Ordinance 040-1998
.,
ORDINANCE No.Jl!J.O-1998
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SECTIONS 9.5-336 THROUGH 9.5-342,
REGARDING THE HABITAT EVALUATION INDEX (HEI); PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES
INCONSISTENT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION INTO
THE MONROE COUNTY CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Momoe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan requires revisions to
the Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) to better protect the natural resources of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Momoe County Environmental Resources Department is proposing
amendments to the Momoe County Land Development Regulations relating to the Habitat
Evaluation Index (HEI) system in order to implement policies contained in the Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan and to better differentiate high, moderate, and low quality habitats; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on June 4, 1998, the Development Review Committee
considered the proposal and recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Planning
Commission in Resolution No, DOl-98; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on June 17, 1998, the Momoe County Planning
Commission, sitting as the local planning agency, after due notice and public participation in the
public hearing process, conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of the proposed
amendments to the Board in Resolution No. P46-98, with the recommendation that
implementation of the revisions be contingent upon adoption of revisions to related regulations
concerning open space requirements, transplantation, and environmental design criteria; and
WHEREAS, based on the above fmdings, the Board has determined that it is necess~
and desirable to amend the above referenced Land Development Regulations; and 0 0
~ .:t.'>
::0("')-
o r-:-
rr, ;:1_ ...,;
("'). 'r;"
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF g~.._".
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: :.r:. c)
-l CJ r-
:"<:-;.::r:
"?J . )::~
r- C)
? n,
NOW THEREFORE,
\0
\Q
k
:zo:
.."
r==
,."
o
.."
CJ
::v
:::0
rll
(")
CJ
::::0
o
-
-
Section 1. Sections 9.5-336 through 9.5-342 of the Momoe County Land Development
Regulations are hereby amended to read as shown on attached "Exhibit 1":
.bo
::z
9
~
......,
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held
invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity,
Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 4. The provisions of this ordinance shall be included and incorporated in the Code of
Ordinances of the County of Momoe, Florida, as an addition or amendment thereto, and shall be
appropriately renumbered to conform to the uniform numbering system of the Code.
Page 10f2
Section 5. The provision of this ordinance shall take effect when acknowledgment of its receipt
for filing in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida has been received and when
it has been approved by the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to F.S. 380.0552(9).
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 9 thday of De c emb,a~ ~9 9 8
Mayor Harvey
Mayor Pro Tern Freeman
Commissioner Neugent
Commissioner Williams
Commissioner Reich
absent
~
~
~
~
M' ~~.~'~i ..,~
.' . .' '\.
......./".~"... -r..:.. ".' .'\),..
r.... (.. ~ 7 "\..ol. "
\" . '. I' ./~
. : '. j E~~" . . .~
;'., <
. f:...:I. .. "liP.
. ".."1
\. '." .A.t/;/ .
~~.....~ '. ".=...~ .=--:~:::~' .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
. ~ ~
BY~
MAYOR/CHAIRMAN
(SEAL)
A TrEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
12'1'E~~ ~tcfM..-'
BY
Page 2 of2
BOCC Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LDR revisions)
1 Draft Revision of the Habitat Analysis
2 Monroe County Land Development Regulations Sections 9.5-336 through 9.5-342.
3
4
5
6 Sec. 9.5-336. Habitat analysis required.
7 (a) As a part of an application for approval of development on lands classified on
8 the existing conditions map as slash pineland or tropical hardwood hammock, the
9 applicant shall prepare and submit a habitat analysis that analyzes the distribution
10 and quality of undisturbed lands within the parcel proposed to be developed in
11 accordance with the standards of this division unless the applicant stipulates that
12 the slash pinelands or tropical hardwood hammock is of high quality pursuant to
13 the provisions of this chapter. Once a development permit has been issued and
14 site preparation commenced, the habitat quality rating either resulting from the
15 habitat analysis or as a result of the applicant's stipulation of high quality shall
16 remain in perpetuity and all future development of the parcel shall conform to the
17 applicable pinelands or hammock so analyzed or stipulated. This shall be assured
18 by attachment of a deed restriction to run with the land, stating the amount of
19 required open space. Likewise, a habitat analysis which is part of a development
20 application or permit, which application for development is then denied or
21 abandoned or which permit is abandoned or expired without site preparation
22 having commenced, shall be revised and resubmitted according to the applicable
23 standards at the time of submittal of a new application for development.
24
25 (b) The habitat analysis shall be prepared in accordance with the procedures and
26 methods specified herein by a biologist qualified under section 9.5-28 of this
27 chapter, however, all habitat analyses are subject to the approval of the county
28 biologist. Where the habitat analysis requires consideration of commercially
29 exploited, threatened or endangered plant and animal species, the analysis shall
30 consider those native plants and animals listed under state and federal law at the
31 time Uu: g~'.'~IQ~IR~at :iPln'Q'.'al iE EQugGt of application. Where consideration of
32 regionally important plants is required, the habitat analysis shall consider those
33 plants listed by the Monroe County Environmental Resources Department at the
34 time tR~ g~"~IQ~IR~at :ipprQ"al iE EQYgRt of application.
35
36 (c) The habitat analysis required pursuant to this section on any residentially
37 zoned parcel of land that is the subject of an unexpired, positive determination of
38 vested rights shall be conducted pursuant to the land development regulations in
39 effect at the time the vested rights determination was made.
40
41 Sec. 9.5-337. Waiver of habitat analysis.
42 The Director of Environmental Resources d-ir~~tgr gfplaPlRRg may, Yp9R Ul~
43 r~~glIYR~RgatiQR 9ftR~ ~g~j' 9iQIQgiEt after a site visit, waive or limit the requirements
1
HEI in LDR format; December 9,1998
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LDR revisions)
1 for a habitat analysis if the director determines that there are no significant natural areas
2 on the parcel proposed for development.
