Item K3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: December 15,2004
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes
No X
Department: Planning and Environmental Res.
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Briefing prior to public hearings on amendments to the Monroe
County Land Development Regulations and the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to implement Goal 105,
(the Tier system) Rule 28-20.100 F .A.C. and the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study.
ITEM BACKGROUND: On January 21,2004 and in Ordinance # 018-2004 the BOCC directed staff
to prepare draft text and map amendments and other supporting studies in order to effectuate the
provisions of Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Rule 28-20.100 F.A.C. The Planning
Commission reviewed the staff draft at four public hearings, amended the draft and recommended
approval. Several stakeholder forums and two community workshops were held to review the proposed
amendments.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
Ordinance No. 018-2004 adopted June 16,2004 directed staffto prepare text and map amendments to
implement Goal 105. Goal 105 was adopted in Ordinance No. 20- 2002.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes N/A No
COST TO COUNTY: N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/ A
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes N/A No
AMOUNT PER MONTH N/ A Year
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
APPROVED BY: County Arty ~
DOCUMENTATION:
Included L To Follow
Not Required
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM # 1<" 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND
LDR AMENDMENTS
TO
IMPLEMENT GOAL 105
WORKBOOK
Clerk of the Court Danny Kolhage
K.\~
Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
2798 Overseas Highway Marathon Florida 33050
305-289-2500 ~ conaway-madene(aJmomoecouny-fl.gov
December 1, 2004
TO:
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
K. Marlene Conaway, Director
RE:
Review of the Comprehensive Set of Amendments to implement Goal
105 - Tier System
Introduction
Goal 105 provides a framework for future development and land acquisition for the next
20 years that considers the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys, reduces sprawl and
promotes sustainability. Included in this loose leaf workbook are the proposed changes
with explanatory footnotes to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development
Regulations (LDRs) to implement the goal, Rule 28-100 and the recommendations of the
Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS). The workbook is organized into eight
sections:
1. Environmental Standards and Open Space Requirements Comprehensive
Plan amendments
2. Environmental Standards and Open Space Requirements LDR
amendments
3. ROGOINROGO Comprehensive Plan amendments
4. ROGO LDR amendments
5. NROGO LDR amendments
6. Tier Overlay District LDRamendment
7. Tier Overlay District Map and Report
8 Optional Hybrid ROGO [Lottery] Comprehensive Plan amendments
[Discussion purposes and not recommended by Planning Commission or
staff. ]
The staff recommends that three public hearings be held before the Board of County
Commissioners on this comprehensive set of amendments, one in each area, before
adoption of the DCA Transmittal Resolutions for the two Comprehensive Plan
amendments. The LDRs implementing the Comprehensive Plan amendments and the
Tier Overlay District Map will not be considered for adoption until the ordinances
amending the Comprehensive Plan are adopted by the BOCC after their review by the
DCA. Hopefully, this schedule will allow us to finish the adoption process by June 2005.
Page 1 of7
Momoe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
2798 Overseas Highway Marathon Florida 33050
305-289-2500 conawav-marlenelalmomoecouny- fl.gov
Background
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), at its regularly scheduled meeting on
January 21, 2004, directed the Growth Management staff to prepare an ordinance
deferring ROGO and NROGO allocation awards in areas containing tropical hardwood
hammock or pinelands of two acres or greater within Tier I - Conservation and Natural
Areas (CNA), while staff prepares draft text and map amendments and other supporting
studies in order to effectuate the provisions of Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan,
and Rule 28-20.100 FAC.
In preparing the draft amendments, the staff held three focus group meetings; two with
the construction industry representatives and one with a group of interested individuals
and environmental groups. Several planned meetings were canceled due to the hurricanes
and finally two evening community workshops, one in Key Largo and one in Sugarloaf,
were held in October.
The Planning Commission reviewed the staff draft of proposed amendments at a
workshop in June and amended staff drafts in four public meetings held in September,
October and November 2004. The Planning Commission approved the amendments with
revisions and voted to recommended their approval to the BOCC on November 3,2004.
Report Content
This staff report provides a summary discussion of the major changes to the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations proposed in this comprehensive
set of amendments to be considered by the BOCC. At the end of each section, the staff
has identified some remaining issues, that the Board may to consider that were not
addressed or recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
Environmental Amendments
Overview
The current LDRs require properties designated on the 1986 Habitat Maps as hammock
and pineland to perform a Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) to determine the amount of
clearing permitted and the negative points awarded in ROGO and NROGO. The HEI is a
subject of continuous controversy, is accused of being subjective and since it is based on
1986 maps does not take into consideration re-vegetation over the last twenty years.
The proposed amendments remove the requirements for performing an HEI. Instead
habitat quality and permitted clearing is based on the Tiers. Tier I receives "0" points for
ROGO and clearing is limited to 10%. Clearing of habitat in Tier II is limited to 40% and
Tier III is limited to 60%.
Page 2 of7
Momoe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
2798 Overseas Highway Marathon Florida 33050
305-289-2500 conawav-marlene@momoecouny-fl,20v
Regulatory requirements in the LDRS include an Existing Conditions Report, a
Conservation Easement on upland native vegetation and use of the 1986 Habitat Maps as
a baseline to assure unlawful clearing has not/does not occur.
Under the proposed amendments, Ocean Reef, which is not subject to ROGO and
NROGO, is defined as Tier II for purposes of the clearing of upland native habitat,
limiting clearing to only 40 percent.
In addition to changes to implement the Tier system, the Comprehensive Plan
amendments also address the requirements for a Land Acquisition Master Plan, by
changing the Natural Heritage and Park Program requirements in the current Plan
(Objective 102.4); Objective 205.5 further defines the acquisition program; Objective
102.9 has been amended to provide guidance for developing a management strategy for
lands acquired; and Objective 205.1 amends the GIS mapping requirements to
implement the procedures followed to develop the Tier maps and require maintenance of
the GIS data.
Issues
None
ROGO Amendments
Overview
ROGO has been completely redrafted utilizing the Tier System as the basis. A
comparison between the proposed RaGa and the existing ROGO scoring systems is
provided in Attachment A.
Where the current ROGO has eighteen categories of criteria for assigning points, the
proposed ROGO contains only six categories of criteria. The habitat protection and
reduction of sprawl, which are the planning reasons for most of the points, were
considered during drafting and are the basis of the Tier maps. The sustainability points,
water and energy conservation have been dropped altogether from the proposed system
for various reasons such as, but not limited to, changes in the building code, diminishing
value of these points in the overall scoring system, simplification of system, and inability
to properly ensure compliance of building permit applications receiving the points after
receiving a certificate of occupancy.
The proposed ROGO is a positive system, awarding major points for the Tier location of
a property: Tier III - +30 points; Tier II - +20 points; Tier I - 0 points. The point system
is different on BPK and NNK because the Habitat Conservation Plan for the islands
controls the permitting. Points may be accrued by donating lots to the county for
preservation in Tier I and Tier II. Additional points can be gained in Tier II and Tier III
Page 3 of7
Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
2798 Overseas Highway Marathon Florida 33050
305-289-2500 conawav-madene@monroecounv-fl.gov
by aggregating lots.
A change to the points for the donation of platted lots awards a point for each 5,000
square feet of a Suburban Residential (SR) platted lot and 1/2 point for a 5,000 square
foot Native (NA) or Suburban Residential (SR) lot. An Improved Subdivision (IS), Urban
Residential Mobile Home (URM) and Commercial Fishing (CFV) platted lot is buildable
and receives four points. The single point value for unbuildable platted SR lots and a 1/2
point for NA and SS platted lots reflects the comparative buildability of these lots.
Awarding points for unbuildable platted lots to encourage donation is in response to
BOCC direction.
Major changes are proposed for affordable housing to assure they remain affordable for
the workforce, long term. Allocations for affordable/employee housing will only be made
for projects in Tier II and Tier III. Any projects receiving public financial assistance will
be required to keep the projects affordable for 99 years. Affordable ROGO allocations
will be provided on a first come, first served basis with the ability for public or private
agencies to reserve allocations with BOCC approval contingent'upon keeping the projects
affordable for 99 years. To encourage mixed income projects, the 20% market rate
housing permitted in employee housing projects will qualify for +3 points in ROGO.
Issues
1. Points Awarded and Administrative Relief: The Planning Commission (PC) has
recommended increasing the time limit to apply for Administrative Relief after four years
from 120 days to 180 days. It has also recommended deleting the Perseverance Points for
applications in the system for more than four years. Applicants currently receive one
point for each year in the system for the first four years and two points for every year
over four years. The logic behind the change is that after four years an applicant,
depending on the Tier and environmental quality of the lot should either be awarded a
permit or receive an offer to purchase the lot. By providing two points a year after four
years allocations may be awarded in inappropriate areas.
Staff recommends that if the BOCC agrees and deletes the provision for points to be
awarded after four years that the total number of allocations awarded in anyone quarter
due to the granting of an Administrative Reliefbe limited to no more than fifty percent of
the total available allocations in that quarter. This limitation is to maintain the
competitiveness of the allocation system and to protect its legal basis should a significant
number of administrative allocations receive Administrative Relief thereby vastly
reducing the number of allocations available to applicants. The Board may also want to
consider requiring that the "preferred relief' option for any lot scoring less than +30
points will be an offer to purchase.
2. Payment into a Land Acquisition Fund for Points: A purchase of points option
was considered and not recommended by the PC. Up to three points could be purchased
for a fee approximately equal to the cost per point of purchasing and dedicating a ROGO
lot. The PC is concerned that by changing the system there would be less conservation
Page 4 of7
Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
2798 Overseas Highway Marathon Florida 33050
305-289-2500 conawav- marlene(@.monroecouny-fl.gov
lots purchased. Staff still considers this a viable option and recommends that the BOCC
may want to support it by adopting the following addition to Policy 101.5.4:
10. Payment to the Land Acauisition Fund - UP to three (3) points shall be
awarded for a monetary payment by the applicant to the County's land acquisition
fund for the purchase of lands for conservation and affordable housing and
retirement of development rights. The monetary value of each point shall be set
annually by the County based on upon the average as valorem valuation of all
vacant privately owned ISIURM zoned platted lots on the current Monroe County
Real Property Tax Roll.
The following change would also need to be made to the LDRs to implement the above
proposed Policy amendment:
en Payment to land acauisition fund: Up to three (3) points shall be awarded for a monetary payment
to the County's Land Acquisition Fund for the purchase by the County of lands for conservation and
affordable housing and retirement of development rights. Points for payment to this fund shall be assigned
as follows: 1
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+ I to +3 Proposes payment to the County's Land Acauisition
Fund in an amount eaual to the monetary value of a
RaGa dedication point times the number of points
to be purchased up to a maximum of three (3)
points.
Additional Requirements:
I. The monetary value of each point shall be
established annually by resolution of the board
of county commissioners.
2. The monetary value of each point shall be based
upon the average ad valorem value of privately-
owned. vacant. IS/URM platted lots divided by
four (4).
3. Payment to the County's Land Acquisition Fund
shall be made prior to the issuance of any
building permit pursuant to an allocation award.
3. Hybrid ROGO System: An alternative ROGO system, which proposes that the
market rate housing share be allocated through both a competitive system and a lottery
system, was reviewed and not recommended by the Planning Commission. The
predominate majority of public testimony received at the PC public hearings was not
supportive of the proposal. Although the staff is making no recommendation on the
proposal, it has been included it at the very end of the BOCC workbook to provide an
1 This new provision allows payment to a County Land Acquisition Fund in lieu of lot dedication; however,
the number of points that can be purchased are limited to only three.
Page 5 of7
Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
2798 Overseas Highway Marathon Florida 33050
305-289-2500 conawav- marlene(a),monroecouny- fl. gOV
opportunity for the Board's consideration should it so desire.
Under this proposal, approximately 20% of the market rate housing would be available
through the lottery and the remainder available for those applicants who wish to have the
assurance gained from the competitive system. The applicant determines if he wants to
compete or enter the lottery. A threshold of 30 points is required to be eligible to enter the
lottery. This duel system would provide a means for those who cannot afford to purchase
lots to donate for points to have a chance of receiving an allocation. After four years
applicants that have not received an allocation can apply for Administrative Relief.
NROGO Amendments
Overview
NROGO has also been completely redrafted utilizing the Tier System as the 'basis of the
point awards and includes amendments to implement the Big Pine Key and No Name
Key Master Plan. The proposed NROGO is a positive system, awarding major points for
the Tier location of a property. Additional points may be accrued by dedicating lots,
reducing intensity and through landscaping and water conservation. Up to four points
may be assigned to an NROGO application when employee housing is proposed to be
located on the parcel with the non-residential floor area. Attachment B provides a
comparison summary of the major point differences under the existing versus proposed
NROGO system.
Issues
None.
Tier Overlay District and Tier Overlay District Map
Overview
The Tier Overlay District provides the authority to designate geographical areas outside
of Mainland Monroe County into one of three Tiers to assign ROGO and NROGO points
and to determine the amount of clearing and prioritize lands for publlc acquisition.
Criteria for designating the Tier boundaries are included.
The Tier maps, referred to collectively as the "Tier Overlay District Map" in the
proposed ordinance, will become a zoning overlay when adopted. Changes to the maps
will follow the procedures in Sec. 9.5-511 of the LDRs.
The proposed maps, provided in the report entitled "Implementing Goal 105 and the
Recommendations of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study" were drafted following
the criteria in the overlay district; changes have been made after additional review by
staff at the request of property owners. Changes may also be requested to Tier I by any
Page 6 of?
Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
2798 Overseas Highway Marathon Florida 33050
305-289-2500 conawav- marlenela>-monroecouny- fl. gOV
other individual who submits an application containing substantial and competent
documentation that the area meets the criteria for Tier I. The review process for this type
of application includes a review of the documentation by a SpeCial Master who will
provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners.
The Tier maps were reviewed by Ricardo Calvo, our consultant, who also was the project
manager of the FKCCS. The overlay Tier maps are the basis of an elegant system for
protecting the valuable habitat of the Keys and preventing sprawl.
Issues
Adoption of Tier Overlay District Map: Tier I, the Conservation and Natural Areas,
contain staff recommended changes from the maps adopted by the BOCC in June 2004,
these changes will be brought to the BOCC officially after review by the Special Master,
as required in the Interim Development Ordinance. Adoption of the final Tier maps that
collectively make up the Tier Overlay District Map should not occur until that procedure
is complete.
Attachments
Page 7 of7
Attachment A
Comparison of Current &
Proposed ROGO Point System
Existine Action Tier System
I )Platted Subdivision Infill Delete Included in Tier III
2) Infrastructure Availability Delete Included in Tier III
3) Lot Aggregation Keep + 4 points in Tier II and Tier III
4) Acreage Tract Density Delete Acreage tracts in Tier I should not receive
Reduction additional points
5) Land dedication Keep +4 Points legally platted buildable lot in Tier I
and II, 5000 sf Tier I lot res. low - + I point max
net and + 1/2 point no max net. +4 points acre
of buildable land.
6) Affordable Housinsz Delete Affordable housinsz. has a separate allocation.
7) Habitat Protection Delete Included in Tier I - High/moderate quality
hammock, Tier II - Low Quality hammock
8) Threatened and Endangered Delete Included in Tier I
Species
o Turtle nestin~ area protected o Sec. 9.5-349(p) - Turtle nestin~ area
9) Critical Habitat Areas Deleted Included in Tier I
10) Perseverance Points Keep + I for first 4 years
Delete After 4 years - Administrative Relief
II) Coastal HiJdt Hazard Area Chan~e -4 Points "V" zone on FEMA maps in all Tiers
12) Coastal Barrier Resources Delete Included in Primarily Tier I
System
13) Off shore Islands and Delete Included in Tier I by definition
Conservation Land Protection
Areas
14) Transferable development Delete TOR's need rewriting - receiving areas mainly
riJdtts (TDR) in Tier I and Tier II
15) Historic Resources Delete Sec. 9.5-451-460 only refers to designated. PC
- Add to development review check list.
16) Water Conservation Delete Required in Building Code ,
17) Energy Conservation Delete Purpose of competition to direct development
to appropriate areas
18) Structural integrity of Delete Purpose of competition to direct development
construction to appropriate areas
Add Market rate employee housing
+ 3 Points - encoura~e mixed income
Add Central Sewer
+4 Points - priority for units with central sewer
conaway-marlene
12/1/2004
Attachment B
Comparison of Current &
Proposed NROGO Point System
Existin2 Action Tier System
1) Infill Delete Included in Tier III
2) Intensity Reduction Keep +4 points in all Tiers
3) Land dedication Keep +4 Points legally platted buildable lot in
Tier I and II, 5000 sf Tier I lot res. low - + 1
point max net and + 1/2 point no max net.
+3 points acre of buildable land.
4) Habitat Protection Delete Included in Tier I - High/moderate quality
hammock, Tier II - Low Quality hammock
5) Threatened and Delete Included in Tier I
Endangered Species
o Turtle nesting area protected o Sec. 9.5-349(p) - Turtle nesting area
6) Critical Habitat Areas Delete Included in Tier I
7) Perseverance Points Keep Points awarded yearly
8) Coastal High Hazard Area Change -4 points "V" zone on FEMA maps in all
Tiers "Special Flood Hazard Area".
9) Coastal Barrier Resources Delete Included in Primarily Tier I
System
1 0 Conservation Land Delete Included in Tier I by definition
Protection Areas
11) Historic Resources Delete Sec. 9.5-451-460 only refers to designated.
PC - Add to development review check list.
12) Highway Access Keep All Tiers
13) Landscaping and Water Keep All Tiers
Conservation
Add Employee Housing
+ 2 Points per housinSl; unit up to 2 units
Add Central Sewer
+4 Points - priority for sewered areas
conaway-marlene
12/1 /2004
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO DELETE THE HEIAND"
IMPLEMENT REVISIONS TO OPEN SPACE, LAND ACQUISmON,
AND MANAGEMENT, AND GIS MAPPING
Amendment #1
Delete Policy 101.4.20
Amendment #2
Amend Policy 101.4.22 as follows:l
Policy 101.4.22
All densities and intensities development shall be subject to clearing limits defined by
habitat and the location of the property in the Land Use District (zoning)' Overlay Tier
Maps and the wetland requirements in 102.1.1. habitat pe( eurrent Land D6\'el:opm.eat
R~ations, Division 8, hereby incorporated by reference. In the case of upland hardYleod
and pincland forests the open space is determined by the roollits of the habitat analysis (soo
C()I)fiervation and Coastal Management, Objeoti'/e 205.2 and related policies). Except as
defined in Policy 101.12.4. -clearing of upland native vegetation areas in the Tiers L IT. and
ill shall be limited for the pOrtion of the property containing u-pland native vegetation in the
following percentages:
TIER
Tier I
Tier IT
Tier ill
Permitted Clearing
10%
40%
600.10
Amendment #3
Amend Policy 10 1.14.1?
Policy 101.14.1
Monroe County shall discourage developments proposed within the Coastal High Hazard
Area (CHHA). by methodG inckiding, but not limited to, negatiY6 points in the Permit
Allocation and Point System (seePoliey 101.5.4). [9J-5.006(3)(c)l]
Amendment #4
Amend Policy 102.1.1 as follows:3
I This revision reflects that clearing and open space will be controlled by the Tier designation based on the existing
conditions rather than the environmental regulations that are based on the 1986 habitat maps.
2 This revision reflects that the majority of the CHHA are in Tier I and are therefore receive a lower score.
3 The revisions update the Policy to reflect the wetland regulations cwrently in effect.
C:\TEMP\am:ndIrentscompenviropcfinaldraftrev.doc
- 1 -
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Policy 102.1.1
Upofl adoption of the Compr-ehensiv€ Plan, The County. shall utilize the Envwonmootal
Standards, round in. Section 9.5 336 through 9.5 342 of tOO Land Dl?Ielopmoot R.egulatiom
(hereby inoorpomted by r-0ferenee) to protect submerged lands and wetlands. f&OOfdingly,
The open space requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of
wetlands:
1. Submerged lands
5. fresh water ponds
2. mangroves 3. salt ponds 4. fresh water wetlands
6. undistuIbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
Upon adoption of the ComprcllemJiye Plan the Coonty shall further proteet its ':let:laHds by
requiring a one hundred (1 (0) pereeflt open space requiremoot for undisturbed salt marsh
and buttonwood vt'etlands and by requiring f~ 50 root buffer sllaH be required aF01:1l1d
&eshwater reOO\:1fees.
4 Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and
undistUIbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development
rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and
mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. [9J-5.006(3) (c) 1 and 6]
Amendment # 5
Amend Objective 102.4 as follows:5
Obiective 102.4
Monroe Country shall prepare a Land Acquisition Master Plan bv Julv 1. 2005 containing a
strategy for securing funding and non-funding sources for acquisition and management of
conservation lands. retirement of development rights and identification and purchase of
sites for affordable and employee housing and recreational pwposes6. By January 4, 1998,
Monroe COllilty sllaH establish the MOflfOe COllilty Natural Heritage and Parle Program.
The pwpose of this plan shall be to aequire lands and open space in. tOO publie mteFe5t for
conservation and recreation pmposes. [9J-5.006(3)(b)4, 10 and9J-5.010(2)(c)3]
Policy 102.4.1
The Monroe County Land Acquisition Master Plan Natural Heritage and Parle
Program shall be developed and implemented by the Growth Management
Division, in cooperation with the Monroe County Land Authority. FDEP. FDCA
FWC. and USFWS. "lith the Parks and R-eereation Board and other
knowledgeable county and state agencies. [9J-5.006(3)(c)4 and 6]
4 Wetland setbacks are defined in Policy 204.2.6, deleting the reference here will prevent confusion
5 This revision is to incorporate changes in the land acquisition priorities in Momoe County with the completion of the
Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study and adoption Of Goal I 05.
6 Land acquisition for affordable housing is an additional element included in the Land Acquisition Master Plan
C:\TEMP'laIrendrnmtscompenviropcfinaldraftrev.doc
-2-
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Policv 102.4.2
The Land Authority and the Growth Management Division shall identify and
prioritize the types of lands which shall be considered for acquisition. These shall
include, at a minimmn:
1. lanoo containing natl:1ral1yoccurring and native habitats;
2. lands containing habitat critical to, or providing significant protection fOr,
species desigaatoo afl threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and
'.lTildlife Servioe and/or State of Florida;
1. designated Tier I (Conservation and Natural Areas) lands as defined in
Policy 105.2.1,1. which shall include all contiguous hammock areas above
four acres,
2. restoration areas between fragmented hammocks to increase the
contiguous hammock size and buffers where appropriate; lands
containing naturally occurring and native habitats;
3. fresh water wetlands, and undisturbed salt marsh, and buttonwood
wetlands that are required under Policy 102.1.1;
4. designated Tier II lands as defined in Policy 204.2.1,2 that provide
habitat for small birds and animals and contribute to the quality of
the neighborhoods;
~5. lands containing unique geologic features;?
6. lands whose conservation would enhance or protect water quality
or would protect fish or wildlife habitat, which cannot be
adequately protected through local, state and federal regulatory
programs;
7. lands in Tier II and Tier III for employee and affordable housing;8
~~. lands which can be used, without adverse impacts 011 natural
resources, for community and neighborhood parks and/or public
beaches water access; and
6.2. lands, which offer the opportunity for preservation of significant
archaeological or historical sites. [9J-5.006(3)(c)4 and 6]
7 Staff can think of no such resources in the County.
8 This revision adds land for employee and affordable housing to the list of acquisition areas, in the past this sections did
not include implementation of a housing goal.
C:\TEMP\atrendmentscompenviropcfinaldrafuev.doc
-3-
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Policy 102.4.3
The Land Authority and Growth Management Division shall develop a priority list
ofNatuml Heritage and Pane acquisition sites. This list shall be updated annually.
ill formulating this list the County will prioritize Tier I lands over Tier IT and Tier
III lands. Tier IT lands with fragmented hammocks and wetlands identified in
Policy 102.4.22 shall be the second highest priority for acquisition Acquisition of
land for affordable housing on vacant scarified lands in Tier IT and III shall also be
a first priority. '.viR consider freshwater lenses and roeharge areaG, espeeially those
whieh overlap the habitats of endangered or tbreateHed wikllifc species, as a high
priority. [9J-5.006(3Xc)4 and 6]
Policy 102.4.4
The Monroe County Land ACQuisition Master Plan shall contain an acquisition
financing plan shaY be developed amlMa:lly which identifies potential sources of
fimding for acquisition of lands on the Priority List. Funding sem:ees whieh shall
be eonsidered include the fuRo>.viRg: Land acquisition will be a coordinated effort
between the state and federal governments and the county. The county shall
petition the state and federal government to accq>t primary responsibility for
acquisition of Tier L conservation and natural lands. The county will be responsible
for purchases in Tier IT and Tier III of wetlands and fragmented hammock areas.
Land acquisition for other priorities depend on fimding availability. need and future
use.
1. Florida RecreatiON Development ;\ssistanoe Program;
2. Proservatioo. 2000 Tmst F1.it1d
3. C()f)BervaUon and R-eereatioo. Lands (CARL) Progmm;
4. Land and 'Hater Conservation Fund;
5. Urban Parks and Rooreation R-oeo'1eI)' (up:\RR) ..^ri:itioo. Gmnts;
6. loea! funds made available Horn fair share oommunity pm impaet fees
(paid plH"SUWlt to the MOfIfOe County Land Development R-egWations );
aBEl
7. Local funds as may be made available through special appropriation by the
Monroe County Board of Coonty Commissioo.efS. [9J-5.006(3)(c)4 and
6]
Policy 102.4.5
An intergovernmental organization and management structure shall be developed
to implement the expanded acquisition program. including representatives of
Growth Management Division. Land Authority. municipalities and state and
federal agencies.
The Grov.<th Management Division shall, in ooordinatioo. '.vith the Gmnts Manager,
make appHeations to funding S01:1f0ElS as identified iR the anfl1:1al acquisition
finaneffigplan. [9J-5.006(3Xc)4 and 6]
C:\TEMP\amendmentscompenviropcfinaldraftrev.doc
-4-
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Amendment #6
Delete existing Policy 102.4.6 and create new Policy 102.4.6
Policy 102.4.6
The Monroe County Land Acquisition Master Plan shall contain policies to direct the over-
all acquisition program, criteria to follow when setting priorities for acquisition and a
framewotK for the acquisition process and the sharing of responsibilities. At a minimum the
plan will include the following:
1. Environmental protection. density reduction and passive recreation:
a) public acquisition. ownership and maintenance will be the preferred option for
Tier I lands and for clusters of undisturbed wetland and hammock lots in Tier II
and Tier ill.;
b) buy/sell back to the adiacent property owners option will be followed in Tier II.
where sPrawl and density reduction are the prime impetus for land purchase. A
higher priority for acquisition will be given to those parcels in Tier II with
neighboring properties owners or communities who want to partner with the
county to purchase the lots and take responsibility for maintenance and
protection of any areas of native vegetation;
c) purchased lands that can also provide needed recreational opportunities will be
identified in coordination with the Parks and Recreation Board and a plan for
utilization developed;
d) non-purchase options will also be explored and specific recommendations
included;
e) criteria for the prioritization of land acquisitions within the different priority
areas will include 1) the size and the location of the property and surrounding
land uses including management status. 2) minimization of the edge to area
ratio of parcels by combining lots for acquisition. 3) potential for successful
reclamation if within a larger. better hammock quality area. and 4) maintenance
costs for isolated parcels.
2. Affordable and employee housing:
a) parcels in Tier II and Tier ill that are suitable for the development or
redevelopment of six or more residential units will be identified and prioritized
for acquisition;
b) priority for acquisition will be given to proiects that are ready to proceed with
ROGO allocations available;
c) public/private/non-profit partnerships and/or agreements exist to develop the
site and maintain the affordabilitv of residential units in perpetuity.
C:\TEMP\amendrn::ntscompenviropcfinaldraflrev.doc
-5-
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Amendment #7
Create new Policy 102.4.7
Policy 102.4.7
Lands acquired through the Monroe County Land Acquisition Program shall be managed
to restore. preserve. and protect the conservation. recreation. density reduction and
affordability pumoses for which the lands were acquired. (See Recreation and Ooen Space
Obiective 1201.11 and related policies.) r9J-5.006(3)(c)4 and
Amendment # 8
Amend Policy 102.7.3 as follows:9
Policy 102.7.3
Monroe County shall discourage developments proposed on offshore islands by methods
including, but not limited to, designating off shore islands as Tier I lands. negatP;e points in
the Permit f\llocation and Point System [9J-5.006{3Xc)6]
Amendment # 9
Amend Policy 102.8.1 10
Policy 102.8.1
Monroe County shall discourage developments which are proposed in units of Coastal
Barner Resources System (CBRS). by methods ineltKHng, but not limited to, aegatP~
points in the Permit Alloeation and Poiflt System (soo Policy 101.5.4). (See Objoot:tyes
101.2,101.3, and 101.5 and related poliees-) [9J-5.006{3Xc)6]
Amendment # 10
Amend Policy 102.8.5 as follows: 11
Policy 102.8.5
Upon adoption of the Comprehensi-'v€ Plan, Monroe County shall initiate continue its
efforts to discourage the extension of facilities and services provided by the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority and private providers of electricity and telephone service to CBRS
units. These efforts shall include providing each of the utility providers with:
1. a map of the areas of Monroe County which are included in CBRS units;
9 1bis revision demonstrates how the ROGO and NROGO system is being m:xl.ified to protect off shore islands without
assigning negative points on an individual basis.
10 CBRS are included in Tier I and are protected by the Tier points in ROGO and NROGO.
11 Negative points are no longer needed because the CBRS units are included in Tier I.
C:\TEMP\amendIrentscompenviropcfinaldraftrev.doc
-6-
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
2. a copy of the Executive Summary in Report to Congress: Coastal BaIrier
Resources System published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Coastal
BaIriers Study Group, which specifies restrictions to federally subsidized
development in CBRS units; and
~ Monroe County policies regarding local efforts to discourage both private and
public inves1ment in CBRS units;-aBd
4. Monroe County regulations regarding development in CBR.8 units, ineluding the
Permit }\Hocation System regulatiOflB, whiM eommits negatiy~ pomts fur
development in CBRSl:1Ilits. (Soo Policy 101.5.4.) [9J-5.006(3Xc)6]
Amendment # 11
Amend Objective 102.9 as follow:12
Obiective 102.9
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall complete and implement a cooperative land
management program for private and county publicly owned lands acquired through
implementation of the Monroe County Land ACQuisition Master Plan (Obiective 102.2).
Goal 105 and the FKCCS. located ....ithin and adjaeeat to parks and cOflBervatiOFllands
whieh are O'.vned by the state and federal goyemmeats in the Florida Keys. [9J
5.006(3)(b )4]
Policy 102.9.1
Monroe County shall discourage developments which are proposed in Tier I
through the pennit allocation system and the environmental regulations. :witl:HH
Conservation Land Protection Aroa.s (as defined in Poliey 102.9.3 below) by
method!:; ineluding, but not limited to, negative points into the Permit AJleeatiOFl
and Point System (soo Poliey 101.5.7). (See Objeeti:.;cs 101.2, 101.3 afld 101.5
and related policies.) [9J-5.006(3Xc)6]
Policy 102.9.213
Upon adoption of the Compr-ehensi-'le Plan, Monroe County, in cooperation with
appropriate state and/or federal agencies, shall initiate Conaervation Land
ProteetioB Area a planning process to develop policies to direct the over-all
management program for publicly owned native lands. Changes in policies and
specific management strategies may be modified as the program pro~.
acquisitions continue and new information becomes available through biological
research or monitoring of the management units. COIlSeIVatiOFl land:; in :Monroe
County. The purpose of these planning efforts 'tRY be to identify etiffellt and :future
12 With adoption of goall 05 and the resulting Tier system this Objective designating Conservation Land Protection Areas
is no longer needed. 1be new section will be specific to the preservation in Tier I.
13 Revisions to this section sets up the mechanism for developrn=nt of a managing planning process for parcels acquired
to implerrent Goall 05 and the FKCCS.
C:\TEMP\am:ndmentscompenviropcfinaldrafuev.doc
-7-
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
land we activities 'which are eaumng, or have the potential for causing, adyeme
impacts Ofl sensiti';e natural fearures and natI:lra:l r0501.U'Oe5 ,..litlHn state and :fedeml
conservation lands. Land we actiyities of eooeem shall iflel1:Klo both pNbH6 and
private actions. Monroe Cot:mty shall complete Conservation LaRd ProteetieB
.'\rea plans for each of the conservation lands in MOflfOe C01:lHty by Janl:1al)' 4,
4-998. [9J-5.006(3Xc)3]
Policy 102.9.314
Monroe COlUlty shall develop organization and management plans to initiate a
program for protection. restoration and management of acquired lands.
Management oblectives for sPeCific management units will be developed in
concert with state, federal and municipal land mana~ement programs responsible
for adloinin~ lands. Upon adoption of the Comprehmye Plan, Monroe CotHlty, ifl
coopemtion with appropriate state and/or federal ageneies, shall initiate efforts to
identify a C0B5elV'ation Land Proteetion i\rea for eaeh conservaaOfl area ovlfled by
the state and federal gO'lermnents ifl the Florida Keys.
These Conservation Land ProteetiOfl Areas shall ioolude:
1. private lands located vlitlHn existing pm and conservatiOfl land
boundaries; and
2. private lands and county ovmed lands within a designated buffer adjacent
to eaeh conservation land.
Buffer areas shaH be designated OR an ifldi,vidual case basis and shall retleet the
reoomce protection eoncerns and land O\vnernhip patterns speeific to a partielliar
ConservatiOflland.
ConservatiOfl lands for \vmch a Conservation Land Proteetion }.rea shall be
designated include the followmg:
1. Fort Jefferson National MORwnent
2. National Key Deer R-efuge
3. Great 'Nhite Heron National Wildlife R-efuge
4. Key 'Nest National 'Nildlifc R-e1Uge
5. Croeodile Lake National 'Nildlife R-efuge
6. Jolm Penflekamp Coml Reef8tate Pari<:
7. Long Key State R-eereation i\rea
8. Bahia Honda State Parle
9. Key Largo Hammock State Botanical 8ite
10. Lignumvitae Key State Botanical 8ite
11. ',Vmdley Key State Geological 8ite
12. Indian Key State Historic 8ite
13. Lignumvitoo Key State .^.qMatic Pr-eserve
14. Biscaync Bay Card Sound State Aq1:1atic Preserve
15. 8an Pedro Arehaeologi6 }1quatiC Preserve
14 The Tier system accomplishes the policy being deleted in the plan .
C:\TEMP\ame~tscompenviropcfinaldrafuev.doc
-8-
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
16. Coopoo Bight State f..quatic Preserve
17. North Key Largo Hammoek CARL Projeet
18. North LaytoB Hammock CARL Project
19. Curry Hammock State PaIk
20. Coopoo BighVKey Deer CARL Projeet
21. CO\vpen's Rookery Preserve
22. Sa'le Our Riva'S Big Pine Key Projeet
23. Fort Ta)1or State Histone Site
24. Shell Key f..ql:latie Preserve
Policy 102.9.4
Management plans shall be reviewed every three years, in cooperation with the
appropriate state and/or federal agencies. Revisions to each management plan shall
be made as necessary to reflect recent land acquisitions and changing management
priorities. [9J-5.006(3X c )6]]
By January 4, 1998, Monroe COtiIlty, iR cooperation with appropriate state and/or
fodeml agencies, shall develop a mlWlgement pia fOr each Comervatioo Land
Proteetion ,\rea These plans shaR identify aet:iom to be taken by Monroe CO\:1llty
'.vithin the Conservation Land Protection ,\rea in support of the purpose for which
eaeh COIlServation land was acquired. 'fl:lese actions shall inelude:
1. land management actions for private 18fl<l5 and eoonty O'.vned lands,
particularly as they relate to:
a) critieal speeies proteetion;
b) invasi'l{) plant feBlO'.<a:l;
e) restomtion of distwbed \vetland and upland habitat;
d)
e) pesticide applieatiOflfi;
f) prescribed bmning; and
g) activities which have potential advefSe impacts on nearshore water
quality.
2. recommendations regarding permitting of shorclinc struetu.res, dredging
and filling and oobstrate alteFation;
3. actions to maintain and/or improve pubJie access to State and fodeml
eonservation lands;
4. strategies for '.vorlcing coopemtively '.'1ith priyate landownefS in s1:lpport of
oonservatioo; and
5. future intergo-/ernmental eoordination with state and/or fodeml agencies
controlling and/or mlWlging the COIlServation land. [9J 5.006(3)( e)6]
C:\TEMP'ronendrrentscompenviropcfinaldraftrev.doc
-9-
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Amendment #12
Delete Policy 102.9.5 and 102.9.6
Poti~' 102.9..s
Management plans shaY be re>riewed ev-ery throe )~, in cooperation '.vith the appropriate
state and/or federal ageneies. R-evisions to each Coroervation Land Protootioo ATea and
management plan shall be made as neeessmy to retloot recent land aeql:JisitioflS and
changing management priorities. [9J 5.006(3)( c )6]]
Potiey 102.9.6
'Nithin eighteen months fOyo.....ing acquisition of additional conservation lands by the state
and federal governments, the County shall, iR coopemtion v.4th appropriate state and/or
federal agencies, designate a Conservation I...aHd5 Protection :\rea fur the lle\';ly aeq1:1ired
property and complete a management plan. (These actions shall be required only fur
acquisitions wmch are not oKparoions of 6*isting conservation lands.) [9J 5.006(3)(6)6]
Amendment # 13
Amend Policy103.2.1 and Delete Policy103.2.2:15
Policy 103.2.1
Upon adoption of tho Compr~ve Plan, Monroe County shall implement methods
including, but not limited to, designating known habitat of the Schaus's swallowtail
butterfly as Tier I. the Permit :\llocaaon and Point System in OFder to diOOOt:H'age
developments proposed within hammocks (identified pl:lfS\:1Wlt to Conservatioo and Coastal
Managemem Policy 207.10.1) woo by Sebaus' svIallO\',1ail butterfly and the lands iR the
North Key Largo Hammocks CARL Project State ,^&quisition ATea in the permit aYooation
and point system. (See Policy 205.1.1101.5.4.) [9J-5.012(3)(c)l; 9J-5.013(2Xc)5 and 6]
Potiey 103.2.2
Upon adoption of the Comprchoosh<e Plan, the existing Habitat Eval1:1ation IndeK (HEl),
fOund in Sections 9.5 336 through 9.5 342 of the Land Development R-egulations (Momoe
County BOCC, 1990), and which is adopted BY referenee in this Comprehensive PIBf1, shall
be revised to give greater consideration to the habitat of species of special status, including
the ,^.merioon crocodile, the K-ey Largo wood rat, the Key Largo cotton mowe, and the
Schaus' sviallO\vtail butterfly. The HEI shall Be revised to include, at a minim1:1Hl, the
fOYov.ing:
1. a vmtten methodology fur completing the HEI;
2. reqffirements for integmting data regar<Hng the historic sightings of rare and
endangered species and critical nestin~feeding areas fur Biros; and
15 This revision will require that the Schaus' butterfly be protected through identification of known habitat as Tier I.
C:\1EMP\arrendmentscompenviropcfinaldraflrev.doc
-10-
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
3. evaluation eriteria which v.i11 better differentiate high, medftun and low qtWity
haaitat
Before adoption, the revisions shall undergo seie.atifie peer review by experts in terreGtrial
and wikDi:fe ecology. To the eJ(tent possible, the re'liewers shall include those i:ndPliduals
'who partieipated in development of the Gcisting HEI ethodology. (800 Policy 205.2.1.)
[9J 5.013(2)(0)3]
Amendment # 14
Amend Policy 204.2.1 as follows: 16
Policy 204.2.1
Upon adoption of the Comprehensiy-c PIaI'., the County shall utilize the
Emironmental 8tandard5 foond in 8ection 9.5336 through 9.5342 of the Land
Development RegHlations (hereby incorpoFated by refeFeflee) , To protoot
submerged lands and v/etlands. .^"ocordingly To protect submerged lands and
wetlands the open space ratio shall be 1 00 percent of the following types of
wetlands:
1. submerged lands;
2. mangroves;
3. salt ponds;
4. freshwater wetlands;
5. freshwater ponds; and
6. undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands.
Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands
and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable
development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds,
freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. (9J-
5.012(3)(c)1 and 2; 9J-5.013(2)(c)6)
Amendment # 15
Amend Objective 205.1 as follows: 17
Obiective 205.1
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall utilize the computerized geographical
information system (GIS) and the data. analysis and mapping generated in the Florida Keys
Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS). FMRl habitat maps and field evaluation to whieh vlill
provide mOFe OUIl'Cflt and mOFe refined data on upland yegetatiOfl in the Florida Keys
identify and map areas of upland vegetation in the Florida Keys and to prepare Tier overlay
maps as required in Policy 105.2.2. [9J-5.012(3)(b)I; 9J-5.013(2)(b )3]
16 The Sections of the I.DRs are being arrended and it is inappropriate to site the regulations in the plan.
17 This revision establishes the criteria and mapping protocol for mapping of upland native vegetation and Tier
designation
C:\TEMP\amendmentscompenviropcfinaldraflrev.doc
-11 -
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Policy 205.1.1
The County shall establish the following criteria at a minimum to use when a-4iel6
a eonsistent methodology and criteria for mapping and evaluating upland habitats:
[9J-5.013(2Xc)9]
1. Criteria for designating lands as Tier I:
· Natural areas including old and new growth upland native
vegetated areas. above 4 acres and a buffer of privately owned
vacant lots and parcels.
· Vacant land to connect patches and reduce further fragmentation.
· A buffer. up to 500 feet if indicated. between natural areas and
development to reduce secondary impacts: canals or roadways.
depending on size may form a boundary.
· Lands designated for acquisition by public agencies.
· Known locations of threatened and endangered species.
· Native Area Land Use district and other districts In
buffer/restoration area as appropriate.
· Lands with a potential for successful land management -
restoration of disturbed habitat. removal of exotics. and connection
of patches.
· Areas with minimal existing development.
2. Criteria for designating lands as Tier ll:
· Subdivisions less than 50% developed. or portions of subdivisions
that are less than 50% developed because of environmental
constraints.
· Fragmented. unconnected hammock patches of less than 4 acre.
which are isolated from larger natural areas by existing
development.
· Developed and undeveloped SR and SS lots with upland native
habitat.
· Platted lots in areas where adjoining property owner(s) may
purchase the lots with county participation.
3. Criteria for designating lands as Tier Ill:
· Isolated upland habitat fragments ofless than half an acres
· Substantially developed subdivisions near established commercial
areas.
· Primarily IS and URM lots.
· Developed non-residential and mixed used areas.
Policy 205.1.2
The County shall complete ground-tru1:hffig ef the upland habitats identified in the
ADID habitat maps. aerial photography. satellite imagery and the FKCCS,
including mapping and preliminary habitat evaluations. Priority shall be given to
C:\1EMP\amendrrentscompenviropcfinaldraflrev.doc
- 12-
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
natural upland communities of four acres or greater identified in the Florida
Natural ,\reas Inventory. [9J-5.013(2Xc)9]
Policy 205.1.3
The County shall enter ground-truthed upland native vegetated area location and
evaluation data into the GIS and use the GIS to analyze the data and prepare Tier
Zoning Overlay Maps for adoption as required in Policy 105.2.2. [9J-5.013(2)(c)9]
Policy 205.1.4
The GIS will be used to evaluate the lands designated in the different Tiers.
determining vacant. platting and ownership status. zoning. and awraised values for
acquisition planning. Vegetation data shall be plotted on the GIS at a scate of 1 inch
equals 200 feet. [9J 5.013(2)(-(;))9]
Policy 205.1.5
Land management activities. land acquired Habitat evaluation indeK and permit
data shall be incorporated into the GIS annually. [9J-5.013(2)(c)9]
Policy 205.1.6
The County shall coordinate its upland native vegetation mapping and evaluation
efforts with those of federal and state agencies and private researchers so as to
avoid duplication of effort. These agencies shall include, at a minimum, the EPA,
ACOE, DER, DNR, FDEP. FDCA SFWMD, FGFWFC, and nongovernmental
environmental groups the National Audubon Society (Research Department). [9J-
5.0 13(2)(c)9]
Amendment # 16
Amend Objective 205.2 as follows: 18
Obiective 205.2
To implement Goal 1 05 of this Plan and the recommendations in the Florida Kevs Carrying
Capacity Study (FKCCS), Monroe County shall adopt revisions to the Land Development
Regulations which further protect and provide for restoration of the habitat values of upland
native vegetated communities, including hardwood hammocks and pinelands. [9J-
5.012(3)(b)1; 9J-5.013(2)(b )3]
Policy 205.2.1
Monroe County shall designate the bOlmdaries in the zoning overlay tier svstem
based on the criteria in 205.1.
Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the County shall utilize the Habitat
Evaluation IndCK (HE!), found in Section 9.5 336 through 9.5 342 of the Land
1811ris revisions provides direction for the LDR ammdments irnpleIrellting the Tier system and removing the
requirements for an HEI.
C:\TEMP\amendmentscompenviropcfinaldraftrev.doc
-13 -
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Dcyelopment RegulatiOflfl, hereby ifloorpomtod by referenee, toe'~ and
protect sensitive habitats of the Florida Keys.
Upon adoption of the Comprehefl5iye Plan, MOflfOe COliflty shall complete
revisiOflfl to the HEI which shall include, at a mHHml:1m, the fullo\viflg:
1. a written methodology for completing the HEI;
2. requirements for integrating data regarding the historie sightiRgs of Fare and
endangered species and eritieal FleGting'fooding areas for bifds; and
3. evaluation criteria which ,,/ill better differentiate high, medium and low quality
habitat.
Befure adoption, the revisions shall w:xlergo seientific peer review by experts in
terrestrial and 'Nildlifc ecology. To the eKtent possible, the reviewers shall inel1:Kle
those indt'/iduals who participated in development of the eKisting HEI
methodology. The comprehensive plan shall be amended to include the HEI
reVISIon.
Policy 205.2.2
Upon adoption of the Comprehenm.ve PIer., Monroe County shall implement the
Permit ,'\l1ocation and Point System. Monroe County shall discourage assign a
negati'/e point rating to developments in Tier I v:hich disturb to protect areas of
native upland vegetation. Sites having high quality native 1:lpland vegetation s hall
roooive a greater negative point rating than sites having mediwn Bfid low qliality
nati'/e upland yegetation. Habitat 'falue shall be determined throogh application of
measures as specified in the HEI. (See Policy 101.5.4). [9J-5.012(3Xc)I,2 and 3;
9J-5.014(2)(c)6]
Policy 205.2.619
The permitted clearing of native upland vegetation communities shall be defined
by habitat and the location of the property in the Land Use District (zoning)
Overlay Tier Maps. which exhibit iimetional integrity and viability shall moot or
eKceed their existing percentages ,as fullovlS: Clearing of upland native vegetation
communities in the Tiers L IT. and III shall be limited for the portion of the property
containing upland native vegetation in the following percentages:
Tier
Tier I
Tier IT
Tier III
Permitted Clearing
1 ()O 10
40%
60%
19 Clearing and open space requirernmts are now based on 1he Tier designation, an HE! will no longer be used because 1he
mapping has been done up front of all quality barmnock areas. Clearing will be reduced over-all.
C:\TEMP\am::ndmentscompenviropcfinaldraftrev.doc
-14 -
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
1. high hammock
high q\iality
modemte quality
10'" q\iality
Y1'
disturbed
0.80
0.60
0.10
0.40
2. low hamfnoek
high quality
moderate quality
low ql:Hmty
distwbed
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.40
3. palm hanHnock
0.90
1. eaetoo hammoek
0.90
5. pinelands
high quality
low qMa8ty
disturbed
0.80
0.60
0.60
6. searified
0.20
The definition for open space shaY. be that currently contained in Seetion 9.5 4(0
3) of the F$. 380.05 eompJiant Land Development R-egl-llatioos, hereby
IDooIporated by referonoo.
Policy 205.2.7
Clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the percentage allowed in Policy
205.2.6. and shaY. be called the immediate development area. 2Opor applications
that receive points for lot aggregation under the Pennit Allocation SyStem for
residential development. clearing of upland native vetetation shall be limited to the
clearing pennitted in 205.2.6 or 5.000 square feet. whichever is less. The
immediate development area shall include the area of approved clearing shown on
the approved site plan. The immediate development area ~hall be fenced
throughout the duration of construction During construction, there shall be no
distUIbances of the ground surface and vegetation within areas of native upland
vegetation not approved for clearing. required open space areas. [9J-5.013(2Xc)3]
Policy 205.2.1221
Monroe County shall apply all environm:ental regulations ifleluding use 85 a
baseline to detennine the clear.ng that may be permitted on a site aeoording to the
use the legal conditions ofland existing as ofFebmary 28, 1986 and as depicted on
20 This change implements the changes in the proposed rule 28-20.110.
21 Changing to the existing conditions on a property rather than the conditions in existence in 1985 will increase the
protection of habitat areas by including "new growth" which is not cwrently protected or analyzed in the BEl.
C:\1EMP\mrendmentscompenviropcfinaldrafuev.doc
-15 -
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
the "December 1985 Habitat Classification Aerial Photographs," hereby
incorporated by reference as a base line for the type and extent of habitat on a
parcel. The 1985 maps shall be SU1JPlemented by recent aerial photography and
existing site analysis to determine any increases in the amount of uPland native
vegetated areas. include a disclaimer statement to advise the pl:lblie that the maps
ar-e generalized and that habitat desigaations are S1:1bjoot to verifioation through
field inspee-tions.
Policy 205.2.14
Monroe County shall require. in the Land DeveloPment Regulations an Existing
Conditions Report including a vegetation survey for any development that may
disturb native upland vegetation At a minimwn the report shall include an
analysis of the pOtential impacts of the proposed development on native upland
habitats. a description of the measures designed to reduce identified adverse
impacts including clustering and a transplantation plan..
Amendment # 17
Amend Objective 205.5 as follows:22
Obiective 205.5
Monroe County, together with private, state, and federal agencies, shall establish a program
for acquiring undisturb~ native upland habitat to implement Goal 105 and the
recommendations in the FKCCS. (See Future Land Use Objective 102.4 and related
policies). [9J-5.012(3)(b)4; 9J-5.013(2)(c)6]
Policy 205.5.1
The Monroe County Department ofEm'ffimmental Resomees Division of Growth
Management shall wOIk cooperatively with the Monroe County Land Authority in
developing and administering the acquisition program. Acquisition shall be
undertaken as part of to implement the Monroe County Land Acquisition Master
Plan (Objective 102.4) Natmal Heritage and Park Progrmn. [9J-5.012(3)(c)2; 9J-
5.0l3(2)(c)6]
Policy 205.5.2
A list of priority native upland habitat acquisition sites in Tier I shall be drafted and
updated reviewed annually. This list shall be developed by Monroe County in
consultation with representatives of 9N&, FDEP. FDCA USFWS. SFWMD.
FWC the NatiooaJ }.udtlboo Society Researeh Departn::lent, The Nature
Conservancy, and others as appropriate. Priority native l:lpland vegetatioo
acquisition sites shall include those vlhich:
1. are detemHnoo to be high quality habitat and are designated in the Tier I
overlay distrie((through the HEI);
22 This revision establishes the acquisition program required to implement Goal 1 05.
23 Regrowth areas are now maturing and should also be protected.
C:\TEMP\am:ndmentscompenviropcfinaldraflrev.doc
-16-
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
2. inel1:1de plant species of spooial status endemic species ;
3. are docl:1Illented habitat for \YikYife speeies of spooial status;
4. are may be located within Improved Subdivisions; and/or
5. are documented as significant coastal upland natural communities by the
Florida Namral Areas Inventory. [9J 5.012(3)((3)2; 9J 5.013(2)( c )6]
Amendment # lW4
Delete Policy 207.1.2, Policy 207.1 0.5 and 207.12.6:
Policy 207.1.2
Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the OOsting Habitat Evatuatioo IndeK
(HEI), ful:Hld in Sections 9.5 33<5 through 9.5 312, of the LaBd Development
Regulations (MoIlf-oe County BOCC, 1990), and whieh is adopted by Feferenee in
this COmpI"-ehensi'le Plan, shall be revised to gi'/e greater considemtioo to the
habitat of species of special status and critical nestin~fceding areas for birds. The
HEI shall be revised to include, at a minimum, the roYOyoog:
1. a written methodology for completing the HEI;
2. r-eqw-ements for integrating data regarding the historie sightings of rare and
endangered speeies and critioal nesting'feeding areas for birds; and
3. e'laluation eriteria which wiR better difIcrontiate higi'.., medium and 10'1' f:}uality
habitat.
Before adoption, the revisions shaH undergo scientific poor review by experts in
terrestrial and '.vilcllife ecology. To the extent possible, the FeviEWIefS shall include
these
Policy 207.10.5
Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the existing Habitat Eval\:1ation lndeK
(REI), foond in Section 9.5 336 through 9.5 342 of the Land Devclopme.Flt
Regulations (Monroe County BOCC, 1990), and which is adopted by reference in
this Comprehensive PIa!'.., shall be revised to better proteet high q1:1aHty upland
vegetative communities and thr-eatefled and endangered species. The HEI shall be
revised to iooffide, at a:rnininR.Hn, the rob'ling:
1. a written methodology for completing the HEI;
24 The deletions are because the REI will no longer be used to protect upland vegetation ( the changes to the HE! were
completed in 1998) the Tiers will provide the needed protection
C:\TEM.P\ammdmentscompenviropcfinaldraftrev.doc
-17 -
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
2. requirements for integrating data regarding the historio sightings of Fare and
endangered species and critioal nestinglfooding areafl for biFds; and
3. evaluation eriteria which wiR better differentiate high, medium and lO'lI quality
flaffitat
Before adoption, the revisions shaY mxlergo scientific peer reyiew by '*Perts in
terrestrial and wilcllife ecology. To the extent possible, the re,liev/eFS shall include
those individMals who participated in deyelopment of the existing HEI
methodology. (800 Policy 205.2.1.) [9J 5.013(2)( c)3]
Policy 207.12.6
Upon completion of the Comprehensive Plan, the existing Habitat Evaluation
~{(HEI), found in 8ection 9.5 33e throagh 9.5342 of the Land Development
RtlgUlations (Monroe County BOCC, 1990), and '.vhich is adopted by referonee in
this Comprehensive Plan, shall be revised to better proteet high quality uplafld
vegetatiye communities and threatcfled and endangered species. The HEI shaY be
revised to include, at a FI1ffiinmm, the follO'lfing:
1. a v.ritten methodology for completing the HEI;
2. requirements for integrating data regarding the historic sightings of Fare and
endangered species and critical n~feeding areas for biR:ls; and
3. evaluation criteria "'/hicb will better diffcrffitiate high, medium. and low q1:1ality
habitat.
Before adoption, the revisions shall l:lIldergo scientific poor review by experts in
terrestrial and wilcllife ecology. To the extent possible, the revieweFS shaR inel'lide
those indi'/'idMals who participated in de'/elopment of the existing HE!
methodology. (8ee Polioy 205.2.1). [9J 5.013(2)(0)3]
Amendment # 19
Delete Objective 1201.13:25
Obieetive 1201.13
By Janl:1al)' 4, 1998, Monroe County shaH establish and implement the Monroe Coonty
Natural Heritage and Park Program. The purpose of this progmm shall be to acql:1ire lands
and open space in the ptlblic interest for conservation and rooreatiOB purposes. (800 F1:ltl:1ro
Land Use Objective 102.4 and related polieies.) [9J 5.014(3)(b)1 and 2]
25 The Natural Heritage and Park Program has been removed from the Comprehensive Plan.
C:\1EMP\arnendmentscompenviropcfinaldraftrev.doc
- 18-
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LDRS
TO REVISE DIVISION 8: ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
AMENDMENT # 1
Delete Sections 9.5-336 Existing conditions map, 9.5-337 Habitat analysis required, 9.5-
338 Waiver of habitat analysis, 9.5-339 Habitat type analysis, 9.5-339.1 Habitat analysis
objective, 9.5-339.2 Automatic high quality forest classification, 9.5-339.3 Habitat
analysis definitions and approach, 9.5-340 Habitat analysis for high hammocks, 9.5-341
Habitat analysis for low hammocks, 9.5-342 Habitat analysis for palm hammocks, and
9.5-343 Habitat analysis for pinelands.1
AMENDMENT # 2
Add new Section 9.5-336 that reads as follows:2
Sec. 9.5-336. Existing conditions report.
As part of an application for approval on lands containing upland native
vegetation communities the applicant shall prepare and submit an existing conditions
report including a vegetative survey that identifies the distribution and quality of native
habitat within the parcel or lot proposed to be developed in accordance with the standards
of this division. The existing conditions report will be prepared by a biologist qualified
under sec. 9.5-28, in a form approved by the director of planning and contain, at a
minimum, the following:
(a) Cover Page: The cover page shall contain the following:
(1) Legal description of parcel.
(2) Property owners name and address.
(3) Date of report and site visits.
(4) Consultant's name, agency and contact information.
(5) Consultant's signature.
(b) Summary: A general description of site including discussion of habitat
type, important features and presence and location of any disturbed areas.
I This revision removes the requirements for performing an HEI, the Tier system has identified the quality
upland native vegetative resources and clearing will be based on the Tier designation.
2 This revision requires an existing conditions report for all development with upland habitat, to include a
vegetation survey.
c: \ TEMP\enviro-heipcfinadraftrev. doc
- I -
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(c) Species List: A list of species found in the survey provided in a matrix of
the following five columns:
(1) Column 1 - removed - estimates the number of that plant will be removed.
(2) Column 2 - retained - indicates that one or more of that plant will remain.
(3) Column 3 - common plant name.
(4) Column 4 - scientific name.
(5) Column 5 - status - threatened, endangered, or regionally important and
other native species four inches or greater in diameter at four feet in height
and exotic or pest plant status.
(d) Site Plan: A site plan at a scale of 1 (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet or
greater showing the location of all native species that are threatened, endangered,
regionally important and areas of disturbance and exotic species.
AMENDMENT # 3
Add new Section 9.5-337 that reads as follows:3
Section 9.5-337. Administration and compliance:
Before a certificate of occupancy or final inspection of approval may be issued
for any structure, portion, or phase of a project subject to this division a grant of
conservation easement running in favor of Monroe County shall be approved by the
growth management director and the county attorney and filed in the Land Records of
Monroe County. The Conservation Easement shall state the amount of required upland
native vegetation open space and prohibiting activities within that open space, including
removal, trimming or pruning of native vegetation; acts detrimental to wildlife or wildlife
habitat preservation; excavation, dredging, removal or manipulation of the substrate;
activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, or water or soil conservation; dumping or
placing soil, trash, or other materials; and any other restrictions as may be stated on the
Conservation Easement.
AMENDMENT #4
Add new Section 9.5-338 that reads as follows:
Section 9.5-338 Wetland open space requirements.
No development activities, except as provided for in this division, are permitted in
mangroves, freshwater wetlands and in undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands,
the open space requirement is one hundred (100) percent.
3 This revision clarifies that the conditions in existence when an application is approved shall only be
modified in conformance to an approved development plan and that the vegetation of the site must be
maintained into perpetuity.
c: \ TEMP\enviro- heipcfinadraftrev .doc
- 2 -
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
AMENDMENT # 5
Amend Section 9.5-347 (b)(c) and (d) and create a new (e) as follows:
Sec. 9.5-347. Clearing permitted.4
(b) Percentaf!e of Clearing: No land shall be developed, used or oee\:lf>ied
such that the amount of open space on the parcel proposed for development is less than
the open space ratios listed belov.' for each habitat. Clearing of upland native vegetation
communities in the Tiers I, II. and III shall be limited and open space requirements for
the portion of the property containing upland native vegetation increased in the following
percentages:
TIER
Tier I
Tier II
Tier III
Permitted Clearing
10% oful'land native vegetation
40% of upland native vegetation
60% of upland native vegetation'
TABLE INSET:
Land Type of Existing Conditions Map
Open ',vaters 1.00
Mangrove and freshwater 'lIetlands 15
Saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands 16
High hanrmock (high quality)0.80
High hanrmoek (moderate quality) 0.60
High hammoek (10'.'1 quality) 0.40
Low hammock (high quality) 0.80
Low hammock (moderate quality) 0.60
LO'tv hammock (10\'1 quality) 0.40
Palm hammock 0.90
Cactus hammoek 0.90
Pinelands (high quality)
Pinelands (low quality)
Beach berm 0.90
Disturbed 0.20
Disturbed ',vith hammock17 0.40
Disturbed ',vith saltmarsh and buttomvood18 See ~ 9.5 348(d)
Disturbed beachlberm 0.20
Disturbed ';'lith exoties 0.20
Disturbed with slash pines19 0.60
Off shore islands 0.95
Open Space Ratio
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.60
(c)
f{)llowing:
No structures shall be permitted in the required open spaee except for the
4 This revision reflects that clearing will be controlled by the Tier designation based on the existing
conditions rather than the HEI that was based on the 1986 habitat maps.
C:\TEMP\enviro-heipcfinadraftrev.doc - 3 -
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(1) Up to fifty (50) percent of the total area of driye'.'lays, parking areas,
passiye recreational uses, and active recreational uses provided that:
a. They do not cumulatively occupy more than ten (10) pereent of the
total required open space area;
b. They are eOFlstrneted of permeable materials;
c. They do not require the remoyal of Flati';e vegetation; and
d. They are located within a disturbed upland habitat.
(2) Structures buried l:H'lderground including but not limited to septic tank
drain fields, utility lines, and lilldergrOlmd tanks, proyided that:
a. They are coyered '.villi permeable materials;
b. They do not require the removal of native vegetation; and
c. They are located within a disturbed l:lpland habitat.
(c) Site Baseline Conditions: The legal conditions of land existing as of
February 28. 1986 and as depicted on the "December 1985 Habitat Classification Aerial
Photogra1'hs." shall be used as a baseline to determine the clearing that may be permitted
on a site. The 1985 maps shall be supplemented by recent aerial photography and existing
site analysis to determine any increases in the amount of upland native vegetated areas.
Upland native vegetated areas cleared between 1986 and time of permit application shall
be considered to still include upland native vegetation for purposes of determining the
amount of open space and clearing permitted.
(d) Required open space shall be maintained pursuant to the most restrictive
design criteria listed for each habitat which applies to the development as listed in this
division. Permittable clearing within each habitat type shall be assessed on a cl:U1'l.ulative
basis such that any additional or proposed eleanng shall be determiBed by accOlmting for
all previous clearing that occurred on the site siFlce February 28, 1986. Major
development sites appro';ed prior to September 15, 1986 shall not be permitted to clear
additional habitat beyond the clearing originally appro';ed without first obtaining
approvallIDder the terms of this ehapter.
(Ord. No. 007 2002, ~ 1 (Exh. A))
14 Adopted by State Rule 28 20.025(13) on Jan. 04, 1996 and further ameFlded by Staff.
15 ImplemeFlts Policies 102.1.1, 204.2.1, and 207.13.1 and v;as already adopted pursl:lant
to rule 28 20.025
16ImpI0fflents Policies 207.1.1 and 207.12.5
17Implements Policy 205.2.6
18 Development in disturbed wetlands determined by KEYWEP eyaluation
19 Implements Policy 205.2.6
C:\TEMP\enviro-heipcfinadraftrev.doc - 4 -
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(d) Ocean Reef Clearing: For the purpose of this ordinance. upland native
vegetated areas in Ocean Reef Club. shall be considered Tier II and clearing shall be
limited to forty (40) percent of the upland native vegetated areas.
(e) Lot Aggrefwtion and Clearinf!: For ROGO application that receive points
for lot aggregation under Section 9.5-122.3 (a) (3). permitted clearing of vegetation shall
be limited to the percentage of the property indicated in paragraph (b) above or five-
thousand ( 5.000) square feet. whichever is less.
C:\TEMP\enviro-heipcfinadraftrev.doc - 5 -
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
IMPLEMENT REVISIONS TO ROGO
ANDNROGO
AMENDMENT #1
Amend Policy 101.2.3 as follows:1
Policy 101.2.3
The Permit Allocation System for new residential (ROGO) development shall
specify procedures for:
1. annual adjustment of the number of permits for new residential units to be
issued during the next year based upon, but not limited to the following:
a. the number of permits for ne'lI residential ooits issaed during the
previous year, inc1ading permits v/hich did not resalt in completed
units or active progress towards such completion as defined by the
Land Development Regulations; and
b. application of the updated transportation model of the Lower
Southeast Florida Hurricane Eyacuation Study every five years or
when warranted by implementation of roadway capaeity
improvements, new beha',ioral data, or substantial changes in
development patterns (see Conservation and Coastal Management
Element Policy 216.1.5);
a. expired allocations and building permits in previous year:
b. allocations available, but not allocated in previous year:
c. number of allocations borrowed from future quarters:
d. vested allocations:
e. modifications required or provided by this plan or agreement pursuant
to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes:
f. receipt or transfer of affordable housing allocations by
intergovernmental agreement: and
I Except where further noted, these revisions reflect the updates made to ROGO since the comprehensive plan
was adopted and revises the apparent conflict in the text of point 2 with the content of Policy 101.2.4. Rather
than allocating between single and multi-family unit types, allocations are by affordable and market rate
housing.
c: \ TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 1 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
2. allocation of single and ml.:1lti fam.ily l.:1flit types affordable and market rate
housing units in accordance with Policy 101.2.4; and
3. timing of the acceptance of applications. evaluation of applications. and
issuance of permits for new residential development during the calendar year.
AMENDMENT #2
Amend Policy 101.2.4 as follows:2
Policy 101.2.4
Monroe County shall allocate at least 20 percent of residential (non-transient) growth to
affordable housing units as part of the Pennit Allocation System. Any portion of the 20
percent allocation not used for affordable housing shall be retained and be made available for
affordable housing from ROGO year to ROGO year. Affordable housing eligible for this
separate allocation fm:iSt shall meet the criteria specified in Policy 601.1.7. and shall not be
subiect to the Residential Pennit Allocation and Point SyStem in Policy 101.5.4. The parcel
proposed for affordable housing development shall not be located in an acquisitiOfl. area and
shaY. not qualify for negative points acooFding to the criteria speeified llflder Habitat ProteetiOfl.
and Threatened or Endangered j\...limal Speeies in Policy 101.5.1; OO\vever, properties
designated Residential High shall be eKempted fium this prohibition. within an area designated
as Tier I as set forth under Goal 1 05.
AMENDMENT #3
Amend Policy 101.3.1 as follows:3
Policy 101.3.1
Monroe County shall maintain a balance between residential and non-residential
growth by limiting the gFeSS square footage of non-residential development over the
15 year planning horizon in order to maintain a ratio of approximately 239 square
feet of new non-residential development for each new residential unit permitted
through the Residential Permit Allocation System. This ratio may be modified from
time to time through amendments to the land development regulations based upon
market and other relevant studies as required by policy 101.3.5. The ratio for
commercial allocation shall be revised Mpon completion of the economic baseline
analysis reql:lired by policy 101.3.5 '.vhich shall be completed no later than JaIHiary 4,
~ The commercial allocation allowed by this policy shall be uniformly
distributed over the 15 year planning horizon on an annual basis. consistent with the
Residential Permit Allocation System as set forth in Policy 101.2.1. 'Nithin one year
2 This revision reflects that affordable housing will no longer compete under RaGa, but will still be subject to
the limits on number of affordable RaGa allocations that can be awarded. In addition, the revision reflects
the elimination of negative environmental point categories in RaGa with the use of the Tier system.
3 Amendments to this policy are intended to provide the basis for making amendments to the floor space to
dwelling unit ratio as needed to accommodate changing needs and policies. The County has already had one
study completed concerning market demand for non-residential development and shortly the results of more
in-depth report on market demand and needs for non-residential floor area will be completed.
C: \TEMP\amendments-newrogOIpcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 2 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
of the effective date of this plan, Momoe County shall amend fuis poliey to specify
the IlllilMal allowable square footage based upon the. number of residootial l:lI1its
allowed by year using the ratio set fDrth in this polioy.
AMENDMENT #4
Amend Policy 101.3.3 as follows:4
Policy 101.3.3
The Permit Allocation System for new non-residential (NROGO) development shall
specify procedures for:
1. the annual adjustment of the square footage allocated for ef new non-
residential development to be permitted during the next year based upon. but
not limited to:
a) the square footage ef allocated for new non-residential development
completed that expired during the previous year;
b) strict regulations regarding completion schedules of permitted
activities shall be developed and enforced to preclude repeated
renewal of expired permits; and
b) the amount of square footage available for allocations but not
allocated in previous year:
c) modifications required or provided by this plan: and.
d) receipt or transfer of floor area by intergovernmental agreement.
2. maintaining a ratio of approximately 239 square feet of new non-residential
development for each new residential unit permitted through the Permit
Allocation System. as may be amended from time to time in accordance with
Policy 101.3.1; and,
3. timing of the acceptance of applications. evaluation of applications. and
issuance of permits for new non-residential development during the calendar
year.
AMENDMENT #5
Amend Policy 101.3.4 as follows:5
4 This policy has been revised to make the policy direction more concise and clear and to reflect other
revisions to NROGO proposed in this amendment package.
S This revision reflects recent amendments to LDRs to preclude exemptions for not-for-profits within
Conservation and Natural Areas (Tier I).
C: \TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 3 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Policy 101.3.4
Public facilities shall be exempted from the requirements of the Pennit Allocation System for
new non-residential development. Except within Tier I designated areas under Goal 105.
Gcertain development activity by federally tax-exempt not-for-profit educational, scientific,
health, religious, social, cultural, and recreational organizations may be exempted from the
Pennit Allocation System by the Board of County Commissioners after review by the
Planning Commission upon a finding that such activity will predominately serve the County's
non-transient population. All public and institutional uses that predominately serve the
County's non-transient population and which house temporary residents shall be included in
the Pennit Allocation System for residential development, except upon factual demonstration
that such transient occupancy is of such a nature so as not to adversely impact the hunicane
evacuation clearance time of Monroe County.
AMENDMENT #6
Amend Policy 101.3.5 as follows: 6
Policy 101.3.5
By January 4, 1998 July 2005. Monroe County shall complete ~ an eoonomic base
analysis market demand analysis and economic assessment in order to determine the
demand for future non-residential development in Monroe County and planning sub-
areas. The non-residential development allocation and Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) designations for non-residential uses shall be may be revised based upon
the results of this study, and other relevant policy and economic studies and data and
provide the basis for preparing specific amendments to the comprehensive plan to
incorporate goals. obiectives and policies on economic development including
tourism. The economie base analysis will address existing non-residential uses,
vacancy rates, economic trends and demand for non-residential uses by planning
sub-area.
AMENDMENT #7
Amend Policy 101.4.21 by adding (i) under "Notes" in the table entitled ''Future Land Use Densities
and Intensities" that reads as follows:
(i) The Maximmn Net Density is the maximmn density allowable with the use of TORs.
AMENDMENT #8
Amend Objective 101.5 as follows:?
Obiective 101.5
6 This amendment reflects the current market and economic strategy study being completed by the Chesapeake
Group, which will provide the basis for making changes in future land use designations and in eventual
frep~ratio~ ~f economic dev~lopment ~olicies for th~ County as an integral part of the ~omprehe~sive Plan.
This reVISIOn reflects the mcorporatIOn of the TIer system as the framework for Implementmg the point
system.
C: \TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 4 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Monroe County shall implement a Point System based primarily on the Tier system
of land classification in accordance with Goal 105, which directs future growth in
order to:
1. encourage the redevelopment and renewal of blighted areas [9J-5.006(3)(b)2];
2. maintain and enhance the character ofthe community [9J-5.006(3)(b)3];
3. protect natural resources [9J-5.006(3)(b)4];
4. encourage a compact pattern of development [9J-5.006(3)(b)7]; ami
5. encourage the development of affordable housing; and,
6. encourage development in areas served by central wastewater treatment
systems.8
AMENDMENT #9
Amend Policy 101.5.1 as follows:9
Policy 101.5.1
By Jam:lary 4, 1997, Monroe County shall adopt through its land development
regulations a new Point System for residential (ROGO) and non-residential
(NROGO) development to replace the existing Point System by no later than July 1.
2005. Except for affordable housing. this Point System. as set forth in Policy
101.5.4 for residential development and Policy 101.5.5 for non-residential
development. wffi€h shall be used as a basis for selecting the development
applications which are to be issued permits through the Permit Allocation System
(see Policy 101.2.1). The Point System shall specify positive point factors which
shall be considered as assets and shall specify negative point factors which shall be
considered as liabilities in the evaluation of applications for new residential and non-
residential development.
AMENDMENT #10
Amend Policy 101.5.2 as follows:1o
Policy 101.5.2
In order to encourage a compact fonn of residential growth, the PoiBt System shaY assign
positive point ratings to applieations for nevi residential dC"felopment ,,,meh v/oold that resu1~
in infill development in platted, improved subdivisions . the Point SYStem shall be orimarily
8 This revision reflects the incorporation of positive points in the permit allocation system for development to
be connected to an existing central wastewater treatment system.
9 This revision updates the Policy and reflects the shift away from using negative points in RaGa. It
establishes a one-year time frame for its completion.
10 This revision reflects the use of the Tier system for directing growth to specific areas. The Tier system takes
into account consideration of habitat, threatened and endangered species and availability of infrastructure and
services through its classification of properties into Tiers. The current system awards many properties within
platted subdivisions that are within environmentally sensitive habitat or have impacts on endangered and
threatened species.
c: \ TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 5 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
based on the Tier svstem ofland classification as set forth under Goa1105. [9J-5.006(3)(c)1
and 6]
AMENDMENT #11
Amend Policy 101.5.3 as follows:ll
Policy 101.5.3
In order to encourage a compact form of non-residential growth, the Permit
Allocation System shall limit and direct the ammmt of new non-residential
development primarily to areas designated as Tier III under Goal 105 and provide
incentives for redevelopment of existing developed and vacant infill sites. (See
Policy 101.3.1.) [9J-5.006(3)(c)1]
AMENDMENT # 12
Delete existing Policy 101.5.5 and create a new Policy 101.5.4 that readsas follows:
Policy 101.5.4
Monroe County shall implement the residential Permit Allocation and Point System
through its the land development regulations based primarily on the Tier system of
land classification as set forth under Goal 105. The points are intended to be applied
cumulatively.
1. Tier Designation - Utilizing the Tier System for land classification in
Policy 105.2.1, the following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications for proposed dwelling units in a manner that encourages
development of infill, predominately developed areas with existing
infrastructure and few sensitive environmental features and discourages
development in areas with environmentally sensitive upland habitat,
which must be acquired or development rights retired for resource
conservation and protection. 12
Point Assignment: Criteria:
0 Proposes a dwelling unit
within areas designated
Tier I [Natural Area].
+10 Proposes development
within areas
designated Tier II
II The existing policy fails to adequately provide broad guidance to promote compact development and needs
to be amended to incorporate the Tier System.
12 The Tier system is intended to provide the underlying base for directing growth under the revised ROGO
system. Rather than using negative points, the system uses a positive point approach which is legally more
defensible than one relying on negative scoring.
C:\ TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 6 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
[Transition and Sprawl
Reduction Area] on Big
Pine or No Name Key.
+20 Proposes development
within areas designated
Tier II[Transition and
Sprawl Reduction Area]
outside of Big Pine or
No Name Key.
+20 Proposes development
within areas designated
Tier III [Infill Area] on
Big Pine or No Name
Key.
+30 Proposes development
within areas designated
Tier III [Infill Area]
outside of Big Pine or
No Name Key.
