BRADENTON — Internal documents from Manatee County’s Building and Development Services department provide deeper insight into the county’s recent approval for local developer Carlos Beruff to construct an oversized Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on his private residential property. Not only did the county issue a building permit for a structure that clearly conflicts with local building codes, but the department also approved a private street designation despite qualifications not being met.
Since the publication of our story last month—County Gives Beruff Private Street and Oversized ADU—TBT has obtained public records that reveal that it was department staff at the top who determined Beruff’s applications would not be required to follow local code requirements.
The county’s land development code is enacted through the local legislative process, including advertised public hearings and the adoption of ordinances through a majority vote of the BOCC. Section 511.18 of the county’s LDC, which pertains to the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units, provides no provision to allow a department director to determine whether local building law can be selectively waived on a case-by-case basis.
On Dec. 19, Director Knapp issued a memorandum of Land Development Code Interpretation just weeks after Beruff’s application for the ADU permit was submitted to the county. Knapp’s memo was directed to the county’s zoning official, as well as the county’s planning division managers.
In the memo, Knapp lays out why she believes the county’s existing requirements for the construction of ADUs are causing “practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship.”
The county’s adoption of ADU building code regulations, as contained in Section 511.18 of the LDC, are relatively new additions compared to much of the county’s existing LDC. Building code to permit and regulate the construction of ADUs inside the county was under work and revision for several years before finally being enacted in 2021. Over the years, and during the final hearings leading up to Section 511.18’s adoption, no staff ever raised concerns about undue restraint caused by size restrictions outlined by the code—including Knapp.
From Knapp’s Dec. 2023 memo, “This interpretation summarizes that the existing standards or requirement for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) within the Manatee County Land Development Code (LDC) can be found to be conflicting to other requirements and have limited application...”
Though Knapp opens her memo speaking to “conflicting requirements,” the memo itself never clearly defines the conflicts. Among her written findings, Knapp included a vague justification which seemed to state that while the county’s LDC defines a guest house and an ADU as two separate types of dwellings, a guest house having no kitchen or cooktop while an ADU may, the LDC does not provide size regulations on a guest house structure, therefore, size restrictions to ADUs conflict.
Among her written findings, Knapp included a vague justification which seemed to state that because the county’s LDC lays out strict regulations for an ADU but does not provide regulations over guest houses, the lack of regulation for one structure somehow impacts regulation of the other. The permit under discussion is a permit for an ADU, which means any regulations over a guest house—if they existed—would not apply to an ADU structure.
Knapp's memo then quotes the LDC’s definition of an ADU, which makes it clear that the discussed structure falls under that description. She goes on to argue that due to a shortage of affordable housing and other economic struggles, a second kitchen “almost becomes a necessity.” While this argument may hold value when speaking of an individual with only the principal structure on their property, Beruff received a building permit in 2019 for a detached garage with a guest house. Public records show this “guest house” contains a “cooktop.” Again, per county LDC definitions, a guest house cannot contain a fully working kitchen with a cooktop.
Perhaps more problematic, the county’s LDC also clearly states in Section 511.18, B.7., that "Conforming lots with a principal dwelling unit shall be limited to one (1) ADU, or one (1) guest house."
Knapp’s memo details the guidelines for an ADU laid out in the LDC, arguing that the LDC only accounts for properties with principal structures that are approximately 1,250 square feet or less. She argues that the guidelines for an ADU do not consider the property size, size of the main structure, economic status, or other factors.
She states herself, “As such, a 20-acre property with a 10,000 square foot principal structure, would be limited to the same size ADU as a 10,000 square foot property with a 2,400 square foot principal structure.” This analysis is not in spirit or the purpose of the LDC, as the LDC was never intended to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. The guidelines in the LDC apply to everyone and every property in the same way.
Rather than a genuine analysis, Knapp’s memorandum appeared to be searching for a justification to create an exception to the rules. Evidence of this can be seen in her closing summary: “In summary, until said time that Manatee County can initiate an LDC Text Amendment to resolve the contradictions and limited applications found above, an interim remedy shall be to allow the construction of ADUs that are up to 80% of the size of the principal structure at the discretion of the Director.”
