Residents throughout Sarasota petition to update flawed planning maps

When the custodians of public planning are unaware their own maps are out of date, one has to wonder: What else do they not know they do not know?

According to this March 21, 2021 story from the Herald Tribune, the Board of County Commissioners, which is moving to eliminate citizen amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, has failed to update key planning tools. 

According to a citizen petition:

"In total, more than 10,000 acres of Sarasota 2050 RMAs are incorrectly designated on RMA-1 and RMA-3."

Certain maps have not been updated in nearly 30 years, says Ron Collins, one of the citizens petitioning the County to update erroneous maps that mislead homeowners and cost developers and affected citizens time and money to straighten out. according to the HT:

A resident will believe, based on the map, that their property is against an area designated as a greenway.

“You think it could never be developed as a village when in fact that is wrong and at that point, a village can be built in your backyard,” Collins said. 

Below the press release are links to more data, including the actual Petition signed by more than 250 residents of Sarasota County. It was submitted to Planning and Zoning Manager Michele Norton at the county. 

Before the Board makes it more difficult or even impossible for citizens to have a say in our Comprehensive Plan, perhaps a thorough review of the quality and currency of its data is in order.

Citizen Petition to update out of date county maps riddled with errors.

Excerpt: 

Update-to-date maps help people navigate the planning process more efficiently. They save applicants time and money. They make it easier for the public to understand what can be built in a particular location. And they make rezone and permit approvals more predictable.

Press Release

Petition Signers by residential District and political affiliation:

BCC DISTRICT	PETITIONERS
1	36
2	39
3	4
4	168
5	8
TOTAL	255

 

 

DEM	81
REP	123
NPA	50
Other	1
TOTAL	255

Lobeck: Don't repeal affordable housing requirement for developers

Commissioners,

As in my July 23 email to the Planning Commission (which I copied to you), this is to urge that at your meeting Tuesday [September 22] you vote against transmitting to the state a Comprehensive Plan amendment to delete the requirement of affordable housing as a trade-off for the incentives of the Sarasota 2050 Plan.

The claim that this is required by state law is flatly false.  The law allows a requirement for affordable housing in exchange for voluntary incentives which fully compensate the developer for the lost profit.  It is beyond question that the Sarasota 2050 Plan does that.

The amendments would repeal the current requirement that in order to receive the incentive under the Sarasota 2050 Plan to build at urban densities and commercial uses rather than rural densities, not less than 15% of the units must be affordable housing, that is sold to families at under 100% of Area Median Income (with 2/3 of those homes at 80% AMI).

Instead, a developer would be allowed to build at up to 5 dwelling units per acre in the developed area with no affordable housing.  All that would be left is the current “incentive” that a developer could go up to 6 dwelling units per developed area acre if the extra units are affordable housing.

Given the densities that developers have been building in Sarasota 2050 developments, the 5 units per acre will not be exceeded and developers will have no desire to get the 6th by affordable housing.  So, goodbye affordable housing in Sarasota 2050 developments if this is adopted.

The affordable housing standard would be further weakened in the UDC because this amendment provides that while 2/3 of the homes must be for families with 80% of AMI, half of the remainder would be for 100% AMI and half of the remainder would be for 120% AMI.  This would unlawfully conflict with VOS Policy 1.4 in the Comprehensive Plan, which provides a goal that at least 15% of the housing will be available “for families with incomes below the median family income for Sarasota County.”

These changes are based on a complete misunderstanding or mischaracterization of new state legislation as applied to the current affordable housing requirements of the Sarasota 2050 Plan.

Section 125.0155, Florida Statutes now bans a requirement for affordable housing, sometimes known as “inclusionary zoning.” Instead, it allows a local government to seek affordable housing by “incentives.”  Paragraph (2)(a) of the statute provides that the incentive may be “allowing the developer density or intensity bonus incentives or more floor space than allowed under the current or proposed future land use designations.”  [Paragraph (2)(c) broadly includes “granting other incentives.”]

