Board members suggest final tweaks for resolution to be prepared by staff
With a 4-1 vote during their regular meeting on May 5, the Sarasota County commissioners appeared to be just one vote away from requiring once again that applicants for land-use changes conduct Neighborhood Workshops in person, though with a virtual option for members of the public who cannot be present for the sessions.
Chair Ron Cutsinger cast the “No” vote, to remain consistent, he noted, with his prior actions on the topic. Cutsinger has maintained that members of the public routinely handle matters online these days, so he has seen no need for the county board once again to require the in-person sessions.
“I feel like we should do these [workshops] digitally,” Cutsinger said.
Yet, Commissioner Mark Smith reiterated a point that he has been making over the past three years: “I’m all for this [in-person workshop requirement].”
In response to a Sarasota News Leader inquiry, Matt Osterhoudt, director of the county’s Planning and Development Services Department, wrote in a May 6 email, “A date has not been determined yet, but staff are diligently working to bring back to the Board a Resolution for their consideration. As a note, the Resolution is not required to be approved at a public hearing.”
At the request of Commissioner Teresa Mast on May 5, the resolution will allow for the Neighborhood Workshops to be held at greater distances from the locations planned for the land-use changes. For proposals involving property within the county’s Urban Service Boundary — where infrastructure such as roads and water and sewer lines exist — a 4-mile radius of the site will be implemented, instead of the current 2-mile radius. For applications dealing with property outside the Urban Service Boundary, that radius would expand from 5 miles to 10 miles.
“I think we’ve made it too restrictive in the past,” she said of the workshop locations.
Mast added, “If it’s important enough for me to attend, I’m going to make every effort to get there, and I don’t think 10 miles is an egregious [distance] to ask for [attendees] to have [a workshop] located in.”
She further pointed out, “Most of us drive 7 miles to get to a grocery store.”
Commissioner Smith agreed with Mast’s proposal for expanding the radii from the sites. “I know it takes 4 miles just to get off Siesta Key,” from where he lives, he told his colleagues with a laugh. “It doesn’t matter which bridge [I use],” he added.
Fine-tuning the modifications
During the most recent, prior discussion that he and his colleagues had about the return to in-person Neighborhood Workshops — conducted on April 7 — Smith provided his colleagues a map showing potential locations, including those within the Urban Service Boundary and those outside that figurative line. He noted discussions that he had held with representatives of churches, who had assured him that those buildings could be used for the sessions; Smith also talked of the potential use of county library meeting rooms and county fire stations. However, on May 5, because of concerns raised on April 7 that workshops at fire stations could impede response times for the affected firefighters/medics, those facilities no longer will be considered for such use.
Smith noted that he had discussed the fire station issue with County Administrator Jonathan Lewis.
As he did on April 7, Commissioner Joe Neunder reminded the other board members that he believes that facilities at high schools and K-8 schools also would be available for the Neighborhood Workshops. He has attended events at schools, Neunder noted. “That’s a great option, I think.”
Osterhoudt of the Planning and Development Services Department reminded the board members on May 5 that the switch to virtual Neighborhood Workshops was necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, in 2021, he added, the commissioners seated at that time adopted a formal resolution to give applicants the option of holding the sessions in-person or virtually.
However, Commissioner Smith has pointed to difficulties that residents have had in participating in the virtual workshops, including technical issues that were no fault of their own.
Osterhoudt pointed out that the county requires the workshops for land-use applications and proposed amendments to the county’s Comprehensive Plan, which guides growth in the community. Among the land-use modifications, he continued, are rezoning petitions; requests for Special Exceptions to take action not allowed under the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC), which contains all of the land-use and zoning regulations; and proposals for Critical Area Plans, which typically involve not only the site of a major development but the properties surrounding it.
Further, quoting from the existing, governing resolution, Osterhoudt explained on May 5 that the purpose of the workshops is for the applicants “to inform neighboring residents of the nature of the proposed development, to solicit suggestions and concerns, and to explain concept plans for rezoning petitions and Special Exceptions.”
The applicants pay for any expenses related to conducting the workshops, he noted.
Chair Cutsinger asked that the resolution that staff will bring back to the board include language making it clear that the applicants also have to pay for the presence of a county staff person at the workshops.
Smith earlier had said that he believed a staff person no longer was required to attend the workshops. However, Osterhoudt pointed to the relevant language in the current resolution that provides the details of the process.
Further, Smith suggested that the resolution make it clear that the applicant cover any expense related to the rental of a facility for a workshop, such as maintenance and lighting.
“It is incumbent upon the applicant to pay those fees,” Osterhoudt responded, adding that he would make certain of that.
In allowing for the virtual workshops, Osterhoudt also explained, staff requires that applicants use only platforms that have been determined to be stable, given the wide array of platforms from which to choose.
After Commissioner Smith made the motion calling for the revised resolution to be brought back to the board, with the changes as discussed that day, Commissioner Mast seconded it, and it passed 5-0.