P. Public Hearings
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: July 18, 2007
Division:
Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes
No .x.
Department: Planning
Staff Contact Person: Aref J oulani
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
A public hearing to consider a resolution to extend an Interim Development Ordinance (IDO) deferring the
acceptance of applications for redevelopment and/or conversion of marine facilities including commercial marinas
and working waterfronts for six months after the expiration date of Resolution 241-2006 which new expiration date
is January 9, 2008 or when applicable comprehensive plan and/or land development regulations become effective,
whichever comes fIrst.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Monroe County is experiencing the loss of and redevelopment of marine facilities including commercial marinas and
the working waterfront. The County found it necessary to enact an Interim Development Ordinance deferring the
acceptance of development applications that seek development approval for the redevelopment and conversion of
marine facilities and working waterfront properties until land development regulations are adopted. The County has
completed the Working Waterfronts Master Plan, including draft land development regulations designed to preserve
working waterfronts. The land development regulations have been reviewed by the Monroe County Marine and Port
Advisory Committee and the Development Review Committee. The Planning Commission reviewed the land
development regulations on June 27, 2007. In the deliberations of the Planning Commission, the Commission voted
unanimously to recommend an extension of Resolution 241-2006 by an additional six months. In analysis, staff
believes, that even with the current expedited path toward adoption, more than six months will be required to have
the working waterfronts ordinances in effect (including FDCA approval).
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
February 200S-Approved contract with South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) and Florida Atlantic
University (F AU) to develop a Marine Management Strategic Plan.
July 200S-Adopted Ordinance No. 017-200S-An IDO deferring the acceptance of development applications for the
redevelopment and conversion of marine facilities.
March 2006-Accepted fmdings of the Marine Management Strategic Plan.
June 2006- Extended the IDO by Resolution No. 241-2006.
September 2006- Approved contract with SFRPC to develop a Marina Siting Plan, Working Waterfronts
Preservation Master Plan and draft land development regulations for working waterfront preservation.
April 2007- Held a workshop to discuss preservation options, allowing staff to complete land development
regulations and begin process for adoption.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
TOTAL COST: N/A
BUDGETED: Yes
No
COST TO COUNTY: N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING:
Yes N/A No
AMOUNT PER MONTH
Year
APPROVED BY:
County Arty -X- OMB/Purchasing _Risk Management_ _
DOCUMENTATION: IncludedXm -- .u_u
Not Required _
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #_
RESOLUTION NO.
-2007
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS EXTENDING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE NO. 017-2005 AND DEFERRING THE ACCEPTANCE OF
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AND
CONVERSION OF MARINE FACILITIES INCLUDING COMMERCIAL
MARINAS AND THE WORKING WATERFRONT UNTIL LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULA TIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS ARE DRAFTED; PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR EXPIRATION ON JANUARY 9, 2008 OR WHEN THE
AMENDMENTS BECOME EFFECTIVE, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners makes the following
findings of fact:
I. On July 20, 2005 the Board of County Commissioners adopted Interim Development
Ordinance No. 017-2005 deferring the acceptance of development applications for the
redevelopment and conversion of marine facilities including commercial marinas and the working
waterfront until land development regulations are drafted.
2. Section 10 of Ordinance No. 17-2005 provides that the ordinance shall stand repealed
as of 11 :59 p.m. on the 270th day after the effective date of the Ordinance, unless repealed sooner
by the Board of County Commissioners or upon the adoption by the Board of County
Commissioners and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs of amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations addressing public access and marine
facilities.
3. Ordinance No. 17-2005 directed staff to contract with the South Florida Regional
Planning Council to prepare a public access and marine facilities strategic plan.
4. The Board of County Commissioners adopted the Marine Management Strategic Plan
on March 15, 2006.
5. On June 21, 2006 the Board of County Commissioners extended the Interim
Development Ordinance until July 10,2007.
6. On September 30, 2006 the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to enter into
an interlocal agreement with the South Florida Regional Planning Council to develop
implementation strategies recommended in the Marine Management Strategic Plan, including a
Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan, Marina Siting Plan, Comprehensive Development
Master Plan amendments and supporting Land Development Regulations, and a database of
marine-related facilities.
7. On April 3, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners met in a special workshop and
heard a report on the Marina Siting Plan and draft amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
Land Development Regulations. The Board of County Commissioners acknowledged staffs
request to begin the process for review and adoption of the Marina Siting Plan, the Comprehensive
Plan amendments, and supporting Land Development Regulations.
8. The tasks of preparing the Marina Siting Plan and amendments to the Land
Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan to pro teet against the loss of working
waterfronts and preserve public access have been completed. The amendments have been
reviewed by the Monroe County Marine and Port Advisory Committee and the Monroe County
Development Review Committee. The amendments are scheduled to be reviewed by the Monroe
County Planning Commission for recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Legislation concerning zoning and zoning regulations is therefore in progress.
9. Upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners the Marina Siting Plan and
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations will be transmitted to
the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The required state processes for the amendment of
the land development regulations may take approximately five months.
10. The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting on June 27, 2007, recommended an
additional six month extension ofthe provisions of Ordinance 017-2005.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Interim Development Ordinance No. 017-2005 is hereby extended retroactively
from July 10, 2007 until January 9, 2008 or until the amendments to the land development
regulations and comprehensive plan to facilitate preservation of working waterfront areas become
effeetive, whiehever occurs first.
Section 2. All exemptions as stated in Section 4 of Ordinance No. 017-2005 and all
applications of the ordinance as stated in Section 5 of Ordinance No. 017-2005 shall remain.
Section 3. Because of the pending legislation, Staff is directed to continue to defer:
a) Accepting or processing development applications relating to
redevelopment or conversion of existing uses and structures for:
(I) any change of use of a commercial marina from a water-dependent use
to a water-enhanced or a non-water-dependent use;
(2) any division of uplands and/or bay bottom of existing marine facilities
into individual parcels regardless of type of ownership;
(3) any modification, improvements or expansions of existing marine
facilities which would diminish public access or result in a loss of working
waterfront; and
(4) any change of use of a parcel of parcels of working waterfront to a
commercial marina or a non-water dependent use.
b) Issuance of building permits for redevelopment or conversion of existing
uses and structures for:
(1) any change of use of a commercial marina from a water-dependent use
to a water-enhanced or a non-water-dependent use;
(2) any division of uplands and/or bay bottom of existing marine facilities
.. ~-~==----=~~-i~i~~<l.1~~~:I:e~a.r4less.4f~~{}:t'~~~f~___._._~~.~-.:_:.=~:.
(3) any modification, improvements or expansions of existing marine
facilities which would diminish public access or result in a loss of working
waterfront; and
(4) any change of use of a parcel or parcels of working waterfront to a
commercial marina or a non-water dependent use.
c) Issuance of development orders and development permits of existing uses
and structures for:
(I) any change of use of a commercial marina from a water-dependent use
to a water-enhanced or a non-water-dependent use;
(2) any division of uplands and/or bay bottom of existing marine facilities
into individual parcels regardless of type of ownership;
(3) any modification, improvements or expansions of existing marine
facilities which would diminish public access or result in a loss of working
waterfront; and
(4) any change of use of a parcel of parcels of working waterfront to a
commercial marina or a non-water dependent use.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, charge or provision of this
resolution is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida
at a regular meeting held on the _ day of , 2007.
Mayor Mario Di Gennaro
Mayor Pro Tern Dixie Spehar
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner Sylvia J. Murphy
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Mayor Mario Di Gennaro
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
By:
DepuTy Clerk
MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROV 0 AS TO FORM:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: July 18. 2007
Division:
Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes
NoX
Department: Planning
Staff Contact Person: Robert Shillenger
Clarence Feagin
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
A public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting new regulations concerning beneficial use
determinations. The amendment updates the Beneficial Use provisions of the code to be consistent
with current laws and add to the efficiency and fairness of the process.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
On June 12, 2007 the Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and
recommended approval without any changes.
On June 13 and 27, 2007 the Planning Commission heard the proposed text amendment and, in
consideration of public testimony, comments by the Planning Commission, and the staff report by the
Planning Department recommended approval with minor changes to the application procedure for
beneficial use determinations, which are underlined for your review.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
The last time the BOCC adopted amendments to DIVISION 2 BENEFICIAL USE of the code was in
1998 and it hasn't been updated since then.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval.
TOTAL COST: NA
BUDGETED: Yes
NoX
COST TO COUNTY: NA
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
NA
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No No
AMOUNTPERMONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Arty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management_
DOCUMENTATION:
Included Yes
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #-1:>- Z.
Revised 8/06
O~~.!:~!!2E
(305) 294-4641
r"~
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI~IONERS
Mayor Mario DiGennaro, Dlstrid: 4
Mayor Pro Tern DixIe M. Spehar, DistrIct 1
0lar1es "Sonny" McCoy, District 3
George Neugent, Dlstrid: 2
Sylvia Murphy, DistrIct 5
19f1ia'" t4e &u.bJ ~
502 WIittItead Stud., !ilaR
[lut "/lice ~ 1026
:Keg. W~t, fiE. 33041-1026
(305) 292-3470
'1\
- ~'11-
:--!~ ~~.
:~~_;~ ~... 0". r
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and County Commissioners
From: Susan M. Grimsley, Assistant County Attorney
>htf
Re: Beneficial Use Determination Ordinance
Date: July 12, 2007
In reviewing this ordinance, please use only the versions marked at the top of the pages "ORIGINAL" and
"VERSION 2".
1. The "Original" Ordinance was written by Tyson Smith, Esq. and has no mark-ups.
2. As part of the procedure for the enactment of land development regulation changes, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing and proposed some changes, which are underlined and stricken
through, in Sections 9.5-1 74(a), 9.5(e)(2), and the title of9.5-179(c) on Version 2.
3. In response to the Planning Commission changes, Tyson Smith made recommendations in a memo
dated July 10,2007, which are also shown on Version 2.
The County Attorney's office recommends the Board pass either the original version, or the one with the
responsive changes from Tyson Smith, in order to further the objectives of efficiency and equitable process, as
mentioned in his attached memo ofJuly 10, 2007.
SMG:kmp
MEMO FROM lYSON SMITH JULY 10,2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Members of the Board of County Commissioners
cc: Susan Grimsley, Assistant County Attorney
From: Tyson Smith, White & Smith, LLC
Date: July to, 2007
Subj: Amendments to the BUD Ordinance; Planning Commission Recommendations
I have reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations related to the recently
proposed changes to the County's Beneficial Use Ordinance. I am concerned that some of
the Planning Commission's recommendations would negate the very objectives the
amendments are intended to accomplish; namely, ensuring an efficient and equitable process
for property owner's making good faith efforts to resolve potential disputes with the County
without need for judicial recourse. For that reason, I respectfully offer the following for the
Board's consideration.
9.5-174(a): The Planning Commission has suggested alternative language to this section of
the draft ordinance, which I believe is redundant of existing County procedures and will
create delay in the BUD process. Information required of the applicant, if in the County's
possession, is "reasonably available" to the applicant at any time and would, through existing
procedures, be provided upon request. The Planning Commission's proposed language,
however, would require County staff to accept incomplete applications and would shift to
staff the burden of completing the application. The language also creates uncertainty as to
what is "reasonably available." The information available to staff is available to the applicant
by a simple request.
I would respectfully suggest to the Board the following language as an alternative to that
suggested by the Planning Commission: "County information required by this section
will be supplied to the applicant by PJa.nning Department staff, upon request of the
applicant, prior to submission of an application."
9.5-174(e)(2): The burden for demonstrating the need for BUD relief is the applicant's,
both under the ordinance in effect today and the proposed draft ordinance. My concern
with the language recommended by the Planning Commission - as with the language
discussed above - is that it could have the effect of shifting to the Planning staff the burden
of providing the information necessary for the Special Master to make a recommendation.
Nonetheless, there will be instances where information should appropriately be provided by
the County staff in response or in reply to the applicant's information. Therefore, I
respectfully suggest the following alternative language for the last sentence of 9. 5-174(e) (2):
"In response to the application or the materials submitted by the applicant, the
planning director shall forward to the special master any additional materials,
applications, or decisions related to the application, including, if
appropriate, recoQlJDended forms of relief, consistent with this division."
9.5-179(c): This section establishes a "ceiling" for relief under the BUD Ordinance. The
suggested language confuses this point and could even be read to suggest a "floor." I
suggest retaining the title as proposed.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (843) 937-0201. Thank you.
WHITE &
SMJTH, Ltc
PLANNING AND
LAW GROUP
KANSAS CITY OFFICE:
S. MARK WHITE, AICP
IJdmitf~J Ii, ,Jfi:l.fIJllr; t1m)lV"rtb (~Jml{;M
E, TYSON SMITH, AICP
.-Jdml'Urt1til FLlIJ'J.cJfl
BAL TIMOREI
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE:
HEATHER p, SMITH
Mmilttr) Iii //-f,1I:v1ttl1r)
230 SW MAIN STREET
SUITE 209
LEE'S SUMMIT, "1064063
TEL 816-221.8700
"AX 816'221'8702
WWW.PLANNINGANOLAW.COM
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Members Board of County Commissioners
Chair and Members Planning Commission
cc: Bob Shillinger, Assistant County Attorney
From: Tyson Smith, AICP, Esq.
Date: May 21,2007
Subj: Amendments to the Beneficial Use Determination
Ordinance
As you are aware, the Land Development Regulations (LDRs)
include a procedure by which a property owner may seek relief,
where it is alleged that the literal application of the Comprehensive
Plan or LDRs denies all economically reasonable use of a property.
The BUD Ordinance is an important component of the County's
regulatory framework, because it allows the County and property
owners who, in good faith, wish to seek relief, to do so without
taking the matter to court.
These procedures are set forth in the Beneficial Use Determination
(BUD) Ordinance. The BUD Ordinance implements Policy
101.18.5 of the Comprehensive Plan, which contains specific
criteria for relief and available remedies.
I have developed several amendments to the current BUD
Ordinance, which add to the efficiency and fairness of the process,
while reflecting current case law (as the Comprehensive Plan
directs) and Plan requirements. In genera~ the areas covered
include: application requirements; inclusion of due diligence
standards for landowners and applicants; timeframes for processing
BUD applications; elimination of. redundant standards for relief,
and augmented procedural guidance for the Board, County
agencies, and applicants. A copy of the complete revised ordinance
has been provided for your review.
It is important to understand that there are numerous factual
scenarios that can and will arise under the BUD Ordinance.
Additionally, this area of the law - inverse condemnation, or
"taking" law - inherently hinges on the facts of each specific case.
The revised Ordinance is presented to better reflect the curre?t
regulatory landscape in the County and the most likely scenarios to
which it will be applied. 1 t is recommended that the County
continue to monitor the BUD process and emerging case law and
to evaluate the need for amendments over time.
ORIGINAL
ORDINANCE No.
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNlY BOARD OF COUNlY
COMMISSIONERS REPEALING SECTIONS 9.5-171 THROUGH 9.5-
174 OF THE MONROE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING
BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATIONS; PROVIDING FOR NEW
REGULA lIONS CONCERNING BENEFICIAL USE
DETERMINA TIONS; PROVIDING A FORUM FOR RELIEF;
PROVIDING AN APPLICATION PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR A
BEARING AND RECOMMENDATION BY A SPECIAL MASTER;
PROVIDNG FOR FORWARDING SUCH RECOMMENDATION TO
THE BOARD OF COUNlY COMMMISSIONERS FOR A BEARING;
PROVIDING FOR STANDARDS, BURDEN OF PROOF AND FORMS
OF RELq:F; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY
AND REPf:AL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
FORW ARbING OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Whereas, it is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that land owners in
Monroe County have a beneficial use of their property, consistent with the U. S. and
Florida Constitutions; and
Whereas, Policy 101.18.5 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan ( Plan)
provides that neither the provisions of the Plan nor the Land Development Regulations
(the LDRs) shall deprive a property owner of all reasonable economic use of a parcel of
real property; and
Whereas, Article VI, Division 2, LDRs, is intended to provide a non-judicial procedure
by which a property owner may seek relief from the literal application of applicable Plan
and LDR provisions, when such application is alleged to have the effect of denying all
economically reasonable use of the property; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners wishes to update Article VI, Division 2 in
order to provide additional guidance to applicants and County staff for processing
Beneficial Use Determination applications, consistent with applicable law; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that these amendments
will ensure a fair and efficient forum through which property owners may apply for relief
from the adoption or application of Plan policies or LDR provisions, through a Beneficial
Use Determination process, consistent with the provisions of the Plan and applicable law;
and
ORIGINAL
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners finds that this revised Ordinance is and
shall be implemented consistent with the provisions of the Plan and includes all standards
and remedies available pursuant to the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY :
Section 1. Current Sections 9.5-171 through 9.5-174 of the Monroe County Code are
hereby repealed in their entirety.
Section 2. The following provisions of the Monroe County Code are hereby added:
DMSION 2. BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATIONS
See. 9.5-171. Generally.
It: after a final decision or action by the County, including available variances, a
landowner is of the opinion that the adoption or application of a County land
development regulation or comprehensive plan policy has caused a taking of the
landowner's property, the procedures of this division shall be used prior to seeking relief
from the courts.
Sec. 9.5-172. Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this division is to ensure that the adoption or application of a County land
development regulation or comprehensive plan policy does not result in an
unconstitutional taking of private property.
The intent of the Board of County Commissioners is that this division provide a means to
resolve a landowner's claim that a land development regulation or comprehensive plan
policy has had an unconstitutional effect on property in a non-judicial forum. This
division is not intended to provide relief related to regulations promulgated by agencies
other than the County or to provide relief for claims that are not cognizable in court at the
time of application under this division. Further, the procedures of this division are not
intended, nor do they create, a judicial cause of action.
See. 9.5-173. Exhaustion.
Relief under this division cannot be established until the landowner has received a final
decision on development approval applications from the County, including building
permit allocation system applications, appeals, administrative relief pursuant to section
9.5-124.7, and other available relief, exceptions, or variances, unless the applicant asserts
that a land development regulation or comprehensive plan policy, on its face, meets the
standards for relief in section 9.5-178.
See. 9.5-174. Application; exhaustion; sufficiency and contents of application.
(a) Generally. An application for a beneficial use determination may be made to the
planning department by filing an application and an application fee as established by the
Board.
(b) Contents of application. The application shall be submitted in a form established
by the County and shall include the following:
----------PAGE2oFS-
ORIGINAL
(1) Contact information. The name, address, and phone number of the
landowner and applicant or agent.
(2) Legal description. A legal description and the real estate or parcel
number for the property.
(3) Letter of agency. If a person other than the landowner is requesting relief
pursuant to this division, a notarized letter of agency from the landowner
authorizing the person to represent them with respect to the application. Except
as specifically provided herein, the landowner will be bound by the
representations, obligations, and agreements made by the landowner's agent in the
course of the beneficial use determination process. The term "applicant" as used
in this division refers to the landowner or the landowner's agent, as applicable.
(4) Date of acquisition, offers to purchase, attempts to sell. Documentation
of the date of acquisition, the price incurred to acquire the property, the date and
amount of any offers by any person, corporation, governmental entity, or
association to acquire the property , and any attempts by the landowner to sell the
property.
(5) Land development regulation or comprehensive plan policy. A
statement describing the land development regulation, comprehensive plan policy,
or other final action of the County, which the applicant believes necessitates relief
under this division, including the effective date of the land development
regulation or comprehensive plan policy and/or the date of the final action by the
County related to the property. The application shall identify the subject land
development regulations or comprehensive plan policies of the County by section
and number.
(6) Des~ription of land. A description of the property's physical and
environmental features, total acreage, and use presently, at the time of acquisition,
and upon the effective date of the land development regulation or comprehensive
plan policy or other final action the applicant believes necessitates relief under
this division.
(7) Improvements to land. Evidence of any investments made to improve the
property, the date the improvements were made, and the cost of the
improvements.
(8) Description of allowable uses. A description of the type and extent of
land uses allowed on the property, from the time the applicant acquired the
property until the date of application under this division, including allowable
density, permitted and conditional uses, open space ratios, and other factors
affecting the property's development potential.
(9) Requested relief. A statement regarding the form of relief requested by
the landowner, pursuant to section 9.5-179.
(10) Maps. Maps shall be included in the application, which show the property
presently, at the time of acquisition, and upon the effective date of the land
development regulation, comprehensive plan policy, or other action of the County
the applicant believes necessitates relief under this division. Maps shall indicate
PAGE30F8
ORIGINAL
the land use designation, future land use designation, aerial photography, and
environmeqtal conditions and habitat on the property at the above times.
(11) Previous development applications and appeals. A description of all
efforts to seek approval to develop the property, including date of application;
name of the local, state, or federal permitting agency; nature of approval, denial,
or appeal sought; disposition; and the date of disposition.
(12) Agency approvals. Evidence of whether the applicant has received
necessary approvals from governmental agencies other than the County, which
are required in order to undertake development of the property, including, as
applicable, evidence that approvals from other agencies are not required.
(13) Signature of landowner and agent. The signature of landowner(s) and
agent( s), atl:esting to the accuracy of the statements and representations made in
the application.
(14) Additional materials. Any other appraisals, studies, or evidence
supporting the applicant's contention that relief under this division is appropriate,
including appraisals related to any alleged diminution in fair market value of the
property.
(d) Standards applicable to landowner and landowner's representative.
(1) The landowner and the landowner's representative shall exercise due
diligence in the filing of and legal bases asserted pursuant an application for relief
under this division.
(2) The signature upon the application by the landowner and the landowner's
representative shall constitute a certification that the landowner and landowner's
representative have undertaken due diligence in the filing of the application, that
to the best of his or her knowledge the application is supported by good grounds
under applicable laws, and that the application has been filed in good faith,
consistent with the purpose and intent of this division.
(3) The landowner and the landowner's representative shall have a continuing
obligation throughout the proceedings to correct any statement or representation
found to have been incorrect when made or which becomes incorrect by virtue of
changed circumstances.
(4) If a claim for relief pursuant to this division is based upon facts the
landowner or the landowner's representative knew or should have known were
not correct or upon assertions of law that were frivolous, the special master may
dismiss the application and may recommend any remedy or penalty to the Board
provided by law or ordinance.
(e) Determination of sufficiency. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of accepting the
application, the planning director, or the planning director's designee, shall determine if
the application is complete and includes the materials and information listed in subsection
(bXl)-(I3) above. The special master may require the landowner or the County to
provide additional information in order to make a determination under this division and
may conduct a h~ing on whether the application should be dismissed for failure to
PAGE40F8
ORIGINAL
include information necessary to make a recommendation, based on the standards set
forth in this division.
(I) Det~rmined insufficient. If the planning director determines the
application is not complete, a written notice shall be mailed to the applicant
specifying the application's deficiencies. No further action shall be taken on the
application until the deficiencies are remedied. If the applicant fails to correct the
deficiencies within thirty (30) calendar days of a notice of deficiencies, the
application shall be considered withdrawn, and the application fee shall be
refunded to the applicant, upon request.
(2) Determined sufficient. When the application is determined sufficient, the
planning director shall notify the applicant in writing and, within sixty (60)
calendar days, forward the application to a special master to set a hearing date.
The planning director may forward to the special master additional materials,
applications, or decisions related to the application, including recommended
forms of relief: consistent with this division.
See. 9.5-175. Action by the special master.
(a) Establishlllent of date for hearing and notice. The special master shall
schedule and hold a hearing on an individual beneficial use determination application
within ninety (90) calendar days of receipt of the complete application from the planning
director.
(b) Hearing. At the hearing, the landowner or landowner's representative shall
present the landowner's case and the planning director or the planning director's
representative shall represent the County's case. The special master may accept briefs,
evidence, reports, or proposed recommendations from the parties.
(c) Recommeqdation of the special master. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the
close of the hearing, the special master shall prepare and transmit in writing to the
planning director and the landowner, or their representatives, a recommendation
regarding the application, based on the evidence submitted and the standards set forth in
sections 9.5-178 and 9.5-179.
(l) If the special master's recommendation is that relief is not appropriate, the
special master's recommendation shall specify the basis for the recommendation.
(2) If the special master's recommendation is that relief is appropriate, the
special master's recommendation shall:
a. Recommend a form of relief, pursuant to section 9.5-179.
b. Indicate the basis for the recommendation, including, as
applicable:
1. identification of the County land development regulation,
comprehensive plan policy, or other action that resulted in the
recommendation for relief; and
_uu-PAGE &oF-8-
ORIGINAL
2. the date the land development regulation, comprehensive
plaq policy, or other final action of the County affected the property so as
to necessitate relief
Sec. 9.~176. Action by the planning director.
Based on the recommendations of the special master, the planning director shall prepare
the item for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. The planning director
may not disturb or alter the recommendations of the special master. Within thirty (30)
calendar days of receipt of the recommendations of the special master, the planning
director shall forward the special master's recommendation to the Board to set a public
hearing on the matter. The planning director may include with the recommendation a
proposed process and schedule for implementing the special master's recommendation.
See. 9.~177. Act,on of the Board.
Following receipt of the matter from the planning director, the Board shall set the matter
for a public hearing. The County shall provide notice and the applicant shall be provided
an opportunity to be heard prior to the decision of the Board. The recommendation of the
special master is not binding on the Board. At the hearing, the Board, by resolution, shall
approve, modify, r~verse, or approve with conditions, the recommendations of the special
master, based on the standards of sections 9.5-178 and 9.5-179. The resolution shall:
( a) state the date, if any, upon which any resolution granting relief will cease to be in
effect;
(b) state that neither the Board's resolution nor any process or evidence associated
with this division is an admission of a taking of property;
(c) direct County staff to undertake any additional steps necessary to implement the
resolution; and
(d) address other matters necessary to implement the purpose and intent of this
division.
Sec. 9.~178. Beneficial use standards.
(a) Standard. In furtherance of the purpose and intent of this division, and
consistent with Policy 101.18.5 of the comprehensive plan, relief under this division may
be granted where a court of competent jurisdiction likely would determine that a final
action by the County has caused a taking of property and a judicial finding of liability
would not be precluded by a cognizable defense, including lack of investment-backed
expectations, statutes of limitation, laches, or other preclusions to relief Whether such
liability, at the time of application under this division, is likely to be established by a
court should be determined based on applicable statutory and case law at the time an
application is considered under this division.
(b) Burden. The applicant shall have the burden of showing that relief under this
division is appropriate.
9.~ 179. Granting of relief.
. PAGE 60F 8
ORIGINAL
(a) General. If the Board determines that relief is appropriate under this division,
relief may be granted, as provided in this section and consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
(b) Forms of relief. In order to avoid an unconstitutional result and to provide a
landowner with an economically viable use of property pursuant to this division, the
special master may recommend and the Board may allow for additional use(s), density, or
relief beyond that allowed by a literal application of the land development regulations or
comprehensive plan on the particular property, which may include:
(I) Redesignation of the property on the land use map or future land use map;
(2) Permits for development despite the literal application of the land
development regulations and comprehensive plan, although permits issued
pursuant to this section shall be subject to applicable construction deadlines and
expiration <fates under chapter 6 of the Monroe County Code;
(3) Transferable development rights (IDRs);
(4) Eligibility for dedication of the property pursuant to section 9.5-
122.3(a)(5);
(5) Repeal or amendment of the land development regulation or
comprehensive plan policy affecting the subject property;
(6) Any other economically beneficial use of the property or relief the Board
determines appropriate and adequate under section 9.5-178 and the
comprehensive plan; or
(7) Any combination of the above.
(c) Minimum increase. Relief granted pursuant to this division shall be the
minimum necessary to comply with section 9.5-178. The highest, common, or expected
use, is not intended as an appropriate remedy, unless expressly required by applicable
statute or case law.
~tion 3. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable
and if any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall for any reason be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining sections, sentences, clauses, and phrases of this Ordinance but they shall
remain in effect, it being the legislative intent that this Ordinance shall stand
notwithstanding the invalidity of any part.
Section 4. Repeal of ConOicting Provisions. The provisions of the Monroe County
Code and all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 5. Inclusion in tbe Code. The provisions of this ordinance shall be included and
incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of Monroe County, Florida as an addition or
amendment thereto, and shall be appropriately numbered to conform to the uniform
number system ofthe Code.
PAGE 7 OF8
(SEAL)
ATTEST: Danny L. Kolhage, CLERK
By:
Deputy Clerk
MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~~~~
- SUSAN M. GRI LEY
ASSISTANT COUNT TTORNEY
Oete J~ (..).. :J.ACI I
VERSION 2
INCLUDES fLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES AND RESPONSIVE
CHANGES BY TYSON SMITH
ORDINANCE No.
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS REPEALING SECTIONS 9.5-171 THROUGH 9.5-
174 OF THE MONROE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING
BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATIONS; PROVIDING FOR NEW
REGULA lIONS CONCERNING BENEFICIAL USE
DETERMINATIONS; PROVIDING A FORUM FOR RELIEF;
PROVIDING AN APPLICATION PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR A
HEARING AND RECOMMENDATION BY A SPECIAL MASTER;
PROVIDING FOR FORWARDING SUCH RECOMMENDATION TO
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMMISSIONERS FOR A HEARING;
PROVIDING FOR STANDARDS, BURDEN OF PROOF AND FORMS
OF RELIEF; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY
AND REPl:AL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
FORWARJ>ING OF mIS ORDINANCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Whereas, it is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that land owners in
Monroe County have a beneficial use of their property, consistent with the U. S. and
Florida Constitutions; and
Whereas, Policy 101.18.5 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (Plan)
provides that neither the provisions of the Plan nor the Land Development Regulations
(the WRs) shall deprive a property owner of all reasonable economic use of a parcel of
real property; and
Whereas, Article VI, Division 2, LDRs, is intended to provide a non-judicial procedure
by which a property owner may seek relief from the literal application of applicable Plan
and LDR provisions, when such application is alleged to have the effect of denying all
economically reasonable use of the property; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners wishes to update Article VI, Division 2 in
order to provide additional guidance to applicants and County staff for processing
Beneficial Use Determination applications, consistent with applicable law; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that these amendments
will ensure a fair and efficient forum through which property owners may apply for relief
from the adoption or application of Plan policies or WR provisions, through a Beneficial
Use Detennination process, consistent with the provisions of the Plan and applicable law;
and
VERSION 2
INCLUDES PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES AND RESPONSIVE
CHANGES BY TYSON SMITH
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners finds that this revised Ordinance is and
shall be implemented consistent with the provisions of the Plan and includes all standards
and remedies available pursuant to the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONEllg OF MONROE COUNTY :
Section 1. Current Sections 9.5-171 through 9.5-174 of the Monroe County Code are
hereby repealed in their entirety.
Section 2. The following provisions of the Monroe County Code are hereby added:
DIVISION 2. BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINA nONS
Sec. 9.5-171. Gellerally.
If, after a final decision or action by the County, including available variances, a
landowner is of the opinion that the adoption or application of a County land
development regulation or comprehensive plan policy has caused a taking of the
landowner's property, the procedures ofthis division shall be used prior to seeking relief
from the courts.
Sec. 9.5-172. Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this division is to ensure that the adoption or application of a County land
development regulation or comprehensive plan policy does not result in an
unconstitutional taking of private property.
The intent of the Board of County Commissioners is that this division provide a means to
resolve a landowner's claim that a land development regulation or comprehensive plan
policy has had an unconstitutional effect on property in a non-judicial forum. This
division is not intended to provide relief related to regulations promulgated by agencies
other than the County or to provide relief for claims that are not cognizable in court at the
time of application under this division. Further, the procedures of this division are not
intended, nor do they create, a judicial cause of action.
See. 9.5-173. Exhaustion.
Relief under this division cannot be established until the landowner has received a final
decision on development approval applications from the County, including building
permit allocation system applications, appeals, administrative relief pursuant to section
9.5-124.7, and other available relief, exceptions, or variances, unless the applicant asserts
that a land development regulation or comprehensive plan policy, on its face, meets the
standards for relief in section 9.5-178.
Sec. 9.5-174. Application; exhaustion; sufficiency and contents of application.
(a) Generally. An application for a beneficial use determination may be made to the
planning department by filing an application and an application fee as established by the
Board.
f'AGE2OF9-
VERSION 2
INCLUDES fLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES AND RESPONSIVE
CBANGESBY TYSONSMUTH
Planning Commission Additional Language: Information shall be provided
by the applicant that is reasonably available to the applicant. An application
shall not be de~med insufficient if the information is readily available to
Planning Department Stafl the applicant requests the information. and pays
the fee for such a request. The time period of 15 days in Section (e) below
shall be extended if the applicant makes such a request after submitting an
application.
Tyson Smith : County information reQuired bv this section will be
supplied to the applicant bv Plannin2 Department staff upon reQuest of
the aoolicant. ~rior to submission of an aoolication.
(b) Contents of application. The application shall be submitted in a form established
by the County and shall include the following:
(I) Contact information. The name, address, and phone number of the
landowner and applicant or agent.
(2) Legal description. A legal description and the real estate or parcel
number for the property.
(3) LeIfer of agency. If a person other than the landowner is requesting relief
pursuant to this division, a notarized letter of agency from the landowner
authorizing the person to represent them with respect to the application. Except
as specifically provided herein, the landowner will be bound by the
representations, obligations, and agreements made by the landowner's agent in the
course of the beneficial use determination process. The term "applicant" as used
in this division refers to the landowner or the landowner's agent, as applicable.
(4) Date of acquisition, ofTers to purchase, attempts to sell Documentation
of the date of acquisition, the price incurred to acquire the property, the date and
amount of any offers by any person, corporation, governmental entity, or
association to acquire the property , and any attempts by the landowner to sell the
property.
(5) Land development regulation or comprehensive plan policy. A
statement describing the land development regulation, comprehensive plan policy,
or other final action of the County, which the applicant believes necessitates relief
under this division, including the effective date of the land development
regulation or comprehensive plan policy and/or the date of the final action by the
County related to the property. The application shall identify the subject land
PAGE30F9
VERSION 2
INCLUDES PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES AND RESPONSIVE
CHANGES BY TYSON SMITH
development regulations or comprehensive plan policies of the County by section
and number.
(6) Description of land. A description of the property's physical and
environmental features, total acreage, and use presently, at the time of acquisition,
and upon the effective date of the land development regulation or comprehensive
plan policy or other final action the applicant believes necessitates relief under
this division.
(7) Improvements to land. Evidence of any investments made to improve the
property, the date the improvements were made, and the cost of the
improvements.
(8) Desfription of allowable uses. A description of the type and extent of
land uses allowed on the property, from the time the applicant acquired the
property until the date of application under this division, including allowable
density, pepnitted and conditional uses, open space ratios, and other factors
affecting the property's development potential.
(9) Requested relief. A statement regarding the form of relief requested by
the landowner, pursuant to section 9.5-179.
(10) Maps. Maps shall be included in the application, which show the property
presently, at the time of acquisition, and upon the effective date of the land
development regulation, comprehensive plan policy, or other action of the County
the applicant believes necessitates relief under this division. Maps shall indicate
the land u~ designation, future land use designation, aerial photography, and
environmeQtal conditions and habitat on the property at the above times.
(11) Previous development applications and appeals. A description of all
efforts to seek approval to develop the property, including date of application;
name of the local, state, or federal permitting agency; nature of approval, denial,
or appeal sought; disposition; and the date of disposition.
(12) Agency approvals. Evidence of whether the applicant has received
necessary approvals from governmental agencies other than the County, which
are required in order to undertake development of the property, including, as
applicable, evidence that approvals from other agencies are not required.
(13) Signature of landowner and agent. The signature of landowner(s) and
agent(s), attesting to the accuracy of the statements and representations made in
the application.
(14) Adctitional materials. Any other appraisals, studies, or evidence
supporting the applicant's contention that relief under this division is appropriate,
including appraisals related to any alleged diminution in fair market value of the
property.
(d) Standards applicable to landowner and landowner's representative.
-I"AGt4OF9--
VERSION 2
INCLUDES PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES AND RESPONSIVE
CHANGES BY TYSON SMITH
(1) The landowner and the landowner's representative shall exercise due
diligence in the filing of and legal bases asserted pursuant an application for relief
under this division.
(2) The signature upon the application by the landowner and the landowner's
representative shall constitute a certification that the landowner and landowner's
representative have undertaken due diligence in the filing of the application, that
to the best of his or her knowledge the application is supported by good grounds
under applicable laws, and that the application has been filed in good faith,
consistent with the purpose and intent of this division.
(3) The landowner and the landowner's representative shall have a continuing
obligation throughout the proceedings to correct any statement or representation
found to have been incorrect when made or which becomes incorrect by virtue of
changed circumstances.
(4) If a claim for relief pursuant to this division is based upon facts the
landowner or the landowner's representative knew or should have known were
not correct or upon assertions of law that were frivolous, the special master may
dismiss the application and may recommend any remedy or penalty to the Board
provided by law or ordinance.
(e) Determinafion of sufficiency. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of accepting the
application, the planning director, or the planning director's designee, shall determine if
the application is complete and includes the materials and information listed in subsection
(b)(I)-(13) above. The special master may require the landowner or the County to
provide additional information in order to make a determination under this division and
may conduct a hearing on whether the application should be dismissed for failure to
include information necessary to make a recommendation, based on the standards set
forth in this division.
(1) Determined insufficient. If the planning director determines the
application is not complete, a written notice shall be mailed to the applicant
specifying the application's deficiencies. No further action shall be taken on the
application until the deficiencies are remedied. If the applicant fails to correct the
deficiencies within thirty (30) calendar days of a notice of deficiencies, the
application shall be considered withdrawn, and the application fee shall be
refunded to the applicant, upon request.
(2) Determined suffieient. When the application is determined sufficient, the
planning director shall notify the applicant in writing and, within sixty (60)
calendar days, forward the application to a special master to set a hearing date.
Planning Commission Language Change: The planning director
may ~ forward to the special master additional materials,
applicatiops, or decisions related to the application, including
recommended forms of relief, consistent with this division.
--PAGE 5OFS--
VERSION 2
INCLUDES PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES AND RESPONSIVE
CHANGES BY lYSON SMITH
Tyson Smith Proposal: In response to the application or the materials
submitted by the applicant, the planning director may shall forward to
the speci~ master any additional materials, applications, or decisions
related to the application, including, if appropriate. recommended
forms of relief, consistent with this division.
See. 9.5-175. Act,on by the special master.
(a) Establishment of date for hearing and notice. The special master shall
schedule and hold a hearing on an individual beneficial use determination application
within ninety (90) ~endar days of receipt of the complete application from the planning
director.
(b) Bearing. At the hearing, the landowner or landowner's representative shall
present the landowner's case and the planning director or the planning director's
representative shall represent the County's case. The special master may accept briefs,
evidence, reports, or proposed recommendations from the parties.
(c) Recommendation of the special master. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the
close of the hearing, the special master shall prepare and transmit in writing to the
planning director and the landowner, or their representatives, a recommendation
regarding the applipation, based on the evidence submitted and the standards set forth in
sections 9.5-178 and 9.5-179.
(1) If the special master's recommendation is that relief is not appropriate, the
special master's recommendation shall specify the basis for the recommendation.
(2) If tije special master's recommendation is that relief is appropriate, the
special master's recommendation shall:
a. Recommend a form of relief, pursuant to section 9.5-179.
b. Indicate the basis for the recommendation, including, as
applicable:
1. identification of the County land development regulation,
comprehensive plan policy, or other action that resulted in the
recommendation for relief; and
2. the date the land development regulation, comprehensive
plan policy, or other final action of the County affected the property so as
to necessitate relief
See. 9.5-176. Action by the planning director.s
Based on the recommendations of the special master, the planning director shall prepare
the item for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. The planning director
may not disturb or alter the recommendations of the special master. Within thirty (30)
calendar days of receipt of the recommendations of the special master, the planning
FA<*: 6 OF'S
VERSION 2
INCLUDES fLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES AND RESPONSIVE
CHANGES BY TYSON SMITH
director shall forward the special master's recommendation to the Board to set a public
hearing on the matter. The planning director may include with the recommendation a
proposed process and schedule for implementing the special master's recommendation.
Sec. 9.5-177. Action of the Board.
Following receipt of the matter from the planning director, the Board shall set the matter
for a public hearing. The County shall provide notice and the applicant shall be provided
an opportunity to be heard prior to the decision of the Board. The recommendation of the
special master is not binding on the Board. At the hearing, the Board, by resolution, shall
approve, modify, reverse, or approve with conditions, the recommendations of the special
master, based on the standards of sections 9.5-178 and 9.5-179. The resolution shall:
(a) state the da~e, if any, upon which any resolution granting reliefwill cease to be in
effect;
(b) state that n~ither the Board's resolution nor any process or evidence associated
with this division is an admission of a taking of property;
( c) direct Co~ty staff to undertake any additional steps necessary to implement the
resolution; and
(d) address other matters necessary to implement the purpose and intent of this
division.
See. 9.5-178. Beneficial use standards.
(a) Standard. In furtherance of the purpose and intent of this division, and
consistent with Policy 101.18.5 of the comprehensive plan, relief under this division may
be granted where a court of competent jurisdiction likely would determine that a final
action by the County has caused a taking of property and a judicial finding of liability
would not be precluded by a cognizable defense, including lack of investment-backed
expectations, statutes of limitation, laches, or other preclusions to relief Whether such
liability, at the time of application under this division, is likely to be established by a
court should be determined based on applicable statutory and case law at the time an
application is considered under this division.
(b) Burden. The applicant shall have the burden of showing that relief under this
division is appropriate.
9.5-179. Granting of relief.
(a) General. If the Board determines that relief is appropriate under this division,
relief may be granted, as provided in this section and consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
(b) Forms of relief. In order to avoid an unconstitutional result and to provide a
landowner with an economically viable use of property pursuant to this division, the
special master may recommend and the Board may allow for additional use(s), density, or
relief beyond that allowed by a literal application of the land development regulations or
comprehensive plan on the particular property, which may include:
(1) R~signation of the property on the land use map or future land use map;
PA<3f:79F 9 _
VERSION 2
INCLUDES PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES AND RESPONSIVE
CHANGES BY TYSON SMITH
(2) Permits for development despite the literal application of the land
development regulations and comprehensive plan, although permits issued
pursuant to this section shall be subject to applicable construction deadlines and
expiration qates under chapter 6 of the Monroe County Code;
(3) Transferable development rights (TDRs);
(4) Eligibility for dedication of the property pursuant to section 9.5-
122.3(a)(5);
(5) Rep~1 or amendment of the land development regulation or
comprehensive plan policy affecting the subject property;
(6) Any other economically beneficial use of the property or relief the Board
determines appropriate and adequate under section 9.5-178 and the
comprehensive plan; or
(7) Any combination of the above.
Planning Com",Jssion Suggested Change in Title
Tyson Smith suggests no change
(c) Minimum iBeFease relief .Relief granted pursuant to this division
shall be the minimum necessary to comply with section 9.5-178. The
highest, common, or expected use, is not intended as an appropriate remedy,
unless expressly required by applicable statute or case law.
Section 3. Seve..,.bility. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable
and if any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall for any reason be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining sections, sentences, clauses, and phrases of this Ordinance but they shall
remain in effect, it being the legislative intent that this Ordinance shall stand
notwithstanding the invalidity of any part.
Section 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions. The provisions of the Monroe County
Code and all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 5. Inclusion in tbe Code. The provisions of this ordinance shall be included and
incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of Monroe County, Florida as an addition or
amendment thereto, and shall be appropriately numbered to confonn to the uniform
number system of the Code.
Section 6. Approval by tbe State Department of Community AfTain. The provisions
of this Ordinance constitute a "land development regulation" as State law defines that
tenn. Accordingly, the Monroe County Clerk is authorized to forward a copy of this
Ordinance to the State Department of Community Affairs for approval pursuant to
-PAGE a~ 9--
VERSION 2
INCLUDES fLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES AND RESPONSIVE
CHANGES BY TYSON SMITH
Sections 380.05(6) and (II), Florida Statutes and to the Secretary of State for the State of
Florida, as required.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon approval
by the State Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida at a regular meeting of said Board on the _day of , 2007.
Mayor Mario DiGennaro
Mayor Pro Tern Dixie M. Spehar
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor Mario DiGennaro
(SEAL)
ATTEST: Danny L. Kolhage, CLERK
By:
Deputy Clerk
E COUNTY ATTORNEY
AP~~O ED AS :0 FORM:
PAGE90F9
MONROECOUNTYPL~NGDEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
STAFF REPORT
TO:
The Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Clarence Feagin, Ph.D., AICP, Sr. Planner
THROUGH: Andrew Trivette, Acting Director, Division of Growth Management
RE: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MONROE COUNTY
CODE
MEETING DATE: July 18,2007
BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2007 the Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text
amendment and recommended approval without any changes.
On June 13 and 27, 2007 the Planning Commission heard the proposed text amendment
and, in consideration of public testimony, comments by the Planning Commission, and
the staff report prepared by the Planning Department, recommended approval with minor
changes to the application procedure for beneficial use determinations.
1
2 I. PROPOSED REVISION:
3 A text amendment to the Momoe County Land Development Regulations to repeal
4 sections 9.5-171 through 9.5-174 concerning beneficial use determinations and replace
5 sections 9.5-171 through 9.5-174 with new regulations concerning beneficial use
6 determinations.
7
8 Previous County Action:
9 None
10
11 Petitioner:
12
13 The text amendment is proposed by the County Attorney.
14
15
16
17
Page 1 of5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
B. Characteristics of the proposed text amendment
The proposed text amendment removes ambiguity currently in the beneficial use
determination section of the code and clarifies procedures for providing:
1. A forum for relief,
2. An application process,
3. A hearing and recommendation by a special master,
4 The forwarding of recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for a
hearing, and
5 Standards, burden of proof, and forms of relief.
II. ~AJL1{SIS
A. Consistency with the Land Development Regulations
County requirements for amendments to the land development regulations:
Pursuant to Section 9.5-511(d)(5)b of the Momoe County Code, the Board of County
Commissioners may consider the adoption of an ordinance enacting proposed changes to
the text or maps based on one (1) or more of the following factors, for which the
following justification is provided:
(i) Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from those on
which the text or boundary was based;
None.
(ii) Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends);
None.
(iii) Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural
features described in volume I of the plan;
None.
(iv) New issues;
The area of law concerning property owner's beneficial use of their land
has evolved over time, and the Momoe County Code should be consistent
with current laws.
(v) Recognition of a needfor additional detail or comprehensiveness; or
Page 2 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
The current provisions of the Monroe County Code concerning beneficial
use determinations need to be updated to reflect decisional law and to
implement a more efficient and fair process.
(vi) Data updates;
None.
B. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
The amendment is consistent with the following policies of the MONROE COUNTY
YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Obiective 101.18
Monroe County hereby adopts the following procedures and criteriafor the
determination of vested rights and beneficial use and for the effect of such
determinations.
Policy 101.18.1
A determination of vested rights and beneficial use shall require:
1. an application to be submitted by the applicant to the Director of
Planning within one (1) year after the effective date of the
Comprehensive Plan;
2. appointment of a hearing officer who shall give notice, schedule, and
conduct a public hearing on the application;
3. the preparation of a proposed Determination including findings of fact
and conclusions of law which shall be submitted to the Board of County
Commissioners; and
4. a final Determination that shall specify the development rights that are
vested or the beneficial use to which the landowner is entitled, including:
a) the geographic scope of the Determination in relation to the total
area of the development site;
b) the duration of the Determination and an expiration date;
c) the substantive scope of the Determination, including, but not
limited to, whether the development is vested for density,
concurrency, and building permit allocation;
d) the applicability of existing and future County land development
regulations;
e) verification that construction timely commences and quarterly
reporting requirements to ensure that the development is
continuing in good faith; and
f) such other limitations and conditions necessary to assure
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 3 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Policy 101.18.5
1. It is the policy of Monroe County that neither the provisions of this
Comprehensive Plan nor the Land Development Regulations shall
deprive a property owner of all reasonable economic use of a parcel of
real property which is a lot or parcel of record as of the date of adoption
of this Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, Monroe County shall adopt a
beneficial use procedure under which an owner of real property may
apply for relief from the literal application of applicable land use
regulations or of this plan when such application would have the effect of
denying all economically reasonable use of that property unless such
deprivation is shown to be necessary to prevent a nuisance or to protect
the health, safety and welfare of its citizens under Florida Law. For the
purpose of this policy, all reasonable economic use shall mean the
minimum use of the property necessary to avoid a taking within a
reasonable period of time as established by current land use case law.
2. The relief to which an owner shall be entitled may be provided through
the use of one or a comb ination of the following:
a) granting of a permit for development which shall be deducted
from the Permit Allocation System;
b) granting of use of transferable development rights (TDRs);
c) Government purchase of all or a portion of the lots or parcels
upon which all beneficial use is prohibited This alternative
shall be the preferred alternative when beneficial use has been
deprived by application of Division 8 of the Land Development
Regulations;
d) such other relief as the County may deem appropriate and
adequate.
The relief granted shall be the minimum necessary to avoid a "taking" of the
property under state and federal law.
3. Development approved pursuant to a beneficial use determination shall
be consistent with all other objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
and Land Development Regulations unless specifically exempted from such
requirements in the final beneficial use determination.
C. Consistency with the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys
Area of Critical State Concern.
The proposed text amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development
as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
Specifically, the amendment furthers
Principle (a) 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, and
Page 4 of5
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1
2
Principle G) To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the
population of the Florida Keys.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed text amendment satisfies two (2) of the factors in Section 9.5-511 of
the Monroe County Code that the BOCC may consider for justifying amendments to the
land development regulations:
(iv) New issues, and
(v) Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness.
2. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive
Plan Objectives and Policies of the Future Land Use Element:
1. Objective 101.18,
2. Policy 101.18.1, and
3. Policy 101.18.5
3. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the Principles (a) and G) for
Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern.
4. The proposed text amendment is in the interest of public welfare, in that it will further
the County's policy of not depriving a land owner of all reasonable use of real property.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
Page 5 of5
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: July 18, 2007
Division:
Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes
No-L
Department: Planning and Environmental Res.
Staff Contact: Andrew Trivette
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider the request of Pine & Palms Trailer Park Assoc.
to amend the Land Use District Map from Urban Residential Mobile Home-Limited (URM-L) to Urban
Residential Mobile Home (URM) for property legally described as Lots 1-16, Maloney Subdivision, Pine &
Palms Trailer Park, Stock Island, Section 35, Township 67, Range 25, Monroe County, Florida, having Real Estate
Numbers: 00126100.000101, 000126100.000102, 00126100.000103, 00126100.000104, 00126100.000105,
00126100.000106, 00126100.000107, 00126100.000108, 00126100.000109, 00126100.000110, 00126100.000111,
00126100.000112, 00126100.000113, 00126100.000114, 00126100.000115 and 00126100.000116 in accordance with
Map 1 as attached hereafter.
(One public hearing required)
ITEM BACKGROUND: On February 16, 2007, the Development Review Committee recommended
approval to the Monroe County Planning Commission for the request of Pine & Palms Trailer Park Assoc. to
amend the Land Use District Map from Urban Residential Mobile Home-Limited (URM-L) to Urban Residential
Mobile Home (URM) for a portion of the property legally described as Lots 1-16, Maloney Subdivision, Pine &
Palms Trailer Park, Stock Island, Section 35, Township 67, Range 25, Monroe County, Florida, having Real Estate
Numbers: 00126100.000101, 000126100.000102, 00126100.000103, 00126100.000104, 00126100.000105,
00126100.000106, 00126100.000107, 00126100.000108, 00126100.000109, 00126100.000110, 00126100.000111,
00126100.000112, 00126100.000113, 00126100.000114, 00126100.000115 and 00126100.000116.
On April 11, 2007, the Monroe County Planning Commission recommended approval to the Momoe County
Board of County Commissioners for the request of Pine & Palms Trailer Park Assoc. to amend the Land Use
District Map from Urban Residential Mobile Home-Limited (URM-L) to Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM)
for a portion of the property legally described as Lots 1-16, Maloney Subdivision, Pine & Palms Trailer Park,
Stock Island, Section 35, Township 67, Range 25, Monroe County, Florida, having Real Estate Numbers:
00126100.000101, 000126100.000102, 00126100.000103, 00126100.000104, 00126100.000105, 00126100.000106,
00126100.000107, 00126100.000108, 00126100.000109, 00126100.000110, 00126100.000111, 00126100.000112,
00126100.000113,00126100.000114,00126100.000115 and 00126100.000116.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: None
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/ A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes
No
COST TO COUNTY: N / A
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY:
County Atty ~ OMB/Purchasing _
Risk Management _
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X
Not Required__
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #._
.~.. '.....-
,/.:;ji.," .>, .,....,."
t ~ g ,!r
<\<.~ =:::;"}/
_.-,......r
ORDINANCE NO.
- 2007
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVING A REQUEST BY PINE AND PALMS
TRAILER PARK FOR A LAND USE DISTRICT MAP AMENDMENT
FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME-LIMITED (URM-L) TO
URBAN RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME (URM) FOR PROPERTY
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-16, MALONEY SUBDIVISION,
PINE & PALMS TRAILER PARK STOCK ISLAND, SECTION 35,
TOWNSHIP 67, RANGE 25, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA HAVING
REAL ESTATE NUMBERS: 00126100.000101, 000126100.000102,
00126100.000103, 00126100.000104, 00126100.000105, 00126100.000106,
00126100.000107, 00126100.000108, 00126100.000109, 00126100.000110,
00126100.000111, 00126100.000112, 00126100.000113, 00126100.000114,
00126100.000115 AND 00126100.000116.
WHEREAS, the Momoe County Board of County Commissioners, during a regular
meeting held on July 18, 2007 conducted a review and consideration of the request filed by
Pine & Palms Trailer Park Assoc. for a Land Use District Map Amendment from Urban
Residential Mobile Home-Limited (URM-L) to Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM) for
property legally described as Lots 1-16, Maloney Subdivision, Pine & Palms Trailer Park, Stock
Island, Section 35, Township 67, Range 25, Momoe County, Florida, having Real Estate
Numbers: 00126100.000101, 000126100.000102, 00126100.000103, 00126100.000104,
00126100.000105, 00126100.000106, 00126100.000107, 00126100.000108, 00126100.000109,
00126100.000110, 00126100.000111, 00126100.000112, 00126100.000113, 00126100.000114,
00126100.000115 and 00126100.000116; and
WHEREAS, the Momoe County Planning Commission, during a regular meeting
held on April II, 2007 in Marathon, conducted a review of these same requests and
recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the Momoe County Development Review Committee, during a regular
meeting held February 16, 2007 in Marathon, conducted a review and consideration of these
same requests and recommended approval to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after further review of the application and consideration of the facts, Staff
recommended approval to the Momoe County Board of County Commissioners as indicated
in the Staff Report dated March 19, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners further reviewed the application
and made the following Findings of Fact:
1. Section 9.5-511 (d) (5)b of the Momoe County Code (MCC) allows the Board of
County Commissioners to consider adopting an ordinance to enact map changes
under six listed conditions.
BOCC Ordinance
Pine & Palms Land Use District Amendment Change from URM-L to URM
Page 1 of 5
2. In accordance with Section 9.5-511 (d) (5) (b), the proposal has met the following
conditions:
(i.)Changed projections: The 1996 Monroe County Flood Regulations, the
URM-L land-use district was created to mitigate the complex need of both
preserving the safety of the persons living in mobile homes while being
sensitive to the financial burden imposed on the home owner to elevate in
order to qualify for FEMA flood insurance. Since the initial change, there have
been changes in the cost of modular homes as well as home owner's
preferences for their housing choice.
(ii.)Changed Assumptions: At the time the URM-L land-use designation was
created the affordable housing initiatives were conceptual and not delineated
in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The URM-L designation was
created to mitigate the constraints involving a financial burden to the citizens
in some mobile home parks when replacing or improving their homes.
(iii.)Data Errors: The Errata Sheet incorrectly identified the parcel boundaries.
If this map amendment is adopted, this error will be corrected. The error
excluded a single condominium unit from the parcel although this unit was
identified by the legal description.
(iv.)New Issues: As modular homes have become more affordable, there is
little financial benefit restricting homeowners to mobile homes elevated to
only three (3) feet when remodeling or replacing mobile units. Approving
this change will not only permit but actually require that units come into
compliance with Flood Plain regulations when replacing or substantially
improving units.
3. The subject property was zoned Medium-Intensity Business District (BU-2) prior
to 1986. (Mobile Home Parks were considered a business prior to 1986).
4. The subject property was assigned land use district designation of Urban
Residential Mobile Home (URM) in 1986.
5. The subject property received a change in land-use designation in 1996 to Urban
Residential Mobile Home -Limited (URM - L), in order to allow residents to
qualify for FEMA flood insurance.
6. The Future Land Use Map of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan,
which took effect on January 4, 1996, followed the land use district boundaries
and designated future land use category of Residential High (RH) for the parcel.
7. Section 9.5-511 prohibits any map amendments that would negatively impact
community character. No negative impacts were identified by changing the
URM-L portion of the parcel to URM.
8. Objective 101.11 states that Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a
development permit is issued, adequate public facilities are available to serve the
development at the adopted level of service standards concurrent with the
impacts of such development.
9. The 2005 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report and the listed programs for
storm water and wastewater indicate that there are no significant concerns.
BOCC 0I'dina:ftee
Pine & Pahns Land Use District Amendment
Change from URM-L to URM
Page 2 of 5
Law:
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners made the following Conclusions of
1. The proposed map amendment meets criteria (i), (H), (Hi), and (iv) outlined in
Section 9.5-511 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations.
2. The proposed map amendment will not result in a negative impact or alter the
character of the properties or the immediate vicinity.
3. Based on the Findings of Facts presented, the proposed land use designation is
appropriate for this property and will allow the owners to make full use of the
subject property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT
Section 1. The Board specifically adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law
stated above.
Section 2. The portion of the described property which is currently designated as
Urban Residential Mobil Home-Limited (URM-L) shall be designated Urban Residential Mobil
Home (URM).
Section 3. The Land Use Designation Map of Monroe County shall be amended as
shown in on the attached map, hereby incorporated by reference and attached as Exhibit 1.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change or provision of this
ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such
invalidity.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State
of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Department of
Community Affairs or Administration Commission approving the ordinance.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Planning Department to the
Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes.
Section 7. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the state of
Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Department of
Community Affairs or Administrative Commission Approving the ordinance.
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFf BLANK
-BGC-€Grd:inance
Pine & Palms Land Use District Amendment
Change from URM-L to URM
Page 3 of 5
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida at a regular meeting held on the day of 2007.
Mayor Mario Di Gennaro
Mayor Pro Tern, Dixie Spehar
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner Sylvia J. Murphy
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Mayor Mario Di Gennaro
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK
BOCC Ordinance
Pine & Palms Land Use District Amendment
Change from URM-L to URM
Page 4 of 5
I Exhibit 1 to Ordinance#
-20071
The Monroe County Land Use District Map is amended
a$ Indicated above.
RE NlIlibers 00126100..000101,000126100-000102, 00126100-0001 113,0012610Q..0001 04 , A
00126100-000105, 0012610Q..O00106, 00126100..000107, 0012610Q..O00108, 00126100..000109,
00126100..000110, 00126100-000111, 001261OG-000112, oo12610Q..OOOl13, 00126100..000114,
00126100..000115 and 00126100-000116 - Change Land Use Map Deslgnatloo from Urban
Residertlal Moolle Home Umlted (URM-L) to Urban Residentl~ Mooilie Home (URM)
"
BOCC Orillnance
Pine & Palms Land Use District Amendment
Change from URM-L to URM Page 5 of 5
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~Ve strive to be caring, professional and fair
To:
Board of County Commissioners
Through:
Aref Joulani, Director of Planning and
Environmental Resources
From:
Heaven Lashley, Planner
Date:
June 13,2007
RE:
Pine & Palms Map Amendment at 6620 Maloney AIle on Stock Island
I MEETING DATE:
July 18, 2007
II REQUEST:
A. Proposal: The applicant is requesting that a developed site located at 6620
Maloney Ave, Stock Island, be changed from land-use designation Urban
Residential Mobile Home-Limited (URM-L) to Urban Residential Mobile Home
(URM).
B. Location:
1.
2.
3.
Island & Mile Marker: Stock Island, MM 5
Address: 6620 Maloney Ave, Stock Island
Legal Description: Lots 1-16, Maloney Subdivision, Pine & Palms
Trailer Park, Stock Island
RE Number (s): 00126100.000101,
00126100.000103, 00126100.000104,
00126100.000106, 00126100.000107,
00126100.000109, 00126100.000110,
00126100.000112, 00126100.000113,
00126100.000115 and 00126100.000116
NOTE: This parcel has been separated into condominium units
for tax purposes only and has not been platted.
4.
000126100.000102,
00126100.000105,
00126100.000108,
00126100.000111,
00126100.000114,
C. Applicant:
1. Owner: Condominium Ownership
2. Agent: Charles Roswell
Page lef W
W:\GROWTH MANAGEMENTIl30CC\GMD Agenda Items\20070718\Pines and Palms\BOCC
Packet\BOCC Staff Report.doc Reviewed err. / 'IYM::!?I 1 f:!?
1
2
3
4 . III PROCESS:
5
6 Pursuant to Momoe County Code (MCC) s9.5-511(d), an applicant must present
7 a request to the Development Review Committee (DRC), Planning Commission
8 (PC) and Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). As this request does not
9 require a Comprehensive Plan amendment, there will be no transmittal to the
10 State. The PC meeting shall be in Marathon, and BOCC meetings shall be in
11 Marathon or Key West.
12
13 IV PRIOR COUNTY ACTIONS:
14
15 In 1986, the property in question was designated as URM with the adoption of the
16 1986 Land Development Regulations.
17
18 In 1996, the BOCC passed Ordinance 13-1996 at the January 17th meeting to change
19 the property from URM to URM-L in response to a concern that new FEMA
20 regulations would require damaged mobile homes to be replaced with more costly
21 elevated modular or manufactured homes. There was a concern that these
22 standards would force long time residents who could not afford more expensive
23 homes to leave the Keys. The URM-L land use district requires that mobile homes
24 be elevated to three (3) feet and does not permit custom built or modular detached
25 single family homes.
26
27 In 2006, one condominium unit owner requested and received a ROGO exemption
28 unit letter. The other condominium units have not been lawfully established.
29
30 On February 16, 2007, the applicant presented the application for a Land-Use change
31 to the Momoe County Development Review Committee (DRC). The application was
32 reviewed and passed to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of
33 approval.
34
35 On April 11, 2007, the proposed Land Use District Map amendment was presented
36 to and reviewed by the Planning Commission (PC). The PC recommended approval
37 of the proposed LUD Map amendment.
38
39 V BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
40
41 A. Existing Land Use District: Urban Residential Mobile Home -Limited (URM - L)
42 B. Existing Future Land Use Designation: Residential High (RH)
43 C. Proposed Land Use District: Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM)
44 D. Proposed Future Land Use Designation: No change proposed
45 E. Proposed Tier Designation: Tier III, infill area
46 F. Size of Site: 1.16 acres or 50, 486 SF.
Page 2 of 10
\ \Mc-srv-gm1 \Pub \GRQW'THmMANA(WM~N~QCC:'-G.MDAgelldaJlems\2Q07011alJ>ineR~(L_
PatmslBOCC PacKet\BOCCSfuffReport.ifoc --Reviewed IT
/ 'D'M'1? / m
1 G. Land Use and Habitat from 1985 Aerials: 740, disturbed
2 H. Existing Vegetation / Habitat: Scarified / developed
3 I. Community Character of Immediate Vicinity:
4
5 The subject property is a developed mobile home park with occupied mobile
6 homes on all condominium units. The site is located between Maloney Ave on
7 the north and Front Street in the south with a private road providing access into
8 the subdivision from Maloney Ave.
9
10 The houses in the neighboring mobile home parks are at varying heights,
11 consisting of a mixture of non-elevated mobile homes, elevated modular homes,
12 and elevated custom built homes in the mobile home park located northwest of
13 Pine and Palms. The adjacent condominium association located to the southeast
14 of Pine & Palms trailer park consists of custom built homes elevated to 14 feet.
15
16 VI REVIEW OF APPLICATION:
17
18 A. Land Use and Zoning History:
19
20 The subject parcel was platted on October 2nd, 1910, as three (3) separate lots (refer
21 to PBl-55), which were
22 combined under one
23 Real Estate number
24 when the condominium
25 association was formed
26 in 1984. Although the
27 property appraiser
28 shows sixteen (16)
29 individual
30 condominium units, as
31 allowed by Florida, this
32 subdivision is for tax
33 purposes only and does
34 not subdivide or plat
35 the land in any way.
36
37 (1) Pre-1986 Zoning:
38
39 The pre-1986 zoning was BU-2 (Medium-Intensity Business District), which
40 was intended to provide areas for centers of commercial activity, retail sales,
41 mechanical services, wholesaling, warehousing and storage. This parcel, and
42 the surrounding parcels were not used a business district.
43
44 With the adoption of the 1986 Land Development Regulations, the
45 inconsistency between the designation as use was eliminated as this and
46 surrounding parcels were designated URM.
