HomeMy WebLinkAboutJ. Growth ManagementBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September
15,
2010
Division: _ Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes _
No
X
Department:
Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Christine Hurley
Phone: 289-2517
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and authorization for Mayor Murphy to sign a letter to the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA)regarding previously awarded ROGO allocations for tierless
properties and other tierless properties for which allocations are being held in abeyance in response to
the July 15, 2010 DCA letter from Charles Gauthier.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Please refer to attached memo.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Discussed before BOCC during Division Report on
November and December 2009 meetings.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST: n/a INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO COUNTY:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No x AMOUNT PER MONTH
APPROVED BY: County Atty x OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included x Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 7/09
Year
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Christine Hurley, AICP
Growth Management Division Director
Date: August 31, 2010
RE: Response to DCA letter of July 15, 2010
Monroe County received a letter from the Department of Community Affairs dated July 15, 2010
(attached), that requested the County refrain from issuing building permits for the 100 properties
rendered tierless by the administrative law judge ruling in 2007. In November, 2009 and in
December 2009, the BOCC heard reports from Growth Management staff related to this issue.
Further in December, 2009, the BOCC received a memorandum dated December 11, 2009
(attached) that identified the 100 parcels that received either an allocation or building permit
prior to the discovery of the fact that the parcels were tierless. The attached table demonstrates
the status of those 100 parcels as of December, 2009.
As discussed with the BOCC, staff explained the status of the 100 permits and the last 16 permits
that were issued allocations by the Planning Commission, through a public hearing process, and
that we would be notifying the 16 property owners we would honor their building permits and
issue those. Staff met with DCA staff and the plaintiff's attorney, Richard Grosso, Esq. over
several months who were made fully aware of the status of the 100 awarded tierless allocations
and building permits, as well as the 90 parcels rendered tierless still competing in ROGO for an
allocation. We communicated with DCA and the plaintiffs attorney and let them know Monroe
County would honor the awarded allocations and issue building permits for the 100 (43 had
already been issued) tierless sites; however the County would not issue the 90 pending ROGO
allocations for the 90 tierless sites, as they had not yet received an allocation. Since that time
(Dec. 2009), the Planning Commission has held 22 of the 90 tierless allocations in abeyance
(meaning the ROGO allocations are held) until the BOCC readopts tier designations for these
parcels. As you know the Tier Designation Review Committee (TDRC) has been reviewing the
parcels and will make a recommendation to the DRC, PC, and then the BOCC for tier
designation.
After several months of communicating these facts with DCA and the plaintiff's attorney, being
forthright and honest about the status of these allocations and permits, DCA challenged 2
building permits issued by the Growth Management Division (GMD). Those 2 were from the last
group of 16 who received allocations in the quarter immediately prior to GMD knowledge of
their tierless status. Also, DCA most recently challenged 1 building permit from the grouping of
100 tierless parcels which had been awarded an allocation prior to the group of 16.
The DCA letter requested the BOCC consider NOT issuing building permits for tierless
properties already awarded allocations. In addition, the DCA letter requests the County
reconsider the decision to issue allocations to individuals with an invalidated tier. Unfortunately,
there is a bit of a misunderstanding. Please refer to the attached December 11, 2009
memorandum. The second page demonstrates the 100 issued allocations by the Planning
Commission prior to discovery of the invalidated tier. To clarify, the Board of County
Commissioners does not issue allocations. This is done by the Monroe County Planning
Commission. Property owners wait for several years for an allocation. They have relied upon
their rankings and allocations that were issued AFTER public hearings by the Planning
Commission. The third column of the December 11, 2009 memorandum that was discussed with
the Board of County Commissioners and with DCA and with the plaintiff s attorney indicates the
actions staff was recommending related to this situation. The staff recommendation was a
reflection of a thorough evaluation of historical actions, awards of allocations through a public
hearing process and a fairness issue for property owners that may have been in the ROGO
system for several years, waiting for an allocation for a single-family house.
The County has no methodology set forth in the land development code to rescind allocations.
To do as the DCA suggests in its letter dated July 15, 2010, Monroe County would have to
develop such a process to rescind the allocations and then reallocate the awards. This may
necessitate a land development code amendment.
Regarding building permits, as you can see, some of the properties that received allocations were
issued building permits and houses constructed. From a fairness perspective, the staff went
ahead with allocations for all 100 (including the 16 — which included the two DCA recently
challenged [Native Properties LLC, Reynolds, and the one challenged permit from the other 84
properties - Mannix]) and correspondingly issued permits.
Staff understands DCA can challenge these building permits when rendered and has tried to
make sure the property owners understand this as well by sending letters to them concerning the
situation. Given the status of these 100 allocations, and the fact that some of the property owners
have already built homes, staff does not recommend rescinding the allocations or building
permits.
Alternatively, the GMD would propose that DCA not challenge the building permits that are
rendered in the future for these 100 allocations, given the historic account of actions already
taken by the local government (Monroe County) through public hearings, the affirmative
allocations issued by the Planning Commission, the failure of DCA to challenge 14 of the 17
permits rendered to the agency, and the fact that these property owners may have relied on the
designations in their decisions concerning these properties.
Finally, we remain focused on working with the Department to move forward the analysis of the
Tier Designation Review Committee to the Development Review Committee, Planning
Commission, and finally the Board of County Commissioners for final adoption of Tier
Designations for the tierless parcels. The undertaking is substantial and the amount of work this
has added to our staff is immense. We appreciate DCA's participation in this process and its
guidance. We have held all 90 allocations for those tierless parcels that were within ROGO but
had not received an allocation. At the earliest, the first set of Tier Map Amendments will be
processed by the Board of County Commissioners in January, 2011. This assumes the TDRC
finishes its recommendations in September, 2010.
We have attached a letter as a response to DCA and request the BOCC authorize the Mayor to
sign on its behalf.
i
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI
`Dedicated to making Florida a better place 1. VE
CHARLIE CRIST
Govemor
The Honorable Sylvia Murphy
Mayor, Monroe County
102050 Overseas Highway, Suite 234
Key Largo, Florida 33037
Dear Mayor Murphy:
THOMAS G_ PELHAM
Se""
JUL 2 6 2010
July 15, 2010
OftMMAMOMM"
Secretary Pelham has requested that I write the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners regarding the issuance of building permits to parcels that have had their tier
designation invalidated. Since the initial adoption of the tier system, the Department has
coordinated closely with County staff to defend the challenge in the Administrative Hearing,
and to appoint a Tier Review Committee and participate in the tier review meetings.
Following the administrative challenge in 2006, it was necessary for the County to
develop a list of real estate identification numbers for more than 3,000 parcels whose tier
designations were invalidated pursuant to the legal challenge to the County's land development
regulations and accompanying tier maps. During this period, the County inadvertently awarded
allocations to approximately 100 applicants whose tier designation had been invalidated. Since
the points awarded for obtaining an allocation are based upon the relevant tier designation, the
point basis for allocation awards cannot be substantiated for the parcels that were challenged.
The Department has recently filed appeals with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory
Commission of the issuance of permits for the Native Properties LLC, Reynolds, and Mannix
properties because the parcels' tier designations had been invalidated. The Mannix parcel was
incorrectly awarded an allocation in June 2009 due to the invalidation of the County's proposed
tier designation. Although Section 138-25 of the Monroe County Land Development
Regulations requires that permits be issued within 60 days of the allocation award, the County
sent Mr. Mannix a letter in November 2009, putting him on notice that his tier designation was
invalid and no permit could be issued. The letter stated that the permit would be held in abeyance
until the issue was clarified with the Department of Community Affairs.
On February 12, 2010, the County sent a second letter to Mr. Mannix indicating that no
agreement could be reached with the Department and based upon the June 2009, allocation
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD ♦ TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2100
850-488-8466 (p) ♦ 850-921-0781 (/) ♦ Website: www dcs state 11 us
• 00=UW" PL#j#nW3 ss0-4W2M (p) 660-4W3= M • RLO MA COMMtpglIES TRIM $GUM -2207 (a) 830R121.t 7N 14
• MOkOSM AND C0WVUWTY DEVEIApv9ff e$0-Q&7 66 (pl 660_92 _"n M •
The Honorable Sylvia Murphy
July 1 S, 2010
Page 2
award the applicant should pick up his building permit. The letter additionally advised Mr.
Mannix that the Department of Community Affairs might appeal the permit.
It is my understanding that after reviewing possible legal options, the County staff made
a decision to issue the permits notwithstanding their initial error in failing to identify the property
as having no current tier designation. This letter respectively requests that the County
Commission reconsider the decision to issue allocations to individuals with an invalidated tier.
The allocations could be set aside and held in abeyance for the applicant until the County
completes the tier review process and rezones the tier designation within the next few months.
The issuance of permits for tierless properties which are subsequently rendered to the
Department results in legal staff preparing and filing appeals with the Florida Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission and is not a productive use of limited staff resources.
I am requesting that the County withhold the issuance of permits for tierless parcels and
instead focus on working with the Department to move the analysis of the Tier Review
Committee forward as rapidly as possible to resolve these issues.
Sincerely yours,
Charles Gauthier, Director, AICP
Division of Community Planning
CG/pt
cc: Monroe County BOCC
Roman Gastaci
Christine Hurley
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Mayor Murphy and Commissioners
Roman Gastesi, County Administrator
From: Christine Hurley, AICP
Director of Growth Management Division
Date: December 11, 2009
RE: Status of Tier System — Designation of "Tier -Less" Parcels
As you know, in 2005-2006, Monroe County designated parcels into Tiers to assist with allocating permits to
appropriate areas from an environmental and planning perspective. Generally, the Tier designations are:
• Tier I — Environmentally sensitive land
• Tier II — Transition or Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine or No Name Key
• Tier III — Infill Area (not nearly as environmentally sensitive (50% or more developed lots), platted subdivisions,
with adequate infrastructure)
• Tier IIIA — Special Protection Areas — (no IIIA's on Big Pine or No Name Key) intent is for the areas that do not
fit into Tier 1 or Tier III to be placed in IIIA (e.g. the environmentally sensitive areas were split by roads, were
invaded with exotic plants or trees, or included some types of vesting
After adoption of the Tier Maps and ordinances, a legal challenge was filed to the ordinance which resulted in an order
from an administrative law judge (ALJ) that recommended striking certain portions of the tier criteria ordinance which
was used to classify parcels in the Tier System. DCA Secretary Pelham adopted the ALJ's recommended order in his
Amended Final Order. This ruling invalidated approximately 3100 +/- parcels' tier designations. As of December,
2009 the following table represents the total number of vacant parcels within Monroe County that are in the Tier
System:
Number of Vacant Parcels
Tier Designations
2136
Tier 1
441
Tier II
3411
Tier III
270
Tier III A
3124
Invalidated Parcels - Undesi nated by Final Order
9382
Grand Total Number of Vacant Parcels in Tier System
With the complex permitting system in the County, this de -designation of these parcels, along with several other
groupings of parcels where property owners petitioned Monroe County for amendments to their Tier Designation have
caused large groupings of parcels/land to be "Tier -less", with no ability to score them in ROGO or NROGO.
Monroe County's Work Program, if amended as suggested in proposed Rule 28-20.140(3)(b), requires that these Tier -
less parcels be re-evaluated and processed into Tier categories, based upon recommendations made by a Tier
Designation Review Committee (TDRC). The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately be asked to adopt
amendments to the Tier Maps.
The Growth Management Division is preparing for the first TDRC meeting which is expected to occur in January, 2010.
There are several categories of parcels that should be evaluated or should maintain their current tier. I wanted to
summarize these for you in the most general sense, so if you are contacted by constituents you will know the current
status and the procedure for amending these parcels.
As always, our staff remains available to assist property owners in this complicated evaluation.
C 0 M Z' L
p
y
O
C 7 C w0
CLI�6
t/�
8 7 A �` N
p C
0
m E
O O
m maID c 4)
LL
C
c
� C 0 d p p
Ey
m
C
o.
EN O Lo '°°
E m
m`n m
H
v
rn
rn
CD
r a° O
m E
v�
m
c
o
o�
o
U c a1 8 c 3 � c
o
E
�
?m
�
�M w0 0) �m
mN m
�
W
LL
O
O o
O
tL
s U m
O
co CD
w
�
U
0):s
c
° !0
o
CAR
O c H
cvj
'c %j
c
O
y
m M
y
c
7
'a
2)3
c
a
cc
U
W
T
E -A
c
U
C G1
° °a�
� M
H
�°T
E Z
4) CL
O
E
m L
c
m
c
00
Jo-yy
0.
c
yy
C
�/!
0 7 p 2
W
CD
a c
N f�O m
O) m
7
m
�•+
4) o O
Ccc
V
w MC
0
C C
0
E E
C
�~
'p C
� p
E
p c
N
r a�
m� E
y
m
E O 9
y
c
y
C
7 C
�°m
C
f�0
m
m
c cam,
-2,y�
>
m
�-
m�
m QOm
E -mo
�a
d�p�
c
c
>
0
c E yv M,
d
a
0.=
co
0
fE
�E
m
a o:; 0)
Q
W L H
W
>�
C
Y°�
C°
ID
E f0
.° m
�.
+•
pp
coy cZ
E m0 a p
a
m
�+
a
y
�"
= O N Q
E
E
111
y
O)
L
L
v
m
`
E
y
2 c0�
m m
U
Q
0
a
0
o
.,
�e�
c�
m2
N 0.
p,F�
r� v�
y8
c
c
a
8
2
Y Q
Cr- U�
C
m
g
C
m
o
E
c
` ^p
me
CL Cc
.ri. C
�02
c�a
mom
a0 E
�i
u�
m
w
m
m
C
20 y and m
tL� Qom=
m
m
m
m
m
Gj
4m m
C
myr-
ui v, °
m.ac
O
-` C C€
L co ° O m
�L
7
0
y7y
fq
N7N
N
�+
m E
8
N m
L "C
E "SIX M
m M a
d w m
L •C E
2
U)
U
dO.
y
d
H U
d a.
H8m
d
v
F
a
°
Mfps
o
�pi t
m
IL
m
9a
m
c°
c
d
m
c
v
m
>
'a
'a co o
c
m
)
p
m
m
m
m
m
E
c
°
n
>
M
M
ik. y>
y
N
m
m
c
Y
U
E L
m
m
Q
m
a
-
m
y
w
'a
C
m
m
3
m m
m y
F
�U
a
a
a
c
a
°
S0
7
c
a
a.
a
yam::
0c0 `°
O
g
0
an d
a
LL
EA
E
M�
�p
oo
•v
ac
p
�
p
08°CD
E
E
E
O
f 2
0 y
-
f0
C¢Np.G
2 RMy
o M
((Q77
C
a€i
a�
c m
co ^°
�±
p
�i°
m
m
C
m
co
L.'o y m
C
m�
CD
co
y
m C
y
m C
c
H
�)
N
C
Rio
c
E
�i�i
m
L
rn
�
Z
2
�m�mm
=0
°_)
'gym
c
y�
m
�c
�a
y
y�
,o .0
ayi
�4
dam'
�
�
�
�
mcv)
O
a
d
yd
mQ
a
c� �'
c
>
`y
ai
m mS
00
>.
;a
W
�0
3W£
��
m
y
m
p'�E�v
��co
pQ
G8
�oo
3y'ye
LtE
m
o p
m
O �
O
tL
ova
0
O �
�po
m
° 3
m
3
;
O
c'') ,c
r
o c
O
►�
r C
Cl)IS
m 0
M
;A '.__
.°.
m�
`
mm
O Q
N
CO C
O
N
f/1
Q p�
Q>
O'
!'
m .w
M
m 12 C
6gp.:
=
Z0.
o
c
3
a C
ov
p
oLm
.Lm-. C
c
c
m
o�
m0
'F+
,6 8
m
£
I
Q
�p'rna
m 16
F•o��
m
cm
m C
I-
2
c�'a
�c��c�m
O
C
° c
m
a
y-1 N.
aE
CD
m,y
C
m
w
w
O m
O.
m
L
° �p
m
-0
O
C
{0 .y m co
c. c
O
l0
(D
m
O mM
L
�za
m�
CO L
M
y
c+� m
rn
E C
p
N.
Z
a® O
B�
m
r-
C-0
U
yy
N. {.
�Q'� -
C fn N:
S �C
U
tD !0
o 0 c
0 0
H p
c�-
W
E
Za
m
CD
�pp
sstU
co
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5
Mayor Pro Tem Heather Carruthers, District 3
Kim Wigington, District 1
George Neugent, District 2
Mario Di Gennaro, District 4
Mayor Sal,%-ia J Murphy
Nelson Govt. & Cultural Ctr., Ste. 234
102050 Overseas Highway
Key Largo, FL 33037
Phone 305-453-8787
Cell 305-797-0088
Email: boccdis5 amonroecounty-fl.2o1-
September 15, 2010
Charles Gauthier, Director, AICP
Division of Community Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
RE: DCA Letter of July 15, 2010 to The Honorable Sylvia Murphy from Charles Gauthier
Dear Mr. Gauthier:
Thank you for your letter of July 15, 2010. County staff prepared a memorandum dated August 31, 2010,
which we discussed as a Board on September 15, 2010. Please review that memorandum. In addition,
please also review a previous memorandum dated December 11, 2009 attached.
Your letter of July 15 requests the Board of County Commissioners reconsider issuance of ROGO
allocations previously issued for tierless properties. It further requests the County not issue building
permits to tierless properties. At this time, we as a Board do not recommend doing this, for the reasons
stated in the staff memorandum dated December 11, 2010, staff memorandum dated August 31, 2010, and
in this letter dated September 15, 2010.
The properties in question mentioned in your letter are approximately 100. However, we also wanted to
make sure you understand how we are handling an additional 90 properties in the ROGO allocation
system, as they are similar.
It is true the County Planning Commission has awarded approximately 100 ROGO allocations to tierless
properties since 2007, when the properties were rendered tierless. This fact was not discovered until the
staff developed GIS mapping and overlaid the 2007 tierless areas toward the end of 2009.
In addition, it was discovered toward the end of 2009 that approximately 90 parcels competing in ROGO
were already scored and ranked based on their previous tier designation, now rendered tierless.
The staff discussed these issues with the Board in November, 2009 and December, 2009 during the
Growth Management Division (GMD) Staff Report. In December, 2009, the Board received the
December 11, 2009 memorandum relative to your request.
As discussed with the BOCC at that time, the county Planning Commission had awarded 100 ROGO
allocations to tierless properties, and building permits were issued to 43 of the 100. The County had also
notified 41 ROGO awardees that they were eligible for building permits (these building permits were held
because of other issues — FEMA injunction, etc.). In December, 2009, a decision had to be made whether
to allow the last 16 awarded allocations, of the 100 that had received awards of allocations, to receive a
building permit. You can see the staff recommendation was to issue the building permits to these 16, and
the staff did notify the 16 property owners that they could obtain building permits.
Staff met with DCA staff and the plaintiff's attorney, Richard Grosso, Esq. several times over several
months (between December, 2009 and February, 2010) and everyone was made aware of the status of the
100 awarded tierless allocations and building permits, as well as the 90 parcels competing in ROGO for
an allocation that were rendered tierless.
Monroe County staff made DCA staff and the plaintiff's attorney aware of these issues and let them know
Monroe County would honor the awarded allocations and issue building permits for the 100 (43 had
already been issued) tierless sites; however the County would not issue the 90 pending ROGO allocations
for the 90 tierless sites, as they had not yet received an allocation.
Since that time (Dec. 2009), the Planning Commission has held 22 of the 90 tierless allocations in
abeyance (meaning the ROGO allocations are held) until the BOCC readopts tier designations for these
parcels. As you know the Tier Designation Review Committee (TDRC) has been reviewing the parcels
and will make a recommendation to the DRC, PC, and then the BOCC for tier designation.
The Board of County Commissioners also adopted an ordinance to allow Monroe County to "carry over"
the "held" allocations that are being held because of this tierless situation and not have those allocations
be moved to the affordable housing pool, as our ordinance currently requires. The ordinance was
rendered to DCA and is currently under review. Monroe County has tried to create a fair situation, given
the tierless situation and the time requirements to re -designate the parcels. The County is still 6 months,
at a minimum, from any final decision on the tier designations of the tierless parcels.
After several months of communicating these facts with DCA and the plaintiff's attorney, being forthright
and honest about the status of these allocations and permits, it is our understanding that DCA challenged 2
building permits issued by the Growth Management Division. Those 2 were from the last group of 16 who
received allocations in the quarter immediately prior to GMD knowledge of their tierless status. DCA
most recently also challenged 1 building permit issued by the GMD from the grouping of 100 tierless
parcels (the other 84).
The County is now in receipt of a letter from DCA dated July 15, 2010, (attached and previously
referenced) requesting the BOCC consider NOT issuing allocations or building permits for tierless
properties already awarded allocations. In addition the DCA letter requests the County reconsider the
decision to issue allocations to individuals with an invalidated tier.
Unfortunately, there is a bit of a misunderstanding.
Please refer to the attached December 11, 2009 memorandum. The second page demonstrates the 100
issued allocations by the Planning Commission prior to discovery of the invalidated tier. To clarify, the
Board of County Commissioners does not issue allocations. This is done by the Monroe County Planning
Commission, based on the Land Development Code. Property owners wait for several years for an
2
allocation. They have relied upon their rankings and allocations that were issued AFTER public hearings
by the Planning Commission. The third column of the December 11, 2009 memorandum that was
discussed with the Board of County Commissioners and with DCA and with the plaintiff's attorney
indicates the actions staff was recommending related to this situation. The staff recommendation was a
reflection of a thorough evaluation of historical actions, awards of allocations through a public hearing
process and a fairness issue for property owners that may have been in the ROGO system for several
years, waiting for an allocation for a single-family house.
The County has no methodology set forth in the land development code to rescind allocations. To do as
the DCA suggests in its letter dated July 15, 2010, Monroe County would have to develop such a process
to rescind the allocations and then reallocate the awards. This may necessitate a land development code
amendment.
From a fairness perspective, the staff went ahead with allocations for all 100 and correspondingly issued
permits.
Staff understands DCA can challenge these building permits when rendered and has tried to make sure the
property owners understand this as well by sending letters to them concerning the situation. Given the
status of these 100 allocations, and the fact that some of the property owners (at least 43) have already
built homes, staff does not recommend rescinding the allocations or building permits.
Alternatively, the BOCC would propose that DCA not challenge the building permits that are rendered in
the future for these 100 allocations, given the historic account of actions already taken by the local
government (Monroe County) through Planning Commission public hearings, the affirmative allocations
issued by the Planning Commission, the failure of DCA to challenge 14 of the 17 permits rendered to the
agency already (out of the 43 building permits issued), and the fact that these property owners may have
relied on the designations in their decisions concerning these properties.
Finally, we remain focused and committed on working with the Department to move forward the analysis
and redesignation of tierless land, from the Tier Designation Review Committee to the Development
Review Committee, Planning Commission, and finally the Board of County Commissioners for final
adoption of Tier Designations for the tierless parcels. The undertaking is substantial and the amount of
work this has added to our staff is immense. We appreciate DCA's participation in this process and its
guidance. We have held all 90 allocations for those tierless parcels that were within ROGO but had not
received an allocation. At the earliest, the first set of Tier Map Amendments will be processed by the
Board of County Commissioners in January, 2011. This assumes the TDRC finishes its recommendations
in September, 2010.
Thank you,
Mayor Sylvia J. Murphy
Monroe County
Enclosures
a. Memorandum from Christine Hurley to BOCC (08/31/2010)
b. Memorandum from Christine Hurley to BOCC (12/11/2009)
3
Municode
Page 1 of 5
Sec. 138-24. - Residential ROGO allocations.
(a) Number of available annual residential ROGO allocations. The number of market rate residential ROGO
allocations available in each subarea of the
unincorporated county and the total number of affordable residential ROGO allocations available countywide
on a yearly basis shall be as follows:
Subarea Number of Dwelling Units Upper Keys 61 Lower Keys 57 Big Pine and No Name Keys 8 Total market rate 126
Affordable dwelling units Very Low, Low, and Median Incomes 36* Moderate Income 35* 71 Total units a year 197 *Includes
(1) Yearly residential ROGO allocation ratio. one for Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
Each subarea shall have its number of market rate residential ROGO allocations available per ROGO
year. Affordable ROGO allocations shall be available for countywide allocation except for Big Pine Key
and No Name Key. The annual allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key shall be eight market
rate and two affordable dwelling units.
(2) Quarterly residential ROGO allocation ratio. Each subarea shall have its number of market rate
housing residential ROGO allocations available per ROGO quarter determined by the following formula:
a. Market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea per quarter is equal to the
market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea divided by four.
b. Affordable housing residential ROGO for all four ROGO quarters, including the two available for
Big Pine Key, shall be made available at the beginning of the first quarter for a ROGO year.
(3) Ratio of affordable housing ROGO allocations to market rate ROGO allocations. Prior to October of
each year, the board of county commissioners may adopt a resolution changing the ratio of affordable
housing to market rate ROGO allocations based upon the recommendations of the planning director
and planning commission arising from the annual review of ROGO. This ratio may be amended
pursuant to the following:
a. The percentage of affordable housing shall never be less than 20 percent of the total ROGO
allocations available or the minimum established by rule of the Florida Administration
Commission, whichever is greater.
b. The increase or decrease in the percentage of affordable housing of the total ROGO allocations
available shall not exceed 50 percent of the previous year's ROGO allocations to market rate and
affordable housing.
(4) Ratio of very low income, low income, and median income allocations to moderate income allocations.
The planning commission may amend these proportions for affordable housing during any ROGO
quarter.
(5) Big Pine Key and No Name Key. All allocation awards on Big Pine Key and No Name Key are subject
to the provisions of the incidental take permit and the habitat conservation plan for the Florida Key Deer
and other covered species, which may affect ROGO allocations under this article.
(6) Limit on number of allocation awards in tier I. Except for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, the annual
number of allocation awards in tier I shall be limited to no more than three in the Upper Keys and three
in the Lower Keys.
(b) Reservation of affordable housing allocations. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 138-26 for awarding
of affordable housing allocations, the board of county commissioners may reserve by resolution some or all of
the available affordable housing allocations for award to certain sponsoring agencies or specific housing
programs consistent with all other requirements of this chapter. Building permits for these reserved allocations
shall be picked up within six months of the effective reservation date, unless otherwise authorized by the board
of county commissioners in its resolution. The board of county commissioners may, at its discretion, place
conditions on any reservation as it deems appropriate. These reservations may be authorized by the board of
county commissioners for:
(1) The county housing authority, nonprofit community development organizations, pursuant to section 130-
161(e), and other public entities established to provide affordable housing by entering into a
memorandum of understanding with one or more of these agencies;
(2) Specific affordable or employee housing projects participating in a federal/state housing financial
assistance or tax credit program or receiving some form of direct financial assistance from the county
upon written request from the project sponsor and approved by resolution of the board of county
commissioners;
(3) Specific affordable or employee housing projects sponsored by nongovernmental not -for -profit
organizations above upon written request from the project sponsor and approved by resolution of the
board of county commissioners;
(4) Specific affordable or employee housing programs sponsored by the county pursuant to procedures and
guidelines as may be established from time to time by the board of county commissioners;
(5) Specific affordable or employee housing projects by any entity, organization, or person, contingent upon
transfer of ownership of the underlying land for the affordable housing project to the county, a not-for-
httD:Hlibrarv.municode.com/print.asox?clientID=l4298&HTMRecuest=httn%3a%2f%2fli... 8/31 /2010
Municode
Page 2 of 5
profit community development organization, or any other entity approved by the board of county
commissioners, upon written request from the project sponsor and approved by resolution of the board
of county commissioners; or
(6) Rental employee housing projects situated on the same parcel of land as the nonresidential workplace
for the tenants of these projects, upon written request from the property owner and approved by
resolution of the board of county commissioners.
(c) Affordable housing allocation awards and eligibility. The definition of affordable housing shall be as specified
(1) in sections 101-1 and 130-161.
(2) Any portion of the annual affordable housing allocation not used for affordable housing at the end of a
ROGO year shall be made available for affordable housing for the next ROGO year.
(3) Any portion of the residential ROGO allocations not used shall be retained and be made available for
affordable housing from ROGO year to ROGO year.
(4) No affordable housing allocation shall be awarded to applicants located within a tier I designated area,
within a V-zone on the county's flood insurance rating map, within a tier II designated area on Big Pine
Key and No Name Key, or within a tier III -A (special protection area) if clearing is proposed for any
portion of an upland native habitat patch of a one acre or greater in area.
(5) Only affordable housing allocations for Big Pine Key may be used on Big Pine Key. No affordable
housing allocation may be used on No Name Key.
(d) Residential dwelling unit allocation required. The county shall issue no building permit for a residential
dwelling unit unless such dwelling unit:
(1) Has a residential dwelling unit allocation award; or
(2) Is exempted from the dwelling unit allocation system pursuant to this chapter or is deemed vested
pursuant to section 138-22.
(Code 1979, § 9.5-122; Ord. No. 47-1999, § 3; Ord. No. 12-2000, § 2; Ord. No. 030-2003, § 4; Ord. No. 09-2006)
Editor's note —
Ordinance No. 09-2006 appears as modified through negotiation with the state department of community affairs.
Sec. 138-25. - Application procedures for residential ROGO.
(a) Application for allocation. In each quarterly allocation period, the department of planning and environmental
resources shall accept applications to enter the residential ROGO system on forms
prescribed by the planning director. Except for allocations to be reserved and awarded under section 138-24
(b), the ROGO application form must be accompanied by an approved building permit application and a
nonrefundable processing fee in order to be considered in the current allocation period. The planning director
shall review the ROGO application for completeness. If the application is determined to be incomplete, the
planning director shall reject the ROGO application and notify the applicant of such rejection, and the reasons
therefore, within ten working days. The application shall be assigned a controlling date that reflects the time
and date of its submittal unless the application is determined to be incomplete. If the application is rejected,
then the new controlling date shall be assigned when a complete application is submitted.
(b) Fee for review of application. Each ROGO application shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable processing
fee as may be established by resolution of the board. Additional fees are not required for successive review of
the same ROGO application unless the application is withdrawn and resubmitted.
(c) Compliance with other requirements. The ROGO application shall indicate whether the applicant for a
residential dwelling unit allocation has satisfied and complied with all county, state and federal requirements
otherwise imposed by the county regarding conditions precedent to issuance of a building permit and shall
require that the applicant certify to such compliance.
(d) Noncounty time periods. The county shall develop necessary administrative procedures and, if necessary,
enter into agreements with other jurisdictional entities which impose requirements as a condition precedent to
development in the county, to ensure that such noncounty approvals, certifications and/or permits are not lost
due to the increased time requirements necessary for the county to process and evaluate residential dwelling
unit applications and issue allocation awards. The county may permit evidence of compliance with the
requirements of other jurisdictional entities to be demonstrated by "coordinating letters" in lieu of approvals or
permits.
(e) Limitation on number of applications. An individual entity or organization may submit only one ROGO
(1) application per unit in each quarterly allocation period.
(2) There shall be no limit on the number of separate parcels for which ROGO applications may be
submitted by an individual, entity or organization.
(3) A ROGO application for a given parcel shall not be for more dwelling units than are permitted by
applicable zoning or land use regulations or the comprehensive plan.
(f) Expiration of allocation award.
http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?clientID=14298&HTMRequest=http%3a%2t%2fli... 8/31 /2010
Municode
Page 3 of 5
Except as provided for in this article, an allocation award shall expire when its corresponding building permit is
not picked up after 60 days of notification by certified mail of the award or after issuance of the building permit,
upon expiration of the permit.
(g) Borrowing from future housing allocations. The planning commission may award additional units from future
(1) annual dwelling unit allocations to fully grant an application for residential units in a project if such an
application receives an allocation award for some, but not all, of the units requested.
(2) The board of county commissioners, in approving affordable housing allocations pursuant to section
138-24(b), may reserve and award additional units from future annual dwelling unit allocations if the
number of available allocations is insufficient to meet specific project needs.
(3) The planning commission shall not reduce any future market rate quarterly allocation by more than 20
percent and shall not apply these reductions to more than the next five annual allocations or 20
quarterly allocations.
(4) The board of county commissioners, upon recommendation of the planning commission, may make
available for award up to 100 percent of the affordable housing allocations available over the next five
annual allocations or 20 quarterly allocations.
(h) Revisions of ROGO applications and awards. An applicant may elect to revise a ROGO application to
(1) increase the competitive points in the application without prejudice or change in the controlling date if a
revision is submitted on a form approved by the planning director to the planning and environmental
resources department no later than 30 days following the planning commission approval of the previous
ROGO rankings. Any such revision shall not involve changes to the approved building permit
application. All other applications that are withdrawn and resubmitted that do not increase the
competitive points or involve revisions to the approved building permit application shall be considered
new, requiring payment of appropriate fees and receiving a new controlling date.
(2) After receipt of an allocation award, and either before or after receipt of a building permit, but prior to
receipt of a certificate of occupancy, no revisions shall be made to any aspect of the proposed
residential development which formed the basis for the evaluation review, determination of points and
allocation rankings, unless such revision would have the effect of increasing the points awarded.
(i) Clarification of application data. At any time during the dwelling unit allocation review and approval process,
(1) the applicant may be requested by the director of planning or the planning commission to submit
additional information to clarify the relationship of the allocation application, or any elements thereof, to
the evaluation criteria. If such a request is made, the director of planning shall identify the specific
evaluation criterion at issue and the specific information needed and shall communicate such request to
the applicant.
(2) Upon receiving a request from the director of planning for such additional information, the applicant may
provide such information, or the applicant may decline to provide such information and allow the
allocation application to be evaluated as submitted.
(Code 1979, § 9.5-122.1; Ord. No. 47-1999, § 3; Ord. No. 09-2006)
Editor's note —
Ordinance No. 09-2006 appears as modified through negotiation with the state department of community affairs.
Sec. 138-26. - Evaluation procedures for residential dwelling unit allocation.
(a) Adjustment of residential ROGO allocations. At the end of each quarterly allocation period, the planning
director shall recommend additions or subtractions to the basic
allocation available by subarea, based upon any of the following, as appropriate:
(1) The number of building permits for new residential units issued which expired.
(2) The number of dwelling unit allocation awards that expired prior to issuance of a corresponding building
permit and which were awarded in the current annual allocation period;
(3) The number of residential ROGO allocation awards available which were not allocated during the
quarterly allocation period in the current annual allocation period;
(4) The number of residential ROGO allocation awards in previous quarters which were borrowed from
future allocations to accommodate multiple unit projects or to accommodate allocation applications with
identical scores, pursuant to section 138-26(b)(2), or which were granted to applicants via either the
appeals process, administrative relief or a beneficial use determination;
(5) Residential ROGO allocations vested during the preceding quarter;
(6) Any other modifications required or provided for by the comprehensive plan or an agreement pursuant
to F.S. ch. 380;
(7) The receipt or transfer of affordable housing allocations from or to municipalities pursuant to this article;
(8) Allocations reserved and/or awarded by the board of county commissioners pursuant to section 138-24
(c).
http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?clientID=14298&HTMRequest=http%3 a%2f%2fli... 8/31 /2010
Municode
Page 4 of 5
(b) Initial evaluation of allocation applications. Upon receipt of completed allocation applications, the director of
planning shall evaluate the allocation applications for market rate
housing pursuant to the evaluation criteria set forth in section 138-28.
(1) Except for affordable housing, the director of planning shall classify each allocation application by
subarea.
(2) On the evaluation cover page, for each allocation application, the director of planning shall indicate the
subarea and the number of dwelling units for which allocation awards are being requested. Market rate
allocation applications shall be aggregated by subarea. Affordable housing allocation applications shall
be aggregated on a countywide basis.
(3) Within 30 days of the conclusion of a quarterly allocation period, unless otherwise extended by the
board, the director of planning shall, for market rate allocations:
a. Complete the evaluation of all allocation applications submitted during the relevant allocation
period;
b. Total the number of dwelling units by subarea for which allocation applications have been
received; and
C. Rank the allocation applications in descending order from the highest evaluation point total to the
lowest.
(4) Within 30 days of the conclusion of a quarterly allocation period, unless otherwise extended by the
board, the director of planning shall, for affordable housing allocations:
a. Complete review of all allocation applications to confirm eligibility of applicants during the
relevant allocation period;
b. Total the number of dwelling units for the unincorporated county for which affordable housing
allocation applications have been received; and
C. List the affordable housing allocation applications in descending order of controlling date from
earliest to latest date.
(5) If the number of dwelling units represented by the allocation applications for market rate housing, by
subarea, is equal to or less than the quarterly allocation, the director of planning may make a
recommendation to the planning commission that all of the allocation applications for that subarea be
granted allocation awards.
(6) If the number of dwelling units represented by the allocation applications for affordable housing is equal
to or less than the available allocation, the director of planning may make a recommendation to the
planning commission that all of the allocation applications be granted allocation awards.
(7) If the number of dwelling units represented by the allocation applications for market rate housing, by
subarea, is greater than the quarterly allocation, the director of planning shall submit an evaluation
report to the planning commission indicating the evaluation rankings and identifying those allocation
applications whose ranking puts them within the quarterly allocation, and those allocation applications
whose ranking puts them outside of the quarterly allocation.
(8) If the number of dwelling units represented by the allocation applications for affordable housing is
greater than the total available allocation, the director of planning shall submit a report to the planning
commission indicating the applications in order of their control dates and identifying those allocation
applications for which sufficient allocations exist and those allocation applications whose ranking by
controlling date puts them outside the available allocation.
(c) Public hearings. Upon completion of the evaluation ranking report and/or recommendation, the director of
planning shall schedule and notice a public hearing by the planning commission pursuant to otherwise
applicable regulations.
(1) At or prior to the public hearing, the planning commission may request, and the director of planning
shall supply, copies of the allocation applications and the director of planning evaluation worksheets.
(2) Upon review of the market rate allocation applications and evaluation worksheets, the planning
commission may adjust the points awarded for meeting a particular criteria, adjust the rankings as a
result of changes in points awarded, or make such other changes as may be appropriate and justified.
(3) The basis for any planning commission changes in the scoring or ranking of market rate applications
shall be specified in the form of a motion to adopt the allocation rankings and may include the following:
a. An error in the designation of the applicable subarea.
b. A mistake in the calculation of dedicated or aggregated lots/land.
C. A mistake in assignment of the tier map designation in the application. Such a mistake in reading
the tier designation in applying points for the application, any change to the tier map must go
through the procedures for amendment of the tier map.
d. Any other administrative error or omission that may cause the application to be incorrectly
scored.
(4) The public, including, but not limited to, applicants for allocation awards, shall be permitted to testify at
the public hearing. Applicants may offer testimony about their applications or other applications;
however, in no event may an applicant offer modifications to an application that could change the points
awarded or the ranking of the application.
http://'Ilbrary.municode.com/print.aspx?clientlD=l 4298&HTMRequest=http%3 a%2P/o2fli... 8/31 /2010
Municode
Page 5 of 5
(5) At the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission may:
a. Move to accept the evaluation rankings for market rate housing applications and rankings for
affordable housing applications as submitted by the director of planning.
b. Move to accept the rankings as may be modified as a result of the public hearing.
C. Move to continue the public hearing to take additional public testimony.
d. Move to close the public hearing but to defer action on the evaluation rankings pending receipt of
additional information.
e. Move to reject the rankings.
(6) The planning commission shall finalize the rankings within 60 days following initial receipt of the director
of planning evaluation ranking, report and recommendations.
(d) Notification to applicants. Upon finalization of the evaluation rankings by the planning commission, notice of
the rankings, by subarea for market rate housing, and countywide for affordable housing, shall be posted at
the planning department offices and at such other places as may be designated by the planning commission.
(1) Applicants who receive allocation awards shall be further notified by certified mail, return receipt
requested. Except as provided herein for allocations for affordable housing awarded by the board of
county commissioners pursuant to section 138-24(b) and subsection (g) of this section, upon receipt of
notification of an allocation award, the applicant may request issuance of a building permit for the
applicable residential dwelling unit.
(2) Applicants who fail to receive allocation awards shall be further notified by regular mail; without further
action by such applicants or the payment of any additional fee, such applications shall remain in the
residential ROGO system for reconsideration in the next succeeding quarterly allocation period.
(e) Identical rankings for market rate housing applications. If two or more allocation applications in a given
subarea have identical evaluation points, these applications shall be ranked in descending order from the
earliest controlling date of submission to the latest. The planning commission may approve two or more
allocation applications with identical rankings and controlling dates despite the fact that the quarterly allocation
will be exceeded if:
(1) A clear statement of findings of fact are made justifying the decision; and
(2) The excess allocation is reduced from the next succeeding quarterly allocation period or is reduced pro
rata from the next three quarterly allocation periods.
(f) Identical controlling dates for affordable housing applications. If two or more allocation applications for
affordable housing have identical controlling dates and at least one affordable housing allocation remains
available to be awarded, the planning commission may approve two or more allocation applications with
identical rankings through borrowing of future allocations pursuant to section 138-25(g).
(g) Extension of expiration period. Upon the written approval of the planning director, the expiration period for an
allocation award for affordable multiunit housing projects may be extended where the applicant is unable to be
granted a sufficient number of allocations required to initiate the project. As may be required time to time, the
board of county commissioners may extend the 60-day expiration period for an allocation award by resolution
upon finding that such extension is in the public interest.
(Code 1979, § 9.5-122.2(a)—(e); Ord. No. 47-1999, § 3; Ord. No. 09-2006)
Editor's note —
Ordinance No. 09-2006 appears as modified through negotiation with the state department of community affairs.
http://library.municode.comlprint.aspx?clientID=14298&HTMRequest=http%3 a%2f%2fli... 8/31 /2010
Tezanos-Mayra
IL
From:
Hurley -Christine
Sent:
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:58 AM
To:
Stankiewicz-Tiffany; Rebecca.Jetton@dca.state.fl.us; Gastesi-Roman; BOCCDIS5;
BOCCDIS4; BOCCDIS3; BOCCDIS2; BOCCDISI
Cc:
'tohara@keysnews.com'; Frederick -Debbie; Cyr -Connie; Grimsley-Susan; Hutton -Suzanne;
Howard -Derek; Shillinger-Bob; Schwab-Townsley; Roberts -Michael; Davisson-Bryan;
Tezanos-Mayra; Hurley -Christine
Subject:
BOCC Agenda Item - J - 1
Attachments:
Updated Sept 14 2010 Copy of allocations 100 status (2).pdf; Updated Sept 14 2010 Copy of
allocations 100 status (2).xlsx
Board of County Commissioners, Roman Gastesi, and Rebecca Jetton:
Some of you have asked the Growth Management Staff to quantify the status of the 100 parcels that were issued
allocations, which are the subject of the DCA letter dated 7-15-10 (whereby DCA has requested Monroe County to
consider rescinding the issued allocations and building permits).
Please find attached a spreadsheet that demonstrates the current status of each of the 100 parcels and where they are
in the process. Basically, 53 building permits have been issued ( 5 already have certificates of occupancy (people living in
homes) and 19 are under construction and proceeding with development) and 46 are on hold (either because of the
FEMA injunction or because of SB360/SB1752 extensions) and 1 has been appealed by DCA.
Rebecca: You asked how many of the parcels within the 100 are being recommended to have a tier change that would
have negatively affected their scoring in ROGO. It appears, based on the TDRC PRELIMINARY recommendation for re -
designation of tiers on these 100 sites, that 16 will go from Tier III to Tier IIIA or I, if the Board of County Commissioners
adopts the PRELIMINARY recommendations with no changes.
I hope this information is useful. Thank you Tiffany for your hard work on this.
Mayra: Please print this email and the attachment — 10 copies for my meeting tomorrow.
Christine Hurley, AICP
Monroe County
Growth Management Division
Please take a moment to complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey:
http://monroecofi.virtualtownhall.net/Pages/NlonroeCoFL 1ticbDocs/css Your feedback is important to us!
Please note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from the County regarding
County business are public record, available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communication may be
subject to public disclosure.
D
3
0c
.7i
O W Vt
I m D d a w 0
m a ° 00 c d
a 5,10 p m
m D S° m D
0
7
o m o a
aam �
O -`" M W tD O Do O
' m n 1 u .0 -.0 n c� o
m
D q- a n in vi n p� o II
C 4 N < f. C >
D -
2 cci c m 2 o o3i �06 I
m ( m c of
J m 0
3
mN=�. a
w_ o_ v m
^ M 3
0"0 0
N -n cn
m w
D �
j N
C
A
O
r
0
O O O O O O O O O O c0 c0 N W c0 O O (p m 0 O O Oe Oo
V� O t0 W J O Ot A W N ,O ,tO.Oo J m 01 A W K) N C O cD 0J m 0 A W 1
If
0 0 0
33 3
d OI
V J N
Ut
N ut
O O W -+
O
O
c0
O
V A
Oo
Oo ao
Oo
N N
N f0 c0
J N
V O W
at
O
N
�
(T (O,Ji
ONo w
T
W
coo
D
W p
WGODW
Wm
TOT
�
cn
InO
009(nmWxz0ZIn
O2 O
rD G
1Tfn0,x
SD<<O
O-iC
sl
CO
IZ
O
Z
Aa
D r
a
r
O
a
O<
cm
ODDmaam
rrr3ln
lops
W
O R�nI
r j D
v z m
2Z
Z2
O m
2 c�
DT rzp
00
W
Z�
C)
3
Z
0
z�
r
ZOO
O O
Z O
cc—m
2 7c
�<O
2 D
0
ZD 2
-I
2 s2mp—
0
Z
�Oa
m
m
0
m 2
p
A
pin
coon
Mm=
2 m
Oz m
a
Omo�
D
A
X
Ay
cn
lan
"'Z2r2
Z
�m
p mr
T.
<
m
0;uz
r0
OO
O
-I�y
0 0
2
2
p D
2
0
0
A
A
�
:ll O
0
0
A
p p p
p p p p p p p p
pp
p p p
p
p pp
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ao C
Oo O
8� �0000
N U O O O O
00
O O
00-•
O m —�
�
N
� -.c
J
=000 ooc
0 0 ... 0 0 0 O� �I A
O O O
O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O
0 0
O O
0 0 0
O O O
O
O
O O O
O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O
O O O
0 0 O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O
O O
0 0
O 0 0
O O O
O
O
O O O
O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O 0 0 O
O O O
O O O
O O O O O O O O
........
O O
..
O O O
...
O
O
O O O
O O O
0 ..o ........
O O O O O O O ...
kz
O] OI A W N� O f0 aD J O) N A W N� O f0 aD J O N A W N � O t0 OD J O� OI A W N S
m
m
m
9
Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
2OVA NC�ONWA W N�o..A(O 0. V W En W OW W V O0 A W NOW -M wwVm.Nn rn nWe�
J N
O p
3 .
d 2
z
m �
nm
' O
am
sJ
o
m �
J
N 0
a0
J mO �p
N V
m
A
N
W
N_
c
z
0
m
C)
c
S
m
m
z
rt
c
A
u
c
c
c
c
c
o0
r0 N O
m0 N m
d mm
0 0?
N o N
m o m
m 0 m
c
z
0
m
En
D
X
m
m
0
A
m
m
iU
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00» m
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
oo
O O N N N O o
0
O
0
O
0000 �» 0a 000a 00-
O O O O » » O O O O O o 0 0
--
o>
o0000000000
0
0�'
O O O O O O o
O O O O 0 0 0
O
O
O
O
N
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
O
O O
O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
O A A
0
O O O O O O O
O
O
O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
O
0 0
O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O
O
0 0
O O O
O O O O 0 0 0
O O O O O 0 0
O
O
O
00
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O 0 0
O
0 0
O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
O
O0.
O O O
0-0 0.0
O
0 0 O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O
O
O
0 0
O O
O O O O O O O O O o O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
0
0.0
0.0
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September 15, 2010 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes x No _ Department: Planning
Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Christine Hurley
Phone: 305-289-2517
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the
Compilation Report prepared by Keith and Schnars, PA, that identifies the issues to be used as the basis for the
2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, including the major
issues as identified by the public.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Monroe County is required to prepare an EAR every seven years. Pursuant to Rule
9J-42, Florida Administrative Code, Monroe County must submit its EAR to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs by August 1, 2011; an extension may be granted until February, 2012. The EAR is an
evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan based upon its compliance with existing state and agency laws, rules and
plans; and its ability and effectiveness to address the major issues identified by the community. Keith and
Schnars, P.A. (K&S), together with Growth Management staff, conducted interviews with the other County
departments; with the Planning Commission and the BOCC; and facilitated four public workshops. Public
comments are summarized in the attached memorandum. Additionally, a scoping meeting was held attended by
representatives from various municipalities within the County, Miami -Dade County, Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), South Florida Water Management District, Everglades National Park, U.S. Navy
and Coast Guard, South Florida Regional Planning Council, and Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, among
others. At these meetings, participants were asked to identify their issues and concerns facing the County which
were compiled by K&S resulting in a list of major issues, identified in the attached Exhibit. In addition, K&S
prepared a portion of the Technical Document relative to existing conditions to assist in identifying any major
issues for the County. The attached Compilation Report (the "Report") is essentially a "scope of work" for the
EAR; it provides a roadmap for the topic structure and content of the EAR, including the proposed major
issues. The Report will be transmitted to DCA for their review and approval, resulting in a Letter of
Understanding between the County and DCA on the topics upon which the EAR will focus. The BOCC will
review and approve the memorandum. The EAR results in recommended amendments that will update the
adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: At the BOCC Meeting on December 16, 2009, the Board granted
approval and authorized execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Keith and Schnars, P.A., for a
four year contract, to update the Monroe County Year 2010 Technical Document, Evaluation and Appraisal
Report (EAR), Comprehensive Plan Amendments, and Land Development Code for a planning period of 2010-
2030 in the total amount of $1,031,985.00.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST:
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No x AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasmg Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included x Not Required
BUDGETED: Yes No
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #.
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
From: Christine Hurley, AICP
Division Director
Date: August 25, 2010
RE: Major Issues Public Comments Summary
The Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process provides the opportunity to identify
major issues by the community upon which the EAR will focus. Staff began by
categorizing each comment received through the public and agency workshops by
subject, and then gave each group of comments a heading, creating 13 topics.
The table below identifies the updated List of Major Issues , included in the EAR
Compilation Report, including comments presented by reviewing agencies at both the
Scoping Meeting (held May 13, 2010), and during the subsequent open comment period.
The DRAFT list below is sorted by the number of comments received.
Preliminary
Topic #
Compilation
Report
Issue #
Topic Category
Public
Comments
3
Major Issue: III
Land Use Mobility
206
4
Major Issue: IV
Resource Protection
199
1
Major Issue: I
Community Character
102
713
Major Issue: IX
Intergovernmental Coord.
81
7A
Major Issue: Vill
Public Involvement Info
77
8E
Major Issue: V
Climate Change/Hazard
Mitigation
22
5
Major Issue: VI
Financial Feasibility
21
2
Major Issue: II
Economic Sustainability
18
6
Major Issue: VII
Housing Affordabili
16
8D
Special Topic: 3
Coastal High Hazard Area
7
8A
Special Topic: 4
Compatibility with
Military Compatibility
2
813
Special Topic: 1
Public School Facilities/
Concurrency
2
8C
Special Topic: 2
Water Supply Planning
2
Special Topic: 5*
Transportation
Concurrency:
TCEA and Methodolo
n a
* Added by DCA for the Compilation Report
On July 14, 2010, K&S and County Staff facilitated a public workshop where
participants reviewed and provided additional feedback regarding the proposed list of
major issues. Comments received during the workshop supports the proposed list of
major issues as presented in the Compilation Report; no new subject matter was added.
County of Monroe
Growth Management Division
Office of the Director
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite #400
Marathon, FL 33050
Voice: (305) 289-2517
FAX: (305) 289-2854
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
August 24, 2010
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Walker Banning, Community Program Manager
Division of Community Planning
2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 3 23 99-2 100
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Sylvia J. Murphy, Dist. 5
Mayor Pro Tern Heather Carruthers, Dist. 3
Kim Wigington, Dist. 1
George Neugent, Dist. 2
Mario Di Gennaro, Dist. 4
RE: Monroe County Evaluation and Appraisal Report — Letter of Understanding
Dear Mr. Banning:
The purpose of this letter is to identify the planning issues that will provide the basis for Monroe
County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), consistent with Chapter 163.3191 Florida Statutes.
Please find attached a brief description of the scope of the EAR, a summary of the public participation
process that led to the development of the major issues list, and the major issues that Monroe County will
evaluate.
We request that this letter and the attached EAR Issues Compilation Report serve as the basis for a Letter
of Understanding between the Department of Community Affairs and Monroe County.
If you have any questions or comments on the Monroe County EAR, please contact Mitchell Harvey,
AICP, Monroe County Comprehensive Planning Manager, at (305) 289-2514 or Debbie Love, AICP,
Senior Planner, Keith and Schnars, P.A, at (954) 776-1616 Ext. 6743.
Sincerely,
Christine Hurley, AICP
Growth Management Director
MONROE
®-
MONROE COUNTY
EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
DRAFT ISSUE COMPILATION REPORT
Pursuant to Florida Statutes, the Monroe County EAR will present an evaluation and
assessment of the Comprehensive Plan related to the following topics:
Introduction
1. Purpose of the EAR
2. County Profile
3. Overview of the Report
Chapter 1: Public Involvement Process
1. A summary of the public participation program and activities undertaken by the
County in preparing the report [163.3191(2)(j)]
Chapter 2: Community -Wide Assessment
1. Population Analysis: Trends and Projections [163.3191(2)(a)]
a. Population Growth Trends
b. Population of Municipalities and Unincorporated Area
c. Population Growth in Surrounding Counties
d. Population Projections for Monroe County
2. Land Use Inventory
a. Land Area in Existing Plan
b. Current Existing Land Use Area
c. Reasons for change: [163.3191(2)(a)]
i. City of Marathon
ii. Village of Islamorada
iii. Mainland Monroe County
d. Impact of Change in Land Area
e. Amount of Vacant and Developable Land [163.3191(2)(b)]
i. Characteristics
ii. Adjacent Uses
Draft EAR Compilation Report 1 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
August, 2010
iii. "Off the Market" parcels (those not available for development, e.g.,
conservation - FDEP, Land Authority)
iv. Existing Land Use Map
V. Future Land Use Map
vi. Existing to Future Land Use Comparative Analysis [163.3191(2)(d)]
vii. Future Land Use Map Amendments (2004-2010)
f. Location Analysis
Chapter 3: Assessment of Comprehensive Plan Elements (163.3191(2)(h)]
1. Introduction
2. Future Land Use
3. Conservation and Coastal Management
4. Traffic Circulation
5. Mass Transit
6. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities
7. Housing
8. Potable Water
9. Solid Waste
10. Sanitary Sewer
11. Drainage
12. Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
13. Recreation and Open Space
14. Intergovernmental Coordination
15. Capital Improvements
16. Cultural Resources
Chapter 4: Major Issues Analysis
1. Statement of Issue
a. Brief background of each major issue.
i. What is it?
ii. Can it be quantified?
iii. Compare the Past and the Present
1) What was the situation at the time of the Plan development?
2) What is the situation today?
3) If the issue can be quantified, compare the quantities in the
adopted plan with the current quantities.
Draft EAR Compilation Report 2 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
August, 2010
b. An analysis of each major issue for its potential social, economic, and
environmental impacts of these issues. [163.3191(2)(e)]
i. Why is it an issue?
ii. What events have occurred to cause the issue, (e.g. active hurricane
season)?
iii. What does this mean?
iv. Does the issue represent an opportunity not previously identified?
V. Why was it unanticipated?
2. Policy Framework [163.3191(2)(g)]
a. The identification of plan objectives related to each major issue.
b. Evaluation of the extent to which the objectives have been achieved.
c. Relevant Variables: A discussion on any unforeseen and unanticipated
changes and circumstances which have resulted in problems and
opportunities with respect to major issues in each element, including
applicable legislative changes.
d. Identification of goals, objectives and policies which no longer apply.
3. Strategies to Address Issue [163.3191(2)(i)]
a. The identification of any actions or corrective measures, as appropriate:
i. Any land use map amendments anticipated to address the identified
major issues.
ii. An updated Capital Improvements Element.
iii. Any new and revised goals objectives and policies for major issues
identified within each element.
Draft EAR Compilation Report 3 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
August, 2010
. . -. _._ s® - - - __ - -..-®®----.----
Chapter 5: Special Topics
1. School Concurrency [163.3191(2)(k)]
a. An assessment of the success or failure of the coordination of the future land
use map and associated residential development with public schools and
their capacities.
i. Map Location of Schools and Community Facilities (Existing land Use
Map)
ii. Future Land Use Categories where schools are allowed
iii. Land Capacity
iv. School Capacities
V. School Busing Information
vi. Timing: Capacity vs. Enrollment
vii. Exemption
b. An assessment of the joint decision making processes engaged in by the
County and the School Board in regard to establishing appropriate
population projections and the planning and siting of public school facilities.
i. Coordinating Mechanisms between the County and the School Board
ii. Co-Location/Shared Use of Facilities
iii. Comprehensive Policy Effectiveness Review
iv. Population Projection Methodologies
2. Water Supply Planning [163.3191(2)(1)]
a. An assessment of whether the County has been successful in identifying
alternative water supply projects and traditional water supply projects,
including conservation and reuse, necessary to meet the water needs
identified in 373.0361(2)(a) F.S., within the County's jurisdiction.
b. Assess the degree to which the County has implemented the water supply
work plan for building public, private, and regional water supply facilities,
including development of alternative water supplies, identified in the Potable
Water Element as necessary to serve existing and new development.
c. The assessments will explore the following:
i. How does the Plan (future, infrastructure, and conservation, ICE, and
CIE elements) ensure water to support future development, including
Miami -Dade County?
ii. What actions were taken?
iii. What degree has the Water Supply planning objectives been
achieved?
Draft EAR Compilation Report 4 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
August, 2010
iv. How should the Plan be updated?
V. Effectiveness in implementing the capital improvements called for in
the 10 year work plan.
vi. Water Management District Plan
vii. Water Supply Facilities
viii. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) Water Supply Plan
ix. Capacity/Demand
X. Existing and Future Population
xi. Fire Suppression
xii. Funding
xiii. Consistency with the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan
3. Coastal High -Hazard Area (CHHA) [163.3191(2)(m)]
a. An evaluation of whether any past reduction in land use density within the
coastal high -hazard area impairs the property rights of current residents when
redevelopment occurs including, but not limited to, redevelopment following a
natural disaster
b. Identify strategies to address redevelopment and the property rights of
affected residents balanced against public safety considerations
c. The evaluation will explore the following:
i. Evaluate Redevelopment Feasibility and Property Rights in Coastal
High -Hazard Areas.
ii. Map Coastal High Hazard Area.
iii. Evaluate Impact of Redevelopment (e.g. Reduction of Existing
Density).
iv. Evaluate Feasibility of Allowing Re-establishment of All Affected
Dwelling Units.
1) Hurricane Evacuation Requirements.
2) Private Property Rights.
V. Explore Potential Strategies for Redevelopment:
1) Allow nonconformities to continue until redevelopment.
2) Allow re-establishment of nonconforming use/density after a
natural disaster.
3) Purchase of excess rights; acquired rights eliminated.
4) Purchase of repetitive loss structures (HMGP).
5) Transfer of Development Rights: Excess property rights would be
transferred to parcels outside the CHHA.
Draft EAR Compilation Report
August, 2010
5
Keith and Schnars, P.A.
6) Change Future Land Use Map to match the nonconformity. (Only
allowed if no increase in overall density and within hurricane
evacuation clearance times)
4. Compatibility with Military Installations
[163.3175 and 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.]
a. Evaluate the effectiveness of the County's coordination process for land uses
adjacent or closely proximate to NAS-Key West.
5. Transportation Concurrency
a. An assessment of the extent to which a concurrency exception area
designated pursuant to 163.3180(5) F.S., or a multimodal transportation
district designated pursuant to 163.3180(15) F.S., has achieved the purpose
for which it was created and otherwise complies with the provisions of
16 3.3 18 0 F.S. [163.3191(2)(0)]
NOTE: Not applicable, there are no concurrency exception areas or
multimodal transportation districts within the County.
b. An assessment of the extent to which changes are needed to develop a
common methodology for measuring impacts on transportation facilities for
the purpose of implementing a concurrency management system in
coordination with the municipalities and counties, as appropriate pursuant
to 163.3180(10) F.S. [163.3191(2)(p)]
i. US1 Task Force
ii. Existing Methodology
iii. Miami -Dade County
Chapter 6: Assessment of Changes to Florida Statutes, Administrative Rules,
State and Regional Plans [163.3191(2) ffl]
Draft EAR Compilation Report 6 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
August, 2010
r
MONROE COUNTYPLANUPDATE
...
EAR MAJOR ISSUES
A. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public participation was initiated through a website created for the update of the
County's Comprehensive Plan and the EAR process (http: www.kevscomi2plan.comi.
The site contains a brief overview of the EAR process, information about public
workshops and meetings, and links to other EAR related documents. The following
meetings and public hearings were held in order to identify the major local issues on
which the County will focus its EAR:
• February 12, 2010: A meeting with the County's Division Directors was
conducted. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce staff to the
Comprehensive Plan update process and to obtain preliminary comments
regarding potential EAR major issues.
• February 24, 2010: The Planning Commission meeting was held at the Marathon
Government Center. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a briefing
regarding the Comprehensive Plan update process and to survey the
commissioners regarding the major issues upon which the EAR should focus.
• February 24 - 26, 2010: One-on-one interviews were conducted with the Board
of County Commissioners. The purpose of these meetings was to provide a
briefing regarding the Comprehensive Plan update process and to survey the
commissioners regarding the major issues upon which the EAR should focus.
• March 10, 2010: Monroe County Division Directors and other key personnel
were surveyed on the major issues upon which the EAR should focus.
• April 9 - 11, 2010: A series of public workshops were conducted in the lower,
middle and upper keys to survey the participants regarding the major issues of
importance upon which the EAR should focus.
• April 21, 2010: A public workshop was held on Sugarloaf Key. The purpose of
the meeting was to survey the participants regarding the major issues of
importance for the EAR.
• May 13, 2010: At the Scoping Meeting, agencies, adjacent cities and
municipalities met with County staff for the purpose of ensuring that all
important EAR issues are identified; agency/municipality concerns are
Draft EAR Compilation Report
August, 2010
7
Keith and Schnars, P.A.
addressed; and to assist the County in developing strategies to address issues
that are within their jurisdiction or expertise.
• July 14, 2010: A public workshop was conducted for the purpose of confirming
the final draft list of major issues.
• September 15, 2010: At this hearing, the BOCC approved the Compilation
Report of issues upon which the EAR should focus and approved the transmittal
of a Letter of Understanding and the Compilation Report to the DCA requesting
concurrence. <Final Details to be inserted after this hearing>
B. LIST OF MAJOR ISSUES
I. County -wide Visioning and Planning
Capitalize upon and protect the uniqueness (sense of place) of the various communities
within the planning areas; implement the recommendations within the existing
visioning plans.
a. Do the Counts policies recognize and preserve the unique
development/redevelopment patterns and community character within each
Planning Area?
1. Building Scale and Massing
2. Architectural standards
3. Existing Land Uses (especially water dependent uses)
4. Habitat and Species Protection
S. Infrastructure
i. Wastewater
ii. Stormwater
iii. Roads/bridges
6. Encouraging redevelopment of sites that are currently developed vs. vacant
land (NROGO constraints on redevelopment)
7. Evaluate floor area ratio maximums in each of the Future Land Use
categories for compatibility.
8. Evaluate opportunities for discouraging density increases, including
requiring any Future Land Use Map amendment to transfer allocated or
maximum net density.
b. Do the County's policies reflect the recommendations of the existing community
visioning plans?
1. Stock Island Livable CommuniKeys Plan
2. Key Largo Livable CommuniKeys Plan
Draft EAR Compilation Report 8 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
August, 2010
3. Tavernier Livable CommuniKeys Plan
4. Draft Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan
5. Scenic Highway and Overseas Heritage Trail Master Plans
c. Do the Comprehensive Plan policies need to address outside jurisdictional
constraints?
1. FEMA injunction or processes that need to be amended related to the FWS
biological opinion relative to the FEMA injunction.
II. Economic Sustainability
Promote economic sustainability, in a manner consistent with environmental
stewardship, with a special focus upon existing businesses.
a. Designate economic business development locations on the Future Land Use
Map.
b. Do the County's policies enhance and promote the economic strength of the
County in a sustainable manner that protects natural resources?
c. Do the County's land use categories and maps provide sufficient land, at
appropriate intensities, within Tier 3 (adjacent to existing services) to
adequately provide for non-residential development?
1. The analysis will be based upon the results of the Economic Analysis.
d. Do the County's existing policies promote job diversification, creation, retention?
e. Do the County's policies encourage existing business redevelopment?
f. How successful is the County in promoting business opportunities to designated
areas?
g. Is the County successful in working with the various Chambers of Commerce in
attracting economic development opportunities?
h. Do the County's policies promote effective coordination with the Tourist
Development Council to attract visitors who value and appreciate the natural
resources and environmental sustainability of the Florida Keys, e.g., eco-
tourism?
i. How successful is the County in promoting business opportunities to designated
areas?
j. Is there a need for a separate Economic Development Element of the
Comprehensive Plan?
Draft EAR Compilation Report
August, 2010
9
Keith and Schnars, P.A.
III. Land Use/Mobility
Promote Attractive, Well -Planned Development Adjacent to Services, and Existing
Commercial "Hubs". with an Emphasis on Redevelopment
a. Do the County's policies relating to the ROGO system promote well -planned
development in appropriate areas?
b. Do the County's policies relating to the NROGO system promote well -planned
development in appropriate areas?
1. Does the commercial square foot per new unit of housing limit, established in
Policy 101.3, provide the appropriate framework for redevelopment or for
adequate community needs?
2. Should the County undertake a market demand analysis to determine the
future non-residential needs of the community?
c. Do the County's policies relating to the Tier system promote well -planned
development in appropriate areas?
d. Do the County's policies effectively address the issues related to Mainland
Monroe County?
e. Do the County's policies adequately address growth management issues within
the Mainland Planning Area?
f. Do the County's policies promote well -planned redevelopment projects?
g. Do the County's policies adequately reflect the conclusions of the County's
Future Land Use Needs Analysis?
h. Do the County's policies and vesting determination process effectively protect
lawfully existing uses, densities and intensities?
i. Identify appropriate locations for fire stations on the Future Land Use Map.
The County Should Meet or Exceed Hurricane Evacuation Requirements as required by
9J-5 F.A.C.
a. Do the County's policies effectively balance the need for evacuation clearance
with growth?
b. Does the current hurricane evacuation model use adequate assumptions and will
the model reflect any successful policy changes implemented since the first 2001
Model?
Draft EAR Compilation Report 10 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
August, 2010
Support Historic Preservation.
a. Do the County's policies effectively promote preservation of historic sites and
structures?
b. Should the County include policies that officer incentives or promote cultural
attractions?
Assure Continued Public Waterfront Access; Protect and Expand Water
Dependent/Water Related Uses.
a. Do the County's land use policies effectively promote the preservation and
expansion of public water front access strategies (hotels, motels, restaurants,
marinas, public open/green space)?
b. Does the Comprehensive Plan include criteria and regulatory incentives that
encourage the preservation of recreational and commercial waterfronts, as
required under Chapter 163, F.S.; how effective have those criteria and
incentives been?
Increase Availability and Use of Alternative Modes Transportation.
a. Do the County's policies promote the use and development of alternative modes
of transportation, e.g., pedestrian/bicyclist trails; mass transit?
b. Has the County provided pedestrian and bicycle paths and other alternate forms
of transportation?
c. How successful is the County in coordinating its Livable CommuniKeys plans with
FDOT's work plans?
d. How successful is the County in implementing mass transit for its elderly and
less fortunate population?
e. Has the County addressed mass transit opportunities?
IV. Natural Resource Protection
Preserve and protect natural resources, including water, habitat and species.
a. Do the County's policies protect potable water supply?
b. How has the County protected Threatened, Endangered and Special Status
Species and their habitats?
c. How has the County protected wetland areas, benthic resources and
environmentally sensitive lands?
Draft EAR Compilation Report
August, 2010
11
Keith and Schnars, P.A.
d. Evaluate the effectiveness of the following initiatives:
1. Tier System
2. Land Acquisition
3. Habitat Conservation Plan for Big Pine and No -Name Keys (Incidental Take
Permit)
e. How has the Comprehensive Plan addressed water quality and what protection
measures are in place?
f. Has the County addressed the Nutrient Reduction Criteria?
g. How has the County conserved water resources; are enforcement efforts
effective?
h. Is the County's solid waste collection and disposal system adequate?
i. Are the County's policies and practices adequate to protect native species and
habitat from invasive animals (feral cats/raccoons/snakes/goats)?
Complete Wastewater and Drainage Upgrades.
a. How successful is the County in providing sewer and drainage improvements
through the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District and FKAA?
b. Do the comprehensive plan policies incorporate the most recent State and
Federal regulatory requirements relative to waste water and stormwater
treatment standards?
c. How do the County's fiscal constraints impact the implementation of the Waste
Water Master Plan?
d. Should funding alternatives for Stormwater Management Master Plan
implementation be explored?
V. Climate Change/Hazard Mitigation
Monroe County should support and promote 'green" initiatives; address climate
change; and develop and implement hazard mitigation/adaptation best practices.
a. Do the County's polices promote energy conservation and provide strategies
geared to reduction of green house gas emissions?
Draft EAR Compilation Report
August, 2010
12
Keith and Schnars, P.A.
b. Do the policies of the County include appropriate mitigation/adaptation
strategies?
1. Local Mitigation Strategy
2. Post-NFIP Below Flood Enclosures
3. Repetitive Loss Structures
4. Vulnerable Infrastructure
i. Water
ii. Wastewater
iii. Transportation
iv. Culverts
S. Evaluate the Impact of Sea Level Rise:
i. Government Buildings
ii. Roadways
iii. Land Use Strategies
iv. Saltwater Intrusion
1) People
2) Environment
3) Land values
4) NEPA Adaptation/Mitigation Requirements
c. Is there a need for a separate Energy and/or Climate Change Element?
VI. Financial Feasibility
Assure adequate capital funding to complete necessary improvements or purchase
lands for conservation or affordable housing purposes.
a. Does the County have adequate Capital Project Funding Capacity?
1. Wastewater
2. Land Acquisition
i. Conservation
ii. Affordable Housing
iii. Stormwater
iv. Roads/Transportation Facilities/Bridges
V. Parks and Recreation
vi. Solid Waste
b. Has the County investigated creative funding sources to assist in paying for its
capacity related public facilities and services, which may include adopting new
revenue sources, increasing impact fees, and promoting business throughout the
County?
Draft EAR Compilation Report 13 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
August, 2010
c. Have developer funded improvements been successful in helping the County
meet financial feasibility?
d. Do the County's policies reflect an adequate land acquisition policy related to
habitat preservation and a prioritization of land acquisition based on risk to the
County related to takings cases?
e. Are there other methods the County could use to create additional funding for
land acquisition?
f. Will the County's CIE be able to meet statutory requirements related to the
financial feasibility by December, 2011?
g. Evaluate the adequacy of the County's existing Impact Fee Program.
VII. Affordable Housing
Promote the development of affordable, attainable and senior living housing that is
well -planned, attractive and energy efficient.
a. Do the County's policies effectively promote affordable, workforce and senior -
living housing?
b. Do the County's policies promote energy efficient building design?
c. How do the County's policies impact the implementation and cost of housing?
d. Should affordable housing policy incentives be focused more on rental or
homeownership?
e. Has the County identified or planned redevelopment areas that are suitable for
affordable/workforce housing?
VIII. Public Involvement/Information
Promote robust public involvement and information sharing regarding land use issues
throughout the planning and development process.
a. Do the County's policies effectively promote public involvement within the
planning process?
b. What strategies are used by the County to inform the public of upcoming
planning issues?
c. Do the County's public outreach strategies reach out to a broad -range of citizens
and property owners?
Draft EAR Compilation Report 14 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
August, 2010
IX. Intergovernmental Coordination
Provide effective and efficient intergovernmental, interdepartmental and interagency
coordination.
a. Do the County's land use policies, community plans, practices, and capital
improvement project schedule effectively coordinate with the plans and
activities of other municipalities and agencies, e.g. hurricane evacuation staging,
and planning, FDOT roadway widening?
b. Do the County's policies encourage effective and efficient interdepartmental data
sharing and review?
c. Evaluate the issues relating to the FKAA providing adequate water pressure for
fire service?
d. Identify the appropriate portions of the FKCCS Study and Model to be used by
the County for development review analysis.
e. Evaluate the County s coordination activities with the South Florida Regional
Planning Council for the use of the Carrying Capacity/Impact Assessment Model
and Routine Planning Tool.
Draft EAR Compilation Report 15 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
August, 2010
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September 15, 2010
Bulk Item: Yes No x
Division: Growth Management
Department:
Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Christine Hurley
Phone: 289-2517
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and Authorize Mayor to transmit Monroe County Annual
State of Florida Work Plan Progress Report to Department of Community Affairs.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Attached is the Monroe County Annual Work Plan Progress Report sent to
the Department of Community Affairs in draft form September 1, 2010. The Report includes Monroe
County comments (4`h column) related to progress that has been made over the past year toward the
tasks in the Work Plan. In addition, Engineering staff has updated certain tasks (Column 1) based on
relevant project scopes and changes that have occurred since the tasks were developed a couple of
years ago. The Monroe County Land Authority has updated certain tasks, as well as the Key Largo
Wastewater Treatment District staff. The Department of Community Affairs will use the information
provided by Monroe County to develop their Area of Critical State Concern 30-Day report they make
annually to the Governor and Cabinet each year, by November 30, 2010. This report is used by the
Governor and Cabinet to evaluate the progress each governmental agency has made on their work plan
tasks and to determine whether to recommend a decrease in annual allocations for housing units. It is
anticipated that the Cabinet Aide meeting will occur December 1, 2010 and the Cabinet meeting will
occur December 7, 2010. These dates will be confirmed and may change.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Authorize to send
TOTAL COST: n/a INDIRECT COST:
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
BUDGETED: Yes No
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No x AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included x Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 7/09
C
UNTY So�MONROE
KEY WESTLORIDA 33040
(305)294-4641
Mayor Sylvia J. Murphy
Nelson Govt. & Cultural Center, Ste 234
102050 Overseas Highway
Key Largo, FL 33037
Phone 305-453-8787
Cell 305-797-0088
Email: boccdis5 cni monroecounty-fl.2ov
September 16, 2010
Mr. Charles Gauthier, AICP
Director, Division of Community Planning
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shummard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Re: Monroe County Annual Work Plan Progress Report
Dear Mr. Gauthier,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Sylvia 3. Murphy, District 5
Mayor Pro Tem Heather Carruthers, District 3
Kim Wigington, District 1
George Neugent, District 2
Mario Di Gennaro, District 4
Please find attached the FINAL Monroe County Annual Work Plan Progress Report. The Board of
County Commissioners authorized submittal of this annual progress report on September 15, 2010. The
Report includes Monroe County comments (4th column) related to progress that has been made over the
past year toward the tasks in the Work Plan.
In addition, the Engineering staff have updated certain tasks (Column 1) based on relevant project scopes
and changes that have occurred since the tasks were developed a couple of years ago. The Monroe County
Land Authority has updated certain tasks and has provided two reports related to past year acquisitions.
The Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District staff also contributed to this report.
Thank you for your consideration of the progress Monroe County has made.
Sincerely,
Mayor Sylvia J. Murphy
Monroe County
Enclosures
c�
os
sue°`
aim
a�sa
u S
Etc
1
ear
a"ffi
as
�
as
09��
E 3 E
aw`
g
gg
2-
�o�
�o
m,
r 4
a
&a
z t
r.` r
t
a
133 HIM
$
g
Jill!
gem
gg
m
s
p vs
v
g
g
m
g�
s,G
sm
85m
5
�
fig
�
6 y 1
cY
I
I
:44
Ear
tgig
u
e
gal
$ E
gg
gg
e
elCCCCC
5�.p
a
U
etc
l
ffi
�
ffi
�
$
���9
gg
gg
gg
g
}w}E
3a�
e$
6E
U
gg
8
g
@
gg
8
gg
8
g
E
gg
F
HIM
A
a
o
gag
At
9
n
a
g
g!fill
e
gg
@@
fig
sitos'
gg
ggg$$
s
ggg
g
filly
$1
3 �Po I�
�
P
R
7
I
€is
04� w
B
�e�
S
4^G
0
m
S c�e4
2
C50
i
o�A
$
y
�5
as
a
�y
j „E
s
3�
E
�i
x
+1
'E
F
�i
�u
l
a
w
z
o
s
"a
Von
MIMI
NOY",
ITO
x
�i fONE
,1
AS
t
f. 1 1
°aA
1W
�80
Mis
s
IKE
0
TWA
E
Yr
"if
�
� is
ini
f l
S )
i
ANfit
g
g
g
¢¢
gg
gg
�c
404
}
i
t!1
"OHM,
tli
4
1�f ylty
yYl
IIf
a
ff[`
t{r �, i
Mw 1AIS
E
M
5
22
g
gg
a
g
r3fVIA,MAN,
its
t
t «I
!
P'
) 1 1
1
pgot
y%7t
8 E
8 1
E
E
g
g
g
g
@
g
t
i
F 7 i
i
9
t
f
i !
!i, J
1
Ii
r ?
It
�},,
1
�/
{1Ago
i..
.{t
i) 1
No,
AM,
4 tii
1 7
S
`i
vivo,
MAW:
1
O
U
Elm
'
Y
�I
W
V
lot
"J
t
gyve
uitaw
I
1
10; ATU
! tMAN�
I
1
'•, 2c 3, �
s
s. n
_
I
a
o c°�
gua
E2'
$s
E
e
gm°
Sm
c E
gg
gg
gg
g
gg
gg
gg
gg
mg°$
S
��ffi
m
gg
g
gg
gg
gg
gg
gg
gg
e
E
pp
gg
gg
p
p
gg
gg
g
gg
S
tt
3
P
�o
AEU
C
r�
Y
m
5
U
$
3
2
s
5g
@@
g
k
R
8
�
S
ffi
ffi
ffi
�
r
0
a
0
a
>
f
z
g
$
8
el
rf
r,
A
t
2�p
{
tou
ti
1 f l^
k<
`o
{
gAc
e
6
t
it
5
n
pp
gg
g
gg
A perg¢
gg
gg
gg
gg
gg
gg
4
}
€
a
o
listg_
PI
rr
�
Z
}i
}
I
a
s
t S
s
!is
MA
t
0
0.
d
T
to
C
0
M
Monroe County Land Authority Acquisition of Tier 1, Tier 2, and ROGO Administrative Relief Lands
from August 1, 2009 to July 30, 2010
Closing
Admin
Date
Block and Lot
Subdivision
Tier
Relief Parcels
Acres
Cost
8/12/2009
L18-21
Rogers
1
4
0.9
$60,989
8/21/2009
B6, L16
Palma Sola
1
1
0.1
$18,694
8/24/2009
B6, L21
Ramrod Shores
1
1
0.1
$20,759
8/31/2009
B7, L8
Ramrod Shores
1
1
0.1
$20,750
9/3/2009
B5, L5
Tropical Key Colony
1
1
0.1
$19,744
10/28/2009
B3, L24 and 25
Hams Ocean Park Estates
1
Yes 2
0.2
$50,834
10/28/2009
B6, L1 and 2
Eden Pines Colony 1st Addition
2
3
0.4
$76,066
10/28/2009
B25, L11
Eden Pines Colony 3rd Addition
2
*
incl above
10/29/2009
B3, L7
Summerland Beach Addition #2
1
1
0.3
$26,535
10/29/2009
B7, L23
Big Pine Shores
2
1
0.2
$10,153
11/10/2009
B5, L41 and 42
Cutthroat Harbor Estates
1
2
0.3
$38,854
12/17/2009
Tract G
Kinercha
1
1
0.7
$33,785
12/23/2009
B1, 1-1, 3, and E 38.5' of 4
Oceana
1
3
0.5
$49,402
1/11/2010
B2, L2
Kinercha
1
1
0.1
$16,744
2/19/2010
B5, L31
Bay Haven Section 1
1
1
0.1
$5,171
2/19/2010
B2, L6
Punta Brisa
2
1
0.2
$17,094
2/25/2010
B8, L8
Hams Ocean Park Est 1st Add
1
1
0.1
$16,735
3/5/2010
B12, L15
Eden Pines Colony
1
1
0.1
$16,735
3/8/2010
B47, L13
Sands
1
1
0.1
$17,135
4/5/2010
B18, L1
Eden Pines Colony
2
1
0.2
$25,787
4/5/2010
B2, L20
Rev Plat of Torch Key Estates
1
1
0.1
$16,735
4/26/2010
B2, L12
Summerland Estates Add #2
1
1
0.2
$16,735
5/18/2010
Acreage RE #110610
Big Pine Key
1
1
6.0
$51,747
6/18/2010
Parcels H and I
Cudjoe Acres
1
2
8.7
$16,887
7/1/2010
B9, L8
Hams Ocean Park Est 1st Add
1
Yes 1
0.1
$26,446
7/26/2010
B4, L7
Cutthroat Harbor Estates
1
1
0.1
$3,909
Subtotal of ROGO Administrative Relief Acquisitions
3
0.3
$77,280
Subtotal of Non-ROGO Administrative Relief Acquisitions
32
19.6
$597,143
Total of Tier 1, Tier 2, and ROGO Administrative Relief Acquisitions
35
19.9
$674,423
Monroe County Land Authority FY 2010 Budget Status
as of July 26, 2010
Acquisitions Within FL Keys Area of Critical State Concern
General Acquisitions
Budget
$
3,535,612
Less expenditures
$
(497,565)
Less encumbered funds
$
(254,744)
Balance
$
2,783,304
Reserve for ROGO Administrative
Relief
Budget
$
2,772,902
Less expenditures
$
(78,613)
Less encumbered funds
$
-
Balance
$
2,694,289
General Reserves
Contingency
$
500,000
End of Year Cash
$
500,000
Acquisitions Within Key West Area of Critical State Concern
Budget $ 3,122,507
Less expenditures $ (1,650,350)
Less encumbered funds $ (1,180,000)
Balance $ 292,157
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September 15, 2010 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes No X Department: Building
Staff Contact Person: Dianne Bair, CFM 289-2518
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
A request by Rory and Debra Brown, for a floodplain variance under Monroe County Code Section
122-5 to convert the use of their below base flood elevation enclosure from recreation room, storage
area, laundry area and convenience bath to one bedroom, storage area, laundry area and convenience
bath for property located at 23048 Sailfish Lane, Cudjoe Key, RE# 00188650.000000.
ITEM BACKGROUND: see attached
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION:
None
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Deny the variance request under the parameters set forth in the Monroe County Code and
FEMA guidelines for local variance and appeal board, or alternatively,
2. Submit the variance request to FEMA, prior to consideration of variance, to determine whether
the variance may be granted.
TOTAL COST: -0- INDIRECT COST -0- BUDGETED: Yes No -0-
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE
COST TO COUNTY: -0-
SOURCE OF FUNDS: -0-
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty N/A OMB/Purchasing N/A Risk Management N/A
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required.
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
County of Monroe
Growth Management Division
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Joe Paskalik, Building Official
Townsley Schwab, Planning and Environmental Resources Director
Through: Christine Hurley, AICP, Growth Management Division Director
Date: August 31, 2010
Re: AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM BACKGROUND
Brown Floodplain Variance Request and Building Permit History Summary
Debra and Rory Brown, through their agent and attorney, Mr. Lee Rohe, have requested a floodplain
variance from the requirements of the Monroe County floodplain regulations. They own a home with a
downstairs enclosure that was originally permitted to include a recreation room and "convenience"
bathroom (shower, toilet, sink), with laundry facilities. It was not permitted by the county to be used as
living area. The required elevation is nine feet above mean sea level (AE 9) and the downstairs enclosure
has a current elevation of 4.32 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
Monroe County Code, Section 122-5 requires the Board of County Commissioners to review and grant or
deny variances from the floodplain management requirements. A variance is to be granted based on
exceptional hardship requirements unique to a property.
After receipt of a variance request, the Building Official and Planning Director are to complete a report
and recommendation to the board of county commissioners. The board shall review the application and
reports and consider granting the variance.
The criteria for granting the variance are as follows in Monroe County Code Section 122-5:
(1) Variances shall be issued only upon a determination that the variance is the minimum
necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief, and only upon all of the following
conditions:
a. A showing of good and sufficient cause;
Page 1 of 6 Brown Floodplain Variance Request
b. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the
applicant,
c. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, result in
additional threats to public safety, result in extraordinary public expense; create nuisance; cause
fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with other provisions of this chapter or this Code,
and
d. Specific written findings linked to the criteria below.
(2) The following factors shall be relevant in the granting of a variance:
a. Physical characteristics of construction,
b. Whether it is possible to use the property by a conforming method of construction;
c. The possibility that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others,
d. The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage,
e. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effects of
such damage on the individual owner,
f. The importance to the community of the services provided by the proposed facility,
g. The necessity to the facility of a water -dependent location, where applicable;
h. The availability of alternate locations less subject to flooding,
i. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development,
j. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan, land development regulations
and the floodplain management program for that area;
k. The safety of access to the property for ordinary and emergency vehicles in times of flood,
I. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the floodwaters
and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; and
m. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including
maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water
systems, and streets and bridges.
(3) When the board of county commissioners shall consider the property of granting a variance as
permitted by this chapter, the following factors shall not be considered relevant:
a. The physical disabilities or handicaps and health of the applicant or members of his
family;
b. The domestic difficulties of the applicant or members of his family;
c. The financial difficulty of the applicant in complying with the floodplain management provisions
of this chapter, or
d. The elevation of surrounding structures.
The staff has prepared a report (attached) that indicates the status of the property relative to the criteria
found in Section 122-5 for consideration of granting a floodplain regulation variance. Staff has also
assembled documentation of the permit history at this site. The permit history indicates that generally,
the downstairs enclosure that is below base flood elevation by 4.68 feet was permitted by Monroe County
in 1981, except for perhaps the window unit air conditioner and the finishes, which were not indicated on
the drawings at the time. While the permit was issued according to the regulations in effect at the time,
there are notes in the Monroe County permit files that indicate a plumbing inspector observed the
downstairs area being used as living area in 1983, when it was noted that the downstairs seemed to be a
separate living unit. This was not permitted nor allowed at the time. However, there does not appear to
have been any enforcement efforts at that time. Further, a complaint was received related to the
Page 2 of 6 Brown Floodplain Variance Request
downstairs being used as living area (duplex) in 1999, and a code enforcement action was initiated.
Resolution of that action cannot be determined.
In the application from the owners, the owners state that the downstairs had a full kitchen and they
removed it. The current owners subsequently sought permits to improve the enclosed area, and at that
time were notified the area could not be used for living area. Since the family was using the downstairs
for their disabled son, and alternative methods for providing access for their son to the upstairs living
area were not successful, the owners are seeking this variance.
The staff is obligated to review the variance request based on the current code (Section 122-5) and the
FEMA regulations and guidance. It should be noted that the federal regulations (CFR Section 60.6)
indicate a variance shall only be issued upon a showing of good and sufficient cause, a determination
that failure to grant the variance will result in exceptional hardship and the determination that granting of
the variance will not result in increased flood height, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary
expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public or conflict with existing laws or
ordinances. The Code of Federal Regulations does not specifically state that physical handicap is not a
reason to grant a variance. FEMA Guidelines provide administrative interpretations of the Federal Code.
These Guidelines indicate variances should not be granted based on physical disabilities or handicaps,
and that such does not constitute exceptional hardship. The Monroe County Code appears to mirror
closely the FEMA guidelines and the Code of Federal Regulations.
Staff has based its recommendation for denial of the variance on the Monroe County Code and the
FEMA Guidelines.
If the Board grants the variance, it must give written notice to the owners that specifies the difference
between the base flood elevation and the elevation to which the structure is to be maintained. This could
impact the cost of flood insurance greatly for this property. Further an affidavit must be prepared and
signed by the owners and recorded with the clerk of circuit court in the official property records stating
the flood elevation, the lowest floor which will be below base flood level, and that the actuarial flood
insurance rates increase as the flood elevation decreases. Finally, the building official must keep a record
of all variance actions and annually report any variances to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). However, FEMA has required Monroe County to report variances granted, if any, on a monthly
basis since 1987.
As the Board knows, the Code of Federal Regulations and FEMA indicate that Monroe County should
not take actions contrary to the County floodplain regulations, nor the Code of Federal Regulations, as
the result could jeopardize the County's voluntary participation in the national flood insurance program.
Page 3 of 6 Brown Floodplain Variance Request
Brown Floodplain Variance Request
PERMIT HISTORY SUMMARY
Permit A4092 was issued August 28, 1978 for a single family residence without a downstairs enclosure.
The flood zone was V8 elevation 8. There was a fee charged on the electrical permit work sheet for
three wall unit air conditioners (A/C). The locations for these units were shown on the floor plans.
There was also a fee charged for a washer and dryer on the electrical permit work sheet, but no location
was shown on the elevated floor plan. It was not an uncommon practice to locate the washer and dryer
below the elevated home in 1978 when the location was not shown on the floor plan. The Certificate
of Occupancy (CO) was issued June 14, 1979. This is a post -FIRM home.
Permit A5872 for a chain link fence was issued September 21, 1979.
Permit A7929 was issued March 6, 1981 for a 672 square foot downstairs enclosure with a storage area
section partitioned off from a recreation room and a "convenience bath". Up until 1983, the County
regularly issued permits for recreation rooms and "convenience baths" in lower enclosures based on
Ordinance 3-1975 and administrative interpretations of the ordinance at that time. At that time the
County did not consider such uses as "habitable uses". FEMA addressed below base flood elevation
non -conforming enclosed space authorized by permit in the Final Rule for the Pilot Inspection Program
date June 27, 2000 under "Previously Issued Permits". As a result of a class action suit filed against the
County, the County reached a settlement agreement with the Plaintiffs dated April 13, 1999 which stated
that non -conforming enclosed space below base flood elevation authorized by permit would not be cited
for violating the County ordinances setting forth floodplain regulations. In 2000, FEMA specifically
answered the question of previously issued permits by stating in the Federal Register that "the illegally
built enclosures for which the County had previously issued permits are still subject to the inspection
procedure". The final rule for the pilot inspection program also stated that the County must inspect
these enclosures to ensure that they have not been improved beyond what had been previously permitted.
If so the County must take an enforcement action on those improvements that go beyond the previously
issued permit.
Permit A7929 received final inspections August 10, 1983 for the downstairs enclosure. Notes from the
inspectors at that time indicated they observed living space in the downstairs enclosure, including stove,
sink and refrigerator. The plumbing inspector made note on the final "OK for plumbing only" and that
the "downstairs looks like a separate unit including stove, sink, refrigerator and beds".
Permit 911-2133 was issued for a dock March 4, 1991 and inspected May 28, 1991.
Permit 981-2757 was issued December 14, 1998 for a re -roof and received an "in progress" inspection
January 25, 1999. The final "passed" inspection was never obtained.
July 12, 1999 an anonymous complaint was received. The complaint alleged that the downstairs
enclosure was being used for habitation, making the house an illegal duplex and that work was being
completed without a permit. A code enforcement case was initiated under number CE 99-578A but the
case did not go before the Special Magistrate.
Page 4 of 6 Brown Floodplain Variance Request
Permit application 061-5462 was submitted September 15, 2006 for the "remodel of existing bathroom".
The remodel request was for the downstairs enclosure "convenience bath". This permit was never
issued pursuant to Monroe County Code Section 122-4(a)(9) which incorporates the language of the
Federal Register's "Previously Issued Permits" rule and states: "Nonconforming uses and construction
below elevated post -FIRM buildings shall not be expanded or improved or repaired from damages of
any origin and no building permit shall be issued for any improvements to below base flood enclosures,
other than for demolition or a permit to remedy a life safety hazard, unless the structure is brought into
compliance with this chapter. " October 6, 2006 the County informed the contractor who submitted the
application that the permit could not be issued for improvements to nonconforming uses and construction
in the downstairs enclosure.
May 29, 2008 a complaint was received by code enforcement for the installation of a wheelchair lift
without permit. A code complaint was initiated under number CE08050293. On May 30, a code officer
met with the property owner and the lift had not been installed. The property owner explained that the
wheelchair lift would remain in storage pending the issuance of a permit. On June 2, 2008 case
CE08050293 was closed without further action.
Permit application 081-2155 was received by the building department on June 10, 2008, for the
installation of an elevator and slab. On August 14, 2008 in accordance with Section 6-107 MCC, which
requires an inspection upon any building permit where the property tax card shows living area in the
downstairs enclosure, an inspection of the downstairs enclosure was performed. The inspection
demonstrated that with the exception of a small area and the area permitted as a recreation room and
convenience bath, all walls were unfinished bare stud walls and there was no stove. Two refrigerators
were observed. During the inspection it was discovered that the previously permitted recreation room is
now being used as a bedroom. The laundry room and "convenience bath" were still intact. In addition,
the summary in the variance application provided by the Brown's states that the Brown's removed the
kitchen years ago.
Permit 081-2155 was issued October 3, 2008 for an elevator and slab. This permit generated the
inspection performed August 14, 2008 pursuant to Section 6-107. On August 20, 2008, in a letter to the
Browns, the County explained that the enclosure exceeded the scope of work permitted in the permit and
the steps necessary to gain compliance for the nonconforming structure. The letter also explained that
failure to gain compliance would result in a code enforcement referral. The permit was renewed on
April 21, 2009 and then expired without any work being completed. The Browns chose not to install the
elevator or the slab.
February 19, 2009, floodplain management forwarded a referral to Code Enforcement (CE09020237) for
the Browns failure to comply with the solutions provided in the August 20, 2008 letter on how to gain
compliance.
Permit 091-465 for a swimming pool was issued March 31, 2009. The final inspection was passed on
June 24, 2009.
Page 5 of 6 Brown Floodplain Variance Request
July 30, 2009 code enforcement case number CE09020237 was scheduled for a code enforcement
hearing. The hearing on July 30, 2009 was continued a number of times to May 27, 2010. At the May
27, 2010 code enforcement hearing, the Browns requested a continuance to apply for a variance.
June 21, 2010 Variance application submitted.
August 31, 2010 The County continues to receive complaints on this house alleging habitation in the
lower enclosure, excessive car traffic as well as perceived multi -family use. At the time of the last
inspection, the downstairs enclosure did not have a kitchen, and therefore, would not be classified as
multifamily.
Page 6 of 6 Brown Floodplain Variance Request
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Christine Hurley, AICP
Director, Growth Management Division
Through: Townsley Schwab, Sr. Director of Planning and Environmental Resources,
Joe Paskalik, Sr. Director Building Official
From: Dianne Bair CFM, Floodplain/Special Projects Administrator
Date: August 31, 2010
Re: STAFF REPORT
Flood Plain Variance Request by Rory and Debra Brown
VARIANCE REQUEST:
A request by Rory and Debra Brown for a floodplain variance under Monroe County Code Section 122-5
for a variance of 4.68 feet from the required 9 feet elevation (above mean sea level) for use of existing
structure as habitable living space at 4.32 feet finished floor elevation (above mean sea level) to convert
the use of their below base flood elevation enclosure from permitted recreation room, storage area,
laundry area and convenience bath to one bedroom, storage area, laundry area and convenience bath for
property located at 23048 Sailfish Lane, Cudjoe Key, RE# 00188650.000000.
BACKGROUND:
See attached summary and permitting history from Joe Paskalik, Building Official and Townsley
Schwab, Planning Director dated August 31, 2010.
PROCESS: In accordance with Section 122-5 of the Monroe County Code, variances shall be issued by
the Board of County Commissioners. The variance shall be made only upon a determination that the
variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief, and only upon all the
criteria in Monroe County Code Section 122-5. If a variance is granted, the decision is rendered to
FEMA. A flood plain variance report is sent to FEMA on a monthly basis if variances are granted. The
county has not granted any variances since 1987 that did not meet FEMA and County variance criteria. In
1987, FEMA required that the County re-examine all previously issued variances where construction had
not commenced and rescind those not properly granted with appropriate criteria.
Based on past experience, if a variance is granted to the applicants, upon submission of the variance to
FEMA, it is possible that FEMA will require the BOCC to rescind the variance for failure to meet FEMA
and County variance criteria.
Page 1 of 6
STAFF REVIEW OF VARIANCE REQUEST:
The National Flood Insurance variance criteria are based on the general principal of zoning law that
variances pertain to a piece of property and are not personal in nature. A properly issued variance is
granted for a parcel of property with physical characteristics so unusual that complying with the
ordinance would create an exceptional hardship to the applicant or the surrounding property owners.
Those characteristics must be unique to that property and not shared by adjacent parcels. The unique
characteristics must pertain to the land itself, not to the structure, its inhabitants, or the property owners.
Section 122-5 0
(1) Variances shall be issued only upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary
considering the flood hazard, to afford relief, and only upon all of the following conditions.
a. Showing of good and sufficient cause:
The applicant has stated their son cannot live upstairs comfortably and that his wheelchair will not fit
through the upstairs doorway.
The applicant has not demonstrated good and sufficient cause, under either the "FEMA Guidelines for
Local Variance and Appeal Boards " (federal guidelines attached) or under the Monroe County Code
(attached). Good and sufficient cause is based on the property characteristics and not on the occupants.
The "FEMA Guidelines for Local Variance and Appeal Boards " state that inconvenience, aesthetic
considerations, physical handicaps, personal preferences, or the disapproval of one's neighbors, do not
qualify for exceptional hardship for the granting of a variance.
b. A determination that failure to grant the variance will result in exceptional hardship to the
applicant:
Monroe County staff is sympathetic to this family and its needs. However, staff is constrained by the
guidelines and the code. Based on FEMA guidelines, hardship is based on the physical characteristics of
the land and not on any property owner or member of a property owner's family.
The guidelines offer an example that appears to be of an exceptional hardship, such as this request;
however it is not deemed so by FEMA. (see "Individual Hardship vs. Community Goals" and "Hardship -
Title 44, CFR" page 2 of 10 and page 3 of 10 of the "Federal Guidelines for Local Variance and Appeal
Boards".)
An exceptional hardship would pertain to a parcel of property with physical characteristics so unusual
that complying with the ordinance would create the hardship. The characteristics must be unique to the
property and not shared by adjacent properties. There are no geological conditions peculiar to this
property not shared by other properties which would create an exceptional hardship preventing the
applicants from using their property in a compliant manner.
Page 2 of 6
c. A determination that granting the variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional
threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense; nuisance; fraud on or victimization of the
public, or conflict with other provisions of this chapter.
