The following story has been retold a hundred times.  It is the story of county commissioners kowtowing to wealthy developers in spite of their constituents telling them they don’t want their rural land changed into cities.

Manatee County has done it again:  given free pass to developers, including the infamous Carlos Beruff, who has changed  a huge amount of rural land into urban areas.

Not too long ago Mosaic appeared before Manatee County  requesting permission to expand mining operations.  The citizen opposition  was tremendous, requiring several days of comments.  But……  the good commissioners approved it anyway.  And then whined about Piney Point.

Now we see they can’t say no to development in spite of much citizen opposition.

If one has attended many county commissioner meetings, you will have heard all the whiny reasons before.  Such as thinking two wrongs make a right: “we approved ‘such and such’s request, so we can’t say no here.”   And “Oh, if we don’t approve we will be sued.”  And “development is inevitable, we can’t stop it.”

Read this sad story here in the Bradenton Times.

Comments by OSFR historian Jim Tatum.
jim.tatum@oursantaferiver.org
– A river is like a life: once taken,
it cannot be brought back © Jim Tatum

Representing East Manatee Preservation, Attorney Patricia A. Petruff holds up a copy of the Jan. 2022, Water Supply Facilities Work Plan

Dawn Kitterman• Sunday, May 28, 2023 News

BRADENTON  — In a land use meeting Wednesday, commissioners approved three applications submitted by local land developer Carlos Beruff that will pave the way for a massive planned development beyond the county’s Future Development Boundary (FDAB). Beruff’s East River Ranch development will add more than 5,300 homes, a school, a fire station, and roughly 1.5 million square feet of commercial and office space in a currently rural area south of State Road 64 and Lake Manatee State Park.

The approvals come just a month after commissioners approved another controversial project’s rezone, SMR Taylor Ranch. That rezone brought 2,300 acres of general agriculture (1 unit per 5 acres) land to Planned Development Residential with a General Development Plan allowing for 4,500 residential units (1.95 per acre) east of the FDAB and adjacent to two popular racing facilities. Back in December, when commissioners voted to approve the transmittal of the request to the state, hundreds of racing enthusiasts protested what they felt was an incompatible development adjacent to both a drag strip and race track.

The most recent approvals for the East River Ranch development included the rezoning of 1,381 acres which, like the neighboring Taylor Ranch development, was previously zoned for general agriculture. Along with the allowable density and use approvals, Beruff also sought the commission’s approval for the construction of a north-south thoroughfare collector road, East River Ranch Boulevard, between SR 64 and Rangeland Parkway. All three of the applications submitted by the developer of the project were approved on Wednesday—albeit, not unanimously.

The FDAB line runs north-south and lies west of the more rural, agricultural eastern edge of the county. The boundary was established to keep most development west of the line and prevent urban sprawl into areas that lack infrastructure services such as water and sewer. The boundary was first established in the county’s Comprehensive Plan in 1989 but has seen subsequent updates which have pushed it further east.

Unlike the Taylor Ranch development, the East River Ranch development consists of about 1,000 acres less land but plans to build nearly 1,000 more homes within those lesser acres than the Taylor Ranch development—a point that Commissioner George Kruse highlighted during Wednesday’s meeting.

“This is very high-intensity development east of the FDAB. It’s high-intensity development for any place in Manatee County,” Kruse noted.

Kruse, who was perhaps the most engaged commissioner during Wednesday’s meeting, raised multiple concerns with the applications for the project—some of which echoed those shared by the numerous members of the public who spoke at the hearing. Beruff was also in attendance for Wednesday’s proceedings, but only watched from the audience and never personally addressed the board.

Aside from the high intensity of the development, a proposed collector road was also of concern to Kruse and other members of the public.

Local residents Tim and Carla Tralick attended the meeting to address commissioners about the collector road. According to drafted plans, the proposed thoroughfare would run through the couples’ backyard. The couple’s property is not only the location of their home but also the location of a memorial for their deceased son.

“I got a copy of the plan, and sure enough the road is going through my property. Lakewood Ranch has thousands of acres, put the road on their own land. Why put it on mine? What am I going to do,” Mr. Tralick asked while holding back tears. “My son’s (ashes) there, I just don’t know what to do.”

Other members of the public who addressed the board questioned the legality of the county approving any plans that proposed the construction of a road through the Tralicks’ property. Some noted that the only way for the developer to obtain the land needed for the road’s construction—without the Tralicks being open to selling—would be for the county to utilize eminent domain on the developer’s behalf.

Fortunately for the Tralicks, the commissioners heard their pleas and requested that the developer add a stipulation to the approval that the road would not be built on Tralick’s land. However, the only other nearby land available for the road to run through is also privately owned.

