Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bayshore Drive Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners pull Bayshore vacation from agenda after questions about 1998 Hardy-family donation
Summary
Following public and commissioner concern about ownership and historical deed language, the Board voted 3–2 to remove item 30 — a staff recommendation that would have included surplusing lands — and directed staff to get more information from the Hardy family and county attorneys before taking further action.
The Sarasota Board of County Commissioners voted 3–2 on June 3 to remove agenda item 30, a proposal related to vacating Bayshore Drive and a staff recommendation that had included surplusing certain county-owned parcels. The motion, made by Commissioner Ron Kutzinger and seconded by Commissioner Smith, pauses staff action while county attorneys and staff gather additional information requested by the board and the public.
Kutzinger told the board he had recused himself from the vote because he owns a parcel on Bayshore but said he had submitted a letter excluding his property from any surplus or sale. The move followed public discussion and press coverage alleging the county might surplus land that some donors intended to preserve. Commissioner Kutzinger said the item’s intent was to restore riparian access rights for 54 waterfront parcels on Bayshore and that surplusing would not be necessary to accomplish that goal.
Commissioner Knight, whose family has long ties to the Lemon Bay/Lemon Bay Park area, pressed staff on the history and the deed language the Hardy family used when donating nearby conservation lands. Commissioners expressed concern that the board should honor the donor’s intent and hear from the Hardy family before any action that might undermine that intent. Several commissioners urged a more thorough review and public outreach before moving forward.
After discussion, the board voted to remove the surplusing component from the item and to pull item 30 from the day’s agenda so staff can return with more detailed legal and historical analysis. Chair announced the motion passed 3–2. Commissioners said they expect follow-up briefings and meetings with the Hardy family and county attorneys to clarify whether the county can honor riparian rights restorations without any surplus sale or rezoning that might conflict with donor restrictions.
Commissioners also emphasized that the board intends to preserve public trust in land donations and to ensure that the county’s actions respect donor intent and legal constraints. The board assigned staff and the county attorney to report back with options for restoring water access rights for the affected owners while keeping donated conservation lands intact, and to lay out any legal or procedural steps needed before rescinding or advancing agenda item 30.
