Item V1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: October 16 2013 Division-,&E MMM Growth Man
��a ettt
Bulk Item: Yes No X Staff Contact Person/Phone#: Christine Q�n �Hurle�289-2�517
AGENDA ITEM ® A public hearing to consider an ordinance by the Monroe County ® of
County Commissioners amending Monroe County Code §10 1-1, Definitions, to revise the definition of Coastal
Barrier Resources System (CBRS) to be consistent with the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act; amending
§130-122, Coastal Barrier Resources System Overlay District to distinguish between Federal and County
purposes; revising teapplication of the CBRS overlay district to be consistent with CBRS objectives and
policies of the Monroe County Year 20 10 Comprehensive Plan.
(Legislative Proceeding)
ITEM BACKGROUND: The County has adopted Comprehensive Plan Policies (attached) and Land
Development Code (LDC) regulations (attached with recommended changes) which both discourage and
prohibit the extension of utilities to or through areas designated as units of the S.
Keith and Schnars, P.A. (K&S) prepared "Analysis of Coastal Barrier Resources System Policies and
Regulations in Monroe County, Florida" data and analysis regarding the existing CBRS Comprehensive Plan
and LDC policies and their recommendations based on professional analysis of extending utilities into CBRS
areas.
In summary, K&S found, "If the CBRS overlay district was eliminated, CBRS System Units would still be
protected from development by the County's Tier System (virtually all CBRS lands are within Tier 1, and
ROGO has proved to be effective at minimizing development in Tier I lands)."K&S further stated, "Based on
this review of development activities in the CBRS, it appears that the County's ROGO/Tier System policies
have generally been effective in limiting development in the CBRS."
K&S recommended that the County amend the LDC and Comprehensive Plan to continue to ensure that
development (including infrastructure expansion) in the CBRS is discouraged but not prohibited (maintaining
the Comprehensive Plan's"discourage"policy),through a 2-phase approach.Under direction from the BOCC to
proceed with the recommended amendments, this proposed text amendment fulfills Phase I of K&S's LDC
recommendations:
1) Amend LDC §130-122 to eliminate the "prohibition" regulation regarding extension of public
utilities to or through lands designated as a CBRS unit, and make consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan's "discourage" language. Establish a presumption against development in CBRS lands which can
be rebutted only by obtaining approval through the ROGO/Tier System.
2) Modify the LDC to eliminate the language relating to infrastructure or utilities passing "through"
CBRS Units.
3) Modify the LDC to clarify that extension and expansion of central wastewater lines are allowable
through and in CBRS System Units. Connecting parcels to a central wastewater system is a key
component to improving water quality in the County.
4) Modify LDC §130-122(a) (Purpose) to be consistent with the policy purpose of the Federal Coastal
Barrier Resources Act(CBRA)of 1982.
5) Modify the LDC to state that areas within CBRS System Units are ineligible for most County
expenditures and financial assistance for new infrastructure, except for central wastewater service and
exemptions consistent with the federal restrictions under CBRA(such as emergency work).
to will address Phase 2 recommendation within the EAR-based Comprehensive Plan amendments and
corresponding LDC amendments including:
6) Maintain the Comprehensive Plan "discourage" policies. Establish a presumption against
development in CBRS lands which can be rebutted only by obtaining approval through the ROGO/Tier
System.
7}Modify ROGO so that negative point(s)are assigned to all parcels in the C —this would require
both Comprehensive Plan and LDC amendments.
8) Maintain other point criteria in GG GGO to ensure that the Fier System does not
assign positive points or reward parcels based on the addition of other infrastructure(i.e,roads,electric
service,and fresh water supply)proposed or added er the date of designation as CBRS land.
9) Maintain the existing Comprehensive Plan policy limiting new access (via new bridges, new
causeways,new paved roads,or new commercial marinas)to or on units of the CBRS,
RELEVANTPREVIOUS C r On January 16, 2013, and February 26, 2013, the BOCC
discussed and approved the Eighth (8 ) Amendment to the agreement for professional services with , for
additional services to evaluate the CBRS Comprehensive Plan policies and LDC to determine whether they add
any additional protection to land over and above Comprehensive Plan and LDC provisions that govern the Tier
System,with an analysis of infrastructure expansion, including additional analysis suggested by the public.
On May 15, 2013, the BOCC discussed the results of the "Analysis of Coastal Barrier Resources System
Policies Regulations in Monroe County, Florida," data and analysis, prepared for the BOCC by
regarding the CBRS and the County's CBRS Comprehensive Plan policies and LDC. At that meeting, the
(JCC directed Growth Management staff to proceed with the recommendations of the report which included
Phase I amendments to the LDC (the subject of this text amendment) and Phase 11 amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and the LDC(to be processed with the Evaluation and Appraisal Report amendments).
At the September 17,2013 BOCC meeting,the BOCC continued the proposed amendment to the October public
hearing.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: /
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:Approval
TOTAL C — r Yes No
DIFFERENTIALC L
COST TO CSOURCE
PRODUCING:REVENUE "Yes® o Year
APPROVED 1': County Arty chasingRisk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not
Required—
AGENDA I
1 Y
2
3
4
5
6 ORDINANCE NO. - 2013
7
8 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
9 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE
10 COUNTY CODE SECTION 101-1, DEFINITIONS, TO
11 REVISE THE DEFINITION OF COASTAL BARRIER
12 RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) TO BE CONSISTENT
13 WITH THE FEDERAL COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES
14 ACT; AMENDING SECTION 130-122, COASTAL BARRIER
15 RESOURCES SYSTEM OVERLAY DISTRICT TO
16 DISTINGUISH BETWEEN FEDERAL AND COUNTY
17 PURPOSES; REVISING THE APPLICATION OF THE
18 CBRS OVERLAY DISTRICT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
19 CBRS OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE MONROE
20 COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
21 PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
22 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING
23 FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
24 AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
25 PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN
26 EFFECTIVE DATE.
27
28
29
30 WHEREAS, the County has adopted Comprehensive Plan Policies and Land
31 Development Code (LDC) regulations which both discourage and prohibit the extension of
32 utilities to or through areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System; and
33
34 WHEREAS, on February 26, 2013, the BOCC approved a contract amendment for
35 professional services with Keith and Schnars (K&S), P.A., for additional services to evaluate the
36 CBRS Comprehensive Plan policies to determine whether they add any additional protection to
37 land over and above Comprehensive Plan and LDC provisions that govern the Tier System,
38 including an analysis of the percentage of land and number of parcels within the CBRS units by
39 tier designation; whether infrastructure extension to outlying neighborhoods or other platted
40 areas increases a parcel's likelihood of being able to obtain a favorable recommendation, based
41 on tier criteria, to change a tier classification from Tier I to Tier II, III, or III-A; and additional
42 analysis based on suggestions from the public; and
43
44 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 151h day of May, 2013, the
45 BOCC discussed the results of the "Analysis of Coastal Barrier Resources System Policies and
Page 1 of 5
I Regulations in Monroe County, Florida," data and analysis, prepared for the BOCC by K&S,
2 regarding the CBRS and the County's CBRS Comprehensive Plan policies and LDC; and
3
4 WHEREAS, in summary, the K&S report found if the CBRS overlay ordinance was
5 eliminated, CBRS system units would still be protected from development by the County's tier
6 system; and
7
8 WHEREAS, the K&S report recommended the County amend the LDC and
9 Comprehensive Plan through a phased approach to continue to ensure that development in the
10 CBRS is discouraged (maintain the Comprehensive Plan's "discourage"policy); and
11
12 WHEREAS, at the May 15, 2013 meeting the BOCC directed Growth Management staff
13 to proceed with the recommendations of the report, including phase 1 and phase 2 amendments
14 to the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC; and
15
16 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the
17 proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 25`h day of June, 2013 and
18 recommended approval; and
19
20 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 31" day of July, 2013, the
21 Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider, review and receive
22 public comment for the proposed amendment to the Monroe County Code and recommended
23 approval of the amendment; and
24
25 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 17`h day of September, 2013,
26 the BOCC continued the proposed amendment to the Monroe County Code to the next BOCC
27 public hearing; and
28
29 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 16`h day of October, 2013, the
30 BOCC held a public hearing to consider, review and receive public comment for a proposed
31 amendment to the Monroe County Code; and
32
33 WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions and intent of the
34 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan; and
35
36 WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is necessary due to new issues and recognition of
37 a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness as required by Section 102-158 of the Monroe
38 County Code; and
39
40 WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding
41 Development for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Section 380.0552(7), Florida
42 Statutes;
43
44
45
Page 2 of 5
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
2 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
3
4 Section 1. The Monroe County Code is amended as follows: (Deletions are strielen thfeugh and
5 additions are underlined.)
6
7
8 Sec. 101-1.—Definitions.
9
10
11
12 Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) means those 15 (CBRS) s sy tem units, excluding
13 Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs),n the County, except for the improved port property
14 along the Safe Harbor entrance channel within system unit FL-57 as shown on the man
15 attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein, designated under the federal Coastal Barrier
16 Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982, comprising relatively undeveloped coastal barriers and all
17 associated aquatic habitats including wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets and near shore
18 waters. System units are generally comprised of lands that were relatively undeveloped at the
19 time of their designation within the CBRS. The boundaries of these units are desi agn ted by
20 the U.S. Department of the Interior and the boundaries are generally intended to follow
21 geomorphic, development, or cultural features. Most new federal expenditures and financial
22 assistance, including flood insurance, are restricted within system units System units are
23 identified and depicted on the current flood insurance rate maps approved by the Federal
24 Emergency Management Agency. Only the United States Congress can revise CBRS
25 boundaries.
26
27
28
29
30
31 Sec. 130-122.—Coastal barrier resources system overlay district (CBRS).
32
33 (a) Federal Purpose. The purpose of the federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) is
34 to discourage further development in certain undeveloped portions of coastal barriers and
35 remove the federal incentive to develop these areas. The federal law limits new federal
36 expenditures and financial assistance, including flood insurance. These federal public
37 expenditure limitations have the effect of discouraging development in areas the U.S.
38 Department of the Interior designates as coastal barriers within the Coastal Barrier Resources
39 System (CBRS). The CBRS protects coastal areas that serve as barriers against wind and
40 tidal forces caused by coastal storms, and serve as habitat for a uatic species
41
42 (b) County Purpose. The County includes the federal CBRS system units excluding OPAs
43 located within unincorporated Monroe County, except for the improved port property along
44 the Safe Harbor entrance channel within system unit FL-57 as an overlay district The
45 purpose of the County's coastal barrier resources system overlay district is to implement the
46 policies of the comprehensive plan by discoura ing the extension and expansion
47 of specific types of.,,,blie utilities public facilities and/or electric services and/or telephone
Page 3 of 5
I services to ugh lands designated as a s stem unit of the eeasW baffie-- reset ees
2 syst n-CBRS.
3
4 (b)LcclApplication. The coastal barrier resources system overlay district shall be overlaid on
5 all areas, except for the improved port property along the Safe Harbor entrance channel
6 within system unit FL-57Steek Island, within federally designated boundaries of a eeastal
7 CBRS system unit on current (February 18, 2005) flood insurance
8 rate maps approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which are hereby
9 adopted by reference and declared part of this chapter.
10 Within this overlay district, the transmission and/or collection lines of the following types of
11 publie utilifiespiuIblic facilities and/or electric services and/or telephone services shall be
12 discourage 1pfo ibited from extension or expansion: a ntf-al ♦ LJto a*e" treatment eelle
13 &ystems—potable water,; electricity, and telephone and ems.
14 pr-eelude-the The maintenance restoration, replacement and upgrading of existing publie
15 uespublic facilities and/or electric services and/or telephone services is not discouraged
16 The County may allow extension or expansion of these facilities and services if consistent
17 with Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.12.4. ifl. „'ffi e e the e ff efi date e f the r-d Vll 1.11V V11VVL1YV
18 ftem whieh this see fien is derived an This discouragement shall not apply to wastewater
19 nutrient reduction cluster systems or central wastewater treatment collection systems, which
20 are encouraged.
21
22 For vacant property within the CBRS overlay district, it is presumed that non-CBRS lands
23 are available for development and that development within CBRS system units can be
24 avoided. This presumption may be rebutted only if the owner(s) of the vacant CBRS property
25 obtains approval through the County's ROGO/NROGO/Tier system.
26 (d) County Public Improvements. Except for wastewater systems within the CBRS overlay
27 district, County public tax dollars and/or County financial assistance should not be used for
28 new public facilities and/or electric services and/or telephone services unless an analysis is
29 conducted pursuant to Policy 101.12.4, and:
30
31 1. Based on the analysis, the BOCC makes a specific finding that such new
32 i_provements are to protect the public health, safety and welfare no reasonable
33 alternatives exist to the proposed location and the proposed location is approved
34 by a supermajority of the BOCC, and/or
35
36 2. Such new improvements and/or financial assistance are consistent with the federal
37 exce tip ons pursuant to section 6 of the CBRA.
38
39 Section 2. Severability. If any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or provision of
40 this ordinance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
41 judgment shall not affect, impair, invalidate, or nullify the remainder of this ordinance, but the
42 effect thereof shall be confined to the section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence, or
43 provision immediately involved in the controversy in which such judgment or decree shall be
44 rendered.
45
Page 4 of 5
f nit vimon of this
ty rule code
4
AMINAMnaftL This OrdinanceState
Agency as w4uiredby F.S.380.05(11) d F.S. °055 )m
7
of the Secretary of die State of
b Order d is° by
1 m ti iffi d
the Florida sute
1 I Y
12
13 f
1
f fFlorida,
15 �W=�and
Y to
16 ° and shall be
conform to the uniform
17
19 n�ordinance shall become effeWve as provided by law ad stated
19 ab �e his D£ to MY Pamit, andlor other development approval application
20
21
22 PAWED AND ADOPM by the Bond of County Commissioners
Florida,23 t held 2013.
24
25
26 Mayor George
27
e t
Mayor pro km Heather Carruthers
28 Commissioner
29 CommissionerDavid Rice
30 COmmissiow Sylvia Murphy
1
32 MONROR COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY CONM&WlONZRS
3
34 to AMY HEAVMIN,CLERK
35
36 By
37 Y
Mayort
1,4ONROE COUNTY ATTORNE,
APR M D AS TO FORM.
RI.,
mm
�I
� I
a
00123720-000400
J
y
�1 @
pad
CBRS Sys#em ni# FL-S -=--�
00123660-000 00
I
Excluded Parcels Identified as "Improved Port Property" in CBRS System Unit FL-57
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Through: Christine Hurley, AICP, Director of Growth Management
Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning& Environmental Resources
From: Mayte Santamaria, Assistant Director of Planning
Emily Schemper, Senior Planner
Date: October 7, 2013
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY CODE SECTION 101-1,
DEFINITIONS, TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF COASTAL BARRIER
RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT, AMENDING SECTION 130-122,
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM OVERLAY DISTRICT TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN FEDERAL AND COUNTY PURPOSES, REVISING
THE APPLICATION OF THE CBRS OVERLAY DISTRICT TO BE CONSISTENT
WITH CBRS OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR
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: October 16, 2013
I. REQUEST
This is a request from the Planning & Environmental Resources Department to amend Sections
101-1 and 130-122 of the Monroe County Code to revise the definition, purpose and application
of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) overlay district. This request follows direction
by the Board of County Commissioners on the recommendations included within the "Analysis
of Coastal Barrier Resources System Policies and Regulations in Monroe County, Florida," data
and analysis, prepared by Keith and Schnars, P.A., regarding the CBRS and the County's CBRS
Comprehensive Plan policies and Land Development Code.
File#2013-067
Page 1 of 8
II. BACKGROUND/RELEVANT PRIOR COUNTY ACTIONS
The County has adopted Comprehensive Plan Policies and Land Development Code (LDC)
regulations which both discourage and prohibit the extension of utilities to or through areas
designated as units of the CBRS.
On January 16, 2013, the BOCC discussed a contract amendment for professional services with
Keith and Schnars (K&S), P.A., for additional services to evaluate the CBRS Comprehensive
Plan policies to determine whether they add any additional protection to land over and above
Comprehensive Plan and LDC provisions that govern the Tier System, including an analysis of
the percentage of land and number of parcels within the CBRS units by tier designation and
whether infrastructure extension to outlying neighborhoods or other platted areas increases a
parcel's likelihood of being able to obtain a favorable recommendation, based on tier criteria, to
change a tier classification from Tier I to Tier II, III, or III-A.
At the January 16, 2013 BOCC meeting, several speakers suggested that additional analysis be
conducted, beyond the tier designations policy review. The BOCC requested staff to review the
public input provided at the January meeting and requested staff to contact those who
commented at the BOCC meeting for a description of the additional analysis they suggest should
be added to the scope of services for the proposed K&S contract amendment.
On February 26, 2013, the BOCC discussed the contract amendment for professional services
with K&S, with the additional analysis suggested by the public, and approved the Eighth (8th)
Amendment to the agreement for professional services with K&S, for additional services to
evaluate the CBRS Comprehensive Plan policies and LDC.
On May 15, 2013, the BOCC discussed the results of the"Analysis of Coastal Barrier Resources
System Policies and Regulations in Monroe County, Florida,"data and analysis,prepared for the
BOCC by K&S, regarding the CBRS and the County's CBRS Comprehensive Plan policies and
LDC. The complete report is attached as Exhibit 2. At that meeting, the BOCC directed Growth
Management staff to proceed with the recommendations of the report (shown on page 4, and
attached as Exhibit 1), which included Phase I amendments to the LDC (the subject of this text
amendment).
Phase II recommendations from the report include amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
the LDC, which will be processed with the Evaluation and Appraisal Report amendments. Of
note, even after these Comprehensive Plan amendments are adopted, to maintain the
discouragement policy for certain facilities and services, expansions could still occur through the
application and analysis in Policy 101.12.4.
Policy 101.12.4
Monroe County shall require that the following analyses be undertaken prior to
finalizing plans for the siting of any new or the significant expansion (greater than
25 percent) of any existing public facility:
File#2013-067
Page 2 of 8
1. assessment of needs;
2. evaluation of alternative sites and design alternatives for the alternative
sites; and,
3. assessment of direct and secondary impacts on surrounding land uses and
natural resources.
The assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources will
evaluate the extent to which the proposed public facility involves public
expenditures in the coastal high hazard area and within environmentally sensitive
areas, including disturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands, undisturbed beach
berm areas, units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, undisturbed uplands
(particularly high quality hammock and pinelands), habitats of species considered to
be threatened or endangered by the state and/or federal governments, offshore
islands, and designated Tier I areas.
Except for passive recreational facilities on publicly-owned land, no new public
community or utility facility other than water distribution and sewer collection lines
or pump/vacuum/lift stations shall be allowed within Tier I designated areas or Tier
III Special Protection Area unless it can be accomplished without clearing of
hammock or pinelands. Exceptions to this requirement may be made to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare, if all the following criteria are met:
1. No reasonable alternatives exist to the proposed location; and
2. The proposed location is approved by a supermajority of the Board of
County Commissioners.
e site of the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Facility (located at mile marker
100.5) with an allowed clearing of up to 4.2 acres shall not be subject to this policy.
Note - Section 163.3164, F.S., defines public facilities as "major capital improvements,
including transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks
and recreational facilities."
During a regularly scheduled meeting held on June 25, 2013, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee considered the proposed amendment and recommended approval.
During a regularly scheduled meeting held on July 31, 2013, the Monroe County Planning
Commission held a public hearing to consider, review and receive public comment for the
proposed amendment and recommended approval of the amendment to the BOCC (Resolution
P22-13, see Exhibit 3).
File#2013-067
Page 3 of 8
I ,
II I Illu i ��Il�uun� Iluiiiii �Iliiuii i ��
POLICYTIONS prone areas bear the full cost of development
rebuilding.The policyshouldr new construction
It is widely accepted that development in floodplains and away from risky,environmentally sensitive places
coastal areas is not consistent with the goals of good whilei i i i impacts to communities here
comprehensive planning and sustainaility. Based on this substantial commitments i a and moneyhave
review of development activities in the CBRS,it appears that been made,
the County's R /Tier System policies have generally
been effective in limiting development in the CBRS. S.Modify the LDC to state that areas within
UnitsSystem ineligible r most County
It is recommended that the County maintain an effective expenditures and financial assistance for new
policy of discouraging development in the CBRS. Further, infrastructure, except for central wastewater
as a general rule,the County should not invest in and/or service and exemptions consistent the federal
authorize new infrastructure projects that facilitate or restrictions r CBRA (such emergency
induce the approval of new developments in the C R . r ). Individuals who choose to live and invest
in these hazard-prone areas bear the full cost of
The following policy framework is recommended to ensure development and rebuildinginstead of passingi
that development in the CBRS is discouraged.This policy on to County ;
could be implemented in two phases with each becoming
effective immediately upon adoption by the BOCC of the Phase 11
required policy/code changes.
ain i "discourage" language in CBRS
Phase I Comprehensive Plan Pblicy� Consistent with
c (recommendation 1),clarifythe
I.Modify remove CBRS "prohibit" policy's intent by establishingpresumption is
language "discourage" language that development in CBRS lands.This presumption can
establishes a presumption againstdevelopment lobtaining r v l through the
in CBRS lands.This presumptioncan ier ;
only by obtainingapproval through the ROG01
Tier System; 7.Modify ROGO Comprehensive Plan and LDC
provisions so that negativepoint(s) assigned
2.Modify the LDC to eliminate the language to all parcels in the ;
relating to infrastructure or utilities passing
"through" am Units. Givensr that the / ier System does not
geometry of the CBRS in the Keys . ., some assign positive pointsr reward arcels based on
existing communities are surrounded the addition of infrastructure(i. .,roads,electric
System Units), iscoura a infrastructure service,service,and freshwater supply) r r added
r utilities "through" i er the date of designation as CBRS land. This
existing communities is not practical and is not policy wouldnot apply to the additioncentral
consistent i the intent r services;and
3.Modify the LDC to clarify h extension and 9.Maintainexisting Comprehensive Plan
expansioncentral wastewater lines are policy limiting cc s (via new bridges,new
allowable through and in CSRS Systemi causeways, a ,or new commercial
here the lines would serve idwellings marinas)to or on units of the CBRS.
r parcels approved for development through
ROGO/Tier System. Connectingsuch parcels to 6.0 REFERENCES
central wastewater system is a key component
to improving water quality in the County; USFWS 2012.The Coastal Barrier ResourcesAct,Harnessing
the Power of Market Forces to Conserve America's Coasts
4.Modify LDC Section -1 (Purpose) to and Save payers' Money, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
explain the policy purpose of CBRA.While theAct Division of Federal Program Activities,August. httpJ/www.
does not regulate landowners can develops. ov/haitatconse tion ayerSavinsfrom .
their property, it explicitly r a the full cost
from Federal taxpayers to the individuals who US S 2013. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Barrier
choose to buildin such areas.Therefore,individuals ResourcesActesite,http://www.fws.gov/CBRA/,u ated
who choose
/�qJI live invest i a hazard- 4/1 I/ 13.
c
ME 1 12111211111131 H r nl/ ///,'%! - Page 16 Pa
Er
F[o FFRNt
File - 7
Page
III. REVIEW
The following amendments address those included as part of Phase 1, described above, as
recommended by K&S and directed by the BOCC:
MCC 6101-1—Definitions
Proposed revisions to the definition clarify the origins of the CBRS and how land was
designated as a system unit. The revised definition summarizes federal implications of
designation and identifies agencies responsible for creating and revising CBRS boundaries. It
also references the exclusion of the improved port property at Safe Harbor (map included in
Exhibit 4) in order to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 502.1.5:
Policy 502.1.5
Monroe County shall support a proposal to amend the Coastal Barrier Resources
System Map adopted by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990, to delete the
improved port property along the Safe Harbor entrance channel from the system
unit, FL 57.
MCC 6130-122— Coastal barrier resources system overlay district
Revisions to this section address Phase 1 items 1-5, as stated above:
1. Subsection (c) no longer prohibits extension of utilities to the CBRS overlay district. It is
now consistent with the comprehensive plan's language which discourages rather than
prohibits utilities. Terminology regarding the types of facilities and services to be
discouraged has been updated to be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan
policies. Language regarding system unit FL-57 has been updated to be consistent with
Comprehensive Plan Policy 502.1.5, as discussed above (map included in Exhibit 4). It
also clarifies that facilities and services may be expanded if found to comply with
Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.12.4 (as discussed on page 2).
2. Subsection (b) is now consistent with the comprehensive plan by removal of the words "or
through."
3. Subsection (c) now includes central wastewater treatment collection systems as a utility
not subject to the discouragement.
4. Subsection (a) now describes the federal purpose of the CBRA and summarizes the
federal restrictions on land designated as a system unit of the CBRS.
5. Subsection (d) advises against the use of County public tax dollars or County financial
assistance within the CBRS overlay district unless an analysis is conducted pursuant to
existing, adopted Policy 101.12.4, and:
• Based on the analysis, the BOCC makes a specific finding that such new
improvements are to protect the public health, safety and welfare, no reasonable
alternatives exist to the proposed location, and the proposed location is approved by a
supermajority of the BOCC; and/or
• Such new improvements and/or financial assistance are consistent with the federal
exceptions pursuant to section 6 of the CBRA.
Note: This subsection specifically states that wastewater systems will not be subject to
restrictions on county public tax dollar use.
File#2013-067
Page 5 of 8
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Therefore, staff recommends the following changes (Deletions are � efi-thfo*gh-w4 in fed, and
additions are wi�i,lerhncd atnd inmtlm ml. Text to remain the same is in black):
Sec. 101-1.—Defmitions.
Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) means those 15 JCBRS) as,y^ gjp units,
()flun'wise P1�11'ol (Aed Areas, in the County, g,wept,.,1br,flic iI 111)11,0M] pp],tai e tv ja4l�I
ffie Saf'e ai'boi� enlrance diw�[nel ,�w7iffijri —y"A il F1,57 as s�imyn on tjie tnaj?_i�ftadMe�d as
Ed'Ijb ,k. and jnco!poi.'Wg.j lu TCUI. designated under the federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBRA) of 1982, comprising �°tjlitiytjy undeveloped coastal barriers and all associated aquatic
habitats including wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets and near shore waters.
g, on)ris'ed oflands, flial we�re� '(Jatk'0� ign ioI
wifllin ffie� ( '11316. Hic [mundaries of' dIcsc tinits ai-e�
and ffit,,� boundaries aI�e� g'�Ml itnA or
cIIlwrd 1`cMuivs,, tort new 1'edenfl cxjpn(Nm'es and financia�� ass'istance. inIchlj�ng flood
i �, - WYS tt a e � fns,uranc rstjdt %iHIJfl ,a IIi'ts' S snr wJts r jdIAiccl and depicted on flic
cimeni. 1:1o4.bd n'ipps appmved b
Q�'jj: the lnjled likale,; Congcss can ii'evise Cll''116 boiindanes,,
Sec. 130-122.—Coastal barrier resources system overlay district J,L]31 Is
(a) Illlaederafl Purpose. Uj�Lj� 1`11 Bamk lZesoum�!s �%11�'A is [o
��@stal bg�i'rkjs and T%�,olO%"C
tl�e f6ieral H�iriits ne"�, and
linarii.'ial nssisLancc, including"11pod ins�lrance� Qiq!!�c f�dti'nfl cX J�Wnd 11,ln'� I n h:ti is 1-11�I
-public - N11-111 P
llil CJ'11"�Ct 11114,discourw'i III ni�,,nt in gn�gs lht Bitma[l.ment lnb�nior di''�Ij S,,
barfi(n-s � itNin the Coamal RIniq SVStu:11, 0-1 11 S). 'Mt CBIZS
t,,Mxistal an'Nis UIW, scri,, W; bnnitMS N1 t 'A"Tind nnd 6�Ja� fbn,,,es catised.by k:oastal stonns, pniij
Th !:2qnly incW�k's flu fi�;dt in CBRS .,;,,,Aeni umulul.l t I�Jiadjng
)hd �Vloriro(�� ("i olint'i 'l t�XO�P'1' figir In PI-op�'�oy gl1111111111) flliI
bcari't"d 'ol"it1lin I11,1111M w�
Sgit�� jprboi, The purpose of
the Clo Ili]ty°s coastal barrier resources system overlay district is to implement the policies of the
comprehensive plan by mlm emu tlmmi=ihitmim the extension and expansion of specific types
of fil�jli6t s a)nd"'or to of flimi#
lands designated as a unit of the -1"13 S.
Application. The coastal barrier resources system overlay district shall be overlaid on all
areas, except for ij-k,�,JnAi ffie 1-1grbor cliating] Ywvifl-jn
File#2013-067
Page 6 of 8
�~ayS[e 1 rrwIUM ,�F L' 5 8toe4....IsIfflid, within federally designated boundaries of a ,ee.. - ff ie
um � u rre�w'y m _ �!d rrju unit on current (,Febilla flood insurance rate maps
approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which are hereby adopted by
reference and declared part of this chapter.
Within this overlay district, the transmission and/or collection lines of the following types of
4e...rrtut � � u��' l
I' �_ � .� '.. � � ��.... �I �e i���e shall be
mr � �rerrd`,..p..Vw�V��"....,ilrrd� d9;t"w � qd rrM.:;VUt ' d;'rrdrrd da'�rr urrrrrr ��'d:�rrrr ��"�. '.rrNldrrrrli
rrurrt°n � � i from extension or expansion eentFa .-wa tee ak, e t Amen e(,41 -)n t
systms;..potable water„,,; electricity, and telephone...and -ea:'bl . This Pfohibition Shall net fffe .iude
i II' i�„:. maintenance rr°es�.�d rurrullM_ � rrd 'u q,adwurrrrcrr°q and upgrading of existing Iwbhe.iaihfiesnql2li��
1'a ditid`"°^ arrlld,+'drrrr, d qe°trril d„."rl,,ke! arid/or U2,!Ie ➢o9d s d Il M III d' rr is rrrrrr:'V't d. d rrllV arr,
rr rrVa U..
d d„ ,rrrrll,H)IIII 01 ka s i " � �Jdt� t_orrll��rrd u
" .. � _' ��rr ^dd:;"� �arrd"�rr�rr�l�:rr�arr arrrr";Il,il� ',��~"�"�.,..._._.� ��hrrkrr�rr�:"���"rrrr�, i� �rrd rrll ���
aRu drru....tt��t�rrrr^a�drrUk ti '' � ,:,m
F111arrlll,l Po"IJ ]01 V V 2,,.��, s plitee f.. Hi e eflb(Aiye date ofthe flits seet e is
4erived rru rr it " r ra- tint°urn shall not apply to wastewater nutrient reduction cluster
systems drrrr d etar l oig telo"all rr urrearrtuuterra dn.d He( Ijon sli uald rrns, Nrr iy,, ii ave: 4pcourrra
� rr
,.trr"ail grrt d ;a�ll'°rrd it,._t.^u rrrrrrrrrurrr)d":;. rrrr rr"'ud�rrrrll BR II U�urr"'rrdrrm arrrrd"
rrrr M d�:;; rrrrtG t��� ° mm.,.
ry ii be a,,,, Vuded T' his
Orr"� rr rrll'rr"Iw4�rrgd'rr'"II Urr�err d:m 121y if drrhrr Orrd�„'rr ;9'�� �II w��P� re ll��: I(�1111111 '.4 �V:� '" ol,Omi iILI;w ih,:rr1V
O I1�.0d'tt(.t"°"
. ttttuilit lluhlk! I.11ilt;p!:2rr�enlcllts_.., )o d tL...tlrr .t rr ��u.;,�lemi le y.!stelr� t;�IIVldrrl�thud C..:BRS� ..�I't:"V.t,'rr�a1y
d[� slrrllcl t_�`drrrrrrrrfll rr Prr:rr�"rrq Ic tax d�drrq��rr'rrs mrrrrVd�o'orr° (17ollrrV r" ffiiaurrud lal �Vd9t be used„ " , n Hirraa�'a�a�rrllt a�"tdrrrr➢gd�_rr.', .w.. l:rrrrrr rrlleuw"
➢rrrr rrgrrdljild ig llt,id °^ apd,lorr e. ct1 Uc senjM e's aiid"°o .td le[Nh,on s r,,,,i res,, gffle s._ ap udtial�.�
C,(yfflrrlld Ide(] 121AT I 111t to t�"d)H„
...
Rased, dull ffie arrlla1 y,tJs, t1te 130111l.C, iq�d<es ..a 'wp(ht ili tunl1IriI.g,. .V,lIfW sgcli�... ,qev,"
ut�`� M� � u: uamurrus.....are td;
drr��,,!v�rrrrllurr�rrrr.., � �drr �q't �°drr"Pdrr d d� ggd re1llid'P..�..__ ^ � �drrd."irr�rrd�,�rrUUw U &1l'�d rrrrdrr�d"tl���U'd're�
� M rr;�d �➢ rrrr ':"rr d' U :rr'rr'"drrad rrrrdetgs ih:i orr fNri yryi Nalw , rrrr 'drr rr tdrrt _....the federal
ul
d'irr.rr'�d ) ud:rr 11$ urrrr.`u„:uad uu :d�:rr d rr �rrd�„rrrru tr drr°: rrd rr�. ,�t4,a ,
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has found that the proposed text amendment would be consistent with one or more of the
required provisions of§102-158(d)(5)(b): 1. Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service
needs) from those on which the text or boundary was based; 2. Changed assumptions (e.g.,
regarding demographic trends); 3. Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and
natural features described in volume I of the plan; 4. New issues; 5. Recognition of a need for
additional detail or comprehensiveness; or 6. Data updates. Specifically, staff has found that the
proposed text amendments are necessary due to new issues and recognition of a need for
additional detail or comprehensiveness.
Staff has found that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Monroe County Year
2010 Comprehensive Plan, the Florida Keys Principles for Guiding Development, and Sections
163.3194, 163.3201 and 163.3202, Florida Statute.
File#2013-067
Page 7 of 8
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners amend the Monroe County Code as
stated in the text of this staff report.
VI. EXHIBITS
1. Recommendations from Keith and Schnars "Analysis of Coastal Barrier Resources System
Policies and Regulations in Monroe County, Florida,"May 28, 2013
2. "Analysis of Coastal Barrier Resources System Policies and Regulations in Monroe County,
Florida,"prepared for the BOCC by Keith and Schnars, P.A., May 28, 2013.
3. PC Resolution P22-13, recommending approval of the proposed amendment.
4. Ordinance 221-2012 and related maps regarding BOCC support for exclusion of improved
port property from CBRS System Unit FL-57.
5. Minutes of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners May 15, 2013, Regular
Meeting (see pages 15-16).
6. Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 1982 (see pages 4-6 for sections 5 and 6).
File#2013-067
Page 8 of 8
ExhiNt 1 f0 Staff 1, ,port
�ry ww puts � �
VI4w pUW 'aiuu� V�
IIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIIII� Illlllln IIIIIII II '
5.0 C RS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS probe areas bear the full cost of development and
rebuilding.The policyshould steer new construction
It is widely accepted that development in floolins and away fromrisky, i sensitive pl c s
coastal areas is not consistent with the goals of good whilei i i i impacts o communities whe
comprehensive planning and sustainability. Basedon this substantial commitments of timeo v
review of development activities in the CBRS,it appears that been made;
the oun 's ier System policies have generally
been effective in Iimiting development in the CBRS. S.Modifyo state that areas within
Systemits are ineligible r most County
It is recommended that the County maintain an effective expenditures and financial assistance for new
policy of discouraging development in the CBRS. Further, infrastructure, xc for central r
as a general rule,the County should not invest in and/or service x do s consistent i e r l
authorize new infrastructure projects that facilitate or restrictions under (such r c
induce the approval of new developments in the CBRS. work). Individuals who choose to live invest
in theser r the full c so
The following policy framework is recommended to ensure development and rebuildinginstead i i
that development in the CBRS is discouraged.This policy on to County taxpayers;
could be implemented in two phases with each becoming
effective immediately upon adoption by the BOCC of the Phase 11
required policy/code changes.
® i "discourage" language in CBRS
Phase I Comprehensive l Policy. Consistent with
changes to (recommendation ,c
I.Modify remove CBRS "prohibit" policy's intent by establishingpresumption s
l "discourage" language that dev l in CBRS lands.This presumption can
establishes r s ion against developmentobtaining
in CBRS lands.This presumption can be r i t System;
only by obtaining r l through the ROGO/
Tier stem; 7.Modify ROGO Comprehensivel
provisions so that negativepoint(s)a) are assigned
2.Modify the LDC to eliminatethe language to all parcelsi ;
relating to infrastructure or utilities passing
"through" st Units. Given the 8.Ensuret t I r System does not
geometry in the Keys ( ., some assignpositive of is or reward parcels based o
existing communities are surrounded i i infrastructure (i. .,roads,electric
Systemits , discouragement of infrastructure service,and fres r s proposed r added
r utilities "through" CBRS Systems to after the date of designationis
existing communities is not practicalis not policyl y to the additioncentral
consistent i intent o wastewater services;
3.Modify the LDC to clarify x sion and 9.Maintain the existingComprehensive l
expansion central lines are policylimiting cc ss (via new bridges,new
allowable through in CBRS Systemits causeways, v roads,or new commercial
where the lines would serve xis idwellings marinas) or on units of the CBRS.
r parcels approved for development
ROGO/Tier System. Connecting cparcels to 6.0 REFERENCES
central s r system is a key component
to improving water quality i S 2012.The Coastal Barrier ResourcesAct,Harnessing
the Power of Market Forces to ConserveAmerica's Coasts
4.Modify LDC Sectionl - ( (Purpose) and Save payers' Money, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
explain the plic r se of CBRA.Whilec ivision of Federal Program Activities,August. http://www.
does not regulatelandowners can develops. ov/ i tconservation ayerSavin sro . f
their property, it explicitlys full cost
Federalfrom s to the individuals 1 . U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Barrier
choose it in such reas.Therefore,individuals Resources ct wesite,http://www.fws.gov/CBRA/,updated
who choose to live invest in these /l I/ I .
1 „..., I SC
ORIDAS LOCALLFiRm
iiuiu p
Ill ill�uuu�lplllll"6 E, .
Staff Report
ANALYSIS OF
is
COASTAL BARRIER
RESOURCES SYSTEM
POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS IN
MONROE
j COUNTY,
FLORIDA
FINA1.
y
Keith amd
Prepared by
North6500 Andrews
Font�4 V
Lauderdale,xt� a� it
Prepared for
p�
Monroe oe County Growth Mama ernent Division
2798 rorOverseasHighway,
Marathon FL 33050
KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A.
s
FLO &
t
I LoCAL FI
%,a
III o� wiu I�II� Iigloo
LIIIII��II 7i1 ?�li�E�h11111911011�U�91YllllO�fllllll00�Q� ///G/�G1 �%�E �'°
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF Keith and Schnars has also provided recommended changes
THIS REPORT to the Comprehensive Plan CBRS policies and LDC (see
Section 5.0).
The protection and preservation of natural and water
resources is a central tenet of the Monroe County 2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL
Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan). The BARRIER RESOURCES ACT OF 1982
Comprehensive Plan recognizes the important linkage
between these resources and the economic health of the In the 1970s and 1980s,
County — the environment is the economy in the Keys. Congress recognized that I�
The County is also sensitive to the need for sustainable certain actions and programs • • "
development and the protection of the private property of the federal government •
rights of landowners. have historically subsidized • " • • •
and encouraged development • • • •
In a coastal environment like Monroe County, good on coastal barriers,resulting in •" •
floodplain policy is an integral part of good comprehensive the loss of natural resources; • • • •
planning and sustainability.This is essential for public safety threats to human life, health, • " • "• - •
and the protection of coastal resources. In this regard, and property; and the " • " •
the Comprehensive Plan includes policies that restrict expenditure of millions of tax
development in low lying coastal areas. Specifically, the dollars each year. To remove
Comprehensive Plan discourages the extension of utilities the federal incentive to develop these areas, Congress
within Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) System passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act(CBRA)of 1982
Units, and the Land Development Code (LDC) prohibits which designated relatively undeveloped coastal barriers
extension of utilities in CBRS System Units. along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts as part of the John H.
Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System,and made these
A policy debate and litigation over the electrification of areas ineligible for most new federal expenditures and
No Name Key (most of which is in a CBRS System Unit) financial assistance (USFWS 2013).
and extending wastewater lines in North Key Largo (to
and through a CBRS System Unit) have engendered a On November I, 1990,the Coastal Barrier Improvement
controversy concerning CBRS policies and regulations Act (CBIA) reauthorized the CBRA; expanded the CBRS
for the entire County. In December 2012, the Board of to include undeveloped coastal barriers along the Florida
County Commissioners (BOCC) directed County staff Keys;and added a new category of coastal barriers to the
to engage Keith and Schnars, P.A. (as part of an existing CBRS called "otherwise protected areas" (OPAs), which
Comprehensive Planning contract) to assist in evaluating are discussed in detail below. Appendix B includes a CBRA
these policies and regulations. In March 2013,after BOCC fact sheet prepared by the Federal Emergency Management
and public input,the County Growth Management Division Agency,and includes maps of CBRS units.
developed a list of questions regarding CBRS policies and
regulations.The County contracted with Keith and Schnars CBRA and its amendments do not directly prevent or
to review CBRS policies and regulations and to answer a regulate development,they only remove the federal incentive
specific set of questions on this issue (Appendix A). for development on designated coastal barriers. Therefore,
individuals who choose to live and invest in these hazard-prone
The purpose of this Report is to: provide the results of areas bear the full cost of development and rebuilding instead
the Keith and Schnars policy review; answer the above- of passing it on to American taxpayers(USFWS 2013).
mentioned questions; and recommend any necessary
policy changes. The central policy issue can generally be The CBRS consists of the undeveloped coastal barriers and
summarized by the following over-arching question: Do other areas located on the coasts of the United States that
the existing Comprehensive Plan CBRS policies and LDC are identified and depicted on a series of maps entitled"John
regulations add any additional protection to land over and H.Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System." These maps
above those policies and code provisions that govern Tier are controlling and indicate which lands are affected by the
I land? In other words,if the CBRS Comprehensive Plan CBRA. The maps are maintained by the Department of the
policies and associated land development regulations were Interior through the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS).
deleted,would CBRS System Units be less protected? Aside from three minor exceptions,only Congress has the
authority to add or delete land from the CBRS and create
Keith and Schnars has completed the required analysis new units.These exceptions include:(1)voluntary additions
and answered the questions provided to the County staff. to the CBRS by property owners; (2) additions of excess
IIIIIIIIIIII pDiu iur KEITH and SCHNARS,P.A.
VIVVIV L i�III E 1um u�VN u�m u�„ u&t ii ��r1���llllllll lull %j���////%Q% ,,;;,,;;, ,,,,,,,,,, `J� FLORIDNgIS'L(X:AL FIRM
1
System OPA CBRS Acres in
NLImbcr Unit Name Unincorporatcd
N iinber M0111-0e Co.
ME,-North ,
Largo
„ ® North '...
Largo
Shell Keys
Toms Harbor
Keys
•
Deer/Long!
int Keys
Key Deer/
White Heron
! _!. ! •. - __ • • BahiaHonda
Key
Newfound
Harbor Keys
KEY HIGHLIGHT: .
System Units are * ,
mostly privately !; .-
owned lands. .�,
CPAs are primarily ! - ; • I
lebunch
government_ ! ., - e'�i �
owned parks and .-. VV
refuges.
�� fifiry, m � •� � nnn. � nm,
IIII
illlllllllllllllllliiillllllllllillllll NIIII�Y�II�II!lrl�1�JJJJJ)1JJ1111111111D������1111Py1�11�MOO�/�0 /ems/
The boundaries of these units are generally intended to Department of the Interior considered the density of
coincide with the boundaries of conservation or recreation structures and availability of infrastructure on the ground to
areas such as state parks and national wildlife refuges. evaluate development status. To be considered developed,
the density of development on each coastal barrier area
The only federal spending prohibition within OPAs is must have been more than one structure per five acres of
the prohibition on federal flood insurance. For new land above mean high tide prior to its designation within
or substantially improved structures located within an the CBRS. In addition,a coastal barrier area was considered
OPA, Federal flood insurance may be available if written developed, even when there was less than one structure
documentation is provided certifying that the structure is per five acres of land above mean high tide, if there was
a full complement of infrastructure on the ground before
used in a manner consistent with the purposes for which designation.A full complement of infrastructure includes all
the area is protected (e.g.,a park visitors center) and the of the following components for each lot or building site in
USFWS agrees with that assessment(USFWS 203). the area: a road with a reinforced road bed,a wastewater
disposal system,electric service,and a fresh water supply.
2.2 UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS The intent of the infrastructure criterion was to exclude
areas where there was intensive private capitalization
The CBRA of 1982 defines an"undeveloped coastal barrier" prior to its inclusion within the CBRS demonstrating a
as a depositional geologic feature that is subject to wave, substantial on-the-ground commitment to complete the
development.
tidal and wind energies; and protects landward aquatic
habitats from direct wave attack. CBRA further defines a In applying the density criterion, the USFWS generally
coastal barrier as all associated aquatic habitats,including the considers the entire CBRS unit,not individual subdivisions.
adjacent wetlands,marshes,estuaries,inlets and nearshore In cases where there are discrete segments of a coastal
waters, but only if such features and associated habitats barrier unit(i.e.,areas separated by inlets or by intervening
contain few man-made structures and these structures,and areas that are otherwise protected or clearly developed),
peoples activity associated with them,do not significantly the density criterion is applied to each discrete segment
impede geomorphic and ecological processes. (USFWS 2013).
Section 2 of the Coastal
Barrier Reauthorization 3•0 SUMMARY OF EXISTING MONROE
- . - Act of 2000 (PL. 106-514) COUNTY CBRS POLICIES AND LAND
• - • specifies that, at the time of DEVELOPMENT CODE
- - . the inclusion of a System Unit
within the System, a coastal CBRS policies and LDC pertain to the 15 CBRS System
barrier area is considered Units only;the County does not have policies or regulations
undeveloped if(1)the density for OPAs.
_ of development is less than
one structure per five acres
• • • - The Comprehensive Plan identifies that Monroe County
• - • • of land above mean high tide; shall discourage private development in CBRS System
and(2)there is not a full suite Units (Objective 102.8); shall not create new access via
of existing infrastructure new bridges, new causeways, new paved roads or new
consisting of a road with a reinforced road bed,wastewater commercial marinas to or on units of the CBRS (Policy
disposal system,electric service,and fresh water supply to 102.8.2);and shall take efforts to discourage the extension
each lot or building site in the area. of facilities and services provided by the Florida Keys
® CBRA sought to include Aqueduct Authority and private providers of electricity and
relatively undeveloped coastal telephone service to CBRS System Units (Policy 102.8.5).
barriers within the CBRS
••- • • - The LDC prohibits the extension and expansion of specific
(i.e., those areas containing types of public utilities to or through lands designated as a
' few man-made structures). System Unit of the CBRS.Within the CBRS overlaydistrict,
® •• • • Before CBRA was enacted
the transmission and/or collection lines of the following
in 1982,the Secretary of the
Interiorwas directed bythe Omnibus Budget Reconciliation types of public utilities are prohibited from extension
or expansion: central wastewater treatment collection
Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35) to map undeveloped coastal systems;potable water;electricity,and telephone and cable.
barriers for Congressional consideration. The definitions This prohibition does not preclude the maintenance and
and delineation criteria that guided the Department of upgrading of existing public utilities in place on the effective
the Interiors mapping efforts were published on August date of the ordinance and shall not apply to wastewater
16, 1982, in the Federal Register (Vol. 47, No. 158). The nutrient reduction cluster systems (LDC Section 130-122).
lw y wuuuuii mp^ rr rrr �/��� KEITH and SCHNARS,P.A.
QOe 3, .. FLCSFkN)Xs54LOCAL FIRM
YII
uuu�
M1111111%,111111IN18001M
�, ,wpm;
White the Comprehensive Plan"discourages"development' in CBRS System Units,the LDC prohibits such development—
creating a potential internal inconsistency within the County's planning policies and regulations. Section 1 . 1 (I)O F.S.
requires that if there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the land development regulations,"...the provisions
of the most recently adopted Comprehensive Plan...shallgovern..."
Appendixprovides the specific language of salient parts of the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs.
4.0 ANALYSIS OF CBRS LANDS
4.1 AMOUNT, LOCATION, ZONE, AND TIER OF CBRS LANDS
Within unincorporated onroe County,there are 9,911.24 acres of land within CBRS System Units. Approximatelytwo-
thirds of this acreage is publicly-owned lands,a small fraction is privately-owned land that is already developed,and the
remaining one-third is privately-owned vacant lands (Table and Figure 1). The publicly-owned lands include parks,
refuges, and othergovernment-owned areas that are protected from development. Privately-owned non-vacant lands
include parcels that already have residences or businesses built upon them;the risk of development of these lands has
already passed. Privately-owned vacant parcels are the lands that are potentially subject to development,and are the focus
of the analyses in this report.
withinTABLE 2: Amount of Land
Publicly- wned Lands within , 77. 59.3% Government-owned lands - not subject
to development
Privately-Owned on-Vacant Lands 130 541.31 5.5% Already developed
within CBRS
Privately-Owned Vacant Lands I,t 1 3,492.43 3 .2% Potentially subject to development-the
within CBRS focus of this report
All Lands within CBRS System Units 3,643 9,91 1.24 I
(Unincorporated Monroe Coun )
withinCBRS Acreage
Privately-Owned
Vacant Lands withinj
FIGURE ® IllustrationCBRS,3,492.43
(Acres) of ,
Privately-OwnedPublicly-Owned
Privately-Ownedand Lands within CBRS,
Acreage stem Units 5, 77. 0
Privately-Owned on-
31
Vacant Lands within
CBRS,51. 1
1 The definition of"development"in the LDRs (Section 101-1) pertains more to the clearing of and building on a parcel,and does not specifically
identify extending infrastructure or utilities (water,sewer, roads,electric,cable,telephone) as development Although the Comprehensive Plan
Objective 102.8 does not explain what is meant by"discourage private development",the underlying Policy 102.8.5 specifically identifies that Monroe
County shall take efforts to discourage the extension of facilities and services provided by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and private providers
of electricity and telephone services to CBRS units. Similarly,the LDRs prohibit the extension and expansion of specific types of public utilities.Thus,
in the context of CBRS policies and LDRs,"development"does include roads and utilities.
ro
P.A.
., an NABS,P.A
r �� � � f �iiiii%/�j�i J`� fto ®���.
mm _....gym.+ wDAs / LIR.tt[.FfRM
,��IIII
I I IIIIII I I I �IIIIIII� IIIIII �IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIII I I
VIIfUIVSlbll�l�����������lllllllfll�lllllllllllllllll���lllllllllllllllllllllllllll�lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllti4il��lllllttiiV�ll�i�4lfti��l@fh71tiIli�Y'1i121�,�llllill��illl,.it�1U11�91�J1��111��JJJJJJJ�J�JJJ���/%////0�� r�, � � „ , , .; , ,
Some of the privately-owned vacant lands are within defined subdivisions (5%), but the majority is outside subdivisions
( %). Table 3 identifies the amount of CBRS land in each subdivision.
TABLE ® Subdivisions Containing
Largo each 1.23 11 Key Largo Native Area
AtlanticView Estates 0.93e rgo Native Area
Elbow Light Club 0.30 I Key Largo Native Area
Treasure Trove#2 0,02I Key Largo Native Area
Treasure Trove#1 0.01 I Key Largo Native Area
ulstream Shores 0. 1 4 KeyLargo Improved Subdivision
Ocean Reef Shores 0.55 4 Key Largo Improved Subdivision
JHT 1.33 3 KeLargo Improved Subdivision
Ocean Heights 1.49 9 No Name Key Native Area
Tuxedo Park 0.57 5 No Name Key Native Area
Refuge Point 3.20 2 No Name Key Native Area
Galleon Bay 7.09 14 No Name Key Commercial Fishin Village
Dolphin Estates .77 o Name Key ommercial isin Special
and Improved Sub ivision
Rainbow each 16.70 139 BigTorch Key Native Area
orn's 5.07 4 BigTorch Key Improved Subdivision
Buccaneer Beach 94.50 599 MiddleTorch Key Offshore Island and Native rea
Middle Torch Key Estates 23.72 67 MiddleTorchKey- Native Area
no subdivision-noTier designation 54.91 51 Ocean Reef Offshore Island
no subdivision -Tier 1 3,277.32 261 Various Various
no subdivision -Tier III 0.09 I -Key Largo Urban Residential
TOTAL 3,492.43 1,191
Privately-OwnedTABLE 4: Zoning of
® ostri tel -awned vacant
®® m. lands within System
Units a within land use
ative Area(NA) 1,749.80 50.1% districts at have relatively
Offshore Island (OS) 70 1,144.75 32.8% high levels of growth
other areas* 19 329.42 9.4% restrictions. For privatell
Sparsely Settled ( ) 9 191.63 5.5% 9 `2/ owned vacant lands within
CBRS System Units, 98.2
Native Area- Offshore Island ( - ) I 8.02 0. % percent of the acreage is
Native Area- Sparsely Settled (NA-SS) 8 5.090.1% within NativeArea,Offshore
Improved Subdivision (I ) 25 50.521. % Island, Sparsely Settled, or
similar land use districts
Commercial Fishin Villa a ( ) 14 7.09 0. % (Table )
Commercial Fishing Special ( ) 9 5.31 0.2% I.
Industrial (1) I 0.70 0.0% * These lands, coded as
"Research", Include some
Urban Residential ( ) I . % offshore Islands and areas with
TOTAL a future land use of Residential
' ' Conservation.
J/, JKEITH and SCNAS,P.A.
Illlllllllllllllllllllll�lll���������a������ ���������� FLaw®A�, 9L0(.AL FIRM
V� miu
pp ul V�
u In dl 111111111'I,I 111{IIB61,IIIIIIIII
� I IIIIIIIIII IIIIIII Illll � � °,II II�IIIII��
�Ii PI71111f1�i?�r�lllillD>rJ��ll�l�1J111J1II1�1i11J1JJJ11Jl�JJl9J�1�1��������0�%/0%0%/�/0���i/��
Virtually all of the privately-owned vacant lands within CBRS System Units are designated Tier I: 98.4 percent of the acres
and 95.6 percent of the parcels (Figure ).
Privately i ( Privately vacant land i ( r )
Tier III Tier III-A
0.0% 0.0%
4000 Tier II Un
desig.
3437.4 0 0®/® 1.6%
❑Undesig. __..
3000 ❑Undesig.
Tier 1
■Tier II ❑Tier 1
2000 ® Tier II
Tier III
®Tier III-A Tier III
1000 ' ❑Tier III-A
54.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 Tier 1
...... 9 .4%
Undesi Tier 1 Tier II Tier III Tier III-A
Privately owned vacant land in CBRS Privately owned vacant land in CBRS
laoo .
(number of parcels) (number of parcels)
1139 Tier II Tier III-A
1200 °
1 .
0.0/o j 0.0%
1000 Tier III Undesig.
❑Undesig. 0.1/o o
4.3/o
800 0 Tier 1 ❑Undesig.
600 Tier II GTier 1
Tier III 0 Tier II
400 0 Tier III-A 0 Tier III
200 51 Tier III-
0 1 0 Tier 1
0 l�T 95.6%
Undesi Tier 1 Tier II Tier III Tier III-A
FIGURE
® Tier Designation of Lands within
a�3 KEITH and SCHNARSs P.A.
"1iJJJJI�JIIIIIII11111111�10l/ll/%O%//////%% Pa e6FLORIMS LOCAL FI Pm
The only privately-owned vacant lands within CBRS that
are notTier I are the following:
• There are 54.9 acres of undesignated lands (no tier
designation) in 51 parcels; these parcels are on theMille
offshore islands north of Ocean Reef. These landsdo not have a tier designation because Ocean Reef
is exempt from the tier overlay ordinance. They are
zoned OS (Offshore Island). The purpose of the OS 4.2 WHERE DOES INFRASTRUCTURE PASS
district is to establish areas that are not connected to THROUGH CBRS SYSTEM UNITS?
US-I as protected areas,while permitting low-intensity
residential uses and campground spaces in upland areas There are several communities in the County that are
that can be served by cisterns,generators and other geographically surrounded by a CBRS System Unit or
self-contained facilities. The maximum residential where infrastructure passes through a CBRS System Unit.
density allowed in OS is I dwelling unit per 10 acres,
with an open space requirement of at least 95 percent No Name Key contains one area that is geographically
(LDC Sec. 130-157). surrounded by a CBRS System Unit. The parcels on
Spanish Channel Drive, Bahia Shores Road, and No
Name Drive are not within a CBRS System Unit, but are
surrounded by CBRS System Unit FL-50 (No Name Key).
The rest of No Name Key is within a CBRS System Unit,
including the parcels on Bimini Lane and Tortuga Lane.
Some infrastructure, including roads and privately-funded
powerlines, pass through CBRS System Unit FL-50 (No
Name Key).
Offshore islands north of Ocean Reef -
no tier designation
r
• There is one parcel in Key Largo(total size of 1.35 acres)
that has 0.09 acres of Tier III land in a CBRS System
Unit. The Tier III land is the jetty at the Molasses Reef
Marina (S Ocean Bay Drive, Key Largo) that extends
into the CBRS System Unit;this jetty is not suitable for
further development.
Na Warne Key: contains a developed area
within a CBRS System Unit, and a developed
area surrounded by a CBRS System Unit
v,
Jetty
t the MolassesiTier III
SCHNAu, 1.11Y1 I„n P 1'I���������1��������������������llllll%%% %!j :,,, , ,! vJ K LvPMAS , CAL Fi m
,� fllb .V III wreuw � °nuu.
�41IRi�4f4f �ti��V3'���1rR!!1l111111l1��J�11J1J1J�1�Jfi11�1D11�1�1�I11�JNVI�JJJJJ9I�J���////�//�%o��d�G%//��e�///////'
On BigTorch Key,the communities of Dorn's andTorchwood 4.4 IF INFRASTRUCTURE WERE BROUGHT
West are surrounded by FL-52(Little Knockemdown/Torch TO AN AREA, WOULD INDUCE A
Keys Complex System Unit). infrastructure, including HIGHER I 9
electricity and roads, passes through the CBRS System
Unit to reach these communities.
Electricity, roads, or potable water. if commercial
electricity,roads,or potable water lines are extended into
an area,it would not result in a higher score in ROGO.
Central wastewater. if a central wastewater line is
extended into an area, it would result in a higher score
in ROGO. A ROGO application receives +4 points if the
development is required t
p q o be connected to a central
wastewater treatments stem that meets best achievable
treatment/advanced wastewater treatment (BAT/AWT)
standards established by the state legislature.
In North Key Largo,the Key
Largo Wastewater Treatme t • . .
District (KLWTD) has
recently extended a force - -
main north along CR 905 . - •
(Figure 3). The force main . . .
extends past the community .. . . -
Darn's and Tarchwaad West: infrastructure of Gulfstream Shores and
Systempasses through a CBRS I ends at the entrance to . . -
theseto reach subdivisions Ocean Reef Shores. If service
were extended to Gulfstream s o 0 •®• ••
On Key Largo, Card Sound Road passes through FL-35 Shores and Ocean Reef
(North Key Largo System Unit). Shores,those communities would be part of the KI.WTD
wv
7� centralized system in that the project would take the sewer
from those areas and,by use of the force main,send it to
the sewer treatment plant at MM I00.3. This would qualify
ur
the system for AWT standards established by the state
legislature2.
Most of Gulfstream Shores
is not within a CBR5 System
Unit (Figure 3). There
are some privately-owned W,
vacant fors in Gulfstream
II
Shores. Adding central '
Key ® Card Sound Road passes wastewater service makes
throughstem Unit these privately-owned
vacant lots eligible for +4
4.3 ARE THERE ANY POINTS IN points under ROGO, and
THE ROGO SCORING SYSTEM therefore increases their
THAT ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE likelihood of being approved
for development. All of the
DEVELOPMENT IN CBRS? privately-owned vacant lots
o. CBR5 is not a factor in the Rate of Growth Ordinance are Tier I, so the lands areprotected asTier l lands.
(ROGO) scoring system.
2 Personal communication,Suzi Rubio,Construction/Project Administrator,KLV TD,April 23,2013
ml�l�l�l�l�l�l�l�l�l�l�l�Yuipul�l pill,Ilp cull " I�pll� i�u�l"lii^H�' 1J� ( (�'�"%j� /j���/�//� KITH and
SCHNARS,P.A.
e ,t ��ol uuum m �uu;� ��rlY �111114lllll�11 � i/ FI.OAIDA'S igLOCAL RRAt
0
IIIIIII� h
regulations that prohibit
utilities in CBRS System
Units, halted the extension " •
of the central wastewater • • '
line into Gulfstream Shores • ' • '
and Ocean Reef Shores. •
It could be argued that " •
central wastewater lines • • •
are distinctively different • " ••
All of Ocean Reef Shores is within CBRS System Unit from other utilities such as "
FL-35 (Figure 3). Most of the property in Ocean Reef powerlines in that central •
Shores is government-owned (Board of Trustees of the wastewater lines are less likely •
Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida) to promote developmentthan ••• • • •
for conservation purposes. Of the 156 lots, 135 are the availability of commercial ••
government-owned and 21 are privately owned. About 30 electricity. In considering •
of the lots have been developed (some developed lots are whether to build on a vacant
now government-owned).There are only4 privately-owned lot, a typical owner would generally not care whether
lots that are vacant. Therefore,additional development is their wastewater goes to a septic system or to a central
limited to these 4 privately-owned vacant lots(4 lots at 0.14 wastewater treatment plant. Other than receiving the +4
acre each = 0.55 acres total). Adding central wastewater points under ROGO,having access to a central wastewater
service makes these 4 privately-owned vacant lots eligible treatment plant would not encourage the typical owner of
for +4 points under ROGO,and therefore increases their a vacant lot to develop the land. However, if commercial
likelihood of development. All of the privately-owned power was added to a vacant parcel,then some landowners
vacant lots are Tier I,so the lands are protected as Tier I may have a greater desire to develop the land because of
lands. the conveniences of living with commercial electricity.
The Comprehensive Plan policies to discourage extension of Wastewater lines provide a clear benefitto the environment;
utilities within CBRS System Units,and the land development replacing cesspit and septic systems with connection to
a central wastewaters stem has been
4 � a fundamental approach to improving
water quality in the Keys and is specifically
identified in the Monroe County Sanitary
Wastewater Master Plan. Extending
wastewater lines provides a benefit to
iA the natural environment, and therefore
is consistent with overall goals of growth
management in the County and the
State.
FIGURE 3: Extension of
l KLWT® Farce Main in North
Key Largo
�gg
runningThe red dashed line
Is the approximate
placement of the force main,
approximatelyThe force main extends
into CBRS
System Unit FL-35e The force main
is within the FDOT ri
linesKLWTD has not extended
into Ocean Reef Shores.
JMKEITH and
S FtopjDAS WCALtFimt
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�P�IIIuV�u� �uuu m�V �imuuu
IIII III III II"""
mu luw ww low
U �IIU' u
IIIII� IIIIIIII
. '
4.5 HOW PROTECTIVE IS THE TIER SYSTEM? 4.6 DOES ADDING INFRASTRUCTURE
LDC Section 138-24(a)(6) limits the number of allocation INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY THAT A
awards in Tier I. The annual number of allocation awards TIER I PARCEL MAY BE
in Tier I is limited to no more than three (3) in the Upper REDESIGNATED TO TIER 11, lit-A, OR Ili?
Keys subarea and no more than three (3) in the Lower Adding infrastructure to any of the subdivisions in CBRS
Keys subarea. The Incidental Take Permit (ITP) limits Big
Pine Key / No Name Key subarea to ten (10) allowances System Units would not likely change their tier designation.
over a 20 year period or H=0.022,whichever is lower. Appendix D contains a list of each subdivision that contains
CBRS lands, and how those lands compare to the tier
During the 5 year period July 14, 2007 to July 13, 2012 criteria. In general,the subdivisions meet most of the Tier
(ROGO Years 16 through 20), there were 20 residential I criteria,and few of the Tier III criteria. No subdivisions
dwelling unit allocations in Tier I lands: meet all Tier III criteria except the infrastructure criteria,
therefore, if infrastructure were added,they still wouldn't
• 1 in the Upper Keys meet enough Tier III criteria to be redesignated to Tier III.
subarea,
• 8 in the Big Pine/ No Tier designation criteria are established in the
Name Key subarea,and Comprehensive Plan (Policies 105.2.1 and 205.1.1) and in
_ • I I in the Lower Keys the LDC (Sec 130-130(c)). The County reviews all criteria
subarea. when designating tiers.
During the most recent Comprehensive Plan Policy 105.2.1 identifies the purposes,
allocation ranking (ROGO general characteristics,and growth management approaches
Year 21,Quarter 2 [October associated with each tier as follows:
_ 13,2012 to January 14,2013]),
some of the applications were 1.Natural Area (Tier 1):Any defined geographic area where
for Tier I lands: all or a significant portion of the land area is characterized
as environmentally sensitive by the policies of this Plan and
• 9 in the Upper Keys subarea, applicable habitat conservation plan,is to be designated as
• 1 1 in the Big Pine/ No Name Key subarea,and a Natural Area. New development on vacant land is to be
• 6 in the Lower Keys subarea. severely restricted and privately owned vacant lands are
to be acquired or development rights retired for resource
Applications that have been in the ROGO system for 5 conservation and passive recreation purposes. However,
years earn perseverance points at the rate of +2 points this does not preclude provisions of infrastructure for
per year, up to a maximum cap of+4 points. The cap on existing development Within the Natural Area designation
perseverance points does not apply to applications that are typically found lands within the acquisition boundaries
were submitted prior to the effective date of the tier of federal and state resource conservation and park areas,
overlay ordinance. including isolated platted subdivisions;and privately-owned
vacant lands with sensitive environmental features outside
Tier I lands that are exempt from the cap on perseverance these acquisition areas.
points will eventually accumulate enough perseverance
points to receive ROGO allocations. During the most 2. Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier 11): Any
recent allocation ranking (ROGO Year 21, Quarter 2 defined geographic area on Big Pine Key and No Name Key,
[October 13, 2012 to January 14, 2013)), some of the where scattered groups and fragments of environmentally
applications were forTier I lands that are exempt from the sensitive lands, as defined by this Plan, may be found and
cap on perseverance points: where existing platted subdivisions are not predominately
developed,not served by complete infrastructure facilities,or
• 7 in the Upper Keys subarea not within close proximity to established commercial areas,is
o None are within a CBRS System Unit to be designated as aTransition and Sprawl Reduction Area.
• 10 in the Big Pine/ No Name Key subarea New development is to be discouraged and privately owned
0 7 are Galleon Bay parcels vacant lands acquired or development rights retired to reduce
(which are within a CBRS System Unit) sprawl,ensure that the Keys carrying capacity is not exceeded,
o The other 3 are not within a CBRS System Unit and prevent further encroachment on sensitive natural
• 4 in the Lower Keys subarea resources.Within aTransition and Sprawl Reduction Area are
o None are within a CBRS System Unit typically found:scattered small non-residential development
iillllium W uuuV uuti��Ulll 11 lglu� o du7 �111111111(i// %i /%% //i/ I 7,3_- KEITH and SCHNARS,P A.
uimN i lui l �������flN��111111JJ1'h711111!11111111111�1I1ll/ j/// � ii1;/j.,.,,,, hi,i 10: .. +`�.. RoRIDAS�/ LOC,A�.FIRM
and platted subdivisions with less than 50 percent of the 2.Lands on Big Pine Key and No Name Key designated as
lots developed,incomplete infrastructure in terms of paved Tier 1,II,or III shall be in accordance with the wildlife habitat
roads,potable water,or electricity,and scattered clusters of quality criteria as defined in the Habitat Conservation Plan
environmentally sensitive lands,some of which are within or for those islands.
in close proximity to existing platted subdivisions.
3.Lands located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key
3. In fill Area (Tier III):Any defined geographic area, where that are not designated Tier I shall be designated Tier Ill.
a significant portion of land area is not characterized as
environmentally sensitive as defined by this Plan, except 4. Designated Tier III lands located outside of Big Pine Key
for dispersed and isolated fragments of environmentally and No Name Key with tropical hardwood hammock or
sensitive lands of less than four acres in area,where existing pinelands of one acre or greater in area shall be designated
platted subdivisions are substantially developed, served by as Special Protection Areas.
complete infrastructure facilities,and within close proximity
to established commercial areas, or where a concentration 5. Lands within the Ocean Reef planned development shall
of non-residential uses exists, is to be designated as an be excluded from any Tier designation.
In fill Area. New development and redevelopment are to
be highly encouraged, except within tropical hardwood LDC Section 130-130(c)identifies the tier boundary criteria
hammock or pineland patches of an acre or more in (excluding Big Pine Key and No Name Key)as follows:
area, where development is to be discouraged.Within an
Infill Area are typically found: platted subdivisions with 50 (1) Tier 1 boundaries shall be delineated to include one or
percent or more developed lots situated in areas with few more of the following criteria and shall be designated tier I:
sensitive environmental features,full range of available public a. Vacant lands which can be restored to connect upland
infrastructure in terms of paved roads, potable water, and native habitat patches and reduce further fragmentation of
electricity,and concentrations of commercial and other non- upland native habitat
residential uses within close proximity. In some In fill Areas, b.Lands required to provide an undeveloped buffer,up to 500
a mix of non-residential and high-density residential uses feet in depth, if indicated as appropriate by special species
(generally 8 units or more per acre) may also be found that studies, between natural areas and development to reduce
form a Community Center. secondary impacts.Canals or roadways,depending on width,
may form a boundary that removes the need for the buffer
Comprehensive Plan Policy 205.1.1 establishes the following or reduces its depth.
criteria to use when designating tiers: c. Lands designated for acquisition by public agencies for
conservation and natural resource protection.
I.Land located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key d. Known locations of threatened and endangered species,
shall be designated as Tier I based on following criteria: as defined in section 101-1, identified on the threatened
• Natural areas including old and new growth upland and endangered plant and animal maps or the Florida
native vegetated areas,above 4 acres in area. Keys Carrying Capacity Study maps, or identified in on-site
• Vacant land which can be restored to connect surveys.
upland native habitat patches and reduce further e. Conservation, native area, sparsely settled, and offshore
fragmentation of upland native habitat. island land use districts.
• Lands required to provide an undeveloped buffer, f Areas with minimal existing development and
up to 500 feet in depth,if indicated by appropriate infrastructure.
special species studies,between natural areas and
development to reduce secondary impacts,canals or On Big Pine Key and No Name Key,the tier boundaries are
roadways,depending on size may form a boundary that designated using the Big Pine Key and No Name Key Habitat
removes the need for the buffer or reduces its depth. Conservation Plan (2005) and the adopted community
• Lands designated for acquisition by public agencies for master plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key:
conservation and natural resource protection.
• Known locations of threatened and endangered species. Tier I:Lands where all or a significant portion of the land
• Lands designated as Conservation and Residential area is characterized as environmentally sensitive and
Conservation on the Future Land Use Map or within a important for the continued viability of HCP covered species
buffer/restoration area as appropriate. (mean H per 10x10 meter cell=0.259 x 10-3).These lands
• Areas with minimal existing development and are high quality Key deer habitat,generally representing large
infrastructure. contiguous patches of native vegetation that provide habitat
for other protected species as well.
4u iillllli lii''� IIIIIII iiu �,t re x yN/r/7/ i!/i j f/ +�„AIM KEITH and SCHNARS,P.A.
FLORIDA'S51tLOCALFIRm
aai EN ,,,, ,,,,
Tier Ik Scattered lots and fragments to I du per 2 acres and has an 80 percent open space
of environmentally sensitive lands requirement. Native is limited to I du per 4 acres.
• "• • that may be found in platted Mainland Native is limited to I du per 100 acres and
• " subdivisions (mean H per 10 x10 has a 99 percent open space requirement. Park and
• • • • meter cell = 0.183 x 10-3).A large Refuge is limited to I du per 4 acres with a 90 percent
• " number of these lots are located on open space requirement.
• canals and are of minimal value to
• • • the Key deer and other protected • Flood Zone: Some areas without utilities haveVE flood
• • " " species because the canal presents zone designation. In ROGO,a property within aV flood
• " a barrier to dispersal. zone(this includesVE zones)is assigned negative points
(-4 points). AV flood zone is subject to a I-percent-
Tier III:Scattered lots within already heavily developed areas annual-chance flood event and has additional hazards
that provide little habitat value to the Key deer and other associated with storm-induced waves. V zones are
protected species(mean H per IOx10 meter cell=0.168 x generally limited to shallow submerged lands and the
10-3).Some of the undeveloped lots in this Tier are located shoreline.
between existing developed commercial lots within the US-1
corridor or are located on canals. • CBRA: Some areas without utilities are in CBRS System
Units. Federal flood insurance would not be available
4.7 OTHER DISINCENTIVES TO BUILD IN to new dwelling units (or substantially improved or
AREAS WITHOUT UTILITIES rebuilt dwelling units) within a CBRS System Unit.
Other than the Tier Overlay Ordinance,there are other 4.8 DETERMINE WHETHER THE
disincentives to build in an area without utilities: AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE
INCREASES POTENTIAL
• Zoning: Many areas without utilities have restrictive OF DEVELOPMENT DESIRABILITY IN
land use districts such as Offshore Island, Sparsely AN AREA THAT CURRENTLY DOES
Settled, Native, Mainland Native,and Park and Refuge. NOT HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE
LDC Sec. 130-157 limits the residential densities and
provides open space requirements for various land use No peer-reviewed studies could be found that identified
districts. For example,Offshore Island is limited to I whether the availability of infrastructure increases
dwelling unit (du) per 10 acres and has a 95 percent development desirability. Table 5 is a summary from
open space requirement. Sparsely Settled is limited anecdotal evidence.
TABLE 5: Infrastructure and Development
Most landowners would not want to build if there was no or very
Roads poor access to their property. Adding an access road would increase No
development desirability for most landowners.
Commercial Many landowners would not want to build unless they had the
electricity convenience of commercial power. Adding commercial electricity No
would increase development desirability for most landowners.
If groundwater is available,most landowners are unlikely to care
Potable water whether their potable water is from a municipal source or an onsite No
well. If groundwater is unavailable,most landowners would likely
prefer the reliability of a municipal source compared to a cistern.
Central wastewater Most landowners are unlikely to care whether their wastewater goes Yes
to a septic system or a central wastewater treatment facility.
Communication With the availability of cellular and satellite communication service,
(telephone,TV, adding land communication lines are unlikely to be a deciding factor in No
internet) whether to build for most landowners.
IIIIII�I KE[TH and SCHNARS,P.A.
VVVIVIVII IVIIIIII IIIII �} III mm im„I� iii�l���ll�l���������� �����������������������lllllllllll I(�IIIIIIIIIII � � /j%�ii%��r, E,"'112, FLORIDAS /g'LOCAL FIRM
o,
I IIIIII� IIII �IIIIIIII IIIIIII I � ��'
4°9 HOW ARE THE NUMEROUS CBRS Incidental Take Permit (ITP) limits Big Pine Key/No Name
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Key subarea to ten (10) allowances over a 20 year period
GOALS,OF THE COMP PLAN or H=0.022,whichever is lower.
® a
BEING IMPLEMENTED TODAY?
Zoning also results in variation of protection. Land use
districts have varying levels of growth restrictions. For
The end result of the CBRS policies and LDC can be example,the Offshore Island land use district is limited to
summarized as follows: I dwelling unit (du) per 10 acres with a 95 percent open
space requirement. Sparsely Settled is limited to I du per
• North Key Largo: The CBRS regulations in the LDC m 2 acres and has an 80 percent open space requirement.
which prohibit utilities to or through CBRS System Native is limited to I du per 4 acres. Mainland Native is
Units, have blocked the Key Largo Wastewater limited to I du per 100 acres with a 99 percent open space
Treatment District from extending central wastewater requirement. Park and Refuge is limited to I du per 4 acres
lines into parts of the community of Gulfstream Shores with a 90 percent open space requirement.
and all of Ocean Reef Shores,
No Name Key: The CBRS regulations in the LDC, 4.11 EFFECTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE ON
which prohibit utilities to or through CBRS System THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER OF NO
Units,have not blocked installation of privately-funded NAME KEY
power poles on the island,but have blocked connection
of the homes to the grid. Some aspects of community character could change on No
Name Key if the island were brought onto the electric grid.
4.10 IS THERE ANY VARIATION OF Table 6 lists those aspects of community character and
PROTECTION OF THE CBRS SYSTEM qualitatively identifies whether those aspects would likely
UNITS WITHIN THE TIER SYSTEM have a negative, neutral, or positive effect on community
character. For those effects that are likely to be negative,
WITHOUT THE CBRS OVERLAY non-CBRS policies and land development regulations that
ORDINANCE? DOES THE TIER might mitigate the negative effects are identified.
SYSTEM PROVIDE FOR DIFFERENT
LEVELS OF PROTECTION FOR LANDS
TARGETED FOR ACQUISITION?
n,
If the CBRS overlay ordinance was eliminated,CBRS System
Units would still be protected from development by the
County's tier system (virtually all CBRS lands are within
Tier I,and ROGO has proved to be effective at minimizing
79M
development in Tier I lands).
a�
There is variation of protection within the Tier System.
For example,negative points are assigned for parcels that jIlllll1111 +f %%/%/ff
are on No Name Key, in designated Lower Keys Marsh
Rabbit habitat,and in aV flood j
zone. Developments on Big
Pine Key and No Name Key
receive fewer positive points
than developments on other
islands. The number of
• _ ROGO allocations varies by
• - subarea: the annual number
of allocation awards inTier I is
limited to no more than three 1
a
3 in the Upper Keys subarea
and no more than three(3) in
the Lower Keys subarea. The
KEITH and
mi oux� irdl 11� IIIIIII����U19JJ(JJT/r % ,, .e,� m1��3, A
FL0PJDA°S UXI� P.A.
FIRnt
i,,,llll IIIIII
DI �d�FRIF Ltl f � )�ir(lnlhklillllnillllllllllllllllilii91�1111111J,1J////%1%%///%%%////////////!D/%!//%/°!%,,,; ';,r,
• . TABLE 6: Aspects of Community Character on No Name Key
Air emissions from
Air Quality -- generators would be
eliminated.
Increased availability of electricity could result in
increased noise from music,televisions,power tools,
etc.
Powerlines could produce an audible hum / buzz
under certain conditions3.
_ Noise from generators
Noise Non-CBRS policies and land development would be eliminated.
regulations that could mitigate these effects include
Sec 17-130(Prohibition against unreasonable noise)
which includes"no person shall make,continue,or
cause to be made any unreasonable noise." The
LDC could control,but not fully mitigate,increased
noise.
Power poles and wires would detract from
streetscapes that otherwise have little to no visible Visual effects of
infrastructure. Reduced tree canopy along roadsides generators and
Visual due to tree trimming for powerlines. tanks wouldn't likely
- poles, change because many
wires,and Non-CBRS policies and land development homeowners would -
generators regulations that could mitigate these effects: None. likely keep them for
Keys Energy Services provides free professional tree
trimming to ensure tree trimming around power emergency use.
lines is done safely and correctly.
Increased availability of electricity could result in
more indoor and outdoor light usage,which would
increase nighttime light pollution. Residents would have
Visual - Non-CBRS policies and land development the option of increased
lighting regulations that could mitigate these effects include -- outdoor lighting for
Chapter 114 Article VI (Outdoor Lighting) which recreational,decorative,
includes restrictions on height and maximum or security use.
illumination. The LDC could control, but not fully
mitigate,increased nighttime light pollution.
Fewer fuel trucks on road
Traffic -- __ because the need to refill
tanks for generators is
reduced.
3 The lines on No Name Key are at a Distribution voltage(8,000 volts)which under most conditions would not produce an audible hum/buzz. An
audible noise is typically noticeable at the much higher voltage for Transmission lines. For example,the main power line on US-I is 138,000 volts;it
is not uncommon for these lines to create an audible sound,especially during the dry season(rain usually cleans them). Residents on No Name Key
may on rare occasions hear a much lower sound,especially if there has been a lot of salt spray and no rain for an extended period of time. Personal
Communication,Dale Z.Finigan,Director of Engineering&Control,KEYS Energy,April 13,2013.
KEITH and
V�i a alulllllllll_.�wu q imgw iu ����1Y�1RU)�1����IIIIIIII���IIII /� ', "� "av F'Lr."3DAJ�jt/ �c:.X:ALRFIRn,t�..
NU B� WW man
IIIIII�
jjjjjjljjjj
i
s
Threat from fuel
leaks not diminished
Soil /water much because many Less illegal dumping of
pollution -- generators and tanks batteries.
would likely be kept
for emergency use.
Crime No substantial effect,
but residents would
have the option of
increased electronic --
security systems and
outdoor lighting for
security.
Employment --
of local No substantial effect. --
residents
Home values Some buyers who are attracted to the experience of ter buyers might pay
living off-grid oul not be willing to pay as much. more for a home with
Non-CBRS policies and land development - the conveniences o
regulations that could mitigate these effects: None. commercial power.
Sense o Some residents may feel a loss of uniqueness as a ter residents may
unique place, conservation-aware,off-grid community. feel their identity s a
identity,or rural,environmentally- --
community on- policies and land development sensitive island
regulations that could mitigate these effects: None. remains intact.
KEITH and SCHN RS,RA.
FLORIQAS ( .AL FI
n
Y,p
III IIII III
IIIIIIIIII UI 1111111�IIIIIII�I�lllllllllllllllll6illullllllllllllhillllllli� ���'�iD�l�l�lll/1?�III�JIIIIJJJJJ��JJJJ�IJJJJ��JJ��Jl1�l�//I�0'�l'//�l���//�/%�°',% ��/� „
5.0 CBRS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS prone areas hear the full cost of development and
rebuilding.The policyshouldsteer new construction
It is widely accepted that development in floodplains and away from risky, i s i places
coastal areas is not consistent with the goals of goodit i i i i impacts to communities
comprehensive planning and sustainability. Basedon this substantial commitments i
review of development activities in the CBRS,it appears that been made;
the Coun 's /Tier System policies have generally
been effective in limiting development in the i within®System Unitsineligible
It is recommended that the County maintain an effective expenditures and financialassistance
policy of discouraging development in the CBRS. Further, infrastructure, c
as a general rule,the County should not invest in and/or service and exemptions consistent with
authorize new infrastructure projects that facilitate or restrictions under CBRA (such as emergency
induce the approval of new developments in the CBRS. work). Individuals who choose to liveinvest
i cost of
The following policy framework is recommended to ensure development and rebuildinginstead ssi it
that development in the CBRS is discouraged.This policy on to County taxpayers;
could be implemented in two phases with each becoming
effective immediately upon adoption by the BOCC of the Phase 11
required policy/code changes.
l "discourage" language in CBRS
Phase I Comprehensive Policy. Consistent with
changes to the LDC(recommendation 1),clarify
I.Modify "prohibit" policy's int s lie ing a presumption against
language and add "discourage" language that development in CBRS lands.This presumption can
establishes a presumptionrebutted only by obtaining
in CBRS lands.This presumptioni System;
only by obtaining l through the ROGO/
Tier System; • iComprehensive Plan and LDC
provisions so that negativepoint(s) assigned
2.Modify the LDC to eliminatelanguage to all parcels in ;
relatinginfrastructure ilii s passing
" " CBRS Systemits. Given the 8.Ensurei s s not
geometry of the CBRS in the Keys . ., some assignpositive iparcels based on
existing communities are surrounded by CBRS the additioninfrastructure (i.e.,roads,electric
Systemits), discouragement of infrastructure rvic
or utilities "through" CBRS Systemits to after the date of designationis
existing communities is not practical and is not policyaddition
consistent withi ; wastewater services;
3.Modify the LDC to clarify sion and 9.Maintain the existingComprehensive
expansion lines are policylimiting cc ss (via new bridges,new
allowable through and in CBRS Systemits causeways, new paveds,or new commercial
where the lines would serve existingi marinas)to or on units of the CBRS.
or is approved for development through
ROGO/Tier System. l s to 6.0 REFERENCES
central wastewaterest is a key component
to improving i i ; USFWS 2012.The Coastal Barrier Resources Act,Harnessing
the Power of Market Forces to ConserveAmerica's Coasts
4.Modify LDC Section - s and SaveTaxpayers' Money, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
explain the policy purpose of CBRA.While theActDivision of Federal Program Activities,August. http://www.
does not regulate how landowners can develop fws.gov/habitatconservation[TaxpayerSavingsfromCBRA.pdf
their property, it explicitlys s
taxpayersfrom Federal to the individuals 1U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Barrier
choose it in such .Therefore,individuals esources ct website,http://www.fws.gov/CBRA/,updated
choosewho i invest in these 4/11/2013.
KEITH and SCHNARS,P.A.
e 16 '����" FLow®ns i9LocALFRNt
4 � Y
• • ' ,: fir-ILI MA 1#1 .:ITS . it•.',. . • • • • i
QLJesti011 /Task Response
ResourcesK&S will evaluate the percentage of land and number of parcels within the Coastal Barrier,
determine
;-classification from Tier I to Tier 11,111,or 11111A;neighborhoods or other platted areas increases a parcel's likelihood of obtaining change in tier See section 4.6
Review the existing Comprehensive Plan policies and/or Land Development Code provisions
related to CBRS units . determine whether the existing CBRS policies add any additional See sectionII 4.0 and
protection t• land over and above those policies and code provisions that govern Tier I land.
subsections
parcelsComprehensive accounting of -,• CBRS units in Monroe County
(including areas that would require new infrastructure to p,
CBRS Unit #, Parcel RE #, size of parcel,Tier, FLUM, district, location within Monroe County:1
See section 4.1
publicly or privately owned, vacant or developed, description of existing development
sewer,telephone,cable) including
date the infrastructure was brought to the area.
See section 4.3
, • •
designation for properties in Monroe County. and
:
See sections .4
... and 4.9
r=. section 4.7
See section 4.10
• • .
See section 4.0
Comprehensive Land Use Plan were to be weake ned or removed? and subsections
How would CBRS lands be protected if the CBRS Overlay Ordinance in the Monroe County See section 4.0 nd
Code were to be weakened or r -d; subsections
• • • • • IHow are CBRS properties treated differently from otherTier I lands in the County? See N •, , '• • • r
17710"T See section 5.0
provide the same level of protection we have had for CBRS-un-its throughout Monroe-County?
sections
acquisition? and 4.9
Does the Tier System provide for different levels of protection for lands targeted for
See section 4.10
Does the Tier System adequately implement the intent of the Comp Plan with regard to lands See section 4.0
within . .
S units? and subsections
protections currently • CBRS
and Appendix C
' How protections for CBRS
System a subsections
language be stricken entirely. , •
i
I@, OUV IIIIU OfIU „ � nnnu,
I
Review and determine any potential impacts of adding the term"undeveloped CBRS areas" to
the Comp Plan and Code.
Example of suggested change: Add the word UNDEVELOPED as so noted (highlighted) below. In
general,future development in the County should be directed to the maximum extent possible away from
the UNDEVELOPED Coastal Barrier Resources System(CBRS)units.This should be accomplished through
land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing LDRs.Other actions which the County Based on the
should take to discourage further private investment in UNDEVELOPED CBRS units include: recommendations
(1) no new bridges, causeways, paved roads or commercial marinas should be permitted to or on in the report,it is
UNDEVELOPED CBRS units, unnecessary to make
(2) shoreline hardening structures should not be permitted along shorelines of UNDEVELOPED CBRS a distinction between
units;
developed and(3) public expenditures on UNDEVELOPED CBRS units should be limited to property acquisition, undeveloped parts of
a CBRS unit.
restoration and passive recreation facilities;
(4)privately-owned undeveloped land located within the CBRS units should be considered for acquisition
by the County;and
(S)the County should coordinate with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority(FKAA)and private providers
of electricity and telephone service to assess measures which could be taken to discourage extension of
facilities and services to UNDEVELOPED CBRS units.
Review and determine any potential impacts associated with the suggestion to:Add the following
(below highlighted) CBRS Executive Summary statement, and direction (not to harm existing
communities),to all sections of the Comp Plan which reference the CBRSAct so there is no future
confusion as to the exact Federal Intent of the Act(undeveloped status was the underpinning of
the law),and the Federal direction regarding what actions the County should NOT take(harming
of existing communities).
SEE: The CBRS Executive Summary,Page I,Introduction See section 5.0
http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/TaxpayerSavingsfromCBRA.pdf
"The undeveloped status of System lands was an important underpinning of the law.The idea was to
help steer new construction away from risky,environmentally sensitive places where development was not
yet found,not to hurt existing communities where serious commitments of time and money had already
been made."
Review and determine any potential impacts associated with the suggestion to:Add the following
(below highlighted) statement,again from the CBRS executive Summary,Page I,Introduction so
as to further clarify the Federal intent of the Act for the reader of the Comp Plan.
SEE: The CBRS Executive Summary,Page I,Introduction See section 5.0
http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/TaxpayerSavingsfromCBRA.pdf
The Act is the essence of free-market natural resource conservation;it in no way regulates how people
can develop their land,but transfers the full cost from Federal taxpayers to the individuals who choose
to build.
The Comp Plan Update references the establishment of the CBRS Act in 1982,and does not to Monroe County
reference the Reauthorization of the Act in 2000 which codified the criteria for determining the does not have the
developed (or"undeveloped") status of an area for purposes of inclusion under the Act. authority to modify
CBRS boundaries;
the developed vs
undeveloped status
of an area is not
relevant to the policy
issues at hand.
upuupu imlippumu�r�uuuu"I w p Ire ICE.ITH and SCFiNARS,P.A.
m m u FLt7PtIDAS tFlRna
Review and determine any potential impacts associated with the suggestion to:ADD the(following)
legal definition of"developed"for purposes of application of the CBRS Act and any local overlay,
as is so noted in the CBRS ACT reauthorization of 2000,page 18,reference 6.
http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/CBRA_Digital_Mapping_Pilot_Project.pdf Monroe County
"47 ER 35708:`A density threshold of roughly one structure per five acres of fastland is used for does not have the
categoriiing_a coastal barrier as developed...All or part of a coastal barrier will be considered developed, authority to modify
even when there is less than one structure per five acres of Eastland, if there is a full complement of CBRS boundaries;
infrastructure in place...A full complement of infrastructure requires that there be vehicle access to each the developed vs
lot or building site plus reasonable availability of a water supply, a waste water disposal system, and undeveloped status
electrical service to each lot or building site." of an area is not
relevant to the policy
"50 FR 8700 states `A man-made structure is defined as a walled and roofed building constructed in issues at hand.
conformance with Federal,State,or local legal requirements,with a projected ground area exceeding two
hundred square feet"This criterion is codified in P.L 106-514 Sec.2,where a structure is defined as"a
walled and roofed building,other than a gas or liquid storage tank,which is principally above ground and
affixed to a permanent foundation;and covers an area of at least 200 square feet"
Precedent:
We need to keep in mind that any additional permitted development or intensification of a current Acknowledged
use on coastal barrier islands will set a precedent that may prove to be costly and indefensible in
court should it appear that there was"spot zoning"or other irregularities.
What non-CBRS policies in the Comp Plan will help protect No Name Key's community character See section 4.11
as an off—grid island if the CBRS policies in the Comp Plan are removed?
What non-CBRS ordinances in the Monroe County Code will protect No Name Key's community See section 4.11
character as off-grid if the CBRS overlay ordinance is weakened or removed?
List the aspects of community character that could change on No Name Key if the island were to
be brought onto the electric grid (visual effects,noise, etc). Qualitatively identify whether these See section 4.11
aspects would likely have a positive,negative,or neutral effect on community character.
What data and analysis was used to justify the various changes in the ROGO and NROGO,which See Section
served to weaken the Code regarding the existing level of protection of Community Character 4.5 includes a
and Coastal Barrier Resources System units within the County,with the adoption of the Tier discussion of the
System in 2007? protectiveness of
the Tier System. No
definitive evidence
of weakening the
protection of
community character
or CBRS was found.
Determine whetherthe availability of infrastructure increases potential of development desirability See section 4.8
in an area that current does not have infrastructure.
Evaluate the definition of "development" and determine whether it includes infrastructure See section 3.0
(water,sewer,roads,electric,cable,telephone),thereby being an improvement requiring County (see footnote)
permitting or compliance with County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Policy
Comprehensive history of Monroe County legislation pertaining specifically to CBRS units.Include
date of enactment and description of each particular Comp Plan provision and LDR. Include a
description and history of how CBRS properties have been treated by the County in the ROGO See Appendix E and
point system,NROGO point system and the Tier System,including all pertinent changes to those sections 4.4 and 4.9
laws from the version in place at the time of enactment to the current version and how each of
those laws was implemented to have an effect on development of properties within CBRS units.
�`T- KEITH and SCHNARS,P.A.
e.,,q ��, ...a FLORIDA�5it LOCAL FIRM
I I IIIIIII IIIIIIII ��IIIII�II�� IIIIIIII IIIIIIII
APPENDIX B
w
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
In 1982, Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act(CBRA,Public Law 97-348;96 Stat. ' �
ry�r
1653; 16 U.S.C. 3501 et seal,which was later amended
in 1990 by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act(CBIA,
P.L. 101-591; 104 Stat. 2931). The legislation was ;tW�
implemented as part of a Department of Interior(DOI)
initiative to preserve the ecological integrity of areas
that serve to buffer the U.S. mainland from storms and
provide important habitats for fish and wildlife.In
order to discourage further development in certain un-
developed portions of barrier islands, the law prohibits
the availability of new Federal financial assistance,
including Federal flood insurance, in areas DOI desig-
nates as part of the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
• The Coastal Barrier Resources Act(CBRA)protects
coastal areas that serve as barriers against wind and w i
Ur ��
tidal forces caused by coastal storms,and serve as
habitat for aquatic species.
• The CBRA protects coastal areas from development
by limiting Federal financial assistance for develop-
ment-related activities in designated areas. f �
• To manage development,limit property damage,and
preserve wildlife and natural resources,CBRA CBRS boundaries are identified on Flood Insurance Rate Taps
restricts Federal financial assistance,including disas- (FIRMS)by patterns of backward slanting diagonal lines,,both
ter relief assistance provided by the Federal Emer- solid and broken.
gency Management Agency(FEMA)under the Rob- Responsibilities and Restrictions
ert T. Stafford Act and the National Flood Insurance
Program(NFIP). Various programs within FEMA have different respon-
sibilities and restrictions under CBRA:
• Coastal Barrier Resources System(CBRS)bounda-
ries and Otherwise Protected Areas(OPAs)are es-
tablished and mapped by the U.S.Department of In- • Disaster Relief Assistance provided under the Robert
terior's Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). T. Stafford Act,including:
• Lenders should exercise special care with properties — Mitigation Grants
in or near these areas. — Public Assistance
• Only Congress can revise CBRS boundaries. — Individual Assistance
The USFWS also has responsibilities under CBRA.
„,,j a, a lu W,(,",poo,ikn j,,,,,mnm,yr e ,axn,(, �r���.,r�„✓ ,tlw�,�,r�l,,,�,, ' ,t„,,r,,..,lip r�.....P Gm,p:a,)>u;' , r p
KEITH and SCHNARS,ESA.
.< FLORIDAS 9 LOCAL FIRM
���,$zo ...�„ 1��
IN�
CBRA and the NFIP — Essential links to larger systems.
• The NFIP cannot provide flood insurance coverage — Restoration of existing navigable channels.
for structures built or substantially improved after the — Repair of energy facilities that are functionally
area is designated as a CBRS unit(initial designations dependent on a coastal location.
went into effect October 1, 1983). — Special purpose facilities such as navigational
• The NFIP may provide flood insurance for units built aids and scientific research facilities.
or substantially improved before the subject property — Existing roads,structures,or facilities that are
is included in a designated CBRS unit. consistent with the purposes of CBRA.
• If an NFIP-insured building within the CBRS unit is FEMA must consult with USFWS to allow comment
substantially improved or substantially damaged,the before funding is approved for these activities.
NFIP policy will be cancelled. CBRA and Individual Assistance
• NFIP flood insurance can be provided within CBRS • FEMA may provide Individual Assistance to
units for new structures supporting conservation uses. applicants located in CBRS units for the following:
• Minimum NFIP floodplain management standards do — Financial Temporary Housing Assistance(i.e.,
not prohibit the rebuilding of substantially damaged Rental Assistance),if they meet the eligibility
buildings in CBRS units.However,such structures requirements.
must meet the community's floodplain management — Medical,dental,and funeral expenses related to
regulations,and NFIP coverage is not available for necessary expenses and serious needs.
such structures.
— Assistance to repair or replace personal property
CBRA and FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (e.g.,furniture,clothing,and other necessities)if
(HMA)Program applicants prove they have permanently relocated
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program(HMGP), outside the CBRS or OPAs.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation(PDM),Flood Mitigation — Crisis Counseling,Disaster Unemployment
Assistance(FMA),Repetitive Flood Claims(RFC), Assistance,and Disaster Legal Services.
and Severe Repetitive Loss(SRL) • FEMA cannot provide Individual Assistance to
— Acquisition projects in CBRS units and OPAs are applicants located in CBRS units for the following:
eligible only under PDM,FMA,RFC,and SRL, — Housing Assistance(i.e.,Direct Assistance,
but not under HMGP.Acquisitions are eligible if Repair,Replacement,or Permanent/Semi-
they are consistent with the purposes of the CBRA, Permanent Construction)for a housing unit
and qualify as projects for the study,management, located in CBRS units.
protection,and enhancement of fish and wildlife — Miscellaneous personal property items,such as
resources and habitats. chainsaws,generators,dehumidifiers,etc.
CBRA and Public Assistance USFWS Responsibilities
• FEMA may reimburse or conduct emergency work • Maintaining CBRS maps.
such as debris removal and emergency protective
measures to eliminate immediate threats to lives, • Maintaining the administrative record for each unit.
public health,safety,and property. • Consulting with Federal agencies to determine if
Advance consultation with USFWS is encouraged, funds can be spent within CBRS units.
but not required for these activities.A report to • Determining whether properties are within CBRS
USFWS,however,is required. units.
• FEMA may reimburse permanent work on certain
types of publicly owned facilities that may be eligible • • • •
for permanent repair assistance(but not expansion of)
e
such as: I IN MEMO
o":,om,"ou u u r ,rr�urrrli,�z r �raie�i.U� ¢r i n/I ,,,� 7,,i n,'1 i,rs,d r>>, a u�a d'a�y i,�fpu Ewa,1 , '/pim
IIIU IIIIU
�IIIU�
1p
�Ilu
/ ,r
/ r // I ,
i
1 I
� rr
l / /
/ 1 f
f/ frt
� 1
� f
1
,
i
ti
I i
� u
I tl I I I
ul'ti ti
it
r
I
r
,I
...........
I'
IIIIII EITH and SCHNA 3s PA,
FLO L F4Rm
Rs[a as t
luiii �IIIIII w pl���� NIIt ����� �� u�i III
NIIt oil=
wmnu,
IIIUPI wumw� �m luuvwr
r.
.........
®;, q ITH and SCHNAIBS,P.A.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII °� iV�u INu m' vLu L ��IO11�1I1� I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll����1JJJ9JJJ'j% �,�� FLORtl®As LOCAL Rpm
�I�u �I°' �Illllu�ii�uu (IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIII III lu
I IIIIII (IIIIIII I�
I�IIINIIVNINVIVVIIIINNIIVVVUUUUUVN�VVVVV �NNIN'�ImYIYIYIYNIYIYIN��I��i`��N���` I�B�N"Y�� ��1��1�1��11��n11i�1�?��l�llllll�lr�/I//II!////I�/%//%%%////%%Gi%%/'!„'i%//%i�iic!���% /r/,,,,,,/
b
ti
%//i pvrofA�b� uEw
r%
Coasfaf;�aniemw"Res�urce� am Ma" �r-9�ta `
�h� Ft KEITH
an SCHNARS,P.A.
-�LOCAL FiRm
mu � mw mw '�Ili iliplililil IIIIIY
I IIIIIIII (IIIIIIII Illlllllln� IIIIIIII IIIII�
APPENDIX C
Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Objectives and
Existing Land Development Code Related to CBRS
Comprehensive Plan
b'jective 102.8
Monroe County shall take actions to discourage private development in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier
Resources System. [9J-5.006(3)(b)4]
Policy 102.8.1
Monroe County shall discourage developments which are proposed in units of Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS) [9J-5.006(3)(c)6]
Policy 102.8.2
Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall not create new access via new bridges, new
causeways,new paved roads or new commercial marinas to or on units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS).[9J-5.005(3)(c)6]
Policy 102.8.3
By January 4, 1997,shoreline hardening structures, including seawalls, bulkheads,groins, rip-rap,etc.,shall not be
permitted along shorelines of CBRS units. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6]
Policy 102.8.4
By January 4, 1998, privately-owned undeveloped land located within the CBRS units shall be considered for
acquisition by Monroe County for conservation purposes through the Monroe County Natural Heritage and Park
Program. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6]
Policy 102.8.5
Monroe County shall take efforts to discourage the extension of facilities and services provided by the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority and private providers of electricity and telephone service to CBRS units. These efforts shall
include providing each of the utility providers with:
I. a map of the areas of Monroe County which are included in CBRS units;
2. a copy of the Executive Summary in Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System published by
the U.S. Department of the Interior, Coastal Barriers Study Group,which specifies restrictions to federally
subsidized development in CBRS units;
3. Monroe County policies regarding local efforts to discourage both private and public investment in CBRS units
[9J-5.006(3)(c)6]
Policy 103.2.10
Monroe County shall take immediate actions to discourage private development in areas designated as units of the
Coastal Barrier Resources System. (See Objective 102.8 and related policies.) [9J-5.006(3)(b)4]
Policy 103.2.4
Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan,Monroe County shall require that the following analyses be undertaken
prior to finalizing plans for the siting of any new public facilities or the significant expansion (greater than 25
percent) of existing public facilities:
I. assessment of needs
2. evaluation of alternative sites and design alternatives for the selected sites;and
3. assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources.
KEITH and SC A P.A.
Lo
FLORIDAS LOCAL FiAQ FI R
Flo p
I IIIIIII I
0
SCK FBVPPBI'NI'AMWNMNN'A'A'MN'M'iINNNiNmIN�Y�RLi�� 11� ICIk�N�JY+ IiIVl�dr11�1�1�G�i1?�1111f111J111J1J1111)111,11J�111111�1//1/1I�/ii//�/G!'!iD��o��ii��� '
The assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources will evaluate the extent to which the
proposed public facility involves public expenditures in the coastal high hazard area and within environmentally
sensitive areas,including disturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands,undisturbed beach/berm areas,units of
the Coastal Barrier Resources System, undisturbed uplands (particularly high quality hammocks and pinelands),
habitats of species considered to be threatened or endangered by the state and/or federal governments,offshore
islands,and Conservation Land Protection Areas.
Monroe County shall require that public facilities be developed on the least environmentally sensitive lands and
shall prohibit the location of public facilities on North Key Largo,unless no feasible alternative exists and such
facilities are required to protect the public health,safety,or welfare.
GOAL 209
Monroe County shall discourage private land uses on its mainland,offshore islands and undeveloped coastal barriers,and
shall protect existing conservation lands from adverse impacts associated with private land uses on adjoining lands. [9J-
5.012(3)(a);9J-5.013(2)(a)]
Objective 209.3
Monroe County shall take immediate actions to discourage private development in areas designated as units of the
Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). (See Future Land Use Objective 102.8 and related policies.) [9J-5.012(3)
(b)I)
Objective 215.2
By January 4, 1997,Monroe County shall initiate programs which require exploration of feasible alternatives to funding
of public facilities and infrastructure which will result in the loss of or damage to significant coastal or natural resources,
including,but not limited to,wilderness areas,wildlife habitats,and natural vegetative communities. [9J-5.012(2)(b)I I]
Policy 215.2.1
By January 4, 1997, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which require consideration of
feasible design and siting alternatives for new public facilities and infrastructure proposed within the coastal zone
in order to minimize adverse impacts to natural resources. [9J-5.012(3)(c)I)
Policy 215.2.3
No public expenditures shall be made for new or expanded facilities in areas designated as units of the Coastal
Barrier Resources System,saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands,or offshore islands not currently accessible by road,
with the exception of expenditures for conservation and parklands consistent with natural resource protection,
and expenditures necessary for public health and safety. [9J-5.012(3)(c)I)
Objective 217.4
With the following exceptions,public expenditures within the CHHA shall be limited to the restoration or enhancement
of natural resources and parklands,expenditures required to serve existing development such as the maintenance or
repair of existing infrastructure,and expenditures necessary for public health and safety:
I. public expenditures within the CHHA may be permitted where required to meet adopted level of service standards
or to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation clearance times and where no feasible alternatives to siting the
required facilities within the CHHA exist.
2. public expenditures within the CHHA may be permitted for improvements and expansions to existing public
facilities,which improvements or expansions are designed to minimize risk of damage from flooding. [9J-5.012(3)
(b)5]
Policy 217.4.2
No public expenditures shall be made for new or expanded facilities in areas designated as units of the Coastal
Barrier Resources System, undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands, or offshore islands not currently
accessible by road,with the exception of expenditures for conservation and parklands consistent with natural
resource protection,and expenditures necessary for public health and safety. [9J-5.012(3)(c)I)
KE1owDASBi LOTH and CAL
FIPP.A.
���� �� �� pmVuuuuiV u���d � ��ll����lllllllllllllllllllllll��� /� Page 26
u
I I IIIIIIIII IIIIII� IIIIIIIIIII Illlllln IIIIII III '
11�I�I�I�I�ISI�fiVlll ISSti��dlllfl�fi�iil �l"tA11111I�1�I1�i�1111JINIIIIUUIIii�il�yl�l����J�'���/G/�G��/09�9�i�����i,�u�
Policy 1301.7.12
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall initiate discussions with the FKAA and providers of electricity and
telephone service to assess the measures which could be taken to discourage or prohibit extension of facilities and
services to Coastal Barrier Resource Systems CBRS) units.
Policy 1401.2.2
No public expenditures shall be made for new or expanded facilities in areas designated as units of the Coastal
Barrier Resources System, undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands, or offshore islands not currently
accessible by road, with the exception of expenditures for conservation and parklands consistent with natural
resource protection,and expenditures necessary for public health and safety.
Land Development Code
Sec. 101-1.- Definitions
Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) means those 15 (CBRS) units in the county designated under the Federal
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982, comprising undeveloped coastal barriers and all associated aquatic
habitats including wetlands,marshes,estuaries,inlets and near shore waters.
Sec. 130-122.- Coastal barrier resources system overlay district
(a) Purpose.
The purpose of the coastal barrier resources system overlay district is to implement the policies of the comprehensive
plan by prohibiting the extension and expansion of specific types of public utilities to or through lands designated as a
unit of the coastal barrier resources system.
(b)Application.
The coastal barrier resources system overlay district shall be overlaid on all areas, except for Stock Island,within
federally designated boundaries of a coastal barrier resources system unit on current flood insurance rate maps
approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,which are hereby adopted by reference and declared part of
this chapter.Within this overlay district,the transmission and/or collection lines of the following types of public utilities
shall be prohibited from extension or expansion: central wastewater treatment collection systems; potable water;
electricity, and telephone and cable.This prohibition shall not preclude the maintenance and upgrading of existing
public utilities in place on the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived and shall not apply to
wastewater nutrient reduction cluster systems.
(Code 1979,§9.5-258;Ord.No.43-2001,§ 1)
KEITH and SCHNARS,P.A.
FLuwDns 9t Loc'nL FtRna
i,,,llll
IIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIII�I llllllln IIII� II
!
APPENDIX D
Comparison of Subdivisions i i Criteria
,;
rr� /i / ////%r,�r���/r,%%// f.�/r/ %/////l. r;, r%///i✓ %/r,„ r ,.. ,err..
„' ,.,,,�%� r;,,, ............
v �6e d ,✓/�/ 1!„ l / �j // /;l yy �r v. f(ac
Percent: ,Gamed Tter PaY4d
Dn1t
„r•. ��,� r.,ti,ri r,!// .,,ti. „r,i�/,/ //.era,,,,,,.
Treasure Trove 1 82 ' i Yes 'Ar�enpE M UFWS�`pedes Ih"ows rc
FLJS 0 00%/rl I 1 Yea 1 Yas f Yes Yea Hammock Nodh Meets 6 of 6
(SR 905,Nall Key Lego) riJ 2 Np 2 Ay ( ) Key Largo ,Ana(potentially suitable habitat far Yes(RCb Yes Yes ��of Tier I
� / Ham-rggd FF fetlere Pntat�id s�eaesA _ _ _ t _
EEow Light(tub '%��/ r//' r(Yes(Hammock.Developed& Yes Wenti6ed m USFWS Spades Focus M�U 5018 "
i FL (SR 905,IN Hammocks Key Largo) S / I Ye%��/j'ef as Man roves North Key Largo Area(potentially suitable habitat for 9. Yes(RC) Yes No
feder
pq
es
„ ra ;, Yes(Ham aMangroves Hammocks FF Iden mFW hifor9, Vkaa QOfi.WW ... Yes Nocies Focus .._. criteria ofTerl
J.H.T
Lan
FLJS 4.60% I Yea Yes Yoa r Developed 6 Undeveloped NOM Ke La Area ten Meets 4 0l6
(SR 905,North Key Largo) f
(SR 905,Noll Key Largo) ',;;"„ ,, Q Mangroves) ......,,;..,..Hem Yes Identified(potentially
FI it bi Species cows
FL-35 Atlantic Meat Estates 0% I Yes Hammock,Butlonxuod 6 Meets all 6
Key spowsl
Largo Area(protein ally w able habitat for 9 Yes(RC) Yes Yes
isdemly
�� Pedlal Yes(Hammock) North gree((po LMy rntere ofTlorl
pre North
es We
Largo Ed=
riffied in USFWMS Species Few
Mee
FL 35' ( Oman
ReefShore�) 9% ,� I �r(ld I , ,( t Yes Iden9'fied lnUM suitahleeQbs _m, Yes(RCI........ Yes...., Yes �ailoilo N°Terl
J ....-.w.,�wW.� a:. identified 115P hebdatfor9 OJa(9wUy Yes No Meeb4of8
00/111,
..,.,. % Yes(Hammock d Developed Largo Area(potenWAy calla -w.,...,... ..-_--� - ..�.- �. Meets 3 018
FL-35 15A0% I 1'ea/ Yea Yea North KeyLa Area ten suds
Shores
Key
(SR 905 North Key Largo) ( / LandaMre otter I
,. sp sF Jeclof awe ._«,.
FLU (SR 905,N tit i Key Largo) y 4% I Ye ' Y86 Yes' A"a a7 V Bndcva"b ed Land) North Yes habitat for 9 utlra IfdllJ Yes No cribs of Tier
n,.,.,, vy ,"," "Ya!s.� frPmare ruraau .. '.-,....._.. . teded.'Y9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,�., .Tit(
.i ii ,T,,,.,-,.,,,� __ ,_.� .,�..._...,
Largo Beall Developed Land fl Identified in USFWS Spades Focus (DevelopedA
FL-39 Includes Tar I and III) 42 6D,4 t d AI f pedal i peNN pedlef ) Mangroves with wine Pbrda Keys Area(poten0aly,wdeblo habrtattor 9 Hammock-RNk@ Yea Yea Meats 4 of 6
(MM 91,Tavernier) //ri H aarffo„ lk,Sall Marsh file ScrO: Ecosystem FF federally protected s aderh al Tkr I
,,, .pdamtluvel .. Coupon
cld... y �.. sWaSp Species Focus
cus ,.,hammock RC1.
peciesy (Wetlands with
Yes Identified n USFWS Spades Focus
FL30 ^Estates 1820% 1 r Yas/ No Pb a l`'n yl"anlic'Ces"Yu1'" " Cou n B hdKa Area ten Meets 4 of 6
(No Name Key) rrr - ri r VYnfBaveYao wwd 0_arnu4q b Yea Yes criteria ofTerI
Deer FF Prefect federally protected spews)
o
1
Galleon Bay Revised / ryes(Hammock 6 Undeveloped, Yes Identified in USFWS Spades Focus Meets 5 of 6
FLSO J)% I pMIM No J Ile Coupon BghtlKey Nee(potentially suitable habitat for 9 No PNCIF� Yes Yes
(No Name Key) r / / r Land) Deer FF Project federally protected speaesg aileda of Tier I
r /r — Yes Idenhfed Nt USFWS Species... ,Focus -. .. .
FL-50 0% I No/f Nd //'No Yes(Pneland 6 Hammock) Coupon BrghtfKay Area(potentially suitable habitat for 9 Yes(RC) Yes Yes Meets all 6
(No Name Key) J /� Deer FP P�roarJ rederaa�,pry_tedAd _ _ criteria afTierU
,m. _. ,
OceYes IdenhfieG m USFWS ea Fovea Meets all 6
FLSO Nam 0% I Na No fed j Yes(Pinbland) 'Coupon BghtlKey Area(potentially suitable habitat for 9 Yes(RC) Yes Yes
1 Y) rrr�rrrrrrrri
,,,, _.' Doer FF ft cict fede+ b.ProtededaP 1 _... _.. criteria of Tier
`Yes(Hammack.Freeshwaur Yes identified in USFWS Species Focus
FL.50 o Na Pohl U%ri// �I Nit %lo No )wetland Bu6amwod.Scrub CouponB'h Meets al b
(N..Name KeY).. riir ,,, rr,,, iic iP4unyl��... cB vas) 4 DeeFeP a knh rely pmtededtified in USFWS pspeaeecies�l�s_ _....Yes(RC C)...._.,_. .� ��., criteria of Tied
nib
Buccaneer Beach Estates t rrr Ilmainglave,.Mangwywaa Sdf Fbnda Keys Meets 5016 .
FLa2 (Middle Torch Key) OK I fYo Na 1 Flo !all amaPn'P"nGer eare1pr srraW Ecosystem FF Area(potentially suilable habitat for 9 Yes(RC) Yes Yes wlere of Tar I
..,....._,.r..,,,,,. ,,,,.�.......,.m,m,...�„ .a federally protected species) 1
( Y Y) r r / Hammockv Buttonwood. ®. ee ,.�....., fled Species
ped ...,;,._._ m..,.....,�..., ,..a....w
( �p'es ngro Sao
:`K y �Y suitable habitat for 9 Yes RC,C d RM Yes Yes Meets
W-
1 Identded m USFWS Species Focus
FL 52 Middle(Mk Torch Torch
Estate 2% I 1 Nit Yea Fkxge Keys Area ten ( ) i Meets all 6
MIdAe Torch Ke fir/ / r 8 Ecosystem FF criteria of Ter I
/ i federally protected species)
/ Meets 4 of 6
Ma groves d Yes Keys Iede S ,,�m_..�..e.
Yes mock Bulbnvmod Identified in USFWS Species Focus
F152 ( TorchDam' ZO% /I Yea Yas Scrub Man ve 6 Florida Area(potentia suitable habitat for9 Htle'pit Yes Yes.
J Key) rill r�" r Dave Lands Ecosystem FF criteria of TierI
,....FL 52 Rainbow Beach m 02% ,r 'err federally projected species)
/No/ No;,, wetlend�Swb�aWnte
�g via rIF
.j F Keys F -.identified
in LI FWS Speble cies
loc 9.,n.. ..Yes(RC 6 C),,,,✓. ,Y....Yes �. ..Yes,... mMeets bda of Tied
Focus
(Big Torch Key) Enos tam
Nang ) Pf {p,,,, federally protected species)
.,,,,,,,,,,�
KEITH and itHNA Fl,lt
FtOft16AS f L PI7th9
N am nn mn mn
I m pp pp I!
�I III���II IIIIII�I�IIIII III��� III���� I � IIF
APPENDIX
Comparisonisions within CBRS Units to TierCriteria continued
:E., nmanuny"" n
BmattNr Up4hd =
HOW; DraR
II Ill,ll
I
FL-35 !(SR
Kay LYesElbxLighlaub Meets 2of4FL-35 905,North Kay Largo) Yea Criteria of Tier III
J.H.T Yes Meats 2of4
(SR 905,North Key Largo) criteria of Tier III
FL-35 Atlantic Yew Estates Yes .. Meats 1 of 4
(SR 905.North Key Largo) aGere of Ter In
„
FLJS Largo Edw Yes
(SR 90 No Key Largo) JJJss�YY .W W W✓NJ .�ake Meets of Ter III.
.
... a... Ihl.. of
FL-15 Ocean Reef Shores Yes itee II uuuu uuuuuuuum uuuuuu uu uu IIIII
GuCsoeam Shores � � wens of Ter 111 s
(SR 905 North Kay Largo) uu
Meats 2 of 4
FL.35 `(SR 906.Nert h Key Largo) Yea criteria of Tier III
rv...... ........ .. .. ........... .........
Largo Beach of4
s 1eet2 of 4
FL-39 (includes Tier I and 111) - yss, Meats
oft
(MM 91,Taverner)
Ter III
FL-50 OOPhn Estates Meets 1 of 4
(No Name Key) Criteria of Ter III
FL 50 ' Can°"^Bay Revised 'des Meets 1 of 4
(No Name Key) criteria of Tier III i
FL-50 Tuxedo Park Yee V Meats of4__.
( ey)
uibum of Ter 111
FL 50 Ocean Heights Mks Meets 1 of 4
(No Name Key) weria orrer m
FL-50 Refuge Point Yuri Meets 1 of 4
(No Name Key) cr4erie of Tier III
I uuu uulllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Estates . pVVupiiipu�i�uuuuuuuuu IIl
FL-52 [Buccaneeradle Beech 6tetes
f (Hasa Torch Kar)..
FL-52 Middle Torch Key Estate ,yes Meets 1 of 4 €
(Middle Torch Key) were of Tier III
.......-.. .. ..,..,m r ..,._.,.�.�,,.... .
FL 52. Doms Yas uul uuuuuu III III III„, Meets 1 of 4
(Bill Torch Key) were of Ter III
.<.Rai Tack Kay Ofl
p,...,. a✓.� criteria of AIIIKEITH and SCHNARS,P.A.
Ft 52 yarn
s' ...... _.....
N���Z M � I�19" IIIIIII�I�011�II�III�II1111IIIIIJII�G %'% %%; ��)M FLC7RlESAS ( L<}C tiL FkRRt
V�
IIIIIII �IIII�I III IIIII
APPENDIX E
History of Monroe County CBRS Legislation
July I, 1985: Florida's State Comprehensive Plan became effective.
1986: The County adopted the State Comprehensive Plan as an interim land use control.
November I, 1990: The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) reauthorized the Coastal Barrier Resource System
(CBRS)Act of 1982;expanded the CBRS to include undeveloped coastal barriers along the Florida Keys and other areas;
and added a new category of coastal barriers:" otherwise protected areas" (OPAs).
April 15, 1993: The County adopted the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the"Plan"),pursuant to Chapter 163,
Part 11,F.S.,which included the existing Goals,Objectives and Policies identified in Appendix C. However,subsequent legal
proceedings prompted a Final Order and Recommendations by the Administration Commission. The effect of the Final
Order was that 90 percent of the Plan became effective but the disputed provisions required further action. Because of
this Final Order,it was necessary to amend the Plan in order to bring it into compliance and to make it consistent with the
"Principles for Guiding Development"as required by Chapter 380,F.S.
January 4, 1996: The Plan was amended pursuant to Rule 9J-14.022,F.A.C.
January 2, 1996: The Plan was adopted by Rule 28-20.100,Part I.
July 14, 1997: The remainder of the Plan was adopted by Rule 28-20.100,Part 11,resulting in the"Work Program';
December 18,2001: Ordinance 043-2001 was adopted creating MCC Section 9.5-258,"Coastal Barrier Resources System
Overlay District",which included a prohibition of the extension and expansion of utilities to or through lands designated
as CBRS unit.
September 17, 2008: Subsequent to a Court Order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants:Taxpayers
for the Electrification of No Name Key,Inc,et.al.v Monroe County (Case No.99-819-CA-19),Ordinance 020-2008 was
adopted by the County which amended MCC Section 9.5-258 to allow for the provision of utilities to develop properties
located within the CBRS Overlay District.
December 12, 2008: Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) rejected Ordinance 020-2008 for inconsistency
with the Rule 28-29 F.A.C.:Land Planning-Part Vill Boundary And Principles For Guiding Development For The Florida Keys Area
Of Critical State Concern. At that time,DCA determined an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was required in order
to resolve the conflict between it and MCC Section 9.5-258.
February 08,2009: Ordinance 003-2009 was adopted rescinding Ordinance 0202-2008.Thus the original language of MCC
Section 935-258,which prohibits extension and expansion of utilities within the CBRS units,is currently in effect.
,lye j KEITH an HNARS,P.A.
! LORII?AS L FIRM
I ',Ailb t 3 to Staff F?epof..t
4 Igo
5
7 MONROE COUNTY,
8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. P22-13
10 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING
11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN
12 ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE
14 COUNTY CODE SECTION 101-1, TO
DEFINITIONS,
15 REVISE THE DEFINITION OF COASTAL BARRIER
16 RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) TO BE CONSISTENT
17 WITH THE FEDERAL COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES
18 s COASTAL BARRIER
19 RESOURCES SYSTEM OVERLAY DISTRICT TO
20 DISTINGUISH BETWEEN FEDERAL AND COUNTY
21 9 REVISING THE APPLICATION OF THE
22 CBRS OVERLAY DISTRICT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
23 CBRS OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE MONROE
24 COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE
2 PLAN;
9
26 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
27 FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
28 AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
29 PROVIDING FOR CODINCATION; PROVIDING FOR AN
30 EFFECTIVE DATE.
3
33 WHEREAS, e Planning & EnvironmentalResources Department is proposing an
34 amendment to the Monroe County Code to revise the definition of Coastal
35 System (CBRS) to be consistent with the federal Coastal Barrier Resourceso revise the
36 purpose of the coastal barrier resources system overlay district to distinguish between
purposes,37 county o be consistent with CBRS objectives olicie of the Monroe County
38 Comprehensive Plan; and
3
40 WHEREAS, e Monroe County DevelopmentReview Committee considered e
1 proposed amendmentregularly scheduled meetingel on the 25th day of June,2013; and
z
WHEREAS,43 at a regularly sc a nl et°ng held on the 3 1" day of July, 2013, the
44 Monroe County PlanningCommission el a public hearing to cons
ider, review receive
45 public comment for a proposed amendmentto the Monroe County Code and to make its
46 recommendation o the Board of County Commissioners
Page 1 of 4
I WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission makes the following findings of
2 fact and conclusions of law:
3
County has adopted Comprehensive Plan Policies and Land Development Code
5 (LDC) regulations which both discourage and prohibit the extension of utilities to or
6 through areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System; and
February 26, 2013, the BOCC approved a contract amendment for professional
8 services with Keith and Schnars (K&S), P.A., for additional services to evaluate the
9 CBRS Comprehensive Plan policies to determine whether they add any additional
10 protection to land over and above Comprehensive Plan and LDC provisions that
I I govern the Tier System, including an analysis of the percentage of land and number
12 of parcels within the CBRS units by tier designation;whether infrastructure extension
13 to outlying neighborhoods or other platted areas increases a parcel's likelihood of
14 being able too a favorable recommendation, based on tier criteria, to change a
15 tier classification from Tier I to Tier 11, 111, or III-A; and additional analysis based on
16 suggestions from the public;and
17 3. At a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 15'h day of May, 2013, the BOCC
18 discussed the results of the "Analysis of Coastal Barrier Resources System Policies
19 and Regulations in Monroe County, Florida," data and analysis, prepared for the
20 BOCC by K&S, regarding the CBRS and the County's CBRS Comprehensive Plan
21 policies and LDC; and
22 4. The K&S report found if the CBRS overlay ordinance was eliminated, CBRS system
23 units would still be protected from development by the County's tier system; and
The K&S report recommended the County amend the LDC and Comprehensive Plan
25 through a phased approach to continue to ensure that development in the CBRS is
26 discouraged(maintain the Comprehensive Plan's"discourage"policy); and
27 6. At the May 15, 2013 meeting the BOCC directed Growth Management staff to
28 proceed with the recommendations of the report, including phase I and phase 2
29 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC; and
30 7. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions and intent oft e Monroe
31 County Comprehensive Plan; and
32 8. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions and intent of the Monroe
33 County Code; and
The proposed amendment is necessary due to new issues and recognition of a need
35 for additional detail or comprehensiveness as required by Section 102-158 of the
36 Monroe County Code; and
Page 2 of 4
1 10. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development
2 forte Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Section 380.0552(7), Florida
3 Statutes.
4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
5 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
6
7 Section 1. The following amendment to the Monroe County Code is recommended for
8 transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency and adoption by the Board of County
9 Commissioners as follows (deletions are s#iekew—fiveugh and additions are
10 underlLmpd):
11
12 See. 101-1.—Dellinitions.
13
14 Coastal Barrier Resources System (CWRS) means those 15 (CBRS)gyqjem units in the County.,
1 tar prow pro y o a or entrance channel wj °n�ste�munit
16 FL-57, designated under the federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982, comprising
17 relatively undeveloped coastal barriers and all associated aquatic habitats including wetlands,
18 marshes, estuaries, inlets and near shore waters.--ayst ' a yen ly o 1
19 that were relativ within the CBRS. The
20 boundaries of these units and the
21 boundaries we a intended to follow is v t or cu l eMost
22 new federal exnenditures and financial assistance includi 3, flood insu it
ins 23 within on the current flood insmmgge rate
24 ent...Ag0&y-.�Qnl _the U�nited �States
25 Coneress can revise CBRS boundaries.
26
27
28 Sec. 130-122.—Coastal barrier resources system overlay district_(CDRS
29
30 (a) Lederal Purpose.
31 discouram finther development in certain undevdgg2j23orAtij2on�sof c�oastal�barriers�and r�emove
32 the federal i tiv to vl e i ifederal ex enditures and
33 financial assistance including flood insurance. These limitations hgyq the effect of discoura=g
34 develovment in areas the U. SL.PDOgAnt t r esi s ithi
35 the Coastal Barrier Reso that serve as
36 barriers a2ainst wind and tidaLforces caused by coastal stormss�and s�erve as�habita�tutic
37 species.
38
39 (b) Coun lr PurDose. The C --has-included the federal CBRS-systern units located within
40 il i�i�r gli ;-Dorat o v, exceDt for thei moll
9gag alo
41 entrance channel within - -ft-5A Harbor
overla district.
42 The purpose of t o resources system overlay district is to implement the
43 policies of the comprehensive plan byi e extension and expansion of
44 specific types of pablie-ofilifiesfacilities and services to ep4wough-lands designated as a Vgtem
45 unit of the eeastal-�����QBR&
46
Page 3 of 4
I (b)(q)_AppUcadon. The coastal barrier resources system overlay district shall be overlaid on all
2 areas, except ore 5Lhannel within
3 within federally designated boundaries of a e9ast4-baFFieF
4 mseurees,-&y9tenv--QBRS system unit on current flood insurance rate maps approved by the
5 Federal Emergency Management Agency, which are hereby adopted by reference and declared
6 part of this chapter.
7 Within this overlay district, the transmission and/or collection lines of the following types of
8 pubk&-u�sfacilities and services shall be discouragedpmhiWted from extension or expansion:
9 potable water,; electricity, and telephone-aW
10 a". This pFohibigeo-shall not preclude the maintenance and upgrading of existing publis
11 utifitiesfacilities and services.
1 This discouramment shall not apply to wastewater nutrient reduction
13 cluster systems or central wastewater treatment collegign13Ls .
14
15 For vggc�)ro�ert within the CBRS overlaXAjgdgLjLjg.� a - 1 s �
16 available for dvlo vl t i its can be avoided. This
17 e vacant CflaazmgwLptwins rov�
18
19
20 districtpublic tax dollars shoul of a or i ov s 1 siance
21 unless those new imvrovements and/or the financial assistance are gQnsistent with the f ederal
22 restrictions Dursuant to section 5 and section 6 of the CBRA.
23
24 PASSED AND RECONMENDED FOR ADOPTION by the Monroe County Planning
25 Commission at a regular meeting held on the_ZL7�- day of 2013.
26
27 William Wiatt,Chair
28 Denise Werling, Commissioner
29 Jeb Hale,Commissioner
30 Elizabeth Lustburg, Commissioner e.S-
3132 Ron it ,Commissioner
j FM
33 PLANNING COMMI S 0 OF MONR!6 �TY, FLORIDA
34
35 William Wiatt, Chair
36
37 Signed this -3ls7- day of
38
39 Monroe County Planning Commission Attorney FILED WITH THE
40 A roved As o F
41 �T
42
43 Date: a U L 3 1 2013
AGENCY ar Nfage 4 of
I
I m'xhbt 4, to Staff Report
Commissioner Neugent
RESOLUTION NO
..- „-
2012
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
HARBOR ENTERPRISES, INC. AND ROBBIVS SAFE
HARBOR MARINE ENTERPRISES, INC. FROM THE
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM
If`
M,
Robbie's r Marine Enterprises, Inc. (Monroe CountyEstate
D Parcel ID Number 00123660-000000) and Safe Harbor Enterprises, Inc. (Monroe County Real
ParcelEstate ID Number W123720-000400) have been included t i
its Coastal Barrier Resource ") which prohibits development in high
a areas;flood and
WHEREAS, the System was not intended to include properties that had already been
developed; and
WHEREAS, Robbie's Safe Harbor Marine Enterprises, Inc. and Safe Harbor
Enterprises, .Inc. were fullydeveloped,` is defined in the Coastal Barrier Resource
Act, 16 U.S.C.A. H 3501, et seq., as an operational marina and auto salvage yard, respectfully,
prior to the effective date of the Coastal Barrier Resources Ac (" " , on October , 1982,
theirand inclusion in the System on November , and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners previously
recognized Robbie's Safe Harbor Enterprises, Inc.'s inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resource
System was in error and supported legislation remov it from t to Monroe
County's Resolution -
Monroeimportance of Safeis use as
port and its development as a port and included in its Comprehensive Plan Policy 502.1.5 which
states"Monroe County shallo tBarrier Resources st
adoptedMap the Coastali t Acto the improved
property along the Safe Harbor entrancet it '; and
Robbie's ` Enterprises,
Enterprises, . ve requested the County's support in its intent to obtai e
BarrierCoastal Resource System;
Page 1 i
of 2
Res supporting leg excludinge Harbor Ent,Inc
Jand Robbie's Safe Harbor Marine En4 Inc
Mrom RS t BOCC 9/10112)
�J
� Vf
Commissioner Neugent
YI,
NOW
> THEREFORE,
COUNTY,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE FLORIDA, that it supports legislation
remove o i 's Safe Harbor Marine Enterprises, Inc. and Safe Harbor Enterprises, Inc. from
the Federal Coastal Barrier Resource System.
CountyPASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Commissioners of Monroe County,
o t ' 1 rntg-held o2012.
Mayor
r Pro Tem Kim i , e
Commissioner Heather Carruthers e,
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy Yes
Yes
Commissioner George Neugent
i 2V
r � i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
� �, y L.Kal6age,Clerk OF MONROF 'Y IDA !
DavidDeputy Clerk Mayor
`c
c
f
Q� , OUNTY ATTORNEY
CM A
��,f m,.,,',r 4-ht�.L JR.
( as o
9F A 6 �
patsn
r. "J
LL- cm
Page 2 of 2
Res supporting leg excluding Safe Harbor Ent,Inc
and bi °s Safe Harbor Marine c
from C (Neugent BOCC 9/10/12)
r
I G
I
,
r
"
i
1,
r,
fi
P,
r � I
Monm emn,Pamela
MRS
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE SYSTEM
OTHERWISE PROTECTEDAREA
Date:8N 7/2012
Al
mom
e
,„ r .''�. .� �'�,� ,��( ➢ I� llf � � i+,�,� F+.�ii ,i l/i ulJ+ a�,�+l i�t�l�l�/��'a +✓rat��u�l�/irt j
Y i �
;.
Fi t
f�r,+i �',i ii u �,' / "� w, rf w f � I ,* �. "�ry'f�y' N� � �^"`" r �'„�t/•g uy��i'��w "r ��
i%/ �mJ ,,w,➢ Y � to w✓h°�'��`f '"apf aY �� ° �
oy iyjrvp� a ,�� �reo s u �
,'r 'nk" "➢' u�.M dad �+y w � � " � ` �" �"d
p��/f aaruf�°�I '� �`, + r rf� Fr�r i�I pp '�+� uu�it�Vy ✓I � ae� 9w � �� �w"�
��, tw � �r s'�� ➢k'"" I FV�a y q �i i �
1� w • ,• Wh '���� �r ilk' h� "tidr t Y "`� �b dq '� J � �Y�� `' �, a b� � � ' "B'� w�'..
B�p�fd •� � S '� �t b aa.
� pp p ry'5
S ce
r u � a a PFR
a ry tN bi+f3lwrc �a3 w "� ° � t a
���`
^c � ➢ py �9��ypF " A� iS� I� �g '��P X.1 � '„�� �
m
s d� wy N f d.,, a, w 6
r v f a rr ru,
� b W,bv, w 4 Why: rb wl ➢�' I m �" �b � ¢ii¢ �
�, ' W iW R 2•( a .� 7 ( di
1 nuns r ,K f li , sm" w s w lad 1 gg�,
3,
°! r ° uw.it f J a } Nf�:r
�� w f;
O r r m f how m
Av
PUT
a,u r¢ F ;r
i ° �• mf "� b', a + f .G *�
' ON f $
, �hx Tow
y H s,! a s t w ��d d '" �.
v a, , i9 r u � t a
w Emu IN iY '+ ,u 16: u�� f�k ter« ,i'i H, x N im,.� °HH � - ➢ � —m,c
1�xhibft 5 to
S,1,3ff'i eporl
MINUTES Unofficial until approved
OF THE MONROE COUNTY by the BOCC
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Regular Meeting
Board of County Commissioners
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Key Largo,Florida
A Regular Meeting of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners convened at
9:00 A.M., at the Murray Nelson Government Center. Present and answering to roll call were
Commissioner Heather Carruthers, Commissioner Danny Kolhage, Commissioner Sylvia
Murphy, Commissioner David P. Rice and Mayor George Neugent. Also present at the meeting
were Roman Gastesi, County Administrator; Bob Shillinger, County Attorney; Pamela Hancock,
Deputy Clerk; County Staff, members of the press and radio; and the general public.
ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, DELETIONS
Item A Motion was made by Commissioner Rice and seconded by Commissioner
Carruthers granting approval of the Additions, Corrections and Deletions to the Agenda. Motion
carried unanimously.
PRESENTATION OF AWARDS
Item B 1 Presentation of Mayor's Proclamation declaring the 17th of May, 2013 Domingo
Rosillo del Toro Day.
Item B2 Presentation of Mayor's Proclamation declaring May 19 through May 23, 2013 as
Emergency Medical Services Week.
Item B3 Presentation of Mayor's Proclamation declaring May 13 through May 17, 2013 as
Law Enforcement Memorial Week.
MISCELLANOUES
Representative Holly Raschien addressed the Board concerning the legislative session.
Ms. Raschien announced that Florida Keys Days will be held on March 25, 2014; and that in
July she is planning a major summit for wastewater; and that in September there will be several
legislative leaders coming down and that she would like to give them a county-wide tour.
BULK APPROVALS
Motion was made by Commissioner Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Carruthers
granting approval of the following items by unanimous consent:
__ __.... � � �,.mme..._.....__mm_.�.._..�.......� .., a.m _.. ,,,.o,,�..0 ..._..
05/15/2013 �.. . Pagel
Item C4 Board granted approval of a Memorandum of Agreement between the American
Humane Association and Monroe County Board of County Commissioners to provide animal
sheltering assistance, to help with care for animal victims of disasters both natural and manmade,
and to provide preparedness training to first responders and animal care agencies, at no cost to
the county; and authorization for the County Administrator to execute any other required
documentation in relation to the application process.
Item C6 Board granted approval of the Issuance(renewal) of a Class A Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity(COPCN)to Ocean Reef Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.
d/b/a Ocean Reef Public Safety Department for the operation of an ALS transport ambulance
service for the period June 1, 2013 through May 31, 2015.
Item C7 Board granted approval of Assignment of Rights to Tax Refund.
Item C8 Board granted approval of Consent to Assignment of Lease from Keren Adlen
and Dani Tobaly, dba Jet Lag Accessories, LLC to Alexandria Eaton Pierobon.
Item C9 Board granted approval of Lease Renewal Agreement for retail rental space with
Keren Adlen and Dani Tobaly, dba Jet Lag Accessories, LLC at the Key West International
Airport.
Item CIO Board granted approval of Lease Extension Agreement with Greyhound Lines for
space at the Key West International Airport.
Item C 11 Board granted approval of Task Order#2013-001 with CDM Smith for Project
Design and Permitting Services(the"Project")for the Florida Keys Marathon Airport Terminal
Sewer Laterals.
Item C 12 Board granted approval of Change Order No.2,D.L. Porter Constructors,Inc.,
Baggage Claim Hall Renovations Project, Key West International Airport.
Item C13 Board granted approval of Amendment 004 of the Alliance for Aging, Inc.
Standard Contract, Older Americans Act (OAA) Contract AA-1329 between the Alliance For
Aging Inc. (AAA) and the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners(Social Services/In
Home and Nutrition Programs) for the current contract period of January 1, 2013 to December
31, 2013.
Item C14 Board granted approval of State of Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
Federally-Funded Weatherization Assistance Program Agreement, Contract# 13WX-OG-11-54-
01-039 between Monroe County Board of County Commissioners(Community Services/Social
Services) and the State of Florida, Department of Economic Opportunity.
Item C15 Board granted approval of Amendment 003 to the Community Care for the
Elderly (CCE) Contract KC-1271 between the Alliance for Aging, Inc. (Area Agency on Aging)
and the Monroe County Board of Commissioners(Social Services/In-Home Services) for Fiscal
.
05/15/2013. ,_ ..�... ..page.2..
Year July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 to decrease funding by $12,119.00, due to loss of clients and
approaching contract end date.
Item C 16 Board adopted the following Resolutions for the Transfer of Funds and for the
Receipt of Unanticipated Funds:
Receipt of Unanticipated Funds(OMB Schedule Item No. 1).
RESOLUTION NO. 135-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Receipt of Unanticipated Funds(OMB Schedule Item No. 2).
RESOLUTION NO. 136-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Receipt of Unanticipated Funds (OMB Schedule Item No. 3).
RESOLUTION NO. 137-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Receipt of Unanticipated Funds(OMB Schedule Item No. 4).
RESOLUTION NO. 138-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Receipt of Unanticipated Funds (OMB Schedule Item No. 5).
RESOLUTION NO. 139-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Transfer of Funds(OMB Schedule Item No. 6).
RESOLUTION NO. 140-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Receipt of Unanticipated Funds(OMB Schedule Item No. 7).
RESOLUTION NO. 141-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Transfer of Funds(OMB Schedule Item No. 8).
RESOLUTION NO. 142-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Receipt of Unanticipated Funds(OMB Schedule Item No. 9).
RESOLUTION NO. 143-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Transfer of Funds(OMB Schedule Item No. 10).
RESOLUTION NO. 144-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
_.. _..... a.. . .n,...... ...._.. ��.__..._aa . W..m... ...... m _. _.. .m
05/15/2013 Page 3
Transfer of Funds(OMB Schedule Item No. 11).
RESOLUTION NO. 145-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Item C17 Board adopted the following Resolution to repeal Resolution No. 224-2008 and
revise policy for compensation for public emergency response work for essential personnel.
RESOLUTION NO. 146-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Item C18 Board granted approval to pay$344,715 renewal premium to Citizens Property
Insurance Corporation for Windstorm Insurance policy.
Item C19 Board adopted the following Resolution to allow the Benefits office staff to
purchase healthy food items for participants who attend and complete educational lunch and
learn activities coordinated and scheduled by the Benefits staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 147-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Item C20 Board granted approval to execute Amendment 1 to the Task Order with C112M
Hill Engineers, Inc. to clarify consultant's services during construction and to extend the date of
completion. This project is funded by Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT)Local
Agency Program(LAP)Agreement.
Item C21 Board granted approval of Amendment 2 to the Contract with Metric Engineering,
Inc. for Engineering Design and Permitting Services for the US 1 Bayside Shared Use Path
Project to extend the expiration date of the contract until December 1, 2013. This project is
funded by the District Three Transportation Impact Fees.
Item C22 Board granted approval to negotiate with Parsons Brinckerhoff, the highest
ranked respondent, for the Construction Engineering and Inspection Services(CEI), for the Old
SR 940 Leg A Watson Bridge(#904310)Repair Project. This project is funded by Florida
Department of Transportation(FDOT)through a Local Agency Program (LAP)Agreement. If an
agreement cannot be reached with the highest ranked respondent, request approval to negotiate
with the next highest ranked respondent and to continue until a satisfactory negotiation is
achieved.
Item C23 Board granted approval of Amendment 1 to the Interlocal Agreement (ILA)with
the City of Marathon to provide another year of funding at 7.5%of the contract amount or
$18,750,whichever is less, to fund the Pigeon Key Ferry for the annual term commencing on
July 1, 2013.
Item C24 Board granted approval of a second Agreement with Comcast for internet services
for the Duck Key Security System Installation and Maintenance project.
05/15/2013 Page 4
Item C25 Board granted approval to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)for On
Call Engineering Services.
Item C26 Board granted approval to execute a Contract with Kisinger Campo and
Associates(KCA), the highest ranked RFQ respondent, for engineering design and permitting
services for the Card Sound Bridge Repair project. The engineering design and permitting
services will be funded by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)through a Local
Agency Program(LAP) Agreement.
Item C27 Board granted approval of a Contract with Advanced Roofing for the Lancelot
Lester Justice Building Roof Replacement. This project will be funded by ad valorem.
Item C28 Board granted approval of a Contract with MBI/K2M Architecture Inc. to provide
professional services as required to prepare construction drawings to route the sanitary sewer
from the Marathon Courthouse, Marathon Sheriff s Sub-station, and the Marathon Library, to
U.S. Highway 1 and connect to the City of Marathon's sewer system. This contract is funded by
the one-cent infrastructure tax.
Item C30 Board granted approval of a Contract with Pedro Falcon Electrical Contractors
Inc. for the ADA Compliance Segment#4 project. This ADA Segment is funded by a
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).
Item C31 Board granted approval of a Contract with William P. Horn Architect,P.A. for
Professional Services for the Design through Construction Administration of a Fitness Trail at
Higgs Beach. Funding will be from the one-cent infrastructure tax.
Item C32 Board granted approval of the monthly report on Change Orders reviewed by the
County Administrator's Office. Said report is incorporated herein by reference.
Item C33 Board granted approval to amend Exhibit II, Solid Waste rates, approved by the
BOCC on September 21, 2012, concerning solid waste collection, disposal, and recycling service
rates for residential properties for Fiscal Year 2012/2013,to correct scrivener's errors. These
corrections do not impact the current cost of services to residents; however, some businesses will
see an increase in their monthly maintenance fees, roll-off collection rate, and compactor
collection fees. Contractor will not make increase retroactive but will charge correct rate starting
May 1, 2013.
Item C34 Board granted approval to enter into a one-year Residential Lease Agreement
commencing June 1, 2013, with a County Employee for Location E.
Item C35 Board granted approval to enter into a one-year Residential Lease Agreement
commencing June 1, 2013, with a County Employee for Location F.
Item C36 Board granted approval of second option to renew with U. S. Water Services
Corporation for the operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment plant for the Roth
Building, Monroe County.
. . .
05 15 .. _.. ......... ...,.,. ,.� g
Item C37 Board granted approval to advertise for bids for the inspection, testing,
maintenance and repairs of Fire Protection Systems per NFPA 25 for the following buildings for
an initial Term of(2)two years with(3)three, 1 year renewal options. Buildings included are:
Monroe County Detention Center,Harvey Government Center, Lester Building, Monroe County
Courthouse Annex/Old Jail, Marathon Government Annex, Marathon Jail, Plantation Key Jail,
Monroe County Main Courthouse, Monroe County Sheriff Administration Building, Department
of Juvenile Justice Building, Bayshore Manor and Freeman Justice Building.
Item C38 Board granted approval of second Renewal Agreement with Best Janitorial &
Supplies, Inc. for janitorial services at the Big Pine Key Library.
Item C39 Board granted approval of second Renewal Agreement with Best Janitorial &
Supplies, Inc. for janitorial services at the George Dolezal Marathon Library.
Item C40 Board granted approval of second Renewal Agreement with Best Janitorial &
Supplies, Inc. for janitorial services at the Islamorada Library.
Item C41 Board granted approval of second Renewal Agreement with Best Janitorial &
Supplies, Inc. for janitorial services at the Key Largo Library.
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Item D1 Board granted approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Key West
Burlesque to revise Exhibit C outlining the named schedule of events.
DIVISION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Item H1 Board granted approval of the re-appointment of Mr. Gary Centonze to one(1)
three(3)year term to the Contractors'Examining Board beginning May 15, 2013 and ending
May 14, 2016.
Item H2 Board granted approval of the re-appointment of Mr. Steve Henson to one(1)
three(3)year term to the Contractors'Examining Board beginning May 15, 2013 and ending
May 14, 2016.
Item H3 Board granted approval of a Contract with Metric Engineering, Inc. for the project
management of a habitat restoration project with Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical
State Park as mitigation for the construction of the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District
wastewater treatment plant.
Item H4 Board granted approval of Third Amendment to Occupancy Agreement and
Ground Lease between Monroe County and Habitat for Humanity of the Upper Keys, Inc. to
allow Lessee to plat the leased property for the construction of seven single family homes and act
as agent for Monroe County, Lessor and Owner.
05/15/2013 Page 6
Item H5 Board adopted the following Resolution acknowledging the existence and
proposed execution of the Multi-Party Agreement Under Section 380.032 Florida Statutes,
between Ocean Reef Community Association, Inc.,the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity(DEO) and Terra Cotta Realty(Florida), Inc., a Florida corporation and owner of
Pumpkin Key.
RESOLUTION NO. 148-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
Item K1 Board granted approval of the request for the following expenditure from the Law
Enforcement Trust Fund:
$25,000.00 Take Stock in Children: to support"scholarships, mentors, projects and
events" and to provide state-matching scholarships for low-income families and support the
leadership camp experience at the Sheriff s Youth Ranch.
MONROE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Item L1 Board granted approval of First Amendment to the Core Contract between
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners and the State of Florida, Department of Health
for operation of the Monroe County Health Department—Contract Year 2012-2013.
COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
Item 02 Board granted approval of Commissioner Kolhage's appointment of Tim Root to
the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee representing the Residential Home Building
Industry, replacing Sherry Phillips.
Item 03 Board granted approval of Commissioner Kolhage's appointment of Joe Pais to
the Community Development Block Grant Citizens Advisory Task Force, replacing John
Hernandez, with a term expiring May 17, 2017.
COUNTY CLERK
Item P2 Board granted official approval of the Board of County Commissioners minutes
from the March 20, 2013,Regular Meeting previously distributed).
Item P3 Board granted approval of the following Warrants for the month of April 2013:
General Fund (001),in the amount of$3,312,855.55; Fine& Forfeiture Fund (101),in the
amount of$3,249,925.11; Road and Bridge Fund (102),in the amount of$164,669.57; TDC
District Two Penny (115), in the amount of$257,401.32; TDC Admin. & Promo 2 Cent
(116),in the amount of$813,625.26; TDC District 1,3 Cent(117), in the amount of
$735,183.77; TDC District 2,3 Cent(118),in the amount of$25,802.11; TDC District 3,3
Cent(119), in the amount of$161,419.94; TDC District 4,3 Cent(120),in the amount of
05/15/2013.�. ...,. . .. ... ...m ..... � .__.. . ,_...._ .m._ .� �. _..._.... . ....., Page
$102,489.38; TDC District 5,3 Cent(121),in the amount of$211,103.02; Gov. Fund Type
Grants (125),in the amount of$306,032.14;Impact Fees Roadways (130), in the amount of
$75,106.80; Impact Fees Parks & Rec(131),in the amount of$23,730.00; Fire&Amb
District 1 L&M Keys(141), in the amount of$188,813.55; Upper Keys Health Care(144),in
the amount of$3,324.56; Uninc Svc Dist Parks& Rec (147), in the amount of$84,188.55;
Plan, Build,Zoning(148), in the amount of$60,149.50; Municipal Policing(149), in the
amount of$515,234.64; 911 Enhancement Fee(150),in the amount of$76,079.33; Duck Key
Security(152),in the amount of$7,756.52; Boating Improvement Fund (157),in the amount
of$11,623.86; Misc. Special Revenue Fund (158),in the amount of$115,939.35;
Environmental Restoration (160),in the amount of$4,205.33; Court Facilities Fees-602
(163),in the amount of$88,224.27; Stock Island Wastewater(171),in the amount of
$1,000.00; Building Fund(180),in the amount of$24,184.22; Cent Infra Surtax(304), in the
amount of$16,444.09; INFR Sls Srtx Rev Bds2007 (308), in the amount of$273,903.83;Big
Coppitt Wastewater Pr(310),in the amount of$1,000.00; Duck Key Wastewater(311),in the
amount of$1,000.00; Cudjoe Regional(312),in the amount of$28,104.56; Card Sound
Bridge(401),in the amount of$9,670.06;Marathon Airport(403),in the amount of
$40,801.73;Key West Intl.Airport(404),in the amount of$289,524.73; KW AIP Series 2006
Bonds (405),in the amount of$31,690.64; MSD Solid Waste(414),in the amount of
$1,263,564.44; Worker's Compensation (501),in the amount of$11,689.69; Group Insurance
Fund (502),in the amount of$839,866.43; Risk Management Fund(503),in the amount of
$43,903.57;Fleet Management Fund (504),in the amount of$88,911.77; Fire&EMS LOSAP
Trust Fund (610),in the amount of$2,325.00.
Item P4 Board granted approval of Tourist Development Council Expenditures for the
month of April 2013: Advertising, in the amount of$1,413,507.54;Bricks & Mortar
Projects/Interlocal, in the amount of$242,625.38; Visitor Information Services, in the amount
$66,794.33; Events, in the amount of$149,217.57; Office Supplies & Oper Costs, in the
amount of$26,373.72; Personnel Services,in the amount of$189,873.56; Public Relations, in
the amount of$36,695.54; Sales & Marketing, in the amount of$158,952.83; Telephone&
Utilities, in the amount of$18,043.56; Travel, in the amount of$10,564.77.
Item P5 Board granted approval to remove surplus equipment from inventory via disposal
or advertise for bid.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Item Q2 Board granted approval of the re-appointment of Rick Freeburg to the Health
Council of South Florida for a two year term in the category of Provider.
Item Q3 Board adopted the following Resolution authorizing the temporary closing of the
Northbound Lanes of US 1 from mile marker 98.2 to mile marker 100 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30
a.m. for the annual 4th of July Parade sponsored by The Reporter Newspaper.
RESOLUTION NO. 149-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
_. .. _..,. „m.. ..... , .,,.._...
05/15/2013 Page 8
Item Q6 Notice of upcoming meetings related to RESTORE Act activities.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Item R3 Board granted approval to advertise a Public Hearing to consider adoption of an
Ordinance amending Section 2-59(a) and (b)and creating 2-59 (d)Monroe County Code
authorizing the County Attorney and Assistant County Attorneys to accept service of process on
behalf of the County in limited circumstances.
Item R4 Board granted approval of Third Amendment to Lease Agreement extending the
lease for office space for the County Attorney's Office for one(1)year to expire August 31,
2014.
Item R5 Board adopted the following Resolution granting approval of amendment to
Board of County Commissioners Administrative Procedures Section 1.03(i) allowing ex-parte
communication pursuant to Ordinances No. 035-2010 and No. 012-2013.
RESOLUTION NO. 150-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Motion carried unanimously.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Item Q5 Wendy Blondin, Project Manager representing AMEC and Rhonda Haag,
Sustainability Program Manager addressed the Board concerning approval of a Contract with
AMEC Environment&Infrastructure, Inc. in the amount of$37,725; to perform an extensive
analysis of the existing canal documentation, conduct field visits to the estimated 502 canals in
the County, recommend the top 15 proposed demonstration sites, and in coordination with the
County and the Canal Restoration Subcommittee recommend the final estimated five(5)
demonstration projects to be designed and constructed. After discussion, motion was made by
Commissioner Rice and seconded by Commissioner Murphy granting approval of the item.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Board of County Commissioners meeting adjourned for the Board of Governors for
the Fire and Ambulance District I meeting.
FIRE & AMBULANCE DISTRICT 1
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
The Board of Governors for the Fire and Ambulance District I convened. Present and
answering to roll call were Commissioner Danny Kolhage,Mayor George Neugent,
Commissioner David P. Rice, Councilman Clark Snow and Mayor Norman Anderson.
05/15/2013 Page 9
James Callahan, Fire Chief advised the Board that the Conch Key Fire Station should be
ready later this month or the first of next month; and that Stock Island Fire Station is ahead of
schedule.
Item G2 James Callahan, Fire Chief addressed the Board concerning approval of the First
Renewal Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners, Board of Governors of Fire
and Ambulance District I of Monroe County, and Advanced Data Processing, Inc. (d.b.a. ADPI-
Intermedix), effective from June 1, 2013 through May 31, 2014, for ground and air rescue
transport billing and related professional services. After discussion, motion was made by
Commissioner Rice and seconded by Councilman Snow granting approval of the item. Motion
carried unanimously.
Item G3 James Callahan, Fire Chief addressed the Board concerning a request to issue a
Request for Proposal (RFP)for maintenance of Monroe County fire rescue vehicles. After
discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Kolhage and seconded by Councilman Snow
granting approval of the item. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting of Board of Governors for the Fire and
Ambulance District I was adjourned.
The Board of County Commissioners meeting reconvened with all Commissioners
present.
MISCELLANEOUS BULK APPROVALS
Item C1 Bob Ward, Information Technology Director and Bob Shillinger, County
Attorney addressed the Board concerning approval of a Comcast Enterprise Services Master
Services Agreement FL-278919-dkeen for sixty(60) months with Comcast Cable
Communications Management, LLC, and associated First Amendment to Comcast Enterprise
Services Master Services Agreement No. FL-278919-dkeen outlining the terms and conditions
under which the BOCC will purchase offered services from Comcast. After discussion, motion
was made by Commissioner Carruthers and seconded by Commissioner Murphy granting
approval of the item. Motion carried unanimously.
Item C2 Motion was made by Commissioner Kolhage and seconded by Commissioner
Murphy granting approval of a Comcast Enterprise Services Sales Order Form#FL-278919-
dkeen-240376 as an addendum to Comcast Enterprise Services Master Services Agreement FL-
278919-dkeen with associated First Amendment to Comcast Enterprise Services Master Services
Agreement No. FL-278919-dkeen to provide Comcast wide area Ethernet services at the Monroe
County Attorney's Office at 1111 12th Street Key West FL 33040 at speed of 50 Mb/s and wide
area Ethernet services at the Harvey Government Center at 1200 Truman Ave Key West FL
33040 at a speed of 100 Mb/s. Total cost for 36 month term is $58,464. Motion carried
unanimously.
05 15 201.3�....a_�_.. ... .. a . ..n. ..,. __....... .w.__., . ..... . ._.____......._.. ..� ,. w.. ....n,Page 10
ENGINEERING
Item N1 Kevin Wilson, Public Works&Engineering Director introduced James Bobat,
representing the Duck Key Property Owners Association. Mr. Bobat addressed the Board
concerning the appeal by the Duck Key Property Owners Association(DKPOA) of denial of a
right of way permit to landscape on county rights-of-way near various wastewater lift stations.
Bob Shillinger, County Attorney addressed the Board.
After discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Rice and seconded by
Commissioner Murphy directing staff to do an Ordinance change and amend it with the
appropriate restrictions. Motion carried unanimously.
Bob Shillinger, County Attorney advised the Board that this is the one type of quasi-
judicial hearing, in which they are engaged, that is not covered by the ex parte disclosure
Ordinance that is in place for land use issues. Mr. Shillinger asked if anyone had discussions
with anyone outside of the record here today,to disclose what they are and if they've affected
their decision here today. Commissioner Rice advised that he discussed it with Kevin Wilson
and staff, and Commissioner Carruthers advised that she had discussions with Mr. Hunter about
the general concept regarding the lift stations. Both Commissioners indicated that those
conversations did not affect their decisions here today. Mr. Shillinger also advised that if any
person wished to appeal this decision, they would have to make a transcript and have it prepared
by a certified court reporter at their own expense. It would be made part of the record on appeal,
and that the transcript from recordings does not provide sufficiently accurate records.
After further discussion, Item N1 was continued to the June meeting in Marathon, with
direction to staff to develop an agreement with the Duck Key Property Owner's Association.
COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
Item 01 Dr. Aaron Adams made a presentation of the Economic Study, with the results of
the Bonefish Tarpon foundation value of the fishery to Monroe County, partially funded by the
Board of County Commissioners.
MISCELLANEOUS BULK APPROVALS
Item C3 Motion was made by Commissioner Kolhage and seconded by Commissioner
Rice granting approval of the First Renewal Agreement between the Board of County
Commissioners of Monroe County and the Board of Governors of Fire and Ambulance District 1
with Advanced Data Processing, Inc. (d.b.a. ADPI-Intermedix), effective from June 1, 2013
through May 31, 2014, for ground and air rescue transport billing and related professional
services. Motion carried unanimously.
Item C42 Kevin Wilson, Public Works&Engineering Director addressed the Board
concerning approval of sale of County property to Islamorada, Village of Islands, legally
described as Lot 1, 2, and 24, Block 11 of Key Heights Section Two, (RE#00417340-000000),
located at 103 Key Heights Drive, Islamorada, at the NW corner of the intersection of US-1 and
............. m ....M_..
05/15/2013 . _ .._....a.. ...„ .... _A,� _.e. ..m.. Page 11
Key Heights Drive for use as a sewer pump station by the Village; and adopted the following
Resolution authorizing the sale as prescribed by statute,the purchase and sale contract with the
Village, and execution of deed, seller's affidavit, and other documents as required for completion
of the transaction as approved by the County Attorney. The proposed net sales price including
transfer of the eight(8)Transient Residential Units (TRU)that are legally established on the
property is $510,000. After discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Kolhage and
seconded by Commissioner Carruthers to accept staff recommendations with a reduction of 10%,
the selling price will be $477,000 with the $20,000 allowance for cleanup to be taken at closing
and correcting all of the documents with the adjusted price. Ted Blackburn, Vice Mayor,
Islamorada Village of Islands addressed the Board. Roll call vote was taken with the following
results:
Commissioner Carruthers Yes
Commissioner Kolhage Yes
Commissioner Murphy No
Commissioner Rice Yes
Mayor Neugent No
Motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 151-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Item C5 James Callahan, Fire Chief addressed the Board concerning approval of the
Renewal Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County and J. A.
LaRocco Enterprises, Inc. for the installation of fire hydrants in unincorporated Monroe County
using Ad Valorem taxes, Impact Fees, and other funding sources such as grants, private
donations, etc. After discussion, the item was withdrawn and staff was directed to go out for bid.
STAFF REPORTS
Item E7 Intergovermental Affairs- Lisa Tennyson, Director Legislative Affairs & Grants
Acquisition updated the Board on important amendments made to legislation pertaining to the
Growth Management Division; and advised the Board on late legislation pertaining to the
RESTORE Act.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Item Q7 Elizabeth Young,Executive Director of Florida Keys Council of the Arts
addressed the Board concerning approval of policy and procedure under which gifts or loans of
Art may be donated to Monroe County. After discussion, motion was made by Commissioner
Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Rice to adopt the following Resolution. Motion carried
unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 152-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
_.. .,.. _._._ __._�_.... ....... �,.,...m.y.,,.,...e,_m_ ..,.
05/15/2013 Page 12
MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
Item K2 Lisa Tennyson, Director Legislative Affairs& Grants Acquisition addressed the
Board concerning approval of the Fiscal Year 2013 recommendations of the Monroe County
Shared Asset Forfeiture Fund Advisory Board. Said recommendations are incorporated herein
by reference. After discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Carruthers and seconded by
Commissioner Murphy that they be funded as recommended, except no more than their funding
request. Motion carried unanimously.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Item Q1 Roman Gastesi, County Administrator introduced Wanda Reina, Senior Code
Compliance Inspector,Upper Keys. Mr. Gastesi referred the Board to his written report dated
April 30, 2013. Kevin Wilson, Public Works&Engineering Director and Christine Hurley,
Growth Management Director addressed the Board. Board discussed the timetable on creating
the prioritization list of projects.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Item R6 Bob Shillinger, County Attorney addressed the Board concerning direction
regarding Florida Power and Light Company Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Power Plant siting
hearings. Mr. Shillinger advised that there are some public hearings coming up regarding the on-
going regulatory litigation over the siting of the nuclear power plants at Turkey Point, starting
around July 81h and continuing through to August 9th. Mr. Shillinger wanted to alert the public to
the public hearings in the event that they may testify before the Administrative Hearing Officer
on July 17th, 23`d and 25th. Steven D. Scroggs, Senior Director Project Development,Florida
Power&Light gave a short presentation on what their project is. Board directed the County
Attorney's Office to participate in the hearings.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Item Q4 Roman Gastesi, County Administrator and Rhonda Haag, Sustainability Program
Manager addressed the Board concerning approval for Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners to execute Amendment No. 1 to a Contract with the Redman Consulting Group,
Inc. for consulting services related to the waste management and recycling contracts to provide
additional funding in the amount of$5,000. After discussion, motion was made by
Commissioner Rice and seconded by Commissioner Kolhage granting approval of the item.
Motion carried unanimously.
WASTEWATER ISSUES
Item Jl Kevin Wilson, Public Works&Engineering Director addressed the Board
concerning adoption of a Resolution approving the form of a Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Construction Loan Agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP); authorizing execution and delivery of such agreement; and authorizing the institution of
..05/15/2013. .,,..,,. ._�.....__ __.... _..,... n._m..... ._ ,._ ... ....._.... .maw_. .... . �. Page 13
ag ..
e13
a bond validation proceeding with respect to the debt obligation to be incurred in connection
with the loan agreement to finance the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Treatment project as
described in the Facilities Plan. The following individual addressed the Board: Steve Gibbs.
After discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Rice and seconded by Commissioner
Murphy to adopt the following Resolution. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 153-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Item J2 A Public Hearing was held to consider adoption of the Cudjoe Regional
Wastewater Supplemental Assessment Program Initial Assessment Resolution describing the
method of assessment for the Inner Island expansion areas and properties developed subsequent
to adoption of the Inner Island assessment resolution on July 18, 2012 based on permits issued
by Monroe County Building Department. Kevin Wilson, Public Works&Engineering Director;
Roman Gastesi, County Administrator; and Bob Shillinger, County Attorney addressed the
Board. There was no public input. After discussion, motion was made by Commissioner
Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Carruthers to adopt the following Resolution. Motion
carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 154-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Kevin Wilson, Public Works&Engineering Director advised that the Final Assessment
Resolution Hearing will be held on June 19, 2013, at 3:00 p.m.
Item J3 A Public Hearing was held to consider adoption of the Cudjoe Regional
Wastewater Supplemental Assessment Program Initial Assessment Resolution describing the
method of assessment for the Outer Island expansion areas and properties developed subsequent
to adoption of the Outer Island assessment resolution on July 18, 2012 based on permits
issued by Monroe County Building Department. There was no public input. Motion was made
by Commissioner Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Rice to adopt the following
Resolution. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 155-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Item J4 A Public Hearing was held to consider adoption of the Cudjoe Regional
Wastewater Supplemental Assessment Program Initial Assessment Resolution describing the
method of assessment for the Venture Out parcels that were coded as vacant properties and,
therefore, not included in Resolution 197-2012 for the Inner Islands of the Cudjoe Regional
Centralized Wastewater Treatment System adopted on July 18, 2012. F.S. 718-120 states that
each condominium parcel should be separately assessed. A separate billing was mailed to these
properties in November 2012. There was no public input. Motion was made by Commissioner
Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Rice to adopt the following Resolution. Motion carried
unanimously.
05/15/2013 Page 14
RESOLUTION NO. 156-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Item J5 A Public Hearing was held to consider adoption of the Big Coppitt/Duck Key
Supplemental Assessment Program Initial Assessment Resolution describing the method of
assessment for the Big Coppitt/Duck Key properties developed subsequent to adoption of
Resolution 302-2007 in 2007 for the Big Coppitt and Duck Key Municipal Service Taxing Units
based on permits issued by Monroe County Building Department. There was no public input.
Motion was made by Commissioner Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Kolhage to adopt
the following Resolution. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 157-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Item J6 Motion was made by Commissioner Rice and seconded by Commissioner
Murphy granting approval to execute Amendment 4 with Government Services Group, Inc.
(GSG)for the development and administration of the Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Program for
Centralized Cudjoe Regional Supplemental Services (Vacant Venture Out with Water Service,
Expanded Areas as of 16 January 2013, and Pre-Capacity Fee Development). Kevin Wilson,
Public Works&Engineering Director addressed the Board. After discussion, the motion carried
unanimously.
EMPLOYEE SERVICES
Item M1 Sid Webber, Insurance Consultant with Interisk gave an update on additional
insurance coverage with Citizens Property Insurance and request to rescind Board action of
August 15, 2012 granting approval to purchase increased Primary Wind coverage based on
recent appraisal. After discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Carruthers and seconded
by Commissioner Kolhage granting approval of the item. Motion carried unanimously.
DIVISION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Item I1 Christine Hurley, Growth Management Director; and Michael Davis and John
Abbott, representing Keith& Schnars addressed the Board concerning the results of the
"Analysis of Coastal Barrier Resources System Policies and Regulations in Monroe County,
Florida",the data and analysis, prepared by Keith and Schnars, P.A., regarding the Coastal
Barrier Resources System (CBRS) and the County's CBRS Comprehensive Plan policies and
Land Development Code(LDC). The following individuals addressed the Board: Hallett
Douville, Anne Press, representing Solar's Smart Company; Alicia Putney, representing the
Solar Community of No Name Key; Kandy Kimble, Kathy Brown, representing the No Name
Key Property Owner's Association, Inc.; Beth Ramsey-Vickrey, Andrew Tobin, and Deb Curlee,
representing Last Stand. Bob Shillinger, County Attorney addressed the Board. After
discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Rice and seconded by Commissioner Kolhage
directing staff to implement the Keith&Schnars report and phased recommendations. Roll call
vote was taken with the following results:
... .._... .._._..._.. � . . .. ....._ �,,,.m.. .
05/15/2013 Page 15
Commissioner Carruthers Yes
Commissioner Kolhage Yes
Commissioner Murphy No
Commissioner Rice Yes
Mayor Neugent Yes
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item S1 A Public Hearing was held to consider adoption of a Resolution by the Board of
County Commissioners to amend Resolution No. 332-2012, the Planning & Environmental
Resources Fee Schedule to establish a new fee for a letter of understanding related only to
identifying the status of a nonconforming use in that such a letter requires less staff time to
prepare than a typical letter of understanding; and repeal any other fees schedules inconsistent
herewith. There was no public input. Motion was made by Commissioner Murphy and
seconded by Commissioner Kolhage to adopt the following Resolution. Motion carried
unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 158-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Item S2 A Public Hearing was held to consider adoption of an Ordinance amending
Monroe County Code Chapter 23, Article III, Section 23-78, Forms, etc. and Section 23-111,
Vending machines, in order to eliminate the issuance of paper business tax receipts and stickers
and decals, as well as remove the requirements that the aforementioned receipts be displayed at
the place of business or on the vending machines. There was no public input. After discussion,
motion was made by Commissioner Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Rice to adopt the
following Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Bob Shillinger, County Attorney addressed
the Board.
ORDINANCE NO. 021-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
DIVISION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Item I2 Christine Hurley, Growth Management Director addressed the Board concerning
the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District CR-905 improvement project relative to the
Coastal Barrier Resources System(CBRS)Unit#FL-35 and the expenditure of federal funds.
After discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Murphy and seconded by Commissioner
Rice directing staff to prepare a revised letter to send to the Executive Director of the Key Largo
Wastewater Treatment District that explains that the current policies do not permit us to issue the
permits, but that the Board has directed staff to move forward with the Code amendment related
to that and to include those timelines. Motion carried unanimously.
.05/15/2013... ......_..a.�. .. ...,. .�..._.__... ..�. . m.. ...,, n_.e...__.. __...... � ...... .m_.... .,_..�� Page
g 16
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Item Q8 Lisa Tennyson, Director Legislative Affairs& Grants Acquisition addressed the
Board concerning approval of RESTORE Act Local Committee and project award process titled
Monroe County RESTORE Act Discussion of Guiding Principles and Ranking Criteria for
"Local Pot",prepared by the Office of Management&Budget, dated May 15, 2013. Ms.
Tennyson advised the Board that first meeting of the RESTORE Act Local Committee will meet
tomorrow in Marathon at 11:00 a.m. After discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Rice
and seconded by Commissioner Carruthers to use the Guiding Principles and Ranking Criteria as
a starting point for discussion with the advisory panel and that staff will bring them back for final
approval after they have that input. Motion carried unanimously.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Item R7 Bob Shillinger, County Attorney gave the Board a Report on the May 14, 2013
hearing before the Public Service Commission in the matter of Reynolds v. Utility Bd. of the
City of KW d/b/a Keys Energy Services, PSC Docket No. 120054-EM. The following
individuals addressed the Board: Alicia Putney, representing the Solar Community of No Name
Key; John Lentini, Deb Curlee, representing Last Stand;Bart Smith, representing Robert&Juli
Reynolds; and Andrew Tobin, representing No Name Property Owners Association. After
discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Rice and seconded by Commissioner Kolhage
that the County 1) not appeal the decision of the Public Service Commission to the extent that it
represents the staff recommendation of the Public Service Commission; 2)to the extent possible
by law treat the PSC decision as a final decision in the matter; 3)in the event that a Writ of
Mandamus is sought to provide permits for electrical service on No Name Key by the Reynolds
the Newtons or any other similarly situated property owners that the county staff is directed to
not oppose the entry of Writ with the following conditions; a)that any Writs seek no relief
beyond the findings and orders of the PSC that as enunciated by the PSC staff recommendation
and that any Writ seek no relief beyond the granting of electrical connection permits to private
residences on No Name Key; and 4) we institute no further appeals of any existing litigation and
not oppose any person currently appealing any county decisions denying electrical service to
persons on No Name Key. Roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Commissioner Carruthers No
Commissioner Kolhage Yes
Commissioner Murphy No
Commissioner Rice Yes
Mayor Rice Yes
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item T1 The second of two Public Hearings was held to consider adoption of an Ordinance
by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending the Monroe County Code by
5/15/2013 Page 17
establishing 2 Commercial Districts; amending Section 130-2, Land Use Districts Established;
creating Section 130-51, Purpose of the Commercial 1 District (Cl); creating Section 130-52,
Purpose of the Commercial 2 District (C2); creating, within Article III Permitted and Conditional
uses, Section 130-102, Commercial 1 District (Cl), and Section 130-103, Commercial 2 District
(C2); and amending Section 130-164, Maximum Nonresidential Land Use Intensities and
District Open Space. There was no public input. Motion was made by Commissioner Carruthers
and seconded by Commissioner Kolhage to adopt the following Ordinance. Motion carried
unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 022-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Item T2 A Public Hearing was held to consider adoption of an Ordinance by the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners amending the Monroe County Code to include the
Commercial 1 (Cl) and Commercial 2 (C2) land use districts within the following sections:
Section 114-20 Fences; Section 114-99 Required Landscaping; Section 114-126 District
Boundary Buffers; Section 114-127 Required Scenic Corridor and Major Street Buffers; Section
130-186 Minimum Yards; Section 142-4 Signs Requiring a Permit and Specific Standards;
Chapter 146, entitled "Wireless Communications Facilities," Section 146-3 Applicability,
Section 146-4 Uses by Land Use District, and Section 146-5 Development Standards;
Referencing C 1 and C2 land use districts where appropriate. There was no public input. Motion
was made by Commissioner Kolhage and seconded by Commissioner Rice to adopt the
following Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 023-2013
Said Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Item RI Bob Shillinger, County Attorney discussed the redacted inspection report from the
Florida Department of Transportation on the Old Seven Mile Bridge. Motion was made by
Commissioner Kolhage and seconded by Commissioner Rice to authorize the County Attorney's
Office to file an action in the Circuit Court seeking a court order authorizing the County to
release unredacted copies to the Department of Transportation inspection reports of the Old
Seven Mile Bridge for a showing of good cause. Motion carried unanimously. Kevin Wilson,
Public Works&Engineering Director addressed the Board.
Item R2 Bob Shillinger, County Attorney read the required language into the record
requesting approval to hold an Attorney-Client Closed Session in the matter of KW Resort
Utilities Corp. v. Monroe County, PSC Docket No. 130086-SU at the June 19, 2013 BOCC
meeting in Marathon, FL at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard. Motion was made
by Commissioner Kolhage and seconded by Commissioner Carruthers granting approval of the
item. Motion carried unanimously. Kevin Wilson, Public Works&Engineering Director
addressed the Board.
05/15/2013 Page 18
There being no further business, the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners was
adjourned.
Amy Heavilin, CPA, Clerk
and ex-officio Clerk to the
Board of County Commissioners
Monroe County, Florida
�05/15/2013 ......... ..�m_...�-___ .�........w,.. ��y,.._. _�_._�. � ......... ..�.�..,. �. ,... _w....... . ..a _....._.. . Pagel9.�
El,�,�xtflbit to Staff [Report
Ninety-seventh Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington
on Monday, the twenty-fifth day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and eighty-two
An Act
To protect and conserve fish and wildlife resources, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Coastal Barrier Resources Act".
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States and
the adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets and nearshore waters
provide—
(A) habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife; and
(B) habitats which are essential spawning, nursery, nesting, and feeding
areas for commercially and recreationally important species of finfish and
shellfish, as well as other aquatic organisms such as sea turtles;
(2) coastal barriers contain resources of extraordinary scenic, scientific,
recreational, natural, historic, archeological, cultural, and economic
importance; which are being irretrievably damaged and lost due to
development on, among, and adjacent to, such barriers;
(3) coastal barriers serve as natural storm protective buffers and are generally
unsuitable for development because they are vulnerable to hurricane and other
storm damage and because natural shoreline recession and the movement of
unstable sediments undermine manmade structures;
(4) certain actions and programs of the Federal Government have subsidized
and permitted development on coastal barriers and the result has been the loss
of barrier resources, threats to human life, health, and property, and the
expenditure of millions of tax dollars each year; and
(5) a program of coordinated action by Federal, State, and local governments
is critical to the more appropriate use and conservation of coastal barriers.
(b) PURPOSE. — The Congress declares that it is the purpose of this Act to
minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and
the damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources associated with the
coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts by restricting future Federal
expenditures and financial assistance which have the effect of encouraging
development of coastal barriers, by establishing a Coastal Barrier Resources
System, and by considering the means and measures by which the long-term
conservation of these fish,wildlife, and other natural resources may be achieved.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act—
(1) The term"undeveloped coastal barrier"means—
(A) a depositional geologic feature (such as a bay barrier, tombolo, barrier
spit, or barrier island)that—
(i) consists of unconsolidated sedimentary materials,
(ii) is subject to wave, tidal, and wind energies, and
(iii)protects landward aquatic habitats from direct wave attack; and
(B) all associated aquatic habitats, including the adjacent wetlands, marshes,
estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters;
but only if such feature and associated habitats (i) contain few manmade
structures and these structures, and man's activities on such feature and within
such habitats, do not significantly impede geomorphic and ecological processes,
and (ii) are not included within the boundaries of an area established under
Federal, State, or local law, or held by a qualified organization as defined in
section 170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, primarily for wildlife
refuge, sanctuary,recreational, or natural resource conservation purposes.
(2) The term "Committees" refers to the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate.
(3) The term "financial assistance" means any form of loan, grant, guaranty,
insurance, payment, rebate, subsidy, or any other form of direct or indirect
Federal assistance other than—
(A) general revenue-sharing grants made under section 102 of the State and
Local Fiscal Assistance Amendments of 1972 (31 U.S.C. 1221);
(B) deposit or account insurance for customers of banks, savings and loan
associations, credit unions, or similar institutions;
(C) the purchase of mortgages or loans by the Government National Mortgage
Association, the Federal National Mortgage Association, or the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation;
(D) assistance for environmental studies, planning, and assessments that are
required incident to the issuance of permits or other authorizations under
Federal law; and
(E)assistance pursuant to programs entirely unrelated to development, such as
any Federal or federally assisted public assistance program or any Federal old-
age survivors or disability insurance program.
Effective October 1, 1983, such term includes flood insurance described in
section 1321 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4028).
(4) The term"Secretary"means the Secretary of the Interior.
(5) The term "System unit" means any undeveloped coastal barrier, or
combination of closely-related undeveloped coastal barriers, included within the
Coastal Barrier Resources System established by section 4.
SEC. 4. THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT. — (1) There is established the Coastal Barrier Resources
System which shall consist of those undeveloped coastal barriers located on the
Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States that are identified and generally
depicted on the maps that are entitled "Coastal Barrier Resources System",
numbered A01 through T12, and dated September 30, 1982.
(2) Any person or persons or other entity owning or controlling land on an
undeveloped coastal barrier, associated landform or any portion thereof not within
the Coastal Barrier Resources System established under paragraph (1) may,
within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, elect to have such land
included within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. This election shall be
made in compliance with regulations established for this purpose by the Secretary
not later than one hundred and eighty days after the date of enactment of this Act;
and, once made and filed in accordance with the laws regulating the sale or other
transfer of land or other real property of the State in which such land is located,
shall have the same force and effect as if such land had originally been included
within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
(b)(1) As soon as practicable after the enactment of this Act, the maps referred to
in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be filed with the Committees by the
Secretary, and each such map shall have the same force and effect as if included
in this Act, except that correction of clerical and typographical errors in each such
map may be made. Each such map shall be on file and available for public
inspection in the Office of the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, and in other appropriate offices of the
Service.
(2)As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall provide copies of the maps referred to in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) to
the chief executive officer of(A) each State and county or equivalent jurisdiction
in which a system unit is located, (B) each State coastal zone management agency
in those States which have a coastal zone management plan approved pursuant to
section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1455) and
in which a system unit is located, and(C) each appropriate Federal agency.
(c) BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS. — (1) Within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary may make such minor and technical
modifications to the boundaries of system units as depicted on the maps referred
to in paragraph(1) of subsection(a) as are consistent with the purposes of this Act
and necessary to clarify the boundaries of said system units; except that, for
system units within States which have, on the date of enactment, a coastal zone
management plan approved pursuant to section 306 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1455)—
(A) each appropriate State coastal zone management agency may within 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act, submit to the Secretary proposals
for such minor and technical modifications; and
(B) the Secretary may, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
make such minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of such
system units.
(2) The Secretary shall, not less than 30 days prior to the effective date of any
such boundary modification made under the authority of paragraph (1), submit
written notice of such modification to (A) each of the Committees and(B) each of
the appropriate officers referred to in paragraph(2) of subsection(b).
(3) The Secretary shall conduct, at least once every five years, a review of the
maps referred to in paragraph(1) of subsection(a) and make, in consultation with
the appropriate officers referred to in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), such minor
and technical modifications to the boundaries of system units as are necessary
solely to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location of any system
units as a result of natural forces.
(4) If, in the case of any minor and technical modification to the boundaries of
system units made under the authority of this subsection, an appropriate chief
executive officer of a State, county or equivalent jurisdiction, or State coastal
zone management agency to which notice was given in accordance with this
subsection files comments disagreeing with all or part of the modification and the
Secretary makes a modification which is in conflict with such comments, or if the
Secretary fails to adopt a modification pursuant to a proposal submitted by an
appropriate State coastal zone management agency under paragraph (1)(A), the
Secretary shall submit to the chief executive officer a written justification for his
failure to make modifications consistent with such comments or proposals.
SEC. 5. LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL EXPENDITURES AFFECTING THE
SYSTEM.
(a) Except as provided in section 6, no new expenditures or new financial
assistance may be made available under authority of any Federal law for any
purpose within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, including, but not limited
to—
(1) the construction or purchase of any structure, appurtenance, facility, or
related infrastructure;
(2) the construction or purchase of any road, airport, boat landing facility, or
other facility on, or bridge or causeway to, any System unit; and
(3) the carrying out of any project to prevent the erosion of, or to otherwise
stabilize, any inlet, shoreline, or inshore area, except that such assistance and
expenditures may be made available on units designated pursuant to section 4
on maps numbered SO1 through S08 for purposes other than encouraging
development and, in all units, in cases where an emergency threatens life,
land, and property immediately adjacent to that unit.
(b) An expenditure or financial assistance made available under authority of
Federal law shall, for purposes of this Act, be a new expenditure or new financial
assistance if—
(1) in any case with respect to which specific appropriations are required, no
money for construction or purchase purposes was appropriated before the date
of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) no legally binding commitment for the expenditure or financial assistance
was made before such date of enactment.
SEC. 6. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) Notwithstanding section 5, the appropriate Federal officer, after consultation
with the Secretary, may make Federal expenditures or financial assistance
available within the Coastal Barrier Resources System for—
(1) any use or facility necessary for the exploration, extraction, or
transportation of energy resources which can be carried out only on, in, or
adjacent to coastal water areas because the use or facility requires access to
the coastal water body;
(2) the maintenance of existing channel improvements and related structures,
such as jetties, and including the disposal of dredge materials related to such
improvements;
(3) the maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, or repair, but not the
expansion, of publicly-owned or publicly-operated roads, structures, or
facilities that are essential links in a larger network or system;
(4)military activities essential to national security;
(5) the construction, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of Coast
Guard facilities and access thereto; and
(6) any of the following actions or projects, but only if the making available of
expenditures or assistance therefor is consistent with the purposes of this Act:
(A) Projects for the study, management, protection and enhancement of
fish and wildlife resources and habitats, including, but not limited to,
acquisition of fish and wildlife habitats and related lands, stabilization
projects for fish and wildlife habitats, and recreational projects.
(B) The establishment, operation, and maintenance of air and water
navigation aids and devices, and for access thereto.
(C)Projects under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16
U.S.C. 4601-4 through 11) and the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).
(D) Scientific research, including but not limited to aeronautical,
atmospheric, space, geologic, marine, fish and wildlife and other research,
development, and applications.
(E) Assistance for emergency actions essential to the saving of lives and
the protection of property and the public health and safety, if such actions
are performed pursuant to sections 305 and 306 of the Disaster Relief Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5145 and 5146) and section 1362 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4103) and are limited to actions that are
necessary to alleviate the emergency.
(F) The maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, or repair, but not the
expansion, of publicly owned or publicly operated roads, structures, or
facilities.
(G) Nonstructural projects for shoreline stabilization that are designed to
mimic, enhance, or restore natural stabilization systems.
(b) For purposes of subsection (a)(2), a channel improvement or a related
structure shall be treated as an existing improvement or an existing related
structure only if all, or a portion, of the moneys for such an improvement or
structure was appropriated before the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 7. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, on behalf of each
Federal agency concerned, make written certification that each such agency has
complied with the provisions of this Act during each fiscal year beginning after
September 30, 1982. Such certification shall be submitted on an annual basis to
the House of Representatives and the Senate pursuant to the schedule required
under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
SEC. 8. PRIORITY OF LAWS.
Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part
of the Congress to change the existing relationship of other Federal laws to the
law of a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or to relieve any person of any
obligation imposed by any law of any State, or political subdivision of a State.
No provision of this Act shall be construed to invalidate any provision of State or
local law unless there is a direct conflict between such provision and the law of
the State, or political subdivision of the State, so that the two cannot be reconciled
or consistently stand together. This Act shall in no way be interpreted to interfere
with a State's right to protect, rehabilitate, preserve, and restore lands within its
established boundary.
SEC. 9. SEPARABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of such
provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances shall
not be affected thereby.
SEC. 10. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) IN GENERAL. —Before the close of the 3-year period beginning on the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the
Committees a report regarding the System.
(b) CONSULTATION IN PREPARING REPORT. —The Secretary shall prepare
the report required under subsection (a) in consultation with the Governors of the
States in which System units are located and with the coastal zone management
agencies of the States in which System units are located and after providing
opportunity for, and considering,public comment.
(c) REPORT CONTENT. — The report required under subsection (a) shall
contain—
(1) recommendations for the conservation of the fish, wildlife, and other
natural resources of the System based on an evaluation and comparison of all
management alternatives, and combinations thereof, such as State and local
actions (including management plans approved under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.)),Federal actions (including
acquisition for administration as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System),
and initiatives by private organizations and individuals;
(2) recommendations for additions to, or deletions from, the Coastal Barrier
Resources System, and for modifications to the boundaries of System units;
(3) a summary of the comments received from the Governors of the States,
State coastal zone management agencies, other government officials, and the
public regarding the System; and
(4) an analysis of the effect, if any, that general revenue sharing grants made
under section 102 of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Amendments of
1972 (31 U.S.C. 1221) have had on undeveloped coastal barriers.
SEC. 11. AMENDMENTS REGARDING FLOOD INSURANCE.
(a) Section 1321 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4028) is
amended to read as follows:
"UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS
"SEC. 1321. No new flood insurance coverage may be provided under this title on
or after October 1, 1983, for any new construction or substantial improvements of
structures located on any coastal barrier within the Coastal Barrier Resources
System established by section 4 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. A federally
insured financial institution may make loans secured by structures which are not
eligible for flood insurance by reason of this section."
(b) Section 341 (d)(2) of the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1981
(Public Law 97-35)is repealed.
SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior
$1,000,000 for the period beginning October 1, 1982, and ending September 30,
1985, for purposes of carrying out sections 4 and 10.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate
BOCC RegularWest m'
October _ ...... _....w_ . ,
Agenda Item V1 -Amendments to LDR 130-122
Good Afternoon Commissioners -
W_VU �t
G
I m today tolat at you exempt water, as a did sewers, from
We
the discouragement language in your amendments to LDR 130-122.
ut,first I d hhe to thank Christine Hurley and her fine staff the work done on
the amendments to this LDR. I appreciate her meeting with us and hearing our
concerns. The issue of access to safe potable drinking water was not one
Christine and her staff could address; that falls to you.
The CBRS Act restricts the use of Federal Funds, and I take no issue with the
County restricting the use of County Public Funds for the extension of water
service to CBRS aside from that County Funding restriction[gee new
section d0ask that t at you remove potable water from beiug"discouraged'.
Safe Potable Drinking Water isn't a want, it's a basic need: (1) it's Law, (2) it's
supported by the currently adopted Comp Plan, (3) it's State Assured, and (4)
it's a legally binding "Human Right'.
The provision of potable water is supported in the County Comp Plan 3.7
Potable Water, Goals and Policies under 701 /L.O.S. (level of service standard),
and is excepted in Comp Plan Policy,101.12.4 s was provided as backup to this
agenda item).
The availability of safe potable drinking water is "assured" by the State of
Florida, and was (in 2010) recognized by a binding affirmation, of the United
Nations General Assembly, as a "HUMAN RIGHT".
"T h ' de the h ,_j.Q wAl-er and sanitation idi on
all S d` ,ruq it tng mat they respect,protect,and fuiftll the human right to
wator. -United Nations Human Rights Office i h Commission
x n aIftnia laWlayss,-dar X � to
respect By becoming parties to international treaties, States assuAr e a aCc a d
dud6 rider nternational�law to respec4 to protect and to fulfill human rights:
The ohlr anon toe i �e '� i ���'��t��, fir% irr r
in e° i W h,or carta li �n ment,o rrta n ®
(2) The obligation to tect r res States to t rote t in i id'ooi car dgroups
against human rights abuses.
Th " i"g► tion to f�c 1 mqa-n Ghat; totes rn r t to e h fti e action to
r'laG iiri// rri/ HD
ft1 a enfe,Fment of basic human rights.
Source: Ift_oftss
The State of Florida declares: `"It is th o ' t e 't th at "cit e
�o� � //rf �ir/�/iO ��®
ace t (�03.851s)
� No one can `"assure"" that cistern water is `"safe"" as cisterns�are open source and
subject to contamination. I have letters on file from two of the Country's most
renowned experts (microbiologists) on cistern water, and water contaminants,
which state cistern water is not safe for consumption. One those experts*
has stated in writing that"cistern water poses significant health risks", and
"endemic and epidermic disease is imminent within the[No Name
communi ".
r. K. Mena, MSPH, PhD" is one of the foremost Microbiologists in the
Country renowned expert on ®"microbial water quality and human
health risk assessment". She is a tenured University Professor, sits
USEPA National Drinking Water Advisory Council, and is a consultant to
several US Governmental agencies specifically Predict the likelihood of
microbial contamination for different water sources for public heath
"� __ .m
Impact . Her 9-� credentials c��be viewed here: ;'. . ....., w ��gth_ �. :, � �w � c� , „ 4 .�J .c
The State of Florida assures adequate water shall be available to all citizens
"thin the Authority (187 F...), and that directly or
indirectly—the reasonable and beneficial use of water ... or any of the
inhabitants or property owners therein. (373 F...)
County should not "indirectly deprive"anyone based on where they live.
r can the County"assure" adequate rainfall for cistern collection to meet
ado ted L.O.S.
6nn w u!7u ,N�mw )O�yWp ou q amnruipwu�s
NTVMR
�V'�� ///�� %'/ire ii r / /riy//%//,/iiri/r/fir r, ' / /1,,,, ;,
/ ,, , ,;r,, b ' ` Sal ` .
The FKAA explains on their website how cistern water collected from rooftops
do not meet the County Comp Plan L,.O.S. (levels of service standards) as set
forth in the currently adopted M.C. Comp Flan as the FKAA states the average
ize rooftops collect only 61 gallons per day, while the County Comp Flan
adopted L.O.S. calls for 149 gallons per day per house.
FKAA: "In the Keys it would be difficultfor the average,household today to exist
on water collected from roofs. The average rainfall is about 36 inches ayear
which would produce 3,000 cubic feet of water(22,200gallons peryearl
equivalent to 61 ,gallons per household per day) if collectedfi-om a :1,000 square
foot roof Source:h, p.,a 111�:�. �:
„ e; a ", Policies of 701 call on you �o sar�nar� F A'"
i' 1 provii
r !
Y�
X1 .
Note: "The FI 4 is an autonomous body, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
and is chid with the dilty of distrihutin an ad uate su iv of water for all in
the K vs." Florida Chapter 6-44 which "shall control over the provisions ofany
other special or general laW) states the F "exclusive jurisdiction over
projects', and "is exemptfrorn other regulatory lawns and authorities". Source:
FKAA Rules and Regulations & State Enabling Legislation
COUNTY COMP PLAN: 3.7 POTABLE WATER
®AL 701
AAA eLfil
a c , for a safe, high quality and ade hate
supply,treatment, distribution.and conservation of�a+
meet the needs of re e t aixd future r sid nts.
Policv 701.1.1
lwlon.roe Coun h.ereb ado is the folio n level of se ce standardsto
achieve Objective 701.1 and shall use these standards as the basis for
determining facility capacity demand axed en.erated by a development
L tandnrds
1. Quantity:
100 dal./capita/day
*Notee Based on historical data,through December ® provided by FKAA,
December 2012.
Residential LOS 66.50 gal./capita/day
Non-Residential LOS 0.35 gal./sq. ft./day
Overall LOS 132.(Ord. - 009)
l-Un1t1,4 00,gallonse r dav
2.24 average persons per household x 66.5 gallons/capita/day)
NOTE: As „ County uses 2.24 per household multiplied by the
gallons capita/da i.e. e u,u. is 149 grallons per day) as it's currently
adopted level of service standard, the L S for rooftop collected cistern
falls even further to approx. 27 gallons; a far cry from the (..'.ounty Comp
Plan adopted L.O.S. of 149 gallons.
(22,000 gallons per year ..365 =days 61, gallons per day / 61 gallons per day
2.24 average ersons per household= 27 gallons per day)
Further, County Comp Plan Policy 101.12.4 referenced, in the�backup docs of this
agenda already contains an exception for "water distribution lines", pis. see third
paragraph which reads:
"Exceptfor passive recreational facilities on publically owned land, no new
public community or utility facility w.oth&i, hmv rals, ation and
sewage collection lines or pumplvacuumllift stations shall be allowed within
Tier I designated areas...."
Commissioners, Subsequent to the adoption of the County qomp Plan, Safe
Potable Drinking Water has become a legally binding"HUMAN RIGHT":
• A", wlaf6r,General Assenk Yuut' �AamentalHuman
I' 4y4n 2010.
,
bqP.!La P_&LLc�Lr o�r _d Q.qY_ra(_n)!_.sL4o_g§L_e A�pz_?nlal.�Z
Source-United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission
THE HUMAN RIGHT TO WATER:
The United Nations General Assembly recognized the fundamental human
rights of access to clean water and proper sanitation.
Excerpts from the U.N. "Guidelines to realization to the right to drinking water"":
2. State actions to implement the right to water and sanitation
2 1 Bi"44#14 Gov ment,
onst to
e
T tu_11
and sanitation fahe using practical
and targeted measures and drawing, to the maximum extent possible, on all
available resources.
2.2 National Governments should ensure that other levels ofgovernment have the
necessary resources and skills to discharge their responsibilities.
2.3 States should at am///,I_yd Q ctoy meats
(a) Give priority in water and sanitation policies and programs to the persons
without any basic access,
(b)Adopt and implement a plan of action for the full realization of the right
to water and sanitation which establishes specific targets, indicators and time
fi-ames and identifies the necessary,,national and international resources,
WFormally and sanitation in releVahtlaws
and ensure that private persons and organizations re ain®
ttlaqwater and sanitation or
any other human rights.
. Preventing discrimination and addressing the needs of vulnerable or
marginalized groups.
3.1 States should ionsuretharn,o persons or public or private organizations
engage in discriminatory practices which limit;access-to water°and
sanitation on the grounds of sex, age, ethnic origin, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, disability, health status or other
status.
3.4 States should CWAandirne " tI r" .taccgsAh
in rural areas.
4.Availability and equitable distribution of water
43Theiviloritvinwdt A ':6 i d , shall befor essential personal and
domestic usesk
® Improving access to drinking water surraly
m 1 States should progressively ensure that, v h � ce w
and sanitation and that these services are equitabl tributed
Where available resources are not sufficient to guarantee the delivery of high-
quality services, States should invest in se ices that ive riori to the
needs of those without basic access..®
5 4 ' &d mait—atknakesame-
10. International obligation and duty of solidarity
10.1 Statesshould re,
t e h
and sanitation in other countries and should prevent
individuals and companies under theirjurisdiction from taping such
actions.
10.4 Inter-national organizations, including United Nations specialized agencies,
trade and nancral institutions States members o such bodies should
sanitation.
f
tiou made the ri °� ter aid trtir ZR
o requixng that
tl e j g cs t Chd'M11i 1 the hum an right to water. ,.
"International human rights law lays down obligations which.States are
bound to respect By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume
obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to
fulfill human rights.
The obligation to r s +act means that 5 a s must refrain from interferirngo
�ft,
� ! xge/enjoyment ofhuratan rights. The obligation to pLQtect
tip
reguares States to Drotect individuals andgroups against human ri hts abuses.
means that,,,States;mint tag positive action to
� a6yrnentf basic human rights.
htt �ca r�� s�tlyr� � ��� � s �t rn �� 1L ..Source: _ �
. : . L � ��
. County. is of""Discouraging"a in " ,.
is in direct opposition t these binding
hurnan rights obligations, and ese obligations apply-to local government.
The UN website on that issue states "Wuman rights obligations arising from the right
to water a 0jL ,, ritjb because they are part of government r because
national Government has delegated power to them. States are required to focus on
extending access to populations and areas that remain underserved or unserved
through legislation, policies and strategies. "States should at all levels of government...
give priority in water and sanitation policies and programmes to the persons without
/! ///��i///l�/ !f a%f G rr //p//////l4 i ;�e ( 7f4; /i. r I i/, ! /. /Di
any basic access . � ei ion tr c tes nd, , 1 esr 1 al r- revue to
iiiz,/%/ /i// /D„!/, �1� ////i , �,¢ / , / �iirii aiiii/ �+i„r ,„/,//!Gil i,,, ! ,/ / �io %
en / ,, �t loll% r' frcro t1 , , rt d
sl' "I / / !% "i` ir ` !/; chndnynsfert with Covenant requirements.
Com issioners-
I tale no exception to the County restricting the use of County Public Funds for
the extension of water service to CBRS areas, butt asl-hat� ` cm that
+ f L l and thuyou remove potable w4t6 a bin
cl�sa
> Safe Potable Drinking Water is something your Comp Plan calls on you to
"support the provision of (Comp Plan Coals/Policies
Safe Potable Drinking Water is "assured" by the State of Florida
® .85 . ® , and is a beneficial need which no inhabitant or property
owner is to be directly or indirectly deprived of
Safe Potable Drinking Water is "a legally binding Human Right", which you
are "obligated"(through International Law) "to tape positive actions to
respect, protect®fulfill and facilitate". http://www.ohchr. -united Nations
Human Rights Office of the High Commission)
Thank you for your consideration.
4 ' ) Y
UNfTED NAi'iC3NS
HUMAN RIGHTS
artist K rN qrW to�rntirwte
UN
united to make the right to water and sanitation legally binding
1019113 DisplayNems
GENEVA(1 October 2010) —In a historic meeting of the Human Rights Council, the UN affirmed
yesterday by consensus that the right to water and sanitation is derived from the right to an
adequate standard of living, which is contained in several international human rights treaties. While
experts working with the UN human rights system have long acknowledged this, it was the first
time that the Human Rights Council has declared itself on the issue.
According to the UN Independent Expert on human rights obligations related to access to safe
drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque, "this means that for the UN,the right to
water and sanitation, is contained in existing human rights treaties and is therefore legally binding".
She added that "this landmark decision has the potential to change the lives of the billions of human
beings who still lack access to water and sanitation."
On 28 July 2010, the General Assembly took a first critical step by recognising this fundamental
right. However, that resolution did not specify that the right entailed legally binding obligations.
The Human Rights Council— the main UN body competent in the area of human rights — in a
resolution tabled by the Governments of Germany and Spain, with support from dozens of
countries, has closed this gap by clarifying the foundation for recognition of the right and the legal
standards which apply.
"I wholeheartedly welcome this resolution from the Human Rights Council, which signals a global
agreement that access to water and sanitation are no longer matters of charity,"Ms. de
Albuquerque said. `The right to water and sanitation is a human right, equal to all other human
rights, which implies that it is justiciable and enforceable. Hence from today onwards we have an
even greater responsibility to concentrate all our efforts in the implementation and full realisation
of this essential right."
Catarina de Albuquerque is a Portuguese lawyer currently working as a senior legal adviser at the
Office for Documentation and Comparative Law(an independent institution under the Portuguese
Prosecutor General's Office) in the area of human rights. She has extensive experience in
economic, social and cultural rights and holds a DES in international relations with a specialization
in international law from the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva. She was
appointed as Independent Expert in September 2008 and took up her functions in November 2008.
Learn more about the Independent Expert's mandate and work, log on to:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/water/iexpert/index.htm
For more information and media requests, please contact Lucinda O'Hanlon (Tel.: +41 22 917
9679 / e-mail: lohanlon&ohc�.or ) or write to iewater t.ohchr.org
IW13 Internabomi Law
International Huffian Rights Law Relaled links
The international hurnan rights movement was strengthened
when the United Nations General Assembly adopted of the n ik-d. i_N91(ju
Universal, Declaration of Human Rights (1A)HR) on 10
'December 1948. Drafted as 'a common standard of Ebe hii-E-Mal�kml_ail
achievement for all peoples and nations', the Declaration for the Bill rlf Human
first time in human history spell out basic civiL political, LtiZhts
economic, social and cultural rights that all human beings
should enjoy. It has over time been widely accepted as the UnLive-Irkia
fundamental norms of hurnan rights that everyone should L)eg.)Aution of
respect and protect. The UDFK together with the International Lit 4-�
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Option,',d lln��=i
Protocols, and the International Covenant on J."Economic, Social --- kkuriw
LCoven nt Qn
and Cultural Rig;hts, form the so - called international Bill off, 1--..--
Fc()wigmi-&. iall
tA- - L5gg
jinA C It, I.Rial-11a
A series of int ationall human rights treaties and other instruments adopted.since 1945 have 1-9-6�
conferred legal form on inherent human, rights and developed the body of international human
rights. Other instrunients have been adopted, at the regional level reflecting the particuLar human in—tery"atiolIdJ
'9 M rigJits concerns of the region and providing for specific mechanisms of protection. Most States L -v 'I sot-e--'M
r— c d
have also adopted constitutions and other laws which forTnally protect basic human rights. jid 111g.Lifi a R
1.
While hiternational treaties and customary law form the backbone of international human rights
law other instrutnents, such as declarations, guidelines and principks adopted at the Qp1jg�alPi �t
international level contribute to its understanding, implementation and development. Respect for
hurnan rights requires the establishment of the rule of law at the national and international LAI-il
levelsw
ar id!Lhtic,',Might.5
International human rights law lays down obligations whi.ch States are bound to respect. By 519L0-11(iQ%=11J
becoming parties to international,treaties, States assume obligations and duties der Pr
intemational law to respect, to protect and to falfil human rights. The obligation to respect aw-c.2—Itc,&I
means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human 111 er I I 0-t L10101
rights, The obligation, to protect requires States to protect individuals, and groups against human LOW
rights abuse,%,, The obligation to fulfil means that St,ates must take positive action to facilitate AWTIJ-1-19-fillki-O-E"ht,
the enjoyment of basic human rights. abMin"..LiLe
pj)L)fitiori of th
Through ratification of jajgmgjjgnaLhjVnAftjj&hjk_kggtjCa, Governments undertake to put into
place domestic measures and legislation compatible with their treaty obligations and dutics. i h t:
Where dornestic legal proceedings fail to address human rights abusei, mechanisms and i=rn t
proccdurcs for individual complaints or communications are available at the regional and �r .�iwr 1�niqn.
intemational levels to help ensure that international hurnan rights standards are indeed
rmpected, implemented, and enforced at the local level. jjujva,%dh -Ida
m l
righ.1s; iiLs.1rurnents,
!Qs2ls in thg,
rsakiatkUD-Liul—lux,
jj&hts,
wmv.ohcFr.orglF-NA°ofesslaiWin ter esL(PagmA rum`erns"coral Law.aspx 112
United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commission for Human Rights
THE RIGHT TO WATER t hL &22. d
Key aspects of the right to water (excerpts)
The right to water contains freedoms.
These freedoms include protection against arbitrary and Illegal disconnections; prohibition of unlawful
pollution r resource nes,t,asafe drik�ng dater ar>Icii sanitation,
„ o s rig Status; non:;interference frith Drees to,rater supplies,
urees;and ensuring that personal security is not threatened when
accessing water or sanitation outside the home.
Three types of obligations
State obligations fall into three categories,namely the obligations to Respect, Protect and Fulfil.
( ) The obligationto Respect:
The obligation to respect requires States to refrain from interfering directly or indirectly with the
enjoyment of the right to water.
O The obligation to Protect:
The obligation to protect requires States to prevent third parties from interfering with the right to
water.
shouldStates legislation or other measures to ensure that privateactors—e.g.,industry,water
providers r individuals—comply with human rights standards related to the right to water.States should,for
instance, ' i `
and other measures to cur #hat I�osl� r�ershrp laws ana
pra K o fr ° (a d'uais anci tommun ties 6m accessing safe cir n 3ng water
(3) The obligation to Fulfil:
The obligation to fulfil requires States to adopt appropriate legislative,administrative, budgetary,
judicial, promotional and other measures to fully realize the right to water.
Under the obligation to fulfil,States must also,progressively and to the extent allowed by their available
resources,extend water and sanitation services
What are the obligations of the local authorities?
Human rights R , ' arising from the right to water a Iv to local authorities because they are part of
government or because the national Government has delegated power to them.
CommitteeThe rli ,where the provisionter has been delegatedregional local authorities,
shouldthe State rauthorities t discriminate and have sufficientresources o maintain an
extend the supply and qualityit water services.
What steps need to be taken in respect of policy formulation?
States are required to focus on extending access to populations and areas that remain underserved or unserved
through, r instance,legislation, lici strategies. cc i tothe Sub-Commission's guidelines for the
realization right drinking ter and sanitation, "States should at all levels of government...give priority
in water and sanitation policies and programmes to the persons without any basic access".
(icieLshould bg i"d�ft ensure thtat the are co ` atfbie with
ofs to wa# r and sA ould1e re Baled mended or chap ed'if Inconslisten#with
Covenant requirements.
r
THE UNIVERSITY of TEXAS
J� HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON
. SCHOOL o/ PCBLIC HEALTH
Kristina 1).Mena,MSPH,PhD 1100 N.Stanton,Suite 110E 915-747-8S14 Phone
Associate Professor El Paso,Texas 79901 91S-747-8S11 Fax
Environmental and Occupational Health Kristina.U.hlena(ti)uth.tlnc.edu
November 20, 2009
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
ATTN: Board of Directors
1100 Kennedy Drive
Key West, Florida 33041-1239
305-296-2454
Dear Board of Directors:
I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding the use of cisterns as a drinking
water source. I am a tenured, Associate Professor of Environmental and Occupational
Health Sciences at the University of Texas—Houston, School of Public Health. I earned
a Master's of Science in Public Health (MSPH)from the University of South Florida
(USF), a PhD in environmental microbiology and epidemiology from The University of
Arizona, and completed a Postdoctoral Fellowship at Kansas State University. My
educational and research background are in the areas of microbial water quality and
human health risk assessment.
My thesis research as a MSPH student at USF was funded by the USEPA and involved
the sampling and microbial analyses of cistern water from various locations throughout
the U.S. Virgin Islands. Both private and public cisterns are highly susceptible to
microbial contamination and pose significant health risks to consumers. The results of
my study found many of the cisterns to be contaminated with pathogens, particularly
Giardia and Cryptospoiidium[Crabtree (Mena)et al., 1996] (see attached CV). Both of
these protozoa can cause severe diarrhea and other health outcomes in infected
individuals. Sources of pathogens, such as dirt/debris and wildlife (frogs and birds),
were present in the cisterns during the sampling events.
My dissertation work at The University of Arizona addressed microbial water quality of
various types of water and subsequent human health risks using a quantitative microbial
risk assessment approach (QMRA). In my current work, I am developing and applying
this translational research in various venues, including the water industry, the food safety
arena, and at the International Space Station for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). Specifically, I predict the likelihood of microbial contamination to
different types of water sources and interpret microbial water quality data for public
health impact.
Cistern waters pose a significant human health risk for various reasons. They are highly
susceptible to contamination by a variety of pathogens—bacteria, enteric viruses, and
protozoan parasites—that cause a multitude of human illnesses. Illnesses range from
acute gastroenteritis (with varying severity)to chronic outcomes such as myocarditis and
insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Other possible health outcomes include hepatitis,
meningitis, and respiratory disease. Waterborne illnesses can also result in high
economic costs associated with hospitalization, medications, and missed work. Certain
sub-populations are at particular risk of severe outcomes due to waterborne pathogens,
including death.
Minimizing human health risks associated with pathogens in water requires a multi-
barrier approach to water treatment involving disinfection and filtration. Many viral
pathogens, as well as the protozoa Cryptosporidium and Giardia, are resistant to
conventional water treatment making multi-barrier treatment processes a must. This
necessary treatment approach is not feasible for cistern owners. Applying such
techniques is cumbersome, costly, time-consuming, and requires knowledge and skill in
water treatment. In addition, even with unlimited resources and owner training,
acceptable quality drinking water from a cistern would still not be guaranteed.
Furthermore, monitoring cistern water quality is not practical and it would be difficult—if
not impossible—for individual cistern owners to adequately monitor their cistern water
quality for the range of bacteria, enteric viruses, and/or protozoa that may be present at
any given time. Moreover, if such a monitoring scenario was possible, what would an
individual cistern owner do if monitoring indicated poor microbial water quality?
Please consider connecting the residents of No Name Key, Florida to your drinking
water distribution system. Both endemic and epidemic waterborne diseases are
imminent within this community. Please feel free to contact me at (915) 747-8514 with
any questions or if you would like to discuss this further.
Best regards,
4< - A
Kristina D. Mena, MSPH, PhD
Associate Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
The Center for Disease Control States: "A cistern is a watertight,, traditionally underground reservoir
that is filled with rainwater draining from the roof of°a building Because the water is coming "the
roof a pipe is generally installed to allow redirection of the firstfew minutes of rainwater until the
water flows clear. Divertingthe firsts fZ°ow of water does,not sure ct, »aa 1' y rf beeause
i
f gt ,f and
ehemxeaXs an 15ao a tar rare birds and crier a �rnar ectrr rac ,; ;.
21
fro rr burc
CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL: Table 8.3. Disinfection Methods
Disinfection Method Disadvantages
Requires a great deal of heat
Takes time to boil and cool
Boiling
Water tastes stale
Typically limited capacity
Turbidity reduces effectiveness
Gives water a chlorine taste
Chlorine May form disinfection by-products
Does not kill Giardia or C to porid
Requires careful handling and storage
High electrical requirement
Provides no residual, ennt
Ultraviolet light Requires pretreatment if turbid
Requires new lamp annually
Effectiveness depends on the type of virus
Inconsistenttoineffedive of protozoa
Health side effects undetermined
Iodine Affected'.by water temperature
Gives water an iodine taste
Ozone Ozone gas is unstable and must be generated at point of use
Filtering Devices: Most bacteria and,viruses not be removed by filters
(1. Ceramic filters Microfrlters may not remove viruses, especially from clear waters
2. Carbon err
Membrane frlfer, Most carbon block filters do not remove
rraicrofilter; ultrafiltery Can act as a;growth medium for micro,-organisms
nanofilter and Bacteria can grow in these systems contarninating the drinking-water
reverse OSITIOSIS
type rlevies
a one-year sampling period, Crabtree tree et sul®jbund that 26%qfsampksfrom cisterns werepositivefir Gxtardikreprx
The l KAA explains on their website how cistern water collected from rooftops do not meet
the County'Comp Plan L.O.S. (levels of service standards) as set forth in the currently
adopted M.C.Comp Plan as the FKAA states the average size rooftops collect only 61 gallons
per day,while the County Comp Plan adopted L.O.S.calls for IL49 gallons per day per house.
l$ : "In the Keys it would be di icult for the average household today to exist on water
collected from roofs The average rah!fi2ll is about 36 larches ayear which world produce 3,,000
cubic feet of water(22,200 gallons per yearf equivalent to 61 gallons per household per day)if
collected f,omau a 1,000 sguarefoot roqf Source: 10m././
d,fop Plan Goals Anliies of call onouthe Inthp
ci°,d did
noV ',,,, is ou ra +
sd .
"The FKAA is® p f
an autonomous bud , political sr�ladpw�isiorr of e Mate op'lorlda, and is charged wtth
e d distrrlmurtxn an note ur o water or all mn the a s.gtr Florida Chapter 7 -441
(which "shall control over the provisions of any other special or,greneral laW) states the FKAA
has"exclusive jurisdiction over projects",a "is exempt from other regulatory laws and
authorities".Source: FKAA Rules and Regulations&State Enabling Legislation.
COUNTY COMP FI A N.- 3.7 POTABLE WATIER
GOAL701
safe.high quality and adequate supply,treatment,
istriuuufion.and conservation f tom the nee f resen
future resi ents.
P.Q.liicy 7 1, .1
lVl rur uun her do is th f' Il 'n. lev of nd rd o achieve
Objective 701.1 shall usethese standards as the basis for determining facility capacity
and the demand generated by a development.
Level of Service Standards
1. Quantity:
100 gal./capita/d.ay*
Note: Based on historical data through December 1; provided by FKAA,December 2012.
Residential LOS 66.5 gal./capita/day
Non-Residential LOS 0.35 gal.,/sq. ft,/day
Overall LOS 1 2.(Ordv - 009)
(2.24 average persons per household x 66.5 gallons/capita/day)
Vim ...NOTE:As the Counly uses 2.24 per household multiplied by the gall ons/capita/day,(Le.
equals 1.49 gallons per day) as it's currently,adopted level of service standard,, e L S for
rooftop collected cistern falls even further to approx. 27 gallons; a far cry from the County
Comp Plan adopted L.O.S. of 1.49 gallons.
22,000 gallons per year 365 days mm 61 gallons per d.ay 1 gallons per day, - 2.24 average
persons pew.hoursehold= 27 gallons per day)
Alicia Roenunele-Putney
215o No Name Drive
No Name Key,Florida 33043
w/t,6/2013
Agenda ItemV,1.
Amend the Coastal Barrier Resources System Overlay Ordinance
Dear Mayor,Neu gent and Fellow BOCC Mernberss:
The proposed ordinance contains coafficting language and should not be adopted as written.
Reading from the,Agenda Item Summary sheet, "Under the direction of the BOCC to proceed with the
recommended amendments, this proposed text amendment fulfills Pbase I of K&S (Keith& Schbriars)
LDC(,Land Development Code)recoininendations."('Elie following is paraphrased.)
1. Eliminate the language relating-to the"prohibition"of infrasitucture expansion,;
I Eliminate the language relating to""Passing through R. ' units";
3. Modify the ordinance to allow the extension and expau!Oon of wastewater;
4. Modify,the ordinance's Purpose to be consistent with the '1982 CBRA; and
5. Modify the ordinance to"state that areas with CBR.S units are in ineligible for most County
expenditures,except for centrid wastewater service and federal"ceptions.
Quoting from the existing ordinance, "Within-this over district,the tmnsmLssion and/or
collection lines of�the following types of public utiflities sball be prohibited from extension or
expansion;..
1"h9nemilowe." Attacbed is a copy of the,existing ordinance.
The only change, K&S recommendations-to this section would be the removal of`c,enitral
wa lle ate to ter treatment co ction s ms':'. Potable water,,electricity,and telepbone wtuAd
remain in the amended ordinance.
In the proposed ordinance,the list of public utilitic—,comes up five times. In only one instance is
potable water included in the list. This inconsistency should be corrected prior to adoption.
I believe this to be an ov m. ,iglit. I am asking that in these four locatioms the following be added,
"and/or potable water."' This would make all five of the places where the list of public facilities comes
up consistent throughout the ordinance. In other words,the list should state, "public facilities and/or
potable water and/or clectricity an/or telephone services"in all five instances.
Attached are pages 3 and 4 of the proposed ordinance showing where"potable water" is included and
the four locations where` table water,nw&s to be included for consistency.
Please do not adopt this Ordinance without correcting these four scriveners errors.
S, cerely, g '017
.
Alicia Roemmele-Putney
Die EMara dtatr ®
Sec. 130-122.Coastal barrier resources system overlay district.
(a)
Purpose.
The purpose of the coastal barrier resources system overlay district is to implement the
policies of the comprehensive plan by prohibiting the extension and expansion of specific
types of public utilities to or through lands designated as a unit of the coastal barrier
resources system.
(b)
Application.
The coastal barrierr ources system overlay district shall be overlaid on all areas,except for
Stock Island,within federally designated boundaries of a coastal barrier resources system
unit on current flood insurance rate maps approved by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, ,which are hereby adopted by reference and declared part of this chapter.Within this
overlay district,the transmission and/or collection lines of the following types of public
utilities shall be prohibited from extension or expansion:central wastewater treatment
collection systems; potable water;electricity,and telephone and cable.This prohibition shall
not preclude the maintenance and upgrading of existing public utilities in place on the
effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived and shall not apply to
wastewater nutrient reduction cluster systems.
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
2 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
3
4 Section 1. The Monroe County Code is amended as follows- (Deletions d
5 additions are underlined.)
6
7
8 See. 101-1.-Defmitions.
9
10
11
12 Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) means those 15 (,CBRS) s st units, exclud'
Mg
13 Otherwise Protected QPAs L Areas for the im Qroved�ort Vro).in the County ex.__q _Rggy
14 along the Safe Harbor entrance_cha nel thin s stem unit -57 a� shoya n the map
_--_EL_--y_ LEI
15 attached as Exhibit A dirk co ated herein ni.jpqL---, designated under the federal Coastal Ba or
16 Resources Act (CBR-A) of 1982, comprising Lelativeal -undeveloped coastal barriers and all
17 associated aquatic habitats including wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets and near shore
18 waters. System its arLgenerall com rased of lands that were relative] , Lo ed at tk undevelq y___ _p
19 time of des their heir des=ation within the CBRS. The boundaries of these is are designated
20 the Q�S. D _ent of the Interior and the boundaries are q erally intended to follow
-& L—_ _
21 MmqMhic develo ant, or c xl al fee es. most riew federal mpendit-qLes and fizz vial
22 assistance., y includin -e are restricted withi are flood insurang
23 identified and de icted on the current flood insurance rate maps droved b the FedqrLI
24 E;p"r Kgc Mana ement A ency. Only the Upited States CongrS s can revise CBRS
25 boundaries,
26
27
28
29
30
31 Sec. 130-122.-Coastal barrier resources system overlay district_&PRS
32
33 (a) Ee4.eral Purpose. !he VuMose of the federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act_LQl3RAjis
34 to discour e further develornent iricertain undeyelauLd--portions of coastal barriers and
35 remove the federal incentive to devel��o these areas. The federal law limits new federal
36 �&peqditunes and financial assis.tanceincluding flood insurance. These federal ublic
37 pApeqditupe-limitations have the effect of discouraging develop ant in the U.S.
- -
38 R!qp�artmen�t Int!Mi®rdes sources
39 System_(gBRS).�e C�BRS_Rrotects_gast4l aiL s that se barriers against wind and
j qa L_ry e as
40 tidal forces caused b s anO-_y-qgastal storrn.-serve as habitat fora tsetse s�Zqgies-.
41
42 fhjC PUMose.
43 located within unin_oMgrated Asonroe xc Count y gegLfor the un rovedt r� _po _pjg2gjy along
44 the SaTeljarbor entrance channel withiqjystem unit FL-_57 as an_overly _district. The
45 purpose of the Count as coastal barrier resources system overlay district is to implement the
46 policies of the comprehensive plan by&scoura in —Wtwwr gL-g_prehi the extension and expansion
of specific types of public facilities and/or�_dqctric servLi(Les and/or tLlephgne
Page 3 of 5
I services to er-� *Aands desigiated as a, s.U1qLn unit of the
3
4. (b)(gl..Application. 'Me. coastal barrier res4.)urces Mt em ove!rlay di to shall be overlaid on
5 all arep, except for..,the i=jroypd jPPILP gr �,A� S, cLign.,el
2L It ic IAL_ _ _.a_
6 W _-,�78kwk-491and, within federally designated boundaries of a seestal.Lit EL
sl unit on ci=ent LEt egy_.l.g,2�9iLflood insurance
8 rute maps affroved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, miiich are hereby
9 adopted by reference and declared part offts chapter.
10 Within this overlay district, the transinission amd/or colle(lion 1in(..%of the fbIlowing types of
a rviM shall be
_v --
this ourggeopmM44W &OM extension or expansion:
ar.tent&—gotable water,& e1ccq=, '!b, !q
14, preehide4he ]Jg isti
-and up�gading of exng publie
I wilifiesp
,mb Liq..fiLcJ1i1Les ',qggyjM..Md/QL!%Je gryke§ is not 1LgkgLqA&%d,
L an.AALr,e1ecJn -p.&q ,- -J— ---.-
Q61 The gio-ML ,te I-(',,qguj1y mgy , 1(Lw x nkig angq�L f tb 10 ,La 'S services H W
17 will.,Cow
18 shall not apply to ww4ewatn'
19 nutrient reduction cluster systernis M q ag kLkl w&sq-W@Ler tLerr t. F teat , in w
20 eng
Am.,.......
21
22 For vacant t at"sLer%u-Ln oj nds
23 ggg-- iU h!,e.., L—d _ .g
".
2jt§ C-M-hp
24 gKo h s
25 obtains qjWrcvjq t4 C(Un 's ROGO/NR CTYL
26 J&(Loqpty kqh fi�JMLL k i° mjL.E�LqMl fie l CBRIS qyga_ rp Xe
27'
4 .8
(a � err damn
d./ iLd/ td; A ghonc-tigai��m I amuk -is
29 C&md—uge—O.PM-romit,Lo.110fic 191-12A -4k:
30
31 1.- k q..A gar ,W
qdin&_Uj .1L
32 w e, fig�g n AX�g, 1� g
33 ahcr U-imm—ed
34 by,@,.s1!RgnuA Uc f e(".or
35
36 2. Such
Ae—w-iq1,Pn)—vqn=L4a&AiL L111mc a]-i-LIMU Lgq.xRct q rah.w edqLa
37
38
39 Section 2. SevernbUM. If any section, paragraph, subdivision, clau se, sentence or provision of"
40 T]--iis ra inance shall be adjudged by, any, court of compelent Jurisdiction to be invalid, such
41 judgment shall not affect, impair, invalidate, or nufli he remainder of this ordfinaam, but the
42 eff t therexif shall be confined to the s tion, parugraph, subdiv,ision, clause, sentenc,e, or
43 rnovision iminediately involved in the cx)ntwversy in wbich such judgment or decree shall be
44, rendered,
45
Page 4 of 5
LAST
STAND
MMEMMUMM
Prepared marks for BOCC Meeting, October 1 , 2013, Key West
Agenda Item -1
Good morning Mayor and Commissioners,
y name is Deb Curlee, and I live on Cudjoe Key. Today I have the privilege of representing the
membership of Last Stand.
For over 25 years Last Stand has consistently spoken out to protect the fragile environment of the Florid
Keys, and has addressed the BOCC on several occasions p cific lly about the protection needed for the
15 Federally-designated Co t l Barrier Resources Systemunits in Monroe County.
Last Stand believesthe proposed Ordinanceshould not be approved as it is written, because it contains
n important inconsistency that is likely to cause confusion in the future.
n May 1 , 2013, the BOCC directed ro Management staff to begin the process to implement the
recommendations in t "Analysis of Coastal Barrier Resources System Policies and Regulationsin
Monroe County, Florida" as prepared y land-use consultants Keith &Schnars.
The purpose of agenda it -1 is to adopt the recommendations cont in in Keith &Schnars' Analysis,
Phase 1, which call for only_five_ ic tin t t itin L rid vlont ctin 1 -1 .
, the language of the proposed Ordinance should continue to discourage the extension or expansion of
all public and private infrastructure mentioned in the current Code, with the
c tion of to ter.
As we read the proposed Ordinance, only once do we find the complete list of public facilities to be
discouraged correctly stated as: "potable water, electricity, and telephone." That correct list is on page 4,
line 13. There r ur separate places in the proposed Ordinance where"potable water" is accidentally
omitted. This oversight needs to be corrected in accordance with the y 1 , 2013 direction to
staffto implement the recommendations of the Keith and SchnarsAnalysis.
L n k to rr �6 thB- -v-rsi r: r tin h I n of this pros rin nce.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on this important issue.
PO Box 16,Key West,FL 33041-0146