Proposed revisions could affect Beach Road, parks preservation and public access to county-owned waterfront areas.
By ChrisAnn Allen
Preserving public access on Siesta Key could land before Sarasota County voters in November.
The county’s elected Charter Review Board is weighing changes to the Sarasota County Charter that could affect Beach Road, public rights of way and protections for parks, preserves, beaches and waterfront vistas.
At its May 6 meeting, the board was scheduled to hold a public hearing on proposed revisions to several charter sections, including two tied closely to Siesta Key: Section 3.9, “Siesta Key Beach Road as Public Right-of-Way,” and Section 3.10, “Preserve County-Owned Parks, Preserves, Beach and Water Access and Waterfront Vistas.”
However, the board did not have the two-thirds majority needed to take action, meaning the items could be considered but not decided. The same charter sections were moved to another public hearing May 20, after press time.
The Charter Review Board, commonly known as the CRB, is a 10-member elected body created under the county charter. Two members are elected countywide from each of the county’s five commission districts. Members serve staggered four-year terms without pay.
The board reviews the charter and proposes changes, but it cannot amend the document on its own. Proposed amendments must be sent to voters by referendum, which requires approval by two-thirds of the board.
The CRB has been part of Sarasota County’s governing framework since the early 1980s, when the county moved to an elected charter-review system. Today’s board includes Jay Riley and Nicholas Altier from District 1; G. Matthew Brockway and a vacant seat from District 2; Tom DeSane and Andrew Kirby from District 3; Greg “Tex” Bukowski and Clayton Taylor from District 4; and Jose Jimenez and Joe Justice from District 5. Justice serves as chair.
The board’s current work includes proposed revisions to several charter sections, but Sections 3.9 and 3.10 are especially relevant to Siesta Key and the long-running debate over public access.
Section 3.9 says the county must rescind the vacation of, or reacquire, Beach Road on Siesta Key as it existed Jan. 1, 2016, and must not vacate or sell that county-owned road segment or right of way. Section 3.10 says the county shall retain ownership of county-owned parks and preserves and shall not vacate or sell county-owned road segments or rights of way along or abutting beaches, rivers, creeks, canals, lakes, bays, gulf access points or waterfront vistas.
Both sections also encourage public access and viewing of waterfront vistas, including access for people with mobility impairments when feasible.
However, the county’s published charter notes that the first sentence of Section 3.10 was held invalid in litigation involving Cosentino v. Sarasota County.
The provisions trace back to voter-approved 2018 charter amendments connected to Siesta Key Beach Road and broader concerns about preserving public waterfront access. The amendment that became Section 3.10 passed with 72.6% of the vote.
The measure grew out of the Beach Road controversy on Siesta Key, where residents and public-access advocates objected to county decisions affecting a road segment near the beach. A court later invalidated the first sentence of Section 3.10, but the vote remains a marker of public sentiment on preserving county-owned waterfront and beach access.
The CRB is now considering whether proposed revisions to Sections 3.9 and 3.10, along with other charter sections, should be submitted to referendum. A March 18 public hearing notice listed both Siesta Beach Road and the parks-and-water-access section among the proposed revisions under consideration.
The board also held an April 15 special committee meeting outside its regular schedule, as members continued reviewing possible charter revisions. No action was taken on those items.
At the May 6 meeting, Taylor said the April 15 committee recommended removing Section 3.9 and renumbering Section 3.10 as the new Section 3.9.
He said the existing Beach Road provision presents legal concerns.
“3.9 is in conflict with current case law,” Taylor said.
Taylor said the proposal would preserve the portion of Section 3.10 that was not deemed invalid. He read that remaining language into the record: “The County shall encourage maximum right-of-way use for public access and viewing of waterfront vistas, whenever feasible, the county shall make these areas accessible to mobility-impaired persons.”
Taylor said the change would combine the remaining valid language into a renumbered section while the board considers more comprehensive revisions.
“So, we’re basically renumbering and combining 3.10 into 3.9 and, as it stands, all that language stays in place until we have a proposal to completely rewrite section 3.9 with better language,” Taylor said.
During public comment, Robin Williams, a District 4 candidate for the next Charter Review Board, criticized the proposed language.
“We’ve witnessed over development with privately owned land, with greenspaces rapidly disappearing,” Williams said. “Our infrastructure, including roads, can’t handle it, and it will result in more flooded areas, especially during hurricane season. If your proposed language remains, without voters being clearly informed about what’s being removed, ditching 3.9 in its entirety and the parts of 3.10, ensuring that the county can’t sell off its parks and preserves, then it would be fair to characterize it as a sneaky deception.”
During closing comments, board members again said the proposed changes were driven by legal concerns.
“I moved here to be by the water,” Riley said, “So, I don’t think any of us agreed or discussed trying to restrict or give away land. So, when I did hear that this was a clerical piece we have to do on advisement of our attorney and because of state law, that is why some of that is being changed.”
The next meeting was planned for 6 p.m. Wednesday, June 17, at the Robert L. Anderson Administration Center, 4000 Tamiami Trail, Venice.
