RiseMagazine | Sarasota

The Premier Lifestyle Magazine of Florida's Black Communities

Patterson Petition Letter

Attached and at the bottom of this email is a Petition Letter of a concerned citizen. Listed are the major points for reducing the number of lots (density) approved. By reducing the lots we reduce the amount of impact on the area. You reduce traffic, potential flooding, contaminants from the dump not being disturbed, more open space for animals, drainage or views, and it would fit in better with 95% of the surrounding area.

Please review the Petition Letter. Each adult should fill out a separate Letter. Encourage your neighbors. Please Help!

Please come to the County Commissioners Meeting

We will make sure all copies returned make it to the upcoming meetings.

*12-5-12 at 1:30, can go until, 5
County Commissioner Meeting
1660 Ringling Blvd. across from the post office downtown Sarasota

Try to attend the meetings. A show of people from the community is very important.

Sign up to speak. You can make one statement “Reject this rezone. It is too much density. It does not conform with the surrounding area.” and repetition is acceptable and important.

Petition Letter of a Concerned Citizens

Name: __________________________________________

Re: Board of County Commissioner Hearing 12-5-12 at 1:30, 1660 Ringling Blvd.

Please keep in mind as you read the following I recognize that the county commissioners and county employees have more experience and expertise in these matters than do I. But I do feel it is important and my responsibility to give you my point of view or you would not have the opportunity to consider it.

I/we are not against development just irresponsible, double dipping, non conforming, toxic contaminating development. Therefore I respectfully request you REJECT REZONE PETITION No. 12-02 for Foxfire golf course to increase density to 209 units over and above the already plated 151 lots including Red Hawks’ platted 147 lots.

The commissioners may want to request and / or require the following instead of acceptance;

  • a binding development plan rather than just a concept plan that historically changes
  • adequate testing that would alleviate any toxic contamination concerns including dump borders, vibration releases and storm water flow after fill in flood area
  • an acceptable development would be significant less residential lots
  • and any other information the commission deems necessary.

There was testimony at the Planning Commission hearing on June 7, 2012, concerning John Patterson’s’ involvement in the development project. Therefore, Commissioner Nora Patterson should consider recusing herself in accordance with Florida Statutes, case law, and ethics opinions.

Major Areas of Concerns and Why

ENVIROMENTAL CONTAMINATION

1. In the Planning Commission Hearing, Shawn Leins, AM Engineering applicant team confirmed the excessive flood waters would be contained on the unauthorized dump and old county landfill area as part of the storm water management system. But yet is does not appear on the current nonbinding concept plan. This water would flow into a major county drainage system or percolate into the ground. This would potentially contaminate the Philippi Creek Water Basin, thousands of potable wells, wild life, local farms and all surrounding areas. Given the extreme scenario surrounding this property, a storm water management plan and a binding concept plan should be required prior to any rezone approval. The current code does not require storm water management to be done at this time. It is more than evident that this high density on the none dump / landfill area cannot handle storm water management without using the green space of the dump / landfill. Currently the most recent concept plan does not show any ponds or drainage on the dump / landfill area. By not showing any disturbance (ponds, drainage, roads, ext.) to this area, it keeps the State Department Of Environmental protection from implementing more stringent controls and testing. The DEP previous study triggers additional testing if the land use changes to protect the current neighboring properties.

2. The DEP report concluded the arsenic contamination found was most likely from the golf course land use. Since a fertilizer (now banned) commonly used on golf courses contained arsenic. That DEP study was only concerned with how this effected current residence not how much arsenic was on the golf course. Now, with the possibility of 209 new residences the entire area should be tested to ensure safe levels of arsenic exist. Foxfire was a golf course for about 40 years. How much arsenic is contaminating this property?

3. As of 11-30-12 no testing evidence proving the actual dump area boundaries from the uncontrolled dumping in this area has been provided for county review. Old area photographs were used to determine the current division of property done in 2006 at the time of acquisition of two parcel (___ acres) and lease arrangement of the 21.64 acre dump and 67.66 acre landfill. The 21.64 acre dump parcel is all uncontrolled dumping. Past patrol officers reported toxic wastes had been dumped in this area. Was this dumping really contained within this 21.64 acres or are there other smaller areas of uncontrolled dumping?

