Item C1a 11 c,. !
Meeting Date:. SOtember 2, 2015 Department: Planning & Environmental Resources
Bulk Item: Yes i No X :staff Contact Person/Phone #: Christine Hurley 289 -2517
Maytd Santamaria 289 -2562
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction on the proposed, draft response to the State
Land Planning Agency's Objections, Recommendations and Comments report on the transmitted
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
ITEM BACKGROUND: On January 14, 2015, the BOCC held a special meeting and voted to
transmit the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The State Land Planning Agency issued it
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report on April 28, 2015 . (attached). The State
Land Planning Agency identified 7 objections and 4 comments in the ORC report. The County must
address the 7 identified objections and determine whether to adopt the amendments, adopt the
amendments with changes or not adopt the amendments. The County is not required to make
modifications relative to the 4 comments. County staff working with Keith and Schnars, P.A., has
reviewed and developed draft response to the State Land Planning Agency's (ORC) report (attached)
for the BOCC's review.
The County is finalizing a four - phased Comprehensive Plan update process. The Comprehensive Plan
(Plan) update process started with the updating and revising of the Technical Document (the Data and
Analysis to the Plan), which was completed in May 2011. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive
Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) which was completed and adopted by the BOCC on May
22, 2012. The proposed Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan which was transmitted to the State
Land Planning Agency, as approved by the BOCC on January 14, 2015. The Land Development Code
update is ongoing, with the BOCC reviewing draft amendments on September 2, 2015 and October 1,
2015.
The County is anticipating adopting both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the updated Land
Development. Code to implement the comprehensive plan in early 2016.
Based on the issuance of the ORC report on April 28, 2015, the current adoption deadline for the
Comprehensive Plan amendment package is October 25, 2015. In a separate agenda item, staff is
recommending requesting up to an additional 180 days (approx. April 22, 2016) to allow the County to
address the ORC report and adopt the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and updated Land Development Code
at the same time to ensure consistent effective dates (and avoid inconsistencies between a new
comprehensive plan and the existing land development code).
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
On January 19, 2011, and on June 20, 2011, Keith and Schnars provided a presentation to the BOCC on the
Technical Document Update (data and analysis) of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan
On November 16, 2011, Keith and Schnars provided a presentation to the BOCC on the first portion of the draft
Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
On March 19, 2012, Keith and Schnars provided a presentation to the BOCC on the second portion of the draft
Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
On May 22, 2012, the BOCC adopted, by Resolution 150 -2012, the 2012 EAR for the Monroe County
Comprehensive flan.
On March 21, 2014, the BOCC held a special public meeting and reviewed, discussed and provided direction on
the Introduction and Background; Mass Transit Element; Traffic Circulation Element; Capital Improvements
Element; and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
On April 23, 2014, the BOCC held a special public meeting and reviewed, discussed and provided direction on
the Energy and Climate Element; Cultural Resources Element; and Future Land Use Element.
On May 22, 2014, the BOCC held a special public meeting and reviewed, discussed and provided direction on
the Sanitary Sewer Element; Drainage Element; Solid Waste Element; Potable Water Element;
Intergovernmental Coordination Element; Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element; Housing Element;
Recreation and Open Space Element; Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element; Public Participation
section; Monitoring and Evaluation section and the Glossary.
On July 23, 2014, the BOCC held a special public hearing (transmittal hearing) and reviewed, discussed and
provided direction on all the proposed elements of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC continued to
hearing to October 7, 2014, . to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030
Comprehensive Plan) to the State Land Planning Agency.
On October 7, 2014, the BOCC held a special public hearing (transmittal hearing) and reviewed, discussed and
provided direction on all the proposed elements of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC continued to
hearing to December 10, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the State Land Planning Agency.
On December 10, 2014, the BOCC held a public hearing (transmittal hearing) and reviewed, discussed and
provided direction on proposed elements of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan related to height and offshore islands.
The BOCC continued the transmittal hearing to January, 14, 2015, to consider the transmittal of the proposed
amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the State Land Planning Agency.
On January 14, 2015, the BOCC held a public hearing (transmittal hearing) and reviewed, discussed and
provided direction on proposed elements of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and voted to transmit the proposed
2030 Comprehensive Plan to the State Land Planning Agency for review.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Direction on proposed CRC reponse.
TOTAL COST: N/A INDIRECT COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes No N/A
009 11. N K 4 11 r
SOURCE FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: AMOUNTPERMONTH N/A Ye
A County Atty W OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM
HOM
mmM� �
mrol
1 ''•"'
Page 11
Fft
11WN I '" �4_ �,M gym W&B " TWITC-im
The Department has the following objections and comments to the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment:
Objection 1: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 101.5.25, Footnote (i) has been
added which provides specific language regarding a Commercial Fishing District located
on Little Torch Key, The footnote indicates a density of one unit per acre in addition to
the non-residential uses that are allowed under the land development regulations for
this zoning district. The area is developed with single family homes, although the Mixed
Commercial Fishing District does not allow residential development. The adopted plan
allows the replacement of lawfully established units. No data was provided to indicate
why this area should have a density of one unit per acre under the footnote. The
creation of this exemption creates an internal inconsistency regarding density with the
assigned Future Land Use Map with no explanation, data, or analysis.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(1)(-0(l); 163.3177(2); 163.3177(4)(a) 163.3177(6)(a);
and 380.0552(7)(a) and (m), Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Recommendation: Delete the exemption for Commercial Fishing District 20 or provide
justification for exempting this area, or alternatively consider changing the land use.
Policy 101.45.125
Nfortroe County hereby adopts the folloNving density and intensity standards for
the future land use categories, which are sho%im on the FLUXI and described in
Policies 101ASA - 101.45,4-7-20 [§l63.3l77(6)(a)1.,F.S.].
Future Land Use Densities and Intensities
A-P"Q;i_ 3 91 du
Residential (tl
Nonresid
I
Minimum
Qpm�
Future Land U se Category
oc2tedDensity
May x imum'-Ket D ens ity
444
�
Maximum Intensity
I
And Corresponding Zoning
fig {`l
CFSD)
(per upland acre)
(per budd2ble acre)
(floor area ratio}
Mixed Use Commercial
A-P"Q;i_ 3 91 du
Fishing (�JCF)�
fCFSD
12 duJUA CFSD)
(CFA, CFA -4,CFSD
du (CFA, 0 other
9 iooem6 A
0.25-0.40
0.20
CFSD)
Zonini)
1 dulot (CF%)
NA
0 rooms space:
MEMMUM
Page 1 2
Existing Comp Plan Policy 101.4.22:
Pohin 101.4.22
Monroe Coinq baeby adopts the fbno%v ig density and iziteiisity stmdarcts for the ffiture huld use
categmies. w1lich at shown oil the Futwv Lwid U Nbp and ck U"l Policies 101.4,1 -
101,4,1?: [9.7-5,006(3)(c)7],
Futtuv Laid tse Densities and Intensities
Futwe Laid Use Cale�gmy
And Cbn")cndaW ZmunL
g
Aamated Densitv Nimniull NLA Denmtv (") (b)
(pa aae) (pff btukLable acl)
NLIMIRM, Lite'llsm
(fl— wea nto)
CFSD -20, located on Little Torch Key. This matches the existing Land Development Code
(see 130-79(14)(c) as well. No change recommended.
Future Land Use Densities and Intensities
Mined Use,Con Fislung (MCF)
(CFA, CT V" CFSD zoll g)
AnvwL 3-8 dl
12 chi
0 trarnlls s ace.
0.25-0
Monroe County response: The Mixed Use Commercial Fishing Future Land Use District
does allow residential uses (See the Future Land Use Density and Intensity Table under
Policy 101.5.25). The Commercial Fishing District zoning district allows 3-8 dwelling
units per acre. The footnote RESTRICTS the number of dwelling units to n 1 per acre in
CFSD -20, located on Little Torch Key. This matches the existing Land Development Code
(see 130-79(14)(c) as well. No change recommended.
Future Land Use Densities and Intensities
Nonresidentia
Residential (1)
Minimum
Future Land Use
Open Space
Allocated
Maximum Net
Maximum
Category And
DensityfP)
Density (a) (b)f44
Intensity
Ratio N
Corresponding
Zoning
(per u - pland
(per buildable
(floor area
acre)
acre)
ratio)
Mixed
Appr- 3-R-1 du
12 du-CCFA
Use/Commercial
(CFSD-20I)
CESD O
3 du (CFA. all
Fishing (MCF)WO
r-o ems /spa
0.25440
0.20
(CFA, CFA`,
other CFSQ
WA
CFSD zoning)
1-du -/ lot (CM
CF
0 rooms/spaces
WA
Notes:
(i) The allocated density for the CFSD-20 zoning district (Little Torch Key] shall be 1 dwelling uni
per acre, or 1 dwelling unit per parcel for those parcels existing as of September 15, 1986,
whichever is less, and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Residential
density shall be allowed in addition to the permitted nonresidential uses and intensity (i.e,
density and intensity shall not be counted cumulatively).
Monroe County Responses to DECO CRC
Page 13
Objection 2: Conservation and Coastal Management Element Goal 207 and the
underlying policies address resource extraction and contain a prohibition on new
resource extraction activities. The underlying policies have been modified to recognize
ongoing resource extraction activities even though no new annual operating permits
have been issued by the county for this purpose in several years and current
regulations require an annual operating permit in order to conduct lime rock
extraction. Policy 207.1.3 provides that the county will take proper precautions to
prevent adverse impacts from blasting within two miles of areas with development of
more than one unit per acre. The policy has been modified to state that the County shall
"maintain land development regulations to prevent adverse impacts from blasting. The
County deleted the words "within two miles of areas with development of more than
one unit per acre". The land development regulations do not address blasting.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(1};163.3177(2); 163.3177 (4)(a);163.3177(6)(d)2 band
380.0552(7)(a),F.S.
Recommendation: Do not adopt the revised policy. Instead, modify the policy to
I prohibit the use of resource extraction by blasting. I
Monroe County Responses to DEO ORC
Objection 3: Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 208.3 provides
that the County will revise land development regulations to protect fresh groundwater
lenses from accelerated saltwater intrusion due to lime rock mining activity. The County
has stricken Objective 208.3 and Policy 208.3.2. No data has been submitted that
indicates there is no longer a need to protect the fresh water lens from lime rock mining
and salt water intrusion. Data provided with the amendment indicates the presence of a
freshwater lens on Big Pine, and No Name Key, and to a lesser degree on some of the
lower keys.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(1)CO; 163.3177 (4)(a); 163.3177(6)(d)2.b.; 163,3178
(2)(b); and 380.0552(7)(a),and (c),F.S.
Recommendation: Retain Objective 208.3 and supporting Policy 208.3.2.
Mr3m—
Geunty
the
depth
fresh
N atur-al Gr-eundwa*r-
shall
and
map aefial ei-aent
Aquifer- Reeka-Ege
&ad of
Objeefive
gfound
110 1 2 and related pelieies�.�
Pefie-
y 208.3.2-
N4eftfee
Geenty
fitsh
shall
ftem the finpaets
prepese and adopt
liffiestene
regulatieng
ineluding:
ie pr-eteet gFoundwate
r-eseur-ees
ef
mining,
limesteiie
pr-ehibitiea
fieshwater
ef
lefts lef±s
ffiinifig within
of adjaeent
to any seasenal of peffflanefit
ffeshwfttef lefts ifitegfity.
e£
r-eehafge afea aiidlef
restoration
Fequifements
whieh pfemete
pr-esei-,;atien
ef
Monroe County Responses to DEO ORC
Page 15
Monroe County response (continued):
Policy 207.1.2 (Conservation and Coastal Management Element)
Existing resource extraction operations may continue in accordance with the
specific limitations of their current permits. All existing --micn4ng resource extraction
operations shall be required to utilize methods to prevent permanent groundwater and
surface water contamination during mining-Lesource extraction operations. These shall
include but not be limited to the following:
1. the first flush of runoff from the fnining resource extraction site shall be retained
on-site;
2. turbidity controls shall be used to prevent contamination of adjacent off site
surface waters, and
3. all point sources of pollution shall be reduced managed in accordance with
applicable regulations of the Department: of Environmental Regulati FDEP and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
When an application for annual permit for existing mining—resource extraction
operations is proposed, the requirement for groundwater and surface water quality
protection measures shall be attached as permit conditions.
Monitoring shall be required to determine compliance with state water quality
standards. In the event that water quality standards are violated as a result of a mining
operation, the mining activity shall be stopped., and relevant fines and...re,quired
mitigation of habitat impacts shall be fulfilled.
Policy 1101.2.3 (Natural Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Element)
Monroe County shall consider altering the minimum required open space ratios, and other
development regulations, to protect the quantity and quality of groundwater in the
freshwater lens systems.
New Policy 11 01.2.4, as noted below (changes in red text and double underline format), is
proposed to be added to page 3 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element to
require the County to maintain such land development regulations:
Policy 1101.2.4
II roe Co st all .maintain land develo - ent - ulations that pre'ventgmiLadwater
contamination during resource exlrasctj�_�pgr& r h
Q gns, Such egulatilons---a-ALrPouire
n Is__m_eetin2___ FDE.P and
onsite retentio, and.. nt SOUrCe poll u tion mntm
—AADGE
reouiremeilLs.,
Monroe County Responses to DEO ORC
Page [ 6
Objection 4: Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 212.2.1 provides
that the County will evaluate the "coastal construction setback" and identify setbacks to
accomplish the protection of the natural shoreline, turtle nesting beaches, water quality,
long term sea level rise and erosion. The clause 6 of the policy has been modified and
appears inconsistent with the previous goals. Clause 6 has been modified from "protect
the overwater views of the community" to "redevelopment of existing waterfront
commercial structures may occur for existing structures consistent with community
character and preserving the overwater views. This policy is vague and unpredictable.
The community character of one area is not the same as another area. The policy
appears to confuse the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line with environmental
I"setbacks'" from mean high water that have been adopted for stormwater treatment and
water quality improvement purposes.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(1)f.; 163.3177(2); 163.3177(4)(a); 163.3177(6)(3)1. and
4.; 380.0552(7)(a) and (n), F.S.
Recommendation: Do not adopt the policy as proposed. Clarify if the policy is
addressing the Coastal Construction Set back zone or the Monroe County setbacks from
mean high water. Revise clause 6 to be internally consistent with the other clauses which
appear to be protective in nature. Clarify whether or not the intent of clause 6 is to relax
setbacks for existing waterfront commercial development and allow development within
the setback from mean high water.
F2717MI! M-1WAINJI WWII
Policy 11111
NlkiiffFaffiWithin one (1) year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Monroe County shall evaluate the minimum coastal construction setbacks
currently in use in Monroe County shaH be reviewed—in coordination with
DNTRDEO. FDEP and F4GFAV Setbacks shall be identified which will
accomplish the following:
protect natural shoreline vegetation:
2. protect marine turtle nesting beaches
3, protect water quality
y --(flyroug,
4. protect structures from the effects of long-term sea level rise:
5. protect beaches and shorelines from erosion, and
6. allow redevelopment of existing waterfront commercial structures
consistent yviLhpriateet the existing community character and Preser-ve
ovenvater views of the eammunity.
