Item D06BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 17, 2000
Bulk Item: Yes No X
Division: Growth Management
Department: Planning_
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Second of two public hearings to consider ROGO and Affordable
Housing amendments to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (2010 Plan) and the Monroe
County Code (LDRs).
ITEM BACKGROUND: The first public hearing, or "transmittal" hearing was held on August 11,
1999, where the BOCC recommended approval of these amendments. A new hold harmless date for the
LRD amendments was approved by the BOCC at its November 10, 1999 meeting. The Planning
Department transmitted these ordinances to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for its
consideration. The DCA has reviewed the proposed amendments to the 2010 Plan and noted one
objection to the proposed amendment as transmitted. The recommendation suggested by the DCA has
been followed by the Planning Department as reflected in the attached revised staff report and
ordinances.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: The BOCC approved a resolution authorizing the
Planning Department to transmit a draft ordinance that would amend the 2010 Plan to the DCA for
review. The BOCC also adopted Ordinance 034-1999a. which was part of the ROGO Affordable
Housing amendment package.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
TOTAL COST: None
COST TO COUNTY: None
BUDGETED: Yes N/A No
APPROVED BY: County Attorney _X_ OMB/Purchasing _N/A_ Risk Management _N/A_
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPRO`
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENTATION: Included X To follow
DISPOSITION:
ORCAgenda
Not required
Agenda Item #:
RESIDENTIAL ROGO TEXT AMENDMENTS
(2010 Plan and LDRs)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KEY LARGO
FEBRUARY 17, 2000
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
RESIDENTIAL ROGO PROVISIONS OF THE MONROE COUNTY
YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LDRs
Staff: Approval February 25, 1999 Staff Report
DRC: Approval March 4, 1999
PC: Approval July 1, 1999
BOCC: Approval August 11, 1999
Resolution #D02-99
Resolution #P40-99
Resolution #383-1999 & Ordinance 034-1999
BOCC: Approval November 10, 1999 Ordinance 034-1999a
(change in LRD hold harmless date)
ORDINANCE # -2000
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO
RESIDENTIAL ROGO'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROVISIONS OF THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING PORTIONS OF
POLICIES 101.2.4, 101.5.4 AND 601.1.11 WHICH ADD
FLEXIBILITY TO THE RESIDENTIAL ROGO
ALLOCATIONS AND PROVIDE POSITIVE POINT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MODEST HOUSING. THIS
ORDINANCE ALSO ADDS POLICY 101.5.10 WHICH
CREATES OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENT BY TRANFERRING EXISTING
TRANSIENT AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND
SPACES.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (2010 Plan)
requires Monroe County to implement a permit allocation system; and
WHEREAS, the permit allocation system is comprised of a residential permit
allocation system and a commercial permit allocation system; and
WHEREAS, the residential permit allocation system has been enacted as the
Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (residential ROGO); and
WHEREAS, residential ROGO has been effective since July 13, 1992; and
WHEREAS, 2010 Plan policies related to residential ROGO will be modified by
these amendments proposed herein; and
WHEREAS, over five years of experience with residential ROGO has
illuminated areas for improvement, clarification and increasing effectiveness; and
WHEREAS, the 2010 Plan recognizes affordable housing as an important issue
facing Monroe County and its residents; and
WHEREAS, recent affordable housing initiatives, such as those proposed by the
Monroe County Affordable Housing Joint Task Force, warrant changes to ROGO; and
WHEREAS, currently Policy 101.2.4 of the 2010 Plan directs the County to
allocate 20 percent of residential (non -transient) growth to affordable housing units as
part of residential ROGO; and whereas any portion of the 20 percent allocation not used
for affordable housing shall be allocated to general (market rate) housing; and
Affordable Housing Policy Ordinance
Page 1 of 8
WHEREAS, the intended balance of affordable and market rate housing detailed
in Policy 101.2.4 of the 2010 Plan has not been achieved; and
WHEREAS, affordable housing initiatives are expected to increase the demand
for affordable housing beyond the limits imposed by the 20% residential ROGO
allocation awards set aside for affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the ROGO amendments detailed in this ordinance encourage the
development of housing for middle and lower income residents; and
WHEREAS, currently Goal 601 of the 2010 Plan directs the County to provide
programs and policies that facilitate access by all residents to adequate and affordable
housing; and
WHEREAS, Objective 601.3 of the 2010 Plan requires Monroe County to
eliminate substandard housing and enhance existing housing; and
WHEREAS, taken collectively, the goals, objectives and policies of the 2010
Plan favor redevelopment over new development; and
WHEREAS, hotel rooms, mobile homes, campsites, RV spaces and residential
units are all currently subject to residential ROGO; and
WHEREAS, amending residential ROGO so that subject to certain restrictions,
eligible units can be transferred off -site without going through ROGO provides a
mechanism to eliminate substandard housing, enhance existing housing and redevelop
residential and hotel uses throughout the Keys; and
WHEREAS, the ROGO amendments detailed in this ordinance will help create a
diverse housing stock, that includes multi -family units and commercial apartments, that
meet the needs of middle and lower income residents; and
WHEREAS, the ROGO amendments detailed in this ordinance encourage
development of homes built to meet the needs of residents from a range of lower and
middle income categories, as well as a range of housing types; and
WHEREAS, Objective 601.2 of the 2010 Plan requires Monroe County to
encourage housing of various types, sizes and price ranges to meet the needs of residents;
and
WHEREAS, currently the extra points necessary to successfully compete in the
market ROGO category involve substantial financial investments; and
Affordable Housing Policy Ordinance
Page 2 of 8
WHEREAS, Policy 601.1.7 of the 2010 Plan requires Monroe County to ensure
that homes stay affordable for at least 20 years; and
WHEREAS, the ROGO amendments detailed in this ordinance represent the
beginnings of an integrated and holistic affordable housing strategy; and
WHEREAS, making homes with modest characteristics eligible for extra ROGO
points, could increase the range of housing types in the County that meet the needs of
middle and lower income residents for the long term; and
WHEREAS, Objective 601.3 of the 2010 Plan requires Monroe County to
eliminate sub -standard housing and enhance existing housing; and
WHEREAS, amendments to residential ROGO contained in this ordinance are
developed in manner consistent with the 2010 Plan and all applicable requirements of
Chapters 163 and 380 of the Florida Statutes, including the `Principles For Guiding
Development'; and
WHEREAS, the ROGO amendments detailed in this ordinance, particularly the
Transfers of ROGO Exemptions (TREs), provide a mechanism to eliminate substandard
housing and to enhance existing housing; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, during a regular meeting held
on August 11, 1999, conducted a review of an amendment to the 2010 Plan filed by the
Planning Department to add flexibility to residential ROGO, and to provide positive point
opportunities for modest housing and create opportunities for new development by
transferring existing residential and transient units and spaces; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Resources Departments as well as
the Development Review Committee and Planning Commission have recommended
approval of the request; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has reviewed the
proposed amendment and objects to Policy 101.5.4 which allows positive points for
utilizing TREs without defining TREs or establishing detailed criteria for their use; and
WHEREAS, the DCA recommends that the proposed amendment be revised to
include a policy that defines the concept of TREs and establishes appropriate guidelines
for their use; and
WHEREAS, in this ordinance the concept of TREs are explained and appropriate
guidelines for their use are established; and
Affordable Housing Policy Ordinance
Page 3 of 8
WHEREAS, having addressed the objections and implemented the
recommendations of the DCA in this ordinance, the Planning Department continues to
recommend approval of the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners considers the data and analysis
provided to the agency to be sufficient to warrant the proposed amendment and therefore,
makes no substantive revisions to the staff report or ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners, after
due notice and public participation in the public hearing process, conducted a public
"adoption hearing" to consider adopting the proposed amendment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. Policy 101.2.4 shall be amended and read as follows (the strike -through
and underline format is used to indicate additions and deletions to this
section):
Policy 101.2.4
Monroe County shall allocate at least 20 percent of residential (non -transient)
growth to affordable housing units as part of the Permit Allocation System. Any
portion of the 20 percent allocation not used for affordable housing shall be
retained and be made available for affordable housing from ROGO year to ROGO
year. Affordable housing eligible for this separate allocation must meet the
criteria specified in Policy 601.1.7. The parcel proposed for development shall
not be located in an acquisition area and shall not qualify for negative points
according to the criteria specified under Habitat Protection and Threatened or
Endangered Animal Species in Policy 101.5.4; however, properties designated
Residential High shall be exempted from this prohibition.
Section 2. Policy 101.5.4 shall be amended and read as follows (the strike -through
and underline format is used to indicate additions and deletions to this
section):
(19) Modest Housing — Points shall be assigned to encourage the development of
residential dwelling units with characteristics that make them relatively less expensive
than similar residential dwelling units that lack these characteristics.
Affordable Housing Policy Ordinance
Page 4 of 8
Detached Residential Dwelling Unit
Weighting Category
Criteria
minor positive
An application which qualifies for infill
ROGO points under Policy 101.5.4 and
which proposes the development of a
detached residential dwelling unit that
utilizes a ROGO allocation and contains
one thousand three hundred (1,300) square
feet, or less, of habitable space. The parcel
of land proposed for developing a
detached residential dwelling unit shall
not qualify_ for negative environmental
points under Policy 101.5.4; however,
properties designated Residential High
shall be exempted from this prohibition.
An affordable unit is not eligible for these
points since a residential dwelling unit that
utilizes an affordable ROGO allocation is
already required to contain one thousand
three hundred (1,300) square feet, or less,
of habitable space.
minor positive
Additional points shall be earned for
proposing a detached modular residential
dwelling unit.
minor positive
Additional points shall be earned for
proposing a detached residential dwelling
unit on a non -water ont property.
Attached Residential
Weighting Category
minor positive
Unit
Affordable Housing Policy Ordinance
Page 5 of 8
Criteria
An application which qualifies for inf ll
ROGO points under Policy 101.5.4 and
which proposes the development of an
attached dwelling unit that utilizes a
ROGO allocation and contains one
thousand three hundred (1,300) square
feet, or less, of habitable space. The parcel
of land proposed for developing an
attached residential dwelling unit shall not
qualify for negative environmental points
under Policy 101.5.4; however, properties
designated Residential High shall be
exempted from this prohibition. An
affordable unit is not eligible for these
points since a residential dwelling unit that
utilizes an affordable ROGO allocation is
already required to contain one thousand
three hundred (1,300) square feet, or less,
of habitable space.
minor positive
Additional points shall be earned for
proposing an attached modular residential
dwelling unit.
minor positive
Additional points shall be earned for
proposing an attached residential dwelling
unit on a non -waterfront property.
minor positive
An application shall earn an additional
point for proposing an attached residential
dwelling unit that utilizes a residential
transfer of ROGO exemption (TRE), on a
one for one basis (see Policy 101.5.10).
Section 3. Policy 101.5.10 shall be added and read as follows (the underline format is
used since this is an entirely new section):
Policy 101.5.10
Monroe County may develop a program, called Transfer of ROGO Exemption
(TRE), that would allow for the transfer off -site of dwelling units, hotel
rooms, recreational vehicle spaces and mobile homes to another site in the
same ROGO subarea, provided that they are lawfully existing and can be
accounted for in the County's hurricane evacuation model In addition, the
new site would not be eligible for any negative environmental points under
ROGO with the exception of those properties designated Residential High
When a multiple -family housing development utilizes a TRE, any other units in that
same project that are permitted through the ROGO process may be eligible for
minor positive points on a one for one basis.
Attorciabie Housing Policy Ordinance
Page 6 of 8
Section 4. Policy 601.1.11 shall be amended and read as follows (the strike -through
and underline format is used to indicate additions and deletions to this
section):
Policy 601.1.11
By the effective date of this Plan, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which provide that at least twenty (20) percent of residential building
permits will be reserved for single or multi -family affordable housing. (See
Technical Document, Section 7.2.1 and Future Land Use Policy 101.2.4).
Affordable housing eligible for this separate allocation shall meet the criteria
established in the Land Development Regulations.
Section 5. The existing Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan shall be
amended with the language as stated above under Sections 1 through 4.
Section 6. The provisions of this ordinance shall be included and incorporated in the
Policy Document of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
as an addition or amendment thereto.
Section 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this Ordinance
is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected by
such invalidity.
Section 8. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are
hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 9. This ordinance is hereby transmitted to the state land planning agency for
approval or disapproval pursuant to Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes.
Attordable Housing Policy Ordinance
Page 7 of 8
Section 10. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the
State of Florida, but shall not become effective until notice is issued by the
Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding
the amendment in compliance with Chapters 163 and 380 of the Florida
Statutes.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a meeting of the Board held on the day of , A.D.,
2000.
Mayor Shirley Freeman
Mayor Pro Tern George Neugent
Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich
Commissioner Nora Williams
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
ff-w
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK
wttordable Housing Policy Ordinance
Page 8 of 8
MAYOR/CHAIRPERSON
ORDINANCE # -2000
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING AMENDMENTS
TO THE RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO) OF THE
MONROE COUNTY CODE, INCLUDING SECTIONS 9.5 -1,
9.5-122 and 9.5-122.3 BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
DEFINITIONS, ADDING FLEXIBILITY AND ADDING
POSITIVE POINT OPPORTUNITIES FOR MODEST
HOUSING.
WHEREAS, Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
(2010 Plan) requires Monroe County to implement a permit allocation system; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Policy 101.3.1, the permit allocation system is to be comprised
of a residential permit allocation system and a commercial permit allocation system; and
WHEREAS, the 2010 Plan recognizes affordable housing as an important issue facing
Monroe County and its residents; and
WHEREAS, Goal 601 of the 2010 Plan directs the County to provide programs and
policies that facilitate access by all residents to adequate and affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, changing the affordable housing definition in the County Code to include
only those residents in the low and very low income categories could ensure that these residents
have more opportunities to live in the homes created with affordable housing ROGO allocations;
and
WHEREAS, currently the extra points necessary to successfully compete in the market
rate category of residential ROGO involve substantial financial investments; and
WHEREAS, middle income residents and those who would no longer qualify for
affordable housing ROGO allocations (those earning more than 100% of the median income for
the County) could compete successfully for market rate ROGO allocations if new ROGO points
were created that provided a competitive advantage to modest homes; and
WHEREAS, Objective 601.2 of the 2010 Plan requires Monroe County to encourage
housing of various types, sizes and price ranges to meet the needs of residents; and
WHEREAS, the amendments to residential ROGO detailed in the ordinance should
help create a diverse housing stock, including multi -family units and commercial apartments,
that meets the needs of middle and lower income residents; and
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 1 of 11
WHEREAS, Policy 601.1.11 of the 2010 Plan requires the County to develop an
affordable housing strategy; and
WHEREAS, amendments to residential ROGO detailed in this ordinance are developed
in manner consistent with the 2010 Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, during a regular meeting held on
August 11, 1999, conducted a review of an amendment to the 2010 Plan filed by the Planning
Department to add flexibility to residential ROGO, provide positive point opportunities for
modest housing and create opportunities for new development by transferring existing residential
and transient units and spaces; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the amendment to the 2010
Plan at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners were also presented with draft Monroe
County Code (LDRs) language that would implement these 2010 Plan changes at this meeting;
and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners, after due
notice and public participation in the public hearing process, conducted a public "adoption
hearing" to consider adopting the proposed amendment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. Secs. 9.5-4 shall be amended and read as follows (the strikethrough
and underline format is used to indicate additions and deletions to
this section):
See.9.5-4. Definitions.
