Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Sunrise Grove topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sunrise Grove land-use change fails; separate text amendment to rename AGTECH and add vehicle manufacturing use transmitted
Summary
Martin County commissioners split on a proposed 205‑acre expansion of the AgTech freestanding urban service district and separately approved transmittal of a text amendment to rename the district and add a permitted vehicle‑manufacturing use.
Martin County commissioners split on a proposed change to the AgTech freestanding urban service district and related text amendments for the Sunrise Grove project, rejecting an acreage expansion but transmitting an ordinance-level text change.
The board considered two related applications from Martin Triangle Property/Sunrise Grove Commerce Center: CPA 23‑03, a future land‑use map amendment that would add about 205 acres to the existing AgTech freestanding urban service district, and CPA 23‑04, a text amendment to rename the existing AgTech district as “Sunrise Grove” and to add an additional permitted use (vehicle manufacturing, sales and service).
On CPA 23‑03 (map amendment adding ~205 acres), staff recommended transmittal to the state. At the meeting the board debated whether growing industrial capacity and proximity to I‑95 justified the map change. Supporters said the acreage is an enclave adjacent to existing AgTech and could attract employers and tax base; opponents cited a county commercial/industrial study and called the change urban sprawl. A motion to transmit CPA 23‑03 failed by a 2–3 vote; the record shows the motion failed with Commissioners Vargas, Capps and Hurd dissenting.
Separately, the board considered CPA 23‑04, the text amendment to change the name of the existing freestanding urban service district and to add the vehicle-manufacturing/sales/service use. County staff clarified they would remove the proposed acreage expansion from the transmitted ordinance so the transmittal would apply only to the name change and the additional permitted use for the existing 1,717‑acre district. The board approved transmittal of that ordinance on a 3–2 vote with Commissioner Vargas dissenting.
The local planning agency had recommended approval of the map amendment (CPA 23‑03) by a 3–1 vote earlier, according to staff. Both items will require additional review by state agencies and a future adoption hearing before the board if transmitted items return from state review.
Votes at the meeting were procedural transmittal votes to send amendments to the state review process; neither transmittal constituted final adoption of plan changes.
Speakers during the discussion included applicants’ representatives and multiple commissioners who debated policy, consistency with prior AgTech policies, and regional development pressures. The board’s split votes mean the 205‑acre expansion will not move forward for state review, while the name change and added permitted use will be transmitted for review.