Monroe County Responses to DEO ORC
Monroe 'County response: Clause 6 of this policy implements the goal of economic
viability established within the non - conforming section of the Tavernier and Key Large
Livable CommuniKeys Plans (LCPs). Among other things, these plans provide guidance
related to community character, and includes the specific nonconforming structures the
individual communities have identified as reflective of such character and thus worthy of
protection, and includes replacement criteria for these structures. This intent to protect
certain non- conforming shoreline structures is mirrored under Policy 217.1.1 (3) on Page
139. Thus, we do not believe any changes to Clause 6 are necessary.
"Coastal construction setback" is existing policy language. To clarify that the intent is
indeed related to the environmental "setbacks", and not the Florida Coastal Construction
Control Line. the County shall revise the policy to provide such clarification.
Recommend revisions to Policy 212.2.1 on Page 98 as noted below (changes in red text
and double underline /strikethrough format):'
Policy 212.2.1
M' Within one f11 -year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Monroe
County shall evaluate the minimum ' A n ulli e setbacks currently in
use in Monroe County shall be eWPAA ed in coordination with DN DELI FDEP and
F Setbacks shall be identified which will accomplish the following:
1. protect natural shoreline vegetation;
2. protect marine turtle nesting beaches;
3. protect water quality (through assimilative and filtFative uptake of pollutant -
pFoteeted natural shoreline ;
. protect structures from the effects of long -term sea level; rise;
S. protect beaches and "shorelines from erosion, and
6. allow redevelopment of existing waterfront commercial structures consistent with
pratee the existing community character and preserve overwater views of the
eanmul*,�Y.
Monroe County Responses to DO ORC
Page 1
Monroe County response (continued):
Policy2118.1.1
The strategy to preserve and protect commercial fishing and recreational and commercial
working waterfront uses shall include the following:
1. Exemptions from the req uirements of the Permit Allocation System for new
-
nonresidential development, pursuant to Policy 101.4.51
2. Providing for the preservation of recreational and commercial working waterfront
uses within the Mixed Use Commercial
and Mixed Use Commercial Fishing Future
Land Use categories, pursuant to Policy 1,01,5.6 and Policy
101.5.7;
3. Maintaining land development regulations to allow lawfully water-
dependent and water-related commercial uses which are identified
as a source of
economic sustainability within ' a Livable
Communifts Plan to be rebuilt, even if
100 destroyed, provided that they
are rebuilt to the
preexisting use and are
registered and recognized by the Planning& Environmental Resources Del2artment
as lawful nonconforming uses and structures; and
4. Implementation of marina siting criteria for new marinas.
Guidelines shall be inc-eFpaFated into the Land Develepment Regulations th
specifying
form and content of ElAs.
Monroe County Responses to DEO O
Objection 5: Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 212.2.2 specifically
provides the minimum setbacks for construction located along natural water bodies with
unaltered shorelines, altered shorelines, and areas known to be nesting or resting areas
for turtles, crocodiles and birds. The policy has been revised to allow Monroe County to
evaluate the adopted "set back" provisions and to adopt land development regulations
that could relax the setbacks when appropriate through a Special Approval process. The
policy provides no criteria for the evaluation of the decision for a Special Approval Process
and provides no guidance as to what the minimum setback might become. No data has
been provided to indicate that surface water quality does not need to be protected and
that the setbacks need to be relaxed. The relaxation of the setbacks is inconsistent with the
Energy and Climate Element, and with potential coastal surface water encroachment,
treating stormwater, and protecting marine resources.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(1)f., 163.3 177(6) (g), 163.3 177(5) and (6); and
380.0552(7)(al,(b), and (c), F.S.
Recommendation: Do not adopt the proposed changes. Maintain the setbacks as
established.
Ms' FTIIFTIrFTITTI"IffT M-4
Policy 212.2.2
Within one (1)vear afters completion of the evaluation in Policy 212.2.
the existin setbacks in the Land Development Regul itietis Code (N4aPAeeGeun+Y
Bocc 1990) may be revised as deemed appropriate based upon findings of
thisrtviev. The setbacks currently in use Rhall be the fflinimum and rho" 4iotMU
be relaxed-. only throw tithe Special Approval process in Policy 212.2.4. Existing
setbacks iia the Land D&velepffient Regulat are sunHnaiized as follows:
1. twenty (20) feet from the mean high tide" -Lvater (I line of manmade
�
water bodies and/or lawfully altered shorelines of natural water bodies,
2. fifty (50) feet from natural water bodies with unaltered shorelines or
unlawfully altered shorelines.. measured from the landward limit of
mangroves, if any and where mangroves do not exist. from the mean high
46,--water (�,!IH V) line, and
3 fifty (50) feet from any shoreline area which is known to serve as an active
nesting or resting area for marine turtles, crocodiles, terns. gulls and other
0 us] �I I ,
Policy 212.2.43
Permitted uses and performance standards within the shoreline setback shall be as
follows:
14. Special Approvals]
a
For structures sera >mg commercial uses, public uses or mote than
three dwelling units, the Planning Commission may approze
deviations from the above standards as a mayor or minor conditional
use. Such approval may include additional structures or uses
provided that such approval is consistent with any permitted uses,
densities, and intensities of the land use district_ furthers the
purposes of this section, is consistent with the general standards
app licable to all uses_ and the proposed Mctnres are located in a
disturbed area of an altered shoreline. Such additional uses are
limited to waterfront diuke areas, pedestrian wallavays, public
monuments or statues, informational kiosks. fuel or septic fades,
and water-dependent marina uses. Any such development shall
mare adequate provision for a water quality monitoring program for
a period of five (5) yearn after the completion of the dev6opment.
b. For structures serving three or fewer divelling units, the Director of
Planning and Environmental resources may approve designs that
address unique circumstances such as add shaped lots, even if such
designs are inconsistent with the above standards. Such approval
may granted only upon the Director's written concurrence with
the applicants �i'ritten finding that the proposed desimi fixthers the
purpose of this section anal the goals of the Nfonroe County
Comprehensive Plan. Only the mmM Ium possible deviation from
the above standards will be allowed in order to address the unique
circumstances. No such special approval will be available for after-
the-fact permits submitted to remedy a Code Enforcement violation.
C. All structures lawfully existins within the shoreline setback along
manmade canals, channels, or basins, or serving three or fewer
dwelling units on any shoreline- may be rebuilt in the same footprint
provided that there will be no adverse impacts on stQj runoff
or naviaa on.
! I 1' 1 ' 1/ 1 a a a r
Page 111
Objection 6: Conservation and Coastal Management Element
a. Policy 216.4.2 prohibits the use of County funds in Coastal Barrier Resource Units
(CBRU) and within off shore islands. The policy has been amended to allow the
expenditure of funds for wastewater treatment facilities. There are privately
owned On-site Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems and package plants
located in the CBRU and on some of the off shore islands that must be upgraded to
meet the 2015 treatment standards. The proposed modification, however, does
not limit the extension of services to already developed areas needing upgrades.
As proposed, with no limitation to existing development, the policy appears
inconsistent with the Tier System which primarily guides development toward
Tier 3 and away from Tier 1.
b. Policy 217.1.1provides incentives for the preservation of the working waterfront
through exemptions from the nonresidential rate of growth system. This includes
language that allows non-conforming waterfront dependent uses and water-
related commercial which are identified as a source of economic sustainability
within a Livable Communikeys, Plan to be rebuilt, even if 100 percent destroyed, to
the preexisting use provided they are registered and recognized by the Planning
and Environmental Resources Department as lawful nonconforming uses and
structures. This is vague and unpredictable in that the policy does not address
whether the reconstruction to the preexisting use must comply with natural
resource site standards such as setbacks from wetlands and surface waters and
the provision of open space.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(2); 163.3177(4)(a); 163.3177(6)(g)1.,3.,4.,6.,7.,9.,and 10;
and 380.9552(7)(a), (b), (c), (e), and (i), F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the policy to clarify whether or not the policy allows the re-
establishment of a non-conforming use if the site cannot meet the environmental
standards established by the plan, the Floodplain Ordinance requirements and the
Florida Building Code.
