Founded in 1850, the rural Community of Old Miakka predates Sarasota County. Never the less, this is a uniquely special place in Sarasota County. Special to the people who homestead there, special to all the residents of Sarasota and surrounding counties and special to Sarasota County.
In the early 80’s, John McCarthy, Sarasota Historical Department, wrote this:
The project focuses on the unique lifestyles and the values which Myakka residents share…
…a portrait of the people who live in the small rural communities of Miakka and Myakka City.
In 1989, Sarasota County funded A HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY OF OLD MIAKKA AND SELECTED PORTIONS OF THE MYAKKA RIVER, SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA.
2005, the Board prioritized the Old Miakka Neighborhood Plan.
County Staff set the boundaries of the Old Miakka study area. These boundaries have never been disputed. They are the Manatee County lines to the north and east, the Myakka River State Park and Myakka Valley Ranches to the south and west by Dog kennel Lane known now as Lorraine Road.
The community spans approximately 57 square miles or 36,590 acres. The western edge is approximately 5.8 miles from the city of Sarasota and occupies the northeastern corner of Sarasota County
“Old Miakka is particularly rich in local history. With historical records dating further back than many areas of Sarasota County, and the county itself, the area not only prides itself on its impressive history but also its ability to continue to preserve it.” This is a quote from Sarasota County Staff.
Many stories and articles have been written about the Community of Old Miakka:
1976 A HISTORY OF AGRICULTURE OF SARASOTA COUNTY FLORIDA
2019 Sarasota Alliance History and Preservation Coalition chose Old Miakka as one of the “Six to Save”. Spotlighting the most threatened historic properties, archaeological sites, and cultural resources in Sarasota County! The preservation community in Sarasota County wants to bring awareness to historical resources at risk.
2019 Recognized as a “This Place Matters”, part of the Place Matters national campaign that celebrates special communities in the U.S.
2020 Sarasota Magazine
2020 Bitter Southern magazine
2020 ABC local station Mike Modrick's story on Old Miakka
All these stories/articles are about what a uniquely special place Old Miakka is and how it needs to be preserved. NOT ONE said it should be paved over!
Linda Maree stated it best: “Heavy population density is not a component of true rural living, so we can’t all live in places like Old Miakka. But even us city folks like to know that the “country” is there when we want to visit it”.
CPA 2022-B is an intrusion into this 172 year old rural and agricultural Community, i.e. Old Miakka.
It is NOTHING reasonably close to the lifestyles/homesteads in Old Miakka.
Keep the Country …Country for current and future generations to live on, learn from and love the land.
This email from Becky Ayech provides some of the background on Old Miakka, the rural NE corner of Sarasota County. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2022-B would transform the land use in the Northeast to allow 5,000 more homes to sprawl eastward, basically paving 89% of what is now Old Miakka.
The future of the rural area would be canceled - the opportunity for current and future generations to live on, learn from and love the land would be gone forever.
Ayech urges all who care about the county's history and legacy to write to the Board -- the Commissioners' emails are below. It's fine if you wish to copy the text and send it as is. Becky writes:
It is important they know about Old Miakka. To know it is to save it. PLEASE SHARE this email with your social media friends and ask them to email this to the County Commissioners.
The "drop dead " meeting is August 31st. I do not yet have a time.
Founded in 1850, the rural Community of Old Miakka predates Sarasota County. Nevertheless, this is a uniquely special place in Sarasota County. Special to the people who homestead there, special to all the residents of Sarasota and surrounding counties and special to Sarasota County.
In the early 80’s, John McCarthy, Sarasota Historical Department, wrote this:
The project focuses on the unique lifestyles and the values which Myakka residents shar… a portrait of the people who live in the small rural communities of Miakka and Myakka City. In 1989, Sarasota County funded A HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY OF OLD MIAKKA AND SELECTED PORTIONS OF THE MYAKKA RIVER, SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA. In 2005, the Board prioritized the Old Miakka Neighborhood Plan. County Staff set the boundaries of the Old Miakka study area. These boundaries have never been disputed.
They are the Manatee County lines to the north and east, the Myakka River State Park and Myakka Valley Ranches to the south and west by Dog kennel Lane known now as Lorraine Road.
The community spans approximately 57 square miles or 36,590 acres. The western edge is approximately 5.8 miles from the city of Sarasota and occupies the northeastern corner of Sarasota County.
“Old Miakka is particularly rich in local history. With historical records dating further back than many areas of Sarasota County, and the county itself, the area not only prides itself on its impressive history but also its ability to continue to preserve it.” This is a quote from Sarasota County Staff. Many stories and articles have been written about the Community of Old Miakka:
1976 A HISTORY OF AGRICULTURE OF SARASOTA COUNTY FLORIDA
2019 Sarasota Alliance History and Preservation Coalition chose Old Miakka as one of the “Six to Save.” Spotlighting the most threatened historic properties, archaeological sites, and cultural resources in Sarasota County! The preservation community in Sarasota County wants to bring awareness to historical resources at risk.
2019 Recognized as a “This Place Matters,” part of the Place Matters national campaign that celebrates special communities in the U.S.
2020 Sarasota Magazine
2020 Bitter Southern magazine
2020 ABC local station Mike Modrick's story on Old Miakka
All these stories/articles are about what a uniquely special place Old Miakka is and how it needs to be preserved. NOT ONE said it should be paved over!
Linda Maree stated it best:
“Heavy population density is not a component of true rural living, so we can’t all live in places like Old Miakka. But even us city folks like to know that the “country” is there when we want to visit it.”
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2022-B is an intrusion into this 172-year-old rural and agricultural Community, i.e. Old Miakka.
The Amendment is NOTHING reasonably close to the lifestyles/homesteads in Old Miakka.
Keep the Country … Country for current and future generations to live on, learn from and love the land.
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.
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
Mike Hutchinsonopposed incumbent Mike Moran in the Republican Primary in August. Hutchinson is strongly in favor of protecting Rural Heritage lands like Old Miakka, a 170-year-old community whose way of life and zoning could be severely compromised by proposals for new, more intense rezonings. This is his statement on the Old Miakka Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It contains a video.
------
Dear Commissioners,
A number of you have expressed concern about property rights being taken away from developers by CPA-2019-C. If you look at the law, I think that concern is misplaced. The developers bought the property zoned as 5, 10, 160 acres. They got to treat it as agriculture land for years to save on taxes. They planned to make a profit and they will if they develop the property as 5, 10, 160 acres. There are a number of developments on Fruitville that have been done that way. Bern Creek and Oak Ford are two examples. At the end of the Commission meeting, where Lakepark Estates was approved as a hamlet, I said to the owner I guess you needed the increased density to make a profit. He said no, he could have made a profit with the lower density!
In the Observer on Sept. 3, 2020 "I'm not anti-property owner,” Detert said. "But to me, you've got what you bought." Property owners of large parcels cannot expect to get the County to change the rules, after the fact, to allow them to make a bigger profit.
The real taking of property rights is the impact on existing homeowners of rezoning to put urban sprawl into a rural area. A good example is the homeowners on the eastern side of Bern Creek. They bought their property with the zoning of the neighboring property being 5 and 10 acres. They could expect that someday that property would be developed and they would have a neighborhood similar to theirs (5 and 10 acres) behind them. They were more than surprised years later when the County reneged on the promise that the land next door would be rural and instead it was approved as a hamlet called Lakepark Estates.
The link below is a video that starts with scenes of Bern Creek, a 5 and 10 acre development. In the second section you see scenes showing what a hamlet will look like with homes on small lots all lined up next to each other.
When the Lakepark Estates hamlet is built the view behind the eastern homes in Bern Creek properties will be drastically changed. With the view damaged do you think these home will sell for what they should sell for? This is a real taking of property.