4. How do they intend to raise the flood plan without impacting the dump/land-fill waste? Flood plan questions on page 3 were answered incorrectly. Parcel 0264-08-0005 92% and parcel 0266-03-0003 46% in the Sarasota County floodplain.

5. How do they plan to contain the ground vibration from the ground compacting vibrators at the property line? How do they stop the vibration from causing any leaching of toxic chemicals? What test guarantees this will not contaminate our environment? How can you guarantee this will not release these resting toxins? When Red Hawks roads were being packed, vibrations were felt and pool decks cracked a half a mile away.

DOUBLE DIPPING – current ownership 46% the same as the last re-zone on this property.

46% ownership | Foxfire Golf Course of Sarasota, LLC previously part of the Red Hawk rezone

  • 37% of total acreage | John Notter | 80% ownership | Foxfire Golf Course of Sara, LC
  • 9% of total acreage | Gary Avery | 20% ownership | 89.3 total acres

54% ownership | Foxfire Properties, LLC

  • 27% of total acreage | Barry Spencer | 50% ownership | Foxfire Properties, LLC
  • 13.5% of total acreage | Nick Griffin | 25% ownership | 102.93 total acres
  • 13.5% of total acreage | N.J. Olivieri | 25% ownership

5 mistakes on page 12 alone of the rezone application made it difficult to realize true ownership.

DENSITY – Ordinance 2001-053, with stipulations a result of the original rezoning application allowed for 151 lots. This is the application the above 46% had financial gain already. The density on the golf course, dump and landfill area were already given up to build Red Hawk at non-conforming size lots. 147 lots are in Red Hawk already using the density from this property. Only 4 remaining 2 acre lots as platted in Red Hawk Phase 4 (the golf course property) are still open. If any additional density is granted it should be at the original OUE-2 zoning excluding the dump and landfill areas as part of the acreage. It was only re-zoned to allow for Red Hawk. OUE-2 allows for only a maximum of 49 lots not 220 or 209. The density has been previously used. If additional density is granted these owners will financially benefit twice.

With the dump and landfill areas not used for storm water plus fill of the flood plan, this land cannot physically hold 209 lots including a storm water system. The latest plat map from 11-8-12 only shows 197 total lots but page 2 shows 209 units. Where are the missing 12 going? The only thing left is the storm water pond or the dump. The grand tree was taken out along with the original storm water ponds for the Foxfire subdivision to accommodate lots. Although the ponds are un-maintained some drainage is better than none. But with a concept plan they do not have to show either one.

CONFORMITY – 95% of the adjacent land is OUE-1 or OUE-2/RE-1. The plat map for Phase 4 of Red Hawk has the 4 lots on the golf course property at 2 acre (87,120 sq ft) lots. Conforming with the OUE-2 zoning. Evan, the exception to the area, Red Hawk lots abutting the golf course average in size 66% larger than the 9,600 sq ft proposed lots. Nine 9,600 sq ft lots do not conform to one 84,120 sq ft lot, NON-CONFORMING!!! Most of the lots on the concept plan are 9,600 sq feet. Some of the adjacent properties have an existing building footprint of 9,000 sq ft almost equal to the size of the new proposed lots. If the dump/landfill areas are excluded (192.23 ac less 89.30 ac = 2.03 units/ac) it would be 2 units per acre not 1 unit per acre. Most of the surrounding area is at 1 unit per 2 acres excluding Red Hawk the exception because of the dump/landfill green space added. Since the dump/landfills areas were previously counted as green space in the 2001 rezone application to obtain the current Red Hawk density (units per acre) they should not be counted again. In 5 years will the majority owner, John Notter (90% owner of the 2001 re-zone application, 90% of the dump/landfill areas or 37% of the total area) come back for a third time to profit? What will he want? Multi-story condos because that would be more acceptable to build on the dump/landfill than single family housing? Barry Spencer confirmed his conversations with DEP about what would be best to built in the dump/landfill areas at a neighborhood workshop.

ACCESS – Ordinance 2001-053 Allows for 2 accesses only. Talon Road through Red Hawk is one allowing for lots on Parcel A (10 proposed). The other is Proctor Road (now gated) and open is the east Clark Rd. The Clark Rd access crosses a Saddle Trail easement which does not allow cars to cross. An additional access should not be added to justify additional density. One access allows only 99 lots not 235 through Red Hawk. Is Red Hawks’ gated emergency access being opened? What hazard is being created by adding an addition 83 lots access through Red Hawk?

