Item D1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: AUlZUst 17.2000
Bulk Item: Yes No X
Division: Growth Management
Department: Planning
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Public Hearing to consider Administrative Relief application filed by Mr.
Nicholas Mulick (Permits #94-3-2393 and 94-3-2394) for Part of Government Lot 3, Key Largo, MM 95.5,
owned by David Richardson and John Thatcher as Trustee.
ITEM BACKGROUND: This application for relief under ROGO has been filed under the provisions of Section
9.5-122 (h) of the Monroe County Code that allows any applicant, who has been denied a ROGO allocation for
more than 4 consecutive years, to file for relief with the Board of County Commissioners. This relief may take
the form of an offer to purchase the applicant's property, issuance of a building permit, or suggestions of such
other relief as may be deemed appropriate by the BOCC. The applicant has remained in the allocation system for
over 5 years, starting January 6, 1995.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Request Land Authority to enter into negotiations to purchase property for the
County .
TOTAL COST:
COST TO COUNTY:
AMOUNT PER MONTH
~ $246. 000
$0 (State Funds)
N/A
BUDGETED: YES~ NO
PER YEAR
UNKNOWN
APPROVED BY:
County Attorney X
OMB/Purchasing N/ A
Risk Management N/ A
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
'K.' /Jtt.~ ~
K. Marlene Conaway
Di r of Plann . d Environmental Rersources
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENTATION: Included ...x.
To Follow
Not Required
Agenda Item #: ~
DISPOSITION:
Agenda Template.doc
MEMORANDUM
.
TO:
FROM:
Board of County Commissioners tAM' /
K. Marlene Conaway, Director of Planning a~lV\)-/
Environmental Resources
SUBJECT:
Recommendations on Administrative Relief Application for
Part of Government Lot 3, Key Largo, and MM 96. (Building
Permit Applications #94-3-2393 and #94-3-2394)
DATE:
August 1, 2000
OVERVIEW
This report addresses the request of Nick Mulick and the application for Administrative
Relief filed on behalf of David Richardson and John Thatcher, Trustee, who have been
denied two ROGO allocations for a period over four years. Staff recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners request the Monroe County Land Authority to pursue
negotiations for the purchase of the property.
Background on Administrative Relief
The Planning Department has received an application (Appendix 1) for
administrative relief under ROGO for the property with the above referenced
description and the following legal description:
a strip of land 440 feet wide extending from the Overseas Highway
to the shoreline of Florida Bay, the southwesterly line of which is
parallel with and 1900 feet distant Northeasterly from the Agreed
Boundary line between Southcliff Estates and O.K. Thompson
Property, according to the plat of said property recorded at Plat
Book 2, at Page 67, of the Public Records of Monroe County; said
strip of land being known as Tracts 20, 21, 22, and 23 and the
Northeasterly 40 feet according to survey of property between
Overseas Highway and the Florida Bay, lying North of the Agreed
Boundary line said tracts of land being in Section 1, Township 62
South, Range 38 east and a part of Government Lot 3, Monroe
County, Florida.
Page 1 of8
Section 9.5-122(h) of the Monroe County Code allows any applicant who has been
denied a ROGO allocation for more than four consecutive years to file for relief with
the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC).
The Board of County Commissioners is required to hold a public hearing to consider
that applicant's request for relief. At such a hearing, the applicant will be provided
an opportunity to be heard.
Policy 101.6.1 of the Comprehensive Plan and Section 9.5-122(h)(6) of the Monroe
County Code allows the Board to take one or more of the following actions:
.:. Grant the applicant an allocation award (authorize issuance of a building
permit) in the next quarterly allocation period; or,
.:. Offer to purchase the property at its fair market value; or,
.:. Suggest other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan requires that the "fair market
value" shall be no less than the ad valorem valuation in the Monroe County Real
Property Tax Roll for the year 1992.
Background on Application
The applicant entered the ROGO permit allocation system on January 6, 1995. The
applicant submitted two applications, #94-3-2393 and #94-3-2394 on two adjacent
properties. In March 1996, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
decreased the minimum allocated density from one unit per acre to one unit per two
acres. Mr. Richardson combined the lots and applied for vested rights in January
1997. On May 12, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners approved the vested
rights order (Resolution No. 204-1999) vesting density to one house per acre. Both
applications have been denied a ROGO allocation for over four consecutive years.
The 2.83 acre lot is zoned Sub Urban Residential (SR) and is located on an
unplatted area between US1 and the Florida Bay on the island of Key Largo
(Appendix 2). The lot is vegetated with approximately 1.23 acres of low elevation
moderate-quality hammock, 0.5 acres of mangrove with an additional 0.88 acres of
transition zone (disturbed with beach berm) and 0.2 acres of disturbed land. This
parcel is not known habitat to any federal or state listed animal species and is not
within a C.A.R.L. or critical habitat area. In the applicant's site plan, proposed
Building "A" is entirely located within the hammock habitat, while Building "B" is
predominantly but not entirely within the disturbed area (Appendix 3). After
reviewing the site, County Staff has determined that the total buildable area for the
site is 1.32 acres. According to the SR zoning regulations, the building potential is 6
units based on the maximum net density for the site (5 units/acre).
Page 2 ofS
Both adjacent properties to the north and south are developed with single family
dwellings. The subject property is being used by the public without the authorization
of the property owner. The property forms a protected cove. Neighboring property
owners have expressed concern over vandalism to property and trash washing up
on both the subject and adjacent properties. On weekends, upwards of twenty
boaters moor off the shallow waters of the site for swimming and recreation. A
unique site feature is the natural sand beach found on the northern portion of the
site.
This property forms part of a greater open space system on the bayside of US 1.
Neighboring lots on the bays ide of the US1 have maintained a significant amount of
hammock despite the presence of single family residences. The south side of US1
is the Silver Shores Mobile Home Park that maintains its own recreation and boat
facilities. Properties to the north and south of the subject property on the Bay-side of
US 1 have private facilities including docks, canals, some pools and tennis courts,
while properties on the south side of US1 have a combination of private recreational
facilities and canals. Although Harry Harris Park is two miles south of the subject
property, the demand for the use of the site is high based on the number of users
reported there.
According to County tax records, the assessed value of the property was $246,432
in 1992. The assessed value in 1998 was $185,040.
Applicant's ROGO Score
Other property owners have consistently outscored the applicant. In the last ROGO
allocation quarter (4th Quarter, Year 8, April 14, 1999 to July 13, 2000), his ROGO
applications scored only 10 points each. At least 18 points were necessary to
receive an allocation during that quarter.
In reviewing the records, it is apparent that a primary reason that the applicant has
not received a ROGO allocation is that he is not part of a platted subdivision. Ten
additional points are awarded to platted lots. Rather than receive ten points for
proposing to build in a platted subdivision, the applicant only received 5 points for
proposing to build within an acreage with infrastructure. Additionally, the applicant
also has consistently scored negatively for proposing to build within a hammock
habitat area. The applicant has elected to include optional features in his building
plans, but none of the options are of sufficient award value to counter both the
negative environmental score and the lack of points for not being within a platted
subdivision.
To counter the number of negative points, the applicant would have to pursue lot
aggregation and dedication options. To qualify for a ROGO allocation, the applicant
would have had to purchase and dedicate four lots to match minimum scores
awarded ROGO allocations in the last ROGO quarter.
Page 3 of8
Offer to Purchase Property by Land Authority
On April 26, 2000 the Land Authority staff presented to the Land Authority Advisory
Committee a proposal to purchase the subject property. Due to the high cost of the
property and the unusually high level of public use of the property's shoreline, the
Committee decided to postpone the consideration of the purchase until such time as
the County Commission has endorsed acquisition as the preferred form of
administrative relief. The Advisory Committee is not opposed to purchasing the
property if the County Commission is supportive of this alternative. State funding is
available for the acquisition of the property but not for the ongoing maintenance.
