Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the August 20th, 2026 meeting of the Sarasota County Planning Commission. There are eight planning commissioners present, which is a quorum, and there is one commissioner absent, which is Randy Boyd. We have in attendance John LaCivita, Justin Taylor, Adam Mayo, Mitzi Fiedler, John Thaxton, Bruce Franklin, Mariah Miller, and myself, Emily Legler. This evening, the Sarasota County Planning Commission holds an in-person meeting and the public may provide comments in person. As always, the Planning Commission encourages the public to submit comments on matters to be addressed by the Planning Commission in advance of the Commission meeting, and those comments will be included in the official record. Please visit scgov.net for details. At this time, I'd like to ask you to stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Since some of you may be with us for the first time, I would like to explain and emphasize that there are strict procedural rules we must follow throughout these proceedings. We have three items on the agenda tonight for public hearing. For privately initiated hearings, we will be introduced by staff to the agent of the petitioner who will first summarize the petition for us. Following the petitioner's presentation, we will hear from County Planning and Development Service staff. After the presentations, the commissioners will have the ability to ask questions of the presenters, both staff and petitioner. I would kindly request commissioners save their questions until after both presentations are provided. After presentations and questions, we will then hear comments from the public. At that time, the petitioner or their agent will have an opportunity to respond to the various comments of the public and the commissioners. Staff may also clarify items for the record. During the public hearings, planning commissioners may ask questions of staff, the petitioner, or members of the public. Any citizen wishing to speak this evening may do so if they have completed and signed a request to speak card, which are located in the back of this room. The completed card should be given to the clerk prior to each citizen speaking this evening. Staff have provided me a copy of the August 20th, 2026 public comments. If you submitted comments in writing via a planner at scgov.net or US mail, a copy of your comments has been submitted into the record. It is very important to note this evening that during the hearings, we may hear expression of contrary. We could go back to the other lighting if you'd like. We may hear the expression of contrary viewpoints. This is to be expected and is a fundamental part of public hearing process. It is essential that each speaker be given the opportunity to speak without expression of either affirmation or opposition from the audience. Clapping, booing, or other measures of opposition or affirmation will not be tolerated. Your cooperation in this respect is much appreciated. At this time, we ask everyone in attendance to please turn off your cell phones or place the ringtone on silent or vibrate. I will now start the planning commission meeting with agenda item number one, open to the public. This time period is reserved for persons desiring to comment before the planning commission on items not scheduled for a public hearing this evening. Any person speaking before the commission should state their name, the fact that they've signed the speaker's card, and they're available in this room. And we allocate three minutes per speaker for open to the public. Do we have any to no open to the public? Moving on, I will now open the public hearing portion of our meeting with agenda item number two, which is unified development code amendment number 2026-3 monuments and statuary. Had to practice that one. The county initiated UDC amendment as a request to allow monuments and statuary up to one foot from the right of way in the main street overlay district. Additional provisions limiting the number, height, and location are included in the amendment. Our presenter this evening, is James Ehrman, Zoning Administrator, Sarasota County Planning and Development Services. James?

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. For the record, James Ehrman, Zoning Administrator with Planning and Development Services, and I've signed a speaker card. This evening, we're here to discuss UDC Tax Amendment Number 2026-3, Monuments and Statuary. It is a little tricky. The UDC was adopted on November 27th, 2018, just a little history. On January 27th of this year, the county commission authorized a county publicly initiated text amendment directing staff to amend the UDC requirements for monuments, statuaries, figures, and the like. So these are items such as sculptures, statues, things like that. The change was requested to allow the placement of art and sculptures closer to the property line within the Main Street overlay or M side district within the Englewood CRA area. In accordance with the UDC, the board may request these type of text amendments. Currently in the UDC, monuments and statuaries are considered to be a sign, that's how they're categorized, and they're allowed without a sign permit. Staff did consult with the Englewood CRA and worked with them to kind of garner some input and feedback upon the proposed amendment. Considerations that the CRA board did discuss was if a sign permit would be required for these type of statuaries or sculptures. The fact that any applicant could request a sign permit for this type of statue, sculpture, artwork, anything like that. The county cannot regulate content of such statuaries or monuments, so that's an important factor just to consider this evening. The applicable limitations on height and number of statues or monuments on a property, and also locational requirements for these items and where they may be placed, visibility, safety issues, items such as that. The amendment before you this evening would allow for statues within the MSOD overlay in Englewood to be permitted up to one foot from the right-of-way on private property, so it cannot be placed within county right-of-way, but could be one foot from that line. It will require a signed permit, which will verify location and that visibility is maintained for safety. The statues would be limited to eight feet in height. They would allow for a maximum of just one per parcel. They must be maintained in good condition. And the encouragement for themes such as marine life or items or kind of themes within historic fishing village, those are items that the Englewood CRA felt important to consider for the new amendment this evening. As I did speak to earlier, due to the protections under the First Amendment, county staff cannot regulate content within a sign, so that is something just to consider. Because of this, we can only include aspirational language within that code amendment, so terms such as encouraged, while not necessarily the most strict word that you can use within a code provision, that's why we went with the term encouraged. Such content cannot be mandated or regulated by the county. The recommended motion is that the Planning Commission consider the amendment and make a recommendation to the board. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Commissioner Mayo.

Obviously, since we're talking about what the county can regulate and not regulate, is there rules that... govern over obscene statements, that kind of thing on there? I know there's some county rules on that stuff. Would that apply to this portion of it as well?

There's some general provisions to prevent obscenities for signs. Those would be looked at kind of on a case-by-case basis, depending on what's presented. Okay.

Commissioner LaCivita?

You attended some of these meetings, correct? I did not attend directly, but we did engage with the CRA board and the manager of the CRA, Marcy.

What were some of the negatives you experienced or some of the naysayers? What were their concerns?

A lot of it had to do with definitely location. There's definitely concerns about being placed in the right-of-way. Initially, there was some conversation about allowing these signs in the right-of-way, but there was a lot of fundamental legal issues with placing such signs in the right-of-way. That was definitely a primary concern in things like height and also content, but once again, it's something that unfortunately the county cannot regulate for that.

Any other questions? Do we have any public testimony? Seeing none, any additional questions? Any final comments, Mr. Ehrman?

No, we look forward to your recommendation.

Thank you. With that, I will close that public hearing and entertain a discussion or a vote regarding agenda item number two. Commissioner Thaxton.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. First, I want to start with an apology. It's not pertinent to this, but I think this is the first time in 40 years that I've ever appeared before a Planning Commissioner or Board of County Commissioners on either side of the dais without a jacket. So it was an oversight. Now that that's of the record, Madam Chairman, I move approval of the Unified Development Code Amendment number 2026-3, a publicly initiated amendment regarding to the Monuments Statuary Allowance on the Main Street Overlay District in Englewood with favorable findings of fact, if we need those. I don't think we do.

Commissioner Franklin? I'll second that. To your first?

No, I think it's a necessary step so that we do have some

regulatory authority on those elements of the plan that we can regulate to make sure that the public interest is upheld and to your second i don't have anything other than i'm not wearing a jacket next meeting understood all those in favor please say aye aye aye all those opposed chair votes aye motion passes eight to zero Moving on, the next item on the agenda is agenda item number three, rezone petition number 25-19 and number 25-20, Lakewood Ranch Southeast Project Areas 4 and 5. Now I'm going to read these. This is a little bit of a mouthful. A public hearing to consider proposed rezone petition number 25-19 to rezone approximately 147 acres from OUE 1 to RSF 2 PUD zone district for property located east of future Bornside Boulevard and north of Fruitville Road Sarasota within the Lakewood Ranch Southeast and a public hearing to consider proposed rezone petition number 25 dash 20 to rezone approximately 746 acres from HPD. Oh, you are and 1 to RSF to zone district for property located west of the future Bornside Boulevard and north of Fruitville Road Sarasota within the Lakewood Ranch. Lakewood Ranch, Southeast, our presenters this evening are Anna Messina Planner with Sarasota County Planning and Development Services and Katie LeBar, Agent Stantec. Ms. Messina.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, again, my name is Anna Messina, Planning and Development Services, and I have submitted a speaker's card. Before I get into the presentation, just need to enter into the record that after publication of the staff report, we have received some correspondence. Copies have been provided to the commissioners and to the clerk. The applicants, SMR Cannon LLC, SMR Schwartz LLC, and Toll Southeast Company LLC, represented by Ms. Katie LeBar of Stantic, are requesting to rezone two sets of properties located within the Lakewood Ranch Southeast Development of Critical Concern, or better known as a DOC. Petition 2519 is requesting a rezone from open use estate to the residential single family planned unit development or RSF2 PUD to develop up to 299 units within approximately a 147 acre site of the dock designated as project area four. Petition 2520 requests to rezone from open-use rural, open-use estate, and hamlet plan development to the RSF2 slash PUD to develop up to 789 units with approximately 746 acres of the DOCS Project Area 5. For reference, this map shows the overall Lakewood Ranch southeast dock area and the location of the subject petitions, along with the timeline starting from the initial application meeting with the development review coordination team up to today's scheduled public hearing. Ms. LaBar and her team will first provide a presentation on behalf of the applicant. Afterwards, I will return with staff's presentation and then we can answer any questions that you may have. Now, Ms. LaBar.

Thank you, Anna. Good evening, Madam Chairman, fellow commissioners. I'm Katie LaBar, an AICP certified planner with Stantec, representing Lakewood Ranch communities and Toll Brothers, and I have signed a speaker's card. We're excited to bring forward to you tonight the two final rezones for Lakewood Ranch Southeast, Project Areas 4 and 5. As we go through the presentation tonight, we'll demonstrate how this new community is in full compliance with the Village Transition Zone Resource Management Area, the Development of Critical Concern, and the Master Development Order and Master Development Plan for Lakewood Ranch Southeast. We have several subject matter experts here with us tonight. This slide represents the team members that we have, and they are available to answer questions as we go through this public hearing. Lakewood Ranch Southeast is in the Village Transition Zone Resource Management Area. This RMA establishes that the development form is primarily suburban in nature, consistent with existing development of Lakewood Ranch. The implementing zone district is RSF2 PUD. Village Open Space RMA and the VPD standards don't apply because the VTC standards supersede. The project was approved as a development of critical concern and has an approved master development order with a master development plan, and that is shown on the slide. And that is what guides development of Lakewood Ranch Southeast. A few key elements include as I said, rezoning to RSF2 PUD, which is why we're here tonight, establishing a maximum unit count of 5,000 for the entire property, establishing wildlife corridors and requiring a minimum of 43 percent open space. The mapped greenway RMA is preserved and the restrictive covenants have already been established and they are in place today for all of the greenway that you see on the map. And then green belts are clearly established at the edge of the developed areas, and they are memorialized not only in the VTZ RMA, but also in the master development plan itself. As you can see, they've all been denoted along the edge of the entire property. These two project areas will complete the rezones for Lakewood Ranch Southeast. The plan shows how development of each project area is implementing the commitments that we just walked through. Development of the 5,000 units is located entirely within the mapped developed area. At build out, the project will provide a 52% open space, which exceeds the minimum of 43%. The Greenway RMA, as I said, is preserved and already has the restrictive covenants in place for those lands. and nearly 111 acres is set aside for parks and recreation, and that includes the 40-acre community park that we have set aside. Then finally, infrastructure that's necessary to support development is leading in this case, it's not lagging. Bourneside Boulevard is under construction. This is actually an aerial of current construction, so the status of that improvement. This improvement is from University Parkway to Fruitville Road. The four-laning of University Parkway from Lorain Road to Bourneside is also under construction as we speak. The Lakewood Ranch Stewardship District is also investing in critical infrastructure by extending water and sewer lines, upsizing utility lines to provide additional capacity for future Sarasota County residents. To date, approximately eight miles of reclaimed water main and sewer force main have been installed through multiple projects, and the regional lift station is also under construction. The stewardship district's significant investments have been in reliance of the approved DOCC, MDO, and MDP, including the recent funding of the PD&E study in partnership with Sarasota County for the widening of Fruitville Road. There are several other public use facilities, public uses within Lakewood Ranch Southeast. They have been contemplated and approved with other project areas, but the 40 acre community park is located to the north of the two areas that are the subject of tonight's rezone. But to see the full picture, we wanted to make sure that you you saw and understand where they are located. And so 40-acre community park is located in project areas six and seven. And it will connect both to the multi-use regional trail along Bourneside Boulevard, as well as internal project trails. The 3.2-acre fire station site is located within Project Area 3 on the east side of Bourneside Boulevard. The master developer will convey the park lands and the fire station site to the county at the request of the county at no cost to the county. And the agreements for each of those have been memorialized in the rezone ordinances for each of those respective project areas. So the two areas that are the subject of tonight's rezone application are project areas four and five. They're identified in yellow on the map. And you will see that only a portion of project area five is being considered for a rezone. The existing future land use is rural. The existing resource management area is village transition zone. Existing zoning on these properties is HPD, open use rural, OUR, and open use estate. The proposed zoning, as I've said, is RSF2 PUD. and the existing Lake Park Estates or Monterey will remain within the Hamlet Zone District because that was indeed contemplated with the approved master development order. So this is the development concept plan showing a little bit more detail on the layout of project area four. This site is approximately 147 acres. We are proposing to build upwards of 299 residential units. Of that, 144 will likely be townhomes. We identify on the DCP where the amenity area is, as well as the internal trails and the wildlife corridor that runs along the northeast and southern property lines. The site will include about 60.73% open space, and site access will be provided by two access points off of Bourneside Boulevard. The 50-foot greenbelt, consistent with the approved MDO, is located on the eastern edge of the property, and the areas that are in the southern reaches of Project Area 4 are mapped greenway and again are currently under an existing restrictive covenant. Project Area 5 is about 746 acres, and the proposed use is 789 single-family residential units. Again, the amenity area and parks for residents are shown on the development concept plan. This site will ultimately build out at a density of 1.06 dwelling units per acre with about 49% open space. Access to Project Area 5 will be via Fruitville Road as well as Bourneside Boulevard. And both of the project areas will connect to the MERT that's along Bourneside Boulevard. I will note that a 500-foot greenbelt is maintained along the northwestern edge along the west side, as well as along the southern reaches adjacent to Fruitville Road, where the other areas that I'm indicating on the screen will have a 50-foot planted greenbelt in accordance with the BTZ, RMA, MDO, and MDP. A master stormwater plan is required pursuant to the MDO. The Southwest Florida Water Management District and Sarasota County Unified Development Code call for no offsite adverse stormwater impacts. This generally includes no offsite rise and a flow reduction. All project areas in Lakewood Ranch Southeast will use the county's regional watershed model to demonstrate code compliance. The map on the right shows the master utility plan for water, showing that the system will be looped throughout each project area. Public utilities will be provided and extensions have been funded and will be constructed by the stewardship district. A master utility plan was completed for the entire project consistent with the requirements of the MDO and they are being implemented with development. Non-potable irrigation water will be provided by the Braden River Utilities and will be supplemented by Sarasota County if necessary. The site contains mostly improved local historically used, the site has historically been used for agriculture. Project Area 4 includes an alternative greenway buffer and that will be managed in accordance with the declaration of restrictive covenants that was recorded. The wetland impacts have been, avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practical and are consistent with the approved MDO. There's a 0.1 acre impact in Project Area 5, and that impact is associated with a road crossing. Wildlife corridors will provide connection between on-site preservation and conservation areas, as well as off-site natural habitats. This includes the wildlife corridor that's identified on the DOCC Master Site Plan to be created by planning and restoring native upland habitat between the wetland systems to create a north-south connection between county-owned lands to the north and off-site native habitats to the south. Additional wildlife crossings are proposed in Project Area 5 and will be created by preserving high-quality native upland habitat between wetland systems. Wildlife crossings within the proposed developments will be marked with wildlife crossing signage so that motorists and residents will know that there is wildlife in the area. The policies shown here are a few that represent the project's consistency with the comprehensive plan. There's a full list of policies and justification for each are contained within our application materials and the staff report that staff provided. As required by code, we hosted a neighborhood workshop on October 6th of 2025. There were 15 individuals who attended that meeting. We are coming before this body more than nine months after our neighborhood workshop, and so requested and this board kindly granted the waiver so that we can be heard by you and then ultimately by the board of county commissioners and so we thank you for that and we're glad to be here tonight as we conclude um i want to leave you with the fact that this site is compatible with surrounding development it is consistent with the comprehensive plan the vtz rma the Lakewood Ranch Southeast Master Development Order, and the Unified Development Code. With that, we ask for your recommendation of approval. And as I said, we have several subject matter experts who are here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you very much. Next up, staff report.

