Like the Death Star from the Star Wars story, LWR and SMR want to destroy our rural and agricultural lands. Why? Greed. If SMR gets to develop at hugely increased densities and use “open space” for facilities required for its development, it makes more money. At the cost of environmental, stormwater and economic benefits to the entire County and region from rural lands. We will all pay for this development – through loss of our rural and agricultural lives and through increased costs to the public from this urban sprawl of 5,000 mansion behind gates (“urban sprawl”) that will add over 45,000 additional daily car trips on our road system. This county commission is about to grant SMR special status that would override the county's comprehensive plan. Residents of Old Miakka, one of Sarasota County's oldest continuous settlements, are trying to save their rural lifestyle, agriculture, and everyone's open space, wildlife habitat, and environmental assets.
Even if you can’t attend the public hearing on Tuesday, please send emails to the Commissioners. Copy and paste all or some of the points below to tell them to DENY Lakewood Ranch SE – don’t make Sarasota County an extension of Manatee County’s “Stepfordville”. With the 2050 Plan, Sarasota County residents rejected cookie cutter houses crammed together covering acres and acres of land previously providing forage and cover for wildlife, stormwater retention, open space, agriculture, dark skies, and a place where people can breath and enjoy nature and rural life. Tell the Commission to say NO.
Please email the County Commissioners and the Planners (email addresses shown below – ask for your email to be included in the official record of the Oct. 25, 2022 public hearing on Agenda Item #29 (Lakewood Ranch SE). PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR NAME AT THE END OF THE LETTER.
SUBJECT: DENY Lakewood Ranch SE (Item #29, Oct. 25, 2022) – include in official record of public hearing
SARASOTA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AL MAIO amaio@scgov.net
MIKE MORAN mmoran@scgov.net
NANCY DETERT ncdetert@scgov.net
RON CUTSINGER rcutsinger@scgov.
CHRISTIAN ZIEGLER cziegler@scgov.net
ALSO copy planner@scgov.net
Brett Harrington bharring@scgov.net
Hannah Sowinski hsowinski@scgov.net
Good Day Commissioners:
I am opposed to Item #29 on your agenda for October 25, 2022. Please make the following comments in opposition to CPA 2022-B and the DOCC part of the official record of the Oct. 25, 2022 public hearing.
STATE AGENCY REVIEW OF CPA 2022-B – Among other comments made by the Department of Economic Development (DEO), the Department's letter supports residents’ objections regarding the greenway buffers and open space. The proposed alternative greenway configurations and design criteria lack the "meaningful and predictable standards" required by §163.3177 (1), Fla. Stat.
Residents have objected to the reduction of open space greenbelts for their failure to provide adequate protection for native habitats and failure to ensure that the location, size, configuration, quality or other components of any preserved open space will be adequate to ensure the protection of the land's ecological functions. The Department stated that the County must "require a greenbelt minimum width that is wide enough to appropriately ensure that the greenbelt functions to clearly separate urban uses from rural uses." The Department also told the County to only allow those uses in "open space" that are consistent with the definition of open space, and that "public safety stations and community centers should not constitute open space". (DEO letter, p. 2)
DEO also found that the County and applicant have not shown that the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment does not constitute urban sprawl. It said that the County must either provide further explanation of how the allowed future land uses are not urban sprawl or modify the amendment to not constitute urban sprawl. (DEO letter, p. 2).
We do not see how the County can produce professionally acceptable data and analysis to support a claim that the development proposed by the FLUM change is not urban sprawl. In terms of modifications to the proposed amendment, based on the location and relevant facts about the property, the changes necessary to allow the proposed amendment to avoid violating the urban sprawl provisions of the statute would significantly reduce the amount of residential development and supporting uses being introduced into this special rural and agricultural area.
COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS BY LEGAL AND PLANNING EXPERTS - Residents opposed to CPA 2022-B and the related DOCC have engaged two experts who have submitted a number of written comments and statements to the Planning Commission, the BCC, and DEO and state agencies. Legal expert Richard Grosso (hired by the Miakka Community Club) and planning expert Charles Gauthier (hired by Keep the Country, Inc.) have identified numerous significant issues and problems with the proposed CPA and DOCC. I endorse all of the comments and statements by these experts and ask that this development proposal be denied.
