The biggest everyday issue for residents may be the Planning Commission’s vote to loosen hotel rules near five I-75 interchanges in Sarasota County. In a 5-2 vote, the board recommended changing the county code so transient accommodations in Commercial Highway Interchange areas would no longer be capped by residential-style density formulas. Instead, hotel projects would be judged by standards like height, setbacks, open space, and building coverage. Supporters, including Adam Maio and F. John LaCivita, said that could make it easier to build hotels on small interchange parcels and bring more tax and bed-tax revenue. Jon Thaxton and Mitzie Fiedler opposed it, saying they did not see a strong reason to give up density limits.
The commission was unanimous on a very different issue: a proposed 184-foot telecommunications tower in Old Myakka. By a 7-0 vote, members recommended denial of special exception petition 1927 for the Lena Lane site. The applicant said the tower would improve wireless coverage and help with 911 access. But many nearby residents said the tower did not fit the rural character of the area and would be too visible. Commissioners agreed the proposal was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
In Englewood, the commission split its decision on the Penny Holdings request tied to a dermatology office on South Indiana Avenue. Members recommended approval of two plan amendments, 6-1, including one staff described as fixing an old mapping error. They then recommended rezoning part of the site, 5-2, to allow parking, stormwater work, and possible office support expansion. Neighbors objected, saying it would push office use into a residential area.
Staff said the Penny Holdings item is scheduled to go to the County Commission on August 25 and could possibly be heard in North County.
Key takeaways: - The Sarasota County Planning Commission recommended approval of a Unified Development Code amendment on transient accommodations in Commercial Highway Interchange areas by a 5-2 vote. Roll call showed Adam Maio, Justin Taylor, F. John LaCivita, Mariah Miller, and Emily Legler voting yes, and Mitzie Fiedler and Jon Thaxton voting no. (0:30:41)
The commission recommended denial of special exception petition 1927 for the Lena Lane telecommunications tower in Old Myakka by a 7-0 vote. (2:22:57)
On the Penny Holdings application in Englewood, the commission recommended approval of the small area comprehensive plan amendment and critical area plan amendment by a 6-1 vote, then recommended approval of the rezoning petition by a 5-2 vote. Staff said the item was scheduled to go to the County Commission on August 25 and could possibly be heard in North County. (4:07:24) (4:09:03)
Open to the public
A speaker identified himself as Jim Ulatowski and said zoning and special exceptions should be considered carefully because changes can permanently affect rural areas, trees, wildlife, waterways, traffic, and infrastructure. He urged the commission to keep existing zoning protections in mind when considering changes. (0:03:40)
UDC amendment 2026-1: transient accommodations in CHI
Staff and applicant representatives presented a privately initiated UDC amendment to modify requirements for transient accommodations in the Commercial Highway Interchange district and to update the definition of transient accommodations in article 17 of the UDC. Staff member James Ehrman said the amendment would clarify that transient accommodations in CHI are treated as a non-residential use and are not subject to residential density standards. He said the current code uses density calculations of 18 units per acre for hotels with over 25% of units containing a kitchen and 36 units per acre for hotels with under 25% of units containing a kitchen. He said the amendment would instead rely on standards such as setbacks, height, building coverage, open space, and the less-than-30-days limit in the UDC definition. (0:06:23) (0:12:46)
Applicant representative Joe Medrin said the CHI future land use designation exists at five I-75 interchanges: Fruitville Road, Bee Ridge Road, Clark Road, Jacaranda Boulevard, and River Road. He said the amendment would make CHI treatment consistent with a 2024 amendment for planned commerce development districts and would allow use of smaller CHI parcels for hotel development. He said some CHI parcels are less than an acre and that the current density calculations can limit hotel development on those sites. (0:07:40)
During commissioner questions, Mitzie Fiedler asked about the difference between CHI and PCD zoning and why the standards would change from 18 and 36 units per acre to no density standard. Ehrman said PCD is a master-planned commerce development, while CHI is more commonly parcel by parcel. Medrin said the change was intended only for CHI properties along I-75 and said current parcel sizes can make hotel development difficult under the existing density calculations. (0:16:04)
Before the vote, Jon Thaxton said the purpose of the amendment was to allow more hotel units above the current 36-unit standard and said he did not support extending the earlier PCD change to CHI. He said he did not think there was a compelling reason to change the code. Mitzie Fiedler said she was concerned about giving up local control over density standards. F. John LaCivita said he believed there was a shortage of transient accommodations along the interstate corridor and that without the change, hotel development would remain cost-prohibitive. Adam Maio said the county was missing opportunities to improve property values and increase tax income and bed tax revenue. (0:25:41)
Adam Maio moved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners, and F. John LaCivita seconded. After an initial voice vote count was corrected to a roll call, the motion passed 5-2. Roll call votes were: Adam Maio, yes; Mitzie Fiedler, no; Justin Taylor, yes; F. John LaCivita, yes; Mariah Miller, yes; Jon Thaxton, no; and Chair Emily Legler, yes. Commissioners Bruce Franklin and Randy Boyd were absent from the meeting. (0:29:45) (0:30:41)
Special exception petition 1927: Lena Lane Tower
Staff planner Evan Claussens presented special exception petition 1927 for a telecommunications tower over 35 feet in height on a 10-acre property west of Lena Lane, north of Rawls Road, and south of Wilson Road in the Myakka community. He said the request was for a tower in the Open Use Rural district. He also said additional correspondence had been received after publication, and correspondence received after the June 17 cutoff would be provided to the board packet but not entered into the record for that night. (0:31:16)
Applicant attorney Mary Solick, representing Vertex Development, presented the proposal for a 180-foot tower with a four-foot lightning rod, for a total height shown as 184 feet. She said Verizon Wireless was the anchor tenant and that T-Mobile and AT&T also wanted to locate on the tower. She said the compound plan showed five lease areas because county code requires a tower of that height to be capable of supporting five users, although she said there are only three licensed carriers in the marketplace. She said the 75-foot fall zone radius would remain within the parent tract and that the project would meet zoning district setbacks and landscaping requirements. She also said the code’s residential separation requirements tied to certain zoning categories did not apply here beyond the requirement that no tower be within 100 feet of a structure. (0:33:32) (0:38:52)
Solick presented photo simulations and coverage maps for Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T. She said the maps showed service improvements if the tower were built. She also cited a sheriff’s office statistic that 85.26% of all 911 calls in 2025 came in on a wireless handset. (0:40:20) (0:44:18)
Vertex principal Alan Ruiz addressed a written public comment from Becky Ayesh and disputed her account of a phone conversation, including statements about how he identified himself and whether he made threats about litigation. He said his intent had been to contact a community leader after a pre-application meeting and ask how the proposal could be made more acceptable to the community. (0:45:43)
Alexa Ruiz read a letter from property owner Michael Decker. In the letter, Decker said he did not have reliable phone service at the property, had tried multiple carriers, fiber optic internet, network extenders, and signal boosters, and still could not reliably make calls. He said he lived alone, was diabetic, operated a farm with heavy equipment, and viewed the issue as a safety concern. (0:48:52)
Real estate appraiser Richard Dragers said he conducted a matched-pair study using sales in Myakka Valley Ranches near an existing tower and concluded that homes with a view of that tower sold for no less per square foot than similar homes without a tower view. He said he did not find a measurable impact on value in that study. (0:52:10)
Claussens’ staff report said the petition could be found consistent with comprehensive plan policies related to buffering, public safety and utility access, and compliance with chapter 118, but could also be found inconsistent with a policy relating to compatibility regarding height limits in the surrounding area. Staff recommended one stipulation, a binding development concept plan. (0:54:26)
Public speakers opposed the tower. Claudia Marvin said she lived directly behind the proposed site and argued the tower would be a visual intrusion on a canopy road and would not be compatible with the rural residential character of Old Myakka. Steve Marvin said he also lived behind the site and raised concerns about the tower’s proximity to his driveway and access for emergency vehicles if part of the structure fell. Maurice Hartsook said he lived nearby and already had cell service. Michael Butler said he opposed the tower because of radiation and health concerns and said the area was meant for rural uses. Martha Mahan said she lived across the road, had lived there since 1972, and asked that the application be denied because of visual impacts and effects on the neighborhood. (0:58:43) (0:59:09) (1:01:07) (1:07:42) (1:08:48)
Additional speakers also opposed the application. Raymond Allen, June Allen, Bobbie Knight, Anthony Carlton, Terry Tamburino, Ray Allen, Clayton Tamburino, Becky Ayesh, Lindsay Lee, Neeraj Tuli, Will Ralston, Brad Grand Bouche, Jane Grand Bouche, Susan Shetley, Heidi Meinekeim, and Dylan Miller said they had cell service in the area, described Old Myakka as a rural and historic community, and objected to the tower’s height, visibility, and location. Some speakers also raised concerns about wildlife, aircraft, property values, and neighborhood character. Susan Shetley, who said she had been an assistant county attorney for about 10 years beginning around 1996, read from the federal Telecommunications Act and said she did not believe Sarasota County would violate federal law by denying the request. (1:14:00) (1:20:01) (1:30:00) (1:35:48) (1:40:36) (1:48:44) (2:03:38) (2:04:01) (2:07:29)
In rebuttal, Solick said the application included an FAA determination of no hazard and said the FAA had determined the tower would not need a light. Alan Ruiz said county staff had directed where access could go without affecting canopy trees and said the tower would be built to Florida wind standards, with a 75-foot fall zone based on the tower’s design. Solick also listed other uses allowed or allowed by special exception in the Open Use Rural district and said the tower met the county’s performance criteria. (2:12:11)
Jon Thaxton moved to recommend denial with findings that the proposed use would not be consistent with the comprehensive plan, would not be compatible with existing land use patterns or designated future uses, would be detrimental to the neighborhood and adjacent uses, and would not be adequately buffered. Justin Taylor seconded. In discussion, Jon Thaxton said the public testimony provided substantial and competent evidence and said he gave no weight to testimony about health or environmental concerns from emissions or radiation. Justin Taylor said special exceptions require special circumstances and said those had not been met. Adam Maio said he regularly drives through the area and talks on the phone there and said he hoped applicants would better consider what the community needs before bringing another tower proposal in Old Myakka. F. John LaCivita said, “Just stop coming to this board with these cell towers in old Myakka.” The motion to recommend denial passed 7-0. (2:17:24) (2:18:33) (2:21:48) (2:22:57)
Penny Holdings 1, LLC: comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning
Staff planner Kirk Crane presented a three-part application for property at 699 South Indiana Avenue in Englewood. He said the requests were: a small area comprehensive plan amendment to change 1.54 acres from moderate density residential to office multifamily residential; a critical area plan amendment to change 1.54 acres from major government use to office multifamily residential; and a rezoning of approximately 0.86 acres from RSF3 to OPI. He said the applicant intended to provide stormwater and parking for a possible addition to an existing medical office building. (2:23:23)
Applicant representatives Catherine Andrews and Colin Pember of Icard Merrill presented the request. They said the critical area plan amendment would correct a mapping error that identified the property as a fire station site even though the fire station is actually one block north. They said the comprehensive plan amendment would bring the future land use into conformance with the corridor plan and that the rezoning would create uniform zoning across the parcel and allow a paved parking lot, stormwater management, landscaping, and support for future office expansion. They said the eastern portion of the property would be subject to a binding development concept plan. (2:27:49) (2:30:30) (2:34:03)
Dr. Michelle Penny said she is a board-certified dermatologist and Mohs surgeon and owner of Bliss Dermatology and Wellness and Penny Holdings. She said the practice serves thousands of patients each year, many of them seniors, and that her office’s parking needs differ from those of a typical office because patients can remain in the office for several hours and may be accompanied by family members or caretakers. She said the request was intended to address parking needs and allow for future administrative support expansion. (2:36:37)
Crane said staff had no objection to the comprehensive plan amendment or the critical area plan amendment and described the fire station designation as a mapping error dating back to the State Road 776 corridor plan process in 2001-2003. He said the rezoning request would apply only to the eastern 0.86-acre portion of the property and that the applicant was offering a binding development concept plan for that portion. He also said a similar three-part application had come before the Planning Commission about three years earlier and had been recommended for approval by a 7-0 vote, but the County Commission later failed to approve the future land use amendment, which prevented approval of the related items. (2:39:20) (2:44:14)
Crane said staff found the request consistent with comprehensive plan policies encouraging office uses on a case-by-case basis and supporting retention and expansion of businesses. He also said the office multifamily residential designation could create potential Live Local considerations and that the proposal could be found inconsistent because of possible incompatibilities with adjoining residential areas. Staff recommended two stipulations on the rezoning: a binding development concept plan and improvements to North Street from Indiana Avenue to the driveway entrance. (2:46:09)
Public speakers opposed the request. Robert Muir, who said he lived at 710 Spruce Street across from the proposed development, said the neighborhood is residential and cited staff report language about possible incompatibility, intrusion, reduced separation from residential neighborhoods, and traffic effects on North Street. Carrie Crommey said she lived at 98 North Street and said the rezoning would be incompatible with the neighborhood and would remove a wooded buffer. Jennifer Sawtelle said she had lived there for 26 years and asked what the necessity was for the change. Lisa Moody said she lived on Spruce Street and argued the proposal would change the character of the historic neighborhood and create a dangerous ingress and egress point. Scott Moody said he lived at 725 Spruce Avenue and argued that all traffic would enter and exit on North Street and that the retention pond was only needed because of the proposed development. Lawrence Tarn said he owned property in the area and argued the request was unnecessary, that the business could seek a special exception for parking, and that the rezoning would disrupt the neighborhood. (2:52:41) (2:55:57) (3:03:40) (3:06:17) (3:11:27) (3:15:35)
During commissioner questions, Mitzie Fiedler asked why there was no access to State Road 776. The applicant said 776 is an FDOT-controlled road and that FDOT would not allow access there. Mitzie Fiedler also said she had watched the September 12, 2023 hearing and did not see a significant difference from the earlier denied proposal other than moving the garbage area and changes to landscaping. The applicant said the current plan had enhanced landscaping, a slightly different parking configuration, and a moved dumpster, but acknowledged the site is limited in size. (3:25:15) (3:26:08)
Adam Maio asked about Live Local if the request were denied. The applicant said that without the binding development concept plan, Live Local could be pursued, but also said the site is only about an acre and a half and that a binding development concept plan would effectively prevent a Live Local project unless the applicant came back to remove it. Adam Maio also asked about office hours, lighting, and trip counts. Dr. Penny said the office generally operates from 8 to about 5 or 5:30, four days a week and sometimes Fridays in season. She said parking lot lights would be needed mainly for staff safety when it gets dark earlier. On trip counts, she said she sees about 50 to 80 patients a day and did not think the county’s generic trip estimate reflected her actual use. Staff said the trip estimate came from transportation engineering guidelines rather than a site-specific traffic study. (3:29:03) (3:31:34)
Jon Thaxton asked staff about the existing parking requirement for the current office building. Crane said office parking is calculated at one space per 250 square feet and that a 6,460-square-foot building would require 26 spaces. He said he could only assume the building permit had shown adequate parking when issued, but he did not have the records at hand to verify that. The applicant then displayed a parking violation notice stating, “cease the commercial use of parking on the adjoining residential RSF 3 zone parcel,” and said the site has 21 spaces on the OPI portion while 26 are required for the existing building. (3:50:49) (3:55:25)
In discussion, Adam Maio said aerials and street views suggested the office needed additional parking and said the proposed improvements would benefit current operations even without future expansion. Mitzie Fiedler said she had watched the earlier County Commission hearing and believed the current plan was not significantly different from the earlier denied proposal. She said she thought the request was incompatible with the area and could not support it. Justin Taylor said applicants do not often come to the Planning Commission to say they need more parking and go through the process to remedy that. He said he had recently learned how long Mohs procedures can keep patients at a dermatologist’s office and said he did not think the proposed improvements would have impacts different from the current operation. F. John LaCivita said he did not like encroachment into neighborhoods but believed Englewood had a zoning problem along that corridor and said the applicant was trying to clean it up. Jon Thaxton said he viewed the three petitions separately and said he could support the comprehensive plan and critical area plan amendments because of the mapping issue while denying the rezoning because approving it would create an OPI intrusion into the residential zoning pattern east of the corridor. Mariah Miller said the parcel is one parcel ID and that the applicant does not have adequate parking now. (3:58:05) (3:59:07) (4:00:11) (4:02:13) (4:04:03)
Adam Maio moved approval of the small area comprehensive plan amendment and the critical area plan amendment together, and Mariah Miller seconded. The motion passed 6-1 by voice vote, (4:06:43)
Justin Taylor then moved approval of rezone petition 25-09 with favorable findings of fact and two stipulations, and F. John LaCivita seconded. The motion passed 5-2 by voice vote, (4:07:35)
Staff later said the item would go to the County Commission on August 25 and could possibly be heard in North County. During the hearing, one audience member was removed after interrupting. (4:09:03) (3:56:37)
Minutes and closing
The commission approved the minutes by a 7-0 vote. During commissioner reports, Jon Thaxton said, “Pray for rain.” Staff reminded commissioners about Florida Planning and Zoning Association and Florida American Planning Association opportunities and about filing the required disclosure form. The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. (4:09:17) (4:09:29) (4:12:23)
Watch the full meeting recording
Vote tallies in this recap were transcribed from the meeting recording and reviewed by a human editor; this body doesn’t publish a structured roll-call record, so they were not independently verified against an official vote log.
How this was reported: The Public Eye uses AI tools to transcribe and draft coverage of public meetings from official recordings. Every article is reviewed and verified by a human editor before publishing. Our coverage is limited to what happened on the public record — we don’t publish opinion or investigations. The Public Eye is independent and not affiliated with any government body, developer, or other news outlet. Spot an error? Email office@thepubliceye.ai and we’ll correct it promptly.