Proposal for Live Local Act development on Siesta Key among applications on hold as county leaders await ruling in court case challenging board policy implemented in April

13 multi-family dwelling units would be constructed in two buildings on slightly more than 1 acre on Ocean Boulevard

The red balloon on this aerial map marks the location of 4836 Ocean Blvd. on Siesta Key. The property at 4828 Ocean Blvd. is west of it, fronting on Big Sarasota Pass. Image from Google Maps

Among Live Local Act projects proposed in Sarasota County after the County Commission voted in April to implement a policy that eliminated the use of lands zoned for open use and residential purposes is one involving 13 multi-family dwelling units that would be located on Siesta Key’s Ocean Boulevard, The Sarasota News Leader has learned.

The units would be in two buildings, each of which would stand 45 feet above two levels of structured parking on property zoned Residential Estate-2 in the Siesta Key Overlay District (SKOD), the preliminary application says.

As the News Leader has reported, the state’s Live Local Act originally won legislative approval in 2023 to spur construction of more affordable homes in the state.

However, in a unanimous vote on April 7 — responding to what they pointed out had been numerous contacts from county residents who are concerned about the provisions of the state law — the commissioners voted unanimously on their new policy for staff review of Live Local Act proposals.

County Attorney Joshua Moye cautioned the board members that developers proposing Live Local Act initiatives on lands with residential and open-use zoning likely would file suit against the county to overturn that policy.

Circuit Judge Hunter Carroll. Image from the 12th Judicial Circuit website

In fact, the county is facing two lawsuits as a result of the vote. In one of those, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Hunter W. Carroll conducted a June 30 hearing. That involved the county’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed on May 15 by Yeshua’s Love Biblical Fellowship of Sarasota County Florida Inc. and Curco Land Holdings LLC regarding a Live Local Act application for property located at 8893 Fruitville Road, as the News Leader also has reported.

Carroll told the parties that he had conducted a number of recent hearings prior to that one, on which he must provide rulings. Thus, he said, he would make a decision in the Yeshua’s/Curco case as soon as possible.

As of the deadline for this issue of the News Leader, Carroll had yet to file his ruling.

Dated June 29, a letter from attorney Matt Brockway, of the Sarasota firm Icard Merrill, explains that the Siesta Live Local Act project would be built on parcels comprising approximately 1.053 acres. The addresses, he noted, are 0, 4828 and 4836 Ocean Blvd., on the northern part of Siesta Key.

Brockway himself is part owner of the site, he points out in the letter.

The other owners are the Linda F. Wallin Revocable Trust; Megan Wallin Brockway; and George Mark Brockway.

The records maintained by Sarasota County Property Appraiser Bill Furst and his staff show that the parcel standing at 4828 Ocean Blvd. is owned by the revocable trust; the property was transferred from Wallin to that trust on Aug. 23, 2013. Its market value this year is $2,420,300, those records note.

Matt Brockway and George Mark Brockway are listed as the owners of the property located at 4836 Ocean Blvd. The Property Appraiser’s Office records point out that parcel is “Vacant After Calamity.” Its market value this year is $921,600, the record says.

County permitting records explain that the single-family home that stood at 4836 Ocean Blvd. was “determined by the County to be ‘substantially damaged’ ” by Hurricane Helene, which passed offshore of Sarasota County in late September 2024.

The Brockways purchased the land on Dec. 28, 2017 for $657,000, the Property Appraiser’s records note.

The Residential Estate-2 zoning for both parcels allows one dwelling unit per acre, as shown in the Siesta Key Overlay District (SKOD), attorney Brockway pointed out in his letter submitted to the county’s Planning and Development Services’ Accela land-use records system.

The proposal calls for “approximate density of 12.35 dwelling units per acre,” he added. Forty percent of the units — “or 6 of the 13” — would be rented to households earning no more than 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for 30 years, Brockway wrote.

Annually, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issues AMI figures for every Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the United States. This year, the AMI figures for the North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota MSA are as follows:

The parcel’s designation on the county’s Future Land Use map is Barrier Island, Brockway further noted.

“The Applicant intends to develop the Live Local Project to the Residential Multifamily 3 [zoning] standards,” Brockway wrote in a companion document.

Brockway also submitted a graphic depicting the site and a non-binding Development Concept Plan for the construction.

This is the non-binding Development Concept Plan for the Live Local Act project. Image courtesy Sarasota County Government

As for the proposed height, Brockway included a “Site Data” box that says, “The Live Local Act authorizes development up to the ‘highest currently allowed height’ for a commercial or residential building located in [a county’s] jurisdiction within 1 mile of the proposed development, or 3 stories, whichever is higher.” As the development would be located “adjacent to a parcel zoned [Residential Multifamily-3/SKOD],” it is entitled to a height of 45 feet, the box adds.

This graphic of the proposed site also was among materials submitted to the county on June 29. Image courtesy Sarasota County Government

In his conclusion, Brockway wrote that the project “qualifies for development under the Live Local Act and must be administratively approved.”

The latter phrase refers to the section of the state law that eliminates the ability for a local government to pursue its normal application approval process for new developments for initiatives planned to be built under the guidelines of that law. Thus, no county Planning Board public hearing nor County Commission public hearing would be conducted on the proposal. County staff would be obligated to review the plans solely in accord with the facets of the state law to determine whether it could be approved.

In a separate, accompanying letter, Brockway requested a pre-application conference with representatives of the county’s Planning and Development Services Department.