The 2018 primary election that will conclude on August 28 will determine who will represent two political parties in the general election that will be held in November and it also will be the final election of many nonpartisan races. The primary may eliminate candidates you support unless they prevail, so this is a crucial election in which voters need to make their selections carefully and be sure that they exercise their opportunity wisely to participate in the selection among candidates.
Many are expressing concern about candidates who are shunning forums and failing to submit to dialogue with the voters. This marketing strategy has been used deliberately in the last two cycles now--by candidates who seek election without having to address issues raised in public dialogue. A one-way commercial marketing strategy may be fine for the sale of detergents, but it is not how our election process is intended to work. One readily may discard a detergent found to be undesirable and replace it rather quickly, it's not so easy with elected officials. Our election process is designed for candidates to submit to public dialogue and to address questions raised that might reveal the natures of the those competing for election.
Voters must resist efforts to corrupt that process and the surest way is to refuse to elect those adopting a strategy of avoiding the public process. The alternative is giving us public officials who then cater to those who enable the expensive one-way commercial marketing strategy that puts them into office for the benefit of their financiers initially, and eventually, to the personal financial rewards that await their selected officeholders down the road.
It takes engaged voters to make informed decisions now that we do not live in small, close communities with lifetime exposure to the character of those seeking to be our leaders. Granted, the process available to us now, is not easy, but without that effort-look at what happens!
We have posted links on our website to videos of our two primary forums featuring the county commission candidates who accepted our invitations and submitted to the public scrutiny our members expect. See the calendar on our meetings page. We represent the voters who live in all of the neighborhoods throughout the county, both municipal and unincorporated, and we are encouraged by our members to ask tough questions that provide insight into the character of the candidates seeking elected office. As noted by one of the candidates participating in our August forum, the voters recognize the disdain inherent in the behavior of candidates seeking election or reelection without having to engage in public dialogue--and they are angry.
Please review the videos and vote for those most likely to represent your interests on the county commission:
12th Judicial Circuit Court case begun, and petition submitted to Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, saying Sarasota County violated its policies in approving the plans
A graphic shows plans for the two neighborhoods in Grand Lakes. Image courtesy Sarasota County
Even before the Sarasota County Commission voted 4-1 on July 11 to approve the petitions necessary for Neal Communities’ Grand Lakes development to be built, Pat Neal, chair of the company’s executive committee, indicated he was expecting a lawsuit.
Indeed, not one but two legal initiatives have begun, in an effort to stop Grand Lakes from becoming a reality east of Interstate 75 and south of Clark Road. (Plaintiff Press Release)
On Aug. 10, a number of homeowners in the area around the Grand Lakes site filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Sarasota, contending that in approving the Grand Lakes application, the County Commission violated tenets of its Sarasota 2050 process for Villages. The homeowners also filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). That argues that a county Comprehensive Plan amendment — which the County Commission initially approved in March and formally adopted in July — will enable Neal Communities to eliminate a commercial center from the design of Grand Lakes, even though Grand Lakes will not be contiguous to a Village with such a center. A county staff report on the proposed amendment said, “‘The commercial and service needs of the [Grand Lakes] residents can be met by the Village Center (approved for 300,000 square feet of non-residential uses) in LT Ranch Village, which will be located approximately 2.5 miles to the east,’” the petition points out.
The amendment is inconsistent with other Sarasota 2050 policies, the petitioners contend.
A page in a market study undertaken for Grand Lakes shows details about nearby retail businesses. Image courtesy Sarasota County
During a March 14 public hearing, Grand Lakes project team members told the County Commission that not enough residents would live in Grand Lakes to entice retail businesses — especially a major grocery store chain — to become tenants in a commercial center on the site. They also pointed to the plans for the LT Ranch Village. In the meantime, however, they said enough retail businesses already exist in close proximity to the Grand Lakes site to serve their residents.
The DOAH petition asks that the case be assigned to an administrative law judge and that a hearing be conducted to determine whether the Comprehensive Plan amendment complies with Sarasota County policy. Alternatively, the petition calls for the county to withdraw the amendment or otherwise remedy the action taken in July.
David Anderson, president of the Serenoa Lakes Association since 2010, is one of the plaintiffs in both legal challenges.
The Manatee-Sarasota Sierra Club and 1000 Friends of Florida Inc. “are providing financial support and legal assistance” to the plaintiffs, Anderson pointed out to The Sarasota News Leader in an Aug. 13 telephone interview.
The website of 1000 Friends of Florida says it is the “state’s leading not-for-profit smart growth advocacy organization. … We promote vibrant, sustainable, walkable, livable communities which provide residents with affordable housing choices and transportation alternatives.”
Gayle Reynolds, Sarasota conservation chair of the Manatee-Sarasota Sierra Club, told the News Leader this week that that organization has more than 3,400 members.
Along with homeowners who will be near Grand Lakes, Anderson pointed out to the News Leader, people who use the county’s facilities at Twin Lakes Park — which is close to the Grand Lakes property — have voiced concerns about the potential intensification of traffic as a result of the development. Some of them testified about their worries during county public hearings on the proposed project.
Scott McLaren. Image from the Hill, Ward and Henderson website
In response to a News Leader request for comment about the legal challenges, Scott McLaren of the Hill Ward Henderson law firm in Tampa — which represents Neal Communities — wrote in an Aug. 14 email, “Neal Communities applied for and received approval from Sarasota County to develop its property consistent with all regulations, laws, and ordinances, and consistent with its private property rights protected by the U.S. and Florida Constitutions. The County staff thoroughly reviewed every aspect of Neal’s application and concluded that the application complied with all requirements — and the Board of County Commissioners agreed. These plaintiffs have filed 2 lawsuits against the County alone and strategically chose not to sue Neal Communities, whose property rights are at stake here. The plaintiffs’ efforts to avoid litigating against Neal are futile, because Neal Communities will intervene and vigorously defend against these meritless claims that were obviously interposed solely for purposes of delay.”
As a matter of policy, Sarasota County does not comment on litigation, the Office of the County Attorney has said on multiple occasions.
Hoping for the best
From the beginning of the process with Grand Lakes, Anderson of Serenoa Lakes told the News Leader, “We wanted [the Neal Communities representatives] to know — and the commissioners — that we were very, very organized,” he said of the plaintiffs. “We were very, very fact-based” in opposition to the development, he added, making certain the focus stayed on the facts. Emotions had to be kept in check, he said.
The opponents, he continued, reviewed the Grand Lakes application in the same manner county staff was supposed to have reviewed it. “We paid for a court stenographer to be at all [the public] hearings,” he added. “That was critical.”
Pat Neal. Image from the Neal Communities website
The transcripts enabled members of the group to pore over details provided by county Planning and Development Services staff and the Neal Communities project team.
Before the County Commission vote on July 11, Anderson pointed out, Pat Neal had asked him more than once during the hearings — outside the Commission Chambers — whether people were planning to file a lawsuit. “I said, ‘No,’” Anderson told the News Leader. He gave Neal that answer, he said, because the group wanted to provide the County Commission “every opportunity to vote this down.”
“When we got to the final stage of this [on July 11], it became abundantly clear,” he said, that, in spite of the record of what he contends are multiple problems with the application — which his group had documented — the vote was going to go in Neal’s favor.
In fact, the group’s objections — compiled in a document that Neal told the board on May 23 encompassed about 400 pages — prompted the commission that day to continue the final hearing on Grand Lakes until July 11. That was to allow both the Neal Communities team and the commissioners the opportunity to review the challenges and enable the Neal representatives to respond to them.
During the May 23 public hearing, a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners, Mary Anne Bowie of Sarasota, had spoken for the residents who have become the plaintiffs in the legal challenges filed this week. She gave the 400-page document to the clerk to the board during that session.
