Aqua by the Bay Approved with Major Concessions from Developer

BRADENTON – At Tuesday's special land use meeting, Manatee County Commissioners finally approved Aqua by the Bay, but not before developer Carlos Beruff conceded on the vast majority of elements that the public had opposed.

Aqua by the Bay is a massive proposed coastal development behind IMG Academy. Over the next two to three decades, it is ultimately to include 2,894 residential units and 76,000 square feet of commercial space. Concerns about traffic congestion on limited roadways in a coastal high hazard area and environmental destruction in Sarasota Bay had brought a wide array of public opposition.

The chief environmental concern was a proposed "estuary enhancement area," a term the developer coined for a nearly two-mile long canal he'd hoped to dredge behind the coastal mangrove forest, separating it from the mainland, which experts claimed would not only threaten its survival but could also adversely impact local fisheries. Rather than a true upland buffer, the canal would have abutted a large sea wall.

Commissioners had closed public comment before the meeting, but the many opponents of the project were not to be silenced. A 30-minute "public comment for future agenda items only" block, saw dozens of citizens sign up to creatively suggest future workshops on items that have been points of contention for Aqua by the Bay's application.

Only 12 were able to speak before time ran out, but commissioners nonetheless got an earful on the dangers of coastal over-development and the need to adhere to the county's comprehensive land use plan. They were shown Hurricane Irma pictures of coastal developments like Legends Bay that had kept their natural buffers intact, and contrasting photos of sea walls being battered by hurricane storm-surge waves.

Shortly before the 30-minute period expired, chairwoman Betsy Benac moved to close comments but Bobby Billie, a Native American representing the Council of the Original Miccosukee Simanolee Nat'l Aboriginal Peoples, was not to be deterred. He defied the chair and proceeded to the podium, delivering three minutes of excoriating comment on what he felt was dangerous hubris on the part of commissioners who were not listening to the warning signs issued by the current Atlantic hurricane season.

"You were given to the answers and shown the warnings," said Billie. "You're not listening. You are not gods, and if you continue to disrespect nature, your children and future generations will pay the price."

When Billy stepped down, Benac again attempted to close public comment, but former Bradenton Beach Mayor and longtime activist Katie Pierola erupted in anger, telling Benac that she'd earned the right to speak via her 18 years of public service. Tempers flared and another member of the public was ejected from the meeting before order could be restored.
Beruff came into the meeting with at least three commissioners in solid opposition to the proposed general development plan. When the item itself was finally raised, it became clear that despite the additional stipulations that had been added between meetings, commissioners Benac and Whitmore were not comfortable moving forward, so long as the "estuary enhancement area" remained in the plan.

"I don't support the estuary," said Whitmore, who was considered the possible swing vote, "and I think now is the time to say it."

Beruff and his team then suggested that they add a stipulation eliminating the canal (the developer had already added one eliminating the tallest buildings), as well as another rectifying a contradiction in phasing terminology, raising questions as to whether or not such a drastically-altered plan could be adopted without submitting a new, revised GDP.

County Attorney Sarah Schenck sternly advised against voting on a plan in which the stipulations spelled out something entirely different from the GDP itself. However, both the board and the applicant made it clear that they wished to vote that day.

"We’ll sit here and collaborate right now on words that will lead to votes," said Beruff's attorney, Ed Vogler.

"I am at a quandary, because I am happy not to build the estuary, period," said Beruff himself to the surprise of many in attendance.

Schenck said that were they to do so, the applicant would need to submit a new GDP, staff would need to review it, and they would likely have to re-open public comment–a process she couldn't foresee happening the same day.

Benac then called a 40-minute recess, and when the board reconvened at 11:30 a.m., it was announced that the staff and applicant would work until 3 p.m. to come up with a revised GDP.

During the intermission, staff and the applicant's team hurriedly put together a modified GDP, reflecting the agreed upon changes. Ultimately, the proposed estuary enhancement area (canal) was completely removed, which also negated the sea wall. Height was limited to 16 buildings at 95 feet with a stipulation that buildings over 35-feet would be reviewed in the preliminary site plans to ensure that they were placed in a way that avoided creating a "wall effect," and that those site plans would require board approval in a public meeting, rather than just a green light from staff, as is usually the case.

Public comment was opened but limited to the changes that had just been made. Those who spoke, overwhelmingly approved of the changes in concept but were deeply troubled by the fact that the board would vote without sending it back to the planning commission and/or giving staff and the public more time to examine the details of the revised GDP.

Commissioners, however, having endured countless delays, continuances and rescheduling, were ready to vote. After a limited amount of discussion, it was universally expressed that eliminating the canal, the sea wall and the 145-foot towers satisfied the boards' collective misgivings on both compatibility with the area and the protection of the mangroves and bay. They collectively stressed that the developer did have the right to build a project that complied with the county's comprehensive land use plan and building development codes, through which they could find no fault, now that those issues had been addressed.