For this particular structure, the expected flood heights should not be increased; the structure and
enclosure already exist. Based on FEMA guidelines, "The situation of handicapped persons occupying
flood prone housing raises a critical public safety concern. If a variance is granted and building is
constructed at grade, it will be critical that the handicapped or infirmed person evacuate when
floodwaters begin to rise. Even though he or she may be helpless to do so alone. Not only does this pose
an unnecessary danger to handicapped persons but it also places extra demand on the community's
emergency services personnel who are called upon and placed at risk during rescue. (thereby creating
extraordinary public expense) In contrast, if the building is properly elevated, the handicapped person
can still be evacuated if there is sufficient warning and assistance available. If there is not, that person
can, in all likelihood, survive the flood simply by remaining at home safely above the level of the
floodwaters. "
FEMA Guidelines concerning Public Safety and Nuisances (page 3 of 10) state "Variances must not
result in additional threats to public safety or create nuisances. As mentioned above, local flood damage
prevention ordinances (including elevation requirements ) are intended to help protect the health, safety,
well-being and property of the local citizens." Fraud and Victimization (page 3 of 10) state that future
owners of the property and the community as a whole are subject to the increased risk of damage from
floods, while future owners of the property and the community as a whole are subject to all costs,
inconvenience, danger, and suffering that those increased flood damages bring.
However, should a variance be granted based on a handicap, other variances with the same criteria may
follow setting a precedent and establishing a history which may jeopardize the County's participation in
the National Flood Insurance Program which could result in extraordinary expense to the citizens of
Monroe County. In addition, persons occupying flood prone areas raises a critical public safety concern.
It would be essential that handicap persons leave when an evacuation notice is issued. If flood waters
begin to rise, and unforeseen circumstances prevent evacuations he or she may be helpless and in harms
way. Not only would this pose unnecessary danger to handicapped persons but it places an extra
demand on the emergency management personnel who may be called to the rescue. In this instance the
handicap person would be safer in the elevated part of the home. In addition, the granting of this
variance will significantly increase the yearly flood insurance. The current owner as well as future
owners may purchase this property unaware that it is subject to high insurance rates.
d Specific written findings linked to the criteria below:
(2) The following factors shall be relevant in the granting of a variance:
a. Physical characteristics of construction;
There are no unique physical characteristics specific to the structure or property to justify a variance. The
granting of a variance for this property would expand the existing nonconforming use which is not in
compliance with Section 1224(a)(9) Nonconforming uses and construction. The enclosure is expected
over time to come into compliance with the current regulations. Current regulations permit only limited
storage, parking of vehicles and building access.
Page 3 of 6
b. Whether it is possible to use the property by a conforming method of construction;
The property can be used in a conforming manner. An elevator or lift may be installed, and the bathroom
and/or doorways in the elevated home can be altered to accommodate the wheelchair. It is unclear
whether or not the doors on the enclosure "convenience bath" must be enlarged or already are large
enough to accommodate the wheelchair.
C. The possibility that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
The fact that this enclosure is non -conforming already leaves the possibility of the non -conforming
construction materials being swept onto other lands. Additionally, those materials and household
furnishings/furniture and other materials and items associated with living in the enclosure would further
exacerbate these possibilities.
d The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
As stated in l.c., if flood waters begin to rise, and unforeseen circumstances prevent evacuation, a
handicapped person may be helpless and in harms way. Handicapped persons are safer in a home
elevated above flood level.
e. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effects of
such damage on the individual owner;
The lower enclosure is susceptible to flood damage. The flood zone is nine feet above mean sea level
(AE 9) and the average ground elevation 3.99 feet above mean sea level. With the slab, the finished floor
elevation is 4.32 feet. This means there is a one percent chance in any given year that the enclosure
could be submerged by 4.68 feet of floodwaters. The contents of a recreation room and "convenience
bath" are minimal when compared to the loss of full living area. The damages sustained would not be
covered by flood insurance and must be absorbed by the individual owner.
f. The importance to the community of the services provided by the proposed facility;
A variance for living area for a handicapped person below an elevated home does not provide any
service to the community.
g. The necessity of the facility of a water dependent location where applicable;
This is not applicable. This is not a water dependent facility.
h. The availability of alternative locations less subject to flooding;
The elevated building and the enclosure are already in place. The only available alternative location less
subject to flooding is the existing elevated home.
i. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;
Page 4 of 6
A variance to allow permanent continuous habitation as a use in an enclosure which was permitted for
occasional recreational use below the base flood elevation is not compatible with existing or anticipated
development.
j. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan, land development regulations
and the floodplain managementprogram for the area;
Habitable space below base flood elevation under elevated buildings is inconsistent with the goals,
objectives and policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. (Policy 101.8.1 prohibits
the expansion of nonconforming uses. Policy 217.1.6 mandates enforcement of federal, state and local
setback and elevation requirements to promote protection and safety of life and property. Policy 217.1.5
envisions participation in the Community Rating System and seeks to improve the current CRS rating.)
The proposed use is inconsistent with the Monroe County Floodplain Management Program. Sec. 122-
4(b)(7) prohibits habitable space below base flood elevation. The purpose and intent of the program is to
insure that the county is at all times eligible for and receive the benefit of participation in the National
Flood Insurance Program. (Sec. 122-1(b))
& The safety and access to the property for ordinary and emergency vehicles in times of flooding;
Coastal floods are generated by hurricanes in Monroe County. In the event of flooding from hurricane
conditions, the property would not be accessible for emergency vehicles.
L The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters
and the effects of wave action, if applicable, at the site;
There is a 1 % chance in any given year this site could experience flood waters reaching 9 (AE 9) feet
above mean sea level. The average ground elevation at this site is 3.99 MSL. With the slab, the
finished floor elevation is 4.32 feet. This site including the downstairs enclosure could be inundated with
up to 5.1 feet of flood water. (The structure could be inundated with up to 4.68 of floodwater.) The
velocity of the water would be that which is associated with coastal AE zone base flood elevations
including up to three feet of breaking waves. The rate of rise and sediment transport is associated with
riverine flood conditions. Additionally, debris impact and flood borne contaminants associated with
coastal flooding would be expected.
M. The cost of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including
maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water
systems and streets and bridges
If a variance is granted, the cost of emergency services would increase in the event that the downstairs
enclosure is flooded and the occupants are unable to evacuate.
(3) When the board of county commissioners shall consider the property of granting a variance as
permitted by this chapter, the following factors shall not be considered relevant:
a. The physical disabilities or handicaps and health of the applicant or members of his family;
b. The domestic difficulties of the applicant or members of his family;
Page 5 of 6
a The financial difficulty of the applicant t in complying with the flbodplain management
provisions of this chapter; or
d The elevation of surrounding structures
CONCLUSIONS:
In conclusion, the staff has determined that the applicant does not meet the criteria for a variance
established in Section 122-5 of the Monroe County Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Deny the variance request under the parameters set forth in the Monroe County Code and FEMA
guidelines for local variance and appeal board, or alternatively,
2. Submit the variance request to FEMA, prior to consideration of variance, to determine whether
the variance may be granted.
Page 6 of 6
OJITMIMIA
�Cilflll:l
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Insurance & Mitigation Division Region IV
3003 Chamblee -Tucker Road
Atlanta, GA 30341
FEMA GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL VARIANCE AND APPEAL BOARDS
In circumstances where compliance requirements set out in a community's regulations pose an
exceptional hardship, the community may, after examining the applicant's hardship, approve or
disapprove a request for variance.
Although FEMA does not set forth absolute criteria for granting variances from the provision of
Title 44, CFR, §60.3, 60.4, and §60.5, the following general standards have been established in
§60.6 (a):
1. An applicant has good and sufficient cause for requesting a variances;
2. An applicant will suffer exceptional hardship should a variance be
denied;
3. A variance will not cause increased flood heights, additional threats to
public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause
fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local
laws or ordinances; and
4. A variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to
afford relief.
The granting of variance is a local decision that must be based on local ordinance, NFIP
regulations, State law, and any other provisions the community may wish to require.
The Nature of the Variances
A variance represents a community's approval to set aside floodplain regulations that it adopted
to reduce the loss of life and property damage due to flooding. While the impact of a single
variance on a flood hazard may not be significant, the cumulative impact of several variances
may be severe.
The NFIP variance criteria are based on the general principal of zoning law that variances pertain
to a piece of property and are not personal in nature. Though standards vary from State to
State, in general a properly issued variance is granted for a parcel of property with physical
characteristics so unusual that complying with the ordinance would create an exceptional
hardship to the applicant or the surrounding property owners. Those characteristics must be
unique to that property and be shared by adjacent parcels. The unique characteristics must
pertain to the land itself, not to the structure, its' inhabitants, or the property owners. A variance
should be considered on an individual, case -by -case, basis and never on a multi -lot or
subdivision basis.
Examples of the kinds of characteristics that might give rise to a hardship that might justify a
variance to certain other building or zoning ordinances would include an irregularly shaped lot, a
parcel with unstable soils, or a parcel with an unusual geologic condition below the ground
surface. It is difficult, however, to imagine any physical characteristic that would give rise to a
hardship sufficient to justify a variance to a flood elevation requirement. A frequently
encountered example is the case of a very small undeveloped lot surrounded by lots on which
buildings have been constructed at grade, and an ordinance that requires new structures be
constructed at a level several feet above grade. If the owner were to elevate on fill, the lot might
drain onto neighboring property. In this case, the size of the lot and its' status as the only
undeveloped lot in the vicinity are characteristics that could result in a hardship. However, this
situation still probably would not warrant a variance because, as discussed below, the owner does
not face an exceptional hardship since there are many ways to alleviate the drainage problem
(elevation on pilings or a crawl space, grading the fill to drain away from adjoining properties,
etc.). Our manual, Elevated Residential Structures and the USACE Floodproofing Systems and
Techniques, illustrate ways in which various site -specific problems can be overcome when
designing and building structures that must be elevated.
Individual Hardship vs. Community Goals
In determining whether or not an applicant has established an exceptional hardship sufficient to
justify a variance, the local board weights the applicant's hardship against the purpose of the
ordinance. In the case of variances from a flood elevation requirement, this would mean asking
which variance is more serious: the hardship that this individual applicant would face, or the
community's need for strictly enforced regulations that protect its citizens from the danger and
damages of flooding? Only a truly exceptional, unique hardship on the part of an individual
applicant would persuade local officials to set aside provisions of an ordinance designed to with
the whole community's safety in mind. The hardship might not have to be so severe if the
applicant were seeking a variance to a setback ordinance, for instance, which was intended
merely to simplify street repair and modifications. In the course of considering variances to
flood protection ordinances, however, local variance and appeals boards must face the more
difficult task of frequently having to deny requests from applicants whose personal
circumstances evoke compassion, but whose hardships are simply not sufficient to justify
deviation from community -wide flood damage prevention requirements.
Hardship — Title 44, CFR, § 60.6(a) (3) (ii)
44 CFR Section 60.6(a)(3)(ii) states that "Variances shall only be issued by a community upon a
determination that failure to grant the Variance would result in exceptional hardship to the
applicant." The hardship that would result from failure to grant a requested variance must be
exceptional, unusual, and exclusive to the property involved. Mere economic or financial
hardship alone is not exceptional. Inconvenience, aesthetic considerations, physical handicaps,
personal preferences, or the disapproval of one's neighbors likewise cannot qualify as
exceptional hardships. All of these problems can be resolved through other means without
granting a variance. This is so, even if the alternative means are more expensive or complicated
than building with a variance, or if they require the property owner to put the parcel to a different
use than originally intended, or to build his or her home elsewhere.
For example, a situation in which it would cost a property owner several thousand dollars more
to elevate a house to comply with the ordinance and an additional several thousand to build a
wheelchair ramp or an elevator to provide access to that house for a handicapped member of the
family at first glance seems like the sort of problem that could be relieved by variance.
2of10
However, while financial considerations are always import to property owners, and the need of
the handicapped person certainly must be accommodated, these difficulties do not put this
situation in the category of "exceptional hardships" as they relate to variances. This is because:
1. The characteristics that result in the hardship are personal (the physical
condition and financial situation of the person proposing to live on the
property) rather than pertaining to the property itself.
2. The problem of day-to-day access to the building can be alleviated in
any one of a number of ways (going to the additional expense of
building ramps or an elevator), without granting a variance.
3. The situation of handicapped persons occupying flood -prone housing
raises a critical public safety concern. If a variance is granted and
building is constructed at grade, it will be critical that the handicapped
or infirmed person evacuate when floodwaters begin to rise. Even
though he or she may be helpless to do so alone. Not only does this
pose an unnecessary danger to handicapped persons but it also places
extra demand on the community's emergency services personnel who
are called upon and placed at risk during rescue. In contrast, if the
building is properly elevated, the handicapped person can still be
evacuated if there is sufficient warning and assistance available. If
there is not, that person can, in all likelihood, survive the flood simply
by remaining at home safely above the level of the floodwaters.
More simply, the property owner's difficulties would not really be relieved by the
variance, more likely only postponed, and perhaps ultimately increased. It would
be more prudent over the long run for both the property owner and the
community, if the variance were denied and the home built at the proper elevation
with handicapped access. This will ensure the safety of all family members when
floodwaters rise and protect the individual and community investment in the
property, as discussed below.
Public Safety and Nuisances — Title 44 CFR §60 6 (a) (3) (iii)
Variances must not result in additional threats to public safety or create nuisances. As mentioned
above, local flood damage prevention ordinances (including elevation requirements) are intended
to help protect the health, safety, well-being, and property of the local citizens. This is a long-
range community effort usually made up of a combination of approaches such as adequate
drainage systems, warning and evacuation plans, and participating in the NFIP. These long-term
goals can only be met if exceptions to the laws are kept to a bare minimum.
Fraud and Victimization — Title 44, CFR, §60.6 (a) (3) (iii)
Properly granted variances must not cause fraud on or victimization of the public. In examining
this requirement, local boards should consider the fact that each new structure adds to local
government responsibility and remains a part of the community for the life of the structure.
Structures built below the base flood elevation are subject to the increased risk of damage from
floods, while future owners of the property and the community as a whole are subject to all costs,
inconvenience, danger, and suffering that those increased flood damages bring. In addition,
3of10
future owners may purchase the property, unaware that it is subject to potential flood damages,
and can be insured only at very high flood insurance rates.
Minimum Necessary to Afford Relief — Title 44 CFR § 60.6 (a) (4))
The variance that is granted should be for the minimum deviation from the local requirements
that will still alleviate the hardship. In the case of variances to an elevation requirement, this
means the board should not grant permission for the applicant to build at grade.
Insurance Rates — Title 44, CFR, § 60.6E (5)
While the building standards in a local ordinance may be altered by means of a variance, the
flood insurance purchase requirement, which must be enforced by lending institutions, cannot be
waived and thus may create severe financial consequences for the property owners. Insurance
rates for structures build below BFE can be substantially higher than those for elevated
structures. In many instances, the rates will be so high as to make the structure essentially
uninsurable because the owners cannot afford the premium. This may not matter to the original
owner who applied for the variance in the first place, but it may matter a great deal to subsequent
potential owners. The potential buyer might be forced to forgo purchase of the property.
Subsequent owners may not find buyers because of the high insurance rates, or the community
may finds it has a large number of un-salable houses.
In addition, if the property is not insured and cannot be insured due to high actuarial rates, there
may be no funds available to repair the structure if seriously damaged by flood. Even disaster
loans may not be obtainable if the flood insurance coverage required as a condition of the loans
was available only at very high rates. The result may be that the present owner or a future owner
may chose to abandon the damaged house rather than repair it since the damages may exceed the
equity in the house. The local government and/or the holder of the mortgage are than left with
the problem of one or more vacant, flood -damaged, and essentially uninsurable houses.
Technical Staff Assistance
In considering variances, the variance board should utilize local technical expertise and
recommendations from the Building Department, Planning and/or Zoning Department,
Engineering Department, etc. The local technical staff should consider alternatives available
such as relocation of the structure on the lot, slope or fill, retention walls, proper drainage away
from adjoining structures, and other less drastic variances such as set back or lot coverage
variances as previously mentioned elsewhere in this guideline and in other publications.
Summary
Because the duty and need of local governments to help protect their citizens from flooding is so
compelling, and the implications of the cost of insuring a structure built below flood level are so
serious, variances from the flood elevation or from other requirements in the flood ordinance
should be quite rare. This is why the NFIP variance guidelines at §60.6 are so detailed and
contain multiple provisions that must be met before a variance can be properly granted. The
criteria are designed to screen out those situations in which alternatives other than a variance are
more appropriate. It is not surprising that, when these publications are followed, very few
situations qualify for a variance.
4of10
2003 CODIFIED FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR) 60.6 VARIANCE
CRITERIA AND 2003 GUIDANCE FOR LOCAL VARIANCE AND APPEAL
BOARDS
Page 23 of 23
Reviewed by
W:\Building\Working Folders\Bair-Dianne\Variances to Flood\BROWN convert to living area for handicap 2010.doc
REFERENCE — 44 CFR §60.6
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 44, Volume 1 ]
[Revised as of October 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 44CFR60.6]
[Page 260-262]
TITLE 44--EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND ASSISTANCE
CHAPTER I --FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND
SECURITY
PART 60--CRITERIA FOR LAND MANAGEMENT AND USE --Table of Contents
Subpart A --Requirements for Flood Plain Management Regulations
Sec. 60.6 Variances and Exceptions.
(a) The Administrator does not set forth absolute criteria for granting variances from the
criteria set forth in Sec. 60.3, 60.4, and 60.5. The issuance of a variance is for flood plain
management purposes only. Insurance premium rates are determined by statute according to
actuarial risk and will not be modified by the granting of a variance. The community, after
examining the applicant's hardships, shall approve or disapprove a request. While the granting
of variances generally is limited to a lot size less than one-half acre (as set forth in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section), deviations from that limitation may occur. However, as the lot size
increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing a variance
increases. The Administrator may review a community's findings justifying the granting of
variances, and if that review indicates a pattern inconsistent with the objectives of sound flood
plain management, the Administrator may take appropriate action under Sec. 59.24(b) of this
subchapter. Variances may be issued for the repair or rehabilitation of historic structures upon a
determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued
designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the
historic character and design of the structure. Procedures for the granting of variances by a
community are as follows:
(1) Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway
if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result;
(2) Variances may be issued by a community for new construction and substantial
improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and
surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level, in
conformance with the procedures of paragraphs (a) (3), (4), (5) and (6) of this section;
(3) Variances shall only be issued by a community upon
(i) A showing of good and sufficient cause,
n
(ii) A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional
hardship to the applicant, and
(iii) A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased
flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense,
create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with
existing local laws or ordinances;
(4) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum
necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief;
(5) A community shall notify the applicant in writing over the signature of a community
official that
(i) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level
will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as
high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and
(ii) Such construction below the base flood level increases risks to life and
property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance
actions as required in paragraph (a)(6) of this section; and
(6) A community shall
(i) Maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their
issuance, and
(ii) Report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the
Administrator.
(7) Variances may be issued by a community for new construction and substantial
improvements and for other development necessary for the conduct of a functionally
dependent use provided that
(i) The criteria of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section are met, and
(ii) The structure or other development is protected by methods that minimize
flood damages during the base flood and create no additional threats to public
safety.
(b) (1) The requirement that each flood -prone, mudslide (i.e., mudflow)-prone, and flood -
related erosion prone community must adopt and submit adequate flood plain management
regulations as a condition of initial and continued flood insurance eligibility is statutory and
cannot be waived, and such regulations shall be adopted by a community within the time periods
specified in Sec. 60.3, 60.4, or Sec. 60.5. However, certain exceptions from the standards
contained in this subpart may be permitted where the Administrator recognizes that, because of
extraordinary circumstances, local conditions may render the application of certain standards the
cause for severe hardship and gross inequity for a particular community. Consequently, a
community proposing the adoption of flood plain management regulations which vary from the
standards set forth in Sec. 60.3, 60.4, or Sec. 60.5, shall explain in writing to the Administrator
the nature and extent of and the reasons for the exception request and shall include sufficient
supporting economic, environmental, topographic, hydrologic, and other scientific and technical
data, and data with respect to the impact on public safety and the environment.
(2) The Administrator shall prepare a Special Environmental Clearance to determine whether
the proposal for an exception under paragraph (b)(1) of this section will have significant impact
on the human environment. The decision whether an Environmental Impact Statement or other
environmental document will be prepared, will be made in accordance with the procedures set
out in 44 CFR part 10. Ninety or more days may be required for an environmental quality
6of10
clearance if the proposed exception will have significant impact on the human environment
thereby requiring an EIS.
(c) A community may propose flood plain management measures, which adopt standards for
floodproofed residential basements below the base flood level in zones Al-30, AH, AO, and AE,
which are not subject to tidal flooding. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section the Administrator may approve the proposal provided that:
(1) The community has demonstrated that areas of special flood hazard in which basements
will be permitted are subject to shallow and low velocity flooding and that there is
adequate flood warning time to ensure that all residents are notified of impending floods.
For the purposes of this paragraph flood characteristics must include:
(i) Flood depths that are five feet or less for developable lots that are contiguous to
land above the base flood level and three feet or less for other lots;
(ii) Flood velocities that are five feet per second or less; and
(iii) Flood warning times that are 12 hours or greater. Flood warning times of two
hours or greater may be approved if the community demonstrates that it has a
flood warning system and emergency plan in operation that is adequate to
ensure safe evacuation of flood plain residents.
(2) The community has adopted flood plain management measures that require that new
construction and substantial improvements of residential structures with basements in
zones A 1-3 0, AH, AO, and AE shall
(i) Be designed and built so that any basement area, together with attendant
utilities and sanitary facilities below the floodproofed design level, is watertight
with walls that are impermeable to the passage of water without human
intervention. Basement walls shall be built with the capacity to resist
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy resulting from
flooding to the floodproofed design level, and shall be designed so that minimal
damage will occur from floods that exceed that level. The floodproofed design
level shall be an elevation one foot above the level of the base flood where the
difference between the base flood and the 500-year flood is three feet or less
and two feet above the level of the base flood where the difference is greater
than three feet.
(ii) Have the top of the floor of any basement area no lower than five feet below
the elevation of the base flood;
(iii) Have the area surrounding the structure on all sides filled to or above the
elevation of the base flood. Fill must be compacted with slopes protected by
vegetative cover;
(iv) Have a registered professional engineer or architect develop or review the
building's structural design, specifications, and plans, including consideration
of the depth, velocity, and duration of flooding and type and permeability of
soils at the building site, and certify that the basement design and methods of
construction proposed are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for
meeting the provisions of this paragraph;
(v) Be inspected by the building inspector or other authorized representative of the
community to verify that the structure is built according to its design and those
provisions of this section, which are verifiable.
7of10
[41 FR 46975, Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR 31177, May 31, 1979, as amended at 48
FR 44543 and 44552, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984; 50 FR 36025, Sept. 4, 1985; 51
FR 30308, Aug. 25, 1986; 54 FR 33550, Aug. 15, 1989]
8of10
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE
The authority to award variances is limited. Administrative boards are restricted in providing
relief within the review standards contained in the regulation.
They are not empowered to change the ordinance or grant
variances.
• Such actions are misuse of authority, injurious to property owners,
and an affront to community regulatory and planning efforts.
The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act prepared by the U. S. Department of Commerce in
1926 has served as the basis of many State -enabling acts. The standards for grating variance
contained in the 1926 model have been copied by many States, as well.
The concept of "unnecessary hardship" is the cornerstone of all variance standards, and is widely
used through the country in limiting the granting of variances.
Defined as:
• Loss of all beneficial or productive use
• Deprivation of reasonable return on property
• Deprivation al all or any reasonable use
• Rending property valueless
• Inability to develop property in compliance with the regulations
• Reasonable use cannot be made consistent with regulations
The applicant has the burden of proving an unnecessary hardship. The proof must be compelling
and reasons for granting the variance substantial.
A variance is a waiver of one or more of the specific standards required in ordinance.
Concerning the floodplain ordinances, variance requests should be considered very carefully. It
is possible that FEMA's enforcement action could result in placing the community on probation
or being suspended from the NFIP for issuing excessive variances. This would result in the loss
of flood insurance for the entire community.
When a variance is granted, the local administrator must provide written notification to the
applicant that a project granted a variance is not exempt from the insurance requirements. In
some instances, a variance may result in increased insurance premium rates that could go as high
as $25 per $100 of coverage and increased risk to life and property.
Variance Records - Title 44, CFR, § 60.6(a (6)
The community shall maintain records and report all variance actions to FEMA as requested
and/or as a part of the biennial report. The records should, at a minimum, include the variance
action, board justification, and property owner notification.
Functionally Dependent Structures - Title 44 CFR § 60 6(a) (7)
Variances may be issued by a community for new construction and substantial improvements
and for other development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use provided:
(i) The criteria of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section are met, and
The structure or other development is protected by methods that minimize flood
damages during the base flood and create no additional threats to public safety.
10 of 10
Amel
Cha
ter 122
Sec. 122-5. Variances to the floodplain management requirements,
(c) Conditions.
Sec. 122-5. Variances to the floodplain management requirements.
(a) Generally. Where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the floodplain management
provisions of the plan would result in exceptional hardship unique to that property or proposed project,
the board of county commissioners may grant variances from the terms of those provisions as will not
be contrary to the public interest, will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter,
and will be the minimum variance that will allow reasonable use of the property.
(b) Procedures.
(1) An application for a variance from the provisions of this chapter for development in an area of
special flood hazard shall be filed with the building official in a form provided by the director of
planning at the time of application for a building permit.
(2) Within ten days of receipt of a complete application for a variance from the terms of the
floodplain management provisions of this chapter, the building official shall forward the
application to the director of planning, review the application, and submit a report and
recommendation to the board of county commissioners.
(3) The director of planning, or his designee, also shall review the application for a variance and
submit a report and recommendation to the board of county commissioners within five days
after receipt from the building official.
(4) The board of county commissioners shall review the application and the reports and recom-
mendations of the building official and director of planning and consider granting the variance
in accordance with the conditions set forth in this section.
(c) Conditions.
(1) Variances shall be issued only upon a determination that the variance is the minimum
necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief, and only upon all of the following
conditions:
a• A showing of good and sufficient cause;
b. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship
to the applicant;
C. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood
heights; result in additional threats to public safety; result in extraordinary public
expense; create nuisance; cause fraud on or victimization of the public; or conflict with
other provisions of this chapter or this Code; and
d. Specific written findings linked to the criteria below.
(2) The following factors shall be relevant in the granting of a variance:
a. Physical characteristics of construction;
b. Whether it is possible to use the property by a conforming method of construction;
C. The possibility that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
d. The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
e. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the
effects of such damage on the individual owner;
t: The importance to the community of the services provided by the proposed facility;
9• The necessity to the facility of a water -dependent location, where applicable;
h. The availability of alternate locations less subject to flooding;
i• The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;
LDC122:13
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
Chapter 122 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
Sec. 122-5. Variances to the floodplain management requirements.
(c) Conditions.
t The relationship of the proposed use. to the comprehensive plan, land development
regulations and the floodplairt management program. for that area;.
k The. safety of access to the property for ordinar
d; y and emergency vehicles. in time
floo
s of
i• The expected' heights, Yeiocfty, duration, rate of rise, and sediment trap
floodwaters and the effects of wave action, ff 'applicable, expected at the site a f the
M. The costs of providin and
g governmental services: during and after flood .conditions,
iricttidPng maintenance and repair of� pubilc utfiitles and fac litids suck O sew
electrical and water systeilit, and streets and bridgQs, er gasp
(3) Wheri.thq,k. and of county commissioners shall considerthe pro er o
permitted by this chapter the following factors shalt io be consideredf granting
a variance as
a.: The
Physical disabilities of handicaps and health of the applicant or members -of his
amity;
The domestic difficulties of the applicant or members of his family;
c` The =141 difflcultyof the applicant in complying with the floodplain of this. chapter or Pain management
Tfie elevation'of'surrouhdthg,structu-
(4) Any applicant to whom a variance i$ grantedshali tie given writtdn notice by the boa
commissioners specifying the difference between the base flood elevation and the elevation board of county
which the structurs3 fs: to be built and stating. that the cost of flood insurance will be commeno
surate with the increased risk resultitig from the reduced lowest floor elevation.
(5} All variances issued. shall. require that an affidavit be Prepered, and
the circuit court, which shows. that the proposed construction will be located In a flood rove
recorded with the clerk of
area, the. nu I er of feet that the lowest floor° of -the. Proposed structure will be below the base
flood level, grid that actuarial flood insurance rates increase as the flood elevation decr (6) The building official shalt �mairitain records of all variance actions and eases.
variances to the Federal Emergency Management Agency annually report any
(Code 1979, § 9.5-318; Ord. No. 39-2000, § 6)
Building Department
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite #300
Marathon, FL 33050
Voice: (305) 289-2501
FAX: (305) 289-2515
8/20/08
Rory and Debra Brown
23048 Sailfish Ln.
Cudjoe Key, FL 33042
County of Monroe
Growth Management Division
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
RE: Enclosure inspection at Lot 16, Block B Cudjoe Ocean Shores,
RE# 00188650.000000
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Brown,
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Mario DiGennaro, Dist 4
Mayor Pro Tern Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dist.
George Neugent, Dist. 2
Dixie Spehar, Dist. 1
Sylvia J. Murphy, Dist. 5
This letter is to address the inspection of the ground level enclosed area on 8/14//08. In researching the
permitting history, I found there was one permit authorizing the enclosure: A7929, which was permitted
as a 672 square foot storage enclosure, which included a recreation room and bathroom. The following
are not in compliance with the Monroe County Floodplain Ordinance or permit A7929, which authorized
the construction:
I. There is no flood venting. Since the original permit did not call for flood vents, none will be
required to be installed, unless, the elevated building is ever substantially improved OR if any
permitted improvements to the lower enclosure are requested, other than demolition.9.5-
317(b)(1)d(iii)
3. The enclosure is partitioned. The partitions that were permitted may remain, but any additional
partitions must be removed. I have enclosed a copy of the floorplan provided by our inspector and
have marked in yellow which partitions must be removed, including closets and stud walls.(9.5-
317(b)(1)d.(v).
4. There are finishes. Because the side of the enclosure that contains finishes was permitted as a
recreation room, then the finishes(drywall and tile) may remain until such time as the enclosure is
damaged and in need of repair, or when the elevated house is substantially improved. Any
finishes in the other :side,of the enclosure would need to be removed. 9.5-317(b)91)d(iv)
5. There is a bathroom and a laundry room within the enclosure. As the enclosure was permitted
with those uses, they may remain until such time as the elevated house is ever substantially
improved, OR such time as any improvements are permitted within the enclosure. 9.5-317(b)(7)
6. There area is equipped as a bedroom. At the time the original single family permit was issued,
only two bedrooms were authorized. The County did not consider recreation rooms and
convenience baths as habitation at the time this permit was issued. Please remove all furnishings.
9.5-317(b)(7)
7. The enclosure is air conditioned. Please remove the a/c and repair the hole. 9.5-317(b)(1)D(v)
I have released the elevator permit and routing it back to the Building Department for further processing.
Please make the corrections noted above and call for a reinspection. I can be reached at 305 289-2866. If
these issues are not resolved within 60 days, Code Enforcement will be notified. If you have any
questions, please give me a call at the above number.
tarycerWingate, CFM
Plans Review Technician
TA'k I
ma" . L
rAL
MINPIVOWAKIN
P.O. BOX 420259
25000 OVERSEAS HWY
SUMMERLAND KEY, FL.33042
Joe Paskalik, Building Official
Monroe County Building Department
2798 Overseas Highway
Marathon, FL 33050
TELEPHONE (305) 745-2254
FAX: (305) 745-4075
E-MAIL Irrlaw@bellsouth.net
June 21, 2010
Re: Brown Application for variance to floodplain
management requirements --- 23048 Sailfish Lane, Cudjoe Key
Dear Joe:
Enclosed you will find a completed Application for Variance to Flood
Hazard Ordinance, check in the amount of $50, an NOV regarding Case No.
CE09020237, a narrative dated May 21, 2009, signed by Debra Brown and a
Memo of Law signed by me on May 26, 2010 submitted to Nicole Petrick
and Lisa Granger. The exhibits referenced in the Memo of Law have been
previously submitted to Nicole.
On May 261h, at the Code Enforcement hearing for the Brown's NOV
hearing, it was stipulated by Lisa Granger and myself that the Browns
should have an opportunity to apply for a variance under Section 122-5,
Monroe Code. Section 122-5 (c) (1) requires a showing of good and
sufficient cause; exceptional hardship; and no increase in flood hazard, etc.
Darren is unable to maneuver his wheelchair through the doorways and to
the bathroom upstairs because of the narrow doorways and wide wheelchair.
The wheelchair itself is one of the smallest models made. Darren does not
have an elevator as explained both in Debra Brown's narrative and the
Memo of Law. Both of Darren's parents work. No one is home during the
day except Darren. Because of special fittings on his car, Darren can drive a
vehicle but would not be able to get to his vehicle if living upstairs and a
medical emergency arose. Also, Darren would be trapped upstairs if a fire
broke out. If living downstairs, he would not be subject to such risks.