This is exactly what zoning was designed to prevent. Keep the current zoning by passing CPA-2019-C and protect existing neighborhoods!
A few weeks ago, on August 20, 2020, the Sarasota County Planning Commission heard a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment from a rural Sarasota community, and unanimously recommended denial.
The Board -- made up entirely of appointees, mostly development industry insiders -- then went entirely beyond its specified responsibility to urge the County Commission to look into whether a community even had the right to seek a planning provision that would protect its 170-year way of life.
Below is an email from Becky Ayech to District 1 County Commissioner Mike Moran. It explains how her community's effort to protect the rural lifestyle of their 170-year-old community known as Old Miakka was entirely according to the County's own rules.
Ayech urges residents to write to the Commissioners in support of Old Miakka's right to seek a sound plan that would protect her community and prevent leapfrog development potentially all over the county.
=====
Good day Mike
I would like to address the issue of 20 signatures to REQUEST a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
1. This is a County Regulation and the Miakka Community Club was TOLD they must take this route.
2. The 20 signatures was to REQUEST a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would become a Public Comp Plan Amendment, just like any other County initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment after the County Commission voted on this request.
3. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed by Rod Krebs, because it was a language change, affected all the lands identified as Hamlets, including in South County. Mr. Krebs did not own or control all the lands that CPA-2018-C would have affected.
Another example is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that changed the TDR program. This affected all lands that were/are subject to utilizing TDRs, including the subject lands of CPA-2019-C. I didn't hear any complaints from land owners whose property would be affected. Nor were they all listed on the CPA request. So in fairness, there are often impacts to landowners when a CPA is adopted whose names do not appear on any of the filed paperwork, i.e. people who own land.
4. Most importantly, this is a County Comprehensive Plan Amendment, not a private one. That is why the Miakka Community Club is only given 3 or 5 minutes, rather than the 15 afforded to privately initiated Amendments.
I know you are a fair person who follows County Rules and Regulations. Look at the facts presented by County Staff and members of the Public when you make your decision. I am attaching a synopsis of the County Staff Report, dated August 20, with page numbers, for your ease of reference.
The 20 signature debate has already happened and the BOCC considered all the arguments for and against and voted to process CPA-2019-C as a Publicly Initiated Amendment.
Merits not threats should guide your vote. I am sure the merits will prevail.
Citizens' Proposal to Cut Density of Northern Hamlet in Half
Wednesday, September 11, 1:30 pm
Sarasota County Commission, 1660 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota
Developers' Proposal to Double Density of All Three Hamlets
Thursday, September 19, 5:00 pm
Sarasota County Planning Commission, 1660 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota
Rural Heritage
The fate of 15,000 acres in far east Sarasota County is on the line this month, as County officials weigh competing proposals from citizens and developers.
On September 11, the County Commission will first consider whether to authorize processing of a citizen petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan, as allowed by the County Code.
The petition -- the first ever brought by citizens, not developers -- would reduce the density of 6,000 acres at the northeast corner of Fruitville Road and Verna Road from Hamlet development (.4 units per acre - clustered to one unit per acre) to Rural Heritage Estate (at one unit per five acres), consistent with surrounding homes in that area. The change is promoted by the Miakkka Community Club, representing homeowners nearby, and supported by Control Growth Now. The petition -- indeed the very idea of a citizen petition -- was opposed by the Board-appointed Planning Commission.
Next, on September 19, the Planning Commission will consider a proposal by the developer of that north Hamlet to double its clustered density to two units per acre, as well as for the two other Hamlets to the south, provided that the developer agrees to hook up the County's already overstressed water and sewer utilities. That change -- which would impact 15,000 acres in toto -- is opposed by the County's Development Review Committee, which concluded that it "does not appear to be warranted," as well as by County planning staff and Control Growth Now. (More here.)
