Item T3E
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: January 19,2005
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes
No X
Department: Planning
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Public hearing to consider adopting an Ordinance amending the Monroe County Land Development
Regulations to implement Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan by renumbering existing Section
9.5-256 to 9.5-271; creating a new Section 9,5-256, Tier Overlay District; providing criteria for
designation of tier boundaries; and, providing a mechanism for Tier Overlay District Map
amendments,
[1"t 0(2 required public hearings]
ITEM BACKGROUND: On January 21, 2004 and in Ordinance # 018-2004 the BOCC directed staff
to prepare draft text and map amendments and other supporting studies in order to effectuate the
provisions of Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Rule 28-20.100 F,A.C. Several
stakeholder forums and two community workshops were held and the Planning Commission reviewed
the staff draft at four public hearings, amended the draft and recommend approval. Adoption of this
ordinance will not occur until the DCA has completed its review of the proposed 2010 Comprehensive
Plan amendments to be sent to that agency under the two Transmittal Resolutions, This is a
continuation of the Hearing held on December 15,2004.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
Ordinance No. 018-2004 adopted June 16,2004 directed staff to prepare text and map amendments to
implement Goal 1 05. Goal 105 was adopted in Ordinance No. 20- 2002.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes N/A
No
COST TO COUNTY: N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes N/A No
AMOUNTPERMONTH N/A Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty ~
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X
To Follow
Not Required
AGENDA ITEM # 'T- 3E
DISPOSITION:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: January 19,2005
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes
No X
Department: Planning
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Public hearing to adopt an Ordinance amending the Monroe County Land Development Regulations to
revise Section 9.5-124 through 9.5-124,8 Non-Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO)
utilizing the Tier Overlay as the basis for the competitive point system.
[1"t of2 required public hearings]
ITEM BACKGROUND: On January 21, 2004 and in Ordinance # 018-2004 the BOCC directed staff
to prepare draft text and map amendments and other supporting studies in order to effectuate the
provisions of Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Rule 28-20.100 F,A.C, Several
stakeholder forums and two community workshops were held and the Planning Commission reviewed
the staff draft at four public hearings, amended the draft and recommend approval. Adoption of this
ordinance will not occur until the DCA has completed its review of the proposed 2010 Comprehensive
Plan amendments to be sent to that agency under the two Transmittal Resolutions. This is a
continuation of the Hearing held on December 15,2004.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
Ordinance No. 018-2004 adopted June 16,2004 directed staff to prepare text and map amendments to
implement Goal 1 05. Goal 1 05 was adopted in Ordinance No, 20- 2002.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None,
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes N/A
No
COST TO COUNTY: N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/ A
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes N/A No
AMOUNT PER MONTH N/ A Year
.
APPROVED BY: County Atty ~
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X
To Follow
Not Required
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #10F"
County of Monroe
Growth Mana!Zernent Division
2798 Overseas Hishway
Suite 410
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: 305,289. 2500
FAX: 305.289,2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Dixie Spehar, District 1
Mayor Pro Tern Charles "Sonny" McCoy, District 3
Georse Neugent, District 2
David Rice, District 4
Murray E. Nelson, District 5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Timothy J. McGarry, AICrY/J
Director of Growth Man~ni~nt
DATE:
January 5,2005
RE:
Public Hearings on Proposed Amendments to
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations
to Implement Goal 105 - Tier System
Introduction
At its January 19,2005, regularly scheduled meeting, the BOCC will conduct two separate public
hearings continued from December 15, 2004, on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
and Land Development Regulations, As done at the December meeting, the first public hearing
will consider ordinances adopting text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations followed by a public hearing on the ordinance adopting the draft Tier
Overlay District Map, The Board is asked to bring to the January meeting, Agenda Items (R#1
through R#7) from the December agenda package and the loose leaf Workbook provided in that
agenda package,
Purpose and Procedures
This memorandum is intended to facilitate the Board's consideration of the complex, set of
comprehensive plan amendments and enable the Board to direct the staff to make any further
revisions that are needed, To accomplish these purposes, the staff recommends the following
procedures be followed:
1, Prior to opening the public hearing to public comment, the staff will brief the
Commission on the staffs responses to the written and oral comments by the public
at the December 15 public hearing and any written comments received subsequent
to that hearing.
Page 1 of5
I /s~- F
2, Once the public comment period is over and prior to Commission discussion on the
proposed ordinances, the BOCC will consider and provide direction to the staff in
addressing issues and recommendations identified in this memorandum, Specific
BOCC action or direction requested on each issue or recommendation is shown in
bold,
Staff Responses to Public Comments
A copy of the staff s responses to oral and written comments from the public at the December 15
meeting were sent to the BOCC previously under separate cover and is attached to this
memorandum, Additionally, the staff has prepared a staff memorandum in response to a letter and
newspaper article in The Reporter sent to the BOCC from Mr, Hal Fried, which are also attached.
Issues and Recommendations for Further Consideration
Issues and staff recommendations regarding further revisions to the draft amendments and Overlay
Tier District Map warranting some further consideration by the Board are organized into the
following three sections:
o Minor editorial revisions identified by staff to correct typographical mistakes or
omissions in the proposed text or the Overlay District Map;
o Issues identified and/or recommended by staff for further consideration contained in
the Planning Director's memorandum dated December 1, 2004; and
o Changes recommended by staff in response to public input at the December 15
public hearing.
Minor Editorial Revisions
In further review of the draft ordinances, the staff has identified two needed changes, which will be
incorporated into the final draft ordinances:
1. ROGO Ordinance. Section 9.5-122.l(g)(2), "Section 9.5-122(c)" is incorrectly
referenced in this subparagraph; the reference should be changed to "Section 9.5-
122 (b)",
2, Tier System Overlav District Ordinance, The ordinance needs to specify that
Ocean Reef is excluded from a tier designation; Section 9.5-256 (a) should be
amended to read as follows (new language underlined):
"(a) Purpose: The purpose of this Tier Overlay District is to designate
geographical areas outside of mainland Monroe County, excluding the Ocean Reef
development. into one of three tiers to assign ROGO and NROGO points,
determine the amount of clearing of upland native vegetation that may be permitted,
Page 2 of5
and prioritize lands for public acquisition, The Tier boundaries are to be depicted
on the Tier Overlay District Map,
3, Tier Overlay District Map, The Tier Overlay District Map does not show the
northern portions of Key Largo including Ocean Reef; the Tier Overlay District
Map needs to revised to include Map #16 that includes this missing portion of
Monroe County, The area depicted on Map #16 is all designated as Tier I except for
the Ocean Reef, which is depicted with no tier designation.
[DOCC approval of three minor revisions above requested.]