Although someone informed the Browns that FEMA would not allow a
variance, the County provides for a variance in its Code and, as noted at
page 5 of my Memo, FEMA does not have an absolute prohibition against
variances. Moreover, although the FEMA regulation is silent about physical
disabilities, Section 122-5 (3) directs the BOCC to consider disabilities as
not relevant. It is our position that this clause within the Monroe Code flies
in the face of the federal Americans With Disabilities Act as set forth on
page 4 of my Memo. (The ADA has been held applicable to local
governments.)
Please let me know if you require any further information or explanation. I
can be reached at 745-2254. Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
Lee Robert Rohe, Esq.
cc: Lisa Granger, Assistant County Attorney
client
0a
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO FLOOD HAZARD
ORDINANCM
Submit to: Monroe County Building Department
$ 50.00 fee for filing of application
DATE ____6 1-1/ J0 ()
n
BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHY YOU BELIEVE YOUR REQUEST SHOULD BE GRANTED: ( 1.c �� (/f�lA/Ii(,�)
. A,- L .- . - I n VA 11 ,
MSA
QUI 1 E ETHAT FLOOD INSURANCE RATES FO IMPROVEMENTS BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATIONS
WILL RESULT IN HIGH PREMINUM RATES.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATUR
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING DIRECTOR
PROPERTY INSPECTED BY
COMMENTS YIDL
If
r
r
�j
3
MONROE COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT
NOTICE OF VIOLATION/NOTICE OF HEARING
TO: BROWN RORY & DEBRA
23048 SAILFISH LN
CUDJOE KEY, FL 33042
RE NUMBER: 00188650000000
LOCATION 23048
CUDJOE
DEAR PROPERTY OWNER / TENANT,
CASE NUMBER: CE09020237
SAILFISH LN
KEY, FL 33042
You are hereby notified that an inspection of the above referenced
pro;:erty on found violations of the following Monroe County
Section (s) :
122-4. (b) (1) (d)
AS PER THE LETTER PROVIDED TO YOU FROM THE FLOOD PLAIN
MANAGER DATED 08/20/08, YOUR DOWNSTAIRS ENCLOSURE IS IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
1. PROHIBITED FINISHES
2. TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED
3. ADDITIONAL UNPERMITTED PARTITIONS
4. HABITATION
Corrective Action Required:
CONTACT THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT OFFICE FOR INFORMATION TO
BRING THE ENCLOSURE INTO COMPLAINCE. IF YOU HAVE ALREADY
BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE, FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF THE
CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED PLEASE FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS
AS STATED IN THE LETTER. BUIDLING PERMITS, APPROVALS AND
99 FINAL INSPECTIONS MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED.
Corrective Action Required:
TO AVOID FINES AND/OR COSTS of prosecution as per Chapter
162 F.S. a 1 violations noted above must be corrected by
2- 59 3 - 5 O09q . If the violation is corrected and then
recurs, or if the violation is not corrected by the time
specified for correction by the Code Enforcement Inspector,
the case may be presented to the Code Enforcement Special
Magistrate even if the violation has been corrected prior to
the hearing. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR AND REQUEST A RE -INSPECTION. If you
fail to correct the above described violations, you must
appear before the Special Magistrate as stated below.
** NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING **
i
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a`vublic Hearing will be condUdted by the Special
Magistrate in the above case on 07/30/2009 at 9:00 AM at the
Monr::e County Government Regional Center, 2798 Overseas Hwy., Marathon,
Florida. The purpose of this hearing is to determine if in fact, a viola-
'tion currently ex-ists, the appropriate action to be taken, and any fines or
penalties to be imposed. YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN A FINE OR
PENALTY BEING IMPOSED AGAINST YOU AND A LIEN BEING IMPOSED ON YOUR PROPERTY
You may appear in person and/or be represented by an attorney. If you are
represented by an attorney, your attorney is required to file a written
notice of appearance with this office prior to the hearing.
*IF YOU DECIDE TO APPEAL any decision by the Special Magistrate, you will
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
shall include the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be
based.
Should you seek a continuance of your administrative hearing, the presiding
officer may grant a continuance of a hearing for good cause shown. Except in
cases of emergency, requests for continuance must be made at least FIVE working
days prior to the date noticed for the hearing. A request for continuance
DOES NOT GUARANTEE a postponement of your hearing. Contact the office of the
Liaison for the Special Magistrate to submit your request.
Pursuant to F.S. Chapter 162.09(2)(d), your failure to correct the
violation(s) may result in the impositon of a fine, not to exceed $1,000
per day per violation for a first violation, $5,000 per day per violation
for a repeat violation, and up to $15,000 per violation if the Special
Magistrate finds the violation to be irreparable or irreversible in nature.
In addition to such fines, the Special Magistrate may impose additional
fines to cover all costs incurred by the local government in enforcing
is codes and all costs of repairs pursuant to subsection (1).
Date: 04/21/09
902NELL, MIGUEL
i�;���-
Code Enforcement Inspector
I hereby certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to the above
named addressee(s) by Certified mail, Return receipt Request No.
7008 2810 0000 7837 2010
Cod Enforcement Department
Please contact your inspector at the appropriate
Lower Keys: 1100 Simonton St., (Rm. 1-171),
Key West, FL 33040 - (305)292-4495
Middle Keys: 2798 Overseas Hwy.
Marathon, FL 33050 - (305)289-2810
Upper Keys: 102050 Overseas Hwy.Key Largo, FL 33037 (305)453-8806
If you are a person with.a disability who needs any accommodation in order
to participate, you are entitled, at no extra cost to you, to the provision
of certain assistance. Please contact this office at (305)289-2509 within 2
days of your receipt of this notice. If you are- hearing impared, please
all 711.
Monroe County Code Enforcement
Office of the Liaison
2798 Overseas Hwy.`
Marathon, FL 33050
Phone: (305)289-2509
(305)289-2858
IF SERVICE IS NOT OBTAINED BY CERTIFIED RETURN
ACCURATE COPY OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE POSTED AT
THE MONROE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
RECEIPT MAIL, A TRUE AND7
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND
ON DECEMBER 23,2005 OUR SON DARREN WAS INVOLVED IN A MOTORCYCLE
ACCIDENT WHICH LEFT HIM PARALYZED FROM THE CHEST DOWN,AS YOU PROBABLY
KNOW ALL OUR LIVES CHANGED AFTER THIS. WHILE DARREN WAS IN THE
HOSPITAL,WE WERE INTRODUCED TO THE BRAIN & SPINAL CORD INJURY GROUP.
WHEN DARREN WENT HOME FROM THE HOSPITAL WE WENT TO THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT TO GET A PERMIT TO MAKE DARREN'S ROOM DOWNSTAIRS HANDICAP
ACCESSIBLE FOR HIM,WE WERE TOLD "NO".JUST IMAGINE HOW WE FELT THAT WE
COULDNT DO ANYTHING FOR OUR SON TO MAKE HIS NEW LIFE MORE
COMFORTABLE. AFTER THAT, WE WERE TOLD THAT SAME DAY WE COULD GET A
PERMIT FOR AN ELEVATOR.
WE HAVE A PERMITTED DOWNSTAIRS ENCLOSURE ISSUED TO THE PREVIOUS
OWNER AFTER HURRICANE JORGE AND HAVE BEEN TAXED FOR A "LIVING AREA.
EVER SINCE WE BOUGHT THE HOME. JUST A NOTE,THE DOWNSTAIRS HAD A FULL
KITCHEN IN IT WHEN IT WAS BOUGHT BY US. WE TOOK THE KITCHEN OUT YEARS
AGO.THE CODE ENFORCEMENTANDBUILDING DEPT KNEW ABOUT THE KITCHEN
BECAUSE WHEN THEY CAME TO THE HOUSE THE INSPECTOR ASKED, -WHERE IS THE
KITCHEN?" THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS ENCLOSURE FOR YEARS... NOW THAT WE
NEED THE COUNTIES HELP AND HAVE TRIED TO DO THINGS CORRECTLY THEY ARE
GOING TO PUT A FINE AGAINST US???
BRAIN & SPINAL CORD GROUP(BSCG) TRIED TO HELP WITH NUMOROUS THINGS TO
GET DARREN UPSTAIRS. THEY WERE GOING TO PUT A STAIR LIFT IN BUT OUR STAIRS
ARE MADE OF WOOD AND THEY FELT NOT STABLE ENOUGH. THEY DECIDED TO PUT
IN AN ELEVATOR. THE PERMIT WAS ASSIGNED A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WORKING
ON THE PROJECT.THE ELEVATOR WAS DELIVERED APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AGO AND
STILL SITTING ON OUR SIDE YARD AS OF TODAY(7/15/2009). THE ELEVATOR IS BEING
PICKED UP TODAY JULY 15,2009 AT APPROX 11:00 AM.
OUR UPSTAIRS IS A 2 BEDROOM 1 BATH. MY WIFE AND I AND ONE OF OUR
DAUGHTERS LIVE UPSTAIRS.THE DOORWAYS TO THE ROOMS AND BATHROOM ARE
APPROX.30" WIDE,THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TOILET AND THE WALL IS APPROX
32" WIDE, YOU HAVE TO TRY AND GET PAST THIS BEFORE YOU CAN GET TO THE
SHOWER\TUB. OUR UPSTAIRS IS NOT HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE. WE HAVE TRIED TO
GET THESE THINGS DONE BUT ITS JUST NOT POSSIBLE AND WE DONT FEEL WE
SHOULD HAVE TO DO THIS SINCE DARREN HAS A PERFECT AREA DOWNSTAIRS FOR
HIM.
JUST THINK IF DARREN IS UPSTAIRS WHAT IS HE TO DO WITHOUT AN ELEVATOR?
STAY INSIDE ALL DAY? WE ALL WORK SO 1F SOMETHING SHOULD HAPPEN TO HIM
HOW WOULD HE GET DOWNSTAIRS,HE WOULD HAVE TO WAIT FOR TWO PEOPLE TO
GET HOME TO CARRY HIM & HIS WHEELCHAIR DOWNSTAIRS.
WE DONT FEEL THAT THE UPSTAIRS IS AN OPTION FOR DARREN TO LIVE AND IT
SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION WITH HIS DOWNSTAIRS ENCLOSURE. THE DOWNSTAIRS
GIVES DARREN THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE HIS NEW LIFE SOMEWHAT ON HIS OWN
AND TO FEEL THAT HE CAN LIVE DOWNSTAIRS COMFORTABLE.
IN CLOSING PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT NOT ONLY OUR SON BUT MANY OTHERS
WITH HANDICAP DISABILITIES AND THE ELDERLY CAN NOT LIVE UPSTAIRS. NOBODY
EVER ASKS FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN BUT WHEN IT DOES WE NEED TO ADJUST
TO WHAT WE HAVE AND TO LIVE OUR LIVES THE BEST WE CAN.
THANK YOU,
RORY,DEBI,DARR'EN BROWN
TO:MARILYN LARRIEU
-w- CC:CHARLIE DOEGE
MAY 21,2009
WE WERE VERY UPSET ABOUT THE WHOLE ELEVATOR INCIDENT, FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING OF THIS PROJECT IT WAS A MESS. NEEDLESS TO SAY WE DO NOT HAVE
THE CASH YOU NEED FOR THE PROJECT ($21,293.52). YOU MAY COME AND PICKUP
THE ELEVATOR AT YOUR CONVIENCE BUT ASAP WOULD BE APPRECIATED. THERE IS
TO BE NO CHARGE TO US,(BROWN'S) FOR SHIPPING,PICKUP,STORAGE FEES,BACK
CHARGE FEES FROM GARANENTA OR ANY OTHER FEES THAT HAVE ACCUMULATED
DURING OR AFTER THIS PROJECT IS ALL FINISHED.
REGUARDS,
DEBRA BROWN
'[YA
U-
1 ,(DEBRA BROWN) SPOKE WITH JORGE GOMEZ TODAY 5121109. THERE WERE A
COUPLE OF MISTAKES IN THE FIRST LETTER ON MAY 1,2009. 1 PUT THE AMOUNT IN
WRONG AND I DID NOT SIGN THE LETTER,THESE TWO THINGS HAVE BEEN
CORRECTED.
MONROE COUNTYCODE ENFORCEMENT
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
MONROE COUNTY,
Petitioner,
V.
RORY BROWN AND DEBRA
BROWN,
Respondents.
CASE NO: CE 09020237
�E.�+J-t�;E'A-, —L,
MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT THEREOF
COMES NOW, RESPONDENTS, by and through their undersigned counsel,
who hereby file their Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum of Law In Support Thereof
in the above -styled case based upon the following grounds:
1. On May 6, 2009, Respondents were served a Notice of Violation of
Sections 122-4(B)(1)(D) and 99 of the Monroe County code. Respondents
are presently set for hearing on May 27, 2010.
BACKGROUND
Respondents intend to show the following evidence at the hearing:
2. The house was originally built in 1979. In 1981, under Permit No. A-
7929, a permit was issued to the prior owners, David Williams and
Kimberly Hunt to enclose 672 square feet of the downstairs unit to allow a
full bathroom and recreation room. Electrical and plumbing were
included in the permit. See attached EXHIBIT A. -
i
3. Respondents purchased their home in 2003. On December 23, 2005,
Respondents' son, Darren Brown, was involved in a motorcycle accident
leaving him a paraplegic who needs to use a wheelchair for mobility.
4. Upon Darren's return from the hospital, Respondents attempted to obtain
a permit from the Monroe County Building Department to make
the downstairs enclosure handicapped accessible but were informed by the
County they could not receive such a permit. They were also advised at
that time that they could obtain an elevator permit in order to allow Darren
to travel via a wheelchair from the upstairs to the downstairs or outside as
necessary.
5. Since 2005, Respondents have been working with various groups,
including BSCG (Brain and Spinal Cord Group) in a good faith effort to
obtain funding to install a vertical platform lift and to make the required
accommodations to the interior of the upstairs. Respondents were advised
that installation of a stair lift (a less expensive alternative) was not
possible due to the instability of the existing wooden stairs.
6. In 2008, Respondents finally secured the funding through BSCIP (the
advocacy group for the disabled) to install an elevator. Permit # 081-
2155 was finally issued by Monroe County on April 21, 2009. See
EXHIBIT B.
However, due to the onerous building requirements, code violations and
permit delays, the project turned out to cost an additional $21,000 over
0
what BSCIP could finance. Therefore, Respondents were faced with the
overage of $21,000 to fund the project or quitting the project and returning
the vertical platform lift back to the manufacturer. See EXHIBIT C.
7. Since Respondent could not afford the additional $21,000, the
vertical platform lift was returned to the manufacturer.
8. At this time, Darren continues to live in the downstairs unit and has
no means of being transported upstairs or using his wheelchair to
move around within the upstairs part of the house.
9. In March 2010, Respondents hired the undersigned to represent them.
The case was previously scheduled for hearing on March 26, 2010 but was
continued until May 27, 2010 in order for the undersigned to have an
opportunity to prepare a defense.
10. On more than one occasion during meetings with the Monroe County
Code Enforcement Attorney (on March 26 and then again on May 13,
2010), the undersigned requested that the County consider issuing a
variance but was told that a variance would not be possible under FEMA
regulations.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), a
person may be considered disabled under the Act if, "they have a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more of the person's major life activities."
See 42 U.S.C.A. 12101. "Major life activities" asdefined under the ADA include:
(a) caring for oneself, (b) breathing; (c) doing manual tasks; (d) walking; (e) sitting
to
and standing; (f) hearing and speaking; (g) seeing; (h) working; (i) lifting; 0) reaching
and (k) maneuvering. 14 FLPRAC Section 18:4; 29 C.F.R. Section 1630.
Darren's inability to move about without the use of a wheelchair meets the definition
of a disabled individual under the ADA. The fact that he cannot walk, access his living
quarters or leave his home for necessary activities outside of the home such as work,
doctor's appointments and grocery shopping, without the use of a wheelchair is clear
evidence of a "disability" in activities of daily living.
The next question is whether the ADA applies to local government with respect to
zoning decisions. A review of federal case law indicates that local government must
comply with the requirements of the ADA when issuing zoning decisions.
Title II of the ADA prohibits a governmental entity from discriminating in providing
services, programs or activities to a disabled individual. 28 C.F.R. Section 3 5. 101 et seq;
29 U.S.C.A. Section 794 (a); Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section 202; and
42 U.S.C.A.12132.
Municipal zoning decisions have been interpreted in the Courts to be included
under the definition of "services, programs and activities" within the meaning of the
ADA and Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Department, 352
F.3d 565 (2nd Cir., 2003); Kennedy v. Fitzgerald, 102 F. Supp.2d 100 (N.D. New York,
2000); Zimmerman v. State of Oregon Department of Justice 170 F.3d 1169( 9t` Cir.
1999) and Innovative Health Systems Inc., 117 F. 3d 37 (2nd Cir.1997).
In spite of Monroe County's insistence that a variance is not possible in
accordance with FEMA regulations, Section 60.6 under Title 44 of the Code of Federal
Regulations allows for variances to be granted for "exceptional hardship."
Seetion 60.6-states in pertinent part the following:
d
" (a) The Administrator does not set forth absolute criteria for granting variances
from the criteria set forth in Sections 60.3, 60.4 and 60.5. The issuance of a
variance is for flood plain management purposes only. Insurance premium rates
are determined by statute according to actuarial risk and will not be modified by
the granting of a variance. The community, after examining the applicant's
hardships, shall approve or disapprove a request."
Procedures for the granting of variances by a community are as follows:
(1) Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated
regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood
discharge would result;
(2) Variances may be issued by a community for new construction and
substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in
size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures
constructed below the base flood level, in conformance with the
procedures of paragraphs (a)(3), (4), (5) and (6) of this section;
(3) Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good
and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance
would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a
determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased
flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public
expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or
conflict with existing local laws or ordinances;
(4) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is
the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
There is no evidence that granting a variance to allow Darren to live downstairs
would endanger the health, safety or welfare of the community or surrounding neighbors.
The fact of the matter is that Monroe County has, in the past, allowed individual
homeowners to keep their downstairs enclosure as a living unit based upon the merits of
their case. In the case of Arkell v. Middle Cottonwood Board of Zoning 2007 MT160
(Montana 2007), the Court found that a variance should be granted due to the physical
disability of a family member.
E
In summary, the undersigned argues that application of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, and other federal laws must be applied in this instance. In view of Darren's
significant and permanent physical disability, Monroe County should dismiss this cause
and/or grant a variance to allow the downstairs unit to be used as permanent living
quarters for this property.
LLT RO ERT ROHE, ESQ., .A.
P.O. Box 420259
Summerland Key, F133042
(305) 745-2254/745-4075
Florida Bar Number 271365
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copyc�,f the foregoing has been
furnished by Facsimile and electronic transmission this 'eL =+=day of May, 2010 to: Lisa
Granger, Esq., Monroe County Attorneys Office, 1111 12—Street, Suite 408, K West
Florida 33040.
LEE ROBERT ROHE, ESQ., P.A.
1
LAW OFFICE
LEE ROBERT ROHE
P H 0 N E 3 0 5 / 7 4 5 - 2 2 5 4
_ FAX 305/745-4075
EMAIL:LRRLAW@BELLSOUTH.NET
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: FROM:
Nicole Petrick Lee R- Rohe
COMPANY: DATE:
Monroe County Code Enforcement 5/26/2010
FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
289-2515 7
PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER:
N/A
YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
Re: Brown, Item No. 3
Please see attached MOL for tomorrow's hearing.
Please give the SM a copy. Thank you.
Thank you.
Susan for Lee Rohe
. Y � �',� s
1 0 0 A go
p DOT "I, K I C
0
CA
rn
0
1pol ►
t
�o
BUILDING PERMIT
BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
DAT 8 /28 /78
THIS PERMIT SHALL ALLOW WORK (AS DEFINED UNDER WORK DESCRIPTION BELOW AND AS SHOWN AND
SPECIFIED ON PLANS SUBMITTED AND ON FILE IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICES) TO BE PERFORMED
ON THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY BY THE OWNER LISTED:
~
16 8 Cud jae Ocean S 8EC s T R
� LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISION _
UA
a- STREET OR ROAD 8ik$ Sailfish Lane, Cudjoe Key
OWNER--- David D. Will sots and Kimberly A. Hunt I PHONE
MAILINGADDRESS 1302 Flager Avenue, Key West, Florida
CONTRACTOR Ernest W. Johnson RC0031617
MMING ADDRESS P.O. Box $ 302, Summerland Key
PHONE
WORK DESCRIPTION new single family residence 960 Sq. ft.
REMARKS ESTIMATED VALUE $25, 900.00
FKAA #27796T O-re O . Ir. q - 1 - 0
1-'% $
M /4
o v a 1, 0
PERMIT CARD MUST BE DISPLAYED ON STREET SIDE
OF LOT IN PERMANENT, SUBSTANTIAL MANNER, AND
IN A CONSPICUOUS, SHELTERED LOCATION, ACCESS.
IBLE TO THE INSPECTOR. PERMIT MUST REMAIN DM
PLAYED UNTIL AFTER FINAL INSPECTIONS. ONIE COPY
OF AMP VED PLANS, BEARING BUILDING DEPART
MENTSTAMPS, MUST BE KEPT ON THE JOB SITE AVAIL-
ABLE TO THE INSPECTORS AT THE TIME OF ALL IN.
SPECTIONS.
BUILDING FEE $75.00
PLUMBING FEE 45.00
ELECTRICAL FEE 53.50
TOTAL FEE $173.50
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK IS NOT COMMENCED • WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF
ISSUANCE OR IF WORK IS SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING NINETY (90) DAYS. ALL PROVISIONS OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING -THIS TYPE OF WORK SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH. THE GRANTING OF A
PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY LOCAL,
STATE OR FEDERAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. THIS
PERMIT IS NON -TRANSFERABLE, NON -MARKETABLE AND NON -ASSIGNABLE AND ANY ATTEMPTED TRANS.
FER, SALE OR ASSIGNMENT OF SAID PERMIT SHALL RESULT IN THE AtITOMATIC REVOCATION OF SAID PER.
MIT.
__110WARD
BULL
SIGMA OWNER, CONTRACTOR OR AUT
IZED AG� n—
Cu
���-►..�--
4- j —3 c1► 3 PERMIT• A N• 4092
=� = 7 9 ���--P -may -�- �- .ZeeXH , .,e*
ram'•
oft ol
r OUNTYo MONROE
BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
r .
CER } IFICA- C. 'OF OCCUPANCi'
C+•� _David t). Williams and Kimberly A. Hunt ,n - ••.
:L' CERM."I thst tl:e buil•Jin- located at Lot 16, Block 8, Cudjoe
scean Shores Sailfish Lane_for %:hich Dcr=it h s h:ratofora sa+ ,d,
h`i !.32
Cudjoe Key Ln issu_:`. Cv^^^l7:^.t<?a: acccriii2v to ; lans and s"ecificlticns fia.^.4 in ttiC O:!iCe Of t:t,�.
.,p••-,..; BUILD
.......... ..0.,.. �: "ram "'S'CC"U't
t••� i•• y , and that the proposed usa of the building, tc wit,
as a _n eQinrle• fareily residence , cu-121ias wit!: all. t:12 builrli^, a; d
aea l th lawz r. d i►,;
1r an6 ;s approved for this use.
ALLv.JABIU-' 0i: LO'%D r
i O R A..;I F cpoz
--------------
n.VIVED TH10 14 th L1Y OFJ�irne 79
C�:lT:i IC.i7Z i:J:JB;::: 79-65
r _ a-
IlO:�91RD U. JO::N SO, / �~
InL'CTOJt
E
-�....
TUI LOT`'C Ii S:•'�:t:TJR
LI
PLt:.%3- I::G�I::3i'LLl'J
BUILDING; PERMIT
BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
�. OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
1
DATE 3 -6-81
THIS PERMIT SHALL ALLOW WORK (AS DEFINED UNDER WORK DESCRIPTION BELOW AND AS SHOWN AND
SPECIFIED ON PLANS SUBMITTED AND ON FILE IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICES) TO BE PERFORMED
ON THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY BY THE OWNER LISTED:
�- 44
• Cud j oe Ocean Shores
LOT-1-6 BLOCK 8 SUBDIVISION SEC T R
uj
° STREET OR ROAD HHXZXZ Sailfish Lane, Cudoe Ke
OWNERDA-y-id fl. Williams & Kimberly Anne Hunt PHONE 745-1891
MAILING ADDRESS Rt • 2 box' 467 . Summerland KaX, FL
CONTRACTOR- owner
PHONE
MAILING ADDRESS same
WORK DESCRIPTION One 1- A n .,,, Q#'A i r a A 7 7 as f
REMARKS ESTIMATED VALUE 3 000.00
PERMIT CARD M&T BE DISPLAYED ON STREET SIDE
OF LOT IN PERMANENT, 8 TANTIAL MANNER, AND
gT A CONSPICUOUS, SffMTERED LOCATION, AOCTSS
IBLE TO TH8 INSPECTOR. PERMIT MUST REMAIN DIS-
PLAYED UNTIL AFTER FINAL INSPECTIONS. ONE Y
F VED PL BEARING BUILDING DEPART
THE JOB- AVAIL-
ABLE TO THE INSPECTORS AT THE TIN OF ALL IN.
BUILDING FEE -- d 2 n0 e
PLUMBING FEE 2 3. 0 0
ELECTRICAL FEE 10600
SPECTIONS. TOTAL FEE 75,00
THIS PERMIT 89CONES NULL AND VOID IF WORK IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF
ISSUANCE OR IF WORK IS SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING NINETY (90) DAYS. ALL PROVISIONS OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING. THIS TYPE OF WORK SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH- THE GRANTING.OF A
PERMiT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY LOCAL,
STATE OR FEDERAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. THIS
PERMIT IS NON -TRANSFERABLE, NON -MARKETABLE AND NON -ASSIGNABLE AND ANY ATTEMPTED TRANS,
FER, SALE OR ASSIGNMENT OF SAID PERMIT SHALL RESULT IN THE AUTOMATIC REVOCATION OF SAID PER-
MIT.
1. S HOWARD OHNSON GNATURE OF O CO RACmOR O$ AUTHOR J •
MED AGENT BUILDING OFFICIAL
"FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MECHANICS'
LIEN LAW CAN RESULT IN THE PROPERTY
OWNER PAYING TWICE FOR BUILDING
uKPRovEMErrrs' :,
By
PERMtfiA.
�
QRIGINAL - BvILDING PERMIT GREEN .ASSESSOR'S COPY CANARY - OFFiCB COPY PINK - INSPECTORI COPY GOLD -OWNER'S COPY
CA
0
rrl
D
i
s
- F
S \
4
O
{
P
n
I
DATE REC:
INSPECTOR e''
TYPE I
PERMIT f
LOT �/ & BLOCK
SUBDIVISION
OF—/: s1 �vrr,Y• j
OWNER - ,�-cQ�, !
INSPECTORS SIGN: 0 e
DATE
.DATE J6-Ar-ll TIME
INSPECTOR
TYPE INSPECTTON__�n�Ci
PERMIT #,- / 9p����j'
LOT BLOCK d
SUBDIVISIO/7'Ni2/
OWNER �/�0
INSPECTORS SIGN:__
DATE G - G - V .�
DAljQ �,----~--_..._.TINE REC.
INSPECTDR,
TYPE INSP7ECTION
PERMT # a9
LOT_BLOCK
SUBDIVISION,=C
INSPECTORS SI9N
DATE /�.
DATE d O - TIME C:
INSPECTOR
TYPE INSPECTION
PERMIT ## D a
LOT 6 LOCK Q
SUBDIVISION tavjq
OWNE t
INSPECTORS SIGNS
DATE 17
of CT4�.-k Rwq G✓q,j/S
DATE S -TIME
e
INSPECTOR
TYPE INSPECTIO
PERMIT # 4 n 2
LOT - BLOCjC G
SUBDI�IS '.
OWNER
INSPECTORS SIGN
DATE 3 TIME Ct f i INSPECTOR
TYPE INSPECTIO
PERMIT #
INSPECTORS SIGN
DATFtv&-; /n
INSPECTOR
TYPE
INSPECTOO
PERMIT #
LOT BLOCKfy
SUBDIVISI
OWNER
INSPECTORS SIGN
Y
...v....vv..........,.....,...,...>, ............._...._. ...-.4�..vlyy- ,-.v-^A./.-,.,.5..^,
CQZ
0 BUILDING PERMIT.
c BUILDING AND.ZONING DEPARTMENT
OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
DA'j'F
THIS PERMIT SHALL ALLOW WORK (AS DEFINED UNDER.WORK DESCRIPTION BELOW AND AS -SHOWN AND
SPECIFIED ON PLANS SUBMITTED AND ON FILE IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICES) TO BE PERFORMED
ON THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY BY THE OWNER LISTED:
F,,'�'' CUDJOE OCEAN SHORES
a' LOT 1.6 BLOCK 8 SUBDIVISION SEC T R��
a STREET OR ROAD SA -I L•F I SH •'LANE, CUD•JOE Key
OWNER - D-Av 1•D D. W'I L A-M5 PHONE --- - 745
MAILING ADDRESS- RT. 2•. BOX -SUMMERLANDKEX, -FLORf DA 331)k2
CONTRACTOR
MAILING ADDRESS
OWNER
PHONE
WORK DESCRIPTION fof.FT-- a i i ri--tf,- t, t
REMARKS ESTIMATED VALUE . y r 700.00.
PERMIT CARD MUST BE DISPLAYED ON STREET SIDE BUILDING FEE rt� 00
OF LOT IN PERMANENT, SUBSTANTIAL MANNER, AND
IN A CONSPICUOUS, SHELTERED' LOCATION, ACCESS.
IBLE TO THE INSPECTOR PERMIT MUST REMAIN DIS-.
PLAYED: UNTIL AFTER FINAL INSPECTIONS. ONE COPY
OF APPROVED PLANS; ' $CARING BUILDING DEPART.
MENTSTAMPS, MUST BE KEPT ON THE JOB SITE. AVAIL-
ABLE TO THE INSPECTORS AT THE TIME OF ALL IN-
SPECTIONS. l►.. TOTAL FEE
THIS. PERMIT. BECOMES NULL AND VOID 1F WORK IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN THIRTY (0) `DAYS OF
ISSUANCE OR IF WORK IS SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING NINETY (90) DAYS. ALL PROVISIONS OF.,
LAWS AND' ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH; THE GRANTING OF A
PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF:ANY LOCAL, .
STATE OR FEDERAL. -LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION"OR THE PERFORMANCE -OF CONSTRUCTION. 'THIS
-TRANSFERABLE, NON -MARKETABLE -AND NON -ASSIGNABLE AND AN .
PERMIT IS NON ATTEMPTED TRANS
PER, SALE OR ASSIGNMENT OF SAID PERMIT SHALL RESULT IN THE AUTOMATIC REVOCATION OF SAID PER-
MIT.
PLUMBING FEE
ELECTRICAL FEE `
• �'` HOWARD OHNSON
SIGNATURE OF OWNER, 'CONTRACTOR OR AUTHOR-
IZED.AGENT BUILDING O FICIAL
"FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MECHANICS'
LIEN LAW CAN RESULT IN THE PROPERTY,r.�,}_
OWNER PAYING
IMPROVEIMENTS". BUILDING PERMi
^---..... «...................«.. ....«.... ...^....^.....a ..n.... ....,.nv �oo,i.o iv+ov or*iv rnrenarre•►n+c rnov rJ►t n
. AWNRR lC onpy..
F
�t:
MONROE COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT
BUILDING PERMIT
10
Date Applied: Prepared by: '14/9C PermitNo.: Sp
Date issued:
Permit Type: :10TIC-DING PERMIT - ROOF
SecuoA
P.-
f
R lib;" 2
fAile Marker
5
00001
0
() I z
Propoty Address
Ldnd Use District
Reviewed by
1.16 B8 CUDJOE OCEAN SH
F'r s E
Subidmelortmiri-8
LegalAddress
1 6 C ! J, D _T 03 E C E A U
OWTI&S Narr*iAddfA�'/ Tefoovone
400 rw C6&mdtor-
CINALLI DAVID & KIMBERLY
ARTISTIC CUSTOM HOME] INC
Z3048 SAILFISH Lit
309"(1 AVENUE A
SUMMERLAND KEY F1, 3304Z
BIG PINE KFJ' FL _331043
30S 872-0647
SO dontWor
GofietnC.;tio
AW,Md Wfr '
ufr,§Mant
Nrc
3 80-1 ROOFING
raw '1 4- In
FEE DESCRIPTION FEE AMT AMT PAID CREDITED DATE RCPT NBR
PERMIT FEE 100 100 '000
'SPECIAL EMERGENCY HURRICANE PERMIT***
NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT REQUIRED - HAV3
30 DAYS TO SUBMIT RECORDED COPY
--- 1500 SF RE -ROOF TO SCR
REPLACE SHINGLES W."SHINGLES
WILL NOT EXCEED ROOFLINE OR 1181G;JT
ZONE AE 9'
SFR IS 10' ABOVE KSL
DCA EXEMPT
PLEASE READ THE REVFR.qF nFTHf.ct MC1^_ A —Al
BY
SIGNATURE OF OWNER, CONTRACTOR OR BUILDING DEPARTMENT
AUTHORIZED AGENT INSPECTORS
MONROE COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT
BUILDING Pt-ffla r
Date Applied: 02 / 09 / 20P?repared by: ma1don%T issued: 03 / 31 / 220Permit No.: 09100465
Permit Type: POOL & SPA
Section
Twnshp.
