Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press commissioners to pause three‑story self‑storage plan; board continues hearing for legal review
Summary
Residents near Heritage Ridge told the board a proposed three‑story, 64,260‑sq‑ft storage building would be out of scale, require fill in what they described as wet areas and increase traffic; staff and the applicant said the development is a by‑right commercial use under the older PUD agreement. The board continued the quasi‑judicial final site‑plan hearing to May 19 for county attorney review of PUD entitlements.
Martin County commissioners continued a contested final site‑plan application May 5 after residents urged the board to pause and the county attorney asked for time to review historical PUD/DRI entitlements.
Staff described the proposal as a three‑story, 64,260‑square‑foot residential storage facility on a 1.5‑acre parcel in the Heritage Ridge PUD (Parcel C4, Lot 2B). Planner John Senute told commissioners the original Heritage Ridge PUD agreement (1978, with later amendments) established that Parcel C4 be developed "as if zoned general commercial," and staff concluded the project complies with the PUD and county regulations. The applicant, represented by Mike McCarti, said the use is by‑right in the PUD and proposed landscape buffering, dedication of drainage easements and other conditions to mitigate impacts.
Multiple nearby residents and homeowners testified they were surprised by the scale and location of a three‑story building adjacent to one‑story homes. Judith Wagand, president of the Heritage Ridge South Property Owners Association, told the board: "This three‑story building ... doesn't fit in a community when you have one‑story buildings all around you," and raised concerns about wetlands, fill and traffic. Lawrence Cook described the site as an ecologically active creek and disputed staff's environmental assessment, calling the parcel "not just a ditch" but an interconnected wetland area.
Commissioners and staff debated whether the PUD language—approved before the county’s comprehensive plan and future‑land‑use map—creates an entitlement that controls current land‑use designations. County Attorney Elder said she needed time to research the PUD/DRI history and any pre‑existing entitlements dating to the 1970s and 1980s before offering a firm legal opinion. To allow that review and to avoid deciding on conflicting legal interpretations on the spot, the board voted to continue the quasi‑judicial hearing to the May 19 commission meeting.
The continuance preserves the record so affected neighbors, the applicant and staff can present any additional evidence and gives the county attorney time to prepare a legal determination about whether the PUD/DRI controls the parcel’s allowed use despite an apparent low‑density future‑land‑use designation on current maps.