Issues Identified bv Staff for Further Consideration
In her December memorandum, the Planning Director identified several issues related to the
proposed amendments warranting further consideration by the BOCC, including a request for the
Board to decide whether or not it wishes to consider the proposed "Lottery" option for ROGO, No
direction was given to staff on any of these issues at the December public hearing.
1. Limitations on Number of Quarterly Administrative Relief Awards. The proposed
amendments eliminate perseverance points for all new applications entering the
ROGO system, Therefore, at the end of four years, applicants will be expecting to
either receive a permit or an offer to purchase their lot depending upon the Tier
designation and environmental quality of the lot in question,
The staff is concerned that in the future that the number of applications eligible to
receive a permit under Administrative Relief may greatly reduce the number of
allocations available in the system, which in turn may adversely affect the County's
legal exposure under takings claims, To address this potential problem, the staff
recommends amending the draft ROGO Land Development Regulations ordinance
to limit the number of administrative relief allocations that can be awarded in any
quarter to no more than 50% of the quarterly allocation; and, amending the draft
ROGO Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations ordinances to
require that the ''preferred relief" option for any lot scoring less than 30 points,
outside Big Pine Key and No Name Key, and less than 20 points on Big Pine Key
and No Name Key, will be an offer to purchase, [DOCC direction requested.]
2. Payment into a Land Acquisition Fund for Points, A purchase of points option was
considered and not recommended by the Planning Commission, Under this
proposed option, up to three points could be purchased for a fee approximately
equal to the cost per point of purchasing and dedicating a ROGO lot. The Planning
Commission was concerned that by changing the system there would be less
conservation lots purchased; however, the staff believes that this issue can be
mitigated by requiring the funds only be used for acquisition of conservation lands,
Furthermore, this alternative may help to dampen the rising costs of lots eligible for
dedication under ROGO, The staff recommends amending the draft ROGO
Page 3 of5
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations ordinances to provide the
opportunity for up to 3 points to be awarded under ROGO with monetary payment
to the County's land acquisition fund for the purchase of lands for conservation;
and to annually establish the monetary value of each point based upon the average
ad valorem valuation of all vacant privately-owned IS/URM zoned platted lots on
the current Monroe County Real Property Tax Roll, [BOCC direction requested.]
3, Hybrid fLottery] ROGO System, An alternative ROGO system, which proposes that
the market rate housing share be allocated through both a competitive system and a.
lottery system, was reviewed and not recommended by the Planning Commission.
The predominate majority of public testimony received at the PC public hearings
was not supportive of the proposal. Although the staffhas made no recommendation
on the proposal, it is included in the BOCC workbook to provide an opportunity for
the Board's consideration should it so desire.
Under this proposal, approximately 20% of the market rate housing would be
available through the lottery and the remainder available for those applicants who
wish to have the assurance gained from the competitive system, The applicant
determines if he wants to compete or enter the lottery. A threshold of 30 points is
required to be eligible to enter the lottery. This duel system would provide a means
for those who cannot afford to purchase lots to donate for points to have a chance of
receiving an allocation. After four years applicants that have not received an
allocation can apply for Administrative Relief. The staff recommends that the
ROCC make a decision on whether on not it is interested in this approach so that
the staff can prepare the necessary amendments to the draft ROGO Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Regulations ordinances for consideration by the
ROCC at the February public hearing, [BOCC direction requested.]
Recommended Chanees In Response to Public Input
Based on its review of the public written and oral comments (see "Staff Responses to Oral and
Written Comments" attached) received concerning the comprehensive set of proposed amendments
at the December 15 public hearing, the staff is making four additional recommendations for
changes that warrant consideration by the BOCC,
1. Existing Conditions Report. The Existing Conditions Report required by Section
9.5-336 (see draft Environmental Standards ordinance) should include animals
observed on site, The staff believes that this requirement would be beneficial and
recommends amending Section 9.5-336 to require that animal species observed on
site be identified in the report. [BOCC direction requested.]
2. Freouencv of Amendments to Tier Overlav District Map. The proposed language of
Section 9.5-256 (see draft Tier Overlay District ordinance) does not place any limits
on the number of times during the year amendments to the Tier Overlay District
Map may be considered. The staff believes this suggestion on limiting the number
Page 4 of5
of times per year amendments may be considered would reduce the work load on
staff and ensure a more comprehensive, rather than piecemeal review of each
request. The staff recommends that the draft ordinance be amended to limit
consideration of Tier Overlay District Map amendments to one time per calendar
year. [BOCC direction requested.]
3. ROGO Points for Tier II Properties, Concern was raised that the difference in
points between Tier II and Tier III is out of proportion to the differences in the two
designations of property and would significantly increase costs to develop Tier II
lots, Although, Tier II lots are not preferred for development, the staff believes a 5
point differential would be sufficient and made that recommendation to the
Planning Commission, The staff recommends amending the draft ROGO
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations ordinances to increase
the proposed points for Tier II designated properties (outside of Rig Pine Key and
No Name Key) from 20 to 25 points, [BOCC direction requested.]
4, Borrowing Future Allocations for Affordable Housing. A suggestion was made to
allow borrowing up to 10 years worth of future affordable housing allocations and
to make these allocations available all at once, The proposed regulations allow
borrowing up to 20 percent of the future quarterly allocations for multi-unit projects
with a limit of five years. The staff believes that the suggestion is too broad in
terms of the length ofthe borrowing period, but the concept has some merit in that it
would allow the County to provide a pool of ready affordable housing allocations.
Therefore, the staff recommends amending the draft ROGO Land Development
Regulations to explicitly allow the ROCC upon recommendation of the Planning
Commission to borrow and make available up to five years worth of affordable
housing allocations at a time. [BOCC direction requested.]
5. Other Recommendations (?) [BOCC direction requested as appropriate.]
Attachments
Page 5 of5
STAFF RESPONSES TO ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMENTS-
IMPLEMENTING GOAL 105 - PLAN AND LDR AMENDMENTS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING
DECEMBER 15, 2004
Environmental Regulations, ROGO and Tier System
1, Comment/Question: The Tier designation is more stringent than the existing
system and will devalue (take) property making the County liable,
Staff Response: The proposed system is generally no more stringent than the
existing system, except that clearing limits for upland native habitat in Tier I
properties will be set at 10 percent rather than the current 20 percent. Tier II and
Tier III properties would be automatically held to clearing limits of 40 percent
and 60 percent respectively, regardless of the value of the existing upland native
habitat.
Of themselves, none of these new limits would make the preponderance of these
properties less buildable or less valuable for residential uses. The very fact that
market demand for lots far outstrips the limited supply of lots available for
development is significantly increasing the value of all developable properties in
the Florida Keys with or without any changes to the existing system.
