Item P1BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITS SUMMARY
Meeting Date: MaL2 1. 2014
Bulk Item: Yes No X
Division: Growth Mannorement
Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Christine Hi irlev 9 RQ-?'s 17
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider an ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners deleting Monroe County Code §130-158, Improved subdivision and commercial fishing village
district densities as duplicative; removing court invalidated provisions regarding combining of contiguous lots in
common ownership; deleting §130-159, Urban residential -mobile home district density as duplicative; removing
invalid provisions regarding combining of contiguous lots in common ownership. (Legislative Proceeding)
ITEM BACKGROUND: Residential density is regulated by Policy 101.4-21 of the Comprehensive Plan (CPS and
§130-157 of the Monroe County Code (MCC). Consistent with CP Policy 101.4.3 and 101.4.22, MCC §130-157 states
that the residential allocated density for the Improved Subdivision (IS) and Urban Residential -Mobile Home (URNR land
use (zoning) districts is I dwelling unit per lot. There is not a density for the Commercial Fishing Village (CFV) zoning
district assigned in MCC §130-157; however controlling CP Policy 101.4.22 specifies that the allocated density for the
CFV district is I dwelling unit per lot.
In addition to the density regulations cited above, MCC §130-158(a) and §130-159(a) state that "...the owner of a lot in
an improved subdivision (IS) district or commercial fishing village (CFV) district shall be entitled to develop a single-
family detached dwelling on the lot..." and "...the owner of a lot in an urban residential mobile home district shall be
entitled to develop a dwelling on the lot..." These statements are duplicative of the relevant density tables in MCC § 13 0-
15 7 and CP Policy 10 1.4.22.
Further, MCC § I 30-158(b) and § 130-159(b) state, "in the event contiguous lots are owned in common ownership on or
after [September 15, 1986], the owner thereof shall be entitled to one unit per two lots or 12,500 [8,000 for URM] square
feet of land area, exclusive of rights -of -way, whichever area is less." These provisions were found to be unconstitutional
and invalid on April 6, 1989. The Court ruled against Monroe County and the Florida Department of Community Affairs
in W. A. Perkins v. Monroe County, No. 88-706 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Apr. 6, 1989) on the constitutional and statutory validity of
Sections 9.5-263 and 9.5-264 of the Monroe County Code (formerly Sections 9-303 and 9-304 of the Florida Keys
Comprehensive Plan), also known as the "Contiguous Lot Provisions," and pennanently enjoined the County and State
from enforcing the subject provisions on the basis of their violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of
the United States and Florida Constitutions, and their violations of Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes, and Sections
718.507 and 719.507, Florida Statutes. While these provisions were found to be unconstitutional and invalid on April 6,
1989, they were not removed from the code.
As these sections of the code are duplicative, and portions have been found unconstitutional and invalid, and the County
is permanently enjoined from enforcing them, they a be removed from the land development regulations.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On February 28,1986, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
adopted Resolution 049-1986, approving and submitting to the State Land Planning Authority (the Florida Department of
Community Affairs —"DCA") the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, which included the subject regulations (at that
time, §9-303 and §9-304) in Volume III — Land Development Regulations.
On October 3, 1986, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 033-1986, confirming the adoption of the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations on February 28, 1986, and confirming their effective date of
September 15, 1986, according to Florida Administrative Code Rule W-I 4.003 and W14.004.
CONTRACTIAGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty 301 OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION- AGENDA ITEM #
Mr.
2
3
4
6 ORDINANCE NO. 2014
7
8 AN ORDINANCE BY THE ICI COUNTY BOARD OF
9 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DELETING MONROE
10 COUNTY CODE SECTION 130-158, IMPROVED
11 SUBDIVISION AND COMMERCIAL FISHING VILLAGE
12 DISTRICT DENSITIES AS DUPLICATIVE; REMOVING
13 INVALID PROVISIONS REGARDING COMBINING OF
14 CONTIGUOUS LOTS IN COMMON OWNERSHIP;
15 DELETING SECTION 130-159, URBAN REST DENTIAL-
16 MOBILE HOME DISTRICT DENSITY AS DUPLICATIVE;
17 REMOVING INVALID PROVISIONS REGARDING
18 COMBINING OF CONTIGUOUS LOTS IN COMMON
19 OWNERSHIP; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
20 PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
21 PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE
22 STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE
23 SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR
24 CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
25 DATE.
26
27
28 WHEREAS, the current regulations reduce the density associated with a platted lot by
29 simple act of a property owner purchasing two contiguous IS, URM, or CFV lots on any date
30 after September 15, 1986; and
31
32 WHEREAS, density is regulated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the adopted
33 Monroe County Code, which assign an allocated density of I dwelling unit per lot to the
34 Residential Medium (RM) future land use category and the Improved Subdivision (IS),
35 Commercial Fishing Village (CFV), and Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM) land use
36 districts; and
37
38 WHEREAS, the provisions of MCC §130-158(a) which state "...the owner of a lot in an
39 improved subdivision district or commercial fishing village district shall be entitled to develop a
40 single-family detached dwelling on the lot..." are duplicative with the relevant density tables in
41 MCC § 13 0 -15 7 and CP Policy 10 1.4.22; and
42
43 WHEREAS, the provisions of MCC § 130-159(a), which state ;;...the owner of a lot in an
44 urban residential mobile home district shall be entitled to develop a dwelling on the lot..." are
45 duplicative with the relevant density tables in MCC § 130-157 and CP Policy 10 1.4.22; and
46
I WHEREAS, the provisions of MCC §130-158(b) and §130-159(b) were found to be
2 unconstitutional and invalid on April 6, 1989 when the Court ruled against Monroe County and
3 the Florida Department of Community Affairs in W. A. Perkins v. Monroe County, No. 88-706
4 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Apr. 6, 1989) on the constitutional and statutory validity of Sections 9.5-263 and
5 9.5-264 of the Monroe County Code (formerly Sections 9-303 and 9-304 of the Florida Keys
6 Comprehensive Plan), also known as the "'Contiguous Lot Provisions," and permanently
7 enjoined the County and State from enforcing the subject Provisions on the basis of their
8 violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Florida
9 Constitutions, and their violations of Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes, and Sections
10 718.507 and 719.507, Florida Statutes; and
11
12 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the
13 proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 25th day of June, 2013; and
14
15 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 28th day of August, 2013, the
16 Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider, review and receive
17 public comment for a proposed amendment to the Monroe County Code and recommended
18 approval of the amendment; and
19
20 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 21" day of May, 2014, the
21 BOCC held a public hearing to consider, review and receive public comment for a proposed
22 amendment to the Mon -roe County Code; and
23
24 WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions and intent of the
25 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan; and
26
27 WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is necessary due to new issues as required by
28 §102-158 of the Monroe County Code, in that the subject provisions have been found
29 unconstitutional and invalid and the County has been enjoined from enforcing them; and
30
31 WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding
32 Development for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Section 380.0552(7), Florida
33 Statutes;
34
35 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
36 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
37
38 Section 1. The Monroe County Code is amended as follows- (Deletions are and
39 additions are underlined,)
40
41 See. 130-158. Reserved.
42 densfties-.
43
44
45
1
2
3
4
5
6 — — — --
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 anus t-.
14
15 Sec. 130-159. Reserved.
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Section 2. Severabili!L. If any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or provision of
34 this ordinance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
35 judgment shall not affect, impair, invalidate, or nullify the remainder of this ordinance, but the
36 etTect thereof shall be confined to the section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence, or
37 provision immediately involved in the controversy in which such judgment or decree shall be
38 rendered.
39
40 Section 3. Conflicti m _Pr visions. In the case of direct conflict between any provision of this
41 ordinance and a portion or provision of any appropriate federal, state, or County law, rule code
42 or regulation, the more restrictive shall apply,
43
44 Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted to the Florida State Land planning
45 Agency as required by F.S. 380.05(l 1) and F.S. 3W0552(9).
46
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
Section 5.Film - This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of
Florida but shall not become effective until a notice of Final Order is issued by the Florida State
Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission approving the ordinance and any
challenge to the order is resolved.
Section 6. Inclusion in the Monroe County (-'- The provisions of this Ordinance shall be
included and incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of the County of Monroe, Florida, as an
addition to amendment thereto, and shall be appropriately renumbered to conform to the uniform
marking system of the Code.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective as provided by law and stated
above. This ordinance applies to any permit, and or other development approval application
submitted after the effective date.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2014.
Mayor Sylvia Murphy
Mayorpro to Danny L. Kolhage
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
Commissioner David Rice
Commissioner George Neugent
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Attest: AM Y HEAVILW, CLERK
Im
Im
Mayor Sylvia Murphy
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL REsoURCEs DEPARTMENT
Top Monroe o ty Board of County Commissioners
Through: Christine Hurley, aI P, Director of Growth Management
Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning Environmental Resources
From: Mayte Sant a, Assistant Director of Planning Environmental Resources
Emily Schernpr, Principal Planner
Bate: April 22, 2014
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
NTY
COMMISSIONERS DELETING MOOR E COUNTY BODE SECTION 130-158,
IMPROVED SUBDIVISION AND COMMERCIAL FISHING VILLAGE DISTRICT
.i ENSITIES AS DUPLICATIVE, REMOVING INVALID PROVISIONS" REGARDING
COMBINING BININ F CONTIGUOUS LOTS IY COMMON OWNERSHIP,- DELETING
SECTION 130-159, URBAN RESIDENTIAL —MOBILE HOME DISTRICT DENSITY
11S DUPLICATIVE REMOVING INVALID PROVISIONS REGARDING
COMBINING OF CONTIGUOUS UOUS LOTS IN COMMON OWNERSHIP; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND
PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE,- PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICAIION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE,
Meeting: May 21, 2014
Ia REQUEST
This is a request from the Planning & Environmental Resources Department to delete §130-158
d §130-159 of the Monroe County Cod (MCC) as duplicative and to remove provisions
which eliminate the density associated with a platted lot, in the event that two contiguous
Improved Subdivision (IS), Urban Residential Mobile Home (II ), or Courmercial Fishing
Village (CEO`) lots are owned in commono ership. These provisions were found invalid n
unconstitutional by the 1 tips Circuit Court of ` Monroe o County in 1989, and the County was
permanently errjoinedfr m enforcing therm; however, they have not been removedfrom the code.
IIe BACKGROUND / RELEVANT PRIOR O T ACTIONS
n February 28, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners (1 O) adopted Resolution 049-
1986, approving and submitting to the State Land Planning authority (the Florida. Department of
Community affairs — "DCA) the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, which included the
subject regulations (at that time, Sections 9-303 and 9-304) in Volume III — Land Development
Regulations.
Florida Administrative Code Rule M-14.004 approved portions of the Monroe County Land
Development Regulations, including Sec. 9-303 and 9-304, with an effective date of September
15,1986.
On October 3, 1986, the BOCC adopted Ordinance 033-1986, confirming the adoption of the
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations on February 28, 1986,
and confirming their effective date of September 15, 1986, according to Florida Administrative
Code Rule 9J- 14.003 and 9J 14.004.
On April 6, 1989, the Court ruled against Monroe County and the Florida Department of
Community Affairs in W, A. Perkins v. Monroe County, No. 88-706 (Fla. it. to Apr. 6,1989).
It held that Sections 9.5-263 and 9.5-264 of the Monroe County Code (formerly Sections 9-303
and 9-304 of the Florida Keys Comprehensive Plan), also known as the "Contiguous Lot
Provisions" were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court permanently enjoined the County and
State from enforcing the subject provisions on the is of their violations of the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions, and their violations
of Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes, and Sections 718.507 and 719,507, Florida Statutes
(judgment attached as Exhibit 1).
During a regularly scheduled meeting held on June 25, 2013, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee considered the proposed amendment and recommended approval with
several adjustments made at the meeting.
During a regularly scheduled meeting held on August 28, 2013, the Monroe County Planning
Commission held a public hearing to consider, review and receive public comment for the
proposed amendment and recommended approval of the amendment to the BOCC (Resolution
P24-13, see Exhibit 2).
111. REVIEW
The current sections of MCC under review read as follows:
Sec. 130-158. Improved subdivision and commercial fishing village district densities.
(a) Notwithstanding the density limitations of section 130-157, the owner of a lot in an
improved subdivision district or commercial fishing village district shall be entitled to
develop a single-family detached dwelling on the lot, provided that:
(1) The lot has sufficient land area and dimensions to meet the requirements for the
installation of on -site wastewater treatment systems;
(2) The lot was a la buildable lot eligible for a building permit on the effective
date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived; and
(3) The development of a single-family detached dwelling on the lot conforms to
each and every other requirement of the plan.
(b) In the event contiguous lots are owned in common ownership on or after the effective
date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived, the owner thereof shall be entitled
to one unit per two lots or 12,500 square feet of land area, exclusive of rights -of -way,
whichever area is less, provided that in no event shall a landowner be entitled to more
dwelling its than buildable lots were provided for in the plat as originally approved by the
county and filed with the clerk of the court.
Sec. 130-159. Urban residentiat--mobile home district density.
(a) Notwithstanding the density limitations of section 130-157, the owner of a lot in an urban
residential mobile home district shall be entitled to develop a dwelling on the lot, provided
that:
(1) The loth sufficient land area and dimensions to meet the requirements of
F.A.C. ch. 64E-6 for the installations of on -site wastewater treatment systems;
(2) The lot was a lawful buildable lot eligible for a building permit on the effective
date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived; and
(3) The development of a single-family detached dwelling on the lot conforms to
each and every other requirement of the plan.
(b) In the event contiguous lots are owned in common ownership on or after the effective
date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived, the owner thereof shall be entitled
to one it per two lots or 8,000 square feet of land area, exclusive of rights -of -way,
whichever area is less; provided that in no event shall a landowner be entitled to more
dwelling its than buildable lots were provided for in the plat as originally approved by the
county and filed with the clerk of the court.
MCC §130-158(a) and §130-159(a)
Density is regulated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan (CM and the adopted Monroe County
Code (MCC). Consistent with CP Policy 101.4.3 and 101.4.22 (Exhibit 3), MCC §130-157
(Exhibit 4) states that the residential allocated density for the IS and URM land use districts is 1
dwelling it per lot (with no maximum net density assigned). There is not a density for CFV
assigned in MCC §130-157; however, controlling CP Policy 101.4.22 specifies that the allocated
density for the CFV district is I dwelling it per lot (with no maximum net density available).
Therefore, the provisions of MCC §130-158(a) and §130-159(a), which state that "...the owner
of a lot in an improved subdivision district or commercial fishing village district shall be entitled
to develop a single-family detached dwelling on the lot. . . " and "...the owner of a lot in an
urban residential —mobile home district shall be entitled to develop a dwelling on the lot.. are
duplicative of the relevant density tables in MCC §130-157 and CP Policy 101.4.22.
Further, the qualifying provisions for developing a dwelling on a lot stated in MCC §130-
158(a)(1-3) and §130-159(a)(1-3), are also unnecessary:
(1) The lot has sufficient land area and dimensions to meet the requirements for the
installation of on -site wastewater treatment systems. [URM: The lot has sufficient
land area and dimensions to meet the requirements of FA. C ch. 64E-6 for the
installations of on -site wastewater treatment systems] — Building permits for any
dwelling unit must already meet the State of Florida Department of Health
requirements for on -site wastewater treatment systems or wastewater collection
systems, as governed by Florida Administrative Code.
(2) The lot was a lawful buildable lot eligible for a building permit on the effective
date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived; — It is not practical or
necessary for planning staff to look into the history of a parcel and the applicable land
development regulations at the time of this ordinance. Current density requirements
and all other applicable regulations control whether or not a parcel is eligible for a
building permit.
(3) The development of a single-family detached dwelling on the lot conforms to each
and every other requirement of the plan. — Development of any type within any land
use district is already required to conform to every applicable requirement of Monroe
County Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
MCC §130-158(b) and §130-159(b)
MCC §130-158(b) and §130-159(b) state, "in the event contiguous lots are owned in common
ownership on or after [September 15, 1986], the owner thereof shall be entitled to one it per
two lots or 12,500 [8,000 for UEM] square feet of land area, exclusive of rights -of -way,
whichever area is less."
These provisions were fibond to be unconstitutional and invalid on April 6, 1989, The Court
ruled against Monroe County and the Florida Department of Community Affairs in W .4,
Perkins v. Monroe Coumy, No. 88-706 (Fla. Cir. CY, ,lpr6, 1989) on the constitutional and
statutory validity of Sections 9.5-263 and 9,5-264 of the Monroe County Code (formerly
Sections 9-303 and 9-304 of the Florida Keys Comprehensive Plan), also known as the
"Contiguous of Provisions, " and permanently enjoined the County and State ftom enforcing
the subject Provisions on the basis of their violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions, and their violations of'Chapters 163 and
380, Florida Statutes, and Sections 718,507 and 719,507, Florida Statutes judgment attached
as Exhibit 1).
As these sections of the code have been found unconstitutional and invalid, and the County is
peammently enjoined from enforcing them, they should be removed from the land development
regulations.
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Therefore, staff recommends the following changes (Deletions are strielam—Shen„ gh—and
additions are underlined
See. 130-158. Reserved.
See. 130-159. Reserved.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has found that the proposed text amendment would be consistent with one or more of the
required provisions of § 102-158(d)(5)(b): I. Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service
needs) from those on which the text or boundary was based; 2. Changed assumptions (e.g.,
regarding demographic trends); 3. Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and
natural features described in volume I of the plan; 4. New issues; 5. Recognition of a need for
additional detail or comprehensiveness; or 6. Data updates.
Specifically, staff has found that the proposed text amendments are necessary due to new issues,
in that the subject provisions have been found unconstitutional and invalid and the County has
been enjoined from enforcing them.
Staff has found that the proposed text amendments (deletions) would be consistent with the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the Florida Keys Principles for Guiding
Development, and Sections 163.3194, 163.3201 and 163.3202, Florida Statute.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners amend the Monroe County Code as
stated in the text of this staff report.
VI. EXHIBITS
1. W. A. Perkins v. Monroe County, No. 88-706 (Fla, Cit. Ct. Apr. 6,1989).
2. Planning Commission Resolution P24-13.
3. Comprehensive Plan Policies 10 1 .4.3 and 10 1.4.22
4. Monroe County Code § 13 0-157. Maximum residential density and district open space.
5. Consistency with the Florida Keys Principles for Guiding Development, Comprehensive
Plan and Florida Statutes.
9 5 5 FF� WV
UIT COUP, OF sent SI)tFTII ordeljUDIs' CIAt* CIRCUIT
Its Tire CISCe
HDRCOO?EZHK""
IS AND rCM UON
Us A., pausing, JR.# W. A.
FORM$ III, 02mis "01THAN I
dAnotsy 9
CA RA dos 68-706-CA-19
Vs. clams offoresentations
Poulos CO UM I at ale
RUSS ORA AINTIFY80
NOTI RA
IS CAUBg Coding an to be board an Class Plaintiffs' Nation
partial summary judgment and the CCU ft haying reviewed the
for
morandOf low filed by to* Parties and having
Meum
leadingand
ps
heard the argument *I counsel, the Court finds as Follows$
summa
is plaintiffs have filed a Motion for eare'al ry
.
judgment 110 ding Montag County Code, emotions 0-30) and 9304 as I
- -264 be
codified to read Sections 9.5, 263 and 9.5to
older Iminaturyp arbitrary and unreasonable and that aide* javalid
and unenforceable.
The above Cited regulations read an follows$
1:7 Section 9.5-2631
Mtn d in common
I the agent contiguous lots are owns chapter,
date of this
I? ownership on or altar the oftcOtiyt
hereof, shall be entitled' to one (1) unit For two
this owner t hundred (12$5UN) square
V., (2) Iota or twelve thousand give
naive of L,ht.-cf-way, whicheVOT
be
ages, of land arcs, Orel a landowner
is loop# provided that in no Ovant shall lots veto
area than buildable
more dwalliAg Uglisa
entitled to as originally approved by Hantca
provided for in the plat
County and filed with the clack Of the Cenci"
Session 9.5-2641
min the avant Contiguous lots are, owned in Common
dote Of this chaPterP
the effective
ownership On Of Affecl be entitled to USA (1) unit Far two
thereof Dh*l left of land area
the owner
(2) lots at eight thousand (OM01 BqUACO
whichever SO@* is con, provided
exclusive of rights-Cf-WAYO landowner be entitled to Mora
in Ile event shall a for in the
that 3 were pxgvtdod
1! dwelling unite than buildable Ict�
approved by dengod County and filed with
rigically
plat as W 0
the clerk of the courts. the
in
3, The teclft Overman ownership, as stated
-cited regulations is defined in MOnCOG County Code' Section
above
C.13, as codified to toga, Section 9.5.4, and which
3- Item
as101,
id Section dada as
I
Pechich M-4 533955 ET-1 03 1 fill 90 0
hummed ownership means a shared interest in real
.prop6rty by the same person or any persons related by
marriage at blood within an immediate family locluding
parents# moouses# siblings and childrah.4
4. Under the contiguous lot pravLaians of the Monroe
County Code an set forth above# the fight of a ltroperty owner toe
,build upon his lot In an improved subdivision to determined by!
whether or not 'be or, one of his immediate EaMilyp by blood or;
marriagot,conar an adjacent lot. Thus if a brother and sister and'
adjacent lots in an. improved subdivision falling within the!
I I
contiguous lot definitions# only one may build on his at hurl
I
lot, Howeverp if two unrolated.parrionG owned the identical locr$,
!both would be able to build. I
5. The contiguous lot Provisions thOCIRCOTO create 4 cl*881,
of • property, owners within the improved subdivisions in Monroe
1Cdun'ty# plarida that have difE0ydflt and logo rights to build umbel
their lots than other similarly situated property *masts in the
,oavai subdivisions owning identical late.
6. in order to be valid# a zoning ordinance which
`restricts the use of private property must be necessary ROT the
111
publ-La welfare. This necessity lion been defined by the yLocidal
icourts an roqtLLring a substantial need for the restrictions in
the interest at the public Coultas safetYp Wglf&tG Or metals.
(Police power)"
7 A zoning ordinance enacted under a government'O
iodercLso of police power may not be adopted or enforced in,such al,
manner an to work a discrimination.
0. in determining the validity of zoning -legislation, both
the form and substance of the enactment at*. subject to judicial
J ;
f�tingufry.
9. It is the duty of this Court to declare a Boning
i!-Oidinanco unconstitutional it the ordinance does not beat 4
eE
j�adbabawtlal relation to the public welfare or if the p;Acti,dal'
I
o' discrimination.
operation and effect of the ordinance reauits in
lee The contiguous lot provisions an adopted do not beat a
substantial relationship to the publLo'healthe safety, Welfare or
metals, The regulation of use Of property under the quisO Of
a
r
583965 01CP087 W0991
police power based Upon who Owns tho PCQPBCtY rather than the
nature or quality of the property advances no recognized benefit
to the public,
11, The contiguous lot provisions an adopted are
.diswfifnic4bwrY in substance add Cllffltsticn-
The regulations ragUir& identification Of family members Audi
derialLion of their relationships for equitable onfoiCeRWitt&t
l
$t This identificati*4 and dopf i OIL tion is impossible for the
liwailoingp losing and talipq officials As there is A* way to
determine Who are Piediate Easily members- for relatives With
It is clear that theme provisions fail to
Idiffetant last names. enforcement could be
establish Any means by which their
reasonably' of impartially accomplishedv The Provision$ Can Only
itbe enforced in an arbitrary and capricious Vdk"allt-
Crew if the government. aftial.818 could identify immcdiatO
Ia
family mom here Owning adjacent lotus the prievi Card fail
provide a procedure for determining, W iCh Qf two family' fe"Obvie
owns the 'buildable lot and which the non -buildablo' 10A - .T`hust
'Ila brother and sister own two adjacent lots. subject' to. the
11 contiguous lot r9gtoictlace, the. county must d4acrLIALWAtO Against
110"S by prohibiting building while rawarding''thO other with
building rights. The Contiguous lot provisions fail to 'provide
procedures for asking this discriminatory doter inactions
22. The contiou . Quo lot provisoes ate ultimately
11digerimins tcry because there is no just basis for the
classifications created by the PtOviGiOAG- The wi4tsaLfications
are arbitrary and capricicuse
In a society that recognized family as its foundAtieflIF it
era manifeatlY Absurd to adopt zoning ordinances which prohibit
me
family members from owning and building ha s on 10tc sae to
mean other while complete greengage could build 00 rho identical
late.
13. Counsel fag defendant Monroe County OdwitB to this
Court that the county has twice tried to- amend Its 0040 to reveal
the contiguous lot Pres"'Ons' Monroe. CcUwtY informs this Court
johat the granting of this nation in consistent with the countyle
a
9
own efforts to remove the contiguous last provisions.
14. Defendant Florida Department of community Affairs
offers no evidence at argument to suggest that the contiguous lot
pfcvisiods are valid or conatitutionsl. No reasonable basis for
the classification created by the ordinances is Argued.- I
I
Defendant Department of Community Affairs 'does admit that it also!
tried to remove the contiguous let provisions from the Monroe'
County Code by its rule taking authority under Chapter 380,
lorids statutes, Its efforts to strike the Contiguous letl
i 1
Ii provisions by rule have not been successful as of this dated
156 The contiguous lot provisions of hOnrea COURAY's
I Comprehensive Land Use plan violate the due process and squat
`iseteetin clauses of the United states and Florida
+Constitutions.
i6� The contiguous lot proviaiarta of the Mont county
comprehensive Land use Flan violate Florida laws specifically
:;CRAptinis 163 and 300p Florida statutea. and Section 710-307 and
119 0507o Florida Statutes 1988.
PP IS TgBRBFORS ORDERED AND AWUDGNDS
l.. plaintiff Close, Motion For partial summary judgment is
grenades
1, section 9o5 263 and 965 264 of the Monroe County Coder''
lormarly sections 9-303 and -304 of the Florida Keys
ItCamprahansiva lan, volute 111, are hereby declared to be invalid
and snconatitutional,
' 3. Defendants Monroe C*UntY'r Florida and the Florida
DapartNant of Community Affairs are hereby par neatly onJeinsd
from enforcing Sections 9.5 263 and 9. 264 against the plaintiff
class.
DIANa AND ORDERED at Key West# Monroe County, Florida .er
this Arday of April, 1969.
iIL. Kathryn FUnohesa$ RDE,
, moor a ouldnells gaq.
I Michael f#alrnr F-h-
,I Imogene RyUcn r one.
h tcsmll�ls
Circut 'Judge a.:ra area �
I, i
SOUNHANNE
UUMLS THE E ORDER wilt y Ls
C9ar1t
MAILEDTO ATTORNEYS Of RE
ON TI�?OFENC
RY
ExhilW+z
a
3
4
5
E COUNTY, FLORIDA
S PLANNING SSI RESOLUTION 4-13
10 A RESOLUTIONE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING
I COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVALE AN
12 ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERSDELETING E
14 COUNTY CODE SECTION 130-158, IMPROVED
15 SUBDIVISION t L FISHING VILLAGE
16 DISTRICT DENSITIES AS DUPLICATIVE
17 REMOVING OUTDATED PROVISIONS REGARDING
18 COMBININGE CONTIGUOUS LOTS IN COMMON
19 OWNERSHIP; DELETING SECTION130-159, URBAN
0 E TIAL—MOBILE HOME DISTRICT DENSITY AS
21 DUPLICATIVE AND REMOVINGOUTDATED
22 PROVISIONS REGARDING COMBINING OF
23 CONTIGUOUS LOTS IN COMMON OWNERSHIP;
24 PROVIDING FOR SE I ; PROVIDING FOR
25 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING
26 FOR S TTO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
27 AGENCY THE SECRETARY F° STATE;
28 PROVIDING FOR I A."TI ; PROVIDING
29 EFFECTIVEDATE.
30
31 WHEREAS, the Planning Environmental Resources Department is proposing
amendment32 to the Monroe County Code deleting Monroe County Code Section 130-15 ,
33 Improved subdivision and commercial fishing village district densities, deleting Monroe
34 County Cade Section 130-15, Urban residential — mobile home district density, and
5
36 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the
37 proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 25th day of June, 2013 d
3
39 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 28th day of August, 2013, the
40 Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider, review and receive
1 public comment for a proposed amendment to the Monroe County Cade and to make its
42 recommendation to the Board of CountyCommissioners; and
43
44 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission makes the following findings of
45 fact and conclusions of 1 ;
1 1. The current regulations reduce the density associated with a platted lot by simple act of a
2
property owner purchasing two contiguous IS, URM, or CFV lots on any date after
3
September 15, 1986; and
4
2.
Density is regulated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the adopted Monroe County
5
Code, which assign an allocated density of I dwelling it per lot to the Residential
6
Medium (RM) future land use category and the Improved Subdivision (IS), Commercial
7
Fishing Village (CFV), and Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM) land use districts;
8
and
9
1
The provisions of MCC § I 30-158(a) which state the owner of a lot in an improved
to
subdivision district or commercial fishing village district shall be entitled to develop a
11
single-family detached dwelling on the lot..." are duplicative with the relevant density
12
tables in MCC § 13 0-157 and CP Policy 10 1 .4.2 1; and
13
4.
The provisions of MCC §130-159(a), which state "...the owner of a lot in an urban
14
residential —mobile home district shall be entitled to develop a dwelling on the lot..." are
15
duplicative with the relevant density tables in MCC §130-157 and CP Policy 101.4.21;
16
and
17
5.
It is an unreasonable expectation for the County to assurne that potential property owners
18
are aware of the regulation and it is impractical, and/or impossible for County staff to
19
research necessary ownership information to for such regulations; and
20
6.
MCC § I 30-158(b) and § 130-159(b) were adopted by the County on September 15, 1986.
21
With the subsequent adoption and refinement of the 2010 Monroe County
22
Comprehensive Plan and implementing Land Development Code, including the specific
23
density tables (requirements), these provisions are no longer necessary, and
24
74
The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions and intent of the Monroe
25
County Comprehensive Plan; and
26
8.
The proposed amendment is necessary due to new issues and recognition of a need for
27
additional detail or comprehensiveness as required by Section 102-158 of the Monroe
28
County Code; and
29
9.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for
30
the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes.
31
32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
33 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
34
35 Section 1. The following amendment to the Monroe County Code is recommended for
36 transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency and adoption by the Board of County
37 Commissioners as follows (deletions are strielsea-4firmildr and additions are
38 underlined):
39
40 See. 130-158. Reserved., ja%ved—sulidovissimammi
K
41 densidesw
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
I
17
18 Sec. 130-159. Reserved.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
I
35
36 PASSED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION by the Monroe County Planning
37 Commission at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of August, 2013.
38
39 William What, Chair
40 Denise Wetting, Commissioner
41 Jeb Hale, Commissioner
42 Elizabeth Lustburg, Cornmissioner
43 Ron Miller, Commissioner
Page 3 of 4
Resolution P24-13
2 OM PLANNING C B�r M OF 0 FLOREDA
4 William Wiatt, Chair
5 _—q
6 Signed this —LT day of—!--�,:-.
7
8 Monroe County Planning Commission Attorney
9
10 Approved As To Form
FILED wDN THg
12
13 Date:
14
S�EP 10 2013
AGENCYCLERK
Exhibit 3 to Staff Report
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan — Relevant Adopted Policies
Policy 101.4-3
The principal purpose of the Residential Medium land use category is to recognize those portions of
subdivisions that were lawfully established and improved prior to the adoption of this plan and to define
improved subdivisions as those lots served by a dedicated and accepted existing roadway, have an approved
potable water supply, and have sufficient uplands to accommodate the residential uses. Development on
vacant land within this land use category shall be limited to one residential dwelling unit for each such
platted lot or parcel which existed at the time of plan adoption. However, Monroe County shall adopt
Land Development Regulations which allow nonresidential uses that were listed as a perinitted use in the
Land Development Regulations that were in effect immediately prior to the institution of the 2010
Comprehensive Plan (pre-2010 LDR's), and that lawfully existed on such lands on January 4, 1996 to
develop, redevelop, reestablish and/or substantially improve provided that the uses are limited in intensity,
floor area, density and to the type of use that existed on January 4, 1996 or limited to what the pre-2010
LDR's allowed, whichever is more restricted. Lands within this land use category shall not be further
subdivided. [W-5.006(3)(c) I and 7]
Policy 101.412
Monme County hereby adopts the
following density and intensity
standards for the future land use
cixegcries, which am
she on the Future Land Use Map and described in Policies
101.4.1 - 101.4.l7:[9J-5.006(3Xc)7].