Both one unit-per-acre and two units-per-acre are urban densities under the Comprehensive Plan. Control Growth Now has long advocated that such urban sprawl does not belong in the eastern rural lands.
Rural Heritage:Miakka Schoolhouse
On September 11, 2019, you can help a rural heritage community hold the line on broken county promises and thwart another construction invasion.
At 1:30 pm, the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners will decide either to
protect our rural heritage
or
promote urban sprawl.
Sprawl east of I-75
The Miakka Community near Verna Road and Fruitville Road represents one of the oldest neighborhoods in our county. It's a strong voice. Even if you don't live in East County, this is your concern – what's happening there is a harbinger of what’s coming.
When density in your neighborhood jumps before you turn around, you’ve been had – by developers who changed the rules through sleight of hand. Before you can say "traffic jam," your peaceful neighborhood is a memory.
Out east, residents are fighting back against developers who want to more than triple the density of landas currently zoned. This is leapfrog development!
With the theme of Sarasota Country, this active community adopted the slogan:
"Keep the Country...Country
Rural Heritage - Not Urban Sprawl."
The Miakka Community aims to protect rural heritage land from egregious development and density. This is a fair fight against the unfair developers-take-all boondoggle.
We can all support this community at the commission meeting on September 11, 2019, at 1660 Ringling Blvd. (support agenda item CPA 2019-C to protect Rural Heritage)
Let's be witness to this opportunity for our commissioners to clearly demonstrate that they do NOT support URBAN SPRAWL
STOP Proposed Rezone - 37-Cluster Homes on Boleyn Rd. - Canopy Road
This is important. Please EMAIL: Sarasota County Commissioners that you are OPPOSED to the proposed rezone RZ18-09 on Boleyn Road to a 37-cluster home development.
In your own words, here are some points you can make:
Please DENY the proposed rezone of 37 homes on Boleyn Road.
* does not conform to the existing land use pattern of one home per five acres
* more traffic & pedestrian safety concerns on overburdened Debrecen Road
* potential loss of canopy oak trees on a designated protected Canopy Tree Road
* not compatible to existing Palmer Farms Subdivision
* would change way of life for existing residents and could negatively affect property values
(don't forget to put your address on your email.)
Your county commission needs to know that you are OPPOSED to RZ18-09, proposed rezone 37-cluster homes in our Rural Heritage neighborhoods and why.
Email: planner@scgov.net
Subject: RZ18-09, Arbour Lake Reserve
Please DENY the proposed rezone of 37 homes on Boleyn Road.
***SAVE THE DATE***
DATE: WED., JULY 10TH, 1:30 PM
WHAT: County Commission Meeting
Please Join Us at this final meeting to oppose the proposed rezone petition to develop 37-cluster home development in our rural heritage neighborhood.
has launched a campaign to help save and maintain rural/farm-type lands east of the Celery Fields. They are negotiating with Big Cat Habitat to put that land under conservation easement (in other words, never to go for development). They have also committed to buying the land east of East Road and north of Palmer which is currently a stables and a big pond--opposite the entrance to a housing development. This piece of land, known as Graceland, is up for sale for $2.55 million.
(All of the above does not address the Quad, although the CFGC is firmly behind the idea of no development. That is another fight that SAS is engaged in).
The Conservation Foundation must raise $650,000 in community donations by June 30, and another $650,000 by September 30 in order to meet their contract deposits, demonstrate community support, and keep this one-time opportunity alive.
MATCHING DONATIONS
Sarasota Audubon has pledged a 5% match for very dollar donated by its members to saving Graceland (topping out at $5,000 in matching funds)
Conservation Foundation or you can mail a check made out to SAS to 999 Center Rd, Sarasota, FL 34240. We will pass all donations on to the Conservation Foundation.
We deeply appreciate your generosity. Your children and grandchildren will thank you.
