Antunes: Letter to Sarasota County on Proposed Shooting Range on Pinelands Reserve

Via Cathy Antunes' site, The Detail:


Dear Commissioners,

Good morning!  I may not be able to give public input during agenda item 28 today due to a prior commitment, so I am sending you my written comments.

I urge you to reject the petition to approve Pinelands Reserve conservation land for a shooting range.  The petition ought to be rejected for the following reasons:

According to the Comprehensive Plan (Recreational and Open Space Chapter 1),  “recreational uses implemented on the Walton Tract [Pinelands Reserve] and T. Mabry Carlton, Jr.Memorial Reserve shall be limited to activties which are ecologically benign, non-consumptive, and resource-based."  This wording is also found in the Sarasota County Land Management Master plan and the Pinelands Reserve management plan.  A shooting range on the Pinelands Reserve violates these requirements.

• A shooting range employing lead shot and clay pigeons will introduce hazardous substances found to be carginogenic and otherwise toxic.  I refer you to the references provided in the correspondence background materials for this agenda item.  Such harmful substance are the antithesis of ecologically benign.                                                                                                                                                                   
• A shooting range employing lead shot and clay pigeons will generate significant noise which will discourage or eliminate nesting birds.  Not ecologically benign.
• Clearing substantial acres of conservation land for a shooting range is neither resource-based, non-consumptive, nor ecologically benign.
• The submitted permit fails to include best planned management practices addressing the planned use of lead shot & clay pigeons.  The permit itself doesn’t comply with County requirements for approving land use changes. 
• The submitted application fails to include Disclosure of Ownership form.  Again the permit itself doesn’t comply with County requirements for approving land use changes. 
• The submitted application fails to include an Owner Affidavit form.  Again the permit itself doesn’t comply with County requirements for approving land use changes. 
• The submitted application fails to include a Billable Fee Pay Agreement.  Again the permit itself doesn’t comply with County requirements for approving land use changes. 
• The submitted application fails to indicate that the soil (pineda soil) is subject to flooding/standing water.
• This land use change will effectively privatize public land.

It has been reported that the neighborhood workshop held on this issue failed to notify residents that the lands in question are conservation lands, specifically Pinelands Reserve.  Today’s agenda item description also fails to identify the land in question as Pinelands Reserve conservation land.  This is a substantive omission.  Failure to communicate clearly on this subject with the public calls into question the validity of the outcomes of the ensuing meetings.  

Is it true that County employees have refrained from bringing these and perhaps other concerns forward regarding the shooting range application for fear of reprisal?  Reports of County employee intimidation are reminiscent of the reported “marked for death” County culture which existed under Jim Ley.  Will you be initiating an ethic investigation into these concerns? (I refer you to the background correspondence document for this agenda item).

My input is informed by my service on the board of the Council of Neighborhood Associations since 2011, during which time I have studied the Comprehensive Plan and given input to the County Commission regarding land use issues.  I have written various columns and guest columns addressing land use issues, as well as blog entries on my website, www.thedetail.net.  Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Cathy Antunes

Pine Flatwoods Hearing Monday Jan. 12th

To members of the 2050 Action Network:

Tomorrow morning shortly after 9 am, the Sarasota County Commission will be holding a public hearing regarding an ordinance to reduce protections inside the Urban Service Boundary (USB) for Pine Flatwoods trees.

The variety and size of the bird population in Sarasota County is an important source of enjoyment to Sarasota’s tourists and residents, and these birds are important to the quality of our environment.  County residents consistently value the environmental assets of Sarasota as a primary concern and reason for living here.  

Please take a moment to review the conversation below regarding the proposed ordinance.  If you can, please attend tomorrow’s meeting and give public input in support of Pine Flatwoods protections.  If you cannot attend, please e-mail your thought to the Commission.  Their e-mail addresses are:  

chines@scgov.net

cmason@scgov.net

amaio@scgov.net

pcaragiu@scgov.net

crobinso@scgov.net

Pine Flatwoods Hearing Monday, Jan. 12, 9 am

Pine Flatwood Protection About To Be Repealed

• Public Hearing Monday, January 12, 9 am, 
• Sarasota County Commission
• Anderson Center, 4000 S. Tamiami Trail, Venice

On Monday morning, January 12, shortly after 9 am, in south County, the Sarasota County Commission will hold a public hearing and vote to adopt an ordinance that repeals an important protection for pine flatwoods.