(M-17) Modest housing means residential units that have a
combination of design and site characteristics that make them more
reasonably priced than residential units lacking such
characteristics.
(M-18) Modular home means a structure intended for residential
use that is manufactured off -site in accordance with state standards.
`ram) (M-19) Monroe County Comprehensive Plan means the
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan adopted and amended
pursuant to Florida Statutes section 163.3161 et seq.
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 2 of 11
(N-11) Non -waterfront lot means a parcel of land that does not
contain a shoreline.
(W-11 (N(N-12) Nursery means a use in which plants are grown for
sale or for the harvest of their products.
Section 2. Sec. 9.5-122 shall be amended to read as follows (the strike -through
and underline format is used to indicate additions and deletions to this section):
Sec. 9.5-122. Residential ROGO allocations
(b) Ratio ofAffordable Housing ROGO Allocations to Market Rate ROGO_
Allocations: Prior to October of each year the county shall set the yearly
residential ROGO allocation ratio, by subarea, for each ROGO year as follows:
(1) Board of County Commissioners action required: The
planning commission may recommend that the board of
county commissioners adopt a resolution changing the ratio
of affordable housing to market rate ROGO allocations
based upon the recommendations of the planning
commission and the planning director arising from the
annual review of ROGO. The yearly ROGO review may
include the following recommendations:
a. Amend the market rate to affordable housing ROGO
allocation ratio for each subarea provided that in no
event shall the percentage be less than 20% for
affordable housing and where the yearly percentage
increase or decrease shall not exceed 30% of the
previous year's ROGO allocations to market rate and
affordable housing; and
b. Provide a portion of the affordable housing ROGO
allocations to the Monroe County Housing Authority
for distribution in accordance with an
intergovernmental agreement between the Monroe
County Housing Authority, the Land Authority and
Monroe County.
(�4 Affordable housing allocation awards and eligibility:
(1) The definition of affordable housing shall be as specified in Secs. 9.5-4(A-
5) and 9.5-266.
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 3 of 11
(2) Any portion of the twenty (20) percent allocation not used for affordable
housing at the end of a ROGO year shall be made available for affordable
housing for the next ROGO year.
(3) No affordable housing allocation shall be awarded to an application to be
located within a parcel that receives negative points according to criteria
specified under Habitat Protection, or Threatened or Endangered Species,
or Critical Habitat Area in Sec. 9.5-122.3 (a)(7) or (8) or (9) unless said
parcel is located within the IS-D or UR or URM or URM-L or land use
districts.
(�Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation Required: From and after the
effective date of the dwelling unit allocation system, the county shall issue
no building permit for a residential dwelling unit unless such dwelling unit
has received the following:
a. a residential dwelling unit allocation award; or
b. is exempt from the dwelling unit allocation system; or is determined to
be vested pursuant to Sec. 9.5-120.3; or
c. is the subject of a completed building permit application received by
the county on or before June 9, 1992.
(44(f) Exempt and vested development:
(1) Any building permit for residential dwelling units issued, by the county
during an allocation period to vested development shall be subtracted from
the annual residential dwelling unit allocation for that allocation period.
(2) After subtracting building permits issued for vested residential dwelling
units by subarea and by quarterly allocation period, the director of
planning shall re -determine the quarterly residential dwelling unit
allocation in accordance with the following principles and guidelines:
a. If the number of vested residential dwelling units is less than fifty (50)
percent of the quarterly allocation for the affected subarea, such vested
residential dwelling units shall be subtracted from the quarterly
allocation and only the remainder of the quarterly allocation shall be
available for allocation in that quarterly period.
b. If the number of vested residential dwelling units is fifty
(50) percent or more of the quarterly allocation for the
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 4 of 11
affected subarea, only fifty (50) percent of such vested
residential development shall be subtracted from the
quarterly allocation and the remaining fifty (50)
percent of the quarterly allocation shall be available
for allocation in that quarterly period; in that event, the
`excess' residential dwelling units shall be determined
and subtracted pro rata from future allocation periods
so that an average annual build -out of two hundred
twenty seven (227) dwelling units is not exceeded.
(i) Yearly Residential ROGO Allocation Ratio: Each
subarea shall have its number of market rate and
affordable housing residential ROGO allocations
available per ROGO year determined by the
following formula:
1) Market Rate Residential ROGO Allocations
available in each subarea is equal to the Yearly
number of available Residential ROGO
Allocations in each subarea, multiplied by the
percentage of the Market Rate Residential
ROGO Allocations.
2) Affordable Housing Residential ROGO
Allocations available in each subarea is equal to
the Yearly number of available Residential
ROGO Allocations in each subarea, multiplied
by the percentage of Affordable Housing
Residential ROGO Allocations.
(ii) Quarterly Residential ROGO Allocation Ratio:
Each subarea shall have its number of market rate
and affordable housing residential ROGO
allocations available per ROGO quarter determined
by the following formula:
1) Market Rate Residential ROGO Allocations
available in each subarea per quarter is equal to
the Market Rate Residential ROGO Allocations
available in each subarea divided by four (4).
2) Affordable Housing Residential ROGO for all
four ROGO quarters shall be made available at
the beginning of the first quarter for a ROGO
year.
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 5 of 11
(.Q4 kd Adjustment of Residential ROGO Allocations: At the end
of each quarterly allocation period, the planning director shall
recommend additions or subtractions to the basic allocation
available by subarea, based upon any of the following, as
appropriate:
(1) The number of residential ROGO allocation awards which
expired during the previous quarterly allocation period;
(2) The number of residential ROGO allocation awards
available which were not allocated during the quarterly
allocation period in the current annual allocation period;
(3) The number of residential ROGO allocation awards in
previous quarters which were borrowed from future
allocations to accommodate multiple unit projects or to
accommodate allocation applications with identical scores,
pursuant to 9.5-122.2(b)(2) or which were granted to
applicants via either the appeals process, administrative
relief or a beneficial use determination;
(4) Residential ROGO allocations vested during the preceding
quarter, as follows:
a. If the number of residential ROGO allocations in
question is less than fifty (50) percent of the quarterly
allocation for the affected subarea, such vested
residential dwelling units shall be subtracted from the
quarterly allocation and only the remainder of the
quarterly allocation shall be available for allocation in
that quarterly period.
b. If the number of residential ROGO allocations in
question is fifty (50) percent or more of the quarterly
allocation for the affected subarea, only fifty (50)
percent of such vested residential development shall be
subtracted from the quarterly allocation and the
remaining fifty (50) percent of the quarterly allocation
shall be available for allocation in that quarterly period;
in that event, the `excess' residential dwelling units
shall be determined and subtracted pro rata from future
allocation periods so that an average annual build -out of
two hundred twenty seven (227) dwelling units is not
exceeded.
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 6 of 11
(5) Any other modifications required or provided for by the
comprehensive plan.
(6) Any portion of the residential ROGO allocations not used
shall be retained and be made available for affordable
housing from ROGO year to ROGO year.
Section 3. Sec. 9.5-122.3 shall be amended to include new Sections 9.5-
122.3(a)(19) (the underline format is used to indicate additions to
this section):
Sec. 9.5-122.3. Evaluation criteria.
(19) MODESTHOUSING.
The following points shall be assigned in order to
encourage the construction of moderately -priced residential
dwelling units.
Detached Residential Dwelling Unit
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+2 An application which qualifies
for infill ROGO points and proposes
to develop a detached residential
dwelling unit that contains one
thousand three hundred (1, 300)
square feet, or less, of habitable
space
Additional Requirements:
1. An affordable unit is not eligible
for these points since a
residential dwelling unit that
utilizes an affordable ROGO
allocation is already required to
contain one thousand three
hundred (1,300) square feet, or
less, of habitable space.
2. The parcel of land proposed for
developing the detached
residential dwelling unit shall not
qualify for negative points under
Sec.9.5-122.3(a)(7) or (8) or (9),
except for a parcel of land
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 7 of 11
located within a URM, URM-L,
IS-D or UR land use district.
3. Expansion of the habitable space
of the detached residential
dwelling unit shall be limited by
a condition on the permit for at
least seven (7) years.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+2 An application shall earn additional
points for proposing a detached
modular residential dwelling unit.
Additional Requirements:
l . To be eligible for these points,
the detached modular residential
dwelling unit must meet the
minimum windload requirements
for Monroe County.
2. Both affordable and market units
are eligible for these points.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+1 An application shall earn an
additional point for proposing a
detached residential dwelling unit on
a non -waterfront lot.
Additional Requirements:
1. Both affordable and market units
are eligible for this point.
hiiuraame riousmg County Code Ordinance
Page 8 of 11
Attached Residential Dwelling Units
Point Assignment:
+3
Point Assignment:
+2
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 9 of 11
Criteria:
An application which proposes
to develop an attached residential
dwelling unit that contains one
thousand three hundred (1,300)
square feet, or less, of habitable
space.
Additional Requirements:
1. Both affordable and market units
are eligible_for these points.
2. The parcel of land proposed for
developing an attached
residential dwelling unit shall not
qualify_for negative points under
Sec.9.5-122.3(a)(7) or (8) or (9),
except for a parcel of land
located within a URM, URM-L,
IS-D or UR land use district.
3. Expansion of the habitable space
of an attached residential
dwelling unit shall be limited by
a condition on the permit for at
least seven (7) years.
Criteria:
An application shall earn additional
points for proposing an attached
modular attached residential
dwelling unit.
Additional Requirements:
(1) To be eligible for these points an
attached residential modular
dwelling unit must meet the
minimum windload requirements
for Monroe County.
(2) Both affordable and market units
are eligible for these points.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+1 An application shall earn an
additional point for proposing an
attached residential dwelling unit on
a non -waterfront lot.
Additional Requirements:
(1) To be eligible for this point, the
modular dwelling unit must meet
the minimum windload
requirements for Monroe County.
(2) Both affordable and market units
are eligible for this point.
+2 An application shall earn additional
points for utilizing transfers of
ROGO exemptions (TREs) in the
development of an attached
residential dwelling unit on a one for
one basis. All such transfers must
occur in accordance with Sec. 9.5-
120.4.(b).
Section 4. The existing County Code shall be amended with the language as stated above
under Sections 1 through 3.
Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held
invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 6. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 7. This ordinance is hereby transmitted to the state land planning agency for
approval or disapproval pursuant to Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes.
Attordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 10 of 11
Section 8. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of
Florida, but shall not become effective until notice is issued by the Department of
Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in
compliance with Chapters 163 and 380 of the Florida Statutes.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida,
at a meeting of the Board held on the day of , A.D., 2000.
Mayor Shirley Freeman
Mayor Pro Tern George Neugent
Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich
Commissioner Nora Williams
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK
Attordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 11 of 11
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MAYOR/CHAIRPERSON
nrrJK W,Ep AST ' ORM
AND �i IENCY
B
—! J Attorney's Office 1\
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: K. Marlene Conaway
Director of Planning
RE: Proposed Amendments To the 2010 Plan and LDRs Adding
Transfer of ROGO Exemptions and New Opportunities for
Affordable and Moderately -Priced Housing
DATE: January 31, 2000
ABSTRACT
This report details amendments to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
(2010 Plan) and the Monroe County Code (LDR) that were considered by the Board of
County Commissioners at its August 11, 1999 Board meeting in Key Largo At this
meeting the Board approved transmission of the 2010 Plan portion of these amendments
for review by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
Meeting Dates
August 11, 1999, Transmittal Hearing
November 10, 1999, Amendment to LDR Hold Harmless Date
February 17, 2000, Adoption Hearing
DCA Review
The DCA reviewed the proposed 2010 Plan amendments that were transmitted and
outlined its objections, recommendations and comments in its December 23, 1999 report to
the Planning Department. The DCA's objections and recommendations on this
amendment are presented below:
Objection: The proposed amendment to Policy 101.5.4 allows positive points for
utilizing TREs, but policies are not included to define the concept, establish
appropriate criteria for sender and receiver sites, and ensure internal
consistency. In the absence of appropriate guidelines and controls, the transfer o
ROGO exemptions could adversely impact environmental sensitive lands, habitats
of endangered and threatened species, and vulnerable coastal areas by directing
development to these areas. As a result, the policy is internally inconsistent with
the objectives of the plan and could undermine the effect of the Permit Allocation
System and related point criteria.
Recommendation: The amendment should be revised to include a policy that
defines the concept, establishes appropriate sender and receiver site criteria and
require that receiver sites score at least the same number of points as sender sites
based the application of the point criteria in Policy 101.5.4.
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 1 of 30
Planning Department's Response
The Planning Department's addresses the objections and recommendations of the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in the following ways:
1. As per the DCA's recommendation, the following 2010 Plan policy has been added to
this amendment proposal:
Policy 101.5.10
Monroe County may develop a program, called Transfer of ROGO
Exemption (TRE), that would allow for the transfer off -site of dwelling units,
hotel rooms, recreational vehicle spaces and mobile homes to another site in
the same ROGO subarea, provided that they are lawfully existing and can be
accounted for in the County's hurricane evacuation model. In addition, the
new site would not be eligible for any negative environmental points under
ROGO with the exception of those properties designated Residential High
L.
When a multiple -family housing development utilizes a TRE, any other units
in that same project that are permitted through the ROGO process may be
eligible for minor positive points on a one for one basis.
2. Most of the THE details that the DCA requires have already been addressed in
Ordinance No. 034-1999. This ordinance which provides LDR language for proposed
amendments to ROGO and affordable housing is currently being reviewed by the DCA
Ordinance No. 034-1999 was moved forward since the Planning Department did not
feel that 2010 Plan amendments were required for these proposed LDR amendments.
Ordinance No. 034-1999a, which was adopted at the November 10, 1999 BOCC
meeting, changes the hold harmless date of the LDR amendments This ordinance
details the TREs program is included as an attachment to this staff report [Attachment
1
3. The corresponding LDR ordinance detailing among other things positive point criteria
for Modest Homes utilizing THE program has also been added and is included as an
attachment to this report [Attachment II1.
4. There are no other amendments to this staff report.
Due to the large size of this report, portions of the text are HIGHLIGHTED to bring the
reader's attention to KEY LANGUAGE.
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 2 of 30
2010 PLAN & LDR AFFORDABLE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENTS
Executive Summary
Transferring ROGO Exemptions (TREs)
Built or vested units and spaces could be transferred off -site provided that certain conditions
are met. This initiative is available for residential and transient dwelling units that meet
specified criteria. Residential units built with purchased TREs would be for residents, earning
up to the median income owners/occupiers (< $49,000/ yr.) or residents who pay up to the
maximum affordable housing rent for their rental units ($1,225/mth.). Units built with Free
TREs — those made available due to the removal of illegal lower enclosures that were
counted in ROGO and are subject to a valid unexpired State THE agreement - would only be
available for low income owners/occupiers (< $39,200/year) and renters ($980/mth).
Implementing this proposal is facilitated by Section 9.5-120.4(b) of ROGO (LDRs).
New Points for Modest Housing
Points are provided for homes: with `modest' characteristics, such as small size and
multifamily developments. Since modest housings tend to be less expensive, these cost
savings could be gassed on to renters and owners in terms of lower rents and purchasing
prices. Modest residential dwelling units could help meet the housing needs of middle and
limited income residents. Implementing this proposal requires' amending Policy 101.5.4 of
the 2010 Plan and is facilitated by Section 9.5-1233(a) 19 of ROGO (LDRs).
Revision of Affordable Housing Qualifying Criteria
The qualifying criteria for affordable housing applicants is revised to ensure that only median
and very low income residents will qualify for affordable housing ROGO allocations.
Currently households earning up to $58,800 are eligible to apply for affordable housing
ROGO allocations. Given the critical need for units for lower' income residents and that the
County is proposing new points to benefit moderate income residents it is prudent to lower
the affordable housing income limits. Implementing this proposal is facilitated by Sections
9.5-4 (A-5), 9.5-122 and 9.5-266 of ROGO (LDRs).
Annual ROGO Allocation Review
The 2010 Plan is amended so that at least 20% of all ROGO allocations are devoted to
affordable housing. The County will be able to adjust the allocations'; of ROGO allocations
according to need on an annual' basis. The LDRs are amended to allow for an annual review
and adjustment of ROGO allocations between these two residential ROGO categories.
Implementing this proposal requires amending Policy 101.2.4 and 601.1.11 of the 2010 Plan
and is facilitated by Section 9.5-122 of ROGO (LDRs).
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 3 of 30
TRANSFERING ROGO EXEMPTIONS (TREs)
Background
A background description, criteria and discussion for this proposed initiative are provided below.
Actual language can be found in the draft ordinance in Section 9.5-120.4 (b) of ROGO.
The following challenges facing Monroe County are addressed by this proposed amendment.
• Limited availability of safe and affordable housing
(especially for low and very low income residents)
• Non-conformance as to density
• Lack of redevelopment opportunities for transient developments
• Limited availability of cesspit credits as an impediment to constructing affordable
housing
The potential impacts of THE policies on transient and residential developments are multi-
faceted. Most notably they will enable the replacement of existing housing with safer housing
that meets the needs of lower income residents over the long term. The recent storm events
demonstrated how vulnerable Monroe County's affordable housing is to the natural elements.
Most of the homes that were damaged and destroyed were mobile homes and recreational
vehicles (Figure 1).
The displacement of residents living in low cost units serve as THE sender sites is addressed in
several ways. The County's role in minimizing resident displacement is to require residential
units built with TREs to meets the housing needs of displaced residents. The County is fulfilling
this role by placing 20 year affordable housing restrictive covenants on all residential dwelling
units built with TREs. The maximum housing costs per month (principle interest, taxes,
insurance and/or rent) for residential units built with TREs and the maximum adjusted gross
incomes of the residents qualified to live in these units will be adjusted on an annual basis to
ensure that these units are reserved for affordable housing.
Developers utilizing TREs will be responsible for meeting all applicable legal requirements
associated with displacing residents outlined by federal and state displacement policies,
including Section 723 of the Florida Statues. The full extent of developers' responsibilities for
displaced residents could best be addressed by the proposed new Department of Community
Affairs's (DCA) and Monroe County Housing Authority's affordable housing planners. These
planners could develop displacement policies that utilize federal Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) that are administered by the DCA.
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 4 of 300
Figure 1: Visual Representation of TREs
N
c
a
Sm
ow
C.
0
x
Uj
zoo MW MEN
o i Zoo en
w
N
w
CN
Z
w
(1)
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 5 of 30
While providing safe alternatives to mobile homes and RVs would enable the County to address
several of its 2010 Plan goals, removing mobile homes from the CHHA could also lead to a loss
of affordable housing for some residents. Many residents, especially those in the lower income
categories, would likely be unable to afford the purchasing costs, or rents of mobile home
replacement units unless certain protective measures were enacted U-4it n re g he'lacem t
p en
units built with residential TRES to attached affordable residential dwelling units should help
ensure that a safe housing supply that meets the needs of lower income residents is created and
maintained.
RV spaces upon which RVs function as permanent -residences subject to County requirenit
either residential or hotel units, subject to the criteria outlined'in this report. An RV is treated as
a permanent residence by Monroe County if it fits the following criteria: (1) it is not road -ready
or permanently affixed; AND (2) it has a permit from the County that authorizes the RV to be
permanently affixed or was identified in the County's 1988 mobile home study as being not
road -ready and permanently.
Goal 601 directs the County to adopt programs and policies to facilitate access, for all residents,
to adequate and affordable housing that is safe, decent, and structurally sound and that meets the
needs of the population. Objective 601.3 directs the County to increase implementation efforts to
eliminate substandard housing and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock,
including historic structures and sites. TREs could also encourage re -development in the form of
investments in existing structures. Such investments are essential for ensuring the long term
structural integrity of these buildings.
TREs will also create re -development opportunities for transient developments, especially those
that are non -conforming as to density. Monroe County residents have repeatedly expressed their
frustrations with the strict regulatory climate of the Keys. Many business owners in the County
feel that these regulations actively prevent them from redeveloping and improving their
properties. The Planning Department is developing new policies incentives that create effective
redevelopment opportunities within the context of the local regulatory environment.
Properties that are non -conforming as to density can place an unacceptable burden on
surrounding properties, public facilities and the environment. The 2010 Plan has a range of
policies that discourage over -density development. There are six main policies in the 2010 Plan
that address non -conformity. Policy 101.8.1 prohibits the expansion of non -conforming uses.
Policy 101.8.2 prohibits changing the use of a non -conforming property. Policy 101.8.4
prohibits substantial improvements to non -conforming structures and over -density developments.
Policy 101.8.7 prohibits the re-establishment of non -conforming uses, which have been
discontinued or abandoned. Policy 208.2.9 prohibits permit renewals from being issued for non-
conforming uses within zoning districts. Policy 101.4.23 is the only exception to these
prohibitions as it allows non -conforming structures that served as a principle residence on
January 4, 1996 to be replaced by another unit, regardless of zoning limitations on the property.
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 6 of 30
Densities have been decreased over the years, first in 1986 and again with the 2010 Plan, making
many once conforming sites now non -conforming. While the above referenced policies are
intended to protect the community from unsustainable development, they also stand in the way of
other public interests articulated in the 2010 Plan. Objective 101.4 of the 2010 Plan directs the
County to regulate future development and redevelopment to maintain the communities'
character the natural resources by encouraging of land uses consistent with the designations
shown on the Future Land Use Map.
Goal 102 of the 2010 Plan states that the County shall direct future growth to lands which are
intrinsically most suitable for development and shall encourage conservation and protection of
environmentally sensitive lands. By requiring the receiver sites for TREs to be already
developed or scarified the County is addressing this goal.
These policies suggest that the County should make the most of developed properties to meet the
commercial and housing needs of residents. Under current laws, property owners can redevelop
properties that are over -density by removing structures that exceed the density restrictions on the
properties, or applying for map amendments to re -zone their properties. Since most map
amendments are costly, time consuming and decrease development potential, they are often not a
viable option for many over -density sites. Also a change in land use might not even resolve the
issue given the low level of densities allowed in the 2010 Plan compared to earlier allowable
densities for the County. These complications highlight the need for providing opportunities to
replace these units off -site.
with regards to densit
making their propertii
redevelopment.Once
incentive to maintain
in the sales of these pi
an opportunity to transfer units off -site, thereby
provides a much' need incentive for
conformance there would be a financial
Lents in conforming properties can be recaptured
i major storm, in insurance payments.
Monroe County submitted proposed LDR language for transferring residential ROGO
exemptions to the DCA as part of Ordinance 006-1998. While the DCA supported the concept
of transferring residential ROGO exemptions, it also expressed concern that more detailed
criteria is necessary for these exemptions. In April 1998, the DCA rejected Section 9.5-123 (f)(3)
a-h of the Monroe County Code. This section creates criteria and an exemption from ROGO for
projects that remove and transfer residential dwelling units from one site to another site within
the same ROGO allocation subarea. The DCA found that this proposal did not take into
consideration secondary impacts, such as traffic impacts (in regards to Big Pine and No Name
Key) and stormwater and wastewater impacts.
The new language presented in this staff report addresses DCA's concerns regarding residential
TREs. DCA was not presented with information relating to transient TREs in the first ordinance,
so there are no comments from the DCA on transient TREs. The secondary impacts of TREs on
traffic in Big Pine Key, No Name Key, Ohio Key and North Key Largo will be positive, since
this program will direct development away from these Keys to areas with a higher level of
rroposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 7 of 30
service. Therefore, traffic congestion on these environmentally sensitive areas should be
somewhat eased by TREs. Elsewhere in the County, traffic flow could be aided by TREs since
the receiver sites for these units will be higher density zones, such as Suburban Commercial (SC)
and Urban Residential (UR), which are located within or close to commercial centers. The
distances that residents of developments built with TREs would need to drive should be less than
if they resided outside of commercial and service centers.
TREs will also positively impact on N
are being removed, in part because th
cesspits to remove them. The THE p
for the removal of cesspits, since own
units for -a profit. Prior to building a I
Since the receiver sites for THE
developments could efficiently 1
encourage the removal and cede
units with clustered developneri
eater and stormwater impacts. Currently, few cesspits
limited financialincentive for owners of units with
I a qualified THE receiver site, the existing unit on the
nd any cesspits associates with the unit removed.
ce sewage package plants. Therefore, TREs will
.'L ..a..�.7.._. l __'-_v __� y mot. _ • A ..
It to code. j --- -- - -
Since owners of residential units that served as lawfully established principal residence on
January 4, 1996, already have a range of options available to them under the 2010 Plan and the
County Code, they are less likely to sell these units as TREs. Therefore, TREs will not likely
serve as a compelling incentive for owners of lawfully established principal dwelling units to sell
their units. TREs could increase the number of affordable housing units for lower income
residents without increasing the actual number of units in Monroe County.
TREs are one of several steps being taken by the Planning Department to encourage
redevelopment and facilitate the development of affordable housing. These transfers will
facilitate the removal of sub -standard units and redevelopment. TREs could also enable the
development of new affordable housing and transient rental properties that meet the objectives of
the 2010 Plan and the requirements of the County Code.
Criteria
These criteria have been developed to ensure that TREs support the goals, objectives and policies
of the 2010 Plan. First only legally established units or spaces that have already been built, or
are vested, but not yet built, may be transferred to other sites in the County. In addition the
transfers must meet the following conditions:
• Transfers will be within subareas to be consistent with the current ROGO distribution,' in
accordance with the subareas delineated by Section 9.5-120.2 of the County Code,-
* Big Pine Key, No Name Key, Ohio Key and North Key Largo will only be eligible as
sender sites for transferring ROGO exemptions (TREs);
• Transfers must be located within a US 1 segment which has a level of service equal to or
greater than the sending site, but at least in compliance with the comprehensive plan;
• Residential TREs can only be used to build attached, affordable housing; and
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 8 of 30
• Sites with negative ienvironmental ROGO points (except for those in RH districts) are not
eligible as receiver sites pursuant to Ordinances 010-1999 and 11-1999.
THE Process
SENDER SITE APPLICATION
• Pre -application conference
• At minimum - Minor
Conditional Use
• Development Order
detailing which units are to be
removed (or changed from a
residential to a non-residential
use) and resulting site
conditions
RECEIVER SITE
APPLICATION
• Pre -application conference
• At minimum - Minor
Conditional Use
• Development Order approving
use of TREs and new site plan
-witting Procedures
• Potential THE sender and receiver site applicants mu;
prior to participating in the'TRE program;
• Potential TRE'sender and receiver site applicants shal
conditional use permit;
• A transfer off -site shall consist of either the demolitio
residential to non-residential of a unit or space from a
a new unit on a receiver site;
• Sender sites must meet all of the land development re
attend pre. -application conferences
apply for at minimum a minor
or a change of use from
;ender site and the development of
etseq. of the County'Code;
• Receiver sites must meet all of the development and affordability requirements outlined
in Section 9.5. County Code; and
• The conditional use process will allow for flexibility in the timing and implementation of
these THE projects.
Residential TREs
Eligible Sender Site:
• A hotel room, mobile home, recreational vehicle space, or dwelling unit that is:
I. in existence as of January 4, 1996; and
2. accounted for in the hurricane evacuation model which forms the basis of ROGO and
3. lawfully established or subject to a valid unexpired State TRE'agreement,
may be rebuilt in another part of the unincorporated county subject to the criteria for
redevelopmentoff-site.
Candidate' Receiver Site Requirements:
• In order to redevelop off -site, a receiver site must be evaluated for both its structural and
site conditions.
• An affordable housing unit may be developed if the:
rroposea Lu i u Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 9 of 30
1. Sender unit is eligible;
2. Receiver unit:
1) is an attached dwelling unit;
2) meets the criteria for affordable housing pursuant to Secs. 9.5-4(A-5) and 9.5-
266;
3. The transfer is made to a receiver site that is located in the same ROGO subarea as
the sender site; and,
4. The receiver site receives no negative points when evaluated pursuant to Sec. 9.5-
1223 (a) (7) or (8) or (9).
Unit Requirements:
• Attached residential dwelling unit with up to 1,300 square feet of habitable space
(un-enclosed porches are allowed, but not included in these calculations);
• TDRs might be required to reach the maximum net density for market units that
combined with affordable THE units make up a mixed use development.
Discussion and Consistency with 2010 Plan
Residential TREs will enable the County to meet many of its 2010 Plan goals and policies. They
will help the County balance affordable and market housing as required by Policy 101.2.4. and
allow the County to manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors as required by Goal 101.
Downstairs Enclosures
TREs also provide a pote
enclosures that were cow
Management Division pr
June 9-10`BOCC public J
the affordable housing po,
of the Department of Corr
7ng in Marathon. Detailed analysis of c
430 of such units may exist and should
n a manner deemed appropriate by the 1
me of the downstairs
th the result of the Growth
se study information
e considered as available to
recognizes some, or all of these units from the downstairs enclosures, the Planning Department
could work with the DCA to create a State THE Agreement that provides detailed guidelines as to
which units will be counted and how they can be used.
