Showing posts with label Opposition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opposition. Show all posts

Monday, April 20, 2015

Pat Neal Venice project encounters opposition - 2000 signatures

Opposition grows to Pat Neal's rural Venice project



A Neal Communities development of 263 homes, The Woods of Venice, is proposed for a 151-acre annexed site at Jackson and Borders Roads. (1.30.2014)(Staff Photo by Elaine Litherland)
HERALD-TRIBUNE ARCHIVE / 2014
Published: Monday, April 20, 2015 at 5:02 p.m.
Last Modified: Monday, April 20, 2015 at 5:02 p.m.
VENICE - Environmentalists, animal activists and nearby residents are vehemently opposed to another Pat Neal development in North Venice.

Facts

INTERESTED?

The Venice Planning Commission will meet at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday at Venice City Hall, 401 W. Venice Ave. W., Venice. See meeting details at www.venicegov.com.
They plan to make their case Tuesday afternoon when the Planning Commission considers Neal Communities' The Woods at Venice, a 263-home development on 151 acres off North Jackson Road between Laurel and Border roads.
Opponents collected 2,000 signatures opposed to the Neal project near the Myakka River. They cited the prevalence of wildlife, recurring flooding and the inability of roads to handle more traffic as reasons why the density should remain at 31 houses instead of 263.
The Wildlife Center of Venice, Friends of Pinebrook, Venice Area Audubon Society and Venice Area Citizens for Responsible Development are among those opposing the developer's plan. 

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Lasting scars

Re-posted from the SH-T:


After 2050 plan revamp, lingering rancor and potential fallout


Photo taken by Zac Anderson on Monday October 20 Activists gather outside the Sarasota County administration building Monday morning to protest changes to the 2050 growth management plan.
Zac Anderson
Published: Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 8:01 p.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 8:01 p.m.
One speaker called it a “betrayal.” Another said Sarasota County commissioners were engaged in a “staggering violation of ethical public service.” A third said it appeared “the fix” was in.
While some degree of conflict seems inevitable, debate over the county's 2050 growth management plan has been especially rancorous. And it could leave lasting scars.
Some predict the 2050 overhaul — it largely came to a close last week after commissioners approved a final batch of revisions — will have political ramifications, while others hope the community can find a better way to talk about such issues going forward.
With demographic experts predicting more than 46,000 people will move to the county over the next decade, more clashes over development are unavoidable in a community that has long struggled with how to manage growth.
Such tensions will animate local politics for years to come and could grow more pronounced as some of the development allowed under 2050 begins.
The changes made over the last two years to the county's rural growth plan will make it easier to develop large swaths of land in eastern Sarasota County.
Landowners have been closely monitoring the revision process, and some are likely to move ahead now that the regulations are becoming less restrictive.
But they are also sure to encounter continued resistance from environmentalists and growth control advocates, who are bitter over how the 2050 debate unfolded.
Indeed, few issues have more sharply divided the community in recent years.
Kerry Kirschner, a former Sarasota mayor and executive director of the pro-business Argus Foundation, said he was struck by the “nastiness and lack of collegiality” in the 2050 public hearings.
A number of speakers at last Wednesday's hearing on the third and final round of changes to the plan accused county commissioners of being in the pocket of developers who donate to their campaigns.
Others predicted widespread environmental destruction and rampant overdevelopment.
Kirschner said many of the comments were over the top.
“I think it's distrust and, quite honestly, fear. So many people have moved here from someplace else and many moved here because they didn't like the environment in which they were living,” he said. For instance, he said, one man who spoke Wednesday said he came from Houston and did not want Sarasota County to develop in a similar manner.
“God bless him, I don't want to live in Houston either,” Kirschner joked, before adding that he believes such fears are misplaced.
But while Sarasota County may be a long way from becoming Houston, critics of the 2050 overhaul say they remain justified in feeling angry and frustrated.
Sarasota architect and growth control advocate Bill Zoller said he was surprised that the final 2050 hearing was “as genteel as it was” considering that “everybody felt completely discounted, disregarded and abused.”
Zoller noted that the county began the process of revising 2050 — adopted more than a decade ago as a compromise that allowed more intense development on rural lands but mandated higher standards — by holding a series of meetings with developers to get their complaints about the plan. That process excluded the public and started “on the completely wrong foot with a tin ear.”
The meetings that followed contained few chances for the public to truly influence the debate, he said.
Those concerned about the 2050 revisions also took issue with a controversial report, commissioned by the county, that blasted the plan. And they protested the dismissal of former county administrator Randall Reid, who was viewed as taking a more deliberate approach to reviewing 2050.
“They left our side completely alienated, absolutely alienated, but they didn't care,” Zoller said.
Those hard feelings could carry over into future conflicts as some of the new 2050 projects break ground.
After a lull during the recession, interest in developing rural properties governed by the 2050 plan is starting to pick up. And the Fruitville Road corridor may see the most immediate impacts.
The Villages of Lakewood Ranch South — which covers 5,500 acres between Fruitville Road and University Parkway east of Interstate 75 — is approved for 5,144 homes and a number of smaller projects are in the works for the area.
Among those testifying at Wednesday's 2050 hearing were three people who own land along Fruitville, all of whom supported the plan revisions and seemed interested in developing their land.
Also attending was Sarasota attorney Jim Turner, whose family owns the expansive Hi Hat Ranch between Fruitville and State Road 72 east of the interstate.
Turner has been a strong advocate for overhauling 2050.
“As to when or if Hi Hat would proceed, that remains to be seen,” Turner said. “We certainly don't have anything on the drawing board.”
A series of large housing projects in what is mostly a rural area could further inflame anti-development sentiment.
“Eventually one hopes it will translate into political changes,” Zoller said.
Charles Hines — who voted for most of the nine revisions to 2050 approved Wednesday and has been a steadfast supporter of overhauling the plan — is the only commissioner among the current five who is not term-limited and could stand for re-election.
Hines said that he focused on crafting a workable plan that can accommodate Sarasota County's projected growth in a responsible manner, not politics.
“The political stuff, save that for a year, year-and-a-half from now,” Hines said. “We make decisions every day and you try to do what's right for the community and some people are going to be happy and some people are going to be upset.”
Clashes over growth are nothing new in Sarasota County: The building boom that reached its apex in 2006 sparked citizen initiatives led by Zoller to amend the county's charter and put the brakes on development.
Three growth-related amendments were approved from 2007 to 2008 by wide margins.
They gave the county final approval over developments in land annexed by local cities, required a super majority commission vote for changes to the county's comprehensive plan that increase development density or intensity and required a unanimous vote to move the county's urban service boundary.
But public opinion started to shift shortly after the amendments were passed. The Great Recession wiped away thousands of high-paying construction jobs in the region.
County leaders came under pressure to stimulate the economy, and one strategy was to loosen development regulations.
In recent years the county commission has slashed road impact fees and taken other steps to encourage growth, culminating in the overhaul of the 2050 plan. But public opinion may be shifting again.
Only 11 percent of county residents surveyed in a recent poll cited jobs and the economy as their top concern, down from 18 percent last year. Growth-related issues were the top priority for 37 percent of residents, up from 20 percent in 2013.
Sarasota Audubon Society conservation chairman Wade Matthews cited the figures during Wednesday's hearing in arguing that commissioners were not listening to the public. Concerns about growth could play a big role in future county elections, Matthews predicted.
“The trend is on our side again,” he said. “How it will play out remains to be seen.”

Sunday, October 19, 2014

REMINDER: For Immediate Release: 2050 Action Network Press Conference

For Immediate Release:  2050 Action Network Press Conference   

  • Monday October 20th, 10:30 a.m.
  • 1660 Ringling Blvd. (outside County Administration building facing the Post Office)

The 2050 Action Network is a group of local civic organizations who have come together in shared concern over the 2050 amendments created by the Sarasota County Commission.  The 2050 Action Network joins 1000 Friends of Florida in their opposition to the 2050 changes and opposes the poor land use planning, economic development and environmental stewardship inherent in Sarasota 2050 changes.  

The Sarasota 2050 Plan is, in the County’s own words, a plan of compromise.  The County Commission is recklessly disregarding the goals of that compromise and perverting the economic, environmental, quality of life and sound planning goals and principles that are the foundation of the 2050 Plan compromise.  If it is time to review the 2050 Plan, there should be a full, open and transparent review of all portions of the Plan with representatives from all of the community at the table to develop any changes.

Sarasota County has failed in its responsibilities to the residents of the County in the development of the proposed amendments by:


1. Failed Due Diligence                                                                                    

The Sarasota County Commission has failed to demonstrate due diligence, necessary analysis, compatibility of goals regarding the following issues related to 2050 changes: 

Water issues - carrying capacity and security analysis is missing
Sarasota County purchases over 50% of our drinking water from neighboring counties.
The rural lands are an important water recharge area for our aquifer.  Vulnerability of our water supply is not included.
                        
Environmental Issues  - impact analysis on wildlife habitat and fauna, analysis on optimizing environmentally sensitive areas for wildlife and public amenity, where is inventory of wildlife corridors.  The County’s Land Management Master Plan - on the County website - is out of date.  It was due to be updated in 2010.   

Agricultural issues - future agriculture need and resource analysis 
Where is the County arable land map?  What is the plan for local food security, local produce?

Transportation/Traffic impact  - analysis of design changes and traffic outcomes is missing.  Best planning practices point toward walkable development and prioritizing walkable infill and redevelopment in existing cities and neighborhoods.  Evacuation, traffic and accident analysis is missing.

Timing of Construction - total existing housing potential of County is ignored
Municipality data and analysis missing, Impact on the home values and real estate market not evaluated.  Sarasota County currently has at least 125,000 total potential housing units (there are definitely more) and our projected 10 year demand is about 16,400 units.  The overall market is not considered in these policy changes. 

