Commissioners pause Paddock at Palm City rezoning after access, buffer and public-benefit concerns

The Board of County Commissioners paused consideration of a rezoning request for an 8.6‑acre parcel in Palm City after discussion about driveway placement, right‑of‑way widths, buffers to Danforth Creek and the content and enforceability of proposed public benefits. The applicant sought to rezone from RM‑8 (medium density residential) to a planned unit development (PUD) for 51 two‑story townhomes, six duplex units and one single‑family house, a proposed density of 6.7 units per acre.

The PUD hearing mattered because the PUD would change setback and lot standards that govern where buildings and driveways can be placed, and commissioners and members of the public raised traffic‑safety, stormwater and neighborhood‑compatibility questions. Planning staff and the applicant said the design met comp plan and LPA (local planning agency) conditions but that a final engineering check of the driveway location was needed before the board could conclude whether a variance or an additional public hearing was required.

Planning staff presented the application and noted the property is across from Hidden Oaks Middle School and within walking distance of neighborhood commercial services. Brian Elam, principal planner, told the board the development met the county’s comprehensive plan requirements in staff’s view and reported the local planning agency voted 3‑0 to recommend approval.

Michael Houston, the lead consultant for the developer, Finland Capital LLC, described the site layout, stormwater ponds and the preservation of upland habitat. He said the proposed design places townhomes along the pond and increases the contiguous preserve area after redesigning a cul‑de‑sac turn area. Houston said the applicant had removed the originally proposed gated entrance and was prepared to shift the driveway alignment to reduce potential conflicts between resident traffic and trucks from an adjacent food‑distribution property.

Several nearby residents and property owners spoke. Steven Hecht, a new Palm City resident, urged caution and opposed “handing out” rezoning approvals that would increase density, saying townhome clusters could change neighborhood character. William Raab, who lives south of Danforth Creek, asked the board to codify that no three‑story buildings would be allowed and to confirm the single‑family home shown on the plan would not be built.

Marcela Camblier, attorney for the owner of adjacent commercial parcels, said her client did not oppose the project but pressed for a more comprehensive approach to the driveway location. She cited county access‑management standards calling for driveway spacing and alignment and urged the parties to ensure safe separation between trucks and residential traffic.

Commissioners and county staff discussed technical constraints: the existing right‑of‑way on Southwest Thirtieth Avenue narrows from 50 feet to about 30 feet at the property’s south end; staff said a 10‑foot dedication by the applicant would increase the width to 40 feet but that a full 50‑foot width would require property dedication by other owners. Acting County Attorney Elise Elder told the board a formal right‑of‑way variance would require separate public notice and hearing if one was needed.

After extended discussion, the board recessed the hearing to allow county engineering, legal staff and the applicant to work on a final driveway alignment that would not require an additional noticed hearing. Commissioners asked that the applicant document that: (1) no three‑story buildings will be built; (2) the single‑family unit shown on the plan be removed from approvals; and (3) a path toward an agreed driveway alignment that reduces truck/resident conflict be prepared for staff review. The item was postponed pending that technical follow‑up and possible re‑notice.

Next steps: staff and the applicant will meet to determine whether the driveway can be shifted within the existing drawing exhibit and whether a right‑of‑way variance or further public hearing is required. The board set a short recess to allow staff and counsel to draft findings and to return to the dais for a decision timeline.

Community members and the developer urged a solution that balances property rights with school access and neighborhood character; commissioners emphasized they wanted a fix that didn’t require reopening the public hearing record on material issues.

Ending: The hearing was recessed; no final zoning vote was taken. The board directed staff to report back with engineering and legal advice about the driveway alignment and to formalize the applicant’s commitments on building height and the unsubscribed single‑family unit.