Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stuart officials say referendum needed to convert 2-acre Haney Creek parcel; developer offers to build trailhead on adjacent county land
Summary
City staff told commissioners that state and local rules require a public referendum to change the commercial designation of a 2-acre parcel at Haney Creek; a county property owner on U.S. 1 offered to pay to build and maintain a nearby trailhead, prompting debate on traffic, annexation and long-term maintenance.
City Manager Mike Mortel told the City Commission that the city must return to voters to change the zoning and use of a two-acre parcel carved from the Haney Creek purchase and held by the city for commercial lease to fund park maintenance. Mortel described city code and the 2011 interlocal "funding agreement" with Martin County as the reason a referendum is required before the city can convert that 2-acre parcel from commercial to conservation or long‑term preservation.
Mortel said the relevant city-code referral points commissioners to a publicization requirement and to the supervisor of elections, and that the county supervisor asked that a resolution with referendum language be adopted at least 60 days before an election. Mortel told the commission the city may either hold a special election (costly, probably low turnout) or wait for the next general election to avoid extra expense.
The discussion moved from process to a substantive offer from a nearby property owner. Mortel reported he had received a call from a developer who owns the former Aaron's Nursery parcel at U.S. 1 and Baker Road (county land). The developer said he would build and maintain the Baker Road trailhead — including the parking lot, restroom and lighting — and create a cross‑connection so vehicles could exit via the trailhead parking rather than directly onto Baker Road. Mortel told commissioners he initially declined the proposal, then raised it with the commission because it could reduce the city's upfront construction and ongoing operations and maintenance costs.
Commissioners debated traffic safety, liability and the effect of connecting a commercial site to a trailhead parking lot. Several commissioners said the adjacency to fast‑food or gas‑station development could turn the trailhead into a commercial overflow parking area and could undermine the park experience; others said the maintenance savings would be significant and that shared curb‑cut/parking connections are commonly required by the city code to reduce trips on U.S. 1.
Mortel and the city attorney explained that the 2011 interlocal agreement required the city to use the 2-acre parcel for commercial lease to provide perpetual funding for Haney Creek maintenance, and that some language in that agreement "survived" the agreement's nominal five‑year term. The city attorney advised that the city must undo the prior referendum result only by submitting a new referendum to voters. Mortel said he had already contacted county staff and expected updating or amending the interlocal agreement would take roughly one to two months.
No formal vote or contract was authorized at the meeting. Commissioners gave staff direction to collect more information and, by consensus, said they were willing to hear a presentation from the developer about options and potential conditions (for example annexation, access controls and maintenance obligations) before any decision is made to pursue a special election or interlocal amendment.
Why this matters: the parcel was originally designated for commercial lease to produce a permanent revenue stream for the 51‑acre Haney Creek preserve. Converting it to conservation would remove that revenue source unless the city substitutes other funding or reaches a new interlocal agreement with Martin County.