Thank you, Chair. Again, for the record, Anna Messina with Planning and Development Services. As mentioned, we have two petition requests, petition 2519 and 2520, which are both requesting to rezone to the RSF2 slash PUD zone district consistent with the development plan adopted for the Lakewood Ranch Southeast development of critical concern. Rezone 2519 would allow development of 299 units within the Dock Area 4 and Rezone 2520 would allow for 789 units within a portion of the Project Area 5. Just for reference, the Lakewood Ranch Southeast properties are approximately 4,120 acres that are located between Fruitville Road and University Parkway outside of the urban service area. When the comprehensive plan was amended in 2002 to include the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area or RMA plan, these properties were designated as Hamlet land use under the Village Open Space RMA. The main purpose of the Sarasota 2050 plan is to enhance livability within the county, and it focuses on implementing three main principles. Managing growth that avoids urban sprawl through efficient master planning of compact communities, preservation of natural resources, and ensuring that new development results in fiscally neutral costs that do not burden existing residents. With the 2050 plan, different RMAs were introduced to cover all areas of the county based on their location and reference to the urban service boundary. And the Village Open Space RMA was adopted to cover large development east of I-75 And in this RMA, there are two possible forms of development that are defined by a countryside line that designates village land use to those areas closer to the USB and hamlet land use for the areas located east of said line, which upon adoption of the 2050 plan included the Lakewood Ranch Southeast properties. However, in 2022, the county adopted a privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment requested by the Lakewood Ranch Southeast Properties to introduce a new 2050 RMA named Village Transition Zone or VTZ. This RMA incorporated policies for new development form that is only applicable to the Lakewood Ranch Southeast site, and that intends to provide for a gradual transition between a village land use, which is meant to have for mixed use development in the form of various residential neighborhoods connected to a central area of non-residential uses, and a hamlet land use that is intended for a lower density residential neighborhood of rural character. As shown on the graphic, the amendment changed the 2050 designation for the Lakewood Ranch Southeast properties from Hamlet to the VTZ, and it moved the countryside line to the eastern boundary of the Lakewood Ranch Southeast site. The VTZRMA policies intend for development, form, and master plan principles used in the existing Lakewood Ranch communities. Therefore, these established the RSF2 slash PUD zone district standards at its implementing zone to best exemplify the suburban development types provided by the Lakewood Ranch. However, consistent with the intent of serving as a transition between Village and Hamlet, the VTZ policies also specify a maximum base density of one unit per acre and an overall maximum development of 5,000 units within the entire Lakewood Ranch Southeast properties. In addition to specifying density, the policies also include methods for the provision of incentivized housing or transfer of development rights to supplement base density, and requirements consistent with the 2050 plan for open space, greenbelt buffers, recreation areas, fiscal neutrality compliance, and the need for a dock master development process. with the adoption of the VTZ RMA, the County also adopted ordinance number 2022-064 as the Lakewood Ranch Southeast Dock Master Development Order. A development of critical concern is one that proposes more than 1,000 residential units and therefore entails a more comprehensive analysis of all potential impacts that such development may have on County systems. Therefore, the Lakewood Ranch Southeast Master Plan further specifies the development form consistent with the VTC policies, and it sets conditions that serve to mitigate and monitor the development's impacts on infrastructure, services, and mobility systems throughout its build out. The site was divided into seven project areas to be rezoned as RSF slash PUD, while maintaining the maximum 5,000 units distributed among all project areas. The plan was also approved with the provision of a minimum 43% open space, preserved greenway areas, a 40-acre community park site, a fire station site, and an extension of Bournside Boulevard for Manatee County to serve as a thoroughfare across the entire dock area. As indicated, all properties within the VTZ RMA need to comply with the maximum base density of one unit per acre. Therefore, all rezones within the VTZ do not utilize the RSF2 zone district standard of three and a half units per acre. The VTC policies allow for a maximum of 5,000 units. Therefore, as the approximately 4,120 acres of the Lakewood Ranch southeast side only generates the equal 4,120 units, the difference to account to the 5,000 maximum needs to be obtained through incentivized housing or through an off-site TDR program. Therefore, to track all allocation of units within each project area, the DOC also adopted the project area densities table C4 as shown on this slide, which denotes the estimated base density of each project area, the potential additional units to be obtained through estimated base density, and allowance for units to be internally transferred between the areas for a total of 5,000 units overall. Throughout the build out of the DOT, this table is required to be updated with each rezone so that we can track the actual number of units within each area. Now, consistent with this Lakewood Ranch Southeast doc, the first petition, 2519, requests to rezone the properties designated as project area four from open use estate to the RSF2 PUD. As required by the doc, the applicant has updated table C4 to reflect the 299 units requested for project area four. Based on the size of the area, the base density generates 147 units. Therefore, the applicant requests to develop 299, they are electing to provide 93 incentivized community housing units that, in accordance with the VTZ policies, allows them to receive an additional 93 incentive units. This would result in a total of 333 allocated units, so by developing only 299, the 34 remaining units are available for internal transfer to any of the other project areas. The community housing units will be provided for households at or below 120% of the county medium income or AMI consistent with the VTC policies as shown on this slide. And they adopted also for these to be granted in addition to the base density. Additionally, the DOC includes an affordable housing plan with monitoring requirements that will track the provision of any restricted income units prior to the construction of any granted incentive market rate units. The proposed development intends to provide housing types consistent with the rest of the Lakewood Ranch Southeast project areas that abut to the west or that are located further north of the subject site area four within the blue outline that corresponds to the dock on this slide. Now, since there are some neighboring residential communities of lower density large estate lot character and the abutting properties along the east, north, and south also include agricultural uses or vacant lands, the site will use greenbelt buffers, landscapes, and the preservation of greenway areas, specifically along the south side boundaries to mitigate any potential incompatibilities. ReZone 2519 includes a binding development concept plan as required for all planned unit developments. The plan shows the overall areas to be developed and those that will be maintained as open space along with the location of road and stormwater lakes. The proposed units will consist of a mix of detached single family and townhome type housing and the site will include a centralized park area. The north and east sides will have a 50-foot greenbelt buffer that is proposed to include landscape sufficient to provide 70% of opacity to limit noise and visibility, and the entire south portion of the site will be comprised of preserved greenway areas that can serve to create a natural buffer along Fruitvale Road, which abuts along the south side. The second petition, rezone 2520, requests to rezone a section of project area five from open use rural, open use estate, and hamlet plan development to the RSF2 PUD. Consistent with the same VTZ policies, the subject site acreage for Rezone 2520 generates 746 base density units. Therefore, for this case, the applicant requests to develop 789 and has elected to use internally transferred units from other areas to supplement the required 43. For reference, this is a copy of the updated Table C-4 that highlights the current rezoned petition areas, and it indicates the units already approved for the rezones of areas one, two, three, six, and seven. Some of these areas also did not utilize all of the base units, which left remaining units available for those internal transfers that ultimately allow for the maximum development of 5,000 units within the entire Lakewood Ranch Southeast. As noted before, Petition 2520 is requesting to rezone only a section of the DOC Project Area 5, so it's leaving the portion marked as Lake Park Estates with its current Hamlet Plan Development Zone. This area already contains 113 approved units that were identified within the DOC Master Development Order as Phase 1 of Lake Park Estates and allowed to proceed under its current approvals and not subject to a further rezone. zone. Along the northern and partial eastern boundary, the proposed development intends to maintain consistency again with the residential pattern of the other abutting dock project areas. And along the southern side and west side that abut the Burn Creek residential lots, the site will use open space green belts and landscapes to buffer potential incompatibilities like noise or visibility with the surrounding rural character areas. The rezone for the project area five also includes a binding development concept plan where you can see that the development here will be comprised of single family type housing with about approximately 11 acres of park areas that will be distributed within four different locations. The south face boundaries will have the same 50-foot greenbelt buffer with landscape sufficient to provide 70% opacity and the partial western side that abuts properties that are not included in the OCC has a 500-foot greenbelt. For both rezone petition, the applicant is also requesting four modifications to the Unified Development Code or UDC. These are permitted as per the planned unit development regulations. They refer to alternative roadway construction, reduction of rear lot line drainage and utility easements and reductions to the mechanical equipment and accessory use lot line separations. Staff has no concerns with the request because these are meant to assist in long-term development of a large site and all applicable easement reduction requirements will be reviewed during the site and development process as per the UDC. To assess what the findings of fact included within your staff report, we conduct a consistency analysis of the comprehensive plans, goals, objectives, and policies. This analysis finds that the petitions may be found consistent with several land use, Sarasota 2050 RMA, and housing chapter policies that refer to land use compatibility, preservation of open space, use of the implementing zone consistency with a master plan development, associated infrastructure provisions, incorporating residential uses, inclusion of parks or recreation areas, neighborhood planning for a variety of housing types, and support of affordable housing. The analysis also shows that the petitions may be found inconsistent with policies that refer to potential incompatibility in relation to the surrounding rural future land use areas, and there is a lack of affordable housing provided for petition rezone 2520. Staff also noted within the staff report for ReZone 2520 on page 24 that certain village open space and one BTC policy could also be potentially inconsistent for that subject ReZone. However, upon review of the staff that we published, We recognize that a clarifying note was missing on that page 24 and it was basically to make the clarification that those policies could be found or could find inconsistent the remaining hamlet plan development zone within project area 5. So the listed policies as shown on this slide would be specific to that remaining hamlet zoned area noted as Lake Park Estates if analyzed independently and not part of the Lakewood Ranch Southeast Dock. For Petition 2519, there are eight recommended stipulations which address compliance with the Binding Development Concept Plan, the Lakewood Ranch Southeast Dock Ordinance, requirements for development tracking at the site and development plan stage, the base density count and clarifying mechanisms to obtain units beyond establishing a maximum of 299 units, and requirements for tracking of affordable and community housing, compliance with water quality monitoring, and right-of-way improvements. Rezone 2520 has nine recommended stipulations, which basically address the same requirements as for petition 2519, with one extra stipulation that addresses right-of-way improvements along Fruitvale Road. There are two motions for this item, which are to consider rezone 2519 to change the zone from OUE1 to RSF2 PUD with four requested modifications and eight recommended stipulations, and to consider rezone petition 2520 to change the zone district from OUEHPD to RSF2 PUD with four requested modifications and nine recommended stipulations. Staff's available for questions.