47
Page 3 of 10
\\Mc-srv-gml\Pub\GROWTH MANAGEMENT\BOCC\GMD Agenda Items\20070718\Pines and
Palms\BOCC Packet\BOCC Staff Report. doc Reviewed J.i
/ t>'M~ / ]{B
1 (2) Considerations during the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Process:
2
3 The land use designation was changed to Urban Residential Mobile Home
4 (URM) in 1986 with the adoption of the LDRs. The subject parcels were given
5 the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of Residential High (RH) in
6 1997 when the FLUM was adopted.
7
8 (3) Boundary Changes since 1986:
9
10 There have been no boundary changes since 1986.
11
12 B. Analysis and Rationale for Change:
13
14 Pursuant to See. 9.5-511(d) (5) (b) of the Monroe County Code (MCC), the
15 Board of County Commissioners may consider the adopting an ordinance to
16 enact map amendments based on one or more of the following factors:
17
18
19 (1) Changed Projections:
20
21 1. Applicant: None
22
23 2. Staff: According to the 1996 Monroe County Flood Regulations, the URM-L
24 land-use district was created to mitigate the complex need of both
25 preserving the safety of the persons living in mobile homes while being
26 sensitive to the financial burden imposed on the home owner to elevate in
27 order to qualify for FEMA flood insurance. Since the initial change, there
28 have been changes in the cost of modular homes as well as home owner's
29 preferences for their housing choice.
30
31 (2) Changed Assumptions:
32
33 1. Applicant: None
34
35 2. Staff: At the time the URM-L land-use designation was created the
36 affordable housing initiatives were conceptual and not delineated in the
37 Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The URM-L designation was
38 created to mitigate the constraints involving a financial burden to the
39 citizens in some mobile home parks when replacing or improving their
40 homes.
41
42 Pursuant to MCC 9 9.5-205, the purpose of the Urban Residential Mobile
43 Home District (URM) is to recognize the existence of established mobile
44 home parks and subdivisions, but not to create new such areas, and to
45 provide for such areas to serve as a reservoir of affordable and moderate-
46 cost housing in Monroe County.
47
Page 4 of 10
\ \Mc-srv-~~l \Pub\GRO\\'IHMANi\.(}EM:ENT\BQc:G\OMIl AK~nda.ltems\2Q07ml.8\P:i11M.ml(L.. .
Pafms\BOCC P-acKetlBOCC SuffReport.doc . n - - -----RevtewedJJ:
/ 'DM'Y / H"B
I The in accordance with MCC 99.5-205 the proposed map amendment will
2 not create a new Urban Residential Mobile Home parcel, but will revert
3 back to the previous URM designation.
4
5 (3) Data Errors:
6
7 1. Applicant: The Errata Sheet incorrectly identified the parcel boundaries. If
8 this map amendment is adopted, this error will be corrected. The error
9 excluded a single condominium unit from the parcel although this unit was
10 identified by the legal description.
11
12 2. Staff: This is an error which needs to be addressed and which will be
13 rectified if the proposed map amendment is approved.
14
15 (4) New Issues:
16
17 1. Applicant: There area new concerns about safety. A change from URM-L to
18 URM will permit the unit owners to build flood-plain compliant homes and
19 require any home needing substantial improvement to come into
20 compliance with the Flood Plain elevation. The condominium unit owners
21 would like to have the ability to replace existing mobile homes with
22 detached homes without complications in the event of a hurricane.
23
24 2. Staff: As modular homes have become more affordable, there is little
25 financial benefit restricting homeowners to mobile homes elevated to only
26 three (3) feet when remodeling or replacing mobile units. Approving this
27 change will not only permit but actually require that units come into
28 compliance with Flood Plain regulations when replacing or substantially
29 improving units.
30
31 (5) Recognition of a Need for Additional Detail or Comprehensiveness:
32
33 1. Applicant: None
34
35 2. Staff: None
36
37 (6) Data Updates:
38
39 1. Applicant: None
40
41 2. Staff: None
42
43 C. Impact and Policy Analysis:
44
45 (1) Development Potential under Current Land Development Regulations
46 (LDRs):
47
48 Pursuant to MCC 9 9.5-205.1, the purpose of the URM-L district is to recognize the
49 existence of parks and subdivisions which consist exclusively, or almost exclusively,
50 of mobile homes, but not to create new such areas, in order to permit property
Page 5 of 10
\~c~_S~~~IIll\~lI~\QgQ.\Y_T!I~Mi\l'iA:Q.E:M.E:NT\l3Q<.:::<:::~QMJ.::)Ag~lldaltems\2Q0101.1.8\Pinesand..
n---Pa1msmocC-Pacl:et\BOCCSmTI"RepoiCdi:)(;- nn -- - -.. -. - n n RevlewedIT-----
/ 'D'M1? / H'B
1 owners in such areas to replace or establish mobile homes below base flood elevation
2 as authorized by certified federal regulations.
3
4 This parcel fits within the purpose of the URM-L district.
5
6 (2) Development Potential with the Proposed LDRs:
7
8 Pursuant to MCC S 9.5-205, the purpose of the Urban Residential Mobile Home
9 District (URM) is to recognize the existence of established mobile home parks and
10 subdivisions, but not to create new such areas, and to provide for such areas to serve
11 as a reservoir of affordable and moderate-cost housing in Monroe County.
12
13 This parcel does fit within the purpose of the URM district, and changing the
14 designation from URM-L to URM will not create non-conforming structures, and
15 will require that units come into compliance with Flood Plain elevation requirements
16 when replacing or substantially improving.
17
18 D. Compatibility with Neighboring Land Uses and Effects on Community
19 Character:
20
21 The character of the Pine and Palms trailer park is comprised of single-family mobile
22 homes. The adjacent mobile home park contains homes at varying heights, consisting
23 of a mixture of non-elevated mobile homes, elevated modular homes, and elevated
24 custom built homes. The row of houses located to the southeast of Pine & Palms trailer
25 park are custom built homes, elevated at an elevation of 11 feet. The current Flood
26 Elevation Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designation is AE -9.
27
28 MCC s 9.5-511 maintains that amendments may not permit a change in community
29 character. The character of the immediate vicinity is predominately high density,
30 single-family residential, mobile homes.
31
32 (1) Density and Intensity:
33
34 Pursuant to MCC S 9.5-262, the URM-L District allows one residential unit per lot,
35 and the URM District also allows one residential unit per lot. Applicant is not
36 proposing any additional lots or condominium units. Staff does not anticipate an
37 increase in density or intensity of use if this change is approved. The development as
38 proposed and under the proposed map amendments would be in compliance with
39 the Monroe County Code in regards to FAR and residential density.
40
Sec. 9.5-262. Maximum residential density and district open space.*
Allocated Maximum net
density density Open
DUjacre DU jbuildable space
Land use district area ratio*
Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM)
1 j lot 0 0.2
Page 6 of 10
.. .\~c:-s1"\'-~1l11 \pu~\GJ.{Q.\YII:I.MANAGEMENT\I30CC\GMDAgendaltems\20O:Z07J&\Pinesand
Pn:tmsIBOCCPacketIBOCCStaffReport.doc -- - ----- ---- ReViewed a --
/ 'DM15/ m
Mobile Home Parks
URM-Limited
5.0
1/ lot
7.0
o
0.2
0.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Sec. 9.5-267. Maximum hotel-motel, recreational vehicle and institutional
residential densities.
10
11 URM is more restrictive that URM-L, and does not allow for hotel, institutional
12 rental, or campground use.
13
14 (2) Local Traffic and Parking:
15
16 Local roads are already in place and are well maintained. US Highway 1 is required
17 to maintain a level of service (LOS) of "C" in order to support additional
18 development. The 2005 U.s. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Momoe
19 County indicates a LOS of "A" in 2006 at the entrance to Stock Island. Staff does not
20 anticipate a change of use or that new trips will be generated.
21
22 Without a site plan or traffic study for the proposed development, the Momoe
23 County Traffic Consultant was unable to provide comments regarding any
24 additional trips that may be potentially generated by the new development. Staff
25 does not anticipate any problems with parking or access. Applicant is not proposing
26 to change the number or configuration of condominium units.
27
28 (3) Effects on Natural Resources:
29
Allocated Maximum net
density density Open
DU / acre DU /Buildable space
Land use district area ratio*
Urban Residential Mobile Home:
Rec. Rental 5.0 7.0 0.2
Urban Residential Mobile Home-Limited:
Rec. Rental 5.0 7.0 0.2
Hotel 10.0 15.0 0.0
Inst. Res. 5.0* 20.0 0.0
Rec. Rental - Campground 10.0* 10.0* 0.0
Page 7 of 10
_\\Mc:_sr-y:gI1!1'(f>!lQ\G~Q~IHMA1'{AQEME:[\n"illQCC\GMDAgenda1tems\2007071&\Pina.and. .
YalfuS\BOCCPacket\BOCC-gtaffRepoifaoc Rev~~~d Ji- --
/ "D'M'1? / H'1?
'"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Goal 102 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that Monroe County shall
direct future growth to lands which are intrinsically most suitable for development
and shall encourage conservation and protection of environmentally sensitive lands.
Future development would be required to comply with all Monroe County Code,
State and Federal environmental regulations.
As long as appropriate buffer yards and standards set forth in the Monroe County
Code are adhered to, the development of this parcel will not have a negative effect of
Natural Resources Goal 102.
(4) Effects on Public Facilities:
Monroe County shall implement measures to direct future growth away from
environmentally sensitive land and towards established development areas served
by existing public facilities. The proposed Land Use District Map amendment will
not affect Objective 101.11 and will encourage commercial development to remain
on disturbed lands rather than encroaching on environmentally sensitive areas.
(5) Effects on Redevelopmenf/lnfill Potential:
The subject property is developed. Most of the surrounding properties have been
developed, mainly by residential development.
(6) CommuniKeys Master Plan
Objective 101.20 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan asserts that Monroe County
shall address local community needs while balancing the needs of all Monroe
County communities.
Policy 101.20.1 states that each Community Master Plan will contain a framework
for future development and redevelopment of the community. Principle 8 states
that each Community Master Plan will include a community character element that
will address the protection and enhancement of existing residential areas and the
preservation of community character through site and building guidelines.
Staff finds that the proposed map amendment does not conflict with the goals of the
Stock Island Livable CommuniKeys Plan
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
(1) MCC S 9.5-511 (d) (5) (b) allows the Board of County Commissioners to consider
adopting an ordinance to enact map changes under six conditions: changed
Page 8 of 10
\ IJv1c-srv-grnl \Pllb\GRQWJHMAN1\GEMENDBOCC\GMD Agenda1tems\2007D718\Pinesand
PaImsIBOCC FacketIBOCC.SfuffRepori.doc . Reviewed IT
/ 'D'M1? / rtl?
I projections; changed assumptions; data errors; new issues; recognition of a
2 need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; and data updates.
3
4 (2) In accordance with Section 9.5-511 (d) (5) (b), the proposal has met the
5 following conditions:
6
7 (i) Changed Projections: There is no longer a great financial benefit in
8 restricting owners to a mobile home rather than permitting modular or
9 manufactured homes to be constructed at the required Flood Plain elevation.
10
11 (ii) Changed Assumptions: The combination of affordable housing provisions
12 and the increased afford ability of elevated modular and manufactured homes
13 allow a change from URM-L to URM without imposing financial hardship on
14 the residents.
15
16 (iii) Data Errors: The Errata Sheet incorrectly identified the parcel boundaries.
17 If adopted, this error will be corrected. The error excluded a single
18 condominium unit from the parcel although this unit was identified by the
19 legal description.
20
21 (iv) New Issues: As modular and manufactured homes have become more
22 affordable, there is little financial benefit restricting homeowners to mobile
23 homes when remodeling or replacing mobile units. It is beneficial for home
24 owners and Monroe County to allow for compliance to Flood Plain elevations
25 when possible.
26
27 (3) Prior to 1986, the subject property was zoned BU-2. During the 1986
28 Comprehensive Plan process, the land use district (zoning) of the subject
29 parcels was changed to URM.
30
31 (4) The subject parcels were given the FLUM designation of RH in 1997 when the
32 FLUM was adopted. The RH designation is consistent and corresponds with
33 both the URM and URM-L designation.
34
35 (5) Staff does not anticipate that this map change will increase density or intensity
36 of use or change the LOS on US-1.
37
38 (6) MCC S 9.5-511 prohibits any map amendments that would negatively impact
39 community character. No negative impacts were identified by changing the
40 parcel from URM-L to URM.
41
42 (7) Objective 101.11 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan directing future growth
43 away from environmentally sensitive lands and towards established
44 development areas served by existing public facilities is met as this parcel has
45 already been developed.
46
Page 9 of 10
\ \Mc-srv~gml\Pub\GR0V1n-I~NAGF:ME~J\BOCC\GMDAgendaltems\2007071&\Pinesand..... .
~atmsmocc Packet\BOCGStaffReporfdoc Reviewed
/ 'D'M'l? / m
1 (8) Objective 101.20 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan asserts that Monroe
2 County shall address local community needs while balancing the needs of all
3 Monroe County communities. This map amendment does not conflict with the
4 Stock Island CommuniKeys plan.
5
6
7 III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
8
9 (1) The proposed amendment meets the criteria set forth in MCC S9.5-511(d) (5) (b)
10 (i), (ii), (ill) and (iv).
11
12 (2) Pursuant to MCC S 9.5-511, community character may not be altered by an
13 amendment. The proposed map amendment will not have a negative impact
14 on the character of the immediate vicinity.
15
16
17 (3) Based on the Findings of Fact, the proposed Land Use District designation of
18 Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM) and the proposed Future Land Use
19 Map (FLUM) designation of Residential High (RH) are appropriate for the
20 subject property.
21
22 IV. RECOMMENDED ACTION
23
24 Staff recommends approval.
Page 10 of 10
\ \Mc-srv-gml \Pub\GROWTfi MANAGEMENT'J3QCC\GMP A-Z~!l@ IteD1S\20-070718\Pines and
Palms\BOCC PacKet\BOCC StaffReport.aoc Reviewed J.i
/ "D'M1? / H'1?
PLANNING COMMISSION P04-07
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE MONROE
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF A REQUEST BY
PINE AND PALMS TRAILER PARK. FOR A LAND USE DISTRICT
MAP AMENDMENT FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME-
LIMITED (URM-L) TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME (URM)
FOR PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-16, MALONEY
SUBDIVISION, PINE & PALMS TRAILER PARK, STOCK ISLAND,
SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 67, RANGE 25, MONROE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, HAVING REAL EST A TE NUMBERS: 00126100.000101,
000126100.000102, 00126100.000103, 00126100.000104, 00126100.000105,
00126100.000106, 00126100.000107, 00126100.000108, 00126100.000109,
00126100.000110, 00126100.000111, 00126100.000112, 00126100.000113,
00126100.000114,00126100.000115 AND 00126100.000116.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission, during a regular
meeting held on April 11, 2007, conducted a review and consideration of the request
filed by Pine & Palms Trailer Park Assoc. for a Land Use District Map Amendment from
Urban Residential Mobile Home-Limited (URM-L) to Urban Residential Mobile Home
(URM), for property legally described as Lots 1-16, Maloney Subdivision, Pine & Palms
Trailer Park, Stock Island, Section 35, Township 67, Range 25, Monroe County, Florida,
having Real Estate Number: 00126100.000101, 000126100.000102, 00126100.000103,
00126100.000104, 00126100.000105, 00126100.000106, 00126100.000107, 00126100.000108,
00126100.000109, 00126100.000110, 00126100.000111, 00126100.000112, 00126100.000113,
00126100.000114,00126100.000115 and 00126100.000116; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee, during a
regular meeting held on February 16, 2007, conducted a review and consideration of
these same requests and recommended approval to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after further review of the application and consideration of the
facts, Staff recommended approval to the Monroe County Planning Commission as
indicated in the Staff Report dated February 1, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted the following Findings of Fact:
1. Section 9.5-511 (d)(5)b of the Monroe County Code (MCC) allows the Board
of County Commissioners to consider adopting an ordinance to enact map
changes under six listed conditions.
2. In accordance with Section 9.5-511 (d) (5) (b), the proposal has met the
following conditions:
ResolutiOll P04-0'7
Pine & Palms Map Amendment
URM-L to URM
Page 1 of 3
(i.)Changed projections: The 1996 Monroe County Flood Regulations,
the URM-L land-use district was created to mitigate the complex need of
both preserving the safety of the persons living in mobile homes while
being sensitive to the financial burden imposed on the home owner to
elevate in order to qualify for FEMA flood insurance. Since the initial
change, there have been changes in the cost of modular homes as well as
home owner's preferences for their housing choice.
(ii.)Changed Assumptions: At the time the URM-L land-use designation
was created the affordable housing initiatives were conceptual and not
delineated in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The URM-L
designation was created to mitigate the constraints involving a financial
burden to the citizens in some mobile home parks when replacing or
improving their homes.
(iii.)Data Errors: The Errata Sheet incorrectly identified the parcel
boundaries. If this map amendment is adopted, this error will be
corrected. The error excluded a single condominium unit from the parcel
although this unit was identified by the legal description.
(iv.)New Issues: As modular homes have become more affordable, there
is little financial benefit restricting homeowners to mobile homes
elevated to only three (3) feet when remodeling or replacing mobile
units. Approving this change will not only permit but actually require
that units come into compliance with Flood Plain regulations when
replacing or substantially improving units.
3. The subject property was zoned Medium-Intensity Business District (BU-2)
prior to 1986. (Mobile Home Parks were considered a business prior to
1986) .
4. The subject property was assigned land use district designation of Urban
Residential Mobile Home (URM) in 1986.
5. The subject property received a change in land-use designation in 1996 to
Urban Residential Mobile Home -Limited (URM - L), in order to allow
residents to qualify for FEMA flood insurance.
6. The Future Land Use Map of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan, which took effect on January 4, 1996, followed the land use district
boundaries and designated future land use category of Residential High
(RH) for the parceL
7. Section 9.5-511 prohibits any map amendments that would negatively
impact community character. No negative impacts were identified by
changing the URM-L portion of the parcel to URM.
8. Objective 101.11 states that Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a
development permit is issued, adequate public facilities are available to
ResoffitiOfl P{)4-t}7
Pine & Palms Map Amendment
URM-L to URM Page 2 of 3
serve the development at the adopted level of service standards concurrent
with the impacts of such development.
9. The 2005 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report and the listed
programs for storm water and wastewater indicate that there are no
significant concerns.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted the following Conclusions of
Law:
1. The proposed map amendment meets criteria (i),(ii), (ill), and (iv) outlined
in Section 9.5-511 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations.
2. The proposed map amendment will not result in a negative impact or alter
the character of the properties or the immediate vicinity.
3. Based on the Findings of Facts presented, the proposed land use designation
is appropriate for this property and will allow the owners to make full use of
the subject property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, to recommend APPROVAL to the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners of the request filed by Pine & Palms Trailer
Park Assoc. for a Land Use District Map Amendment from Urban Residential Mobile
Home-Limited (URM-L) to Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM) for property legally
described as Lots 1-16, Maloney Subdivision, Pine & Palms Trailer Park, Stock Island,
Section 35, Township 67, Range 25, Monroe County, Florida, having Real Estate
Numbers: 00126100.000101, 000126100.000102, 00126100.000103, 00126100.000104,
00126100.000105, 00126100.000106, 00126100.000107, 00126100.000108, 00126100.000109,
00126100.000110, 00126100.000111, 00126100.000112, 00126100.000113, 00126100.000114,
00126100.000115 and 00126100.000116.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of Monroe County at a
regular meeting held on the 11 th day of April, 2007.
Chair James D. Cameron
Commissioner Sherry Popham
Commissioner Randy D. Wall
Commissioner Michelle Cates-Deal
Commissioner Donna Windle
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
PLANNING COMMISSION OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
James D. Cameron, Chair
Signed this
day of
,2007
Resolution P{}4..g7
Pine & Palms Map Amendment
URM-L to URM
Page 3 of 3
AFFIDA VIT
(State of Florida)
(County of Monroe)
Before
me,
th e
undersigned authority, personally
, who, after being duly sworn
statements are true and correct
belief.
appeared
deposes and says that the following
to the best of his/her knowledge and
/-'2 J. That waterproof signs containing a legal notice for
The _7#6-"'" p~ ~ /f'J'P.
,
was placed on 4t'~~ />PAbJ!>JfJL.-V ~(,)c-- /Y:t.). R. ..P/fN 1!JA'JV)Al.D~~
(LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY)
on the ti day of ::ruv\::P' .2007. This waterproof
sign(s) contained an area of at least II" x 17". The sign contaInIng
the legal notice was placed on the property in compliance with the 15-
day posting requirements of the Monroe County Code. The property
was posted to notice a public hearing before the Monroe County Board
of Cou nty Com miss ion ers to be he Id on ~'1 l ~ ~ '''z..~7
The sign(s) are clearly visible from all public streets adjacent to this
property.
2. A photograph of that waterproof sign(s) containing
legal notice is attached hereto.
Witnesses:
9
Goncu/o 0r'''"Z<1
c
~;/. if2.~
Na~ o~fiant
4 ;y-~ (:);7
Date
d'6?Z> ,4/kZJ~ ~OP -# I )L
Address
C~t~~' PI S'Jo\1o
Print name
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MONROE
The.J.oregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this dq day
of ~~ 2007.by.lU,t1r/o.s A.. (:(~l
who is p~rsonally known to me or who has produced
as identification and who did take an oath.
AUJION WHITE
NoCIry PuIIIIc . .... of Fl0tllia
"'('111 . Irane.,.....,,'.2007
C.lllmllllon , DO 117434
NO~BL~
Sig
Print .~ U)n~
State of Florida at Large (sea)..2.
My Commission expires: ql/1-Jer+-
. .... ... ;<f(R1l< ~
~~.~...~..........l....'......................<.' . ..n..... ..............."....:........I...............~... ..........'.............../.