The Planning Department will request that if these units are recognized as TRE'sender 'units, ;that
they can only be used to develop attached affordable housing for low and very low income
residents. `.Therefore, only qualified'owner/occupiers who ea- `` ^^ ^^"
who would pay at most $980 a month for rent could live in t]
the lower enclosures. Another condition that the Planning D
TREs is that they be provided free of charge to developers (F
attached housing for low income residents. These measures
removing downstairs illegal enclosures on the County's supp
income residents, since units counted in ROGO and used for
into the affordable pool for low and very low income residen
UP Ev .53y,200 a year and renters
units build with these TREs from
-
u tment would suggest for these
e TREs) who will be able to build
)uld help minimize the impacts of
of housing for low and very low
fordable housing will be put back
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 10 of 30
Residential TREs could help the County provide more affordablehousing for median, low and
very low income residents (Goal 601. 1) and eliminate substandard housing (Objective 601.3) by
providing a mechanism for replacing dilapidated housing with new affordable units built in
compliance with current zoning and safety requirements.
Residential THE addresses Policy 601.1.7 since all residential THE will remain affordable for 20
years. Furthermore, since these units are restricted in size (< 1,300 square feet), use (attached
dwellings) and occupancy (median to low income residents) their affordability should be assured
over the long term (Goal 601).
Residential TREs could become a valuable component of the County's affordable housing
strategy required by Policy 601.1.11 of the 2010 Plan. THE units could increase the supply of
affordable housing for very low income residents who are the most cost burdened in the County
and have the most difficulty finding accommodation.
In 1989, 86% of renters in Monroe County earning less than $19,999 a year were cost burdened,
while 29% of renters earning between $20,000-$34,999 a year were cost burdened. These
calculations are drawn from the number of households paying >30% of their income towards
housing costs (Table 1).
Table 1: Household Cost Burden in 1989
Income
Owners T Renters
KKeyest Unincorporated County 1Key West Unincorporated County
Total 1 Total
< $10,000
59%
73%
68%I 80%
I
91%
86%
$ 10,000 - $19,999
37%
42%
41 %1 84%
81 %
82%
$20,000 - $34,999
33%
35%
34%' 52%
29%
40%
$35,000 - $49,999
24%
26%
25%' 10%
20%
16%
> $50,000
11%
10%
10%1 1%
1
4%
3%
% of Total Households
27%
IA-
28%
27%I 51%
46%
49%
..., ....o. I'lu W- .7 —Y v—, ney L.oiony weacn, Layton anct unincorporated Areas
Source: Department of Community Affairs 1998 Affordable Housing Needs Assessment — data drawn from the
1990 Census. Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing
As per Policy 101.2.13 of the 2010 Plan all new development in Monroe County is required to
obtain a cesspit credit prior to the issuance of building permit. This requirement is intended to
ensure no net increase in water quality degradation and removal of cesspits. Lack of progress on
cesspit removal has lead to reductions in annual ROGO dwelling unit allocations for Monroe
County. Currently the number of cesspits being removed falls short of demand which impedes
the development of new housing.
rroposea luiu Tian and LOR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 11 of 30
Developers of market rate housing have been purchasing their cesspit credits in order to begin
development once they have their`ROGO allocation. However, the costs of purchasing cesspit
credits (< $2000) is prohibitive for many affordable housing developments. Since TREs will not
be considered new development, new units built with TREs will not require cesspit credits. At
the same time the demolition of existing units to serve as TREs will lead to the removal of
cesspits and the releasing cesspits, credits for use by other developments.
Residential TREs will direct new development to areas that are zoned to accommodate higher
densities and are more suitable for development. This could lessen the impacts of over-
development on areas most .vulnerable to such impacts. These transfers will also encourage more
- ___ -- __ .__..r-...__.....,..=..s . LXA. u.+ut cuiu -Vat G1lctdd VG'JCd-VICmg.
Objective 601.1 of the 2010 Plan requires Monroe County to reduce by 50% the current
estimated affordable housing need for households in the very low and low income classifications
(HUD definitions) by 2002. In 1997 it was estimated by the Monroe County Building
Department that mobile homes and trailers accounted for just under one third of the County's
housing stock. Despite the numerous safety concerns with living in mobile homes and trailers,
such as vulnerability to hurricane force winds, these accommodations are only housing option for
many Keys residents, especially lower income residents. The affordability and size criteria
attached to the units built with TREs will help ensure the long term availability of housing for
lower income residents. Replacement units for lower income residents will provide a safe
alternative to living in mobile homes and RVs, which carry with them substantial fire and storm
damage risks.
Low and very low income residents should benefit from the residential TREs program
in several ways. Firstly, since residential TREs can only be used to build units for
qualified affordable housing residents this should increase the supply of less expensive
residential units in the County. Secondly, since these new affordable units will be built
to current building code requirements (such as wind loads and elevation) they will
provide a safe alternative to mobile homes, RVs and illegal lower enclosures. Finally,
TREs could encourage an increase in the quality of the existing affordable housing
stock, since property owners will be able to re -coup property improvements in either a
sales, or post disaster situation. It is anticipated that over -density mobile home parks,
will participate heavily in the THE program.
Reserving the use of residential TREs to units for affordable income households will
help preserve a viable housing supply for these residents. This occupancy restriction is
intended to ensure residents living in older mobile homes and trailers can afford the rent
in the new units built with TREs. Such measures are necessary to ensure that the
County can meet Objective 601.1 and other related affordable housing policies aimed at
assisting lower income residents.
TREs will also be used to create mixed -use development in which affordable housing units are
built with TREs, while the other units compete in market ROGO. Combining affordable THE
units with market rate units in a mixed -use development could make attached, multi -family
Proposed 2U 10 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 12 of 30
developments a more feasible alternative in the County. TREs would allow for the building of
more units, thus enabling developers to take advantage of economies of scale with their projects.
The market rate component of such developments could help offset the costs of providing
housing for median, low and very low-income residents.
Transient TREs
EligibleSender'' Sites:
• Lawfully existing motels, hotels and spaces that accommodate `road ready RVs' (RV
spaces), which includes only those located in RV zoning districts.
Candidate Receiver Sites Conditions:
Criteria far redevelopment off -site: In order to redevelop off: site, a receiver site must
be evaluated for both its structural and site conditions.
1. Transfer to a hotel: A hotel or hotel room maybe developed if the:
1) sender unit or space is eligible and provided that it was used as a hotel room or
recreational vehicle space in accordance with Sec. 9.5-4;
2) transfer is made' to a receiver site located in the same 'ROGO subarea as the
sender site; and
3) receiver site receives no negative points when evaluated pursuant to Sec. 9.5-
1223 (a)(7) or (8) or (9).
• Only those new transient developments that will not require commercial floor area
will be able to utilize the transient TREs. "
Discussion and Consistency with the 2010 Plan
While transient THE units can be used to build either affordable housing or hotel units, market
forces will most likely direct these units to existing or new hotel developments. Therefore, it is
expected that transient TREs will only have limited applicability for affordable housing.
Transient TREs could benefit the local tourist industry by providing a mechanism for existing
non -conforming structures to sell units to existing or new hotels. Once sender sites are
conforming as to density they will be able to redevelop their properties. This provision therefore
assists with the 2010 Plan's redevelopment and infill objectives.
environmentally sensitive areas and direct
accommodate hotel units. These transfers
which are better suited for efficient and co
.age future growth to
tors, and protect
removal of non -
v developments to areas that are zoned to
t also encourage more compact and clustered hotel:
Ffective servicing than dispersed development.
wnue accessory uses such as front desks and hallways are not considered `commercial floor area, 'restaurants,
bars gift shops and the like are.
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 13 of 30
Currently, opportunities for hotels that want to expand their facilities, or sell existing units are
quite limited. The moratoriums on new transient units (Policy 101.2. 6) and commercial
development (Policies 101.3.1, 101.3.3 and 103.3.5) have impacted business that want to expand
their facilities, scale back their operations or build new facilities. TREs can be used as a
mechanism for hotels that have not reached their maximum net density per buildable acre to
expand their operations utilizing TDRs.
The Planning Department has been approi
`mom and pop' hotels that want to either i
conformance with the Monroe County Co,
onerous owners of older, :non -conforming
f their units so they can come into
revenue, or leave the accommodation business. Increasingly tourists are staying at large,
competitively priced, full -service chain hotels and exclusive accommodations catering to niche
markets, rather than older, family run accommodations.
TREs could provide an additional source of revenue for old `mom and pop' hotels in the Keys
that are in need of additional revenue sources and are unable to compete against full service
hotels. TREs could also provide owners of small family run hotels and motels an opportunity to
sell all of their units for a reasonable return on the open market. Since many existing hotels lack
the funds necessary for purchasing additional units, TREs will also be available to new transient
rental developments.
TREs could help attract investment to the County in the form of developing new hotels and
upgrading existing facilities. Creating new and expanded hotels using TREs is not inconsistent
with the commercial moratorium since there will be no net increase in transient units for the
County. TREs could serve as an effective and efficient way of recycling residential and transient
units in Monroe County.
TREs could also serve as additional revenue sources for owners of transient accommodations
who want to sell some or all of their units. TREs could also prove to be an attractive mechanism
for owners of legally non -conforming sites, such as over -density mobile home parks, to sell their
over density units to multi -family developments. Residential THE recipient sites could either be
mixed use developments with market and affordable (very low income residents), or strictly
affordable developments with units for moderate very low income residents.
Without comparing building permits and state licensing records with a detailed physical land use
inventory, it is impossible to accurately determine the number of potential THE units that
actually exist in the Keys. To approximate the number of potential transient and resident TRE's
data is compiled from several sources. Base data for motel, hotel units and RVs/Trailer is from
the 2010 Plan Technical Document. Units in Islamorada are excluded from the tabulation.
These data records are cross-referenced and supplemented with a substantial amount of
additional data from a Survey of Authorized Mobile Home and Recreational Vehicle Parks
(1992), provided by Plantation Key Building Department. Totals for all categories are only a
rough estimate of the potential TRE's in the upper, middle and lower keys (Table 2).
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 14 of 30
Table 2: Potential THE Units
1) Motels and Hotels
Subtotal Upper Keys
1263
Subtotal Middle Keys
1480
Subtotal Lower Keys
610
Total Motel and Hotel Units
3353
2) RV/Trailer Sites in RV District
Subtotal Upper Keys
1080
Subtotal Middle Keys
994
Subtotal Lower Keys
1107
Total RV/Trailer Sites
3181
3) Mobile Homes
Subtotal Upper Keys
2993
Subtotal Middle Keys
784
Subtotal Lower Keys
2281
Total Mobile Homes
6058
4) Attached Dwelling Units - data N/A
5) Overdensity Detached Dwelling Units (DU's) - data N/A
TOTAL POTENTIAL TRE'S TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS
12,592
Points for Modest Housing
A background description, criteria and discussion for the proposed amendment are provided
below. Both a 2010 Plan & LDR amendments are needed for these new points.
Background
The intent of these new positive points is to help increase the supply of modest housing in the
County, which in turn will help diversify the housing options available to residents. Over the
years the vast majority of ROGO allocations have gone towards market housing. Most of the
homes that have been built meet the needs of moderate to upper income households.
Within the market category. of ROGO at least 18-20 points are generally needed to compete
successfully for a market ROGO allocation award. However, since only 16 of these paints may
be gained with minimal financial burden, most of these allocations are going towards high priced
homes. Detached and attached residential units are eligible for these modest housing points.
The proposed points will also enable the County to meet many of its 2010 Plan goals and
policies. Goal 101, will be addressed by the new points in that they will serve as a tool to
manage growth and to enhance the quality of life in the County by providing a wider range of
quality housing options for residents (Figure 2). '
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 15 of 30
The modest housing ;points -will be available for homes competing in the market and affordable
housing categories. These points would therefore give modest housing developments for middle
and moderate income residents a competitive edge in the market category. Extra initiatives are
needed to provide housing for homes that meet the needs of middle and moderate income
residents that do not draw allocations away from median, low and very low income residents.
These new points will provide applicants for modest housings in the market residential ROGO
category with a competitive advantage over estate homes. Once the affordable housing category
becomes more competitive these new modest points will encourage the development of more
modest affordable housing and thereby give an extra advantage to homes designed to meet the
needs of very low income residents.
A modular home is defined as "a structure intended for residential use and manufactured off -site
in accordance with the [local or state] BOCA Basic Building Code."" Unlike mobile homes and
recreational vehicles, modular homes are viewed as permanent residences under the Monroe
County Code. Therefore, modular homes are eligible for affordable housing ROGO allocations
and various funding opportunities.
Criteria
Modest housing points are available for both market and affordable homes. Minor positive
points shall be assigned to encourage the construction of more reasonably -priced homes. In
order to receive these points the following conditions should be considered;
• Un-enclosed porches are, allowed, but not included in these calculations;
• Subject to a'permit restriction, no additions can be added to the residential dwelling unitfor
- up to 7 years
• The size restrictions on these units is intended to prevent people from abusing the system by
gaining extra points for building a small unit and then substantially increasing the size of the
unit, while enabling them to slightly expand the home to meet their changing needs;
• Modular homes must comply with all applicable State and Monroe County building
requirements;
• A non -water front lot refers to a parcel of land that does not directly border on the Atlantic
Ocean, Gulf of Mexico or any canals; and
• Sites with negative environmental ROGO points (except for those in RH districts) are not
eligible as receiver sites.
2 Source. APA. (1998). Manufactured Housing: Regulation, Design Innovation and Development Options, pp. 13.
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 16 of 30
0
h
O
O
O
0
Figure 2: Visual Representation of Modest and Estate Housing
WILM
BE BE
as as.
so Eff
as BE
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 17 of 30
Detached Residential Dwelling Unit
• To qualify for modest housing points the dwelling unit must qualify for infill ROGO points;
• Detached residential dwelling unit shall be less than or equal to 1,300 square feet in size to
promote the development of three bedroom homes for families [+2 points];
• Application qualifies under the detached dwelling unit modest housing category and proposes
development of a dwelling unit that is of modular construction [+2 points]; and
• Application qualifies under the detached dwelling unit modest housing category and proposes
development of a dwelling unit that is on a non -water front lot [+1 points].
Attached Residential Dwelling Unit
• Attached residential dwelling unit shall be less than or equal to 1,300 square feet in size [+3
points];
• Application qualifies under the attached dwelling units modest housing category and
proposes development of a dwelling unit that is of modular construction [+2 points];
• Application qualifies under the attached dwelling units modest housing category and
proposes development of a dwelling unit that is on a non -waterfront lot [+1 points]; and
• Application proposes utilizing residential TREs in the development of attached dwellings
(these units would have to meet all of the THE criteria for residential units) [+2 points].
Discussion and Consistency with the 2010 Plan
Goal 601 of the 2010 Plan states that:
Monroe County shall adopt programs and policies to facilitate access by all current and
future residents to adequate and affordable housing that is safe, decent, and structurally
sound, and that meets the needs of the population based on type, tenure characteristics,
unit size and individual preferences. Modest housing and THE points will help the
County achieve Goal 601.
eds of midd
►aracteristic:
e market R(
rices.
OGO that meet the
comes with `modest'
gh-priced homes in
on to renters and
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 18 of 30
Under -utilization of available affordable housing ROGO allocations has been linked to the
eligibility requirements placed upon potential affordable housing occupants. The 20-year deed
restriction on the income of residents living in homes built with affordable housing ROGO
allocations is of particular concern to many developers and potential homeowners. Instead of
restricting the occupants of these units the new modest housing and THE points place restrictions
on characteristics of the units.
Only minimal restri4
required. At the san
the needs c
rig of occupants is
apply of more
1 continue to meet
r income residents.
The new modest housing points and TREs should provide the impetus to diversify Monroe
County housing stock and to provide more housing for low and very low income residents. An
additional advantage with the modest points is that they will make the market ROGO category
more competitive. Increased competition could require ROGO applicants who are interested in
building modest housing to donate more land to the County to gain points. The modest points
will therefore help the County address its commitment to increase land dedications and lower
excessive development expectations.
These examples show how the new modest housing points will be applied:
Detached Dwelling Unit:
• 1,200 square foot house detached dwelling unit' [+2 pointsl
• Modular construction [+2 point]
• Total = +4 ROGO points
Attached Dwellings with 3 or More Units
• 800 square foot units [+3 points]
• Non -water front [+1 point ]
• THE is used for one or more of the units [+2 pointsl
• Total = +6 ROGO points for all the units that compete in ROGO
In both of these scenarios additional points can be gained with minimal financial burden on
behalf of ROGO applicant. Since applicants may already gain 16 of the currently available
ROGO points with moderate expense, these additional points (+4, +6) will enable applicants to
receive the extra 2-6 points necessary to compete successfully for a market ROGO allocation
award.
Additional moderately priced housing for families, couples and singles is needed. The
new modest housing points are targeted for detached dwelling units for families and
attached dwellings to meet these needs. Requiring modest detached dwelling units to
3 In order for a detached dwelling unit to qualify for any of the modest market points must be eligible for the 10
infill ROGO points
rroposed 1UI0 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 19 of 30
qualify for infill points encourages development in suitable areas, such as scarified lots
in subdivisions and discourages development in unsuitable areas, such as
environmentally sensitive lands.
The attached dwellings are not held to this requirement since many of the large sites
suitable for multi -family living are not platted. The requirement that all undeveloped
receiver sites for TREs be scarified ensures that these developments will not go to
environmentally sensitive lands.
Providing extra ROGO points for detached dwelling units with modest characteristics
will support the development of small three bedroom homes for families. Since much
of the work in Monroe County is seasonal offering relatively low wages and short-term
employment, it is also important to provide homes such as attached units for these
workers. Providing extra ROGO points for dwelling units with modest characteristics
will support the development of small apartments, efficiencies and employee housing
for singles and couples.
Attached dwellings tend to be smaller, less expensive and more likely to serve as rental
accommodations than detached single family homes. One of the largest obstacles to
building multi -family housing in Monroe County is that each unit is required to go
through ROGO and compete on the same grounds as any other dwelling unit. Up until
now there have been no additional points available for attached dwellings. The new
market points in combination with THE points will provide an advantage to these units,
because such developments will be able to obtain extra ROGO points with negligible
additional expense.
The restrictions on housing size and covering decks are intended to ensure that these
units stay reasonably priced over the long-term. If these restrictions are removed
developers could use modest housing points to build homes that are initially less
expensive, and then substantially increase the floor are of these homes. The increased
size of the homes would in turn makes these homes more expensive. Affordable
housing developments with negative environmental score will be ineligible for
affordable housing ROGO allocations, except for those in RH districts.
REVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING QUALIFYING CRITERIA
The qualifying criteria for affordable housing applicants is revised to ensure that only low and
very low income residents will qualify for affordable housing ROGO allocations. Implementing
this proposal is facilitated by Section 9. S-4 (A-S) and Section 9.5-266 of ROGO (LDRs).
Background
Since the beginning of ROGO the majority of homes built using affordable housing ROGO
allocations have been in the upper range of the affordable category. Currently households
rroposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 20 of 30
earning up to $58,800 are eligible to apply for affordable housing ROGO allocations. This
remarkably high upper limit draws `affordable' housing allocations away from those residents
most in need of low cost housing. Developers are more attracted to building `upper -end'
affordable homes, since they tend to receive a better return and are often awarded more points in
the competition to win tax credits from the State and Federal governments on such units'.
Residents earning $49,000 or less h
$39,200 or less in the County are cc
considered very low income. Resid
affordable housing. This need is cry
many of these units due to natural d
profitability of building these reside
the County are considered median income, those earning
isidered low income, and those earning $24,500 or less are
nts earning up to the median income are most in need of
itedby a limited supply of low cost housing, the loss of
>asters and regulatory requirements and the limited
itial units.
Monroe County residents in the low (80% of the median income) and very low (50% of the
median) income category categories are the most cost burdened members of our communities.
Since these are the same residents who form the backbone of the County's service based
economy, if their housing needs are not met they will no longer be able to live in the County and
the entire economy in the Keys will suffer. Many business owners report that this is already
happening, so clearly something must be done to create more opportunities to build and maintain
a viable housing stock for low and very low income residents.
Objective 601.1. of the 2010 Plan directs the County to reduce by 50% the affordable housing
need for low and very low income residents by January 4, 1998. This objective has yet to be
met. Currently the affordable housing needs of low and very low income residents cannot be
substantially reduced given high cost of developing housing in the Keys.
Any reduction in the income' qualifying criteria must be viewed within the context of the effect it
will have on the cost of building a residential dwelling unit. If the upper qualifying limits are
dropped too low then developers will not be able to make an acceptable profit on their
investment and a household will be unable to pay for the cost of constructing and maintaining
their home.
The Planning Department worked extensively with local developers, affordable housing groups,
financial experts, contractors, realtors and other interested parties in preparing and examining
cost scenarios for affordable housing. Analysis of these scenarios showed the following:
Median Income Upper Limit - Works
• Developers would likely make an acceptable profit if the upper income limit for affordable
housing dropped to the median income level.
• Households in the median income category would likely afford to build, finance and
maintain their residential units.'
" Source: Miami Herald — Keys edition., March 10, 1999, pp. 1.
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 21 of 30
Low Income Upper Limit - Problematic
• Developers would NOT likely make an acceptable profit if the upperincome limit for
affordable housing dropped to the low income level.
• Households in the median income category would have difficulties affording to build,
finance and maintain their residential units.
The estimated profit on a residentia
mortgaged over 30 years and rentin
8% to 10%. The estimated housing
(maximum $49,000/year) on a resic
$13,200 a month and $1,43 8 to $1
unit costing $112,500 to $152,500 including land,
at the median level would give a developer a return between
expenses of a household that earns the median income
-ntial unit costing $112500 to $152500 including land,
at the median level would be; approximately $1,100 to
256 a year.
Removing the moderate income sub -category from the affordable housing ROGO category will
create opportunities for the County and developers to focus all of their affordable housing efforts
on median, low and very low income residents. Thereby, the maximum rent for affordable units
would drop from the moderate rent (maximum $1,470/month) to the median rent (maximum
$1,225/month). Owner/occupiers of affordable housing units earning close to the median income
could expect to pay approximately one third of their income towards housing expenses ($13,200
to $17.256). These income and maximum housing costs per month limits are adjusted every year
to account for inflation and cost of living expenses in Monroe County.
The proposed modest housing points would ensure that middle and moderate income residents
competitive edge in the market category. Moderate income residents would then be competing
against residents in the market category for ROGO allocations, rather than competing against
low and very low income residents who need the most assistance from the County in fulfilling
their housing needs. can compete be available for homes competing in the market and affordable
housing categories. These points would therefore give modest housing developments for middle
and moderate income residents.
Criteria
• The definitions for moderate income residents will be removed from the County Code.
• This involves modifying Sections 9.5-4 (A-5) and Section 9.5-266 of the County Code.
• The 2010 Plan does not need to be amended since the eligibility criteria for affordable
housing is no longer a part of the comprehensive plan (Ordinance 10-1999)`
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 22 of 30
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ROGO ALLOCATIONS
The following section contains background inform, criteria and discussion for the proposed
amendments. Both a 2010 Plan & LDR amendments are needed.
Background
Facilitating access to affordable housing is one. of the underlying goals of the 2010 Plan.
However, various market, environmental and regulatory factors have combined to make
affordable housing increasingly difficult to obtain. The shortage of safe and affordable housing
in Monroe County has a wide range of negative impacts on the communities of the Florida Keys.
Low and very low income residents have the most difficulty in meeting their housing needs.
The Shimberg Center's Affordable Housing Needs Analysis (July 1998) found that 11,592
households in Unincorporated Monroe County were `cost burdened', meaning that they spent
more than 30% of their monthly income on housing. This number assumes that some people are
either living in "overcrowded" situations; paying more than they can afford on rent, or living in
sub -standard housing. According to Woods and Poole Economics, 66% of Monroe County
households earn less than $39,999 a year (Table 3).
Table 3: Projected Number of Households by Income Cateeory (Entire Monroe C'nnnbl
Income Categories (1990 dollars)
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
< $10,000
4,072
3,672
3,483
3,408
3,153
$10,000 TO $19,999
6,615
5,963
5,657
5,537
5,120
$20,000 TO $29,999
6,532
5,888
5,584
5,465
5,055
$30,000 TO $39,999
5,164
5,838
6,174
6,291
5,829
$40,000 TO $49,999
3,421
4,124
4,917
5,806
6,829
> $50,000
7,948
9,584
11,426
13,494
16,668
TOTAL
33,7501
35,0681
37,241
40,001
42, 674
�uurce. vvovus and rode Economics. Monroe County 1998 Data Pamphlet
Although this data shows that over time there will be a slight reduction in the number of low-
income residents, these people will still account for a large percentage of the overall population.
One reason that the number of residents in the lower income categories is projected to fall is that
many residents will no longer be able to afford to live here, especially if they are raising a family.
Since the local economy is largely dependent on low paying service sector enterprises the
impacts of the lack of affordable housing are being felt in terms of the large number of job
vacancies in the County. This lack of service sector workers will likely become even more
pronounced in the future, unless something is done now to create more affordable housing.
Hurricane George and Tropical Storm Mitch removed much of the County's affordable housing
stock. In late 1998 and Senator Daryl Jones and Representative Ken Sorenson appointed a task
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 23 of 30
force to address the crucial need for affordable housing in Monroe County. The Monroe County
Affordable Housing Joint Task Force estimates that the entire Florida Keys currently needs 2,360
affordable housing units and that by 2010 this need will be as high as 7,190 units. Assuming that
the County's residential permit allocations are not reduced, ROGO has 681 units left to build
over the next three years. Since 20% of new ROGO units are set aside for Affordable Housing,
this translates to only 136 new affordable units being built — a number far short of demand.
A wide range of government agencies, community groups and other concerned citizens are
working on new initiatives to revolutionize the affordable housing situation in the Keys. In
anticipation of the increased demand for affordable housing allocations the Monroe County
Affordable Housing Joint Task Force requested that the Monroe County, Key West and
Islamorada Planning Departments explore ways to increase ROGO allocations for affordable
housing. The Affordable Housing Joint Task Force requested the Monroe County Planning
Department bring forth a proposal to the Planning Commission that supports re -allocating 60% o
If the number of applications for affordable housing fall short of demand - a strong possibility
given the 20 year deed restriction on homes built with affordable housing ROGO allocations -
this could create animosity between community members that want to build market housing and
those that want affordable housing. The current allocation system is too rigid to respond in a
timely manner to changing needs and new regulatory requirements, such as the cesspit MOU,
losses of affordable housing caused by emergency events. Amending the 2010 Plan and LDRs to
adjust ROGO allocations to a pre -determined split between market and affordable residential
units can take between 1-2 years. Increasing ROGO allocations to 60% over the next three years,
in anticipation of an increase in applications does not seem to be justified at this time, since on
average only 7.9% of ROGO allocation awards have gone towards affordable housing (Table 4).
Table 4: Residential ROGO Allocation Awards
ROGO Year
Market
Actual
Total
%
Potential
Affordable
Allocations
Affordable
Affordable
1992-1993
207
11
218
5.0%
43.6
1993-1994
234
9
243
3.7%
48.6
1994-1995
248
10
258
3.9%
51.6
1995-1996
263
40
303
13.2%
60.6
1996-1997
220
23
243
9.5%
48.6
1997-1998
196
24
220
10.9%
44.0
TOTALS
1368
117
1485
7.9%
297.0
Potential Affordable Allocations - Actual Affordable Allocations =
180 Unused Affordable Housing
Allocations
S
ource. Monroe County Building Department
rroposea zu i u r►an and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 24 of 30
The Planning Department is addressing the request to increase affordable housing ROGO
allocations in an innovative way. A more responsive approach needs to be taken that will allow
for the adjustment of allocations according to changing needs. Adding more flexibility to the
2010 Plan to allocate ROGO units for affordable and market housing would enable the County to
adjust these allocations in a,timelyand equitable manner. The Planning Department is proposing
to amend the 2010 Plan and County Code so that at least 20% of all ROGO allocations are
devoted to affordable housing. This provision will enable the County to adjust the allocations
between affordable and market housing according to need on an annual basis based upon the
findings of a special Planning Commission Review. The LDRs will then beamended to allow for
an annual review and adjustment of the appropriate allocations between these two residential
ROGO categories.
At this annual review the Planning Department and various stakeholders could present their
findings to the Planning Commission so that they can adjust ROGO and cesspit credit allocations
according to demonstrated needs. The Affordable Housing Blue Ribbon Committee and other
interested groups, such as the Contractors Association and environmental groups could help
ensure that these allocations are addressed in a comprehensive and equitable manner.
Criteria
• The Planning Commission will review affordable housing needs in the County on an annual
basis and distribute ROGO allocations between the affordable and market categories
accordingly;
• The needs assessment will be based on a report and recommendations from the Planning
Department and findings from stakeholder groups. The report will provide an accounting of
all applications in the current ROGO year awaiting ROGO allocations in the market and
affordable categories, as well as an update on the number of approved ROGO allocations
awaiting cesspit credits;
• At least 20% of all ROGO units will be provided for affordable housing; and
• The allocation of ROGO units cannot vary by more than 3010 of the total allocations for the
previous ROGO year.
Process
• The Planning Department and other interested parties, such as the Affordable Housing `Blue
Ribbon Committee' will make present their findings and recommendations to the Planning
Commission, at the close of the application period for the forth quarter of a given ROGO
year;
• At this time the utilization of that years affordable housing and market ROGO allocations
and cesspit replacements will be examined and projections of the need for affordable housing
allocations for the new ROGO year will be discussed; and
• Upon this review the Planning Commission will recommend to the BOCC the appropriate
allocation of ROGO units between the affordable and market categories.
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 25 of 30
Discussion and Consistency with the 2010 Plan
This section describes how the proposal meets the goals, objectives and policies of the 2010
Plan. The section has the following sub -categories: general, transient and residential units.
Adding flexibility to residential ROGO allocations will enable the County to address many of its
2010 Plan goals and policies. Goal 101 directs the County to manage future growth to enhance
the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural
resources. The County needs to provide safe and affordable housing to enhance the quality of
life for County residents.
All of the initiatives proposed by the Planning Department and the Monroe County Affordable
Housing Joint Task Force could lead to a run on affordable housing ROGO allocations. By
adding flexibility to the 2010 Plan and County Code, the County is in a better position to respond
to the changing housing needs and enhance the overall quality of life and safety requirements of
residents.
Goal 601 directs the County to adopt programs and policies to facilitate access by all current and
future residents to adequate and affordable housing that is safe, decent, and structurally sound,
and that meets the needs of the population based on type, tenure characteristics, unit size and
individual preferences. This added flexibility in ROGO allocations could help the County meet
this goal by providing a mechanism to adjust allocations between affordable and market housing
based on demonstrated needs.
Flexibility is essentialfor
in an equitable and fair m,
system, be that a 20% affc
not properly serve the nee
and predicted changes, a i
er. If the LDRs'
sponsive approach to thes,
and cesspit credits are distributed
with a rigid ROGO allocation'
sidents. Due to the wide range of current
allocations is required.
CONSISTENCY WITH PRINCIPLES GUIDING DEVELOPMENT
(SECTION 380.0552, F.S.)
The Principles for Guiding Development are listed below, along with a brief explanation of how
the proposed changes are consistent.
1. To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so
that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the
area of critical state concern designation.
Encouraging better construction (through encouraging higher wind -load standards and
directing development away from the CHHA) and encouraging energy conservation
techniques that can lead to independence from utilities, the County is making steps toward
becoming more self-sufficient. In addition, by encouraging increased land dedications, more
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 26 of 30
sensitive habitat will be under governmental stewardship and thus out of danger from
development impacts.
The Keys' overall development potential is reduced and sensitive resources are protected.
Preventing the location of affordable housing in environmentally sensitive areas will help to
conserve valuable habitat areas, excluding those in the Residential High (RH) future land use
category. These amendments will help to reduce the need for the area of critical state
concern designation by allowing Monroe County to better manage land use issues.
These initiatives support developing affordable housing within the context of environmental
sustainability in that they encourage development of such housing in developed areas on
scarified lots and discourage development in environmentally sensitive areas. Since the new
modest housing and THE points will make the market ROGO category more competitive this
will likely lead to increased land dedications, from those applicants who can afford such
expenses. Providing the opportunity to adjust ROGO allocations between the affordable and
market ROGO categories will enable the County to better serve the changing housing needs
of its residents.
These initiatives will not increase the Keys' overall development potential. Rather they make
the most of the ROGO allocations available to the County and encourage a recycling of
existing units. These amendments will help to reduce the need for the area of critical state
concern designation by allowing Monroe County to better manage land use issues.
2. To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations,
seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
Encouraging the removal of units from over -density sites and transferring these units to areas
that are not environmentally sensitive this will help to protect all the Keys' resources. These
amendments encourage a continued reduction in development potential in sensitive
acquisition areas since development activities can lead to degradation of these resources.
3. To ensure the maximum well being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound
economic development.
Although these amendments do not pertain to the nonresidential permit allocation system,
they have an effect on the economic well-being of Keys property owners in several ways by
encouraging sustainable development. First, by increasing the wind -loading standards under
which points are gained for structural integrity, the County is encouraging people to protect
their investments from storm vulnerability by building sensibly. Second, by expanding and
refining energy conservation incentives, the County is encouraging applicants to make
investments that can save them money in the long run.
Third, increasing the point value and opportunities for land dedications will help to provide a
better return for property owners of down -zoned land. From a governmental perspective
(whether state, federal or local), this change also decreases the public funds which would
have to be spent on acquisition in the future, and therefore is a benefit to the entire
community. Fourth, by providing more incentives and opportunities for building affordable
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 27 of 30
sensitive habitat will be under governmental stewardship and thus out of danger from
development impacts.
The Keys' overall development potential is reduced and sensitive resources are protected.
Preventing the location of affordable housing in environmentally sensitive areas will help to
conserve valuable habitat areas, excluding those in the Residential High (RH) future land use
category. These amendments will help to reduce the need for the area of critical state
concern designation by allowing Monroe County to better manage land use issues.
These initiatives support developing affordable housing within the context of environmental
sustainability in that they encourage development of such housing in developed areas on
scarified lots and discourage development. in environmentally sensitive areas. Since the new
modest housing and THE points will make the market ROGO category more competitive this
will likely lead to increased land dedications, from those applicants who can afford such
expenses. Providing the opportunity to adjust ROGO allocations between the affordable and
market ROGO categories will enable the County to better serve the changing housing needs
of its residents.
These initiatives will not increase the Keys' overall development potential. Rather they make
the most of the ROGO allocations available to the County and encourage a recycling of
existing units. These amendments will help to reduce the need for the area of critical state
concern designation by allowing Monroe County to better manage land use issues.
2. To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations,
seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
Encouraging the removal of units from over -density sites and transferring these units to areas
that are not environmentally sensitive this will help to protect all the Keys' resources. These
amendments encourage a continued reduction in development potential in sensitive
acquisition areas since development activities can lead to degradation of these resources.
3. To ensure the maximum well being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound
economic development.
Although these amendments do not pertain to the nonresidential permit allocation system,
they have an effect on the economic well-being of Keys property owners in several ways by
encouraging sustainable development. First, by increasing the wind -loading standards under
which points are gained for structural integrity, the County is encouraging people to protect
their investments from storm vulnerability by building sensibly. Second, by expanding and
refining energy conservation incentives, the County is encouraging applicants to make
investments that can save them money in the long run.
Third, increasing the point value and opportunities for land dedications will help to provide a
better return for property owners of down -zoned land. From a governmental perspective
(whether state, federal or local), this change also decreases the public funds which would
have to be spent on acquisition in the future, and therefore is a benefit to the entire
community. Fourth, by providing more incentives and opportunities for building affordable
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 27 of 30
and moderately priced housing and adding flexibility to affordable housing allocations will
encourage the development of a diversity of housing to meet resident's needs.
4. To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the
Florida Keys.
By encouraging increased land dedications of critical acquisition areas in a wide variety of
habitats, including wetlands, the proposed amendments will help to limit water quality
impacts associated with development activities. Furthermore, the TREs will act as an
incentive for removing existing units, many of which have cesspits, and replacing these units
with new units will have proper wastewater treatment facilities.
5. To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural
environment and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic
character of the Florida Keys.
Again, encouraging increased land dedications will promote the preservation of sensitive
acquisition areas, which have intrinsic aesthetic benefits. The TREs will also promote these
goals since they will be used to remove units from sites that are over -density and these units
will be replaced by new units that are built in an environmentally sensitive manner in areas
that can accommodate such development excluding those in the RH future land use category.
The prohibition on locating affordable housing in sensitive environmental areas except for
those will also close a previously existing loophole and prevent development in inappropriate
places.
6. To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
This principle is not applicable.
7. To protect the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and
proposed major public investments, including:
a. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
Since only areas that are zoned to accommodate residential high development will be
eligible for residential THE units, this will encourage the clustering of development.
At the same time TREs provide an incentive for over -density sites to remove their
excess density units. The removal of these units will therefore, remove some of the
burden on servicing over -density sites and transfer these units to more appropriate
sites. Developments that are clustered are more efficient to service than dispersed
developments.
b. Sewage collection and disposal facilities;
Same as above (7a).
c. Solid waste collection and disposal facilities;
Same as above (7a).
Proposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 28 of 30
d. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
Same as above (7a).
e. Transportation facilities;
Same as above (7a).
f. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
The encouragement of land dedications in designated acquisition areas will enhance
these areas through increased acquisition. Also the removal of existing units with
cesspits will improve the overall environmental quality of the Keys.
g. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned
properties;
As mentioned above under item (f), the increased Land Dedication points, will serve
to protect and enhance state and other publicly -owned properties. Also as mentioned
under item (f), the removal of existing units with cesspits will improve the overall
environmental quality of the Keys.
h. City Electric Service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op.
The amendments proposed under the Energy Conservation evaluation criteria serve to
encourage citizens to reduce their reliance upon the electric utilities by expanding the
opportunities to gain points for doing so. As mentioned earlier, TREs will promote
clustered development and the removal of over -density units, actions that lend
themselves to more efficient and cost effective servicing. Therefore, the proposed
revisions are consistent further this principle.
i. Other utilities as appropriate.
Once again, TREs will promote clustered development and the removal of over -
density units, actions that lend themselves to more efficient and cost effective
servicing.
8. To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of
the Florida Keys.
Yet again, TREs will promote clustered development and the removal of over -density units,
actions that lend themselves to more efficient and cost effective servicing.
9. To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the
Florida Keys.
The elimination of the rollover to market rate of the unused set -aside affordable allocations
will further this principle by keeping the maximum number of allocations available for use in
affordable housing developments. The TREs will lead to the removal of older, and in many
cases unsafe housing and the creation of more housing for very low income residents. The
modest housing and THE points will enable developers to provide a wider range of housing
for County residents. Adjust ROGO allocations between the affordable and market ROGO
rroposed 2010 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 29 of 30
categories will also allow the County to proactively address the largely unpredictable
affordable housing market in the County.
10. To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the
event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a post -disaster reconstruction plan.
The increased standards under Structural Integrity will encourage development less
vulnerable to wind storms. These affordable housing initiatives will promote the
development of a wider range of housing options for Monroe County residents. The TREs
and new modest housing and THE points provide additional incentives for developing quality
affordable and moderately priced housing built to withstand major storms. At the same these
initiatives will provide more options for residents that want to move out of unsafe housing
conditions, such as old mobile homes, and into homes that are better able to withstand the
impacts of hurricanes and other natural disasters.
11. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys as a
unique Florida resource.
These revisions to the permit allocation system support this principle by encouraging
environmental protection through acquisition while providing land owners some return for
down -zoned property; facilitating the provision of affordable housing and preventing its
location in sensitive areas; increasing the standards for wind -loading to decrease vulnerability
to storm damage; and encouraging energy independence and conservation techniques.
As mentioned earlier, the TREs and new modest housing and THE points provide additional
incentives for developing quality affordable and moderately priced housing built to withstand
major storms. At the same these initiatives will provide more options for residents that want
to move out of unsafe housing conditions, such as old mobile homes, and into homes that are
better able to withstand the impacts of hurricanes and other natural disasters. Furthermore,
many of the older mobile homes located in over -density mobile home parks represent a
significant fire risk and have other sanitary concerns, such as inadequate sewage treatment.
Increasing affordable housing allocations will also provide more housing opportunities for
these residents and provide alternative to these mobile homes will protect public health,
safety and welfare.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above discussion and their consistency yr
Development, the Planning Department recommends
Policies 101.2.4,;101.54 and'601.1.11 of the 2010 Pla
The Planning Department also recommends approval
Section 9.5-120 through 9.5-124, and Section 9.5-266'
Unit Permit Allocation''Svstem tROC101
the Principles for Guiding
2'Y"' �""` va uav YLVrVJVu G4L11V11LLL11G11W LV
n.
roposed amendments Section 9.5-4,
Proposed ZU 10 Plan and LDR Amendments: THE Program and Opportunities for Affordable and Modest Home
Page 30 of 30
ATTACHMENT I: THE PORTION OF ORDINANCE 034-1999a
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
RESIDENTIAL ROGO AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO.
006-1997. THESE AMENDMENTS TO PORTIONS OF
SECTIONS 9.5-4, 9.5-120 THROUGH 9.5-124 AND 9.5-266
ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS, POOLING
UNUSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ROGO ALLOCATIONS,
REVISE POINTS FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION AND
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, PROVIDE NEW DEFINITIONS,
CREATE TRANSFERS OF ROGO EXEMPTIONS FOR OFF -
SITE REDEVELOPMENT, MODIFY THE QUALIFYING
CRITERIA FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ROGO
ALLOCATIONS AND REVISE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
ALLOCATIONS AVAILABLE IN UNICORPORATED
MONROE COUNTY TO REFLECT THE INCORPORATION
OF ISLAMORADA.
WHEREAS, Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
(2010 Plan) requires Monroe County to implement a permit allocation system; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Policy 101.3.1, the permit allocation system is to be comprised
of a residential permit allocation system and a commercial permit allocation system; and
WHEREAS, prior to the enactment of the 2010 Plan, a residential permit allocation
system had been enacted as the Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (residential ROGO) under
Ordinance 16-1992; and
WHEREAS, Monroe County then adopted Ordinance 006-1997 that modified
residential ROGO in order to implement requirements of Policy 101.3.1 of the 2010 Plan; and
WHEREAS, in order to eliminate confusion, the residential permit allocation system will
continue to be referred to as residential ROGO; and
WHEREAS, the tri-party agreement between the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, Islamorada, Village of Islands and Monroe County provides Islamorada with a number
of residential ROGO awards/allocations to come from Monroe County's pool; and
WHEREAS, amendments made to residential ROGO in the 2010 Plan, by way of
Ordinances 10-1999 and 11-1999 and research into other areas of the 2010 Plan has illuminated
areas for implementation within residential ROGO; and
BOCC Affordable Housing ORDINANCE #-99
Page 1 of 40
WHEREAS, Ordinances 10-1999 and I1-1999, which were adopted in January 14.
