Item T9Meeting Date: _October
21,
2015
Department: Plannin.&Environmental Resources
Bulk Item: Yes
No
X
Staff Contact /Phone #: Mike Roberts (305)289-2502
AGENDA ITEM DING: A public hearing to consider approval of a resolution transmitting to
the State Land Planning Agency an Ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
amending the Livable Communikeys Program Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key
and No Name Key by amending the Tier Designation for property owned by Longstock II, LLC,
having Real Estate Numbers 00300090-000000; 00300180-000000 00300590-000000 and 00300670-
000000 from Tier I to Tier III on Figure 2.1 (Tier Map For Big Pine Key And No dame Key).
ITEM BACKGROUND: The property owner, Longstock II, LLC submitted a request to amend
Figure 2.1 of the Livable CommuniKeys Program Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine
Key and No Name Key (LCP) by amending the Tier- Designation for Parcel #'s 00300090-000000;
00300180-000000; 00300590-000000 & 00300670-000000 from Tier I to Tier III. Being the LCP is
incorporated by reference into the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan, amendments to the LCP
require a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
The subject parcels consist of a developed RV Campground (the former Sea Horse RV Campground)
containing 1.30 documented units, consisting of 125 transient units and 5 market rate units. The site is
developed, scarified land and contains no native habitat.
The Tier Map for Big Pine Key and No Name Key was developed based on relative wildlife habitat
quality as defined in the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Monroe County developed the Tier Maps
pursuant to county -wide Smart Growth Initiatives adopted in Goal 105 of the Comprehensive Plan and
Strategy 1.1 of the LCP. The Tier designations for parcels on Big Pine Key and No Narne Key are
intended to be based upon habitat sensitivity identified in the HCP (see Tier descriptions below) and
primarily as represented on the weighted Harvest Grid Map (Figure 2.5 of the HCP). The subject
parcels do not meet the criteria for Tier I designation as provided in Policy 205.1.1, MCC § 130-130 or
the Habitat Conservation Plan.
Excerpt from Table 2.7 Tier classification system (vacant privately -owned lands). (HCP g. 43)
Tier Description
Lands where all or a significant portion of the land area is characterized as environmentally sensitive
I and important for the continued viability of HCP covered species (mean H per 10x 10 meter cell =
0.259 x I0-). These lands are high quality Key deer habitat, generally representing large contiguous
patches of native vegetation that provide habitat for other protected species as well.
Scattered lots and fragments of environmentally sensitive lands that may be found in platted
2 subdivisions (mean H per 10 x 10 meter cell = 0.183 x 10-3). A large number of these lots are located
on canals and are of minimal value to the Key deer and other protected species because the canal
resents a barrier to dispersal.
Scattered lots within already heavily developed areas that provide little habitat value to the Key deer
3 and other protected species (mean H per IOx10 meter cell = 0.168 x 10-3). Some of the undeveloped
lots in this Tier are located between existing developed commercial lots within the US-1 corridor or
are located on canals.
'H' values for the 1.0m2 cells within the subject parcels range between 0.000162 and 0.000188 and as
noted above the parcels are scarified and contain no native habitat. Based on staffs analysis, the
proposed amendment is consistent with the above Tier 3 description.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
On March 19, 2003 the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved
Resolution 119-2003 authorizing submittal of the Habitat Conservation Plan for Key beer and other
protected species on Big Pine Key and No Name Key (HCP).
On December 17, 2003 the BOCC passed Resolution 5 2-2003 approving the Livable CommuniKeys
Master Plan (LCP) for Big Pine Key and No Name Key as the policy document to direct growth and
development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key. The LCP implements the HCP as well as provides
for the development needs of the community.
The LCP was completed in August 2004, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on August
18, 2004 and incorporated by reference into the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan by Policy
101.20.2(1).
The LCP was amended in June 2009 (Ordinance 020-2009) to revise certain figures to depict only the
lands covered by the HCP; to implement the R.OGO requirements of the HCP'; to define the number of
dwelling units to be permitted over the life of the Incidental Take Permit (ITP), including the
limitations on Tier I development; to establish certain control dates for development and mitigation;
and to regulate the construction of fences and accessory structures.
On September 21, 2012 the BOCC adopted Ordinance 022-2012 to amend the LCP to amend the Tier
designation on Figure 2.1 (Tier Map for Big Pine Key and No Name Key), and Table 2.7, Institutional
Uses, for the Seacamp property from Tier I to Tier III.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT
i1 ! CHANGES: 1
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval to amend the Master Plan for Future
Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key by amending the Livable Communieys Program
Master Plan for the Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key Tier Map (Figure 2.1)
from Tier I to Tier III
TOTAL1INDIRECTBUDGETED: •
1 .11 + rs r•
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No
,w3
APPROVE Y: County Attorney to,
DOCUMENTATION: Included
Revised 6115
AMOUNT PER ONT Year
OMB/Purchasing Risk Management -
Not Required,
2.
1 �
i�
4
5
7
8 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
9 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10 RESOLUTION NO. - 2015
11
12 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE
14 STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AN ORDINANCE BY
15 THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
16 COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE LIVABLE
17 COMMUNIIEYS PROGRAM MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE
18 DEVELOPMENT OF BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEY
19 AMENDING THE TIER DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY
20 OWNED BY LONGSTOCK 1I, LLC, HAVING REAL ESTATE
21 NUMBERS 00300090-000000;00300180-000000;00300590-
22 000000 AND 00300670-000000 FROM TIER I TO TIER III O
23 FIGURE 2.1 (TIER MAP FOR BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME
24 KEY).
25
26
27 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public
28 hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the State Land Planning .Agency a
29 proposed amendment to the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan as described above; and
30
31 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board
32 of County Commissioners support the requested text amendment; and
33
34 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
35 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
36
37 Section 1: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the recommendation of
38 the Planning Commission to transmit the draft ordinance, attached as Exhibit A,
39 for adoption of the proposed text amendment.
40
41 Section 2: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby transmit the proposed
42 amendment to the State Land Planning Agency for review and comment in
43 accordance with the State Coordinated Review process pursuant to Section
44 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes.
45
Resolution No, Oxx - 2015.Pane 1 of 2
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Section 3: The Monroe County staff is given the authority to prepare and submit the required
transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment.
Section. 4: The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this
resolution to the Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources,
PASSED► AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 2l'` day of October, 2015.
58
59
60
61
62 Attest: AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK
63
64
65 By:
66 Deputy Clerk
67
68 (SEAL)
Mayor Danny E. lolhage
Mayor Pro Tem Heather Carruthers
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner David Rice
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
M.
Mayor Danny L. Kolhage
Resolution No. Oxx - 2015 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit A to Transmittal
Resolution -2015
1�
3
4q t
5
6
7 ORDINANCE 2015
8
9 AN ORDINANCE Y THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
10 COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE LIVABLE COMMUNIKEYS
11 PROGRAM MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF BIG
12 PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEY AMENDING THE TIER DESIGNATION
13 FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY LON STO K 11, LLC, HAVING REAL
14 ESTATE NUMBERS 00300090-0000;0030010-0000;00300590-00000
15 AND 00300670-000000 FROM TIER I TO TIER III ON FIGURE 2.1 (TIER
16 MAP FOR BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEY); PROVIDING FOR
17 SEVEABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT
18 PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FORT E TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE
19 LAND PLANNING AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR THE FILING WITH THE
20 SECRETARY OF STATE AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE ATE; AND
21 PROVIDING FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE MON OE COUNTY 2010
22 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
23
24
25 WHEREAS, on December 17, 2003 the BOCC passed Resolution 562-2003 approving the
26 Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan (LCP) for Big Pine Key and No Name Key as the policy
27 document to direct growth and development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key. The LCP
28 implements the habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as well as provides for the development needs
29 of the community; and
30
31 WHEREAS, the LCP was completed in August 2004, adopted by the Board of County
32 Commissioners on August 18, 2004 and incorporated by reference into the Monroe County 2010
33 Comprehensive Plan by Policy 1.01.20.2(1); and
34
35 WHEREAS, Longstock I1, LLC submitted an application requesting to amend Figure 2.1 of
36 the Livable CommuniKeys Program Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and
37 No blame Key by amending the Tier Designation for Parcel #'s 00300090-000000; 00300180-
38 000000; 00300590-000000 & 00300670-000000 from Tier I to Tier III; and
39
40 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the proposed
41 amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 28th day of July, 2015; and
42
43 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 261h day of August, 2015, the
44 Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of considering the
45 transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency, for review and comment, a proposed amendment
46 to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Exhibit A to Transmittal
Resolution -2015
WHEREAS, The Monroe County Planning Commission requested additional detail
regarding the analysis of the proposed amendment and continued the hearing until September 30,
2015; and
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 30tn day of September, 2015, the
Monroe County Planning Commission resumed the public hearing for the purpose of considering
the transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency, for review and comment, the proposed
amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission made the following findings:
1. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to adversely impact the community
character of the surrounding area; and
2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and
3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan for
Big Pine Key and No Name Key and the Habitat Conservation Plan; and
. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development
for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Section 380.0552(7), Florida
Statute; and
5. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute.
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 21" day of October 2015, the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and public
participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted for
public participation in the planning process; and
WHEREAS, at the October 21, 2015, public hearing, the BOCC voted to the
amendment to the State Land Planning Agency; and
WHEREAS, the State Land Planning Agency reviewed the amendment and issued an
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on 20— which.
did not identify any issues with the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, the ORC report states_
a response to the ORC Report, Monroe County
and as
2
Exhibit A to Transmittal
Resolution -2015
92
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ISSIONERS OF ON OE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
�9'y3
4
95
Section 1.
The Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key as
96
adopted by reference into the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is
97
amended as follows:
98
99
(1) Amending the Tier designations on Figure 2.1 for four (4) parcels having real
100
estate numbers 00300090-000000;00300180-000000;00300590-000000 and
101
00300670-000000 from Tier I to Tier III as shown on Exhibit 1 attached
102
hereto and incorporated herein.
103
104
Section 2.
Sever bility. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or
105
provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall
1.06
not be affected by such validity.
107
108
Section 3.
Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
109
conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
110
111
Section 4.
Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to
112
the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida
113
Statutes.
114
115
Section 5.
Filing and E ective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the
116
secretary of the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is
117
issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission
118
finding the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and
1.1.9
after any applicable appeal periods have expired.
120
121
Section 6.
Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The number of the foregoing
122
amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the Livable
123
CommuniKeys Master Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key as adopted by
124
reference into the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan and shall be
125
incorporated in the Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan for Big Pine Key and
126
No Name Key.
127
3
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
14$.
149
Exhibit A to Transmittal
Resolution -2015
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida,
at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2015.
Mayor Danny L. Kolhage
Mayor pro tent Heather Carruthers
Commissioner David Rice
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
VOARD OF !UNTY COMMISSIONERS OF !
COUNTY,l• 1.
(SEAT.,)
ATTEST: AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK
IM
Mayor Danny L. K:olhage
MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
• AS .
ASSISTANT QOVNTX ATTORNEY
ff
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURcEs DEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and,tair
To: The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Through: Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Michael Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources
Date: September 30, 2015
Subject: Request for an Amendment to Figure 2.1 of the Livable CommuniKeys Program
Master Plan fior the Future Development of Big Pine Ivey and No Name Key Tier
Map from Tier I to Tier .III, far property owned by Longstock II, LLC located on
Big Pine Ivey, having real estate no's. 00300090-000000; 003001 80-000000;
00300590-000000 & 00300670-000000
(File 2015-116)
Meeting; October 21, 2015
1
2 I REQUEST
3
4 A request to amend Figure 2.1 of the Livable CommuniKeys Program Master Plan for Future
5 Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key by amending the Tier Designation for
6 Parcel Ws 00300090-000000; 00300180-000000; 00300590-000000 & 00300670-000000
7 from Tier I to Tier III (Exhibit I).
8
Subject Parcels (outlined in blue) (2012)
File No. 2015-1 16 Pg. 1
1 11 BACKGROUND INFORMATION & RELEVANT PRIOR COUNTY ACTIONS
2
3 Site Information
4 Address: 201 County Road, Big Pine Key
5 Legal Description: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Block 1; Lots 1 through 1.8 Block 2 Sam-N-Joe
6 Subdivision Plat Book 3 Page 76 of the Public Records of Monroe County Florida and
7 Lots 1 through 9, Block 3, Darios Subdivision Plat Book 3 Page 92 of the Public Records
8 of Monroe County Florida.
9 Real Estate (RE) Numbers: 00300090-000000; 00300180-000000; 00300590-000000 &
10 00300670-000000
1.1 Applicant: Longstock 11, LLC
12 Size of Site: 3.93 acres
13 Land Use District(s): IS (North 1/z) and URN (South 1/2)
14 FLUM Designation: RM (North 1/2) and RH (South 1/2)
15 Tier Designation: I
16 Flood Zone: AE - 8
17 Existing Use: Sea Horse RV Campground
18 The parcel consists of a developed RV Campground containing 130 documented units,
19 consisting of 125 transient units and 5 market rate units (Letter of Development Rights
20 Determination dated 9/29/2014).
21 Existing Vegetation / Habitat: Scarified; Developed Land
22 Community Character of Immediate Vicinity: The surrounding community is a mix of dense
23 residential development interspersed with sparsely developed and undeveloped areas. The
24 adjacent land use (zoning) districts consist of IS, URM and SR land use districts.
25
26 0 On March 19, 2003 the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
27 approved Resolution 119-2003 authorizing submittal of the Habitat Conservation Plan for
28 Key Deer and other protected species on Big Pine Key and No Name Key (HCP).
29 d On December 17, 2003 the BOCC passed Resolution 562-2003 approving the Livable
30 CommuniKeys Master Plan (LCP) for Big Pine Key and No Name Key as the policy
31 document to direct growth and development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key. The
32 LCP implements the HCP as well as provides for the development needs of the
33 community.
34 ® The LCP was completed in August 2004, adopted by the Board of County
35 Commissioners on August 1.8, 2004 and incorporated by reference into the Monroe
36 County 2010 Comprehensive Plan by Policy 101.20.2(1).
37 0 The LCP was amended in June 2009 (Ordinance 020-2009) to revise certain figures to
38 depict only the lands covered by the HCP; to implement the ROGO requirements of the
39 HCP; to define the number of dwelling units to be permitted over the life of the Incidental
40 Take Permit (ITP), including the limitations on Tier I development; to establish certain
41 control dates for development and mitigation; and to regulate the construction of fences
42 and accessory structures.
File No. 2015-116 p g. 2
I The Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 022-2012 on September 21,
2 2012 to amend the Livable CommuniKeys Program Master Plan for Future Development
3 of Big Pine Key and No Name Key, to amend the Tier designation on Figure 2.1 (Tier
4 Map for Big Pine Key and No Name Key), and Table 2.7, Institutional Uses, for the
5 Seacamp property from Tier I to Tier III, as directed by the Board. of County
6 Commissioners in Resolution 562-2003.
7
8 DRC Review
9 At its regularly scheduled meeting on July 28, 2015, the Monroe County Development.
10 Review Committee reviewed the proposed amendment. The information provided in the staff
l I report and discussed at the meeting supports the Chair's decision to recommend approval to
12 the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
13
14 PC Review
15 At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 26, 2015, the Monroe County Planning
16 Commission reviewed the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission requested staff
17 to provide additional data related to the potential for impacts to the Key deer and continued
18 the request to the September 30, 2015 meeting date.
