COMMISSION MEETING APR 30, 2024
There were three items on the agenda for Calusia Creek (now known as the Ranch PUD).
Legally and technically each of the items needs to be approved before the next one can be heard. The first has to do with an adoption of a text amendment to the Rural Lifestyle use in Chapter 4. It was already approved by the LPA, the BOCC voted to send it to the state for approval at an earlier commission meeting, and then back for today’s vote.
The second item was to change the specific Ranch 3900+ acre property on the Future Land Use Map from Agricultural (one unit per 20 acres) to Rural Lifestyle (one unit per 20 acres) which resulted in the same density. The change does not allow for one more house to be built.
The third item was to change the parcel for rezoning and adopt a PUD Agreement including a Master Site Plan. The only way to have the Rural Lifestyle is through the PUD process. There is no development as of right under that use. It becomes an individual negotiation between the county and property owner.
Three different votes were taken, and each had a 4-1 split with Commissioner Heard dissenting. One of the text amendment changes were how far a property must be from the USB to qualify for the Rural Lifestyle designation. After the adoption, it is now 6000 feet. Why that distance? That is where the nearest sewer main is to this property.
This change was the hardest one to support. That distance is over a mile. Yet in the end, it has the benefit of the new development being on sewer instead of septic…something that is important for our waterways.
The current property is only a ¼ square mile less than the size of the entire City of Stuart. It is not a small piece of property. With only 10% of the total area used for golf and amenities, the rest will be either agricultural, upland preserve, or wetlands. There will be 175 homes, which is about 20 homes less than the Agricultural designation allows by right.
Those homes will be clustered instead of spreading out over the entire property in 20 acre homesites. A couple of beneficial outcomes occur by the clustering of homes. First and the most beneficial is no septic systems. No matter how good the septic system is it is no substitution for sewers that take away the waste instead of it going into the ground.
The sewer system is being paid for entirely by the developer. It doesn’t cost the taxpayer one dollar. And that includes the golf courses which before any change can be built as of right. With the number of homes or the allowance of golf courses with clubhouses and guest cottages, the county isn’t increasing anything the developer couldn’t build right now.
With 20-acre ranchettes more roads, culverts, drainage areas, and other infrastructure are needed simply because people and their homes are spread out. Further by breaking up a property the size of Stuart into 20-acre homesteads, there would be fragmenting of the wetlands and uplands into small areas instead of the wildlife corridors that will remain within the PUD.
Several speakers during public comment spoke about the Martin County difference. Yes, things are different here. In Martin County, we are debating 175 homes being clustered on a couple of hundred acres instead of being spread out over 3900+ acres. If this were in St. Lucie County and Port St. Lucie, they would be building thousands and thousands of homes on the same footprint.
A speaker said we would be the next Boca because of approval. The statement is so absurd that is even beyond hyperbole. When it is all built out, the population of Martin County will increase by about 500-600 people…no different than the 20-acre ranchettes designation it is replacing.
Many of the homes’ owners will probably have other residences where they spend some of their time. Schools and emergency services would be little impacted. And again, it would have the same impact as if ranchettes were built. Traffic has the same impacts. All because the number of people is the same.
There were some legitimate issues raised regarding water quality. The LPA (I am a member) recommended to the commission that the applicant and staff devise a method for testing the water for pollutants. Our vote for recommending approval of the project was 4-1 with that condition.
When I made the motion with that recommendation, I believed it would be a good safety measure to assuage the doubt of some of the residents. I am a little miffed that the commission did not at least discuss our recommendation and why it was made.
There was also some concern regarding an email sent from a South Florida Water Management District reviewer. She had objections based on several assumptions that do not apply to private lands. When I saw the email, I attempted to contact her but was unsuccessful. Tyson Waters, the applicant’s attorney addressed them in detail. Both are attached here.
Drew Bartlett, the Executive Director of SFWMD, wrote an email to staff clarifying the district’s position. Interestingly, Bartlett did not copy his own reviewer which leads me to believe her comments were far from accurate. In the language of bureaucracy, he is saying ignore the reviewer’s email and rely on mine.
I am quoting from the entire body of Bartlett’s e-mail to county employee, John Maehl:
I am following up from our conversation this morning.
We appreciate the County recognizing that the subject property was part of a planning process for Natural Lands Restoration as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The County has been a long-standing partner in Everglades Restoration. The District recognizes that land use and comprehensive planning involves many factors of which the environment is one important piece.
As the County considers the future of the parcel, the important part of the Natural Lands footprint is captured in wetland restoration which serves to retain water on the property instead of draining that water to the Central & South Florida Flood Control System. The District, as an adjacent landowner, is also interested in how this comp plan amendment affects the larger Palmar hydrology as the headwaters to the Loxahatchee. The District appreciates that the private landowner is using their project to improve ground and surface water hydrology on the site and in the wetlands, increase water retention on site, and create natural managed areas around the southern boundaries of the project and adjacent to the Districts.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) does not impose restrictions on private property rights, or in local zoning or comprehensive plan decisions. Therefore, the County is not legally constrained by CERP plans from making decisions regarding private property using their comprehensive planning process. The District appreciates the County’s consideration of the improvement in hydrology and wetland habitat associated with this project and how that affects the larger surrounding ecosystems.
Thank you,
Drew
In other words, forget the email that a low-level staffer sent who obviously doesn’t know what she is writing about.
Further, SFWMD and FDEP will be issuing permits for anything happening at the Ranch. If they violate the conditions of those permits, the work is stopped and thousands of dollars in fines can be levied.
Toward the end of the proceedings, one speaker commented that the USB is just a line on the map. There isn’t anything magical about it. It isn’t holding back the White Walkers (a little “Game of Thrones” reference) from invading the east. There is no Night’s Watch (another one) keeping guard over the western lands. The speaker also said that the state mandates a look at the comp plan every several years to address the changing needs of the county.
The alternative to projects like The Ranch is not that the property will remain the same in perpetuity. It is private property with the right to develop within guidelines. If those guidelines are deemed too restrictive, the courts or Tallahassee may change them for us.
Projects that are coming in using this designation will have little impact and maximum benefit. The alternative is for the county to buy the thousands of acres that are currently privately owned to prevent any development. Further, it isn’t as if the land is now available to citizens to hunt or fish or take a hike. If you do it is trespassing.
This type of development is the best we can hope for.
