Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to the September 17th, 2026 meeting of the Sarasota County Planning Commission. There are six planning commissioners present, which is a quorum, and there are three commissioners absent tonight, which are Commissioner Franklin, Commissioner Miller, and Commissioner Boyd. We have in attendance Commissioner LaCivita, Commissioner Taylor, Commissioner Mayo, Commissioner Fiedler, and Commissioner Thaxton, and myself, Emily Legler. This evening, the Sarasota County Planning Commission holds an in-person meeting and the public may provide comments in person. As always, the Planning Commission encourages the public to submit comments on matters to be addressed by the Planning Commissioner Commission in advance of the Commission meeting and those comments will be included in the official record. Please visit sdgov.net for details. At this time, I'd like to ask you to stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Since some of you may be with us for the first time, I would like to explain and emphasize there are strict procedural rules we must follow during these proceedings. We have four items on the agenda tonight for public hearing. For privately initiated hearings, we will be introduced by the staff to the agents 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 petitioner. I would kindly request commissioners save their questions until after both presentations are provided. After presentations and questions, we will then hear comments from the public. At that time, the petitioner or their agent will have an opportunity to respond to the various comments of the public and the commissioners. Staff may also clarify items for the record. During the public hearings, planning commissioners may ask questions of the staff, the petitioner, or members of the public. Any citizen wishing to speak this evening may do so if they have completed and signed a request to speak card, which is located in the back of this room. The completed card should be given to the clerk prior to each citizen speaking this evening. Staff have provided me a copy of the September 17th, 2026 public comments. If you submitted comments in writing via planner at scgov.net or via US mail, a copy of your comments has been submitted into the record. It is very important to note this evening that during hearings, we may hear 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 by 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 everybody in attendance to please turn off your cell phones or put your ringtone on silent or vibrate. I will now start the planning commission meeting with agenda item number one, open to the public. This time period is reserved for persons desiring to comment before the planning commission on items not scheduled for a public hearing this evening. Any person speaking before the commission should state their name and the fact they have 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. Clerk, do we have any other cards other than this one? We have one card for open to the public. Becky Ayash. I think I said your name right this time. I even wrote it down phonetically. Great job.

Miss Ayash, you have to make this Wolf Fox Elmo thing right this time and not make it upside down like I did last time. My name is Becky Ayesh. I'm here. I signed a speaker's card. I swore. And I'm here to invite you to the Hoot Danny and Old Myakka on October the 4th. It's our fundraising event. It's a lot of fun. You need to come out and see the school. You can win a cake for 25 cents. It's knee tapping, slow toes, snapping, knees lapping. See, I can't even say it. I've said it so much. And this year, We are ending our program with a grand extravaganza finale, which will be a whip cracking exhibition by one of the local well-renowned whip crackers. We also will have a dancing contest. You can win a cake for 25 cents. And so I invite you all, please, to come and join us. And when you do, you will really understand why you see us up here all the time saying, preserve old Viagra, just like my T-shirt says. And I can't believe it.

I did it in such a short amount of time.

Let's see what else. No. Thank you very much.

Ms. Ayush?

Yes, sir.

I'm sure. Is the whip cracker from the... Horse Place, the live sounds out there? Yes. All right. She is amazing. Yes. You won't, you can't believe it until you see it.

And so there you go. Now, does somebody want to ask me about the food? It's really, really, she also throws an ax. But I asked if she wanted to do her ax throwing. And she said, yeah. I said, well, okay, I'll take. So you will be entertained with 45 minutes of amazing food. whip cracking. So come and join us. Oh, and by the way, I love this new building. It's so close to my house. You just can't imagine how much I appreciate y'all moving next to me. Have a good one.

Thank you very much. I will now open the public hearing portion of our meeting with agenda item number two. special exception petition number 1929 hurley dock project this is a public hearing to consider a proposed special exception to allow a 227 foot long private dock and boat lift in a marine park zone district adjoining a single family residence in an rsf1 zone district our presenters this evening are mr kirk crane Planner, Sarasota County Planning and Development Services, and Thomas Glancy, Agent TRCA Environmental LLC. Mr. Crane.

Good evening, commissioners. For the record, my name is Kirk Crane. I'm a planner in Planning and Development Services, and I have signed a speaker card. This is a project known as Hurley Dock Project. It is a request for a special exception approval for a new extended dock mooring area and a boat lift. And to kind of give you an acquaintance with what a special exception is, a special exception is a use that 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, and prosperity of the general welfare. And it may be permissible in a zoning district if it's specifically provided in the Unified Development Code, UDC. Timeline for this application was there was a pre-application meeting back in February of this year. There was a neighborhood workshop. It was in person at the Nokomis Community Center in March. The application was submitted in early April. It went through a sufficiency and a completeness review, and that brings us to tonight's public hearing before the Planning Commission. Before I bring up and introduce the agent, I would like to do a couple of housekeeping, which is there were nine emails that were received yesterday morning, and we forwarded those to you electronically. I've given a hard copy for the the clerk, and she has those, and those are now entered into the record. With that, I'll introduce Mr. Tom Glancy, who is the agent for the owners of the property. He'll come up and make his presentation. I'll come back and make mine following him. Mr. Glancy? And let me get you to your presentation. Give you a hand here. Thank you, sir. And we can go All right. Thank you very much.

All right. Good evening, everybody. And my name is Tom Glancy. I did sign a speaker card. And I'm the head of Terrasia Environmental, Terrasia, for the town. Let's start off here. Again, we're talking about this major work permit turned into a special exception approval for the Hurley family to have a dock and a boat lift at their property. Picture that you see here in front of you is looking straight from their property on a very low tide. And you can see there's a essentially a big sandbar grass flat out there. You can even see the neighbor's dock off to the left standing in the dirt. So we're gonna talk tonight about this dock being a little bit longer than normal, some people feel, but it's actually really important that the dock go over all of this essential habitat and get out to water that's useful for actual boating and the docking of facility. So as Kurt said, the project is to remove the remains of an existing storm damage dock and install a new four foot wide by 207 foot long access platform access walkway out to a 20 by four terminal platform. And they're going to have one boat lift that takes up about a 12 by 24 space. Overall, this gets them out to about 227 feet from the mean high water line. So in this picture you'll see here, I've got a couple of things drawn on there. The dark green line at the top is actually the negative three contour line. So at low tide, that's where the closest point of three foot water is, okay? So we're gonna come back to this a lot. Everything about the design of this dock went into finding the perfect place for it to avoid all these impacts as much as we possibly can and still get him out to a useful depth. So we have, you know, you can see there that the project is set back 25 feet off of that property line on the south side or the left-hand part of the drawing there. And it does just go out to the minus three contour. You can also see at the bottom there where it comes out of the mangroves, it's using the same opening as the previous dock so that there are, again, no further impacts from the new dock. So this is a survey giving you an idea of the current conditions. And what I want you to be able to see there, there's kind of a hard line in the sort of middle left of the drawing there that says limits of seagrass. Everything inside of that is, I wish I had a pointer for you, but everything inside of that is a very, very shallow area. You'll see that the water depths at low tide are less than a foot. We have pictures of people out there with jet skis that are literally stranded on this grassland. What you'll also see in there is again what the existing dock looks like. And again, the shape of this contour, the fact that we pretty much in order to get to three feet, we had to aim for that one little pocket there that's just past the line of seagrass. So now we have the dock overlaying on this survey. So you can see exactly where it comes. It just gets past the line of the seagrass a little bit there. The boat lift is oriented so that the motors are in the deepest part there. Again, so this dock will completely traverse over top of all of that seagrass and is designed to completely minimize those impacts. Again, using the existing opening in the mangroves to avoid any impacts to that. So one of the biggest things when you get one of these docs, you know, obviously I have to come to you guys, but I also have to go to the DEP and I have to go to the Army Corps of Engineers. So I worked with the DEP for 10 years doing this kind of work. And I worked for a marine construction company 12 years after that. So I've got about 24 years in processing. processing these kind of dock applications from both sides of the table. So first thing you have to do is minimize and avoid these impacts of seagrass. I know a lot of people are concerned about that in this dock. So I'm just going to run through this list here. Excuse me, let me get a little drink of water. As I already said, the dock is not going to affect mangroves as we're going to, we'll get out to the water through the existing wide opening. There will be no further impacts there. The dock is going to be elevated five feet above mean high water. So this is all in an effort to make sure that plenty of sunlight gets underneath the dock and it doesn't overly shade the seagrasses that are underneath. The end of the terminal platform and the boat lift itself are out in the area past seagrass, so there will be no impacts there. The decking that we're going to use on this is going to be, it's a grate, it's a composite grating material that lets 47% of the light to transfer through that to the seagrass below. So between having this high elevation that allows the sun to come through during the day and then when it's dead overhead, it can get through the grating. It really minimizes any adverse impacts to the grass. We're going to talk a lot about navigation tonight. That seems to be the real reason we're here, because this dock does go a little bit farther out than the standard 25% width of the water body. So we're going to show, you know, through these next few slides, and I'm going to show you that it actually leaves a lot more room to use the water body than the docks that are adjacent to it. The dock is going to accommodate no more than two vessels. We're going to have no mooring signs on there in any areas where they're not allowed to pull up, especially over the grass. The vessel is going to be approximately 33 feet with a draft of two feet. And that will help maintain clearance over the bottom. And it also, one of the reasons we need to get the three feet is so that the boat can actually get on and off the boat lift because the structure under a boat lift takes up a room. The location of this dock, as you saw a minute ago, it does go out over this grass, but what it's also going to do, it's going to stop what is a very frequent occurrence of boaters coming around that corner and then veering off into the seagrass beds and creating prop scars and, you know, a lot of damage to the seagrass. So if we start by putting these docks out where they belong, then we don't have, not only do we kind of signal to people this is not a an area to be navigating, but it also kind of creates these, you know, although maybe temporary impacts while we're putting the dock in, in the long run, it's a benefit. We're going to have reflectors on there, so if anybody's coming through that is not used to the area of having a dock there, they'll see the dock. All of these requirements, as I said, are part of what you have to do to get a a permit from the DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers. You have to show that you're going to minimize and avoid these impacts or you won't get a permit. We do have both Army Corps and DEP for this project already. So again, you know, why are we here? The main basically thing that we didn't meet on this and had to go to a major work permit was because of this 25% width of the water body rule. That gets, you know, the way that's sort of enforced and the way that's interpreted is pretty variable. You know, if you're in a canal, I'm going to show you a slide in just a second here. You know, if you're in a canal, it's very clear, has a very clear navigation area. It's clear to say that, all right, well, You know, this is the width of the canal, and you get 25%, and the other person gets 25%. This is a water body that one shoreline comes out and goes out. The other shoreline comes way back. We have this very restrictive sandbar. So, you know, as you see in this drawing that I put up here, if you just measured perfectly from there, then he's about 50% out. But what's really important is where the actual navigable water is. So, the intent of this rule, this 25% rule, is it basically, as this canal example shows, you know, if I use 25%, my neighbor across the canal uses 25%, we always have 50% of the area open for navigation. So, there's no hindrance. So, again, that's the key. Let's keep as much of the navigable area as we can open for navigation. So if we look at this dock, you know, there's a couple different ways to look at this. So if we look at the survey here, the line on your far left there is the actual line of the island that's across from the Hurley residence. The surveyor has marked in the middle there the approximate center of the channel. What you see is that The proposed boat lift is the same distance from the center line of the channel as the opposing shore. What it leaves us is about 135 to 150 feet of open navigable water in a slow speed zone. It's a year-round slow speed zone. So plenty of room for navigation. It's always best to measure this when you really think about it. if you're gonna measure this width of water body, you should do it perpendicular to the direction of travel, you know, because that's really what you encounter as a boat, as you come around the waterway, this is what you have to work with. So some of these other interpretations aren't really applicable in the real world. But again, what we see here is that this is basically sitting the same distance off the center line as the opposing island and provides plenty of area for navigation. If we look at what's really navigable out there, again, we go back to this blue line that I've got sort of running through the center of the drawing, that's a best fit to the negative two contour line. Actually, you can see the negative one contour and the negative two drop come very close together because there's a quick drop off after you get past the seagrass. That's the area where people should be boating, the stuff that's two feet or deeper. They shouldn't be off in six inches of water, and it doesn't make sense to count that as a navigable area. We don't want people in there boating because, as you'll see in one of my later slides, it's full of prop scars from boats basically being in where they shouldn't be. So if we look, if we take a measurement like that and we go from that two-foot contour line, then the width of the channel is 190 feet. His dock sticks out 50 feet from that, which is about 27% of the width of the water body, of the actual useful water body. So again, very, very close to the intent of the rule for what we're looking at. So this is an aerial then that gives you a little better, you know, again, a little idea of why the specific site conditions here require the location of this dock to be where they are. We'll look at the docks to the left. Now this is where on the bottom left is where you come into Lyons Bay. This is where most traffic enters and exits. Again, slow speed zone. This first dock here provides about 110 feet of clearance. The next one provides about 108 feet of clearance, and then the proposed dock for the Hurleys is going to still leave 164 feet, plus or minus a couple feet, for people to navigate through the bay there. Again, slow speed, about four or five mile an hour boat use if you have trouble getting through that. They might want to check you for substance abuse or something along those lines. In here too on this drawing, you may have a little trouble seeing it, but you can see the shadows of these prop scars in and around that sandbar and that grass flat where people do get frequently stuck out there. Mr. Hurley sent me plenty of pictures of people out there pushing jet skis and all kinds of stuff off of that flat. So again, it's much less, it's actually leaving one and a half times more room for navigation than the two existing docks that sort of guard that entrance. There's a little more information here, again, getting back to the 25% rule. If we look at the two docks to the left, the one immediately to the left, the water body there is 215 feet wide, and he goes out 106 feet from the shoreline. So that dock was authorized at 50% of the width of the water body. The one next down to that, he uses about 33% of the width of the water body. But what you really notice is that they're all lined up at the edge of that sandbar where you have to be to be able to operate a boat and have a boat lift that's actually functional. So in conclusion, I think we've shown through the process that we meet all of the other requirements of the comp plan and all these types of things, but the unique site characteristics required really careful consideration of how to construct and locate this dock to not only meet the needs of the homeowner, but still minimize and avoid any impacts to the environment, the wildlife, navigation, and aesthetics. The resulting design will not adversely affect navigation or recreation as we've shown, and will actually help preserve the environment and local wildlife over the life of the structure. Basically, I'll leave you with this slide here. It has a little bit of an AI component to it. I don't know if you can see it, but just full disclosure. I had to throw a little humor in there, but that's what we're trying to avoid. So anyway, I really appreciate you guys here in our presentation tonight, and hopefully we can avoid this and give them a doc that they can use. You guys have any questions?

I think we're going to save our questions until after the staff presentation. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Crane, staff report.

Thank you. Give me a second to set up here and I will get back to where I was. Okay, again, this is a special exception to allow a 227-foot-long private dock, mooring area, and a boat lift within the MP Marine Park Zone District, which is basically the water, and stemming from the adjoining upland area, which happens to be Zone RSF1, which is residential single-family 2.5 units per acre and is currently developed with a single-family residence. The applicant's seeking a special exception approval for a dock and the boat lift and it's to replace an existing 66 foot long fishing pier. which first appeared on a 1990, or at least we can identify it, from a 1995 aerial photograph. That's 31 years ago, and it was severely damaged by Hurricane Milton in 2024. The applicant now requests the replacement for this dock and boat lift. Now, Mr. Clancy's remarks came a lot with the WNCA report, permit requirements which you will have to go through but that's something the board considers. This is a new dock and boat lift and because it's new it's going to require a special exception and that's what you're here to consider tonight is the special exception portion of the application. It is subject also to WNCA code so we must meet those requirements. Again, the existing pier, and it's a fishing pier, was damaged by Hurricane Milton in 2024. A lot of us suffered damage then. And you can see in the upper right that there's a damaged fishing pier there. And then the new dock and boat lift would extend 227 feet out. Now, this is taken off the GIS, the aerial on the bottom there that shows approximately 227 feet from the shoreline out into Lions Bay. So you can see roughly that orange and white line, approximately how far out this new dock would extend. Give you some definitions. A boat lift means a fixed or floating device. He's proposing a boat lift. Dock means a fixed or floating structure consistent of pilings, structural supports, docking, and all appurtenances extending from the shore. Now, what he's proposing is a dock and a boat lift. What he has there right now that was damaged, and you could see in the photograph, was a fishing pier. And that is the definition. And so these are all definitions straight out of the WNCA code. You can see in the upper right, from the land side, the damaged fishing pier. And you can see that from the aerial photograph in the bottom right, that the distance roughly from his shoreline to Turner Key, or sometimes also known as Rattlesnake Island, Either way, it's basically across Lions Bay. It's about 375 feet. And, of course, his proposed dock is going out 227 feet at an angle. So you can see roughly the measurement between the two shorelines and where his dock would probably extend out on this property. The purpose to get to the Navigable Channel of Lions Bay, as he pointed out. Now, there are zone district standards in the Marine Park zoning district. And those particularly reply for an uncovered boat slip, you need to have approval of a major work permit. And because this is new, because it's new and it requires a major work permit, it has to get a special exception. And so that's what we're here to consider tonight is the special exception. And as a new dock and boat lift, the replacement for the fishing pier, There's a difference between a fishing pier and a dock and boat lift. And you saw that in the definitions. They're subject to the technical standards. They're all going to be subject to the technical standards of the W.O. Water Navigation Control Authority code. Compatibility. All right. Proposed dock would extend and boat lift will extend about 227 feet into Lions Bay. To reach, the purpose is to reach the navigable channel. You can see comparatively, we did this one for the aerial on the bottom left, approximate depth or approximate length of some of the other fishing piers and or docks that are on adjoining and nearby properties. Most of them are under 100 feet. There is one that you can see is approximately 113 feet up here. Again, these are approximate measurements. And this property outlined in red is the subject property. And again, you saw from the prior photograph where the 227-foot dock and boat lift would extend out into Lyons Bay. And again, the Turner Key, and I'll get to that in a few minutes, is over here. That's also known as Rattlesnake Island. The photo on the right you can see, This was provided from somebody going out and looking at the subject property, and as it pointed out, very shallow water in that area. You can see the distance to the shoreline and the depth of the water is measured right there. Less than a foot. Okay. We have a binding development concept plan that was presented by Mr. Glancy. And it shows that. I provided you large copies. I have a handful more, and I'll leave them out here. And anybody that wants to pick one up is more than welcome to at the end of my presentation. But you can see, now, the binding portion of the plan would apply to the dock and the boat lift, not to the RSF-1 property, but strictly where it extends from the RSF-1 into the Marine Park Zone District. Looking eastward, we can see the properties along the east side of Lyons Bay. And they're along Lyons Bay Road. And you can see those from the water. Now, to assist in your findings of fact, staff did a consistency review with the following comprehensive plan. And we found it can be consistent with the following future land use policies, FLU policies as we call them, future land use. The intention of this policy is to ensure that any new development is compatible with surrounding land uses and environmental constraints. The proposed dock and boat lift are similar in scale, in character, and materials to those of the applicant's neighbors, except for the increased length. That's really the issue here. The dock itself is a customary accessory use as you saw from the prior photograph aerial along a lot of the properties in this area. It's also consistent with the maintaining the district standards since boating activities may introduce pollutants. The dock and mooring area that he's proposing would not contribute to any environmental degradation more than it's located on other properties in this facility. It may be, we also did a consistent review with the comprehensive plan and found it may be inconsistent with the joining land uses due to the fact that there are other docks, no other docks extending that far out into Lyons Bay. As you saw, the longest one we could find was about 113 feet. These are approximate measurements. And his going out 227 is more than twice that distance. And that was the longest one. Most of those docks and or fishing piers are less than 100 feet in length. Also, the end of the proposed dock is opposite Turner Key or Rattlesnake Island, as it's sometimes also known as. That is a protected public open space. And while the proposed structure would not reach the key itself, it does provide an intensity for boating that may contribute to greater environmental degradation than the previous fishing pier, which was only 66 feet in length. And, you know, it may affect that use of that because most of turnkey into a rattlesnake island is in public ownership. There's one recommended stipulation, which is the binding development concept plan. And the motion before you is to consider the special exception for the, to allow the structures, uses and boat slips, private boat dock within the MP zone district extending from the upland area and the RSF1 zone district with one recommended stipulation. Now the WNCA permit and the special exception will both go before, board of county commissioners for their consideration what you're considering tonight is strictly the special exception portion of the application and with that i'll be glad to answer any questions and i also again will provide those large copies to make it a little easier for you to read over here on the table once i'm finished thank you mr crane can you flip back to where your map showed the length of the various piers and docks

of the surrounding. There we go. Can you point out and go down from, let's say, the first one on the bottom of the page and just indicate whether it's defined as a pier or a dock based on what we talked about earlier?

That I cannot tell you right now, whether they're in fact fishing piers or docks, but these were strictly, I did this strictly for length of whatever water structures build over the water there.

Because on the description, I just want to make sure I understand the lengths of the other existing piers could be docks. We're not defining those right here.

I think most of them are fishing piers, but I cannot guarantee that there's not a dock in there.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Mayo?

Do we have any speaker cards tonight?

We sure do.

I would like to hear them first. I have a couple questions.

Do my fellow commissioners agree? Perfect. I just like to clear this front row up here. We have several cards, so I can call these names if you don't mind. If your name is called, just come up to this front row here, and it'll make things go a little bit quicker for tonight, okay? First will be Michelle Litzer, so she can head to the microphone. Then on the row, we have Linda K. Johnson, Chris Johnson, Roger Pass, Stuart Hurley, William Rowland, and Jeremy Martin. So if your name was called, you can just fill up this front row. And if you're not one of those names in the front row, please just find another seat temporarily here. Ms. Litzer, you have five minutes. State your name for the record and that you signed a speaker's card.

Hi, my name is Michelle Litzler. I did sign the speaker card. I reside at 513 Palm Ave, and that is in Nicomas, directly across the street from the Hurley project dock. I'm nervous, this is the first time I've ever done this. I'm nervous, this is the first time I've ever done this, but I have a lot of questions and a lot of concerns, and I actually don't know how to use this little piece of equipment, but I haven't heard or seen in the project design

any grassland photos which i have been provided with if you want to put it on the overhead and then what i would recommend is flip it 180 degrees there we go now if you see it on the screen you can see it there okay and then if you wanted to zoom in on the top of that little Doohickey, there's a plus and a minus button.

I might not want to figure that out, but this is an aerial photo of the grasslands that I was provided. So I, you know, the grasslands are very, very protected. And one of the things that I keep hearing is about a neighbor who wants a 227 foot dock. who purchased a home on shallows and didn't really have deep water access. And one of the beautiful parts about Lyons Bay is that it is protected. It is actually listed as something called Outstanding Florida Waters. And I just learned that preparing for this meeting today. So it is protected and it has been designed to use for recreation, for fishing, for swimming, for wading, for floating. There's a sandbar. None of the pictures provided have shown any activity of the sandbar. Many of the pictures provided didn't show the entire length of the bay with the other neighbors' docks to realize there's not a 200 plus foot dock around. The docks do not go to the channel to get deep water. They just happen to be on a different section of this bay. And this bay, in my opinion, is one of the most prettiest bays in the county. This is what we do in this bay. It's not all about boat navigating. It's about chasing manatees. Getting them on video. That's why the grasslands are so important because they're feeding on it over an area that people want to build 227 feet and tell me that it's protected by how many pylons are driving into that earth. We snorkel in this bay. What you're going to see is me in a snorkel across from Turner Key. more manatee chasing. These were actually taken from videos from my phone, so they're not like the greatest pictures. This is another really important aspect of the recreation of this bay. This is a paddleboard parade. They do them at Christmas. They do them at Halloween. I think this one was the Christmas one. And this is directly going towards where they want this dock. and this is a picture uh we call it honey hole it's actually a county park it's known as uh lions bay park um when i was doing some reading on the um outstanding florida water designation that lions bay holds it was listed as like number 29 on a list of 41 names and you know it very specifically talks about usage uh recreation I don't see how a 227-foot dock that takes off half of the shallows for people to wade, fish. I sat there one day on my paddleboard and watched a shark feed. So I'm just kind of coming to you with like some more heart of it. The house is an amazing house. This house is an amazing house, but it didn't have a dock. It had a fishing pier. It had a little area to sit, to launch a kayak. Why are we protecting this bay? Why is it designated as protected bay if we're not going to protect it? Because that's all I see is we're just not protecting it. I'm going to let the rest of the speakers give their two cents, but I don't come to you as a dock owner. I don't come to you as a boat owner. I do live across the street, and I do swim in that water. And, you know, we use it. It's a sandbar. It's families. Yes, there are some voters that don't pay attention to the rules. We all don't like that. It sometimes does happen. But the entire area that they want to cover is recovering grasslands. I'm just going to leave you with the first picture. I don't know how to zoom it in. But I'm going to turn it in if you guys want it. And anyway, thank you for hearing me out. Have a great day.

Thank you very much. Linda Johnson.

I also have 30 more names on a petition that I would like to submit.

Head to the clerk, drop it off, and she'll make sure it's in the record. Thank you. The clerk will pass them down when she's done. Linda Johnson. State your name for the record, and you've signed the speaker's card.

Alrighty. My name is Linda Johnson. And I signed a card. Thank you for giving us this opportunity, you know, to talk with you. I was born in Venice, and I'm a lifelong resident of Sarasota County. I learned how to ski in Lions Bay, actually, before it turned into a no-wake zone and shallowed in. I would like to start off by stating I do believe the owners of this property should be able to have a dock. I do, however, feel it's too big. It's too long. It's double of what everyone is in the area. Why not maybe build it more to the left and dredge a channel to it instead of infringing on the whole across the bay? I don't believe there's still 164 feet left to Turner Key. It just, you know, that channel's narrow to begin with, you know, for boat traffic. I just think it should keep in line of what the other dogs in the bay are. And that's it. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chris Johnson.

Hello.

Hello. Hello. My name is Chris Johnson. I did fill out one of the yellow cards. And I guess I came here with a bunch of notes and I read some of the documents that were turned in through email here. And there's a three-page letter that I'm hoping you guys all got as part of that email thing that I feel addresses the concerns a lot. And I don't want to beat a dead dog to death with repeating a lot of stuff. But I do live on the bay. I'm about six or seven houses up from the Hurley's property. And most of the docks in the area, and if you look at the photographs that have been up there, I mean this dock is exceptionally long. There's not another 220 any foot private dock in the entire town of Venice. And for me personally, I think it's just too big. There's gotta be a better way of accomplishing the goal of allowing these folks to have water access. And they do, they have a nice house and they should be able to enjoy the water. but they knew what they were buying, you know, and same way, like with my home, I've lived in close to 30 years. I would like to have a bigger boat at my house and another a hundred foot would put me into deeper water. And then I could put my bigger boat there, but I have to make other arrangements for a bigger boat because I knew when I bought that property, not a bigger boat's just not going to fit. That was a part of the deal. And, uh, And I think it goes beyond more so than just the people who live on the bay and how it affects them. This bay is really a part of the community. There's a lot of people that go out to that sandbar that we're talking about where this dock will reside that just anchor there. They hang out with their families and friends and they laugh and shout and play music. And I mean, it's a very popular area for just recreation. I think the claim that it's going to help protect the seagrass is kind of silly. You're going to put 100 plus pilings in the water to build a 227 foot dock to protect the bottom, protect boats from coming through. When one simple piling, one simple sign that said shoal area, stay out. or like any of the signs they have all over the county, just telling boaters not a good place to go. You don't need a 200 piling plus dock to provide that protection. And the photographs are showing of the low tide. Low tide, my dock's 120 feet long. At low tide, especially winter low tides, there's mud at the end of my dock. It's true with everybody that lives on Lions Bay. And if they get this special exception to go out 227 feet, you know the neighbors directly next to them are going to want to do the same. It only increases their own personal safety. value of their homes doesn't do anybody else anything positive I will stand out on the end of my dock and look out at a view I've been looking at for 30 years and it's going to have a long dock with a cap and a knee rail which if you've seen one it's just like it's almost a solid wall of view and I did go out in my boat 200 there's a post out there now that evidently represents where the dock will end and it's almost laughable because you're out in the middle of the bay And if you're out there in that dock and you look back, you're looking at everybody else's backyards and their houses, because you are that much further out into the bay. So again, I feel sorry for the Hurley family and wanting to get water access. I'd like to support that. But I think they could go out 100 feet and then curve to the channel, which again, the picture's not up there. Allow dredging, which they just dredged the whole channel through the entire bay, the county did. and people who are rebuilding their docks are getting their docks dredged. You can get dredging permits. Keep that dock in line with every other dock that's roughly 100 foot out and not just one exceptionally long dock that's gonna be a huge distraction. It's gonna interfere with the community's fun, recreational paddle boarders, kayakers, canoers. They all like to go up along the docks and around the edge of the bay. I think it'll be disruptive in its current plan. So I would like for the county to consider denying the proposed one and the proposed plan and looking at something that might be a little more better for everybody.

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

Good job.

Roger? Rose, thank you very much.

I hope I have a boyfriend. All right. So I couldn't make it home.

Understood.

Anyway, my name is Roger Rose. I live at 412 Palmetto Crescent. I can't speak to all of the dimensions and stuff that they have laid out on the canals. I do know where they are. I had a personal watercraft 20 foot for 15 years in and out of that area. Speaking of a couple things, the seagrass comes in a conversation that I had with one of my neighbors who was a sea captain. His job in his later years was ferrying boats up and down the East Coast over to the islands. He was very familiar with the waters. When I first brought my boat down, I asked him what I should know because I was originally boating in Maryland. He schooled me on all of the necessary precautions I should take in the Florida waters. Number one, number two, and number three were always about the manatee, the seagrass, and the wildlife. And when they say that there's no harm to the seagrass because of the dock or whatever, the dock will save the seagrass if that's what they're trying to do. because I've been in that water many, many times, and the gentleman that lives down the coast, if you will, I can't point him out, I don't know him, I don't know any of them, but more times than once, I saw the boats come around the corner and blast right through the seagrass. Well, according to this fellow that had lived there most of his life, it takes years for that seagrass to regenerate. Supporting the manatee, supporting the other sea life. So by the boat, by his stock being out where it is, it forces those boaters that don't pay attention, that don't give a crap to just blast on through there. And I've seen many of them. Some of them got stuck. That's the worst thing can happen because now they're going to turn up a whole area. The area that's navigable for the boating to come through there, it stays over by Snake Island. It's a nice body of water, but when you come in, you have to follow the rules. You go to the first pier, you make a right. You go to the second pier, you make a left. You go to the next pier, you make a right. So you can see it's right, left, right, okay? They don't wanna do that. They wanna take that shortcut and blast through there, showing that their boat is fast or whatever the case may be. all they're doing is harming the seagrass. So I think that dock would be a plus for the environment, not a minus. I think they should be allowed to use their property, build their dock, and make the people use the waterway that's designed to use for boating. The waterway that they're talking about, the water area that they're talking about, the one lady's talking about swimming, I've seen one or two people out there swimming. On occasions, I've seen people standing at post number one, where you make the right. They're out there, knee-deep in water, partying. That's a given. None of that other water is designed for boating. If you own a house three doors down or whatever the case may be, your best way that I saw and the best way that I found, and I tried, but I didn't go blasting through there. I went through there easy, was you go down, you follow the waterway, you go straight into your property. You follow the waterway, you go straight into your property. They don't have that choice. they have to come out and meet the waterway. So they should be allowed to do that. And protect the manatee.

Thank you, Mr. Rose. Thank you for your time. Next up, Stuart Hurley.

Is that the applicant?

Are you here to speak? Are you the applicant? Are you planning on speaking?

Is that better to do later after all this public speaking?

You can have five minutes or you can be a part of the closing for your... Perfect. You have five minutes. State your name for the record and let you sign a speaker's card.

Again, I'm Stuart Hurley. I have signed a speaker card. Good evening. Again, my name is Stuart Hurley. My wife, Tracy, regrets she could not join us this evening, but she's caring for our two children, Kelly and Hayden, ages five and two. We totally understand why a 227-foot number initially sounds substantial, and we appreciate our neighbors' concerns about Lions Bay. We also care about Lions Bay as well.

Hey, Mr. Hurley, can you speak into your microphone and address the board, please? Sorry about that. Everybody here is just for entertainment value only.

Thank you very much. Just saying again, you know, we also care about the Bay as well. But tonight we asked the Commission to evaluate the actual project, the evidence, rather than the number alone. The requested length is driven by the shallow water conditions at this particular property. It's not an attempt to privatize Lyons Bay, obstruct navigation, damage seagrass, or fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. The question before the commission should therefore be whether this particular design, this particular property satisfies Sarasota County's criteria while reasonably protecting navigation, neighboring properties, and environmental resources. We believe the evidence demonstrates that it does, and we respectfully ask that the commission evaluate this application on those facts. We are simply seeking vessel access to our property, And a point of clarification on a prior side, I just wanted to note that our neighbor's dock and boat lift having two boat lifts there, just next adjacent our property, it's actual distance from shoreline, Mead High Watermark to the furthest point of its boat lifts and docks is closer to 131 feet. The only reason we're seeking this length is due to the fact of us needing to gain access to our property. And also wanted to point out that there are multiple docks and boat lists throughout Sarasota County that do extend beyond 200 feet, some approaching 300 and beyond 300 feet from the shoreline. But thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. William Rowland.

Hello, thank you. I'm William Roland. I've lived in this Nokomis area for about 35 years. Not this, south of here, of course. I grew up in Nokomis. My family grew up in Nokomis. I went to Laurel Nokomis Elementary and Middle School. I graduated from Venice High School. I'm a husband, father, local business owner. My family are big-time boaters in the whole area. I boat in Lions Bay often. I kayak in Lions Bay. I paddleboard in Lions Bay. I swim in Lions Bay. I peed in Lions Bay. Sorry. Okay. Sorry. Omit that. Delete that. I do not live on the exact same road as the Hurleys, but I do live in my house on the opposite side of Lions Bay. I can almost see their location from mine, but can't quite see it from there. I have crossed the waterway property from the Hurleys. I have crossed their property hundreds and hundreds of times over the last 35 years. As far as navigating that waterway, I would call myself a professional. I can do it in the dark. I've done it in the dark many times. What the Hurleys are proposing is nothing more than a reasonable and rational request, in my opinion, and obviously on paper. Their own property, it's their own property. I do not believe that they are asking for anything more than what they need to facilitate the access they should be granted. If I'm not mistaken, I believe there's some kind of provision that allows up to 300 feet, and I believe they have asked for way less than that. It kind of seems like it would be cut and dry if they meet all that criteria. Their dock does not impede any kind of boat traffic in the channel. As you can see, it does not impede the channel at all. and I can speak from personal experience, I won't take my boat outside of that channel because it's about a foot deep there. So I'm not trying to do that, and none of the boaters around there are trying to do that. It does not harm or destroy the bay in any manner. That clearly would not be allowed. Nobody should be running their boat up into inches of sea grass. It seems as though their dock would actually help prevent that boating mistake or error, and it would kind of push that navigation into the channel where it should be anyway. I'd like to remind you that the area of the dock that crosses this, I'm sorry, I'd like to remind you that the area their dock crosses is not the sandbar that these other people are talking about. The sandbar that they're talking about is closer to the waterway markers, which is like a thousand feet away from that spot, maybe less, didn't measure it. And that area the dock crosses is only about a foot deep. In my 35 years here, and however many multiples of hours I've spent out on that sandbar, I've never seen even one single person swimming or standing in the proposed area of their dock, including myself. It's just too far away from that spot. You can see it from there, but you're not going to physically go stand in front of their house by that dock. It's just not there. It's further away. If you're a kayaker, pass by and go around the dock, just like you do the other hundred docks that are directly in that area. So it's not going to stop any kind of activity whatsoever. In response to a previous speaker today, I've parked my boat in that exact play area hundreds of times, and I don't have a picture, but their dock is so far away from that exact spot that it's not even a factor and will not affect that play area at all, like zero. Again, the request is reasonable, and as a homeowner across from the waterway from these guys, I commend their efforts for spending and trying to spend money on trying to improve the dock space because there are about another 10 docks just to the east of there that have been destroyed, dilapidated, and they need improvements. They need to be fixed. So this should be approved, and you should try and help us homeowners in that area clean it up. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And the last card I have on this is Jeremy Martin. Do I have any other cards on this, clerk?

No. Good evening. My name is Jeremy Martin. I'm a community member of Venice. I've lived in this a long time. I do a lot of community service. I think we went over the numbers enough, all the diagrams enough. I just think I'm here to stand with the Hurleys. I've been in that waters plenty of times. I don't think it's going to affect anything that we do on a regular basis. I think it's going to protect, and that's what we need to really stand for. let his kids experience those waterways just like she and everyone else got to do it. Those kids are wonderful kids and they deserve to explore the waterways there. And that's who I stand for. So I just wanted to let you know that.

Thank you very much. Any further questions for the agent or staff from my fellow commissioners? Commissioner Mayo.

I guess it's for staff or possibly the applicant. What would be some options if dredging was an option for access?

Mr. Crane will take it, and then if he needs assistance, he'll reach out to you.

Yeah, I think I'd defer that one to the consultant if you want to. You want to answer that? Yes.

A couple people did bring up the dredging issue, and that is actually the worst option you can do, is completely... You know, it's just something that like DEP and Army Corps would say, you don't dredge through seagrass, period. I mean, that not only is it the most destructive thing you can do, it has to be repeated, you know, because those things fill in. So, I mean, they'll tell you in any time you go to any of these agencies and say, hey, I want to dredge through, you know, 150 feet of seagrass because I don't want to have to spend $100,000 to build a dock to get out there and start saving your money. because you're just not going to get a permit to dredge seagrass. And, you know, the width of the channel you would have to put in there. And, again, they fill back in. So you'll get back in there every five years or whatever dredging again. So it's a terrible option. I know it sounds good, but it's just, you know, when I was in the marine construction business, I told people that's your absolute last option even if you've got – you know, no seagrass because you're going to spend $80,000, you're going to spend $100,000, whatever. Next storm that comes along might fill that whole thing right back in. So definitely not a very, not a viable option, especially where you have, you know, those are nice seagrass beds. They're not the real lush, deep stuff that you see, you know, big trout running through there and all that. I mean, that grass grows about two and a half inches long and it stays pretty sparse and it gets, because it gets exposed at wintertime, it doesn't, You know, it's not your classic big, nice, deep seagrass beds that you see out there, you know, where all the fish are. But it's still a valuable resource. And everything about this dock was designed to protect that. So.

Thank you.

Any additional questions for the petitioner or staff? Okay. Sir, you have, unfortunately, your time's over. That's why you get the five minutes for public speaking, and then that's it. Thank you. Final comments and your rebuttal. You get five minutes. Thank you. Okay.

All right. So I just wanted to go through the first couple speakers there and address what their concerns were. So the First Lady brought up the fact that that's an OFW. That's a very, very broad thing. characterization of waters in the state of Florida. All of the Sarasota estuarine intercoastal waterway is OFW. So from Cortez all the way down to Port Charlotte is all OFW. It's basically a designation that says these are certain waters that are better quality and you have to meet better water quality standards in those, but that does not These are not aquatic preserves. That's a level of protection that brings even stronger protections. And again, these docks are designed, this dock is designed to meet all of the aquatic preserve criteria for docks in areas that have submerged aquatic vegetation. So every guideline has been met to reduce those impacts. She mentioned paddle boards and fishing and wading. This dock will have no impact on that whatsoever. Again, it's going to be five feet above the mean high water line. If you're wading out there, you just walk underneath. If you're in your paddleboard or your kayak, you just paddle out underneath it and keep on doing what you got to do. Fishermen should like it because fish are attracted to these structures. Go to a dock and you'll see people fishing around. So when you talk about the protection, yes, it's an OFW, but that doesn't bring anything other generally than just increased water quality protection. And we've gone out of our way wrapping pilings and using composite materials to completely reduce those. Second speaker brought up... Dredging, again, we discussed that's not really an option. And, you know, people keep bringing up the length. You know, it's not like they're going out 200 feet just because they feel like it. They have to get to that spot. It's the only place they're going to get that's going to provide reasonable access to that waterway. Without, you know, again, they say, well, build something closer in. If you put a dock in one foot of water, you're guaranteed that you're going to have impacts on that continually. You see that on aerials. People build these little docks in close because they can't afford it. And the next thing you know, two years later on an aerial, you see a channel that's in there. whether it's jet skis running back and forth or whatever, people coming to visit, it just doesn't make sense to stick docks in the middle of seagrass beds, especially as shallow as these are. I mean, you get your activities out past that so that you're not impacting that on a daily basis. The other speaker again brought in a better way. There's really not a better alternative for this. If there was, if it was a shorter dock, probably saving $50,000. You know, this is a young, hardworking family. They're not blowing money just to see if they can have the biggest dock in the neighborhood. You know, a lot of people are talking about public use. There has to be this balance. Just because people have been swimming out there and fishing out there and they sit out there and drink beer on Saturdays does not preclude the rights of the homeowner to also have that access and the use of those lands. You know, the dock is not solely designed to protect the seagrass, but as a, you know, sort of a secondary effect of that, it will more direct boaters out to stay in the deeper water. You know, there was also an inference of a precedent. If there were such a thing as a precedent, all I'd have to do is point to the two docks to the left of my client's dock, and we'd see that they don't meet the 25% and that they go farther than that into the water body. But as Kirk has explained to me and the other planters have explained to me, you guys look at every application based on its own merits, and that's what should be done here. So, again, we don't want to see any dredging on that, and I think that covers everybody's concerns.

know what we what we heard from from everybody so i'll let you go with that but uh thank you again thank you very much and with that i will close the public hearing and entertain a discussion or vote regarding agenda item number two special exception petition number 1929 hurley dosh project commissioner mayo

Since it doesn't seem like there's any discussion, I'll move right into making a motion. Based upon the evidence and testimony received at the public hearing, I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of special exemption number 1929 with one stipulation. Second.

Second. First by Mayo, second by Fiedler. To your first.

I understand the reasons. This is why special exceptions are in place. I know it is a longer dock. I know it is not matching other docks, but this is the only way to have this dock accomplish what needs to happen for it to be a boatable use. Some people say, okay, they don't get a boat dock. Well, he lives on the water. He wants to have a boat. He followed the proper steps, and I feel like it's an acceptable reason to grant this exception.

To your second. And I also agree that dredging would be an awful alternative. So I'm more in favor of the extension.

I'll call the question. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

No.

Chair votes aye. Motion passes five to one. moving on to item number three special exception petition number 1919 bright beginnings daycare preschool this is a public hearing to consider proposed special exception to allow for a daycare preschool within the ilw zone district our presenters this evening are david brown planner sarasota county planning and development services and martin black agent land and p3 advisors mr brown haven't seen you in a while

all right good evening commissioners for the record david brown planning development services and i have signed a speaker's card tonight we're here to discuss the bright beginnings daycare and preschool project which consists of special exception number 1919 the applicant is proposing a daycare and preschool facility within the ilw zoning district and the project is located at 1751 cattleman road and it's on a property of approximately 2.4 acres The applicant for this project is Martin Black of Land and P3 Advisors. As a brief explanation of the process we are taking part of, a special exception is a use that could be found appropriate in specific zone districts through extra review and board approval. These uses may be approved when it is found that they promote public health, safety, welfare, and support other goals of the comprehensive plan. Okay. The project began the application process in August of 2025. Formal reviews were conducted and concluded in June of 2026, and today is the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. At this point, I would like to bring up Martin Black for the applicant's presentation. I will return after for the remainder of my presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Black and Mr. Brown.

Oh, you have it? Yeah. Right there. That's mine.

That one's yours. This one's mine. Okay.

Thanks.

It's funny.

Good evening. For the record, my name is Marty Black, and I did fill out a speaker slip, and congratulations on the new facility. It's good to see everybody. Briefly, I'm representing Todd Goering, who's the proposed operator of the Bright Begittings Preschool Daycare Facility. Todd has been at this business for several decades. Most recently, he spent 23 years and ran a similar operation at Holy Cross Church at the intersection of Bee Ridge and Boniva, which now has become a neighborhood Walmart. So we've been looking for a different location to operate into. His proposed operations are 730 in the morning to 530 at night. So we're not going late into the evenings. It's roughly 7,000 to 8,000 square feet of the existing building. We're not proposing any new structure. It's completely using existing vacant space within the existing structure. And in addition, there's approximately another 3,000 square feet of outdoor play area that is completely fenced and accessible from the inside of the building and for emergency purposes only exterior entrance point. There are 26 dedicated parking spaces. This is a major employment center by future land use and industrial by zoning. And under the zoning category for the industrial, the daycare preschool areas are allowed as a special exception use. I believe that when the ILW was created, it called out this use as potentially compatible because it would serve employees within the district. And that's really what we're attempting to demonstrate that we can do that. He anticipates generally providing service to 26 families or children with a maximum capacity of 100 children as set by the fire marshal and through capacity issues there. Generally, he feels that he's in the 65, 75 children range. trips that come, generally parents arrive between 7.30 and 10 in the morning, with some of the children picked up midday, and the remainder of the children picked up between 3.30 and 5.30. Based on his prior several decades of experience, that places anywhere really about eight to nine vehicles or parents dropping off a child at any one particular time. And since we do have the overall 26 spaces, five of those are for staff that are at the rear of the building. So the 21 spaces up front and with 8 to 9 parking spaces that in demand at any one point in time, we believe there's more than sufficient space for that. One of the critical parts of this is there's interior classroom space. Effectively, what he needs to do is demonstrate ultimately should this be approved to the fire marshal and through the building codes that they've separated the uses and provided appropriate space for the children. The play area meets all the requirements for the state. He's been through a preliminary review to confirm that from a licensing perspective. We believe that this petition meets the objectives for a needed community service for child care and preschool activities close proximity to a high employment area. One of the things that's beneficial about this and other locations where you might have a church or a school within a residential area, we're not going to be generating any kind of high traffic or adverse traffic impacts to a residential neighborhood. It serves as a community service to support the employers and the employees in this area, and we believe it meets an unmet demand for additional child care and pre-care facilities in close proximity to employment and will be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Brown, staff report, and I want to point out that the owner on this petition is Blue Aqua Corporation. Thank you, Mr. Thackson.

all right so good evening commissioners again for the record david brown and i have signed the speaker's card um as was previously mentioned this is a one-part application consisting of a special exception petition for daycare and preschool and is located within the ilw zoning district and it's on a parcel of 2.4 acres the subject site was previously utilized as a music school which operated from 2017 to 2024 and The site has been vacant since 2024 when the music school moved. Pictured here is the parcel showing the site's current state. The southern half of the existing building is intended to be utilized for the daycare with no proposed expansion at this time. As seen in this picture, the site has a future land use of major employment center, and the site is currently zoned for industrial uses, as are the parcels to the north, south, and east. There is existing access to the site from Cattleman Road. And this slide shows the proposed by development concept plan for this project. The dark gray portion on the south portion of the building indicates where the daycare is being proposed, which includes the play area. The allotted parking for the subject parcel can be seen here in dark gray, And I've also circled them or highlighted them with the red boxes just to clarify. This slide shows the site and the surrounding uses as well as the proposed traffic flow pattern from the applicant indicated here with the red arrows. There are industrial uses to the northwest and south, with the north half of the building being utilized as an automotive repair business to the west of the Summerwood subdivision. To assist you in your findings of fact in your staff report, staff has compiled a list of comprehensive plan policies that the Bright Beginnings Daycare and Preschool petition may be found consistent with. That's regarding smart growth through redevelopment, comprehensive plan consistency, economic diversity, and providing a service that supports the quality of life in the workforce. As part of that review, staff has found two policies that may be found inconsistent, that being future land use policies 2.1.17 regarding potential incompatibility with the existing uses on the site, as well as 2.3.7 regarding potential disruptions in the traffic patterns. After reviewing the petition, the staff has recommended one stipulation, that being a binding development concept plan. And this slide contains your suggested motion. Thank you. And I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Brown. Any questions for petitioner or staff at this time? Commissioner Faxton.

Mr. Brown, can you go back one slide in the inconsistency?

Inc, yeah.

237 refers to established residential areas. I wouldn't really consider this an established residential area. So I just wondered why it would be even considered.

well the the the reasoning for that was because there's residential neighborhood directly across the street which accesses through cattlemen got it thank you so the adversity could be you're good mr brown can you give all the intended uses in ilw I currently do not have that in my presentation.

Okay. I'm going to ask that question. Would you mind taking a look? Because I think there is a use, I could be wrong, for a K-12 school in ILW. So after we go through public testimony, hopefully you can come back and state that for the record.

Okay.

Or maybe the petitioner can look that up as well. All right, moving on to public testimony. We have one card, Mr. Lloyd Robbins. You have five minutes, state your name for the record and that you've signed a speaker's card.

Good evening, I'm Lloyd Robbins and I did sign the speaker's card. I'm the real estate agent representing the owner of the Blue Aqua Corporation. When Blue Aqua Corporation purchased the property back in the 80s, Kettleman Road was just a two-lane bumpy road with a few industrial buildings on it. As we all know, that's changed. Kettleman Road has changed into more of a mixed use. You have industrial, you have residential, you have multifamily, you have retail, and you have medical office buildings. So we feel that this is compatible use. As the staff report gave, previous tenants of this building was a music school, which had mainly children. They had summer camps there. They worked very compatible with the other tenants in the building as far as the industrial usages that were around them. So we'd like your support for this special exception. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do I have any other speaker cards? Nope. All right. Any further questions for the agent or staff? Commissioner Thaxton.

Yes, Madam Chairman. Assuming there may be no questions, I'd move approval of the special exception 1919 with favorable findings of fact.

Do we have a second?

Second.

And then for the moment, I'm going to hold just to clarify. I want for the record just to be stated. So, Mr. Black, can you state for the record, can K through 12 be... We didn't do a rebuttal. We haven't closed the public hearing, so no, you cannot make a motion. So I do have a question about the intended use of K through 12 in ILW.

Yes, great question. So I believe that's a special exception use as well, but the institutional trade and vocational schools are permitted by right.

Thank you very much. Any additional questions before I close the public hearing? wonderful i'll go ahead and close the public hearing and entertain a discussion or a vote rebuttal rebuttal thank you very much do you have a rebuttal mr black and with that i will close the public hearing and move on to a discussion or a vote on agenda item number three do i have i have some discussion commissioner mayo

Just quick things. I know the area quite well. I operate a business directly next door for quite some time. And the music school was always there. It was a great neighbor. And this use, I feel, is very, very similar to the music school. I think for the applicant and the end user, safety needs to be a big part of it. just because it is very close to Cattleman Road, which is a busy road, and there is a lot of traffic for the other businesses through that parking lot. So just safety to keep in mind as we get through the rest of the process and as you get into your business use side of things. But I'm in support of the application.

And I want to mention as a working mom in Sarasota County, I think childcare facilities are limited. The one my kids went to in the Jewish Federation Center no longer exists anymore. So I'm a big advocate for having childcare opportunities here in Sarasota County. And I think it's a really great location. And I think special exceptions like this make it so that sometimes it may not be the most perfect place for a child care facility. But we have to think about meeting parents where they are. There's a lot of residential over there with Colonial Oaks and Sherwood Forest and Sherwood Estates. And so I think outside of just the major employment center, which is also important to support the parents there, you have a lot of residents that would be able to utilize this facility as well. Any more discussion? Do I have a vote?

Oh, you want me to do it? You're up. Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to disrupt your meeting protocol. But now that we're at the appropriate time and place, I move approval of special exception 1919 with favorable findings of fact. Second.

Mr. Thaxton, to your first.

No, I think the previous discussion summed it up very well.

To your second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just based off of what we learned, if for some reason this doesn't pass at the County Commission, obviously there's such a need for preschools and daycares in the area, but there's also a need for HVAC workers, so a trade school for four-year-olds could also allegedly be approved. Sorry, I'm trying to find my camera in this new building. There we are. I'm making sure the four people on YouTube can see me. Thank you. I absolutely support this, and there's a definite need, so thank you.

With that, I will call the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Chair votes aye. Motion passes six to zero.

I just want the chair that has one stipulation for a binding site plan.

With one stipulation for the binding site plan. Thank you. Commissioner Mayo is just keeping us on point tonight. I think we may switch seats here in a minute. And with that, we're going to move on to the next item, which is rezone petition number 25-10, Fruitville Corporate Park. This is a public hearing to consider a proposed rezone petition to change the zone district of approximately 13.2 acres for properties located at 7840 Fruitville Road, 7850 Fruitville Road, and 98 Jacobs Lane, Sarasota, from OUE1 to BP Zone District. Our presenters this evening are Jonah Mazzone, Planner, Sarasota County Planning and Development Services, and Brian Lichterman, Agent, Vision, Planning, and Design. Mr. Mazzone.

Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. For the record, Joan Wazone, planner with Sarasota County Planning and Development Services, and I have signed a speaker's card. Tonight, we are discussing rezone petition number 25-10, which is the Fruitville Corporate Park project. I want to also say for the record that since the time of publication, staff has received an additional correspondence, copies of which have been provided to you and the clerk. So this project is located south of Fruitville Road, east of Tatum Road, and west of Jacobs Lane. The subject site consists of three parcels totaling approximately 13.20 acres. This project is being represented by Brian Lichterman of Vision Planning and Design. And as part of this proposed application, the applicant is requesting a rezone to change the zone district of the three parcels from open use of State 1 to business park to allow for a business park development with an on-binding development concept plan. This project began the application process in January of 2025. After the neighborhood workshop was held in April, the formal application was then submitted in June. The applicant then changed the request and the application was then resubmitted in April of this year. Then in July, all reviews were concluded and the second neighborhood workshop was held. Now today is the scheduled planning commission hearing. At this time, I'd like to bring up Brian Lichterman. He'll come up and provide the applicant's presentation. Afterwards, I'll return to give staff's presentation and address any questions you may have.

Good evening, Madam Chair and fellow commissioners. For the record, my name is Brian Lichterman with Vision Planning and Design, and I have completed a card. Tonight, I'm presenting rezone petition 25-10, which is a request to rezone approximately 13.2 acres on Fruitvale Road from OUE1 to Business Park. I'm very pleased to be here representing the three property owners, which includes Mr. James and Maria Gazuski, Mr. Darrell and Ava Knapp, and Mr. Kelly and Joy Davenport. Also with me on my team tonight is Mr. Marty Black from Land and P3 Advisors, who was just up here a moment ago. Just to remind you, this will be the fourth BP rezoning petition that's been considered by the Planning Commission. And I do have a PowerPoint presentation for you tonight. So, admittedly, this is an AI-generated rendering of the proposed Fruitvale Corporate Park based upon a non-binding development concept plan. And I decided to make this presentation a little bit different than my normal presentations. This is usually something that I would save to the end. But I wanted to at least just throw this out there to give you an idea of what the purpose of this rezoning is and to give you an idea of what the BP district would allow. Admittedly, this is AI-generated. My next series of slides will address how the BP District will be implemented to be able to achieve these types of concepts. So, at a glance, in its simplest form, this petition changes the zoning designation on 13.2 acres from OUE 1 to BP, which stands for Business Park. The property is located south of Fruitvale Road between Tatum Ridge Road and Jacobs Lane. It doesn't look like that slide showed up very well. But this property is designated semi-rural on the county's future land use plan map, but it is also part of what's called the business park corridor along Fruitvale Road. There are approximately five business park corridors throughout Sarasota County, and one of them is the stretch of Fruitvale Road from essentially I-75 to approximately one mile east of Lorain. This is an aerial photo. It's a little bit disoriented because it's looking south. Normally, I do it north. But on this one, I thought it was better to give you an oblique perspective of this property as you were looking south. And as you can see, Tatum Road, which there's an intersection. located where I've got the green, the yellow and the red. And then along the eastern boundary of this property is Jacobs Lane, which is a small little private roadway. Fruitville Road is the main road that this property has access to. And all the way at the end, you can see this would be, I refer to it as the jug handle, which takes you into the International Trade Center. The property, as I indicated, was zoned OUE. And what governs the BP zoning district is that, The county requires that all BP sites be a minimum of 10 acres in size. It also must be along a county arterial, which in this case is Fruitville Road. The maximum height that is allowed is 35 feet. It's a requirement that there be a 50-foot greenbelt around the entire perimeter of the site. And then there's also a requirement for a 75-foot setback. And finally, the project must go through significant design review, which would include architecture, landscaping, parking, loading, and other site development criteria at a later stage. And I've got another slide that kind of illustrates that. What we're proposing is a non-binding development concept plan. And partly the reason why it's non-binding is, as indicated in the county staff report, The county only requires in the BP district that the development concept plan be binding. And the reason why, when the Board of County Commissioners created the BP district back in 2022, is that they really wanted flexibility. So when a large corporate headquarter user would come to town and needs a site immediately, They don't have to go through a lengthy nine-month process. The BP district would allow them to just basically go in and avoid the rezoning step. But obviously, they would still have to go through final building, permitting, internal layout, and all those other elements would be addressed as they went through traditional site and development plan and construction plan approval. The BP districts already contain numerous provisions for buffering, setbacks, access requirements, architecture and design standards, transportation limitations, stormwater utilities and site and development plan. So in other words, there are already many built in elements of the BP district that provide the safeguards to ensure that all future development within the BP district is very high quality development. And as you'll see, staff has put a number of stipulations as part of this rezoning, which will further ensure that future development that takes place on this property is all consistent with county regulations. And finally, the applicant once again believes that having a non-binding development concept plan is an adequate protection because all the other requirements in the future, as long as you have a framework for how development has to take place, then what happens internally is all governed. What you wanna make sure is that the overall framework of where the buffers are gonna be, the setbacks, the location of your access points into the property, the fact that there will be an overall stormwater management plan for this area, an overall transportation plan, all the utilities have to be master planned, and it has to have a unity of title. So even though we have three individual property owners, the entire property must be developed as a whole. And that's what the stipulations that staff has imposed would do. Once again, there are adequate perimeter protections And this planning commission can evaluate the compatibility with the enforceable perimeter protection rather than by trying to site plan the internal ramifications of this site. As long as you address all these external perimeter elements of it, what happens on the inside is going to be handled by your other elements of the UDC. Once again, there's a requirement for a 30-foot maximum height. There's no access being proposed along Jacobs Lane. There's enhanced separation, and it will have to go through additional site plan review that remains in the future. This is a copy of the non-binding development concept plan. And as you can see, I've tried to show us four large buildings here. They would be over parking, and then there would be a fifth building at the rear. But as you can see, I've tried to design this non-binding plan with the required 50-foot perimeter landscaping along the entire outside perimeter. And I've also shown stormwater requirements around the um the majority of the site which basically almost serves as a malt around the entire property so the rezoning does not end the review process it still has to go through after the rezoning it will have to go through extensive site and development plan which will include final buildings parking stormwater utilities landscaping architecture and circulation and then it has to go into construction where there'll be detailed engineering details, turn lane improvements, and all other applicable permits and conditions that the county would require as part of the process. There's five basic facts that I want you to try to keep in mind here. This is 13.2 acres. It's a rezoning from OUE 1 to BP. The BP district does not require a binding concept plan And the applicant's concept is intentionally non-binding. The final development must still comply with all the BP standards and complete site development plan. And we've provided adequate buffers and setbacks. We're only showing two access points along Fruitvale Road. And there's a requirement for coordinated infrastructure. that must be addressed in the future. So as part of your staff report, staff identified a number of stipulations, and I'm not gonna read them all, but I have highlighted the major components of each of these. We must execute and record within the official record a unity of title covenant over the entire property. There has to be a master stormwater plan for the entire development. There has to be a master utilities plan for the entire development. There has to be a master transportation plan. For the entire development, there has to be interconnectivity between all parcels within the development. Frontage and primary access will be required to Fruitville Road. Access should be restricted to Fruitville Road only. All buildings shall be set back a minimum of 75 feet from the northern, southern, eastern, and western property lines. And transportation has two additional stipulations that require the construction of an eastbound to southbound right turn lane at both of the project locations along Fruitville Road. The right turn lane should be designed in accordance with the Florida DOT design manual and the closest that any of the access points to Jacobs Lane would be no closer than 245 feet west of Jacobs Lane. As it relates to the economic impact of this, I just, threw this into CHAT-GBT just to see what it would come up with. And a 200,000 square foot BP development would add 30 million to 50 million in taxable value and support anywhere from 420 to 535 jobs. In addition, the development would be required to pay impact fees, utility revenue would be required, and sales surtax would be available to the county. Once again, this is just a rendering of what it could look like. I think that this is a beautiful project that could fit in here and would be a great addition along Fruitville Road. And with that, that completes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lichterman. Mr. Mazzone, staff report.

Thank you. Again, Jonah Mazzone with Planning and Development Services. So as was previously stated, this is a rezone application to change the zone district of these properties from open use estate one to business park to allow for business park development on three parcels totaling approximately 13.20 acres and is located outside of the urban service boundary or USB. It is important to note that per UDC section 124-76, a binding DCP is not required for a BP rezone. Therefore, the applicant has opted not to submit one for this application. If this rezone is approved, the site may be allowed up to a max floor area ratio of 1.2, which equates to approximately 689,990 square feet of any BP permitted use. So to talk about the future land use of the subject site, it is designated semi-rural and shown in green on the future land use map, which matches most of the surrounding area, also designated semi-rural. To the north of the subject site, across Fruitville, are properties designated Major Employment Center, and further west is a property designated Light Office. Since the applicant is not requesting a comprehensive plan amendment, the flu designation of the subject site will not change. The subject site is also designated Rural Heritage slash State on the 2050 Resource Management Area, or RMA, map, and is located along the Business Park Corridor RMA designation. Per chapter eight of the comprehensive plan, the business park corridor is a linear designation, which provides an opportunity for economic development and employment both in and outside of the USB. The BP corridor RMA is continuous along designated roadway corridors, which in this instance is Fruitville Road. Because the site is located along the BP corridor, this proposed application may qualify for potential rezone to BP, which is an implementing zone district. Shown here on the slide are the BP corridor standards within the comprehensive plan, and the EDC that this rezone must comply with. Any business park development must have a minimum of 10 acres, frontage and primary access to a county arterial roadway, a greenbelt buffer of 50 feet with 0.7 opacity around the entire development, and no proposed buildings shall be taller than 35 feet. So to provide some background information, this slide displays the history of when business park was first implemented through previously approved petitions and how it applies to current code regulations for potential BP developments. The first two large-scale comprehensive plan amendments relating to Business Park were approved in 2022. Through these two CPAs, it established that the BP zone district could only exist two ways, within the major employment center designation on the FLU map and within the newly created Business Park corridor on the 2050 RMA map. The most recent CPA established more county thoroughfares as BP corridors, And since these CPA approvals, there have been two rezone petitions to the BP Zone District that were approved in 2023 and 2024. This map shows the areas of the previously approved rezones in relation to this application. The subject site is located approximately 500 feet from the 2023 rezone and approximately 1.5 miles from the 2024 rezone. Currently, no site development plans have been submitted for these approved rezones. The site is currently zoned OU1 at one point or at one unit per five acres. It is mostly surrounded by other OUE1 zone properties south of Fruitville Road and OPI slash PD zone property further west and ILWU zone properties to the north across Fruitville Road. If the proposed rezone is approved, the zone district of the site would be changed to BP. This slide shows the existing land uses of the site and neighboring properties in the surrounding area. The subject site contains landscaping business on the first parcel, and residential structures on the second and third parcels. It is important to note that if this application is approved, the existing residential uses on site would be required to be discontinued if the site is rezoned to BP as it is not a permitted use. The surrounding properties also contain a mix of OE1 uses, office, BP, light manufacturing, and warehousing uses, which are designated here on the map. The site currently contains three existing access points that go to and from Fruvo Road. It is also abutting Jacobs Lane, which is a private road servicing the existing residential uses in the surrounding neighborhoods. Since a non-binding DCP was submitted as part of this application, staff recommends three stipulations to ensure that any proposed access shall be restricted to Fruitville Road only and no access to Jacobs Lane, shall have eastbound to southbound right turn lanes along Fruitville Road, and shall be located no closer than 245 feet west of Jacobs Lane. Again, since a non-binding DCP is proposed, Staff reviewed the application and made an analysis on all permitted uses within the BP zone district that could potentially be developed on the site. As it relates to the existing uses currently there, the residential uses would be required to be discontinued, again, as it is not a permitted use. However, the landscaping business would be allowed to continue since it is a permitted use. It is important to note that any use proposed for the subject site must comply with all BP zone district standards. specifically the business park corridor RMA requirements outlined in the comprehensive plan and the UDC. So on this slide are the BP corridor RMA standards that any BP development must comply with. It is important to note that these standards are intended to be more limited and restrictive for BP development than the BP development standards within the MEC future land use. There are also additional standards that any new development cannot have off-street parking, within 25 feet of a residential zone district and must comply with architectural standards per UDC section 124-128. There is no maximum FAR in the UDC, but the comprehensive plan limits BP development to 1.2 FAR. If this rezone is approved, again, up to approximately 689,990 square feet of any per BP permitted use could potentially be developed. a potential BP development that size may not be realistically possible due to these more restrictive development standards in BP corridor. So this slide visually shows the BP requirements specific to the subject site. Any potential BP development shall have a 50-foot setback from the front property line, which abuts Fruitvale Road, and a 75-foot setback from all other property lines. However, the applicant did propose a 75-foot setback from the front property line, so as a result, staff recommends a stipulation for any proposed buildings to have a 75-foot setback from all property lines to ensure that there is adequate and enhanced physical separation from the existing residential uses. Any new development would also be required to have a 50-foot greenbelt buffer with a 0.7 opacity around the perimeter of the entire development. This slide shows the site and how it is currently split into three individual parcels with three separate owners. Since the applicant intends to maintain the subject site as the three separate parcels, they would not meet the BP corridor RMA requirements because none of them meet the 10-acre minimum required on their own. And the parcel to the rear of the site does not have direct frontage and primary access to Fruitville Road. So as a result, staff recommends four stipulations to ensure that this proposed rezone, if approved, is a unified development through a unity of title covenant and through these three master infrastructure plans shown on the slide. They would be required to be submitted and approved during the first phase of a site development application for the entire site. Another thing to note is that this rezone application may have potential implications under the Live Local Act for the Florida statutes. If this rezone of the BP zone district is approved, the subject site may allow for potential development up to 13 units an acre with the provision of affordable housing without going to a public hearing. To assist you with the findings of fact found within your staff report, staff has conducted a consistency analysis of the comprehensive plan's goals, objectives, and policies. Based on this, this reason may be found consistent with several policies relating to gradual order growth of future land uses, mitigation of potential compatibilities, BP development outside the USP, and implementing BP uses within the BP or RMA. Additionally, staff's analysis identified that this reason may be inconsistent with BP policy 1.1, which relates to the compliance with the intent development standards, and requirements of business parks. As residential is not permitted within the BP zone district, these existing uses would be required to be discontinued and could be deemed code violations if they remain on site. Additionally, the subject site consists of three separate owners. On their own, none of these parcels would meet the 10-acre minimum requirement, and the rear property would not have direct frontage and primary access to a county thoroughfare road, which is Fruitville Road. Therefore, without approval of the staff recommended stipulations requiring a unified development of the site, the rezoned may not meet the requirements and overall intent of the BP corridor RMA as envisioned within the comprehensive plan. Staff has recommended eight stipulations relating to a unity of title covenant, master infrastructure plans, enhanced setbacks, and access requirements. And with that, there is one motion on the slide for your consideration. Staff is now available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for the petitioner staff? Commissioner Fiebler. I do.

For the petitioner. A little clarification, please. You said there were nine stipulations. Staff says there are eight.

Yeah, there were originally nine, and I apologize. Staff has now eliminated one of those, and now it is only eight stipulations.

Thank you. Any other questions for petitioner or staff? Commissioner Thaxton.

Staff. Mr. Rizzone, this access, there's two accesses to Fruitvale Road. Are they both full accesses or is there a median that restricts write-in, write-out, write-in, write-out only?

I believe it's both ingress and egress with write-in, write-out.

And Commissioner Thaksin, you said two. Do you mean three?

There's two accesses to Fruitful Road, right?

There's three. So there's two on the leftmost parcel, and then there's one on the right.

Oh, I missed that one. The one right there next to the Jacob Lane. Oh.

Good evening. For the record, Marquis Bing, and I have signed a speaker's card. When you speak of two access, are you talking about on the plan that's being proposed or the existing access points?

Well, I'm looking at the, and I recognize it's a non-binding development concept plan, but it shows two access points to Fruitful Road. And they appear to be, the full access appears to be obstructed by a median. So I'm just asking, is it a right in, right out? And did staff consider any stipulation that would address access, ingress and egress?

They are both restricted. The one furthest to the west allows for left turn in. There is already an existing turn lane that allows left in. And then it also has a right in, right out.

Oh, I see.

And the one furthest to the east is just right in, right out only. Okay. Thank you.

Any additional questions? Commissioner Mayo.

This is for the applicant. I know this is a non-binding plan, which we all have our own views on non-binding plans. Is there any current proposed tenants or uses for the space?

No, it's way too premature for that.

Okay. Can staff pull back up the list of possible business park uses? And just for my own clarification, even though I know we can all read, but the options on here are very vast, where we could have one day a semi-truck there delivering warehouse materials, and the next day it could be somebody going to a doctor's office. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct.

Okay. No further questions.

Any additional questions? All right. We'll move on to public testimony. I have two cards. Donna Geisdorf. Just state your name for the record and that you've signed a speaker's card.

