Item B5 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
6 Meeting Date: February 13, 2012 Division: Growth Management
` Bulk Item: Yes No X Staff Contact Person/Phone#: Christine Hurley x2517
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Consideration of a resolution to transmit to the State Land Planning Agency an
ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.5 to
revise the Permit Allocation Scoring Systems(ROGO and NROGO) to assign negative points to Tier III parcels
that contain submerged lands and/or wetlands requiring 100% open space pursuant to Policies 102.1.1 and
204.2.1 and that are located adjacent to or contiguous to Tier I properties.
ITEM BACKGROUND:Upland habitat is protected through the Tier System and the permit allocation system.
While the Tier System directs growth away from upland habitat to infill areas, the criteria for the tier
designations do not include wetlands, as confirmed in the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs
Final Order DCA07-GM-166A(DOAH Case No. 06-2449GM (in some instances, wetlands are included when it
is part of a larger ecosystem). The comprehensive plan does have other protective measures for wetland
communities, such as requiting 100% open space for certain wetland communities. While these protective
policies exist, property owners may not be aware of these policies and may believe that wetland lots designated
as Tier III are appropriate inf ill areas.
Wetland communities provide important storm protection, water quality protection, and wildlife habitat
functions. In particular, the following wetland communities:
- mangrove forests along the shorelines of the Keys;
- transitional wetlands (salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands) lying landward of the mangrove fringe and
oceanward of upland communities;
- salt ponds occupying shallow enclosed basins having very restricted tidal influence;
kir -freshwater wetlands and freshwater ponds in areas of freshwater lenses in the Lower Keys.
To provide additional protection to wetland communities and further direct growth to disturbed and scarified
areas, an amendment is proposed to the permit allocation scoring system to assign negative points to Tier III
parcels that contain submerged lands and/or wetlands requiring 100% open space pursuant to Policies 102.1.1
and 204.2.1 and that are located adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties.
This amendment is not proposed to apply retroactively. This amendment would only apply to Tier III parcels
entering the permit allocation system after the effective date of the proposed policy.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: N/A
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes _No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
fir' DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM#
kw
MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION NO. -2012
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE STATE LAND
PLANNING AGENCY AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING POLICIES
101.5.4 AND 101.5.5 TO REVISE THE PERMIT ALLOCATION SCORING
SYSTEMS (ROGO AND NROGO) TO ASSIGN NEGATIVE POINTS TO
TIER III PARCELS THAT CONTAIN SUBMERGED LANDS AND/OR
WETLANDS REQUIRING 100% OPEN SPACE PURSUANT TO
POLICIES 102.1.1 AND 204.2.1 AND THAT ARE LOCATED ADJACENT
TO OR CONTIGUOUS TO TIER I PROPERTIES.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public
hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency a
proposed amendment to the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan as described above; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board
of County Commissioners support the requested text amendment; and
NOW THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA:
Section 1: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the recommendation of
the Planning Commission to transmit the draft ordinance for adoption of the
proposed text amendment.
Section 2: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby transmit the proposed
amendment as part of a set of comprehensive plan amendments for 2012 to the
State Land Planning Agency for review and comment in accordance with the
State Coordinated Review process pursuant to Section 163.3184(4), Florida
Statutes.
Section 3. The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required
kW transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment.
P. 1 of2
IVSection 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this
resolution to the Director of Planning.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a special meeting held on the day of February, 2012.
Mayor David Rice
Mayor pro tern Kim Wigington
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Mayor David Rice
ible (SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE,CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK
MONR:A COUNTY ATTORNEY
P:OVER AS TO FO'M
Date: allitillagras
P.2 of 2
fit
ORDINANCE NO. -2012
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.4 AND 101.5.5 TO REVISE
THE PERMIT ALLOCATION SCORING SYSTEMS (ROGO AND NROGO) TO
ASSIGN NEGATIVE POINTS TO TIER III PARCELS THAT CONTAIN
SUBMERGED LANDS AND/OR WETLANDS REQUIRING 100% OPEN SPACE
PURSUANT TO POLICIES 102.1.1 AND 204.2.1 AND THAT ARE LOCATED
ADJACENT TO OR CONTIGUOUS TO TIER I PROPERTIES; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND
PLANNING AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR THE FILING WITH THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING
FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
WHEREAS, upland habitat is protected through the Tier System and the permit
allocation system. While Tier System directs growth away from upland habitat to infill areas,
some wetlands are included when the wetland is part of a larger ecosystem; and
WHEREAS, wetland communities provide important stone protection, water quality
protection, and wildlife habitat functions; and
WHEREAS, to provide additional protection to wetland communities and further direct
growth to disturbed and scarified areas, an amendment is proposed to the permit allocation
scoring system to assign negative points to Tier III parcels that contain submerged lands and/or
wetlands requiring 100% open space pursuant to Policies 102.1.1 and 204.2.1 and that are
located adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is intended to apply to Tier III parcels entering
the permit allocation system after the effective date of the proposed policy; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the
proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 17th day of October, 2011;
and
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 1st day of December, 2011,
the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of considering
411/
k the transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency of a proposed amendment to the Monroe
County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval of the amendment;
WHEREAS, at a special meeting held on 13th day of February, 2012, the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows: (Deletions are
and additions are underlined.)
Policy 101.5.4
Monroe County shall implement the residential Permit Allocation and Point System through its
land development regulations based primarily on the Tier system of land classification as set
forth under Goal 105. The points are intended to be applied cumulatively.
1. Tier Designation - Utilizing the Tier System for land classification in Policy 105.2.1, the
following points shall be assigned to allocation applications for proposed dwelling units
in a manner that encourages development of infill in predominately developed areas with
existing infrastructure and few sensitive environmental features and discourages
development in areas with environmentally sensitive upland habitat which must be
acquired or development rights retired for resource conservation and protection.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+0 Proposes a dwelling unit within areas designated Tier I [Natural
Area] on Big Pine Key and No Name Name Key.
+10 Proposes a dwelling unit within areas designated Tier I [Natural
Area] outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
+10 Proposes development within areas designated Tier II [Transition
and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.]
+20 Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infill Area]
on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infill Area]
+20 outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key that will result in the
clearing of upland native vegetation within a Special Protection
Area.
2
L Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infill Area]
fir' +30 outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key that will not result in the
clearing of any upland native vegetation within a Special Protection
Area.
2. Big Pine and No Name Keys - The following negative points shall be cumulatively
assigned to allocation applications for proposed dwellings to implement the Big Pine Key
and No Name Key Habitat Conservation Plan and the Livable CommuniKeys
Community Master Plan.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
-10 Proposes development on No Name Key.
-10 Proposes development in designated Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit
habitat or buffer areas as designated in the Community Master Plan.
-10 Proposes development in Key Deer Corridor as designated in the
Community Master Plan.
3. Wetlands — The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications on Tier III
parcels that contain wetlands which require 100%open space pursuant to Policies 102.1.1
and 204.2.1 and that are located adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Tier III parcels adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties and
containing 50%or less of the following:
1. submerged lands
3 2. mangroves(excluding tidally inundated mangrove
shoreline fringes)
3. salt ponds
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh water ponds
6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
Notes:
Adiacent means land sharing a boundary with another parcel of land. An intervening
road, right-of-way, easement or canal shall not destroy the adjacency of the two
parcels, except for U.S. 1.
Contiguous means a sharing of a common border at more than a single point of
intersection. Contiguity is not interrupted by utility easements.
3
410, Tier III parcels adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties and
containing more than 50% of the following:
1. submerged lands
5 2. mangroves(excluding tidally inundated mangrove
shoreline fringes1
3. salt ponds
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh water ponds
6.undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
Notes:
Adiacent means land sharing a boundary with another parcel of land. An intervening
road, right-of-way, easement or canal shall not destroy the adjacency of the two
parcels, except for U.S. 1.
Contiguous means a sharing of a common border at more than a single point of
intersection. Contiguity is not interrupted by utility easements.
4. 3 Lot Aggregation —The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
encourage the voluntary reduction of density through aggregation of legally platted
buildable lots within Tier II and Tier III areas.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Each additional contiguous vacant, legally platted lot which is
+4 aggregated in a designated Tier III area outside of Big Pine Key and
No Name Key that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn
additional points as specified±
Each additional contiguous vacant,legally platted lot which is
+3 aggregated in a designated Tier II or III area on Big Pine Key and
No Name Key that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn
additional points as specified.
*Exception:
No points for lot aggregation will be awarded for any proposed
development that involves the clearing of any upland native
vegetation in a Tier III Special Protection Area.
5. 4,Land Dedication—The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
encourage, the voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable land within Tier I designated
areas and Tier III Special Protection Areas for the purposes of conservation, resource
protection, restoration or density reduction and, if located in Tier III outside of
err 4
Special Protection Areas, for the purpose of providing land for affordable housing
where appropriate.
Point Assignment:* Criteria:*
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one vacant,legally platted
+4 lot of sufficient minimum lot size and upland area to be buildable.
Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of a vacant,legally platted
lot of 5,000 square feet or more in size, designated as Residential
+I for each 5,000 square Low with a maximum net density within a Tier I area and containing
feet of lot size sufficient upland area to be buildable. Each additional vacant,
legally platted lot that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1)vacant, legally
platted lot of at least 5,000 square feet in size within a Tier I area,
+0.5 designated as Residential Conservation,or Residential Low with no
maximum net density, containing sufficient upland to be buildable.
Each additional vacant,legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of at least one(1)acre of
vacant, unplatted land located within a Tier I area containing
+4 sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional one(1)acre of
vacant,unplatted land that meets the aforementioned requirements
will earn points as specified.
•Exception:
Applications for a dwelling unit on Big Pine Key and No Name Key
shall be awarded points for land dedication in accordance with
Action Item 3.2.2 C of the Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan for
Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
6. 5. Market Rate Housing in Employee or Affordable Housing Project- The following
points shall be assigned to allocation applications for market rate housing units in an
employee or affordable housing project:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes a market rate housing unit which is part of an affordable or
+6 employee housing project;both affordable and employee housing
f shall meet the policy guidelines for income in Policy 601.1.7 and
�y other requirements pursuant to the Land Development Regulations
5
7. & Special Flood Hazard Areas — The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications for proposed dwelling unit(s) to provide a disincentive for locating within
certain coastal high flood hazard areas:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
4 Proposes development within"V"zones on the FEMA flood
-
insurance rate maps.
8. 77 Central Wastewater System Availability— The following points shall be assigned to
allocation applications:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes development required to be connected to a central
+4 wastewater treatment system that meets the BAT/AWT treatment
standards established by Florida Legislature and Policy 901.1.1.
9. & Payment to the Land Acquisition Fund—Up to two (2)points shall be awarded for a
monetary payment by the applicant to the County's land acquisition fund for the purchase
of lands for conservation, and retirement of development rights. The monetary value of
each point shall be set annually by the County based upon the estimated average fair
market value of vacant,privately-owned,buildable IS/URM zoned, platted lots in Tier I.
10.9.Perseverance Points—One(1)point shall be awarded for each year that the allocation
application remains in the allocation system up to a maximum accumulation of four (4)
points.
Policy 101.5.5
Monroe County shall implement the non-residential Permit Allocation and Point System through
its land development regulations based primarily on the Tier system of land classification
pursuant to Goal 105. The points are intended to be applied cumulatively.
1. Tier Designation—Utilizing the Tier System for land classification in Policy 105.2.1, the
following points shall be assigned to allocation applications for proposed non-residential
development in a manner that encourages development of infill in predominately
developed areas with existing infrastructure, commercial concentrations, and few
sensitive environmental features, and discourages development in areas with
environmentally sensitive upland habitat, which must be acquired or development rights
retired for resource conservation and protection:
6
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes non-residential development within an area designated
+0 Tier I [Natural Area], except for the expansion of lawfully
established non-residential development provided under"exception"
below.
Proposes non-residential development within an area designated
+10 Tier II [Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key and
No Name Key].
Proposes non-residential development that will result in the clearing
+10 of any upland native vegetation within a Special Protection Area in
Tier III.
+20 Proposes non-residential development within an area designated
Tier III [Infill Area].
*Exception:
Any lawfully established non-residential development shall be
assigned+20 points contingent upon no further clearing of upland
native habitat and no addition to and/or expansion of the existing lot
or parcel upon which the existing use is located.
kite
3. Wetlands —The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications on Tier III
parcels that contain wetlands which require 100%open space pursuant to Policies 102.1.1
and 204.2.1 and that are located adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties.
Point Assiznment: Criteria:
Tier III parcels adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties and
containing 50%or less of the following:
1. submerged lands
3 2. mangroves(excluding tidally inundated mangrove
shoreline fringes)
3. salt ponds
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh water ponds
6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
Notes:
Adiacent means land sharing a boundary with another parcel of land. An intervening
road, right-of-way, easement or canal shall not destroy the adjacency of the two
parcels, except for U.S. 1.
Contiguous means a sharing of a common border at more than a single point of
intersection. Contiguity is not interrupted by utility easements.
7
411,
Tier III parcels adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties and
containing more than 50%of the following:
1. submerged lands
2.mangroves (excluding tidally inundated mangrove
5 shoreline fringes)
3. salt ponds
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh water ponds
6.undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
Notes:
Adjacent means land sharing a boundary with another parcel of land. An intervening
road, right-of-way, easement or canal shall not destroy the adjacency of the two
parcels, except for U.S. 1.
Contiguous means a sharing of a common border at more than a single point of
intersection. Contiguity is not interrupted by utility easements.
3. 2—Intensity Reduction - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications
to encourage the voluntary reduction of intensity:
I Point Assignment: Criteria:
+4 An application proposes development that reduces the permitted
floor area ratio (FAR)to twenty three percent(23%) or less.
4. 47 Land Dedication - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
encourage, the voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable land within Tier I and Tier II
(Big Pine Key and No Name Key) designated areas and Tier III Special Protection Areas
for the purposes of conservation, resource protection, restoration or density reduction
and, if located in Tier III outside of Special Protection Areas, for the purpose of
providing land for affordable housing where appropriate.
Point Assignment:* Criteria:*
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1)vacant, legally
platted lot of sufficient minimum lot size and upland area to be
+4 buildable. Each additional vacant,legally platted,buildable lot
which is dedicated that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn the additional points as specified.
8
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of a vacant legally platted lot
iI of five thousand(5,000) square feet or more in size,designated as
+1 for each 5,000 square Residential Low with maximum net density within a Tier I area and
feet of lot size containing sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional vacant,
legally platted lot,that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1)vacant,legally
platted lot of five thousand(5,000) square feet or more within a Tier
+0.5 I area designated as Residential Conservation, or Residential Low
with no maximum net density, containing sufficient upland to be
buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of at least one(1) acre of
vacant,unplatted land located within a Tier I area containing
+4 sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional one(1) acre of
vacant,unplatted land that meets the aforementioned requirements
will earn the points as specified.
5. 4 Special Flood Hazard Area - The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications to discourage development within high risk special flood hazard zones:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes development within"V"zones on the FEMA flood
insurance rate maps.
6. &-Perseverance Points - One(1) or two (2) points shall be awarded for each year that the
allocation application remains in the system.
7. 67 Highway Access - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
encourage connections between commercial uses and reduction of the need for trips and
access onto U.S. Highway 1:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+3 The development eliminates an existing driveway or access-way to
U.S. Highway 1.
+2 The development provides no new driveway or access-way to U.S.
Highway 1.
4111/
8. Landscaping and Water Conservation - The following points shall be assigned to
allocation applications to encourage the planting of native vegetation and promote water
conservation:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
The project provides a total of two hundred percent(200%)of the
+3 number of native landscape plants on its property than the number of
native landscape plants required by this chapter within landscaped
bufferyards and parking areas.
Twenty-five percent(25%) of the native plants provided to achieve
+1 the three(3)point award above or provided to meet the landscaped
bufferyard and parking area requirements of this chapter are listed as
threatened or endangered plants native to the Florida Keys.
Project landscaping is designed for water conservation such as use
of one hundred percent(100%)native plants for vegetation,
+2 collection and direction of rainfall to landscaped areas,or the
application of re-used wastewater or treated seawater for watering
landscape plants.
9. & Central Wastewater System Availability — The following points shall be assigned to
filar allocation applications:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes development required to be connected to a central
+4 wastewater treatment system that meets the BAT/AWT treatment
standards established by Florida Legislature and Policy 901.1.1.
10. 9. Employee Housing — The following points, up to a maximum of four (4), shall be
assigned to allocation applications for employee housing units:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+2 Proposes an employee housing unit which is located on a parcel with
a non-residential use.
11. 4ArPayment to the Land Acquisition Fund—Up to two(2)points shall be awarded for
a monetary payment by the applicant to the County's land acquisition fund for the
purchase of lands for conservation, and retirement of development rights. The monetary
value of each point shall be set annually by the County based upon the estimated average
fair market value of vacant, privately-owned, buildable IS/URM zoned, platted lots in
v Tier I.
10
Section 2. SeverabilIty. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or
provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall
not be affected by such validity.
Section 3. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to
the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida
Statutes.
Section 5. Filing and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the
Secretary of the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is
issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding
the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and after any
applicable appeal periods have expired.
Section 6. Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The numbering of the foregoing
amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the Monroe
County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and shall be incorporated in the Monroe
County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of February, 2012.
Mayor David Rice
Mayor pro tem Kim Wigington
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA
BY
Mayor David Rice
(SEAL)
( ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK
11
ft
3
4 MEMORANDUM
5 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
6 We strive to be caring,professional and fair
7
8 To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
9
10 Through: Christine Hurley, AICP,Director of Growth Management
11 Townley Schawb, Senior Director of Planning& Environmental Resources
12
13 From: Mayte Santamaria, Assistant Director of Planning&Environmental Resources
14
15 Date: January 25,2011
16
17 Subject: Request for an amendment to the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan to
18 address wetlands parcels within the allocation point system.
19
20 Meeting: February 13, 2012
21
22
I. REQUEST
25 This is a request by Monroe County to amend Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.5 to revise the permit
26 allocation scoring systems to assign negative points to Tier III parcels that contain submerged lands
27 and/or wetlands requiring 100% open space pursuant to Policies 102.1.1 and 204.2.1 and that are
28 located adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties.
29
30 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
31
32 Upland habitat is protected through the Tier System and the permit allocation system. Under the
33 Tier System, all lands, outside of mainland Monroe County, are designated into three general
34 categories for purposes of land acquisition and smart growth initiatives. These three categories are
35 Tier I (Natural Area); Tier II(Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key and No Name
36 Key only); and Tier III (Infill Area,which includes Tier III-A, Special Protection Area).
37
38 While Tier System directs growth away from upland habitat to infill areas, the criteria for the tier
39 designations do not include wetlands, as confirmed in the State of Florida, Department of
40 Community Affairs Final Order DCA07-GM-166A (DOAH Case No. 06-2449GM (in some
41 instances, wetlands are included when it is part of a larger ecosystem). The comprehensive plan has
42 other protective measures for wetland communities, such as requiring 100% open space for certain
43 wetland communities. While these protective policies exist, property owners may not be aware of
44 these policies and may believe that wetland lots designated as Tier III are appropriate infill areas.
i is
This amendment is proposed to provide an additional layer of protection for wetlands.
Wetland communities provide important storm protection, water quality protection, and wildlife
3 habitat functions. In particular,the following wetland communities:
4
5 • mangrove forests along the shorelines of the Keys;
6 • transitional wetlands (salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands) lying landward of the mangrove
7 fringe and oceanward of upland communities;
8 • salt ponds occupying shallow enclosed basins having very restricted tidal influence;
9 • freshwater wetlands and freshwater ponds in areas of freshwater lenses in the Lower Keys.
10
11 To provide additional protection to wetland communities and further direct growth to disturbed and
12 scarified areas, an amendment is proposed to the permit allocation scoring system to assign negative
13 points to Tier III parcels that contain submerged lands and/or wetlands requiring 100% open space
14 pursuant to Policies 102.1.1 and 204.2.1 and that are located adjacent or contiguous to Tier I
15 properties.
16
17 This amendment is not proposed to apply retroactively. This amendment would only apply to Tier
18 III parcels entering the permit allocation system after the effective date of the proposed policy.
19
20 Summary of County Actions:
21
22 For additional public participation and feedback, this proposed amendment was discussed and
reviewed by the Tier Designation Review Committee (TDRC) on August 25, 2011. TDRC members
41114 provided comments and revisions, which were incorporated into the proposed amendment.
25
26 During the October 17th Development Review Committee meeting, a suggestion was made to
27 provide a threshold of the amount of wetlands required on a parcel for the proposed policy to be
28 triggered. Revisions have been made to the proposed policy to provide less negative points (-3) if a
29 Tier III parcel, adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties, contains 50% or less wetlands and more
30 negative points (-5) if the a Tier III parcel, adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties, contains 50%
31 or more wetlands.
32
33 At a regularly scheduled meeting held on December 1, 2011, the Monroe County Planning
34 Commission (PC) held a public hearing considering the transmittal of the proposed amendment to
35 the State Land Planning Agency. The PC recommended the BOCC to transmit the proposed
36 amendment.
37
38 III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
39
40 Policy 101.5.4
41 Monroe County shall implement the residential Permit Allocation and Point System through its land
42 development regulations based primarily on the Tier system of land classification as set forth under Goal
43 105. The points are intended to be applied cumulatively.
44 1. Tier Designation - Utilizing the Tier System for land classification in Policy 105.2.1, the
following points shall be assigned to allocation applications for proposed dwelling units in a
manner that encourages development of infill in predominately developed areas with existing
1 infrastructure and few sensitive environmental features and discourages development in areas
with environmentally sensitive upland habitat which must be acquired or development rights
3 retired for resource conservation and protection.
4
5
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+0 Proposes a dwelling unit within areas designated Tier I [Natural
Area] on Big Pine Key and No Name Name Key.
+10 Proposes a dwelling unit within areas designated Tier I [Natural
Area] outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
+10 Proposes development within areas designated Tier II [Transition
and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.]
+20 Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infill Area]
on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infill Area]
+20 outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key that will result in the
clearing of upland native vegetation within a Special Protection
Area.
Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infill Area]
+30 outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key that will not result in the
clearing of any upland native vegetation within a Special Protection
Area.
6
7 2. Big Pine and No Name Keys - The following negative points shall be cumulatively assigned to
8 allocation applications for proposed dwellings to implement the Big Pine Key and No Name Key
9 Habitat Conservation Plan and the Livable CommuniKeys Community Master Plan.
10
Point Assignment: Criteria:
-- --- - -_---- -10 Proposes development on No Name Key.
-10 Proposes development in designated Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit
habitat or buffer areas as designated in the Community Master Plan.
-10 Proposes development in Key Deer Corridor as designated in the
Community Master Plan.
3. Wetlands — The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications on Tier III parcels
�I2 that contain wetlands which require 100% open space pursuant to Policies 102.1.1 and 204.2.1
3 and that are located adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties.
4
Paint Assignment: Criteria:
Tier III parcels adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties and
containing 50% or less of the following:
1. submerged lands
-3 2. mangroves (excluding tidally inundated mangrove
shoreline fringes)
3. salt ponds
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh water ponds
6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
Notes:
Adjacent means land sharing a boundary with another parcel of land. An intervening
road, right-of-way, easement or canal shall not destroy the adjacency of the two
parcels, except for U.S. 1.
Contiguous means a sharing of a common border at more than a single point of
intersection. Contiguity is not interrupted by utility easements.
Tier III parcels adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties and
containing more than 50% of the following:
1. submerged lands
-5 2. mangroves (excluding tidally inundated mangrove
shoreline fringes)
3. salt ponds
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh water ponds
6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
Notes:
Adjacent means land sharing a boundary with another parcel of land. An intervening
road, right-of-way, easement or canal shall not destroy the adjacency of the two
parcels, except for U.S. 1.
Contiguous means a sharing of a common border at more than a single point of
intersection. Contiguity is not interrupted by utility easements.
5
6 4. 3 Lot Aggregation — The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
7 encourage the voluntary reduction of density through aggregation of legally platted buildable lots
S within Tier II and Tier III areas.
C
4101
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Each additional contiguous vacant, legally platted lot which is
+4 aggregated in a designated Tier III area outside of Big Pine Key and
No Name Key that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn
additional points as specified&
Each additional contiguous vacant, legally platted lot which is
+3 aggregated in a designated Tier II or III area on Big Pine Key and
No Name Key that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn
additional points as specified.
*Exception:
No points for lot aggregation will be awarded for any proposed
development that involves the clearing of any upland native
vegetation in a Tier III Special Protection Area.
2
3 5. 4 Land Dedication — The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
4 encourage, the voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable land within Tier I designated areas and
5 Tier III Special Protection Areas for the purposes of conservation, resource protection,
restoration or density reduction and, if located in Tier III outside of Special Protection Areas, for
7 the purpose of providing land for affordable housing where appropriate.
S
Point Assignment:* Criteria:*
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one vacant, legally platted
+4 lot of sufficient minimum lot size and upland area to be buildable.
Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of a vacant, legally platted
lot of 5,000 square feet or more in size, designated as Residential
+1 for each 5,000 square Low with a maximum net density within a Tier I area and containing
feet of lot size sufficient upland area to be buildable. Each additional vacant,
legally platted lot that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1) vacant, legally
platted lot of at least 5,000 square feet in size within a Tier I area,
5 designated as Residential Conservation,or Residential Low with no
maximum net density, containing sufficient upland to be buildable.
Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
41, Proposes dedication to Monroe County of at least one(1) acre of
vacant, unplatted land located within a Tier I area containing
+4 sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional one(1) acre of
vacant,unplatted land that meets the aforementioned requirements
will earn points as specified.
*Exception:
Applications for a dwelling unit on Big Pine Key and No Name Key
shall be awarded points for land dedication in accordance with
Action Item 3.2.2 C of the Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan for
Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
1
2 6. ih Market Rate Housing in Employee or Affordable Housing Project- The following points
3 shall be assigned to allocation applications for market rate housing units in an employee or
4 affordable housing project:
5
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes a market rate housing unit which is part of an affordable or
+6 employee housing project; both affordable and employee housing
shall meet the policy guidelines for income in Policy 601.1.7 and
kir other requirements pursuant to the Land Development Regulations
6
7 7. 6. Special Flood Hazard Areas — The following points shall be assigned to allocation
8 applications for proposed dwelling unit(s) to provide a disincentive for locating within certain
9 coastal high flood hazard areas:
10
Point Assignment: Criteria:
4 Proposes development within"V"zones on the FEMA flood
insurance rate maps.
11
12 8. 7. Central Wastewater System Availability — The following points shall be assigned to
13 allocation applications:
14
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes development required to be connected to a central
+4 wastewater treatment system that meets the BAT/AWT treatment
standards established by Florida Legislature and Policy 901.1.1.
15
9. & Payment to the Land Acquisition Fund — Up to two (2) points shall be awarded for a
�/ monetary payment by the applicant to the County's land acquisition fund for the purchase of
1 lands for conservation, and retirement of development rights. The monetary value of each point
42 shall be set annually by the County based upon the estimated average fair market value of
3 vacant, privately-owned, buildable IS/URM zoned, platted lots in Tier I.
4
5 10. 1 Perseverance Points - One (1) point shall be awarded for each year that the allocation
6 application remains in the allocation system up to a maximum accumulation of four(4)points.
7
8 Policy 101.5.5
9 Monroe County shall implement the non-residential Permit Allocation and Point System through its land
10 development regulations based primarily on the Tier system of land classification pursuant to Goal 105.
11 The points are intended to be applied cumulatively.
12
13 1. Tier Designation - Utilizing the Tier System for land classification in Policy 105.2.1, the
14 following points shall be assigned to allocation applications for proposed non-residential
15 development in a manner that encourages development of infill in predominately developed
16 areas with existing infrastructure, commercial concentrations, and few sensitive environmental
17 features, and discourages development in areas with environmentally sensitive upland habitat,
18 which must be acquired or development rights retired for resource conservation and protection:
19
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes non-residential development within an area designated
+0 Tier I [Natural Area], except for the expansion of lawfully
established non-residential development provided under"exception"
below.
Proposes non-residential development within an area designated
+10 Tier II [Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key and
No Name Key].
Proposes non-residential development that will result in the clearing
+10 of any upland native vegetation within a Special Protection Area in
Tier III.
+20 Proposes non-residential development within an area designated
Tier III [Infill Area].
*Exception:
Any lawfully established non-residential development shall be
assigned+20 points contingent upon no further clearing of upland
native habitat and no addition to and/or expansion of the existing lot
or parcel upon which the existing use is located.
20
21
1602 3. Wetlands —The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications on Tier III parcels
3 that contain wetlands which require 100% open space pursuant to Policies 102.1.1 and 204.2.1
4 and that are located adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties.
5
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Tier III parcels adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties and
containing 50% or less of the following:
1. submerged lands
_3 2. mangroves(excluding tidally inundated mangrove
shoreline fringes)
3. salt ponds
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh water ponds
6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
Notes:
Adjacent means land sharing a boundary with another parcel of land. An intervening
road, right-of-way, easement or canal shall not destroy the adjacency of the two
parcels, except for U.S. 1.
Contiguous means a sharing of a common border at more than a single point of
intersection. Contiguity is not interrupted by utility easements.
Tier III parcels adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties and
containing more than 50% of the following:
1. submerged lands
2. mangroves (excluding tidally inundated mangrove
5 shoreline fringes)
3. salt ponds
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh water ponds
6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
Notes:
Adjacent means land sharing a boundary with another parcel of land. An intervening
road, right-of-way, easement or canal shall not destroy the adjacency of the two
parcels, except for U.S. 1.
Contiguous means a sharing of a common border at more than a single point of
intersection. Contiguity is not interrupted by utility easements.
6
7
A 1 3. 2 -Intensity Reduction - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
111102 encourage the voluntary reduction of intensity:
3
Point Assignment: Criteria:
An application proposes development that reduces the permitted
floor area ratio (FAR)to twenty three percent(23%)or less.
4
5 4. 3 Land Dedication - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
6 encourage, the voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable land within Tier I and Tier II (Big Pine
7 Key and No Name Key) designated areas and Tier III Special Protection Areas for the purposes
8 of conservation, resource protection, restoration or density reduction and, if located in Tier III
9 outside of Special Protection Areas, for the purpose of providing land for affordable housing
10 where appropriate.
11
Point Assignment:* Criteria:*
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1) vacant, legally
platted lot of sufficient minimum lot size and upland area to be
+4 buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted, buildable lot
which is dedicated that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn the additional points as specified.
4111/ Proposes dedication to Monroe County of a vacant legally planed lot
of five thousand(5,000) square feet or more in size, designated as
+1 for each 5,000 square Residential Low with maximum net density within a Tier I area and
feet of lot size containing sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional vacant,
legally platted lot, that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1) vacant, legally
platted lot of five thousand(5,000) square feet or more within a Tier
+0.5 I area designated as Residential Conservation, or Residential Low
with no maximum net density, containing sufficient upland to be
buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of at least one (1) acre of
vacant,unplatted land located within a Tier I area containing
+4 sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional one(1) acre of
vacant, unplatted land that meets the aforementioned requirements
will earn the points as specified.
12
13
1
164 5. 4.Special Flood Hazard Area - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications
3 to discourage development within high risk special flood hazard zones:
4
Point Assignment: Criteria:
4 Proposes development within"V" zones on the FEMA flood
insurance rate maps.
5
6 6. 5rPerseverance Points - One (1) or two (2) points shall be awarded for each year that the
7 allocation application remains in the system.
8
9 7. 6 Highway Access - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
10 encourage connections between commercial uses and reduction of the need for trips and access
11 onto U.S. Highway 1:
12
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+3 The development eliminates an existing driveway or access-way to
U.S. Highway 1.
+2 The development provides no new driveway or access-way to U.S.
Highway 1.
13
14 8. 71-Landscaping and Water Conservation - The following points shall be assigned to allocation
15 applications to encourage the planting of native vegetation and promote water conservation:
16
Point Assignment: Criteria:
The project provides a total of two hundred percent(200%) of the
+3 number of native landscape plants on its property than the number of
native landscape plants required by this chapter within landscaped
bufferyards and parking areas.
Twenty-five percent(25%)of the native plants provided to achieve
+1 the three(3)point award above or provided to meet the landscaped
bufferyard and parking area requirements of this chapter are listed as
threatened or endangered plants native to the Florida Keys.
Project landscaping is designed for water conservation such as use
of one hundred percent(100%) native plants for vegetation,
+2 collection and direction of rainfall to landscaped areas,or the
application of re-used wastewater or treated seawater for watering
landscape plants.
1 9. & Central Wastewater System Availability — The following points shall be assigned to
allocation applications:
3
Point Assignment Criteria:
Proposes development required to be connected to a central
+4 wastewater treatment system that meets the BAT/AWT treatment
standards established by Florida Legislature and Policy 901.1.1.
4
5 10. h Employee Housing—The following points, up to a maximum of four (4), shall be assigned to
6 allocation applications for employee housing units:
7
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+2 Proposes an employee housing unit which is located on a parcel with
a non-residential use.
