Board to Citizens: You Don't Matter (Update)

The County Commission sits in session on April 6. County Administrator Jonathan Lewis (foreground, left) and County Attorney Rick Elbrecht face the board members. News Leader image.

UPDATE: On Wednesday, April 7, the County Commission took less than 3 minutes to unanimously delete the citizens' right to initiate Comp Plan amendments. It did this in a "public hearing" that neither laid out the purpose of expunging citizen input, nor any reason for it. 

There was no discussion other than to render the suppression retroactive to Jan. 1, 2021, at the suggestion of Commissioner Moran, which effectively eliminated citizen Comp Plan Amendments in the past as well as any that might have come in the future. Partial video below: 

See also this story from the 4.6.21 Herald Tribune: 

Sarasota County Commission agrees to do away with citizen-initiated land use reviews. 

=======

On Tuesday, April 6, 2021, the Board of County Commissioners will pretend to deliberate on an ordinance that will, if approved, exclude citizens from initiating Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs).

Here's the language of the Ordinance, and the proposed deletion of our citizens' right to influence thinking about future land use:

Deletion of citizen right to initiate a Comp Plan Amendment

The Board asked Michele Norton of Planning and Development why the provision was ever added to Sarasota's Code. She said she didn't know. And with that, the discussion concluded. The County Administrator has done his homework and finds that the deletion of citizens' rights will have no impact no one. At least, no one who matters.

According to this County paperwork, removing  the citizens' right 

to address future land use makes no difference

Much of the discussion to date has revolved around one perspective: The idea that a person who does not own land can propose consideration of how certain land can be used. *

Developers and their minions do this all the time. Bo Medred got a text amendment passed that changed the law on lands he certainly didn't own. He got the Board to approve a change in how distant from a home a dump can be. Not just James Gabbert's dump, but any dump lying within certain areas of Sarasota County can now be much closer to a home, thanks to the Medred-Gabbert amendment. 

Mr. Medred had no interest in any areas other than where Mr. Gabbert desired to build a demolition plant - right next to the Celery Fields. But he framed it so as to seem as if it were a disinterested modification of the county's land use law. And it passed both the Planning Commission and the Board, paving the way for cosier dumps.

Yet when Ms. Ayech, to protect a way of life of her Miakka Community that is far older than the County itself, sought to propose a change via a Comp Plan Amendment, here's the result -- taking away our right, and pretending it makes no difference.

After Tuesday, there will be even less public input, less public power to influence or speak to future land development in Sarasota County, than there has been heretofore.

In short, there is no public conversation about the future of Sarasota County. It's decided by a private chat among a few developers and the people sitting in the seats that Pat Neal, Gary Kompthecras, Randy Benderson, Rex Jensen, Carlos Beruff and a bunch of dark money bought for them. 

According to the County Administrator's memo, banishing citizens from land use amendments will move us toward the goal of making this "a great place to live."

Campaign Contributions 2020

*There are certainly many other perspectives that an open and public-minded Board might consider. A citizen might propose a CPA in order to correct certain errors in county methods or procedures. See, for example,

Residents throughout Sarasota petition to update flawed planning maps.

See the Sarasota News Leader story of April 8, 2021 about the Board action, with more background on citizen Comp Plan Amendments - a state mandated guarantee to residents of Florida instituted in 1977.

Citizen comments on this issue here and here. 

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

1000 Friends: Approve citizens' plan for Old Miakka

Editor's note: Excellent letter from 1000 Friends of Florida explaining the reasons why a citizens' initiative to preserve the rural heritage land of Old Miakka is valid and should be approved. It also offers a brief overview of ways in which developers have vitiated the core principles of Sarasota's 2050 Comprehensive Plan through a subtle war of attrition. The letter was received in draft form. Passages with key points have been bolded for emphasis and schoolhouse image added.

The citizens' amendment is set for a public hearing at the Sarasota County Commission on Wednesday Sept. 23 at 1:30 pm.  

September 16, 2020

Sarasota County Commissioners

Chairman Mike Moran mmoran@scgov.net

Nancy Detert ncdetert@scgov.net

Charles Hines chines@scgov.net

Al Maio amaio@scgov.net

Christian Ziegler cziegler@scgov.net

Re: Support for CPA 2019C

Dear Sarasota County Commissioners:

On behalf of 1000 Friends of Florida, the state’s leading smart growth management advocacy organization, we respectfully request that you APPROVE CPA -2019C.  