Yours in conservation,
Jeanne Dubi, Acting President, and the SAS Board of Directors
Citing concerns about changing development policies for eastern Sarasota County, Planning Commission recommends County Commission stop initiative to reduce density near Fruitville/Verna roads intersection
Old Miakka residents propose changes to Sarasota 2050 Future Land Use Maps
A graphic shows the Old Miakka Planning Area, outlined in blue. Image courtesy Sarasota County
In 2006, residents of the Old Miakka community in the eastern part of Sarasota County completed a two-year process of engagement with Sarasota County staff to craft a document called the Old Miakka Neighborhood Plan.
The introduction to that plan explained, “Old Miakka is not only an area of rich history but one of rural character and integrity. Of all things material, great and small, the residents’ love of the land and pastoral admiration is what they hold closest to their hearts.”
The introduction added, “As development continues to grow east of Sarasota County’s Urban Service Boundary, the neighborhood has begun to feel growing pains, generating significant concern about the community’s future.”
(The Urban Service Boundary, county planning staff has explained, generally is the line of demarcation for development, with the areas west of the line having become urban and the land east of it considered to be rural.)
“This plan,” the introduction continued, “lays out a methodology that seeks to preserve the rural character the community holds so dear.”
The County Commission voted to accept the Old Miakka plan in 2006, four years after the original version of the county’s 2050 Plan was approved. The 2050 regulations specify how growth should occur east of the Urban Service Boundary.
Sarasota 2050 has three primary tenets, the county’s planning staff points out: open space, to create a balance between the community and the environment; New Urbanism, which focuses on the construction of neighborhoods with commercial centers to serve residents’ daily needs, thereby reducing the need for vehicle use; and fiscal neutrality, meaning new developments pay for themselves.
A county staff graphic points out concerns about the amendment’s impacts on the Sarasota County 2050 Plan. Image courtesy Sarasota County
The approximately 6,000 acres in the northwest corner of Fruitville Road and Verna Road — an area close to Old Miakka — primarily was designated Village/Open Space under the 2050 Plan, with the option for those lands to be developed as Hamlets, as designated on the Future Land Use Map Series that accompanied the 2050 Plan regulations.
On June 20, a leader of a group called the Miakka Community Club told the Sarasota County Planning Commission that, after the 2006 County Commission vote on the Old Miakka Neighborhood Plan, “We went home thinking we had superseded [the Sarasota 2050 plan Future Land Use Map designations]” at the eastern end of Fruitville Road.
“We did not know that [the Old Miakka Plan] had to be adopted [for that to happen],” Becky Ayech testified.
Then, she continued, in 2015, construction began on the first Hamlet on Fruitville Road. “It wasn’t the 50 to 150 homes surrounded by agriculture,” as the Old Miakka Plan had envisioned, Ayech pointed out. Instead, it was 400 homes on about 400 acres, “and 600 acres of stormwater mosquito-breeding land that went with [the development].”
County planning staff since has referred to Hamlets as “urban sprawl,” Ayech told the Planning Commission.
With the growth taking place out east — and more development coming — Ayech and many of her neighbors in Old Miakka decided in March to submit to the county Planning and Development Services Department staff an application for the processing of a publicly initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment. Their goal is to accomplish what their 2006 neighborhood plan failed to do. The application seeks changes in the designation of the 6,000 acres near Old Miakka to Rural Heritage/Estates, which would have a much lower housing density. The amendment affects Maps 8-1 and 8-3 in the 2050 Plan chapter of the county’s Comprehensive Plan.
The application says the new designation would not cover Lake Park Estates and SMR Properties.
A county graphic shows the area — circled in purple — that would be designated Rural Heritage/Estates. Image courtesy Sarasota County
Yet, as one of the opponents of the proposal made clear to the Planning Commission on June 20, such changes in the 2050 Plan’s Future Land Use Maps at this point would threaten projects that have been years in the making.
More importantly, attorney Matt Brockway of Icard Merrill in Sarasota told the planning commissioners, the change likely would lead to lawsuits citing the state’s Bert Harris Act and other areas of Florida law related to the government’s “taking” of private property.
