Item M09
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 19,2001
Division:
BOCC
Bulk Item: Yes
No XX
Department: Comm. Nora Williams
"
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion of proposed Comprehensive Plan Rule Change affecting
Monroe County.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION:
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOTAL COST:
BUDGETED: Yes
No XX
COST TO COUNTY:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management _
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENT A TION:
Included XX To Follow_
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #J- At.,
Revised 2/27/01
To: My Fellow Commissioners
From: Nora Williams
Cc: Jim Roberts, Tim McGarry, Jim Hendrick, Marlene Conaway
Date: 9/3/01
Ladies and Gentlemen,
",
We have just received our copy ofthe proposed Comp Plan Rule change. It follows this
page of notes. There is one issue that is of concern specifically, a couple which raise
some concerns for our progress, AND some good news.
Here are the highlights:
1) Page 1, bottom of the page: "For Year 6 [starting July 2002] and beyond, the interim
permit allocation system shall limit the number of permits issued for new residential
development to the number of nutrient reduction credits earned within the same
unincorporated ROGO area.
The only way to release building permits within a particular ROGO area is .IF YOU
HAVE PRODUCED NUTRIENT CREDITS IN THAT AREA. Here's why this is
going to be a problem at some point soon if we aren't very, very, very careful. We
now have interim standards for areas that are to be treated by centralized sewage
systems (i.e. everything that isn't a Cold Spot) so that almost no nutrient credits are
being produced in Hot Spot areas. This is something of a problem in the Lower Keys
ROGO area, potentially a limited problem in the Middle Keys ROGO area, a
potentially a serious problem in Key Largo.
Here's why:
. Upper Keys ROGO area: There is only one "Cold Spot" on Key Largo, our only
Upper Keys ROGO area, that hasn't been designated to receive treatment from
the centralized system, and that is the area of northern Key Largo along County
Road 905, north ofthe 18 Mile Stretch and south of Ocean Reef. Should this area
remain part of the FKAAjurisdiction (or be returned to it by interlocal agreement
should we have removed it), it could provide breathing space for continued
permitting, thanks to the $3.8 million EPA grant for onsite systems. While it
would be more cost-effective for the folk in that area to be treated by the
centralized system, it isn't recommended by staff because of the possibility of a
building moratorium AND the fact that it would raise the cost ofthe~tem for
the rest of Key Largo. The long and short of it is, in all these areas, we need to
make progress quickly and keep moving forward to avoid hitting a brick wall and
breaking our Work Plan commitments. Obviously, the Nabors & Giblin approach
would help with that, but if we choose not to move in that direction, it becomes of
particular concern that we protect ourselves from this coming danger.
. Middle Keys ROGO area: With the incorporation of Marathon, there is not a lot
of unincorporated Monroe Middle Keys ROGO area remaining (largely Long Key
outside of Layton, Conch Key, and Duck Key). Conch Key's hook-up to Hawk's
Cay is funded and, hopefully, moving forward, so we should have some breathing
space in time IF we stay on this.
;..\
,i)
. Lower Keys ROGO area: There are a number of Cold Spots in the Lower Keys,
and it is likely that there will be at least a few nutrient credits generated, but, of
course, this also makes a big issue of our making QUICK progress for our Lower
Lower Keys regional system that we are just about to begin a feasibility study for.
A significant sum ofthe coming $3.8 million EPA grant will help ease the crush
in this area as well.
2) Page 2, top of page: "The restored permits (39) must be dedicated to affordable
housing." We were told that the permits we had "earned back" by our compliance
with the Work Plan could only be used for affordable housing, which was certainly
not the original understanding of the "return" of those permits. We protested the
restraint but only mildly, recognizing the importance of affordable housing, and
,because this rule change was being applied to everyone having permits returned.
Imagine our surprise to find that Marathon's permits are being returned without such
restraints, with no explanation to us whatsoever, as to what the distinction may be.
Now, I am not proposing that we complain about the return of their permits without
restraints (only suggestions) because, honestly, that is precisely how those permits
should be returned. But we do need to lodge a protest that our permits should have
been returned under the same conditions.