DANGEROUS CONDITIONS ON ROAD SYSTEM - Rex Jensen’s proposed expansion of Lakewood Ranch will consume over 4,000 acres of rural lands in northeast Sarasota County. With 5,000 dwelling units, over 45,000 additional daily car trips will be added to our road system. Among many valid arguments against this development are the dangerous and worsening conditions on our roads. Fruitville Road, a state evacuation route and primary east-west access, already operates significantly below acceptable levels of service. Commissioners seem mesmerized by vague and unenforceable deals proposed by Rex, in his blurred dual roles as head of SMR and the LWR Stewardship District, to “fix” Fruitville. Rex/SMR have not fulfilled existing legal obligations for linear wetlands on this land – why would anyone think he will fulfill unenforceable verbal proffers on Fruitville Road? The result - residents will pay the cost of worsening conditions on Fruitville Road and will pay with our taxes and public funds for development impacts. There is not enough funding to fix existing problems on Fruitville – much less to address the impacts of this and other developments. Lakewood Ranch SE must be denied.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT- LWR developers are asking for approval of a 2050 comp plan amendment, to once again move the Old Miakka Countryside line, amend the comp plan Hamlet allowances to high density development, to create a new high density Village Transition Zoning, (VTZ) zoning. 2022-B proposes density increases to the existing Lake Park Estates, reduces green ways and buffers from 500' to 50', with no town center or commercial planned in the entire 4100 acres. Seventeen percent (17%) of the Lakewood Ranch SE site occurs in a flood plain, which includes Gum Slough, Myakka River headwaters and Donna Bay. Development of these lands at increased density will cause degradation of water quality, increase and change the character of stormwater runoff, and cause damaging impacts to significant waterways. Amendment 2022-B is a plan to create sprawl, hopscotched to nearly the end of Fruitville Rd and Sarasota County. These lands begin across from the existing entrance to HiHat ranch, which received density increases far beyond Hamlet allowances and was approved by this board as high density village zoning.
If these 4,100 acres were developed under the current existing zoning or at allowable Hamlet densities, the number of houses could be as little as 200 houses and as many as 1,600. If the land were developed at the highest density of 1,600 houses, this would create traffic increases of 12,768 daily trips impacting our overburdened roadways. What LWR developers are proposing instead is 5,000 houses. These units won't be required to be developed on 1/2 acre lots, but the lots can be any size. This would create traffic increases to 45,000 daily trips, as opposed to the total traffic generated under the existing 1 to 5 acre zoning of 5,722 daily trips.
Developers are also proposing a reduction of the required 500' buffer to only 50' and limit the Open Space requirement to as little as 43%. The Hamlet open space requirement is 60%. The current 1 unit per 5 or 10 acres zoning requires 80% open space.
The requested density increase from 1 unit per acre to 2 units per acre with the proposed VTZ designation, is not a transitional zone, but urban sprawl on top of Rural Heritage zoning of 1 unit per 5 or 10 acres. The 4,100 acres is within the boundaries as defined in the Old Miakka Neighborhood Plan. These are historic rural and agricultural lands that were guaranteed protection under the 2050 Plan and the county approved, Countryside Line.
This amendment is not compatible with 5 acre homesteads in Old Miakka. CPA 2022-B is nothing more than a plan to create urban sprawl in a remote rural location of Sarasota County. Calling it a Village Transitional Zone (VTZ) doesn't change the fact that it's urban sprawl proposed right over the top of the Countryside Line and the historic Rural Heritage community of Old Miakka.
The proposal is devoid of wildlife corridor locations and appears to be planned with home sites from district line to line. Protected species must be identified by an independent consultant and wildlife underpasses must be planned with all the new roads. These are details that would be addressed during the construction plan review, but it's important to note that the concept plan does not contemplate ribbons of green space throughout the site, to provide interconnected corridors for threatened and protected species. How can the public believe that interconnected corridors are planned and of sufficient size to protect the threatened and endangered species that inhabit the area?
This amendment proposes classic urban sprawl, the exact opposite of what the 2050 Plan was created and approved to do, by the Board of County Commissioners, landowners and developers and this community.
PLEASE DENY CPA 2022-B and related DOCC. I and many other residents are strongly opposed to this proposed urban sprawl.
No comments:
Post a Comment