NOTE: Objection 6 appears to be two separate issues; therefore we have elected to
identify and address them as "a" and "b".
Monroe County Responses to D , EO ORC
Page 112
Special Flood Hazard Areas - T'he following points shall be assigned to
allocation applications for proposed dwelling unit(s) to provide a
disincentive for locating within certain coastal high flood hazard areas:
PoiniAssignment.
Criteria:
-46
Proposes d@-i@lepffi@iit structures requirinIg an
allocation %vithin LINT11 zones on the FEMA flood
insurance rate mRs-
4
An Appli,
:cation for which doLelopmeat is
proposed within a CBRS unit
S. Central Wastewater System Availability* - The follo points shall be
assigned to allocation applications to direct development to areas with
central sewer:
*NOTE: See "Available as defined within the Glossary.
PoLWAssignment. Criteria:
,4* Proposes development required to be connected to
a central waste%vater treatment system that meets
the BAT-'A' I treatment standards established by
Florida Legislature and Poly 901.1.1.
l � ! �
Page 113
Pohcv 101.12.42
Monroe County shall require that the following analyses be undertaken prior to
finalizing plans for the siting of any new County public facility, excluding
electricity over which the Public Services Commission of the State of Florida
exercises jurisdiction- or the significant expansion (greater than 25 percent) of any
existing public facility- excluding electricity over which the Public Services
Commission of the State of Florida exercises jurisdiction:
evaluation of alternative sites and design alternatives for the alternative
sites; and,
assessment of direct and secondary impacts on surrounding land uses and
natural resources.
The assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources vill
evaluate the extent to which the proposed public facility involves public
expenditures in the coastal high hazard area and within environmentally sensitive
areas, including disturbed salt marsh and buttonwoodwedands- undisturbed beach
berm areas, units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, undisturbed uplands
(particularly high quality hammock andpinelands), habitats of species considered
to be threatened or endangered by the state and or federal governments, offshore
islands, and designated Tier I areas-
Except forpassive recreational facilities on publicly -owne land. no new public
eemmimity
eF utility facilities other than water distribution and sewer collection
lines eF pump.'-,a.cuum,, stations- cluster systems or small trackage
plants/treatment facilities shall be affowedMthin Tier I designated areas or Tier
III Special Protection Area unless it can be accomplished without clearing of
hammock or pinelands- Exceptions to this requirement may be made to protect
the public health- safety, and welfare, if all the following criteria are inet
No reasonable alternative -s exist to the proposed location and
2. The proposed location is approved by a supermajority of the Board of
County Commissioners-
"' III 111 8 , liirmmz.I� r �1'1 �
Page 1 14
W r r= r •� rr Mr 1 i 1
Page 115
b. Monroe County response: As noted in the County's response to Objections 4 and 5, above,
'
the existing Special Approval process as established under Policy 212.2.4 (14) on Page 103,
currently allows lawfully existing nonconforming shoreline structures to rebuild in the same
footprint, subject to addressing stormwater runoff. Additionally, as noted in the response to
Objection 4, the Livable CommuniKeys Plans identifies specific sites with nonconforming
structures that the individual communities have identified as worthy of protection, and
includes replacement criteria these non-conforming structures must meet in order to
redevelop in the same footprint. To further clarify the standards that must be met, a proposed
revision to Clause 3 of Policy 217.1.1 on page 139 as noted below (changes in red text and
double underline format) is recommended:
P oficy 2 178. 1. 1
The strategy to preserve and protect commercial fishing and recreational and commercial
working waterfront uses shall include the following:
1. Exemptions from the requirements of the Permit Allocation System for new
nonresidential development, pursuant to Policy 1:01.4.5;
2. Providing for the preservation of recreational and -commercial working waterfront
uses within the
Mixed Use Commercial and Mixed
Use Commercial Fishing Future
Land Use categories, pursuant to Policy 10 1.5.6 and Policy 1.111.5.7;
3. Maintaining land development regulations to allow lawfully established
and water-related commercial uses which are identified as a source of
economic sustainability w ithin a Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP) to be rebuilt, even
if 100% destroyed,
providing
L , are rebui t to the
adonted E rebuil
Q P -aLQ
preexisting use, and are registered and recogn ized by
the Planning & Environmental
Resources Department as lawful nonconforming uses
and structures, and
4. Implementation of marina siting criteria for new marinas.
'Man
Objection 7: Drainage Element Objective 1-001.3 proposed the development of a
Stormwater Master Plan for Monroe County. With financial assistance from the State, the
Stormwater Master Plan was completed. Supporting Policy 1001.3.1 provides that the
master plan shall be implemented. Both the Objective and the policy have been stricken.
No data and analysis was provided for removal of the objective and policy.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(1); 163.3177(2); 163.3177(4)(a); 163.3177(6)(c)l. and 2;
163.3178 (2)(b); and 380.0552(71(a), (e), and (i), F.S.
Recommendation- Maintain Drainage policy 1001.3.1to implement the stormwater
Master Plan. Revise the objective or place the policy in another location. The Department
objects to the deletion of Policy 1001.3.3. The policy provides that Monroe County will
implement the findings of the Monroe County Stormwater Master Plan.
Monroe County response: The County has developed and adopted a Stormwater Master
Plan. Recognition of the use of the Stormwater Master Plan is addressed under the
proposed revision to Policy 1001.13, which requires the County to "...maintain, review,
and update, as necessary..." both the stormwater regulations and the Stormwater Master
Plan.
To assure implementation of the Stormwater Plan, Policy 1001.1.3, recommend revising
as noted below (changes in red text and double underline format) to include Implement":
Policy 1001.1.3
By lanuary 4, 1997, Monroe Gaunt-y Stermwater- Manager-neat Ordinance
shall adopt a
which establishes level of Se-nxiee sta-n-d—a-rds feF the
qual" and quantity of star-n4wateF
discharges for- single family residential development
and r-edevelopment
Best Management Ppactices Design Guidelines in their implementation Natur-al
and (See
Groundwater- AquifeF Recharge Policy 1101.2.4. Monroe ' County shall maintain.
impIgment, review and update, as necessary, the C.o,un s stormwater management
regulations and Stormwater Master Plan. All improvements for replacement, expansion or
increase in capacity of drainage facilities shall
conform to the
adopted level of service
criteria pursuantto Policy 1001.1..,l,.( -§163.3177(3)(a)3., F.S.)
Monroe County Responses to DECI ORC
Page 6 17
Comment 1: Future Land Use Element Policy 101,12.42 expresses the County's intent to
limit public facilities in Tier One. The Key Largo Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is
constructed in Tier One. A section of the policy memorializes a 4.5 acre clearing limit
exception with mitigation that was made by the County in recognition of the financial
investment in constructing the system and the need to provide regional services. The
proposed policy revision deletes the reference to this exception.
Recommendation: For historical purposes and in consideration of potential future
expansions, this clause should be retained for consideration by future policy makers.
Monroe County response: No objection to the CEO proposed revision. The previously
deleted text regarding the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Facility under Policy
101.12.2 on page 76 recommended to be added back as noted below (changes in red text
and double underline format):
The site oaf the Largo WastewaterTLQatrnent Facility (located at mile marker .100.5) with
an allowed, clearing-of,up a cres shall not be sub,Le i� �ofic
LQ 4.2 U qt to 11L
Proposed 2030 Comp Plan, as transmitted:
holier- 101.12.42
Xfonroe County shall require that the following analyses be undertaken prior to
finalizing plans for the siting of any new County public facility, excludin
electricity over which the Public Senices Commission of the State of Florida
. exercises jurisdiction. or the significant expansion (greater than 25 percent) of any
existing public facility. excluding electricity over which the Public Services
Commission of the State of Florida exercises jurisdiction:
1. assessment of needs:
2. evaluation of alternative sites and design alternatives for the alternative
sites and_
3. assessment of direct and secondary impacts on surrounding land uses and
natural resources_
The assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources will
evaluate the extent to which the proposed public facility involves public
expenditures in the coastal high hazard area and within environmentally sensitive
Monroe County Responses to DEO ORC
Page 18
areas, including disturbed salt marsh and buttonwoodwetlands, undisturbed beach
berm areas, units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, undisturbed uplands
(particularly high quality hammock andpinelands).. habitats of species considered
to be threatened or endangered by the state and'or federal governments, offshore
islands, and designated Tier I areas_.
Except for passive recreational facilities on publicly-ovmed land- no new public
community oruggty fa cilitiesy other than water distribution and sewer collection
lines ef pump )yacuumlift stations. cluster n-stems. or small package
plants/treatment facilities shall be allowed iNrithin Tier I designated areas or Tier
III Special Protection Area unless it can be accomplished without clearing of
hammock or pinelands. Exceptions to this requirement may be made to protect
the public health, safety. and welfare. if all the folloNNing criteria are met:
2. The proposed location is approved by a supermajority of the Board of
County Commissioners-
- NOW
- a
MFUNTOX"TITO
I "! 0 &.1
Comment 2: Future Land Use Element Policy 101.4.5 identifies the types of uses that do
not require a non-residential rate of growth allocation. Several exemptions are offered.
Section (4) provides an exemption for federally tax exempt not for profit institutional
uses (educational, scientific, research, health, and social service, religious, cultural, and
recreational organizations) upon a finding by the Planning Commission that such activity
will predominantly serve the non-transient population.
Recommendation: Provide additional definitions or criteria for the exemption of non-
profit organizations regarding criteria to qualify as such an organization. For example
educational groups should either be certified in a particular field or able to certify
. another person in a particular field.
policy 101.4.5
The NROGO allocation system shall not apply to the followingr n
developments:
L Aa area of the unincorporated County exempted from the residential
ROGO permit allocation system.
4-2. Public facilities and public governmental uses (used either temporarily or
permanently), inc4l4mA ggital iMovements and public buildiggs-
NOTE_ All public and institutional uses (except hospital rooms) that
predominately serve the County's non-transient population and which
house temporary residents shall be included in the Permit Allocation
System for residential development, except upon factual demonstration
that such transient occupancy is of such a nature so as not to adversely
impact the hurricane evacuation clearance time of Monroe County.
3. De ininimis expansion of or de minimis addition of new nonresidential
floor area of an individual property, not exceed 1-000 square feet of nevv
nonresidential floor area.
4- Within Tier III designated areas. nonresidential development by federally
tax-exMpt_not-fbr-pjofjt_ institutional uses (educational- scientific,
research, health, social service. religious. cultural- and recreational
organizations) shall be exempt upon a finding by the Planning
Commission that such activity will predominately serve the County non-
transient population-
Page 120
Comment 3: Conservation and Coastal Element Policy 204.2.1describes the Keys
Wetland Evaluation Program (KWEP). The KWEP is a field- based wetland functional
assessment methodology specific to the Florida Keys, developed in conjunction with EPA.
The KWEP evaluation identifies those wetlands that are suitable for filling with
mitigation from those that are generally unsuitable for placement of fill. The KWEP
Program protects the most highly functioning wetlands in Monroe from being filled.
Recommendation: Revise the policy to include that parcels that have not been
evaluated and scored under KWEP must obtain a Keywep (sic) evaluation prior to
receiving a permit from the County to fill wetlands.
Pofic,7 204.2.1
Monroe County shall utilize the Wetlands Evaluation Procedure (KEYINT-P) to
determine the functional capacity of wetlands and Unifonn Nfifigation
Assessment Method (U M) to detennine mitigation requirements for impacts
to wetlands. [§163.3177(6)d-2-j-- `m m: §163.3177(6')d- F- -1'
Page 121
Comment 4: Monroe County has revised Traffic Circulation Policy 301.1.2 and adopted a
Level of Service Standard C along the entire length of US 1. Previously concurrency was
measured on a segment by segment basis under methodology that was developed by a
task force with representation from FDOT, DCA, and Monroe County. FDOT conducts the
survey every two years during peak tourist system and drives the entire length of US1
timing the speed for 24 segments and assigning the level of service standard that is being
achieved. Segments were required to maintain a speed no lower than 5% of the posted
speed limit. The County is proposing to average the entire length of US1 and will
coordinate the segment analysis with the US 1 Task force composed of FDOT, DEO, and
Monroe County, Policy 301.2.3 provides that development shall not degrade the level of
service below the adopted standard on the entire length of US 1 unless the proportionate
share is mitigated. The county has amended the policy to exempt the development of a
single family house from the LOS standard.
Recommendation: Prior to adoption, reconvene the task force including representatives
from each city and discuss strategies that can be taken to identify and mitigate segments
with marginal facility capacity. The Department would like to participate in this meeting
to assist in discussing and developing access management strategies to maintain the level
of service on segments. The use of "proportionate share" may not be the best tool for the
County to employ.
The Department would like to coordinate a workshop with the local governments in the
Keys and other appropriate traffic experts to more thoroughly discuss this issue in an
effort to prevent the entire system from becoming a constrained facility. The Department
will likely have technical assistance funding that could be provided to the County to
further this effort.
Monroe County Responses to DEO ORC
Page 122
The Honorable Danny Kohlage, Mayor
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
530 Whitehead Street, Suite 102
Key West, FL 33040
Dear Mayor Kohlage:
The Department of Economic Opportunity has completed its review of the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment for Monroe County (Amendment No. 15-3ER), which was
received and determined complete on March 3, 2015. We have reviewed the proposed
amendment in accordance with the state coordinated review process set forth in Sections
163.3184(2) and (4), Florida Statutes (F.S.), for compliance with Chapter 163, Part It, F.S.
Review comments received by the Department from the appropriate reviewing agencies are
also enclosed.
The attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report outlines our
findings concerning the amendment. We have identified 7 objections and 4 comments and
have included recommendations regarding measures that can be taken to address each
objection.
The County should act by choosing to adopt, adopt with changes-, or not adopt the
proposed amendment. Also, please note that Section 163.3184 (4) (e) 1, F.S., provides that if
the second public hearing is not held within 180 days of your receipt of the Department of
Economic Opportunity report, the amendment shall be deemed withdrawn unless extended by
agreement with notice to the Department of Economic Opportunity and any affected party that
provided comment on the amendment. For your assistance, we have enclosed the procedures
for final adoption and transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment.
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity ' Caldwell Building ' 107 E. Madison Street t Tallahassee, FL 32399
866.FLA.2345 1 850.245.7105 856.921.3223 Fax
www-floridajobs'o Www-ZviUer'92MzELD_EO www.facebook.com✓FLDE
April 28, 2015
Page 2 of 2
If you have any questions related to this review, please contact Rebecca Jetton, at (850)
717-8494, or by email at Rebecca,Jetton@deo.myflorida.corn.
