Loading...
Item H06i; • 1 MS 4ORM.0, / R Meeting Date: March 23, 2016 Department: Planning & Environmental Resources Bulk Item.: Yes —X, No Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Mayte Santarnaria 289-2562 AGENDA ITEM DING: Reject the request by TD Group Holdings I, LLC, to remove a Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant recorded in the Monroe County Public Records File #149136, Book #2028, Page #750 on July 23, 2004, by Rosie Perez for four (4) properties in Key Largo, having real estate number 00527340-0000000, ITEM BACKGROUND: On March 1.0 2004, the Planning Commission approved an allocation award for Rosie Perez for building permit application #03302510, subject to the cesspit replacement/elimination program per Administrative Commission Rule No. 28-20.100 and provided the applicants' Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant was approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant was approved by the BOCC on July 14, 2004 and subsequently recorded in the Monroe County Public Records on July 23, 2004, prior to the issuance of the building permit on September 22, 2004. Based on the Building Department records, the permit received a passed inspection for a temporary power pole March 22, 2005, and no other inspections. The new property owner is requesting to remove and release the Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant recorded in the Monroe County Official Records File #1459136, Book #2028, Page #750 for Lots 1, 2, 25 and 26 of Block 19 of the Amended Flat of Key Largo Park (PB 3-62). The applicant will be required to submit new applications for building permits, ROGO allocations and be subject to the regulations in effect at that time. The applicant could potentially receive buildings permits and ROGO allocations for four (4) dwelling units, if the BOCC releases the restrictive covenant, verses one (1) dwelling unit with the existing restrictive covenant. The applicant states if the existing restrictive covenant is removed, that the resulting dwelling units would be deed restricted as affordable housing.. In 2013, the BOCC denied a request to remove a Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant recorded in the Monroe County Public Records Documents #1758868, Book #2431, Page #1092 on September 15, 2009, by Steven L. and Marm Caputo. After further discussion, BOCC directed staff to process amendments to put policy into place related to the restrictions required for aggregation and other restricted covenants and to retain the ROGO points for future applicants. With the Comprehensive Plan Update project, the BOCC directed the addition of policy and land development code provisions to specifically: not allow the reversal elf any lot aggregation used to assign extra points to a ROGO application, whether executed by unity of title andlor restrictive covenant, and regardless of the status of the ROGO allocation award or associated building permit. In the event the dwelling unit was not constructed and the ROGO allocation award has expired, a subsequent ROGO allocation application on the same aggregated parcels will be assigned the same number of extra points originally assigned far the lot aggregation PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:. On July 14, 2004, the BOCC approved Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant. CONT CT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reject of the release of the Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant. C�T�1�.'li ii11C�Z�171JM Il'� SOURCE OF 1 REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH N/A Year N/A APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing N/A Risk Management N/A DOCUMENTATION. Included X Not Required DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # Subject Y * 5' �"" � � Z:z a a G(lt f' DRIVE 1C B kl t Y r 6 5: y� d W 13 .4 is 16 17 I9 19 ZDP, 221 '.,. ✓� ,y1. +� t' is -,.--, (eat!#. V?rw [)RfLv� _ u e a c aTz 71 J 22 23 2At'i EEY t m 5 4 ` 3 o xl f r2 's 2a 1 :. {f a'y rrrn2ar a r c 5 r ., UliI V�' e._..�._... nr � d1 % 't ,a# 9 k 1 I j lib e% L J•••. — a la a� 15 kta I; IB +2 ( ? 2a £4 23 224 1 2& 29 � IV fSvr 4. 14 15 2 !� 19 t 2t7 Ie a — I$ 1 7 d ,w,e rJi Y€ 2 SMITH OROPEzA HAwKss I T T 0 Ms. Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400 Marathon, Florida 33050 SMEGIN.-TUTM �Uv�nw Barton W. Smith, Esq. Tel: 305-296-7227 Fax: 305-296-8448 bart@smithorol2eza.com Per our previous conversation, please allow this letter to serve as a request by my client, TD Group Holdings 1, LLC ('71)"), to release the Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant ("Restrictive Covenant") granted in favor of Monroe County by TD's predecessor in interest, Rosario Perez. 1 have included a copy of the Restrictive Covenant for your convenience. In exchange for the release of the Restrictive Covenant, TD would restrict each lot to affordable housing pursuant to Monroe County Code Section 130-161, as amended. My client acquired the property located at Lot 1, 2, 25 & 26, Block 19 AMENDED PLAT KEY LARGO PARK, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 3, at Page 62 of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida ("Property") through a tax deed issued to it by the Monroe County Tax Collector (Tax Deed enclosed), The Property currently consists of four (4) vacant scarified Tier III lots in Key Largo. Based on the provisions contained in the Restrictive Covenant, Perez agreed to the Lot Aggregation in order to obtain additional ROGO points under the prior ROGO allocation system. Since the Lot Aggregation, no residential dwelling unit has ever been developed on the Property and the Tier system has been adopted, amending the point system the Property would be subject to in determining its ROGO points. Moreover, the County is currently in desperate need of additional affordable housing. These vacant Tier III Lots are zoned Improved Subdivision and represent an excellent opportunity to 00052240 - v3 W WTA VATWX UP =5 W, I November 9, 2015 Page 2 add to the much needed affordable housing stock in the upper keys. As Monroe County is aware, affordable housing is one of the immediate issues that must be addressed. The release of the Property from the Restrictive Covenant and subsequent placement of an affordable housing restriction on the Property would assist in addressing this concern. I would request to have the release of the Restrictive Covenant placed on the next availabli-r Monroe County Board of County Comrnissioner's agenda, preferably in December in Key Largo. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Barton W. Smith, Esq. mam 00052240 - 0 M XOHROE COURTY OFFICIAL RECORDS RCD Jul 23 2004 02:15PM DANNY L KOLHAGE® CLERK Tejw-TCTC�-�# *-4klrxji 1. Whereas, Rosla Peraz -a single woman, the undersigned is the sole owner of the following described real property located in Monroe County, Florida d Lot(s): 1. 2. 25 and 26 Block: 19 Subdivision: Amended Plat of Key LarqqPar Key: Largo Real Estate #(s)- 00527340.000000, 00527350.00000111 00527580.00000b & 00527590.000000 and I 2. WHEREAS, this Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant that restricts the use oi the legally described property In order to receive a building perrnid; and 3, WHMAS, the above described paroel(s) was assigned additional Points in the PerTnft Allocation Systern for building permit # 03-3-2510 for the voluntary reduction of density through aggregation of vacant, legally platted, buildable lots. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned agree as follows: e The above described parcel(s) shall have its density reduced from four dwelling units to one dwelling unit in consideration of a building permit to build a single-71timilly residence; and * The restrictions herein shall be bindIng upon ft representatives, heirs, assigns and successors in title of the, undersigned; It being the intention N the undersigned by execution and recording of this document that this restriction shall run with the land and shall be forever binding upon the successors in tifie: and * This covenant is intended to benefit and run In favor of the County of Monroe; and Lot Aggmption Restrictive Cov �-t Page 1 of 2 FM 00527340.0000MI 0052735G.GOOODO, 00527580.00DOOO & 00527590k00000 In the event of any breach or violation of the covenant contained herein, the sold County may enforce the covenant by injunction or such other legal method, as the County deems appropriate. WITN 1 ESSES% LW4ER(S) V141-71 (Signature) 19M=1 (PrintfType Name) (Signature) (PrintIType Name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE SM0,41i, M= Rosle Perez 01 01 (Print/TypB Name) Address: 6.qq I -=,t-Q 1WIRve— U 0) (Signature) (Print[Type Name) Address: —i before me this &7,72' day Wublic (Signature) " ornmIsslon Expires COW, �11 This ImMuneW Prepared by: AWKxwe VkW ROME Perez D, MYCWM*dMDD1K= 3291 SW 137"' Ave. %q.Vfi5#ftJUWft2Wa MW33j, FL 33175 MONROE C01LINTY Lot AWcptkrn Restrictive Covenant Page 2 of2 OFFICIAL RECORDS RE- 00527340.000000, 00527350.000000, 00527590.000000 & 00527590.000000 DocN 2046683 09/23/2015 3:54PITI Tax Heed File Number 2015-9 Piled & Recorded in Official Records,or Property Identification Number MONROE COLINTY ANY NEAvrL!N 00527340000000286139 09/23/2015 3-sr Krys DEED DOG sTAmp CL $182.00 TAX DEED 0,,,, 20466a3 STATE OF FLORIDA BkO 2762 Fig u 169 COUNTY OF MONROE The following Tax Sale Certificate Numbered 2012/2708 issued on June 1", 2012 was filed in the office of the tax collector of this county and application made for the issuance of a tax deed, the applicant having paid or redeemed all other taxes or tax sale certificates on the land described as required by law to be paid or redeemed, and the costs and expenses of this sale, and due notice of sale having been published as required by law, and no person entitled to do so having appeared to redeem said land; such land was on the 23rd day of September, 2015 offered for sale as required by law for cash to the highest bidder and was sold to TD GROUP HOLDINGS 1, LLC. 5701 SW 107 AVENUE #202 MIAMI, FL 33173 being the highest bidder and having paid the sum of his bid as required by the Laws of Florida. Now this, 23rd — day of September 20 15 the County of Monroe, State of Florida, in consideration of the sum of ($ 26,000.00 TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS being the amount paid pursuant to the Laws of Florida does hereby sell the following lands situated in the County and State and described as follows: BK 19 LT 1, 2,25 & 26 AMD PLAT OF P133-62 KEY LARGO PARK, KEY LARGO OR470-606 OR1307489 OR1677-1738 OR2051-2389/90Q/C OR2028-750/75 I (REST) (SEAL) Clerk of CicLO Court or County Comptroller County, Florida. Witness. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE On this 23rd day of September ­jw_ 20 15 before me N; c 0 Le personally appeared Amy Heavilin the Circuit Court or Coun Corn troller in and for the State and this County known to me to be Witness my hand and official sea[ date aforesaid. MON NICOL ODES ROE COUNTY fal 199 OFFICIAL RECORDS F ExPtREIA ?U J9 XPtRES 11 w'~V" P11ifiging DeRgrtment 2798 Overseas Highway Suite 410 Marathon, Florida 33050 Voice: (305) 289 2500 FAX: (305) 2892536 July 16, 2004 Rosie Perez 3291 SW 137 Ave. Miami, FL 33175- 0 G C o of Monroe Ramx d- od—Cos nty-Commissioners Mayor Murray Nelson, Dist. 5 Mayor Pro Tern David Rim Dist. 4 Comm. Dixie Spehar, Dist I Comm. George Neugent, Dist 2 Comm, Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dist 3 Re: Allocation award for the issuance of building permit 03-03-2510 under the Dwelling Unit Allocation System Dear Ms. Perez: The Planning Department has been informed by the Monroe County Health Department that Cesspit Credit Voucher No, TNCO2804 is available for your ROGO Allocation Award. The requirement established by Florida Administrative Commission Rule #28-10. 100 for the cesspit replacement/ elimination program has now been completed. On 6/9/2004, the Planning Department forwarded a report to the Monroe County Planning Commission that included available Cesspit Credits for ROGO applications ranked pursuant to Resolution No. 12-04, On 619/2004, the Planning Commission met in public hearing to review the report. The Commission approved your application for an allocation award subject to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners approval of the restrictive covenant limiting the number of dwelling units on the aggregated property submitted, On 7/14/2004 the Monroe County Board of Commissioners confirmed the Planning Commissions recommendation approving the restrictive covenant combining contiguous lots for voluntary density reduction. Consequently, and pursuant to Section 9.5-122(c), of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations (LDR!s), this letter constitutes an Allocation Award, entitling you to a building permit for a residential dwelling unit. As per Section 9.5-121.2(g) of the Code, this award shall expire when its corresponding building permit is deemed to expire according to Section 9.5-115 of the LDR!s, or on September 14, 2004. The building permit can not be issued until the Planning Department has received the approved, recorded Restrictive Covenant combing contiguous lots. Once you have secured your HRS permit, you may then make an appointment with the Building Department to pick up your permit, If in the Upper Keys, please call (305) 952-7100; if in the Middle or Lower Keys, please call (305) 289-2501. Sincerely, U ORIGINAL SENT T" 7 j K. Marlene Conaway Planning Director Enclo cc Assist ha.