Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fludra Take5 Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sarasota commissioners reject special magistrate recommendation on Take 5 rezoning, keep denial intact
Summary
After weeks of public opposition from Willow Bend and Osprey residents, the Board rejected a special magistrate's nonbinding recommendation to overturn its prior denial of a rezoning for a proposed Take 5 oil‑change site, preserving the previous denial and prompting owners to consider alternate uses.
The Sarasota County Commission voted Aug. 26 to reject a special magistrate's recommendation and leave in place the Board's prior denial of a rezoning request related to a proposed Take 5 oil‑change facility in Osprey.
The dispute reached the Board through a FLUDRA (Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act) proceeding after the commission denied the rezoning in 2024. Attorney Stephen Rees, representing Cougar Investment and 8 Square LLC, noted the special magistrate concluded that "the rezoning should have been granted" and that there was "competent substantial evidence" supporting approval.
Residents and neighborhood representatives urged the Board to maintain its denial. Multiple speakers during Open to the Public — including members of the Willow Bend Homeowners Association and longtime Osprey residents — raised environmental concerns, traffic and stormwater impacts, proximity to Oscar Scherer State Park and alleged fire risks at fast‑change facilities. Jane Graham, representing Willow Bend, told the Board the magistrate's recommendation "dismisses concerns about traffic" that their traffic engineer had raised and failed to account for the property's history as a stormwater parcel.
County Attorney Josh Moyer summarized legal options: the Board may accept, modify, or reject the magistrate's nonbinding recommendation. Rejecting it would preserve the denial but could risk further litigation. On motion, the Board adopted a resolution rejecting the special magistrate's recommendation and maintaining its denial of the rezoning petition; the vote was unanimous.
What this means: With the Board's rejection of the magistrate's recommendation the rezoning remains denied. County counsel noted the applicant could pursue other legal remedies, including further filings, and commissioners invited the property owner to consider other allowable uses outlined in the county code and in the magistrate's exhibit list of permissible uses.
Next steps: The Board's adopted resolution includes the statutorily required exhibit listing alternative allowable uses for the parcel; staff advised that any new application would follow the standard comprehensive plan amendment/rezone and public hearing process.
Representative quote: "The special magistrate found the rezoning should have been granted," Stephen Rees said, "but the Board retains its discretion under the statute."
