Incompetence, Fraud or Corruption on City

There is a saying that if something doesn’t make sense, then it must be political. So if someone asks how a permit can be granted to remove mangroves that are by all accounts protected, politics would seem the most obvious answer. The City of Bradenton, our water management district and our federal government have strict rules protecting the wetlands/mangroves and the waters of Sarasota and Tampa Bay. So how does politically-connected developer Pat Neal get permits from two out of the three, with one pending? Let’s look at the facts, and you can decide.

Zoning - The property is zoned Planned Development Project (PDP), but someone representing the developer indicated the map was wrong and should be Residential -1 (R-1). So without following laws for a rezone, Brady Woods, the city’s development services and zoning manager, represented to the city council that the property was designated R-1, when it was clearly not. In an email, Mr. Woods acknowledged having known it was PDP, which would have required much more of the proposed development, including a public hearing.

The Survey - Surveyors by law and license are to provide an accurate survey. The survey used to represent site elevations used only one or two locations in the areas of the mangroves. These elevations appear to be on top of a small man-made berm and do not represent the area's properly. Why does this matter? The city protects land 2 feet and below the surface, requiring a 35-foot vegetated undisturbed buffer following what they reference as a 2-foot contour. Was this done as an intentional act to trick the city (and the public) into thinking that all of the land adjacent to the spot was above 2 feet, avoiding the protection to these areas in the mangroves that the developer wants to dredge and fill? In an area of over 30,000 square feet, the surveyor represents the elevation using about 100 square feet located on a berm, and the result supports the desired outcome. That raises a serious red flag.

Tree Survey - When the city was questioned about meeting the tree survey requirements they referenced pages that were not a tree survey but a landscape plan. The survey of existing conditions do not indicate the number of trees or the type. Why is this important? First of all, mangroves and buttonwoods are protected trees. If the city followed its rules, they would not be allowed to be removed. However, in this case, the developer got a permit to remove mangroves and also buttonwoods. The city has a fee of $20 per tree. The city did not charge Neal that fee, which would amount to about $100,000 if every protected tree was counted and slated to be removed. There is also a city requirement for mitigation of mangroves/wetlands to be in the city, not in a mitigation bank 17 miles away in Hillsborough County as Neal is being allowed to do.

Floodplain Permit - The rules say a floodplain permit is required at the time of development. When questioned, the city says no, only at the building permit stage is it issued. Granted, the city does not deal with wetlands like the ones on Perico very often, as most of the areas within city limits are urban. However, by the time a building permit is issued, it is a little too late to decide whether to issue a floodplain permit. The rules also require the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) Permit to be issued prior to the issuance of a floodplain permit. These rules not only make sense, but they also help keep flood insurance rates down. In flood areas like this, called a velocity zone, before development takes place, you need to prove that it won’t negatively impact the neighboring property from wave action by reducing the buffering protection. Here again, there is additional protection of wetlands and the areas 2 feet below are regulated in order not to destroy mangroves that offer critical buffering protections from tropical storms and hurricanes. However, the city ignored the rules which help to get favorable discounts via FEMA’s maps, but if the penalty is the discount going away and costing money to city residents, isn’t that public subsidy of the developer?

Wetland Protection - The city just ignores these rules, which are pretty clear. Read them yourself. If it is a wetland, it is protected against all development. Also, the rules say a minimum of a 25-foot buffer is required. The city can have rules that provide more protection than the Southwest Florida Water Management District (known as Swiftmud), and the ACOE. So even if Swiftmud issues a permit, the city has rules requiring those wetlands/mangroves to be protected. Neal knew these rules when he bought the property, and they were similar to county rules when the property was annexed to the city from the county in 1998. But a single "administrative correction" is being used to change the property’s status, benefiting the politically-connected developer who sees that property instantly balloon in value if he can suddenly put houses on property that he previously could not.

City Council Approval - To be fair, when the Bradenton City Council approved Neal’s development, there were no red flags raised that they were approving a plan with the wrong zoning. Their staff said it was designated R-1, and if you’re a council member that’s what you go by. They were also not told the extent of mangroves to be removed, or that they would be violating their own rules, or that a survey was used that did not represent elevations accurately. However, after being aware of these facts for nearly a year now, they have done nothing to address these issues as a council. Of course there is a legal issue and perhaps they are afraid of liability. However, if the survey was not accurate, they have a way out if they want it. Councilman Gene Gallo, whose district the project is in, recently came out to meet the residents of the area for the first time. Despite being a former Bradenton Fire Chief with an understanding of the interpretation of such rules, Gallo refuses to acknowledge that the city is doing anything wrong.

PDP vs. R-1 - The PDP zoning required a public hearing in front of the city council that did not take place when R-1 zoning was used. It also avoided specific criteria for protecting wetlands. PDP requires these specifics included in a plan for approving development under this zoning designation, and needs that hearing for approval of the site plan. The city wanted PDP on all of Perico Island for many reasons, including the coastal development issues, and Neal knew this at the time of annexation. He knew the zoning was PDP and the reason why it was PDP, yet represented to the city that it was R-1.

Swiftmud - The permit to destroy wetlands and mangroves issued by Swiftmud ignored a judge's recommendation to deny that permit based on many of the same reasons the city has its rules for protecting the wetlands/mangroves. Fellow developer Carlos Beruff made the motion to approve the permit and has been a partner with Neal on multiple projects. The permit is in appeal to the 5th DCA.

Army Corps of Engineers - So far, the ACOE has done its job. It has sent notice in May that the site plan Neal submitted to the city and to the ACOE would not be permitted. So, Neal submitted a revised plan, which is different than the plan the city is now using to allow Neal to do site work. Looking at the current site work, it also proves wetlands can be avoided. There is no entitlement to build four houses. Neal can easily build a four-unit building as a real family compound–if that is in fact the goal–without violating the city’s rules, Swiftmud’s rules, or Federal wetland and water rules. The ACOE will also look at other non-water-dependent lots Neal can buy or build in the vicinity and should refuse to permit any wetland destruction if these lots are available, which they are. In fact, Neal himself has a 50-lot subdivision off Perico Bayou, and another known as Robinson Farms (also in appeal for Comp Plan issues). Several lots along Palma Sola Bay are for sale on which four homes can be built. The ACOE needs to be encouraged to continue enforcing its rules, and also respect the citizens’ request for a public hearing if they consider a permit impacting any wetland (email: Mark.E.Peterson@usace.army.mil).

Politics - Finally, there is the ugly politics of it all. Most of us will remember the Mayoral race of Wayne Poston vs. Bill Evers. Evers was considered the favorite to win when all of a sudden an onslaught of direct mail pieces from a PAC supported by Neal helped carry Poston to victory. In the last election cycle, Patrick Roff was honored to have Pat Neal host his fundraiser, generating contributions from Neal, Carlos Beruff and their political allies.

County Commissioner John Chappie was the Mayor of Bradenton Beach when the city challenged Bradenton on its development rules for Perico after it was annexed, but don’t expect him to step in on behalf of the BOCC and help protect the county’s interests by making sure Bradenton follows its rules. Neal has been very generous to his last and current campaign as well.

The rules of the city, our water management district and our federal government are contracts between the citizens and those government entities. When those rules are not followed, our government fails. In this case, surrounding landowners have their community unfairly changed from what they bought into based on what the rules said could be built around them, potentially losing critical storm protection. The rest of us lose by having a critical environmental resource destroyed, and our fisheries impacted that help keep Cortez a viable fishing village. All of this for the sake of one developer’s pet project.

Joe McClash is a former 22-year Manatee County Commissioner, serving from 1990-2012. He is also the publisher of The Bradenton Times. He is currently challenging the decision to allow the development on Perico as currently proposed.