The URL can be used to link to this page

Item M3 Page 1 of3 douville Cc: "dCluville" <douville@bellsouth.net> <Neugent-george@monroecounty-fl.gov>: <Digennaro-Mario@monroecounty-fl.gov>; <McCoy- sonny@monroecounty-fl.gov>; <Murphy-Sylvia@monroecounty-fl.gov>; <Spehar- Dixie@Monroecounty-fl.gov>; <KopeIDave@monroecounty-fl.gov>; <jreynolds@fkaa.com> <wood-liz@monroecounty-fl.gov>; <twalker@fkaa.com>; <dhubbs@fkaa.com>; <rshimokubo@fkaa.com>; <clarke-judith@monroecounty-fl.gov>; <schieffele- Lisa@monroecounty-fl.gov> Monday, May 12, 20087:00 AM Wllstewater steplsteg system From: To: Sent: Subject: To: Commissioner George Nugent & Fellow Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Mr. Dave Koppel, Monroe County Engineer & Fellow Monroe County Engineers Mr. Jim R"ynolds, Executive Director, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) From: The Homeowners of No Name Key Listed Below (Each of who were contacted by phone andlor E-mail and wanted to sign-on to this letter.) Date: II May 2008 Re: STEP/Sn,G Wastewater Technology and No Name Key, Florida We, the following homeowners of No Name Key would like to thank Monroe County and FKAA for working with Tom Sinclairand us to meet the 2010 Wastewater Standards with the most cost effective system and for their commitment to the STEP/STEG technology. STEP/STEG is an EPA approved system in Florida. As just one example, a STEP/STEG system is servicing approximately 20,000 homes in Pahn Coast, Florida, and has been operating for approximately twenty years. Its long-term low maintenance costs and high reliability can be easily confirmed. However, some flexibility in FKAA's standard procedures would be essential to install this EPA approved system cost effectively in the Keys. It should be noted that using this system in other areas of the Florida Keys would substantially stretch the limited dollars available for wast,ewater treatment. I. Atwell, Fronk & Kimi 2137 Bahia Shores Road No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-3495 arknarf@cs.com arknarf@bellsouth.net 2. Barber, Rob & Chris 1934 No Name Drive No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-1401 ffnowher@bellsouth.net 3. Brouillett<:, Jason 1843 Bahia Shores Road No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-.0283 Troa9@ao1.com 4. Brouillett<" Wayne & Christie 2107 Bahia Shores Road, NNK 328 Kings Crest Lane ~.!J 6/15/2008 Pelham, AL 35124 wbrou@uab,edu Page I of3 5, Daniels, Faye 20 Spanisb Channel Drive No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-0589 6, Douville, Hallett & Linda 32340 Cat Lane No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-2055 Douv ille@bellsouth,net 7, Dry, Larry & Wanda 1868 No Name Drive No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-1953 drdrytn@aoLcom wonding@aoLcom 8, Gato, Jeannette 1909 Babia Shores Road No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 864-0945 Jfgato@msn,com 9, Harlacher, Toni & Liz 1921 Babia Shores Road No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-0644 (570) 424-737 twoturtlestandl@bellsouth,com 10, Press, Michael & Ann Spanish Channel Drive No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-7550 (321) 213-2654 michaelpn:ss@hotmail,com II, Putney, Mick & Alicia 2150 No Name Drive No Name Key, FL (305) 872-8888 micalnnk~~aol.com 12. Scanlon, Bob & Jan 1845 No Name Drive No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-8845 thescalllons@hotmail.com Page 2 of3 13. Sinclair, J,mie & Tom 2024 No Name Drive No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-8830 Janie@wastewatersystems.com 14. Wernsen, Hans & Corry 1910 No Name Drive No Name Key, FL 33043 Page 2 of3 6/15/2008 Page 3 of3 (305) 872-3141 hamericor@aol.com 15. Witter, Tom & Susan 2046 Bahia Shores Road No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 515-2082 (607) 967-8028 SHW42@aol.com 16. Zeman, Larry 1933 Bahia Shores Road No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-1173 Thank you again. Please feel free to contact me if! can be of any further help in this matter. Sincerely, //Hallet Douville// Hallett Douville (305) 872-2055 DouviIJe@bellsouth.net cc: Ms. Judith Clarke, Assistant County Engineer County Ms. Lisa S,chieffeJe, Senior Engineer, Wastewater County Ms. Elizabeth Wood, Engineer, Wastewater, Monroe County Mr. Tom Walker, Department Director of Engineering, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Mr. Donald Hubbs, Assistant Director of Engineering, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Mr. Ray Shirnokubo, Engineer, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Page 3 00 6/15/2008 . ! \....t. (\ , .. - I '-' /1< . ~~ Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning Commission Robert Will, Planner September 19, 2001 REVISED Coastal Barrier Resources SystBm Overtay District ~--r~~""-.. ~:r-"_'.~1. L'~ ~~" ~.. .~.. ""$.~l. ,. !. '\ .~. .>' .,._"".. .....- STAFF REPORT I. Background The Coastal Barrier Resources Ad (CBRA) of 1982 established the Coastal Sarrier Resources System (CaRS) to restrict the federally subsidized development of a)Bsta1 barrier areas. In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Improvement Ad. (CBIA). The CBIA tripled the size of the System El$tablishf3d by the CBRA. The CBIA also prohibits the issuance of new Federal flood insurance within "otherwise protected areas" on buildings cOnstructed after November 16, 1991, unless the building is used in a manner consistent " with the purpose for whi.ch the area.is protected. By restricting Federal expenditures and financial. assistance which have the effect of encouraging development of coastal barriers, Congress aimed to minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources associated with coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Specifically prohibited under the &taMe is the "construction or. purchase of any structure, appurtenance, facility, or related infrastructure" 16 U.S.C. 3504(a)(1). Areas designated as units in the Coastal Barrier Resources System are primarily undeveloped areas including weUands, offshore islands, ridge hammock, dunes, and similar ecosystems. These areas are highly susceptible tidal fluctuation and serve asa buffer for upland areas against severe storm events. Additionally, units in the CBRS contain a multitude of wildlife and fish habitats. Monroe County has 15 designated units of the CBRS which can be found listed in table 3.21 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technjcal Document and illustrated on the Existing Land Use Maps of the Comprehensive Plan Map Atlas. Consistent with the intent behind the CBRA and CBIA, Objective 102.8 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states: "Monroe County shall take actions to discourage private development in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System [9J-5.006(3)(b)4]." Supporting Objective 102.8 of The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan are Policies 102.8.1 through 102.8.5, which include: assigning negative points in the ROGO system to development locatecl in a CBRS unit, the \\GM[)()()59Ipub$\Ping\Working Folders\wiII-robelflCBRS\CBRS Slaffi'epcxtREVlSED.doc Page 1 of3 ..>' 0" .~ .. it , . .1 \~ ) prohibition of constructing new roads on or to units within the CBRS, and discouraging the extension of public facilities and services. Policy 102.8.5 states: "Upon adoption of tfflJ ComptelJensivePlan, Monroe County shall initi.,. t/Ifforts to d~U"", the ~n offacillfjes and setvices provided by tfflJ Florida Ke)'$ AquecIrR:t A,.,rhority and private providers of electricity and telephone services to CBRSunits. " rc>n' current Flood InsLl~nce Rate Maps published for the National Flood Insurance Program by the Feeleral Emerg~cy Man~ Agency, there'are five developed residential areas (five structures or, k;!$lil.'. per acre) and one commercial area that fall within the CBRS \ designation. The developed areas that are within designlited CBRS units are: "--" "Upon adoption of the Comp~ive Plan, Monroe County shall initiate efforts to d"lScou~ tmJ extension of facilities and services provided by the Florida Keys Aqueduct A,.,rhority and private providers of elKtricity and telephone services to CBRS units." In addition to the above stated policy specifically regarding extension of facilities to CBRS units, the following Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Year 2010 Plan support the restriction on the development of and access to units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System: . Goal 209 and Objective 209.3; . Objective 215.2, Policy 215.2.1 and Policy 215.2.3; . Objective 1301.7 and Policy 1301.7.12. \\GM~Working FokIersIwiII-robBRSlCBRS Sboffiqluo1REVlSED.doc Page 2 of 3 ", ~~'~5 a.. cJ.~<A~ -Io-<-4-,~hlll poLlC':-U <I "6:jfS/~J -4 The Planning Department proposes the addition of Section 9.5-258 to the Monroe County Land Development REl!1ulations (LORs).. Thls section establishes a Use Overlay for areas designated as CRRS units. This Use Over18y can be placed on any new or existing zoning district as appropriate. ~ III. PropoiMld Text Upon further research, minor cI111~ to .thestl.l1f ~port and proposed text have been made since approval by the DeveIop1TlElnt Review Committee. Changes include: 1) Additional backg!'O\.lncl research in the report to further illustrate consistency with the Year ?(l19PI~ri.and 2) Further defining.w!lilttype of public services are to be effected by this overlay. The following new text shall be added to the Monroe County Land Development R . ns: tal Bllrrier Resources System Over18y District Pu~' ThePLl~oftheco.tal Barrier Resources System Overlay District . .' Implement. pQli~ of the cpmp~hensive plan by prohibiting the extension a expansion. ~= types pi' PllQl1C utiliti$s]o or through lands designated . the CO.f'stal Bajier esources System. . dV ( Application, TI'M;)~I Bllrrier . s System Overlay District shall be overla' on all ~s, eXceptfc!J'~ Island Key, within federally designated boundaries of a C I Barrier .Resou~Sy~m Unit on current Flood Insurance Rate Maps approved by eFe<feraIEmergen.cy~.~~~ent Agency, which are hereby adopted by reference a declared part of this Ch..~. Within this overlay district, the transmission and/or Ilectionlines of thefollowins;J~ ofPul:)licutjlitjes shall be prohibited from extension or .. xpansion: ce!llral wastewater~entcollectipn systems; potable water; electricity; and telephPl1e and Cable, This prphibjtiOn sl1a11npt p~ude the maintenance and upgrading of existing pUblic utilities in pla.9I! pnthe effective date of this ordinance and shall not apply to . . wastewater nutrient reduction cluster systems. ~ ...- )\\1 t;,}o~~'" \P \" e,,+v ~ ~7 .'.y v.'t ; ~ ~ ~ ; ~~~<r ,/.r )~ ~. ,\~ o\- . e'7 I~V ,,\VI ~ IY,)- . ~ 0.. 'I.:r . 0-(.\ I.Y .~<Y if~'" \"~.. <)''1- ~~ ~\~.\:tO ,?>f' iY"'.."~ . c} 0 .rx' .N'e.- ~.~, . ,I-- ~ ,,>-' ()- OJ ,\-0 I l (, SV 'r "\1oY.,y v r, { ,,-rJ'Ie,) ~. <:> f>'V Jv" (IV nn- < C ' . ~ ~ '\V ~ ~ Ar-.'r ,..- L!'().., ~\ . ... r\ . 'V. /. ':)' CD . '7./' ,(... /-1' . .. tJ. \-'- V ~ 'j). .\', . r', J C ,,' "1':: , ~\"'-\ '-7'~ \ \; . (r..:J' ~ ~. \ @'--- <?-OJ - ::::; \\GMD0059lpub$lPlaming\1IIIorlting FoIders\wil-robert\CBRS\CBRS Sboffi""",lREVlSED.doc -. ---- 0(\ 'Re~ G'lern ph crY\.- -Arr s +0 dO >tl~~ p~~ ~ Page 3 of3 ~.711:{ tt' \ ~ () ~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. P 61-01 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A REQUEST OF THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO AMEND THE MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BY ADDING SECTION 9.5-258 TO ESTABLISH A NEW LAND USE OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT WILL PROHffiIT THE EXTENSION OR EXPANSION OF TRANSMISSION AND/OR COLLECTION LINES OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WITHIN THE NEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT COLLECTION SYSTEMS, POTABLE WATER, ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE, AND CABLE. THIS PROHffiITION SHALL NOT PRECLUDE THE MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADING OF EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO WASTEWATER NUTRIENT REDUCTION CLUSTER SYSTEMS. WHEREAS, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 established the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) to restrict the federal1y subsidized development of coastal barrier areas and specifically prohibited the "construction or purchase of any structure, appurtenance, facility, or related infrastructure" 16 U.S.C. 3504(a)(I) in said areas; and ~ WHEREAS, Momoe County has 15 designated units of the CBRS which can be found listed in table 3.21 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document and illustrated on the Existing Land Use Maps of the Comprehensive Plan Map Atlas; and WHEREAS, Objective 102.8 ofMomoe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states: "Momoe County shall take actions to discourage private development in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System [9J-5.oo6(3)(b)4]"; and WHEREAS, Policy 102.8.5 of Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states: "Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall initiate efforts to discourage the extension of facilities and services provided by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and private providers of electricity and telephone services to CBRS units"; and WHEREAS, Current Flood Insurance Rate Maps published for the National Flood Insurance Program by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, indicates there lIIre five developed residential areas (with five structures or less per acre) and one commercial area that fall within the CBRS designation; and \.... WHEREAS, on Thursday, April 19, 2001 the Growth Management Staff was directed by the Board of County Commissioners to create an overlay district prohibiting the extension of public utilities to certain areas of the county; and Page I of3 lnitials~ F:IPlanninglPlanniog Commission Coordinatorl W orkiog FolderlCbambers-JudyltxlagDRlP6l-O I.doe '-' WHEREAS, the Development Review Committee on August 14,2001 reviewed the legal authority and the proposed text, and recommended approval of the proposed text; and WHEREAS, during a regular meeting held on September 26, 2001, the Momoe County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed text; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission was presented with the following information, which by reference is hereby incorporated as part of the record of said hearing: J. The staff report prepared on September 19, 2001 by Robert Will, Planner. 2. Proposed changes to the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. 3. The sworn testimony of the Growth Management Staff. 4. Comments by the public; '-' NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED by the Planning Commission of Monroe County, Florida, that the preceding findings of fact support its decision to recommend APPROVAL to the Board of County Commissioners of the addition to the text of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations, Section 9.5-258 "Coastal Barrier Resources System Overlay District" as follows: 9.5-258 Coastal Barrier Resources System Overlay District (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Coastal Barrier Resources System Overlay District is to implement the policies of the comprehensive plan by prohibiting the extension and expansion, of specific types of public utilities to or through lands designated as a unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. (b) Application. The Coastal Barrier Resources System Overlay District shall be overlaid on all areas, except for Stock Island, within federally designated boundaries of a Coastal Barrier Resources System Unit on current Flood Insurance Rate Maps approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which are hereby adopted by reference and declared part of this chapter. Within this overlay district, the transmission and/or collection lines of the following types of public utilities shall be prohibited from extension or expansion: central wastewater treatment collection systems; potable water; electricity; and telephone and cable. This prohibition shall not preclude the maintenance and upgrading of existing public utilities in place on the effective date of this ordinance and shall not apply to wastewater nutrient reduction cluster systems. Page 2 00 W~~ ~) 108' w/l~ '- F:IPlanninglPlanning Commission Coordinatot\W orking Folder\Cbambers-Judy\txtagDRIP61-0 I.doc \.. ~ \.. PASSED AND ADOPTED By the Planning Commission of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of September 2001. Chair David C. Ritz Vice Chair Denise Werling Commissioner P. Morgan Hill Commissioner Jerry Coleman Commissioner Alicia Putney absent YES YES YES YES PLANNING COMMISSION OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY ~LSuf!a:fJ Sigued this JJ!J day Of~, 2001 BY '. 0ftIce Page 3 00 Initials F:IPlaoningIPlanning Commission Coordinatorl Working FolderlChamhers-Judy\txtagDRIP61-01.doc The Solar Community of No Name Key 1934 No Name Drive No Name Key, Florida 33043 --------------------------------- 06/18/2008 BOCC Regular Meeting Marathon, Florida Agenda Item M-3: "Approval to direct staff to amend Section 9.5-268 Coastal Barrier Resources System Overlay District of the Monroe County Code to eliminate the prohibition of the establishment of central wastewater treatment collection systems and utilities for No Name Key in accordance with previously approved BOCC direction to include No Name Key within the central sanitary wastewater system plan for the Lower Keys Regional Service Area. Dear Mayor DiGennaro and Fellow Board of County Commissioners: The Solar Community of No Name Key, formerly known as the No Name Key Property Owners Against Commerdal Power, was founded in 1995 in response to efforts to extend commercial electricity to No Name Key. Our current membership, which is listed below, represents 15 of the 43 homes on No Name Key. Some of the remaining households remain neutral on the issue. We fought, along side of Monroe County, with all parties expending an incredible amount of time, energy and money to keep No Name Key from loosing what makes it distinct from every other island in the Florida Keys. Below is an overview of the Electrification of No Name Key battle from 1996 to 2003. Three of you, Mayor Pro Tern McCoy, Commissioner George Neugent and Commissioner Spehar, helped in our efforts to have the existing regulations and policies upheld. Monroe County's has maintained a consistent position on the issue of extending commercial power to No Name Key since 1996 and we thank you. Our core beliefs and the County's historical position is eloquently stated in portions of the Planning Commission Resolution P17-99 Conclusions of Law: "All of the itppellants [Taxpayers for the Electrification of No Name Key] moved to No Name Key with the knowledge that commercially provided electricity was not available. These property owners have the ability to move elsewhere in the Florida Keys in order to have such a service provided to them. In contrast, other No Name Key property owners moved to the island expr'essly because of the lifestyle that is offered to them there, including the fact that the character of the island is unique, in part due to the lack of commercial power and is a special endave in the Florida Keys that provides a unique quality of life than must be nurtured, protected and prolonged." There is no justification for linking the issue of sewage to electrification in light of the fact the STEP/STEG small diameter sewer !\ystem will work on No Name Key without involvini Keys Energy. It is also the most cost effective of all the systems. We ask you please to oppose this agenda item and to continue in your ougoing commitment to "protect and nurture our special enclave of solar homes on No Name Key". [PC Resolution P 17-99] Thank you for you help and interest in this matter. ....{11..!> I I.J I g/D6 Sincerely, Alicia Roemmele-Putney, President Carol C. Barber, Vice-President Elizabeth HarlachE!r, Secretary Fraklin Atwell, Treasurer The Electrification of No Name Key Battle from lqq6 to 200~: A Brief History On A1J&USI: 2. lqq6 County Administrator James Roberts advised Dale Finigin, City Electric Systems, that the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan has policies that are clearly not in support of an extension of electric service to No Name Key. [See attached Finigan-Roberts.pdf] In a May 1-'-1. lqq8 Letter of Understanding from Tim McGarry, Director of Planning to Taxpayers for the Electrification of No Name Key, Inc., he stated that Monroe County "cannot support a project to extend commercial power to No Name Key because it would be inconsistent with Monroe County's Year 2010 Plan and both Chapters 380 and 163 of the Florida Statues." [See attached "LOU McGarry.pdfJ This decision was appealed to the Planning Commission where every conceivable argument imaginable was brought forward and heard by the Planning Commission during two lengthy quasi- judicial hearings in 1998 and 1999. The Applicants stated they had raccoons entering their homes, could not keep ice cream, were exposed to dengue fever, could not sell their homes, were lied to by the Realtors, had to run generators and store fuel and old batteries -- all of which are bad for the environment. The appeal was denied. [See attached Admin Appeal.pdf] The Planning Commission, on F..hMla~~. lqqq. upheld the Planning Director's interpretation of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Major points in the Commission's Conclusions of Law were: that the appellants failed to meet the required burden of proof, that No Name Key has always been provided special protection under the County's Comp Plans (plural), and that allowing commercial electricity would be inconsistent with the overall goals, objectives and policies of the Year 2010 Plan. Moreover all of the reasons the appellants gave regarding potential negative environmental impacts and potential health and safety concerns are a direct result of the appellant's choice for generated power rather than solar power. All of the appellants moved to No Name Key with the knowledge commercial electricity was not available. Appellants could move anywhere else in the Florida Keys to have commercial power, whereas those who have successfully adapted to solar living have no such choice. After the Planning Commission's denial of the Administrative Appeal by Taxpayers for the Electrification of No Name Key, Inc., the Planning Department paid for two Photovoltaic experts to come down from Central Florida and host a two-day seminar on Big Pine Key that offered free technical assistance on how to utilize solar power effectively, on-site advice and information on grants. Only one member of Taxpayers for the Electrification, Inc. of No Name Key bothered to attend the workshops. Instead of appealing the Planning Commission's denial to DOAH, the Taxpayers for the Electrification of No Name Key, Inc. filed a Complaint against Monroe County and City Electric Systems of Key West in the Circuit Court of the 16th Judicial Circuit on July 2. lQQQ. [Case Number: CAK99Q000819] The plaintiff represented 12 homes on No Name Key. -2- As a means of settling the pending suit, Plaintiffs once again sought relief through a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow electrification of No Name Key. This time, on December 21. 1QQQ. Planning Director Marlene Conaway determined "there are simply too many policies in the [Year 2010] Comprehensive Plan which would be in conflict with an amendment of this nature." [See attached Conaway-Amend.pdfJ In a second attempt to settle the pending suit, Plaintiffs proposed a Settlement Agreement that would have allowed the extension of commercial power to No Name Key. On April1Q. 2001 the BOCC unanimously rejected the proposed settlement agreement. Motion was made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Spehar, and supported by Commissioners Nelson, Nugent and McCoy. Also on April 19, 2001, motion was made by Commissioner Spehar and seconded by Commissioner Williams "directing staff to bring back to the Board for approval the creation of a zoning overlay district designation of off-grid encompassing all properties within the boundaries of No Name Key; and also, to address or change the other issues that clearly caused confusion today." Thil'l is the P.YAct legislation. Monroe County Code Section Q.;;;-268 Coastal Barrier Resources System Overlay District of the Monroe County you are being asked to amend with this agenda item. By the time Judge Richard Payne granted Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants on July 16. 2002. over ninety-seven (97) entries had been made on the docket. On A11p1rt 1Q. 2002. Taxpayers for the Electrification of No Name Key, Inc. appealed Judge Payne's ruling to the Third District Court of Appeals. After nearly a year of inaction, the Taxpayers for the Electrification of No Name Key, Inc. requested voluntary dismissal of their suit, which the court recognized on June 2.4. 200~. '(he Solar C.mnmunit;y of No Name Key- Membersh\p list- June 2008 1. Atwell, Frank & Kimi; 2137 Bahia Shores Road; No Name Key; 872-3495 arknarf@cs.com arknarf@bellsouth.net 2. Barber, Rob & Chris 1934 No Name Drive No Name K,ey, FL 33043 (305) 872-1401 ffnowher@bellsouth.net 3. Brouillette, Jason 1843 Bahia Shores Road No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-0283 Troa9@aoLI~om 4. Brouillette, Wayne & Christie 2107 Bahia Shores Road, NNK 328 Kings Crest Lane Pelham, AL 35124 wbrou@uab.edu -3- 5. Daniels, Faye & Garrison, Stuart 20 Spanish Channel Drive No Name KI~y, FL 33043 (305) 872-0589 6. Douville, Hallett & Linda 32340 Cat Lane No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-2055 Douville@bellsouth.net 7. Dry, Larry & Wanda 1868 No Name Drive No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-1953 drdtytn@aol.com wonding@aol.com 8. Gato, Jeannette 1909 Bahia Shores Road No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 864-0945 Jflzato@msn.com 9. HarlllCher, Tony & Liz 1921 Bahia Shores Road No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-0644 (570) 424-737 twoturtlestandl@bellsouth.com 10. Press, Michael & Ann Spanish Channel Drive No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-7:550 (321) 213-2654 michaelpress@hotmail.com 11. Putney, Mick & Alicia 2150 No Name Drive No Name Key, PL (305) 872-8888 micalnnk@llol.com 12. Scanlon, Bob & Jan 1845 No Name Drive No Name Key, PL 33043 (305) 872-8845 thescanlonsiWhotmail.com -4- 13. Wemsen, Hans & Corry 1910 No Name Drive No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-3141 hamericor@'aol.com 14. Witter, Tom & Susan 2046 Bahia Shores Road No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 515-2082 (607) 967-8028 SHW42@aol.com 15. Zeman, Larry 1933 Bahia Shores Road No Name Key, FL 33043 (305) 872-1173 Attachments: . August 2, 1996 Letter to Mr. Dale Finigin, Director of Engineering, Utility Board of Key West from Monroe County Administrator James Roberts stating the adopted Monroe County 2010 Plan as adopted has policies which are not in support of the extension of electrical service to No Name Key . May 13, 1998 Letter of Understanding for the Electrification of No Name Key to Mr. Frank Greeman from Monroe County Planning Director Timothy McGarry, 7 pages. . June II, 1999 Letter of Denial of the Administrative Appeal by the No Name Key Taxpayers for Electricity to Mr. Frank Greeman from Mrs. Judith Chambers, 2 pages. The eight (8) page Planning Commission Resolution No. P17-99 is a part of this document, 10 pages. . December 21, 1999 Letter to Mr. Frank Greenman from the Monroe County Planning Director Marlene Conaway stating tne Planning Department cannot support or recommend a text amendment to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to allow electrification of No Name Key, 2 pages. .Composite Attachment: Twenty-three (23) letters in opposition to Agenda Item M-3. Ten (10) are from No Name Key homeowners and represent eight (8) households. Twelve (12) are from Keys-wide homeowners. And, one (I) is from a Keys-wide organization, Florida Keys Green Living and Energy Education (GLEE). -5- ..... CO,~~1: of ~g~~E /30t1l294-4641 James; L. Roberts County Administrator 5100 College Road Public Service 81dg. Win9 II, Stock Island Key West, Florida 33040 (305) 292-4441 Phone (305) 292-4544 Fax AUGUS'T 2, 1996 Mr. Dale Z. Finigan Director of Engineering Utility Board ot tho City of Key West P.O. Drawer 6100 Key West, Florida 33041-6100 Dear Mr. Finigan: BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'SS/O/l, MAYOR. Shirley F,eemiif' Dts:fll:13 Mayor Pro lem, Jack London UJSlfJCI ;: Wllh~lmjn6 Harvey. DISI1ICI 1 Mary Kay Reich. ()ISI'.Cl & Keith Douglass. Orsl(lC~ 4 At: C~/I/ A(JS 6 ~ D ..q ~ 19. 1)8 :~, .:z::;~.., CCf"'"/ A,a,1f..j. ~t A\e~ ~~ /~Ot...""" \::1e.f ~~~ Thank you for your recent letter in reference to electric service at No Name Key. This appears to be an ongoing issue and one that has alroady boon boforo tho Board of County Commissioners on January 18, 1995. You should be aware that on that date, the Board of County COlllJ1\.issioners decided that it would not support the extension of electr'ic service to No Name Key. Aleo, you should know that the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive PVm as actopted llae pol.l.cies which are clearly not in support of such an extension of electric ~ervice. Please ~ee attachment5. Therefore, I must suggest to you that the County does not support extansion of electric service to No Name Key. It you have any further questions, please du not hesitate to let me know. --. JLRdjH cc: BOC:C Bob HerRllln Dent Pierce lJave Koppel Very truly yours -t:jQ ..:: James L. Roberts . county Administrator .....-.-'--::--:.. , //. "'---," ...r..... -\ CO!1,~ of M.2,~~.E M: uJJI1f g, Franklin Greenman Greenman & Manz Gulfsi.de Village, suite 40 5800 Overseas Highway Marathon, FL 33050 RE: Letter of understanding for the electrification of No Name Key Dear Frank: /~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAYOR, Keith DOuglass, District 4 Mayor pro Tem, Jack London, District 2 Wllllelmlna Harvey, District 1 Shirley Freeman, District 3 Mary Kay Reich, District S Monroe County planning 2798 overseas Hwy suite 410 Marathon, Florida 33050 May 13, 1998 C"~1h'Akfo . Ku.(.... t),'..I,O- . 4' :....~ ,:"\e ",'-, f,j,.I.I"c/.{"/ '<lAY I 4 1998 .,,,.w4 ,';1< pursuant to Sec. 9.5-43 of the Monroe Countv Code. Amended, this document shall constitute a letter of understand:lng. On March. 25, 1998, a pre-application conference regarding the above-referenced project was held in the Marathon Planning De- partment office. Attendees of the meeting included Franklin Greenman, Richard Melahi, Ernest and Barbara Damon, Tracy Bockenhauer, Terry and Pam Morrison, Joe and Dira Juhasz, Aldone and Bernard siczek, Har~( and Janet Wallis and Francisco pichel (hereafter referred to as "the applicant"), Elizabeth Trotter, Court Reporter, and Antonia Gerli, Development Review Coordinator (hereafter re- ferred to as "the Planning staff") . , .... The applicant is proposing to provide electricity to the resi- dents of No Name Key. The planning Department finds that the with both chapters 163 and 380 of the MOnJ~oe County Year 2010 Comprehensive related to this issue are listed below: proposal is inconsistent Florida Statutes and the Plan. pertinent facts The intent of chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes is, in part, to cause local governments to encourage appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. PRNONAME/TXTDR Page 1 e Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect and i~?rove the public health, safety, comfort, good order, ap- pearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; prevent overcrowding of land and avoid undue concenl:ration of population... and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions. Chapter 380 of the Florida Statutes designates the Florida Keys as an area of critical state concern in part in order to protect the na.tural resources and environment, conserve and promote the community character, and establish a land use management system that promotes orderly and balanced growth in accordance with the capacity of available and planned public utilities and services. Chapter 380 lists twelve principles for guiding development with which all local regulations and programs in the Florida Keys must be consistent. Relevant to your proposal are the following princi.ples: To protect shorel ine and marine resources, including man- groves, coral reef formations, wetlands, fish and wildlife and their habitats; To protect upland resources, tropical biological communi- ties, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation, dune ridges and beaches, wildlife and their habitat; To ensure maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development; To limit adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys; To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment and ensure that develop- ment is compatible with the unique historic character of the plorid Keys; To protect the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, - and amortized life of existing and proposed major public invest- ments including City Electric service; TO protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citi- 'zens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive plan has been found to be consistent with both Chapters 163 and 380 of the Florida Stat- utes. As you know, the thrust of both state planning law and the Monroe county Year 2010 comprehensive plan is to direct growth toward existing developed areas and to discourage growth in areas that are environmentally sensitive and/or areas that continue to be in their natural state. Page 2 PRNONAME/TXTDR The majority of the acreage on No Name Key remains undeveloped in its native state. No commercial development exists on the island and the limited industrial uses are ir. the process of being phased out in accordance with settlement agreements with the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Residential devel- opment is sparse with the concentration of homes being located within three subdivisions. No Name Key is unique, not only because it lacks electrical con- nections, but also because it is remote from US 1, is located entirely within a National Wildlife Refuge and almost entirely within the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS). Refuge and CBRS status were necessitated by the need to reduce the exposure of residents to natural hazards and to reduce adverse impacts on endangered species. The proposed project is inconsistent with the following goals, object:ives and policies of the comprehensive plan: GOAL 101 Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visi- tors and protect valuable natural resources. Objective 101.11 Monroe County shall implement measures to direct future growth away from environmentally sensitive land and toward established development areas served by ex- isting public facilities. GOAL 102 Monroe County shall direct future growth to lands which are intrinsically most suitable for development and shall encourage conservation and protection of environmentally sensi- tive lands. Objective 102.8.1 Monroe county shall take actions to dis- courage private development in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resource system. policy 102.8.1 Monroe County shall discourage develop- ments which are proposed in units of the Coastal Barri- er Resource System (CBRS) by methods including, but not limited to, negative points in the permit allocations and point system. Policy 102.8.5 Upon adoption of the comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall initiate efforts to discour- age the extension of facilities and services provided by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and private pro- viders of electricity and telephone service to CBRS units.. ., Objective 102.9 Monroe County shall complete and implement a cooperative land management program for private and county- owned lands located within and adjacent to parks and conser- Page 3 PRNONAME/TXTDR vat ion lands which are owned by the state and federal govern- ments in the Florida Keys. Policy 102.9.1 Monroe County shall discourage develop- ments which are proposed within Conservation Land Pro- tection Areas by methods including, but not limited to, negative points in the permit allocation and point sys- tem. policy 102.9.3 ... conservation lands for which a Con- servation protection Area shall be designated include the following: 1. Fort Jefferson National Monument 2. National Key Deer Refuge.... GOAL 103 Monroe County shall implement regulations and programs to address the special environmental protection and/or traffic circulation needs of those areas of Big pine Key.... Objective 103.1 Monroe County shall regulate future develop- ment and coordinate the provision of public facilities on Bi.g pine Key and No Name Key, consistent with the Goals, Objectives and policies of this Comprehensive plan, in order tel: (al protect the Key deer; (b) preserve and enhance the habitat of the Key deer; (c) limit the number of additional vehicular trips from other islands to Big pine Key; (d) maintain the rural, suburban, and open space character of Big pine Key; (e) prevent. and reduce adverse secondary and cumulative impacts on Key deer. Policy 103.1.1 The purpose of this policy is to insure the long-term viability of the Key deer by directing development away from those areas necessary to protect the Key deer habitat from the impacts of development. it is recognized that the viability of the endangered Key deer depends on the control of both direct (prima- ry) and indirect (secondary) impacts resulting from development. . . . policy 103.1.10 Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall require that the following analyses be undertaken prior to finalizing plans for the siting of any new public facilities or the signifi- cant expansion of existing public facilities required to support development on Big pine Key and No Name Key: 1. assessment of needs; 2. evaluation of alternative sites and design alterna- tives for the selected site; and Page 4 PRNONAME/TXTDR The assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources will evaluate the extent to which the t;>roposed public facility involves public expenditures kn the coastal high hazard area and within environmen- tally sensitive areas, including disturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands, undisturbed beach/ berm areas units of the coastal barrier resource system, undis~ turbed uplandS, habitats of species considered to be threatened or endangered by the state and/or federal governments, offshore islands, and .Conservation Land protection Areas. Monroe County shall require that public facilities be developed consistent with the cri- teria described in Policy 101.1.1 and shall support whenever possible the location of public facilities off of Big pine Key and No Name Key. GOAL 207 Monroe County shall protect and conserve existing wild- life and wildlife habitats. 3. assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources. Objective 207.7 Monroe County shall implement activities to prohibit the destruction of the federally-designated Key deer and to protect its habitat. policy 207.7.1 Monroe county shall regulate future development and coordinate the provision of public fa- cilities on Big pine Key and No Name Key, consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of this Compre- hensive plan and in order to: 1) protect the Key deer; 2) preserve and enhance the habitat of the Key Deer; and 3) maintain the rural, suburban, and open space charac- teristics of Big pine Key. GOAL 209 Monroe county shall discourage private land uses on its mainland, offshore islands and undeveloped coastal barriers ,. and shall protect existing conservation lands from adverse impacts associated with private land uses on adjoining lands. Objective 209.3 Monroe County shall take immediate actions to discourage private development in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resource system. GO,~ 215 Monroe County shall provide the necessary services and infrastructure to support existing and new development proposed by the Future land Use Element while limiting public expendi- tures which result in the loss of or adverse impacts to environ- mental resources in the Coastal Zone. Page 5 PRNONAME/TXTDR ObjE!ctive 215.2 By January 4, 1997, Monroe County shall ini- tia'~e programs which require exploration of feasible alterna- tiv'~s to funding of public facilities and infrastructure which will result in the loss of or damage to significant coastal or natural resources,including, but not limited to wilderness areas, wildlife habitats, and natural vegetative communities. Policy 215.2.1 By January 4, 1997, Monroe County shall adopt land Development regulations which require consid- eration of feasible design alternatives for new public facilities and infrastructure proposed within the coast- al zone in order to minimize adverse 1m pacts to natu- ral resources. GOAL 1301 Monroe County shall promote and encourage intergc)vernmental coordination between the County, the munici- palities of Key West, Key Colony Beach and Layton; the Counties of Dade and Collier; regional, state and federal governments and privatl~ entities in order to anticipate and resolve present and future concerns and conflicts. Objective 1301.7 Monroe County shall implement mechanisms to identify and resolve intergovernmental coordination needs pertaining to environmental issues and natural resource pro- tection. Policy 1301.7.12 By January 4, 1997, Monroe county shall initiate discussions with the FKAA and providers of electricity and telephone service to assess the mea- sures which could be taken to discourage or prohibit extension of facilities and services to Coastal Barrier Resource systems units. Taken collectively, the goals, objectives and policies of the Monroe County year 2010 comprehensive plan attest to the Coun- ty's position that all development, including electrification, must be discouraged on No Name Key. In support of this posi- tion, the County, as well as state and federal authorities, have expended (and continue to expend) considerable funds on the pur- chase of lands on No Name Key in an effort to ensure that the primary and secondary impacts of development will not occur on the island. pursuant to Sec. 9.5 -43 of the Monroe Countv Land Develooment Requlations, you are entitled to rely upon the representations set :Eorth in this letter of understanding as accurate under the regulations currently in effect. However, the planning Depart- ment acknowledges that all items required as part of the applica- tion for development approval may not have been addressed at the March 25, 1998, meeting. and consequently reserves the right for additional departmental comment. Page 6 PRNONAME/TXTDR We trust that this information is of assistance. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, or if we may further assist you with your project, please feel free to contact our offices (305) 289-2500. TJM/agr cc: James Roberts, County Administrator Larry Thompson, General Manager, City Electric System Richard Grosso Robert L. Herman, Director of Growth Management Antonia Gerli, AICP, Development Review Coordinator Page 7 PRNONAME/TXTDR Planning Department ~ suite .410 2798 OV"erseas Highway Marathon, FL 33050-2227 305-289-2500 ,.-.r-- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAYOR Wilhelmina Harvey, District I Mayor Pro Tem Shirley Freeman, District 3 George Neugent, District 2 Nora Williams. District 4 Mary Kay Reich, District 5 OUNTY o1MONROE KEY WEST \'::J ;~ORIOA 33040 June 22, 1999 Frank Greenman, Esquire Gulfside Village, Suite 40 5800 C~erseas Highway Marathon, FL 33050 RE: }~ministrative Appeal of No Name Key Taxpayers for Electricity Dear Mr. Greenman: Enclosed is a copy of Resolution P17-99 from the Planning CommiElsion Hearing of February 3, 1999, at which time the CommiElsion denied the application of "Taxpayers for Electricity" for an appeal of Growth Management Division's denial of a request to allow electricity to be supplied to property described herein. This Resolution was signed by the Chair on June 16, 1999. pursua.nt to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes and Monroe county Board of County Commissioners' Resolution #131-1992 appellants must provide a verbatim transcript of the hearing b",forl~ the Planning Commission within 30 days (approximately July 19, 1999, in this case) of the written decision of the Planning Commission. The verbatim transcript of the hearing shall be prepared by a court reporter at the appellant's expenl3e and will be filed as a part of the record on appeal. A transcript made from recordings or other secondary means, does not provide a sufficiently accurate record of all the speak,ers. Therefore, such "secondary" transcripts may not be accepted as a valid verbatim transcript. ANONAME.07/TXTDR/9B044 Appeals of Planning Commission decisions, timely filed, will go before a hearing officer in the manner provided by Monroe County Code, Section 9.5-535. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not ,esitate to call me at 289-2522. Since ,ly, (\ / ~ I . -~~ Jud' h Chambers anning Commission Coordinat.or CERTIFIED MAIL Enclosure copy: Alicia Putney ANONAME.07/TXTDR/98044 RESOLUTION NO. P17-99 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL BY THE TAXPAYERS FOR THE ELECTRIFICATION OF NO NAME KEY, INC., THEREBY UPHOLDING THE POSITION OF THE COUNTY AS STATED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING IN A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING, DATED MAY 13, 1998, WHICH STATES THAT THE PLACEMENT OF ELECTRICAL POWER LINES TO NO NAME KEY WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH CHAPTERS 163 AND 380 OF FLORIDA STATUES, AS WELL AS WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHEREAS, Section 9.5-43, Monroe County Code (MCC), states an applicant for development approval may request a pre-application conference with the development review coordinator to acquaint the participants with the requirements of these [Monroe County Code] regulations and the views and concerns of the county; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 1998, some owners of property on No Name Key, known as "Taxpayers for Electricity", requested a pre-application conference in order to, according to the application, discuss a development proposal for "the installation of electrical service transmission lines from Big Pine Key to No Name Key to provide electrical service to the already permitted and built single family homes on No Name Key"; and WHEREAS, on March 25,1998, a pre-application conference was held with the Monroe County planning department's development review coordinator, the attorney for the applicant, the court reporter for the applicant, and several No Name Key homeowners and property owners; and WHEREAS, Section 9.5-43, MCC, states that after a pre-application conference, the applicant receives a "letter of understanding" signed by the director of planning that sets forth the issues raised at the conference and states the county's position in regard to those issues; and WHEREAS, Timothy J. McGarry, AICP, Director of Planning for Monroe County, signed such a letter on May 13, 1998, concluding that the proposed development is inconsistenlt with both Chapters 163 and 380 of the Florida Statutes and with the Monroe COlunty Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and should therefore, be discouraged; and WHEREAS, Section 9.5-521, MCC, allows affected property owners to appeal any order, decision, determination or interpretation by any administrative official within 30 days of such action; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 1998, the Planning Department received payment fo~ .an administrative appeal of the letter of understanding from the Taxpayers for Electricity, referred to as the appellants hereafter; and WHEREAS" a public hearing before the Planning Commission was noticed for December 11,1998; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 1998, the Planning Department received the rest of the application for the appeal containing the written basis for the appeal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department analyzed the requested appeal and prepared a staff report and packet to the Planning Commission dated November 23, 1998, recommending that the appeal be denied; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on December 1,1998 and on February 3,1999; and WHEREAS, the appellants provided testimony and evidence along with arguments made by their attomey, Mr. Frank Greenman, Esq.; and WHEREAS, No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power (represented by Ms. Alicia Putney and her attorney, Mr. Richard Grosso, Esq. in absentia) were granted legal standing on the basis that these residents are third party beneficiaries of the decision under appeal; and WHEREAS, No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power provided testimony and evidence along with arguments made by Ms. Alicia Putney and her attorney, Mr. Richard Grosso, Esq. in absentia. WHEREAS, Ms. Debra Harrison of World Wildlife Fund, was tendered as a planner and an expert witness on Florida Keys land use, the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) and the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and provided testimony in support of No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff presented evidence and provided expert testimony; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after carefully considering all of the evidence and testimony submitted by the appellants, the Planning Department staff, No Name',,, Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power, Ms. Debra Harrison and members of the public at the public hearings, as well as the advice of their attorney, Mr. Garth Coller, Esq., hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.) Based on the testimony of the Planning Department staff, the issue of the publiC hearing was whether the May 13, 1998, letter of understanding accurately concluded that, based on the requirements of Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes, and based on the Monroe County Year 2010 Plan, the placement of electrical power lines on No Name Key should be discouraged. 2.) As a matter of law, it is the appellant's burden to provide evidence and testimony that the conclusion reached in the letter of understanding is inaccurate and that instead, the 2010 Plan does not discourage the provision of infrastructure on No Name Key and in particular, the provision of commercial electrical power. Page 2 of8 -~,._. '."""~.;oiI&."", .,,,..' l.f,\t,~tIL,,;'::'~' 3.) Pursuant to Section 163.3194, Florida Statutes, development approved by a local government is considered consistent with its comprehensive elan when the development and the timing of the development is compatible with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. 4.) As a matter of law, the Planning Department considered the original development proposal and the appeal based on the overall goals, objectives and policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Also, as a matter of law, when reviewing consistency with the comprehensive plan, the goals, objectives and policies must be conSIdered as a whole. Based on the testimony presented by the Planning Department staff and by Ms. Debra Harrison, the 2010 Plan, on the whole, seeks to limit increasing development expectations of vacant property owners throughout the County, in part because developments already allowed by Monroe County have exceeded the carrying capacity for nearshore water quality of the Keys, as reflected in part by the Administrative Hearing Officer's Final Recommended Order. Based on the testimony of the Planning Department staff, Ms. Debra Harrison and No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power the 2010 Plan contains additional measures in its goals, objectives and policies to specifically ensure that development and the expectation of development is directed away from critical areas within the Monroe County. No Name Key, where the carrying capacity of the Key Deer has also been exceeded, as reflected in part by the Administrative Hearing Officer's Final Order, is one of those specific areas according to the testimony and evidence presented by the Planning Department staff, Ms. Debra Harrison and No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power. 5.) 6.) 7.) The measures contained in the Plan that ensure that development and that the expectation of development is directed away from No Name Key fall in three areas as cited by the Planning Department's staff report: 1. Discourage pUblic and private investment and limit development expectations in the Coastal Barrier Resources System Objective 102.8, Policy 102.8.1, Policy 102.8.5, Goal 209; and 2. Discourage development that would adversely impact environmentally sensitive lands: Policy 209.3, Goal 101, Objective 101.1, Goal 102, Objective 10,2.9, Policy 102.9.3, Goal 215, Objective 215.2, Policy 215.2.1, ObJectiv~, 1301.7, Policy 1301.7.12; and " 3. Discourage development that would adversely impact: tile endangered Key Deer: Goal 103, Objective 103.1, Policy 103.1.1, Policy 103.1.10, Goal 207, Objective 207.7, Policy 2Q7. 7 .1. 8.) According to the expert testimony of Ms. Debra Harrison, infrastructure availability is often the basis for offering to a landowner the expectations that he may develop. Based on the testimony of Ms. Debra Harrison, limiting infrastructure is a widely utilized mechanism for managing growth potential and is the basis for the concurrency management requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. 9.) According to the testimony of the No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power. limiting infrastructure is a widely used Growth Management tool utilized by all local governments in Florida and by all levels of govemment. ~n addition. they testified that it is precisely this tool that is the basis of the prohibition on development under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. Page 3 of8 ~ Policy 1301.7.12 of the 2010 Plan specifically requires that Monroe County assess measures, which could be taken to discourage or prohibit extension of facilities to areas within the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS). In addition, Policy 102.8.5 of the comprehensive plan requires that Monroe County initiate efforts to discourage the extension of facilities and services provided by private providers of electricity to CBRS units. According to the Planning Department staff and as also evidenced in Department of Interior and FEMA maps submitted by No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power, most of No Name Key, including areas to which appellants desire commercial electricity, is within Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) FL-50 and therefore, has been under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) since . October 24, 1990. 12.) While the appellants argued that the Coastal Barrier Resources Act does not apply to them, they did not provide any evidence of this. 10.) 11.) 13.) { 15.) 14.) While the appellants argue that Chapter 366, Florida Statutes, contains language that requires Monroe County to allow for the provision of electricity, we find that the language is specific only to the providers of electricity and not to Monroe County. In addition, the language places no burden on local governments nor does it negate the requirements of the County's comprehensive plan. The appellants argued that the Monroe County Building Code's requirement to wire their homes with 110 V AC (volts alternating current) and the installation of a weather head suggests that commercial electricity is going to be provided. Instead, we agree with the position espoused by the No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power and the Planning Department staff that Monroe County's Electrical Codes are standard electric codes based on the need for fire prevention and that they are necessary even for solar powered homes' which require 110 VAC wiring to run 110 VAC appliances such as full sized refrigerators, washers and dryers, televisions, computers and power tools that are used successfully in many of No Name Key's solar powered homes. Merely requiring all homes to provide for electrical service does not obligate the County to approve the extension of commercial electricity to No Name Key. As a -"" matter of law, prior actions and services provided by Monroe County or any other agency do not "bligate Monroe County to provide electricity. In addition, information provided in the packet demonstrates that the Planning Department has consistently indicated that provision of commercial electricity would violate the 2010 Plan. The appellants argued that the County's Permit Allocation System for residential development, or the Rate of Growth Ordinance (RaGa), in combination with the duties of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, National Marine Sanctuary, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Florida Department of Community Affairs, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Army Corps of Engineers, prohibited any future development on No Name Key. The appellants indicated that the planning director's testimony supports this argument. 16.) 17.) . Page 4 of8 18.) Instead, however, we find that the Permit Allocations System for residential development, or the ROGO, was specifically crafted to ensure that development was not prohibited and that opportunities for successful competition were made available to all property owners. In addition, the appellants provided no evidence of such governmental regulation by any of the aforementioned agencies prohibiting development on No Name Key. 19.) The appellants argue that the lack of commercial power on No Name Key diminished the value of the appellant's homes. Additionally, the appellants testified there is no market for solar homes. However, at the time that all appellants moved to No Name Key, the island had no commercial power. In addition, according to Exhibit A, tendered by No Name Key Property Owners . Against Commercial Power, a majority of the appellants either moved to or built their homes on No Name Key within the last four years. 20.) We find that the testimony regarding cost, health risk or potential environmental degradation do not address or negate the 2010 Plan's current requirements nor provides evidence that the conclusion reached in the letter of understanding was Inaccurate. 22.) We concur with No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power's arguments that sustainable developments that utilize alternative energy sources are a more appropriate form of development which aligns particularly well with the Refuge setting, the unique character of No Name Key and the goals, objectives and policies of the County's Year 2010 Land Use Plan and should be encouraged by local governments. In addition, such developments fit in with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, which recognizes the need to move away from reliance on non- renewable resources and that solar powered homes with cisterns should be encouraged, not diminished. No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power and members of the public testified that they moved to the island for the alternative lifestyle it offers and that commercial power would adversely affect that lifestyle which can only be found on No Name Key. They also argued that they had the most to lose in the decision because of this, adding that many of them would not have bought or built homes on No Name Key if commercially supplied power had existed on the island. 23.) No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power testified that they enjoy living a life of conservation in solar powered homes and had built and purchased their homes on the island to practice it, that the shared life style had encouraged a close knit community and a sense of place. ,." 21.) 24.) Planning Department staff, No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power and members of the public testified that the existing development patterns, along with the minimal infrastructure, which lack both commercially supplied electrical power and aqueduct supplied water, along with the rural setting and public ownership of the lands in the National Key Deer Refuge makes the character of No Name Key unique not only from a local perspective, but from a national perspective, making the island a national treasure as well. r Page 5 of8 26.) We find that as a matter of law. it is within the police power of Monroe County to pass rules and regulations to protect areas with unique character and circumstances. . As indicated by the 2010 Plan and based on the testimony of residents from the island, No Name Key is a unique island in that it lies within a National Key Deer Refuge. Large expanses of undisturbed native lands contain sensitive habitats that are critical to many endangered plant and animal species, including the Key Deer and provide a rural setting for the homes on the island. 25.) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. The appellants have failed to meet their burden of proof by showing that the Planning Department reached the wrong conclusion in their letter of understanding. 2. The appellants have failed to meet their burden of proof by providing competent and substantial evidence that contradicted the May 13, 1998, letter of understanding or the conclusion reached therein. Appellants testimony regardin~ cost, potential health risks and potential environmental degradation was insuffiCient or irrelevant given that it is the duty of this Board to make decisions based on the applicable laws and regulations of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. 3. Monroe County has consistently held, beginning prior to the adoption of the 1986 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and increasingly so with the adoption of the 2010 Plan, that future growth and the expectation to develop must be directed away from No Name Key. 4. Infrastructure availability will increase the development expectations of the owners of vacant land. The comprehensive plan specifically directs Monroe County to assess measures that can be taken to discourage or prohibit extension of facilities to No Name Key. Therefore, supporting such an action through the approval of this appeal would be a County action that is inconsistent with the 2010 Plan. 5. Planning Department staff, No Name Key Property Owners Against Commercial Power, Ms. Debra Harrison, the appellants and members of the public provided -', compelling testimony and evidence indicating that the extension of commercial electricity to No Name Key would be yet an additional County action that would increase the development expectations of property owners of vacant lots on an island where the County is mandated by the comprehensive plan to decrease them. 6. The Planning Department accurately interpreted the overall goals of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan in its letter of understanding of May 13, 1998. when it concluded that extension of electrical transmission lines to No Name Key must be discouraged. The letter of understanding is an accurate interpretation of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. There was no compelling evidence presented by the appellant to contradict that interpretation. Increasing the development expectations of vacant lot owners on No Name Key would be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the comprehensive plan. 7. Testimony regarding the benefits of solar powered homes over generator powered Page 6 of8 home as an altemative energy source was compelling, but not relevant. All the reasons appellants gave regarding potential negative environmental impacts and potential health and safety concems resulting from Monroe County not allowing commercial power to No Name Key are a direct result of the appellants' choice to use generated power rather than solar power. In addition, the testimony provided at the hearing suggests that lifestyles that rely on alternative energy sources such as renewable resources, should be encouraged. There is no risk to public health and safety by limiting the extension of commercial power, given that other viable alternatives exist. 8. It is not the direct impacts of commercially supplied power versus the direct impacts of power supplied by fossil fuel generators on the Key Deer that are at issue, but rather the secondary impacts associated with risk of increased development expectations and the resulting vehicular trips and loss of habitat due to increased development. 9. All of appellants moved to No Name Key with the knowledge that commercially provided electricity was not available. These property owners have the ability to move anywhere else in the Florida Keys in order to have such a service provided to them. In contrast, other No Name Key property owners moved to the island expressly because of the lifestyle that is offered to them there, including the fact that infrastructure is minimal and commercial electricity is absent. The community character of the island is unique, in part, due to the lack of commercial power and is a special enclave in the Florida Keys that provides a unique quality of life that must be nurtured, protected and prolonged. 10. The testimony provided at the hearing regarding the need to protect such community character, was compelling in that granting the provision of commercial power would d~rade the unique character of No Name Key' and those who chose to move to the Island stand to lose a unique and worthwhile lifestyle. Appellants could move anywhere else in the Florida Keys to have commercial power, whereas, those property owners who have successfully and knowingly adapted to the lifestyle on No Name Key have no such choice. No Name Key is a unique island in the Florida Keys and in the United States both because of its significant natural resources and its unique character. 11. There is no constitutional right to electricity. There is a valid police power basis to treat No Name Key differently than other areas in the Florida Keys due to the unique """ conditions of the island with the presence of sensitive habitats critical to a variety of endangered plant and animal species, including the Key Deer, the expansive undeveloped areas as part of a National Key Deer Refuge, and the rural character of the developed portions of the island that relies on renewable alternative energy sources. It is the right of the legislature to provide different areas, which allow for different lifestyles treated differently. " Page 7 of8 12. While we find that there are valid reasons for requiring that all houses must meet the standard electrical .code, it may have been an oversight that No Name Key was not exempted from the electrical code's specific requirement of a roof-top weather head. This oversight in no way provides sufficient equitable or legal basis for overriding the mandates of the Plan and the Land Development Regulations. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA that the preceding findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law support its decision to DENY the administrative appeal by the Taxpayers for the Electrification of No Name Key, Inc. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 3rd day of February, A.D. 1999. Chair Gorsuch Vice-Chair Mapes Commissioner Aultman Commissioner Hill Commissioner Stuart Yes Yes NO Jilo yes Resolution passed by the Planning Commission of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 3rd day of February, A.D. 1999. By: Billy Gorsuch, Chair Signed this day of ,1999 -.........", -.". ~ Page 8 oi8 County of Monroe Planninll Deoanmcnt 2798 Ovcneu Hiahway Sui... 400 M8radQ\, Florida 33050 Voice: (305) 289-2500 FAX: (305) 289.2536 ~ r~T".' ~,~ . .". .-" Alu.rd Qf ConaN rlllllllrlliuiRllenl Mayor Shirley F-. Dill. 3 Mayor Pro T.... Ocorac NcuFnt, Dist. 2 Commissioner Wilhclmina Harvey, Dill. I Commissioner Nora Williams, DisI. .. Commissioner MaIy Kay Rcic:h, DiSl. 5 CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT # Z 200 004 171 December 21, 1999 . Mr. Frank Greenman, Esq. Greenman and Manz 5800 Overseas Highway Suite 40 Marathon, FL 33050 RE: Text Amendment to allow electrijlCatioll 01 No Name Key Dear Mr. Greenman: This letter is in response to our meeting with you and Mr. Eaken on December 7, 1999. As you will rec:all, this meeting was held to discuss the Planning Department's position on a possible Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow for the extension of electrical service to No Name Key. The idea of a comprehensive plan amendment was proposed by your clients as a possible way . to setth: the suit your clients have brought against Monroe County and City Electric System. We appreciate the list of Comprehensive Plan policies you submitted at this meeting as justification for your client's position. The staff and I have had a chance to review the Comprehensive Plan policies related to this matter, and we find that we would not be able to support a comprehensive plan amendment which would allow electricity to be extended to No Name Key. Part of our rationale for this decision is that there are simply top many policies in the Comprehensive Plan which would be in conflict with an amendment of this nature. Allowing the propo~:d amendment would require these other policies to be amended to a point that could be in conflict with state statutes. Mr. Fruk 0-. Esq. o-nber21.1~9 .... 2 Consequently. the Planning Department would respectfully decline to recommend a text amendment to the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan which would alter existing policies so as to allow for the extenSion of electrical service to No Name Key. Should you have any additional questions. please feel free to contact the Planning Staff or myself at (30S) 289-2S00. Thank YOU. Sinc:ere1y. I Jh1.. /) . {lfld:...e4u ~,"-'~".l.l K. Marlene Conaway (f PIAnnillgDirector CC: Timothy J. McGarry. AlCP; Director ofOrowth Management Karen Cabanas. Esq.; Morgan and Hendrick Kimberly Ogren. Comprehensive Planning Manager Chad Meadows. AlCP; Senior Comprehensive Planer File . 2 Letters in Opposition to Amending the Monroe County Code Section 9.5 - 268 to Lift the Prohibition Against the Extension of Commercial Power to No Name Key, Florida N=23 From: Jeannette O3to 1909 Bahia Shores Road No Name Key, FI 33154 305-304-7846 June 16.2008 Subject: BOCC Agenda Item M-3 June 182008, Marathon,FL Re: NNK Dear Me Commissioners: My husband, a 6th generation Conch visited No Name Key many times as a child. In 1970 when he heard that lots were being offered for sale, he decided that NNK would be the place to build his retirement home. When we became aware that portable water was prohibited to be brought to the island and that there were no plans to bring commercial power, we did a lot of research. We solved the water problem with a large cistern and solar power technology was now available. We bought our first solar panels in 1979. When we moved full time in 1986 we expanded out system. By buying only energy efficient products and being energy conservation minded-we have all the amenities of a grid home. We do not have a generator. The key to living on NNK is building an energy efficient home and practicing conservation. We were green before it was popular to be green. We have a very close-knit Solar Community who are happy to set an example of how to live with minimum impact on our environment. We often give tours to leach others about solar living. Historically the MCCC have supported the NNK Solar Community. Today, more than ever you should be promoting green living and using the Solar Community as an example for energy conservation. As you are aware we do not need this resolution to be passed to resolve our waste water problem. Please to not approve this agenda item. Sincerely, Jeannette Oato Commissioners After looking at the BOCC agenda for the June meeting, it is obvious our No Name neighbors used the wastewater issue for the sole purpose of getting Monroe County to pay to extend commercial power to No Name Key. We are writing this letter to let you know we DO NOT want commercial power. There are many other people who live on No Name who feel the same way we do. Fourteen years ago we bought our home on No Name knowing there was no commercial power. We were determined to build a solar system that was adequate to meet our needs. As our needs grew so did our solar system. We are very proud of our solar system and are very happy living off grid. If you allow power to come to No Name, the island will change and not for the better. No Name will lose its uniqueness, and its character will change. Our neighbors are all very special to us and add to the special character of our island. They are always willing to help one another. We who live on No Name and have functional solar systems are very proud that we are a green community. It seems to us that when newcomers purchase a home on No Name Key they frequently do not realize that living off grid takes much thought and planning. It takes time to put a solar system together. If a solar system is properly designed and built, it can provide sufficient electricity to run a home just as commercial power would without any sacrifices. A solar system can even provide enough electricity to run central air conditioning. We have neighbors who are always willing to help the newcomers (and the old residents) to put a system together. It also seems disingenous to us that many newcomers choose to move to No Name, frequently because the property values are lower than an electrified island, and then seek to have commercial power run to No Name - at tax payer's expense! Everyone who purchases property on No Name is clearly aware that commercial power does not exist. It is our belief that such newcomers should not have purchased on No Name, but rather should have bought on an island where commercial power already exists. Individuals who want commercial power can always move to an island where commercial power already exists, however, those of us who desire to remain off grid and green cannot move to any other island since No Name is the only off grid key. We are sick and tired of having to fight over and over again for our right to keep the status quo. In closing we want you to know we were very surprised to see commercial power and wastewater still being lumped together. They are two separate issues. The power issue should not even be before you today. Please do not vote to electrify No Name Key. Anthony C. Harlacher Elizabeth Harlacher No Name Key aolrich:ln24404I0821 Subj: Date: From: To: BOCC June 18 meeting / Agenda Items M-21k M-3 / No Name Key Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:43:56 AM thescanlons@hotmail.com mccoy-sonny@monroecounty-fl.gov, spehal'<lixie@monroecounty-fl.gov, neugent-george@monroecounty-fl.gov, digennaro-mario@monroecounty-lI.gov, murphy-sylvia@monroecounty-fl.gov, hutlon-suzanne@monroecounty-fl.gov Date: June 17,2008 Janice Scanlon 1845 No Name Drive No Name Key, FL 33043 872-8845 Re: BOCC June 18 meeting - Agenda Items M-2 and M-3 / No Name Key Dear Monroe County Commissioners: I am a "newcomer" to No Name Key. My husband and I bought our home here on NNK four years ago and are full-time residents. When we were searching for a home in the Keys, and our realtor showed us a home on No Name Key, we were at first apprehensive of what "solar living" would mean. After some investigation, we decided that joining a sola. rnmmunitv would be an advantageous lifestyle. We lack for nothing in the way of electrical necessities and some homes on NNK even have central AlC. Yes, having commercial electricity would often times be easier, but easier is not always the correct or smartest way to approach life. Regarding agenda item M -3, the obvious fact is that there is insufficient funding available to complete the central wastewater system 2010 mandate and there are vastly more densely populated areas than No Name Key which are not receiving, the same, proprietary attention as NNK. It is hard to view this as anything but unfair favoritism. Also, there are less costly, time-proven wastewater system alternatives available that do not require extending primary power to No Name Key, which need to be fully considered before the June 18th voting. In regard to agenda item M-2, amending of the CBRS overlay district on NNK is unjustified in that all the requirements for exclusion have not and can not be met. Green living is the necessary and intensifying wave of the future. Your H-3 agenda item resolution to create a Green Ribbon Building Code task force supports this. We moved to No Name Key specifically because it is a solar community. Living in a totally solar community is a great source of pride and the responsible, progressive thing to do. This is tht, lifestyle that we chose and wish to be able to continue. Please vote NO on both M-2 and M-3 agenda items. Thank you, Janice Scanlon Introducing Live Search cashback . It's search that pays you back! Trv it Now= lof I 6117/08 11:31 PM aolrich:ln615401094l Subj: no name key Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 1:22:41 PM From: Drdrytn To: McCoy-Sonoy@monroecouoty-f1.gov, Spehar-Dixie@monroecounty-f1.gov, Neogeot-George@mooroecounty-f1.gov, DiGenoaro-Mario@mooroecouoty-f1.gov, Murphy-Sylvia@mooroecounty-f1.gov ce: Mica! ouk, douville@bellsouth.oet ladies and gentlemen, the current controversy about no name key causes me concem. i live at 1868 no name drive on no name key. i consider it a great privilege to live on no name key. i would hope that you would have some interest in preserving it. i keep asking myself why there has been such a rush to find a solution to a somewhat dubious sewage problem. my conclusion is that the few who would destroy no name key for their own profit are at it again. while i applaud your discovery of public sentiment regarding the sewage issue on no name i suggest that you slow down. it is never wise to be on the leading edge when it comes to adapting to new govemment regulations. they tend to change. deadlines are pushed into the future. litigation arises because of premature actions. i doubt that anyone would turn down electricity corning to no name if it were: (a) installed free of charge to us homeowners. (b) done in a manner so as to not disturb life on no name. (c) not followed by development. but you and i both know that electricity will change things on no name and will ultimately cause development to occur. I encourage you to continue to explore ways of solving the sewage problem without destroying a really unique piece of paradise. it would be far cheaper to simply pay those dissidents who demand power to move to one of the keys that has already been ruined by overdevelopment than to ruin the one key that hasn't. sincerely, laurence r. dry, md, jd Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008. 1 of 1 6/17/08 11:41 PM Tue, Jun 17,2008 11:47 PM Subject: Fwd: Decision for No Name Key Date: Sunday, June 15, 20087:41 PM From: Unda Douville <Isdouville@bellsouth.net> To: <douville@bellsouth.net> Conversation: Decision for No Name Key Begin forwarded message: From: Linda Douville <Isdouville@bellsouth.net> Date: June 15, 2008 10:33:19 AM EDT To: Mario DiGennaro <boccdis4@monroecounty-fl.gov>, Sylvia Murphy <boccdis5@monroecounty-fl.gov>, Sonny McCoy <boccdis3@monroecounty-fl.gov>, George Neugent <boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov>, Dixie Spehar <boccdis1 @monroecounty-fl.gov> Subject: Decision for No Name Key Dear Commissioner: Please read this letter. I will be at the Commission meeting on Wednesday but am uncomfortable speaking in public. I am Linda Douville and have lived full time year round on No Name Key for 18 YEARS. I am a voting taxpayer. I live in a completely solar powered home without a generator and still have all the amenities that you have in your homes. I am not a rich aging hippie sitting on my porch counting deer. I have worked full time as a nurse for 21 years in the Keys, serving as the Director of Nurses in both Lower Keys Medical Center and Fishermen's Hospital, am presently running the Primary Care Clinic for uninsured and low-income patients with Dr. Covington, and am on the administration team at Fishermen's Hospital. I tell youl this because, as you may see, I have a lot of friends and acquaintances in the Keys. Whenever the electrification of No Name Key rears it's ugly head, they all ask me the same question: why do people move here and then want to change the island to suit them? Page 1 of 3 I have had trouble understanding that myself. Over the years of watching people come and go, I have noticed 3 possible excuses: - IGNORANCE - Some claim they were told that we would eventually have commercial power. After 20 years of public commission and judicial rulings, this can no longer be an excuse for the vast majority of people who live here now. I believe that I am one of the most long-term residents and I knew the rules of the island when I moved here. - CHANGE IN ATTITUDE. This I believe is the most common reason people want grid power. Many people have moved here for the romance of the island, the idea of life off grid, and the lack of development. Once here, they realize that they cannot live within the confines of constant conservation of resources. So, they expect the island to change to accommodate their needs. - GREED" This is also a common reason why people have come and gone. Houses on NNK were lower in price than similar houses elsewhere because of the energy and water systems. So, certain folks have bought here, have or are pushing for grid power, then sell out at a higher price. Shame on them. So once again, there are those who are asking you to remove the CBRS designation from part of NNK as a first step in their campaign to bring grid power here. The "Big Green Lie" that some of them are living has been a CHOICE they have made and can be rectified by energy systems like mine at a cost that a nurse can afford. Please be wise in realizing that the future of NNK should not be a popularity contest based on the desires of current residents. The County should be proud for it's past support of the preservation of the island as an example of the alternative energy lifestyle and should continue supporting the solar community. The island belongs not only to us, but to the residents of the Keys and the hundreds of visitors who come here daily to see the deer, walk, run, kayak, stargaze, hike, see the champion trees and rare wildflowers, fish, and swim. Please vote to deny the removal of the designation. Page 2 of 3 Thank you for your consideration Linda S. Douville 32340 Cat Lane No Name Key Page 3 of 3 . L,'2~ ?Oj3qx41 "11f3/()~ B()ec . f}gerda. 14-3 b'S~ t~ ~ I. .:J)Qa~ CoL-ClA\O' G\ftAVIt\\.S\Oh~\> " I 6,1+ w.~~~ l:,{r)~ o~ No VO/fhL/(0JfJ/ (~ \Cr?)S) \~'~~~~ C0cJ~ Ulc\)QN bL~Q$idf5 .LU~ ~otrQ.W ~\on2:>'"\-~~ .l te.J,v- tkot- ~ ts Q.()YV)1~\<b. wr\"t\ fu ~ ~~cili ~o~-' SQWC'-00 \'^' aoto (.u~ W\\\ kcvK 10 c90 <2DThUt\~~ , l, S~ ':> 10 VVl.X- tko} <30 -\0J~ S\ 'S\€S 'Seas iQ~W) wouJ& W -tt.sL \I'v\o s\ .cost <Q Q.c1I0.-L o~c-ti1Jn. \ ~ OJ-SD <s~'S-to 1IV\~ -ti 1-9 ~ SiDVL ~~~s \t~ ~ ~~ ~ho(,J& ~ -9o\" 'eto(/ I I O:M o/)~ ~ -ifJ' \Q,\cU1~l~ \QvJ O(JJYl-Q,.J 6'\\&e\""s \Q~t G.V\c9. bill! \QJn'im~r ,(~~f)~""~ --tt'\DtA~ Q\ ~ fu ~s r LAit-{,& b~ ~ boCt~ ~ ~~ (1) tVow ~ (~ &e~'&~~ to C,^OM~ ib )--Ol~ !;...L 1t0'rvl ~()D1 ~ -6, \l, 100 fjCW;~ ~~ \~ ex. 1'~~i)~~lJ -V\O-C52- .. \ () ~)\),\~'V'I ~.Q.dt-ICll~ IT O)CXJ& Vlt1Q.)-~~ ~Cd1'7~ '-'"~\{) 'H~~ E~i~,)I\~l'O)f)* -rbt~ \0'1 \jou.y QitetA1\1Jl) ~& tAoyl t (A \\UO LAp0,y kcJ ~, ~ \,-\CQ~~ [~~~ Z~().;n Tue, Jun 17, 2008 11:48 PM Subject: June 18th BOCC agenda Date: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:47 AM From: douville <douville@bellsouth.net> To: < Digennaro-Mario@monroecounty-fl.gov>, <Spehar-Dixie@Monroecounty-fl.gov>, < McCoy-sonny@monroecounty-fl.gov>, < Murphy-Sylvia@monroecounty-fl.gov>, < Neugent-george@monroecounty-f1.gov> Conversation: June 18th BOCC agenda From: Hallett Douville 32340 Cat Lane No Name Key Fl. 33043 To: Monroe County Commisioners Subj: Items M-2/M-3 CBRS and Monroe County Code Change for No Name Key and "The Linking Of Conmlercial Power to Wastewater Systems." Dear County Commisioners, I have lived and worked in the Florida Keys since 1979 and have lived on No Name Key since 1991. I bought my property on No Name Key in 1979 . Although 1 do not personally want a central wastewater system, I realize that trying to oppose this issue is not fair to the rest of the residents who want to have this option. People who bought their homes on NNK knew there was no commercial power or water on the Island. What was not know or anticipated was having to meet the 2010 wastewater mandate and the costs and ramifications thereof. There is no one on NNK that is against a central wastewater collection system provided it is not linked to bringing commercial power to the Island. There are 15 homeowners (out of a total of 43) that are against linking the wastewater issue with commercial power, especially in light of the fact the STEP/STEG system will work on NNK without involving Keys Energy and commercial/primary power. This system would also be the most cost effective option. It is becoming quite evident that a group ofNNK residents and a few of the County Commissioners do not care about the cost of wastewater treatment on NNK. They want a system that requires commercial/primary power whatever the cost. This movement will not go unopposed, and will be exposed for what it is doing thru newspaper articles, lobbying and legal action. A future newspaper headline will read something like this. Page 1 of 2 "BOCC squanders limited wastewater funds to subsidize bringing commercial power to No Name Key" I urge the County Commissioners to vote No against the CBRS change and No against changing the Monroe County Code to allow commercial power on NNK. Sincerely, Hallett Douville Page 2 of 2 aolrich:tnI89801078l Subi: RE:LetterstoBOCC Date: Tuesday. June 17. 2008 11:19:35 AM From: thescanlons@hotmail.com To: micalnnk@aol.com Date: June 17, 2008 Robert Scanlon 1845 No Name Drive No Name Key, FL 33043 872-8845 Re: BOCC June 18 meeting - Agenda Items M-2 and M-3 / No Name Key Dear Monroe County Commissioners: I am a supervisor for JIATF South and will not be able to attend the BOCC meeting June 18th, but please realize how important these BOCC agenda items are to me. My wife and I bought our home on No Nane Key four years ago and are full-time residents. It was my express decision to move to No Name Key specifically because it is a solar community. Living in a totally solar community is a great source of pride and I am approa(~hed almost daily with questions regarding solar electricity and admiration for the "green" lifestyle we are living. There are advantageous alternative choices to meeting the 2010 wastewater mandate that will not require bringing primary power to NNK. We made a conscious, intelligent decision to live in a totally solar community and do not want to regress. Please vote NO on both M-2 and M-3 agenda items. Thank you, Robert Scanlon Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger. 1M on Your terms.= I of 1 6/17/08 11:29 PM - Subj: Date: BOCC Agenda M-3: No Name Key Tuesday, June 17, 20.0.8 11:37:14 PM Fro.m: Dr. Snell (Mick) Putney 2150 No. Name Drive No. Name Key, FL 33043 872-8888 Date: 06/16/2008 Re: 06/18/2008 BOCC Regular Meeting, Maratho.n, FL Agenda Item M-3 Dear Cammissianers: My name is Mick Putney, and I have been a resident afNa Name Key fo.r aver 17 years. W,e designed aur hause to. be powered by salar, and live quite happily witho.ut ever using a backup generato.r. The pro.Posal to. seek changes in Co.unty and Federal regulatio.ns in o.rder to. fo.rce co.mmercial electricity an o.ur island seem woefully aut o.f step with o.ur natio.n's grawing awareness af the necessity o.f encauraging the develo.pment and demo.nstratian af alternative Po.wer. Tho.se who have pressured yo.U to. pursue this co.urse o.f actio.n do. no.t represent everyo.ne an the island; in fact at least 15 o.f the 43 hausehald appase co.mmercial electrificatio.n. We, the members o.fthe So.lar Co.mmunity o.fNo. Name Key, have relied o.n the existing rules and regulatio.ns that pro.hibit the extensio.n o.f cammercial electricity to. No. Name Key. Meeting the wastewater mandate o.f2010 can be do.ne withaut extending co.mmercial electricity to the 43 ho.mes an the island. Please do. l1o.t destro.y o.ur lifestyles. Each and every resident knew No. Name Key did nat have cammercially supplied power ar Po.rtable water when they maved to. No. Name Key. 6/1 7/08 America anline ; Mical nnk Page 1 There has been no discussion of how this electrification would be financed. The cost would seem prohibitive to those homeowners who are calling for commercial power, KfiYs Energy has made it clear that they will not finance it, and that leaves the County holding the bill at a time when funds are desperately short, and there are not even money to even plan the sewering of the Lower Keys Regional Wastewater Service Area. Clearly it would be unfair to the taxpayers who do not live on No Name to provide this special treatment, and if it were done, the political fallout could be extensive. I urge you to remove the item for the electficication of No Name from the agenda. Sincerely, //Mick Putney// 6/17/08 America Online : Mical nnk Page 2 aolrich:ln4594710901 Subj: Date: From: bee: Hans and Corry to BOCC Saturday, June 14, 2008 8:37:01 AM Mical nnk arknarf@bellsouth.net, douville@belIsoutb.net, Drdrytn, ffnowher@belIsouth.net, hamericor, hanthonyc@belIsouth.net,janie@wastewatersystems.com,jfgato@msn.com, Mical nnk, michaelpress@hotmail.com,SHW42, thescanlons@hotmail.com, transistor42@yahoo.com, troa9@yahoo.com, turtle2@ptd.net, twoturtlestandl@belIsoutb.net, wbrou@uab.edu, Wonding, PALLOTI.ORI -............ Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008. (http://citysbest.aoI.com ?ncid=aolacgoo050000000102) Subj: NNK Date: Saturday, June 14, 2008 5:54:15 AM From: hamericor To: McCoy-Sonny@monroecounty-fl.gov, Spehar-Dixie@monroecounty-fl.gov, Neugent-George@monroecounty-fl.gov, DiGennaro-Mario@monroecounty-fl.gov, Murphy..gylvia@monroecounty-fl.gov bee: Mical nnk Dear Commissioners, Being from Europe l' am always amazed to see the attitude of most Americans towards natural resources, witch to them seems to be endless and always available. It was a relieve to find Americans with an utber attitude, who care about nature and are aware that we have to go into an other direction. Having no grid on NNK they were forced to do so, but nevertl1eless they did so, voluntarily and passionate. This is why I bought my house on NNK in 1995 for being away from the noise of airconditioning, overpower consumiug people and lightpolution at night. Luckily in an earlier struggle about electrification we found the commissioners on our side and even was decided to keep NNK as an examp:ie for the future. Now, new people in town want to change No Name Key to an area like all the other area's, with a false reason that we need commercial power fur pumping out our sewer, while the Step/Steg methode is a very good alternative.For those people who want to have aireo and all the other goodies is place enough in the other keys.For us there is no place to go when No Name Key is changed for ever and loses its uniqueness. I hope that you commissioners are aware that history will judge you on your decision. sincerely, J.A. Wernsen C.Vanderlinde Get the Movie/one Toolbar. Showtimes. theaters, movie news, & more! I of I 6/17/08 11:37 PM aolrich:/lI07284II099/ Subj; P088ible unintended and mmecessary consequences of Item M3: Code Changes for No Name Key WlIlltewater 8ylltems Date; Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:51:56 PM From: ahiggins@TNC.ORG To; boccdis4@monroecounty-fl.gov, Murphy-8ylvia@monroecounty-fl.gov, Neugent-George@monroecounty-fl.gov, McCoy-Sonny@monroecounty-fl.gov, Spehar-Dlxie@monroecounty-fl.gov Dear Commissioners, I am writing to voice my concern over the potential of Agenda Item M-3 to fuel the agenda of the pro-electricity movement, and potentially alter the County's sustainable showcase that is No Name Key. The 43 houses on No Name Key were deemed in a coldspot because they ranked almost dead last in affordability of hooking up under traditional methods. Understandably concerned about meeting 2010 wastewater standards, the pro-electricity crowd has nakedly advocated for some of these same traditional methods in order to get the extension of primary power (High Voltage) to the island. Technology and feasibility may likely render the electricity argument moot. There are already four known alternatives which do not involve extending electricity to No Name Key neighborhoods but still enable them to meet the 20 I 0 wastewater standards. This outside-the-box thinking by professionals in their fields (County Engineers, FKAA, DCA and No Name Keys OVl'll. resident wastewater engineer) have identified much more appropriate and cost effective options that do not need a change of Monroe County Code to carry out. The passage of this agenda item may have some strong unintended consequences. Showcasing the efficiencies, ecological design and "normalness" of off-the-grid No Name Key homes has always been one of GLEE's central tools to inspire on-the-grid homeowners to make changes that will keep our islands above the high water line as long as possible. Enabling the changing of County code when it may not be necessary could get a foot in the door of extending high voltage to the homes of those who want something different than the community they bought into. Past resolve and rulings of the County and the Courts to uphold the islands character are to be commended. I urge that you table this item and wait until the most feasible hook up option is identified before voting on a Code change that could allow the extension of high voltage electricity to No Name Key. Sincerely, Alison Higgins GLEE President No Name Key resident 1 of 1 6/18/08 1:08 AM aolrich:ll6799T710621 Subj: Date: From: To: Re: Upper Lower Keys wastewater Dis1rlet Monday, June 16, 2008 10:24:23 PM dig2dance@juno.com Micalnnk@ao\.com Hello Alicia; this just went out to the Commissioners. We hope it's OK. We are sorry we can't make it tothe Wed. meeting. We have to take our house guest to the airporrt that day. Good luck, Dieter and Use From: Dieter & Use Gerlach 3806 Sunset Drive (Port Pine Heights) Big Pine Key, FL 33043 Phone: 305.872.2675 June 16, 2008 Re: Agenda Item M-3-No Name Key Dear Commissioners: Unfortunately we will be unable to attend the meeting regarding the discussion and vote on the resolution regarding Agenda Item M-3-NO Name Key, to be heard on Wednesday, June 18, 2008. As long time residents of Big Pine Key (32 years), we oppose the change in the Monroe County Code. We feel strongly that No Name Key has maintained a reputation of being an ecologically friendly island and should continue to do so. We know that there are ways to bring the 43 No Name Keys homes into compliance with the 2010 Wastewater atandarda without the extension of commercial power lines to this small island and we request that you consider other options. Thank you for your kind consideration to our request to vote in opposition of this agenda item. Very tru\y yours, Dieter and Ilse G..rlach Beauty Advice Just Got a Makeover Read reviews about the beauty products you have always wanted to try http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/JKFkuJi7UZUONP\X2JFgOwwq,5XLoXMJrb6wvOEyZUOY3XLKBLAtkBZ/ 6/17/08 11:18 PM I of 1 aolrich:/l6790931059/ Subj: Date: From: To: Centralized Wastewater No Name Key; Item M-3 June 18 BOCC Sunday, June 15, 2008 7:29:05 PM johnhammer@bellsouth.net boccdis3@monroecounty-f1.gov, boccdis1@monroecounty-f1.gov, Neugent-George@monroecounty-f1.gov, boccdiS4@monroecounty-f1.gov, smurphy!l1@belIsouth.net, Lundstrom- Tamara@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov, Marble- Teni@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov, Gastesi-Roman@monroecounty-f1.gov, trivette-andrew@monroecounty-f1.gov, Hanson-Donna@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov, ronesaunders@comCllSt.nel, rebecca.jetton@dca.state.f1.us, boccdis5@monroecounty-f1.gov Dear Commissioners, I object to the disproportionate and wasteful expense involved with providing centralized sewer service to selective remote areas of Monroe County. We in the Upper Keys are grappling with bow to satisfy wastewater- related, water-quality requirements for several remote areas that have been deemed too expensive to be connected to our centralized sewer system. The two largest areas are "North Key Largo" which is the ares along County Road 905 iD the vicinity of Dagoy JohDsoD Key Largo Hammock Botanical State Park and the Crocodile Lakes NatioDal Wildlife Refuge. The other ares is Cross Key at the Miami-Dade County liDe alODg US-1. At every Key Largo Wastewater TreatmeDt District meeting that I've atteDded, the CommissioDers struggle with how to pay for the State mandate to improve water quality. The decision to NOT include the two areas above was based on the inordinate expense involved with coDnectiDg remou! areas to a ceDtralized system. This decisioD did Dot come easily, partic.m.rly since the secret to reducing costs for iDdividuals is iDcreasing the Dumber of connections. The Key Largo Wastewater District, like all ceDtralized system operators, seeks to spread their capital costs among the widest Dumber of clients. For these remote area., however, the additional coat far exceeds the benefit of attempting to expand the customer base. The cost exceeds the benefit. Homes iD such lID'as must seek alternate wastewater solutions. Such is the case with No Name Key, where the expense of remoteDess is exacerbated by th" absence of utility water and power that would be required to install a centralized wastewater system. As a Monroe CoUllty taxpayer, I support the wise decisioD to exclude remote areas from ceDtralized sewer systems. I particularly object to the absurd cost that would be required of rate payers and taxpayers to provide full water, electricity and wastewater treatment for ODe of those remote areas. It is my strong recommeDdatioD that Monroe County seek legislative relief from the unattainable goal of connecting every home in Monroe County to a ceDtralized sewer system, and further seek definition of suitable alternate wastewater treatmeDt systems or traDsportation of waste for homes deemed to be "remote" by virtue of costfbenefit analysis. If such a fiscally respoDsible approach were achieved, theD I would support ShariDg anyadditioDal costs borne by those remote homes compared to average centralized sewer conDections, as aD alternative to tbepoteDtialIy grotesque total fiDancial cost iDvolved with coDDectiDg to a central system. Sincerely, JohD Hammerstmm Tavernier 10f! 6/17/08 11:18 PM aolrich:ll68135410681 Subi: JtDle 18BOCCMeetIng-ltemsM-2andM-3 Date: SundJ.y, June 15, 2008 8:35:14 AM From: DRenize To: bocc<IIisl@monroecounty-fl.gov, Spehar-Dixie@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov bee: Mical nnk Dear Commissioner Spehar: I am writing you regarding two items on the agenda for the June 18 2008 BOCC meeting: "Commissioners' Items" M-2 and M-3, Mayor Di Gennaro's items regarding sewering and utilities on No Name Key. I strongly oppose amending the Coastal Barrier Resource System Overlay District to remove the prohibition on constructing a central sewer system and utilities on No Name Key (Item M-3), for a number of reasons: (1) I live in Cudjoe Acres, an SR-zoned subdivision on Cudjoe Key, off Blimp Road. My wife and I have been told by the county's wastewater coordinator that our subdivision is not likely to be connected to the central sewer system being planned for the Lower Keys from Sugarloaf to Big Pine Key, because our neighborhood is composed of homes on one-acre lots, and therefore the expense for pipe would be too great. However, oW' subdivision is directly across Blimp Road from the site for the regional wastewater plant being planned to serve several islands, including Big Pine, and if these measures are approved, also No Name Key. I am outraged that some County Commissioners want to sewer an island located over ten miles up the Keys, even more sparsely settled than our neighborhood, yet we are told we probably won't be connected to the wastewater plant almost under our noses and will have to pay for individual on-site plants. (2) I have read that the county anticipates paying up to $50,000 per EDU to sewer No Name Key. This is an outrageous waste of taxpayers money, especially when our neighborhood directly across the road from the planned regional plant is being told it would be too costly to connect us. (3) I have no doubt that the proposed amendment to allow central sewers and utilities on No Name Key is a poorly disguised maneuver to electrify No Name Key, in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan, to please a very small number of No Name Key residents. The solar community on No Name Key is a model of sustainability, and the excuse of needing central sewers should not be used to undermine it as such. (4) I read in Saturday's Key West Citizen that "County officials plan to visit Charlotte County this month to review a system that is cheaper than most and does not require commercial power". If alternative wastewater systems exist that do not require commercial power, those alternatives must be fully explored, especially if they are cheaper. Nobody can argue with the fact that Monroe County is mandated to "clean up its act" with regard to lof2 6/17/08 11:19 PM aolrich:!!6S13S4I068! wastewater, and that includes No Name Key. But alternatives to systems requiring electrification must be explored before any amendments to the CBRS overlay are even contemplated'. (5) Regarding Item M-2, removing part of No Name Key from the CBRS: there simply is no demonstrated justification for this. Please Opposl~ these two important items. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely, Dennis Henize Cudjoe Key ..11111111111...."" Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008. (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=ao)acgoo050000000102) 20f2 6/17108 11:19 PM Subj: FW: Agenda Item M-3 Date: Tuesday, June 17. 2008 8:12:35 AM From: tbescanJons@hotmail.com To: micalnnk@aol.com From: karennazzaro@beUsouth.net To: thesc'.anlonS@hotmail.com Subject: Fw: Agenda Item M-3 Dale: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:14:03-()4()() Jan, 1 sent emails to all commissioners. Good Luck to all of us. Have ~~ wonderful day. Karen Karen & Capt. John Nazzaro Notary Public, Realtors Century :!1 Prestige Realty Group Direct 305 923-9074 Office 305 515-0116 ext 104 Home/FlIl( 305.872.1577 Visit our webslte for local information and to view the MLS: www.karenl1..77..ro.com - Original Message-- From: Karen Nazzaro . To: DiGennaro-Mariolfbmonroecountv-fl.oov Sent: Monday. June 16, 2008 9:55 AM SubJect: Agenda Item M-3 Karen Nazzaro 1351 Wl:st Shore DR Big Pine Key, FL 33043 305 872--1577 June 16, 2008 Re: Agenda Item M-3 No Name Key Dear Monroe County Commissioners: 1 am a 13 year resident of Eden Pines Colony on Big Pine Key. I am writing you to request that you vote in opposition to changing the Monroe County Code in agenda item M-3 ;, Approval to direct staff to amend Section 9.5-268 Coastal Barrier Resources lof2 aolrich://67834110561 6/17/08 11:18 PM aolrich://6783411056/ System Overlay District of the Monroe County Code to eliminate the prohibition of the establishment of central wastewater treatment collection systems and utilities for No Name Key in accordance with previously approved BOCC directIon to include No Name Key within the central sanitary wastewater system plan for the Lower Keys Regional Service Area The County does not have the funds to begin the planning process for Big Pine Key residents so it is ludicrous to suggest bringing electricity, for the purpose of central waste water system, to No Name Key for 43 residential properties. In addition, I attended a meeting on Big Pine Key with a county employee stating there are systems available that do not require electricity. These systems need to be considered for No Name Key. Thank you for considering a vote in opposition to this agenda item. Sincerely, Karen Nazzaro Karen & Capt. John Nazzaro Notary Public, Realtors Century 21 Prestige Realty Group Direct 305 923-9074 Office 305 515-{)116 ext 104 Home/Fax 305.872.1577 Visit our website for local information and ll:l view the MLS: www.karennazzaro.com The other season of gMng begins 6/24/08. Check out the i~ Talkathon. Check it out! = 2of2 6117/08 11:18 PM aolrich://67 166410511 Subj: Fw: June 18,2008 BOCC meeting, Agenda Items M-a and M-a Date: Tuesday. June 17. 2008 11:42:36 AM From: dlmkw@bellsouth.net To: Micalnnk@aoLcom -- Original Message- From: .QQn.sl. To: DiGennaro-Mariot!llmonroecountv-f1.aov Cc: McCov-Sonnvt!llmonroecountv-fl.aov ; Soehar-Dixiet!llmonroecountv-fl.aov ; Neuaent-Georaet!llmonroecountv-fl.aov ; Murohv-Svlviat!llmonroecountv-f1.aov ; Hutton-Suzannet!llmon roecountv -fl. aov ; Kohlaae-Dannvt!llmon roecountv-fl. aov Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:36 AM Subject: June 18,2008 BOCC meeting, Agenda Items M-2 and M-3 Dear Mayor DiGennaro, Please be advised that I strongly oppose using millions of Monroe County taxpayer dollars to run electric and sewer lines to an island that has ALWAYS been well-known as an "Off-The-Grid" community and the heart of the Key Deer herd. There are only 40 or so homes on the entire island, many of which are occupied only part of the time. It is a distance of over two miles to run the proposed lines across the bridge and down the main road alone, not to mention the distances up the residential roads. When I built my home I was responsible for paying to run the power and water lines to my house, not the taxpayers. These proposed expenditures by this County Commission are irresponsible at best or catering to "friends" or backers at worst. There is no way that any of this is economically feasible on any basis... especially in these terrible times of financial crisis for our County. In addition removal of the Coastal Barrier overlay is ridiculous. No Name Key is a prime example of everything the Coastal Barrier designation was created to protect.ls the BOCC proposing to pay the costs of lobbyists as well to get the federal government to change a designation that was made after years of careful review? How much will that cost on behalf of the favored few "friends" who live on No Name. I don't think that a few people who bought their homes a few years ago, knowing that No Name Key was a special place, should now be allowed to "stick if' to the rest of the taxpayers, to totally change No Name Key, with the help of a few Commissioners who don't seem to care about their responsibilties to the rest of this community at all. The money that the BOCC is proposing to waste on the No Name "Commissioner's Pef' project on No Name would pay to fund the entire engineering plan for the rest of the Lower Keys. I will watch your votes on June 18 with great interest and remember them on election day. Sincerely, G. Joseph Eckerson Summerland Key lof 1 6/17/08 1l:16 PM aolrich:ll6703741048l Subj: Date: From: To: No :Name Key Tuesday, June 17, 20088:06:30 AM jborel@juno.com micalnnk@aol.com Hi Alicia, I sent this yesterday. Hope it helps. Joan -- Forwarded Message Dear Commissioners, As a 40 resident of the Keys and a taxpayer, I am writing to express my objections to the proposals to designate No Name Key as a wastewater "hot spot" and to remove part of the island from the Coastal Barrier Resources System (Items M-2 and M-3 on the Jnne 18 agenda). The County has adopted a Wastewater Master Plan which sets valid priorities based on population density and maximum cost benefit. Please do not deviate from this efficient and sensible approach. Current financial realities will make it difficult to sewer even the already designated "hot spots" which are contributing the most pollution. No Name is a model community with a few sustainable, low impact homes, and no electricity. To designate this sparsely settled, out-of-the-way island as a "hot spot" renders the designation meaningless. It will set a had precedent leading to demands from other "cold spots" that in all fairness they too should be designated "hot spots". Then we will have nothing but hot spots. With our water quality crisis and the 2010 state mandate looming, the county should first accomplish the priorities established in our Wastewater Management Plan. Cold spots can be addressed after the critical "hot spots " are taken care of. Sewering the Keys is one of the most important and challenging issues we face.aI am unable to attend this meeting, but I strongly urge you to stick to the plan and reject these items. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joan Borel, Summerland Key Click and szet free information on a satisfvine: career as a massa2e theraoist. I of I 6/17/08 11:16 PM Subj: NNKBOCCM-3 Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:15=25 PM From: thlnkgreen12@bellsouth.net (mailto:thinkgreen12@bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 3:44 PM To: BOCCDIS4; suzanne hutton; BOCC_DIS3; BOCCDISS; Marble-Terri SUbject: Agenda Item M-3 No Name Key From: Brenda Schneider 3841 Donna Road Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 Date: June 14,2008 Dear Monroe County Commissioners: I have been a full time resident of Big Pine for nearly 20 years. Almost 10 years ago, I stood before you at a County Commission Meeting in Key West speaking to the same issue--Electrification of No Name Key. This time this same issue is disguised under the mask of Waste Water. The basic issue, however, is to bring electricity to No Name Key. A place that has only 43 homes and the homeowners knew when they bought there was no electricity on this island. It was their choice. Now the issues raises its nasty head again, but this time the county does not have 2 million dollars to run central sewer lines to 43 homes. The county, as you well know, is BROKE. I strongly suggest we leave the residents on No Name Key Key their pro-solar homes just as they are. As they were when the 43 home owners bought their homes. After all, they are living the Green Living Philosophy. You, as the County Commissioners, should applaud this. No Name Key should and is an example for all of us to follow. 6/17/08 America Online : Mical nnk Page 1 aolrich:II66733710451 Subj: June 18BOCCAgenda Items M-a andM"3 Date: Monday, June 16, 2008 3=42:11 PM From: keysjoyce@hotmail.com To: hutton-suzanne@monroecounty-f1.gov Dear Ms. HuttDn, FYI, today I sent messages similar In the one below In all five of the members of the Board of County Commissioners. Regards, Joyce Newman From: keysjoyce@hotmail.com To: digennaro-mario@monroecounty-f1.gov Subject: June 18 BOCC Agenda Items M-2 and M-3 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:57:55 -()6()() Dear Mayor DiGennaro, I am writing as a 33-year resident of Big Pine Key who has followed wastewater issues In Monroe County closely since 1978. I strongly oppose removing part of No Name Key from the Coastal Barrier Resources System and amending the Coastal Barrier Resources System Overlay District In remove the prohibition on extending a future central sewer system and utilities In sparsely settled No Name Key. My opposition Is based on financial fairness to current property owners on BIg Pine Key and first-hand knowledge of key historical events surrounding the long-standing prohibition of services to No Name Key. Currently there are several Big Pine Key neighborhoods designated as central sewer "cold spots", each area of which has a greater number and density of housing units than exJsts on No Name Key. If property owners on No Name Key were In be granted "special status" by the Board of County Commissioners, then property owners in all of the other "cold spots" would demand special treatment, including comparable direct financial subsidies from Monroe County. It is not fair to over one thousand Big Pine Key property owners for those on Name Key to be given special treatment As for the hlslDry of not furnishing services In the solar community on No Name Key, the evidence is conclusive: extensive public and staff input resulted In the INCWSION of all of No Name Key in the COastal Barrier Resources System In 1990 and the EXQ..USION of all of No Name Key in the Year 2000 Master Wastewater Plan. These key policy decisions were thoroughly debated and examined. For the above reasons, I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and OPPOSE Agenda Items 101-2 and 101-3. Thank you for considering my perspectives. Due to a scheduling conflict, I cannot attend Wednesday's BOCC meeting, but I will follow the BOCC's actions on both Agenda items cited. Sincerely, Joyce Oark Newman PO Box 430137 Big Pine Key, florida 33043-0137 305-8n-4694 lof2 6/17/08 11:15 PM aolrich:II66563110421 Subj: Date: From: bee: NNK - BOCC Kathy's Letter Monday, June 16, 2008 9:01:47 AM Mical nnk arknarf@bellsouth.net,douville@bellsouth.net, Drdrytn, ffnowher@bellsouth.net,jfgato@rnsn.com, Mical nnk, michaelpress@hotmail.com,SHW42, thescanlons@hotmail.com,troa9@yah00.com, turt1e2@ptd.net, whrou@uab.edu, Wonding Begin forwarded message: From: george wheeler <katl!eo(a)bellsouth.net> Date: June 16,200812:11:03 AM EDT To: boccdis 1 (Q)monroecountv- fl.l!ov. boccdis2rlUmonroecountv- fl.llOV. boccdis3({i)monroecountv- fl.l!ov. boccdis4(a)monroecountv-fl.20v. boccdis5(a)monroecountv- fl.20V Cc: Rebecca.ietton(a)dca.state.fl.us Subject: BOCC agenda Items M-l & M-3, June 18 Re: NNK June IS, 2008 Dear Commissioner, Yesterday I came across information in an article in the Key West Citizen that County officials plan to visit Charlotte County this month to review a system that is cheaper than most and does not require commercial power. Then why the rush to force commercial power on No Name Key homeowners? At the very least, Wedoesday's agenda items M-2 & M-3 should be postponed until this investigative trip is completed and County Engineers have a chance to consider their findings. This is just another attempt hy some to electrify No Name Key. I do not want to pay a dime out of my pocket to supply them with electricity when they knowingly purchased property where commercially-supplied power was not available. They then had a choice, use clean, sustainable solar power or generators. Keys Energy customers should not be expected to pick up any of the cost to bring powerlines to homes there, the residents knew where they were purchasing homesites and what their power options were. Green living should be encouraged by our local government, why else would item H. 3 be on your agenda: Adoption of a resolution formally creating the Green Ribbon Building Code Task Force pursuant to previous BaCC direction for the evaluation and recommendation of green building techniques to be included as a local technical amendment to the Florida Building Code. Fulfill the requirement of our Comp Plan to clean up our nearshore waters, do not get fooled by a few people into compounding the task at hand. I urge you to oppose amending the Coastal Barrier Resource System Overlay District to eliminate the prohibition on establishment of central wastewater treatment collection systems and utilities on No Name Key. Respectfully yours, Kathy Wheeler 29791 Harbor Lights Rd Big Pine Key .....111111...1.. Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008. (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacgoo050000000102) lof! 6117/08 11:14 PM aolrich:II664845 10391 Subj: Date: From: To: No Subject Sunday, June 1.5. 2008 1:16:33 AM ospreytom@beUsouth.net McCoy-Sonny@monroecounty-fl.gov, Spehar-Dixie@monroecounty-fl.gov, Neugent-George@monroecounty-fl.gov, DiGennaro-Mario@monroecounty-fl.gov, Murphy-Sylvia@monroecounty-fl.gov Dear commisioners: As a homeowner and "'I-year resident of the Florida Keys, I was surprised to read that a fonnal Resolution was recently passed to include No Name Key in the central sewering sYStem (Lower Keys Regional Service Area) and to declare this tiny island a wastewater "hot spot." Given the dire financial straits facing the County coupled with the fact that many citizens- including me-- are struggling to make ends meet, committing over 2 million taxpayer dollars for installing sewers on such a sparsely populated island (only 43 homes) seems imprudent, particularly in light of the fact that there are 1,035 homes elsewhere in the Keys that are identified as 'Cold Spots" that will not be sewered. The comprehensive Year 2000 Wastewater Master Plan categorized No Name Key as a "Cold Spot." It seems to me that No Name Key would rank as a vel)' low priority in light of the fact that there are numerous identified high density "Hot Spots" for whicl1 a shortage of funds for sewers is already a problem. The great expense associated with sewering No Name Key (because of its remoteness and lack of electricity) must be a consideration given the ahove information. I respectfully urge you to focus on installing sewers where they are needed moat -the Hot Spots identified in the Year 2000 Wastewater Master Plan. If, and ouly if, these Hot Spots are addressed, then sparsely populated areas sucl1 as No Name Key should then be considered for allocation of sewer funds. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely yours, Tom Wilmers Big Pine Key 872-5475 I of I 6/17/08 11:14 PM aolrich:ll664048 10361 Subj: Date: From: To: Fwd: preserve CBRS for No Name Key Sunday, June 15, 2008 2:09:32 PM lsdouville@bellsouth.net micalnnk@aoI.com I emailed a few friends for supporting mail. Here is one I got back. ps - I do not know these people so my email has apparently taken a life of its own. Begin forwarded message: From: "John Martini" <im@iohnmartini.com> Date: June 15. 2008 12:47:19 PM EDT To: "Unda Douville" <Isdouville@bellsouth.net> SUbJect: Fw: preeerve CBRS for No Neme Key ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Jennings" <eric@)foolcrow.com> To: < boccdisl(a)monroecountv~f1.e:ov> j <boccdis2{a'lmonroecountv-fle:ov>; <boccdis~(Q)monroecountv-f1. ROV>; <boccdis.d.(Q)monroecountv-fl.2oV> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:37 AM Subject: preserve CBRS for No Name Key We are ardently opposed to bringing commercial power to No Name Key and we urge you not to remove the coastal barrier resources designation from any portion of the key. We fear this will be the first step in a destructive cycle of unnecessary development which will forever change the character of this beantiful refoge. No Name Key should be preserved as a rare natural resource - something this world is losing at an alarming rate. Many alternative and clean sources of power are fast becoming more affordable as well as eminently more practical and efficient when considering long term environmental impact and costs. No Name Key could bring great prestige and recognition to Monroe County if it were to be used as a successful model of a progressive, modem and sustainable alternative to conventional energy generation and usage. Monroe County's greatest natural resource is it's natural environment. Please capitalize on that for the sake of all foture residents and visitors. Eric Jennings Pam Benvenue 823 Emma St KeyWestFL33040 = 10f! 6/17/08 11:14 PM aolrich:/n1225210741 , - Subj: No Name Key BOCC- Item M-a Date: Tuesday. June 17. 2008 11:26:50 PM From: MiCl~ nnk bee: Mica! nnk Hi A I know there is a few mistakes as in the game whisper we played as kids. but so goes life. love susan this is the letter from our cousin Sherry to the comm. I AM WRmNG THIS LEITER IN BEHALF OF ALL MY FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WHO RESIDE ON NO NAME KEY. THERE APPARENTLY ARE A FEW NEW-COMERS TO THE KEY WHO WANT POWER. I HAVE 2 COUSINS WHO HAVE LIVED THERE SINCE 1992, AND MOVED THERE BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUENESS OF THE ISLAND. THEY ARE TOTALLY SELF-SUFFICIENT, USING ALL SOlAR POWER TO RUN THEIR HOUSEHOLDS. THEIR WATER COMES FROM CISTERNS. IT HAS BEEN A WAY OF UFE THAT ALL THE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE LIVED THERE CHOSE. NOW, SUDDENLY, THERE AREA FEW "CmFIED" PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DESTROY ALL THAT THE OTHERS HAVE ACCOMPUSHED BY PUSHING FOR POWER. THEY MOVED TO NO NAME KNOWING FULL WELL IT WAS ALL SOLAR, AND NOW WANT THEIR LAZINESS OR GREED TO MAKE IT UKE MIAMI. I MOVED TO KEY lARGO IN 1990 AND HAVE BEEN VISmNG NO NAME ON A REGUlAR BASIS SINCE THAT TIME, AND I AM STILL AMAZED HOW PERFECf AN AREA IT IS. ANYONE WHO HAS EVER VISITED NO NAME CAN AITEST TO THE BEAUTY OF IT, FROM THE KEY DEER TO THE PERFECf STAR-GAZING DUE TO NO STREETUGHTS. IF THESE NEW RESIDENTS WANTED POWER, WHY WOULD THEY HAVE MOVED HERE? WITH THE SERIOUS ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WE ARE ENCOUNTERING, I BEUEVE THAT THIS UVING "GREEN" ON NO NAME SHOULD BE LEFT AS IS . MORE PEOPLE SHOULD BE UVING IN THIS MANNER, NOT TRYING TO CONVERT IT. I ASK THAT YOU, THE COMMISSIONERS, TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE LAST UNIQUE SPOT IN THE FL. KEYS AND HELP IT TO STAY THAT WAY. NO NAME SHOULD BE A PROTECTED AREA THAT SHOULD REMAIN UNTOUCHED. lof2 6/17/08 11:27 PM aolrich:m1225210741 SINCERELY YOURS, SHERRY KOBIUS 23 SEAGATE BLVD. KEY LARGO, FL. 33037 1IIIIIJlJIJIJ....IIIIlIl! Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aoI.com/used?ncid=aolautooo50000000007l 2of2 6/17/08 11:27 PM Marsha Fletcher 32763 Tortuga Lane No Name Key, FL 33043 Date: June16, 2008 TO; The Board of County Commissioners Please accept this statement on my behalf. I will not be able to be there in person due to employment obligations. Prior to 2001, I had flood insurance. In 2001, I had to refinance my property due to a divorce. I went to several mortgages and financial businesses and the issue of flood insurance was not only an obstacle but a "wall" and my financial troubles tripled. I was forced to take an adjustable rate note until I could get flood insurance which I assumed would be a short period. I went to a local independent insurance company and applied for flood insurance, thinking everything was fine and I was covered. Three months later, FEMA told the insurance agent that I was denied flood insurance but gave no reason for the denial. I applied again because no one knew why I was being denied flood insurance. This took another 3 months before I received another denial. The agent said I should go to a larger national insurance company and apply. I did this and six months later I received a notice that FEMA had denied me flood insurance again with no explanation of why I was being denied. I decided to take my case of bureaucratic red tape to the bureaucrats to assist me. First, I made repeated attempts to speak directly with my elected representative Commissioner Neugent. I called him numerous times, left messages pleading with him to call me, went to his office and he was never available to speak with me. Maybe he was busy, but I was a single mom with a 12- year old son with a major p,roblem and facing the possibility of losing my home and no one would listen to me. I contacted .\ Congresswoman IIleana Ros-Lehtinen, the Monroe County Flood Plains Director, and I talked to anyone in the County that would take my call. The bottom line to this 3 year fight is that only the Mayor of Key West, Charles "Sonny" McCoy listened to me and offered to help me. He did not have to get invoived; he was the mayor of Key West, not the elected representative of No Name. Sonny is the one who took my problem to the County Commissione,rs and spoke on my behalf. The County passed a resolution and permitted my situation to go before a federal judge to move me out of the Coastal Barrier Resource system so I could get flood insurance. The judge said onlv an Act of Congress could help me. I do not understand how Monroe County could not take the time to look into this and correct it, when the Mayor of Key West found the time. ) After seven years of fighting, heartbreak, and tough financial crisis one after another, sleepless nights, losing faith in the goodness of some peopie, deiusions, and defeat at other turn, and doing everything possible to save my home that I struggled to build on No Name Key - I had no alternative left but to give f'1.~ up fighting. I had to put my home on the market for sale. I do not want to sell my home but I don't see any alternatives since it will take years before I will be eligible for flood insurance and that may be too late for me. This testimony does not even scratch the surface as to the amount of time and energy that I have put into this problem. I could not even have gotten this far or even have the knowledge that I was placed in a coastal barrier resource system without the help of Sonny McCoy working on my behalf. And in my struggles, I have found out who my real friends, mostly my 13 neighbors who I can call at anytime for help. They have repaired my home, generators, cars, water leaks or whatever I needed and they have shared my anger, sorrows and worries. But I have lost a lot more that my home and faith in government "for the people." I lost so much of myself during this fight, emotional, mentally, and financially, that I will never be the same again. I lost respect for my government, my elected and appointed officials. These are the people I thought we elected to work for the people - not against the people. The person or persons who placed me and my neighbors in the coastal barrier unit without our knowledge did so with absolute malicious disregard for the consequences and suffering it would cause to me and others. Then the County allowed others to use the coastal barrier resource designation as an excuse to place a land use overlay over us that restricts, limits, and denies us the same property owners' rights and public services that all other citizens receive without any question. I pay the same property tax as everyone else and yet I am denied public services and treated like a second-class citizen. After seven years, I cannot fight anymore. So why is it, that with all the trouble in this Country and County, that this end of onlv one tiny island in the keys with only 14 homes require an Act of Congress to be treated like all other citizens of Monroe County? Why are you discriminating against me and why didn't this Board and County Staff do something when the problem first came to your attention years ago? I am not sure that I will ever understand this and after all these years I am too tired to continue fighting and trying to understand it. Thank you for allowing my statement to be read to you. I hope you will support our petition to be removed from the coastal barrier resource system. But for today, I need to stay focused on workir!lg and keeping my job - I still have a long and difficult road ahead of me and my family. ~\a. ~tclut Marsha Fletcher