Audubon's Dubi: Quad Parcels are Public Lands Forever

A letter from Jeanne Dubi of Sarasota Audubon -

Audubon has set up a special account for the restoration of the Quad Parcels. 

Donate to the SAS Quad Fund here

Two Quads Agreements set for County Approval October 6

 

This Tuesday, Oct. 6, a plan for the Quads parcels at the Celery Fields comes before the Board for approval. It's a plan that contains two Agreements: one places perpetual easements on three of the four parcels; the second provides for the design of what the three parcels will becomes, with Audubon agreeing to play a major role.

In a nutshell, the County grants a perpetual easement for three of the four parcels:

The two agreements -- worked out in private with the Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast and Sarasota Audubon -- set a future course for these parcels, marked as #1 (SE), #2 (SW) and the NW parcel with retention pond. Parcel #3 (NW) has a new fire station and about 6 acres reserved by the County for future development (at Commissioner Maio's recommendation).

Below are links to the Memorandum and two Agreements which the Board is set to vote on:

         1. County Memo explaining the background and purpose of the agreements.

         2. Conservation Easement Agreement with Conservation Foundation

         3. Management Agreement with Sarasota Audubon

Comment: The Conservation Agreement includes two "development envelopes": one allows for the construction of a building of up to 40,000 s.f. on the western six acres of the SW parcel #2. Uses for the facility are limited to government, civic, recreational, education and conservation. Earlier discussions with the community included possibilities such as a history museum, visitor and nature center, or cafe.

The second envelope allows for the construction of "limited public amenities" -- restrooms, a pavilion, parking -- on a quarter acre of the eastern portion of the same parcel #2.  

         

The Agreements are listed as Item 18 on the Board's Consent Agenda for Tuesday, Oct. 6

RSVP now for Wednesday's Virtual People's Hearing

Media Advisory for: Wednesday, September 30

Contact: Kara Watkins-Chow, kara.watkinschow@berlinrosen.com

Sarasota Residents Gather to Voice Concerns

on Construction of Industrial Fish Farm 

On Wednesday Sept. 30, Sarasota residents will gather for a virtual hearing to share their concerns about a proposed permit for the first industrial aquaculture facility in the Gulf of Mexico.

If permitted, the facility would grow thousands of fish in net pens in federal waters off the coast of Sarasota, releasing waste, pesticides and other pollutants directly into local ecosystems. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently poised to issue this permit without the opportunity for public input, so the organizers of the virtual hearing will record and deliver residents’ comments to public officials. This hearing follows several recent efforts from the White House and federal government to speed development in the Gulf of Mexico.

WHAT: Virtual People’s Hearing on Industrial Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico

WHO: Attendees will include Sarasota residents, fishermen, coastal business owners and environmental advocates. Hearing hosted by the Don’t Cage Our Ocean Coalition.

WHERE: Virtually on Zoom, with RSVP required here

WHEN: Wednesday, September 30 | 10:30am-12pm ET with an additional opportunity for drop-in testimony from 6:30pm-7:30pm ET

# # #

 

What really matters: Tradition vs. development in Old Miakka

The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing 

which stands in the way…  William Blake

Before our elected officials voted on a motion from Nancy Detert to sell out Old Miakka's rural corner of east Sarasota, Bill Zoller penned an eloquent letter reminding us that what was at stake is our connection to the past.  

Nothing clearer than the difference between Bill's view and that of Jim Gabbert and other developers who came to the Old Miakka hearing to say that what matters is not a community's integrity: Not the 170-year-old way of life of Old Miakka, but his investment (video). 

Becky Ayech led the effort to protect rural heritage lands. After the hearing she said: 

"There are many ways to skin a cat and one is to VOTE!"

Speaking of which, the local Sierra Group has released its candidate recommendations in all local races for November. 

While our "mainstream" media choose to offer no debates or forums, private organizations including the League of Women Voters, Tiger Bay, Control Growth Now, and WSLR are doing what they can You'll find links to upcoming forums here, and recorded recent forums here.

Living history from past through present to future

Commissioners:

I write to request that you adopt proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2019-C.  This unique amendment arose from concerns by a community of citizens of the Old Miakka area about the Hamlet designation of properties whose development could have a major detrimental impact on the Old Miakka Community.  

The “unique” aspect of this proposed amendment is that it came from the unity in the community about protecting the special rural quality of the area.  This is the quality that drew these long-time residents to Old Miakka, and as we all know, the eastward march of development is a threat to not only the Old Miakka Community, but to the agriculture, wildlife, and environmental resources of this area.

It is important to understand as well that the Old Miakka Community is descended from the pioneers who settled Sarasota back in the 1800’s, and thus is an important link to the cultural and historical development of Sarasota.  

While we may not be too numerous, there are those of us here who are descendants of those pioneers, and we care deeply about maintaining the rural quality of East County.  My great-grandfather, Garrett Murphy, an early cattleman settler, sold a part of his ranch to Mrs. Palmer, which became her Sweet Meadows Ranch.  His ranch, along with Mrs. Palmer’s ranch, is now the heart of Myakka River State Park.  

