Below are the official findings of fact submitted by the Sarasota Planning Commission after the June 1, 2017 hearing on TST Venture's proposal to site a waste processing plant on public land adjacent to the Celery Fields, Sarasota's Preserve, Bird Sanctuary, and premier recreation area. Click here for a full transcript of the hearing, at which more than 200 citizens, including some from as far away as Ft. Lauderdale, came to express their concerns. Video here.
In the end, the Planning Commission voted unanimously against the proposed facility. Below are their 20 reasons. The PC is a purely advisory board. The actual power lies with the Board of County Commissioners. This report will be included in the packet that goes to the Commissioners who have scheduled a final public hearing for August 23, 2017, beginning at 9 am.
=====================================================
PLANNING COMMISSION REZONE PETITION FINDINGS OF FACT
=====================================================
1. The proposed change would not be consistent with the intent, goals, objectives, policies, guiding principles and programs of the Comprehensive Plan;
2. The proposed change would not be compatible with the existing land use pattern and designated future land uses;
3. The proposed change would have an impact on the availability of adequate public facilities consistent with the level of service standards adopted in the comprehensive plan, and as defined and implemented through the Sarasota County Concurrency Management System Regulations, Chapter 94, Article VII of Exhibit A of the Sarasota County Code, as amended;
4. The existing district boundaries are not logically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change;
5. The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood;
6. The proposed change will create a drainage problem;
7. There are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accord with existing zoning;
8. It is not impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use;
9. Whether the gradual and ordered growth contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan can be best accomplished through the approval of a land use which is less intense than the intensity designated on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan;
10. The proposed change would create adverse impacts in the adjacent area or the County in general;
11. The subject parcel is not of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed change;
12. Ingress and egress to the subject parcel and internal circulation would adversely affect traffic flow, safety or control; and
13. The proposed change has been reviewed in accordance with the interposal agreement with the School Board of Sarasota County and whether school capacity has been adequately addressed, including on- and off-site improvements.
==============================================
PLANNING COMMISSION:
SPECIAL EXCEPTION PETITION FINDINGS OF FACT
==============================================
1. The proposed use is not consistent with the intent, goals, objectives, policies, guiding principles and programs of the Comprehensive Plan;
2. The proposed use is not compatible with the existing land use pattern and designated future uses;
3. There are not adequate public facilities available consistent with the level of service standards adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, and as defined and implemented through the Sarasota County Concurrency Management System Regulations, Chapter 94, Article VII of Exhibit A of the Sarasota County Code;
4. The proposed use, singularly or in combination with other special exceptions, will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, order, comfort, convenience, or appearance of the neighborhood or other adjacent uses by reason of any one or more of the following: the number, area, location, height, orientation, intensity or relation to the neighborhood or other adjacent uses;
5. The proposed use will not be adequately buffered to effectively separate traffic, visual impact and noise from existing or intended nearby uses;
6. The subject parcel is not adequate in shape and size to accommodate the proposed use; and
7. The ingress and egress to the subject parcel and internal circulation will adversely affect traffic flow, safety or control.