1999, and February 10, 1999 respectively, amend housing and residential ROGO issues in the
2010 Plan in the following manner:
1. Prohibiting affordable housing in environmentally sensitive lands except for those in
the Residential High Future Land Use Category;
2. Pooling unused affordable housing residential ROGO allocations;
3. Providing points for land dedication, energy conservation and structural integrity: and
WHEREAS, to implement the above -referenced changes to the 2010 Plan,
corresponding changes to the County Code are required and are contained in this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in addition, Goal 601 of the 2010 Plan directs the County to provide
programs and policies that facilitate access by all residents to adequate and affordable housing;
and
WHEREAS, based on the assessment of five years of residential ROGO, most of the
affordable housing allocations have been for residents with moderate incomes (those earning
120% of the median income for the County), while few homes were built meet the needs of
residents with median, low and very low income residents; and
WHEREAS, changing the affordable housing definition in the County Code to include
only those residents in the median, low and very low income categories provides more assurance
that these residents have more opportunities to live in the homes created with affordable housing
ROGO allocations; and
WHEREAS, Policies 101.14.2 and 217.3.2 prohibit the placement of mobile homes
within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) except on an approved lot within an existing
mobile home park or subdivision zoned for such use; and
WHEREAS, if mobile homes are removed from the CHHA residents in the median, low
and very income categories could be adversely affected unless measures are put in place to
provide housing options that these residents can afford; and
WHEREAS, Objective 601.2 of the 2010 Plan requires Monroe County to encourage
housing of various types, sizes and price ranges to meet the needs of residents; and
WHEREAS, amendments to residential ROGO detailed in this ordinance help create a
more diverse housing stock in terms of cost and type, that meets the needs of middle and lower
income residents; and
WHEREAS, Objective 601.3 of the 2010 Plan requires Monroe County to eliminate
substandard housing and enhance existing housing; and
BOCC Affordable Housing ORDINANCE 4-99
Page 2 of 40 Initials
WHEREAS, taken collectively, the goals, objectives and policies of the 2010 Plan favors
redevelopment over new development; and
WHEREAS, hotel rooms, mobile homes, campsites and RV sites and residential units
are all currently subject to residential ROGO; and
WHEREAS, amending residential ROGO so that subject to certain restrictions, eligible
units can be transferred off -site without going through ROGO provides a mechanism to eliminate
substandard housing, enhance existing housing and to redevelop residential and hotel uses
throughout the Keys; and
WHEREAS, Policy 601.1.11 of the 2010 Plan requires the County to develop an
affordable housing strategy; and
WHEREAS, amendments to residential ROGO detailed in this ordinance, which are
summarized below, represent portions of an integrated and holistic affordable housing strategy:
1. Implement amendments to residential ROGO in the 2010 Plan made by
Ordinances 10-1999 and I1-1999;
2. Provide opportunities to create affordable housing and upgrade substandard
housing by exempting off -site redevelopment of existing dwelling units;
3. Provide opportunities to redevelop old hotel and RV sites and develop new
ones by exempting off -site redevelopment of existing hotels, hotel rooms and
RV s; and
WHEREAS, during regular meetings held on May 19, 1999 and June 2, 1999 and a
special meeting on July 1, 1999, the Planning Commission considered a proposed set of
amendments to the 2010 Plan and the Monroe County Code; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 006-1997, which became effective on May 22, 1998 and revised
Secs. 9.5-121 through 9.5-129 of the Monroe County Code, was never codified should be
repealed in its entirety and replaced with a new ordinance; and
WHEREAS, for further ease in understanding and administration, Secs. 9.5-120 through
9.5-124 of the codified version of the Monroe County Code, are repealed and replaced with new
sections; and
WHEREAS, portions of Secs. 9.5-4 and 9.5-266 of the codified version of the Monroe
County Code are also amended by this ordinance; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT:
BOCC Affordable Housing ORDINANCE #-99
Page 3 of 40 Initials
Section 1. Monroe County Ordinance 006-1997, which became effective on Mav 22. 1998.
and revised Secs. 9.5-121 through 9.5-129 of the Monroe Countv Code. is hereby
repealed in its entirety.
Section 2. Sec. 9.5-4 of the Monroe County Code shall be amended and read as follows (the
strike -through and underline format is used to indicate additions and deletions
to this section, also portions of the text are HIGHLIGHTED to bring the
reader's attention to KEY LANGUAGE):
Sec.9.5-4. Definitions.
(A-5) Affordable housing refers to moans, housing in <„ hi..i,
residential dwelling units that meet the following requirements:
• Contain less than or equal to one thousand three hundred
(1,300) square feet of habitable space; and
• Meet all applicable requirements of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development
minimum property standards as to room sizes, fixtures,
landscaping and building materials, when not in conflict
with applicable laws of Monroe County; and
• Restricted for a twenty (20) year period to use by
households that meet the requirements of at least one of
the following income categories: Very -low, low or
median. The requirements for these income categories
are provided below.
(a) Very - low-income
With wsp@„t to A very -low-income owner occupied hons44g
residential dwelling unit shall only to be occupied by a very -
low-income household, whose income does that mwuh]•L
pace. -ale not exceed th;� fam
fifty (50) percent of the median adjusted
gross annual income for households within Monroe County.
divided by-12 f r. a pe:ied e1294 yc c Th a jI
„r,;t m„ct 21NQ ,v,nut 211 oppli lain on mnr,tc of t},n T T itnrl
State SePa;4Me1;4 99 14eusing-2nd I_1;h2r, otn t
ini u�x►—g;eger43'6t ;;lords as 4e rnn QiZQr,, �-
ianL sgapii;g ai;d b ildk4g rvmawriaW , hon t of t 'tl.
appligable laws of 44-0-ur-08 County
A very -low-income rental residential dwelling- unit shall onl
be occupied by a household, whose monthly rent does not
exceed thirty (30) percent of that amount which represents
fifty (50) percent of the median adjusted gross annual income
for households within Monroe County, divided by 12.
BOCC Affordable Housing ORDINANCE #-99
Page 4 of 40 Initials
(b) Low-income
Wit-;@spa".-W A low-income owner occupied housing
residential dwelling unit shall only to be occupied by a low-
income household, whose income does that montWy mats g
4Q not exceed dg;ty (30) Pe;Gew „g that t 1a-iG
wpmsents-eighty (80) percent of the median adjusted gross
annual income for households within Monroe County;
fry. a „g;igA gg(IQ) WL9;14<, <ro
A low-income rental residential dwelling unit shall oniv be
occupied by a household, whose monthly rent, does not
exceed thirty (30) percent of that amount which represents
eighty (80) percent of the median adjusted gross annual
income for households within Monroe County, divided by
12.
(c) Median -income
(a) A median -income owner occupied residential dwelling unit
shall only be occupied by a median -income household,
whose income does not exceed one hundred (100) percent of
the median adjusted gross annual income for households
within Monroe County,
A median -income rental residential dwelling unit, shall only
be occupied by a household, whose monthly rent, does not
exceed thirty (30) percent of that amount which represents
one hundred (100) percent of the median adjusted gross
annual income for households within Monroe County,
divided by 12.
BOCC Affordable Housing ORDINANCE #-99
Page 5 of 40 Initials
(E-1) Employee housing means a non -temporary attached or
detached residential dwelling unit which ;& limited a
wrarictie leaant P-miRkag—in of 44e;;;eeCDe:mu.
is used by employees
who derive at least seventy (70) percent of their income from
gainful employment in Monroe County and meet the
requirements for affordable housing as per Secs. 9.5-4 (A-5)
and 9.5-266.and adauswd -^+ a
�:sr'r+>•perr�>►s:�:sss�i7:T�.T.lRl�:T.Sf
- =0
a —
(T-3) Transfer of ROGO exemption (TRE) refers to the process
by which certain types of transient and residential units and spaces
counted under ROGO, may be removed and replaced off -site.
4-34 (T-4) Transient residential unit means a dwelling unit
used for transient housing such as a hotel or motel room, or space for
parking a recreational vehicle or travel trailer.
4-44 (T-5) Transitional habitat means the saltmarsh and
buttonwood association.
4-54 (T-6) Trip means a single or uni-directional movement
with either the origin or destination existing or entering inside the
study site.
4.64 (T-7) Trip generation means the attraction or production
of trips caused by a given type of land development.
Section 3. Monroe County shall adopt the following Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance by
repealing Secs. 9.5-120 through 9.5-124, as codified and creating BOTH a new division
(Division 1.5) and new sections (Secs. 9.5-120 through 9.5-124). The new division and
subdivision are to read as follows - (The strike -through and underline format is NOT used to
indicate additions and deletions to this section. The amended section should be read as
presented. Portions of the text are HIGHLIGHTED andlor bolded to bring the reader's
attention to KEY LANGUAGE):
BOCC Affordable Housing ORDINANCE #-99
Page 6 of 40 Initials
DIVISION 1.5 RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE
Sec. 9.5-120. Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO).
(a) Purpose and Intent:
(1) The purposes and intent of residential ROGO are:
a. To facilitate implementation of goals, objectives and
policies set forth in the comprehensive plan relating to
protection of residents, visitors and property in the
county from natural disasters, specifically including
hurricanes;
b. To limit the annual amount and rate of residential
development commensurate with the county's ability to
maintain a reasonable and safe hurricane evacuation
clearance time;
c. To regulate the rate and location of growth in order to
further deter deterioration of public facility service
levels, environmental degradation and potential land
use conflicts; and
d. To allocate the limited number of dwelling units
available annually hereunder, based upon the goals,
objectives and policies set forth in the comprehensive
plan.
(b) Definitions: The words or phrases used in this division
shall have the meanings prescribed in this chapter, except as
otherwise indicated as follows:
ROGO application means the residential ROGO application
submitted by applicants seeking allocation awards.
Allocation period means a defined period of time within which
applications for the residential ROGO allocation will be accepted
and processed.
Annual allocation period means the 12 month period beginning on
July 13, 1992 (the effective date of the original Dwelling Unit
Allocation Ordinance), and subsequent one-year periods.
BOCC Affordable Housing ORDINANCE #-99
Page 7 of 40 Initials
Annual residential ROGO allocation means the maximum number
of dwelling units for which building permits may be issued during
an annual allocation period.
Controlling date means the date and time a ROGO application is
submitted. This date shall be used to determine the annual
anniversary date for receipt of a perseverance point(s) and shall
determine precedence when ROGO applications receive identical
ranking scores. A new controlling date shall be established based
upon the re -submittal date and time of any withdrawn or revised
application.
Known habitat of threatenedlendangered animal species is one that
has documented evidence of sightings, collection, trapping, or
direct evidence of the presence of the animal(s) in a specific habitat
area. The county's Threatened and Endangered Species Maps shall
constitute prima facie evidence of the species unless determined
otherwise by the director of environmental resources.
Probable habitat of threatened/endangered animal species is one
where there is a lack of direct evidence documenting the presence
of an animal, but where the habitat area is suitably close to an
existing population to make colonization possible, and is of a size
and ecological character sufficient to support the animal(s). The
county's Threatened and Endangered Species Maps shall constitute
prima facie evidence that an area is probable habitat unless
determined otherwise by the director of environmental resources.
Potential habitat of threatenedlendangered animal species is one
where there is a lack of direct evidence documenting the presence
of an animal and where the habitat area is not suitably close to an
existing population to make colonization possible, but the habitat
area is of a size and ecological character sufficient to support the
animal(s). The county's Threatened and Endangered Species Maps
shall constitute prima facie evidence that an area is potential
habitat unless determined otherwise by the director of
environmental resources.
Quarterly allocation period means the 3-month period beginning
on July 13, 1992 or such other date as the board may specify, and
successive 3-month periods.
Quarterly residential ROGO allocation means the maximum
number of dwelling units for which building permits may be issued
in a quarterly allocation period.
BOCC Affordable Housing ORDINANCE #-99
Page 8 of 40 Initials
Residential dwelling unit means a dwelling unit as defined in Sec.
9.5-4 of the Monroe County Code, and expressly includes the
following other terms also specifically defined in Sec. 9.5-4: hotel
rooms, campground spaces, mobile homes, transient residential
units, institutional residential units (except hospital rooms) and
live-aboards.
Residential ROGO allocation means the maximum number of
dwelling units for which building permits may be issued in a given
time period.
Residential ROGO allocation award means the approval of a
residential ROGO application for the issuance of a building permit.
Wide-ranging threatened or endangered animal species is one
whose individuals typically move over a large area, usually
seasonally. They occur in any of the listed habitats within their
mapped ranges. The County's Threatened and Endangered Species
Maps shall constitute prima facie evidence of wide ranging
threatened or endangered species unless determined otherwise by
the director of environmental resources.
Sec. 9.5-120.1. General provisions.
(a) Residential ROGO Allocation Award Required: No
building permit shall be issued unless the dwelling unit has
received a residential dwelling unit allocation award, or is
determined to be exempt as provided below.
(b) Effective Date: Any ROGO application which has not
received an allocation award as of the effective date of this
ordinance shall be processed and evaluated pursuant to the
provisions of this ordinance.
(c) Yearly Review and Monitoring: As required by the
comprehensive plan, as requested by the planning commission or
the board, or as otherwise necessary, the planning director shall
consider the rate, amount, location, and ratio of market rate to
affordable housing residential dwelling units available for
development in the county. The planning director shall also
monitor the effects of such development and determine the
conformity of such development with the comprehensive plan and
this chapter. This review, in whole or in part, may form the basis
for recommendations by the planning director or the planning
BOCC Affordable Housing ORDINANCE #-99
Page 9 of 40 Initials
commission to the board for action to repeal, amend or modify the
ROGO allocation system.
Sec. 9.5-120.2. Affected area.
The ROGO allocation system shall apply within the
unincorporated area of Monroe County Florida, which, for
purposes hereof, has been divided into subareas as follows:
(a) Upper Keys: The unincorporated area of Monroe County
north of Fiesta Key (approximately mile marker 71).
(b) Middle Keys: The unincorporated area of Monroe County
south of Fiesta Key to the Seven Mile Bridge (approximately mile
markers 71 to 40).
(c) Lower Keys: The unincorporated area of Monroe County
south of the Seven Mile Bridge, (approximately mile markers 40 to
4).
Sec. 9.5-120.3. Type of development affected.
The residential ROGO shall apply to the development of the
following:
(a) All residential dwelling units for which a building permit is
required by this chapter and for which building permits have not
been issued prior to the effective date of the ROGO allocation
system, except as otherwise provided herein; and
(b) Public and institutional uses which house transient visitors
or temporary residents unless:
(1) The facility is constructed to withstand category 5
hurricane storm conditions; or
(2) A factual demonstration is made that such occupancy does
not negatively impact the County's hurricane evacuation
clearance time.
Sec. 9.5-120.4. Type of development NOT affected.
BOCC Affordable Housing ORDINANCE #-99
Page 10 of 40 Initials
The residential ROGO shall not apply to the development
described below:
(a) Redevelopment On -site: Redevelopment, rehabilitation or
replacement of any lawfully established residential dwelling unit or
space which does not increase the number of residential dwelling
units above that which existed on the site prior to the
redevelopment, rehabilitation or replacement.
(b) Transfer Off -site: Transfer off -site shall consist of either the
demolition or a change of use from residential to non-residential of
a unit or space from a sender site and the development of a new
unit on a receiver site as indicated below.
a. Eligibility of sender unit or space: A hotel room,
mobile home, recreational vehicle space, or dwelling
unit that is:
i) in existence as of January 4, 1996; and
ii) accounted for in the hurricane evacuation model
which forms the basis of ROGO; and
iii) lawfully established or subject to a valid unexpired
State THE agreement,
may be rebuilt in another part of the unincorporated
county subject to the criteria for redevelopment off -site.
(1) Criteria for redevelopment off -site: In order to redevelop off -
site, a receiver site must be evaluated for both its structural
and site conditions.
a. Transfer to a hotel: A hotel or hotel room may be
developed if the:
(i) sender unit or space is eligible and provided that it
was used as a hotel room or recreational vehicle
space in accordance with Sec. 9.5-4; and
(ii) transfer is made to a receiver site located in the
same ROGO subarea as the sender site; and
(iii)receiver site receives no negative points when
evaluated pursuant to Sec. 9.5-122.3 (a)(7) or (8) or
(9).
b. Transfer to affordable housing: An affordable housing
unit may be developed if the:
(i) sender unit is eligible; and
BOCC Affordable Housing ORDINANCE #-99
Page 11 of 40 Initials
(ii) receiver unit:
1) is an attached dwelling unit; and
2) meets the criteria for affordable housing
pursuant to Secs. 9.54(A-5) and 9.5-266; and
(iii) transfer is made to a receiver site that is located in
the same ROGO subarea as the sender site; and
(iv)receiver site receives no negative points when
evaluated pursuant to Sec. 9.5-122.3 (a) (7) or (8) or
(9)•
(2) Procedures for transfer off -site: A pre -application
conference and at a minimum, a minor conditional use
permit shall be required for both the sender site and the
receiver site.
