The council’s decision to instate a temporary moratorium on new market rate BAS applications was a central topic of the meeting. This moratorium, which has been extended to February 2025, is designed to provide time for a comprehensive examination of the current allocation practices. The BAS, codified in Division 30 of the Village Code, regulates growth and encourages redevelopment while facilitating affordable housing initiatives. The system uses a scoring method based on 14 criteria to allocate building permits quarterly. The moratorium arose from the need to review these criteria and their impact on local development.

The workshop also delved into a historical overview of the BAS, tracing its evolution from the Florida Keys’ 1979 designation as an area of critical state concern to the adoption of a growth ordinance in 1992, and the eventual establishment of the current BAS ordinance in 2002. This historical context framed the ongoing conversation about the necessity and impact of the current moratorium.

Infrastructure capacity emerged as another issue. Concerns were raised about whether the existing water, sewer, and road systems could accommodate further development. An individual voiced a strong opinion that the infrastructure was already at its limits, arguing against the pursuit of additional permits and emphasizing the need for redevelopment over new development. The sentiment was echoed by others who pointed out that property values in Islamorada have become unsustainable, further stressing the infrastructure.

Traffic congestion was highlighted as a concern, particularly after the County Commission’s rejection of an updated traffic study. This decision was criticized as a failure to address the reality of ongoing traffic issues in the area. Attendees expressed frustration over the lack of effective solutions and suggested that more reliable intercity transport options could help alleviate the traffic burden on Islamorada.

Affordable housing was another major topic, with participants debating the feasibility and definition of affordability within the village. A participant pointed out that units priced at $2,500 a month could not be realistically considered affordable for local workers, particularly in the tourism and hospitality sectors. This highlighted a broader issue of ensuring that housing developments cater to the needs of the local workforce.

A representative from Habitat for Humanity defended the organization’s housing model, which provides three-bedroom, two-bathroom units intended for families, arguing that these units are part of an effort to integrate families into the community. The conversation also touched on the necessity for public-private partnerships to create more affordable housing, as well as the financial burdens associated with the permitting process.

The meeting concluded with breakout discussions that encouraged participants to share insights and suggestions for future development strategies. One group stressed the importance of maintaining flexibility by securing all available allocations, even if they are not immediately used. There was also a call for revisiting the Traffic Demand Reduction ordinance due to the rising costs of building rights.