Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sarasota commissioners unanimously reject Take 5 rezoning settlement after residents press safety and compatibility concerns
Summary
After hours of public comment from Willow Bend residents who said an oil‑change facility would be incompatible and pose traffic and environmental risks, the Sarasota County Commission voted unanimously to deny a mediated settlement that would have allowed the Take 5 rezoning to proceed under a revised plan.
The Sarasota County Commission on April 8 unanimously denied a mediated settlement that would have allowed a Take 5 oil‑change facility to rezone a parcel at U.S. 41 and Habitat Boulevard in Osprey. The board’s vote followed repeated public opposition and legal arguments that the settlement did not materially address the commission’s prior reasons for denying the rezoning.
Hundreds of residents have opposed the project at multiple hearings, telling the commission that the proposed use is incompatible with the neighborhood’s residential and professional office pattern and would worsen traffic and environmental risks near Oscar Scherer State Park. Attorney Jane Graham, representing Willow Bend residents, told the board the settlement’s changes were superficial and “as helpful as putting a band aid on a broken leg,” urging commissioners to deny the mediated agreement.
Community speakers described concerns about oil and chemical runoff, proximity to sensitive watersheds and pedestrian safety at an uncontrolled intersection. Christy Tigner, a licensed civil engineer testifying earlier in the morning on separate items, described flood‑map issues affecting nearby neighborhoods; Willow Bend residents tied those concerns to the proposed site’s environmental sensitivity.
County staff and the applicant used the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act (FLUJA) mediation process to negotiate a modified development concept plan. Opponents and their counsel argued the settlement did not resolve the commission’s recorded reasons for denial, which included incompatibility with existing land use patterns, likely adverse impacts and traffic safety.
By denying the mediated settlement, the board left the applicant with the option to continue FLUJA proceedings before a special magistrate or to seek relief in circuit court. County attorneys said the denial does not automatically preclude other applicants or uses on the parcel; any different use inconsistent with the site's binding development concept plan would still require rezoning.
What happens next: the applicant can return to mediation, pursue a challenge under FLUJA, or pursue a circuit‑court action to contest the denial. The commission recorded no subsequent motions on alternative site uses during the meeting.
