Commissioners Give Up Key Oversight for Aqua by the Bay

BRADENTON – At Thursday's land use meeting, Manatee County Commissioners voted 6-1 to give up a stipulation they had previously touted as a compromise for the benefit of the public during the 2017 approval of a controversial development on Sarasota Bay.

Aqua by the Bay is a massive proposed coastal development by politically-connected developer Carlos Beruff on the last major undeveloped portion of Sarasota Bay in Manatee County. Over the next two to three decades, it is ultimately to include 2,894 residential units and 76,000 square feet of commercial space.

It has a convoluted history that includes a 2013 effort to secure a text amendment to the county's land-use plan that would have allowed him to dredge the bay in order to include a marina. In 2017, after marathon meetings and much public opposition, commissioners unanimously approved the development, though with a number of unique stipulations made as a compromise in order to ensure public trust and the opportunity for input as the massive project moved forward.

One of those stipulations was to require board approval of the preliminary site plan once 750 units are completed (a process that is normally conducted only with staff approval and no public input), so that placement of the buildings and the avoidance of that "wall effect" can be assured by the board and with the public being able to comment. It also stipulated that the developer would have to come back after every 750 units are completed for approval of the next 750 (the first 750 would be done with a site plan approved by staff in the typical fashion).

Now that the developer had received site plan approval for more than 750 units, however, his attorneys argued that the stipulation was confusing and should be removed. Staff from the county planning department agreed and supported the developer's request, recommending the action to commissioners.

However, members of the public who had opposed the development showed up en masse to remind commissioners why the stipulation was put in place and how important it was to keep the compromise stipulation intact.

Former county commissioner Jane Von Hahmannreminded the board that it was actually current county commissioner Misty Servia–working as a planner for Beruff at the time–who offered the stipulation in the first place, noting that Servia's language was much more detailed than what made it into the final GDP.

"We didn't have a visual," explained Von Hahmann. "We had a general development plan that bothered a lot of commissioners and certainly bothered the public because we had no idea as to where other than in the 'orange area' or the 'yellow area' as to where these buildings would be placed."

To staff, who'd noted that they don't have a prescribed process as to what to do now that the threshold has been met, Von Hahmannhad a simple answer:

"You just don't approve anymore preliminary site plans or any more development until it's met the task of the stipulation which is to come back to this board," Von Hahmann said.

Larry Grossman reminded commissioners that it was the applicant who proffered the stipulation, that they did so to get approval, and that there was nothing ambiguous about what it would mean.

"Be careful what you ask for," said Grossman. "You may have to live with it."

Former Manatee County Commissioner and TBT publisher Joe McClash also weighed in during public comment.

"GDPs don't have the specific information to make the public comfortable," said McClash. "That's why this 750 number was so important. I don't agree with removing it. If you want to tweak it, let them tweak it. Let them come back. It's their stipulation. You can't do that. They have to do it. That's the way the laws are these days. I don't necessarily agree with (the developer's) interpretation that they've got all this blanket approval and it means nothing. It means something. It means you're only approved up to 750 completed units."

McClash said that if the applicant needed clarity, it was up to the board to provide it. He said board members could determine "completed" means site plan approval or that it means a certificate of occupancy was issued, but that they shouldn't give up their leverage in oversite.

"It was a big compromise with the public, and it earned that trust of compromise," said McClash.

Beruff later took to the dais and argued that he believed when offering the stipulation that he would have to come back before the board after 750 C.O.s had been issued (an event he said would still take years were they able to reach 100 units per year at some point) to ensure that they were remaining in compliance, but that they would be able to continue getting site plans approved in the meantime so that the project could move forward.

Only Commissioner Carol Whitmore, one of five commissioners who were on the board at the time of approval in 2017, seemed to recall the intent of the stipulation, in her words, "to make the public feel better and the board assured that there wouldn't be a wall effect."

Whitmore confirmed with the county attorney that the options were to "approve, deny or continue" and urged fellow board members to continue the item so that an effort could be made between staff and the applicant to agree on clearer language within the stipulation.

The board voted 6-1 to instead scrap the stipulation, with Whitmore dissenting.