Plans by developer Pat Neal of Neal Communities to build a family compound on the northwest corner of Perico Island suffered a seemingly fatal blow last week when Judge Bram Canter of the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District issue a final order that denies the environmental resource permit for the project.
Former Manatee County Commissioner Joseph McClash, the Sierra Club, ManaSota-88, the Florida Institute for Saltwater Heritage and others petitioned for the ruling against Neal’s plan to build four single-family homes on four of the 40 acres of waterfront land he owns through a trust, after a Southwest Florida Water Management District permit issued last summer allowed for removal of “exotic vegetation” along the shore.
The petitioners purported that if the development, dubbed Harbor Sound, was allowed to come to fruition, mangrove trees would be removed and wetlands destroyed — the very things, they contend, that Swiftmud should be protecting.
Canter concurred: “The cumulative impacts that would result from the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands in the basin.”
Neal had proposed to offset any negative effects with the purchase of credits from the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank, which is 17 miles north of the proposed project site. The Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank is in the Tampa Bay Drainage Basin, while, if constructed, Harbor Sound would be in the South Coastal Drainage Basin.
“That arrangement might make things better in Tampa Bay,” said Barbara Hines of ManaSota-88, a local nonprofit dedicated to environmental protection, “but it does nothing to prevent the destruction of our way of life in terms of recreational and commercial fishing and ecotourism as well as the mangroves and natural habitats along our shores.”
The most important section of the order, according to McClash, dealt with the uniqueness of Neal’s request. Drawing comparisons to projects in the 1960s and ’70s, before the enactment of environmental regulations, Canter called Harbor Sound an “unusual project.”
“In all the reported DOAH cases involving ERPs and mitigation of wetland impacts,” the judge stated, “the circumstances have involved impaired wetlands and/or the restoration or permanent protection of other wetlands on the project site. No case could be found where an applicant simply paid for authorization to destroy almost an acre of high-quality wetlands and convert it to uplands.”
“This project would have reversed years of environmental protection in order to build residential homes that could be built anywhere,” McClash said.
The project is dead,” he concluded. “The recommended order sends a pretty clear message.”
But, according to Neal, reports of the demise of Harbor Sound are greatly exaggerated.
“The approval process takes a long time,” Neal said. “In the end, we think that our proposal improves the environment. The tiny impact of the project will be compensated for by substantial mitigation.
“Canter is trying to create new law regarding mitigation,” he said, adding that he believes that the judge misread the statute entirely. “We don’t think that will be sustained as the process moves forward.”
Neal has reason to be confident. This past March, he won state approval to build a subdivision on rezoned farmland in northwest Bradenton after Gov. Rick Scott and his cabinet overturned another unfavorable ruling by Canter.
“It’s an identical process and we expect identical results,” he said.
Linda Molto, a longtime board member of FISH, already is steeling herself for that possibility.
“We’re very happy about the recommended order,” she said. “We made the right argument and did the best that we could do to protect our bays and shores. But we also recognize that with the political environment in this state, anything can happen. Pat Neal was a big contributor to Governor Scott’s campaign. We know what we’re up against.
“So it’s joy one day and back to reality the next.”
Sandra Ripberger, conservation chair of the Manatee-Sarasota Sierra Club, is a bit more optimistic.
“We recognize that there is political influence in our state agencies,” she said. “But I don’t think that the prospects (for this project) are very good. Judge Canter understood and validated out concerns using very firm legal arguments.”
Ripberger noted that the Sierra Club would continue to oppose the project by submitting comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which posted a public notice June 23for a revised permit application for Harbor Sound. Neal submitted changes to the application after it was denied by the Corps earlier this spring for failing to comply with the federal Clean Water Act.
The modifications include altering the project footprint to maximize use of available uplands and reduce encroachment into wetland areas, as well as placing a restrictive covenant over the mangrove wetlands on the property to protect the aquatic environment from future developmental pressures.
Ripberger was unimpressed by the suggestions made.
“This is a very vulnerable site,” she said. “Located next to Anna Maria Sound, it is so rich in wildlife. To approve the project would be a throwback to the ’60s and ’70s when seawalls were put up with no thought to the environment.”
Public comment will be accepted by the Corps through July 8. A copy of the permit can be viewed online by going to http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/PublicNotices/tabid/6072/Article/601471/saj-2014-00413-sp-mep.aspx.
Ripberger encouraged others to add their voice to the Sierra Club’s in opposition to Harbor Sound.
“This is probably the most important (of the permits), she said. “Laws protecting coastal habitats are in effect and were validated with the recent decision. The environment shouldn’t be exploited for personal gain. Citizens should speak out and insist that the laws be upheld.”