
Smith adamant that no new structures can exceed height allowed in their zoning districts
Near the conclusion of their latest discussion of a three-year-old proposal to allow for the voluntary demolition and reconstruction of condominium complexes on Siesta Key that existed prior to Jan. 1, 2000, the Sarasota County commissioners agreed this week to direct staff of the Planning and Development Services Department to conduct yet more research.
Nonetheless, Commissioner Mark Smith seemed to have gained support for the proposal at least from Commissioner Ron Cutsinger after Smith stressed the need for additional changes in the language under consideration in regard to the height of the rebuilt structures.
The proposed new regulations should specify that no new building could exceed the maximum height of the applicable zoning district in which it would stand, Smith said. Thus, he added, no structure could be taller than 45 feet over two levels of parking.
Referencing one of the slides shown to the board that day — which mentioned his representation of the Sea Club V condominium association, as an architect, in addressing the County Commission in January 2022 — Smith pointed out that he did not remember ever proposing height above that allowed in a Siesta Key zoning district.

However, he continued, after he was elected to the board in November 2022, he no longer was able to participate in workshops that staff conducted with Siesta stakeholders. Therefore, Smith added, “I don’t know where that [height provision] went off the rails, in my opinion.”
Matt Osterhoudt, director of the county’s Planning and Development Services Department, told the commissioners during the Feb. 5 workshop that the height issue had been one of the primary concerns of the stakeholder groups on Siesta Key with which staff had met.
In fact, the potential that a new 65-foot-tall building could be constructed over two levels of parking — with 12 feet of height allowed per parking level — was the chief reason that the county’s Planning Commission members voted unanimously in the summer of 2024 not to recommend that the County Commission approve the proposed regulatory and policy changes.
On Sept. 11, 2024, the members of the County Commission at that time ultimately chose to take no action following their public hearing on the issue. That led to Smith’s suggestion for the workshop that was held this week.
As he has discussed since his January 2022 appearance before the County Commission on the topic, Smith made clear multiple times during the Feb. 5 workshop that his goal has been to allow condominium associations to tear down structures and rebuild them to modern standards — including the required elevation in flood zones — before a storm might damage them significantly.
Smith alluded a number of times on Feb. 5 to the destruction of ground-floor units in Siesta Key condominium complexes dating back to the 1950s and 1970s as a result of storm surge produced last fall by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. Yet, he also pointed out, the only provision existing in county regulations for the reconstruction of condominium buildings — without any change in the number of units — is in the aftermath of storm damage.
“I strongly believe that the only change that we’re looking for is that the existing [residential] density can be maintained,” he said. “Everything else would follow every Building Code and zoning regulation that we currently have, just as if the land was a vacant lot.”
Following the discussion, Robert Luckner, treasurer of the Siesta Key Association (SKA), voiced support for Smith’s direction to staff to eliminate language in the proposed amendments that would allow any height above the 45-foot maximum, above two parking levels, for construction of residential multi-family units. “We wanted that all along,” he said.
Yet, several Siesta residents, who addressed the board members during the Open to the Public comment period at the start of the workshop, continued to express concerns about Smith’s proposal.
For example, Lourdes Ramirez, president of the nonprofit organization Protect Siesta Key, reiterated concerns she has expressed in the past about the potential that the county policy and regulation changes could result in increased residential density on Siesta.

In an email she sent to the commissioners in advance of the meeting, she wrote, “The proposed ordinance can lead to codifying illegally created density or provide a loophole to add new density. While we believe in the protection of property rights for those legally existing units, we are concerned that property owners will add a number of units or will use units that were not lawfully created before 1975 when they apply for a rebuild.”
Further, she pointed out with emphasis, “Decades ago, the Sarasota County Commission realized that Siesta Key had the most intensive residential development in Sarasota County which is still true today. The 1975 regulations recognized the existing land use patterns which included nonconforming structures and nonconforming density. But in Zoning Ordinance 75-38, Section 5, Nonconformities, it states: ‘It is the intent of these zoning regulations to permit these non-conformities to continue until they are voluntarily removed or removed as required by these zoning regulations but not to encourage their survival. It is further the intent of these zoning regulations that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded, intensified, or extended …’ ”
Noting that county policies and regulations use the term “nonconforming” for structures that exist on the island that do not comply with modern building standards, Smith stressed of the voluntary demolition and rebuilding proposal, “The only nonconformity that we’re going to be keeping is the number of units.”
Neal Schleifer, vice president of the Siesta Key Condominium Council, told the commissioners that 137 nonconforming properties on the island would be affected if they eventually approved the concept for which Smith has advocated.
Schleifer noted that the Council represents 100 associations with 7,000 households.
Schleifer also told the board members that that he believes they have been negligent in not including in their discussions any consideration of the state laws regarding “milestone inspections” for old complexes to prevent the type of tragedy that occurred in Surfside in June 2021, when the Champlain Towers South building collapsed, resulting in the deaths of 98 people.

