Introduction/Summary/Written Comments
County of Monroe
Growth Management Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 410
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: 305,289,2500
FAX: 305,289, 2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Dixie Spehar, District]
rv1ayor Pro Tem Charles "Sonny" McCoy, District 3
George Neugent, District 2
David Rice, District 4
Murray E, Nelson, District 5
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Board of County Commissioners
Timothy J. McGarry, AICP/lJI1
Director of Growth Manag~kt I
&
TO:
DATE:
March 1, 2005
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and Workshop on Comprehensive Package of
Amendments to Comprehensive Plan and Land Development
Regulations to Implement Goall 05 - Tier System
Introduction
At its March 17, 2005, specially scheduled meeting, the Board of County Commissioners will
conduct a public hearing continued from Febnlary 16, 2005, on proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations to implement Goal 105, commonly
referred to as the "Tier System". Included as part of this public hearing, will be a Board workshop
to discuss with special counsel and staff, legal and policy issues related to the proposed Tier
system.
Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a suggested agenda for consideration by the Board
in conducting the hearing and workshop; present a descriptive summary of revisions made by the
staff since the February public hearing to the set of draft ordinances, and outline possible options
for Tier II designated properties.
Agenda for Public Hearing
Unlike the previous three public hearings on the comprehensive set of amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, the staff is recommending that the
hearing be conducted for all seven ordinances, including the two transmittal resolutions,
Page I of 10
concurrently. Therefore, the seven public hearing agenda items continued from the February
meeting should be read into the record at the start of the public hearing.
The staff has prepared an agenda and approximate timeline for each item, which is attached to this
memorandum. The staff suggests that this agenda be set by the Board prior to entering into the
official public hearing.
To facilitate the public hearing, the staff is recommending that the Board workshop be conducted
first to allow the County's Special Legal Counsel and Growth Management Division staff to
interact with the Board on legal, planning and policy issues and questions related to the Tier
systl>nL Although the workshop will be open to the public, participation in the workshop will be
limited to Commission members, County staff: invited State representatives, and Special Legal
Counsel.
The staff suggests that the workshop conclude at approximately noon or sooner. After lunch, the
public will be invited to provide input on the proposed amendments. Once public input is received,
the staff suggests the Board discuss the proposed amendments and provide further direction to staff
on any revisions to the draft ordinances needed to be prepared prior to the April 20, 2005, public
hearing.
Summary of Revisions to Draft Ordinances
In response to direction from the Board of County Commissioners, public input, and further staff
review, the staff has made various revisions to the draft ordinances. New text is shown in bold
underline and deleted text is shown with a dsMhle striliethf€lMgk.
The following is a summary of revisions by ordinance with substantive revisions identified:
1, Amendments to Comprehensive Plan to delete HEI requirements and revise
environmental standards based on Tier System.
. Made one minor revision to correct a typographical error in text.
2. Amendments to Comprehensive Plan to revised ROGOfNROGO based on Tier
System and provide for lottery system option.
. Added provisions for lottery system under Policy 101,2.3 and 101.5.1.
[substantive)
. Added Policy 101.5.4 that establishes the purposes for competitive and
lottery systems for the awarding of market rate allocations. [substantiveI
. Added "8. Payment to Land Acquisition Fund" under Policy
101.5.5(compctitivc system) and Policy 101.5.6 (lottcry system) that
provides a provision allowing applicants to receive up to three points by
Page 2 of 10
making a monetary payment to County's Land Acquisition Fund (see details
under amendments to Land Development Regulations in 4 below).
[substantive]
. Added Policy 101.5.6 that provides for the lottery system option; establishes
the minimum threshold point total at 30 to enter system; prohibits use of
lottery tor market rate allocations on Big Pine Key and No Name Key; and
provides for a point system paralleling the one applied to the competitive
system. [substantive]
3. Amendments to Land Development Regulations to delete HEL reVIse existing
conditions report and incorporate Tier system.
. Revised Section 9.5-336 to require adding a list of threatened/endangered or
protected species observed on site.
4. Amendments to Land Development Regulations to revise ROGO based on Tier
system, provide for lottery option for market rate allocations, and revise
requirements for affordable housing allocations.
. Added defInitions for "competitive system" and "lottery system" under
definitions (Section 9.5-120). [substantive]
. Added language identifying the purposes of the compehtlve and lottery
systems expanding upon the proposed amendment lan!:,JUage to the
Comprehensive Plan (see 2. above). [substantive)
. Added language in Section 9.5-122 that provides for a minimum of 20
percent of market housing allocations will be available for the lottery
system; prohibits the use of the lottery system for any Big Pine Key and No
Name Key allocations; and provides that the BOCC may annually increase
or decrease the ratio of lottery allocations, but by no more than 50 percent of
the previous year's allocation. (substantive)
. Added language in Section 9.5-122.1 and Section 9.5-122.2 that establishes
procedures tor administering, reviewing, and awarding of lottery
applications; and requires that an individual, entity, or organization may
only submit and have one application in the lottery system, may not have
any other applications in ROGO, and may not have previously received an
allocation award under the lottery system. [substantive)
. Added language in Section 9.5-122.1 (f)(4) that allows BOCC to make
available for an allocation award up to 100 % of the next five years of
available affordable housing ROGO allocations. (substantive]
Page 3 of 10
. Added language in Section 9,5-122.1(h)(l) and (2) that was inadvertently
left out of previous ordinance.
. Added language in Section 9.5~ 122.1 (k) to retroactively allow existing
applications in the ROGO that had been withdrawn to increase the
application's competitive score through either land dedication or lot
aggregation to have the application's original controlling date restored and
be awarded any perseverance point(s) lost due to the withdrawal of the
application. [substantive)
. Added language in Section 9.5-123 (g) that limits allocations awarded under
administrative relief to 50 percent of the total available market rate
allocations in anyone quarter. Isubstantive)
. Added Section 9.5-122.4 (j) that provides for monetary payment to the
County's land Acquisition Fund to receive up to three points; requires that
the monetary value of a point will be established annually by BOCC; the
value will be based upon the average ad valorem value of privately-own,
vacant, IS/URM platted lots divided by four (I.e., the number of points
awarded for a buildable IS/URM lot); and requires that payment will be
made to the fund prior to issuance of building permit. (substantive)
. Added Section 9.5-122.5 that establishes eligibility criteria and requirements
for lottery system allocations; makes the point system for lottery applications
the same as for competitive applications; places through a restrictive
covenant the following restrictions on lottery allocation awards: prohibiting
use of the dwelling for vacation rental or tourist housing uses; prohibiting
the leasing of dwelling for tenancies of less than six months; and requiring
that ownership of the property can not be transferred for two years from date
of the allocation award to two years from the date of the certificate of
occupancy without approval of the BOCC based on meeting specific
hardship criteria. I substantive I
5. Amendments to the Land Development Regulations to establish the Tier Overlay
District.
. Added language in Section 9.5-256(a) to exclude Ocean Reef from Tier
system.
. Amended language in Section 9.5-256(b) to clarifY and increase specificity
of the criteria to make it less ambiguous and more legally defensible.
I substantive]
6. Amendments to Land Development Regulations to revise NROGO based on the
Tier system.
Page 4 of 10
[No revisions: it should be noted that the provisions tor the payment for points
options proposed under ROGO is not included in this draft ordinance.]
7. Amendment to Monroe County Land Use District Map to include Tier Overlay
District.
. Added Map #16 to Tier Overlay District Map, which was inadvertently
omitted in the original agenda package.
Tier Discussion
Overview
The designation of a Tier II has been an issue since the review and adoption of Goal 105 in 2001 to
provide a framework tor implementing the mandate of Rule 28-20.100 F.A.C and the Florida Keys
Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS). Tier II is intended to be the transition area between the State
and Federal acquisition areas in Tier I and the major development areas in Tier III.
The habitat in Tier II is not as sensitive as that found in the larger habitat patches in Tier I, but still,
provides important habitat for migrating birds and small animals. Tier II was also conceived as a
sprawl reduction area, where further development is to be discouraged due to the lack of existing
development and infrastructure. Many more platted lots in the County exist than can be permitted
over the next 20 years; and Tier III, with more existing development and available infrastructure is
the more appropriate area to receive development allocations.
Goall05
Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan identifies Tier II as the Transition and Sprawl
Reduction Area. Tier II is defined in Policy 105.2.1 as any geographic area:
o with scattered f,1fOUPS and fragments of environmentally sensitive lands,
o with existing platted subdivisions which are not predominately devcloped or served by
complete infrastructure facilities, and
o not within close proximity to established commercial areas
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 developed; incomplete infrastructure in tem1S of paved roads,
potable water, or electricity; and scattered clusters of environmentally sensitive lands, some of
which are within or in close proximity to existing platted subdivisions.
Page 5 of 10
Issues considered in development of the Tier system and Tier II
1. Existing Environmental Requirements and RaGa
The LOR regulations including the Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) and Threatened and
Endangered Species Maps have been the subject of much concern and discussion.
. An HEI is only performed on land classified as hammock and pineland on the
adopted 1986 Existing Conditions Maps, therefore any re-growth hammock areas
over the last 20 years have received a positive one score in ROGO, which is a major
loophole in the existing regulations and has led to permit appeals and the Notice of
Yiolation by DCA. Much of the hammock patches in Tier II are re-growth areas,
. The Endangered Species Maps have not been updated as required in the 20 I 0
Comprehensive Plan and do not include Species of Special Concern and all
federally listed species habitat that have been studied in the County. The DCA
appeals of ROGO allocations and Notice of Violation (NOY) were for lots in Tier II
which were not receiving negative points for habitat and species of special concern
because of how the existing regulations are written.
Tier Solution: Rather than update the maps and existing regulations to reflect conditions
existing in 2005 and continue the lot-by-Iot review for ROGO, Goal 105 directed the
County to prepare over lay maps and designate all areas of the County into one of three tiers
and to revise the allocation system to direct the preponderance of future residential
development to Tier IlL The point differential in Tier II reflects the relative environmental
value of the area between Tier I and Tier III. If the Tier system were not adopted, at the
very least, the County would be "highly" encouraged by DCA to change its regulations
which would result in more negative points being assigned to properties with characteristics
similar to those proposed for a Tier II designation.
2. Implementing the FKCCS and Rule 28-20.1 00 F.A.C,
The Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study's (FKCCS) terrestrial model recommends
prevention of further fragmentation and degradation of tropical hardwood hammocks,
pinelands and transitional wetlands. The existing and proposed Florida Administration
Commission Rule requires the County to implement the findings of the FKCCS,
Ticr Solution: Tier I is designed to preserve and restore the major viable areas of remaining
hammock and pinelands in the County. A patch of four acres was identified as the minimal
size for isolated patches of hammock to be included in Tier I. Tier I was identified in Goal
105 for acquisition by State and Federal agencies.
Tier II contains habitat areas of less than four acres. These smaller hammock patches were
also considered in the FKCCS and are used by forest interior species of birds and small
animals and as resting places for migrating birds. Goal 105 recognized the value of these
Page 6 of 10
areas by directing that they be included in Tier II, that Tier II be designated a second
priority for acquisition, and that County funds also be used for purchasing Tier II vacant
lands.
3. Property Rights; the Liability in Platted Lots
There are cUlTently approximately 7,150 platted, vacant IS, URM lots in unincorporated
Monroe County outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key, including more than 3,300 lots
in Tier III. Based on this total number of lots, it would take nearly 45 years at the CUlTent
allocation rate before all these platted lots could receive permits.
The ROGO system was designed to allocate the few penuits that are given each year to
applications in the more appropriate areas both from an environmental and planning
perspective. As long as permits are rationed, a methodology to fairly distribute these
allocations is required. This results in both a tinancial and legal liability in the large number
of platted lots in the County
Tier Solution: Determining how best to allocate new residential permits and which
properties should be acquired to protect property rights is accomplished through the Tier
designations as directed in Goal 105. Tier III is defined as the Intill Area; this is where the
majority of future residential allocations should occur - the major positive point awards.
Tier II is the transition, sprawl reduction area; it is less appropriate for development from a
planning and environmental prospective ~ moderate positive points. Tier I is the Natural
area; it is the least appropriate areas for 1:,1fowth and the most environmentally sensitive ~
zero positive points.
Property rights are preserved because the point system provides a mechanism for acquiring
enough additional points to be awarded a permit. But because of the differential of points
the majority of growth will go into the infill areas.
4, Tier II and Affordable Housing
Many of the Tier II lots are generally less expensive to purchase because they are not on
open water or canals or they are environmentally sensitive and cUlTently are receiving
negative points under ROGO.
Tier Solution: Although under the proposed system Tier II lots are made less competitive
under the ROGO than Tier III lots, the proposed system does not penalize such lots if used
for affordable housing. If the lot is to be used for an "affordable" house it would not be
affected by the negative points for Tier II because affordable housing is not allocated using
the ROGO point system. Under the CUlTent system affordable housing on many of these lots
proposed for Tier II can't be built since they would incur negative points.
