Community board debates wide-ranging land‑development code changes; calls for community-led master plan

The City of Stuart Community Redevelopment Board held an extended discussion of proposed Land Development Code text amendments the commission placed in a zoning‑in‑progress review, raising questions about impacts on small-property owners in East Stewart, parking, duplexes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and the process used to develop the changes.

Development staff introduced Ordinance No. 2539-2025 as a package of code cleanups and policy changes that staff said were requested by the City Commission during workshops. Development Director (staff identified in the record as Jody Coogler and Sherry Kooker at different points) summarized the most substantive changes as moves from the word “lot” to “parcel record,” grandfathering parcels of record that existed on Sept. 4, 2024; removing references to shared parking citywide; revising multifamily and mixed-use density and floor‑area calculations; modifying minimum parcel sizes in single-family districts; and tightening rules for ADUs and duplexes inside some urban overlays.

On the parcel/lot question, staff told the board that Martin County assigns a parcel identification number to every taxable parcel and that switching the code to use “parcel record” rather than “lot” was intended to protect existing properties while preventing the creation of new, smaller platted lots. Staff said the commission wanted to limit new small lots in a largely built‑out city and to ensure that properties that pay taxes and have parcel records would be “grandfathered.” Staff also said that any newly created parcel records after the effective date would need to meet new minimum size thresholds (the text under discussion referred to either 5,000 or 6,000 square feet and staff said that point remained under clarification with the commission).

The board’s discussion repeatedly returned to East Stewart, where many participants told the board smaller historic parcels and ambiguous title histories raise fears that overly strict new lot/parcel rules would make it harder for longtime residents to refinance, repair or sell property. Public commenter James Christie — who identified himself as representing “East Stewart grassroots” — urged protections for the neighborhood and said his group planned to return to explain its community plan in more detail.

Members also questioned the decision to remove shared parking allowances. Staff described shared parking as a strategy that had been used downtown for complementary uses (for example, a restaurant and a daytime office). The proposed strike-throughs would, staff said, eliminate shared parking citywide; that change, board members said, could raise costs for smaller infill projects and favor larger developers who can assemble and finance larger parcels.

On ADUs, staff said the draft language required that an ADU be tied to a primary residence owned by the same person, with a single water and electrical meter and an owner‑occupancy requirement for the primary unit; the intent, staff said, was to curb transient rental use and short‑term rentals. Board members and other commenters expressed concern the meter and owner‑occupancy rules would make ADUs impractical for homeowners who need flexibility — for instance, to offset care costs by renting an accessory unit — and that the change could restrict a modest path to additional housing.

Members debated duplexes and nonconforming multi‑unit properties in older neighborhoods. Staff noted existing code already treated some duplexes as nonconforming in areas annexed to the city, and that the proposed language would prevent expansion of some duplexes and limit rebuilding if structures were substantially damaged. Board members said that could remove low-cost housing options and urged staff to highlight the number of affected properties and to work with residents to avoid unintended displacement.

The board discussed the larger process that produced the changes. Several members and speakers urged more community‑centered planning and independent technical analysis before making code changes. Vice Chair Bonnie Moser said the process to date felt top‑down: “This process has been really backwards. It has been from the top down and it has not been from the bottom up,” she said. Other members recommended a citywide master plan and additional outreach. Board member Mark Breckbill warned that making parking and other requirements more stringent could “favor the PUDs over the local builders” and make the city more attractive to large outside developers with Wall Street financing.

Vice Chair Moser moved that the Commission refrain from adopting changes until it undertook a community‑led citywide master planning process. The motion was amended on the floor to allow the commission to continue work on the code package while excepting changes relating to duplexes, ADUs and shared parking from immediate approval and requesting a citywide, community‑led master plan for those topics. The amended motion was seconded. The board conducted a roll-call vote that recorded Board member Monero — yes; Board member Scherer — yes; Board member James — no; Board member Whelan — yes; Chair Mark Breckbill — no; Vice Chair Moser — yes.

Members did not reach a unanimous stance: interviews and comments in the meeting reflected concern that stopping the zoning-in-progress altogether could create legal exposure or leave already-approved projects in limbo, while others said the code changes risked harm to vulnerable neighborhoods without additional safeguards. Staff told the board the zoning‑in‑progress workstemmed from Commission requests dating to September 2024 and that some items were intended to address rapid multifamily approvals the commission had previously received.

Board members asked staff to provide more targeted data — specifically, a tally of duplexes and affected parcels in East Stewart, clarification of the minimum parcel‑size threshold (5,000 vs. 6,000 square feet), an inventory of projects already approved under prior rules, and an explanation of how a proposed downtown parking garage would or would not reduce on‑site parking requirements for adjacent parcels.

The board also discussed a CRA program staff described on the record that would help East Stewart residents clear title — staff said the CRA had identified roughly 30–40 parcels with potentially unclear title histories and could offer to pay attorney fees to resolve probates or clouded transfers. Several board members urged staff to continue outreach and to ensure any code changes were tied to financial supports for property owners who might otherwise be disadvantaged.

The board’s discussion produced an amended motion and a recorded roll call. The ordinance package remains on the commission’s calendar; staff asked the board for specific written recommendations and clarification on the points above so those can be forwarded with the packet for the commission’s readings.