The Chansy Bay Ranch development proposal, presented by WGI Incorporated on behalf of CBR Investors LLC, became the focal point of the meeting. The plan involves transforming an 18.2-acre site into a residential area with nine single-family homes, requiring a change in zoning from R2A rural estate density to PUD. This change allows the development to exceed the current height restriction of 30 feet, permitting structures up to 40 feet tall—an adjustment deemed necessary by the developers to offer unobstructed views of Lake Okeechobee.

The proposal adheres to existing density requirements, maintaining one unit per two acres. It includes a certificate of public facilities reservation and stipulates a $6,000 contribution to Martin County Fire Rescue for a fire preemption device to aid in emergency response. The site, bordered by a canal and agricultural land, plans to use well and septic systems due to its location outside the urban services district.

The board’s discussion delved into the technical distinctions between rural estate density and rural land use categories. The rural density category permits a maximum building height of 40 feet, unlike the R2A zoning, which caps it at 30 feet. This difference formed the cornerstone of the applicant’s argument for the PUD necessity. Additional discussions focused on setbacks from the canal, noting the development’s location beyond the shoreline protection zone and within a fresh water classified rim canal.

Environmental considerations featured prominently in the debate, particularly concerning the site’s proximity to Lake Okeechobee—a water body with known risks. The developers presented a stormwater management system designed to retain runoff from a 100-year, 3-day storm event, exceeding typical requirements and ensuring no discharge into public water systems. This feature was touted as a public benefit alongside the fire preemption device.

However, questions persisted about whether these benefits sufficiently mitigated the development’s potential impacts. While some board members expressed discomfort with the possibility of the third floor becoming habitable, the proposal’s flexibility on design specifics left room for interpretation. A motion to deny the proposal failed to secure support, and ultimately, the board approved the development with a vote of three in favor and two opposed, without adding restrictions to limit the use of the additional height.

In addition to the Chansy Bay Ranch proposal, the board reviewed the Sunrise Grove land use amendment application CPA 23-03, submitted by Martin Triangle Property LLC. This amendment aimed to change 205 acres of agricultural land to the ACTC future land use designation, blending agricultural and technical uses. The ACTC designation, compatible with nearby areas like I-95, introduces new opportunities for economic development while raising concerns about potential urban sprawl.

The amendment’s companion text proposal, CPA 23-04, sought to integrate the 205 acres into the freestanding urban service district. The staff report highlighted that one out of four criteria necessary for recommending the amendment’s approval had been met. Discussions addressed the ACTC designation’s implications, particularly the requirement for non-residential or industrial development alongside agricultural uses.

Representatives of Sunrise Grove LLC and Martin Triangle Property LLC provided context, noting the proposal’s roots in a former citrus farm affected by disease. They emphasized the area’s proximity to the City of Port St. Lucie’s job corridor and the potential for economic growth. The amendment proposed adding vehicle manufacturing and related services, aligning with advancements in electric vehicle technology, and maintaining a maximum of 5 million square feet of targeted employment uses.

Concerns about the amendment’s impact on open spaces were raised, with the proposal increasing the minimum open space or common agricultural area by 122 acres. This increase would exceed the 50% open space requirement for agricultural land use.

Despite these discussions, the motion to approve the land use designation change passed with a 3-1 vote, with one member recusing themselves. Public comments echoed concerns about the agricultural use’s alignment with historical activities and the broader impact on the local ecosystem.