Martin County LPA recommends mandatory rezoning for Coastal Life Church property, 4-1

The Martin County Local Planning Agency voted 4-1 on June 18, 2026, to recommend a mandatory rezoning of an approximately 43.9-acre property in Palm City from legacy A-2 agricultural to AR5A agricultural ranch-at zoning.

Staff planner Brian Elam told the LPA that the rezoning is required because the property's current A-2 classification predates Martin County's comprehensive growth management plan and is inconsistent with the adopted agricultural ranchette future land use map. "This request simply aligns the zoning map with the future land use map already adopted by Martin County," Elam said, and staff recommended approval after finding the application complies with the county's land development regulations.

The applicant's representative, Christina Lane of Cotler and Hearing, reiterated that the rezoning is code-required and "not a request for additional development rights." James Pendleton, lead pastor at Coastal Life Church, described the church's nearly 18 years of local service and asked the LPA for support of the project as a community-serving institutional use: "We are excited about our partnership with House of Hope and excited to come alongside and just along with them in the things that they do to also do what we do to serve the families of Martin County," Pendleton said.

Several LPA members pressed staff on the practical effect of the map change, asking whether rezoning could "open the door" to residential development if the institutional use later ceased. Growth Management Director Paul Schilling and staff answered that the mandatory rezoning implements existing policy and that a rezoning recommendation does not itself authorize a site plan or construction. Schilling explained that a future site plan would be subject to the county's development review process and, in many cases, administrative approval.

A motion to approve staff's recommendation was made and seconded; the LPA voted in favor with a recorded outcome of 4-1, with Ms. Nesam voting no. The record notes the board's approval was a recommendation (the mandatory rezoning corrects a zoning/future-land-use inconsistency) and that any subsequent site plan or development would require separate review and permits.

Next steps: the rezoning recommendation will be forwarded per procedural rules (staff indicated a site plan will come forward at a later date and could be approved administratively) and the applicant must submit requisite materials (notice affidavits were noted in the record).