--�igidiing Off D'ircctor of Growth Management; File PC & BOCC Agg Lot OF THE MONROE COUNTY 111 ftWt Regular Meeting Board of County Commissioners Wednesday, July 14, 2004 Key West, Florida 2004/153 A Regular Meeting of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners convened at 9:00 A.M., on the above date at the Harvey Government Center. Present and answering to roll call were Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Commissioner George Neugent, Commissioner David P. Rice, Commissioner Dixie Spehar and Mayor Murray E. Nelson. Also present were Danny L. Kolhage, Clerk; Isabel C. DeSantis, Deputy Clerk; Richard Collins, County Attorney; James Roberts, County Administrator; County Staff, members of the press and radio; and the general public. Motion was made by Commissioner Rice and seconded by Commissioner Spehar granting approval of Additions, Corrections, and Deletions to the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Presentation of Employee of the Month Award for April, 2004, to Roberto Blasco, Custodian, Facilities Maintenance Department, Public Works Division, Presentation of Mayor's Proclamation to declare July 26, 2004, as ADA Anniversary Day in Monroe County. Presentation of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) award to Monroe County's Office of Management and Budget. Presentation of the National Association of Counties 2004 (NACo) Achievement Award for the program entitled Lunchtime Senior Concert Series. Calling Out Ceremony of Monroe County children who need adoptive homes. Recognition of Public Works employees who assisted with the cleaning of Higgs Beach, Board granted approval and authorized execution of a letter dated June 22, 2004 to enter into an On -Call FEMA Grant Management Services Agreement with Adjusters International Disaster Recovery Services (AIDRS) to provide services to the County to maximize FEMA funding in the event a disaster has been declared, and to expedite the process and retain funds during project closeout and audit. Board granted approval for the County Administrator or his designee to complete and submit the online application for the Federal Fiscal Year 2004 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funds via Internet as required by U.S, Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Board granted approval for the County Administrator to execute an Order Addendum to Master Contract for BellSouth Business Services Master Agreement number DS0025 for Key West Airport and to execute up to 50 additional order addendums to same Master Contract for DSL service as sites get connected to DSL. Board granted approval to enter into Modification Number Two to the Hazard Mitigation Grant Agreement Number 01HM-4R-1 1-54-15-009 with the Department of Community Affairs concerning FEMA Project 1259-0019 Gato Building Retrofit Project. Board granted approval and authorized execution of an Addendum to Interlocal Agreement between Monroe County and the City of Key West for beach cleaning services and seaweed cleanup by Robbies Marine for Smathers and Rest Beach in an amount not to exceed $13 8,140 per year for cleaning and maintenance and $45,000 per year for seaweed cleanup, DAC I, third penny resources. Board granted approval and authorized execution of an Amendment to Interlocal Agreement between Monroe County and Islamorada, Village of Islands, to extend Agreement until September 30, 2005. Board granted approval to advertise a Request For Qualifications for a county wide Fishing Umbrella. Board granted approval to advertise a Request For Qualifications for a county wide Diving Umbrella. DIV1SION OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES Board granted approval to refund de -obligated costs of $58,682.50 from disaster - 1259 (Tropical Storm Mitch) to the Florida Department of Community Affairs as per Audit Report E-06-03, Office of the Inspector General, 131"SION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT Board granted approval of recommendations from the Request for Statements of Qualifications (RFQ) Selection Committee to select URS Corporation to provide Transportation Planning/Engineering Services to the Growth Management Division, and direct Staff to enter into 07/14/2004 2004/160 Contract negotiations with this firm; if the Staff is unable to successfully negotiate a Contract with this firm, it is authorized to enter into negotiations with the second ranked firm. Board granted approval and authorized execution of a Memorandum of Agreement between Monroe County and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Greenways and Trails (DEP-OGT) to assist in the construction of the Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail. Board granted approval and authorized execution of Amendment No. I to the Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) between Monroe County and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the completion of boat ramp engineering and reconstruction. Board granted approval to solicit bids for the installation of 135 Idle Speed/No Wake buoys at designated areas along the shoreline in Islamorada, Village of Islands at the request of the Village. Board granted approval for one Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant from Sean & Sandra Heffron to have one dwelling unit on contiguous lots, Permit No. 02-03-0003, for property described as Lots 10 & 11, Block 3, Ocean Isles Estates, Key Largo. The applicants are receiving one dwelling unit allocation award for the year ending July 13, 2004, have filed the documents in accordance with Ordinance No, 47-1999. Board granted approval for one Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant from Rosie Perez to have one dwelling unit on contiguous lots, Permit No. 03-3-2510, for property described as Lots 1, 2, 25 & 26, Block 19, Amended Plat Key Largo Park, Key Largo. The applicant is receiving one dwelling unit allocation award for the year ending July 13, 2004, have filed the documents in accordance with Ordinance No. 47-1999, Board granted approval for one Restrictive Covenant from Martin Holding Inc., a Florida Corporation - Joseph Silvestri, President to have one dwelling unit on contiguous lots, Permit No, 03-3-0577 for property described as Lots 21 & 22, Block 19, Largo Sound Park, Key Largo, The applicant is receiving one dwelling unit allocation award for the year ending July 13, 2004, have filed the documents in accordance with Ordinance No. 47-1999. Board granted approval for one Restrictive Covenant from Marlin Holding, Inc., a Florida Corporation - Joseph Silvestri, President to have one dwelling unit on contiguous lots, Permit No. 02-3 -3 927, for property described as Lots 18 & 19, Block 19, Largo Sound. The applicant is receiving one dwelling unit allocation award for the year ending July 13, 2004, have filed the documents in accordance with Ordinance No. 47-1999. Board granted approval for the transfer of one buildable lot from Richard R. & Rosa Mazzei to Monroe County by Warranty Deed, Permit No. 02-1-1592, for property described as Lot 1, Block 9, Eden Pines Colony Subdivision, Big Pine Key. The applicants are receiving one dwelling unit allocation award for the year ending July 13, 2004, have filed the documents in accordance with Ordinance No. 47-1999. MINUTES OF 1 '1COUNTY P7,111 "", It Regular Meeting Board of County Commissioners Wednesday, August 21, 2013 Key Largo, Florida A Regular Meeting of the Monroe County Beard of County Commissioners convened at 9:00 A.M., at the Harvey Government Center. Present and answering to roll call were Commissioner Heather Carruthers, Commissioner Danny Kolhage, Commissioner Sylvia Murphy, Commissioner David P. Rice and Mayor George Neugent. Also present at the meeting were Roman Gastesi, County Administrator; Bob Shillinger, County Attorney; Amy Heavilin, County Clerk; Vitia. Fernandez, Deputy Clerk; County Staff, members of the press and radio; and the general public. Item A Motion was made by Commissioner Carruthers and seconded by Commissioner Murphy granting approval of the Additions, Corrections and Deletions to the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. i ;1 . 