Loading...
Item Q15BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: August 16. 2006 Division: Growth. Management Bulk Item: Yes No X Department. Planning and Env, Resources Staff Contact Person: Alexander Adams AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public bearing to consider a request for Administrative Relief from Richard Riehl for Block 2, Lot 5, South Creels Village Subdivision, Key [largo, Real Estate Number 00466660-000000, ITEM BACKGROUND: A building permit was applied for on June 20, 2001 and a ROGO application was submitted on January 14, 2002. The applicant applied for administrative relief on April 11. 2006 and is within the allowable time frame to be eligible for administrative relief under Section 9.5- 122.2(f) of the Monroe County Code. Staff recommends that administrative relief be granted in the form of 1 (one) ROGO dwelling unit allocation award. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: N/A CONT ACTIAGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS- Approval. TOTAL COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes NIA No COST TO COUNTY: NIA SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year APPROVED BY: County Atty. X OMB/Purchasing N/A Risk Management NIA DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Ty ymroski, Growth Management Director DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM 9 RESOLUTION NO. —2006 A RESOLUTION BY THE MON�ROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF MADE BY RICHARD C. RIEHL ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS :LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SOUTH CREEK VILLAGE, KEY LARGO, RE 00466660.000000. THE RELIEF IS IN THE FORM OF ONE (1) DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATION. WHEREAS, Richard C. Riehl submitted an application for administrative relief under Sec. 9.5-122(f) of the Monroe County Land Development .Regulations, and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law; 1. Richard C. Rich] application for administrative relief is for Lot 5, Block 2, South Creek Village. RE#00466660.000000. 2. The application has been in the ROGO system for at least four (4) consecutive years. 3. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has the authority to grant administrative relief under Section. 9.5-122(f)(6) and may grant the applicant a building allocation, offer to purchase the property at fair market value, or provide such other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. 4. The lot is not identified as being in the Conservation and Native Area (CNA), received no negative environmental points and (I ) one positive environmental point. 5. .Board of County Commissioners Resolution 4223-2004 directs staff to identify small parcels with indigenous hainniock or pinelands. 6. The subject property is not in an area of indigenous hammock or pinelands. 7. Policy 101.6.5 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan provides criteria to be used for determining lands that are appropriate for acquisition and the criteria includes the environmental sensitivity of the vegetative habitat on the lot. 8. The subject property is zoned Improved Subdivision (IS), and is located in the Dime Grove Estates, Section 41 Subdivision and is not environmentally sensitive,. 9. The applicant applied for administrative relief on April 11, 200E-1 under Section 9.5-1.22.2(f) of the Monroe County Code and Policy 101.61 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 10. Section 9.5-1.22.2(f) of the Monroe County Code provides a mechanism whereby an applicant who has not received an allocation award in ROGO may apply to the Board of County Commissioners for administrative relief. �oDaatSrRail�EItt [1Fr ItESC?LUTION 'age I of2 Ririe€- RE900466660 ©00000 1 1. The Applicant has been in the ROGO system for three of the last four annual allocation periods and therefore qualifies for administrative relief. 11 The property does not qualify under criteria established by Resolution #223-2004 for purchase by the Monroe County Land Authority of stall parcels with indigenous hammock and pinelands. NOW THEREFORE, 3E IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: Administrative relief is granted to Richard C. Riehl., for Block 2, Lot 5, South Creek Village, Key Largo, in the form of a dwelling unit allocation award, subject to the following conditions: 1. The tinning of the issuance of the permit shall be in accordance with the annual munber of residential allocations defined by Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Year 2010. Comprehensive Plan and as required by Section 9.5-122.2(f) of the Monroe County Code; and 2. The allocation award shall be taken out of the next quarterly allocation which occurs on October 13, 2006 or next available allocation period, and 3. The assignment of a nutrient reduction credit shall be required prior to issuance of the permit. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida at a regular meeting held on the day of 2006. Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy Mayor Pro Teen, Dixie Spehar Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner Commissioner Glenn Patton BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY (SEAL) Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCov A"1"TEST; DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK S __ COUNTY DEPUTY CLERK F Y-1 ��AY��' Attorney � ADMINISTRATIVERELiF,r RESOLU ON Page 2ofZ �Lii 1 ii— REP 00966660-000000 Planning Department 2799 Overseas Highway Suite 410 Marathon, Florida 33050 Voice: (305) 289-2500 FAX: (305) 289-2536 County of'Monroe Board of County Commissioners Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy. Dist. 3 Mayor Pro Tem, Dixie Speltar, Dist. i Comm. George Neugent, Dist. 2 C01mi1. . Dist. 4 Comm. Cif nn Pattoii, Dist. 5 We strive to be caring, professional and fair fro: Board of County Commissioners From: Ty Syriroski, Growth Management .Director Date: July 25, 2006 Subject: Mr. Richard Riehl, Administrative Relief Request RE # 00466660-000000 1. BACKGROUND The applicant is eligible for Administrative Relief having complied with all requirements of the ROGO dwelling unit allocation system and having been considered. in at least three of the last four consecutive annual allocation periods andhaving submitted their application for Administrative Relief no earlier than the third annual allocation period and no later than ninety (90) days following the close of the fourth allocation period. Date Entered ROGO: January 14, 2002 Date Entered Administrative Relief: April 11, 2006 The subject lot received no negative points under Section 9.5-1.22.3 of the Land Development Regulations, and is not identified as being in the Conservation and Natural Areas (CNA). ROGO Score: 22 Planning., 14 • Pts: (+I0) infill, (+4) perseverance Building: 7 • Pts: (+1) X bone, (+4) Water/Energy Conservation, (+3) Structural Integrity Environmental: 1 Pts: (+1) Group 1, Disturbed Scarified 11, CURRENT CONDITIONS Location: Block 2, Lot 5 South Creek Village Key Largo Owner: Mr. Richard Riehl Zoning: Improved Subdivision Masonry (ISM) FLUM.- Residential Medium (RM) Proposed Tier: III 2005 Taxable Value: 20,000 Purchase Price in April of 2006: $17,500.00 Aj)m1�1sTRA'r1VT, Ru-mr STM: F R.u'ORT Page 1 of 2 Rrra L, Ft�ft' 0€1-466660-0000€ 0 III. LEGAL ELIGIBILITY AND OPTIONS Eligibility for Administrative Relief Options: Section 9.5-122.2(f) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations and Policy 101.6.1 or the 2010 Comprehensive Plan provides a mechanism whereby an application which has not received an allocation award in ROGO may apply to the Board of County Commissioners for Administrative Relief. The applicant is eligible for Administrative Relief having complied with all requirements of the dwelling unit allocation system and having been considered in at least three of the last four consecutive annual allocation periods and having submitted their application for Administrative Relief no earlier than the third annual allocation period. and no later than ninety (90) days following the close of the fourth allocation period.. Relief Options under Administrative Relief: The remedies available to an application for Administrative Relief pursuant to Section 9.5-122.2(f)(6) include issuance of one :ROGO allocation awarded, just compensation by purchase of the property, or such other relief as may be necessary or appropriate. The subject property does not contain sensitive environmental features or any significant habitat for endangered or threatened species. It therefore does not meet the criteria established under the existing Policy 101.6.6 and Policy 102.4.2, or the proposed Policy 101.6.5 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan for the purchase of property under Administrative Relief. The applicant has requested administrative relief in the form of a granting of I (one) ROGO allocation and has not expressed a desire to sell the property to the County as provided for under policy 101.6.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners find that the applicant has met the criteria and. qualifies for Administrative Relief. It is further recommended that a Resolution be prepared that establishes this relief awarding one ROGO allocation in the next quarterly ROGO allocation period. which closes October 13, 2006, or the next available allocation , , DMPNTSTR TMr , RLiix�17 STAFF REPORT Page 2 of 2 Rir,Fa- hi' # 00466660-000000 TO 112 nlal w acre w r�r TCH TO 114 c F INOk#STRiµ RV RECAEATIOhI�L vENKY.£ Th>E kA]E IwAY'S ARE Hp7 1J1VEY ACQl�A'tE. � LVi::Fl of piSYi1K'T k(i<ai�ARk"] N AAEAA wFERE VEGE'TATtgH CNITICAL COUNTY C04CERN SS w IMPR(]VEA 91.A01VtS€ON MILITARY FACILITIES %' ,+ 9[..E UikAN COMw1E7lCIAi WkAN Rf]tCQtT3f1AIX NATE] Sh+CXA.Ci kE VEAll lfk5 kY THE s1OlR CC1lINTY AIC DTFE# i110H DISTRICTS Mi MARITMA Im"TRIIES MA€HLAM0 NATIVE AREA 91L 17 9L! URAAH AESIO@JT€AL L€MfTEO SPARSELY aEi"TiEO A Pn`pq ' OR €EAT3i* WS7M WSpEC7 Tn ] 1 'f YME NAP. THE EtgYE@€ CF AECCMiO AF4 COL AREA iK F191IOM 3aECIA1 DISTRtCTs MN W l+INEU ttSE NATIVE ANEA LC UIR t111kAM CO1l+�RCIAL l♦Ik/Nl REaInEHTt,u. Oxe BE a*W" SL p' THY . D9&-::;N V=S OR I[FO1lMTIOtt Ctjl,pKim ST CTiIms IM ICH HAVE m IAL FIaHINR vKLAOiE :dii R*R,Q MA t7$ OFFaHORE ALAND AREA] Low IXfAH 1�alOENTlAL IAO iu 80&* 751E a4CC;FORATEU N"TO TwsE MAPS, pR pM1O MO REFu+]E AREA _ z .._ • .. pdr _T L 411 u �� ; 41- off � I I r� Ml ,p t Le 'r 11 � oe For, I TO: Board of County Commissioners { THROUGH: Aref Joulani. Director of Planning FROM: Heather Beckmann, Senior Planner RE: Administrative Relief, August 2006 BOCC Meeting DATE: .August 1, 2006 I BACKGROUND "There are, a total of 16 administrative relief applications from the Upper Keys subarea to be heard at this BOCC meeting. All the applications are located in Tier III lands and none are environmentally sensitive. Pursuant to 9.5-122.2 (6) b, the 16 administrative relief applications have been primarily ranked based on their overall score and secondarily ranked based on their date and time of submittal into ROGO. This information is included in the following table. The total overall scores for each application ranges from 16 to 22. There were two () applications with a score of 22, ten (10) applications with a score of 21, three (3) applications with a score of 20 and one (1) application with a score of 16, Each Lot has an overall environmental score of plus one ( 1) from the Biologist which means that the properties are disturbedi`scarified. H ANALYSIS The amount of available ROGO allocations for the Lipper Keys subarea for Quarter 1 Year 15 is twelve (12). This is the first time that there have been more administrative relief applications than available ROGO allocations. If all twelve (12) allocations are granted for administrative relief, then there will be no available allocations for those awaiting a ROGO allocation in the next Quarter. Pursuant to Section 9.5-122.2, the Board has the option to take any or a combination of the following actions in regards to administrative, relief: P:tNon Geo`tAdmiki relief BOCC 20060819.doe Page t of 4 a) Grant the applicant an allocation award for all or a number of dwelling units requested in the next succeeding; quarterly allocation period or extended pro rata over several succeeding quarterly allocation periods. b) Offer to purchase the property at its fair market value. c) Suggest such other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. OPTION ONE Background If the Board chooses the first option, then the decision to be made is if all or a portion of administrative relief applications will be granted. Twelve (1.2) of the 16 are ranked between 22 and 21 points, with all of those ranked 21 included in the twelve (12). Therefore, all of those scored between 22 and 21 could receive an allocation out of the next quarter. As a comparison, those issued ROGO allocations in the upper keys during the last year (not due to administrative relief) have received a minimum score of 23, with the highest at 25. The majority of those with a score of 23 have been denied an allocation. As for administrative relief allocations for the past year in the upper keys, those issued an allocation had. received a minimum score of 20 and a maximum score of 23. To date, six (6) people have applied for and are eligible for administrative relief during the next allocation period. Analysis Directive is given in the Comp Plan Policy Document with regards to the allocation of building; permits or the offer to purchase the property. Pursuant to Policy 10.6.1, Monroe County shall, upon a property owner's request, purchase property for fair market value or permit the minimum reasonable economic use of the property if the owner meets the following; conditions: 1. they have been denied an allocation award for four (4) successive years in the Pen -nit Allocation system; and 2. their proposed development meets all applicable county, state, and federal regulations; and 3. their allocation application has not been withdrawn; arid. 4. they have complied with all the requirements of the Permit Allocation System; and 5. they follow procedure for administrative relief contained in the Dwelling Unit Allocation Ordinance. Pa'Non Geo�.Admin relief BOCC 20060419.doc Page 2 of As used in this Policy, "minimum reasonable economic use" shall mean, as applied to any residentially zoned lot of record which was buildable immediately prior to the effective date of the Plan, no less than a single family residence. In addition, Policy 101.6.5 states that the County shall annually compile a list prioritizing the lands requested for County acquisition due to the Pen -nit Allocation System. The lands of the property owners who meet the criteria in Policy 101.6.5 shall be ranked according to: the environmental sensitivity of the vegetative habitat, marine resources, and impact to the qualify of near shore waters as specified by the ranking in the Environmental Design Criteria section of the Land Development Regulations; 2. whether the property is in. known, probable, and/or potential habitat for one or more threatened and/or endangered. species, as indicated on the most recent Protection Animal Maps; and whether development on the property will adversely impact successful protection and recovery of threatened or endangered species, such as development on Big Pine Key, No Name Key, Ohio Key, and North Key Largo. Those lands considered most sensitive according to the combination of (1), (2), and (3) above and shall be ranked as the highest priority for acquisition. Policy 101.6.6 continues by stating that when considering the acquisition of lands denied building permit allocations through the Permit Allocation System, Monroe County shall base the acquisition decision upon the environmental sensitivity ranking specified in Policy 101.6.5. Under this option, the properties have met the conditions as outlined in Policy 101.6.1 and the properties would not be ranked as the highest priority for acquisition. Each parcel received the same environmental ranking of +1 for being disturbed/scarified. Therefore, the sixteen (16) applications meet the criteria for the granting of an allocation rather than the purchase due to environmental sensitivity. OPTION Ti1'O If the Board chooses the second option of offering to purchase the property at its fair market value, the following Goals and Policies from the Comp Plan are applicable: Analysis Pursuant to Policy 401.6.1, "fair market value" shall be an amount no less than ad valorem valuation in the Monroe County Real Property Tax Roll for the year 1992. The source of such funding for the "fair Market value" is directed by Policy 101.6.2 which states that by the fiscal year of 1998, the Monroe County Land Authority shall P:\Non Geo?Admin relief t30CC 20060819.doc Page 3 of dedicate a minimum of 35 percent of its annual budget each year for the purpose of acquiring land from qualified property owners as defined by Policy 101.6.1. In addition, the County should have identified by January 4, 1998 potential funding sources and seek funding from state, federal, and /or private sources to be used for acquisition of land from qualified property owners as defined by Policy 101.6.1. OPTION THREE Background The third option has not been practiced by the Board in the past and allows for the suggestion of such other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. Staff could not locate any applicable Policies in the Code in regards to this option with the exception of those Policies that apply to the Tier System. Analysis Under the proposed Tier system, all 16 lots are located in Tier III. According to the Comp Plan., the following policies apply: • Goal 105 of the Monroe County Policy Document and Policy 105.2.3 states that Tier III lands should be the County's first priority for affordable housing. • The preferred method for acquisition of vacant platted lots shall be fee simple purchase donation, or dedication or the retirement of development rights through transfer of development rights or similar mechanisms pursuant to Policy 105.2.9. • Pursuant to 105.2.7, the County shall implement a limited land acquisition program. As stated, the Tiers have not been adopted. However, this may be an option the Board chooses to apply in the future. As an overview and according to the Monroe County Tier Distribution TMap Overlay Statistics dated March 2006, there are 6,001 Tier 1, 1,396 Tier II (Big Pine), 5,489 Tier III and 393 SPA private vacant lots for a total of 13,278. III RECOMENDATION Pursuant to Policies 101.6.1, 101.6.5 and 101.6.6, Staff has recommended that all the administrative relief applications be granted a relief in the form of an allocation award out of Quarter I Year 15 or the next available allocation period. Again, the amount of available allocations for the Upper Keys subarea for Quarter I Year 15 is twelve (12). The first 12 to be awarded will be based on highest score and submittal date and time. The remaining four (4) administrative relief allocations are recommended to come out of the next available allocation quarter (Quarter 2 Year 15 or Later). P:`,.Non Geo'Adrnin relief BOCC 2006081.9.doe Page 4 of 0 W C M CJ CL C1. C� C a) �L ry L{) C= r Co 13) M En Ln r O ' C- tll d �7 Q � 0 E Ql "C7 O U C C? GsC 00 C)C)C)00a0aC)O. 0 C) Q C3 .CD O C3 0 0 0.. C7 cS m m o ca U) 6 L6 6 o 0 ' C)C7C>rrrg0CNC t-CDC7 C� 0 Cab ors 03 CO V a u) CO N N r- . : ! . c5 04 �= r'Rt (3 r= C) rl 0 ry LO u> r 0 N m� co r- rs Q) FF3 i kf3 V- a tf3 ti �!3 EFt3 6ct V c.� d (D caC)CD0.C>0 oc�C�CacsC� ;. n Ca C) ca 0 Cs c) 0 0 Ca 0 a- Ci Q.C�C9V C) Ci r Ca aC)CiC#00C7Ci. 0 0 0 C.) 0 Ca Co m.. Ca C9io :0'.. lx cC Ca C� C> C� 0 Cr C) 0 10 m r s^ N 0 QO r Iw -7' U-) tom- (0 N � ' 61'al61)0N 6r6156q(ad"C't€sZ IL u�) c> Cs Ca 'g za CS) Cs C? C C3 C Ci3 Ca C3). . Cc > 0 a Ct � Us; Cll � m w CL €iT � � p J -j E u.i .' (,� V N N N N CN CV 04 CAI :CNJ Cti CV O0 CY) CCi CD (D rD co to CD (0 co CC3 CCR � r^ C5 � p F 0) `Ct" Nr It .I. d" "T V Cq Iq gyp- IT I�r ?R1 C @ (II i— N < < a. t3-. C1 <C m 8- fi fi L CV a? r M N © N .C'J N N C-I N N CqC 4 C€J � 'CS tom.) � .. S CL CL a- M CL Q Cif M � C } C) C) @3 Q) U > Co CI) C � "2 £? C p 'tt w or E C13 c o ui o o all 0 Z 5 m C�� w M N N r (Z7 r I'- r M to r-- C!i r r- Cq CN u) 0') d" (`, M ("' iy3 C\( N Ca CY C) CY C) C� C7 r C3 N C�3 s [ k 3 d 1 i i € € C £i C`�? C'7 C'�i Cri M C� CTi A L'' 3 II) r N r N N N r N N N 04 N d C) C) C] C) C) C) © 0 C C] CC) NCOerLOCOr-00MC' N:n.I W LO iw m T (D m a) 0 z