The staff believes that the concerns raised about the proposed system's impact on
"takings" challenges are overstated and that the County will not be exposing itself
to legal challenges under "takings laws" any more than under the current system.
To confirm the staffs evaluation and to ensure the defensibility of the proposed
regulations as to FederaVState takings laws and the Bert Harris Act, the draft
regulations have been submitted to special legal counsel for review,
Overall, the new system will actually enhance the competitiveness of platted lots
situated in built-up areas (Tier III) and make platted lots in less developed and
more environmentally sensitive areas less competitive. In some isolated cases
with numerous endangered and threatened species, Tier I properties may even
appear to be slightly more competitive under the new system, but not to such as
extent that it would be easy to develop these properties.
Basically, it can be safely said that if your property scores poorly under the
current ROGO system, it will most likely score poorly under the new system,
The main difference being that the property owner will know up front how well
the property will score, rather than relying on costly, environmental surveys to
determine the scoring,
A staff analysis of the numbers substantiates this belief. In comparing ROGO
Year 13, Quarter I applications under the current and proposed ROGO systems
\\GMD0059\tim\DOCUMEN1\Finall05\Comment 12-15.doc
Page 1 of 11
for the Upper Keys and Lower Keys as shown in the Attachment, the proposed
new scoring system significantly increases the average scores for Tier III
applications by over 13 points and Tier II applications by over 4 points, The
average scores for Tier I applications show a loss of points, although in some
situations the point scores will increase marginally.
Already in the ROGO system, the overwhelming number of applications are for
Tier III properties (89% in Lower Keys and 72% in the Upper Keys) with very
few applications in Tier I (less than 4% in the Upper Keys and 9% in the Lower
Keys), The only sizable number of Tier II applications are in the Upper Keys,
where they make up approximately a quarter of the applications.
As is shown in the Attachment, under the proposed system Tier III properties will
be heavily favored in accordance with the policies and objectives of Goal 105 of
the Comprehensive Plan. If the proposed system is applied to existing applications
in ROGO Year 13, Quarter 1, only Tier III applications would have sufficient
scores to receive an allocation for both the Upper and Lower Keys. Tier II
properties would be much less competitive than currently, which is what is called
for under Goal 105; however, these properties would be eligible for non-
competitive affordable housing allocations as long as no upland tropical
hardwood hammock or pinelands is cleared,
Tier I properties that are not competitive under the current system, would remain
non-competitive under the proposed system even if their scores are increased.
Tier I properties that are competitive under the current system, would be no
longer competitive under the new system, achieving the specific policies of Goal
105 to severely discourage development in these areas.
Although this scoring comparison of the applications in the ROGO system under
the existing and proposed scoring systems is useful, it can not take into account
how applicants will react to the proposed scoring system to make their
applications competitive. Furthermore, any such comparisons are limited by the
fact that historically more than 85 percent of the quarterly allocations are awarded
to applications entered in the very same quarter as their award, Therefore, trying
to evaluate the impact of scoring differences on over 400 applications must be
tempered by the fact that most of these applications in the system, whether or not
the system is changed, will still not be able to compete with newer applications
unless they are revised.
2, Comment/Question: Keep the HEI and base the habitat on what existed on the
1986 habitat maps rather than the Tier system based on the existing condition.
Staff Response: The Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) has numerous flaws in its
application and interpretation, particularly when applied on a small lot by lot
basis. The HEI has been used to primarily establish the quality of the upland
habitat, which translated into clearing limits and negative ROGO points for
\ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\FinaI105\Comment 12-15,doc
Page 2 of 11
habitat. The new system automatically establishes clearing limits without a time
consuming and costly biological evaluation based on the REI protocol that was
subject to differing interpretations by different biologists,
Basing the habitat on the 1986 habitat maps fails to account for re-growth of
upland habitat, which can be quite substantial in the Keys tropical environment.
The new regulations will require on-site vegetative survey (called an "Existing
Conditions Report"), including up-to-date aerial photographs, but will continue to
use the 1986 maps to ensure no illegal clearing has occurred.
3. Comment/Question: Grandfather all lots and do not rescore applications.
Staff Response: Provisions are included in the proposed changes to allow
existing applications to retain their perseverance points and to continue to
accumulate these points after four years. Applications in the system will be
allowed to be withdrawn and revised and resubmitted without penalty or cost
prior to the first allocation under the new system,
Not rescoring existing applications would hurt the applicant's chance of receiving
a permit, as most existing applications, except for those with a large number of
negative points, will have a lower score and be less competitive than newer
applications which will automatically receive 30 points for being in a Tier III
area,
4, Comment/Question: The state commitment of $93 million is not enough to buy
all the lands; where is the rest ofthe money coming from?
Staff Response: Although the assessed value of privately-owned, vacant lands
within Tier I is $42 million ($16 million on Big Pine Key) according to the
Property Tax Appraiser records, clearly the actual purchase price of these
properties may be two to three times higher, It should be understood, that not
everyone will be willing to sell their property at one time or within a few years
and many properties will remain in private hands as some property owners will be
unwilling to sell or can not be contacted, Furthermore, many of these properties
contain wetlands and submerged lands which have little market value,
Federal funds will also be available for acquisition of properties in the Key Deer
and other Federal Florida Keys Refuges, When the Habitat Conservation Plan for
Big Pine Key and No Name Key is approved by the U,S, Fish and Wildlife
Service, more acquisition funds will be available to acquire lands not required for
mitigation under the approved plan,
Additional properties will be purchased by ROGO applicants and dedicated to the
County under the new ROGO system which expands the types and numbers of
properties eligible for dedication, Opportunity for improving the scoring of
ROGO applications will be limited to lot or parcel dedication.
\ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Final 105\Comment 12-15.doc
Page 3 of 11
With that understanding, the County has committed to preparing a Land
Acquisition Master Plan as part of its Comprehensive Plan Work Program, This
Plan, scheduled for completion in the summer of 2005, will identify and place in
priority lands for acquisition; identify funding strategies and sources of funds for
land acquisition and management, including non-traditional methods and taxation;
and identify specific roles and responsibilities for FederaVState/County and non-
governmental agencies in the acquisition and management of conservation lands,
5, Comment/Question: How will this land be managed? Cost of management?
Staff Response: The Land Acquisition Master Plan will set forth the
management policies and procedures for these lands and identify maintenance and
restoration needs and funding sources, The County has already established
internal policies for management of its conservation lands and identified lands for
restoration and exotics removal. The recent ordinance adopted by the BOCC
establishes a dedicated funding source for land management and restoration that
uses mitigation fees paid by permittees for clearing of upland native habitat. In
addition, the County has a 10 year grant agreement with DEP that provides grant
funds for supporting removal of invasive exotics.