2. Big Pine and No Name Keys - The following negative points shall be
cumulatively assigned to allocation applications for proposed dwellings
to implement the Big Pine Key and No Name Key Habitat
Conservation Plan and the Livable CommuniKeys Community Master
Plan.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
-10 Proposes development
on No Name Key.
-10 Proposes development
in designated Lower
Keys Marsh Rabbit
habitat or buffer areas
as designated in the
Community Master
Plan.
-10 Proposes development
in Key Deer Corridor
as designated in the
Community Master
Plan.
c: \ TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 7 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
3. Lot Aggregation - The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications to encourage the voluntary reduction of density through
aggregation of legally platted buildable lots within Tier II and Tier III
areas.T3
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+4 Proposes to aggregate
a contiguous vacant,
legally platted lot
within a Tier II or Tier
III area with sufficient
lot size and upland
area to be buildable
together with the
parcel proposed for
development.
"
+4 Each additional
contiguous vacant,
legally platted lot
which is aggregated in
Tier II or III area that
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
additional points as
specified.
4. Land Dedication - The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications to encourage the voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable
land within Tier I and Tier II designated areas and certain legally,
platted lots and unplatted parcels in Tier I that are of insufficient size
to be buildable for the purposes of conservation, resource protection,
restoration or density reduction and, if located in Tier II or Tier III, for
the purpose of providing land for affordable housing where appropriate.
14
I Point Assignment:
I. Criteria:
13 The revised lot aggregation system is similar to existing system except scoring has been changed to reflect
overall changes in scoring. Tier I areas are not eligible for aggregation and Policy 205.2.7 limits aggregation
points if clearing of upland native vegetation occurs in Tier II areas.
14 The land dedication scoring has been completely revised to reflect change in scoring and to allow more
flexibility in the sizes of property that may be dedicated. A major change has been to allow currently NA, SR
and SR-L lots, which are currently unbuildable due to lot size, to be eligible for ROGO dedication. In
addition, this policy spells out that lots dedicated in Tier II or Tier III may be used by the County for providing
land for affordable housing, where appropriate.
C: \TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 8 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
+4 Proposes dedication to
Monroe County of one
vacant, legally platted
lot of sufficient
minimum lot size and
upland area to be
buildable. Each
additional vacant,
legally platted lot that
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
points as specified.
+ 1 for each 5,000 square feet of lot size Proposes dedication to
Monroe County of a
vacant, legally platted
lot of 5,000 square
feet or more in size,
designated as
Residential Low with
a maximum net
density within a Tier I
area and containing
sufficient upland area
to be buildable. Each
additional vacant,
legally platted lot that
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
points as specified.
+0.5 Proposes dedication to
Monroe County of one
(1) vacant, legally
platted lot of at least
5,000 square feet in
size within a Tier I
area, designated as
Residential
Conservation, or
Residential Low with
no maximum net
density, containing
sufficient upland to be
buildable. Each
additional vacant,
C:\TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 9 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
legally platted lot that
meets the .'
aforementioned
requirements will earn
points as specified.
+4 Proposes dedication to
Monroe County of at
least one (1) acre of
vacant, unplatted land
located within a Tier I
area containing
sufficient upland to be
buildable. Each
additional one (1)
acre of vacant,
unplatted land that
.' meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
points as specified.
5. Market Rate Housing in Employee or Affordable Housing Project-
The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications for
market rate housing units in an employee or affordable housing
project: 15
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+3 Proposes a market rate
housing unit which is
part of an affordable
or employee housing
project; both
affordable and
employee housing
shall meet the policy
guidelines for income
in Policy 601.1.7 and
other requirements
pursuant to the Land
Development
Regulations.
15 This policy is intended to provide more incentives to build affordable housing by encouraging the mixture of
affordable housing with market rate housing.
C:\TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 10 of25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
6. Special Flood Hazard Areas - The following points shall be assigned
to allocation applications for proposed dwelling unit(s) to provide a
disincentive for locating within certain coastal high flood hazard
areas: 16
Point Assignment: Criteria:
-4 Proposes development
proposed within "V"
zones on the FEMA
flood insurance rate
maps.
7. Central Wastewater System Availabili~ - The following points
shall be assigned to allocation applications: 7
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+4 Proposes development
required to be
connected to a central
wastewater treatment
system that meets the
BAT / A WT treatment
standards established
by Florida Legislature
and Policy 901.1.1.
8. Perseverance Points - One (1) point shall be awarded for each year
that the allocation application remains in the allocation system up to a
maximum accumulation of four (4) points.18
AMENDMENT #13
Delete Policy 101.5.5 In its entirety and replace with new Policy 101.5.5 that reads as
follows:
16 This revision eliminates the negative points for "A" zone, in which the predominate number of properties are
located and the positive points for "X" zones that only affect a very insignificant number of properties.
17 This scoring incentive is intended to: encourage infill development in areas served by central sewer systems
being upgraded or constructed to meet 2010 Wastewater Treatment Standards; maximize public investment;
reduce the average EDD operating/maintenance costs of these systems; and recoup capital costs.
18 This revision eliminating the provision of perseverance points beyond four years reflects the Planning
Commission's concern that allowing such points beyond four years will only encourage development of lots in
areas where development should be discouraged.
C: \TEMP\amendments.newrogorpcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page II of25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Policy 101.5.5
Monroe County shall implement the non-residential Permit Allocation and Point
System through its land development regulations based primarily on the Tier system
of land classification pursuant to Goal 105. The points are intended to be applied
cumulatively.
1. Tier Designation - Utilizing the Tier System for land classification in
Policy 105.2.1, the following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications for proposed non-residential in a manner that encourages
development of infill, predominately developed areas with existing
infrastructure, commercial concentrations, and few sensitive
environmental features, and discourages development in areas with
environmentally sensitive upland habitat, which must acquired or
development rights retired for resource conservation and protection: 19
P~int Assi)!nment: Criteria:
0 Proposes non-residential development within
an area designated Tier I [Natural Area]
10 Proposes non-residential development within
an area designated Tier II [Transition and
Sprawl Reduction Area].
+20 Proposes non-residential development within
an area designated Tier III [Infill Area].
2. Intensity Reduction. The following points shall be assigned to
allocation applications to encourage the voluntary reduction of
intensity:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+4 An application proposes development that
reduces the permitted floor area ratio (PAR) to
twenty three percent (23%) or less.
3. Land Dedication - The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications to encourage the voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable
land within Tier I and Tier II designated areas and certain legally
19 The Tier System is intended to provide the underlying basis for directing growth under the revised NROGO
system. Rather than using negative points, the system relies on a positive approach, which is legally more
defensible then one relying on negative scoring.
c: \TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfina]draftrev .doc
Page ]2 of25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
platted lots and unplatted parcels in Tier I that are of insufficient size
to be buildable for the purposes of conservation, resource protection,
restoration or density reduction and, if located in Tier II or Tier III, for
the purpose of providing land for affordable housing where appropriate.
20
Point Assignment: Criteria:
4 Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one
(l) vacant, legally platted lot of sufficient
minimum lot size and upland area to be
buildable. Each additional vacant, legally
platted, buildable lot which is dedicated that
meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn the additional points as specified.
+ 1 per 5,000 square Proposes dedication to Monroe County of a
feet of lot area vacant legally platted lot of five thousand
(5,000) square feet or more in size, designated
as Residential Low with maximum net density
within a Tier I area and containing sufficient
upland to be buildable. Each additional vacant,
legally platted lot, that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as
specified.
+0.5 Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one
(l) vacant, legally platted lot of five thousand
(5,000) square feet or more within a Tier I area
designated as Residential Conservation, or
Residential Low with no maximum net density,
containing sufficient upland to be buildable.
Each additional vacant, legally platted, lot that
meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn points as specified.
+4 Proposes dedication to Monroe County of at
least one (1) acre of vacant, unplatted land
located within a Tier I area containing sufficient
upland to be buildable. Each additional one (1)
acre of vacant, unplatted land that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn the
points as specified.
20 The land dedication scoring has been completely revised to reflect change in scoring and to allow more
flexibility in the sizes of property that may be dedicated. A major change has been to allow currently NA, SR
and SR-L lots, which are currently unbuildable due to lot size, to be eligible for ROGO dedication. In
addition, this regulation spells out that lots dedicated in Tier II or Tier III may be used by the County for
providing land for affordable housing, where appropriate. It should be noted that under NROGO platted lots
will receive the same scoring as permitted under ROGO, which is currently not the case.
C: \ TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 13 of25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
4. Special Flood Hazard Area - The following points shall be assigned to
allocation applications to discourage development within high risk
special flood hazard zones:21
Point Assignment: Criteria:
-4 Proposes development within a "V" zone on the
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map.
5. Perseverance Points - One (1) or two (2) points shall be awarded for
each year that the allocation application remains in the system.
6. Highway Access - The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications to encourage connections between commercial uses and
reduction of the need for trips and access onto U.S. Highway 1 :22
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+3 The development eliminates an existing
driveway or access-way to U.S. Highway 1.
+2 The development provides no new driveway or
access-way to U.S. Highway 1.
7. Landscaping and Water Conservation - The following points shall
be assigned to allocation applications to encourage the planting of
native vegetation and promote water conservation:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+3 The project provides a total of two hundred
percent (200%) of the number of native
landscape plants on its property than the
number of native landscape plants required by
this chapter within landscaped bufferyards and
parking areas. ,
+1 Twenty-five percent (25%) of the native plants
provided to achieve the three (3) point award
above or provided to meet the landscaped
bufferyard and parking area requirements of
this chapter are listed as threatened or
endangered plants native to the Florida Keys.
+2 Project landscaping.. is designed for water
21 Negative points for special flood hazards have been revised similar to those for ROGO.
22 The scoring criteria for access has been thoroughly revised to better effectuate the intent of this scoring
policy.
C:\TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 14 of25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
conservation such as use of one hundred percent
(100%) native plants for vegetation, collection
and direction of rainfall to . landscaped areas, or
the application of re-used wastewater or treated
seawater for watering landscape plants.
8. Central Wastewater System Availabili~ - The following points
shall be assigned to allocation applications: 3
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+4 Proposes development
required to be
connected to a central
wastewater treatment
system that meets the
BAT / A WT treatment
standards established
by Florida Legislature
and Policy 901.1.1.
9. Employee Housing - The following points, up to a maximum of four
(4), shall be assigned to allocation applications for employee housing
units:24
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+2 Proposes an employee
housing unit which is
located on a parcel
with a non-residential
use.
+2 One (1) additional
employee housing unit
located on the parcel
with a non-residential
use
AMENDMENT #14
23 This scoring incentive is intended to: encourage infill development in areas served by central sewer systems
being upgraded or constructed to meet 2010 Wastewater Treatment Standards; maximize public investment;
reduce the average EDU operating/maintenance costs of these systems; and recoup capital costs.
24 This provision is intended to encourage mixed commercial-residential development and to provide
additional incentives to encourage the provision of affordable employee housing.
c: \TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 15 of25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Amend Policy 101.5.6 to read as follows.25
Policy 101.5.6
The Residential and Non-residential Point Systems shall be monitored on an annual
basis and revised as necessary to add, delete or adjust positive and negatiye faetors
based on new studies and data in a manner that is consistent with and furthers the
goals. policies. and obiectives of this plan. .wilieh may be identified by studies
prepared as part of the implementation of the Goals, Objeeti'les and Polieies of the
Comprehensive Plan. 8uch adjustments to the Point 8ystem.s shall result iF!
amendments to the Comprehensiye Plan and/or land developmcBt regulations as
appropriate. These srndies inehlde, b1:1t are not limited to:
1. the 8anitary '.'Vasteviater Master Plan (see 8anitary 'Nastewater Objeetive
901.4 and related policies);
2. the 8tormwater Management Master Plan (see Drainage Objective 1001.3
and related policies);
3. the Florida Keys National Marine 8anctuary Management Plan;
4. special studies undertaken as part of the Florida Keys National Marine
8anctuary Vlater Quality Protection Program (see Conservation and Coastal
Management Objective 202.1 and related policies);
5. the Live .\board 8tudy (see Conservation and Coastal ManagemeF!t
Objective 202. <I and related polieies);
6. the Florida Keys .^~dvance Identification of \Vetlands (}J)ID) Program (see
Conservation and Coastal Management Objecti'le 204.1 and related policies);
AMENDMENT #15
Delete Policy 101.5.7 and 101.5.8.26
Poliey 1 01.S. 7
As part of the first ar..nual re','lew of the Residential and Non residential Point
8ystems, additional criteria m.ay be included sueh as:
1. North Key Largo Negatiye points may be assigned for development
proposed within that portion of Key Largo located between the junction of
25 This existing policy is no longer relevant and has been replaced with new Tier based system and Livable
CommuniKeys community master planning process. The policy has been replaced with a broader policy that
calls for updates and revisions to the permit allocation system as needed.
26 These two policies are no longer relevant with the revisions to the ROGO system based on the Tier system
and increased emphasis on lot dedication and density reduction.
C: \TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 16 of25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
State Road 905 aftd U.S. Highway 1 and the Dade County bmmdary at
.^Jlgclfish Creek.
2. Trame Capaeity As part of the first ar.naal re'liew of the Residential and
NON residential Point System, positiye points may be assigfled for
development served by US 1 segmeNts which haye surplas eapaeity.
Negative points shall be assigned for development served by US 1 segments
whieh haye marginal capaeity.
3. Offshore Islands Negative points may be assigned to deyelopm.ents on
offshore islands.
4. Conservation Lands Negatiye points may be assigned to deyelopments
which may impact designated or proposed conservation lands.
5. Distl:lfbed Saltmarsh and Buttomvood 'Netlands Negati'/e points may be
assigned to developments which require the placemeNt of fill or structl:lfes in
disturbed saltmarsh and battonwood wetlands.
6. Historic Resources Negatiye points may be assigned to developments whieh
remove or destroy historic or archaeological resources. Positive points may
be assigned to developmeNts which restore or enhance historie or
archaeological resourees.
7. Potential De'/elopment Credits (PDCs) An applicant may have the optiON of
receiving positive points, called PoteNtial Development Credits (PDCs), for
transferring development rights away from a sender site f-or development
proposed on an eligible receiver site, as speeified in Objeetive 101.13 and
related policies.
Poliey 101.5.8
The Residential Permit },Jlocation Ordinance shall be amended to award a graduated
scale of positive points to dwelling lffiits which are proposed for lots 'NithiN legally
platted, recorded subdivisions, which are served by existing infrastrueture, iNcll:ldiNg
at a minimum potable ',vater, electricity and payed roadways. Maximum. points shall
be awarded for those projects proposed within platted subdi'.'isions whieh are 67% to
100% bailt out; fev/er poiNts will be awarded for projects proposed for s1:1bdi'.'isioNs
33~<' 67% bailt out; and minimmn poiNts shall be awarded for projects proposed for
subdivisions 0 33~<' bailt out. The pereentage of build out shall be based l:1pon
updated, accurate data from the County's Geographic Information System (GIS).
The Ordinance shall be amended wheN the pertinent information is readily a'lailable
on the County's GIS.
c: \TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 17 of25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
AMENDMENT #16
Amend and renumber Policy 101.5.9 as follows:27
Policy 101.5.9101.5.7
Monroe County shall allow for the development of residential multi family projects
with multiple units within the Permit Allocation System. If a project ranks high
enough in the Point System for a portion of the development to receive an allocation
award, but the project includes more units than are available during an allocation
period, the entire project may receive allocation awards if the excess allocation is
reduced from the next allocation period(s). Multi family affordable housil'lg or
elderly housing projects shall be given priority.
AMENDMENT #17
Amend and renumber Policy 101.5.10 as follows:28
Policy 101.5.10101.5.8
Monroe County may develop a program, called Transfer of ROGO Exemption
(TRE), that would allow for the transfer off-site of dwelling units, hotel rooms,
campground/recreational vehicle spaces and/or mobile homes to another site in the
same ROGO sub-area, provided that they are lawfully existing and can be accounted
for in the County's hurricane evacuation model. In addition, the fleW receiver site
'llould not be eligible for any negative en'/ironmel'ltal poil'lts under RaGO with the
exception of those properties designated Residemial High. shall be located within a
Tier III area and for a receiver site on Big Pine Kev and No Name Key. the sending
site shall also be located on one of those two islands. 'Nhen a multiple family
housing deyelopment utilizes a TRE, any other units in that same project that are
permitted through the RaGa process may be eligible for minor positive pointfl on a
one for one basis.
AMENDMENT #18
Amend Policy 101.6.1 as follows:29
Policy 101.6.1
Monroe County shall, upon a property owner's request, purchase property for fair
market value or permit the minimum reasonable economic use of the property
pursuant to Policy 101.6.5, ifthe property owner meets the following conditions:
27 This revision reflects need to limit the authority for borrowing from future allocations for any type of
development needing multiple units.
28 This policy needs to be revised to reflect the Tier system. In addition, the specific provisions limiting TREs
on Big Pine and No Name Key is included to incoIporate the community master plan policies
29 Specific language regarding administrative relief needs to be incoIporated in policy and the policy needs to
be brought up to date. The number of years to be eligible for administrative relief is being extended to reduce
potential number of permits that could be left in the pipeline. This extension is within the 4 to 7 year envelope
that most case law considers as a reasonable period of delay in permitting before a taking has occurred.
C:\TEMP\amendments-newrogoIpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 18 of25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
1. they have been denied an allocation award for four successive years in the
Permit j\llocation System.; Residential (ROGO) or Non-residential
(NROGO) Permit Allocation System:
2. their proposed development otherwise meets all applicable county, state, and
federal regulations;
3. their allocation application has not been withdrawn;
4. they have complied with all the requirements of the Permit Allocation
System Residential or Non-residential Permit Allocation System; and
5. they follow the procedures for administrative relief contained in the Dwelling
Unit .:\llocation Ordinance. in the land development regulations.
As used in this Policy, "minimum reasonable economic use" shall mean, as applied
to any residentially zoned lot of record which was buildable immediately prior to the
effective date of the Plan, no less than a single-family residence. "Fair market value"
shall be an amount which is no less than ad valorem valuation in the Monroe County
Real Property Tax Roll for the year 1992. adiusted for inflation. or the current fair
market value. whichever is greater.
AMENDMENT #19
Delete Policy 101. 6.5 and Policy 101.6.6 and replace with new Policy 101.6.5:30
Poliey 101.6.S
Monroe County shall annually compile a list prioritizil'lg the lands requested for
County acquisition due to the Permit j\llocation System. The lands of the property
ovmers who meet the criteria in Policy 101.6.1 shall be ranked according to:
1. the environmental sensitivity of the '/egetati'/e habitat, marine resources, and
impacts to the quality of near shore \yaters as specified by the ranking in the
Enyironmental Design Criteria section of the Land Development Regulations;
2. whether the property is in kno,..m, probable, and/or potential habitat for 01'1e or
more threatened and/or endangered species, as indicated on the most recent
Protected .Animal Maps; and
30 These two policy conflicts with the provisions and intent of the Administrative Relief process, which is
intended to provide certainty to property owners who are provided administrative relief by the County. The
replacement policy sets forth the criteria for the type of properties that the County should offer to purchase
under Administrative Relief. It should be noted that Policy 102.4.4 directs County to petition the State and
Federal governments to take responsibility for land acquisitions in Tier I areas.
C: \ TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 19 of25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
3. whether development on the property will adversely impact successful protection
and recovery of threatened or endangered species, such as development on Big
Pine Key, No Name Key, Ohio Key, and North Key Largo.
Those lands considered most sensitiye according to the combination of (a), (b) and
(c) above shall be ranked as the highest priority for aeqaisition.
Poliey 101.6.6
\Vhen considering the acqUIsItlon of lands denied building permit allooations
through the Permit }..llocation System, Momoe County shall base the aOq'aisition
decision upon the enyironmentally scnsitiyity ranking specified in Policy 101.6.5
Policy 101.6.5
Monroe County shall pursue land acquisition through voluntary purchase of lands
from private property owners denied a building permit through the Permit Allocation
System, as the preferred option for administrative relief pursuant to Policy 101.6.1, if
the subject permit is for development located within:
1. a designated Tier I area;
2. a designated Tier II area requiring the clearing of 5,000 square feet or more
of upland tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands habitat; or,
3. a designated Tier II or Tier III area on a non-waterfront lot suitable for
affordable housing.
Refusal of the purchase offer by a property owner shall not be grounds for the
granting of a ROGO or NROGO award.
AMENDMENT #20
Amend Policy 101.12.4 to read as follows: 31
Policy 101.12.4
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
or the significant expansion (greater than 25 percent) of any existing public facility:
1. assessment of needs;
2. evaluation of alternative sites and design alternatives for the selected
alternative sites; and,
31 This new policy reflects amendments in draft Rule 28-20.110; the proposed language has been revised to
update it with this series of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
C: \TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 20 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
3. assessment of direct and secondary impacts on surrounding land uses and
natural resources.
The assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources will
evaluate the extent to which the proposed public facility involves public
expenditures in the coastal high hazard area and within environmentally sensitive
areas, including disturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands, undisturbed beach
berm areas, units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, undisturbed uplands
(particularly high quality hammock and pinelands), habitats of species considered to
be threatened or endangered by the state and/or federal governments, offshore
islands, and Conservation Land Proteetion Areas designated Tier I areas.
Except for passive recreational facilities on publicly-owned land. no new public
community or utility facility other than water distribution and sewer collection lines
or pump/vacuum/lift stations shall be allowed within Tier I designated areas unless it
can be accomplished without clearing of hammock or pinelands. Exceptions to this
requirement may be made to protect the public health. safety. and welfare. if all the
following criteria are met:
1. No reasonable alternatives exist to the proposed location: and.
2. The proposed location is approved by a supermaiority of the Board of County
Commissioners.
The site of the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Facility (located at mile marker
100.5) with an allowed clearing of up to 4.2 acres shall not be subiect to this policy.
AMENDMENT #21
Delete Policy 101.13.3.32
Policy 101.13.3
As part of the first ar.nual re';ie\'; of the Point System, an applicant in the Residemial
Permit .^..JlocatioR System shall be awarded either one nnit for each one development
right transferred from an eligible sender site to an eligible reeeiyer site (throagh the
use of Transferable Development Rights or TDRs), or positive points in the Point
System (throagh the uses of Potential Development Credits or PDCs).
If the applicant opts to receive PDCs, the applicant 'lIould receive positive points for
transferring dc';elopment rights away from a sender sitc to an eligible receiver site.
By using this option, the applieant would forfeit the right to de';elop any additional
units that would bc granted for TDRs.
32 The staff believes the use of TDRs and PDCs in the permit allocation process has little merit and would be
too cumbersome to implement.
C: \ TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 21 of25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
AMENDMENT #22
Renumber and amend Policy 101.13.4 as follows:
Policy 101.13.4 101.13.333
Transferable Development Rights may be used within the Residemial Permit
Allocation System to increase density, s\:lbjeet to the limitations centained in the land
development regulations. The Maximum Net Density is the maximum density
allowable with the use of TDRs, and shall not exceed the maximum densities
established in this plan. Density The transfers assignment of TDRs to Big Pine Key,
No Name Key, and North Key Largo from other areas of the County shall be
prohibited.
AMENDMENT #23
Delete Policy 101.13.5.34
Polie)' 101.13.5
As part of the first annual re'/iew of the Point System, positive points, or "Potential
Deyelopment Credits" (PDCs) shall be awarded for applieations proposing non
residential development which will transfer de'/elopment rights away from eligible
sender sites to eligible receiver sites. PDCs shall be awarded to commercial projeets
for TDRs transferred from either residential or commercial zones.
AMENDMENT #24
Amend and renumber Policy 101.13.6 as follows:
Policy 101.13.6101.13.4
In conjunction with the first annual revie>.v of the Point System evaluation of the
existing TDR program pursuant to Policy 101.13 .2, parcels within the following
habitats and land use districts shall be designated as sender sites for Transferable
Development Rights (TDRs) and Potential Development Credits (PDCs):
Any parcel within these zoning categories:
Offshore Island (OS)
Mainland Native (MN)
Native (NA)
Sparsely Settled (SS)
Parks and Refuge (PR)
Conservation (C)
Habitat of the following types which lie within any zoning category:
Freshwater wetlands
33 This revision reflects the elimination of the authority to use TDRs in allocation system.
34 This revision reflects an update of the policy and the staffs proposal to eliminate the PDCs concept from
further consideration.
C:\TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 22 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Saltmarsh/Buttonwood wetlands
High quality high hammock
High quality low hammock
Moderate quality high hammock
Moderate quality low hammock
High quality pinelands
Low quality pinelands
Beach/berm
Palm Hammock
Cactus Hammock
Disturbed Wetlands
AMENDMENT #25
Delete Policy 101.13.7 and Policy 101.13.8.35
Paliey 101.13.7
In eonjooction with the first amJ.ual revie,'.. of the Point System., the follo:wing
guidelines shall be used to establish positive point awards in the Residential Permit
l\lloeation System for each PDC:
Sender Site
Freshwater ',vetland
SR
Receiver Site
scarified, in DR
MU
IS
SR (disturbed land not
to include wetlands)
PDC Points
most points
least points
Paliey 101.13.8
In conj1:lnction with the first annual re':iew of the Point System, the following
guidelines shall be used to establish point aWai'ds in the Non residential Permit
f..lloeation System for each PDC:
Sender Site
Freshwater wetland
SR
Receiver Site
UC
SC
MU
SC or l\ill
PDC Points
most points
least points
35 The deletion of these policies reflects the proposal to eliminate the concept ofPDCs.
C: \TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 23 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
AMENDMENT #26
Amend and renumber Policy 101.13.9 as follows:36
Policy 101.13.9 101.13.5
No later than one year from the effective date of this plan, In coni unction with the
evaluation of the TDR pro~am pursuant to Policy 101.13.2 and no later than one
year from the date when the County's Geographic Information System is fully
functional, Monroe County shall map potential TDR sender and receiver sites as
specified in Policies 101.13.6 through 101.13.9 Policy 101.13.4, and shall map
parcels from which development rights have been transferred. These maps shall be
updated as necessary and made available to Growth Management staff and public for
use in the development review process.
AMENDMENT #27
Amend Policy 102.3.1 as follows:3?
Policy 102.3.1
The Permit Allocation System (see Future Land Use Objectives 101.2 through 101.4
and related policies) shall have the following environmental protection goals:
1. to reduce the exposure of residents to natural hazards;
2. to reduce disturbances to natural vegetation resource areas;
3. to reduce disturbances to terrestrial wildlife resources areas;
4. to reduce impacts of new development on grooodwater and nearshore waters;
5. to acquire vacant privately-owned environmentally sensitive lands for
conservation and resource protection:
6. to encourage infill development where existing lands are already
substantially developed. served by complete infrastructure facilities and
within close proximity to established commercial areas and have few
sensitive or significant environmental features:
~ 7. to ensure that the ecological integrity of natural areas is protected when land
is developed; and
e~. to reduce adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species.
36 This revision reflects proposed revisions to preceding policies.
37 The revisions reflect changes in the proposed ROGO system.
c: \TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 24 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Accordingly, the Point System, which shall be used as the basis for the annual
allocation of permits, shall assign negative and/or positive points to development
applications based upon: that helps to achieve the above environmental protection
goals.
1. the occurrence of natural resources or natural hazards; and/or
2. proposed \:lti1ization of best management practiees f-or wastewater treatment
and disposal which will avoid or mitigate the adverse impacts of deyelopment OR
natural resources, particulady 'water quality.
(See Future Land Use Objective 101.5 and related policies for a list of positive and
negative factors to be included in the Permit Allocation System.) [9J-5.006(3)(c)1
and 6]
C:\TEMP\amendments-newrogorpcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 25 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO LDRS TO REVISE
ROGO (SECTIONS 9.5-120 THROUGH 9.5-123 AND
SECTIONS 9.5-125 THROUGH 9.5-140)
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING (SECTION 9.5-266)
AMENDMENT #1
Amend Sections 9.5-120 through 9.5-123 and Sections 9.5-125 through 9.5-140 to read
as follows:
DIVISION 1.5 RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE
Sec. 9.5-120. Residential rate of growth ordinance (ROGO).
(a)
Purpose and intent: The purposes and intent of residential ROGO are:
(1) To facilitate implementation of goals, objectiv~s and policies set forth in
the comprehensive plan relating to protection of residents, visitors and
property in the county from natural disasters, specifically including
hurricanes;
(2) To limit the annual amount and rate of residential development
commensurate with the county's ability to maintain a reasonable and safe
hurricane evacuation clearance time;
(3) To regulate the rate and location of growth in order to further deter
deterioration of public facility service levels, environmental degradation
and potential land use conflicts;
(4) To allocate the limited number of dwelling units available annually
hereunder, based upon the goals, objectives and policies set forth in the
comprehensive plan; and,
(5) ITo implement Goal 105 of the comprehensive plan.
(b) Definitions: The words or phrases used in this division 'shall have the
meanings prescribed in this chapter, except as otherwise indicated as follows: 2
Allocation period means a defined period of time within which applications for
the residential ROGO allocation will be accepted and processed.
I Added to include Goal 105 to the purpose and intent.
2 The defInitions for threatened and endangered species have been removed, the previous criteria are no
longer needed since they are included in the Tier map designations.
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 1 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Annual allocation period means the twelve-month period beginning on July 13,
1992, (the effective date of the original dwelling unit allocation ordinance), and
subsequent one-year periods.
Annual residential ROGO allocation means the maximum number of dwelling
units for which building permits may be issued during an annual allocation period.
Buildable lot or parcel means the lot or parcel must contain a minimum of two-
thousand (2,000) square feet of upland, including any disturbed wetlands that can be
filled pursuant to this chapter.
Controlling date means the date and time a ROGO application is submitted. This
date shall be used to determine the annual anniversary date for receipt of a perseverance
point(s) and shall determine precedence when ROGO applications receive identical
ranking scores. A new controlling date shall be established based upon the re-submittal
date and time of any withdrawn or revised application, except pursuant to section 9.5-
122.1 (h).
Quarterly allocation period means the three-month period beginning on July 13,
1992, or such other date as the board may specify, and successive three-month periods.
Quarterly residential ROGO allocation means the maximum number of dwelling
units for which building permits may be issued in a quarterly allocation period.
Residential dwelling unit means a dwelling unit as defined in section 9.5-4 of the
Monroe County Code, and expressly includes the following other terms also specifically
defined in section 9.5-4: hotel rooms, campground spaces, mobile homes, transient
residential units, institutional residential units (except hospital rooms) and live-aboards.
Residential ROGO allocation means the maximum number of dwelling units for
which building permits may be isslled in a given time period.
Residential ROGO allocation award means the approval of a residential ROGO
application for the issuance of a building permit.
ROGO application means the residential ROGO application submitted by
applicants seeking allocation awards.
Sec. 9.5-120.1. General provisions.
(a) Residential ROGO allocation award required: No building permit shall be
issued unless the dwelling unit has received a residential dwelling unit allocation award,
or is determined to be exempt as provided below.
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 2 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(b) Effective date: Any ROGO application which has not received an
allocation award as of the effective date of this division shall be processed and evaluated
pursuant to the provisions of this division.
(c) Yearly review and monitoring: As required by the comprehensive plan, as
requested by the planning commission or the board, or as otherwise necessary, the
planning director shall consider the rate, amount, location, and ratio of market rate to
affordable housing residential dwelling units available for development in the county.
The planning director shall also monitor the effects of such development and determine
the conformity of such development with the comprehensive plan and this chapter. This
review, in whole or in part, may form the basis for recommendations by the planning
director or the planning commission to the board for action to repeal, amend or modify
the ROGO allocation system.
(d) Affected area: The ROGa allocation. systemshall;apply within the
unincorporated area of Monroe County, Florida, which, for purposes hereof, has been
divided into subareas as follows:
(1) Upper Keys: The unincorporated area of Monroe County north of
Tavernier Creek and corporate limits of the Village of Islamorada
(approximately mile marker 90).
(2) Lower Keys: The unincorporated area of Monroe County from the
corporate limits of the Village of Islamorada (approximately mile marker
72) south to the corporate limits of the City of Key West at Cow Key
Bridge on U.S. Highway 1 (approximately mile marker 4), excluding Big
Pine Key and No Name Key.
(3) Big Pine Key and No Name Key: The islands of Big Pine Key and No
Name Key within unincorporated Monroe County.
Sec. 9.5-120.2. Type of development affected
The residential ROGO shall apply to all residential dwelling units for which a
building permit is required by this chapter and for which building permits have not been
issued prior to the effective date of the ROGO allocation system, except as otherwise
provided herein.
Sec. 9.5-120.3. Type of development not affected.
The residential ROGO shall not apply to the development described below:
(a) Redevelopment on-site: Redevelopment, rehabilitation or replacement of
any lawfully established residential dwelling unit or space which does not increase the
3 The Middle and Lower Keys are combined because of the small area of unincorporated Monroe County
remaining within the existing middle Keys boundary.
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 3 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
number of residential dwelling units above that which existed on the site prior to the
redevelopment, rehabilitation or replacement.
(b) Transfer off-site: Transfer off-site shall consist of either the demolition or
a change of use from residential to non-residential of a unit or space from a sender site
and the development of a new unit on a receiver site as indicated below.
(1) Eligibility of sender unit or space: A hotel room, mobile home, dwelling
unit, or recreational vehicle/campground space that is lawfully established.
(2) Criteria for redevelopment off-site: In order to redevelop off-site, a
receiver site must be evaluated for both its structural and site conditions.
a. Transfer to a hotel: A hotel or hotel room may be developed if the:
(i)
Sender unit is eligible and provided that it was used as a
hotel room in accordance with section 9.5-4; and4
(ii)
Receiver site meets all of the following criteria:5
(1) Is located in the same ROGO subarea as the sender
site; and
(2) 6Is located within a Tier III designated area.
b. Transfer to affordable housing: An affordable housing unit may be
developed ifthe receiver unit meets all of the following criteria:
(i) The proposed unit is an affordable house pursuant to
sections 9.5-4(A-5) and 9.5-266; and
(ii) Is located in the same RaGa subarea as the sender site;
and
(iii) Is located in a Tier III designated area or, if located in a
Tier II designated area, clearing of upland native vegetation
is limited to less than five-thousand (5,000) square feet or
the open space requirements of Section 9.5-347, whichever
is less.7
4 The provision to allow transfer of recreational vehicle spaces has been deleted; County currently has a
moratorium on such transfers.
5 The requirement that affordable housing must be attached has been removed to allow transfers to single-
family lots.
6 Transfer will only be allowed in Tier III areas in conformance with Goal 105 and the FKCCS.
7 This implements new Policy 205.2.7
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 4 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(3) Procedures for transfer off-site:
a. 8 A pre-application conference and at a mInImum, a minor
conditional use permit, shall be required for both the sender site
and the receiver site. The minor conditional use for the transfer
shall be reviewed pursuant to criteria in section 9.5-120.3 and not
criteria in section 9.5-65. The sender site shall not require posting.
b. A sender unit shall be assigned a unique identifier number that
shall be used for tracking and monitoring by the planning
department. Multiple units to be transferred from a sender site
may be authorized under a single conditional use approval.
c. The unique identifier number shall be itemized in the conditional
use permits required for both the sender and receiver sites.
(4) Conditions for Issuance of Permit: No building"permit shall be issued for
the new unit on the receiver site until one of the following conditions is
met:
a. The unit is demolished as per an issued demolition permit and a
final inspection for the demolished unit or space has been
completed by the building department for the sender site; or
b. The unit is removed pursuant to a development approval,
development order, or a development permit is issued and a final
inspection for the removed unit is completed by the building
department for the sender site.
(c)
RaGa.
Nonresidential use: Nonresidential uses are not affected by residential
(d) Development not increasing hurricane evacuation times: Any applicant
that can demonstrate with a traffic study acceptable to Momoe County traffic engineers
that their proposed development will not increase hurricane evacuation times. All
residential dwelling units to be located in the area designated as Zone' 7 (North Key
Largo area) are deemed not to increase hurricane evacuation times.
(e) Public/governmental uses: Public/governmental uses, including capital
improvements and public buildings, as are defined in section 9.5-4.
(f) Other nonresidential development: Any other use, development, project,
structure, building, fence, sign or activity, which does not result in a new residential
dwelling unit.
8 The minor conditional use process is required for accounting pwposes only.
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 5 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(g) Vested rights: Landowners with a valid, unexpired development of
regional impact approval granted by the county prior to July 13, 1992, shall be exempt
from the residential ROGO system.
Sec. 9.5-120.4. Moratorium on new transient units.
New transient residential units, such as hotel or motel rooms, or campground,
recreational vehicle or travel trailer spaces, shall not be eligible for residential ROGO
allocations until December 31, 2006.
Sec. 9.5-121. Reserved.
Sec. 9.5-122. Residential ROGO allocations.
9(a) Number of available annual residential ROGO allocations: The number of
market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea of unincorporated
Monroe County and the total number of affordable residential ROGO allocations
available county-wide on a yearly basis shall be as follows:
Subarea10
Upper Keys
Lower Keys
Big Pine and No Name Keys
Number of Dwelling Units
61
57
~
Total Market Rate
126
Affordable dwelling units
Very Low, Low, and Median Incomes 36*
Moderate Income 35*
71
IlTotal units a year 197
*Includes one (1) for Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
(1) Yearly residential ROGO allocation ratio: Each subarea shall have its
number of market rate residential ROGO allocations available per ROGO
year. Affordable ROGO allocations shall be available for county-wide
allocation except for Big Pine Key and No Name Key. The annual
9 The allocation formula is revised from the 1992 analysis excluding the IS and URM vacant lots on Big
Pine Key and No Name Keys, which contain 1586 lots, 20% of the total vacant lots and 34% of the lots in
the Lower Keys. The allocation for BPK and NNK is based on the HCP. The totals for market rate and
affordable housing reflect the draft Rule proposed by the Florida Administration Commission.
10 The Lower and Middle Keys ROGO planning areas have been combined due to incorporation of
Islamorada and Marathon.
II The number of allocations is based on the current allocation of 197 for the County excluding the 20
percent reduction enacted by the Florida Administration Commission.
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev. doc
Page 6 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key shall be eight (8) market
rate and two (2) affordable dwelling units.
(2) Quarterly residential ROGO allocation ratio: Each subarea shall have its
number of market rate housing residential ROGO allocations available per
ROGO quarter determined by the following formula:
a. Market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea
per quarter is equal to the market rate residential ROGO
allocations available in each subarea divided by four (4).
b. Affordable housing residential ROGO for all four (4) ROGO
quarters including the two available for Big Pine Key shall be
made available at the beginning of the first quarter for a ROGO
year.
(3) Ratio of affordable housing ROGO allocatio,!:s to market rate ROGO
allocations: Prior to October of each year, the board of county
commissioners may adopt a resolution changing the ratio of affordable
housing to market rate ROGO allocations based upon the
recommendations of the planning director and planning commission
arising from the annual review of ROGO. This ratio may be amended
pursuant to the following:
a. The percentage of affordable housing shall never be less than
twenty (20) percent of the total ROGO allocations available or the
minimum established by rule of the Florida Administration
Commission, whichever is greater.
b. The increase or decrease in the percentage of affordable housing of
the total ROGO allocations available shall not exceed fifty (50)
percent of the previous year's ROGO allocations to market rate
and affordable housing.
(4) Ratio of very low income, low income, and median income allocations to
moderate income allocations: The Planning Commission may amend
these proportions for affordable housing during any ROGO quarter.
(5) Big Pine Key and No Name Key: All residential development on Big Pine
Key and No Name Key is subject to the provisions of the Incidental Take
Permit and the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Florida Key Deer and
other covered species, which may affect ROGO allocations under this
chapter. 12
12 This language is necessary to provide the basis for making unforeseen adjustments in the ROGO
allocations on Big Pine Key and No Name Key that may be necessitated by the restrictions contained in the
UH" budget of the HCP and Incidental Take Permit.
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 7 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(b) Reservation of affordable housing allocations: Notwithstanding the
provisions of section 9.5-122.2 for awarding of allocations for affordable housing, the
board of county commissioners may reserve by resolution some or all of the available
affordable housing allocations for award to certain sponsoring 'agencies or specific
housing programs consistent with all other requirements of this chapter. Building permits
for these reserved allocations shall be picked up within six (6) months of the effective
reservation date, unless otherwise authorized by the board of county commissioners in its
resolution. The board of county commissioners may at its discretion place conditions on
any reservation as it deems appropriate. These reservations may be authorized by the
board of county commissioners for: 13
(1) The Monroe County Housing Authority, nonprofit community
development organization(s) pursuant to section 9.5-266(e), and other
public entities established to provide affordable housing by entering into a
memorandum of understanding with one or more of these agencies;
(2) Specific affordable or employee housing projects participating in a
federaVstate housing financial assistance or tax credit programs or
receiving some form of direct financial assistance from the county upon
written request from project sponsor and approved by resolution of the
board of county commissioners;
(3) Specific affordable or employee housing projects sponsored by non-
governmental not-for profit organizations above upon written request from
the project sponsor and approved by resolution of the board of county
commISSIoners;
(4) Specific affordable or employee housing programs sponsored by the
county pursuant to procedures and guidelines established time to time by
the board of county commissioners;
(5) Specific affordable or employee housing projects by any entity,
organization, or person, contingent upon transfer of ownership of the
underlying land for the affordable housing project to the county, a not-for-
profit community development organization(s), or other entity approved
by the board of county commissioners, upon written request from the
project sponsor and approved by resolution of the board of county
commISSIoners; or
13 This provision codifies the practice of the County to provide allocations for specific projects and gives
the Board more flexibility in applying these allocations to where they are most needed. It eliminates the
need for these projects to go through the ROGO competition process and provides some certainty to
housing provider agencies for planning and funding of their housing projects. Furthermore, this proposed
language provides additional incentives for owners of non-residential properties to provide affordable
rental housing and employers to provide on-site housing for employees.
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 8 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(6) Rental employee housing projects, situated on the same parcel of land as
the non-residential workplace for the tenants of these projects, upon
written request from the property owner and approved by resolution of the
board of county commissioners.
(c) Affordable housing allocation awards and eligibility:
(1) The definition of affordable housing shall be as specified in sections 9.5-4
and 9.5-266.
(2) Any portion of the annual affordable housing allocation not used for
affordable housing at the end of a ROGO year shall be made available for
affordable housing for the next ROGO year.
(3) Anyportion of the residential ROGO allocations not used shall be retained
and be made available for affordable housing from ROGO ye'ar to ROGO
year.
(4) 14No affordable housing allocation shall be awarded to applicants located
within a Tier I designated area, within a V-zone on the county's flood
insurance rating map, or within a Tier II designated area that results in the
clearing of upland native vegetation of more than five-thousand (5,000)
square feet or the open space requirements of Section 9.5-347, whichever
is less.
(5) 150nly affordable housing allocations for Big Pine Key may be used on
Big Pine Key. No affordable housing allocation may be used on No Name
Key.
(d) Residential dwelling unit allocation required: From and after the effective
date of the dwelling unit allocation system, the county shall issue no building permit for a
residential dwelling unit unless such dwelling unit:
(1) Has a residential dwelling unit allocation award; or
(2) Is exempted from the dwelling unit allocation system pursuant to this
chapter or is deemed vested pursuant to section 9.5-120.3.
14 As all future development is to be discouraged within Tier I, it would be inappropriate to provide
incentives for affordable housing program in areas where development should not occur. Furthermore, in
Tier II clearing of existing tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands should be limited to protect isolated,
but locally important environmental habitats.
IS The HCP for BPK and NNK only allows for a total of 10 permits to be issued under a RaGa allocation
per year.
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 9 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Section 9.5-122.1 Application procedures for residential ROGO.
(a) Application for allocation: In each quarterly allocation period, the
department of planning and environmental resources shall accept applications to enter the
residential ROGO system on forms prescribed by the planning director. Except for
allocations to be reserved and awarded under section 9.5-122 (b), the ROGO application
form must be accompanied by an approved building permit application and a
nonrefundable processing fee in order to be considered in the current allocation period.
The planning director shall review the ROGO application for completeness. If determined
to be incomplete, the planning director shall reject the ROGO application and notify the
applicant of such rejection, and the reasons therefore, within ten (10) working days. The
application shall be assigned a controlling date that reflects the time and date of its
submittal unless the application is determined to be incomplete. If the application is
rejected then the new controlling date shall be assigned when a complete application is
submitted. ".'
(b) Fee for review of application: Each ROGO application shall be
accompanied by a nonrefundable processing fee as may be established by resolution of
the board. Additional fees are not required for successive review of the same ROGO
application unless the application is withdrawn and resubmitted.
(c) Compliance with other requirements: The ROGO application shall
indicate whether the applicant for a residential dwelling unit allocation has satisfied and
complied or not with all county, state and federal requirements otherwise imposed by
Monroe County regarding conditions precedent to issuance of a building permit and shall
require that the applicant certify to such compliance.
(d) Non-county time periods: The county shall develop necessary
administrative procedures and, if necessary, enter into agreements with other
jurisdictional entities which impose requirements as a condition precedent to
development in the county, to ensure that such non-county approvals, certifications
and/or permits are not lost due to the increased time requirements necessary for the
county to process and evaluate residential dwelling unit applications and issue allocation
awards. The county may permit evidence of compliance with the requirements of other
jurisdictional entities to be demonstrated by "coordinating letters" in lieu of approvals or
permits.
( e) Limitation on number of applications:
(1) An individual entity or organization may submit only one (1) ROGO
application per unit in each quarterly allocation period.
(2) There shall be no limit on the number of separate parcels for which ROGO
applications may be submitted by an individual, entity or organization.
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 10 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(3) A ROGO application for a given parcel shall not be for more dwelling
units than are permitted by this chapter or the comprehensive plan.
(f) Expiration of allocation award: Except as provided for in this division, an
allocation award shall expire when its corresponding building permit is not picked up
after sixty (60) days of notification by certified mail of the award or, after issuance of the
building permit, upon expiration of the permit pursuant to chapter 6.0.16
(g) Borrowingfromfuture housing allocations:
(1) The planning commission may award additional units from future annual
dwelling unit allocations to fully grant an application for residential units
in a project if such an application receives an allocation award for some,
but not all, ofthe units requested. 17
(2) The board of county commissioners in approving affordable housing
allocations pursuant to section 9.5-122 (c) may award additional units
from future annual dwelling unit allocations if the number of available
allocations is insufficient to meet specific project needs. 18
(3) The planning commission or board of county commissioners shall not
reduce any future allocation by more than twenty (20) percent and shall
not apply these reductions to more than five (5) annual allocations or
twenty (20) quarterly allocations. 19
(h) 2oRevision of ROGO application: An applicant may elect to revise a
ROGO application to increase the competitive points in the application without prejudice
or change in the controlling date, if a revision is submitted on a form approved by the
planning director to the planning and environmental resources department by no later
than thirty (30) days following the planning commission approval of the previous ROGO
rankings.
(i) Clarification of application data:
(1) At any time during the dwelling unit allocation review and approval
process, the applicant may be requested by the director of planning or the
16 The existing language has been revised to reflect adopted amendments in the Building Code (Chapter
6.0) and Section 9.5-113.
17 This revised language expands the eligibility of units to apply future allocations from multi-family to any
type of residential unit in a multi-unit project.
18 This new language gives the board, similar to the planning commission, authority to borrow future
allocations for affordable housing.
19 The current borrowing provisions have no limit to the number of years or quarters from which these
borrowed allocation can come. This loophole is closed with this five-year limit.
20 The existing language has been revised to provide greater flexibility for applicants, as no public interest
is served to penalize an applicant for adding additional points through dedication or aggregation of
lots/land.
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 11 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
planning commISSIOn, to submit additional information to clarify the
relationship of the allocation application, or any elements thereof, to the
evaluation criteria. If such a request is made, the director of planning shall
identify the specific evaluation criterion at issue and the specific
information needed and shall communicate such request to the applicant.
(2) Upon receiving a request from the director of planning for such additional
information, the applicant may provide such information; or the applicant
may decline to provide such information and allow the allocation
application to be evaluated as submitted.
(j) 21 Existing ROGO applications: All applications in the RaGa system prior
to the effective date ofthis ordinance shall be re-scored pursuant to criteria in section 9.5-
122.4 and retain all existing perseverance points. Notwithstanding the provisions of sec.
9.5-122.4 (i), such applications shall be eligible to continue to receive perseverance
points beyond the first four (4) years in the system, at a annual rate of two (2) positive
points for each year that the application remains in the RaGa system.
Sec. 9.5-122.2. Evaluation procedures for residential dwelling unit allocation.
(a) Adjustment of residential ROGO allocations: At the end of each quarterly
allocation period, the planning director shall recommend additions or subtractions to the
basic allocation available by subarea, based upon any of the following, as appropriate:
(1) The number of building permits for new residential units issued which
expired pursuant to chapter 6.0.
(2) The number of dwelling unit allocation awards that expired prior to
issuance of a corresponding building permit and which were awarded in
the current annual allocation period;
(3) The number of residential RaGa allocation awards available which were
not allocated during the quarterly allocation period in the current annual
allocation period;
(4) The number of residential RaGa allocation awards in previous quarters
which were borrowed from future allocations to accommodate multiple
unit projects or to accommodate allocation applications with identical
scores, pursuant to section 9.5-122.2(b)(2) or which were granted to
applicants via either the appeals process, administrative relief or a
beneficial use determination;
(5) Residential RaGa allocations vested during the preceding quarter;
21 This provision vests applicants who are currently in the system for the points they have accrued for the
years they have been in RaGa. Additionally, it vests these applications from the revisions made to the
scoring of perseverance points.
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 12 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(6) Any other modifications required or provided for by the comprehensive
plan or an agreement pursuant to chapter 380, Florida Statutes';
(7) The receipt or transfer of affordable housing allocations from or to
municipalities pursuant to this chapter;
(8) Allocations reserved and/or awarded by the board of county
commissioners pursuant to section 9.5-122 (c).
(b) Initial evaluation of allocation applications: Upon receipt of completed
allocation applications, the director of planning shall evaluate the allocation applications
for market rate housing pursuant to the evaluation criteria set forth in section 9.5-122.3.
(1) Except for affordable housing, the director of planning shall classify each
allocation application by subarea.
(2) On the evaluation cover page, for each allocation application, the director
of planning shall indicate the subarea and the number of dwelling units for
which allocation awards are being requested. Market rate allocation
applications shall be aggregated by subarea. Affordable housing allocation
applications shall be aggregated on a county-wide basis.
(3) Within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of a quarterly allocation period,
unless otherwise extended by the board, the director of planning shall for
market rate allocations:
a. Complete the evaluation of all allocation applications submitted
during the relevant allocation period;
b. Total the number of dwelling units by subarea for which allocation
applications have been received; and
c. Rank the allocation applications in descending order from the
highest evaluation point total to the lowest.
(4) Within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of a quarterly allocation period,
unless otherwise extended by the board, the director of planning shall for
affordable housing allocations:22
a. Complete review of all allocation applications to confirm
eligibility of applicants during the relevant allocation period;
22 This approach reflects that affordable housing will not have to compete under the new RaGa system.
A warding of allocations will be done on a frrst-come, frrst served basis.
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 13 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
b. Total the number of dwelling units for unincorporated Monroe
County for which affordable housing allocation applications have
been received; and,
c. List the affordable housing allocation applications in descending
order of controlling date from earliest to latest date.
(5) If the number of dwelling units represented by the allocation applications
for market rate housing, by subarea, is equal to or less than the quarterly
allocation, the director of planning may make a recommendation to the
planning commission that all of the allocation applications for that subarea
be granted allocation awards.
(6) If the number of dwelling units represented by the allocation applications
for affordable housing is equal to or less than the available allocation, the
director of planning may make a recommendation to the planning
commission that all of the allocation applications be granted allocation
awards.
(7) If the number of dwelling units represented by the allocation applications
for market rate housing, by subarea, is greater than the quarterly
allocation, the director of planning shall submit an evaluation report to the
planning commission indicating the evaluation rankings and identifying
those allocation applications whose ranking puts them within the quarterly
allocation, and those allocation applications whose ranking puts them
outside of the quarterly allocation.
(8) If the number of dwelling units represented by the allocation applications
for affordable housing is greater than the total available allocation, the
director of planning shall submit a report to the planning commission
indicating the applications in order of their control dates and identifying
those allocation applications for which sufficient allocations exist and
those allocation applications whose ranking by controlling date puts them
outside the available allocation.
(c) Public hearings: Upon completion of the evaluation ranking report and/or
recommendation, the director of planning shall schedule and notice a public hearing by
the planning commission pursuant to otherwise applicable regulations.
(1) At or prior to the public hearing, the planning commission may request,
and the director of planning shall supply, copies of the allocation
applic~tions and the director of planning evaluation worksheets.
(2) Upon review of the market rate allocation applications and evaluation
worksheets, the planning commission may adjust the points awarded for
meeting a particular criteria, adjust the rankings as a result of changes in
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 14 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
points awarded, or make such other changes as may be appropriate and
justified. "
(3) The basis for any planning commission changes in the scoring or ranking
of market rate applications shall be specified in the form of a motion to
adopt the allocation rankings and may include the following:
a. An error in the designation of the applicable subarea.
b. A mistake in the calculation of dedicated or aggregated lots/land.
c. A mistake in assignment of the Tier map designation in the
application.
d. Any other administrative error or omission that may cause the
application to be incorrectly scored. '
(4) The public, including, but not limited to, applicants for allocation awards,
shall be permitted to testify at the public hearing. Applicants may offer
testimony about their applications or other applications; however, in no
event may an applicant offer modifications to an application that could
change the points awarded or the ranking of the application.
(5) At the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission may:
a. Move to accept the evaluation rankings for market rate housing
applications and rankings for affordable housing applications as
submitted by the director of planning.
b. Move to accept the rankings as may be modified as a result of the
public hearing.
c. Move to continue the public hearing to take additional public
testimony.
d. Move to close the public hearing but to defer' action on the
evaluation rankings pending receipt of additional information.
e. Move to reject the rankings.
(6) The planning commission shall finalize the rankings within sixty (60) days
following initial receipt of the director of planning evaluation ranking,
report and recommendations.
(d) Notification to applicants: Upon finalization of the evaluation rankings by
the planning commission, notice of the rankings, by subarea for market rate housing, and
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 15 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
county-wide for affordable housing, shall be posted at the planning department offices
and at such other places as may be designated by the planning commission.
(1) Applicants who receive allocation awards shall be further notified by
certified mail, return receipt requested. Except as provided herein for
allocations for affordable housing awarded by the board of county
commissioners pursuant to section 9.5-122(b) and paragraph (g) below,
upon receipt of notification of an allocation award, the applicant may
request issuance of a building permit for the applicable residential
dwelling unit.
(2) 23 Applicants who fail to receive allocation awards shall be further notified
by regular mail; without further action by such applicants nor the payment
of any additional fee, such applications shall remain in the residential
ROGO system for reconsideration in the. next .. succeeding quarterly
allocation period.
(e) 24Identical rankings for market rate housing applications: If two (2) or
more allocation applications in a given subarea have identical evaluation points, these
applications shall be ranked in descending order from the earliest controlling date of
submission to the latest. The planning commission may approve two (2) or more
allocation applications with identical rankings and controlling dates despite the fact that
the quarterly allocation will be exceeded if:
(1) A clear statement of findings of fact are made justifying the decision; and
(2) The excess allocation is reduced from the next succeeding quarterly
allocation period or is reduced pro rata from the next three (3) quarterly
allocation periods
(f) Identical controlling datesfor affordable housing applications: If two (2)
or more allocation applications for affordable housing have identical controlling dates
and at least one affordable housing allocation remains available to be awarded, the
planning commission may approve two (2) or more allocation applications with identical
rankings through borrowing of future allocations pursuant to section 9.5-122.1 (g).
(g) Multi-unit affordable housing projects: Upon the written approval of the
planning director, the expiration period for an allocation award for affordable multi-unit
housing projects may be extended where the applicant is unable to be granted a sufficient
number of allocations required to initiate the project.25
23 This revised language removes the certified mail requirement for notification of applicants who do not
receive an award reducing costs and time requirements.
24 This section has been rewritten to make it more clear that the controlling date is used to break "ties"
among applications with identical scores.
2S This codifies a policy ofthe Growth Management Division in assisting affordable multi-family projects.
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev. doc
Page 16 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
9.5-122.3. Administrative relief.
(a) Eligibili~: An applicant for an allocation award IS eligible for
administrative relief if: 6
(1) The application complies with all requirements of the dwelling unit
allocation system; and
(2) Was considered in the first sixteen (16) consecutive quarterly allocation
periods; and27
(3) Has not received an allocation award.
(b) Notification of Eligibility: Within thirty (30) days of the finalization of
evaluation rankings by the planning commission, any applicant determined be eligible
for administrative relief pursuant to paragraph (a) above, shall be notified of the
applicant's eligibility for administrative reliefby certified mail, return receipt requested.28
(c) Application: An application for administrative relief shall be made on a
form prescribed by the director of planning and may be filed with the planning and
environmental resources department no earlier than the conclusion of the sixteenth (16th)
quarterly allocation period and no later than one hundred eighty (180) days following the
close of the fourth annual allocation period.29
(d) Forwarding application to board: Upon the filing of an application for
administrative relief, the director of planning shall forward to the board all relevant files
and records relating to the subject applications. Failure to file an application shall
constitute a waiver of any rights under this section to assert that the subject property has
been taken by the county without payment of just compensation as a result of the
dwelling unit allocation system.
( e) Public hearing: Upon receipt of an application for administrative relief,
the board shall notice and hold a public hearing at which the applicant will be given an
opportunity to be heard. The board may review the relevant applications and applicable
evaluation ranking, taking testimony from county staff and others as may be necessary
and hear testimony and review documentary evidence submitted by the applicant.
26 This revision is intended to address the administrative problems created by applicants filing before the
four-year period. The existing language has been further revised to improve its readability.
27 This revision is intended to eliminate possible misinterpretation of this provision that arises due to the
defInition of "annual allocation period".
28 The Planning Commission believes that fairness dictates the County noticing applicants eligible for
administrative relief. The current regulations do not require such notification.
29 Since the applicants must wait until their application has been in the system for four consecutive years,
the Planning Commission believes it would be appropriate to provide additional time (180 rather than the
current 90 days) for filing of administrative relief applications.
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 17 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(f) Board's action: At the conclusion of the public hearing, the board may
take any or a combination of the following actions:
(1) Grant the applicant an allocation award for all or a number of dwelling
units requested in the next succeeding quarterly allocation period or
extended pro rata over several succeeding quarterly allocation periods.
(2) 300ffer to purchase the property at its fair market value if the property is
located within:
a. a designated Tier I area;
b. a designated Tier II area requiring the clearing of five-thousand
(5,000) or more square feet of upland native vegetation;
c. a designated Tier II or Tier III area on a non-waterfront lot suitable
for affordable housing.
(3) Suggest or provide such other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
31Sec.9.5-122.4. Evaluation criteria.
The point values established on the following pages are to be applied
cumulatively.
(a) Tier designation: The following points are intended to discourage
development in environmentally sensitive areas and to direct and encourage development
in appropriate infill areas, while recognizing that any development has an impact on the
carrying capacity of the Florida Keys:
Point Assi~nment: Criteria:
0 An application which proposes a dwelling
unit within an area designated Tier I
[N atural Area].
+10 An application which proposes
development within an area designated Tier
II rTransition and Sprawl Reduction Areal
30 These regulations provide specific criteria to be followed in acquiring land under Administrative Relief.
31 The points, which can be obtained to make a project more competitive, have been reduced to only
include those that are awarded for reducing development potential county-wide and acquiring
environmental lands threatened by development. The initial point assignment given to the applications
depending on the Tier where the proposed development is located incorporates both the previously applied
negative environmental and positive infill criteria. Most of the building points that were previously
assigned for wind load and sustainability have been eliminated or are no longer meaningful due to changes
in the Florida Building Code.
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 18 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
+20 An application which proposes
development within an area designated Tier
II [Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area]
outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
+20 An application which proposes
development within an area designated Tier
III[lnfill Area] on Big Pine Key or No
Name Key.
+30 An application which proposes
development within an area designated Tier
III [lnfill Area] outside of Big Pine Key or
No Name Key.
(b) Big Pine Key and No Name Key only: The fol~owing additional negative
points are intended to implement the Habitat Conservation Plan and the Livable
CommuniKeys Community Master Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
Point AssiJmment: Criteria:
-10 An application which proposes a dwelling
unit on No Name Key.
-10 An application, which proposes
development in designated Lower Keys
Marsh Rabbit habitat or buffer areas as
designated in the Community Master Plan.
-10 An application, which proposes
development in Key Deer Corridor as
designated in the Community Master Plan.
(c) Lot aggregation: The following points are intended to encourage the
voluntary reduction of density through aggregation of vacant, legally platted, buildable
lots with density allocation by lot. 32
Point Assi~nment: Criteria:
+4 An application which aggregates a
contiguous vacant, legally platted, vacant,
buildable lot, zoned IS, IS-D, URM, URM-
L, or CFV, located within a Tier II or Tier
32 Aggregation is not permitted in Tier I because it facilitates and encourages development of this critical
upland habitat. The points have been raised for lot dedication to make them equal with lot aggregation to
allow more flexibility in awarding points to donated platted lots that are not buildable.
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 19 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
III designated area together with the parcel
proposed for development.
Additional requirements
1. The proposed development shall not
involve the clearing of upland native
vegetation of more than 5,000 square
feet of upland native vegetation or the
open space requirements of section 9.5-
347, whichever is less.33
2. The application shall include but not be
limited to the following:
* An affidavit of ownership of all
affected parcels, acreage or land; and
* A legally binding restrictive covenant
limiting the number of dwelling units
on the aggregated lot, running in favor
of Monroe County and enforceable by
the county, subject to the approval of
the growth management director and
county attorney and recorded in the
office ofthe clerk ofthe county prior
to the issuance of any building permit
pursuant to an allocation award.
(d) Land dedication: The following points are intended to encourage the
voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable land within Tier I and Tier II areas for the
purposes of conservation, resource protection, restoration or density reduction, and if
located within Tier II or Tier III, for the purpose of providing land for affordable housing
where appropriate. 34
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+4 An application which includes the
dedication to Monroe County of one (1)
vacant, legally platted buildable lot, zoned
IS, IS-D, URM, URM-L, orCFV. Each
additional vacant, legally platted, buildable
lot which is dedicated that meets the above
requirements will earn the application the
33 This reflects the change in Policy 205.2.7.
34 Allows land dedicated under RaGa in Tier II or Tier III, if appropriate, to be used for affordable
housing.
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev. doc
Page 20 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
+ 1 for each 5,000 square feet oflot area
+0.5
+3
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev .doc
additional points as specified.
An application which includes the
dedication to Monroe County of a vacant
legally platted, buildable lot of five
thousand (5,000) square feet or more
within a Suburban Residential District (SR)
or Suburban Residential- Limited District
(SR-L) within a designated Tier I area.
Each additional vacant, legally platted,
buildable lot of five thousand (5,000)
square feet or more that meets the above
requirements will earn points as specified.
An application which includes the
dedication to Monroe County of one (1)
vacant, legally platted, buildable lot of five
thousand (5,000) square feet or more
within a Native Area District (NA) or
Sparsely Settled District (SS) in a
designated Tier I area. Each additional
vacant, legally platted, buildable lot that
meets the above requirements will earn the
half (0.5) point as specified.
An application which includes dedication
to Monroe County of at least one-acre (1)
of vacant, unplatted, buildable land located
within a designated Tier I area. Each
additional one (1) acre of vacant, unplatted,
buildable land that meets the above
requirements will earn the points as
specified.
Additional requirements:
1. The application shall include but not be
limited to the following:
* An affidavit of ownership of all
affected lots, parcels, acreage or
land; and
* A statutory warranty deed, that
conveys the dedicated property to the
county shall be approved by the
growth management director and
county attorney and recorded in the
office of the clerk of the county prior
to the issuance of any building permit
Page 21 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
pursuant to an allocation award.
2. Lots or parcels dedicated for positive
points under this paragraph shall not be
eligible for meeting the mitigation
requirements of the Big Pine Key and
No Name Key Overlay Zone.
(f) Market rate housing in employee or affordable housing project: The
following points are intended to provide further incentives for provision of market rate
housing within employee housing projects:
Point AssiJ!nment: Criteria:
+3 An application for market rate housing unit
which is part of employee or affordable
housing project.
Additional Requirements:
The market rate dwelling unit must be part
of an approved employee or affordable
housing project and meet all the
requirements and conditions pursuant to
section 9.5-266(a) and this chapter.
(g) Special flood hazard area: The following points are intended to
discourage development within high risk special flood hazard zones:35
Point Assignment: Criteria:
- 4 An application which proposes
development within a "V" zone on the
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map.
(h) Central wastewater treatment system availability: The following points
shall be assigned to encourage development in areas served by central wastewater
treatment systems:36
3S This revision eliminates the negative points for "A" zones, in which the predominate number of
properties are located and the positive points for "X" zones that only affect a very insignificant number of
properties.
36 This language is intended to encourage infill development in areas served by central sewer systems being
upgraded or constructed to meet 2010 Wastewater Treatment Standards mandate; maximize public
investment; reduce the average EDU operating/maintenance costs of these systems; and, help recoup
capital costs.
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 22 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+4 An application which development
required to be connected to a central
wastewater treatment system that meets
BAT / A WT standards established by the
Florida Legislature.
(i) Perseverance points: The following points are intended to reward an
application based upon the number of years spent in the residential ROGO system
without receiving an allocation award:37
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+1 A point shall be awarded on the
anniversary of the controlling date for each
year that the application remains in the
ROGO system up to four (4) years.
Sec. 9.5-123. Reserved
Sec. 9.5-125. Appeals.38
(a) An appeal from the decision of the planning commission on a ROGO or
NROGO allocation shall be made to the board of county commissioners. The notice of
such appeal shall be in a form prescribed by the director of planning and must be filed
with the director of planning within twenty (20) days of the planning commission's
decision. Upon the filing of an appeal, the planning commission's secretary will forward
to the board all relevant files and records relating to the matter. Failure to file an appeal
with the board shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this chapter to further the
decision of the planning commission on the awarded dwelling unit or non-residential
floor space allocations. '
(b) The filing of an appeal shall not stay either the action of the planning
commission or the action of the director of planning.
37 This revision reflects the revision to Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.5.4 eliminating the awarding of
Eerseverance points beyond four years.
8 The existing language provides no administrative appeals from Planning Commission decisions on non-
residential allocations. This revised language incorporates the appeal of both ROGO and NROGO in one
section.
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 23 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(c) If, as a result of a successful appeal, additional allocation awards are to be
made, the board shall instruct the director of planning as to how many dwelling units or
non-residential floor space applications shall receive allocation awards, when such
allocation awards are to be made and what effect such additional allocation awards will
have on the current annual or quarterly dwelling unit allocation or current annual
allocation for non-residential floor space. To ensure that the residential dwelling unit
allocations set forth in section 9.5-122 and 9.5-124.4 are not exceeded, the director of
planning shall inform the planning commission of the results of the appeal and the
disposition of any additional allocation awards.
AMENDMENT #2
Amend Section 9.5-266(a)(3) as follows:39
(3) Market rate housing developed in accordance with paragraph (8) below
shall be eligible to receive points as affordable housing under section 9.5
122.3(a)(6). pursuant to section 9.5-122.4(f).
AMENDMENT #3
Amend Section 9.5-266(a)(5) as follows:4o
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 9.5-261 through 9.5-270, some
or all of any lawfully established floor area situated on a parcel of at least
one (1) gross acre containing aff{)rdable or employee housing shall be
excluded from the calculation of the total gross of development allowed
on the parcel if at least one affordable or employee housing unit is co-
located on the parcel. For purposes of this exclusion a floor area ration of
twenty-five (25) percent shall be assumed. The exclusion of floor area
shall be in accordance with the following criteria:
a. If the parcel of land is less than two (2) gross acres, the project's
total nonresidential floor area or two thousand (2,000) square feet,
whichever is less, shall be excluded from the calculation; or
b. If the parcel ofland is two ill or more ~ gross acres, the project's
total nonresidential floor area or four thousand (4,000) square feet,
whichever is less, shall be excluded from the calculation.
AMENDMENT #4
Amend Section 9.5-266(a)(6) b. thorough f. as follows: 41
39 The revision is required due to the elimination of scoring for affordable housing and new incentives for
mixing market rate housing with affordable.
40 This revision provides incentives for provision of affordable and employee housing on lots smaller than
one acre which predominate in the Keys.
c: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 24 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
b. Except as provided for under the special provisions for employer-
owned rental housing as set forth under paragraph (6)"h-k:.... below,
if the affordable housing dwelling unit is designed for employee
housing, the use of the dwelling is restricted to households that
derive at least seventy (70) percent of their household income from
gainful employment in Monroe County and meet the adjusted
gross annual income limits for median income as defined in section
9.5-4(A-5).
c. The use of the affordable or employee dwelling unit is restricted
for a the period of least fifty (50) years specified in section 9.5-
266(f)(l ).
Eh The size of the affordable or employee housing dwelling 1lll:i.t is
limited by a oondition to be plaeed on the de'/elopment permit
whioh restriots the habitable spaee of the 1:H1it to a maxImum of one
thousand tlHee hundred (1,300) sq\:lare feet for a period of at least
fifty (50) years; and,
e-d. Tourist housing use or vacation rental use of affordable or
employee housing units is prohibited.
f.. e. The parcel of land proposed for development of affordable or
employee housing shaH not ql:lalify for negati';e poims lXnder
section 9.5 122(a)(7),(8) or (9); however, properties designated IS
D, DR, URM or URM L shall be exempt from this prohibition
shall only be located within a Tier II or III designated area. If the
parcel is located within a Tier II designated area. the amount of
clearing of upland native vegetation shall be limited to the open
space requirements pursuant to section 9.5-347 or five-thousand
(5.000) square feet whichever is less.
AMENDMENT #5
Renumber Section 9.5-266(a)(6) g. through 1. to f. through k. respectively.
AMENDMENT #6
Amend Section 9.5-266(a)(8) a. as follows:42
41 Recent amendments to the length of restrictive covenants conflicts with existing language in the code.
The length of covenant should be based on fmancing source to be consistent with Section 9.5-266(f)(1): 30
years for a wholly privately fmanced project; and 50 years for a partly or wholly publicly fmanced project,
except for County wholly or partially fmanced projects as set forth in Section 9.5-122(d)(6). The limits on
the size of the affordable/employee housing units has been eliminated as unnecessary, particularly with the
threshold on the sales price of these units.
42 This amendment is necessary to eliminate conflict with recent changes to restrictive covenants for non-
public financed projects.
C:\TEMP\rogo-pcfmaldraftrev.doc
Page 25 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
a. The use of market rate housing dwelling unit is restricted for a period of at
least fifty (50) thirty (30) years to households that derive at least seventy
(70) percent of their household income form gainful employment in
Monroe County.
AMENDMENT #7
Delete Section 9.5-266(a)(9):43
(9) Market rate housing d'wellmg l:lflits are not restricted to the thirteen
hundred (1,300) sqliare feet limitation on habitable space for affordable
and employee hOlisiRg.
AMENDMENT #8
Amend Section 9.5-266(f)(1) as follows:44
(1) Before any building permit may be issued for any structure, portion or
phase of a project subiect to this section, ~ restrictive covenant(s),
approved by the growth management director and county attorney. shall
be filed in the Official Records to ensure compliance with the provision of
this section running in favor of Monroe County and enforceable by the
county and, if applicable, a participating municipality. The following
requirements shall apply to these restrictive covenants:
a. Except as provided for under paragraph (1 )d. below. the covenants
for any affordable or employee housing units partly or wholly
financed by a public entity other than Monroe County shall be
effective for a period of at least fifty (50) years.
b. Except as provided for under paragraph (1 )d.. below. the covenants
for any affordable or employee housing units relying wholly upon
private non-public financing shall be effective for at least thirty
(30) years.
c. The covenants for any affordable or employee housing units partly
or wholly financed by Monroe County shall be effective for a
period of at least ninety-nine (99) years. 45
43 This language is superfluous with the elimination of the 1,300 square foot limitation.
44 These revisions reflect the proposed policy change to require affordable or employee housing to be
guaranteed in perpetuity (99 years) if financed by Momoe County or if required by the BOCC as a
condition of reserving an affordable housing allocation, as proposed under Section 9.5-122(c).
4S This provision initiates efforts to ensure that most new affordable housing will be protected in perpetuity.
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 26 of 28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
d. If approved by the Board of Commissioners as a condition of the
reservation of a ROGO allocation pursuant to section 9.5-122(b).
the covenants for any affordable or employee housing shall be
restricted to use as an affordable housing or employee dwelling
unit for a period of at least ninety-nine years. 46
e. The covenants shall not commence running until a certificate of
occupancy as been issued by the building official for the dwelling
unit or dwelling units to which the covenant or covenants apply.
AMENDMENT #9
Amend Section 9.5-266 (f)(3) as follows:47
(3)
The eligibility of a potential owner-occupier or renter of an affordable,
employee or market rate housing dwelling unit, developed as part of an
employee or affordable housing project, shall be determined by the
planning department upon submittal of an affidavit of qualification to the
planning department. The form of the affidavit shall be in a. form
prescribed by the planning department director. This eligibility shall be
determined by the planning department as follows:
a. At the time the potential owner either applies for affordable
housing ROGO allocation, or applies to purchase a unit that
utilized affordable housing ROGO allocation; or
b. At the time the potential renter applies to occupy a residential unit
that utilized an affordable ROGO allocation.
AMENDMENT #10
Create a new Section 9.5-266(f)(7) that reads as follows: 48
(7) Upon written agreement between the planning director and an eligible
governmental or non-governmental entity, the planning director may
authorize that entity to administer the eligibility arid compliance
requirements for the planning department under paragraphs (3), (4),(5) and
(6) above. Under such an agreement, the eligible entity is authorized to
qualify a potential owner-occupier or renter of affordable, employee, or
market rate housing developed as part of an employee or affordable
46 This provision allows the Board to protect housing unit in perpetuity on a case-by-case basis, where no
County funding is involved and where the applicant seeks and obtains a reserved allocation.
47 Minor revisions are intended to improve the wording of the text.
48 These amendments coupled with a new paragraph (6) codify the existing Planning Department policy of
delegating authority to public agencies or non-governmental not-for-profit housing providers for
determining eligibility of potential tents for affordable housing and annual verification that tenants meet
Section 9.5-266 (f)(2) income and employment requirements.
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 27 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
housing project, and annually verify the employment and/or income
eligibility oftenants pursuant to section 9.5-266(f)(2). The entity shall still
be required to provide the planning department by January 1 of each year
a written certification verifying that tenants of each affordable, employee,
or market rate housing meet the applicable employment and income
requirements of paragraph (2) above. The following governmental and
non-governmental entities shall be eligible for this delegation of authority:
a. The Monroe Housing Authority, not-for-profit community
development organization(s) pursuant to section 9.5-266(e), and
other public entities established to provide affordable housing;
b.
Private developers or other non-governmental organization
participating in a federaVstate housing financial assistance or tax
credit program or receiving some form of direct financial c.
assistance from Monroe County; or
Non-governmental organizations approved by the board of county
commissioners as affordable housing providers.
c.
AMENDMENT #11
Create a new Section 9.5-266(f)(8) as follows:49
(8) Should an entity fail to satisfactorily fulfill the terms and conditions of the
written agreement executed pursuant to paragraph (6) above, the planning
director shall provide written notice to the subject entity to show cause
why the agreement should not be terminated within thirty (30) days. If the
entity fails to respond or is unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
planning director that it is meeting the terms and conditions of its
agreement, the agreement may be terminated by the planning director
within thirty (30) days of the written notice.
49 In the highly unlikely event that an entity is unable to fulfill the terms and conditions of its written
agreement, this paragraph provides for the planning director to terminate the agreement. The planning
director's decision may be appealed to the planning commission as with any with administrative decision.
C: \ TEMP\rogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 28 of28
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO LDRS
TO REVISE NROGO
(SECTIONS 9.5-124 THROUGH 9.5-124.8)
AMENDMENT #1
Amend Section 9.5-124(b) to create a definition for "buildable lot or parcel" that reads as
follows:
Buildable lot or parcel means the lot or parcel must contain a minimum of two
thousand (2.000) square feet of uplands. including any disturbed wetlands that can be
filled pursuant to this chapter. .
AMENDMENT #2
Delete the definition of "lnfill Site" in Section 9.5-124(b).1
AMENDMENT #3
Amend Section 9.5-124.2 as follows:
Sec. 9.5-124.2 Type of development affected and special reQuirements.
(a) The NROGO shall apply to the development of all new and expanded non-
residential floor area and other uses. except as exempted by this division. as described in
subsections (b) and (c) below for which a building permit or development approval is
required by this chapter and for which building permits have not been issued prior to the
effective date ofthc non residential permit allocation system this ordinance.2
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9.5-4(D-8) development, the
following new uses shall be prohibited until appropriate areas are so desigI'lated in a
community master plan: only be eligible for a NROGO allocation under this chapter on
sites located within a designated Commercial Center Overlay area:3
(1) Commercial retail ~ high-intensity uses that generate more than one
hundred fifty (150) vehicle trips per one thousand (1,000) square feet of
floor area.
(2) Storage areas as a principal use not located within a Light Industrial (LI),
Industrial (I). or Maritime Industries (MI) district.
I The institution of the Tier system eliminates the need for any definition of infill.
2 The existing language has been revised for clarification purposes.
3 Existing language is modified for clarification purposes; to reflect the incorporation of Commercial
Center Overlay areas; and to provide opportunities for applying certain differing standards for each island
community with a Specific Island Overlay. For example, the Big Pine Key and No Name Key master plan
prohibits certain uses and intensity of uses, which would be allowed elsewhere in the County.
C: \ TEMP\nrogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 1 of 12
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(3) Outdoor retail sales areas on a vacant lot and any new or expanded
outdoor retail sales associated with a lawfully established structures,
existing on the effective date of this division. of le~s than five hundred
(500) square feet of floor area, not located within a Light Industrial (LI).
Industrial (D. or Maritime Industries (MD district.
(4) Commercial outdoor recreation uses.
(c) New or expanded outdoor retail sales associated with a lawfully
established structure, existing on the effective date of this aftiele division, of at least five
hundred (500) square feet of floor area may be permitted with a minimum of a minor
conditional use approval iflocated within a designated Tier III area.
(d) Enclosing of any canopies or drive-throughs in existence on or before
September 19,2001, the date of the adoption ofNROGO Ordinance No. 032 2001, shall
require a NROGO allocation.4
( e) The special standards established elsewhere in this chapter for a
designated Commercial Center Overlay area or a specific Key(s) Overlay Zone. maf
supercede. modify. or supplement the standards established for NROGO in this division.
(ft Non-public institutional uses on Big Pine Key and No Name Key are
subiect to the provisions of NROGO pursuant to the following special conditions and
standards:6
(1 ) A non-public institutional floor area and use. existing on the effective date
of the issuance of the Incidental Take Permit for the Florida Key Deer and
other covered species. may be expanded by two-thousand five hundred
(2.500) square feet of floor area per NROGO year. These allocations are
to be made on a "first come. first served" basis.
(2) New non-public institutional uses on Big Pine Key and No Name Key are
subiect to the provisions ofNROGO .
(g) All new or expanded non-residential development on Big Pine Key and
No Name Key is subiect to the provisions of the Incidental Take Permit and the Habitat
Conservation Plan for the Florida Key Deer and other covered species. which may affect
NROGO allocations under this chapter. All new and expanded non-residential
4 The specific ordinance that establishes the date does not have to be identified in the text.
S This provision allows each Commercial Center Overlay area to incorporate special standards as needed to
fit the differing needs of each Keys community.
6 These provisions reflect the adopted community master plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key and the
HCP.
C: \ TEMP\nrogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 2 of 12
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
development shall be limited to scarified or disturbed lands and clearing of any pinelands
and/or hammock is prohibited. 7
AMENDMENT #4
Amend Section 9.5-124.3 (a)(4) as follows:8
(4) Development activity for certain not-for-profit organizations: Except for
the non-public institutional uses on Big Pine Key and No Name Key
pursuant to section 9.5-124.2. Nnon-residential development activity
within Tier II and III designated areas by federally tax exempt not-for-
profit educational, scientific, religious, social, cultural and recreational
organizations, which predominately serve the county's permanent
population, if approved by the planning commission after review and
recommendation by the planning director. This exemption is subiect tQ
the condition that a restrictive covenant be placed on the prop'erty prior to
the issuance of a building permit. The restrictive covenant shall run in
favor of Monroe County for a period of at least twenty (20) years. Any
change in the use or ownership of the \,>roperty subiect to this restrictive
covenant shall require prior approval by the planning commission. unless
the total floor area exempted by the planning commission is obtained
through an off-site transfer of floor area and/or non-residential floor area
allocation pursuant to this chapter. If the total amount of floor area that is
transferred and/or allocated meets or exceeds the total amount of floor
area exempted. the restrictive covenant shall be vacated by the County.
This not-for-profit exemption is not applicable to non-residential
development proposed within those areas proposed for aeqaisition by
goyemmental a~encies for the purpose of resource protection a Tier I
designated area.
AMENDMENT #5
Amend Section 9.5-124.3 (a)(lO) b. as follows:lO
1. Has existing lawfully established non residential floor area or !Is
an infill site located within a Tier III designated area. and if on Big
Pine Key. is located within the designated Community Center
Overlay area; and,
7 This language is necessary to provide basis for making unforeseen adjustments in the NROGO allocations
for Big Pine Key and No Name Key that may be necessitated by the restrictions contained in the "H"
budget of the HCP and Incidental Take Permit.
8 This proposed language will help ensure that the floor area granted under the exemption provisions of
these regulations will be restricted to entities and uses that meet the criteria for such an exemption even
upon transfer of ownership.
9 This language reflects incorporation of Tier system.
10 The institution of the Tier system requires these revisions to existing criteria as the Tier system
eliminates the need for addressing negative points for habitat and off-shore islands.
C: \ TEMP\nrogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 3 of 12
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
11.
111.
In
. .
t'.
>rr.IV.
'Ill.
'1111.
AMENDMENT #6
Is located within the same ROGO subarea as the sendersite, except
that for a receiver site on Big Pine Key. the sender site shall also
be located on Big Pine or No Name Keys; and,
Is not a commercial ygy high intensity retail use which will
generate more than one hundred fifty (150) vehicle trips per one
thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area; and,
Is not located on Big Pine Key, No Name Key or withiR a CARL
acquisition area
Reeei','es no negative environmental points v/flen eyal1:lated
pursuant to subsections 9.5 121.8(a)(1) (6); and
Is notlocllted within a "V" special flood hazard zone p1:lrsuant to
subsection 9.5 124.8(a)(8); and:.
Is not located in a eoastal barrier resources system pursuant to
subsection 9.5 124.8(a)(9); and
Is not located in an offshore island/conservation land protection
area pursuant to subsection 9.5 124.8(a)(1O).
Amend Section 124.4(a) and (b) as follows:ll
(a) Maximum amount of available floor area for the annual non-residential
ROGO allocations: The maximum amount of floor area available for allocation under
NROGO shall be determined by multiplying the number of residential permits available
for the annual residential allocation period year by two hundred thirty-nine (239) square
feet and rounding the product to the nearest one hundred (100) square feet. The
maximum amount of available floor for annual allocations shall be computed separately
for Big Pine Key and No Name Key and for the remainder of unincorporated Monroe
County. This maximum total may be adjusted as provided for in stlbsection 9.5-124.6(a).
Except for Big Pine Key and No Name Key. Ffor the first annual allocation period, the
maximum amount of floor area that may be made available for allocation is to be based
upon the number of permits issued under ROGO, starting with the Third Quarter, ROGO
Year 1 (starting April 14, 1993) through ROGO Year 9 (ending July 13, 2001) and
number of ROGO allocations to be made in ROGO Year 10, reduced by the amount of
non-residential floor area approved in permits, issued after the adoption of the
comprehensive plan on April 15, 1993. Any remaining part of the maximum annual
allocation not made available for allocation in an annual allocation period by the board of
11 This amendment and the following two amendments are required to implement the Habitat Conservation
Plan and Community Master Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
c: \ TEMP\nrogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 4 of 12
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
county commissioners in sOOsection 9.5-124.4(g) shall be carried over to the next annual
allocation period. "
(b) Maximum allocation of non-residential floor area by site: The amount of
non-residential floor area to be allocated shall be limited to a maximum of two thousand
five hundred (2,500) square feet for anyone site, except for sites designated for non
resideBtia:1 development iB a eOmIDooity master plan located within a designated
Community Center Overlay area. For sites located within a eomm.unity master plan
Community Center Overlay area. the maximum allocation shall only be limited by the
maximum floor area per structure in subsection (c) below.
AMENDMENT #7
Amend Section 9.5-124.4 by creating new Section 124.4 (i) and (j) that read as follows:
(i) First Allocations for Bif! Pine Key and No Name Key: For the first
allocation period. the maximum amount of floor area available for allocation shall be
based on the number of permits issued under the 200 allocations authorized by the Big
Pine Key and No Name Key Community Master Plan and the number of ROGO
allocations to be made available in the ROGO Year 13 beginning July 17. 2004.
(i) Separate Allocations for Bif! Pine Kev and No Name Key: Allocations for
Big Pine Key and No Name Key shall be administered and awarded separately from
those for the remainder of unincorporated Monroe County.
AMENDMENT #8
Amend Section 9.5-124.6 (b)(I) as follows:
(1) Within thirty (30) days of an allocation date, unless otherwise extended by
the planning commission, the planning director shall:
a. Complete the evaluation of all allocation applications submitted
during the relevant allocation period; and
b. Total the amount of square footage for which allocation
applications have been received for Big Pine Key and No Name
Key and for the remainder of unincorporated Monroe County; and
c. Rank the floor area allocation applications, in descending order
from the highest evaluation point total to the lowest for each size
classification for Big Pine and No Name Key and the remainder of
unincorporated Monroe County.
C: \ TEMP\nrogo-pcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 5 of 12
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
AMENDMENT #9
Amend Section 9.5-124.7(a) and (b) as follows: 12
(a) Eligibility: An applicant is eligible for administrative relief under the
provisions of this section if all the following criteria are met:
(1) The applicant has complied with all requirements of the non-residential
permit system allocation system.
(2) The subject application has not been withdrawn; and,
(3) The subject application has been considered in at least tlH'ee (3) of the first
four consecutive allocation periods and has failed to receive an allocation
award.
(b) Application: An application for administrative relief shall be made on a
form prescribed by the director of planning and may be filed with the planning
department no earlier than the conclusion of the thffil fourth allocation period and no later
than one hundred twenty (120) days following the close of the fourth annual allocation
period.
AMENDMENT #10
Amend Section 9.5-124.8 to read as follows:
(a) Evaluation point values: The following point values established are to be
applied cumulatively except where otherwise specified:
(1) Tier designation: The following points are intended to discourage non-
residential development in environmentally sensitive areas and areas
within sufficient infrastructure and to direct and encourage non-residential
development in appropriate infill areas, while recognizing that any
development has affects on the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys: 13
Point assignment: Criteria:
0 An application which proposes non-
residential development within an area
designated Tier I [Natural Area].
12 This language eliminates administrative problems with applications filed prior to completion of fourth
allocation period, removes ambiguity in eligibility language and makes it similar to the language for
ROGO, and extends period for filing application.
13 The points for infill have been revised to incorporate the Tier system. As proposed, this system strongly
rewards projects within Tier III with somewhat less favorable scoring for projects in Tier II.
C: \ TEMP\nrogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 6 of 12
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
ftl0 An application which proposes non-
"
residential development within an area
designated Tier II [Transition and
Sprawl Reduction Area].
+20 An application which proposes non-
residential development within an area
designated Tier III [lnfill Area].
(2)
Intensity reduction: The following points are intended to encourage the
I d. f' . 14
vo untary re uctlOn 0 mtensIty:
Point assignment: Criteria:
+4 An application proposes development that
reduces the perinitted floor area ratio
(FAR) to twenty three percent (23%) or
less.
Additional requirement:
A legally binding restrictive covenant
running in favor of Monroe County that
restricts the floor area ratio of the property
to a maximum of twenty three percent
(23%) for a period of ten (10) years shall
be approved by the growth management
director and county attorney and recorded
in the office of the clerk of the county prior
to the issuance of any building permit
pursuant to an allocation award.
(3)
Land dedication: The following points are intended to encourage the
voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable land within those areas proposed
for acquisition by governmental agencies for the purposes of conservation,
resources protection, restoration or density reduction, and if located within
Tier II or Tier III, for the purpose of providing land for affordable housing
where appropriate:15
14 No change has been made, except the wording for the restrictive covenant requirements.
IS The points proposed for land dedication are same as proposed under ROGO.
c: \ TEMP\nrogo-pcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 7 of 12
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Point assignment: Criteria:
+4 An application which includes the
dedication to Monroe County of one (1)
vacant, legally platted, buildable lot, zoned
IS, IS-D, IS-M, URM, URM-L, or CFV.
Each additional vacant, legally platted,
buildable lot which is dedicated that meets
the above requirements will earn the
application the additional points as
specified.
+ 1 per 5,000 square feet oflot area An application which includes the
dedication to Monroe County of a vacant,
legally platted, buildable lot of five
.-. - tl.lous~d (5,000) square feet or more
within a Suburban Residential District (SR)
or Suburban Residential - Limited District
(SR-L) in a designated Tier I area. Each
additional vacant, legally platted, buildable
lot of five thousand (5,000) square feet or
more that meets the above requirements
will earn points as specified.
+0.5 An application which includes the
dedication to Monroe County of one (1)
vacant, legally platted lot of five thousand
(5,000) square feet or more within a Native
Area District (NA) or Sparsely Settled
District (SS) within a designated Tier I
area. Each additional vacant, legally
platted, buildable lot that meets the above
requirements will earn the half (0.5) point
as specified.
+4 An application which includes dedication
to Monroe County of at least one (1) acre
of vacant, unplatted, buildable land located
within a designated Tier I area. Each
additional one (1) acre of vacant, unplatted,
buildable land that meets the above
requirements will earn the points as
specified.
Additional requirements
The application shall include but not be
limited to the following:
* An affidavit of ownership of all
affected lots, parcels, acreage or
c: \ TEMP\nrogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 8 of 12
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
land; and
* A statutory warranty deed, that conveys
the dedicated property to the county
shall be approved by the growth
management director and county
attorney and recorded in the office of
the clerk of the county prior to the
issuance of any building permit
pursuant to an allocation award.
(4) Special flood hazard area: The following points are intended to
discourage development within high risk special flood hazard zones: 16
Point assignment: Criteria:
-4 An application which proposed
development within a "V" zone on the
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map.
(5) Perseverance points: The following points are intended to reward an
application based upon the number of years spent in the non-residential ROGO system
without receiving an allocation award.
Point assignment: Criteria:
+1 A point shall be awarded on the
anniversary of the controlling date for each
year that the application remains in the
NROGO system up to four years.
+2 Points shall be awarded on the anniversary
ofthe controlling date for each year over
four (4) that the application remains in the
NROGO system.
,
(6) Highway access: The following points are intended to encourage
connections between commercial uses and reduction of the need for trips and access onto
U.S. Highway 1:17
16 Negative points for special flood hazards have been revised similar to those for ROGO.
17 The existing points have been revised as existing point system has not accomplished the purpose of
reducing access to U.S. Highway I which creates traffic congestion and safety problems.
c: \ TEMP\nrogo-pcfinaldraftrev .doc
Page 9 of 12
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Point assignment: Criteria:
+3 The project eliminates an existing
driveway or access-way to U.S. Highway
1.
+2 The projects does not provide for a new
driveway or access-way to U.S. Highway
1.
(7) Landscaping and water conservation: The following points are intended
to encourage the planting of native vegetation and promote water conservation:
Point assignment: Criteria:
+3 The project provides a total of two hundred
(200) percent of the number of native
landscape plants on its property than the
number of native landscape plants required
by this chapter within landscaped
bufferyards and parking areas.
+1 Twenty-five percent (25%) of the native
plants provided to achieve the three (3)
point award above or provided to meet the
landscaped bufferyard and parking area
requirements of this chapter are listed as
threatened or endangered plants native to
the Florida Keys.
+2 Project landscaping is designed for water
conservation such as use of one hundred
percent (100%) native plants for
vegetation, collection and direction of
rainfall to landscaped areas, or application
of re-used wastewater or treated seawater
for watering landscaped plants.
Additional requirements:
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the building permit
authorized by an allocation award, the
applicant shall: 18
* Post a two-year performance bond in
18 This revision reflects the need to post the performance bond after construction and prior to occupancy
rather than at the time of the issuance of the building permit. This change reflects the fact that landscaping
is generally one of the last improvements made and it makes little sense to post a bond when it may be
three to six months before landscaping is even started.
c: \ TEMP\nrogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 10 of 12
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
accordance with this chapter to ensure
maintenance ofthe native plants; and,
* Shall sign an affidavit acknowledging
that he is subject to code enforcement
action should the native plants not be
maintained.
(8) Central wastewater treatment system availability: The following
points shall be assi1f1ed to encourage development in areas served by central wastewater
treatment systems:
Point AssiKnment: Criteria:
+4 An application which development
required to be connected to a central
wastewater treatment system that meets
BAT/A WT standards established by the
Florida Legislature.
(9) Employee housing: The following points, up to a maximum of
four (4) shall be assigned to allocation applications that make provisions for employee
housing units:2o
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+ 2 per unit Proposes an employee housing unit(s)
which is located on the parcel with the
nonresidential floor space requested in the
allocation application.
Additional Requirements:
1. The employee housing unit shall be
required to meet the applicable
provisions of section 9.5-266.
,
2. The proposed employee housing
unit(s) shall be included in the
development approval for the
nonresidential development proposed
in the allocation application.
19 This language is intended to encourage infill development in areas served by central sewer systems being
upgraded or constructed to meet 2010 Wastewater Treatment Standards mandate; maximize public
investment; reduce the average EDU operating/maintenance costs of these systems; and, help recoup
capital costs.
20 This new provision provides further incentives for provision of employee housing in coordination with
new nonresidential development.
c: \ TEMP\nrogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 11 of 12
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
3. A certificate of occupancy shall be
granted for the nopresidential
development authorized by the
allocation award shall not be issued
prior to the certificate of occupancy for
the employee housing units.
c: \ TEMP\nrogo-pcfinaldraftrev.doc
Page 12 of 12
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LDRS
TO ADD A TIER SYSTEM OVERLAY DISTRICT
AMENDMENT # 1
Renumber existing 9.5-256 Aggregation to 9.5-271
AMENDMENT # 2
Add new Section 9.5-256 that reads as follows:
Sec. 9.5-256. Tier overlay district
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this Tier Overlay District is to designate
geographical' areas outside of mainland' Monroe County into one of three tiers to assign
ROGO and NROGO points, determine the amount of clearing of upland native vegetation
that may be permitted, and prioritize lands for public acquisition. The Tier boundaries
are to be depicted on the Tier Overlay District Map.
(b) Criteria: The Tier boundaries are designated using aerial photography,
data from the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, the endangered species maps,
property information and field evaluation. The following criteria at a minimum are used
to evaluate upland habitats and designate boundaries between different Tier Overlays:
(1) Criteria for designating lands as Tier I:
a. Natural areas including old and new growth upland native
vegetated areas, above four (4) acres and a buffer of privately
owned vacant lots and parcels.
b. Vacant land to connect patches and reduce further fragmentation.
c. A buffer, up to five-hundred (500) feet if indicated, between
natural areas and development to reduce secondary impacts; canals
or roadways, depending on size may form a boundary.
d. Lands designated for acquisition by public agencies.
e. Known locations of threatened and endangered species.
f. Native Area Land Use district and other districts III
buffer/restoration area as appropriate.
g. Lands with a potential for successful land management-restoration
of disturbed habitat, removal of exotics, and connection of patches.
h. Areas with minimal existing development.
\ \gmd0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Final 10 5\amendmentstieroverlaypcfinaldraftrev. com. doc
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
(2) Criteria for designating lands as Tier II:
a. Subdivisions less than fifty (50) percent devdoped, or portions of
subdivisions hat are less than fifty (50) percent developed because
of environmental constraints.
b. Fragmented, unconnected hammock patches of less than 4 acres,
which are isolated from larger natural areas by existing
development.
c. Developed and undeveloped SR and SS lots with upland native
habitat.
d. Platted lots in areas where adjoining property owner(s) may
purchase the lots with county participation.
(3) Criteria for designating lands as Tier III:
a. Isolated upland habitat fragments of less than half an acre.
b. Substantially developed subdivisions near established commercial
areas.
c. Primarily IS and URM lots.
d. Developed non-residential and mixed used areas.
(c) Tier Overlay District Map Amendments: The Tier Overlay District Map
may be amended to reflect existing conditions in an area if warranted because of drafting
or data errors or changed conditions. Tier Overlay District Map amendments shall be
made pursuant to the procedures for map amendments to this chapter. Unlawful
conditions shall not be recognized when determining existing conditions and regulatory
requirements.
(d) Request for Tier I Designation: Notwithstanding the proVISIOns of
Section-9 .5-511 (d)2, any individual may submit an application to the planning
department containing substantial and competent documentation that an area meets the
Tier I Criteria. Applications must be received by July 1 of each year on a form approved
by the director of planning for consideration by the special master at a public hearing
advertised at least fifteen days prior to the October hearing date. Said hearing by the
special master shall be held prior to November 1 of each year. The director of planning
will review the documentation and any other appropriate scientific information and
prepare an analysis report for the special master. The special master will render a written
opinion to the planning commission and board of county commissioners either that the
application meets the criteria for designating the lands as Tier I or that the documentation
is insufficient to warrant a map amendment. The posting, advertising and review will
follow the procedures in 9.5-511(d)(3)(4) and (5).
\ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\FinaI I 05\amendmentstieroverlaypcfinaldraftrev .com.doc
Tier
Tier II
August 2004
Monroe County
Planning and Environmental
Resources Department
Table of Contents
1.0 Purpose of Report
2.0 Background
2.1 Florida Administrative Council Rule 28-20.100 - The Work Program
2.2 Carrying Capacity Study
2.3 Goal 105 Smart Growth
3.0 Tier Maps
3.1 Criteria for Designation
3.2 Methodology
3.3 Tier Status
3.4 Upper Keys
3.5 Middle Keys
3.6 Lower Keys
3.7 Big Pine Key
Attachments
A. Vacant Parcels and Development Potential Table
B. Natural and Conservation Land Analysis Table (Tier I) : Public Lands
C. Natural and Conservation Land Analysis (Tier 1) : Platted Lots Table
D. Work Program
E. Goal 105
F. Chapter 5 - Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study
G. Data and Map Sources
H. Upper Keys Tier Maps
1. Middle Keys Tier Maps
J. Lower Keys Tier Maps
Prepared by:
K. Marlene Conaway, Director
Kim Rohrs, GIS Planner
Bethany Wagner, Planner
Jason King, Planner
www.co.monroe.f1.us "Hot Topics
Implementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 2 -
1.0 Purpose
The purpose of this report is as follows:
· To provide the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners and the public with the
proposed Tier Maps developed by staff to guide future development and land acquisition.
· To explain how the Tier System, including the Tier Maps, implement Goal 105 "Smart
Growth" of the Comprehensive Plan.
· To review the requirements of the Florida Administrative Commission Rule number 28-
20.100 - 20 10 Comprehensive Plan "Work Program".
· To provide additional understanding of the results of the Carrying Capacity Study and
how the Tier System is the framework for it's implementation by the County.
· To designate the boundaries of the geographical areas included in each Tier.
2.0 Background
The Florida Keys consists of a 112-mile long chain of islands located at the southern tip of
Florida. U.S. Highway I, stretching from Key Largo to Key West, connects the more devel-
oped islands. The biological communities in the Florida Keys have evolved in response to
unique island environmental conditions characterized by salt water, subtropical savanna-type
climate- hot humid summers and cool dry winters, limestone substrate and hurricanes. These
conditions combined with the isolation of the islands have supported colonization and evolu-
tion of highly specialized plants and animals, many endemic to the Florida Keys. The upland
habitats, hammock and pine lands include over 30 of these endemic species. In addition, a
significant portion of the waters adjacent to the islands has been designated as Outstanding
Florida Waters, and includes the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
Approximately 15% of the land area in the Florida Keys is developed, and between 60% and
70% of the undeveloped land area is in public ownership (Florida Keys Carrying Capacity
Study, September 2002.) This leaves between 15% and 20% of the land area vacant and in
private ownership. This report and the Tier Maps are primarily concerned with this remain-
ing undeveloped privately owned lands and determining, based on the environmental quality
and development characteristics, whether they should be designated for acquisition for habi-
tat protection or sprawl reduction, or designated for infill and redevelopment.
2.1 Florida Administration Commission Rule 28-20.] 00 - Work Program
The 2010 Comprehensive Plan took seven years to be fully in effect, mired in three to four
years of legal challenges after it was adopted in April 1993. The ongoing legal proceedings
prompted a 1995 Final Order and Recommendations by a Hearing Officer, which found that
the proposed Plan was not in compliance and specified remedial action. The findings stated
among other things that near shore waters, shoreline sea grasses and Key Deer habitat had
reached or exceeded the carrying capacity.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 3 -
As a result of this order, the Florida Administration Commission in 1996 enacted Rule 28-
20.100, which created the Work Program in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Work Pro-
gram required among other things, the preparation of a carrying capacity study for the Flor-
ida Keys. The goal of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS), excerpted from
Rule 28-20.100 reads as follows:
"The carrying capacity analysis shall be designed to determine the ability of the Florida
Keys ecosystem and the various segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land
development activities. "
Year Six of the Work Program (July 13,2002 - July 13,2003) enacted in Rule 28-20.100, as
amended, directs the county to implement the Carrying Capacity Study by adopting amend-
ments to the rate of growth ordinance, the LDRs, the future land use maps and maximum
permitted densities. The Rule amendment in 2002 added two additional tasks to the work
program:
I) A master land acquisition plan is required containing a strategy for securing funding
and the acquisition of properties that should be preserved due to their habitat and also
land for affordable housing; and
2) Adoption of land development regulations, and/or comprehensive plan amendments
that strengthens the protection of terrestrial habitat through the Permit Allocation
System and permitting processes, and the preservation and maintenance of affordable
housing stock.
2.2 Carrying Capacity Study
The DCA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly sponsored the Carrying Capacity
Study. A series of technical workshops were held during 1999 to refine the scope of the
study and address uncertainties regarding available information and modeling capabilities.
The contractor, URS, Inc., began working on the project in late 1999 and completed the
study in September 2002. The draft of the model and study was critically peer reviewed in
early 2002.
The National Science Foundation review document stated, that over-all the current peer re-
viewed scientific information proved insufficient to develop a comprehensive carrying ca-
pacity framework that would allow for undisputable determinations of whether future devel-
opment scenarios fall within the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys. The final report was
also peer reviewed and the scientists and technical reviewers agree that the terrestrial por-
tion of the study provides a valuable analysis and the Impact Assessment Model is a useful
tool, but with substantial limitations. The marine ecosystems and species portion of the study
was removed from the model because existing data is insufficient to establish quantitative,
predictive relationships between land use or development and marine environment.
]mplementing Goal l05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 4 -
Chapter 5 of the FKCCS (Attachment C) summarizes the results of the study:
The evaluation of the terrestrial ecosystem demonstrated that land development in the Flor-
ida Keys has surpassed the capacity of upland habitats to withstand further development. "
The study states that fragmentation of the habitat is a primary concern; "Small patches of'
forest show lower biodiversity, increased vulnerability to invasion by exotic plant and ani-
mal species and decreased gene flow within and among populations. The secondary and
indirect impacts of development further contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation." The
conclusion is drawn that "the Florida Keys has surpassed the capacity of the upland habi-
tats to withstand further development. Any further development would exacerbate secondary
and indirect impacts.
The Carrying Capacity Study concludes with four guidelines for future development:
I) Prevent encroachment into native habitat.
2) Continue and intensify existing land acquisition programs and land restoration efforts
throughout the Keys, wastewater and storm water master plan implementation, and
on-going research and management activities.
3) Focus on redevelopment and infill development, small potentially acceptable, addi-
tional environmental impacts may occur in areas ripe for development and redevelop-
ment.
4) Increase efforts to manage the resource to preserve and improve the remaining terres-
trial ecosystems.
2.3 Goal] 05 Smart Growth
Goal 105 was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 2002 to provide a framework
within the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to implement the FKCCS and a 20 year land acquisition
Program. Goal 105 reads as follows:
Monroe County shall undertake a comprehensive land acquisition program and smart growth initia-
tives in conjunction with its Livable CommuniKeys Program in a manner that recognizes the finite ca-
pacity for new development in the Florida Keys by providing economic and housing opportunities for
residents without compromising the biodiversity of the natural environment and the continued ability of
the natural and made-made systems to sustain livable communities in the Flon'da Keys for future gen-
erations.
The initial phase of implementing Goal 105 is the drafting and adoption of the Tier maps to
be used as guidance for the County's land acquisition program. Future work tasks include
amending the zoning map with a tier overlay, revising the pemlit allocation system, develop-
ing a land acquisition strategy and a land maintenance program.
]mplementing Goal l05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 5 -
The County is directed to implement the 20 year land acquisition program by designating
acquisition areas into three general categories: Natural Area (Tier I); Transition (Tier II); and
Infill Area (Tier III). Tier III lands will only be acquired for affordable housing and parks.
The acquisition program is to be funded with assistance of the state and federal governments
and shall accomplish the following:
· Secure for conservation and passive recreation purposes remaining privately-owned en-
vironmentally sensitive lands; and
· Retire development rights on privately owned vacant lands to limit further sprawl and to
balance the rights of property owners with the sustainability of the Keys man-made and
natural systems; and
· Secure and retain land for affordable housing. (Objective 105.2)
The goal includes a description of the lands to be included in each Tier. The descriptions are
outlined below:
Tier I - Natural Area
Conservation, restoration and protection of environmentally sensitive land
· Adjacent to existing publicly owned lands and/or high quality habitat.
· Conservation land to qualify for ROGO dedication.
· Consisting of private vacant parcels to be acquired or development rights retired for re-
source conservation, restoration or passive recreation.
· New development severely restricted in the allocation system.
Tier II - Transition and Sprawl Area
Prevent encroachment on environmentally sensitive land and reduce sprawl.
· Consists of less than 50% built subdivisions or parts of subdivisions with incomplete in-
frastructure and less than 4 acres of isolated environmentally sensitive land.
· County purchase w/adjacent lot owners - retire development rights and development po-
tential.
· New development discouraged in allocation system.
Tier III -lnfill Area
Redevelopment and infill new development.
· Consists of greater than 50% built subdivisions with full infrastructure present or in fu-
ture plans with established commercial areas.
· Development encouraged in allocation system.
· Newly established community centers become eligible Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) receiver sites with a higher density incentive to TDR.
lmplementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 6 -
3.0 Tier Maps
The Tier Maps are based on the requirements and scientific findings from the previously de-
scribed documents. The maps are being proposed, at this time, as a guide for future land ac-
quisition from willing sellers and designation of Tier I to allow lots to be dedicated for'
ROGO points. Tier maps have been drafted and are under consideration for all lands in unin-
corporated Monroe County south of Ocean Reef. The tiers are large areas, with characteris-
tics shared by the majority of the land areas. All tiers include some existing residential and
commercial uses, being designated Tier I or Tier II should not have any effect on those exist-
ing uses. The tier maps were created using the county's Arc View GIS, which contains most
of the maps, aerials, data, and overlays used in performing the FKCCS.
The Tier Maps will be adopted as an Overlay District to the Land Use District Maps. Spe-
cific regulations will be included in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to imple-
ment the overlay district.
3.1 Criteria for Designation
The Tier boundaries are designated using aerial photography, data from the Florida Keys
Carrying Capacity Study, the endangered species maps, property information and field
evaluation. The following criteria at a minimum are used to evaluate upland habitats and
designate boundaries between different Tier Overlays:
Criteria for designating lands as Tier I:
. Natural area including old and new growth upland native vegetated areas, above 4 acres
and a buffer of privately owned vacant lots and parcels.
. Vacant land to connect patches and reduce further fragmentation.
. A buffer, up to 500 feet if indicated, between natural areas and development to reduce
secondary impacts; canals or roadways, depending on size may form a boundary.
. Lands designated for acquisition by public agencies.
. Known locations of threatened and endangered species.
. Native Area Land Use district and other districts in buffer/restoration area as appropriate.
. Lands with a potential for successful and management, restoration of disturbed habitat,
removal of exotics, and connection of patches.
. Areas with minimal existing development.
Criteria for designating lands as Tier II:
. Subdivisions less than 50% developed, or portions of subdivisions that are less than 50%
that are less than 50% developed because of environmental constraints.
. Fragmented, unconnected hammock patches of less than 4 acre, which are isolated from
larger natural areas by existing development.
]mplementing Goal ] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 7 -
· Developed and undeveloped SR and SS lots with upland native habitat.
· Platted lots in areas where adjoining property owner(s) may purchase the lots with
county participation.
Criteria for designating lands as Tier III:
· Isolated upland habitat fragments of less than half an acre.
· Substantially developed subdivisions near established commercial areas.
· Primarily IS and URM lots.
· Developed non-residential and mixed use areas.
3.2 Methodology
Goal 105 states that overlay maps of the proposed tiers are to be created per Policy 105.2.2
which shall be incorporated as an overlay on the zoning maps with supporting text amend-
ments in the Land Development Regulations and the smart growth initiatives in conjunction
with the Livable Communi Keys Program.
For the first phase of this mapping project, staff was directed to create a specific database
tied to the GIS to be used to expand the area available for land acquisition from willing sell-
ers for the Land Acquisition Program. These maps have continued to be refined and will be
adopted as zoning overlays to implement the smart growth initiatives and Livable Communi-
Keys Program. The maps attribute table provides the following information:
· Property owner
· Property Record card number
· Existing land use designation
· Future land use designation
. Value of property
· Existing Property Appraiser's Code of Actual Use on Property
· Environmental Designation (wetland, hammock, etc.)
· Size of property
· Subdivision identification
. Island name
· Tier Designation
Using the database, GIS shapefiles were created. The shapefiles were used for the creations
of Tier maps. While the attribute table provides the information in tabular format regarding
the property, the map gives the spatial details; this visual affect allows for fine-tuning of the
tier system. The creation of the base map allows for analysis using various computerized
overlays, which may be used to aid the planning department or land authority in regard to
acquisition, assessment or monitoring. The aide of the maps allowed field inspections and/or
prior knowledge to correct any discrepancies in the databases.
Jmplememing Goal J 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 8 -
The first priority for land acquisition is to identify areas as Tier I, or natural areas. In order to
begin mapping, the attribute table was used to determine the location of the existing natural
areas. Locating where the existing sensitive lands lie within the acquisition boundaries of
federal and state resource conservation areas and parks were the first step.
Next, the existing Florida Marine Resources Institute (FMRI) ADID habitat maps was used
and sensitive lands was highlighted in the legend and an overlay was created from this infor-
mation. Once the foundation layer showed where the sensitive areas were, the second layer
on the map were areas identified by the State in the Florida Forever Program for acquisition
lands, or lands within the acquisition boundaries of federal and state resource conservation
and park areas. A Tier column was added to the data set and all of these areas received a
"Tier I Designation." In addition, small, isolated platted lots with patches of more than four
acres of habitat or in close proximity to habitat areas received the Tier I designation in the
data set. Buffers were added where vacant lands were available for restoration and to protect
the habitat from secondary impacts. All non-developed state and federal public parcels and
local parks above four acres were also designated Tier I.
A GIS layer depicting existing infill and subdivision build-out was the primary base for Tier
II and III designations. In an effort to determine property to be designated as Tier III, the
first attempt was to sort all subdivisions and determine by count how many were 50 percent
or more developed. Once determined, the sensitive lands layer was placed over the 50 per-
cent developed subdivisions layer to see if any of these subdivisions might have pockets of
sensitive lands. If clusters of hammock existed within the subdivision, either the subdivision
was divided into Tier III and Tier II or, the habitat portion of the subdivision was determined
a Tier II designation because of the amount of hammock.
For acquisition purposes, if the subdivision is over 50% built out but cannot be further devel-
oped due to environmental constraints; remaining lots are designated for acquisition. It
should be noted that parcels that house condominiums with large native open space areas
were generally given a Tier II designation. Most condominium unit~ require ample open
space thus the existing vacant land cannot be built on and these open spaces generally con-
tain clusters of environmentally sensitive lands. This scenario also describes that of mobile
home parks where the parcel ofland is owned by one entity.
The determination of Tier designation also considered whether the subdivision was near es-
tablished commercial areas. If the subdivision was built out but had clusters or pockets of
sensitive lands; the designation might be broken into two tiers. Acreage that was not platted
generally received a Tier II designation as did large parcels of private vacant land. Most of
the Suburban Residential (SR) land use district with large lots were given a Tier II designa-
tion as only one dwelling unit is permitted per acre and the determination will protect the
remaining hammock on these lots.
lmpJementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 9 -
Once all parcels received a designation, a vacant parcels layer was created to verify the data
set. The Monroe County Property Appraiser's office data was used to determine if the parcel
is vacant. In addition, recent ROGO allocations are reviewed.
After the draft Tier Maps were created, the county biologists and planners reviewed the .
maps, parcel by parcel, to determine the accuracy of the maps and the identification of envi-
ronmentally sensitive lands. Aerials were used as well as field knowledge and site visits. In
addition, corrections are being made to verify water, road easements and to validate the map
for acquisition purposes.
The first draft of the Tier Maps were also reviewed and revised in response to comments
from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA),
Monroe County Land Authority staff and the county Land Steward. Three public meetings
were held in locations in the upper and lower Keys in 2003. Comments from the community
were taken, concerning possible errors in the data used to draft the maps. These areas were
re-evaluated and changes made where appropriate.
3.3 Tier Status
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted ordinance number 018-2004 on June
16, 2004, which designates the boundaries of Conservation and Natural Areas (CNA), also
known as Tier 1. The procedures for a Tier I designation review requires the property owner
to submit an application to the Planning and Environmental Resources Department. The ap-
plication will be considered at a public hearing held before the Special Master. The Special
Master will then provide a written opinion to the BOCC recommending approval or denial.
The applicant will receive written notification as to when and where the application will be
heard by the Special Master. The public hearing will also be advertised at least fifteen days
prior to the hearing. Written and/or oral testimony may be given by County staff and the ap-
plicant, and there will be reasonable opportunity provided for public testimony. The Special
Master will render a written opinion to the BOCC recommending approval (in whole or in
part) or denial of the request for a boundary amendment. The BOCC w~ll consider the Spe-
cial Master's recommendation during the next appropriate public meeting date. The review
will be advertised at least 15 days prior to the public hearing, but no posting of the property
will be required.
The ordinance also adopts an interim moratorium deferring ROGO and NROGO allocations
in areas of two acres or greater containing tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands within
any CNA boundary, which will be lifted on June 16, 2005. The moratorium was drafted in
response to the determination on December 16, 2003, by the Florida Administration Com-
mission, acting upon the recommendations of DCA, that Monroe County has not made sub-
stantial progress toward meeting the objectives of Year 6 of the Work Program. Year 6 of
the Work Program directs Monroe County to implement the recommendations in the Florida
Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS) by adopting amendments to the Rate Of Growth
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 10 -
Ordinance, the Land Development Regulations, the Future Land Use Maps and maximum
permitted densities (refer to page 3 of this document).
The purpose of the moratorium is to protect the significant clusters (2 acres and above) of
upland habitat that is important to the sustainability of protected species and to the mainte-
nance of ecosystem integrity, as called for by the terrestrial module of the FKCCS and Goal
105 of the 20 10 Comprehensive Plan. This was done to protect patches of habitat as small
as two acres, and greater, that may be reasonably connected to larger habitat patches through
restoration.
The deferment of ROGO and NROGO allocations will afford the .Planning and Environ-
mental Resources Department time to amend the 20 I 0 Comprehensive Plan and Land Devel-
opment Regulations to implement the Work Program, which includes the Tier System. If the
County continued issuing ROGO and NROGO allocations within the described moratorium
lands, prior to the completion of comprehensive planning to strengthen the protection of ter-
restrial habitat, the results would be further loss of valuable native habitat through develop-
ment and clearing of vegetation. The loss of this habitat may have an irreversible detrimen-
tal impact on the ecosystem and objectives of the 20 10 Comprehensive Plan and Rule 28-
20.100.
Big Pine Key and No Name Key are discussed in further detail later in the report, but a
moratorium is in effect on these islands until the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) applica-
tion is approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and amendments to the County's
2010 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, which will implement the
Community Master Development Plan.
3.4 Upper Keys, Mile Marker 91 to 112
3.4.1 Description
The boundaries for the Upper Keys Tier region begin at Tavernier Creek Bridge (Mile
Marker 9]) and extend northward to Mile Marker 112, and excluded from the maps is the
Ocean Reef subdivision. The progression from one land use to the next is sharp and is a
mixture of commercial, residential and recreational uses. The process used for Tier designa-
tion took into consideration the goals and criteria outlined in this Report, as well as the need
for gradual transitions between high intensity and low intensity land uses. High intensity
uses are characterized by dense commercial and residential developments, while low inten-
sity uses are lands set aside for recreational and conservation purposes.
The four mile stretch between Mile Marker 93 and 97 consists of residential subdivisions
and large tracts of publicly owned land. Much of the land along US-I, located on the bay-
side, is listed as Tier II because of their environmental sensitivity and the subdivisions' large
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- ] ] -
lot Suburban Residential (SR) zoning designation. The density requirement for Suburban
Residential (SR) lots is one dwelling unit on two acres of land, which reduces development
density and pressures on upland habitat. The Tier II designation will continue to protect the
existing vegetation and low density character.
Between Mile Marker 97 and 100, there is a large amount of densely developed subdivi-
sions. These densely developed pockets have a minimal amount of existing habitat and are
therefore designated Tier III. Tier III lot designations are in locations where development
and environmental conditions are appropriate. These lots are intended to receive the major-
ity of future development because they were already mostly developed and have the appro-
priate infrastructure to manage additional developmeht; the lots also have little existing habi-
tat.
At Mile Marker 103 and 104, many of the subdivisions are appropriate for infill develop-
ment and are designated as Tier III. Mile Marker 103 and beyond has development along
the US-1 corridor, but beyond the highway quality habitat remains protected and is desig-
nated Tier I.
3.4.2 Tier Matrix
The following matrix was built by querying the County's GIS parcel file, whose spatial layer
was used to create the Tier maps. The residential and commercial areas were determined
using the Monroe County Property Appraiser's database and the property classification
codes (PC) associated with each parcel. The matrix presents the amount of vacant, and pri-
vately owned vacant, parcels in each Tier. The parcel data is presented in this way so as to
provide an estimate of the number of parcels that may have development potential, and those
Upper Keys I 35 462 409 1,336 97 1,433 376
II 5 1,074 97 1,190 104 1,294 1,623
III 249 1,220 13 1,636 398 2,034 8,015
Total 289 2,756 519 4,162 599 4,761 10,014
Source: Monroe County Tier Maps and Property Appraiser's Database
that should be acquired from willing sellers for conservation purposes. Also, the Tier Matrix
provides information on the number of platted lots in the URM, IS and SR zoning districts.
lmplementing Goal 105 and the Can)'ing Capacity Study
- 12 -
Vacant parcels having a Tier III designation and a URM or IS district, have a greater resi-
dential development potential than those in Tier I or II.
3.4.3 Discussion
The Upper Keys Tier region is 18,210 acres, and there is a total of 565 acres of private, va-
cant land in Tier II and III. The percentage of land area that is potentially available for de-
velopment is 3.1 %, which includes both residential and commercial parcels designated as
Tier II or III. As shown on the previous matrix and the table found in Attachment A, the
amount of private vacant parcels and acres is subdivided to differentiate the amount of land
dedicated for commercial and residential uses, as well as selected land use districts and Tier
designations.
The pie chart below, graphically illustrates the number of privately owned vacant parcels
(both residential and commercial) in each Tier for the Upper Keys. Of the total number of
privately owned vacant parcels, the largest amount (approximately 43%) is designated as
I I Tier III.. Being that Tier III is
Total Private Vacant Parcels i most sUItable for development
Upper Keys Tier Region I infill, the areas containing these
I. parcels will experience increased
. development as the Rate of
I
I Growth Ordinance (ROGO) allo-
lIITierl ! I cations are distributed.
:~:::I !: Within Tier III, there is a total of
2,034 private vacant parcels
(both residential and commer-
cial), having a land area of 346
acres. A majority of the Tier III
parcels are small lots (less than
an acre in size) that are within the zoning districts URM and IS. The J~nd area of approxi-
mately two thousand parcels can add up to only 346 acres because of their small size and
large numbers.
2034; 43%
1294; 27%
Within Tier I, there is a total of 1,433 private vacant parcels, having a land area of 1,756
acres. The land use districts having the greatest amount of land area designated as Tier I are
the SR, SS and NA districts (at 1,578 acres) because of their low density requirements and
environmental sensitivity. This figure is significant considering that Tier I lands are the
highest priority for acquisition. The amount of Tier I lands in public ownership is 13,001
acres, which include federal, state and county lands. The amount of Tier II and III lands in
public ownership is 137 acres, and these figures support the County's and State's efforts in
preserving only the highest quality habitat and environmentally sensitive lands.
Jmplementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 13 -
Of those 1,433 parcels, 201 are within the Florida Forever Program (formerly known as
CARL) acquisition areas. The acquisition of parcels by the State's Florida Forever Program
will assist in alleviating the County's financial commitment to acquire environmentally sen-
sitive lands that are now designated as Tier I. Also, vacant buildable lots within acquisition
areas are permitted to be used as "land dedication" lots in the current ROGO criteria. Once
the Tier System is implemented, all Tier I parcels will be permitted as land dedication lots.
This will change the number oflots eligible for dedication from 201 to 1,433 private, vacant
parcels.
It is important to note that the total number of developed parcels within the Upper Keys re-
gion is 10,014 parcels and that the number of developed parcels greatly decreases as you
compare Tier III versus Tier II and I. This data is indicative of the accuracy of the designa-
tion of existing land within the Upper Keys.
3.5 Middle Keys, Mile Marker 60 to 71
3.5.1 Description
The Middle Keys Tier region is composed of the unincorporated area between Mile Marker
60 (Duck Key) through Mile Marker 71 (Long Key). Prior to the City of Marathon's incor-
poration, the Middle Keys region began at the Seven Mile Bridge (Mile Marker 47) and ex-
tended north to Long Key (Mile Marker 71). The region's mix ofland uses include residen-
tial neighborhoods, commercial fishing areas, a destination resort, two campgrounds, a state
park and natural areas; most of which is primarily located on Duck Key and Long Key.
Many of these uses, such as the destination resort Hawks Kay, rely heavily on water re-
sources to continue normal business and residential operations. The City of Layton has been
excluded from the Tier maps due to incorporation, however the Long Key State Recreational
Area, which surrounds the City is included and is designated as Tier I.
The region's diverse mix of land uses has produced multiple zoning districts within a rela-
tively small stretch of land. The zoning districts found on Long Key include Natural Areas
(NA), Improved Subdivisions (IS), Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM) and Suburban
Commercial (SC). Duck Key is zoned for a destination resort (DR) and for residential
homes (IS). The region's geography and established uses do not allow for a gradual transi-
tion between the natural and developed areas. Parcels are designated as either Tier I or Tier
III, and there is no land that fits the criteria for a Tier II designation. The Tier III parcels will
continue to direct development to Duck Key and portions of Long Key.
3.5.2 Tier Matrix
The following matrix was built by querying the County's GIS parcel file, whose spatial layer
was used to create the Tier maps. The residential and commercial areas were determined
lmplementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- ]4 -
using the Monroe County Property Appraiser's database and the property classification
codes (PC) associated with each parcel. The matrix presents the amount of vacant, and pri-
vately owned vacant, parcels in each Tier. The parcel data is presented in this way so as to
provide an estimate of the number of parcels that may have development potential, and those
that should be acquired from willing sellers for conservation purposes. Also, the Tier Matrix
provides information on the number of platted lots in the URM, IS and SR zoning districts.
Vacant parcels having a Tier III designation and a URM or IS district, have a greater resi-
dential development potential than those in Tier I or II.
Middle Keys
I
o
o
3
26
o
26
II
III
o
51
51
o
350
350
o
5
8
o
460
486
o
7
7
o
467
493
o
1,150
Total
1,151
Source: Monroe County Tier Maps and Property Appraiser's Database
3.5.3 Discussion
The Middle Keys Tier region is 1,332 acres, and there is a total of I 16 acres ( 467 parcels) of
private, vacant land in Tier II and III. The percentage of land area that is potentially avail-
able for development is 8.7%, which includes both residential and commercial parcels desig-
nated as Tier II or Ill. As shown on the previous matrix and the table found in Attachment
A, the amount of private, vacant parcels and acres is subdivided to differentiate the amount
of land dedicated for commercial and residential uses, as well as selected land use districts
and Tier designations.
Total Private Vacant Parcels
Middle Keys Tier Region
467; 95%
II Tier I
The following pie chart graphi-
cally illustrates the number of pri-
vately owned vacant parcels (both
residential and commercial) in
each Tier for the Middle Keys. Of
the total number of privately
owned vacant parcels, the largest
amount (approximately 95%) is
designated as Tier Ill. Being that
.r26; 5%
-0; 0%
o Tier II
. Tier III
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 15 -
Tier III is most suitable for development infill, the areas containing these parcels will experi-
ence increased development as the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) allocations are dis-
tributed.
Within Tier III, there is a total of 467 private vacant parcels (both residential and commer-
cial), having a land area of 116 acres. A majority of the Tier III parcels are small lots (less
than an acre in size) that have high density requirements and are within the zoning districts
DR, URM and IS. All of the parcels located on Duck Key and Conch Key are Tier III, and
as discussed earlier, because of the region's geography and environmental conditions, there
are no lots suitable for Tier II designation.
All Tier I parcels are located on Long Key and are contiguous with Long Key State Recrea-
tional Area. There are a total of 26 private, vacant Tier I parcels, having a land area of 124
acres. These figures are important because Tier I lands are a priority for acquisition. The
land use districts having the greatest amount of land area (at 140 acres) designated as Tier I
are the SR, SS and NA districts because of their low density requirements and environmental
sensitivity. The amount of Tier I lands in public ownership is 804 acres, and much of the
acreage is attributed to the State Recreational Area. At 9 acres, the amount of Tier II and III
lands in public ownership is far less, and these figures support the County's and State's ef-
forts in preserving only the highest quality habitat and environmentally sensitive lands.
Of those 26 Tier I private and vacant parcels, 24 are within the Florida Forever Program
(formerly known as CARL) acquisition areas. The acquisition of parcels by the State's Flor-
ida Forever Program will assist in alleviating the County's financial commitment to acquire
environmentally sensitive lands that are now designated as Tier I. Also, vacant buildable
lots within acquisition areas are permitted to be used as "land dedication" lots in the current
ROGO criteria. Once the Tier System is implemented, all Tier I parcels will be permitted as
land dedication lots. This will change the number of lots eligible for dedication from 24 to
26 private, vacant parcels.
It is important to note that the total number of developed parcels within the Middle Keys re-
gion is 1,151 parcels, and of those developed 1,150 are within Tier III. This data is indica-
tive of the accuracy of the designation of existing land within the Upper Keys.
3.6 Lower Keys, Mile Marker 4 to 40
3.6.1 Description
The boundaries for the Lower Keys Tier region is comprised of all of the islands from Mile
Marker 4 (Stock Island) to Mile Marker 40 (Little Duck Key). Excluded from the region is
Big Pine and No Name Keys, which are described in Section 3.7. The geography of the is-
lands lend themselves well to the strategy of directing future development to infill areas
]mplementing Goal ] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- ] 6 -
(Tier III) and providing a buffer between natural and developed lands. The Lower Keys is-
lands are less linear and extend a relatively far distance from the US-l corridor. Certain is-
lands have neighborhoods that follow a traditional development pattern. The subdivisions
are organized on a grid street network, this is especially true on Stock Island. While the Tier
system is designed to reduce and focus development away from habitat, it also promotes the .
concentration of community activities. This will assist in creating vibrant communities with
defined boundaries.
The Lower Keys region includes refuge areas, residential neighborhoods and high-density
commercial areas. The high-density commercial areas are primarily located on Stock Island
and US 1 corridor, this is especially true for Big Coppitt and SummerlandKeys. Boca Chica
Naval Air Station and land that is specifically for Military Facilities are excluded from this
draft of the Tier System. The Federal Government currently owns the military land and
there is no indication that they will change ownership in the near future.
3.6.2 Tier Matrix
The following matrix was built by querying the County's GIS parcel file, whose spatial layer
was used to create the Tier maps. The residential and commercial areas were determined
using the Monroe County Property Appraiser's database and the property classification
codes (PC) associated with each parcel. The matrix presents the amount of vacant, and pri-
vately owned vacant, parcels in each Tier. The parcel data is presented in this way so as to
provide an estimate of the number of parcels that may have development potential, and those
that should be acquired from willing sellers for conservation purposes. Also, the Tier Matrix
provides information on the number of platted lots in the URM, IS and SR zoning districts.
Vacant parcels having a Tier III designation and a URM or IS district, have a greater resi-
dential development potential than those in Tier I or II.
Lower Keys 6 489 209 2,848 47 2,895 483
MM 4-40 Il 2 411 8 551 5 556 474
1lI 166 1,230 50 1,745 171 1,916 6,452
Total ]74 2130 267 5,]44 223 5,367 7,409
Source: Monroe County Tier Maps and Property Appraiser's Database
Implementing Goal ] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 17 -
3.6.3 Discussion
The Lower Keys Tier region (excluding Big Pine and No Name Keys) is 26,898 acres, and
there is a total of 697 acres (2,472 parcels) of private, vacant land in Tier II and III. The per-
centage of land area that is potentially available for development is 2.6%, which includes
both residential and commercial parcels designated as Tier II or III. The Lower Keys region
is the largest in acres, but has the lowest percentage of potentially developable land in all of
the Keys. As shown on the previous matrix and the table found in Attachment A, the
amount of private vacant parcels and acres is subdivided to differentiate the amount of land
dedicated for commercial and residential uses, as well as selected land use districts and Tier
designations.
The pie chart below, graphically illustrates the number of privately owned vacant parcels
(both residential and commercial) in each Tier for the Lower Keys. Of the total number of
privately owned vacant parcels, the largest amount (approximately 54%) is designated as
Tier I. Tier III is the next larg-
est Tier group with 36% of the
parcels. Being that Tier In is
most suitable for development
infill, the areas containing these
m-n~1 parcels will experience in-
creased development as the Rate
of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)
allocations are distributed.
Total Private Vacant Parcels
Lower Keys Tier Region
1916; 36%
2895; 54 %
o Tier II
. Tier III
Within Tier III, there is a total of
1,916 private vacant parcels
(both residential and commer-
cial), having a land area of 537 acres. A majority of the Tier III parcels are small lots (less
than an acre in size) that are within the zoning districts URM and IS (having 1,396 parcels).
The land area of approximately one thousand parcels can add up to only 537 acres because
of their small size and large numbers.
Within Tier I, there is a total of 2,895 private vacant parcels, having a land area of 5,404
acres. The land use districts having the greatest amount of land area designated as Tier I are
the SR, SS and NA districts (at 4,374 acres) because of their low density requirements and
environmental sensitivity. This figure is significant considering that Tier I lands are the
highest priority for acquisition. The amount of Tier I lands in public ownership is 17,806
acres, which includes federal, state and county lands. The amount of Tier II and III lands in
public ownership is 178 acres, and these figures support the County's and State's efforts in
preserving only the highest quality habitat and environmentally sensitive lands.
Of those 2,895 parcels, 1,344 are within the Florida Forever Program (formerly known as
]mplementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 18 -
CARL) acquisition areas. The acquisition of parcels by the State's Florida Forever Program
will assist in alleviating the County's financial commitment to acquire environmentally sen-
sitive lands that are now designated as Tier 1. Also, vacant buildable lots within acquisition
areas are permitted to be used as "land dedication" lots in the current ROGO criteria. Once
the Tier System is implemented, all Tier I parcels will be permitted as land dedication lots. .
This will change the number of lots eligible for dedication from 1,344 to 2,895 private, va-
cant parcels.
There is a total of 223 private, vacant commercial parcels, and of those 171 parcels are des-
ignated as Tier III. With the exception of Stock Island, the majority of the vacant commer-
cial parcels are located on US I and are in close proximity to other existing commercial uses.
It is important to note that the total number of developed parcels within the Lower Keys re-
gion is 7,409 parcels and that the number of developed parcels greatly decreases as you com-
pare Tier III versus Tier II and 1. This data is indicative of the accuracy of the designation of
existing land within the Lower Keys.
3.7 Big Pine Key and No Name Key, Mile Marker 33 to 29
3.7.1 Description
While Big Pine and No Name Keys are included in the Lower Keys, they require additional
discussion and analysis. The Tier designations on Big Pine and No Name Key were not
based on the criteria outlined in section 3.1 of this report, but rather other factors established
by the Habitat Conservation Plan. The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is required for a
permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because any additional development on Big Pine
will have an impact on the endangered species resulting in a prohibited 'taking' of the spe-
cies. The HCP outlines what types of development will be permitted on Big Pine and No
Name Keys and how the primary and secondary impacts of the new development on the en-
dangered species (primarily the Florida Key Deer and the Lower Keys March Rabbit) will be
mitigated.
The Tier designations on Big Pine and No Name Keys were based on a Key Deer Population
Viability Analysis (PV A) model, in the HCP, which included different habitat characteristics
relevant to the survival of the Key deer population. The factors used in the PV A (and also in
determining Tier designations) were: deer corridors, deer density, house density, water barri-
ers, distance from US I, and habitat patch quality. These six factors were evaluated based on
two forms of impact to the Key deer, secondary impacts such as increase in traffic and loss
or change of habitat. Deer corridors, areas of high deer density, and areas with quality deer
habitat were considered most valuable to the species, while areas with a high house density,
water barriers such as canals, and areas close to US ] were considered to be less valuable to
the species.
lmplementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- ] 9 -
The resulting Tier designations were somewhat different from other areas in the county. For
example, subdivisions which are more than 50% built-out were not designated as Tier III if
they are located in areas of high deer density, high habitat quality and located far from U.S. 1
thus increasing the likelihood of traffic mortality. For instance, Tropical Bay subdivision is .
more than 50% built, but it is designated Tier II because of its distance from US-I. New
homes built within the subdivision will increase the number of trips and distance traveled
across the island, through critical Key Deer habitat. Thereby increasing the potential of
"Take" of the endangered species.
3.7.2 Tier Matrix
The following matrix was built by querying the GIS attribute table that was used to create
the Tier maps. The residential and commercial areas were determined using the Monroe
County Property Appraiser's database and the property classification codes (PC) associated
with each parcel. The matrix presents the amount of vacant, and privately owned vacant,
land per Tier. The parcel data is presented in this way so as to provide the reader with a
rough estimate of parcels that may have development potential, or those that may be ac-
quired from willing sellers for conservation purposes. Also shown in the Tier Matrix, are
lots having the zoning districts URM, IS and SR. These parcels were singled out because
they are the most appropriate for infill residential development.
Big Pine Key & 1 0 744 94 1,960 13 1,973 1,470
No Name Key 11 0 442 0 511 0 511 812
III 0 219 0 245 19 264 609
Total 0 1,405 94 2,716 32 2,748 2,891
Source: Monroe County Tier Maps and Property Appraiser's Database
3.7.3 Discussion
The majority of land on Big Pine and No Name is already under public ownership (roughly
69.3% including federal, state, and county lands). Most of the large tracts have already been
purchased for conservation purposes and are under management by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and are part of the Key Deer Refuge and Great White Heron Sanctuary. The HCP
Implementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 20 -
will require any new development that occurs on Big Pine to be mitigated, mainly through
the purchase of lands for conservation purposes. Therefore, the lands currently in private
ownership and designated as Tier I, are very important for mitigating the limited amount of
proposed new development on Big Pine.
The following graph shows the breakdown of private, vacant parcels by their proposed Tier
designations.
The majority of the vacant
parcels located in Tier I
are either acre parcels lo-
cated in the center of Big
Pine or small Improved
Subdivision (IS) lots lo-
cated in subdivisions
which are located in deer
corridors or on the north
side of the island, far from
the US I corridor. Tier III
parcels are located within
close proximity to US I
and the majority of these parcels are IS lots located on canals. There is a limited amount of
vacant commercial lots within the US I corridor, which further lends to the protection of
Key Deer and the island's rural character. Tier II parcels are predominantly located in subdi-
visions in the central portion of Big Pine and are on canals or in areas of high housing den-
sity. All of No Name Key is designated Tier I for the purposes of protecting Key Deer habi-
tat; the island's current development and environmental conditions meet the over-all criteria
for Tier I designation.
Total Private Vacant Parcels
Big Pine and No Name Keys Tier Region
511; 19%
II Tier I
1973; 71%
o Tier II
I
I . Tier III
'--
The Habitat Conservation Plan will determine the permitted amount of development activi-
ties on Big Pine and No Name Key for the next 20 years. The proposed plan will only per-
mit 200 residential units (ten per year) and a corresponding amount of new commercial de-
velopment. There are a total of 219 vacant IS lots designated as Tier III, however there are
744 IS lots proposed as Tier I. Tier II, the transition area, has 442 vacant IS lots. These fig-
ures are important for the reason that Big Pine Key is limited to 10 ROGO allocations per
year for the next 20 years.
Implementing Goal ] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Sludy
- 21 -
-; ~
Q b
f-o<
, '"
,Q U ~
= = CJ
Q., <
I I
.C I I-
Q.,>:'
-;~.....
..... ..... =
e = =
f-o .. U
~
-;.....
..... =
e .::
f-o~
]
.....
=
~
.....
e
Q.,
.....
=
CIl
5
..... I-
= CIl
=5-;
~ 5 'y
>a
t: ..!. :!
= '" .....
U ~ =
>~~
t: I -;
= 5 'y
U e I-
>Ue
e
"a:i
..
CIl
Q
"C
=
=
'"
"a:i
U
I-
=
Q.,
, ,
..... = I-
= CIl =
="CQ.,
~'f;; -
>~!
.....
=
=
Uoo
=00
>
.....
=
=
U
=
>
.....
= '"
= ~ ~
~oo<
,.....
==~
>~oo
,.....
==00
>~....
I..... ~
=;~
>u~
V) 0'\
"'"
N
00
"-l
I-
~
~
==
=
.~
.....
eo;
U
e
.;l
Jmplementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 22 -
It:
o
'0
C
<<l
<'
Z
'-'
<<l
~
<C
Cl.l
>
'Z
<<l
Z
eo
c
'2
o
N
-
o
c
'"
Cl.l
"C
o
C,)
G
c...
'-'
c
o
".g
C,)
t;::
'Vi
'"
<<l-d
O~
e.2
Cl.l g
Q., .-
e e
c... <<l
C '"
o U
'0 'i:
Cl.l -
~~
.0
"""'
'000
EO
<<l '-'
:;'0
C,) c
-;;;~
(.)~
<<l
e;;
o
.C .....
~ =
eIl~'C
= = =
'c:;> =
.; Qj ....:l
E~
Qj ~
cz:
I -; I
= 100 c.l =
;>Qj-<=
Qj'CQj;'C
.... ~ eIl'1i.j :;
~ .... .E 'S ....:l
'j:; :; ~ Q"
Q.. c.l
'"
'C
=
=
....:l
.S:!
:E
:=
Q..
I
-:: ~~ 'C
.~ ..... =
~.E=
r-<~....:l
\0 M N
NV)'<t
~~~
N
M
r-
v;)
r-'<t
- -
N
NO
N 0-
M '<t
r--:'
N'<t
O'<t
-
- r-
o 0-
N -
'<to
0- -
- 00
N
r- _
0- V)
'<to O.
M
'<t '<t '<t
'<t \0 N
-.::t 1'-.... -
- - 0
\0
'<t
~
v;)
\O'<t
r-'<t
M M
M -
M 0
M O.
N M
-
0- M
- 0
:; N....
V)
-
'" '" Q)
'0 ~ ::l
~ U -
Q:; -< ->
"'I::!: ~
"'I
r-..:
.....
~
00
00
00
'<t-
N -
-
M '<t
r- V)
N -
-
\0 '<t M
N N r-
- r-.
-
M
N
v;)
- M
V)'<t
NO
00
\0 M
V)'<t
0-
'" '" Q)
Q) ~ ;:J
~ U -
Q:; -< ->
lmplemenling Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
..!. ....:l
Qj'C=:
~ ~-<
c=U
Qj........:l
~:;Cl:
.- ~-<
c:;>U
~Cl:
~-<....:l
~U
';Cl:
....-<..J
~U
=:
100
Qj
E
'"
.~
';
I:
-<
"C
I:
=
..J
=
.~
....
=
~
100
Qj
'"
=
=
U
"C
=
=
';
100
:=
....
=
Z
....
I =
'j:; =
Q.. ~
';;>
.... Qj
=....
r-< ~
-;i-;,
.... ~ Qj
=QjQ.
r-<C=
_ CJ """..:0
=::Qj
....~=
= := ~
r-<Q..O
';
....
=
~
=
e
~
=
c.I
e
..J
r- V) r-
\0 V) 0
- 0
0-.
r-
o.
-
v;)
N V)
N M
~oo
00 N
0- 00
0- 0
'is 'is
- M
M 0
0- V)
- 0-
N M
\0 00
- N
'<t V)
- 0
MN
ON
r-'<t
\0. '<t.
V) M
V)V)O
\O'<too
'<t \0. "l
- r-
-
\0
..;-
v;)
O-
M \0
'<tr-
NN
r-O
N M
00. q
'<t~
00 N
'<to-
-
~~
M N
-"'('.f
\0 0
M M
O. "l
- N
00 -
NO
'<to O.
N V)
0- 0 0-
00 0- 0-
~o- ~
'<t
\0
'is
-
~
00 MOO
V)-V)
o-V)N
NV)r--:'
V)
00.
V)
-
~
O'<t
r- r-
'<to \0
M V)
00 r-
'<to
00 M
M 0
r-. O.
M V)
N \0
r-o
r- 00
N. r-
-
00-
\0 0
- r-
r- \0.
M 0-
r- 0-
- -
\0. '<to
N
'" '" Q)
'0 ~ ::l
~ U -
Q:; -< ->
~ ri-O)
u .. ::l
.. u-
Q:;-<->
~~~
"...........
...... ....... ,,'
......
0;:,
<V)
.....
~
010;:,
'0.....
......00
~. <V)
I~ ~
.....'0
<"100
....."'1
.....01
~~
-;'
0;:,'0
01"'1
..... ~
<V) <V)
~~
...... ......
0,) ,,'
"'101
~~
0\-;'
.....
".....~
..... 01 '"
~......'O
'0' 00 -;'
01
.....
<"I
~
~
~
Q)
Q.
e
c.
'C
Q)
C.
o
'0
~
Q)
"0
U
:g~
::l Q)
c.c.
"0 0
= ..
o;S c.
e'E
Q) c.
c.O
0-
.. Q)
c.i)
="0
.9 E
.... o;S
o;S :>
i:: .-
:7l Q..
="0
o =
U o;S
.~ .~
:C:C
::l ::l
c. c.
..c: ..c:
'0 "0
J:; J:;
'" '"
Q) Q)
"0 "0
::l ::l
uu
.5.5
0;:,'0
......01
......0;:,
<"1<"1
~
~
o;S
f-;
o
C
::l
o
U
Q)
o
..
c
o
'" '" Q) ~
'0 ~ ::l
~ u - c
Q:; -< -> .g
Q)
'"
o;S
J:;
Q)
::l
C;;
:>
"0
Q)
'"
'"
Q)
'"
'"
-<
~::!:
00'0
00'CS
......
OO~
0;:,,,,
"'0;:,
,,' r-..:
..... ~
- 23 -
00 N 0\ "'" ....,
N 00 N ...., ~
--' r-~ "'l '0
r<) -.f:
100 00
0\ "'l
~ ":!-'
~
r- 0\ 00 ~
~- 100 0\ 100 ~
.... CO r<) V') "
... ..,;
- ~ '"
;:"C --' ....,
CO ~ OO~ 00
U~ r<) ~
~~ ~ '"
-.f:
.....
~~ ~
.:: "C
'" ... ;:
- r:.. co
=
...::i 0 ~ 00
"C V')
-.:t 0 ..... .....
~ N~ ..... "
-
- V') '"
CO 100 ....,
== N '"
~ ,,'
~
V') 0\ "
r<) N ~
N
-=
;:
-<
"C
;:
CO
...::i V') N r- ~ '0
;: ~~ 0\ 00 0\ '0
.S: - - -.:t r--t ":!- ....,
co_ 00 -.f:
- .. ;: r- '"
CO 'i: CO
.. r- ....,
... r:.. u -.:t~ 0;-
CO
~ -= :> ~ .....
'" ~
;: - "C
= =
U !-o ;:
CO
"C
;: 0\ r- "
CO ~~ N r- "'l ~
-= O~ r<) '"
... -=~ -:-
= ~
- - CU
CO ="C f-
Z !-o ;:
CO .c
s::
~
0
U
tIl tIl II)
tIl II) II) 0
"0 II) ~ II) ~ ...
... ... s::
....J u ca u ca 0
-< > -< > ~
s::
0
-C
II)
tIl
CU
.D
;: II)
= ~
:; ca
= ;;-
u -C
<:; II)
..J tIl
tIl
II)
tIl
tIl
<(
]mplementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study - 24 -
From the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
WORK PROGRAM
YEAR ONE (ending December 31, 1997)
A. Complete Phase 1 (data collection) for the Wastewater and Stormwater Master Plans, and secure
funding for plan completion. (Reference County Objective. 901.4)
Agencies; County, DCA DEP, HRS and SFWMD.
B. Complete a conceptual plan or scope of work to develop a carrying capacity. The carrying ca-
pacity analysis shall be designed to determine the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem, and the
various segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land development activities. The
analysis shall be based upon the findings adopted by the Administration Commission on Decem-
ber 12,1995, or more recent data that may become available in the course of the study, and shall
be based upon benchmark of, and all adverse impacts to the Keys land and water natural systems,
in addition to the impact of nutrients on marine resources. The carrying capacity analysis shall
consider aesthetic, socioeconomic (including sustainable tourism), quality oflife and community
character issues, including the concentration of population, the amount of open space, diversity
of habitats, and species richness. The analysis shall reflect the interconnected nature of the Flor-
ida Keys' natural systems, but may consider and analyze the carrying capacity of specific islands
or groups of islands and specific ecosystems of habitats, including distinct parts of the Keys' ma-
rine system. (Ref. 1991 Stip. Settlement Agreement)
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, HRS, DOT, GFC, SFWMD, NMS, SFRPC, EPA, USFW, Army
COE, and other interested parties to includes representatives of environmental organizations and
development interests.
C. Complete A WT/OSDS demonstration study and initiate rulemaking for new standards for OSDS
(Reference County Policy 901.4.3).
Agencies: HRS.
D. Complete Marathon Facilities Plan and secure funding for the facility site(s). The wastewater
facilities plan should implement the most cost effective method of collecting, treating, and dis-
posing of wastewater and shall include an investigation of the feasibility of using alternative nu-
trient-stripping on-site disposal systems. The development of the facilities plan shall be a com-
ponent of the wastewater Master Plan as that Plan is developed.
Agencies: County, DCA, and DEP.
E. Continue cesspit elimination program with identification of Hot Spots as first priority in accor-
dance with Objective 901.2 and seek funding for cesspit identification. Enter into an interlocal
agreement with HRS to specify the responsibilities and procedures for the OSDS inspection/
compliance program as required by Policy 901.2.3. Adopt an ordinance which specifies the im-
plementation procedures for the OSDS inspection/compliance program. The ordinance shall in-
clude authorization for HRS to inspect wastewater treatment systems on private property as re-
quired by Policy 901.2.3. (Reference County Objective 901.2).
Agencies: County, DCA, and HRS.
F. Submit status of CARL and ROGO land acquisition to the Administration Commission.
Agencies: County, Land Authority, and DEP.
G. Revise the habitat Evaluation Index (HEl) based on peer review.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, FGFWFC, and Federal agencies.
Implementing Goal ] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 25 -
YEAR TWO (ending December 31, 1998)
A. Complete the wastewater and Stormwater Master Plans and execute interagency agreements to
define construction schedule by phases. Document that significant reduction in nutrients will be
achieved each year thereafter within each sub-areas. The Master Plans shall include facility
plans for all proposed treatment strategies, and determine retrofit and funding requirements for
HOT Spots and cesspit identified in D below.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, and HRS.
B. Secure funding for the carrying capacity study and initiate Phase I (data collection) of the study.
Agencies: County, DCA, and DEP.
C. Complete cesspit 10 process in Hot Spots, excluding the Marathon area.
Agencies: County, DCA, and HRS.
D. Submit status of CARL and ROGO land acquisition to the Administration Commission.
Agencies County, Land Authority, and DEP.
E. Document the extent and quality of the fresh groundwater lens system on Big Pine Key; delineate
the associated recharge areas; and determine the safe yield of the system. (Reference County Pol-
icy 103.1.5).
Agencies: County, DCA, SFWMD, USFWS
YEAR THREE (January 1, 1999 through July 12, 2000)
A. Complete and begin implementation of Wastewater Master Plan. Utilizing the findings of the
Wastewater Master Plan and recommendations of the Water Quality Steering Committee relating
to Hot Spots do the following: refine and prioritize areas identified as Hot Spots, determine retro-
fit and funding requirements for priority Hot Spots and cesspit replacement for areas outside
those areas identified for central or cluster wastewater collection systems, and begin developing
facility plans for priority Hot Spots. Execute interagency agreements to define facility plan, de-
sign and construction schedules for each Hot Spot facility. Establish a water quality monitoring
program to document the reduction in nutrients as a result of these facilities. Complete a waste-
water treatment finance plan and a service area implementation plan, and continue efforts to se-
cure funding for Wastewater Master Plan implementation, with priority given to Hot Spots. De-
termine the feasibility and legal ramifications of establishing an escrow account as a means of
providing long-term funding for replacing cesspits or substandard onsite sewage systems. Estab-
lish a mechanism such as special assessments, impact fees, infrastructure surcharge, or other
dedicated revenues, to fund the local share of wastewater improvements in Years Four and Five.
Seek to provide comparable subsidies for both wastewater collection systems and individual
cesspit replacement.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DCA, DEP, DOH, SFWMD, EPA and Water Quality Protection Pro-
gram Steering Committee (WQSC).
B. Secure funding for Storm Water Master Plan development, contract selected firm for develop-
ment of Master Plan, and complete Phase] (data collection). Determine the feasibility of provid-
ing nutrient reduction credits for stormwater improvements.
Agencies: County, DCA, DOT, SFWMD, EPA and WQSC.
C. Conclude acquisition of North Key Largo Hammocks CARL project. Make offers to 33% of re-
maining private owners with property located in other CARL project boundaries.
Agencies: County, Land Authority and DEP.
D. Secure remaining funds for the carrying capacity study, conduct workshops as outlined in the
Scope of Work, select prime contractor, and initiate Phase] (data collection) of the study.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, FFWCC, SFWMD, WQSC, SFRPC, EPA, USFWS,
Army CaE, and other interested parties to include representatives of environmental organiza-
tions and development interests.
Jmplementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 26 -
E. Continue efforts to secure funding for the Marathon Facility. Complete Little Venice construc-
tion design, secure lands needed for Little Venice facility, and begin bid process and selection of
construction firm. Design a water quality monitoring program to document Little Venice project
impacts.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DCA, DEP, WQSC, and EPA.
F. Continue cesspit identification by providing notice to all property owners with unknown systems,
outside of Hot Spots. Initiate replacement of cesspits outside of Hot Spots. A ward financial assis-
tance grants to qualified applicants using FY 1997-98 state funds to ensure a minimum of 70
cesspit replacements. Develop a low interest loan and grant program to assist all residents in re-
placing cesspits, with priority of funds going, in order of preference, to very low-, low- and mod-:-
erate-income households. Investigate the appropriate point at which nutrient reduction credits can .
be awarded for future committed water quality treatment facilities and the appropriateness of
transferring credits among RaGa areas.
Agencies: County, DCA, FKAA, WQSC and DOH.
G. Document the extent and quality of the fresh groundwater lens system on Big Pine Key; delineate
the associated recharge areas; and determine the safe yield of the system. (Ref. County pol.
103.1.5)
Agencies: County, FKAA, DEP, DCA, SFWMD, EPA, WQSC and USFWS.
H. Develop an integrated funding plan for the purchase of land from RaGa applicants who have
competed unsuccessfully for four consecutive years and applied for administrative relief.
Agencies: County.
1. The County, in conjunction with DCA, shall assess the feasibility of applying the nutrient reduc-
tion credit requirement to new commercial development.
Agencies: County and DCA.
YEAR FOUR (July 13,2000 through July 12,2001)
A. Continue implementation of Wastewater Master Plan, execute interagency agreements to define
construction schedule by phases, and continue developing facility plans for priority Hot Spots in
each RaGa area. Secure funding to implement the Wastewater Master Plan. Document that re-
duction in nutrients has been achieved within each of the sub-areas.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DCA, DEP, DOH, EPA and WQSC.
B. Complete Storm Water Master Plan. 1dentify priority projects for implementation and seek fund-
ing for plan implementation.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOT, SFWMD, EPA and WQSC.
C. Make offers to 50% of remaining private owners with property located in CARL project bounda-
nes.
Agencies: County, Land Authority and DEP.
D. Complete Phase II of the carrying capacity study (data analysis) and present initial recommenda-
tions to review agencies.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, FFWCC, SFWMD, WQSC, SFRPC, EPA, USFWS,
Army CaE, and other interested parties to include representatives of environmental organiza-
tions and development interests.
E. Establish baseline water quality for surface and groundwater quality potentially impacted by Lit-
tle Venice project.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, FKAA, WQSC and EPA.
F. Complete cesspit identification and continue cesspit replacement outside of Hot Spots, with a
priority of funds going, in order of preference, to low- and moderate income households; ensure
that a minimum of 88 cesspits are replaced
Agencies: County, FKAA, WQSC and DOH.
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 27 -
YEAR FIVE (July 13,2001 through July 12,2002 )
A. Continue implementation of the Wastewater Master Plan pursuant to executed interagency agree-
ments. Begin construction of wastewater facilities in selected Hot Spots.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DCA, DOH, DEP, EPA, and WQSC.
B. Execute interagency agreements to define construction schedule for selected storm water im-
provement projects. Complete land acquisition and final design for selected treatment strategies
for Storm Water Master Plan.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOT, WQSC and SFWMD.
C. Conclude negotiations with all willing owners with property within CARL project boundaries.
Acquire a total-to-date of 45% of the Key Deer/Coupon Bight project and 25% of the Florida
Keys Ecosystems project from willing sellers.
Agencies: County, Land Authority, and DEP.
D. Complete final draft of the carrying capacity study including acceptance by review agencies.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, FFWCC, SFWMD, WQSC, SFRPC, EPA,
USFWS, Army CaE, and other interested parties to include representatives of environmental
organizations and development interests.
E. Continue eliminating cesspits and inoperative septic tanks in areas outside of Hot Spots.
Agencies: County, DOH, FKAA and WQSC.
YEAR SIX (July 13,2002 through July 12,2003)
A. Continue construction of wastewater facilities in Hot Spots begun in previous year. Contract to
design and construct additional wastewater treatment facilities in Hot Spots in accordance with
the schedule of the Wastewater Master Plan. Continue implementation of Wastewater Master
Plan with emphasis on Hot Spots.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DEP, DOW, DCA, EPA and WQSC.
B. Initiate construction of selected projects as identified in the Storm Water Master Plan.
Agencies: County, SFWMD, DEP, DCA, DOT, EPA and WQSC.
C. Implement the carrying capacity study by, among other things, the adoption of all necessary plan
amendments to establish a rate of growth and a set of development standards that ensure that any
and all new development does not exceed the capacity of the county's environment and marine
system to accommodate additional impacts. Plan amendments will include a review of the
County's Future Land Use Map series and changes to the map series and the "as of right" and
"maximum" densities authorized for the plan's future land use categories based upon the natural
character of the land and natural resources that would be impacted by the currently authorized
land uses, densities and intensities.
Agencies: County, FKAA, FFWCC, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, SFWMD, SFRPC, EPA, Army
CaE, WQSC, and USFWS, and other interested parties to include representatives of environ-
mental organizations and development interests.
D. Complete the elimination of all cesspits in areas outside of Hot Spots. Agencies: County, FKAA,
DOH and WQSC.
E. Develop a Keys-wide master land acquisition plan which shall include:
(I) A strategy for the acquisition of those properties which should be preserved due their habitat
value as well as those other properties where future development is to be discouraged.
(2) A management plan for implementing the strategy, and
(3) A reasonable, feasible plan for securing funding for said land acquisition.
Agencies: County, Land Authority, DCA, DEP, SFWMD, Army CaE, EPA,
USFWS, and other interested parties to include representatives of environmental or-
ganizations and development interests.
]mplementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 28 -
F. Initiate and complete a collaborative process for the adoption of land development regulations,
and/or comprehensive plan amendments as needed, that will strengthen the protection of terres-
trial habitat through processes such as the Permit Allocation System and permitting processes,
and the preservation and maintenance of affordable housing stock.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, FFWC, USFWS, and other interested parties to include represen-
tatives of environmental organizations and development interests.
YEAR SEVEN (July 13,2003 through July 12,2004)
A. Finalize construction and begin operating wastewater facilities in Hot Spots. Continue implemen-
tation of Wastewater Master Plan with continued emphasis on Hot Spots.
Agencies: County, FKAA, DEP, DCA, DOH, EPA and WQSC
B. Continue implementing selected projects as identified in the Storm Water Master Plan.
Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOT, SFWMD, EPA and WQSC
Implementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 29 -
Prom the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
GOAL 105
Monroe County shall undertake a comprehensive land acquisition program and smart growth initia-
tives in conjunction with its Livable CommuniKeys Program in a manner that recognizes the finite
capacity for new development in the Florida Keys by providing economic and housing opportunities
for residents without compromising the biodiversity of the natural environment and the continued
ability of the natural and made-made systems to sustain livable communities in the Florida Keys for
future generations.
Objective 105.1
Monroe County shall implement smart growth initiatives in conjunction with its Livable
CommuniKeys and Land Acquisition Programs which promote innovative and flexible de-
velopment processes to preserve the natural environment, maintain and enhance the commu-
nity character and quality of life, redevelop blighted commercial and residential areas, re-
move barriers to design concepts, reduce sprawl, and direct future growth to appropriate in-
fill areas.
Policy 105.1.1
Monroe County shall create an economic development framework for a sustainable visi-
tor-based economy, not dependent on growth in the absolute numbers of tourists, that
respects the unique character and outdoor recreational opportunities available in the Flor-
ida Keys.
Policy 105.1.2
Monroe County shall prepare design guidelines to ensure that future uses and develop-
ment are compatible with scenic preservation and maintenance of the character of the
casual island village atmosphere of the Florida Keys.
Policy 105.1.3
Monroe County shall prepare development standards and amend the Land Development
Regulations to limit non-residential allocations for new floor space on anyone site to
foster the retention and redevelopment of small businesses on the US # 1.
Policy 105.1.4
Monroe County shall prepare redevelopment standards and amend the Land Develop-
ment Regulations to address the large number of non-conforming commercial structures
that are non-compliant as to on-site parking, construction and shoreline setbacks, storm-
water management, landscaping and buffers. By identifying the existing character and
constraints of the different island communities, regulations can be adopted that provide
incentives for redevelopment and permit the continuance of businesses while moving
towards an integrated streetscape.
Jmplementing Goal l05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 30 -
Policy 105.1.5
Monroe County shall prepare amendments to this Plan and its Land Development Regu-
lations that comprehensively revise the existing residential permit allocation system to
direct the preponderance of future residential development to areas designated as an
overlay on the zoning map(s) as lnfill (Tier Ill) in accordance with Policy 105.2.2.
Policy 105.1.6
Monroe County shall prepare amendments to this Plan and its Land Development Regu-
lations that comprehensively revise the existing non-residential permit allocation system
in a manner that implements Policies 105.2.1 and 105.2.15 and is consistent with and
furthers this Plan.
Obiective 105.2
Monroe County shall implement with assistance of the state and federal governments a 20-
year Land Acquisition Program to: I) secure for conservation and passive recreation pur-
poses remaining privately-owned environmentally sensitive lands; 2) retire development
rights on privately-owned vacant lands to limit further sprawl and equitably balance the
rights of property owners with the long-term sustainability of the Keys man-made and natu-
ral systems; and, 3) secure and retain lands suitable for affordable housing. This objective
recognizes the finite limits of the carrying capacity of the natural and man-made systems in
the Florida Keys to continually accommodate further development and the need for the sig-
nificant expansion of the public acquisition of vacant developable lands and development
rights to equitably balance the rights and expectations of property owners.
Policy 105.2.1
Monroe County shall designate all lands outside of mainland Monroe County into three
general categories for purposes of its Land Acquisition Program and smart growth initia-
tives. These three categories are: Natural Area (Tier I); Transition and Sprawl Reduc-
tion Area (Tier II); and lnfill Area (Tier Ill).
1. Natural Area (Tier I): Any defined geographic area where all or a significant portion
of the land area is characterized as environmentally sensitive by the policies of this Plan
and applicable habitat conservation plan, is to be designated as a Natural Area. New de-
velopment on vacant land is to be severely restricted and privately owned vacant lands
are to be acquired or development rights retired for resource conservation and passive
recreation purposes. However, this does not preclude provisions of infrastructure for
existing development. Within the Natural Area designation are typically found lands
within the acquisition boundaries of federal and state resource conservation and park ar-
eas, including isolated platted subdivisions; and privately-owned vacant lands with sensi-
tive environmental features outside these acquisition areas.
2. Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II): Any defined geographic area, where
scattered groups and fragments of environmentally sensitive lands, as defined by this
Plan, may be found and where existing platted subdivisions are not predominately devel-
oped, not served by complete infrastructure facilities, or not within close proximity to
established commercial areas, is to be designated as a Transition and Sprawl Reduction
Area. New development is to be discouraged and privately owned vacant lands acquired
or development rights retired to reduce sprawl, ensure that the Keys carrying capacity is
not exceeded, and prevent further encroachment on sensitive natural resources. Within a
Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area are typically found: scattered small non-
residential development and platted subdivisions with less than 50 percent of the lots
~n ~ _~ ~ ~
Implementing Goal] 05 and the Canying Capacity Study
- 31 -
developed; incomplete infrastructure in terms of paved roads, potable water, or electric- ,
ity; and scattered clusters of environmentally sensitive lands, some of which are within
or in close proximity to existing platted subdivisions.
3. Infill Area (Tier Ill): Any defined geographic area, where a significant portion ofland
area is not characterized as environmentally sensitive as defined by this Plan, where ex-
isting platted subdivisions are substantially developed, served by complete infrastructure
facilities, and within close proximity to established commercial areas, or where a con-
centration of non-residential uses exists, is to be designated as an Infill Area. New de-
velopment and redevelopment are to be highly encouraged. Within an Infill Area are
typically found: platted subdivisions with 50 percent or more developed lots situated in
areas with few sensitive environmental features; full range of available public infrastruc-
ture in terms of paved roads, potable water, and electricity; and concentrations of com-
mercial and other non-residential uses within close proximity. In some Infill Areas, a
mix of non-residential and high-density residential uses (generally 8 units or more per
acre) may also be found that form a Community Center.
Policy 105.2.2
Monroe County shall prepare an overlay map(s) designating geographic areas of the
County as one of the three Tiers in accordance with the guidance in Policy 105.2.1,
which shall be incorporated as an overlay on the zoning map(s) with supporting text
amendments in the Land Development Regulations. These maps are to be used to guide
the Land Acquisition Program and the smart growth initiatives in conjunction with the
Livable CommuniKeys Program (Policy 101.20.1).
Policy 105.2.3
The priority for acquisition of lands and development rights under the County's Land
Acquisition Program shall be as follows: Tier I (Natural Area)-first priority; Tier II
(Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area)-second priority; and Tier III (lnfill Area)- third
priority, except acquisition of land for affordable housing shall also be a first priority.
These acquisition priorities shall be applied consistent with the Policy 105.2.10 that di-
rects the focus of the County's acquisition efforts to the acquisition or retirement of de-
velopment rights of privately owned vacant platted subdivision lots within Tiers I and II.
Federal, State and local funding will be used for purchasing privately owned vacant
lands for Tier II.
Policy 105.2.4
Monroe County shall prepare a specific data base tied to its Geographic Information Sys-
tem, containing information needed to implement, monitor, and evaluate its Land Acqui-
sition Program, smart growth initiatives, and Livable CommuniKeys Program.
Policy 105.2.5
Monroe County shall, in coordination with federal and state agencies, implement a land
acquisition program to acquire all remaining privately-owned vacant lands within areas
designated as a Natural Area (Tier I).
Policy 105.2.6
Monroe County shall implement a land acquisition program to acquire most privately
owned vacant private lands within areas designated as a Transition and Sprawl Reduc-
tion Area (Tier JI).
JmpJementing Goal J 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 32 -
Policy 105.2.7
Monroe County shall implement a limited land acquisition program to acquire privately
owned vacant lands with sensitive environmental features for conservation purposes and
scarified properties for affordable housing within areas designated as an Infill Area (Tier
Ill).
Policy 105.2.8
The preferred method for acquisition of environmentally sensitive privately owned va-
cant non-platted lands shall be fee simple purchase, donation, or dedication or the retire-
ment of development rights through transfer of development rights or similar mecha-
nIsms.
Policy 105.2.9
The preferred method for acquisition of vacant platted lots shall be fee simple purchase,
donation, or dedication or the retirement of development rights thorough transfer of de-
velopment rights or similar mechanisms; however, wherever appropriate, platted lots
may be purchased in partnership with adjoining property owner(s) subject to a conserva-
tion easement that may allow limited accessory residential uses.
Policy 105.2.10
In terms of effort, Monroe County shall primarily focus its Land Acquisition Program on
the acquisition or retirement of development rights of vacant privately-owned platted lots
within Tier I and Tier 11 and the acquisition of scarified and disturbed lands for afford-
able housing within Tier Ill. This policy recognizes the critical need for the County to
aggressively address the imbalance between development expectations of private prop-
erty owners and the finite carrying capacity of the natural and man-made systems in the
Florida Keys.
Policy 105.2.11
Monroe County shall petition the federal and state governments to aggressively pursue
the acquisition of all remaining privately-owned vacant lands within their park and con-
servation acquisition boundaries and to expand existing acquisition boundaries to include
other lands in close proximity with similar environmentally sensitive features.
Policy 105.2.12
With respect to the relief granted pursuant to Policy 106.1 (Administrative Relief) or
Policy 101.18.5 (Beneficial Use), a purchase offer shall be the preferred form of relief
for any land within Tier I and Tier II, or any land within Tier III having conservation
value in accordance with the criteria in Policy 101.6.5.
Policy 105.2.13
In implementing this Land Acquisition Program, Monroe County is only committed or
financially obligated to the extent that local, state, and federal funds are available.
Policy 105.2.14
Monroe County shall identify and secure possible local sources to yield a steady source
of funds and secure increased funding from state and federal, and/or private sources for
the Land Acquisition Program and the management and restoration of acquired resource
conservation lands. With the uncertainty concerning the County's ability to successfully
secure sufficient funding from state and federal governments for their fair share of the
financial support for the Land Acquisition Program and the demands placed on the
County's limited financial resources to address wastewater and other critical issues, it is
Jmplementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 33 -
recognized that the Land Acquisition Program may extend well beyond 20 years.
Policy 105.2.15
Where appropriate, as part of the Livable Communi Keys Planning Process, Community
Centers shall be designated within areas designated as Tier III (Infill Area). A Commu-
nity Center is characterized as a defined geographic area with a mix of retail, personal
service, office and tourist and residential uses (generally of greater than 8 units per acre).
Community Centers shall be designated as receiving areas for transfer of development
rights and shall receive special incentives in the non-residential permit allocation system.
Obiective 105.3
Monroe County shall implement its 20- Year Land Acquisition Program and smart growth
initiatives in conjunction with its Livable CommuniKeys Program and shall make appropri-
ate amendments to this Plan and the Land Development Regulations including, but not nec-
essarily limited to the residential and non-residential permit allocation systems.
]mplementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 34 -
From the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study
Final Draft Report
5.0 DISCUSSION
5.1 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS AND SPECIES
Land development in the Florida Keys has displaced nearly 50 percent of all upland habitats, as well
as large areas of saltwater wetlands. Over 90 percent of the remaining uplands are distributed in
patches of 10 acres or less. In the Florida Keys, upland patches of less than 13 acres are considered to
have lost key ecological functions (Bancroft 1994). Small patches of forests show lower biodiversity,
increased vulnerability to invasion by exotic plant and animal species and decreased gene flow within
and among populations. Any further encroachment into areas dominated by native vegetation would
exacerbate habitat loss and fragmentation. Development in the Florida Keys has surpassed the capac-
ity of upland habitats to withstand further development.
The secondary and indirect effects of development further contribute to habitat loss and fragmenta-
tion. Little habitat remains unaffected by development's secondary effects. While difficult to quan-
tify, indirect effects cause significant habitat degradation, especially on small patches of habitat. Any
further development in the Florida Keys would exacerbate secondary and indirect impacts to remain-
ing habitat.
Terrestrial habitats in the Florida Keys show a combination of tropical, Caribbean and temperate spe-
cies that are unique to the U.S., which is exemplified by over 100 species that occur only in the Flor-
ida Keys. Habitat loss is likely the most important cause of species depletion in the area, resulting in
the protected legal status of dozens of species of plants and animals. Virtually every native area in the
Keys is potential habitat for one or more protected species. Two species endemic to the Lower Keys,
the Lower Keys marsh rabbit and the silver rice rat, are highly restricted and likely could not with-
stand further habitat loss without facing extinction. The Key deer, while largely recovered from
population numbers as low as 25 in the 1950s, has a restricted range and will continue to face threats
to its viability if development occurs in prime habitat. In the Upper Keys, large tracts of uplands are
already under government ownership, yet privately owned uplands are also potential habitat for pro-
tected species such as the Schaus swallowtail butterfly or the Key Largo woodrat. Throughout the
Florida Keys, any further development of native habitats would likely negatively affect one or more
protected species. Development in the Florida Keys has surpassed the capacity of several protected
species to withstand the effects of further development activities.
Under current regulations, development suitability in the Florida Keys is extremely restricted. Be-
sides privately owned parcels in infill locations or already disturbed areas, the vast majority of pri-
vate lands face one or more development constraints. The FKCCS developability analysis was con-
servative in removing wetland parcels - over 50 percent of all private lands were removed largely
due to this constraint. Development suitability was low or marginal for most of the remaining lands,
due to open space requirements, lack of infrastructure or other factors.
Successful restoration of lands to create large patches of terrestrial habitats and to reestablish connec-
tivity seems improbable. Restoration would require the conversion of large developed areas to native
Implementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 35 -
habitat, a goal that would face legal constraints, as well as high costs, uncertain probability of suc- ,
cess, and a long timeframe for execution. Continuing and intensifying vacant land acquisition and
restoration programs may provide more and faster returns in terms of consolidating protection of
habitats in the Florida Keys.
5.2 INFRASTRUCTURE
The six future scenarios evaluated in the study call for a small amount of growth in the next 20 years -less than 10
percent growth in the number of dwelling units and population. Therefore, incremental pressures on infrastructure
capacity are also moderate over a 20-yearperiod. However, current conditions and the evaluation offuture scenar-
ios suggest that even small amounts of growth in the Florida Keys may place stringent demands on some infra-
structure capacity.
The last two annual traffic studies for Monroe County (Monroe County 2001, 2002) have estimated a
residential capacity of just over 6,000 units. Large year-to-year fluctuations on both traffic volumes
and median speeds, even in the absence of significant development, introduce uncertainty to any fu-
ture prediction of the levels of traffic on U.S.-1. The amount of growth evaluated in the future scenar-
ios would likely result in changes in traffic within the observed recent fluctuations. In the absence of
structural improvement to U .S.-l, the level of service will continue to be close to its state-mandated
standard.
Similarly, hurricane evacuation clearance times would continue to increase as population increases,
unless measures are taken to improvement evacuation conditions. Improvements to U .S.-l, while
resulting in lower clearance times, would add to the government costs, nutrient loadings, and indirect
impacts to wildlife and habitats.
Water withdrawals in the Florida Keys doubled from 1980 to 2000; they increased by 50% in the
1990s, even though development was restricted by ROGO. In the absence of effective water conser-
vation or reuse measures, withdrawal is likely to continue to increase in the next 20 years. Permitted
capacity has already been exceeded in 1999 and 2000, and model projections suggest that permit vio-
lations would continue to occur in the future scenarios. Alternative water supplies would help meet
the needs for additional water. Interim measures, such as the continuous operations of two existing
reverse osmosis plants (3 MGD) or the expansion of treatment facilities, would help cover demands
in the short term. In the long-term, a desalination plant could meet a growing demand for water. Im-
plementation of a desal plant would include choosing an appropriate location, as well as significant
capital and maintenance costs.
5.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL
The six future scenarios evaluated in the FKCCS contemplate small increases in permanent popula-
tion, which are unlikely to affect the overall socioeconomic structure of the Florida Keys.
The increase in the number of visitors contemplated in Scenario 3 would impose additional demands
on tourist-related land uses, water supply, and recreation opportunities.
In contrast, the six future scenarios would result in a disproportionate increase in government expen-
ditures with respect to the projected increase in population. Per capita annual expenditures are likely
to increase in all the scenarios, creating immediate pressure for government to increase revenue. Tax
increases on both the local population and visitors would likely occur.
Jmplementing Goal] 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 36 -
5.4 MARINE ECOSYSTEMS AND SPECIES
The existing data are insufficient to establish quantitative, predictive relationships between land use
or development and the marine environment. However, there is plenty of evidence of human effects
on the marine ecosystems and species in the Florida Keys.
Seagrass scars, boat groundings, beach closings, coral collisions, and poor water quality in canals and
other confined waters clearly expose the effects of humans on the marine environment. The CCIAM
scenario analysis strongly argues for the benefits of wastewater treatment, but other impacts are more
related to resource management than to land development. Recreational opportunities in the Florida
Keys attract visitors from the Keys and beyond. Once in the Keys the impacts that boaters, fisher- .
men, snorkellers, divers and others may have on the marine resources is largely related to their be-
havior.
5.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FKCCS
The FKCCS will assist state and local government in making decisions regarding amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan to ensure that future development does not exceed the capacity of the county's
environment and marine systems to accommodate additional impacts.
The study and the CCIAM provide a comprehensive body of knowledge and an effective analysis
tool to explore the carrying capacity consequences of development strategies in the Florida Keys.
The findings of the study suggest four main guidelines for future development in the Florida Keys:
1. Prevent encroachment into native habitat. A wealth of evidence shows that terrestrial habitats
and species have been severely affected by development and further impactswould only exacerbate
an already untenable condition.
2. Continue and intensify existing programs. Many initiatives to improve environmental condi-
tions and quality of life exist in the Florida Keys. They include land acquisition programs, the waste-
water and storm water master plans, ongoing research and management activities in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary, and restoration efforts throughout the Keys.
3. If further development is to occur, focus on redevelopment and infill. Opportunities for addi-
tional growth with small, potentially acceptable, additional environmental impacts may occur in areas
ripe for redevelopment or already disturbed.
4. Increase efforts to manage the resources. Habitat management efforts in the Keys
could increase to effectively preserve and improve the ecological values of remaining terrestrial eco-
systems.
JmpJementing Goal J 05 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 37 -
Data and Map Sources
. The report entitled, "Legal Analysis of Existing Platted Lots in Monroe County, Florida,
Final Report" was used as a base for the Tier Report. It was created by Freilich, Leitner,
Carlisle & Shortlidge and is dated December, 10, 1991.
. The Monroe County Land Use Regulations and Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan to deter-
mine the environmental development criteria and land use districts (Improved Subdivi-
sion (IS), Urban Residential Mobile (URM) (URM-L), or Commercial Fishing Village
(CFV)). ,
. Parcel data from the County Tax Appraiser was used to designate parcels within the Tier
GIS data layer as: vacant residential, vacant institutional, privately owned vacant parcels,
and publicly owned lands. The vintage of the Tax Appraiser's data is March 2004.
. The Monroe County Land Use District Maps (dated January 19, 1988) and Comprehen-
sive Book of Errata for Land Use District Maps (dated June 27, 1988 through June 18,
2001) were used to determine current zoning.
. Real Estate Solutions Aerial photos (dated December, 2000) were used to further exam-
ine parcel habitat.
. The Florida Marine Resources Institute ADID habitat maps (dated 1991) in GIS format
were used to identify developed, exotic, hammock and red flag (mangroves, scrub man-
groves, saltmarsh, buttonwood, freshwater pine, freshwater marsh and freshwater hard-
wood) habitat.
. ADID Subdivision Lot Assessment Report (also known as Wet Lot List) was used to fur-
ther identify lots within subdivisions that actually contained red flag or hammock habitat.
. Data from the Monroe County Building Department was used in an effort to identify and
exclude lots with active new residential permits. Records of new modulars, detached
homes and duplexes without a Certificate of Occupancy prior to February 2003, were
used to identify and exclude lots with active new residential permits.
. Monroe County Planning Commission approved ROGO allocations through January 8,
2003.
. Florida Natural Area Inventory (FNAI) GIS data layers were used to ensure uniform re-
porting of acreage data used in the Florida Keys Ecosystem project. The data was also
used to determine proposed, and the most recent, state acquisition of lands in unincorpo-
rated Monroe County.
. Monroe County Land Authority property data was used to assess the most recent and
proposed land acquisitions.
. Florida Department of Transportation Aerials (dated December 1985) was used to vali-
date the existing sensitive habitat at the time of the adoption of the Monroe County Land
Development Regulations.
lmplementing Goal 105 and the Carrying Capacity Study
- 38 -
Tier Designation
_ Tier I
DTierll
_ Tier III
_ Military Land
-US1
, Mile Marker
o
0.25
0,5
.
Tlli~ InIlp .Im MODl'W (:oumy Gro"fttt M.nq:emml Divi!;1l1n
p~ otll)'. The datae<JOUlinedbcrein i_ illUlfrUive mdm.y
nacllC':unklydepKt~patalll. m. righlllfwaY"l,
Of ideruifiQ;l1ot11D!brmImon
l'r'-'pard By: KR lJa1<': IIilXdJ4
Miles
Monroe County Tier Overlay District Map
Ma 14: Mile Marker 98 to 103
"
Tier Designation
_Tierl
DTierll
_Tierlll
_ Military Land
-US1
, Mile MarKer
..
,,~::;/
Thi, ~i& fot Monr'<;leCOWIl)'Growtb J.1~nlfJ'V~101l
~l,>ll\}',The..~bcRlin",ilhll1nli~lIldm&,.
ngt..o;;un.letydcp1rt~p.rce18.roads..nJhlofw...)"J.
Ol" idmhtleatt.OII information
1'r~rarL'dBy: KR JJaI<:: IJllxu4
o
0.25
0.5
.
Miles
Monroe County Tier Overlay District Map
Ma 13: Mile Marker 94 to 98
Tier Designation
_Tierl
DTier11
_ Tier III
_ Military Land
-US1
Mile Marker
o
,
0.25
0.5
.
Miles
~w
~~,-",,./
Thil ~ i$ fot MOltl'OCl CawrtyUn!1Io1h M-.cmenl Dtvnlon
'P1a'JIOIft unl)' The drda C<.IIItfiMd herein it illuaTui\'e IrId may
liCIt llI;<.-unklty depict buundarie&. pm;el~. mad&. nthl of waY",
or idenrirlQliOll mfunMnon
1'r~pafLxll\y: KR Dille: ILl", 1)4
Monroe County Tier Overlay District Map
Map 12: Mile Marker 91 to 94
o
0.25
0.5
.
Miles
Tier Designation
_Tierl
DTierll
_Tierlll
_ Military Land
-US1
, Mile Mar1<er
'<'~~>
Ihj~ tnapll: Iw Monroe Cowny Growth ~ Di\%l<JII
'PlIJlX*' I,1flly. The dMa euntliDed benrirI i. il~~ I!ld ml1
not lK,urately dIopict bollndlries.. p.Ne1!. roads. nJbI of In,..,
", idenrirlt.al101l i1Ifannanon
l'rcpareJ By: KR I)al.:: 11,1:{.04
~
::;E
.joool
() -
'C r-
t) 0
.- .joool
00
;>..\0
ro I-<
- (])
I-<~
~ ~
O::;E
~ (])
.- -
E-< .-
;>..::;E
.joool
S-
o-
uo..
ro
e::;E
l:::
o
::;E
c:
.2 -g "'~
- '"
III -' ~
c: C;> '"
mQi.~~~ :E
'~i=I-~~~~
~ 10111
I-
s n~
= d 6~~
l.i I t ~
~hi
\ fill
'\\ ,~ ~ ; i
/.Qllu:2
v uH~
i ~a' ~
& ~H g
~. '
H:
(J)
It) ~
ci ~
o
..
0..
~
::E
--
uO'\
'C ("I")
t;) 0
.- --
0..-
>>("1")
~ ;...
...... <l)
~~
;> ~
O::E
~ <l)
.- ......
E--o .-
o::E
~ ..
;::::sO
0"-
u~
8::E
;...
~
o
::E
c
.2 -g CD
n; ~ ~
c ~ '"
.2>iQ;~~~~
! ioii j'
I-
.
III
'" .91
ci ~
o
C "0
Oem
:;; '" ~
III ~ ~
a,::=::~~~Q)
~ loii r
i=
-
";;l H~
.;s ,> ~ !r;
=.... Q--C
9 C 'ii!f.
Ii ~~"
t> jH~
<;."e
/;l ~ !H~
'. '-' 'ilia "'.
If"he;
~uij~"
/ iL~,:;
::,H'~
& ~~i' ~
f' ~
~b
on
c:i
on III
N ~
c:i ~
0
,
c:
o "0
:;:: C Q;
III j ~
c: c:- '"
.2IiQ;-~~~
~I=F~~3=
~ 10111 :
~
iE i
is i'O'
il ' -
~~~
~n~
~ . "~
'\ J g - ~
\ "i.
" l'
J}f.H;:;
f I "-' B ~ II: '.
p~l~
. ~ ~~'!;
J& H k
"'~
...~
~~~
Q;
-l!:
co
:::;:
~-=:;:~;;;~
C) ~Ql Q; ,'l! iiE ::J :::;:
~ 101. I
i=
A
ro
::E
LO
o
'"
~ J!!
o ~
'"
a
'" III
~ ~
o ~
o
---
~
0..00
~::>
::E~
t) 0
'C ...s:::::
...... ......
.~ ::s
O~
~'-'
~O\
~~
0) 0
:> ......
0\0
l-4 ~
0)
.-
E--~
.oa
s::E
o 0)
u:-::::
O)::E
8
c::
~ft
::E
"C
ffi Q;
-' -l!:
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
(j; Q) CD
i= F i=
10111 -
"0 (;;
ffi -l!:
-' '"
lI:l _ ~ ::<
c-;:::~~;;;~
.21 CI) !!1 i= ::< :::> ::<
~ 10111 -
j::
III
0
III '"
.9!
I "! ~
a
a
...,
...
I
...
,
,
In
o
c
o
:; "C
~ j Q;
.2" ~ - ~ ~
III ~ ~ Q; ~ ~ ::0
~ loii i ~
I
In Ul
N ~
o :E
o
H~
::::~ ;.
...., iSi'O-;J-
ltf. "
.. t:: 2
~f=
j; -~ -"
, H~g
\<~ d.o:; l.a
:~\fli~~
/:~"d~ >
I ~7 ~~~~~
' i~r ~
~ 1!t -
~, ;
~ i~
I
0..
~
:s
......
U
'C ~
............
.~ 0
0......
~O\
~ l-<
...... Q)
l-<~
Q) l-<
;;> ~
O:S
l-< (])
(])......
.......... ..........
~:s
.0..
S~
o 0..
-- U ~
Q):S
8
~
o
:s
U')
0
U') VI
I N ~
0 ~
o
C 1:l
o ffi ~
i ...J co
C = == ~ ::.
.2>>~(pCD~;;;~
~ iDii I ::.
j::
--
u
'!:: \0
t:) 0
.- --
0"",
~;....
C\S Q)
"'C~
(I) C\3
b~
;.... Q)
(I):;::
E=~
.c..
:=::-
~ 0..
o C\3
u~
(I)
o
;....
:=::
o
~
Ltl
o
c:: "0 m
o fa ~
.- ~ m
'tii _ ~ ::;;
c::_==:~;;;~
C)~Q;Q)==>::;;
~ itSil I
i=
-:t
'"
Ltl Q)
N ==
o ::;;
o
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
IMPLEMENT REVISIONS TO ROGO
ANDNROGO
[LOTTERY OPTION]
AMENDMENT #1
Amend Policy 101.2.3 as follows:1
Policy 101.2.3
The Permit Allocation System for new residential (ROGO) development shall
specify procedures for:
1. annual adjustment of the number of permits for new residential units to be
issued during the next year based upon, but not limited to the following:
a. the number of permits for new residential 1.Hlits iss1:led during the
previo1:ls year, ine1uding permits whieh did not result in eompleted
units or acti'/e progress towards sueh completion as defined by the
Land De'/elopmen-t Regulatiofls; and
b. application of the updated transportation model of the Lower
Southeast Florida Hurricane Evao1:lation Study eyery fi'/e years or
when \varranted by implementation of roadway capacity
improvements, new behavioral data, or substantial changes in
development patterns (see ConservatioR and Coastal Maflagement
Element Policy 216.1.5);
a. expired allocations and building permits in previous year:
b. allocations available, but not allocated in previous year~
c. number of allocations borrowed from future Quarters~
d. vested allocations~
e. modifications required or provided by this plan or agreement pursuant
to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes~ and,
1 Except where further noted, these revisions reflect the updates made to ROGO since the comprehensive plan
was adopted and revises the apparent conflict in the text of point 2 with the content of Policy 101.2.4. Rather
than allocating between single and multi-family unit types, allocations are by affordable and market rate
housing.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 1 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
f. receipt or transfer of affordable housing allocations by
intergovernmental agreement.
2.
allocation of single aB:G multi family unit types affordable and
market rate housing units in accordance with Policy 1 0 1.2.4~t-aBEl
~4.
timing of the acceptance of applications. evaluation of applications.
and issuance of permits for new residential development during the
calendar year.
AMENDMENT #2
Amend Policy 101.2.4 as follows:3
Policy 101.2.4
Monroe County shall allocate at least 20 percent of residential (non-transient) growth to
affordable housing units as part of the Permit Allocation System. Any portion of the 20
percent allocation not used for affordable housing shall be retained and be made available for
affordable housing from ROGO year to ROGO year. Affordable housing eligible for this
separate allocation mHSt shall meet the criteria specified in Policy 601.1.7. and shall not be
subiect to the Residential Permit Allocation and Point SyStem in Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.5
The parcel proposed for development affordable housing shall not be located in an aequisition
area and shall not qualify for negatiye points aeoorctmg to the criteria spooified under HaBitat
Protection and Threatened or Endangered Animal Speeies in Folie)' 101.5.4; R0\VeVer,
properties designated Residential High shall be eKem.pted from this prohibition. within an area
designated as Tier I as set forth under Goal 1 05.
AMENDMENT #3
Amend Policy 101.3.1 as follows:4
Policy 101.3.1
Monroe County shall maintain a balance between residential and non-residential
growth by limiting the gross square footage of non-residential development o':er the
15 year planning horizon in order to maintain a ratio of approximately 239 square
2 This revision incorporates the concept of making market rate housing unit allocations available competitively
and through a lottery system.
3 This revision reflects that affordable housing will no longer compete under ROGO, but will still be subject to
the limits on number of affordable ROGO allocations that can be awarded. In addition, the revision reflects
the elimination of negative environmental point categories in ROGO with the use of the Tier system.
4 Amendments to this policy are intended to provide the basis for making amendments to the floor space to
dwelling unit ratio as needed to accommodate changing needs and policies. The County has already had one
study completed concerning market demand for non-residential development and shortly the results of more
in-depth report on market demand and needs for non-residential floor area will be completed.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 2 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
feet of new non-residential development for each new residential unit permitted
through the Residential Permit Allocation System. This ratio may be modified from
,
time to time through amendments to the land development regulations based upon
market and other relevant studies as required by policy 101.3.5. The ratio for
cOIIlfl'lercial allocation shall be reyised upon oompletion of the economio baseline
analysis required by policy 101.3.5 which shall be completed no later than Jantiary 4,
~ The commercial allocation allowed by this policy shall be uniformly
distributed oyer the 15 year plar.ning horizon on an annual basis. consistent with the
Residential Permit Allocation system as set forth in Policy 101.2.1. \lfithiN ONe year
of the effeotiye date of this plan, Monroe Coliflty shall amend this policy to specify
the aTIrn:lal alloy/able square footage based upon the Number of residential units
allo'.ved by year using the ratio set forth in this policy.
AMENDMENT #4
Amend Policy 101.3.3 as follows:5
Policy 101.3.3
The Permit Allocation System for new non-residential (NROGO) development shall
specify procedures for:
1. the annual adjustment of the square footage allocation for ef new non-
residential development to be permitted during the next year based upon. but
not limited to:
a) the square footage ef allocated for new non-residential development
oompleted that expired during the previous year;
b) strict regulations regarding completion schedules of permitted
activities shall be developed and enforced to preclude repeated
rene\val of eKpired permits; and
b) the amount of square footage available for allocations but not
allocated in previous year:
c) modifications required or provided by this plan: and.
d) receipt or transfer of floor area by intergovernmental agreement.
2. maintaining a ratio of approximately 239 square feet of new non-residential
development for each new residential unit permitted through the Permit
Allocation System. as may be amended from time to time in accordance with
Policy 101.3.1; and,
S This policy has been revised to make the policy direction more concise and clear and to reflect other
revisions to NROGO proposed in this amendment package.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 3 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
3. timing of the acceptance of applications, evaluation of applications, and
issuance of permits for new non-residential development during the calendar
year.
AMENDMENT #5
Amend Policy 101.3.4 as follows:6
Policy 101.3.4
Public facilities Shall be exempted from the requirements of the Permit Allocation System for
new non-residential development. Except within Tier I designated areas, Gcertain
development activity by federally tax-exempt not-for-profit educational, scientific, health,
religious, social, cultural, and recreational organizations may be exempted from the Permit
Allocation System by the Board of County Commissioners after review by the Planning
Commission upon a finding that such activity will predominately serve the County's non-
transient population. All public and institutional uses that predominately serve the County's
non-transient population and which house temporary residents shall be included in the Permit
Allocation System for residential development, except upon factual demonstration that such
transient occupancy is of such a nature so as not to adversely impact the hurricane evacuation
clearance time of Monroe County.
AMENDMENT #6
Amend Policy 101.3.5 as follows: 7
Policy 101.3.5
By January 4, 1998 July 2005, Monroe County shall complete ~ an eooBomie base
analysis market demand analysis and economic assessment in order to determine the
demand for future non-residential development in Monroe County and planning sub-
areas. The non-residential development allocation and Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) designations for non-residential uses shall be may be revised based upon
the results of this study and other relevant policy and economic studies and data and
provide the basis for preparing specific amendments to the comprehensive plan to
incorporate goals, obiectives and policies on economic development including
tourism. The economie base analysis will address existing non-residential uses,
vacancy rates, economic trends and demand for non-residential uses by planning
sub-area.
6 This revision reflects recent amendments to LDRs to preclude exemptions for not-for-profits within
Conservation and Natural Areas (Tier I).
7 This amendment reflects the current market and economic strategy study being completed by the Chesapeake
Group, which will provide the basis for making changes in future land use designations and in eventual
preparation of economic development policies for the County as an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendrnents-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 4 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
AMENDMENT #7
Amend Policy 101.4.21 by adding (i) under "Notes" in the table entitled ''Future Land'Use Densities
and futensities" that reads as follows:
(i) The Maximum Net Density is the maximum density allowable with the use of TDRs.
AMENDMENT #8
Amend Objective 101.5 as follows:8
Obiective 101.5
Monroe County shall implement a Point System based primarily on the Tier system
of land classification in accordance with Goal 105, which directs future growth in
order to: 9
1. encourage the redevelopment and renewal of blighted areas [9J-5.006(3)(b)2];
2. maintain and enhance the character of the community [9J-5.006(3)(b)3];
3. protect natural resources [9J-5.006(3)(b)4];
4. encourage a compact pattern of development [9J-5.006(3)(b)7]; ami
5. encourage the development of affordable housing; and.
6 encourage development in areas served by central wastewater treatment systems.
AMENDMENT #9
Amend Policy 101.5.1 as follows:1o
8 This revision reflects the incorporation of the Tier system as the framework for implementing the point
system.
9 This revision reflects the incorporation of positive points in the permit allocation system for development to
be connected to an existing central wastewater treatment system.
10 This revision updates the Policy and reflects the shift away from using negative points in ROGO. It
establishes a one-year time frame for its completion. Furthermore, it incorporates the use of a lottery system
for some portion of the market rate housing that requires applications to meet a minimum point threshold to be
eligible for selection.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 5 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
AMENDMENT #10
Amend Policy 101.5.2 as followS:11
Policy 101.5.2
fu order to encourage a compact form of residential growth, the Point System shaY assign
positiye point ratings to applicatiooo for new residential development y.'hiCfl 'lIoWd that resu1~
in infill development in platted, improved subdivisions . the Point System shall be primarily
based on the Tier sYStem ofland classification as set forth under Goal 105. [9J-5.006(3Xc)1
and 6]
AMEl'll>MENT #11
Amend Policy 101.5.3 as follows:12
Policy 101.5.3
In order to encourage a compact form of non-residential growth, the Permit
Allocation System shall limit and direct the amo1:1flt of new non-residential
development primarily to areas designated as Tier III and provide incentives for
redevelopment of existing and infill sites. (See Policy 101.3.1.) [9J-5.006(3)(c)l]
AMENDMENT #12
Create anew Policy 101.5.4 that reads as follows:13
11 This revision reflects the use of the Tier system for directing growth to specific areas. The Tier system takes
into account consideration of habitat, threatened and endangered species and availability of infrastructure and
services through its classification of properties into Tiers. The current system awards many properties within
platted subdivisions that are within environmentally sensitive habitat or have impacts on endangered and
threatened species.
12 The existing policy fails to adequately provide broad guidance to promote compact development and needs
to be amended to incorporate theTier System.
13 This new policy specifically authorizes the implementation of a dual system for awarding market rate
housing allocations, if the County so desires, and spells out the intended purpose of the two selection
processes. Basically, ROGO has been criticized as a rich man's game; the introduction of the hybrid system
will allow applicants who may not have the financial resources an opportunity to compete.i
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 6 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
AMENDMENT # 13
Delete existing Policy 101.5.4 in its entirety and replace with new Policy 101.5.5 that reads as
follows: 14
Policy 101.5.5
Monroe County shall implement the competitive selection process for awarding the
allocation of market rate housing in the Residential Permit Allocation and Point
System through its the land development regulations based primarily on the Tier
system of land classification as set forth under Goal 105. The points to be used in
this competitive selection process are intended to be applied cumulatively.
1. Tier Designation - Utilizing the Tier System for land classification in
Policy 105.2.1, the following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications for proposed dwelling units in a manner that encourages
development of infill, predominately developed areas with existing
infrastructure and few sensitive environmental features and discourages
development in areas with environmentally sensitive upland habitat,
which must be acquired or development rights retired for resource
conservation and protection. 15
Point Assif(nment: Criteria:
0 Proposes a dwelling unit
within areas designated
Tier I [Natural Area].
+10 Proposes development
within areas
designated Tier II
[Transiti6n and Sprawl
Reduction Area] on Big
Pine or No Name Key.
+20 Proposes development
within areas designated
14 The existing policy has been revised to reflect that it will only be used in the competitive process for market
rate allocations.
IS The Tier system is intended to provide the underlying base for directing growth under the revised ROGO
system. Rather than using negative points, the system uses a positive point approach which is legally more
defensible than one relying on negative scoring.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 7 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Tier II(Transition and
Sprawl Reduction Area]
outside of Big Pine or
No Name Key.
+20 Proposes development
within areas designated
Tier III (lnfill Area] on
Big Pine or No Name
Key.
+30 Proposes development
within areas designated
Tier III (lnfill Area]
outside of Big Pine or
No Name Key.
2. Big Pine and No Name Keys - The following negative points shall be
cumulatively assigned to allocation applications for proposed dwellings
to implement the Big Pine Key and No Name Key Habitat
Conservation Plan and the Livable CommuniKeys Community Master
Plan.
Point Assi~nment: Criteria:
-10 Proposes development
on No Name Key.
-10 Proposes development
in designated Lower
Keys Marsh Rabbit
habitat or buffer areas
as designated in the
Community Master
Plan.
-10 Proposes development
in Key Deer Corridor
as designated in the
Community Master
Plan.
3. Lot Aggregation - The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications to encourage the voluntary reduction of density through
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 8 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
aggregation of legally platted buildable lots within Tier II and Tier III
areas.T6 "
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+4 Proposes to aggregate
a contiguous vacant,
legally platted lot
within a Tier II or Tier
III area with sufficient
lot size and upland
area to be buildable
together with the
parcel proposed for
development.
+4 Each additional
" contiguous vacant,
legally platted lot
which is aggregated in
Tier II or III area that
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
additional points as
specified.
4. Land Dedication - The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications to encourage the voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable
land within Tier I and Tier II designated areas and certain legally,
platted lots and unplatted parcels in Tier I that are of insufficient size
to be buildable for the purposes of conservation, resource protection,
restoration or density reduction; and if located in Tier II or Tier III, for
the purpose of providing land for affordable housing, where
. 17
appropnate.
Point Assignment:
+4
Criteria:
Proposes dedication to
16 The revised lot aggregation system is similar to existing system except scoring has been changed to reflect
overall changes in scoring. Tier I areas are not eligible for aggregation and Policy 205.2.7 limits aggregation
points if clearing of upland native vegetation occurs in Tier II areas.
17 The land dedication scoring has been completely revised to reflect change in scoring and to allow more
flexibility in the sizes of property that may be dedicated. A major change has been to allow currently NA, SR
and SR-L lots, which are currently unbuildable due to lot size, to be eligible for ROGO dedication. In
addition, this policy spells out that lots dedicated in Tier II or Tier III may be used by the County for providing
land for affordable housing, where appropriate.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 9 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Monroe County of one
vacant, legally platted
lot of sufficient
minimum lot size and
upland area to be
buildable. Each
additional vacant,
legally platted lot that
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
points as specified.
+ 1 for each 5,000 square feet oflot size Proposes dedication to
Monroe County of a
vacant legally platted
lot of 5,000 square
feet or more in size,
designated as
Residential Low with
maximum net density
within a Tier I area
and containing
sufficient upland area
to be buildable. Each
additional vacant,
legally platted lot that
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
points as specified.
+0.5 Proposes dedication to
Monroe County of
one (1) vacant, legally
platted lot of at least
5,000 square feet in
size within a Tier I
area, designated as
Residential
Conservation, or
Residential Low with
no maximum net
density, containing
sufficient upland to be
buildable. Each
additional vacant,
legally platted lot that
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 10 of29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
points as specified.
+4 Proposes dedication to
Monroe County of at
least one (1.0) acre of
vacant, unplatted land
located within a Tier I
area containing
sufficient upland to be
buildable. Each
additional one (1.0)
acre of vacant,
unplatted land that
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
points as specified.
5. Market Rate Housing in Employee or Affordable Housing Project-
The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications for
market rate housing units in an employee or affordable housing
project: 18
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+3 Proposes a market rate
housing unit which is
part of an affordable
or employee housing
proj ect; both
affordable and
employee housing
shall meet the policy
guidelines for income
in Policy'601.1.7 and
other requirements
pursuant to the Land
Development
Regulations.
18 This policy is intended to provide more incentives to build affordable housing by encouraging the mixture of
affordable housing with market rate housing.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 11 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
6. Special Flood Hazard Areas - The following points shall be assigned
to allocation applications for proposed dwelling unites): 19
Point Assignment: Criteria:
-4 Proposes development
proposed within "V"
zones on the FEMA
flood insurance rate
maps.
7. Central Wastewater System Availabilitrc - The following points
shall be assigned to allocation applications: 0
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+4 Proposes development
required to be
connected to a central
wastewater treatment
system that meets the
BAT/AWT treatment
standards established
by Florida Legislature
and Policy 901.1.1.
8. Perseverance Points - One (1) point shall be awarded for each year
that the allocation application remains in the allocation system up to a
maximum accumulation of four (4) points.21
19 This revision eliminates the negative points for "A" zone, in which the predominate number of properties are
located and the positive points for "X" zones that only affect a very insignificant number of properties.
20 This scoring incentive is intended to: encourage infill development in areas served by central sewer systems
being upgraded or constructed to meet 2010 Wastewater Treatment Standards; maximize public investment;
reduce the average EDU operating/maintenance costs of these systems; and recoup capital costs.
21 This revision eliminating the provision of perseverance points beyond four years reflects the Planning
Commission's concern that allowing such points beyond four years will only encourage development oflots in
areas where development should be discouraged.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 12 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
AMENDMENT #14
Create a new Policy 101.5.6 that reads as follows:22
22 This policy establishes the lottery process and the scoring system to be followed to determine eligibility in
this process. It specifically excludes Big Pine Key and No Name Key due to the differences in how the Tier
system was established for these keys and the small number of annual allocations involved. It does not include
any points for connection to a central wastewater treatment system to reduce incentives for developing in Tier
II areas.
23 This scoring mirrors Policy 101.5.5.
24 This scoring mirrors Policy 101.5.5.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 130[29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Criteria:
Proposes to aggregate
a c'ontiguous vacant,
legally platted lot
within a Tier II or
Tier III area with
sufficient lot size and
upland area to be
buildable together
with the parcel
proposed for
development.
+4
Each additional
contiguous vacant,
legally platted lot
which is aggregated in
Tier II or III area that
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
additional points as
specified.
Point Assignment:
+4
Criteria:
Proposes dedication to
Monroe County of one
vacant, legally platted
lot of sufficient
minimum lot size and
upland area to be
25 This scoring mirrors Policy 101.5.5.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 140[29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
buildable. Each
additional "Vacant,
legally platted lot that
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
points as specified.
+ 1 for each 5,000 square feet oflot size Proposes dedication to
Monroe County of a
vacan, legally platted
lot of 5,000 square
feet or more in size,
designated as
Residential Low with
maximum net density
within a Tier I area
and containing
" sufficient upland area
to be buildable. Each
additional vacant,
legally platted lot that
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
points as specified.
+0.5 Proposes dedication to
Monroe County of
one (1) vacant, legally
platted lot of at least
5,000 square feet in
size within a Tier I
area, designated as
Residential
Conservation, or
Residential Low with
no maximum net
density, containing
sufficient upland to be
buildable. Each
additional vacant,
legally platted lot that
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
points as specified.
+4 Proposes dedication to
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 15 of29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Monroe County of at
least one (1) acre of
vacant, unplatted land
located within a Tier I
area containing
sufficient upland to be
buildable. Each
additional one (1)
acre of vacant,
unplatted land that
meets the
aforementioned
requirements will earn
points as specified.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
-4 Proposes development
proposed within "V"
zones on the FEMA
flood insurance rate
maps.
AMENDMENT #15
Delete Policy 101.5.5 in its entirety and replace with new Policy 101.5.7 that reads as
follows:
Policy 101.5.7
Monroe County shall implement the Non-residential Permit Allocation and Point
System through its land development regulations based primarily on the Tier system
of land classification pursuant to Goal 105. The points are intended to be applied
cumulatively.
1. Tier Designation - Utilizing the Tier System for land classification in
Policy 105.2.1, the following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications for proposed non-residential development in a manner that
encourages development of infill, predominately developed areas with
existing infrastructure, commercial concentrations, and few sensitive
26 This scoring mirrors Policy 101.5.5.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 16 of29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
environmental features, and discourages development in areas with
environmentally sensitive upland habitat, which must" acquired or
development rights retired for resource conservation and protection:27
Point assignment: Criteria:
0 Proposes non-residential development within
an area designated Tier I [Conservation,
Restoration and Protection]
+10 Proposes non-residential development within
an area designated Tier II [Transition and
Sprawl Reduction].
+20 Proposes non-residential development within
an area designated Tier III [Infill and
Redevelopment] .
2.
Intensity Reduction.
allocation applications
intensity:
The following points shall be assigned to
to encourage the voluntary reduction of
Point assignment: Criteria:
+4 An application proposes development that
reduces the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) to
twenty three percent (23%) or less.
3. Land Dedication - The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications to encourage the voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable
land within Tier I and Tier II designated areas and certain legally,
platted lots and unplatted parcels in Tier I that are of insufficient size
to be buildable for the purposes of conservation, resource protection,
restoration or density reduction, and if located in Tier II or Tier III, for
the purpose of providing land for affordable housing where
appropriate. 28
lPoint assignment:
I Criteria:
27 The Tier System is intended to provide the underlying basis for directing growth under the revised NROGO
system. Rather than using negative points, the system relies on a positive approach, which is legally more
defensible then one relying on negative scoring.
28 The land dedication scoring has been completely revised to reflect change in scoring and to allow more
flexibility in the sizes of property that may be dedicated. A major change has been to allow currently NA, SR
and SR-L lots, which are currently unbuildable due to lot size, to be eligible for ROGO dedication. In addition,
this policy spells out that lots dedicated in Tier II may be used by the County for providing land for affordable
housing, where appropriate.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 17 of29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
ft-4 Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one
(1) vacant, legally platted lot of sufficient
minimum lot size and upland area to be
buildable. Each additional vacant, legally
platted, buildable lot which is dedicated that
meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn the additional points as specified.
+ 1 per 5,000 square Proposes dedication to Monroe County of a
feet of lot area vacant, legally platted lot of five thousand
(5,000) square feet or more in size, designated
as R~sidential Low with maximum net density
within a Tier I area and containing sufficient
upland to be buildable. Each additional vacant,
legally platted lot, that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as
specified.
+0.5 Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one
(1) vacant, legally platted lot of five thousand
(5,000) square feet or more within a Tier I area
designated as Residential Conservation, or
Residential Low with no maximum net density,
containing sufficient upland to be buildable.
Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that
meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn the half (0.5) point as specified.
+4 Proposes dedication to Monroe County of at
least one (1) acre of vacant, unplatted buildable
land located within a Tier I area containing
sufficient upland area to be buildable. Each
additional one (1) acre of vacant, unplatted land
that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn the points as specified.
4. Special Flood Hazard Area - The following points shall be assigned to
allocation applications to discourage development within high risk
special flood hazard zones:29
Point assiJ!nment: Criteria:
-4 Proposes development within a "V" zone on the
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map.
29 Negative points for special flood hazards have been revised similar to those for ROGO.
J: \DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 18 of29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
5.
Perseverance Points - One (1) or two (2) points shall be awarded for
each year that the allocation application remains in the syst~m.
6.
Highway Access - The following points shall be applied to allocation
applications to encourage connections between commercial uses and
reduction of the need for trips and access onto U.S. Highway 1 :30
Point assignment: Criteria:
+3 The development eliminates an eXIstmg
driveway or access-way to U.S. Highway 1.
+2 The development provides no new driveway or
access-way to U.S. Highway 1.
7.
Landscaping and Water Conservation - The following points shall
be assigned to allocation applications to encourage the' planting of
native vegetation and promote water conserv~tion:
Point assiJ!nment: Criteria:
+3 The project provides a total of two hundred
percent (200%) of the number of native
landscape plants on its property than the
number of native landscape plants required by
this chapter within landscaped bufferyards and
parking areas.
+1 Twenty-five percent (25%) of the native plants
provided to achieve the three (3) point award
above or provided to meet the landscaped
bufferyard and parking area requirements of
this chapter are listed as threatened or
endangered plants native to the Florida Keys.
+2 Proj ect landscaping IS designed for water
conservation such as use of one hundred
percent (100%) native plants for vegetation,
collection and direction of. rainfall to
landscaped areas, or the application of re-used
wastewater or treated seawater for watering of
landscape plants.
8.
Central Wastewater System Availabili~ - The following points
shall be assigned to allocation applications: 1
30 The scoring criteria for access has been thoroughly revised to better effectuate the intent of this scoring
policy.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 19 of29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+4 Proposes development
required to be
connected to a central
wastewater treatment
system that meets the
BAT / A WT treatment
standards established
by Florida Legislature
and Policy 901.1.1.
9. Employee Housing - The following points, up to a maximum of four
(4), shall be assigned to allocation applications for employee housing
units:32
Point AssiJ!nment: Criteria:
+2 Proposes an employee
housing unit which is
located on a parcel
with a non-residential
use.
+2 One (1) additional
employee housing unit
located on the parcel
with a non-residential
use
AMENDMENT #16
Renumber and amend Policy 101.5.6 as follows.33
Policy 101.5.ft 101.5.8
The Residential and Non-residential Point Systems shall be monitored on an annual
basis and revised as necessary to add, delete or adjust positive and negatiye faetors
based on new studies and data in a manner that is consistent with and furthers the
goals. policies. and obiectives of this plan. :.vhieh may be ideBtified by studies
31 This scoring incentive is intended to: encourage infill development in areas served by central sewer systems
being upgraded or constructed to meet 2010 Wastewater Treatment Standards; maximize public investment;
reduce the average EDU operating/maintenance costs of these systems; and recoup capital costs.
32 This provision is intended to encourage mixed commercial-residential development and to provide
additional incentives to encourage the provision of affordable employee housing.
33 This existing policy is no longer relevant and has been replaced with new Tier based system and Livable
CommuniKeys community master planning process. The policy has been replaced with a broader policy that
calls for updates and revisions to the permit allocation system as needed.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 20 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
prepared as part of the implementation of the Goals, Objeetives and Polieies of the
Comprehensive Plan. Slieh adjustments to the Point Systems sh~l1 resalt in
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and/or land development regalatioFls as
appropriate. These studies include, but are not limited to:
1. the Sanitary \Vastewater Master Plan (see Sanitary 'Nastewater Objeetive
901.1 and related polieies);
2. the Stormwater Management Master Plan (see Drainage Objeetive 1001.3
and related policies);
3. the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan;
4. special studies oodertaken as part of the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary ',Vater Quality Proteetion Program (see Conservation and Coastal
Management Objeetive 202.1 and related policies);
. 5. the Liye }.board Study (see Conservation and Coastal Management
Objeetiye 202.1 and related policies);
6. the Florida Keys Ad'/ance Identification of 'Netlands (.\DID) Program (see
Conservation aNd Coastal Management Objective 204.1 and related policies);
AMENDMENT #17
Delete Policy 101.5.7 and Policy 101.5.8.34
Polie)' 101.5.7
As part of the first ar.naal review of the Residential and Non residential Point
Systems, additiONal criteria may be induded s1:leh as:
1. North Key Largo Negative points may be assigned f.or developmeFlt
proposed within that portion of Key Largo located between the j1illetion of
State Road 905 and U.S. Highway 1 and the Dade County booodary at
f.ngelfish Creek.
,
2. Traffie Capacity f.s part of the first arumal review of the Residential and
Non residential Point System, positive points may be assigneE! for
development served by US 1 segments vmich ha'/e surplas capaeity.
Negative points shall be assigned for development served by US 1 segments
'.vhieh have marginal capaeity.
3. Offshore Islands Negati'/e points may be assigned to developments OR
offshore islands.
34 These two policies are no longer relevant with the revisions to the ROGO system based on the Tier system
and increased emphasis on lot dedication and density reduction.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 21 of29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
4. Conservation Lands Negative points m.ay be assigned to developments
whieh may impact designated or proposed eonseTYation lands.
5. Disturbed Saltmarsh and Buttonwood 'Netlands Negatiye points may be
assigned to developments vrhich require the plaeemeFJ:t of fill or stnletures in
dishlrbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands.
6. Historic Resources Negative points may be assigned to developmeBts whieh.
remove or destroy histone or archaeological reSOl:H'ees. Positi're points may
be assigned to developments whieh restore or enflB:1'lee historic or
archaeologieal resourees.
7. Potential Development Credits (PDCs) An applieam may have the optioR of
receiving positiye poiFJ:ts, called Potential Deyelopment Credits (PDCs), for
transferring development rights away from a sender site for deyelopment
proposed OR an eligible receiver site, as speeified in Objective 101.13 and
related polieies.
Paliey 101.5.8
The Residential Permit }...1location Ordinance shall be amended to award a graduated
scale of positiye points to dwelling units which are proposed foOr lots '.vithin legally
platted, reeorded subdivisions, v/hieh are served by existing infrastrucmre, inelading
at a m.inimum potable water, electricity and paved roadways. Maximl:lIR points shall
be a\varded for those projects proposed vtithin platted subdivisions whieh are a7% to
100% baHt oat; f-ewer points will be awarded foOr projects proposed foOr subdivisions
33% 67% baHt out; and minimum poiFJ:ts shall be awarded for projects proposed for
subdivisions 0 33~<' bailt om. The percentage of build om shall be based upon
updated, accurate data from the County's Geographie Information System (GIS).
The Ordinance shall be amended when the pertineRt iRformation is readily a'tailable
on the County's GIS.
AMENDMENT #18
Amend Policy 101.5.9 as follows:35
Policy 101.5.9
Monroe County shall allow for the development of residential multi family projects
with multiple units within the Permit Allocation System. If a project ranks high
enough in the Point System for a portion of the development to receive an allocation
award, but the project includes more units than are available during an allocation
period, the entire project may receive allocation awards if the excess allocation is
reduced from the next allocation period(s). Multi family affordable noasiRg or
elderly housing projeets shall be given priority.
35 This revision reflects need to limit authority for borrowing from future allocations for any type of
development needing multiple units.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 22 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
AMENDMENT #19
Amend Policy 101.5.10 as follows:36
Policy 101.5.10
Monroe County may develop a program, called Transfer of ROGO Exemption
(TRE), that would allow for the transfer off-site of dwelling units, hotel rooms,
campground/recreational vehicle spaces and/or mobile homes to another site in the
same ROGO sub-area, provided that they are lawfully existing and can be accounted
for in the County's hurricane evacuation model. In addition, the fleW receiver site
would not be eligible f{)r any negati'/e eIlYiromnental points under RaGa with the
exception of those properties designated Resideflt:ial High. shall be located within a
Tier III area and for a receiver site on Big Pine Key and No Name Key. the sending
site shall also be located on one of those two islands. 'Nhen a multiple family
housing deyelopmoot utilizes a TRE, afl.-Y other units in that same proj eet that are
permitted tmough the RaGa process may be eligible for minor positiv~ points on a
one for one basis.
AMENDMENT #20
Amend Policy 101.6.1 as follows:37
Policy 101.6.1
Monroe County shall, upon a property owner's request, purchase property for fair
market value or permit the minimum reasonable economic use of the property
pursuant to Policy 101.6.5, if the property owner meets the following conditions:
1. they have been denied an allocation award for four successive years in the
Permit }..llocation System; Residential or Non-residential Permit Allocation
System:
2. their proposed development otherwise meets all applicable county, state, and
federal regulations;
3. their allocation application has not been withdrawn;
4. they have complied with all the requirements of the Permit f..lloeatiofl
System Residential or Non-residential Permit Allocation System; and
36 This policy needs to be revised to reflect the Tier system. In addition, the specific provisions limiting TREs
on Big Pine and No Name Key is included to incorporate the community master plan policies
37 Specific language regarding administrative relief needs to be incorporated in policy and the policy needs to
be brought up to date. The number of years to be eligible for administrative relief is being extended to reduce
potential number of permits that could be left in the pipeline. This extension is within the 4 to 7 year envelope
that most case law considers as a reasonable period of delay in permitting before a taking has occurred.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 23 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
5. they follow the procedures for administrative relief contained il'l the DYlelling
Unit Allocation Ordinanoe. in the land development regulations.
As used in this Policy, "minimum reasonable economic use" shall mean, as applied
to any residentially zoned lot of record which was buildable immediately prior to the
effective date of the Plan, no less than a single-family residence. "Fair market value"
shall be an amount which is no less than ad valorem valuation in the Monroe County
Real Property Tax Roll for the year 1992. adiusted for inflation. or the current fair
market value. whichever is greater.
AMENDMENT #21
Delete Policy 101. 6.5 and Policy 101.6.6 and replace with new Policy 101.6.5:38
Paliey 101.ft.5
Monroe County shall annually compile a list prioritizing the lands reqaested for
County acquisition d1:1e to the Permit Allocation System. The lands of the property
ovmers \vho meet the criteria in Poliey 101.6.1 shall be ranked aooording to:
1. the environmental sensitivity of the vegetative habitat, marine resouroes, and
impacts to the quality of near shore '.vaters as speoified by the ranking in the
Environmental Design Criteria section of the Land Development Regalations;
2. whether the property is in known, probable, and/or potential habitat for one or
more threatened and/or endangered species, as indieated on the most recent
Proteeted j\nimal Maps; and
3. whether development on the property will adversely impaot successful proteetion
and recovery of threatened or endangered species, sach as developmel'lt on Big
Pine Key, No Name Key, Ohio Key, and North Key Largo.
Those lands considered most sensitiye according to the combination of (a), (b) and
(c) above shall be ranked as the highest priority for acquisition.
Paliey 101.ft.ft
\Vhen considering the acquIsItIon of lands denied building permit aUoeatiol'ls
through the Permit Alloeation System, Monroe Coooty shall base the aequisitiol'l
decision upon the environmentally sensitivity ranking speeified in Poliey 101.6.5
Policy 101.6.5
38 These two policy conflicts with the provisions and intent of the Administrative Relief process, which is
intended to provide certainty to property owners who are provided administrative relief by the County. The
replacement policy sets forth the criteria for the type of properties that the County should offer to purchase
under Administrative Relief. It should be noted that Policy 102.4.4 directs County to petition the State and
Federal governments to take responsibility for land acquisitions in Tier I areas.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 24 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Monroe County shall pursue land acquisition through voluntary purchase of lands
from private property owners denied a building permit through the Pem;\it Allocation
System, as the preferred option for administrative relief pursuant to Policy 101.6.1, if
the subject permit is for development located within:
1. a designated Tier I area;
2. a designated Tier II area requiring the clearing of 5,000 square feet or more
of upland tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands habitat; or,
3. a designated Tier II or Tier III area on a non-waterfront lot suitable for
affordable housing.
Refusal of the purchase offer by a property owner shall not be grounds for the
granting of a ROGO or NROGO award.
AMENDMENT #22
Amend Policy 101.12.4 to read as follows: 39
Policy 101.12.4
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
or the significant expansion (greater than 25 percent) of any existing public facility:
1. assessment of needs;
2. evaluation of alternative sites and design alternatives for the selected
alternative sites; and,
3. assessment of direct and secondary impacts on surrounding land uses and
natural resources.
The assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources will
evaluate the extent to which the proposed public facility involves public
expenditures in the coastal high hazard area and within environmentally sensitive
areas, including disturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands, undisturbed beach
berm areas, units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, undisturbed uplands
(particularly high quality hammock and pinelands), habitats of species considered to
be threatened or endangered by the state and/or federal governments, offshore
islands, and Conservation Land Protection i\reas designated Tier I areas.
Except for passive recreational facilities on publicly-owned land. no new public
community or utility facility other than water distribution and sewer collection lines
39 This new policy reflects amendments in draft Rule 28-20.110; the proposed language has been revised to
update it with this series of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 25 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
or pump/vacuum/lift stations shall be allowed within Tier I designated areas unless it
can be accomplished without clearing of hammock or pinelands. Exceptions to this
requirement may be made to protect the public health. safety. and welfare. if all the
following criteria are met:
1. No reasonable alternatives exist to the proposed location; and.
2. The proposed location is approved by a supermaiority of the Board of County
Commissioners.
The site of the Kev Largo Wastewater Treatment Facility (located at mile marker
100.5) with an allowed clearing of up to 4.2 acres shall not be subiect to this policy.
AMENDMENT #23
Delete Policy 101.13.3.40
Policy 101.13.3
.^..s part of the first annual re'/iew of the Point System, an applieam in the Residential
Permit i\llocation System shall be awarded either one unit for each OHe development
right transferred from an eligible sender site to an eligible receiver site (through the
use of Transferable DevelopmeHt Rights or TDRs), or positive points in the Point
System (through the uses of Potential De'/elopmeBt Credits or PDCs).
If the applicant opts to receive PDCs, the applicant woald reeeive positiye flaints for
transferring development rights away from a sender site to an eligible receiver site.
By using this option, the applicant would forf-eit the right to deyelop any additional
units that \vould be granted for TDRs.
AMENDMENT #24
Renumber and amend Policy 101.13.4 as follows:
Policy 101.13.4 101.13.341
Transferable Deyelopment Rights may be used within the Residential Permit
.^..llocation System to inerease density, subjeet to the limitations contained in the laBd
de'lelopment regulations. The Maximum Net Density is the maximum density
allowable with the use of TDRs, and shall not exceed the maximum densities
established in this plan. Density The transfers assignment of TDRs to Big Pine Key,
No Name Key, and North Key Largo from other areas of the County shall be
prohibited.
40 The staff believes the use of TDRs and PDCs in the permit allocation process has little merit and would be
too cumbersome to implement.
41 This revision reflects the elimination of the authority to use TDRs in allocation system.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 26 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
AMENDMENT #25
Delete Policy 101.13.5.42
Poliey 101.13.5
.1\s part of the first annl:lal re'/iew of the Point System, positi'/e points, or "Potential
Development Credits" (PDCs) shall be awarded for applications proposing non
residential developm.ent whieh will transfer development rights away from eligible
sender sites to eligible receiver sites. PDCs shall be awarded to eommereial projeets
for TDRs transferred from either residential or commercial zones.
AMENDMENT #26
Amend and renumber Policy 101.13.6 as follows:
Policy 101.13.ft101.13.4
In conjunction with the first annual review of the Point System evaluation of the
existing TDR program pursuant to Policy 101.13.2, parcels within the following
habitats and land use districts shall be designated as seI1der sites for Transferable
Development Rights (TDRs) and Potential Development Credits (PDCs):
Any parcel within these zoning categories:
Offshore Island (OS)
Mainland Native (MN)
Native (NA)
Sparsely Settled (SS)
Parks and Refuge (PR)
Conservation (C)
Habitat of the following types which lie within any zoning category:
Freshwater wetlands
SaltmarshlButtonwood wetlands
High quality high hammock
High quality low hammock
Moderate quality high hammock
Moderate quality low hammock
High quality pinelands
Low quality pinelands
Beach/berm
Palm Hammock
Cactus Hammock
Disturbed Wetlands
AMENDMENT #27
Delete Policy 101.13.7 and Policy 101.13.8.43
42 This revision reflects an update of the policy and the staffs proposal to eliminate the PDCs concept from
further consideration.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 27 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Polie)' 101.13.7
hI eonjooetion with the first annual review of the Point System, the following
guidelines shall be used to establish positive point awards in the Residential Permit
.\llocation System for each PDC:
SR
Receiyer Site
searified, in DR
MU
IS
SR (disturbed land not
to inel1:lde wethm.ds)
PDC Poiats
most points
Sender Site
Freshv/ater '.vetlaBd
least points
Poliey 101.13.8
In conjunetion '.'lith the first arnR:lal review of the Point System, the following
guidelines shall be used to establish point awards in the Non residootial Permit
Alloeation System for eaeh PDC:
SR
Receiyer Site
UC
SC
MU
SC or MU
PDC Points
most points
Sender Site
Freshwater v/etland
least points
AMENDMENT #28
Amend and renumber Policy 101.13.9 as follows:44
Policy 101.13.9 101.13.5
No later than one year from the effective date of this plan, In coni unction with the
evaluation of the TDR program pursuant to Policy 101.13.2 and no later than one
year from the date when the County's Geographic Information System is fully
functional, Monroe County shall map potential TDR sender and receiver sites as
specified in Policies 101.13.6 through 101.13.9 Policy 101.13.4, and shall map
parcels from which development rights have been transferred. These maps shall be
updated as necessary and made available to Growth Management staff and public for
use in the development review process.
AMENDMENT #29
Amend Policy 102.3.1 as follows:45
43 The deletion of these policies reflects the proposal to eliminate the concept of PDCs.
44 This revision reflects proposed revisions to preceding policies.
45 The revisions reflect changes in the proposed ROGO system.
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 28 of 29
FINAL DRAFT 12/06/04
Policy 102.3.1
The Permit Allocation System (see Future Land Use Objectives 101.2 t%ugh 101.4
and related policies) shall have the following environmental protection goals:
1. to reduce the exposure of residents to natural hazards;
2. to reduce disturbances to natural vegetation resource areas;
3. to reduce disturbances to terrestrial wildlife resources areas;
4. to reduce impacts of new development OB groundwater and nearshore waters;
5. to acquire vacant privately-owned environmentally sensitive lands for
conservation and resource protection:
6. to encourage infill development where existing lands are. already
substantially developed. served by complete infrastructure facilities and
within close proximity to established commercial areas and have few
sensitive or significant environmental features:
~ 7. to ensure that the ecological integrity of natural areas is protected when land
is developed; and
60 ~ to reduce adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species.
Accordingly, the Point System, which shall be used as the basis for the annual
allocation of permits, shall assign negative and/or positive points to development
applications based l:lpon: that helps to achieve the above environmental protection
goals.
1. the oeeurreflce of natural reSOl:lfees or natl:lfal hazards; and/or
2. proposed utilization of best management practices for waste'Hater treatmeat
and disposal \yhich will &yoid or mitigate the adverse impacts of developmoot on
natl:lfal resources, particularly water quality.
(See Future Land Use Objective 101.5 and related policies for a list qf positive and
negative factors to be included in the Permit Allocation System.) [9J-5.006(3)(c)1
and 6]
J :\DOCUMENT\Final 105\amendments-newrogohybridpcfinaldraft.doc
Page 29 of 29