Showing posts with label 2050 comprehensive plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2050 comprehensive plan. Show all posts

Sunday, March 29, 2026

Modifying the Comp Plan without Public Vote

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SARASOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL CONCERN (DOCC)

 

The Sarasota County Planning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, will hold a Public Hearing on April 16, 2026, at the Robert L. Anderson Administration Center, County Commission Chamber, 4000 South Tamiami Trail, Venice, Florida, at 5:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, to consider:


1) CPA No. 2024-D (Accela Record No. PLN-AMEND-24-000009), a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan text Amendment to Chapter 8 – Sarasota 2050 RMA, amending VOS Policies 1.2.A, 2.1, 2.3 and 2.5 to include an optional Town Center concept with increased density and intensity for Village Planned Development and to expand the qualifying criteria for requesting exceptions to the Greenbelt requirements,


2) UDC Amendment No. X (Accela Record No. ZON-VERIFY-25-000033), a privately initiated Unified Development Code amendment to section 124-271 and section 124-272 (Village Area Regulations) to implement the changes proposed by CPA No. 2024-D, and


3) Palmer Ranch East DOCC (Accela Record No. PLN-DOCC-24-00001), that proposes a Master Development Order and Plan for a mixed-use Village project of up to 5,702 residential units and up to 1,480,000 SF of commercial/office and/or light industrial uses, utilizing the Sarasota 2050 RMA development form.

The petitions relate to the property located east of the intersection of I-75 and S.R. 681, Sarasota, and generally shown on the map below:

Map of area for PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL CONCERN (DOCC)

All interested parties are invited to appear, be heard, and submit relevant evidence. Copies of the petitions and supporting documents are available during normal business hours in the Planning and Development Services Department at 870 Apex Road, Sarasota, Florida 34240. Copies of the petitions and supporting documents will be available to view or download at www.scgov.net, Keyword: Planning Commission two Thursdays prior to the public hearings. Written comments will be considered and may be sent to the Planning and Development Services Department prior to the public hearings at the above address or by e-mail to planner@scgov.net.  The public hearing may be continued from time to time as announced by the Board. For more information, telephone 941-861-5000.


No stenographic record by a certified court reporter is made of this meeting. Accordingly, any person who may seek to appeal any decision involving the matters noticed herein will be responsible for making a verbatim record of the testimony and evidence at this meeting upon which any appeal is to be based.


Sarasota County prohibits discrimination in all services, programs or activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, marital status, familial status, religion, or genetic information. Persons with disabilities who require assistance or alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), or who wish to file a complaint, should contact Sarasota County ADA/Civil Rights Coordinator, Whitney Barazoto, Employee Health Center, 1301 Cattlemen Rd., Sarasota, Florida 34232, Phone: 941-861-5000; TTY 7-1-1 or 1-800-955-8771, E-mail: adacoordinator@scgov.net

Friday, June 28, 2024

Another Potential Violation of our Comp Plan - Lourdes Ramirez

 

Monthly News & Updates

July 2024

Another Potential Violation of our Comprehensive Plan

Public Hearing before County Commissioners scheduled for July 9

Here we go again…Another possible violation of our Comprehensive Plan!


Siesta Key is currently dealing with three proposals that aim to increase the population and development on our island. The most recent proposal that will be heard by the Sarasota County Commission on July 9th may also impact Manasota and Casey Keys. The following is a brief overview of all three proposals. A link to a copy of the letter Protect Siesta Key (PSK) plans to send to the County Commission for the July 9th public hearing on nonconforming lots of record will be listed below.


Please be aware that Protect Siesta Key opposes any changes to the Comprehensive Plan that would endanger the decades-old regulations protecting all barrier islands. We also oppose any changes to the zoning code that conflict with our Comprehensive Plan.


