Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dispute over state statute and city zoning stalls decision on alleged ADU — magistrate orders city review
Summary
A contested hearing in Sarasota raised whether state law (Florida Statute 419.001) permits community residential homes of up to six residents to be treated as single‑family uses; the magistrate continued the ADU/group‑living case to allow city staff and the city attorney to review a neighbor affidavit and the statutory chart.
One of the more legally fraught items at the April 23 code‑compliance calendar involved a dispute over whether a rear structure constitutes a permitted, grandfathered accessory dwelling unit or an unpermitted additional dwelling on a single‑family lot.
Counsel for the property owners argued that Florida Statute 419.001(2) treats community residential homes of six or fewer residents as single‑family units for the purpose of local land‑use rules, and said respondents fall within that category. The respondent’s counsel submitted an affidavit from a neighbor, Peter Curran, who attested that a kitchen and living unit existed on the property as far back as the 1970s, arguing that the unit should be grandfathered as pre‑1974 construction.
City counsel (Mr. Spence) urged caution, noting the city code’s definitions and the local table of permitted uses that the city interprets to limit group‑living uses; the city also cited distance‑based limitations and argued that the available evidence may not satisfy the city’s standard for grandfathering. The magistrate noted that rules of evidence are relaxed in these proceedings but that the city needs adequate time to review the affidavit and the permitted‑uses table. He left his prior default order in place (entered after a respondent no‑show earlier in the process) but continued the matter to June 11, 2026, at 11:00 and directed the city to consult the city attorney and report back.
The dispute, which pits an asserted state statute accommodation against the city’s zoning chart and local permitting practice, remains unresolved pending city staff review. The magistrate emphasized procedural fairness — allowing the city time to contact the affidavit’s author and permitting a fuller record rather than deciding the preemption question on affidavit alone.
Next steps: the city will review the affidavit and the statutory and local‑code interaction and return to the magistrate on June 11; the magistrate warned that the prior default order will stand until the record demonstrates sufficient grounds to overturn it.
