Planning Commission rejects Comp Plan and UDC Changes 8-0

 

Having trouble viewing email? Click here to View as Webpage

Planning Commission Rejects Comp plan and UDC Changes 8-0 June 20, 2024

Siesta Key Condominium Council (SKCC) Mission Statement: To provide member Condominium Associations, their owners, residents and renters current information applicable to Condominium living in the legislative, legal and insurance arenas, through a series of meetings/speakers and to support efforts that promote: safety, economic stability, environmentalism, and the beautification of Siesta Key.

Results of the Planning Commission Hearing Proposed UDC Amendment No. 2023-55 – Voluntary Destruction Nonconforming Density - DRAFT  (In Conjunction with CPA No. 2022-D) and New Policy 1.3.3 (E). (Link to video below). Planning Commissioners voted unanimously 8-0 to reject the Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments and recommend the BOCC not approve them as proposed. 1. They realized the unintended consequences are more far-reaching than they or staff thought. The amendments have neither been vetted nor thought out completely, and valid input from stakeholders was often dismissed or ignored, sometimes against the recommendations of planning staff. 2. The amendments allow 2 stories ABOVE the current non-conforming heights, which would permit buildings as high as 14 - 19 stories. Commissioners strongly opposed allowing higher non-conforming heights. The current amendment only permits demolition and rebuild to the same height AFTER a storm with 50% or more damage and repair unfeasible. 3. There is no restriction on room size or lock-out rooms. For example, the proposal would allow 400- 600 sq. ft. rooms to increase to 3,000 - 4,000 square feet and permit lock-out rooms, which in effect, could legally double density and create even greater intensity. 4. Costs could only be sustained by transient development or conversion, such as many time-share owners or a condo-hotel. The Planner acknowledged this is possible and not prevented by the amendments.

5. Planning staff originally recommend engineering reports and other requirements. All condos on Siesta Key built before 2,000 (the vast majority) three stories or greater require Milestone Inspections and Structural Integrity Reserve Studies because of their proximity to water. This is already underway and many buildings are undergoing upgrades. This is a financial hardship to owners, and units for sale are increasing, which could result in buyouts and transient conversions. 6. Stakeholders and Commissioners complimented planning staff for reaching out to stakeholders for input in the process. Commissioners asked important questions during the discussion. 7. Commissioners realized there is an issue determining which properties are legally non-conforming and eligible; the response was that it is the jurisdiction of the zoning administrator, but some express they want the Commission to make those determinations. The Comp Plan provides uniform protection for Key owners and residents against the dangers of increased density and intensity. 8. Given the DOAH and Circuit Court Rulings, they acknowledged these Amendments could expose the County to legal liability. Take aways from the Planning Commission Hearing: These amendments are more far-reaching than most realize. Since much of Siesta Key is RMF, this could ultimately pose a big problem. A proliferation of time share and condo hotel conversions to transient accommodations on the beaches and throughout the Key is possible. Planning acknowledged to the Planning Commission that the proposed amendments and County policies do not distinguish between hotel rooms and condos, between transient and residential, and do not prevent buyouts and conversions. Attorney Ralph Brookes stated it’s already happening in Ft. Myers/ Naples - not just the east coast. This could become another hidden danger to Siesta Key to circumvent the Comprehensive Plan and its protections for residents and owners. Link to Video of the Hearing (Choose June 20, 2024): https://sarasotacounty.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=15 Fast forward to item 6. You’ll probably need to drag the time to 4:43:54! Item 6 begins 4 3/4 hours into the meeting!

Sarasota Baptist's planned development: Careless? Indifferent? Dangerous?

The Lake Sarasota community wants its children to be safe, but a housing development proposed for Hand Road by Sarasota Baptist Church (Proctor Rd.) poses potential design dangers that have been ignored by the developer and by Sarasota Baptist.

Read on to learn why this project has come to be seen as CARELESS, INDIFFERENT, and DANGEROUS by residents familiar with the complexities of Hand Road.

Nowhere in the proposal are these issues of concern to parents and residents addressed:

• Neighborhood children walking to Lakeview Elementary cross Hand Road at a blind curve to and from school each day.
• Parents and teachers are tied up driving to and from Lakeview Elementary on Hand Road every weekday morning and afternoon.
• Buses of children converge on Oak Park School on Hand Road at 9 a.m. 
• Everyone in Lake Sarasota knows to avoid Hand Road during school opening and closing every day.
• Lago Road to Hand Road is a straightaway heading into to a blind curve.
• The plan proposes two entrances/exits onto Hand Road.
• Sarasota Baptist fills with hundreds of cars every Sunday morning.

When informed about the new construction, a crossing guard who has guided children at the curve from Lago to Hand Rd. for the past three years said, "That’s crazy! The road can’t handle any more traffic."

Why CARELESS?

• The plan produced by Bo Medred of Genesis Planning & Development Inc. seems fundamentally flawed -- nowhere does it address these unique conditions. 

• Sarasota County has a rule that a traffic study is only triggered when a certain number of new homes are to be built. The plan from Sarasota Baptist and David Weekley Homes seeks permission to build 141 homes, but they proffered a commitment (binding?) to build no more than 87 luxury homes, which is below the technical trigger for a study.

• Despite "NO" votes from two members of the Sarasota County Planning Commission, that board recommended approval without ever taking up the question of WHY, given the complex conditions and the presence of children walking to school, NO TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN REQUIRED.

Pember



•  Moving the discussion away from fellow board members' safety concerns, Planning Commissioner Colin Pember said, "'I don’t think traffic’s an issue,' . . . eliciting laughter from the audience members." (Sarasota News Leader) He then drove the vote to recommend approval of the project. Pember is the Division Director of Land Acquisition at Pulte Group.

Why INDIFFERENT?

• Efforts to raise these issues with Pastor Michael Lewis of Sarasota Baptist went without a response. When a co-worker of Pastor Lewis was contacted, she assured us that Lewis had received emails of concern from Lake Sarasota (sent via the church site), but indicated that he would not be available to take calls or to speak with residents. Emails sent to him via his site have gone unanswered.
• When local residents brought intimate knowledge of traffic conditions that raise concerns, the Planning Commission voted for the plan without any stipulations or recommendations to scrutinize our safety considerations.

DANGEROUS:

• Hand Road is a major access driveway for our kids and parents every day (8am and 3pm). It's an extremely important access for safe and protected access for young ones, and the currently proposed site plan reflects two additional roadway connections, and 160+ additional vehicles which will create increased safety risks. 
• How is the developer and the County and/or school board mitigating these concerns?
• The proposed development would create two entrances/exits - both on Hand Road - one near to the curve from Lago Road to Hand:

• Sarasota County Transportation states that only an "operational analysis" commissioned by Medred has been done. It does not address the volume of cars, the walkways children use, or the straightaway on Lago leading to the sharp curve to Hand Road. And, it doesn't use actual traffic counts, only misleading estimates. For example, it states that the traffic levels on Proctor Road have not increased in the past three years - anyone hearing this who lives or drives along Proctor would laugh out loud.

On Tuesday Nov. 28 the County Commission will consider and possibly approve this project. To watch the meeting, go to this site, look for Nov. 28. On Tuesday a link to the meeting will be next to the agenda link. This is Item #38 on the agenda. If you can make it to the public hearing, please come and speak.

The safety issues outlined above are only part of the issue raised by this project. For more, see this series of observations raised by residents, including a professional planner.

Parents and children walking to school on Hand Rd.

Please see the related Sarasota News Leader story on the Planning Commission hearing.

Alert: Help Stop the destruction of rural Sarasota - Meeting July 21

                   

DON'T LET DEVELOPMENT PAVE OVER OUR RURAL LANDS

NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION MEETING JULY 21st at 7pm in person at Bethel Mennonite Church or Via Zoom

Paving Pat Neal has set his bulldozer sights on rural Sarasota County. He wants to destroy over 4,000 rural acres with 5,000 dwelling units that will add 47,000 daily vehicle trips to our roadways. His comprehensive plan amendment (CPA 2022-B) will sprawl from University Parkway to Fruitville Road and from Cowpen Lane east for approximately 3.1 miles (ending east of the S-curve). This proposal is in addition to Hi Hat (already approved) and increases the density approved for Lake Park Estates (the destruction you see from Fruitville east of Cowpen Lane).

