HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 341-2003
RESOLUTION 341 -2003
A RESOLUTION OF THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STATING ITS INTENTION TO
CHALLENGE AMENDMENTS TO THE MIAMI-DADE
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WILL ALLOW
FOR THE WIDENING OF KROME AVENUE AND AUTHORIZE
APPROPRIATE PLEADINGS OR LEGAL BRIEFS TO BE
SUBMITTED SUPPORTING THE CHALLENGE
WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County has adopted amendments to its Comprehensive
Development Master Plan to change the designation of Krome Avenue (SR 997/SW 177th
Avenue) between US-27 and SW 296th Street on the Future Land Use Map from Minor
Roadway (2 lanes) to Major Roadway (3 or more lanes); and,
WHEREAS, in response to concerns raised by the Florida Department of
Community Affairs, Miami-Dade County adopted several comprehensive plan policies
intended to only allow changes in land use designations outside of the Urban
Development Boundary within one mile of right-of-way line of any portion of Krome
Avenue upon a supermajority of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and
two-thirds of the County Commission;
WHEREAS, Miami-Dade adopted amendments to the Transportation Element of
its Comprehensive Development Master Plan to change the designation of Krome
Avenue on the "2015 Roadway Network" from two to four lanes, to require no
construction associated with the four-Ianing until the County Commission adopts a
detailed binding access control plan, and, to add Krome Avenue between US-1 and US-
27 as a Major Route on its "Designated Evacuation Routes 2015"; and,
WHEREAS, the South Florida Regional Planning Council found the
aforementioned plan amendments as generally inconsistent with the Strategic Regional
Policy Plan, particularly Goal 2.1- "Achieve long-term efficient and sustainable
development patterns by guiding new development and redevelopment within the region
to areas which are most intrinsically suited for development, including areas (1) which
are least exposed to coastal storm surges, (2) where negative impacts on the natural
environmental will be minimal, and (3) where public facilities and services already exist,
are programmed or, on an aggregate basis can be provided most economically"; and,
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs published a Notice of
Intent on December 20, 2002, to find the comprehensive plan amendments "in
compliance" with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; and,
WHEREAS, the Sierra Club, and Mr. John S. Wade, Jr., a resident of Miami-
Dade County, herein called "the Petitioners", have petitioned the State Department of
Administrative Hearings for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.57
C:\Documents and Settings\kkc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\kromeave-resol.doc
Page 1 of 4
and 163.3184(9)(a), Florida Statutes to challenge the Florida Department of Community
Affairs' (DCA) finding that the subject amendments to the Miami-Dade Comprehensive
Development Master Plan are "in compliance"; and,
WHEREAS, "the Petitioners" allege that the amendments are not in compliance
as defined in section 163.3184 (1), Florida Statutes, because they are inconsistent with
the requirements of sections 163.3177 (elements of comprehensive plan), 163.3178
(coastal management), 163.3180 (concurrency), 163.3191 (evaluation and appraisal of
comprehensive plan), and 163.3245 (sector plans), the state comprehensive plan, strategic
regional plan and with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Growth Management Division staff has
concluded in a staff memorandum prepared for its Director that the amendments
authorizing the four-Ianing will significantly increase pressures for the expansion and
intensification of development of the Krome Avenue corridor outside the established
Urban Development Boundary;
WHEREAS, the amendments to the comprehensive plan to make land use
changes more difficult by requiring approval of such changes by more than a majority
vote are inadequate to provide any disincentives to the overwhelming pressure for land
use changes due to the expansion and intensification of development in the Krome
Avenue corridor that will result from the four-Ianing of Krome Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, even with these "disincentives", the geographic scope of these
restrictions on approval requirements for land use changes is limited only to those lands
outside of the Urban Development Boundary within one-mile of the Krome Avenue
right-of-way, which only provides further incentives for sprawl; and,
WHEREAS, the increased expansion and intensification of development within
the Krome Avenue corridor will have direct and indirect negative impacts on Monroe
County with: (1) increased storm water pollution loading into Florida Bay and the
Everglades degrading the quality of water surrounding the Florida Keys which is vital for
sustaining critical marine habitat and the commercial fishing and tourism economy of
Monroe County; (2) increased potential for further encroachment development and
impact on the FKAA well fields in Miami-Dade County which are the County's primary
source of drinking water; and (3) increased numbers of day and week-end trippers to
Monroe County, particularly in the Upper and Middle Keys, further overwhelming the
capacity of the County's infrastructure and services; and,
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Division staff, based on the information
presented by Florida Department of Transportation presented in its report "Krome
Avenue Existing Level of Service and Safety Analysis", find that the four laning of
Krome Avenue will not significantly improve the Level of Service in the Krome Avenue
corridor and will not result in any improved hurricane evacuation over the long run as the
widening will induce further development in the corridor and;
C:\Documents and Settings\kkc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\kromeave-resoLdoc
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Division staff concludes that the
amendments will have a deleterious and negative impact on Monroe County and that the
proposed amendments are not "in compliance" as defined in section 163.3184(1), Florida
Statutes, because of the inconsistencies with sections of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes,
various policies of the state comprehensive plan and Strategic Regional Policy Plan for
South Florida, and with Chapter 9J-5, as enumerated in the Petition for Administrative
Hearing filed by the "Petitioners"; and,
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners has reviewed
the Growth Management Division staff report and concurs with its conclusions;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1: The comprehensive plan amendments adopted by Miami-Dade County for the
widening of Krome Avenue and managing of land use changes from development
pressures that will result from this widening will have a deleterious and negative impact
on Monroe County's economy, the environment of the Everglades and Florida Bay, and
the County's infrastructure and public services for the reasons presented in the
memorandum prepared by the Growth Management Division staff.
Section 2: The comprehensive plan amendments adopted by Miami-Dade County are
not "in compliance" with criteria set forth in section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes, as
supported in the challenge filed by "the Petitioners", attached hereto, and made part of
this resolution.
Section 3: The County Administrator is directed to instruct the Growth Management
Director to have the Division's Litigation Counsel to file appropriate pleadings or briefs
to support the challenge of the proposed amendments by "the Petitioners".
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]
C:\Documents and Settings\kkc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\kromeave-resol.doc
Page 3 of 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 20th day of August, A.D., 2003.
Mayor Dixie Spehar
Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner David Rice
yeR
yes
yes
YPP.
abstain
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
.iff~fs(~~.'~-i,z;>....,
~'.('.\ / '.>. : i) \'--r"'-;'
!/~';/C/;";\~; ,
j,F"!4- ...\~' ..~ ~..~
J'''.''{. '. >..".... ^.
.t:'. ,r,'.'" ~:-'
lIt"'" <~.,'
~:~~~~];!"'~~j;~t
''\:~>~~t:1};):ANNY KOLHAGE, Clerk
~" '""(;i ~
~.=;;~'"" ~
eputy C~rk
By:
~~Ju >n ~~
Mayor/Chairman
Attachment - Sierra Club, John S. Wade vs. Florida Department of
of Community Affairs and Miami-Dade County, Florida
In
:
.....-.,;
(.,)
Lj
("-
J_
::c
CL.
lJ')
I
fri
(.I)
C"")
<:::::I
c:::l
.......,
.:,,; - "
':'~1-':~
::iui-
Q .:z:
:x:~:::>
..,j~8
>-:x::w
2::~o
:.z: ':l::
~ Z
Q 0
r
g
i.1..
o
Lu
-I
~':
C:\Documents and Settings\kkc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\kromeave-reso1.doc
Page 4 of 4
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
SIERRA CLUB, & JOHN S. WADE, JR.,
Petitioners,
DCA Docket No.: 02-2-NOI-1301-(A)-(I)
vs.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS, and MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FLORIDA,
Respondents
I
PETITION FOR FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
1. Petitioners SIERRA CLUB, and JOHN S. WADE, JR., , by and through the
undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to sections 120.57 and 163.3184(9)(a), Florida
Statutes, hereby request a formal administrative hearing to challenge the Florida
Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") finding several amendments to the Miami-Dade
County Comprehensive Growth Management ("Plan") "in compliance". In support thereof,
Petitioners state as follows:
NATURE OF THE CHALLENGED ACTION
2. The Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No.
02-198 on October 10,2002. The ordinance amends the Land Use Element and the
Transportation Element of the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Growth Management
Plan to change the designation of Krome Avenue from a "Minor Roadway" (2 lanes) to a
"Major Roadway" (3 or more lanes) and amends the Transportation Element, Traffic
Circulation Subelement "Planned Year 2015 Roadway Network" to change the Krome
1
Avenue designation from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. (Amendment Package 02-02, Amendment
16).
3. Amendment package 02-02 also includes amendments to the FLUE (policies 3F,
3G, and 3H), to require at least five affirmative votes of the zoning appeals board or a two
thirds vote of the County Commission for zoning or amendments to the plan or land use
map which authorize non agricultural uses within 1 mile of Krome Avenue.
4. The amendments also amend Transportation Element Policy 4E to require "binding
access control plan" prior to construction.
5. Petitioners challenge the finding that the above - referenced Amendments are "in
compliance" as defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat.
RECEIPT OF NOTICE
6. DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the challenged Comprehensive Plan
Amendments "in compliance" on December 20, 2002. This Petition is filed by Petitioners
within 21 days of publication of the Notice of Intent.
PETITIONERS
7. Petitioners are affected persons pursuant to section 163.3184(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
8. Petitioner, John S. Wade, Jr. resides in Miami-Dade County at 20925 SW 187
Avenue, Miami, FL 33187.
9. Petitioner, Sierra Club is a not-for-profit environmental organization (corporation).
Sierra Club's address and telephone number are Sierra Club, c/o Alan Farago,
Conservation Chair, 534 Menendez Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33146, and (305) 447-
9657. Sierra Club maintains a Florida chapter with over 20,000 members, of which 2,500
participate in the Miami group. In Miami, Sierra Club takes an active interest in the many
elements of South Florida ecosystem restoration as its members highly value the natural
2
wilderness. Its members recreate in and contribute to the local economy of tourism-related
activities connected to the two national parks, Everglades National Park and Biscayne
National Park, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Sierra Club members
reside, own property, work and recreate in, and support the tax base of, Dade County.
10. Sierra Club has a substantial number of members who reside, own property, or
operate a business in Miami-Dade County and who would have standing to bring this
petition as individuals.
11. The subject matter of this proceeding is within the scope of interest of the Sierra
Club, which has among its primary purposes and goals involvement and advocacy
concerning growth management in Miami-Dade County and the enforcement of the
Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act on behalf of its members. It is among
the primary purposes of the Sierra Club to work to preserve community and natural
resources and quality of life in Miami-Dade County, and to enforce laws designed to further
these goals on behalf of its members and the citizens at large.
12. The relief requested would enforce the applicable law for the benefit of its members
in Miami - Dade County and is appropriate for Sierra Club to receive on behalf of its
members.
13. All Petitioners submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections
to Miami-Dade County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for
the plan amendment and ending with the adoption of the plan amendment.
RESPONDENTS
14. Respondent DCA is the state land planning agency charged with administering and
enforcing Ch. 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. DCA's address is 2555 Shumard Oak
3
Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. DCA's file or identification number for the
challenged amendments is 02-2-NOI-1301-(A)-(I).
15. Respondent Miami-Dade County is a local govemment responsible for adopting and
maintaining a comprehensive plan that is in compliance with Ch. 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes. Miami-Dade County's address is 111 N. W. 1st Street, Suite 1210, Miami, Florida
33128-1994.
DISPUTED ISSUES OF LAW
16. The amendments are not in compliance as defined in section 163.3184 (1), Fla.
Stat., because they are inconsistent with the requirements of ss.163.3177, 163.3178,
163.3180,163.3191, and 163.3245, the state comprehensive plan, with the appropriate
strategic regional policy plan, and with Chapter 9J-5, FAC.,
ULTIMATE ALLEGATIONS
17. The amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 28 which requires that priority
in the provision of and allocation of resources for services and facilities be given first to the
area within the urban development boundary (UD8) and that urban services and facilities
which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas be
avoided, with the exception of improvements necessary to protect public health and safety
and which serve the localized needs of the non-urban area.
18. Amendment 16 is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 8F which requires the
County to consider consistency with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of all Elements,
other timely issues, and in particular, the extent to which the proposal would enhance or
degrade environmental resources features or systems (e.g., Everglades and wellfields) of
County significance. Widening the proposed section of Krome Avenue will impermissibly
4
promote and encourage urban growth and development within agricultural areas and
adjacent and proximate to the Everglades. The affects of such growth and development
on significant agricultural and environmental resources has not been sufficiently
considered.
19. The amendments are inconsistent with Transportation Element (TE) Policy 4C
which requires roadways to avoid environmental protection designated areas.
20. The amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 38.
21. The amendments are inconsistent with Section 163.3177(2), Fla. Stat and Rule
9J-5.005 (5)(a) and (b), FAC as a result of the inconsistencies alleged above.
22. The Amendments are not supported by data and analysis which demonstrates that
four laning the entire segment of Krome Avenue is necessary to correct public safety or
level of service problems or that the 1999 Krome Avenue Action Plan's recommended
improvements (which do not include 4 - laning) are insufficient to address safety issues.
23. The Amendments are not supported by adequate data and analysis as required by
Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (8), and (10)(e), Fla. Stat. and Rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), F.A.C.
24. The supporting analysis for the amendment does not demonstrate that the
proposed four lane roadway would serve only the localized needs of the nonurban area,
as required by FLUE Policy 28. Rather, if Krome Avenue were four laned as proposed in
the amendment, the roadway would serve as a regional facility providing access beyond
the local area.
25. The amendment is not supported by data and analysis because it treats the entire
length of the subject roadway the same when the data and analysis demonstrates that,
relative to the issues of public safety and land use impacts, the southern segment of the
5
road is not similarly situated with the northern section.
26. The Amendments are not consistent with Section 163.3177(6)(d), Fla. Stat.,
because they do not provide for the conservation, use, and protection of natural resources
in the area.
27. The Amendments are inconsistent with Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(6)
because they do not ensure that the County's comprehensive plans will be
implemented in a consistent manner. Sections 163.3161(5), and 163.3194, Fla. Stat.
28. . The amendments are inconsistent with Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(6) because
the goals, objectives and policies do not establish meaningful and predictable standards
for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of
more detailed land development and use regulations.
29. The amendments are inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat., which
requires specific standards within the plan to guide development decisions.
30. The amendments are inconsistent with Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006 because they
fail to coordinate future land uses with the appropriate topography and soil conditions, and
the availability of facilities and services; ensure the protection of natural resources; and
discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
31. The amendments fail to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, and are thus
inconsistent with Rules 9J-5.006(5)(g)(1 ),(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (13),
and Rules 9J-5.006(5)(h), (i), 0)(6), 0)(18), and 0)(19).
32. The amendments are inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.019(3)(d), (f), (i) and 9j5.019(4)
and with
33. The amendments are inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.005(6), FAC because they fail to
establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and
6
fail to provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and
use regulations that would prevent the urban sprawl and impacts to agricultural, rural and
environmentally sensitive lands caused by the four-Ianing of Krome Avenue.
34. The amendments are inconsistent with Sections 163.3177(6)(a)-(g), (8) &(10(e),
Fla. Stat.
Inconsistent with Strateaic Reaional Policy Plan (SRPP)
35. Amendment 16 is inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the
South Florida Regional Planning Council as a whole, and directly conflicts specifically
with:
(a) Strategic Regional Goal 2.1 to achieve long-term efficient and sustainable
development patterns by guiding new development and redevelopment into those areas
which are most intrinsically suited for development, including areas (1) which are least
exposed to coastal storm surges; (2) where negative impacts on the natural environment
will be minimal; and (3) where public facilities and services already exist, are programmed
or, on an aggregate basis, can be provided most economically.
(b) Policy 2.1.4 SRPP which requires development to be directed away from
environmentally sensitive areas.
(c) Policy 2.1.10 SRPP in that the amendment fails to provide for the
compatibility of adjacent uses and fails to assess the impacts of land uses on the
surrounding environment.
(d) Policy 2.1.14 SRPP in that the amendment fails to preserve and protect
economically viable agricultural activities in the vicinity of the proposed roadway expansion.
(e) Strategic Regional Goal 2.2 to revitalize deteriorating urban areas.
(f) Policy 2.2.1 SRPP, which requires that priority be given to development in
7
areas that are blighted, characterized by underdevelopment or underemployment and are
in need of redevelopment. Instead, the amendment prioritizes westward expansion outside
of the urban services district.
(g) SRPP Policy 3.9.1, to direct development and uses of land that would be
inconsistent with Everglades restoration away from the Everglades System and adjacent
natural Resources of Regional Significance.
Inconsistent with State Comprehensive Plan
36. The Amendments are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter
187.201, Fla. Stat., including:
A. Goal 15 (a) (LAND USE); Policy 15 (b)1; Policy 15(b) 6
B. Goal 16 (a) & (b) (URBAN AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION)
C. Goal 17 (a) (PUBLIC FACILITIES); Policy 17 (b) 1
D. Goal 19 (a); Policy 19 (b) 12
E. Goal 22 (a) & (b) (AGRICULTURE)
REQUESTED RELIEF
37. WHEREFORE, Petitioners request:
(a) That DCA forward this Petition to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings;
(b) That a formal administrative hearing be scheduled and conducted by an
Administrative Law Judge;
(c) That the Administrative Law Judge enter a Recommended Order finding that the
Amendments not in compliance;
(d) That DCA make such a determination and forward the matter to the Administration
Commission; and,
8
(e) That the Administration Commission enter a Final Order finding the challenged
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance", recommending that the
Amendments not become effective and identifying all sanctions allowed by law.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 10th day of January 2003.
Richard Grosso, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 0592978
Environmental and Land Use Law Center, Inc.
Shepard Broad Law Center
3305 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314
Tel: (954) 262-6140
Fax: (954) 262-3992
Lisa B. Interlandi
Fla. Bar No. 146048
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by US Mail to the Miami-
Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning, 111 N. W. 1st Street, Suite 1210, Miami,
Florida 33128-1994. and to the Office of County Attorney, Miami - Dade County, 111 NW
1st Street, Suite 2810, Miami, Fla. 33128 on this 10th day of January, 2003.
Richard Grosso, Esq.
9