Range
Re #
Resub 1
Resub 2
Mile Marker
34
66
28
001886500
0000
023
Property Address
Land Use District
. Reviewed by
BK 8 LT 16 CUDJOE OCEAN SHORES CUDJOE KEY PB5IS
Subdivision Name
Legal Address
BK 8 LT 16 CUDJOE OCEAN f
Owner's, Name,/ Address 1 Telephone
General Contractor
BROWN, RORY & DEBRA
23048 SAILFISH LN
CUDJOE KEYFL 33042
3058721274
TROPICAL POOLS OF THE KEYS INC
30464 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY
BIG PINE KEY, FL 33043
(305) 872-1274 07528
Sub Contractor
SEE ATTACHED PAGE FOR SUBCONTRACTORS
Construction
BFE
FFE
FLZ
Approved. Water Source
Flood Map Parfet NO
Flood Elevation Requirement
AE9'
# Units
So. Ft.
Valuation
Improvements
RES
0
$29900.RESIDEN
IAL
Schedule of Fees
FEE DESCRIPTION
EDUCATION FEE'
ENVIRONMENTAL
INCOME FROM PERMITS
*** FEE TOTALS ***
FEE AMT
16.00
60.00
546.00
ArMT PAID
16.00
60.00
546.00
622.00
23048 SAILFISH LN,CUDJOE OCEAN SHORES, CUDJOE KEY
SWIMMING POOL, DECK, NET
**NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT REQUIRED'
INSTALLATION OF RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL WITH
* * MORE INFORMATION TO PRINT ADDITIONAL PACE REQ' D
BALANCE DUE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PLEASE READ THE REVERSE OF THIS DOCUMENT BFFORE YOU SIGN AS OWNER, CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER, CONTRACTOR OR
BY
BUILDING -DEPARTMENT'
ORDINANCE 3-1975 AND 8-19 77 AMENDMENTS TO 3-1975 EFFECTIVE
AT TIME OF ISSUANCE OF PERMIT A 4092 AND A 7929
3-1975 - Page 4, section 4.(a) and 8-1977 — page 3, section 1(a) stating below
flood enclosures were regulated for parking and temporary storage.
Page 19 of 21
Reviewed by
W:\Building\Working Folders\Bair-Dianne\Variances to Flood\BROWN convert to living area for handicap 2010.doc
ORDINANCE ND. 3-1975
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICTS
WITHIN THE COUNTY OF MONROE, FLORIDA; PROVIDING A STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; REQUIRING BUILDING
PERMITS.WITHIN COASTAL FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR
REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMITS, SUBDIVISION PROPOSALS AND WATER AND
SEWER SYSTEMS TO INSURE PROTECTION FROM FLOOD DAMAGE; SETTING
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN COASTAL FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICTS;
PROVIDING FOR COUNTY WIDE APPLICATION; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT;
PROVIDING RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES;
PROVIDING RULES FOR INTERPRETATION; PROVIDING FOR VARIANCES AND
ESTABLISHING A VARIANCE PROCEDURE; GIVING WARNING AND DISCLAIMER
OF LIABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
BE IT ENACTED by the County Commission of the County of Monroe,
Florida:
Section 1. Statement of legislative intent. The coastal areas of
Monroe County, Florida, are subject to flooding, resulting in danger to life,
loss of property, health, and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and
governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection
and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the
public health, safety, and general welfare. The County Commission at their
meeting held at the County Court House in Rey West, Florida, June 11, 1974,
passed unanimously Ordinance # 2-1974 and by their action duly expressed
willingness to take action necessary to meet the objectives of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968.
Section 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the
following definitions shall apply:
(a) "Special Flood Hazard District", (hereinafter referred to as
SFH District), means those portions of Monroe County, Florida, subject to flooding
or erosion from abnormally high tidal waters resulting from severe storms or
hurricanes. Said SFH District shall be comprised of those areas designated AS
and A14 upon the official Flood Hazard Boundary Map issued and approved by the
Federal Insurance Administrator dated July 1, 1974, and as the same may, from
time to time, be amended by the Federal Insurance Administrator.
(b) Special Flood Hazard with Velocity Districts, (hereinafter
referred to as SFHV Districts) means those portions of Monroe County, Florida,
subject to flooding or erosion from abnormally high tidal waters and wave
velocities resulting from severe storms or hurricanes. Said SFHV Districts
shall be comprised of those areas designated V8, V10, V11, V13, and V14 upon
the official Flood Hazard Boundary Map issued and approved by the Federal
Insurance Administrator dated July 1, 1974, and as the same may, from time to
time,'be amended by the Federal Insurance Adminiscrator.
(c) "Flood or Flooding" means a general and temporary condition of
partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from abnormally high
tidal water or rising coastal waters resulting from severe storms, hurricanes,
or tsunamis.
(d) "Floodproofing" means structural and non-structural additions,
changes or adjustments (other than elevating) to structures and utilities which
reduce or eliminate flood damage to water supply and sanitary sewage facilities,
structures, and contents of buildings, and includes, by way of illustration, but is not
limited to the following measures:
1. Anchorage to resist flotation and lateral movement.
2. Installation of watertight doors, bulkheads, and shutters,
or similar methods of construction to protect against
winds, wave action, or flood waters.
3. Reinforcement of walls to resist water pressures.
4. Use of paints, membranes, or mortars to reduce
seepage of water through walls.
5. Addition of mass or weight to structures to resist
flotation.
6. Installation of pumps to lower water levels in
structures.
7. Construction of water supply and waste water treat-
ment and disposal systems so as to prevent or minimize
infiltration of flood waters.
8. Pumping facilities or comparable practices for sub-
surface drainage systems for buildings to relieve external
foundation wall and basement flood pressures.
9. Construction to resist rupture or collapse caused by
water pressure on floating debris.
10. Installation of valves or controls on sanitary and
storm drains which will permit the drains to be closed to
prevent back-up of sewage and storm waters into the buildings
or structures. Gravity draining of basements may be
eliminated by mechanical devices.
11. Location of all electrical equipment, circuits and installed
electrical appliances in a manner which will assure they are
not subject to flooding and to provide protection from
inundation by the regulatory flood.
12. Location of any structural storage facilities for
chemicals, explosives, buoyant materials, flammable
liquids or other toxic materials which could be hazardous
to public health, safety, and welfare in a manner which
will assure that the facilities are situated at elevations
above the height associated with the regulatory protection
elevation or are adequately flood proofed to prevent flo-
tation of storage containers, or damage to storage con-
tainers which could result in the escape of toxic materials
into flood waters.
(e) "Regulatory Flood" (also herein referred toss the 100 year
flood) means the level of flooding that, on the average, is likely to be equaled
or exceeded once in any 100-year period, i.e., that has a one -percent chance of
■Ma
".occurring in any year. This level of flooding fv: the County — ..jnroe, Florida,
has been established per the Flood Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Boundary
Map dated July 1, 1974, as eight(8) feet above mean sea level to twelve(12) feet `
above mean sea level as designated on the official Flood Hazard Boundary Maps.
(f) "Substantial improvement" means any repair, re -construction, or
improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of
the market value of the structure either (e) before the improvement is started,
or (b) if the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage
occurred.
(g) "Structure" means anything constructed or erected the use of which
requires rigid location on the ground, or attachment to something having a
permanent location on the ground, including buildings, walls, fences, signs,
light standards, towers, tanks, etc.
(h) "Accessory building" means a secondary residence, garage, or other
building or structure on a lot or parcel subordinate to and not forming an integral
part of the main or principal building but pertaining to the use of the main
building. An accessory building may include servant's quarters unless prohibited
by existing deed restrictions.
(i) "Residential". The term "residential" or "residence" is applied
herein to any lot, plot, parcel, tract, area or piece of land or any building
used exclusively for family dwelling purposes or intended to be so used.
(j) "Basement" means that portion of a building between floor and
ceiling, which is so located that one-half or more of the clear height from
floor to ceiling is below grade.
Section 3. Development in either SFH or SFHV Districts. The County
official responsible for the administration and enforcement of this ordinance
shall to the extent not otherwise prohibited by Sections 4 and 5, with respect
to development within SFH and GFH Districts:
1. Require building permits for all proposed construction
or other improvements within said districts; and
2. Review building permit applications for repairs within
said districts to determine that the proposed repair (i)
uses construction materials and utility equipment that are
resistant to flood damage and (ii) used construction methods
and practices that will minimize flood damages; and
3. Review building permit applications for new construction or
substantial improvements within said districts to assure that
the proposed construction (including prefabricated and mobile
homes) (i) is protected against flood damage, (ii) is de-
signed or modified and anchored to prevent flotation,
a1
cotiapse or lateral movement of the structure, %, uses
construction materials and utility equipment that are
resistant to flood damage, and also uses construction
methods and practices that will minimize flood damage; and
4. Review subdivision proposals and other proposed new develop-
ments to assure that (i) all such proposals are consistent
with the need to minimize flood damage, (ii) all public
utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical,
and water systems are located, elevated, or constructed to
minimize or eliminate flood damage, and, (iii) adequate
drainage is provided so as to reduce exposure to flood
hazards; and
5. Require new or replacement water supply systems and treatment
plants and sanitary sewage plants and systems to be designed
to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into
the systems and plants and discharges from the systems and
plants into flood waters, and require onsite waste water
disposal systems to be located so as to avoid impairment of
them or contamination from them during flooding. .
Section 4. Development within SFH Districts.
(a) Buildings located in SFHV or "V" Districts must have their
lowest floor elevated to the level of the 100-year flood. The space below
must be kept free of obstructions, but may be covered with breakaway panels
and used for parking and temporary storage. Elevated structures shall be
serviced by electrical and mechanical equipment that is also elevated to or
above the level of the 100-year flood. Panel boards and a disconnect switch
must be located above the 100 year flood level. House sewer and storm drainage
systems that extend below the 100 year flood level shall be provided with
automatic back flow valves or devices installed at the point where the line
passes an exterior wall or slab.
(b) Mobile Homes. All mobile homes in new mobile home parks, in
expansions to existing mobile home parks and new mobile homes not in a mobile
home park, located within the SFHV, SFH, "A" and "V" zones must be elevated
to the 100-year level. A mobile home within a park can be replaced without
being elevated to the 100-year level as long as the park itself was in existence
before the 100 year level had been determined. If a mobile home is placed in an
established park after the 100-year level is known, the county must require
that the mobile home owner or lessee have the fact disclosed to him in a deed
or lease that the mobile home is being located in a flood -prone area and that an
evacuation plan indicating vehicular access and an escape route is filed with
the Disaster Preparedness Authorities.
(c) Existing uses located on land in SFHV, SFH, "A" or "V" Districts
which is below the elevation of the regulatory flood shall not be expanded and
no building permit referred to in Section 3 of this Ordinance may be issued]
-4-
therefore, unless the provisions of sub -section (a) hereof are complied with; how-
ever, this shall not preclude routine maintenance of existing structures or `
improvements thereto which are less than substantial improvements, as herein
defined, and which do not increase the physical size of said structure.
Section 5. Development within SFH or "A" Districts.
Non-residential structures, multi -family structures and motels located in a
SFH or "A" District may make use of the space below the 100-year flood level
for equipment and non -living areas, under the condition that they be floodproofed
up to the level of the 100-year flood, that is, electrical equipment may be
located below the level of the 100-year flood if it is protected in a waterproof
vault or is of the submersible type. An office, bath, utility room, storage
or laundry may be located below the level of the 100-year flood if their
omission would cause extreme hardship and if they will be floodproofed. How-
ever, proper recognition should be given to the existing flood hazard, and
investment below the level of the 100-year flood should be minimized. A
U.S. Corp of Engineer Manual, "Floodproofing Regulations" should be referred
to in order to facilitate design and detailing of floodproof construction.
Section 6. Site Utility Lines. Site Utility lines shall be made
waterproof as far as possible to eliminate infiltration of flood waters into
the system and discharges from the system into flood waters. Joints between
sewer drain tile shall be sealed with caulking, plastic, or rubber gaskets
and all manhole covers shall be sealed in a similar manner.
Section 7. Accessory Buildings. Nothing herein shall be construed
to exclude accessory buildings from the provisions of this Ordinance.
Section 8. Application of Ordinance.
(a) This ordinance shall apply to and be enforced in all the un-
incorporated areas of Monroe County, Florida.
(b) Those maps referred to in Section 2 (a) and (b) together with
all explanatory matter thereof are hereby adopted by reference and are declared
to be part of this ordinance; and shall be kept on file, available to the public,
in the offices of the Monroe County Building & Zoning Department.
Section 9. Enforcement. The Director of the Monroe County Building
& Zoning Department shall administer and enforce this ordinance.
5a
Section 10. Rules for Interpreting District Boundaries. The
boundaries of the flood hazard districts shown on the official Flood Hazard
Boundary Maps may be determined by scaling distances. Required interpretations
of those maps for precise locations of said boundaries shall be made by the
Director of the Monroe County Building & Zoning Department.
Section 11. This Ordinance shall supercede any conflicting ordinance,
building code, or any other regulation to the extent that this ordinance imposes
more stringent requirements for the use or development of any lands or structures
within SFH and SFHV Districts. It is not intended to repeal, modify, or change
any ordinance, building code or other regulation except as herein stated.
Section 12. Interpretation. The provisions of this ordinance shall
be liberally construed in favor of the County of Monroe, Florida, in order to
effectuate the purposes herein stated.
Section 13. Variances.
(a) Authority of the County Commission. The County Commission shall
have the authority and duty to consider and act upon applications for a
variance from these regulations. Such Board is admonished that in granting any
variances hereunder, it must consider the purposes of the National Flood
Insurance Program, as specified in Title 24, Code of Federal Regulations,
Chapter 10, subchapter B, Parts 1909, et seq. Further, such Board shall con-
sider the fact that an annual report on variances granted must be submitted
to the National Flood Insurance Administration, which report is the basis for
continued availability of flood insurance to the inhabitants of Monroe County,
and therefore, variances should be granted with extreme caution.
(b) The Board may grant variances from the terms of this ordinance
as will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special
conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions hereof will result in
unnecessary hardship, and so the spirit of the regulations shall be observed
and substantial justice done: provided that the variance will be in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and that the same is the
miuim— variance that will permit the reasonable use of the premises.
(c) Variances may be granted only upon the following conditions.
(1) A new structure is to be erected on a lot of one-half
acre or less in size, contiguous to and surrounded by
lots with existing structures constructed below the
flood protection elevation or
-6 -
(2) If an official historic structure located below the
mini-im level is to be restored or re -constructed.
A variance may only be issued if good and sufficient cause exists
for granting it or if failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional
hardship to owners of the land.
In all circumstances, as a matter of policy, variances may only be
issued if the County requires that a notice be placed on the deed to the
property stating that the proposed construction will be located in a flood
prone area. In the case of a variance for new construction or substantial
improvement for which construction is to be started after December 31, 1974,
and which is located in an area designated on an effective Flood Insurance
Rate Map as having special flood hazards, the notice must contain a statement
of the number of feet that the lowest non-floodproofed floor of the proposed
structure will be below the 100-year flood level and that actuarial flood
insurance rates increase as the first floor elevation decreases.
In all cases the County must notify the Administrator of the issuance
of the variance in writing, including written notification documenting the
justification fDr the issuance. A copy of the notification should be sent to the
State Coordinating Agency.
(d) Review and Appeal. Review and appeal of any such decision by
the County Commission shall be by petition to the Circuit Court for relief.
Section 14. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. The degree
of flood protection required herein is considered reasonable for regulatory
purposes and is based on scientific studies. Larger floods may occur. This
ordinance shall not be deemed to imply that areas inside or outside designated
flood hazard districts will be entirely free from flooding or flood damages,
and shall not create liability on thepart of Monroe County or any officer or
employee thereof for any flood damages that results from reliance on this
ordinance of any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder.
Section 15. Penalties for Violation.
(a) Willful violations of the provisions of thisordinance or failure
to comply with any requirements hereunder (including violations of conditions
established in connection with any variances) shall constitute a misdemeanor,
punishable by fine or not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than
60 days or both. Each day such violations continues shall be considered as a
separate offense.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), the official
responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance may secure
enforcement hereof by any legal action necessary, such as application to any
court for injunctive relief, revocation of any building permit issued hereunder
or other appropriate means.
Section 16. It is the intention of the County Commissioners and it
is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become part of
Plat Filing Law of Monroe County 1973.
Section 17. Provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to those
buildings for which a building permit has been issued and is in effect or for
which proper and complete applications and plans have been submitted for
building permits on or before the effective date of this ordinance provided
that the construction under the permit shall be commenced and progressively
carried to a conclusion within the time limitations for permits established
by the Building Code.
Section 18. All special laws, Ordinances, Resolutions, Rules and
Regulations in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of said
conflict.
Section 19. This Ordinance shall take effect upon receipt of the
official acknowledgment from the Department of State acknowledging receipt of
certified copy of this ordinance and that said ordinance has been filed
in said office.
rn
&I �'' , ,q� llq��� � I ;�� q
,lIiI:ls
��
ORDINANCE 8-1977 AMENDMENT TO 3-1975
Page 21 of 21 Reviewed by
W:\Building\Working Folders\Bair-Dianne\Variances to Flood\BROWN convert to living area for handicap 2010.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 8 - 1977
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3 - 1975
ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE REGULATING DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICTS WITHIN THE COUNTY
OF MONROE, FLORIDA; PROVIDING A STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; RE-
QUIRING BUILDING PERMITS WITHIN COASTAL FLOOD
HAZARD DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR REVIEW OF
BUILDING PERMITS; SUBDIVISION PROPOSALS AND
WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS TO INSURE PROTECTION
FROM FLOOD DAMAGE SETTING STANDARDS FOR DEVELOP-
MENTS WITHIN COASTAL FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICTS;
PROVIDING FOR COUNTY -WIDE APPLICATION; PROVIDING
FOR ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING RULES FOR INTERPRETA-
TION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES; PROVIDING RULES FOR
INTERPRETATION; PROVIDING FOR VARIANCES AND ESTA-
BLISHING A VARIANCE PROCEDURE; GIVING WARNING AND
DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABI-
LITY; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; BY AMENDING SECTION
1 OF ORDINANCE NO. 3 - 1975 TO EXPAND LEGISLATIVE
INTENT; BY AMENDING PARAGRAPH (a) OF SECTION 4 OF
ORDINANCE NO. 3 - 1975 TO REQUIRE ALL NEW CONSTRUC-
TION IN MONROE COUNTY TO BE LOCATED LANDWARD OF THE
REACH OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE, TO REQUIRE SAME TO BE
ANCHORED BY PILINGS OR COLUMNS, TO PROHIBIT THE USE
OF FILL FOR STRUCTURAL SUPPORT, AND TO PROHIBIT MAN-
MADE ALTERATION OF SAND DUNES AND MANGROVE STANDS
WHICH WOULD INCREASE POTENTIAL FOR FLOOD DAMAGE;
BY AMENDING PARAGRAPH (b) OF SECTION 4 OF ORDINANCE
NO. 3 - 1975 TO PROHIBIT AFTER APRIL 1, 1977 THE
PLACEMENT OF MOBILE HOMES IN MONROE COUNTY EXCEPT
IN A LOT IN A THEN EXISTING PLATTED AND PROPERLY
ZONED MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION OR PARK OR LOT WITH
TRAILER VARIANCE WHERE SAID LOT HAS ALL UTILITIES
SERVING SAID LOT CONNECTED AND STREET OR ROAD
SERVICING SAID LOT IN PLACE ALL AS OF APRIL 1, 1977;
TO REQUIRE THAT ALL SUCH MOBILE HOMES AFTER APRIL 1,
1977 SO QUALIFYING FOR PLACEMENT BE ELEVATED TO THE
MINIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT (8) FEET MEAN SEA LEVEL;
PROVIDING FOR VARIANCES TO MOBILE HOMES TO BE PLACED
AT BELOW 8 FEET IF SAID MOBILE HOME IS SURROUNDED
BY MOBILE HOMES WHICH ARE BELOW THE REQUIRED EIGHT
(8) FOOT ELEVATION; PROHIBITING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL
FROM ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY UNTIL THE MOBILE HOME OWNER OR LESSEE
SHOWS TO SAID OFFICIAL A RECORDED DEED OR UNRECORDED
LEASE WHEREIN THE MOBILE HOME OWNER OR LESSEE HAS THE
FACT DISCLOSED TO HIM IN SAID DEED OR LEASE THAT THE
MOBILE HOME IS BEING LOCATED IN A FLOOD PRONE AREA
AND THAT AN EVACUATION PLAN INDICATING VEHICULAR
ACCESS AND AN ESCAPE ROUTE IS FILED WITH THE DISASTER
PREPAREDNESS AUTHORITIES; TO PROHIBIT THE MONROE
COUNTY ZONING BOARD AFTER APRIL 1, 1977 FROM REZONING
LAND FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS OR SUBDIVISIONS AND FROM
GRANTING MOBILE HOME VARIANCES; BY ADDING PARAGRAPH
(e) AND (f) TO SECTION 13 OF ORDINANCE NO. 3 - 1975
TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES FOR THE FACTUAL DETERMINATION
OF VARIANCES AND TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF A VARIANCE
APPLICATION FEE, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
-2-
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That Section 1 of Monroe County Ordinance
No. 3 - 1975 be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 1. Statement of Legislative Intent The coastal
areas of Monroe County, Florida, are subject to flooding, resulting
in danger-to.life, loss of property, health, and safety hazards,
disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary
public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment
of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health,
safety, and general welfare. And whereas the Board of County
Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida deem it in the best interest
of its citizens that said County at all times be eligible for and
receive the benefits of the National Flood Insurance Program
administered by the Federal Insurance Administration of the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development, said program providing its
citizens with federally subsidized flood insurance, VA and F.H.A.
mortgage insurance, conventional mortgage loans from federally
insured or regulated lending institutions for purposes of purchasing
and improving real property and makes available federal flood
disaster assistance funds so long as said County adopts and main-
tains certain flood plain management regulations consistent with
Federal criteria as set forth in Title 24, Code of Federal Regu-
lations Parts 1909, 1910, 1911, 1914, 1915 and 1917. And, whereas
the Administrator of the Federal Insurance Administration has
previously identified Monroe County, Florida as being a Coastal
High Hazard Area and therefore, the provisions of Section 1910.3 (e)
of Title 24, Code of Federal Regulations must be adopted and adhered
to by Monroe County in order to maintain continued participation
in the program. It is therefore the intent of the Board that the
provisions of this ordinance will be strictly adhered to."
-3-
Section 2. That paragraph (a) of Section 4 of Monroe
County Ordinance No. 3 - 1975 be and the same is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"(a) Buildings located in SFHU or "V" Districts must
have the lowest portion of the lowest floor elevated to the level
of the 100 year flood. The space below must be kept free of
obstructions, but may be covered with breakaway panels and used
for parking and tgmDorary =g a^e E eva es shall be
serviced by electrical and mechanical equipment that is also
elevated to or above the level of the 100 year flood. Panel
boards and a disconnect switch must be located above the 100 year
flood level. House sewer and storm drainage systems that extend
below the 100 year level shall be provided with automatic
flow valves or devices installed at the point where the line
passes an exterior wall or slab. All new construction shall be
located landward of the reach of the mean high tide. All such
new construction shall be adequately anchored by pilings or columns
and fill shall not be used for structural support. No man-made
alteration of sand dunes and mangrove stands shall be allowed
which would increase potential for flood damage."
Section 3. That paragraph (b) of Section 4 of Monroe
County Or dinance No. 3 - 1975 be and the same is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"(b) Mobile Homes. Effective June 1, 1977, the placement
of mobile homes (except in existing zoned and platted mobile home
parks and subdivisions or on lots with existing mobile home
variances) within Districts designated V1 though V30 is absolutely
prohibited in accordance with Title 24, Section 1910.3 (e) (7),
Code of Federal Regulations.
-4-
The term "existing" as used herein shall mean
that on June 1, 1977, the land is properly zoned and platted for
mobile homes or a mobile home variance has been granted and the
lot on which the mobile home therein is to be affixed has at a
minimum either final site grading or concrete pads in place, has
a street or road serving said lot and all utilities servicing
said lot are connected. Said definition being in accordance with
Title 24, Section 1909.1, Code of Federal Regulation definition
of "existing mobile home park or mobile home subdivision".
After April 1, 1977, all mobile homes so qualifying
for placement in existing zoned and platted mobile home parks and
subdivisions. A mobile home so qualifying for placement may be
placed at a height below said minimum elevation providing that a
variance is granted by the Board of County Commissioners. The
requirement for granting of said variance is that the mobile home
to be placed will be placed on a qualified lot which is presently
contiguous to and surrounded by mobile homes which are not elevated
eight (8) feet. In such cases, the Board may grant a variance to
allow said mobile home to be placed at an elevation equal to that
of the neighboring mobile homes.
No other variances shall be issued for mobile homes.
An existing mobile home may in all cases be replaced
without elevation and without need of variance providing the mobile
home so replaced was at a height below the required eight (8) foot
elevation.
If a mobile home is placed in an existing park or
subdivision or varianced lot, the Building Department shall not
issue a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy unless and
until the owner of the mobile home or lessee, as the case may be,
shows the Building Official a recorded deed or unrecorded
written lease wherein the mobile home owner has the fact disclosed
to him in said deed or lease that the mobile home is being located
-5-
in a flood -prone area and that an evacuation plan indicating
vehicular access and an escape route is filed with the Disaster
Preparedness Authorities.
Section 4. That paragraph (e) to Section 13 of Monroe
County Ordinance No. 3 - 1975 be and the same is hereby added to
read as follows:
"(e) Guidelines. When the Board of County Commissioners
of Monroe County, Florida shall consider the propriety of granting
a variance as permitted by this Ordinance, the following factors
shall not be considered:
(1) The physical disabilities or handicaps and health
of the applicant or members of his or her family.
(2) The domestic difficulties of the applicant or
members of his or her family.
(3) The financial hardships of the applicant or members
of his or her family and the financial difficulty of the applicant
to comply with this Ordinance.
The following factors shall be relevant in the granting
of a variance:
(4) Whether the public would suffer if the variance is
granted.
(5) Whether the Ordinance operates against the property
so as to constitute an arbitrary and capricious interference with
the basic right of private property.
(6) Whether it is possible to use the property by a
conforming method of construction.
(7) Whether failure to grant a variance would in effect
deprive the applicant of his property without compensation.
(8) Physical characteristics of construction."
-6-
Section 5. That paragraph (f) to Section 13 of Monroe
County Ordinance No. 3 - 1975 be and the same is hereby added to
read as follows:
"(f) Application Fee. Each application for a variance
hereunder shall be accompanied by a $50.00 application fee made
payable to Monroe County, Florida."
Section 6. This Ordinance shall take effect upon receipt
of the official acknowledgment from the Department of State
acknowledging receipt of certified copy of this Ordinance and
that said Ordinance has been filed in said office by the Department
of Administration, Division of State Planning pursuant to the
requirements of Florida Statutes Section 380.05 and Florida Statutes
Chapter 120.
1 HERE3Y CERTIFY that this document has
been revlswed for legal sutd 0,l0r^y Rd
coptut VW that the same mects ei rn:r
approval
RIdIARQ G. RAYi>:
Asst. Coudy Qi:rys:e
%l:"I I I,!T_TZt�
ORDINANCE 030-1983 IN EFFECT AFTER DATE OF FINAL
INSPECTION FOR PERMIT A 7929
Page 11 and 12, section 6-180(a) stating below flood enclosures were regulated
for parking and temporary storage
Page 20 of 21
Reviewed by
W:\Building\Working Folders\Bair-Dianne\Variances to Flood\BROWN convert to living area for handicap 2010.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 030 -1983
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF MONROE,
FLORIDA. PROVIDING THAT THE CODE OF ORDI-
NANCES, COUNTY OF MONROE,FLORIDA, BE AMENDED
BY AMENDING ARTICLE V., "FLOOD HAZARD
DISTRICT.DEVELOPMENT", OF CHAPTER 6, "BUILD-
INGS AND CONSTRUCTION". TO PROVIDE FOR
INCORPORATION OF NEW FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR
REPEALING OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE OF
ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That Article V, "Flood Hazard District
Development" of Chapter 6, Buildings and Construction" of the
Monroe County Code of Ordinances be amended to read as
follows:
"Sec. 6-177. Definitions.
For the purpose of this article, the following
definitions shall apply. Unless specifically defined
below, words or phrases used in this Article shall be
interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in
common usage and to give this Article its most
reasonable application.
Appeal means a request for a review of the Director
of Planning, Building and Zoning's interpretation of
any provision of this Article or a request for a
variance.
Area of special flood hazard is the land in the
flood plain within a community subject to a one percent
or greater chance of flooding in any given year.
Base flood means the flood having a one percent
chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
Basement means that portion of a building between
floor and ceiling which may be partly below and partly
above grade.
Building means any structure built for support,
shelter, or enclosure for any occupancy or storage.
Coastal high hazard area means the area subject to
high velocity waters caused by, but not limited to,
hurricane wave wash or tsunamis. The area is
designated on FIRM as Zone V1-30.
Development means any man-made change ;to improved
or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited
to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging,
filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling
operations.
Dunes means naturally occurring accumulations of
sand or other loose organic material in ridges or
mounds landward of the beach.
Existing mobile home park or mobile home subdivision
means that on June 1, 19779 the land is properly zoned
and platted for mobile homes or a mobile home variance
has been granted and the lot on which the mobile home
therein is to be affixed has at a minimum either final
site grading or concrete pads in place, has a street or
road serving said lot and utilities servicing said lot
are connected. Said definition being in accordance
with Title 44, Code of Federal Regulation, Parts 59,
60, 61, 64, 65, and 67, definition of "existing mobile
home park or mobile home subdivision."
Expansion to an existing mobile home park or mobile
home subdivision means the preparation of additional
sites by the construction of facilities for servicing
the lots on which the mobile homes are to be affixed
(including the installation of utilities, either final
site grading or pouring of concrete pads, or the
construction of streets.) Any expansion is considered
"new construction".
2
Flood or flooding means a general and temporary
condition of partial or complete inundation of normally
dry land areas from
(1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters;
(2) the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff
of surface waters from any source.
Flood hazard boundary map (FHBM) means an official
map of a community,issued by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, where the boundaries of the areas of
special flood hazard have been defined as Zone A.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) means an official
map of a community, on which the Federal Emergency
Management Agency has delineated both the areas of
special flood hazard and the risk premium zones
applicable to the community.
Flood Insurance Study is the official report
provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The report contains flood profiles, as well as the
Flood Boundary-Floodway Map and the water surface
elevation of the base flood.
Floor means the top surface of an enclosed area in a
building (including basement), i.e. - top of slab in
concrete slab construction or top of wood flooring in
wood frame construction. The term does not include the
floor of a garage used solely for parking vehicles.
Highest adjacent grade means the highest natural
elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure.
Mangrove stand means an assemblage of mangrove trees
which is mostly low trees noted for a copious
development of interlacing adventitious roots above the
ground and which contain one or more of the following
species: black mangrove (Avicennia Nitida); red
3
mangrove (Rhizophora Mangle); white mangrove
(Languncularia Racemosa); and buttonwood (Conocarpus
Erects).
Mean Sea Level means the average height of the sea
for all stages of the tide. It is used as a reference
for establishing various elevations within the flood
plain. For purposes of this Article, the term is
synonymous with National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD).
Mobile home means a structure, transportable in one
or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis
and designed to be used with or without a permanent
foundation when connected to the required utilities.
It does not include recreational vehicles or travel
trailers.
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) as corrected
in 1929 is a vertical control used as a reference for
establishing varying elevations within the flood plain.
New construction means structures for which the
"start of construction" commenced on or after the
effective date of this article.
New mobile home park or mobile home park subdivision
means a parcel or contiguous parcels of land divided
into two or more mobile home lots for rent or sale for
which the construction of facilities for servicing the
lot on which the mobile home is to be affixed
(including, at a minimum, the installation of
utilities, either final site grading or the pouring of
concrete pads, and the construction of streets) is
completed on or after June 1, 1977.
Residential. The term "residential" or "residence"
is applied herein to any lot, plot, parcel, tract, area
or piece of land or any building used exclusively for
family dwelling purposes or intended to be so used.