J \\~. .... _. 7..;
..... '.' .' . .: .~r'CEOfPU8UCHEAIllNGI.. ..............Er...
n..,~==..o:.-, '<,0
. - _.~-, '~.
c.... ....0........ .......N.D... f.-.............:f:....--..~......:..~...~::...~~= IU. .M. 5'.
'," '". <,."~ '.' ,,-- "
;;-:-'''f':.'' 1
6f20 ~1a:~li\venue
lOTS~l!H}lu Ifi-
- .'
The MOilroe County Board of County
Commissioners
JULY 18, 2001
5:(Jl p.m.
HARVEY GOVERNMENT <:ENTER
1200TRUMAN AVENUJ:.
KEYWEST[ FL 33040
MONROE COUNTY
S.l~Jnrni\!Y_of ProDOsal: AN OkDlNAilU BY THE MONlWf'COlJNTYBOAAO ' .
. "'.H," C01114iS$I0NERS: APPROVING P REQUEST !l:VPlNf AIIDf'M.M5TiiAllER :
FOR A lAND USE DISTRICT MAP AMENOHEtlT FROM URflAN RE$ID8\iTlAL MOBILE "
Ul~=1J {URM.L) TOllRBAN-RESIDHffiAl ,';081tE HOME (URr~)
'w~ PINE AND PALMS TRAILER PARK
~",.<;t Ptooertv UliaItion: LOTS HI'. NALONEY 5UWJVISIGN, PINE" ,
?RAll...E.R ~AAf(~ STDCK lSI...ANO, 'SECnCM 35, lO\f4NStiW 67, RANGF 25, -~', ;,':-::otM
;:L.C';p'Jt),f~., HF"Ji;..l'G f.l~!.-. P _l;.:r ~JIJlo1+" 001.26iOO.OOO101,. ~I ,(tOiOJ
?~'::'l):fjr;oow.3:; '....~j;::'l;, :1Ij,fno.j 001L6l'O:Ct.Q00105. II I',
;. - '.:'to(f.fl001W, 1 rF. 1:.......,\; (1()t)1();:l.':l' "f11'V:;-;'\..Ao-,;;~(..: lI)I,;:,~,";:tr:r..~'
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: July 18, 2007
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes
NoL
Department: Planning & Environmental Resources
Staff Contact Person: Andrew Trivette
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
A request filed by Lee Robert Rohe, on behalf of Ruben Investment Properties, to amend the Land Use District
(Zoning) Map designation from Improved Subdivision (IS) to Suburban Commercial (SC) for two properties
described as Block 18, Lot 1, Johnsonville Subdivision, PB 1-53, Big Coppitt Key, Momoe County, Florida, having
the Real Estate number 00153240.000000 and Part Government Lot 3, Big Coppitt Key, Momoe County, Florida,
having the Real Estate number 00121660.000000.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) held a public hearing in Marathon on March 21, 2006 and based on the
facts presented at the meeting, the DRC recommended approval of the amendment. The Planning Commission held
a public hearing in Marathon on April 12, 2006 and based on the facts presented at the meeting, the Planning
Commission recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the proposed FLUM amendment.
A companion FLUM map amendment to change the subject properties FLUM designation from Residential Medium
(RM) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) was approved by the BOCC at their May 21,2007 public hearing.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT COMMISSION ACTION:
April2006-BOCC approves transmittal of the proposed FLUM amendment for subject properties to DCA.
May 2007-BOCC approves adoption of proposed FLUM amendment for subject properties.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST: N/A
BUDGETED: Yes _No N/ A
COST TO COUNTY: N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A
REVENUE PRODUCING:
Yes N/A No
AMOUNT PER MONTH N/A
Year
APPROVED BY: County Attorney
OMB / Purchasing _ Risk Management _
DOCUMENTATION: Included ~
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
ORDINANCE NO. -2006
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONONERS APPROVING THE
REQUEST BY LEE ROBERT ROHE, ON BEHALF OF
RUBEN INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, TO AMEND THE
LAND USE DISTRICT MAP FOR THE FOLLOWING
PROPERTIES FROM IMPROVED SUBDIVISION (IS) TO
SUB URBAN COMMERCIAL (SC). THE PROPERTIES
ARE PHYSICALLY LOCATED ON FIRST STREET, BIG
COPPITT KEY AND ARE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
BLOCK 18, LOT 1, JOHNSONVILLE SUBDIVISION, PB 1-
53, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
AND PART GOVERNMENT LOT 3, BIG COPPITT KEY,
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE REAL EST A TE
NUMBERS ARE 00153240.000000 AND 00121660.000000,
AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 10.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, during a
regular meeting held on April 19, 2006, conducted a review and consideration of the
request filed by Lee Robert Rohe, on behalf of Ruben Investment Properties, to amend
the Land Use District (zoning) map designation of the following properties from
Improved Subdivision (IS) to Sub Urban Commercial (SC). The properties are physically
located on First Street, Big Coppitt Key and are legally described as Block 18, Lot I,
Johnsonvill~ Subdivision, PB 1-53, Big Coppitt Key, Monroe County, Florida and Part
Government Lot 3, Big Coppitt Key, Monroe County, Florida. The Real Estate numbers
are 00153240.000000 and 00121660.000000, located at approximate Mile Marker 10;
and
WHEREAS, Staff reviewed the application and recommended approval to the
Planning Commission as recorded in a staff report dated March 27,2006; and
WHEREAS, during a regularly scheduled meeting held on March 21, 2006, the
Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the application and
recommended approval to the Planning Commission as recorded in DRC Resolution D5-
06; and
WHEREAS, during a regularly scheduled public meeting held on April 12, 2006,
the Monroe County Planning Commission conducted a review and consideration of the
application and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners as
recorded in Resolution No. P15-06; and
WHEREAS, after further review of the application and consideration of facts,
Staff recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners as indicated in the
Staff Report dated March 27, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners further reviewed the
application and made the following Finding of Facts:
1. Monroe County Code (MCC) Section 9.5-511 (d)(5)(b) allows the Board of County
Commissioners to consider adopting an ordinance to enact map changes under six
specified conditions.
2. This map amendment recognizes a need for additional detail and comprehensiveness
in planning (MCC Section 511 (d)(5)(b)(v)). The application was initiated by the
applicant in order to rezone the subject properties to current and future land use
designations that correspond with the historic use of the subject properties.
3. The pre-1986 zoning of the subject properties was BU-3 (Heavy Business District).
The BU-3 district was intended to provide suitable areas for manufacturing,
processing, storage and distribution of goods and commodities.
4. During the 1986 Comprehensive Plan process, the land use district (zoning) of the
subject properties was changed to Improved Subdivision (IS). The properties were
given the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of Residential Medium (RM) in
1997 when the FLUM was adopted, consistent with the Improved Subdivision
District (IS). The Improved Subdivision (IS) and Residential Medium (RM)
designations are not consistent with the BU-3 designation.
5. MCC Section 9.5-213 states that the purpose of the Improved Subdivision District
(IS) is to accommodate the legally vested residential development rights of owners of
lots in subdivisions that were lawfully established and improved prior to the adoption
of the land development regulations.
6. Policy 101.4.3 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that the
purpose of the Residential Medium (RM) land use category is to recognize those
portions of subdivisions that were lawfully established and improved prior to the
adoption of the plan. Development on vacant land within this land use category shall
be limited to one residential dwelling unit for each platted lot or parcel which existed
at the time of plan adoption. However, nonresidential uses that were listed as a
permitted use in the land development regulations that were in effect immediately
prior to the institution of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and that lawfully existed on
such lands on January 4, 1996 may redevelop, reestablish and/or substantially
improve provided that the uses are limited in intensity, floor area, density and to the
type of use that existed on January 4, 1996 or limited to what the pre-2010 land
development regulations allowed, whichever is more restrictive.
7. Pursuant to MCC Sections 9.5-143 and 9.5-242, the existing use oflight industrial is
a lawful, nonconforming use in the Improved Subdivision District.
8. The applicant has applied to have the existing land use district designation amended
from Improved Subdivision (IS) to Sub Urban Commercial (SC) and to have the
future land use map designation amended from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed
Use / Commercial (MC).
9. MCC Section 9.5-206 states that the purpose of the Sub Urban Commercial District
(SC) is to establish areas for commercial uses designed and intended primarily to
serve the needs of the immediate planning area in which they are located. This
district should be established at locations convenient and accessible to residential
areas without the use of U.S. Highway 1.
10. Policy 101.4.5 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that the
principal purpose of the Mixed Use/ Commercial (MC) land use category is to
provide for the establishment of commercial zoning districts where various types of
commercial retail and office may be permitted at intensities which are consistent with
the community character and the natural environment. The land use category is
intended to allow for the establishment of mixed use development patterns, where
appropriate.
11. MCC Section 9.5-511 prohibits any map amendments that would negatively impact
community character. The existing land use designation and proposed land use
designation permit residential uses and are not anticipated to negatively impact the
community character.
12. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan shows that most of lohnsonville Subdivision received a FLUM designation of
Residential Medium (RM), consistent with the Improved Subdivision District (IS).
However, neighboring properties to the South of the subject properties along U.S.
Highway I received a FLUM designation of Mixed Use / Commercial (MC),
consistent with the Sub Urban Commercial District (SC).
13. Objective 101.11 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that
Monroe County shall implement measures to direct future growth away from
environmentally sensitive lands and towards established development areas served by
existing public facilities.
14. The subject properties are within an established development area which is served by
existing public facilities.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners made the following
Conclusions of Law:
1. The pre-1986 zoning of BU-3 (Heavy Business District) for the subject properties is
not consistent with the current Land Use District of Improved Subdivision (IS) or the
Future Land Use Map designation of Residential Medium (RM).
2. Based on the historic light industry use of the subject properties, which has been
continuous from 1966 to present, and pursuant to MCC Section 9.5-143, the existing
use of light industrial is a lawful, nonconforming use. By amending the current Land
Use District from Improved Subdivision (IS) to Sub Urban Commercial (SC) and the
Future Land Use Map designation from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed Use /
Commercial (MC), the historic and existing use of the subject properties will be
brought into compliance with the Land Development Regulations and will no longer
be considered nonconforming. This will increase the redevelopment potential for the
subject property and provide opportunities for improvements to occur.
3. The proposed map amendment meets the fourth (v) criteria outlined in Section
511(d)(5)(b) of the Monroe County Code and will not have a negative impact or alter
the character of the subject properties or the immediate vicinity.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1. The Board specifically adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of
law stated above.
Section 2. The Future Land Use Map of the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan shall be amended as shown in on the attached map, hereby
incorporated by reference and attached as Exhibit 1.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change or provision
of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by
such invalidity.
Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are
hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. The repeal of an ordinance herein shall not
repeal the repealing clause of such ordinance or revive any ordinance which has been
repealed thereby.
Section 5. This ordinance does not affect prosecutions for ordinance violations
committed prior to the effective date of this ordinance; and does not waive any fee or
penalty due or unpaid on the effective date of this ordinance; and does not affect the
validity of any bond or cash deposit posted, filed, or deposited pursuant to the
requirements of any ordinance.
.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of
the State of Florida, but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the
Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission Approving the
ordinance.
Balance of Page Intentionally Left Blank
Signature Page to Follow
Ordinance Ruben LUD Map Amendment
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe
County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of. , A.D., 2007.
Mayor Mario DiGennaro
Mayor Pro Tern Dixie Spehar
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Mayor/Chairperson
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK
I Exhibit 1 to Ordinance#
-20071
- r-- r-
r--
r-- r--
r-
- r--
"-- r---
- -
- l; A \ft:
- =:] -
- -
- f--
~
-E f0o-
l--
-
- U A.\j~ f--
- foo-
-
- --
-
I- - -
-
- -
- t: A\ t: v0015324( r=OOt 0 ro-
-
- ~
I-- ~
~ r> I-- ~V
____V
-,~ 5 I-- ~ -00121 lOU- ~l)~
___V -
is
--- r: ^ \/e
....----
\.-L--L.--- "
?J 2
/
/
'(\~
~~s
~~s
o~
The Monroe County Land Use District Map is amended
as indicated above.
_>>>>m _
-----
Proposal: RE 00153240-000000 and RE 00121660-000000 - Change
__ __ ___~Cl!1~LJS~ Di~tri~t M?p Designalj()nfromll11pr9vedSLJpqivisioD__{ISl > >
-ro-Soour-ban- -Gommerdat-tsC)
N
A
- --
f-
7 First Street, Big Coppitt Key, Mile Marker 10 (Bayside)
Real Estate Numbers 00153240.000000 & 00121660.000000
"0"-
2 "
Average t-Lrrb:!r d Sp2!cies OC>::lJ"irg
"."", c:::J c:::J c:::J c:::J c::::I
c:::J c:::J c:::J c:::J c:::J c:::J
O .r.
~~ ..;-~
O~~~,~y ~~~~~E -'"
Planning & EnVir~:;:;;'~~7~1 Resources
[ Keys Marsh Rabbit Buffer/Habitat ] [ _ Habitat ~.,;:: Buffer]
This map is for use by the Monroe
County Growth Management
Division only. The data contained
herein is not a legal representa lion
of boundaries, parcels, roads
right of ways or other geographical
data.
Prepared by: J. Haberman
TO:
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Joseph Haberman, Planner
Andrew Orner Trivette, Senior Biologist
RE:
Land Use District and Future Land Use Map Amendments
DATE:
March 27,2006
MEETING DATE: FLUM Transmittal Hearing: April 19, 2006
FLUM Adoption Hearing: May 21,2007
Land Use District Map Amendment: July 18, 2007
The companion Future Land Use Map amendment was approved by the BOCC at their May 21,
2007 public hearing.
EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Medium (RM)
PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Mixed Use / Commercial (MC)
EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: Improved Subdivision (IS)
PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATIONS: Sub Urban Commercial (SC)
PROPERTY OWNER: Ruben Investment Properties, LLC
AGENT: Lee Robert Rohe
PROPERTYINFO~TION
Key:
Big Coppitt Key
Size:
20,000 fF (0.46 acres)
Mile Marker:
MM 10 of U.S. Highway I
Real Estate Number(s):
00153240.000000 & 00121660.000000
Location Brief and Detail:
The site is commonly known as the Key West Party Rental and is located on Big Coppitt Key. It
consists of two contiguous properties, with the Real Estate Numbers 00153240.000000
(Northern parcel) and 00121660.000000 (Southern parcel). The subject properties are situated
Ruben Investment Properties, LLC
Land Use District and Future Land Use Map Amendments
Page 1 of 10
along First Street, one block North of US. Highway 1. The site is bounded by First Street to the
East, Avenue E to the North and Avenue F to the South. The physical address is 7 First Street.
The subject properties are within Section 22, Township 67, Range 26 of MOlioe County,
Florida. RE 00153240.000000 is legally described as Block 18, Lot 1, Johnsonville Subdivision,
PB 1-53, Big Coppitt Key. RE 00121660.000000 is legally described as Part Government Lot 3,
Big Coppitt Key. MOlioe County Property Appraiser records indicate that there is one 6,985 ft2
structure on the property, built in 1966.
Existing Use:
A party rental center is currently operating on the properties. Based on the application, there is
also an office and residential apartment onsite. The party rental center use is considered light
industrial and is not permitted in the Improved Subdivision District (IS). Pursuant to the Monroe
County Code (MCC), an industrial use is a use devoted to manufacture, warehousing, assembly,
packaging, processing, fabrication, storage or distribution of goods an materials whether new or
used. However, Staff has determined that the industrial use is a lawful, nonconforming use and
may continue with its industrial designation pursuant to MCC Section 9.5-143. The proposed
map amendments will make the existing light industrial use conforming.
Existing Habitat:
The current site conditions of the southern parcel are developed with little to no remaining
vegetation. The northern parcel is vacant and also has little native vegetation.
Neighboring Land Uses and Character:
Most of the properties located within the neighboring area, including Johnsonville Subdivision,
are zoned and subdivided primarily for residential use. The areas to the North and West of the
subject properties are designated within an Improved Subdivision District (IS). The area to the
East of the subject properties is designated within an Urban Residential Mobile Home District
(URM). However, to the South of the subject properties, the areas along US. Highway 1 are
designated within a Sub Urban Commercial District (SC).
ZONING AND LAND USE HISTORY
The Tiffany Marble Factory was established on the site in 1966 and the two subject properties
remained in continuous ownership until November of 1996 when they were transferred to Old
Town Key West Development. In May of 1997, the properties were transferred to Josianne
Kennedy and remained in her ownership until the applicant's purchase of the properties. The
properties have been utilized for a variety of commercial and industrial uses since 1966.
Pre-1986 Zoning:
Both properties were zoned for business use prior to the 1986 adoption of the Land Development
Regulations. The property's pre-1986 zoning was BU-3 (Heavy Business District) which
allowed industrial uses and prohibited residential uses. The BU-3 district was intended to
pr()yiQ~~~ll!t~l?}~_~r~~J()r~l!l<lI!llJa(;WriIl~ ..prQg~$.~ing,stQrageand..distributio~~~Clfgo(lds==~=. =__
Ruben Investment Properties, LLC
Land Use District and Future Land Use Map Amendments
Page 2 of 10
commodities. The district was established to provide areas in which compatible or related
industrial type uses may be located.
Considerations during the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Process:
The land use designation was changed to Improved Subdivision (IS) in 1986 with the adoption of
the Land Development Regulations (LDR's). The properties were given the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM) designation of Residential Medium (RM) in 1997 when the FLUM was adopted.
Industrial uses are not permitted uses in the IS or RM Districts. Commercial uses are restricted.
Changes to Boundary Considerations since 1986:
No recorded boundary changes were found for the subject properties.
ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE FOR CHANGE (fill in any if they apply)
Changed Projections or Assumptions: None.
Data Errors:
Regarding the current Improved Subdivision (IS) designation, the applicant asserts that when the
zoning was changed from BU-3 to the present designation of IS, the fact that the subject
properties were located within the lohnsonville Subdivision led the Monroe County Planning
Department to designate the properties as Improved Subdivision (IS), although they were
occupied by a commercial/industrial building since 1966. However, Planning Staff has found
no evidence to support or disclaim the applicant's assertions.
New Issues: None.
Recognition of a Need for Additional Detail or Comprehensiveness:
The applicant asserts that there is a need to recognize the commercial/industrial properties as
suitable for a Sub Urban Commercial (SC) designation, given that the commercial/industrial
use of the properties has been continuously in use from 1966 to present. The applicant asserts
that Monroe County should make a distinction between the portion of lohnsonville Subdivision
that is residential (suitable for IS zoning) and the portion that is commercial (suitable for SC
zoning).
Data Update: None.
IMPACT AND POLICY ANALYSIS
Comparison of Development Potential for the Current and Proposed Land Uses:
Development Potential based on Current Land Development Regulations (LDR's)
Ruben Investment Properties, LLC
Land Use District and Future Land Use Map Amendments
Page 3 of 10
MCC Section 9.5-213 states that the purpose of the Improved Subdivision District (IS) is to
accommodate the legally vested residential development rights of owners of lots in subdivisions
that were lawfully established and improved prior to the adoption of the LDR's.
Uses permitted as-of-right include:
· Detached residential dwellings of all types;
. Home occupations;
· Accessory uses;
· Collocations on existing antenna-supporting structures;
· Satellite earth stations less than two (2) meters in diameter, as accessory uses; and
· Wastewater nutrient reduction cluster systems that serve less than ten (10) residences
Uses permitted as minor conditional uses include:
· Parks and community parks;
. Public parks;
. Schools; and
· Satellite earth stations greater than or equal to two (2) meters in diameter, as accessory
uses
Uses permitted as major conditional uses include:
· Commercial retail of low and medium-intensity and office uses or any combination
thereof ofless than twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet of floor area;
· Stealth wireless communications facilities, as accessory uses;
· Land use overlays A, INS, PF; and
· Wastewater treatment facilities and wastewater treatment collection system(s)
Policy 101.4.3 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that the purpose of
the Residential Medium (RM) land use category is to recognize those portions of subdivisions
that were lawfully established and improved prior to the adoption of the plan. Development on
vacant land within this land use category shall be limited to one residential dwelling unit for each
platted Lot or parcel which existed at the time of plan adoption. However, nonresidential uses
that were listed as a permitted use in the land development regulations that were in effect
immediately prior to the institution of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and that lawfully existed on
such lands on January 4, 1996 may redevelop, reestablish and/or substantially improve provided
that the uses are limited in intensity, floor area, density and to the type of use that existed on
January 4, 1996 or limited to what the pre-2010 land development regulations allowed,
whichever is more restrictive.
The Future Land Use category that corresponds with the Improved Subdivision District (IS) is
Residential Medium (RM).
