Item R10 R.10
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County of Monroe Mayor Sylvia Murphy,District 5
The Florida Keys l'U � � Mayor Pro Tern Danny Kolhage,District 1
�pw° Michelle Coldiron,District 2
Heather Carruthers,District 3
David Rice,District 4
County Commission Meeting
October 16, 2019
Agenda Item Number: R.10
Agenda Item Summary #6107
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Cheryl Cioffari (305) 289-2506
1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing regarding adoption of an ordinance by the
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending Monroe County Land Development
Code, Section 130-157 Maximum Permanent Residential Density and Minimum Required Open
Space, to address density issues on parcels of land within the Improved Subdivision (IS) zoning
district that are not platted lots.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department is proposing amendments to
the Monroe County Land Development Code, Section 130-157 Maximum Permanent Residential
Density and Minimum Required Open Space, as directed by the BOCC on August 15, 2018, to
address density issues on parcels of land within the Improved Subdivision (IS) zoning district that
are not platted lots.
Monroe County's current adopted Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) have
allocated density requirements that require a parcel to be a duly recorded lot on a plat approved by
the County in order to develop a single family residential dwelling unit within the RM FLUM and IS
zoning district.
The majority of parcels within IS zoning districts and with RM FLUM designations are platted lots
within subdivisions identified on plats approved by the County. However, there are a number of
parcels with RM FLUM and IS zoning designations that were created without plat approval or that
contain land included on a plat but only identified as a "tract" or for some other purpose; such
parcels do not meet the definition of"lot." The legal descriptions for a number of these parcels show
that the property is located within a Tract of land included in a duly recorded plat, but these were not
divided into "lots" at the time of the plat. In some cases, these tracts of land were subsequently
divided into multiple parcels that were never shown as lots or parcels on a plat, re-plat, or amended
plat approved by the County and recorded by the Clerk of Court's office. Such parcels do not meet
the definition of"lot" and therefore have no density assigned to them.
Sec. 110-96. -Plat Approval and Recording Required.
Packet Pg. 2585
R.10
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and(c) of this section,plat approval shall be required
for:
(1) The division of a parcel of land into three or more parcels of land;
(2) The division of a parcel of land into two parcels of land where the land involved in the
division was previously divided without plat approval; or
(3) The division of a parcel of land into two parcels of land where the disclosure statement
required under subsection (e) of this section is not attached to the conveyance.
The majority of these parcels were designated IS with the adoption of the land use district map in
1986 and RM with the adoption of the FLUM in 1993 (effective 1997).
Community Meeting and Public Participation
In accordance with LDC Section 102-159(b)(3), a Community Meeting for the Comprehensive Plan
and Land Development Code text amendments was held on November 27, 2018 in Marathon and
provided for public input. Issues identified by the public at the meeting included:
• "current configuration" of parcels and how strict the date/location of parcel lines would be
• Paved roads —what constitutes a paved road
• ROGO process for owners who previously submitted applications under the current code
Packet Pg. 2586
R.10
Development Review Committee and Public Input
At a regular meeting held on January 15, 2019, the Development Review Committee (DRC)
considered the proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment and corresponding Land
Development text amendment, and provided for public comment.
Planning Commission and Public Input
On February 27, 2019, at a regular public meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
regarding the proposed amendment and provided for public comment. The Planning Commission
considered the application, the staff report, and the comments from the public in their
discussion, and recommended approval with changes, as discussed at the public hearing, of the
proposed CP text amendment (Resolution P16-19).
The PC recommended the selection of Option A (which would not require use of a TDR) as
presented in the staff report dated February 12, 2019, with the following changes:
1. Edit g) 1) as follows:
The parcel boundaries must have been established in their current configuration prior to
September 15,1986, except for de minimis changes (no more than 10% of the parcel's
hWlan area) to the parcel boundaries made after September 15, 1986, but prior to
August 12, 1992, which did not create another buildable parcel. SHek de minimis e'^^ ngv-
and
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS
Proposed Amendment:
Deletions are sti44eti this�t)Hgli.; additions are shown in uu (Nefl• ne(]..' changes proposed by staff after
BOCC direction are shown in per:
Sec. 130-157. Maximum permanent residential density and minimum required open space.
The maximum permanent residential density for those uses permitted by this chapter and
minimum required open space shall be in accordance with the following table:
Maximum Permanent Residential Density
and Minimum Open Space
Density Maximum Net Minimum
Allocated Den
Land Use District DU/Gross Acre siUpland Density � Open Space
DU/Buildable Acre Ratio(d)
Airport(AD) 0 N/A 0.20
Commercial 1 (C1) 0 N/A 0.20
Commercial 2 (C2) 0 N/A 0.20
Commercial Fishing Area
3 12(e) 0.20
(CFA)
Packet Pg. 2587
R.10
Commercial Fishing Special CFSD-20: 10) CFSD-20:N/A
0.20
District(CFSD)
Other CFSDs: 3 Other CFSDs: 12(e)
Commercial Fishing Village 1/lot N/A 0.20
(CFV)
Conservation(CD) 0 N/A 0.90
Destination Resort(DR) 1.0 18.O(e) 0.20
r Improve Subdivision 1 ot,....��:
0 0.20
(IS) w�r
Improved Subdivision- 2/lot 0 0.20
Duplex(IS-D)
Industrial(I) 1.0 2.0 0.20
Mainland Native Area(MN) 0.01 N/A 0.99(`'--O
Maritime Industries (MI)('-10 1.0 2.0(e) 0.20
Military Facilities (MF) 6.0 12.0 0.20
Mixed Use (MU) 1.0 12.O(e) 0.20
Native Area(NA) 0.25 N/A 0.95(d)
Offshore Island(OS) 0.1 N/A 0.95
Park and Refuge (PR) 0 N/A 0.90
Preservation (P) 0 N/A 1.00
Recreational Vehicle (RV) 06') N/A 0.20
Sparsely Settled Residential 0.5 N/A 0.80
(SS)
TDRs: 6.O(e)
Suburban Commercial(SC) 3.0 0.20
Affordable: 18.O(e)
5.0
Suburban Residential(SR) 0.5 0.50
1/lot(d)
Suburban Residential
0.5 3.0 0.50
(Limited) (SR-L)
Urban Commercial(UC) 6.0 12.O(e) 0.20
TDRs: 12.0
Urban Residential(UR) 6.0 0.20
Affordable: 25.0
Urban Residential--Mobile 1/lot N/A 0.20
Home (URM):
Packet Pg. 2588
R.10
Mobile Home Parks per
5.0 7.0 0.20
Section 101-1
Urban Residential Mobile 1/lot N/A 0.20
Home-Limited (URM-L)
(a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be
0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available.
(b) Vessels,including live-aboard vessels or associated wet slips, are not considered dwelling units and
do not count when calculating density.
(c) Maximum Net Density is the maximum density allowable with the use of the TDRs, or for
qualifying affordable housing development. TDRs can be utilized to attain the density between the
allocated density standard up to the maximum net density standard. Deed restricted affordable
dwelling units may be built up to the maximum net density without the use of TDRs. "N/A"means
that maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Buildable acres means the portion of a
parcel of land that is developable and is not required open space.
(d) Additional open space requirements may apply based on environmental protection criteria- see
additional open space ratios in Chapter 118. In accordance with section 101-2(1), the most
restrictive of these ratios applies.
(e) For properties consisting of hammocks,pinelands or disturbed wetlands within the Mixed Use/
Commercial and Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing future land use categories,the maximum net
density bonuses shall not be available.
(f) Per Policy 101.5.25,the allocated density for the CFSD-20 land use district(Little Torch Key) shall
be 1 dwelling unit 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).
��.1 �.1�°M���i�� 4.�Mi�71f lre f �.��ti�� °IIiM�f> rsM�i� rwr r rw�7rr„�"� f���s'...7s�7rr,s°I��y
�....i� � .M..i�° f rr�M��M�� �.1� ��r�ti,� �Mi�° Ilr�r,�7�s�.
[11i' � sxlr°r°� �711 ref`[M-ire f'r,llo,,,iMI > r,r�Mt�.li�io� I s�
....
�.� I Mis"... s�7rr,r�lrr�rsM��.l��rir�4,� �r�ces��� Mi�7,r� lrr�r�M� r��<<7lrli�yMir��.l iM�, �Mir�ir r,cesrir�M�� r,r�M�.i�>rsr�7�ir�M� xsrir�r <<�
r�rw�r��r�l,yr�r f 5 c parcel's area to
the parcel boundaries_amadc after September ll 5 1986 bent prior�o Augl�st ll2:. ll992 which did
... .... _ ..................
not crc tc anotl cr burl:dal�le.. ap reel.
.� I Mir",_�7_fsrslir.�fNIj rusS[ rsro,i€.lr srsf`f'3r,ieNI[ r (.lr NIr;r° [Mi 1-1r° rw�7I'(re fwIIII(j�lIies ti,e Ie ery<<71rIisMkr��,f
efoI'(I p �, �> lrr�rsM���.l�7r ���tIn'r°
"rYf�"fYl�:y�f s, ���P� f s,l�f,NJ �l`'y �1MY�" r}f" fYlr)f"�" �1,f fMJ�" I�JII�l`ti'� YMIp-
3) b� ru) l�E f�VE� r�li`fiE �W f6� o f ( � ssr..fs�r�.fr�s�ryE ssr� frl� ( E ,s7. hr� rlw
Srslrjr�r,f rs�7rr,r�1 �r��7 MIo[ lre �7:..1`r�7r,�ir�s��71 r!r�jj o� I oj` 7_rsl�7<<r�.l
5) The—u-Jet_pa rcel,mu.5 have a m.nrmirm of 2 000 sf�nd that.is not_��
access easementordesriiate1 purpose other than resrdcntial use;
Q j I Miryr�rs M'iyi ,e �7 I it (j �,i�>MI�7�io I of"' ieI'
7) JI Mjr�..`��rsfrjr°r,f rw�7rr,r°I �r�rs���� i��r,lrs(.lr°..�fl1 iM�f`��7����rrsr,�csrr° f�srr;<71r1r° v
(YI("�"�YMY`?,t }Gt�l�Y���`,Gt �A )�`?� "�(,
rs11rI r°I �rIrs ,o -1 sly'.`ti�� i M-i 01 21 ,, of 1.1c Q,o YI rr°lir°MIsi e n
(dig) The minimum open space ratio for the MN zoning district is 0.99 for permanent residential uses.
For campground and nonresidential uses within the MN zoning district,the minimum open space
ratio is 0.95, as shown in the density and intensity tables in Sections 130-162 and 130-164.
(i;h) A mixture of uses shall be maintained for parcels designated as MI zoning district that are within
Packet Pg. 2589
R.10
the MC future land use category. Working waterfront and water dependent uses, such as marina,
fish house/market,boat repair,boat building,boat storage, or other similar uses, shall comprise a
minimum of 35% of the upland area of the property, adjacent to the shoreline,pursuant to Policy
101.5.6 of the Comprehensive Plan.
(ji) Per Section 130-92(a)(4),in the RV zoning district, commercial apartments shall be the only
permanent residential use allowed,not to exceed 10% of total RV spaces allowed or in existence on
the site,whichever is less.
(lip) Within the SR zoning district, the maximum net density for platted lots shall be I dwelling unit per
platted lot,provided all of the following conditions are met:
1) The parcel must be one full platted lot shown on a plat approved by the County and duly recorded
prior to January 2, 1996;
2) The platted lot may not be identified for any other use or purpose on the plat(e.g., "park,"
"common area,"etc.);
3) The platted lot must have a Tier designation of Tier III;
4) Notwithstanding Section 130-160, the maximum net density may only be reached with the
transfer of one (1) full TDR to the SR lot,regardless of the size of the lot and the allocated
density assigned to it;
5) The TDR must meet all requirements and procedures specified in Section 130-160;
6) TDRs under this provision may not be transferred into noise zones of 65 DNL or greater; and
7) The subject parcel must comply with Policy 301.2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding legal
access.
Staff analysis of parcels within the IS zoning district indicates that there may be approximately 57
privately-owned vacant parcels (not qualifying as "lots") that would meet the criteria of the
proposed amendment. The number of parcels within this scenario may vary as property owners
have (and continue to) split and combine properties without County Planning & Environmental
Resources Department knowledge (nor plat approval). If this amendment is adopted, each parcel
shall be individually evaluated at the time of an application for development with the criteria
established. Property owners must provide sufficient evidence that the parcel was created prior to
September 15, 1986.
For further reference, attached to this agenda item is a staff report prepared in 2015 regarding the
Planning Commission Appeal of a building permit denial for a non-platted parcel in the Twin Lakes
neighborhood in Key Largo. The staff report includes additional history and analysis of the
requirements for platting within the Monroe County Code and Florida Statutes.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
On July 18, 2018, at their regularly scheduled meeting, the BOCC directed staff to propose options
for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and/or LDC that would allow owners of parcels that do
not constitute a"lot" within the IS zoning district to apply for a single family residence.
On August 15, 2018, at the regularly scheduled meeting BOCC meeting Staff presented options for
BOCC consideration. Staff s proposal included a requirement that the subject parcels transfer in a
Transferable Development Right (TDR). The BOCC directed staff to process text amendments to the
Packet Pg. 2590
R.10
Comprehensive Plan and LDC that would allow unplatted parcels within the IS zoning district to
apply for a ROGO allocation in order to build a single family residence on such a parcel without the
use of TDRs.
On May 22, 2019, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the BOCC held a public hearing to consider the
transmittal of the corresponding proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment (File 2018-196),
considered the staff report, and provided for public comment and public participation in accordance
with the requirements of state law and the procedures adoption for public participation in the
planning process. The BOCC was presented with two options and selected Option A —which did not
require a TDR. The BOCC adopted Resolution 155-2019 transmitting the proposed amendment to
the State Land Planning Agency (DEO) for review and comment.
Following their review of the proposed amendment, DEO issued an Objections, Recommendations
and Comments (ORC) report on August 22, 2019. The ORC report did not identify any objections,
recommendations or comments. The County has 180 days from the date of receipt of the ORC to
adopt the proposed amendment, adopt the amendment with changes or not adopt the amendment.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment.
DOCUMENTATION:
2018-197 BOCC SR 10.16.19
2018-197_Ordinance
potentially eligible parcels to outline in red
2015_Appeal
2018-196 MONROE CO. 19-03ACSC (ORC)
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date: N/A
Expiration Date: N/A
Total Dollar Value of Contract: N/A
Total Cost to County: N/A
Current Year Portion: N/A
Budgeted: N/A
Source of Funds:
CPI: N/A
Indirect Costs: N/A
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: N/A
Revenue Producing: N/A If yes, amount: N/A
Grant: N/A
Packet Pg. 2591
R.10
County Match: N/A
Insurance Required: N/A
Additional Details: N/A
REVIEWED BY:
Emily Schemper Completed 09/26/2019 9:21 AM
Steve Williams Completed 09/27/2019 9:19 AM
Maureen Proffitt Completed 10/01/2019 9:45 AM
Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley Completed
10/01/2019 8:46 AM
Maureen Proffitt Completed 10/01/2019 9:45 AM
Budget and Finance Completed 10/01/2019 10:40 AM
Maria Slavik Completed 10/01/2019 10:47 AM
Kathy Peters Completed 10/01/2019 11:14 AM
Board of County Commissioners Pending 10/16/2019 9:00 AM
Packet Pg. 2592
2 )llll ��������IIIII�IIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �'; "q"� v / 4r. �`f� / %%%%%%%% Illlll ''....
3 a„,
4
5 MEMORANDUM
6 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
7
8
9 To: Monroe County Board of County commissioners
10
11 Through: Emily Schemper, AICP, CFM, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental 0
12 Resources
13
14 From: Cheryl Cioffari, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning
15
16 Date: September 20, 2019
17
18 Subject: An ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending Monroe W
e
19 County Land Development Code, Section 130-157 Maximum Permanent Residential
20 Density and Minimum Required Open Space, to address density issues on parcels of land
21 within the Improved Subdivision(IS)zoning district that are not platted lots. (File 42018-
22 197) X
23
24 Meeting: October 16, 2019
25
26
27 I. REQUEST .
28
29 The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department is proposing amendments
30 to the Monroe County Land Development Code, Section 130-157 Maximum Permanent 7
31 Residential Density and Minimum Required Open Space, as directed by the BOCC on August 15, 7
32 2018, to address density issues on parcels of land within the Improved Subdivision (IS) zoning
33 district that are not platted lots.
34 co
Ui
35 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
36
i
37 On July 26, 2016, the Monroe County Planning Commission (PC) considered an appeal by a
rl-
38 property owner who had been denied a building permit for a single family residence on an unplatted Go
39 parcel of land with a Residential Medium (RM) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation and CD
40 within an Improved Subdivision (IS) zoning district based on the density standard of one dwelling
41 unit per platted lot for the RM and IS districts in the Comprehensive Plan and LDC. The PC denied a)
42 the applicant's appeal.
43
44 On July 18,2018, at their regularly scheduled meeting,the BOCC held a public hearing to consider
45 a request for a Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) and the recommendations of the special
46 magistrate for a parcel within an IS zoning district and with an RM FLUM, for which a building
47 permit was denied because the property does not constitute a"lot" for purposes of density.
48
BOCC SR 10.16.19 Page I of 12
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2593
R.10.a
I The special magistrate had issued a recommendation that the BOCC deny the owner's request for
2 relief under the BUD ordinance. The BOCC denied the applicant's request for relief. The BOCC
3 also directed staff to propose options for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and/or LDC that
4 would allow owners of parcels that do not constitute a "lot" within the IS zoning district to apply
5 for a single family residence.