Thank you, Ms. Messina. Do we have any questions for the petitioner or staff at this time? Commissioner Fiedler.

I do, thank you. Let me move a little closer to this mic. For staff, please. Yes, ma'am. I note that Fruitville is currently an LOSE.

Mm-hmm.

And... University Parkside is currently in LOSF. And they're going to join these two with Burnside Boulevard. And that's going to add 5,000 plus additional traffic on roads that are already congested. Is there anything in long-term, short-term transportation budget for remediation of either Fruitville or University Parkside?

I believe there are plans for Fruitville Road, but I would like transportation staff to address that, so I'm gonna hand it over to Marquise, please.

Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Marquis Bing, Transportation Planning, and I have signed the speaker's card. In your reference to Fruitvale being an E and University Park, were you also failing?

One's an E and one's an F on page 36.

Yes. Currently, the roads are operating at a level of service C. it is projected that they will operate at a level of service E with the inclusion of background traffic and that background traffic includes the previous areas 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 that were already approved and So it will operate at a level service E. Fruitville, there are plans to widen Fruitville to four lanes in the future. Right now the PD&E has begun, so they're working on the project development and environmental for that.

Widening Fruitville to four lanes, will that lower the LOS?

Yes.

to an adapted level of D?

I don't have that information here, but I can... I don't know if it'll be a D or a C, but it would meet the level of service standards.

And who's paying for the widening of the road?

Right now, we're at the PD&E stage. There's no funding for construction that would We would have to find funding for the construction.

So it's not the developer?

No, not at this time.

And for University Parkway that is currently a C, with Vested it's gonna be an F, and with this project it's gonna remain an F. Is there any mediation for University Parkway?

University Parkway is, that section of University Parkway is within Manatee County's jurisdiction.

Okay.

And I believe that area is now being widened to four lanes from Lorain all the way out to Bournside.

And that is through Manatee County?

I believe so, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments or questions for the petitioner or staff? Commissioner LaCivita.

I've got a question about the wildlife corridors that are shown on the plans. Whoever wants to address them, because I'm concerned about the crossings that you have proposed. I guess it would be the applicant.

Hi, I'm Chris Kennedy. I'm environmental scientist at Kimley Horn. I have been sworn.

Hi. The question is the corridors you have, the wildlife corridors, the crossings, the animals are going to have to cross pavement, correct? Yes, that's correct. So it's up to the drivers to pay attention to the signage. There's no bridge overpass or anything of that nature, correct? No AI camera, the light for a car or anything at this point?

So for the wildlife crossings that are in our neighborhood, Those will be marked with signage. They will not be an Overpass or anything like that, but they will be marked with signage or and or rumble strips to alert motorists of the wildlife crossing There are wildlife crossings underneath Bourneside Boulevard But those crossings are located further north of the project areas that we're talking about. I

Part 4 has a Bourneside crossing, correct?

Is it an underpass tunnel for the animals, or is it an overpass for the animals? No, sir. There's not a wildlife crossing underneath Bourneside for Project Area 4.

Yeah. Then it just dead ends, so the animals just stop and don't go anywhere else.

So there's a large greenway area within Project Area 4 adjacent to Indian Creek. There's a significant amount of restoration that not only do you see the wildlife corridor that's along the eastern side of the project area, but again, there's a large amount of restoration that will be done within that greenway area. And then there's also a large culverted crossing underneath Fruitvale Road. To the south as well.

I'm looking at the east-west Parcel for It's on the binding development concept plan one of three by Stantec Showing Unless I don't know how to read plans

Yeah, again, there's not a wildlife crossing shown for Hornside Boulevard.

What does the blue dotted line say? Wildlife corridor, correct?

Yeah, so the wildlife corridor is shown along the greenbelt buffer on the northern property boundary going, and that would funnel wildlife to the east, then down to the south, down that greenbelt buffer into that wetland and the large greenway area on the southeast portion of the project area. So the idea with that is connecting the wetlands that are internal to the project through the Greenbelt buffer, then down south to the Greenway. As you see, there's that larger... Are you seeing the top of the page? 43, and then the Greenbelt buffer to the east, and then to the south to the other large wetland you see, and then south to the Greenway. It's a little bit hard to see at this scale, but that is still a 50 foot wide corridor that's shown, which was suggested by county staff to identify that as a corridor as well.

And we're obviously not looking at the same thing. I'm confused.

Good evening, Kyle Grimes, attorney at Grimes, Galvano, and I have signed a speaker card. I believe I know what you're talking about. Are you saying the dashed line that heads and turns towards Bourneside? That's delineating the green belt buffer. The wildlife corridor is the blue line on the right side of the screen that runs north-south all the way down and then kind of cuts across where that greenway area doesn't turn to Bourneside. It keeps going down, down to Fruitvale. Here, I can use the... So can you see that? Maybe it's a blue-green issue. Can someone else help me out here?

If you zoom in on that, if you could, I think you can zoom in in the bottom right-hand corner of your screen, Ms. LaBar, you can zoom in on the top part.

Yep. So this line here, is that what the one you're looking at? No. No. The blue one. That goes down?

He's concerned with up at Bourne side at the intersection at the top. There you go. There you go. Oh, okay. Yes.

I see what you're saying. So Chris, can you speak to that area where it comes across?

Are you talking about the greenbelt buffer or are we talking about?

We're talking about the wildlife.

Again, that's just identifying that greenbelt buffer as part of the wildlife corridor that funnels wildlife to the east, to the south, to the greenbelt buffer.

If you follow that blue line all the way down to south, it crosses the lake, so the deer are going to cross a lake.

There obviously will be open space on either side of that lake. If you want to go back down to that.

I'm bringing this up because I'm getting a lot of questions from outside of this about the wildlife corridors that we're not doing enough to protect the animals, and I'm seeing it right now.

Yeah, if you can see there also on the east side of the proposed lake, that would be where you have that kind of larger swath of open space. That would be where that wildlife corridor would connect Wetland 47 and the buffers from Wetland 47, which will be also restored to native habitat south down into the Greenway, where you see all of that area that's dashed with green. A large majority of that is currently agricultural lands, and that will be enhanced into riparian forests planted. In the post-development condition, all of that area that you see dashed with the green hatch right there will again be restored from currently agricultural land into native habitat. Thank you.

Commissioner Fiedler. Staff, please. I'd like to zoom in on the inconsistencies in project area five, the HPD that seems to be standing out there all by itself. My concern of course is why they didn't do the whole area rather than leave that open. And it seems to me that there's, that you've noted inconsistencies with four different policies. And if you could just briefly, on page 23 and 24, if you could just briefly explain how it's inconsistent with each one of those policies.

So the VOS policies are specific to the Village Open Space RMA. The fact that it's a hamlet but is no longer a Village Open Space RMA, that's the inconsistency. So it's It's an inconsistency in terms of like what the code requires. It's not the form, it's not like, the rezone itself is consistent and that's why I made the clarification that those policies were meant to be separate to just highlight the fact that by leaving the Hamlet plan development, you know, staff is not going to ignore, right, that there's that zone there. The zone by itself, when analyzed independently, would need a VOS RMA, which it no longer has. It's a VTZ. So that's the inconsistency there. It's basically a zone that doesn't match the RMA. However, by the same token, when the master development was adopted, you know, the Lakewood Ranch Southeast Dock, that specific area was approved to proceed under its current entitlements without having to be rezoned. So it's just, you know, a hamlet that can stay there without having the requirements.

Can you bring it up on the screen, please?

Well, I don't want to mess with that. I don't know which graphic you want.

That's a little brown shoe.

So this leftover that's noted as Lake Park Estates, that's your remaining Hamlet zone that's gonna stay there. And all staff was pointing out in the staff report is that yes, there is a zone there that technically doesn't apply because it's no longer a VOS RMA. It's a VTZ RMA. However, they have a dock that, was adopted to allow those 113 units to proceed under its current approvals without having to be subject to rezone. All right, but now we don't have the 500 foot buffer. So that was another thing, like if you look at it as a hamlet, and if we go to the code, a hamlet zone requires a 500-foot greenbelt along the entire developed area. So by just looking at that, we see, well, now we have the edge of HPD without a greenbelt. But again, as part of their master development order, they did not contemplate a greenbelt there. So it's almost like, Catch 22, I guess. You have a hamlet that doesn't really need to be there anymore, and it cannot meet the requirements of the code as a hamlet. But again, it's not a standalone hamlet, it's part of a master development order. So it's kind of a balance. It could be inconsistent if you look at it on its own, but it can be consistent if you look at it in the context of a master development order.

Kind of stands out there like a sore thumb. Well. And if I was living in that hamlet, I think I would have assumed that I was gonna have a 500 foot buffer. I would assume that I was going to have all of these VOS policies 2.3, VTC Policy 1.1, VOS Policy 2.1, and I would live there and assume that because that was a binding concept plan, that was what's gonna happen. But that's not going to happen now, is that correct?

Right, because now they have the Lakewood Ranch Southeast DOC governing the development form.

So it's just tough luck.

I don't know, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Franklin.

I actually had a question to follow up with that. So I get the waterside circle, or waterfront circle, rather. But the HPD zone portion that runs westerly along Fruitville Road, what's planned for that?

Nothing, that's part of Greenway conservation.

So that whole stretch there from Waterford Court is to remain open?

Open space, yes, because it's Greenway.

I have another question. Regarding Housing Objective 1.2, I guess this is for Ms. LaBar. Regarding housing objective 1.2, community housing, incentivized housing, could you, and I understand you're proposing 93 of those units in Area 4, none in 5. Where are those located in Area 4, those 93 units?

Katie LaVar, for the record, the townhome units that are identified in Project Area 4 will most likely be the incentivized community housing. And so it's located, if I can, I'll go back to that.

I know where it's on the west side there.

That's right.

Okay. And those are proposed to be in what? tier of affordable housing?

With the master development order, there was an affordable housing plan that was approved.

Right.

And within that affordable housing plan, it established that the incentivized community housing units would be provided for the 120% AMI threshold.

Or 120 or less.

Or less.

120 or less, right?

Correct.

Okay. Regarding Fruitville widening, you made a statement that you're going to be working in partnership with the county on the widening of Fruitville Road. What does that entail?

The Lakewood Ranch Sewer Chip District has funded the PD&E study for Fruitville Road, and that study is underway.

Right.

And I'll have Mr. Grimes speak a little bit more to that for you.

Yes, just one step a little further in that. As part of our MDO, Master Development Order, there was an obligation for the prepayment of $4 million in impact fees for this project to go towards Fruitvale Road widening. Subsequent to that, we entered into an agreement with the county to utilize that $4 million to pay for the PD&E study and anything not spent on the pd and e study would then be paid towards the county towards the construction costs of fruitville road and so we we entered into that agreement already with the county and that pd e study is underway and who's doing that you know lakewood ranch stewardship district now who's the traffic engineer doing the study it's it's with kimley horn okay

Okay, so that $4 million is committed. So far, you've only paid for the study, right? Yes, sir. But it is committed regardless going forward?

It's absolutely committed in that agreement. It says we'll pay for the PD&E study, and then whatever amounts up to that $4 million that are not spent on the PD&E study would then be paid to the county in furtherance of the construction costs for Fruitvale Road widening.

Okay, that's all I have for now. Thank you. Thank you.

Any additional questions or comments? Commissioner Thackston.

Let's start with staff.

Yes, sir.

Ms. Messina, the applicant referred to a county park and a fire station that we're going to have land donated to the county for that. What about the improvements of the park and the fire station, the construction of them? Is the county or the stewardship district assuming responsibility for construction?

Per the master development order, it's the site that's being conveyed. There's nothing in the order that speaks to actual buildings, but I think the applicant would be better equipped to answer if there is anything in addition to the land itself.

Okay, maybe the applicant help. Ms. LaBar.

Commissioner Thaxton, Katie LaBar, and as Anna correctly stated, in the MDO, there was a commitment to provide the land to the county. The improvements associated with the park and the fire station were not part of that agreement.

Thank you, ma'am.

That's it.

Commissioner LaCivita.

I got one more question about the UDC section 124, number three and four under the PUD modifications. Just curious about the small increment that you're changing from three foot to two and a half feet and from six feet to five feet. This is for the applicant.

Oh, okay. Yeah, because I was going to say, I don't know why they want.

Good evening, I'm Travis Flutterman.

I'm a civil engineer with Stantec. All right, so you're making some very minor changes. I'm curious to why you're making it from two and a half feet property line to three foot, two and a half feet, three foot separation from property line to two and a half foot separation, and then you're going from six feet to five feet separation on screen enclosures. Are you trying to, by reducing it by that one foot, are you gaining that many more houses?