When the county adopted its LDC regulations for ADU structures, commissioners were very specific about the need for size restrictions on these structures. Some commissioners even pushed for less than the 750 sq. ft permitted under the adopted code. In addition, when some commissioners raised the subject of changing or removing the existing definition of a guest house at the public hearing for the adoption of the ADU provisions, the county attorney advised commissioners to retain the guest house definition as-is and adopt ADU regulations under Section 511.18.
Not only did Knapp’s memorandum appear to lack genuine analysis of the LDC or the permit application submitted by Beruff, but internal emails exchanged between Knapp, a representative of Beruff’s, Beruff, and other county staff show that Knapp personally led the effort to issue Beruff the requested building permit.
In early December, Marcia Franklin, Permitting Manager for Medallion Home, emailed the county’s permitting division alerting staff of a “re-review” she had submitted on behalf of Beruff. The associated permit application has been in the system since 2020. Still, a permit was never issued, and the re-review Franklin attempted to open under the old application was for a building design that significantly differed from the previous application.
Responding by email, the staff informed Franklin that a new permit application would need to be submitted: “When beginning to process this re-review, it was determined by the plans review manager that this being a three-year-old record with no plan room and it is a significant change in the building that this will need to be reapplied for as a new permit."
Days later, an email thread appears between Franklin, Beruff, Knapp, and the county’s Building Services Division Manager, Bill Palmer. The email thread begins with Franklin informing Beruff that the county is not allowing the application she had submitted for Beruff’s ADU to be submitted under the old permit application.
“Carlos,” Franklin wrote to Beruff, “I submitted the revised plans and docs to the original boathouse permit as a revision, which would be the normal process. Manatee County’s response is in the email below saying they are going to require me to submit a whole new permit submittal for this. It will slow the process down starting all over, but my hands are tied unless you have someone you can reach out to that can override this. Let me know how you want to proceed.”
Franklin’s email to Beruff appears in an email that Knapp then directs to Palmer, inquiring whether the county can process the permit application as a re-review. Palmer responded to Knapp in detail.
“Nicole,” Palmer wrote to Knapp, “I reviewed the permit and unfortunately, they will need to submit a new application for a permit. A re-review is revisions submitted for changes to an approved plan. What the applicant has uploaded is a completely different building from what was submitted 3 years ago. The design went from a detached garage with an 800 sq ft bonus room on top of it to a 3100 sq ft single-family home. This will need reviews from all departments; plans review, zoning, utilities, impact fees, new surveys, etc. and there will be changes in permit fee costs and impact fees.”
Palmer further informed Knapp, “We consider this a model change and have had a business process in place for this type of change for years. I have attached a copy for your review.”
Roughly two business days after Palmer explained the appropriate permit application procedure to Knapp, Knapp emailed Palmer, confirming that Franklin of Medallian Home would be submitting a new building application. In addition, Knapp provided Palmer with some specific instructions.
“When the new application is received,” Knapp wrote, “you can transfer the zoning review straight to Rob Wenzel and the Impact Fee review to me.”
In closing her email to Palmer, Knapp added, “As we discussed this morning if you could also expedite any of the reviews that fall under your umbrella, that would be greatly appreciated.”
Three more business days later, Knapp received an email from one of the county’s permitting managers: “Nicole, I am letting you know that I have routed this permit for review and assigned the impact review to you as requested and the zoning review to Rob.”
Knapp responded by thanking the employee.
Fast forward a few weeks into the process, and emails show continued direct communication between Development Services Department Director Knapp and Beruff’s representative, Franklin. When the permit application review runs into a “rerouting issue”—as Franklin described it—Knapp personally steps in to help sort things.
“I signed off on the Impact Fee review, as well as the Zoning review moments ago,” Knapp wrote to Franklin in a Jan. 9 email. “Cheryl Bagby is the last outstanding reviewer for floodplain management and I’ve copied her above for awareness. Please let me know if you need anything else.”
Franklin promptly responded to Knapp, writing, “Thank you so much, Nicole. Need to keep Carlos happy and not asking me about this! Lol”
Between Jan. 10 and 12, Franklin exchanged emails with multiple development services staff attempting to sort out the residential address to be assigned to the ADU structure. Because the county had also approved a private street designation for Beruff’s driveway/road, the updated information needed to be in the system before a permit could be issued bearing Beruff's preferred address.