Alternatives for Tier II
Page 7 of 10
The staff has identified four basic alternatives for consideration by the Board:
Option 1: Keep existing proposal - Provide for a ten point spread between Tier II (+20)
and Tier III (+30) designated areas.
The proposed ROGO points based on the Tier Maps was recommended by the Planning
Commission after careful consideration of the previous issue discussion items. The
differences in the Tiers both from an environmental and sprawl reduction initiative are
considered and the point difference will direct the majority of growth to Tier 111.
Staff Evaluation: The ten point difference is too si!,rnificant and significantly raises the cost
to develop these properties. Less of a point differential between the two designations
would still be consistent with Goal 105 and help encourage more development in Tier 111
than Tier II.
Option#2: Reduce point difference - Reduce the point spread to four between Tier II (+26)
and Tier III (+30) designated areas.
This proposal still recognizes that Tier II is a less appropriate area to develop new
residential uses but reduces the point differential to the equivalent of donating one ROGO
lot.
Stafl Evaluation: It is an appropriate level of mitigation and further recognizes that under
the proposed new administrative relief procedures every Tier II not involving clearing of
habitat will be awarded a permit as the preferred relief option.
Option#3: Expand Vesting of Applications - Provide for grand fathering of current
applications in Tier II with a + I point tor habitat and award +30 to these
applications.
Although it is recognized that the existing LDR and HEI do not accurately reflect the
existing conditions of a lot since they are based on the 1986 habitat maps, grandfathering
those applicants who have invested based on the existing system may be an equitable
option to resolve concerns about any development expectations these applicants may have
concerning their properties. [Currently 60% of the applications in proposed Tier II
designated areas in the upper Keys have scored + 1 for habitat current in ROGO,]
Stafl Evaluation: This option is a fair and equitable solution to some of the problems
raised by property owners affected by thc transition in systems. However, rather than a
stand-alone option, the staff believes that it has merit for inclusion with either of the two
proceeding options. It will only impact a limited number of property owners and have little
impact on the overall system.
Option#4: Elimination of point difference - Provide for no point difference between Tier II
(+30) and Tier III (+30)
Page 8 of 10
Under this proposed option, Tier II would still have a reduced clearing rate providing some
protection for the environmental quality of an area, even though the point difference
between Tier II and Tier III would be eliminated.
Staff Evaluation: To make both Tiers an equal number of points would be inconsistent
with Goal l05 and would require that Goall 05 and its policies to be amended. In addition,
it should be reC06111ized that currently 40% of the applications in Tier II in the upper Keys
have received negative habitat points and many of the lots that received positive points
have only be able to do so due to the loophole in current regulations. The concerns raised
by DCA staff in its pennit appeals and Notice of Violation may create a problem for that
agency in supporting this option.
Recommendations for Tier U
Staff recommendations for Tier II options in order of preference from the most preferred to the
least preferred are:
1. Combination of Option#2 with Option#3: Reduce the point difference between
Tier II and Tier III designated areas to four points and give 30 points to applications
for Tier II designated properties currently in the ROGO system that have received a
positive habitat point for scarified or disturbed habitat.
2. Combination of Option#l with Option#3: Retain the existing point differential
between Tier II and Tier III designated areas and give 30 points to applications for
Tier II designated properties currently in the ROGO system that have received a
positive habitat point for scarified or disturbed habitat.
3. Option #4: Eliminate the point differential between Tier II and Tier III designated
areas, amend Goal 105, and retain more stringent clearing requirements for Tier II
designated areas.
Page 9 of 10
A TT ACHMENT
PUBLIC HEARING AND
TIER SYSTEM \VORKSHOP
AGENDA
A. 9:05 A.M. Public Hearing ~ Agenda Items B 1 through B7 continued from
February 16, 2005 (Goal 105 Comprehensive Plan and LOR Amendments)
B. 9:05 A.M. Board of County Commissioners W orkshop*
9:10 A.M. Discussion of legal issues
[Tyson Smith, Esq., White and Smith]
10:15 A.M. Florida Forever Program and Boundary Expansion
[Representative from DEP]
10:30 A.M. Discussion of revisions to draft ordinances
[Staff!
