Resolution 241-1992
.~'
,,/,/'
F ' LEO r: n!.' :;:::- (' n p n
1- ; , ;', \, \j. I'~'
Monroe County Commission
'92
](.: r~ Q .,.;.,.:
~._' '~,. j
RESOLUTION NO. 241 -1992
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMl'HS-
SIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING
AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
CONCERNING THE VESTED RIGHTS HEARING OF LYNN
KEPHART AND MARK BARTECKI (SPOONBILL SOUND).
WHEREAS, on July 11, 1989, a vested rights hearing was held
in Key West, Monroe County, Florida, concerning Lynn Kephart and
Mark Bartecki (Spoonbill Sound), 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 Recommended Order
concerning said Lynn Kephart and Mark Bartecki (Spoonbill Sound),
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 Recommended Order concerning said Lynn
Kephart and Mark Bartecki (Spoonbill Sound), 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
9.5-182 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan's Land
Development Regulations, the said Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law and Recommended Order entered by John E. Bigler, Jr.,
Hearing Officer, concerning Lynn Kephart and Mark Bartecki
(Spoonbill Sound), 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 22nd
day of
Apri 1
, A.D. 1992.
Mayor Harvey
Mayor Pro Tem London
Commissioner Cheal
Commissioner Jones
Commissioner Stormont
Yes
yes
Yes
not present
No
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By \.U"')>.'~:R~~
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
By
fltROVF::D AS TO FORM
;;f,;J ~UFFI~ENCY.
C.,-?.!J ~
. V ';; / 'l/~ e"ico
C " ".___'(_ q 2
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MONROE
VESTED RIGHT HEARING
....l!t, 1 _ 1
LYNN H. KEPHART and
MARK BARTECKI (SPOONBILL SOUND),
Petitioners,
vs.
MONROE COUNTY,
Respondent.
/
~ It
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
,~......... "'.1 ............... ... ......~
Pursuant to notice, this cause came on for Hearing before
John E. Bigler, Jr., duly designaced Hearing Officer, commencing
at or about 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 11, 1989, in Key West,
Monroe County, Florida. The appearances were as follows:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner:
James T. Hendrick, Esquire
Morgan & Hendrick
317 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040
For Respondent:
County Attorney's Office
310 Fleming Street
Key West, Florida 33040
Howard Tupper
Monroe County Planning Official
5825 College Road
Key West, Florida 33040
This cause arose upon the filing of an application for
determinacion of Vested Rights time:ly filed by Petitioners in
1987. The Hearing was held pursuant to a legal authority and
j\lrisdiction as found in Section 9.5-182, and Article VI,
Division 3, Land Development Regulations, Monroe Coun~.Y. Code.
The Hearing was conducted under the rules of procedure as set
forth in Chapter 28-6, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter
120, Florida Statutes. The Petitioners called as their witness
<::t ["" _
at the Hearing, Lynn H. Kephart, who gave sworn testimony.
Respondent, MONROE COUNTY, called as its witness, Howard Tupper,
Planning Official, who also gave sworn testimony.
The Hearing was open to the public and provisions were made
for public input. Six members of the public were in attendance,
four of whom made comments for the record.
Counsel of the Petitioners filed with the Hearing Officer an
affidavit attesting to posting of notice as required by Section
9.5-45(c) of the ~onroe.~ounty Code. A copy of that affidavit
was introduced as Exhibit "6".
Eight exhibits were introduced into evidence. Admitted as
Exhibit "I" was a joint stipulation for Entry of Order
determining Vested Rights, executed between Petitioners and
MONROE COUNTY.
The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether or
not the Petitioners qualify for a determination of Vested Right
under Division 3, Article VI of the ~on~o~ ~ount~ Code, or as the
holder of a vested Final Major Development approval granted prior
to the effective date of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan,
under Section 9.5-2(b)(4)(1), ~9nroe County Code.
2
I.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1
This Hearing Officer hereby adopts and incorporates the
Findings of Fact as set forth in the parties' joint stipulation,
which was introduced into evidence at the vested rights hearing
and is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
~.... II.........~
This Hearing Office hereby adopts and incorporates the
Conclusions of Law as set forth in the above-referenced joint
stipulation, Exhibit 1 hereto.
As an addition to paragraph 17 thereof, the County agrees
that the clearing of the access road on the subject property and
the construction of the Spoonbill Sound community dock qualifies
as commencement of construction within the meaning of Monroe
County Code Section 9.5-184(b).
III. RECOMMENDED ORDER
- 1.1"1.1
As a Recommended Order to the Board of County Commissioners,
this Hearing Officer hereby adopts and incorporates the Florida
Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission's Final Order of Dismissal
dated December 23, 1987, which itself incorporates and adopts the
Department of Community Affairs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
dated September 9, 1987, and the parties' Settlement Agreement
dated August 8, 1987, all of which are attached hereto as
Composite Exhibit 2.
3
~r
:,.--
DONE AND ORDERED this __ ~nv day of
Key West, Monroe County, Florida.
blitspoonbill
C-l'~
II
'-~
, 1992, at
. ,. ,
Mo roe County Hearing
604 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040
(305) 294-8363
4
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MONROE
IN RE:
Vested Rights Application of
LYNN H. KEPHART and MARK
BARTECKI (SPOONBILL SOUND)
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF
ORDER DETERMINING VESTED RIGHTS
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between
Applicants and MONROE COUNTY as follows:
I. STATEMENT OF- THE. FACTS:
1. In May, 1982, LYNN H. KEPHART and MARK BARTECKI (herein-
after, "Applicants") purchased a parcel of land located on Cudjoe
Key, and described as:
Government Lot 8, Section 28, Township 66 South,
Range 28 East, Monroe County, Florida, less a strip
of land 100 feet wide conveyed to the Florida East
Coast Railway Company for right-of-way purposes,
by Deed of record in Deed Book "V", page 340,
of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida
(hereinafter, "the Property"). The deeds vesting
title to the Property are recorded at Monroe
County, Florida in Official Records Book 854,
pages 2091-2094.
2. On October 25, 1982, Applicants filed with MONROE COUNTY
an application for major development review and approval for
a residential community to be constructed on the Property, to
be known as Spoonbill Sound.
3. On January 28, 1983, following staff review of the
initial major development application,
Applicants submitted
to MONROE COUNTY an Environmental Designation Survey, Community
Impact Statement and Preliminary Development Plan for Spoonbill
Sound pursuant to the requirements of Sections 6-221 through
6-245, Monroe County Code (the Major Development Ordinance).
4. The Property comprises approximately 55.38 acres, divided
by U. S . Highway No.1.
Based on Planning staff recommendations
made during the Initial Advisory Meeting held pursuant to the
requirements to the Major Development Ordinance, Applicants
agreed to limit development of the Property to a portion of
the approximately 29-acre parcel located South of U. S. Highway
No.1.
~'~i!1- 4" jl
, 5. Following full Major Development Review, by the Monroe
County Planning staff and three (3) Zoning Board public hearings,
MONROE COUNTY adopted Resoultion MDl-84 on January 25, 1984,
approving the Spoonbill Sound Major Development, Final Development
Plan, and zone change to RU-2. This Development Order authorized
use of the property for fifty (50) units of residential housing
to be constructed on 16.01 acres of the Property. The remainder
of the Property was required to be placed in conservation status.
6. Pursuant to the Final Development Plan and conditions
imposed under the Major Development approval, Applicants conveyed
as a gift to The Trust For Public Land, the approximately 26.29,
acres of the Property lying North of U. S. Highway No.1, for
inclusion in the federally-managed wildlife refuge.
7. Pursuant to a County permit, Applicants hand-cleared
the roadway authorized in the Major Development Plan. This
/
work was performed prior to the filing of DCA's Notice of Appeal.
8. On March 29, 1984, the Department of Community Affairs
("DCA") filed a Notice of Appeal, challenging issuance by MONROE
COUNTY of the Spoonbill Sound Development Order. The filing
of this appeal had the legal effect of stopping further
construction and development of the Spoonbill Sound project
until DCA's administrative appeal was resolved.
9. On September 24, 1985, following an extended
administrati ve appeal, including a full de novo hearing before
a DOAH Hearing Office, FLAWAC issued its Final Order, reversing
the Development Order. Applicants appealed FLAWAC's Final Order
to the District Court of Appeal, First District.
10. On February 26, 1986, MONROE COUNTY adopted its Land
Use Plan, including new Chapter 9.5 of the !'1onroe County Code,
the Land Development Regulations, which became effective September
15, 1986. The Property (i.e. the upland portion of it not
previously conveyed to The Trust For Public Lands) was designated
SR, which would allow approximately sixteen (16) units to be
constructed thereon instead of the fifty (50) authorized under
Resolution MDl-84.
The new Land Development Regulations would
-2-
also have precluded construction of the boat dock authorized
under MDl-84, because the terminus of the dock would not, reach
a depth of -4' MLW.
11. On November 25, 1986, the District Court of Appeal,
in a decision reported at 498 So.2d 972, reversed FLAWAC's Final
Order, holding, inter alia, that DCA and FLAAC had erred in
/ applying to Spoonbill Sound the 1984 Florida Keys "Principles
t
for Guiding Development".
The Court also held that DCA had
no jurisdiction over the proposed Spoonbill Sound dock.
12. On remand, the Development Order was modified pursuant
to a Settlement Agreement entered into among MONROE COUNTY,
Applicants, and DCA.
That Agreement, which specifically allows
construction of fifty (50) residential units on a portion of
the
Property
over
ten
(10)
years,
became
effective
on
September 23, 1987 by Final Order of FLAWAC.
As modified by
the Settlement Agreement,
the Development Order
(MDl-1984)
remained in effect. As required under the Settlement Agreement,
Applicants granted a Conservation Easement to the Florida Keys
Land Trust, which restricted use of all of the Property outside
of the 5-acre "Building Zone" described in the Settlement
Agreement.
That Conservation Easement is recorded at Monroe
County, Official Records Book 1027, page 1610.
13. On September 26, 1987, pursuant to valid permits issued
by MONROE COUNTY, DER and the Army Corps of Engineers, Applicants
commenced work on the Spoonbill Sound community dock.
Before
the dock could be completed, the DNR issued Applicant KEPHART
a criminal citation for allegedly violating S253.77, Florida
Statutes.
In a related civil action, 16th Circuit Case No.
87-843-CA-18, Board of Trustees vs. Barnett and Kephart, the
State brought suit against Applicants to declare construction
of the dock to be a trespass on State lands.
The effect of
these criminal and civil actions was to prevent completion of
the above-water portion of the dock, thereby impeding development
of the Property.
14. Both the criminal and civil actions brought by the
State were resolved in Applicants' favor. In its Summary Judgment
-3-
issued January 29, 1988, the Circuit Court held that the State
could not apply to Applicants new standards and regulations
which were adopted after issuance of Applicants' 1983 dock
construction approval. That Judgment was upheld by the District
Court of Appeal, Third District, in an opinion issued November
22, 1988.
15. In 1987, Applicants timely filed their Application
for a Vested Rights determination, claiming a vested right to
complete the Spoonbill Sound development under MDl-1984 and
the development regulations in effect prior to adoption of Chapter
9.5, Monroe County Code.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
16. The right of Applicants and their successors in interest
to develop the Property pursuant to the Development Order
(MDl-1984, as modified pursuant to the Settlement Agreement
among Applicants, MONROE COUNTY and DCA) has been repeatedly
established in the above-referenced administrative and judicial
proceedings.
17. Applicants are the holders of a final major development
approval granted prior to the effective date of the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan and Chapter
9.5 of the Code.
Construction
commenced within three
(3) days of the date final major
development approval became effective.
Under the Settlement
Agreement, the entire project is authori zed to be constructed
over a ten (10) year period.
18. Because
Applicants
major development
approval
qualify as the holders of
1.5-2
under S-9-5..( b) ( 4 ) (a ), Monroe
final
County
Code, it is unnecessary to make a separate determination as
to each of the criteria set forth in S9. 5-183, Monroe County
Code.
19. It would be highly inequitable to require Applicants
to conform to after-enacted regulations, thereby denying them
the opportunity to complete the Spoonbill Sound development.
The Development Order for this project was issued two (2) years
-4-
'and eight (8) months prior to the effective date of the Land
Use Plan. Were it not for the government actions recited above,
which required Applicants to prosecute three (3) successful
appeals to the District Court of Appeal, the development could
have been completed prior to the effective date of the Land
Use Plan.
Moreover, Applicants have conveyed for conservation
use almost half of their Property and have restricted the use
of their remaining land, as required by and in reliance on the
Development Order.
Accordingly, it would be highly inequitable
to impose after-enacted land use regulations and restrictions
on them.
20. Applicants and their successors in interest are entitled
to complete the development of Spoonbill Sound as authorized
under the Development Order (MDl-1984, as modified pursuant
to the Settlement Agreement)
and the Monroe County Land
Development Regulations
in existence
immediately prior to
enactment of Chapter 9.5 of the Code and the Monroe County Land
Use Plan.
21. This Stipulation is jointly submitted to the Hearing
Officer for entry of a Recommended Order incorporating its terms,
and shall become effective upon approval by the Board of County
Commissioners for Monroe County.
EXECUTED at Key West, Monroe County, Florida this 1/
Jn~,
day of
1989.
..
~
Att.orney
-5-
~
STATE OF FLORIDA
LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS,
Petitioner,
and
JERRY PARRISH, JOEL L.
BEARDSLEY, ED DAVIDSON,
Intervenors,
vs.
CASE NO. 84-1198
MARK BARTECKI, LYNN KEPHART,
and MONROE COUNTY ZONING
BOARD,
Respondents.
/
FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter came before the Florida Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission on September 23, 1987, in Tallahassee,
Florida, for consideration of an appeal filed by the Department
of Community Affairs of Resolution No. MDl-84 issued by the
Monroe County Zoning Board approving a residential aevelopment
known as "Spoonbill Sound."
Pursuant to Rule 42-2.008, Florida Administrative
Code, the Department of Community Affairs' appeal of Resolution
No. MDl-84 filed with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory
Commission is hereby dismissed in accordance with the Notice
of Voluntary Dismissal dated September 9, 1987 (attached
as Exhibit A).
This order is entered by t.he ComITlission pursuant
to its authority under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. It
is not intended, nor shall it be construed, as affecting
or determining any other rights of the parties or the authority
of any other state commission, board, or government agency
to issue permits or approvals under other state laws or regulations
.
that may be applicable to the development that was the subject
of this appeal and order.
~
. o~';te ~~'^~\~\~ L
Any party to this order has the right to seek judicial
review of the order pursuant to Section 120.68, F.S., by
the filing of a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110,
Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Clerk of the
Crnrunission, Glenn W. Robertson, Jr., Office of Planning and
Budgeting, Executive Office of the Governor, Room 415, Carlton
Building, 501 South Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida
32301; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal accompanied
by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate District
Court of Appeal. Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30
days of the day this order is filed with the Clerk of the
Commission.
DONE and ENTERED, this ~~ day of September, 1987,
in Tallahassee, Florida.
LQ
~.' /
~ ._-" , . ........... .c-~----- /'
I .-L<..1..t.-i... "v ;'-,~6-';-1.-'ffT""'''''''' /
\\GLENN W. ROBERTSON, J~., ( . ecretary
Flor~da Land and Water A' judicatory
"'-C6mmission
cc:
Members of the Commission
Parties of Record
\.
....
.'
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Intervenors,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
r'O --" __.. ._._,...~~
[', .' .'. ~
.! It
,. . ..
(..;, ~ .
DEPART1.1ENT OF CO:'1.1'1UNITY
AFFAIRS,
~-:> 1
",.:. U !'711..
. .,/
Petitioner,
and
flORIO" l,\fi.') I t'~ \'/ATER
~OJ~O/CATORY COMMISSION
-'
JERRY PARRISH, JOEL L.
BEARDSLEY, ED DAVIDSON,
vs.
CASE NO. 84-1198
HARK BARTECKI, LYNN KEPHART,
and MONROE COUNTY ZONING
BOARD,
Respondents.
',.
DEPARTMENT OF CO~1UNITY AFFAIRS
HOTICE OF VOLUHTARY DISHISSAL
'.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Petitioner, Department of
Community Affairs, hereby volu~tarily dismisses the above-styled
cause based upon the attached settlement ~~reement, entered into
between the Department, Monroe County, and Respondents, Mark
Bartecki and Lynn Kephart, on August 31, 1987, pursuant to
Section 380.032(3), Flori~a Statutes (1985). A copy of the
agreement is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Respectfully submitted this 9~h day of September, 1987.
(
-~
~ .ss S. Burnaman,
Department of Commu I~
2571 Executive Center
Tallahassee, Florida
(904) 488-0410
ttorney
y Affairs
Circle, E.
32399
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing i~strument has been furnished to the parties listed on
the attached page by U. S. Mail this 9th day of September, 1987.
-
EXHIBIT A
..,
(
~
\
James T. Hendrick, Esquire
'Albury, Morgan & Hendrick
317 Whitehead Street
Key West, FL 33040
Charles Lee
1101 Audubon \vay
Maitland, FL 32751
Rob Wolfe, Esquire
Assistant County Attorney
Z.~onroe County
310 Fleming Street
Key West, FL 33040
'.
'.
..
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTI.1ENT OF COI111UNITY
AFFAIRS,
Petitioner,
-.
and
JERRY PARRISH, JOEL L.
BEARDSLEY; ED DAVIDSON,
f
Intervenors,
CASE NO. 84-1198
vs.
HARK BARTECKI, LYNN KEPHART,
and 1'10NROE COUNTY ZONING
BOARD,
Respondents.
I
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into pursuant to section 380.032
(3), Florida statutes (1985), for the purpose of resolving the
Department of corrunu:1ity Affairs' ("Department") appeal of a
development order designated as Nonroe County ("County") Zoning
Board Resolution 11Dl-84, relative to a project known as
"spoonbill Sound". The project is proposed to be developed on
cudjoe Key, Monroe County, Florida, .the site of which is more
specifically depicted on a survey of the development plan
appealed; a copy of which is attached hereto for purposes of
boundary depiction and calculation of "hammock" only, as'
( Exhibit A. The development order granted by the County is
.'
modified only to the extent specified in the following
paragraphS:
1. construction of the 50 residential units approved shall
be wholly confined to the area which is designated as the
"Building Zone" on the amended conceptual site plan attached
hereto as Exhibit B. The Building Zone comprises approximately 5
acres, as'calculated as 40 per cent of the 12.5 acre (+ or -)
hammock area depicted on Exhibit A. Within 30 days of entry of
the Final Order approving this agreement, Respondents Bartecki
.~
and Kephart, will have the physical boundaries of the Building
Zone surveyed and delineated as follows: each of the corners of
the Building Zone will be marked with concrete survey markers or
.~
,~
other permanent monuments, and the boundaries of the zone will be
marked with permanent markers at no less than 340 foot intervals.
2. After survey and marking, development in the Building
Zone will be subject to the following additional conditions:
a. The residental units and appurtenances will be clustered;
~
b. The location of residental units and appurtenances will
be appr~ved for each phase by the County through issuance of a
building permit, based upon building regulations in effect when
applied for;
c. Areas proposed to be cleared will be staked prior to
~
clearIng to allow for inspection by the County and any required
transplantation of rare, endangered or threatened species of flora
or fauna in the area proposed for clearing;
d. Clearing for residential units and appurtenances is
only authorized to locate said units and appurtenances with a
reasonable clearance surrounding said structures: no clear-cutting
within the Building Zone is authorized;
e. Construction of the residential units and appurtenances
may proceed in phases of one to ten years from the date of the
Final Order approving this agreement, provided that all development
shall commence no later than ten ye.ars from the date of the Final
Order approving this agreement;
I. Land clearing shall coincide with phasing ~f each
residential unit and appurtenance, and shall require the prior
(
issuance of a County land clearing permit;
g. Nothing in this agreement limits or prohibits constructi(
of (a) community swimming pools and/or tennis courts, not exceeding
a total of three such facilities, within the Building Zone, and (b)
those structures expressly allowed under the Conservation Easement
(Exhibit C hereto). Net buildable area, open space ratio, setbacks
and bufferyards shall be measured and computed on the basis of the
area and boundaries of the hammock, rather than the Building
Zone.
3. Allan-site wastewater treatment facilities shall comply
with the requirements of Chapter lOD-6, Florida Administrative
COde, or its successor regulations, as well as all applicable
~ ...,.
(
. .
state statutes pertaining to wastewater treatment which are in
force as of the date that permits required thereby are applied
for. In no event shall more than 25 dwelling units be served
by on-site treatment units. After the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the 25th dwelling unit, a sewage treatment facility
must be installed, to treat the wastewater of all- existing and
future dwelling units at Spoonbill Sound. No more than 25 on-
site treatment units may be constructed until a fully-licensed
sewage treatment plant with requisite collection lines, has been
installed and is operational. Once the sewage treatment plant
is operational, all existing on-site treatment units shall be
removed within 6 months, and the areas disturbed revegetated with
native species, and all wastewater will be treated in the central
"
sewage treatment plant. The sewage treatment plant shall be located
as depicted on Exhibit B and clearing for construction and maintenanc
shall be minimized and approved by the County Biologist.
4. Other on-site stormwater and wastewater shall be subject
to permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management
District and Department of Environmental Regulation, in addition
to any review required by the County.
5. The depiction of the "proposed dock" on Exhibits A and B
does not in any respect constitute an endorsement or approval of
the dock by the Deparment or the Florida Land and \~ater Adjudicatory
Commission, which currently lack Area of Critical State Concern
jurisdiction over the proposed dock waterward of the line of mean
high water. The proposed dock is depicted solely as a surviving
feature of the County development order.
6. within 15 days of the entry of the Final Order approving
this agreement, Respondents Bartecki and Kephart shall execute
and record in the Public Records of Monroe County, the Conservation
Easement attached hereto as Exhibit C. No disturbance shall occur
in the areas subject to the easement prior to recordation and
the Respondents shall be required to restore any areas disturbed
prior to recordation. A true and correct copy of the recorded
instrument shall be provided to the Department's Agency Clerk
within 15 days of recordation.
':\
. "
. .
/.'
.7. Nothing in this agreement shall relieve the Respondents,
or their successors in interest, of the need to apply for and
obtain all required federal, state, regional and local permits.
8. This agreement is enforceable pursuant to sections 380.032(3)
and 380.11, Florida statutes (1985). The prevailing party in such
an enforcement proceeding shall be entitled to recov~r those costs
and attor~eys fees allowed by law. In addition, the Department
$hall be entitled to recover those investigative costs and expenses
incurred in such proceedings.
9. Upon full execution of this agreement, the Department
will frle a notice of voluntary dismissal of its appeal of 1.1onroe
County Zoning Board Resolution MDl-84.
~~RK BARTECKI and LYNN KEPHART
0~
\r'(r
OF ~LORI DA
STATE
ss:
COUNTY OF MONROE
S\'iORN TO and SUBSCRIBED before me this ~
day
Of~C\~
\
1987.
JffiTot~ p",LrH:.. Shle of R01i<ia .:ruJ
l.',y Com~ljS\ion E.pires De<. 9., 1990
1.1y comm i !;'s'iBn TI'~y:t! t~!:;I~..
ss:
~t~ CJ)\.~
(SEAL)
2(~4;At2~
Clerk ~1:t!J'/m AS TO rom
~ GAL.sU~fd-
{)y ~~~:"ir.a~
(
1.1 m,m 0 E
COUNTY OF 110NROE
. sworu~ TO and SUBSCRIBED before me this
yu.:A
{},!,~
.
1987. .OT~RY rU~lIC STATf OF FLORIDA
~YCO~KISSIO~ [XP. kOV 13,/990
. . EO.:!EO TIIRU G~ ~rHl as. u~o.
My co~n1SS1on exp1res:
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CO~1UNITY
By_.j2!J~(~~_~
TilOrVIS G. PELBi.J1, Secretary
r;':'ATS CE' ?LORIDA
COUUTY OF LI~otJ
SUQ;'.!1 'i'O ]'I,UD SVBSCRI!3~D BE['OP-E ns '.:'!!IS
IH.-r, r,,1 r,r ~"!r ~r n^,:G~l .-1
. y}
~D 71 DI\Y
OT: . /J I (} u-/.>( ,
~V'--l-
n /J