6
7 Monroe County's current adopted Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code(LDC)have
8 allocated density requirements that require a parcel to be a duly recorded lot on a plat approved by I-
9 the County in order to develop a single family residential dwelling unit within the RM FLUM and 17
10 IS zoning district.
11
12 The majority of parcels within IS zoning districts and with RM FLUM designations are platted lots
13 within subdivisions identified on plats approved by the County. However, there are a number of
14 parcels with RM FLUM and IS zoning designations that were created without plat approval or that
15 contain land included on a plat but only identified as a "tract" or for some other purpose; such
16 parcels do not meet the definition of"lot." The legal descriptions for a number of these parcels
17 show that the property is located within a Tract of land included in a duly recorded plat, but these
18 were not divided into "lots" at the time of the plat. In some cases, these tracts of land were
19 subsequently divided into multiple parcels that were never shown as lots or parcels on a plat, re- -
20 plat, or amended plat approved by the County and recorded by the Clerk of Court's office. Such
21 parcels do not meet the definition of"lot" and therefore have no density assigned to them.
22 X
23 The majority of these parcels were designated IS with the adoption of the land use district map in
24 1986 and RM with the adoption of the FLUM in 1993 (effective 1997).
25
26 On July 18,2018, at their regularly scheduled meeting,the BOCC directed staff to propose options
27 for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and/or LDC that would allow owners of parcels that 2
28 do not constitute a"lot" within the IS zoning district to apply for a single family residence.
29
30 On August 15, 2018, at the regularly scheduled meeting BOCC meeting Staff presented options
31 for BOCC consideration. Staff s proposal included a requirement that the subject parcels transfer
32 in a Transferable Development Right(TDR). The BOCC directed staff to process text amendments
33 to the Comprehensive Plan and LDC that would allow unplatted parcels within the IS zoning
34 district to apply for a ROGO allocation in order to build a single family residence on such a parcel
35 without the use of TDRs.
36
37 Community Meeting and Public Participation
38 In accordance with LDC Section 102-159(b)(3), a Community Meeting for the Comprehensive 17
39 Plan and Land Development Code text amendments was held on November 27, 2018 in Marathon
40 and provided for public input. Issues identified by the public at the meeting included: N
41 • "current configuration" of parcels and how strict the date/location of parcel lines would be
42 • Paved roads —what constitutes a paved road
43 • ROGO process for owners who previously submitted applications under the current code
44
45
BOCC SR 10.16.19 Page 2 of 12
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2594
R.10.a
I Development Review Committee and Public Input
2 At a regular meeting held on January 15, 2019, the Development Review Committee (DRC)
3 considered the proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment and corresponding Land
4 Development text amendment, and provided for public comment.
5
6 Planning Commission and Public Input
7 On February 27, 2019, at a regular public meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
8 regarding the proposed amendment and provided for public comment. The Planning Commission
9 considered the application, the staff report, and the comments from the public in their 17
10 discussion, and recommended approval with changes, as discussed at the public hearing, of
11 the proposed CP text amendment(Resolution P16-19).
12
13 The PC recommended the selection of Option A (which would not require use of a TDR) as
14 presented in the staff report dated February 12, 2019, with the following changes:
15 1. Edit g) 1) as follows:
16 The parcel boundaries must have been established in their current configuration prior to
17 September 15,1986, exceptfor de minimis changes (no more than 10%of the parcel's hwlan
cas
18 area) to the parcel boundaries made after September 15, 1986, but prior to Jm"August
19 12, 1992, which did not create another buildable parcel.
20 ; and E
21 X
x
22 Previous Relevant BOCC Action 1
0
23 On May 22, 2019, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the BOCC held a public hearing to consider
24 the transmittal of the corresponding proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment (File 2018-
25 196), considered the staff report, and provided for public comment and public participation in
26 accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adoption for public participation r-
27 in the planning process. The BOCC was presented with two options and selected Option A—which T
28 did not require a TDR. The BOCC adopted Resolution 155-2019 transmitting the proposed
29 amendment to the State Land Planning Agency (DEO) for review and comment.
30
31 Following their review of the proposed amendment,DEO issued an Objections,Recommendations
32 and Comments (ORC)report on August 22, 2019. The ORC report did not identify any objections,
33 recommendations or comments. The County has 180 days from the date of receipt of the ORC to
34 adopt the proposed amendment, adopt the amendment with changes or not adopt the amendment.
�s
35
36 III. PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS
37 17
00
38 Deletions are ti 4 4 eti t4t)i:i gh; additions are shown in changes proposed by staff after
39 BOCC direction are shown in p-Ip c`!
40
41 Sec. 130-157. Maximum permanent residential density and minimum required open space.
42 The maximum permanent residential density for those uses permitted by this chapter and minimum
43 required open space shall be in accordance with the following table:
44
Maximum Permanent Residential Density
and Minimum Open Space
BOCC SR 10.16.19 Page 3 of 12
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2595
R.10.a
Allocated Density(OW Maximum Net Minimum
Land Use District DU/Gross Acre of Density(a)(b)(e) Open
Upland DU/Buildable Acre Space
Ratio(d)
Airport (AD) 0 N/A 0.20
Commercial 1 (CI) 0 N/A 0.20
Commercial 2 (C2) 0 N/A 0.20
00
Commercial Fishing Area 3 12(e) 0.20
(CFA) a�
Commercial Fishing CFSD-20: 14) CFSD-20: N/A
Special District CFSD Other CFSDs: 3 Other CFSDs: 12(e) 0.20
Commercial Fishing 1/lot N/A 0.20
Village CFV
Conservation (CD) 0 N/A 0.90
Destination Resort (DR) 1.0 18.0(e) 0.20
Improved Subdivision 1/lot ok°
0 0.20
IS ��i�, 1�� �f ���i�°�:°�,�<<r> E
Improved Subdivision- 2/lot 0 0.20 X
Duplex (IS-D)
Industrial (I) 1.0 2.0 0.20
Mainland Native Area 0.01 N/A 0.99(h:1L,)
(MN)
Maritime Industries (MI)(" 1.0 2.0(e) 0.20
Military Facilities (MF) 6.0 12.0 0.20
Mixed Use(MU) 1.0 12.0(e) 0.20
Native Area(NA) 0.25 N/A 0.95(d)
�s
Offshore Island(OS) 0.1 N/A 0.95
�s
Park and Refuge(PR) 0 N/A 0.90
i
Preservation (P) 0 N/A 1.00
00
Ir-
Recreational Vehicle (RV) 00) N/A 0.20
cv
Sparsely Settled 0.5 N/A 0.80
Residential SS E
E
(e)
Suburban Commercial (SC) 3.0 Affordables18.0(e) 0.20
Suburban Residential (SR) 0.5 1/5.0�` 0.50
Suburban Residential
(Limited) (SR-L) 0.5 3.0 0.50
BOCC SR 10.16.19 Page 4 of 12
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2596
R.10.a
Urban Commercial (UC) 6.0 12.0(e) 0.20
Urban Residential (UR) 6.0 TDRs: 12.0 0.20
Affordable: 25.0
Urban Residential--Mobile 1/lot N/A 0.20
Home (URM):
Mobile Home Parks per
Section 101-100
5.0 7.0 0.20
Urban Residential Mobile
Home-Limited(URM-L) 1/lot N/A 0.20
as
(a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be
0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available.
(b) Vessels,including live-aboard vessels or associated wet slips, are not considered dwelling units and
do not count when calculating density.
(c) Maximum Net Density is the maximum density allowable with the use of the TDRs, or for
qualifying affordable housing development. TDRs can be utilized to attain the density between the
allocated density standard up to the maximum net density standard. Deed restricted affordable
dwelling units may be built up to the maximum net density without the use of TDRs. "N/A"means
that maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Buildable acres means the portion of a
parcel of land that is developable and is not required open space. E
(d) Additional open space requirements may apply based on environmental protection criteria- see
additional open space ratios in Chapter 118. In accordance with section 101-2(1), the most
restrictive of these ratios applies. �3
(e) For properties consisting of hammocks,pinelands or disturbed wetlands within the Mixed Use/
Commercial and Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing future land use categories,the maximum net
density bonuses shall not be available.
(f) Per Policy 101.5.25,the allocated density for the CFSD-20 land use district(Little Torch Key) shall 2
be 1 dwelling unit 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). to
llixcX GI,' 1. r1I...., r li 0-I Srrt�� �,,I���)1...�a� 1 1 � 11rG� � �i r 01irE l l li`.
���, I��ai E 1 rail(i�-I(I""t ,('S...�-I'l(IS I�."a �a���,�I, ('SrR��alr�,I��°(I rG-I, rl��,ri' CUl� i�, �I' E�°0 -1, �ru(Ir"t 0r �f. U
arce�'s area to,�c�xcr)gtheI 5arcel(r exce t for de minianis chap pes no an ore than 10% of'the 0
........................._..�„ �
.............................)...................................:�.........................._b_�.aar���:t:���.._�:fl.�:.��.._�:�'t.�.�:.._ _eptember "a 5, 1986 but rior to °�°i
Ail �sg 1l 19.92 which dad not create another buildabl p rc l
_. ..... ... ...
CS.:�, � 00
.� l�l)liJ� rr���„ ra�l�ir�,k.;��,! ;:
�F... flIIE �1 fl fl�f�,...�Il �[IfI4:"� fIl �I..,
................. E
.. l he ,�il��� c � ��ai;,�;� 1 ixc�a ; ir��� I��a�aanimanaaan�.a 1
5. saal� ect arcel insist hav o12`000 s1 01 aanland that
�� .. at is not reserved
as an access easement or desigj pal s ..._ Cher than residential use
......................................... �.
