Majority of board members agree that staff work and hearings will ensure full vetting of proposed changes

Although three people on Jan. 15 urged the Sarasota County Commission not to allow the processing of a proposed amendment to the county’s land-use regulations regarding Conservation Subdivisions, a subsequent board discussion ended with unanimous approval of the request.
Nonetheless, Commissioner Mark Smith, who first announced his concern about the proposal, asked that county staff give him “a history lesson on the Conservation Subdivisions.”
Commissioner Tom Knight, who was elected in November 2024, asked for more education on that issue, as well. “I’m not a land-use scholar like some people are,” Knight said, “so I need to learn …”
As James Ehrmann, the county’s assistant zoning administrator explained during the board’s regular meeting on Jan. 15 in Venice, Sarasota attorney Charles D. Bailey III, of the Williams Parker firm, had submitted the application for the amendment during the county’s eighth cycle for such proposals. Any suggested modifications to the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC) — which contains all of the zoning regulations as well as the land-use requirements — that originate from persons other than county staff are known as “privately initiated” amendments.
Formally, as a county staff memo explained it, the “proposal to amend the regulations relating to Conservation Subdivisions within the Rural Heritage/Estates RMA [Resource Management Area] would allow a qualifying Conservation Subdivision to have up to two dwelling units “per acre pursuant to the TDR [transfer of development rights] Program, so long as the development is within one mile of the Urban Service Boundary and applies to the Rural Heritage/Estate RMA lands in South County. An associated Comprehensive Plan Amendment has already been approved by the Board to move forward in the process.”
The Urban Service Boundary is the figurative line that divides the portion of the county with infrastructure necessary to serve developed areas —such as water and sewer lines — from areas without such services.

“Transfer of Development Rights” refers to the process through which a property owner pays for the preservation of environmentally sensitive land in one part of the county so residential density can be increased in a more suitable area for development. Both the county and private landowners have property from which TDRs may be acquired.
The first speaker to ask for denial of the request for processing the proposed UDC amendment was a former assistant county attorney, Susan Schoettle-Gumm, who lives in the eastern part of the county. She also is president of a nonprofit organization called Keep the Country Inc., as she pointed out to the board members at the outset of her Jan. 15 remarks.

“Over the years,” she told the commissioners, “there have been a number of ‘slicing-away’ amendments [involving] Conservation Subdivisions. The provision for those developments, she continued, originally was implemented about the same time as the county’s 2050 Plan, which guides the creation of new communities in the eastern part of the county.
The goal, Schoettle-Gumm explained, was “to provide an alternate development pattern for rural lands, so instead of 5- and 10-acre lot sizes,” developers of lands zoned for rural uses would be allowed to create clusters of homes. “But it was supposed to keep the same density,” she said; “it was supposed to minimize impacts to the land [and] maximize preservation of natural systems [and] maximize and enhance connectivity to wildlife corridors.”
However, Schoettle-Gumm continued, “The Conservation Subdivisions that have come through in recent years, in my opinion, do none of those things.”
The latest proposed amendments — including the one before the board that day, she added — “definitely will do away with the original intents and purposes of Conservation Subdivisions.”
Two Comprehensive Plan amendments are “in the pipeline,” she pointed out, and “at least three [rezoning applications are] already in the pipeline.”
She suggested that the commissioners familiarize themselves with those amendments “in the context of the entire Comprehensive Plan, including [the 2050 Plan].”
“Does the county really need to increase densities?” she asked.
Board action over the years, Schoettle-Gumm noted, already had resulted in approvals of more than 47,500 new dwelling units in the county under the 2050 Plan, and developments that have won commission support outside the 2050 area boost that number.
Citing county data, she added that, as of December 2023, only 11% of the dwellings approved have been built.

Furthermore, Schoettle-Gumm pointed out, a 2020 county staff analysis said the county had over 200% more homes approved “compared to what was projected to be needed for the next 10 years.”
The second speaker, Nancy Edmondson of Venice — who said she has lived in the county for 35 years — also urged the commissioners not to approve the processing of the Conservation Subdivision amendment.
“Rural properties are being eroded or eliminated by higher-density developments,” Edmondson stressed. “How is the need for more housing justified?”
She added, “From what I’ve seen, the Conservation Subdivisions that developers have been creating in recent years are indistinguishable from every other development.”
The third speaker, Robert Wright pointed out that the intent behind Conservation Subdivisions was “not to help the developer increase densities {but] to preserve the land as much as possible where the development’s going to take place.”
He added, “Because this [proposed amendment] is such an incredibly important part of how we’re going to deal with Conservation Subdivisions, it is my opinion that there should not be voting on this at all today. … This really needs to [be the focus of] workshops with the public … so the public understands what this is all about for the future.

“This is going to impact many, many of our ranches and farms and natural areas,” Wright stressed. “Those are being eaten up on a daily basis by development here in the county. We have increased the loss of those properties incredibly in my lifetime,” he pointed out, noting that he is a 70-year resident of the county.
‘Some serious concerns’
After Ehrmann, the assistant zoning administrator, finished his presentation on Jan. 15, Commissioner Mark Smith said he had “some serious concerns” about three of the proposed privately initiated amendments.
(Ehrmann said staff had sufficient resources to manage processing them, but staff needed policy direction from the board first.)
“These Conservation Subdivisions … are pretty much a joke,” Smith pointed out. “It’s a Conservation Subdivision in name only. I dare anybody to go out [east in the county] and see the difference” between them and regular developments, he added.
“I think it’s something that we, as a board, should look into,” Smith continued. He would like to hear staff or public comments, he said, that explain the background of the interest in the proposed UDC amendment. The idea of increasing the residential density, Smith added, “is just counterintuitive.”

Commissioner Knight agreed with Smith. “I would certainly be a ‘No’ without public input,” Knight said.
However, Commissioner Ron Cutsinger stressed, “Just to be clear,” voting to allow staff to process the amendments before the board that day would entail public involvement.
“I think in situations like this,” Custinger told his colleagues, “more is better, where we get the input of the community, and we can review the [amendments in depth].”
He argued against saying, “ ‘No’ before we have an opportunity to really look into what is being proposed …” In fact Cutsinger continued, “I think there may be some benefits here” with the Conservation Subdivisions, in regard to the TDR aspect.
Chair Joe Neunder concurred with Cutsinger: “We are just having this vote to move these forward for vetting …” After staff reviews the one about the Conservation Subdivisions, Neunder pointed out, it will come back to the board for a final decision.
“I think this process will work well in allowing us to gather information to have full transparency and public input,” Neunder added.
“I hear you and Commissioner Cutsinger,” Smith responded. “I want staff and the applicants to understand my concerns,” Smith said, adding that he would like for staff to provide him with a history of the proposal regarding Conservation Subdivisions.
Neunder replied that he expected that the individuals proposing [all of] the amendments “are hearing you loud and clear.”
Neunder then asked County Attorney Joshua Moye whether the state’s Sunshine Laws would allow the commissioners to speak directly to the applicants for the privately initiated amendments while staff processes the proposals.
Moye said that such discussions would be fine.
“Let’s ask the questions and become better educated,” Neunder told his colleagues.
Smith ended up making the motion to move forward with all five privately initiated UDC amendments, and Knight seconded the motion. It passed 5-0.