II :00 A.M. Discussion of Tier II Options
[StaHl
12:00 P.M. Adjourn Workshop
C. I :30 P.M. Public Comment
D. 2:30 P.M. BOCC/Staff Discussion and Direction
E. 3:30 P.M. Adjournment
*Notice: Although the workshop portion of the public hearing is open to the public, participation
in the workshop is limited to Commission members, County stan: and legal counsel.
Page 10 of 10
March 17, 2005
Board of County Commissioners
WO<1<shop
Workshop - Major Revisions
. Lottery system option.
. Payment into acquisition fund for ROGO
points.
. Borrowing for affordable housing.
. Limitation on administrative relief allocations.
. Vesting of ROGO applications withdrawn to
increase scoring.
Workshop - Lottery System
. Provides minimum of 20% (-251year] of market per quaner available
under lottery option; soce may increase or decrease by 50% of
previous year
. Option intended for applicants that haven't the financial resources for
the competitive market but are not eligible for or want to pursue the
affordable housing option - i.e.. dual income working families.
. Ehgibility reQuirements:
Can't be on Big Pine Key Of No Name Key.
Must have minimum score of 30 points required to be el~ible fOI Ionery.
May submit onty one application per enhly; no other ROGO applications
May not have received a previous alk>cation award through the lottery.
."
1
Workshop - Lottery System
. Each application assigned unique number quarterly
and selected by random.
. Restrictions placed on award to eliminate potential
abuse:
- Prohibits use for vacation rental or tourist housing uses.
- Prohibits leasing of dwelling of tenancies of less than six
rronths.
- Requires SOCC approval of property transfer from the date
of allocation award to two years from certificate of
occupancy; such approval contingent upon demonstrated
hardship.
Workshop - Payment for Points
. Provides for monetary payment to County
Land Acquisition Fund to receive up to three
ROGO points.
. Value of points to be set by SOCC annually
and be based on the ad valorem value of
privately-own vacant, IS/URM platted lots
divided by four (number of points for
dedication of IS/URM lot).
. Current value is -$8,000 per point.
Workshop - Other Revisions
. Authorizes SOCC upon recommendation of Planning
Commission to borrow up to five years (20 ROGO
quarters) of affordable housing.
. Limits administrative relief allocation awards to no
more than 50 % of market allocation awards
available per quarter.
. Retroactively allow ROGO previously withdrawn to
increase points by dedication of land or lot
aggregation to have controlling date restored and
lost perseverance point.
JI'''
\I
2
March 17, 2005
Board of County Commissioners
Workshop
Tier Workshop - Tier II Purpose
. Purpose: Discuss Questions asked - Tier II.
. How Tier 11 is important to the implementation
of the FKCCS and Rule 28-20.
. Goal 1 05 and the role of Tier II.
. Tier 11 Issues -existing regulations, property
rights and affordable housing.
. Options.
Tier Workshop - Tier II Framework
. Goal 105 - framework for implementing the
FKCCS and Rule 28-20.
. Tier 11 - Transition and Sprawl Reduction.
.:. Scattered fragments of environmental lands.
.:' Platted subdivisions partially developed.
.:' Vacant lands acquired or development rights
retired to prevent sprawl.
."
3
Tier Workshop - Tier II Basics
Tier II Overview
. Transition area between major acquisition areas
(Tier I) and the preferred development areas in
Tier III. \
. Habitat not as sensitive as larger patches in Tier I.
. However provides important habitat for small
species.
. Sprawl reduction; less appropriate area for
development. County has more platted lots than
can permit in 40 years. '
. County/community/neighbor acquisition area.
Tier Workshop - Tier II ISSUE
Existino Environmental Reouirements & ROGO
. HEI based on 1985 habitat maps- do not reflect
current conditions: receive a +1 in ROGO.
. Endangered species 1992 map - does not
include "species of special concern" (SSC).
. DCA Notice Of Violation and appeals of permits
in Tier II - Partnership Agreement and
negotiations, State dropped NOV.
. Rule Year 8 - 1) acquisition outside CNA
2)amend ROGO or HEI to protect habitat.
Tier Workshop - Tier II Solution
Tier sYStem - oradation of environmental sensitivitv
. Tier I - endangered species, best habitat.
. Tier II - used by interior forest and migratory bird
species and small animals. fragmented habitat.
. Tier III -<:leveloped, some scattered habitat.
Without point differential for Tier 11 County would
need to revise HEI to reflect current conditions
and give negative points for habitat and SSC.
11'''
\I
4
...