On Jan. 10, Franklin wrote to the staff, “I wanted to check to make sure there wasn’t anything you needed from me on the address change on this property. It looks like it may have been resolved internally since it now says Ready to Issue. If so, can we get this one issued sometime today? Carlos keeps asking if I have it.”
The morning of Jan. 12, Beruff emailed Knapp, “I believe the permit below just needed someone to review an “I” we needed to dot. If you could we would appreciate it if we could get it issued. Thank you for your help.”
Approximately 20 minutes later, Knapp responded to Beruff’s email and cc-ed Franklin, “I’m on now. Stand by.” Knapp wrote.
A second employee emailed Franklin the same morning attempting to explain the addressing issue, “Vickie is currently assigning the address of 8923 Hammock Bay Loop - unit 101, Parrish 34219 to this proposed ADU. The existing address plus unit number is our typical process for address assignment to accessory dwelling units. Please allow between 24-72 hours for the address to process.”
Four minutes after receiving the explanation from staff, Franklin forwarded the response to Knapp and cc-ed Beruff, writing, “See the latest below from Suzanne and Vickie.”
Less than an hour later, Knapp responded to Franklin and cc-ed Beruff, writing, “Address has been assigned, a permit is being issued as we speak.”
By going directly through the department’s director, Beruff was able to secure a building permit for a structure that does not comply with the county building code and seemingly obtained the permit in an exceptionally short time—a little more than one month.
Similar public records reviewed by TBT related to the county’s approval of a private street designation at Beruff’s private property show similar high-priority personalized responses by staff. The private street application and request were largely handled by Development Services Deputy Director Denise Greer, who processed, reviewed, and approved that application.
To date, the county has not issued any public statements nor responded to TBT’s request for comment. Knapp and Greer were both in attendance and conducting business as usual in BOCC meetings as recently as last week.
To view public record emails used for TBT’s reporting of this story, click here and here. Note: these emails are not arranged in chronological order.
13 comments on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.
Debann
CORRUPTION IS RAMPANT IN MANATEE COUNTY...AND THAT'S WHY KNAPP GOT ONE HELL OF A RAISE...GOTTA KEEP CARLOS HAPPY..BULLSHIT.....CARLOS WANTS SATCHER IN CHARGE OF SOE SO THEY CAN FUDGE THE VOTES TO BE CERTAIN VANBONEHEAD GETS REELECTED...NOTHING BUT DESPICABLE CORRUPTION IN OUR COUNTY..DEPOL IS PART OF THE HOPES CABAL... GET RID OF THE TRASH
Saturday, March 9 Report this
sandy
I can live with the 80% of the principal structure especially on a property this size. But according to Section 511.18.8.7 of the land development code you can have either a guest house OR ADU. Permit #BLD1908-2248 was a garage and guest house. CO'd 6/12/2020. And based on a re-review gas added for a cooktop (not allowed in a guest house). His guest house became an ADU. He should not have been permitted another. I am disappointed in Nicole. I worked with her and I am so sorry to see her give in to the developer and their bought and paid for administrators and commissioners.
Saturday, March 9 Report this
David Daniels
On his first day as Administrator in August 2023, Charlie Bishop fired Records Mgr Debbie Scaccianoce because she refused Commissioner VanOstenbridge's request that she illegally inflate the cost to release his (KVO's) public record text messages. Instead of praising a top manager for acting with integrity, Charlie Bishop was following what has become, over the last 4 years, the Manatee County Government playbook that got him to where he is today and sends the message to all employees - BE CORRUPT or BE FIRED. It's the same message Sarah Brown sent to me in 2020, and that Jodie Fiske sent to 11 other shelter volunteers last year - IGNORE SUFFERING or BE FIRED. Knapp and the entire organization get it. BE CORRUPT OR BE FIRED. No way Knapp would act so blatantly corrupt without approval of Bishop. An organization rots from the head. Leadership is everything.The rules should apply to everyone, but what message is sent to other permit applicants? Voters should remember that VanOstenbridge pushed for Scott Hopes, who is awaiting trial for felonies committed as Administrator. Then VanOstenbridge pushed for Bishop, despite the fact that Bishop once awarded a county contract to his girlfriend for a service the county already provided. Bishop and VanOstenbridge have no ethics. They continue using their personal phones for county business- a violation of county policy and public records law that has led to 3 lawsuits and the county spending $thousands to issue county phones to them and hundreds of other employees. Their county phones are disabled but we still pay the bill for them, plus software licenses. In the first 2 lawsuits, taxpayers picked up the tab for over $125K in legal fees - mostly racked up by VanOStenbridge, Satcher, and Baugh. The 3rd public records suit is still pending. Taxpayers should not be asked to again pay legal fees for a corrupt organization that refuses to comply with the law. The primary election is in August. Register now and VOTE!
Saturday, March 9 Report this
kmskepton
I am wondering who fed Knapp the wording for all of this.
Sunday, March 10 Report this
Rlasunto
What’s the point in having laws if they can be ignored?
With the blatant corruption in the BOCC my guess would be that you could have video of Beruff handing over a bag filled with cash to anyone on or associated with the Manatee government and nothing would be done except possibly the person making the video would be prosecuted because he/she did not ask for permission.
Beyond disgusting
Sunday, March 10 Report this
ruthlawler
Since 2020, over 700 Manatee County employees have resigned or were fired. Many remaining employees are going along with the corruption or just keeping a low profile in order to retire unscathed. This is no way to run an organization. I am heartsick at this continued corruption. If, as a County employee, you go along with this corruption, you are rewarded with promotions, salary increases and perhaps more. If you object, out you go. A fish stinks from it head. The one with the fish hooked on the line is Beruff. Ruth Lawler
Sunday, March 10 Report this
san.gander
What happened to EQUALLITY UNDER LAW? This county government enforces laws only when it chooses; and only on those it chooses. That is un-American - now you know what the present Republican Party has become!
Sunday, March 10 Report this
writerlynn9717
"Rather than a genuine analysis, Knapp’s memorandum appeared to be searching for a justification to create an exception to the rules. "
You are so right. I've seen this over and over again in Manatee County permitting. If you know someone, you get action, and they try to help you get around the common rules others have to go by creating exceptions. It's especially apparent now when it comes to our precious environmental concerns versus developers.
Will people get these shady employees ever get thrown out of the system, including the commissioners? I don't believe that they were scared of getting fired, over scared to commit inappropriate actions to favor friends and people in high places. I just think they are bad characters with bad values.
Sunday, March 10 Report this
JanaDM
I find it interesting that a man who is the son of Cuban refugees would grow up to be a tyrant dictator.
Sunday, March 10 Report this
Cat L
Just getting caught up ... Blatant! This is unsurprising, but still, the gall... Beruff is just pulling together his own little kingdom, isn't he?
Monday, March 11 Report this
Dianna
This corruption started with John Barnott. I questioned this during one of the meetings (2016) when changes were being made. I asked why we even had rules when there is a waiver clause for virtually every rule in the Land Development Code. No one responded. I read the entire code because at that time they were denying citizens their rights under the code and enforcing them as they chose. If you want to verify that look no further than the Code Enforcement investigation results and the mishandling of all those cases. Anyone can read the LDC- it’s online unless the county has hidden it from the public. You will see the waiver process- the Department Director has the ability to “interpret and mishandle” that in any manner they choose. Favoritism again. The corruption is blatant, and Knapp needs to go -right along with the corruption that is currently leading them.
Monday, March 11 Report this
Debann
Dianna You nailed it...Barnott got out while the getting was good...Favoritism is only for the developers...THE WORST BOCC EVER...YOU COULDN'T PAY ME TO GO BACK TO WORK FOR THE COUNTY..
Monday, March 11 Report this
WTF
With the exception of George Kruse the rest of the BOCC is bought and sold by developers. Look no further than their voting record. Gut the wetlands, no public call in, not a peep from them on developer issues that if Joe Citizen wanted to do something like this it would never be allowed, but for a select few developers. Corrupt as hell ... One & Done !
Tuesday, March 12 Report this