Legal Case
Donations are still needed as we have not reached our funding goal, while our legal costs continue (donation info link here).
On 11-19-20, a Complaint was filed in the Circuit Court against Manatee County for not following the Comprehensive Plan rules and regulations: THE REZONING VIOLATES § 163.3215(3), FLORIDA STATUTES, BECAUSE IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE MANATEE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. These include a commercial intrusion into a residential neighborhood, building in a 25-year floodplain and moving Gates Creek (where are the overriding public interests for those two?).
Commercial Intrusion into a residential neighborhood: The Rezoning and GDP propose and authorize a commercial site between the Lush Property and Missionary Village, which are both residential sites or uses, neither of which is separated from the Property by an arterial or collector roadway. The Rezoning and GDP therefore propose and authorize a commercial intrusion into a residential area, as defined and prohibited by the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan.
Building in a 25-year floodplain: The Rezoning authorizes a GDP for development of 6.9 acres within the 25-year flood plain (identified and mapped on the Property), but the Board failed to make a finding of any overriding public interest for impacting the 25-year floodplain, as required by the Comprehensive Plan.
Moving Gates Creek: The Rezoning and GDP allow the relocation of Gates Creek Tributary, which requires the BCC to find that the relocation serves an overriding public interest. The Board made findings related to the relocation, but those findings do not establish such action is required by the County, state, or federal government, or is necessary to the public safety, health or welfare, and therefore do not meet the definition of overriding public interest as established in the Comprehensive Plan.
As to the "reason" to move Gates Creek, the Cox/Giddens application contains the remarkable claim that: "The relocation of the Gates Creek Tributary ... furthers the overriding public interest of: (a) the provision of additional stormwater conveyance capacity and stormwater floodplain storage, (b) the removal of an existing undersized culvert crossing resulting in the removal of an existing chokepoint, which presently leads to inundation..." Nowhere in this statement is there a reason given explaining why Gates Creek needs to be moved at all! Further, the Cox claim is remarkably inaccurate. Removing the culvert will allow all the flood waters from a rain event entering Gates Creek upstream to flow through the Giddens property unimpeded and be completely detrimental to the public good for the following reasons:
Downstream communities will see an increase in stormwater flow rate and volume, resulting in increased flooding.
Pollutants from upstream will no longer be infiltrated and absorbed into the permeable soil on the 18-acre parcel (thanks to the culvert chokepoint). Instead, the proposed "improvement" to Gates Creek would result in direct dumping of pollutants/chemicals/fertilizer-runoff downstream and on into Manatee River, further contributing to Red Tide at the beaches.
According to the 4-3 vote by the Board of County Commissioners, the County will be required to deal with the increased flooding afterwards instead of Cox. Amazing!
For all the above reasons (and many others), we argue that in the 4-3 vote of the Manatee County Commissioners, those voting for it failed to follow the Comprehensive Plan and have neither provided for any betterment for the local residents affected nor for the County at large.