19
20 At its regularly scheduled meeting on September 30, 2015, the Monroe County Planning
21 Commission reviewed the proposed amendment. The information provided in the staff report
22 and discussed at the meeting supports the Planning Commission's decision to recommend
23 approval to the Board of County Commissioners..
24
25 111 PROPOSED AMENDMENT
26
27 Request for an Amendment to Figure 2.1 of the Livable CommuniKeys Program Master Plan
28 for the Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key Tier Map from Tier I to Tier
29 II1, for property owned by Longstock 11, LLC, Big Pine Key, having real estate no's.
30 00300090-000000; 00300180-000000; 00300590-000000 & 00300670-000000, as depicted
31 below.
32
File No. 2015-116 pg. 3
a
2
3
4
Existing, Adopted Figure 2.1
Fi Lyure 2. 1:
F_1�]Ure 2. 1 Inset rdap
Proposed Amendment fo� Parrels:�
- j
■
5
6
7
8 Review of Amendment
9
10 The Tier Maps for Big Pine Key and No Name Key has been developed based on relative
I I wildlife habitat quality as defined in the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Monroe County
12 developed the Tier Maps pursuant to county -wide Smart Growth Initiatives adopted in Goal
13 105 of the Comprehensive Plan and Strategy 1.1 of the LCP.
14
File No. 2015-116 pg- 4
I "The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focuses on the Key deer as an "umbrella species" and
2 operates under the assumption that avoiding and minimizing impacts to Key deer habitat, will
3 also provide direct protection to both populations and habitats of other terrestrial species. In
4 the development of the HCP, the ecology and population dynamics of the Key deer was
5 studied for• three years and a Population Viability Analysis (PVA) model, including a spatial
6 component, was produced to evaluate the impacts of development scenarios on the Key deer
7 population. Based on the Key deer studies done for the HCP and the resulting spatial model,
8 lands in the study area were classified into three "Tiers," Tier 1 lands are higher quality Key
9 deer habitat. Tier 3 Lands are the lowest quality Key deer habitat. Most of the parcels in Tiers
10 2 and 3 are interspersed among developed parcels and among canals. These areas provide
1 I little habitat value to the covered species." (Pg. 2 Habitat Conservation Plan)
12
13 As noted in the HCP, "the Key deer are wide ranging and utilize virtually all available habitat
14 in the project area, including developed areas (Figure 2.1, Lopez 2001)." Figure 2.1 does
15 indicate the utilization or distribution of Key deer, during the 3 year study period, within or
16 adjacent to the subject properties but it is not as significant as other locations. (Pg. 20 Habitat
17 Conservation Plan).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
File No. 2015-116 pg. 5
I Figure 2.2 (Exhibit 5) of the HCP provides the Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat, as identified
2 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This figure displays the Lower Keys marsh rabbit
3 habitat on Big Pine Key and No Name Key (Faulhaber 2003) based on the most recent data
4 on its distribution within the covered area (Figure 2.2), Figure 2.2 does not indicate Lower
5 Keys marsh rabbit habitat within or adjacent to the subject properties. (Pg. 23 Habitat
6 Conservation Plan),
7
8
9 20M Raba HaU'ta'l
FON Daoffei
10
12
13
14
15 Approximate location
16 of subject parcels
17
18
19
20
21
22
Figure 2- .2Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat (Source: United States Fish and Wildlife
23 senice).
24
25 As provided on page 35 of the HCP:
26
27 In order to address impacts to carrying capacity and mortality, the spatial
28 model includes a carrying capacity and a "harvest" (i.e., human -related
29 mortality) grid in a Geographic Information System (IS). The grids
30 represent the entire study area as an array of lOxlO meter cells; each
31 cell's value represents its contribution to the total carrying capacity or
32 harvest of the study area.
33
34 A weighting factor grid supported the development of the carrying
35 capacity and harvest grids. The objective of the weighting grid was to
36 address location -specific conditions that affect carrying capacity and
37 harvest. For example, two grid cells of the same vegetation type may
38 contribute differently to the carrying capacity of the Key deer depending
39 on their proximity to canals: a pineland cell located in the middle of
40 large pineland area would provide better habitat to the Key deer than an
41 isolated pineland cell surrounded by canals. Similarly, development of a
42 pineland cell near US-] would create a lesser vehicle collision impact
43 (due to shorter travel distance to US -I} than development of pineland
44 cell located farfrom US-] (due to the longer travel distance to US -I).
45
46 Six parameters entered into the weighting factor grid (Figure 2.4):
47
File No. 2015-116 perL_, 6
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Figure 2.4 (Exhibit 6) depicts the 6 grid layers used to generate the weighting factor for the
final carrying capacity grid. The deer corridor deer density, house density and distance from
US 1 parameters reflect low utilization of the subject properties by Key deer.
The final carrying capacity grid (Figure 2.5) represents the contribution of each 1 W0 meter
cell to the total carrying capacity of the study area after applying the weighting factor. Lopez
(2001) estimated the number of Key deer that could be supported by available habitat in Big
Pine Key and No Name Key.
The final harvest grid represents the proportional contribution of each 1Ox10 meter cell to the
total harvest in the study area. Lopez (2001) determined that approximately 8.4 percent of the
File No2015-116 pg. 7
I deer population dies from human -related causes (total mortality is about 17 percent). He
2 allocated this percentage equally among all the lox l O meter cells for the study area. Then, he
3 applied the weighting factor to each cell; the result was a differential contribution of the cells
4 to the total human related mortality, or harvest, H.
5
Harvest Grid
File No. 2015-116 pg. 8
Carrying Capacity Grid
Figure 2.5. Key deer PVA model grid layers
(darker shades = higher value for the deer)
2 For the Big Pine Key and No Name Key planning, area the Tier Maps are intended to be
3 based upon habitat sensitivity identified in the HCP, primarily as represented on the weighted
4 Harvest Grid Map (Figure 2.5 of the HCP, above).
5
File No. 2015-116 Pg- 9
In response to the Planning Commission request for additional scientific detail, Dr. Roel
Lopez (Texas A&M University) provided the original harvest grid data to the Planning &
Environmental Resources Department on. September 1, 2015 in order for staff to more
closely evaluate the H values for the subject parcels.
rotst
# i .t1k Ai t?�nx pYpp `,
�' Rl St
S{t
P 4
5..t
gp
S
f 4
1 f
�€
t
y ,r
S4
3R
1(41; {'
n
? iS�d)€���?{ �r{fin �� �`;}t11Fs E� x✓�� 1? a:t i ! S� �r ��? t}? s ':i` ?'�)�; tl Fk dJt� `it ���? i {, ���k��kka � �,.,�';
Legend
It i t AtM11t ,
BPK_Ft _Grid i 1 F' fea
Value( High : 0.000260112 F `��ri�?? �.? � � �"{f '��. y{ }c !� : { i' '}��s �d�s
1Gsl �tiips%�L
'Low:0
s ( I,
Y`�' t t(d-b
LP�ivs StYSt„'F+llY,(x��`s�t4�t§i{';tii�?5ri
H-grid data provided by Roel Lopez, PhD. Texas A&M University
Subject parcels outlined in blue
The `H' grid data provided by Dr. Lopez reflects the low habitat value of the subject parcels.
The actual `H' values for the subject parcels range from 0,000176 to 0.000188 per 10 x 10
meter cell, well below the Tier I mean of 0.000259,
The subject parcels are developed land outside existing deer corridors (HCP Figure 5.2,
below) and do not meet the criteria for Tier I designation as provided in Policy 205.1.1, MCC
§130-130 or the Habitat Conservation Plan, as noted below:
File No. 201 5-1 l 6 pa. 10
4
5
6
7
8
9
HCP Figure 5.2 Key deer corridor across Sands Subdivision
Sands corridor with subject parcels in blue
File No. 2015-116
Pg, 11
1
2
3
4
H-Grid depicting deer corridor from Figure 2.4 (page 7 of this report)
and the Sands Corridor from Figure 5.2 with subject parcels in blue
5 The Big Pine Key and No Name Key planning area the Tier Maps are intended to be based
6 upon habitat sensitivity identified in the HCP, primarily as represented on the weighted
7 Harvest Grid Map (Figure 2.5 of the HCP). The HCP describes the habitat description and
8 associated H values that should be reflected in the Tier designation. These descriptions are
9 provided in Table 2.7 (below).
