Item D2BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: October 18, 2001
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Division: County Attorney
Public Hearing on Resolution on the Recommended Beneficial Use Determination of Andy and
Carol Samul.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Hearing Officer John J. Wolfe issued a Proposed Beneficial Use Determination.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
Adoption of Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and ROGO.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
TOTAL COST: N/A BUDGETED. Yes No
Cost to County:
APPROVED BY:
County Attorney X OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DIVISION DI
DOCUMENT„ I OWN
mauled To Follow Not required
AGENDA ITEM #_ I / 0�
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF BENEFICIAL USE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN that on Thursday, October 18,
2001 at 10:30 AM at the Harvey Govt. Center, 1200 Truman Ave., Key West, Florida,
the Board of County Commissioners intends to consider the following application for
Beneficial Use and/or Vested Rights Determinations pursuant to Policy 101.18.5 of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, to secure a minimum Beneficial Use and
or determination of Vested Rights for the properties described below.
Applicant Name Property Description
Andy & Carol Samul Lot 8, Block 58, 2nd Addition, Port Pine Heights.
Lots 10 and 11, Block 3, Center Island, Duck Key.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, notice is given that if a person decided
to appeal any decision made by the Board with respect to any matter considered at such
hearings or meetings, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Copies of the above -referenced determinations are available for review at the various
public libraries in Monroe County, Florida.
Dated at Key West, Florida, this 4th day of September, 2001
DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk of the Circuit Court
and ex officio Clerk of the Board of County
(SEAL) Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida
Requested publication date
Citizen 9114101
and
County Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. -2001
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: THE
APPLICATION OF ANDY AND CAROL SAMUL
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective;
WHEREAS, the application of Andy and Carol Somul for determination of beneficial use was heard by
Special Master John J. Wolfe on June 29, 2001; now therefore
that:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Special Master as set forth in
the Proposed Beneficial Use Determination are APPROVED and the ROGO allocation received for the Lot be
transferred to the Alternate Lots, subject to the conditions listed in the attached Proposed Beneficial Use
Determination, dated September 18, 2001.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular
meeting of the Board held on the 18th day of October, 2001.
Mayor George Neugent
Mayor Pro Tem Nora Williams
Commissioner Murray Nelson
Commissioner Dixie Spehar
Commissioner Charles McCoy
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
By
Deputy Clerk
jbusam i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Mayor/Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND AL FFICI N
B �
ROBERT N. /
DATE ` 7
BENEFICIAL USE
MONROE COUNTY SPECLkL MASTER
In Re: Andy & Carol Ssmul
-Beneficial Use Application
PROPOSED
BED&FICIAI. USE RKURMINATION
The above entitled matter was heard at a duly-advatisod and t+eguleriy scheduled, public
hazing on June 29, 2001. before John J. Wolfe, desipated Beneficial Use Special Master. The
Application for a Determination of Beneficial Use was Sled by the applicants (the "Applicants"),
in December, 2000. The Applicants appeared on their own bebal£ Director of Planning. Marlene
Conaway and Assistant to the Planning Director, Julia Tbomson represented Monroe County.
ISSUE
Whether the Applicants have been denied all reasonable economic use of their property by
' application of Objective 301.2 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"}, and Section 9.5-
292 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property of the Applicants subject to this Hearing is Lot 8, Block 58, Pori Pule
Heights 2nd Addition, Big Pine Key and is an unimproved lot (the "Lot'. The Lot is zoned
Improved Subdivision (IS). The Applicants purchased the Lot in August,1995.
2. The Applicants received an allocation under the Rate of Growth Ordinance procedures in
April,1996, but as a result of the Moratorium discussed in paragraph 4 below, have bcen prevented
from building during the five years which have elapsed since receiving the award.
3. The Lot is an upland scarified lot, and, as stub., does not have on site envirotunental
constraints to development.
4. There currently exists amoratorium (the "Moratorium') on all development activities on
Big Pine Key which could generate additional trips. The Moratorium exists pursuant to Objective
301.2 of the Plan and Section 9.5-292 of the Code. Objective 301.2 directs the County to "'Ensure
that all roads have sufficient capacity to serve development at the adopted LOS standards eoneurrent
with the: impact of said development," Section 9.5.292 e9tablishm a minimum Level of Service
CILOS") C for each road segment of U.S. Highway 1. The Big Pine Key segment is below the LOS
C threshold. Therefor, the segment is considered inadequate and subject to the Moratorium.
5. A Habitat Conservation Plan is being prepared for Big Pine Key which will include
requests for permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for road improvements which should
improve the LOS on U.S. Highway 1. However, completion of such plan and permitting approvals
may be several years in the future. Even if approval is obtained, funding, design and construction
will further increase the time before improvements can be made to the road segment.
6. The Applicants received their ROGO allocation in April, 1996 over five years prior to the
date of this Hearing.
7. The Lot is in an area proposed for acquisition by governmental agencies, and the; State of
Florida has made an offer to purchase the Lot.
8. The Applicants have purchased Lots 10 and 11, Block 3, Center island, Duck Key as an
alternative building site (the "Alternate Lots"). The Lots arc upland and disturbed and do not have
on site environmental constraints to development.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Lot is designated Improved Subdivision (IS), which allows one residential dwelling
per lot.
10. The provisions of Objective 301.2 of the Plan and Section 9.5-292 of the Code, have
resulted in the Moratorium. As a result, the Applicants are not able to obtain a building permit even
though they obtained a ROGO allocation over five years ago. Any relief from the Moratorium is
unUkely before the passage of at least several more years due to the uncertainty surrounding the
Habitat Conservation Plan being prepared and what effect it may have on future development. Thus,
as the Planning Department agrees with, due to the combination of the Moratorium and the unique
environmental constraints affecting Big Pine Key, the Applicants have been denied all reasonable
economic use of the Lots within the mewing of Policy 101.18.5
11. Policy 101.18.5 of the Plan and Section 9.5-173 of the Code both provide that when
beneficial use has been deprived, the relief to be granted may include such relief as the County
determines is appropriate and adequate. Granting relief other than development of the Lot is
consistent with Policies 207.7.3 and 207.7A of the Plan to identify key deer habitat areas as priority
acquisition sites and to coordinate programs for acquisition with federal, state and non-profit
conservation organizations.
12. The Applicants and the Planning Director have agreed that due to the unique situation
of the Applicants in that they have been awarded a ROGO allocation, but'are unable to obtain a
building permit, that transfer oftheir ROGO allocation from the Lot to the Alternate Lots is the type
of appropriate and adequate relief contemplated by the Plan and the Code.
PROPOSED DETER NATION
AND
STATEMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION
In accordance with the provisions of Section 9.5-171 of the Code, my proposed
detennination is that the Applicants have been deprived of all reasonable MQUamic use of their
property by the operation of the Plan and Land Development Regulations of the Code, and that the
appropriate remedial action is transfer of the ROGO allocation received for the Lot to the Alternate
Lots. The Applicants would be required to follow all other applicable laws, regulations and
conditions in developing the Altemte hots.
DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of September, 2001.
`J
John J. olfe
Speci aster