1 II 1 100191 ' The Board of Governors for the Fire and Ambulance District I convened, Present and answering to roll call were Commissioner Danny Kolhage, Commissioner David P. Rice, Mayor George Neugent, Mayor Norm Anderson and Councilwoman Kate Snow, James Callahan, Fire Chief addressed the Board concerning the following items: Item F2 Approval to award the Maintenance of Monroe County Fire Rescue Vehicles contract to Fire Tech Repair Service, Inc.; three (3) year contract not to exceed two (2) renewal options, and approval for the Fire Chief to sign all documents as needed to complete transaction. After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Rice and seconded by Commissioner Kolhage to approve the item. Motion carried unanimously. Item F3 Approval to enter into an agreement with Motorola Solutions, Inc. for the service, maintenance and support of existing mobile communications equipment, and any additional mobile communications equipment purchased from Motorola, and approval for the Fire Chief to 08/21/2013 _ Pagel Item D5 Public Works/Engineering/Project Management Kevin Wilson, Public Works Engineering Director updated the Board regarding the Cudjoe Region Wastewater. They are getting ready to pour the foundation of the treatment plant. On the Inner Islands they have laid about 8 miles of gravity pipe, mostly to the caster side of Cudjoe Key. On the Outter Islands the design is complete and permitted for both, Sugarloaf and Ramrod Key construction has started in both islands. Some time in November we should have all the information for the rest of the County on the Pavement Study. The following individuals address the Board: Kirk Raper and Bill Hunter, representing the Sugarloaf Shores Property Owners Association. Item D6 Growth Management Christine Hurley, Growth Management Director updated the Board regarding the upcoming meeting with the Construction Industry Group. The agenda was sent out recently as well as a status report on implementation of the interactive voice system that's going to be the computerized system for calling in inspections. We were notified that DEP did have an acquisition meeting, it's the Acquisition Restoration Counsel and they are beginning to develop their work land for Florida forever Acquisition. They expect the work plan would take about ') to 4 months to develop. The package is almost ready to be presented with the maping and the evaluation of the private vacant land that's left with the Florida forever Boundary. We are also further developing the military private vancant lands. Item D7 Lisa Tennyson, Director of Legislative Affairs & Grants Acquisition updated the Board regarding the legislative package. We will present a draft and briefing book on the next :Board of County Commissioners meeting. There was some changes to the National Flood Insurance Program. The bigger waters amendment will significally change. The Congress is Cl- also dealing with the reauthorization of the WRDA Bill. The WRDA Bill passed the Senate and it's being finalize in the Mouse. Item U Christine Hurley, Growth Management Director addressed the Board concerning the approval for the removal of a Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant recorded in the Monroe County Public Records Documents 41758868, Book 42431, Page #i1092 on September 15, 2009, by Steven L. and Marm Caputo, applicant. The following individual addressed the Board: Steve Caputo. After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Carruthers to deny the item. Motion carried unanimously. After further discussion, another motion was made by Commissioner Kolhage and seconded by Commissioner Carruthers to direct staff to process a land development code amendment to put policy into place related to people and the deed restrictions that we require for aggregation and other restricted covenants; analyze the FEMA injuction list and those expiration dates to determine where the majority of the people are within those time limits and how those are proceding and also find a way to retain the ROGG points and cases like this. Motion carried unanimously. 08/21/2013 _ _ _ Page 9 Transcription of Agenda Item 13 |tmrn 13: Approval for the ranmmvm| of Lot Aggregation Restrictive Covenant recorded in the Monroe County Public Records Documents #1758868, Book #2431, Page #1092 on September 15, 2009, by Steven L. and Marni Caputo, applicant. Commissioner Ko|hage: Mr. Mayor, | asked this hem to be held. 8 have an issue with this in that what we're doing here is actually increasing density. it really goes in the opposite direction that | think we want to 0o in. | understand, 8 mean | guess that the reason that the owners want to do this | suppose is that is to increase the marketability to be able to sell two lots instead of one, But | have a problem with that becouse— and there may be a way to givethem—uotjuotthis owner, |'m thinking about should this come forward in the future but to provide an incentive that when we aggregate, we agreed to aggregate for the purpose of granting points in the BOG0 process, that we actually extend that benefit to the subsequent purchaser of the combined lots to try to make it more attractive for them to want to retain the aggregation and therefore keep, not ask us to do something that increases density. Did | say that clearly enough for anyone tounderstand? Commissioner Kolhage: You got any comments on this Christine? NFAVINIANFAIRMust that this is m little bit unique request. We in the code did not really anticipate what happened in the real estate market and the fact that people have been holding on to their ROGO allocations because the state has given so many permit extensions for several years now and we can feel the clients that have been holding onnow trying toundo their situations. Soidon't think that this islike afluke, | think that ao these expirations happen you're going tosee more requests toundo things people did inthe real estate market. That being said, because the code did not anticipate this ever happening, we don't have any provisions tngn by so if the Commission wants us to evaluate under which circumstances we would recommend something like this, we could do a land development code amendment to address that, Because the next item is related to taking off on affordable housing restriction because they can't build the house that they originally wanted to build. So over the next couple years I do think you are going to see more of this happening. Commissioner Another part ofthat Mr. Mayor bthat for those people who are struggling, who are caught up in the FEK8A injunction process there hasn't been enough time. 8 can see that they're struggling to get things done within a limited time span and it all has to do with being held up in the FEMA injunction process of which we just resolved. | think weshould consider an extension. Perhaps you could come back with a recommendation because maybe we have not allowed them enough time to get everything together, tngoout, try to get the finances and so forth and that might place people into a posture —well I'm just going togive up, ya know throw it on the market rather than try to deal with it in a short period of time, 8don't know how you feel about that but | think some people are being penalized because there is a short window here following the resolution ofthe FEK8Ainjunction process. Commissioner Murphy: | number one | always thought that when we aggregated lots it was forever. | didn't know you could go back and cle-aggregate. And this is a case, I'm going to vote for this but in the future, I Transcription of Agenda item 13 don't know what vve are going to do about it. Danny had some good suggestions. But you can't ... | don't see how vvecan put Growth Management through all ofthe hoops ... the jumps and hoops togive people what they want at a given time to serve their financial or living needs. And then a few years later when things change, either their life, our life, the state rules whatever, then they want to undo all of that because it's no longer to their advantage. That's not the way life works. You make your decisions and you stay with them. Gmtnbed and adapt toit, whatever. I'll vote for this one but I wouldn't want to see several show up every month. Commissioner Carruthers: | have other concerns about the implications for this. Commissioner Kolha8e touched on it in terms of increasing densby. Same with the next item about affordable housing | mean are we now going to start to back pedal on what our goals in our comprehensive plan have been. Totry toadjust for changes in the market that were completely outside of our control. And then are we going to end up backing ourselves into a position where we have increased competition, made more people angry ... and also diminish the amount ofthe second case, available affordable housing. I'm alittle concerned about precedents that are set by these one off situations. I feel like we need to take a more comprehensive look at dealing with situations like this. And in the meantime you don't want to penalize particular property owners for the situations that they are inright now. They've gone through the process that has been outlined for them in our plan but I think I'd like to ask Growth Management to take a look at these issues from a more comprehensive perspective. Well here is my two cents. We had a discussion in a previous County Commission meetings in the last one and maybe two or three before and | brought upsomething as haras—omd Commissioner Ko|hage~scomrnen1s triggered my thinking here that the proposal that | brought upfor discussion purposes was that we pay people to aggregate lots to reduce that density situation and all of sudden |'m thinking, "man if | had some aggregated lots and if the County chose to do that, i vvoo|6 go un-aggregate them ... and um -aggregate them and say okay pay me to aggregate them now." (laughs)... So that is one of those unintended consequences that also is wrapped up in what you just brought to our attention, Danny. Because | do think that paying to reduce development is something that we need to be doing. So | can't vote for this because | think that that is something that | want to see more of is people aggregating lots and it's in our best interest to pay people to aggregate those lots. | would like to say this person had written their letter before that idea was ever put oo the table, just as an informational item, but | totally agree with the fact that this, while not against our code our comp plan because we never addressed it it is not one hundred percent consistent with all of our overall policies that xoeare trying toachieve, I'm not saying inany way, shape, mform that's what this person was thinking. | wish hewere that smart but 8 do think that if in fact we are going to consider that proposal, we need to think long and hand about anybody breaking properties apart to increase density orfor whatever reason. | am not saying there is not reason out there that w/ewould not support someone doing that but | think that Commissioner Ko|haQe and the comments that are made are certainly worthy ofdocumenting. PA Transcription of Agenda Item 13 Commissioner Kolhage: Christine, do we have a way now under the current code of allowing a subsequent purchaser of the combined lots to get the benefit of ROGO point enhancement? IAIMPMVIIMIM Only if you approve removing the aggregation that's in the chain of title right now could we then consider it two separate lots and let the new ROGO applicant re -aggregate. You and | talked about that but there is nothing in the code that really addresses that and once the deed restriction is recorded, it's considered one lot. if you approve this item then they'll have two lots and if they decide to apply for one and then they use the other one, the same owner, they could re -get the points for aggregation. But worst case scenario, they'd epp|yfor two ROGOS. Commissioner Kolhage: But I mean we have no guarantee that that's what is going to happen. - Commissioner ^Ureally can't support this because | don't like the precedent. This isleading uadown a path that could undo what has been done over a long period of time. What's the reason that staff if supporting it? Because we have no provisions in our regulations that address what happens under this situation. No one anticipated this kind of thing, Their ROGO is going to expire, they can't build it, it's a Tier three —that was part of our review and without of any kind of regulation that says, "thou shalt not ever undo a lot aggregation even if you don't have your RO6O allocation fulfilled," we felt that it needed discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Kolhage: so you're neutral? ah'mestruggled internally onwhat our staff recommendation was going tnbe. Kthis was not a Tier three we would not have even went down this path. Commissioner Carruthers: It's an interesting —that's an interesting aspect of this because you know, in a sense, | could see increasing density imTier three and not allowing bimTier one, ORNIMMyeah and also we didn't, let me just say we didn't view it as an increase we viewed it as giving them back what they originally had before they obtained the 0UGO allocation because it is two platted lots that they then combined sothey could get points sothey could get one ROGO. But inreality i1increases the potential number mfROGQdemands. Commissioner Kolhage: Sure, the reason why the points were given in the first place was because of the reduction in density. That's why there is abonus. bso|ute|y. So then you take the points away? 9 Transcription of Agenda Item 13 you would approve this item there would just be again two vacant lots with no ROGO allocation and moaggregation they would just goback totheir status. So then we are back to square one. So basically we are just turning back the clock here. So Christine, is this something that we need to do some more thinking on before we establish a precedence and you bring this back to us and say, 'this is why we're doing itmrthis is why we're not doing itbecause ofthings that we have discussed at previous County Commissions and are in the works." Or do we have to make a decision on this particular case today given what code exists ordoes not exist today and craft code going forward? 