10
11 Table 2.7 (HCP pg. 3) 'Fier classification system (vacant rivately-owned lands)
12
Tier
I Description
Lands where all or a significant portion of the land area is characterized as environmentally
sensitive and important for the continued viability of HCP covered species (mean H per
1
10x10 meter cell = 0.259 x 1.0-'). These lands are high quality Key deer habitat, generally
representing large contiguous patches of native vegetation that provide habitat for other
protected species as well.
Scattered lots and fragments of environmentally sensitive lands that may be found in platted
2
subdivisions (mean H per 10 x10 meter cell = 0.183 x 10-3). A large number of these lots are
located on canals and are of minimal value to the Key deer and other protected species
because the canal presents a barrier to dispersal.
Scattered lots within already heavily developed areas that provide: little habitat value to the
3
Key deer and other protected species (mean H per 10x 10 meter cell = 0.168 x 10--). Some of
the undeveloped lots in this Tier are located between existing developed commercial lots
within the US-1 corridor or are located on canals.
File No. 2015-116
pg. 12
I The proposed amendment is consistent with the above Tier descriptions. The site is
2 developed and the mean H value per 10 x 10 meter cell is 0.000182 (0.182 x 10-3).
3
4 The `H' values for the associated Darcels are:
Sea Horse RV Park
feet)
from TAMU data
rr r�r rrrrrr
r rr
M, .1r
r r r
rr 'i'r .r rrrrrr
rr rr �r r�rrrr ®
r rr•
r rrr
0030 0-0i 7
Mr
5
6 In addition to the `H' values described above, the HCP provides qualitative criteria for each
7 Tier. The table below provides the qualitative description of each Tier and a comparison of
8 the site characteristics to the specified criteria.
9
10
Tier
Description
Subject Parcels Site Characteristics
Lands where all or a significant
0 The subject parcels are scarified
portion of the land area is
and densely developed with NO
characterized as environmentally
environmentally sensitive habitats
sensitive and important for the
0 As stated above, the subject site
continued viability of HCP covered
does not contain native vegetation
1
species.
that provides habitat for Key deer
a High quality Key deer habitat,
or other protected species
generally representing large
contiguous patches of native
vegetation that provide habitat for
other protected species as well
Scattered lots and fragments of
The subject parcels are close to
environmentally sensitive lands that
suitable habitat, however the
may be found in platted subdivisions
parcels themselves are scarified
2
m Located on canals and are of
and are platted subdivisions
minimal value to the Key deer and
(Dario's and Sam'N'Joe)
other protected species because the
� Parcels are not. on a canal —and
canal presents a barrier to dispersal
no barrier to Key deer dispersal is
resent.
Scattered lots within already heavily
® The subject parcels are heavily
developed areas that provide little
developed subdivisions and
habitat value
contain no habitat. 78% of land
3
a Some undeveloped hots are located
within 500' is developed land.
between existing developed
• No commercial uses are adjacent
commercial lots within the US -I
to the subject parcels,
corridor or,
9 The site is not located on a canal
® are located on canals.
File No. 2015-116 pg. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
There is no `H5 impact associated with the proposed amendment to the Master flan. The
subject parcel contains no native habitat and supported 130 lawfully established units. The
amount of H impact for this type of development is based on traffic generation because
vehicle collisions with Key deer are the most important human -related cause of mortality for
the Key deer (HCP page 41). Based on the average daily trip assumptions in the HCP (9.5
A.DT/unit), the 130 units developed on the site generate 1,235 average daily trips (ADT).
The subject parcels lie partially within the IS land use district (north 1/2) and partially within
the URM land use district (south 1/2). The corresponding FLUM designations are Residential
Medium (R) on the north and Residential High (RH) on the south. There is no change
proposed for the site's land use district or FLUM designations. Note that as originally
platted, the four parcels consisted of 32 platted lots.
Land Use District
Future Land Use
-34. COISISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING
DEVELOPMENT
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the fallowing Goals, Objectives an
Policies of the Monroe County Year 20�10 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the
amendment furthers:
Gaul 101 Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure
the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
File No. 2015-116 pg. 14
Objective 101.20 Monroe County shall address local community needs while balancing the
needs of all Monroe County communities. These efforts shall focus on the human crafted
environment and shall be undertaken through the Livable CommuniKeys Planning Program.
GOAL 105 Monroe County shall undertake a comprehensive land acquisition program and
smart growth initiatives in conjunction with its Livable CommuniKeys Program in a manner
that recognizes the finite capacity for new development in the Florida Keys by providing
economic and housing opportunities for residents without compromising the biodiversity of
the natural environment and the continued ability of the natural and man-made systems to
sustain livable communities in the Florida Keys for future generations.
Qjective 105.1 Monroe County shall implement smart growth initiatives in conjunction
with its Livable CommuniKeys and Land Acquisition Programs which promote innovative
and flexible development processes to preserve the natural environment, maintain and
enhance the community character and quality of life, redevelop blighted commercial and
residential areas, remove barriers to design concepts, reduce sprawl, and direct future growth
to appropriate infill areas.
Policy 10.2.1 Monroe County shall designate all lands outside of mainland Monroe County,
except for the Ocean Reef planned development, into three general categories for purposes of
its Land Acquisition Program and smart growth initiatives in accordance with the criteria in
Policy 205.1.1. These three categories are: Natural Area (Tier 1); Transition and Sprawl
Reduction Area (Tier II) on Big Pine Key and No Name Key only, and Infili Area (Tier III).
The purposes, general characteristics, and growth management approaches associated with
each tier are as follows:.
1. Natural Area (Tier 1). Any defined geographic area where all or a significant portion
of the land area is characterized as environmentally sensitive by the policies of this
Plan and applicable habitat conservation plan, is to be designated as a Natural Area.
New development on vacant land is to be severely restricted and privately owned
vacant lands are to be acquired or development rights retired for resource
conservation and passive recreation purposes. However, this does not preclude
provisions of infrastructure for existing development. Within the Natural Area.
designation are typically found lands within the acquisition boundaries of federal and
state resource conservation and park areas, including isolated platted subdivisions;
and privately -owned vacant lands with sensitive environmental features outside these
acquisition areas.
2. Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II): Any defined geographic area on Big
Pine Key and No Name Key, where scattered groups and fragments of
environmentally sensitive lands, as defined by this Plan, may be found and where
existing platted subdivisions are not predominately developed, not served by
complete infrastructure facilities, or not within close proximity to established
commercial areas, is to be designated as a Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area.
New development is to be discouraged and privately owned vacant lands acquired or
development rights retired to reduce sprawl, ensure that the Keys carrying capacity is
File No201.5-11 b po, 15
I not exceeded, and prevent further encroachment on sensitive natural resources.
2 Within a Transition and Sprawl Deduction Area are typically found: scattered small
3 non-residential development and platted subdivisions with less than 50 percent of the
4 lots developed; incomplete infrastructure in terms of paved roads, potable water, or
5 electricity; and scattered clusters of environmentally sensitive lands, some of which
6 are within or in close proximity to existing platted subdivisions.
7
8 3. Infill Area (Tier 111): Any defined geographic area, where a significant portion of Land
9 area is not characterized as environmentally sensitive as defined by this Plan, except
10 for dispersed and isolated fragments of environmentally sensitive lands of less than
I four acres in area, where existing platted subdivisions are substantially developed,
12 served by complete infrastructure facilities, and within close proximity to established
13 commercial areas, or where a concentration of non-residential uses exists, is to be
14 designated as an Infill Area. New development and redevelopment are to be highly
15 encouraged, except within tropical hardwood hammock or pineland patches of an acre
16 or more in area, where development is to be discouraged. Within an. Infill Area are
17 typically found: platted subdivisions with 50 percent or more developed lots situated
18 in areas with few sensitive environmental features; full range of available public
19 infrastructure in terms of paved roads, potable water, and electricity; and
20 concentrations of commercial and other non-residential uses within close proximity.
21 In some Infill Areas, a mix of non-residential and high -density residential uses
22 (generally 8 units or more per acre) may also be found that form a Community
23 Center.
24
25 Policy 201 .1.1 The County shall establish the following criteria at a minimum to use when
26 designating Tiers::
27 2. Lands on Pig Pine Ivey and No Name Ivey designated as Tier I, 11, or III shall be in
28 accordance with the wildlife habitat quality criteria as defined in the Habitat
29 Conservation Plan for those islands.
30
31 Big Pine Key/No Name Ivey Livable Cornmuni eys Plan
32
33 Strategy 1.1
34 Create a Tier Map for the planning area depicting the locations of Tier 1, Tier 11 and Tier
35 I1I lands as described in Comprehensive Plan Policy 105.2.1. Base the Tier Map on the
36 habitat needs of federally endangered resident species in the planning area as set forth in
37 the anticipated ITP and HCP in terms of relative H of parcels within the planning area.
38
39 Strategy_ 1,.2
40 Assign relative H units to all parcels within the planning area as per the method described
41 in the HCP in order to ensure compliance with the permitted level of tape of federally
42 endangered species contained in the anticipated ITP.
43
44 Action Item 1.2.1 K
45 Use the parcel -specific H unit spreadsheet included with the HCP to assign H to
46 individual parcels within the planning area.
File No. 2015-116 pa. 16
H
2 Action Item 1..2:
3 For development proposal applications involving multiple parcels, sum the H units
for the individual parcels to generate the total H impact of the development.
5
6 Strategy 2.1 Continue to utilize the Land Use District Maps and supporting FLUM to
7 regulate land use type, density and intensity on an individual parcel basis within the
8 planning area. The distribution of future development shall be guided by a Tier System
9 Overlay Map pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan Smart Growth Initiatives (Goal 105).
10
11 Action 2.1.2 Adopt the Tier System Map separate from but as an overlay of the Land
12 District Maps. The Tier System Overlay Map shall be used primarily to guide the
13 distribution of development through the application of the residential rate of growth
14 ordinance and the non-residential rate of growth ordinance pursuant to the strategies set
15 forth in this Master Plan.
16 B. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development
17 for the Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida ,Statutes.
18
19 For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that
20 plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the
21 principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or
22 applied in isolation from the other provisions.
23
24 (a) To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development
25 so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of
26 the area of critical state concern designation.
27 (b) To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef
28 formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
29 (c) To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands,
30 native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinclands), dune ridges
31 and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat.
32 (d) To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound
33 economic development.
34 (e) To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the
35 Florida Keys.
36 (f) To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural
37 environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic
38 character of the Florida Keys.
39 (g) To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
40 (h) To protect the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and
41 proposed major public investments, including:
42 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
43 2. Sewage collection and disposal facilities;
44 3. Solid waste collection and disposal facilities;
File No. 2015-116 pg. 17
1 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
2 5. Transportation facilities;
3 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
4 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned
5 properties;
6 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
7 9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
8 (i) To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of
9 the Florida Keys.
10 0) To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the
11 Florida Keys.
12 (k) To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the
13 event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
14 (1) To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and
15 maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
16
17 C. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes
18 (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers:
19
20 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to
21 preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land,
22 water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and
23 deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of
24 land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is
25 intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the
26 public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and
27 fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of
28 transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other
29 requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources
30 within their jurisdictions.
31
32 163.3161(6), F.S. - It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have
33 the legal status set out in this act and that no public or private development shall be
34 permitted except in conformity with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions
35 thereof, prepared and adopted in conformity with this act.
36
37 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines,
38 standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical,
39 environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments
40 to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future
41 decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure
42 comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan
43 containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and
44 policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land
45 development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the
File No. 2015-116 pg. 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
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
comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require
identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be
part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that
describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried
out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed
land development and use regulations.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners,
the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a
contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of
Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the
Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission
shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning
& Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony
given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and
findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing
to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers
the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The
BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency. If the
amendment is transmitted to State Land Planning Agency, they review the proposal and issue
an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC
report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with
changes or not adopt the amendment.
►n=19 4[ol ji► 1akIn7�V�r��i i
Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department recommends approval
to amend the Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key by
amending the Livable CommuniKeys Program Master Plan for the Future Development of
Big Pine Key and No Name Key Tier Map (Figure 2.1) from Tier I to Tier III, as depicted
on Exhibit 1.
VII. ATTACHMENTS
Letter from Key Deer Protection Alliance
Letter from Henry Lee Morgenstern
USFWS E-mail (8/18/2015 & 9/24/2015)
File No. 2015-116
pg. 19
IN
(FIGURE3 AMENDMENT TO THE LIVABLE COMMUNIKEYS PROGRAM MASTER PLAN FOR
4 THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEY TIER MAP
r I TO TIER III
File No. 2015-I l6 p�. 20
ILI%
We I�Li_q 'Vakp A 'Differvitcc!
*y- D-r 'Pr4ree.)OA
Mayte Santamaria
Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Monroe County, Florida
Development Review Committee Meeting
Tuesday, J11ly 28, 2015
Re: Proposed Change in Seahorse RV Parif s Tier Designation: Implementation of the
Habitat Conservation Plan for the Florida Key Deer and Other Protected Species on Big Pine
Key and No Name Key and Associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementation of the
Livable Communi-Keys Program's Master Plan for Development on Big Pine Key and No
Name Key.
Dear Mayte Santamaria:
The Key Deer Protection Alliance participated in the development of both the Habitat
Conservation Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key and the livable Communi-Keys Master
Plan for Future Development on Big Pine Key and No Name Key. We are concerned that any
decision regarding a change in use and a change in the Tier designation of Seahorse property
on Big Pine Key will negatively affect the population dynamics, the carrying capacity and/or
the secondary impacts to the federally -listed endangered Key deer.
Please consider the following comments and our request that the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service examine these proposed changes to the Seahorse property on Big Pine Kay
and scientifically demonstrate they will not have any negative effects on the Key deer.
Implementation of the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Florida Key Deer and Other
Protected Species and Associated Incidental Take Permit # TEo83411-0.
After more than eight years of negotiation, the Florida Departm, ent of Transportation,
Monroe County and the Florida Department of Community Affairs established the Big Pine
Key Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in coordination with the Service on June 9, 20o6. The
goal of the HCP was to address impacts to several species listed under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) resulting from potential development activities over a twenty-year period
(20o6-2o26) on Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
The development of the HCP included extensive public involvement and was based on years
of scientific study. This scientific research lead to the development of a population viability
analysis (PVA) model (Lopez 2001) which evaluates the impacts of development scenarios on
the Key deer population and the development of a conservation priority classification system
aimed at protecting species habitat while accommodating responsible development.
OEM
While the HCP was being developed, Monroe County crafted its first Livable Communi-Keys
(LCP) Program Master Plan for Future Development on Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
Public involvement was extensive and a workable compromise was achieved and adopted by
the Board of County Commissioners on December 17, 2003.
The Countyy's Master Plan for Future Development of No Name Key and Big Pine Key is
in xorably linked to the Service's HCP and IT°P. The LCP, which is considered wholly a part
the Monroe County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, was developed as a companion
document to the HCP. Reference to the Master Plan is made extensively throughout the HCP.
A change to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the LCP or the HCP requires a detailed
analysis to mare sure appropriate changes are made to the corresponding documents.
The "Tier Classification System": Monroe Coup _ versus Big Pine Key and No Name..Key.
The conservation ,priority classification systern `aka the Tier systern) for Big Pine Key and
No Name Key is different from that of unincorpor ted Monroe County.'
In Monroe County, the Tier system is based on location., size and quality of upland terrestrial
habitat. On Big Pine Key and No Name Key, the Tier system is based on the P '"A model,
which is made up of two main components: a matrix model of population dynamics; and, a
spatial model of carrying capacity and secondary impacts. Sir parameters entered into the
calculation of the weighting factors2, only one of which (patch quality) is related to the duality
of the upland terrestrial habitat. The six parameters are: house density, deer corridors, patch
quality, deer density, distance from. US-1 and water barriers.
r •ar on - .a ��• r r •r r
The Importance of ALL Habitats to the Key eer
Key deer are currently using all of the habitat that is available to them on Big Pine Key and No
Name Key, including the habitat of the Seahorse property. Key deer corridors are critical to
provide for the necessary movement of the Key deer within its range. Habitat utilized by the
Key deer as a corridor is often densely developed and/or scarified and, which is often difficult
to maneuver through. Even a junkyard can be valuable Key deer habitat if it is utilized by the
Key deer as a corridor.
I As stated in Policy 205.1.1 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Policy 10 .2.1 is not
relevant to the Tier classification system used on Big Pine Key and No Marne Key.
2 The "Tier Classification System" in Table 2.7 on page 43 of the Habitat Conservation. Plan
for Big Pine Key and No Name Key is data that is identified for "privately -owned vacant land".
ra-IM
The Sands Corridor, which ties in very close proximity to the Seahorse property, is also made
up of dense residential development on scarified land. This corridor is essential to the north -
south movement of the Key Deer herd across US-i. This is precisely why the Incidental Take
Permitprohibits all new development that results in any habitat loss in the Sands Corridor.
Chan Tier Classification from Tier i to q on Big Pine fey Should Involve the Service.
The I tt I gjq-'L;Ubb the effl 'I loll lot
Mal,
111111411
the record.
And, thank you for your time and interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
//s//
Alicia Putney, Secretary
(305) 304-9212
HIENRY „
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 337
FLORIDA 32190
Phone: (386) 749-0122 -Mail Address: Henry_LeeM@yahoo.com
To: Bryan Powell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[Sent to email: <bryan_powell@?a fws.gov>]
From: Henry Lee Morgenstern, Esq..
Date: September 9, 2015
Re: Tier change for Seahorse lots on. Big Pine Key
Dear Mr. Powell,
I represent Last Stand and Key Deer Protection Alliance regarding Monroe County's
proposal to change the Seahorse trailer park lots on Big Pine Key (BPK) from Tier I to Tier 3 for
the purpose of developing them into affordable housing.
Attached is your memo of August 18, 2615, where you say that FWS is supportive of this
change. I am writing to suggest that the Service re -consider this position.
First, it appears that such a Tier change may be unnecessary. See attached email
indicating that MC staff is now considering amending their land use rules to allow affordable
housing in Tier I on Big Pine Key. (The HCP has no prohibition against, nor even mentions,
affordable housing, so such an alternative would not involve the Service or the HCP in any way.)
Second, it is my opinion that changing the Tier 1 designation on any lot on BPK to Tier 3
would be a "non -minor" amendment of the HCP as defined in HCP Sec. 6.3, p. 69. As stated in
that section, all non -minor amendments require a new application, NEPA, public notice period,
and other procedures listed.
Changing a Tier I designation on BPK to Tier 3 is a non -minor HCP amendment
because:
1. The existing Tier designations are part of the HCP. Sec. 2.4.5, pp. 43-44. Therefore,
changing the Tier designations constitutes a change (amendment) to the HCP.
2. Amendments are only "i-ninor" if they "do not deplete the level or means of mitigation„
and "do not alter the terms of the permit." HCP Sec. 6.3.
3. All of the "Avoidance and Minimization" guidelines listed in Sec. 5.3.2, pp. 57-60 are
"terms of the permit" and are also integral parts of the "level or means of mitigation" referred to
in Sec.6.3. See definition of"mitigation" in Sec. 5.3, p. 56. Note that ALL Qf these guidelines are
part of the mitigation contemplated by the HCP, regardless of whether they deal 14' ith H Value. H
Value is only one of the mars}) considerations conteinplated by the HCP.
4. Changing a lot from Tier 1 to Tier 3 on BPK would "deplete the level or means of
mitigation" by decreasing the species protection afforded by Guidelines 4, 5, 8, 10, and 21:
a. As to Guideline 4: Units that would have been counted in the 10 unit maximum for
Tier 1 will no longer be so counted. The reason this guideline limits developments in Tier 1 to 10
units or H less than .022, "whichever results in a lower H" is because it is possible for 10 Tier 1
units to have a cumulative H value greater than .022. Thus, the Guideline 4 cap on the total H in
Tier 1, as identified in the HCP, will be increased, depleting the mitigation afforded by that cap.
b. The comment in your memo that you can change a Tier designation based on "the
existing conditions of [the] parcels" (i) arbitrarily changes the baseline on which the entire HCP
is based on a piecemeal basis, without uniform criteria or justification in the body of the HCP,
see HCP Sec. 1.5, and (ii) would mean that anyone can just let the habitat value on their parcel
deteriorate and thereby avoid the requirements of the HCP. This "alters the terms of the permit."
c. As to Guideline 5: The changed lot will now be allowed to have multiple -family and
other development previously not allowed in Tier 1, changing the terms of the permit.
d. As to Guideline S: The changed lot will now be allowed to have commercial
development previously not allowed in Tien- 1. This would "deplete the mitigation" intended by
the HCP of specifically discouraging commercial development, and the traffic it entails, south of
Lytton's Way, due to the impact on US road kills. It also changes the terms of the permit.
e. As to Guideline 10: The development priority on the lot will change, giving higher
priority to habitat that was formerly in Tier 1. for example, Tier 3 development on BPK gets +20
RGGG points, while Tier I on BGK gets zero points.
f. As to Guideline 21: Changing a lot from Tier 1 will allow intensified uses on
adjacent lots, regardless of the nature of such adjacent lots, or the effect such intensified uses
may have on the protected species, "depleting the mitigation" intended by the guideline.
In conclusion, my clients respectfully suggest that the Service withdraw its support of the
proposed Tier change, or at a minimum advise the county that any such change would be non -
minor, requiring all the procedures in HCP Sec. 6.3.
Thank you for your consideration.
cc: Mayte Santamaria
Alicia Putney
%signed and sent electronically/
HENRY LEE MORGENSTERN, Esq.
2
Roberts -Michael
From: Powell, Brian <brian_powell@fws.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:51 PM
To Roberts -Michael
Cc: Ashleigh Blackford
Subject: Re: Big Pine Key Tier designations
Mike,
The Service reviewed the revised report you provided regarding the Tier amendment request for the Seahorse RV property on Big Pine
Kev. We also verified the existing; land use with a site visit and through review of aerial photographs. The Service agrees that the condition
of the Seahorse RV property (developed prior to the Big Pine HCP) is consistent with the definition of the Tier 3 designation and is
supportive of the requested change. I will provide you with a letter that formally supports the requested change with justification of our
support. I hope to have this letter to you early next week. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Brian Powell
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. fish and Wildlife Service
South Florida Ecological Service Office
1339 20th Street
Vero Beach, F1 32960
772-469-4315 - office
772-562-4288 fax
On T'ue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Roberts -Michael <R.oberts-Micliael�c ,iiionrotc;ottnt-�'-1 ..(�fov> wrote:
Thanks for your earlier review and recommendations. I have attached a revised report incorporating your suggested
edits. The Planning Commission heard the proposed amendment on August 26, 2015. The e-mail you provided (text
below) was provided to the Commission. Some members of the Commission read your message to indicate that the
Service was not in fact supportive of the proposed amendment, but were rather requesting additional supporting
analysis. I have NOT supplied any further analysis, other than providing the qualitative descriptions you
suggested. Please review the edited version — and if you can, respond with language that assures the Commission that
the Service concurs with the Planning & Environmental Resources Staff recommendation.
