Nearly two dozen members of public had urged board to take that stance
Once again this week, the Sarasota County commissioners made it clear that they do not want to allow construction of a new residential community on approximately 50 acres in close proximity to the Celery Fields Regional Stormwater Project, in the eastern part of the county.
During the board’s regular meeting on Oct. 21, in downtown Sarasota, County Attorney Joshua Moye explained the state-authorized dispute resolution process that Texas-based homebuilding company D.R. Horton and the owners of what is known as the Smith Properties had pursued after the commissioners voted 5-0 on Feb. 12 to deny D.R. Horton’s plans for a development with 126 single-family homes.
Then attorney Charles D. Bailey III, of the Williams Parker firm in Sarasota, provided a 3-minute-plus presentation about the facets of the proposed settlement. (Chair Joe Neunder had agreed to allow him 3 minutes, though Bailey had asked for 5; nonetheless, Bailey continued talking after the 3 minutes was up, until Neunder stopped him.)
Bailey, who has served as the agent for D.R. Horton in applying for the rezoning of the Smith Properties, stressed that the company had modified its plans to build only 85 homes. That was half the number, he pointed out, that D.R. Horton originally proposed for the Smith Properties site.
Therefore, he continued, the residential density would be 1.67 dwelling units per acre, which is less than allowed under the moderate-density, future land use map designation that the county has accorded the property. That allows two to five units per acre, the county staff report for the Feb. 12 public hearing noted.
“It’s a very different project,” Bailey stressed.
He showed the commissioners the revised, proposed Binding Development Concept for the community, pointing out that a water feature would extend along the entire Raymond Road frontage of the site, as well as a 60-foot-wide vegetative buffer that would have opacity of 0.7%, which — he noted — is the highest level called for in any of the county’s land-use regulations. Further, Bailey told the board, over 45% of the community would be open space.
Yet another part of the proposal called for “dark skies” provisions, he noted. That was designed to direct all lighting away from the Celery Fields, as County Attorney Moye had explained in an Oct. 8 memo to the board members.
As soon as Bailey stepped away from the podium, Neunder invited board discussion. Commissioner Teresa Mast said she was ready to make a motion. After none of the other commissioners indicated a desire to speak, Neunder told Mast, “Go for it.”
Mast called for the board to deny the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, and Commissioner Mark Smith seconded it.
Mast offered no other comment, but Smith did point out of the Smith Properties site, “This is a floodplain, and I believe that the decision we made [in February] was the right one to make.”
The motion passed 5-0.
In February, Mast also was the first commissioner to express opposition to the plans. She ended up making the motion that day, as well, which denied the rezoning.
The D.R. Horton development, Mast stressed on Feb. 12, “is not compatible, in my opinion, with what this gem is,” referring to the Celery Fields.
She was a member of county staff, Mast noted, when the decision was made for the county to purchase the property that became the Celery Fields Regional Stormwater Project.
“And I totally respect the private property rights of the Smith family,” she added on Feb. 12, referring to the owners of the land.
Yet, Mast continued, “This is a really unique parcel requiring a very unique project.”
When County Attorney Moye explained to the commissioners that D.R. Horton and the Smith family had used the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act (FLUEDRA) to fight the County Commission’s denial of the rezoning application, as provided for in Section 70.51 of the Florida Statutes, he noted that the process entails use of a Special Magistrate. That person is an attorney who conducts mediation.
The proposed agreement that the board members considered on Oct. 21 was a result of the mediation.
Under the provisions of Florida Statute 70.51, if the commissioners rejected the terms of the settlement, Moye said, the dispute would go back to the Special Magistrate, who would “conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Board’s denial of the rezone petition was unreasonable or unfairly burdened the use of the property,” as Moye put it in his Oct. 8 memo.
He was referencing language in state law regarding rights of property owners.
A multitude of county residents oppose the settlement agreement
During the Open to the Public comment period that morning, The Sarasota News Leader counted 21 people who urged the County Commission to vote against the proposed settlement agreement. A number of them represented the Sarasota Audubon Society.
At the conclusion of the Oct. 21 meeting, two members of the public who had addressed the proposed settlement agreement that morning returned to the podium.
Attorney Susan Schoettle, who worked years ago in the Office of the County Attorney, and Jeanne Dubi, a past president of the Sarasota Audubon Society, thanked the board members for their vote that day.
“I think that was a very good and wise decision,” Schoettle told them. “I figure you can’t get thanked enough for doing a good thing.”
Dubi said she was representing Sara Reisinger, the current president of the Sarasota Audubon Society, who had had to leave, “and all of the Sarasota Audubon members and friends” in expressing gratitude for the vote.