The agency’s main focus was the discussion and recommendation of changes to the village code to incorporate these new zoning overlays—Tequesta Drive overlay, US Highway 1 overlay, and the Village Center overlay. The dialogue reflected concerns about the potential segregation of the Village if not all overlays were adopted together and the importance of a unified aesthetic improvement throughout the Tequesta. The meeting concluded with a motion that passed to recommend the approval of the Tequesta Drive and US Highway 1 overlays while delaying the Village Center overlay for further refinement.

A critical point of contention was the dedication of open spaces, with the conversation emphasizing the necessity for the village to have decision-making authority to protect its interests. It was discussed that the code should clearly reflect the village’s ability to make decisions regarding the open space. The criteria for waivers also came under scrutiny.

Public comments introduced by Thomas Frankle and Bill Perco added another layer to the debate, addressing concerns that the proposed overlay zoning might result in the taking of their property. The speakers called for significant waivers and incentives to foster responsible development and also questioned the data supporting the restrictions on formula businesses. These comments underscored the importance of a balanced collaboration between the village and developers.

The potential development of Paradise Park was another focal point, envisioning a substantial park and gathering area that would include a local restaurant and outdoor dining space for community activities. The developers proposed incentives such as increased density, parking requirement relief, and extra height allowances in exchange for creating this civic benefit. The debate extended to the preference for local and non-formula businesses within the development, and the need for creative development tools to realize the project while considering property values and public interest.

The discussion on downtown Abacoa’s development touched on the collaboration with the Village Council and the optimization of the property for community benefit. The adoption of the two overlays was recommended, although some members were concerned about the flexibility of the overlays, especially regarding public spaces. The debate centered on the requirement for public space and the associated liability for businesses, as well as the impact of residential unit density on traffic.

Lastly, ordinance 2-24 was presented, which pertained to the creation of the three new overlay zones within the village. The impact of these overlays on different village areas was discussed, with public comments expressing concern over the uncertainty for investors under the new code and the challenges of achieving reasonable investment-backed expectations.