5
Tier Workshop - Tier II Issue
Imolementina the FKCCS and Rule 28-20.100
FAC.
. FKCCS recommerlds prevention of further
fragmentation and degradation of tropical
hardwoOd hammocks, pinelands and wetlands.
. The Florida Administration Commission Rule -
Year 6 requires the County to implement the
findings of the FKCCS.
Tier Workshop - Tier II Solution
Goal 105 framework for imolementina FKCCS/Rule
. Tier I - Best habitat- acquire, preserve and
restore; State and Federal acquisition.
. Tier II - Smaller patches - second priority for
acquisition; local funding for acquisition.
. Tier III - Little habitat value - Infill area.
Tier Workshop - Tier II Issue
Prooertv Riahts: the Liabilitv in Platted lots
. 7,150 platted vacant IS, URM lots.
. 3,300, nearly half are in Tier III.
. 45 years at current allocation rate for all
IS, URM lots.
. Rationing system - ROGO designed to allocate
few permits to most appropriate areas.
legal and financial liability in platted lots.
iI'''
\I
6
Tier Workshop - Tier II Solution
Tier desionation allocates points and new permits to
appropriate areas
. Tier 111- Infill a'rea, major positive points.
. Tier 11- Transition/sprawl reduction; area is less
appropriate from a planning and environmental,
moderate positive points.
. Tier I - Natural area, zero positive points.
Property rights preserved because there is a means
to acquire additional points for permit.
Tier Workshop - Tier IIlssue/solution
Tier II and Affordable Housino
. less expensive because not on water and/or
have negative points because of environmental.
. Therefore are used for affordable housing.
Solution
. . Affordable housing" is not allocated under
RaGa in the proposed system.
. If not in a hammock can be allocated in Tier II.
Tier Workshop - Tier II Options
Option 1: Existing proposal - Provide for a ten point
spread between Tier II (+20) and Tier III (+30).
. Planning Commission recommendation.
. Directs most growth to Tier III.
Staff Evaluation:
. Point spread may be too large.
. less spread may still be consistent w/Goal 105.
."
7
Tier Workshop - Tier II Options
ODtlon#2: Reduce pOint difference to four points
between Tier II (+26) and Tier III (+30).
Staff Evaluation: I
. Still encourages most development in Tier III.
. Equivalent to donating one ROGO lot.
. Requires donation of one ROGO lot as basic
mitigation. rather than 2.5 to reach 30 points.
. Administrative relief after 4 years with minimum of
30 pOints and no habitat.
Tier Workshop - Tier II Options
ODtion#3 Tier II lots without upland habitat +30
points; Tier II lots, clearing more than 1,000 sq fl
of upland habitat, -5 points (+25 points).
Staff Evaluation:
. Still encourages most development in Tier III.
. Recognizes environmental resources and
provides needed additional protection.
. Consistent with the current negative points for
moderate quality hammock (-5).
Tier Workshop - Tier II Options
ODtion#4: Vest Applications -Grandfather current
applications in Tier II with a + 1 point for habitat
and award +30.
Staff Evaluation:
. 60% of existing applicants in upper Keys in Tier II
have a + 1 score.
. Actual environmental value of lot may not be
reflected in points because of HE I.
. May be a fair solution for those who made
investments based on existing evaluation system.
11'"
\I
8
Tier Workshop - Tier II Options
ODllo1'III'5: Eliminate point difference between Tier II (+30)
and Tier III (+30).
Staff Evaluation:
. Tier II will still have dearing reduced to 40%.
. Tiers with same points is inconsistent with Goal 105.
. 40% of Tier II applications in Upper Keys have negaUve
environmental points.
. Those with positive points because of 'Ioophole" in HE!.
Concems of DCA raised by permit appeals and NOV.
Preferred:
Option#3:
Tier II lots without upland habitat +30 points; Tier II
lots clearing more than 1,000 sq ft of upland
habitat, -5 paints (+25 points).
Second:
Combination of Option#2 with Option#4:
Reduce the point difference between Tier II and Tier
III designated areas to four points and give 30
points to applications for Tier II designated
properties currently in the ROGO system that
have received a positive habitat point for scarified
or disturbed with hammock.
...
9
Third:
Combination of Option#1 with Option#4:
Retain the existing point differential between Tier II
and Tier III designated areas and give 30 points
to applications for Tier II designated properties
currently in the ROGO system that have received
a positive habitat point for scarified or disturbed
with hammock.