4
Start of construction means the first placement of
permanent construction of a structure (other than a
mobile home) on a site, such as the pouring of slabs or
footings or any work beyond the stage of excavation,
including the relocation of a structure. Permanent
construction does not include the installation of
streets and/or walkways; nor ;does it include
excavation for a basement, footings, piers or
foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor
does it include the installation on the property of
accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not
occupied as dwelling units or not a part of the main
structure. For a structure (other than a mobile home)
without a basement or poured footings, the "start of
construction" includes the first permanent framing or
assembly of the structure or any part thereof on its
piling or foundation. For mobile homes not within a
mobile home park or mobile home subdivision, "start of
construction" means the affixing of the mobile home to
its permanent site. For mobile homes within mobile
home parks or mobile home subdivisions, "start of
construction" is the date on which the construction of
facilities for servicing the site on which the mobile
home is to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the
construction of streets, either final site grading or
the pouring of concrete pads and installation of
utilities) is completed.
Structure means a walled and roofed building that is
principally above ground, a mobile home, a gas or
liquid storage tank, or other man-made facilities or
infrastructures.
Substantial improvement means any repair,
reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost
of which equals or exceeds fifty (50 percent of the
market value of the structure either (1) before the
5
improvement or repair is started, or (2) if the
structure has been damaged and is being restored,
before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this
definition "substantial improvement" is considered to
occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling,
floor, or other structural part of the building
commences, whether or not that alteration affects the
external dimensions of the structure. The term does
not, however, include either (1) any project for
improvement of a structure to comply with existing
state or local health, sanitary, or safety code
specifications which are solely necessary to assure
safe living conditions, or (2) any alteration of a
structure listed on the National Register of Historic
Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places. (Ord.
No. 3-1975, 92)
Variance is a grant of relief to a person from the
requirements of this ordinance which permits construc-
tion in a manner otherwise prohibited by this Article
where specific enforcement would result in unnecessary
hardship.
Cross reference - Rules of construction and defini-
tions generally, $ 1-2.
Sec. 6-178. Statement of legislative intent.
The coastal areas of the county are subject to
flooding, resulting in danger to life, loss of
property, health, and safety hazards, disruption of
commerce and governmental services, extraordinary
public expenditures for flood protection and relief,
and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely
affect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
The board of county commissioners deem it in the best
interest of its citizens that said county at all times
be eligible for and receive the benefits of the
national flood insurance program administered by the
G
Federal Emergency Management Agency, said program
providing its citizens with federally subsidized flood
insurance. VA and F.H.A. mortgage insurance,
conventional mortgage loans from federally insured or
regulated lending institutions for purposes of
purchasing and improving real property and makes
available federal flood disaster assistance funds so
long as said county adopts and maintains certain flood
plain management regulations consistent with federal
criteria as set forth in Title 44, Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 59, 60, 61, 64, 65 and 67; and
whereas the administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency has previously identified this county
as being a coastal high hazard area, therefore, the
provisions of Section 60.3(e) of Title 44, Code of
Federal Regulations must be adopted and adhered to by
this county in order to maintain continued
participation in the program. It is therefore the
intent of the board that the provisions of this article
will be strictly adhered to. (Ord. No. 3-1975, 1 1;
Ord. No. 8-1977, Q 1)
Sec. 6-179. Development in areas of special flood
hazard.
The county official responsible for the
administration and enforcement of this article shall,
to the extent not otherwise prohibited by sections
6-180 and 6-181, with respect to development within
areas of special flood hazard.
(a) Require building permits for all proposed
construction or other improvements within said
district, containing, in addition to the
requirements of Section 6-231, the following
information:
7
(1) Elevation in relationship to the National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 of the
proposed lowest floor (including basement) of
all structures.
(2) Elevation in relation to NGVD to which any
non residential structure will be proofed.
(3) A certificate from a registered
professional engineer or architect that the
flood -proofed structure meets the flood -proofing
criteria contained Section 6-181(b)(2) of this
Article.
(4) A flood elevation or flood -proofing
certification after the lowest floor is
completed, or in instances where the structure
is subject to the regulations applicable to
Coastal High Hazard Areas, after placement of
the horizontal structural members of the lowest
floor. Within twenty one calendar days of
establishment of the lowest floor elevation, or
flood -proofing by whatever construction means,
or upon placement of the horizontal structural
members of the lowest floor, whichever is
applicable, it shall be the duty of the permit
holder to submit to the Director of Planning,
Building and Zoning a certificate of the
elevation of the lowest floor, flood -proofed
elevation, or the elevation of the lowest
portion of the horizontal structural members of
the lowest floor, whichever is applicable, as
built, in relation to NGVD. Said certification
shall be prepared by or under the direct
supervision of a registered land surveyor or
professional engineer and certified by same.
When flood -proofing is utilized for a particular
building, said certification shall be prepared
8
by or under the direct supervision of a
professional engineer or architect and certified
by same. Any work done within the twenty one
day calendar period and prior to submission of
the certification shall be at the permit
holder's risk.
(b) Review building permit applications for
repair within said districts to determine that the
proposed repair meets the requirements of this
Article.
(c) Review building permit applications for new
construction or substantial improvements within
said districts to assure that the proposed
construction (including prefabricated and mobiles
homes):
(1) Is protected against flood damage,
(2) Is designed or modified and anchored to
prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement
of the structure,
(3) Uses construction materials and utility
equipment that are resistant to flood damage,
and also uses construction methods and practices
that will minimize flood damages.
Review the floor elevation survey data submitted
under Sec. 6-179(a)(4). Deficiencies detected by
such review shall be corrected by the permit
holder immediately and prior to further
progressive work being permitted to proceed.
Failure to submit the survey or failure to make
said corrections required hereby, shall be cause
to issue a stop -work order for the project.
(d) Review subdivision proposals and other
proposed new developments to assure that:
9
(1) All such proposals are consistent with the
need to minimize flood damage,
(2) All public utilities and facilities, such
as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are
located, elevated, or constructed to minimize or
eliminate flood damage, and,
(3) Adequate drainage is provided so as to
reduce exposure to flood hazards.
(4) All subdivisions and other proposed
developments consisting of the lesser of 50
units or 5 acres, base flood elevation data
shall
be provided by the developer.
(e) Require new or replacement water supply
systems and treatment plants and sanitary sewage
plants and systems to be designed and constructed
in accordance with applicable Federal, State and
County regulations.
(f) Advise permittee that additional federal or
state permits may be required, and if specific
federal or state permits are known, require that
copies of such permits be provided and maintained
on file with the building permit application.
(g) Notify adjacent communities and the Florida
Department of Community Affairs prior to any
alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and
submit evidence of such notification to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(h) In Coastal High Hazard Areas certification
shall be obtained from a registered professional
engineer or architect that the structure is
securely anchored to adequately anchored pilings
or columns in order to withstand velocity waters
and hurricane wave wash.
V
M In Coastal High Hazard Areas, the Director of
Planning, Building and Zoning shall review plans
for adequacy of breakaway walls in accordance with
the provisions of this Article.
(j) When flood -proofing is utilized for a
particular structure, the Director of Planning,
Building and Zoning shall require the applicant to
provide certification from a registered
professional engineer or architect.
(k) Where interpretation is needed as to the
exact location of boundaries of the areas of
special flood hazard (for example, where there
appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary
and actual field conditions) the Director of
Planning, Building and Zoning shall make the
necessary interpretation. The person contesting
the location of the boundary shall be given a
reasonable opportunity to appeal the
interpretation as provided in this article.
(1) When base flood elevation data has not been
provided in accordance with Section 6-184 of this
Article, then the Director of Planning, Building
and Zoning shall obtain, review, and reasonably
utilize any base flood elevation data available
from a federal, state or other source, in order to
administer the provisions of Section 6-181 of this
Article.
(m) All records pertaining to the provisions of
this ordinance shall be maintained in the office
of the Director of Planning, Building and Zoning
and shall be open for public inspection.
Sec. 6-180. Elevation requirements.
(a) Buildings located in areas of special flood
hazard must have the lowest portion of the lowest floor
elevated to the level of the one hundred (100) year
II
flood. The space below must be kept free of
obstructions, but may be covered as described in
Section 6-181(b)(3)(f) of this Article and used for
parking and temporary storage. Elevated structures
shall be serviced by electrical and mechanical
equipment that is also elevated to or above the level
of the one hundred (100) year flood. Panel boards and
disconnect switches (where used) must be located above
the one hundred (100) year flood level. House sewer
and storm drainage systems that extend below the one
hundred (100) year flood level shall be provided with
automatic back flow valves or devices installed at the
point where the line passes an exterior wall or slab.
All new construction shall be located landward of the
reach of the mean high tide. All such new construction
shall be adequately anchored by pilings or columns and
fill shall not be used for structural support. No
man-made alteration of sand dunes and mangrove stands
shall be allowed which would increase potential for
flood damage.
(b) Effective June 1, 1977, the placement of
mobile homes (except in existing zoned and platted
mobile home parks and subdivisions or on lots with
existing mobile home variances) within areas of special
flood hazard is absolutely prohibited in accordance
with Title 44, Section 60.3(e)(7), Code of Federal
Regulations.
The term "existing" as used herein shall be as
defined in Section 6-177 of this Article. Said
definition being in accordance with Title 44, Section
59, Code of Federal Regulations definition of "existing
mobile home park or mobile home subdivision".
After April 1, 1977, all mobile homes so
qualifying for placement in existing zoned and platted
mobile home parks and subdivisions. A mobile home so
BE
qualifying for placement may be placed at a height
below said minimum elevation providing that a variance
is granted by the Board of County Commissioners. The
requirement for granting of said variance is that the
mobile home to be placed will be placed on a qualified
lot which is presently contiguous to and surrounded by
mobile homes which are not elevated to the base flood
elevation. In such cases, the Board may grant a
variance to allow said mobile home to be placed at an
elevation equal to that of the neighboring mobile
homes.
No other variances shall be issued for mobile
homes.
An existing mobile home may in all cases be
replaced without elevation and without need of variance
providing the mobile home so replaced was at a height
below the required base flood elevation.
x If a mobile home is placed in an existing park or
subdivision or varianced lot, the building department
shall not issue a building permit or certificate of
occupancy unless and until the owner of the mobile home
or lessee, as the case may be, shows the building
official a recorded deed or unrecorded written lease
wherein the mobile home owner has the fact disclosed to
him in said deed or lease that the mobile home is being
located in a flood -prone area and that an evacuation
plan indicating vehicular access and an escape route is
filed with the disaster preparedness authorities.
(c) Existing uses located on land in areas of
special flood hazard which is below the base flood
elevation shall not be expanded and no building permit
referred to in section 6-179 of this article may be
issued therefore unless the provisions of paragraph (a)
of this section are complied with; however, this shall
not preclude routine maintenance of existing structures
13
or improvements thereto which are less than substantial
improvements, as herein defined, and which do not
increase the physical size of such structure.
(d) In all instances where residential
subdivision deed restrictions in the County authorize
only the elevation of the lowest floor of said
buildings to a height less than the elevation mandated
and required under this section, the minimum elevation
of said lowest floor as required by this section shall
become the maximum elevation allowed in said
subdivision. (Ord. No. 3-1975, 6 4; Ord. No. 8-1977,
S 2, 3; Ord. No. 12-1979, 3 1)
Sec. 6-181. Development within areas of special flood
hazard.
Nonresidential structures, and motels located in
areas of special flood hazard may make use of the space
below the one hundred (100) year flood level for
equipment and non -living areas, under the condition
that they be floodproofed up to the level of the one
hundred (100) year flood, that is, electrical equipment
may be located below the level of the one hundred (100)
year flood if it is protected in a waterproof vault or
is of the submersible type. An office, bath, utility
room, storage or laundry may be located below the level
of the one hundred (100) year flood if their omission
would cause extreme hardship and if they will be
floodproofed. However, proper recognition should be
given to the existing flood hazard, and investment
below the level of the one hundred (100) year flood
should be minimized. A U.S. Corp of Engineers Manual,
"Floodproofing Regulations" should be referred to in
order to facilitate design and detailing of floodproof
construction. (Ord. No. 3-1975, $ 5)
(a) In all areas of special flood hazard the
following provisions are required:
14
(1) All new construction and substantial
improvements shall be anchored to prevent
flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the
structure;
(2) All new construction and substantial
improvements shall be constructed with materials
and utility equipment resistant to flood damage;
(3) All new construction or substantial
improvements shall be constructed by methods and
practices that minimize flood damage;
(4) All new and replacement water supply
systems shall be designed to minimize or
eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the
system;
(5) New and replacement sanitary sewage systems
shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with applicable Federal, State and County
regulations.
(6) On -site waste disposal systems shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with
applicable Federal State and County regulations.
(7) Any alteration, repair, reconstruction, or
improvements to a structure which is in
compliance with the provisions of this
ordinance, shall meet the requirements of "new
construction" as contained in the Article.
(b) In all areas of special flood hazard where
base flood elevation data has been provided, as set
forth in Section 6-184 of this Article, the following
provisions are required:
(1) Residential construction - New construction
or substantial improvement of any residential
structure shall the lowest floor, including
basement, elevated to the base flood elevation.
15
(2) Non-residential construction - New
construction or substantial improvement of any
commercial, industrial or other non-residential
structure shall either have the lowest floor,
including basement, elevated to the base flood
elevation or, together with attendant utility
and sanitary facilities, be flood -proofed so
that all areas of the structure below the
required elevation is water tight and with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of
water and with structural components having the
capability of resisting hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. A
registered professional engineer or architect
shall certify that the standards of this
subsection are satisfied. Such certification
shall be provided to the official as set forth
in Section 6-179 of this Article.
(3) Coastal High Hazard Areas (V Zones) - Located
in the areas of special flood hazard established in
Section 6-184 of this Article, are areas designated as
coastal high hazard areas. These areas have special
flood hazards associated with wave wash, therefore, the
following provisions shall apply:
(a) All buildings or structures shall be
elevated so that the lowest supporting
horizontal member (excluding pilings or columns)
is located at the base flood elevation level,
with all space below the lowest supporting
member open so as not to impede the flow of
water. Open lattice work or decorative
screening may be permitted for aesthetic
purposes only and must be designed to wash away
16
in the event of abnormal wave action and in
accordance with Section 6-181(b)(3)(f) and (g)
of this Article;
(b) All buildings or structures shall be
securely anchored on pilings or columns;
(c) Pilings or columns used as structural
support shall be designed and anchored so as to
withstand all applied loads of the base flood
flow;
(d) Compliance with provisions contained in
Section 6-181(b)(3)(a), (b) and (c) of this
Article shall be certified to by a professional
engineer or architect;
(e) There shall be no fill used as structural
support;
(f) Lattice work or decorative screening shall
be allowed below the base flood elevation
provided they are not part of the structural
support of the building and are designed so as
to breakaway, under abnormally high tides or
wave action, without damage to the structural
integrity of the building on which they are to
be used and provided the following design
specifications are met:
(1) No solid walls shall be allowed, and
(2) Material shall consist of wood or mesh
screening only.
(g) If aesthetic lattice works or screening are
utilized, such enclosed space shall not be used
for human habitation;
(h) Prior to construction, plans for any
structure that will have lattice work or
decorative screening must be submitted to the
Director of Planning, Building and Zoning for
approval;
17
M Prohibit the placement of mobile homes,
except in an existing mobile home park or
existing mobile home subdivision; and
0) Any alteration, repair, reconstruction or
improvement to a structure shall not enclose the
space below the lowest floor except for lattice
work or decorative screening, as provided for in
Section 6-181(b)(3)(f) and (g) of this Article.
(k) All buildings shall comply with provisions
of Chapter 4, Article II (SHORELINE PROTECTION)
Section 4-18, Monroe County Code.
(1) No man-made alteration of sand dunes and
mangrove stands shall be allowed which would
increase potential for flood damage.
Sec. 6-182. Site utility lines.
Site utility lines shall be made waterproof as far
as possible to eliminate infiltration of flood waters
into the system and discharges from the system into
flood waters. Joints between sewer drain tile shall be
sealed with caulking, plastic, or rubber gaskets and
all manhole covers shall be sealed in a similar manner.
(Ord. No. 3-1975, ¢ 6)
Sec. 6-183. Application of article; adoption of maps.
(a) This article shall apply to and be enforced
in all the unincorporated areas of the County.
(b) The areas of special flood hazard identified
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in its Flood
Insurance Study and Wave Height Analysis for Monroe
County, Florida, Unincorporated Areas, dated
December 1, 1983 with accompanying maps and other
supporting data, and any revision thereto are adopted
by reference and declared to be a part of this Article;
and shall be kept on file, available to the public, in
the offices of the County Building and Zoning
Department. (Ord. No. 3-1975, ¢ 8)
18
No structure shall hereafter be located, extended,
converted, or structurally altered without full
compliance with the terms of this Article and other
applicable regulations.
Sec. 6-184. Enforcement.
The director of the County Building and Zoning
Department shall administer and enforce this article.
(Ord. No. 3-1975, f 9)
Sec. 6-185. Rules for interpreting district
boundaries.
The boundaries of the flood hazard districts shown
on the official flood hazard boundary maps may be
determined by scaling distances. Required
interpretations of those maps for precise locations of
such boundaries shall be made by the director of the
County Building and Zoning Department. (Ord.
No. 3-1975, 4 10)
Sec. 6-186. Variances.
(a) Authority of the County Commission. The
County Commission shall have the authority and duty to
consider and act upon applications for a variance from
the regulations of this article. The County Commission
shall also have the authority to consider and act upon
appeals when it is alleged there is an error in any
requirement, decision, or determination made by the
Director of Planning, Building and Zoning in the
enforcement or administration of this Article. Such
Board is admonished that in granting any variances
hereunder, it must consider the purposes of the
National Flood Insurance Program, as specified in
Title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 10,
subchapter B, Parts 59, et seq. Further, such Board
shall consider the fact that an annual report on
variances granted must be submitted to the National
Flood Insurance Administration, which report is the
19
basis for continued availability of flood insurance to
the inhabitants of the County, and therefore, variances
should be granted with extreme caution.
(b) Variance to be in harmony with general
purpose and intent of the article. The Board may grant
variances from the terms of this article as will not be
contrary to the public interest, where owing to special
conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions
hereof will result in unnecessary hardship, and so the
spirit of the regulations shall be observed and
substantial justice done: Provided that the variance
will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent
of this article and that the same is the minimum
variance that will permit the reasonable use of the
premises.
(c) Conditions. Variances may be granted only
upon the following conditions.
(1) A new structure is to be erected on a lot
of one-half acre or less in size, contiguous to
and surrounded by lots with existing structures
constructed below the flood protection
elevation, or
(2) If an official historic structure located
below the minimum level is to be restored or
re -constructed.
(3) A determination that the variance is the
minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard,
to afford relief;
(4) A showing of good and sufficient cause;
(5) A determination that failure to grant the
variance would result in exceptional hardship to
the applicant;
(6) A determination that the granting of a
variance will not result in increased flood
heights, additional threats to public safety,
20
extraordinary public expense, create nuisance,
cause fraud on or victimization of the public,
or conflict with existing local laws or
ordinances;
(7) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted
shall be given written notice specifying the
difference between the base flood elevation and
the elevation to which the structure is to be
built and stating that the cost of flood
insurance will be commensurate with the
increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest
floor elevation.
(8) The Director of Planning. Building and
Zoning shall maintain the records of all appeal
actions and report any variances to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency upon request.
A variance may only be issued if good and
sufficient cause exists for granting it or if failure
to grant the variance would result in exceptional
hardship to owners of the land.
In all circumstances, as a matter of policy,
variances may only be issued if the County requires
that a notice be placed on the deed to the property
stating that the proposed construction will be located
in a flood prone area. In the case of a variance for
new construction or substantial improvement for which
construction is to be started after December 31, 19749
and which is located in an area designated on an
effective Flood Insurance Rate Map as having special
flood hazards, the notice must contain a statement of
the number of feet that the lowest nonfloodproofed
floor of the proposed structure will be below the one
hundred (100) year flood level and that actuarial flood
insurance rates increase as the first floor elevation
decreases.
21
In all cases the County must notify the
administrator of the insurance of the variance in
writing, including written notification documenting the
justification for the issuance. A copy of the
notification should be sent to the state coordinating
agency.
(d) Review and appeal. Review and appeal of any
such decision by the County Commission shall be by
petition to the circuit for relief.
(e) Guidelines. When the Board of County
Commissioners shall consider the propriety of granting
a variance as permitted by this article, the following
factors shall not be considered:
(1) The physical disabilities or handicaps and
health of the applicant or members of his or her
family.
(2) The domestic difficulties of the applicant
or members of his or her family.
(3) The financial hardships of the applicant or
members of his or her family and the financial
difficulty of the applicant in complying with
this article.
The following factors shall be relevant in the granting
of a variance:
(4) Whether the public would suffer if the
variance is granted.
(5) Whether this article operates against the
property so as to constitute an arbitrary and
capricious interference with the basic right of
private property.
(6) Whether it is possible to use the property
by a conforming method of construction.
(7) Whether failure to grant a variance would
in effect deprive the applicant of his property
without compensation.
MM
(8) Physical characteristics of construction.
(9) The danger that materials may be swept onto
other lands to the injury of others;
(10) The danger of life and property due to
flooding or erosion damage;
(11) The susceptibility of the proposed facility
and its contents to flood damage and the effect
of such damage on the individual owner;
(12) The importance of the services provided by
the proposed facility to the community;
(13) The necessity to the facility of a
waterfront location, where applicable;
(14) The availability of alternative locations,
not subject to flooding or erosion damage, for
the proposed use;
(15) The compatability of the proposed use with
existing and anticipated development;
(16) The relationship of the proposed use to
the comprehensive plan and flood plain
management program for that area;
(17) The safety of access to the property in
times of flood for ordinary and emergency
vehicles;
(18) The expected heights, velocity, duration,
rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood
waters and the effects of wave action, if
applicable, expected at the site; and,
(19) The costs of providing governmental
services during and after flood conditions
including maintenance and repair of public
utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas,
electrical, and water systems, and streets and
bridges.
(f) Upon consideration of the factors listed
above and the purposes of this article, the County
W
Commission may attach such conditions to the granting
of variances as it deems necessary to further the
purposes of this Article.
(g) Application fee. Each application for a
variance hereunder shall be accompanied by a fifty
dollar ($50.00) application fee made payable to the
County. (Ord. No. 3-1975. S 13; Ord. No. 8-1977, 4 4,
5)
Cross references - Variances under subdivision
regulations, Ch. 17, Art. VII, special exceptions under
zoning ordinance, Ch. 19. Art. IV.
Sec. 6-188. Warning and disclaimer of liability.
The degree of flood protection required in this
article is considered reasonable for regulatory
purposes and is based on scientific and engineering
considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on
rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by
man-made or natural causes. This Article does not
imply that land outside the areas of special flood
hazard or uses permitted within such areas will be free
from flooding or flood damages. This Article shall not
create liability on the part of Monroe County or by any
officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that
result from reliance on this ordinance or any
administrative decision lawfully made thereunder.
(Ord. No. 3-1975, S 14)
Sec. 6-188. Conflicting regulations.
This article shall supersede any conflicting
ordinance, building code, or any other regulation to
the extent that this article imposes more stringent
requirements for the use or development of any lands or
structures within areas of special flood hazard. It is
not intended to repeal, modify, or change any
ordinance, building code or other regulation except as
herein stated. It is not intended to repeal, abrogate,
24
or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed
restrictions. However, where this ordinance and
another conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more
stringent restrictions shall prevail. (Ord. 3-1975,
S 11)
Sec. 6-189. Interpretation.
In the interpretation and application of this
Article all provisions shall be:
(1) Considered as minimum requirements.
(2) Liberally construed in favor of the County,
in order to effectuate the purposes herein
stated. (Ord. No. 3-1975, 6 12)
(3) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any
other powers granted under the laws of the
State.
Sec. 6-190. Effect on subdivision ordinance.
It is the intention of the County Commissioners
and it is hereby ordained that the provision of this
article shall supplement the County subdivision
ordinance. (Ord. No. 3-1975, ¢ 16) For subdivisions
proposed in areas of special flood hazard the following
provisions are required:
(a) All subdivision proposals shall be consistent
with the need to minimize flood damage;
(b) All subdivision proposals shall have public
utilities and facilities such as individual sewage
disposal systems, sewer, gas, electrical and water
systems located and constructed to minimize flood
damage;
(c) All subdivision proposals shall have adequate
drainage provided in accordance with applicable
rules and regulations of the South Florida Water
Management District to reduce exposure to flood
hazards.
%J
For subdivisions and other proposed developments
consisting of the lesser of fifty units or five acres,
base flood elevation data shall be provided by the
developer.
Sec. 6-191. Effect on previous building permits.
Provisions of this article shall not apply to
those buildings for which a building permit had been
issued and was in effect or for which proper and
complete applications and plans had been submitted for
building permits on or before the effective date of
Ordinance Number 3-1975, provided that the construction
under the permit shall be commenced and progressively
carried to a conclusion within the time limitations for
permits established by the building code. (Ord.
No. 3-1975, 4 17)
Cross reference - Building permits, Ch. 6,
Art. II, Div. 2.
Sec. 6-192. Effect on special laws.
All special laws, in conflict with this article
are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
(Ord. No. 3-1975, S 18)
Sec. 6-193. Penalties for violation.
(a) Willful violations of the provisions of this
article or failure to comply with any requirements
hereunder (including violations of conditions and
safeguards established in connection with grants of
variance or special exceptions) shall subject the
s
offender to punishment as provided in section 1-7 of
this Code of Ordinances.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (a) of this section, the official responsible
for the enforcement of the provisions of this article
may secure enforcement hereof by any legal action
necessary, such as application to any court for
26
injunctive relief, revocation of any building permit
issued hereunder or other appropriate means. (Ord.
No. 3-1975, 4 15)
Sec. 6-194. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or
provision of this Article is held invalid, the
remainder of this Article shall not be affected by such
invalidity.
Sec. 6-195 - 6-205. Reserved."
Section 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of
said conflict.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or
provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of
this Ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 4. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be
included and incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of the County
9 of Monroe, Florida, as an addition or amendment thereto, and
shall be appropriately renumbered to conform to the uniform
numbering system of the Code.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately
upon receipt of official notice from the Office of the Secretary
of State of the State of Florida that this Ordinance has been
filed with said Office.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held
on the 23rd day of November , A.D. 1983.
(Seal)
A t t e a t: DAM 4 BOMAGA Clerk
OC
Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Mayor/Chairman
27
ll 1# 111-01 11 lzi -01 J,
M - ORANDTIM
DATE: August 1, 1979
TO: ALL BUILDING OFFICIALS
FROM: Kermit H. Lewin, Director
Planning, Zoning & Building
SUBJ: Breakawav Walls
Todav, I attended a sleeting with the Officials of First Federal
of the Florida Keys concerning breakaway walls and how the use of
the space below the flood level is being abused.
They provided me with specific cases where we have issued
Certificates of Occupancy, even though obvious violations of the
allowed use, below the flood level, existed at the time.
I was embarrassed to think that this was possible, and I intend
to see that this practice'is discontinued.
From today forward, the following regulations will be in effect.
1. No plans shall be approved that reflect interior partitions,
windows or glass sliding doors in the breakaway walls.
2. When inspected, special attention shall be given to the
method used in placing the breakaway blocks in all openings,
making certain that they are not grouted to either the
foundation, the columns, or the tie -beam.
3. The space below the flood level may only be used for parking
or temporary,�;torage, however, you can allow a bathroom in
the lower level, without a bath tub.
I am charging you with the responsibility of informing all inspectors
in your office of these regulations, and the strict adherence of
them.
Also, if you or any of your inspectors observe any dwelling where
the space below the flood level is being used for any t-17D& of human
habitation, ycu are to report it to this office ?or further action.
L: lr
J•�
C
UNTYSo!�ONROE
KEY VV rR.33040
W5) ZW-4 1
Suzanne A. Hatton, County Attorney**
Robert 13. Shillioger_ Chief Assistant County Attomey °
Pedro J. Mercado, Assistant County Attorney *
Susan M. Grimsley. Assistant County Attorney
Natiieene W. Cassel, Assistant County Attorney
Cynthia L. Hall. Assistant County Attorney
Christine Limbert Barrmys. Assistant Count, Attorney
Derek V. Hmkwd. Assistant County Attoine •
Lisa Changer, Assistant County Attorney
•• Board CatiSed in City, County & Local Govt. Law
Memo
To: Suzanne A. Hutton, County Attorney
From: Bob �Shillinger, Chief Assistant County Attorney
Date: September 14, 2010
Re: Brown floodplain variance request
IOMW OF CtwWY COlf MMOMMS
Mayor Sylvia I Murphy, District 5
Mayor Pro Ten Heather Carruthers, District 3
Ian WOngton, Distrid 1
George Neugent, Maid 2
Marto Di Gennaro, District 4
Office of the Count- Attorney
1111 121h Street, Suite 408
Ivey West, FL 33040
(305)292-3470 — Phone
(305) 292-3516 — Fax
Question presented: Does Monroe County face any exposure to liability for strictly
enforcing the variance requirements set forth at § 122-5(c)(3)a of the Monroe County
Code?
Short Answer: Possibly. A disabled person denied a variance under § 122-
5(cx3)a would appear to have a colorable claim for violating the Federal Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA) and possibly other statutes.
Background: The County Commission has before it an application for a variance
to the County's floodplain ordinance that is being sought by property owners who have
a wheel -chair bound, disabled son who lives with them. Section 122-5(c) states that:
(3) "when the [BOCCI shall consider the property of [sic] granting a variance as
permitted by this chapter, the following factors shall not be considered
relevant:
a. The physical disabilities or handicaps and health of the applicant or
members of his family."
The section was adopted as part of the County's efforts to meet the minimum
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program Act and the regulations
implementing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) which have been
promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). One such
regulation is 44 CFR § 60.6, which addresses criteria for granting variances and
exceptions to a participating local government's floodplain management ordinances.
While not specifically addressed in § 60.6, FEMA's technical guidance documents
indicate that physical disabilities should not be a relevant consideration when
determining whether to grant a variance or not.'
It goes without stating that the County's participation in the NFIP brings with it
substantial' benefits. In the words of U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore:
If a community elects not to participate in [the NFIP], residents of that community
face significant consequences: no federal financial assistance for home or
business acquisition or construction, or flood disaster relief from any federal
agency or federal instrumentality responsible for the supervision, approval,
regulation, or insuring of banks, savings and loan associations, or similar
institutions. Participating communities that fail to diligently implement or enforce
these local land use restrictions are subject to probation or suspension from the
NFIP.2
1 FEMA Guidelines for Local Variance and Appeal Boards.
2 Fla, Key Deer v. Stickney, 864 F.Supp. 1222, 1230 (S.D.Fla. 1994).
E
Since 1978, NFIP policyholders in Monroe County have received in excess of $3.5
billion in benefits under their policies.3 This is to say nothing of the millions of dollars in
disaster assistance the County has received from FEMA in federally declared disasters.
Questions have been raised over whether section 122-5(c)(3)a of the County
Code violates other laws including the Americans with Disabilities Act, especially in the
context of the Browns' variance request which is based upon their son's physical
disability. In short, the variance request potentially places the County in the position of
having to choose between various Federal laws to comply with.
ThE; purpose of this memo is to identify colorable causes of action that might
arise in the event the County denies the Brown's variance request based upon § 122-
5(c)(3)a of the County Code. To be clear, this memo does not admit liability for those
claims nor assess in depth the likely outcome of such claims. Instead, it merely points
out whether such claims are "colorable" or facially viable.
Analysis: As a general proposition, Courts have held that local governments, in
exercising their zoning authority, can be found in violation of the Federal Fair Housing
Amendments Act (FHAA)5, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),6 and the
Rehabilitation Act.' The Florida Fair Housing Act also makes it unlawful to
"discriminate in land use decisions or in the permitting of development based on .. .
disability.... "8 `The ADA was built on the Rehabilitation Act and the FHAA, but
3 See FEMA NFIP Policy and Claims Report for Monroe County, Florida dated 5/6110.
4 The causes of action outlined in this memo includes those claims the County would most likely face and
by no means, forecloses the possibility that a lawyer for the Browns might include additional claims not
contemplated here.
5 Edmunds v. Oxford House, 514 U.S. 725,115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995); and Schwarz v. City
of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201, 1212 (111h Cir. 2008).
6 See, e.g., Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. Milwaukee, 465 F.3d 737, 750 (7' Cir. 2006).
Id at 746.
e F.S. 760.26.
3
extends the reach of those laws substantially."9
"To establish discrimination under either the FHAA or the ADA, plaintiffs
generally have three available theories: (1) intentional discrimination (disparate
treatment); (2) disparate impact; and (3) failure to make a reasonable
accommodation."10 Since the statutes are interrelated, the analysis will be divided into
sections based upon each type of claim, not each statute.
FHAA and ADA Claims
If the County Commission denies the Browns' variance request based upon the
strict application of § 122-5(c)(3)a, the Browns could be reasonably expected to raise
disparate impact and reasonable accommodation claims under the Fair Housing
Amendments Act" and the Americans with Disability Act.12 They might also try to
allege a disparate treatment claim, sometimes referred to as an intentional
discrimination claim, but that appears to be most problematic of the three typical claims.
Disparate Impact
In order for the Browns to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, they
would have to provide evidence showing "(1) the occurrence of certain outwardly neutral
practices, and (2) a significantly adverse or disproportionate impact on persons of a
particular type produced by the defendant's facially neutral acts or practices.'i13
"Although the plaintiff need not show discriminatory intent under this theory, it must
8 Wisc. Comm. Sera, 465 F.3d at 750.
10 Tsombanidis v. W. Haven Fire Dept, 352 F.3d 565, 573 (2d Dir. 2003); see also Quad Enterprises Co.,
LLC v. Town of Southold, 369 Fed.Appx. 202, 205 (2d Cir. 2010).
11 42 USC. § 3601, et seq.
12 Since the County is a public entity, a discrimination claim would be brought under Title II found at 42
USC § 12131, et seq.
13 Tsombanidis, 352 F.3d at 575 (citations omitted).
C!
prove that the practice 'actually or predictably results in ... discrimination.' Moreover,
there must be a causal connection between the policy at issue and the discriminatory
effect." 14
Stated differently, the Browns would need to show by statistical evidence that the
percentage of disabled County residents who are similarly situated to their son and who
have a need or good reason to live in downstairs enclosures prohibited by the floodplain
ordinance is significantly greater than the percentage of all people in the County who
need or have good reason to live in such places.15 In algebraic terms, x% would have
to be substantially greater than y%, if 'Y' is the disabled population of the County who
need or have a good reason to live in an unpermitted downstairs enclosure and "y" is
the general population with a need or good reason to live in an unpermitted downstairs
enclosure. While no such evidence has been presented yet, it is within the bounds of
reason to expect that such a claim could be articulated if sufficient statistical analysis
were done: of the two comparative groups.16
Reasonable Accommodation
The Browns might also attempt to state a reasonable accommodation claim. To
do so, the Browns would need to show that the:
(1) County formally refused to make
(2) a reasonable accommodation in its regulations when such accommodations
(3) may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
14 Quad Enterprises, 369 Fed.Appx. at 206 (citations omitted).
15 Schwarz, 544 F.3d at 1217.
18 An obvious counter argument to this type of claim would be found in the position asserted by some in
the community that the County's floodplain ordinances impacts thousands of community residents,
Including those members of the community not suffering from certain physical disabilities such as the
elderly, poor and middle class, not to mention innocent purchasers who unknowingly bought homes that
previous owners had illegally converted from permitted storage space. See, e.g.,
htta:l/www.citizensnotserfs.com/medialarticles/CNSPrinciplesGoalsREVISED odf (as of 9/10/10).
5
dwelling." Each element of a reasonable accommodation cause of action will be
treated separately below.
The first element of a reasonable accommodation claim is the "refusal" element.
In order for such a claim to be ripe, the County would have to have finally and formally
denied the; Browns' request for a variance.$ That has not happened yet but this
element would be satisfied if the BOCC votes to deny the variance request.
The; second element involves "reasonableness". In judging the reasonableness
of a request for an accommodation, the Courts generally will determine that an
accommodation is not reasonable if it either (1) imposes undue financial and
administrative burdens on the local government, or (2) requires a fundamental alteration
in the nature of the program.19
As Ito the first prong, the County could certainly argue that any requirement that
the County alter or change the requirements of the floodplain ordinance which places its
participation in the NFIP in jeopardy along with the substantial financial benefits which it
enjoys by that participation would certainly qualify as an "undue financial burden". Such
an argument, if convincingly raised, could defeat a reasonable accommodation claim,
but that is no certainty. At a minimum, it would require defending the case and likely
would not be subject to a motion to dismiss. Resolution of this issue would likely require
a trial since that question would likely resolve factual disputes thus rendering summary
judgment !inappropriate.
Alternatively, the County could argue that granting the variance request would
require a fundamental alteration of the nature of the County's floodplain management
17 Schwarz, 5.44 F.3d at 1218-9.
181dat 1219.
19 Id at 1220.
2
program, which has, for the past 27, years prohibited habitation in the portions of
structures; built below base flood. Again this is a factual question that would require
defense of the suit before it could be resolved. A potential weakness with this argument
would be the existence of pre -firm houses and some post -firm houses that the County
permitted but did not consider, from 1975 to 1983, as habitable space in downstairs
enclosures, such as laundry rooms, convenience baths, and recreation rooms.
Predicting the ultimate outcome on this point is impossible at this point.
The third element of a reasonable accommodation claim involves whether the
accommodation sought is necessary for the disabled person to enjoy equal access to
the desired housing. It is important to note that when evaluating this type of claim, the
availability of other housing within the community that might otherwise provide an
accommodation to the disabled individual is irrelevant to the Court's consideration.20 In
other words, the County would be unable to defend this element of a reasonable
accommodation claim on the ground that there are other houses within the community
that might also accommodate the Browns' son.
Turning to the substance of this element, in order to prevail, the Browns would
have to show that the accommodation that they are requesting, i.e., permission for their
son to live in the downstairs enclosure, "actually alleviates the effects of the handicap.n21
Stated differently, the requested accommodation must "address the needs created by
the handicaps" and no more for if the accommodation goes "beyond addressing the
needs and starts addressing problems not cause by a person's handicap, then the
handicapped person would receive not an 'equal', but rather a better opportunity to use
20 544 F.3d at 1225-6.
21 /d at 1226.
FA
and enjoy a dwelling."22 Stated a third way, the question to be analyzed is "whether the
rule in question, if left unmodified, hurts `handicapped people by reason of their
handicap, rather than ... by virtue of what they have in common with other people,
such as a limited amount of money to spend on housing."'23 For example, if the house
in question is really too small to house the Brown family, then it is possible that a Court
might find that the requested accommodation is a pretext for gaining greater rights than
the family might enjoy if their son was not disabled. The statute requires "equal
opportunity" not greater opportunity.24
In sum, if the County denies the variance, the first element of a reasonable
accommodation claim would be satisfied. The second and third elements would be the
subject of factual disputes that would likely not be resolved without a full trial on the
merits.
Disparate Treatment/Intentlonal Discrimination
Lastly, the Browns could attempt to articulate a disparate treatment or intentional
discrimination claim, however, as alluded to above, that would be even more
problematic than the other two types of claims. In order to prevail on such a claim, the
Browns would have to show that their son was being "treated differently than similarly
situated non -handicapped people" under the underlying floodplain ordinance.25
The Second Federal Circuit wrote earlier this year that in order "to establish a
prima facie case of discrimination under the FHAA and the ADA, the plaintiffs must
present evidence that 'animus against the protected group was a significant factor in the
22 id.
23 Wisconsin Community Services, 465 F.3d at 749 quoting Hemisphere Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Villa. Of
Richton Park, 171 F.3d 437, 440 (7"' Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original).
24 Schwarz, 544 F.3d at 1226.
25 Schwarz, 544 F.3d at 1216.
I.,
position taken by the [County] decision -makers themselves or by those to whom the
decision -makers were knowingly responsive.' Once plaintiffs make out a prima facie
case, then defendants must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their
decision. Finally, the burden returns to plaintiffs to prove that they were intentionally
discriminated against on a prohibited ground, which may occur via a substantial
showing that defendants' proffered explanation was false or pretextual. Factors that
may be considered in evaluating an intentional discrimination claim include '(1) the
discriminatory impact of the governmental decision; (2) the decision's historical
background; (3) the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision;
(4) departures from the normal procedural sequences; and (5) departures from normal
substantive criteria.46
Given that the floodplain management ordinances are being applied across the
board without regard to disability status, it is difficult to imagine how a claim for
disparate treatment or intentional discrimination could be made in good faith. Even if
the Browns were to honestly believe and therefore allege that the County's actions were
the result of animus on the part of the County or public speakers at the variance
hearing27 (towards their son based on his disability, the County's reliance on FEMA's
minimum standards and technical guidance documents clearly provides a non-
pretextual basis for denying the requested variance.
On balance, it appears that the Browns could state at least one if not two causes
of action under the FHAA and/or the ADA. While it is far from certain that they would
' Quad Enterprises, 369 Fed.Appx. at 206 (citations omitted).
27 Many of the ADA and FHAA cases arising from zoning disputes involve the location of drug
rehabilitation centers or similar facilities which draw neighborhood opposition, a factor not experienced
nor expected to be raised in the instant matter. See generally, Schwarz, supra, Wisc. Comm. Serv.,
supra., Tsorribanidis, supra, and A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, 515 F.3d 356 (4t" Cir. 2008),
9
prevail, it is clear that such claims would likely have to be defended through trial and
possibly on appeal. If the Browns did prevail, the County could be ordered by the Court
to grant the requested variance and might be ordered to pay monetary damages on the
FHAA claim28 though not on the ADA claim unless special circumstances can be
proven.29
Other Statutes
Although the ADA and FHAA are the most obvious sources of potential liability, it
is possible claims could be articulated under the more narrow Rehabilitation Act of 1972
or a Constitutional claim could be brought under 42 USC § 1983. The Rehabilitation
Act, which is designed to encourage the training of disabled Americans so they can lead
economically productive lives is more narrow in its application than the ADA and FHAA,
nevertheless, it has been held to form a basis for relief against zoning decisions that
were found to discriminate on the basis of disability.30
In other cases involving discrimination claims arising from local government
zoning decisions, parties have attempted to bring equal protection and due process
clause claims via the Civil Rights Act.31 "Unless the ordinances involve a suspect class
or impinge on a constitutionally protected right, they need only bear a rational
relationship to a legitimate state purpose."32 Since being disabled is not a suspect
class,33 the floodplain variance ordinance would be subject to a rational basis analysis
21 See, 42 USC § 3613(c).
"9 See, 42 USC § 12133.
30 Wisc. Comm. Sera, 465 F.3d at 746-8.
31 Tsombanictis v. City of West Haven, 129 F.Supp. 136, 161-2 (D.Conn. 2001).
32 Kuvin v. City of Coral Gables, _ So.3d , 2010 WL 3324938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) citing City of
Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 US 19, 13, 109 S.Ct. 1591, 104 L.Ed2d 18 (1989).
33 Brown v. Sibley, 650 F.2d 760, 766 (5' Cir. 1981).
10
unless the Browns could articulate a different constitutionally protected right. If the
claim alleged only requires rational basis review, the Browns would have a difficult time
prevailing on such a claim. If they can allege a claim involving a constitutionally
protected right to which the Court would be required to apply a strict scrutiny analysis,
the variance ordinance would have to "serve a compelling state interest through the
least intrusive means possible,
Another source for a possible claim is the Florida Fair Housing Act (FFHA), which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, inter alia, in land use decisions at F.S.
760.26. Although there are no reported decisions interpreting the meaning of F.S.
760.26, one can reasonably expect it to be interpreted similar to the Federal Fair
Housing Amendments Act since the Florida Fair Housing Act essentially codifies the
Federal statute into state law.35
In sum, the Browns could conceivably allege claims beyond the traditional ones
that one might expect under the ADA and the FHAA. Regardless of the defenses to the
claim that the County might have, any claim will require a defense, possibly through trial
if not appeal.
Options: The County Commission has the following options to consider at the
variance hearing on September 15, 2010:
1. Deny the variance and likely head to court as the defendant in an action
brought by the Browns.
2. Grant the variance and submit it to FEMA for consideration which could
result in:
34 Fla. Dept. of Children & Family Services v. F.L., 880 So.2d 602, 607 (Fla. 2004).
35 Dornbach v. Holley, 854 So.2d 221, 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
11
a. FEMA approving the variance with no repercussions for the County
under the NFIP (but possibly opening the doors to several similar
claims);
b. FEMA rejecting the variance and directing the County to rescind it or
face sanctions under the NFIP (which the County could attempt to
challenge administratively or ultimately in court).
3. Postponing a final decision on the variance until the County receives the
input of:
a. FEMA; legal staff is in discussions with FEMA's general counsel's
office over the interplay between the NFIP requirements and the other
federal laws at issue in this case;
b. A U.S. District Court judge in a declaratory judgment action36 which the
County could bring against the Browns, FEMA, and other Federal
agencies charged with enforcing the NFIP, ADA, the FHAA, and the
Rehabilitation Act. Declaratory judgments can be brought by a
potential defendant to test its liability exposure.
36 "The [Declaratory Judgment Act — 28 USC § 2201] remedy was designed as a means to facilitate
early and effective adjudication of disputes at a time when a controversy, though actual, may still be
incipient, but before it expands into larger conflict. The action generally commences at the instance of a
party facing potential liability to another who may have an accrued claim at that time but has not yet
commenced coercive litigation to pursue relief. By enabling the parties to narrow the issues and
differences and expedite resolution of their conflict, the DJA procedure helps to minimize the prolongation
of disputes, reduce the risk of loss and avoid the unnecessary accumulation of damages.
Declaratory relief thus not only functions as an adjudicatory device but serves a preventive purpose as
well. It permits the court in one action to define the legal relationships and adjust the attendant rights and
obligations at issue between the parties so as to avoid the dispute escalating into additional wrongful
conduct. In this manner, the statute can avert greater damages and multiple actions and collateral issues
involving not only the original litigants but potentially other third parties. So employed, the remedy
promotes several utilitarian values in the adjudication of disputes: speed, economy and effectiveness."
Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harrods, Ltd., 237 F.Supp.2d 394, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
12
Recommendation: The County Attorney recommends that the BOCC hold the hearing
to take testimony of the Browns and the other witnesses they would like to offer and
then continue the hearing thus deferring ruling on the matter until the informal
discussions with FEMA's general counsel's office can be concluded. At that point, if
FEMA indicates that it will penalize the County if it does not rescind the variance,
consider tiling a declaratory judgment action in Federal court.
13
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September 15, 2010
Bulk Item: Yes x No
Division: Growth Management
Department: Code Enforcement
Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Christine Hurley
289-2517
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Report of revenue vs. expense for Code Enforcement Officer for
unlicensed contractor compliance, as requested by Commission.
ITEM BACKGROUND: In 2008, the Board of County Commissioners responded to the needs of the
Contractors within Monroe County to retain a code enforcement inspector to work to assure unlicensed
contractors are not conducting business within the County. This practice creates unsafe conditions for
citizens and the added resource has been successful in bringing awareness to the community and
enforcing the law related to licensure of contractors.
At the August 18, 2010 meeting, the Board requested a summary report on whether this added resource
was adequately funded by fees. The Board, at the request of the contractors, created a fee ($11 per
permit) to fund this added resource. Please see attached memorandum regarding revenue vs. expense
for FYs 08-09 and 09-10.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
March 19, 2008 - BOCC approved Resolution 080-2008 adding the $11.00 Code Compliance Fee
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST:
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO COUNTY:
BUDGETED: Yes No
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included x Not Required _
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 7/09
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
TO: BOCC
THRU: Christine Hurley, Growth Management Division Director
FROM: Ronda L. Norman, Sr. Director, Code Enforcement
DATE: August 26, 2010
RE: Code Enforcement Contractor Licensing Inspector Expense
This memo is being provided to explain the costs and revenues associated with the Code
Enforcement Contractor Licensing Inspector and the Contractors Examining Board.
Pursuant to previous BOCC action in 2008, the inspector's salary is funded through fees
collected in the building permitting process, of which $11.00 of every building permit fee
is allocated to fund this position.
The undertaking of the duties of this position by the Contractor Licensing Inspector has
realized increased revenues for the County in the form of permit fees and penalties
imposed by the Contractors Examining Board on citations written by the inspector.
The Contractors Examining Board is an all volunteer board. Outside counsel represents
the board at a set fee of $1500 per meeting. This cost is not included in the breakdown
provided as outside counsel has no direct associated cost or expenses to this position. The
County Attorneys office represents this inspector during the normal course of her duties
and when attending Contractors Board hearings.
It is important to note that the revenue generated for the County since the creation of this
position is +$41, 246.00.
The breakdown of the revenue and expenses are attached.
Contractor Licensing Inspector Ex ep nses
FY07-08 REVENUE: $ 20, 141.00
EXPENSE: $ 23, 385.00
DIFFERENCE: $ -3, 244.00
(Reflects Partial Revenue & Expense as position was not created until 3-08)
FY08-09 REVENUE: $ 43, 462.00
EXPENSE: $ 52, 784.00
DIFFERENCE: $ -9, 286.00
FY09-10 REVENUE: $ 56, 925.00 - YTD as of 8/24/2010 Projected $62,100
EXPENSE: $ 52, 604.00 $52,604
$+4, 321.00
DIFFERENCE:
Projected
FY10-11 REVENUE: $ 62,100.00
EXPENSE: $ 48, 220.00
DIFFERENCE: $+13,880.00
CITATIONS:
UNPAID CITATIONS
PAID CITATIONS $+40, 750.00
$+9,496
$ - 82, 985.00
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Debbie Frederick, Acting County Administrator
From: Andrew Omer Trivette
Growth Management Division Director
Date: Monday March 3, 2008
RE: Contractor Compliance Inspector
The intention of this memo is to request the creation of new position within the Code
Enforcement Department.
In recent months it has been brought to my attention that Monroe County is currently seeing an
increase in unlicensed contractor activity. This increase in illegality and the economic downturn
which has affected the construction industry in Monroe County is severely impacting our local
certified and code compliant contractors.
I suggest that the Monroe County Commission institute a nominal code compliance fee of $11.00
for each building permit issued by the Monroe County Building Department. This fee will
generate approximately $58,036.00 each year that it is collected. The fee and resultant revenue
will then be applied to the salary of a new code enforcement inspector with an annual salary,
including benefits, of approximately $56,000.00. This salary will be consistent with the other
five (5) remaining inspectors in the Department and is a pay grade 8. The additional $2,036.00
will be applied to cost allocation such as additional office supplies and equipment including fleet
demands.
This proposal is endorsed by many of the local contractors and will help prevent additional loss of
revenues to both Monroe County and our local certified and code compliant service providers.
This position will be charged with the job site inspection of required insurances and licenses as
well as general job site code compliance. The position will not be responsible for building code
compliance. The proposed position will compliment an already over burdened Code
Enforcement staff and allow for a more efficient and persistent enforcement of local and state
contractor regulations within unincorporated Monroe County.
The jurisdiction of the proposed position will be from Stock Island to Ocean Reef and mainland
Monroe County. The position will be based in the Marathon Government Center.
Please find attached a proposed job description, a new BOCC resolution establishing the code
compliance fee for each building permit issued by Monroe County and other supporting
documentation.
RESOLUTION NO. 080 -2008
A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO.
420-2007 PERTAINING TO THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE TO MORE
EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT THE TRUE COSTS OF
PROVIDING THE SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH
THE BUILDING PERMITTING AND INSPECTION
SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners wish to provide the citizens of the
County with the best possible service in the most cost effective and reasonable manner; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the public to charge the true cost for such services, thereby
placing the burden of such costs directly upon those persons deriving the benefit from the services; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Growth Management has demonstrated that the existing fee schedule does
not reflect the true cost of providing the services to the persons requesting the Building Department
services; and
WHEREAS, the Board heard testimony and evidence presented as to the appropriate fee schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Board concurs with the conclusions and findings of the Growth Management Director;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Pursuant to Monroe County Code, the following building permit fees are hereby
established:
(A) Building Application Fees:
l . New commercial buildings
1500.00
2. New duplex or multi -family buildings
1500.00
3. New conventional single family home
750.00
4. New modular single family home
500.00
5. New replacement mobile home
52.00
6. All over the counter permits and signs
52.00
7. Residential repairs/remodel (less than $10,000)
52.00
8. Residential repairs/remodel (S 10,000 or more)
100.00
9. Commercial repairs/remodel (less than $10,000)
52.00
10. Commercial repairs/remodel ($10,000 or more)
200.00
11. Construction of seawall, riprap, dredge and fill, dock, or any combination thereof
80.00
12. After the fact permits
502.00
[If the application is approved, the fee shall be deducted from any other amount which may be due and owing under the other terms of this subsection ]
(B) Building Permit Fees:
1. Minimum Fee
50.00
2. Buildings (including balconies, additions, garages, enclosures and accessory buildings):
a. For each 100 square feet of enclosed area or fractional part thereof 30.00
3.Structures other than buildings & misc. construction (Unless specified herein):
a. For each $1000.00 of cost or fractional parts thereof 30.00
b. Seal coating/painting (for: each $1000.00 of cost or fraction part thereof) 20.00
c. Cabinets & Vanities 50.00
4.Sewer Treatment Plants (physical plant with lift station): see (B) 3a above
[For all additional items refer to applicable sections herein]
5. All flat work and decks on grade outdoor & indoor (concrete, asphalt. wood, tile, carpet etc.):
a. For each 1000 square feet or fractional part thereof
25.00
b.Fences and retaining walls:
a. For each 100 lineal feet or fractional part thereof
50.00
7.Roofing (including repairs and new roofs):
a. For each 100 square feet or fractional part thereof
5.00
b. Waterproofing
50.00
8.Swimming pools:
a. Residential
150.00
b. Commercial
250.00
c. Spas/hot tub (up to 12' diameter)
75.00
[For all additional items refer to applicable sections herein]
9.Cisterns:
a. Residential 100.00
b. Commercial (non -potable water only):
i. For each 1000-galton capacity or fractional part thereof 10.00
c. Minimum Fee 150.00
10. Mobile Home Installation:
a. Tie downs, blocking, sewer connection, water connection, and electrical
b. Connection 150.00
c. Tie downs, inspection for insurance purposes only 75.00
[For all additional items refer to applicable sections herein[
11- Temporary Trailer (Construction and/or sales):
a. Annual Fee (each) 200.00
12. Temporary
13. Tanks:
50.00
a. For each 1000-galIon capacity or fractional part thereof 7.00
b. Minimum Fee (each tank) 75.00
[For all additional items refer to applicable sections herein]
14. Moving building 200.00
15. Demolition:
a. For each 1000 square feet or fractional part thereof 50.00
16. Seawalls and riprap:
a. For each 50 lineal feet or fractional part thereof 25.00
D. Inspection
17. Docks:
a. For each 100 square feet of flat area or fractional part thereof 25.00
b. Inspection 80.00
c. With piling (each pile) 15.00
d. With boat davit (each davit) 20.00
e. With retaining wall priced as fence
18. Excavation:
a. Borrow pits, canals, etc:
i. Annual Fee:
500.00
ii. Inspection
80.00
iii. Boat slips, ramps, miscellaneous minor excavations:
(a) For first 100 cubic yards or fractional part thereof
50.00
(b) For each additional 100 cubic yards or fractional part thereof
15.00
(c) Inspection
80.00
19. Filling (on land and/or water):
a. For each 100 cubic yards or fractional part thereof 15.00
b. Inspection Fee 80.00
20. Land Clearing:
a. Removal or trimming of invasive exotics No Fee
b. Major pruning or removal of non-invasive exotics and natives:
i. Inspection fee, when necessary 35.00
ii. First acre or fractional part thereof 35.00
iii. For each additional acre 6.00
21. Awnings and removable canopies:
a. For each 100 square feet or fractional part thereof 25.00
22. Hurricane Shutters:
a. Retrofit or New Construction No Fee
23. Wood lattice and screening:
a. For each 100 square feet or fractional part thereof 15.00
24. Commercial kitchen vent hoods:
a. For each S 1000 of cost or fractional part thereof
[For all additional items refer to applicable sections herein)
30.00
25. Signage:
a. Signs (New):
i. For each 50 square feet of sign face or fractional part thereof 30.00
ii. Annual Re -inspection Fee (when applicable) 25.00
b. Signs (Modify, Repair, Repaint):
i. For each 50 square feet of sign face or fractional part thereof 20.00
ii. Highway Billboards (Repair/Maintenance Only): 40.00
iii. For each 50 square feet of sign face or fractional part thereof 35.00
iv. Annual Re -inspection Fee (when applicable) 35.00
[For all additional items refer to applicable sections herein]
(C) Electrical Permit Fees:
1.Minimum Fee 50.00
2.Site work: (Commercial)
a. For each $1000 of cost or fractional part thereof 30.00
3.Outlets:
a. General (receptacles, switches, lights, telephones, TV, etc.):
b. For each 100 square feet of enclosed area or fractional part thereof 10.00
c. Appliance outlets, each (including ceiling fans) 10.00
d. Exterior Area Lighting, each 10.00
4.Services:
a. Temporary:
50.00
b. Single Phase
i. 0 to 300 amp
50.00
ii. Over 300 amp to 400 amp
75.00
iii. Over 400 amp to 600 amp
100.00
iv. Over 600 amp
125.00
c. Three Phase
i. 0 to 300 amp
75.00
ii. Over 300 to 400 amp
100.00
iii. Over 400 to 600 amp
125.00
iv. Over 600 amp .
200.00
[Sub Feeds to be charged by amps at the same rate as Service]
5.Motors:
a. 0 to 10 HP
50.00
b. Over 10 HP to 25 HP
100.00
c. Over 25 HP
125.00
6.Generators, Transformers, and Transfer Switches (each):
a. 0 to 25 KW
50.00
b. Over 25 KW to 50 KW
100.00
c. Over 50 KW
125.00
7.X-ray Machines (each):
150.00
4
8.Welding Machines (each):
a. 0 to 25 amps (primary)
50.00
b. Over 25 amps to 50 amps
65.00
c. Over 50 amps
75.00
9.A/C (each):
a. Window or wall (If New Service Required)
20.00
b. Central System:
i. Up to 20 tons
50.00
ii. Over 20 tons
3.00/ton
c. Refrigeration:
i. Up to 20 tons
50.00
ii. Over 20 tons
3.00/ton
iii. Heat Pump (per unit)
50.00
10. Elevators, Commercial (each)
200.00
a. Elevators, Residential (each)
75.00
b. Dumbwaiters, wheelchair lifts or stair lifts (each)
75.00
11. Signage:
a. I" sign connection
50.00
b. Each additional sign connection
15.00
12. Plug Mold and Track Lighting:
a. For each 100 lineal feet or fractional part thereof
50.00
13. Alarm Systems:
a. Low Voltage Systems Residential (each)
50.00
b. Commercial
i. For each $1000 of cost or fractional part thereof
20.00
14. Commercial kitchen vent hood motors
see (C) 5 above
15. Repairs/ Remodeling (same as „cW work):
a. Minimum Fee
50.00
16. Swimming Pools & Hot Tubs:
see (C) 4 & 5 above
17. Home Automation System:
a. For each $1000 of cost or fractional part thereof
20.00
18. Fiber Optic System:
a. For each $1000 of cost or fractional part thereof
20.00
19. Carnivals, Circuses, Road Shows and similar temporary installations:
a. Generators
b. Minimum Fee
see (C) 6 above
200.00
20. Miscellaneous:
a. For each $1000.00 of cost or fractional part thereof
20.00
(D) Plumbing Permit Fees:
LMinimum Fee 50.00
2-Fixtures (each):
a. Roughed in and set 15.00
3.Sewer:
a. Building interior lines and connection 50.00
b. Outside sanitary and storm lines (site work):
(a) For each $1000 of cost or fractional part thereof 50.00
4.Manholes (each): 50.00
5.Sewage Treatment Plant:
a. For each $1000 of cost or fractional part thereof for:
b. Collection System and Disposal Well 65.00
6.Water Piping:
a. Connection to supply system (each)
20.00
i. Connection (each) to any appliance or fixture
15.00
b. Irrigation system:
i. For each $1000 of cost or fractional part thereof
12.00
c. Fire protection system:
i. For each $1000 of cost or fractional part thereof
12.00
7.Water Mains and Distribution Lines:
a. For each $1000 of cost or fractional parts thereof
50.00
8.Swimming Pool:
a. Hook-up and site work (Residential)
50.00
b. Commercial
100.00
9.Wells (where applicable) each
25.00
10. Repairs/Remodeling:
a. Same as New Work ... Minimum Fee
50.00
11. Commercial kitchen vent hood (if plumbing required)
50.00
12. Miscellaneous:
a. For each $1000.00 of cost or fractional part thereof 25.00
(E) Mechanical Permit Fees:
1.Minimum Fee
50.00
2.A/C Systems (excluding windows units) and refrigeration:
a. Under 2 Ton
50.00
b. Over 2 Ton to less than 5 Ton
65.00
c. Over 5 Ton to less than 10 Ton
85.00
d. Over 10 Ton to less than 25 Ton
115.00
e. Over 25 Ton to less than 50 Ton
155.00
f. Over 50 Ton to less than 100 Ton
250.00
g. Over 100 Ton
300.00
3.Duct Work:
a. Per each drop (opening)
10.00
4.Commercial Kitchen Vent Hood
50.00
5.Heat Pump (per unit)
65.00
6. Miscellaneous:
a. For each $1000.00 of cost or fractional part thereof
20.00
(F) Fuel Gas Fees:
I -Service fee: 50.00
2.Fixtures, i.e.; range, dryer, water heater etc. (each) 15.00
(G) Building Plans Review Fees:
1.New, single family residential
100.00
2.Remodeling plans review single family residential
50.00
3.New, commercial and/or remodeling plans review
150.00
4.Revisions:
a. Major revision (coo„Pietere-design)
1000.00
b. Minor revisions
50.00
[Above fee increases 50.00 with cach submission. not to exceed 500.001
5.Lost plans re -review
per page 5.00
a. Minimum fee
50.00
(H) Re -inspection Fees:
a. First re -inspection
50.00
b. Subsequent
100.00
(REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
(1) LDR and Non -building code site and plans review fees
1.Planning and/or Environmental review:
a. Education fee
10.00
b. Biologist Review:
i. Compliance review for new development
(a) Single family and mobile homes
75.00
(b) Duplex, multi- family and commercial
150.00
(c) Other (accessory or clearing)
60.00
(d) Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) evaluation
260.00
(e) Site Visit (other than final inspection)
130.00
ii. Compliance review for revision, remodel or expansion
(a) Single family and mobile homes
75.00
(b) Duplex, multi- family and commercial
150.00
(c) Other (accessory or clearing)
60.00
(d) Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) evaluation
260.00
(e) Site Visit (other than final inspection)
130.00
(f) Miscellaneous per hour fee (research)
60.00
c. Planer Review:
i. Compliance review for new development
(a) Single family and mobile homes
75.00
(b) Duplex, multi- family and commercial
150.00
(c) Other (accessory or clearing)
60.00
(d) Site Visit (other than final inspection)
130.00
ii. Compliance review for revision, remodel or expansion
(a) Single family and mobile homes
75.00
(b) Duplex, multi- family and commercial
150.00
(c) Other (accessory or clearing)
60.00
(d) Site Visit (other than final inspection)
130.00
d. Miscellaneous per hour fee (research)
60.00
2.Flood Plain Management Review:
a. Flood Plain Manger Review 140.00
3.Engineering Division Review:
a. County Engineer Review
i. Compliance Review 375.00
(a) Administrative Fee 129.00
(b) Site Inspection 375.00
b. Miscellaneous per hour fee (research) 94.00
4-Fire Safety Division
a. Fire Marshal Review
i. Compliance Review
(a) Structural & Site Plan 229.00
(i) Administrative Fee 52.00
(b) Inspections
(i) Structural & Site Plan 172.00
(ii) Sprinkler Systems & Fire Alarms 304.00
(iii)Administrative Fee 26.00
5-Code Enforcement Department
a. Code Compliance Fee 11.00
(applies to all permits)
(J) ROGO/NROGO and privatized plans compliance review application fees:
1.Single family residential, mobile home 200.00
2.Attached residential and commercial 400.00
(K) Miscellaneous Fees:
1.Transfer of a building permit upon change of ownership 200.00
2.Extension of permit fee (One per permit) 250.00
3.Education Fee $2.00 per permit issued
a. New Residential and/or Commercial 25.00
4.Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance:
a. Program administration fee 210.00
b. Inspection Fee (Code Enforcement) 90.00
c. Inspection upon Sale 170.00
5.Blasting Fees:
a. Monthly fee 50.00
b. Yearly fee:
i. User 600.00
ii. Blaster 100.00
6.Charge for copies priced per Section 119.07(1)(a), F.S.
7.Replacement permit card 25.00
8.Permit Renewal:
a. Minimum fee 500.00
[Fee is prorated to last approved inspection]
9.Change of contractor (After Permit Has Been Issued) 75.00
10. Technology & Document Processing Fee:
a. Total permit fee less than 500.00 3.00
b. Total permit fee greater than 500.00 20.00
11. Certificates of Occupancy/Certificates of Completion
a. Residential 100.00
b. Commercial 200.00
c. Emergency C.O.(without 24 hrs. processing) additional fee 75.00
d. Certificate of Completion 100.00
12. Post card permits
min. 70.00
13. Contractor registration (Initial) 50.00
14. Review of shutter insurance affidavit 50.00
Section 2. Resolution no. 420-2007 is hereby rescinded.
Section 3 The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to forward one (1) certified copy of this
Resolution to the Division of Growth Management.
PASSED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe
County, Florida, held on the 19th day of March, 2008.
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy Yes
Mayor Pro Tern Mario DiGennaro Yes
Commissioner George Neugent Yes
Commissioner Dixie Spehar Yes
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy Yes
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
i BY:
Mayor/Chairperson
KOLHAGE, CLERK
By'
3
DEPUTY LERK
o 0
rn
x
C C7'
_-�.
• 1 Y1.
01