A Modest Proposal

Dear Attorney Persson:

Let me respond unequivocally.  The very first time that I, as a member of the P+Z Board, saw the seventy pages of data submitted as Resolution 2011-01, was when I downloaded it from the Town’s web site on March 4, 2011.  Attorney Stroud had appeared before the Board a couple of times with an overview presentation  --  but no hard data had been covered.  Rest assured that had she done so I would have brought up the same points I am making now.  It now develops that our Town had already submitted another version of the data to DCA for its review, several months ago.

Aside from the overall thrust of what direction the body politic has in mind, I am especially concerned at this time with the matters dealing with density on our island, so my overall review has been limited..

As you are probably well aware, prior to this gambit by the Key Club, the density projections assured those who read the existing Comprehensive Plan  --  that only two single-family homes could be built on Islandside.  As for Harbourside, it was projected that 22 additional dwelling units could be built.

These estimates contributed to the other calculations in the Comprehensive Plan that showed the time for evacuation of our island in the event of catastrophe.  This projected time, which used as a given that a total of 276 new units island-wide, was barely within the allowable limits.

In contrast to this number it has been publicized that the Key Club, by its own estimates, projected that it could build an additional eighteen hundred new units on its properties.

Of course this was not permitted, since our zoning restricted the available units within the PD and GPD, solely to the “development sites.”  However, the Town, in its wisdom, has excised these words  --  thus allowing additional density.  For reference, please see: Chapter 158, Section 158.009, Description of district and district policies, subsection (L).

As to my recent comments, the high-lit with strike-outs Table 3, Page 19 of the Future Land Use Element tries to massage some of the numbers which contribute to “VACANT LAND AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE DWELLING UNITS.” In RM-3 it shows 26.05 acres with 3 du/ac to now have 43 instead of the original 78.  (But 26 times 3 is still 78.)  In RM-4 it shows 26.98 acres with 4 du/ac to now have 86 units.  (But 27 times 4 is 108.)  In RH-6, 10.35 times 6 is 62, not 31 as shown.  But these are minor variances.

In MUC-1, formerly PD, it shows 30 possible new units  --  but this is far from accurate.  I have tried unsuccessfully to ascertain exactly how many units are contained within the limits of the Harbourside development, but there are still 269 acres of non-housing land available there for future Key Club proposals.  So with the above revised  Chapter 158, Section 158.009, Description of district and district policies, subsection (L). the sky seems to be the limit as to what can be built.

The other glaring and obvious discrepancy lies in MUC-2, formerly the GPD.  Here the original projection for two (2) single-family units now shows 158 new units.  This entirely ignores the additional 196 tourism (plus the 158) units that have already been approved  for the Key Club expansion development.

So it results that the total effect of the change to the above language in our zoning has opened the door to a massive increase in density on our island.  This attempts to bypass our Town Charter, which is very explicit.  Article II, Town Commission, amended.  Comprehensive Plan for town, Section 22 (b).  The present density limitations provided in the existing comprehensive plan as adopted March 12, 1984 shall not be increased without the referendum approval of the electors of Longboat Key.

In any event, and without any serious attempt on my part to quantify the matter, the massive proposed increase in our island’s population will blow our Evacuation Time completely out of the water.  Absent a new bridge or tunnel directly to the mainland, we will be hazardously impacted. Witness the current traffic on our island, which is so tenuously connected to the mainland through two already impacted islands and two drawbridges, prone to malfunction.  And, watch the existing traffic piling up!

I brought this to our Board in the attached communication to Ms. Simpson and made a part of the background data submitted to the P+Z Board at its last meeting..

I also brought this matter up to Ms. Simpson with the request that the P+Z Board discuss the matter before the Commission takes action  --  and her response was :

The proposed amendments will be brought to the Board for full adoption once they have been transmitted to DCA and the send back their formal comments. At that time Board discussion is appropriate.

For full adoption?  What about discussion?

Why?  Is not the P+Z Board the curator and motivator in the matters dealing with the Comprehensive Plan?  Mr. Person, this is frustrating.  Unless someone explains to me wherein my conclusions are wrong, I would be grateful for a response. It is inconceivable that our Town would proceed along this course while it is so obvious to me, a non-attorney, that these matters are in direct conflict with our existing development controls.

In my humble opinion it is ostrich-like to assume that nobody but me is aware of these details. Maybe I will not live long enough for this matter to be finally adjudicated, but I do not plan to just ignore it.

With kindest personal regards,

Bradford Saivetz