Thanks for your time and assistance.
Michael Roberts, CEP PINS
Sr. Administrator / Environmental Resources
Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources
From Powell, Brian [mailto: rlan Po ell fws.caov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 4:45 PM
To: Roberts -Michael
Cc: Ashleigh Blackford
Subject: Re: Big Pine Ivey Tier designations
ME
As we discussed this afternoon, the Service would be supportive of the requested tier designation change if the
justification for each individual parcel is supported by the current tier designation description. Two of the
parcels show an "H" value that is within the Tier 2 value range, however the existing condition of those two
parcels is representative of the qualitative description of the Tier 3 designation. As such I think it would be
more appropriate for the staff report to highlight that and use it as the justification for the change rather than the
"H" value.
Brian Powell
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
South Florida Ecological Service Office
1339 20th 'Street
Vero Beach, Fl 32960
772--469-4315 - office
772-562-4288 fax
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Roberts -Michael wrote
We are currently processing the attached Tier amendment request for a property on Big Pine Key. The parcel is
currently designated Tier 1, but as you will note from the attached report, it meets none of the criteria for that
Tier designation. Please review the attached and if you have any objections or comments please let me know.
Thanks
Michael Roberts, CEP; PWS
Sr. Administrator / Environmental Resources
Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources
(305) 289-2502
9 P, S. A 110i6 PWAIQ
� y
cfLORIDA t. ,
,1LVc (;ark ,Vak4' A Tiffeicgcc !
Board of County Commissioners:
Key Deer Protection Alliance Remarks by Alicia Putney
Monroe County Board of County Commission
October 21, 2015 — Marathon
Agenda Item T-9
Sea Horse (Big Pine Key) Proposed Tier Change
The Key Deer Protection Alliance participated in the development of both the Habitat
Conservation Plan and the Livable Communi-Keys Master Plan for Big Pine Key and
No Name Key ---two separate processes that began in 1998 and lasted through 2006.
The Habitat Conservation Plan's Coordinating Committee was made up of
representatives of USFWS, FWC, three applicants: FDOT, FDCA and Monroe County,
and two citizen representatives, one of which was myself. The preparer of the HCP was
the consulting firm URS, with Dr. Ricardo Calvo chosen as the Project Leader by
FDOT. FDOT led the process and bore the majority of the cost.
The Key Deer Protection Alliance has participated in the development review of this
Application by Longstock beginning with the Development Review Committee meeting
in July of this year. During this process we, along with Last Stand, asked attorney
Henry Lee Morgenstern to evaluate whether or not a tier map designation change could
legally take place outside of the purview of an HCP amendment.
Mr. Morgenstern, an Endangered Species attorney who also participated in the Habitat
Conservation Plan, concluded that the only way to legally make a change in a Tier
designation would be via a major amendment to the HCP. A major map amendment
would involve the full NEPA process and take years. (Mr. Morgenstern's letter to the
Service outlining the issue is attached to what I just handed you.)
We agree with Mr. Morgenstern's assessment and would like to suggest an alternative
approach — an approach that would help affordable housing on Big Pine Key and would
also put the BOCC in the driver's seat. The alternative approach boils down to tabling
this Application and directing Staff to fast track a text amendment to the Master Plan
that would allow affordable housing in all three Tiers on Big Pine Key. Such a text
amendment would allow this Applicant to move forward with an affordable housing
project, while at the same time avoiding the complications of a major amendment to the
HCP.
r I ,
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
For example, the proposed text amendment would allow Affordable Housing on Tier I
and Tier II lands on Big Pine Key providing all the following five criteria are met:
(1) the redevelopment project would not increase the existing density;
(2) the redevelopment project would not include any clearing of native habitat;
(3) the redevelopment project would not increase the existing intensity in use, including
vehicular traffic;
(4) the property is not in a Key Deer Corridor, as defined by the HCP; and
(5) the property is not within the 500-meter buffer zone of Lower Keys marsh rabbit
habitat, as defined by the HCP.
You are probably wondering why an alternative approach is being suggested, given that
Staff does not agree in the need for a major amendment to the HCP. The basis for
suggesting an alternative approach stems from the fact that we respectfully disagree
with Staff on four fundamental issues. More specifically:
1.) We believe that the Tier I designation was a correct designation based on the
science of the HCP. As indicated on page 11 of the September 30`" Staff Report (which
is included in what I just handed each of you), nearly all of the properties surrounding
the subject parcels were also designated as Tier I lands. This was not a mistake.
2.) We believe that while Monroe County may have produced the physical maps,
the HCP science and H-value data determined the boundaries of the Tier designations.
3.) We believe that if this proposed map amendment is approved by this Board it
would set a dangerous precedent that would place all Tier I parcels at a higher risk of
development; and that action would result in many tier map amendment requests that
otherwise would not have been sought by the owner.
4.) We believe that this higher risk of development for all Tier I parcels will have
a negative impact on the long-term viability of the federally listed endangered Key deer.
Please vote no on this Application. Please help us protect the Key deer while ensuring
more affordable housing projects on Big Pine Key. Please direct staff to fast track a text
amendment that would allow affordable housing in all Tier designations on Big Pine
Key. This is a win -win approach. It is the prudent path to follow. Please choose it.
Thank you.
HENRY LEE MORGENSTERN
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 337
SEVILLE, FLORIDA 32190
Phone: (386) 749-0122 E-Mail Address: Henry_LeeM@yahoo.com
To: Bryan Powell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[Sent to email: <bryan_powell@fws.gov>]
From: Henry Lee Morgenstern, Esq.
Date: September 9, 2015
Re: Tier change for Seahorse lots on Big Pine Key
Dear Mr. Powell,
I represent Last Stand and Key Deer Protection Alliance regarding Monroe County's
proposal to change the Seahorse trailer park lots on Big Pine Key (BPK) from Tier 1 to Tier 3 for
the purpose of developing them into affordable housing.
Attached is your memo of August 18, 2015, where you say that FWS is supportive of this
change. I am writing to suggest that the Service re -consider this position.
First, it appears that such a Tier change may be unnecessary. See attached email
indicating that MC staff is now considering amending their land use rules to allow affordable
housing in Tier 1 on Big Pine Key. (The HCP has no prohibition against, nor even mentions,
affordable housing, so such an alternative would not involve the Service or the HCP in any way.)
Second, it is my opinion that changing the Tier 1 designation on any lot on BPK to Tier 3
would be a "non -minor" amendment of the HCP as defined in HCP Sec. 6.3, p. 69. As stated in
that section, all non -minor amendments require a new application, NEPA, public notice period,
and other procedures listed.
Changing a Tier 1 designation on BPK to Tier 3 is a non -minor HCP amendment
because:
1. The existing Tier designations are part of the HCP. Sec. 2.4.5, pp. 43-44. Therefore,
changing the Tier designations constitutes a change (amendment) to the HCP.
2. Amendments are only "minor" if they "do not deplete the level or means of mitigation"
and "do not alter the terms of the permit." HCP Sec. 6.3.
3. All of the "Avoidance and Minimization" guidelines listed in Sec. 5.3.2, pp. 57-60 are
"terms of the permit" and are also integral parts of the "level or means of mitigation" referred to
in Sec.6.3. See definition of "mitigation" in Sec. 5.3, p. 56. Note that ALL of these guidelines are
part of the mitigation contemplated by the HCP, regardless of whether they deal with H Value. H
Value is only one of the many considerations contemplated by the HCP.
4. Changing a lot from Tier 1 to Tier 3 on BPK would "deplete the level or means of
mitigation" by decreasing the species protection afforded by Guidelines 4, 5, 8, 10, and 21:
a. As to Guideline 4: Units that would have been counted in the 10 unit maximum for
Tier l will no longer be so counted. The reason this guideline limits developments in Tier 1 to 10
units or H less than .022, "whichever results in a lower H" is because it is possible for 10 Tier 1
units to have a cumulative H value greater than .022. Thus, the Guideline 4 cap on the total H in
Tier 1, as identified in the HCP, will be increased, depleting the mitigation afforded by that cap.
b. The comment in your memo that you can change a Tier designation based on "the
existing conditions of [the] parcels" (i) arbitrarily changes the baseline on which the entire HCP
is based on a piecemeal basis, without uniform criteria or justification in the body of the HCP,
see HCP Sec. 1. 5, and (ii) would mean that anyone can just let the habitat value on their parcel
deteriorate and thereby avoid the requirements of the HCP. This "alters the terms of the permit."
c. As to Guideline 5: The changed lot will now be allowed to have multiple -family and
other development previously not allowed in Tier 1, changing the terms of the permit.
d. As to Guideline 8: The changed lot will now be allowed to have commercial
development previously not allowed in Tier 1. This would "deplete the mitigation" intended by
the HCP of specifically discouraging commercial development, and the traffic it entails, south of
Lytton's Way, due to the impact on US 1 road kills. It also changes the terms of the permit.
e. As to Guideline 10: The development priority on the lot will change, giving higher
priority to habitat that was formerly in Tier 1. For example, Tier 3 development on BPK gets +20
ROGO points, while Tier 1 on BGK gets zero points.
f. As to Guideline 21: Changing a lot from Tier 1 will allow intensified uses on
adjacent lots, regardless of the nature of such adjacent lots, or the effect such intensified uses
may have on the protected species, "depleting the mitigation" intended by the guideline.
In conclusion, my clients respectfully suggest that the Service withdraw its support of the
proposed Tier change, or at a minimum advise the county that any such change would be non -
minor, requiring all the procedures in HCP Sec. 6.3.
Thank you for your consideration.
cc: Mayte Santamaria
Alicia Putney
/signed and sent electronically/
HENRY LEE MORGENSTERN, Esq.
FA
r
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
LE
Tar 1
�:: • a:■ ����� � Tara
a 4 1,1=6 A
"' 11a.e Approx.
Location of
¢�¢ ., . �� t� Subject
Parcels
.�. W1
A...1Y
111111111w II�
IJJ -rrl
File No. 2015-116
HCP Figure 5.2 Key deer corridor across Sands Subdivision
Sands corridor with subject parcels in blue
pg. 1 I
71 P S. Deb C"l ee'
Last Stand Comments to the BOCC
October 21, 2015
Agenda Item T.9
Presented by Deb Curlee, Vice -President
Last Stand opposes this proposed Resolution to change the Tier designation of
the Seahorse/Longstock property on Big Pine Key through a tier map
amendment. Instead, we request that you consider an alternate process: a text
amendment to the Master Plan, which would allow affordable housing in Tier I
and Tier II parcels on Big Pine Key.
Let us be clear: Last Stand is not opposed to this affordable housing project.
In fact, we support more affordable housing — on Big Pine and throughout the
Keys. However, we are opposed to using the map amendment process to
accomplish even this laudable goal. We are concerned about triggering
unintended consequences.
There are eleven federally -listed Endangered and Threatened Species on Big
Pine and No Name Keys. The Habitat Conservation Plan (or HCP) and
Incidental Take Permit (or ITP) were developed after eight years of study, model
testing, analysis, peer review, and public meetings.
The resulting assignment of Tier designations on Big Pine and No Name was
done deliberately and differently than in the rest of Monroe County. The amount
of vegetation on a given parcel was only one factor in six. All of the Tier criteria
were based on solid science and considered the entire Big Pine and No Name
area — as a unique, contiguous project unit.
When we look at that extensive scientific process, we understand why the
subject property, and so many like it on Big Pine and No Name, came to be
designated Tier I — despite the fact that some of those properties were fairly
developed and had less hardwood hammock than some other Tier I parcels.
Last Stand believes that the Tier l designation at Seahorse — and all those
properties surrounding it that were also designated as Tier I — was not made in
error.
Because of our concerns we consulted Attorney Henry Morgenstern, who was
actively involved in this HCP/ITP process. He believes it would require a full
NEPA review to make the proposed changed from Tier I to Tier III, S
s
Based on Mr. Morgenstern's opinion, Last Stand thinks that the Big Pine and No
Name area should continue to be looked at as a single project unit, or serious
questions will arise as to whether the ITP is being followed.
Last Stand believes that relying on a map amendment for the Seahorse/
Longstock project would set an unfortunate precedent, opening the floodgate for
hundreds of requests for similar, individual map amendments. This would over-
burden staff and possibly trigger actions by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
that would be burdensome for the County.
Accomplishing a text amendment to the Master Plan would allow orderly
redevelopment of Tier I and Tier II properties for affordable housing without any
risk of requiring the US Fish and Wildlife Service to re-examine the HCP and
ITP process.Po r- e o4 l lr-ge,'f e re Dsed ,
For the BOCC to keep its decision -making power, maintain orderly control of
Tier changes and advance the Seahorse project (and other affordable housing
projects on Big Pine), we respectfully request that you direct staff to explore the
Master Plan text amendment process to allow affordable housing in Tier I and
Tier II on Big Pine.
Thank you.
j9
W
United States Department of the Interior `F`
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
South Florida Ecological Services Office
1339 20'h Street aTMr•``d
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
October 21, 2015
Michael Roberts
Senior Administrator, Environmental Services
Monroe County Growth Management
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400
Marathon, Florida 33050
Service Consultation Code: 2015-TA-0363
Project: Big Pine Key -No Name Key
Habitat Conservation Plan,
Subject: Seahorse RV Campground Tier
Designation Change
County: Monroe
Dear Mr. Roberts:
This letter is in response to Monroe County's request for technical assistance dated August 13, 2015,
related to the Tier amendment request on the Seahorse RV Campground property (Campground).
The Tier amendment request was to change the Tier designation of the Campground from Tier I
to Tier 3.
The Campground is an existing RV campground containing 130 documented units. The
Campground does not meet the Tier 1 definition described in Section 2.4.5 of the Big Pine Key
No Name Key Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP); and is more appropriately described as a Tier 3
property. If approved, this Tier change will not result in a decrease in protective measures and/or
mitigation requirements under the HCP because the Campground was an existing development
prior to the implementation of the HCP. Therefore, a change in Tier designation or land use at
the Campground will not affect the baseline used in the HCP. Additionally, the replacement or
redevelopment of existing dwelling units will not impact the H value of the Campground
property nor will it require mitigation in accordance with the HCP and County's Livable
CommuniKeys Program Master flan. Finally, if the 'Pier designation change is approved and the
Campground is subsequently redeveloped, the property will be subject to current Monroe County
ordinances including deed restrictions for free roaming cats, which will be an overall
improvement in protection for species identified for conservation under the HCP.
Based on the above discussion, the Service has no objection to and supports the request to amend
the Tier designation at the Campground as presented in the September 8, 2015, staff report
submitted to the Service.
A,
Michael Roberts
If you have any questions, please contact Brian Powell at 772-469-4315.
Sincerely yours,
aZ-e--6C � P
�Rox a
Hinman
Field Supervisor
South Florida Ecological Services Office
Page 2