The approved text amendment to the Martin County growth management plan was a focal point of the meeting. Currently, the plan permits a maximum of 54 golf cottages with six bedrooms each, totaling 324 bedrooms. The amendment allows for a range of 2 to 12 bedrooms per cottage without changing the total number of cottages or the overall bedroom cap. This adjustment, presented by staff as a minor modification, was designed to provide flexibility in accommodating various member needs while maintaining the integrity of the golf club’s operations.

During the discussion, several questions arose regarding the implications of the proposed changes. A participant sought clarification on whether the amendment would permit the construction of larger cottages with many bedrooms, as opposed to smaller cottages. Staff reiterated that the increase in bedroom capacity per cottage could lead to fewer buildings overall, thereby reducing the physical footprint of the development. An applicant representative emphasized that the amendment was meant to cater to diverse needs, allowing for both quaint two-bedroom cottages and larger corporate retreats.

Public comments reflected concerns about the clarity of the proposal. One resident questioned the rationale behind increasing the number of bedrooms per cottage, expressing confusion over whether the amendment referred to the number of bedrooms within existing buildings or the construction of new buildings. The resident stated, “I can’t be comfortable with something I can’t understand,” highlighting the need for clearer communication about the amendment’s specifics. Another public commenter expressed skepticism about the rationale for allowing more bedrooms, questioning whether this would lead to an increase in the number of buildings on the property.

Staff clarified that the amendment did not alter the total number of cottages allowed and explained that the cottages were not for sale but function as amenities for the golf club. Further discussion focused on the implications of the amendment for water and sewer service, with assurances that the development could connect to urban services. There was acknowledgment that some golf cottages might still rely on septic systems, but the project has always had the potential to extend water and sewer services.

A director of growth management provided additional context, explaining that the maximum bedroom count would remain consistent with current allowances and that the flexibility in bedroom numbers within the existing cottages was intended to reflect the diverse needs of club members. The public was informed that the proposal would not allow for separate lots or conveyance of property, as the cottages would remain accessory to the golf course. The conversation emphasized that any additional bedrooms would not increase the intensity of use beyond the established parameters of the original development.

The meeting also included a vote on the amendment, which passed with a 3 to 1 majority despite some opposition expressed during the discussion. Moving forward, the meeting addressed comprehensive plan Amendment 24-10 regarding sanitary sewer systems. Samantha Lovelady, the principal planner, introduced changes made in response to a legislative bill, HB 1379, and mentioned that updates included deleting outdated information. She stated that the revisions aimed to align policies with current local conditions and included a new policy related to a Martin County utility parcel that would integrate with landfill property.

The meeting then transitioned to a plan amendment regarding solid and hazardous waste, identified as NP h-4. This amendment was described as a general update to references related to the Village of Indiantown, including updating statistics and terms from 2008 to 2022 without altering any goals, objectives, or policies. A member noted an increase in waste tonnage, questioning if this was due to changes in population and the transfer of waste to the transfer station. Discussions reflected on incineration proposals for waste, with skepticism about the actual implementation of incineration as a method for waste management, as it had not been practiced previously. The consensus leaned toward supporting the staff’s recommendation, and a motion was made and seconded for approval.

The dialogue then shifted to the NP h-5 comprehensive plan amendment concerning drainage and natural groundwater aquifer recharge. Staff presented updates required by statute, including references to the Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programs, as well as incorporating language related to resiliency and sea level rise. A member expressed concern that the proposed amendment did not address saltwater intrusion, which could be just as critical as sea level rise. The conversation also touched on the potential negative impacts of sediment problems and the importance of maintaining vegetative cover to mitigate these issues.

Further discussion emphasized the necessity of updating outdated rainfall modeling due to changing climatic conditions. There was a recognition that while the intention was to comply strictly with state requirements, the need for a more robust approach to planning was vital. It was noted that the resiliency plan should ideally cover various factors beyond just sea level rise, including heat and increased rainfall, to ensure that the comprehensive plan was adequately equipped to address future challenges. The staff reiterated that the amendments aimed to meet mandatory state requirements.