3
4
5
6
7 9.5-338. Habitat type analysis.
8 (a) The analysis of the quality of undisturbed land shall be carried out according
9 to the following habitat types as indicated on the existing conditions map:
10 (1) High hammock;
11 (2) Low hammock;
12 (3) Pinelands.
13 (b) '~~iri a parsil 9flaml ~9lRailli: lR9fi tRail. 9Ri (1) habitat ~ll'i, ia~R Rabitat
14 ~Rall bi all.al)~iQ i:iparatil-y.
15
16 9.5-338.1. Habitat analysis objective.
17 (a) The habitat analysis, also known as the habitat evaluation index (HEI) system,
18 shall evaluate the relative ecological and cultural quality of the remaining
19 hardwood hammocks and slash pine lands of the Florida Keys both with respect to
20 their inherent character and integrity and their context in the Florida Keys
21 ecosystem landscape.
22
23
24 9.5-338.2. Automatic hi2h quality forest classification.
25 (a) Tropical hardwood hammocks and slash pinelands that meet the requirements
26 of this section shall be classified as high quality habitats without the need for a
27 habitat analysis.
28 (1) Category 1: Tropical hardwood hammocks of 12.5 acres or more in
29 size shall be classified as high quality hammocks.
30 a. Rationale: These hammocks are important due to their size,
31 landscape position, and relatively undisturbed character. The
32 documented use of these hammocks by forest-nesting and fledgling
33 birds elevates their potential importance with respect to wildlife
34 value in general. In fact most of them currently have documented
35 status as habitat for listed animal species and as habitat for many
36 rare and listed plants. Many also contain potentially rare and
37 valuable archaeological resources.
38 (2) Category 2: Tropical hardwood hammocks owned by federal, state or
39 local governments or by private organizations that are managed or were
40 purchased for the primary purpose of conservation shall be classified as
41 high quality hammocks.
42 a. Rationale: Hammocks purchased for their conservation or
43 preservation value should presumably be managed to conserve and
44 enhance that value.
2
HEI in LDR format; December 9, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LDR revisions)
(3) Category 3: Tropical hardwood hammocks on offshore islands
(islands not connected by vehicular access to the Overseas Highway) shall
be classified as high quality hammocks.
a. Rationale: The landscape position feature makes these
hammocks valuable, especially with respect to their integral
relationship with the marine community. Offshore islands also
usually represent areas of minimal disturbance and exposure to
secondary impacts.
(4) Category 4: All slash pinel and habitats excluding those located within
Improved Subdivision (IS) zoning districts shall be classified as high
quality pinelands.
a. Rationale: Pinelands are crucial habitat for the endangered Key
deer and harbor significant freshwater wetlands that serve as
habitat to a number of other listed and non-listed wildlife species.
This habitat likewise harbors a wide range of listed, rare and
endemic plants. Regularly burned pinelands are of unquestionably
higher quality than non-burned pinelands. Pineland habitat in the
keys is rare and any areas that have a possibility of undergoing
burn management are considered to have a substantial level of
value for conservation. Burning and mechanical removal of
hardwood and deadwood buildup for small pineland parcels is
increasingly practiced. IS-zoned pinelands are specifically
excluded here due to increased secondary impacts, increased costs
and logistical coordination needed for burning, and land use
considerations.
(5) Category 5: Palm Hammocks: A hammock or portion thereof which
contains a prevalence of palms of the genus Thrinax as determined by the
procedures outlined in this division shall be classified as high quality
habitat.
a. Rationale: Monroe County contains the only rockland palm
hammocks in the United States and these are found primarily (but
not exclusively) in the middle keys (Grassy Key through Key
Vaca). Most of them have been permanently removed (Key Vaca).
One significant stand (Curry Hammock) is a state park. The
remainder should be protected to preserve a valuable cultural
resource and wildlife habitat.
(6) Category 6: Berm hammocks found on sandy berm substrate, usually
at or near the shoreline shall be classified as high quality habitats.
a. Rationale: Berm hammocks are extremely rare and are unique
to the Florida Keys. They are often subjected to intense
development pressures due to their shoreline location. The
remainder should be protected to preserve a valuable cultural
resource and wildlife habitat.
3
HE! in LDR format; December 9, 1998
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LDR revisions)
1 (7) Catef(ory 7: Cactus hammocks with a prevalence of native cactus
2 species of the genera Opuntia and Cereus shall be classified as high
3 quality habitats.
4 a. Rationale: Cactus hammocks are extremely rare in and unique
5 to the Florida Keys and the remainder should be protected to
6 preserve a valuable cultural resource and wildlife habitat.
7 (8) Category 8: Coastal Rock Barrens communities with often sparse,
8 low-growing xeric rare plants and cacti shall be classified as high quality
9 habitats. Vegetation is distinctive with the occurrence of relatively rare
10 ground covers such as Indif(ofera keyensis, Opuntia triacantha and others.
11 a. Rationale: This is an extremely rare community that is
12 currently known at only four sites in the Florida Keys. The
13 remaining habitat should be protected to preserve a valuable
14 cultural and wildlife habitat, especially for rare plants.
15
16 9.5-338.3. Habitat analysis definitions and approach.
17 (a) If the tropical hardwood hammock or pineland does not automatically qualify
18 for one of the above high quality categories, a habitat analysis must be completed
19 as required by this division. The methods and procedures for performing the
20 habitat analysis shall be set forth by the Director of Environmental Resources and
21 shall be made available in the form of a procedural handbook to qualified
22 biologists wishing to conduct habitat analyses in the Florida Keys. The handbook
23 may be updated from time to time by the Director of Environmental Resources.