Potential Development with the Proposed Map Amendments
MCC Section 9.5-206 states that the purpose of the Sub Urban Commercial District (SC) is to
establish areas for commercial uses designed and intended primarily to serve the needs of the
immediate planning area in which they are located. This district should be established at
lQ5ali~Q~=s~~?~~e~':lld~~~~~~i~le~!(}~~~~e~al~ea~ witho~~=~Qf-U.s.~igl1~~=-I-. =--_
Ruben Investment Properties, LLC
Land Use District and Future Land Use Map Amendments
Page 4 of 10
Uses permitted as-of-right include:
· Commercial retail of low and medium-intensity and office uses or any combination
thereof ofless than twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet of floor area;
· Institutional residential uses, involving less than ten (10) dwelling units or rooms;
· Commercial apartments involving less than six (6) dwelling units in;
· Limited commercial recreational uses;
. Institutional uses;
· Public buildings and uses;
. Accessory uses,
· Storage areas, provided that the area does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the
gross area of the parcel proposed for development;
· Vacation rental use of nonconforming detached and attached dwelling units;
· Collocations on existing antenna-supporting structures;
· Attached wireless communications facilities, as accessory uses;
· Replacement of an existing antenna-supporting structure;
· Stealth wireless communications facilities, as accessory uses;
· Satellite earth stations, as accessory uses;
· Attached and unattached residential dwellings involving less than SIX (6) units,
designated as employee housing; and
· Wastewater nutrient reduction cluster systems that serve less than ten (10) residences
Uses permitted as minor conditional uses include:
· Commercial retail of low and medium-intensity and office uses or any combination
thereof of greater than twenty-five hundred (2,500) but less than ten thousand (10,000)
square feet of floor area, provided that access to U.S. 1 is by way of specified conditions;
· Commercial retail uses of high-intensity ofless than twenty-five hundred (2,500) square
feet of floor area, provided that access to U.S. 1 is by way of specified conditions;
· Institutional residential uses involving ten (10) to twenty (20) dwelling units or rooms,
provided that the use is compatible with land use established in the immediate vicinity of
the parcel for development and access to U.S. 1 is by way of specified conditions;
· Commercial apartments involving six (6) to eighteen (18) dwelling units, provided that
the hours of operation of the commercial uses are compatible with the residential uses
and access to U.S. 1 is by way of specified conditions;
· Hotels of fewer than twenty-five (25) rooms, provided that the development meets
specified conditions;
· Campgrounds, provided that the development meets specified conditions;
· Light industrial uses, provided that the parcel proposed for development does not have an
area greater than two (2) acres, the parcel is separated from any established residential
use by at least a class C buffer-yard and all outside storage areas are screened from
adjacent use by a solid fence, wall or hedge at least six (6) feet in height;
· Parks and community parks; and
· Attached and unattached residential dwellings involving six (6) to eighteen (18) units,
designated as employee housing
Uses permitted as major conditional uses include:
Ruben Investment Properties, LLC
Land Use District and Future Land Use Map Amendments
Page 5 of 10
· Commercial retail of low and medium-intensity and office uses or any combination
thereof of greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of floor area, provided that
access to U.S. 1 is by way of specified conditions;
· Commercial retail uses of high-intensity of greater than twenty-five hundred (2,500)
square feet of floor area, provided that access to U.S. 1 is by way of specified conditions;
· Institutional residential uses involving twenty (20) or more dwelling units or rooms,
provided that the use is compatible with land use established in the immediate vicinity of
the parcel for development and access to U.S. 1 is by way of specified conditions;
· Hotels providing twenty-five (25) or more rooms, provided that the development meets
specified conditions;
· Marinas, provided that the development meets specified conditions;
· Mariculture, provided that the development meets specified conditions;
· Heliports or seaplane ports, provided that the development meets specified conditions;
· New antenna supporting-structures;
· Land use overlays A, E, PF; and
· Attached and unattached residential dwellings involving more than eighteen (18) units,
designated as employee housing
Policy 101.4.5 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that the principal
purpose of the Mixed Use/ Commercial (MC) land use category is to provide for the
establishment of commercial zoning districts where various types of commercial retail and office
may be permitted at intensities which are consistent with the community character and the
natural environment. The land use category is intended to allow for the establishment of mixed
use development patterns, where appropriate.
The Future Land Use category that corresponds with the Sub Urban Commercial District (SC) is
Mixed Use / Commercial (MC).
Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses and Effects on Community Character:
Local Use Compatibility
Residential uses are compatible with the character of the Iohnsonville Subdivision community.
However, immediately to the South of the subject properties, along U.S. Highway 1, is an area
that is predominately commercial. The historic and current use of the properties is compatible
with the neighboring commercial properties neighboring to the South.
Density and Intensity
The two subject properties are a combined 20,000 fF (0.46 acres) in size.
Low and medium intensity residential uses are compatible with the character of the Iohnsonville
Subdivision community. Pursuant to MCC Section 9.5-262, in the Improved Subdivision
District (IS), the allocated density is one dwelling unit per lot. In the Sub Urban Commercial
District (SC), the allocated density is three (3) dwelling units per acre with a maximum net
density of six (6) dwelling units per buildable area.
Ruben Investment Properties, LLC
Land Use District and Future Land Use Map Amendments
Page 6 of 10
Nonresidential land use intensities are regulated pursuant to MCC Section 9.5-269. In the
Improved Subdivision District (IS), the maximum floor area ratios are as follows: 0.25 for
Commercial Retail Low Intensity; 0.20 for Commercial Retail Medium Intensity; and 0.25 for
Offices. Light industry is not permitted. In the Sub Urban Commercial District (SC), the
maximum floor area ratios are as follows: 0.35 for Commercial Retail Low Intensity; 0.25 for
Commercial Retail Medium Intensity; 0.15 for Commercial Retail High Intensity; 0.40 for
Offices; 0.10 for Commercial Recreational; 0.30 for Institutional; 0.10 for Outdoor Recreational;
0.30 for Public Buildings and Uses; and 0.30 Light Industry.
LocaITra1fzcandPar~ng
Local roads are already in place and have been well maintained. No adverse impact on the
existing road conditions are expected if the land use designation is changed from Improved
Subdivision (IS) to Sub Urban Commercial (SC). The site plan indicates that the parking
standards of the LDR's can be met.
Effects on Natural Resources:
Staff feels that there will be little to no change in the level of impact to the natural resources of
the area based on this proposed zoning change.
Effects on Public Facilities:
Objective 101.11 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan requires the County to direct future
growth away from environmentally sensitive land and towards established development areas
served by existing public facilities. The proposed map amendments support Objective 101.11
based on the following findings in the 2006 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report and
the listed programs on stormwater and wastewater.
Tra1fzc Circulation
U.S. Highway No. I is required to maintain a level of service (LOS) of "c" in order to support
additional development. The 2005 Us. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe
County indicates a LOS of "D" at the entrance to First Street (Segment 3 of U.S. I, MM 9.0 to
MM 10.5).
Solid Waste
Monroe County has a solid waste haul out contract with Waste Management Inc. that authorizes
use of the in-state facilities through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with
approximately 10 years of guaranteed capacity. The proposed land use district map amendment
may affect solid waste, but not significantly.
Potable Water
In 2002, South Florida Water Management District approved an increase in Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority's Water Use Permit. Monroe County's Public Facilities Capacity
A~s~~sl1l~l1t~~J>Ql"tjIlg.i~(l!~stl1(lttl1~I~Jlr~()y~r..JQQ.gallQnsQfwateravailableperperson.per.. .
Ruben Investment Properties, LLC
Land Use District and Future Land Use Map Amendments
Page 7 of 10
day. The 100 gallons per person per day standard is commonly accepted as appropriate and is
reflected in Policy 701.1.1 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Storm water
No increase in stormwater runoff will result from this land use change. The subject properties
have already been significantly developed. MCC Section 9.5-293 requires that all developments
retain stormwater on site following Best Management Practices (BMP's).
Effects on RedevelopmentJInfill Potential:
There will be no negative impacts on redevelopment / infill potentials. A commerciaV industrial
use has been in existence on the property continuously since 1966. According to the applicant,
the rezoning is necessary to bring the property into compliance and permit future development
and redevelopment of the property in case of damage or destruction following a disaster.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. MCC Section 9.5-511 (d)(5)(b) allows the Board of County Commissioners to consider
adopting an ordinance to enact map changes under six specified conditions.
2. This map amendment recognizes a need for additional detail and comprehensiveness in
planning (MCC Section 511(d)(5)(b)(v)). The application was initiated by the applicant
in order to rezone the subject properties to current and future land use designations that
correspond with the historic use of the subject properties.
3. The pre-1986 zoning of the subject properties was BU-3 (Heavy Business District). The
BU-3 district was intended to provide suitable areas for manufacturing, processing,
storage and distribution of goods and commodities.
4. During the 1986 Comprehensive Plan process, the land use district (zoning) of the subject
properties was changed to Improved Subdivision (IS). The properties were given the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of Residential Medium (RM) in 1997 when
the FLUM was adopted, consistent with the Improved Subdivision District (IS). The
Improved Subdivision (IS) and Residential Medium (RM) designations are not consistent
with the BU-3 designation.
5. MCC Section 9.5-213 states that the purpose of the Improved Subdivision District (IS) is
to accommodate the legally vested residential development rights of owners of lots in
subdivisions that were lawfully established and improved prior to the adoption of the land
development regulations.
6. Policy 101.4.3 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that the
purpose of the Residential Medium (RM) land use category is to recognize those portions
of subdivisions that were lawfully established and improved prior to the adoption of the
plan. Development on vacant land within this land use category shall be limited to one
. ..I~~id~ntial..dwelling.uniLfor..each.platted. .1ot.orparceLwruchexisted. at.th~t.Hw=-()fplil!l:~.
Ruben Investment Properties, LLC
Land Use District and Future Land Use Map Amendments
Page 8 of 10
adoption. However, nonresidential uses that were listed as a permitted use in the land
development regulations that were in effect immediately prior to the institution of the
2010 Comprehensive Plan and that lawfully existed on such lands on January 4, 1996
may redevelop, reestablish and/or substantially improve provided that the uses are limited
in intensity, floor area, density and to the type of use that existed on January 4, 1996 or
limited to what the pre-201O land development regulations allowed, whichever is more
restrictive.
7. Pursuant to MCC Sections 9.5-143 and 9.5-242, the existing use of light industrial is a
lawful, nonconforming use in the Improved Subdivision District.
8. The applicant has applied to have the existing land use district designation amended from
Improved Subdivision (IS) to Sub Urban Commercial (SC) and to have the future land
use map designation amended from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed Use /
Commercial (MC).
9. MCC Section 9.5-206 states that the purpose of the Sub Urban Commercial District (SC)
is to establish areas for commercial uses designed and intended primarily to serve the
needs of the immediate planning area in which they are located. This district should be
established at locations convenient and accessible to residential areas without the use of
U.S. Highway 1.
10. Policy 101.4.5 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that the
principal purpose of the Mixed Use/ Commercial (MC) land use category is to provide
for the establishment of commercial zoning districts where various types of commercial
retail and office may be permitted at intensities which are consistent with the community
character and the natural environment. The land use category is intended to allow for the
establishment of mixed use development patterns, where appropriate.
11. MCC Section 9.5-511 prohibits any map amendments that would negatively impact
community character. The existing land use designation and proposed land use
designation permit residential uses and are not anticipated to negatively impact the
community character.
12. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan shows that most of Johnsonville Subdivision received a FLUM designation of
Residential Medium (RM), consistent with the Improved Subdivision District (IS).
However, neighboring properties to the South of the subject properties along U.S.
Highway I received a FLUM designation of Mixed Use / Commercial (MC), consistent
with the Sub Urban Commercial District (SC).
13. Objective 101.11 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that
Monroe County shall implement measures to direct future growth away from
environmentally sensitive lands and towards established development areas served by
existing public facilities.
14. The subject properties are within an established development area which is served by
.. ..exis1in!wublicfacilities,
Ruben Investment Properties, LLC
Land Use District and Future Land Use Map Amendments
Page 9 of 10
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The pre-1986 zoning of BU-3 (Heavy Business District) for the subject properties is not
consistent with the current Land Use District of Improved Subdivision (IS) or the Future
Land Use Map designation of Residential Medium (RM).
2. Based on the historic light industry use of the subject properties, which has been
continuous from 1966 to present, and pursuant to MCC Section 9.5-143, the existing use
of light industrial is a lawful, nonconforming use. By amending the current Land Use
District from Improved Subdivision (IS) to Sub Urban Commercial (SC) and the Future
Land Use Map designation from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed Use / Commercial
(MC), the historic and existing use of the subject properties will be brought into
compliance with the LDR's and will no longer be considered nonconforming. This will
increase the redevelopment potential for the subject property and provide opportunities
for improvements to occur.
3. The proposed map amendment meets the fourth (v) criteria outlined in Section
51l(d)(5)(b)ofthe Monroe County Code and will not have a negative impact or alter the
character of the subject properties or the immediate vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Planning and Environmental
Resources Department recommends APPROVAL to the Board of County Commissioners for
the proposed Land Use District (Zoning) Map amendment from Improved Subdivision (IS) to
Suburban Commercial (SC), for the two subject properties, RE 00153240.000000 & RE
00121660.000000.
Ruben Investment Properties, LLC
Land Use District and Future Land Use Map Amendments
Page 10 of 10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. P15-06
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE REQUEST
BY LEE ROBERT ROHE, ON BEHALF OF RUBEN
INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, TO AMEND THE LAND USE
DISTRICT MAP FROM IMPROVED SUBDIVISION (IS) TO
SUB URBAN COMMERCIAL (SC) AND TO AMEND THE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) OF THE MONROE
COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM) TO MIXED USE /
COMMERCIAL (MC) AT PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED
AS BLOCK 18, LOT 1, JOHNSONVILLE SUBDIVISION, BIG
COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND PT LOT
3, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00153240.000000 AND
00121660.000000.
WHEREAS, during a regularly scheduled public meeting held on April 12, 2006,
the Monroe County Planning Commission conducted a review and consideration of a
request filed by Lee Robert Rohe, on behalf of Ruben Investment Properties, to amend
the Land Use District map designation of the subject parcels from Improved Subdivision
(IS) to Sub Urban Commercial (SC) and to amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
designation of the subject parcels from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed Use /
Commercial (MC); and
WHEREAS, the subject parcels are physically located at 7 First Street, Big
Coppitt Key, at approximate Mile Marker 10 and is legally described as Block 18, Lot 1,
Johnsonville Subdivision, Big Coppitt Key, Monroe County, Florida and 22 67 26
AA67622-37, Big Coppitt Key, Pt Lot 3, Monroe County, Florida, having Real Estate
numbers 00153240.000000 and 00121660.000000; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was presented with the following
documents and other information relevant to the request, which by reference is hereby
incorporated as part of the record of said hearing:
Resolution P15-06
Page 1 of 5
1. Momoe County Planning Department Map Amendment Application received
by the Momoe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department on
January 23,2006; and
2. Boundary Survey by Norby & O'Flynn Surveying, Inc., dated August 6, 2004
and revised August 11,2004; and
3. Staff report prepared by Joseph Haberman, Momoe County Planner, and
Andrew Orner Trivette, Momoe County Senior Biologist, dated March 27,
2006; and
WHEREAS, during a regularly scheduled meeting held on March 21, 2006, the
Momoe County Development Review Committee reviewed the application and
recommended approval to the Planning Commission of the application as recorded in
DRC Resolution D05-06; and
WHEREAS, Staff reviewed the application and recommended approval of the
application to the Planning Commission as recorded in a staff report dated March 27,
2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following Findings of Fact:
1. Section 9.5-511(d)(5)b. of the Momoe County Code allows the Board of
County Commissioners to consider adopting an ordinance to enact map
changes under six (6) specified conditions: (i) Changed projections (e.g.,
regarding public service needs) from those on which the text or boundary was
based; (ii) Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends); (iii)
Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features
described in volume 1 of the plan; (iv) New issues; (v) Recognition of a need
for additional detail or comprehensiveness; and (vi) Data updates; and
2. The map amendment application was submitted in recognition of a need for
additional detail and comprehensiveness as set forth in Section 9.5-
51 1 (d)(5)b.(v) ofthe Momoe County Code; and
3. Prior to 1986, the subject parcels were zoned BU-3 (Heavy Business District).
The BU-3 district was intended to provide suitable areas for manufacturing,
processing, storage and distribution of goods and commodities; and
4. In 1986, during the comprehensive plan process, the zoning (land use district)
of the subject parcels was changed to Improved Subdivision (IS).
Pursuant to Section 9.5-213 of the Momoe County Code, the purpose of the
Improved Subdivision (IS) District is to accommodate the legally vested
residential development rights of owners of lots in subdivisions that were
lawfully established and improved prior to the adoption of the land
development regulations; and
Resolution P 15-06
Page 2 of 5
5. In 1997, the subject parcels were assigned a Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
designation of Residential Medium (RM), a designation consistent with the
Improved Subdivision (IS) designation.
Policy 101.4.3 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states
that the purpose of the Residential Medium (RM) land use category is to
recognize those portions of subdivisions that were lawfully established and
improved prior to the adoption of the plan; and
6. Neither the Improved Subdivision (IS) designation nor the Residential
Medium (RM) designation is consistent with the BU-3 designation; and
7. Pursuant to Sections 9.5-143 and 9.5-242 of the Monroe County Code, the
existing light industrial use has been found to be a lawful, nonconforming use
in the Improved Subdivision (IS) District; and
8. The Applicant has applied to have the existing Land Use District map
designation amended from Improved Subdivision (IS) to Sub Urban
Commercial (SC) and to have the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation
amended from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed Use / Commercial (MC);
and
9. Section 9.5-206 of the Monroe County Code states that the purpose of the Sub
Urban Commercial (SC) District is to establish areas for commercial uses
designed and intended primarily to serve the needs of the immediate planning
area in which they are located. This district should be established at locations
convenient and accessible to residential areas without the use of U.S.
Highway 1; and
10. Policy 101.4.5 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states
that the principal purpose of the Mixed Use/ Commercial (MC) land use
category is to provide for the establishment of commercial zoning districts
where various types of commercial retail and office may be permitted at
intensities which are consistent with the community character and the natural
environment. The land use category is intended to allow for the establishment
of mixed use development patterns, where appropriate; and
11. As set forth in Section 9.5-511(a) of the Monroe County Code, land use
district map amendments are not intended to relieve particular hardships, nor
to confer special privileges or rights on any person, nor to permit a change in
community character, as analyzed in volume I of the plan, but only to make
necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions. In determining whether
to grant a requested amendment, the Board of County Commissioners shall
consider, in addition to the factors set forth in this article, the consistency of
the proposed amendment with the provisions and intent of the plan; and
Resolution P 15-06
Page 3 of 5
12. Section 9.5-511(5)b. of the Monroe County Code states that in no event shall
an amendment be approved which will result in an adverse community change
of the planning area in which the proposed development is located; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following Conclusions of Law:
1. The pre-1986 zoning of BU-3 (Heavy Business District) of the subject parcels
is not consistent with the current Land Use District of hnproved Subdivision
(IS) or the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of Residential Medium
(RM).
Pursuant to Section 9.5-143 of the Monroe County Code, the historic light
industrial and commercial use of the subject parcels, which has been
continuous from 1966 to present, is a lawful, nonconforming use. By
amending the current Land Use District designation from hnproved
Subdivision (IS) to Sub Urban Commercial (SC) and the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM) designation from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed Use /
Commercial (MC), the existing use of the subject parcels will be brought into
compliance with the Land Development Regulations and will no longer be
considered nonconforming. This will increase the redevelopment potential for
the subject property and provide opportunities for improvements to occur; and
2. The proposed map amendment meets the fifth (v) criteria outlined in Section
9.5-511(d)(5)b. of the Monroe County Code: recognition of a need for
additional detail or comprehensiveness; and,
3. The proposed map amendment will not result in an adverse community
change of the planning area in which the proposed development is located;
and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the preceding Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law support its decision to recommend approval to the Board of County
Commissioners of the request by Lee Robert Rohe, on behalf of Ruben Investment
Properties, to amend the Land Use District Map from hnproved Subdivision (IS) to Sub
Urban Commercial (SC) and to amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Monroe
County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed Use /
Commercial (MC) at property legally described as Block 18, Lot 1, Johnsonville
Subdivision, Big Coppitt Key, Monroe County, Florida and Pt Lot 3, Big Coppitt Key,
Monroe County, Florida, having Real Estate numbers 00153240.000000 And
00121660.000000:
Resolution P 15-06
Page 4 0[5
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION of
Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the Ith day of April,
2006.
Chair Cameron YES
Vice-Chair Margalli YES
Commissioner Cates Deal YES
Commissioner Popham YES
Commissioner Wall YES
PLANNING COMMISSION OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
J ames Cameron, Chair
Signed this
day of
,2007.
Resolution P15-06
Page 5 of5
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: July 18, 2007
Division:
Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes
No~
Department:
Planning and Env. Resources
Staff Contact Person: Andrew Trivette
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider approval of an Interim Development Ordinance (IDa) to
create a moratorium to prohibit the redevelopment of mobile home parks, not to exceed six (6) months, commencing
retroactively on the date the zoning-in-progress was initiated by the BOCC on May 16, 2007 and expiring thereby on
November 16,2007.
ITEM BACKGROUND: At their May 16, 2007 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners voted to impose a 6-month
moratorium beginning on May 16, 2007, on the acceptance of development applications for the redevelopment of mobile
home parks within unincorporated Monroe County. This action comes after months of debate about the need to further
examine the existing land development regulations and the existing programs designed to protect the supply of affordable
housing.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Previously the BOCC has imposed a similar moratorium on the
redevelopment of mobile home parks until a solution could be developed for minimizing the displacement of affordable
housing stock with market-rate housing. That moratorium culminated in the adoption of the inclusionary housing
requirement, which provides for the retention of 30% of existing units in a mobile home park to be redeveloped and
designated as affordable housing.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
TOTAL COST: N/ A
BUDGETED: Yes N/ A
No
COST TO COUNTY: N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
N/A
REVENUE PRODUCING:
Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY:
County Atty ~ OMB/Purchasing N/ A
Risk Management _ N/ A_
DOCUMENTATION: Included ~
DISPOSITION:
Not Required__
AGENDA ITEM #
C;\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\Local Settings'Temporary Internet FilesOLK 13B'Agenda Item Summary,doc
Page I of I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATIONS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE HOME
PARKS WITHIN UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY;
PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR VESTED RIGHTS;
PROVIDING FOR APPEALS; PROVIDING FOR EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRA TIVE REMEDIES; PROVIDING FOR A
COMMENCEMENT DATE OF MAY 16, 2007 AND AN EXPIRATION
DATE OF NOVEMBER 16,2007, OR WHEN AMENDMENTS TO THE
MOBILE HOME PARK REDEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BECOME
EFFECTIVE, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, a number of Mobile Home Parks (collectively the "Mobile Home Parks")
are located in Monroe County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Mobile Home Parks serve a critical role in providing affordable and
work force housing for those persons who live in, and are employed in, Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, the existing supply of affordable and workforce housing is insufficient to
meet the current demand for affordable and workforce housing needs; and
WHEREAS, during the past few years several Mobile Home Parks have been closed for
redevelopment with a net loss to Monroe County of affordable and workforce housing; and
WHEREAS, the County finds itself facing increasing pressure concerning the possible
redevelopment of Mobile Home Parks in the County, and such redevelopment pressure could
result in the loss of critical workforce and affordable housing units in the County; and
WHEREAS, the County recognizes the need to develop comprehensive plan policies,
land development regulations, and programs to preserve the existing stock of affordable housing
and increase the availability of affordable housing for those who live in, and are employed in,
Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
("BOCC") dated May 18, 2005, a Workforce Housing Task Force ("Task Force") was created
and members from the community and officials from the County governments were appointed to
the Task Force; and
Pilge_ I 9f 6 .
