Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Rossetti Wetlands To Be "Ditch Drained"?

Update: 07-16-18

An additional recent private meeting held on this (and other associated concerns for this area of the parcel), reveals by county hydrological planners for the proposed new development, that the new retention pond depicted will be designed in such way, that the level of water in the wetland areas will be maintained at current levels...

 Original Text:

The supplied Sorrento at Palmer Ranch Plan Map - mailed via the Waldrop Engineering Notice of a Workshop, to affected Sorrento East residents, appears to have numerous concerns in both accuracy and proposals...

Below we have augmented a portion of the map to draw attention to the high functioning Rossetti Wetland No. 1, and the apparent proposed digging of a large rectangular catch basin - which will most likely kill (drain off) much of the surrounding functioning wetlands (also potentially affected is still larger: Rossetti Wetland No. 2 - however this environ does not have the depth of water at fill, that is present with Rossetti Wetland No. 1.

(Also augmented on the map is the North Rossetti Dr. connection, which was represented by only a black double arrow of the plan map... We have added the road...)

Click Image for Detailed View



Monday, June 11, 2018

"RAILROADING" Housing Projects - A Developers Tradition


All to often, new housing projects (which sometimes require unpopular rezoning changes) are pushed through local governmental processes at breakneck speeds. Indeed, sometimes developers or property sellers even "sweeten the pot" with other "back room deals" - to get what they want. However, the most typical tactic, is "try to keep it quiet"... to fly under the radar of public notice, to the extent the law allows, until it's too late.

With the above in mind, let's take a look at the "lightening speed" of the 681 Palmer Ranch / Taylor Morrison land in question - oh, this project, apparently now named: "Sorrento At Palmer Ranch". Please have a look at this Sarasota County supplied document below:

Please Click the Image for Larger View

Saturday, June 9, 2018

What is Sarasota County Zoning: OUE-2 and Why You Want It!

The property to be developed into nearly 400 high density homes, is currently zoned as "OUE-2" OPEN USE ESTATE, 1 Unit per 2 ACRE parcel (mini-ranch) type properties with the ability to have agriculture, and or other "open vista" environmentally friendly green activities. See below for actual county wording, concerning this zoning....

  4.5.5.

Open Use Estate District (OUE).

a.

The OUE District is intended to retain the open character of land. This district provides for and encourages resource conservation and activities with an agricultural orientation, and is intended to be comprised of a combination of residential and agricultural activity. Normally, necessary urban services can not be efficiently or economically provided to lands in this district in the foreseeable future. Permitted uses are limited to conservation, agriculture, very low density residential development, recreation, and with certain limitations, institutional and other uses not contrary to the character of the district. The open vista, low-density character of residential areas in this district should be protected from the encroachment of incompatible uses. The Comprehensive Plan's objective of protecting the integrity and quality of established residential neighborhoods should be implemented in residential areas within this district.

b.

This district is generally used to implement the Comprehensive Plan within those areas shown as Rural on the Future Land Use Map. Lands within the Urban Service Area Boundary that have existing OUE zoning are acknowledged, and are considered to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map. However, OUE-zoned lands within the Urban Service Area Boundary may be rezoned to a more intensive zoning district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 

There is precious little "ranch home properties" in Sarasota County, particularly in locations with a 10 minute access to public beaches! These types of properties are particularly favored by those who don't wish to be socially confined on small lots, and or who might have interests such as gardening, green living, horses, boating, RVing, etc. - and would like to keep such equipment, animals, or activities on their property. A "mini-ranch" is often the destination for those feeling oppressed by over zealous contentious POAs.  It's nice to have "diversity and choice" in all things in life, and that particularly pertains to housing lifestyles as well.


In August 2016 Sarasota County published (updated) a socially and politically motivated guide know as: FUTURE LAND USE (this is part of a larger document called the Comprehensive Plan. This document includes a map riddled with  hidden (often desired by their rich owners) "proposed changes" to current zoning, and seems often employed now by large property owners and developers who wish to "flip" low density existing zoning parcel blocks into moderate/high density housing projects (usually maximized for profit at the expense of lot size, and overall quality of living - for many future packed in residents.)

This seems the exact situation with the parcel in question...  A look on the current Sarasota County GIS mapping system - shows the parcel is clearly OUE-2 (as in the graphic above). Yet, the 2014 Future Land Use Guide (updated in 2016), has "color flipped" it from green to yellow. (Sebpog members directly abutting this property and were NEVER asked for any input concerning this change, never heard or were officially notified about any "guiding land use workshops" about the parcel... that were "supposedly" employed in creating this questionable "guiding zoning map" for Sarasota County. In truth, not a single Sebpog member, knew of even the existence of the Future Land Use Guide.
 


