April hearing date set for North Beach Road vacation lawsuit filed by Siesta resident

Author: Share:

By Rachel Brown Hackney

A Feb. 13 hearing on Sarasota County’s motion to dismiss a complaint a Siesta Key resident filed over the County Commission’s May 11, 2016 vote to vacate a 357-foot segment of North Beach Road was cancelled on Feb. 8.

The action came as a result of plaintiff Michael Cosentino’s Feb. 3 request for court approval to file a second amended complaint in the case. Judge Frederick P. Mercurio granted that leave on Feb. 10. In the meantime, a new hearing date has been set for April 5, court records show.

In his latest filing, Cosentino incorporates an argument that his Sept. 8, 2016 purchase of a parcel at 10 Beach Road gives him greater standing to bring suit against the county. Additionally, he has pulled information from public records requests — which he has spoken of in numerous public meetings over the past months — to enhance arguments that were part of his original complaint.

Among the general allegations in his latest filing, Cosentino points out that, as owner of the 10 Beach Road property, he “has sufficient interests protected by the [county’s] Comprehensive Plan and State law to have standing in this matter, including his interest in Beach Road as a waterfront thoroughfare, and his interest in the density and intensity of development within the same subdivision plat …”

He maintains in the second amended complaint that the County Commission violated the Comprehensive Plan at the time of its May 11, 2016 decision to vacate the North Beach Road segment. Only then-Commissioner Christine Robinson cast a “No” vote, citing the same policy Cosentino has referenced. Last summer, when the board approved an updated version of the Comprehensive Plan, it modified the language of that policy to make it less restrictive.

The original policy read, “The County shall not vacate road segments on waterfronts along any creek, river, lake, bay or Gulf access point and shall encourage right-of-way use of these areas for coastal beach and bay access.” The new one says, “The County should not vacate road segments or access points on waterfronts along any beach, bay, creek, river, or lake, and should encourage public right-of way use of these areas for public shoreline and water access.”

The Maddens’ construction plans

Cosentino’s original complaint also argued that the County Commission’s May 11 vote to give a Coastal Setback Variance to Dennis and Wendy Madden, owners of the property at 89 Beach Road, was a violation of the county’s Comprehensive Plan. The Maddens had sought the variance so they could tear down 12 dwelling units between North Beach Road and Avenida Veneccia and construct a new three-story, six-unit structure that would comply with all the current building standards.

Cosentino’s second amended complaint expands on the arguments he made in the first one in regard to the Maddens. It says the road vacation was necessary to provide the Maddens with sufficient property to erect the six new units, as their attorney, Charles D. Bailey III of the Williams Parker firm, explained to the board in May 2016. The Maddens own property seaward of North Beach Road that they bought in August 2001, a county staff memo reported in May 2016. In a stipulation in their petition for the variance, they agreed that no construction ever would be allowed on those parcels closer to the Gulf of Mexico.

A May 11, 2016 county staff memo explained that without the road vacation, the Maddens’ proposed new construction “would not meet current County Zoning Regulations with respect to density calculations and setbacks.” The road vacation would add 8,265 square feet to their property, the memo noted, which would allow them to increase the number of dwelling units they could build from five to six.

The complaint points out that even Howard J. Berna, the county’s manager of environmental permitting, wrote in a July 21, 2015 email, “‘It is my understanding that the purpose of the street vacation is to obtain the total lot square footage required to achieve the [Maddens’] desired outcome.’”

Additionally, the second amended complaint quotes correspondence dated Aug 10, 2015 between Bailey — the Maddens’ attorney — and Weiqi Lin, a member of the county’s Environmental Permitting Division staff. Lin wrote, “‘[V]erification of ROW [right-of-way] Vacation is required to meet density calculations,’” and Bailey answered, “‘Noted: We are processing Street Vacation Petition for Beach Road concurrently with this Coastal Setback Variance Application.’”

Cosentino also refers to Future Land Use Policy 1.1.2 in the county’s Comprehensive Plan, which says, “The intensity and density of future development on the Barrier Islands of Sarasota shall not exceed that allowed by zoning ordinances and regulations existing as of March 13, 1989,” except to allow the rebuilding of nonconforming duplexes and multi-family structures within their existing footprints, if their density exceeds the restrictions of the zoning ordinances.

A staff analysis prior to the May 11, 2016 public hearing pointed out that the total habitable area of the Maddens’ new structures would be 18,901 square feet, with an average of 3,150.2 square feet per unit, the complaint says. That would mean the living area in the new buildings would be 3.9 times larger than the average habitable area of the existing ones, it adds.

Siesta Sand
Author: Siesta Sand

Previous Article

Commissioner Detert indicates willingness for the county to intervene in the design of the Lido Renourishment Project, if convinced the county can do so

Next Article

Wastewater plant’s decommissioning on schedule

You may also like...