°x..l 11 I��., ��ai E�•�,1 ��x�c�i�,r. I����,�; �a 11 r�;i� rJ� �,r�r.�����rr�l��� ��1� 11 r�;i� llUll.9.
BOCC SR 10.16.19 Page 5 of 12
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2597
7 .......... .......
...................t A L, ..,'G..
........ -0,1 2 of,
............
-c ""t r(j,I i -I, ""t ""t S S
...........................................................
The minimum open space ratio for the MN zoning district is 0.99 for permanent residential uses.
For campground and nonresidential uses within the MN zoning district,the minimum open space
ratio is 0.95, as shown in the density and intensity tables in Sections 130-162 and 130-164.
00
(ih) A mixture of uses shall be maintained for parcels designated as M1 zoning district that are within
the MC future land use category. Working waterfront and water dependent uses, such as marina, cw
fish house/market,boat repair,boat building,boat storage, or other similar uses, shall comprise a
minimum of 35% of the upland area of the property, adjacent to the shoreline,pursuant to Policy
U)
101.5.6 of the Comprehensive Plan.
0
i) Per Section 130-92(a)(4), in the RV zoning district, commercial apartments shall be the only -J
permanent residential use allowed,not to exceed 10% of total RV spaces allowed or in existence on
the site,whichever is less.
(lip) Within the SR zoning district, the maximum net density for platted lots shall be I dwelling unit per
platted lot,provided all of the following conditions are met:
1) The parcel must be one full platted lot shown on a plat approved by the County and duly recorded -6
prior to January 2, 1996;
2) The platted lot may not be identified for any other use or purpose on the plat(e.g., "park," E
common area, etc.);
X
3) The platted lot must have a Tier designation of Tier 111;
4) Notwithstanding Section 130-160, the maximum net density may only be reached with the
transfer of one (1) full TDR to the SR lot,regardless of the size of the lot and the allocated
density assigned to it;
5) The TDR must meet all requirements and procedures specified in Section 130-160;
6) TDRs under this provision may not be transferred into noise zones of 65 DNL or greater; and
.0
7) The subject parcel must comply with Policy 301.2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding legal >
access.
2
3
4 IV. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
5
6 Monroe County's current adopted Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) have
7 allocated density requirements that require a parcel to be a duly recorded lot on a plat approved by
8 the County in order to develop a single family residential dwelling unit within an RM FLUM and
00
9 IS zoning district.
10
11 Per LDC Section 130-36, "the purpose of the IS district is to accommodate the legally vested
12 residential development rights of the owners of lots in subdivisions that were lawfully established E
13 and improved prior to the adoption of this LDC. For the purpose of this section, improved lots are
14 those that are served by a dedicated and accepted existing road of porous or nonporous material, <
15 that have an approved potable water supply, and that have sufficient uplands to accommodate the
16 proposed use in accordance with the required setbacks. This district is not intended to be used for
17 new land use districts of this classification within the county."
18
BOCC SR 10.16.19 Page 6 of 12
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2598
R.10.a
I Per LDC Section 130-157, the IS zoning district has a maximum residential allocated density of
2 one (1) dwelling unit per lot (1 du/lot), consistent with the allocated density for the RM FLUM
3 pursuant to Policy 101.5.25 of the Comprehensive Plan.
4
5 "Buildable lot"is defined in LDC Section 101-1 as"a duly recorded lot as shown on aplat approved
6 by the county that complies with each and every requirement of the Land Development Code."
7
8 "Buildable parcel" is defined in LDC Section 101-1 as "a parcel of land, including but not limited I-
9 to a buildable lot,that complies with each and every requirement of this Land Development Code." 17
10
11 "Lot" is defined in LDC Section 101-1 as "a duly recorded lot as shown on a plat approved by the
12 County. (Also described as platted lot.)"
13
14 "Parcel" is defined in LDC Section 101-1 as "any quantity of land and water capable of being
15 described with such definiteness that its location and boundaries may be established, which is
16 designated by its owner or developer as land to be used or developed as a unit, or which has been 0
17 used or developed as a unit."
18 (n
19 "Plat" is defined in LDC Section 101-1 as "an official subdivision approved by the County and in -
20 compliance with Chapter 177, F.S."
21
22 "Platted lot"is defined in LDC Section 101-1 as"a lot that is identified on a plat that was approved X
23 by the board of county commissioners and duly recorded."
24
25 The majority of parcels within IS zoning districts and with RL FLUM designations are platted lots
26 within subdivisions identified on plats approved by the County. However, there are a number of
27 parcels with RL FLUM and IS zoning designations that were created without plat approval or that 2
28 contain land included on a plat but only identified as a "tract" or for some other purpose; such
29 parcels do not meet the definition of"lot." The legal descriptions for some of these parcels do not
30 reference a plat; for others the legal description shows that the property is located within a Tract of
31 land included in a duly recorded plat, but these were not divided into"lots" at the time of the plat,
32 or were designated for some other purpose on the plat. In some cases, these tracts of land were
33 subsequently divided into multiple parcels that were never shown as lots or parcels on a plat, re-
34 plat, or amended plat approved by the County and recorded by the Clerk of Court's office. Such (ni
35 parcels do not meet the definition of"lot" and therefore have no density assigned to them.
36 0
37 Additionally, the current Comprehensive Plan and LDC do not assign a maximum net density to I�
38 RM FLUM and IS zoning districts and, as such,the use of TDRs is not an option. Owners of vacant 17
39 parcels that do not meet the definition of"lot" and are within the RM FLUM and IS zoning district
40 therefore do not have any residential density.
41
42 The majority of these parcels were designated IS with the adoption of the land use district map in
43 1986 and RM with the adoption of the FLUM in 1993 (effective 1997). Although the Land
44 Development Regulations establishing the IS zoning district became effective on September 15,
45 1986, the current zoning maps became effective on August 12, 1992. The proposed criterion for
46 parcel boundary establishment has been set based on these dates.
47
BOCC SR 10.16.19 Page 7 of 12
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2599
R.10.a
I Staff analysis of parcels within the IS zoning district indicates that there may be approximately
2 56 privately-owned vacant parcels (not qualifying as "lots") that would meet the criteria of
3 the proposed amendment. The number of parcels within this scenario may vary as property
4 owners have (and continue to) split and combine properties without County Planning &
5 Environmental Resources Department knowledge (nor plat approval). If this amendment is
6 adopted, each parcel shall be individually evaluated at the time of an application for development
7 with the criteria established. Property owners must provide sufficient evidence that the parcel was
8 created prior to September 15, 1986.
9
00
10 V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
11 C14
12 The proposed amendment is consistent with one or more of the required provisions of LDC Section
13 102-158(d)(7)(b):
14
15 1. Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from those on which the text or 0
16 boundary was based;
17 N/A
18
19 2. Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends);
20 N/A
X
21
22 3. Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features described in
23 volume 1 of the plan;
24 When the IS zoning district was created in 1986,parcels that were not duly recorded platted
25 lots were included in this zoning category even though they did not meet the density
26 requirements. The proposed amendment aims to recognize parcels that existed in their current 0
27 configuration at the time the IS zoning district and its density requirements were established.
28
29 4. New issues;
30 N/A
31
32 5. Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or
i
33 N/A
3400
35 6. Data updates; N
36 N/A
37
38 In no event shall an amendment be approved which will result in an adverse community change
39 to the planning area in which the proposed development is located or to any area in accordance
40 with a livable communikeys master plan pursuant to findings of the board of county
41 commissioners.
BOCC SR 10.16.19 Page 8 of 12
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2600
R.10.a
I The proposed text amendment is not anticipated to result in an adverse community change. All
2 development shall be required to comply with level of service, concurrency, the regulations set forth
3 in the Land Development Code and the Florida Building Code.
4
5 VI. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE
6 PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT,AND FLORIDA STATUTES.
7
8 A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
00
9 Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically,it furthers:
10
as
11 GOAL 101
12 Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of U)
13 County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. [§163.3177(1), F.S.] 0
14
15 Objective 101.1
16 Monroe County shall ensure that all development and redevelopment taking place within its a
17 boundaries does not result in a reduction of the level-of-service requirements established and D
18 adopted by this comprehensive plan. Further,Monroe County shall ensure that comprehensive plan
19 amendments include an analysis of the availability of facilities and services or demonstrate that the a
20 adopted levels of service can be reasonably met. [§163.3177 & 163.3180, F. S.]
21 X
22 Objective 101.3
23 Monroe County shall regulate new residential development based upon the finite carrying capacity
24 of the natural and man-made systems and the growth capacity while maintaining a maximum
25 hurricane evacuation clearance time of 24 hours.
26
27 Policy 101.3.1 T
28 Monroe County shall maintain a Permit Allocation System for new residential development known
29 as the Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance(ROGO) System. The Permit Allocation System shall
30 limit the number of permits issued for new residential dwelling units The ROGO allocation system
31 shall apply within the unincorporated area of the county, excluding areas within the county
32 mainland and within the Ocean Reef planned development(Future development in the Ocean Reef
33 planned development is based upon the December 2010 Ocean Reef Club Vested Development
34 Rights Letter recognized and issued by the Department of Community Affairs). New residential
35 dwelling units included in the ROGO allocation system include the following: affordable housing 0
36 units; market rate dwelling units; mobile homes; and institutional residential units (except hospital
37 rooms).
00
38
39 Vessels are expressly excluded from the allocation system, as the vessels do not occupy a distinct N
40 location, and therefore cannot be accounted for in the County's hurricane evacuation model. Under
41 no circumstances shall a vessel,including live-aboard vessels, or associated wet slips be transferred E
42 upland or converted to a dwelling unit of any other type. Vessels or associated wet slips are not
43 considered ROGO allocation awards, and may not be used as the basis for any type of ROGO
44 exemption or THE(Transfer of ROGO Exemption).
45
46 ROGO Allocations for rooms, hotel or motel; campground spaces; transient residential units; and
47 seasonal residential units are subject to Policy 101.3.5.
BOCC SR 10.16.19 Page 9 of 12
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2601
R.10.a
I Policy 101.5.3
2 The principal purpose of the Residential Medium (RM) future land use category is to recognize
3 those portions of subdivisions that were lawfully established and improved prior to the adoption of
4 this plan and to define improved subdivisions as those lots served by a dedicated and accepted
5 existing roadway, have an approved potable water supply, and have sufficient uplands to
6 accommodate the residential uses. Development on vacant land within this land use category shall
7 be limited to one residential dwelling unit for each such platted lot or parcel which existed on or
8 before January 4, 1996.
9
10 Policy 101.18.3 �
CD
11 Within the IS, IS-D, URM, URM-L and CFV land use districts (zoning), parcels platted as of
12 September 15, 1986 shall not be further subdivided in a way that creates more net lots than the iz
13 original plat. i
14
15 Policy 301.2.5
16 In order to proceed with development, a parcel shall have legal access to public or private roads, 0
17 rights of way or easements or such access shall be established.
18
19 B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida -
20 Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. E
21
22 For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan X
23 with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles,the principles
24 shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation a
25 from the other provisions.
26
C
27 (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
28 government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern A
29 designation.
30 (b) Protecting shoreline and benthic resources,including mangroves,coral reef formations,seagrass beds,
31 wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
32 (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
33 vegetation(for example,hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches,wildlife, and
34 their habitat.
cas
35 (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
36 development.
37 (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. CO
38 (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources,promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and I�
39 ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. 17
00
40 (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
Ir-
41 (h) Protecting the value,efficiency, cost-effectiveness,and amortized life of existing and proposed major
42 public investments,including: C
43 E
44 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 0
45 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
46 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
47 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
48 5. Transportation facilities;
49 6. Federal parks,wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
50 7. State parks,recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
BOCC SR 10.16.19 Page 10 of 12
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2602
R.10.a
1 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
2 9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
3
4 (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance,
5 and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and
6 disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage
7 treatment and disposal systems.
8 (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
9 wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10),
10 as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities 00
11 through permit allocation systems.
12 (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida
13 Keys. U_
14 (1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
15 (m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural c
16 or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan.
17 (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining
18 the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
19 Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is not inconsistent �s
20 with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any
21 Principle.
22 E
23 C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute
24 (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers:
25 �s
26 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve Z
27 and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and
28 resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal
c
29 effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within U)
30 their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units 0
31 of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety,
32 comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
33 general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water,
34 sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and
35 services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their
36 jurisdictions.
37 U
38 163.3161(6), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have the i
39 legal status set out in this act and that no public or private development shall be permitted
40 except in conformity with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof, prepared 00
41 and adopted in conformity with this act.
42
43 163.3177(1), F.S. — The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards,
44 and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social,physical, environmental, 0
45 and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the
46 plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a
47 consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans
48 are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and
49 strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
50 government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated,
sOCC SR 10.16.19 Page 11 of 12
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2603
R.10.a
I modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not
2 the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the
3 comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land
4 development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive
5 plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
6 regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards
7 for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of
8 more detailed land development and use regulations.
9
00
10 163.3201, F.S. —Relationship of comprehensive plan to exercise of land development regulatory
11 authority. It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans or elements thereof
12 shall be implemented, in part, by the adoption and enforcement of appropriate local
13 regulations on the development of lands and waters within an area. It is the intent of this act
14 that the adoption and enforcement by a governing body of regulations for the development
15 of land or the adoption and enforcement by a governing body of a land development code for
16 an area shall be based on, be related to, and be a means of implementation for an adopted 0
17 comprehensive plan as required by this act.
18
19 VII. PROCESS
20
21 Land Development Code Amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners,
22 the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, private application, or the owner or other X
23 person having a contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The
�s
24 Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them
25 onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. `z"
26
27 The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
28 review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
29 Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at
30 the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to
31 the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the
32 adoption of the proposed amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation,
33 Planning Commission recommendation and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC W
34 may adopt the proposed amendment based on one or more of the factors established in LDC
35 Section 102-158(d)(7).
36 00
37 VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
38
00
39 Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment.
BOCC SR 10.16.19 Page 12 of 12
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2604
R.10.b
II
2
3
4a,,4
5
6 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
7 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ISSICINERS
8 ORDINANCE -201
9
10
I AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROECOUNTY RD CIF 00
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY
13 CODE SECTION 1 0-1 7, MAXIMUM PERMANENT
14 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND MINIMUM REQUIRED OPEN
15 SPACE, TO ADDRESS DENSITY ISSUES ON PARCELS OF LAND
1.6 WITHIN THE IMPROVED SUBDIVISION (I )ZONING DISTRICT
17 THAT ARE NOT PLATTED LOTS; PROVIDING FOR
18 SF; ILIT 1 PROVIDING FOR REPEAT, OF CONFLICTING �
19 PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE
20 LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
E;
21 PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
22 CODE;p PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. �
23
24 a
25 WHEREAS, the BOCC directed staff on august 15, 2018 at a regularly scheduled
26 meeting„ to amend LDC Section 13 -157 to address density issues on parcels of land within the
27 Improved Subdivision ( S) zoning district and Residential Medium (R1v1) Future Land Use Map �
28 category that are not platted lots; and
29
30 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee ( RC) considered the
31 proposed amendments at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 1 0' day of December, 2018; 0i
32 and
33 00
34 WHEREAS, on, December 11, 2018, the Monroe County Development review
35 Committee (DRC) reviewed the proposed amendment; and
36 E
37 WHEREAS, staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendments to the 2030
38 Comprehensive Flan, as directed by the BOCC on August 15, 2015, to amend LDC Section 1 0-
39 157 to address density issues on parcels of land within the Improved Subdivision (IS) zoning
40 district and Residential Medium(RM) Future Land Use Map category that are not platted lots; and.
41
42 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on February
43 27, 201.9, :for review and recommendation on the proposed amendment; and
44
Ord -2019 Page 1 of 7
File 2015-1.97
Packet Pg. 2605
I WHEREAS, based on discussion and public input at the hearing, the PC recommended
2 the selection of Option A (which would not requi.re use of a TDR) as presented in the staff report
3 dated February 12, 2019,, with the following changes:
4 1. Edit (n) 1) as follows:
5 The parcel boundaries must haise been established in their current coiafiguration prior
6 to September 15,19'86, except for de minimis changes (no more than 10% of the
7 parcel's tq.4affd area) to the parcel boundaries made after September 15, 1986, but
8 prior to Jff"-August 12, 1992, which did nol, create another buildable parcel-.4m,&h
9
10 and 00
11
12 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P 16-19 .2
iz
13 recommending to the BOCC approval with changes, as discussed during the Planning Commission U)
14 hearing, of the proposed amendinent; and 0
15
16 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 161h day of October, 2019, the
17 BOCC held a public hearing, considered the staff report, and provided for public comment and
18 public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted
19 for public participation in the planning process; and
20
E
21 WHEREAS, based upon the docurnentation submitted and information provided in the
22 accompanying staff report, the BOCC makes the following Conclusions of Law: X
23
24 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
25 Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan-, and
26 1 The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development
27 for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Sec. 380.0552(7), F.S.; and
28 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part 11 of Chapter 163,Florida Statute-, and
29 4. The proposed amendment is necessary due to data errors, as required by Section 102- 0
30 158 of the Monroe County Code. 17
00
31
32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY C14
33 COMMISSIONERS OF'MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
E
34
35 Section 1. The Monroe County Land Development Code is hereby amended as follows
36 (Deletions are shown-stfielrcen *1-1,auglk; additions are shown underlined):
37
38
39
40 Sec. 130-157. Maximum permanent residential density and minimum required open
41 space.
42 The maximum permanent residential density for those uses permitted by this chapter and
43 minimum required open space shall be in accordance with the following table:
Ord -2019 Page 2 of 7
File 2018-197 1 Packet Pg. 2606
Maximum Permanent Residential Density
and Minimum Open Space
Allocated Density(a)(b) Maximum Net Minimum
I Land Use District DU/Crass Acre of Density(a)(b)(c) Open
Upland DU[Buildable Acre Space
Ratio(d)
Airport (AD) 0 N/A 0.20
Commercial I (Cl) 0 N/A 0.20 00
Commercial 2 (C2) 0 N/A 0.20 C14
Commercial Fishing Area 3 12(e)
0.20 U)
(CFA) 0
Commercial Fishing CFSD-20: I CFSD-20: N/A
Other CFS,Ds: 3 Other CFSDs: 12(') 0.20
Commercial Fishing
Village (CFV) l/lot N/A 0.20 (n
Conservation (CD) 0 N/A 0.90
E
Destination Resort (DR) 1.0 t&010) 0.20
Improved Subdivision Mot,( X
_�)r 0 0.20
(is) n. 1/pre-1986 Rarcel(g)
Improved Subdivision —
2/lot 0 0,20 zz�
_pUjex (ES-D)
Industrial (1) 1 A 2.0 1 0.20
Mainland Native Area
0.01 N/A 01�99(j!)
(MN), 0
Maritime Industries (M.1)") 1.0 2.0("') 0,20
00
Military T-
Facilities (MF) 6.0 12.0 0.20 Q
C14
Mixed Use (MU) 1.0 110'el 0.20
E
Native Area (NA) 0.25 N/A 0.95(d)
Offshore Island (OS) 0.1, N/A 0,95
Park and Refuge (PR) 0 N/A 0.90,
Preservation (P,) 0 N/A 1,00,
Recreational Vehicle (RV) 00) N/A 0,201
Sparsely Settled 0.5 N/A 0.801,
Residential (SS)
Ord -20 19 Page 3 of 7
File 2018-1,97
Packet Pg. 2607
Suburban Commercial (SC) 3.0 TDRs: 6.0") 0.20
Affordable: 18.0('�
Suburban Residential (SR) 0.5 I/1 0 0 5.0 ) 0.50
Suburban Residential 0.5 3.0 0.50
(Limited) (SR-L)
Urban Commercial (UC) 6.0 12.0(e) 0.20
Urban Residential (UR) 6.0 TDRs. 12,0 0.20
Affordable: 25.0
Urban Residential--Mobile 00
1/lot N/A 0.20,
Horne (URM): C14
Mobile Home Parks per
5.0 7.0 0.20
Section 10�1-1
0
Urban Residential Mobile
1/lot N/A 0,2(1 4)
Horne-Limited (URM-L),
(a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves (n
shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available.
(b) Vessels, including live-aboard vessels or associated wet slips, are not considered dwelling
units and do not count when calculating density. E
(c) Maximum Net Density is the maximum density allowable with the use of the TDRs, or for
X
qualifying affordable housing development. TDRs can be utilized to attain the density
between the allocated density standard up to the maximum net density standard. Deed
restricted affordable dwelling units may be built up to the maximum net density Without
zz�
the use of TDB s. "N/A" means that maximum net density bonuses shall not be available.
Buildable acres means the portion of a parcel of land that is developable and is not required
open space.
(d) Additional open space requirements nmy apply based on environmental protection criteria -
0
see additional open space ratios in Chapter 11,8. In accordance with section 10 1-2(l), the
most restrictive of these ratios applies.
00
(e) For,properties, consisting of hammocks, pinelands or disturbed wetlands within the Mixed
Use/Commercial and Mixed Use/ Commercial Fishing future land use categories, the
maximum net density bonuses shall not be available.
(f) Per Policy 101.5.25, the allocated density for the CFSD-20 land use district (Little Torch E
Key) shall be I dwelling unit per acre, or I 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 nott be counted
cumulatively).
g) ....Within the IS zoning district, the allocated density shall be I dwelling unit per parcel for
parcels that meet all of the following conditions:
1) The 12arcel boundaries Must have been established in their current configuration
prior to September 15,1986, except for de minimis changes no more than 10% of the
Ord -2019 Page 4 of 7
File 20 18-197
Packet Pg. 2608
parcel's area to the parcel boundaries made after September 15, 1986, but prior to
August 12, 1992, which did not create another buildable- arcel.
2) The applicant must provide sufficient evidence that the parcel boundaries were
established before September 15, 1986 such as one or more of the following. boundary
survey, deed, etc.);
3) The parcel may not be identified for an other use or purpose on a-plat (e.g., "park,"
dd common area,"_etc.),
4) The subject parcel may not be a fractional portion of a platted. lot;
5) The subject parcel must have a minimum, of 2,000 sf of upland that is not reserved
as an access easement or designated purpose other than residential use;
6) The parcel must have a Tier designation of Tier 111; 00
7) The subject T)creel must include all infrastructure (potable water, adequate
wastewater treatment and disposal wastewater meetin�ted LOS, etc., except paved
roads); iz
U)
8) The subiect parcel must comply with Policy 301.2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan
0
regarding legal access.
(h) The minimum open space ratio for the.MN zoning district is 0.99 for permanent residential
uses. For campground and nonresidential uses within the MN zoning district, the minimum (n
open space ratio is 0.95, as shown in the density and intensity tables in Sections 130-162 1
and 130-164. -6
(i) A mixture of uses shall be maintained for parcels designated as MI zoning district that are
E
within the MC future land use category. Working waterfront and water dependent uses,
such as marina, fish house/market, boat repair, boat building, boat storage, or other similar X
uses, shall comprise a mininaurn of 35% of the upland area of the property, adjacent to the
shoreline, pursuant to Policy 1.01.5,6 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Per Section 130-92(a)(4), in the RV zoning district, commercial apartments shall be the
only permanent residential use allowed, not to exceed 10% of total RV spaces allowed or
in existence on the site, whichever is less.
Within the SR zoning district, the maximum net density 'for platted lots shall be I dwelling
0
unit per platted lot, provided all of the following conditions are met:
I) The parcel must be one full platted lot shown on a plat approved by the County and duly 17
00
recorded prior to January 2, 1996; Ir-
2) The platted lot may not be identified for any other use or purpose on the plat (e.g., C14
park," "commomn area," etc.);
3) The platted lot must have a Tier designation of Tier III; E
4) Notwithstanding Section 1.30-160, the maximum net density may only be reached with
the transfer of one (1) full.TDR to the SR lot, regardless of the sire of the lot and the
allocated density assigned to it;
5) The TDR must meet all requirements and procedures specified in Section 130-160;
6) TDRs under this provision may not be transferred into noise zones of 65 DNL or greater;
and
7) The subject parcel must comply with Policy 301.2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan
regarding legal access,
Ord -2019 Page 5 of 7
File 201.8-197
Packet Pg. 2609
1
2 Section 2. Se1EEghj4!L_lf any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or
3 provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
4 such judgment shall not affect, impair, invalidate, or nullify the remainder of this ordinance, but
5 the effect thereof shall be confined to, the section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence, or
6 provision immediately involved in the controversy in which such judgment or decree shall be
7 rendered.
8
9 Section 3. Con fljg9ng-Ere yjg2g&A1l ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with
10 this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
11 00
12 Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted to the Florida State Land
13 Planning Agency as required by F.S. 380.05 (11) and F.S. 380,0552(9).
14
15 Section 5. hailing. Aphis ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State 0
16 of Florida but shall not become effective pursuant to,Section 9 until a final order is issued according
17 to F.S. 380.05(6) by the Florida State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission
18 approving the ordinance, and if the final order is challenged, until the challenge to the order is
19 resolved pursuant to F.S. Chapter 1.20. (n
20
21 Section 6. Inclusion in the Monroe C2Mgk Code.The provisions of this Ordinance shall
22 be included and incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of the County of Monroe, Florida, as an E
23 addition to amendment thereto, and shall be appropriately renumbered to conform to the uniform
X
24 marking system of the Code.
25
26 Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective contingent on
27 effectiveness of the corresponding amendments to the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive
28 Plan and as provided by law and stated above
29
30 0
31
32 17
00
33 Ir-
34
35 THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
E
36
37 SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ord -2019 Page 6 of 7
File 2018-197
Packet Pg. 2610
I PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
2 Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of
3
4 Mayor Sylvia Murphy, District 5
5 Mayor Pro Tem Danny L. Kolhage, District 1
6 Commissioner Michelle of iron, District 2
7 Commissioner Heather Carruthers, District 3
8 Commissioner David Rice, District 4
9
10
11 00
12 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
13 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
14
15 BY
0
16 Mayor Sylvia Murphy
17 (SEAL)
18
19 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK
20
21
22 DEPUTY CLERK
E
x
1*07 COUNTY ATTORUSY
5�UTRE77-7,;,Fi—LL EX i�8
10 I
ASSISTANT C, W,TATTORKEY
Dole 0
00
C14
E
Ord -2019 Page 7 of 7
File 20,18-197
Packet Pg. 2611
R.10.e
Ron DeSantis Ken Lawson
G V���RNOR 1.,. 111:`CirJ"'ri' l iyVllflEC„TOR
FLORIDA
ECONOMIC OPPORMNny
August 22, 2019
The Honorable Sylvia Murphy
00
Mayor, Monroe County
102050 Overseas Highway,Suite 234
Key Largo, Florida 33037
U)
Dear Mayor Murphy:
The Department of Economic Opportunity("Department") has completed its review of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment for Monroe County(Amendment No. 19-03ACSC),which
was received and determined complete on July 15, 2019. 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 II, F.S.The Department does not identify
any objections or comments to the proposed amendment and this letter serves as the Objections,
Recommendations and Comments Report. Review comments received by the Department from the
appropriate reviewing agencies, if any,are enclosed.
The County should act by choosing to adopt,adopt with changes,or not adopt the proposed
amendment. For your assistance,we have enclosed the procedures for final adoption and transmittal of
the comprehensive plan amendment.The second public hearing,which shall be a hearing on whether
to adopt one or more comprehensive plan amendments, must be held within 180 days of your receipt 0
of the Department's attached report,or the amendment will be deemed withdrawn unless extended by
agreement with notice to the Department and any affected party that provided comment on the
amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(4)(e)1., F.S.
If you have any questions related to this review, please contact Courtney Johnstone, Planning d
Analyst, by telephone at(850)717-8463 or by email at courtney.johnstone@deo.myflorida.com. w
Sincere
i.
1 es D. Stansbury, Chief 00
ureau of Com unity Planning and Growth
JDS/cj
Enclosure: Procedures for Adoption
Agency Comments
cc: Christine Hurley,County Administrator, Monroe County
Isabel Cosio Carballo, Executive Director,South Florida Regional Planning Council
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity I Caldwell Building 1 107 E Madison Street I Tallahassee, F/L 32399
.t itter c m/l'=L Dr::O J w.Facebook corrV/L DL--0
An equal opportunity employer/program.Auxiliafy aidsand serviceare available upon request to individuals,with
disabilities.All voice telephone numbers on this document may be reached by persons using 7"/'Y17TD equipment via
the Florida Relay Service at 711..
Packet Pg. 2612
R.10.e
SUBMITTAL OF ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
FOR STATE COORDINATED REVIEW
Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes
NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: Please submit three complete copies of all comprehensive plan
00
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 `d
entity below that provided timely comments to the local government:the appropriate Regional Planning
Council;Water Management District; Department of Transportation; Department of Environmental U'
0
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:
cs
Department of Economic Opportunity identification number for adopted amendment package;
Summary description of the adoption package,including any amendments proposed but not W
adopted;
cs
Ordinance number and adoption date;
cs
Certification that the adopted amendment(s) has been submitted to all parties that provided
timely comments to the local government; .
U
Name,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 in the amendment 00
package:
N
In the case of text amendments,changes should be shown in strike-through/underline format,
In the case of future land use map amendment, an adopted future land use map, in 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.
Effective:June 2,2011(Updated rune 2018) 'gage 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 2613
R.10.e
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 plan amendment(s);
Suggested effective date language for the adoption ordinance for state coordinated review:
"The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 00
the date the state land planning agency posts a notice of intent determining that this N
amendment is in compliance. If the amendment is timely challenged,or if the state land
planning agency issues a notice of intent determining that this amendment is not in compliance, U)
this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the
Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in
compliance."
List of additional changes made in the adopted amendment that the Department of Economic cn
Opportunity did not previously review;
List of findings of the local governing body, if any,that were not included in the ordinance and
which provided the basis of the adoption or determination not to adopt the proposed amendment;
x
Statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes not previously reviewed by the U
Department of Economic Opportunity to the ORC report from the Department of Economic Opportunity.
U
00
N
E ective:June 2,201.1(Updated June 2018) Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 2614
R.10.e
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER THE CAPITOL
(85o)6r7-77oo a;, 400 SOUTH MONROE STREET
TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 32399-o800
�w
oo)
y
LORIDA EP RT ENT OFAGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
CommiSST®NER Nicoua rs = ' T'y FRIED
00
Cd
July 18,2019 2
U)
O
VIA EMAIL(cioffari-cheryl@monroecounty-fl.gov)
Ms.Cheryl Cioffari,AICP
Acting Senior Director of Planning&Environmental Resources
2798 Overseas Highway,Suite 400
Marathon, FL 33050
Re: DACS Docket#—20190717-97
Monroe County
Submission dated July 15,2019
Dear Ms.Cioffari:
The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services(the"Department") received the above-
referenced proposed comprehensive plan amendment on July 17,2019,and has reviewed it pursuant to 0
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 850-410-2282. U
Sincerely,
Carl Lolley00
Sr. Management Analyst II cv
O lice of Policy and Budget
cc: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
(SLPA#: Monroe County 19-03ACSC;19-04ACSC; 19-05ACSC)
t HELPFLA www.FreshFromFlorida.com
Packet Pg. 2615
R.10.e
From:
Cc: EUILA06M
Subject: Monroe County 19-3ACSC Proposed
Date: Tuesday,August 13,2019 4:47:24 PM
Attachments: kmda
To: Ray Eubanks, DEO Plan Review Administrator
00
Re: Monroe County 19-3ACSC—State Coordinated Review of Proposed ComprehensiveIr-
Plan Amendment
The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection(Department)has reviewed the above-referenced amendment package under the e
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 (n
easements; solid waste; and water and wastewater treatment.
Based on 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.
�s
Please submit all future amendments by email to p;lan.m min �� f� .If your
submittal is too large to send via email or if you need other assistance, contact Lindsay
Weaver at(850) 717-9037.
�s
�s
00
cv
Packet Pg. 2616
From:
To:
Cc: MMi09ff-LhE UQ1114 WAMace—ThO2
Subject: Monroe County 19-3ACSC,19-4ACSC,19-SACSC
Date: Tuesday,July 23,2019 9:27:31 AM
........
Dear Ms. Cioffari:
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff has reviewed the proposed 00
comprehensive plan amendments in accordance with Chapter 163.3184(3),Florida Statutes.
We have no comments, recommendations,or objections related to listed species and their
habitat or other fish and wildlife resources to offer on these amendments.
U)
0
If you need any further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact our office by email at
If you have specific technical questions,
please contact Christine Raininger at(561) 882-5 811 or by email at
Sincerely,
Jason Hight E
Biological Administrator 11
x
Office of Conservation Planning Services
Division of Habitat and Species Conservation
620 S. Meridian Street,MS 5135
Tallahassee,FL 32399-1600
(850)228-2055
0
Monroe County 19-3ACSC 39864
Monroe County 19-4ACSC 39865
Monroe County 19-5ACSC 39866
d
U
W
0
W
z
0
00
C14
E
Packet Pg. 2617
R.10.e
F D C
Flori(ifti. De ton
July 29, 2019
00
cd
Cheryl Cloffari, AICP
Actingit Planning Director
Monroe Planning it l Resources
Overseas2798 it
Marathon, l
PolicySubject: Comments for the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Amendment
To . .25 - Density within the ResidentialMedium
districtImproved Subdivision (IS)zoning
�s
Dear Ms.
i ri:
The �s
Department has reviewed the proposed amendment to Monroe County's 0
ComprehensiveIPolicy 101.5.25.
densityui t that require a parcel to be a recorded lot on a plat approved
the County in order to v single it residential lliwithin
Residential Medium ( ) land use categoryn Improved ivii (IS) zoning
U
district. In accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes,the focus of our review was
�s
on major transportation issues, including ady r impacts to transportationfacilities
f state importance.
DistrictThe iewed the proposed comprehensive plann it
would t adversely impact transportationresources ci` i f state importance.
Pleasect me at 305-470-5393 if you have any questionsconcerning
Sincerely,
Shereen Yee Fong
Transportation Planner
v v"W,idol.gov
Packet Pg. 2618
Ms. Cheryl Cioffari
July 29, 2019
Page 2
Cc: Emily Schemper, Monroe County
Harol esdunes, P.E., Florida Department of Transportation, District 6
Dat Huynh, P.E., Florida Department-of Transportation, District 6
Kenneth Jeffries, Florida Department of Transportation, District 6 00
Ray Eubanks, Department of Economic.Opportunity
Isabel Cosio Carballo, South Florida Reg ion ai Pianning Council
Isabel Moreno, South Florida Regional Planning Council
zz�
0
d
U
w
0
w
z
0
00
C14
E
Packet Pg. 2619
R.10.e
From: AVO,
To: �. r&H �.➢ t.
Cc: � „..J 3t ,; Vsallrel t esuo C airha �g tP ;� I.. u° um u 'mcuu
�� fl afl�mnn�somr¢ve�:ea:uurort�.- Mg ,
Subject: Monroe County,DEO#19-3ASCS, 19-4ACSC,and#19-SACSC,Comments on Proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Packages
Date: Thursday,July 18,2019 5:26:24 PM
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
00
The South Florida Water Management District (District) has completed its review of the three `d
proposed amendment packages from the Monroe County (County). The amendments are text
amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan to address density issues on, certain
0
nonconforming lots and to allow for the repair and replacement of residential land uses in certain
situations. There appear to be no regionally significant water resource issues; therefore, the District
forwards no comments on the proposed amendment package.
The District offers its technical assistance to the County and the Department of Economic
Opportunity in developing sound, sustainable solutions to meet the County's future water supply
needs and to protect the region's water resources. Please forward a copy of the adopted E
amendments to the District. Please contact me if you need assistance or additional information.
x
Sincerely, t3
Ms.Terry Manning, Policy and Planning Analyst gj
South Florida Water Management District
Water Supply Implementation Unit g,
3301 Gun Club Road g,
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
Phone: 561-682-6779
Fax: 561-681-6264
E-Mail: tmanni;n,g@sfwt�nn.,,.d.ggv U
00
cv
Packet Pg. 2620
09 OCTOBER 2019
Clifford H. and Susan E. Schneider
234 Tupelo Rd.
Naples, FL 34108
fxrp@embarqmail.com
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, via Email
and District 2 Commissioner, Michelle Coldiron, via Email
Marathon Government Center
2798 Overseas Highway
Marathon, FL 33050
RE: Monroe County Residential Lot Definition 2018-196
Dear Recipients,
I am writing concerning BOCC Item 2018-196 Ordinance.
My wife and I own two vacant lots and a residence on Big Pine Key in the Punta Brisa
Subdivision. They are located within Tract B of Punta Brisa which was platted in Monroe
County in 1951. The Punta Brisa developers were Edward and Helen Barry. We also
own the adjoining home and property at 1655 Helen St., Big Pine Key, FL 33043.
Between 1951 and the 1960's the Barry's created and sold other residential lots as a re-
subdivision of said Tract B,A, and C of said Plat, Punta Brisa.
The Barrys described the lots via metes and bounds descriptions as referenced on an
unrecorded plat and sold said lots. Parcel IDs were created and the lots were created
on the Monroe County Tax roles.
There is a map of said lots in with a number 157. I have a copy of this document that
obtained during title research of our surrounding properties in Punta Brisa. All of the
, Punta Brisa lots are part of lands that were platted.
Over the years numerous homes were permitted and constructed on the said Tract B, A,
and C residential lots. A portion of Tract B was also re-platted into the Lambert
Subdivision Plat.
I am a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer. I have practiced civil engineering since
1967. My experience includes USAF Military Engineering, Assistant County Engineer for
Collier County, City Engineer for the City of Naples, and private practice as a partner in
a Civil Engineering/Land Surveying/Land Planning firm, with offices throughout the
State of Florida.
During my career, I became very familiar with subdivision of land via both Un-recorded
and Recorded plats. Lots legally sold via metes and bounds with lots depicted on Un-
R9 � 1cta
recorded plats or maps. The lots were legally created nevertheless. Some Counties
have drawers with said technically Un-recorded plats or maps. Other lots were sold via
recorded plats. Both methods were totally legal based on the time of sale or creation.
As years past, the Florida State Legislature and Counties/Municipalities adopted
subdivision regulations. Said Statutes and Regulations did not negate the lots/parcels
that were created prior to said subdivision regulations. I will not belabor the historical
dates of the rules enactment.
For the record we own land in Punta Brisa Tract B as follows:
Parcel ID 00309770-000000, created by Warranty Deed from the Developer, Barry in
1963
(The above parcel contains our single family home at 1655 Helen Street, Big Pine Key)
Parcel ID 00309840-000000, created by Warranty Deed from the Developer, Barry in
1960, vacant
Parcel ID 00309790-000000, created by Warranty Deed from the Developer, Barry in
1961, vacant
All of the above adjoining lots were legally created by the Developer, sold to a Grantee,
and entered into the Monroe County Tax Rolls as legal lots. They have been taxed
accordingly, for almost 60 years. We are not alone. Numerous other taxpayers own
similar lands.
Our above parcels front a dedicated road easement, Helen Street, that contains, water,
sewer, electrical power, telephone, and cable service. The dedicated road easement
connects to Bogie Rd., a County maintained right of way.
In 2017 I heard rumor that Monroe County had changed the definition of a lot from a lot
to a "platted lot". I learned about the issue on a web blog, The Coconut Telegraph,
BigPineKey.com and other local media, like Konk Life.This was a shock to me. We had
never been notified of such a change.
I immediately began a dialog with then Monroe County Planning Director, Mayte Santa
Maria. I called her and explained my knowledge of historic lot sales by metes and
bounds via Un-recorded plats. I explained my professional background in civil
engineering, land surveying, and subdivisions. Mayte Santa-Maria seemed totally un-
informed of how lot sales could legally occur from metes and bound descriptions
and sales maps, Un-recorded plats, or the like.
I further informed Mayte Santa Maria of my specific knowledge of the Punta Brisa
Subdivision on Big Pine Key. I told her that I had an actual copy of the Punta Brisa Tract
B sales map / Un-recorded plat.
I told Santa-Maria that her arbitrary re-definition of "lots" was wrong and that the Punta
Brisa Tract B lots were created legally under the current laws at the time of sale by
deed.
I asked Santa-Maria if she would like a copy of said map and she said yes. I emailed
Santa-Maria photo .JPEGs of the said map. Subsequently, I hand delivered a full size
blueprint of said map to Santa Maria's office at the Marathon Government Center.
I subsequently had email contacts with Santa-Maria who told me that she would review
my submittals and report back to me. I specifically asked Santa-Maria to report her
findings to me. Santa-Maria never responded to me.
I retained copies of said email correspondence.
I have now learned that Monroe County is actually denying building permits to
applicants who apply to build on a lot that is not actually a "Platted Lot" in a County
Subdivision Plat, referenced by Lot/Block.
I am shocked and appalled to learn that the County is in fact denying building permits to
owners of legally created lots. I am further shocked and appalled to learn that through a
hidden obscure action of the County, that density rights were stripped from owners of
legally created lots. This stripping of density rights occurred via an ordinance described
as a setback definition ordinance. The description of said ordinance spoke nowhere to a
loss of density rights. I have a copy of a Monroe County internal email from a Gail
Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator to a Joseph E. Haberman, AICP, Planning
and Development Review Manager. Creech writes, "What do you want to call it?
Amending Setback Requirements?" Haberman replies with a description that speaks
only to clarifying setback requirements. The property owners nor public had no way of
knowing that their building density rights were being stripped away, prior to passage of
said ordinance.
I believe that this lot re-definition action occurred buried in an ordinance that did not
identify said action, and that this action was in violation of the State of Florida "single
subject" rule.
What motivated the County to strip property owners rights by burying lot re-definition
language in a setback revision ordinance? I have asked for internal communications as
such and have been provided nothing.
The stripping of development rights from a landowner is similar to a re-zoning. In this
case, property owners were not notified of the lot definition change. This should have
occurred after legal notice to individual owners, a Community Information Meeting,
Public Hearings and a chance for public input from the owners of legal lots. No such
notice was given. I implore the County Commission declare the lot re-definition null and
void, to rescind all previous action, and grandfather those lots previously created.
I further implore the County to rescind all building permit denials that were based
on the lot re-definition criteria.
The action of stripping property land use rights and density allowances is tantamount to
an outright taking.The action was arbitrary, capricious, and completely absurd.
If the County wanted to take away property rights there were many other legal venues
available:
Purchase said rights, willing seller/willing buyer
Vacation of rights with compensation
Eminent Domain taking with compensation
Instead the County secretly and deviously stole land rights from taxpayers. Was the
action a mistake and oversight by the County? Or ,was it a carefully orchestrated
maneuver? Who decided to make this change? Was it a committee? Where are the
minutes? I have asked for said information and have been provided nothing.
Was this lot re-definition action reviewed by the County Attorney in advance?
Were the ramifications explained to the decision makers? Where is a copy of the
County Attorney's notes on this action?
I made a records request and the County Attorneys Office stated to me that the
County Attorney's office has no notes, files, or documentation regarding the
buildable lot re-definition. This was confirmed in an email from Bradley-Brian,
Senior Coordinator of the Monroe County Attorney's Office, email dated Oct. 1,
2019.
Reports claim that 215 lots in Monroe County were affected. I think that the action
affects many more properties. I requested specific information of the affected
"non-platted" lots. Monroe County has not furnished me with the said defined lot
count by parcel ID.
I have learned that the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners will consider an
ordinance, 2018-196, to allow density for only Tier III un-platted lots.
Why does the text amendment exclude Tier I and Tier II properties? The ROGO scoring
system in particular provides adequate protections for these tiers by lowering ROGO
scores and such.
Limiting the text amendment to only Tier III lots is unnecessary, given the numerous
code provisions that make it already difficult to build on Tier I and Tier II properties. The
other requirements and conditions of the text amendment are more than sufficient to
significantly limit the number of buildable lots without outright exclusion of Tier I and Tier
II properties. It is the right thing to do, and the just thing to do, to at least let Tier I and
Tier II properties, that meet the other text amendment requirements, be eligible for a
density allocation.
Please include Tier I and Tier II lots in the text revision allowing a density
allotment.
The Ordinance 2018-196 text has another problem. If an owner of a lot sells a portion of
one lot to an adjoining owner and the remaining portion to the other adjoining owner,
neither of the 'enlarged' parcel owners can build on their lots. This seems unreasonable
and makes no sense. Please delete this reference.
Respectfully Submitted,
Clifford H. Schneider, P.E. fxrp@embarqmail.com
cell 2392872297