TRAFFIC – 220 X 2.5 cars per household X 2 going & coming home =1,100 extra cars per day.

Will the Proctor Road access really be gated? I understand even a gated access will leave you out just not in. Proctor Road and Clark Road will be connected through this proposed area connecting other off-site residential areas and outside traffic. This will create a dangerous shortcut allowing traffic to miss the current Proctor/Clark intersection. Ordinance 2001-053 & Ordinance 2001-257 currently disallows this connection.

Proctor Road is a dangerous narrow 2 lane class C road with no paved surface at edge, a deadly curve, schools accessing, 5 churches and relieves traffic from Clark Road. It will receive 57.7% of the new traffic. Soon to be a class D needing road improvement.

A second Clark Road Access should not exist. With a speed limit of 55mph, a busy county park and a National Veteran Cemetery making it impossible to pull out in traffic. Not just at peak PM traffic hours, 4pm to 6pm, which is all the traffic study considers.

On 12-1-12 I-75 traffic was backed up for hours past the Fruitville Road exit trying to get off and go east on Clark Road.

DRAINAGE – The drainage to the west is inadequate and has been for over 30 years. This will increase the capacity of water in an already overwhelmed system. The water from Bent Tree and the surrounding areas to the east drains through the current 60′ wide drainage easement not shown on the concept plan. This 60′ wide drainage regularly becomes 200′ wide when the water overflows because the drainage to the west of Red Hawk cannot handle the current capacity of water. So will the dump/landfill, Bent Tree, or Proctor Road flood along with Red Hawk and the new subdivision when the water cannot flow through this major drainage area for the region? The county has not yet addressed this issues. Now an estimated 65 acres of impermeable surface (concrete slabs, sidewalks, roads) blocking this water. Please do not approve this re-zone without a guaranteed storm water management system that is adequate to relieve the waterflow without using the dumps for runoff or storage. This may cause structural and road flooding in an area that the county has not and apparently cannot fix the drainage problem in. A binding concept plan should be required with a final engineered storm water management system.

DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE TAXES – over $130,000 past due, over $174,000 due. Last year paid was 2009.

If the individuals in charge are not responsible enough to pay their taxes, fill out the re-zone application correctly, maintain the current grass without code enforcement or maintain the current storm water system, why would we empower them to receive financial gain a second time on the same property while endangering so much more.

Landfill – is it being donated? If so they do not own it. It should not be considered in the total acreage. Also some people are confused thinking they may be receiving a beautiful park and fishing ponds.

Economically Feasible: Ordinance No 2001-053 Stipulation #17 “This Stipulation has been voluntarily proffered by the Applicants, and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners, to ensure that the Foxfire Subdivision, per plat recorded in Plat Book 23, pages 33 and 33A through 33E, Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida, will continue to be buffered by a golf course and country club use, in substantially the same manner as the Foxfire Subdivision has been since its original development and marketing to the public, so long as the golf course and country club use remains an economically feasible use of the Golf Course Property.

Note this was voluntary. Economically feasible was directed as the reason for the re-zone application. Barry Spencer, the majority owner of Foxfire Properties, LLC (one of the three corporations involved), stated in the Planning Commission Public Hearing that the golf course was too run down and therefore no longer economically feasible. So why did he invest in a bad business? Any business allowed to deteriorate over 5 years will more than likely become no longer economically feasible. Since you have 46% of the same ownership, was letting the business lose economic viability intentional? Should negligence be rewarded

Ordinance 2001-053 – Stipulation only allow for 151 lots and 2 accesses, one on Proctor and one on Clark.

What good are stipulations when they are so easily disregarded?

Share Your Thoughts...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Departments

Enter your email address to follow Rise Magazine Weekly and receive our weekly newsletter by email.

Join 175 other followers

About RISE MediaWorx

Contact Us

EMAIL ADDRESS: RiseMediaWorx@live.com MAILING ADDRESS: RISE MediaWorx 1661 Ringling Blvd, #2754 Sarasota, Florida 34236

Advertise

For information on advertising on www.RiseMagazineWeekly.com contact us via email.
%d bloggers like this: