Stop Kicking the Can Down the Road on Flooding

This piece was submitted anonymously:

Sarasota County has a flooding problem. We’ve all seen it—streets underwater, homes threatened, and storm after storm making it clear that our drainage systems aren’t keeping up. County leaders know it too, which is why they brought in a stormwater expert, Stephen M. Suau, to take an independent look at the issue. His advice? Stop approving rezonings that increase housing density in 100-year floodplains unless there’s solid proof the development won’t make flooding worse.

Sounds like common sense, right? But here’s the problem: The county keeps allowing developers to put off proving that their projects won’t create flood issues until after the zoning has already been approved. This backward approach has led to developments that don’t take flood risks seriously until it’s too late.

And now, we have another test of whether the county will finally listen to reason. On February 12, commissioners will vote on a request to rezone 50 acres on Raymond Road, right next to the Celery Fields Regional Stormwater Facility. Under its current zoning, only five homes can be built there. If the rezoning is approved, that number jumps to 170 homes—in an area where 64% of the land sits in a 100-year floodplain.

Let that sink in. More than half the property is in a known flood zone, and yet, instead of requiring the developer to prove—before approval—that this won’t cause flooding problems, the county is poised to say yes now and worry later.

This is exactly what needs to change. If a developer wants to build in a flood-prone area, they should have to prove up front that their project won’t make things worse for surrounding properties. That’s not some radical new policy—it’s already in the county’s land development regulations. But time and again, the commission has allowed developers to defer that key flood analysis until after the increased density has been granted.

We don’t need to look far to see why this is a bad idea. Just last year, major flooding hit Sarasota, and media reports confirmed what flood maps have long shown—this area is vulnerable. The county’s own Planning Commission already voted against this rezoning, with Commissioner Donna Carter stating bluntly, “I don’t think that is a buildable property.” She even suggested the county buy the land and add it to the Celery Fields instead.

So here’s the bottom line: If Sarasota County is serious about stopping development-driven flooding, they must deny this rezoning. If the developer truly believes they can build without creating new flooding problems, then they should prove it first—not after getting approval.

Enough with kicking the can down the road. It’s time for Sarasota’s leaders to enforce their own rules and put flood safety before developer profits. On February 12, we’ll find out if they’re willing to do that.

LWV: A Report Card for the Sarasota County School Board

 

Sarasota County School Board Report Card

The League of Women Voters of Sarasota has established an Observer Corps to monitor the Sarasota County School Board meetings. The goal of the Observer Corps is to objectively evaluate meetings for ethical, legal and professional conduct on the part of the board and chairperson. This evaluation will be shared with the Board and the public following each meeting.

Meeting Date: March 19, 2024

A = Consistently   B= Frequently   C= Occasionally   D= Rarely   F= Not at All 

        

Board follows and advances a written agenda. The published agenda was amended for two action items to accommodate concerns raised by community members about potential conflicts of interest prior to the meeting    This was presented by the Superintendent and approved by the School Board.	A
Board limits citizens’ comments only to opinions on topics that are in the Board’s purview. Most citizen comments at this meeting were repeated requests to address concerns of inclusivity, book restrictions and the charter school approval of the previous meeting. Many comments addressed the proposed legislation to allow chaplains in schools. While this may be perceived to be not in the board’s purview prior to a legislative action, it was clear that community members wanted to urge board members to refuse to allow chaplains in our schools, should the governor sign the bill.  Comments urging the Board to build trust within the community continued from previous meetings.  Requests for the resignation of Ms. Ziegler also continued.	B+
Board Chair does not allow speakers to personally attack board members or use abusive language. The board chair stopped one speaker saying her comment “touched on the private life of the board member.”  It was not clear to the public how the comment related to abusive language or attacks on Board members.  Chair continues to allow attacks on Ms. Ziegler (hypocrite, fascist).	C+
Board Chair treats speakers equitably. The Board Chair appeared to make an effort to greet and thank each speaker.  She displayed less physical reaction to community speaker comments with which she appeared to disagree than in the previous meeting.  However, the Chair does not treat her colleagues equitably.  The chair interrupted Mr. Edwards several times as he was seeking clarification on issues raised by the public concerning conflicts of interest and other matters on the agenda.  She did not, however, interrupt Ms. Ziegler when she was commenting extensively without an apparent topic.  That disparity is very apparent to the public and leads to questions of motive and objectivity on the part of the Chair.	C
Board adheres to Robert’s Rules of Order. One of the tenets of Robert’s Rules of Order is that only one speaker speaks at a time and that only urgent matters are cause for interruption of the speaker.   There was a clear violation of that tenet by the Board Chair in interrupting Mr. Edwards.	D+
The Board Chair runs an orderly meeting. The chair did cut the mike for speakers who ran over their time.  However, she cut off a colleague and the colleague expressed frustration at being unsupported by the other members of the board.	C+
Board delegates operational and educational decisions to the professional staff. After one student spoke of harassment, the Chair asked the Superintendent if that was something he should follow up.  Several other speakers requested follow-up on certain administrative items and they were not referred to the Superintendent.	B+
Board gives evidence of being responsive to public comment. Board seems dismissive and uninterested in public comment and does not clearly address them.  They do however defend their positions.  Mr. Enos did attempt to explain why he voted yes on the charter school in response to community concerns.  Speakers often refer to never getting responses to emails sent to Board members.   Several citizens were upset and concerned about Ms. Ziegler’s prior comments about Equality Florida.  She never addressed that concern.  Community members express feelings of being demeaned when a board member comments that the public really does not understand an issue.	D+

Additional Comments:

It is apparent that individuals speaking at the Board meetings have done extensive research on topics brought before the Board.  The time and effort put into that research is apparently never recognized by the collective board.   In fact, it appears as though it is summarily dismissed.  

Also while most board members state publicly that they want to keep politics out of the Board room, at least two of the board members at this meeting proposed the appointment of district committee members that gave the public the impression of political placements.   Whether valid or not, the mistrust grows. 

Mr. Edwards made it clear in the board member comments at the end of the meeting that he does not feel support by his fellow colleagues.  He also said he felt the board attorney did not support him.  This is a concern.  

Recommendations:

If the Board truly wants to keep politics out of the board room, the board individually and collectively need to be aligned around being non-partisan in its decisions and act accordingly.   Seeding mistrust with direct actions that initiate public skepticism is keeping the district from moving forward.

The board needs to find a way to address the concerns raise in public comment, even if it’s only to say they will give the issue further study or to thank them for the research the public has done on various issues.  

If at all possible, Ms. Ziegler should remain in her seat during board meetings.  She has left in the past two meetings which might give the impression that the public comments are unimportant.  

Submitted by:  Sarasota League of Women Voters School Board Observer Corps.

 

The community is being exiled from planning

Letter sent to Sarasota's Planning Director and Commissioners. The issue is the decay and distancing of planning as it is no longer live or really interactive: 

 

October 5, 2023

Dear Matt Osterhoudt and Commissioners:

Not so long ago, county Neighborhood Services took charge of arranging Neighborhood Workshops. Staff were very involved with securing a venue, provding supplies, making sure the right people from County government were there and all else.

When did this get delegated to the developers?

Now, developers or their planning agents decide whether a workshop will be held online or in person. Since that decision, I've not heard of a "neighborhood" workshop being held in person. What's more, the entire Zoom or Meet or Teams encounter is controlled by the developer's agent, who decides what images are shown. Glitches due to loss of sound, blurry images, and more have been known to occur. Even more, the county does not require the video recording of the workshop, only audio. Recently I had the experience of trying to follow a Zoom discussion - audio only - maps, locations, stormwater design and much more were discussed, but I and any other auditor were literally in the dark.

Now on MeetUp there is what's known as a "hybrid" event: 

Under the “Hybrid” tab, you can enter the physical location of your event, and also provide a link to attend the event online through a video conferencing service like Zoom. In fact, with Meetup’s special Zoom integration, you can create your virtual event link directly within the “Hybrid” tab.

 

The virtues of this flexibility are manifold and are discussed here:

https://www.meetup.com/blog/introducing-the-hybrid-events-feature-for-meetup-pro/

If the county wishes to still include residents in this process, please consider requiring live workshops, with the hybrid format as a further option.

Respectfully,

Tom Matrullo

Call to Action - Sarasota’s Grand Tree Protections Are Not Enough

To: Sarasota County Stakeholders

    Email cc: County Commissioners Moran, Smith, Detert, Neunder and Cutsinger, County Administrator Lewis

Call to Action - Sarasota’s Grand Tree Protections

Are Not Enough

Date:   1/21/2023

Dear Friends, Business Associates, Acquaintances, Sarasota Institutions,

What more will it take to open our eyes to the destruction of Sarasota County’s natural beauty?

Despite certain protections for twelve species of Grand Trees, our County Commission will meet on January 31, 2023 to discuss further relaxing current rules to allow the “Grand” developers of Sarasota the right to determine whether a grand tree should remain or be cut down for housing.

Pictured below: Example of current Grand Tree ” preservation” in north Sarasota County.
Surrounding forest of tall pines was cleared to complete a townhouse complex.  

Despite certain protections that are lawful such as existing land planning codes, future land use designations or county preserved lands, time and time again our elected county commissioners have sought “input from stakeholders” and bowed to the recommendations of developers, the “One Percenters” of our beloved Sarasota County. 

For the past twenty years, our commissioners have greenlighted development to occur by use of mitigation. 

As reported by the Sarasota News Leader, Benderson Development recently clear-cut every Grand Tree on the 24-acre Siesta Promenade site. Despite the county identifying grand trees on the property, every tree on the parcel at U.S.41 and Stickney Point Road was removed, including nine maples, 26 oaks, 55 palms, 16 pines (two Grand Trees) and 17 trees of other species.

Sarasota County conceded to Benderson Development to mitigate the removal of these mature trees with the promise of planting 509 new trees. This mitigation occurred without public input and without transparency. This deal was done via emails with tweaks to the original approved site plan.

Mitigation, if you are not familiar, is when a small swath of useless land held by either the county or developer is traded for a desirable piece of land deemed buildable by the developer and the county. It doesn’t matter if the desired property is a bog or home to a bald eagle.Those trees and other natural assets are going to be paved over. It’s a sham of a land trade, and we, Sarasota’s stakeholders, are also getting paved over in a different sense.  It’s all smoke and mirrors. Mitigation ain’t saving a thing.

Turn the page to 2023 and now, in lieu of mitigation, the County Commissioners claim that Sarasota stakeholders are demanding that protections for Sarasota’s Grand Trees must be diminished. Last fall, Commissioner Maio even claimed that Grand Trees are “perishable items.” Apparently he is now a certified arborist.

On January 31, 2023, our Commission will vote to approve an ordinance which loosens protections for “grand trees,” including live oaks. I have read Sarasota Municode in relation to trees and grand trees. It appears that the rules applied to most trees in this county are lax and clearly from the picture above, illustrate that Sarasota County trees need MORE protections, not less.  Those protections must occur today. 

Please email our Commissioners and tell them to vote No on January 31st.

Email to: bcc@scgov.net or commissioners@scgov.net
Individual Commissioners: mmoran@scgov.net, mhsmith@scgov.net, ncdetert@scgov.net, jneunder@scgov.net, rcutsinger@scgov.net
County Administrator: countyadministrator@scgov.net,

Please share this message with friends and neighbors who care about quality of life in Sarasota County. We are running out of time, each day, swaths of trees in Sarasota County are being chopped down.

We, the majority stakeholders, of Sarasota County demand the following regarding Grand Trees:

• The county must retain all current and existing protection for Grand Trees. 

• The county must implement preservation protections designating grand trees as the following:

• Economic value provided by Grand trees are a financial eco-bonus to the county budget.

• Home values remain higher in established old growth-maintained trees.

• Decrease impact of heavy rain and flooding through tree canopies which slow heavy rain and decrease flooding impact.

• Decrease utility costs and overuse of energy resources for tree canopy cooling to most homes and roads, reducing use of air conditioning and watering needs. 