Summary of the three proposals to increase density on barrier islands:


1. Mega-hotels for Siesta Key: Benderson Development is proposing to alter long-standing protective growth laws in our Comprehensive Plan to construct large hotels on our fragile island. The Comp Plan amendment is expected to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners in late August or early September. Visit our website, Protect Siesta Key.org for additional information on this proposal.


2. Condo rebuilds on Barrier Islands: Sarasota County is considering changes to our Comprehensive Plan to increase the size of condo buildings in the Residential Multi-family Districts on the barrier islands. There is a proposal to allow condominium structures built decades ago with densities and height that exceed the maximum permitted in the current zoning regulations to become even larger. The Siesta Key Condominium Council is leading the effort to oppose this change. The Planning Commission recently denied the proposed change to the Comp Plan 8-0. The next step is to go before the County Commission, which might occur in the fall. To read more about the concerns, use this link to the SKCC letter to the Planning Commission.

And the recent proposal that will be heard by County Commissioners on July 9th


3. Nonconforming Lots of Record on Barrier Islands: Before the adoption of the 1975 zoning regulations, several areas on the barrier islands were platted with small residential lots, some with a width of only 25 feet! These lots are called ‘nonconforming lots of record,’ as they do not conform to the minimum lot sizes required by our zoning codes since 1975. In 1989, Sarasota County adopted laws acknowledging that some homes on existing nonconforming lots of records can continue to exist. To protect property rights, a property owner can rebuild on those tiny lots as platted but can’t change the lot lines. The goal of our zoning regulations since 1975 is to have these small lots to cease to exist. According to our Comp Plan, all lots created since 1975 must meet minimum lot size requirements for their district.


The Protect Siesta Key letter to the County Commission (Link) includes a hypothetical example of a Residential Single Family 1.2-acre parcel that legally can have 3 homes but contains 10 nonconforming lots of record that were platted in 1912. Due to regulations such as minimum setback requirements, most property owners choose to combine nonconforming lots of records into legally conforming lots, which would comply with our Comprehensive Plan.


The proposed change to the Unified Development Code will allow developers to count the tiny lots as ‘density’ which is not allowed in our codes and combine that number into multiple homes on a parcel. The developer lawyers claim they can ‘reduce density’ if they promise not to use all of the old nonconforming lots of record on a parcel. The proposal to allow this is in violation of our Comprehensive Plan that requires the County to follow the 1989 Zoning regulations for barrier islands. In 1989, the zoning regulations did not allow for the developers to change the nonconforming lots of record lines or count it as density.  The proposed change in Ordinance 2024-034 will violate the Comprehensive Plan as we described in our letter to the County Commission. 


  • Link to PSK letter opposing UDC amendment 2024-034
  • Link to PSK Attorney Richard Grosso letter to BCC


The Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to hear this proposal on


Tuesday, July 9th.

Location: Board of County Commission Chambers

R.L. Anderson Administration Center,

4000 S. Tamiami Trail,

Venice, Florida


To write your objections to the County over this proposal or to just state to the County that they MUST NOT pass zoning laws that violate our Comprehensive Plan,


send an email to

Commissioners@scgov.net


Or to each commissioner with a copy to the planner:


jneunder@scgov.netnrainford@scgov.netmhsmith@scgov.netmmoran@scgov.netrcutsinger@scgov.netplanner@scgov.net


Thank you.


Lourdes

Sunday, October 23, 2022

"THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES CLASSIC URBAN SPRAWL"

Friends and Supporters of Keep the Country … Country – As we all continue to recover from Ian and try to help our neighbors and community reclaim our lives, the threat of destruction of over 4,000 acres of the remaining rural lands in Sarasota County looms larger than ever. 

ATTEND THE COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25

Lakewood Ranch SE – or Pat Neal’s lipsticked pig – has its final public hearing this Tuesday, Oct. 25th.
The County Commission meeting begins at 9 am, but the issue is No. 29 (A&B) on the agenda, which makes it unlikely to be discussed before noon. Important: Whatever time you come, please sign a speaker's card on which you state your opposition to Lakewood Ranch SE (Item #29), and hand it to the recording clerk. You can later forfeit your speaker's slot, but your opposition will still be on the record.

