Manatee County commissioners on Nov. 6 affirmed a county staff administrative determination and denied an applicant appeal seeking to treat a 1,204‑acre parcel east of Lake Manatee as coterminous and contiguous with the county Future Development Area boundary (FDAB) under policy 2.1.02.8 of the comprehensive plan. The ruling prevents the applicant from pursuing a comprehensive plan amendment under the special FDAB pathway unless a different, separate avenue is available.

The applicant argued that historical deeds, reservoir limits and prior land‑transaction language supported a broader reading of the terms “contiguous” and “coterminous.” Applicant witnesses described deed transfers and historic section lines and argued the phrase “separated by” in statute and the LDC should allow government‑owned reservoir land to function as the separating feature in the policy.

Staff took the opposite position. Planning staff said Manatee County’s land‑development code defines “contiguous” as “adjoining or separated by no more than a street, railroad, canal, stream or similar feature,” and that Lake Manatee’s extent and intervening uplands mean the subject parcel is not contiguous or coterminous to the FDAB. Staff also cited the practical tests used by local zoning practice and the comprehensive plan that the FDAB protections were intended to prevent leapfrog development and to channel growth to compact corridors.

Multiple members of the public — including residents adjacent to Lake Manatee and water‑resource advocates — urged commissioners to uphold staff to protect the lake, the Mill Creek watershed and the county’s drinking‑water source. The board ultimately accepted staff’s interpretation and denied the appeal.

What it means: The denial preserves the county’s current policy interpretation for this tract. The applicant may continue with other planning options, but cannot advance under the FDAB special‑purpose review unless circumstances change or the board amends policy language. Staff said the decision rests on the particular facts and orientation of Lake Manatee in relation to the FDAB and is not a general advisory opinion beyond the current application.

Why it matters: The decision addresses how the FDAB is applied to large tracts separated by a county‑owned reservoir and clarifies that, under staff and the board’s reading, large public water bodies and intervening uplands do not create a contiguous/coterminous condition under policy 2.1.02.8.