Item J4 J4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY of MONROE Mayor James K.Scholl,District 3
The Florida Keys Mayor Pro Tern Michelle Lincoln,District 2
Craig Cates,District 1
David Rice,District 4
Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
February 19, 2025
Agenda Item Number: J4
2023-3651
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning & Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Emily Schemper
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Discussion and Direction Regarding Approval Process Timeline for Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Code Text Amendments and Potential Opportunities to Shorten the Minimum Amount of
Time Necessary to Complete Such Approvals.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
At their regular meeting on January 15, 2025, the BOCC requested professional staff to bring back a
discussion item regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments and the required approval process timeline,
including which steps of the process are required by Florida Statute and which steps are local Monroe
County requirements (January 15, 2025, Item R3). During the January discussion, the BOCC indicated
that for certain changes to the Comprehensive Plan, such as the amendments the BOCC directed to re-
distribute remaining ROGO allocations, timing is an important factor, but the current process requires
over a year to complete. Multiple commissioners expressed a desire to be able to implement such
amendments in an expeditious manner.
Attached is a table showing the required steps and associated timing within the current process for a
County-initiated Comprehensive Plan text amendment with a county-wide impact, and for a County-
initiated Land Development Code text amendment with a county-wide impact. The basis/citation for
each requirement is also included and categorized as a State requirement (BLUE) or a County
requirement(RED).
The total timeline for a County-initiated Comprehensive Plan text amendment with a county-wide
impact is currently a minimum of 10-11 months, plus whatever time is initially necessary for
preparation of the amendment.
The total timeline for a County-initiated Land Development Code text amendment with a county-wide
impact is currently a minimum of 9-12 months, depending on whether it has a corresponding
Comprehensive Plan amendment,plus preparation time.
3343
Professional staff have reviewed the steps required to process text amendments, and identified one step
that adds a great deal of extra time to the process. In 2016, with the adoption of the Monroe County
Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan and associated Land Development Code updates, Policy 1302.1.5 and
Section 102-159 were created, which require a Community Meeting at least three (3) months prior to
the first public hearing (Planning Commission) for text amendments with a county-wide impact.
Policy 1302.1.5
Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations creating a required community meeting to
emphasize the importance of citizen participation as early as possible in the planning process. The
following shall be considered for inclusion:
• Proposals by the County or a private applicant to amend the text of the Land Development Code
and/or Comprehensive Plan, with a county-wide impact, shall require a community meeting at
least three(3) months prior to any required public hearing.
• A private applicant shall pay the cost of the public notice and advertising for the community
meeting.
• This meeting shall be noticed and advertised by the County at least 10 days before the
community meeting, in a newspaper of general circulation.
• This meeting shall be facilitated by a representative from the Monroe County Growth
Management Division and the applicant shall be present at the meeting.
County-initiated text amendments are often discussed by the BOCC at one or more public meetings and
direction to proceed with the amendments is frequently given by the commissioners prior to
professional staff beginning the amendment process. Therefore, professional staff feels that elimination
of the requirement for a Community Meeting for County-initiated text amendments would be a
reasonable way to shorten the timeline for amendments the BOCC wishes to process. The intent to give
the opportunity for "citizen participation as early as possible in the planning process" is being met in
most cases by the early BOCC discussion at public meeting(s).
Within the attached tables, professional staff has provided a hypothetical timeline for both a
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code text amendment based on actual meeting dates in
2025. The final column in each table shows how the timeline would be approximately 2-3 months
shorter if the Community Meeting requirement were eliminated for county initiated amendments.
Note: Text amendments that are site-specific, affecting a distinct and limited area of land within the
county, have slightly different requirements for processing, which are not included in the tables. Map
amendments and development approval applications also have slightly different requirements, including
a Community Meeting 45-120 days prior to the first public hearing, and are not included in the tables.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
April 13, 2016 - BOCC adopted Ordinance No. 005-2016 and 006-2016, adopting the Monroe County
Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan and associated amendments to the Land Development Code. These
ordinances established the Community Meeting requirements for the first time.
January 15, 2025 - BOCC requested professional staff bring back a discussion item regarding
3344
Comprehensive Plan text amendment timelines, indicating State vs County requirements, for
consideration of changes that may expedite the process.
INSURANCE REQUIRED:
No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Professional staff request direction on whether the BOCC would like to eliminate or adjust any of the
County-required steps in the current process for text amendments, including but not limited to the
requirement for a Community Meeting for County-initiated text amendments.
DOCUMENTATION:
County Initiated Text Amendment Timeline Comparison
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
3345
O n o
2 � O
04 co
i N Q N
O R aJ aJ 04 bD
i N V N In
z z z LL ¢ f ¢ f ' ¢ a m o 0
v
O N
R i Q
I� N ey-I N N eM-I eM-I
00 ] a
V N co Gf ey04 co -i aJ Gf Gf
a) M a) oo a) w E a)
G 7 i N e-I Gf U Gf Gf
2 Q ILL f Q f Q s y Q O m G G
v.rr v.rr v.rr v.rr
�,1aS1 v.C'1 �,1aS1
III
fl7 f11 tiu i17 f17 f11 fl';7 f17 TI: f17
6 r7
.._..
tt tit CC'b tt t`il tt tt
1 1 1 1 1 ! 00 0,7 6�C7 u.C7 Cmq Cmq Cmq
11 11 11 G J 111 00 �:1 Cr7 Cr7 11 04 00 00 00
�,�y ��r 1�7 �,�y �,�y CIJ y �,�•y CCd �h CC'b CC'b �y -.I CC'b �h CC'b CC'b
fAY fAY fA7 fA7 1 fA7 fA7 fA7 fA7 Z
6f l 11 1 1 11 I':l 1 1 i�_ l
.I IAm .I IAm I I�.u_ I�.u_ I .....,. I�.u_ I I�.u_ I�.u_
H
a
a a
a
Lu
oocn
a
J
cn
'oD a 'oD a 'oD a 'oD a O 2
CL
C O Q O Q O Q iit C fA7 O- ilt Z 00
.7 7 O n
N iPv .iry
a -a Q C Q C Q C CIJ Q :ci` C CIJ
iMry �:? r T7 N .Ci TT W
cry a
N
M O
Q) 111 9 vI1 TI';1 � K::M K::M 1I1 C,"j a) K::M II CS 1
OC E I. E .,1 II .-.I M 1 ;.I,.
� E E o
J
a ICm
7 E H 0ICI,u Z
CIJ E E 0. CMS y
.a bD �',
Ca.i a C: ca ecti Q W[ i vY
C X �, fi;u, aJ Klu O Klu
Gf _ E
VP r%. Gf N R:I',p R:I',N E = J ]. Z W W
E cxcs *' O ca "� "" a) c) ' : Z Z
cad .� is o w o f E S o E E U a i[ o o
C ++IU
`"„^''n SIN I:I',p O fi�ACCb' bD C gip' LL 'O KI, bD Q �R:"A,. bf1 KI, C W W
bD bD
"w1 fA7 y w E � "C: .N— H lit J .N-� Q u'",'�; � > H H
7 E E I„ ¢ a o. ra. ¢ mr m U o J ¢ ¢
U U N Q U 4�.��w t°'�I:11 4'„.; 'o eu D O "'W
Q m r9r m a
r
v
C9 �
O
U N N ti N
a (D O N y N cq Gf
Inn E E E
U > L)
z z z ILL ¢ f ¢ a un z° o a
v
O N
N
0 E
I� N Lo
Do >
f..7 ) 04t6 �- N N N.� LL L fV u) Q L, L
a) fp a) 00 a) tp fp
G 7 7 V 7 047 G R = 7
>` > Q m
2 Q ILLf Q f Q O Z `° �i IL
z
v.C7 v.C7 W v.C7
Z
LU
er7 no
f �;o :a;o
15 6 r7 v l"1 Q v 1�7 v 1�7 II.C"5 II.C"5 II.C"5
M Z CD CD CD
a� ..J. 1
� '
C' tt J t; ° :.M CCC'aJJ,Y CCC'aJJ,Y CCC'aJJ,Y
CI 0 6C 6C 6CE er
CJ in
1 A I a A IJ 04 1
h U lNF Y r-I l
7 O
car ar car car car
I a, I I A.
OZ Z .I IA,. .I IA,,. IA,,. IA,,. Ha
G a
z a
a z
w a
li i Lu
� w
p
O Ja
co I�;II ca ca N
on a I on a on Z
CL
m :iCii V m a m p
E
c o n o n o ca,r Z
E m u-
J p
Gf .:I .:I p cry `I cry cry OC LIl,.',
Vl Vl clt Vl a i'lIdl
V ' �;' 7 ' .T7 r7 W iNdl
l i T 0 O YI p.M : t�,I' N CD
� vl7
G E t,:I CC'b 04 a
N
Lu
cn
a � 4'IIti
o y ;I
cap a� E Z DD � (D
a Q z on a a� oc f
El U k u rc' w " '; isW 04
y )aD II;',N VP 2 Klu Q C "Cu m R
N 4Pp J = ��. Q J S N L
rxm E y Q it w U W
> Z Z
O is O ° r- O '�',� ~ O �:' `6 is N tlk U .% J J
R.I,;X R:I,;N O � �, ,� Q kin bD KI�'N W W
cAr G .Ln � � � :E r a:rn ::r- Z '.- Q "�c � � � �: O � J J
o >w -o S � � o� ro c >
1] U U 1 'll Q a ra. ra. Z Q m r9r U a i':,. wO O
� �
Liz Yongue
From: Burke-Sue <Burke-Sue@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:15 PM
To: Ballard-Lindsey; Liz Yongue
Subject: FW: SSPOA Comments on BOCC Agenda Item J4
Categories: Orange Category
Hi !
I wanted to be sure you received a copy of this email from Stuart Schaffer
regarding Agenda Item J-4, for the record.
Sincerely,
Sue Burke
Executive Assistant to
Jim Scholl
Mayor
Monroe County District 3
530 Whitehead Street, Suite 102
Key West, FL 33040
305-292-3430 (Office)
850-341-5041 (Cell)
Courier Stop: CLK - Stop #8
Burke-Sue@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov
www.monroecounty-fl.gov
�A'al
k7lF
Monroe County, Florida
"The Florida Keys"
PLEASE NOTE: FLORIDA HAS A VERY BROAD RECORDS LAW. MOST WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM THE
COUNTY REGARDING COUNTY BUSINESS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA UPON
REQUEST. YOUR EMAIL COMMUNICATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
From: Stuart<sfschaffer@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2025 8:51 AM
To: Cates-Craig<Cates-Craig@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS2<boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov>; BOCCDIS3
<BOCCDIS3@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS4<BOCCDIS4@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS5
<BOCCDIS5@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>
Cc: Hurley-Christine<Hurley-Christine@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; Schemper-Emily<Schemper-Emily@ Mon roeCounty-
FL.Gov>
Subject: SSPOA Comments on BOCC Agenda Item J4
1
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the County. Whether you know the sender or not, do not click links or
open attachments you were not expecting.
Dear Mayor Scholl and County Commissioners:
This letter contains comments of the Sugarloaf Shores Property Owners Association (SSPOA) on Agenda
Item J4 for this week's BOCC meeting. That item is for discussion and direction regarding streamlining
the timeline for processing County-initiated amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Code. Staff is proposing elimination of Community Meetings and is claiming this change
would shave 2-3 months off the approval process. SSPOA opposes staff's recommendation for the
reasons discussed below.
Benefits of Community Meetings. Community Meetings are a valuable step in the approval process for
text amendments because they provide the most meaningful opportunity for public input into a proposed
amendment. Community Meetings are widely publicly noticed well ahead of the meeting date. They
allow for more informal interaction between staff and the public regarding proposed amendments -
questions are answered and follow-up questions are allowed and addressed; brainstorming can
occur. In our experience, comments on the language of proposed text amendments are taken into
account and addressed by staff much more fulsomely following Community Meetings than at any other
stage in the approval process.
Public comments during discussion and direction at BOCC Meetings are not a sufficient substitute
for Community Meetings. In recent times, agendas for BOCC meetings are being posted on the County
website approximately 6 days before the meeting, which gives the public very short notice of a new
proposal. At this step, the public does not have an opportunity to provide comments on the actual
language of the amendment, as the discussion and direction usually addresses a mere concept. And at
a BOCC meeting, public comments are subject to time limits and do not allow for an interactive
dialogue.
Eliminating Community Meetings will not shave 2-3 months off the process. We dispute staff's claim
that eliminating Community Meetings will shorten the approval process for text amendments by 2-3
months because, in that case, staff will need more time to react to and take into account public
comments at Development Review Committee meetings, which would become the first opportunity for
the public to comment on the actual language of a text amendment.
A possible alternative approach. An alternative that would shorten the process without eliminating the
step that currently provides the most meaningful opportunity for public input into a text amendment
would be to reduce from 3 months to 2 months the minimum period between the Community Meeting
and the Planning Commission meeting.
Respectfully submitted:
Stuart Schaffer, on behalf of the
Sugarloaf Shores Property Owners Association
2
3