Sarasota County is already complying with this requirement today.  The entire Sarasota 2050 Plan is a voluntary incentive which grants developers increased urban densities and commercial (“more floor space”) uses on land which is otherwise limited to rural densities, if the developer complies with various requirements in return.  One of those requirements is that 15% of the housing be for persons below the Area Median Income.  The incentive has been enhanced since adoption by exempting affordable housing from Greenway density transfer requirements and any fiscal neutrality requirements (although those measures have not been enforced and are proposed to be weakened as well, such as by including the 120% AMI standard).

Poppycock and Balderdash where Sarasota Needs Vision

To: the BCC

From: Tom Matrullo
Re: Old Miakka CPA Hearing on CPA-2019-C on 9.23.20
Date: 9.9.20

Commissioners, when the people of Old Miakka came to you with their intent to offer a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), you gave them the go-ahead to hold workshops.

Old Miakka map courtesy of Sarasota News Leader

At the workshop I attended, there was strong community sentiment from the residents of Old Miakka and District 1. The consistent theme was that leapfrog intensification of this north-eastern sector of the County contradicts the fundamental logic and purpose of the Comp Plan.

Yet at the 8.20.20 Planning Commission (PC) hearing, the Commissioners failed to treat this initiative as what it is: A CPA brought by the County for consideration. The allegation that this CPA constitutes a taking of property rights rose out of William Merrill III’s mouth to become the nucleus of the PC’s reasoning. If you aren’t sure that this is balderdash, check with your professional planners who reviewed the CPA. Surely they would have raised this concern had it been anything other than a red herring.

Consider a re-set: This long-existing community wishes to maintain something that goes well beyond technicalities of density. They seek to preserve a part of Sarasota’s traditional historical diversity, much as people wish to protect wetlands, or wildlife corridors. This is a cultural plea to help preserve a viable and healthy way of life, intact for 170 years.

The Bert Harris bugaboo simply derails the actual facts.

Invite both parties to seek a way to guarantee the value of this way of life. Don’t put the County in the absurd position of treating its own Comp Plan Amendment as if it were a nefarious scheme to take private property.

You can rise above this: Bring some originality, some creative vision that helps both sides find a win/win resolution. Show us you have the political skill and custodial dedication to do what’s best for Sarasota County.

Thank you,

Tom Matrullo

Citzens for Sarasota County

See also: Irreplaceable impact of Old Miakka lifestyle by Carrie Seidman in the Herald Tribune.

Ayech to Moran: We followed the rules

A few weeks ago, on August 20, 2020, the Sarasota County Planning Commission heard a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment from a rural Sarasota community, and unanimously recommended denial. 

The Board -- made up entirely of appointees, mostly development industry insiders -- then went entirely beyond its specified responsibility to urge the County Commission to look into whether a community even had the right to seek a planning provision that would protect its 170-year way of life.

Below is an email from Becky Ayech to District 1 County Commissioner Mike Moran. It explains how her community's effort to protect the rural lifestyle of their 170-year-old community known as Old Miakka was entirely according to the County's own rules.

Ayech urges residents to write to the Commissioners in support of Old Miakka's right to seek a sound plan that would protect her community and prevent leapfrog development potentially all over the county.

===== 

Good day Mike

I would like to address the issue of 20 signatures to REQUEST a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

1.  This is a County Regulation and the Miakka Community Club was TOLD they must take this route.

2.  The 20 signatures was to REQUEST a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would become a Public Comp Plan Amendment, just like any other County initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment after the County Commission voted on this request.

3. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed by Rod Krebs, because it was a language change, affected all the lands identified as Hamlets, including in South County.  Mr. Krebs did not own or control all the lands that CPA-2018-C would have affected.

Another example is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that changed the TDR program.  This affected all lands that were/are subject to utilizing TDRs, including the subject lands of CPA-2019-C.  I didn't hear any complaints from land owners whose property would be affected.  Nor were they all listed on the CPA request.  So in fairness, there are often impacts to landowners when a CPA is adopted whose names do not appear on any of the filed paperwork, i.e. people who own land.

4.  Most importantly, this is a County Comprehensive Plan Amendment, not a private one.  That is why the Miakka Community Club is only given 3 or 5 minutes, rather than the 15 afforded to privately initiated Amendments.

I know you are a fair person who follows County Rules and Regulations.  Look at the facts presented by County Staff and members of the Public when you make your decision.  I am attaching a synopsis of the County Staff Report, dated August 20, with page numbers, for your ease of reference.

The 20 signature debate has already happened and the BOCC considered all the arguments for and against and voted to process CPA-2019-C as a Publicly Initiated Amendment.

Merits not threats should guide your vote.  I am sure the merits will prevail.

Becky Ayech

President

Miakka Community Club

See also: Irreplaceable impact of Old Miakka lifestyle by Carrie Seidman in the Herald Tribune.

Becky Ayech: Citizen's Comp Plan Amendment Workshop Jan. 27

Area of East Sarasota where citizen amendment would reduce density

Rural heritage advocate Becky Ayech has launched a citizen's Comp Plan Amendment - the first such amendment to our basic planning policy to be advanced by citizens. Developers often seek amendments to increase density. This plan is unusual in that it aims to reduce density for an area in East County.  The website is SarasotaCountry.net.

Here's an update from Ayech about the important public workshop coming on Jan. 27:

Becky Ayech

Many of you received the postcard Notice from Sarasota County for the meeting about CPA2019-C. This was the Amendment filed by the Miakka Community Club to have the 6,000 acres north of Fruitville Road and west of Verna Road to be changed to Rural Heritage/Estate allowing a maximum of 1 home per 5 acres instead of the Village/Open Space designation which would allow hamlets with 1 house per 1 acre. 

This meeting is a public workshop being held to discuss the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff is presenting the content of the proposed amendment and to seek comments and suggestions regarding the amendment.

Signs, postcards to the Board of County Commissioners, petitions for the Planning Commission and the info "baby" postcards are available. 

This is the first of a series of meetings. Next is the Planning Commission, the the board of County Commissioners. After they ADOPT the proposed amendment it will then be transmitted to Tallahassee for review and then come back for two additional Board of County Commission meetings. 

We won't have the Staff's review until about two weeks before it goes to the Planning Commission. Date yet to be determined. 

See you on Jan. 27th at 7pm at the Old Miakka Methodist Church, 1620 Myakka Rd, Sarasota, FL 34240.

More background about this initiative

How the developer-loving Planning Commission arrogantly recommended denial of Ayech's petition (Sarasota News Leader)

SarasotaCountry.net

Images courtesy of the Sarasota News Leader

Sierra Conservation group to meet Tuesday 2.12.19

From Gayle Reynolds

Sarasota Conservation Committee meets the second Tuesday of each month at 6:30 in the conference room at Lucky's Market, 3501 S Tamiami Trail #430, Sarasota, FL 34239.

On February 12th we will update on: 

1)  The  2050 Comprehensive Plan Amendment initiated by Pat Neal and Grand Lakes, which removed the contiguous, commercial town center requirement from the 2050 Plan. Neal was also granted in his rezone petition, extreme reductions in greenbelts, open space requirements and flood plane restrictions.

When the Board of County Commissioner's voted to approve these petitions, we donated to support the Serenoa Lakes neighborhoods lawsuit against Sarasota County wirh Grand Lakes. The lawsuits and hearings are ongoing.

2). A rezone petition and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to double the density of a 2050 Hamlet at the corner of Fruitville and Verna Rd. Planning Consultant Don Neu and the developer are also asking the county to run sewer services to the end of the county in order to acquire these density increases.

3). Update on Gabbert's construction recycle facility at the Celery Fields.

4). Update on recent action with the City of Sarasota with the Master Plan, citizens participation and Walkability.

If you have an issue of concern to the Sierra Club, please call or text 941-587-9797, Gayle Reynolds / Mike Lasche, Co-Chairs, SC. Conservation Committee