Least:
Option #5:
Eliminate the point differential between Tier II and
Tier III designated areas, amend Goal 105. and
retain more stringent clearing requirements for
Tier II designated areas. This option may require
revision to the HEI and Endangered Species
Maps and additional negative points in ROGO.
Tier Workshop - Tier II
Questions?
fl~'
"
10
March 17, 2005
Dear Commissioners:
Below is a summary of my request for changes in the Tier System proposal now before
you:
I. If landowners, can be enticed or incentivized to build affordable housing on
commercial properties that would result in the elimination of potential
commercial growth while helping to solve our housing problem.
Request: Give greater density bonuses for building affordable homes on
commercially zoned property.
II. Because affordable housing creates, by its nature, smaller unit sizes the need to
set aside 20% ofthe land for open space is not necessary. Applying the same
standard to affordable projects sites as we do to bigger market rate sites is not
realistic and unnecessarily reduces the number of units we can build on any given
site. Land is precious and we need to use it conservatively.
Request: In determining buildable area on M.D. or S.c. or any other commercial
land used for affordable housing allow 100% rather than the 80% now used to
determine the net buildable area.
III. The allowing of mixed income affordable housing developments of 80%
affordable and 20% deed restricted market rate is currently in our code. This was
included as a way to encourage owners of very valuable property to build
affordable housing however the incentive now being requested by the planning
board of 3 ROGO points for these deed restricted market rate units is not
sufficient to accomplish the goal and entice the owners of this land to use it for
affordable projects.
Request: Please consider 5 or 6 ROGO points as the incentive for the 20% deed
restricted market rate units now allowed in affordable mixed income properties.
Might I also suggest that one ROGO point be awarded fro each affordable unit
built thus a developer could amass ROGO points toward off-site permitting, This
would be a major incentive to build affordable housing.
1
IV. The method of notice of the Tier System hearings and implementation is now
advertisements in the newspaper. Because of the dramatic change in the value of
land represented in the Tier System the result is a major across the board land use
change or in effect a comprehensive re-zoning of property.
Request: Direct notice of all Tier I and Tier II property owners by certified mail
or tax bills or in some more direct way than by newspaper ads are in order. This
notice should include a description of what the change is and how it will affect
their property.
Sincerely yours,
Edwin O. Swift, III
EOS/mhc
2
Tier System Marathon Gov. Center March 17, 2005
For the record my name is H. T. Pontin
May 3, 1968 I bought 3 land parcels on the west end of Big Pine Key bordering U.S. # I
and everything on it.
Oct. 30, 1980 Case # 74-37-CA-17 Judge Gomez awarded me the balance of the 20 acres
and the Bay Bottom with everything on them to do with them whatever I wished.
Jan. 3, 1984 I applied for a county permit to fill in to plant trees. The state had not
approved the County Comprehensive 2010 Use plan. The U. S. Army Corps had no
jurisdiction above the Mean High Water Line to approve or deny.
March 1984 A Joint application was initiated instead of two separate applications for a
state and corps permit.
May 12, 1984 I filed for the now required, Joint Permit from the D .E.R. and Corps of
Engineers with a $1,000.00 fee. Jurisdiction was not questioned at that time.
May 21,1984 My Monroe County Jan. 3, 1984 permit was denied
July 13, 1984 The Army Corps denied my joint permit as they could not issue a permit
until I first received one from Monroe County.
Sept. 4. 1984 I filed for a new County fill permit paying another fee.
Sept. 14, 1984 Monroe County Sept 4, 1984 permit and the Joint State and Corps permit
both needed the others permit first in order to grant or deny a fill permit thereby creating
a catch 22.
Feb. 28, 1986 The new County Comprehensive 2010 land Use Plan was adopted and
became effective with the State and Corps Sept 15, 1986.
April 15, 1986 Mr. Charles Pattison, working for Monroe County, put my Sept. 4, 1985
fill application on hold.
Up until this time permits could have been granted or denied as there were no Tier
System regulations. I have tried many times to offer a solution but the answer is always
put in writing that, "no comments can be made as you have a case pending".
Property rights are upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court. Therefore, I request that the Tier
System, which adversely effects the owners' property rights and jurisdiction be put on
hold, like my fill application is, until a ruling on my case is made by the court.
H. T. Pontin, 951 W. Indies Dr., Ramrod Key, Fl. 33042
HT~