Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves setback variance for pathology lab generator with landscaping and lower wall as condition
Summary
The Sarasota Board of Adjustment approved variance 26‑VAN‑02 to permit a 250‑kW diesel generator and 2,000‑gallon fuel tank at 2001 Weber Street, subject to petitioner proffers including lowering a northern wall segment and landscaping along the wall; the motion passed 4–1.
The Board of Adjustment voted to approve variance petition 26‑VAN‑02 to allow placement of a diesel generator and above‑ground fuel tank within the front‑yard setback at 2001 Weber Street, the board announced after discussion and a roll‑call vote.
The petitioner, represented by Dan Bailey of Williams Parker Law Firm, said the pathology laboratory (doing round‑the‑clock specimen work for hospitals) needs a new 250‑kilowatt diesel generator and a 2,000‑gallon diesel tank immediately adjacent to an existing FPL transformer so automatic transfer equipment can function during multi‑day outages. Bailey told the board the lab performs continuous, time‑sensitive services and cited multiple multi‑day outages during recent hurricanes as evidence of need. He said alternate locations were considered but would require relocating existing infrastructure or extensive wiring, and that the proposed location minimizes operational disruption.
Board members questioned the petitioner and contractor about the proposal’s physical footprint, safety and noise. Staff and the contractor (Eric Beasley, Florida Power Solutions) said the generator is about 78 inches high, the tank about 51 inches high, and that above‑ground double‑walled tanks with monitoring systems are standard; weekly test runs were described as routine (about 20 minutes). Acoustic output was estimated in the high‑60s to low‑70s decibels at full load, and the petitioner offered equipment‑grade mufflers, vibration isolators and an attenuated enclosure comparable to hospital installations.
To reduce visual and acoustic impacts, the petitioner proffered to lower the northern segment of the new screening wall (the board discussed dropping part of the wall to roughly 6 feet where feasible) and to install landscaping along the entire length of the existing and new wall. The board incorporated those proffers into the approval motion and clarified that the height condition should be the "minimum necessary" to conceal the equipment.
The clerk read a roll call for the final motion. The motion to approve variance 26‑VAN‑02 including the proffers passed by a 4–1 vote. The board did not address any appeals or further required permits for building or environmental compliance; those remain subject to applicable city processes.
The board’s decision was procedural (a variance of setback requirements) and does not constitute site‑plan approval or permits for construction; the petitioner must still secure any building permits and comply with other regulations. The public hearing record shows no written objections filed and no members of the public asked to speak against the petition during the hearing.
