Item X4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDAITEMSU~Y
Meeting Date: June 18. 2003
Division:
Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes
No --X-
Department:
Planning
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: First of two public hearings to designate Tier map boundaries and
adopt an Interim Development Ordinance deferring ROGO and NROGO allocations in Tier I and Tier
n until amendments to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations
implementing the Work Program mandated by Rule 28-20, F.A.C. are complete and adopted or
eighteen months, whichever comes first.
ITEM BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, after spending several months reviewing the
staff sponsored Tier Maps, prepared as a first step in implementing Goal 105 of the Comprehensive
Plan, Rule 28-20. F.A.C. and the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study FKCCS, became concerned
that ROGO and NROGO allocations were being awarded in inappropriate areas. The Planning
Commission and staff are currently working on amendments to ROGO, NROGO and other sections of
the Code and Plan.
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION: The Board adopted Goal 105, "Smart Growth" to
provide a framework with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to implement the FKCCS,
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval
TOTAL COST:
NA
BUDGETED: Yes NA No
COST TO COUNTY:
NA
SOURCE OF FUNDS
NA
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes NA No
DOCUMENTATION:
Included .x..-
AMOUNTPERMONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty ~
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
To Follow
Not Required_
AGENDA ITEM #4
DISPOSITION:
Revised 2/27/01
Interim Development Ordinance
Designating Tier Map Boundaries and
Deferring ROGO and NROGO allocations in
Tier I and Tier II Areas
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARA THON GOVERNMENT CENTER
JUNE 18, 2003
Proposed Interim Development Ordinance
The Ordinance designates the boundaries described in the attached maps as Tier I, Tier II
and Tier III and defers ROGO and NROGO allocations within the boundaries of Tier I
and Tier II until eighteen months have passed or till amendments to the 2010
Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations are adopted, whichever
comes first.
Contents
1. Summary Sheet
2. Draft Ordinance
3, Legal Review - Tyson Smith, AICP, J.D. for Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle
4, Staff Report
· Staff Memo
· Questions and Answers - The Tier System
· Staff Report titled "Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study"
5, Planning Commission Resolution
6, Development Review Committee Resolution
Recommendations
Staff:
Approval
April 9, 2003
Staff Report
DRC:
Approval
April 14,2003
Resolution #D9-03
PC:
Approval
May 7, 2003
Resolution # P26-03
DRAFT ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DESIGNATING TIER MAPS AND ADOPTING
INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
DEFERRING ROGO AND NROGO ALLOCATIONS IN
TIER I AND TIER II AREAS UNTIL LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
IMPLEMENTING THE WORK PROGRAM
MANDATED BY RULE 28-20.100, F.A.C. ARE
DRAFTED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY
COMMISSION OR EIGHTEEN MONTHS,
WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
WHEREAS, the Florida Administrative Commission in 1996 enacted Rule 28-20.100,
which created the "Work Program" in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and mandated, among other
things, the preparation of a Carrying Capacity Study for the Florida Keys; and
WHEREAS, Year 6 (July 13, 2002 through July 12, 2003) of the "Work Program,
section C., mandates that the County implement the Carrying Capacity Study by the adoption of
all necessary plan amendments to establish development standards to ensure that new
development does not exceed the carrying capacity of the County's natural environment; and
WHEREAS, the "Work Program", section F. mandates that the County initiate and
complete a collaborative process for the adoption of Land Development Regulations (LDR) and
Comprehensive Plan amendments to strengthen the protection of terrestrial habitat; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS), completed in
September 2002, sets out guidelines that, inter alia, would direct future development away from
"native habitat," and into "areas ripe for redevelopment or already disturbed"; and
WHEREAS, Goal 105, "Smart Growth," was adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners in 2001 to implement the mandate of Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C, and to provide a
framework within the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to implement the FKCCS; and
WHEREAS, Objective 105.2 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, which implements Rule
28-20.100, F.A.C., directs the County to map and designate land within the Florida Keys into
three categories - Natural Area, Transition and Sprawl Reduction area, and Infill Area, based on
the Smart Growth principles set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the Tier Maps were drafted based on the requirements and scientific
findings of the FKCCS, Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C., and Goal 105 ofthe 2010 Comprehensive Plan;
and
FLC doc,#57859/90355,009
1
WHEREAS, the draft Tier Maps were reviewed at public workshops in the upper Keys
on January 21, in the lower Keys on February 6, 2003, and at Planning Commission meetings;
and
WHEREAS, revisions have been made to the draft Tier Maps based on public input,
further analysis, and site investigations; and
WHEREAS, Tiers I and II include those lands of critical environmental sensitivity and
those transitional lands that are critical to the County's ability to implement the Smart Growth
policies set forth in Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the FKCCS; and
WHEREAS, Tier III includes those lands already substantially developed and that are
most appropriate for continued redevelopment and infill as specified in Goal 105 of the 2010
Comprehensive Plan and the FKCCS; and
WHEREAS, the projected number of ROGO and NROGO allocations that will continue
to be issued in Tier III will maintain a sustainable environment and will be consistent in number
and location with Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the FKCCS; and
WHEREAS, continued issuance of ROGO and NROGO allocations within Tiers I and II
prior to the completion of a comprehensive planning process will result in the loss of valuable
native habitat and may have an irreversible detrimental impact on the County's ability to
implement the Smart Growth policies set forth in Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan,
Rule 28-20,100, F.A.C., and the FKCCS; and
WHEREAS, in order to make effective Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Rule
28-20.100, F.A.C., and the FKCCS, it is necessary to halt temporarily works of development as
provided herein which might otherwise absorb the entire capacity of the County for further
development or direct it out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and the FKCCS; and
WHEREAS, the County has committed necessary staff and resources to the development
of permanent policies and regulations to implement Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan,
Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C., and the FKCCS, in order to facilitate its diligent and good faith effort to
establish permanent policies and regulations within a reasonable period of time; and
WHEREAS, implementation of Goal 105 of the Comprehensive Plan, Rule 28-20.100,
F.A.C., and the FKCCS involves complex environmental, social, and economic issues, a broad
geographic scope, numerous governmental agencies, and a diversity of stakeholder interests; and
WHEREAS, these Interim Development Regulations serve compelling state and regional
governmental interests and are the minimum necessary to protect the health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of Monroe County and effectuate Goal 105 of the Comprehensive Plan,
Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C., and the state-mandated FKCCS; and
WHEREAS, these Interim Development Regulations are necessary to derive the benefits
of permitting democratic discussion and participation by citizens, developers, and property
FLC doc,#57859/90355,009
2
owners who may be affected by eventual amendments to the Land Development Regulations and
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered, inter alia, the
FKCCS, Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C., Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, and the staff report
titled "Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study," which describes the basis of
the Smart Growth program to be implemented by these Interim Development Regulations and
other permanent Comprehensive Plan policies, maps, and Land Development Regulations that
will be developed as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, given the scope of the issues and areas to be addressed by Goal 105 of the
2010 Comprehensive Plan and the FKCCS, the eighteen- to twenty-four-month timeframe is
necessary and reasonable in order to complete a fair and comprehensive planning and public
participation process that results in legally- and scientifically-sound policies and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the LDR and Comprehensive Plan amendments to implement the protection
of the terrestrial ecosystem requirements in Rule 28-20.100 are incomplete and will not be
prepared and adopted by the July 13,2003 deadline set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting on March 12, 2003, directed
staff to move forward and prepare a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for
a deferral of ROGO and NROGO allocations, while staff prepares amendments to the 2010
Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs to further protect the terrestrial ecosystem; and
WHEREAS, upon the direction by the Planning Commission, Growth Management
Division staff immediately undertook the development of these Interim Regulations, a draft of
which was presented to and discussed by the Planning Commission on April 9, 2003; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meetings in March, April, and May, 2003 the Board of County
Commissioners was updated by County staff with regard to the status of these Interim
Regulations; and
WHEREAS, this temporary deferment will be a demonstration of good faith to the
Governor and Cabinet that the county is seriously working towards implementing the FKCCS
and Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C. and should be considered in substantial compliance in meeting the
Work Program goals; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 125, F.S" authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to adopt
ordinances to provide standards protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of
Momoe County; and
WHEREAS, these Interim Development Regulations constitute a valid exercise of the
County's police power and are otherwise consistent with Section 163.3161, et seq" F.S., which,
inter alia, encourages the use of innovative land development regulations including provisions
like moratoria to implement the adopted comprehensive plan; and
FLC doc,#57859/90355,009
3
WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of these Interim Development Regulations is to
create a system of development rights and land uses that will implement the FKCCS, Rule 28-
20.100, F.A.C., and Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and ameliorate the economic
impacts on private property owners; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Interim Development Ordinance in
public hearing on May 7, 2003, and recommends approval to the Board of County
Commissioners;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1: Pursuant to Policy 105.2.1, Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Natural Areas (Tier I),
Transition Areas (Tier II), and Infill Areas (Tier III) are hereby designated, the boundaries,
which are described in the following maps, attached hereto, are made part of this ordinance.
During the period these interim development regulations are in effect, boundaries may be
amended by ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners upon the recommendation of the
Planning Commission based upon data and considerations used originally to draft the Tier Maps.
This shall not be construed to foreclose changes or additions to the original criteria used to
determine the Tiers.
Section 2: Pursuant to its lawfully delegated authorities and the pending legislation doctrine set
forth in Smith vs. City of Clearwater 383 So. 2d 681 (FL, 2nd DCA, 1980) the Board of County
Commissioners establishes the interim development regulations set forth in this Ordinance,
which shall remain in full force and effect until either amendments to the Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations are drafted and adopted by the County
Commissioners to implement the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study and Goal 105 of the
20 I 0 Comprehensive Plan or eighteen months from the date of the adoption of this Ordinance,
whichever comes first. Prior to the eighteen-month sunset date of this ordinance, the Board of
County Commissioners, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may amend this
ordinance to extend its provisions an additional six months.
Section 3: No Rate of Growth Ordinance allocation awards shall be made on any applications
for either residential (ROGO) or non residential (NROGO) development within Tier I or Tier II
areas with a ROGOINROGO entry date of April 13, 2003 or later.
Section 4: As of the effective date of this Ordinance, no further ROGO or NROGO allocation
applications within Tier I and Tier II areas shall be accepted or processed by the Growth
Management Division.
Section 5: Any use that does not require either a ROGO or NROGO allocation award, and that
is allowed pursuant to the Monroe County Land Development Regulations and the 2010
Comprehensive Plan, may be continued or established within Tiers I, II, and III at anytime,
FLC doc,#57859/90355,009
4
Section 6: All buildable vacant lands within Tier I and Tier II areas shall be eligible to qualify
for ROGO and NROGO land dedication points under Section 9.5.122.3(a)(5) and Section
9.5.124.8(a)(3), Monroe County Code, effective the date of this ordinance.
Section 7: The County Administrator is directed to have the Growth Management Division to
begin immediately preparing the draft text and map amendments and other supporting studies in
cooperation with the Planning Commission in order to effectuate the provisions of Goal 105 of
the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C., and the FKCCS within the timeframes
set forth herein.
Section 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change or provision of this
ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 9: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 10: The ordinance is hereby transmitted to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs pursuant to Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes.
Section 11: This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of
Florida, but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Department of Community
Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163
and 380, Florida Statutes.
Section 12: This Ordinance shall stand repealed as of 11 :59 p.m. on the five hundred forty
seventh day after the adoption of this Ordinance, unless repealed sooner or extended pursuant to
the terms set forth herein.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]
FLC doc,#57859/90355,009
5
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2003.
Mayor Dixie Spehar
Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner David Rice
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Mayor Dixie Spehar
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
z.~ ~
E. Tyson smi~.
FLC doc,#57859/90355,009
6
ATTACHMENT TO
ORDINANCE NO, -2003
MONROE COUNTY
TIER MAPS
Tier Designation
_ TIer I
D TIer II
_ Tier III
_ MIUtary Land
-U51
. Mile Marker
N
A
0 0,25 0,5
.
Miles
P'--'.........~......' ty- ntal
~Ft
~~
Thi.rrwpi-srorMOltroIIC"OUIIryGrowth ~DlvislOll
p~ only_ The dIta cOMliMd herein it mwtraDVII mcl n1llY
notac.:unoldydept"~,~1A.~.ri&hJofway&,
oridentiriCalioainfOl"lrllriall.
I'rcpan:d B~ - f..:.R Dale 5/':;/0,
"
Tier Designation
_ Tier I
D Tier II
_ Tier III
_ Military Land
-US1
. Mile Marker
..
N
A
0 0.3 0,6
.
Miles
~-;;.~=:'"'
~-~~
Thif lJUlpi5 for Moarw Coual)'Owril M~ r>iWUOll
plltJlOllC' only. Tbc dI&I (omained b<<dn illlI.......w ~ _y
naI-.:~lU1cIy~t~pIft)lIk.roadf..riP1or_YI.
()(idemific.rloalllromlllioa.
f'n.:p;lr~'d Ih KR Date ."/'i/O I
Monroe County DRAFT Tier Map
Mile Marker 94 to 98
Tier Designation
_ Tier I
D Tier II
_ Tier III
_ Milllary Land
-US1
. Mile Marker
,
N
A-
0 0,25 0,5
.
Miles
~.;:"~.- ~_.w
._~~
1m. map j, for MQQlWCwat)'OfIIWlh ~I f)ivi.10ll
PUIJIlM" <lIlly. The.... ~0IltaiMd bcntn It lll.tNtflfC' -' mil)'
",)l:iK~'umlll1y deptd~.,.wIa,ruadI.,riJhlof_y,.
oridmdnc.rioalllt'omIIlirlQ
Pn:par~'d 13\ t\.R Datc 5/:'iIO~
Monroe County DRAFT Tier Map
Mile Marker 91 to 94
Tier Designation
_ TIer I
D TIer II
_ TIer III
_ MUllaly Land
-US1
. MIle Marker
N
A
0 0,25 0,5
.
Miles
~~
~.~
Th.iw lI\IIP is fi:orM~COUlltyOr<1'ol'\h M-acmonl [)jvisllm
pllIJID'<<OIIly. The_cOlUailwdINroin lfill~......II1d""y
noioo:c\lf1ltefy<kpi{I~ptn;e1a.rvadB.riJbluf_}'I.,
or ideGti<ioClhlformltiaa
I'n;llar.:u B\ KR Dale: .'ii~/\ll
~
::E
;..;
.~ .......
~r-
~.s
~~
o~
.o~
s::E
o l1.>
u~
l1.>::E
o
~
o
::g
c
~ ~ ~
!~~=:i:!
'iii~~~25i
~ 10111 ·
i=
"3 H~
d... ~i{
CI 5 1i ~ ~ c~
t-~ ~J~.~
~!ih
'\\ ~ l ~ '"
1!ljC
I ~ "~ 11
~~l' e-
hi j:
H8
z~
It) jl
ci ~
o
.
......
'V
c
o
;:J -g
l! ~:
gi~:,:i-:'l!
!f-j!~2~~
~ 10111 ·
~
~
'-t
(1.)
._ 0
~~
~.s
~~
Q~
~~
o (1.)
u=-=
(1.)~
o
f:l
~
~
LO
('t)
;z;.....c: I() J!
o ~
o
-
.
~
,~ ~
E-t~
E-t 0
~€
Cl~
p~
S~
o Q)
u:-::::
Q)~
o
~
o
~
'"
;z.....c: ~ j
o ~
o
e
.-..
H.
h~
Jj}
.i 1.
jJU
hljJ
~ ~ - J
ld"
~;;.J:'
, B .
~~j
~ia
c
:8 -g ~
nI ~-l!:
C _... co
CD-:=;:=:".....~
~~~~~3~
:i 10111 · I ..
....
-
~
=s
1-4
.~ C'I
~C'I
~.s
~:
Q ~
~
~=s
o ~
u:-:::
~=S
o
~
o
=s
"
s ~ ~
., ~ ~
" - i ~
c - = _ J!
Qi-=.. rJ),_
-i=~F:i::l~
~ 10111 ·
j::
z....
It) 1l
ci :i
o
,
~
::E
....
Q)
.-
~.......
.......
~ 0
~~
o~
~~
o Q)
u~
Q)::E
~
~
~
~,
:z .....c: ~ ,;!
o .-
::!:
o
~
<0
c
o
:;:I -g
l! ~ ~
a>>---'" II
._ ~ -;:!!' _ ::E
c!~~~=(/)J!
~ IOli r
v
.
Legal Review
Of the Interim Development Ordinance
LAW OFFICES
FREILICH~ LEITNER M CARLISLE
IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROBERT H. FREILICH. P.C.,.>....
MARTIN L. LEITNER. P.C.'
RICHARD G. CARLISLE. P.C.'
S. MARK WHITE'.'
ROBIN A. KRAMER1.2."
TYSON SMITH'
ADMITTED IN '"'0', K52, CAJ. NY., NCS.F"L'
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
1150 ONE MAIN PLAZA
4435 MAIN STREET~ ...- d . ... "
. I'. I,' , 'I
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 6"1111-18'58;':v :.:- ii l;
FACSIMILE ;:.'~ ,-------------..--- ~
(816) 561-7931 :! : :
IN AS"EN, COLORADO
""EILICH, MYLER. LEITNER & CARLISLE
106 S. MILL ST.. SUITE ZOZ
. -.. --"'!iPEN. COLORADO BI611-IQ?3
': : - 'rELEPHONE: (Q?oJ QZO-IOIB
i'.~ (":F",CSIMILE: IQ?OJ QZO-4Z5B
"--1 ~ 1 ~ .
~ I j
TELEPHONE
(816) 561-4414
. ,"J,UN,:~,3, ~otc5.
June 2, 2003: .___~~'_.__..~___.._.,.,___.,.. 'i
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DAVID J. MYLER. P.C. ,
E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN'
ADMITTED IN CO '
Timothy McGarry, AICP, Director
Monroe County Division of Growth Management
2798 Overseas Highway; Suite 400
Marathon, Florida 33050
Via Federal Express
Dear Mr. McGarry:
I have reviewed the interim development ordinance (IDO) being considered by the
County and offer several comments regarding its adoption and its eventual
implementation. Additionally, I have enclosed an amended IDO (hereinafter referred to
as the Proposed IDO) that reflects the recommendations set forth herein.
The Florida courts, and other state and federal courts around the country, have provided
insight into the elements that an IDO should address in order to pass constitutional
muster. I have reviewed the proposed IDO in light of these cases and have provided the
following with respect to several critical components.
First, the duration of the IDO must be "reasonable" in light of the nature, scope, and
complexity of the challenge to be addressed by the planning process, plan amendments,
and regulations to be developed while the IDO is in effect. See Tahoe-Sierra
Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 122 S.Ct.
1465 (2002), Bradfordville Phipps Ltd. P'ship v. Leon County, 804 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1 st
DCA 2001), see also, Williams v. City of Central, 907 P.2d 701, 706 (Colo. Ct. App.
1995). This is perhaps the most critical constitutional consideration when counties
consider adoption of an interim ordinance.
The overwhelming weight of court decisions supports the conclusion that temporary
moratoria in effect for reasonable periods of time do not result in a taking. See Tahoe,
535 U.S. 302, see also, Ord. v. Kitsap County, 84 Wash. App. 602 (1997) (upholding a
six-year moratorium), Santa Fe Village Venture v. City of Albuquerque, 914 F. Supp. 478
(D. N.M. 1995) (thirty-month moratorium associated with effort to create national
monument not a taking); Offen v. County Council, 96 Md. App. 526 (1993) (upholding an
eight-year sewer moratorium), Smoke Rise, Inc. v. Washington Suburban Sanitary
Comm'n, 400 F. Supp. 1369 (D. Md. 1975) (five-year moratorium on sewer hookups does
not render land "worthless or useless so as to constitute a taking"); Woodbury Place
Partners, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) (two-year moratorium on development
pending completion on interstate intersectional location study not a taking); Cappture,
336 A.2d 30 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1975) (four-year moratorium imposed on
FREILICH... LEITNER 8 CARLISLE
Timothy McGarry, AICP, Director
June 2, 2003
Page 2
construction in flood-prone lands not a taking); Friel v. Triangle Oil Co., 76 Md. App.
96, 543 A.2d 863 (Md. App. 1988) (twenty-four-month interim ordinance not a take);
Estate of Scott, 778 S.W.2d 585 (Tex. App. 1989) (two-year interim ordinance not a
taking); Matter of Rubin v. McAlvey, 29 App. Div. 2d 874, 288 N.Y.S.2d 519 (1968)
(two-year interim development ordinance valid); First English, 258 Cal. Rptr. 893 (delay
of thirty months not unreasonable). 1
The Proposed IDO would delay issuance of ROGO and NROGO permit allocations
within Tiers I & II for eighteen months, with the potential to extend its term by an
additional six months. As the ordinance states on its face, the Proposed IDO is necessary
to adequately plan for and implement Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Rule
28-20.100, F.A.C, and the intent and findings of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity
Study (FKCCS). County staff has prepared comprehensive reports for the Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) that outline the range of
issues implicated by the Smart Growth provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. In
addition, the FKCCS, the provisions of which will be implemented by the IDO,
represents a broad and complex range of issues that have to be addressed.
Given the breadth and complexity of these issues, the extensive geographic area affected
by the Comprehensive Plan policies and the FKCCS, and the importance of receiving
adequate public input prior to the adoption of permanent policies and regulations, it
appears that an eighteen- to twenty-four-month moratorium would be found reasonable in
duration. See also Collura v. Town of Arlington, 367 Mass. 881, 329 N.E.2d 733 (Mass.
1975) (noting that "with the adoption of an interim [moratorium a developer] is made
aware that a new plan is in the offing and is thus able to participate in the debate over
what that new plan should contain").
That said, the legality of a temporary moratorium depends significantly on what happens
after it is adopted. See Almquist v. Town of Marsham, 245 N.W. 2d 819, 826 (Minn.
1976) (holding that "... where a municipality enacts in good faith and without
discrimination, a moratorium on development which is of limited duration is valid if upon
enactment, the study proceeds promptly and appropriate zoning ordinances are
expeditiously adopted when it is completed."). Permanent policies, studies, and
regulations implementing the Plan and the FKCCS should be pursued diligently by the
County and adequate resources should be identified to effectuate their timely
development and adoption. Although the six-month extension of the Proposed IDO may
I See also Orleans Builders & Developers v. Byrne, 186 N.J. Super. 432, 453 A.2d 200, 208 (N.J. Super.
App. Div. 1982) (observing that "under decisional law in this state as well as in other jurisdictions"
moratoria "leading to formulation of a comprehensive system for the area's development which would
safeguard its environment" are not compensable), McCutchan Estates Corp. v. Evansville Vanderburgh
County Airport Auth. Dist., 580 N.E.2d 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (nine-month delay not extraordinary as a
matter of law), Dufau v. United States, 22 CL Ct. 156 (Fed. CL 1990) (sixteen-month delay not
extraordinary as a matter oflaw).
FREILICH.. LEITNER ~ CARLISLE
Timothy McGarry, AICP, Director
June 2, 2003
Page 3
very well be necessary, it is important that the IDO not become "extraordinary" in its
duration or amount to "a series of rolling moratoria" that could amount to a permanent
deprivation of use. See Tahoe, 122 S.Ct. at 1484-85. To that end, I recommend that staff
document its progress under the IDO, report its progress regularly to the Planning
Commission, and address staffing and resource needs in a timely manner.
Second, an IDO must be adopted for a legitimate public purpose. Cases in this regard are
numerous and generally stand for the proposition that there must be some rational
connection between the adoption of the IDO and the legitimate purpose to be served by
the interim measure and the policies and regulations to be developed during the interim
period. See e.g., Moviematic Industries Corp. v. Board of County Commissioners of
Metropolitan Dade County, 349 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cf, Bradfordville
Phipps, 804 So.2d 464. The Proposed IDO is being adopted, inter alia, to preserve the
environmental quality of the County's remaining undeveloped lands, to direct future
growth to those areas that have been designated as appropriate for redevelopment and
infill, and to reduce urban sprawl - all pursuant to the adopted Comprehensive Plan and
the FKCCS. Furthermore, the IDO is necessary to facilitate state planning mandates that
implicate regional interests over a vast geographic area. See Tahoe, 122 S.Ct. at 1488
("Indeed, the interest in protecting the decisional process is even stronger when an
agency is developing a regional plan than when it is considering a permit for a single
project.").
Pursuant to the fmdings of the FKCCS and its own planning analyses, the Planning
Commission has determined that issuance of additional ROGO and NROGO awards
within Tiers I and II, prior to the adoption of permanent policies and regulations, will
exacerbate these problems and would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and the
FKCCS. Additionally, it has found that permanent policies and regulations should be the
product of a deliberate, rational, and fair planning process that can be properly
undertaken only pursuant to a limited moratorium on allocations in certain areas. Such
concerns represent legitimate governmental interests on the part of the County and the
IDO has been narrowly tailored, both in duration and scope, to advance these particular
interests. See Gilbert v. State of California, 218 Cal. App. 3d 234 (Cal. 1990).
Third, we must consider whether the Proposed IDO would burden affected property
owners to such a degree as to result in a taking of private property under either the State
or Federal Constitutions or the taking statutes adopted by the Florida Legislature in 1995.
Moratoria, temporary in nature and rationally related to a legitimate governmental
purpose, rarely will be found to amount to an unconstitutional taking, particularly in light
of the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tahoe. See also Penn Central Transp. Co. v.
New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), Bradfordville Phipps, 804 So.2d 464.
On April 23, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a 32-month moratorium imposed by
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in order to maintain the status quo during the
development of a comprehensive land use plan to address environmental and carrying
FREILICH,. LEITNER ~ CARLISLE
Timothy McGarry, AICP, Director
June 2,2003
Page 4
capacity issues confronting that region. Tahoe-Sierra, 535 u.s. 302. The Court upheld
the agency's interim measures against the landowners' facial challenge that a temporary
deferment of use amounted to an unconstitutional "temporary" taking. Id. at 1490. In
arriving at its decision, the Tahoe Court provided useful guidance on how local
governments might successfully craft an IDO that will survive an as-applied challenge to
its constitutionality.2 See also, Bradfordville Phipps, 804 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
(upholding a twenty-two month deferral).
In addition to constitutional considerations, however, Florida counties must consider
what if any legal exposure they may suffer under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property
Rights Protection Act, Chap. 70.001, et seq. Fla. Stat. The Harris Act was enacted in
1995 to establish a cause of action, separate and distinct from the law of takings, for
property owners whose rights are "inordinately burdened" by an action of a governmental
entity. Fla. Stat. ~70.001(1) & (2). The Act was intended to provide a statutory remedy
where the property owner may be foreclosed from a constitutional one. Florida's
appellate courts have given the Act very little treatment and its scope remains somewhat
murky. However, it appears the Act was not intended to provide a remedy for interim
regulations in the nature of the Proposed IDO. Id. at ~70.001(3)(e).
The Act limits the definition of an "inordinate burden" to one that deems the property
owner ''permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment-backed expectation for
the existing use..." and to "bear[ ] permanently a disproportionate share of a burden
imposed for the good of the public...". Id. (emphasis added). The Act further excludes
any "temporary impact to real property" from the definition of the "inordinate burden"
required to give rise to a cause of action under the Act. Id. (emphasis added). Although
no published case has taken up the issue of interim measures under the Act, it appears on
its face that claims based on the Proposed IDO would be barred.
When the BOCC considers adoption of the Proposed IDO, County staff should explain on
the record the purpose of this interim measure, the planning basis for distinguishing
between the three tiers, how its adoption will facilitate the comprehensive planning
process, and the work plan that will effectuate that process within the 18 to 24 months
that the IDO will be in place. Documentation to this effect, including the staff report to
the BOCC titled "Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study," also should
be provided.
2 Although, in 2001, the Florida Supreme Court held that the temporary closure of two hotels by Florida
cities pursuant to nuisance abatement statutes amounted to a temporary taking, that case was overruled by
and/or is distinguishable from the Tahoe decision. See Keshbro, Inc. v. City of Miami v. Kablinger, 80 I
So.2d 864 (Fla. 2001). The grounds for the Keshbro decision were based largely on those expressly
rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tahoe. See also, Bradfordville Phipps, 804 So.2d at 469 ("Reliance
upon First English for the threshold determination of whether a taking has occurred is ... suspect").
Furthermore, the Keshbro court distinguished from the scope of its holding those "prospectively temporary
regulations... in the land use and planning arena, where an entirely different set of considerations are
implicated from those in the context of nuisance abatement.. .". Id at 874.
FREILlCH~ LEITNER ~ CARLISLE
Timothy McGarry, AICP, Director
June 2, 2003
Page 5
Finally, I recommend that the IDO be considered by the BOCC pursuant to the notice and
hearing requirements set forth in ~125.66(4)(b), F.S. This section describes the adoption
procedure required for any ordinance or resolution that changes the "actual list of
permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category, or changes the actual
zoning map designation of a parcel or parcels of land involving 10 contiguous acres or
more...". Fla. Stat. ~125.66(4)(b), see also Sanibel v. Buntock, 409 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 2nd
DCA 1981).
If you have any additional questions or wish to discuss the Proposed IDO further, please
do not hesitate to call at anytime. It continues to be a pleasure to work with you and the
County Commission.
Sincerely,
~
J,~
for Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle
doc.#57800/90355.009
STAFF REPORT
Interim Development Ordinance
The Tier System
1. Staff Memo
2. Questions and Answers - The Tier System
3. Staff Report to the BOCC titled "Implementing Goal 105 and the
Carrying Capacity Study"
Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
2798 Overseas Highway ~ Marathon Florida 33050
305-289-2500 ~ conaway@mai1.state.fl.us
June 2, 2003
FROM:
Board of County Commissioners
K, Marlene Conaway, Directo!f:,~
TO:
RE:
Interim Development Ordinance (IDO)
Background
The Planning Commission, after spending several months reviewing the staff sponsored
Tier Maps, became concerned that ROGO and NROGO allocations were being awarded
in areas that should be preserved. The drafting of these maps is the first step in
implementing the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study as required in the Work
Program in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Public testimony was given and verified by
staff that areas initially identified as natural area (Tier I) or low density area (Tier II) have
been in some subdivisions substantially developed over the last two years.
The Planning Commission directed staff to come back to the Commission with a draft
deferral ofNROGO and ROGO allocations for the Planning Commission to recommend
to the BOCC. The deferral was to be of sufficient time for staffto prepare amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs. In discussions with legal council it was decided that
an interim development ordinance was the preferred method to use while the habitat
preservation mechanisms are being drafted and adopted.
The County is mandated in Florida Administration Rule 28-20.100, the 2010
Comprehensive Plan Work Program, to implement the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity
Study by adopting amendments to the Rate of Growth Ordinance, the LDRs, the Future
Land Use Maps, maximum permitted densities, to strengthen the protection of terrestrial
habitat, develop a strategy for land acquisition and maintain the affordable housing stock.
And the County is required to do all this by July 13, 2003!
Goal 105 was adopted by the County to provide a framework for implementing the
Carrying Capacity Study and the Rule. Adoption of the Interim Development Ordinance
deferring approvals in Tier I and Tier II will demonstrate to the Governor and Cabinet
that the County is seriously working towards achieving the required regulatory and policy
changes.
Summary of provisions in IDO
The Interim Development Ordinance includes the following:
· Designation of boundaries for Tier I, Tier II and Tier III areas.
· Procedures to follow if boundary amendments are needed, while the IDO is in effect.
· ROGO and NROGO allocations received after April 13, 2003 are deferred within
Tier I and Tier II areas, new applications will not be accepted after adoption of the
ordinance.
. The deferral is for eighteen months, with a possible six-month extension period, to
provide sufficient time to draft and adopt the plan and regulation amendments.
. The IDO only effects ROGO and NROGO allocations in Tier I and Tier II, other
types of permitting for may continue.
. All vacant buildable lots in Tier I and Tier II will become eligible for ROGO and
NROGO dedication points when the IDO is adopted.
Discussion
The IDO is needed to allow the staff sufficient time to complete revisions to the 2010
Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs. Important terrestrial habitat areas are currently
receiving allocations for development, which is causing fragmentation of the hammocks.
The existing regulations do not provide the tools to effectively protect these areas. One of
the major conclusions in the Carrying Capacity Study was the need for protection from
the secondary impacts of development. Restoration is another important consideration
that is only possible if the fringe areas that are currently receiving only minor negative
points are protected.
It is not possible to "tweak" the existing regulations to give the needed protection, while
the regulations are being drafted. The flaws are intrinsic to the existing system, which is
based on a "lot by lot" evaluation rather than an ecosystem approach. The Tier system
used the computer mapping (GIS) tools we currently have available to permit a
comprehensive evaluation of the County and decisions to be made of what areas should
be developed and what should be protected.
Additional Information
The attached Staff report titled "Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity
Study" gives a comprehensive summary of the results of the Florida Keys Carrying
Capacity Study, requirements in Rule 28-20.100, details of Goal 105 and the
methodology to create the Tiers using the GIS. Copies ofthe proposed Tier Maps and
statistics are also in the report.
Hopefully the Question and Answer sheet also attached will be helpful in clearing up any
remaining questions about using the Tier system as a basis for regulating future
development.
The legal analysis by Tyson Smith was requested and is included in this packet so that the
Board has sufficient assurance that enactment of the IDO will not put the County in undo
exposure for property rights.
Planning Commission Recommendations
The Planning Commission reviewed the staff recommendation and made the following
changes to the draft ordinance:
1. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal to defer allocations in Tier I only
and after taking public comment, voted to recommend the deferral for both Tier I and
Tier II.
Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
2798 Overseas Highway Marathon Florida 33050
305-289-2500 conaway@mai1.state.fl.us
2. They also recommended that the original staff proposal be amended to make both
Tier I and Tier II eligible for land dedication under Section 9.5.122.3(a)(5) and
Section 9.5-124.8(a)(3).
3. They increased the deferral period from one year to two years with the possibility of a
180-day extension or until regulations are adopted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff, after considering the Planning Commission recommendations, join them in
recommending that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an Interim Development
Ordinance deferring allocations within the boundaries of Tier I and Tier II, and having
both Tiers be eligible for land dedication. However, Staff recommends that the deferral
be for eighteen months, with the possibility of extension for an additional six months,
rather then two years. The longer time frame should not be necessary and may actually
delay the passage of the final regulations.
Staff recommends approval of the attached Interim Development Ordinance.
Growth Management
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite #400
Marathon, l10rida 33050
Voice: (305) 289-2500
FAX: (305) 289-2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Dixie Spehar, Dist. 1
Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson, Dist. 5
Comm. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dist. 3
Comm. George Neugent, Dist. 2
Comm. David P. Rice Dist. 4
Questions and Answers
The Tier System
1. Why map the Florida Keys into the Tier system?
The Tier system concept was adopted in Goal 105 of the Comprehensive Plan to provide a
framework to implement the Carrying Capacity Study. Through this system, utilizing computer
mapping (GIS), the difference between areas appropriate for additional development and those,
which are important environmentally, are identified. By doing this evaluation up front property
owners will know the development suitability of their property and the shortcomings with the
current expensive and time consuming lot by lot analysis will no longer be an issue.
2. Do we have to use the Tier system to implement the Carrying Capacity Study?
The existing ROGO point system and regulations could possibly be amended to implement the
Carrying Capacity Study. However, the system is already cumbersome, subject to constant
arguments and second-guessing, and very bureaucratic to implement. Adding more regulations
to implement the Carrying Capacity Study will only increase the problems already inherent in
the system. In comparison the Tier system is elegant, the majority of the review was
accomplished when the maps were created. The required protection of the important areas of
terrestrial habitat identified in the Carrying Capacity Study are considered and appropriate
areas for development indicated. The Tier system also provides clarity and assurance for
property owners of the development potential of their property and focuses public acquisition
funds for conservation and retirement of property rights.
3. How can designating the vacant land in the Keys into either Tier I, II or III simplify the
permitting system?
The existing ROGO system has 18 different evaluation criteria. Review is done on a lot by lot
basis, including environmental site visits and is costly to both the applicant and the county. The
existing evaluation criteria for infill and environmental was used to designate the Tiers.
Tier I contains the high and moderate quality hammocks, endangered species habitat and buffer
areas as identified in the Carrying Capacity Study.
Tier II contains fragmented hammocks and habitat and/or subdivisions less than 50% built.
Tier III are subdivisions appropriate for additional development.
K. Marlene Conaway
Page I
06/05/03
With the environmental and planning review completed up front during the drafting of the Tier
maps, the scoring and application review becomes a simple administrative process.
4. Will designation of a Tier System increase the County's legal exposure for property
rights?
The Rate of Growth establishes how many permits may be issued each year, this will not
change with the designation of tiers. The existing exposure from the large number of legally
platted lots will not be increased, but the maps will make it clear where permitting will be
easiest. Most of the properties mapped as Tier I currently have major negative points under the
existing ROGO evaluation system. Any additional properties included in Tier I are buffer
and/or restoration areas, which are identified in the Carrying Capacity study as important to the
carrying capacity of the terrestrial environment. The County is required to implement the
Carrying Capacity in Florida Administrative Rule 28-20.100.
5. Are the Tier boundaries "correct", can changes be made after the Interim
Development Ordinance is adopted?
The boundaries were drawn using environmental and development information and digital data
from the Planning Department and the Property Appraisers Office. The County Biologists,
Planners, Land Steward and Land Authority Director reviewed this information and provided
input. The maps were also displayed at a number of community meetings and reviewed by
different environmental and community groups. All requests for changes have been
individually reviewed and changes made to the maps where appropriate.
The proposed Interim Development Ordinance provides a way to change the maps after review
by the Department of Planning and the Planning Commission.
6. Should additional areas be included in Tier I?
Tier I includes all contiguous hammock areas above four acres and restoration areas between
fragmented hammocks to increase the hammock size and buffers where possible. Hammock
size is a major determinate of habitat quality according to the Carrying Capacity study, which
is why size and connectivity were used to identify the best and most important terrestrial
habitat areas for preservation. Tier II contains smaller hammock patches isolated by
surrounding development. They are considered "all edge" in some studies, which means the
quality is reduced because of the negative secondary impacts of development. But they do
provide habitat for songbirds and small animals and contribute to the quality of the
neighborhoods. Both Tier I and Tier II areas are designated as future acquisition areas.
7. Why are areas included in Tier III that can not currently receive a building permit
for new construction?
The Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs consist of ROGO and NROGO to allocate permits for
new construction. Other regulations and policies control clearing, open space and in some
instances if new development can be permitted. The Tier system changes the ROGO and
NROGO allocation process and will modify some of the other regulations, but most of the
protective regulations will continue. For example, there are "red flag" wetland lots included in
Tier III; these wetlands are 100% protected (no fill permitted) in the Comprehensive Plan and
LDRs. Continuous areas are mapped in the Tiers for ease of identification. Because these lots
are randomly scattered through out the County and will continue to be completed protected
under the regulations it was determined that mapping them would only tend to make the maps
confusing and difficult to use.
The area restricted by the U.S. Navy Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) is another
example of how the regulations modify the Tier system. Development in this over-lay are
controlled by the AICUZ.
8. Why three tiers, instead of two - one for development, one for acquisition?
Everything is not black and white, Tier II provides for an intermediate choice. The areas of
habitat designated Tier II are not as environmentally sensitive as Tier I, but contain isolated
hammock patches of less than four acres. These areas provide resting-places for migrating
birds, habitat for small animals and some species of songbirds. The subdivisions included in
Tier II without habitat are those that are less than 50% developed. By not considering them as
infill areas, sprawl is reduced and the costs not incurred to provide public services to these
areas. The undeveloped areas designated Tier II also provides opportunities for decisions to be
made during the Livable CommuniKeys Program to determine how and if these areas should
be allowed to develop in the future.
9. Should the Tier system be adopted before the LCP master plans are written?
The designation of lands for the Tier System under the Smart Growth Program is based upon a
comprehensive evaluation of the natural systems (Carrying Capacity Study) and development
patterns on a county-wide basis. The Tier System does not directly address or specify any land
use designations, standards for development intensity and density or the location of future
public facilities. Such site-specific planning decisions are under the purview of the Livable
CommuniKeys Program. The Tier System provides a framework for future LCP decisions by
designating areas where development should not occur. The LCP determines how areas
appropriate for additional development should be developed.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
NO. P26-03
Recommending Approval
Of the Interim Development Ordinance
And the Boundaries of the Draft Tier Maps
RESOLUTION NO. P26-03
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DESIGNATING TIER
MAPS AND ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS DEFERRING ROGO AND NROGO
ALLOCATIONS IN TIER I and TIER II AREAS UNTIL
LDR AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
IMPLEMENTING THE CARRYING CAPACITY
STUDY ARE DRAFTED AND ADOPTED BY THE
COUNTY COMMISSION OR TWO YEARS,
WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan in Goal 102
requires Monroe County to direct future growth to lands most suitable for development
and to conserve and protect environmentally sensitive lands and Objective 102.3 requires
that new development occur where site disturbances and man's activities have fewer
adverse effects on natural vegetation; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Administrative Commission in 1996 enacted Rule 28-
20.100, which created the "Work Program" in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and
required, among other things, the preparation of a Carrying Capacity Study for the
Florida Keys; and
WHEREAS, Year 6 (July 13, 2002 through July 12, 2003) of the "Work
Program", section c., requires the County to implement the Carrying Capacity Study by
the adoption of all necessary plan amendments to establish development standards to
ensure that new development does not exceed the carrying capacity of the county's
environment; and
WHEREAS, the "Work Program", section F. directs the County to initiate and
complete a collaborative process for the adoption of Land Development Regulations
(LDR) and Plan amendments to strengthen the protection of terrestrial habitat; and
WHEREAS, the Carrying Capacity Study, completed in September 2002,
concluded "that land development in the Florida Keys has surpassed the capacity of
upland habitats to withstand further development"; and
WHEREAS, Goal I05,"Smart Growth", was adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners in 2001 to provide a framework within the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to
implement the Carrying Capacity Study; and
Page 1 of 4
05/19/03
WHEREAS, Objective 105.2 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan directs the
County to map and designate land within the Florida Keys into three categories - Natural
Area, Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area, and Infill Area; and
WHEREAS, the Tier Maps were drafted based on the requirements and scientific
findings of the Carrying Capacity Study, Rule 28-20.100 and Goal 105; and
WHEREAS, the draft Tier Maps have been reviewed at public workshops in the
upper Keys on January 21 and February 6, 2003 and on February 19, 2003 in the lower
Keys and at Planning Commission meetings. Revisions have been made to these maps
based on the public input, further analysis, and site investigations; and,
WHEREAS, the LDR and Comprehensive Plan amendments to implement the
protection of the terrestrial ecosystem requirements in Rule 28-20.100 are incomplete and
will not be prepared and adopted by July 13, 2003, deadline and the loss of valuable
native habitat is continuing as development in these areas continue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting on March 13,2003,
directed staff to move forward and prepare a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners for a deferral of ROGO and NROGO allocations, while staff prepares
amendments to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs to further protect the
terrestrial ecosystem; and
WHEREAS, this deferment will protect the natural environment while providing
additional time to incorporate a comprehensive legal and financial review of the proposed
amendments and to identify dedicated funding sources for land acquisition; and
WHEREAS, this deferment will be a demonstration of good faith to the
Governor and Cabinet that the County is seriously working towards implementing the
Carrying Capacity Study and Rule 28-20.100 and should be considered in substantial
compliance in meeting the Work Program goals; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Interim Development
Ordinance in public hearing on May 7, 2003.
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission was presented with the following
evidence, which by reference is hereby incorporated as part of the record of said hearing;
1. Staff report prepared on April 23, 2003 by K. Marlene Conaway, Director, Planning
and Environmental Resources; and
2. The report titled Report to the Planning Commission Implementing Goal 105 and the
Carrying Capacity Study Tier Maps: and
3. County-wide draft Maps dated May 6,2003 designating Tier I, II and III.
Page 2 of 4
05/19/03
4. Proposed text for Board of County Commissioners Interim Development Ordinance;
and
5. The sworn testimony of the Growth Management Staff; and
6. Advice from John Wolfe, the Planning Commission Counsel; and
7. Comments by the public.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made the following Conclusions of Law
based on the evidence and comments presented:
Based on the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, we find that the proposed
Interim Development Ordinance is consistent with its goals, objectives and policies set
forth in the Plan. NOW THEREFORE;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the preceding support its decision to recommend
APPROVAL to the Board of County Commissioners of following:
Section 1: Pursuant to Policy 105.2.1, Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Natural Areas
(Tier I), Transition Areas (Tier II), and Infill Areas (Tier III) are hereby designated, the
boundaries, which are described in the following maps, attached hereto, are made part of
this ordinance. During the period these interim development regulations are in effect,
boundaries may be amended by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners upon
the recommendation of the Planning Commission based upon data and considerations
used originally to draft the Tier Maps. This shall not be construed to foreclose changes or
additions to the original criteria used to determine the Tiers.
Section 2: Pursuant to the pending legislation doctrine set forth in Smith vs. City of
Clearwater 383 So. 2d 681 (FL, 2nd DCA, 1980) the Board of County Commissioners
establishes interim regulations in Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this Ordinance that shall remain
in full force and effect until either amendments to the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
and Land Development Regulations are drafted and adopted by the County
Commissioners to implement the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study and Goal 105
(Tier Map Overlays) of the Comprehensive Plan or two-years, whichever comes first.
Prior to the two-year sunset date of this ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners,
upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may amend this ordinance to
extend its provisions an additional 180 days.
Section 3: No ROGO or NROGO allocation awards shall be made on any applications
within Tier I or Tier II areas with a ROGOINROGO entry date of March 13, 2003, or
later.
05/19/03
Page 3 of4
Section 4: No further ROGO or NROGO applications within Tier I and Tier II areas shall
be accepted or processed by the Growth Management Division effective the date of this
ordinance.
Section S: All buildable vacant lands within Tier I and Tier II areas shall qualify for a
ROGO and NROGO land dedication under Section 9.5.122.3(a)((5) and Section 9.5-
124.8(a)(3), Monroe County Code, effective the date of this ordinance.
Section 6: The County Administrator is directed to have the Growth Management
Division immediately begin preparing the draft text and map amendments and other
supporting studies in cooperation with the Planning Commission.
PASSED AND ADOPTED By the Planning Commission of Monroe
County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of May 2003.
Chair David C. Ritz
Vice Chair Denise Werling
Commissioner Julio Margalli
Commissioner Jerry Coleman
Commissioner Alicia Putney
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
PLANNING COMMISSION OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY~ b (iLl
7
David C. Ritz, Chair ..J -9~ 8/03
APPROVED A, S, ,TO Fa, RM, r
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENC
r
BY I / /', /:':</1
; ~01IICe
, '
05/19/03
Page 4 of4
Development Review Committee Resolution
NO. D9-03
Recommending Approval
Of the Interim Development Ordinance
And the Boundaries of the Draft Tier Maps
RESOLUTION NO. D9-03
AN RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDING A DESIGNATION OF NATURAL
AREAS (TIER I) AND INTERIM DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS DEFERRING ROGO AND NROGO
ALLOCATIONS IN TIER I AREAS UNTIL LDR AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
IMPLEMENTING THE CARRYING CAPACITY
STUDY ARE DRAFTED AND ADOPTED BY THE
COUNTY COMMISSION OR ONE YEAR,
WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (2010 Plan) in
GOAL 102 requires Monroe County to direct future growth to lands most suitable for
development and to conserve and protect environmentally sensitive lands and Objective
102.3 requires that new development occur where site disturbances and man's activities
have fewer adverse effects on natural vegetation; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Administrative Commission in 1996 enacted Rule 28-
20.100, which created the "Work Program" in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Work
Program required, among other things, the preparation of a Carrying Capacity Study for
the Florida Keys; and
WHEREAS, Year 6 (July 13, 2002 through July 12, 2003) of the "Work
Program", section c., requires the County to implement the Carrying Capacity Study by
the adoption of all necessary plan amendments to establish development standards to
ensure that new development does not exceed the carrying capacity of the county's
environment; and
WHEREAS, the "Work Program", section F. directs the County to initiate and
complete a collaborative process for the adoption of Land Development Regulations
(LDRs) and Plan amendments to strengthen the protection of terrestrial habitat; and
WHEREAS, the Carrying Capacity Study, completed in September 2002,
concluded "that land development in the Florida Keys has surpassed the capacity of
upland habitats to withstand further development"; and
WHEREAS, Goal 105 Smart Growth was adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners in 2001 to provide a framework within the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to
implement the Carrying Capacity Study; and
WHEREAS, Objective 105.2 of the Plan directs the County to map and
designate land within the Florida Keys into three categories - Natural Area, Transition
04/16/03
and Sprawl Reduction Area, and Infill Area; and
WHEREAS, the Tier Maps were drafted based on the requirements and scientific
findings of the Carrying Capacity Study, Rule 28-20.100 and Goal 105; and
WHEREAS, the draft Tier Maps have been reviewed at public workshops in the
upper and lower Keys and at Planning Commission meetings. Revisions to the maps have
been made where errors in data were identified; and
WHEREAS, the LDR and Comprehensive Plan amendments to implement the
protection of the terrestrial ecosystem requirements in Rule 28-20.100 are incomplete and
will not be reviewed and adopted by July 13, 2003, deadline and the loss of valuable
native habitat is continuing as development in these areas continue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting on March 13,2003,
directed staff to move forward and prepare a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners for a deferral of ROGO and NROGO allocations to areas with negative
environmental points while the staff prepares amendments to the 20 I 0 Comprehensive
Plan and the LDRs to further protect the terrestrial ecosystem; and
WHEREAS, this deferment will protect the natural environment while providing
additional time to incorporate a comprehensive legal and financial review of the proposed
amendments and to identify dedicated funding sources for land acquisition; and
WHEREAS, this deferment will be a demonstration of good faith to the
Governor and Cabinet that the County is seriously working towards implementing the
Carrying Capacity Study and Rule 28-20.100 and should be considered in substantial
compliance in meeting the Work Program goals; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, to recommend APPROVAL to
the Monroe County Planning Commission of the following as requested by the Monroe
County Planning Department:
1. Designate Natural Areas (Tier I) as represented in the Planning and Environmental
Resources Department Tier Maps.
2. Defer ROGO or NROGO allocation awards within Tier I areas with a
ROGO/NROGO entry date of March 13,2003, or later.
3. Do not accept further ROGO or NROGO applications within Tier I areas effective the
date of this ordinance.
4. Make all vacant lands within Tier I areas eligible for a ROGO and NROGO land
dedication under Policy 101.5.4(5) and 101.5.5(4)
04/16/03
PASSED AND ADOPTED By the Development Review Committee of Monroe County,
Florida at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of April, 2003.
Fred Gross, Director, Lower Keys Planning Team (Chair) YES
K. Marlene Conaway, Director YES
Ralph Gouldy, Environmental Resources Senior Administrator YES
Department of Health (by fax) YES
Department of Public Works (by fax) YES
Department of Engineering (by fax) YES
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
~-~~
Fred 'Gross, DCR Chair
Signed this / 1 ~ay of April, 2003
By
04/16/03
Report to the
Board of County Commissioners
Implementing Goal 105
and the Carrying Capacity Study:
THE TIER SYSTEM
Tier I Conservation, Restoration, Protection
Tier II Transition, Reduce sprawl
Tier III Redevelopment, Infill development
Monroe County
Planning and Environmental
Resources Department
June 2003
Table of Contents
1.0 Purpose
2.0 Background
2.1 Florida Administrative Council Rule 28-20.100 - The Work Program
2.2 Carrying Capacity Study
2.3 Goal 105 Smart Growth
3.0 Tier Maps
3.1 Criteria for designation
3.2 Methodology
3.3 Upper Keys
3.4 Middle Keys
3.5 Lower Keys
3.6 Big Pine Key
4.0 Recommendations
Attachments
A. Work Program
B. Goal 105
C. Chapter 5 - Carrying Capacity Study
D. Data and Map Sources
E. Vacant Parcels and Development Potential Analysis
Prepared by:
K. Marlene Conaway, Director
Maureen Lackey, Senior Planner
Maureen Meehan, Planner
Robert Will, Planner
www.co.monroe.fl.us "Hot Topics
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
-2-
1.0 Purpose
The purpose of this report is as follows:
. To provide the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners and the public with the
proposed Tier Maps developed by staff to guide future development and land acquisition.
. To explain how the Tier System, including the Tier Maps, implement Goal 105 "Smart
Growth" of the Comprehensive Plan.
. To review the requirements of the Florida Administrative Commission Rule number 28-
20.100 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan "Work Program".
. To provide additional understanding of the results of the Carrying Capacity Study and
how the Tier System is the framework for it's implementation by the County.
2.0 Background
The Florida Keys consists of a 112-mile long chain of islands located at the southern tip of
Florida. U.S. Highway I, stretching from Key Largo to Key West, connects the more devel-
oped islands. The biological communities in the Florida Keys have evolved in response to
unique island environmental conditions characterized by salt water, subtropical savanna-type
climate- hot humid summers and cool dry winters, limestone substrate and hurricanes. These
conditions combined with the isolation of the islands have supported colonization and evolu-
tion of highly specialized plants and animals, many endemic to the Florida Keys. The upland
habitats, hammock and pine lands include over 30 of these endemic species. In addition, a
significant portion of the waters adjacent to the islands has been designated as Outstanding
Florida Waters, and includes the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
Approximately 15% of the land area in the Florida Keys is developed, and between 60% and
70% of the undeveloped land area is in public ownership (Florida Keys Carrying Capacity
Study, September 2002.) This leaves between 15% and 20% of the land area vacant and in
private ownership. This report and the Tier Maps are primarily concerned with this remain-
ing undeveloped privately owned lands and determining, based on the environmental quality
and development characteristics, whether they should be designated for acquisition for habi-
tat protection or sprawl reduction, or designated for infill and redevelopment.
2.1 Florida Administration Commission Rule 28-20.100 - Work Program
The 2010 Comprehensive Plan took seven years to be fully in effect, mired in three to four
years of legal challenges after it was adopted in April 1993. The ongoing legal proceedings
prompted a 1995 Final Order and Recommendations by a Hearing Officer, which found that
the proposed Plan was not in compliance and specified remedial action. The findings stated
among other things that near shore waters, shoreline sea grasses and Key Deer habitat had
reached or exceeded the carrying capacity.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 3 -
As a result of this order, the Florida Administration Commission in 1996 enacted Rule 28-
20.100, which created the Work Program in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Work Pro-
gram required among other things, the preparation of a carrying capacity study for the Flor-
ida Keys. The goal of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS), excerpted from
Rule 28-20.100 reads as follows:
"The carrying capacity analysis shall be designed to determine the ability of the Florida
Keys ecosystem and the various segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land
development activities. "
Year Six of the Work Program (July 13,2002 - July 13,2003) enacted in Rule 28-20.100, as
amended, directs the county to implement the Carrying Capacity Study by adopting amend-
ments to the rate of growth ordinance, the LDRs, the future land use maps and maximum
permitted densities. The Rule amendment in 2002 added two additional tasks to the work
program:
1) A master land acquisition plan is required containing a strategy for securing funding
and the acquisition of properties that should be preserved due to their habitat and also
land for affordable housing; and
2) Adoption of land development regulations, and/or comprehensive plan amendments
that strengthens the protection of terrestrial habitat through the Permit Allocation
System and permitting processes, and the preservation and maintenance of affordable
housing stock.
2.2 Carrying Capacity Study
The DCA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly sponsored the Carrying Capacity
Study. A series of technical workshops were held during 1999 to refine the scope of the
study and address uncertainties regarding available information and modeling capabilities.
The contractor, URS, Inc., began working on the project in late 1999 and completed the
study in September 2002. The draft of the model and study was critically peer reviewed in
early 2002.
The National Science Foundation review document stated, that over-all the current peer re-
viewed scientific information proved insufficient to develop a comprehensive carrying ca-
pacity framework that would allow for undisputable determinations of whether future devel-
opment scenarios fall within the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys. The final report was
also peer reviewed and the scientists and technical reviewers agree that the terrestrial por-
tion of the study provides a valuable analysis and the Impact Assessment Model is a useful
tool, but with substantial limitations. The marine ecosystems and species portion of the study
was removed from the model because existing data is insufficient to establish quantitative,
predictive relationships between land use or development and marine environment.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
-4-
Chapter 5 of the FKCCS (Attachment C) summarizes the results of the study:
The evaluation of the terrestrial ecosystem demonstrated that land development in the Flor-
ida Keys has surpassed the capacity of upland habitats to withstand further development. "
The study states that fragmentation of the habitat is a primary concern; "Small patches of
forest show lower biodiversity, increased vulnerability to invasion by exotic plant and ani-
mal species and decreased gene flow within and among populations. The secondary and in-
direct impacts of development further contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation." The
conclusion is drawn that "the Florida Keys has surpassed the capacity of the upland habi-
tats to withstand further development. Any further development would exacerbate secondary
and indirect impacts.
The Carrying Capacity Study concludes with four guidelines for future development:
1) Prevent encroachment into native habitat.
2) Continue and intensify existing land acquisition programs and land restoration efforts
throughout the Keys, wastewater and storm water master plan implementation, and
on-going research and management activities.
3) Focus on redevelopment and infill development, small potentially acceptable, addi-
tional environmental impacts may occur in areas ripe for development and redevelop-
ment.
4) Increase efforts to manage the resource to preserve and improve the remaining terres-
trial ecosystems.
2.3 Goal 105 Smart Growth
Goal I05 was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 200 I to provide a framework
within the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to implement the FKCCS and a 20 year land acquisition
Program. Goal I05 reads as follows:
Monroe County shall undertake a comprehensive land acquisition program and smart growth initia-
tives in corgunction with its Livable CommuniKeys Program in a manner that recognizes the finite ca-
pacity for new development in the Florida Keys by providing economic and housing opportunities for
residents without compromising the biodiversity of the natural environment and the continued ability of
the natural and made-made systems to sustain livable communities in the Florida Keys for .fUtzqe gen-
erations.
The initial phase of implementing Goal 105 is the drafting and adoption of the Tier maps to
be used as guidance for the County's land acquisition program. Future work tasks include
amending the zoning map with a tier overlay, revising the permit allocation system, develop-
ing a land acquisition strategy and a land maintenance program.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 5 -
The County is directed to implement the 20 year land acquisition program by designating ac-
quisition areas into three general categories: Natural Area (Tier I); Transition (Tier II); and
Infill Area (Tier III). Tier III lands will only be acquired for affordable housing and parks.
The acquisition program is to be funded with assistance of the state and federal governments
and shall accomplish the following:
. secure for conservation and passive recreation purposes remaining privately-owned envi-
ronmentally sensitive lands;
. retire development rights on privately owned vacant lands to limit further sprawl and to
balance the rights of property owners with the sustainability of the Keys man-made and
natural systems;
. secure and retain land for affordable housing. (Objective 105.2)
The goal includes a description of the lands to be included in each Tier. The descriptions are
outlined below:
Tier I - Natural Area
Conservation, restoration and protection of environmentally sensitive land
. Adjacent to existing publicly owned lands and/or high quality habitat.
. Conservation land to qualify for ROGO dedication.
. Consisting of private vacant parcels to be acquired or development rights retired for re-
source conservation, restoration or passive recreation.
. New development severely restricted in the allocation system.
Tier II - Transition and Sorawl Area
Prevent encroachment on environmentally sensitive land and reduce sprawl.
. Consists of less than 50% built subdivisions or parts of subdivisions with incomplete in-
frastructure and less than 4 acre of isolated environmentally sensitive land.
. County purchase w/adjacent lot owners - retire development rights and development po-
tential.
. New development discouraged in allocation system.
Tier III - Infill Area
Redevelopment and infill new development.
. Consists of >50% built subdivisions with full infrastructure present or in future plans
with established commercial areas.
· Development encouraged in allocation system.
· Newly established community centers become eligible Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) receiver sites with a higher density incentive to TDR.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 6-
3.0 Tier Maps
The Tier Maps are based on the requirements and scientific findings from the previously de-
scribed documents. The maps are being proposed, at this time, as a guide for future land ac-
quisition from willing sellers and designation of Tier I to allow lots to be dedicated for
ROGO points. Tier maps have been drafted and are under consideration for all lands in unin-
corporated Monroe County south of Ocean Reef. The tiers are large areas, with characteris-
tics shared by the majority of the land areas. All tiers include some existing residential and
commercial uses, being designated Tier I or Tier II should not have any effect on those exist-
ing uses. The tier maps were created using the county's Arc View GIS, which contains most
of the maps, aerials, data, and overlays used in performing the FKCCS.
3.1 <:riteria
The criteria used to designate the tiers and draw the boundaries between different tiers were
developed using the Carrying Capacity Study, Goal 105 and other goals and policies within
the 2010 Comprehensive plan
Criteria followed to designate lands as Tier I:
. Include natural areas of more than 4 acres and buffer areas of privately owned vacant lots
and parcels.
. Include land to connect patches and reduce further fragmentation.
. Provide a buffer between natural areas and development to minimize secondary impacts
up to a 500-foot radius. Canals or roadways may, depending on size, form a sufficient
barrier from secondary impacts.
. Include areas on county threatened and endangered species maps.
. Include most NA districts; other districts in buffer/restoration area.
. Consider potential for successful land management - restoration of disturbed habitat, re-
moval of exotics, and connecting patches.
. Has minimal existing development.
. Is legally and scientifically defensible.
Criteria followed to desilmate lands as Tier II:
. Includes subdivision less than 50% developed, or a portion of a subdivision that is less
than 50% developed because of environmental constraints.
. Contains fragmented, unconnected hammock patches of 4 acres or less and is isolated
from larger natural areas by existing development.
. Includes large developed and undeveloped SR and SS lots with habitat.
. Has platted lots in areas where adjoining property owner(s) may purchase the lots with
county financial participation - a conservation easement and possibly limited accessory
uses.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 7 -
Criteria followed to designate lands as Tier III:
. Consists of substantially developed subdivisions near established commercial areas.
. Has small IS and URM lots.
. May contain small fragmented hammock areas.
3.2 Methodology
Goal 105 states that overlay maps of the proposed tiers are to be created per Policy 105.2.2
which shall be incorporated as an overlay on the zoning maps with supporting text amend-
ments in the Land Development Regulations and the smart growth initiatives in conjunction
with the Livable CommuniKeys Program.
For the first phase of this mapping project, staff was directed to create a specific database
tied to the GIS to be used to expand the area available for land acquisition from willing sell-
ers for the Land Acquisition Program. These maps will continue to be refined and adopted as
zoning overlays to implement the smart growth initiatives and Livable CommuniKeys Pro-
gram. The maps attribute table provides the following information:
. Property owner
. Property Record card number
. Existing land use designation
. Future land use designation
. Value of property
. Existing Property Appraiser's Code of Actual Use on Property
. Environmental Designation (wetland, hammock, etc.)
. Size of property
. Subdivision identification
. Island name
. Tier Designation
Using the database, GIS shapefiles were created. The shapefiles were used for the creations
of Tier maps. While the attribute table provides the information in tabular format regarding
the property, the map gives the spatial details; this visual affect allows for fme-tuning of the
tier system. The creation of the base map allows for analysis using various computerized
overlays, which may be used to aid the planning department or land authority in regard to ac-
quisition, assessment or monitoring. The aide of the maps allowed field inspections and/or
prior knowledge to correct any discrepancies in the databases.
The first priority for land acquisition is to identify areas as Tier I, or natural areas. In order to
begin mapping, the attribute table was used to determine the location of the existing natural
areas. Locating where the existing sensitive lands lie within the acquisition boundaries of
federal and state resource conservation areas and parks were the first step.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 8 -
Next the existing ADID (Advanced Identification of Wetlands) dataset was used and sensi-
tive lands were highlighted in the legend and an overlay was created from this information.
Once the foundation layer showed where the sensitive areas were, the second layer on the
map was CARL lands, or lands within the acquisition boundaries of federal and state re-
source conservation and park areas. A Tier column was added to the data set and all of these
areas received a "Tier I Designation." In addition, small, isolated platted subdivisions with
clusters of more than four acres of sensitive habitat located within 500 feet of privately-
owned vacant lands, received the Tier I designation in the data set and a Tier I layer was
formed. All non-developed state and federal public parcels and local parks above four acres
received a Tier I designation.
A GIS layer depicting existing infill and subdivision build-out was the primary basis for Tier
III designations. In an effort to determine property to be designated as Tier III, the first at-
tempt was to sort all subdivisions and determine by count how many were 50 percent or
more developed. Once determined, the sensitive lands layer was placed over the 50 percent
developed subdivisions layer to see if any of these subdivisions might have pockets of sensi-
tive lands. If clusters of hammock existed within the subdivision, either the subdivision was
divided into Tier III and Tier II or, the subdivision was determined a Tier II designation be-
cause of the amount of hammock.
For acquisition purposes, if the subdivision is over 50% built out but cannot be further devel-
oped due to environmental constraints; remaining lots will be designated for acquisition. It
should be noted that parcels that house condominiums with large native open space areas
were generally given a Tier I designation even though the units themselves were given a Tier
III designation. Most condominium units require ample open space thus the existing vacant
land cannot be built on and these open spaces generally contain clusters of environmentally
sensitive lands. However, if the open space was not environmentally sensitive, the parcel re-
ceived a Tier II designation. This scenario also describes that of mobile home parks where
the parcel of land is owned by one entity.
The third phase of creating the Tier Maps was the Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area
(Tier II). The first measure in the designation was the subdivision build out with infrastruc-
ture, proximity to established commercial areas and pockets of environmentally sensitive
lands. These were determined by process of elimination. Once the 50 percent build out was
given and mapped, the sensitive environment layer was placed over the Tier II designated
areas to see if the subdivision had large pockets of environmentally sensitive lands. Then the
determination was made as to whether the subdivision was near established commercial ar-
eas. If the subdivision was built out but had clusters or pockets of sensitive lands; the desig-
nation might be broken into two tiers. Acreage that was not platted generally received a Tier
II designation as did large parcels of private vacant land. Most of the Suburban Residential
(SR) land use district was given a Tier II designation as only one dwelling unit is permitted
per two acres.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 9-
Once all parcels received a designation, a vacant parcels layer was created to verify the data
set. The Monroe County Property Appraiser's office data was used to determine if the parcel
is vacant. In addition, the ROGO allocations given since 2001 are being considered for map-
pmg purposes.
After the draft Tier Maps were created, the county biologists reviewed the maps, parcel by
parcel, to determine the accuracy of the maps and the identification of environmentally sen-
sitive lands. Aerials were used as well as field knowledge and site visits. In addition, correc-
tions were made to verify water, road easements and to validate the map for acquisition pur-
poses.
The first draft of the Tier Maps were also reviewed and revised in response to comments
from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA),
Monroe County Land Authority staff and the county Land Steward. Three public meetings
were held in locations in the upper and lower Keys. Comments from the community were
taken, concerning possible errors in the data used to draft the maps. These areas will be re-
evaluated and changes made where appropriate.
3.3 Upper Keys - Mile Marker 91 to 112
3.3.1 Description
The Upper Keys Tier Maps begin at Tavernier Creek Bridge (Mile Marker 91) and extend
northward to Mile Marker 112 with the exception of Ocean Reef. From Tavernier Creek to
Mile Marker 93, there is a mixture of commercial and residential uses extending from the
US-l toward the ocean and bay.
Between Mile Marker 93 and 97, most of the land is residential use with several large tracts
of public-owned land. Many of the tracts of land along the highway on the bayside are listed
as Tier II because many of them are located in the Suburban Residential (SR) land use dis-
trict which allows for one dwelling unit per two acre tract of land.
Because of the environmental sensitivity of these parcels, which extend from highway to
bay, even though there are homes on the parcels, the Tier designation is a two for environ-
mental reasons.
From Mile Marker 97-100, there are a tremendous amount of infill areas and substantially
developed subdivisions. Other than passive recreation areas and clusters of more than four
acres of land, the majority of this area is a Tier In designation.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 10-
From Mile Marker 100-103, there is not a tremendous amount of commercial activity, but
more Suburban Residential tracts of land and less large and developed subdivisions. A lot of
this area is designated Tier I.
At Mile Marker 103, there is a lot of growth occurring and many of the subdivisions in this
area are considered infill areas. Substantially developed subdivisions exist along the bay and
ocean side of US-l past Mile Marker 106, at which point there is some development, but
very minimal.
3.3.2 Tier Matrix
Upper Keys I 26 680 416 1595 75 1670 542
(MM 91 to 112) II 0 1064 44 1112 57 1169 1132
III 264 1358 28 1645 465 2110 8099
Total 290 3102 488 4352 597 4949 9773
Source: Monroe County Tier Maps and Property Appraiser's Database
3.3.3 Discussion
There are two large tracts of land for passive recreation purposes within the Upper Keys that
are owned by Monroe County: Harry Harris Park and Port Largo Park. In addition, the John
Pennekamp State Park is located at Mile Marker 103, which is owned by the State of Flor-
ida. The location of all three of these parks has caused some areas that might otherwise be
considered a Tier III to be designated a Tier II as a result of the close proximity to the pub-
licly owned lands. For instance, Port Largo
Subdivision, Harris Ocean Park Estates,
Ocean Park Village and Sound Village are
subdivisions that are located adjacent to
park land and therefore have been given a
Tier II designation to provide for a buffer
between passive recreation lands and sub-
divisions. There is also a large tract of
state-owned land adjacent to Harry Harris
Park.
Total Private Vacant Parcels
Upper Keys
2110
1169
I_I _II oml
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 11 -
The area is comprised of 28,768 acres ofland, with 25,895 of this acreage designated as Tier
I. Within the Upper Keys, 49.5% (or 12,812 acres) of the Tier I lands are in public owner-
ship. Of the remaining land, there are 4,352 parcels of vacant residential land in the Upper
Keys.
Within Tier I, there are 1,595 vacant residential parcels of land. For density and acquisition
purposes of land uses with the least density requirements, the Improved Subdivision (IS) and
Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM) land use districts account for the majority of the va-
cant residential parcels in the Upper Keys. There are 10,795 IS and URM parcels in the Up-
per Keys. Of the 3,392 vacant residential parcels in the Upper Keys, 20.1 % (706) are desig-
nated Tier I.
As Tier I parcels are the highest priority for acquisition, it is imperative to recognize the va-
cant parcels in the Upper Keys that fall under this designation. Within the Tier I designation,
there are 706 parcels designated IS and URM.
Of those 706 parcels, 537 are within Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) acquisition
areas, with 459 of the lots currently under public ownership and 78 being privately owned
parcels. Vacant buildable lots within CARL acquisition areas are permitted to be used as
"land dedication" lots in the current Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance.
With the implementation of the Tier System, all Tier I parcels will be permitted as land dedi-
cation lots, thus increasing the number of available ROGO dedication lots from a possible 78
to 427 in the Upper Keys.
A study of the buildability of vacant parcels shows that 580 of the 706 vacant residential par-
cels are hammock lots and 49 are red flag wetlands. Under the current ROGO system, red
flag wetlands parcels are not buildable, so this reduces the number of parcels to 657.
A building permit application for a single-family residential unit on an IS or URM parcel
that has high quality hammock will receive -10 points for high quality hammock; -5 points
for a medium quality hammock; and -2 points for low quality hammock.
Those hammock parcels of land that are contiguous to or part of a total of 12.5 or more acres
or more of hammock are automatically designated high quality. In addition, those hammock
tracts of 12.5 acres or more are usually also mapped, known endangered animal habitat. Lots
within known endangered animal habitats are currently assessed -35 or -37 points.
The Tier II parcels were the most difficult to designate in the Upper Keys as the criteria and
distinction between Tier I and Tier III are more discernible. Many of the areas or subdivi-
sions that have been given a Tier II designation, may also have Tier I clusters of four or
more acres within the subdivision or may have portions of the subdivision designated as Tier
III.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 12 -
The commonality for all Tier II designations in the Upper Keys are the fact that clusters of
hammock may exist in the area and there is not complete infrastructure provided in the sub-
division as a result of wetlands or high quality hammock.
There are 1,112 lots in Tier II in the Upper Keys. Of those, 1,064 are vacant IS or URM par-
cels. Only 11 % of the parcels in Tier II are located within a CARL acquisition area.
In regard to Tier III, the majority of the existing infill is obviously in this Tier designation as
are trailer parks, condominiums and commercial centers. There are 163 parcels of land that
have a hammock designation in this Tier. These are lots that are located in subdivisions or
commercial centers that have existing development with vacant parcels that have hammock.
It is important to note that while 1,112 of the parcels in Tier II are vacant, there are 1,132
that are developed (or roughly 50%). This is not the case in Tier I or Tier III. Of the 1,661
parcels in IS and URM land use districts in Tier I, 51 % are vacant; 27% are publicly owned;
and 22% are developed; in Tier III 20% are vacant and 80% are developed. This data is in-
dicative of the accuracy of the designation of existing land within the Upper Keys.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 13-
Monroe County DRAFT Tier Map
Mile Marker 91 to 94
Tier Designation
_lIer,
C]lIerll
_lIerlll
_ -lIlY LIIKI
-USl
. MIe MlIk.r
,
A
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
~w
~~~-;
T1Iio.. 10 ...___c~___-..-.....
......-,. ,..,......-..........................
-~lIIpklI.........,...,....._-....
.~............
~le. ',~d:,.. r;v.: r~te- ~~l'Oj
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 14-
Monroe County DRAFT Tier Map
Mile Marker 94 to 98
Tier Designation
_111.1
D 1II.H
_ 111. HI
_ ~Lond
-US!
. MI, MII..r
,
"
A
o
0.25
MIles
0.5
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
~
."....III11r......c..,~......-~
~_..n................II............,
........,..........................,....
.--
j.j<, :)f",l!;\";' 1',110; ~'1\r., ~r~',!~~
- 15 -
"~
Tier Designation
_Tlerl
DTlerll
_Tlerlll
_ MIIory Lond
-US1
. MIe MIIrktr
~
o
0.3
Miles
0.8
~
niI.....lllr__~.................-,.....
.........-I).n.........~..............,
___,............................riPI"'.......
._-
r:-emr'!1.1t'-7 F.',';! i."l!lo ~t~;!"IL'
,
A
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- I6-
Tier OeslgnaUon
_ 1ler1
D -n.,u
_ -n.,1U
_ Iiotbry L_
-US1
. We Malker
'\
A
"Aftft~-;'.I
.~
o
0.25 0.5
Mlle.
l1oIo...II!ilr~c...,u.-.~DINkoI
=:.:--===~==;':
._-
'!'. ~lb K';",' L<tI1: :':/.;:1:.:'.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 17 -
3.4 Middle Keys - Mile Marker 60-71
3.4.1 Description
The Middle Keys tier region is comprised of all of the islands from Mile Marker 60 (Duck
Key) through Mile Marker 71 (Long Key). There are several different types of uses found
within this area. The land uses include residential neighborhoods, commercial fishing areas,
a destination resort, a state park and preservation lands. The diverse setting creates a region
with high-density development surrounded by more sensitive habitat. Long Key (MM 65-
71) especially exhibits this type of development. In addition, many of the uses found within
this region rely heavily on water resources to continue normal business and residential op-
erations.
The diverse land uses lend to different land use map designations. Duck Key is divided be-
tween Destination Resort (DR) for Hawk's Cay Resort and Improved Subdivision Masonry
(IS-M). Conch Key is a Commercial Fishing District, specifically location #16 (CFSD 16).
The density for IS-M is the same as IS subdivisions, one (1) unit per lot and the allocated
density for CFSD 16 is three (3) units per acre.
3.4.2 Tier Matrix,
The following matrix was built by querying the attribute table. The residential and commer-
cial areas were determined by using the Monroe County Property Appraiser's database and
the property classification codes (PC) associated with each parcel.
3.4.3 Discussion
Middle Keys I 0 8 1 32 0 32 10
II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
III 61 384 444 9 103 1084
Total 61 392 1 476 9 233 1094
Source: Monroe County Tier Maps and Property Appraiser's Database
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 18 -
There are a total of 1,326 acres and 1,537 individual parcels within the Middle Keys. The
total number of private vacant parcels is 485. This number represents 31.5% of all parcels in
the area. The total number of developed parcels is 1094 or 71 % of the parcels in the Middle
Keys. This number does not represent the area of total land developed. The number of pub-
licly owned parcels is 84 or 4% of parcels, but the land mass that is occupied by publicly
owned entities is 810 acres or 61 % of the total area of the Middle Keys. The amount of area
that is vacant and privately owned is 233 acres or 19% of the total area of the Middle Keys.
The following graph outlines the number of vacant private parcels in each tier in the Middle
Keys.
The number of Tier III vacant parcels in-
cludes both residential and commercial
453 uses. The number of vacant IS M and
URM parcels in Tier III is 445. The den-
I_I _II oml sity for these 445 parcels is one unit per
lot. Therefore, there is the potential to de-
velop 45 new single family dwelling units on the IS M and URM lots. This is 91% of the
total number of private vacant residential parcels. The remaining 9% of the total private va-
cant parcels is divided by the vacant commercial lots, which are 1 % of the total and other
residential zoning classifications including Suburban Residential (SR), Urban Residential
(UR) and Commercial Fishing District (CFSD).
There are 32 vacant private parcels in the
proposed Tier I areas, 0 vacant private
parcels in the proposed Tier II areas and
453 vacant private parcels in the proposed
Tier III areas.
Total Private Vacant Parcels
Middle Keys
The total number of vacant commercial parcels is 9, with all of the parcels being in Tier III.
The vacant commercial parcels are found on Duck Key and Conch Key. These two areas are
already densely developed commercial areas.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 19-
g.
:=E
a
.... -
~r---
~.s
~~
o~
.G' ~
~:=E
o (I)
~~
~
~
c
8 i i
l'\l .. i!
&-==__1
~~~~!!l!
~ lOll I .
j::
Ht
H~
It'
ill
hll
lh.
ar
i.l
HI
/.....c:
..
II! J!
o :I
o
.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 20-
3.5 Lower Keys - Mile Marker 4 to 40
3.4.1 Description
The Lower Keys tier region is comprised of all of the islands from Mile Marker 4 (Stock Is-
land) to Mile Marker 40 (Little Duck Key), excluding Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
This region includes refuge areas, residential neighborhoods and high-density commercial
areas. CARL land and the Great White Heron Wildlife Refuge are included in the refuge ar-
eas. The high-density commercial areas are on Stock Island and US 1 corridor, especially
Big Coppitt Key and Summerland Key. Boca Chica Naval Air Station and land that is spe-
cifically for Military Facilities has been excluded from this draft of the Tier System. The
Federal Government currently owns these lands and there is no indication that these lands
will change ownership in the near future.
3.4.2 Tier Matrix
The following matrix was built by querying the attribute table. The residential and commer-
cial areas were determined by using the Monroe County Property Appraiser's database and
the property classification codes (PC) associated with each parcel.
Lower Keys I 3 616 202 2270 24 2294 445
MM 4-40 II I 451 7 96 13 609 448
III 173 1363 51 1596 194 I790 6I75
Total 177 2430 260 4462 231 3401 7068
Source: Monroe County Tier Maps and Property Appraiser's Database
3.4.3 Discussion
There are a total of 26,811 acres and 25,897 individual parcels within the Lower Keys Tier
area. The total number of private vacant parcels is 3,401, 13% of all parcels in the area. The
total number of developed parcels is 16,211 or 62.5% of the parcels in the Lower Keys. This
number does not represent the area of total land developed. The number of publicly owned
parcels is 6,910 or 26% of parcels, but the land mass that is occupied by publicly owned en-
tities is 17,120 acres or 63.8% of the total area of the Lower Keys. The amount of area that
is vacant and privately owned is 5,031 acres or 18.8% of the total area of the Lower Keys.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 21 -
The following graph outlines the number of vacant private parcels in each tier in the Lower
Keys.
2294
There are 2,294 vacant private parcels in
the proposed Tier I areas, 609 vacant pri-
vate parcels in the proposed Tier II areas
and 1,790 vacant private parcels in the
proposed Tier III areas.
Total Private Vacant Parcels
Lower Keys
The number of Tier III vacant parcels in-
cludes both residential and commercial
uses. The number of vacant IS and URM
parcels in Tier I is 1,536. The density for these 1,536 parcels is one unit per lot. Therefore,
there is the potential to develop 1,536 new single family dwelling units on the IS and URM
lots. This is 85.8% of the total number of private vacant residential parcels. The remaining
14.2% of the total private vacant parcels is divided by the vacant commercial lots, which are
only 8% of the total and other residential zoning classifications including Mixed Use (MU),
Sparsely Settled (SS) and Suburban Residential (SR).
609
'_I _n [JIll I
The total number of vacant commercial parcels is 231, with 194 or 84% of the parcels in Tier
III. With the exception of Stock Island, the majority of the vacant commercial parcels are
located on US 1 and are in close proximity to existing commercial uses.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 22-
~
::E
a
. ...
E--\O
E--.9
~~
~i
~'::E
::s <I)
8~
<I)
~
~
'"
o
c
~ I:;;
'" J-liE
6.-==ii_J
'iii~~~!~t
~ 10111 .
j::
"'.
~ J
/~ 0 S
C>
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 23-
J rf
.. . 1"
~ Htj:
In 8
l xlII ~
. p ~
..~I' ~
.ft ,~
HI
,
g.
::E
~
...-4 --4
E-<_
E-< 0
~€
Cl 0
,G'~
d::E
5..2
~~
~
~
'"
.,;
z~ an 1ft
"! J!
o :I
o
c
8 1 ~
'" -' i!
li,-==i-!!
~.!.!.!!!!li
~ 10111 .
j::
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 24-
...
---
-
~oo
::E~
'"'~
a> 0
. - ..cl
~t::
~~
0-
. 0
..G'-
a~
o '"'
ua>
a>~
~:E
o a>
::E~
-,
...
c
8 i i
'" ... i!
~-==i-~
~~~~I!Si
t lOll I .
~
....
o
z....c:
:q .Ii
co :s
C>
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 25-
lif
~ ~1..
~ JJtJ ~
lit ~
) XlII
Ih.
~it
HI
"l
C)
....c: '" ..
/' '" J!
C) II
C)
~
,
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 26-
Hf
.. ~h
Ijl ....
IJI~
lit .s
1III ~
It. "
I! '.
~ff ,~
HI
It>
o
o
~
~
a
..... 0\
E---
E-- 0
~~
Cl 0
l::~
a~
o 0
~~
~
~
.
..
..
...
.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 27-
1ft
.. ~1'1
In;
lid3
; flU
HI.
{if
HI
aJ
.....-
~~
~.s
~~
aJ
~~
.,G' a
s::E
o (1)
~~
~
~
-
, .'~
/<<: i ,
.
<>
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 28-
g.
:E
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
lit
n.
fnJ~
xlii ~
lh,"
~tf c:
HI
on
/ ~~~~
- 29-
=
c.. .9
~t::
~ 0
I-tp...
.2 e
E-t (j)
E-t,€
~~
O~
.oS
=",
=N
o
U b
~~
o~
~~
~
c
o i-
1; .... ~
a-==ii'-:I
~~~~!~i
~ 10111 .
j::
~
.
--
"1
, -<~~i
.",
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 30-
o
~'€
::E~
.~ e
~~
~~
o~
("j
,C. 0
c: -
=1.0
O~
u~
~i
a::E
~ ~
~
-
c
o 1.
~ ..J';
~_==,,_J
~~~~!!If
t 10111 ·
j::
., H!
IJI ,~
J ~
JHt~
xlii c
~ It',;
t~Ja ~
.tf'
HI
" ~~~i
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 31 -
c
o i-
i .....;
c -=1" 5
f~~~!~f
~ 10111 .
i=
lit
-1.
JI, J
.1J
111
!III ~
JI ~
~i' ~
J", ,:
-I ~
HI
'~~i
~
~
a
.....0
E---.:t
E--.9
~~
~,i
s~
o (I)
~~
~
~
.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 32-
3.5 Big Pine Key and N 0 Name Key
3.5.1 Description
While Big Pine and No Name Keys are included in the Lower Keys, they require additional
discussion and analysis. The Tier designations on Big Pine and No Name Key were not
based on the criteria outlined in section 3.1 of this report, but rather other factors established
by the Habitat Conservation Plan. The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is required for a
permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because any additional development on Big Pine
will have an impact on the endangered species resulting in a prohibited 'taking' of the spe-
cies. The HCP outlines what types of development will be permitted on Big Pine and No
Name Keys and how the primary and secondary impacts of the new development on the en-
dangered species (primarily the Florida Key Deer and the Lower Keys March Rabbit) will be
mitigated.
The Tier designations on Big Pine and No Name Keys were based on a Key Deer Population
Viability Analysis (PV A) model, in the HCP, which included different habitat characteristics
relevant to the survival of the Key deer population. The factors used in the PV A (and also in
determining Tier designations) were: deer corridors, deer density, house density, water barri-
ers, distance from US 1, and habitat patch quality. These six factors were evaluated based on
two forms of impact to the Key deer, secondary impacts such as increase in traffic and loss
or change of habitat. Deer corridors, areas of high deer density, and areas with quality deer
habitat were considered most valuable to the species, while areas with a high house density,
water barriers such as canals, and areas close to US 1 were considered to be less valuable to
the species.
The resulting Tier designations were somewhat different from other areas in the county. For
example, subdivisions which are more than 50% built-out were not designated as Tier III be-
cause they are located in areas of high deer density, high habitat quality and located far from
U.S. 1 thus increasing the likelihood of traffic mortality.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 33-
Big Pine I 9 865 102 2074 6 2080 1431
MM 29.5-33 II 0 487 0 499 0 499 784
III 1 224 0 225 I9 244 604
Total 10 1576 102 2798 25 2823 2819
Source: Monroe County Tier Maps and Property Appraiser's Database
3.5.3 Discussion
The majority of land on Big Pine and No Name is already under public ownership (roughly
67% including federal, state, and county lands). Most of the large tracts have already been
purchased for conservation purposes and are under management by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and are part of the Key Deer Refuge and Great White Heron Sanctuary. The HCP
will require any new development that occurs on Big Pine to be mitigated, mainly through
the purchase of lands for conservation purposes. Therefore, the lands currently in private
ownership designated Tier I is very important to mitigate the limited amount of proposed
new development on Big Pine.
The following graph shows the breakdown of private, vacant parcels by their proposed Tier
designations.
The majority of the vacant parcels located
in Tier I are either acre parcels located in
the center of Big Pine or small Improved
Subdivision (IS) lots located in subdivi-
sions which are located in deer corridors or
on the north side of the island far from US
1. Tier III parcels are all located within
close proximity to US 1 and the majority
are IS lots located on canals, with a limited
amount of vacant commercial lots within
the US 1 Corridor. Tier II parcels are pre-
dominantly located in subdivisions in the central portion of Big Pine and are on canals or in
areas of high housing density. All of No Name Key is designated Tier I.
Total Private Vacant Parcels
Big Pine and No Name
244
I_I _II oml
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 34-
The Habitat Conservation Plan will determine the permitted amount of development activi-
ties on Big Pine and No Name Key for the next 20 years. The proposed plan will only per-
mit 200 residential units (ten per year) and a corresponding amount of new commercial de-
velopment. There are a total of 224 vacant IS lots proposed to be designated as Tier III,
however there are 865 IS lots proposed as Tier I. Tier II, the transition area, has 487 vacant
IS lots.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 35-
4.0 Recommendations
. The Planning Commission to recommend the Tier Maps to the Board of County Com-
missions for adoption as guidance maps for acquisition of lands from willing sellers and
to designate Tier I as "Conservation Land Protection Area" permitting donation of lots
for ROGO points.
. Staff to continue to refine the maps, final Tier Maps to be adopted as an over-lay to the
zoning maps as required in the 2010 Plan.
. Staff and the Planning Commission to work together to develop revised ROGO and de-
velopment regulations to incorporate the Tiers and fulfill the requirements of the Work
Program in the Comprehensive Plan.
. Contract to have a fiscal analysis performed on the impact of using the maps as a basis
for acquisition and future rate of growth regulations.
. Analyze the Tiers and revisions to the LDRs in the "Carrying Capacity Impact Assess-
ment Model" to determine the improvements in projected Carrying Capacity with the
amendments.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 36-
_...I. .lti
.5 u'i! 4.1
cti5.~
E-Qclf
- ~
.5 ...
C C.I
E-<
~ ~
.Q ...
lf~
_.a-;.lti
.5 GIGI 4.1
C .~ ~ ~
E-t>1f
4.1....
-....clf)
.5~5~
C .- GI C.I
E-t><
.... .:.
;;S'ii!
] ~ S'u C.I
-;>8 <
.a....'
C C ~ _ ~
~ 5:os.! t
c>GI~""<
4.1 ~
! .'
Q'-;t .lti
QiGlS'ii8
t ~ S'u;
Q>8 ~
'0
c
GI
.lti
4.1
~
GI
~
-;= .lti
GlU_U
C.I:OS .! ~
GI~""GI
>~ ~
....
~;;~<l!
~~~z~
>>
....
;; ~ l!
C.I C/.) C.I
.; <
'-;~
';5C/.)
I....
GlCC/.)
>5-
I....~
Glc=
>5~
...
u
~
c
.S
....
5
oS
I~I~ ~ ~
on _ 0 t-...
- 00 01
I~ ~ ~ ~
ooon('f'l t-...
~ N ~
I~I~ ~ ~
00 01
N l"'l
- .....
I~I$ ~ ~
\0-- 01
- - N "'"
I~I~;'; ~
ON ('f'l '0
- .....
I:::"I~ ~
N -
.;:;
""l
I~IO; ~
o (;:)
- .....
:AIO ~ ~
0'1 ('f'l ""l
.....
I~IO \0 ~
00 ClO
I~IO ~ ~
~ "'"
I~IO 8
- -
""l
l"'l
1~lgg :A
OO-N
~
""l
.....
1010 .....
IS::IO ~ ~
- l"'l
1010 0'1 0\
IMIO ~ ~
0'1 ~
I~IO 0 ~
-100 .....
10010 ~ ~
('f'l ""l
1010;0 .<;
- -
............=
,.,
~1i
\\),9
~ 0
~...
~~
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
~I~ ~
~
0;
I')
o;~~
on-\O
- --
.;:
~
8 go, ('f'l ::..
N l"'l
- .....
~I~ ~ ~
N l"'l
I::::I~ ~ Q8
~ "'"
ool~.r; ~
\0 0 ('f'l .....
- - ""l
N ,.... ~
N l"'l
- -
............=
~
~1i
... ...
\\),9
~"'=l
~~
;;;I~ ~I~
~r--\OClO
- l"'l
I~ ;:: ~ ~
~NN~
~I~N~
00 01
~ "'"
I~I~; ~
O~NClO
N l"'l
I~~ ;;;I~
0'1 (;:)
.....
INIO ('f'lfV'\
- .....
I~I~ ~I~
0'1 (;:)
.....
1\010 ~ :q
Ir:t~~~
O~Nt-...
N l"'l
r-- t-...
\0 '0
1810 018
- .....
ISIO 0 (;:)
- .....
1:21~.~~
OO~NI')
.....
10
-1<;;;)
.....
- -
~......=
~
,9
"'=l
~
8
~
N
~
0'1
\0
-
on Cl2 on ~
~ ~s::(;:)
\Ot-...
-10 .....
r--~"'"
('f'l('f'l~
Nl"'l
'~~~
- .....
t-...
.....
~
N
N
f6~~
-"'"
~ ~;;;;;:;
('f'l - on (;:)
~ I')
on
0'1
N
~
- on
r-- N (;:)
N""l
~Q~
_('f'lt-...
"'"
~
~~;;:;
-l"'l
~ ~~'O
N onon"'"
N - "'"
~ ~ I:;;
- .....
~ "'"
o ~I~ ~
N l"'l
8 ;;;I~
N l"'l
.;e ;;;I~I~
\0 ~ ('f'l "'"
-l"'l
('f'l -r--K
- .....
~
~
!Xl
Oil
.5 .-;~
]
~
~~
......
- -
-t::::
-
~
,9
"'=l
I~
~
~1i
tl 0
I~~
~
~
~
0\
.....
~
(;:)
"'"
""l
~
(;:)
::::
~
~
~
0\
....
l?)
~
~
\0
~
.....
.....
ClO
~
~
"
t-...
~
""l
;:
'0
'3
t-...
I')
\0
~
~
l"'l
~
00
~
~
~
IC
.....
.....
~
ClO
"'"
~
~
;;::
""l
:::
IC
\c:;
""l
~
00
~
(;:)
"'"
~
.....
~
~
h.
....
-
.s
~
i
::I
a
- 37-
From the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
WORK PROGRAM
YEAR ONE (ending December 31, 1997)
A. Complete Phase I (data collection) for the Wastewater and Stonnwater Master Plans, and secure
funding for plan completion. (Reference County Objective. 901.4)
Agencies; County, DCA DEP, HRS and SFWMD.
B. Complete a conceptual plan or scope of work to develop a carrying capacity. The carrying ca-
pacity analysis shall be designed to detennine the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem, and the
various segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land development activities. The
analysis shall be based upon the findings adopted by the Administration Commission on Decem-
ber 12, 1995, or more recent data that may become available in the course of the study, and shall
be based upon benchmark of, and all adverse impacts to the Keys land and water natural systems,
in addition to the impact of nutrients on marine resources. The carrying capacity analysis shall
consider aesthetic, socioeconomic (including sustainable tourism), quality of life and community
character issues, including the concentration of population, the amount of open space, diversity
of habitats, and species richness. The analysis shall reflect the interconnected nature of the Flor-
ida Keys' natural systems, but may consider and analyze the carrying capacity of specific islands
or groups of islands and specific ecosystems of habitats, including distinct parts of the Keys' ma-
rine system. (Ref. 1991 Stip. Settlement Agreement)
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, HRS, DOT, GFC, SFWMD, NMS, SFRPC, EPA, USFW, Anny
COE, and other interested parties to includes representatives of environmental organizations and
development interests.
C. Complete A WT/OSDS demonstration study and initiate rulemaking for new standards for OSDS.
(Reference County Policy 901.4.3).
Agencies: HRS.
D. Complete Marathon Facilities Plan and secure funding for the facility site(s). The wastewater
facilities plan should implement the most cost effective method of collecting, treating, and dis-
posing of wastewater and shall include an investigation of the feasibility of using alternative nu-
trient-stripping on-site disposal systems. The development of the facilities plan shall be a com-
ponent of the wastewater Master Plan as that Plan is developed.
Agencies: County, DCA, and DEP.
E. Continue cesspit elimination program with identification of Hot Spots as first priority in accor-
dance with Objective 901.2 and seek funding for cesspit identification. Enter into an interlocal
agreement with HRS to specify the responsibilities and procedures for the OSDS inspection/
compliance program as required by Policy 901.2.3. Adopt an ordinance which specifies the im-
plementation procedures for the OSDS inspection/compliance program. The ordinance shall in-
clude authorization for HRS to inspect wastewater treatment systems on private property as re-
quired by Policy 90I.2.3. (Reference County Objective 901.2).
Agencies: County, DCA, and HRS.
F. Submit status of CARL and ROGO land acquisition to the Administration Commission.
Agencies: County, Land Authority, and DEP.tG. Revise the habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) based on peer review.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, FGFWFC, and Federal agencies.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 38-
YEAR TWO (ending December 31, 1998)
A. Complete the wastewater and Stormwater Master Plans and execute interagency agreements to
define construction schedule by phases. Document that significant reduction in nutrients will be
achieved each year thereafter within each sub-areas. The Master Plans shall include facility
plans for all proposed treatment strategies, and determine retrofit and funding requirements for
HOT Spots and cesspit identified in D below.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, and HRS.
B. Secure funding for the carrying capacity study and initiate Phase I (data collection) of the study.
Agencies: County, DCA, and DEP.
C. Complete cesspit ID process in Hot Spots, excluding the Marathon area.
Agencies: County, DCA, and HRS.
D. Submit status of CARL and ROGO land acquisition to the Administration Commission.
Agencies County, Land Authority, and DEP.
E. Document the extent and quality of the fresh groundwater lens system on Big Pine Key; delineate
the associated recharge areas; and determine the safe yield of the system. (Reference County Pol-
icy 103.1.5).
Agencies: County, DCA, SFWMD, USFWS
YEAR THREE (January 1, I999 through July I2, 2000)
A. Complete and begin implementation of Wastewater Master Plan. Utilizing the findings of the
Wastewater Master Plan and recommendations of the Water Quality Steering Committee relating to
Hot Spots do the following: refine and prioritize areas identified as Hot Spots, determine retrofit and
funding requirements for priority Hot Spots and cesspit replacement for areas outside those areas
identified for central or cluster wastewater collection systems, and begin developing facility plans for
priority Hot Spots. Execute interagency agreements to define facility plan, design and construction
schedules for each Hot Spot facility. Establish a water quality monitoring program to document the
reduction in nutrients as a result of these facilities. Complete a wastewater treatment finance plan and
a service area implementation plan, and continue efforts to secure funding for Wastewater Master
Plan implementation, with priority given to Hot Spots. Determine the feasibility and legaI ramifica-
tions of establishing an escrow account as a means of providing long-term funding for replacing cess-
pits or substandard onsite sewage systems. Establish a mechanism such as special assessments, im-
pact fees, infrastructure surcharge, or other dedicated revenues, to fund the local share of wastewater
improvements in Years Four and Five. Seek to provide comparable subsidies for both wastewater
collection systems and individual cesspit replacement.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DCA, DEP, DOH, SFWMD, EPA and Water Quality Protection Program
Steering Committee (WQSC).
B. Secure funding for Storm Water Master Plan development, contract selected firm for develop-
ment of Master Plan, and complete Phase I (data collection). Determine the feasibility ofprovid-
ing nutrient reduction credits for stormwater improvements.
Agencies: County, DCA, DOT, SFWMD, EPA and WQSC.
C. Conclude acquisition ofNortb Key Largo Hammocks CARL project. Make offers to 33% of re-
maining private owners with property located in other CARL project boundaries.
Agencies: County, Land Authority and DEP.
D. Secure remaining funds for the carrying capacity study, conduct workshops as outlined in the
Scope of Work, select prime contractor, and initiate Phase I (data collection) of the study.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, FFWCC, SFWMD, WQSC, SFRPC, EPA, USFWS,
Army COE, and other interested parties to include representatives of environmental organiza-
tions and development interests.
E. Continue efforts to secure funding for the Marathon Facility. Complete Little Venice construc-
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 39-
tion design, secure lands needed for Little Venice facility, and begin bid process and selection of
construction firm. Design a water quality monitoring program to document Little Venice project
impacts.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DCA, DEP, WQSC, and EPA.
F. Continue cesspit identification by providing notice to all property owners with unknown systems,
outside of Hot Spots. Initiate replacement of cesspits outside of Hot Spots. Award financiaI assis-
tance grants to qualified applicants using FY 1997-98 state funds to ensure a minimum of 70
cesspit replacements. Develop a low interest loan and grant program to assist all residents in re-
placing cesspits, with priority of funds going, in order of preference, to very low-, low- and mod-
erate-income households. Investigate the appropriate point at which nutrient reduction credits can
be awarded for future committed water quality treatment facilities and the appropriateness of
transferring credits among RaGa areas.
Agencies: County, DCA, FKAA, WQSC and DOH.
G. Document the extent and quality of the fresh groundwater lens system on Big Pine Key; delineate
the associated recharge areas; and determine the safe yield of the system. (Ref. County pol.
103.1.5)
Agencies: County, FKAA, DEP, DCA, SFWMD, EPA, WQSC and USFWS.
H. Develop an integrated funding plan for the purchase of land from RaGa applicants who have
competed unsuccessfully for four consecutive years and applied for administrative relief.
Agencies: County.
I. The County, in conjunction with DCA, shall assess the feasibility of applying the nutrient reduc-
tion credit requirement to new commercial development.
Agencies: County and DCA.
YEAR FOUR (July 13,2000 through July I2,200I)
A. Continue implementation of Wastewater Master Plan, execute interagency agreements to define
construction schedule by phases, and continue developing facility plans for priority Hot Spots in
each RaGa area. Secure funding to implement the Wastewater Master Plan. Document that re-
duction in nutrients has been achieved within each of the sub-areas.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DCA, DEP, DOH, EPA and WQSC.
B. Complete Storm Water Master Plan. Identify priority projects for implementation and seek fund-
ing for plan implementation.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOT, SFWMD, EPA and WQSC.
C. Make offers to 50% of remaining private owners with property located in CARL project bounda-
ries.
Agencies: County, Land Authority and DEP.
D. Complete Phase II of the carrying capacity study (data analysis) and present initial recommenda-
tions to review agencies.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, FFWCC, SFWMD, WQSC, SFRPC, EPA, USFWS,
Army CaE, and other interested parties to include representatives of environmental organiza-
tions and development interests.
E. Establish baseline water quality for surface and groundwater quality potentially impacted by Lit-
tle Venice project.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, FKAA, WQSC and EPA.
F. Complete cesspit identification and continue cesspit replacement outside of Hot Spots, with a pri-
ority of funds going, in order of preference, to low- and moderate income households; ensure that
a minimum of 88 cesspits are replaced
Agencies: County, FKAA, WQSC and DOH.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 40-
YEAR FIVE (July 13, 200I through July I2, 2002 )
A. Continue implementation of the Wastewater Master Plan pursuant to executed interagency agree-
ments. Begin construction of wastewater facilities in selected Hot Spots.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DCA, DOH, DEP, EPA, and WQSC.
B. Execute interagency agreements to define construction schedule for selected storm water im-
provement projects. Complete land acquisition and final design for selected treatment strategies
for Storm Water Master Plan.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOT, WQSC and SFWMD.
C. Conclude negotiations with all willing owners with property within CARL project boundaries.
Acquire a total-to-date of 45% of the Key Deer/Coupon Bight project and 25% of the Florida
Keys Ecosystems project from willing sellers.
Agencies: County, Land Authority, and DEP.
D. Complete final draft of the carrying capacity study including acceptance by review agencies.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, FFWCC, SFWMD, WQSC, SFRPC, EPA,
USFWS, Army CaE, and other interested parties to include representatives of environmental or-
ganizations and development interests.
E. Continue eliminating cesspits and inoperative septic tanks in areas outside of Hot Spots.
Agencies: County, DOH, FKAA and WQSC.
YEAR SIX (July 13,2002 through July I2, 2003)
A. Continue construction of wastewater facilities in Hot Spots begun in previous year. Contract to
design and construct additional wastewater treatment facilities in Hot Spots in accordance with
the schedule of the Wastewater Master Plan. Continue implementation of Wastewater Master
Plan with emphasis on Hot Spots.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DEP, DOW, DCA, EPA and WQSC.
B. Initiate construction of selected projects as identified in the Storm Water Master Plan.
Agencies: County, SFWMD, DEP, DCA, DOT, EPA and WQSC.
C. Implement the carrying capacity study by, among other things, the adoption of all necessary plan
amendments to establish a rate of growth and a set of development standards that ensure that any
and all new development does not exceed the capacity of the county's environment and marine
system to accommodate additional impacts. Plan amendments will include a review of the
County's Future Land Use Map series and changes to the map series and the "as of right" and
"maximum" densities authorized for the plan's future land use categories based upon the natural
character of the land and natural resources that would be impacted by the currently authorized
land uses, densities and intensities.
Agencies: County, FKAA, FFWCC, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, SFWMD, SFRPC, EPA, Army CaE,
WQSC, and USFWS, and other interested parties to include representatives of environmental or-
ganizations and development interests.
D. Complete the elimination of all cesspits in areas outside of Hot Spots. Agencies: County, FKAA,
DOH and WQSC.
E. Develop a Keys-wide master land acquisition plan which shall include:
(I) a strategy for the acquisition of those properties which should be preserved due their habitat
value as well as those other properties where future development is to be discouraged.
(2) a management plan for implementing the strategy, and
(3) a reasonable, feasible plan for securing funding for said land acquisition.
Agencies: County, Land Authority, DCA, DEP, SFWMD, Army CaE, EPA,
USFWS, and other interested parties to include representatives of environmental or-
ganizations and development interests.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 41 -
F. Initiate and complete a collaborative process for the adoption of land development regulations,
and/or comprehensive plan amendments as needed, that will strengthen the protection of terres-
trial habitat through processes such as the Permit Allocation System and permitting processes,
and the preservation and maintenance of affordable housing stock.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, FFWC, USFWS, and other interested parties to include representa-
tives of environmental organizations and development interests.
YEAR SEVEN (July 13,2003 through July 12,2004)
A. Finalize construction and begin operating wastewater facilities in Hot Spots. Continue implemen-
tation of Wastewater Master Plan with continued emphasis on Hot Spots.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DEP, DCA, DOH, EPA and WQSC
B. Continue implementing selected projects as identified in the Storm Water Master Plan.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOT, SFWMD, EPA and WQSC
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 42-
From the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
GOAL 105
Monroe County shall undertake a comprehensive land acquisition program and smart growth initia-
tives in conjunction with its Livable CommuniKeys Program in a manner that recognizes the finite
capacity for new development in the Florida Keys by providing economic and housing opportunities
for residents without compromising the biodiversity of the natural environment and the continued
ability of the natural and made-made systems to sustain livable communities in the Florida Keys for
future generations.
Obiective 105.1
Monroe County shall implement smart growth initiatives in conjunction with its Livable
CommuniKeys and Land Acquisition Programs which promote innovative and flexible de-
velopment processes to preserve the natural environment, maintain and enhance the commu-
nity character and quality of life, redevelop blighted commercial and residential areas, re-
move barriers to design concepts, reduce sprawl, and direct future growth to appropriate in-
fill areas.
Policy 105.1.1
Monroe County shall create an economic development framework for a sustainable visi-
tor-based economy, not dependent on growth in the absolute numbers of tourists, that re-
spects the unique character and outdoor recreational opportunities available in the Flor-
ida Keys.
Policy 105.1.2
Monroe County shall prepare design guidelines to ensure that future uses and develop-
ment are compatible with scenic preservation and maintenance of the character of the
casual island village atmosphere of the Florida Keys.
Policy 105.1.3
Monroe County shall prepare development standards and amend the Land Development
Regulations to limit non-residential allocations for new floor space on anyone site to
foster the retention and redevelopment of small businesses on the US # 1.
Policy 105.1.4
Monroe County shall prepare redevelopment standards and amend the Land Develop-
ment Regulations to address the large number of non-conforming commercial structures
that are non-compliant as to on-site parking, construction and shoreline setbacks, storm-
water management, landscaping and buffers. By identifying the existing character and
constraints of the different island communities, regulations can be adopted that provide
incentives for redevelopment and permit the continuance of businesses while moving to-
wards an integrated streetscape.
Policy 105.1.5
Monroe County shall prepare amendments to this Plan and its Land Development Regu-
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 43-
lations that comprehensively revise the existing residential permit allocation system to
direct the preponderance of future residential development to areas designated as an
overlay on the zoning map(s) as Infill (Tier 1lI) in accordance with Policy 105.2.2.
Policy 105.1.6
Monroe County shall prepare amendments to this Plan and its Land DeveIopment Regu-
lations that comprehensively revise the existing non-residential permit allocation system
in a manner that implements Policies I05.2.I and I05.2.15 and is consistent with and
furthers this Plan.
Obiective 105.2
Monroe County shall implement with assistance of the state and federal governments a 20-
year Land Acquisition Program to: 1) secure for conservation and passive recreation pur-
poses remaining privately-owned environmentally sensitive Iands; 2) retire development
rights on privately-owned vacant lands to limit further sprawl and equitably balance the
rights of property owners with the long-term sustainability of the Keys man-made and natu-
ral systems; and, 3) secure and retain lands suitable for affordable housing. This objective
recognizes the finite limits of the carrying capacity of the natural and man-made systems in
the Florida Keys to continually accommodate further development and the need for the sig-
nificant expansion of the public acquisition of vacant developabIe lands and development
rights to equitably balance the rights and expectations of property owners.
Policy 105.2.1
Monroe County shall designate all lands outside of mainland Monroe County into three
general categories for purposes of its Land Acquisition Program and smart growth initia-
tives. These three categories are: Natural Area (Tier 1); Transition and Sprawl Reduc-
tion Area (Tier II); and Infill Area (Tier 1lI).
1. Natural Area (Tier I): Any defined geographic area where all or a significant portion
of the land area is characterized as environmentally sensitive by the policies of this Plan
and applicable habitat conservation plan, is to be designated as a Natural Area. New de-
velopment on vacant land is to be severely restricted and privately owned vacant lands
are to be acquired or development rights retired for resource conservation and passive
recreation purposes. However, this does not preclude provisions of infrastructure for ex-
isting development. Within the Natural Area designation are typically found lands
within the acquisition boundaries of federal and state resource conservation and park ar-
eas, including isolated platted subdivisions; and privately-owned vacant lands with sensi-
tive environmental features outside these acquisition areas.
2. Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II): Any defined geographic area, where
scattered groups and fragments of environmentally sensitive lands, as defined by this
Plan, may be found and where existing platted subdivisions are not predominately devel-
oped, not served by complete infrastructure facilities, or not within close proximity to
established commercial areas, is to be designated as a Transition and Sprawl Reduction
Area. New development is to be discouraged and privately owned vacant lands acquired
or development rights retired to reduce sprawl, ensure that the Keys carrying capacity is
not exceeded, and prevent further encroachment on sensitive natural resources. Within a
Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area are typically found: scattered small non-
residential development and platted subdivisions with less than 50 percent of the lots de-
veloped; incomplete infrastructure in terms of paved roads, potable water, or electricity;
and scattered clusters of environmentally sensitive lands, some of which are within or in
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 44-
close proximity to existing platted subdivisions.
3. Infill Area (Tier III): Any defined geographic area, where a significant portion of land
area is not characterized as environmentally sensitive as defined by this Plan, where ex-
isting platted subdivisions are substantially developed, served by complete infrastructure
facilities, and within close proximity to established commercial areas, or where a con-
centration of non-residential uses exists, is to be designated as an Infill Area. New de-
velopment and redevelopment are to be highly encouraged. Within an Infill Area are
typically found: platted subdivisions with 50 percent or more developed lots situated in
areas with few sensitive environmental features; full range of available public infrastruc-
ture in terms of paved roads, potable water, and electricity; and concentrations of com-
mercial and other non-residential uses within close proximity. In some Infill Areas, a
mix of non-residential and high-density residential uses (generally 8 units or more per
acre) may also be found that form a Community Center.
Policy 105.2.2
Monroe County shall prepare an overlay map(s) designating geographic areas of the
County as one of the three Tiers in accordance with the guidance in Policy I05.2.1,
which shall be incorporated as an overlay on the zoning map( s) with supporting text
amendments in the Land Development Regulations. These maps are to be used to guide
the Land Acquisition Program and the smart growth initiatives in conjunction with the
Livable CommuniKeys Program (Policy 101.20.1).
Policy 105.2.3
The priority for acquisition of lands and development rights under the County's Land
Acquisition Program shall be as follows: Tier I (Natural Area)-first priority; Tier II
(Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area)-second priority; and Tier III (Infill Area)- third
priority, except acquisition of land for affordable housing shall also be a first priority.
These acquisition priorities shall be applied consistent with the Policy 105.2.10 that di-
rects the focus of the County's acquisition efforts to the acquisition or retirement of de-
velopment rights of privately owned vacant platted subdivision lots within Tiers I and II.
Federal, State and local funding will be used for purchasing privately owned vacant
lands for Tier II.
Policy 105.2.4
Monroe County shall prepare a specific data base tied to its Geographic Information Sys-
tem, containing information needed to implement, monitor, and evaluate its Land Acqui-
sition Program, smart growth initiatives, and Livable CommuniKeys Program.
Policy 105.2.5
Monroe County shall, in coordination with federal and state agencies, implement a land
acquisition program to acquire all remaining privately-owned vacant lands within areas
designated as a Natural Area (Tier I).
Policy 105.2.6
Monroe County shall implement a land acquisition program to acquire most privately
owned vacant private lands within areas designated as a Transition and Sprawl Reduc-
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 45-
tion Area (Tier II).
Policy 105.2.7
Monroe County shall implement a limited land acquisition program to acquire privately
owned vacant lands with sensitive environmental features for conservation purposes and
scarified properties for affordable housing within areas designated as an Infill Area (Tier
III).
Policy 105.2.8
The preferred method for acquisition of environmentally sensitive privately owned va-
cant non-platted lands shall be fee simple purchase, donation, or dedication or the retire-
ment of development rights through transfer of development rights or similar mecha-
nisms.
Policy 105.2.9
The preferred method for acquisition of vacant platted lots shall be fee simple purchase,
donation, or dedication or the retirement of development rights thorough transfer of de-
velopment rights or similar mechanisms; however, wherever appropriate, platted lots
may be purchased in partnership with adjoining property owner(s) subject to a conserva-
tion easement that may allow limited accessory residential uses.
Policy 105.2.10
In terms of effort, Monroe County shall primarily focus its Land Acquisition Program on
the acquisition or retirement of development rights of vacant privately-owned platted lots
within Tier I and Tier II and the acquisition of scarified and disturbed lands for afford-
able housing within Tier III. This policy recognizes the critical need for the County to
aggressively address the imbalance between development expectations of private prop-
erty owners and the finite carrying capacity of the natural and man-made systems in the
Florida Keys.
Policy 105.2.11
Monroe County shall petition the federal and state governments to aggressively pursue
the acquisition of all remaining privately-owned vacant lands within their park and con-
servation acquisition boundaries and to expand existing acquisition boundaries to include
other lands in close proximity with similar environmentally sensitive features.
Policy 105.2.12
With respect to the relief granted pursuant to Policy I06.1 (Administrative Relief) or
Policy 101.18.5 (Beneficial Use), a purchase offer shall be the preferred form of relief
for any land within Tier I and Tier II, or any Iand within Tier III having conservation
value in accordance with the criteria in Policy 101.6.5.
Policy 105.2.13
In implementing this Land Acquisition Program, Monroe County is only committed or
financially obligated to the extent that locaI, state, and federal funds are available.
Policy 105.2.14
Monroe County shall identify and secure possible local sources to yield a steady source
of funds and secure increased funding from state and federal, and/or private sources for
the Land Acquisition Program and the management and restoration of acquired resource
conservation lands. With the uncertainty concerning the County's ability to successfully
secure sufficient funding from state and federal governments for their fair share of the
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 46-
financial support for the Land Acquisition Program and the demands placed on the
County's limited financial resources to address wastewater and other critical issues, it is
recognized that the Land Acquisition Program may extend well beyond 20 years.
Policy 105.2.15
Where appropriate, as part of the Livable CommuniKeys Planning Process, Community
Centers shall be designated within areas designated as Tier III (Infill Area). A Commu-
nity Center is characterized as a defined geographic area with a mix of retail, personal
service, office and tourist and residential uses (generally of greater than 8 units per acre).
Community Centers shall be designated as receiving areas for transfer of development
rights and shall receive special incentives in the non-residential permit allocation system.
Obiective 105.3
Monroe County shall implement its 20- Year Land Acquisition Program and smart growth
initiatives in conjunction with its Livable CommuniKeys Program and shall make appropri-
ate amendments to this Plan and the Land Development Regulations including, but not nec-
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 47-
essarily limited to the residential and non-residentiaI permit allocation systems.
From the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study
Final Draft Report
5.0 DISCUSSION
5.1 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS AND SPECIES
Land development in the Florida Keys has displaced nearly 50 percent of all upland habitats, as well
as large areas of saltwater wetlands. Over 90 percent of the remaining uplands are distributed in
patches of IO acres or less. In the Florida Keys, upland patches of less than I3 acres are considered to
have lost key ecological functions (Bancroft 1994). Small patches of forests show lower biodiversity,
increased vulnerability to invasion by exotic plant and animal species and decreased gene flow within
and among populations. Any further encroachment into areas dominated by native vegetation would
exacerbate habitat loss and fragmentation. Development in the Florida Keys has surpassed the capac-
ity of upland habitats to withstand further development.
The secondary and indirect effects of development further contribute to habitat loss and fragmenta-
tion. Little habitat remains unaffected by development's secondary effects. While difficult to quan-
tify, indirect effects cause significant habitat degradation, especially on small patches of habitat. Any
further development in the Florida Keys would exacerbate secondary and indirect impacts to remain-
ing habitat.
Terrestrial habitats in the Florida Keys show a combination of tropical, Caribbean and temperate spe-
cies that are unique to the U.S., which is exemplified by over 100 species that occur only in the Flor-
ida Keys. Habitat loss is likely the most important cause of species depletion in the area, resulting in
the protected legal status of dozens of species of plants and animals. Virtually every native area in the
Keys is potential habitat for one or more protected species. Two species endemic to the Lower Keys,
the Lower Keys marsh rabbit and the silver rice rat, are highly restricted and likely could not with-
stand further habitat loss without facing extinction. The Key deer, while largely recovered from
population numbers as low as 25 in the I950s, has a restricted range and will continue to face threats
to its viability if development occurs in prime habitat. In the Upper Keys, large tracts of uplands are
already under government ownership, yet privately owned uplands are also potential habitat for pro-
tected species such as the Schaus swallowtail butterfly or the Key Largo woodrat. Throughout the
Florida Keys, any further development of native habitats would likely negatively affect one or more
protected species. Development in the Florida Keys has surpassed the capacity of several protected
species to withstand the effects of further development activities.
Under current regulations, development suitability in the Florida Keys is extremely restricted. Be-
sides privately owned parcels in infill locations or already disturbed areas, the vast majority of pri-
vate lands face one or more development constraints. The FKCCS developability analysis was con-
servative in removing wetland parcels - over 50 percent of all private lands were removed largely
due to this constraint. Development suitability was low or marginal for most of the remaining lands,
due to open space requirements, lack of infrastructure or other factors.
Successful restoration of lands to create large patches of terrestrial habitats and to reestablish connec-
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 48-
tivity seems improbable. Restoration would require the conversion of large developed areas to native
habitat, a goal that would face legal constraints, as well as high costs, uncertain probability of suc-
cess, and a long timeframe for execution. Continuing and intensifying vacant land acquisition and
restoration programs may provide more and faster returns in terms of consolidating protection of
habitats in the Florida Keys.
5.2 INFRASTRUCTURE
The six future scenarios evaluated in the study call for a small amoWlt of growth in the next 20 years -less than IO
percent growth in the nwnber of dwelling units and population. Therefore, incremental pressures on infrastructure
capacity are also moderate over a 20-year period. However, current conditions and the evaluation offuture scenar-
ios suggest that even small amounts of growth in the Florida Keys may place stringent demands on some infra-
structure capacity.
The Iast two annual traffic studies for Monroe County (Monroe COWlty 2001, 2002) have estimated a
residential capacity of just over 6,000 units. Large year-to-year fluctuations on both traffic volwnes
and median speeds, even in the absence of significant development, introduce uncertainty to any fu-
ture prediction of the levels of traffic on V.S.-l. The amount of growth evaluated in the future scenar-
ios would likely result in changes in traffic within the observed recent fluctuations. In the absence of
structural improvement to V.S.-l, the level of service will continue to be close to its state-mandated
standard.
Similarly, hurricane evacuation clearance times would continue to increase as population increases,
unless measures are taken to improvement evacuation conditions. Improvements to V .S.- I, while re-
sulting in lower clearance times, would add to the government costs, nutrient loadings, and indirect
impacts to wildlife and habitats.
Water withdrawals in the Florida Keys doubled from 1980 to 2000; they increased by 50% in the
1990s, even though development was restricted by ROGO. In the absence of effective water conser-
vation or reuse measures, withdrawal is likely to continue to increase in the next 20 years. Permitted
capacity has already been exceeded in I999 and 2000, and model projections suggest that permit vio-
lations would continue to occur in the future scenarios. Alternative water supplies would help meet
the needs for additional water. Interim measures, such as the continuous operations of two existing
reverse osmosis plants (3 MGD) or the expansion of treatment facilities, would help cover demands
in the short term. In the long-term, a desalination plant could meet a growing demand for water. Im-
plementation of a desal plant would include choosing an appropriate location, as well as significant
capital and maintenance costs.
5.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL
The six future scenarios evaluated in the FKCCS contemplate small increases in permanent popula-
tion, which are unlikely to affect the overall socioeconomic structure of the Florida Keys.
The increase in the number of visitors contemplated in Scenario 3 would impose additional demands
on tourist-related land uses, water supply, and recreation opportunities.
In contrast, the six future scenarios would result in a disproportionate increase in government expen-
ditures with respect to the projected increase in population. Per capita annual expenditures are likely
to increase in all the scenarios, creating immediate pressure for government to increase revenue. Tax
increases on both the local population and visitors would likely occur.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 49-
5.4 MARINE ECOSYSTEMS AND SPECIES
The existing data are insufficient to establish quantitative, predictive relationships between land use
or development and the marine environment. However, there is plenty of evidence of human effects
on the marine ecosystems and species in the Florida Keys.
Seagrass scars, boat groundings, beach closings, coral collisions, and poor water quality in canals and
other confined waters clearly expose the effects of humans on the marine environment. The CCIAM
scenario analysis strongly argues for the benefits of wastewater treatment, but other impacts are more
related to resource management than to land development. Recreational opportunities in the Florida
Keys attract visitors from the Keys and beyond. Once in the Keys the impacts that boaters, fisher-
men, snorkellers, divers and others may have on the marine resources is largely related to their be-
havior.
5.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FKCCS
The FKCCS will assist state and local government in making decisions regarding amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan to ensure that future deveIopment does not exceed the capacity of the county's
environment and marine systems to accommodate additional impacts.
The study and the CCIAM provide a comprehensive body of knowledge and an effective analysis
tool to explore the carrying capacity consequences of development strategies in the Florida Keys.
The findings of the study suggest four main guidelines for future development in the Florida Keys:
1. Prevent encroachment into native habitat. A wealth of evidence shows that terrestrial habitats
and species have been severely affected by development and further impactswould only exacerbate
an already untenable condition.
2. Continue and intensify existing programs. Many initiatives to improve environmental condi-
tions and quality of life exist in the Florida Keys. They include land acquisition programs, the waste-
water and stormwater master plans, ongoing research and management activities in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary, and restoration efforts throughout the Keys.
3. If further development is to occur, focus on redevelopment and infill. Opportunities for addi-
tional growth with small, potentially acceptable, additional environmental impacts may occur in areas
ripe for redevelopment or already disturbed.
4. Increase efforts to manage the resources. Habitat management efforts in the Keys
could increase to effectively preserve and improve the ecological values of remaining terrestrial eco-
systems.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 50-
Data and Map Sources
. A report entitled Legal Analysis of Existing Platted Lots in Monroe County, Florida, Final Re-
port, dated l2/IO/9I, prepared by Freilich, Leitner, Carlisle, & Shortlidge as a base to start the
study.
. The Monroe County Land Use Regulations and Year 20IO Comprehensive Plan to determine the
environmental development criteria and land use districts (Improved Subdivision (IS), Urban
Residential Mobile (URM) (URM_L), or Commercial Fishing Village (CFV))
. The 11/2001 Tax Appraisers Geographic Information Systems (GIS) coverage converted to
ArcInfo and modified by the GIS Administrator for the Growth Management Division (Parcel
Base) joined with Tax Appraiser's Office I 1/2000 database. Parcels with assigned Parcel Codes
(PC) of '00' (vacant residential) and '70' (vacant institutional) were used to determine privately
owned vacant lots and parcels with PC codes of'8l', '82', '83', '86', '87', '88', and '89' to de-
termine public ownership.
. GIS shapefiles created by the GIS Administrator for the Growth Management Division and
modified by staff of the Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department.
. The 1/I9/88 Monroe County Land Use District Maps (Craig Maps) and Comprehensive Book of
Errata for Land Use District Maps (June 27, 1988 to June 18,2001) to determine current zoning.
. Real Estate Solutions aerials flown 12/2000 to determine habitat of lots in question.
. ADID GIS coverage from the GIS Administrator for the Growth Management Division to iden-
tify developed, exotic, hammock and red flag (mangroves, scrub mangroves, saltmarsh, button-
wood, freshwater pine, freshwater marsh and freshwater hardwood) habitats.
. ADID Subdivision Lot Assessment Report (Wet Lot List) to identify isolated lots within subdivi-
sion which are not depicted as developed on the ADID GIS Coverage that actually contain red
flag or hammock habitats.
. Monroe County Building Department records of new modulars, houses and duplexes without a
C.O. prior to 2/03 and issued after date to identify and exclude lots with active new residential
permits.
. Monroe County Planning Commission approved RaGa allocations through January 8, 2003.
. Florida Natural Inventory (FNAI)'s GIS data system to ensure uniform reporting of acreage data
used in the Florida Keys Ecosystem project to determine proposed and most recent state acquisi-
tion oflands in unincorporated Monroe County.
. Monroe County Land Authority information regarding proposals of land acquisition and recent
land acquisition.
. December 1985 Florida Department of Transportation Aerials used to validate the existing sensi-
tive habitat at the enactment of the Land District Regulations.
From the Monroe County Tier Maps based on Monroe County Property Appraiser Data.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 51 -
I
\
MllCUONAI,U, 80l't1MMt & 1,.lt,\'l'E~ v. YOLO COlJN'n'
25/,)
Clt. .. 1M It
In addition' l~ being inconsistt'nt with Ihis
f,ourt'tI tll.atemf'018, this view, as JURlicc
nit ENN ^ N explained in his dissent in San
I Dil'qo Galt, ignores the fact that
"[plolice power regulations such I\S 7.011-
in~ ordinances and other land-use n'!ltric-
! tiOll1l ('lIn dl.!slroy the tiRe and enjoyment
of l'ropt!rty in order to promoI.(' till' IlUb-
I lie ~lHl\l jlll~t a8 dr('divcly II!! fOl'mll1
! conrl~mnalion or physical invasion or
property. From the property owner's
point of view, it may maUer little wheth-
1'1' hill land is condemned or flooded, or
whl.!ther it is rl"strided by regulation to
lJlle ill its natural stntt', if the ..frect ill
I)oth cases is to deprive him of all bCllefi-
t'ial ulle or it. From the govt'rnment's
puint of view, the bem'fits flowing to the
puhlic from preservation or open sl'llce
throu~~h re~ulation may be equally great
as from creating a wildlife refuge
through formal condemnation or increas-
ing electric.ity production through a dam
project that floods private proJlerty....
It is only logienl, then, that govl'rnment
action other than acquisition of title, oc-
cupancy, or physit'al inv811ion can be n
'taking,' and therefore a de facto exer-
cise of thl~ (lower of t'millent domain,
where the "Hect.... completely deprive the
oWlwr of all or most of his interest in the
property." 450 U.S., at 652-6fi3, 101
S.Ct., at 1304-1305 (citations and foot-
notes omitted).
I agree that land use restrictions may con-
stitute a taking undE'r the Constitution.
Thi!\ resolution of the general tllll:'stion
hrings ml' to the more 1I1lecific question
whether the all('gations ill the complaint
Ilf're were llufficient to state a takin~s
daim. Here, appellant aH('ged Ow exist-
ence uf a final decision denying it all eco- '
inverst' comlcmnalion remt.'dy ror sm'h a laking
would he lImitabte. See App. 131. My discus.
si..n here follows Ihe rt.'Moning given by Ihe
California SlIplcme Courl in A.~iIl5 rather Ihan
Ihe wmewhat inexa,.t summary of Ihat rcason-
ing given by the Courl o[ Appeal below.
4. I asslIme here thaI Ihe normal aelinn hy the
p:n-crmnrntal enlity [ollowing II determination
Ihat a parlicular regulation constitutes a laking
61 (19116)
.,omically beneficial use of il" property. It
a\lm allt~ged that it had paid "good and
valuable c:ollsidernlilln," App. .ta, for the
property. Fadual alll'gl\lions of interfer-
fmce with rea801lUhlt! illvelltment.backed ex.
pectations and d(mial of all economically
fel\8iblc use of tho prolwrty are certainly
sufficient allegations of 8 regulatory tnk-
ing to lItute II Cllm\e of action. See, e.g, ,
Penn Central, 438 U.S., at 13(',-138, 98
s.et., at 266f;-2(ili6. OmR('lluently, I would
hold thatapllellant ad(lquately aUeged a
laking.
IV
The final question prellenu!(l is whether a
St.ate can limit to declaratory and injunctive
relief the remedif"8 availahle to a pemon
whose prollerty hns been taken by regula>
tion or whether the State must pay com-
pensation for the interim pf"riod between
the time that the government first "took"
the prop(!rty and the lime that the "taking"
is rescinded hy amendment of the regula-
tion.. On this (llJ(~stion, I am again in
substantial ngreNnent with JUlItice BREN:
NAN's discU!:Ulinn ill Satl lJif'!N aas. See
450 U.s., lit 65:i-6fiO, 101 S.Ct., at 1304-
1308. Bven wht!re, a llfo'lert)! owner ~
deprived of its ;::lert' only temoorarilJ,jJ
~lrivnt~ll ll';,.rvt- in . ttlkin~
Constitution retlua",,, HUlt jmd coropensa
'Gon be paid. If the Roves.mental- bod)
that has taken the property dedde8 to re-
scind the ~L~ ..."".ding the regula
tioD, ~ .... _ue the fact that tn.
prollerly owner has heen deprived of itt
prolK'rty in the interim. "[lIt is only fail
that the public bear the cost of benefill
received during the interim period betweel
Ilpplication of the rl'~ulation Rnd till
government entity's rescisRion of it." ld.
will be 10 rescind Ihe regulation. I hdkve Iha
this is a permissible course nf 1lt'linn, Iimltln
liability rur Ihe laking to the IlIlerlm perloc
See San /)if'go f;at & Flectri<- Co. t'. San lJiegt
450 U.S. 621, 6~tI, 101 S.CI. 1281, 1307, (,
LEd.2d 551 (1981) (IlRENNAN, J" dis!\Cnllng
Of cOUrst.', the govt'nullental enlity l'Ould actua
Iy ,'omie,"n Ihe pl'OJlt'rly and ray permaocl
compensation (or il.
.........
,..
......"t
.. .,.". ,'f".ftl~.~1 ';" !~, ,,' 'FJ''i;.IJf. /:l';\' "~~\. 1,i*t~., " .. :>\I."""~ .' 'i'J"'t'.-
',' .~f'~~~".J~W~\!~ .~r~~~?rl" ~t!~~~~f.f,~~.~t1}i ~~~ft~{~~!,~~,\:~.' '~~~J:0 ~'i~i,'.~.r~
, "'r'!1~&t~'~ J'~~ '~:!-,\..olU: ,~~ t^!. ;~t~~ "~' 'i~\''',\.'\l\;':';'~ ~,' J~J · '" \"""~\'i.:\f/': ,J.' ',1 , "'-r'.,
,;#, ~.f.' ., ... """fe, .', '1,11:<,1' , ~" ~ ,'. I. . ~t ...,,1, \. ~ .' ,..'- ".., '.' ..lire....,"... '.
'fi, ~l~.~ ;N~Ai~;f~I~',(","m:\~,:'~!..~1:i!~!\1~,I"." i~,'.lt'il.J:.;J~\~.{.;:~J.\~~\{.jt,t ;~,'.!l"::~.:.,~J~:~',., '1:(
. fl;\fj"~'''i:l,{l "t'~~ 1'~'liHh"~ ..~>,~...~U.,t . ,,,Ir.J'(.t\'.4~'~''1:;t. .I,.", .: ,i")} I'i. ,.,; ),,,)., .,r- ".
"',,~~ /~~!. .~~~,";.'l~:J:;f~j1(,(7,~{,;;i[1~},:~~, ~,CJilj~1; i~!( ~~,~~~,f. f., y~;,i ~.~, ~d~'~',;~:'i ';f~'f.',~';,; y. ~:,;" ~f
'fY;:'" .-. ,,1,.'. ,,,\ fI' ,i ~INJ.}:-ftj ~:rl" ~,z .fr.~.; -t.'Ji'\ oj el\~~y h~l,i,lf.}..V\; "\~,. :'~'f 'f-.2I,l' ~,"
\"J~i:~~li..~{_:,;~,' ~~'~k~~'~,~f"1l~~'i~11,l~.;\ii.~'.,{~f,;~,'"f,J~,''J.;~,.A, ~,~.:f'~~,:'~.~j,,~\'~~>t ;~, t"'J~:,~lt~\~~y,~., ,111.,;1.",;,~,~ t~V'1
1',. ~'h-.,':;, 'j",H '....'t~..,lrt ,.1', l'.l"'''''''r.l'',t'.~", '..'1' .I!"~'..\,'i> '.1. ,,~\t..I, . ;. ", ,.,....,
'. . "'"''Ii ...(1' ,~.,pttl, ,.1,..' ":$j" .tl/. 1.,,:1~,,'''' .~"..,. l\:,-) "I';~." '.' (,..,' ,: ,~i..I' ,'..
!.~"\I,J~ i,~~~~ft:'4 }-""~ ,lq~~. ;'J~~'[i.:;~~ t}J'~~'i:lIJfNi~".t\~~J'i;jl~~'\~'iJ~M\j1~~!~; h :~!.;'~ .1'l:\~i ',~
, 'I ~~' '.....Y'\. ,.rr',WI: 'l."~k~.t '" J;:",""""~,,.," ,.'(:", '10.','''''7.",. ,.' .~..i'
. "1" . . " .I',~.'''.' ..,~r,. I ,L>."" 'J'.'.. ,. 4.' '. . I' "'1io.,;,\i ,.,.,
. ." ,'1JtW"I J ro,'" ". ' __:t'I-J( ," " ',:.". .'~'.
June 18th BOCC Meeting
Marathon Government Center
I'm here to speak in opposition to the building moratorium
We are especially concerned over this particular ordinance - and the possible implications
it may cause,.. .not only for the present but - in the future and beyond.
We are concerned that this is really a tool for the people who's real agenda is the stop all
new construction - irrespective of any truly beneficial efforts for our community as a
whole.
The Carrying Capacity Study has been a major disappointment to the "got miners" that
really believed that it would stop all new construction immediately.
And that's what this is really all about.
Past commissions have passed Rules and Laws that were based upon lies, distorted and/or
misrepresented information under the disguise of the good of the community.
I think this is more of the same.
This ordinance has got more "WHEREAS's" in it with reference to the "Carrying
Capacity Study" than a porcupine has quills and promises to be just as troublesome.
The Carrying Capacity Study is seriously flawed.
It is so flawed that the "National Academy of Sciences" (NAS) and confirmed by an
"Independent Peer Review of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study Draft Final
Report and Carrying Capacity Impact Assessment Model" which states:
Page 2; Although improvements were made to many modules, there remain
severe deficiencies in the model. There is no documentation on data structure for
the database nor any information on the data quality procedures used. Many
linkages were broken during the revision of the model after the NRC (2002)
report and the overall logic of module linkages needs to be re-thought. Also, lack
of rigorous calibration and sensitivity testing of the model, and a limited number
of model runs, precludes the use of the CCIAM as it stands as a credible tool for
evaluation of all (or most) impacts of development in the Keys. As it exists, the
model cannot fulfill the original vision of a tool to assess "carrying capacity" of
the region and the ability of the Florida Keys to "withstand all impacts of land
development activities. "
Page 38; Finally, the CCIAM is not suited to determining the carrying
capacity of the Florida Keys. No technically-based model could perform that
task. In addition to the lack of adequate scientific information to precisely and
accurately describe the implications of development on important resources on
land and particularly in the sea, there is no consensus among technical specialists
concerning even the definition of the term "carrying capacity. "
Page 48; But the fact that essentially none of the modules have been
calibrated, that there has been little or no sensitivity analyses of the model as a
whole or any of its parts, and that all of the coefficients used are fixed for the
twenty-year time frame precludes use of the CCIAM, as it has been developed
thus far, as a credible tool for evaluating all or most of the impacts of
development in the Keys. Certainly, it cannot fulfill the original vision of a tool
that could be used to assess the "carrying capacity" of the region and
"..determine the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem, and the various segments
thereof to withstand all impacts of additional land development activities. "
I understand that the fear that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administrative
Commission, will reduce the annual quota of single family homes if some kind of action
is not taken to satisfy the county's substantial progress requirement.
But enough is enough. It's time to stop punishing the construction industry when
building a single family home today in the Florida Keys is not destroying the
environment.
I sat in a meeting when the statement, by a lady, directed to on the scientists; "we all
know that every-time we flush a toilet we are degrading the reef." And the replay from
one of the scientist was; "ma'am the science is just not there to support that theory."
The "got-miners" once again want you to support a law - that once it's a law - whether
it's based upon false and/or inaccurate information or statements doesn't matter - it will
become a tool that they can hang their hat on it in a court of law.
It's time to do away with the penalties directed at the construction industry. It's time to
do away with the nutrient reduction credits requirement to build a home in the Keys. It's
time allow for a roll-over of unused ROGO allocations from one year to the next.
If it's an absolute must - that a building moratorium be implemented than it should not be
directed to any areas beyond Tier I or its equivalent and it should not be for a duration of
more than one year.
Your staff originally recommended to the Planning Commission that and there is reason
to believe that the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Administration Commission with
accept that.
W...- ~--~-'-;I., I
---..-...... '
1(', "i .. I
I, )) ,'4,/
LASmTAND
Pro/<<ting ,hi Kl)'l
PO Box 146
Key West, FL 33041-0146
Office: 305-196-3335
Fax: 305-768-0515
Email: admin@last-stand.org
Website: last-stand.org
Board of Directors
President: Amy Lachat Lynch
Vice President: Nancy Klingener
Secretary: Margaret D. Domanski
Treasurer: Bill Verge
Elliot Baron
Joan Borel
Marjorie Butcko
Robin Deck
Martha duPont
Russ Draper
George Halloran
Janet Hartwell
Dennis Henize
Allen Meece
Mick Putney
Sullins Stuart
Rosi Ware
Irving Weinman
Honorary Directors
Jeanne Porter
Eleanor Walsh
June 13, 2003
To The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners:
Weare writing to stress the strong support of the Last Stand Board
of Directors for an Interim Development Ordinance that would
protect moderate and high quality natural habitats of the Florida
Keys.
The reason for the County to take such an action is simple: It may
take time to implement the Carrying Capacity Study, but we
cannot in the meantime continue the destruction of the quickly
dwindling natural habitats of the Keys. The one incontrovertible
finding ofthis Study was that the County cannot afford to lose any
more of this terrestrial habitat, and that such losses are accelerated
through the development of even small parcels, even on the edges
of habitat.
Such an interim measure is, in our opinion, the very least the
County must do to protect the natural environments of the Keys
and the citizens of the County who depend on the health of this
environment for their economy and quality of life. Such a measure
is legal and indeed is required by the County's own Comprehensive
Plan and the Rule which has allowed us to continue development
in the Keys even after an Administrative Law Judge's finding that
we were ALREADY over our carrying capacity by several
important measures. The County's failure to take such an action
before July could well result in the loss of building permits,
exacerbating the stress on the already overtaxed system for
regulating growth.
Last Stand represents hundreds of citizens from throughout the
Keys and is dedicated to improving the quality of life for Keys
citizens through protection of the environment and upholding the
laws that regulate development in the Keys. We request that you
approve an interim development ordinance that would accomplish
both those goals for the citizens ofthe Keys.
y Lachat Lynch, Presi
ast Stand
168 The Herald www.herald.com WEDNESDAY,JUNE18,2003
Ehe :B.UallH ri~rid~
JOHN S. KNIGHT (1894-19811
J"MES L. KNI(;HT , ;~Fl11tl91\
AlDERTO IBARGUEN PUBLISHER t TOM FIEDLER EXECUTIVE EDITOR t JOE OGLESBY EDIIORIAL PAC;[ fC'rc)1 , MARK SEl~1
AT.CAPi\CIT'{ IN THE KEYS
. COUNTY STRUGGLES WITH GROWTH ISSUES
Efforts to protect
fragile lands are
harbingers of
statewide issues.
The quality u1 a state's steward-
ship ot its environment is best
measured by how '.vell it protects its
most-fragile and susceptible lands.
Officials' struggles to balance eculogi-
cal protections with growth in these
fragile places can serve as harbingers
for what will become statewide
issues. Consider the Florida Keys in
Monroe County, where the County
Commission must answer to a higher
standard of state oversight than most
other counties because the Keys are
designated an Area of Critical State
Concern.
Monroe's land-use regulations
must be approved by the Florida Cab-
inet as well as the Department of
Community Affairs. Monroe faces a
big deadline next month when it must
show the Cabinet a rewritten land-use
plan using a "carrying capacity" pol-
icy. But the county isn't near meeting
the deadline, in part because the idea
of land regulation based on carrying
capacity is fairly new. It is based on
how much more growth, if any, Mon-
roe can permit without jeopardizing
the "ability of the Florida Keys eco-
systems, and the various segments
thereof, to withstand an impacts of
additionalland~developmcnt activi-
ties," according to Cabinet language.
The new land-use plan is supposed
to'reflect the tindings of a $6 million
carrying-capacity study completed in
2002 by the DCA and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. One major con-
'elusion of the study is that upland
habitats (where it's dry enough to .
build) for native :md "nClan!!crcd ~I'e-
cies already have surpassed the
capacity to absorb any more develop-
ment without causing harm.
The county must do a better job ut
deciding what can be built where
based on a "do no more harm" policy.
Monroe already has a pcrrrlitting sys-
tem - called the Rate of Growth
Ordinance - th'1! all(lw~ residential
construction only ;It't'~r l~nvir{)n.mcnt:11
and other crltt'r;;l ':t":' 11'1,'f \~.r11:1t'c:
more, the state allows Monroe and its
new villages a limited number of
allowable permits per year. But still
the development marches forward.
Today, the Monroe County Com-
mission will decide how to satisfy the
Cabinet. ,The preferable choice is to
adopt an Interim Development Ordi-
nance to regulate growth for two or,
at most, three years while it refines
the carrying-capacity land-use provi-
sions. If it doesn't pass this ordinance,
or tind a similar way to meet the Cabi-
net's mandate, Monroe could lose its
state allocation of growth permits,
putting a moratorium on all residen-
tial construction. Some county com-
missioners are concerned that the
interim ordinance would create its
own building moratorium, prompting
landowners' lawsuits.
But the proposed ordinance's sup-
porters point out that there are build-
able tracts with infrastructure already
in place that would qualify for permits
under an interim regulation. What
, wO,uld be restricted are the more
environmentally sensitive sites that
need more protection, according to
the carrying-capacity study. Monroe
commissioners should adopt the
Tnterim Development Ordimmce for
the short term and then direct their
energies toward writing a land-use
plan based on the carrying-capacity
study's troubling tindings.
Aiter all. they could be writing the
land-use document that will become a
guiding principle ior the rest of the
state as Florida's population contin-
ues to boom and questions of Glrrying
capacity vs. more developmellt
become cornmrmpbcl'.
LOWER KEYS & KEY WEST (305) 294-1238
UPPER KEyS (305) 664-2342
MIAMI (305) 661-4928
FAJ<(305) 294-2164
E-MAIL: swcinc@bellsouth.net
June 18,2003
Marlene Conaway, Director
Monroe County Planning Department
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400
Marathon, FL 33050
Subject: Proposed Tier 2 designation for Lot 22, Mayan Street, Indian Mound Estates, Upper Sugarloaf
Key, owned by Marx Investment Group
Dear Marlene:
I am one of four partners in the small investment group that owns the above-referenced lot in Indian
Mound Estates. We are in the process of permitting to put an affordable housing unit on the property.
Please accept this letter as an official request to change the designation of the lot from Tier 2 to Tier 3. This
is only one of two vacant lots on the entire street, is completely surrounded by development, and most of
the lot is covered with exotic vegetation (Brazilian pepper, confirmed by Monroe County Biologist Ralph
Gowdy).
This subdivision is an ideal location for affordable housing, as property is less expensive since most lots are
not on water; and the streets are quiet, allowing families to ride bicycles and enjoy the area. In addition, the
location of Sugar loaf School less than 1/2 mile away allows school children to walk or ride their bicycles to
school. Clearly, infill of vacant lots within the developed area of this subdivision makes sense, and would
help with much-needed affordable housing for working families.
Enclosed is a 2002 aerial photograph of the neighborhood with the subject property highlighted in yellow,
and a copy of the tier map showing the proposed Tier 2 designation.
Thank you for considering this information and making this correction to the draft tier maps.
Sincerely,
c52J-~
Sandra Walters
Member of Marx Investment Group
Attachments
cc: Dean Walters, Managing Partner
MAIN OFFICE: 600 WHITE STREET, SUITE 5, KEy WEST, FL 33040
10925 SW 119 STREET, MIAMI, FL 33176
ZOOe...
Lot 22.
rnrr-
~ QIMvvA
\)~~
Jim: To summarize some of the points we made in our telephone conversation
today:
1) The recent Lake Tahoe US Supreme Court case indicates that a temporary
moratorium for a valid planning purpose is not a taking under the US
Constitution. The Florida Constitution takings clause is virtually
identical.
2) The current Monroe comp plan and LDRs are not subject to Harris Act
claims because they were adopted before May 11, 1995. "No cause of action
exists under this section as to the application of any law enacted on or
before May 11, 1995, or as to the application of any rule, regulation, or
ordinance adopted, or formally noticed for adoption, on or before that
date." ~70.001(12), F.S.
3) A temporary moratorium is not subject to a Harris Act claim. "The terms
"inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" do not include temporary
impacts to real property...." ~70.001(3)(e), F.S.
4) With regard to further restrictions on the Tier 1 lands that may be
adopted after the moratorium, such as assigning more negative points:
a) As I explained to the Commissioner, the Harris Act has not been
interpreted by the appellate courts, so no attorney can be certain about
each provision. My opinion is that an owner of Tier 1 property would not
have to immediately file Harris Act claim to avoid the 1 year limitations
period. The 1 year limit does not start when the new LDR is adopted, it
starts when the new LDR is applied to the land. "A cause of action may not
be commenced under this section if the claim is presented more than 1 year
after a law or regulation is first applied by the governmental entity to
the property at issue." ~70.001(11), F.S.
b) In order to win a Harris Act case, the plaintiff would have to show that
the new restriction caused an inordinate burden. That is, that the
plaintiff would have received enough ROGO points under the old LDRs, to
qualify for a permit. "A subsequent amendment to any such law, rule,
regulation, or ordinance gives rise to a cause of action under this section
only to the extent that the application of the amendatory language imposes
an inordinate burden apart from the law, rule, regulation, or ordinance
being amended. II 970.001(12), F.S.
Monroe County Commission Meeting 6/18/03 Marathon Gov. Center
Commissioners,
F or the record my name is H. T. Pontin
I am here today to read something into the record. It is from the Reporter of
U. S. Supreme Court. "Even where a property owner is deprived of his
Property only temporarily, if that amounts to a
taking the Constitution requires that just
compensation be paid. If the governmental body
that has taken the property decides to rescind the
taking by amending the regulation, that does not
reverse the fact that the property owner has been
deprived of the property in the interim.
Also the recent U. S. Supreme Court ruling on the Palazzolo case that even
"a State may not evade the duty to compensate on the premise that the
landowner is left with a token interest".
MY QUESTION IS WHEN AND HOW MUCH WILL I BE
COMPENSATED FOR THESE 18 MONTHS?
Perhaps a solution might be that The Nature Conservancy, a 13 billion dollar
outfit would supply the money.
H. T. Pontin