Commissioners cite focus on prevention of flooding in wake of 2024 storm season
Citing concerns about the potential effects on stormwater management, the Sarasota County commissioners voted unanimously earlier this month to deny a rezoning petition for a project on nearly 5 acres east of Mandarin Road and north of Blue Water Boulevard in Sarasota.
The developer’s application explained that the property “is part of Wildwood Acres, which was platted in 1968, and lies east of Honore Avenue,” approximately half-a-mile south of Clark Road.
“Wildwood Acres is divided into east and west halves by Mandarin Road,” the application noted.
The developer — Amita Holdings LLC — had plans to construct 12 single-family homes “using the [county’s] cluster subdivision standards … for a total density of 2.42 [dwelling units per acre],” the application said.
The county staff report on the proposal, Commissioner Mark Smith pointed out during the board’s Jan. 13 meeting, noted that 94% of the site “is within the 100-year floodplain”; the property is designated Flood Zone AE, he added.
The county website explains that areas In th he AE zone are subject to a 1% chance of inundation per year. “Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply.”
Chair Ron Cutsinger said during the hearing, “When I looked at [the materials in the agenda packet], I had the same concern” about the extent of the parcel’s location in the 100-year floodplain.
The staff report, Smith continued, pointed out that, because of those facts, the proposal could be found inconsistent with the county’s Comprehensive Plan, which prohibits construction in such flood zones.
Future Land Use Policy 1.2.5 in the Comprehensive Plan — which guides growth in the community — says the following, the staff report pointed out:
“No development order shall be issued which would permit unmitigated development in 100 year floodplains, as designated on Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps or adopted County flood studies, or on floodplain associated soils, defined as Soils of Coastal Islands, Soils of the Hammocks, Soils of Depressions and Sloughs, and Soils of the Floodplains and shown in Map 1-2 of the Future Land Use Map Series, that would adversely affect the function of the floodplains or that would degrade the water quality of water bodies associated with said floodplains in violation of any local, State, or federal regulation, including water quality regulations.”
Further, the staff report explained, “[T]he entirety of the site has poorly and very poorly drained soils.”
Smith cited the latter statement from the staff report, as well.
He also noted the table in the report showing that, during the average county wet season, 36% of the site would have water standing 1 to 2.02 feet above the surface.
Additionally, a chart in the county staff report showed that the proposal would have resulted in 80% of the parcel becoming impervious.
Commissioner Joe Neunder talked about the board members having become “hyper-focused” on stormwater issues since the 2024 hurricane season, when many areas of the county suffered unprecedented flooding.
Prior to the 2024 storms’ aftermath, floodplains, in terms of development proposals, “weren’t on the radar,” Neunder indicated.
“We’re a pretty flat state,” he also pointed out, [and the 2024 storms] woke us up to the possibilities of what can be going on in our home and in our environment.”
Amita Holdings LLC wanted to have the 4.96-acre parcel rezoned from Open Use Estate 1, which allows one dwelling unit per 5 acres, to Residential Single Family 2 (RSF-2), which provides for 3.5 units per acre, the county Planning Division staff report pointed out. The vacant parcel “is surrounded by existing single-family and multifamily neighborhoods to the west, south, and east,” the report added.
However, the county staff report also pointed out, because Amita Holdings had provided only a non-binding development concept plan to the county’s Planning Division staff, the company “could opt, at the time of site development, to construct a maximum of 17 residential units, either with cluster subdivision standards or traditional (or conventional) subdivision standards.”
Further, the report said, Amita Holdings would have had the option to construct other types of developments on the property, “such as group-living facilities, family day care homes, adult day care homes, and large family childcare homes” — again, because of “the non-binding nature of the proposed plan.”
The registered agent of Amita Holdings is Peter Dabrowski of Sarasota, Florida Division of Corporations records show, though the mailing address for the limited liability company is in Des Plaines, Illinois.
The company bought the Mandarin Road property for $900,000 in May 2023, as shown in Sarasota County Property Appraiser Bill Furst’s records. The seller, Honeycomb Enterprises Inc., had owned the land since July 1998, those records note; Honeycomb paid $114,000 for it.
A transitioning neighborhood
The item was listed on the commission’s Jan. 13 agenda as a Presentation Upon Request, which is a designation typically used for public hearings county staff expects to be non-controversial. Chair Cutsinger also noted that no member of the public had signed up to speak on the proposed development.
Yet, Commissioner Smith did ask for a full presentation, adding that he had some questions about the plans.
Appearing before the board on behalf of the applicant, Sarasota land-use attorney Robert Lincoln explained, “The property is in a neighborhood that has been transitioning from low-density residential.” The developer is in the process of seeking subdivision approval for two other parcels on Mandarin Road, Lincoln continued, showing the commissioners a slide.
Two pieces of property in the area already have been rezoned RS-2, he added. The County Commission most recently made the requested change for the parcel just north of the property that was the focus of the hearing that day, Lincoln said.
This is infill development, he pointed out.
The reason that the team used a non-binding development concept plan, Lincoln further explained, was that such a plan had to be provided to attendees of the Neighborhood Workshop on the application. Such sessions are required by county regulations before a formal development application can be submitted to the Planning Division staff.
Another factor behind the creation of that non-binding plan, Lincoln said, was “to demonstrate that it is feasible to develop a cluster subdivision on this property.”
Staff had suggested that the buffering required for a cluster subdivision be used, even if the property did not end up with that type of development, he also noted. Amita Holdings had agreed to that, he said.
Then the engineer who was part of the project team, Bobbi Claybrooke of AM Engineering of Sarasota, told the commissioners, “We will be providing stormwater treatment and attenuation consistent with state and local guidelines.” Nevertheless, she continued, “We do realize that there will be floodplain compensation on this site. … We do realize that this site is within the floodplain.”
The concept plan, Claybrooke added, showed the stormwater areas for treatment and attenuation.
“Looking at the maximum use for this property,” she continued, “we know that we will actually lose lots when we come to develop this. It will probably lose in the range of at least two [dwellings] to compensate for the floodplain.”
She was referring to steps the developer would have to take to ensure that stormwater runoff from the site would not affect neighboring properties, which is a facet of the county’s stormwater regulations.
Further, Claybrooke acknowledged, a person looking at the parcel in a two-dimensional sense would think that stormwater would stand 1 or 2 feet deep as a result of heavy rainfall. “No,” she said, “we’re talking inches; we’re talking about a 6-inch range maximum across the site.”
Because of the county policy that “prohibits unmitigated development in the floodplains,” attorney Lincoln indicated that county regulations regarding the handling of stormwater would be applied during the formal staff work related to site development. That step comes after board approval of an application.
“My issue is the floodplain issue,” Commissioner Smith told Lincoln and Claybrooke.
After Smith raised his concerns, based on what was documented in the county staff report, Claybrooke explained that slightly more than 3 acres of the parcel consists of “fine sands, and those are well-drained.” The area that does not drain well is where a pond stands, “and that’s only a portion of the site,” she stressed.
Claybrooke assured Smith that the parcel does not have what she Commissioner described as a “muck situation.”
Neunder then asked Lincoln and Claybrooke to go back to the slide they had presented the board, showing the entire Mandarin Road area where Amita Holdings is working on projects. After they displayed that slide again, Neunder said, “I think it’s very relevant to have that very honest and open discussion about floodplains.”
Chair Cutsinger told Lincoln and Claybrooke, “I think it would have been helpful to have had a better understanding of how you would compensate [for flooding] on a property this small; maybe a [few] more engineering facts.”
Yet, he added that he understood the challenges of undertaking more engineering studies without certainty that the County Commission would approve the rezoning petition.
Claybrooke noted one low area on the parcel that is affected by stormwater from the adjacent development. “But that is part of the area where flood compensation will be necessary,” she said, since it is lower than the rest of the floodplain on the site.
The principal of Amita Holdings is aware of the fact that steps will have to be taken to deal appropriately with the stormwater, she told the commissioners.
“Fewer homes means less impervious [area[, as well,” Cutsinger told Claybrooke and Lincoln. “That’s the kind of thing that would help us make a decision.”
Lincoln responded, “The development concept plan shows feasibility [for development on the site].” However, he acknowledged, the requirements of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and the county for construction on the site would have to be met.
Responding to another comment by Cutsinger — regarding preliminary county discussions about making the stormwater regulations more stringent in regard to new development — Lincoln said that the developer would have to comply with them, if they went into effect after the parcel were rezoned but before site work began.
Stressing concerns about the non-binding concept plan and residential density
Commissioner Teresa Mast told Lincoln and Claybrooke, “I think what becomes very problematic for us as a board, and also [for] the neighboring properties, is [when] there is not a binding development concept to hold fast to, to really understand and to be able to perceive [the plans].”
She suggested that it would have been better for the project team to present the board a development concept plan that would have been more realistic, since Claybrooke had indicated that only 10 of the originally proposed 12 homes likely could be built because of the floodplain issues.
Commissioner Smith added that he felt that a petition for a rezoning to a less dense district also would have been more appropriate. Because the non-binding development concept plan shows the maximum construction allowed on the site with an RSF-2 designation, Smith said, the public would be skeptical that the developer would build fewer units.
“Understood,” Lincoln replied. Nonetheless, Lincoln said, that zoning is consistent with the development of other properties in the same area, which have similar constraints.
In making the motion to deny the rezoning petition, Smith said, “I know this is infill, and on paper it looks like a no-brainer.” Still, he continued, “I’m not sure when we’re going to have the straw that breaks the back of this neighborhood [in regard to stormwater management].”
In seconding the motion, Commissioner Tom Knight concurred with Smith’s concerns.
The motion passed 5-0.