The LPA agenda for June 14, 2021 has requests for changes to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Zoning for four properties in the Village.  All requests are extremely troublesome.

It appears that the planning department hand picks the sections of the Village code that would justify the changes requested and ignores sections of the code that clearly demonstrate the changes are unacceptable.  All four changes are recommended by Village Staff.  Who are they representing?  Why work so hard to justify changes detrimental to our community? 

Is dramatically increasing a property's value, at the expense of the community as a whole, a valid reason to change zoning?  There is a reason why we have a policy to limit growth.  Don't make traffic worse. Protect our natural resources. 

The FLUM and Zoning classifications were originally established within a few years of incorporation following months and months of public workshops and public hearings.  After all this time, nearly every change requested is based on the owner’s desire to increase the value of his property.  Most often this is in direct conflict with the intent of the Village Comprehensive Plan.

The very first goal of the Village Comprehensive Plan is clear. The purpose of the Plan is to conserve, preserve, and retain our waters, our environment and our quality of life:

GOAL 1-1: IMPLEMENT FUTURE LAND USE VISION.  Realizing the following: That the Village incorporated to create a Comprehensive Plan to reclaim the Keys by conserving, preserving, and retaining our remarkable assets — our waters and natural environment — and our quality of life.

Policy 1-2.1.14 lists criteria for Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendments.  Often ignored is one critical statement in this policy:

“However, in no event shall an amendment be approved which would result in an adverse community change.”

Consider the basic changes requested for the four properties in the June 14, 2021 LPA agenda and the policy justifications for each:

1.     TAB 2-3, MM76.4 Bayside Lower Matecumbe – a property that is zoned Residential Single Family (R1), one home per lot, already developed with a 4 bedroom home plus a detached accessory structure with another 2 bedrooms.   Applicant wants to “down zone” to Residential Estate (RE), one home per two acres, though the property is less than two acres, creating a non-conformity. Why – we suspect it is because in R1 zoning, vacation rentals are not legal, but they are legal in RE zoning – and typically extremely lucrative!

No mention was made of vacation rentals in the staff report.  While stating there were four other properties zoned RE in the area, the staff report did not mention there are over 50 homes located in closer proximity than the homes in the nearby RE zoning.  These 50 homes are the ones that better characterize the neighborhood, including four homes that actually adjoin the subject..

Comprehensive Plan Policies Used to Justify the change with no mention of vacation rentals and adverse community change:

We believe there is no justification for this change as the primary difference between the R1 and RE zoning for an already developed parcel is the opportunity for a vacation rental license – an adverse community change.

2.     Tabs 4-5, vacant lot on Upper Matecumbe behind the Banyan Tree commercial property, not on the highway, single family homes on two sides, zoned Settlers Residential (SR), same applicant and same planner as Tabs 2-3, wants to be rezoned to Highway Commercial (HC). Current zoning of SR: 1 home per lot, vacation rentals illegal. Requested zoning HC: 6 market rate homes per acres, or 15 affordable homes/acre.  If affordable homes commercial sq ft also allowed ignoring affordable density.  Vacation rentals legal.

Comprehensive Plan Policies Used to Justify the change, with no mention of limiting growth as was a criteria for the Tab 2-3 request:

We believe there is no justification for this change as it does not limit growth within the community, a significant issue with our very limited carrying capacity… particularly our traffic, our potable water conservation needs, evacuation.  

3.     Tab 6-7: Oceanfront tract at MM82.5 on Upper Matecumbe, already developed. Applicant wants to “down zone” to Residential Estate (RE), one home per two acres, though the property is less than two acres.  Why – we suspect it is because in R1 zoning vacation rentals are not legal but they are legal in RE zoning – and typically extremely lucrative! In fact the stated reason from applicant for zoning change is a better resale value. 

Comprehensive Plan Policies Used to Justify the change, with no mention of vacation rentals and adverse community change:

We believe there is no justification for this change as the primary difference between the R1 and RE zoning for an already developed parcel is opportunity for vacation rental license – an adverse community change.

4.     Tabs 8-9, two vacant hammock lots between U.S. One and the Old Highway at corner of Coral Road.  Request to change existing zoning from Residential Conservation (RC) to Highway Commercial (HC).  The property is .55 acres.  With the HC zoning the residential density is one home per 4 acres so no residential development would be allowed currently.  With HC zoning, 6 market rate homes or 15 affordable homes per acre would be allowed. If affordable homes, commercial sq ft also allowed ignoring affordable density.  

Illegal clearing has been noticed but no enforcement action taken.   

The hammock properties between the Old Highway and U.S. One have long served as a valued buffer for the homes on the ocean side of the Old Highway.

Comprehensive Plan Policies Used to Justify the change, with no mention of limiting growth or protecting our treasured natural resources:

We believe there is no justification for this change as it does not limit growth within the community, a significant issue with our very limited carrying capacity… particularly our traffic, our potable water conservation needs, evacuation.  And we absolutely need to protect our natural resources, our hammocks.