The meeting was originally scheduled for November 5 but was postponed.  Now the proposed ordinance is even worse than before, as it will give the County Commission the authority to waive even the very scant pine flatwood protections being retained.  Someone in or for the development interests obviously got to County staff and got that added.

The developers' control of our County Commission is about to lead to repeal of another key environmental protection. Currently, in meeting any open space requirement, a developer must preserve all pine flatwoods until the required open space is met (often 30% of the site), after certain other valuable habitats are protected. 

The ordinance would narrow that very severely, to preserve only those pine flatwoods  that (1) are within a required buffer for a watercourse or wetland or (2) are within a wildlife corridor or (3) increase the ecological value and management abilities of preserved or publicly owned environmentally sensitive lands.

The first category is effectively protected anyway, by the buffer regulations.  And now, in this latest draft, the County Commission may adopt any "alternative open space plan" proposed by a developer instead of the very limited protection offered by the other two categories.  It just gets worse and worse.

Other pine flatwoods would be totally up to the developer whether or not to preserve, to mow down, or to keep in part if the developer wants to do so to “achieve site design goals” including but not limited to ”social, recreational and civic values and other market-based factors.”

County staff comments in a memo that they will "encourage" developers to preserve pine flatwoods and other naturally vegetated areas that they will no longer will be required to preserve.  Wow, big deal.

The weakened requirement would apply throughout the entire Urban Service Area and in a part of south County designated the Future Urban Service Area.  Large swaths of pine flatwoods will be left without current protections, particularly in the south County, such as the bottom half of the Fox Creek habitat north of Laurel Road, east along Jacaranda Boulevard between Venice Avenue and Center Road, and very largely, in the Englewood area including on the Thomas Ranch.  Destruction of pine flatwoods will also be newly allowed in portions of the north County, including the area west of US 41 north of Sarasota Square Mall, near Pelican Cove.  Some of the pine flatwoods that will no longer have protection provide important amenities to neighborhoods, such as Desoto Acres and The Groves.

This is the culmination of a long-time push by big developers to remove pine flatwoods from the protected habitat they must preserve when meeting the County's open space requirements.  Developers want this because pine flatwoods are by far the protected habitat that developers most frequently encounter in their developments, and as such is the one they most frequently want to destroy to make way for other development features, such as the lawns and other "pervious surfaces" that can count as open space.

This would do great harm, as pine flatwoods provide important habitat for many wildlife species.  Even in urban areas where they do that to a lesser extent, they provide all of the aesthetic and functional benefits that trees have for the human environment.

County staff says that removing present pine flatwood protections is now a good idea because of "the overall success of conserving the habitat in the county".  That's like saying a community that has had success in combating crime should legalize crime.

Rather than admitting that they are removing existing pine flatwood protections, County staff says that their proposed amendment "would strategically conserve pine flatwoods rather than use a one-size fits all approach."  In fact, what the amendment would do is remove the present comprehensive requirement that developers preserve pine flatwoods first (together with other protected habitat) in fulfilling the County's open space requirements, and allow its destruction except in those very limited instances in which the proposed ordinance says it must be preserved.

The Bible teaches us that while mankind has been given dominion over the earth, we must be good stewards of the natural environment which has been placed under our control.

It is just good stewardship to require that native habitat be preserved first by a developer when meeting the County's open space requirement -- not just habitat rarely encountered but also the habitat that can be expected to be actually found on a site, such as pine flatwoods.

The public should be made aware of this bad proposal and if nothing else make it uncomfortable for the politicians who would do the bidding of their developer patrons at the expense of the environment and other public interest concerns.

Dan Lobeck
President, Control Growth Now