24 The handbook shall include official lists of threatened, endangered, commercially
25 exploited, regionally important and invasive exotic plants to be used in
26 conducting the habitat analysis. The official Threatened and Endangered Animal
27 Species Maps shall also be made available by the county for inspection by
28 qualified biologists to fulfill the procedural requirements of conducting the habitat
29 analysis. The Threatened and Endangered Animal Species Maps may be updated
30 as required from time to time at the discretion of the Board of County
31 Commissioners using the procedure outlined in Section 9.5-511. The quality of
32 the tropical hardwood hammock or slash pineland shall be rated according to the
33 criteria listed in this division for each habitat type and according to the guidance
34 provided by the habitat analysis handbook and the Director of Environmental
35 Resources. The handbook shall also set forth official procedures for
36 determination of palm hammocks and other automatic quality categories.
37
38 9.5-339. Habitat analysis for high hammocks.
39 (a) TO BE DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY
40 (b) TO BE REPLACED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH THE FOLLOWING TEXT:
41 The quality of high hammocks shall be analyzed on the basis of the following
42 indices and scores:
43 (1)Tree size:
4
HEI in LDR format; December 9, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LOR revisions)
a. Rationale: Larger trees indicate older, more mature hammocks
which are culturally and ecologically important and also may
generally increase available habitat niches.
b. For hammocks located from Plantation Key north (inclusive):
1. The three dominant canopy tree species have average
diameters at breast height (DBHs) of 8 inches or more
indicates a score of 1.5.
2. Two of the three dominant canopy tree species have
average DBHs of 8 inches or more indicates a score of 1.0.
3. One of the three dominant canopy tree species has an
average DBH of 8 inches or more indicates a score of 0.5.
4. None of the dominant canopy tree species have average
DBHs of 8 inches or more indicates a score of O.
c. For hammocks located from Windley Key south (inclusive):
1. The three dominant canopy tree species have average
diameters at breast height (DBHs) of 6 inches or more
indicates a score of 1.5.
2. Two of the three dominant canopy tree species have
average DBHs of 6 inches or more indicates a score of 1.0.
3. One ofthe three dominant canopy tree species has an
average DBH of6 inches or more indicates a score ofO.5.
4. None of the dominant canopy tree species have average
DBHs of 6 inches or more indicates a score of O.
(2) Soil depth:
a. Rationale: Hammocks with greater soil humus depth are
generally older and more mature. They've had no disturbance or a
length oftime has passed since the last disturbance. They
generally present a greater diversity and integrity of microhabitats
for wildlife and plants including soil organisms and stable soil
chemistry.
b. An average soil depth of 4 inches or more indicates a score of
2.0.
c. An average soil depth of 2 inches or more but less than 4 inches
indicates a score of 1.0.
d. An average soil depth of less than 2 inches indicates a score of
O.
(3) Woody plant species diversity:
a. Rationale: Hammocks with higher diversity are ecologically
and culturally significant in that they are a natural seed source for
plant species dispersal and may represent more mature forests.
These hammocks represent a storehouse of biological diversity and
essentially define hardwood forest character in the Florida Keys.
5
HEI in LDR format; December 9, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LDR revisions)
b. For hammocks located from Plantation Key north (inclusive):
1. 37 or more native woody species present indicates a
score of 6.0.
2. 32-36 native woody species present indicates a score of
5.0.
3. 27-31 native woody species present indicates a score of
4.0.
4. 22-26 native woody species present indicates a score of
3.0.
5. 17-21 native woody species present indicates a score of
2.0.
6. 12-16 native woody species present indicates a score of
1.0.
7. Less than 12 native woody species present indicates a
score of O.
c. For hammocks located from Windley Key south (inclusive):
1. 34 or more native woody species present indicates a
score of 6.0.
2. 29-33 native woody species present indicates a score of
5.0.
3. 24-28 native woody species present indicates a score of
4.0.
4. 19-23 native woody species present indicates a score of
3.0.
5. 14-18 native woody species present indicates a score of
2.0.
6. 9-13 native woody species present indicates a score of
1.0.
7. Less than 9 native woody species present indicates a
score ofO.
(4) Threatened, endangered, commercially exploited and regionally
important plants:
a. Rationale: A hammock that provides habitat and conditions for
rare and listed plants to flourish has a relatively significant
ecological and cultural value. The presence of rare plants often
indicates a greater habitat stability in terms of microclimate and
niche availability for these plants.
b. For hammocks located from Plantation Key north (inclusive):
1. 12 or more listed species present indicates a score of3.0.
2. 7-11 listed species present indicates a score of2.0.
3. 1-6 listed species present indicates a score of 1.0.
4. No listed species present indicates a score of O.
c. For hammocks located from Windley Key south (inclusive):
6
HEI in LDR format; December 9, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LDR revisions)
1. 10 or more listed species present indicates a score of3.0.
2. 5-9 listed species present indicates a score of2.0.
3. 1-4 listed species present indicates a score of 1.0.
4. No listed species present indicates a score ofO.
(5) Invasive exotic plant infestations:
a. Rationale: The more susceptible (less resistant) a hammock is
to exotic invasion, the more likely it is that the habitat is of lower
complexity or integrity or that it is not sufficiently insulated from
such effects.
b. Total invasive exotic infestation of 5% or less indicates a score
of4.0.
c. Total invasive exotic infestation is more than 5% but infestation
by combined Category 1 invasives is at 5% or less indicates a score
of3.5.
d. Six percent (6%) to 10% infestation by Category 1 invasives
indicates a score of3.0.
e. Eleven percent (11 %) to 20% infestation by Category 1
invasives indicates a score of2.0.
f. Twenty-one percent (21 %) to 30% infestation by Category 1
invasives indicates a score of 1.0.
g. More than 30% infestation by Category 1 invasives indicates a
score ofO.