Like the Death Star from the Star Wars story, LWR and SMR want to destroy our rural and agricultural lands. Why? Greed. If SMR gets to develop at hugely increased densities and use “open space” for facilities required for its development, it makes more money. At the cost of environmental, stormwater and economic benefits to the entire County and region from rural lands. We will all pay for this development – through loss of our rural and agricultural lives and through increased costs to the public from this urban sprawl of 5,000 mansion behind gates (“urban sprawl”) that will add over 45,000 additional daily car trips on our road system. This county commission is about to grant SMR special status that would override the county's comprehensive plan. Residents of Old Miakka, one of Sarasota County's oldest continuous settlements, are trying to save their rural lifestyle, agriculture, and everyone's open space, wildlife habitat, and environmental assets.

Even if you can’t attend the public hearing on Tuesday, please send emails to the Commissioners. Copy and paste all or some of the points below to tell them to DENY Lakewood Ranch SE – don’t make Sarasota County an extension of Manatee County’s “Stepfordville”. With the 2050 Plan, Sarasota County residents rejected cookie cutter houses crammed together covering acres and acres of land previously providing forage and cover for wildlife, stormwater retention, open space, agriculture, dark skies, and a place where people can breath and enjoy nature and rural life. Tell the Commission to say NO.

==========

 

Please email the County Commissioners and the Planners (email addresses shown below – ask for your email to be included in the official record of the Oct. 25, 2022 public hearing on Agenda Item #29 (Lakewood Ranch SE).  PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR NAME AT THE END OF THE LETTER

 

SUBJECT:  DENY Lakewood Ranch SE (Item #29, Oct. 25, 2022) – include in official record of public hearing





SARASOTA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AL MAIO   amaio@scgov.net

MIKE MORAN  mmoran@scgov.net

NANCY DETERT  ncdetert@scgov.net

RON CUTSINGER  rcutsinger@scgov.net

CHRISTIAN ZIEGLER  cziegler@scgov.net

ALSO copy planner@scgov.net

Brett Harrington  bharring@scgov.net

Hannah Sowinski hsowinski@scgov.net

 

Good Day Commissioners:

 

I am opposed to Item #29 on your agenda for October 25, 2022.  Please make the following comments in opposition to CPA 2022-B and the DOCC part of the official record of the Oct. 25, 2022 public hearing.

 

STATE AGENCY REVIEW OF CPA 2022-B – Among other comments made by the Department of Economic Development (DEO), the Department's letter supports residents’ objections regarding the greenway buffers and open space. The proposed alternative greenway configurations and design criteria lack the "meaningful and predictable standards" required by §163.3177 (1), Fla. Stat. 

        Residents have objected to the reduction of open space greenbelts for their failure to provide adequate protection for native habitats and failure to ensure that the location, size, configuration, quality or other components of any preserved open space will be adequate to ensure the protection of the land's ecological functions. The Department stated that the County must "require a greenbelt minimum width that is wide enough to appropriately ensure that the greenbelt functions to clearly separate urban uses from rural uses." The Department also told the County to only allow those uses in "open space" that are consistent with the definition of open space, and that "public safety stations and community centers should not constitute open space". (DEO letter, p. 2)


DEO also found that the County and applicant have not shown that the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment does not constitute urban sprawl. It said that the County must either provide further explanation of how the allowed future land uses are not urban sprawl or modify the amendment to not constitute urban sprawl. (DEO letter, p. 2). 


We do not see how the County can produce professionally acceptable data and analysis to support a claim that the development proposed by the FLUM change is not urban sprawl. In terms of modifications to the proposed amendment, based on the location and relevant facts about the property, the changes necessary to allow the proposed amendment to avoid violating the urban sprawl provisions of the statute would significantly reduce the amount of residential development and supporting uses being introduced into this special rural and agricultural area. 


COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS BY LEGAL AND PLANNING EXPERTS - Residents opposed to CPA 2022-B and the related DOCC have engaged two experts who have submitted a number of written comments and statements to the Planning Commission, the BCC, and DEO and state agencies. Legal expert Richard Grosso (hired by the Miakka Community Club) and planning expert Charles Gauthier (hired by Keep the Country, Inc.) have identified numerous significant issues and problems with the proposed CPA and DOCC. I endorse all of the comments and statements by these experts and ask that this development proposal be denied.


DANGEROUS CONDITIONS ON ROAD SYSTEM - Rex Jensen’s proposed expansion of Lakewood Ranch will consume over 4,000 acres of rural lands in northeast Sarasota County. With 5,000 dwelling units, over 45,000 additional daily car trips will be added to our road system. Among many valid arguments against this development are the dangerous and worsening conditions on our roads. Fruitville Road, a state evacuation route and primary east-west access, already operates significantly below acceptable levels of service. Commissioners seem mesmerized by vague and unenforceable deals proposed by Rex, in his blurred dual roles as head of SMR and the LWR Stewardship District, to “fix” Fruitville. Rex/SMR have not fulfilled existing legal obligations for linear wetlands on this land – why would anyone think he will fulfill unenforceable verbal proffers on Fruitville Road? The result - residents will pay the cost of worsening conditions on Fruitville Road and will pay with our taxes and public funds for development impacts. There is not enough funding to fix existing problems on Fruitville – much less to address the impacts of this and other developments. Lakewood Ranch SE must be denied.

NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT- LWR developers are asking for approval of a 2050 comp plan amendment, to once again move the Old Miakka Countryside line, amend the comp plan Hamlet allowances to high density development, to create a new high density Village Transition Zoning, (VTZ) zoning. 2022-B proposes density increases to the existing Lake Park Estates, reduces green ways and buffers from 500' to 50', with no town center or commercial planned in the entire 4100 acres. Seventeen percent (17%) of the Lakewood Ranch SE site occurs in a flood plain, which includes Gum Slough, Myakka River headwaters and Donna Bay. Development of these lands at increased density will cause degradation of water quality, increase and change the character of stormwater runoff, and cause damaging impacts to significant waterways. Amendment 2022-B is a plan to create sprawl, hopscotched to nearly the end of Fruitville Rd and Sarasota County. These lands begin across from the existing entrance to HiHat ranch, which received density increases far beyond Hamlet allowances and was approved by this board as high density village zoning.

If these 4,100 acres were developed under the current existing zoning or at allowable Hamlet densities, the number of houses could be as little as 200 houses and as many as 1,600. If the land were developed at the highest density of 1,600 houses, this would create traffic increases of 12,768 daily trips impacting our overburdened roadways. What LWR developers are proposing instead is 5,000 houses. These units won't be required to be developed on 1/2 acre lots, but the lots can be any size. This would create traffic increases to 45,000 daily trips, as opposed to the total traffic generated under the existing 1 to 5 acre zoning of 5,722 daily trips.

Developers are also proposing a reduction of the required 500' buffer to only 50' and limit the Open Space requirement to as little as 43%. The Hamlet open space requirement is 60%. The current 1 unit per 5 or 10 acres zoning requires 80% open space.

The requested density increase from 1 unit per acre to 2 units per acre with the proposed VTZ designation, is not a transitional zone, but urban sprawl on top of Rural Heritage zoning of 1 unit per 5 or 10 acres. The 4,100 acres is within the boundaries as defined in the Old Miakka Neighborhood Plan. These are historic rural and agricultural lands that were guaranteed protection under the 2050 Plan and the county approved, Countryside Line.

This amendment is not compatible with 5 acre homesteads in Old Miakka. CPA 2022-B is nothing more than a plan to create urban sprawl in a remote rural location of Sarasota County. Calling it a Village Transitional Zone (VTZ) doesn't change the fact that it's urban sprawl proposed right over the top of the Countryside Line and the historic Rural Heritage community of Old Miakka.

The proposal is devoid of wildlife corridor locations and appears to be planned with home sites from district line to line. Protected species must be identified by an independent consultant and wildlife underpasses must be planned with all the new roads. These are details that would be addressed during the construction plan review, but it's important to note that the concept plan does not contemplate ribbons of green space throughout the site, to provide interconnected corridors for threatened and protected species. How can the public believe that interconnected corridors are planned and of sufficient size to protect the threatened and endangered species that inhabit the area?

This amendment proposes classic urban sprawl, the exact opposite of what the 2050 Plan was created and approved to do, by the Board of County Commissioners, landowners and developers and this community.

PLEASE DENY CPA 2022-B and related DOCC. I and many other residents are strongly opposed to this proposed urban sprawl.


Saturday, February 19, 2022

Kumbaya? Or abject public sycophancy?

SNL: Two of our largest developers have offered to write their own piece of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota News Leader story) to accommodate their unslakable desire to build every available open area of Sarasota County. 

Rex Jensen: Lakewood Ranch has about 2,000 home sales a year. 

    “We’re the second-fastest selling community in the United bloody States,” he added. 
[Commissioner Mike] Moran: “You’re such a visionary.” 

Jensen: “We haven’t developed much in Sarasota, though that will change.” 

    Note: Rex Jensen's Waterside at Lakewood Ranch is 5,144-home, 5,500-acre development in Sarasota County set around a series of seven large borrow pits left over from mining operations. It stretches from I-75 to Lorraine Road:


Moran noted of Waterside Place, “That project is fabulous.” 
Jensen: “We’re going to be out of land shortly, and we have about 4,000 acres” that Shroeder-Manatee Ranch would like to develop.

“What really grates on us,” Jensen said during his presentation, “is the numerous prescriptive requirements [of 2050] — “the ‘Thou shalt’s’ and the ‘Thou shalt not’s.’”

So, Jensen and Pat Neal offered to write their own Shalts and Shalt Nots:

  Comprehensive Planning -- The Developer Version

“What’s wrong with what you see at Lakewood Ranch?” Neal asked. Jensen is just seeking “to dispense with the prescriptive requirements that you have in the 2050 [Plan].”
 “I think this is a great process,” Chair Alan Maio said
Commissioner Christian Ziegler concurred on the latter point.

And so, as the Sarasota News Leader reports, ". . . the County Commission has given Rex Jensen, the developer of Lakewood Ranch, the go-ahead to work with county staff on a new residential density category within the county’s 2050 Plan, which has guidelines for communities created east of Interstate 75."

 







Sunday, August 1, 2021

Some background on Hi Hat and Old Miakka

Some history behind the Miakka Community Club and its opposition to Hi Hat Ranch's proposal to change Hamlet to Village overlay on its 10,000-acre property in Northeast Sarasota - from a resident, Jane Best Grandbouche:

The Miakka Community Club incorporated in 1945.  This is the same year the Turner family purchased Hi Hat Ranch.

The motto of the Club is “Conservation and Preservation of the Rural Area.” During the intervening years, the Club has worked to ensure that ranchers like Hi Hat had the opportunity to ranch. Hi Hat Ranch’s ability to be stewards of the land was supported by the Miakka Community’s continued vigilance in conserving and preserving the rural areas.

The Miakka Community Club (MCC) participated in ALL of the various meetings with the Urban Land Institute (ULI) including as a member of ULI’s Focus Group.

The Miakka Community Club also participated with written and oral testimony during both the transmittal stage and the final adoption stage.

As explained in all of these meetings and hearings, the Resource Management Areas (RMAs) define how the County would develop until the year 2050.  It is now 2021.  We are not half way there.  

You will not find in either the Comprehensive Plan or the Unified Development Code any reference to having Hamlets changing to Villages.  This idea wasn’t even contemplated or discussed.  Just as there was no reason to contemplate changing Hamlets to Villages then, there is no reason now.

If the Board wants there to be that opportunity, then that idea should be given public debate and due process.

The 1,200 acres Hi Hat is seeking to urbanize by changing the Hamlet overlay to Village overlay is productive agricultural land.  Since the Hamlet is a voluntary overlay, it is not necessitated that a Hamlet be developed there. Hi Hat Ranch could sell that productive agricultural land to someone else who wants to be in agriculture.  As farm land in the west and east dwindle, our produce needs to be grown somewhere.

The County recognizes the importance of agriculture as noted in FLU2.2.1 and FLU Policy 2.2.2 (a).

The County has a program to purchase agricultural development rights (DR Policy 1), so the Turners would get money for the development rights and then they could sell the land for agriculture production.

There is no valid reason to change the Hamlet overlay to Village overlay.

Please call and/or write the County Commissioners on this most important proposal. And please show up for the meeting September 8th. Once they paved over our rural area, it is gone forever. 

DENY CPA-2019-D



Friday, June 18, 2021

Becky Ayech: Write to the Board Now

The formal application for the Hi Hat Ranch change said that the modification will provide “flexibility to respond to market demands and the needs of tenants, and residents" Sarasota News Leader

This commission has put community preservation behind short-term profits.  David Guest, Letter to the Editor, Herald Tribune.

What Sarasota County officials did the other day with the Hi Hat Ranch was "devastating," says Becky Ayech. The Commission threw out the planning principles designed to bring order and common sense to developers' supersized plans. 

The Board's action will affect us all, says Ayech. She's asking us to tell the Board that it's unacceptable.

Three quick steps (more background below):

======================================================

1. Copy the Commissoners' addresses into your email:
amaio@scgov.net
mmoran@scgov.net
ncdetert@scgov.net
rcutsinger@scgov.net
cziegler@scgov.net
commissioners@scgov.net

2. Tell the Board that abandoning rational plans for the sake of market trends is an abdication of their responsibility. Use her words or your own:

Commissioners: 
As a resident and taxpayer of Sarasota County, I ask that you use Facts and Supporting Data to determine a Comprehensive Plan Amendment -- NOT MARKET TRENDS. 
DENY CPA-2019-D

or,

Commissioners, 
None of the “Directions for the Future” contained in the principles to guide Sarasota County's long range planning and sustainability initiatives include “flexibility to respond to market demands."  
DENY CPA-2019-D

or,

        Commissioners, 

        In sound planning practice, 

Either: Facts and supporting data matter and market trends do not, 

Or: Market trends dictate planning and FACTS DON'T MATTER. 

DENY CPA-2019-D

 
3. Share a copy of your email with Becky at miakka1945@gmail.com


========================================================

Thank you for helping. 

Clearly, a plan to put 13,000 homes on 10,000-acre Hi Hat Ranch will irrevocably alter the character of rural Northeast Sarasota County. But what Ayech is concerned matters to all, countywide: What the Board is doing to the practice of planning itself could be even more devastating. 

Here's how she put it the other day:

HI HAT RANCH. The BOCC voted to transmit to the State the comp plan amendment that changed the 1,200 acre Hi Hat Hamlet, with a limit of 1 unit per acre to Village with a limit of 5-6 units per acre. Again, thanks to those who sent emails and spoke.

The MOST EGREGIOUS act was allowing our Comp Plan (our Vision for the Future) to be dictated by market demands instead of facts and supporting data. Translated, that means whatever density will make the most money is the density the County will give to the developer. FORGET PLANNING PRINCIPLES. IN FACT, JUST FORGET ANY PLANNING FOR OUR FUTURE. This not only affects us, but everyone throughout the County. So, before, there was some comfort provided by the Comprehensive Plan, now THERE IS NONE.

So, where do we go from here? There is more to be written.
The Comp Plan Amendment goes to the State for review. Our attorney is determining if the public can ask to have different agencies review the Amendment. Currently, they must be asked to do a review. 
The Comp Plan will come back to the BOCC for a final vote. The June 9 meeting was for transmitting the Amendment to the State. This will be for adoption of the Amendment. 
We need to be a political force. We will need broad base support throughout the County like we had before. You need to reach out to all those folks you did in the past and ask them to help. Again, this decision affects EVERYONE. When this comes back to the Commission, we need to pack the room. We need to overwhelm the Commissioners with emails.

Email the Commissioners and ask that Facts and Supporting Data be used to determine a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, NOT MARKET TRENDS. DENY CPA-2019-D

Monday, September 21, 2020

1000 Friends: Approve citizens' plan for Old Miakka

Editor's note: Excellent letter from 1000 Friends of Florida explaining the reasons why a citizens' initiative to preserve the rural heritage land of Old Miakka is valid and should be approved. It also offers a brief overview of ways in which developers have vitiated the core principles of Sarasota's 2050 Comprehensive Plan through a subtle war of attrition. The letter was received in draft form. Passages with key points have been bolded for emphasis and schoolhouse image added.

The citizens' amendment is set for a public hearing at the Sarasota County Commission on Wednesday Sept. 23 at 1:30 pm.  


September 16, 2020

Sarasota County Commissioners

Chairman Mike Moran mmoran@scgov.net

Nancy Detert ncdetert@scgov.net

Charles Hines chines@scgov.net

Al Maio amaio@scgov.net

Christian Ziegler cziegler@scgov.net


Re: Support for CPA 2019C


Dear Sarasota County Commissioners:


On behalf of 1000 Friends of Florida, the state’s leading smart growth management advocacy organization, we respectfully request that you APPROVE CPA -2019C.  


How we got here: The rollback amendments to the 2050 Plan

Back in September of 2014, our organization reached out to you and commended the county’s history of robust comprehensive planning dating back to the John Nolen plan of 1925.  ndeed, the county was the recipient of a Charter Award from the Congress for New Urbanism for the Sarasota 2050 Comprehensive Plan. But our congratulatory stance pivoted with the proposed major amendments that were being proposed for the the county’s 2050 Plan that sought to roll back the provisions that would protect the quality of life for residents and increase taxpayer expenses for infrastructure improvement associated with new development. 


Hamlets = Urban Sprawl


A primary concern back in 2014 was the loosening of development standards for Hamlets.  The Hamlet land use form outside of your Urban Service Boundary Area (USBA) was originally designed to accommodate new growth in a sustainable and innovative manner. Limits on residential capacity were established and density and intensity of use were to be derived by removing the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) on Environmentally Sensitive Land as well as other rural and open land uses.  It sounded reasonable and was embraced as a form of new urbanism. 



But those visionary intentions were rolled back through a series of major amendments creating an easy pathway to urban sprawl.  Indeed, your own planning staff has explicitly noted that, “Hamlet designation is urban sprawl.”  The rollbacks allowed for limited development within greenways and/or open space areas, reduction of open space, reduction of buffers, and the elimination of protective, recorded conservation easements that contradict the requirement that there be a clear separation between rural and open spaces as well as the protection of native habitats.  The rollbacks also weakened requirements that communities be walkable, include a mixture of uses and, significantly, they reduced open space.  Density bonuses were offered to developers in return for affordable housing that was already required under existing law.  In short, the rollback amendments eviscerated whatever visionary planning that the hamlets land use form had originally contemplated in the initial adoption of the 2050 Plan.


Fiscal Neutrality: Needed now more than ever

What Sarasota residents are left with instead is a “Sprawl Land Use Form” that has the net effect of promoting costly, sprawling development and violates your fiscal neutrality requirement.  Fiscal neutrality requires that new development pay for itself. 


The proposed CPA 2019-C seeks to correct that expensive issue because there is far less fiscal impact to the County’s coffers from the Rural Heritage/Estate form of development than what is currently allowable under the 2050 Plan (and the fiscal impacts to taxpayers will only be exacerbated if CPA 2018-C is adopted as it seeks a tripling in density).  As staff has noted, these lands are not developable in the form of Hamlet Land Use without the financial assistance afforded through a utility extension easement agreement with the County fronting the costs of utilities installation, among other burdensome expenses that the county will have to shoulder to accommodate Hamlet sprawl.  This is failed fiscal neutrality.


Compatibility of land uses 

As you know, CPA 2019-C seeks a re-designation of Village/Open Space Resource Management Area (RMA) to Rural Heritage/Estate RMA.  The change would apply to the easternmost 6,000 acres in northern Sarasota County, as far from the urban corridor as possible.  The amendment would eliminate the density incentive that is currently an option (and part of the rollbacks noted above).  Density would be limited to 0.2DU/acre (1DU/5ac) rather than an optional 0.4DU/acre.  It should be noted that none of the landowners in the affected 6,000 acres were seeking a rezoning at the time this amendment application was filed. 


The objective in the amendment is to establish a land use designation that closely maintains the rural character of the land uses in the Miakka Community area.  Under your 2050 Plan, the RMAs are designed to preserve and strengthen existing communities.  Communities are defined by their history, natural boundaries and service areas.  It is undisputed that the Hamlet overlay protrudes into the Community of Old Miakka.  Fixing this incompatible land use is appropriate and necessary.  CPA 2019-C accomplishes that requisite fix.


Publicly initiated comprehensive plan amendments

Finally, there has been considerable debate about the process for this citizen-based comprehensive plan amendment.  Initially, when reviewing this proposed amendment, this is the single issue I focused on.  The substantive factors in favor of the amendment were all highly meritorious, but after over two decades of litigating land use cases in Florida, I was surprised that this was an option.  I examined the process carefully to determine if it was reasonable and afforded procedural due process.  I concluded that it does, primarily because of the procedural protections put in place by the County.


Publicly initiated CPAs are insulated from random attempts by residents to force land use changes on property they don’t own.  That is because all publicly initiated CPAs require a series of steps to safeguard private property owners.  First, County staff works with the citizen group that obtains the requisite 20 signatures to establish a proposed scope for the amendment.  Much like when staff meets with developer applicants, potential issues with moving forward are identified, flagged and discussed. Then, a public workshop on the proposed scope is required.  All affected landowners are welcome to participate.  The matter is then placed on a Planning Commission agenda, publicly noticed and public comment is taken.  


At that stage, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on whether the proposed amendment should be processed.  In the event the proposed amendment gets a recommendation to proceed with processing, it then moves up to the County Commission, again for another publicly noticed hearing where the recommendation from the Planning Commission is considered and public comment is received.  Only then does the County Commission make a decision on whether or not to proceed with processing review of the CPA application.  This regulatory pathway is certainly more rigorous than what developer-initiated CPAs must endure.  In this case, CPA-2019C passed muster with the County Commissioner at all levels and the application became a County initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment and was sent to the Planning Department Development Review Coordination (DRC) staff, which then provided comments.  


This innovative process is a highly responsive mechanism that affords the citizens of Sarasota County a pathway to implementing quality-of-life planning options, all while being subjected to rigorous review of county controls.  For these reasons, not only do we find the citizen-based CPA process to be procedurally reasonable, we commend Sarasota County for affording its residents a robust voice in growth management.


For all the reasons set forth above, 1000 Friends of Florida strongly urges you to approve CPA 2019C.  Please include this letter of support for the amendment in the agenda package for the upcoming hearing scheduled on September 23, 2020.  Thank you.




Respectfully,

Jane West, Esq.

Policy & Planning Director, 1000 Friends of Florida


cc: 

County Attorney, Frederick Elbrecht, Esq. felbrecht@scgov.net

County Planner, Vivian Drawneek vdrawneek@scgov.net