A sender unit or space shall be assigned a unique identifier
number that shall be used for tracking and monitoring by
the Planning Department. The unique identifier number
shall be itemized in the conditional use permits required for
both the sender and receiver sites.
No building permit shall be issued for the new unit on the
receiver site until one of the following conditions are met:
a. the unit is demolished as per an issued demolition
permit and a final inspection for the demolished unit or
space has been completed by the building department
for the sender site; or
b. the unit is removed pursuant to a development approval,
development order, or a development permit is issued
and a final inspection for the removed unit is completed
by the building department for the sender site.
(c) Nonresidential Use: Non-residential uses are not affected
by residential ROGO.
(d) Development not impacting hurricane evacuation times:
Any applicant that can demonstrate with a traffic study acceptable
to Monroe County traffic engineers that their proposed
development will not impact hurricane evacuation times.
All previously authorized residential dwelling units to be located in
the area designated as Zone 7 (North Key Largo area) that the 1989
Transportation Analysis found to comply with the above criteria
and are exempt.
BOCC Affordable Housing ORDINANCE 9-99
Page 12 of 40 Initials
ORDINANCE # -2000
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING AMENDMENTS
TO THE RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE (ROGO) OF THE
MONROE COUNTY CODE, INCLUDING SECTIONS 9.5 -4,
9.5-122 and 9.5-122.3 BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
DEFINITIONS, ADDING FLEXIBILITY AND ADDING
POSITIVE POINT OPPORTUNITIES FOR MODEST
HOUSING.
WHEREAS, Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
(2010 Plan) requires Monroe County to implement a permit allocation system; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Policy 101.3.1, the permit allocation system is to be comprised
of a residential permit allocation system and a commercial permit allocation system; and
WHEREAS, the 2010 Plan recognizes affordable housing as an important issue facing
Monroe County and its residents; and
WHEREAS, Goal 601 of the 2010 Plan directs the County to provide programs and
policies that facilitate access by all residents to adequate and affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, changing the affordable housing definition in the County Code to include
only those residents in the low and very low income categories could ensure that these residents
have more opportunities to live in the homes created with affordable housing ROGO allocations;
and
WHEREAS, currently the extra points necessary to successfully compete in the market
rate category of residential ROGO involve substantial financial investments; and
WHEREAS, middle income residents and those who would no longer qualify for
affordable housing ROGO allocations (those earning more than 100% of the median income for
the County) could compete successfully for market rate ROGO allocations if new ROGO points
were created that provided a competitive advantage to modest homes; and
WHEREAS, Objective 601.2 of the 2010 Plan requires Monroe County to encourage
housing of various types, sizes and price ranges to meet the needs of residents; and
WHEREAS, the amendments to residential ROGO detailed in the ordinance should
help create a diverse housing stock, including multi -family units and commercial apartments,
that meets the needs of middle and lower income residents; and
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 1 of 11
WHEREAS, Policy 601.1.11 of the 2010 Plan requires the County to develop an
affordable housing strategy; and
WHEREAS, amendments to residential ROGO detailed in this ordinance are developed
in manner consistent with the 2010 Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, during a regular meeting held on
August 11, 1999, conducted a review of an amendment to the 2010 Plan filed by the Planning
Department to add flexibility to residential ROGO, provide positive point opportunities for
modest housing and create opportunities for new development by transferring existing residential
and transient units and spaces; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the amendment to the 2010
Plan at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners were also presented with draft Monroe
County Code (LDRs) language that would implement these 2010 Plan changes at this meeting;
and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners, after due
notice and public participation in the public hearing process, conducted a public "adoption
hearing" to consider adopting the proposed amendment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. Secs. 9.5-4 shall be amended and read as follows (the strikethrough
and underline format is used to indicate additions and deletions to
this section):
Sec.9.5-4. Definitions.
(M-17) Modest housing means residential units that have a
combination of design and site characteristics that make them more
reasonably priced than residential units lacking such
characteristics.
(M-18) Modular home means a structure intended for residential
use that is manufactured off -site in accordance with state standards.
(M 1 (M-19) Monroe County Comprehensive Plan means the
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan adopted and amended
pursuant to Florida Statutes section 163.3161 et seq.
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 2 of I 1
(N-11) Non -waterfront lot means a parcel of land that does not
contain a shoreline.
(N 11 -12 Nursery means a use in which plants are grown for
sale or for the harvest of their products.
Section 2. Sec. 9.5-122 shall be amended to read as follows (the strike -through
and underline format is used to indicate additions and deletions to this section):
Sec. 9.5-122. Residential ROGO allocations
(b) Ratio ofAffordable Housing ROGO Allocations to Market Rate ROGO
Allocations: Prior to October of each year the county shall set the yearly
residential ROGO allocation ratio, by subarea, for each ROGO year as follows:
(1) Board of County Commissioners action required: The
planning commission may recommend that the board of
county commissioners adopt a resolution changing the ratio
of affordable housing to market rate ROGO allocations
based upon the recommendations of the planning
commission and the planning director arising from the
annual review of ROGO. The yearly ROGO review may
include the following recommendations:
a. Amend the market rate to affordable housing ROGO
allocation ratio for each subarea provided that in no
event shall the percentage be less than 20% for
affordable housing and where the yearly percentage
increase or decrease shall not exceed 30% of the
previous year's ROGO allocations to market rate and
affordable housing; and
b. Provide a portion of the affordable housing ROGO
allocations to the Monroe County Housing Authority
for distribution in accordance with an
intergovernmental agreement between the Monroe
County Housing Authority, the Land Authority and
Monroe County.
(b) DAffordable housing allocation awards and eligibility:
(1) The definition of affordable housing shall be as specified in Secs. 9.54(A-
5) and 9.5-266.
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 3 of 11
(2) Any portion of the twenty (20) percent allocation not used for affordable
housing at the end of a ROGO year shall be made available for affordable
housing for the next ROGO year.
(3) No affordable housing allocation shall be awarded to an application to be
located within a parcel that receives negative points according to criteria
specified under Habitat Protection, or Threatened or Endangered Species,
or Critical Habitat Area in Sec. 9.5-122.3 (a)(7) or (8) or (9) unless said
parcel is located within the IS-D or UR or URM or URM-L or land use
districts.
(Q)@)Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation Required: From and after the
effective date of the dwelling unit allocation system, the county shall issue
no building permit for a residential dwelling unit unless such dwelling unit
has received the following:
a. a residential dwelling unit allocation award; or
b. is exempt from the dwelling unit allocation system; or is determined to
be vested pursuant to Sec. 9.5-120.3; or
c. is the subject of a completed building permit application received by
the county on or before June 9, 1992.
(44(� Exempt and vested development:
(1) Any building permit for residential dwelling units issued, by the county
during an allocation period to vested development shall be subtracted from
the annual residential dwelling unit allocation for that allocation period.
(2) After subtracting building permits issued for vested residential dwelling
units by subarea and by quarterly allocation period, the director of
planning shall re -determine the quarterly residential dwelling unit
allocation in accordance with the following principles and guidelines:
a. If the number of vested residential dwelling units is less than fifty (50)
percent of the quarterly allocation for the affected subarea, such vested
residential dwelling units shall be subtracted from the quarterly
allocation and only the remainder of the quarterly allocation shall be
available for allocation in that quarterly period.
b. If the number of vested residential dwelling units is fifty
(50) percent or more of the quarterly allocation for the
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 4 of I 1
ffected subarea, only fifty (50) percent of such vested
residential development shall be subtracted from the
quarterly allocation and the remaining fifty (50)
percent of the quarterly allocation shall be available
for allocation in that quarterly period • in that event, the
`excess' residential dwelling units shall be determined
and subtracted pro. rata from future allocation periods
so that an average annual build -out of two hundred
twenty seven (227) dwelling units is not exceeded
(i) Yearly Residential ROGO Allocation Ratio: Each
subarea shall have its number of market rate and
affordable housing residential ROGO allocations
available per ROGO year determined by the
following formula:
1) Market Rate Residential ROGO Allocations
available in each subarea is equal to the Yearly
number of available Residential ROGO
Allocations in each subarea, multiplied by the
percentage of the Market Rate Residential
ROGO Allocations.
2) Affordable Housing Residential ROGO
Allocations available in each subarea is equal to
the Yearly number of available Residential
ROGO Allocations in each subarea, multiplied
by the percentage of Affordable Housing
Residential ROGO Allocations.
(ii) Quarterly Residential ROGO Allocation Ratio:
Each subarea shall have its number of market rate
and affordable housing residential ROGO
allocations available per ROGO quarter determined
by the following formula:
1) Market Rate Residential ROGO Allocations
available in each subarea per quarter is equal to
the Market Rate Residential ROGO Allocations
available in each subarea divided by four (4).
2) Affordable Housing Residential ROGO for all
four ROGO quarters shall be made available at
the beginning of the first quarter for a ROGO
year.
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 5 of 11
Kd Adjustment of Residential ROGO Allocations: At the end
of each quarterly allocation period, the planning director shall
recommend additions or subtractions to the basic allocation
available by subarea, based upon any of the following, as
appropriate:
(1) The number of residential ROGO allocation awards which
expired during the previous quarterly allocation period;
(2) The number of residential ROGO allocation awards
available which were not allocated during the quarterly
allocation period in the current annual allocation period;
(3) The number of residential ROGO allocation awards in
previous quarters which were borrowed from future
allocations to accommodate multiple unit projects or to
accommodate allocation applications with identical scores,
pursuant to 9.5-122.2(b)(2) or which were granted to
applicants via either the appeals process, administrative
relief or a beneficial use determination;
(4) Residential ROGO allocations vested during the preceding
quarter, as follows:
a. If the number of residential ROGO allocations in
question is less than fifty (50) percent of the quarterly
allocation for the affected subarea, such vested
residential dwelling units shall be subtracted from the
quarterly allocation and only the remainder of the
quarterly allocation shall be available for allocation in
that quarterly period.
b. If the number of residential ROGO allocations in
question is fifty (50) percent or more of the quarterly
allocation for the affected subarea, only fifty (50)
percent of such vested residential development shall be
subtracted from the quarterly allocation and the
remaining fifty (50) percent of the quarterly allocation
shall be available for allocation in that quarterly period;
in that event, the `excess' residential dwelling units
shall be determined and subtracted pro rata from future
allocation periods so that an average annual build -out of
two hundred twenty seven (227) dwelling units is not
exceeded.
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 6 of 11
(5) Any other modifications required or provided for by the
comprehensive plan.
(6) Any portion of the residential ROGO allocations not used
shall be retained and be made available for affordable
housing from ROGO year to ROGO year.
Section 3. Sec. 9.5-122.3 shall be amended to include new Sections 9.5-
122.3(a)(19) (the underline format is used to indicate additions to
this section):
Sec. 9.5-122.3. Evaluation criteria.
(19) MODESTHOUSING:
The following points shall be assigned in order to
encourage the construction of moderately -priced residential
dwelling units.
Detached Residential Dwelling Unit
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+2 An application which qualifies
for infill ROGO points and proposes
to develop a detached residential
dwelling unit that contains one
thousand three hundred (1, 300)
square feet, or less, of habitable
space
Additional Requirements:
1. An affordable unit is not eligible
for these points since a
residential dwelling unit that
utilizes an affordable ROGO
allocation is already required to
contain one thousand three
hundred (1,300) square feet, or
less, of habitable space.
2. The parcel of land proposed for
developing the detached
residential dwelling unit shall not
qualify_for negative points under
Sec.9.5-122.3(a)(7) or (8) or (9),
except for a parcel of land
Attordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 7 of I 1
located within a URM, URM-L,
IS-D or UR land use district.
I Expansion of the habitable space
of the detached residential
dwelling unit shall be limited by
a condition on the permit for at
least seven (7) years.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+2 An application shall earn additional
points for proposing a detached
modular residential dwelling unit.
Additional Requirements:
1. To be eligible for these points,
the detached modular residential
dwelling unit must meet the
minimum windload requirements
for Monroe County.
2. Both affordable and market units
are eligible for these points.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+1 An application shall earn an
additional point for proposing a
detached residential dwelling unit on
a non -waterfront lot.
Additional Requirements:
I. Both affordable and market units
are eligible for this point.
Attordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 8 of 11
Attached Residential Dwelling Units
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+3 An application which proposes
to develop an attached residential
dwelling unit that contains one
thousand three hundred (1,300)
square feet, or less, of habitable
space.
Additional Requirements:
I. Both affordable and market units
are eligible for these points.
2. The parcel of land proposed for
developing an attached
residential dwelling unit shall not
qualifyfor negative points under
Sec.9.5-122.3(a)(7) or (8) or (9),
except for a parcel of land
located within a URM, URM-L,
IS-D or UR land use district.
3. Expansion of the habitable space
of an attached residential
dwelling unit shall be limited by
a condition on the permit for at
least seven (7) years.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+2 An application shall earn additional
points for proposing an attached
modular attached residential
dwelling unit.
Additional Requirements:
(1) To be eligible for these points an
attached residential modular
dwelling unit must meet the
minimum windload requirements
for Monroe County.
(2) Both affordable and market units
are eligible for these points.
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 9 of 11
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+1 An application shall earn an
additional point for proposing an
attached residential dwelling unit on
a non -waterfront lot.
Additional Requirements:
(1) To be eligible for this point, the
modular dwelling unit must meet
the minimum windload
requirements for Monroe County.
(2) Both affordable and market units
are eligible for this point.
+2 An application shall earn additional
points for utilizing transfers of
ROGO exemptions (TREs) in the
development of an attached
residential dwelling unit on a one for
one basis. All such transfers must
occur in accordance with Sec. 9.5-
120.4.(b).
Section 4. The existing County Code shall be amended with the language as stated above
under Sections 1 through 3.
Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held
invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 6. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 7. This ordinance is hereby transmitted to the state land planning agency for
approval or disapproval pursuant to Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes.
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 10 of 11
Section 8. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of
Florida, but shall not become effective until notice is issued by the Department of
Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in
compliance with Chapters 163 and 380 of the Florida Statutes.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida,
at a meeting of the Board held on the day of , A.D., 2000.
Mayor Shirley Freeman
Mayor Pro Tern George Neugent
Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich
Commissioner Nora Williams
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MAYOR/CHAIRPERSON
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
'-LrjrxLP!W AS
DEPUTY CLERK 1 AND LEG -Q1
B \_, v
/ —At torney's Office
r
Affordable Housing County Code Ordinance
Page 11 of 11
-
LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION