Officials cite density concerns, traffic impacts and unresolved legal issues in decision
By ChrisAnn Allen
The people spoke — multiple times — and the commission shut it down unanimously.
Robert Sax, vice president of Protect Siesta Key, led the charge March 3 in opposition to a unified development code (UDC) amendment that would have allowed hotels in the South Bridge Area of Siesta Key by eliminating density requirements for transient accommodations. Sax noted he lives adjacent to the proposed development sites and was a “successful plaintiff” in previous litigation against the county to prohibit such changes.
The project — a 120-room hotel spearheaded by businessman Dr. Gary Kompothecras of the 1-800-ASK-GARY accident helpline — was initially approved by Sarasota County commissioners in 2021, but legal challenges required amendments for it to move forward. Two lawsuits filed by Sax and Lourdes Ramirez, a community advocate and president of the neighborhood group Protect Siesta Key, determined the County Commission violated its own policies by allowing unlimited density when approving several hotels between the fall of 2021 and the fall of 2022.
A 2024 ruling stated that no hotel can be taller than 35 feet or exceed 26 rooms per acre (recalculated by the judge to 36), as set forth in 1989. The judges determined amendments must be made to the comprehensive plan for the hotel applications to proceed.
Approval of the amendment, presented by county Zoning Administrator James Ehrmann as one of nine under consideration March 3, would have been a step toward implementing the previously submitted comprehensive plan amendment.
Sax said March 3 that the court determined the “excessive room densities” for the planned hotel conflicted with Sarasota County’s comprehensive plan. He argued that the combination of the previously submitted comprehensive plan amendment and the newly proposed UDC amendment would negatively affect safety, health and quality of life for nearby residents.
“In effect, approval of this amendment would relegate the many residents close by this carved-out area to being second-class citizens, deprived of comprehensive plan protections enjoyed by all other residents of the barrier island,” Sax said March 3. He also said the hotel would intensify traffic in an already congested area and set a precedent for reduced protections across Siesta Key.
In May 2025, nearly 200 people attended a Zoom neighborhood workshop for the comprehensive plan amendment, many voicing concerns similar to those raised by Sax. After the workshop, the project appeared to stall, prompting speculation that it had been abandoned. However, the issue returned to the county dais March 3 with the proposed UDC amendment.
During the meeting, representatives from several Siesta Key organizations spoke against the amendment, including Dr. Neal Schleifer of the Siesta Key Condominium Council, which represents more than 7,000 households, and Robert and Catherine Luckner of the Siesta Key Association. The association submitted a letter March 3 opposing the amendment.
In the letter, SKA President Catherine Luckner wrote that proceeding with the amendment would waste “scarce staff planning resources,” noting that the project boundaries are not clearly defined and a required traffic impact study has not been completed.
“This proposal doesn’t want you to consider the density and intensity newly built units will bring — their traffic and strain on stormwater, sewage and roads,” Schleifer said March 3. “For the selfish interests of a few, it wants you to discount the safety of all residents and visitors.”
When Catherine Luckner addressed commissioners, she reiterated concerns about staff time. “There is a lot of things to be done in this county,” she said. “And this is not one that provides any great sustenance to anybody that you will hear from.”
Her husband, Robert Luckner, followed and pointed to issues raised during the May 2025 workshop. “My problem is there are several fatal flaws in that initial comprehensive plan amendment that haven’t been resolved, are unlikely to be resolved, and it seems way premature to try and do a UDC amendment when you haven’t even figured out how you want to change the comprehensive plan,” he said.
Kompothecras also spoke March 3 in support of the project. He described the proposed site as “a blighted area” in need of redevelopment and criticized what he called misinformation from “NIMBYs,” or “not in my backyard” opponents. He said he has lived on the key for 43 years and argued that hotels are among the first structures evacuated during storms, meaning “those rooms will be empty” and would not contribute to evacuation traffic.
He added that the hotel would have generators, allowing it to serve as housing for first responders when other parts of the key are uninhabitable after hurricanes. He also said hotels could reduce the number of visitors staying in short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods and serve as an “economic engine” for the area.
Commissioner Mark Smith, a Siesta Key resident and architect whose district includes the northern portion of the key, was the first to comment March 3. He immediately stated he did not support the amendment, noting the county had already faced litigation over increased density and intensity on Siesta Key. He also cited the proposed location — near Stickney Point and Midnight Pass roads — as one of the most congested areas.
The remaining commissioners concurred, and the amendment was rejected unanimously.
