STUART – After months of back-and-forth discussion during public hearings, the City Commission here gave its final blessing Aug. 17 on the referendum wording for the future fate of two controversial topics, that of protecting the Stuart ballfields and the potential rescission of a 2011 voter referendum on two commercial acres adjacent to the 157-acre Haney Creek Preserve.
City Attorney Lee Baggett introduced the Haney Creek referendum topic first, which 15 years ago was decided by a majority of city voters. Now a majority of the City Commission want to see if the voters have since changed their minds on the issue.
“This is a resolution of the City Commission providing for ballot language for a referendum seeking voter approval to rescind the Nov. 8, 2011 election ballot referendum requirement to lease an undeveloped 1.97-acre commercial parcel fronting U.S. 1 opposite North River Shores Boulevard,” he said. “That was to fund the maintenance of the Haney Creek Preserve. The rescission is so that the parcel may be converted to conservation and added to the Haney Creek Preserve.”
Baggett then proceeded to clarify why the Haney Creek Referendum was being done by resolution and the Stuart ballfields by a more formal ordinance.
“For the sake of both of them, this one was a resolution and so it’s the first and only reading,” he explained. “The next one is an ordinance, so it’s two readings and we’re at the second reading. I just don’t want you guys thinking we have to bring this back at another reading. In this case, the charter language is already there. Back in 2011, they put this issue out to the voters, and they voted to lease out this approximate two-acre parcel for commercial purposes to help fund the Haney Creek preserve. In order to undo that, we’ve got to go back to the voters to seek a rescission of that prior referendum.”
Former City Commissioner Christopher Collins was the initial driving force for changing the status on the property in hopes of preventing its future development. Although he resigned in late April to make his successful bid for the Martin County Commission, the other two members of his former slow-growth majority – Commissioner Laura Giobbi and Mayor Sean Reed – have steadily lobbied for approving the referendum. Commissioner Campbell Rich, who’s opposed the idea due to potential need for alternative city funding if Amendment 3 passes this year, posed one of the first questions afterward.
“Isn’t it currently in the Haney Creek Preserve?” he asked about the two-acre overgrown property.
“No, it’s currently zoned a Commercial Planned Unit Development,” Baggett replied. “All of it was commercial PUDs, and they [former commissioners] ended up acquiring it all with the county. They kept this separate [and] converted everything else but this.”
After a brief discussion prompted by Commissioner Rich on the potential liability of commissioners publicly promoting their positions on such referendums, the city attorney gave them his legal opinion.
“It’s my understanding that the city cannot use funds to take a position one way or another,” he said. “I believe individually – not on the behalf of the Board – you can speak your mind. You have to support it if you’re going to vote for it today. The Board can’t go out and advertise, please vote yes for this.”
Commissioner Eula Clarke followed that up with a clarification question about the two acres.
“When we have the language added to the Haney Creek Preserve, that covers all of the potential land-use designations?”
“No, we’ll have to come back and go through the process of converting the land use,” Baggett answered. “It’s currently Commercial Land Use and CPUD Zoning, so we’d have to go through the process of changing it.”
Commissioner Clarke acknowledged that conversations with Public Works Director Milton Leggett revealed the city has successfully maintained the preserve over the years without funding from the land in question.
“I think he said the money spent was minimal but they were managing to do the maintenance,” she recalled. “I don’t think there was a big push to get those funds from leasing it. We did try to lease it in the early days, but so far nothing has happened since 2011.”
For her part, Commissioner Giobbi reiterated her view of the 2011 referendum.
“So much has changed since then,” she said. “At that time, it seemed like that might be a good idea. What has happened is the amount of development. I don’t think anyone wants to see another gas station, another storage center or car wash sitting on the corner of one of our main streets. We’re giving you the voters the opportunity, to either say nay or yeah. We can add this back into Haney Creek, and everyone can enjoy it.”
Mayor Reed then passed the gavel to Commissioner Clarke so he himself could make the motion for approval. After Giobbi seconded the motion, a handful of public speakers came to the podium, beginning with Emily Lanthier, who worried about the native plants and animals currently on the land.
“I think it’s very important for the citizens to be able to vote on this,” she said. “I think it needs to be very clear what the language says. It needs to show that it is going to be preserved. Those habitats do have a number of endangered plants and animals.”
David Kehlmann,, however, wasn’t quite ready to relinquish any potential funding from the land and didn’t necessarily see its development impacting the area’s wildlife.
“If that parcel could generate money for Haney Creek, I don’t see two acres of land on U.S. 1 doing anything,” he said. “You’re going to still have coyotes running across U.S. 1, you’re going to still have bobcats and every other thing. If it doesn’t affect trails or dog parks, it’d be pretty crazy for residents to not want the city do something with it. I’m not saying gas stations [or] car washes; maybe a bulletin board that could generate income.”
After further Board comments and two more residents clamoring for the referendum, the City Commission voted 3-1, with Commissioner Rich dissenting to approve the resolution. Baggett then introduced the ballfield ordinance with a few brief comments.
“In the first reading, you guys in your motion in moving it to second reading requested that we add a couple of words in the title,” he said. “We have done that. You didn’t have any proposed changes to the actual language for the referendum.”
After three public speakers urged commissioners to approve the second reading of the ordinance, the Stuart Commission voted unanimously to approve it.