WHEREAS, the Task Force has conducted a number of meeting and received substantial
input from the citizens of Monroe County regarding the workforce housing issues in Monroe
County; and
WHEREAS, the loss of affordable housing provided by the County's Mobile Home Parks
has a detrimental impact on the existing inventory of affordable housing and its availability for
those who work and live in the County; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force, after thorough and due deliberation, adopted on February I,
2007 a Resolution of the Monroe County Workforce Housing Task Force Concerning Amending
Section 9.5-120.3 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations that specifically
addresses the preservation of Mobile Home Parks for workforce housing; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force Resolution is in the process of being considered by the
County staff and Planning Commission, and ultimately will have to be approved by the BOCC
and the Florida Department of Community Affairs; and
WHEREAS, the approval process for the Task Force's Resolution will of necessity
consume a substantial amount of time; and
WHEREAS, utilization of the moratorium as a temporary measure to facilitate
governmental decision-making, study, and the adoption of comprehensive plan amendments
and/or land development regulations, is a legitimate governmental tool to facilitate logical and
considered growth and as a means of avoiding inefficient and ill-conceived development; and
WHEREAS, Monroe County has determined that Chapter 723, Florida Statutes does not
preempt Monroe County from enacting a temporary moratorium by virtue of the County's right
to accept or deny the approval of site plans for proposed development within its jurisdictional
boundaries; and
WHEREAS, Monroe County finds it in the best interest of the public to establish a
temporary moratorium on acceptance of development applications that seek development
approvals for the redevelopment of Mobile Home Parks so that Monroe County can undertake its
study to determine the number of affordable housing units in the County including Mobile Home
Parks, the population served by the Mobile Home Parks, and the affordable housing needs of
those residents if the Mobile Home Parks are redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Monroe County has embarked on a Community Master Planning Program
for the Lower Keys pursuant to Policy 101.20.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, such a community plan would contain a framework for future
redevelopment, including appropriate mechanisms for allowing citizens continued oversight and
involvement in implementation of their plans, a community character element that will address
20f6
the protection and enhancement of existing residential areas, and the preservation of community
character through site and building guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Department is preparing an overlay district for
Stock Island and the implementing regulations of the Key Largo CommuniKeys Plan that were
developed pursuant to Policy 101.20.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, staff has been working on an ordinance which would provide incentive for
redevelopment which retains the stock of affordable housing in mobile home parks; and
WHEREAS, member(s) of the public has (have) made suggestions for changes to the land
development regulations to preserve mobile home parks; and
WHEREAS, Monroe County finds it necessary to establish a temporary moratorium on
acceptance of development applications that seek development approvals for the redevelopment
of Mobile Home Parks so that Monroe County can undertake its community master planning of
the Lower Keys, continue implementing regulations of the Key Largo Communi Keys Plan and
Stock Island Plan, and to work towards an ordinance which would provide greater guarantees of
retaining the existing affordable housing in mobile home parks that it is believed the current
"inclusionary" ordinance provides; and
WHEREAS, Monroe County finds it the interest of the general public to establish a
temporary moratorium on acceptance of development applications that seek development
approvals for the redevelopment of Mobile Home Parks so that Monroe County can develop
review procedures to assure community participation as required by Policy 101.20.1 of the
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the current pace of residential development in Monroe County is governed
by the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) and it may take several years for residents displaced
by redeveloped mobile home parks from being able to move their mobile homes to a new
location in Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes authorize that residents evicted when a park is redeveloped
may be given only six (6) months to relocate; and
WHEREAS, Monroe County is designated an Area of Critical State Concern (FS
380.052) with the legislative intent to establish a land use management system that conserves and
promotes the community character of the Florida Keys and to provide for affordable housing in
close proximity to places of employment in the Florida Keys; and
WHEREAS, the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of
Critical State Concern articulate the importance to make available adequate affordable housing
for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys and to protect the public health, safety, and
Page3 o{6.
welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida
resource; and
WHEREAS, the provIsIOns of this Ordinance are consistent with the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true, correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 2. Moratorium Imposed. Retroactive to May 16,2007 the Monroe County
Growth Management Division shall take no applications for building permits, development
orders, and development permits, as those terms are defined in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes
(Collectively "Development Orders") within the unincorporated county concerning the matter of
redevelopment, modification or conversion of existing Mobile Home Parks to any other use,
except as provided herein, as of May 16, 2007.
SECTION 3. Exemptions. Exempt from this moratorium is the replacement of mobile
homes pursuant to Section 723.041 (4), Florida Statutes, and repairs to mobile homes existing on
site on the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Deimitions. The following definitions shall be utilized in the application
of this Ordinance:
(1) "Mobile Home Park" means any real property that is governed by Chapters 513 and
723, Florida Statutes.
(2) "Mobile Home" has the same definition as set forth In sections 320.01 (2) (a),
513.01(3) and 723.003(3), Florida Statutes.
(3) "Redevelopment" means the proposed removal or replacement of existing mobile
homes for the purpose of installing, building or constructing on the property single family, multi-
family, or other structures other than mobile homes and any appurtenances thereto.
SECTION 5. Vested Rights.
(A) Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed or applied to abrogate the vested right of a
property owner of a Mobile Home Park to complete development where the property owner can
demonstrate all of the following:
(1) A governmental act of development approval obtained prior to the effective date of
this Ordinance,
(2) Upon which the owner has detrimentally relied, in good faith, by making substantial
expenditures, and
(3) That it would be highly inequitable to deny the property owner the right to complete
development.
(B) Any property owner claiming to have vested rights under this Section must file an
application with Monroe County staff for a vested rights determination under the provisions of
Section 9.5-181, et seq., Monroe County Code.
SECTION 6. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. No property owner claiming
that this Ordinance as applied constitutes or would constitute a temporary or permanent taking of
private property or an abrogation of vested rights may pursue such claim unless he or she has first
exhausted all administrative remedies.
SECTION 7. Expiration. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance is temporary and,
unless dissolved earlier by the Board of County Commissioners, shall automatically dissolve at
midnight on November 16, 2007 unless otherwise extended in accordance with applicable law, or
upon adoption of new comprehensive plan policies and land development regulations concerning
mobile home park redevelopment, the formulation of which shall be expeditiously pursued.
SECTION 8. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable
and if any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections,
sentences, clauses, and phrases of this Ordinance but shall remain in effect, it being the
legislative intent that this Ordinance shall stand notwithstanding the invalidity of any part.
Section 9. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted to the Florida Department
of Community Affairs pursuant to Ch. 380, Florida Statutes, and the DCA is requested to review
and approve it by Immediate Final Order in accordance with Section 120.569(2)(n), Florida
Statutes, in recognition of the public importance of retaining the existing mobile home parks, and
to prevent the threat of further loss of affordable housing as "an immediate danger to the public,
health, safety or welfare."
Section 10. Filing with Secretary of State and Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be
filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, but shall not become effective
until a notice is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission
approving this ordinance pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 380.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the day of ,2007.
ATTEST:
DANNY L. KOLHAGE
County Clerk
By:
Mayor Mario DiGennaro
Mayo Pro Tern Dixie Spehar
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner George Neugent
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR MONROE COUNTY
By:
Deputy Clerk
Mayor Mario DiGennaro
MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
A;;~~;E~
...,~ ~
SUSAN M. G SLEY _~
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
Date C;> -~ f--o 7
uP_age6of6_
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
ST AFF REPORT
TO:
The Board of County Commissioners
THRU:
Andrew Trivette, Acting Director, Growth Management Division
FROM:
Clarence Feagin, Ph.D., AICP, Sr. Planner
RE:
An Ordinance providing for a moratorium on the acceptance of
development applications for the redevelopment of mobile home
parks within unincorporated Monroe County.
MEETING DATE: July 18,2007
I I. BACKGROUND:
2
3 At their May 16, 2007 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners voted to impose a 6-
4 month moratorium beginning on May 16, 2007, on the acceptance of development
5 applications for the redevelopment of mobile home parks within unincorporated Monroe
6 County. This action comes after months of debate about the need to further examine the
7 existing land development regulations and the existing programs designed to protect the
8 supply of affordable housing.
9
lOOn June 26, 2007 the Development Review Committee (DRC) convened to review the
II proposed moratorium on the acceptance of applications for redevelop of mobile home
12 parks and recommended revisions to set specific dates for commencement and expiration
13 of the temporary moratorium. The DRC recommended setting the commencement date
14 to be retroactive to May 16, 2007, the date the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
15 took action to recognize legislation in progress to study the problem and propose new
16 legislation, as recorded in BOCC Resolution No. 226-2007. The expiration date was
17 recommended the be set on November 16, 2007 to reflect the six (6) month time period
18 for the temporary moratorium established by the BOeC in Resolution No. 226-2007.
19
20 On June 27, 2007 the Planning Commission was presented with the proposed
21 moratorium, and in consideration of public testimony and recommendations by the
22 Development Review Committee, passed Resolution 30-07 recommending the BOCC
23 adopt an ordinance imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of development
24 applications for the redevelopment of mobile home parks within unincorporated Monroe
25 County.
C\Documents and Settings\te71lnOS-mayra'Local Settings'Temporary Internet Files\OLK 13 B\Statf Report-BOCCdoc
Page] of3
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Petitioner:
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners.
A. Area of land affected by the text amendment
The proposed IDO potentially affects all mobile home parks as defined by Chapters 513
and 723, F.S.
B. Characteristics of the proposed text amendment
(i) This IDO directs the Growth Management Division to defer acceptance of
development applications concerning the matter of redevelopment, modification or
conversion of existing Mobile Home Parks to any other use.
II. Proposal
Under the proposed Interim Development Ordinance (IDO) whose effective date is May
16,2007, the Monroe County Growth Management Division is to take no applications for
building permits, development orders, and development permits, as those terms are
defined in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (See Exhibit A: Attached excerpts from Florida
Statutes, Ch. 163 and 380) within the unincorporated Monroe County concerning the
redevelopment, modification or conversion of existing Mobile Home Parks to any other
use.
The IDO defines "redevelopment" as the proposed removal or replacement of existing
mobile homes for the purpose of installing, building, or constructing on the property
single-family, multi-family or other structures other than mobile homes and any
appurtenances thereto.
As stated in the attached e-mail from the County Attorney's Office (See Exhibit B), the
definition of "redevelopment" in the current IDO differs from the language submitted in
the original version of the IDO. The County Attorney's office has removed the word
"demolition" from the definition of "redevelopment" since the BOCC never mentioned
"demolition" in their direction to staff.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Public Welfare Issues.
Under the proposed IDO, the petitioner finds the following public welfare issues:
1. Mobile Home Parks serve a critical role in providing affordable and workforce
housing for those persons who live in, and are employed in, Monroe County,
2. the existing supply of affordable and workforce housing is insufficient to meet the
current demand for affordable and workforce housing needs,
C::Documents and Settings\te71lnOS-mayra".Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK 13B'Staff Repott-BOCC.doc
Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3. the county finds itself facing increasing pressure concerning the possible
redevelopment of mobile home parks in the County, and such redevelopment pressure
could result in the loss of critical workforce and affordable housing units in the County,
4. the county recognizes the need to develop comprehensive plan policies, land
development regulations, and programs to preserve the existing stock of affordable
housing and increase the availability of affordable housing for those who live in, and are
employed in Monroe County, and
5. the loss of affordable housing provided by the County's mobile home parks has a
detrimental impact on the existing inventory of affordable housing and its availability for
those who work and live in the County.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed IDO identifies public welfare issues that may be addressed through
amendments to the comprehensive plan, the land development regulations, and possibly
the creation of new affordable/employee housing programs or changes to the existing
affordable/employee housing programs.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
C:\Documents and Sdtings\tezanos-mayra\Local Settings Temporary Internet FilesOLK 13B\Staff Report-BOCCdoc
Page 3 of 3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: July 18, 2007
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes No -X-
Department: Planning
Staff Contact: Aref Joulani, Sf. Director of Planning
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: To consider the request for an adjustment from the inclusionary housing
requirement for the owners John & Genevieve Isaksen of the Itnor Corporation on property commonly
known as Water's Edge Mobile Horne Park located at lots 1-7 and adjacent bay bottom and lots 11-21,
square 32, Maloney Subdivision, Stock Island, Monroe County, Florida having Real Estate number
00124540.000000
ITEM BACKGROUND: The Itnor Corporation are the ftrst mobile home park owners to apply for an
adjustment to the inclusionary housing requirements. Water's Edge Mobile Horne Park is currently
developed with 66 units, 61 of which have been found to be ROGO exempt. Under the inclusionary
housing requirement, the Applicant is required to supply 16 affordable housing units on-site. The
Applicant is proposing to adjust the requirement through the transfer of 15 ROGO exemptions to receiver
sites while maintaining one (1) affordable allocation and 37 market rate allocations on-site. Unlike the
inclusionary requirement, the construction of the 15 units will not be the responsibility of the Applicant;
the Applicant proposes to only construct one (1) unit on-site. The remaining 15 units are to be constructed
by the parties receiving the affordable ROGO exemptions.
As mentioned, the Applicant is proposing to meet the inclusionary requirement by applying the Transfer
of ROGO Exemption (TRE) Section of the Code (9.5-120.4) by transferring the affordable ROGO
exemptions to the following; eight (8) to a project on Big Coppitt to be built by Habitat for Humanity,
two (2) to a project on Stock Island to be built by Donny Barton, and ftve (5) to be banked by Habitat for
Humanity for future projects.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: The Board approved Ordinance 014-2006 to amend the land
use district designation from Urban Residential Mobile Horne-Limited (URM-L) to Urban Residential
(UR) in 2006.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Denial.
TOTAL COST:
BUDGETED: Yes
No
COST TO COUNTY:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY:
County Arty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management _
DOCUMENTATION: Included X
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
--- - -- -- --- - -
C:\Documents and Settings\tezarlos-mayra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Flles\OLKBB\130CC PackageInc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
MONROE COUNTY
REQUEST FOR AN
ADJUSTMENT TO THE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
STANDARDS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KEY WEST
July 18, 2007
C:\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\LocaI Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKI3B\BOCC Package Inc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
ADJUSTMENT TO THE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
STANDARDS
A REQUEST BY THE ITNOR CORPORATION TO ADJUST THE
INCLUSIOANRY HOUSING STANDARDS FOR RE # 00124540.000000 OF
MALONEY SUBDIVISION, STOCK ISLAND.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff: Denial
July 2,2007
Staff Report
__ __~_~~ ~~~.m~___ ___ _ __~__~~~~ ____
- -- --~--~ ~-~--~-~~~-~-- -- - - -
C:\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK13B\BOCC Package Inc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
BOCC Resolution
to Adjust the
Inclusionary Housing
Standards
C:\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK13B\BOCC Package Inc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
RESOLUTION NO. -2007
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONONERS DENYING THE
REQUEST FOR AN ADJUSTMENT FROM THE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT FOR THE
ITNOR CORPORATION (JOHN AND GENEVIEVE
ISAKSEN) ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
WA~'S EDGE MOBILE HOME PARK LOCATED AT
LOTS 1-7 AND ADJACENT BAY BOTTOM AND LOTS 11-
21, SQUARE 32, MALONEY SUBDMON, STOCK.
ISLAND, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA HAVING REAL
ESTATE NUMBER 00124540.o00ooo
WHEREAS, pursuant to Monroe County Code Sec. 9.6-266, the removal and
replacement with other types of dwelling units of ten (10) or more mobile homes which
are located on a parcel or contiguous parcels and/or the conversion of mobile home
spaces located on a parcel or contiguous parcels into a use other than mobile homes shall
be required to include in the development or redevelopment a number of affordable
housing units equal to at least thirty (30) percent of the number of existing units being
removed and replaced or converted from mobile home use; and
WHEREAS, Water's Edge Mobile Home Park is currently developed with 66
units, sixty-one (61) units were found to be lawfully-established on the property, fifty-
three (53) of which were permanent dwelling units and eight (8) of which were transient
residential units; and
WHEREAS, Itnor Corporation is required to provide 16 affordable housing
units on site if the Waters Edge Mobile Home Park is redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ~ 9.5-266(b)(3) c of the Monroe County Code (MCC),
any developer or property owner who believes that he or she may be eligible for relief
from the strict application of the inclusionary housing section may petition the Board of
County Commissioners for relief Any petitioner for relief hereunder shall provide
evidentiary and legal justification for any reduction, adjustment or waiver of any
requirements under this section; and
WHEREA$, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, during a
regular meeting and public hearing held on July 18, 2007 conducted a review and
consideration of the request filed by the Craig Company on behalf of the Itnor
Corporation to adjust the inclusionary housing requirement for the redevelopment of the
Water's Edge Mobile Home Park; and
WHEREA~, the Applicant is proposing to adjust the requirement through the
transfer of 15 ROGO exemptions to receiver sites owned by other entities or individuals
while maintaining one (1) affordable housing unit on-site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to transfer 13 of the 15 ROGO exemptions to
Habitat for Huma.nlty to be utilized as follows: eight (8) for a Big Coppitt project and five
(5) to be banked for future projects; the remaining two (2) will be utilized on Stock Island
parcel( s) owned by Donny Barton; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners further reviewed the
application and lIUlfle the following Finding of Fact and Condusions of Law:
1. Pursuant tQ MCC ~ 9.5-266(b)(3)c, the Board of County Commissioners may
reduce, adjust, or waive the requirements of the inclusionary housing standards;
and
2. Based on MCC ~ 9.5-266, the applicant is required to supply 16 affordable units
on -site; and
3. Based on the Application for adjustment of the inclusionary housing requirement.
the Applicant is proposing to develop or redevelop 37 of the mobile homes as
market rate units and one (1) as affordable housing on-site; and
4. Based on the Application, the Applicant is proposing to adjust the inclusionary
housing requirement by transferring off 15 of the required 16 affordable housing
exemptions to Habitat for Humanity and Donny Barton to be built by them.
Habitat would utilize eight (8) for a project on Big Coppitt and five (5) would be
banked for' future projects. Donny Barton would utilize two (2) on a parcel(s)
located on Stock Island.
5. Based on Staff's review of the Application in accordance with MCC ~9.5-
266(b)(3)b. the Applicant's proposal has not met anyone of the following
conditions allowing for a reduction, adjustment or waiver:
1. Strict application of the requirements would produce a result
inconsistent with the plan or the purpose and intent of this
subsection;
2. Due to the nature of the proposed residential development, the
development furthers plan policies and the purpose and intent of
this subsection through means other than strict compliance with the
requirements set forth herein;
3. The developer or property owner demonstrates an absence of any
reasonable relationship between the impact of the proposed
residential development and requirements of this subsection(b);
4. The strict application with the requirements set forth herein would
improperly deprive or deny the developer or property owner of
constitutional or statutory rights.
7. Based on Staff's review of the Application, the Applicant's proposal does not
further Objective 601.3 of Goal 601 of the Plan to eliminate substandard housing
and to pre$,l!rve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONEllS OF MONROE COUNTY, FWRIDA:
Sectionl. The Board specifically adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law
stated above.
Section 2. The Application does not meet criteria 1,2,3 or 4 as outlined in MCC ~9.5-
266(b)(3)b.
Section 3. The Applicant is not entitled to an adjustment of the number of affordable
housing units to be built in connection with the redevelopment of the Waters Edge
Mobile Home Park .
PASSED r\ND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe
County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of July, AD., 2007.
Mayor Mario Di Gennaro
Mayor Pro Tern Dixie Spenhar
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner "Sonny"McCoy
Commissioner Sylvia J. Murphy
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Mayor Mario Di Gennaro
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROV AS T OR~
DEPUTY CLERK
BOCC STAFF REPORT
C:\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\LocaI Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK13B\BOCC Package Inc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
To:
From:
Through:
Date:
Meeting Date:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
Board of County Commissioners
Heather Beckmann, Principal Planner
Andrew Trivette, Growth Management Division Director
Susan Grimsley, Assistant County Attorney
Aref Joulani, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
June 29, 2007
July 18, 2007
Request for an adjustment from Inclusionary Housing Standards for
Water's Edge Mobile Home Park, 5700 Laurel Avenue, Stock Island, RE:
00124540.000000, approximate Mile Marker 5
II REQUEST:
Proposal: The Itnor Corporation are the first mobile home park owners to apply for an
adjustment to the inclusionary housing requirements. Water's Edge Mobile Home Park is
currently developed with 66 units, 61 of which have been found to be ROGO exempt.
Under the inclusionary housing requirement, the Applicant is required to supply 16
affordable housing units on-site. The Applicant is proposing to adjust the requirement
through the transfer of 15 ROGO exemptions to receiver sites while maintaining one (1)
affordable allocation and 37 market rate allocations on-site. Unlike the inclusionary
requirement, the construction of the 15 units will not be the responsibility of the
Applicant; the Applicant proposes to only construct one (1) unit on-site. The remaining
15 units are to be constructed by the parties receiving the affordable ROGO exemptions.
A. Location:
1.
2.
3.
4.
B. Applicant:
1.
2.
Island & Mile Marker: Stock Island, 5
Address: 5700 Laurel Avenue
Legal Description: Lots 1-7 and Adjacent Bay Bottom and Lots 11-21,
Square 32, Maloney Subdivision
RE Number (s): 00124540.000000
Owner: Itnor Corporation, John and Genevieve Isaksen
Agent: The Craig Company
C:\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKI3B\BOCC Package Inc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
III PROCESS:
Pursuant to S 9.5-266(b)(3) c. of the Monroe County Code (MCC), any developer or property
owner who believes that he or she may be eligible for relief from the strict application of the
inclusionary housing section may petition the Board of County Commissioners for relief under
this subsection (3) b. Any petitioner for relief hereunder shall provide evidentiary and legal
justification for any reduction, adjustment or waiver of any requirements under this section.
IV PRIOR COUNTY ACTIONS:
In a Letter of Understanding dated February 15, 2005 Staff found that 61 units were lawfully-
established on the property, 53 of which were permanent dwelling units and eight (8) of which
were transient residential units.
The Applicant applied for and received a land use district amendment from Urban Residential
Mobile Home-Limited (URM-L) to Urban Residential (DR) pursuant to Ordinance 014-2006.
Staff issued a second Letter of Understanding dated February 21, 2007 which provided a
description of the inclusionary housing requirement and how it would apply to the
redevelopment of the subject property.
V BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A. Size of Site: 138,085 fF (3.17 acres) of upland and 145,490 ft2 (3.34 acres) of submerged
land
B. Land Use District: Urban Residential (DR)
C. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: Residential High (RR)
D. Proposed Tier Designation: Tier III, or Infill Area
E. Existing Vegetation / Habitat: Disturbed
F. Community Character of Immediate Vicinity: The surrounding land uses vary from
Mixed Use (MU), Urban Residential Mobile (URM), and Urban Residential (UR).
Murray Marine Sales is to the North and a mobile home park is to the South. Mixed Use
development is situated to the West including an animal shelter and Fire Station to the
southwest.
VI EXISTING USE AND INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS:
Pursuant to 9.6-266 (b), the removal and replacement with other types of dwelling units of ten
(10) or more mobile homes which are located on a parcel or contiguous parcels and/or the
conversion of mobile home spaces located on a parcel or contiguous parcels into a use other than
mobile homes shall be required to include in the development or redevelopment a number of
affordable housing units equal to at least thirty (30) percent of the number of existing units being
removed and replaced or converted from mobile home use.
C:\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\LocaI Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK13B\BOCC Package Inc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
Occupation Licenses for the Water's Edge Mobile Home Park date back to 1973. As such, this
use has existed for at least 34 years. The Park has 61 lawfully established units; 52 of which are
mobile homes (permanent) and nine (9) of which are Recreational Vehicles (RV) (transient). The
52 permanent mobile homes are subject to the inclusionary housing requirement. According to
9.5-266(b)(2), if the site is redeveloped, the Applicant is required to supply 16 deed restricted
affordable housing units on-site.
Table 1: Inclusiona
Existing
Inclusionary Requirement
66
16**
*The nine (9) transient units are not subject to the inclusionary requirement.
**According to 9.5-266(b)(2) fractional requirements equal to or greater than .5 shall be rounded up to the nearest
whole number.
The Applicant is proposing the following redevelopment and adjustment to the inclusionary
housing requirement:
1. 38 units on-site
1. 37 of which are market rate; and
2. One (1) of which is to be affordable
11. 15 affordable units off-site
1. Two (2) to a Stock Island parcel(s)
2. 13 to Habitat for Humanity
a. Eight (8) for a Big Coppitt Project
b. Five (5) to be banked for future projects
VII ANAL YSIS & RATIONALE FOR EXCLUSION:
Pursuant to MCC S9.5-266(b)(3) 2, the Board of County Commissioners may reduce, adjust, or
waive the requirements set forth in this subsection (b) where, based on specific fmdings of fact,
the BOCC concludes, with respect to any developer or property owner, that one or more of the
following are true:
I. Strict application of the requirements would produce a result inconsistent with the
plan or the purpose and intent of this subsection;
Applicant: None.
Staff: The inclusionary housing ordinance was adopted as a response to an interim
development ordinance which deferred the acceptance of development
applications for the redevelopment and conversion of five (5) units or more of
multi-family rental housing and/or mobile home parks. The Board recognized that
mobile home parks in the County serve as a vital role in providing affordable
workforce housing for those persons who live and work in the County.
C:\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK13B\BOCC Package Inc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
The purpose of the inclusionary housing ordinance, consistent with Goal 601 of
the Comprehensive Plan, is to ensure that the need for affordable housing is not
exacerbated by new residential development and redevelopment of existing
affordable housing stock. The intent of this subsection is to protect the existing
affordable housing stock, to permit owners of mobile homes and mobile home
spaces to continue established mobile home uses consistent with current building
and safety standards and regulations and to ensure that, as residential
development, redevelopment and mobile home conversions occur, plan policies
regarding affordable housing are implemented.
Objective 601.3 of Goal 601 of the Comprehensive Plan directs the County to
implement efforts to eliminate substandard housing and to preserve, conserve and
enhance the existing housing stock The Applicant's proposal would remove a
reservoir of affordable housing (an over 60 unit mobile home park that has existed
for 34 years) and replace it with 35 market rate units and only one (1) affordable
unit on-site.
Stock Island and this site in particular have historically provided defacto
affordable housing for the County's workforce. The Applicant's proposal of
building only one (1) deed restricted affordable unit on-site and two (2) deed
restricted units off-site elsewhere on Stock Island would result in a net loss of 63
units of affordable housing for Stock Island (66 existing - one (1) deed restricted
affordable unit on-site and two (2) deed restricted units off-site elsewhere on
Stock Island = 63).
Therefore, Staff fmds this proposal to be inconsistent with Goal 601 and the
inclusionary housing ordinance. This practice of replacing mobile home parks
with market rate housing is what prompted the Board to direct Staff to adopt two
(2) interim development ordinances deferring the acceptance of development
applications for the redevelopment of mobile home parks.
2. Due to the nature of the proposed residential development, the development
furthers plan policies and the purpose and intent of this subsection through means
other than strict compliance with the requirements set forth herein;
Applicant: The existing development is in poor repair, and several units require
significant rehabilitation that is cost restrictive and therefore not a viable option.
Redevelopment of the site is the only economically viable alternative to continued
dilapidation of existing dwelling units. Conversely, an exemption allows
construction of units that will be a marked improvement to the community, while
providing an economic stimulus to the County. By placing affordable housing
allocations in the hands of the proposed transferees such as Habitat for Humanity
who stand ready to build much-needed affordable housing now, applicant's
proposal furthers plan policies and the purpose and intent of the subsection. It
does not exacerbate the shortage of affordable housing, but rather provides
C:\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK13B\BOCC Package Inc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
qffordable housing in partnership with an established affordable housing
provider. The redevelopment will replace housing units damaged by previous
storm events and will eliminate health and safety issues such as sewer leakage
and derelict vehicles.
Staff: The inclusionary ordinance requires the Applicant to supply 16 affordable
units on-site. The inclusionary ordinance also provides alternative compliance
options which include land donation and in-lieu fees. Land donation would
require one (1) IS or URM lot for each unit required as long as the donated
parcels will support the development of an appropriate number of affordable
units. In addition, the Applicant is to transfer to the County ownership of the
associated ROGO allocations. In-lieu fees would require the applicant to donate
the current maximum sales price for a one (1) bedroom affordable unit and to
transfer to the County ownership of the associated ROGO allocations.
The Applicant is proposing to transfer the affordable ROGO exemptions to the
following; eight (8) exemptions to a project on Big Coppitt to be built by Habitat
for Humanity, two (2) to a project on Stock Island to be built by Donny Barton,
and five (5) to be banked by Habitat for Humanity for future projects. Section 9.5-
120.4 of the Code allows for such a transfer and has identified this process as a
Transfer of a ROGO Exemption (TRE), an Ordinance that was adopted in 1999. If
the Applicant is approved for this adjustment as opposed to the inclusionary
requirement, then the main differences that would result are that 1) the units
would not be built by the Itnor Corporation and 2) the County would have a net
loss of 15 deed restricted affordable units (see below for a description) and 3)
Stock Island would have at least 13 less deed restricted affordable units.
The Counties net loss of 15 units stems from the fact that historically, there has
not been a shortage of affordable ROGO allocations each ROGO quarter. If
Habitat for Humanity and Donny Barton applied for the 15 affordable ROGO
allocations through the ROGO allocation system and received such allocations
and the Isaksen's either built the 16 units on-site or followed one (1) of the
alternative options, the County would receive a net gain of 31 deed restricted
affordable units as opposed to the 16 that would result from this proposed TRE's.
Finally, a second Interim Development Ordinance has been proposed by the
Board and recommended for approval by the Development Review Committee
and the Planning Commission on the acceptance of development applications for
the redevelopment of mobile home parks within unincorporated Monroe County.
The County recognizes the need to develop policies and regulations to preserve
the existing stock of affordable housing and increase the availability of affordable
housing. Again, the Applicant's proposal does not comply with the inclusionary
housing requirement, which was prompted by mobile home park redevelopments;
rather it meets the TRE process of the Code.
C:\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK13B\BOCC Package Inc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
3. The developer or property owner demonstrates an absence of any reasonable
relationship between the impact of the proposed residential development and
requirements of this subsection (b);
Applicant: None.
Staff: None.
4. The strict application with the requirements set forth herein would improperly
deprive or deny the developer or property owner of constitutional or statutory
rights.
Applicant: Florida law provides that applicants have the right to rely on
government actions upon which the owner has justifiably relied. Florida has also
enacted legislation (the Harris Act) designed to relieve property owners from
unduly burdensome regulations. Here, transfer of affordable housing allocations
from the Applicant's property for development by others of affordable housing, as
memorialized in the LOU, has been an essential component of applicant's
redevelopment plan from its inception. The BOCC will remember that applicant
embarked on this arduous journey years ago, applying for and obtaining a
rezoning of the property specifically tailored to the proposed redevelopment. The
redevelopment plan has cost applicant (a family-owned company of limited
means) substantial sums in removal of nonconforming structures and replacement
of the sewage collection system. The County would be equitably estopped to now
require the applicant to incur prohibitive costs, additional to those identified in
the LOU, as a condition of redeveloping applicant's property.
Staff: The Applicant states that the transfer of affordable housing allocations from
the Applicant's property for development by others of affordable housing has
been an essential component of Applicant's redevelopment plan from its
inception. Staff disagrees. The following chronology outlines the progressive
reduction in the amount of units the Applicant has proposed to build on-site in
order to accommodate larger market rate units on-site.
Staff held a pre-application conference with the Applicant's on November 18,
2004. The Applicant supplied Staff with a proposed site plan for their site by
Thomas E. Pope, P.A., Architect dated 11/12/04. The Applicant proposed
demolishing the 66 units and replacing them with 32 HUD approved modular
homes, 22 water view homes and eight (8) waterfront homes for a total of 62 units
on-site.
Staff informed the Applicant that modular homes and attached dwelling units
were prohibited in the URM-L land use district. As such, the Applicant proposed
a map amendment to UR to allow attached residential structures.
C:\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKI3B\BOCC Package Inc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
Staff held a second pre-application conference on January 13, 2005 in which the
Applicant discussed the possibility of reconfiguring and changing the unit types
from modular to single family and reducing the density from 62 to 44 and
transferring the remaining 17 off-site as affordable.
Staff held a third pre-application meeting on October 26, 2006 in which the
Applicant supplied Staff with a proposed site plan for their site by Thomas E.
Pope, P.A., Architect dated 10/04/06. The Applicant proposed demolishing the 66
units and replacing them with 38 dwelling units, 37 of which would be market-
rate and one (1) of which would be affordable.
VIII FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. Pursuant to MCC S 9.5-266(b)(3)c, the Board of County Commissioners may reduce,
adjust, or waive the requirements of the inclusionary housing standards; and
2. Based on MCC S 9.5-266, the applicant is required to supply 16 affordable units on -site;
and
3. Based on the Application for adjustment of the inclusionary housing requirement, the
Applicant is proposing to develop or redevelop 37 of the mobile homes as market rate
units and one (1) as affordable housing on-site; and
4. Based on the Application, the Applicant is proposing to adjust the inclusionary housing
requirement by transferring off 15 of the required 16 affordable housing exemptions to
Habitat for Hwnanity and Donny Barton to be built by them. Habitat would utilize eight
(8) for a project on Big Coppitt and five (5) would be banked for future projects. Donny
Barton would utilize two (2) on a parcel(s) located on Stock Island.
5. Based on Staffs review of the Application in accordance with MCC S9.5-266(b)(3)b. the
Applicant's proposal has not met anyone of the following conditions allowing for a
reduction, adjustment or waiver:
1. Strict application of the requirements would produce a result inconsistent
with the plan or the purpose and intent of this subsection;
2. Due to the nature of the proposed residential development, the
development furthers plan policies and the purpose and intent of this
subsection through means other than strict compliance with the
requirements set forth herein;
3. The developer or property owner demonstrates an absence of any
reasonable relationship between the impact of the proposed residential
development and requirements of this subsection(b);
4. The strict application with the requirements set forth herein would
improperly deprive or deny the developer or property owner of
constitutional or statutory rights.
C:\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK13B\BOCC Package Inc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
7. Based on Staffs review of the Application, the Applicant's proposal does not further
Objective 601.3 of Goal 601 of the Plan to eliminate substandard housing and to
preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock.
IX CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Staff has found that the proposal does not meets criteria I, 2, 3 & 4 as outlined in
MCC S9.5-266(b)(3)b 2.
2. Based on the Findings of Fact, the Board of County Commissioners has determined
that the Applicant shall meet the inclusionary housing requirement by either building
16 deed restricted/affordable housing units on-site or applying the alternative means
of compliance which are land donation and/or in-lieu fees.
IV RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends DENIAL of the proposed adjustment to the inclusionary housing requirement.
C:\Documents and Settings\tezanos-mayra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK13B\BOCC Package Inc Housing
Exemption (FINAL) (2).doc
..."-"~--;;'-'
'Ii/~.- · ~,. ,
{~'t , y:\
, I "
\ '~~ ~ .
., -
-"
.-......::;:..... -.
Division of Housing and Community Development
Memorandum
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lisa Tennyson, Affordable Housing Coordinator
THROUGH: James "Reggie" Paros, Director, Housing and Community Development
DATE: July 5,2007
SUBJECT: Request for adjustment of Inclusionary Housing requirements in the redevelopment of
Water's Edge Mobile Home Park, 5700 Laurel Avenue, Stock Island, RE: 00124540,000000
I. Background
Water's Edge Mobile Home Park on Stock Island is the site of 66 affordable or low-income mobile
homes and trailers for the past 34 years, The developer/owner of Water's Edge Mobile Home Park
proposes to redevelop this park and is therefore subject to the county's inclusionary housing law, He
was granted 52 ROGO-exempt development rights, 30% of which must be affordable, He therefore
has the obligation and responsibility to build 16 units of affordable or workforce housing on-site as
part of his redevelopment.
The owners, The Itnor Corporation and John and Genevieve Isakson, are seeking an adjustment or
exemption from the regulation's requirements, and propose to re-develop this park with the
construction of 37 market-rate homes and only I affordable home, The owners' redevelopment
proposal will result in a net loss to the community of 65 affordable/workforce housing units and further
exacerbate the county's shortage of affordable workforce housing, The county's inclusionary housing
regulation (Section 9.266b) was designed specifically to mitigate the loss of affordable workforce
housing units in mobile home park redevelopment.
If the exemption is granted, the re-development of this mobile home park will yield just 1 affordable
home. Compliance with the requirement will result in 16 new affordable homes, mitigating at least in
part, the net loss of 65 mobile homes and trailers.
II. Summary
Monroe County's inclusionary housing ordinance was passed in 2006 in order to help the County
meets its legal responsibilities under the housing element of its Comprehensive Plan, which requires
that the county ensure adequate affordable housing for its current and future populations. It requires
that developers of market rate units include some percentage of affordable, lower-cost units (in our
case 30%) within their development. In this way, we may ensure that the private sector does not
use all the devel6pable residential land formiddte'andupper incomehoo.sing only.
The developer/owner of Water's Edge Mobile Home Park proposes to redevelop this park and is
therefore subject to the county's inclusionary housing law. He was granted 52 ROGO-exempt
development rights, 30% of which must be affordable. He therefore has the obligation and
responsibility to build 16 units of affordable or workforce housing on-site as part of his redevelopment.
The developer, however, has submitted a request for adjustment to the inclusionary law and is
asking the county to exempt him from this obligation. The owner/developer is requesting instead that
he be permitted to comply with the regulation by building one unit and transferring the remaining 15
affordable ROGOs to third parties such as Habitat For Humanity, thereby making the siting, fmancing
and construction of the 15 affordable homes the obligation and responsibility of those parties.
The proposal for re-development of Water's Edge Mobile Home Park is the fust application of, and
the first challenge to, the county's inclusionary housing regulation. Developer opposition is
unsurprising. In his written request, the developer makes several arguments and claims that we would
like to address directly:
· The owner/developer claims that being exempted from his fmancial responsibility to build 15
units and passing that responsibility onto other parties "will facilitate and expedite the creation of
affordable housing." We would argue that requesting the developer to comply with the law by
actually building the required number of affordable homes on his site concurrently with his
market rate development is the most expeditious way to create affordable housing.
· The owner/developer claims that Habitat for Humanity and others "stand ready" to build new
affordable housing units upon receiving his transfer of ROGOs. Again, we would argue that these
parties have not, at least in the case of Habitat, identified and purchased suitable land nor secured
construction financing for these 15 units, so they do not "stand ready." The projects Habitat is
currently working on are not and should not be used as a substitute for the Isaksons'
responsibility. Additionally, the affordable ROGO allocations Habitat and the others may need are
already available through the county. While we would support and encourage a private-public
partnership such as one between this applicant and Habitat, it is unclear to us that the proposal to
simply transfer ROGOs to Habitat, absent land or financing, establishes such a partnership.
· The owner/developer claims that the inclusionary regulation deprives or denies him his
constitutional or statutory rights. The law does not preclude him from re-developing his property,
it only requires that he include affordable homes as part of the re-development. He has been
granted development rights for 52 homes. In fact, it is precisely the high number of low-income
trailers and mobile homes and the fact that density requirements do not apply to mobile homes
that he been granted this many development rights on this parcel. Without the existence of 66
low-income units and the development rights associated with them, the parcel's current zoning
would only permit him to build 19 homes. Further, even when required to comply with the law
and build 16 affordable units on site, the developer still retains the right to build 37 market rate
homes. The developer's claims of fmancial inability to comply with the regulations and that the
regulation deprives him of a "property owner's legally-cognizable (sic) rights" are therefore
unclear to us.
· The applicant indicates that the former Division Director of Growth Management, Mr. Ty
Symroski, agreed to a proposal in which the owner/developer would give the affordable ROGOs
to the county, and be released from the requirements to build, and that this is stipulated in his
Letter of Understanding dated 2/17/07 quoting the following statement from that L91.1:~"!f!~~his
~~case;thcr~county woutd15eafThecosrjjf~c6iistriiclion~cind7!ie7cin({'i- ~Th.ls Tsnot~correct. The
LOU clearly indicates that the Isaksons' redevelopment application is subject to the inclusionary
law and that Mr. Symroski spoke only of the "possibility" of such an agreement and that such an
agreement would require the approval by the BOCC. Here is the relevant section of the LOU in
whole:
The former Director spoke of the possibility of the county receiving the
required affordable ROGO exemptions in order for the property owner to
satisfY the requirements of the inclusionary housing ordinance. In this
case, the county would bear the cost of construction and the land Such a
proposal must be approved by the BOCC. (Feb. 21, 2007 Letter of
Understanding, p. 5, section 9)
In supporting the denial of the request from the developer for adjustment and compliance with the
inclusionary housing law, HCD staffwould make the following arguments:
· The State of Florida and the County of Monroe have recognized that mobile home parks serve a
vital role in providing affordable workforce housing, and that the gentrification pressures on them
are further exacerbating affordable housing shortages throughout the state and in Monroe County.
Further, the County has a legal obligation to plan for the housing needs of families in all economic
strata (an increasingly difficult obligation as the amount of developable land for residential
development disappears.) Monroe County's inclusionary housing law is a means to address this.
· Inclusionary housing is a straightforward mechanism for assuring that growth, gentrification and
re-development includes affordable dwelling units. It is applied in a broad swath of communities
and supported by state laws throughout the country, including the State of Florida, as a way for
local governments to increase and protect affordable housing supplies. Florida's Growth
Management law encourages local jurisdictions to adopt "innovative land development regulations
which include provisions such as transfer of development rights, incentive and inclusionary
zoning, planned-unit development, impact fees and performance zoning" [FS 163.3202 (3)]. By
calling out inclusionary zoning, Florida law, in fact, specifically encourages it as a tool for meeting
the obligation of the county to comprehensively plan for the housing of all income groups.
· The County's inclusionary housing regulations provide incentives such as density bonuses,
expedited permitting, and fee waivers that mitigate the costs the developer faces in meeting the
requirements to build affordable homes. Further we can work with the developer to identify other
concessions that are amenable to both the county and the developer, and ways to structure
incentives to maximize their effect.
· The County's inclusionary regulations also offer flexibility to the developer. The code provides
developers who are not willing or able to construct affordable units themselves with alternative
methods of compliance, namely by land donation or in-lieu fees. (But even these alternatives
should be permitted sparingly and used only to buy land for affordable housing.) The developer
may build rental or homes for purchase and may build to a range of income levels. Inclusionary
units may be linked to projects off-site.
III. Recommended Action
Granting the requested adjustment does not further Goal 601 of our Comprehensive Plan, and does
not comport with the goal, rationale and intention of the inclusionary housing law -- to preserve or
increase the supply of affordable housing, the goal and rationale of the regulation. HCD staff supports
the denial of the request of the applicant, Itnor Corporation and John and G~l1~\lieyelsa.lison, f(}f_an
--- adjustmentoc-the-requirements-uf MonroeCOili1lY~sTiicTi.isionaryhousing regulations.