Policy Analysis
The ROGO administrative relief process is intended to protect the property rights of
applicants and to ensure that the integrity of the ROGO permit allocation process is
maintained to fully implement the growth management goals, objectives, and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, in making it's decision on the
application for administrative relief, the Board of County Commissioners should fully
consider and weigh the property rights of the applicant versus the public policy and
equity issues as articulated and adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.
As stated previously, the BOCC has three basic options available to it in reaching a
decision on the relief request. The BOCC may offer to purchase the property for at
least its 1992 assessed taxable value, issue an allocation to the applicant for the
next ROGO quarter (resulting in the issuance of a building permit), or simply
suggest other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
Objective 101.6 of the Comprehensive Plan directs the Land Authority to consider
the acquisition of land from property owners who have been denied a building
permit allocation through the permit allocation system. Policy 101.6.6 states that
Monroe County shall base consideration to acquire properties denied a ROGO
allocation on the environmental sensitivity ranking according to vegetative habitat,
marine resources, and impacts to nearshore waters. As the letter dated October
29th from County Biologist Sandra Lee states, the site contains low elevation
moderate-quality hammock with disturbed areas and mangrove. The property is not
known habitat for any threatened or endangered species.
The Comprehensive Plan requires the BOCC to choose either the permitting or
purchase option in granting its relief, although it does not preclude the BOCC from
making suggestions to the applicant for other forms of relief as provided by Section
9.5-120 (f)(6)c ofthe Monroe County Code.
Issuance of a permit. It may appear that granting a permit would be the easiest
alternative for the BOCC to follow and would grant the applicant the specific relief
for which he is requesting. However, this option has certain liabilities.
Page 4 of8
If pursued as BOCC policy on all administrative relief applications, it may well
reduce the number of permits available to future applicants. The net result would
reduce allocations for superior scoring applications in terms of meeting
development and environmental standards. It is conceivable that such a policy may
shorten the 10-year life of ROGO, if too may applicants become eligible for relief
and expect to be rewarded with a permit by the Board. It certainly does not address
the basic problem of the existence of too many vacant buildable lots.
Additionally the community impact must also be considered. It is likely that
community residents will continue to use the site regardless of ownership since the
bay bottom is sovereign, however, private ownership would restrict beach access
and impact what is considered a community resource despite its private ownership.
Purchase the property. The County, through Monroe County Land Authority could
offer to purchase the land at fair market value. The Comprehensive Plan requires
that such a purchase offer be at least at the 1992 assessed tax value.
The unknown costs of maintenance and the responsibility for policing must be
considered in the determination of whether the acquisition of the site is the preferred
method of relief. Since the bay bottom is sovereign territory, the complaints of public
use would probably persist between the County and adjacent property owners. The
opportunities for post-purchase activity will also be subject to the funding source
employed to purchase the property.
However, County purchase of the property would have significant benefits. If the
property were publicly owned, it would eliminate the development right of 6 units.
This is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and ROGO. Public
ownership would also provide an opportunity to preserve a unique site valued by the
community while providing possible opportunities for other County uses including
recreation.
The Land Authority may consider purchasing the property and selling it to the
adjacent property owners with a conservation easement or restrictive deed limiting
development to accessory uses (i.e. tennis courts, swimming pool etc.). This would
absolve the County of the site management responsibility. As is the case with
granting the building permits, private ownership will lessen a significant community
resource.
Findings and Conclusions
The Planning Department Staff has reviewed the application and made the following
findings based on the preceding policy analysis:
1. Mr. Richardson and Mr. Thatcher have submitted applications
for two building permit allocations under the Dwelling Unit
Page 5 of8
Allocation Ordinance, commonly known as the Rate of Growth
Ordinance or "ROGO".
2. Mr. Richardson and Mr. Thatcher's applications have been in
the system for at least four (4) years.
3. Mr. Richardson and Mr. Thatcher's applications each scored ten
(10) points in the last allocation.
4. Mr. Richardson and Mr. Thatcher's applications are consistently
denied five (5) points for applying for ROGO allocations in an
unplatted subdivision.
5. Mr. Richardson and Mr. Thatcher's applications are consistently
penalized points on their ROGO application for proposing to
build in an area with environmental constraints.
6. In the last quarter of the last year of ROGO allocations in the
Upper Keys, eighteen (18) points were required to obtain an
allocation.
7. Mr. Richardson and Mr. Thatcher represented by land use
attorney Nicholas Mulick are eligible for administrative relief
according to the criteria set out in Section 9.5-122(h) of the
Monroe County Code.
8. Mr. Mulick submitted an application for adminstrative relief for
the subject property on May 26th, 1999.
9. The subject property zoned SR, is situated between US1 and
the Florida Bay on an unplatted section of land with single family
dwellings on the adjacent north and south properties.
10. The subject property is situated within an area consisting of low
elevation moderate-quality hammock with additional mangrove
and disturbed areas.
11. The subject property is not located within any known threatened
or endangered habitat.
12. Due to the site characteristics, the subject property is a valued
community resource being used by many community boaters as
a swimming area.
13. Policy 101.6.5 of the Comprehensive Plan stipulates that priority
consideration for acquisition be given to environmentally
Page 6 of8
sensitive properties including: vegetative habitat, marine
resources, and impact to nearshore water quality.
14. The awarding of a future allocation building permit) in this
specific situation may establish a bad precedent, does not
support the Comprehensive Plan policies, and creates equity
problems for treating current and future applications in the
ROGO system.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the issuance of a building permit is not the
recommended relief option in this specific situation.
15.Acquisition of the subject lot by the County is consistent with the
public interest in balancing the need to conserve and protect
natural resources with the property rights of the applicant.
16. The purchase of the property by the County is a straightforward
way to eliminate a vacant buildable lot, therefore furthering the
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and ROGO.
17. The Monroe County Land Authority is the mechanism
established by the County and designated by the
Comprehensive Plan to purchase property under ROGO.
18. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations
require any land purchase be at fair market value, which is
defined as no less than the 1992 assessed value on the tax
rolls.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the preferred option is to request the land
Authority to negotiate for the purchase of the property.
Recommendation
The Planning Department Staff in consultation with the Monroe County land
Authority Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
consider the preferred option for administrative relief:
.:. Requesting the Land Authority to pursue the purchase of the
property with Monroe County taking responsibility for site
management and policing, and providing the opportunity for
potential future county use.
The other two options in order of preference are:
Page 7 of8
.:. Requesting the Land Authority to pursue the purchase of the
property and selling to adjacent property owners with a
restrictive deed to limit the property to residential accessory
uses or conservation with an easement; or,
.:. Granting the applicant his ROGO allocations (with a caveat that
the residential units be built within a six month period or the
allocations return to the ROGO queue), thus removing two
allocations; and relieving Monroe County of future site
responsibility .
Attachments
Page 8of8
,
.
-
APPLICATION POR
ADMJNI8TRATIVE RELIEF
App1icaDt it: CJ OWMr m Authorbed Rep~tative
A~f.n~: Nicholas w. Mulick p~: 305-664-3336
A~rL.~~: Islamorada Professional Center - 201, 81990
Overseas Hiqhway, Islamorada, FL 33036
OwDer'laame(ifapplicanttalKllcnmed: David M. Richardson & John W.Thatcher,
As Trustee
~'I~: Post Office Box 505
Earleton, FL 32631 ~: 352-392-8823 Work
(Pl.... att.ch a .tatement authorizinl repreHlltation of thit applicatiOll b)"
aOllleoDe other \ban ,.ourself. The Itate ahould read:
"I, CowDen'. Dame) authome (individual )"ou are authoridDI to repre..nt lou)
to repre.ent m)" propert, for thia .pplicatioD for Aclm.iniltrati"e Reli.C."
REf: 00088270
lAp! detcriptioa (attllch metM and bounds dncription if nee. II.,.):
See Attached
P.rmit': 94-3-2393 and 94-3-2394
Date oflllOlt recent !lOGO application: 1-6-95 (see Vested Riqhts Order attache
What kiacl of acbaiDiltrati.e reli.f an JOU ...kiq?: Issuance of Buildinq Permits
or purchase of property at fair market value pursuant to
M.C.L.D.R. 9.5-122(h).