The plaintiffs
Along with Anderson, the petitioners in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court case are Keath Cuyler, Mitchell Goldberg, Ronald Newmark, Arthur Cooper, Karie Backman and Douglas Watts. (Cooper, Backman and Watts are not parties in the DOAH challenge, however.) All of them live within close proximity to the proposed site for Grand Lakes, the Circuit Court petition notes. Cooper’s property, for example, is just 120 feet away from it, and Backman’s is only 130 feet away.
The Circuit Court petition explains that Neal Communities sought a rezoning of the Grand Lakes site from Residential, Estate-1/Conservation Subdivision — which allows one dwelling unit per 2 acres — to Village Planned Development. The latter district, it continues, is used in conjunction with Sarasota 2050 projects. The petition explains that the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area chapter of the county’s Comprehensive Plan sets the framework for “an incentive-based system that encourages a compact development form; simultaneously implementing a number of public benefits, allowing for continued growth and economic development that preserves environmentally sensitive lands and open space.”
A Sarasota County graphic shows details about Sarasota 2050 Villages and resource management areas east of Interstate 75. Image courtesy Sarasota County
“As a direct and proximate result” of the County Commission’s approval of Grand Lakes, the petition continues, the plaintiffs “will be adversely affected by increased development, including impacts from additional density approved in the rezoning.”
During the telephone interview with the News Leader, Anderson explained that residents living near the property had pointed out many times during the Grand Lakes application process that they “had worked in a very cooperative manner with the Bispham family,” which later sold the land to Neal Communities. The Bisphams had sought an earlier rezoning of the property to allow the construction of 258 houses, Anderson added. In 2015, Anderson said, he pointed out to the County Commission that the Bisphams’ plan was economically feasible and provided for the best use of the land.
Reynolds of the Sierra Club told the News Leader, “The developer knew when he purchased that property that it was going to be very difficult” to make his neighborhoods conform to Sarasota 2050 standards. “He proceeded to change the [2050] plan to fit his site. … That change affects the entire county.”
“Our number remains 258,” Anderson said in the interview with the News Leader.
The Circuit Court case
One of the central contentions of the 12th Judicial Circuit Court case is that Neal Communities did not undertake the required market analysis to determine how much commercial-retail space would be needed in Grand Lakes. The petition says that the Neal project team had to demonstrate that the non-residential needs of the development would be served within the development, as provided for in Sarasota 2050 policy. No market study accompanied the Grand Lakes application, the petition points out.
Mary Anne Bowie. Image from the American Institute of Certified Planners
Further, the petition argues, Bowie — the expert planner hired by the petitioners for the May 23 public hearing on Grand Lakes — was given only 5 minutes for her testimony. (Five minutes generally is the time limit per speaker during any Sarasota County Commission or Planning Commission public hearing.) That was insufficient time for her to present all the testimony and evidence she had prepared to make her case that Grand Lakes should not be approved, the petition says.
Yet, a Florida 3rdDistrict Court of Appeal decision in 2007 — in Hernandez-Canton v. Miami City Commission — made it clear, the petition continues, that “8 minutes was insufficient and too short a time allotment for [objectors’] expert witnesses to make their presentations in a quasi-judicial hearing …” The petition adds, “The denial of a meaningful opportunity to be heard and present expert opinion evidence before the quasi-judicial [Sarasota County Commission] violates fundamental procedural due process.”
A rezoning is an example of a quasi-judicial hearing.
Additionally, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari says the rezoning violates the county’s requirements for greenways and greenbelts, as required in Sarasota 2050 policy.
In support of part of the argument on those issues, it contends that the Grand Lakes team did not provide county staff updated maps. The petition says, for example, “The decades-old [U.S. Geological Survey] Topographical Map submitted … does not reflect the existing site conditions.”
The DOAH filing
A graphic provided to the County Commission earlier this year shows other planned 2050 villages in the vicinity of the proposed Grand Lakes. Image courtesy Sarasota County
The petition for the DOAH hearing focuses on the Comprehensive Plan amendment the County Commission approved, to enable Grand Lakes to be built without a commercial center. That petition says, “Allowing non-contiguous Villages without a commercial or retail component is … inconsistent with the existing Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan and is not supported by data and analysis [emphasis in the document].” In fact, the petition continues, such a change to the Sarasota 2050 policy was considered before “and was rejected by staff and the County because it was found to be internally inconsistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan in 2014.”
Additionally, the petition notes, county staff members considered the elimination of Village Centers when they were working on the third phase of a revision of Sarasota 2050. Yet, the petition continues, “The County’s analysis on July 24, 2014 importantly found that ‘the provision for non-residential uses through the establishment of mixed use Village and Neighborhood Centers is central to the concept of Villages as an alternative to urban sprawl. … Without the non-residential uses in close proximity and integrated into the residential uses, the Villages resemble other suburban residential development typical of Sarasota County and other communities.”
A graphic included in the Circuit Court petition includes this information about the greenbelts planned for Grand Lakes. Image courtesy David Anderson
In the separate Aug. 13 telephone interview with the News Leader, Reynolds of the Manatee-Sarasota Sierra Club explained that she has spent years following the Sarasota 2050 process. After attending the July 11 public hearing, she added, “I couldn’t recognize Grand Lakes as anything … previously approved.”
The changes the Neal Communities team sought, she said, “should have had more discussion” and more time for public review.
The DOAH petition also notes that Chapter 8 of the Future Land Use Element of the county’s Comprehensive Plan says, “Villages are a collection of Neighborhoods that have been designed so that a majority of the housing units are within a walking distance or [one-quarter] mile radius of a Neighborhood Center. Villages shall be supported by internally designed, mixed-use Village Centers (designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and government use and services needs of Village residents) [emphasis in the petition], and the Village shall be surrounded by large expanses of Open Space …’”
The petition adds that the county staff report justifying the policy change for Grand Lakes “offers nothing to reverse the County’s previous findings that the contiguous Village requirement is necessary to maintain internal consistency [with the Sarasota 2050 policies].”
Three of the four candidates for Sarasota Board of County Commissioners Dist. 4 answered questions about climate change, development, priorities for parks, and more. Wesley Ann Beggs, Mike Cosentino, Lourdes Ramirez were present, with moderator Kafi Benz, president of CONA. Incumbent Al Maio did not appear.
Citizens’ Group Files Two Lawsuits to Stop Pat Neal’s Grand Lakes 2050 Village Development
Two lawsuits filed against Sarasota County on Friday, August 10, 2018, by a group of affected neighbors will likely put a 1,100 home subdivision in east Sarasota County on hold.
The Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners approved the Neal Village development, known as Grand Lakes, on July 11, 2018, in a series of 4-1 votes. Casting the dissenting votes, Commissioner Charles Hines asked: “Where is the walkability? Where is the compatibility? Where is the connectivity with the larger overall village?”
The 2050 Village concept is an optional development framework that permits additional density. This extra density is in exchange for public benefits that guide development in the rural areas east of I-75 into compact, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly villages by protecting large areas of open space, and ensuring that supporting infrastructure is paid for by the development.
A large group of Serenoa, Serenoa Lakes and nearby large lot homeowners, along with Twin Lakes Park users, presented their objections during the public hearings leading up to the commissioners’ July decisions.
Developer Pat Neal
The citizens group says that Pat Neal’s privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment, which enabled the rezoning to proceed, violates the county’s long-range growth plan. They also say the rezoning itself violates several of the county’s zoning regulations.
The comprehensive plan amendment lawsuit requests that the State of Florida hold an administrative hearing to find that the Neal amendment is inconsistent with the other goals, objectives, and policies in the county’s comprehensive plan because eliminating the village mixed-use requirement promotes urban sprawl.
Eliminating the mixed-use requirement was previously considered in 2014 during a public initiative known as 2050 Revisited. At that time, several large landowners and developers, including Neal, proposed eliminating the mixed-use center. County staff rejected the developers’ proposal because staff’s analysis determined that, without direct access to a commercial center, a core 2050 plan principle would be violated.
Grand Lakes Map
Nothing has changed since 2014. Nevertheless, when Neal proposed eliminating the mixed-use requirement as a privately processed amendment, the 2018 county staff reported that they had no objections and recommended approval.
The second (rezoning) lawsuit asks the Sarasota County Circuit Court to reverse the rezoning approval because the Grand Lakes application did not satisfy the protected open space and non-residential use requirements in the county’s village zoning regulations.
The petitioners’ attorney, Ralf Brookes, says the outcome could have major implications throughout the county for future 2050 village development.
The Manatee-Sarasota Sierra Club, a leading environmental group, and 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., a leading smart growth advocate, see the merits of the lawsuits and are providing financial support and legal assistance in the Grand Lakes challenges.
David Anderson, spokesperson for the petitioners, says, “It is a shame when citizens have to dig into their own pockets just to make sure the planning officials follow their own rules. It is very discouraging that the commissioners ignored the merits of our arguments and approved the Grand Lakes proposals, so, our only recourse available is very costly litigation.”
For more information contact:
David Anderson, President, Serenoa Lakes,
941-921-9302 mdanderson4@verizon.net
From Fresh Start: Thanks to Sarasota zoning regulations, after August 23, anyone can propose to rezone our public lands for industrial use. Just like last year. Please take a moment to sign our petitionurging the Board to revamp the zoning of this environmentally sensitive area with a vision for the greater good:
Benderson development: Siesta Promenade at Stickney Point and US 41
Assuming that it will be in the sanctuary (the big round building.) Paved parking is located off of Crestwood and also Beechwood, next to the sanctuary, and overlfow grass parking at the intersection of Crestwood and Glencoe Ave.
... it comes as no surprise that they have chosen this date, knowing that it is a very popular time for people to be completing their summer vacations, and are out of town.
Note: ANYONE can speak at the Neighborhood Workshop. There are no restrictions to only Pine Shores residents. This affects all who live and/or work in the area, as well as Siesta Key residents-plus anyone that goes to the beach!
Please make every effort to be there, as this is the county mandated meeting that Benderson is required to hold to present the project and to "hear Sarasota resident's concerns." county staff will be in attendance.
It appears that Benderson is trying to fast-track the application to get it heard prior to the election, or at least before the new commissioners start their terms.
Pat Rounds raises a concern that all who live in Sarasota County should consider:
Presently nearly $60 million in tourist tax/public revenue is tied up in paying off bonds bankrolling "big business" projects sold in the guise of public/private partnerships (Orioles/Ed Smith Stadium, Benderson Rowing Park, Atlanta Braves stadium).
Because our County Commission hasn't required binding agreements from "private partners" to make good on multi-million dollar private funding pledges.
What makes the "power/money" status quo even more dangerous is the County Commission now wants to put a referendum on the ballot in November making it even more difficult for citizens to petition for change to our local constitution---The Sarasota County Charter.
This "power/money" phenomenon extends beyond land use decisions.
The August Primary is a starting good place to vote for candidates who value the public good over self-interest.
Sarasota County Council of Neighborhood Associations - CONA
-monthly meeting -
Monday
7 p.m. August 13, 2018
-
candidate forum
-
county commission
district four race
Candidates Wesley Ann Beggs,Mike Cosentino,Al Maio, andLourdes Ramirez have been invited to participate in theCONA forum on August 13, 2018. They are the candidates qualified to run in the district four race for the county commission in the August primary. Voters elect all county commissioners, who are supposed to represent the entire county. Candidates run in the race for the district in whichthey reside.
The forum is free and open to the public. Written questions may be submitted in advance or at the meeting to be included, as time allows, following the questions posed by our moderator.
Qualified candidates for any scheduled local race are welcome to attend the social before the meeting in order to make contact with voters and to distribute literature and yard signs, even if not scheduled as a member of the panel for the forum. Information about amendments and referenda appearing on the fall general election ballot also may be provided to inform voters.
Following our traditional half-hour social beforehand, the meeting opens with brief neighborhood updates about their issues, to include
Chris Bales on Arbor Lake Preserve, Ben Cannon on Bath and Racquet Club, Sura Kochman on Siesta Promenade, and Tom Matrullo on the Celery Fields.
CONA election forums will be held each month through October.
Recently at Tiger Bay, Sarasota Commissioner Al Maio said he thinks selling our public lands at the Celery Fields for industrial use makes sense, because an 11-acre industrial warehouse parcel sits next to it.
Tiger Bay Commission Candidate Panel l to r:
Wesley Beggs, Mike Cosentino, Al Maio, Lourdes Ramirez, Moderator Kevin Cooper
The Commissioner didn't mention that the Celery Fields happens to be a short walk away, or that the 11-acre industrial parcel happens to be owned by Robert Waechter. It's separated from the public parcel at Apex and Palmer by a canal and a line of trees -- they are not exactly "contiguous," as Maio claimed. What's more, Waechter, the former chairman of the Sarasota Republican party, betrayed Lourdes Ramirez, one of his party's candidates in 2012, stealing her identity to make it look like she was donating to Democrats. Waechter tried the dodge to promote Al Maio over Ramirez for the County Commission. He was charged and convicted of both a felony and a misdemeanor, and sentenced to house arrest, probation, community service, fines and fees.
This past April, Waechter sent a letter to the County arguing that public land near the Celery Fields should be sold for industrial use. He was writing to oppose residents who wish the County to dedicate public lands near the Celery Fields to community uses. The citizens, who have done outreach, community meetings and polls, say residents favor community-friendly uses such as affordable housing upstairs from shops and fooderies, a birding lodge and restaurant, a YMCA sports complex, or even just a community center with a pavilion and landscaping to attract more birds. (Copy of Waechter's letter).
The Celery Fields has an international reputation as habitat, hosting over 225 species of birds. Known for its large plateau-like mound, it also has come to be a prime outdoor area for hiking, walking, exercise, picnicking, bicycling, stargazing, photography and more. The Audubon Society built a $1 million nature center at the base of the mound which sees thousands of visitors from all over the US and elsewhere each year.
Despite the community's wishes and strong opposition to selling our land for industry, Mr. Maio told the Tiger Bay audience that he sees no reason to change his vote in favor of James Gabbert's proposed 16-acre waste processing facility, which failed by one vote on August 23 last year. In his Tiger Bay statement, Maio says it was only to be a "waste transfer station," when in fact it was a full-blown construction demolition pulverizing facility.
Waste processing facility on Fruitville Rd. built by J. Gabbert
Since the Board's decision last August, the County has taken no steps to revise the land use of the public lands to prevent industrialization. That means that Gabbert - or Waechter - can come back after one year -- anytime after August 23 -- and propose large warehouses, or open demolition waste processing or some other industrial use, and apparently receive a sympathetic hearing from Mr. Maio.
Consider this:
Right now, Sarasota's shoreline is a smelly mess thanks to dead fish, manatees, turtles and more due to Red Tide, which this year has been the worst in recent memory.
Given those conditions, the Celery Fields unquestionably is the best place for Sarasota visitors and residents to be outdoors, view birds, and hike in bright, clear air. Myakka State Park is very nice, but is near flood levels thanks to heavy rains.
Mr. Waechter, Mr. Gabbert and, apparently, Mr. Maio see no reason why we should not have more warehouses or waste facilities on our public lands. For them, nothing has changed since 1983 - when there were no homes, no schools, no Celery Fields. And the County has done nothing to modify the land use, despite all the attention given to this area.
If Waechter prevails, visitors climbing our observation mound -- "Mount Celery" -- will be able to see acres more of Waechter's warehouses:
The new Waechter warehouses will complement his existing ones (featured above), and go well with the Waste Transfer Facility that Gabbert still plans to build along Porter Road at Palmer Blvd.
Here's what Gabbert's old waste transfer facility on Fruitville Road looks like:
If you want a Commissioner who approves the antediluvian views of Waechter, Gabbert and others, vote for Al Maio. If you do not, Lourdes Ramirez is his Republican opponent in the August Primary.
