PC Minutes 10/01/2010 MINUTES OF THE
TIER DESIGNATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting
Tier Designation Review Committee
Friday, October 1, 2010
Key Largo, Florida
A regular meeting of the Tier Designation Review Committee convened at 9:15 a.m. at the
Murray E. Nelson Government and Cultural Center. Present were Amy Phillips, Department of
Environmental Protection; Randy Grau, Fish &Wildlife Conservation Commission; Richard Grosso,
Everglades Law Center;Julie Cheon, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority;Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development
Administrator, Planning and Environmental Resources; Susan Grimsley,Assistant County Attorney;
Christine Hurley, Director, Growth Management Division; Michael Roberts,Senior Administrator,
Environmental Resources; Phil Frank, Private Environmental Consultant; Bryan Davisson,GIS Planner,
Growth Management; and Rebecca Jetton, Department of Community Affairs.
Map Series 4 was revisited by the Committee. Mr. Grau said he thought the Committee had
already recommended the two lots in the triangular parcel along U.S.1 be designated SPA. Motion:
Randy Grau made a motion that the two lots in the triangular parcel on Map 4 be designated SPA.
Richard Grosso seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie Cheon,
Agreed;and Amy Phillips,Agreed.
Mr. Grau asked staff if they had any data errors to discuss. Michael Roberts stated that was
something that could be addressed as it was encountered.
ALTERNATIVE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
WETLANDS
The wetland issue was discussed. Randy Grau stated that the wetland issue within the tier
designation is confusing the public, because Tier III properties are where development is encouraged.
Rebecca Jetton proposed the following wording for a possible policy: "For parcels designated Tier III and
containing less than X square feet of accessible uplands,the staff biologist shall assign X number of
negative points to the ROGO score."
Michael Roberts stated he and Tiffany Stankiewicz have discussed the idea of a negative point
for any application in ROGO that proposed impacts to a wetland. Mr. Roberts pointed out that there are
wetland setbacks in the code,so negative points could also be applied in ROGO to anybody whose
applications proposed impacts to that setback as well. Mr. Roberts feels the application of a tier overlay
becomes problematic when performing the mapping and identification exercise of thousands of small
wetlands scattered throughout the Keys.
Phil Frank brought up the fact that the carrying capacity study concluded that tropical hardwood
hammock uplands had been developed past their carrying capacity. Mr. Frank asked if mapping the
— wetlands was necessary given that there are plenty of wetlands and there are protections already
afforded to the wetlands.
1
Mr. Grau said he doesn't feel disturbed salt marsh should get negative points because the Tier III
hammocks,which are more endangered,don't get negative points,and the wetland clearing and
setbacks are stricter than those of hammock. Mr. Grau suggested adding a disclaimer to the Tier III
definition that some Tier III lands are wetlands with 100 percent open space.
Ms.Jetton asked what the most logical way to approach the issue was, considering the property
owner gets points, but the wetland regulations are in place. Christine Hurley said if a property is 100
percent wetlands, even if designated Tier III, it is not buildable. Tiffany Stankiewicz pointed out that if a
property owner doesn't have a buildable piece of property,they can't get into ROGO. Mr. Roberts
stated that if there are wetland impacts included in an application, it must have the appropriate state
and federal permits before being accepted into ROGO.
Ms. Hurley further explained that in the ROGO system a property owner would get more points
if they do not have to clear. Ms. Hurley suggested a policy change that included a certain amount of
space for a house, plus a buffer between the house and the wetlands,then the amount of points given
could be edited to differentiate between a clearing of the wetlands versus having an open space on the
site with wetlands adjacent to it that would not be disturbed.
Randy Grau said he feels that will discourage development in infill areas and consequently put
development in Tier III hammock elsewhere. Mr. Roberts reminded the Committee that the
environmental design standard requires those developments to be sited on the least vulnerable
habitation on the parcel, as the habitats are ranked for environmental sensitivity.
Richard Grosso asked if there is a way to give negative points to a wetland in an important
location as opposed to all wetlands. Mr. Hurley stated the County does not want to rank wetlands in
ROGO,and suggested the Committee prioritize the lots for getting points. Mr.Grosso recommended
giving negative points to wetlands adjacent to Tier I parcels.
Julie Cheon was concerned the public at large would assume a Tier III property was buildable.
Mr. Grau again suggested a disclaimer in the Tier III definition.
Ms.Jetton reminded the Committee that the Keys Wetland Identification Process evaluated the
wetlands in the Keys back in 2000, and any Red Flag wetland would not be allowed to be filled. Ms.
Jetton suggested using Red Flag wetlands as criteria to assign negative points.
Motion: Richard Grosso made a motion to direct staff to investigate and recommend a ROGO-
scoring approach that would apply negative points to wetlands that were worthy of additional
protection. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Amy
Phillips,Agreed; and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
TIER BOUNDARIES
Michael Roberts said a determination is needed on how to preserve historical parcel boundaries
so the parcels could retain the original tier designation when they are aggregated. Bryan Davisson
stated that the parcels in the GIS system are constantly changing and evolving. Mr. Roberts stated the
issue is two-fold: A database management issue, and constructing language for either the tier ordinance
or ROGO that makes sure the more restrictive designation carry with the master property. Amy Phillips
recommended picking a hard date to put in the language for the aggregated parcels.
2
j
Julie Cheon asked how ROGO would work when evaluating one parcel with two tiers. Tiffany
Stankiewicz explained the flood zone application: If any portion of the proposed structure is built in the
more restrictive portion of the property,the loss of points would apply.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion to amend the tier language to prohibit changes to parcel
boundaries resulting in changes to tier designation of Tier I or SPA portions of the parcel. Amy Phillips
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Richard Grosso,Agreed;and Julie
Cheon,Agreed.
Randy Grau asked if a discussion is warranted regarding different tiers within parcels. Mr.
Roberts answered that the County has recommended to some owners of larger parcels to do a lot split.
That recommendation would only be applicable to those properties that were large enough or diverse
enough to where they could maintain their open space requirements on the developed portion of their
property after they change the designation. Mr. Roberts stated there is flexibility in the code to draw
the tier designations along habitat signature or natural feature boundaries.
Motion: Richard Grosso made a motion that the County use geophysical boundaries to the
extent practical or possible where appropriate with distinctions made of,for example,scarified land
or developed parcels. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results:
Amy Phillips,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
WETLAND CATEGORY
Michael Roberts said he felt this has been addressed in the previous conversations.
CONFORMING SPA CLEARING LIMITS TO TIER I
Michael Roberts explain the SPA is a subset of Tier III. SPA was intended to address hammock
areas within Tier III that were of a size and configuration significant enough to warrant some level of
additional protection. SPA is afforded protection from the reduction in ROGO points between Tier III
and SPA. Mr. Grosso feels SPA areas are more like Tier I than they are like Tier III.
Mr. Roberts proposed the language for SPA clearing limits to say 40 percent or 3,000 square
feet, whichever is less. Ms.Jetton and Mr. Roberts discussed what exactly Policy 101.4.22 says. Ms.
Jetton feels the policy wording could use some improvement.
Motion: Richard Grosso made a motion that the clearing limit for SPA read: "40 percent or
3,000 square feet,whichever is less." Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the
following results: Amy Phillips,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
ONE-ACRE THRESHOLD FOR SPA
Michael Roberts explained that the one-acre threshold came about through the County's land
acquisition program policies, which are to buy natural areas of an acre or greater within a developed
landscape. Mr. Roberts doesn't feel the administrative law judge's final order prohibits the Committee
from establishing a one-acre minimum if it is done for a non-arbitrary reason. Mr. Grosso suggested
3
getting rid of the one-acre criteria in the regulatory process, but leaving it in when it speaks directly to
land acquisition.
Ms.Jetton clarified that the one-acre threshold came about when DCA was trying to determine
if land less than an acre was large enough to provide adequate life-sustaining characteristics for habitat.
Mr.Grosso continues to feel the importance of the hammock is what matters, not the size. Mr. Grosso
argues that if the language used as the standard criteria for SPA is based on professional judgment, it
would hold up in a court of law.
Motion: Richard Grosso made a motion to ask staff to analyze and bring back language that
would replace the "of one acre or greater in area"with some professionally accepted qualitative
standard to represent the definition of SPA. Amy Phillips seconded the motion. A vote was taken
with the following results: Randy Grau,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
Randy Grau suggested having a minimum quantitative number. Mr.Grosso concurred. Motion:
Randy Grau made a motion for staff to consider a lower limit threshold size included within the prior
motion. Amy Phillips seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie Cheon,
Agreed;and Richard Grosso,Agreed.
PREVENTION OF SUBDIVISION OF TIER III ALLOWING ADDITIONAL CLEARING
Michael Roberts felt that this was covered in the previous conversations.
REMOVE INCENTIVES FOR ALLOWING EXOTICS TO SPREAD
Discussion was had regarding property owners may try to use the 40 percent exotic criteria to
have their tier designation changed. Michael Roberts said he thought the presence or absence of exotic
vegetation within a natural landscape is a fair indicator of the health of that hammock. Susan Grimsley
pointed out that if the one-acre threshold in SPA was gotten rid of and a qualitative description was
used,then that all becomes part of the evaluation.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion for staff to look at additional qualitative language to add
to the 40 percent exotic criteria such as"and has disturbed substrate"or"and is surrounded by X
percent of development." Amy Phillips seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following
results: Richard Grosso,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
The schedule of upcoming meetings was discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
4