Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners continue comprehensive plan amendments after debate over shoreline protections and resiliency language
Summary
The board continued two items in the county’s seven-year comprehensive plan update — a chapter 2 definitions amendment and chapter 8 coastal management changes — after extended discussion on shoreline protection zones, living shorelines and pre-1982 plat protections.
The Martin County Board of County Commissioners on March 11 continued two linked comprehensive-plan amendments — CPA 24-02 (chapter 2 overall goals and definitions) and CPA 24-08 (coastal management element) — to a March 25 public hearing after extensive discussion about shoreline protection language and how the county will handle storm-damaged shorelines and pre-1982 platted preservation areas.
County planners said the updates are part of the state-required evaluation and appraisal report (EAR) process that occurs every seven years. Senior planner Jenna Nobby told commissioners some changes were required by Florida statute, including lengthening the planning horizon from 15 to 20 years consistent with section 163.31775(a), and adding cross-references and a new resiliency objective tied to the coastal element.
Clyde Doolin, representing growth management staff, said the chapter amendments do not change the urban service boundary, the county’s four-story height limit, or protections for wildlife and wetlands, but added the changes were necessary to remain consistent with state law and with chapters 8 and 9.
A major focus of public and board discussion was language in chapter 8 affecting shoreline protection zones (SPZs). Commissioners and staff reviewed how the county treats lots platted before April 1, 1982: pre-1982 lots of record generally have an enforced 25-foot shoreline protection zone for lots of an acre or less, while other policies across the years have created 50- and 75-foot SPZs in different circumstances.
Environmental resource engineer Amy Eason and environmental administrator Daryl De Lueb clarified the county’s approach to shoreline restoration after storms. Eason said the county prefers living shorelines — mangroves and littoral plantings — but in extreme storm events the plan allows for shoreline-hardening permits if an applicant supplies an engineering analysis showing living restoration is infeasible. De Lueb explained that some plats approved in the late 1970s specifically dedicated preservation or shoreline-protection areas; staff’s proposed language makes clear the county will honor those vested plat dedications.
Commissioners pressed staff on how the 25-, 50- and 75-foot SPZ standards arose and whether the plan changes would weaken protections. Staff said several provisions were adopted in earlier plan amendments and the county’s Land Development Regulations implement many of the details; county counsel, Elise Elder, said the intent was to reinforce and clarify protection for platted preservation areas rather than to erode protections.
After public comment and commissioner debate, the board voted to continue CPA 24-02 to March 25 at 9 a.m. unanimously. On the coastal management element (CPA 24-08) the board voted to continue the item by a 4–1 margin, with Commissioner Hetherington dissenting.
Staff said they will finalize a vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan later this year; planners and commissioners asked staff to provide clearer historical background on the origin of SPZ widths and the analysis supporting those standards ahead of final action.
The continuances mean no comprehensive-plan amendments were adopted March 11; staff recommended the March 25 continuation so the board could consider coordinated, chapter-spanning changes and any remaining state ORC suggestions.