Additional comment.:
~~
Nicholas W. Mulick, attorney for
David ~. Richardson & John W. Thatcher,
As Trustee
a,ar
26th
NOTARY:
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MONROE
The Corel'Oiq lipatUN w.. acImowledpd before me t.h1a
Mav
.19.n- b7 Nicholas W. Mulick
who ia penona1lJlmown to me or who hM produced
u identiAcation.
Ql USA VAJJEf
My COIIlIIli.uioD .......: :. MY COMMISSION' CC 758702
I . EXPIRES: J1kf 12,2002
~)O-lQ .' -----
Sipatwo olNCltu7 ~ Slala olPlarida
Lisa Valley
(Print Name of Notary Public)
fOR DBPAIl'I'IIINT VII ONLY
Date or filiq with PI.n"il'\~
Dindor'
AJIIINII
KE
FLORIDA BAY
SITE
N
Land Use District Map
Key: Key Largo MM: 95.7
Property Description: Part of Government Lot 3, Island of Key Largo
RE #: 00088270.000000
Applicant: Nicholas Mulick
N. T.S.
ABOVE. View of
property from USl
RIGHT. Existing path
into site from USl
View from beach looking south
.'
.t"'
rf'
The site as a community resource
The site as a liability
P.... \~ ~ - .-r~f::t .
.:::::\.:.:.:}
.. ~:::::::(:::::\
1.::-::,-:::1
(.:::r:::\
r.:-:.J:::.1
[.:-:-:y-:.:-\
r:::,:-:-:.:)
[:::::::-":-:-:'t
L. .. .1":::
':::.f . . .}
..... t::;,;:-:-:'l
-.....TL
,:.:.:.1:.:-:-,
r' .'y.'.
f:::. :::.j
1:-:.:-:r-:.:-,
(:.:.r.:.:l
,::::::t:-:.:-,
..... [:-:-:-:;-:-:-:.j
,::::;:::1
:::.Y' . .1
( .... :::.1
,:-:.:.+.:.:.,
I:~;:':'(':-:)
..... ~4'f::.t
j.:::. :::.
.:::i:::.j
f:::' :::.t
{-"::~:::.\
:':-:-:'j-"- ':,
t ..-,. ...t
(::::}J:-J
~::::j:1}
l....~ .a:J
. ~ (:.:...:.&1 .:'
....JioilI.'
f::'" II:.
~ .:.:.:.):~::~
t. . .., . ..,
!...... ,':::.1":::
~ ........-,
f"'~'" .
:t: (~:::{:::::
(:,:,,:.:.::.
~ (.:.:..::::.
..... i~~r:::::
(Ji..- . 1" ..
::t: r,::::.:r.:.:-
(':':':',:':-:':
(:::::::\:::::::
,....J...
~.-";;,..~..:t.:.:.
~. ...:.:i:~"
&U' :::.w..f
~ (.:.:-:-r.:.:.
r.......
~ (::::F:::
r^ {::::./::-
vol I""'"
~ I:::::::'::::::
:-:-:':1-"::
~ :::.{:'
~ (::\::::
{::\::::
. <::> (.':::..::
~. {::::r::
:.....1.::
~':.i.::
_ ...,...
- - -f~':r.
(:::::r::
r::.y::
I
I
". .::~<.~
.:;.!;..,.i1 ~
:;-:.: -
:T',.;"
/
. . ....
/
. .
/
~
/
~
~
I
I
I '"
. '\>
./ .Q:
'"
. S4'
/
........-.. --- .'
2-/ ~
/ t,
/ '"
/ '\>
~
Fi.;'''
I
I
I .
~A"
\
\
/
/
,
, ,,'
../ ./ /
-.. ./ /
_.._..-.. A /
'p~A$' ,//
--~ . "
---- \ "-
--
"S4'
II 0 Jl
o v
( 4..' N 4I1"52'ftJ., .
- +- ~ .
. ppro:lCim. &e ..Ia_JiA. )
TJUC
&0...
"'--
:r.J:'
&I'~ :II
.-
,I
.
".J
~'TF PI AN
..
\