Please come at 7pm on July 21st to learn more about how we are fighting this proposed development.

JOIN US IN PERSON at Bethel Mennonite Church, 2985 Bethel Lane (on north side of Fruitville) 

 OR

JOIN US VIA ZOOM go to the website: SarasotaCountry.net for more information and to register for Zoom

                              

Also on July 21st:

Becky Ayech and the Miakka Community Club are working against Paving Pat's development by asking the Planning Commission to require the developers to hold another Neighborhood Workshop with the community. The workshop held on April 7, 2022 was totally inadequate and did not meet the County's requirements. We all need your support with emails and people showing up at the Planning Commission Meeting at 5 pm on July 21st. If you aren't on Becky's email list and didn't get her Action Alert, reach out to her at miakka1945@gmail.com and let her know you want to help.

(Then you can join our Neighborhood Action Meeting on your way back home or catch us via Zoom.)

If you can't make the meeting and want more information and to sign up for our emails, go to SarasotaCountry.net

See you at the Neighborhood Action Meeting! 

Susan Schoettle

President

Keep the Country, Inc.

Planning Commission to consider plans for Quads parcels at Celery Fields

 

The Quads 2021

The Sarasota County Planning Commission is set to consider the county's proposed Critical Area Plan (CAP) for the area that includes the Quad Parcels and Celery Fields on May 6, 2021. 

The plan proposes rezoning the Quads to Government Use (GU) and delineates constraints and recommendations to preserve the aim of encouraging birding habitat and an open gateway on Palmer Avenue to East County.

County Planner Steve Kirk put a lot of thought into this presentation, which seeks to honor the intent behind the county's grant of a permanent easement over three of the four parcels (outlined above) to the Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast and to Sarasota Audubon, which has had s strong commitment to the Celery Fields, and which will manage the future redevelopment of these parcels. 

Here's my email to the Planning Commission:

As one of the founding members of the Fresh Start Initiative, a community group that spent 10 months gathering community input and recommendations for the Quads parcels, I invite the Planning Commission to now weigh in on the CAP as it now stands. 

1. The Critical Area Plan seeks to realize the vision of a Gateway to East County, with an open viewshed, new Audubon-guided bird habitat, and stresses compatibility of architectural style, setbacks, building height, and more. However, while these constraints will certainly enhance the three parcels under easement, the Northwest Parcel has 4+ acres of developable land that will simply be labeled GU. This acreage could be developed by the County or sold to a developer, with options for light industry, commercial, or residential uses.

Wide range of options for the NW Parcel

It would make perfect sense for the Planning Commission to strongly recommend that the NW parcel's 4+ developable acres have binding language stating that any proposed use must be found compatible with the larger vision for the Quads and Celery Fields Area.

For example, a four-acre warehouse serviced by giant 18-wheelers on the Northwest parcel would hardly be consistent with the purpose of the perpetual easement, or for that matter with the roads and residential neighborhoods on and near Palmer Blvd.

The Fresh Start group did present a few community suggestions for the Northwest parcel. One that would both be consistent with the easement vision and offer practical help to motorists would be a bus loop enabling schoolchildren to get on and off buses without stopping traffic both ways on Palmer. 

  

The loop could have a pavilion with tables where children could sit out of the rain or strong sun, and perhaps eat a snack. Snacks could be provided by a rotating series of food trucks on an area set aside for this purpose.

Not only would this use be an asset for our children and help the flow of traffic, but it would also fit with the fact that the Northwest parcel, as public land, already holds a brand new fire station in suitable Old Florida style.

2. Another noteworthy element of the permanent easement reserves an option that would allow the County to construct a building on six acres of the Southwest parcel. While the Board has spoken of using the land for a history museum, nothing in the CAP specifies this use. This would seem to leave open the parcel open to some other Government Use. 

