Provisional date set for Siesta Promenade hearing

A provisional date for the next round of court proceedings in the Siesta Promenade suit has been set.

Oral arguments in the 2nd District Court of Appeal is scheduled for 11 a.m. June 23 in the Tampa Branch Headquarters. The date would be delayed if social distancing guidelines are still in effect, preventing a conventional courtroom hearing.

In December, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Andrea McHugh denied a suit that attempted to block the mixed-use project. Plans for Siesta Promenade include 414 residential units, 130 hotel suites, retail space and office space.

Shortly after county commissioners approved the project in 2018, Pine Shores resident Sura Kochman sued the county over what her lawsuit called “gross structural and procedural errors” in the approval process.

However, McHugh deemed all claims put forth by Kochman and her attorney, Ralf Brookes, unfounded or not subject to review. 

Now, after Kochman filed another challenge, the District Court of Appeal agreed to take up the case. 

In a brief filed in the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Brookes contends that the circuit court failed to apply the correct law and failed to afford “as of right” first tier certiorari review "which constitutes material, reversible error."

In circuit court, Brookes contended that the proper process for approval was not followed by commissioners in December 2018. Brookes argued a critical area plan was required but not performed. Had a CAP been required, Brookes said the traffic analysis for the Promenade would have been wider in scope.

However, attorneys for the defendants, Benderson Development and Sarasota County, argued that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over the approval of the CAP boundaries and cited several previous cases.

Benderson's attorney, Robert Lincoln, said that commission’s decision to approve the mixed-use development was a legislative decision and that a petition for writ of certiorari, what Kochman filed for, cannot contest a legislative action.

In his district court brief, Brookes states that the CAP decision is not a legislative action, but a quasi-judicial matter. He will argue that case in June before a panel of judges consisting of Judge Robert J. Morris, Jr., Judge Daniel H. Sleet and Judge Matthew C. Lucas.