  

It appears, these days, for many existing parcels - this "guide", now seems employed as "first evidence", by rich land owners and housing developers - in their insatiable desire for profit and additional maximized housing density projects.
The developer Taylor-Morrison is requesting rezoning from OUE-2 to RSF-2 PUD.
 
The term "Moderate Density Residential" is in itself, misleading to many.  The definition of "moderate" is quite debatable within the wide zoning spectrum class that the county has seemed to include in this category.  



Friday, June 8, 2018

Waldrop Engineering "Drops" Short Notice of Major Re-Zoning Neighborhood Workshop

Neighborhood Workshop Notice
Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Time: 6:00 PM
Place: Our Savior Lutheran Church, 2705 N Tamiami Trail, Nokomis, FL
 
While sebpog.org was told in late February that in 4 to 6 weeks (March or early April), a neighborhood workshop would be held by representatives of the developer: Taylor Morrison - surprise... it ended up being a lot later in the year. Unfortunately, this time of the year is NOT the best for such things, as much of our population has already transitioned to their northern homes - to escape the oppressive Summer season.

However, it does makes sense from a strategic point of view, for the developer to perform this required process, when there is the least amount of potentially objectionable affected residences in town - to be able to physically attend (and perhaps protest) the short notice meeting. Indeed, Sebpog has learned, a great deal of the county planning, and required studies are already complete, so this project can proceed to "high density rezoning" via county board commissioners, as soon as possible. The term "railroading" comes to mind!

"Getting Railroaded" - An American Tradition since 1820!
A three page mailing (which you may review: here), was sent to all sebpog.org members, but only an approx. 20% or less of Sorrento East's 500+ homes. Thus, it's important that the remaining residents, that reside full-time, and or who have not yet left, to attend this "workshop" and inform others in the neighborhood... because the next step might be a Rezoning Board Vote - perhaps only weeks away!

Understanding Florida Boundary by Acquiescence Laws

Boundary by Acquiescence


  1.  A dispute or uncertainty from which it can be implied that both parties are in doubt as to the true boundary line (meaning both landowners lack actual knowledge of the true boundary)
     
  2. Continued occupation and acquiescence in a line other than the true boundary for the period of the statute of limitations, or more than seven years
Examples include King and McDonald (King v. Carmen, 237 So.2d 26, 28 [Fla. 1st DCA 1970]; McDonald v. Givens, 509 So.2d 993 [Fla. 1st DCA 1987]; 1 Florida Jurisprudence 2d Adjoining Landowners section 51 [2014]; Florida Statutes section 95.12 [2014]).

In the absence of direct evidence of a dispute, all five district courts in Florida and the Florida Supreme Court agree that mere consruction of a fence does not suffice to establish the element of uncertainty in a boundary dispute case (Van Meier v. Kelsey, 91 So.2d 32 [Fla. 1956]). Boundary by agreement and boundary by acquiescence both involve a disputed boundary line (note that if existence of a boundary line in a particular location is without dispute, the person who is encroaching upon the land cannot claim possession of the land), but boundary by acquiescence requires that the land must be encroached upon for at least seven years. In other words, action brought to recover property after seven years of encroachment will probably be denied.

In the case of McDonald v. Givens, the owner before McDonald (M) had erected a fence, which remained on the property for at least f50 years (McDonald v. Givens, 509 So.2d 993). Since the fence was erected, M and her predecessors, along with other individuals residing in the area, considered the fence to be the boundary between the two properties (Id.). Thirteen years after M had obtained title to her property, Givens (G) purchased property that shared a common boundary with M's property (Id.). G's survey disclosed that M's fence was encroaching upon G's property as described in their deeds and the true boundary line was eastward of the fence (Id.).  

The court found that while no direct evidence was available to show uncertainty over the boundary line at the time of the fence's erection, without any other explanation for its specific location, the placement and duration of the fence itself is sufficient evidence to show doubt and establish for boundary by acquiescence (Id.) (McDonald v. O'Steen, 429 So.2d 407, 409 [Fla. 1st DCA 1983]).

Furthermore, the court stated that while G protested the current fence, no evidence existed that any of the owners before G protested the fence's existence as an encroachment (Id.). The fence was maintained for 30 years, without dispute, before G gained title to the property (Id.). This surpassed the necessary seven years needed under the statute of limitations (Id.). The court found a boundary by acquiescence, fulfilled by the two elements, and G's protest was denied (Id. 993–994).

Source:

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe107