FORT PIERCE – The St. Lucie County Commission majority voted Oct. 20 to approve the rezoning of a 126.3 acres parcel in the Towns, Villages & Countryside Overlay District after a lengthy public hearing that was actually continued from a mid-September meeting so staff could hash our unreconciled differences with the applicant.
The proposal for the 375-unit project between Emerson Avenue and Seminole Road first faced the St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Board on July 16. Senior Planner Irene Szedlmayer reintroduced the item during the latest meeting.
“This is the public hearing on The Club at Indrio Creek’s proposed rezoning to Planned Town or Village and its preliminary regulating plan,” she said. “The property is 126.3 acres in the Agricultural 1 Zoning District, which allows development currently at one dwelling unit per acre. It’s in the Towns, Villages & Countryside Future Land Use and in the Urban Service Boundary. The subject property is split. Most of the area has one dwelling unit per acre as a base density, [but] a part has one dwelling unit per acre.”
During the September portion of the continued hearing, Szedlmayer had resisted recommending the rezoning, citing a handful of areas in which she believed the project was not in compliance with the complicated TVC Code. Those included internal and external roadway connections, block length and the repaving of Seminole Road, the latter of which was opposed by some community members and at least one commissioner. Two commissioners, James Clasby and Erin Lowry opposed even continuing the applicant’s request, insisting the project was incompatible with the surrounding areas. Szedlmayer, however, was no longer in opposition after meeting with applicant’s representatives over the previous 30 days.
“Staff has recommended conditions of approval, and they have been refined based on the updated plan,” she said.
District 3 Commissioner Erin Lowry admitted she still opposed constructing 240 townhomes and 122 single-family dwellings on the property while acknowledging the efforts of the applicant’s contracted Land Planner Brad Currie to placate her concerns.
“The TVC was developed over 20 years ago, and the vision of the Board then was different than it is now,” she said. “To me, these 50-foot lots is not rural St. Lucie County, and I’ve said it over and over again. It’s not any disrespect to anybody on your team. You’re a fantastic land planner [and] a great educator, Brad, but I just feel like we’re opening a Pandora’s Box to having to continue to approve things that aren’t necessarily the vision of this Board. I appreciate all the work, and hopefully we can get to a place where it’s something we can approve.”
Vice-Chairman Larry Leet shared some of Commissioner Lowry’s density concerns but did not share her opposition to the proposed development.
“I don’t have a problem with the plan itself,” he admitted. “The TVC in my opinion is a little bit complicated and muddled in most peoples’ minds because it forces the developer to put civic centers in a subdivision.
“Here, we’ve got one in the middle of a 126-acre development – that makes absolutely no sense. I’d love to see developments with larger lots. However, when you start getting into the larger spillways, flow ways, greenways and everything else, you’re pretty much forced to condense everything. I would be willing to approve it as-is.”
On the other hand, Commissioner Clasby has opposed the development from the onset and was not swayed by Szedlmayer’s change of heart.
“In my opinion, we’re trying to put a zoning district that was intended for a much larger piece of land on a smaller piece of land,” he said. “To do that, we have to give all sorts of waivers. I don’t think this zoning district is compatible with this piece of property.”
Currie then came to the podium to ask Szedlmayer a direct question.
“Do we meet the minimum lot size requirements to be rezoned to a planned development in the TVC?” he asked.
After Szedlmayer answered in the affirmative, the applicant’s contracted Land Use Attorney Bob Raines also queried Szedlmayer about the request
“We’re not asking for a [density] waiver,” he said. “We meet the 25-acre calculation, correct?”
“That’s correct,” she responded.
“For the record, we’re not asking for a waiver and we believe we’ve met that requirement,” Raines continued. :We have done everything we can to address every question and issue that’s been raised. To address as many issues as we have, I think it’s really important that we be recognized. We’ve really worked hard.”
Clasby pulled no punches in response.
“Not for nothing, but my washing machine works very hard too, and it gets no thanks,” he retorted. “In my opinion, I think I’ve heard several of those items raised by several of us up here as concerns. I wouldn’t be comfortable moving this project forward.”
Commissioner Cathy Townsend immediately sought the opinion of Interim County Administrator Mayte Santamaria.
“Mayte, do you think this project meets the code?” she asked.
“Providing the information presented tonight and the analysis provided, it appears to meet the code,” Santamaria responded.
Planning & Development Services Director Ben Balser concurred.
“I do believe that staff’s recommendation of approval is backed by compliance with the land development code and comprehensive plan,” he said.
Those comments pleased Commissioner Townsend.
“So, Kori and Ben, Mayte and Irene are all in agreement that this meets the land development code,” she said. “I don’t know how much more we could ask. When they come back with their plan, we can have some more conversations, but I’m willing to move this forward tonight the way it is.”
Commissioner Clasby continued to prolong the debate and peppered staff with more questions about the waivers and ultimately suggested the Commission had the authority to reject them and thereby make the application incompliant. When Currie’s subsequent offer to meet the requirements of the code without the waivers if need-be failed to sway Clasby, the Board voted 3-2 for approval, with Clasby and Lowry dissenting.