Item S17BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September 21, 2012 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes _ No X Department: Planning & Environmental Resources
Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Christine Hurley x2517
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Monroe County Code Section
138-28 and 138-55 of the Monroe County Land Development Code, in order to revise the Residential Rate of
Growth Ordinance (ROGO) and Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) permit allocation scoring
systems to adjust the ROGO and NROGO point values for the dedication of land designated as Tier III -A or which
contains undisturbed wetlands and to assign negative points to Tier III parcels that contain submerged lands and/or
wetlands requiring 100% open space pursuant to Policies 102.1.1 and 204.2.1 and that are located adjacent to or
contiguous to Tier I properties, to be consistent with the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Upland habitat is protected through the Tier System and the permit allocation system. While
the Tier System directs growth away from upland habitat to infill areas, the criteria for the tier designations do not include
wetlands, as confirmed in the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs Final Order DCA07-GM-166A (DOAH
Case No. 06-2449GM (in some instances, wetlands are included when it is part of a larger ecosystem). This amendment
is proposed to provide additional protection to Tier III -A lands and wetland communities and to further direct growth to
disturbed and scarified areas.
At its February 13, 2012 meeting, the BOCC passed Resolution #022-2012 to transmit a Comprehensive Plan text
amendment to the State Land Planning Agency to revise the existing ROGO and NROGO permit allocation scoring
systems by assigning points to applications for new development that include the dedication of parcels containing
undisturbed wetlands and/or vacant, legally platted Tier III -A lots.
At its February 13, 2012 meeting, the BOCC passed Resolution #024-2012 to transmit a Comprehensive Plan text
amendment to the State Land Planning Agency to revise the existing ROGO and NROGO permit allocation scoring
systems by assigning negative points to applications for new development on Tier III parcels that contain wetlands which
require 100% open space and are adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties.
On May 4, 2012, the State Land Planning Agency issued an Objections, Recommendations and Comment (ORC) Report
to Monroe County on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments which did not identify any objections, or comments
related to important state resources and facilities that will be adversely impacted by the amendments, if they are adopted.
This proposed amendment will make the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code consistent.
During a regularly scheduled meeting held on April 24, 2012, the Development Review Committee reviewed the subject
request and recommended approval to the BOCC. During a regularly scheduled public hearing held on May 30, 2012, the
Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance and recommended approval to the BOCC.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC.ACTION: None
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval.
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No _
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO COUNTY:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ORDINANCE NO. -2012
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY
CODE SECTIONS 138-28, EVALUATION CRITERIA (ROGO),
AND 138-55, EVALUATION CRITERIA (NROGO); TO ADJUST
THE ROGO AND NROGO POINT VALUES FOR LAND
DEDICATION AND PARCELS WITH WETLANDS TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE MONROE COUNTY 2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND
PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, during a regularly scheduled meeting held on April 24, 2012, the Monroe
County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed amendment and recommended
approval to the Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, during a regularly scheduled public meeting held on May 30, 2012, the
Monroe County Planning Commission conducted a review and consideration of a request filed
by the Planning & Environmental Resources Department for text amendments to §138-28 and
138-55 of the Monroe County Code (MCC) and recommended approval to the Board of County
Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, this text amendment revises the existing ROGO and NROGO permit
allocation scoring systems by assigning points to applications for new development that include
the dedication of parcels that contain undisturbed wetlands and/or the dedication of vacant,
legally platted Tier III -A lots; and
WHEREAS, this text amendment also revises the existing ROGO and NROGO permit
allocation scoring systems by assigning negative points to applications for new development on
Tier III parcels that contain wetlands which require 100% open space and that or are adjacent or
contiguous to Tier I properties; and
WHEREAS, at their February 13, 2012 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners
passed Resolution #022-2012 to transmit a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to the State
1
Land Planning Agency addressing the existing ROGO and NROGO permit allocation scoring
systems by assigning points to applications for new development that include the dedication of
parcels that contain undisturbed wetlands and/or the dedication of vacant, legally platted Tier III -
A lots; and
WHEREAS, at their February 13, 2012 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners
passed Resolution #024-2012 to transmit a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to the State
Land Planning Agency addressing the existing ROGO and NROGO permit allocation scoring
systems by assigning negative points to applications for new development on Tier III parcels that
contain wetlands which require 100% open space and that are adjacent or contiguous to Tier I
properties; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2012, the State Land Planning Agency issued an Objections,
Recommendations and Comment (ORC) Report to Monroe County on the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments which did not identify any objections, or comments related to
important state resources and facilities that will be adversely impacted by the amendments, if
they are adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
Section 1. Section 138-23 shall be amended as follows (deletions are str-ielen dffeuo and
additions are underlined):
Sec. 138-28. - Evaluation criteria.
The point values established on the following pages are to be applied cumulatively:
(1) Tier designation. The following points are intended to discourage development in
environmentally sensitive areas and to direct and encourage development in
appropriate infill areas, while recognizing that any development has an impact on the
carrying capacity of the Florida Keys:
Point
Criteria
ssignment
+0
An application which proposes a dwelling unit within an area designated
tier I on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
+10
An application which proposes a dwelling unit within an area designated
tier I (natural area).
+10
An application which proposes development within an area designated
tier II (transition and sprawl reduction area) on Big Pine Key or No Name
Key.
+20
An application which proposes development within an area designated
tier III (infill area) on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
+20
An application which proposes the clearing of any upland native habitat
2
vegetation that is part of a one acre or larger upland native habitat within
an area designated tier III -A (special protection area).
+30 An application which proposes development within an area designated
tier III (infill area) outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
(2) Big Pine Key and No Name Key only. The following additional negative points shall
be cumulatively assigned to allocation applications and are intended to implement the
Habitat Conservation Plan and the Livable CommuniKeys Community Master Plan
for Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
Point
Criteria
Assignment
- 10
An application which proposes a dwelling unit on No Name Key.
- 10
An application which proposes development in designated Lower Keys
Marsh Rabbit habitat or buffer areas as designated in the community
master plan.
- 10
An application which proposes development in Key Deer Corridor as
designated in the community master plan.
(3) Wetlands. The following_ points shall be assigned to allocation applications on Tier
III parcels that contain wetlands which require 100% open space pursuant to the
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and that are located adjacent or contiguouso
Tier I properties.
1-5
1. submerged lands
2. mangroves (excluding tidally inundated mangrove shoreline
fringes)
3. salt ponds
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh water ponds
6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
1. submerged lands
2. mangroves (excluding tidally inundated mangrove shoreline
fringes)
3. salt ponds
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh water ponds
6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
Notes:
Adjacent means land sharing a boundary with another parcel of land. An intervening
road, right-of-way, or easement shall not destroy the adjacency of the two parcels
except for U.S. 1.
Contiguous means a sharing of a common border at more than a single point of
intersection. Contiguity is not interrupted by utility easements.
Subsection (3) applies to new applications for Tier III parcels entering the permit
allocationsystem after January 13, 2013.
(3) (44) Lot aggregation. The following points are intended to encourage the voluntary
reduction of density through aggregation of vacant, legally platted, buildable lots with
density allocation by lot.
Point
Criteria
Assignment*
+4
An application which aggregates a contiguous vacant, legally platted,
vacant, buildable lot, zoned IS, IS-D, URM, URM-L, or CFV, located
within a tier III designated area together with the parcel proposed for
development. Each additional vacant, legally platted, buildable lot which
is aggregated that meets the above requirements will earn the application
the additional points as specified.*
+3
On Big Pine Key and No Name Key. An application which aggregates a
contiguous vacant, legally platted, vacant, buildable lot, zoned IS, IS-D,
URM, URM-L, or CFV, located within a tier II or tier III designated area
together with the parcel proposed for development. Each additional
vacant, legally platted, buildable lot which is aggregated that meets the
above requirements will earn the application the additional points as
specified.
Additional requirements
1. The proposed development shall not involve the clearing of upland
native vegetation of more than the allowances specified in 5,000 square-
section
118-9, ...hie eve is less
2. The application shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) An affidavit of ownership of all affected parcels, acreage or land; and
(b) A legally binding, restrictive covenant limiting the number of dwelling
units on the aggregated lot, running in favor of the county and enforceable
by the county, subject to the approval of the growth management director
and county attorney and recorded in the office of the clerk of the county
prior to the issuance of any building permit pursuant to an allocation
award.
n
*Exception:
No points for aggregation shall be awarded for any application that proposes the
clearing of any native upland habitat in a tier III -A (Special Protection Area) area. No
aggregation of lots will be permitted in tier I.
(4) (5) Land dedication.
ded .,tie of vaeant, bui-j-dah-le 1.14. a . ,:tl :« t; .. T .,,,.a r;o. TT /D:. D' V a AT
41 11 1.1V1 1 CCL1d fi
Name Key) areas for- the pur-peses ef eenser-vatien, r-esetffee pr-eteetiea, r-ester-ation er-
density
7 7 if leeated within tier- ,
. The following_ points shall be assigned to
allocation applications to encourage, the voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable
land within Tier I designated areas, Tier II (Big Pine Key and No Name Key) Tier
III -A Special Protection Areas (SPA), and parcels which contain undisturbed
wetlands for the purposes of conservation, resource protection, restoration or density
reduction and, if located in Tier III outside of Special Protection Areas (SPA) for the
purpose of providing land for affordable housing where appropriate.
Point
Criteria
Assignment
+4
yaeai4, legally plat4edkuildable let, zened.SG, 18, Tc D, URPA,
URM i ,. GFV legally l.,ae buildable let
Gov
Va Vl . , Va u 1Vb411� �JluLTV�, within any
elegally plaaed,
buildable let whieh is dedieated that the
fneets abeve requirements
An
application which includes the dedication to Monroe Count, of one
vacant, legally platted lot, designated as Tier III for affordable
housing, of sufficient minimum lot size and upland area to be
buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points asspecified.
+2
On Big Pine Key and No Name Key, an application which includes
the dedication to the county of one vacant, legally platted buildable
lot, designated as Tier I or Tier II on Big Pine Key or No Name KgL
of sufficient minimum lot size and containing sufficient upland area
to be buildable. -�seeed SG, S,1S D, UFNUFM L, er- GFV-
le,.ally ttea let tT,
within GFSD that .
aVb4aa' l/14,.,.V,.1, V4aau4V1V 1V,. ♦,141111 {All,' liI
p buildable
dwelling1 i . Each additional vacant, legally platted, buildable lot
which is dedicated that meets the above requirements will earn the
appheanfien the additional points as specified.
+1 for each
� ,;e tie ,,.T,ie , hide the ded ,,t: to the ..t, e f
An 4Ul/11V4L1V11 ,T
l 1,
5,000 square
legally plat4ed, buildable lot ef 5,000
feet of lot area
within a suburban distfiet
residential (SR) er- suburban r-esidefAial
ted distfiet (SR L) desipated tier- 1 Eaeh
111111within a area. additional
yaea f 5,000
legally buildable lot feetef-more
at, platted, osquar-e that
_ V1i4111 V111V111T,
mks the above 1 ,ke...,e..t it e points ee ffiea An
gpplication which includes the dedication to Monroe County of a
vacant, legally platted lot of 5,000 square feet or more in size
designated as Residential Low on the future land use maU with a
maximum net density within a Tier I area and containing sufficient
upland area to be buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted
lot that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn points as
specified.
+0.5
..* legally buildable lot f 5,000 . e Feet
legally
,•KV,1114, platted,
, or- mer-e-
within a native dist..:et ly a + • + in
area (NA) er- settled (cc)
designated tV1 1 area. Eeladditional . „t, legally pl,ttea
r
buildable let tl.et ,~,sets the « e e„t half
above will eam the
peint as speei ied. An application which includes the dedication to
Monroe County of one (1) vacant, legally Dlatted lot of at least 5,000
square feet in size within a Tier I area, designated as Residential
Conservation or Residential Low on the future land use map with no
maximum net density, containing sufficient upland to be buildable.
Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
+4
ene µ"e of :aea t, 4tIa tea, buildable land le t a within
f
.
buildable land that the
meets abev . its will eam the points
as-speeifi An application which includes the dedication to
Monroe County of at least one (1) acre of vacant, unplatted land
located within a Tier I area containing sufficient upland to be
buildable. Each additional one (1) acre of vacant, unplatted land that
meets the aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
+2
On Big Pine Key and No Name Key, an application which includes
the dedication to the county of at least one acre of vacant, unplatted,
buildable land located within a designated tier I area. Each additional
one acre of vacant, unplatted, buildable land that meets the above
requirements will earn the points as specified.
+2
An application which includes the dedication one (1) vacant legally
platted lot which contains undisturbed wetlands. Each additional
vacant, legally platted lot that meets the aforementioned requirements
will earn points as specified.
+2
An application which includes the dedication to Monroe County of
one (1) vacant, legally platted lot designated as Tier III -A (Special
Protection Area -SPA) of sufficient minimum lot size and containing
sufficient upland area to be buildable. Each additional vacant legally
platted lot that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn
points asspecified.
Additional requirements:
1. The application shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) An affidavit of ownership of all affected lots, parcels, acreage or
land; and
(b) A statutory warranty deed that conveys the dedicated property to
the county shall be approved by the growth management director and
county attorney and recorded in the office of the clerk of the county
prior to the issuance of any building permit pursuant to an allocation
award.
2. Lots or parcels dedicated for positive points under this paragraph
shall not be eligible for meeting the mitigation requirements of the
Big Pine Key and No Name Key Overlay Zone.
3. Lots or parcels donated for points in Big Pine Key or No Name
Key must be located within tier I or tier II lands in Big Pine Key or
No Name Key.
(S) (!9 Market rate housing in employee or affordable housing project. The following
points are intended to provide further incentives for provision of market rate housing
within employee housing projects:
Point
Criteria
Assignment
+6
An application for market rate housing unit which is part of employee or
affordable housing project.
Additional Requirements:
The market rate dwelling unit must be part of an approved employee or
affordable housing project and meet all the requirements and conditions
pursuant to section 130-161(a) and (f) and this ordinance.
(6) M Special flood hazard area. The following points are intended to discourage
development within high risk special flood hazard zones:
Point Criteria
Assignment
- 4 An application which proposes development within a "V" zone on the
FEMA flood insurance rate map.
(7) (8) Central wastewater treatment system availability. The following points shall be
assigned to encourage development in areas served by central wastewater treatment
systems:
VJ
Point I Criteria
+4 An application for which development is required to be connected to a
central wastewater treatment system that meets BAT/AWT standards
established by the state legislature.
(8) (9) Perseverance points. The following points are intended to reward an application
based upon the number of years spent in the residential ROGO system without
receiving an allocation award:
Point Criteria
Assignment
+1 A point shall be awarded on the anniversary controlling date for each year
that the application remains in the ROGO system up to a maximum of
four years.
(9) (10) Payment to land acquisition fund. Up to two points shall be awarded for a
monetary payment to the county's land acquisition fund for the purchase by the
county of lands for conservation and retirement of development rights. Points for
payment to this fund shall be assigned as follows:
Point
Criteria
Assignment
+ 1 to + 2
Proposes payment to the county's land acquisition fund in an amount equal
to the monetary value of a ROGO dedication point times the number of
points to be purchased, up to a maximum of two points.
Additional Requirements:
1. The monetary value of each point shall be established annually by
resolution of the board of county commissioners.
2. The monetary value of each point shall be based upon the average fair
market value of privately -owned, buildable, vacant, IS/URM, platted lots
in tier I divided by four.
3. Payment to the county's land acquisition fund shall be prior to the
issuance of any building permit pursuant to the allocation award.
(" (Ll) Rescoring of applications not receiving allocations. All applications in the
ROGO system on the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived
that do not receive an allocation award in quarter 4, ROGO year 14, ending July 13,
2006, shall be rescored in quarter 1, ROGO year 15, pursuant to the above provisions
as modified by the vesting provisions of s bsubseetie .. (11` subsection (12) of this
section.
M
{� (� Retroactive vesting provisions. Notwithstanding the provisions of this article,
upon the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived, the
following vesting provisions shall apply to the scoring of applications in the ROGO
system prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived:
1. All applications shall be eligible to continue to receive perseverance points
beyond the first four years in the system, at an annual rate of +2 points for each
year that the application remains in the ROGO system.
2. If any application, prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this
article is derived, had been withdrawn and reentered the ROGO system and the
application had been revised solely to increase its point total through lot
aggregation or land dedication without revising the approved building permit
application, the controlling date of the application shall be restored to the
controlling date of the application prior to the application's withdrawal. The
application shall also be entitled to any perseverance points lost due to the
withdrawal.
3. If any application received points for aggregation, which would not be authorized
under the new aggregation provisions of subsection (3) (4) of this section, the
applicant shall receive +4 points for each aggregated lot, except that all
applications received after September 27, 2005 that are on file with the county
must be rescored prior to receiving an allocation pursuant to the mandate by the
Florida Administrative Commission by Rule Nos. 28-20.110 and 28-20.120,
effective September 27, 2005.
4. All applicants in the ROGO system upon the effective date of the ordinance from
which this article is derived shall be notified by regular mail within 30 days from
the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived by the county
planning and environmental resources department of the new ROGO scoring
system. In this notification, applicants shall be informed that they have 30 days
from the date of the notification, if they so chose, to submit a revision to their
ROGO application to receive positive points through aggregation, land dedication,
or payment of fees to the land acquisition fund. Within this one-time, 30-day time
period, applicants shall be able to revise their applications without payment of
fees or a change in their controlling date upon condition that their approved
building permit application is not revised.
Section 2. Section 138-55 shall be amended as follows (deletions are stfielen tkeugh and
additions are underlined):
Sec.138-55. - Evaluation criteria (NROGO).
9
(a) Evaluation point values. The following point values established are to be applied
cumulatively except where otherwise specified:
(1) Tier designation. The following points are intended to discourage nonresidential
development in environmentally sensitive areas and areas without sufficient infrastructure
and to direct and encourage nonresidential development in appropriate infill areas, while
recognizing that any development has affects on the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys:
Point
Criteria
Assignment
0
An application which proposes nonresidential development within an area
designated tier I (natural area), except for the expansion of existing, lawfully
established nonresidential floor area provided under the exception below.
+10
An application which proposes nonresidential development within an area
designated tier II (transition and sprawl reduction area) on Big Pine and No Nam
Key.
+10
application which proposes nonresidential development within an area designate
tier III -A (special protection area) that proposes to clear any portion of an upland
native habitat patch of one acre or greater in size.
+20
An application which proposes nonresidential development within an area
designated tier III (infill area).
Exception:
Any application for the expansion of existing, lawfully established nonresidential floor area shall
be assigned +20 points contingent upon no further clearing of upland native habitat and no
addition to and/or expansion of the existing lot or parcel upon which the existing use is located.
(2) Wetlands. The following_ points shall be assigned to allocation applications on Tier
III parcels that contain wetlands which require 100% open space pursuant to the
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and that are located adjacent or contiguous to
Tier I properties.
Point Criteria
Assignment
- 3 Tier III parcels adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties and containing 50%
or less of the following:
1. submerged lands
2. mangroves (excludingtidally inundated mangrove shoreline fringes)
3. salt ponds
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh water ponds
6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
-5 Tier III parcels adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties and containin more
Q17
1. submerged lands
2. mangroves (excludingt_ idally inundated mangrove shoreline fringes)
3. salt ponds
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh water ponds
6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
Notes:
Ad
iacent means land sharing a boundary with another parcel of land. An intervening road,
right-of-way, or easement shall not destroy the adjacency of the two parcels except for
U.S. 1.
Contiguous means a sharing of a common border at more than a single point of intersection
Contiguity is not interrupted by utility easements.
Subsection (2) applies to new applications for Tier III parcels entering the permit allocation
(2) (3) Intensity reduction. The following points are intended to encourage the voluntary
reduction of intensity:
Point
Criteria
assignment
+ 4
application proposes development that reduces the permitted floor area ratio (FAR)
to 23 percent or less.
Additional requirements:
A legally binding restrictive covenant running in favor of the county that restricts the floor area rati
of the property to a maximum of 23 percent for a period of ten years shall be approved by the grow
management director and county attorney and recorded in the office of the county clerk prior to the
issuance of any building permit pursuant to an allocation award.
(-3) Land dedication.
dedieaiefi ef vaeant, buildable land widiin tier- 1 and tier- 11 (Big Pine Key and Ne Name
Fedue4ien, .,.a if le .,te.a .idii tier- M for- the pur-pesef pr-evid g land Fer- ff ,a 1.1
"1'he folio incr 11oints shall be assigned to allocation
�jppfic4tions to encourage the voluntary dedication of vacant. buildable land within "Tier 1.
" i r,1l (B , J� e d o_ z i , ,e, ' ,_ i ' "ica° w : t 1 "rote doAreas_f 4)
desi stated areas and parcels which contain undisturbed wetlands for the urpcL s of
conservation. resoL�a�c g�a° t �tr€�r�_r � ra it�rv�r e���zt� reduc°t on n if locatein `ier III
outside of Special Protect icsa� aeas, fog the aar..css� of rovidin- land for affordable
housine where a raa`o riate.
Point assignment
Criteria
+4
CS
vaeaRt, legally buildable let, SG 18 TT 18 M UR
pla4ed, zoned f e e e f
URM GFV buildable lot GFSD
eplatted, within any
that authorizes dwelling Eaeh legedly
units. addifienEd vaeant,
buildable lot is dedieated that
whieh meets the above r-equir-ements will
An application
which includes the dedication to Monroe County of one (1) vacant
legally platted lot, designated as Tier III for affordable housing of
sufficient minimum lot size and upland area to be buildable. Each
additional vacant, legally platted, buildable lot which is dedicated that
meets the aforementioned requirements will earn the additional points
as specified.
+2
On Big Pine Key No Name Key, ineludes
and an applieatien whiek the
* of .,e= legally ,1 buildable let,
d�ect:en to the
pl.,t+
eet one
—awl L LLc+ uTacV T c1�L'• ,VTl TVT1DIV �.•uTV{T.inll7{�., I{.aR , ,
••r GFV,
zone 18, 18 D, 1cj M, n legally
t-SC� CTtcli"I,rtTR , e plat4e,]
f
buildable let within any CFSD that atAher-izes dwelling units. Eaeh
addifinnal vae= legally
legally buildable let ,. h el, is ,1 d t ,1 tt, t
»._..._........,.. . »vLaa ,., platted,
r1uLLv4, VLL11lLL.iV1V
peiHts-as speeffied. On Big Pine Key and No Name Key, an application
which includes the dedication to Monroe County of one (1) vacant
legally platted lot, designated as Tier I or Tier II, of sufficient minimum
lot size and containing sufficient upland area to be buildable. Each
additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the aforementioned
requirements will earn points asspecified.
+1 per 5,000 square
feet of lot area
An appheafien whieh ineludes the dedieatien to
the ee=y ef a vaeaI4,
legualaplnnn . e f et er- more within ..
legally .,tte,t, buildable let of c, suburban residential &L-ie4 (SR) limited dist
er- subur-ban r-esidei4ial
buildable let of 5,000 sqt a feet or- z eFe that meets the above
An application which includes
the dedication to Monroe County of a vacant legally platted lot of five
thousand (5,000) square feet or more in size, designated as Residential
Low on the future land use map with maximum net density within a Tier I
area and containing sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional
vacant, legally platted lot, that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn points asspecified.
+0.5
An app .,t:e . h eb, ineludes the .ted e.,t:e., to the + f +
�uuvu Ly al ,
legally platted let of 5,000 s e feet e meFe id native
area. E lllr buildable let tl
wvtu.altelua ,l1eVplatted, meets the
, An application
which includes the dedication to Monroe County one (1) vacant legally
platted lot of five thousand (5,000) square feet or more within a Tier I
area designated as Residential Conservation or Residential Low on the
12
future land use map with no maximum net density, containing sufficient
upland to be buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that
meets the aforementioned requirements will earn points asspecified.
+4
tir .,ph µtie-- ., ieh int f t least
err--- the dediea ie to `h
- -- eludes eeu e
...� . ,.... .. en
>aRplaaed,
area. Eaeh additional one buildable land
aer-e of vaeai4, e th-at.
meets the ab e-o.,,,;.e.., .,tom 411 ea..., the peii sspee An
application which includes the dedication to Monroe County of at least
one (1) acre of vacant, unplatted land located within a Tier I area
containing sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional one (1) acre
of vacant, unplatted land that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn the points as specified.
+2
On Big Pine Key and No Name Key, an application which includes the
dedication to the county of at least one acre of vacant, unplatted,
buildable land located within a designated tier I area. Each additional
one acre of vacant, unplatted, buildable land that meets the above
requirements will earn the points as specified.
+2
An application which includes the dedication to Monroe County of one
(1) vacant, legally platted lot which contains undisturbed wetlands.
Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
+2
An application which includes the dedication to Monroe County of one
(1) vacant, legally platted lot, designated as Tier III -A (Special
Protection Area -SPA) of sufficient minimum lot size and containing
sufficient upland area to be buildable. Each additional vacant, legally
platted lot that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn points
ass ecp ified.
Additional requirements:
1. The application shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) An affidavit of ownership of all affected lots, parcels, acreage or land; and
(b) A statutory warranty deed that conveys the dedicated property to the county, which shall be
approved by the growth management director and county attorney and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the county prior to the issuance of any building permit pursuant to an allocation award.
2. Lots or parcels dedicated for positive points under this subsection shall not be eligible for meet'
the mitigation requirements of the Big Pine Key and No Name Key Overlay Zone.
3. Only lots or parcels on Big Pine Key and No Name Key dedicated for positive points under this
subsection will allow for positive points for applications on Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
(4) (5) Special flood hazard area. The following points are intended to discourage development
within high risk special flood hazard zones:
13
Point Assignment Criteria
- 4 application which proposes development within a V zone on the FEMA flood
insurance rate map.
(�}() Perseverance points. The following points are intended to reward an application based
upon the number of years spent in the nonresidential ROGO system without receiving an
allocation award.
Point assignment Criteria
+1 A point shall be awarded on the anniversary of the controlling date for each year
that the application remains in the NROGO system, up to four years.
+2 Points shall be awarded on the anniversary of the controlling date for each year
over four that the application remains in the NROGO system.
(6} M Highway access. The following points are intended to encourage connections
between commercial uses and reduction of the need for trips and access onto U.S. Highway
1:
Point Criteria
assignment
+3 The project eliminates an existing driveway or accessway to U.S. Highway 1.
+2 The projects does not provide for a new driveway or accessway to U.S. Highway
1.
{7} (8) Landscaping and water conservation. The following points are intended to encourage the
planting of native vegetation and promote water conservation:
Point
Criteria
assignment
+3
The project provides a total of 200 percent of the number of native landscape plants
on its property than the number of native landscape plants required by this chapter
within landscaped bufferyards and parking areas.
+1
25 percent of the native plants provided to achieve the three point award above or
provided to meet the landscaped bufferyard and parking area requirements of this
chapter are listed as threatened or endangered plants native to the Florida Keys.
+2
Project landscaping is designed for water conservation such as use of 100 percent
native plants for vegetation, collection and direction of rainfall to landscaped areas,
or application of reused wastewater or treated seawater for watering landscaped
plants.
Additional requirements:
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building permit authorized by an
allocation award, the applicant shall:
14
(a) Post a two-year performance bond in accordance with this chapter to ensure maintenance of the
native plants; and,
(b) Sign an affidavit acknowledging that he is subject to code enforcement action should the native
plants not be maintained.
(9) (9) Central wastewater treatment system availability. The following points shall be
assigned to encourage development in areas served by central wastewater treatment systems:
Point I Criteria
+ 4 An application for which development is required to be connected to a central
wastewater treatment system that meets BAT/AWT standards established by the
state legislature.
() (10) Employee housing. The following points, up to a maximum of four, shall be assigned
to allocation applications that make provisions for employee housing units:
Point
Criteria
Assignment
+ 2 per unit
Proposes an employee housing unit which is located on the parcel with the
nonresidential floor space requested in the allocation application. Up to a
maximum of four points may be awarded.
Additional Requirements:
1. The employee housing unit shall be required to meet the applicable provisions of section 130-
161
2. The proposed employee housing unit shall be included in the development approval for the
nonresidential development proposed in the allocation application.
3. A certificate of occupancy shall be granted for the nonresidential development authorized by
the allocation award, but shall not be issued prior to the certificate of occupancy for the employee
housing units.
f" G 11) Payment to land acquisition fund. Up to two points shall be awarded for a monetary
payment to the county's land acquisition fund for the purchase by the county of lands for
conservation and retirement of development rights. Points for payment to this fund shall be
assigned as follows:
Criteria
+1 to +2 Proposes payment to the county's land acquisition fund in an amount equal to the
monetary value of a ROGO dedication point times the number of points to be
purchased, up to a maximum of two points.
Additional Requirements:
15
1. The monetary value of each point shall be established annually by resolution of the board of
county commissioners.
2. The monetary value of each point shall be based upon the average market value of privately -
owned, buildable, vacant, IS/URM, platted lots in tier I, divided by four.
3. Payment to the county's land acquisition fund shall be prior to the issuance of any building
permit pursuant to the allocation award.
•MUM•
.
POPM
•.VON..-
USTWA
�• .
ON
�11
AN
• .
Section 3. Severability.
If any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or provision of this ordinance shall be
adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect,
impair, invalidate, or nullify the remainder of this ordinance, but the effect thereof shall be
confined to the section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence, or provision immediately
involved in the controversy in which such judgment or decree shall be rendered.
Section 4. Conflicting Provisions.
In the case of direct conflict between any provision of this ordinance and a portion or provision
of any appropriate federal, state, or County law, rule code or regulation, the more restrictive shall
apply.
16
Section 5. Transmittal.
This ordinance shall be transmitted to the Florida State Land Planning Agency as required by F.S.
380.05 (11) and F.S. 380.0552(9).
Section 6. Filing.
This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Florida but shall not
become effective until a notice is issued by the Florida State Land Planning Agency or
Administration Commission approving the ordinance.
Section 7. Inclusion in the Monroe County Code.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall be included and incorporated in the Code of Ordinances
of the County of Monroe, Florida, as an addition to amendment thereto, and shall be
appropriately renumbered to conform to the uniform marking system of the Code.
Section 8. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective as provided by law and stated above. This ordinance
applies to any permit, and or other development approval application submitted after the
effective date.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida
at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2012.
Mayor David Rice
Mayor Pro Tem Kim Wigington
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner George Neugent
(SEAL)
Mayor David Rice
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK MONROE COONT RNEYf
APPRO A TO ORM
Date:
DEPUTY CLERK
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Si
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To:
Through:
From:
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Christine Hurley, AICP, Director of Growth Management
Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Reynaldo Ortiz, Assoc. AIA, AICP, Planning & Biological Plans Examiner
Supervisor
Date: August 15, 2012
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY
CODE SECTIONS 138-28, EVALUATION CRITERIA (ROGO), AND
138-55, EVALUATION CRITERIA (NROGO); TO ADJUST THE
ROGO AND NROGO POINT VALUES FOR LAND DEDICATION
AND PARCELS WITH WETLANDS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL
TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY
OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Meeting: September 21, 2012
I REQUEST
The Planning & Environmental Resources Department is proposing amendments to the text
of §138-28 and §138-55 of the Monroe County Code. The proposed amendments revise the
Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) and Nonresidential Rate of Growth
Ordinance (NROGO) permit allocation scoring systems to be consistent with recently
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
II RELEVANT PRIOR COUNTY ACTIONS:
At their February 13, 2012 meeting, the BOCC passed Resolution #022-2012, a resolution
transmitting to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) a proposed text
amendment to revise Comprehensive Plan Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.5. If approved, the
amendments revise the existing ROGO and NROGO permit allocation scoring systems by
assigning points to applications for new development that include the dedication of parcels
that contain undisturbed wetlands and/or the dedication of vacant, legally platted Tier III -A
lots. The Planning Commission on December 1, 2011 reviewed this proposed
Page 1 of 17 (File #2011-051)
I comprehensive plan amendment and unanimously recommended approval, as memorialized
2 by Planning Commission Resolution #P40-11.
3
4 At their February 13, 2012 meeting, the BOCC passed Resolution #024-2012, a resolution
5 transmitting to the DEO a proposed text amendment to revise Comprehensive Plan Policies
6 101.5.4 and 101.5.5. If approved, the amendments revise the existing ROGO and NROGO
7 permit allocation scoring systems by assigning negative points to applications for new
8 development on Tier III parcels that contain wetlands which require 100% open space and
9 that are adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties. The Planning Commission reviewed this
10 proposed comprehensive plan amendment on December 1, 2011 and unanimously
11 recommended approval, as memorialized by Planning Commission Resolution #P44-11.
12
13 During a regularly scheduled meeting held on April 24, 2012, the Development Review
14 Committee reviewed the subject request and recommended approval to the BOCC.
15
16 During a regularly scheduled public hearing held on May 30, 2012, the Planning
17 Commission reviewed the ordinance and recommended approval to the BOCC.
18
19 III REVIEW
20
21 If the text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan provided in Resolutions #022-2012 and
22 #024-2012 are ultimately approved, the Land Development Code must be updated to be
23 consistent with the superseding Comprehensive Plan.
24
25 Although the amendments set forth in Resolutions #022-2012 and #024-2012 have only been
26 transmitted to DEO and are yet to be adopted, staff has opted to begin the process of amend
27 the Land Development code so that the Land Development Code amendments may be
28 adopted at the same BOCC meeting as the Comprehensive Plan amendments.
29
30 Note, on May 4, 2012, the State Land Planning Agency (or DEO) issued an Objections,
31 Recommendations and Comment (ORC) Report to Monroe County on the proposed
32 Comprehensive Plan amendments, described above, which did not identify any objections, or
33 comments related to important state resources and facilities that will be adversely impacted
34 by the amendments, if they are adopted.
35
36 Therefore, staff recommends the following changes (deletions are stfieken-4hfough and
37 additions are underlined):
38
39 Sec.138-28. - Evaluation criteria.
40
41 The point values established on the following pages are to be applied cumulatively:
42
43 (1) Tier designation. The following points are intended to discourage development in
44 environmentally sensitive areas and to direct and encourage development in
45 appropriate infill areas, while recognizing that any development has an impact on the
46 carrying capacity of the Florida Keys:
Page 2 of 17 (File #2012-033)
Point
Criteria
ssignment
+0
An application which proposes a dwelling unit within an area designated
tier I on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
+10
An application which proposes a dwelling unit within an area designated
tier I (natural area).
+10
An application which proposes development within an area designated
tier II (transition and sprawl reduction area) on Big Pine Key or No Name
Key.
+20
An application which proposes development within an area designated
tier III (infill area) on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
+20
An application which proposes the clearing of any upland native habitat
vegetation that is part of a one acre or larger upland native habitat within
an area designated tier III -A (special protection area).
+30
An application which proposes development within an area designated
tier III (infill area) outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
2
3 (2) Big Pine Key and No Name Key only. The following additional negative points shall
4 be cumulatively assigned to allocation applications and are intended to implement the
5 Habitat Conservation Plan and the Livable CommuniKeys Community Master Plan
6 for Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
7
Point
Criteria
Assignment
- 10
An application which proposes a dwelling unit on No Name Key.
- 10
An application which proposes development in designated Lower Keys
Marsh Rabbit habitat or buffer areas as designated in the community
master plan.
- 10
An application which proposes development in Key Deer Corridor as
designated in the community master plan.
8
9 3_'The followinpr2gipts shLff e assigned to allocation apTlications gniier
10 , j scels that c ntairi wetlands which r ggirg_j0()c/o o ,purl s- ce wj, au rat to the
11 Monroe unty Qoqrehensive Plan and that are located qdc rtt 9-E��litI uolls t
12 Tier I propgrties.
13
Purser Criteria
ss.r pr��are}rat .�.�._._._
.._.
"Tier III r rrccis adjacent o coliti uCDtiS to `ic l ro crtics al�d containing
50% or less of the f'o lowin
Page 3 of 17 (File #2012-033)
2�inq vas Ee �judit7e tid]v inundated nj rlgroy € relit
frames
3. saial rt s'
4, fresh water wetlands
5 fresh watt r cr'acl
6. undisturbed salt nia ash and buttonwood wetlands
w °l'ier" III p.a pciels a r t t cIr a r tip-t.ic ut I ca ti t orar. i
more than 50% of the folk 'HIP,
1. su .igerge 1 ' cls
ao �nang Qygs L) c1a�d lolly inulLdated rriaui„��°ove shoreline
fr Lnggs .. .
L . s at ,on s
4. fresh water wetlands
.._..fresh wafter onds
. undisturbed Sat t marsh and buttonwood Petl nds
Notes:
AAcltar t ni aans farad slra.dri as ounda ry w'th aanothe r�a�teel cif land. An intervening
road fight- erlaent shall not destroy the as aac�:.rtcy o#'the t�vo aarcelsg
Pe t foi° I1., I.
Cont ieuousumeans _a sharing of a common borde • at adore than as sitig. int
intersection. C onti�attt�'�wrrizt...frt rt�3 t � �ttil�ly..
,Siib,v pr tiol. L3) c-lL7alif!s try rz s c 1ic tttt �z r r tc>. 111 t�rrrc l� rttr rirr tJr r rrrtrit
c 1l ac cal cata � � ?a ct ie�r° jc��� ar),i, .13 r201
2 (4) Lot aggregation. The following points are intended to encourage the voluntary
3 reduction of density through aggregation of vacant, legally platted, buildable lots with
4 density allocation by lot.
Point I Criteria*
+4 An application which aggregates a contiguous vacant, legally platted,
vacant, buildable lot, zoned IS, IS-D, URM, URM-L, or CFV, located
within a tier III designated area together with the parcel proposed for
development. Each additional vacant, legally platted, buildable lot which
is aggregated that meets the above requirements will earn the application
the additional points as specified."
+3 On Big Pine Key and No Name Key. An application which aggregates a
contiguous vacant, legally platted, vacant, buildable lot, zoned IS, IS-D,
URM, URM-L, or CFV, located within a tier II or tier III designated area
together with the parcel proposed for development. Each additional
vacant, legally platted, buildable lot which is aggregated that meets the
above requirements will earn the application the additional points as
specified.
Page 4 of 17 (File #2012-033)
Additional requirements
1. The proposed development shall not involve the clearing of upland
native vegetation of more than the allowances specified in ,
section
118-9, whtehe w .
2. The application shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) An affidavit of ownership of all affected parcels, acreage or land; and
(b) A legally binding, restrictive covenant limiting the number of dwelling
units on the aggregated lot, running in favor of the county and enforceable
by the county, subject to the approval of the growth management director
and county attorney and recorded in the office of the clerk of the county
prior to the issuance of any building permit pursuant to an allocation
award.
*Exception:
No points for aggregation shall be awarded for any application that proposes the
clearing of any native upland habitat in a tier III -A (Special Protection Area) area. No
aggregation of lots will be permitted in tier I.
Page 5 of 17 (File #2012-033)
+2 On Big Pine Key and No Name Key, an application which includes
the dedication to the county of one vacant, legally platted buildable
lot, c si qted as_Tier I or Tier lI_on Bid �z Key, or o_Na e lac
of sufficient mininiurn lot: size and containinc, sufficient u lad area
tobebufldablejC`
imr'asra�m a5va _.�`' 4h.ra4 nn.41..
. Each additional vacant, legally platted, buildable lot
which is dedicated that meets the above requirements will earn the
appheanfien the additional points as specified.
+1 for each
5,000 square u spy ,* ri� nwn
feet of lot area
° c�:d,a �� .�. > :4t�° m� rn w T �;,>r.t� n,s�tw�• ,e'
n
rplicati n which inClUdes the dedication to Monroe
y � legally platted lot of ,000 s �i ire feet or more in size
es gat wa re land �se �at� With f
niaxirrtuni net_ �r ithin a Tier 1 area grid containin€ suffi zent
?Lind ar °to be buildable. Each additional vaccrr�t le.wa Matte .
lot that ineets the afor�x entionecl micots till eam oix�t as
!c fi cl °
Page 6 of 17 (File #2012-033)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
buildable land located within a designated tier I area. Each additional
one acre of vacant, unplatted, buildable land that meets the above
requirements will earn the points as specified.
t ?
e.
� t can °laic h includes the d d_mi�.�ttio�r to Monroe C s��trtte of
one � 11 Jygz ant, lega11y� �?l tt i t which contains undisturbed
wetlands. Each additioaWc..t.tted lotthat. meets the
..le<._I
P
aforementioned�✓�1�pAypbtawill gawJiLts aswed.
+2
the dedication t _Monroe County .._o
n l v c� t .._1 1 ltttted lot clesigpn tech is Tier. �i e i l
1 I4.)t e 105 1 Area -SPA) (
__�)f yuf cie t !ninimnm lot size and containl%t
Ufficient jWland aK h addi ional vacant legaliy
patted lot that in et.s the loremerlggnec re(. ttiremertts w tll garn
Additional requirements:
1. The application shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) An affidavit of ownership of all affected lots, parcels, acreage or
land; and
(b) A statutory warranty deed that conveys the dedicated property to
the county shall be approved by the growth management director and
county attorney and recorded in the office of the clerk of the county
prior to the issuance of any building permit pursuant to an allocation
award.
2. Lots or parcels dedicated for positive points under this paragraph
shall not be eligible for meeting the mitigation requirements of the
Big Pine Key and No Name Key Overlay Zone.
3. Lots or parcels donated for points in Big Pine Key or No Name
Key must be located within tier I or tier II lands in Big Pine Key or
No Name Key.
(0 Market rate housing in employee or affordable housing project. The following
points are intended to provide further incentives for provision of market rate housing
within employee housing projects:
Point
Criteria
Assignment
+6
An application for market rate housing unit which is part of employee or
affordable housing project.
Additional Requirements:
The market rate dwelling unit must be part of an approved employee or
affordable housing project and meet all the requirements and conditions
pursuant to section 130-161(a) and (f) and this ordinance.
Page 7 of 17 (File #2012-033)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
7 Special flood hazard area. The following points are intended to discourage
development within high risk special flood hazard zones:
Point Criteria
Assignment
- 4 An application which proposes development within a " V" zone on the
FEMA flood insurance rate map.
(.51 Central wastewater treatment system availability. The following points shall be
assigned to encourage development in areas served by central wastewater treatment
systems:
Point I Criteria
+4 An application for which development is required to be connected to a
central wastewater treatment system that meets BAT/AWT standards
established by the state legislature.
i.: Perseverance points. The following points are intended to reward an application
based upon the number of years spent in the residential ROGO system without
receiving an allocation award:
Criteria
+1 A point shall be awarded on the anniversary controlling date for each year
that the application remains in the ROGO system up to a maximum of
four years.
LI(1). Payment to land acquisition fund. Up to two points shall be awarded for a
monetary payment to the county's land acquisition fund for the purchase by the
county of lands for conservation and retirement of development rights. Points for
payment to this fund shall be assigned as follows:
Point
Criteria
Assignment
+ 1 to + 2
Proposes payment to the county's land acquisition fund in an amount equal
to the monetary value of a ROGO dedication point times the number of
points to be purchased, up to a maximum of two points.
Additional Requirements:
1. The monetary value of each point shall be established annually by
resolution of the board of county commissioners.
2. The monetary value of each point shall be based upon the average fair
market value of privately -owned, buildable, vacant, IS/URM, platted lots
Page 8 of 17 (File #2012-033)
in tier I divided by four.
3. Payment to the county's land acquisition fund shall be prior to the
issuance of any building permit pursuant to the allocation award.
2 (L .) Rescoring of applications not receiving allocations. All applications in the
3 ROGO system on the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived
4 that do not receive an allocation award in quarter 4, ROGO year 14, ending July 13,
5 2006, shall be rescored in quarter 1, ROGO year 15, pursuant to the above provisions
6 as modified by the vesting provisions of st&ffbseet+eft+4)1L�s cc me zy �, ) of this
7 section.
8
9 ( ? Retroactive vesting provisions. Notwithstanding the provisions of this article,
10 upon the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived, the
11 following vesting provisions shall apply to the scoring of applications in the ROGO
12 system prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived:
13
14 1. All applications shall be eligible to continue to receive perseverance points
15 beyond the first four years in the system, at an annual rate of +2 points for each
16 year that the application remains in the ROGO system.
17
18 2. If any application, prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this
19 article is derived, had been withdrawn and reentered the ROGO system and the
20 application had been revised solely to increase its point total through lot
21 aggregation or land dedication without revising the approved building permit
22 application, the controlling date of the application shall be restored to the
23 controlling date of the application prior to the application's withdrawal. The
24 application shall also be entitled to any perseverance points lost due to the
25 withdrawal.
26
27 3. If any application received points for aggregation, which would not be authorized
28 under the new aggregation provisions of subsection f4jof this section, the
29 applicant shall receive +4 points for each aggregated lot, except that all
30 applications received after September 27, 2005 that are on file with the county
31 must be rescored prior to receiving an allocation pursuant to the mandate by the
32 Florida Administrative Commission by Rule Nos. 28-20.110 and 28-20.120,
33 effective September 27, 2005.
34
35 4. All applicants in the ROGO system upon the effective date of the ordinance from
36 which this article is derived shall be notified by regular mail within 30 days from
37 the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived by the county
38 planning and environmental resources department of the new ROGO scoring
39 system. In this notification, applicants shall be informed that they have 30 days
40 from the date of the notification, if they so chose, to submit a revision to their
41 ROGO application to receive positive points through aggregation, land
42 dedication, or payment of fees to the land acquisition fund. Within this one-time,
43 30-day time period, applicants shall be able to revise their applications without
Page 9 of 17 (File #2012-033)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
payment of fees or a change in their controlling date upon condition that their
approved building permit application is not revised.
Sec.138-55. - Evaluation criteria (NROGO).
(a) Evaluation point values. The following point values established are to be applied
cumulatively except where otherwise specified:
(1) Tier designation. The following points are intended to discourage nonresidential
development in environmentally sensitive areas and areas without sufficient infrastructure
and to direct and encourage nonresidential development in appropriate infill areas, while
recognizing that any development has affects on the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys:
Point
Criteria
Assignment
0
An application which proposes nonresidential development within an area
designated tier I (natural area), except for the expansion of existing, lawfully
established nonresidential floor area provided under the exception below.
+10
An application which proposes nonresidential development within an area
designated tier II (transition and sprawl reduction area) on Big Pine and No Nam
Key.
+10
application which proposes nonresidential development within an area designate
tier III -A (special protection area) that proposes to clear any portion of an upland
native habitat patch of one acre or greater in size.
+20
An application which proposes nonresidential development within an area
designated tier III (infill area).
Exception:
Any application for the expansion of existing, lawfully established nonresidential floor area shall
be assigned +20 points contingent upon no further clearing of upland native habitat and no
addition to and/or expansion of the existing lot or parcel upon which the existing use is located.
Q tic nd,s. The following )paints shall be ssi"11to al�c�c�ti t� ��lt �t�r�r�5 on Tier
lIl l tcels that � nt itt retl t d� �u zc.h tie ttt�e 1()(9% o en s ce �treiinnt to the,
Monroe County � C'� ; � s��� l rt�cl t it �z� �_ �� r�cl ad � � ��.t �7��€�ntlg ugits _to
bier 1 lttc>ertiie.
oirit Criteria
A-ssi ninertl _.
- 3 `1`i r l l r -,,; it Qr c tWmLvs to 'r�.i•) gltics aiid c.c�ntainit f �I
or less of the f llowin-
I. SUbiner ed lands
Page 10 of 17 (File #2012-033)
rr � ro ,sle cl t rrr all lrrrrra rrte rrr s rove s deli frrrrr> ,s
. Lz t
;salt tcs
4. fresh water wetlands
5. fresh watel orris
fir. undisturbed salt.. x,narsh ,nd Nutt'Onw:c�c�..... wetlands
-5 Tier 111 a!:g l:s � cgn car CODUO�.ror:s tom 'ier fro . �_rMtx� � ��d act tz�irr rr ��ore
than 50% of the followings-
1 sub-M. ! c l r
. �rzr roves L c:lc�ci�r 1.i rrll _ inundated alari4 rove shoreline f�zrr .s
r$rlLMO k
4. fresh aster wetlands
__._.�..._.......................a.m......................._...........
.:..... r sh. t , rrcls
_f_,_undisturbed .. marsh and
Notes:
..�
j�yc eaLi iegrts.lan shgLin�� 11. ound� jtl�rta t �,r rarc: i f lan . n i terv€:r�ii � ro
j_gh.1.of_-way. or easement shal ....not clestrc� the gdI sj �.r�c�rc�,( jhe t o parcels e ce i`c�rm
U, S. l..
oNiI' u ous rne, sma-shq,rj!j ctq....�n on order at more th�:n a sipg o A-t of intersect on,,
QOntic,rrit y is not intpr ebyj.ttifity easements.
Sub, � cti r� (, _cz. l��.z, for I �ezm f ace„ �C.�IT t'k lcaii cotiry?
. t a z tcJ �zraz rzz $ G , 201-1
2 Q) Intensity reduction. The following points are intended to encourage the voluntary
3 reduction of intensity:
4
Point
Criteria
assignment
+ 4
application proposes development that reduces the permitted floor area ratio (FAR)
to 23 percent or less.
Additional requirements:
A legally binding restrictive covenant running in favor of the county that restricts the floor area rati
of the property to a maximum of 23 percent for a period of ten years shall be approved by the grow
management director and county attorney and recorded in the office of the county clerk prior to the
issuance of any building permit pursuant to an allocation award.
Page 11 of 17 (File #2012-033)
1 conservation, reso
if located inTier 1,11
2 outside of Sae2�JLl Protection Areas,,faiLthy; iqq�g i(Lhig land for affordable
pLT (_p
3 IhOLISiingwhere tc*
-�VpL_po rLa_
Page 12 of 17 (File #2012-033)
eets-4�
AaMplicaLion
which includes the dedication to M011D)e COU vacqtit le ally
Platted lot - of five thousand (,500DILquare feet or more within a ' Tier I
area designated as Residential Conservation or Residential Low on the
ftiture I with no maximum net e17,sity, ning suTfi ant
to to be buildable. Each additional vacant leaallyDlasted lot that
meets the aforementioned reoull-ements will
+4
fiFear-Fa
An
Qplication which includes the dedication to Monroe C Lounty of at lcast
--gcr��-QCvj ant, a qTfatted laqd. located within aTier I area
containilr stiff cient gp -J±indLtobebuildable. Each additionalDire cie
Of VaCarft, Upplatted land that meets the aforementioned. re- LnrenL. �nts will
earg the Cii cified,
+2
On Big Pine Key and No Name Key, an application which includes the
dedication to the county of at least one acre of vacant, unplatted,
buildable land located within a designated tier I area. Each additional one
acre of vacant, unplatted, buildable land that meets the above
requirements will earn the points as specified.
-_ oul _p-one�l
AILLaU)Iicq Con which ipchides the dedication to Monroe C Ity
LD vacant, j�g�all talc t ci-Iqt which contains undisturbed wetlarid.s.
Each additional vacant- leoally-platted lot that meets the
aforementioned re rilrements_iMLII earn p qLnts as vpeqirfi( d
+2
An_Applicatror�_which includes the dedication to Monroe Coun-Q oue
LU,vacant le all latted lot. designated asTier 111-A
==---I-M---Y-P — ----- -_LSpe<Lql
Protection Area- SPA) of sufficient mininium lot size and coritainina
!!!L�
— - --------
sufficientlIpIgpd,,gg�Lto be buildable, Each additional vacant, Igg.1tu",
nts will earn Rpints
qs-w-e—clfLec-]
Additional requirements:
1. The application shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) An affidavit of ownership of all affected lots, parcels, acreage or land; and
(b) A statutory warranty deed that conveys the dedicated property to the county, which shall be
approved by the growth management director and county attorney and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the county prior to the issuance of any building permit pursuant to an allocation award.
2. Lots or parcels dedicated for positive points under this subsection shall not be eligible for meet'r
the mitigation requirements of the Big Pine Key and No Name Key Overlay Zone.
3. Only lots or parcels on Big Pine Key and No Name Key dedicated for positive points under this
subsection will allow for positive points for applications on Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
Page 13 of 17 (File #2012-033)
1 Special flood hazard area. The following points are intended to discourage development
2 within high risk special flood hazard zones:
3
Point Criteria
Assignment
- 4 An application which proposes development within a V zone on the FEMA
flood insurance rate map.
4
5 1.� Perseverance points. The following points are intended to reward an application based
6 upon the number of years spent in the nonresidential ROGO system without receiving an
7 allocation award.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Point assignment Criteria
+1 A point shall be awarded on the anniversary of the controlling date for each year
that the application remains in the NROGO system, up to four years.
+2 Points shall be awarded on the anniversary of the controlling date for each year
over four that the application remains in the NROGO system.
Highway access. The following points are intended to encourage connections
between commercial uses and reduction of the need for trips and access onto U.S. Highway
1:
Point assignme Criteria
+3 The project eliminates an existing driveway or accessway to U.S. Highway 1.
+2 The projects does not provide for a new driveway or accessway to U.S. Highway 1
.1 Landscaping and water conservation. The following points are intended to encourage the
planting of native vegetation and promote water conservation:
Point
Criteria
assignment
+3
The project provides a total of 200 percent of the number of native landscape plants
on its property than the number of native landscape plants required by this chapter
within landscaped bufferyards and parking areas.
+1
25 percent of the native plants provided to achieve the three point award above or
provided to meet the landscaped bufferyard and parking area requirements of this
chapter are listed as threatened or endangered plants native to the Florida Keys.
+2
Project landscaping is designed for water conservation such as use of 100 percent
native plants for vegetation, collection and direction of rainfall to landscaped areas,
or application of reused wastewater or treated seawater for watering landscaped
plants.
Additional requirements:
Page 14 of 17 (File #2012-033)
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building permit authorized by an allocatio
award, the applicant shall:
I(a) Post a two-year performance bond in accordance with this chapter to ensure maintenance of the
native plants; and,
(b) Sign an affidavit acknowledging that he is subject to code enforcement action should the native
plants not be maintained.
2 (I Central wastewater treatment system availability. The following points shall be
3 assigned to encourage development in areas served by central wastewater treatment systems:
4
6
7
8
IM
Point Criteria
Assignment
+ 4 An application for which development is required to be connected to a central
wastewater treatment system that meets BAT/AWT standards established by the sta
legislature.
(1)j Employee housing. The following points, up to a maximum of four, shall be assigned
to allocation applications that make provisions for employee housing units:
Point
Criteria
Assignment
+ 2 per unit
Proposes an employee housing unit which is located on the parcel with the
nonresidential floor space requested in the allocation application. Up to a maximum
of four points may be awarded.
Additional Requirements:
1. The employee housing unit shall be required to meet the applicable provisions of section 130-
161
2. The proposed employee housing unit shall be included in the development approval for the
nonresidential development proposed in the allocation application.
3. A certificate of occupancy shall be granted for the nonresidential development authorized by
the allocation award, but shall not be issued prior to the certificate of occupancy for the employee
housing units.
10 (,. Payment to land acquisition fund. Up to two points shall be awarded for a monetary
11 payment to the county's land acquisition fund for the purchase by the county of lands for
12 conservation and retirement of development rights. Points for payment to this fund shall be
13 assigned as follows:
14
Point Criteria
Assignment
+1 to +2 Proposes payment to the county's land acquisition fund in an amount equal to the
monetary value of a ROGO dedication point times the number of points to be
Page 15 of 17 (Pile #2012-033)
purchased, up to a maximum of two points.
Additional Requirements:
1. The monetary value of each point shall be established annually by resolution of the board of
county commissioners.
2. The monetary value of each point shall be based upon the average market value of privately -
owned, buildable, vacant, IS/URM, platted lots in tier I, divided by four.
3. Payment to the county's land acquisition fund shall be prior to the issuance of any building permi
pursuant to the allocation award.
2
3
aft
4
5
,
6
7
27 Staff has found that the proposed text amendment would be consistent with the provisions of
28 MCC §102-158(d)(5)(b): 1. Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from
29 those on which the text or boundary was based; 2. Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding
30 demographic trends); 3. Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and
31 natural features described in volume I of the plan; 4. New issues; 5. Recognition of a need for
32 additional detail or comprehensiveness; or 6. Data updates. Specifically, staff has found that
33 the proposed text amendments are necessary due to recognition of a need for additional detail
34 or comprehensiveness.
35
36 Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners amend the Monroe County Code
37 as stated in the text of this staff report.
Page 16 of 17 (File #2012-033)
2 V. EXHIBITS
3
4 1. Maps of example Tier III lots containing wetlands which require 100% open space and
5 that are adjacent or contiguous to Tier I properties.
6 2. Excerpt from the 2010 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, providing the total, vacant
7 parcels and acreage designated within the Tier System.
8 3. Minutes from October 1, 20120 Tier Designation Review Committee Meeting
Page 17 of 17 (File #2012-033)
Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Amount of Vacant and Developable Land
There is approximately 10,143 acres of vacant land in the unincorporated area of
the County. The largest amount of vacant land in the unincorporated areas (6,849.2
acres) is located within the Lower Keys PA.
The general trend for all planning areas signal that vacant land is primarily located
under the residential future land use designations: Residential Conservation,
Residential Low and Residential Medium.
As illustrated in Table 5 on the next page, the majority of vacant land is located
within Tier I (M) with little development potential as regulated by the County's
point system. Tier II, III, and III -A comprise 12 percent of vacant land and this is
where development is most likely to concentrate. Also illustrated in this table are the
vacant parcels within each PA. The Lower Keys PA contains 7,054.2 acres (5,471
parcels), which are vacant, and located within a tier designation. Most of the vacant
land (89.9 %) is located in Tier I comprised of 3,288 parcels (6,338.7 acres); 8.1
percent (1,724 parcels) are designated Tier III. The Lower Keys PA is the only PA
with 411 vacant parcels (1.1%) designated Tier II, which only applies to Big Pine
Key and No Name Key. Less than one percent of vacant land (31 parcels) is located
in Tier III -A.
The Middle Keys PA has 211.2 vacant acres or 304 vacant parcels, which are located
in a tier. Tier I contains 69.9 % (147.6 vacant acres), and Tier III has 30.1% (63.6
vacant acres). The Upper Keys PA includes 2,158.6 acres or 2,983 parcels of vacant
land within the Tier System. Most of the vacant acres are split up into two of the
tiers. Tier I has 69.5 % vacant acres (835 parcels or 1501 acres). Another 1,658
parcels (14.7 %) are located in Tier III, these parcels constitute 316.3 acres. Lastly,
3.7 percent of vacant acres, or 265 parcels are located in Tier III -A.
The Remainder of this Page Intentionally Left Blank
Chapter 2: Community -Wide Assessment 2-7 Evaluation and Appraisal Report
February 2012 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table 5 - Vacant Land by Tier and Planning Area
3,288
6,338.7
411
1,724
31
17
N/A
5,471
78.1
573.7
11.5
52.2
7,002.0
7,054.2
89.9%
20
147.6
1.1 %
0
8.1 %
284
0.2%
0
0.7%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
304
0.0
63.6
0.0
0.0
211.2
211.2
69.9%
835
0.0%
0
30.1%
1,658
0.0%
265
N/A
225
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,983
1,501.1
0.0
316.3
79.9
261.3
1,897.3
2,158.6
69.5%
4,143
0.0%
411
14.7%
3,666
3.7%
296
12.1%
242
N/A
N/A
N/A
8,758
7,987.4
84.8%
78.1
953.6
91.4
313.5
9,1104iil
424.0
0.8%
10.1%
1.0%
3.3%
N/A00%
Note: Percentage of Tier - slight differences due to rounding.
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2011, Geographic Information System file "MC-ELU_511'; Monroe
County Growth Management, 2011, Geographic Information System file "MC-FLUM-511"; Monroe County Growth
Management, 2011, Geographic Information System file "Tier-0110"
Tiers are:
I = Tier I - Natural Areas
II = Tier II (Big Pine Key and No Name Keys in the Lower Keys Planning Area only)
III = Tier III - InfilI Areas
III -A = Special Protection Area (SPA)
0 = Property does not have a Tier designation. Most of these occur in the Upper Keys and some
are right-of-way parcels. Some lots were not originally designated because of mapping errors;
the majority of which are currently being reviewed by the Tier Designation Review Committee
and wiII be designated at a later date.
Tier 0 is used for illustration purposes only and is not part of the analysis.
Vacant acres in all tiers after subtracting Tier 0.
Chapter 2: Community -Wide Assessment 2-8 Evaluation and Appraisal Report
February 2012 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Exhibit 3
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.
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.
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 1 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
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.
2
MINUTES OF THE
TIER DESIGNATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Tier Designation Review Committee
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Key Largo, Florida
A meeting of the Tier Designation Review Committee (TDRC) convened at 9:11 a.m. at the Murray E.
Nelson Government and Cultural Center. Present were Janice Duquesnel, Department of Environmental
Protection; Randy Grau, Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission; Curtis Kruer, Everglades Law Center;
Julie Cheon, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority; Winston Hobgood, U.S. Fish & Wildlife; 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; Townsley Schwab, Planning Director; Mayte Santamaria,
Assistant Planning Director; and Rebecca Jetton, Department of Community Affairs.
Board of County Commissioner Sylvia Murphy presented Committee Members Julie Cheon, Winston
Hobgood and Randy Grau with plaques thanking them for their dedication and participation in the Tier
Designation Review effort.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion to approve the September 30, 2010 and October 1, 2010 meeting
minutes. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Curtis Kruer,
Agreed; Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; and Winston Hobgood, Agreed.
MEETING
Mr. Roberts asked for and received permission to make a slight modification to the agenda to move up
the review of the tier policies related to wetlands due to some scheduling conflicts. Mr. Roberts framed
the issues for the Committee by explaining per the Administrative Law Judge's recommended order it
was determined that wetlands were not part of the tier designation criteria. The TDRC had asked staff
to evaluate how the Committee might continue to monitor the development of wetlands, particularly
with a Ter 3 landscape. Staff went back and reviewed the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) criteria
and scoring in particular to bring wetlands back into the ROGO scoring.
Mayte Santamaria presented two proposed comprehensive plan amendments to the ROGO point score
and the NROGO point score. Staff is proposing to include scoring criteria for wetlands. The proposed
language states: "The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications on Tier 3 parcels that
contain submerged lands and/or wetlands that require 100 percent open space pursuant to policies
102.1.1 and 204.2.1, and that are located either adjacent or contiguous to Tier 1 properties." Ms.
Santamaria would like to discuss with the Committee the choice of "adjacent" versus "contiguous."
Staff was considering a negative score of between two and five, but would like guidance from the
Committee as to the number.
Mr. Kruer asked how freshwater wetlands surrounded by uplands that are not contiguous with other
wetlands would be handled. Ms. Santamaria explained that if any of those types of wetlands were
Included in a Tier 3, if it were Isolated or not, If it were adjacent to Tier 1 it would still receive negative
points. Mr. Roberts pointed out that that is a very rare occurrence that there would be any type of
habitat of that nature within the interior of a Tier 3 landscape. Discussion was had regarding how to
treat disturbed wetlands. Mr. Roberts clarified that protection of disturbed wetlands is not being
undermined in anyway.
Ms. Hurley stated that staff plans to go through some scoring exercises as examples once the policy
parameters are set. New definitions will be developed to clarify the definitions of what is disturbed
versus undisturbed. Mr. Kruer commented that he wonders about using the definitions of "adjacent" or
"contiguous" to Tier 1 lots as a limitation for the negative points to apply. Ms. Santamaria explained
that staff thought it would be duplicative to give negative points for something that cannot be filled,
such as isolated wetlands that might have a freshwater pond, if it is not connected to a larger habitat.
Mr. Kruer stressed that, while he understands the value of dealing with large ecosystems or large areas
of habitat, there are also a lot of value to the fragments of wetlands that remain in the Keys, just like
there is values to the fragments of hammock that remain in the Keys. Ms. Santamaria said that staff is
trying to balance the tier system with protection of wetlands as well. Tier 3 parcels have already gone
through committee hearings and board approval and have been designated as areas to direct growth to.
Ms. Hurley reminded the Committee that if the site does not have 2,000 square feet of developable
land, meaning nonhabitat or nonwetland, it is not a ROGO eligible site. Dr. Frank clarified that this
policy would only apply to 100 percent open space lots, making this an additional layer of protection.
Ms. Hurley further explained that by putting some negative points you get the Tier 3s that are fully
scarified to move forward faster in the ROGO system than these others that may have some kind of
habitat worthy of protection.
This policy would not be retroactive to parcels already designated Tier 3. Parcels entering ROGO after
the effective date of this policy change would be subject to it. Ms. Cheon suggested adding language to
the contiguous definition that certain properties are part of 100 percent open space wetland that is
contiguous to a Tier 1 property. Mr. Kruer believes "adjacent" or "contiguous" language would be
Important to include here, except for U.S.1 causing a break. Mr. Hobgood stated that a road Is normally
a break in a wetland because it kills the hydrology. Mr. Hobgood stated that it seems with this polity it
would behoove a landowner to break wetlands out of their property and split the property into two
different parcels.
Mr. Roberts reminded the Committee that this policy is only applicable to Tier 3 parcels, and while in
theory that might work, in reality most property owners would not have a large enough lot to make it
two RE numbers and still have enough buildable space on the upland portion to be able to make it work.
And in order to dedicate land, it has to be buildable. Mr. Kruer agreed with the comment about roads
being a little bit of a concern in adjacency, but not as much as one might think sometimes, and using the
term "adjacent" as well to pull a little bit of additional wetland protection in larger areas would be
appropriate. Mr. Kruer thinks five negative points would be appropriate considering the native habitat
that is at stake.
Motion: Winston Hobgood made a motion that "contiguous" continue to be used in the same manner
as used before, which is not broken by a road.
19
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the code definitions include both "adjacent" and
"contiguous" as stated in this proposal and that U.S.1 does constitute a break. Mr. Hobgood withdrew
his motion.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the definition of "adjacent" be used, that Tier 3 parcels with
100 percent open space wetlands that are adjacent to Tier 1 parcels receive negative points, and that
any parcel that is part of the 100 percent open space wetland contiguous to the property by included.
Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,
Agreed; Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Randy Grau, Agreed.
Ms. Santamaria requested recommendations from the Committee on the points. Mr. Kruer feels using
this process to provide even more protection to naturally occurring undisturbed wetlands to promote
their protection for the future seems to be important. Mr. Kruer believes negative five to negative ten
points would be in the range that would be serious or important enough to put these parcels in a back
seat to the parcels that this process is really trying to have developed, which are Tier 3 parcels that are
totally disturbed land with no native hammock, pineland or native wetlands on them. Mr. Kruer also
believes it is important to provide information to the public that just because a property is designated
Tier 3 does not mean the entire parcel is suitable for inflll.
Mr. Kruer asked if the County had the ability to include additional requirements regarding wetlands.
Ms. Hurley emphasized staffs desire to get the tier system finished and not continue to modify it
countywide. Staff believes that by establishing negative points for parcels that have wetland
communities will do the same thing as countywide rezoning, without the expense of rezoning. Ms.
Santamaria again reminded the Committee these are for parcels with wetlands that require 100 percent
open space, not wetlands that can be filled. Mr. Grau asked how many open space wetlands end up in
conservation easements, and for what reasons would they be in conservation easements. Mr. Roberts
answered through Monroe County Code, conservation easements over wetland areas are not required.
The County requires a conservation easement over undisturbed upland areas as part of the
development process.
While agreeing the concept has merit, Mr. Roberts is concerned about the resources that would be
required to monitor this. Mr. Grau stated that at least there would be legal record that is recorded and
when somebody buys the property they see there is an easement, they know it has protection. Mr.
Hobgood added that it is extremely difficult to find somebody to hold the conservation easement. Dr.
Frank asked if there was a minimum size threshold. Mr. Roberts also reminded the Committee that they
are talking about wetlands that are already 100 percent open space under existing code. Mr. Roberts
agreed that size limits might be something that staff may need to try to address. Ms. Jetton believes
this underscores the need to map these undisturbed wetlands onto the tier maps so the Committee
knows more about what they are talking about. Ms. Jetton stated this idea seems like a good idea. Mr.
Roberts thinks it would be a rare occasion that there is a wetland with 100 percent open space within a
Tier 3 landscape that this is going to affect.
Mr. Roberts stated that, from his perspective, negative four points Is consistent with the application of
other deductions and additions that are provided for in ROGO, and that negative ten points for all
intents and purposes retiers that property, that it is too much. Ms. Cheon believes, when talking about
wetlands that are already protected, negative four or five points sounds reasonable. Mr. Hobgood
agreed.
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the negative points assigned to this situation in ROGO
would be negative five points. Janice Duquesnel seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the
following results: Randy Grau, Agreed; Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Julie Cheon, Agreed.
Mr. Roberts asked the Committee members if adding a point or two for a conservation easement should
be incorporated into the motion. Mr. Roberts informed the Committee that the biggest advantage to
that is when a violation is documented, there is a legal instrument to rely on that has an absolute set of
restrictions associated with it that the County can come back and enforce. Ms. Cheon suggested
including a requirement of a conservation easement instead of using a point system. Mr. Roberts said
he would hesitate to put that as a requirement simply because some easements have very limited value.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the negative five points could be reduced by two points if a
conservation easement is entered by the property owner protecting the wetlands and the required
buffer. Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice
Duquesnel, Agreed; Julie Cheon, Agreed; and Winston Hobgood, Agreed.
Ms. Jetton asked to hear the Committee Members' thoughts on giving a small amount of positive points
to undisturbed wetlands that people would be willing to donate to the County. Mr. Grau believes it
would be a worthwhile idea to get as much of that sensitive land and ownership as possible because
that Is easier than protecting it by regulating. Ms. Cheon thinks it is a valid idea, but wonders if the
County would end up with properties they really do not want to manage. Ms. Jetton clarified that she is
talking about undisturbed wetlands In Tier 1. Ms. Hurley added that staff is in favor of this. Mr. Roberts
clarified that in order for a parcel of land to be used as a dedicatable lot under ROGO, it has to have
2,000 square feet of buildable area, which could be uplands and/or disturbed wetlands that are able to
be filled in accordance with the code. Ms. Jetton discussed the importance of giving these lots a value.
Mr. Grau agreed.
A brief recess was held from 10:46 a.m. to 10:58 a.m.
The clearing limit policy discussion was had. Mayte Santamaria explained that this is a proposed
comprehensive plan amendment to address the clearing of upland hammock. This is to provide some
clarity and consistency between local governments here in the Keys. This is also a task that the
Administration Commission has given to Monroe County to complete. Ms. Santamaria stated that Policy
101.4.22 mistakenly includes cactus hammock and palm hammock as habitat in Ocean Reef. This policy
specifies that it not only applies to Tiers 1 and 2, but it also applies to Tier 3A, the special protection lots.
The existing clearing limit for Tier 1 Is 20 percent and it does not have a maximum clearing limit. Staff is
proposing a clearing limit of 20 percent or 3,000 square feet, whichever is greater, but no greater than
7500 square feet of the upland native habitat area. There would be an exception for driveways,
especially if it is a very large Tier 1 parcel. Staff has provided an allowance to allow for a driveway if
fragmentation is minimized, specimen trees are avoided and the shortest reasonable route possible is
taken.
For Tier 2 the existing clearing limit is 40 percent with no maximum. Staff is proposing including 3,000
square feet or a maximum of 7500 for the native upland vegetative area. For Tier 3 it remains the same
as the 40 percent, or 3,000 square feet, with a maximum of 7500 square feet. Then on the Special
Protection Area, Tier 3A, that is 40 percent, or 3,000 square feet, and 7500 square feet maximum. Both
the Tier 3 and Tier 3A also have the driveway allowance.
4
Different clearing limits have been provided in the Livable CommuniKeys documents and staff wants to
specify that County Policy 101.4.23 controls over the Livable CommuniKeys plans. Policy 101.4.24 is
simply renumbering it. Policy 105.2.27 is just changing the maximum from 5,000 to 7500 square feet.
Ms. Santamaria clarified for Mr. Hobgood that the clearing limits are just for the upland habitat areas.
Mr. Roberts added that existing code requires the applicant to cluster their development on the least
sensitive habitat first.
Mr. Kruer stated that he feels that by giving large property owners a driveway allowance this liberal
encourages encroachment into sensitive areas of the hammock. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff is
trying to provide options for people and to make sure that the development is sited in the most
appropriate areas, and that by adding the language "maximum 7500 square feet" is a dramatic decrease
in clearing allowances on large parcels. Dr. Frank agreed that the 7500 square feet maximum clearing
allowance is a significant amount of progress in conservation. Mr. Kruer added that the word
"endeavor" in the statement "The proposed driveway design shall endeavor to minimize fragmentation"
has no real legal requirement and is not enforceable. Ms. Jetton agreed that the word "endeavor"
should be stricken. Ms. Cheon pointed out that the language includes "per principal dwelling unit." Ms.
Santamaria agreed that it should be "per parcel."
Ms. Hurley further explained that when the staff would review development plans they would look at
where the house should be located. That has to be decided based on the code. The code right now says
It is a joint call between the County biologist and the Planning and Environmental Resources Director.
Mr. Roberts then clarified for Ms. Duquesnel that the words "recommended by" are used in the code,
but that site plan is subject to review, and if the proposed driveway alignment or house location varies
widely from staffs original recommendation, the plans are likely not going to be approved unless the
property owner has overriding consideration that results in staff changing their mind or agreeing with
the proposed location. Mr. Roberts also explained that the code is based on a broad brush community
type and does make the distinction between disturbed and undisturbed, but does not at this point
distinguish between low and high quality.
Mr. Kruer feels that even though it may be a reduction from what is on the books now, it still seems to
go beyond what is needed to allow development of these Tier 1 parcels. Mr. Roberts answered that
County Code allows staff to require the minimization of impact. Ms. Santamaria asked Ms. Jetton to
provide the reasoning behind the driveway allowance in the annual report to the Administration
Commission. Ms. Jetton explained that it was done to reduce the amount of clearing, and the previous
Growth Management Director had made an argument saying that many people want their houses near
the water and so these long driveways had to be provided for. Dr. Frank sees the situation that, yes,
hammock has been cleared, but a significant amount of hammock has also been preserved. Mr. Grau
pointed out that even if a homeowner did build up closer to the road, there would still be a path and
clearance to the water one way or another.
The need for an 18-foot clearing for a driveway was discussed. The history of the 40 percent clearing
limit in Ocean Reef was discussed.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the language under Tier 1 permitted clearing "per principal
dwelling unit" in the first paragraph be replaced with "per parcel," and that the proposed language
that says, `The proposed driveway design shall endeavor to minimize-." should be `The proposed
driveway design shall minimize fragmentation," and the same where appropriate on the other tiers.
Janice Duquesnel seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston
Hobgood, Agreed; Julie Cheon, Agreed; and Curtis Kruer, Disagreed.
Ms. Hurley presented Richard Grosso with his plaque In appreciation for his participation and effort in
the tier review process.
Mr. Roberts explained that staff has not prepared any proposed language or proposed revisions to
existing codes of policies on the combining of lots or the exotic policies because staff was not sure which
way to go. Both of these items were requested by the TDRC for staff to go back and review and
evaluate, and the Committee had requested an opportunity to weigh in on that. What has been
discussed at the staff level most frequently was the Inclusion of language that in the event of a lot split,
or the event of breaking a lot into separate RE numbers, that the most restrictive tier designation would
hold within the subsequent or new RE numbers. Staff is looking for more input from the Committee.
Ms. Cheon believes that there are so many variables, it would be difficult to make a policy decision and
put it in writing. Mr. Roberts also said that in the combining of parcels, the most restrictive tier would
continue to apply. The incentives for people to combine parcels were discussed. Mr. Kruer believes
having a policy that the most restrictive tier designation would apply is the most logical approach to the
problem. Ms. Jetton feels that the County should adopt an LDR that says lots that are aggregated shall
take the more restrictive tier unless a rezoning of the property occurs. Mr. Grau asked Mr. Grosso, who
was in the audience, for his thoughts on this topic. Mr. Grosso believes that adding that in the code
does not take away anything that anybody has now, but just prevents further changes.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion for a recommendation that the County include in their LDRs
when two parcels of different tiers are combined, the more restrictive tier applies. Winston Hobgood
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; Randy
Grau, Agreed; and Curtis Kruer, Agreed.
A luncheon recess was held from 11:59 a.m. to 1:11 p.m.
MAP SERIES
MAP 83
Mr. Roberts brought before the Committee Map Series 83. One parcel was inadvertently left
undesignated in prior meetings. The remaineder of the parcel is Tier 3 and is essentially part of a mining
operation. Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion to characterize that undesignated parcel as Tier 3.
Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood,
Agreed; Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; and Curtis Kruer, Agreed.
MAP A
Mr. Roberts explained to Mr. Kruer that the prior process was making sure that the Committee had two
opportunities to review the map series. This is the second opportunity for this map series to be
reviewed. It is at the Committee's discretion to reevaluate and discuss further or see just what the
current designations are and move on. The two small parcels in the upper right-hand corner consisting
of 2.36 acres of hammock were recommended to be SPA. Mr. Kruer questioned why those two small
parcels together that is contiguous with additional hammock did not rise to the level of Tier 1. Dr. Frank
reported that at his site visit he found the north portion to be hammock and the portion out in front to
be very disturbed. Ms. Cheon remembered a lot of discussion at prior meetings about the proximity to
6
U.S.1 and it being a very commercialized area. Mr. Kruer recognized it was obviously a fragmented
hammock, but a sizeable fragment compared to others that have been designated Tier 1 through the
process.
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the Committee reconsider the SPA designation for those
two parcels considering their size and redesignate them as Tier 1. Mr. Grau agreed that the two
parcels were clearly good to medium quality hammock and the rest of it is basically a parking lot with
canopy. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie
Cheon, Disagreed; Randy Grau, Agreed; and Janice Duquesnel, Agreed.
MAP B
Mr. Kruer stated that the minutes reflect that Mr. Grau had been to the site and it is less than high
quality hammock and everybody agreed, with one exception, to leave it as Tier 3. Mr. Kruer's interest in
suggesting that this be looked at was just for consistency, because it appears to be a parcel with
hammock that is directly connected to a bigger hammock and to be consistent it would need to be Tier
1. Site inspection revealed that it is not of the same quality as the larger hammock to the south.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that no changes be made on this map. Winston Hobgood
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie Cheon, Agreed; Janice
Duquesnel, Agreed; and Curtis Kruer, Agreed.
MAP C
Mr. Kruer stated that the minutes reflect this remained Tier 3 because it was surrounded on four sides
by development. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that this remain Tier 3 as previously
considered. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy
Grau, Agreed; Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Janice Duquesnel, Agreed.
MAP D
Mr. Kruer said that Map D has a hammock fragment that is surrounded by development. Mr. Kruer
reminded the Committee that in early consideration of how to approach this, the purpose was to
protect and maintain hammock fragments where they continued to exist. Ms. Cheon commented that
due to having the large shopping plaza across the way, it s located within a heavily improved subdivision,
heavily developed subdivision, she cannot see protecting this little chunk of hammock which does not
show high quality hammock from the aerial. Mr. Roberts remembers this particular group as being
canopy, not hammock. Mr. Kruer brought out that the minutes, which were just accepted, indicate it
was hammock of decent quality. Mr. Kruer believes the less amount of hammock there is in an area, the
more important it is to maintain what Is there. Ms. Duquesnel informed the Committee that just north
of these parcels is Adams Cut and just north of the cut are two large parcels owned by the County. Just
south of these parcels there is property that is associated with John Pennekamp State Park. Ms.
Duquesnel agreed with Mr. Kruer that these fragments do maintain some value because of connectivity.
Mr. Grau reported that at his site visit he found the hammock not to be of good quality and the whole
understory was ripped out except for most of the edges. Mr. Davisson added that the hammock
acreage is a little over a half acre, .58 acres.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the designation remain by the Committee previously of Tier
3. All of the parcels together were reported to be about .8 acre, a little less than an acre. Randy Grau
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed;
Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Curtis Kruer, Disagreed.
MAP E
Mr. Kruer stated that the previous decision was to leave them as Tier 3, but there was
acknowledgement that there were hammock fragments in there. Mr. Kruer again commented that one
of the original goals of this effort is to locate, identify, inspect and try to protect and maintain remaining
hammock fragments. Mr. Roberts added the hammock fragments are way less than an acre.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that they remain as designated by the Committee, Tier 3,
because there does not appear to be any new Information and they are less than an acre. Randy Grau
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed;
Winston Hobgood, Agreed, and Curtis Kruer, Disagreed.
MAP F
Dr. Frank reported that at his site visit he found the parcels to consist of curb and gutter and
landscaping. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that those parcels identified on Map F remain as
Tier 3. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston
Hobgood, Agreed; Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; and Julie Cheon, Agreed.
MAP G
Ms. Cheon stated that this area appears to be used as some sort of industrial yard. Motion: Julie Cheon
made a motion that this remain as designated, Tier 3, by the Committee. Winston Hobgood seconded
the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Grau, Agreed; and Janice Duquesnel,
Agreed.
MAP H
Mr. Kruer reported that the minutes reflect that the site had been inspected and it was found to be
mostly canopy trees remaining. The minutes reflected that Mr. Grau had been to the site and it is
mostly cleared of understory with houses on both sides. Lack of connectivity to hammock was
discussed.
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the parcel remain Tier 3 as previously designated. Julie
Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Grau, Agreed;
Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Janice Duquesnel, Agreed.
MAP I
Mr. Kruer reviewed the previous recommendations made on this map. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a
motion that the two parcels that are on the water be designated as Tier 1, consistent with the parcel
immediately to the west. Mr. Roberts read aloud the minutes from the meeting when the prior
recommendation was made. Mr. Grau said that at his site visit the parcel to the right had been
substantially cleared and there were a lot of scattered structures and buildings all through the parcel.
Motion: Based on the reading of the minutes and due to the fact that the left-hand parcel of the two
on the water is mapped as a substantial amount of hammock and it is contiguous with a large native
fragment of hammock, Curtis Kruer revised his motion to be that the parcel then be designated Tier 1
instead of SPA. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results:
Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; Julie Cheon, Disagreed; and Randy Grau, disagreed due to disturbance on
that parcel.
0
MAP J
Mr. Kruer explained the thought process going into Everglades Law Center (ELC) making a
recommendation here was that there is enough hammock fragments remaining in this area to give it
some special consideration. Ms. Cheon stated that both she and Mr. Grau did extensive site visits In this
area. Mr. Roberts explained that the two larger parcels were left as a SPA because it is not connected to
anything and the houses constitute a break in the code.
Motion: Mr. Kruer made a motion to redesignate the two larger parcels Tier 1 consistent with what is
Immediately to the north and based on the existence of native habitat. Mr. Hobgood questioned what
extra protection that would afford hammock on this property since it looks like they have already
cleared their 40 percent. Ms. Cheon remembered the smaller lot previously being designated SPA and
the larger parcel to the right being Tier 1, and stated that she still agreed with those designations. Mr.
Kruer compared different parcels and pointed out inconsistencies in designations. Mr. Roberts
responded that it was not appropriate to compare properties where the tier designation was not
challenged and not reviewed by this Committee with decisions that the Committee made, and the
properties should be evaluated based on its existing habitat and value and the criteria of the tier
designations as they exist today. Mr. Davisson reported that the large hammock to the northeast is 14.7
acres. The two parcels that are now SPA together are 4.77 acres. Mr. Kruer renewed his motion. Ms.
Cheon feels that keeping the designation SPA is consistent with the other decisions that have been
made by the Committee. Ms. Grimsley explained that all state and publicly -owned lands are Tier 1 no
matter what is on them.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the larger parcel remain SPA and the smaller parcel be
designated Tier 1. Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results:
Julie Cheon, Disagreed; Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Janice Duquesnel, Agreed.
MAP K
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the previous designations for the other parcels on the map
remain in place. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results:
Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; Randy Grau, Agreed; and Winston Hobgood, Agreed.
MAP L
Mr. Kruer stated the minutes reflected that this parcel was a half an acre surrounded by development
and it fronts on U.S.I. Mr. Kruer again feels that since it is a fragmented hammock that is in decent
shape, they should be maintained where possible.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion to keep it as previously designated by the Tier Committee, Tier 3.
Janice Duquesnel seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Grau,
Agreed; Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Curtis Kruer, Agreed.
MAP M
Motion: Custis Kruer made a motion that the designations agreed on Map M remain. Julie Cheon
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood, Agreed; Randy
Grau, Agreed; and Janice Duquesnel, Agreed.
MAP N
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the designations previously assigned by the Committee
remain the same. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following
results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; Randy Grau, Agreed; and Curtis Kruer, Agreed.
MAP O
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the parcels remain as previously designated by the
Committee. Janice Duquesnel seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results:
Winston Hobgood, Agreed; Randy Grau, Agreed; and Curtis Kruer, Agreed.
MAP P
Mr. Grau stated that the only native habitat on the large parcel to the north is mangroves. Mr. Kruer
pointed out that the three lots to the south were contiguous with Tier 1. Mr. Kruer believes that those
three lots should have been made Tier 1, so as to make it obvious those three lots are not suitable for
infill. Ms. Cheon responded that the Committee could not do it based on the criteria they were given to
review these lots.
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that those three lots to the south be redesignated due to their
wetland condition as Tier 1 consistent with what is next to them. Mr. Roberts explained that the
Committee cannot revisit every wetland looked at and previously reviewed and wetlands are not part of
the tier designation criteria. If there is not upland habitat on the parcel, then there is no nexus for a SPA
and no nexus for Tier 1. Mr. Kruer questioned the Tier is on that same page. Mr. Davisson stated they
are In Florida Forever. Mr. Roberts explained that there will be 100 percent Tier 1 wetland parcels
currently in the code and currently mapped as Tier 1 because they were designated prior to the
challenge and prior to the revised tier designation criteria. Mr. Hobgood stated that it seems like the
purpose of today's review has changed into a challenge of previous decisions. Mr. Kruer withdrew his
motion.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that based on all research done prior, that the parcels remain the
same as previously designated by the Tier Committee. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was
taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Curtis
Kruer, Agreed.
MAP Q
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that this map remain the same as designated by the Tier
Committee prior. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following
results: Curtis Kruer, Disagreed; and Randy Grau, Agreed.
A brief recess was held from 2:37 p.m. to 2:53 p.m.
MAP R
Ms. Cheon remembered a lot of discussion on this map previously. Dr. Frank reported that this contains
understory completely. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the decisions made on R stand as
applied. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice
Duquesnel, Agreed; Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Julie Cheon, Disagreed.
10
MAP S
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the prior designations remain based on finding the
properties to be disturbed on site visits. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken
with the following results: Julie Cheon, Agreed; Curtis Kruer, Agreed; and Winston Hobgood, Agreed.
MAP T
Mr. Grau remembered that this parcel ended up being less than an acre and was a little bit disturbed.
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that it remain Tier 3. Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote
was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood, Agreed; Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; and Julie
Cheon, Agreed.
MAP U
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion these remain as previously designated by the Committee.
Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice
Duquesnel, Agreed; Randy Grau, Agreed; and Curtis Kruer, Agreed.
MAP V
Mr. Grau remembered that there was previously discussion about keeping it as Tier 1, but there were
some changes made because of the wetland issue. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion these remain
as previously designated. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the
following results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; Randy Grau, Agreed; and Julie Cheon, Agreed.
MAP W
Mr. Kruer again commented that it would seem to be an easy matter to designate this Tier 1 and be
done with it. Mr. Kruer suggested including some statement in the definitions to make it real clear that
wetlands on a Tier 3 parcel are not necessarily suitable for infill. This would be another example where
Mr. Kruer would make a motion that these mangrove wetlands be designated Tier 1. Mr. Roberts
informed Mr. Hobgood that the Committee previously designated this Tier 3 and it is 100 percent
wetland. Mr. Roberts agreed that there should be some language somewhere that clarifies just because
It is Tier 3 does not necessarily mean that it is developable, and that will probably be addressed in the
upcoming year.
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion to take these two parcels, which are all tidal mangroves, and
redesignate them Tier 1. Mr. Grau agreed with Mr. Kruer and stated that this is one recommendation
that will be sent to the BOCC. Mr. Roberts reported that staff will be moving forward with the language
revisions discussed this morning as far as the wetland integration into ROGO scoring and the clearing
limits, but Mr. Roberts was unsure when this committee would convene again. Ms. Grimsley added that
Mr. Grosso had approached her with a suggestion to put something in the land development code that
did not require an amendment to the comprehensive plan to the effect that wetlands designated as Ter
3 may have other restrictions, something that would address the concern that people from out of town
would come in and buy something unknowingly.
Motion: Mr. Grau made a motion to leave it as previously designated because of the problem with It
being 100 percent mangroves. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following
results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Curtis Kruer, Disagreed.
11
MAP X
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the three homes remain as designated previously by the Tier
Committee. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results:
Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; Randy Grau, Agreed; and Curtis Kruer, Disagreed.
Mr. Roberts asked the Committee to address the parcel with RE Number 00126420.000000 and
00126430.000000. Mr. Roberts explained that there is language in the recommended order and in the
final order from the Administrative Law Judge that the area designated by Trivette be changed to Tier 3.
Unfortunately, nobody has been able to locate the specific map that the Administrative Law Judge was
referring to when he said "the area designated by Trivette." The best that can be determined is that the
Administrative Law Judge was referring to two parcels, one parcel consisting of 100 percent mangrove
and the other parcel consisting of what is locally known as the racetrack. Staff asked that this area be
redesignated Tier 3 consistent with the tier designation criteria as they exist today and as directed by
the Administrative Law Judge in the hearing process.
Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion to designate those two parcels Tier 3 as directed by the
Administrative Law Judge and by the fact that there is no hammock on the property. Mr. Kruer stated
that this is a classic case where they are designated Tier 3, even though they are 100 percent open space
ratio, and they will have to be dealt with again in the future because of the zoning that was applied to
them. Mr. Grau reluctantly seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice
Duquesnel, Agreed; Winston Hobgood, Agreed.
The Administrative Law Judge's recommended order was reviewed. Mr. Kruer pointed out that the
order states it should be Tier 1. Mr. Kruer stated that the outright rejection of having some wetlands be
Tier 1 is not supported by that order. Ms. Cheon withdrew her motion.
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that those two parcels remain designated Tier 1. Randy Grau
seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood, Agreed; Janice
Duquesnel, Agreed; and Julie Cheon, Agreed.
MAP Y
Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that all of the Tier 1 designations for the offshore islands
represented be maintained. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the
following results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; and Julie Cheon, Agreed.
Mr. Roberts announced that was the end of the map review. Mr. Kruer thanked the County for an
excellent job in preparing this information and doing the GIS work. Mr. Grau agreed. Mr. Roberts
pointed out that was a result of the efforts of Bryan Davisson, Senior GIS Coordinator.
The last discussion had was regarding policy and/or strategies to remove incentives for allowing exotics
to spread. Mr. Roberts reported that current County Code states that 40 percent or greater nuisance or
exotic vegetation coverage breaks the connection with the hammocks. The discussion has been
whether or not that particular policy constituted an incentive for a property owner to allow nuisance
and exotic vegetation to expand on their site with the ultimate goal being to break that one -acre
connection. Mr. Grau believes that is a real concern, especially after the public having gotten more
educated to that factor by attending the TDRC meetings. Mr. Grau also believes it is arbitrary and
disagrees with that as a use to create a boundary or a break. The actual definition within the criteria
does not actually reference what vegetation is included.
12
Mr. Kruer suggested the County limit the exotics to certain plants and that minimizing the disturbance of
hammock is one means of preventing exotic vegetation from spreading. Mr. Roberts added they would
not evaluate it from the perspective of ground cover unless it was the dominant and structural
component of that upland system. What would be looked at would be whether the component of the
canopy of the subcanopy is exotic. Different exotic plants that would outcompete native plants were
discussed. Mr. Roberts agreed that a list of exotics in the code needs to be more specific. Mr. Hobgood
believes the number 40 percent has no basis in fact. Mr. Roberts believes part of the exotic vegetation
problem is the extent of absentee ownership in the Keys and the simple fact that most people who own
vacant property in the Keys buy it and don't see it again for ten years. The County does not have the
resources to go and do a nuisance and exotic vegetation removal on those parcels. The County does
require removal of all nuisance and exotic vegetation from a parcel in conjunction with a development
permit.
Mr. Grau asked Ms. Duquesnei, Chairman of the Nuisance and Exotic Task Force, if the task force at their
next meeting would discuss a possible list to give to the County to use for specifying certain plants in the
County Code. Mr. Grau also suggested that the task force should review if 40 percent is the correct
percentage to use in determining when a hammock is no longer a hammock because it is a disturbed
hammock, which would constitute a break.
Mr. Roberts stated that he does not believe there is any further business that would require the TDRC
convening in September because staff needs to take what the Committee has done thus far and run it
through the process.
The Tier Designation Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:56 p.m.
13
S
An application which
includes the dedication to Monroe County of a vacant, legally platted lot
of 5,000 square feet or more in size, designated as Residential Low on
the future land use map with a maximum:net density within a Tier I.area
and containing:sufficient upland area to be buildable. Each additional
vacant, legally platted lot that meets the aforementioned requirements
will earn points as specified.
+0.5 ,
area district(NA) or sparsely.settled district(SS) in a designated tier I
area. Each additional vacant, legally platted, buildable lot that Meets the
An application;
which includes the dedication to Monroe County of one (1) vacant,
legally platted lot of at least 5,000 square feet in size within a Tier I area,
designated as Residential Conservation or Residential Low on the future
land use map, With nomaximum net density, containing sufficient upland
to be buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
+4
,
,
An
application which includes the dedication to Monroe County of at least
one (1) acre of vacant, unplatted land located within a Tier I area
containing sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional one(1) acre
of vacant, unplatted land that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn points as specified.
+2 On Big Pine;Key and No Name Key, an application which,includes the
dedication to the county_of at least one acre.of vacant, unplatted, .
buildable land located within a designated tier I area. Each additional one
acre of vacant, unplatted, buildable land that meets the above
requirements will earn,the points as specified.
+2 An application which includes the dedication one (1) vacant; legally
platted lot which contains undisturbed wetlands. Each additional vacant,
legally platted lot that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn
points as specified.
+2.5 Proposes dedication to Monroe.County of one(1) vacant, legally platted
lot,.designated:as Tier I, of sufficient minimum lot size and containing
sufficient upland area to be"buildable. Each additional vacant, legally
platted lot that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn points as.
specified.
+2 An application which includes the dedication to Monroe County of one
(1) vacant, legally platted lot, designated as Tier III-A(Special Protection
Area-SPA) Of sufficient minimum lot size and containing sufficient
6