Here is the language from Marathon's rule: "The restored permits (6) are encouraged
to HH:lSt-be dedicated to affordable housing." With the Board's permission we will be
protesting our language on this issue. While Tallahassee may say that we "agreed" to
the restraint, that was with a clear understanding that the same restraints would apply
to all.
3) Nutrient credits can only be transferred across ROGO boundaries for affordable
housing and, when transferred between municipal entities, for affordable housing via
an interlocal agreement. ROGO credits may also be shared in the same way.
4) As a way to additionally illustrate how close we are to the edge on nutrient credit
issue, according to the Rule, we will lose 25 ROGO allocations in the Lower Keys
next year, because there were not enough nutrient reduction credits avaiI;ble. Those
will not be returned to us in the coming year because THIS RULE CHANGE
prohibits us from allocating more than the 197 allowed in ANY year, except for
affordable housing credits.
All and all, we're OK, but we're looking at some danger zones ahead, and we've been
treated in a manner we must question on the distinction from Marathon mentioned above.
I will be placing this rule change on our next agenda for discussion. N
'.
.~ .
28-20,100 Comprehensive Plan.
The Monroe Count}' Compreq,cnsive Plan Policy Docwnent, as the sameexist5 on May 15,2001, is hereby,
~ '
amended asfollows:
(l)Policy lOl.2-U is amended to read:
Monroe County shall establish an interim Pcnnit Allocation System for new residential devclopment.~~,
interim pennit AllocZlti?n Sys~m shallllupmede Policy 1 0 1.2.1 and remain in pJ.a~e until such nm.eas Monroe County
determines its future groWlh capacity based on hurricane evacuation, public safety and environmental needS including
water quality liD.d habi~t protection, and amends its plan consistent with such detetmination, based on the results of the
work program as set forth below. DEP, DOH, DCA and Momoe County shaU'develop a coordinated permit r~ew
. prOcess that will insure that no state agency shall issue a wastewater disposal peqnit that would allow development in
~ces80fthe nUmber of permits that Monroe County may issue under this interlin policy. Similarly, Monroe County
shall not issue development permits under this interim policy in e;ltcess ofwa!ltewaiei disposalpermits that pEP or DOli
QUly issue. F OJ: Y can; 3 and 4, of the Work Progr<U1l. the interim Permit Allocation Systetnshall aUow a minimum of
88 new residenri.iUpeitni~ per year which may be used to address the backlog ofROGO allocations. Additiona.l,riew
residential pexmits will beaUowed but limited to the number of nutrient reduction credits earned within the same
Unincorporated ROGO area. ,Nutrient reduction credits shall be earned con$istent with Table 1 belo'w, Nutrient-
e
Qf the 'Ptolect and a ciesi2ll!build or construction contract bas been e2(ecuted. Nutrient reductio~ credits earned using
funds provided by tbeStatemd matched by the County in fiscal years 1997-98 and 1998-99 will be used to offset the
nutrient impacts of the 88 new residential permits per year, but may not be used for additional new residential periiUts
until such time as these funds generate more than 88 nutrient reduction credits for Yean 3 and 4. For Year 5, the interim
pennitAUocation SyStem shall allow a minimum of gg new residential pen:nits. If fewer than~nutrientreduction
credits, are eamed ~ Year 5, the deficit shall be made up in Year 6 prior to issuance of any new pennib. For Year 6
,~'
-.'
