Controversial Robinson Farms Comp Plan Amendment May be Challenged by Petition

MANATEE--The Robinson Farms zoning ordinance which was at first denied and then passed at the BCC’s Land Use Meeting in October, may be challenged and once again be brought before the board for reconsideration.

County Chief Deputy Attorney Jim Minix

In an email (dated December 28, 2010) obtained by The Bradenton Times, Manatee County Chief Deputy Attorney Jim Minix said his office received ”an unsigned petition for an administrative hearing in the Robinson Farms Comp Plan matter.” That petition was also sent to each of the commissioners via email, according to Mr. Minix.

The Robinson Farms ordinance would change the zoning designation from RES-1 (one residential dwelling unit per gross acre) to RES-3 (three residential dwelling units per gross acre). At the October 12, 2010 meeting, the BCC voted to deny the ordinance 4-3 with nay votes cast by Commissioner’s Bustle, Getman and Hayes on Commissioner McClash’s motion to oppose the ordinance.

During the Commissioner’s Comments portion of that land use meeting, then commissioner Gwen Brown addressed her concerns over the Robinson Farms ordinance. A second vote, ironically motioned by Brown, was taken and Commissioner Brown voted this time in favor of the measure, which allowed the ordinance to be passed 4-3. At a short recess during that meeting, Commissioner Brown was seen talking to a consultant to the developer, Neal Communities.

On December 3, 2010, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issued a notice of intent to find the amendment to change the zoning on the Robinson Farms parcels of land, located between 9th Avenue NW and 17th Avenue NW near Palma Sola, to be compliant with state law. The DCA allows a 21 day window for any challenges to the issue of intent which would be brought before an administrative law judge hearing. If no challenges are made, the ruling becomes official.

According to Mr. Minix’ email, ”no notice of any such petition has been filed with the DCA or the status of any requested administrative hearing.“ He did caution of the possibility that the amendment could be brought back before the BCC for ”further proceedings“ and advised the board not to comment publicly on the matter outside of an advertised public hearing.

For more background on this story, click here.