Martin County LPA backs ordinance to return CRA alternative-compliance reviews to public CRA board

Martin County’s Local Planning Agency (LPA) voted unanimously April 17 to recommend adoption of an ordinance amending Article 12, Division 1, of the county’s Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) code to change how alternative-compliance (code-deviation) requests are reviewed and decided.

The change would move most dimensional and architectural alternative-compliance requests for CRA projects from an administrative decision by Growth Management to public review by the CRA board; landscaping deviations would continue to be decided by the Growth Management director. The staff presentation said the draft ordinance also replaces the current criteria for granting alternative compliance with standards patterned on Florida law for variances.

County planning staff said the proposal is intended to restore a public-hearing process for alternate compliance and to make the review standard less ambiguous. Under the proposed language, decision-makers would evaluate whether special conditions peculiar to the land exist, whether the condition was not caused by the applicant, whether granting alternative compliance would not confer a special benefit, whether strict adherence to Article 12 would deprive a property right, and whether the alternative is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use—language staff said mirrors the variance standard used elsewhere in county land-use practice.

Staff told the LPA that the change grew from problems since a 2021 code revision that removed routine public hearings by the Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) and shifted many alternate-compliance decisions to administrative review. Presenters said the NAC meets only quarterly, is advisory only and has frequent membership turnover, while the CRA board meets monthly, has longer-serving members and can hold public meetings where neighbors would have notice and an opportunity to comment. Staff also said the CRA board previously voted unanimously in favor of the proposed change when the item was presented to them.

Under the draft ordinance as presented: major site plans (not otherwise defined in the staff summary) would continue to go to the county board; dimensional and architectural requests for other CRA projects would go to the CRA board; landscaping and plant-material requests would remain under Growth Management director review; and very small dimensional requests (the staff example was requests under 12 inches) would remain administratively reviewable. Staff said they will provide additional training to the CRA board on the standards and process.

The LPA asked clarifying questions about notice and whether the Board of Zoning and Adjustment (BOZA) was considered as an alternative review body. Staff said BOZA has a different, narrower ordinance and scope—BOZA principally handles setback variances outside CRAs—and that the CRA board’s subject-matter experience with form-based and architectural standards made it a better fit for most CRA alternative-compliance items. Staff also said CRA hearings would be publicly noticed on the CRA agenda and via the county’s usual postings and email lists, rather than by mailed neighbor notice or sign posting used for some variance proceedings.

With no members of the public present, a member moved to adopt staff’s recommendation. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote (3-0). The LPA chair then adjourned the meeting. The next LPA meeting was scheduled for May 15.

The record of the presentation and the LPA’s action shows the ordinance would (1) restore public hearings for most CRA alternate-compliance requests through the CRA board; (2) adopt variance-style criteria that staff said conform to Florida law; and (3) retain Growth Management director review for landscaping and very minor dimensional requests. The ordinance text and staff packet referenced in the meeting were cited by staff as the basis for the change; the LPA vote at this meeting was a recommendation to adopt the ordinance as presented.