1. Can unintended consequences of these amendments affect all Siesta Key? Could they result in increased intensity, traffic and safety concerns for residents and visitors?
2. The notice states, “This amendment would not allow an increase in density,” but there may be a larger issue: Would the amendment extend grandfathered non-compliance with density requirements for perpetuity, when that may not have been the original intent?
3. Would current standards require increases in size and land use which could increase intensity and potentially affect hurricane evacuation and emergency vehicle access?
4. Could this begin an assault on changing the Comprehensive Plan on Siesta Key?
5. All condominiums on SK of 3 stories or more built in 1999 or before require a Milestone Inspection and engineering report. Why wouldn’t the County want to see that report and include it in any consideration of a request to rebuild? If the County removes the burden of engineering criteria and just uses any condo built before 2000 code as the criteria, does the amendment stray from its original intent to address structural issues beyond repair and simply offer future buyers/developers a means of circumventing the density requirements of underlying zoning? Why should such criteria be less than the original requirements had a hurricane caused the damage? Who will determine whether there is a true emergency need or just disrepair and lack of maintenance?
6. Considering the recent ruling by Judge Van Wyck that overbuilding is a valid concern on Siesta Key, should the County consider the long-range consequences of changing the Comprehensive Plan before acting?
7. The County says it cannot regulate transient use, unit mix /type, or who initiates, existing owners or an unrelated third-party developer. Couldn’t unintended consequences be exploited by the proposed amendment? Could future third-party buyer/developers seeking ownership control of the high-rise/high-density existing condos (especially with beach access) be motivated by the opportunity to circumvent the underlying zoning restrictions of density and height to rebuild more transient models (e.g., condo-hotels, daily rental and/or time-shares)? Could future economic conditions and the expense and consequences of the Milestone Inspections and SIRS may make such conversions more economically feasible?