Future Land Use Densities and latencies
Fairre Land Use Category
Allocated Density
Maximuni Net Density
Maximum lnensity
And Comoponding Zoning
(per Wre)
(per bail le aae)
(floor am race)
Agriculture (A)
0 do
VA
020-0.25
(no direetty car ndin zonin
ol
N/A
7AaWrt i A : D
0 do
N/A
0.10
(AD soning)
0 romix/
carox
N/A
Conworcial(COMM)
0 do
N/A
0. 15-0,50
(C I 2and C2
0 rooms/s aces
rooms a aces
ILIA
Comeavation (C)
0 do
N/A
U5
run,
(CD z:) ' g)
0 roci
N/A
"—aimn (E)
0 do
NIA
030
(no &ectly 22!!222diug �mrin
0 22nLspaces
N/A
Industrial (1)
1 do
2 do
(I and NU zoning)
0 2Ln��apaces
N/A
EEO,25-0.60
Institutional (INS)
0 do
N /A
025-0E.40
_j
(no irecip, fing zoning)
3i, mic
4 rou're
i
6-24 roo:ms/spaces
-Tia-7in-b—nd N;w
0,01 do
N/A
0.10
QVIN zonimb
0 Car
0 roo
N/A
Military (M)
6 do
12 do
030-050
pol' zoning)
10 roams/spaces
20
Mixed Usd/Cormwinercial
0,1 O-OA5
(SC, UC, DR, RV, MU and
1-6 do
2 -18 do
(SC, UC, DR, RV, mid MU
MI zoning)
5-15 morns/icaces
10-25 moneopsco
zoning)
I do (MI zoning)
2 do (MI sunine
0.30-0,60 M zoning)
-K��UW�Commercjaffjsmng Fishing
Approx. 3-8 do
12 do
02MA0
(CIA, CW), CFSD zoning)
0 rooms/spaces
0 2��nwzpaces
ZicFacitifies (P 9 �(
I
—0 d u
N/A
0, 10-030
(no d�y co�rmsponaimgzonio�g).
0 rooms/spaces
N/A
Exhibit 3 - Page 1 of 2
Public Buildings/Grounds (PB)
0
N/A
(r 10-0.30
b1c,
0 morns/spaces
NIA
Recreation (R)
0.25 du
NIA
020
(PR MtQ
2 22nLT2ces
N/A
_
Residential Conservation (RC)
0-0.25 do
1,VA
0-0.10
(OR
0
NIA
Residential Low (RL)
025-050 du
5 do
0,20-025
(SSI� RE, and SR-Lzorn � n
0 roog�V
NA
_g)
Residential Medium (RM)
approx 0 5-8 du I
N/A
0
(IS Zonium
(I dMot)
N(A
0 22E!�S��i
Residential 1-figh (RIFE
approx 3-16 du
12 do
0
(IS -do, URM(� and URIO ennead
(1-2 dudob
20 rosims/spaces
lorosims/spaces
Notes:
(a) 'N/A!' means that maximum net density bonuses, shall not be available.
(b) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, fieshroner ponds, and mangroves shelf be 0 mid the mazimum not densities
bonuses "I not be available.
(c) The allossited density for CFV zoning shag be I dweftg unit per lot and the maximum net density bonuses shag not be available.
(d) Maximurn net density bras shelf not be available to the SS district
(e) The allocated density for IS-D and URM zoning shag be 2 and I dwelling units per lot, resisectively and the maximum net
density bonuses shag not be avaflalxh-�
The maximum net density for the UR disnict shag be 25 for its where all rate am designated as affordable housin&
(g) For molester consisting ofocks, pinelands or disaidard vantands within the Mixed Usel Commercial and Mixed Usc/
Commercial Fishing land me categories, the floor am ratio shall, be 0. 10 and the maximum net residential density bonuses not apply,
(h) Uses under the categories ofARriculture, Education, Insfitirtional, Public Facilities, and Public Buildings mid Uses, which have no
directly corresporamig zoning, may be an Ind him new or existing zoning districa; as appropmee.
I -be Maximinn Net Density is the maximum, density allowable with the use ofTDRs.
{jiA mixture of uses shag be maintained for parcels designated as MI zoning district that are within the RIC fitaire land use category.
Working waterfront and water dependent uses, such as manna, fish house/market, boat raper, boat building, boat storage, or other similar
uses, shelf comprise a an' nimurn of'35% ofthe upland am of the properto pursuant to Policy 10 1 A5.
Exhibit 3 - Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 4 to Staff Report
Monroe County Code —
Section 130-157. Maximum residential density and district open space.
The maximum residential density and district open space shall be in accordance with the following
table:
an Use District
Allocated Density
Maximum Net Density
Open Space
DUIAcre
DUBuildablearea
Ratio
Urban commercial
6.0
12.0
0.2
Urban residential
6,0
110
0.2
(Affordable housing)
6,0
25 °O
0.2
(Employee housing)
6.0
25.0
0.2
Urban residential mobile home
Blot
0
0.2
(URM)
Mobile home parks per section 10 1 - 1
5.0
TO
0.2
URM-limited
1/lot
0
0.2
Suburban commercial
10
6.0
0.2
(Employee housing)
3.0
15,0
0.2
Suburban residential
0.5
5.0
0.5
Suburban residential LTD
OJ
3.0
0.5
Sparsely settled
0.5
0
0.8
Native
0.25
0
Mainland native
0.01
0
0.99
OfTshore island
0.1
0
0.95
Improved subdivision
1/lot
0
0.2
Exhibit 4 - Page 1 of 2
Commercial fishing"
3.0
12.0
0.2
Destination resort
Lo
18.0
0.2
Industrial
1.0
2.0
02
Maritime industry
1.0
2.0
U
Mixed use
1.0
1240
0.2
(Affordable housing)
LO
18.0
0.2
(Employee housing)
1.0
18.0
0.2
Military facility
6.0
12.0
01
Park and refuge
0.25
0
0.9
*See additional open space ratios in chapter 118; in accordance with section 101-2(l), the most
restrictive of these ratios applies.
"The allocated and maximum net densities listed in this table do not apply to CFSD-20 (Little
Torch). See section 130-79(14)c. for residential densities.
Exhibit 4 - Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 5 to Staff Report
Consistency Review
1. The proposed amendment to delete §130-158 and §130-159 of the Monroe County Code as
duplicative and which provisions have been ruled invalid and unconstitutional, is consistent
with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7),
Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan
with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the
principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied
in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so
that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of
critical state concern designation.
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations,
seagrass, beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native
tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and
beaches, wildlife, and their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound
economic development.
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the
Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural
environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic
character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and
proposed major public investments, including-
6. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
7. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
& Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
9. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
10. Transportation facilities;
11. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
12. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned
properties;
13v City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
14. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation,
maintenance, and replacement of stornuvater management facilities; central sewage
collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and
maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems.
Exhibit 5 — Page I of 3
Ensunng: the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and
operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of as.
381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served
by central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems,
(M Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of
the Florida Keys.
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the
Florida Keys.
(m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the
event of a natural or marimade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and
maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380-0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the
Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
2. The proposed amendment to delete §130-158 and §130-159 as duplicative and twhich
provisions have been ruled invalid and unconstitutional, is consistent with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report.
3. The proposed amendment to delete §130-158 and §130-159 as duplicative and t which
provision have been ruled invalid and unconstitutional, is consistent with Part 11 of Chapter
163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers:
1633161(6), F.S. - It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have the
legal status set out in this act and that no public or private development shall be permitted
except in conformity with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof, prepared
and adopted in conformity with this act.
163.3161(10), E& - It is the intent of the Legislature that all governmental entities in this state
recognize and respect judicially acknowledged or constitutionally protected private property
rights. It is the intent of the Legislature that all rules, ordinances, regulations, comprehensive
plans and amendments thereto, and programs adopted under the authority of this act must be
developed, promulgated, implemented, and applied with sensitivity for private property
rights and not be unduly restrictive, and property owners must be free from actions by others
which would hann their property or which would constitute an inordinate burden on property
rights as those terms are defined in s. 70.001(3)(e) and (f). Full and just compensation or
other appropriate relief must be provided to any property owner for a governmental action
that is determined to be an invalid exercise of the police power which constitutes a taking, as
provided by law. Any such relief must ultimately be determined in ajudicial action.
163.3194(1)(b), E& — All land development regulations enacted or amended shall be consistent
with the adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, and any land
development regulations existing at the time of adoption which are not consistent with the
adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, shall be amended so as to be
consistent. If a local government allows an existing land development regulation which is
inconsistent with the most recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion
thereof, to remain in effect, the local government shall adopt a schedule for bringing the land
development regulation into conformity with the provisions of the most recently adopted
Exhibit 5 — Page 2 of 3
comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, During the interim period when the
provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof,
and the land development regulations are inconsistent, the provisions of the most recently
adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, shall govern any action taken in
regard to an application for a development order.
163,3194(3)(a), F.S. — A development order or land development regulation shall be consistent
with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects of
development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and birther the
objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it
meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government.
163.3201, F.S. — It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans or elements thereof
shall be implemented, in part, by the adoption and enforcement of appropriate local
regulations on the development of lands and waters within an area. It is the intent of this act
that the adoption and enforcement by a governing body of regulations for the development
of land or the adoption and enforcement by a governing body of a land development code for
an area shall be based on, be related to, and be a means of implementation for an adopted
comprehensive plan as required by this act
163.3202(2), IF. - Local land development regulations shall contain specific and detailed
provisions necessary or desirable to implement the adopted comprehensive plan and shall at
a minimum:
(a) Regulate the subdivision of land.
(b) Regulate the use of land and water for those land use categories included in the land
use element and ensure the compatibility of adjacent uses and provide for open space.
(c) Provide for protection of potable water welifields.
(d) Regulate areas subject to seasonal and periodic flooding and provide for drainage and
storinwater management.
(a) Ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive lands designated in the
comprehensive plan.
(f) Regulate signage.
(g) Provide that public facilities and services meet or exceed the standards established in
the capital improvements element required by s. 163.3177 and are available when
needed for the development, or that development orders and permits are conditioned on
the availability of these public facilities and services necessary to serve the proposed
development. A local government may not issue a development order or permit that
results in a reduction in the level of services for the affected public facilities below the
level of services provided in the local government's comprehensive plan.
(h) Ensure safe and convenient onsite traffic flow, considering needed vehicle parking.
(i) Maintain the existing density of residential properties or recreational vehicle parks if
the properties are intended for residential use and are located in the unincorporated
areas that have sufficient infrastructure, as determined by a local governing authority,
and are not located within a coastal high -hazard area under s. 163.3178.
Exhibit 5 — Page 3 of 3