Resolution 130-1992
L. r."'J
CL p
C~'
,
"-..,
W 0-
"
!"'.- '0
C.~ N
u CO
l.U
C L.r....
W
--' N
k P'
Board of Appeals
RESOLUTION NO. 130 -1992
.. 1 ....
A-RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, SITTING AS THE BOARD OF
APPEALS, DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY MR. AND
~S. JAMES E. SPISIAK, SR., OF PLANNING
~:~ISSION RESOLUTION NO. 46-1991, WHICH
,DQl1ED THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION APPEAL OF THE
c: SlaSIAKS, CONCERNING A DECISION BY TY
S~OSKI THAT COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS ARE NOT A
PERMITTED USE IN THE SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL (SC)
LAND USE DISTRICT.
IL...._~.... M
WHEREAS, Ty Symroski, in a letter dated July 30, 1991,
recommended denial of proposed construction in the Suburban
Commercial (SC) Land Use District; and
WHEREAS, James Spisiak, Sr. appealed the issuance of that
denial letter to the Planning Commission on the basis that
communications towers fall within the public buildings and uses
exception in 59.5-235(a)(6), Monroe County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on November 7, 1991,
denied that Appeal on the grounds that the Appellant had not
proven that Mr. Symroski had erred in his interpretation of the
Code; and
WHEREAS, this Board this Board having reviewed the record
submitted by the Appellants and furnished by the County, and
having heard the argument of counsel; and
WHEREAS, this Board having considered both sides' inter-
pretation of the disputed sections of the Code, including but not
limited to:
559.5-235(a)(6), 9.5-4(P-18), 9.5-3, 9.5-206,
9.5-236(b)(3) & (c)(8), 9.5-207, 9.5-238(b)(3) & (c)(7), 9.5-209,
9.5-239(b)(2) & (4) and (c)(4) and 9.5-210;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SITTING AS THE BOARD OF
APPEALS, as follows:
1. Mr. Symroski was correct in his interpretation that
communications towers are not a permitted use in the Suburban
Commercial (SC) District;
2. That communications towers are not a "Public Building"
as defined in 9.5-4(P-18);
3. That the interpretation of the Code as proposed by the
Appellant is not consistent with protection of the health, safety
or welfare of the citizens of the County;
4. When the Appellants' arguments are considered, they do
not meet the test of carrying out "the true intent and meaning"
as set down by this Board;
5. That the Appellants have not been singled out for
"special treatment;"
6. That where a use is specifically allowed in one
section, it must be treated as specifically denied in all others
[9.5-231(a)];
7. That the Appellants have not sustained their burden of
proof with regard to their argument that detrimental reliance or
estoppel should be granted by the County; and
8. That the Appeal by the Spisiaks is hereby DENIED.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held
on the
19th
day of Feb ruary
~.
, A.D., 1992.
Vote at Hearing on 1/28/92
Vote for this Resolution
Mayor Harvey
Mayor Pro Tem London
Commissioner Cheal
Commissioner Jones
Commissioner Stormont
Yes
Yes
-., es
-'es....
~es
Mayor Harvey
Mayor Pro Tem London
Commissioner Cheal
Commissioner Jones
Commissioner Stormont
Yes
~Yes 1
-
_Yei,
Yes .."'"
'I';s
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
.-.- .-'"--~..''''.__.~-
B : \.U ~~...... ...-~ ""--~. - -' \
y - Mayor/tha1rman" ,-
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
By:
By
AP.~ TO FOnM
A~ G JFFf9JIiNGY.
I .V
Attorney's Offica
2 - 7- 'IL-
Date