Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Travesta Parcel E topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manatee planning commission denies Travesta expansion after residents cite water, wildlife and infrastructure concerns
Summary
After hours of public comment from Travesta residents alleging irrigation failures, wildlife impacts and infrastructure shortfalls, the Planning Commission denied an amendment to increase commercial square footage and create a 0.23-acre “Parcel E.” The denial was unanimous (6-0).
The Manatee County Planning Commission on Aug. 14 denied a request to amend the Travesta planned development to increase allowable commercial square footage from 100,000 to 150,000 and to create a new 0.23-acre commercial parcel dubbed "Parcel E." The motion to deny passed 6-0 after more than an hour of public testimony and commissioner deliberation.
The amendment, presented by Linda Stewart of Morris Engineering on behalf of the developer, would have created a project-wide maximum of 150,000 square feet of commercial use on the 441.3-acre Travesta development and assigned a maximum of 10,000 square feet to Parcel E. Stewart said the request keeps the project well below the comprehensive-plan maximum floor-area ratio (0.21 proposed vs. 0.35 allowed) and increases open space to 53% of the site, well above the 20% requirement.
Residents urged the commission to delay or reject the amendment until long-running problems with the neighborhood’s private irrigation and water supply are addressed. "This plan directly enables a developer who has repeatedly placed profit over the well‑being of our neighborhood," Travesta resident Catherine Castreva told commissioners, citing months‑long water outages, a 30‑year contract with a private operator and what she described as insufficient service to households in the development.
Residents also raised environmental concerns. Several speakers reported seeing bald eagles in the area and questioned the environmental report used by the applicant; county environmental staff responded that the report recorded a nest (MN007) adjacent to the proposed parcel but noted it had not been shown as active in about a decade. "If there is an active nest, the developer would have to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service," county environmental staff said.
Applicant and project representatives acknowledged the neighborhood’s complaints but said the irrigation system and reclaimed-water infrastructure are privately owned and that prior agreements and improvements — including road and utility contributions — have been provided. Matt Morris, speaking for the applicant, suggested Parcel E’s small size (0.23 acres) limits potential uses there and proposed a separate small irrigation well as a technical fix for the parcel.
Commissioners expressed concern that Parcel E’s 10,000 square‑foot cap would have to fit on a very small upland site that is tightly constrained by adjacent wetlands and flood zones. Several commissioners said the record lacked clarity about timing and specific uses for the parcel and that the water and infrastructure issues raised by neighbors were significant and unresolved.
After deliberation Commissioner Prosser moved to deny the amendment; the motion passed unanimously. Commissioners said staff should refine stipulations if the applicant returns and noted the Board of County Commissioners retains final approval authority on such comprehensive-plan and PDMU changes.
The denial means the Travesta development remains under the existing 100,000-square-foot commercial entitlement. The applicant may pursue a revised application or return with clarified stipulations and additional technical information to address the neighborhood’s concerns.