Speaking for four client companies that together own approximately 2,267 acres designated Village/Open Space and Hamlet under the aegis of the 2050 Plan, Brockway said, “We are vehemently opposed to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, 2019-C.”
Matt Brockway. Photo from the Icard Merrill website
His clients, Brockway said, are Indian Creek Development LLC, BDR Investments LLC, John Cannon Homes Eastmoor LLC and Myakka Ranch Holdings LLC.
After a public hearing that lasted close to two hours, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously to recommend that the County Commission deny the request of the applicants for the processing of the proposed amendment.
“This application is really nothing more than an attempt to go backwards under 2050, which the county spent millions and millions of taxpayer dollars on, doing studies, paying consultants,” Planning Commissioner Colin Pember pointed out.
“2050 is not perfect,” Pember added, “[but] it’s more acceptable than this proposal …”
It will be up to the County Commission to decide whether to direct staff to proceed with processing the proposed Old Miakka amendment. County Planner Bill Spaeth said he estimated that the work would take up to 100 hours of staff time.
On Sept. 11, the County Commission tentatively is scheduled to address the issues regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, county Media Relations Officer Drew Winchester told The Sarasota News Leader.
An ancillary issue
During the board discussion after the June 20 hearing, Planning Commissioner Laura Benson cited another concern, which arose from the staff presentation that night.
Planner Spaeth had explained that Section 94-87 of the County Code allows the submission to the county of a publicly initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment with a minimum of 20 signatures of registered voters. In fact, Spaeth said, the Old Miakka application had 60 petition signatures, and staff had verified that 47 of the signers are registered voters.
In making the motion to recommend that the County Commission deny the request for the processing of the proposed amendment, Benson stressed of Ayech and the other signers of the petitions, “They are not owners of the property [that would be affected].”
Becky Ayech addresses the Planning Commission on June 20. News Leader photo
She expressed astonishment that as few as 20 people could initiate such an amendment. “This opens up a Pandora’s box of more requests from anybody with 20 friends who want to start a process. I think that’s a very bad precedent to set.”
(See the related story in this issue.)
In her testimony, Ayech pointed out that her group had been willing to pay a $5,000 fee they thought was required under county planning guidelines to submit the application. Then staff apprised her of the process outlined in the County Code, she noted. “We were not trying to take [taxpayers’] money.”
Spaeth also explained that county staff — including department leaders — and the County Commission itself propose Comprehensive Plan amendments that are handled under the guidelines of the publicly initiated process.
However, staff must have formal direction from the County Commission to begin analyzing any proposed amendment, he said.
The process itself
At the outset of the Planning Commission public hearing, Spaeth told the board, “I do want to make it clear what this is about. … This is not about the actual amendment.”
According to the process outlined in the County Code, he continued, the Planning Commission that night was being asked only whether or not to recommend that the County Commission allow staff to process the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The Rural Heritage/Estate designation the Miakka group is seeking for the property, Spaeth said, supports very low housing density or agricultural or equestrian uses.
(Under the county’s 2050 Plan regulations, maximum density for a Hamlet is one dwelling unit per gross acre. The maximum density for a Village is five dwelling units per acre, though that rises to six if the additional units are to be marketed as affordable housing. For Rural Heritage/Estate, the density can range from one dwelling unit per 5 acres to one unit per 160 acres.)
As Chair Kevin Cooper prepared to call on people who had signed up to address the board, he noted that he had enough cards for close to four hours of testimony. The commissioners could shorten the speaking time from 5 minutes to 3, he said, but “I’m not a fan of that.”
By count of The Sarasota News Leader, 35 people ended up making comments on the record. By the News Leader’s count, again, only four people urged the Planning Commission not to recommend that the proposed amendment go any further in the process that had begun. Among them was Rod Krebs, one of the owners of the property at the heart of the discussion.
