specific property has
never been issued.
2. The application was incomplete in that the
documentation required in paragraph E of the .l\pplication for
Determination of Vested Rights was not attached.
3. No act~al construction had begun.
4. Petitioners h3ve incurred no expenses or obligations
which are unique to the proposed development.
5. No feasibility studies with respect to the proposed
development have been made. Petitioners have hired no
architects, engineers, or economists to assist them in
determining whether the proposed development is economically
viable.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Hearing Officer finds as follows:
1. As a result of Petitioners' failure to attach the
supporting documentation required in paragraph E of their
Application, it cannot be concluded that they even own the
subject property and because of the incompleteness of their
Application they were not entitled to a hearing.
2. Petitioners have failed to satisfy any of the criteria
set forth in Section 9.5-183, to wit:
a) They failed to show there was a valid, unexpired
governmental act of Monroe County authorizing the specific
development.
\~ .
3. The Petitioners have also failed to satisfy any of the
following minimum requirements:
j'
a) That expenditures or obligations. were made or
incurred in reliance upon the authorizing act that are not
reasonably usable in a development permitted by Chapter 9.5;
b) That it would be highly inequitable to deny the
applicant the opportunity to complete the previously approved
development.
4. Other factors which were considered and which were not
,
~hO\'ln to .::l::i3t .J~l t.:~3 :?:~:r~::"~:t_C1181: t:'~;:8:
u)
~'J :10 t:.~.: 1: ':;'~'c.:.~ ;~~.L C 2 ~:::'Co :"~~'. -,-')"::~ ~.J. 11;:lS C(~~-l-:'~': :::'.. ':.'; Co ~.~
..... i,..""'
\,..__ .-J.
t'lhether the
e:~psnses or
obligut~ons ia~~~~~~
:.:1:0 l.~.''-l:~'~_l_'>.~ '::.~I
. .
. ~:_ ~-3
development previously ap?roved ano
11C)':': :rQ~fJC!lf'.~j_I.."')
~ - -.
~::'.J:j :,)_ (.; ~: oJ:." r~
development permitted by Chaptc= 9.5;
b) t'lhether the alleged injury ou';':\';eighs 'i:!lO r;ublic
cost of allowing the e3velopmcnt to go forw~~d;
c) Whether the e?plica~t has dem~n3tratGd thut the
development t'las e.::onor:1ically v iClblc \oJnen app:-oved;
d) Whether the expenses or obligations were made or
incurred with notice of a change in regulations;
e) Whether the applicant can make a reasonable return
on the expended expenses or obligations by development authorized
by the plan.
5. There was a veritable complete lack of proof by the
petitioner for a finding of vested rights even with every
possible consideration and benefit of any doubt being given to
the Petitioners presentation and possible claim.
ORDER
Upon the evidence, findings, and conclusions having been
considered, it is ordered that the Petitioners are not entitled
to a favorable determination, and their application is therefore
denied.
DONE AND ORDERED this
,;T
21 -day of November, 1988, in Key
West, Florida.
'0:.
?!trL ~ /kA t
J9BN E. BIGELR, JR.
Hearing Officer
604 Whitehead street
Key West, FL 33040
(305) 294-8363
Copies to:
Honorable Gene Lytton, Mayor
Captain Tom Brown, County Administrator
Mr. Ralph Smith, Petitioner
George W. Quinnell, Esq.
Ruth Grover, Planning Department
. ~~
,Co