The proposal, which has been in development for several years, aims to convert a 396-acre parcel south of Southwest 96th Street into a primary urban service district. This would involve a substantial shift from its current agricultural zoning to low-density residential, allowing for the construction of up to 150 homes. The amendment would also expand the urban service district to include this land, changing its status to accommodate urban services and infrastructure.

Staff from the Growth Management Department recommended denying the text amendment, citing inconsistencies with the county’s comprehensive plan. Concerns were raised about compliance with several criteria, including the internal consistency of the plan, compatibility with adjacent land uses, and the availability of suitable land within existing urban service districts for the next 20 years. These issues fueled discussions among agency members, with some expressing skepticism about the proposal’s adherence to planning frameworks.

A key point of contention centered on the methodology used to calculate residential capacity. A consulting firm hired by the applicant challenged the county’s existing capacity analysis, arguing that it overestimated the availability of land for development. The firm highlighted that the current comprehensive plan assumed maximum density for every vacant parcel, a practice they claimed did not reflect environmental and regulatory constraints that restrict development. The firm warned that the county could soon face a shortage of developable land, as residential capacity in the secondary primary urban service district was projected to plummet.

The applicant argued that the site was ideally located for urban expansion, given its proximity to existing infrastructure, schools, and employment centers. They contended that the development would not impose additional financial burdens on taxpayers, as the developers would fund necessary infrastructure improvements. The applicant also emphasized the environmental benefits of connecting the area to urban utilities, reducing reliance on septic systems that could harm local waterways.

Despite these arguments, staff maintained that the proposal did not meet the criteria for discouraging urban sprawl. They pointed out that while the development might align with some goals, such as providing diverse housing types, the surrounding area remained predominantly industrial, raising questions about the compatibility of introducing residential land uses.

The meeting also highlighted broader concerns about development pressures in Martin County. Some members expressed apprehension about the county’s ability to plan proactively for growth, fearing that surrounding counties’ expansion could leave Martin County lagging.

The debate is expected to continue as the proposed amendment moves towards a public hearing. The decision could have implications for the county’s approach to growth management, particularly in balancing the need for residential development with preserving agricultural land and minimizing urban sprawl.