A proposal to build four homes on Perico Island has caused quite a fuss.
Environmentalists picketed Feb. 16 along the 12300 block of Manatee Avenue West, waiving protest signs such as “No permit for Pat” and “Justice for Mangroves” in anticipation of the three-day hearing that started Feb. 17.
The hearing took place in Tampa at the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings — an office that reviews permits issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
The August 2014 intent-to-issue notice for the permit requested by developer Pat Neal to build four homes in a four-lot subdivision on approximately four waterfront acres at the northernmost end of Perico Island.
“I’d say it was an ordinary, run of the mill permit,” said Neal. “I’ve been building on the island since 1970 and have gotten scores of permits. Very few have been controversial.”
Former County Commissioner Joe McClash petitioned for a review of the permit along with environmental groups Florida Institute for Saltwater Heritage, ManaSota-88 and the Manatee-Sarasota Sierra Club.
Judgment was withheld by Judge Bram Canter at the close of the hearing Feb. 19, and McClash anticipated it would take time. The clerk of the courts must issue the minutes of the hearing, then the “clock starts ticking” on a decision, he said.
“I think the judge was very fair. In my opinion he was a no-nonsense judge,” McClash said.
The three-day trial saw plans, statements of fact from all parties and heard from environmental consultants in what Neal called a “battle of the experts.”
Lee Cook of Quest Ecology testified on behalf of the petitioners and, according to McClash, soil tests from visits to the site reveal there are more wetlands than the original permit application states.
The results were just what the group of environmentalists hoped.
“I’m very optimistic that they can prove there’s more wetlands on the site than they indicated,” McClash said.
McClash said he disputed three main issues of the permit:
• A dispute in the mitigation bank criteria, which proposes to counter wetland destruction in a separate basin from where the destruction will take place.
• Perico Island was included in a mitigation service area without adequate explanation in a subsequent permit application to address the separate basin issue.
• The construction of a retaining wall, that should be considered a seawall.
After learning the consultant’s findings, McClash added the issue of inadequate approximation of wetlands to his list of disputes.
“The seawall is very similar to the seawall installed on the Minto property. Changing the plans that they did, they put riprap in front of the wall so they could meet the exception that it’s a retaining wall,” McClash said.
Neal disagreed, saying mitigation efforts are adequate and meet a state imposed “public interest test.” Neal said this means providing greater habitat and water-quality improvements than what is proposed to be impacted to create a “positive net benefit.”
“There is no controversy and I think the evidence shows that,” Neal said.
He added that his 1985-92 development of the Perico Bay Club east on Manatee Avenue was far greater in magnitude without challenge.
The proposed development, called Harbour Sound, is adjacent to Harbour Isle, Minto’s development. Neal said the property, owned by a land trust associated with his family, was purchased with the Perico Bay Club property in 1982.
After the administrative hearing judge makes a response, both parties can respond before the judge makes a recommended order.
It is up to Swiftmud to make the final order.
Neal’s development also awaits permit approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.