Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Leonard property: 229 acres offered for fee simple at a high asking price; state partner interest could reduce county share
Loading...
Summary
Staff presented the Leonard property — roughly 229 acres of pasture and cypress sloughs — as a candidate for a state Rural and Family Lands Program agricultural easement; staff said the owner had offered fee‑simple terms at an asking figure staff described as far above what the county would consider.
Martin County staff presented the Leonard property, a roughly 229‑acre parcel mostly in pasture with large cypress sloughs, as a potential agricultural easement acquisition under the state Rural and Family Lands Program.
Mike (staff member) said the owner had offered fee‑simple sale options but asked an amount staff described as roughly $30 million for a larger, approximately 250‑acre asking price; staff advised the county would not pursue a fee‑simple purchase at that figure. Instead, staff described the state Rural and Family Lands Program as the likely lead for an agricultural easement and said the program requested a county contribution; staff described typical state cost‑sharing as roughly half of the easement cost, which would make the county’s effective contribution approximately 25 cents on the dollar if combined with other partners.
Habitat on the Leonard property is a mixture of improved pasture (about 41 percent) and wetlands, with roughly 20 percent classified as rare habitat (strand and domed swamp) and species observations including sandhill cranes and wood storks. Staff told the committee the site is not contiguous to public lands and would not include public access if acquired as an easement, although the easement could include vegetation‑ and species‑protection requirements.
Committee members noted the property’s proximity to Bridge Road and rising development pressure there; staff said wetlands limit development but that some upland areas could support a small number of residences under current agricultural zoning. Members suggested a partnership with the state program could offer a cost‑effective way to protect the property while reducing county management obligations.
Ending: The committee received the state partner‑led easement proposal and weighed the high asking fee for fee‑simple against the more realistic agricultural easement route; staff and members agreed the state partnership model merits further consideration and that any county contribution would be calibrated against expected state cost‑share.
