Thousands more homes in East Manatee? County weighs in on developer’s plan

County leaders rejected a developer’s appeal to build thousands of new homes in East Manatee, well beyond the county’s development boundary line.

The Future Area Development Boundary is intended to prevent urban sprawl from straying beyond where county infrastructure can support high-intensity development, as well as protect some of Manatee County’s remaining rural and natural areas.

The request to build came from companies tied to developer Pat Neal of Neal Communities and landowner John Hales. A development plan described a community called Pomelo Bluff with around 3,600 homes on 1,204 acres of farm land at the northeast edge of Lake Manatee.

The property is within the Lake Manatee Reservoir Watershed Protection Overlay, an area with special rules for development meant to protect the county’s main source of drinking water. It also abuts Edward W. Chance Reserve, a state nature preserve established to protect local water quality.

The developers’ proposal to build in the rural area hinged on an unusual interpretation of local rules.

After county staff rejected that interpretation earlier this year, developers appealed to the Board of County Commissioners to overrule the decision at a recent Land Use Meeting.

Manatee development boundary battle continues

In 2021, Manatee County commissioners made a controversial change to how the FDAB works.

While the boundary used to act as a hard stop for high-intensity residential development, the rule change allowed developers to start building large new communities east of the FDAB. Like links added to a chain, new developments can proceed if they connect to an existing development, allowing suburbs to gradually spread into rural East Manatee County.

As part of broader efforts to rein in growth, the Manatee County Commission is trying to roll back the FDAB change. But the effort has come to a standstill as the county faces roadblocks from a new state law — SB 180 — and Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration.

In the meantime, developers can still make their pitch to build east of the county’s FDAB.

Builder asks for unusual interpretation of development boundary

However, the pitch to build on land near Lake Manatee had an unusual component that made it easier for commissioners to deny.

The proposed site of the community is not connected to any existing development. Instead, developers claimed that Lake Manatee itself is a connecting feature that links the land to already developed areas.

They pointed to the county’s Land Use Code, which defines a property as “contiguous,” or connected, if it is “separated by no more than a street, railroad, canal, stream or similar feature.”

“The property is directly connected by natural, public features to Lake Manatee and its tributaries and is located adjacent to existing parcels currently authorized and planned for suburban development known, generally, as Palm Grove, Taylor Ranch and East River Ranch,” reads a March letter appealing the county’s rejection of the development plans.

In their appeal, developers asked commissioners to agree with their interpretation of the FDAB rule so that they could apply to build the 3,600 homes, or another residential project, at a future date. They also argued that the project would have a “low-impact” design, and thus not meet the definition of urban sprawl.

Speaking on behalf of the landowners, land use attorney Ed Vogler described the property as a “unicorn” that deserves special consideration.

“It’s not going to happen again, because we’re the only property owner that opened the door to seek this approval prior to the time the board ... announced intention to consider revisions to (the FDAB policy),” Vogler said. “...If we are a unicorn, we’re the only group that you’ll have to deal with on this subject matter, based upon the actions that you’ve taken.”

Vogler also stressed that building plans for the site were not final, as any development would still have to go through the county’s legal process and public hearings.

“We would argue that this is good for Manatee County and consistent with the policy,” Vogler told the board.

Manatee commissioners, residents oppose plans

In a presentation, county staff said the site does not meet any of the requirements needed to build east of the FDAB, noting that it’s located about 2.7 miles east of the FDAB and 1.5 miles from the closest development, East River Ranch.

Elizabeth Shulman, a senior planner for the county, said the policy’s “contiguous” language was meant to allow for narrow separations between close by developments — not a large lake.

“Lake Manatee is not only not an eligible separating feature, but it is also separated by thousands of acres of land, in addition to Lake Manatee,” Shulman said.

Commissioners were also not swayed by the developers’ arguments.

“Wouldn’t you say that a stream is quite different than Lake Manatee, one of the largest bodies of water in Manatee County?” Commissioner Amanda Ballard asked. “A stream is defined as a small, narrow river. Obviously, Lake Manatee is an order of magnitude different than a small, narrow river, would you agree?”

Commissioner George Kruse, who originally voted to allow development past the FDAB but has since become a critic of the policy, said it has “lead to very questionable developments,” and argued that the Pomelo Bluff proposal goes against the intent of the 2021 rule change.

“You’re not sharing infrastructure, you’re not sharing utility systems, you’re not sharing trail systems, you’re not sharing roadways. By your definition, I could make a legitimate argument that Emmerson Point is contiguous with Robinson Preserve ... and therefore it’s effectively one preserve ... but they’re not.”

Kruse said he is not opposed to “self-contained” communities east of the FDAB — offering Gamble Creek Village, a planned development of over 7,000 homes 2 miles east of the FDAB, as an example.

“There’s, in theory, nothing preventing you from coming back here anyway,” Kruse said.

“This is a legal wangle, and you do present your side very convincingly and eloquently and professionally...” Commissioner Carol Ann Felts said. “But it is what it is, and it is not, in my humble policy-making and voting opinion, what we’re trying to make it. We’re close but no banana on this, guys, so good luck next time.”

Residents who gave public comments, including several who live near the site of the possible development, also unanimously opposed the plans.

“The FDAB exists for a reason, to prevent depletion of our land, wildlife and aesthetics, just to name a few,” said Jaimie VanHoose, a nearby property owner. “This is a line drawn that cannot be loosely interpreted. The implications of doing so are dire.”

Commissioners voted to reject the appeal in a 6-0 vote, with Commissioner Mike Rahn absent.

What happens next?

Future plans to develop the property as proposed are unlikely to be approved under current county FDAB policy, barring a legal challenge that favors Neal and the landowners.

Neal, and fellow local developer Carlos Beruff are part of a legal challenge to the county’s recent increase in impact fees that builders pay to support new infrastructure demands created by their developments.