It's a function of the side lot setback that we typically see, which is a six-foot side setback. So if we have a six foot side setback and we take two and a half feet off there, we're left with about four and a half feet. And that's the dimension that we typically need for air conditioning equipment. So without the deviation, we would be positioning air conditioning equipment within the easement. Or you'd be losing units. Losing developable area. Thank you.

Commissioner Fiedler. For the petitioner, I just have to ask, why did you not include that Hamlet area in area number five? Why did you exclude it?

I didn't mean Kyle Grimes again. So one, just to clarify some things earlier, that project was not built or homes there being sold when we went through the VTZ process and the DOCC, but it did have a certain level of approvals for that phase one. And what we recognized at that time is because it had gotten that far along in the process, there wasn't a need to rezone it nothing would have changed with a rezone to it. And so in the DOCC, in the MDO, we had a provision in there that said, hey, we recognize that those 113 units of phase one had gotten to a certain step in the development, so it doesn't need to be rezoned to just go through process for process state. But that MDO did recognize that here are the green belts for the entire Lakewood Ranch Southeast property, including that area. So it kept the 500 foot on the western side and established the 50s on the other areas. So it wasn't a situation where people had already lived in there when we established this new VTZRMA in the DOCC. They just recognized that that area could remain under its current zonings because of where it was in the process at the time.

But it seems to me that the VTZ zone is a way of transitioning from a hamlet to something bigger. And the protections for the hamlet, which were the 500 foot buffers, are now not going to be here because it didn't work out for you. If it's transitional and you've got all of these requirements to transition from a hamlet this increased density, it seems to me that it would be important to keep those transitioning factors in it.

Well, and with the transition, we looked at it from the whole Lakewood Ranch Southeast property, and we just...

I'm only looking at from this one... I understand your point of view, and I appreciate all of the green space and all of the walkable trails, but in this one spot, it's transitionary, and it should have, in my mind, the same requirements to transition from a hamlet to this increased zoning. and they should all be in place.

And we could have, in theory, that could have been rezoned on the exact same development as it is into RSFPUD and it would fit, but it would have been going through process for process sake to rezone it. It already had levels of approval to build that phase one, but we established that here's how the entirety of Lakewood Ranch Southeast property will be developed, including that phase one of lake park estates it was part of the whole master plan we just recognized in the mdo itself that we don't need to rezone those 113 lots because of where they were in the process but it was still part of the same mdo that said here's the master plan for the whole area here are the buffers for the whole lakewood ranch southeast project area and here's the density for the whole lakewood ranch southeast project area which included that phase one of lake park

Well, and here's my concern. I come from a history of the city of Venice. And we did not rezone one area within one of our PUDs because we didn't feel, you know, some of the houses were the PUDs and some of them weren't. And we didn't rezone it because it didn't need to be done. And 10 years later, it's a nightmare getting everybody on the same track in that PUD. So it would seem to me, even though you don't seem it's necessary, I think that from my point of view, you might find it appropriate to rezone it at this time so that it is a whole transition area instead of having VTC, Hamlet, VTC.

I understand, but we did go through that and memorialize that in the approved EOCC, recognizing in the board-approved EOCC that those 113 lots of Phase 1 did not need to go through the rezone process. We established that in those approvals and still recognizing how the entire project would be developed, including that area. And so we've established that through the, it was section 2.3, project areas of the VTZ, stating notwithstanding conditions to the contrary of this India, the first 113 dwelling units, Lake Park Estates may proceed under current approvals and not subject to further rezoning. And so we recognized where that was in the process at that time and indicated that it did not need to go through the rezone process.

All right, Commissioner Franklin.

Can I speak to the civil engineer real quickly? Yeah. So with respect to the two provisions Commissioner LaCivita referenced, the justification is to basically just increase the development of that

Not necessarily. To clarify, the developable area would be the same. It's really about the width of the home. It allows for the width of the home to be a little bit wider to take up more room on the lot to make the actual lot area, or sorry, the building pad area larger on the home site itself.

So the justification is to increase building area rather than any other practical matter?

That's correct. It's just area that's not otherwise developed or used, and it's a deviation that's routinely approved.

Where?

In Sarasota County.

I've never seen it come across this board since I've been on it. It is routinely approved. These two those two in particular adjustment modifications. Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you.

Any additional questions or comments? All right. We're going to move on to public testimony. I first have William Samuels. You come on up here, sir. And I want you to please state your name for the record. And you have five minutes. And the clock's gonna be straight ahead here. And my fellow Commissioner LaCivita is gonna press the start button when you begin. If you have visuals, you can show them on the wolf there right next to you.

I don't.

Here we go.

My name is William Samuels. I'm a 40 year resident of Sarasota County. I did submit a card. I do not have a jacket. So I wore my hat instead, Mr. Thaxton. I would urge the board to deny both petitions. Two reasons that I have on my little cheat sheet here are the loss of stormwater absorption value of that land. That's a thousand acres, less than a mile or so from where Cal Penn slew failed in 2024. We don't know how much that water is gonna affect Cowpens Slough, Gum Slough comes through there. I don't know how much that water comes through there, but we've got a thousand new homes out there. There's going to be an effect. I would urge the stormwater distribution or the stormwater flow to be evaluated before this project is approved. Secondly, the traffic on Fruitville Road, very disturbing here. There's no funding in place for Fruitville Road. We could have 1,000 new homes out there on this parcel. High Hat Ranch is developing 3,000 homes practically across the street. We will overwhelm Fruitville Road. the traffic concerns out there, people are gonna get killed out there. It's a very serious, a lot of high-speed traffic out there, a lot of truck traffic. People will get hurt out there if that road is not widened first. Third, the wildlife corridors have been mentioned a couple times. The green space, I will remind this board Bourneside Boulevard is being constructed right now on land that 20 years ago was under a perpetual conservation easement. It wasn't supposed to happen. A few years ago, the county sold that easement back to the developer. Some would call that a betrayal of the public trust. It was sold under environmentally sensitive lands money in 2004. The voters were told, look what we've saved this land. There was a newspaper article in the Herald Tribune about it. Saved forever. Bourneside Boulevard is being built right now today on that property. So all the promises about green space, all the promises about buffers, we've been betrayed before. I would urge the board to deny both these petitions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Neeraj Thule, you have five minutes. State your name for the record, please.

Madam Chair and Commissioners, my name is Neeraj Thule and I live in the vicinity of this proposed rezone, what they call Lakewood Ranch East and what locals call Old Myakka. I am asking you to oppose rezoning petition RZ 2519 and 2520 because the applicant has not presented competent substantial evidence supporting at least three of the required findings. First, the applicant has not demonstrated a substantial reason the existing zoning cannot be used. The applicant argues that the existing zoning does not fit its preferred Lakewood Ranch development framework and would limit coordinated higher density development. But all that explains is why the developer wants different zoning, not why the property cannot reasonably be used under its existing zoning, which is the hurdle that I feel the applicant must clear. OUE1, OUR, and HPD zoning permits lawful development. The future land use designation establishes a long range planning ceiling, I believe 2050. It does not create an automatic entitlement to the maximum possible density. It is a responsible and sound public policy choice to maintain the present zoning. While transportation, school, and infrastructure constraints remain completely, or at least quite a bit, unresolved. Second, the application does not adequately address the availability of other appropriately zoned sites. Instead of identifying available sites or providing a site inventory, a market analysis, or other supporting evidence, the applicant simply repeats that this rezoning is consistent with the village transition zone and the master development plan. That does not answer the required question. The proposed residential uses are permitted in other residential and planned development districts within Sarasota County. The applicant has not demonstrated that 299 additional homes must be placed on this particular property or that other appropriately zoned land is unavailable. The burden of supplying that evidence belongs to the applicant, not to neighboring residents. Third, the evidence does not support a finding that this rezoning will avoid adverse effects on the neighborhood living conditions or adverse local and countywide impacts. The applicant's own traffic analysis predicts a PM peak hour volume to capacity ratio of 0.96. at University Parkway and Bourneside Boulevard. That leaves only 4% modeled capacity. The study also assumes only 336 non-project peak hour vehicles on the future Bourneside corridor. It uses a 2029 study horizon, and it identifies no existing or near-term transit service. That is not a meaningful margin of safety for traffic cues, emergency access, construction delays, or forecasting error. Offering to pay mobility fees or contribute toward fruitful road improvements does not ensure those improvements will be completed before residents experience the impacts. The applicant requests reduced drainage easements and setbacks before final lot configurations have even been established. That leaves important drainage and neighborhood protection questions for later review, after the rezoning decision has already been made. General statements about buffers, trails, and open space do not overcome these specific deficiencies. Finally, and most importantly, this will materially adversely affect the value of the properties in this rural area. As a realtor, I can tell you the rezoning would also materially erode the rural character of Old Myakka. That character is defined not merely by landscaping, but by low density development, large tracks, agricultural and equestrian uses, open vistas, limited nighttime lighting and noise, and roads that still function as rural roads. Replacing the development pattern contemplated by existing zoning with 299 homes, including 144 townhomes at approximately 2.03 dwelling units per acre, would introduce a fundamentally suburban form of development. Buffers and preserved open space may soften the project's edges a bit, but they cannot eliminate the traffic, the lighting, the noise, the concentrated buildings, stormwater infrastructure, and daily activity generated by development of this intensity. Approval would also contribute to cumulative development pressure extending farther into Old Myakka, making it increasingly difficult to preserve the area's rural identity. This is directly relevant to the required findings concerning neighborhood living conditions and adverse impacts, because once rural character is displaced by suburban development, it cannot realistically ever be restored. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up. Susan Skodal?

Shetley.

Shetley, dang. I even looked it up and wrote it phonetically on the card and I got it wrong. I tried. Shetley. You have five minutes.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Susan Shetley. Think Shetland pony. That makes it a little easier because I'm a horse person. I'm here today as an over 30-year resident of Burn Creek, the rural subdivision around which this transition development is wrapped. We have a lot of concerns about this final rezone as well as the remaining Hamlet portion that's staying there in Lake Park Estates. Overall, I emphatically ask that you consider the incompatibility with the Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.2.17. When 2050 plan was adopted, we were promised that the rural character, rural vistas, quiet, dark skies, all of the characteristics of the rural area would be protected and maintained. And this is not doing that at all. I'm gonna do, just spend a moment on the Hamlet Rezone. So it was ordinance 2014-090. And at that point it was called Lake Park Estates. And what remains of it is what was identified as phase one. So the Hamlet was a maximum 400 dwelling units. Phase one was supposed to be 100 dwelling units. Somehow magically in the process that 100 units for phase one turned into 113 units. And we still haven't figured that out. because we were told that phase one was not going to be rezoned, not that 113 dwelling units were not going to be rezoned. If I could have the overhead. So here's Burn Creek. We've got about 95-99 dwelling units in there. It was planted in the 70s, been there a long time. We accept sheet flow drainage from Lakewood Ranch, southeast lands that are to the north of Verne Creek now. The portion of Lake Park Estates that is remaining as Hamlet is, I believe, this area right here. But again, we don't know how it became 113 units instead of 100. I'm also confused as to how this property is being dealt with in the context of the entire Lakewood Ranch Southeast. Under this document, The Hamlet received two dwelling units transfer density credit for preservation of agriculture. That was long-term hay fields that were in this area. Those hay fields are no longer there. The proprietor of the hay fields has been kicked off that land. So there are a lot of promises that get made that don't get followed through. We also, at the time this was created, Prior to construction plan approval, the conservation easements were supposed to be recorded. That never happened. And in the meantime, there have been modifications to the amount of that conservation land that juts off adjacent to Fruitvale Road to the west. More of it has become open space, which is now being used for certain wastewater treatment facilities instead of being kept as open space. The traffic on Fruitville Road has become very much dangerous levels. There are multiple accidents every week. Sometimes we have accidents every single day. I agree very much with Mr. Tooley's statement that this approval needs to wait until Fruitville Road is made safe. It is not currently safe. My recollection from looking at some of these issues in the comp plan challenge that we unfortunately lost, it will be at least 20 to 25 years before those Fruitvale Road improvements are made unless something very significant has changed. RECS is going to prepay $4 million of impact fees. Those are impact fees that then the board has no discretion how it will use them to address other critical roadway needs in the county. In addition, Florida state law requires that any developer contribution, land, money, planning has to be credited dollar for dollar against the impact fees. So other statements where it has been stated that right-of-way was going to be donated, literally under Florida law, that would be invalid and not supportable. Please deny these two reasons. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Quick question of the speaker, Ms. Shetley. Your former position with Sarasota County Government was what?

For 10 years, I was an assistant county attorney, and I still practice in land use and local government law.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Brad Grambouche. Mr. Granbusch, you have five minutes.

Hello, my name's Brad. Oh, okay, I got it. My name's Brad Granbusch. I signed a speaker's card. I agree with the previous three speakers, and I'm basically going to ask you to deny this request on behalf of the inconsistencies that the planner has said, and also the questions that couldn't be answered by the applicant and by the planner. And I've been... Look, this isn't my job, so I'm not going to use a specialized technical terms of development, but this developer has. Asked for many things. The county has given this developer many things. I followed this for quite a few years and this is supposed to be a transition into old. They moved the line out and they promised many, many things and. My recollection is over the last two years, this density has just doubled. I mean, I'm amazed that at the ask that they're asking now, it seems like it's doubled. There is no transition from urban to rural area. Our quality of living a rural lifestyle is being diminished. We have that right underneath the zoning that we bought into, and these developers have kept pushing that uh line urban boundary line further and further out pretty soon the country will be right out of the county and i'm asking you to deny this now we've already felt the impact of this now i don't know understand the term fiscally neutral but um it cost me time to get into town which is money for me um my fruit tree is just being destroyed by deer i mean instead of having 13 deer in my yard i got 30. That's from the development that's happening. It's just pushing the wildlife out. We're overrun with skunks now. You know, it's just, this is ridiculous. There's a lot of unintended consequences that this developer is not aware of, or not even privy to, and I don't think they have any concerns for this. And, yeah, very bold, very bold ask. And, I tell you, if I was a gambler, I wouldn't trust anything that's happening here. The transfers, the asks, the swaps, this just does not smell right. So I'm just asking you to deny this. All right, thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, Jane Grambush.

First of all, thank you for asking questions today. You know, it is really not a transition zone. It's so urban now. I don't know if you've been out Fruitville Road. It really is a disaster and it is dangerous every day. I mean, between the trucks, the traffic, the school bus, I mean, it's halfway, the traffic's halfway out Fruitville Road. So that has been a huge impact. The master development plan does say have things changed. Yes, things have changed since this was given the okay. And that is that Fruitful Road has gotten so much worse. And there is no wildlife corridor. Thank you for bringing that question up. There is none. Where do they go? Where did the wildlife go? You see them smashed on the side of the road every single day. That's where they go. Why they can't have a 500-foot buffer? They know that matters to us. We don't want to see them. Yet they have put themselves in our neighborhood, and they call themselves, this is Olmiaca. Yet they keep saying, no, it's Lakewood Ranch, Southeast, or whatever they say. I don't know. But that's not what it is. It's Olmiaca, which was founded in 1850. It is Sarasota County's only historical community. If I was to look at this and say, no, Deny this because of the comp plan 1.3.1 that protects scenic corridors. No, it doesn't. Have you been in Monterey? Nothing says country like houses on top of each other that all look kind of the same. And have no native plants, no native, very little native vegetation. I'll say a few palm trees and some oak trees, but mostly exotic plants. So they are not interested in what is there and what we beg them to consider. Then the night skies. What's happening to our night skies? They're lit up like Christmas trees. They have no concern about that. There's no asking people to lower the lights in any kind of way. No, you ride by there, the lights are just lit up. So my reason for this, there's so many, I couldn't even begin to count them. It does sound like entitlement. And it's not just a thousand homes, it's thousands, it's tens of thousands that are coming out there. Because all the developers think they have the right to go from five to 10 acres to less than an acre. And the houses, like I said, if you go into Monterey, you can hear each other if the windows are open, okay? The houses are so close together. So that is the main thing. Oh, this is what I was gonna say. And when we asked the developer, please leave some five and 10 acres for people to have homesteads like in Hidden River or Burn Creek. I feel so bad for Burn Creek. I mean, what this development has done to Burn Creek is should be unlawful. It really should. It should be against the law because they've destroyed what was one of the most beautiful communities by what they want around there without any consideration with what has gone before. And that's the thing that we do have to look at. This is for the future and all these developers coming in and just wanting to keep lowering the zoning is really hurtful, and it's harmful for the future. So does it preserve the neighborhood character? What would you say? No, it does not. This doesn't look like a rural area. by any stretch of the imagination. It just looks like Lakewood Ranch is moving to Verna Road and they've done a takeover. That's what I call it, a complete takeover. So, oh, and then we haven't even begun to talk about the ponds, okay? And all the treated sewage water that's gonna be going into all the properties out east of Sarasota, which was rural land. And that was our storm water, which was a natural storm water, the open lands, the open vistas. That's what we ask you to preserve, to look at as you make your decisions. We don't need another community out there right now. Let them finish what they're doing. Why do they have to keep coming back for more and more and more? So I ask you to please deny these two. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Next up is Becky Ayesh. who phonetically did write it on her card for me. I greatly appreciate that. Thank you. You have five minutes. Thank you.

Good evening commissioners, Becky Ayesh representing the Myakka Community Club. Hopefully you all received my emails that I sent to you along with all of my exhibits so that you would be able to clearly see what I'm talking about so that you would support the stipulations that we recommended. So I just wanna talk buffers. If the houses are built up here, and the buffers are down here, you're gonna see the houses. I showed you pictures. If you're driving up a road like this, when all the other roads are even down here, you're gonna see the houses. So I showed you pictures of the roads going to the sky. I showed you pictures of the houses up in the air. I showed you pictures of what the rest of us look like and how we are even with the roads. I even included a picture of a brand new home that's being built across from me and it's not up in the air and it's two stories. And it's not up on a hill and it's on a septic tank. So we want to stop these hill developments, all right? We want them to be compatible, which, you know, compatibility, they don't meet. So I gave you stipulations to help them meet. Compatibility, I just want to say very quickly, I've been involved in COMP Plan Amendment or the Comprehensive Plan since it was first incepted. That doesn't sound right. The whole time, compatibility, compatibility with neighborhoods, compatibility with the environment, compatibility with public facilities, that has always been the primary goal. And this, these, the way they're building them are not compatible, which again is why I gave you the stipulations that I did. We talked about streetlights. I gave you pictures of what it really looks like in the country. And then I gave you pictures of what Monterey has done to destroy, destroy our night sky. I gave you pictures of the sign at the Founders Club, which I asked for before, which says treated sewer water. I think they said reuse water. We've asked for signs all along. Remember, this is supposed to be open space, people, traverse, but they're not telling people they can't swim in it, they're not telling people that they can't boat in it, as they did at the Founders Club, so I gave you a copy of that sign so you know what I was talking about. Let's see. Now, the thing that, oh, there's another thing. Very short, native vegetation. I've been raising sheep for 44 years. I've had three lambs die within the last two years from poisoning. Poisoning from some sort of vegetation that has made its way onto my property via bird, via squirrel, via something. And since I have five acres, it's going to be very hard for me to ferret out what that one particular plant may be. but that's just my sheep. Now maybe cows and maybe horses are not as sensitive as sheep are, but I do take exception to the fact that no one is standing up to pay me money for those animals that got killed because poisonous plants were transported to my property. I also ask that this be designated as one acre sites because if you look at the publication that was sent out, it says one acre. So if it says one acre, it should be one acre. Now I sent you a lot of stuff about lining the ponds and if you would turn on the wolf, I would appreciate it. This picture that I'm showing you is Flatford Swamp. I took this picture from a helicopter of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. I turned this in when I was driving down the road and saw it. Do you see how terrible that looks? It makes me cry. We bought that land to preserve that hardwood swamp. And lateral seepage, lateral seepage, which is what happens from the unlined lakes that I sent you all the information about, killed it because it made it wet when it should be dry. And they have to dry out. There's a hydro period that exists there now, and leaking lakes ain't part of it. Now, they didn't want us to have septic tanks, but they're bringing out gallons and gallons. And I sent you another document that showed you how many million gallons of treated water is sent throughout Sarasota County in what's called lakes. Very fast, we have... The putrid forest, that's what happened in the park. Lateral seepage killed 101 acres there. And we also have Crowley sues over dead trees. So of all the things that I'm asking you, the biggest one is that these lakes have to be lined if they're going to have treated sewer water in them. We don't want it. And it's going to flow out. And it's going to do all the things that I said that it's going to do because I didn't say it. I took it from published documents that count as a legal document.

All right. That's your time. Thank you. All right. Do I have any additional cards? Okay. That's it for public testimony. Do we have any further questions for the agent or staff or my fellow commissioners?

Go for it, Bruce. Ms. LaVar? Just to clarify, one of the speakers talked about a tenant who was raising hay was kicked off the property. Is that true or not?

All right, here I am. Katie LaVar with Stantec. I understand from the clients that that statement is not true, that nobody was kicked off of any land.

Was a lease terminated that was an ag operation?

There was no lease, as I understand it.

Thank you.

Any additional questions for the agent or staff? Okay, seeing none, time for your rebuttal. Yep, you have five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioners, again, Kyle Grimes, attorney with Grimes Calvino. So I just want to start, I want to stress that this is not a new, out of the nowhere proposed project. This is something that has been, you know, here at the county several times and has gone through a significant process to get us where we are today. First, as we have discussed, we went through and did an amendment to your comprehensive plan to establish the VTZRMA. And as some of the public comment indicated, that was challenged through the administrative process and ultimately to the DCA. And we worked with county, with your staff, on defending that suit against that implementation of the VTZ RMA. And as part of that challenge, all of the things, a lot of things that we've heard today, the compatibility, the greenbelt buffers, all of those aspects were part of that challenge and we worked with the county in defending that. And the VTZ amendment was ultimately upheld of not being incompatible with these surrounding areas, that it was in compliance with your comprehensive plan. So those are things that have worked with the county in defending this project in the past. And with the approval of that VTZRMA, we entered into the master development order that got into more of the details on how this entire project was going to be developed. And that included the significant investment in infrastructure of our client of the applicant to put a lot of this infrastructure in place in reliance of that DOCC that says this is how this project is going to be developed, these are the greenbelt areas, these are the project areas, these are the densities. And when we look at the things like Bournside Boulevard, like Fruitville Road, Fruitville Road in particular, that came up a lot during that initial comprehensive plan policy amendment process. And it was something that failed in the background. And so we recognized it with the comp plan, with the MDO, that we would utilize this project to help advance the improvements to Fruitville Road. And that's why there was the commitment for $4 million prepayment of impact fees for Fruitville Road and subsequently working with the county on utilizing that for the PD&E study to again, help advance the timing of Fruitville Road to the extent this project could assist. we've also our client has invested like we said in bornside boulevard of building that up front again in reliance of the docc that this project would be developed the way outlined in there and with regards to the 500 foot buffer again Just to emphasize, we established the buffers for this entire project with the VTZ RMA, and more specifically in the master development order with the Lakewood Ranch Southeast Master Plan. So we established these are the buffers for the entirety of the property. Again, that was part of the challenge under the comp plan, which was ultimately upheld through the court system. With the question on some of the modifications, I just want to emphasize those are ones that we did utilize in the other project areas that have already been rezoned within Lakewood Ranch Southeast. So yes, it is something that the county sees often with these PUD zonings. Again, the big emphasis was the compatibility with the surrounding area. And I can't emphasize enough that that was an extraordinary part of that challenge where we established the VTZL RMA and how this project would be developed. And we worked with your county attorney's office with you to defend that this is a compatible with the area and it is an appropriate development for this site. So again, we... are now at the rezone stage, the final rezone stage for this project of these two. And What we need to look at is, is this in compliance with the master development order that we have approved? Is it in compliance with your comprehensive plan, specifically the VTZ RMA? And as Katie indicated in her presentation, we do meet all of those requirements of the VTZ, of the comprehensive plan, and are in compliance with our master development order that set out how this project would be developed. So with that, we respectfully request your recommendation of approval. Thank you.

Thank you very much. With that, I will close the public hearing and entertain a discussion or a vote regarding agenda item number three. Commissioner Thaxton.

I'll go first. With all due respect to the petitioner's counsel, There's no way that this is consistent with VTC policies. I call to your attention page 22 of the staff report, specifically VTC policy number 4.4, where staff recites the necessity of fiscal neutrality for this project. But for some reason, I don't know the reason, staff didn't give us the whole policy. They only gave us half of the policy. If you go to page 270, I think it's 270, 207 of the report, you will get the other half of the policy, the policy that this petitioner agreed to when they settled this lawsuit with the county. or with the neighborhoods. And the second part that wasn't included, except on page 207, says that the intent of fiscal neutrality is that the cost of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built to provide for the village transition zone shall be funded by properties within the village transition zone. We've heard testimony, we have testimony today for four, infrastructure projects where that's not the case. Number one, Fruitville Road. We've heard a lot of talk of Fruitville Road. Presently, on Sarasota County's infrastructure surtax, The county is contributing $13.233 million for those improvements that should be the responsibility of the Village, Open Space, Hamlet, and VTZ property owners, or the people that live in those developments. Number two, if you look at the transportation plan analysis in the back of this, you will see a complete reliance upon the extension of Lorraine Road South. We need more than one way for these people to get out. Here, the county's infrastructure surtax is contributing $24.28 million. Again, clearly two instances where it's not being funded as the ordinance requires, and they agreed to, by properties within the village transition zone. And we also heard testimony today that the applicant is going to give the county property for a county park, and a fire station, but they're not assuming responsibility as it's required in the ordinance and village transition policy for the construction of those facilities. So there's just no way that we can find this consistent as we are required to do with the comprehensive plan unless we revise the comprehensive plan and remove that shall be funded internally, revise the county ordinance 124 or the county unified development code that says that these developments must be funded by the owners of the approved development or owners within the properties of the approved development or we take the infrastructure sure task list and remove these projects from that list and require the developer to pay all the costs as they agree to in their settlement agreement as was agreed to when the village transition zone was Was adopted I don't see what universe with the evidence and testimony presented today that we can say that this excuse me, that this petition, these two petitions are going to have 100% of their infrastructure cost funded by the properties within the village transition zone when we have expert, competent testimony that says otherwise.

