BRADENTON — Manatee County Commissioners cast a majority vote to take action to restore local wetland buffer requirements during Tuesday's BOCC special meeting. The action was not the first vote of its kind, but appeared more definitive than prior attempts.
Manatee County’s wetland protection regulations have been under the spotlight since 2023 when county staff proposed changes that would significantly loosen local requirements. Though the measure was brought forward under the guise of being “county-initiated,” public records later revealed that local developers’ interests played a role in the inception of the proposed action.
In October 2023, the previous BOCC agreed with a county-hired consultant—who was not a wetland expert or scientist—and voted 5-1 in favor of solidifying a policy to defer local wetland buffer requirements to state minimums. The action revised the county’s Comprehensive Plan and rolled back existing 30 and 50-foot buffer requirements around wetlands to state minimums of 25-foot average with a 15-foot minimum, or in some select instances, potentially no required buffers.
The change to local wetland protection policy was hugely unpopular with the public who showed up in large numbers to provide public comment in opposition to the action. The public’s displeasure with the board’s decision became a sticking point during the 2024 local elections.
During the Aug. 2024 Primary Election, each of the commissioners up for reelection who had supported the measure the year earlier were defeated by grassroots candidates who ran on a commitment to represent the community’s best interest over special interest.
The following month in Sept., Commissioner Jason Bearden—who had previously voted with the board majority in favor of rolling back local wetland protections—made an unanticipated reversal on his previous position and motioned for the board to rescind its prior action.
Every commissioner on the board supported Bearden's motion despite several of them having previously supported the removal of the more stringent county wetland regulations.
When the motion passed the board was advised by county staff that restoring the local provisions would take time and require the same process as removing them—a comprehensive plan amendment, multiple hearings, and a transmittal to the state.
However, in Oct. 2024, the action seemed stalled when the county attorney advised commissioners to rescind the action made by Bearden to rescind the rollback of local wetland protections.
At the time, the county attorney explained legal considerations would require review before the measure could move forward. Counsel advised that when her office had concluded the required research, she would brief commissioners individually sometime within the following month (November).
Since that Oct. meeting the topic had not been raised again publicly—until Tuesday.
District 5 Commissioner Robert McCann made an unscheduled motion to reinstate the county’s previous wetland protection policy—instead of amending the comprehensive plan and going through the lengthy hearing and transmittal process.
A member of the Florida Bar, McCann presented his motion providing his legal opinion on justifications for the immediate reinstatement by citing case law and other legal opinions he said he was able to gather and prepare using his education as an attorney and independent research on the issue.
When Manatee County Director of Development Services Nicole Knapp reiterated to McCann that reverting to the county’s previous wetland buffer policy would require a comp plan amendment process, McCann buckled down.
“I have a motion to restore the wetland policy and we (the board) have the authority to do that,” McCann said citing specific legal precedent and statute. “All we have to do is rescind the ordinance that was made in the first place,” McCann added. “We void that ordinance and put back the language that was there previously. We have the authority to do that.”
McCann stressed that with the board’s approval of his proposed motion, it would restore the previously existing wetland protections effective immediately.
McCann held up a paper version of his drafted motion, “I have a copy of the proposed motion here with me now, this was reviewed by several attorneys and this is the proper way to do this.”
He proceeded to read the drafted motion’s language that would “void” Ordinance No. 23-66/pa-23-06 approved by the board in 2023 which deferred local wetland buffer requirements to state minimums, and “revert” comprehensive plan requirements to what they were before the 2023 ordinance’s adoption.
McCann’s motion quickly received the support of Commissioners Carol Felts and Bearden who both simultaneously offered to second the measure for consideration.
Moved to discussion, multiple commissioners turned to the county attorney for legal guidance but were told that the board’s counsel was unable to provide any legal opinion or analysis because of insufficient time to review McCann’s proposal before the meeting.
Lacking guidance from the county attorney, Commissioners Tal Siddique, Mike Rahn, and Amanda Ballard suggested that commissioners might consider providing the county attorney time to review the motion before the board held a vote on the matter. However, it was clear that the board’s majority was leaning toward supporting McCann’s motion with or without attorney review.
“The county attorney’s office has had this motion since November,” offered McCann referring to Bearden’s previous attempt to reverse the wetland policy.
“This motion was previously made but wasn’t made properly. It’s made properly today and I’d like a vote on it today,” said McCann.
Commissioner Kruse offered that he was inclined to support the measure even if the county attorney was unable to provide a legal opinion before the board vote.
By the time commissioners had exhausted debate over whether to take action immediately—something McCann, Felts, and Bearden strongly advocated for during board deliberation—or delay the vote to a future meeting, six of the seven settled on supporting the measure on Tuesday.
In the end, Commissioner Rahn was the only hold-out to approving McCann’s motion in the 6-1 vote.
Following the meeting’s lunch break, McCann returned to offer a slightly revised version of the motion he had made earlier without additional comment or explanation.
He read his revised motion into the record:
“I move to direct county administration to immediately take the appropriate steps to bring back to the board for consideration an ordinance to repeal Ordinance No. 23-66/pa-23-06 and reinstate the Comprehensive Plan language which was amended by Ordinance no 23-66/pa-23-06 within the timeframe prescribed within Chapter 163 of Florida Statutes …”
The county attorney stated the revised language of McCann’s motion would accomplish the “exact same effect” as the previous version approved by the board earlier in the meeting.
Commissioner Rahn remained unchanged and was the lone “no” vote in opposition to the motion.
Former county commissioner and TBT Publisher Joe McClash followed the happenings of Tuesday’s meeting and provided the following comments on the board’s action to reinstate local wetland protection policies:
“Dr. McCann in my opinion is bringing an area of experience the Commissioners needed. The county attorney has not expedited the board’s request to bring back our previous wetland protection policies. The county planning staff and administration also failed to act on the Commission's motion to bring back the previous wetland protection—and wanted to change the language and delay the vote until the summer. Dr. McCann placed a motion to rescind the improper ordinance that failed to meet the County's Comprehensive Plan. Rescinding the ordinance that was approved was the right action to take and Dr. McCann's determination to do what staff and the county attorney failed to do is commendable."
Last year, following the board’s action to revert wetland regulations to state minimums, McClash filed an administrative challenge citing the county’s failure to establish a finding that the action would be in the best interest of the public pass in accordance with comp plan requirements.
McClash later abandoned the administrative challenge because a new state law increased the likelihood that he would be responsible for the county's legal costs in defending its action.
Despite the dismissal, the county attorney’s office—then led by lead attorney William Clague—sought to collect over a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees from McClash. Last November, Commissioner Bearden motioned to dismiss those fees, a measure that was approved by the commission in a 6-1 vote with Commissioner Rahn dissenting.
To replay McCann's motion and board discussion and vote, click the video below.
12 comments on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.
lib224
Seems like a new county attorney and administrator may be needed to keep up with the board.
Wednesday, January 8 Report this
WTF
The county attorney is a disaster and should be replaced. Thank God for.Dr. McCann for his superior legal intellect on this subject matter. As far as procedures, the county attorney did not instruct the board to follow Robert’s rules of order in the last commission. There are Florida statutes that instruct our elected officials on how Roberts rules of order are to be instituted into the meetings. She not wants since she’s been hired warned the board of legal consequences of not following to Roberts rules of order. New chairman George Kruse pointed that out in a workshop yesterday. The staff and county attorney are so used to kicking that can down the road influenced by developers that got us in this mess in the first place. There’s a new sheriff in town and staff in the attorney’s office. Should get their sheet together or they should be out the door…. For bhe Record
Wednesday, January 8 Report this
cusickr
It is long overdue that our county take back control from developer backed puppets. Our new board members and Chairman Kruse are to be commended for the leadership shown during yesterday’s BOCC meeting. Restoring communication with the community, fighting for the needs of residents and protecting our food and water resources. The county attorney had plenty of time to “review” the wetlands proposal and produced zero. Clearly some employees need replacement just like the old board members.
Wednesday, January 8 Report this
moomba19
I am a bit boggled as to why Rahn would be the only dissenting vote. Could there be hidden agendas and why is it that that the motivation behind a public officials vote is hardly ever questioned? In my humbled opinion, it seems plausible there could be financial reasons behind it since every public official should be estatic about their ability to support their constituents as a whole and not in an individualistic manner.
Well done Commissioner (Dr.) McCann.
Wednesday, January 8 Report this
David Daniels
Again, Amanda Ballard hems and haws and talks out of both sides of her mouth. She thinks McCanns motion is "great" but well, I know who payed for my election. I rarely agree with Ms.Griffin, but she was spot on! I believe when she called Ballard out by name saying we won't ever elect another developer puppet, Amanda Ballard - THAT IS WHAT CHANGED BALLARD's vote. Well done to all of the public commenters. Especially well done to Dr. McCann for taking the initiative and sticking to your position, sir. Rahn too, stuck to his position, which, while I think 99% of us disagree with, I have more respect for Mr. Rahn than Ballard - at least he has a backbone. As far as no being willing to fire the attorney and administrator, I think this wetland issue(for the attorney) and the lack of progress after 2 years on the animal shelter improvements (for the Administrator) are just 2 of many examples where these 2 positions influence policy in a way that the vast majority of us voted against. We voted for a change and a willingness to work for citizens. I believe change is needed at both positions, but especially the administrator, to get to where we have a county government that we can trust.
Wednesday, January 8 Report this
Dianna
One of the most productive meetings. They got more accomplished and had more positive discussion in under two hours than the last board had in 4 years. It is puzzling why reverting to language in a previous ordinance which was already approved by a county attorney would need to be reviewed again- unless you are trying to delay the reversal for someone. There was some excellent discussion at this meeting and we are looking forward to all the positive meeting changes made by Commissioner Kruse.
Wednesday, January 8 Report this
Cat L
Good start. That should never have happened in the first place. And I agree that the new county attorney is not terribly impressive. As I recall, a number of administrative staff were chosen for their willingness to play along with the wannabe oligarchs. I wonder if that is the case there. That seems like a strategic thing to delay.
And there are still upper level admin who play for the developers, hopefully some or all of those can get extracted in future, as well.
Wednesday, January 8 Report this
sandy
Three things. 1) The Land Development Code was not revised with the new language in the Comp Plan. The LDC is the document that implements the policies in the Comp Plan. The previous buffer requirements still should have been followed until the LDC was revised. 2) SB 250 stated that code could not be changed to be more restrictive. This is retroactive to 9/28/2022 and shall expire 6/30/2025. The rescinding of an ordinance approved in 2023 only takes the plan back to what it was. The buffers had been in the Comp Plan since 1990 so I don't feel that they are more restrictive. 3) The buffers have been challenged twice in court and lost both times with the county using the same consultant as was used by the developer who lost. Side note, after the county voted to remove our buffers, Orange County voted to increase theirs to 100 feet for most projects.
Wednesday, January 8 Report this
Debann
2 more years then we can get rid of the rest of the garbage...County attorney she's USELESS...BISHOP AND DEPOL NEED TO GONE AS WELL..
JASON is desperate to keep his job in 2026...PATHETIC...
THANK YOU to Mr.Mcmann...your knowledge is priceless...
Wednesday, January 8 Report this
mp1616
Watching Ballard's face while Bearden is melting down about the county attorney is comedy gold.
Wednesday, January 8 Report this
mcems1986
Watched the BOCC. Agree with every comment on this topic. The County Attorney had three months to have researched and provide input. Agree with Joe McClash, DR McCann is what the BOCC needed, along with Carol F, Geo K. Not certain what or why Tai S was on the fence with this. It is the correct move for what "we the people want" as Carol clearly indicated. There may be a need to review the Attorney job and revisit some others in senior leadership. There have been more Directors and Deputy Directors placed in to jobs over the past few years. Some Departments have fewer than 12 employees with a Director and Deputy (SMH). Use those high salaries and fix the Animal Welfare needs.
As always presented, good job Dawn K.
Wednesday, January 8 Report this
Charlene
The county attorney and staff have very obviously been key to developers pushing whatever they wanted through. We have already seen how the so-called "county-initiated" amendments have played out, to the point where the county IGNORED ITS OWN EXPERTS AND HIRED BERUFF'S FAILED "EXPERT" TO DEFEAT ITS OWN ORDINANCE THAT IT SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED, TWICE. This was why it was so important for Cheri Coryea to have been fired from the Administrator's position - she was the shield between the developers and the staff. But that shield is still missing.
We haven't forgotten the BIA WHITE PAPER, either, staff.
Good on Dr. McCann and the majority of the board for sticking to their guns.
Wednesday, January 8 Report this