Martin County planning panel recommends approval of Hope Sound storage site plan pending land‑use and rezoning votes

The Martin County Local Planning Agency on Feb. 6 recommended approval of a major final site plan for a three‑story, approximately 94,132‑square‑foot residential storage facility in Hope Sound, but the recommendation is contingent on the Board of County Commissioners approving a future‑land‑use map amendment and rezoning that would allow the use.

Staff recommended approval for the Live Oak Capital Partners application, and the LPA voted to forward that recommendation to the county commission. Brian Elam, the principal planner for Growth Management, told the panel that “Staff's recommendation of approval of the Live Oak Capital Partners application for major final site plan approval ... is contingent upon the Board of County Commissioners approving an amendment to the future land use map” and the corresponding rezoning from RS‑6 (medium‑density residential) to GC (general commercial).

Why it matters: If the Board of County Commissioners does not approve the future‑land‑use and rezoning applications, the proposed storage use would not be permitted on the property and the site plan would be moot. If the commission approves the two approvals, the LPA found the proposed development meets the county's Land Development Regulations and related engineering, drainage and transportation requirements.

Details of the proposal and staff findings

The application, submitted by Thomas Engineering Group LLC on behalf of Live Oak Capital Partners, seeks major final site plan approval and a preserve area management plan for a parcel east of Southeast Federal Highway about 0.28 miles south of Southeast Heritage Boulevard. The property is roughly 4 acres; the applicant says about 2.61 acres are wetland, wetland buffer and upland scrub reserve, leaving approximately 1.39 acres listed as developable.

Project specifics in the staff record include a three‑story building of roughly 94,132 square feet, a building footprint of about 30,000 square feet, two covered loading spaces, eight parking stalls and two ADA spaces. Staff reported the proposal would have about 18% building coverage (the GC maximum is 60%), 77% open space (the minimum is 20%) and a building height below the 40‑foot cap permitted in GC zoning.

On engineering and drainage, the staff report states the applicant’s stormwater system will retain the 25‑year, 3‑day storm event before discharging to an adjacent wetland in the East Fork Creek drainage basin, and that the applicant demonstrated required attenuation and water‑quality treatment. The finished floor elevation is listed in the record as 17.75 feet NAVD; staff said the site is not within a special flood hazard area and that the finished floor elevation is set at or above the maximum predictive stage for the 100‑year, 3‑day event.

Staff also reported the county transportation division found the project would have a de minimis impact under the county’s adequate public facilities standards — a projected impact of less than 1% of the affected roads’ adopted level of service.

Applicant and proponents

Bob Raines, land‑use attorney with the Gunther Law Firm representing the applicant, told the panel the applicant had extensive outreach with neighbors and homeowners associations before filing. “I can't remember a matter where a client met and attempted to meet with the neighbors as much as Mr. Tedder has over the last 2 years,” Raines said, and turned the panel to the project’s engineer and developer representatives for technical and market details.

Brandon Ulmer, the project engineer, said the parcel’s wetlands and preserve areas limit developable acreage and showed the project layout, vegetation preservation, and a secure, single‑entry design with card readers and cameras. Steve Tanner of Live Oak Capital Partners described the intended operation as “a quiet, safe, secure use,” with normal business hours, an on‑site office during business hours, and more than 30 cameras planned to monitor the site.

Public comment and panel concerns

Two nearby residents who spoke at the hearing said they had not received timely notice or remained concerned about flooding and the proliferation of storage facilities along the corridor.

Bruce Montefusco, who identified himself as a Hope Sound resident of about 44 years, said he did not believe the area needed another facility: “I don't think it's necessary at all,” Montefusco said.

Laura Wheeling, a resident who said she lives south of the proposed site and had not received a mailed notice in time, said engineering that funnels water through a single pipe could worsen backups: “The flooding is still a concern, and it'll flood our street,” she said.

Several LPA members urged clearer staff reporting of the application’s procedural history. One member asked staff to include an explanatory paragraph in future staff reports when a site plan is scheduled before the county commission has yet to approve a necessary future‑land‑use or rezoning change. Growth Management Director Paul Schelling clarified the staff report notes that the proposed use is not permitted in the existing RS‑6 district and that separate future‑land‑use and rezoning approvals are required.

Action taken

An LPA member moved to adopt staff's recommendation and another member seconded the motion. The Local Planning Agency voted in favor and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners. The recommendation and staff findings are explicitly contingent upon the county commission first approving the future‑land‑use map amendment and rezoning that would allow the commercial storage use on the parcel.

What happens next

The Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to hear the future‑land‑use map amendment and rezoning petitions before the site plan is acted upon; if the commission approves both, the site plan recommendation will be before the commission for final action. If either the future‑land‑use amendment or rezoning fails, the site plan recommendation would be rendered inapplicable because the storage use is not permitted under the current RS‑6 zoning.