Resolution 429-1987
,- ~,..,
RESOLUTION NO. 429 -1987
A RESOLUTION TRACING AND ESTABLISHING THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND MANIFEST INTENT OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY CONCERNING THE CONTIGUOUS LOT ELEMENT.
WHEREAS, at a public meeting of the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Monroe County, Florida on April 18th, 1985 that body
did explicitly, indisputably, conclusively and unanimously vcte
to allow the use of contiguous lots, and
WHEREAS, despite the incontrovertible evidence contained in
the official records of the forementioned meeting of April 18th,
1985, certain elements were inadvertently included in the Land
Development Regulations concerning contiguous lots and a compan-
ion common ownership element, and
WHEREAS, a finished product was not available for review,
editing or correction prior to transmittal to the Department of
Community Affairs because of unrealistic deadlines, and
WHEREAS, once the blatant error of inclusion was discovered
by the newly seated Commission, one of its earliest official acts
was the passage of a Resolution protesting the existence of the
elements and directing their immediate removal, but
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Affairs, frustrating
the will of local government, demanded repeal of the foremen-
tioned resolution dictating that this matter had to be considered
and resolved during the six month review process, even though it
had been exposed as, and classified, an error, and
\-JHEREAS, the current Board of County Commissioners of Monroe
County, being dedicated unanimously to the immediate removal of
these unjust and repugnant elements did introduce and sponsor
Amendment Nomination #141 into the six month review process, and
w~EREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, did, under its general power and authority, create an
independent and prestigious Blue Ribbon Panel to make recommenda-
tions and one of its premier imperatives was the removal of the
erroneous contiguous and common ownership elements, and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission acting
simultaneously as the Local Planning Agency did entertain amend-
ment Nomination 11141 and unanimously approved removal of these
unjust and erroneous elements, and finally
WHEREAS, there is not a single, solitary, recorded word in
the records of Monroe County in support of these elements except
the initial, voted down, proposal of consultant Siemon and an
expressed reluctance by the Department of Community Affairs, now,
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
This Resolution be sent by the Clerk to the Governor and
Cabinet and the Monroe County delegation, heralding the public
and private concern at the Department of Community Affairs'
continued efforts to enforce the contiguous lots and common
ownership elements erroneously embodied in the Monroe County Land
Development Regulations.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held
on the 17th day of November, A.D. 1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/? ?.4- t1
B V?'l-;;:>,,~/-.-,r;''/2,L:':''::77-.-1 ,fr/
Y 6) ~
{CHAIRMAN
(SEAL)
Attest : DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
V2J..~~~./). ~
LE K ;-
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
BY
2
SELECTED PERTINENT EXTRACTS FROM TAPE OF MEETING OF BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY ON APRIL 18TH, 1985.
(^ lengthy, detaHed discussion had preceeded exp laining build-out scenarios, etc.):
CONSULTANT SIEMON ON PLATTED LOTS: We would recommend to you
that if you would wish to grandfather in these buildable lots which exceed
market demand, which exceed our capacity of services, that you do so but
that you put in place a "rate of growth ordinance" that would tie the use of
those lots to the availabi Jity of public services.
(There followed 8 long dissertation on the procedures for setting up a rate of growth
structure, costs, oomplexity, legalities, querterly allOC8tion of building permits, etc. A
bureeucratic nidllmtre. . . . )
COf1'1ISSIONER SWIFT: Charl1e, that did it. I will say this, that you
are endlessly Inventive. In discussing this problem yesterday with John
DeGrove, he did not have an answer for the 52,000 lots. . . .
CONSULTANT SIEMON: We started wit.h 52,000 lots with 10,000 some
odd developed and 10,000 some odd in other uses other than residential
leaving some 31,000 that are potentially residential.
COMMISSIONER SWIFT: That 31,000 represents after you have taken
away the "wetland" lots. . . no, no. . . so then we have to take some 7,000,
so now we have 24,000 now, then we have "upland" lots which are slash
pine, hardwood hammocks and beach berm which are 1 OO~ vacant and there
are 5,000 of those. . . we take those away and what do we have, 19,000 . . .
and then we have 4,770 scarified and disturbed with hammocks, mangrove,
transitional, beach berm, exotics or slash pine. . . we take those away and
we've got 15,000. . . and nobody l1kes condominiums, so we aren't going to
build those, so WHAT IS THE BIG PROBLEM?
Now let me talk for just a minute about your suggestion of a "rate of
growth ordinance" that I just heard. One, it costs a lot of money. You
start talking peronnel and reviews and public hearings, it is incredibly
expensive. Two, you waste a tremendous amount of time and create a lot
of hard feelings. Three, it lends itself to an Incredible bureaucratic
internal governmental abuse. You said yourself it was complicated and
anything that is more complicated than one and one government can't do
without coming up with three. I say that in a1J humbleness, being a part of
government. four, you have governmental confusion on the level of the
elected officials constantly and endlessly in debate with citizens and
citizens groups and neighbors who will try to use this process to
constantly put us into an unnatural state of moratorium.
I f we get down to where we lack services, this County has had
moratoriums because of water, we've had moratoriums because of a1J
kinds of things and we wl1J have a natural moratorium situation In the
public safety and we1J-being that a policlal b0dy wl1J face up to at the
time of crisis.
COf1'1ISSIONER STORMONT: In other words, caps are caps, but in the
past we have found that caps can be overcome. . . are you basing this on a
flntte capacity level or is this an infinite change each time we can get
bigger, to have more roads, to have more water, and so on.
CONSULT ANT SIEMON: If we have capaclty for infinite change over
time, the scenario I would see is the local government comprehensive
planning act requires a five year update and I would anticipate that you
would make certain local policy decisions about the future of the Florida
Keys in terms of maintaining community character, and what comittment
of funds and taxation, etc., for what your services would be. (Long
phi l0s0phical discussion of future is om itted.)
COt11ISSIONER SWIFT: The motion I wiJl make is to grandfather in all
buildable lots, THAT IS GOING TO GRANDFATHER IN THE LOT NEXT TO
MY HOUSE~ the little lots on Big Pine Key, It is going to grandfather in
some 16,752 lots, minus those lots I've asked you to identify. . . so let's
say that knocks It down another 1,000 (WlIhelmina breaks in and says, "You
can make that motion right now". Swift had previously asked Siemon to
get a handle on dweJllng unlts that were built on more than one lot and of
home owners haVing adjacent lots where perhaps there never would be
constuction).
CONSULTANT SIEMON: BUT YOU ARE NOT INCLUDING
Cott1ISSIONER~ THOSE LOTS WHICH ARE OWNED IN COMMON
OWNERSHIP? THAT IS~ IF I OWN TWO LOTS SIDE BY SIDE~ I WOULD
NOT GET 2 UNITS~ I WOULD JUST GET ONE?
Cot1'1lSSIONER SWIFT: NO~ YOU GET TWO UNITS, but there is no
expectation of those lots being built upon. EVEN THOUGH YOU DON.T
COUNT ON I T ~ YOU CAN.T REACH I NAND TAKE A WAY SOMBOOY.S
PROPERTY RIGHTS ON THOSE and single them out and say you have a
strange looking lot. . . or you have a sWimming pool on your lot and we are
going to take it away from you. . . What I'm saying IS that I'm going to make
that motion and what Charlie is saYing IS that the Rules for Guiding
Development in calling for reduction in density, we are In violation of the
Rules for Gulldlng Development and I say OK, I know that. I'm still gOing to
make thiS motion, but I still want you to construct your plan on the 20,000
scenario. Now we StllJ haven't dealt with the 12,000 units that you have
allocated to vacant land, you might be surprised at what we do in acreage
In aJlocation of units per acre in some of that land. .. maybe we wiJl
shave 2 or 3 thousand off that, you can't tell. I would like for you to go
ahead and plan for the 20,000 units. You have a benchmark and when we
get to the end we say State, thiS IS the plan for 20,000 units and to get to
that plan you have to give us this much money. That is going to save the
Florida Keys, that number of dollars IS gOing to bring us to this plan.
COt11ISSIONER FAHRER: I think that what is wisest is to try to find a
plan that IS going to work. I beHeve that the State is not going to come in
and pay for aJl kinds of things. .. I would prefer to see where we can
offer a plan that wi 11 do right for us and everyone else In the State at the
same time which I think is a matter of responsiblity. As far as
grandfatherlng every buildable, platted lot, I think if we base our decision
on accurate figures which we are asking to be developed for us, I think it
IS foolish to say somebody has two lots and one of them is gOing to be
built on when he already has a swimming pool on it next to his house.
These are the kInds of thIngs that we ought to clear out of the inventory of
the final count of what our bulldable lots are going to be. When we get to
that point I think the acreages are the ones where we have to Indeed make
serious plans and direction for how that should be used. .. I think that the
expectations of people with acreage are something that are expectations,
period. It is important for us to not do something that flies in the face of
the final sensible plan by grandfathering in more buildable lots than we
can handle and I THINK WE ARE GOING TO DO IT RIGHT AND WE ARE
GOING TO FIND THAT WE HAVE NOT MORE THAN WE CAN HANDLE. ..
now I think to get into the matter of planning for more than we are going
to need is silly, it is childish. . . I think we need to plan for what we know
we can handle and then solve the next problem without any funny business
in order to convince the state they've got to go do something that they
aren't going to do.
Cot11lSSIONER STORMONT: I, in all fairness, agree to consider the
policies that Mr. Swift has propounded as long as we have established a
finite facilities capacity in the formula because this too is extremely
critical to what we do. The expectations of having something is there but
let's place the reaHty of whether it can ever happen on a capacity basis,
because that's also what we are talking about.
MAYOR HARVEY: In the last 20 years, as I understand it, we haven't
had a great rate of growth, in fact, we've had a very slow rate of growth. . .
that was supply and demand. So, if we do build on every buildable lot, old
supply and demand is taking care of Monroe County.
MOTION ON PLATTED lOTS: Motion is to grandfather all
buiJdable lots" those being identified in the plan as the 16,,752
Vacant Improved lots. Vote was 5/0 for approva1.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Jim Smith
Secretary of State
Dorothy W. Joyce
Division Director
December 1, 1987
Honorable Danny L. Ko1hage
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Monroe County Courthouse
500 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040
Attention: Rosalie L. Connolly, Deputy Clerk
Dear Mr. Ko1hage:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida
Statutes, this will acknowledge:
1. Receipt of letter/s of
and certified copy/ies
County Ordinance(s)
November 20, 1987
of Monroe
Resolution No. 87-429
2. Receipt of
relative to:
County Ordinance(s)
(a)
which we have numbered
(b)
which we have numbered
3. We have filed thisf'L1~~=tffffilb~sso\~t\<flls. office
on
1987.
4 .
NOlTember 30,
The original/duplicate copy/ies showing
is/are being returned for your records.
the filing date
S)1~relY C;..ov..J
L~, Chief
Bureau of Administrative Code
LC J11 b
DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, Room 1801, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488.7690