The applicant, representing a commercial land use consistent with the surrounding area, argued for the change in future land use designation of a 9.46-acre property, citing the need for jobs and retail development. They emphasized that the proposed facility would fill a vacant property, previously a similar healthcare facility, and thus should not alter existing traffic or parking patterns. The development director provided a history of the property’s zoning and previous approvals.

However, during the meeting, concerns were voiced about the adequacy of parking in relation to the number of beds and the potential increase in traffic. Comparisons were made between the proposed facility and assisted living facilities, questioning the validity of such parallels with regards to their respective impacts on parking and traffic. One board member specifically expressed skepticism about the equivalence of the two types of facilities.

The public comments revealed a community divided. While some feared the impact on traffic, emergency services, and property values, others welcomed the commercial land use change for its potential to bring jobs and bolster retail development. The owner of a nearby facility highlighted the issues of traffic and the transient nature of patients, whereas another commenter supported the initiative for economic reasons.

The applicant stated a willingness to reduce the number of beds to 116 and clarified that the facility would not treat severe mental health cases. Over half of the patients were expected to be transported from airports.

Security measures, patient care, and the impact on property values were also scrutinized. The applicant assured that the facility would not be a lockdown facility and outlined the safety measures and care to be provided. The unique design of the facility, separating different types of treatment, was highlighted, as were scholarships for those unable to afford treatment.

Despite the applicant’s attempts to address concerns, including the successful track record of their organization and the closure of facilities in other counties due to business consolidation during the COVID-19 pandemic, skepticism remained. Questions were raised about the accuracy of the applicant’s numbers regarding staffing and the impact on other medical facilities in the area. The lack of specific zoning regulations for the facility’s operations was also a concern, with calls for a comprehensive traffic analysis to assess the potential impact on surrounding businesses.

The board’s vote on a motion to approve the facility, with three stipulations, did not receive the necessary affirmative votes, leading to the decision to forward the matter to the commission along with the board’s recommendations.

Additionally, the meeting provided a platform for a broader discussion on the landscape of assisted living and memory care facilities in the state. The proposed facility was positioned as addressing a market need, offering a detailed breakdown of the types of care and treatment approaches envisioned.

During the meeting, the swearing in of a new board member, Deana Peterson, took place. The continuity of public notice for meetings was addressed, with the city attorney explaining a legal case influencing state law regarding meeting continuances. Notably, amidst the discussions, a board member raised concerns about traffic and growth in Stuart, particularly in relation to residential and commuter patterns.