Sincerel
William
am
I
Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report
Agency Comments
Procedures for Adoption
cc: Christine Hurley, Growth Management Director
James F. Murley, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council
1. Consistency with Chapter 163, Part 11 and Chapter 380, Part I
The Department has the following objections and comments to the proposed comprehensive
plan amendment:
Objection 1: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 101.5.25, Footnote I has been added which
provides specific language regarding a Commercial Fishing District located on Little Torch
Key. The footnote indicates a density of one unit per acre in addition to the non-residential
uses that are allowed under the land development regulations for this zoning district. The area
is developed with single family homes, although the Mixed Commercial Fishing District does not
allow residential development. The adopted plan allows the replacement of lawfully
established units. No data was provided to indicate why this area should have a density of one
unit per acre under the footnote. The creation of this exemption creates an internal
inconsistency regarding density with the assigned Future Land Use Map with no explanation,
data, or analysis,
Authority: Sections 163.3177(1)(f)(1); 163.3177(2); 163.3177(4)(a) 163.3177(6)(a); and
380.0552(7)(a) and (m), Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Recommendation: Delete the exemption for Commercial Fishing District 20 or provide
justification for exempting this area, or alternatively consider changing the land use.
Objection 2: Conservation and Coastal Management Element Goal 207 and the underlying
polices address resource extraction and contain a prohibition on new resource extraction
activities. The underlying policies have been modified to recognize ongoing resource extraction
activities even though no new annual operating permits have been issued by the county for this
purpose in several years and current regulations require an annual operating permit in order to
conduct lime rock extraction. Policy 207.1.3 provides that the county will take proper
precautions to prevent adverse impacts from blasting within two miles of areas with
development of more than one unit per acre. The policy has been modified to state that the
County shall "maintain land development regulations to prevent adverse impacts from
blasting. The County deleted the words" within two miles of areas with development of more
than one unit per acre". The land development regulations do not address blasting.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(1.); 163.3177(2); 163.3177 (4)(a); 163.3177(6)(d)2.b and
380.0552(7)(a) , F.S.
Recommendation: Do not adopt the revised policy. Instead, modify the policy to prohibit the
use of resource extraction by blasting.
Objection 3: Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 208.3. provides that
the County will revise land development regulations to protect fresh groundwater lenses from
accelerated saltwater intrusion due to lime rock mining activity. The County has stricken
Objective 208.3 and Policy 208.3,2. No data has been submitted that indicates there is no
longer a need to protect the fresh water lens from lime rock mining and salt water
intrusion. Data provided with the amendment indicates the presence of a freshwater fens on
Big Pine, and No Name Key, and to a lesser degree, on some of the lower keys.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(1)(f); 163.3177 (4)(a); 163.3177(6)(d)2.b.; 163.3178 (2)(b); and
380.0552(7)(a), and (c), F.S.
Recommendation: Retain Objective 208.3 and supporting Policy 208.3.2.
Objection 4: Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 212.2.1 provides that the
County will evaluate the "coastal construction setback" and identify setbacks to accomplish the
protection of the natural shoreline, turtle nesting beaches, water quality, longterm sea level
rise and erosion. The clause 6 of the policy has been modified and appears inconsistent with
the previous goals. Clause 6 has been modified from "protect the overwater views of the
community" to 'redevelopment of existing waterfront commercial structures may occur for
existing structures consistent with community character and preserving the overwater
views. This policy is vague and unpredictable. The community character of one area is not the
same as another area. The policy appears to confuse the Florida Coastal Construction Control
Line with environmental "setbacks" from mean high water that have been adopted for
stormwater treatment and water quality improvement purposes,
Authority: Sections 163.3177(1)f.; 163.3177(2); 163.3177(4)(a); 163.3177(6)(g)1. and 4,;
380.0552(7)(a) and (n), F.S.
Recommendation: Do not adopt the policy as proposed. Clarify if the policy is addressing the
Coastal Construction Set back zone or the Monroe County setbacks from mean high
water, Revise clause 6 to be internally consistent with the other clauses which appear to be
protective in nature. Clarify whether or not the intent of clause 6 is to relax setbacks for
existing waterfront commercial development and allow development within the setback from
mean high water.
Objection 5: Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 212.2,2 specifically
provides the minimum setbacks for construction located along natural water bodies with
unaltered shorelines, altered shorelines, and areas known to be nesting or resting areas for
turtles, crocodiles and birds. The policy has been revised to allow Monroe County to evaluate
the adopted "set back" provisions and to adopt land development regulations that could relax
the setbacks when appropriate through a Special Approval process. The policy provides no
criteria for the evaluation of the decision for a Special Approval Process and provides no
guidance as to what the minimum setback might become. No data has been provided to
indicate that surface water quality does not need to be protected and that the setbacks need to
be relaxed. The relaxation of the setbacks is inconsistent with the Energy and Climate Element,
and with potential coastal surface water encroachment, treating stormwater, and protecting
marine resources.
Authority: Sections 163.3177( )f., 163.3177(6)(g), 163.3177(5) and (6); and 380.0552(7)(a), (b),
and (c), F.S.
Recommendation: Do not adopt the proposed changes. Maintain the setbacks as established.
Objection 6: Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 216.4.2 prohibits the use of
County funds in Coastal Barrier Resource Units (CBRU) and within off shore islands. The policy
has been amended to allow the expenditure of funds for wastewater treatment facilities. There
are privately owned On-site Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems and package plants
located in the CBRU and on some of the off shore islands that must be upgraded to meet the
2015 treatment standards. The proposed modification, however, does not limit the extension
of services to already developed areas needing upgrades. As proposed, with no limitation to
existing development, the policy appears inconsistent with the Tier System which primarily
guides development toward Tier 3 and away from Tier 1.
Policy 217.1.1 provides incentives for the preservation of the working waterfront through
exemptions from the nonresidential rate of growth system. This includes language that allows
non-conforming waterfront dependent uses and water-related commercial which are identified
as a source of economic sustainability within a Livable Communikeys Plan to be rebuilt, even if
100 percent destroyed, to the preexisting use provided they are registered and recognized by
the Planning and Environmental Resources Department as lawful nonconforming uses and
structures. This is vague and unpredictable in that the policy does not address whether the
reconstruction to the preexisting use must comply with natural resource site standards such as
setbacks from wetlands and surface waters and the provision of open space.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(2); 163.3177(4)(a); 163.3177(6)(g)1., 3., 4., 6" 7. 9, and 10; and
380.0552(7)(a), (b), (c), (e), and (i), F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the policy to clarify whether or not the policy allows the re-
establishment of a non-conforming use if the site cannot meet the environmental standards
established by the plan, the Floodplain Ordinance requirements and the Florida Building Code.
Objection 7: Drainage Element Objective 1-001.3 proposed the development of a Stormwater
Master Plan for Monroe County. With financial assistance from the State, the Stormwater Master
Plan was completed. Supporting Policy 1001.3.1 provides that the master plan shall be
implemented. Both the Objective and the policy have been stricken. No data and analysis was
provided for removal of the objective and policy.
Authority: Sections 163.3177(1); 163.3177(2); 163.3177(4)(a); 163.3177(6)(c)1. and 2;
163.3178 (2)(b); and 380.0552(7)(a), (e), and (1), F.S.
Recommendation: Maintain Drainage policy 1001.3.1 to implement the stormwater Master
Plan. Revise the objective or place the policy in another location. The Department objects to
the deletion of Policy 1001.3.3. The policy provides that Monroe County will implement the
findings of the Monroe County Stormwater Master Plan.
Comment 1: Future Land Use Element Policy 101.12,42 expresses the County's intent to limit
public facilities in Tier One. The Key Largo Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is constructed
in Tier One. A section of the policy memorializes a 4.5 acre clearing limit exception with
mitigation that was made by the County in recognition of the financial investment in
constructing the system and the need to provide regional services. -The proposed policy
revision deletes the reference to this exception,
Recommendation: For historical purposes and in consideration of potential future expansions,
this clause should be retained for consideration by future policy makers.
Comment 2,: Future Land Use Element Policy 101.4.5 identifies the types of uses that do not
require a non-residential rate of growth allocation. Several exemptions are offered. Section (4)
provides an exemption for federally tax exempt not for profit institutional uses (educational,
scientific, research, health, and social service, religious, cultural, and recreational organizations)
upon a finding by the Planning commission that such activity will predominantly serve the non-
transient population.
Recommendation: Provide additional definitions or criteria for the exemption of non-profit
organizations regarding criteria to qualify as such an organization. For example educational
groups should either be certified in a particular field or able to certify another person in a
particular field.
Comment 3: Conservation and Coastal Element Policy 204.2.1 describes the Keys Wetland
Evaluation Program (KWEP). The KWEP is a field- based wetland functional assessment
methodology specific to the Florida Keys, developed in conjunction with EPA. The KWEP
evaluation identifies those wetlands that are suitable for filling with mitigation from those that
are generally unsuitable for placement of fill, The KWEP Program protects the most highly
functioning wetlands in Monroe from being filled.
Recommendation. Revise the policy to include that parcels that have not been evaluated and
scored under KWEP must obtain a Keywep evaluation prior to receiving a permit from the County
to fill wetlands.
Comment 4: Monroe County has revised Traffic Circulation Policy 301.1.2 and adopted a Level
of Service Standard C along the entire length of US 1. Previously concurrency was measured on
a segment by segment basis under methodology that was developed by a task force with
representation from FDOT, DCA, and Monroe County. FDOT conducts the survey every two years
during peak tourist system and drives the entire length of US 1 timing the speed for 24 segments
and assigning the level of service standard that is being achieved. Segments were required` to
maintain a speed no lower than 5% of the posted speed limit. The County is proposing to average
the entire length of US I and will coordinate the segment analysis with the US I Task force
composed of FDOT, DEC}, and Monroe County. Policy 301.2.3 provides that development shall
not degrade the level of service below the adopted standard on the entire length of US 1 unless
the proportionate share is mitigated. The county has amended the policy to exempt the
development of a single family house from the LOS standard.
Recommendation: Prior to adoption, reconvene the task force including representatives from
each city and discuss strategies that can be taken to identify and mitigate segments with marginal
facility capacity. The Department would like to participate in this meeting to assist in discussing
and developing access management strategies to maintain the level of service on segments. The
use of "proportionate share" may not be the best too[ for the County to employ.
The Department would like to coordinate a workshop with the local governments in the Keys
and other appropriate traffic experts to more thoroughly discuss this issue in an effort to
prevent the entire system from becoming a constrained facility. The Department will likely
have technical assistance funding that could be provided to the County to further this effort.
Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes
NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: Please submit three complete copies ofall
comprehensive plan materials, of which one complete paper copy and two complete electronic
copies on CD ROM in Portable Document Format (PDF) to the Department of Economic
Opportunity and one copy to each entity below that provided timely comments to the local
government: the appropriate Regional Planning Council; Water Management District;
Department of Transportation; Department of Environmental Protection; Department of State;
the appropriate county (municipal amendments only); the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (county plan
amendments only); and the Department of Education (amendments relating to public schools);
and for certain local governments, the appropriate military installation and any other local
government or governmental agency that has filed a written request.
SUBMITTAL LETTER: Please include the following information in the cover letter transmitting the
adopted amendment:
Department of Economic Opportunity identification number for adopted amendment
Summary description qf the adoption package, including any amendments proposed but
not adopted;
Ordinance number and adoption date;
Certification that the adopted arnend has been submitted ba all parties that
provided timely comments to the local government;
Narne title., address, telephone, FAX number and e-mail address of local government
contact,
Letter signed by the chief elected official or the person designated by the local
government.
ADOPTION AMENDMENT PACKAGE: Please include the following information inthe
amendment package:
Effective: June 2, 2011 (Updated March 11, 2013)
|n the case of text amendments, changes should be shown in strike-through/underline
_In the case of future land use map amend mgnt, am adopted future land use map, [m
color format, clearly depicting the parcel, its existing future land use designation, and its
adopted designation;
A copy of any data and analyses the local government deems appropriate.
Note: If the local government is relying on previously submitted data and analysis, no additional
data and analysis is required;
Copy of executed ordinance adopting the comprehensive planamendment(s);
Suggested effective date language for the adoption ordinance for state coordinated review:
The effective date; of this plan amendment, if the amendment bnot timely challenged,
shall be the dote the Department of Economic Opportunity posts a notice of intent
detenn|ng that this amendment is in compliance. if timely challenged, or if the state
land planning agency issues a notice of intent determining that this amendment is not in
compliance, this amendment shall become effective nn the date the state land planning
agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted
amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or
land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued orcommence before it has
become effective. if final order ofnoncompliance is issued by the Administration
Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of
resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the
Department uf Economic Opportunity.
List of additional changes made in the adopted amendment that the Department of
Economic Opportunity did not previously review;
List offindings of the local governing body, if any, that were not included io the ordinance
and which provided the basis of the adoption or determination not to adopt the proposed
amendment;
StaUennert indicating the relationship of the additional changes not previously reviewed
by the Department of Economic Opportunity to the OR[report from the Department of
Economic Opportunity,
Effective: June 2,Z011 (Updated March 1l,2D1J)
I
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DiSTRICT
March 27, 2 15
State Land Planning Agency
Caldwell Building
107 East Madison, MSC-160
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Subject: Monroe County, DEO # 16-3ER
Comments on Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Package
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
Revise Policies 203.2.1, 203.2.2, 212.4.5, and 212.4.6 to include both the District
and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); in addition to
FDEP, the District also implements the Environmental Resources Permitting
rules for docking facilities. F t o — be — updated
Clarify in Policy 204.2.1 how the Keys Wetland Evaluation Procedure (KEYWEP)
results will be used and specify if KEYWEP will be used for acquisition ranking,
planning, etc. as opposed to impact evaluation. As written, Policy 204.2.1 may
be interpreted as being inconsistent with Chapter 62-345, Florida Administrative
t vie! for updates
3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Be" Florida 33406 - (561) 686-8800 • FL WATS 3-800-432-2045
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-46N - www.sfwrad.gov
M77
March 27, 2015
Page 2
is
III)
c: Christine Hurley, Monroe County
Rebecca Jetton, DEO
Terry Manning, SFWMD
Jim Murley, SFRPG
a.
Florida Fish
and Wildlife
Qlllmmis:iiopers
Richard A. Carbeft
Chairman
Tampa
Orion Yablonr;ld
Vice Chairman
Tallahassee
RMOICI K Bergeron
FW L61iderdate
Richard Hamm
Oviedo
Allase P. 'Llaso' Priddy
OffatOkalee
Bo 111WIrd
Panama CRY
Charles W. Roberts Of
Tallahassee
ExpCOVP Staff
Mck Wiley
ExeaAve Director
Eric Sutton
Assistant bmautive Director
Jennifer Ruwater
Chief of Staff
Offk't' of tWl
i<'APXAAUVe Dir'4 '_toy
Nick Wiley
biacutive Diretaor
tM) 487-3796
(650) 911-5786 FAX
Managing fish and .w1cf1ift
o-iourcas for thetr long-tem
ftXbelng and the benefit
Of PeOphl-
620 South Meridian Street
Tallahassee, Florida
32399-=0
Vries: 1854) 4884676
Mayte, Santarriaria
Sr. Director of.Planning and Environmental Resources
Monroe County Growth Management Division
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite #400
Marathon, FL 33050
sMitaMaria. ! m aAgW,_manMV&qgt Y: WY
Re: Monroe County 15-3ER Comprehensive Plan Arnen&ment — Area of Critical State
Concern, Proposed Amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan (Update to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) gaff has reviewed the
above-referenced comprehensive plan amendment and provides, the fbIlowing outments
for your consideration in accordance with Chapter 1633 184 Florida Statutes. W-bile we
have no objections to this amendment, we offer the following information as technical
assistance during your review.
Ile proposed amendment updates the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan to
be consistent with the results of the Technical Document update (Data a-ad Analysig), the
adopted 2012 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the 2014 Evaluation and Appraisal
Notification Letter, and creates the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Comments and Recommendations
FWC staff has reviewed the proposed updates to the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan (update to the 20.3-0 Comprehensive Plan), Oim rAmments focus on
Section '3.2: 3.2: Conservation and CsW oa Management Element, of the Monroe County Year
- 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy Document
DgAp
(800) 955 - , 9771 the re en
36 ofwatef
(8W) 955-8770
MyFWc.Corn
Mayte Santmana
Page 2
April 2, 2015
FWC s with
the addition of the
1 01 removing the f o l lowing f 'rst gentcnce� however, we.,
.oll sentence which Ocommend
land man a g errjent i ssues f e nwUrages coordination to address
Bay, or the Purposes or p rote cdng natural habitat in Florid
FFt-o- e updated
C h' P"Posed chan to Policy 43.4.3 (page 2) includes the F 44
, ounly shall periodical) y meet: with the, Florida a 11 , Me
94*689- Commission Divi r � Fish �170
d ne I . on
s
to S assess m easures
Monroe County to protect Which, could be itapl b �,
f Of the Florida- Keys,"
FCC notes that a meefi u DjVsI of A4arinc Fisherie
occu at any time w suppo the Coordinatio efforts, 's Managment can
''lie PrOPosed cha "g t o Policy 203,4.4 (p
Coun Shall suppo t e ff age 32) includ
'arts t he &j'jowing
h
of the a
avi
die 'on t
e k0l�t �the
a na
I statTsu the following edits . , w
FWS ggj FV� as thratened � I . il dlifeisPeciesdesignated b th
dais objeotive. or endangereI include state.li species within
The Proposed chang to Policy 24 to be updated
]
County .20A.2.3 (page 6 inclodc the f L ing:
shall as approphit., McoMorate Sp I , 5)
fed "Monroe
& design ecle, manageMent guidelines
wildlife SP *
Orden. ectes as 44*hai
0 -m- Mo—n$ for . kw"eveloptnent
FWC staff encourages the County to coorld with state a rW
, and e zgenc
facilitate the prot on of listed spec FWC stafF avalabl Provide
technical assistance to the County and fiftre applicants 0 Measrures to, a
Minimi potential n
t 'mPwAs t* fish and wildlife Voci ' I - Void -and
wildlife r , e w, 0 ,r ` , d ,, ' n 9 ,I M onroe C Po l icy to incorporate d their habitats. W
o stance m state and federal
unty III 11111'':'r
and Wild�IV W1 F an UA i sli
9� � WM • as appropriate
man agement guidelines vided .1 inco
Ail— C. e tPOrate species
rL
to updated]
Mayte SantamaTia
Aqe 3
April 2, 2015
r-_ t
federally designated wildlife species as sfipuhgens conditL ns for l d
-development orders."
We appreciate the OPPortunitY to participate in the review oft is amendment. Nyou
need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Jane Chabre either by phone
at (8501) 410-5367 or by email at . If EWCCon tio ng5iqrvi ces@MYfW!C'-SqM
AgDM j=i
Mp_
You have specific tectmioal questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact
Marissa Krueger by phone at (561) 882-5711 or by email at
Mqrissg,KMg&p_r@MvFWC,coin
Sincerely,
Jennifer D. Goff
Land Use Planning Program Administrator
Office of Conservation Planning -Services
jdg/Tnk
ENV z -3 -3
MkInme COUnty 154 CPA-ACSC
cc: Ray Eubanks
Plan Processing Administrator
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
PLC -P-qY
,icunal-aggligy
ray �
OpFxE or `CHB COUNUSS10NER k e THE t✓AP..iToi,
(85c) 6x7.7700 440 SOUTH ! ONROE STREET
TALLAHASSEE, 1?LaRMA 32399 -0900
+
FLO ! r s AND . e SERVICES
March 26, 2015
VIA EMAIL ( Santamaria- mayte@monroecounty- fl.gov)
Monroe County Growth Management Division
Attn: Christine Hurley
2798 Overseas highway, Suite #401)
Marathon, Florida 83050
Re. DACS Docket # -- 20150306 -523
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Flan
Submission dated February 26, 2015
Dear Ms. Hurley:
The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the "Department ") received the above -
referenced proposed comprehenWe plan amendment on Larch 6, 2015 and has reviewed it pursuant
to the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes to address any potential adverse impacts to important
state resources or facilities related to agricultural, aquacultural, or forestry resources in Florida if the
proposed amendment(s) are adopted. Based on our review of your county's submission, the
Department has no comment on the proposal.
If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 850 -410 -2289.
cc: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
(SLPA ##: Monroe County 15 -3 ESR)
1- 800- HELPFLA www.Pre5hFromFtorlda.com
Eubanks, Ray
L From: [hhs^[hhsStaN@dep/state�.um>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 20154:17PM
To: Q[Pextenmalagencycomments
Cc/ Craig, Kae;santamaha-nmayte@momromcuuoty-figov
Subject- Monroe County 1S-3ER—Proposed
To: Ray Eub2nks, Department of Economic Opportunity
Re: Monroe County 15-3ER — Review of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department af Environmental Protection (Department)has
reviewed the above-referenced amendment package under the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, The
Department conducted a detailed review that focused on potential adverse impacts to important state resources and
facilities, specifically: air and water pollution; wetlands and other surface waters of the state; federal and state-owned
lands and interest in lands, including state parks, greenways and trails, conservation easements; solid waste; and water
and wastewater treatment.
Based om our review of the submitted amendment package, the Department has found no provision that, if adopted,
would result in adverse impacts to important state resources subject to the Department's jurisdiction.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions,
Chris Stahl
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
39OQ Commonwealth 8|vd.,IVIS47
TuUahaasee,FL3239g'3QU0
(850)24S-Z168
To: Ray Eub2nks, Department of Economic Opportunity
Re: Monroe County 15-3ER — Review of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department af Environmental Protection (Department)has
reviewed the above-referenced amendment package under the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, The
Department conducted a detailed review that focused on potential adverse impacts to important state resources and
facilities, specifically: air and water pollution; wetlands and other surface waters of the state; federal and state-owned
lands and interest in lands, including state parks, greenways and trails, conservation easements; solid waste; and water
and wastewater treatment.
Based om our review of the submitted amendment package, the Department has found no provision that, if adopted,
would result in adverse impacts to important state resources subject to the Department's jurisdiction.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions,
Chris Stahl
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
39OQ Commonwealth 8|vd.,IVIS47
TuUahaasee,FL3239g'3QU0
(850)24S-Z168
centennieff
7:
Im
RICK SCOTT 1000 NW 111 Avedue JIM BOXOLD
GOVERNOR Mlarni, Florida, 33172-5800 SECRETARY
Mayte Santamaria, Assistant Director
2798 Oversea& Highway, Suite: 400
Marathon, Flodda 3$050
Subject. Comments for the Proposed Comprebens' a Plan Amendment,
IV
Monroe County 015-3ER
Dear Ms. Santamaria:
The Florida Department of Transportation, District Six, completed a review of the
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Monroe County #15-3ER. TheDistrict
has reviewed the amendment package per Chapter 163 St f S as
, Fjoti(�a a ute and h.
found no adverse impacts to transportation resources and facilities of state
importance.
F VIR I I
cci Harold Desdunes, PE, Florida Department of Transportation, District 6
Aileen Boucle, AICIP, Florida Department of Transportation, District 6
Lisa Colmenares, A]CP, Florida Department of Transportation, District 6
Ray Eubanks, Department of Economic viiirtunity
www.dot.stateftus