[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6340949,"mediaKeyId","2258598-ef00cdad4ef3c7086157f41291b57693","parentId",2258598,"title","Community board debates wide-ranging land‑development code changes; calls for community-led master plan","audioSeconds",3161,"startMs",2504000,"endMs",5665000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2258598-ef00cdad4ef3c7086157f41291b57693&start=2504&end=5665","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2258598-ef00cdad4ef3c7086157f41291b57693/thumbnail_2504000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6340949/Florida/Community-board-debates-wide-ranging-landdevelopment-code-changes-calls-for-community-led-master-plan","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340949-787a5334d536ba42c3aa6904b5863014/orig.mp4?Expires=1774841216&Signature=kVDQMF48TNdqPLgBHwLdYf75B2JLG0K2xz6S9Gy8RGuN5ddxAjP8UjrDW1hKB5RScrTRLG8CWemrZL7RbotAbcPJkRgu2Mrb5oAtGepSsvP7fzqPQjigD-rrpYFXBus9w2x-PJFqPRzxEXpx19T3ooR9orM72yUVonf6-H2pJUs1rbE-J-c7JDcPenuNUkvWaQCZYHII8IHSaLpfPic4aJOLqN5bi8po86oIC8YYXHwG2NUONaYQbN9PJ7lcJR2~6Jhss34Q9F8dW~nmEfH77D0plEY6pU0gOhcHpchkn9k7KPJ7QXFAbDQyDqY474yme1O6ZMx9zqvDWsPJ0-djbg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Stuart, FL","date","2025-02-11T17:03:50Z","article","The City of Stuart Community Redevelopment Board held an extended discussion of proposed Land Development Code text amendments the commission placed in a zoning‑in‑progress review, raising questions about impacts on small-property owners in East Stewart, parking, duplexes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and the process used to develop the changes.

Development staff introduced Ordinance No. 2539-2025 as a package of code cleanups and policy changes that staff said were requested by the City Commission during workshops. Development Director (staff identified in the record as Jody Coogler and Sherry Kooker at different points) summarized the most substantive changes as moves from the word “lot” to “parcel record,” grandfathering parcels of record that existed on Sept. 4, 2024; removing references to shared parking citywide; revising multifamily and mixed-use density and floor‑area calculations; modifying minimum parcel sizes in single-family districts; and tightening rules for ADUs and duplexes inside some urban overlays.

On the parcel/lot question, staff told the board that Martin County assigns a parcel identification number to every taxable parcel and that switching the code to use “parcel record” rather than “lot” was intended to protect existing properties while preventing the creation of new, smaller platted lots. Staff said the commission wanted to limit new small lots in a largely built‑out city and to ensure that properties that pay taxes and have parcel records would be “grandfathered.” Staff also said that any newly created parcel records after the effective date would need to meet new minimum size thresholds (the text under discussion referred to either 5,000 or 6,000 square feet and staff said that point remained under clarification with the commission).

The board’s discussion repeatedly returned to East Stewart, where many participants told the board smaller historic parcels and ambiguous title histories raise fears that overly strict new lot/parcel rules would make it harder for longtime residents to refinance, repair or sell property. Public commenter James Christie — who identified himself as representing “East Stewart grassroots” — urged protections for the neighborhood and said his group planned to return to explain its community plan in more detail.

Members also questioned the decision to remove shared parking allowances. Staff described shared parking as a strategy that had been used downtown for complementary uses (for example, a restaurant and a daytime office). The proposed strike-throughs would, staff said, eliminate shared parking citywide; that change, board members said, could raise costs for smaller infill projects and favor larger developers who can assemble and finance larger parcels.

On ADUs, staff said the draft language required that an ADU be tied to a primary residence owned by the same person, with a single water and electrical meter and an owner‑occupancy requirement for the primary unit; the intent, staff said, was to curb transient rental use and short‑term rentals. Board members and other commenters expressed concern the meter and owner‑occupancy rules would make ADUs impractical for homeowners who need flexibility — for instance, to offset care costs by renting an accessory unit — and that the change could restrict a modest path to additional housing.

Members debated duplexes and nonconforming multi‑unit properties in older neighborhoods. Staff noted existing code already treated some duplexes as nonconforming in areas annexed to the city, and that the proposed language would prevent expansion of some duplexes and limit rebuilding if structures were substantially damaged. Board members said that could remove low-cost housing options and urged staff to highlight the number of affected properties and to work with residents to avoid unintended displacement.

The board discussed the larger process that produced the changes. Several members and speakers urged more community‑centered planning and independent technical analysis before making code changes. Vice Chair Bonnie Moser said the process to date felt top‑down: “This process has been really backwards. It has been from the top down and it has not been from the bottom up,” she said. Other members recommended a citywide master plan and additional outreach. Board member Mark Breckbill warned that making parking and other requirements more stringent could “favor the PUDs over the local builders” and make the city more attractive to large outside developers with Wall Street financing.

Vice Chair Moser moved that the Commission refrain from adopting changes until it undertook a community‑led citywide master planning process. The motion was amended on the floor to allow the commission to continue work on the code package while excepting changes relating to duplexes, ADUs and shared parking from immediate approval and requesting a citywide, community‑led master plan for those topics. The amended motion was seconded. The board conducted a roll-call vote that recorded Board member Monero — yes; Board member Scherer — yes; Board member James — no; Board member Whelan — yes; Chair Mark Breckbill — no; Vice Chair Moser — yes.

Members did not reach a unanimous stance: interviews and comments in the meeting reflected concern that stopping the zoning-in-progress altogether could create legal exposure or leave already-approved projects in limbo, while others said the code changes risked harm to vulnerable neighborhoods without additional safeguards. Staff told the board the zoning‑in‑progress workstemmed from Commission requests dating to September 2024 and that some items were intended to address rapid multifamily approvals the commission had previously received.

Board members asked staff to provide more targeted data — specifically, a tally of duplexes and affected parcels in East Stewart, clarification of the minimum parcel‑size threshold (5,000 vs. 6,000 square feet), an inventory of projects already approved under prior rules, and an explanation of how a proposed downtown parking garage would or would not reduce on‑site parking requirements for adjacent parcels.

The board also discussed a CRA program staff described on the record that would help East Stewart residents clear title — staff said the CRA had identified roughly 30–40 parcels with potentially unclear title histories and could offer to pay attorney fees to resolve probates or clouded transfers. Several board members urged staff to continue outreach and to ensure any code changes were tied to financial supports for property owners who might otherwise be disadvantaged.

The board’s discussion produced an amended motion and a recorded roll call. The ordinance package remains on the commission’s calendar; staff asked the board for specific written recommendations and clarification on the points above so those can be forwarded with the packet for the commission’s readings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","02/04/2025 Community Redevelopment Board Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","City development staff presented a wide package of Land Development Code changes to the Community Redevelopment Board — including a switch from “lot” to “parcel record,” limits on shared parking, restrictions on ADUs and duplexes in some urban districts — triggering a lengthy debate about impacts to East Stewart homeowners and the need for more community-led planning.","taxTitle","City of Stuart, Martin County, Florida","taxId",71255,"location","Florida","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6340954,"Community board approves rezoning for proposed hotel at 255 SW Sixth Street",764,1727000,2491000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2258598-ef00cdad4ef3c7086157f41291b57693&start=1727&end=2491","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2258598-ef00cdad4ef3c7086157f41291b57693/thumbnail_1727000.jpg","/articles/6340954/Florida/Community-board-approves-rezoning-for-proposed-hotel-at-255-SW-Sixth-Street","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340954-91d06741fa9f7219b6410eb28a8e5075/orig.mp4?Expires=1774841216&Signature=M-K1aoZYAqSPaUkcxHN2-1eAU9TnLk1YiLYLQqyGJBY6mLeMV2mtYGe2LmthO3OMFXU8iCVvLHDTuOqEqXBPBU7JNYJWSSrXss8aFhmg-0CC2QA5fC1ht~8ssooTxX46x9o9rqU-sKFgGiEHb2JDoZ13tOCxvhlXnaAhHXO2da8l1bjoEaEIlcZOGh0UW9LMRx8udS~IOYTT1o4N2sUbanGxUAHYXjHMOKve-SYO3D7cRzB13NG4JUw-bU5vAj6944sl0ftLBBooJIF5DsthpoeTRxTTj~HEGyUccNoRcmgL3FC-OMVw~HWFfTuGdP2~YTVU6lL8V59XAX7ZEhmeQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A majority of the City of Stuart Community Redevelopment Board voted to approve a rezoning recommendation for a 0.33-acre parcel at 255 Southwest Sixth Street that the applicant has combined into a single title and plans to redevelop as a hotel.

The board’s action concerned Ordinance No. 2537-2025, which would amend the official zoning map to change the parcel’s designation from Urban Waterfront to Urban Highway. Development Director Jody Coogler told the board the change would make the property “consistent with the land use pattern and … zoning pattern and development pattern” that exists along the U.S. 1 corridor.

Coogler said the property is vacant and lies inside the Urban Overlay District and the community redevelopment area, and that both Urban Waterfront and Urban Highway permit hotel uses. She told members the practical difference was design guidance: Urban Waterfront generally pushes buildings to the rear with front parking, whereas Urban Highway pushes building mass toward U.S. 1 with parking behind the building. “To make the pattern the development pattern consistent, staff had … recommended the applicant consider doing an amendment to rezone the property,” Coogler said.

The city attorney, Lee Baggett, reminded the board that the hearing was quasi‑judicial and that members must disclose any ex parte contacts. Board members individually stated on the record that they had none and were “here with an open mind.”

Coogler said surrounding property owners had raised concerns at earlier hearings; while the city cannot condition a rezoning, the applicant had agreed to meet with owners along Fraser Creek and Channel Avenue “to go over the plans” and address neighborhood concerns once a revised site plan is submitted. Coogler also told the board that proposals under 50,000 square feet typically are approved administratively, but design guidelines apply regardless of approval pathway.

After questions from members clarifying that the rezoning would not change allowed density or add new allowed uses (both zoning districts permit hotels), a motion to approve the rezoning carried on a roll-call vote. The board recorded its votes as: Board member Frederick James — yes; Board member Jeff Manera — yes; Chair Mark Breckbill — yes; Vice Chair Bonnie Moser — yes; Board member Clay Scherer — yes; Board member Scott Whelan — yes.

The rezoning recommendation will be forwarded to the City Commission for final action.

Details from the hearing that the board and staff emphasized included the parcel’s size (0.33 acre), the applicant’s unity of title combining three parcels, and staff’s citation of the Stewart Land Development Code (section 11.01 0.09) as the standard used to evaluate the petition. Coogler also noted the parcel was part of a larger corridor pattern that has largely been designated Urban Highway since the city’s urban code adoption in 2002.

The hearing included an oath for those giving testimony, a staff presentation of maps and design differences between districts, and a public‑notice process that earlier drew comments from nearby residents; no members of the public spoke during the board’s final deliberation on the rezoning.

The board’s formal motion and roll call are part of the meeting record; staff said the applicant must still submit detailed site and design plans and that affected neighbors will be invited to a neighborhood meeting before final administrative review of any site plan under the city’s process.","A majority of the City of Stuart Community Redevelopment Board voted to approve a rezoning recommendation for a 0.33-acre parcel at 255 Southwest Sixth Street to allow a hotel pushed toward U.S. 1.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Community board debates wide-ranging land‑development code changes; calls for community-led master plan

Community board approves rezoning for proposed hotel at 255 SW Sixth Street