Garrett Mitchell, the owner of the Freedom Factory race track and a popular Youtuber who goes by the name “Cleetus McFarland,” owns the only other land that could be acquired to support the construction of the collector road. If, like the Tralicks, Mitchell were unwilling to sell the portion of his property needed for the construction of the collector thoroughfare to support increased traffic brought from the planned development, then the increased traffic would be forced to other roadways.

Citing the Florida Department of Transportation, Kruse noted that comments by state officials included warnings that the development could cause both SR64 and SR70 to “fail” if a thoroughfare was not constructed. Such failures could leave the county and taxpayers obligated to invest in road improvements to support the development.

“I can’t see how I can go along with this,” Kruse said of the application for the collector thoroughfare. “I can promise you that you aren’t taking their land (the Tralicks), the only other way you are going to build that road is to work with Cleetus McFarland of the Freedom Factory, and he doesn’t want your development there either, so he’s not giving you any of his land.”

“So, you’re not building that road,” Kruse continued, addressing the developer’s representatives. “If you don’t build that road, three of your five activity nodes disappear. Without that road, you can’t build on those three intersections.”

Kruse added that the request for the thoroughfare was “premature” given the size and density of the planned development which is contingent on the activity nodes.

“I’m not against the development of this parcel of land, I’m just against a development that’s this high of an intensity this far out that is going to fundamentally break our roads for everybody,” Kruse explained.

McFarland (Mitchell), who also attended the meeting, told commissioners that he had not received any agreements from Beruff’s team concerning the East River Ranch development’s proximity to the Freedom Factory as he had with the developers of SMR Taylor Ranch. McFarland said he hoped commissioners would require Beruff to also include language that might help protect the Freedom Factory racetrack, including disclosures to future homebuyers of the racetrack’s existence and noise levels.

“I still believe thousands of homeowners will be awakened on several Sunday mornings throughout the year… who are they going to call to complain? Probably me,” McFarland said.

Before the vote, commissioners requested the developer also add a stipulation that would include informing future homebuyers about the racetrack and noise, but it appeared Wednesday that the stipulation McFarland was offered by East River Ranch did not go as far as what was offered by Taylor Ranch.

Roadways and racetracks aside, there were other concerns raised by members of the public on Wednesday, not the least of which concerned utility infrastructure.

Speaking on behalf of the nonprofit citizen group East Manatee Preservation, Attorney Patricia A. Petruff stressed to the board the potential for expensive implications such a development beyond the FDAB might have on the county’s water infrastructure.

Petruff’s public comments touched on several objections to the development’s approval beyond water supply, but while holding up a copy of a report completed by Carollo in Jan. 2022, the Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, Petruff told commissioners she was surprised to find the cost analysis as laid out in the report. The report outlined the county’s water supply demands, facilities, and infrastructure needs, and projected cost to supply water to county areas up to the FDAB line

“The price tag is enormous,” Petruff said. “It surprised even me.”

In a letter she sent to Commission Chair Kevin Van Ostenbridge in advance of the meeting, Petruff wrote, “The application contains no information with respect to how the water or sewer needs will be met…Water usage for the Taylor Ranch project and/or the East River Ranch project were not included in the Carollo report’s calculations…”

While Petruff concedes that there may be ample water supply to support the growth, her concerns relate to a likely need for expensive upgrades and infrastructure improvements to the county’s utility facilities. Petruff included in her letter that there had been no economic feasibility study completed to determine the costs that should be the developer’s responsibility.

Glenn Compton, the Chair of Manasota-88, a nonprofit focused on environmental preservation, gave public comment focused on the density and intensity of the proposed development within area watersheds that are the source of drinking water supply for both  Manatee and Sarasota Counties. Compton said it was the belief of his organization that the proposed development would be in violation of the county’s comp plan policies.

“Our recommendation,” Compton told commissioners, “is to err on the side of caution. Get additional data before you make a decision. Don’t risk the future drinking water supplies for developer profits.”

Citizen Mark Vanderee, who spoke on behalf of the Waterline Road Preservation group, also raised concerns about water supply and conservation, environmental impacts, and comp plan incompatibility of the proposed development.

“The map and text amendments do not comply with the comp plan in several areas. The amendments and rezone will harm the reservoir and the adjacent landowners,” Vanderee said. “The harm will not be reversible.”

Commissioner Kruse also raised questions concerning water supply and utilities analysis during the discussion. Kruse seemed to agree with some of the points raised by public commenters that more information should be collected and reviewed prior to the approval of the development.

Attorney Kimlyn Walker, representing the Panther Ridge Homeowners Association, said her clients were in opposition to the development due to multiple identified issues. Walker called the applications based upon the previous approval for Taylor Ranch for East River Ranch a “backdoor for development east of the FDAB.” While outlining several of her client’s concerns, Walker said it was her position that the development approval was in conflict with multiple existing land development and comp plan policies.

Richard Williams, a resident of Panther Ridge, questioned the legality should the board vote to approve. Williams told commissioners that if they did approve the applications for East River Ranch, his homeowners’ association would appeal.

“We will prevail on appeal,” Williams added, stating his belief that the group would win because they believed the proposed development and applications were “illegal” due to the numerous points of conflict with the county’s land development code and comp plan.

The meeting recessed for 90 minutes following public comments. When the meeting resumed, Scott Rudacille, the attorney representing Beruff, presented the stipulation language that would address concerns about the Tralicks’ property, the race tracks, and access provisions. Despite the numerous other concerns raised by members of the public who had requested the board delay or deny the applications—and including shared concerns of one of their fellow commissioners—four of the commissioners defended their position to approve citing prior comp plan changes, unavoidable growth, and legal obligation.

Commissioner James Satcher, who appeared frustrated during his comments before the vote, expressed his belief that it was the board’s prior approval of SMR Taylor Ranch that obligated the board to approve the East River Ranch applications. Satcher had voted in opposition to the approval of Taylor Ranch.

“It seems to me, the best idea is for us to realize what’s coming—people are moving here—and make adequate plans for those people,” Satcher said.

“Personally I wish I lived on a 40-acre ranch with horses, but right now I am not able to do that. I live in a neighborhood, and my family is happy, my children are happy, and people in the rest of the world don’t even know where they are going to get their next meal. We are blessed to be in the United States of America and we need to do what our job is, which is given the things that come before us and make the best plan with what we have,” Satcher continued. “This is the third time we have seen this project (in a hearing) and some of these objections, this is the first time they’ve come up.”

Commissioner Amanda Ballard, who is a family law attorney, cited the Bert Harris Act and her belief that the county would face millions in litigation if it should deny the approval.

“My understanding of the Bert Harris Act and case law is that we would be impacting the ability to use this land…I believe we have created some level of right through previous policy,” Ballard added, stating that while she was not a commissioner when previous policies were put in place, she felt she was obligated because of a prior decision of a previous board. Ballard cautioned that if any commissioners or the public was concerned about taxpayers being on the hook for millions in roadway or utility infrastructure improvements, they should be more concerned about the millions more that would be lost in a failed suit.

But Kruse pushed back on his colleagues’ opinions, stating that he “fundamentally disagreed” with their assessments. Confiding in the county attorney, Kruse asked for confirmation that given the approvals for two of the applications were legislative and that those two requests would need approval for the development to come to fruition, the Bert Harris Act did not apply. The county attorney appeared to confirm Kruse’s understanding.

“I hate hiding behind Bert Harris. If it’s a bad idea, it’s a bad idea,” Kruse said.

Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge stated his position of support was rooted in the unavoidable and needed growth while noting that development and construction also provide employment opportunities for residents.

“This growth is not all bad. You can be a member of a growing community or you can be a member of a dying community, I prefer to live in a growing community,” Van Ostenbridge said.

After the hearing, which lasted several hours, the board approved each item, a text amendment to the county’s thoroughfare plan to add East River Ranch Boulevard as a north-south collector road, a text amendment to change the designation of the site from agricultural to urban fringe, and a zoning change from General Agricultural to Planned Development Mixed Use. All three application requests were approved in a 5-1 vote of the board with Kruse dissenting and Commissioner Jason Bearden absent.

Following the votes to approve, Commissioner Vanessa Baugh took a moment to scold members of the public who addressed the board on the East River Ranch items saying that she felt some of the public comments were “inaccurate” in saying the approval would be illegal, and that county staff were not shown appropriate respect—which Baugh called “embarrassing.”

Speaking with a tone of disapproval, Baugh added, “There’s already been a precedent set. We can’t just arbitrarily change the zoning that we do.” She continued, “For those that don’t like growth, I would suggest you tell your farmers to stop selling their land to developers. That’s where it starts, not with this board.”

“We need to remember we need to be respectful, we are not crazy people in this room,” Baugh chastised, though it was not clear which comments or citizens she was specifically referring to as disrespectful or “crazy people.”

To replay the presentation, citizen comments, and board discussion for the East River Ranch development from Wednesday, click the video below.

https://youtu.be/Hgv_rlFHPGY