Martin County rejects Hope Sound Storage land-use change after resident opposition

The Martin County Board of County Commissioners unanimously denied a comprehensive plan amendment request to change 4.01 acres in Hope Sound from medium-density residential to general commercial, a move that would have cleared the way for a three‑story storage facility.

The vote came after roughly an hour of presentations and public comment that included concerns about flooding, compatibility with existing homes and the size of the proposed structure. Commissioner Capps moved to deny the amendment and Commissioner Vargas seconded; the motion passed unanimously.

Staff said the applicant, represented by attorney Bob Raines of Gunster, submitted a small-scale amendment to change the future land‑use designation for the site at US 1 south of SE Heritage Boulevard. Amy Offenbach, a county planner, told the commission the request would have allowed up to 60% commercial building coverage and would have reduced the required open space from 50% to 20% compared with the existing residential designation. Offenbach said the application met some internal criteria and that staff recommended approval, but noted wetlands and buffers on the rear of the property.

Neighbors and nearby homeowners urged denial. Lori Whelan, who said she lives just south of the site, told commissioners she did not receive mailed notice, raised flooding concerns and questioned the project's lowest-floor elevations, saying they appeared inconsistent with other nearby surveys. "We feel like the commercial building is going to add to the flooding which is already a concern," Whelan said.

Susan Resendes, who said her Lexington Avenue home abuts the parcel, said the community opposes changing the site to general commercial and called a three‑story, 94,000‑square‑foot storage facility "out of place." "Zoning has been the same since I moved here 25 years ago," Resendes told the board.

Raines and the applicant said they had tried to work with neighbors, held multiple meetings and that site‑specific flood and engineering issues would be addressed at site‑plan review if the land‑use change were approved. "We think that's more of a site planning issue," Raines said.

After discussion, commissioners concluded the existing medium‑density residential designation was the appropriate fit for the area and voted to deny the amendment. Because the comp‑plan amendment was denied, related zoning and site‑plan requests will not be considered for the property.

The denial ends this phase of the applicant's two‑public‑hearing process; staff had noted the application had received a 2–2 split at the local planning agency earlier in 2023.