Showing posts with label gayle reynolds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gayle reynolds. Show all posts

Monday, January 30, 2023

Reynolds of Sierra Club: Protect Grand Trees

Please email the County Commissioners and tell them not to weaken protections for Grand trees, and come to the public hearing Tuesday, January 31st at 1660 Ringling Blvd.

From: Gayle Reynolds

Dear Commissioners,

The Manatee/Sarasota Sierra Club urges the Board of County Commissioners not to weaken protective policies for grand trees, to allow developers the right to determine the health, function and value of grand trees and if it should remain or be cut down for housing and commercial development.
There are many reasons to value and protect grand trees in the urban environment:

  1. Trees reduce carbon pollution directly through sequestration and indirectly by lowering the demand for energy.
  2. Trees reduce the heat island effect and mitigate the effects of climate change.
  3. Trees play critical roles in controlling stormwater runoff, improving water quality and protecting surface waters from sediment and nutrient loading. 
  4. Trees reduce the amount of runoff flowing into stormwater and sewer systems and decrease soil erosion.
  5. Trees provide habitat for birds and endangered wildlife species.
  6. Many municipalities consider trees as utilities and include them as part of their stormwater management plans.
Nonpoint source pollution results from stormwater carrying and depositing contaminants into surface and ground waters, contaminating drinking water sources and adversely affecting the health of plants, fish, animals and people. Nitrogen and phosphorus feed Karenia Brevis and destroy sea grasses, marine ecosystems and endangered wildlife.   
Excess volumes of runoff from the conversion of forested lands to impervious surfaces from overgrowth and urban sprawl, cause stream scouring, property damage as well as loss of aquatic habitat and floodplain connectivity.

For the past twenty years, this board has incentivised development to occur through the use of "mitigation." As reported by Sarasota News Leader, Benderson Development recently clear cut every Grand Tree on the 24-acre Siesta Promenade site.  Despite the county identifying grand trees on the property, every tree on the parcel at U.S.41 and Stickney Point Road was removed. Sarasota County conceded to Benderson Development to mitigate the removal of these mature trees with the promise of planting 509 new trees. This mitigation occurred without public input and without transparency, via emails and edits to the original approved site plan.

Eighteen years ago Sierra's Conservation Committee lobbied Sarasota County Commissioners to stop issuing "after the fact" permits to developers who prematurely moved earth, clear-cut land and habitats and killed endangered species without permits.

A reporter for the Pelican Press, Jack Gurney, wrote a series of articles on the plight of Gopher Tortoises, when developers were burying tortoises alive with earth-moving equipment. Jack's articles created an outcry in the community and the Board of County Commissioners sanctioned and passed a Pre-clearing ordinance and an Earth Moving Ordinance.  
The County owes the public an explanation as to why Benderson was allowed to clear the Promenade site without permits, when staff and the developer knew that permits were required.  
  • Where is the oversight?  
  • When citizens invested untold hours getting these illegal practices stopped in the past, why are developers confident they can ignore regulations now? 
  • Because the Promenade property is located in a busy urban area, citizens noted that illegal construction was occurring without the required permits. But what happens when Lakewood Ranch South clear cuts hundreds or thousands of acres of agricultural lands and habitats east of I-75?  
  • Jensen clear cut land on Lorraine Road and many miles east out Fruitville Road, out of sight, where public access is denied and no one checks to see if wildlife, grand tree and habitat studies have been done, the required permits issued for preclearing, earth moving and the relocation of endangered species?  

This Board claims that Sarasota "stakeholders" are demanding that protections for Sarasota’s Grand Trees must be diminished, when clearly the rules applied to most trees in this county are inadequate and illustrate that Sarasota County trees need MORE protections, not less. 

Sarasota County Resource Protection and Development Services must be responsible for oversight of land development sites and impose realistic fines for illegal pre-clearing of trees and habitats, earth moving, destruction of grand trees and killing endangered wildlife. Developers break environmental laws and ordinances with impunity, because the fines imposed are so miniscule, they're but a small cost of doing business.

Are citizens expected to trust the developer to oversee themselves and do the right thing, pay mitigation fees and save grand trees that don't benefit their site plans and bottom line?


The Sierra Club urges Commissioners to vote NO on weakening protections for grand trees.

Sincerely,

Gayle Reynolds
Conservation Chair
Manatee/Sarasota Sierra Club

Sunday, February 10, 2019

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

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Sierra Club Response to County Open Space and Green Belt Initiatives

Space and Green Belt

From:  Gayle Reynolds, Manatee/Sarasota Sierra Club
To:   Vivian Roe, Sarasota County Planning and Development Services
Re:   Comments submitted on behalf of the Manatee/Sarasota Sierra Club regarding Amendment No. 2015-G to the Sarasota 2050 Plans Open Space and Green Belt policies.


From 1999 to 2001 the Sarasota County 2050 Plan was developed and approved in 2002 as an alternative to the agricultural zoning that previously allowed one unit per five acres east of the Urban Service Boundary, I-75.  Although the drafting process consumed hundreds of staff hours and time donated to review and commentary by public interest groups, today we find many of the core principles of Sarasota 2050 Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2015-G have been incrementally removed or significantly weakened.
Presented as a “citizens sponsored” comprehensive plan amendment, 2015-G would result in significant density increases while reducing open space requirements from 50% to 33%. The 500’ green belt requirement around villages could be reduced down to 200’ or an undetermined and unspecified width determined by the Board of County Commission.
Contrary to policies supported by the Sierra Club that would preserve native habitat, the amendment weakens the limits on uses for Open Space and Greenbelts.  Other than lakes, at present any “storm water facility” counted as Open Space must be “regional.”  That language is deleted, allowing all swales and canals for instance to count as Open Space.  
Additionally concerning, added as allowed Open Space alternatives are “existing linear facilities that have been enhanced,” such as an FPL easement which has been “enhanced” somehow, or a path which has been converted into a road.  This loosening of open space uses is a significant issue for the Sierra Club because the more alternatives that are allowed to count as Open Space, the less a developer may be required to preserve native habitat, another and most significant Open Space use.  
The amendment’s allowable uses within the Greenbelts would also be weakened and it would strike the current important language which states, “New uses are restricted within this Greenbelt to native habitats and to low intensity agriculture and wetland mitigation that do not involve the conversion of native habitat.”  While a provision was added in the writing of the Sarasota 2050 Plan to let the County Commission also approve a “golf course using best management practices, regional storm water facilities and public parks” in Open Space designated as Greenbelt of a development, so long as it is “appropriate” and adjacent to the developed area.” That adjacency requirement would be deleted, and “new plantings, berms and walls” added as approvable Greenbelt uses, as well as all other uses which are allowed in Open Space. One of the original objectives of 2050 was to eliminate walls and vertical hardscapes.
Also most significantly, the policy that any Greenbelt “preserves native habitats, supplements natural vegetation, and protects wildlife within the area” would be modified with the caveat, “with exceptions and alternatives as noted below.” This change alone greatly diminishes the incentives, protections and importance of preserving native habitat in Greenbelts as well as the loss of their function and value in the ecosystem.
One principal result of these changes would be to strike the requirement, that any agriculture and wetland mitigation in a Greenbelt, shall not convert any native habitat to those uses.  The current wording could be read as allowing the alternative uses only after preserving native habitat and that potential would be lost with the amendment revision.
Most importantly, this amendment would remove the opportunity for the public to have a voice in the process and oppose inappropriate open space/green belt uses and reductions.
The County has revealed no calculation as to how much additional development the amendment could allow by reducing the amount of Open Space and Greenbelts currently required in Sarasota 2050 developments, either for new ones and any previously approved ones.  Previously approved developments could come back for these greenbelt and open space revisions under the weakened standards.
The changes in this amendment could potentially add a significant increase in developable acreage and increased densities to proposed and existing developments, which equates to a lot more rooftops in the east county than is currently allowed in the 2050 Plan.  The county must tell the tax payers how much population increase could occur due to the associated density increases with these proposed open space revisions.  
The public interest has already lost far too much of the original 2050 Plan. Amendment G-2015 is neither sustainable nor in the public interest and would degrade our quality of life and protections for Rural Heritage, native habitats and species.  
The Sierra Club recommends retaining the existing 2050 policies for Green belts and Open Space and withdrawal of this bad proposal to reduce open space and green belt policies.
Gayle Reynolds

greynoldsdesign@gmail.com