During initial staff work on the concept, Osterhoudt of Planning and Development pointed out, staff had included in the proposed amendments a recommendation that a condominium association pursue a voluntary engineering analysis of its structures before proceeding with any plans for voluntary demolition. Commissioner Smith had requested that that be stricken from the proposed amendments, calling it an unnecessary extra expense for a voluntary initiative.
Schleifer further noted that the board members should seek information about the latest issues regarding insurance for condominium complexes, which Osterhoudt indicated staff would do.
Schleifer offered to provide the commissioners details that Council members had received in an update on condominium insurance during a meeting last month.
When asked how soon he felt the Planning and Development Services staff could provide the new materials that the commissioners had requested, Osterhoudt said he believed his staff could complete the work within 60 days. Then the board members plan another discussion of the topic.
‘Heartburn’
As he discussed the proposal on Sept. 5, Smith told his colleagues that the height issue is “what gave me heartburn” the last time staff presented them the proposed amendments.

Moreover, he pointed out, “We’re talking about permitted [residential multi-family] properties. So if a property illegally expanded the number of units,” Smith continued — meaning the association “did not pull a permit [to add those units] — they would not be able to voluntarily knock their building down. … I think that’s very important.”
Further, he emphasized, “The key word is ‘voluntary,’ ” in regard to the type of demolition and reconstruction for which he has advocated. “It is an incredibly expensive proposition for a condominium association,” he added. “You’re talking about being out of your home for at least two years, at a very high cost.”
If condos also are used for rental purposes, Smith noted, the rental income would be lost at the same time that the association was paying for the new construction.
Smith did suggest that staff include new language in the county’s land-use regulations that would pertain to what he referenced as the “small cottages” that are part of some older Siesta complexes. Instead of those individual units having to be raised above the ground level, he suggested that new, taller buildings, could incorporate the residential density of such cottages.
During his remarks, Smith also explained that the reason he suggested that the new regulations be directed to condominiums constructed before Jan. 1, 2000 is that the Florida Building Code went into effect on that date.
The code was a response to the destruction that Hurricane Andrew wreaked in south Florida — especially in Homestead — in 1992.
Before the Florida Building Code went into effect, he explained, “No building was engineered and built to meet wind and flood [damage from major storms]. They may look fine,” he said of the older complexes, but when Hurricane Milton hit Siesta on Oct. 9, 2024 as a Category 3 storm, he continued, it “gutted the first floors [of condominium structures].”
A Category 5 hurricane, he added, would have knocked out all the windows in the older condominiums on the barrier island.
Smith further noted the devastation evident on Fort Myers Beach after Hurricane Ian struck that area in September 2022, as well as the extensive destruction in the Panhandle from the hurricanes that have struck that part of the state in recent years.
“To me,” he told his colleagues, “it didn’t seem logical that you would only allow … condominiums to rebuild after they were destroyed …”

A condominium association would have to comply with all other county regulations for the new construction, except the residential density, which would remain the same, Smith emphasized more than once. Among those other factors are a restriction on a condominium building’s covering more than 35% of the lot on which it stands and allowing for “daylight plane,” which refers to ensuring that neighbors’ views are not obstructed by the new structure.
All of the elements of the building — including elevators and stairs, Smith said — “have to be within this box” that must adhere to county regulations.
It would be “up to design professionals,” he added, to determine just how many condominium units could be constructed within the box. Thus, some of the units could be bigger than the original condos, he said.
Still, Smith pointed out, his proposal calls for the same number of units by type as well as density. Each two-bedroom condo, he said, would be replaced by a two-bedroom condo, for example.
Smith did note out that some of the older complexes with high residential density linked to ground-floor units “may have to build a parking garage,” since any new structures would have to comply with the FEMA flood zone regulations.
Yet — again, to indicate that a decision for voluntary demolition would not be a frivolous one, as he put it — he said that he understands that the expense per space in a parking garage is approximately $40,000.
The meaning of ‘destruction’ and the 50% Rule
The commissioners also delved briefly into a discussion of what the meaning of “destruction” is in the county’s regulations, in regard to whether a building has to be demolished and rebuilt after it has suffered significant damage, for safety purposes.
Commissioner Tom Knight noted that Siesta Key was not the only area of the county dealing with concerns about federal regulations in the wake of major storm damage, as well as the county’s requirements. South Venice, which is part of his District 3 territory, had two blocks flooded last year, he added.
Commissioner Teresa Mast pointed out that FEMA’s 50% Rule, which pertains to reconstruction after storm damage, is different from the provisions in the County Code about the level of damage that must be sustained before the owner of a building has to make improvements to meet the County Code requirements.
Sarasota County Property Appraiser Bill Furst provides an explanation of the FEMA rule on his website:

“Some of these structures may not be able to even be brought up to current code,” Mast said. “It becomes very challenging,” she added, especially in regard to older commercial buildings that would need the installation of sprinklers for fire containment, for example.
“I think it’s so important that we don’t miss that thread,” Mast said, in the context of the voluntary condo demolition and reconstruction discussion.