Fiscal Neutrality - the work of creating a mathematical model/formula to ensure existing taxpayers do not pay for surplus development has not been required/ completed.  2050 Changes give the County zero to limited audit capacity.  The County is bypassing this responsibility.  Models exist (work of Joe Minicozzi and Charles Marohn ignored).



2.  County Commission has a history of failing to look at the big picture, changes do not conform with state law, best planning practice ignored

According to 1000 Friends of Florida, the 2050 changes do not conform with Florida statutes 163.3177(1)(a)9, 163.3177(1)(b) and 163.3177(1)(f).  (see attachment)

Development at University at I-75 was slated to be walkable, bike-able and include affordable housing.  Design standards were systematically weakened.  Now taxpayers will be funding an 80 million dollar traffic solution  - the diverging diamond - a direct result of failure to embrace best planning practices.

The County’s failure to plan properly is ultimately funded by citizens, either through tax increases and/or reduced quality and availability of public services.  Example:  According to recent news reports, Sarasota taxpayers will be funding Lakewood Ranch Blvd. expansion despite a development agreement requiring Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, Inc. to fund it.  (see links below)



3.  By Failing to Conduct a Truly Public Process, Sarasota County’s piecemeal approach is undermining our future.  A Broad Vision requires real public participation.  
               
        
Public input has had no substantive impact on the creation of any of these  amendments.  These substance of these amendments to 2050 policy was created in private meetings from September 2012 through January 2013 primarily with SMR and Pat Neal Communities.

Public input has been window dressing in this process.   The scoping process was eliminated.  Open houses and public workshops throughout the phases were inconsistent (no workshops regarding phase one changes) and poorly timed (open houses held in rural areas during fair week, a workshop held in the City of Sarasota during a City Commission meeting, workshops held during the holiday season and the dead of summer).  Public input has not resulted in any substantive addition or change to these amendments.  Public concerns regarding Clear Water and Air, Wildlife Habitat, Greenway Amenities,  Fiscal Neutrality, Infill and Redevelopment, Walkability, Traffic, effective Economic Development, Housing Values are being ignored.  We are witnessing the Browardization of Sarasota County.

Conclusion 

We join 1000 Friends of Florida in opposing these ill-conceived amendments to Sarasota 2050 due to insufficient due diligence, inadequate public input and failure to optimize Sarasota County’s natural and economic resources.  We support the findings of 1000 Friends of Florida, that the 2050 amendments fail to comply with state statutes.  In short, the best information and best practices on planning and development are being ignored in the local planning policies created by the Sarasota County Commission. We urge the County Commission to protect our quality of life and reject these changes. We urge the public to stand up for our future quality of life in Sarasota by attending Wednesday’s 2050 hearing . 


Selected References:


Water Issues:




Environmental Issues:




Timing of Construction, Walkability, Prioritizing Infill and Redevelopment, Fiscal Neutrality:







Attachments:

  • “Supply and Demand, Sarasota Housing” 
  • “Development That Pays for Itself - Minicozzi” 
  • Private 2050 meetings - see 2050 Meetings PDF 
  • 1000 Friends of Florida letter


2050 Action Network includes members from:

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Lobeck: Gutting and Repealing Controls - Letter to the DEO




Mr. Eubanks and Ms. Brookens:

Attached is my analysis (in a shorter version and a longer one) of the latest round of amendments to the Sarasota 2050 Plan.

Please note in particular the complete elimination of the timing constraints in the amendment set for adoption hearing on October 22, which would open up the eastern county to massive urban growth all at one time, overwhelming infrastructure, including roads of critical state concern.

It might also be noted that the adoption version differs from the transmittal version in that the County is now dropping the proposed requirement for an adjustment of the developer’s fiscal neutrality report in the instance that the developer changes the mix of what is being actually developed. Although staff contends that this would require a rezoning and therefore a new report, the Sarasota 2050 Zoning Code has been amended to allow changes in what is being developed, administratively to a point and with Board approval beyond that, without any stated requirement for an adjustment of fiscal neutrality.

This is to request a copy of your ORC or other DEO comments on this amendment.

Thank you very much for your considerations.


Daniel J. Lobeck, Esq.
Personally and as President of Control Growth Now, Inc.



Friday, October 10, 2014

Opposing 2050: Letters and Emails

It is important to create a written record of public opposition to proposed 2050 changes and the inconsistent and absent elements of the process which brought these changes forward. 

All who care about the next half century of Sarasota development are asked to write to the County Commission and to the state Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO to protest 2050 changes.  Please send your personal comments to: 

Ray Eubanks                            ray.eubanks@deo.myflorida.com
Valerie Brookens                     valerie.brookens@deo.myflorida.com
Sarasota County BCC            commissioners@scgov.net
CONA                                          conasarasota@hotmail.com


(Letters we receive will be republished on the blog unless authors request otherwise.)

East Sarasota County, FL


Cathy Antunes:

Dear Mr. Eubanks and Ms. Brookens,

I am writing regarding my concern and opposition to the Sarasota County amendments submitted to change Sarasota 2050. . . .