Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the September 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Sarasota County Planning Commission. There are six planning commissioners present, which is a quorum. There are three commissioners absent this evening, which are Emily Legler, John LaCivita, and Randy Boyd. In attendance this evening, we have commissioners Mayo, Fiedler, Thaxton, Franklin, Miller, and myself, Justin Taylor. This evening, 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. 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 please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, 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 which 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 Services staff. After the presentations, the commissioners will have the ability to ask questions of the presenters, both staff and the petitioner. I would kindly request commissioners save their questions until after both presentations are provided. After presentations and questions, we will 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 a sign or request to speak card, which is located at 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 with a copy of the September 3rd, 2026 public comments. If you submitted comments in writing via planner at scgov.net or via U.S. mail, a copy of your comments has been submitted into the record. It's very important to note this evening that during these hearings we may hear the expression of contrary viewpoints. This is to be expected and is a fundamental part of the public hearing process. It is essential that each speaker be given the opportunity to speak without any 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 that everyone in attendance to please turn off your cell phones or place your ringtone on silent or vibrate. I will now start the planning commission meeting with agenda item one, open to the public. This time period is reserved for persons desiring to comment before the planning commission on items not scheduled for public hearing this evening. Any person speaking before the commission should state their name, and that they have signed and completed a speaker's card, which are available in this room. In order to comment during open to the public, we allocate three minutes per speaker for open to the public topics. Do we have any cards? Seeing none, we will move on and right into agenda item number two, which is rezone petition 2607, Mango and Green GU Rezone. A public hearing to consider a proposed rezone petition to change the zone district for approximately 1.04 acres, located at 101 South Mango Street and 0 West Green Street, Inglewood, from RSF 4 to GU. Our presenters this evening are David Brown, Planner with Sarasota County Planning and Development Services, and Marcie Castaneda, Agent, Inglewood CRA Manager with Planning and Development Services. David, the floor is yours.

All right. Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, David Brown, Planning and Development Services, and I have signed a speaker's card. Tonight, we are here to discuss the Mango and Green Street GU Rezone Project, which consists of Rezone Petition No. 26-07. The applicant is proposing to rezone two parcels from RSF-4, a residential single-family zone district, to the GU, a government-used zone district. The project is located at 101 South Mango Street and 0 West Green Street on two parcels of approximately 1.04 acres in total. The applicant for the project is Marcy Castaneda of Sarasota County Government. The project began the application process in May of 2026. Former reviews were conducted in July of 2027 or 2026 and today's a scheduled Planning Commission hearing. At this point I would like to bring up Marcy Castaneda for the applicant's presentation and I'll return after the applicant's presentation for further information from staff.

Good evening. For the record, my name is Marcy Castaneda, Englewood CRA Manager with Planning and Development Services. Sarasota County Englewood CRA is requesting to rezone these two parcels from residential single-family. to GU government use. The purpose of the rezoning is due to county government ownership of the property and there is no specific use established at this time. These are some examples of permitted and limited uses of the GU rezone category. And I'm here for any questions.

Thank you for the presentation. Are there any questions for the petitioner or staff? Commissioner Thaxton?

It just, for me, begs the question, somebody has to have some idea about what we're going to do with this.

We have not received policy guidance from the Board of County Commissioners at this time.

Commissioner Franklin?

This is really actually hard for me to understand. I mean, I understand the county owns it. Let's own it to GU. What's not permitted in GU?

I do not know the specifics of that right now.

Would you like us, Commissioner Franklin, would you like us to maybe go back through what is allowed?

Well, I mean, it's sort of a rhetorical question, but if I'm in the neighborhood, Um, and your base, this county is telling me we don't know, but one day we're gonna. And once it's zoned you, there is no public, no further public input. You're right to site and development plan and construction plan review, right?

So There won't be any residential because it's government use zoning. I'll go back to our slide. This gives you an idea of more or less what we allow. If it's not here, you're probably not going to see it because all these uses are designed for a government to use.

Is there a specific use that you're curious about? Pick one. How about a recycling staging facility?

Well, you're also talking about a 1.02 acre parcel. Yeah. So when you read the GU standards, it states that it has to be consistent with the size of the property and the surrounding areas, which will be part of my presentation as well.

I get it. Okay.

Any other questions at this time? Okay. No further questions at this time. I don't have any cards for public testimony. Any submitted? Okay, seeing no cards, I'll ask, I don't see any questions still. Any rebuttal? Can we have staff's report? Sure, thank you. Commissioner Mayo?

Just can we have staff, does staff have further report?

I do, I still have a presentation.

I apologize for skipping that portion. I was hoping there would be more.

All right. Good evening, commissioners. Again, for the record, David Brown and I have signed a speaker's card. As was previously mentioned, this is a one-part application consisting of a rezone petition to change the zoning designation from RSF4 zoning district to GU zoning district for the two parcels containing 1.04 acres. The rezone would ensure that the property zoning classification aligns with public ownership uses, or public ownership and the uses allowed with that. The subject site is located within the Englewood Town Center Revitalization Plan, a critical area plan adopted in 1995 and updated in 2018, which is intended to revitalize the commercial core of Englewood The site is designated as residential and office mix within the Critical Area Plan. As part of this application, the Critical Area Plan map will be updated to reflect government ownership. As seen in this picture, the site is surrounded by commercial zoning to the north, or north and east, with residential zoning to the south. The property adjacent to the west is zoned GU and is a publicly owned parcel. The single family residence shown in this picture has been removed. As established in section 124-77 of the Unified Development Code, the GU Zone District is intended for government-owned lands used for governmental activities. It allows a variety of uses with different levels of intensity, but development should be appropriate for the proposed use and consider impacts on surrounding properties. This slide illustrates the proposed zoning change for the subject properties. The request would change the zoning designation to government use, which aligns with the public ownership. The proposed GU zoning would establish a zoning classification that reflects the county's ownership and intended public use of the properties. To assist you in your findings of fact in your staff report, staff has compiled a list of comprehensive plan policies that the Mango and Green Street GE rezoned petition may be found consistent with regarding future land use compatibility, location within the service area, and promoting enhancement of public infrastructure. As part of the review, staff has found two policies that may be found inconsistent, that being 1.2.6 regarding possible intensification of use within Hurricane Evacuation A Zone, as well as 1.2.17 in regards to potential incompatibility with the neighboring residential uses, depending on what use is established. As there is no proposed stipulations, this slide contains suggested motion. Thank you. I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you. We're going to work back through what was missed. Are there any questions at this time for the petitioner or staff?

Yeah.

Okay. Commissioner Franklin?

I apologize. I thought that Ms. Castaneda's was the presentation. That's why I asked the question. If nobody in the neighborhood is concerned, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. When you say for the intended public use, there's really no intended public use at this point, correct? Correct. Okay. All right. That's all I got.

I think we have a celebrity appearance from... Todd Derry, Manager Planning Development Services. I will sign the speaker card. So as said in the presentation, the county purchased this property in support of that revitalization plan to again, support those endeavors for redevelopment. There has been discussion. They haven't come down on any particular use. As you can see from the aerial, there's a parking lot next door. A parking lot is one of those uses contemplated, but staff needs more input from the county on how to use that property in support of the revitalization plan.

Thank you.

Any other questions? And I take it still no cards for public testimony. Any further questions for staff? Would you like any rebuttal, additional comments?

No, thank you.

Maybe a nice poem to leave us with? I'm the freshman team. Varsity's not here, JV's not here. Thank you. At this point, I will close the public hearing and entertain discussion or a vote regarding ReZone petition 2607 Mango and Green Street GU ReZone. Commissioner Thaxton.

Chairman, based on the evidence and testimony sent at the public hearing, I move approval of ReZone petition number 2607. Second.

Okay, we have a motion for approval from Commissioner Thaxton with a second from Commissioner Mayo. Commissioner Thaxton to your motion.

Yeah, I mean, we always rezone these parcels to you. I mean, that is how it's been done for decades. But there's usually some indication about what we might do with it so that groups like ourselves and neighborhood groups can kind of assess compatibility and other things that we're required to do from the comprehensive plan. So we really can't do that, but there's... Conversely, no grounds that I can see for denial. So there we go. We approve.

Commissioner Mayo to your second.

I agree with Commissioner Thackston and all the attorneys and planners in this room. You do not get off that easy for your next applications.

and a threat from Commissioner Mayo. At this time, I will take a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes, Chair Pro Tem votes aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

And I would consider Commissioner Mayo's comments an admonishment rather than a threat.

