One of notable topics of the meeting was the proposed development of 96 townhomes on an eight-acre parcel of land. This development plan sparked discussion among council members and residents, primarily focusing on zoning classifications, potential height exceptions, and community concerns. Residents voiced strong opinions regarding the impact of the project, emphasizing the importance of preserving the village’s character. One resident, Heidi Perry, expressed concerns about the increasing demand for housing and the potential changes to height and density codes, stating, “Our village of Tequesta is truly a gem… if we do not establish guidelines and then stick to those guidelines… we’re likely to simply repeat history and turn our village over into another over congested, overbuilt Florida Town.”

The council members appeared divided on the issue, with some advocating for adherence to traditional zoning requirements and others recognizing the need for flexibility in planning. A council member emphasized the importance of balancing property owners’ rights to develop their land while ensuring compliance with local codes, remarking, “We cannot deny a property owner’s right to develop their property particularly when they’re meeting code or in certain cases exceeding it.”

Public comments highlighted the community’s concerns about the proposed development’s environmental impact, traffic congestion, and the potential devaluation of properties. One resident, Ron Scaro, criticized the semantics surrounding the setbacks and height of the proposed buildings, stating that the “small building versus 31” feet distinction does not affect the visual impact from his property. Another resident, Molly Tedford, voiced her concerns regarding the development’s implications for traffic and community safety, particularly given the increased train activity in the area.

The council also discussed the need for ongoing communication with residents to ensure that their concerns are addressed. The developer was urged to maintain open lines of communication with the community to involve residents in the process. A council member noted, “the more you can work with residents… that’s the biggest thing,” underscoring the need for transparency and collaboration.

In addition to the development proposal, the council addressed several other topics. Village lobbyist Ken Puit provided a post-legislative session overview and discussed preparations for the 2025 session. Puit highlighted the importance of securing initial funding from the legislature for various projects and emphasized the critical nature of the Resilient Florida program, which reallocates dock stamp money to address flooding concerns across Florida.

The council also reviewed updates from the Village Manager regarding the recent budget approval and ongoing efforts to address the state’s transportation plan. The manager praised the staff for their hard work and noted the village’s unique operations, such as providing water and fire services to unincorporated areas, which is uncommon among small municipalities.

The meeting included proclamations recognizing Florida Climate Week and Fire Prevention Week, as well as discussions on zoning overlays, particularly focusing on amendments regarding business and restaurant open space and landscaping guidelines. The council considered the approval of several contracts related to infrastructure projects, including improvements to the water treatment plant, upgrades to the SCADA system, and road stabilization efforts.

Public comments also touched on the ongoing debate about height and density regulations in the village. One speaker emphasized the importance of maintaining the community’s character, stating that “the duty is to protect the village not to give developers a tool to destroy the village.” Another resident articulated frustration over the lengthy meetings.

The meeting wrapped up with discussions on civic open spaces, emphasizing the need for functional and appealing public areas. The council considered recommendations from the Local Planning Agency and debated the removal of waivers from the ordinance related to height and density increases. A motion to approve the ordinance with the removal of waivers was passed.