BRADENTON — Manatee County Commissioners unanimously upheld a staff determination that the 1,204-acre Pomelo Bluff property in Myakka does not qualify as "contiguous and conterminous" under Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.2.8. The denial blocks a likely future proposal to build 3,611 residential units east of the county's Future Development Area Boundary and within the Lake Manatee Watershed Protection Overlay District.
Policy 2.1.2.8 was adopted in 2021; its provisions allow development east of the FDAB under certain conditions, provided the applicant can show the proposed development is "contiguous and coterminous" with an existing master development. However, commissioners and staff have at times struggled to make determinations under 2.1.2.8 as development applicants push for loose interpretations.
At the time of its adoption, the policy was strongly opposed by members of the public, who argued that adopting such provisions would effectively push the FDAB line further east.
Established to encourage development in the county's urban areas where county-provided utilities such as water and sewer are available, the FDAB was intended to limit urban sprawl, protect the watershed of Lake Manatee, and help preserve the rural agricultural areas of East County.
Despite the commission’s earlier attempt this year to repeal Policy 2.1.2.8, their efforts have stalled due to Senate Bill 180 and its preemptive “more restrictive or burdensome” language.
Seeking an Appeal
Applicants Sioux Investment Partners LLC, Commercial National Properties II LLC, Commercial National Properties III LLC, 1105 Ranch I LLC, 1105 Ranch II LLC, and Genesis 12:17 LLC jointly submitted an appeal of staff’s administrative determination issues in February related the approximately 1,204 acres located on the north side of State Road 64 East, east of County Road 675, along Oak Knoll Road in Myakka City, known as Pomelo Bluff.
Public records indicate that the LLCs involved in the appeal and listed as the applicant appear to have some connection to local developer Pat Neal of Neal Communities.
According to the county staff report, the administrative determination found that the property did not meet the requirements of Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.2.8, which states that part of the proposed development parcel/area must be next to (contiguous and coterminous with) the FDAB or to other developments approved under the same policy.
Staff determined that, although the applicant argued that their property is contiguous and coterminous with the FDAB because Lake Manatee or its tributaries connect it, the property is actually located approximately two miles west of the FDAB and does not qualify under 2.1.2.8.
“The property is not coterminous to the FDAB and does not meet the Land Development Code definition of contiguous. The applicant’s interpretation does not meet Policy 2.1.2.8 criteria,” the staff report included.
During the BOCC land use meeting on Thursday, local land use attorney Ed Vogler was joined by Stantec Project Planner Katie Labarr to try to make the case that the board should grant their clients’ appeal.
Vogler, who frequently represents Neal on development matters, took the lead in answering most of the commissioners' questions.
In his opening comments, Vogler proposed that because his clients had submitted their initial application for consideration under 2.1.2.8 before the board had taken official action to set about its repeal, this uniquely positioned his clients for special consideration, even though he acknowledged his awareness that almost none of the commissioners found the policy to be a good one.
Three of the board’s current commissioners were elected in November 2024, and a fourth was reelected. All four were sworn into office on November 19, 2024.
The Pomelo Bluff application for a rezone from General Agriculture to Planned Development Residential, with a General Development Plan of 3,611 residential units and supporting amenities beyond the FDAB, was submitted on November 15—just four days before the commissioners’ swearing-in.
But as part of his pitch last Thursday, Vogler offered that if the board granted his clients’ appeal, it would be the last such development site that might be able to qualify to build beyond the FDAB under 2.1.2.8.
“This is not going to happen again, because we are the only property owner that opened the door to seek this approval before the time that, a few months later, this board announced its intention to seek revisions to policy 2.1.2.8,” said Vogler.
However, each of the commissioners elected in 2024 was quite public about their intention to, if elected, support a board effort to repeal 2.1.2.8.
Vogler continued his argument for the appeal, stating that, under his interpretation of the policy, his clients’ property did not need to directly border the FDAB to qualify under Policy 2.1.2.8. Instead, the property could be considered “contiguous” because the land separating it from the FDAB was a publicly owned body of water, Lake Manatee.
Commissioner Amanda Ballard prefaced her questions for Vogler by pointing to the county’s Land Development Code, which defines contiguous to mean “adjoining or separated by no more than a street, railroad, canal, stream, or similar feature.”
“Wouldn’t you agree that a stream is quite different from Lake Manatee, one of the largest bodies of water in Manatee County?” she asked.
“We don’t see it that way, commissioner,” answered Vogler. “Based on the overall language and intent that we see in the plan document, this is not urban sprawl. We would argue that this is good for Manatee County and consistent with the policy.”
Vogler added that without clear definitions, “We have to answer this question as ‘yes.’ A similar feature is a body of water. There aren’t very many Lake Manatees around, so it is what we consider a reasonable interpretation.”
Ballard further pressed, “A ‘stream’ is defined as a ‘small narrow river. Obviously, Lake Manatee is an order of magnitude different than a ‘small narrow river,’ would you agree?”
“Today it is,” conceded Vogler, “but it wasn’t always.”
“We have lots of lakes that are bodies of water,” Ballard replied, “Would you consider Lake Okeechobee a ‘minor geographical division’ for your purposes?”
“Probably yes,” he answered.
“They are both bodies of water, significant bodies of water… this is our rationale. And I see it, there are defects in our argument, because there are not clear definitions,” he explained.
Vogler reiterated that the lack of definitions in Policy 2.1.2.8 and the lack of clarity on whether his clients’ property would qualify as contiguous under it were what motivated the appeal in the first place.
“I believe we have a very large body of water that is separating here, and it is not a ‘minor geographical division’... So, I don’t see the justifiable reliance,” Ballard said, apologizing for her questioning to turn to deliberations before other commissioners had the opportunity to ask the applicant questions.
Commissioner George Kruse—who began raising concerns about Policy 2.1.2.8 at least as early as 2023—suggested that, without clear definitions, perhaps it was best to lean on the ‘intent’ of the policy for the most accurate determination.
“Were you involved in the first versions of this policy?” Kruse asked Vogler. “Policy 2.1.2.8 as transmitted was different than the 2.1.2.8 that came back (for adoption). Just for a little bit of history.”
“That’s right,” agreed Vogler. “And I was not directly involved as a client matter; however, I do follow this stuff.”
Vogler went on to describe his understanding of the policy's intent at the time of its passage. Kruse politely disagreed with Vogler’s recollection.
A Brief History
A prior county commission considered policy 2.1.2.8 as a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan text amendment in April 2021.
Presented before the commissioners by land-use attorney Caleb Grimes of the Grimes Gallvano law firm, Grimes represented his client, Lakewood Ranch Communities.
In his pitch, Grimes proposed that by adopting 2.1.2.8, commissioners would be encouraging smart growth, discouraging urban sprawl through the contiguous and contiguous requirements, and responsibly adopting an FDAB exception policy that would apply only in very select circumstances.
SMR Lakewood Ranch owned more than 2,000 acres just east of the FDAB that abutted the divisionary line and the existing Lakewood Ranch Master Development. With Lakewood Ranch already built out, a contiguous development could tie into the neighboring infrastructure, and, as Grimes explained, applicants could even be stipulated to cover all their own expenses in doing so.
However, his presentation at the April 15, 2021, BOCC land use meeting did not generate the same level of excitement among all the commissioners.
Former Commissioners Misty Servia and Carol Whitmore appeared open to the idea, finding the intent to qualify, by their estimations, as smart growth.
Former Commissioners Vanessa Baugh and James Satcher were not fans of the proposal. Satcher struggled with the potential magnitude of impact such a policy might have on the FDAB, and questioned if it would largely only benefit one specific developer—Grimes’ client. Satcher referred to this as potentially “picking favorites.”
Commissioner George Kruse, the only current board member who also served in 2021, also did not support the 2.1.2.8 proposal when it came before for transmittal that April.
Numerous public commenters spoke in opposition.
By the close of board deliberations that day, 2.1.2.8 was approved for transmittal in a 4-3 vote, with Satcher, Baugh, and Kruse voting in opposition.
More than six months later, during a land use meeting on November 18, 2021, the policy proposal for development beyond the FDAB returned to the board for final adoption. When it returned, it came with revisions.
One of the most significant changes, as Grimes explained, was that the policy was made slightly more accessible to other potential applicants while remaining adequately restrictive.
Residents' concerns were not alleviated by the revisions, and many again participated in public comment during the meeting, asking commissioners to deny the policy's adoption due to concerns about overdevelopment and the erosion of the FDAB.
Unlike citizens, the commissioners were persuaded by the revisions, and the board voted unanimously to approve the adoption of Policy 2.1.2.8.
In 2023, SMR’s Taylor Ranch development was approved for a massive expansion beyond the FDAB. The approval allowed for up to 4,500 residential units on 2,300 acres of previously rural land.
The vote to approve Taylor Ranch was 4-3, with commissioners Jason Bearden and Satcher voting in opposition.
Just months after the Taylor Ranch approval, Carlos Beruff’s East River Ranch received approval to build up to 5,378 residential units and more than a million square feet of commercial space on approximately 1,381 acres, situated beyond the FDAB.
Beruff’s East River Ranch met the contiguous and conterminous provisions of 2.1.2.8 because it shared a boundary with the approved Taylor Ranch development site.
Kruse disagreed that East River Ranch should qualify as contiguous to land approved for development, but not an existing master development. He believed this violated the spirit of the policy. He also expressed great concern about the intensity of the development request.
East River Ranch was approved 5-1, with Kruse dissenting and Bearden absent.
Both Taylor Ranch and East River Ranch—which together approved the construction of more than 9,800 units beyond the FDAB—faced strong public opposition, despite agreements requiring the developers to be solely responsible for all infrastructure costs.
Had the commissioners granted the Pomelo Bluff appeal last week, the combined development approvals due to 2.1.2.8 would have climbed to more than 13,000 residential units in or near the Lake Manatee Watershed District.
What We Know About the Pomelo Bluff Property
According to public records, more than 350 acres of the roughly 1,200-acre Pomelo Bluff property are under the combined ownership of Commercial National Properties (I, II, or III) LLCs.
Sunbiz shows that each of the Commercial National Properties LLCs was formed as a corporation in October 2023 with a principal address of 5800 Lakewood Ranch Boulevard—an address shared by Neal Communities' corporate headquarters.
In February 2024, these LLC reports were amended to change the registered agent and title manager to John Hales. The principal address was also changed to an address in Okeechobee, FL.
Almost 780 acres of the Pomelo Bluff property appear under the ownership of 1105 Ranch (I, II, or III) LLCs combined.
Sunbiz lists John Hales of Okeechobee as the registered agent and title manager. The principal address is the same as reported on the Commercial National Properties LLC.
During the public comment portion of the Pomelo Bluff appeal hearing last week, roughly 10 citizens spoke at the podium, urging commissioners to deny the appeal.
One of those citizens was Myakka resident, Jaimie VanHoose, a Manatee County native and an adjacent property owner to Pomelo Bluff.
“I wasn’t always an adjacent property owner,” VanHoose told commissioners. “The southernmost portion of land in Pomelo Bluff, which touches SR 64, is my adjacent property line.”
She continued, “My previous neighbor, Mrs. Gomez, who is deceased, she was promised that her property was being bought by a local cattle rancher. We haven’t seen a cow on that land yet, and now look! It’s the new entrance to proposed Pomelo Bluff!”
Public records show that Neal’s Sioux Investment Partners LLC purchased VanHoose's former neighbor, Mrs. Gomez’s 6.82 acres, in October 2024, for $800,000.
A little less than six months later, in April 2025, Neal sold Mrs.Gomez’s former property to a corporation by the name of 3H Ranch LLC, registered to John Hales of Okeechobee. Public sale records recorded the sale price as $800,000.
Sunbiz records show other corporations that are likely connected to Hales, including Hales Land & Cattle LLC. It shares the same Okeechobee address.
Hales and Neal have partnered on land and development deals previously.
In August 2024, Neal’s 3H Ranch, a large residential and commercial development in rural Sarasota, spanning approximately 2,700 acres of former farmland, was approved for up to 6,576 homes and hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial and office space by the Sarasota County Commission.
Its approval was controversial due to significant public opposition and concerns about overdevelopment, infrastructure, environmental impacts, flooding, water supply, and developer influence.
Hales told commissioners his father originally purchased 3H Ranch about 61 years ago, and when the family decided to pursue development of the land, he chose Neal Communities.
The hundreds of Pomelo Bluff acres held by Hales’ 1105 Ranch LLCs were conveyed to his corporations in February 2025 by another corporation, Genesis 12:7 LLC.
Genesis is registered to a David Deloach of Orlando.
In 2021, Deloach’s Genesis purchased 1,197 acres of a former orange grove, seemingly within what is now known as Pomelo—land south of Oak Knoll Road and east of County Road 675. The sale was recorded as for $11 million.
In October 2023, Genesis entered into a land sale agreement with Neal Communities of Southwest Florida.
Genesis appears in county records as an applicant of the Pomelo Bluff administrative determination appeal; however, none of the parcel numbers named in county records as part of Pomelo Bluff appear in property records as currently owned by Genesis—all appear to have been since conveyed to corporations registered to Hales.
The denial of the Pomelo Bluff appeal is likely to be the latest in a series of recent development decisions by the current Manatee County Commissioners that could anger Neal.
In May, he opposed the board's efforts to raise impact fees, resulting in a lawsuit brought by Neal, Beruff, and other developer interests against the county. Then in July, the board denied Neal’s proposed Pope Ranch development in Parrish, prompting yet another legal challenge.
Despite not receiving the outcome he desired on every application before the board, Neal's Christenberry rezone received a unanimous 'yes' from commissioners during the same land use meeting on Thursday. The development site is a 10-acre infill project in NW Bradenton, with one dwelling unit per acre.
In September, commissioners voted to join other local governments in a legal challenge of SB 180, the state Senate Bill that has stalled their attempts to reinstate local wetland protections and repeal 2.1.2.8. Its “more restrictive or burdensome” language is also the basis of the case challenging the board’s decision to collect full impact fees.
Dawn Kitterman is a staff reporter and investigative journalist for The Bradenton Times, covering local government news. She can be reached at dawn.kitterman@thebradentontimes.com.
1 comment on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.
David Daniels
I am disappointed that more development was approved in NW Bradenton right next to Robinson Preserve. This is one of the last remaining areas of west Manatee where there is wildlife habitat. At the last election, we sent a message - STOP REZONING for development!. Yes, I know it is only 10 homes. But this is 10 more acres lost. Across the street they are currently building a subdivision. This rezone means there will be more clearing, more infill, more tree removals, more fertilizer runoff, more construction traffic that will force out and kill the coyotes, owls, turtles, and other wildlife that used to be part of our quality of life. You don't have to rezone every square inch of west Bradenton. You don't have to rezone period.
Saturday, November 8, 2025 Report this