Monday, September 28, 2020

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


# # #






 

Sunday, September 27, 2020

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.






Thursday, September 24, 2020

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


Wednesday, September 23, 2020

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.
======





Tuesday, September 22, 2020

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.

Monday, September 21, 2020

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


Sunday, September 20, 2020

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).

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

Fish Farm Public Hearing of, by, and for the People

Despite overwhelming public opposition to the Vellela Epsilon offshore Fish Farm at the January 2020 EPA hearing, the Army Corps of Engineers is set to issue a permit for a Fish Farm off Sarasota's shores without holding a hearing.

The farm, the first in a proposed Gulf aquaculture opportunity area, poses grave danger to marine life, the ecosystem, tourism and the economy. Fish waste, pollution and feed may increase red tide blooms. 

A coalition of concerned citizens will hold its own hearing on September 30 - and the input will be sent to the Army Corps.

ACTION ITEMS:

1. Please join the Virtual Hearing to express your views: Eventbrite link to virtual hearing on Offshore Fish Farm September 30.


2. Click to submit audio, video, or text comments


3. On September 30, use this link for the Live Link on Facebook (you don't need to belong to Facebook to participate).


==========


Bonus: 

Here is a sign-on business letter for local businesses. If you can, please sign the letter here

 

Calling all fish harvesters, restaurants, tourism/entertainment industries, retailers, and more!

If you are a business owner/operator in the Gulf of Mexico, we hope you will consider signing onto this letter on behalf of coastal businesses to public officials demanding that they prioritize Gulf businesses, support your recovery from Coronavirus devastation, and call on the government to halt the development of new industrial aquaculture facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. You can sign on and read the full letter here. Deadline is Friday, Oct 2.

Industrial aquaculture facilities push external costs of operation onto the ocean ecosystem and coastal economies, from direct discharge of toxins to privatization of the ocean. For the Gulf of Mexico, this means extra nutrients to feed the red tide and increased competition for limited marine space (and much more). The industry has its sights set on the Gulf of Mexico as the first place it wants to operate in the U.S. – starting with a project off the coast of Sarasota, to be followed by a larger “Aquaculture Opportunity Area” to host up to 5 facilities in the region. This could devastate Gulf businesses that have already been struggling to recover from recent natural disasters and devastation from the impacts of COVID-19. 

Join us in telling public officials to support local and coastal businesses in the Gulf, and stop pushing a harmful new industry in the region! Deadline is Friday, Oct 2.


Mega-Hotel developers on Siesta Key seek to lift density requirements for all Sarasota County

Three developers planning Mega-Hotels on Siesta Key have recently filed pre-applications with Sarasota County. 



All three are asking the County to pass an Amendment to the UDC (Unified Development Code) FL Land Use Policy 2.9.1 that will remove density requirements for Transient Accommodations. Current zoning permits 13 units per acre for multifamily use, and double the density for hotels. The proposals would increase density from from 26 units per acre to 170 units per acre -- that's four to seven times what's currently allowed. 

****NOTE: This change in density will affect ALL of Sarasota County.****

All three developers -- Gary Kompothecras, Mike Holderness and SKH 1 LLC. -- request Special Exceptions to raise the permitted 35-foot height to eight stories: 83-85 feet.

The Comprehensive Plan requires that new development not increase density on Barrier Islands. The developers propose two changes to density:

  • One would exempt hotels on Siesta Key from the maximum density limits.  
  • The other would exempt hotels in the entire Sarasota County from maximum density limits.

These exemptions, if approved, would both be permanent. 

These are radical proposals that will increase density and affect traffic, safety, and the environment. They  will change the nature of Siesta Key and the entire County.

Please sign the Petition against Hotel changes

Please be prepared to attend future Planning and County Commission meetings and to express your opinions.

See the pre-applications to Planning here


This? 

Siesta Beach


Or This?



Hotel developer Gary Kompothecras is a major backer of the entrenched political machine. Both Kompothecras and Holderness have contributed to Michael A. Moran's campaign this year. SKH 1 is represented by Robert T. Anderson Jr. of Sarasota.
 



More on the hotels and opposition:

Siesta Key Coalition Zoom Meeting about hotels

Sarasota News Leader 10.1.20: Redevelopment of Siesta Key Beach Resort Hotel and Suites would increase rooms from 55 to 170, preliminary application says

Siesta Key Association


Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Mike Hutchinson: Protect existing neighborhoods!


Mike Hutchinson opposed 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.

https://berncreek.net/CountryVideo.html

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!

Sincerely,

Mike Hutchinson


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


Thursday, September 10, 2020

Poppycock and Balderdash where Sarasota Needs Vision

To: the BCC
From: Tom Matrullo
Re: Old Miakka CPA Hearing on CPA-2019-C on 9.23.20
Date: 9.9.20

Commissioners, when the people of Old Miakka came to you with their intent to offer a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), you gave them the go-ahead to hold workshops.


Old Miakka map courtesy of Sarasota News Leader


At the workshop I attended, there was strong community sentiment from the residents of Old Miakka and District 1. The consistent theme was that leapfrog intensification of this north-eastern sector of the County contradicts the fundamental logic and purpose of the Comp Plan.

Yet at the 8.20.20 Planning Commission (PC) hearing, the Commissioners failed to treat this initiative as what it is: A CPA brought by the County for consideration. The allegation that this CPA constitutes a taking of property rights rose out of William Merrill III’s mouth to become the nucleus of the PC’s reasoning. If you aren’t sure that this is balderdashcheck with your professional planners who reviewed the CPA. Surely they would have raised this concern had it been anything other than a red herring.

Consider a re-set: This long-existing community wishes to maintain something that goes well beyond technicalities of density. They seek to preserve part of Sarasota’s traditional historical diversity, much as people wish to protect wetlands, or wildlife corridors. This is a cultural plea to help preserve a viable and healthy way of life, intact for 170 years.

The Bert Harris bugaboo simply derails the actual facts.

Invite both parties to seek a way to guarantee the value of this way of life. Don’t put the County in the absurd position of treating its own Comp Plan Amendment as if it were a nefarious scheme to take private property.

You can rise above this: Bring some originality, some creative vision that helps both sides find a win/win resolution. Show us you have the political skill and custodial dedication to do what’s best for Sarasota County.

Thank you,

Tom Matrullo

Citzens for Sarasota County


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

Tuesday, September 8, 2020

Words mean what developers say they mean - LTE

A Letter to the Editor of the Herald Tribune, Sept. 8, 2020 regarding the view taken of a citizens' effort to preserve and protect the rural heritage of a 170-year-old community in East Sarasota. More on the issues here and see also: 

Sarasota County panel wants stricter rules for public input on growth.



Like Humpty Dumpty, developers must fall

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." – Through the Looking-Glass, Lewis Carroll

Sarasota County has stepped through the looking-glass with residents’ interests upside down to development interests. 

East County residents support a comprehensive plan amendment preserving Old Miakka’s historic rural community.  Developers threaten expensive lawsuits. 

Humpty Dumpty’s and developers’ words mean what they choose – not what is real.  Here are some developers’ words opposing CPA 2019-C at a recent public hearing and the real meanings:

“Chaos” and “hijacking the process” means Old Miakka residents following county regulations and asking the county to preserve existing rural zoning densities.

“Vested private property rights” means rights to imagined future hamlet rezones without filing an application.

“Millions in county liability” means the county paying developers for speculative, unreasonable investments in hypothetical future density increases.

CPA 2019-C is based on facts and the Old Miakka Plan, is in the public interest, maintains Apoxsee future land use, and deserves commission approval. 

Humpty Dumpty must take a great fall.

Susan Schoettle-Gumm, Sarasota, former Assistant County Attorney, Sarasota County

 

Sunday, September 6, 2020

Ayech to Moran: We followed the rules

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.

Becky Ayech

President

Miakka Community Club


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