Rod Krebs makes his remarks to the Planning Commission. News Leader photo
He is a partner in Indian Creek Development and BDR Investments, Krebs told the commissioners. Together, he continued, those companies have owned 1,938 acres of the 6,000, and the property has been designated for Hamlets since 2004.
“I’ve been a developer/homebuilder in Sarasota County for 48 years,” Krebs said. “The 2050 Plan is on track to utilize all of the designated Village land at less than 1.3 dwelling units per acre,” he stressed.
And thanks to an initiative on which he is working with county staff, Krebs continued, his Hamlet property will be “the last development option in North Sarasota County that will guarantee the elimination of septic tanks and wells.”
If the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment were to win County Commission approval, Krebs said, it would guarantee “the proliferation of septic tanks and wells” during a time when the county and the state are dedicating “hundreds of millions of dollars to water quality improvement and septic-to-sewer plans.”
Many other speakers urged the commissioners just to allow the proposed amendment to go through the process outlined in the County Code. “Let the public have some input,” Howard Hickok said.
Some talked of their enjoyment of the rural area; others bemoaned the increasing amount of traffic.
Retired Deputy Charlie Rowe, who lives right on Fruitville Road, told the commissioners he had lived in the eastern part of the county for more than 30 years. He spent the morning of June 20 in his carport, he continued, counting cars. “I was amazed,” he said, having recorded 700 vehicles an hour driving by his house. “If we increase [the number of homes] that much more,” he added, “I don’t think we’re going to be able to handle it.”
Referencing remarks by opponents of the amendment, Alan Yaruss, who lives on a 5-acre parcel in Bern Creek, told the board, “I’m offended that anybody might think that we’re here as a circus with no clowns.”
A decision to make
Following the public comments, Chair Cooper said that in his years on the commission, he could not recall another example of such a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Spaeth confirmed that staff had not received another one from residents, as allowed by County Code Section 94-87.
When Cooper asked whether Spaeth felt the Old Miakka group had “done everything it needs to do” to comply with the County Code, Spaeth replied, “In my estimation, yes.”
A graphic shows the area at the heart of the amendment, as depicted on one of the Future Land Use Maps in the 2050 Plan. Image courtesy Sarasota County
Then Planning Commissioner Teresa Mast asked Spaeth whether, during his tenure with the county, any privately initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment ever had been proposed “that would impact another individual’s property and change the designation of that zoning?”
“To my knowledge, no,” he told her.
In response to other questions, Assistant County Attorney Joshua Moye indicated that changing a designation on a county Future Land Use Map indeed might prompt an attempt at legal recourse under provisions of the Bert Harris Act. He had not specifically researched this proposed amendment, Moye added, but, based on the testimony that night, “There would be some concerns on the county side [that litigation might ensue].”
This is a section of the Bert Harris Act in the Florida Statutes. Image courtesy State of Florida
“I think it’s within your judgment call to consider [recommending the County Commission allow the proposed amendment to be processed],” he continued. Nonetheless, Moye said, the planning commissioners could base their decision on whether they believed the amendment would be good or bad.
“To me, the 2050 Plan was extremely well vetted,” Planning Commissioner Andrew Stultz said, reprising comments Brockway of Icard Merrill and some of Stultz’s colleagues on the commission had made earlier.
Cooper noted that the 2050 Plan “was called a good compromise” after it was approved. Yet, the county still had to face litigation over it, he said.
Cooper believed, he continued, that “We should have just incrementally moved the Urban Service Boundary.”
Regardless of his feelings, however, Cooper said he had to consider the County Commission’s policy decisions regarding the 2050 Plan. “Until [the county commissioners] tell us otherwise as advisers, I have to assume that [the existing 2050 Plan] is what they want.”
Since the County Commission will vote on whether to direct staff to process the amendment, Cooper added, “They may say, ‘Hey, this is time to revisit this map.’”
