At the last city commission meeting, those most ardently against the Costco development spoke even though there was nothing on the agenda regarding the matter.
A couple of things have happened since the approval of the development on first reading. A development of more than 10 acres (that has subsequently been amended to 50 acres, but this application predates the change) must be sent to The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) for comment and possible challenge. The DEO looks to see whether a development is in violation of the comp plan.
The DEO had two technical assistance comments. The first was particularly interesting since it stated that the density for the site is much less and intense than the comp plan and Future Land Use Map allows. Despite all the uproar regarding density, the state has said that this project could support much more density on the nearly 50-acre site.
In a recent presentation to the commission, the development director explained that of the 2978 total units approved between 2017 and 2021 on 220 acres, the developers could have built an additional 2300 more units on that same acreage as of right. Is there any wonder why within the city and the county there is a shortage of housing units for every type of need?
The second recommendation from DEO is for the city to coordinate with SFWMD on all matters pertaining to regional water supply, water conservation, water supply planning and water use permitting. The developer could not proceed to build one wall of anything without the approval of the district.
After the debacle of the quasi-judicial process at the first Costco hearing, staff asked the commission to tighten up procedures during the hearing process. The Costco hearing is only the latest example of the problem when there is an intervenor involved. It is not reasonable for the commission to act as judge and jury when rendering a decision. Unfortunately, being politicians, they have tendencies to bend over backwards to accommodate people. Accommodation does not always lead to being fair. When the same rules are not applied to all there could be a charge of being prejudice to one side or the other.
During the commission discussion of the new ordinance on quasi-judicial proceedings, one speaker spoke twice when it came time for public comment. This is in direct violation of the rules regarding allowing a person making public comment to speak for 3 minutes only once. While he was speaking on the revision of quasi-judicial hearings, he pivoted to Costco. This should have been immediately stopped since the speaker must stay on topic.
At some point in July, the second reading of Costco will come before the commission. There are now two registered intervenors. Ms. Richards, who was there as an intervenor on the first reading, will continue. There is now a second intervenor who looks to me as if he should have no standing under statute and case law.
Ms. Richards falls in the category of a citizen who believes sincerely that Costco should not move forward. She may have the most tangential of claims as an intervenor because she is a neighbor. The second intervenor should have no standing. He is claiming a problem with wetlands allows him to intervene though he has no property anywhere near the site.
If I were the applicant, I would make sure I have made my record so that an adverse decision could be appealed in court. The applicant may even challenge at least the second intervenor before the commission. They are responsible for making the initial determination. In that regard if Mr. Raynes, (applicant’s attorney) does, he will place the commission in the hot seat.
It was apparent that the first hearing was anything but judicious. Perhaps the second one will be better. The city should have a special meeting with only this on the agenda. There should be no commissioner comments, no proclamations, or anything else. The meeting should be the hearing alone.
The meeting should start earlier so that the public can have time to comment. Running to 2 a.m. is not acceptable. There should be a ruling that only new evidence can be presented by either side. There does not need to be a rehashing. This isn’t a new second trial but a second hearing. And it should be evidence from experts or relevant eyewitness testimony…not opinions. That is what the 3 minutes of public comment are for.
The Costco development is much needed and in conformity with Stuart regulations. To those that say put it by 95 or on Federal Highway, they forget that it isn’t up to the city to tell businesses where to build. The business model of the developer and Costco has determined that it should go here. As we have seen from both the state and the city’s development office, it complies with the regulations.
Municipalities and the county CRAs are where density development belong. It is not sprawl or wasting Martin County’s most valuable asset…land. If people wanted to preserve this site, they should have bought it and placed it in conservation, or in Ms. Richards case her family members should not have sold it. They chose to cash out. It is more NIMBY and illustrative of trying to use the perversion of regulation to prevent something that is desired by the majority and, more important, is both legal and within our comp plan guidelines and regulations.
I believe this will happen. It should happen. By having this development within the city, Martin County’s farm and ranches can be preserved, and sprawl stopped.
I read a statistic published by Bloomberg that there are now 105 million American memberships to Costco. That is more than the number of households that pay for cable television. Both may be pertinent facts but are irrelevant as to whether the development should move forward. It is also not relevant whether a family that lives next door or across the road from the development site will no longer be able to see empty fields.
If the developer is in keeping with the law, it needs to be approved. In this case, it has the added benefit of generally strong local support and it being good for Stuart and Martin County.