GU allows a great many things, including firing ranges, bus terminals and asphalt manufacturing. It would be a valuable enhancement to the Planning Commission review to recommend binding the use of the Southeast parcel to consistency and compatibility with the "Prime Directive" of the permanent easement -- protection of bird habitat in the Celery Fields.

Finally, it would be helpful to remind our community that Sarasota Audubon has taken on the task of shaping the parcels under easement. It will be raising funds for the purpose and we all should be both grateful and mindful that the commitment of Audubon deserves the support of all those who love the Celery Fields.

Very truly yours, 

Tom Matrullo

To the Planning Commission regarding development in Sarasota County

UPDATE: This Hi Hat proposal received a unanimous recommendation from the Sarasota County Planning Commission (PC) on January 21, 2021. The 8-0 vote means the project will go on to the Board of County Commissioners for official consideration.

The Planning Commission meeting is now available here.

A number of Sarasotans wrote the PC to advocate for much more detailed analysis and consideration before giving any recommendation to approve this giant plan. Below is one of many.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission:

As you address the giant Turner family project that comes before you this evening, I ask that you consider the concerns raised by a spokesperson for the Miakka Community Club. There are thoughtful, informed observations about Water, the Ecosystem and Environment, and traffic that warrant close attention. Surely you have read Ms. Ayech's letter, but for ease of reference it is posted here for public awareness:

http://sarasotavision2050.blogspot.com/2021/01/hi-hat-project-could-change-whole.html

But I urge you to consider the larger context as well.

When a project of this scale and complexity comes to you, the impacts to be considered are manifold, and in this case, will alter the character of East Sarasota County permanently. This warrants a further observation:

Have you driven through the Hi Hat ranchland recently? It is not simply a rural area of great natural beauty; it's also a vast segment of the county that connects major roads - Fruitville to the North, and Clark to the South. Bee Ridge Road will likely be extended eastward to enable future residents to come and go. There is also a major FPL Power line extending north through the property from Clark to Fruitville..

While the Turner project might seem at first glance to have considered many aspects of this complex plan, there are surely elements of public value that can additionally be addressed. For example, there's the possibility of extending walking, horseback, and bicycling trails north from Clark to Fruitville, which then could link northward to Lakewood Ranch, and southward possibly to the Legacy Trail. This would add great value as a human and natural corridor - but often is not the sort of thing normally found in plans for housing developments and commercial centers.

One further point as to context: The public of Sarasota County really has no clear information regarding the number of homes already approved for construction, or the percentage of undeveloped land that is committed to future residential or commercial development. Given the rampant developer activity already approved by the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners - whether at Skye Ranch, or any of Pat Neal's many projects, or those of Mr. Beruff, or Mr. Kompothecras, or Wellen Park, or many more - we who live here are therefore unable to gauge in any clear, rigorous and informed way what impacts are coming. Unfortunately recent practice has abandoned comprehensive planning. Random, piecemeal plans of developers now take the place of a comprehensive vision shared with and benefitting all.The public would benefit from an overall mapping of exactly what's planned and what's approved -- without such information, the future nature and reality of Sarasota is in fact largely unknown. 

Given the absence of regional as well as of state oversight for local planning, I urge each of you to deeply consider what you can contribute to help developers with giant aspirations to make their projects the best - not only for thousands of future buyers who don't live here now, but also -- and especially -- for the people who live here, work here, and experience anxiety about the visionless direction of growth in Sarasota County.

Sincerely,

Tom Matrullo

Citizens for Sarasota County (CSC) is a coalition founded in 2014 to promote ethical, responsive government that preserves and enhances Sarasota's unique natural environment and cultural heritage while building a sound local economy based on effective stewardship and innovation. 

CSC

===

Blog

Facebook

Twitter

YouTube Channel 

Hi Hat Project could change "the whole ecosystem"

UPDATE: This Hi Hat proposal received a unanimous recommendation from the Sarasota County Planning Commission on January 21, 2021. The vote was 8-0, the project will now go on to the Board of County Commissioners for official consideration.

The Planning Commission meeting is now available here.

======

Perhaps the largest development project Sarasota County will see in a long time - Hi Hat Ranch - comes before the Planning Commission Thursday Jan. 21. According to Miakka Community advocate Becky Ayech, not only is this plan vague and counter-rational, it' will also change "THE WHOLE ECOSYSTEM."

The project takes in 10,000 acres stretching from Fruitville Road to Clark Road. Proposal calls for 13,000 residences with a 30-year build-out.

Hi Hat Ranch

Below are resources for comments to the PC from Ayech of the Miakka Community Group - feel free to write to the planning commissioners using any of the information below.

==

PLEASE USE ANY OF THESE COMMENTS.  REMEMBER, this is quasi-judicial, so only facts, not opinions.

PLEASE ACT IMMEDIATELY

For example: my water quality has greatly diminished since I moved into my home..HI Hat cannot use their irrigation wells for back up lawn watering.  my well is my only source of all my water needs.

RE; HI HAT RANCH DOCC and MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Good day Planning Commissioners,

The Applicant, Hi Hat Ranch has provided you with a plethora of information.

Unfortunately, one criterial piece of information is missing and many of the guarantees hinge upon that information.

While many maps were provided, the map showing where the Villages are going to be located is not clear at all.  I understand there may be 3 or 4 Villages, but I could not find a map that so indicates the locations.

Much of the information provided is relative to the timing of the Villages, specifically infrastructure, discussing the incremental development of utilities

The Applicant has indicated that the first Village would be located at the Hi Hat Ranch offices.  This location is akin to a hole in the doughnut.  The road to the offices is located on Fruitville Road, 2.1 miles from the Ranch’s western boundary.   It would be safe to say this would most likely be the same distance from Bee Ridge Road.  This would necessitate running utilities’ lines either from the Bee Ridge Road facilities or from the extension of utilities out to the Hamlet known as Lakepark Estates.  This would be ‘leaping’ over lands where it would make more planning sense to begin the Villages and then move easterly.

Therefore, the responses provided discussing these phasing approaches is meritless.

The MDP MUST show the location of at least the first Village

WATER QUALITY

The Applicant has provided information on monitoring and testing the SURFACE water quality, but is offering nothing for ground water protection.

The Applicant has several wells for the agricultural operation (see attached Water Use Permit).  The Applicant is purporting to use these ag wells as back up wells for lawn irrigation, if the back up lakes and stormwater ponds fail and that is only after the reclaimed water is not available.

The agricultural wells MUST NOT be used as the third way to water lawns.  Existing legal users that are in the Hi Hat Ranch area only have their domestic wells to meet ALL their needs.

Many of the wells on Hi Hat are drilled deep and cased shallow, allowing upward migration of poor-quality water, when then moves laterally into domestic wells.  (See attached minutes from the Southwest Florida Water management District Governing Board {SWFWMD] meeting. And well construction records from Sarasota Health Department)

The Ranch is located in the SWFWMD’s Southern Use Water Caution Area (SWUCA) where ground water withdrawals are not only causing upward migration of poor-quality water but also saltwater intrusion.  The proper plugging and abandonment of these wells would help the existing legal domestic well users and the Florida Aquifer and the Arcadian Aquifer.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The Applicant stated that the aggregate mining will continue, not only for financial reasons, but because the development will need the fill.

There are NO NATURAL LAKES on the property.  While ultimately, they will provide nice lake front property, this changes the whole ecosystem.  Species that are currently not on the property will be drawn to the large water source.  These may include predator species that would kill exiting species.  The flora and fauna would change as well and again the existing flora and fauna support a myriad of species which may not be able to utilize the deep water.

Recognition MUST be given to the potential species changes and plans MUST be provided to show how this change would be mitigated.

The Applicant states they will create new wetlands by scraping off the top soil and importing the appropriate wetland soils. Healthy, thriving wetlands need a hydrological regime. 

The Applicant did not provide data and information on sites where this type of creation was successful not data showing how many have failed.  There wasn’t any information provided to show how the hydrological needs of the wetlands would be met.  In phosphate mining, as an example, wetlands the mitigate are held to a hydrological regime that is artificially maintained by the phosphate company until they are released as ‘successful’ by DEP. 

The Applicant must show how they are going to accomplish this wetland scrape land and create a new wetland scheme.

TRAFFIC

During the Workshop and then in a smaller meeting, the Applicant lamented the ugliness of the approach to the Mai Entrance to the Villages from extending Bee Ridge Road, forcing residents to pass the County’s Water Treatment Plant, the Hazardous Waste Collection Facility, the Animal Shelter and Rothenbach Park.  He stated the roadway in this area would have to be realigned and that the Applicant would have to build a bridge across Cow Pen Slough.

An alternative road, with a beautiful country (at least for now) view would be to use the existing road leading into the Ranch from Fruitville Road.  This would add additional congestion to an already over taxed, constrained scenic road.

Again, this is why at least the first Village should be located on the western boundary of the Ranch and should so be indicated on the map.

DO NOT ADOPT THE MASTER PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR HI HAT RANCH UNTIL THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

Becky Ayech
President
Miakka Community Club

====================================

 More from the Herald Tribune

More from this blog on Hi Hat

Four Housing Projects that will overrun Northeast Sarasota

====================================

The emails of the Planning Commissioners: 

Andrew.Stultz@sarasotaadvisory.net, Colin.Pember@sarasotaadvisory.net, 

Kevin.Cooper@sarasotaadvisory.net, Laura.Benson@sarasotaadvisory.net,  Justin.Taylor@sarasotaadvisory.net, 

Neil.Rainford@sarasotaadvisory.net,  Frank.Strelec@sarasotaadvisory.net, Teresa.Mast@sarasotaadvisory.net, 

Drew.Peters@sarasotaadvisory.net

The best response to the Bert Harris scare tactic

“They said they couldn’t build this without using taxpayer dollars and getting greater density,” she says. “So, if you admit that what is on the books, you’re not able to do, then what kind of ownership can you claim?”

Becky Ayech, quoted in Becky Ayech Fights for Old Miakka’s Rural Way of Life, by Elizabeth Djinis, Sarasota Magazine.

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.

UPDATE: Planning Commission ignores facts, law, and courtesy, advocate says

Update: 8.25.20 from Becky Ayech:

I received a call from Michele Norton with Sarasota County Planning Department regarding what I thought I had heard at the August 20th meeting.  She said that three people had listened to it and they did not hear what I heard. Several of you also reviewed it and no one heard what I did, but there have been several different things people did hear.  Thank you for taking that upon yourselves.

I thanked her for pursuing this.  I was glad that I didn't hear what I thought I did.

With that said, I still reminded her that the public was not treated appropriately.  We had followed all the County's Rules and their manner, that they lectured us and that they were going to get that rule changed is not part of their charge.  She said they will continue to look at this matter.

(Editor's note: There is clearly at least one moment when a voice breaks through the presentation. A masculine voice at 2:47:16 can be heard first indistinctly, then quite distinctly saying "You are the most conservative right human being that I've ever known." It's unclear who was speaking and who was being addressed.) 

===

Editor's note: The email below from Becky Ayech regards the Planning Commission hearing of 8.20.20 on the Publicly Initiated Amendment to the Comp Plan on behalf of Old Miakka. This 170-year-old community in East Sarasota County (Commissioner Moran's District 1) is seeking an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would preserve the rural character of the area. (Herald Tribune story).

The email was sent to the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners on Sunday, August 23, which happens to be the third anniversary of the County hearing regarding James Gabbert's Debris Demolition plant proposed at the Celery Fields.

As yet we have been unable to verify the alleged swear word some say they heard duing the PC hearing. 

                                          Video of the 8.20.20 PC Hearing

=============================

To: Michael Moran <mmoran@scgov.net>, ncdetert@scgov.net, "Charles D. Hines" <chines@scgov.net>, Alan Maio <amaio@scgov.net>, cziegler@scgov.net

Good day Commissioners,

This is taken from the County's website:

Purpose: The Planning Commission, as the LPA, is obligated to interpret and advise the County Commission on the adoption of and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, as well as land use applications filed, pursuant to state statute or existing county ordinances.

At the 8/20/20 meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commissioners DID NOT fulfill or even consider what their purpose is.

Rather, they lectured the participants on how egregious they were by following the process SET OUT BY SARASOTA'S  PLANNING DEPARTMENT AFTER CONSULTATION WITH SARASOTA' S LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

WHEN THE MIAKKA COMMUNITY CLUB FILED THE REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WE HAD A $5,000.00 CHECK IN HAND.

WE WERE TOLD THAT WE DID NOT NEED MONEY, BUT 20 SIGNATURES OF REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE COUNTY.  WE PROVIDED 75, 45 WERE VERIFIED.

WE DID NOT DIG UP THIS REGULATION YOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT DID!  

THE ONLY THING WE ARE GUILTY OF IS FOLLOWING THE LAW.  I cannot say the Planning Commission is guilty of following "the Law" as articulated in their purpose.

At the "process request " hearing in front of the Planning Commission, Mr. Spaeth was asked how much money this would cost, and he told them very little.  This is a map change not a language change.  Never the less, the public had to be lectured on how much this cost the taxpayers.  This is an inaccurate and nonfactual statement.

At the process hearing, Mr Spaeth also pointed out that here are other counties that have the same regulations.

At one point in the hearing, a Commissioner's mic was NOT muted and it sounded like he called someone a "righteous bitch".  Please review the meeting to see if I heard correctly. If I did ,then he should be removed.

Every member of the public who spoke in support of CPA-2019-C was respectful.  The Planning Commission did not return this courtesy.  On your Speaker Card, that one fills out to speak, it talks of civility. The Planning Commissioners were not civil.  They were condescending. They lectured us. NEITHER OF THESE ARE INCLUDED IN THE "PURPOSE" OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

At the end of the meeting, a Commissioner said they were going to get rid of this regulation. THAT IS ALSO NOT THEIR "PURPOSE".

The Planning Commission DID NOT address the facts that were presented to them.  Rather, they took the stance of  the proverbial three monkeys, "hear no facts, see no facts, speak no facts".

I ask that you look into these statements. The Planning Commission is a reflection of you. This was an ugly reflection.

Please respond to my email. please make sure the "righteous bitch" statement was an error in my hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

Becky Ayech

President

Miakka Community Club

As a postscript.  I chair two of your committees/commission:  The Traffic Advisory Committee and the Historical Resources Committee. 

I WOULD NEVER TREAT ANYONE THE WAY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WHO  EXCERSIZED THEIR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT, WERE TREATED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

==

See the 8.27.20 Sarasota News Leader story about the hearing: With concerns about rights of owners of the affected parcels, Planning Commission votes to recommend denial of Miakka Community Club initiative to reduce residential density east of I-75

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

Planning Commission sides with Nokomis residents on Shakett Creek

The owners of the vacant land at the southwest corner of Laurel Road and Albee Farm Road in Nokomis, Florida (851 and 871 Albee Farm Rd, Nokomis, FL 34275) are requesting rezoning from Sarasota County with an unprecedented swap from OUC (Open Use, Conservation) land into RSF-1 (Residential, Single-Family). (Petition 19-04)

WE NEED your help to stop the development of this sensitive land!

THE REZONE PETITION STATES (19-04):

“The Applicants specifically want to rezone approximately 1.015 acres of a fill area in Shakett Creek from OUC (Open Use, Conservation, 1 unit/25 acres) to RSF-1 (Residential, Single-Family, 2.5 units/acre) in order to build one single- family residence on the property. The Applicant also intends to rezone approximately 1.43 acres closer to the intersection of Laurel Road and Albee Farm Road from RSF-1 to OUC in what the Applicant is referring to as a “rezone swap”. The intent is to provide single-family residential zoning on the property where the Applicant would like to build a single-family residence and in exchange rezone another part of the property similar, but slightly larger in size, to OUC for conservation purpose. Much of the property is impacted by Shakett Creek, except for an area in the northeastern part of the property near the intersection of Laurel Road and Albee Farm Road and a fill area in Shakett Creek that is high enough to build. It is the latter fill area in Shakett Creek that the Applicant would like to use to build one single-family residence.”