Good evening. I have signed a speaker card and my name is Donna Geisdorf. I live with my daughter at 126 Jacobs Lane, the property that borders the proposed business park at the south border, south boundary. My late husband and I purchased our home in 1978, 48 years ago. We both taught in Sarasota schools for 33 years. We raised three children along with dogs, cats, pigs, horses, and chickens on the property. Neighbors look out for one another on Jacobs Lane, a private road that remains dirt despite efforts at times to pave it. I have friends on the lane who have lived there since birth and are now in their 50s and 70s. I've always thought of our neighborhood as one of those best-kept secrets, east of I-75 but not too far out. I am very worried that that could all change if this proposal goes through. My concerns are many, starting with the noise and disruption that major construction would cause at our end of the lane. Currently, there are no bright lights at night. The lane is dark. I worry that such upheaval would disturb the many animals I enjoy on my two acres. I've always thought of my land as a nature preserve. In the past year alone, I've observed gopher tortoises, bobcats, coyotes, deer, foxes, raccoons, armadillos, possums, and rabbits. I typically have a dozen bird feeders going at any given time, attracting the usual titmice, red-bellied woodpeckers, and wrens. Over the years, I have been lucky enough to attract hummingbirds, indigo buntings, and my personal favorite, beautiful painted buntings that return every year. More traffic is also a major concern for all of us. Getting onto Fruitville Road has become increasingly more difficult, so many of us use Tatum where there's a light. I have concerns that people leaving the proposed business park would use Jacobs Lane. designated private road thereby trespassing to avoid already intense traffic on fruitville the fact that we have a county private road sign displayed does little to deter traffic as it is in conclusion i ask you to consider if allowing the building of this business park would be worth the significant change in rural lifestyle that my neighbors and i currently enjoy

would ask you to try imagining a similar situation in your own neighborhood one that could potentially change the whole dynamic of daily life for you thank you for listening thank you very much and thank you for your service to sarasota county schools susan shetley how'd i do i did good today didn't i you nailed it commissioner thaxton wrote it phonetically for me so i appreciate it you have five minutes

Thank you very much. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Susan Shetley. I am president of Keep the Country and a board member of the Council of Neighborhood Associations, known as KONA. I'm not totally up to speed on this particular proposal. However, I personally have believed since the business park corridor's were initially proposed that they have no business being in any area that the future land use in the comprehensive plan identifies as rural heritage. They are inherently incompatible. Beyond that, a non-binding site plan is not even worth the paper it's printed on, in my opinion. There's nothing binding them to it. They can do whatever they want. My biggest point I wanted to make this evening is that I think I would hope that you take very seriously the impact of converting this residential property that at the current time is not subject to the Live Local Act. And I believe that the county has very good possibilities of winning those lawsuits on that. I think it's a very strong case that the county has. If this land is converted to a commercial land use, such as this business park, it does become eligible for Live Local. At 13 dwelling units per acre, just assume the 10 acres, you've got 130 dwelling units there adjacent or nearby to properties that have one dwelling unit per five or one dwelling unit per three. It's incompatible, inappropriate, and would cause dramatic changes to that area, not the least of which is whether as a business park or as a live local development, dumping greatly increased amounts of traffic on already overloaded Fruitville Road in an area where the roadway is already compromised. There's changes of lanes right in that area. The one lane that takes off to the right that nobody ever pays attention to and on the other side of The light, everybody's converging at once and trying to avoid having to take a right turn lane as is designated by the signage. Bad location, incompatible with existing development, and I really ask that you seriously consider the impacts of converting any of our residential lands to commercial lands and making them subject to the Live Local Act, particularly anything related to the rural area. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do I have any additional public comment cards? No. All right. With that, do we have any further questions for the petitioner or staff at this time? We have another card. Look at that.

Mr. Black.

I want to make sure it's correct.

I'm happy to speak as a member of the public as part of the five-minute rule.

All right. Mr. Black, you have five minutes. State your name for the record and that you sign a speaker's card.

Thank you, Marty Black, and I have signed a speaker's card. I wanted to provide a little bit of context for the Planning Commission, also for the public, and maybe make a few suggestions. I was engaged to help the Nepp family on this, their properties, several years ago before the changes for Business Park. And we were actually in the process of developing a special exception petition for a storage facility because it is permitted in the district, believe it or not, if you have enough acreage. And when the opportunity was brought to us in the family to join with the neighbors to pursue a business park, it seemed to be more consistent with the overall goals of the county for employment generation. So we joined with the other property owners to bring the petition before you this evening. Considering that the business park zoning would be preferable to a special exception request for more storage along the food court. So that was the genesis several years ago as this went through the process and I thought it was good to hear the background on that because we hear a lot about what can go on in the corridor. But if you go back and actually look at some of the uses. It's not pure residential and I wanted to make sure it was aware of that. I did speak with Mr. Lichterman, and you may not be aware of this, but I'm the only applicant that the county didn't elect to stop with a live local project in Sarasota County. It's actually the single project on Lockwood Ridge Road. And I understand the concerns as a former city manager and public planner of this. So I talked to Mr. Lichterman, and I think Because our intent is not to do a live local project. I don't know if the county attorney would allow a stipulation that says we would not avail ourselves of that. I've used that in other jurisdictions with other clients. And because Judge Carroll this afternoon is allowing the county's the lawsuit against the county to move forward. I thought it would be appropriate to introduce that as a concept to ensure that this does not become a multifamily project on Brookfield Road, that the intent is for a business park and those uses and that would provide additional assurances. So those were just my two background comments and possibly a suggestion for additional condition.

Thank you very much. Any further questions for the agent or staff at this time? All right, you have five minutes for a rebuttal.

Good evening again, Madam Chair and members of the Commission. Thank you again for this opportunity to respond. Let me begin by bringing the discussion back to what's actually before you. This request to rezone 13.2 acres from OUE 1 to Business Park on property located on the south side of Fruitville Road, west of Jacobs Lane, and within the county's adopted Fruitvale Road Business Park corridor. This request does not seek a comprehensive plan designation. I think it's important to also recognize that this property is directly across the street from an existing major employment center. So it's not like this is an isolated area. It's already within an area directly across from a major employment center. And as you know, this property would have access, very easy access to I-75, to Lakewood Ranch. It's on a bus line, the new Hyatt Ranch to the east. is before you this evening. And this, in my opinion, as a planner, is a perfect location to try to provide employment opportunities that's convenient to a source of employment that's convenient for a wide area. Some concerns have been raised about the non-binding development concept plan. It does not mean that this plan, that this property is unregulated. That's not the case. The county staff report acknowledges that the UDC does not require a binding development concept plan for a BP rezoning. But more importantly, the site would remain subject to all the applicable BP standards in the county site and development plan review, and non-binding does not mean unregulated. Those continuing standards are substantial. They include the minimum land area requirements, frontage and primary access to a colony arterial, a height limitation of 35 feet, a 50-foot perimeter greenbelt, a 75-foot building setback, all the additional architecture, landscaping, parking, loading, stormwater utilities and circulation. So there are plenty of additional safeguards before anything would ever happen on this property. The eight proposed stipulations that staff has proposed address the unity of title, which means that all development of these three individual parcels has to be done in a unified manner. There has to be a master stormwater plan. There has to be a master utility plan, a master transportation plan. We're restricting all the access to Fruitville Road only. We've got the setbacks, additional eastbound improvements are gonna be required at the applicant's responsibility to provide turn lanes at the two proposed access points. And the rezoning is really only the first step in the process. As I indicated, it has to go through significant additional reviews. There has been two public workshops that were held, and there was some minor concerns, as you heard tonight from this woman that lives along Jacobs Lane. But in general, it has been very few. people that have complained about this property whatsoever, which kind of leads me to believe that they agree that this is an appropriate location for a BP district. So the question is whether business park zoning is appropriate for this acreage along an adopted corridor. The Board of County Commissioners identified it. They wanted it. They've already approved two other BPs. I would respectively request that this Planning Commission also approve rezone petition 25-10 subject to the eight stipulations as recommended by staff and thank you for your time thank you very much and with that i will close the public hearing and entertain a discussion or a vote regarding agenda item number four commissioner mayo i just have some quick discussion um uh this project i am very much on the fence with um i am

and overall going to be in support of it. But I do have my reasons why I'm on the fence with it. You know, we had another one of these come through, I believe on Bee Ridge Road, that there was a similar type situation. I felt like that one... It didn't get approved. I felt like it wasn't a good fit just because it didn't match even worse than this area does. But we did have another one come through that was just down the road. That one was passed. And the biggest concern I have with it, it was under the disguise that it was going to be future VA. And that didn't happen. So I don't like the fact that there's no binding concept planned. I like the fact that the renderings and the demonstration that's put on by Mr. Lickerman, it's beautiful. And if we built exactly what you showed, I would be a thousand percent in support of it because it is pretty, it looks good. It'd be a great use. My concern is just the what ifs. I'm big on land rights and letting things move forward as the community sees fit. So again, I'm going to be in support of it, but I do have a lot of reservations with these business parks and they're definitely not my favorite by any means.

Anyone else? Commissioner Thaxton.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm not crazy about the RMA overlay that was done after the fact. But we've got to live with it. It's on the books. Nothing we can do to go back. But I do think that we need to be very conscious where we use it. And this one has a lot of residential property around it. It is in a resident. It is an open-use district. It is just not the right place. There's just too many potential and, I think, obvious incompatibilities with the site. I agree with Commissioner Mayo having a binding development concept plan that would show the you know, the kind of the stormwater right prairie, and if you would, buffering around it might help, but we don't have any of that. All we have is a potentially very intense use in an area that is known for its agriculture landscaping and low-density residential uses.

Commissioner LaCivita.

Yeah, I look at it differently. I agree with both Mayo and Commissioner Thackson on it. I do believe this is a, because it's already been designated to be that type of location, business park. I think it fits well in the neighborhood, quite honestly, because it's right along that corridor. And I think it's much needed. With the stipulations that have been provided, I think Mr. Lichterman did a very good job explaining why we should approve this. To me, it checks almost every box. I'm 90% sure. All the way through it, it checks the box. There's probably 10%. I agree. It could be binding. But quite honestly, it fits the county standards and future land use. So I'm going to be in favor of it.

Commissioner Fiedler. I have to agree. I really like the restrictions that staff has put on it. I think they've pretty much confined it so that it would be an improvement and perhaps important in that area for future growth. I never like a plan that doesn't have a binding concept development plan. I'm always leery of that, so I have to agree with Commissioner Mayo, but I also see that it is what it is, and this is already zoned for this area potentially, so I will be in favor of it with a lot of reservations.

I'll just add that I agree with everything that's said. And unfortunately, it doesn't get me past, I guess, 50% to vote yes. So I'll be voting no, because I just still, I can't fully see that the change wouldn't be compatible with the area. But I agree, if it gets approved, might be fine. But whenever I drive down that area, I just still can't, I'll say my comments, but I just, I don't think it fits.

is there a motion on the floor i got another question what was that live local mr black was talking about can someone explain that to me can we can we can we put that stipulation going to be a ninth stipulation or is it proper or what is it i mean i think it would be difficult i think it would be difficult adding a stipulation that otherwise is related to a state preemption because

If another developer came to that property, they'd probably try and argue that they're allowed in that use irrespective of the underlying zoning. It's not an issue that OCA has analyzed to this point, and so it's something we can do between now and the board meeting. But I think there would be some reservations there just based off of we would be adding a stipulation that's circumventing a state preemption.

Madam Chair, did you close the public hearing? We can reopen it. I did close the public hearing. May I just ask one quick question of the petitioner? It'll just take a second.

Does the Board agree? We can go ahead and reopen the public hearing. Commissioner Thaxton?

Yes. Mr. Lichtman, your client, all three property owners are acknowledging and agree to the stipulation of unity of title and understand what is being done for? That's correct. Thank you, ma'am.

With that, I will close the public hearing.

No.

No? Yes.

He has rebuttal. I was going to ask Marty Black another question since we're open.

Okay, we'll keep the commission.

Sorry, Mr. Black, explain your little comment you made earlier.

I wasn't trying to, again, Marty Black, for the record, I did spy on the speaker card. I wasn't trying to derail the process, but understanding the difficulty of a live local. I have seen in other jurisdictions, I defer to the county attorney. I think the difference would be as if the applicant agrees and stipulates it and offers it. It's different than the county applying it unilaterally because the zoning does run with the land. So I think that since I'm not the signed applicant, I'm representing one of the families, not all of them. I think that'd be a question as to Mr. Lichterman, is the applicant proffering that? But I think that may give an opportunity then for the county attorney to distinguish between the county imposing as a stipulation to get around the statute versus the applicant offering it as a stipulation without coercion.

That'll ask Mr. Lichterman, are you willing to proffer that?

Once again, Brian Lichterman for the record, and yes, I'd be willing to proffer that stipulation that we not try to implement the Live Local Act if this property gets rezoned to BP. Try or will? Will not.

So generally, whether it's proffered or whether it is required by the county, the analysis is still the same. Being proffered doesn't change that analysis.

so we're with nine stipulations now is that what i'm gathering i'll just have a little discussion quickly uh eight stipulations is what the county is originally doing nine would be with the live local i do not suggest that we stipulation in and i actually would be more in favor which sounds weird now uh be more in favor if it did have a live local component as second floor apartments or something like that. So I would not like to live local portion added to it.

I think in history of this board, having stipulations dictated at the diocese is tough versus having it completed and worked out prior to arrival. I remember when Commissioner Taylor was chair, there's been several times that stipulations were proffered in it and Ultimately, the Planning Commission has denied the proffered stipulations at the time because there's a lot of details I think that need to be worked through. So I would be in agreement with Commissioner Mayo that a proffered stipulation today I'm not really comfortable with at this time. Any additional discussion?

I'll make a motion.

I'm going to close the public hearing. but I will offer a rebuttal before I do that. Do you want an additional rebuttal since we opened it back up? All right. County attorney said I could offer it.

Okay, thank you again. I will take you up on that rebuttal, and I'm more than happy to bring that up again to the Board of County Commissioners that we would, unless the county says they can't do it, we're willing to proffer that it won't be a live local development. And I'm going a little bit out on a limb here, and if... I was prepared should this board feel that they needed a binding development concept plan. I do have a binding development concept plan. It is what I would consider to be a bubble plan. And it really doesn't do effectively more than what my non-binding plan is, other than it's a binding plan. And I can just show you... So essentially, what it does is it maintains, as Commissioner Thaxton wanted, the perimeters of the stormwater and the landscaping. That becomes binding. And what this plan does is say that we've got a maximum square footage of 200,000 square feet of BP-type uses in addition to all the required stormwater and other components that would be required But this is a binding concept plan. And in my opinion, it's not that significantly different than my non-binding plan. But if this commission feels that they feel much more comfortable with a binding plan, this is a binding, what I would call a bubble plan. And that completes my rebuttal.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lichterman. Mr. Derry, I see you lingering back there.

For the record, Todd Derry, Manager in Planning and Development Services, and I will sign his speaker card. I would just ask for consideration that staff has not reviewed a binding plan. Staff has reviewed a blank box. So we would suggest that this would be continued to reevaluate a binding plan and come back.

coming back to the Planning Commission.

If so, properly. Yes. We do not want to go forward to the Board having not reviewed properly a new binding plan. That makes sense.

Right.

So just something to consider.

So I guess I will turn it back to the petitioner at this time. Do you want to continue this and come back with a binding plan, or are you working with the non-binding plan, which is what is required right now?

I'm willing to make this a binding plan, and I would request that we respectfully get put onto the next agenda of the Planning Commission to be able to address this. And I did send this to planning staff, but admittedly, they have not reviewed it from that standpoint, but they did have a copy of it.

All right, so we will continue on this hearing at a date certain. Commissioner Taylor?

Will we vote to allow it to a date certain, and will we have the opportunity for discussion prior to that?

say if the board's gonna if planning commission is going to continue i believe we should probably get a vote on that and then um i wouldn't say i'd probably be to a date uncertain because we'd have to look at our planning commission schedule and then it would just be duly noticed and then we'd be back here with the binding plan the binding plan all right so go ahead i apologize i was actually going to make this comment and now i'll double down

After that comment, because when I get the feeling that applicants have prepared to give away something if it gets brought up, so Live Local got brought up, they said, oh, you know, we've already discussed this. Yeah, we're fine to do that. Well, I feel like they didn't bring the highest and best product to this meeting tonight. As a planning commissioner, I want to see this in advance and be prepared and ready to analyze what's in front of us and discuss it. So to have a last-minute Hail Mary of a binding developed, which I would prefer that, but county staff has been looking at this for a year probably. Neighborhood workshops, we put all this time and work in. We showed up tonight ready to discuss it to have another change because it was brought up. They should have proffered that ahead of time, in my opinion. I spent the time I was ready for this, and I feel like it was a waste of time. That's just my thought. I would vote no on the continuance, and I would vote no against the motion tonight if it's for approval.

Any additional discussion?

Commissioner Fiedler, then Commissioner Mayo. I would like to see the continuance. I think there's just... Right now, at one point, I thought I could vote for it. Now I don't think I can vote for it. And I don't even know if what is before us is what you want to do. It's just not put together very well. And so if I vote today, it will be a no vote. Commissioner Mayo.

I'll just refrain from saying anything. Thank you, ma'am.

Commissioner Thackston.

Yeah, Commissioner Taylor's spot on. I would suggest, and I think it's going to be to the applicant's benefit, let's just vote this up or down today. With the information that was reviewed by staff, which is no binding development concept plan and no reference to the affordable housing provision, there's plenty of time for them to take our input and change the request of approval or request of consideration to the Board of County Commissioners.

i would be in support of that i i feel like there is an opportunity for the applicant to move in one direction or another before uh county commission and uh we can at least move move forward from here um again i'm i'm i'm still in support of the the project um i definitely appreciate the binding concept plan um so that just adds another uh positive for me with that not being part of the vote for tonight uh i still feel like we could vote and move forward

So will someone make a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Continuance or not?

I'll make a motion based upon the evidence and testimony received at the public hearing. I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezone 2510 Fruitvale Corporate Park with eight stipulations.

Second. Commissioner Mayo to your first.

I've said more than enough on this subject.

Commissioner LaCivita to your second.

I concur. I agree with all the stipulations. I think this is exactly where Business Park belongs. And I think Mr. Lichterman for the stipulations of what he put together with the county are spot on for this area. And I'm in favor of it.

I'm going to do a roll call vote on this one. And this is on the motion that's on the table is for the rezone petition as it stands. Madam Clerk, are you ready?

Okay.

Commissioner LaCivita?

Yes.

Commissioner Taylor?

Against the motion.

Commissioner Mayo?

Yes.

Commissioner Fiedler? No. Commissioner Thaxton?

No.

And Chair votes no. Motion fails four to two. Thank you. So this will be headed to County Commission. Jonah, do you have a date for County Commission on this one?

Yes, the tentative board hearing date is November 17th.

November 17th. So for petitioner and public, that is the date certain. That is for Sarasota County County Commission where that hearing will be heard.

Since we are looking for an affirmative recommendation from Planning Commission, I think it would behoove us to do a motion for denial if that's what the board um would someone like to make a motion since the motion failed for approval failed

So you now want a motion for denial? Yep. Commissioner Thaksin.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing, I recommend denial of Rezone Petition 2510, following findings of fact, proposed change would not be consistent with the intent, goals, objective policies, and guiding principles of the comprehensive plan. The proposed change will adversely impact, influence living conditions in the neighborhood whether the gradual order of growth contemplated in the comprehensive plan can be accomplished through the approval of land use, which is less intensive than the intensity designated on the future land use plan map. proposed change would not be compatible with existing land use patterns and designations in the future land use plan. The existing district boundaries are logically drawn in relation to the existing conditions around the property. There are not substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in a court. With existing zoning, it is not impossible to find other adequate sites in search of the county for the proposed use in the district already permitted for use. And finally, the proposed change would create an adverse impact in the adjacent area or in the county in general.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Commissioner Thackston to your first.

I've said enough also.

Commissioner Taylor to your second.

Thank you. I agree with everything that's said, and I'll just say this, and this doesn't change how I feel about the project or not, but I think AI can be a great tool And it can also be something that gets used inappropriately. And people bringing presentations in front of us need to make sure that they're citing sources, not AI or, and I know there are sources on the slide, but it's important that we use human power to put the content forward that we prepare ourselves, not relying on AI sources to generate things as well. So that's just a personal feeling. It has nothing to do with how I feel about this, but I could tell the references to it as were mentioned. So thank you.

All right. All those in favor of the motion for denial, say aye.

Aye.

All those against?

Aye. Against.

Chair votes aye. Motion passes four to two. I think I got the math right on that one. Okay. With that, we're going to take a 10-minute break, and then we will revisit on the next item on the agenda. All right. If everybody could please take a seat. The next item is Critical Concern DOCC Amendment No. 1, Rezone Petition No. 2512, High Hat Ranch, Village 1. This is a public hearing to consider High Hat Ranch DOCC. Amendment, can everybody hear me in the back? Okay, sorry. The master development order conditions related to the Village Center and Regional Sports Complex and rezone petition to rezone the first village within Hi-Hat Ranch from OUR and OUE1 to VPD. Our presenters this evening are Keaton Osborne, planner for Sarasota County Planning and Development Services, and Jim Hallman, agent from Stantec. Mr. Osborne. Keaton, you need to turn on your mic. It's red.

There we go. Awesome. Good evening, Chair and Planning Commission. Again, for the record, my name is Keaton Osborne with Planning and Development Services, and I have signed a speaker's card. Before I continue tonight's introduction with the petition item, I'd like to state for the record we have received additional correspondence since publication, and copies of that have been provided to you and the Recording Secretary. This petition is being requested by the applicant, Jim Turner of High Hand Ranch LLLP, who are represented by Jim Palman of Stantec as the agent. I'll introduce the petition, then Mr. Palman and his team will provide a presentation of the petition on behalf of the applicant. And afterwards, I'll return to give staff's presentation and to address any questions you may have. This petition consists of a two-part application. First, an amendment to the Hi-Hat Ranch Development of Critical Concern, or DOC, Master Development Order, or MDO, to change the timing of a village center in the relocation of the conceptual location of the regional sports park, and a rezone, petition number 25-12, to change the subject site on the aerial shown from open-use rural, one unit per 10 acres, and open-use estate, one unit per five, to VPD village plan development. The purpose of this request is to create the first village plan development of High Hat Ranch with up to 3,000 residential units with six neighborhoods, open space and recreational park areas following the design pattern neighborhood planning process of the county's Sarasota 2050 plan. Here is just a quick petition timeline for this application. As you see, it was submitted on February 2nd of 2025, finished review in July 30th, and then has been scheduled for tonight for planning commission and will be scheduled for the board October 7th. So at this time, I'd like to introduce Jim Palmer and his team to the podium. Thank you.

I did it. Okay. Great. Good evening. For the record, I'm Charlie Bailey. I'm a land use attorney and partner in the law firm of Williams Parker, and I've submitted a speaker card. I and the Stantec team are here on behalf of the ReZone for Village One co-applicants, Lenar Homes and Devasta Homes. And we have representatives of both of those entities here with us this evening. The owner of the subject property is High Hat Ranch LLLP. the principals of which are the Turner family, some of whom are with us this evening as well. We're before you with this first incremental VPD rezoning for village plan development implementing zoning district for the VOS Village Open Space RMA under 2050, which this Village 1 represents a portion of the High Hat Ranch 2050 village that is the subject of a development of critical concern, a DOCC county process, which served to memorialize the 2050 Master Development Order for High Hat Ranch when it was issued in 2021. By that MDO, the county determined High Hat Ranch Village to be consistent with a comp plan, the UDC, and the 2050 provisions that are woven through both of those documents. And the MDO also establishes the framework for the subsequent incremental rezonings to, as a rezone, to the VPD zoning district, and this being the first such increment. It embraces 2,271 acres of the High Hat Ranch Village. Specifically, it's in the west central portion of High Hat Ranch. It will be served by access to be constructed by the applicants with an eastward extension of Bee Ridge Road from its current eastern terminus at Lorraine Road through the county property along the northern edge of Rothenbach Park to and then into Village 1. With a rezone, if the rezone is a motorcycle, the MDO amendment is like a sidecar that was attached when the motorcycle got a little ways down the road, and it addresses two items that are important items, but outside of the Village 1 center, the Village 1 rezone. First is a proposed, it relates to a proposed county regional park. The county regional park is not a requirement of 2050, but when the MDO was processed in 2021, The county suggested that some of the almost 300 acres of park to be provided within High Hat Ranch, that it be brought online in the form of a community park. And by this amendment, as we were going through the rezone process, we're seeking to move the location of that proposed regional park icon on the map to a county desired location. The second addresses the timing within which the first village center within the High Hat Ranch village must be rezoned to VPD. Again, neither of those aspects of the High Hat village are within the actual Village 1 area. A little bit of history on a little bit of background on High Hat Ranch. It's big. It's 9960 acres, which for context is about 15 and a half acres. I'm sorry, 15 and a half square miles. It represents the entirety of the central village under 2050. There's three villages, North Village, Central Village and South Village. And the Central Village is the only village that's under unified ownership and control. And that is High Hat Ranch. It presently contains agricultural uses, cattle, citrus, and sod, and it was purchased by Herman Turner, grandfather of Jim Turner, who some of you all know, and his siblings and cousins back in the 1940s. Initial High Hat Ranch, hard to believe, but it was actually about three times the current size. It was about 26,000 acres. Many existing subdivisions that we're familiar with now are part of the old High Hat Ranch. While its active use is agricultural, it also contains some beautiful native habitat, including vast wetland systems, and it contains the largest high ecological value, contiguous high ecological value parcel in Sarasota County as identified by the county's Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program. And that area is going to be saved or preserved in perpetuity pursuant to the terms of the master development order. With respect to the Mass Development Order, because High Hat Ranch is proximate to the urban service boundary and urban infrastructure, and it is intended to be developed incrementally with more than one village, 2050 provides the MDO process, the county's DOCC process, with a village plan development rezonings to occur subsequently, incrementally over time, as we discussed with the Palmer Ranch East Mass Development Order that was before you in June. This Mass Development Order was approved five years ago. And in 2021, the county approved the Hi-Hat Village Master Development Order. It was unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, and that recommendation was received, and it was subsequently unanimously approved by the Board of County Commissioners. As Hi-Hat Ranch is a large parcel under single unified ownership, it is an incredible opportunity for good master planning and strategically and comprehensively planning for infrastructure and other services. In doing so, it takes all of that, setting aside all of the environmental systems, all of the floodplain, and directing that development to the developed area, which is comprised of what is today improved agricultural land, and wrapping all of that with a 500-foot greenbelt to ensure compatibility. The master development order authorizes 13,081 dwelling units, almost 2,000 of which, almost up to 2,000 of which will be affordable housing. It has an overall gross residential density of just 1.3 units per acre. And it's derived the most recent villages that you've received The density is not derived as 2050 originally intended. This one is. It's true to 2050 in that it sweeps the development rights, the TDRs off environmentally sensitive land, and then generates additional units using affordable housing, true to the original tenets of 2050. Also provides up to 450,000 square feet of retail and office within up to two village centers that will serve the daily, weekly needs of the residents to live within High Hat Ranch. With all of the Greenway lands included, High Hat Ranch Village will provide 5,450 acres of open space, with only 42% of the overall village being developed area, the rest being open space and greenway. The MDO establishes alignment of future roadway segments and utility corridors, provides for up to two school campuses, almost 300 acres of parks and other public infrastructure, And it requires biennial monitoring over the life of the project to look at the services and infrastructure that serve it over time to determine whether anything else might be needed along the way, along the 30 years between now and build out. And all of this was already approved under the master development order for the High Hat Ranch 2050 Village. The MDO process was long detailed and set the table for the reasons that are to follow, this being the first in ensuring that development will not only comply with 2050, but will represent the best planning principles and quality development in all respects. That's the master development order. Before I get to the rezone, I'm going to touch upon another element, a step that we went through that is not a requirement of 2050, but it's reflective of the planning that's gone into High Hat Ranch. Last year, High Hat Ranch and our current county commission entered a transportation agreement as a prelude to this rezone that does four very important things. One, it serves, as I mentioned, the access will be via Bee Ridge Road. Bee Ridge Road will be extended eastward from the current terminus at Lorain Road, north of Rothenbach Park, into Village 1 by the applicants and funding 100% of that cost. As part of that, the applicants will also be adding, for laning effectively, the roundabout at the western end at Lorain Road by adding additional circulation lane and paying 100% of that cost. Perhaps most significantly, while not triggered or required for the Village 1, under the transportation agreement, the applicants will be designing, permitting, and constructing Bee Ridge Road, one mile of Bee Ridge Road from Lorain Road westward to Bentree Boulevard, and funding 50%, one half of the total cost associated with that widening, which is estimated to be about $14 million. Again, Bee Ridge Road is already deemed deficient. It's not a legal requirement from a regulatory standpoint, but it's something that HI-HAT has agreed to. And these improvements will be constructed with Village 1 on the front end of the development. And while distant from Village 1, High Hat Ranch also agreed under the transportation agreement to dedicate up to 24 acres off of its entire frontage along Fruitvale Road for a future widening of Fruitvale Road. And again, this village is disconnected. It is in no way contiguous to Fruitvale Road. There's no planned connection with Village 1 at this time. So not triggered by this village. And in addition to all of those improvements I just mentioned, to Bee Ridge Road, the right-of-way for Fruitvale Road, on top of it, Village 1 and all of the development, every dwelling unit and every square foot of commercial within High Hat Ranch will be paying mobility fees to provide additional improvements to the roadway network in this part of the county, in the Northern Mobility Fee Credit District. Finally, to the rezone, Village 1 represents the first increment of the High Hat Ranch Village. It's 2,271 acres. proposed to be rezoned from OUE and OUR to VPD. It's the first of up to five increments that will come before the county for consideration for rezoning over the life of the project. It is It has 57.4% open space within just the village with the other Greenway lands that are set aside and a 500-foot greenbelt that wraps along the western and southern side of the developed area to provide a significant separation from it and the closest neighbors. With respect to the development area, it represents only 42.6% of the overall Village 1, a total of 903 acres. It contains 3,000 of the 13,081 dwelling units that were approved by the MDO. It will be developed in six neighborhoods, and it too, like the larger Hi-Hat Ranch, will have a residential density of 1.3 units per acre to be provided in six neighborhoods, three of which will be developed by Lenar, three of which will be developed by DeVosta. And significantly, up to 450 of those affordable units will be provided within Village 1 and blended and mixed amongst the six villages that Lenar and Devasta will be constructing. With regard to compatibility, Village 1's developed area has effectively no neighbors, or at least not any next-door neighbors. It's to the northeast and south is Hi-Hat Ranch. To the west and southwest, there is the 500-foot greenbelt that I mentioned that has vegetation within it. And that separates it from the developed area from the nearest improved lands to the south and southwest. I'm sorry, the west and southwest. With respect to environmental systems, Village 1 alone contains over 1,000 acres of protected native habitat in the open space and prioritizes the wildlife connections and wildlife corridors as reflected in the staff report. Of course, as we discussed, of the concept of 2050 is setting aside all that open space it directs the development all the tdrs have been swept off that environment sensitive land pipelines into the pipelines into the developed area out of the the flood prone areas and environmentally sensitive lands with regard to stormwater uh STANTEC, the project engineer, took a three-pronged approach. First is preserving the natural system with all the wetland system and other features on the site that God put on High Hat Ranch, which are very important to preserve them, and thus we're not proposing development within it. We're pulling it to the high, dry, improved pasture land that's developable. Second is that that natural system that's located in the open space in Green Bay will be supplemented with an engineered master stormwater management system, the first component of which will be constructed within Village 1 Village 1 itself within its developed area, the area being developed will have up to 230 acres of stormwater pond sites that will eventually be interconnected with the other increments as they come online within High Hat Ranch, as you've seen done with Palmer Ranch as the various increments come online. And third is we've been cooperating with and continue to work with the newly formed County Stormwater Department, met with Ben Quartermain and his staff, and we understand that department's mission to assess, strengthen, maintain and monitor the existing stormwater system within and beyond High Hat Ranch to ensure stormwater issues like those that we saw in recent storm events that happened in other basins and other watersheds are avoided in the future. And we'll be working with Ben and his staff with providing access to such things as a long portion of the western boundary of the properties is Calpton and SLU providing the county with better access to it so it can remove vegetation and inspect for any maintenance needs. And it also addresses water quality because we know that the water from this basin flows to Donna Bay. The project has connectivity and is walkable both within the six neighborhoods within this village that will eventually be interconnected with the other villages by bike lanes, multi-use paths, and sidewalks. The MDO itself constitutes the county's legal determination that the approved High Hat Ranch Village is consistent with the comp plan UDC in all aspects of 2050, including obviously the core tenets, compact walkable development, preserving open space, setting aside open space with your environmental systems and your flood prone areas. And the third is fiscal neutrality. It was deemed not just physically positive when the MBO was approved in 2021, but it was deemed physically, I'm sorry, it was not just deemed physically neutral, but it's actually deemed physically positive. And this Village 1 rezoned is measured by and implements the MDO and is likewise consistent with the 2050 plans in all respects as it adheres, implements and carries out the master development order. Briefly touching on the MDO amendments, two elements of it, as we mentioned, one is a regional park. During the MDO process, I had agreed to accommodate that 100 acre park. It's not a 2050 requirement, as I mentioned. Its proposed location is shown on the MDO. And the MDO calls for the terms pursuant to which it is conveyed to the county be addressed at the rezone phase, which is why we've got to engage in that discussion. Through that process, we found a county desired location, moving it from the eastern portion of this proposed Village 1 northward toward Fruitville Road being the county's desired location. And county planning staff determined that proposed location should be shown on the MDO master development plan. so this amendment does that simply relocates that proposed uh regional park icon on our master development plan the second item uh the complement addresses is the village we know that each village or the village center each village must have a village center to meet the daily weekly needs of the residents within the village hi-hat ranch is the entire central village and it may have up to two internally located village centers Staff suggests that the village, the first rezone for a village within HI-HAT must include, have their village center within it. The code does not expressly state that anywhere. We went through pre-app, got down the line. This issue was identified and staff noting that on page four of your staff report that the DOCC is the appropriate mechanism for dealing with adjustments or dealing with the details and timing for aspects of a village directed us to do a DOCC, an amendment to the DOCC that would prescribe the timeframe within which the village center must be rezoned. We consent to it. This language is in your staff report, was written by staff. We accept it wholeheartedly and we'll proceed to timely rezone and bring the village center online consistent with that staff language. Neighborhood outreach and communication that the Turners have owned this property for 80 years. They know their neighbors and they've had continued regular contact with the neighbors and the county in more recent years with respect to Hyatt Ranch Village. And that good communication continued leading up to and through the rezone process. We had a total of two workshops, the last of which was conducted just last July. Had a very good turnout. It was an in-person workshop. We had about 85 of our neighbors come and had good discussion in exchange of information. So in closing, the Mass Development Order itself, which was underwent review in 2021 under the county's development of critical concern process, it was deemed through that process very thoroughly reviewed. It was determined that the Hi-Hat Ranch Village, as memorialized in that development order, was consistent with uh 2050 and this village one rezone being measured against that master development order is consistent with that that mass development order and likewise consistent and complies with the with all of the aspects of 2050. uh as evidenced through the transportation agreement the um the village itself taking a an infrastructure first commitment um by through the improvements to be rich road the white four laning the improvements to the roundabout and then extending b roach road eastward in connection with the first village Provided the, you know, noting the vast open space and all the environmental systems and flood prone areas that are directed to that area so that the development can be directed to where it's appropriate. That is the lands that have already been impacted, improved agricultural lands. Got the master stormwater system that's going to supplement the environmental systems that are located within that open space. that multi-pronged approach to stormwater. Providing affordable housing just in this village, up to 450 affordable units can be realized. Truly does exemplify the core tenets of 2050. You hear them echoed and recited, but in this instance, they can be demonstrated by providing the compact walkable form of development clustered into the six neighborhoods with a vast open space environmental systems And up to 200 within the actual developed area, there'll be additional open space. It doesn't count as 2050 open space, but there'll be significant open space within it as well. The mass development order, as I mentioned, contains revised conditions. We accept the county staff's language with respect to those conditions. The rezone petition also includes a number of conditions, and we gladly accept and willingly accept each of those conditions. With that, we would just we thank you for time and just would respectfully request your recommendation of approval to the County Commission with respect to the rezone petition and the concurrently processed master development order amendment. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Moving on to staff report. Mr. Osborne.

Again, for record, my name is Keaton Osborn in Plain Development Services. The petition consists of a two-part application, again, a doc amendment and a rezone request in order to develop the first village within High Hat Ranch with 13 requested modifications. Oh, it started me from the beginning. There we go. Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area, or RMA, establishes the optional policy framework to enhance the livability of the county by preserving its natural, cultural, physical, other resources with an incentive-based system for managing growth. This policy framework encourages compact development form, simultaneously implementing a number of public benefits, allowing for continued growth and economic development that preserves environmentally sensitive lands and open space in a fiscally neutral manner for the county. The subject site shown on the map outlined in hatched in black is within the Village Open Space RMA designation. This designation is for large-scale development outside of the urban service boundary that follows a compact form-based design which incorporates open space and preserves environmental areas both on and off site. High Hat Ranch also corresponds with the Central Village designation on the RMA map shown within the comprehensive plan. The village space open space RMA designation is implemented with the village plan development or VPD zone district. The criteria for that villages are reviewed against are shown underneath the zone district, as you can see on the right-hand side of the screen. High Hat Ranch MDO was approved back in 2021, which created an aggregate for residential density and non-residential square footage, conditions for development approval and criteria for consistency with the VPD zone district. High Hat must have at a minimum of two villages up to a maximum of five for development build out. To be consistent with the docs, this application is requested to change the existing zone districts of OUR, one unit for 10 acres, and OUE, one unit for five, to VPD Village Plan Development. As you can see, the proposed zoning map provided the hatched and light purple area is the proposed zone district of VPD Village 1, while the dashed red and black outline is Hi Hat Ranch overall. The option is proposing to develop 2,270 acres of high hat ranch with 3,000 units in six neighborhoods, 13 modifications and no proposed village center. The applicant's rezone request reviewed against the VPD zone district standards and criteria shown on the right-hand side of the screen. The applicant's master land use plan on the left-hand side demonstrates how the applicant intends to develop their first village. You can find a summary of the VPD development standards within Appendix H of this application. I will now go through the components of the VPD zone district for consistency with their application request. The applicant's neighborhood plan is shown on the left-hand side of the screen, displaying the six proposed neighborhoods and their configurations. For the residential portion, the VPD requires a village to develop at a minimum three units of developable acreage, which requires for village one to have a minimum of 2,709 dwelling units. The applicant's proposing a maximum of 3,000 units, so to start, the base density required for village one is 285 dwelling units. The Transfer Development Rights Program, or TDR for short, plays a very big role with Village 1 as most of the density is derived from this program. To achieve densities greater than the underlying rule or semi-rule of future land uses outside the urban service area, Village policies provide this mechanism to preserve rural environmental sensitive lands by transferring the unit equivalency of preserved area, whether on or off site, into the developable area of a village. The DOC also allows the use of an augmented view shed bonus to derive characteristics from land values assigned in greenway and open space areas. With that being said, the Village 1 development process to transfer 2,229 dwelling units through the use of the TDR program and that view shed bonus. So at this point, we have a current proposed density of 2,514 dwelling units. With the development requesting 3,000 to reach that goal, they'll need an additional 468 units. To bridge that gap, the applicant intends to utilize the affordable housing incentive of the VPD zone district to create 525 affordable housing units. That provision for affordable housing, when proffered by the owner, provides an incentive for density, which can be shown in the gray box on the screen. Depending on the type of average median income percentage will result in an increase of density for every affordable housing unit of that category. In this case, Village 1 will result in 150 units at 100% AMI and 300 at 120% AMI, which results in that additional 525. applicants parks and recreation plans seen on the left-hand side of the screen show the six neighborhood centers and purple stars internal parks throughout the village development the neighborhood is where the majority of the housing units are within walking distance or one quarter mile of a neighborhood center within each neighborhood there can be a neighborhood center that can provide commercial retail or office uses schools parks or public facilities for this application the applicants proposing that the neighborhood centers have a park as the focal point The recreational standards are also being met for every 47 dwelling units. There's one acre of park space resulting in the minimum acreage of 64 acres within this village. Here we have the applicant's open space plan, which demonstrates the area of high ecological value, Greenway, Greenville, open space and developed area within Village 1. The village is proposing open space of 57.4% and developed area of 42.6%. Even though the open space for this village exceeds that of the developed area, it is important to note that the Hi-Hat Ranch MDL requires open space to be equal or more than developed area as a whole. This means that future VPD applications may have an increased ratio developed area to open space, but as long as the overall ratio of Hi Hat Ranch meets or exceeds 50%, the development will meet the standard. As you can see, the green belt is shown on the western and northern edge of the village around the developed area. Typically, the greenbelt is discussed during a rezone application, but when Hi Hat Ranch MDO was approved, it provided that framework of the greenbelt for the dock as a whole. This has allowed Hi Hat Ranch to ensure that all developed areas have a 500-foot greenbelt buffer, but it does not require a greenbelt between the villages themselves. The outpatient must also provide an access management transportation plan within the rezone application. On the left-hand side of the transportation plan demonstrating the multi-use trails, bike lanes, pedestrian access, and location of the gated access from public right-of-way that's shown in the circles. The access management plan demonstrates the road network within the village as well as the access where the arrows demonstrate the proposed access into Bee Ridge Road. At this point of the application, it may be time consistent with the DPD criteria except for the village center. A VPD zone district typically has a village center size of 100 acres with a maximum of 300,000 square feet of commercial retail office uses. The village center is to have a mix of uses that are required for the village center specifically and not carried throughout the village as a whole, but to reinforce the concept of compact and connected areas to serve neighborhoods around the center and captures many internal vehicle trips within the village. HiHat Ranch, during the adoption of the DOC MDL in 2021, was approved for an increase of 450,000 square feet of commercial office uses within support of the market analysis provided within that application. Within the first VPD rezone, the applicant has provided to provide zero commercial retail uses to serve the village size of 3,000 dwelling units. In their narrative, the applicant states that the Bee Ridge Shopping Center, located approximately one mile west of the boundary of Village 1, as shown on this map, it would be able to serve the needs of the village until the village center is entitled through a second rezone. With the application as proposed, staff is not able to find this application consistent with requirements of the VPD zone district criteria. Rather than including the village center in this request, the applicant has requested to amend the doc to provide language for the location, timing, and construction of the village center. So that brings us to the doc amendment. With the decision to amend the DOC amendment, this condition number five is proposed to be added as a new condition to provide an alternative village center development standard. The full language of this condition can be found on page five of the petition summary. This condition discusses locating a conceptual village within the first rezone application, locating the village center at the intersection of B Ridge Road and the future north-south intersection, a thoroughfare within High Hat Ranch, and an amendment of 200,000 square feet of commercial office uses. This condition also provides limitations on the first VPD rezone application by limiting it to 75% of its units until the village center is entitled or that the village center can be, and that the village center can be no closer than 6,000 feet from Puteville or Clark Road. To be compliant with that condition, the outpatient has provided the map to demonstrate the conceptual location of the village center within the rezone application and that is shown in the described intersection. Based on the timing of the Village Center, staff has proposed new condition number six involves the actual timing of the construction of the Village Center once it has been entitled for Hi-Hat Ranch. This condition is an alternative to the timing provided within the VPD zone district, stating that 25% of the commercial office uses within the Village Center can be constructed at 50% certified occupancy of Hi-Hat Ranch as a whole, rather than the VPD standard of 75%. During the course of the review of the application, a new location of the regional sports park was provided. The doc does allow discussion and relocation of the regional sports park during this first rezone application. The applicant is proposing to move this location from the interior of High Hunt Ranch to the perimeter of Long Fruitville Road, with an area designated as open space, shown on the map on the screen. If approved, this would reduce the separation of the developed area in that location of High Hunt Ranch from approximately 3,000 feet of open space and a 500-foot greenbelt buffer to only a 500-foot greenbelt buffer. The Village Open Space RMA and the VPD Zone District require an equal amount of developed area and open space designation within a village. Placing the Regional Sports Park in this location will require HiHat Ranch overall to ensure that open space from the MBO is equal or exceeds the developed area, which will be refined during future ReZone applications. Also to note, county staff have been negotiating in good faith as a result relates to the regional park item within the MDO. Terms and conditions for the conveyance of the regional park have been drafted and are being finalized to be presented on the board on October 7th. Here's a summary to amending that recreation condition B1. That within the first rezone is to update the maps for the master development plan, open space plan, and its associated tables. And the second reason I will amend or restate the Ohio Out Ranch MDO to update all relating information to the master development plan and native habitat series. The reason that this became a dock amendment discussion to an existing condition is due to the compatibility of that location, the location of the open space along Fruitvale Road, and the use of open space in the calculation of TDRs, which Village 1 and the future VPD developments are utilizing for density. With that being said, Village 1 and IHAT are requiring a majority of their density through the use of the TDR program, as stated before. During review of the relocation of the regional sports park, staff proposed the amendment to track the joining units obtained through the augmented view shed, which relates to Fruitville Road. Rezone petition number 2512-12 also has 13 requested modifications to the unified development code, which can be seen here on your screen. Some of these modifications must be requested at the time of rezone, but will need to be demonstrated at the time of site development in order to be approved. Village 1 is positioned on the western side of High Hat Ranch boundary, adjacent to existing residential development and government uses. Some of the communities that are adjacent to Village 1 can be seen on the map on the right-hand side of the screen and their approximate unit count, or left side of the screen, approximate unit count on the right-hand side of the screen. The stars on the right-hand side correspond with their location on the map. The red star is an approximate distance of somewhere 60 feet from the development to the nearest residential home within the Palmer Farms subdivision. The pink star relates to approximately 860 feet from the nearest house within Salo Creek subdivision. To assist you with your findings and facts found with your staff report, planning staff also conducts the consistency review with the companies have planned goals and objectives policies. And after that review, reasonable petition number 25-12 may be found consistent with these future land use policies, resource management area policies, and the housing policies. Within that same review, it may be found inconsistent with the Flu Policy 2.2.1, which is to protect and maintain agricultural lands, as this petition is proposing developed lands that have been used for agricultural purposes. VOS policy 1.2a, 1.3 and 1.4 relating to village philosophy and principles with the proposed rezone not including a mixed-use village center designed to serve the needs of village residents as well as VOS policy 2.1 relating to timing and phasing of development as the first rezone within the central village area does not comply with the village approval process for the size and location of the village center. With that being said, If the DOC amendment is approved, this would determine the reason of application to be consistent with these policies through the DOC mechanism and updated conditions. As part of this ordinance, there are 18 recommended stipulations which relate to the compliance with the DOC ordinance, a binding master land use plan series, tracking of development and TDRs, and record of an affordable housing plan. Compliance with the water quality monitoring report, consistency with the F2 maps within the dock, trail widths, wetland buffer impacts, and establishing a mitigation bank and transportation methodology. With that being said, there are two motions considered before you, the first being the Dock Amendment No. 1 to provide a change in the timing of the village center requirement and change the location of the regional sports complex with two amended conditions and two new conditions. The second being the rezone request, changing the zone districts from OUR and OUE to BPD with 18 stipulations. So at this time, that concludes staff's presentation. I don't have to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Osborne. That was quite a bit. Do we have currently any questions? We have a couple of cards. So if you, we can take questions now and take them later.

Whatever the chair desires.

If my fellow commissioners are okay with it, I want to get through a couple of cards. And if we have additional questions that come up from public comment, then we can address them all at the same time. Good. All right. Can I clear the front row? Great job. Lex, if your name is called, please come to this front row. The first one that's going to speak is Lexi Trevelyan. Kevin Jackson. Betsy Friedman, Brad Granbusch, Jane Granbusch, and Susan Shetley. And Becky Ayesh will be last, but certainly not least. So if you could fill the front row up here, and Lexi, you have five minutes. Okay. Say your name for the record.

Hi, everyone. I'm Lexi Trevelyan. I did sign the speaker sheet. I hope I can start this off strong. Good evening, everybody. My name is Lexi, and I'm here to strongly oppose the rezoning petition 25-12. This decision is about more than adding homes and villages in the area. It's about whether our infrastructure, environment, and if the community can support development of this scale. One major concern I have is why are these homes aimed at only higher income residents when we already have plenty of developed neighborhoods within that price range? The affordable homes in this proposed area start in the upper $300,000 to $400,000 and go even higher from there. These prices are absolutely not affordable for first-time homeowners or small families, both of which these neighborhoods should be geared towards. This is not the growth we need. We need actual affordability for the people working in this area and the opportunity to provide housing options within everyone's income range. We need to appeal to the general public, the ones who are already struggling to pay the high rent rates but dream of owning a house, yet in this county, affordable options are impossible to find. This is all due to major housing developments in this area being aimed for higher income homes, which is not realistic for residents who make an average income. Residents already know the challenges our roads face. One of the roads that will be affected is Fruitvale Road, which is already partially two lanes before narrowing down to one lane before the proposed Hi Hat Village site. It is used every day by people going to work, taking their children to school, running errands, getting home, and even used to get to this very administration building. Now imagine getting approximately the first wave of 3,000 residents and an estimated total 13,000 residents within the longer-term goals of this project. Where's the infrastructure to support that growth? No road infrastructure that has been mentioned realistically addresses the necessary changes that residents need to accommodate this extremely large influx of future residents. Even if the smaller Sarasota roads are addressed, what happens to I-75 that is already in a constant gridlock? What are the road improvements What about the road improvements or even emergency services in these areas? We also need to consider flooding and runoff. Replacing these natural lands with homes, roads, and concrete, it changes how the water moves throughout the property and surrounding areas as well. Then there is the wildlife and natural habitat. This is not simply unused land. Native plants sprawl this land and add to the natural beauty. Residents who have, who live there have seen bobcats, numerous bird species, and there have even been sightings of the protected Florida panthers around this property. The proposed plan shows wetland areas around the village site. However, most of these wetlands are split up into smaller areas, which in turn will not help with any of the flooding concerns. Have the potential impacts on existing residents even fully been addressed? Have the proper wildlife and wetland surveys been completed? If so, what did they find? Building villages divides up the land that these animals use as wildlife corridors. Yes, you have 50% natural area, but this is intertwined in a whole village area, only creating fragmented habitats. Has this been addressed? Once natural land is disturbed with roads and buildings, we simply cannot put it back. And I want everybody to think about the landscape behind this very building and all around Celery Fields behind us. Think about that green open space and the natural beauty that surrounds it. That landscape is part of what makes Sarasota special. It doesn't seem fair that we are gathering here, surrounded by appreciating this beautiful area, while making decisions that could take that kind of landscape away from residents who live there. The open spaces, wetlands, wildlife, and natural scenery of Sarasota are part of what makes this community special. Growth can happen, but it needs to be responsible and consistent with the long-term needs of the people and wildlife who already live in that area. Before approving the rezoning petition, I asked the board to demand clear answers about affordable housing, traffic, infrastructure, drainage, wetlands, and wildlife. As a resident who is passionate about my work as a biologist and the area I live in, I strongly urge this board to respond. vote against rezoning petition 25-12. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Kevin Jackson.

Howdy. Kevin Jackson. I filled out one of the forms. That's a tough act to follow there. I just have a couple uncertainties that weren't really ever addressed as For example, the sports complex. I drive by the sports complex on 70 out east. And on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday, it's completely packed over there, gridlock traffic. I know a lot of people come in from out of town for sporting events and stuff there with their children's travel stuff. So that's going to be a big impact on Fruitville as well. We've never had any significant answer as to where exactly this is. huge sports complex is going to be. I mean, they keep saying it continues to change, but we've never had any firm answer as to if this is ever going to be some sort of entrance or exit out onto Fruitvale, because like the priest said, and I'm sure everyone else is going to say, is Fruitville's still a two-lane road, and there's no plans in the future to expand it, make it bigger. I think Justin Taylor gets it. He said earlier, you know, he reserved his thoughts for what he's thinking about what's going on out east, and we feel the same way out in Old Myakka. You know, how much is enough for, you know, building out on our beautiful countryside? And then, really, all the encroachment and overdevelopment, I understand it's already been passed, but... Send it towards Be Rich, not Fruitville. That's all I want.

Thank you very much. Betsy Friedman.

Hello, my name is Betsy Friedman and I've filled out a yellow card. I have sent questions to staff which they have generously answered and I sent you a longer version of what I'd like to say to you now but in the interest of being exactly kind of exhausted and you guys probably are too, I'm going to go with my short version. Basically, The Turner family has every right to seek the best use and value for its property. And those of us who already live here also have a reasonable expectation that development will not transfer unacceptable costs or risks to our property. So my concern tonight is water. My home, like many homes east of the interstate, depend on groundwater. During drought, potable water is not an abstract environmental issue. It's whether my well continues to provide water. It's whether I someday may have to drill deeper to reach it, whether I'll have interrupted water, and it's whether the aquifer supporting existing homes remains dependable For all of us, as thousands of new homes are added, I've read the materials for this rezoning carefully. What I found is that important parts of the water analysis are still conceptual. Detailed stormwater analysis and projected specific hydrologic modeling are deferred until later permitting, when we're already really far down this road. I understand why engineering details normally come later, but there's a fundamental question that belongs at the land use stage. Do we know now enough to conclude that this much more intensive use of land can occur without compromising the water security of the communities already here? The proposal is for as many as 3,000 homes, and I'd like to understand where their water will come from, how the change from existing agriculture use to residential use affects total water demand, and what happens to groundwater recharge and existing wells during drought conditions. Agricultural water use may decrease. If so, that belongs in the analysis. I'm not asking you to assume that development will harm our wells. I'm asking you to not assume that it won't. There's an important difference between permitting and planning. A permit asks whether an engineering design meets technical requirements. Tonight's decision asks a larger question. Is this use of this land appropriate here? You don't wait until a well runs dry to decide whether you should have studied the aquifer. Before changing development rights on more than 2,000 acres, I'm asking the county to evaluate this proposal as though the development must occur without consequence to the pre-existing neighborhoods around it, including during drought. If that analysis demonstrates that our water supply is protected, wonderful. That gives both the developer and the surrounding community greater certainty. But if that analysis has not yet been done, then I believe the question before you is whether this decision should be made before it is. The Turner family deserves the opportunity to realize the value of its land. Existing residents deserve confidence that doing so will not diminish the security or value of ours. Please ask the water question while we still have choices. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brad Grimbush.

I sign the speaker card. Hello, commissioners, Madam Chair. While the applicant submittal claims technical compliance with baseline open space and native habitat acreage metrics, a rigorous environmental evaluation and layout reveals a fundamental systematic violation of the functional intent of Sarasota County Unified developmental code chapter 124 of the county code of ordinances specifically we object to the layout's extensive reliance on fragmented open spaces and the deliberate bisection splitting of high functioning wetland systems sub sub sub dividing continuous natural assets into disjointed strips satisfies a mathematical quote on paper but actively destroys the environment environmental protections of the UDC was codified to uphold. The core intent of the UDC was, as established in Section 124-102, is to preserve critical environmental areas and manage growth in strict accordance with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, Section 124-173 mandates the preservation of viable native habitat component. By carbon projects, native habitats in the narrow slivers and isolated parcels wedged between intensive residential infrastructure and stormwater basins, the proposed layout creates severe edge effects. These pockets are immediately susceptible to invasive species encroachment, chemical runoff, and severe human disruption. An ecological island cannot sustain the biological diversity or the forging of migratory needs of Sarasota County's protected native wildlife. The UDC mandates the protection of habitats, not isolated landscaping buffers. The project layouts indicates the design that bisects existing high-quality wetland systems, wetlands not static, self-contained baseline figures. They are highly complex. interdependent hydrological networks that rely on uninterrupted surface and subterranean water flows. By physically splitting these wetlands, the development introduces localized hydro modifications that will inevitably isolate segments of the system, causing artificial flooding in certain zones and severe drying in others. This structural denigration completely neutralizes their functional capacity for natural water filtration and localized flood mitigation, meeting a baseline percentage threshold while structurally crippling the system's hydrology is a direct violation of UDC's conservation directives. A rezone must demonstrate absolute consistency with a sort of comprehensive plan. The environmental chapter on the comprehensive plan protects continuity of wildlife corridors and the preservation of contiguous wetlands, allowing the fragmentation of the project directly contradicts these policies. It sets a dangerous precedent. that the numerical compliance can shield a project from the actual environmental obligations mandated by county law. When natural wetland functions and stormwater mitigations fail due to poor configuration, the long-term financial burden of artificial engineered infrastructure updates is inevitably transferred to Sarasota County taxpayers. The site plan that satisfies the numerical requirements for a fundamentally strong ecological functionality is a noncompliant plan. The spirit, intent, and chapter of 124 demand that the conservation areas remain unified, continuous, and ecologically viable. We respectfully request that the county deny or continue the rezone of 25-12 Village 1. until the applicant revises the project's layout to, number one, consolidate fragmented open spaces into large continuous conservation tracks. Two, eliminate all site plan configurations that bisect cross or splitting wetland systems. Three, establish robust continuous wildlife corridors that link on-site habitats to broader regional ecological networks. Thank you for your time, consideration, dedication to preserving the structural integrity of Sarasota County.

Thank you very much. You got it in. James Graham Bush.

Hi, Commissioners. Gosh, you know, there's so many unanswered questions. And I ask you to deny this for several reasons. Number one, we don't know where this sports complex is going. And if it's going next to Fruitvale Road, we are in trouble. We're already in trouble. Fruitvale Road is a disaster. And I remember when we were here last time when Commissioner Taylor said, It was like you're trapped. And I thought about that every time I'm on Fruitville Road now. You are trapped. Today, I was just going to show you some pictures. This was just from today. No, not today. Well, one was from today at 10 o'clock this morning.

Where can I put this? Right here?

Yeah, 10 o'clock this morning. This is how Fruitful Road was. Just bumper to bumper, okay?

Just speak right into the microphone. I know it's going to be tough. Oh, sorry.

And this one was, oh, that was at 10 o'clock this morning. And this one right here was at 2.30 on Tuesday afternoon. So the traffic is a problem. To put a sports complex there with the lighting, I can't even imagine that they would even be considering that when there's neighborhoods right there. I would be up in arms to have that right next to me, the noise, the lighting. The access to Fruitvale Road, this road cannot handle this. And besides that, there's no guarantee Fruitvale Road having four lanes all the way to Verna Road. We don't know when that's going to be complete. We can't even get it to Lorraine Road. That's not even in the foreseeable future. So those are some of my concerns. I find it to be incompatible. I find it to be not consistent. I find that there's not only the lighting, and then we're talking about the water. This is a serious problem. Yes, I respect that you have 57% open space, like that sounds really good. How many ponds? How many lakes? Why don't we ever consider the pines and lakes and say, hey, you know, how many acres does this actually consider when we're talking about open space? I don't know that a deer can walk across a pond. I don't see where it's open space. I know that's the, but it just doesn't make sense to me. So these are my concerns. I find that there's no need for this rezone right now. And the timing of this development, that's the part I look at, is the timing. We have so much coming in on us right now. If you ride down Fufo Road, and I was going to even bring pictures. I mean, when they clear the land, they clear it right down to the bone. There is nothing living on this land, okay? They've killed off anything that was growing. So we've got all the way on the left of Fruitville Road, all the way out to Verna Road, they're trying to put thousands and thousands of houses. And now we're talking about 13,000 houses at some point. The county commissioners just approved 5,000 houses two weeks ago. So we're in trouble here. And, you know, we just want some consideration for the people that were here before. And for the rural area, you know, somebody's got to stand up for the rural area. I even have a whole document of all the roadkill of animals. It is so sad. I honestly, I was going to bring it once, and I just don't have the heart to show it to you. But it is really sad to see what's happening. And we don't see that when we look at these beautiful plans of a master development plan on paper. You don't see the problems. The other thing, the lakes are going to be filled with reclaimed sewage water. Now, we're concerned that this water is going to not only go in the aquifer, but it's going to go in our wells. Who's going to protect us from that? Who is going to protect us from that? So these are my concerns. I ask you to please deny this. And just let's step back and reconsider. And please, with this sports complex, this is ridiculous. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Susan Shetley. I got it now.

Twice in a row. Good job. Good evening again, commissioners. Name is Susan Shetley. I have signed a speaker's card. I'm representing Keep the Country as well as Kona. And I, before Commissioner Thaxton has to remind me, I also was an assistant county attorney for 10 years in Sarasota County previously. I'd like to start with a thank you to HiHat and Jim Turner. They did a great job posting their signs, noticing this meeting. They had at least 10 signs along the road. They had them clustered, all three items clustered together. In contrast, HiHat, I mean, in contrast, Lakewood Ranch Southeast, on the north side of the road, There are three total signs posted for the matter that was before you that you denied recently on there. So I appreciate that. I also appreciate that Jim over the years has been very willing to meet with us as neighbors, meet with residents, large groups, small groups. But I'm very disappointed in what this rezone and what this amendment to the DSCC does. In particular, it's not true to 2050. Jim's always said he was staying true to 2050. This is not. He also always said he was going to protect his rural neighbors, and he's not. Moving the regional park is a significant change. 2050 was created to try and identify all of those things early in the process so that you didn't end up with a surprise. And this is a surprise to us. of a major impact on existing rural area. I live just north, on the north side of Fruitville, back in a ways from that area. So I'm very concerned about the light and the noise and the traffic. Fruitville Road is broken. It's dangerous. And we need to be very careful about adding any time to it. The buffer. The effective buffer was originally 3,500 feet of land to buffer us, and now it's going to be down to 500 feet of greenbelt. That's a significant reduction in protection of the rural area. Eliminating 100 acres of open space by moving the sports complex there. They're going to have to identify where they're going to make up that open space somewhere else. It may have been buried in the material somewhere. I did not find it. I think they should have to identify where they're going to make up that 100 acres of open space they're losing by proposing this change. 2050 was drafted to try and, again, make sure that public facilities such as parks and those things were committed to and done concurrent with the development. The existing MDO language recreation B condition did allow for relocation of the park. However, it allowed for relocation of it from outside the first proposed rezone into the first proposed rezone. What they're doing is the complete opposite. That was not the intent. The timing of greatest flexibility to deal with these issues is now before they get a rezone and they come to the end of it and they go, gee, we'd like to fulfill the 2050 commitments, but we've used up all our land. Now is when they've got all the land available to them to make these determinations. I have similar concerns of the failure to identify the location of the required village center at the current time. I believe they added language on wetland mitigation banking. That runs counter to all the promises we've had over the years that they were going to preserve wetlands and all the sensitive areas. What is the impact on removal of the open space from the TDR calculations? And was that enhanced habitat that got them extra TDRs? The applicant has repeatedly said that the sports park was relocated as the county desired. In the staff report, it specifically says that the applicant proposed to move the park. So the way they've been saying it implies that County Parks and Rec asked them to move it. I don't believe that to be the case based on the language in the staff report. And I believe it ended up where it's proposed, maybe by staff looking at that, but that was not an initial request by county based on the staff report. Again, I hope that you will deny or continue both Rezone 2512 and the DOCC Amendment 1. Make sure that all of these items get ironed out now before it becomes more difficult. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And Becky Ayesh.

Good evening, Commissioners. Becky Ayesh. Yes, I did sign a yellow card. First, I just want to make sort of a disclaimer. I hated 2050. I sued the county over 2050. I thought it was designed to destroy the rural area, in particular Old Viaca, since they hadn't been very successful at it for the first 25 years that I lived there. So we have it. And now this is what we have. So the first thing is that the village purpose is to keep everything in the village. Okay. So the idea that they're going to let people leave the village to go shop over on Beverage Road. is contrary to keeping the people contained in the village. Now, I've been in retail. I've managed a hotel. I've been in construction. And while location, location, location is something that is important, traffic pattern, traffic pattern, traffic pattern is more important. And I'll give you a perfect example. The Publix that was built over here, there was nothing around it. Why did they build it there? Because they knew all of these people were going to come in and they wanted them to come to Publix there. And if you build something somewhere else and people establish that traffic pattern, you're not going to get them back. We tried to put a farmer's market out at the school in Old Myakka. And all our neighbors waved to us and they all loved us, but they all drove right by because their traffic pattern was to go in town. So if you look at any big commercial development, they put the big box store first because they know that people are going to come and they want the people to come there and they don't want to change traffic patterns. So no, they can't go to Bee Ridge Road. They have to put in the village, the village commercial center, like we were promised and I have to thank Mr. Turner because we arm wrestled over whether they would come in Bee Ridge Road or whether they would come in Fruitvale Road and Utopia. And many thanks to him. He agreed to the Bee Ridge Road. because that made more sense. You all know about Fruitvale Road. Plus, that's the more westerly portion, and it would seem that one would want to start west and then move east, not start east and then move west. So I do have to commend him for that. The sports complex, forget that. That is in the northwest corner in an existing community. We have heart attacks when we see the lights on the rain road. It almost makes you run off the road because it's dark and we've always asked for dark skies. The sports complex should also serve the people that live in High Hat Ranch. So we shouldn't have anybody coming off of Fruitvale Road or going on to Fruitvale Road because they're all going to be coming in Bee Ridge Road or the more... perfect way that it would be is that if all the people that live there went to that sports complex and other people went some other place. But the amount of people that you're putting there, that development, that sports complex needs to be centrally located on that property to serve those people. I was sorry to hear that stipulations aren't good to be brought up at this time, but I know Mr. Turner is an amenable person, so I have some stipulations, and I think he'll go along with all of them. So the first one is, as you know, when I appeared in front of you on rezone petitions 2519 and 2520, I sent you a rather large exhibit talking about why I wanted lakes to be lined. They talk about all of the wetlands that they're going to preserve. Hydrological alterations due to lateral seepage from unlined lakes will destroy all of that. We know that. We know that at Crowley. We knew it at the park. We knew it at Flatbrook Swamp. They're not going to protect anything. They might think they want to, but lateral seepage changes the hydrology and wetlands have to be able to dry down and fill up. They also displace with that leak the ability for the soil to hold rainfall because you've already filled it up with your leaky lakes. So we know for sure that, and I do have, two documents that I will submit that identify that further, but they're the same documents that I submitted for Lakewood Ranch in Old Myakka, inappropriately called Lakewood Ranch Southeast. We know that Mr. Turner will go along with stipulations on lights. He likes dark skies. He likes the country. We would like one light at each entrance of the six Units, subdivisions, there we go. We don't want any streetlights. We don't have streetlights. You got headlights on your car. That's what they're there for, for you to be able to see. Again, we want those lakes land. We want native vegetation. We don't want invasive species, racists.

You can't hear it, but your timer is going off up here.

Oh, I'm sorry. No, I can't. And I am deaf in this ear.

It is quite loud. Thank you for telling me that.

And I appreciate it. Have a good one.

Thank you very much. Is that all the speaker cards that we have? Okay. Now I'm going to turn it over to my fellow commissioners. Commissioner Mayo, hot on the trigger.

I've been patiently waiting.

Hot on the trigger.

Staff maybe can answer, or the applicant I'm sure can answer. We'll start with staff. Let's talk about the sports complex and the moving... What's the thought process around moving it? Was it recommended that it was moved?

The process of moving it can be discussed in the dock condition allows for the relocation of it. The purpose of being brought forth is through the applicant because it's their application to make that request.

All right, Charlie, you're up.

Maybe Jim Turner with me, but I can tell you, again, Charlie Bailey, for the record, I can tell you that the regional park is not a requirement of 2050, but it was requested of the master developer when they processed the master development order back in 2021. I was not part of that, but the master development order does contain conditions that say that the regional park and the terms pursuant to which it would be conveyed to the county is to be addressed in connection with the first rezoning. which is why the mask developer broached the subject. I know it's late. I was not part of this meeting, but I know as late as early as 2023, July of 2023, Jim Turner, Mike Campbell with a high hat met with the county. And my understanding is the county expressed a desire that the regional park be sited on Fruitvale Road, which honestly does make sense having a regional park in that area akin to Twin Lakes Park that you've got down in Clark Road so that they're distant in North County and Central County. I think that the logic behind that makes perfect sense to me. I think one of the reasons that Nicole Whistler of Parks and Rec identified that site is that on the north side of Fruitville Road, there's Lakewood Ranch Southeast. It's got a 500-foot greenway and buffer on its side. We likewise have a 500-foot buffer on the north side of Hi-Hat Ranch. If this condition, if the county commission ultimately determines that it wishes to identify that site as a regional park, At some point in the future, the county at that point would not have an obligation to buy it. But if the county does buy it, it would then need to go through the zoning process and either amend the VPD rezoning or rezone at GU. At that time, if the county buys the park and if the county seeks to rezone it, the issues regarding compatibility would be addressed at that time. So I don't know. We did it. It's my understanding that we did that. This is the county's desired location. Keaton's mischaracterization, quite honestly, I was shocked this week when I'm reading the staff report. and saying the applicant requested, the applicant's proposing, the Turner's like, hey, help us help you. We thought that's where you wanted it. We did what you thought, we did what you thought, we thought you wanted us to do. And planning staff, I felt like I was on the backseat of my parents. It's never happened. The backseat of my parents' car, and I hear mommy and daddy arguing and bickering because I thought Parks and Rec said they wanted it. Planning staff shoots a torpedo through it in the staff report. So, but, so we're trying to do, what we've been asked to do.

Okay, perfect. That's a very logical explanation. The next, if we could have staff pull up, I think it's like two slides back inconsistencies.

One second.

In regards to, can we just talk about the Village Center with the commercial component and how it came on? I had my own recollection and my own view of how the 75% comes into play. Can you speak to why the Village Center is coming on at this point for the commercial component of the Village Center is coming on at this point versus at a later date.

So I may need to rephrase the question because at this moment, the Village Center is not proposed with this application, but we do have a condition in the doc of when that would come online. Okay. Is there a better way to?

Yeah, so why are we talking about the inconsistent that the proposed rezoning will not include a mixed-use village center designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail office, such and such village residents?

Okay. So the VPD zone district itself has a criteria for a village center, all of its criteria and components requiring it to be consistent with that zone district, as well as comprehensive policies found within the RMA and the comprehensive plan. With the proposal of not including a village center with the rezone, that's how it may be found inconsistent. But the DOC is a mechanism, if amended, to allow the timing to be as proposed, which would then render it maybe found compliant through that amendment.

Okay, so with the amendment, it would be found compliant to it. Yeah. Thank you.

I have a question for you, Mr. Osborne, while you're there. I just want to read from the staff report in two of two. That's the second. nearly 600 pages of the packets that we read under village center. So this was the specificity behind the village center and why the village center is proposed the way it is. These village centers are to be located internally surrounded by residential neighborhoods and provide residents with the safe and easy access to the village center that is designed with pedestrians in mind and to service the daily and weekly retail office, civic and government use services and needs of the village residents. Just my thought process that publics outside of this neighborhood, their first neighborhood, is not within the intent of what a village center would be according to county standards. Is that right?

Correct.

Right. And then on... one of two of the 642 pages there was a section page 41 the proposed phasing of village one expects the anticipated build out to be 2034. this would leave approximately 3 000 residents without a local village center for eight years if approved other than the public's that's on b ridge extension correct that is the current phasing plan for village one Village 1. And we don't have any idea, nor is it any discussion about ReZone 2 outside of potentially, could be now, could be next month, could be in a couple of months.

It's at the master developer's discretion when that ReZone will be applied for.

So there's no way for us to know. I know I see it on a map. I see a picture here that it's going to be just outside of the first ReZone, but when? Could it move again? Possibly. I'm just a little hesitant here with the fact that we've agreed to it to be within the first rezone. Now it's out of the first rezone. So I was hoping, Mr. Bailey, maybe you could specify what went into why is it being removed? I think that will help bring some clarity behind my hesitation with this, to be honest with you.

The second source of my frustration is I was reading the staff report. We are not proposing to exclude it. No, ma'am. In fact, we have not one, but up to two village centers. The only village under 2050 that has that. And those village centers are to be internal. The way it was framed in the staff report was a head scratcher. It's as simple as this. Our master development plan for the MDO identifies the location of two village centers. I'm going to show you this on this graph at first. A village center there and a village center northward. The village center here is internally located and will be logically located at the eastward extension of Bee Ridge Road that will eventually connect to north-south roadway B that will transect Hi-Hat Ranch from Fruitvale Road to Clark Road, a logical place for a village center. This village center happens to be outside the limits of our first village because we've got six neighborhoods. Lennar and Devasa don't build public-anchored commercial centers. But in seeking to comply with the code, the comp plan, the code, when you've got a master development order, ah, gee whiz, master development order, the county UDC has a table saying when you've got an MDO, here are the things you address. And then when you have the subsequent VPD, here are the things you address. It says the table below details the submittal requirements. Okay, I didn't see what I'm reading. Requirements for the MDO and subsequent VPD rezoning applications for the Central Village, that's us. The applicant shall arrange a required pre-application meeting to review the proposed development. That pre-app meeting was held in 2023. That pre-app reflected our village as is essentially proposed now 3 000 dwelling units no village center no issue raised and i gave the metaphor we were a motorcycle going down the road after a rezone petition after we'd had a petition our pre-app issue of the village center not being included at this time was not raised we were going down the road on a motorcycle said whoop you got to have a village center within your first vpd reason we said why would you say that Among other things, there's some vaguer references in the comprehensive plan, but it says here, MDO, you've got a conceptual location, you do your vp following the reason uh the the mdo you have to yes you've got to address that with your first submittal village center location and land use by type nowhere in the code and this is not us bottom line this is a nothing burden because and i'll explain why but the we did we submitted our rezone petition it's got a puzzle map like you've got for palmer ranch This is what we submitted. This is part of a rezone petition. We identified the location and land uses for the first village center. We thought we were good. Are you good? I thought everything was copacetic. Then they said, hey, no, Cali interprets it. I mean, if you read the staff report, it's code says this. It requires this. I'm like, that's the language. You've got to identify the location and land use by type with your rezone petition. We did that. Staff, as noted on page four, when we got down the road, because as Keaton, God bless him, because I honestly, he knows more about it than I do. I couldn't even begin to explain how density is derived on this village. It's TDRs, environmentally sensitive land. It's not like the two units per acre for the south villages. You've got to sweep all the TDRs off of the, maybe only Keaton and John Thaxson can explain how it works. Based on the habitat, it generates units. You sweep them off and you send them to your developed area. And there's incredible mapping and math calculations that go with that. And so to grab that land would have been taking 10 steps backwards. And so we worked through it with staff. We thought we did. And this language is in the staff report, as Keaton just stated. The DOCC is the appropriate mechanism to create timing of specifics for development components if approved by the board. And kudos to staff. They said, okay, yeah, we get it. Amending the rezone at this point, rezone petition, will be a lot of hair on that. Let's go ahead and use the DOCC. So we went and amended the DOCC. And there are conditions in there that prescribe the timing and manner in which we've got to rezone the first village center at the 2250th unit. We must have completed the rezone process. And I can promise you it's going to be done way before then. It may even be done before the first 100 homes are out of the ground. And the code does not require, if you include it in the rezone, it doesn't prescribe or mandate, it does prescribe or mandate when you build it, just because it's rezoned under the code, you have to build the commercial center, the first brick and mortar, after 75% of the units have been built. In High Hat Ranch, that is, even if it were zoned, you wouldn't have to build it until you hit your 9,000th unit. So including it now in a rezone or including it in a year and a half in a rezone doesn't make a hell of a difference because it's not going to have any impact or bearing whatsoever when that commercial center is constructed because it is going to be rezoned so far in advance of it being constructed. It really is nothing. I thought we'd worked through things with staff and because they'd indicated to us that the development of real concern is an appropriate manner to handle it. That's the way we handled it. And then I read the staff report. I said, this is like an alternate truth. Like, I'm not sure what's going on. I feel like I'm being gaslit.

So you can see kind of where my hesitation is coming from because we build 3,000 homes or 2,250 homes, and then everybody's going to go to the Publix off Bee Ridge, which is already undersized.

It's because John Thaksin's county commission lopped off 10,000 feet right before it was approved. Actually, it was Commissioner Staub.

And, you know, I think, to be honest with you, that from what I recall when Kevin was on this board and the community's hesitations to even put Publix out there was a part of that discussion at that time. And so here we are now. We're going to have 2,250 more homes going to the city, but the public's with the Pete's Place. That's supposed to be great. And the China based over there and maybe the dry cleaner and the Chase Bank. But to me, the point of this village plan is to. You know, I think everything about this plan is everything else I'm on board with, even the regional sports park. Although I completely agree and everybody agrees that Fruitvale Road is awful. You know, we can call the state and see if they're willing to pitch some money in to expand Fruitvale Road all the way down to Verna. I think I've got Becky Ayesh on board for that. But right now it's not going to happen. But Fruitvale Road having the regional sports complex makes more sense. They're going to come in through Fruitvale or Bee Ridge. to get to that development. But my point is on this is I build these homes regardless of when, and my hope is the rezone comes, but that doesn't have it on paper. And that's why I just wanted to bring it up because I was trying to fit the pieces together, reading through everything and looking back at Stantec's report. And I just, it wasn't coming through. So, you know, it is a hope, it is a desire, it's on a plan, but I just wanted to express my hesitation here. I don't know if any of my fellow board members felt that as you read through the documents.

If I might, Madam Chair, Jim Turner, for the record, I have submitted a card. Quick one on the sports park that you mentioned, just to reiterate a bit what Charlie said. We haven't moved the sports park. We've moved the identified location on the map. There are many steps the county has to take, Parks Department getting it rezoned, going through a compatibility analysis, et cetera, before there's actually a sports park there. We were required to identify a proposed location We've done that. They requested it be moved. We moved the location of the icon consistent with that. We're not moving the sports park. A lot to be done with other folks before that happens. As Charlie just said, the debate we're having isn't when the commercial center gets built, Madam Chair, you're concerned. It's when we include it in a rezone. Is having the asterisk shown on our puzzle map sufficient, or should we include it in a VPD rezone? We disagreed with staff as to what was required, but it's a technicality. When, how is it identified in a rezoning or on a puzzle map? Staff has made a proposal that we do it in advance of our second rezone. They've got a time limitation on us as to when we do it. We're fine with that. We're going to go ahead and rezone the village center parcel as VPD soon. There is going to be at least one, probably two village centers internal. We have no intention of having our residents who weren't We're longtime landowners. We're the most affected neighbor. We have the most to lose if we do this wrong. We're going to see that it's done right. And we want to ensure that our new residents have a place to shop close to where they live. There will be an internal village center. We have agreed with staff as to when that should happen. We've modified their timing table on construction to move that substantially forward. We have no disagreement with staff on when it should be constructed. And that's timed with market forces, rooftops needed to support the commercial, those kinds of things, kind of technical stuff. But we have no disagreement with them on that. Ironically, the thing we're disagreeing with them on is the technicality of how we show it, which is truly just wind addressing. They've made a proposal. We've agreed with it.

Thank you.

I would just say one other thing that Jim alluded to, and I didn't mention it, but the code UDC does require, as I mentioned, the timeframe within which you've got to commence construction of a village center within a village. And it's when the overall village hits 75%, which in the case of Hi Hat Ranch would be 9,000. Staff, to their credit, at an additional condition six, up to the DOCC, mandating that that village center be brought online at 50%. So they're requiring actually a brick and mortar retail come online within the village sooner, much sooner than required by the code. So they're actually, you know, that's the meat of it is accelerating when it actually is constructed, not when it's zoned, which we're finding. And we accept that.

Commissioner Feebler. Wait, I'm back. Thank you. I'm back to the sports park. So you've got it in two locations, and if the staff doesn't like it on Fruitville, it goes back to its original location. What's the deal with the sports park?

We never had it anywhere. The icon in our existing master development order is a conceptual location. It wasn't vetted. It wasn't put through a GU-like due diligence process. It was a placeholder. But there was some discussion about where we put that icon, even though it's referred to as a conceptual park site. There's been much more discussion lately with park staff. This is where they want it. Therefore, we've moved the icon. It's hard to speculate. what the county is going to do with that when it gets to the rezoning stage. Even if it's rezoned, I'm led to believe that there aren't the funds there to actually build a park for quite some time. So it's hard for me to speculate on when and if the Parks Department might ever desire another park. And to Becky's comments, This is meant to be a regional sport park. It's got nothing to do with the needs created by our residents. This is a regional park, not made necessary. We've got our own parks. So what the county does with this is up to them. And we've got a history of cooperating with these community-wide needs. If they can't make this work, naturally we'll continue a dialogue with them. as to those needs, as we have with widening Bee Ridge Road and expanding the roundabout at Rothenbach Park and donating right away Fruit Bowl. We've got a long history of cooperation and we'll continue that dialogue if and when, but there's lots of steps that may or may not happen before that conversation.

And that's my point. We just established a regional park in the city of Venice and the city of Venice contributed $5 million to it, and it is now on hold because the county doesn't have any money to continue it.

A whole different conversation. Not a bad one, but a different one.

But it does talk to the viability of when, now, if this is just a piece of land, it's conceptual, it could be, it might not be. But we're not getting a regional park anytime soon, and we've already committed to it on paper.

You haven't committed to it on paper. It's identifying a proposed location is all we've done. There's really no substance behind moving an icon. It's a notice provision. Okay.

Thank you. Any other discussion, questions? Commissioner Saxton. Yes, ma'am.

actually. Staff? Mine are all for staff. Mr. Osborne, is there anyone here from the county that could clear up this confusion as to who is requesting moving the sports complex part?

Yes, we have staff here.

I could think of no one more qualified.

Good evening. For the record, Nicole Risler, County Administration. So, the Regional Sports Complex, as both staff and Mr. Turner has identified, was a conversation that first developed as the MDO was developed. um and it was never a requirement of their parks for 2050. um it was this is a really good opportunity for great future planning for needs for our county decades from now and it was put on the map originally i will tell you the park staff thought it would be a good place continuous with Rothenbach Park. That was originally the conversation, which is probably why the star was put where it was originally. Mr. Turner is correct. We didn't outline it. We didn't do a sketch and description. We didn't say it would be cool if it was here. After further conversation over the course of the last couple of years, looking at the proximity to Twin Lakes Park, our other parks that either are developed or may be future developed in the future, having a regional park And this is, at the moment, planned from an athletics perspective. Fruitvale Road did seem like a better fit for us. And so collectively, we decided we thought that Fruitvale Road would be a better location.

Thank you. That's very helpful. And Ms. Rissell, are you up there? Yes. And if you can't answer this, we'll... We'll go back to Ms. Strasburg. So the plan identifies mini parks, community parks, and regional parks. And part of this petition is to change the requirement for gated communities. So the original intent, are any of these parks going to be behind gates?

I'm going to let the planning staff decide that because only I hear about the regional part.

So I'll let him talk about it. All right. Before you leave, though.

Are you playing now?

Yeah. Okay. Yes. I know you'll get me back to this. You always do. That's okay. So they're identifying and offering land. Who is responsible for paying for the construction of the, especially the community parks?

Okay, so the requirements associated with 2050 in terms of open space and recreation are done completely by the community.

All right, I'll let you go.

Okay, great. Wonderful.

Thank you, Nicole. Mr. Osborne? Let's start with these parks. Are these parks – let's not talk about the mini parks because they're probably really, really, really small. But the community parks, are they intended to be accessible to the general public? Are they going to be behind what would now be permitted gated communities?

They will be behind gates as proposed along Beverage, but they will be accessible to the public who lives within those villages.

Public within, right. Within those villages. And then the land is being donated or is being offered by the developer who pays for the construction, the amenities of these community parks, restrooms, playgrounds, and

I believe it should be the applicant, correct?

Yeah. The applicant. The applicant does? Yes. Thank you. I have a couple questions relative to the school sites and are you, do you have expertise there? Depends on your question. Okay. Well, I have here the school agreement that we did with the school district and it talks about I think the term of art that they use is requires the owner to make school site available to the school district. And then it goes on to talk about a purchase price and appraised values establishing that purchase price. Do we know what the purchase price is for these schools? That I cannot speak to. School sites, right? You don't know, right? Right. And do we know what?

funding is going to be used to actually do the school construction that I cannot answer to either right let me move on then the applicant would like to answer that question if you would allow me all right Mr. Turner good evening

With regard to the high school, it's been an interesting discussion. When we did the MDO, the Palmer Ranch-like MDO that set the framework for future development of HIHAT back in 2021, they needed another high school. They said Riverview, my alma mater, and Sarasota, and Venice were bursting at the seams. So we then started, pursuant to the conditions of the MDO, negotiating with the school district a proposed high school site. And by the way, the obligation that we have under the MDO is not to donate or provide. It's only to identify a site and then to negotiate with the district as to terms and conditions. But as we approached finalizing this process on the rezone, they started asking for more time to exercise what essentially is a free option to buy that site. And I'm like, what happened? I thought you were desperate. And what's happened is the demographics have changed. And the voucher program has provided a lot of options with parochial and private schools. And regardless of what you think about that process, it has changed the need. But they nevertheless pressed to continue to have a school planning agreement with us. And we've committed to reserve a site, a really prime site in the center of the ranch next to the Future Village Center for 15 years for them while they decide just what their needs are. We further agreed to donate up to a half a million dollars toward the cost of their rezoning of that site to GU. And naturally, giving a 15-year free option, we can't set a price today for a purchase that might not be made for 10 or 15 years. So it's going to be like many county agreements are in public-private partnerships, subject to an appraisal process.

And what about the elementary school?

There will be a population trigger for the elementary school. We've got that cited in the north-central portion of the ranch. unlike the high school, which is more in the center of the ranch. Right now, of course, the K-8 school at Sky Ranch is providing a lot of relief out there. I'm proud of the fact that I brokered that deal with the school district and the Hales family. And some of the families that I know that are going there are just thrilled with that new facility. But there will be a time with the census and the development of HI-HAT and the rooftops where another one will be necessary. And as we go, it won't be with the first 3,000 units in this rezone, but we will address that subject with each future increment as we go forward.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Back to staff. I want to talk just a little bit about, let's continue with this fiscal neutrality and related topics. First and foremost, in your consistency analysis, once again, staff didn't put the entirety of the fiscal neutrality requirements. for consistency review in the, why do we always cut that policy off? And we leave off the part that says the intent of fiscal neutrality is at the cost of additional local government services built provided for the village or hamlets shall be funded by the property or within the approved villages. Why do, this is multiple times now. That policy has been conveniently or unintentionally or accidentally left off. And I, it just bothers me when I look at all your other policies written in totality that this particular policy, numerous times now in these reports, staff has not included it. Why is that? And you're speaking to the findings of fact and the reason, correct? Consistency, it's under the, it's on page 37 in your consistency review analysis, VOS 2.9. And I ask that because on page 7 of 11, you talk about exceptions relative to stipulations in this particular rezone petition to the fiscal neutrality rule. So it's important to know why it was left off. And secondly, what are those exceptions? Because this is a 1,200-page packet, and I reviewed almost every one of those pages and couldn't find it.

So for the findings of fact and the fiscal neutrality, during the DOC MDO process back in 2021, when Hi-Hat Ranch was coming through with that application, it was required to provide a fiscal neutrality plan. Consistent with the condition found in that DOC, section two, general brief one, was that during the rezone, they need to provide a conceptual funding plan that would demonstrate certain segments of infrastructure and how that would be funded. In relation to fiscal neutrality as a whole, it was at the rezone stage that we're reviewing their conceptual funding plan with what was shown at the document requirement.

Right. All right. Whatever. You got the part about the plan being in there good, but you left off the part about the requirement of being all infrastructure being funded entirely by the development or people living in the development. That's the part you left off. You got the other part right, and I'm not disagreeing with that. You did mention it twice in other parts of the report that you had to do that, but in the concurrency or the consistency analysis, you didn't. And the only reason I bring it up is because this happened several times and I brought it up. I have a couple questions relative to transportation.

Okay.

You want to try them? All right. Sure. In the transportation impact study, it talks about a – let me get the right term here – the study area. How is the study area for the transportation impact area determined?

I have transportation staff on their way to assist you with that answer.

Good evening. For the record, Marquis Bing, and I have signed a speaker's card. And can you repeat your question?

I'm happy to, yeah. In the report prepared by Stantec, excuse me, under the roadway analysis and numerous places in the report, it talked about the study area, which is what motivated me to go find the study area. And it was about It was 850 pages away from the front of the report, but I did find it. It says, I'm trying to understand what is the study area where transportation impacts were determined?

So to determine the study area, they determine the amount of trips being generated by the development and it's distributed. And if the number of trips from the development account for 5% of that service volume on the adjacent roadways, that is considered in the study area network.

Is that 5% codified anywhere or where does it come from? It's

We have an ordinance that requires, and that's how we identify the statutory network.

And I'm reading it here. It's 5% of the Village 1 rezone traffic, right? Yes. All right. So when we get to Village 2 and 3 and 4, do we start it over and do 5% of that one? yes we do yes okay so in other words we incrementally do these villages i mean there's probably going to be eight or nine villages in the 2050 development but we do them incrementally at five percent for each time that they're done and that's how we determine whether or not it should be considered for um as um meeting the threshold of being addressed for impacts

Yes, the study area. Okay, great.

So in your, I'm in that same report, it says that the significant traffic impact area includes the road segment Lorain Road to Fruitville Road. But when I look through the conceptual funding plan, which is on about page 1,200, There's no mention of Lorain Road extension from Foothill to Palmer or even to Clark Road. So I guess the question is, why is it that it's not included in there? Most all the other roadway areas are included in there. Is it because it's included in the five-year CIP?

Yeah, Fruitvale and Lorain Road are in the five-year CIP, so those roadways are assumed to be in place during the study.

Thank you. I'm almost done, Madam Chair. And this one has to do i was confused about the the language with the um the pine flatwoods and the open space it talked about the wetlands and this and that shall be preserved and then it said for pint this is on page 15 by the way and then it says the pine flat which should be preserved but then i've heard talk about the pine flatwoods being used in the tdr calculations um so i'm just trying to be clear if the pine flatwoods are in the tdr calculations and we say should be preserved because they're optional, whether or not they're needed for the TDR calculations. And in this case, they were needed for the TDR calculations, and so they shall be. I am correct.

Brian Beer with Environmental Protection Division, and that is correct. The should be was a reference to the habitat type in the comp plan being a should be.

Perfect. And I'm glad, too, because that's – I kind of wrote that, and it's good to see it being used. Thank you, HIHAP, for doing it correctly. That's my questions.

Any additional questions, comments for staff, petitioner, before we let them do the rebuttal? Going once, twice, thrice. All right. Mr. Bailey? Mr. Turner? You have five minutes.

I would just want to refer to the Elmo, I guess. You know, if you hear folks give, just kind of recite that, hey, 2050 is compact, walkable development, preserving open space with environmental systems, and it's fiscally neutral. This graphic, to me, illustrates to me the compact development. focus on only the tan. The tan is our roads and lots. Everything else is kind of busy, but there's a lot of blue and green within the developed area itself. And this truly is compact development, leaving vast open space, more than 50% with the environmental systems. We heard discussion that some of the folks that Ms. Trevelyan, who, by the way, was Mote Marine Laboratory, Mote owns the land just from the northeast corner of High Hat Ranch that used to be part of High Hat Ranch. But it was as if she and Mr. Granbush had not read our application because the things they were complaining that said should be done and respected are within this this this development. And we are preserving vast open space with the environmental systems, providing compact development. And it is fiscally neutral. It was determined to be fiscally neutral in 2021, not just at build out, but each and every year throughout build out. And I don't know if Commissioner Thaksin, did you see the August memorandum that Matt Osterhout, that Michelle Norton presented to the board on August 26th? I would commend that to you because that addressed physical neutrality. And at the end of the discussion, Commissioner Smith picked out that one sentence from the comp plan that you referenced with regard to village development paying for itself and asked, hey, in light of the bigger picture, in light of the fact that the comp plan policy says this, the UD says that, we've got a 2015 methodology with regard to fiscal neutrality as to how it's going to be done. The applicant followed it. It was reviewed by the third parties, by the county's economists hired to review it, and it was deemed fiscally neutral based on the county's criteria. And so, I mean, I think that language that you're referring to may well be pulled out of the comp plan As a result, that sentence is one sentence in a long paragraph. But I would commend that discussion to you on August 26th when Michelle really hit it. With regard to the regional park, again, we thought we were – I mean, and it makes sense to me, the park location genuinely does, from a park planning standpoint, make perfect sense to us. Until we saw the staff report, it didn't really dawn on us. We thought that it was going to be more – advanced by the county and we weren't, we'd not heard the criticism from county planning staff until we received the staff report. But if that is a problem, it's only a conceptual, it's a proposed location being conceptually located on the master development plan. Ultimately, it would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. But if that aspect, that element of the applications gives you heartburn, we were, again, respectfully requesting your recommendation of approval of the entire, both the rezoned and the MDO amendments, but if that one amendment with respect, with regard to the regional part gives you heartburn, we would ask that you still make a recommendation of approval to the County Commission on both, and then let your concern be reflected on the record so that they can take that up on October 7 when this is presented to them. I don't know, Jim, do you want to add anything here in the two minutes we've got left?

Give me two minutes, I'll say something. One, bear in mind, many of these issues with regard to compatibility and traffic and environmental protection, they were all addressed in an incredibly comprehensive process that took two years. And by the way, we invented the process. When DRIs came out of the statutes in 2018, there was really no methodology for planned communities over 2,000 units to be processed. County had other priorities at the time. They suggested if we wanted to use a comprehensive process rather than just do a 13,000-unit rezone or an isolated 3,000-unit rezone that didn't connect everything, which staff would have hated. You can imagine what you'd have felt like if we were here before you in a 13,000-unit rezone. So we basically created Sarasota County's version of a DRI on our nickel in 2018 and 2019. Fast forward, we did our MDO in 2021, and that we're finding this fact in that very comprehensive process that development under this MDO will not have an unfavorable impact on the environment. Those factors have already been considered. We are very proud, if you refer back to the picture that Charlie just showed, that we're preserving 1,200 acres more or less of native habitat with this development. Any alternate development approach that we could take would likely not preserve that. It's not just native habitat. We're proud of our stewardship of it. It's designated as habitat of high ecological value. It's the largest contiguous area of HEV land privately owned in Sarasota County. We're going to preserve it. We're going to ensure that nothing, no other development type takes care of it. There's also, and I want to mention the water issue that I think Betsy Friedman mentioned. Happy to meet with her on that subject. There's also a finding in the MDO that we're efficiently using water.

See how low that buzzer is now? We're going to have to work with county communications to pop that sucker up. Thank you very much. With that, I will close the public hearing and entertain a discussion or a vote regarding agenda item number five. And Keaton, will you go ahead and put up on the screen what's up on the deck for the motion, please? Commissioner Thaxton?

I'm Cheryl.

Happy to start. Let me just go down my points here. At least those that are left. Many of my concerns were satisfied by the applicant. And I got to say, the majority of my concerns are not really with the applicant, but rather with Sarasota County and our continued appetite for changing the rules of the game at halftime. So let me just start with the village center. And again, just as a reminder, I was there when all this was talked about. Many of these policies I co-authored and blah, blah, blah. It was the intent to have this village center at the first rezone. In fact, if you look at VOS 1.4, the fourth bullet, it said villages shall include a village center with sufficient non-residential uses to provide for the daily needs of the village residents. We heard today that's not going to happen. They're going to have to drive to get them. And so we added this phrase that this sufficient to meet the needs of the daily village residents by phase of development. In other words, each phase is supposed to do this. That's what your policy says. That's why staff wrote in their thing that this is not going to meet the daily needs. In fact, as pointed out, you're going to have upwards of 3,000 residents probably for three years driving anywhere from a mile and a half, four miles round trip in order to get to shopping. This is completely inconsistent. with what was agreed upon in 2050. The number of UDC codes in this is staggering. I mean, there's a dozen or more. But a couple that I would point out as we continue to degrade these buffers, significantly degrade the buffers, cul-de-sacs and gated communities were a no. They were a non-starter and everyone agreed to this when we did 2050 that we're not going to have these long cul-de-sacs and we were not going to have any gated communities. Now we're not only having gated communities, we're putting parks behind gated communities, and the parks were intended to be a community park and for people to access, not just people in the villages, but they were supposed to be open without the gates. I'm satisfied with their response on the regional sports park. I don't like it at all, but I am satisfied. But probably the thing that I find most inconsistent is this concept of fiscal neutrality. Yeah, you can do a report. You can hire a consultant. They're going to tell you something, right? But the policy is very clear. The policy says that the infrastructure required by 2050 development must be funded entirely by the development. You heard testimony that the elementary school site is going to be sold to the school. It's not supposed to be school. They're supposed to give the site and build the school. That's what the 2050 code requires. You also heard that this 5% rule, 5% on each village for every village in 2050, before you know it, you're looking at 25 to 30% of road impacts that are not going to be considered and they're not going to be held fiscally accountable for them. Not just this village, but other villages as well. And by the way, that 5% code is not part of the 2050 code. That's a code from somewhere else that there are that they're implying here. But if you look, this is the part that really gets me. If you look at this transportation impact plan, it says significant transportation areas include Lorain Road from Fruitvale Road. Then if you look at the adopted schedule of Sarasota County's infrastructure surtax, it says Lorain Road extension Fruitvale to Palmer Boulevard, $20 million. That's virtually the entire cost of the road is being funded by people who are not living in the development is funded by county-wide. You have a code that dictates how you can use these infrastructure surtax money, and that's Section 1, Article 14, and it says that surtax can only be used to relieve, I quote, relieve existing deficiencies in infrastructure. So now, if I go back to the consultant's own report, that the county approved, and I look at that road segment of Lorain Road from Fruitville to Palmer Boulevard, the level of service is acceptable. So by their own admission, it's not a deficiency. You can't use surtax money because it violates section one of the county code, and you can't use surtax money because it violates the policy and the comprehensive plan that it says it must be funded entirely within the development. I'm sorry. Maybe they did the analysis before this was known, or maybe nobody looked at this when they did the analysis, but the code is very clear. The policies are very clear. You can't do it. It's inconsistent with the plan. Obviously, I can't support it. It's just, you know, this concept of Well, let's just change the rules. It's really frustrating. But the requirement that infrastructure must be funded from the development is not changed. It's still in the policy. And even more importantly, it's adopted by county ordinance, and it's still in the Section 1 of the county code.

Thank you, Commissioner Thackson, for your passion. Who's up next? Commissioner Fiedler, you're quite quiet tonight over there.

It's my bedtime. You know, I've always had a problem with impact fees. State law says impact fees have to be used at the site of development. Ours aren't. Ours are used all over the place. And so we wind up with roads that are not funded because we didn't use the impact fees where the state says we must do. Whether it's for parks, whether it's for roads, whatever it's for, we have consistently robbed Peter to pay Paul. And there's a price to be paid sooner or later. when you do that. I appreciate, I can't say how much I appreciate Mr. Turner for ponying up money to build a road. And he says that he's going to add impact fees to it. I hope that happens. River Road right now has got a lot of impact fees from a lot of people who don't live next to River Road. So I don't know where they will be used at. So I have to agree with Commissioner Thaxton that roads and infrastructure are always a concern. I think that the park plan is a good idea. I don't want it on Fruitvale Road, but I understand that's just a placeholder and we'll see where that, how that goes and how that plays. So it's my two cents.

Of course. Any additional comments? Commissioner LaCivita's hands on the button.

Well, you won't like what I want to say. But if you want me to say something, I'll say something. Commissioner Thackston threw out a lot of information at us after everything's been closed and rebuttaled and done with. It was so much information. I'd almost like to have the applicant come back and retort or disprove anything he may have said. But it's up to us to make that decision. And I know it's way past my bedtime. I've got to be back here in the morning anyway. So I could just stay here, but... I don't know. It was a lot. John threw out there. Commissioner Thaxton threw out there, I should say. But, you know. Anyway, I'll leave it up to the board to make that decision.

Commissioner Mayo, any input?

I'm just shaking my head over here. Let's give five more minutes for rebuttal on some of those questions. Points. Points that Commissioner Thaxton brought up. Maybe staff wants to say some stuff on it. Maybe the applicant wants to say some stuff on it. Staff's jumping up quick, so let staff have some comments first. It appears like they have some comments. No?

So before we do that, I'm going to, for the record, open the public hearing again. Someone remind me to close it eventually. Probably you. So I think Commissioner Mayo said staff can take a shot at it.

If staff doesn't have anything to say, I just saw staff moving around there. They're ready to go. They're ready to go bed also.

Yeah. And this is specifically focusing on the items. I think fiscal neutrality was the biggest one heard from Commissioner.

I'll phrase a question maybe. How does the – we'll start with how does the county – establish fiscal neutrality for this project, not overall, just this project.

Again, Todd Derry, Manager, Planning and Development Services. I believe with respect to this project, we have a methodology, a process in code with respect to fiscal neutrality. What the methodology is, what the inputs are, Third party review, et cetera. That was conducted with the doc. So the village does not go through a fiscal neutrality review. It's part of that doc. So that's already occurred. Third party consultant found it consistent and valid and could be found fiscally neutral based upon the county's methodology, the verification of inputs,

etc. And that's what the county uses as the basis to determine it being fiscal year net neutral, correct?

Yes. For 2050 projects, there is set methodology that the county has adopted and the projects then hire a consultant using that methodology. County staff will verify inputs that are correct and then the county HIRES A THIRD-PARTY CONSULTANT TO ASSESS THAT REPORT, FISCAL ANALYSIS REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. AND IN THIS CASE FOR HI-HAT RANCH, THAT OCCURRED, IT OCCURRED AT THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAGE, SO THAT, WITH THE DOC. SO THAT HAPPENED SEVERAL YEARS AGO. AND THAT WAS FOR THE AGGREGATE, THE ENTIRE 13,000 the approximate units as well as the non-residential and all the infrastructure required, et cetera. So there's no redo of fiscal neutrality specific to each one of these rezones that come in, although there is a requirement. The master development plan does require a continued updating of funding plan. How are we going to get there?

specific to this as well as the cumulative as you keep going so each rezone you would address that again cumulatively commissioner faxton i'm going to try to simplify this with some simple yes or no questions and again this is not targeted at the property owner or developer this is this is the county that i have my concerns with Does Policy 2.9 require, as a condition of fiscal neutrality, determining fiscal neutrality, that all government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the villages shall be funded by the property owners of the approved villages? Yes or no?

I believe that is what the policy says.

Yes, it is, verbatim. With regards to the extension of Lorain Road, I'm reading directly from the transportation planning report submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the county. A significant impact area includes the road segment of Lorain Road from Fruitville to Clark, which includes from Fruitville to Pomo Boulevard. Is that correct?

I believe, yes, it's packed in. Yeah, it is.

All right. And then here, I got all this off the website last week, so I know it's current. Here's the fourth revised Exhibit A of Sarasota County's government project list for infrastructure surtax 25 to 39. And it says Lorraine Road extension, Fruitville to Palmer, construction and right-of-way. $20 million. Now, previously, staff had estimated the cost to be $26 million, so this is clearly $20 million going towards this road. Is this $20 million of infrastructure surtax money funded by the properties, solely by the properties' owners and residents of rural villages?

I wouldn't know that specific.

Of course it's not. Well, of course. We know how it's collected. We know how it's collected. And so it's just the only question is when was this? I don't see how there's any question to this. I mean, we're violating a policy in the comprehensive plan that says it must be funded by properties within the approved villages and the hamlets. And that's exactly what the code says. Only if you go into the county code, it's even more explicit. as to how it's supposed to be done. And clearly, surtax is not collected. This is surtax money. This is money from surtax that is going to be spent and built before there's even a single residence there. So it's not being funded by the approved village. It's being funded by every person in this county. And numerous times in this report, you said that we have a requirement to not burden existing taxpayers. Well, if you're charging existing taxpayers in violation of your own code for infrastructure they're not supposed to be funding, I think that's kind of burdensome. Somebody, and again, I hate to hold the developers up for this, but somebody made a really, really bad mistake here. There's yes or no questions. And you just heard for the record what I'm saying is accurate. And it's very unfortunate. If you ask me for a solution, I don't have one. It's been so much water under the bridge, and I think this is the tip of the iceberg. I'm with John, though. Let's let the board figure it out.

Do any of my fellow commissioners have additional comments or questions for staff or the petitioner?

No additional comments. I have discussion points after rebuttal.

So I'm going to give you guys a rebuttal since there is much off the record with not a public hearing. Yes, you.

Just on fiscal neutrality, I hear what Commissioner Thaxton is saying. He may well have authored that sentence that remains in the comprehensive plan. I will say, and I wasn't being flippant, I mean, honestly, Matt Osterhaus' memorandum that was presented to the County Commission on August 26th addresses all of this. Use of surtax dollars on Lorain Road, that comp plan policy, what it means, how it's applied, the UDC provision that implements that comp plan policy on fiscal neutrality. And the rule and the law has changed substantially with regard to proportionate fair share of what you can legally impose on development. And the county adopted in 2015 a methodology for performing fiscal neutrality. A report was prepared, submitted in 2021, finding that the proposed Hi-Hat Ranch master development plan is fiscally neutral. The county hired an economist who reviewed it and concurred with that. That issue is not even before the County Commission, I think, or before the Planning Commission. I think County Commissioner Thaxton acknowledges that the rules have changed. The job of this Planning Commission, it's a quasi-judicial proceeding. They're supposed to apply the rules as they're written to the confidential evidence. And we can't go back and revisit fiscal neutrality when that determination, that ship sailed in 2021 and we're fiscally neutral. So that decision is not actually before the Planning Commission or the County Commission. on October 7th. I'm going to turn it over to Jim, who's going to use no more than 90 seconds to talk.

But Charlie, just one thing. I don't want to debate this, but the rules in 2050 that I recite have not changed. They're still in the books.

You're plucking wines when you stop. One sentence out of a document that is that fat and commit the sentence you keep reciting was mentioned, but we're asked about Mark Smith asked the commission and county attorney that sentence, if it's no longer legal, should it be removed from our comprehensive plan?

Can you get this on the element? No. Can somebody? Talk about the village center again, and I hate to belabor the point. Not debating whether there will be one, there will. Not debating whether it will be internal, it will. On when it will be constructed, we have agreed with staff to accelerate it. All we're talking about is how to show it on the puzzle map or in a rezone or when. I disagree with Commissioner Thaxton's comment that this is very clear in the comp plan on when we identify it and how. I have a UDC provision before you that has two different submittal requirements. One for standalone villages. One that was added afterwards when we developed the process for multi-village master planning that says that the requirements, the detailed submittal requirements shall be established at the pre-application meeting and the requirements shall be as generally consistent with the table below. We didn't, our bad, staff's bad, at that pre-application meeting clear enough address when we would show this village center on the map and how we would show it. So, you know, we can debate all night about, you know, what this code provision says and that code provision says. We all agree it wasn't clear. Our bad, staff's bad. They've come up with language to address it. It adequately addresses it. We're just talking about how and when we show it on a map, folks. And we agree with staff's approach. We agree with their language. That's all I have to say on that.

For the record, Frank Domingo with Stantec, and I have filled out a speaker card. I just want to address the fiscal neutrality as it relates to transportation. In 2011, the state law changed and basically got rid of concurrency. In 2015, Sarasota County adopted the mobility fee ordinance. And those two things together say that developer development shall not pay more than its fair share. So if the policy in fiscal neutrality says the villages must pay more than their fair share, For transportation impacts or transportation improvements, that is not consistent with state law. That state law has been in place since 2011. The county's ordinance for mobility fees has been in place since 2015. We have been operating in this for more than a decade. So when I hear somebody saying that they need to pay more or pay all of it, The answer to that is that's actually not consistent with state law. I'm not a lawyer, but I can read that, and I think that's black and white. So that's one thing. The other thing is I used to work for the county. We had a policy. The biggest existing deficiency when I started in Sarasota in 1996 was I-75. And we've been struggling and been paying, and Certex has been paying for parallel roadways for I-75 because guess what? Local traffic is one of the things that's clogging I-75. And the whole point of this local service network is to get local traffic off of I-75, be it Honore Avenue, be it Lorain Road. That has been the strategy ever since I've lived here. And that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you for the additional time. We appreciate it. We respectfully request your recommendation of approval.

Thank you very much. All right. Someone remind me to close the public hearing. The public hearing is closed. At this time, I will entertain a discussion or a vote regarding agenda item number five. Commissioner Mayhem.

Quick discussion points. The regional sports complex, I understand it moves. It moves back and forth. It's an icon on a screen. Stantec has very, very good engineers that can move that icon into a lot of different places. It doesn't matter right now, really. So I understand the concerns about it being up by Fruitville. When that time comes, we can discuss it. can shield lights we can do numerous things there's a lot of a lot of powers that be that can handle that the commercial component of the village center i 100 understand that needs to be part of the village it needs to be in the center of the village as things come online i agree the the village center needs to the commercial component needs to come online at the same time 3 000 homes sounds like a lot in comparison to 13 000 it doesn't sound like a lot um The fact that the Be Rich Publix that we keep referring to is small and inadequate, that's not really the problem right now. The fact is that these homes are going to get built. As these homes get built, I guarantee Publix, the anchor tenants that are going to want to be in the commercial center, are going to be pushing everybody that's involved with this to get that commercial center online as fast as possible. If there's one house there, they're not building the Publix. If there's 3,000 houses there, they're going to build a Publix. So, again, I'm not worried about that. Fiscal neutrality, we've obviously talked about every meeting since I've been on the board, and I do see the issues with it. I actually agree with Commissioner Thaksin on a lot of the issues with it. Lorraine Road, the part that we're talking about, has the need to be built long before 2021. And the fact that it's now being built with money outside of this project has nothing to do with it. The road needs to be built. So if fiscal neutrality needed to come into play on the other developments that happened in that surrounding area at a previous date. Again, something we can't deal with or have any part of today with our discussion or our parts that we're deciding on for A and B. And that's my main points.

Why does it have to be a Publix?

Because we're in Florida and we love Publix. On the record, we love Publix.

Any other discussion? Commissioner Thaxton, are you Aldi or Publix?

yeah i'm um i'm just really looking forward to this discussion about how we're going to prove that village open space policy 2.9 village transition zone policy 4.4 section 124 271 of the county code in article 1 section 14 114 of the county code is illegal from state law. That's going to be kind of fun to watch. And by the way, it's not an existing deficiency according to your staff and according to the consultant. They're the ones that said it's in your packet on page, like I said, about 1200. It says that there are no deficiencies and a need for that Lorain Road. I didn't make that up. That's what is in the packet.

Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Just adding some discussion points. We've definitely covered a lot of topics this evening. I feel like we should have a contest for who brought the largest binder. And whoever wins that needs to go plant a tree somewhere or something. Thanks, Commissioner Mayo. We've talked about a lot relating to the sports complex. I definitely see both sides of the argument for why to have at Fruitville Road relative to the other regional parts of the south and connectivity to areas outside the county. And I also understand the nuance of the location. I fully understand that. So I'm fine with, I guess, voting in favor of Section A on that. because I feel like there's just nothing really decided there with that. I understand why we're here tonight for that. For section B, first of all, Ms. Shetley and Ms. Ayesh, I mean, you two always and other people in the area always bring such quality testimony and I always learn from the group, from the two of you. I think water quality, availability and seepage are things that should constantly be brought up and reaffirmed and Mr. Turner and his team have also seemingly addressed those. And I think it's something that we can always talk about more and bring up and keep educating ourselves on. And protecting the wetlands is obviously such an important duty that we have as a community. But you only have one shot at it, to your point, Ms. Ayesh. And once it's done, it's done. So I know Mr. Turner and his team will be and should be good stewards of the land. We have talked about a lot this evening and I would contradict myself and typically how I feel like I have voted on things in this area and I would support this today. Just because I do want to see it move on and there's so much nuance to it that I think it deserves to move on and We've really asked a lot of great questions this evening as a planning commission and as a community. And it's not a vote I feel good about, but it's one that I feel like I just feel inclined to make this evening. So thank you.

Any other comments, discussion point? Do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Make sure I read this correctly. We don't do very many DOCC amendments. In regards to the DOCC Amendment No. 1 with I believe two amendments and two proposed conditions. And rezone petition number 2512, based upon the evidence and testimony received at the public hearing, I move that the Plenty Commission recommend approval in accordance with the staff's report and 18 stipulations.

Second.

To your first.

We have all said more than enough tonight.

To your second.

I'll say to my second. It's becoming eerie. I do feel like 2050, when I first heard about it many years ago, seems so far away. And it's seemingly around the corner. And I... so enjoy the context of the people who were a part of the process when it was created and the stakeholders that still show up to remind us of what, you know, if it's not what's on the paper today, it was at least the intent originally. And I'm just grateful for that knowledge. And I do feel like this is such a large area that has had a very long time of planning. I don't think I've seen a larger team planning team professionally ever in a meeting, which I don't think you would hire unnecessarily. I think it goes to show hopefully the quality he's throwing out, shelling out. But the team in front of us is tasked with utmost responsibility of protecting the nature and environment. And I hope that that is seen through all the way to the end.

I'm going to do a roll call vote on this one, Madam Clerk. Commissioner LaCivita?

Yes.

Commissioner Taylor?

Yes.

Commissioner Mayo?

Yes.

Commissioner Fiedler? Yes. Commissioner Thackston?

No.

Chair votes aye. Motion passes five to one. I will now close the public hearing portion of the section for a second time of our meeting. I guess it's the section. And move on to minutes. May I have a motion? I'm going to abstain for minutes. I wasn't at the last meeting. And Commissioner LaCivita, I was here. I'm sorry?

Half of you weren't there.

Half of us weren't here. LaCivita and Legler abstain.

You don't have to. You don't have to. You can vote. You can even make the motion.

Okay. I'm going to. Okay. No, no absentia. Okay. Do I have a motion on the minutes? So moved.

Second.

Commissioner Fiedler first. Mayo second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. Motion passes for the minutes. If I could ask everybody just to keep it down. We still got a little bit of business to conduct. So if you could take your conversations to the brand new hallway, that'd be great. Appreciate it. All right. Commission reports. I'm going to start with Commissioner Mayo on my left.

Nothing to report other than the fact that we are in our new digs and they're awesome and everybody worked hard to get them to the condition they're in and very, very impressive. I also have to add that I know we talk about it. We all don't have the same views on it, but the fiscal neutrality is a very, very important part to all this. And whether it needs to be re-reviewed by staff, re-reviewed by the board, whatever it needs to fall into that to make everybody, because it's a point that everybody needs to be comfortable with. And if everybody's not comfortable with the verbiage or the way it's written or the way it's used or the consultants that are utilized to get to that foundation, I feel like it needs to be reviewed. It's everybody's tax dollars at work and everybody should feel comfortable with how it gets there. Everybody might not like it, but they should at least feel comfortable with the process and the path.

Commissioner Fiedler.

Wow, I agree. Awesome. And it did take me 50 minutes to get here, whereas before, it'll be 10 minutes home.

It's 10 o'clock. You're not going to get any sympathy if that's what you're looking for. Your poor husbands would wait all this time, too.

Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the solution that we've always been looking for with the beeper not going off loud enough is the microphone should just be cut off after, you know, five seconds of beeping or something. Because it just, it always creates a lot of tension for the chair to have to try and yell, stop, you know. that's just my suggestion i will say i i touched on this earlier but i am passionately against um ai generated content in a professional forum that doesn't seem to have been vetted i.e a slide not working that was if something's generated from copilot and put out it's all the same template i see it and i'm not criticizing the content but the means of the content i think We have to be incredibly careful as to how we're using that in society and making sure it's being used to the highest and best use if you are. I don't think that's unfair to say at this point. I didn't mean to call someone out earlier. I just don't want to see it go poorly for someone because it can be quite embarrassing when it does. So thank you.

Commissioner LaCivita.

Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Romero talking about physical neutrality because, you know, I see the Hi-Hat Ranch giving all this property up, the 2050 plan, and to ask them to pay for everything in their development. doesn't seem right to me, quite honestly. The schools, if people move there with kids in need of school, they're giving up the land, they're paying the impact fees, they're doing everything they can, but we all pay our taxes. So I don't agree with everything that may have been in the original plan for physical neutrality. And that's why I said, let's get the debate going between you and the county, because I think it just needs to be revisited completely, because I don't The way we used to think things should be way back when isn't today or wouldn't work or this property would never get developed. And maybe that's what the plan was, is for that acreage to never be developed. But they are actually developing less of the land, trying to be good stewards of what they have. That's the way I see this project as well. So that's why I called it out tonight, because I know this is something you are very passionate about, Commissioner Thaxton, so I felt like I needed to bring it forward.

That's it. I want to mention, I think, an early congratulations to Commissioner Miller. She's expecting the birth of her son any day now, so I think we want to say early congratulations to her on the record. We hope everything goes smoothly, and we hope to see you back soon. Sorry you missed your call. First 10 o'clock hearing here, Commissioner Miller, and then Commissioner Thackston. Sure.

I'm not going to apologize for my passion, but I do want you to understand Sarasota County, I've been doing, this is like my 50th year in land use in Sarasota. And I remember when the Sarasota County Commission promised us and put in the comprehensive plan, there will be no urban development east of I-75 ever. So we saw the pressure coming on east of I-75. So me and a very small group of people put our necks out there with 2050 and said, we are actually going to allow – and Becky's right. Becky, these people criticized me for doing this. And they criticized me for doing this because they said they're going to change all the rules. And I said – No, they're not. There's no way that the county commission is ever going to allow all this stuff to happen. We've changed all the rules. All of them. So it's kind of, you know, Becky was dog whistling there and she was dog whistling at me and I deserve it because I believed in this community, the landowners, the developers, the environmentalists, that If we did open this door and allow this development east of I-75, it would attain these higher principles. All this stuff about concurrency and all this other stuff, it's irrelevant. We agreed in this instance, that's why it's an overlay district. It's a voluntary overlay district. They don't have to do it. There's no property rights here. They agreed to all this stuff up front. And now it's all being changed. And I'm still here watching it. And I got to tell you, it's really, really frustrating. And that part about development paying 100% of the cost, they kind of dismissed it here, like you're picking out one sentence in the plan. That is one of the most critical sentences in the entire comprehensive plan. Right. And we debated that for years. We debated all these policies for years. So you have to excuse me if I get a little bit emotional about it. But when I see a blatant, demonstrable violation of the county code, two county codes and two county policies in the comprehensive plan, I have a sworn duty to say something about it. And I will continue. From this day, it's not to reporters, not other places. I've already refused a lot of interviews. I'm making my peace and making the record clear here so that the Office of the County Attorney can consider it. Frankly, I don't think it's ever going to happen because you can't sue the counties anymore over land use because of the state legislature. But anyways, I appreciate your patience.

Reporters waiting for you outside.

They may, but like I said, it's

said it for the record and that's the only place i'm going to say it thank you very much i'm going to remind my fellow commissioners that your location of your next two meetings in october are here in north county as always your attendance is of utmost importance because if we had any accidents or any any oopsie daisies we would have had all of this preparation for not tonight so County staff, do you have anything to add before we close, Mr. Derry? Nope. When will we move into the new building? Today is the day. Today is the day. And with that, we're going to close the hearing at 1014. Thank you. Good night.

Why are you trying to lose this again, Stephen?