How do you take a couple of very good land use projects and then allow them to metamorphosize into a bad outcome? Just look at the actions of the BOCC, senior county staff, Growth Management, the applicants, and assorted others.

At the commission meeting on February 22^nd a proposal was brought forward that would introduce an entirely new land use classification known as rural lifestyle. It will allow for housing developments to occur on western lands in a clustered format outside the urban service boundary. I should add that this designation could apply anywhere in the county, but because it must have a minimum of 1000 acres, it would not likely happen in Jensen Beach.

 

The “procuring cause” was the Discovery project on Bridge Road. I have written extensively on why I believed this was a good project from day one. And it still is! In fact, the applicant said repeatedly at the transmittal hearing for the comp plan amendment that the new designation was not needed for his project. They would have come in under the exception process.

 

When dealing with staff, the applicant and more importantly his myriad of consultants began to think about not a plan amendment just for this project but to create an entirely new section of the plan that would apply countywide. That way, the consultants could bring other projects without going through all the steps that would be required under the special exception process every time.

 

There is another project on Bridge Road that goes over to Kanner Highway called Three Lakes. They presented their plan to Jupiter Island as a courtesy. It would have four golf courses and no residences. The development would contain golf cottages for members to use. These would not be for rent. In an earlier piece, I mistakenly wrote that members would rent these cottages. It is not allowed under the LDRs. And since they are for members, I don’t know what difference it would make if they were rented if one of the conditions was a time limit for use.

 

With 95% permeable and open space, it is another good project. No residents equate to needing no services. Ag land pays very little in taxes…golf courses pay a lot more. According to the plan the runoff is contained on site and irrigation will come directly from the St. Lucie Canal.

 

When I asked the developer’s rep if a new designation was needed for his project, the answer was no. They would go through the individual plan process. So how did we get this “rural lifestyle” classification?

 

I would imagine that ears perked up with the possibility of having all kinds of development outside the Urban Services Boundary if they played their cards right. The cards they had to play were a few compliant commissioners, staff members who saw an opportunity to play nice with their land consultant friends, senior staff who wanted to placate some of the commissioners, and an elite that couldn’t care less about what the everyday residents of the county wanted.

 

So, after hearing from many, many residents at the commission meeting who wanted the county to give more time for more explanation and outreach, the majority on the commission voted to transmit the plan amendment to Tallahassee. Nothing was going to prevent them from moving forward even without any demonstrated reason for the rush.

 

The very idea that after its transmittal and return in about 50 days, the commission will not vote to approve this is not to be believed. The sop to the public craving more information was that under the auspices of the Guardians, there will be a public hearing.

 

I have a couple of problems with this approach. One or possibly two informational meetings where citizens can ask questions is clearly not only the wrong format, but the Guardians are not experts in running these types of public meetings. They have their own agenda.

 

My second problem is that when the county went ahead and rewrote the CRA plan, they hired the Treasure Coast Planning Council to work with staff. But the important part of what occurred was that they had over 70 public meetings to iron out questions and concerns that residents and others had. This resulted in broad buy-in and agreement.

 

Opening our western lands to development is as important as the CRA project. Yet unless you were one of Martin County’s elites, you never saw this coming. A wink and a nod and some fast footwork by the dynamic duo of Smith and Ciampi with the silent encouragement of Jenkins has resulted in far less than what the people of Martin County deserve.

 

Regarding the plan itself, I have many questions about sewer and water being provided outside the urban service boundary (USB). I am not keen on package plants. Yet they have supposedly come a long way in the past few years. We need to hear from an unbiased expert on this matter. But running new utility lines outside the USB is something I don’t like either.

 

It would also seem to me that clustering homes makes sense instead of 20-acre ranchettes. That is the very definition of sprawl and bad planning. Isolated homes without amenities are not something any planner today can embrace.

That type of development has been available for decades, and it has not led to 20 acre-ranchette developments. The wealthy are generally not interested in being in the middle of nowhere without a place to have a drink or a round of golf. Besides if they desire the wide-open spaces, they probably have a 1000-acre Montana spread to call one of their homes. At the same time, most of the rest of us can’t afford the ranchette lifestyle. I guess that is why the county called it rural lifestyle instead of ranchette lifestyle.

 

For there will be sufficient open space under the proposed land use at least 70% including golf courses. And if they want to have more homes, the developer will need to set a minimum of 500 acres in conservation deeded to either a government or nonprofit. Another question arose about that which had some suggestive changes but the three commissioners are probably figuring it can be worked out during the informational meeting.

 

About a year ago, it was explained to me that there were several developers who just wanted to have golf clubhouses with no homes. I saw it then and still do as a way of preserving open space. Currently, most of that land is failed agricultural farms and ranches. There is probably no chance given today’s economics that it ever will again be used for that purpose. Golf clubhouses with no homes seemed like a great way to preserve property rights and keep Martin green. I thought one of the conditions could be to have a public trail or nature preserve as part of the deal for approval.

 

Now it is still open season and the only new or existing residents we will be accommodating in their golf course homes will be the rich and famous. The wealthy have no compunction about buying a home worth millions on a golf course with a clubhouse and other amenities in much smaller lots than 20, 5 or 1 acre, if it is elite enough and of course has a fence and guards to keep most people out.

 

All the double speak from the dais was just that. It reminded me of “You have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.” Commissioners Ciampi, Smith, and Jenkins, that is no way to vote on any legislation. It was nice of you to arrange for a session after your affirmative vote to give your constituents a chance to become educated. (As long as they can meet at your one or two appointed times at an appointed place.)

 

I thought Commissioner Heard would always be a no. It is so contrary to anything she believes that to think anything else would be foolish. With development issues, I disagree with her most of the time, but I respect her point of view and she gives a different perspective than my own.

 

In my mind Commissioner Hetherington was the standout. There is not anyone more business friendly and believing in property rights than her. Yet she cares about important items not being rushed and that constituents have the information. Hetherington would have been a yes vote on Discovery if it were a stand-alone project. She may still vote in favor with the adoption hearing after the public informational hearing.

 

The only thing all commissioners should remember is that the Guardians, developers, consultants, and the wealthy are not most of their constituents. Commissioners also need to consider the property rights of landowners. The bogus fear of 20-acre ranchettes popping up after years of not happening should not be a reason to change land use in a hurry.

 

Get the buy in of the everyday residents of Martin County. We know it can be done if the right steps are taken. It was proven with the CRA re-write. As my friend Tom Pine would say the “Good Ole Boys” win one more. Too bad for the county.