I rescind my comment. Moving on to agenda item number three, the next item, critical area plan amendment, CAP 0101 SP 2026, rezone petition 2604, youth investments of Inglewood, a public hearing to consider a privately initiated Critical area plan amendment to amend the State Road 776 corridor plan by allowing multifamily residential development up to nine units per acre as part of a mixed-use development for approximately 0.95 acres and to rezone petition to change the zone district of approximately 0.95 acres located at 25 New Jersey Avenue and 870 South McCall Road, Englewood from CN to RMF and RMF2 to CN. Our presenters this evening are Jonah Mazzone with Planning Development Services and Jim Collins, agent with the Boone Law Firm. Jonah, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Jonah Mazzone, planner with Sarasota County Planning and Development Services, and I have signed a speaker's card. Tonight, we are discussing the Youth Investments of Englewood Project, which is a two-part application that consists of critical area plan amendment number 01-01-SP-2026 and rezone petition number 26-04. There has been one additional letter of correspondence submitted since the time of publication, copies of which have been provided to you and the clerk. This project is located west of South Indiana Avenue, south of New Jersey Avenue, and north of West Riverview Avenue. The subject site is also located along the Sarasota County line, which shares a border with Charlotte County to the south across West Riverview Avenue. This project is being represented by Jeff Boone and Jim Collins of Boone Law Firm. As was previously mentioned, the applicant is requesting a critical area plan amendment to the State Road 776 quarter plan to allow for multifamily residential use up to nine units an acre as part of a mixed-use development and a rezone to change the zone district of the site from commercial neighborhood and residential multifamily to commercial neighborhood. This slide shows the timeline of the proposed project. It began the process on June 5th, 2025. After they held the Neighbor Workshop in February of this year, the formal application was submitted in April. Both sufficiency and formal reviews were concluded in June, and today is the scheduled Planning Commission public hearing. At this time, Jeff Boone and Jim Collins will now come up and provide the applicant's presentation. Afterwards, I will return to give staff's presentation and address any questions you may have.

Thank you. At this time, we have Jeff Boone from the Boone Law Firm. We will start the clock. When you're ready, you'll have 20 minutes for your presentation if you'd state your name for the record and that you signed a speaker's card.

And I'm gonna, I need the overhead, please. good good afternoon or good evening i guess it's still afternoon good afternoon commissioners for the record jeffrey boone of the boone law firm here in venice representing the property owner who is also the applicant we have two applications before you today a rezoning and a comp critical area plan amendment the property I have a map here of it. There we go. Thank you. So the property is outlined in red. This is Indiana Avenue. Actually, let me flip it around because I had north to the bottom. So anyway, this is Indiana Avenue or State Road 776. This is where South McCall Road hooks in. The current property does have current access to 776. This is New Jersey Avenue, and this is Riverview Avenue. And this is Charlotte County. There's a big marina down here across Riverview Avenue. This is literally the county line right here. I gave Mr. Thaxton a warning that I was going to talk about how old he is and myself too. So I'm very familiar with this area of Inglewood. When I was a student at Venice High School back in the mid-70s, The kids who lived in the Sarasota County part of Englewood went to Venice High School because there was no high school in Englewood. And my girlfriend, all three years of high school, 10, 11, and 12th grade, lived just north of here in Englewood. So I probably put 20,000 miles on my first car driving back and forth to Englewood and spent a lot of time there. There's been a lot of changes in this area since then, but there are other places that haven't changed. And this particular piece of property happens to be one that hasn't changed.

And that Knights Avenue, that's named after the cousin of my great-great-grandfather, too. There you go.

And they're in the cemetery, so you probably have relatives buried in that cemetery. There you go. So the property as it exists today and has for quite a while, it has split zoning. The black line obviously is the property. You have something similar to this in your packet. This is 776 here. The red is CN zoning, commercial neighborhood. There we go. Most of this property is already zoned CN. In fact, the vast majority of it is. These two corners here are zoned RMF2. And our rezoning proposal is to rezone these two parcels to commercial neighborhood to CN to make the entire property a commercial neighborhood. The property from a use perspective... has both CN uses and multifamily uses. Most of the structures on this property were built in 1950. And even the one that looks a little more modern than that may have been remodeled. And according to the staff report, all the structures were there since 1950. But there are a couple of office or retail buildings. The rest on here are all multifamily. the uh... And so what we're, again, trying to do is, by the zoning perspective, just to make the entire property, bring it into conformity with the 75-year-old, 76-year-old use of the property. We're also proposing an amendment to the critical area plan, which is the State Road 776 corridor plan. The purpose of that is to allow multifamily uses for this property, or in other words, to recognize the 76-year-old use of the property. That amendment will make the multifamily units conforming or put another way will cure their present non-conforming use status. It should also be noted that by rezoning the property to by rezoning the RMF two portions of the property to see in that will make all of the property consistent with the critical area plan. or the State Road 776 corridor plan, which designates this property as commercial corridor. And as you all know, the critical area plan designation is in effect the future land use designation under the comp plan. This property is also in the Englewood Town Center revitalization plan. and is in the Englewood Area Sector Plan and staff has confirmed that the two applications we have are consistent with those two plans. There is a stipulation that reflects that and we are a proposed stipulation and we are agreeable to that stipulation. As your staff report indicates, there are no traffic impacts caused by the approval of the two applications. The applications are consistent with several elements of the comprehensive plan. Here are, those are the future land use elements and we have the housing chapter element as well as the economic development chapter element. The one thing to make sure you all are aware of is the property owner originally proposed a rezoning of this property to commercial intensive, to CI, mainly because of the marina that's literally, and that's one of the bigger marinas in Englewood, it's right across the street from this property. But... At the neighborhood workshop, it was clear that the neighbors felt like that was too intensive for this property. And so after the neighborhood workshop and then some discussions, the property owners here are a father and a daughter. The daughter lives on site. uh and after discussions that she had with some of the neighbors they decided that the property owners decided that indeed the ci was too intensive so they decided to change the rezoning request from ci to cn which again really 80 or so of the property is already zoned cn so it was really it went from rezoning the entire property to just a couple small portions of it Commissioners, this is, in our view, a straightforward request. We're proposing to bring the two small portions of the overall property into the same zoning as the larger portion of the property, which will make the entire property consistent with the comp plan future land use designation for the property as commercial corridor. And we are also doing that in order to make the existing non-conforming use of multifamily to make the use conforming. And again, we're amending the critical area plan to make multifamily use permit allowable on this property, but only for this property. It's not a State Road 776 corridor plan wide plan. Commissioners, both of the applications are consistent with the comprehensive plan, including the critical area plan. They're consistent with the UDC. They're consistent with the two Englewood specific plans. Once you have the staff presentation and consideration of everything else that's before you in the file, there's more than adequate competent substantial evidence in the record to support approval of the applications. And we would respectfully request your recommendation of approval for both applications. and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now we will move on to the staff report.

Good evening, Commissioners. Again, Jonah Mazzone with Planning and Development Services. So as was stated, this is a two-part application of a critical area plan amendment to the State Road 7076 corridor plan and a rezone from commercial neighborhood and residential multifamily 2 to commercial neighborhood. The subject site is approximately 0.95 acres in size with about 0.78 acres currently zoned CN and the remaining 0.17 acres currently zoned RMF 2. The existing uses currently on site contain multifamily residential structures and some office buildings. So because the multifamily residential uses are within those CN portions of the site, they are currently non-conforming uses as CN only permits multifamily residential uses for a site that resides in a critical area plan that allows for it as part of a mixed-use development. So because of this, the request is to rezone those RMF2 portions and unify the entire site to CN. as well as a cap amendment to allow for the multifamily residential use up to nine units an acre to be permitted as part of a mixed-use development. It is important to note that per UDC section 124-76, the development concept plan is not required for a rezone to CN. Therefore, the applicant has chosen not to submit one for this project. The subject site, which is indicated by the black hatched area on the screen, is designated commercial corridor and shown in red with black stripes on the future land use map. As stated in volume two of the comprehensive plan, commercial corridor is generally implemented in areas of the county recognized for historic commercial zoning along arterial roadways. The site is located along South Indiana Avenue or State Road 76, which is an arterial roadway. So the flu designation of the site will not change. The proposed CN Zone District is an implementing zone district in Commercial Corridor outlined in Flu Policy 1.3.9 of the Comprehensive Plan. The first part of this petition is the critical area plan amendment. The subject site is located within three critical area plans shown on the screen. Because the subject site does not have a future land use designation within the Englewood Sector Plan and the Englewood Town Center Plan, amendments to these caps are not required for this application. subject site is designated commercial corridor within the state road 776 corridor plan which matches the fluid designation on the comprehensive plan's future land use map the requested cap amendment will only apply to the state road 776 corridor plan for this application So as was previously mentioned, the subject site does contain multifamily residential structures that are currently non-conforming uses. So to bring these uses into conformance with current code regulations, as well as to allow them to be permitted within the C and zone district, the applicant requests a cap amendment to the State Road 776 corridor plan to allow for that multifamily residential uses as part of a mixed use development for the site. The amendment will be notated on the CAPFLU map with a text box outlining the proposed request and a yellow star showing that it only applies to the subject site. The CAPFLU designation of commercial corridor will not change and staff has no objection to this proposed CAP amendment. The second part is the rezone. So the subject site is currently split between two zoning districts. 0.78 acres is CN and the remaining 0.17 acres is RMF2. They're also surrounded by other RMF2 zone properties to the north and west, other CN zone properties to the south and CG zone properties to the east across State Road 776. The proposed rezone would unify the entire 0.95 acre site within the CN zone district. For more context, this slide shows the existing land uses of the site and neighboring properties. The subject site contains a mix of multifamily residential, commercial, and office uses with an existing max density of six units an acre. If this rezone is approved, the site will have a maximum allowable density of nine units an acre. So to the north and west are some single family uses. To the south and east are a variety of office and commercial uses. And further east are more single family residential uses. And as stated to the south is the marina which resides in Charlotte County. So a little bit of history on this site and how the current zoning and uses exist today. So it was first planted in 1925 and in 1950, the multifamily structures, the office and the retail were constructed on the site and they still exist today. The subject site at this time was initially zoned RMF2 and it remained that way until an old rezone petition that was approved in 1976 rezoned most of the site to CN. So with this approved rezone, 0.78 acres of the site became CN and the other 0.17 acres remained RMF2, leaving the existing multifamily structures as nonconforming uses within the CN zone district. These pictures show the existing uses currently on site with the office and commercial structures closer to State Road 776 and the multifamily structures closer to the rear of the site adjacent to other existing residential uses. They also show the two existing access points to and from the site. Both have ingress and egress with one located along State Road 776 and the other located along South McCall Road. It is important to note that any future redevelopment would need site development approval and we need to comply with the CN zone district standards and all development conditions within the State Road 776 corridor plan. Since no DCP is proposed, any redevelopment must comply with the proposed CN Zone District Standards, especially the setback and buffer requirements. This slide shows these requirements specific to the subject site. Any new structures would be required to be set back 20 feet and 8 feet from their respective property lines. Additionally, landscape buffers of 6 feet and 10 feet with 0.1 opacity, as well as a landscape buffer of 15 feet with 0.4 opacity, would apply to their respective boundary lines shown on the screen. Landscape buffers are not required for the southern and eastern property lines adjacent to the CN zone properties. Again, since no DCP is proposed, staff analyzed all potential uses that could be proposed and would be feasible for the site if future redevelopment were to occur. This chart shows the potential land uses permitted in RMF 2, CN, and both of the zone districts. It is important to note that any of these uses within the CN and both columns would be permitted if the proposed rezone is approved and any redevelopment were to occur. Any permitted use would also need site development approval and we need to comply with the standards and all development conditions within the State Road 776 corridor plan. Another important thing to note is that this rezone application may have potential implications under the Live Local Act per the Florida statutes. If this rezone to CN is approved, the subject site may allow for potential redevelopment up to 13 units an acre. With the provision of affordable housing, it would not need to go to a public hearing. However, 0.78 acres of the 0.95 acre site is already zoned CN. To assist you with the findings of fact found within your staff report, staff has compiled a list of policies that need to be consistent with the comprehensive plans, goals, objectives, and policies. Based on this, the rezone may be found consistent with several policies relating to gradual ordered growth, future land uses, mixed uses along multimodal corridors, appropriate standards for mixed use development, and retaining small and local businesses. Staff has also reviewed and found that it may be consistent with Flu Policy 2.5.4, which states that development within the commercial corridor should be subject to a case-by-case examination to determine appropriateness and compatibility with the neighboring properties. Additionally, staff's analysis to identify that this rezone may be found inconsistent with flu policy 1.2.17, which relates to the mitigation of potential incompatibilities between land uses. As it relates to this petition, the proposed request, if approved, increases the CN zone district of the site and extends further to the west adjacent to the existing residential uses. As part of this application, staff has recommended the one stipulation ensuring consistency and compliance with all conditions of development approval within the three critical area plans. And with that, there are two motions on the side for your consideration. Staff is available for any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner or staff? Seeing none, I have some cards for public testimony, so I'll move on to those. Up first, we have Jim Latooski, followed by Patricia Weghorst. Sir, you'll have five minutes. If you'd please state your name for the record and that you've signed a speaker's card, we will start the clock once you are ready.

Jimmy Latooski, resident of Englewood. I have signed the card. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jimmy Lutowski. As I stated, I am a resident here in Englewood. I'm here tonight to ask you to take a very careful look at this proposed critical area plan amendment and rezone petition 2604 involving 25 New Jersey Avenue and 870 South McCall Road, Englewood. I understand that this is a relatively small parcel, less than one acre, and that the request involves allowing multifamily residential development of up to nine units per acre as part of the mixed use development. but I believe the issue before you tonight is bigger than the size of this particular property. What concerns me is the request to change the SR776 corridor plan itself to accommodate multifamily residential development. A corridor plan is supposed to provide predictability for residents, property owners, developers. When we change that plan to accommodate an individual development proposal, we need to ask whether we are making a decision that makes sense for all the entire corridor, not just for this one property. I would ask the Commissioner several questions. First, what demonstrates the need requires the corridor plan to be changed for this property? Second, what will be the impact on the traffic and access, particularly along McCall Road and the surrounding local streets? Third, on a site of less than one acre, how will the applicant adequately address parking, stormwater, drainage, landscaping, and buffering, while also accommodating commercial and residential uses? And finally, perhaps most importantly, what precedent does this amendment establish? If we amend the corridor plan today to permit multifamily residential development at this location, what prevents similar requests from coming forward on other parcels along SR776, the corridor? They stated it's just for this particular, but you know as well as I, other developers will come and use this particular change in their favor I'm not suggesting that Englewood should never have additional housing or responsible development. I am asking that the development occur under a plan that was established for the community as a whole, and the changes to the plan be justified by demonstrated public need, not simply because a particular property would benefit from that change. Before approving this amendment, I believe the Commission should have clear answers regarding traffic, infrastructure, stormwater, compatibility with surrounding properties, and the long-term consequence for the SR776 corridor. If those questions cannot be answered convincingly, I respectfully ask you to deny the request quarter plan amendment and rezone petition 2604, or at the minimum continue the matter until those impacts can be fully evaluated. Please don't look at this as simply a decision concerning less than one acre. Look at this decision about what kind of development pattern we want to establish for the entire SR776 corridor and for the Englewoods future. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you. At this time, I'll call Patricia Weghorst to the front. You'll have five minutes if you please stay.

My name is Patricia Weghorst and I live on 25 New Jersey Avenue, I mean 40 New Jersey, which is right across from her. And I oppose this because just the community ourselves, we're working... diligently to get the rest of our houses rebuilt from the hurricane and because New Jersey and Knights Lane are private roads, we're responsible for it and it concerns me with the traffic with them coming in. I know she's been talking about putting a bait shop She is talking about she's been in contact with the other owners on some of the property on Riverview to purchase the property so she could have more acreage and they did purchase a food truck so they could put a food truck on the property. And that does concern me and we have had lots of issues in the neighborhood because of that piece of property. And, you know, the owner and his daughter of the property, they are mostly, they are hospitality and they do mostly Dairy Queens. And I know that I've brought that up to them several times and she's like, well, I can do that in the future. and I don't want to see that. I live in a very historic home, built in 1922. I've done a lot of work. If I end up selling it, they're just gonna, it's gonna get torn down and I hate to see that because there's not very many historic properties in Englewood anymore. So thank you for this time. I just hope that you guys, you know, leave it the way it is for now for all of us. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Do you have any other speakers cards on this agenda item? Okay. Seeing none, we will move on from public testimony to see if there's any further questions for the agent or staff for members of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Fiedler, then Commissioner Mayo.

I have a question for staff. You brought up the Live Local Act and you said that that could create up to what, 12?

13 units an acre.

What's the effect of the Live Local Act on the current SR-776 corridor plan?

In what impact? It would be that max density and that staff would have to analyze the max density, how it is compatible and appropriate for that area in regards to the residential and commercial that's across from the site.

We wouldn't have any way of stopping it. It would just go through without any of our approvals.

Yeah, it would not go to a public hearing.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

We may have additional commentary.

Good evening, commissioners. For the record, Everett Farrell. I just did want to clarify that the critical area plan, the corridor plan in that area would have no impact on the Live Local Act. That would just subvert the public hearing process and get constructed.

That's what I thought.

It would go straight to site development.

Yeah, and it would just be whatever it is they wanted it to be.

Correct.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Thank you.

Commissioner Mayo. Just a quick question for staff also. With the existing zoning of the property, the CN zoning, which I'm familiar with CN, what are some allowable uses for CN since most of the existing property is CN? If we could just clarify what some of those things could be.

Yeah so I have on the screen here is the chart of permitted uses within CN and RMF2 and within both zoning districts. So in the middle column you can see some uses that we stated here that could be feasible for the property. It could be permitted with that zone district. When they could do that right now if they chose to? If the rezone is approved to CN then yes they they can go to site and development.

Well, most property is the other than the two quadrants that are not CN. The rest of the property that is CN can do that now. Yes.

They would just need to, they would have to meet setback requirements and buffers and all the other zone district standards. Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions? Just have a quick one. Jonah, the height, allowable height, will that be changing at all?

I do not believe so, but I will check right now and then come back to you with an answer. CN, I believe, is 25. It's the same, right?

Yeah. Just wanted to get that on the record. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions for staff or the petitioner? Okay, seeing none, I will invite the applicant forward for rebuttal. You will have five minutes and we will start whenever you're ready.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Jeffrey Boone, the Boone Law Firm, representing the applicant. I'll tell you that the comments that you heard today from the public is like a coffee or a tea compared to the neighborhood meeting when this was proposed to be CI. So the property owner changed their original plans to go to CN, which 80% and I'm So I went to Venice High School, so my math skills aren't really great, but I think 80% is a fair and accurate number of what the amount of the current property is zoned C in now. And I think that pretty much responds to all of the comments that you've heard. The change in the 7076 corridor plan, so remember when that plan was established, the multifamily that is presently on this site had been there for over 50 years. So it was actually the plan that caused the problem for this property. And all we're asked, because it made all those multi-families non-conforming, what we're asking is, is that for this property, not the rest of, you know, from Jack Aranda in 41, or from 41, Englewood Road in 41, all the way to the end here, the entire corridor plan, we're not asking for any of that to change. We're only talking about this one piece of property that is literally at the dead end of State Road 776 in Sarasota County. Excuse me. There are currently multifamily uses on the property, so nothing's changing here. There's no traffic impact by this change. And it's confirmed in your staff report. And you all know but understand the concern. Normally you hear from the public. There's no precedent set by the decisions you are making tonight with respect to this one piece of property. As far as live local goes, 80% of the property right now qualifies for live local. The other 20% is zoned for multifamily. So if there's a piece of property anywhere that's proposed to be rezoned, that live local, basically makes no difference, it's this piece of property. In fact, if you think of setbacks, buffers, landscaping, height restrictions, stormwater, parking, and probably some other things I'm not thinking of that have to be addressed when you develop a site, probably the two parcels right now that are zoned RMF would be stormwater ponds or some kind of use in other words that literally if somebody wanted to do live local they could go start the process tomorrow. Your decision perhaps only encourages the property owner not to go that way because you're allowing for the existing multi-family to not be you know think about a storm comes in those non-conforming structures are demolished and the use is then They could be re-established because you can keep non-conforming in the event of a storm, but we've experienced this for the last couple of years. The hoops you have to go through for non-conforming structures and uses to rebuild after a storm are pretty monumental. In fact, a lot of people just throw their hands up and go off and do something different. If you heard concerns about a bait shop, a food truck, a dairy queen, if those are allowed in CN, I don't know if they are or not, and sirs, I say they are or aren't, I'll be wrong. If those are allowed in CN right now, they can go on that property right now. I mean, I've done a lot of rezonings. I can't remember one that's been less of a change than this. I mean, this is literally just legitimizing, validating what's currently there and then make, and you do need the change in the 776 corridor plan along with the rezoning. The property owners have no immediate plans to make any changes. but eventually these these this is a 50 no this is a 76 year old development at some point things are you know structures are going to have to be replaced if if this if these two applications are approved it actually increases the chances that the existing uses that everybody seems to be very happy with would be able to continue in the future so for all the reasons that i stated earlier we would respectfully request your recommendation of approval thank you

Thank you. The next person that makes any Venice High School slander will be required to stay to the end of the meeting. Or kicked out, you pick. Are there any other questions for agent or staff before I close the meeting? Before I close this section and move on to our discussion and motion section? Seeing none, I will close this portion of tonight's public hearing and move on for discussion or a motion from my board. Commissioner Mayo.

I'd like to make a motion. Based upon the evidence and testimony received at the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission authorize the Chair's signature for CAP amendment number 01-01-SP-2026 and rezone petition 26-04 with one stipulation. Second.

A second first by Commissioner Mayo and a second by Commissioner Fiedler with a close third by Commissioner Franklin, which third place does not count here. Commissioner Mayo, to your motion.

With the testimony received, I agree that CI rezoning, I would be, I don't know if I'd be 100% supportive, but CN, the property CN, the uses are going to continue in a similar fashion it appears and I see no problem with the CN zoning.

Thank you Commissioner Mayo. Commissioner Fiedler to your second.

I like the fact that they're changing the whole property to CN and I like the fact that they did listen to the neighborhood and changed it from CI to CN and I would be concerned if Live Local came in. So I'm in favor of it.

Thank you. And a last minute substitution from the county attorney.

Just a question for staff. Is there anything for the chair to sign for the transmittal of the critical area plan amendment?

There is not.

Okay. And so then it would just be the motion to approve the cap amendment and then the rezone.

I will change my motion to an approval for the cap amendment.

And and the rezoning if you'd like to take the time to restate the whole thing the thing is i was using my cheat sheet and there's not an accurate cheat sheet for cap amendments on here so i was i was winging it we're saving taxpayer dollars by not printing new ones okay commissioner fiedler do you still agree i do okay wonderful any further discussion

Commissioner Thackston. Yeah, just briefly, you know, you had me at C and this was a non-starter at CI. It would be a substantial modification of both the curriculum plan and the parcels intensity of use, but I think Mr. Boone did a really good job of explaining the need and the benefits of having the parcel under a unified zone district.

there's not any further discussion thank you for your comments all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed chair votes aye motion passes unanimously thank you moving on to agenda item number four special exception 1931 80 8347 Midnight Pass Road. It's a public hearing to consider a proposed special exception to allow structures and uses and boat slips, private boat dock abutting and within the Marine Park Zone District and adjoining upland areas and the RSF2 SCOD Siesta Key Overlay Zone District, 3.5 units per acre. Our presenters this evening are Kirk Crane, Planner, Sarasota County Planning Development Services, and Patrick Seidensticker with I-Card Merrill Law Firm. Kirk, please, the floor is yours.

Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Kirk Crane, Planner with Planning and Development Services. This is a special exception to seeking an after-the-facts approval for a dock with a boathouse at a single-family residence on Siesta Key. Now to remind you, a special exception would not be appropriate generally or without restriction. It can be controlled as to the number, area, location or relation to the neighborhood. It would promote the public health, safety, welfare, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, prosperity and the general welfare or the general welfare. It may be permissible in a zoning district if it's specifically provided in the UDC or the Unified Development Code. Here's a timeline of this application. They received a waiver for a pre-application in January of this year. They held a virtual neighborhood workshop in early March. The application was actually submitted April 22nd. It went through a sufficiency and completeness review and that brings us to tonight's public hearing before the Planning Commission. Before I go to the next slide, I'd like to do a little bit of housekeeping. We received four emails, two of which were mailed to you, received before the noontime cutoff yesterday. We received two more and those are in your packet right now. One was received at 3 55 yesterday afternoon from Mr. Luchter and another from attorney Mr. Stain, literally as I got here tonight. So both of those are in your packet. I'd like to enter those four emails into the record. The applicant has copies of those and also the clerk does. The attorney for this representing the applicant on this case is Patrick Seidensticker, attorney with the I-Card Merrill Law Firm and I'll go ahead and introduce him at this point.

Thank you very much. You will have 20 minutes for your presentation. If you'd please state your name for the record we will and that you've signed a speaker's card. We will start the clock when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Board and Chair Pro Tem. Again, for the third time, my name is Patrick Seiden, sticker with I-Card Merrill here this evening on behalf of the applicant to discuss special exception petition number 1931 related to the property at 8347 Midnight Pass Road. The applicant is the property owner, Michael Clunan, as trustee of the Michael Clunan Revocable Trust. So we are requesting this evening a special exception to allow for an existing fabric boat cover to remain at the property. The special exception is required pursuant to section 124.77 of the Sarasota County Code of Ordinances because the property and the boat cover is in the Marine Park District. So to give you some sense of where the property is, you'll see here south of Stickney Point Bridge on the east side of Midnight Pass Road. We'll zoom in here. This is the subject property outlined in red. You'll see specifically the dock that wharfs out from the property that is the boat cover in question at the end of that dock. And we'll come back to sort of all the other docks and structures here in the area to the north and south. So just for some background on this, this was a canvas boat cover installed previous to 2023, which was damaged along with a dock in the storms. The applicant applied for a dock maintenance permit, a repair permit, and at that time decided to upgrade his boat cover and was told unfortunately by his contractor that no permit was required. When they failed inspection based on the new boat cover, which you'll see next, We were contacted and applied for a WNCA permit, which is the next step in our process. We're a few months into that process when we were told that we also had to apply for a special exception. That explains the waiver for the pre-app and the extended period from the failed inspection to us being here today. We had to start that process over. This is the existing fabric boat cover that replaced the prior fabric boat cover. This is from about halfway down the applicant's doc. Important to note here is a manual boat cover, the prior one, which means that our client, who wanted me to tell you that he's had two back surgeries and hip replacement, used to have to be on the boat or the boat lift to actually manually snap this cover onto the boat. You'll notice here the new boat cover is automatic. By the press of a button from the dock, he can raise and lower the boat cover. This is the boat cover when it's down from the water and a little bit zoomed out. You can see it here. When it is raised with the boat that he's chosen on the dock, you can see sort of the footprint here. Also important to notice, this is not the biggest boat he can have on this lift. Certainly he can accommodate a larger boat, which would have a larger footprint within his permitted dock and boat lift. This is what the boat lift looks like when there is no boat on the dock. The boat canvas cover and the frame to which it's installed are engineered and designed to withstand hurricane force winds. We have provided all that documentation to staff. There is some discussion in the staff report about concerns that if this were to break loose, it could impede riparian access and affect other neighboring properties. But because of the way this is designed and engineered, it's unlikely. As I said, it is designed to withstand hurricane force winds that we see here in Sarasota. So just to give you some sense, a few angles of this when the boat is not on the dock and the impact that it has. So just so you understand sort of other conditions in the neighborhood, we've shown you some pictures of different sort of profiles of boats from our client's property that would be permitted to have a snap-on boat cover on them and sort of what obstructions those would cause. A few examples for you. This one's a bit of an extreme example, but again, from my client's property looking north, this would be absolutely permitted, assuming he could get it to his dock, to be there. So in this photo, you can see the aerial, our client's property at the north end of this picture. You can also see the boat cover as it exists today at the end of his permitted dock. To the south, I would point you specifically to the bottom three properties, which wharf out significantly less distance From the shoreline, we've got sort of multi-slip mini marinas, both with lifts, and then we've got this pretty significant structure as well. But because there are no sides on this structure, it is not considered a boathouse under the county code. Even though it is a hard structure, it would be presumably permitted at the property without the special exception. So, I apologize for how blurry these are. We tried to get a Google Earth snapshot. You can kind of see the impact of what this looks like even though it's not considered a boathouse with open sides. It does provide a pretty significant impact, which I think is very comparable to what our client has put there on the property. So again, 124.77 of the code provides that expansions of covered boat slips, which is what this is considered, require a special exception in addition to a major work permit from the WNCA code. So our process after this would be to go to the BOCC both on this special exception and to get an approval from them for a major work permit for a WNCA permit with them sitting as the WNCA board. That said, we are here specifically tonight just to discuss the special exemption and not the WNCA permit or those criteria. So the criteria for the special exception approval are found in section 124.43 of the code. I think the staff did a great job of laying them out in the staff report, but I'll try and go through them somewhat quickly here. The first is that it must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. For the most part, the staff did find that the application may be found consistent. You can find that on page 11 of your staff report. But they did identify that the aluminum frame on which the boat cover is hanging is greater in scale potentially than some other surrounding structures, although we would submit that it's really similar in scale when you see what's really in the neighborhood there. Here are just some comprehensive plan policies and objectives that we pulled related to shoreline, mangroves, manatees, waterway access that we are consistent with. The staff report points to a specific policy and goal, and you'll see this throughout the staff report where they specifically identify that the boat cover is a natural color, it's wholly within the footprint of the previously permitted dock and boat lift, and the dock, the mooring areas, and the boat lift are similar to those located on other properties and generally compatible with the surrounding accessory waterfront uses. And then their flu goal two here, their future land use goal two here, they confirm that the canvas boat cover would not contribute to any environmental degradation and in fact supports more environmentally friendly dry dock storage by getting the boat up out of the water. Your second criteria is that it must be compatible with the existing land use pattern and designated future land use. It is compatible with the barrier island future land use and the boat lift and boat dock are permitted both in the MP zone district. Your third criteria here is that adequate public facilities are there to service this project. And again, surrounding properties are developed. We did not need any additional public facilities to operate the boat cover. The fourth criteria is the proposed use must not be detrimental to health, safety, moral, order, comfort, convenience, or appearance. I will harken back again to the staff report where they specify that the natural color is wholly within this footprint of the previously printed boat and docked lift. And the boat cover is only fully extended when the vessel is on the lift. So otherwise, the fabric boat cover is retracted, which really minimizes any impact. I think you saw that in the pictures. any sort of large boat on this lift is going to provide a nearly identical impact if there is any sort of manual cover placed on that boat of any size. As long as it's seaworthy, they could put a relatively objectively unattractive boat on this lift and potentially cause additional visual impairment and obstruction. Your fifth criteria here is that the proposed use must be adequately buffered. As noted in the staff report, no buffer is required, but because this is a relatively long draw from the shoreline, the Atkins Stock extends almost, excuse me, over 170 feet into Little Sarasota Bay, which is substantially longer than the neighbors here. It provides really a natural buffer just by way of distance from neighboring properties. So you can see the closest structure is 173 feet away. If you notice the dock directly to the south, that dock does not work out quite as far and any sort of boat of substantial size is going to cause a potentially more impactful visual impairment and obstruction from my client's property, which would be significantly closer. Your sixth criteria here is the adequate shape and size of the parcel. Again, it's located wholly within a permitted boat dock and lift, the footprint there that was previously permitted by the county. Seven relates to ingress and egress. The boat cover does not adversely affect the navigable water of Little Sarasota Bay, nor does it impede any access or use of the docks in the area. And then finally, sort of harking back to 8, the subject parcel is adequate to accommodate the height and mass. Again, it is a previously permitted boat dock and lift on which he has placed a fabric boat cover with an aluminum frame. So staff has recommended one stipulation, specifically that this development shall take place in substantial accordance with the Binding Development Concept Plan which was attached To our application materials, you can see that here. I will zoom in a little bit. The binding portion of this development concept plan is just the boat cover itself, which you can see here hatched to the south of the dock, which means that we cannot increase its footprint or change its orientation without coming back to get further permission. In sum, we would respectfully request that this board recommend approval of this special exception to allow for the existing fabric boat cover to remain at the property. As always, I'm happy to take any questions you might have.

Thank you. At this time, we will move on to the staff report. Just when you think you've seen it all, you get the world's most expensive pontoon cover. That's cool.

We have a minute to set back up here again. Again, for the record, Kirk Crane, Planner with Planning and Development Services. Give you an overview of this application. It is a request to allow an existing private dock and boathouse in the MP, which is Marine Park Zone District. The MP is the water area, basically. And it extends from the upland area, which is zoned RSF2SKOD, which is residential single family, three and a half units per acre, Siesta Key overlay district, and it wants to allow this to remain. The dock was damaged by storms and the applicant was granted a permit to repair the damage, but he failed final inspection due to the addition of the canvas cover, which is considered a boathouse by WNCA code, the WN Water Navigation Control Authority. The applicant is seeking an after the fact special exception approval for a dock with a boathouse at 8347 Midnight Pass Road, Siesta Key. There currently exists a dock with a 10 foot by 32 foot fabric covered boat lift. The original dock and boat lift were approved through a Water Navigation Control Authority work permit in 2008. The dock and boat lift were damaged by storms. The applicant was granted a permit to repair the damage, but again he failed the final inspection due to the addition of the canvas cover, which by definition of the WNCA code section 54 basically says it's a boathouse. A new covered boat slip or boathouse, as we're going to refer to it as, structure requires special exception approval. The boathouse structure is also subject to the technical standards of the WNCA code. Unified Development Code 12477 lists, and I'll go on, lists specific criteria for a covered slip in the MP zone district. which are permitted by right. However, if the criteria are not met and a major work permit is required through WNCA, this then also requires a special exception pursuant to that section. The MP Zone District has standards for development for what's called a covered boat slip, which is defined as a boathouse. There are five criteria. Covered boat slips shall also meet the following standards. Number one, a covered boat slip shall be less than 15 feet in height above the mean high water line. This boat cover or boat house as we're going to refer to it is 15.4 feet above the mean high water line. So slightly above. Does not meet that criteria. A covered boat slip shall be less than 250 square feet in area including any terminal platform And this boathouse is 10 by 32, which is 320 square feet. The terminal platform is, again, 116.58 feet. Together, that totals 436.58 feet, which is significantly larger than the 250 square feet minimum, so it does not meet that criteria. All sides of a covered boat slip shall be open. This does not. This boathouse is covered and none of the sides are open. And then there are two other criteria. The roof shall have a maximum pitch of four feet horizontal to one foot vertical. It does meet that particular standard. And no covered boat roof shall contain cementious tile shingles and it meets that standard also. Again, this is, let me get in my place here. What I'm gonna show you here, is a binding development concept plan of the property. And I gave you large copies, which I blew up on 11 by 17. I have one extra copy of those here. This shows the existing 170.9 foot dock, which includes the 10 foot by 32 foot, 320 square foot boat lift. That's called the boathouse. and the 116.58 terminal platform for a total of 436.58 feet. And as you just saw in the MP zone district criteria, the maximum size permitted is 250 square feet. So it exceeds that. The size and orientation of the boat dock, as you can see, is somewhat centered on the property. It is required to have a 25-foot setback from the property line extended over the water unless you get approval from the neighbors in this particular case. it meets the criteria of being at least 25 feet from the property line north and south, extended onto the water area. So it is somewhat centered on the property. This will show you a picture and it's also in your staff report of the binding development concept plan. This being a special exception, all special exceptions have binding development concept plans. Again, you got a large copy of that and you can see in the photograph that's in your staff report a picture of what the boathouse looks like. Compatibility. Subject parcel is zoned RSF 2 on the land side or the upland side. And that's a similar zone to the zoning district on the adjoining properties and nearby properties. They either have that zone district or something very close to it. And then the MP zone district is Little Sarasota Bay, the water. And there are no other boathouses in the vicinity that have been permitted by WNCA major work permits. There are some others in the general area which were kind of grandfathered in but it's very difficult to get a WNCA major work permit and meet that 250 square foot criteria. Again, the boat house is mostly centered on the applicant's property as projected again from the property lines onto the water. And the boat house is constructed of a natural colored canvas covered fabric over a metal frame. The canvas material is not transparent and the size of the structure could produce visual impairment that may affect water navigation in the vicinity and nearby mooring areas. The height of the boathouse is minimally higher than the MP zone district standard of 15 feet above mean high water line. It's 0.4 feet above that, which is what about four or five inches higher than as allowed by the MP district standards. It's, again, on a metal frame, canvas covered. It's tightly fitted over the frame, but it could become loose, tear, or be pulled from the frame by weather effects and during excessive wind events or storms and thus it could only create noise from flapping if any portion of it breaks loose and it could affect navigation if and when the framework and or canvas cover become debris in the waterway. The boathouse compatibility structure could, may impair a visual view of the Little Sarasota Bay from adjoining and nearby properties. I'd like to show you a picture taken from Little Sarasota Bay and you can see the boathouse in the center of the property there, center of the photograph. Now to assist in your findings of fact, staff did a consistency review of the comprehensive plan for this application. The dock and a boat lift are customary accessory uses for residents, particularly in this area and along the same shoreline. There are numerous other homes with docks, mooring areas and boat lifts, but no others with coverings that would be considered a boathouse there that were permitted with major work permits. The boating activities may produce some pollutants but the boat could cover could not contribute to any environmental degradation and supports more environmentally friendly storage of a watercraft and they're promoted throughout the environment chapter with dry dock storage as opposed to wet slip storage. The analysis or assist in your findings of fact. is Future Land Use Policy 1.2.17. It could be found incompatible between land uses due to the density intensity character type of use proposed. There are no other approved special exceptions for this purpose except therefore the structure supporting the boat cover may be considered a more intense accessory use than any others on the same shoreline. Again, there is one recommended stipulation, which is the binding development concept plan. And again, you have large copies of those. And the motion before you is to consider special exception petition number 1931 to allow structures and uses and boat slips abutting and within the Marine Park Zone District, again the water, and adjoining upland areas in the RSF2SKOD residential single-family 3.5 units per acre Siesta Key Overlay Zone District. And with that, that concludes my presentation. I'm here to answer any questions. I also have additional technical staff here if there are anything that you may have particular questions on.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Mayo?

Just a question for staff and I know this might be kind of hard to answer, but has there been any other previous special exceptions or major work permits for this type of use that have come through recently or over the last year?

No, as I stated, there are no other WNCA major work permits for boathouses in this area. Okay. Or along this shoreline. Commissioner Franklin?

Kirk, so I get this right, this dock was destroyed or substantially damaged during the hurricane two years ago? Yes. And it's been rebuilt since?

And he got a minor work permit he applied for in October of last year to go ahead and repair that damage. However, when he added the cover, it became what's known as a boathouse. Right. Which is a covered boat slip, boathouse, same difference. It basically, and then he failed that final inspection for a number of reasons that I pointed out in the MP zone district standards and the WNCA code. Right. You know, by adding the cover, just basically added, made it into what would require a major work permit.

Right. So that was a county issued permit, correct? Say that again. I'm sorry. It was the count. Was that a county issued permit?

Yes, it was a minor work WNC minor work permit which is handled administratively as opposed to what this turned into with a boathouse cover requiring a WNC a major work permit.

Correct. I get that. What I'm driving at is was the work that was completed did it um repair the dock that previously existed or did it expand it in size no i believe it just repaired the dock and then again the cover on the boathouse is what created the major work permit requirement right so without the the boathouse portion that dock still exceeds

the uh maximum permitted in the mp district right yeah it would be allowed again he would have passed to it perhaps passed with with the final inspection if it had not been covered or a boathouse type of structure so it's only the boathouse structure that's up for special exception that's correct not the dock none of the dots no the dock dock is just repaired yeah okay thank you

Any other questions? Seeing none, we'll move on to public testimony. First up, I have a card for Karen Martellucci.

Hi, my name is Karen Martellucci and I sign the card. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I'm here to express that I, like so many others with whom I have spoken to, do not support the Cloonans' effort to obtain a special acceptance of the canvas boat cover, which they installed without seeking permission for doing so. I'm a close neighbor and I'm personally affected by this, and I can tell you this is an eyesore, ruining our view and our neighbors' views of beautiful little Sarasota Bay. When they were informed that the boat cover was illegal, it remained in place for over a year without going through the proper approval process. Regardless of intent, it was installed and left standing without authorization. And the delay in seeking formal review does not change the need to follow established procedures. The rules exist to ensure fairness and consistency and making exceptions in this case would weaken that process. Beyond this, there's also a broader community concern. One for which I believe you should take into account when considering the petition. More specifically, the broader impacts allowing such a boat cover would have on the surrounding area. We live along Little Sarasota Bay, our beloved space of paradise, and preserving the character and visual quality of this area is vitally important. Even a single canvas boat cover such as this contributes to the visual clutter along the waterfront, and approving it would encourage similar requests in the future. Over time, this will change the appearance of the neighborhood in ways that are not desirable. it does have an impact on views and the overall aesthetic of the area, which is something the community has a responsibility to protect. I am simply asking that the situation be evaluated based on rules in place, rules that apply to all of us, and that consistency be maintained in their application. For these reasons, I respectfully implore you to not approve the petition. Thank you. Okay, thank you for your... Just one other comment I would like to say. When they showed pictures of the sides up, they're rarely up. They're up only when he goes out in the boat. So we're looking at a solid, huge canvas block all the time.

Thank you for your comments. Up next, we have Dwight Mead. You'll have five minutes. Please state your name for the record and we'll start the timer.

My name is Dwight Mead and I'm the neighbor closest to this guy next door. I've lived on Siessa for 40 years and at my current residence for 27 years and that's the one next to him. He also has another residence on Siesta Key, a penthouse on the other side that he spends most of his time at. I didn't really realize that he had a bad leg and a back problem. I've got the same thing, but I don't have a boathouse. I'm here to defend basically Little Sarasota Bay. To me, it's a jewel. You know, we're very fortunate to have it. This just kind of ruins that feeling for me in my house. Also, the other neighbor, Mary Chadsey, who wrote a letter in to the group here, is very much opposed as she is with many of the other people that are all up and down the coast or that shore anyway. I have a video of that whole area and there's nothing close to being the same thing that that this boathouse is. I kind of took exception to the gentleman that said that it's 12 by 32. He said that the boat lift is 12 by 32. Well, then how can a boathouse be 12 by 32 also? That just didn't ring true to me. Other day, I was, well, it was a couple months ago, at a Sarasota Boat Show downtown, and they told, I went by one booth, and one of the booths was a guy selling these boathouses. So I pretended I was interested in a boathouse. So I'm talking to him, and he's saying, I said, well, you know, if I buy one of these, you know, Can you put it up? And he says, sure, sure, you can put it up. I'm on a little Sarasota Bay. I said, sure. Yeah, he says, yeah, a couple of weeks, the lawyers will have this all figured out, and you'll be able to put it up. And I said, I left, didn't let him know my opposition to his position, but the... The whole Sarasota Bay, I videotaped it, and there's nothing close to that on Sarasota Bay. And being the jewel that it is and the place that it is, I would just hate to see this go in, you know. And it's... Certainly, you know, what is the purpose anyway? The purpose is to keep the bird poop off your boat and maybe, you know, the dirt. So, you know, if he can't do it, you hire somebody to go out there and clean your boat, all right? Or you put a canvas cover on it like I've got on mine, right? It's pretty easy. So I'd hate to see this go through and basically open the floodgates for anybody else that wanted to put in one, a big brown one. So that's all I have to say.

Okay, thank you for your time. The last speaker card I have is for Chris Stain. You'll have five minutes if you'd please state your name for the record.

Good evening. Chris Stain. I'm actually an attorney. I don't live on Siesta Key, but I do have the pleasure of representing Dwight and Karen, who've already spoken, along with their spouses, Thomas Martellucci and Gail Wittig. I actually was the person who submitted the letter on Thomas Bondolucci's behalf earlier today. I wasn't sure who all was going to be in attendance, so it was a bit admittedly late. My apologies. It was certainly not my intent. Unfortunately, Gail Wittig couldn't be here due to the inexorable impositions of father time, but I did want to be here and present her voice to give her voice to you all, in opposition to the petition. And I also want to take a moment to thank Mr. Crane for his tireless efforts. I've actually been in touch with Mr. Crane, and it's actually because of Mr. Crane that I was able to get copies of the petition and related information. And what I would say to that is some of what Mr. Crane has said should be deeply jarring and deeply concerning. This petition fails to meet at least three of the criteria, and I want to take a moment to center in on what I think to be the most problematic. It is something that both Dwight and Karen have both spoken to, and that is the fact that it is an eyesore. It is an eyesore. This is a boat house, right? This blocks their view. I've actually been to Dwight's house. I spent time with them. I know what Little Sarasota Bay looks like from their perspective. There's a reason why Little Sarasota Bay is sacrosanct. There's a reason why it's so cherished. And I think that a petition like this, while I don't fault the Clunans for their intent, certainly, I think if I were in their shoes, I might be inclined to explore these types of potentials. But this is a bridge too far. And the picture's tale to tale. Mr. Crane's words drive home those points. This is unacceptable. And I think Dwight makes a very good point in his comments a little while ago. what type of precedent does this set for future owners, right? If they come in and they decide to follow a similar track and You know, look, I think a lot of us were impacted by the hurricanes. I was, too, and so were so many of us. But what they did went way beyond the pale, okay? And when they decided to have this boat cover, this canvas boat cover installed, they very clearly violated the rules, the rules that apply to us all. Now, the problem with that is that now As a result, we have owners in the area, Karen's already spoke to it, Dwight's already spoken to it, Gail would if she could be here, and they all have to look at this day in and day out. That is their look from their backyard onto Little Sarasota Bay. But the one thing I also want to make a point here briefly is that Gail Wittig, who I've had the pleasure of knowing for many years now and working with both personally and in my professional capacity, She's a many decades experienced realtor having experience selling properties from Siesta Key to Longboat Key. She's legendary. I think there are only a couple other realtors that come to mind that reach her pantheon of success over the course of her career. And one thing that I know for certain from speaking to her as a person who has sold real estate on the key is what kind of market impacts something like this has on properties. And make no mistake, This canvas boat cover absolutely torpedoes the value and I just can't be any more blunt about it. Am I a realtor? No, but I rely on people who do this as a profession to guide folks like me when it comes to what investments make positive impacts and what investments negatively impact property values. And her words are categorical and unequivocal. This canvas boat cover does harm to the property values. So I do believe that the criteria that Mr. Kirk spoke to speak very loudly as to why we had these rules, which is really to help ensure that folks have unmitigated quite enjoyment to make use of their property and in doing so, not just maintains the integrity of their views and Little Sarasota Bay more broadly, but the property values for the people who have invested and live on Siesta Key. Dwight has been here and has lived on Siesta Key for the better part of almost 30 years. I think I think he's entitled some credibility in this space, as are Karen, Tom, her husband, and Gail, who could not be here. So with that, I respectfully request that you deny the petition. I think there's every reason to do so. And in doing so, you would be maintaining the public policy. So thank you.

Thank you very much. I don't see any other speakers' cards. So at this time, I will entertain any... Do we have any further questions of the agent or staff? Yeah, he will, absolutely. I just wanted to see if the board had any questions first. No, it's okay. We can take a recess if we need to. Any rebuttal, we'll have a five minute period if you'd like to begin.

Thank you again for the record. Patrick Seidensticker on behalf of the applicant. Just a few things. Certainly the time frame that was mentioned by one of the speakers, we completely understand it must be frustrating. I do want to sort of reiterate that When the inspection was failed, after unfortunately my client was told this could be put up as a fabric boat cover and not a boathouse under their interpretation of the code, and he failed inspection, he immediately contacted us and we started the WNCA process. The only reason it's taken so much time to get here is because we were alerted a few months later that we had to start this special exception process. As to the WNCA permit criteria, I would just remind you that tonight we are here on these special exception criteria specifically that we went through in our presentation in chief. We will have to go in front of the board and discuss those WNCA criteria. Because this boathouse doesn't meet those criteria is the exact reason why we're going to ask for that major work permit. There was some mention of the size. Again, I would just draw your attention to the Binding Development Concept Plan that, as surveyed, specifies that this is 10 feet by 32 feet. It does fit very snugly to the lift that was previously approved by the county. We've also gotten FDEP approval for this boathouse. It fits tight to the lift and it fits tight to the boat that exists under the lift. To the extent that our client wanted to take this cover down, put a much larger boat with, let's say, a tower on that lift and cover that with a tight-fitting canvas cover, I would submit to you that the impact would be the same, if not greater, than what we are proposing here today, which is, in my estimation, a boathouse, only because it's defined as such in the code. So again, I am happy to answer any questions, but we do believe that our client deserves to have sort of the same rights as those in the neighborhood, which, as you can see, Without a doubt, he can put a boat that impedes the views of Little Sarasota Bay, which we can all agree are important, right on his property, just as can his neighbors. So thank you very much and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Are there any questions? Commissioner Franklin?

Was the same contractor that rebuilt the dock the same one who constructed this boathouse?

To my understanding, it was not. The contractor that does the boat cover and the frame is specific to this type of improvement. Apparently, it was new to the area, which is why I didn't really understand the permitting requirement here for this type of cover.

Who didn't understand?

The contractor. When my client was initiated the install of this, he was told by his contractor that this is a fabric boat cover. It does not need any sort of permitting. When he found out that it did, we started this process to get an after the fact permit.

That must have been the same guy at the boat show.

It may have been. It may have been.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Since we asked a question, would you like to use the rest of your rebuttal time that you had available? No, thank you. Any further clarification? Okay. I will close the public hearing and entertain any discussion or a motion. Commissioner Mayo?

I just have some quick discussion. I'm a very avid voter. I spend most of my weekends on the water, and I absolutely love this product, and I wish I could have it. The only problem I have with it is... it is an eyesore and it does not meet what everybody else would expect to see on the water. I spend much more time on Siesta Key, on the barrier islands. I'm not saying there aren't other boathouses. There are boathouses out there. There's boathouses on a lot of the inlet channels on the key, but they also probably were built 50 plus years ago, 60 plus years ago, and they also are mostly on the shore side of things, built into the seawall, close to the houses and or the houses right along with them. I understand that it's a great product for ease of covering. I understand it's a great product for ease of use. I wish I could have one for my boat. I think the applicant would just be better suited going back to the previous color that they had that fit the boat. I think it's just as a better option. I've actually learned some things tonight that I didn't even know this was possible. I thought this was not even a... option so learning that there is an option for a special exemption and a major work permit to accomplish this was news to me, but I very passionately like the product but Find it not acceptable for use on our waterways Thank You Commissioner Fiedler followed by Commissioner Franklin.

I have to agree. I I take a nod to the people who live in the area. You're there. You've had an enormous investment in your property. You've been there for a number of years, and I think that you have the right to enjoy it the way you have in the past. To me, it looks like an eyesore. I think that if they had gone through the process, it might have had a better solution, but they didn't. I think the process is there for a purpose and that is for compatibility for the neighbors as well as to ensure that the product that they invest money into meets the codes and the standards for the county. Unfortunately, they did not, but I think that I agree it's probably a great product, but it doesn't belong here.

Thank you for your comments, Commissioner Franklin. ready to make a motion okay I'll just add my discussion point then because I was Commissioner Thaxton anything to add I can wait for discussion I was just going to say before motion was made that I I agree and with the comments made and used saying visual a reason for denials always an interesting one due to its subjective nature and when you read the Qualifications for a special exception and it says that it must be adequately buffered. I was thinking wow if you could only plant a landscape buffer around it and hang a banner off the side that looks like the water. I don't know. But I actually will be voting yes and for one reason. And it's, sorry, yes, I'm in support. So whatever way the motion goes, I don't know. But I'm in support of it for one reason. I agree with everything that's said, but I would like to see this move on to the County Commission, which it could regardless of it completely being denied. But I would like to see it move forward because Commissioner Mayo is one of the most knowledgeable people I know of county code and the fact that he's saying he didn't know this was possible. I think it could merit board level discussion, which is above our pay grade of $0. But that doesn't mean that my feelings and sympathies aren't still with the public and the comments made. Commissioner Thaxton and then Commissioner Miller.

I'll save it for a motion. Clearly, I'm not going to support a motion for approval. No way. Just briefly, I understand the separation of duties here from the WNCA permit with the Board and the special exception criteria that we're considering, but the WNCA criteria does speak specifically to the magnitude of the special exception and what's being asked. The special exception criteria is a very high bar. It has to be a high bar. And this doesn't come close to the high bar. There are just so many other ways around it with regards to compatibility, consistency with the comprehensive plan. And specifically, it speaks to the appearance of the neighborhood. And I would also like to point out one other point. There are other neighbors here other than just the adjoining property owners. And that is the public. that has the use and enjoyment of Sarasota Bay. All those people that recreate on this bay, they also have the right to this appearance. And that's part of our charge here today is to maintain that appearance. And I think that this boathouse would be an absolute assault to that appearance. And again, comes nowhere near to meeting the criteria, the special exception. pursuant to the policies in the Comprehensive Plan, so I'm not going to be supporting it, no way. Thank you for your comments, Commissioner Miller.

I was just actually going to second what you said, Justin. I actually did know about this major work permit special exception dance in the code. It is a difficult one. When I was reading this, I was struggling going back and forth the whole time like, yes, no, yes, no. But when it comes on to it for today, I am more on this is the special exception decision. The major work permit WNCA code would be later. So that was my... thought process here today.

Okay, thank you for your comments. Commissioner Franklin, would you like to take a stab at your motion or would someone else?

I'll take a stab.

Okay, great.

Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend denial of special exception number 1931 with the following findings of fact. The proposal is not consistent with the intent, goals, objectives, policies, guiding principles and programs of the comprehensive plan. The proposed use is not compatible with the existing land use pattern and designated future land uses. Number three is inapplicable. Number four, the proposed use singularly will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, order, comfort, convenience or appearance of the neighborhood or other adjacent uses by reason of any one or more of the following. Number, area, location, those don't really apply, but in and of itself will be detrimental to the those criteria. The proposal will not be adequately buffered, as you noted, to effectively separate traffic, well, visual impact. Public parcel is not adequate. That's actually not applicable. Seven is not applicable, and eight is not applicable. So that's my motion.

I'll second.

I said take a stab at it. You killed that. To your motion, Commissioner Franklin.

You know, number one, I think it's Mr. Thackson's correct. It's totally inappropriate. And I always wonder these and after the fact, you know, request, which is either I'll do it and ask for permission later. or I didn't know and in this case it appears the contractor either misled or himself was unaware which I find simply not plausible. So I think the compatibility issue is clearly in front and center here and I couldn't support this.

Thank you and to your second Commissioner Fiedler.

I agree with Commissioner Thaxton. Special exemptions are a high bar for me, and this doesn't meet it. I think that you have to have a particular reason that is above and beyond. Simply creating something and asking for permission afterwards doesn't meet that standard. It is incompatible with the area, and I think that if they had gone and followed the correct path, and sought a permit, they would have discovered this and saved themselves a lot of time and effort. So I always recommend talking to the county first.

Thank you. So the motion is for denial from Commissioner Franklin with a second by Commissioner Fiedler. Before I call the vote, is there any further discussion? I'll take a roll call vote on this. If you could please have your microphone ready. Commissioner Miller?

Nay.

Commissioner Thaxton? Aye. Commissioner Franklin? Aye. Commissioner Mayo? Aye. Commissioner Fiedler?

Aye.

And the chair is nay, so that the motion for denial passes four to two. Madam Clerk, was that clear? Good, okay. All right, thank you all. That agenda item is over. Moving right along in the agenda to Agenda item number five, minutes. May I have a motion to approve the minutes dated August 20th, 2026. Motion by Commissioner Mayo. Is there a second? By Commissioner Thaxton. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Motion passes unanimously. Commissioner reports. I'll start the other side. Commissioner Fiedler, anything to add?

Nothing, thank you.

Commissioner Mayo?

Nothing to add other than excited for our next meeting.

Commissioner Franklin?

Yeah, you know with reference to your comment about the board considering this because I agree that I quite frankly wasn't even aware that a boathouse would meet this definition. This would meet that definition. I think the board ought to consider that and I believe that we can as a planning commissioner Make a recommendation to that effect. It would go as part of the minutes of this meeting if the board if this commission was so inclined Thank You Commissioner Thaksin anything to add no, okay, Commissioner Miller I

Speaking of next meeting, I will not be here. Hopefully. Well, I won't be. Whether it's a baby or not, it'll be too close.

Good luck and congratulations. Good luck.

Thank you. In that case, I do have a comment. Best of luck. Thank you. We're going to be with you. It's going to be like a planning commission in training, commissioner in training.

Yeah, there we go.

We'll play that little jingle like they do at the hospital when a baby's born. Yes, yes. My note would just be as much as you all know, I hate the spotlight. The lighting is much better in this middle seat because they get me from both sides. So thank you all for humoring me this evening. I hope I never have to do this again. It looks like we have a second celebrity appearance this evening from staff.

Yes. Hi, I'm Laura Wilson, the comprehensive planning manager, and we just wanted to let you know that the county in cahoots with our communications department, we just created these helpful videos for the public. What is comprehensive plan? What is a comprehensive plan amendment? We just released the rezone one today, and a future one will be special exceptions. So that's on the county's YouTube webpage. Just want to get that out there. Thank you.

Wonderful. I'm sure that will hit YouTube's front page and trending videos very, very quickly. But thank you for all the hard work. It's very important to note that the agenda states that the next meeting scheduled for September 17th will be at 1 Apex Road, Sarasota, Florida at 5 o'clock, followed by another back-to-back follow-up meeting there October 1st, the same location in Sarasota. If there's nothing else to add, I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you.