Statement at Board of Zoning Appeals regarding Mr. Gabbert's change to his Special Exception

Note: After all presentations were given, the Board of Zoning Appeals first spoke 4-3 in support of the County Zoning Administrator's ruling that James Gabbert was seeking a major modification of his WTF. Then, led by Jon Mast, CEO of the Manatee/Sarasota Building Industry Association, it halted an actual vote, tabled the motion to deny Gabbert. Mast, purporting to "amend" Justin Powell's original motion, turned it into a double approval for Gabbert, and undermined the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of our Zoning Code. [Ed. note: this was edited to clarify the rather confusion Board action. Best to watch the video - link below.]

To see a video of the entire meeting, go here.

See also Herald Tribune, 11.26.2019, Carrie Seidman: Time to rebalance interests of developers and public in Sarasota.

Board of Zoning Appeals at Gabbert Appeal 11.18.19

It’s not often that Sarasota’s regulatory boards interact with the general public. If the County were to require one or two seats on each Board to represent residents, and duly reported on Board actions to inform interested residents, that might help close the gap between the self-interest of business-as-usual and the larger shared values of the general public.

Some historical context -- I’ll keep it short. In 1980, Sarasota County was first in the state of Florida to address future development with a planning document curiously named “Apoxsee.” It served as a sort of rudimentary Comp Plan.

In 1996, about 30 far-sighted residents from a variety of professions - architecture, law, engineering, development and construction among them - began to formulate a balanced set of principles to guide future development practices. They were known as the Multi-Stakeholders Group, or MSG, and their collaboration - which was not always collegial - led to the Comprehensive Plan approved by the county several years later.

With the great Depression of 2008 came pressure to grant a kind of emergency welfare to developers. The delicate balance between the community and development interests went sideways, and remains tilted heavily today toward the developers.

Revisions in the UDC as well as in Comp Plan Amendments have contributed to this move away from consideration for the community. Certain codes are less constrained, and residents experience the impacts new developments daily - in their nostrils, in their waterways, and on their roads.

In addition to requiring public representatives on your Board, I would ask that you each support a change to the UDC: Demand that traffic studies for the site development review process be required. How could the unleashing of 100 large trucks a day at this location on Palmer Blvd. not have been addressed? The repercussions of this programmed ignorance will be felt every day by those who live and work in the Palmer, Bell, Cattlemen and Apex area. Please press for this change in the 2020 Amendment cycle.

County zoning’s fundamental purpose is to “protect a community’s health, safety and welfare.” Binding site plan rules exist for a reason. I support the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation in this matter, and ask that you help Sarasota return to its tradition of community vision in long-range planning.

Thank you.

Tom Matrullo

The 40-year degradation of Sarasota County stewardship

When Sarasota County agreed to confer a special exception on James Gabbert for a waste transfer station, it ignored two laws and succeeded in offending public notions of compatibility, aesthetics and taste.

Gabbert's parcel at I-75

Gabbert's land is right next to I-75, and lies within a corridor that is supposed to offer a "park-like setting" to highway drivers. Apparently neither the Highway Beautification Act, nor the county's own critical area ordinance, nor the adjacency of public lands at the Celery Fields made any difference. Public common sense mattered not a whit.

The county’s approval of Gabbert seemed less an error of judgment, or even a sign of petty graft, than a symptom of a larger shift in how our elected officials regard public lands, stewardship and government itself. For those who track Board decisions on growth and land use, the trend is unmistakable: private interests are usurping the responsible stewardship of the public domain. 

Three recent trends stand out: The Board's willingness to (a) sell significant public lands to private developers; (b) allow privately initiated changes to the 2050 Comp Plan, and to (c) restrict citizens' powers to effect change.

Quick backstory: More than 40 years ago, Sarasota distinguished itself as the first county to produce a comprehensive growth management plan which it called Apoxsee, (pronounced Ah-po-ee) from a Miccosukee word that means "beyond tomorrow." The county's visionary work won awards -- and Sarasota appeared at the forefront of Florida's long range planning efforts.

In the mid-90s, a Multi-Stakeholders Group of residents, including planners, architects, engineers, environmentalists and more who were concerned about the fate of rural Sarasota did a citizens study of Northeast Sarasota. They devoted a few years to the work, and moved through their differences to agree upon basic principles for a coherent vision of planning and growth. These efforts led to the 2050 Comprehensive Plan, approved a few years after.

Points of Agreement of the Sarasota Multi-Stakeholders Group

The recession of 2008 brought land development to a halt. Ever since, Rick Scott’s minions and the development industrial complex have worked with termite tenacity to erode public planning policy. As recent decisions make clear, our elected officials have not been averse to cooperating.

Mr. Gabbert for example has the Board’s blessing to construct a waste facility in the heart of a prized tourism, recreation and wildlife area. Pat Neal is approved to put 1,100 homes in a cul de sac whose one exit is a two-lane road (Grand Lakes). Whole Foods’ pavement replaces a living wetland on University Parkway. Benderson’s oversized complex will go up near an overburdened bridge to a major island visitor destination (Siesta Promenade). The list goes on. With the exception of Gabbert’s waste processing facility, public opposition has counted for little. And the fight for our public lands at the Celery Fields is by no means over.

Since 2012, three areas of local public planning have undergone a shift towards marginalizing the public’s voice:

• Surplus lands policy revised to give Board final authority without public review - helped the county sell Benderson 42 acres of public land at a giveaway price.
• Comp plan amendments (CPAs) The Comp Plan was significantly weakened in 2016, and developers - Pat Neal, Hi Hat Ranch, and others have successfully amended the plan to meet their needs.
• Critical Area Plans - these  originally calling for significant public input, until a 2016 revision marginalized the public's role. (Ord. 2016-062)

Accompanying these changes are further top-down efforts seeking to constrain the people’s power. The Board has proven itself averse to open debate; it rarely if ever seeks to explain its actions in a clear narrative that reveals all the relevant causes for action, and it adheres to an anti-government ideology that exchanges a no-new-taxes posture for the opportunity to eviscerate public service and enrich a private oligarchy.

Take, for example, these trending Board actions:

1. Citizen-initiated Charter amendments are now virtually impossible, thanks to this past November’s board-initiated amendment (doubling the signature total and reducing the time).
2. The Charter Review Board is now considering appointing itself gatekeeper to “vet” future citizen amendments. (James Gabbert of waste transfer fame chairs that committee.)
3. Efforts to neutralize or undo the 2018 Single Member District amendment are underway. 
4. The Siesta Beach Road charter amendment is facing Board challenge. 
5.  We only live here. Sarasota "brand" is decided without public input. The image of our community projected to the world is decided by marketing and tourism specialists.

These are just a few elements from a larger constellation of privatizing moves, each symptomatic of what amounts to a repudiation of the public realm by a so-called political party that in fact represents oligarchic interests.

The overall result marginalizes the people’s role. it amounts to a tectonic drift and a shift in public policy, methodology and ideology. Far from the common sense of Apoxsee, the sprawling dangers foreseen by the multi-stakeholders group is now at our door.

In East County, a planning crisis is brewing. Research by a local citizens group (Fresh Start) forecasts an explosion of single family housing, thanks to weakened 2050 constraints. Our public officials now plan using tools crafted by private developers' attorneys. Rapid growth that replaces thoughtful development with piecemeal, disarticulated sprawl has been called “Browardization” -- are we there yet? With developers at the wheel, public mindedness can look for a seat in the back of the bus.

Slide from a presentation to the Commission from Fresh Start

From those early prudential efforts of Apoxsee and the Multi-Stakeholder Group, the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme. Fifty years of single party dominance has constricted Sarasota's public vision, withering proactive and creative powers our county once proudly displayed. The degradation of the public's role coincides with the Board's apparent willingness to provide concierge services to private interests. Developers often no longer need PR whiz kids to promote their agendas -- our officials do it for them.

Sarasota County Commission

Mr. Gabbert's waste transfer facility has been blessed by the Board. It will operate at a critically unsafe intersection, in full view of the highway, despoiling the entrance to our pristine Celery Fields. While this is not what we wish, it's just the canary in the coalmine.

Will 2020 be a turning point?

Waste transfer truck

Letter from a former Planning Commissioner

October 17, 2014

Becky Ayech

421 Verna Road

Sarasota, Fl.  34240

Email:  beckyayech@gmail.com

Ray Eubanks ray.eubanks@deo.myflorida.com

Valerie Brookens valerie.brookens@deo.myflorida.com

Sarasota County BCC commissioners@scgov.net

VIA EMAIL

Re:  Sarasota County’s proposed changes to Sarasota’s Comprehensive Plan, Specifically 2050

Mr. Eubanks and Ms. Brookens,

I have been a resident of Miakka (also known as Old Miakka) for 34 years.  I am also the president of the Miakka Community Club Inc. (MCC).  The MCC was formed in 1948 to give a voice to the rural residents in Miakka for preserving and conserving the rural Miakka Community.  Since the Growth Management Act required counties to adopt comprehensive plans, MCC has been an active participate.

When the first Comprehensive Plan (Apoxsee) was adopted in Sarasota, there were provisions to protect the rural area of the county.  Apoxsee recognized the need to have areas in Sarasota for food and fiber production.  Over the years this rural protection has been eroded away.  The “food and fiber” protection was removed several years ago.  The urban service boundary has been moved into the rural area allowing removal of prime agricultural lands¹ and replacing them with urban development.  The proposed amendments do nothing to further agriculture protection or rural lifestyles.  The clustering of hamlets under the guise of allowing more land available for agriculture is a ruse.  No data or analysis was presented to identify what lands would be used for agriculture and which lands would become the clustered hamlets.  My experience, as well as experience throughout this country, has been for urban developments to drive agriculture away because of neighbors’ complaints about odors, sounds and smells.  To place 2,400 homes, roughly 5,000 people (the average household in Sarasota is 2.2 persons) in the midst of agriculture is a death toll.  The “hamlets” are supposed to represent a transitional area from urban to rural. This volume of people and the urban style development does not represent or function as a transition. 

The proposed reduction in green space between the “hamlets” also is not a functional transition between developments.  Most property in the area identified for “hanlets” is zoned at one unit per 5 acres and one unit per ten acres.  The property sizes are generally 330 feet by 660 feet and 660 feet by 660 feet, with some at 330 feet by 1320 feet.  A 50-foot setback between “hamlets” isn’t indicative of any rural or agricultural lifestyle or practice.  It is merely “urban sprawl” in the rural area.

   

As a former Sarasota Planning Commissioner, I am cognizant of the requirements of comprehensive plans.  The proposed amendments are not consistent with 163.3177(1), F.S.; 163.3177(1) (a) 9, F.S. and 163.3177(1) (b), F.S. i.e. predictable development standards, urban sprawl and mitigation standards.  The data and analysis as required by 163.3177(1) (f), F.S. were not met. Therefore, DEO has no other alternative than to deny these proposed amendments.

I challenged the 2050 plan per se, and know these amendments would not rise to the “reasonable person” standard in the administrative hearing process.

During a very rigorous DOAH proceeding, there wasn’t any testimony presented to show that these proposed changes were necessary.  Additionally, there weren't any amicus briefs filed to support the proposed changes.

Growth management isn’t about granting privileges to a few but rather about managing growth in a way that protects the existing residents , supports urban infill, protects natural resources and offers a diverse economic base.

Becky Ayech

1 ^{History of Agriculture in Sarasota County.  The Sarasota County Fair Directors and the Sarasota county Historical Commission}

Find more letters here, here, and here.