Manatee County continues two comprehensive-plan text amendments, including wetland protection reversion, to no date set

The Manatee County Board of County Commissioners on Aug. 21 continued two county-initiated comprehensive-plan text amendments — including an item described as a "wetland protection reversion" — to no date set and said both hearings will be re-advertised.

The continuances covered: an item described in the record as ordinance number "25-17" (PA 2502), described as a county-initiated comprehensive plan text amendment to repeal ordinance 21-12; and PA 2501, ordinance 25-14, described in the record as a county-initiated comprehensive-plan text amendment for wetland protection reversion. Both items were announced by staff as continued to no date set and will be re-advertised.

Why it matters: county residents and officials described the decision as a pause while legal and legislative developments play out. Several public commenters said the county should wait as litigation and changes at the state level affect local authority over land-use rules.

Public comment focused on state legislation and the decision to delay. David Dean, a Manatee County resident of Myakka City, said the delay was prudent while the county pursues litigation and legislative remedies: "I think it's a wise move to postpone the vote for now while you pursue the community lawsuit to nullify the ambiguous burden language in SB 250 and SB 180," Dean said. He said developers and the governor were using the bills' language to challenge local limits on development.

Another resident, Dalton Nelson, also urged caution and said the state bills contain "very burdensome language" that limits local control. Nelson said he supported continuing the hearing while other local governments explore ways to preserve protections without running afoul of state law.

Anthony Shulo, a Manatee County resident, supported the board's decision to continue the items and recommended the county produce a year-end document summarizing county actions taken during the past year (work orders completed, debris collected, advertising of public meetings and land-use decisions) so the public can see how county actions fit into recovery and resilience efforts. Shulo said: "Nothing this board has done was ever intended to stifle recovery." He also referenced incidents in other Florida counties where commissioners had been removed or arrested for personal misconduct or corruption, noting those cases involved different facts than the land-use actions under consideration.

County staff read the agenda items into the record at the hearing and stated the formal action: each public hearing was opened and then continued to no date set, to be re-advertised. Commissioners did not take a final vote on either ordinance at the Aug. 21 hearing.

The board chair closed public comment after several residents spoke. County staff further noted that a separate agenda item — acceptance and recording of a temporary utility easement from KB Home Tampa LLC for the Heron Lehi Phase 1A project — had been acted on at a prior meeting and would not be heard at the Aug. 21 session.

What happens next: both public hearings will be re-advertised; the county did not set new hearing dates during the Aug. 21 meeting. Any future hearing record should indicate whether staff or commissioners propose changes to the text amendments before another public hearing is scheduled.

Minutes and the official agenda record list the items as continued to no date set and to be re-advertised; no formal motions adopting or rejecting the ordinances were taken at the Aug. 21 hearing.