At the moment, Sarasota is fortunate to have this “living history” available to everyone in the County.  The important word here, is, “living”.  Old Miakka is a thriving, stable community, and it is to the benefit of all of our citizens to offer maximum protection to keep and to preserve it far into the future.  

Old Miakka United Methodist Church

Today, I can visit the little church in the heart of Old Miakka, and there I can see the Murphy Window, given by my ancestors long ago, as well as the Rawls window on the other side of the altar, knowing that I and descendants of the Rawls family are still here, and, in fact, live a few doors down from each other on McKown Road.   

If we succumb to development pressure, and lose this living history, along with the protection of all of those rural resources, we will never, ever get them back.

The Old Miakka Community based this proposal on the Community Plan that was developed with and by the County a few years ago, and that is, in itself, an inspirational story that can encourage other areas of the community to revisit the community plans that were developed for them (Bee Ridge Community Plan, etc.).  

It is time to give meaning to those efforts of developing the community plans, by showing how they can be implemented, instead of just existing on a dusty shelf, never to be seen again.  This amendment deserves and needs to be adopted.

William C. Zoller

6375 McKown Road
Sarasota

Old Miakka is taking Gabbert's land - says Gabbert

 In Sarasota County, your investment capital is safe. Your community, not so much. Just ask the people of Old Miakka after developers like Jim Gabbert got through threatening Sarasota at today's hearing.

James Gabbert

James Gabbert was one of several developers who own land in East County to come out to the September 23 Board hearing on Old Miakka's effort to preserve its rural way of life.

Gabbert demonstrated that all that matters to him is money. As the purest form of Capitalist, land is not a place to him - not the site of memories and tradition, quiet evenings and a million stars, not the scene of family, friendship, hard work and good times. 

As with the Celery Fields, Mr. Gabbert proved that land = money. And if turning that land into money destroys the way of life of a 170-year-old community, ah well. If putting a Demolition Dump on it takes the priceless quality of the Celery Fields, too bad. 

Land is money, Gabbert is a Developer/Investor/Capitalist - pure and simple. As he explains here:

The Board agreed with Gabbert, William Merrill III, amid a bevy of landowners who said they intended to develop their land, but hadn't done a thing about it so far. Still, waving the Bert Harris Act,* they threatened to sue the County for millions "lost," which they woulda-coulda-shoulda been investing before now. 

Detert made the motion, Maio, Ziegler and Hines voted for it, Mike Moran was absent. They protected the developers' investment -- to the eventual destruction of Old Miakka.

======

*David G. Guest, a land use consultant and former regional manager of Earthjustice, Inc., testified to the absence of relevance of the Bert Harris Act at the hearing. He said in part: 

. . . the Bert Harris Act allows claims for losses of reasonable  nonspeculative future uses, which then can be the subject of reasonable investments  that create expectations. The land at issue has no Hamlets on it and has never had a  single proposal to rezone it for a Hamlet Development Master Plan. His full statement is here.

======

East vs West: Who shapes Sarasota's future?

At 1:30 p.m. on September 23 -- today -- at the County Commission, a community will attempt to preserve its 170-year-old rural way of life, to "Keep the Country Country,"as Becky Ayech likes to say,

When the community of Old Miakka recently came before the Planning Commission, they were criticized, questioned, and essentially judged as doing something that, the planning board members said, threatened to unleash "chaos" if allowed to go forward. 

They were merely echoing the words of the attorney for the development industry, William Merrill III, who had no client there to represent. His scare tactic snowballed through the meeting, and went even further. The Planning Commission board -- a group of appointees whose day jobs fall largely within the employment confines of the development industry -- unanimously voted against recommending Old Miakka's proposed Comp Plan Amendment, then took the further step (under vice chair Colin Pember's* goading) of sending a letter to the County Commission, requesting research on how other counties deal with citizen Comp Plan amendments. Normally developers bring such amendments - as we'll see in a moment.

Essentially the Planning Commission was ventriloquizing Merrill III - questioning the very right of a community to ward off undesired development that would irrevocably change the character of its life.

                                                                     *Pember is land acquisitions mgr. for Pulte Homes of Atlanta

While this effort plays out in the farthest northeast corner of the county, a very different tale is just getting underway at the county's western edge. Three Siesta Key hotel developers - Gary Kompothecras, Mike Holderness and SKH 1 LLC - say their urge to build eight-story mega-hotels requires the county to increase density and height allowances. These changes are not just for their three new projects on Siesta, either. If approved as formulated, they would apply to the entirety of Sarasota County.

The dichotomy is clear: To the East, a community older than the county itself wishes to slow "progress" in order to preserve culture and history that otherwise will be lost. To the West, mega-hotel builders demand that the county open the gates to more intense development, more density, greater heights. 

While the people of Old Miakka see rapid growth as loss, the hotel impresarios see no reason not to alter the character of Siesta Key forever. Three new high-rise hotels will bring the traffic, change the skyline and rush the Key into a future of intense development unlike it's ever seen.

Who shapes the future? After the Old Miakka hearing, we'll have a clue.                                                       

• More on Old Miakka's challenge here.
• More on the brave new hoteliers here.

1000 Friends: Approve citizens' plan for Old Miakka

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.

The citizens' amendment is set for a public hearing at the Sarasota County Commission on Wednesday Sept. 23 at 1:30 pm.  

September 16, 2020

Sarasota County Commissioners

Chairman Mike Moran mmoran@scgov.net

Nancy Detert ncdetert@scgov.net

Charles Hines chines@scgov.net

Al Maio amaio@scgov.net

Christian Ziegler cziegler@scgov.net

Re: Support for CPA 2019C

Dear Sarasota County Commissioners:

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

cc: 

County Attorney, Frederick Elbrecht, Esq. felbrecht@scgov.net

County Planner, Vivian Drawneek vdrawneek@scgov.net

We have a chance to put citizens back in control

 Our elected officials have been bought and controlled by land developers and special interests who seek to profit at any cost at the Citizen’s expense:

                         All data compiled by Superintendent of Elections, Sarasota County

We complain about the same problems every year; traffic congestion, overflowing sewage being dumped into our waterways, red tide, shrinking school resources, teachers that are not paid enough, and runaway development. Where is all the money going?

It is our elected officials who give tax breaks and direct handouts to their developer benefactors. They are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to plant their people in our Commission and School Board. They also control the Planning Commission,

The Charter Review Board and the Commissioners now want to sit in on the government procurement process that awards tens of millions of dollars in government contracts. Guess who will get the contracts? They do not spend this money unless they are getting a significant return. This is our money that should be used for the Citizens of Sarasota, not given to the developers for the favor of bankrolling political campaigns. Why aren’t the impact fees at 100%?

Developers had a record month in August, why are they not paying their fair share? Why are subdivisions being built on toxic land? Why did Commissioners Moran and Maio try to put a 15-acre dump next to the Celery Fields? Why are our water treatment system, roads, and infrastructure not being adequately funded and repaired? Because the money is being given to developers who control our local government by the elected officials they bankrolled into office.

We have a chance to put the Citizens back in control of our Sarasota County Board of Commissioners by electing three non-developer backed candidates this election. Regardless of party, this corruption must be rooted out. We can do this. We deserve better.

Look up campaign contribution here: https://www.sarasotavotes.com/CFCandidates.aspx

When you get a campaign mailer or see a commercial, find out which developer dark money PAC is funding the candidate here.

Lobeck: Don't repeal affordable housing requirement for developers

Commissioners,

As in my July 23 email to the Planning Commission (which I copied to you), this is to urge that at your meeting Tuesday [September 22] you vote against transmitting to the state a Comprehensive Plan amendment to delete the requirement of affordable housing as a trade-off for the incentives of the Sarasota 2050 Plan.

The claim that this is required by state law is flatly false.  The law allows a requirement for affordable housing in exchange for voluntary incentives which fully compensate the developer for the lost profit.  It is beyond question that the Sarasota 2050 Plan does that.

The amendments would repeal the current requirement that in order to receive the incentive under the Sarasota 2050 Plan to build at urban densities and commercial uses rather than rural densities, not less than 15% of the units must be affordable housing, that is sold to families at under 100% of Area Median Income (with 2/3 of those homes at 80% AMI).

Instead, a developer would be allowed to build at up to 5 dwelling units per acre in the developed area with no affordable housing.  All that would be left is the current “incentive” that a developer could go up to 6 dwelling units per developed area acre if the extra units are affordable housing.

Given the densities that developers have been building in Sarasota 2050 developments, the 5 units per acre will not be exceeded and developers will have no desire to get the 6th by affordable housing.  So, goodbye affordable housing in Sarasota 2050 developments if this is adopted.

The affordable housing standard would be further weakened in the UDC because this amendment provides that while 2/3 of the homes must be for families with 80% of AMI, half of the remainder would be for 100% AMI and half of the remainder would be for 120% AMI.  This would unlawfully conflict with VOS Policy 1.4 in the Comprehensive Plan, which provides a goal that at least 15% of the housing will be available “for families with incomes below the median family income for Sarasota County.”

These changes are based on a complete misunderstanding or mischaracterization of new state legislation as applied to the current affordable housing requirements of the Sarasota 2050 Plan.

Section 125.0155, Florida Statutes now bans a requirement for affordable housing, sometimes known as “inclusionary zoning.” Instead, it allows a local government to seek affordable housing by “incentives.”  Paragraph (2)(a) of the statute provides that the incentive may be “allowing the developer density or intensity bonus incentives or more floor space than allowed under the current or proposed future land use designations.”  [Paragraph (2)(c) broadly includes “granting other incentives.”]

Sarasota County is already complying with this requirement today.  The entire Sarasota 2050 Plan is a voluntary incentive which grants developers increased urban densities and commercial (“more floor space”) uses on land which is otherwise limited to rural densities, if the developer complies with various requirements in return.  One of those requirements is that 15% of the housing be for persons below the Area Median Income.  The incentive has been enhanced since adoption by exempting affordable housing from Greenway density transfer requirements and any fiscal neutrality requirements (although those measures have not been enforced and are proposed to be weakened as well, such as by including the 120% AMI standard).