1
and beyond, the int~ permit allocation system shall limit the number of permits is~ued for new residential
development to tbo llwnber of nutrient Jeduction credits earned within the same unincOIporated RaGa area. For all
"
years the nuroher ofpe~ts issued folinew residential development under the ~te ofGl'Owth Ordinance shall not
ex.ceed a total unit cap ?f m 121. new residential units per year. The restoredoermits (39) must be dedicated lQ
.a
dutin~ a ROGO Vdlf. No exerm>tions or increases iJ1 the nwnber of new permits. other than that whichmav be exnrmiy
the
Deoamnent andtbe local 2.oveI1Ul'lCnt in the critical areas. may be allowed. Monroe County shall develop a tracldng
system for monitoring .the nutrient reduction credits earned. The tracking systeoi shall commence upon me dfectiVe
;
date ofthis rule and tb~ number .of nutrient reduction credits earned shall be cunmlative and may be applied to futUre
'ye.m of the interun Permit Allocation System
Table I
Nutrient Reduction Credits
Treatment System Upgraded To
On~6ite
, :Trea~t
Centralized System
,OWNR or
Equivalent
. . On~sitc
Tleatmentand
Disposal
Systems
Secondary
Treatment
Best Available
Tr:eatment
(BAl)
Advanced
WaStewater
Treatment
(A WT)
Cesspit
1 EDUCredit
1 EDU Credit
1.0 EDU Ctedit
15 EDD Credit
SubstjUldard
.OSlDS
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.S
Approved
OSTDS
0.5
o
15
Secondary-
Trcatinent
nla
nla
1.5
Additionally, the UJ1.it cap for new residential development shall be linked to The following wotk program which
I . .:
identifies actions n~ces:saryt() correct existing wastewater and storm watet1roblems, as well as acho~nece'sary tQ
2
determine appropriate future growth. Beginning August I, ~ 2002, and each year of the work program 'thereafter,
MOMoe County and th~ Det>artmmt of Community Affairs shalt report to the Administration Commission
'.~:.
documenting the degree to which the Work program objectives for that year have ~n achieved. The ComnussioJl
sl\a'lconsider \lie fiildillg:s and recommendations provided in those repom and shall determine wheth~ substaritial
. progrc~ has bcenachii:ved toward aceomplisbmg the tasks of the work program. If the Commissionde!mnines ~t
substantial progress has not been made, the unit cap fOJ' new residential development shall be reduced by at.1east 20
percent for the following year. If the Commission deteunincs that substantial prOgress has been made, then the
Cosnmission shall ID.C(ease the unit cap for new residential development for the following ~arup to a maximum of
W 197 units. Other llgencies identified in the work program, or any intr:rest~ persons, may likewi.3e report and
make reeommendat,i011!l for consideration by the Commission. Notwithstanding any otherdateS set forth in this pIan;
. '
the dates ,set forth in tlie work program. shall control whete conflicts exist. For each task in the work progr~ lb~
, .
Dep~nt of CommUnity Affaits shall request of all relevant and appropriate federal, state,regional,and- ~al
agencies that theycon~bute any relevant data, analysis and reconunmdatiOllll, and that they take an active role in
aS3istingthe county in completing the task. Each such agency shall prepare, inc;oordinatioriwith the county, a
se<<tion to be included in Monroe County's reports which indicates the agency's actions relative lothe wQr~ plan.
The Department of Community Affairs shaD specifically request that the Flori&l Keys Natio~ M-arineSanctuary
Water Quality Protedion Program Steering Connninee (Water Quality Steering Committee) take an active role in
coordinating with M()nroe COUnty, and relevant state and federal agencies, in the implementation of the tasks relll1ed
.
to water.quality. wastewater and storm water facilities, and in the development and implementation of.tbe carrying
capaCitY; study. The Steering Corranittee wiu provide technical assistance and substantive COJ1'llX)ent~ and
recoI11Q1.eJ1dations to ensure lb~t the county's wastewater and 6toon water master plans and the ~g capacity
study are consistent ~iththe objectives of the FKNMS Water Quality Protection Program. The Steering Committee
will make r~oromenflations on wastewater systems and Hot Spot priorities prior to intplementation by the County.
.-..-
It is themtmt of this, rnle to accelerate the pace, and increase the eff~tiveness: of the cWTent cesspit replacement
effort through both a. regulatory and an incentive-based program. No Jaterthan August, 1999 Monroe County s~all
\~~
3
or
engage in ~ public education program 10 ensure that the public Wlderstands that the County is committed to the swift
identification an~ rt{ll~cement of ces5pits, as a full partner with the Department of Health. The public education
prowam !lhallexpla'in ihe role of ces~it removal in the overall context of the Work Plan and Wl18tewater Master
Pllin. The Counryand:the 6tate shall requC9t the participation of the Steering Committee m the public education
program as welhos the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority.
YEAR ONE (ending December 31, 1997) No Change
YEAR lWO (ending December 31, 1998) No Chan~e
rift,,1
\.:iI 11:- ,.
. '
WORK PROGRAM
YEAR THREE (January 1,1999 through July 12,2000) No ChanllC
YEAR FOUR (July 13,2000 through July 12,2001)
,~
-,
\
\
)
./'
A. Continue-implementation of Wastewater Master Plan, execute inte.r:agencyagreements to defIne
construction schedule; by phases, and continue developing facility plans for selected priority Hot Spots in each .
ROGO ;uca. Secure funding to iinplement the Wastewater Master Plan. Document that reduction in: nutricntsbas
been achieved with~;eaeh of the 6ub-areas.
Agencies: County; FlfAA, DCA,DEP, DOH, EPA and WQSC.
B. CoIIIPlett StonnWater Master Plan. Identify priority projects (or ~mpl~tation and se~k funding f~
plan implementation.
Agencies: County, I?CA, DEP, DOT, SFWMD, EPA and WQSC.
C - Make offers to 50% of remaining private owners with propeI1y located to CARL project boundaries..
Agencies: County, Land Authority and DEp.
D Compl~ Phase II of the carrying cap~city study (data analysis) and pl'Csem initial reconuncndations to
review agencies.
. Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, FFWCC, SFWMD. WQSC, sHirc, EPA, USFWS,.AnnyCOE, and
- . , "
other interested panies to include repn:9entatives of enviromru:ntal organization6 and development intete9t!l.
E. CMb:11ut em...t! to s....;1I( h.ud;'ulS fv. tl.<. Ma,Qu,04 ra<.ihl1, ;"ib6tG. (;()l.Mh..aioll vftiftkVatiu
:;'
4
.... -
#;..~h......IU tl<:Atb~nt fJ{.i1it). Establish baseline water quality for surface and groundwater quality potentially
impacted byLitt\~ Ventce project.
,I.
Agencies: County,DCA, DEP, FKA~"WQSC and EPA.
F. Comp'ete cesspit identification and continue cessplt replacement outside of Hot S~bJ, with a prioriI)' ~f
funds going, in ()~er of preference, to low- and moderate-lncome households; (:nsure that a minunum of 88 cesspits
arOreplaced,
Agencies: County,FKAA. WQSC and DOH.
YEAR FNE Vuly n, 200 1 through July 12, 2002)
A. C~ntinue. implementation of the Wastewater Master Plan pursuant to executedinteragellcy agrc;ement~,
Begin construction of wastewater facilities in priority selected Hot Spots.
Agencies: County, FK.;AA,DCA, DOH,OEP, EPA, and WQSC.
B. Execute interagency agreements to deftne construction schedule fo~ p. iority selected stonn water
, ,
improvement projects.' Complete land acquisition and [mal design for selected treatment strategies for StonnWater
Master Plan.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOT. WQSC and SFWMD.
,C. Conclude negotiatioD~ with all willing owners with property within,CARL Project 'b9undaries. Acquire
a totaHo-date of 45.% of the Key Deer/Coupon Bight project and 25% of the Florida Keys Ecosystems project 1i:2m
willin2 sellers.
Age{1(;ies: County, Lapd AUthority, and DEP.
D, Complete fInal draft of the carrying capacity srudy includmg acceptance by review agencies.
IUlI'I<'lH('nl d.c; Un);'l~ ('&paGit') smd)' b), A.tllOn.g other tha~$s, d", aOOphon of aU li'U'''IllJ plUlA.1lCad:ll"',ll~ to
e~tAbl(:5hA .Al(,'of gJ:o~th A.tld A:s"t of d,,,...l"pm(./u 5Iand&...h Iit..t C.Uch' mAl an) llud all Jl1"I' d... ..Iv.t'.......1 d~3,/1~
,:"ceed the C~AC;() oftl.Gc~ltt1ry'j .....;..v.lW.....n:t.t11d Im11;...~S)"t....flIO A(.wUluJ!Jd4I... ..JditiOll:a:l ill~~. fI.w
AnlCn.illu.nls~;1l indl1d1: Ale ~i,~ of tb<: CC,U1lt/.5 fuh21e. Land Use. Ma~ .sc.. ;""cu.d ...h:MAC! IOlhc, iliaI' ~,d,~ at\d,
th<; .ju Ofl;glrt" &old "~nalCimm.t <k1l3~hc5 Aiith(,.d...A fo1 th<. pIAl.'s f,\I.....I.....<I',," cal'goiio bASed I1poorll,
(..:.:
','
5
t...t...~"h.uAe.IGl ofthc. h..lld Il:h;l llZt...all'~OW:...{;.! t1.at ..vuld b<. ;.I\~Actcd by th.. <-",...e.utl, <lutbv.i1:cd k,d ....(.s.
d~h!iti-.;> ...,d iuttll:!itic!.
A'gcnctes: County. FKM, DCA, DEi: DOH, DOT. FFWCC, SFWMD, WQSC, SFRPC, EPA, USFWS, A.nriy
COE, and other intcrt:sted parties to include representatives of environmental organizations and development
interests.
E. S(;...IM. fw,\h fOI Pbrase. II (to be dduu';.u~d) or me M614tllVu f&e.ihl) and 'Obt)".~6e. eOfdttu..llon of
.LittIG V enicl. CA(.~l;t ~.
Agtnci.p.CUUllI,. rKAA. ocr, DCA, ErA .u...d wQse.
F. Continue eliminating cesspits and inoperative septic tanks in area!! outside of Hot Spots.
Agen~its: County, DOH, FKAA and WQSC.
YEAR SIX (JulyU, ~902 through J~y 12,2003)
A. Fimthtt ContinueconstIUction of and bC~d\ ~'''~'i!. wastcwaterfacilities in HotSpOtS Qegun U\
, ,
previous~ar. Contra~t to design and construct additional wastewater treatmentfaciHties In Hot Spots in
accordance with the lIchedule of the Wastewater Master Plan. Continue implcmentationof Wastewatei' Master P~an
with emphasis on Hot Spots.
Agencies: County, fK.AA, DEP., DOH. DCA, EP A and WQSC.
,B. Initiate cOtlsuilction of selected priority projects as identified in the Storm W:ater Master Plan.
Agencies: County, SFWMD, DEP, DCA. DOT, EPA and WQSC.
C. Cobti21~ i1ilpknK.l1bllhOI1 of Ii,,, ul.}'illg .:apaejl) sr\1dy. Jrnvlernent the CarTvinll capacity Studyby.
amoIiIZ other mings. the adoption ofall necessaJV plan amendments to establish Hate of tttowth and a set of
deveLqp~t standards that ensUl"C that any and all new development does not exceed th~ caDacitv of the county'lt
environment and marmeS}'Stem 10 accommodate additional impact9. Plan amendments will include a reView oCtile.
CountY's Future Laud:Use Map series iI.O,!JchllD2es to the mal) series and the "as of rilZht" and "mAximum" densitieS
authorized for the plan's future land use catertories based upon the natural chMacter ofthe land and natural
resources that would be impacted by the currently authorized land use9. densities and intensities.
~~:..:'
6
.,~
Agenci~: COMty, F~, FFWCC, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, SFWMD, SFRPC, EPA,Atmy COE, WQSC, and.
USFWS,QJld other interested parties to include reo{esematives of environmentalontanizations and deve1Qoment
'. '-'. " I .
interests.
~.
.,)
D. I,\i{ia~ COibhdCtiO!l ofFh""c H of tile M:i'athou I'1'h.~l;lJ <u.d (';lUJll..~ wu~l1nGI;OhAIJJ bc~i'l
I
OpC.ultU.g the Li[~ VGlhCG fac;lity.
Atcl1c.;~;)'. C()(bxt). fKb.A, DC:!t, Dn, J:P A ......-1 WQSC.
E. Compl~teme elimination of all cesspits in areas outside of Hot Spots.
Agencies: County. FK.AA, DOH and WQSC.
YEARS,EVEN (July p. 2003 through July 12, 2004)
A. Finalize construction mid ~gin opetatin2 wasteWater facilities in Hot soots,Continue.impl~tation
. ofWastowater Mastcr;Plan with continued emphasis on Hot Spots.
Agencies: COMly, EK'AA, DEP, DCA, DOH, EP A and WQSC
. .
B. Continue implC1tlQiting ~ priority projects as identified in the Storm Water Master Plan.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP;DOT, SFWMD, EPA and WQSC
C. C\..AtUi..c ~G..,,~u.,:t;v.. vfth... MIl1Adl<1li fa,dil)'.
Agc.ltCic,,: Cv...,t,y. fKAA, DCA, DLr, J:PA lbld WQ6C.
(2) Policy 901.1.1
Monroe County shall ensure that, at the time a development permit isi$sued, adequate sanitary wastewater
. . .. '.... " '., .
. treatment and disposai facilities, includingwastewater treatment facilities and Onsite 5e~age treatment and disposal
systems, are availablelo support the development at the adopted level of s~cc standards, concurrent with the
iropaclSofsuch development. (9J-5.011(2Xc)2.]
Pennanent Level of Service Standards.
(AL'ThC ~ent leyel of service standards for wastewater tIea~nt.in Monroe County_are as provided
in. Chapter 99-395,Law9 of Florida.
(B) The County and the State ,hall actively engage in an educational program to ~uccdemand for
(~;"
7
: .,
phb5pha~ prOducts.
(C) lh~ Coun~sball require mandatory pump-out of septic tanks and ~qtJ.ire regular repons. from
. '. .~
qualified co.niractorsto ~nsure proper sq,ta~e disposal
(2) ~olicYlOl.;Z.14ig created to read:
Notwi -":.n .
. credits utilized fotaff~ble housin~ proiects ~v be Doolcd and I11lnsferredbetween ROGOsubdistrict8 and .
" ,
'. '.' I .
between local 20Vemment iurisOictions within the Florida Kevs ACSC. Anvsuch;transfer between ,local. . _'.' ,
". , " , . . . . .
. ,'.
. . . . .
2.O~munent iwis<licrio~ mu.c;t be accompli!hed through an. inlerlocal allJ'eCment ~en the Sei1diJig and ~~l?ivin..& .,'
localroveniments.
:'1.,
Specific 380.05(8), 380.0552(9), FS.
Law Implement~d 380.05.5~ FS.
History--New
2~~29.200L:.wd PI.."iOPll.......1 R.:.&..dAbOt~
Th~ 1lI\.~~ Co~...) ~ a.cl~lliCull'g..I.lt~om M iii" .sal... ,~~t~u MA) 15, 2001 ~,,~,A M
fOHo:~...
Nc llIo p.bA,5allpil ~.5-129.:4(b)(J) d l:>C4l\..d m .c..d.
. ": of
. -
ROGO a:JlocAt;o~3 u.... h... uuvkd a..d h-...&:n...d h...1~~'n ROGD ..~;..ti;m.L,J h"t..a.h ~,'
,- '. "
. ,
, , ,
Jl~..~.~~~l;""~.l.ii'tlc):." ~~th.:d 111" rlu.;dl.t I((.y~ ACSCift1t~li......d ro. Affv.a..~k I~..!i..!. (,.u;C~13.A...nud.
~,,[Q h...l....~UllG"..) ~~............t i1tl~.sd;'tiOt4 UlUJ( h... 4C"'v..",I;~d th.o...d. an hll,.loClll Alt.l...cu......t.b{t....cuthe
. i.
~\t~~~y:. .!tud.1tcX.i.;....g locll !~.y~I~Lll~t.,.
Sped!;, )89:65($), J8Et.9S52(9}, rs.
, ,
LA 110 .hl~kn_..~d. j89.9SS2FS.
lIi&l<h)- tk.,;.,.
.-.'-,
,t~~
','
8