Sarasota commissioners direct staff to study voluntary freeboard after storms; motion passes unanimously

Sarasota County commissioners voted unanimously to direct staff to prepare a 60‑day report evaluating a policy that would allow property owners to build voluntarily to BFE (base flood elevation) plus an additional 3 feet of freeboard on top of the 1 foot already required by the Florida Building Code — effectively BFE plus 4 feet — and to recommend implementing UDC (Unified Development Code) language so that that voluntary freeboard would not be counted against height or daylight‑plane limits.

The motion, made by Commissioner Kutzinger and seconded by Commissioner Smith, passed after staff presented research showing recent FEMA map changes had added and removed thousands of affected parcels and after commissioners debated where such a policy should apply. Matt Osterhout, director of the county’s Plan Development Services Department, told the board the item was a policy workshop and not a public hearing; he described options used by comparable jurisdictions (Bradenton Beach, Longboat Key and parts of the City of Sarasota) that have considered BFE plus 2–4 feet as resiliency measures.

The board’s vote followed a broad discussion about geography, costs and unintended consequences. Commissioner Mast and others asked staff to analyze whether the voluntary freeboard should be limited to barrier islands or to the county’s most flood‑prone zones; Commissioner Smith urged that the policy consider inland areas that also recently flooded. Several commissioners expressed concern about insurance availability and about how impact fees should be handled when older properties rebuild; staff committed to include insurance‑market feedback and an impact‑fees analysis in the report.

“Staff will return with recommended draft language so voluntary freeboard is not counted against height or daylight‑plane calculations,” Osterhout said in his recap. The staff assignment explicitly included: (a) analysis of applicability across barrier islands and other flood‑risk areas affected by recent storms, (b) evaluation of impact‑fee and drainage implications, (c) outreach to insurance stakeholders for market implications, and (d) proposed UDC adjustments to daylight‑plane and height definitions.

If the board adopts the staff recommendation after the follow‑up review, the change would proceed as a UDC text amendment; commissioners stressed the county would retain existing building‑code requirements and that any voluntary build‑up would still need to meet modern construction and zoning standards. The report is expected to be returned to the board in roughly 60 days for further policy consideration.