8
9 11. 10.Payment to the Land Acquisition Fund — Up to two (2) points shall be awarded for a
10 monetary payment by the applicant to the County's land acquisition fund for the purchase of
11 lands for conservation, and retirement of development rights. The monetary value of each point
Thz
shall be set annually by the County based upon the estimated average fair market value of
vacant, privately-owned, buildable IS/URM zoned,platted lots in Tier I.
14
15 IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE
16 PLAN,THE FLORIDA STATUTES,AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING
17 DEVELOPMENT
18
19 A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of
20 the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers:
21
22 Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure
23 the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
24
25 GOAL 102: Monroe County shall direct future growth to lands which are intrinsically most
26 suitable for development and shall encourage conservation and protection of environmentally
27 sensitive lands.
28
29 Objective 102.1: Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall require
30 new development to comply with environmental standards and environmental design criteria
31 which will protect disturbed wetlands, native upland vegetation and beach/berm areas.
32
33 Policy 102.1.1: The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space
requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of wetlands:
1. submerged lands 2. mangroves 3. salt ponds 4. fresh water wetlands
11111102 5. fresh water ponds 6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
3
4 Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and
5 undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development
6 rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and
7 mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity.
8
9 Objective 102.2: Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall adopt
10 revisions to the Environmental Standards (Section 9.5-335) and Environmental Design
11 Criteria (Section 9.5-345)of the Land Development Regulations. These revisions will require
12 new development to further protect disturbed wetlands, native upland vegetation and
13 beach/berm areas.
14
15 GOAL 204: The health and integrity of Monroe County's marine and freshwater wetlands
16 shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced.
17
18 Objective 204.2: Monroe County shall eliminate the loss of undisturbed wetlands and shall
19 eliminate the net loss of disturbed wetlands.
20
21 Policy 204.2.1: To protect submerged lands and wetlands the open space shall be 100 percent
22 of the following types of wetlands:
23 1. submerged lands;
2. mangroves;
5 3. salt ponds;
26 4. freshwater wetlands;
27 5. freshwater ponds; and
28 6. undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands.
29
30 Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and
31 undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development
32 rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and
33 mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity.
34
35 Objective 205.2: To implement Goal 105 of this Plan and the recommendations in the Florida
36 Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS), Monroe County shall adopt revisions to the Land
37 Development Regulations which further protect and provide for restoration of the habitat
30 values of upland native vegetated communities, including hardwood hammocks and
39 pinelands.
40
41 Goal 207: Monroe County shall protect and conserve existing wildlife and wildlife habitats.
42
43 Policy 207.1.3: The Open Space Requirement for undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood
44 wetlands shall be one hundred(100)percent.
45
( ,
3 B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida
4 Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7),Florida Statute.
5
6 For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan
7 with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles
8 shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation
9 from the other provisions.
10
11 (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that
12 local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical
13 state concern designation.
14 (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations,
15 seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
16 (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native
17 tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and
18 beaches, wildlife, and their habitat.
19 (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound
20 economic development.
21 (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida
22 Keys.
23 (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural
111115
environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character
5 of the Florida Keys.
26 (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
27 (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and
28 proposed major public investments, including:
29
30 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
31 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
32 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
33 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
34 5. Transportation facilities;
35 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
36 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned
37 properties;
38 -- 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
39 9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
40
41 (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation,
42 maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage
43 collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and
44 maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems.
45 (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and
operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss.
1 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by
41.2 central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems.
3 (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the
4 Florida Keys.
5 (I) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida
6 Keys.
7 (m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of
8 a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan.
9 (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and
10 maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
11
12 Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the
13 Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
14
15 C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute
16 (KS.). Specifically, the amendment furthers:
17
18 163.3177(6)(a)3.f., F.S. - Ensure the protection of natural and historic resources.
19 163.3177(6)(d), F.S. - A conservation element for the conservation, use, and protection of
20 natural resources in the area, including air, water, water recharge areas, wetlands,waterwells,
21 estuarine marshes, soils, beaches, shores, flood plains, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, forests,
22 fisheries and wildlife, marine habitat, minerals, and other natural and environmental
L 'i resources, including factors that affect energy conservation.
1. The following natural resources, where present within the local government's boundaries,
25 shall be identified and analyzed and existing recreational or conservation uses, known
26 pollution problems, including hazardous wastes, and the potential for conservation,
27 recreation, use, or protection shall also be identified:
28 a. Rivers, bays, lakes, wetlands including estuarine marshes, groundwaters, and springs,
29 including information on quality of the resource available.
30 b. Floodplains.
31 c. Known sources of commercially valuable minerals.
32 d. Areas known to have experienced soil erosion problems.
33 e. Areas that are the location of recreationally and commercially important fish or shellfish,
34 wildlife, marine habitats, and vegetative communities, including forests, indicating
35 known dominant species present and species listed by federal, state, or local government
36 agencies as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern.
37
38 163.3177(6)(d)2., F.S. - The element must contain principles, guidelines, and standards for
39 conservation that provide long-term goals and which:
40 d. Conserves, appropriately uses, and protects minerals, soils, and native vegetative
41 communities, including forests, from destruction by development activities.
42 e. Conserves, appropriately uses, and protects fisheries, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and marine
43 habitat and restricts activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and
44 threatened wildlife.
(hi; f. Protects existing natural reservations identified in the recreation and open space element.
1 g. Maintains cooperation with adjacent local governments to conserve, appropriately use, or
46,2 protect unique vegetative communities located within more than one local jurisdiction.
3 j. Protects and conserves wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands.
4 k. Directs future land uses that are incompatible with the protection and conservation of
5 wetlands and wetland functions away from wetlands. The type, intensity or density,
6 extent, distribution, and location of allowable land uses and the types, values, functions,
7 sizes, conditions, and locations of wetlands are land use factors that shall be considered
8 when directing incompatible land uses away from wetlands. Land uses shall be distributed
9 in a manner that minimizes the effect and impact on wetlands. The protection and
10 conservation of wetlands by the direction of incompatible land uses away from wetlands
11 shall occur in combination with other principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies in
12 the comprehensive plan. Where incompatible land uses are allowed to occur, mitigation
13 shall be considered as one means to compensate for loss of wetlands functions.
14
15 163.3177(6)(g), F.S. - For those units of local government identified in s. 380.24, a coastal
16 management element, appropriately related to the particular requirements of paragraphs (d)
17 and (e) and meeting the requirements of s. 163.3178(2) and (3). The coastal management
18 element shall set forth the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies policies that shall
19 guide the local government's decisions and program implementation with respect to the
20 following objectives:
21 2. Preserve the continued existence of viable populations of all species of wildlife and marine
22 life.
23 3. Protect the orderly and balanced utilization and preservation, consistent with sound
-- conservation principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone resources.
4. Avoid irreversible and irretrievable loss of coastal zone resources.
26
27 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
28
29 Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments to Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.5.
30
31 VI. PROCESS
32
33 Comprehensive Plan Amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
34 Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
35 interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review
36 and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review
37 Committee and the Planning Commission.
au
39 The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
40 review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
41 Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
42 public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the
43 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the
44 transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff
45 recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not
recommend transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency. The amendment is transmitted to the
` 1 State Land Planning Agency, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections,
2 Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has
3 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment
4
5 VII. EXHIBITS
6
7 1. Maps of example Tier III lots containing wetlands which require 100% open space and that are
8 adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties.
9 2. Excerpt from the 2010 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, providing the total, vacant parcels and
10 acreage designated within the Tier System.
11
12
(
� ! !
- ! |
t � ■! | | - f�
db
a
_ \ }
tm
.■` £ �
£ JJ
� � §
p
^ � .
� 1
k
2
�
2 2 )
�§
. �
■
0 2
� 2
$ k
# ]
�
\
� §
� f
� ■
2 �
|
2 m 7
ƒ
ƒ
&
§ °
k
�
A
k �
c J
2�
» �
£ �
� � }
k �
k 2
2 2
! k
g §
g
. �
txnlDlt "L
Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Amount of Vacant and Developable Land
There is approximately 10,143 acres of vacant land in the unincorporated area of
the County. The largest amount of vacant land in the unincorporated areas (6,849.2
acres) is located within the Lower Keys PA.
The general trend for all planning areas signal that vacant land is primarily located
under the residential future land use designations: Residential Conservation,
Residential Low and Residential Medium.
As illustrated in Table 5 on the next page, the majority of vacant land is located
within Tier I (85%) with little development potential as regulated by the County's
point system. Tier II, III, and Ill-A comprise 12 percent of vacant land and this is
where development is most likely to concentrate. Also illustrated in this table are the
vacant parcels within each PA. The Lower Keys PA contains 7,054.2 acres (5,471
parcels),which are vacant, and located within a tier designation. Most of the vacant
land (89.9 %) is located in Tier I comprised of 3,288 parcels (6,338.7 acres); 8.1
percent (1,724 parcels) are designated Tier III. The Lower Keys PA is the only PA
with 411 vacant parcels (1.1%) designated Tier IL which only applies to Big Pine
Key and No Name Key. Less than one percent of vacant land (31 parcels) is located
in Tier III-A.
The Middle Keys PA has 211.2 vacant acres or 304 vacant parcels,which are located
in a tier. Tier I contains 69.9 % (147.6 vacant acres), and Tier III has 30.1% (63.6
vacant acres). The Upper Keys PA includes 2,158.6 acres or 2,983 parcels of vacant
land within the Tier System. Most of the vacant acres are split up into two of the
tiers. Tier I has 69.5 % vacant acres (835 parcels or 1501 acres). Another 1,658
parcels (14.7 %) are located in Tier III, these parcels constitute 316.3 acres. Lastly,
3.7 percent of vacant acres,or 265 parcels are located in Tier Ill-A.
The Remainder of this Page Intentionally Left Blank
Chapter 2:Community-Wide Assessment 2-7 Evaluation and Appraisal Report
February 2012 Keith and Schnars, PA.
Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
IIIliv Table 5 -Vacant Land by Tier and Planning Area
Vacant Net
I II III Ill-A 02 acres in Parcels
Tier and Acres
Lower Keys
Vacant Parcels 3,288 411 1,724 31 17 N/A 5,471
Acres 6,338.7 78.1 573.7 11.5 52.2 7,002.0 7,054.2 _
Percent Vacant Acres 89.9% 1.1% 8.1% 0.2% 0.7% N/A N/A
Middle Keys
Vacant Parcels 20 0 284 0 N/A N/A 304
Acres 147.6 0.0 63.6 0.0 0.0 211.2 211.2
Percent Vacant Acres 69.9% 0.0% 30.1% 0.0% N/A N/A N/A
Upper Keys
Vacant Parcels 835 0 1,658 265 225 N/A 2,983
Acres 1,501.1 0.0 316.3 79.9 261.3 1,897.3 2,158.6
Percent Vacant Acres 69.5% 0.0% 14.7% 3.7% 12.1% N/A N/A
Total Parcels 4,143 411 3,666 296 242 N/A 8,758
Total Acres 7,987.4 78.1 953.6 • 91.4 313.5 9,110.5 9,424.0
Percentage of Tier 84.8% 0.8% 10.1% 1.0% 3.3% N/A 100%
Note: Percentage of Tier-slight differences due to rounding.
Source: Monroe County Growth Management,2011,Geographic Information System file"MC_ELU 511";Monroe
County Growth Management,2011,Geographic Information System file"MC_FLUM_511";Monroe County Growth
Management,2011,Geographic Information System file"Tier_0110"
Tiers are:
I= Tier I-Natural Areas
II= Tier II(Big Pine Key and No Name Keys in the Lower Keys Planning Area only)
III= Tier III-Infill Areas
III-A=Special Protection Area(SPA)
0= Property does not have a Tier designation. Most of these occur in the Upper Keys and some
are right-of-way parcels. Some lots were not originally designated because of mapping errors;
the majority of which are currently being reviewed by the Tier Designation Review Committee
and will be designated at a later date.
Tier 0 is used for illustration purposes only and is not part of the analysis.
Vacant acres in all tiers after subtracting Tier 0.
Chapter 2:Community-Wide Assessment 2-8 Evaluation and Appraisal Report
February 2012 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
'V
Data & Analysis
MINUTES OF THE
TIER DESIGNATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting
Tier Designation Review Committee
Friday, October 1, 2010
Key Largo, Florida
A regular meeting of the Tier Designation Review Committee convened at 9:15 a.m.at the
Murray E. Nelson Government and Cultural Center. Present were Amy Phillips, Department of
Environmental Protection; Randy Grau, Fish &Wildlife Conservation Commission; Richard Grosso,
Everglades Law Center;Julie Cheon, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority;Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development
Administrator, Planning and Environmental Resources; Susan Grimsley,Assistant County Attorney;
Christine Hurley, Director,Growth Management Division; Michael Roberts,Senior Administrator,
Environmental Resources; Phil Frank, Private Environmental Consultant; Bryan Davisson,GIS Planner,
Growth Management;and Rebecca Jetton, Department of Community Affairs.
Map Series 4 was revisited by the Committee. Mr. Grau said he thought the Committee had
already recommended the two lots in the triangular parcel along U.S.1 be designated SPA. Motion:
Randy Grau made a motion that the two lots in the triangular parcel on Map 4 be designated SPA.
Richard Grosso seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie Cheon,
Agreed;and Amy Phillips,Agreed.
kMr.Grau asked staff if they had any data errors to discuss. Michael Roberts stated that was
something that could be addressed as it was encountered.
ALTERNATIVE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
WETLANDS
The wetland issue was discussed. Randy Grau stated that the wetland issue within the tier
designation is confusing the public, because Tier III properties are where development is encouraged.
Rebecca Jetton proposed the following wording for a possible policy: "For parcels designated Tier III and
containing less than X square feet of accessible uplands,the staff biologist shall assign X number of
negative points to the ROGO score."
Michael Roberts stated he and Tiffany Stankiewicz have discussed the idea of a negative point
for any application in ROGO that proposed impacts to a wetland. Mr. Roberts pointed out that there are
wetland setbacks in the code, so negative points could also be applied in ROGO to anybody whose
applications proposed impacts to that setback as well. Mr. Roberts feels the application of a tier overlay
becomes problematic when performing the mapping and identification exercise of thousands of small
wetlands scattered throughout the Keys.
Phil Frank brought up the fact that the carrying capacity study concluded that tropical hardwood
hammock uplands had been developed past their carrying capacity. Mr. Frank asked if mapping the
L wetlands was necessary given that there are plenty of wetlands and there are protections already
afforded to the wetlands.
1
ghlir Mr. Grau said he doesn't feel disturbed salt marsh should get negative points because the Tier III
hammocks,which are more endangered,don't get negative points,and the wetland clearing and
setbacks are stricter than those of hammock. Mr. Grau suggested adding a disclaimer to the Tier Ill
definition that some Tier III lands are wetlands with 100 percent open space.
Ms.Jetton asked what the most logical way to approach the issue was,considering the property
owner gets points, but the wetland regulations are in place. Christine Hurley said if a property is 100
percent wetlands,even if designated Tier III, it is not buildable. Tiffany Stankiewicz pointed out that if a
property owner doesn't have a buildable piece of property,they can't get into ROGO. Mr. Roberts
stated that if there are wetland impacts included in an application, it must have the appropriate state
and federal permits before being accepted into ROGO.
Ms. Hurley further explained that in the ROGO system a property owner would get more points
if they do not have to clear. Ms. Hurley suggested a policy change that included a certain amount of
space for a house,plus a buffer between the house and the wetlands,then the amount of points given
could be edited to differentiate between a clearing of the wetlands versus having an open space on the
site with wetlands adjacent to it that would not be disturbed.
Randy Grau said he feels that will discourage development in infill areas and consequently put
development in Tier Ill hammock elsewhere. Mr. Roberts reminded the Committee that the
environmental design standard requires those developments to be sited on the least vulnerable
habitation on the parcel,as the habitats are ranked for environmental sensitivity.
Richard Grosso asked if there is a way to give negative points to a wetland in an important
location as opposed to all wetlands. Mr. Hurley stated the County does not want to rank wetlands in
ROGO, and suggested the Committee prioritize the lots for getting points. Mr.Grosso recommended
giving negative points to wetlands adjacent to Tier I parcels.
Julie Cheon was concerned the public at large would assume a Tier III property was buildable.
Mr. Grau again suggested a disclaimer in the Tier III definition.
Ms.Jetton reminded the Committee that the Keys Wetland Identification Process evaluated the
wetlands in the Keys back in 2000,and any Red Flag wetland would not be allowed to be filled. Ms.
Jetton suggested using Red Flag wetlands as criteria to assign negative points.
Motion: Richard Grosso made a motion to direct staff to investigate and recommend a ROGO-
scoring approach that would apply negative points to wetlands that were worthy of additional
protection. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Amy
Phillips,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
TIER BOUNDARIES
Michael Roberts said a determination is needed on how to preserve historical parcel boundaries
so the parcels could retain the original tier designation when they are aggregated. Bryan Davisson
stated that the parcels in the GIS system are constantly changing and evolving. Mr. Roberts stated the
issue is two-fold: A database management issue, and constructing language for either the tier ordinance
or ROGO that makes sure the more restrictive designation carry with the master property. Amy Phillips
recommended picking a hard date to put in the language for the aggregated parcels.
2
1/411,
Julie Cheon asked how ROGO would work when evaluating one parcel with two tiers. Tiffany
Stankiewicz explained the flood zone application: If any portion of the proposed structure is built in the
more restrictive portion of the property,the loss of points would apply.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion to amend the tier language to prohibit changes to parcel
boundaries resulting in changes to tier designation of Tier I or SPA portions of the parcel. Amy Phillips
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Richard Grosso,Agreed;and Julie
Cheon,Agreed.
Randy Grau asked if a discussion is warranted regarding different tiers within parcels. Mr.
Roberts answered that the County has recommended to some owners of larger parcels to do a lot split.
That recommendation would only be applicable to those properties that were large enough or diverse
enough to where they could maintain their open space requirements on the developed portion of their
property after they change the designation. Mr. Roberts stated there is flexibility in the code to draw
the tier designations along habitat signature or natural feature boundaries.
Motion: Richard Grosso made a motion that the County use geophysical boundaries to the
extent practical or possible where appropriate with distinctions made of,for example,scarified land
or developed parcels. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results:
Amy Phillips,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
WETLAND CATEGORY
Michael Roberts said he felt this has been addressed in the previous conversations.
CONFORMING SPA CLEARING LIMITS TO TIER I
Michael Roberts explain the SPA is a subset of Tier III. SPA was intended to address hammock
areas within Tier III that were of a size and configuration significant enough to warrant some level of
additional protection. SPA is afforded protection from the reduction in ROGO points between Tier III
and SPA. Mr. Grosso feels SPA areas are more like Tier I than they are like Tier III.
Mr. Roberts proposed the language for SPA clearing limits to say 40 percent or 3,000 square
feet,whichever is less. Ms.Jetton and Mr. Roberts discussed what exactly Policy 101.4.22 says. Ms.
Jetton feels the policy wording could use some improvement.
Motion: Richard Grosso made a motion that the clearing limit for SPA read:"40 percent or
3,000 square feet,whichever is less." Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the
following results: Amy Phillips,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
ONE-ACRE THRESHOLD FOR SPA
Michael Roberts explained that the one-acre threshold came about through the County's land
acquisition program policies, which are to buy natural areas of an acre or greater within a developed
landscape. Mr. Roberts doesn't feel the administrative law judge's final order prohibits the Committee
from establishing a one-acre minimum if it is done for a non-arbitrary reason. Mr. Grosso suggested
3
getting rid of the one-acre criteria in the regulatory process, but leaving it in when it speaks directly to
land acquisition.
Ms.Jetton clarified that the one-acre threshold came about when DCA was trying to determine
if land less than an acre was large enough to provide adequate life-sustaining characteristics for habitat.
Mr.Grosso continues to feel the importance of the hammock is what matters, not the size. Mr. Grosso
argues that if the language used as the standard criteria for SPA is based on professional judgment, it
would hold up in a court of law.
Motion: Richard Grosso made a motion to ask staff to analyze and bring back language that
would replace the"of one acre or greater in area"with some professionally accepted qualitative
standard to represent the definition of SPA. Amy Phillips seconded the motion. A vote was taken
with the following results: Randy Grau,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
Randy Grau suggested having a minimum quantitative number. Mr. Grosso concurred. Motion:
Randy Grau made a motion for staff to consider a lower limit threshold size included within the prior
motion. Amy Phillips seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie Cheon,
Agreed;and Richard Grosso,Agreed.
PREVENTION OF SUBDIVISION OF TIER III ALLOWING ADDITIONAL CLEARING
Michael Roberts felt that this was covered in the previous conversations.
`, REMOVE INCENTIVES FOR ALLOWING EXOTICS TO SPREAD
Discussion was had regarding property owners may try to use the 40 percent exotic criteria to
have their tier designation changed. Michael Roberts said he thought the presence or absence of exotic
vegetation within a natural landscape is a fair indicator of the health of that hammock. Susan Grimsley
pointed out that if the one-acre threshold in SPA was gotten rid of and a qualitative description was
used,then that all becomes part of the evaluation.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion for staff to look at additional qualitative language to add
to the 40 percent exotic criteria such as"and has disturbed substrate"or"and is surrounded by X
percent of development." Amy Phillips seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following
results: Richard Grosso,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
The schedule of upcoming meetings was discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
4
MINUTES OF THE
TIER DESIGNATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Tier Designation Review Committee
Thursday,August 25,2011
Key Largo, Florida
A meeting of the Tier Designation Review Committee (TDRC) convened at 9:11 a.m. at the Murray E.
Nelson Government and Cultural Center. Present were Janice Duquesnel, Department of Environmental
Protection; Randy Grau, Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission; Curtis Kruer, Everglades Law Center;
Julie Cheon, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority; Winston Hobgood, U.S. Fish & Wildlife; Tiffany
Stankiewicz, Development Administrator, Planning and Environmental Resources; Susan Grimsley,
Assistant County Attorney; Christine Hurley, Director, Growth Management Division; Michael Roberts,
Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources; Phil Frank, Private Environmental Consultant Bryan
Davisson, GIS Planner, Growth Management; Townsley Schwab, Planning Director; Mayte Santamaria,
Assistant Planning Director;and Rebecca Jetton,Department of Community Affairs.
Board of County Commissioner Sylvia Murphy presented Committee Members Julie Cheon, Winston
Hobgood and Randy Grau with plaques thanking them for their dedication and participation In the Tier
Designation Review effort.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion to approve the September 30,2010 and October 1,2010 meeting
minutes. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Curtis Kruer,
Agreed;Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;and Winston Hobgood,Agreed.
MEETING
Mr. Roberts asked for and received permission to make a slight modification to the agenda to move up
the review of the tier policies related to wetlands due to some scheduling conflicts. Mr.Roberts framed
the issues for the Committee by explaining per the Administrative Law Judge's recommended order it
was determined that wetlands were not part of the tier designation criteria. The TDRC had asked staff
to evaluate how the Committee might continue to monitor the development of wetlands, particularly
with a Tier 3 landscape. Staff went back and reviewed the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) criteria
and scoring in particular to bring wetlands back into the ROGO scoring.
Mayte Santamaria presented two proposed comprehensive plan amendments to the ROGO point score
and the NROGO point score. Staff is proposing to include scoring criteria for wetlands. The proposed
language states: 'The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications on Tier 3 parcels that
contain submerged lands and/or wetlands that require 100 percent open space pursuant to policies
102.1.1 and 204.2.1, and that are located either adjacent or contiguous to Tier 1 properties." Ms.
Santamaria would like to discuss with the Committee the choice of "adjacent" versus "contiguous."
Staff was considering a negative score of between two and five, but would like guidance from the
Committee as to the number.
�r 1
4111, Mr. Kruer asked how freshwater wetlands surrounded by uplands that are not contiguous with other
wetlands would be handled. Ms. Santamaria explained that if any of those types of wetlands were
Included in a Tier 3, if it were Isolated or not, if it were adjacent to Tier 1 it would still receive negative
points. Mr. Roberts pointed out that that is a very rare occurrence that there would be any type of
habitat of that nature within the interior of a Tier 3 landscape. Discussion was had regarding how to
treat disturbed wetlands. Mr. Roberts clarified that protection of disturbed wetlands is not being
undermined in any way.
Ms. Hurley stated that staff plans to go through some scoring exercises as examples once the policy
parameters are set. New definitions will be developed to clarify the definitions of what is disturbed
versus undisturbed. Mr. Kruer commented that he wonders about using the definitions of"adjacent or
"contiguous" to Tier 1 lots as a limitation for the negative points to apply. Ms. Santamaria explained
that staff thought It would be duplicative to give negative points for something that cannot be filled,
such as isolated wetlands that might have a freshwater pond, if it Is not connected to a larger habitat.
Mr. Kruer stressed that, while he understands the value of dealing with large ecosystems or large areas
of habitat, there are also a lot of value to the fragments of wetlands that remain In the Keys, Just like
there is values to the fragments of hammock that remain In the Keys. Ms.Santamaria said that staff is
trying to balance the tier system with protection of wetlands as well. Tier 3 parcels have already gone
through committee hearings and board approval and have been designated as areas to direct growth to.
Ms. Hurley reminded the Committee that if the site does not have 2,000 square feet of developable
land, meaning nonhabitat or nonwetland, it is not a ROGO eligible site. Dr. Frank clarified that this
policy would only apply to 100 percent open space lots, making this an additional layer of protection.
Ms. Hurley further explained that by putting some negative points you get the Tier 3s that are fully
scarified to move forward faster in the ROGO system than these others that may have some kind of
habitat worthy of protection.
This policy would not be retroactive to parcels already designated Tier 3. Parcels entering ROGO after
the effective date of this policy change would be subject to it. Ms.Cheon suggested adding language to
the contiguous definition that certain properties are part of 100 percent open space wetland that is
contiguous to a Tier 1 property. Mr. Kruer believes "adjacent" or "contiguous" language would be
important to include here,except for U.S.1 causing a break. Mr. Hobgood stated that a road is normally
a break in a wetland because it kills the hydrology. Mr. Hobgood stated that It seems with this policy it
would behoove a landowner to break wetlands out of their property and split the property into two
different parcels.
Mr. Roberts reminded the Committee that this policy is only applicable to Tier 3 parcels, and while In
theory that might work, in reality most property owners would not have a large enough lot to make it
two RE numbers and still have enough buildable space on the upland portion to be able to make It work.
And In order to dedicate land, it has to be buildable. Mr. Kruer agreed with the comment about roads
being a little bit of a concern In adjacency, but not as much as one might think sometimes,and using the
term "adjacent" as well to pull a little bit of additional wetland protection in larger areas would be
appropriate. Mr. Kruer thinks five negative points would be appropriate considering the native habitat
that is at stake.
Motion: Winston Hobgood made a motion that"contiguous"continue to be used In the same manner
as used before,which Is not broken by a road.
2
d Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the code definitions Include both "adjacent and
�r "contiguous"as stated in this proposal and that U.S.1 does constitute a break. Mr. Hobgood withdrew
his motion.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the definition of"adjacent"be used,that Tier 3 parcels with
100 percent open space wetlands that are adjacent to Tier 1 parcels receive negative points,and that
any parcel that is part of the 100 percent open space wetland contiguous to the property by included.
Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,
Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Randy Grau,Agreed.
Ms.Santamaria requested recommendations from the Committee on the points. Mr. Kruer feels using
this process to provide even more protection to naturally occurring undisturbed wetlands to promote
their protection for the future seems to be important. Mr. Kruer believes negative five to negative ten
points would be in the range that would be serious or important enough to put these parcels in a back
seat to the parcels that this process is really trying to have developed, which are Tier 3 parcels that are
totally disturbed land with no native hammock, pineland or native wetlands on them. Mr. Kruer also
believes It Is important to provide information to the public that just because a property Is designated
Tier 3 does not mean the entire parcel is suitable for Infill.
Mr. Kruer asked if the County had the ability to include additional requirements regarding wetlands.
Ms. Hurley emphasized staffs desire to get the tier system finished and not continue to modify it
countywide. Staff believes that by establishing negative points for parcels that have wetland
communities will do the same thing as countywide rezoning, without the expense of rezoning. Ms.
Santamaria again reminded the Committee these are for parcels with wetlands that require 100 percent
open space, not wetlands that can be filled. Mr. Grau asked how many open space wetlands end up in
conservation easements, and for what reasons would they be in conservation easements. Mr. Roberts
answered through Monroe County Code,conservation easements over wetland areas are not required.
The County requires a conservation easement over undisturbed upland areas as part of the
development process.
While agreeing the concept has merit, Mr. Roberts is concerned about the resources that would be
required to monitor this. Mr. Grau stated that at least there would be legal record that is recorded and
when somebody buys the property they see there is an easement, they know it has protection. Mr.
Hobgood added that it is extremely difficult to find somebody to hold the conservation easement. Dr.
Frank asked if there was a minimum size threshold. Mr.Roberts also reminded the Committee that they
are talking about wetlands that are already 100 percent open space under existing code. Mr. Roberts
agreed that size limits might be something that staff may need to try to address. Ms. Jetton believes
this underscores the need to map these undisturbed wetlands onto the tier maps so the Committee
knows more about what they are talking about. Ms.Jetton stated this idea seems like a good Idea. Mr.
Roberts thinks R would be a rare occasion that there is a wetland with 100 percent open space within a
Tier 3 landscape that this is going to affect.
Mr. Roberts stated that, from his perspective, negative four points is consistent with the application of
other deductions and additions that are provided for in ROGO, and that negative ten points for all
intents and purposes retiers that property,that it is too much. Ms. Cheon believes,when talking about
wetlands that are already protected, negative four or five points sounds reasonable. Mr. Hobgood
agreed.
3
Mr. Kruer asked how freshwater wetlands surrounded by uplands that are not contiguous with other
wetlands would be handled. Ms. Santamaria explained that if any of those types of wetlands were
Included in a Tier 3, if it were isolated or not, if it were adjacent to Tier 1 it would still receive negative
points. Mr. Roberts pointed out that that is a very rare occurrence that there would be any type of
habitat of that nature within the interior of a Tier 3 landscape. Discussion was had regarding how to
treat disturbed wetlands. Mr. Roberts clarified that protection of disturbed wetlands is not being
undermined in any way.
Ms. Hurley stated that staff plans to go through some scoring exercises as examples once the policy
parameters are set. New definitions will be developed to clarify the definitions of what is disturbed
versus undisturbed. Mr. Kruer commented that he wonders about using the definitions of "adjacent" or
"contiguous" to Tier 1 lots as a limitation for the negative points to apply. Ms. Santarnarla explained
that staff thought it would be duplicative to give negative points for something that cannot be filled.,
such as isolated wetlands that might have a freshwater pond, if it is not connected to a larger habitat.
Mr. Kruer stressed that, while he understands the value of dealing with large ecosystems or large areas
of habitat, there are also a lot of value to the fragments of wetlands that remain in the Keys., just like
there is values to the fragments of hammock that remain in the Keys. Ms. Sa nta ma ria said that staff is
trying to balance the tier system with protection of wetlands as well. Tier 3 parcels have already gone
through committee hearings and board approval and have been designated as areas to direct growth to.
Ms. Hurley reminded the committee that if the site does not have 2,000 square feet of developable
land, meaning nonhabitat or nonwetland, it is not a ROGi3 eligible site. Dr. Frank clarified that this
policy would only apply to 100 percent open space lots, making this an additional layer of protection.
Ms. Hurley further explained that by putting some negative points you get the Tier 3s that are fully
scarified to move forward faster in the ROGO system than these others that may have some kind of
habitat worthy of protection.
This policy would not be retroactive to parcels already designated Tier 3. Parcels entering ROGER after
the effective date of this policy change would be subject to it. Ms. Cheon suggested adding language to
the contiguous definition that certain properties are part of Zoo percent open space wetland that is
contiguous to a Tier 1 property. Mr. Kruer believes "adjacent" or "contiguous" language would be
Important to include here, except for U.S.1 causing a break. Mr. Hobgood stated that a road is normally
a break in a wetland because it kills the hydrology. Mr. Hobgood stated that it seems with this policy it
would behoove a landowner to break wetlands out of their property and split the property into two
different parcels.
Mr. Roberts reminded the Committee that this policy is only applicable to Tier 3 parcels, and while in
theory that might work., in reality most property owners would not have a large enough lot to make it
two RE numbers and still have enough buildable space on the upland portion to be able to make it work.
And in order to dedicate land, it has to be buildable. Mr. Kruer agreed with the comment about roads
being a little bit of a concern in adjacency, but not as much as one might think sometimes., and using the
term "adjacent" as well to pull a little bit of additional wetland protection in larger areas would be
appropriate. Mr. Kruer thinks five negative points would be appropriate considering the native habitat
that is at stake.
Motion: Winston Hobgood made a motion that "contiguous" continue to be used in the same manner
as used before, which is not broken by a road.
0)
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the negative points assigned to this situation in ROGO
would be negative five points. Janice Duquesnel seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the
following results: Randy Grau,Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
Mr. Roberts asked the Committee members if adding a point or two for a conservation easement should
be incorporated into the motion. Mr. Roberts informed the Committee that the biggest advantage to
that is when a violation is documented,there Is a legal instrument to rely on that has an absolute set of
restrictions associated with it that the County can come back and enforce. Ms. Cheon suggested
including a requirement of a conservation easement instead of using a point system. Mr. Roberts said
he would hesitate to put that as a requirement simply because some easements have very limited value.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the negative five points could be reduced by two points H a
conservation easement is entered by the property owner protecting the wetlands and the required
buffer. Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice
Duquesnel,Agreed;Julie Cheon,Agreed;and Winston Hobgood,Agreed.
Ms.Jetton asked to hear the Committee Members'thoughts on giving a small amount of positive points
to undisturbed wetlands that people would be willing to donate to the County. Mr. Grau believes it
would be a worthwhile idea to get as much of that sensitive land and ownership as possible because
that is easier than protecting it by regulating. Ms. Cheon thinks R Is a valid idea, but wonders if the
County would end up with properties they really do not want to manage. Ms.Jetton clarified that she is
talking about undisturbed wetlands In Tier 1. Ms. Hurley added that staff is in favor of this. Mr. Roberts
f clarified that in order for a parcel of land to be used as a dedicatable lot under ROGO, It has to have
`r 2,000 square feet of buildable area, which could be uplands and/or disturbed wetlands that are able to
be filled in accordance with the code. Ms.Jetton discussed the importance of giving these lots a value.
Mr.Grau agreed.
A brief recess was held from 10:46 a.m.to 10:58 a.m.
The clearing limit policy discussion was had. Mayte Santamaria explained that this is a proposed
comprehensive plan amendment to address the clearing of upland hammock. This is to provide some
clarity and consistency between local governments here in the Keys. This is also a task that the
Administration Commission has given to Monroe County to complete. Ms.Santamaria stated that Policy
101.4.22 mistakenly includes cactus hammock and palm hammock as habitat In Ocean Reef. This policy
specifies that it not only applies to Tiers 1 and 2, but it also applies to Tier 3A,the special protection lots.
The existing clearing limit for Tier 1 Is 20 percent and it does not have a maximum clearing limit. Staff Is
proposing a clearing limit of 20 percent or 3,000 square feet, whichever is greater, but no greater than
7500 square feet of the upland native habitat area. There would be an exception for driveways,
especially If it is a very large Tier 1 parcel. Staff has provided an allowance to allow for a driveway If
fragmentation is minimized, specimen trees are avoided and the shortest reasonable route possible is
taken.
For Tier 2 the existing clearing limit Is 40 percent with no maximum. Staff is proposing Including 3,000
square feet or a maximum of 7500 for the native upland vegetative area. For Tier 3 it remains the same
as the 40 percent, or 3,000 square feet, with a maximum of 7500 square feet. Then on the Special
Protection Area,Tier 3A,that is 40 percent, or 3,000 square feet, and 7500 square feet maximum. Both
the Tier 3 and Tier 3A also have the driveway allowance.
4
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the node definitions include both "adjacent and
acontiguous" as stated in this proposal and that U.S.1 does constitute a break. Mr. Hobgood withdrew
his motion.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the definition of "adjacent" be used, that Tier 3 parcels with
100 percent open space wetlands that are adjacent to Tier i parcels receive negative points, and that
any parcel that is part of the 100 percent open space wetland contiguous to the property by included.
Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,
Agreed; Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Randy Grau, Agreed,
Ms. Santamaria requested recommendations from the Committee on the points. Mr. Kruer feels using
this process to provide even more protection to naturally occurring undisturbed wetlands to promote
their protection for the future seems to be important. Mr. Kruer believes negative five to negative ten
points would be in the range that would be serious or important enough to put these parcels in a back
seat to the parcels that this process is really trying to have developed, which are Tier 3 parcels that are
totally disturbed land with no native hammock, pineland or native wetlands on them. Mr. Kruer also
believes it is important to provide information to the public that just because a property is designated
Tier 3 does not mean the entire parcel is suitable for infill.
Mr. Kruer asked if the County had the ability to include additional requirements regarding wetlands.
Ms. Hurley emphasized staffs desire to get the tier system finished and not continue to modify it
countywide. Staff believes that by establishing negative points for parcels that have wetland
communities will do the same thing as countywide rezoning, without the expense of rezoning. Ms.
Santamaria again reminded the committee these are for parcels with wetlands that require 100 percent
open space, not wetlands that can be filled. Mr. Grau asked how many open space wetlands end up in
conservation easements, and for what reasons would they be In conservation easements. Mr. Roberts
answered through Monroe county code, conservation easements over wetland areas are not required.
The county requires a conservation easement over undisturbed upland areas as part of the
development process.
While agreeing the concept has merit, Mr. Roberts is concerned about the resources that would be
required to monitor this. Mr. Grau stated that at least there would be legal record that is recorded and
when somebody buys the property they see there is an easement, they know it has protection. Mr.
Hobgood added that it Is extremely difficult to find somebody to hold the conservation easement. Dr.
Frank asked if there was a minimum size threshold. Mr. Roberts also reminded the Committee that they
are talking about wetlands that are already 100 percent open space under existing code. Mr. Roberts
agreed that size limits might be something that staff may need to try to address. Ms. Jetton believes
this underscores the need to map these undisturbed wetlands onto the tier maps so the Committee
knows more about what they are talking about. Ms. Jetton stated this idea seems like a good idea. Mr.
Roberts thinks it would be a rare occasion that there is a wetland with 100 percent open space within a
Tier 3 landscape that this is going to affect.
Mr. Roberts stated that, from his perspective, negative four points is consistent with the application of
other deductions and additions that are provided for in ROGO, and that negative ten points for all
intents and purposes retiers that property, that it is too much. Ms. Cheon believes, when talking about
wetlands that are already protected, negative four or five points sounds reasonable. Mr. Hobgood
agreed.
Different clearing limits have been provided in the Livable CommuniKeys documents and staff wants to
specify that County Policy 101.4.23 controls over the Livable CommuniKeys plans. Policy 101.4.24 Is
simply renumbering it. Policy 105.2.27 is Just changing the maximum from 5,000 to 7500 square feet.
Ms. Santamaria clarified for Mr. Hobgood that the clearing limits are Just for the upland habitat areas.
Mr. Roberts added that existing code requires the applicant to cluster their development on the least
sensitive habitat first.
Mr. Kruer stated that he feels that by giving large property owners a driveway allowance this liberal
encourages encroachment into sensitive areas of the hammock. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff Is
trying to provide options for people and to make sure that the development is sited in the most
appropriate areas,and that by adding the language"maximum 7500 square feet" is a dramatic decrease
in clearing allowances on large parcels. Dr. Frank agreed that the 7500 square feet maximum clearing
allowance is a significant amount of progress In conservation. Mr. Kruer added that the word
"endeavor" in the statement"The proposed driveway design shall endeavor to minimize fragmentation"
has no real legal requirement and is not enforceable. Ms. Jetton agreed that the word "endeavor"
should be stricken. Ms. Cheon pointed out that the language includes"per principal dwelling unit." Ms.
Santamaria agreed that it should be"per parcel."
Ms. Hurley further explained that when the staff would review development plans they would look at
where the house should be located. That has to be decided based on the code. The code right now says
it is a joint call between the County biologist and the Planning and Environmental Resources Director.
Mr. Roberts then clarified for Ms. Duquesne)that the words "recommended by" are used in the code,
but that site plan is subject to review, and if the proposed driveway alignment or house location varies
widely from staffs original recommendation, the plans are likely not going to be approved unless the
property owner has overriding consideration that results in staff changing their mind or agreeing with
the proposed location. Mr. Roberts also explained that the code is based on a broad brush community
type and does make the distinction between disturbed and undisturbed, but does not at this point
distinguish between low and high quality.
Mr. Kruer feels that even though It may be a reduction from what is on the books now, it still seems to
go beyond what is needed to allow development of these Tier 1 parcels. Mr. Roberts answered that
County Code allows staff to require the minimization of Impact. Ms. Santamaria asked Ms. Jetton to
provide the reasoning behind the driveway allowance in the annual report to the Administration
Commission. Ms.Jetton explained that it was done to reduce the amount of clearing, and the previous
Growth Management Director had made an argument saying that many people want their houses near
the water and so these long driveways had to be provided for. Dr. Frank sees the situation that, yes,
hammock has been cleared, but a significant amount of hammock has also been preserved. Mr. Grau
pointed out that even if a homeowner did build up closer to the road, there would still be a path and
clearance to the water one way or another.
The need for an 18-foot clearing for a driveway was discussed. The history of the 40 percent clearing
limit in Ocean Reef was discussed.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the language under Tier 1 permitted clearing"per principal
L dwelling unit" in the first paragraph be replaced with "per parcel," and that the proposed language
that says, 'The proposed driveway design shall endeavor to minimize-." should be "The proposed
driveway design shall minimize fragmentation,"and the same where appropriate on the other tiers.
5
Janice Duquesnel seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston
Hobgood,Agreed;Julie Cheon,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Disagreed.
Ms. Hurley presented Richard Grosso with his plaque in appreciation for his participation and effort in
the tier review process.
Mr. Roberts explained that staff has not prepared any proposed language or proposed revisions to
existing codes of policies on the combining of lots or the exotic policies because staff was not sure which
way to go. Both of these items were requested by the TDRC for staff to go back and review and
evaluate, and the Committee had requested an opportunity to weigh in on that. What has been
discussed at the staff level most frequently was the Inclusion of language that in the event of a lot split,
or the event of breaking a lot Into separate RE numbers,that the most restrictive tier designation would
hold within the subsequent or new RE numbers. Staff is looking for more input from the Committee.
Ms.Cheon believes that there are so many variables,it would be difficult to make a policy decision and
put It In writing. Mr. Roberts also said that in the combining of parcels,the most restrictive tier would
continue to apply. The incentives for people to combine parcels were discussed. Mr. Kruer believes
having a policy that the most restrictive tier designation would apply Is the most logical approach to the
problem. Ms. Jetton feels that the County should adopt an LDR that says lots that are aggregated shall
take the more restrictive tier unless a rezoning of the property occurs. Mr.Grau asked Mr. Grosso,who
was in the audience, for his thoughts on this topic. Mr. Grosso believes that adding that In the code
does not take away anything that anybody has now, but Just prevents further changes.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion for a recommendation that the County include in their LDRs
when two parcels of different tiers are combined,the more restrictive tier applies. Winston Hobgood
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Randy
Grau,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed.
A luncheon recess was held from 11:59 a.m.to 1:11 p.m.
MAP SERIES
MAP 83
Mr. Roberts brought before the Committee Map Series 83. One parcel was inadvertently left
undesignated in prior meetings. The remaineder of the parcel is Tier 3 and is essentially part of a mining
operation. Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion to characterize that undesignated parcel as Tier 3.
Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood,
Agreed;Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed.
MAP A
Mr. Roberts explained to Mr. Kruer that the prior process was making sure that the Committee had two
opportunities to review the map series. This is the second opportunity for this map series to be
reviewed. It is at the Committee's discretion to reevaluate and discuss further or see Just what the
current designations are and move on. The two small parcels In the upper right-hand corner consisting
of 2.36 acres of hammock were recommended to be SPA. Mr. Kruer questioned why those two small
parcels together that is contiguous with additional hammock did not rise to the level of Tier 1. Dr. Frank
reported that at his site visit he found the north portion to be hammock and the portion out In front to
be very disturbed. Ms. Cheon remembered a lot of discussion at prior meetings about the proximity to
6
U.S.1 and it being a very commercialized area. Mr. Kruer recognized it was obviously a fragmented
hammock, but a sizeable fragment compared to others that have been designated Tier 1 through the
process.
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the Committee reconsider the SPA designation for those
two parcels considering their size and redesignate them as Tier 1. Mr. Grau agreed that the two
parcels were clearly good to medium quality hammock and the rest of it is basically a parking lot with
canopy. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie
Cheon,Disagreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Janice Duquesne!,Agreed.
MAP B
Mr. Kruer stated that the minutes reflect that Mr. Grau had been to the site and it is less than high
quality hammock and everybody agreed,with one exception,to leave it as Tier 3. Mr. Kruer's interest in
suggesting that this be looked at was just for consistency, because it appears to be a parcel with
hammock that is directly connected to a bigger hammock and to be consistent it would need to be Tier
1. Site inspection revealed that it is not of the same quality as the larger hammock to the south.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that no changes be made on this map. Winston Hobgood
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie Cheon, Agreed; Janice
Duquesnel,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed.
MAPC
Mr. Kruer stated that the minutes reflect this remained Tier 3 because it was surrounded on four sides
(, by development. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that this remain Tier 3 as previously
considered. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy
Gnu,Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel,Agreed.
MAP D
Mr. Kruer said that Map D has a hammock fragment that is surrounded by development. Mr. Kruer
reminded the Committee that in early consideration of how to approach this, the purpose was to
protect and maintain hammock fragments where they continued to exist. Ms. Cheon commented that
due to having the large shopping plaza across the way,its located within a heavily improved subdivision,
heavily developed subdivision, she cannot see protecting this little chunk of hammock which does not
show high quality hammock from the aerial. Mr. Roberts remembers this particular group as being
canopy, not hammock. Mr. Kruer brought out that the minutes, which were Just accepted, indicate it
was hammock of decent quality. Mr. Kruer believes the less amount of hammock there is in an area,the
more important it is to maintain what is there. Ms. Duquesnel Informed the Committee that just north
of these parcels is Adams Cut and Just north of the cut are two large parcels owned by the County. Just
south of these parcels there is property that is associated with John Pennekamp State Park. Ms.
Duquesnel agreed with Mr. Kruer that these fragments do maintain some value because of connectivity.
Mr. Grau reported that at his site visit he found the hammock not to be of good quality and the whole
understory was ripped out except for most of the edges. Mr. Davisson added that the hammock
acreage is a little over a half acre, .58 acres.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the designation remain by the Committee previously of Tier
3. All of the parcels together were reported to be about .8 acre, a little less than an acre. Randy Grau
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed;
Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Disagreed.
7
`r
MAPS
Mr. Kruer stated that the previous decision was to leave them as Tier 3, but there was
acknowledgement that there were hammock fragments In there. Mr. Kruer again commented that one
of the original goals of this effort Is to locate,identify,inspect and try to protect and maintain remaining
hammock fragments. Mr. Roberts added the hammock fragments are way less than an acre.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that they remain as designated by the Committee, Tier 3,
because there does not appear to be any new Information and they are less than an acre. Randy Gnu
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed;
Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Disagreed.
MAPF
Dr. Frank reported that at his site visit he found the parcels to consist of curb and gutter and
landscaping. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that those parcels Identified on Map F remain as
Tier 3. Randy Gnu seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston
Hobgood,Agreed;Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
MAP G
Ms.Cheon stated that this area appears to be used as some sort of industrial yard. Motion: Julie Cheon
made a motion that this remain as designated,Tier 3,by the Committee. Winston Hobgood seconded
the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Gnu,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel,
Agreed,
MAP H
Mr. Kruer reported that the minutes reflect that the site had been inspected and it was found to be
mostly canopy trees remaining. The minutes reflected that Mr. Grau had been to the site and it is
mostly cleared of understory with houses on both sides. Lack of connectivity to hammock was
discussed.
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the parcel remain Tier 3 as previously designated. Julie
Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Gnu, Agreed;
Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel,Agreed.
MAP I
Mr. Kruer reviewed the previous recommendations made on this map. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a
motion that the two parcels that are on the water be designated as Tier 1, consistent with the parcel
immediately to the west. Mr. Roberts read aloud the minutes from the meeting when the prior
recommendation was made. Mr. Gnu said that at his site visit the parcel to the right had been
substantially cleared and there were a lot of scattered structures and buildings all through the parcel.
Motion: Based on the reading of the minutes and due to the fact that the left-hand parcel of the two
on the water Is mapped as a substantial amount of hammock and It is contiguous with a large native
fragment of hammock, Curtis Kruer revised his motion to be that the parcel then be designated Tier 1
instead of SPA. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results:
Janice Duquesnel,Agreed; Julie Cheon, Disagreed; and Randy Grau, disagreed due to disturbance on
that parcel.
8
MAPJ
Mr. Kruer explained the thought process going Into Everglades Law Center (ELC) making a
recommendation here was that there is enough hammock fragments remaining in this area to give it
some special consideration. Ms.Cheon stated that both she and Mr. Grau did extensive site visits in this
area. Mr.Roberts explained that the two larger parcels were left as a SPA because it is not connected to
anything and the houses constitute a break in the code.
Motion: Mr.Kruer made a motion to redesignate the two larger parcels Tier 1 consistent with what Is
Immediately to the north and based on the existence of native habitat. Mr. Hobgood questioned what
extra protection that would afford hammock on this property since it looks like they have already
cleared their 40 percent. Ms. Cheon remembered the smaller lot previously being designated SPA and
the larger parcel to the right being Tier 1,and stated that she still agreed with those designations. Mr.
Kruer compared different parcels and pointed out Inconsistencies in designations. Mr. Roberts
responded that It was not appropriate to compare properties where the tier designation was not
challenged and not reviewed by this Committee with decisions that the Committee made, and the
properties should be evaluated based on Its existing habitat and value and the criteria of the tier
designations as they exist today. Mr. Davisson reported that the large hammock to the northeast Is 14.7
acres. The two parcels that are now SPA together are 4.77 acres. Mr. Kruer renewed his motion. Ms.
Cheon feels that keeping the designation SPA Is consistent with the other decisions that have been
made by the Committee. Ms. Grimsley explained that all state and publicly-owned lands are Tier 1 no
matter what is on them.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the larger parcel remain SPA and the smaller parcel be
�/ designated Tler 1. Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results:
Julie Cheon,Disagreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel,Agreed.
MAP K
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the previous designations for the other parcels on the map
remain in place. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results:
Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Winston Hobgood,Agreed.
MAP I.
Mr. Kruer stated the minutes reflected that this parcel was a half an acre surrounded by development
and it fronts on U.S.1. Mr. Kruer again feels that since it is a fragmented hammock that is in decent
shape,they should be maintained where possible.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion to keep it as previously designated by the Tier Committee,Tier 3.
Janicetuquesnel seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Grau,
Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed.
MAP M
Motion: Custis Kruer made a motion that the designations agreed on Map M remain. Julie Cheon
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood,Agreed;Randy
Grau,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel,Agreed.
9
411110 MAPN
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the designations previously assigned by the Committee
remain the same. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following
results: Janice Duquesne),Agreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed.
MAPO
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the parcels remain as previously designated by the
Committee. Janice Duquesne) seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results:
Winston Hobgood,Agreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed.
MAP P
Mr. Grau stated that the only native habitat on the large parcel to the north Is mangroves. Mr. Kruer
pointed out that the three lots to the south were contiguous with Tier 1. Mr. Kruer believes that those
three lots should have been made Tier 1, so as to make it obvious those three lots are not suitable for
infill. Ms.Cheon responded that the Committee could not do it based on the criteria they were given to
review these lots.
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that those three lots to the south be redesignated due to their
wetland condition as Tier 1 consistent with what is next to them. Mr. Roberts explained that the
Committee cannot revisit every wetland looked at and previously reviewed and wetlands are not part of
the tier designation criteria. If there is not upland habitat on the parcel,then there is no nexus fora SPA
and no nexus for Tier 1. Mr. Kruer questioned the Tier 1s on that same page. Mr. Davisson stated they
are in Florida Forever. Mr. Roberts explained that there will be 100 percent Tier 1 wetland parcels
�r currently in the code and currently mapped as Tier 1 because they were designated prior to the
challenge and prior to the revised tier designation criteria. Mr. Hobgood stated that It seems like the
purpose of today's review has changed into a challenge of previous decisions. Mr. Kruer withdrew his
motion.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that based on all research done prior,that the parcels remain the
same as previously designated by the Tier Committee. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was
taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Curtis
Kruer,Agreed.
MAP Q
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that this map remain the same as designated by the Tier
Committee prior. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following
results: Curtis Kruer,Disagreed;and Randy Gnu,Agreed.
A brief recess was held from 2:37 p.m.to 2:53 p.m.
MAP R
Ms.Cheon remembered a lot of discussion on this map previously. Dr. Frank reported that this contains
understory completely. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the decisions made on R stand as
applied. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice
Duquesne),Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Disagreed.
41/1110
10
`A MAP S
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the prior designations remain based on finding the
properties to be disturbed on site visits. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken
with the following results: Julie Cheon,Agreed;Curtis Kruer,Agreed;and Winston Hobgood,Agreed.
MAP T
Mr. Grau remembered that this parcel ended up being less than an acre and was a little bit disturbed.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that it remain Tier 3. Curds Kruer seconded the motion. A vote
was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood,Agreed;Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;and Julie
Cheon,Agreed.
MAP U
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion these remain as previously designated by the Committee.
Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice
Duquesnel,Agreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed.
MAP V
Mr. Grau remembered that there was previously discussion about keeping it as Tier 1, but there were
some changes made because of the wetland issue. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion these remain
as previously designated. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the
following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed; Randy Grau,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
MAPW_
v Mr. Kruer again commented that it would seem to be an easy matter to designate this Tier 1 and be
done with it. Mr. Kruer suggested including some statement in the definitions to make it real clear that
wetlands on a Tier 3 parcel are not necessarily suitable for infll. This would be another example where
Mr. Kruer would make a motion that these mangrove wetlands be designated Tier 1. Mr. Roberts
informed Mr. Hobgood that the Committee previously designated this Tier 3 and it is 100 percent
wetland. Mr.Roberts agreed that there should be some language somewhere that clarifies just because
it is Tier 3 does not necessarily mean that it is developable, and that will probably be addressed In the
upcoming year.
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion to take these two parcels, which are all tidal mangroves, and
redesignate them Tier 1. Mr. Grau agreed with Mr. Kruer and stated that this is one recommendation
that will be sent to the BOCC. Mr. Roberts reported that staff will be moving forward with the language
revisions discussed this morning as far as the wetland integration into ROGO scoring and the clearing
limits,but Mr. Roberts was unsure when this committee would convene again. Ms.Grlmsley added that
Mr.Grosso had approached her with a suggestion to put something In the land development code that
did not require an amendment to the comprehensive plan to the effect that wetlands designated as Tier
3 may have other restrictions, something that would address the concern that people from out of town
would come In and buy something unknowingly.
Motion: Mr.Grau made a motion to leave H as previously designated because of the problem with it
being 100 percent mangroves. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following
results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Disagreed.
41/
11
MAPX
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the three homes remain as designated previously by the Tier
Committee. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results:
Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Disagreed.
Mr. Roberts asked the Committee to address the parcel with RE Number 00126420.000000 and
00126430.000000. Mr. Roberts explained that there is language in the recommended order and in the
final order from the Administrative Law Judge that the area designated by Trivette be changed to Tier 3.
Unfortunately, nobody has been able to locate the specific map that the Administrative Law Judge was
referring to when he said "the area designated by Trivette." The best that can be determined is that the
Administrative Law Judge was referring to two parcels, one parcel consisting of 100 percent mangrove
and the other parcel consisting of what is locally known as the racetrack. Staff asked that this area be
redesignated Tier 3 consistent with the tier designation criteria as they exist today and as directed by
the Administrative Law Judge in the hearing process.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion to designate those two parcels Tier 3 as directed by the
Administrative law Judge and by the fact that there is no hammock on the property. Mr. Kruer stated
that this is a classic case where they are designated Tier 3,even though they are 100 percent open space
ratio, and they will have to be dealt with again in the future because of the zoning that was applied to
them. Mr.Grau reluctantly seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice
Duquesnel,Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed.
The Administrative Law Judge's recommended order was reviewed. Mr. Kruer pointed out that the
order states it should be Tier 1. Mr. Kruer stated that the outright rejection of having some wetlands be
Tier 1 is not supported by that order. Ms.Cheon withdrew her motion.
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that those two parcels remain designated Tier 1. Randy Grau
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood,Agreed;Janice
Duquesnel,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
MAP Y
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that all of the Tler 1 designations for the offshore islands
represented be maintained. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the
following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
Mr. Roberts announced that was the end of the map review. Mr. Kruer thanked the County for an
excellent job in preparing this information and doing the GIS work. Mr. Grau agreed. Mr. Roberts
pointed out that was a result of the efforts of Bryan Davisson,Senior GIS Coordinator.
The last discussion had was regarding policy and/or strategies to remove incentives for allowing exotics
to spread. Mr. Roberts reported that current County Code states that 40 percent or greater nuisance or
exotic vegetation coverage breaks the connection with the hammocks. The discussion has been
whether or not that particular policy constituted an incentive for a property owner to allow nuisance
and exotic vegetation to expand on their site with the ultimate goal being to break that one-acre
connection. Mr. Grau believes that Is a real concern, especially after the public having gotten more
educated to that factor by attending the TDRC meetings. Mr. Grau also believes it is arbitrary and
41110, disagrees with that as a use to create a boundary or a break. The actual definition within the criteria
does not actually reference what vegetation Is included.
12
Mr. Kruer suggested the County limit the exotics to certain plants and that minimizing the disturbance of
hammock is one means of preventing exotic vegetation from spreading. Mr. Roberts added they would
not evaluate it from the perspective of ground cover unless It was the dominant and structural
component of that upland system. What would be looked at would be whether the component of the
canopy of the subcanopy is exotic. Different exotic plants that would outcompete native plants were
discussed. Mr. Roberts agreed that a list of exotics in the code needs to be more specific. Mr. Hobgood
believes the number 40 percent has no basis in fact. Mr. Roberts believes part of the exotic vegetation
problem Is the extent of absentee ownership in the Keys and the simple fact that most people who own
vacant property in the Keys buy it and don't see it again for ten years. The County does not have the
resources to go and do a nuisance and exotic vegetation removal on those parcels. The County does
require removal of all nuisance and exotic vegetation from a parcel In conjunction with a development
permit.
Mr.Grau asked Ms.Duquesnel, Chairman of the Nuisance and Exotic Task Force, if the task force at their
next meeting would discuss a possible list to give to the County to use for specifying certain plants in the
County Code. Mr. Grau also suggested that the task force should review if 40 percent is the correct
percentage to use in determining when a hammock is no longer a hammock because it is a disturbed
hammock,which would constitute a break.
Mr. Roberts stated that he does not believe there is any further business that would require the TDRC
convening In September because staff needs to take what the Committee has done thus far and run it
4111, through the process.
The Tier Designation Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:56 p.m.
13
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
4111, bleaching, and disease outbreaks, or a synergy of both chronic and acute impacts. Distance
from human habitation has been considered a buffer from the affects of man-made impacts;
however, globally there are many examples of reefs that are remote from civilization that
are similarly in decline (Donahue et al., 2008; Miller and Szmant, 2008). Sea level rise
increases water depths and threatens coral reefs.
3.8.3.4 Potential for Conservation. Use. or Protection of Coral Communities
Monitoring of Florida Keys reefs began in the late 1970s in Biscayne and Dry Tortugas
National Parks through the 1980s. Three large ship groundings in 1989 was the major
impetus for the creation of the FKNMS. The FKNMS Water Quality Protection Plan
monitoring program was established to evaluate the status and trends of the coral
communities throughout the FKNMS. It was finalized following technical meetings in 1994.
Through these and other monitoring programs, it has been learned that a large amount of
coral cover has been lost in the Florida Keys. Monitoring programs have shown an overall
decline in hard coral cover of 44 percent at quantitatively surveyed stations.
Proportionally, the major framework building corals seem to have been most affected (73
percent loss for Acropora palmata, and 37 percent loss for Montastraea annularis)
(Andrews et al. 2008; Donahue et al., 2008). Many of the causes of local coral decline
originate beyond the jurisdiction of the County. For example, algal blooms in the Florida
Keys are influenced by nutrients and water flows from the Everglades and southwest
Florida. Also, warming ocean temperatures associated with global climate change are a
major factor in coral bleaching. Implementing solutions that will preserve the Florida Keys
coral reef system will require action on local,regional, and global scales.
3.9 Wetlands [Rule 9J-5.013(1)(a)1.and (b), F.A.C.]
The biological communities of the Florida Keys include five wetland types which provide
important storm protection, water quality protection, and wildlife habitat functions. These
wetland communities include:
• mangrove forests along the shorelines of the Keys;
• transitional wetlands (salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands) lying landward of the
mangrove fringe and oceanward of upland communities;
• salt ponds occupying shallow enclosed basins having very restricted tidal influence;
• beaches5; and
• freshwater wetlands and freshwater ponds in areas of freshwater lenses in the Lower
Keys.
5 Beaches are not considered to be traditional wetlands under State and federal definitions since they are
located in the high wave energy zone; thus, they do not have wetland soil features nor are they vegetated
411110 (although mud flats would meet State and federal definitions of wetlands). However,beaches (as part of the
beach/berm community) are protected by the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs and by State and federal
regulations when they are below the mean high water line. Thus, beaches are mentioned in this section.
Beaches are more fully described in Section 3.10(Beach/Berm Communities).
Conservation and Coastal Management 92 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
the ADID data did not correspond to the other databases (i.e., the maps did not line up
exactly). The ADID data can be useful for an individual parcel to determine if it contains a
wetland with a KEYWEP score but,because of the mapping limitations,the ADID data could
not be used on a County-wide basis. The County should reconcile the ADID mapping with
parcel-based mapping so that this information can be captured for land use analyses.
3.9.3 Mangrove Communities
Mangrove wetland communities are addressed above in Section 3.8.1 (Mangroves).
Included are discussions of the following:
• Flora of mangrove communities;
• Existing commercial,recreational and conservation uses of mangrove communities;
• Known pollution problems and/or issues related to mangrove communities; and
• Potential for conservation,use, or protection of mangrove communities.
3.9.4 Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands
Saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands are tidally influenced transitional wetlands which lie
landward of the mangrove fringe and seaward of the upland community. Two basic
wetland communities occur in the transition zone in the Florida Keys. Salt marshes are the
(, lower--transitional wetlands. They exist at the interface of land and marine waters,
wherever wave energy is sufficiently low to allow their development and where mangrove
trees are not dense enough to shade out the characteristic vegetation (Montague and
Wiegert, 2001). Buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) associations are generally higher
transitional wetlands,occurring between the salt marshes and the high upland habitats.
The type of transitional association that develops in the Keys is a function of tide and
topography. In the Lower Keys, where the slope of the intertidal zone is very slight, the
broadest expanse of transitional zones occurs. On Sugarloaf, Cudjoe, Big Torch, Little
Torch, and on a number of other keys, transitional zones occupy areas hundreds of feet in
width. On these keys, much of the eroded oolitic caprock is exposed, creating a karst-like
substrate with disjunct, shallow depressions containing marl soils. Most of these areas are
wetted only by the highest normal tides and by storm tides. By comparison, in the Middle
and Upper Keys, there is a relatively steep slope to the high ground. In these areas the
transitional zone is quite narrow, with hammock often found within a short horizontal
distance from the high water mark.
Table 3.7 shows the inventory of salt marsh wetlands within the County with a total of
2,552.7 acres. Most are located in the Lower Keys (94 percent) and 18 percent are
privately owned. Table 3.8 shows the inventory of buttonwood wetlands with at total of
3,323.1 acres within the County and like salt marshes, most (72.5 percent) are located in
the Lower Keys. Of that total, 21.7 percent are privately owned.
Conservation and Coastal Management 97 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
3.9.4.1 Flora of Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands
3.9.4,1.1 Flora of Undisturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands
Several environmental factors control species distribution in transitional wetlands. These
are functions of elevation and tidal influence and are linearly related to distance from mean
high water. They include duration of tidal submergence; duration of exposure; and
frequency of submergence. Because of the low tidal amplitude (3 feet) in the Keys, the
inundation of the transition zone may be affected by several other factors, including wind
direction and velocity, shoreline exposure, slope, elevation and microrelief. As a result, the
position of an individual plant population within the transitional zone reflects an adaptive
response to a complex set of environmental gradients.
The transitional habitats of the Keys contain species representative of both the adjacent
mangrove and upland communities. In the most seaward subzone of transitional areas
scrub mangrove communities typically occur. These are dominated by small red and black
mangroves with an understory of Glasswort (Salicornia bigelovii), salt grass (Distichilis
spicata), and key grass (Monanthochloe littoralis). Moving upland, there is a change to a
more diverse plant community with fewer mangroves. Depending on drainage and soil
conditions,this association can be either buttonwood or salt marsh.
41110 Saltmarshes are dominated by salt-tolerant herbs, shrubs, and grasses. Some salt marshes
are mixtures of fleshy halophytes, including glasswort (Salicornia bigelovii), purslane
(Sesuvium portulacastrum), and saltwort (Bads maritime). Other marshes are dominated
by grasses, including salt grass, key grass, and dropseed, and occasional marsh fimbry
(Fimbristylis spadicea), sea daisy, saltwort, buttonwood and small mangroves. These
grasses and herbs occur as small, disjunct populations forming a mosaic. In some cases, a
single population will occupy an area of about a half acre, whereas in others, the same
species might be represented by only a few individuals. This distributional variability
probably reflects the area's microrelief,which determines drainage and soil salinity.
---------- The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
4111
Conservation and Coastal Management 98 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 3.7 - Inventor of Salt Marsh Wetlands
Ownership
Site Name ' Total Non- Species
Federal State County Profit Cities Utilities Private
Recorded
Lower Keys
Bahia Honda
State Park 18.4 KD,MR
Florida Keys
Wildlife and 280.8 0.1 1.2 KD,MR,SR
Environmental
Area2
Great White
Heron National 360.7 20.9 1.5 5.0 KD,MR,SR
Wildlife Refuge
John J.
Pescatello
Torchwood 37.2 KD,MR
Hammock
Preserve
Monroe County 1.9 KD,MR,SR
Managed Areas
National Key 759.8 32.9 KD,MR,SR
Deer Refuge
Naval Air
Station 248.4 MR,SR
Saddle Bunch
Keys 12.6 KD, MR,SR
Outside of 14.2 62.1 102.8 11.3 436.4 KD,MR,SR
Parks/Refuges
Lower Keys 2,408.2 1,383.1 417.0 104.4 61.1 0 0 442.6
Total
Middle Keys
Lignumvitae
Key Botanical 2.8
State Park
Long Key State 13.7
Park
Outside of
Parks/Refuges 1'4 21.0
Middle Keys 38.9 0 17.9 0 0 0 0 21.0
Total
Upper Keys
Crocodile Lake
National 0.6
Wildlife Refuge
Cross Key 0.1
Dagney Johnson
Key Largo
Hammock 48.6 SS,IS,WR,CM
Botanical State
Park
Conservation and Coastal Management 99 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 3.7 - Inventor of Salt Marsh Wetlands continued
Ownership
Site Name Total' Non- Species
Federal State County Profit Cities Utilities Private Recordeds
Everglades
National Park6 4.5
Florida Keys
Wildlife and
Environmental 4'7
Area?
John
Pennecamp 37.9 0.2
Coral Reef State
Park
Monroe County
Managed Areas 0.2
Tarpon Basin 0.9
Outside of 4.1 0.9 2,9
Parks/Refuges
Upper Keys 105.6 5.1 95.5 0.9 1.0 0 0 3.1
Total
Total County 2,552.7 1,388.2 530.4 105.3 62.1 0 0 466.7
Unincorporated areas only.
1 Site names are from the FNAI GIS database.
2 Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Areas are managed by the FFWCC for the preservation of listed
th, species that inhabit mangroves,tropical hardwood hammocks,and salt marshes.
3 Total in acres.
4 Ownership information is from the Monroe County Property Appraiser.
5 Species recorded are those threatened and endangered species recorded by the USFWS for a particular
parcel; a blank cell does not necessarily indicate an absence of protected species on that parcel(s).
SS=Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly;TS=Tree Snail; IS= Eastern Indigo Snake;WR= Key Largo Woodrat; CM
=Key Largo Cottonmouse; SR=Silver Rice Rat;KD=Key Deer;TC=Tree Cactus
6 Portion of the Everglades National Park that extends into Florida Bay; acreage does not necessarily include
Mainland habitats.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Conservation and Coastal Management 100 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
tor Table 3.8 - Inventor of Buttonwood Wetlands
Ownership
Site Name 1 Total Non_ Species
Federal State County Profit Cities Utilities Private Recorded
Lower Keys
Bahia Honda State Park 30.9 KD,MR
Florida Keys Wildlife
and Environmental 323.2 0.8 0.1 8.4 KD,MR,
Area2 SR
Great White Heron 6.4 14.3 0.1 12.3 KD,MR,
National Wildlife RefugeSR
John J.Pescatello
Torchwood Hammock 16.1 KD,MR
Preserve _
Monroe County 9 6 KD,MR,
Managed Areas _ SR
National Key Deer 828.6 92.5 01 KD,MR,
Refuge _ SR
Naval Air Station 272.6 0.1 0.1 MR,SR
Saddle Bunch Keys 0.5 KD,MR,
SR
Outside of 7.2 34.9 136.8 27.9 1.0 586.3 KD,MR,
Parks/Refuges SR
Lower Keys Total 2,410.8_ 1,114.8 505.5 -137.6 44.7 1.0 0 607.2
tor Middle Keys
Lignumvitae Key 17.0
Botanical State Park
Long Key State Park 54.1 0.4
Outside of
Parks/Refuges 5.4 7.2 37.2
Middle Keys Total 121.3 0 76.5 7.2 0 0 0 37.6
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
C„,,,
Conservation and Coastal Management 101 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 3.8- Invento of Buttonwood Wetlands continued
Ownership'
Site Name Non- Species
Federal State County Profit Cities Utilities Private Recorded
Upper Keys
Crocodile Lake National 94.1 0.7 0.3
Wildlife Refuge
Crocodile Lake
Sanctuary 0 7 0.3
Dagney Johnson Key SS,TS, IS,
Largo Hammock 2.1 259.8 CM,WR,
Botanical State Park TC
Florida Keys Wildlife
and Environmental 37.7 0.6 TS,IS,TC
Area2
John Pennecamp Coral 248.7 0.2 TS,IS,TC
Reef State Park
Monroe County 4.0 0.1 0.2 TS,IS,TC
Managed Areas
Naval Air Station 1.7
Tarpon Basin 2.8 TS,TC
Outside of 3.0 40.0 18.6 0.1 78.3 TS,IS,TC
Parks/Refuges
Upper Keys Total 794.0 101.6 590.9 19.0 3.2 0 0 _ 79.3
4101, Total County 3,326.1 1,216.4 1,172.9 163.8 47.9 1 0 724.1
Footnotes are the same as for Table 3.7.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
•
Conservation and Coastal Management 102 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The buttonwood wetland is a transitional wetland that is usually more landward than the
salt marsh and may intermix with more upland communities. Buttonwood becomes
abundant and is generally associated with an understory of sea daisy, dropseed, sea oxeye
(Borrichia arborescens), cordgrass, chestnut sedge, christmas berry (Lycium carolinanum)
and other small shrubs, herbs and graminoids. The open aspect of the association,
resulting from the branching habit of the buttonwoods, allows sunlight to reach the ground
and generates abundant vegetation beneath the trees, where there is typically soil
accumulation. The wild allamanda (Urechites lutea) and rubber vine (Rhabdadenia biflora)
are also often found on buttonwoods
Moving upland, the transitional zone grades into tropical hardwood hammock. The
landward extent of the tides is marked by the accumulation of litter on the forest floor and
generally corresponds to the hammock boundary. Often,there are small areas of hammock
species within the transitional zone vegetated by small,salt tolerant trees and shrubs.
3.9.4.1.2 Flora of Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands
Vegetation of disturbed salt marsh and buttonwood communities may be either a remnant
of what existed prior to the disturbance or what has colonized the site after the
disturbance. Areas of disturbance which are wetted by spring or storm tides, but do not
contain poorly drained saturated soils, are often vegetated by dense stands of small
buttonwoods with an understory of sea daisy and salt tolerant grasses. Individual trees
remain small relative to the stature of buttonwoods growing in undisturbed conditions.
Disturbed areas which are only partially vegetated by buttonwood, but still contain open
zones, are highly susceptible for colonization by invasive plants, such as Brazilian pepper
(Schinus terebinthefolius) and Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia).
3.9.4.1.3 Fauna of Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands
The wildlife found in Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands are discussed in Section
3.12.1,2 (Wildlife Typically Inhabiting Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetland Communities).
3.9.4.2 Existing Commercial. Recreational or Conservation Uses of Salt Marsh and
Buttonwood Wetlands
No development activities are permitted in undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood
wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent (no clearing is allowed). These
habitats are considered one of the most sensitive habitats, and if present on a development
site, clustering is required. Development is only allowed in lands classified as disturbed
with salt marsh and buttonwood association [Section 118-10 (Environmental Design for
Specific Habitat Types)]. Only those salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands that are
determined by KEYWEP to have moderate or low functional capacity are suitable for filling
with appropriate mitigation, but must also be authorized by FDEP and USACE permits.
410
Conservation and Coastal Management 103 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Most of the undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands are owned by State and
federal agencies and presumably will not be disturbed. Conservation lands [see Section
3.18.3 (Conservation Lands)] in the Florida Keys which encompass large tracts of
undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands include:
• National Key Deer Refuge;
• John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park;
• Lignumvitae Key Aquatic Preserve;
• Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve;
• Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve;
• Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; and
• Everglades National Park.
3.9.4.3 Known Pollution Problems and/or Issues Related to Salt Marsh and
Buttonwood Wetlands
Placement of fill for residential development, accessory structures, and accessways is the
primary source of pollution in salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands in the Keys. Placement
of fill disrupts the local natural drainage pattern, thereby affecting adjacent wetland areas
outside of the immediate area of filling. Homeowners typically introduce non-native plant
material in residential landscaping and, with time, expand the area of disturbance further
into adjacent wetlands. OSTDS serving development sites in salt marsh and buttonwood
wetlands are likely to function improperly due to soil wetness and flooding.
Malfunctioning systems release nutrients and other contaminants into the substrate and
the highly permeable underlying limestone. From there the contaminants move laterally in
groundwater to adjacent wetlands and nearshore waters.
Other pollution problems and concerns related to salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
include:
• illegal dumping;
• damage from off-road vehicles;
• disruptive activities at the fringe of salt ponds caused by the proximity to developed
land uses;
• altered hydrology due to mosquito ditches, canals,and roads; and
• sea level rise.
3.9.4.4 Potential for Conservation. Use, or Protection of Salt Marsh and
Buttonwood Wetlands
The current Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs specify setbacks and the ROGO/NROGO
provides restrictions on the development of undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood
( wetlands. Off-road vehicle trespassing onto salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands could be
fir' reduced through improved posting of private lands and by stepped-up enforcement of
Conservation and Coastal Management 104 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
trespass laws and illegal use of public lands. Protection against illegal dumping could be
improved by increased enforcement of existing dumping regulations.
3.9.5 Beaches
Beaches are addressed below in Section 3.10 (Beach/Berm Communities). Included are
discussions of the following:
• beaches of the Florida Keys;
• flora of beach communities;
• existing commercial, recreational and conservation uses of beaches;
• known pollution problems and/or issues related to beaches;
• past trends in beach erosion and accretion;
• effects of coastal or shore protection structures on beaches;
• existing and potential beach renourishment areas; and
• potential for conservation, use or protection of beaches.
3.9.6 Salt Ponds
Salt ponds are remnants of former open water areas that have been cut off from tidal
connection by storm-built berms or man-made structures. The result is a shallow
impoundment, which receives saltwater during intense storm events and rainwater on a
regular, seasonal basis. They range in size from less than one acre to tens of acres. The
best known salt pond system is located along the southeastern shoreline of Key West
landward of South Roosevelt Boulevard (State Route AlA). This series of ponds supported
a salt production industry in Key West from 1830 through the 1860s. Other salt ponds are
located on Boca Grande Key, Cudjoe Key, Little Torch Key, Fat Deer Key (Cocoplum Beach),
Ohio Key, and Long Key. Salt ponds are tidal habitats but they are flushed only by the
highest of tides, often just once a year in the fall. For much of the year they can become
highly saline environments (Kalla, 2000). Seasonally variable water depths range from 2
feet to occasionally dry in the late spring. Salinity of pond waters can range from 5 parts
per thousand during heavy rains to as high as 50-100 parts per thousand at the end of the
dry season. Standing water can disappear from all or part of a pond during the dry season
leaving salt deposits on the sediment surface (Kalla, 2000). Because of the typically small
volume of water contained in these ponds, water temperatures approach those of the
ambient air, ranging from 69.4 to 84.9 degrees F (monthly mean, Key West). In the smaller
ponds, and in the large ponds during periods of dry-down, daily water temperature
fluctuations are probably more extreme, with peak summer values in excess of 90 degrees
F.
Salt pond sediments are generally a mixture of organic mud marl and coarser-grained,
calcareous skeletal materials derived from marine organisms. These sediments often have
a reddish color. Their composition reflects a history of both in situ deposition and storm
deposition. In some ponds, there is only a thin (1 to 2 inch) marl layer over the caprock,
whereas in others, sediment depths exceed a foot and are often anaerobic. Although salt
Conservation and Coastal Management 105 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
E pond systems are subject to harsh extremes in temperature and salinity, they support a
flora and fauna, which are adapted to these extremes and, as a result of the extremes, can
be continually changing.
Salt ponds are mapped together with freshwater ponds. Thus, they are included in Section
3.9.7 (Freshwater Wetlands).
3.9.6.1 Flora of Salt Ponds
Submerged vegetation is either absent or sparse or it can be seasonal. Dominant salt pond
plants include green algae (Batophora oerstedii) and Acetabularia crenulata on coarse
substrates; and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), algae (Batophora oerstedii) tolerant of
salinity fluctuations, spike rush (Eleocharis cellulosa), and shoal grass (Halodule wrightii)
rooted in the sediments. Occasional black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) and, less
frequently, red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) are found along the pond banks. The
smaller ponds often contain little or no macroscopic vegetation. In larger ponds the spike
rush and occasional mangroves are restricted to the pond margins, while the central area
usually contains no emergent vegetation.
Probably the best adapted biotic component of the salt ponds is the periphyton, an
association of microalgae (primarily blue-greens) that form mat-like structures composed
of fine algal filaments. In wetland areas which periodically dry out, these mats appear as
black crusts on the surface of the caprock or sediment.
3.9.6.2 Fauna of Salt Ponds
The wildlife found in Salt Ponds are discussed in Section 3.12.1.3 (Wildlife Typically
Inhabiting Salt Pond Communities).
3.9.6.3 Existing Commercial. Recreational, or Conservation Uses of Salt Ponds
Historically, salt ponds were used for the evaporation of salt for commercial uses. This
practice ended in the 1860s but some of the diversion ditches and berms remain to remind
us of their historic uses. Flooding occurs during the highest tides through culverts,shallow
creeks, broad transitional wetlands or a temporary natural break in the land barrier (e.g.,
Cocoplum Beach; Kalla, 2000). Currently, salt ponds on Cudjoe Key and Little Torch Key
are located within the limits of the National Key Deer Refuge. Several salt ponds are
located within the Key West National Wildlife Refuge, most notably the historic ponds on
Duck Key. Salt ponds are now well-known tourist (and local) destinations for bird
enthusiasts.
41/
Conservation and Coastal Management 106 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
3.9.6.4 Known Pollution Problems and/or Issues Related to Salt Ponds
Until around 1985, salt ponds in the Florida Keys were filled to provide land for
development. The current Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs (see above) prohibit these
activities and State and federal permits would be needed to fill, drain,or alter salt ponds.
Pollution problems and other concerns related to salt ponds include illegal dumping and
disruptive activities at the edges of salt ponds caused by the proximity to developed land
uses. Illegal dumping is a problem along the perimeter of salt ponds, particularly where
there is vehicular access. Proximity of developed land uses to salt ponds tends to adversely
affect perimeter areas of the wetland. These impacts are typically direct physical effects
caused by landowner dumping of yard debris at the perimeter of residential lots and the
cumulative impacts of homeowners through the years caused by yard improvements, such
as perimeter clearing, minor spot filling, and planting of non-native plant materials.
Disturbance along the edges of salt ponds can cause the colonization of invasive plants,
especially lather leaf (Colubrina asiatica) and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius).
Sea level rise also threatens the hydrology of salt ponds.
3.9.6.5 Potential for Conservation. Use. or Protection of Salt Ponds
The Comprehensive Plan policies and Section 118-4 of the LDRs prohibits development
L activities in mangroves, freshwater wetlands and in undisturbed saltmarsh and
�/ buttonwood wetlands. The LDRs should be amended to include salt ponds in this
prohibition. However, filling or alteration of salt ponds would be subject to permit
authorization by the SFWMD and/or FDEP and the USACE. Open space buffers are
specified for all wetlands,which would include salt ponds.
Control of exotics should be a priority for the conservation of wildlife functions of salt
ponds. Several restoration projects in salt ponds have been completed by the KERF.
3.9.7 Freshwater Wetlands
A freshwater lens is a small scale aquifer where a shallow pool of water is perched upon
underlying salt water (see Chapter 12.0 Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element).
Seasonal high mean sea level in the fall "pushes"the lens above the ground surface in many
areas (Kalla, 2000). The size of these lenses is controlled by rainfall, freshwater discharge
(seepage, pumpage, runoff, and evapotranspiration), response to tidal fluctuations,
proximity to saltwater bodies, permeability of the subsurface materials, and elevation of
the island above sea level (Klein, 1970; Hanson, 1980; Kalla, 2000). Discharge from these
freshwater lenses is to lower topographic areas. Some groundwater discharge occurs to
mosquito control ditches, where freshwater wetlands dominated by Cattail (Typha spp.)
typically develop.
41W Permanent freshwater lenses occur on the larger keys, specifically Key West and Big Pine
Key. The largest and best known of the surface freshwater ponds on Big Pine Key is Blue
Conservation and Coastal Management 107 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
4110 Hole, a one acre former limestone quarry within the boundaries of the National Key Deer
Wildlife Refuge. Ephemeral or brackish lenses are present on the smaller keys, including
Sugarloaf Key, Little Torch Key, Cudjoe Key, No Name Key, Little Pine Key,and Ramrod Key.
The Lower Keys are more likely to have lenses because of their geometry and geology. By
comparison to those on Big Pine Key, the freshwater lenses on the other keys are much
smaller in size and generally do not have adequate year-round groundwater discharges to
sustain large permanent freshwater pools or wetlands.
Freshwater wetlands were mapped for the Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID).
However, the current County GIS database was used for this inventory. The inventory of
freshwater wetlands is shown in Table 3.9. A total of 961.1 acres of freshwater wetlands
are in the County. All but 0.5 acres are found in the Lower Keys; none were observed in the
Middle Keys. 0f the total amount, 12.3 percent are privately owned. The inventory of
freshwater ponds and salt ponds is shown in Table 3.10. Most open water ponds are
located in the Middle and Lower Keys. Of the total pond area, 15 percent are privately
owned.
3.9.7.1 Flora of Freshwater Wetlands
3.9.7.1.1 Flora ofSawgrass Marshes
The most extensive freshwater wetlands in the Keys are the sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense)
marshes of Big Pine Key and adjoining smaller keys. These sawgrass marshes occur along
the edges of the slash pinelands, at slightly lower elevations. The occurrence of the
sawgrass marshes, as well as the pinelands conforms quite closely with the outline of the
two freshwater lenses beneath Big Pine Key (Ross, 1989). The freshwater wetlands include
large, natural, and impounded sloughs in the central portion of Big Pine Key and numerous
smaller interior basins scattered throughout Big Pine Key. The sloughs are important
discharge areas that receive drainage from the freshwater lenses during periods of high
water and, because of their size and extensive ditching, typically contain most of the
surface freshwater on Big Pine Key at any one time (Jackson, 1989). In contrast, the
smaller, interior basins are recharge areas that retain water until it can be absorbed into
the ground and surrounding uplands (Kalla, 2000).
The Sawgrass Marshes are dominated by sawgrass (Cladium jamaicensis). Other
freshwater marsh species include saw sedge (Cyperus ligularis), white-top sedge
(Rhynchospora floridensis), giant leather fern (Acrostichum damaeifolium), false foxglove
(Agalinis spp.), perennial saltmarsh aster (Symphyotrichum tenuifolius), broom sedge
(Andropogon glomeratus), and buttonwood (Concocarpus erectus). Two vines, mangrove
rubber vine (Rhabdadenia biflora) and wild allamanda (Pentalinom lutea), and a variety of
bromeliads, occasionally occur on the buttonwoods.
Sawgrass occurs ubiquitously in both fresh and brackish wetlands. In areas that contain
brackish water or slightly saline soils, the association often includes other salt tolerant
species including gulf coast spikerush (Eleocharis cellulose), hurricanegrass (Fimbristylis
cymosa), and seashore dropseed (Sporobolus virginicus). In these areas, buttonwood and
Conservation and Coastal Management 108 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
mangroves also frequently occur. In small, shallow solution depression on Big Pine, No
Name, Cudjoe, and Sugarloaf Keys, dense stands of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) are
found closely associated with sawgrass.
While less diverse than the pinelands with which they are typically associated, the
sawgrass marshes contain several State-protected plants, including pride-of-Big-Pine
(Strumpfia maritima),joewood Uacquinia keyensis),and bromeliads (Tillandsia spp.).
3.9.7.1.2 Flora of Cattail Marshes
Cattail (Typha spp.) marshes occur less extensively than the Sawgrass marsh on
Knockemdown, Big Pine, Little Torch, Middle Torch, Sugarloaf, and Cudjoe keys. Because
cattail marshes naturally occur well within the confines of hammocks protected from the
xeric atmospheric conditions characteristic of more open areas, they are probably
subjected to saline influences only during hurricanes or tropical storms.
Where organic soils are deeper, these marshes are characterized by almost pure stands of
Cattail. In some, gulf coast spikerush (Eleocharis cellulosa) often occurs in pure stands just
a few inches below the sawgrass. Buttonwoods and occasional mangroves are present on
the borders, supporting mixed populations of bromeliads (Tillandsia spp.) and butterfly
( orchid (Encyclia tampensis).
v In addition to natural cattail marshes, narrow linear freshwater wetlands dominated by
Cattail occur along mosquito ditches throughout the Keys. These ditches are flooded by
freshwater during the wet season and, due to the high water-holding capacity of the deep
organic layer,contain wet to moist soils throughout the year.
3.9.7.2 Fauna of Freshwater Wetlands
Wildlife found in Freshwater Wetlands is discussed in Section 3.12.1.4 (Wildlife Typically
Inhabiting Freshwater Wetland Communities)
3.9.7.3 Existing Commercial. Recreational, or Conservation Uses of Freshwater
Wetlands
The-Comprehensive Plan policies and Section 118-4 of the LDRs prohibits development
activities in freshwater wetlands and the open space requirement is 100 percent. Open
space buffers are specified for all wetlands. Most freshwater wetlands are protected by the
Tier Overlay Ordinance and ROGO/NROGO. In addition, filling or alteration of freshwater
wetlands would be subject to permit authorization by the SFWMD and/or FDEP and the
USAGE.
The largest freshwater wetlands on Big Pine Key are included in the National Key Deer
`, Refuge. Outside of Big Pine Key, freshwater wetlands are found on Cudjoe Key, No Name
Conservation and Coastal Management 109 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
400
Key, Ramrod Key, and Sugarloaf Key. Approximately 117 acres remain in private
ownership.
Table 3.9 - Inventor of Freshwater Wetlands
Ownership l
Site Name Total Federal State County Non- Cities Utilities Private Species
Profit Recorded
Lower Keys
Florida Keys Wildlife and 57.3 1.1 0.1 0.8 KD,MR,SR
Environmental Areaz
Great White Heron
National Wildlife Refuge 0.4 KD,MR
Monroe County Managed 2.2
Areas KD,MR,SR
National KeyDeer Refuge 363.4 255. 0.1
g 1 0.1 KD,MR,SR
Naval Air Station 27.0 MR
Saddle Bunch Keys 2.3 KD,MR,SR
Terrestris Preserve 13.8 KD, MR
Outside of Parks/Refuges 13.4 18.0 78.4 11.0 116.6 KD,MR,SR
Lower Keys Total 961.1 403.8 362. 80.0 27.2 0 0 117.5
Middle Keys
1111110, Middle Keys Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Upper Keys
Outside of Parks/Refuges 0.5
Upper Keys Total 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5
Total County 961.6 403.8 332.6 80.0 27.2 0 0 118.0
Unincorporated areas only.
1 Site names are from the FNAI GIS database.
2 Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Areas are managed by the FFWCC for the preservation of listed
species that inhabit mangroves,tropical hardwood hammocks,and salt marshes.
3 Total in acres.
4 Ownership information is from the Monroe County Property Appraiser.
S Species recorded are those threatened and endangered species recorded by the USFWS for a particular
parcel;a blank cell does not necessarily indicate an absence of protected species on that parcel(s).
SS =Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly;TS=Tree Snail; IS= Eastern Indigo Snake;WR= Key Largo Woodrat; CM
=Key Largo Cottonmouse;SR=Silver Rice Rat; KD= Key Deer;TC=Tree Cactus
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
taw
Conservation and Coastal Management 110 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 3.10 - Inventor of Freshwater Ponds and Salt Ponds
Ownership l
Site Name Total' Federal State County Non- Cities Utilities Private Species Recorded
Profit
Lower Keys
Bahia Honda
State Park 9.2 KD
Florida Keys
Wildlife and 61.1 0.6 KD,MR,SR
Environmental
Area2
Great White
Heron National 82.3 2.3 12.9 KD,MR,SR
Wildlife Refuge
John J.Pescatello
Torchwood
Hammock 20.3 KD
Preserve
Monroe County 12.9 KD,SR
Managed Areas
National Key 313.3 50.8 6.5 KD,MR,SR
Deer Refuge
Naval Air Station 241.5 0.1 KD,MR,SR
Saddle Bunch
Keys 0.5 SR
41111e Outside of 71.0 86.8 26.5 6.6 426.5 KD,MR,SR
Parks/Refuges
Lower Keys 1,431.7 708.1 223.1 26.5 27.4 0 0 446.6
Total
Middle Keys
Lignumvitae Key
Botanical State 22.0
Park
Long Key State 15.7 0.2
Park
Outside of 0.7 1.8 14.0
Parks/Refuges
Middle Keys 1,470.6 1,416.2 38.4 2.0 0 0 0 14.0
Total _
Upper Keys
Crocodile Lake
National Wildlife 359.6 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1
Refuge
Crocodile Lake 2.0 3.7
Sanctuary
Cross Key 1.3
400
Conservation and Coastal Management 111 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
111111100 Table 3.10-Inventor of Freshwater Ponds and Salt Ponds continued
Ownership
Site Name Total; Non- Species
Federal State County Profit Cities Utilities Private
Recorded'
Dagney Johnson
Key Largo
Hammock 28.2 0.1
Botanical State
Park
Everglades
National Park6 279.8
Florida Keys
Wildlife and 58.3 01
Environmental
Area2
John Pennecamp
Coral Reef State 9.5 0.1
Park
Monroe County
Managed Areas 6.5
Tarpon Basin 6.8 1.1 43.7
Outside of 1.9 1.8 3.0 0.1 1.06 117.0
Parks/Refuges
Upper Keys 926.7 650.1 106.1 3.1 49 0 1.0 117.4
Total
Total County 3,829.0 2,774.4 367.6 31.6 76.4 0 1.0 578.0
Footnotes 1-5 are the same as in Table 3.9.
6 Florida Keys Mosquito Control District
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
tir
Conservation and Coastal Management 112 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
3,9.7,4 Known Pollution Problems antjor Issues Related to Freshwater
Wetlands
Freshwater wetlands, ponds,and pools are above-ground expressions of freshwater lenses.
The Big Pine Key lens system is probably the most studied and the best mapped. The
effects of urbanization were documented on both the horizontal and vertical extent of the
lenses, especially the southern lens (Kalla, 2000). Areas of saltwater intrusion were
documented due to freshwater withdrawals. Seasonal changes have also been
documented. Seasonal high tides and heavy rains during the wet season develop strong
outflows.
Until 1986, when the County adopted the Florida Keys Comprehensive Plan, freshwater
wetlands in the Florida Keys were filled routinely for purposes of providing dry land for
development. Some were used as borrow pits or for limestone mining. In 1986,the County
adopted its current LDRs,which effectively stopped such activities in the Keys.
Pollution problems and other concerns related to freshwater wetlands which remain today
include:
• illegal dumping;
• disturbance at the fringe of freshwater wetlands caused by the proximity to developed
41, land uses;
• colonization by invasive plant species;
• groundwater withdrawals from irrigation wells;
• injection wells for storage of stormwater volumes;
• mosquito ditches and seawater canals; and
• sea level rise.
Illegal dumping is a problem along the perimeter of freshwater wetlands, particularly
where there is vehicular access. This is of special concern due to the potential dumping of
uncontained hazardous wastes which can leach into the soil and enter groundwater.
Some freshwater wetlands are disturbed by off-road vehicles. Wetland plants are very
susceptible to compaction. Where they are killed by repeated vehicular use, soil conditions
are usually unfavorable for their recolonization. Once formed, tracks usually remain bare
- --- or are revegetated by invasive plant species. Colonization by invasive exotic plant species
is a problem at the edges and within freshwater systems.
Proximity of developed land uses to freshwater wetlands tends to adversely affect
perimeter areas of the wetland. These impacts are typically direct physical effects caused
by landowner dumping of yard debris at the perimeter of residential lots and the
cumulative impacts of homeowners through the years caused by yard improvements, such
as perimeter clearing, minor spot filling,and planting of non-native plant materials.
(
Conservation and Coastal Management 113 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
C Horizontal flow of groundwater contaminated with nutrients is the major source of
�+ nonpoint source nutrient transport to surface freshwater resources. On Big Pine Key,
nutrient pollution of groundwater results primarily from inadequate treatment of
wastewater by OSTDS, with secondary contamination from discharges or drainfields
(Lapointe, 1989; Lapointe et al., 1999). Other less significant contaminant sources include
cesspits and fertilizers.
Nutrient-polluted groundwater in the freshwater lenses flows down-gradient into surface
waters as a function of "wet-dry" seasonality (Lapointe et al., 1999). Nutrient
concentrations of surface waters are highest in the spring-summer-fall wet season when
there is greater release of contaminated water from the subsurface freshwater lenses.
During this period there are greater man-made loading rates to groundwater (due to
increased transient residential populations) and greater hydraulic head due to increased
rainfall (recharge).
Historically, wells were installed in freshwater lenses. Many of these were installed by
private landowners for domestic water supply for the house and/or landscaping, but there
were also some commercial uses such as irrigation for nurseries. The amount of water
withdrawn from wells is unknown, but anecdotal evidence suggests that withdrawals have
declined due to closure of several plant nurseries and due to closure of individual private
wells for domestic use. When homes connect to the public water supply, the FKAA requires
that homeowners abandon (backfill) their well so that lens water can no longer be
withdrawn. Hanson's study (1980) of the fresh water on Big Pine Key found that continued
pumping from shallow wells would probably not damage the system. However, he projected
that future increased withdrawals from new residences and new or enlarged plant nurseries
would "increase the stress on the freshwater lens which can only supply moderate amounts
without detrimental effects during most years". Indeed, subsequent investigation showed
that the effects of urbanization were being exhibited by the freshwater lens (Stewart et al,
1989). The southeast lens on the Key has decreased in lateral extent and maximum depth
and is clearly affected by saltwater intrusion due to pumping and canal dredging activities. A
modeled simulation of pre-development and current conditions on Big Pine Key showed that
the total volume of the lens has decreased by 20 percent in response to dredging of canals
(Langevin et al., 1998).
The potential effects of sea level rise on freshwater lenses include the decrease in size of
freshwater lens, either on a permanent or seasonal basis. Other factors include a potential
increase in hurricane intensity, which could mean more severe storm surges. Ross et al.
(1994) concluded that sea level rise and associated salinization of groundwater and soil
water is a major factor in the reduction of pine forests of Sugarloaf Key. Ross et al. (1994)
also concluded that as sea level continues to rise,the Florida Keys will experience a decline in
both landscape and species diversity, as species-rich upland communities are replaced by
simpler mangrove communities.
Conservation and Coastal Management 114 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
3.9.7.5 Potential for Conservation. Use. or Protection of Freshwater Wetlands
Continued government acquisition of freshwater wetlands in the Lower Keys offers the
greatest opportunity for conservation of these critical resource areas. Acquisition efforts
should continue to focus on freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, buffer areas, and the
critical recharge areas of the groundwater lenses which sustain freshwater flows into the
wetland habitat areas.
KERF has completed a number of freshwater restoration projects, with other projects in
various stages of planning and phased restoration. The Fund has removed fill from 35
acres and has removed 4 miles of abandoned roadbed, and the restored water flows have
assumed benefits to approximately 1000 acres of wetland or nearshore waters (Audubon
of Florida website6).
3.9.8 Disturbed Wetlands
3.9.8.1 General Characteristics of Disturbed Wetlands
Disturbed land is defined as follows in the Monroe County LDRs:
"Disturbed land means land that manifests signs of environmental disturbance
4air _.which has had an observable effect on the structure and function of the natural
community which existed on the site prior to the disturbance."
The current land use maps do not include a separate category for disturbed wetlands.
Instead, most disturbed wetlands are included in the Undeveloped Land category,although
some disturbed wetlands are mapped as mangrove, buttonwood,or other wetland habitats.
According to the land use cover class maps, undeveloped lands are defined as,
"... open, scarified,or disturbed lands which tend to have uncertain land uses and
may contain native species."
Although this category contains mostly upland disturbed habitats, it may also contain
disturbed wetlands.
Cnncisrent with these definitions, disturbed wetland communities show obvious signs of
environmental disturbance which has had an observable effect on the original wetland
community. The current Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs allow filling only in Disturbed
Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands with appropriate mitigation; all other wetland
categories have open space requirements of 100 percent. Further, only those disturbed
Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands that have a KEYWEP score below 7.0 (or are
assigned a green flag) are suitable for filling with appropriate mitigation, as determined by
410, 6 http://www.audubonofflorida.org/specialplaces FloridaKeys.html,accessed June 2,2010.
Conservation and Coastal Management 115 Technical Document: July 2011