How we got here: The rollback amendments to the 2050 Plan

Back in September of 2014, our organization reached out to you and commended the county’s history of robust comprehensive planning dating back to the John Nolen plan of 1925.  ndeed, the county was the recipient of a Charter Award from the Congress for New Urbanism for the Sarasota 2050 Comprehensive Plan. But our congratulatory stance pivoted with the proposed major amendments that were being proposed for the the county’s 2050 Plan that sought to roll back the provisions that would protect the quality of life for residents and increase taxpayer expenses for infrastructure improvement associated with new development. 

Hamlets = Urban Sprawl

A primary concern back in 2014 was the loosening of development standards for Hamlets.  The Hamlet land use form outside of your Urban Service Boundary Area (USBA) was originally designed to accommodate new growth in a sustainable and innovative manner. Limits on residential capacity were established and density and intensity of use were to be derived by removing the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) on Environmentally Sensitive Land as well as other rural and open land uses.  It sounded reasonable and was embraced as a form of new urbanism. 

But those visionary intentions were rolled back through a series of major amendments creating an easy pathway to urban sprawl.  Indeed, your own planning staff has explicitly noted that, “Hamlet designation is urban sprawl.”  The rollbacks allowed for limited development within greenways and/or open space areas, reduction of open space, reduction of buffers, and the elimination of protective, recorded conservation easements that contradict the requirement that there be a clear separation between rural and open spaces as well as the protection of native habitats.  The rollbacks also weakened requirements that communities be walkable, include a mixture of uses and, significantly, they reduced open space.  Density bonuses were offered to developers in return for affordable housing that was already required under existing law.  In short, the rollback amendments eviscerated whatever visionary planning that the hamlets land use form had originally contemplated in the initial adoption of the 2050 Plan.

Fiscal Neutrality: Needed now more than ever

What Sarasota residents are left with instead is a “Sprawl Land Use Form” that has the net effect of promoting costly, sprawling development and violates your fiscal neutrality requirement.  Fiscal neutrality requires that new development pay for itself. 

The proposed CPA 2019-C seeks to correct that expensive issue because there is far less fiscal impact to the County’s coffers from the Rural Heritage/Estate form of development than what is currently allowable under the 2050 Plan (and the fiscal impacts to taxpayers will only be exacerbated if CPA 2018-C is adopted as it seeks a tripling in density).  As staff has noted, these lands are not developable in the form of Hamlet Land Use without the financial assistance afforded through a utility extension easement agreement with the County fronting the costs of utilities installation, among other burdensome expenses that the county will have to shoulder to accommodate Hamlet sprawl.  This is failed fiscal neutrality.

Compatibility of land uses 

As you know, CPA 2019-C seeks a re-designation of Village/Open Space Resource Management Area (RMA) to Rural Heritage/Estate RMA.  The change would apply to the easternmost 6,000 acres in northern Sarasota County, as far from the urban corridor as possible.  The amendment would eliminate the density incentive that is currently an option (and part of the rollbacks noted above).  Density would be limited to 0.2DU/acre (1DU/5ac) rather than an optional 0.4DU/acre.  It should be noted that none of the landowners in the affected 6,000 acres were seeking a rezoning at the time this amendment application was filed. 

The objective in the amendment is to establish a land use designation that closely maintains the rural character of the land uses in the Miakka Community area.  Under your 2050 Plan, the RMAs are designed to preserve and strengthen existing communities.  Communities are defined by their history, natural boundaries and service areas.  It is undisputed that the Hamlet overlay protrudes into the Community of Old Miakka.  Fixing this incompatible land use is appropriate and necessary.  CPA 2019-C accomplishes that requisite fix.

Publicly initiated comprehensive plan amendments

Finally, there has been considerable debate about the process for this citizen-based comprehensive plan amendment.  Initially, when reviewing this proposed amendment, this is the single issue I focused on.  The substantive factors in favor of the amendment were all highly meritorious, but after over two decades of litigating land use cases in Florida, I was surprised that this was an option.  I examined the process carefully to determine if it was reasonable and afforded procedural due process.  I concluded that it does, primarily because of the procedural protections put in place by the County.

Publicly initiated CPAs are insulated from random attempts by residents to force land use changes on property they don’t own.  That is because all publicly initiated CPAs require a series of steps to safeguard private property owners.  First, County staff works with the citizen group that obtains the requisite 20 signatures to establish a proposed scope for the amendment.  Much like when staff meets with developer applicants, potential issues with moving forward are identified, flagged and discussed. Then, a public workshop on the proposed scope is required.  All affected landowners are welcome to participate.  The matter is then placed on a Planning Commission agenda, publicly noticed and public comment is taken.  

At that stage, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on whether the proposed amendment should be processed.  In the event the proposed amendment gets a recommendation to proceed with processing, it then moves up to the County Commission, again for another publicly noticed hearing where the recommendation from the Planning Commission is considered and public comment is received.  Only then does the County Commission make a decision on whether or not to proceed with processing review of the CPA application.  This regulatory pathway is certainly more rigorous than what developer-initiated CPAs must endure.  In this case, CPA-2019C passed muster with the County Commissioner at all levels and the application became a County initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment and was sent to the Planning Department Development Review Coordination (DRC) staff, which then provided comments.  

This innovative process is a highly responsive mechanism that affords the citizens of Sarasota County a pathway to implementing quality-of-life planning options, all while being subjected to rigorous review of county controls.  For these reasons, not only do we find the citizen-based CPA process to be procedurally reasonable, we commend Sarasota County for affording its residents a robust voice in growth management.

For all the reasons set forth above, 1000 Friends of Florida strongly urges you to approve CPA 2019C.  Please include this letter of support for the amendment in the agenda package for the upcoming hearing scheduled on September 23, 2020.  Thank you.

Respectfully,

Jane West, Esq.

Policy & Planning Director, 1000 Friends of Florida

cc: 

County Attorney, Frederick Elbrecht, Esq. felbrecht@scgov.net

County Planner, Vivian Drawneek vdrawneek@scgov.net

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).

Ayech leading effort to stop hamlet intensification in East Sarasota

Becky Ayech - a longtime advocate for water and sensible land use planning in East Sarasota - is leading a community effort to change the County's 2050 Comprehensive Plan. Their comp plan amendment (CPA) would restrict the "hamlet" format in portions of East County.

Her main concern is a plan proposed to intensify a 6,000-acre area at Fruitville Road and Verna Road. The plan was presented at a neighborhood workshop by Rod Krebs and Don Neu this past January. It proposed to double the density of a hamlet project and to run sewer utilities out from the Bee Ridge Wastewater Treatment Plant to the development to enable the higher density.

Ayesh has formed a coalition to change the Comp Plan to disallow this intensification. Her group has scheduled a hearing for May 13 in Old Miakka and invites all who have concerns to either attend or to write to the County.

Related documents here

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

Citizen Participation in Sarasota County Planning: An Open Letter

July 28, 2017

To: Sarasota County Planning, Matt Osterhoudt, Allen Parsons, Tate Taylor, Vivian Roe

This letter is a follow-up comment pursuant to the Comp Plan Amendment (CPA) meeting you conducted for the Planning Dept. on June 26th. It’s our understanding that the plan amendment then under consideration, 2015-G -- easing constraints on open space and buffers for developments proposed as villages or hamlets under the 2050 Plan -- may no longer go forward. But public comment during two meetings at which we were present (January 18 and June 26, 2017) made clear that the process for CPAs raises two related issues.

First, the  perception exists that with 2015-G the County, as a public entity, seems to be exploring a proposal with little relevance or benefit to any constituency other than the development industry. The changes under consideration seem related only to specific private business concerns -- yet the public meeting and process is termed “publicly initiated.”

Second, it was noted - by myself and others - that while the Board initiated this evaluative process, and Planning is doing its due diligence by holding public meetings, there is no generally understood method by which Sarasota residents might similarly initiate such public evaluations of Comp Plan changes.

When the County acting as a public entity explores certain Comp Plan options that benefit specific parties, it creates a "problem of optics," as they say. The voting public sees the County proceeding with what it calls a “publicly initiated” Comp Plan amendment, but sees no opportunity to be equally proactive. At the Gulf Gate meeting, there was a sense of being invited merely to react to a proposal introduced by an unspecified party.

Greater transparency of origin and purpose of comp plan amendment initiatives would help. To that end, this comment is offered to open a dialog that could lead to a more open and balanced public process.

Please correct or elaborate if any of the following statements regarding the steps leading to the BCC’s approving a proposed public initiative for a comp plan amendment is false or incomplete:

• The Board votes to proceed with these initiatives. That vote can include discussion, or simply be part of the consent agenda.
• When presented to the Board, the originator of the initiative is identified, and the perceived public benefit of the amendment is explained.
• If the proposed amendment applies to a specific parcel or parcels, the location and number of these parcels and acreage are presented as an indicator of the nature of the perceived public benefit.
• Any actual Comp Plan Amendment is voted on publicly by the Board, with Public comment forming part of the proceeding.

If the actualities differ from what is stated above, please clarify so that we are not proceeding upon mistaken assumptions.

When a proposed amendment comes before the Board for a vote, and the Board decides that it only serves developers, it might advise whoever is proposing the amendment to initiate a private Comp Plan amendment process.

Perceived Imbalances

Conversely, we would propose to open a dialogue with County to address the perceived imbalance between public and private sectors, with special reference to several moments in the planning and land use process. Proposed topics include:

• Basic visioning of community / sector /  neighborhood character and design.

• Practical introduction to public initiatives of Comp Plan Amendments.

• An introduction to Critical Area Planning.

• Strong expansion of public notification and input regarding any land use or rezoning changes to Public Lands, and to surplusing and sale of same -- see Ord. 2016-087.

• Putting in place a system to revisit and revise antiquated FLU designations. Given the accelerated pace of development and change in Florida, especially in places like Sarasota that are “in demand,” actual conditions on the ground change constantly. It’s both reasonable and wise to dynamically review old designations when their contexts have changed. Doing so would pre-empt conflicts arising when developers play 35-year-old land use cards that are hopelessly out of sync with all surrounding conditions.

An example

Suppose residents of an area -- say Clark Rd. east of I-75 for the sake of the argument -- wished to ask the Board to explore the idea of requiring a 750-ft buffer for all commercial projects, for the sake of preserving the rural character of the road. (750 feet here is chosen as an illustration, since it’s greater than the existing 2050 rule).

In this case, while the incentive for such a proposal would appear to come from "private" persons, its actual inspiration and purpose stems from a shared public vision of East Clark Rd. as a rural Heritage Road. To be clear, the amendment’s intent in our example is not to prevent development, but to have development fit within a shared public vision. The citizens seek a role in deciding the character of this portion of the County.

So the proposed amendment comes with a public purpose and benefit. If developers were required to abide by the 750’ foot rule, they might discover that the rural appeal of the area -- the fact that it looks entirely unlike Clark Rd. to the west of the highway -- could draw buyers seeking a locale that is neither urban nor suburban. Creativity could be one result.

Why is this important? Because when developers ask for and receive 50-foot buffers (a 450-foot reduction) and other changes to the 2050 Village Plan, they are motivated almost exclusively by the specific density needs and business model of the particular project they happen to be working on.

If residents strongly believe that their area possesses distinctive general features -- without which it would lose its essential character -- they’ll work to ensure that its quality and appeal is not undermined by asystematic, ad hoc developer exceptions.

To summarize: When the County as "the Public" explores amendments that appear to primarily benefit private business, it may appear to cater to special interests. Clarifying both who is instigating an initiative and the details of the public benefit can reduce such mixed signals.

By the same token, residents who wish to have a say in shaping the future of Sarasota (East County for example) would benefit from a clarified participatory process, through which the County may receive collaborative insights to help shape the future vision.

The 2050 Plan was created to represent the vision of the people of Sarasota. To the frustration of many residents, it has been compromised repeatedly as developers line up for exceptions and amendments. Before East County becomes a mirror image of West County, we’d like to collaboratively foster public participation in shaping the undeveloped areas of Sarasota.

A version of this comment will be submitted to the UDC Portal with a request for a meeting with Planners and UDC consultants.

We invite Planning to explore this with us as well through the same public meeting process that you recently so ably conducted at Gulf Gate.

Respectfully,

Tom Matrullo

Co-Founder, Citizens for Sarasota County

Sarasota County Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA)

Manatee-Sarasota Group of the Sierra Club

Carlos Correa

President of HOA, Pinetree Villages, The Enclave

David Johnson

Secretary, Meadow Walk Homeowners Association, Inc.

Glenna Blomquist

NextDoor Lead, Mockingbird Parish

Keith C. Russo

Chair, Lake Sarasota Community Group

Dan Lobeck

President, Control Growth Now

William Zoller

Lourdes Ramirez

Sura Kochman

Adrien Lucas

Dennis Robertson

Margaret Hoffman

Lynn Nilssen

Geraldine Swormsted

Gayle Reynolds

Damon White

Gretchen White

Cathy Antunes
Co-Founder, Citizens For Sarasota County

Skip Parrish

LeRoy William Hasselbring

Vickie Nighswander

Susan Schoettle

Tom Walker
Co-Leader, Nation Group of Sarasota/Manatee

Patricia Troy
If you wish to add your name, write to sarasotavision@gmail.com