Comment on the privately initiated Comp Plan amendment - Miles Toder

This comment relates to the giant development proposed at I-75 and 681 - see the link for info about the hearing April 16 on this.

Another "privately initiated" amendment to the Comprehensive Plan being proposed for a public hearing!  

When will we wake up to the fact that many or likely all of these private proposed amendments are inconsistent with the public interest and need to be stopped in favor of what Tom Knight suggested last year of an independent review of our Comp Plan which he failed to get his fellow Commissioners to support? 

Maybe we should flood the BCC with our own privately proposed amendments? The first one would be NO MORE PRIVATE AMENDMENTS where developers get to rewrite our Comp Plan in favor of their own pet project to enrich themselves at the expense of the public. 

Miles F Toder Ph.D.

Senior Foreign Service Officer (Retired)

President, Sarasota East Enders for Responsible Development

Sarasota, Florida

Update: Benderson "Trojan Horse" could allow hotel development countywide

Further Update (posted Dec. 20, 2023)

We've just received notice from the Kimley Horn agent working with Benderson Development that cancels the Dec. 21 "neighborhood" workshop. The new date for the workshop is January 8, 6 pm.  The workshop is supposed to explain Benderson's effort to change the county Comp Plan in order to allow a large hotel on Siesta Key. 

The emailed notice from philip.dimaria@kimley-horn.com shares a personalized link that cannot be shared. We have asked Mr. DiMaria to send a universal link that would allow anyone to use.

The webinar information for "Siesta Key Village Hotel Neighborhood Workshop" which you previously registered for has been updated by the host.

Please submit any questions to: philip.dimaria@kimley-horn.com

Date Time: Jan 8, 2024 06:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: 

Mr. DiMaria offers a Zoom link, but adds: "This link should not be shared with others; it is unique to you."

If you've not received an email with a personalized Zoom link, please contact Mr. DiMaria to ask for a link: philip.dimaria@kimley-horn.com 

.  .  .  .  .   

With startling speed, Benderson Development Inc. has scheduled an online workshop to tell the public why Sarasota County should not only allow it to build an 85-foot-high mega-hotel on Siesta Key, but also why it should change the code to allow such large hotels countywide. 

A letter sent to County Planning Director Matt Osterhoudt from Benderson's agent first justifies the change to Siesta Key's Code by pleading that tourism requires more hotels, and asks for speedy processing:

Mega-hotel out of scale with modest SK village?

We respectfully request that you forward this request for an out-of-cycle, privately-initiated UDC text  amendment to the Administrator at your earliest possible convenience with your approval and a  recommendation that the proposed amendment be processed and proceed immediately. 

After describing the amendments it wishes the County to approve on Siesta Key, the letter seeks to expand the specific area it is concerned with to include the entire county:

The Applicant also intends to propose a text amendment to the UDC to provide that Transient Accommodations are considered a non-residential use throughout Sarasota County. . . 

"It’s a Trojan Horse amendment!" says Siesta Key resident Neal Schliefer, who objects to Benderson's effort to reclassify transient accommodations. In an email to Citizens for Sarasota County, Schliefer wrote:

“A simpler, more straightforward classification” has no relevance for the definition of transient accommodations, which were defined as a residential use to help control density and intensity of use to protect residents and visitors in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood zones.

If Benderson's proposed changes to the Comp Plan are adopted, they would basically undo the basis of Lourdes Ramirez's court victory, which found that the County's willingness to allow developers to circumvent density restrictions to build mega-sized hotels on Siesta Key violated the County's own code and rules for barrier island development.

In an emailed response to the new, lightning-fast Benderson proposal to change the rules, Ramirez wrote:

The truth is the rules that Benderson wants changed or removed have protected our island for decades. These laws were put in place for a reason which is to protect the lives of those who reside and visit Siesta Key.

A Dec. 15th Sarasota News Leader story describes what Benderson is proposing:

 . . . a 147-room hotel that would stand up to 85 in height, with six habitable floors over parking levels.

It then adds detail:

The project is to encompass retail space and a restaurant, as well, the box notes. The total square footage, the box shows, would be approximately 136,900 square feet. The box identifies that as “nonresidential,” in keeping with Benderson’s proposal for the Comprehensive Plan amendment to eliminate the counting of hotel and motel rooms for residential density purposes.

Anyone wishing to help with the Siesta Key legal bills can do so here.

Email regarding a proposed Ordinance to end Citizen Comp Plan Amendments

Email to the Board regarding the County's proposed Ordinance to eliminate citizen-initiated Comp Plan Amendments (CPAs). The author formerly served as a county attorney in Sarasota. For more on this topic, see here and here.

To Board of County Commissioners:

I am saddened by the proposed elimination of a very simple process that allows resident registered voters to join together and propose a comprehensive plan amendment on issues of concern to the public. The existing process in the UDC provides for staff analysis of the proposal so that the issues are reviewed and evaluated to allow for appropriate evaluation by the BCC. It provides a formal way for citizens to approach the BCC with significant public issues and concerns within the Comprehensive Plan. I am surprised that I did not hear any discussion of options to maintain this entry point for the public (for example by requiring a deposit and additional signatures - 100, 200, etc.) instead of eliminating it entirely. This provision was added by a previous BCC because they believed that the public has the right to suggest changes to the Comp Plan that the BCC then determines if they are in the public interest. This seems appropriate since the foundation of all planning is to further the pubic health, safety and welfare and to reflect the community vision desired by residents. The citizen initiated amendment process does not "rezone" someone else's property or trample on anyone's real property rights (instead of imagined ones). Yes, the process does contemplate Comp Plan changes that would affect lands not necessarily owned by the citizens submitting the proposal. That is why the proposal would have to become a publicly initiated proposal of the BCC before approval or adoption. In fact, there have been some "privately" initiated Comp Plan amendments in the past that were not limited to lands owned by the applicant(s). Those are the amendments that I would expect to cause outrage and concern. Not a group of concerned citizens who are motivated by concern for the broader community and maintaining quality of life. I hope that you will consider increasing the requirements for a citizen initiated Comp Plan amendment rather than deleting the option entirely. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Susan Schoettle -- Susan Schoettle-Gumm PLLC Sarasota, FL 34240

Rural Heritage: It's a Hootenanny at Old Miakka Oct.. 6

Court hearing in Citizen suit against Sarasota County Tuesday Dec. 4

Citizens sued Sarasota County with respect to the Grand Lakes development. The court has scheduled an Administrative hearing for Tuesday Dec. 4, 9 a.m.:

The suit, David Anderson vs Sarasota County and Ibis Rd. Investors LLC, argues that the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners violated terms of its own Comprehensive Plan in approving Pat Neal's proposed 1,000-home development without including a commercial component. Background on the lawsuit here.

Pat Neal, developer of Grand Lakes

The Dec. 4 hearing details:

David Anderson vs Sarasota County and Ibis Rd. Investors LLC

Tuesday 9 a.m. Justice Center 2071 Ringling Blvd. (NW corner of Ringling Blvd and East Ave little doorway) 

Courtroom #2 6th floor Judge Ffolks

The hearing go two days, more or less.

At stake, in the county's own words, is a core principle of 2050: integrating uses to avoid sprawl:

"the provision for non-residential uses through the establishment of mixed use Village and Neighborhood Centers is central to the concept of Villages as an alternative to urban sprawl. … Without the non-residential uses in close proximity and integrated into the residential uses, the Villages resemble other suburban residential development typical of Sarasota County and other communities.”  (SNL 8.16.18)

The homeowners contend that if Pat Neal is allowed to proceed under the proposed changes to the rules, the development of Grand Lakes

will promote sprawl and encourage disjointed patchwork development—exactly the things the 2050 plan is meant to discourage.

 The county is ignoring its own rules, the citizens say. Future developments could take the County's approval in Pat Neal's case as precedent for coming large-scale developments:

. . . relaxation of the core 2050 principles would open the way for future, large-scale developments such as 12,000-unit Hi Hat Ranch to sprawl rather than conform to contained village templates that link residential and commercial use in a constructive and meaningful manner. (Press release of plaintiffs).

In essence, without public sector stewardship, the business models for single family development could very well lead to sprawl.

Sprawl

Developer-tailored Amendment to Greenway and Open Space Policies?

Public Notice Proposed Amendment to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan The Sarasota County Planning and Development Services Department will hold two public meetings on proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2015-G. Both meetings will present the same information. These are not public hearings. The purpose of the meeting is to inform the public about the content of the proposed amendment and to seek comments and suggestions regarding the amendment. The public meetings will be held on: Date:                 January 18, 2017 Time:                 6:00 p.m. Location:            Gulf Gate Library, 7112 Curtiss Ave., Meeting Room B, Sarasota Date:                 January 25, 2017 Time:                 6:00 p.m. Location:            Englewood Sports Complex, 1300 S. River Rd, Englewood The publicly-initiated amendment is related to the required Open Space and Greenbelts for 2050 Village developments, and proposes to revise Policies VOS5.1, VOS1.2.a, and VOS2.1 of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Chapter, Sarasota 2050 RMA System section, and other policies as necessary. The amendments could allow the County Commission to: 1. Grant requests for exceptions and/or reduction of the required 500-foot Greenbelt widths of a 2050 Village, with established criteria; and 2. Grant requests to reduce the Open Space of a 2050 Village to less than the required 50%, but to no less than a minimum of 33%, with established criteria. For more information or to send written comments on the proposed amendment, contact: Planning and Development Services Department 1660 Ringling Blvd, 1st Floor Sarasota FL 34236 planner@scgov.net Please call 941-861-5000 or email planner@scgov.net with your questions.

Planning Services Planning Services provides unincorporated Sarasota County with land use services in collaboration with businesses, residents and neighboring jurisdictions to build a sustainable, prosperous community that distinguishes Sarasota County.

Planning Services |  planner@scgov.net | 941-861-5000  www.scgov.net/planningservices

See what's happening on our social sites: