Several Jensen Beach residents urged Martin County officials to clarify the status of a proposed Riverlight development and to address problems at a nearby rehab facility during public comment at the county’s CRA advisory meeting. The board heard multiple complaints about property maintenance, perceived public-safety impacts and confusion over approvals.

Carol Balducci, who identified herself as living in the Jensen Beach Community Redevelopment Area (CRA), asked for the record when the board approved Riverlight and where environmental and traffic impact studies could be found. A county staff member (Speaker 2) replied directly during public comment: "Riverlight has never been approved to be constructed," and said the project "went through maybe several iterations, but there was no final approval for that project." The staff member added they did not know of any final board approval.

Other residents described a property marketed as 'River House' that they said had functioned as a motel and several kinds of rehab or mental-health centers. One resident said the facility "does not belong in the CRA," alleged frequent police and ambulance responses, and said patients and staff activity was interfering with a nearby kayak business and residents’ yards. That speaker asked the board to study the property and consider action because the establishment "affects my business" and the CRA.

Mia Lindbergh, who identified herself from Jensen Beach, said Riverlight purchased a property in 2023 and, in her view, has not maintained it: "They cleaned the area, and they boarded up the windows. It's totally overgrown." Lindbergh urged code enforcement or other action so neighbors are not left with overgrown, boarded or apparently abandoned buildings owned by a construction company.

County staff did not announce a specific enforcement action during the meeting. The staff member’s statement that Riverlight lacked a final board approval directly addresses one resident’s concern but left other allegations—maintenance, police/ambulance frequency, and invasive plant growth—unresolved in the public forum. Residents asked for follow-up and study; the board did not take immediate formal action on the specific Riverlight or rehab center complaints during this session.

The CRA advisory board proceeded with its agenda after public comment. The transcript shows several residents raised overlapping maintenance and public-safety concerns; the staff response addressed the approval history for Riverlight but did not resolve the other operational or enforcement claims at the meeting. The matter may be raised again for staff follow-up or code-enforcement review at a later date.