Item I09
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: 7/19/2006 - KW
Division: Growth Manag.ement
Bulk Item: Yes
No~
Department: Planning and Environmental Res.
Staff Contact Person: Tv Svmroski/Jerry D. Sanders
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and guidance to staff regarding action to take in response to a
challenge to the DCA Rule affirming Tier Svstem Maps and Implementation Ordinances.
ITEM BACKGROUND:On July 7,2006 (the last day for a challenge), the Florida Keys Citizens ('oalition
and Protect KeJ' West and the Florida Keys. Inc. dNa Last Stand filed a challenge with the Department of
Community Affairs to the five (5) Final Orders of the Department of Community Affairs which approved the
maps and land development regulations adopted by the BOCC on March IS, 2006 to implement the Tier System
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: 1.) Adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendments for
creation of the Tier System in lieu of the present ROGO System beginning in July 2002 which became final
February, 2006.
2.) Adoption of five (5) Land Development Regulations March 15,2006 to implement the Tier System provided
for in the Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
3.) Interim Development Ordinances (Moratoria) were begun on ROGO and NROGO allocations in CNA Areas
(of two [2J acres or greater) in June 2004, expiring in December 2005.
4.) A further moratoria deferring the acceptance of all applications for allocation of building permits under
ROGO was adopted March] 5, 2006 (concurrently with the Tier Ordinances) to remain in effect lIntil the Tier
System Ordinances and Maps were adopted or July ]4,2006, whichever came first. This has been extended by
the Growth Management Director administratively until this BOCe meeting under the "Legislation in Progress"
doctrine.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS: See attached Options for consideration.
TOT AL COST:
Unknown.
BUDGETED: Yes
No X
COST TO COUNTY:
Unknown
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No X
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY:
County Atty ~ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management ~~.
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
.7. J
/" ,.?/
. / /
T'y S ymrMskf
'/' ,
~-. i. " //'
~ /2/;;7)
t.. (
DOCUlVIENTA TION:
Included X
Not Required ~
DISPOSITION:
Revised 2/05
AGENDA ITEM #__
OPTIONS FOR ROCC REGARDING
CHALLENGE TO TIER SYSTEM MAPS AND ORDINANCES
1, Defend the challenge requesting a hearing before Department of Administrative Hearings
(DOAH) as quickly as possible and oppose any continuances,
a, Continue the existing moratoria on the acceptance of ROGO and NROGO applications until
resolution of the challenge. Staff recommends this option with the exception of processing
of applications for development of affordable housing done by not-for-profit
organizations or in connection with the County participating as a partner thet'cin.
b. Discontinue the moratorium and accept ROGO applications under the ROGO Ordinance in
effect prior to the implementation of the Tier Ordinances.
2. Defend the challenge to the Tier Ordinances; however agree to any reasonable extensions of
time to which the challengers may request.
a. Continue moratoria same as I.a. above. Staff does not recommend this option in the event
that continuations are extended.
b. Same option for removal of moratoria as l.b. above. Staff recommends this option in the
event that extensions are agreed.
3. Concede to the challenge oftheFKCC and Last Stand, eliminate the tiers and revert back to the
ROGO System prior to the most recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
a. Staff does not recommend this option; however, if chosen by the BOCC this will require
another Comprehensive Plan Amendment to eliminate the provisions for the Tier System.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Big Pine Key and No Name Key Habitat Conservation Plan having been approved by the Federal
Fish & Wildlife Service, it is Staft1s opinion that ROGO applications on those two (2) Keys may
continue to proceed although they are presently limited to approximately ten (10) ROGO allocations
per annum.
a. The Tier System was implemented for a number of reasons, all of which were thoroughly
discussed at both public hearings with the Planning Commission and not less than eight (8)
public hearings of the BOCe in 2004-2006. It was implemented in order to provide a more
"user friendly" system for the citizens of the County in obtaining building permits, with some of
its more useful features being:
1. Simpler.
2. More objective.
3. More predictable.
4. Approaches classifications based on habitat boundaries not lot lines.
5. Help to direct in the purchasing of sensitive land.
6. Helping direct development in less sensitive areas.
b. A thorough discussion of the history of the Tier System is found at the County Website
under "Planning and Environmental Resources", "Topics ofInterest" and "Tier System".
07/07/2005 15:38 8509222579
OJ/a7/200& 14:25 56184458e4
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
PAGE 01/15
EVERGLADES LAW C~TR
PAGE 82
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMlNJStRAnvE:BEAlU~.Gs
FLORIDA KEYS CITIZENS COALITION, INC.
and Protect Key West and the Florida Keys, Inc.
d/b/a "LAST STAND",
Petitioners
Respondents,
5-
Case No.:
DCA Final Ordet" Nos.: DCA06~OR~]23
DCA06-0R~124
DCA06-0R-125
DCA06-0R-126
DCA06-0R-127
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFF A1R.S and MONROE COUNTY.
I
PEImON FOR FORMAL,ADMlNISTRATJVE P~OCEEDINGS
Introdudlol.
FLORIDA KEYS CITlZENS COALITION, INC, and Protect Key West and the Florida
Keys, Inc. d/b/a "LAST STAND" file this. Petition for Fonnal Administrative Proceedings
pmsuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat to challenge five (5) Final Orders of the
Department of Community Affairs apptovin.g Land Development Regulations adopted by
Monroe County within the Florida Keys AJea of Critical State Concern and state as fallows:
1. The challenged final orders are: DCA06-0R-123, DCA06-0R-124. DCA06-0R
125~ DCA06-0R-126, and DCA06.0R-127. aU af which were published in the Florida
Administrative Weekly, Volume 32~ No.24. June 16,2006.
2. The challenged final orders approve land development. regulations that seek to
implement portions oftbe Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and regulate land use and
1
07/07/2006 15:38 8509222679
a~/e7/2e86 14:25 5616445064
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
PAGE 02/15
EV~GLADES LAW CENTR
PAGE: €I 3
development lNithin MOnroe County.
3. This challenge is based on the inconsistency of the subject Land Development
Regulations (tDRs) and Tier Overlay District Maps with Chapter 380, Fla. Stat., the
Area ofCrltica1 State Concern Act. The regulations are inadequate to protect the tropical
hardwood hammQck, pine rock1an~ and transitional wetla.ud communities in the Keys.
4. Petitioners seek an administrative determination OV~urning the Final Orders on
the basis that they ate inconsistent with the requirements of Chaptet 380, Fla. Stat., for
the .reasons stated below.
Id~nt.ifi(;ltion ol Petitionen and Other Parti!!
5. Petitionel\ FLO:R1DA KEYS CITIZEN COALlT10N eFKCC"), is a noto-for
profit Florida co,-poration whose address is 10800 Overseas Highway, Marathonj FL.,
3050.
6. Petttionet, Protect Key West and the Florida Keys, Inc. d/b/a "LAST STAND"
C"LAST STAND!') is. a not-for-profit flonda Corporation whose address is p.n Box 146,
Key West# Florida 33041-0146.
7. Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFfAIR.S (UDCA") is Ii State
agency exercising powers granted to it by Section 380.05. Fla. Stat. to approve Ot t~ject
land development regulations that are enacted, amended, Qr: rescinded by an)' local
government in the Florida Keys Area of CriticaJ Stare Concern (UACSC'j. DONs
address is 2555 Shumard Oak Bouleva.rd~ T allahassee1 Florid~ 32399-2100.
8. Respondent MONROE COUNTY, is a. local, county government within the
Florida. Keys ACSC. The County'g address is 500 Whitebead. St., Key West, Florida
33040. Monroe County is required to adopt and maintain land development regulations
that are consistent with its comprehensive plan and with Chapter 380 Fla. Stat.
EXDlanation arBow Petitioners' Substantial Interests Are or Will be Affecled
9, The FKCC is comprised of eleven organizations whose members live~ work and
2
07i07/2006 15:38
a7/a7/26S6 14:25
850922267<:/
51:>1B445064
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
EVERGL.ADES LAW COOl<
PAGE 03/15
PAGE 84
reside in Monroe County.
10. A substantiaJ number of the members of the FKCC V\<iU be substantially and
ooverselyaffected by the Final Orders.
11. The FKCC is a substandatJy affected person in that if:, and a substantial number of
its membeX'$, has and have been directly involved in the development and enforcement of
the Monroe CQunty Comprehensive Plan and implementing land development regulations
for over 20 years.
12. A substantial number of the FKCCs me.mbexs own propeny and live within
unincorporated Monroe County, and rely upon the MontOe' County Cotnpreb~sive Plan
and implementing land development regulations to protect their quality of life, and the
near shore water <juality upon which tbe Keys' economy depends, and their ability to
safely evaeuate from the Keys.
t3. A substantial number of the FKCC's members use the near shore waters of the
Florida. Keys for recreation, fisbing! swimming, and other uses that are dependant on the
quality of that WAter.
14. A substantial nu:mb~r of the PKCC's rnembets use the Tropical Hardwood
Hammocks. Pinelaods, and T mnsitional WetJands within Monroe County fot
recreatio~a.l, bird-watching, and other uses that are dependant on the quality of that
habJtat
15. Among the FKCC's primary purposes is the coordination of the wox-k of its
members to promote, preserve and enhance the quality aftife for residents of the Florida
Keys and the biodiversity and sustainability of the Keys' natural environment.
J 6. The FKCC has expended significant member and financial resources throughout
the past deoade as an advocate and litigant in the administrative prt;lcesses and litigation
in 1994 and 1996 whichtesulted in the current comprehensive planning soheme including
the challenged land development regulations. The FKCC bas, as an advocate and Jitig.ant~
3
07/07/200& 15:38 8509222679
67/e7/2SaS 14~2o 5618445064
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
PAGE 04/15
EVEFlGlADES LAW CENTR
PAGE @5
expended substantial resources to put into place the comp~$ive plan provisions which
required the adoption of the subject pe-rmanent habitat protections.
17. FKCC and its members are substantiaUy a:f1"ected by the Final Orders.
18. Petitioner, Protect Key West and the Florida Keys. Inc. d/b/a uLAST ST AND'T is
a Florida not..for-profit corporation Qf approximately 300 citizens whose purpose is to
protect and preserve the natural environment and quality of life in the Florida Keys.
LAST STAND works to prevent environmental damage to the Florida. Keys upland and
wetland habitats of endangered and threatened species. FIQrida Keys OUtstanding Florida
Waters and National Marine Sanctuary, and represents its m.embers in administrative and
judicial proceeding$ to oppose land use and pennitting decisions that have negative
environmental impacts. In MQtttoe County, LAST STAND works to improve public
access to the watet&ont and to promote sustainable srowth management and avoid
commercial over~deve]opment with its c.oXlcomitant negative impacts on traffic, housing
and general quality of life.
19. A substantial number of LAST STAND's members own property and live within
incol'pOrated and unincorporated Monroe County> and rely upon the Monroe County
comprehensive plan and its implementing land development regulations to .protect their
quality of life, near shore water quality, terrestrial habitat, and abiU1y to safely evacuate.
20. A substantia1numbe.r of the memb~.s of LAST STAND reside~ own property,
operate businesses, recreat.e. and bird watch within Monroe County, Florida and the near
shore waters thereof. A substantial number of the members use the near shore waters of
the Florida Keys for recreation: fishing. swimming. and other uses that ate dependant on
the quality of that wate}:. A substantial number of the members use the Tropioal
Ha.rdwood Hammocks, Pinelands; and Transitional Wetlands within Monroe County for
recreation, bird-watchingt and other uses tha.t are dependant on the quality of that habitat.
A substantial number of LAST STAND's members are substantially affected persons
4
07/07/2006 15:38 8509222679
07/87/2Be6 14:25 5618445e84
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
EVERGLADES LAW COO~
PAGE 05/15
PAGE as
within the mean.ing of the' Florida Administrative Procedure Act.
21. LAST STAND is a i<SubstantiaIly Affected Person!! entitled to initiate this
proceeding in accordance with the :Florida Administrative Procedure Act.
22. LAST STAND is a resident of Monroe County~ because the organizatiou has
members who reside in. own property in, or own << operate businesses within MOIlI'Oe
County.
23. A substantial amount of 'petitioners' tntlmbers Vllil1 also be "adversely affected:' to
tbe extent tbat their water qlJaHty~ personal safety, ability to recreate! bird watch and
enjoy the the natural habitats of the Florida Keys will be adversely impacted by the land
development regulations approved by the challenged Final Ordm.
'Wben and H~Jl!fotice Was Reeeived
24. Notice of the Final Orders was received via publication in the Florida
Administrative Weekly~ Volume 32. Nl.1l'fiber 24, June 16, 2006.
25. This Petition is filed within 21 days of the publication of the Notices of Final
Ordero.
~.tatement of Material Fads ,DiSDJtted ~nd Alleled
26. Final Order DCA06~OR-123 approves portions of Monroe County.
Ordinance No, 008-2006 ("Ord. 008-2006~) whioh; "deletes requirements for the
preparation Qf the Habitat Evaluation Index for properties containing hammock. requires
an existing conditions report, vegetation survey, and grants of conservation easements,
and limits clearing of native upland vegetation dependent on the tier system designation.
(Fina.t Order DCA06.0R-123 is attached as Exhibit "A" and Monroe County Ord. 008"
2006 is attached as Exhibit "B.")
a. Sec. 9.5-336 provides inadequate protection for endangered/threatened or
protected speci-es: tha.t are not observed on a surveyed parcel of land, and does not
require the use of the most current State and Fede:rn1 protected species lists.
5
07/07/2005 15:38 8509222679
B7/67/2a66 14:25 5618445ee4
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
EVERGLADES LAW CENTR
PAGE 05/15
PAGE: la7
b. Sec. 9.5-:336 arbitrarily fails to protect endangered. threatened and "of concern'"'
plants less than 4" diameter, leaving small trees, shrubs. and herbaceous species
wprotected and defeating efforts to restore previously cleared or stonn damaged
areas.
c. See. 95~336 arbitrarily faits to require the use of the Florida Exotic Pest Plant
Council (FLEPPC) and the Florida Keys Invasive Exotic Task Force lists to
identify pest plants.
d. Sec. 9.5r336 arbitrarily faits to require the identification of potential habitat of
protected species.
e. Sec. Sec. 9.5<l38 arbitrarily allows clearing Ot) lots that receive points for
a.ggregation~ thU$ faiUng to protect the na.tural areas that aggregation is designed
to protect.
27. Final Order DCA06-0R~t24 approves Monroe County Ordinance No. 00""
200'6 eOrd, 009-2006') which revises the Rate of Growth Ordinance ("ROGO,",> and
utilizes "tier overlay maps as the basis for the .competitive point system; providing
revised criteria fot' the building permit allocation system; establishing new alhx:ations for
sub areas; allowing the transfer of development e..""<.cmpt from ROGO provided the
receiver site is located in Tier 3~ is not in a velocity zone, and requires no clearing; and
creating an appeal pr<.;x:.css.f' (Final Order DCA06-0R- J 24 is attached as Exhibit tic" and
Monroe County Ord. 009~2006 is attached as Exhibit "D"') More specifically:
a. Sec. 9.5-120-4(6) states that outside of the Big Pine HCP; in Tier I, there will ~
three (3) annual allQcations in the Upper Keys and three (3) in the Lower Keys,
This is vague. arbitrary and capricious because it is not specified how these
allocations will be determined. The ordinance fails to assign negative points for
efidangered species and habitat quality to direct development in Tier r away ftom
the most important natural areas,
6
07/07/2006 15:38 8509222679
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
PAGE 0'7/ 15
07/67/2006 14:25 561B445864
EVERGLADES LAW CENTR
PAGE ElS
b. See 9.5~122~1(g) (1) allows the Planning Commission to award additional
dwelHng units from. future annual. aJ.loeations to complete projects. This i"
arbitral1. and capricious as it provides no standards or limits on whether or to what
ex.tent, such additional allocations can be awarded,
c. See 9.5~1:l2~1(g) (4) allows tile .BOCC to "make available for award up to <me
hundred percent of the affordable housing allocations available over the ~e)Ct five
annual al1ocations/' This is arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan, which does not allow for alloca.tions beyond the B.W1ual caps.
In addition, this allowance may result in unacceptable eva.cuation and
environmental impacts.
d, See 9,5-122~2c (2) allows the planniIlg commission, upon review of the market
rate allocation applications and evaluation worksheetsl to "adjust the points
awarded for :meeting a particular criteria., adjust the rankings as a resul1 of changes
in points awarded, or make such other changes as may be appropriate and
justified.'J This is arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan) as it allows the awarding of points other than as specified in
the comprehensive plan and grants the Planning Commission tmfettered discretion
in the awardiug ofaIlocanons,
e. Sec. 9.s~I22.3{f) fails to establish any required facts or fIndings as a condition
precedent before the County can provide a form of administrative relief other than
an offer to purchase,
f, Sec. 9.5-122.4 establishes ROGO Evaluation Criteria which arbitrarily fail to
prioritite the protection of protected species based upon their status or habitat
based on its quality within each Tier.
g. See, 9,5-266(2)(8) arbitrarily allow.!:: housing writs. permitted as "affordable or
employee housing" to be used for market rate: housing,
7
07/07/2006 15:38 8509222679
67/a7/2ae6 14:25 5G184~5aa4
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
PAGE 08/15
EVERGLADES LAW CENTR
PAGE 09
h. This LDR allows the granting of 30 ROGO points tQ projects adjacent to native
vegetation in Tier I or an SPAt .as long: as there is no clearing. This Is arbitrary as
it allows the type of indirect impacts which the Carrying Capacity Study
deterrrtined should no longer be allowed.
28. Final Order DCA06-0R-125 approves Monroe County Ordinance No. 010~
.z006 ("Ord. 0 I 0-2006") which: "implements Coal 10S of the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan; provides criteria fur designation of the tier boundaries. excluding
Ocean Reef. a vested $ubdivision; and prioritizes land for public acquisition. The
ordinanee also coptains a mechanism for property O'NUets to obtain due process by
requesting an amendment to the designation based o.n specific criteria," (Final Order
DCA06-0R-125 is attached as Exhibit "En and Monroe County Ord. 010-2006 is
attached as Exhibit "F."')
a. See. 9.5-M"6 (b), as amended, arbitrarily states that Tier boundaries should follow
property lines~ canals or roadways. instead of natural vegetative community
boundaries.
b. This LDR allows for arbitrary decisions as to designation when a parcel is both
part of a large Tier J hammock and in a substantially developed subdivision. The
adopted maps are inconsistent with regard to designation of parcels containing
both natural and cleared areas. Given the underlying selenee concerning the need
to protect all remaining natural areas, it is nrbitnuy and capricious for the LDR to
fail to require designation in the most protective Tjer for lands that meet or
potentially meet criteria for more than one Tier,
c. SK. 9.5-256 (c)(l)(a) establishes a 4 acre criteria for designation of lands in Tier
I that is arbitrary and capricioug in that the l;:el~Mt science does not support a
categorical determination that natu.nll areas below that size threshold require less
8
07/07/2005 15:38 8509222679
a7/a112eeG 14:25 5618445664
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
EVERGLADES !..AW CENTR
PAGE 09/15
PAGE 111.1
protection than those at or above that threshold.
d. See. 9.5..256 (e)(l)(e) arbitrarily limits Tier I protections to "/mown locations of
threatened and endQng~ted species . . . identified on the Threatened and
Endangered Plant and Animal Mops. , . " This is contrary to the science as the
referenced maps are not the best availa.ble science and limiting protection to
"known locations}} of such species arbitrari}y fails to protect locations which have
not yet been verified as \'known>1 locations, but which mayor are likely to be
important to protected species.
e. The definition of Tier 1 is arbitrlU'ily vague in that it does not specify whether
wetland native vegetated areas are to be includ~ whether the four acres in "size
area" refers only to "new growth of upland native veg.etated areas" or also to
'~atutal areas'" or how roads win impact the determination of the relevant "size
area".
f. ~ ?.5~.256 (c) (3) arbitrmily eJl;clndes habitat patches that are not "greater
than 1 acn:r in size from the protections afforded Special Protection Areas
("SF N). This is inconsi:itent ''''1111 the best available $(:ience, whi.ch does not
support a categorical conclusion that habitat patches of one acre or jess in siz:e
require less protection than those placed in the SPA category.
g. See. 9.5-2~ (c) (3)(a)(1) arbitrarily allows the existence of disturbed pine1ands
and hammocks \-vith 40% coverage of exotics to break. contiguity in Tier IlI~A
(SP A) for pmposes of de:tennining whether an area meets the stated size
thresholds. This is contrary to the science, which calls fot the removal of exotic
vegi;ltatlon to resto(e habit and re-establish contiguity.
h. See. 9.5-256 ( t)(3) (b) arbitrarily allows for the removal of parcels from the SPA
Tier for reasons unrelated to their habitat value. such as service by central sewer~
the existence of a pavro road at l.eagt 16~ wide. .
It
07/07/2006 15:38 8509222679
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
PAGE 113/15
01107/2aes 14:25 5618445684
EVERGLADES LAW CENTR
PAGE 11
i. See. 9.$-256 (c.)(3)(e) arbittarily requires a survey of any hammock less that 1.09
acres before de$igPll.ting it Tier Ill~At while the ba.1anee of the :r..DR fails fo
require a survey of parcels below the size threshold set for Tier I before
concluding that a. parcel should not be placed in Tier 1.
j. Sec. 9.5<!56 (()(3)(e) is vague and grants the County Cottunis~iOfi unfettered
discretion to adopt or not adopt a special master recommendation to change a
parceFs riel.' designation,
k. This LDR provides inadequate protection for transitional wetlands and
"disturbed" salt mmh and buttonwood wetlands,
t The development standards for Tier lU-A (SPA) are inadequate to protect the
natural areas pla.ced in that Tier.
m. This LDR provides inadequate protections for threatened or endlll"lgered species ()f
species of special concern,
29. Final Order DCA 06-0R-l26 approves MObroe County Ordinance No. 011.
2006 (Ord, 011-2006), which revises the Non-~sidential Rate of Growth Ordinance
('~OGO"). (Final Order DCA 06-0R- t 26 is attached as Exhibit '.0" and Monroe
County Ord. 01 1~2006 is attached as Exhibit ltH,t')
2. Sec. 9.S424.3(9)4~ as revised, arbitrarily allows a "not - for - profit" NROOO
exemption in the SPA that is not allowed in Tier I.
b. S~. 9.5-124.7 (1), as revisoo, fails to esta.blish any requited facts or findings as a
condition precedent befo,;e the County can provide a form of administrative relief
other than an offer to purchase.
30. Finnl Order DCA06-0R-127 approves Monrt,le County Ordinance No. ot3-
2006 (ltOrd. 013~~W06"), which: ''implements Goal 105 of the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan utilizing the tier overlay maps for aU land in unincorporated Monroe
County between Key West and Ocean Ree~ and designating the tier boundaries of Tier 1.
to
EVERGLADES LAW CENTR
PAGE 11/15
PAGE 12
07/07/2005 15:38 8509222679
67/67/2aeS 14:25 5618~45ee4
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
Tiel:' 2, Tier 3. and Tier 3 Special Protection A.reas.H (Final Order DCA06-0R~127 is
attacbed as Exhibit ''t'' and Monroe CQunty Ord. 013-2006 is attaChed as Exh.ib~t "J.n)
a. The foHowing Sheets of the Tier Overlay Maps are inconsistent with the Tier
adoption criteria in Policies 205.1 and 205.2, or otherwise fail to provide a high
enough level of protection for the habitat (m or connected to the relevant plU'()el or
parcels:
1. Sheet 91
2, Sheet 105
3. Sheet 106
4. Sheet 108
5, Sheet J 12
6. Sheet 113
7. Sheet 117-A
8. Sheet 119
9. Sheet 124
10. Sheet 125
11. Sheet 126
12. Sheet 134
13. Sheet l:aS
14, Sheet 131
15. Sheet 139
16. Sheet 141
17. Sheet 142
18. Sheet 145
19. Sheet 146
20. Sheet 147
21. Sheet 148
22. Sheet 1 SO
23. Sheet 151
24, Sheet 152
25. Sheet 155
26. Sheet 156
27. Sheet 250
28. Sheet 25Z
29. Sheet 256
30. Sheet 281
31. Sheet 334
32. Sheet 370
33. Sheet 371
34_ Sheet 387
35. Sheet 390
11
07/87/2006 15:38 8509222579
DCA GENERAL COU1-.,jSEL
PAGE 12/15
07/67/2ijeS 14:25 561e445a64
EVERGLADES LAW CENTR
PAGE 13
36. Sheet 400
37. Sheet 401
33. Sheet 412
39. Sheet 413
40. Sheet 414
41. Sheet 415~1
4:2. Sheet 425
43. Sheet 439
44. Sheet 441
4$. Sheet 450
46. Sheet 467
47. Sheet 468
48. Sheet 482
49. Sheet 507
50. Sheet 516
51. Sheet 538
52. Sheet 546
53. Sheet 540
54, Sheet 548
55. Sheet 549
56. Sheet 553
57. Sheet 575
58. Sheet 579
59. Sheet 581
Cant.lIe Statement9f UJtimi\te Facts Allev.ed
31 . The land development :regulations approved by (he final Orders are inadequate to
protect the tropical hardwood hammock., pine rockland. and transitional wetland communities in
the Keys snd are thus inconsistent with the requirements of Chapter 380, Fla. Stat.
Rules or Stiltutes Petitioners C...uQtenitR(tQ.l.tir~J\ennaJ OJ' M..odjJif;:.atW3:l-of tb.e AecneJI.ts
Prooose.d Aetion .
32. The Final Orders are inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Deve-Iopment as a
whole~ pursuant ro s 380.0552 (7), Fla. Stat.
33. The Fin$.l Orders are jnconsjste.nt with Section 380.0552 (2)(a)~ Fla. Stat.~ because
they fail to establish a land use management system that protects the natural
environment of the Florida Keys.
34. The Finsl Orders. are inconsistent ,,-ith Section 380.0552 (7)(b), Fls.. Sw" beCause
12
07/07/200& 15:38 8509222579
07/a7!2666 14;25 5&18445004
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
EVERGLADES LAW CENTR
PAGE 13/15
PAGE. 14
they fall to protect shore-Hne and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef
fonna.tions, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife. and their habitat.
35. The Final Orders are inconsistent with Section 380.0552 (7)(c)~ Fla. Stat, because
they fail to protect upland resources. tropioal biological communities, freshwater
wetlands, native: tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood munrnocks and
pinelands), dune ridg~s and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat.
36. The Final Orders are incons.istent with s 380.0552 (1)(e), Fla. Stat., because they fail
to limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the
Florida Keys.
37. The Final Orders are inconsistent with 'S 380.0552 (7)(t), Fla. Stat.. be<:ause they fail
to enhance rtatural scenic res01U'ces, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural
environment, and ensure that development is <:ompatible with the unique historic
charaoter of the Florida Keys.
38, The Final Orders are incoMistent with s 380.0552 (7)(8), Fla. Stat., beoause they faU
to protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
39. The Final Orders are inconsistent ~ith g 380.0552 (7)(h), PIa. Stat., because they fail
to protect the value, efficiency. cost.effectiven~s, and amortized life of existing and
proposed major public investments, including Pederal parks) vvildlife refuges. and
marine sanctuaries; and State parks, reoreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other
publicly owned properties.
40. The Final Ordm are inconsistent with s 380,0552 (7)(0, Fla. Stat.. because they fail
to limit the adverse impacts of public investmMts on the environmental resources of
the Florida Keys.
41: The Final Orders are inconsistent with $ 380.0552 (1)(1), Fla. Stat., because they fail
to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the F1Qrida Keys.and
maintain the florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
13
07/07/2006 15:38 8509222579
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
PAGE 14/15
e7/67f2006 14:25 5618445064
EVERGI-ADES LAW CENTR
PAGE: 15
Relief Sou2bt by tbe Petitiotlers
WHERBFORE1 it is respectfully requested that the Division of Adm.inis:t:r.)tiv~ Hearings
conduot a formal administratl ve . hearing on the issues raised in this Petition and enter a Final
Order determining the Final Orders to bl(l invalid for the reasons stated. above.
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of July, 2006.
~~
Florida Bar No. 592978
Everglades Law Center, Inc.
Shepard Broad Law Cet1ter
Nova Southeastern University
:3305 CQllege Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314
Te)ephone~ (954) 262~ 6140
Facsimile: (954) 262~3992
Lisa Interlandi, Esq,
Florida BarNo. 146048
Bverglades Law Center
330 U.S. Highway 1. Suite 3
Lake Park, FL 33403
Telephone: (561) 844-5222
Facsimile: (561) 844-5004
CERTIFICA TF;. OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the fQ(egQmg has been sent by US Mail on
this 7tb day of July, 2006 to the following:
Honorable Charles McCoy
Mayor of Monroe County
500 Whitehead Street~ Suite 102
Key West, Florida 33040
14
07/07/2006 15:38 8509222679
~71G7/2ee6 14:25 5618445864
............._....."""'....~.....'t___ .._..
Danny L. Kolhage
Clett to the Board of County C.ommissioners
500 Whitehead Street
Key West.l'1orida 33040
kef JoulWli
Acting Director
Planning and Environmental Resom'Ces
2798 Overseas Highway~ Suite 400
Maratho~ Flo leta 33050
~
. '
DCA GENERAL COUNSEL
PAGE 15/15
EVERGLADES LAW CENTR
PAGE l G
];