Tough act to follow. Yeah, that's a discussion.

No, I agree. You know, we've kicked that can down so many times. We continue building on roads and infrastructures that do not support the development. And we just throw our hands up and say, we can't do it. We do not have to approve rezoning. We absolutely don't. There is nothing here that mandates that we have to approve property rezoning. And I think that we need to say that the developer, if he wants to add additional houses on congested roads, that they have some skin in the game. And the skin in the game can't just be impact fees, because that's required by law. And as we all know, impact fees can be moved around at the discretion of commissioners. So even though the law says impact fees have to be used at the site of development, That doesn't always occur. I think that, and I believe that, we don't have to rezone anything. And I think that it's come time, the can has been kicked down that road enough that we are indeed, when I read what LSF, LSSF, and LOSF and LOSE mean, It's congested roads, it's roads that have breached capacity, it's dangerous roads. There are accidents on these roads. And I think that it's time that we draw a line and say infrastructure has to be improved first before development. And I think that if the developer wants to develop, he has to pay for the development roads. And so I have to agree with Commissioner Thaxton.

Commissioner LaCivita.

Thank you. I, too, I just want to make one more comment. I agree with everything I've heard up here tonight so far. I appreciate the speakers. I also, too, was when I first opened up the agenda before I downloaded these thousands of pages, when I read, what did it say? It said... one unit per acre. I was like, oh, wow, this is great. And then I started looking at it and I was like, it's not the way it's worded to me. I too scratched my head when I read it. I was excited for it. I thought that'd be great for out there because it's like old Myakka. And then I open up the plans and I see what's actually being built out there or being proposed. And I just wanna make that comment too. I was disappointed from reading the agenda to actually seeing the documents.

Madam Chair, thank you for the recognition. I too agree with my fellow commissioners and remember voting against the comprehensive plan when it came through originally for all the reasons given tonight and this evening and mostly in regard to the incompatibility in my belief with the character of the area. I'll keep my comments brief because I don't want to repeat what's already been said, but thank you all for your comments and the respectful dialogue.

Do I have a motion? Commissioner Thaxton.

Madam Chairman, based upon the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing, I recommend denial of a reasonable petition 2520 and 2519 with the following findings and facts. The proposed change would not be consistent with the intent, goals, objectives, policies, guiding principles, and programs of the comprehensive plan. The proposed change would not be compatible with existing land use patterns, future land use. The proposed change would have an impact on the availability of public facilities consistent with the level of service standards and the comprehensive plan as designed and implemented through Sarasota County concurrency management system regulations, et cetera, et cetera. The existing district boundaries are logically drawn in relation to existing conditions of the property proposed for the change. The proposed change will adversely influence limping conditions in the neighborhood. There are not substantial reasons why the property cannot be used according with existing zoning and it is not impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use and the district already permitted for such use. And number nine, the gradual and orderly growth contemplated in the comprehensive plan cannot be best accommodated through the approval of a land use which is less intensive and the proposed change would create adverse impact on adjacent areas or the county in general. Second.

To your first.

No, again, Houston, we have a problem. We have a capital improvements infrastructure schedule that completely violates so many policies in the comprehensive plan. It violates the county's own code. It even violates the county's code that governs the infrastructure surtax, which says it cannot be used for new development and can only be used to cure existing deficiencies. These are not existing deficiencies. I don't envy the County Commission on these decisions. They're very, very difficult decisions. They're going to be hard to make because there have been commitments that have been made. There's decisions that have been made. And those decisions were made with the evidence and the standing of the codes that I talked about in place at the time that many of them were made. It's a pickle. But our job is to read the code and recommendations on what the code says, and then leave it up to the County Commission to sort it all out.

To your second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just two quick notes. I always struggled with the name including the words transition zone because of the, I thought the extreme irony of the fact that it wasn't transitioning anything with its high density. And second is a person with 2020 eyesight and a clean driving record. I truly feel trapped driving down Fruitville Road heading east. It's a terrible feeling I have any time I head out that way, feeling like one wreck, one traffic, you're trapped. And the people out there are nice, so maybe they'd take me in. But if I lived out there, I would have to have every type of livestock and vegetable growing, because I would never want to drive into town due to the just horrendous conditions and shape that Fruitville Road is in. I mean, I'm not afraid to drive anywhere, but Fruitville Road, it truly is awful, and I'm not happy for those people that live out there to have to deal with that. So thank you, and I agree with Commissioner Thaxton.

All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion for denial say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed? Chair votes aye. Motion passes eight to zero. Moving on to the next item, the agenda item number four, special exception number 1922, Lakewood Ranch Southeast Telecommunications Tower. This is a public hearing to consider proposed special exception number 1922 to allow the use of an alternative telecommunications tower over 35 feet in height within the RSF2 PUD zone district with a modification to go from a maximum of 85 feet to 125 feet for property located west of future Bornside Boulevard, Sarasota, within the Lakewood Ranch Southeast, DOCC. Our presenters this evening are Anna Messina, planner with Sarasota County Planning and Development Services, and Katie LaBar, Agent Stantec, Ms. Messina.

Thank you, Commissioner, again for the record. My name is Anna Messina with Planning and Development Services, and I have submitted a speaker's card for this item. Like with the previous item, before I start, we want to enter also into the record that we received some additional correspondence for this specific item in addition to what was already in the staff report. Copies have been provided to the commissioners and to the clerk of record for record. The applicant, Samara Schwartz, LLC, represented by Ms. Katie LaVar from Stantec as their agent, requests a special exception to allow the use of a telecommunications tower over 35 feet in height within the RSF-2 zone district with a modification to that maximum height for residential zones. The tower is proposed to be 125 feet high and located within the Lakewood Ranch southeast development of critical concern. Just for reference, the map shows the overall Lakewood Ranch southeast dock area and the location of the subject petition along with the timeline for the petition up to today's scheduled public hearing. The agent will first provide a presentation on behalf of the applicant, afterwards we will return and then we can answer any questions you may have.

Again, Kyle Grimes, attorney with Grimes Galvano, and I have signed a speaker card. I'm going to turn it over to Hannah to do our presentation, but I just wanted to... We recognize that this commission's vote to not recommend approval of the zoning and that this salt tire is still subject on the property being rezoned, but because both of these applications will still be going to the Board of County Commissioners, I just wanted to recognize that we do understand this is subject to that being approved by the Board. With that, I'll turn to Hannah. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. For the record, my name is Hannah Sawinski. I am a planner with Stantec, and I have submitted a speaker's card. Today, I'm here to present on Lakewood Ranch Southeast Telecommunications Tower Special Exception. We are requesting an alternative telecommunications tower within the RSF2 PUD Zone District, an axis of 85 feet to a maximum height of 125 feet. We have several subject matter experts with us tonight. They are available to answer any questions. This map illustrates the location of the proposed telecommunications tower site within the Lakewood Ranch southeast boundary, which is situated adjacent to Bornside Boulevard and centrally located within Lakewood Ranch southeast. Lakewood Ranch Southeast is a master plan community established through the adoption of two ordinances. Ordinance number 2022-044, which amended the comprehensive plan to create the village transition zone and ordinance number 2022-064, which adopted the master development order for Lakewood Ranch Southeast. Both ordinances expressly contemplated telecommunication towers within the community. Specifically, VTZ Policy 3.1 permits telecommunication towers within the VTZ open space, while Exhibit B, Section 1 of the MDO contains similar provisions allowing such facilities. Telecommunication towers were envisioned as part of Lakewood Ranch Southeast. planning framework from the outset. Constructing the tower at this stage is a proactive approach that provides essential communications infrastructure before homes are built and occupied, rather than addressing coverage needs after residents have moved in. Similar to roads and utilities, telecommunications facilities are critical infrastructure that should be delivered in advance of the development. There are numerous public benefits with the proposed tower. The tower is strategically and centrally located within the master plan community, where 3,799 residential units have already been approved within project areas one, two, three, six, and seven. In addition, project areas four and five, which you just heard, would bring the unit count up to 5,000 if approved. within Lakewood Ranch Southeast. This tower is a service for the future residents of Lakewood Ranch. The tower will also serve an approved fire station site located within project area three and a planned 40 acre community park located within project areas six and seven. as shown on this slide. Reliable communications are imperative for the fire station to support emergency response operations, coordination among first responders, and public safety throughout the surrounding area. The proposed telecommunications tower is located within the RSF2 zone district. In the RSF2 zone district, telecommunication towers are permitted by right up to 35 feet in height without a special exception. Towers exceeding 35 feet and up to 85 feet require approval of a special exception. For towers greater than 85 feet in height, a modification to section 11835A is required. As such, we are requesting a modification to permit a tower with a maximum height of 125 feet. The proposed tower complies with all applicable county code requirements. Some examples include that the parcel the tower is located on is greater than two acres, is located more than 100 feet from any current or future residential structure. This map also shows the proposed tower is not located within 3,500 feet of any existing telecommunications tower. The closest tower to our proposed site is approximately 3.2 miles away. Special exceptions require a binding development concept plan. This slide shows page one of the proposed binding DCP. The proposed tower site is located west of Bornside Boulevard and can be accessed by a 20 foot wide access road. As shown, the tower is confined to a 100 by 100 foot easement area. The special exception applies only to this easement area and the tower location is binding. Any relocation of the tower would require approval of a new special exception. These two exhibits are also included in the binding development concept plan. The exhibit in the center illustrates the proposed landscaping for the tower site, which complies with all county landscaping requirements. The exhibit on the right depicts the proposed 125 foot alternative monopole tower design. To help minimize visual impacts, the tower will be painted a beige-gray color that matches existing light poles in the area. The tower is designated to accommodate up to four co-locations, exceeding the county code requirement of two co-locations. We'd also like to note that we have two out of three national carriers already interested in the site. To help orient the commission, this slide provides a broader view of the site adjacent to Bornside Boulevard. This graphic provided by Verizon illustrates existing wireless coverage conditions within Lakewood Ranch Southeast. Areas shown in red indicate locations with unreliable service, highlighting the coverage gap the proposed telecommunications tower is intended to address. The need for improved coverage is expected to become even more critical as approximately 5,000 additional residential units are developed within this master plan community. This graphic illustrates the projected improvements in wireless coverage with the proposed telecommunication tower in place. Areas that currently experience unreliable service are expected to receive enhanced coverage, helping to close the existing coverage gaps within Lakewood Ranch Southeast. Similar to the previous two slides that I had, the next two slides are similar in the fact that it shows the existing and proposed condition of the telecommunications tower. So as you can see on the slide, this is the existing condition, and this would be the proposed condition showing the extra coverage that the cell tower would provide. The policies shown here are a few that represent the project's consistency with the comprehensive plan, and the full list of policies are provided in the application materials. We did hold a neighborhood workshop on October 6, 2025, with 15 individuals in attendance. We were granted our neighborhood workshop waiver request, and we are here today. To briefly address comments received regarding the tower's location, some correspondents suggested that the proposed telecommunications tower is within Old Myakka. However, as you can see on this map, Lakewood Ranch Southeast is not located within Old Myakka Community Focus Area. Additionally, the Myakka Neighborhood Plan is an aspirational document and is not incorporated into the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan or county code as such. It is not enforceable and not applicable to this request. In conclusion, the tower is a service for current and future residents of Lakewood Ranch Southeast. The tower is leading with infrastructure first by providing it upfront. The proposed development is consistent with FCC regulations, including regulations on RF emissions. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan, the master development order for Lakewood Ranch Southeast, and the unified development code. With that, we respectfully request your recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Ms. Messina with the staff report.

Thank you, Chair, again. For the record, Anna Messina with Sarasota County. Petition number 1922 requests a special exception to install a 125 foot high telecommunications tower within a residential zone parcel within the Lakewood Ranch Southeast development of critical concern identified by the blue outline of this map. As explained with the item previously presented, the Lakewood Ranch Southeast Dock Master Development Order was adopted in 2022 for a residential development of up to 5,000 units, consistent with the also adopted VTZ RMA policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Both ordinances allow for the use of telecommunication tower as provided for in Chapter 118 of the County Code of Ordinances. Per the county code, all telecommunication towers are required to comply with the requirements noted in Chapter 118, which beyond regulating in which zones these are permitted, prohibited, or in need of a special exception, this also includes specific performance standards and application requirements. As noted by Section 118.35, a special exception, approval would be required for towers in all residential zones. For context, a special exception is a use that would generally not be appropriate in a specific zone district, but that could be approved if an applicant can demonstrate that the use would promote public interest, health, safety, or general welfare. The applicant proposes to install the tower within a 10,000 square foot portion of a larger parcel that is designated mainly for open space as part of the overall master plan development for the Lakewood Ranch Southeast properties. The site is currently partially zoned as OUR, but is concurrently processing a request to rezone to the RSF2 slash PUD. There are no other existing towers located within a one mile radius of the subject site, and as part of the Lakewood Ranch Southeast Master Plan, the tower site will mostly be surrounded by future residential development and additional open space areas along the north, west, and south side boundaries. Adjacent properties to the east which are not part of the Lakewood Ranch southeast dock and mostly comprised of rural residential and agricultural uses will be separated from the site by the future extension of the Bourneside Boulevard. Consistent with Chapter 118, all towers proposed in residential zones need to be designed as an alternative tower, which is meant to conceal or camouflage the look of the tower from public view. Therefore, the applicant will provide a flush mount antenna design painted in similar colors of utility poles or street lamps that could potentially look like the image on this slide. As for all special exceptions, this petition requires a binding development concept plan, which includes an overall site plan of the subject parcel to show that the tower will provide separations of no less than 750 feet from the nearest residential structures. Additionally, the binding DCP includes a specific tower site location showing its access easement and elevation of the tower, noting the proposed 125 feet height. For reference, the north side is directed to the right on this tower site plan. The applicant requests a modification to go from an 85 feet to a 125 feet maximum height standard for towers within the residential zone. Per Chapter 118, additional standards need to be demonstrated to justify the request, which include promoting co-locating antennas, locating the tower on parcels greater than two acres, maintaining setbacks of no less than the proposed tower height. Staff has no issues with the request since the applicant has provided sufficient information to meet the additional standards that also include not exceeding the 125 feet height. To assist in the findings of fact included within the staff report, we conduct a consistency analysis of the comprehensive plans, goals, objectives, and policies. This Analysis shows that the petition can be found consistent with several future land use 2050 RMA and economic policies that refer to allowance of communication infrastructure, compliance with development regulations, and utilizing design techniques to mitigate potential incompatibilities. The analysis can also show that the petition may be found inconsistent with Flu Policy 1217, considering that the surrounding future residential development is limited to a 35 feet height, and the landscape and fencing provided for visibility screening is mainly at ground level. There are three recommended stipulations that reference the compliance with the Binding Development Concept Plan, compliance with the Master Development Plan, and the Water Quality Monitoring Program. There's one motion for this petition, which is to consider special exception 1922 to allow use of an alternative telecommunications tower over 35 feet in height within a residential zone with one requested modification and three stipulations. Staff is available for questions.

Any questions for the petitioner or staff at this time? Commissioner Thaxton.

Ms. Messina, can you bring up any one of the aerial photographs that show the property boundary?

the whole Lakewood Ranch or the site?

No, no, no. There's another one that's better, but that should work. That should work. Go up to the, there you go. Okay. See directly east of the property, east of Burnside Road? Yes. Is that property owned by the petitioner?

It's not part of the doc, no.

It's not? No. So it's owned by somebody completely different? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Manager.

Is that centrally located then? In your opinion, is that centrally located?

The tower, you mean? Well, I mean, it's got...

Isn't it on the edge of the property?

Yes, it's on the edge of part of Project Area 5. Project Area 3 extends a little further to the east, I guess.

Any additional questions or comments at this time?

I do.

Commissioner.

For the applicant, please. Hi, on that graphic you showed showing the reliable service and the unreliable service area, what's the technical definition of reliable and unreliable with respect to telecommunications service?

I'm gonna ask, we have some representatives from the operator that can get into the technical aspects. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi. Tom Zarofsky. I'm representing Milestone Towers. I'm an RF expert.

Have you signed a speaker's card?

I did not.

Okay. After you're done, if you head to the back of the room, sign it, and then drop it off at the clerk, that'd be great.

Okay. Sorry about that.

It's okay.

The definition for reliable versus unreliable, you know, it's kind of... it's a kind of more of a general term for, you know, reliable coverage is covers that, you know, you, you can satisfy reasonable data speeds and have reliable phone calls within your house, your car traveling versus unreliable is like, you know, your, your conversations cut out your, your, you know, your data sessions buffer in your house. So, um, you know, they have a, you know, propagation models and, uh, They're set at the attenuation for inside versus outside coverage, concrete structures versus wood structures. But the unreliable service would be outdoor coverage basically, where your reliable service would be service that works inside your house, inside your car, traveling, basically anywhere you would typically use your phone.

Okay, thank you, that's good for now.

Okay.

Thank you.

I got a question for you. Yeah. What's the smallest cell tower you sell?

Well, some areas are using small cells for smaller areas due to the larger area of the development. You can locate small cells on poles that are 20, 30, 40 feet tall, but the coverage footprint of them is smaller and then therefore you need multiple ones to accomplish the goal of 100, 125 foot tower. And then you don't have the benefit of co-location as well. You have T-Mobile coming in, Verizon coming in, AT&T coming in, and they're all using different poles, telephone poles and stuff versus everybody on this 125 foot tower.

I think, correct me if I'm wrong, 125 foot tower. Okay. Is the fall zone, did I see on the binding development concept plan, the fall zones within 30 feet of the tower base? 125.

I'm not an expert in this.

30 feet. I think I've asked this question several times before. I just am curious what the answer is this time.

They're made to fall on themselves. There's a weak point when they're designed, engineered, they fold over on each other.

And I think this is relevant because of the fact that the property located to the east of the DOCC is not... within the DOCC, so please educate us.

Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Azi Reyes-Chica representing Mosson Towers. I did not sign a form, so we'll do that afterwards. The towers are designed, engineer, to have a full zone that is essentially less than the height of the tower. So in this case, 30 feet would be normally what we would do here. So it sends their engineer to collapse on themselves.

Just out of curiosity, how often does that occur?

We haven't had instances of that happening.

Ever?

We have not, no.

Excellent. All right. Any additional questions or comments for the petitioner or staff?

Has it ever occurred in the industry?

I have seen situations where the top snapped off. So, you know, under like the latest example that I can think of was in North Carolina with Haleen happening. It happened on a tower in the city of Asheville.

And it scissored down?

Yeah, just the top, very top snapped off. Not, it didn't, like the tower didn't collapse. It was just the top that snapped.

Thank you.

Sure.

Any additional questions or comments? All right, let's move on to public testimony. Naresh, did I say that right this time? Mr. Tooley.

Near the fridge. Nearage.

Nearage, okay. Phonetics are great.

Yeah. First of all, I'm sorry that you have to sit through more public testimony at this hour. My name is Neera Chuli. We've met before. I'm a licensed realtor with over 25 years of experience. This testimony will sound familiar. I'm also a resident of the community near the proposed cell tower. I'm here to ask the Commission to vote against the application for this special exception. I work from home every day in this area. I have great cell phone service and I don't need this tower. Our community also has no need for this tower. As you've heard many times from community member testimony at several previous special exception hearings for cell towers in this area, the members of this community do not have a cell phone coverage problem. We've filled the room with that type of testimony before. Now, as a realtor, I assert both professionally and personally that approving this exception will cause direct, measurable, and irreversible harm to me and to the residents who live near the site. I have walked these properties, I know these neighbors, and I have helped families move into this community because they wanted what this area uniquely offers, open space, rural character, history, and a deep connection to the land. A 125-foot steel cell tower does not fit that bill. Some facts about the impact on value. According to the National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy, 94% of homebuyers say they are less interested and would pay less for a home located near a cell tower. And nearly 80% say they would refuse to buy at all near one. These aren't abstract numbers. They represent a dramatic reduction in property desirability and real value for the people living near this proposed site. As a realtor and property manager, I can tell you from direct experience, buyers walk away the moment that they see a tower. I've seen properties sit unsold for months, sometimes years, because of visual blight from nearby utility infrastructure. Studies cited in Realtor Magazine and testimony to the FCC by certified appraiser David Burgone consistently show drops of up to 20% in value when cell towers are present. Approving this tower would instantly damage local equity, eroding the largest investment most residents will ever make in their lives. Buyers in this area are relying on zoning that they bought into to protect their property's value. Beyond the financial harm, there are serious concerns about aesthetics, safety, and precedent. Old Myakka is not just another suburb, it's a historic rural enclave, a rare one, bordered by iconic conservation lands like Myakka State Park and the Great Florida Birding Trail. This is sacred ground, not a staging area for modern telecom infrastructure. A structure of this size would be visible from every direction. It would loom over homes, roads, places of worship. It would dominate views that have remained unchanged for generations. This tower is not a neutral addition, it's a jarring disruption. Finally, let's just talk about zoning integrity. The land in question, I believe, is designated OUE1. That zoning exists to protect exactly the kind of low-density rural character Old Myakka embodies. Special exceptions are not meant to serve developer convenience. They're meant to serve the public interest. I respectfully urge you to reject this application, not just for the people of Old Myakka, but for every resident of Sarasota County who still believes that zoning means something, that history matters, and that a community's voice deserves to be heard. Please do not allow this industrial tower to be built in the heart of one of Sarasota County's last remaining and most treasured rural areas. If this tower is allowed to rise, it will not just cast a shadow on the land, it will cast a shadow on the values we look to you as our leaders and stewards of our county to defend. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Yes, sir. Sir, could I ask you a question? Yes. When you refer to this community, what specifically are you referring to? Old Myakka. Okay. And you live in Old Myakka? I do. Okay. And you say you don't have any problem with reception? I don't. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Susan Shetley. And Mr. Graham Bush, you're on deck.

Thank you again, Commissioners. Susan Shetley, and I ask that you deny this special exception. As Mr. Neeraj said, special exception should only be granted in the instance where It will promote the public interest, health, safety, and general welfare. As we've told you all before, our cell service is fine. what I believe is happening based on what one of the representatives of the cell company said when we were in a neighborhood workshop. The existing cell towers in the urbanized areas are getting overwhelmed. They want to offload that onto us. We are not the ones creating the demand. We are not the ones asking for this. And the damage to our rural quality of life and our rural vistas and quietness and safety of our neighborhoods is is threatened by this special exception um i appreciate the fact that some one of you raised the idea that is this is this centrally located because i when she said that i looked at the map and i went that doesn't look central to me it might be central north to south but it's certainly not central east to west so i think that was a a telling point that they they don't want it in the middle of their development either and they've shoved it to the edge of their property and it butts up against rural lands. One other slight correction, the Old Myakka neighborhood plan, Old Myakka actually goes all the way to Lorain Road and there's a sign erected by the county that actually if you're headed east on Fruitville, declares that that's the edge of Old Myakka. What I believe Miss Swinsky was actually referring to, and she did say it in her verbal, but not in her text on her slide. Within that plan, there was a community focus area, which was a much smaller area that was looking at very specific issues such as. should there be any commercial, should there be anything else, the rest of the area, the same policies and findings and wishes of the community were the same for the entire area. So Old Myakka, if you can imagine how large it is, in the rural area, I live on 10 acres, I've got five acres, and in another area, Our VISTAs and our sense of who our neighbor is encompasses large areas, and that's just what part of being in the rural area means. Also in the rural area, noise travels because we don't have a lot of buildings and a lot of things that would otherwise block and buffer the sound. So however many carriers are there, they're each gonna have a generator. They're gonna wanna run that generator at least once a week. That adds up, that sound would permeate through that entire area. I'm guessing I would probably hear it at my house in Burn Creek, because Burn Creek is just on the other side of that narrow, narrow strip of the, did I forget which planning area it was? The applicant has not presented any competent substantial evidence supporting that this would enhance public safety, that it's needed for anything other than their development. If it will help and serve their development, then they should locate it and manage it in an area where it does not impact our rural areas. So with that, I ask that you please deny this special exception. And as Commissioner Thaxton had me clarify earlier, I was an assistant county attorney with Sarasota County for about 10 years, and I'm still a practicing land use and local government law attorney. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Ms. Granbouche? Who has listed her organization as an educator.

Jane Granbush and I did sign the speaker's card. You know, this is, again, here we are back for the cell towers. We're asking you to please deny the cell towers. We don't need cell towers. I'm on the phone all the time. I got rid of my landline years ago. I live on 10 acres. I walk around Olmiaca talking on my cell phone all the time. So we do not need these cell phones, these cell towers. They are an interruption. They destroy really the vista of which we love the open space. So I could go on and on. I don't need to keep repeating what people have said. I do want to say this old Myakka neighborhood plan, 50 pages. We created this 20 years ago with the county. It took us three years to do this plan. This is not aspirational, okay? This was something that was deeply thought of with lots of everybody in our community was packed when we were looking at what did we want, what didn't we want, etc. In this plan, it states very clearly that the old Myakka boundaries are simple yet expansive and include potential interested parties in the creation of the plan. So it goes from the north and east of Manatee County to the south by Myakka Valley Ranches and Myakka River State Park to the west to Dog Kennel Road. The greater community spans approximately 57 square miles or 36,590 acres and lies in the large Myakka River Watershed. It's very clear. You want to know who old Myakka is? Read this plan. This was beautifully done. My husband and I got the grant for this. It was a lot of money, like 40,000, I mean a lot of money. This was 20 years ago. So this was something that was well thought out. And that's why it's so important to us to protect this community. So please deny this cell tower. We don't need it. Nobody needs it. We have MIACA technology. And it is weird that they put that cell tower right on the edge of their property. I'm sorry. You want this, go put it on your, nobody wants to look at that. Can you imagine? I'm gonna buy a house so I can look at a cell tower. Nobody's gonna do that. It's a disgrace, thank you.

Thank you very much. And last but certainly not least, Becky Ayesh.

Thank you, and commissioners, before I begin, thank you for your vote, denying the reasons that they wanted, and I just want to share this with you. I am the chair of the Sarasota County Traffic Advisory Committee, and so I do know a lot about traffic, and at the east end of Fruitvale Road every day, we start with over 7,000 cars on a two-lane rural road, and it would have only gotten worse, so thank you. So yes, I signed a card. Becky Ayash, I'm here representing the Myakka Community Club. I did send you all emails asking you to deny this and I gave you several reasons why you should deny this. So I want to just add a couple things to what I sent you, although I do want to talk to you a moment about controlled number. Now if you look out on the on the map that I have up here. No, I didn't bring my big one, because last time I could hardly carry it. I bought a little one, all right? First of all, the yellow boundary dotted line, that is Old Myakka. That, the county set those boundaries. We went to court. We won. The county didn't contest it. Lakewood Ranch didn't contest it. Everybody agrees that those are the boundaries, and we have signs that were alluded to before. In fact, we have them by Commissioner Mayo's house. Secondly, a reference was given about our plan, our community plan. Thank you. One time then, Commissioner John Thaxton, he was the one that told the county under the 2050... adventure that we needed to do a plan for Old Myakka and that all development within Old Myakka should be held up to that plan. I still have that email. It was written to Jane Grog at the time and it is still in my possession. Thank you, Commissioner Thaxton. These are going to be obsolete. I already see commercials on television and I rarely watch television about satellite phones and I can ride a camel and get reception. So, you know, there is no reason that we have to keep sticking tires up, limited in number. On my map, you'll see four red dots, okay? This red dot is the one that... Thank you. Zoom out.

How do I do that?

That's what you wanted?

Well, the way I was reading it when looking at that. Anyway, we know that land satellite is out there. We see it advertised. On this map, you'll see four red dots. One has been X'd out. That was the cell tower that y'all denied at the church and the Board of County Commissioners denied. This red dot is one at Lena Lane. That's the one you all so wisely denied. It's waiting to go in front of the Board of County Commissioners. This red dot is the one that you so wisely denied over on Fruitvale Road. It is waiting to go in front of the county commissioners. And this red dot is the one that you are going to so wisely deny tonight. And then it'll wait to see if it goes in front of the county commissioners. So they're not limited, OK? They're knocking at our door constantly. But we don't want it. And testimony has showed that. Now, the other thing I want to talk about is they say this is futuristic. So it's not for us. And how do they know that the people that are going to be building in this development want to look at an ugly cell tar? It would seem to me that before you tied their hands and said, you have to look at this ugly cell tar, you'd wait till the people were actually there. And I, again, submit by that time, we're all going to be using satellite phones. The general location to the neighborhood, again in the map, it's in Myakka. I don't care what they say, I don't care how they think, this is what the county says and they're the ones that made the rules about where the boundary is and it's always been that way. It doesn't promote our health, safety and welfare because none of us have ever gotten up and said, I need this to promote my health, safety and welfare. We've never had any testimony to that point. Now, how they look. They say, well, it's going to look like the poles that are out there. Well, no, it's not. Our poles are creosote. They're creosote telephone poles. And I don't know how they're going to make a metal pole look like a creosote telephone pole. That is beyond me. Now, you ask about falling. Okay, so it falls over. But how far does it fly? I don't care where it falls. Stop, it's not funny, y'all laughing at my accent. I don't care how, when a hurricane comes and it falls over and it's debris on the road, it will fly just like the branches of my trees did, just like my trees did. So the fall zone is not as important as how far the distance the debris could go. And then who's gonna clean up that debris? Because we had a heck of a time getting the county to help us pick up our debris. The other thing is sound. DeSoto Speedway on 64, which now has a new name, I can hear when they're racing their cars. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much.

All right. Public testimony. I didn't miss anybody's cards. Excellent. Any further questions for the agent or staff at this time? Last chance. Okay, final comments and rebuttal by the applicant. You have five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioners, again, Kyle Grimes, attorney with Grimes Galvano, and I have signed a speaker's card. So I want to address, initially, the rezoning aspect. Again, we recognize the position this board has taken about the rezoning aspect and understanding that this request is conditioned upon that rezone being approved by the board. So I would like to look at it in that light. What we're trying to do with this is implement what the comprehensive plan says for this property and what the DOCC says, that it always envisioned having a telecommunications tower within this property. Because we recognize the need for this enhanced service out in this area, wireless service has become an essential service. We all rely on our cell phones in everyday life. And what we want to do is get ahead of that for this development and for the surrounding area and put it internal to the project now upfront, like they're doing with the roadway infrastructure for Borenside, like they're doing with utilities to build that upfront ahead of people coming in and living in that neighborhood. And so, What we want to do is build that now and before the homes get there and start providing additional strains on the existing towers and to expand the network in the area. We've heard a lot about this property being within the old Myakka neighborhood. And again, I want to stress this is something that was brought up significantly during the litigation on the VTZ Comprehensive Plan Amendment. which just a point of clarification there that was not subject to any settlement that was something we defended with the county uh and it was upheld uh in during that process so i just wanted to clarify that from a statement earlier that it was not subject to a settlement But in that case, we argued with the county that the old MIACA plan was not applicable to this property. And I want to read a piece from the final order in that administrative challenge that the purpose of the old MIACA plan was inspirational and expressed what the citizens of old MIACA wanted. Do once and the do not once for the future. The old MIACA plan is not part of any comprehensive plan or county code of ordinances. Nothing in the old MIACA Neighborhood Plan addressed the VTZ site specifically, nor did it identify the VTC site for acquisition and preservation. These are things that we went through extensively during that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Policy that established the development of this site, which again included allowance of telecommunication towers. So I just want to emphasize that this is something that we have gone through On multiple occasions, and with the county and defending, um, and again, we were looking to provide this infrastructure upfront within the property. Um, there was a question about the adjacent site, uh, on the east side of the map. Um, that is property owned by a. uh family that are interested parties in this development um that the the schwartz family so i just wanted to recognize that as far as the the fall down radius and the proximity to bornside we looked at is about 300 feet from the tower to bornside boulevard so significantly over the tower height not to mention the fall down radius that that was discussed earlier because these towers are designed uh in the unlikely event of failure to collapse in on themselves so Even notwithstanding that fact, it is well over the tower height away from Burnside Boulevard. So again, I hope you can look at this request in light of the rezoning being in place and understand the need for enhanced service in this area, relieve strain on existing towers and expand the coverage area. Not for this, just this project, but for the surrounding area, for emergency service that will serve this area. and we respectfully request your recommendation of approval. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing and start with some discussion or a vote. I have a comment to add before we begin. I think one thing that Unfortunately, the petitioner wasn't here at our last meeting over a month ago where I'm feeling a sense of deja vu here with the monopole towers. But I don't disagree with the fact that if this rezone, if the other rezone was approved, it would have definitely impacted the surrounding capacity of the towers. You know, I have friends that live in Oak Ford, and I know that they have asked me about, is this cell tower going to be applicable to them? You know, in the oak ford neighborhood over there, so they were wondering if it was going to impact them in such a way if the rezone was approved. So I think if the reason was approved, it would have impacted the existing service out. Near Mr Mayo's house, um, I just find it interesting and. You know, I feel as though if the petition were as proactive on the exterior infrastructure for the previous petition to this petition, that may have changed things maybe in the discussion for this board on the previous petition. Roads, expanding Fruitville Road, as much as they're motivated to put the cell tower there. I appreciate the proactive nature of the petitioner to put what the county is requesting in their existing development there. So that's my two sets of comments. Does anyone have anything else to add?

I do. Commissioner Fiedler. I found it interesting that they said that they could do a 35-foot tower. There would be more of them, but they said they could do a 35-foot tower. And I'm not opposed to towers. I do think they will become obsolete in the real near future. Um, but, uh, for now, um, according, they can have a couple of 35 foot towers and I don't care if they've got a Verizon, if they've got a T-Mobile, it's just a matter of coverage. I don't think it has to be 135 feet. And I think it could couple of 35 foot towers would satisfy this area entirely. So I don't think they need a special exception.

Commissioner Mayo.

I haven't spoke very much this meeting. I know it's surprising. Um, but, uh, I, I understand what these, this is as Becky advised us a few minutes ago, this is another tower coming to old Myakka. And we understand that old Myakka doesn't feel the need for it. Um, whether it's everybody in that community or just a slight few in that community, um, the biggest part of it is it's again being put up against a property boundary of a project. And every time that happens, it obviously has a trickle-down effect of where else it's going to impact visually, in the case of a storm, materially. So I laugh when I look at that. I know another commissioner already mentioned that. Why is the tower in the dead center of the project off of Bourneside? Because you guys are never going to want it there. Nobody's going to want a tower right next to a house that they want a future sale on. So it's a tough one. I think the solution to this, since these keep coming before us over and over again, is the cell phone companies or the cell phone manufacturers need to look into an option of smaller towers, more locations. know you drive around downtown sarasota i know old maca isn't downtown sarasota but these subdivisions that are keep getting requested look a lot like a urban area and you see the 5g towers all over the place if that's the solution maybe that's a better solution before keep bringing monopole towers before us because they're more than likely going to keep getting rejected so that's my two cents for the night

Do I have a motion?

I'm ready to make a motion.

Commissioner Franklin.

I move that the Planning Commission deny special exception petition number 1922, Lakewood Ranch Southeast Telecommunications Tower.

Second. To your first, Commissioner Franklin.

Well, I think it's been pointed out Since I've been here, this has been the fourth tower to come in this immediate area. And in my recollection, we've recommended denial for all of them. And I understand a couple of them are still yet to go before the County Commission. But the thing that never ceases to amaze me is that we never have anybody up here that says, this is great because I can't get cell phone reception. I don't think I at least got a clear understanding of what reliable versus unreliable is, and I didn't hear anybody get up here and say, I live here and I have unreliable service. In an instance like this, that's sort of expert testimony, if you will. I also was surprised the minute I read this was centrally located and looked at the map and I wondered centrally located in terms of what? Because it's certainly not centrally located in terms of this plan. So that's my reasoning. And also the other thing is since we did recommend denial of the rezoning petition, it's my view that this would be premature.

To your second. I agree. All those in favor of the motion for denial, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. Chair votes aye. Motion passes eight to zero. I will now close the public hearing portion of our meeting and open the discussion section. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting dated July 16th, 2026? So moved. Second. Motion by Fiedler, second by Thaxton. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Chair votes aye. Motion passes eight to zero. Commission reports. Commissioner Mayo.

I am just very excited to see on the meeting schedule that's in front of us. I've been staring at it all night. It says one apex road right here. I was quite excited to see that. It's been advertised. That is my commission report in case nobody else saw it. I'm reporting that the September 17th meeting is at Apex Road.

Commissioner Fiedler. I have nothing. Thank you. Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an announcement for all of the cell phone tower-looking people out there. Please, two blocks in this direction at the corner of Jack Ran and Sayward 776. I drop calls there every single day. If we can please get a tower anywhere near that that doesn't inter... interfere with other people's livelihoods and lives, I would love that. That would be the best thing ever. Thank you so much.

Commissioner LaCivita?

Yeah, Commissioner LaCivita has a few things to say. First, I am not a developer, for the record. I'll make myself clear again, John LaCivita is not a developer, and I watched this plan come through, and I look at the sloppiness of the civil engineering that went into this, and I know they're only being directed by the developer to make these developments the way they are. And I think if they put a little more effort into thinking about our sustainability, our community, and our land, and our nature, these plans could be so much nicer. The older neighborhoods in Sarasota are that way. It'd be nice if Old Pontiac would become that way, like the old neighborhoods used to be. And I agree that with Commissioner, the lower cell towers would be much more pleasant in this neighborhood for sure. Thank you. And I'm not a developer.

Commissioner Franklin.

I'm good, thank you.

Commissioner Thackston. Commissioner Miller? I have one point of comment that I would just like to discuss with my fellow commissioners. You know, I remember when the DOCC came forth before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Taylor, how long ago was that DOCC? Had to be almost three years now, four? 22. 22. Okay. So I think it would be helpful, perhaps, not that I want additional thousands of pages to refresh my memory to read, but I think for the newer commissioners, maybe perhaps if there's a way to link back to maybe the succession of events, because I think, Ms. Messina, you did a great job of saying, here's the calendar of what has happened to date, but I think it would be nice for us to see the DOCC that came through, the rezones previously that came through. Because if they were looking at something like this, where it's a whole development, a master development order, it's nice to know the other things that have come through. Or in the case of a monopole tower, if there's, this one's stretching it a little bit, but something that's going to show the history of something. And sometimes I see it noted in the staff report where it says this was denied on 8th or approved on 8-22, that petition, that commission meeting. But then I've got to go down and dig for that commission meeting just to refresh my memory on what it is. I don't know if that's helpful for anybody else, but I think it would be helpful to include maybe the history, whether or not anybody decides to read the history or wants to do the history. I just think it would be helpful. That's why we have him. I know, he's our historian.

I refrain from history this time. I mean, I could tell you some stories about the Hamlets, but I'm not gonna go there. But with the history that I'd like to see, and you can go online and I do tell this history, is the history from the comprehensive plan policy that said there will be no urban development under any circumstances east of I-75 ever.

Yeah.

That's where I start.

Imagine find that document. And if we could just see that, you know, other than the comprehensive plan. Yes. All right. And then please note the meeting schedule for the next meetings in Venice. And the meeting following is in North County. And with that, the meeting is adjourned at seven fifty nine and thirty eight seconds. Thank you.