HISTORY:

The owners bought this land at a highly discounted price from Sarasota County through a tax deed sale (a purchase price of under $25,000 for nearly 15 acres of land that abuts 2 sides of navigable waterways leading to the Gulf of Mexico). Two community workshops were held by the owners to inform neighboring residents of their intention (June 29, 2017 and December 18, 2019). The owners publicly stated that their goal for purchasing this land was to build their family residence on an island that sits at the southwest corner of the property. This island is currently zoned OUC. In order for the owners to build their home there, they are seeking permission from Sarasota County to rezone this portion of their property. They want to swap OUC zoned land with RSF-1 zoned land located elsewhere on the parcel.

CONCERNS SURROUNDING THIS ZONING SWAP:

Response Time by Public Safety Services
Public safety is a concern. The owners of this property have signed a waiver and made it public knowledge that in the event of an emergency, public safety services may be delayed and they are aware of this delay. The delay is due to the fact that the proposed driveway and bridge leading to the building site will not support the weight of heavy emergency service vehicles.

Non-Binding Development Concept Plan
Petition 19-04 is a Non-Binding Development Concept Plan. This means that the owners are not obligated to the plan submitted and it can change at any time. Whereas a Binding Plan means there are no allowable deviations from the approved plans. It is entirely possible that if approved, the owners of this land can build multiple homes on the property.

NOTES FROM THE JUNE 6, 2019 REVIEW BOARD PUBLIC HEARING

Four concerns that arose from the Sarasota review board hearing on June 6, 2019.

Sensitivity of the Swap:
A swap of this nature (OUC to RSF-1) is unpresented and had never occurred within Sarasota County, as stated by a County Employee.

Delay in Response to Public Safety:
A delay in emergency service response time was reaffirmed by Mr. Tom Hicks, a Sarasota County Public Safety representative who spoke at the review hearing. It was also affirmed by Mr. Hicks that this delayed response would pass with the property Meaning if the property was sold, the new owners would have to accept the terms of the Fire Marshall report and the possible delay in emergency response services time.

Non-Binding Development Concept Plan:
When publicly asked by Commissioner Morris “Would you be willing to make a stipulation that if this does go through that you would build a single family house on the property” An agent for the owners stated “I don’t think they are willing to make that stipulation.”

Additional Disturbance to OUC Land:
Notwithstanding the land within the proposed swap; if approved there would be additional disturbance to OUC land granted for personal access and utility easement, potentially up to 700 linear feet along Shakett Creek.

COMMENTS FROM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:

Commissioner Morris: “This is not a good deal for Sarasota County – taking environmentally sensitive land and swapping for something that is zoned RSF-1.” “Not a good trade for Sarasota county.” “The fact that the applicant has come before us and stating one house but absolutely not willing to stipulate that.”

Commissioner Theresa Mast: “… never recalls a swap of sensitive lands to RSF-1” “(She thinks) this applicant knowingly purchased this property in its current state ..” “The community would get the raw end of the deal on this one”

Commissioner Strelec: “…. a real safely issue out there and although people in the fire department can make agreements to that kind of thing it doesn’t change that fact that I think there is a real danger and that is why I don’t support this.”

Commissioner Cooper: “The applicant opened with a statement calling for ‘equal land for equal land’. I think that is a mischaracterization of what is happening here. The only thing equal is their relative size.”

One a final note, Commissioner Theresa Mast thanked the community members who came and spoke in opposition of this petition and carrying themselves in a very professional manner. She stated that commissioners are guided by regulations rather than emotions and have to factor those issues.

REVIEW BOARDS RECOMMENDATION:
The Review Board made a unanimous recommendation to deny Petition 19-04. A final review from the County Commissioners is set for September 10, 2019. If you would like to learn more about this rezoning request and watch the entire review hearing, please do so by following this link:


For more, contract Bill Cantrell at NACA:

Bill Cantrell  |  President
NACA (Nokomis Area Civic Association)
Cellular  |  941-586-8301
billcantrell@verizon.net
www.naca-nokomis.com