Siesta resident Ramirez fighting zoning administrator’s interpretation of county land-use regulations
On Monday, April 13, the Siesta Key resident who won the litigation that prevented construction of high-rise hotels on the barrier island will seek a formal ruling from the Sarasota County Board of Zoning Appeals that hotels and condominium units rented as short-term accommodations “are classified [in county regulations and policies] as a residential use, without qualification.”
In her formal letter requesting the appeal, Lourdes Ramirez acknowledges that, in a May 6, 2025 letter to a Sarasota attorney who has represented developers, county Zoning Administrator James Ehrmann limited his interpretation of the use of hotel and motel rooms to the definition of “transient accommodations” in the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC), which contains all of the county’s land-use and zoning regulations.
“Transient accommodations” is the term used in county regulations in reference to hotel and motel rooms.
However, Ramirez has asserted that Ehrmann incorrectly has interpreted the definition of hotels and condo-hotels as residential uses for density purposes only. With that action, she has written, he has disregarded specific county protections for the barrier islands, including policies within the county’s Comprehensive Plan, which guides growth in the county.
She wrote in her letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals that “the UDC expressly requires that all zoning interpretations be consistent with and comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The authority to interpret
the UDC necessarily includes the obligation to ensure that such interpretations do not conflict with adopted Comprehensive Plan policies.”
Yet, Ehrmann has stressed in materials for the April 13 hearing that the UDC “does not authorize the Zoning Administrator to interpret the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan or any court ruling.”
In an email to The Sarasota News Leader, Ramirez wrote, “The bottom line of this current issue is that the Zoning Administrator should not be given the authority to make an interpretation of the UDC that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.”
In his report to the Board of Zoning Appeals, Ehrmann recommends that they uphold the written interpretation that he provided to Ramirez in December 2025.
The hearing is scheduled to take place at 6 p.m. at 870 Apex Road in Sarasota, which is the location of the Sarasota County Planning and Development Services’ One Stop building. It stands east of Interstate 75 near the Celery Fields.
The ‘determination letter’
On Oct. 8, 2025, Ramirez appeared before the County Commission to explain her frustration over the “determination letter” that she had discovered that Zoning Administrator Ehrmann had sent Sarasota attorney William Merrill III regarding the classification of hotels.
As the News Leader reported, Ehrmann noted in his May 6, 2025 letter to Merrill that the attorney was “seeking a determination that hotels and condo hotels are commercial in nature and should be treated as such for the purposes of use, land-use, land-use classification, use categories, and development standards.”
Ehrmann added that it was his interpretation “that … it is recognized hotels and condo hotels are required to construct to commercial construction standards per the Florida Building Code (which is not under the purview of the Zoning Administrator) and commonly operate in a manner which aligns with the definition of a nonresidential use (as defined in UDC Section 124-305) …”
Nonetheless, Ehrmann did emphasize in the letter that hotels and condo hotels “shall be considered a residential use for density purposes.”
Merrill is the attorney who, in 2021, represented the developer of a proposed 170-room hotel that was to be constructed on less than 1 acre the edge of Siesta Village. Merrill contended during the County Commission public hearing on that project that the North American Industrial Classification System codes say that hotels are commercial properties and, therefore, the counting of their rooms for residential density purposes should be eliminated.
However, Merrill sought only a change to that effect in the UDC.
A majority of three county commissioners is needed to amend the UDC, but a majority of four is necessary to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Siesta opponents of the hotel said they believed Merrill had sought the UDC change out of concern that he could not get four votes in favor of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Indeed, the vote to modify the UDC as he proposed was 3-2.
As the president of Protect Siesta Key, Ramirez and her fellow leaders of that nonprofit organization, have continued to fight efforts to construct high-rise hotels on the Key, even though 12th Judicial Circuit Judge Hunter W. Carroll ruled in August 2023 that the largest number of hotel rooms per acre he could determine to be legal in accord with Siesta’s zoning regulations is 36. He based that decision on a review of the county’s Comprehensive Plan language over the years.
Ramirez also won a challenge of the validity of the UDC amendment in a case she filed with the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings.
On Sept. 29, 2025 Ramirez sent an email to Ehrmann, on which she copied two attorneys working with her, saying his interpretation for attorney Merrill, which “attempts to classify hotels and condo hotels as a commercial use … directly conflicts with the [county’s] Comprehensive Plan, governing ordinances, and case law.” She added, “Accordingly, I must insist that a revised interpretation be issued, and that any permits, approvals, or related correspondence issued for Siesta Key on the basis of this erroneous interpretation be rescinded to ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.”
In an October 2025 exchange of emails with Ramirez, Matt Osterhoudt, director of the county’s Planning and Development Services Department, clarified that Ehrmann’s determination letter “was not specific to a certain property or area of the County, so it is therefore general in nature.”
Ramirez replied to Osterhoudt on Oct. 15, 2025. “Your characterization of the letter as ‘general in nature’ overlooks the fact that, as written, it will apply to the Barrier islands — where such an interpretation is clearly incorrect. The courts have already ruled that transient accommodations are a residential use, without qualification.”
Then she added, “Frankly, I find the position taken in your response both troubling and difficult to reconcile with established law and County policy.”
Ramirez pointed to Carroll’s 2023 ruling, in which he declared that, on the basis of county ordinances he had reviewed, “ ‘A transient accommodation shall be considered a residential use.’ ”
Emphasis on what the zoning administrator can and cannot do
Subsequently, Ramirez submitted a request to county staff for a written interpretation “consistent with UDC Section 124-45, requesting confirmation of the classification of transient accommodations (including hotels), and condo-hotels located on the Barrier Islands of Sarasota County,” as Zoning Administrator Ehrmann explained in part of the materials for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) members in advance of the April 13 meeting.
On Dec. 5, 2025, Ehrmann continued, he issued that written interpretation. Among its points, he noted, was “Nothing in a Written Interpretation can change anything in the Comprehensive Plan or a court ruling.”
He added that Section 124-305 of the UDC included hotels and motels in its definition of transient accommodations. Ehrmann then wrote, “Note: The UDC does not categorize what type of ‘use’ a transient accommodation is, only that transient accommodations shall be considered a residential use for density purposes.”
He also included in his memo to the BZA members a copy of Future Land Use (FLU) Policy 2.9.1 in the Comprehensive Plan:
Ehrmann further pointed out that Future Land Use Policy 2.9.2 says that the residential density on the county’s barrier islands “shall be in accordance” with FLU 2.9.1, as well as FLU 1.2.3, “and shall not exceed the maximum gross density zoning requirements existing as of March 13, 1989.”
In her Dec. 29, 2025 letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals with her notice of appeal, Ramirez wrote, “While [Ehrmann’s written interpretation for her] recites portions of the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan, it fails to answer the clear and direct question presented. Instead, it reflects an unduly narrow interpretation limited solely to current UDC language, without proper consideration of governing Comprehensive Plan provisions and the UDC’s express requirement that zoning interpretations comply with those provisions.”
Among other points about his incorrect assertions, Ramirez noted in that letter that Ehrmann stated in his written interpretation for her that “[t]he definition for Transient Accommodation, adopted via [county] Ordinance No. 83-08 on February 15, 1983, was in effect as of March 13, 1989, and was subsequently modified after the date of March 13, 1989, via future amendments.”
Ramirez wrote, with emphasis, “This statement is incorrect as it applies to the Barrier Islands. The definition of transient accommodations applicable to the Barrier Islands was not modified after 1989.”
In the same letter in which she requested the appeal, Ramirez also explained, “For the record, I have been continuously engaged in zoning matters affecting Siesta Key since 2002. My involvement includes more than two decades of participation as a volunteer in zoning code revisions and Comprehensive Plan amendments, as well as sustained analysis of zoning interpretations specific to Siesta Key.”
She added, “In 2007, I was directly involved in identifying and correcting a material error in a zoning interpretation issued by the then-Zoning Administrator. That interpretation incorrectly concluded that duplexes were permitted on nonconforming lots of record on Siesta Key. This conclusion was based on the erroneous assumption that a zoning district formerly identified as R2A applied to certain areas of the island. In fact, no such zoning designation existed on the lots involved in that issue. Upon presentation of the correct zoning history and applicable regulations, the County ceased this improper interpretation and related approvals.”