(6) Threatened and endangered animal species:
a. Rationale: Hammock that provides habitat for listed animal
species is presumed to provide important and intact wildlife refuge
areas that should be preserved for ecological and cultural reasons.
Potential habitat is extremely important for provision of recovery
areas and temporary refuge.
b. The hammock is a known or probable habitat for listed animal
species indicates a score of 3.0.
c. The hammock is a potential habitat for listed animal species
indicates a score of2.0.
d. The hammock has no mapped or documented status for listed
animal species indicates a score of O.
(7) Forest size:
a. Rationale: Larger forests are less subject to disturbance due to
an insulating effect. They are also more likely to contain a higher
structural, microhabitat, and species diversity due to the
heterogeneous nature of tropical hammock plant distribution.
Larger forests are also more attractive habitat for birds and other
7
HEI in LDR format; December 9, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LDR revisions)
wildlife as indicated primarily by the keynote species studies done
for various birds.
b. The contiguous hammock is 10 or more acres in size indicates a
score of5,O.
c. The contiguous hammock is at least 7 but less than 10 acres in
size indicates a score of 4.0.
d. The contiguous hammock is at least 4 but less than 7 acres in
size indicates a score of 3.0.
e. The contiguous hammock is at least 1 but less than 4 acres in
size indicates a score of2.0.
f. The contiguous hammock is at least 0.375 acres but less than 1
acre in size indicates a score of 1.0.
g. The contiguous hammock is less than 0.375 acres in size
indicates a score of O.
(8) Perimeter disturbance:
a. Rationale: The level of fragmentation of a hammock, measured
as the amount of perimeter disturbance related to size, has been
shown to lower the resistance of hammocks to direct and secondary
effects of the disturbance, especially where development exists.
These disturbances include exotic invasion sources, exotic
predators, human intrusion, and others. The integrity of the
hammock habitat can be lowered by the extent and nature of
perimeter disturbance versus the ability of the hammock to
withstand it.
b. An edge to area ratio of 0.005 or less indicates a score of3.0.
c. An edge to area ratio of more than 0.005 but less than 0.01
indicates a score of2.0.
d. An edge to area ratio of 0.01 or more but less than 0.02
indicates a score of 1.0.
e. An edge to area ratio of 0.02 or more indicates a score ofO.
(9) Wildlife habitat:
a. Rationale: A primary hammock function in the Keys is
availability of food sources for resident and migratory birds and
other animals. In fact, the development of our highly diverse
tropical Caribbean hammocks is owed in large part to transport of
Caribbean flora by the white-crowned pigeon and other migrating
birds. This availability is relatively easy to determine. It is
measured by the quality and amount of fruit produced by the
hammock. The better the fruit production of the hammock, the
more likely it is that birds and other animals on which hammock
distribution and seed dispersal depend will utilize the resource.
8
HEI in LDR format; December 9,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LOR revisions)
These areas are also considered important for maintenance of
resident and migratory bird populations.
b. 15 or more species of Category 1 fruit producers indicates a
score of3.0.
c. 12 or more species of Category 1 fruit producers, or, 22 or more
species of combined Categories 1 and 2 fruit producers indicates a
score of2.5.
d. 10 or more species of Category 1 fruit producers, or, 18 or more
species of combined Categories 1 and 2 fruit producers indicates a
score of2.0.
e. 20 or more species of any Category fruit producers indicates a
score of 1.5.
f. 15-19 species of any Category fruit producers (at least one
species must be in Category 1 or 2) indicates a score of 1.0.
g. Less than 15 of any Category fruit producers, or, all fruit
producers are in Category 3 indicates a score of o.
(10) Community connectivity:
a. Rationale: Nearly as important as size is the landscape position
of the hammock within the local island and overall Keys island
ecosystem. Isolation from other useable habitats caused by
intervening development has short term effects on behavior
patterns influencing forest availability to wildlife, and long term
effects on dispersal and breeding patterns affecting species
populations.
b. Award only one of the following scores (if applicable):
1. The hammock is part of a contiguous closed canopy
hammock, buttonwood and/or mangrove forest (any
combination of these habitats) with a combined contiguous
closed canopy of at least 12.5 acres in size but less than 30
acres in size indicates a score ofO.5.
2. The hammock is part of a contiguous closed canopy
hammock, buttonwood and/or mangrove forest (any
combination of these habitats) with a combined contiguous
closed canopy of 30 acres or more in size indicates a score
of1.0.
c. Award only one of the following scores (if applicable) and add
it to the score from subsection b above (if awarded) to obtain the
total score for this criterion:
1. The hammock is contiguous with or within 300 feet of
at least 10 acres but less than 50 acres of contiguous
undisturbed habitat of any class or combination of classes
including salt marsh, buttonwood wetlands, hammock,
beach berm, coastal rock barrens, freshwater wetlands,
9
HEI in LDR format; December 9, 1998
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LOR revisions)
1 freshwater ponds, salt ponds, mangroves and/or
2 enclosed/semi-enclosed embayments indicates a score of
3 0.5.
4 2. The hammock is contiguous with or within 300 feet of
5 50 or more acres of contiguous undisturbed habitat of any
6 class or combination of classes including salt marsh,
7 buttonwood wetlands, hammock, beach berm, coastal rock
8 barrens, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, salt ponds,
9 mangroves, and/or enclosed semi-enclosed embayments
10 indicates a score of 1.0.
11
12 (c) The quality of the hammock shall be determined on the basis of the
13 cumulative scores indicated under subsection (b) as follows:
14 (1) A cumulative score of ~ 27 or higher shall indicate a high quality
15 high hammock;
16 (2) A cumulative score of gr~at~ thaa. 12 16 or more but less than ~ 27
17 shall indicate a moderate quality high hammock; and
18 (3) A cumulative score ofless than U 16 shall indicate a low quality high
19 hammock.
20
21 9.5-340. Habitat analysis for low hammocks.
22 (a) TO BE DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY
23 (b) TO BE REPLACED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH THE FOLLOWING TEXT:
24 If the habitat type is low hammock, the applicant shall provide the following
25 required information:
26 (1) Woody plant species diversity:
27 a. Rationale: Hammocks with higher diversity are ecologically
28 and culturally significant in that they are a natural seed source for
29 plant species dispersal and may represent more mature forests.
30 These hammocks represent a storehouse of biological diversity and
31 essentially define hardwood forest character in the Florida Keys.
32 b. 23 or more native woody species present indicates a score of
33 6.0.
34 c. 20-22 native woody species present indicates a score of 5.0.
35 d. 17-19 native woody species present indicates a score of 4.0.
36 e. 14-16 native woody species present indicates a score of 3.0.
37 f. 11-13 native woody species present indicates a score of2.0.
38 g. 8-10 native woody species present indicates a score of 1.0.
39 h. Less than 8 native woody species present indicates a score ofO.
40
41 (2) Threatened, endangered, commercially exploited and regionally
42 important plants:
43 a. Rationale: Hammocks that provide habitat and conditions for
44 rare and listed plants to flourish have a relatively significant
10
HE! in LDR format; December 9, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LOR revisions)
ecological and cultural value. The presence of rare plants often
indicates a greater habitat stability in terms of microclimate and
niche availability for these plants.
b. 6 or more listed species present indicates a score 3.0.
c. 3-5 listed species present indicates a score of 2.0,
d. 1-2 listed species present indicates a score of 1.0.
e. No listed species present indicates a score of O.
(3) Invasive exotic plant infestations:
a. Rationale: The more susceptible (less resistant) a hammock is
to exotic invasion, the more likely it is that the habitat is of lower
complexity or integrity or that it is not sufficiently insulated from
such effects.
b. Total invasive exotic infestation of 5% or less indicates a score
of4.0.
c. Total invasive exotic infestation is more than 5% but infestation
by combined Category 1 invasives is at 5% or less indicates a score
of3.5.
d. Six percent (6%) to 10% infestation by Category 1 invasives
indicates a score of3.0.
e. Eleven percent (11 %) to 20% infestation by Category 1
invasives indicates a score of2.0.
f. Twenty-one percent (21 %) to 30% infestation by Category 1
invasives indicates a score of 1.0.
g. More than 30% infestation by Category 1 invasives indicates a
score of O.
(4) Threatened and endangered animal species:
a. Rationale: Hammock that provides habitat for listed animal
species is presumed to provide important and intact wildlife refuge
areas that should be preserved for ecological and cultural reasons.
Potential habitat is extremely important for provision of recovery
areas and temporary refuge.
b. The hammock is a known or probable habitat for listed animal
species indicates a score of3.0.
c. The hammock is a potential habitat for listed animal species
indicates a score of2.0.
d. The hammock has no mapped or documented status for listed
animal species indicates a score of O.
(5) Forest size:
a. Rationale: Larger forests are less subject to disturbance due to
an insulating effect. They are also more likely to contain a higher
structural, microhabitat, and species diversity due to the
11
HEI in LDR format; December 9, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LOR revisions)
heterogeneous nature of tropical hammock plant distribution here.
Larger forests are also more attractive habitat for birds and other
wildlife as indicated primarily by the keynote species studies done
for various birds.
b. The contiguous hammock is 10 or more acres in size indicates a
score of5.0.
c. The contiguous hammock is at least 7 but less than 10 acres in
size indicates a score of 4.0.
d. The contiguous hammock is at least 4 but less than 7 acres in
size indicates a score of3.0.
e. The contiguous hammock is at least 1 but less than 4 acres in
size indicates a score of 2.0.
f. The contiguous hammock is at least 0.375 acres but less than 1
acre in size indicates a score of 1.0.
g. The contiguous hammock is less than 0.375 acres in size
indicates a score of O.
(6) Perimeter disturbance:
a. Rationale: The level of fragmentation of a hammock, measured
as the amount of perimeter disturbance related to its size, has been
shown to lower the resistance of hammocks to direct and secondary
effects of the disturbance, especially where development exists.
These disturbances include exotic invasion sources, exotic
predators, human intrusion, and others. The integrity of the
hammock habitat can be lowered by the extent and nature of
perimeter disturbance versus the ability of the hammock to
withstand it.
b. An edge to area ratio of 0.005 or less indicates a score of3.0.
c. An edge to area ratio of more than 0.005 but less than 0.01
indicates a score of 2.0.
d. An edge to area ratio of 0.01 or more but less than 0.02
indicates a score of 1.0.
e. An edge to area ratio of 0.02 or more indicates a score ofO.
(7) Wildlife habitat:
a. Rationale: A primary hammock function in the Keys is
availability of food sources for resident and migratory birds and
other animals. In fact, the development of our highly diverse
tropical Caribbean hammocks is owed in large part to transport of
Caribbean flora by the white-crowned pigeon and other migrating
birds. This availability is a relatively easy to determine. It is
measured by the quality and amount of fruit produced by the
hammock. The better the fruit production of the hammock, the
more likely it is that birds and other animals on which hammock
distribution and seed dispersal depend will utilize the resource.
12
HEI in LDR format; December 9, 1998
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LDR revisions)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
These areas are also considered important for maintenance of
resident and migratory bird populations.
b. 10 or more species of Category 1 fruit producers indicates a
score of 3.0.
c. 8 or more species of Category 1 fruit producers, or, 15 or more
species of combined Categories 1 and 2 fruit producers indicates a
score of2.5.
d. 5 or more species of Category 1 fruit producers, or, 12 or more
species of combined Categories 1 and 2 fruit producers indicates a
score of2.0.
e. 15 or more species of any Category fruit producers (at least one
species must be in Category 1 or 2) indicates a score of 1.5.
f. 10-14 species of any Category fruit producers (at least one
species must be in Category 1 or 2) indicates a score of 1.0.
g. Less than 10 of any Category fruit producers, or all fruit
producers are in Category 3 indicates a score of O.
(8) Community connectivity:
a. Rationale: Nearly as important as size is the landscape position
of the hammock within the local island and overall Keys island
ecosystem. Isolation from other useab1e habitats caused by
intervening development has short term effects on behavior
patterns influencing forest availability to wildlife, and long term
effects on dispersal and breeding patterns affecting species
populations.
b. Award only one ofthe following scores (if applicable):
1. The hammock is part of a contiguous closed canopy
hammock, buttonwood and/or mangrove forest (any
combination of these habitats) with a combined contiguous
closed canopy of at least 12.5 acres in size but less than 30
acres in size indicates a score of 0.5.
2. The hammock is part of a contiguous closed canopy
hammock, buttonwood and/or mangrove forest (any
combination of these habitats) with a combined contiguous
closed canopy of 30 acres or more in size indicates a score
of1.0.
c. Award only one of the following scores (if applicable) and add
it to the score from subsection b above (if awarded) to obtain the
total score for this criterion:
1. The hammock is contiguous with or within 300 feet of
at least 10 acres but less than 50 acres of contiguous
undisturbed habitat of any class or combination of classes
including salt marsh, buttonwood wetlands, hammock,
beach berm, coastal rock barrens, freshwater wetlands,
13
HEI in LDR format; December 9, 1998
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LOR revisions)
1 freshwater ponds, salt ponds, mangroves and/or
2 enclosed/semi-enclosed embayments indicates a score of
3 0.5.
4 2. The hammock is contiguous with or within 300 feet of
5 50 or more acres of contiguous undisturbed habitat of any
6 class or combination of classes including salt marsh,
7 buttonwood wetlands, hammock, beach berm, coastal rock
8 barrens, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, salt ponds,
9 mangroves, and/or enclosed semi-enclsoed embayments
10 indicates a score of 1.0.
11
12 (c) The quality of the hammock shall be determined on the basis of the
13 cumulative scores indicated under subsection (b) as follows:
14 (1) A cumulative score of ~ 24 or higher shall indicate a high quality low
15 hammock;
16 (2) A cumulative score of gn:at~r tR:i.R 11 15 or higher but less than 2.J. 24
1 7 shall indicate a moderate quality low hammock; and
18 (3) A cumulative score ofless than ~ 15 shall indicate a low quality low
19 hammock.
20
21 9.5-341. Habitat analysis for palm hammocks.
22 TO BE DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
23
24 9.5-342. Habitat analysis for pinelands.
25 (a) TO BE DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY
26 (b) TO BE REPLACED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH THE FOLLOWING TEXT:
27 The quality of pine lands shall be analyzed on the basis ofthe following indices
28 and scores:
29 (1) Pineland size:
30 a. Rationale: Larger forests are less subject to disturbance due to
31 an insulating effect. They are also more likely to contain a higher
32 structural, microhabitat, and species diversity due to the
33 heterogeneous nature of pine1and herbaceous plant distribution.
34 Larger forests are also more amenable to culling of hardwoods and
35 deadwood through bum management.
36 b. The contiguous pine1and is 10 or more acres in size indicates a
37 score of3.0.
38 c. The contiguous pine1and is at least 3 but less than 10 acres in
39 size indicates a score of2.0.
40 d. The contiguous pinel and is at least 1 but less than 3 acres in size
41 indicates a score of 1.0.
42 e. The contiguous pine1and is less than 1 acre in size indicates a
43 score ofO.
44
14
HEI in LDR format; December 9, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LDR revisions)
(2) Perimeter disturbance:
a. Rationale: The level of fragmentation of a pineland, measured
as the amount of perimeter disturbance related to its size, has been
shown to lower the resistance of pinelands to direct and secondary
effects of the disturbance, especially where development exists.
These disturbances include exotic and hardwood invasion sources,
exotic predators, human intrusion, and others. The integrity of the
pineland habitat can be lowered by the extent and nature of
perimeter disturbance versus the ability of the pineland plant and
animal community to withstand it.
b. An edge to area ratio of more than 0.005 but less than 0.01
indicates a score of 2.0.
c. An edge to area ratio of 0.01 or more but less than 0.02
indicates a score of 1.0.
d. An edge to area ratio of 0.02 or more indicates a score ofO.
(3) Invasive Exotic Plant Infestation:
a. Rationale: The more susceptible (less resistant) a pineland is to
exotic invasion, the more likely it is that the habitat is of lower
complexity or integrity or that it is not sufficiently insulated from
such effects.
b. Total invasive exotic infestation of 5% or less indicates a score
of4.0.
c. Total invasive exotic infestation is more than 5% but infestation
by combined Category 1 invasives is at 5% or less indicates a score
of3.5.
d. Six percent (6%) to 10% infestation of Category 1 invasives
indicates a score of 3.0.
e. Eleven percent (11 %) to 20% infestation of Category 1
invasives indicates a score of2.0.
f. Twenty-one percent (21 %) to 30% infestation of Category 1
invasives indicates a score of 1.0.
g. More than 30% infestation of Category 1 invasives indicates a
score ofO.
(4) Topographic disturbance:
a. Rationale: Significant topographic disturbance, especially by
placement of limerock fill, is highly disruptive to the delicate
pineland habitat and conditions need for rare herbs and other plants
to flourish. The microhabitats, prevalence of caprock, solution
holes and pockets of fine soils and algal mats form a balanced
15
HEI in LDR format; December 9, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
soee Ordinance Exhibit 1 (LDR revisions)
ground-level ecosystem that is essentially destroyed by permanent
topographic alteration.
b. Topographic alteration of 10% or less indicates a score of 3.0.
c. Topographic alteration of 11 % or more but less than 20%
indicates a score of 2.0.
d. Topographic alteration of20% or more but less than 30%
indicates a score of 1.0.
e. Topographic alteration of 30% or more indicates a score of O.
(5) Threatened, endangered, commercially exploited and regionally
important plants:
a. Rationale: A pinel and that provides habitat and conditions for
rare and listed plants to flourish has a highly significant ecological
and cultural value. The presence of rare plants often indicates a
greater habitat stability in terms of microclimate and niche
availability for these plants and also indicates a pineland with a
healthy herbaceous component.
b. 20 or more listed species present indicates a score of 6.0.
c. 15-19 listed species present indicates a score of 5.0.
d. 11-14 listed species present indicates a score of 4.0.
e. 6-10 listed species present indicates a score of 2.0.
f. 1-5 listed species present indicates a score of 1.0.
g. No listed species present indicates a score of O.
(6) Hardwood and herbaceous plant biomass:
a. Rationale: Invasion by hardwoods and increases in hardwood
plant biomass cause pinelands to progress towards a hardwood
community crowding and shading out the herbaceous component
and eventually changing the landscape significantly. The more
advanced this successional process the lower the quality of the
pineland and the more difficult it is to arrest or reverse (both by
natural means and human management means).
b. A hardwood coverage of25% or less indicates a score of3.0.
c. Hardwood coverage of 26% - 33% indicates a score of 2.0.
d. Hardwood coverage of 34% - 50% indicates a score of 1.0.
e. Hardwood coverage of over 50% indicates a score of O.
(c) The quality of the pineland shall be determined on the basis of the cumulative
score as follows:
(1) A cumulative score of 16 ~ or higher shall indicate a high quality
pineland; and
(2) A cumulative score of less than 16 shall indicate a low quality
pineland.
16
HEI in LDR format; December 9, 1998
mannp 1... J101bagt
BRANO! OFFICE
3117 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY
MARATHON, FLORIDA 33OSO
TEL. (305) 289-6027
FAX (305) 289-1745
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
MONROE COUNTY
500 WHITEHEAD STREET
KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33040
TEL. (305) 292-3550
FAX (305) 295-3660
BRANCH OFFICE
88820 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY
PLANTATION KEY, FLORIDA 33070
TEL. (305) 852-7145
FAX (305) 852-7146
January 11, 1999
CERTDU!D MAIL
RETURN RECEIPr REQUESTFD
Mrs. Liz Cloud
Florida Department of State
Bureau of Admini$trative Code and Laws
The Elliot Building
401 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-0250
Dear Mrs. Cloud:
Enclosed please rmd a certified copy of Ordinance No. 040-1998, amending the
Monroe County Land Development Regulations, Sections 9.5-336 through 9.5-342,
regarding the Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI); providing for severability; providing for
the repeal of all Ordinances inconsistent herewith; providing for incorporation into the
Monroe County Code of Ordinances; and providing an effective date.
This Ordinance was adopted by the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners at a Regular Meeting, in fonnal session, on December 9,1998.
Please me for record.
.,,'ift!ti: .
\'.':-),~~;-::..L~;_- ~',;...,~~.......,..:._.........,.<_,
Mrs. Liz Cloud
January 11, 1999
Page 2
Sincerely,
Danny L. Kolhage
Clerk of the Circuit Court
and ex officio Clerk to the
Board of County Commissioners
By: Ruth Ann Jantzen
~~~~*;~~
pu Cler
Enclosure
cc: Mayor Wilhebnina Harvey
Mayor Pro Tem Shirley Freeman
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich
Commissioner Nora Williams
County Attorney
County Adminiqrator
Growth Management Director
File
iy-:;n....
Z 396 367 707
~ Receipt for
- Certified Mail
_ No Insurance Coverage Provided
UflITED STATES Do not use for I nternational Mail
POSTACSUYICE (See Reverse)
~ Sent to
0)
FL. DEPT. OF
.r:. Strefll Anp No
~ qUi SO. MONROE ST.
~ PO State and ZIP Code
TALLAHASSEE,FL.32399-025
o
g Postage
('I)
E
o
U-
rn
(L
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to Whom & Date Delivered
~ SEND
'a - Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
.. - Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. . .
GI - Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can retum this
l! card to you.
!! -Attach this form to the front of 1!!e. mailpiece, or on the back if space does not
! permit.
II -Write .Retum Receipt Requested. on the mailpiece below the article number.
5 -The Retum Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
c delivered.
o
'a
I
ii
E
o
u
3. Article Addressed to:
NRS. LIZ CLOUD
FLORIDA DEPT. OF STATE
BUREAU OF ADMIN. CODE AND LAWS
THE ELLIOT BUILDING
401 SO. MONROE ST.
TALLAHASSEE, FL. 32399-0250
CORD. 040-1998)
5. Received By: (Print Name)
4b. Service Type
o Registered t( Certified
o Express Mail 0 Insured
Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 COD
7. Date of Delivery J A N 1 4 1999
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an
extra fee):
~
1. D. Addressee's Address .~
2. 0 Restricted Delivery r'A
Consult postmaster for fee. 1i
4a. Article Number I
Z 396 367 707 ~
c
...
:J
G
~
D)
c
"ij
:J
...
o
-
8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
:J
o
>-
~
C
III
.c
...
~ 6. s~~ure: (Ad
.!!
PS Fonn 3811, December 1994
omestic Return eceipt
DIVISIONS OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office 0' the Secretary
. Division of Administrative Services
Div'/sion of Corpomtions
, Division of Cultural Affairs
Divisio~ of Elections
Division of Historical Resources
Division of Library and Information Services
Division of Licensing
MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA CABINET FWRIDA DEPARfMENT OF STATE
Katherine Harris
Secretary of State
DMSION OF ELECTIONS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARDS
Historic Florida Keys Preservation Board
Historic Palm Beach County Preservation Board
Historic Pensacola Preservation Board
Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board
Historic Tallahassee Preservation Board
Historic TampalHillsborough County
Preservation Board
RINGLING MUSEUM OF ART
January 13, 1999
Honorable Danny L. Kolhage
Clerk to Board of Commissioners
Monroe County
500 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040
Dear Mr. Kolhage:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge
your letter dated January 11, 1999 and certified copy of Monroe County Ordinance
No. 40-1998, which was filed in this office on January 13, 1999.
Si~~
Liz Cloud, Chief
Bureau of Administrative Code
LC/mw
3: C}
o )>
Xz
:::0. ("') -.,.,.
Or"'"
rrI :x-,
o. r-
oo'
c:i)::A
z. a
-lnr
:<-t:I:
.J>
"Tl C)
~ m
\D
\D
Co-
",.
Z
N
o
-0
:J:
1:9
&'"
~
."
-
r-
rn
o
."
o
:::0
:::0
f'T1
("")
o
:::0
o
BUREAU OF ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
The Elliot Building . 401 South Monroe Street . Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 . (850) 488-8427
FAX: (850) 488-7869 . WWW Address: http://www.dos.state.fl.us . E-Mail: election@mail.dos.state.fl,us
County of Monroe
Growth Management Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 400
Marathon. Florida 33050
Voice: (305) 289-2500
FAX: (305) 289-2854
Board of Co un tv Commissioners
Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey, Dist. I
Mayor Pro Tern Shirley Freeman. Dist. J
Commissioner George Neugent. Dist. 2
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich. Oist. 5
Commissioner Nora Williams. Dist. ~
January 12, 1999
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Carol Forthman, Director
Division of Resource Planning and Management
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
RE: Ordinance No. 040-1998
Habitat Evaluation Index (9.5-336 through 9.5-342, M.C.C.)
Dear Ms. Forthman:
At the December 9, 1998 Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners adopted the above referenced ordinance. Pursuant to F.S. 380,0552(9), it is being
transmitted to you for review by the Department of Community Affairs.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
TJM/ir
Enclosure
cc: James L. Roberts, County Administrator (w/o enclosure)
James T. Hendrick, County Attomey,(w/o enclosure)
,
Timothy J. McGarry, AICP, Director of Planning
Ross Alliston, Director of Environmental Resources
KilJY0gren, Comprehensive Plan Manager
~I1e DeSantis, Deputy Clerk (w/o enclosure) 1-hrjf r
Michael McDaniel, Growth Management Administrator, DCA
Ken Metcalf, Community Program Administrator, DCA
Mike Des Parte, Florida Keys Field Office, DCA
FYI
.~.K~
'.
Growth Manaszement Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 400
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: (305) 289-2500
FAX: (305) 289-2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey, Dist. 1
Mayor Pro Tem Shirley Freeman, Dist. 3
Commissioner George Neugent, Dist. 2
Commissioner Nora Williams, Dist, 4
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich, Dist. 5
March 23, 1999
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Municipal Code Corporation
Supplement Department
1700 Capitol Circle, SW
Tallahassee,FL 32310
ATTN: Ms, Evelyn Jefferson
RE: Monroe County Ordinance No. 040-1998
Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI)
Dear Ms, Jefferson:
Enclosed is a copy of Monroe County Ordinance 040-1998 with amended Land
Development Regulations, Sections 9,5-336 through 9.5-342, regarding the Habitat
Evaluation Index (HEI).
This ordinance was adopted by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners on
December 9, 1998 and was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for
review on January 12, 1999. We received confirmation from DCA today that Final
Order DCA99-0R-029, dated January 27, 1999, approved the ordinance and that it
became effective on February 26, 1999,
I am forwarding this ordinance and its corresponding Land Development Regulations to
you for incorporation into the Monroe County Code, If you have any questions, please
call me at (305) 289-2517, Thank you for your assistance,
Sincerely,
~..,J. ra,'l-
Isabel T. Reid, Senior Administrative Assistant
Growth Management Division
Enclosure
1
I
"
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Danny L. Kolhage, Clerk
James L. Roberts, County Administrator
James T. Hendrick, County Attorney
Timothy J. McGarry, Acting Director of Growth Management
Garth C. Coller, Land Use Attorney
Ross Alliston, Director of Environmental Resources
Timothy J. McGarry, Director of Planning
Kim Ogren, Sr. Administrator, Comprehensive Plan
Linda Fatora, Graphics Coordinator
"UNmPAL CODE CORPD~ATIDM.
G~sto_er Servic!
PO Bo~ n3~
Tallahassee, Fl 3231&-2235
Suopll?lll?nt &&
03/31 !I9~~.
..
.
..
We h~ve received the folloving _atertal.
Th_nk you for your assistance and cooperation.
Ordinance Nos. 012-1999, 013-1999 and 040-1998.
1-800-2&2-2&33 INational) LBJ
Let uS put your _inutes on cOlputer for you...
We can index, iaage and convert to databasl.
E-Iail your ordinances to ordstlail.lunicode.co.
Search other codes on our hOlepage at lunicode.com
Need additional copies of your zoning or charter?
We can print copies of Iny section of the Code.
Call cur Custaler Servicl Depart.ent for costs.
TO:
"so Ruth Ann Jantzen
Deputy Cl'erk
"onroe County
500 Whitehead Street
Key West, Fl 3!O40
--.._-----~---_... ~ --~---_._-----_..
-.~.- --....- -.~I......-_-- -- _. --------.. ----
2
,