Lawsuit cites findings in legal challenges that Siesta resident Ramirez won in 2023, to stop high-rise hotel construction on Key
In a new effort to prevent the operation of a stoplight already installed at the Avenue B and C intersection with Stickney Point Road, south Siesta Key resident James P. Wallace III has filed a complaint against Sarasota County.
The lawsuit underscores Wallace’s assertion “that the new traffic signal, if made operative, would endanger and over time result in the loss of many human lives …”
Formally, Wallace is asking the 12th Judicial Circuit Court to do the following:
- Declare that operation of the traffic signal would create “a dangerous condition and is unauthorized …”
- Prevent county staff, including the Transportation Division personnel, from turning on and operating the traffic signal at Avenue B and C on Stickney Point Road, “which is the most critical access road to Siesta Key providing emergency medical vehicle ingress and egress as well as the Key’s most important hurricane evacuation route to the mainland.”
- Award court costs to Wallace, as provided for through Section 86.081 of the Florida Statutes.
The complaint was filed on April 19, the court docket shows.
Several years ago, Wallace pursued a challenge of the stoplight through the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), filing the case before Stickney Point Road was transferred from state jurisdiction to that of the county, as part of a “road swap” designed to accelerate improvements to River Road in South County.
That litigation was unsuccessful.
In December 2018, when the majority of the County Commission approved the construction of the mixed-use Siesta Promenade project, which is planned in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of U.S. 41 and Stickney Point Road, one of the stipulations was that the Avenue B and C light had to be operational before Siesta Promenade opened.
Benderson Development Co. has yet to construct that project. Last year, it won approval of the County Commission to modify the Binding Development Concept Plan for the initiative, to incorporate two single-family residential parcels on one boundary of the site; the company had been unable to purchase those parcels prior to the 2018 hearing process that concluded with the commission vote.
In the meantime, Benderson has taken a number of steps — including construction of other changes on Stickney Point Road that the commission stipulate — to clear the way for work on the development to begin. As approved, Siesta Promenade would have 414 condominiums/apartments, a 130-room hotel, 133,000 square feet of commercial space and 7,000 square feet of office space.
In response this week to a Sarasota News Leader question about the status of the Avenue B and C stoplight, the county’s Public Works staff issued this statement in an April 23 email: “The signal will be activated by Sarasota County once the development is either significantly complete or complete unless otherwise warranted.”
Wallace is pursuing this new case in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Sarasota in light of litigation decided in favor of Siesta resident Lourdes Ramirez in 2023, in her effort to stop construction of high-rise hotels on the barrier island. As he pointed out in an April 20 email to the News Leader, if he prevails in this lawsuit, the changes that Benderson already has made on Stickney Point Road will have to be removed, so the roadway can return to its previous appearance.
Most important, though — as Wallace has stressed during meetings of the Siesta Key Association (SKA) — if the County Commission stipulation about the operation of the Avenue B and C light cannot be fulfilled, then Siesta Promenade cannot be built.
Wallace’s case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Stephen Walker, who originally presided over 2021 litigation that fought two high-rise hotels that the County Commission approved for Siesta Key. Not only did Ramirez file her complaint, but Wallace originally was a party in a second suit regarding the Calle Miramar project plus a seven-story, 83-foot hotel planned for Old Stickney Point Road. The two complaints ended up being consolidated for judgment. Walker ended up having to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest regarding his association with an attorney involved with the Old Stickney Point Road project.
‘Demolition as an appropriate judicial remedy’
In early December 2023, Wallace’s attorney, Ralf Brookes of Cape Coral, sent a letter to the County Commission and the Office of the County Attorney, reminding the parties that Wallace “has objected to the County’s approval of this traffic signal at Stickney Point Road and Avenue B & C on grounds that such [action] places human lives in danger during medical emergencies and hurricane evacuations and is inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan for Siesta Key, including [Future Land Use] Policy 2.9.1 …”
That policy, which was at the heart of Ramirez’s challenge of an eight-story hotel on Calle Miramar — on the edge of Siesta Village — limits the residential intensity and density on the county’s barrier islands to that in place as of March 13, 1989. The Comprehensive Plan guides growth in the community.
The 1989 version of the Comprehensive Plan, Brookes pointed out in that December letter, “identified Barrier Islands as being ‘of special concern’ and posing ‘special considerations’ due to hurricane evacuation and storm damage ‘problems’ ” which necessitates treating the Barrier Islands separate from the urban areas …”
Both a Florida administrative law judge, in April 2023, and Circuit Court Judge Hunter Carroll, who issued an August 2023 opinion, ruled in Ramirez’s favor after making “the following findings,” Brookes pointed out:
“There are only two bridges — Siesta Drive Bridge and Stickney Point Road Bridge — that provide access and evacuation routes to the mainland from Siesta Key. Both of the bridges are designated as constrained roads by the Comprehensive Plan … This means that while on the bridges, ‘[s]peed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted. Small increases in traffic will generally cause operational problems at this level.’ … Therefore the County has accepted ‘an additional responsibility . . . to not allow the existing operating conditions to be degraded.’ ”
Moreover, Brookes continued, with emphasis, “[T]he Legislature recognizes that, in the event of a natural disaster, the state may provide financial assistance to local governments for the reconstruction of roads, sewer systems, and other public facilities. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans restrict development activities where such activities would damage or destroy coastal resources, and that such plans protect human lifeand limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster.”
Then Brookes wrote in that letter, “Operating the newly installed, new signal at [Avenue] B&C will adversely affect daily traffic and would have a significant negative impact on traffic flow on and off the Key as it would stop east west traffic dead in its tracks every 85 seconds. This will further degrade, not improve, the existing conditions and level of service on the Stickney Point Road access route to Siesta Key.”
Brookes again referenced the two legal rulings in favor of Ramirez.
“Our client therefore hereby gives notice to the County that he will seek cure, rehabilitation and/or demolition as remedies, as appropriate, if a Court declares that the traffic signal at Stickney Point Road and Avenue B & C places human lives in danger during medical emergencies and hurricane evacuations and is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and violates the Key’s Comprehensive Plan for Siesta Key bridge approaches and evacuation routes. This notice also applies to any actions to develop and activate the traffic signal that were completed despite having been provided this notice, including but not limited to installing, activating, and/or operating traffic signal(s), and/or any other development activity that would accompany development of the Project.”
Brookes noted that the 2001 opinion of the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal in Pinecrest Lakes Inc. v. Shidel allowed “demolition as an appropriate judicial remedy.”
The ‘constrained road’ issue and the Comprehensive Plan
Wallace’s Circuit Court complaint stresses the dangers that the operation of the Avenue B and C light could create for vehicles on Stickney Point Road.
For example, it says, “During times requiring emergency medical vehicle access to hospitals on the mainland in the event of stroke or heart attack or other life-threatening medical emergencies, every minute and second is critical to ensure timely hospital arrival to receive emergency medical care … particularly for heart, stroke and vascular patients who need to access critical diagnostics and doctors that are available at the mainland hospital and not available on the barrier island.”
Further, the complaint points to a July 25, 2016 letter that a member of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) staff sent to county staff, when Siesta Promenade still was in the planning stages. That letter, as the lawsuit describes it, warned that the evacuation route intersection of Stickney Point Road and U.S. 41 already exhibited dangerous traffic conditions. “The performance of Stickney Point Road as a bridge access road is extremely critical to Hurricane evacuation,” attorney Brookes contends in the lawsuit.
Additionally, the complaint notes that that Bill Oliver of Tampa, a professional transportation engineer, had submitted to the county commissioners — on Wallace’s behalf — an affidavit that “opine[d] that the required stopping of East West traffic dead in its tracks every 85 seconds (the currently planned timing of the signal) in order to facilitate two new left turn lanes and two new signalized pedestrian crossings would adversely impact emergency medical vehicle transport, hurricane evacuation and traffic access to and from Siesta Key every day.”
The complaint also notes Brookes’ appearance during the Sept. 27, 2023 Siesta Promenade hearing involving the addition of the two single-family-home parcels to the project area. At that time, the complaint says, Brookes talked about the rulings by the administrative law judge and the Circuit Court judge in Siesta resident Ramirez’s cases, contending that those opinions “apply to [Siesta Promenade] and, therefore, [the new traffic signal would be] illegal.”
The lawsuit does discus the fact that, during the hearing, County Attorney Joshua Moye — responding to a question from Commissioner Mark Smith — contended that the Ramirez cases had no bearing on the Siesta Promenade hearing, as a 2011 state law eliminated any requirement for developers to undertake transportation construction designed to mitigate the effects that their projects would have on one or more roadways. Brookes characterized Moye’s statement as “implying that the required new signal’s Traffic Intensity Impact on the Key could be simply and totally ignored.” That opinion, Brookes added, “was legally incorrect,” thanks to Future Land Use Policy 2.9.1 in the Comprehensive Plan.
Moreover, Brookes argues in the complaint, “Florida Statutes Section 163.3177(6)(b) indicates ‘Each local government’s transportation element [in its comprehensive plan] shall … reflect … strategies relating to: How the local government will correct existing facility deficiencies [and] meet the identified needs of the projected transportation system …’ The County’s current Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element does not identify ‘how the local government will correct existing facility deficiencies and meet identified needs.’ ” Instead, Brookes adds, “Failing roads are placed on a list of ‘Constrained and Backlogged Roads.’ ”
Yet, Brookes notes, “A paragraph from Volume 2 of the Comprehensive Plan reads: ‘The county’s acceptance of constrained and backlogged roadways … presumes an additional responsibility on the part of the county in its review and approval of development orders: to base such decisions on maintaining the existing level of service of such roadways and to not allow the existing operating conditions to be degraded.’ ”
In the complaint, Brookes explains, “A constrained road is defined by the Comprehensive Plan as a road with ‘a level of service lower than the adopted standard. The level of service provided by the bridges is classified as ‘D.’ This means that while on the bridges, ‘[s]peed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted. Small increases in traffic will generally cause operational problems at this level.’ The Comprehensive Plan states that constrained roads are common throughout the County and therefore the County has accepted ‘an additional responsibility … in its review and approval of LDRs [land development regulation],” Brookes continues.
“Therefore,” he writes, citing a finding of fact in the administrative law judge’s order in Ramirez’s case, “the County must base approvals … on ‘maintaining the existing level of service of [constrained] roadways and to not allow the existing operating conditions to be degraded.’ ”
Brookes further contends, “The … Final Order [issued by the administrative law judge in Ramirez’s Florida Division of Administrative Hearings case] in effect stated that land development applications that increase traffic beyond existing background conditions and require the operational permits for the traffic signal on Stickney Point Road must not be approved.”