11111111IMThat's more along the lines of what I was thinking, Commissioner Kolhage: But it's still discretionary? Absolutely the board can vote no and you can vote no and still tell us, "go write some code to make sure this doesn't happen again." Commissioner Kolhage: [d like to see you do two things, this is my opinion. |'d like the staff to look at two things. First ofall, duvve need todosomething with an extension oftime for those people who are caught upim the FEPWA injunction process to be fair? And secondly, what can we do in a case like this where we can aNuuv a subsequent purchaser to retain the RQGD bonus points in an effort to make it more desirable to keep the aggregation? n I ask the attorney something relative to that idea? Commissioner Kolhage: Sure. attorneys) With the owner, of course, in agreement could we revise the deed restriction to keep the aggregation but within that instrument since we don't have this in the code allow the County for the subsequent purchaser to reuse the points because that's the problem we have right now when they would reapply. Soifxveamended the res1rictiom— You would essentially vest the owner of the pmoperty, whoever that is, and the subsequent owners tuthose points inthe RQ6Oallocation. Yes vvecould work upsomething an that. So in other words, you're talking about addressing the real problem with this property without de -aggregating the lots? That's what Commissioner Ko|hage is asking and | think that's what we would do if that's where the Commission wants tohead today. You could table this item; vuecould communicate with that buyer and see |fthey would bewilling todothat. You know ifthey're not, then | think you guys are being alittle clear that you're not really infavor ofthis. Transcription of Agenda Item 13 For staff to work on? Commissioner Ko|hame: Yes Commissioner Murphy: Whatever Danny said. But also to work on a more comprehensive ... I think the motion is table this item, direct staff to communicate with the owner to see if they would be willing to amend the lot aggregation restrictive covenant, to include a provision that would allow the county togive a future buyer the aggregation points in ROGO, staff to evaluate and bring to Commission an analysis of the BPWA injunction timelines and see where most of those properties are with their expiration dates, and direct staff to work on land development code amendments to address this in policy for other ROGO allocation holders. This gentleman had something to say. Hi, I'm Steve Caputo. Omthat lot, there's not abuyer ' we're wanting to separate them and not pass on points. We have a permit now for the lots. We want to separate them. Commissioner Murphy: What do you mean you have permits? For what? A permit for a house with two lots. at you're willing to give up... We're willing to give up and go back to square one, the way they originally were, 5oyou have apermit to build ahouse nnone of those lots? On both together. Sodid you benefit from the additional points to get the permit? VVedid benefit but when wede-ag8regatethem we're going to lose our pointsand we're going Commissioner Kolhage: But is it your intention to sell both of the individual lots? At some point in the future, yes. Commissioner Kolhage:' See that's the problem. Transcription of Agenda Item 13 That's what wehad originally was two lots, cleared lots inaneighborhood and vvewould like to build two houses now. Originally we wanted to build one but things have changed and now we want to build two. Commissioner Ko|haee: That's the issue for uswith density. Now let meask you aquestion. Doyou think it would be easier for you to sell the combined lot if you could tell a potential purchaser that you're going to get kicked upimthe ROGOprocess because you've got these points? We have a permit. We have a permit now. Commissioner Kolhage: Your seller or your buyer won't have a permit. Why? We can build now. Why wouldn't they? ' CommaissionerKnlhage: For the combined lots. But if you sell them individually to two different... We can't sell them individually. Commissioner Carruthers: But if you separate them and sell them individually neither buyer is going to have a permit. We understand that. They're not going to have a permit. But why would that bemore ofabenefit topotential buyers? They're going logoback throughR0GO. Commissioner Ko|hage: | don't see that's beneficial. Commissioner Carruthers: I would think that would be more of a detriment. Commissioner Murphy: I also see where somebody is using the system to get whatever benefit they want. That's not true. We go back through ROGO and then we'll have two houses in the future, in the future. You'llCommissioner Murphy: I would like to say I am giving you an opportunity to speak to this issue. I don't think that's right about the points because I don't think you understood we already have a permit to build now if we would like to, Any further questions for Steve? — (no questions) Thanks Steve. A Transcription of Agenda Item 13 U in light of the fact that 8 think he just said that he doesn't want to do the point... we need arevised motion |think. Commissioner Murphy: I think so too. I made the motion to table. I'll rescind that motion. Do you need the second to be rescinded? CommnissionerKm|hage: VVedidn't pass that motion, Mb"000�* No we have nothing at this point in time 5o... Commissioner Murphy: ' ll just take it back, Why do you take it back? Commissioner Murphy: Because I don't think we need to table it. The information has changed. Because the solution or the problem that we thought we were solving with that tabling with that Solution is not a problem to the property owner. Commissioner Murphy: Make a motion to deny. Commmiss1onerAKo|haae: I'm still going to make a motion to direct you to add up the other things we need you todobut that doesn't help this here. Okay let's deal with the item that's before us and do we have a motion... Commissioner Murphy: I'll move to deny, Motion and a second to deny and for discussion purposes | have to ask the question; is that preferable to tabling this until we get more information from Growth Management. FJMJNV#JffiJfiWWe don't really have any more information if the owner is not vv|U|ng to do whet was proposed. | mean the facts are still the same, Okay. I have a motion and a second. Is there, any opposition? Commissioner Ko|hage: The other part of that motion, |^d like to remake that. You can say it again if you want to. the rest of the motion is for staff to process a land development code amendment to put policy into place related to people and the deed restrictions that we require for aggregation and other restrictive covenants, | think we should look at all of them and | know you do too, and that we also analyze the 7 Transcription of Agenda Item 13 FEMAinjunction list and those expiration dates to determine where the people are within those time limits and how those are proceeding. That's just direction. You don't need a motion. CommnmissionnerKo|hage: Also do you wem¢ to think about a potertiaU— in situations like this, although these h the bonus points, yes. We can include that in our evaluation. Commissioner Carruthers: Second. Motion and a second. Any opposition, discussion? All done. Comprehensive Plan Update _ amendments to aggregation points to not allow properties to be de - aggregated but allow the retention and reuse of ROGO points. Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update the Upper and Lower ROGO sub areas Other criteria and corresponding points are allocated to encourage development to the most appropriate locations and discourage development from inappropriate locations. In the Big Pine Key/No Name Key sub -area the annual maximum number of residential permit allocations that may be awarded in Tier I shall be no more than one (1) every 2 years. This provision is subject to the issuing of an updated, USFWS Incidental Take Permit (1TP) and aanended Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP) to cover the properties within C RS system units in the sub -area, as well as an amended FE.MA Biological Opinion by USFWS to cover properties outside the CBRS system units in the sub -area. Until the ITP, HCP Biological Opinion. and LCP are amended, a Propeqy owner attempting to develop his property may be granted an allocation through the ROGO process that may be used once that property owner obtains all required ired permits and authorizations required under the Endangered Species Act and other applicable federal and state laws. The allocation will remain valid so long as the applicant diligently and in good faith continues to work with USFWS to conclude the coordination and pick up a building permit. Policy 101.56.3 In order to encourage a compact form of non-residential growth, the Point System shall be primarily based on the Tier system of land classification as set forth under Goal 105. To discourage and limit further growth in Tier I designated areas, the Permit Allocation System shall limit and direct new non-residential development primarily to areas designated as Tier lit under Goal 105, not jaeated ., ithi^ areas designated as a Special Protection Area (Tier 1I1-A) and provide incentives for redevelopment of existing developed and vacant infill sites.- Other criteria and corresponding points are available to encourage development to the most appropriate locations and discourage development from inappropriate locations. (See Policy 101.34.1.) ror c 006(3)(c)44 Policy 101.56.4 ROGO: Monroe County shall implement the residential Permit Allocation and Point System through its land development regulations based primarily on the Tier system of land classification as set forth under Goal 105, The points are intended to be applied cumulatively. For all applications entering the Residential Permit Allocation system after July 13, 2016, the following points and criteria shall apply: 1. Tier Designation - Utilizing the Tier System for land classification liey 105. , the following points shall be assigned to allocation applications for proposed dwelling units in a manner that encourages development of infill in predominately developed areas with existing infrastructure and few sensitive environmental features and discourages development in areas with environmentally sensitive upland habitat which are targefied for acquisition and ,the retirement of development rights for resource conservation and protection. Future Land Use Element 46 Keith and Schnars, P.A. Comprehensive Plan: Dec.2015 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Point Assignment: _.. Criteria LOutside fijg Pine- Ke , and No Name Ke : Pr oses d „ell ., + ,,;th;., n.-o�S designated Tier T !'isT »�+...-..I Area] en Big Pine Key and No Name Name +10 Proposes a dwelling unit within areas designated Tier I [Natural Area] outside of Big Pine Key E)F NE) Name Key. -QO Pfopeses development designated Tier- H! Area] withiH afeas [InPl on Big Pine Key eF NE) Name Key. +20 Proposes development within areas designated Tier III—[14+mA1-A [Special Protection Area] outside of Big PiHe Key or Ne Name Key that will ifi the r-esuk eleaFing of upland na4ive veget4ien within +30 Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infill. Area] Big Pine Key No Name Key that eutside of: or will not res*k-imn4ke Prateetio Area, PointAssi nment +0 Criteria Gfli in & Pine KeE and No Nome Tie : Proposes a dwelling unit within designated. Tier I „areas atural Area on Big Pine Key and No Name Key +I0 Proposes development within areas designated Tier II ("Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key or No Name Ke a +20 Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Inhll Area] on Big Pine Key„ or No Name Key. 2. Big Pine and No Dame Keys - The following negative points shall be cumulatively assigned to allocation applications for proposed dwellings to implement the Big Pine Key and No Name Key Habitat Conservation Plan HI CP)and the Livable CornrnuniKeys Community Master Plan. Note: Habitat Conservation Plan for Florida Key Deer (Cdoeo leus viLginicanus clavium) and other Protected Species on BiR Pine Kev and No Name Key, Monroe Counly, Florida Revised. April 2005 Paint Assignment: Criteria(Within Pi; Pine KeE and No Name Key),. -10 Proposes development on No Name Key. I0 Proposes development in designated Lower Keys N4ar-sh-marsh Rabbit rabbit habitat or buffer areas as designated in the Gammuflity h, Plan. asle.r HCP. -I0 Proposes development in Key Deer Corridor as designated in the Gammunity Master Plan HCP. Future Land Use Element 47 Keith and Schnars, P.A. Comprehensive Plan: Dec.2015 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan update 3. Wetlands - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications on Tier ill parcels thatwhich have sufficient upland to be buildable (min of 2,000 soft. of uplands) but also contain wetlands which require 100% open space pursuant to Policies 102.1.1 and 204.2.1 and that are located adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties. Point Assignment: Criteria: Tier Ill parcels adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties and containing 50% or less of the following: I. submerged lands 2. mangroves (excluding tidally inundated mangrove shoreline -3 fringes) 3. salt ponds 4, fresh water wetlands 5. fresh water ponds 6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Tier IIl parcels adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties and containing more than 50% of the following: I. submerged lands 2. mangroves (excluding tidally inundated mangrove shoreline -5 fringes) 3. salt ponds 4. fresh water Wetlands 5. fresh water ponds 6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Dotes: Adjacent means land sharing a boundary with another parcel of land. An intervening road, right -of --way, or easement shall not destroy the adjacency of the two parcels, except for U.S. 1. Contiguous means a sharing of a common border at more than a single point of intersection. Contiguity is not interrupted by utility easements. Suhsection (3) applies to new applications.f®r Tier III parcels entering the permit allocation system after January 73, 2013. (Ordinance 030-201.2) <The Remainder ref This Page Intentionally Left Blanls> Future Land Use Element 48 Keith and Schnars, P.A. Comprehensive Plan: Dee.2015 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan U ._ Aggregation — The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to encourage the voluntary reduction of density, for the retirement of development rights through aggregation of parcels and for theurpose of retirement of development rights through aggregation of legally platted buildable lots or parcels ithin Tier- 11 and Tier- rrr areas. Paint Assignment: Criteria; (Outside Pig Pine Ket, and No Name Kep , 4 . legally !at is vaeant, platted which aggregatedgueus Name Key that the Fneets afefementioned Fequifements will earn +3 perlot/parcel aggregated Each additional contiguous vacant, legally platted lot hF i3afeel with which is aggregated in a designated Tier I area outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key will earn additional points as specified. Each additional contiguous vacant parcel with a minimum of 2,000 square feet of uplands which is aggregated in a designated Tier I area outside of Big Pine Key and No Narne Key that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn additional points as s ecified. +4 per lot/parcel aggregated Each additional contiguous vacant, legally platted lot er OHMWith a which is aggregated in a designated Tier I11 A (SPA) area outside of Big Pine Key and No Flame Key that the ^r_. #:^ � meets requirements will earn additional points as specified.* Each additional contiguous vacant parcel with a minimum of 2_ Square feet of uplands which is aggregated in a designated Tier I11-A (SPA) area outside of Big Pine Key and No Narne Key that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn additional points asspecified, +0 per lot/parcel aggregated Each additional contiguous vacant, legally platted lot oF eafeel with a of 2.000 e feet of lglaBd which is aggregated in a designated Tier 11 of III area enoutside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key that meets the atcFe entiened ° pa„*' will earn additional points as specified. Each additional contiguous vacant parcel with a minimum of 2,000 square feet of uplands which is aggregated in a designated Tier III area outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key that meets the aforementioned re uirements will earn additional points as specified, 'Applies to new ygpl canons g aLEr Mg the permit allocation system after July 13 2016 `' Any parcels aggregated ated shall require a. restrictive covenant and shall be ...laced under a unijY of title with the grimaa parcel. Clearing ofu land native vegetation shall be limited to a maximum of 7,500 square feet (or as specified in Policy 101.5.27) for the primary and aggregated parcels combined and the remainder of the parcels shall be placed under a conservation easement disallowing any clearing of native habitat. ' Within one (1) year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the County shall revise land development regulations to not allow the reversal of any lot as re anon used to assi n extra Future Land Use Element 49 Keith and Schnars, P.A. Comprehensive Plan: Dec.2015 Monroe (County Comprehensive Plan Update Points to a ROGO application, whether executed by unity of title and/or restrictive covenant. and regardless of the status of the ROGO allocation award or associated building permit. In the event the dwelling unit was not constructed and the ROGO allocation award has expired, a subsequent ROGO allocation application on the same aggregated parcels will be assigned the same number of extra points originally assigned for the lot aggregation. a For aggregation points a parcel must contain a minimum of 2,000 square feet of uplands. Platted lots shall not be subdivided or otherwise reconfigured in any manner that would allow the number of proposed lots to exceed the number of lots that lawfully existed as of September 15 1986 and that were approved on the Plat. Point Assn ament. +3 per lot/parcel aggregated Criteria fLYjthin,&k Pine Ke r and No Name e : r.Z , a Each additional contiguous vacant, legally platted lot or paFeel with a which is aggregated in a designated Tier II or Ill area on Big Pine Key and No Name Key will earn additional points as specified. Each additional contiguous vacant parcel with a minimum of 2,000 square feet of uplands which is aggregated in a designated Tier 11 or III area on Big fine Key and No Name Key that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn additional points as specified +4 per lot/,parcel aggregated Each additional contiguous vacant, legally platted lot or pareel with n _ which is aggregated in a designated Tier 1 area on Big Pine Key and No Narne Key will earn additional points as specified. Each additional contiguous vacant parcel with a minimum of 2,000 square feet of uplands which is aggregated in a designated Tier I area on Big Pine Kev and No Name Key that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn additional points as s ecifed. ' A,pglies to new app ications enterin.- the permit allocation system aLler Jute 13, 2016. -And parcels aggregated shall require a restrictive covenant and shall be placed under a unity of title with the primary parcel. Clearing of upland native vegetation shall be limited to a maximum of 7,500 square feet or as specified in Policy 101.5.27 for the prit-naLy and aggregated parcels combined, and the remainder of the parcels and shall be placed under a conservation easement disallowing any clearing of native habitat. :3 Within one 1 year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan the County shall the reversal of any lot aggregation used to revise land development regulations to disallow t,„ _ assign extra points to a ROGO application whether executed by unity of title and/or restrictive covenant, and regardless of the status of the ROGO allocation award or associated building permit, In the event the dwelling unit was not constructed and the ROGO allocation award has expired, a subsequent ROGO allocation a 1pp ication on the same aggregated parcels will be assigned the same number of extra points originally assigned for thelotaggregation 4 For aggregation points a parcel must contain a minimum of 2,000 square feet of uplands. Future land Use Element 50 Keith and Schnars, P.A. Comprehensive Plan: Dec.2015 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Platted lots shall not be subdivided or otherwise reconfigured in any manner that would ' allow the number of proposed lots to exceed the number of lots that lawfully existed as of September 15, 1986 and that were pproved on the Plat. <TheRemainder OL This Page Intentionally Left Blan Future Land Use Element 51 Keith and Schnars, P.A. Comprehensive Plan: Dec.2015