6. Comment/Question: The Existing Conditions Report should also identify
animals observed on site,
Staff Response: The staff supports this recommendation and recommends
changes in the proposed ordinance to reflect this requirement.
7. Comment/Question: Do not allow ROGO dedication for points in Tier 1.
Staff Response: As dedication of lots will be the primary method to obtain
points, not allowing an application in Tier I to receive any points for ROGO
dedication would be tantamount to prohibiting any allocations in Tier 1. This
could be considered an automatic "taking" of the property with the corresponding
legal and financial liability, Therefore, the staff does not recommend this change,
8, Comment/Question: Applications for a change in the Tier Overlay designation
for a property should only be submitted and reviewed on an annual or semi-
annual basis.
Staff Response: Requiring that amendments to the Tier Overlay District Map
occur only once or twice a year has definite merit. It would reduce workload on
the staff and ensure a more comprehensive, rather than piecemeal review of each
request. The staff recommends changes in the proposed ordinance to reflect this
procedural change.
9, Comment/Question: Don't permit the buying of ROGO points, In a written
memorandum received at the meeting, the individual making this statement also
\ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Final 105\Comment 12-15.doc
Page 4 of 11
commented that he did not like the practice of applicants arbitrarily selecting and
dedicating lots to the County, This practice has led to a "random, unscientific
buying patterns of lots and land" and tremendous speculation in ROGO points
now reaching "$20,000" per ROGO point. He went on to request that the County
should annually establish the price per ROGO points and allow the option for
applicants to either pay into the land acquisition fund or purchase the lots on their
own and dedicate them to the County,
Staff Response: The staff believes that allowing applicants to purchase points
up to maximum limit (staff recommends three) has merit in it helps to dampen the
market value of ROGO lots. The number of points that can be purchased should
be limited or it will place significant additional burdens on the Land Authority to
identify, appraise, purchase, and acquire these predominately small lots from
owners,
Concerns that allowing individuals to purchase lots for dedication to the County
will result in random patterns of public ownership fails to take into account that
conservation lands eligible for dedication are only within the boundaries of areas
designated by the County for acquisition. As to the figure of $20,000 per point,
the staff has found that dedicated ROGO lots (+2 points each) generally have
gone for about $30,000, which is $15,000 per point. Under the new system, the
number of points for a dedicated ROGO lot would increase to +4 reducing the
cost to $7,500 per point.
The staff recommends that the proposed ordinances be revised to allow
purchasing of points, based primarily on the average appraised value of all vacant,
platted ISIURM lots, This figure would be approved annually by the BOCC,
10, Comment/Question: A deed restriction should be put on all ROGO lots
preventing future development.
Staff Response: A deed restriction is placed on all property dedicated under
ROGO and the Comprehensive Plan requires that such dedicated lands be for
conservation purposes, However, as discussed at a previous BOCC meeting,
nothing would preclude some future Board from amending the Comprehensive
Plan and removing restrictive covenants on these properties. Therefore, the staff
is currently exploring two options to address this issue as part of the Land
Acquisition Master Plan.
One option would be to make a non-governmental conservation organization
along with a County an equal party in restrictive covenant, so the covenant could
not be changed without both parties agreeing, The other option would be to
establish an independent land trust and transfer all conservation lands to the trust.
\\GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Final 105\Comment 12-15,doc
Page 5 of 11
11. Comment/Question: The County needs to .assure that adequate public
notification is given for a change of this magnitude. Suggestions included
providing direct notice to property owners through tax bills or by certified mail.
Staff Response: The staff believes that sufficient notice has already been given
to the public on this comprehensive program. Notice for this program has gone
above and beyond that required by the Florida Statutes or County Code.
Unfortunately, the date for insertion of a flyer in tax bills is past and the costs to
send a notice by certified mail to each owner is prohibitive from a cost standpoint.
Over the last year, the staff has conducted two community workshops, two
Planning Commission workshops, three focus group meetings, and four Planning
Commission public hearings, not including numerous informal meetings and
presentations to various organizations and interest groups. Staff reports and maps
explaining the Tier System and proposed changes have been placed on the
County's website and made available in County offices and libraries for over the
last two years.
Although the Tier System will be a fundamentally different approach to managing
growth and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands in the Keys, the
proposed changes will not materially change the actual develop ability or
competitiveness in the permit allocation system of the vast majority of properties.
Therefore, the major problem with sending out individual notices to every
property owner would be to needlessly elevate the concern of property owners
over what is actually, in most instances, a small magnitude of change in their
relative point value,
The long process to implement these changes, which will take another five to six
months, will provide opportunity for property owners to become familiar with the
new system if they are interested. The County will continue to advertise in the
media, place or get articles in local papers, and make press releases.
Property owners will be given the opportunity to request re-evaluation of the
designation of their properties prior to the adoption of the Tier Overlay District
Map, The staff is working with the Property Appraiser's office to set up on the
County web site an easy method for property owners to verify the designation of
their properties and what the designation means in terms of ROGO scoring and
environmental requirements.
12. Comment/Question: With a point spread between Tier II and Tier III of 10
points, the cost of ROGO lots to dedicate may be greater that the cost of the lot.
Staff Response: If the estimated cost of a ROGO point, based on the value of a
ROGO dedicated lot divided by four (points to be awarded for dedication) is
$7,500 to $10,000, the 10 point spread would translate into $75,000 to $100,000
in additional costs to make a Tier II lot competitive with a Tier III lot under the
\\GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Finall05\Comment 12-15,doc
Page 6 of 11
permit allocation system. The staff had recommended only a 5 point difference,
but this was amended by the Planning Commission to a 10 point difference.
Tier II and III lots should be treated differently as Tier II lots contain vestiges of
smaller isolated hammock patches and are generally in less developed
subdivisions, Tier II lots, many of which are non-waterfront, are also less
expensive than Tier III lots; therefore, the additional costs to develop Tier II lots
may reduce the market demand for such lots further directing growth to Tier III
areas, Tier II lots are not preferred development areas and are designated for
acquisition by the county in Goal 105.
With that said, the staff could support consideration by the Board to amend the
point spread to the original 5 points (i.e" Tier II = 25 and Tier III = 30), which is
more reflective of the differences between the two designations.
13. Comment/Question: Stop conversion of campground and RV sites through TRE
to condo units
Staff Response: In Section 9,5-120,6 of the LDR the off-site transfer of RV
spaces is prohibited,
14. Comment/Question: Add a policy that only US 1 interrupts contiguity of habitat
in Tier 1.
Staff Response: Tier I is considered as a whole, roads are not an issue in the
ordinance.
15, Comment/Question: Limit clearing on aggregated lots to only the lot proposed
for development.
Staff Response: When two lots are aggregated the development is usually on the
combined lots. Aggregation is limited to Tier I and Tier II lots and the maximum
amount of clearing permitted is 5,000 square feet in the proposed ordinance,
16. Comment/Question: Clarify clearing for not-for-profit organizations and public
facilities to be consistent with residential clearing,
Staff Response: The proposed clearing limits are by Tier designation not by use,
17. Comment/Question: Assign negative cumulative points for endangered species
and other listed species.
Staff Response: Habitat and threatened/endangered species are the prime
determinants of the Tier I designation, All endangered species habitat identified
on the approved endangered species maps and in the maps created for the Florida
Keys Carrying Capacity Study are included in Tier 1. To retain negative
\\GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Final 105\Comment 12-15.doc
Page 7 of 11
cumulative points scoring for protected species only increases the County's legal
exposure to "takings claims" and needlessly complicates the ROGO scoring
process that has been simplified under the proposed regulations,
18, Comment/Question: Include a policy that requires all TDR receiver sites to be
Tier III lands.
Staff Response: The TDR section of the LDR needs to be completely rewritten.
Staff recommends that this amendment not be held up while that redrafting
process is undertaken.
19, Comment/Question: Make the NROGO point structure the same as ROGO,
Staff Response: There is ample commercially zoned property available in Tier
III. The market will control development of lots in Tier I and II which will require
dedication of up to five ROGO lots to be competitive for an allocation.
Affordable Housing
1, Comment/Question: For affordable housing projects, the net buildable area
should not include "open space" requirements, thereby increasing the number of
affordable housing units that can be placed on site.
Staff Response: The suggestion to exclude "open space" from the calculation of
net density would theoretically raise the number of affordable housing units that
can be constructed on a typical site from 20 units per gross acre to 25 units in a
UR zone; from 12 units per gross acre to 15 units per acre in SC zone; and from
14.4 units per gross acre to 18 units per acre in MU zone.
The staff is concerned about the impacts of such densities on neighborhood
character and site design, Such high densities severely constrain the ability to
provide adequate parking and on-site amenities for residents creating more
pressure for increasing height limits of buildings,
The troubles with siting of affordable housing in the Keys are well documented,
Increasing allowable densities for these projects will only make such siting more
difficult for our existing communities to accept.
Therefore, the staff does not support this change which could well make
affordable housing projects less compatible with existing community
development patterns and subject to further opposition from local residents,
2. Comment/Question: Increase the height limits for affordable housing projects.
Staff Response: The staff believes that any increase in height limits for
affordable housing may open the door to further erosion of the height limits in the
\ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Finall05\Comment 12-15,doc
Page 8 of 11
Keys, which is part and parcel of the Keys character, The Comprehensive Plan is
explicitly sets the height limits at 35 feet. Although increasing the height limits
will allow for increased density, such increased height and density raises
community character issues and may exacerbate the NIMBY (Not in My Back
Yard") siting issues associated with needed affordable housing,
3. Comment/Question: Give greater density bonuses for building affordable homes
on commercially zoned parcels.
Staff Response: The proposed regulations will increase the opportunities for
mixing commercial development with affordable workforce housing by
eliminating the 1 acre size limit on parcels eligible for the commercial floor space
exclusion, This exclusion allows the first 2,000 square feet of floor space for
parcels under 2 acres to be excluded from density/intensity calculations where
affordable housing is co-located with commercial development.
The staff believes these bonuses will allow for development of sites that will still
be in character with the intensity and density of existing development patterns,
Higher bonuses may foster development that is not compatible with existing
community character or development patterns,
4, Comment/Question: Increase incentives proposed for market rate housing
mixed with affordable housing from the proposed 3 ROGO points to 5 or 6.
Staff Response: As indicated at the December meeting, further changes in our
regulations and programs are needed to more adequately address affordable
housing. Rather than further tweaking the scoring in this round of amendments,
the staff suggests that such changes be explored as part of a more comprehensive
effort to address affordable housing, which the staff intends to initiate in early
2005.
5. Comment/Question: Allow for borrowing of all affordable housing allocations
for at least 10 years and make permits (allocations?) available immediately.
Staff Response: The existing regulations allow for borrowing up to 20 percent of
the total quarterly allocations for multi-family housing ("attached units") not
necessarily just affordable housing. No limits are set for the period of time over
which these allocations may be borrowed. However, such borrowing can only
occur if approved by the BOCC and if the applicant is in ROGO, eligible to
receive an allocation and insufficient allocations exist.
Under the proposed regulations, borrowing of future allocations is limited to five
years to better protect the defensibility of the ROGO system, Residential projects
for which such borrowing is authorized are not limited to solely attached units,
but to multi-unit projects,
\ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Final 105\Comment 12-15,doc
Page 9 of 11
In approving reserved allocations for affordable housing projects, the BOCC is
authorized to borrow 20 percent of affordable housing allocations, The Planning
Commission is authorized to allow borrowing for any type of multi-unit
residential project that receives an allocation for some, not all of its needed
allocations, subject to the 20 percent, five -year limits.
The lack of ROGO allocations for affordable housing has not been a major issue
historically; as the supply of allocations has outnumbered the demand of
applicants. However, that doesn't mean that the concept of borrowing from the
future to provide a larger "pool" of affordable housing doesn't have some merit,
especially as the County moves aggressively forward on land acquisition for
affordable housing,.
The new authority given to the BOCC allows the reserve of allocations for
affordable housing projects and to borrow up to 20 percent of future allocations
up to five years, The staff could support changes to the proposed language that
eliminate the 20 percent limits as long as it is applied solely to affordable housing
and the five year limit is retained, This change would allow the BOCC to initially
reserve allocations up to a maximum of355 units (5 X 71=355).
6. Comment/Question: Allow allocations for affordable housing to be given on a
first come, first served basis. The proposed regulations authorizes the BOCC to
be given the power to set aside ("reserve") certain numbers of allocations,
Staff Response: The proposed regulations do call for awarding affordable
housing allocations on a first-come, first served basis in addition to the new
provisions for reserving allocations.
GIS and Tier Overlay District Map
1, Comment/Question: There are inconsistencies between the Property Appraisers
files and the Tier GIS shape files.
Staff Response: The property files are being geo-corrected (parcels moved to
reflect the geography of the Keys and corrected to take into consideration the
curvature of the earth), The Tier maps were drafted using an earlier version of the
property files, The Tier maps are "maps" they are not intended to be used as an
overlay, but they do accurately reflect the specific properties subject to each Tier
designation, With the adoption of the Conservation and Natural Area Maps it was
decided to continue to use that version of the property files to preserve the legal
description of the "map" and prevent confusion.
When the geo-correction of the appraiser files is complete and a final decision is
made on the Tier Over-lay Maps a shape file will be created that reflects the geo-
corrected appraiser files and may be used on ortho-photography,
\ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Final 105\Comment 12-15.doc
Page 10 of 11
2. Comment/Question: What aerials were used to review the habitat?
Staff Response: The County used a set of black and white digital ortho-
photography that was flown between 2002 and 2003 with a ground resolution of
one foot and a horizontal accuracy of plus or minus five feet. This photography
provides great detail of ground cover, specifically current development, however
habitat distinction is difficult to detect from black and white photography alone,
To resolve this problem, the County consulted a set of color-infrared digital ortho-
photography produced by the U,S. Geological Survey (USGS), This ortho-
photography was flown between 1999 and 2000 with a ground resolution of 3.28
feet (1 meter). While this data is not as current as the black and white ortho-
photography mentioned above, the color-infrared ortho-photography makes
vegetation identification more straightforward. By using both sets of photography
the County was able to adequately review current habitat and, where needed,
supplement its review with ground-truthing.
3, Comment/Question: How do the Tier I areas compare to the Florida Forever
boundaries?
Staff Response: The County has submitted an application to the State
(Acquisition and Restoration Council) requesting boundary amendments to
Florida Forever boundaries to match the boundaries of Tier I designated areas, It
is anticipated that the State will expand the Forever Florida boundaries to include
a significant portion of the Tier I designated areas,
\\GMD0059\tim\DOCUMEN1\Finall05\Comment 12-15.doc
Page 11 of 11
ATTACHMENT
COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS
OF ROGO SCORING UNDER
EXISTING AND PROPOSED SYSTEMS
USING YEAR 13, QUARTER 1, APPLICATIONS
Upper Keys
Tier No. %
I 11 4
II 69 24
III 203 72
283 100
Proposed v, Existing
A v, Change in Scores
-12.1
+ 4,6
+13.6
+10.4
Range of Scores
Existing Proposed
-4 to +23 0 to +12
+11 to +23 +20 to +30
+ 11 to +24 +30 to +45
Minimum Score Required to Receive An Allocation: Present: +22 Proposed:
+37.
Highest Scored Application in Tier II under New System: Ranked 200 with a
score of 30 points (23 points under current system),
Highest Scored Application in Tier I under New System: Ranked 277 with a
score of 12 points (23 points under current system).
Top 189 ranked applications (67% of all applications) in the new system are in
Tier III (93% of all Tier III applications)
Current System: Of the 15 applications that would receive an allocation 2 are in
Tier I, 2 in Tier II, and 11 in Tier III.
Proposed System: Of the 15 applications that would receive an allocation all 15
are in Tier III.
Lower Keys
Tier No. %
I 10 9
II 13 12
III ~ 79
112 100
Proposed v. Existing
A v, Change in Scores
- 5,0
+ 6,0
+15.2
+ 12.3
Range of Scores
Existing Proposed
-26 to +18 4 to +14
+ 7 to +19 +16 to +24
+ 8 to +20 +26 to +38
Minimum Score Required to Receive An Allocation: Present: + 18 Proposed:
+33,
Highest Scored Application in Tier II under New System: Ranked 90 with a score
of24 points (19 points under current system),
Highest Scored Application in Tier I under New System: Ranked 104 with a
score of 14 points (17 points under current system).
Top 89 ranked applications (79 % of all applications) under the new system are in
Tier III (100% of all Tier III applications)
Current System: Of the 14 applications that would receive an allocation 2 are in
Tier II and 12 in Tier III.
Proposed System: Of the 14 applications that would receive an allocation all 14
are in Tier III.
County of Monroe
Growth Management Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 410
Marathon, TIorida 33050
Voice: 305.289. 2500
FAX: 305,289.2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Dixie Spehar, District 1
Mayor Pro Tern Charles "Sonny" McCoy, District 3
George Neugent, District 2
David Rice, District 4
Murray E. Nelson, District 5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
Timothy J. McGarry, AICP 41
Director of Growth Manage~nV
FROM:
DATE:
January 5,2005
SUBJECT:
Staff Response to Mr. Fried's Letter and Newspaper Article
The Board of County Commissioners have been sent the attached copies from Mr, Hal Fried of a
form letter he sent to 61 ROGO applicants along with a copy of a recent news article dated
December 31, 2004, from The Reporter, The staff has reviewed both the newspaper article and
Mr, Fried's letter and offer the following responses to the "facts" cited or conclusions made in both
these documents,
Newspaper Article
A statement is made that a number of property owners purchased lots with the "encouragement
from the county that the lots were buildable." It is further stated that the owners were "even given
one environmental point, because the lots were scarified and perfect candidates for homes, "
The County does not identify or encourage property owners to purchase specific lots that are
buildable, especially as the buildability of a lot is no guarantee that the property can be developed
within a reasonable time period, Under the current system, the real determination is generally the
environmental scoring of a lot under the ROGO system and the willingness of property owners to
dedicate lots to the County or make specific improvements to make their ROGO applications
competitive,
The fact that the ROGO applications for the 61 subject lots mentioned in the article received a
positive point does not necessarily mean these lots were "scarified " or "perfect candidates" for
homes, The positive one point is awarded for lots that are scarified, disturbed, and/or disturbed
with hammock, where upland native habitat (i.e" tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands) is not
to be cleared, even though the lot may currently contain native habitat, which is probably the case
with many of these lots,
Page I of4
Furthermore, the County's Code requires that the habitat scoring be based on the 1985 habitat
maps, The development application proposing the clearing of any "new growth" hammock
occurring on the site since 1985, would still result in a positive point with no negative habitat
points,
The current County regulations, both for environmental standards and the ROGO system, do not
comprehensively consider new upland habitat growth, and the direct or secondary impacts on
habitat and endangered/threatened species. The current system allows almost any platted lot, no
matter how remote from any public infrastructure or isolated to receive the same number of points.
Reliance on this lot-by-Iot and overly complicated system encourages further incursions into "new
growth" areas and works to further fragment remaining upland habitat by eliminating the
opportunities for habitat restoration and connection of habitat patches.
The article further states those "60 (sic) lots have been re-scored and put into Tier I or II
classifications that make building nearly or completely impossible, "
Tier I designated lots will be difficult and expensive to build on because these are the very lands
that were identified in the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study and Goal 105 as essential for
environmental preservation and restoration through public acquisition, Tier II areas are those with
less developed subdivisions and smaller patches, where development is to be somewhat
discouraged to eliminate further sprawl and protect remaining patches of locally significant upland
native habitat. [Note: Of the 61 lots subject of the article, 9 are in Tier I and 52 in Tier II.]
Therefore, it should be expected that lots in Tier I and II will be less competitive in the ROGO,
which is the basic intent of Goal 105 and the recommendations of the Florida Keys Carrying
Capacity Study. For example, to make Tier II lots competitive with Tier III lots, will require an
additional the 9 to 17 points. This point spread hardly makes these lots "nearly or completely
impossible", particularly when one considers that points awarded for lot dedication will increase
from "2" to "4" per lot and applications in the system will gain perseverance points,
If one further examines the scores for these 61 lots relative to the scores of the other 480 or so lots
in the current ROGO system, the statements made in the article about making these lots
"unbuildable" have even less credibility. As the new ROGO system could not go effect until the
first quarter of ROGO Year 14 (July 05-0ct 05), at the earliest, the staffhas determined at least 3
of the lots will receive allocations while another 3 more may receive an allocation depending upon
the competition.
An analysis of the remaining 55 lots reveals that these lots are not competitive and would not
receive an allocation under either the existing or proposed system without additional points.
Although it can be argued that the vast majority of these lots will be less competitive under the new
system as compared to the existing one, the issue is really moot if they still are unable to
successfully compete to receive an allocation award. These lots still will be eligible for
administrative relief after four years.
Page 2 of4
Mr. Fried's Letter
In his form letter to the property owners of the 61 lots, Mr. Fried claims that " arbitrary lines have
been drawn on the county map designating particular areas as being environmentally sensitive ".
This statement is simply incorrect. The tier designations were drawn up following the criteria in
Goal 105 and the proposed ordinance establishing the Tier Overlay District Map in the Land
Development Regulations.
The environmentally sensitive areas were initially identified using the Florida Marine Research
Institute ADID maps, which formed the very lands called for protection and restoration by the
Florida Keys Carrying Capacity, These maps were supplemented by up-to-date aerials, property
tax records, and site visits by County staff,
Should any property owner dispute the staffs recommendations, the County has already
established a process for considering revisions to the tier designation of any property prior to the
adoption of the Tier Overlay District Map.
Mr,Fried's letter further makes the conclusion that "you [property owner's lot) have been or
about to be rezoned into Tier two or one and will be penalized 10 to 30 points under the guise of
environmentally sensitivity".
Except for Tier I lands that are subject to the Interim Development Ordinance, Tier 2 and Tier 3
designations will not be enacted until the Tier Overlay District Map is approved in early summer.
Furthermore, as emphasized in the staffs response to the newspaper article, some of those very lots
will receive an allocation prior to the new system going into effect.
The letter's language makes it appear that all the applications will lose 1 0 to 30 points under the
new system, which is simply incorrect. Except for the small handful of Tier I lots, the Tier II lots
will gain points under the new system rather than lose any points,
But as stated previously, the real issue is not the change in the number of points, but the relative
competitiveness of a lot to receive an allocation. The overwhelming majority of these lots are
simply not competitive under the existing system and will be less competitive under the proposed
system, which is exactly what is called for under the objectives and policies of Goal 1 05.
His letter concludes with a request that "all applicants who were accepted into the ROGO and
given a plus one point for environment should receive 30 points, not 20 or 0, "
To assign 30 points to lots that do not meet the criteria for Tier ill designation clearly defeats the
entire purpose and rationale of the Tier system, As explained before, the assigning of the one point
under the current system only means that no clearing of upland native habitat has occurred based
on the 1985 Habitat Maps. These maps fail to take into account new growth. Furthermore, the
assignment of Tier ill to a lot is based on more factors than simply whether or not habitat is
cleared,
Page 3 of4
The staff has proposed specific vesting provisions for existing applications, These applications
will be able to keep their perseverance points and keep accruing these points beyond four years,
Additionally, applicants will be able to withdraw their applications at no penalty or charge to revise
and resubmit their ROGO application,
Attachments
cc: Ms, Ann Henson, The Reporter
Page 4 of 4
Jan 03 05 10:45a
-'
""
11
~':\l~
~ ~ r,.~
~~
~~\l
~ ~ ~ .
-9~~~
~J()fI\
~~~ \J ~
~
l~~
"')
~ ~I~ ~
~I{~"
~) ~ ~
~~ ~ \-:
V)~ V)
~1'1~~~
~ \t, \~ ~
\It ~ ~ ~
~ V\ ~~ ~
.~ V\ ~ ~
V) ~ \,~ ~
~\ij):~
~ \~ ~ ~~
~ lJ\~~'
~ " ~"" \~
~ ~~
..., ~ '-J "-
~ \~ ~ ~~
Commissoner Spehar
2~2 ~~ol:j
p.c:.
LOCAL NEWS
4 . TIle .......,
Dee...., al, ZOO4
. . .
. ;Tiel7:system...ehanges ..status. .
.~'.of.s:orile>scarified. lots'.. .
;- " .....:~l..., -... -':.';.':~''''''r.'"~;,f~f.:':~', '. -. _ .
. . Owne~ 1~" . :~:;~~"tJ~~at wtidone purpose~ .::n~.~ca: ~l;~ ~.. .
,..~~~:t~ ~J~,,;,..~j.~E;::~~:~:: ~=r:;;:sm;:
:.. ANN HENION' '. ;~;:;"."'. ~'not undo .the development of habitat patc~," .
-~~"':~;~'".!w".~",..; . ..:native..as. it can protel:t the Two ~0Rl public heuiDgs
; . - ......:>..,.......... . 4 remaining pardtes. Conaw:ay we slated b the adoptjonof
A number ofdPfo"et' I1y O~th- . said. the tier system - Wednesdlly,
crs purc:bas~. o~. WI "Because there's been 20 Jan'. 19.m Key' West and
.~oWur~eDt from .':hc. .)'ClltSofpvwthin~arus, Wednesday. feb. 16 in Key
county. ,that. the propemes existing maps lU'e not protect- Largo. The pUblic bearings
were buildable. . ....... ins this babitar." she said. beJin at S p.m.
.The ownea ~ere .~eD She said people iD ~ ANt HeMon COWU'8 8111fe
, . given .~ on~ .' eoVII'OIlIIU:I1bIl above situation will still get and /.IonrM CoIUJIy gowrn-
~t;~. the ~ we~ '. perseverance points - ooc ",ent, envuOlf",elft, KeyLaTgo.
gcanfied md perfect .~andl,:,..point per YCIU' for up to foW' anJ. is '!k editor of :11ie .
dates ~e:s- ~. '. .. years, . . Reponr 8 ..b$lte.She Catr
Now. tfIi:rJI= 60 lOts .~.. '"And'1hey can donate a lot" Ik fWlCheJ of 852-3216 or by
been fe-scored .~d. put Ulto:';.to.gain four pioiDt5, . . . e..nrtJiI. Or ~mhmsqn@k~sN-
..,.T~ICll'.~.classificati~~~~: Ho~. those wj.thli~n. portD:COI1L .
:'._eJm.iI~.De!l~,~~~~..lots will lose 10 points ngbt . . . . ..
. plet~ unposslble:., ." ". '.l,offthe top as TierU'receivn.
F~-five of-those Jots Ire 2O,points and Tier m gets 30
. .ontheISJind. ofKcyl..arJo; 16poilrisiD tbis new systan..
. lQts are in .thel.ower I,{eys, . She.lidded that legal c:ou..
. As ~ ~unty mentes away sultants in ~ City will ' . .
.. ftqn .., rate of ~.5YSICID ...2CYiew rhe lier systaD. . look.,. ...2:~~ ~ targeredle. ~..!<<.
'IVOGO"to'dM1 .tier-- . . . .................... _-,_
. ''''', !. ';..:" .."J~~.. ;ng for~issues. . '- 11-""ed
.~~;:r.lloP.t',: s~uJd., ~'; "1 think you will fUld tluit tho~.1ots will not l:I'O' a JUW.
"expected~;::, ~l~' )jIarI~ '.very few are not withitl the. to bu&ld. , . . "
:. Coaa_y...~ ,i:,-,".' ..... :.. same ruge that they were,". T~ D IS ~ aansition lid
.: .~.~ :.~tuah~ ~..entiR.1y ,be sajd. .... ~ envtrorllDClltaUy ~
:p?"lble. she S81~. .,. . .. Property owners With TIer I 51.U~e uea,s and platted subdi .
: ': ~ added ~ the sbte will . loIs un until rhe end of JM- vmoas tUt an: less tlwn SO
. pardrase. the. TIer 11015 ~ .. vary to request I review. . percent ~ . . .' ..
. the county should ra<;Uslts Those with Tier II or.ill JQts New develOJ?meot. m thIS
..pun:has~: e!Ji:lrts on ~ ~f.;:can appmJ rhrough the middle '. ~rea w~1d be d~ uad
_theUDb~l~eTtcr.ll"..., ~or April. . . . It ~ be more ~ 10.
.:1'he . ~~~ ~ ~. ,: '1iut we ant not goin& to bui~ ~~. Lot ownet'S ~1I ~d
. ~ county 5 ~ of 1985 habl- . Ill.kc one lotin a subdivision 20. ~mts t~ a ~.
. . .'. .. .' . . pcnnll.
. . Tu:r m includes in-fiD m:as
wh~ subdivisions are more
1hIn half built out and iili.~
sb\IdII(e is ill place.' This is
where bgme lntiIding would be
encourased. . . , , .
JbCsc lots Senerate' the bjsb-
est number of points ~ 30..'
AdditiOl,1u points i:ilf\ also be .
obtained.' .'
The indiYiclwlls with Ihe.
highest amount of points will
be gpnIed permits.
s' ,,~.; i ~....~ J ~~; ,
l f ; 5... ,~ '
.. ...... '.:vlf""'_"'~-=-.J .
~Il~ll 'lll'C) '..'1
" . w . ......J 1;:"......'.1 ) .
.)1 ~ _ ~ .
HE/PSE LoO-K-
/ ,A/70 -rH /5 .,/
14L- F..e/ELJ
Jan 03 05 10:4~a
comml~~on@r ~p@n8r
c:~c: .3"1'00
,.........
J_ 1, :zoos C. ff>"" / .56'0"/ L 12- /'-kit.. 5..,J - r ,I/.q vI!. ~.4/t:EL)
1,./ i.j/NEfJ!' 70P Pe-R.SbiV.5 .epr:ec/e.o 4L.O~ w-ru 4
&pY bF /#C AI2f/C.t...e ;::JzLt//O<IS<Y r-AxEO ?O 7'4<1 . i<l~
GrecbJ>&S: ;VEED 'fi V R hfE t.;:> 70 ~ r;;W' /-5 6, r J,I T/6# "".4Ll/E
AoCOnlia& to public iDfimDoIion J'OIl"" . pojecl in tbo M_ CoW1!y. FL ~ tI':#T?
..OGO buildilllU.enait sy_Utona riuo- 410..... ~. you"" U'(. ~
tbo dis\iIIdion ofbeiag _. ....n lP""P of 61 siIDi\Bt souls <CftlIIIYWide who .
ate about to be made non-compctitive in a new system by Monroe County-
tbe 1l0G0 sysIaJl is n\JoUlto be n:pIo<ed by tbo ner system- Arb\baIY \iDes bnve
been dtawIl on the countY map designating particular areas as being
e~ sensitive.
WheP your building project enIelCd tbo ..OGO systeIIl you reuived a'" 1 poiDt
because your lot is BCBrified or distuJ'bed. You were told the property had no
eDvVonmcuml probJems and you were glCOuraR.ed to build.
Well, you have been or are about to be rezoned into Tier two or ODe aud will be
paWizcd 10 to 30 poids under tbo guise of..u..~ ..."iroIJmIlRIa\ sensitivitY (SEE
ENCLOSED AllnCLE).
Tbe fioalapproval of this DeW system is in the hands of the Monroe County Board
ofCo~ CommissioneJS (BOCC). They are~ Mayor Dixie Spehar.
~ ~ NeupI. Commiux.- David lUce, Commissu-r SomIy
oy OmmJSSlODCr M1.lI'nY Nelson. They, along with the planning
Deputment, can be reached by calling the switchboard at 305-852-1469.
There are avenues of appeal of course and .
cross can be avoided bv add. . legal remedies but this entire double-
" mg one simple caveat.
If w~ must have a new system and we must be
applicants who were accepted into the ROGO rescored then do it fairly. AU
foJ' environment should receive 30 points t 2~stem and given a plus one point
~tboring we have repeatedly ....n;:: . eel ~ O. 1biI would COIISlilUle tbo
. can make this happen and there is nus y the planning staft'!!! The
remam befbre the other shoe dro no ft:8$on not to. Two public I.~--=-
ps. '~Ulgs
Commissioner Rice stated at the last BOCC .
word out", that a big change is cOlftino' I' .meetm~ that it is important to "get the
.~"O. m JUst trymg to help.
G?~ Bless the United States Consti. .
pnviJeged to live. tutJOn and this great country where we are
./-4t-r~/EIO