• The county must implement and strengthen Tree Code. Grand Trees must be used as centerpieces of beauty, history and preservation. 

• The county and developers must share and advertise Sarasota County as a destination where Grand Trees are as much of Sarasota culture and heritage as our abundant arts, science, charities, beaches, and natural habitat. 

• It is proven that engineers and planners know how to work and design around grand trees with more than a hundred years of life. 

• Mitigation for Grand Trees is not an option unless:

• Every option to save the tree or trees has been exhausted, reviewed by the stakeholders (Sarasota citizens) and allowed public input to prevent further scraping of trees whether deemed Grand Tree or a someday “Grand Tree” that is growing to adulthood. 

• Fatal rotting, blight, etc. has been verified and documented by a certified and accredited environmental expert/arborist with no connection to the county or land developer.   

Thank you for your consideration of our comments and request. 

Respectfully,

Adrien Lucas

Sarasota County resident

Source: Sarasota County Grand Trees published 2015

Sarasota News Leader published 1/15/2023

Will Sarasota County's New Administration Center violate the principle of walkability?

To: The Board of Sarasota County Commissioners:

RE: Jan. 18 Agenda Item 37 a, b, c

Commissioners,

Tomorrow, January 18, 2023, you will be asked to approve a change to the interconnectivity element of the Fruitville Initiative Ordinance - an element that until now has remained in force despite other developers within the Initiative having requested to be excused from it. The entire premise of the Initiative, as put forth at charrettes held by Stefanos Polyzoides in 2010, invoked a model of a walkable mixed-use community. The Interconnectivity component was the core enabling element that guaranteed a grid of streets to render walkability possible.

Original Plan for Interconnectivity:

Revised Plan removing interconnectivity from the County Administration site (lower, far-right parcel):

Bottom right parcel without street grid

Having held all the other developers to this component, Sarasota County is now coming before itself - that is, this Board - to ask your permission to not be held to this core standard, with regard to the construction of the new Administration Building on a site known as parcel F7.

In its documentation, the applicant (Sarasota County) presents no site plan or other information explaining why this exemption is necessary. It would seem reasonable to ask the applicant for a detailed rendering of its plan, if such exists, or at the very least, some clear and sufficient explanation of why it is seeking this dispensation that has been denied to all other Initiative stakeholders. 

This seems even more significant when it's understood that this plan to flout the core value of walkability is for the county's Administration Center -- the tax-funded building serving as the County seat. Surely the public deserves a look at what architectural design the county has in mind, and an understanding of why the plan for the new symbol of Sarasota governance has to undermine the organizing principle of its own forward-looking Fruitville Initiative ordinance.

Consider that when this Board was asked to allow a completely incompatible plan presented by Benderson Development in 2015, it unanimously voted to deny that request. The vision of the Initiative was intact then, and deserves not to be ignored in 2023.

Please take this item from the Consent Agenda and request a public hearing that would give you and the public a first look at a project that can and should embody the values and vision of the people of Sarasota.

Respectfully,

Tom Matrullo

Citizens for Sarasota County

Sarasota now has two fake boards

A community's mental health isn't something you kick down the road - unless you're Sarasota County's Board of Commissioners. Local experts volunteered 526 hours to review and recommend the most valuable mental health services for our citizens -- only to watch Moran, Maio, Ziegler, Cutsinger and Detert punt -- incoherently. Carrie Seidman.

The same five Commissioners agreed there's no space west of I-75 left for affordable housing, then granted Pat Neal's request to dodge a formal commitment to build affordable housing east of it. Sarasota's moneybags developer apparently can't afford affordable housing -- details in The Sarasota News Leader.

This Tuesday, Nov. 29, the newly elected Sarasota School Board will meet to consider terminating the Superintendent - no reason given. Brennan Asplen has high marks for his performance. Karen Rose made the motion. "Asked about the motion following Tuesday's meeting, Rose continued walking past a Herald-Tribune reporter and declined to comment." 

To email all School Board members: schoolboardmembers@sarasotacountyschools.net

​