Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.16.2025 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Regular Meeting October 16, 2025 Convened: 6pm Adjourned: 10:37pm 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM, by Chair Binner. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Binner. 3. INVOCATION Commissioner O'Dell. 4. ROLL CALL Present Board Member Ed Lounds, Board Member Billy O'Dell, Chair Ryan Binner, Board Member Larry Neese, Board Member Darren Guettler, Vice-chair Lawrence Slay Excused Board Member Joshua Bradley 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Guettler abstained from agenda items C, E, F, G, and J. 6. DISCLOSURE(S) Commissioner’s O’Dell, Lounds, Guettler and Slay spoke to Peter Harrison and Commissioner Neese spoke with County Commissioner James Clasby regarding agenda item 9H – Sentinel Grove Technology Park - Proposed Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment from AG-5 (Agricultural-5) to SD (Special District). 7. MINUTES A. St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Commission minutes for the meeting of September 25, 2025 Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 2 | P a g e A motion was made to approve all sets of minutes and it passed unanimously. RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Ed Lounds SECONDER: Board Member Billy O'Dell AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None 8. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Fort Pierce Commerce Center - Future Land Use Map Amendment - CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 19, 2025, JULY 17, 2025, AUGUST 21, & SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 MEETINGS STAFF PRESENTATION: Kori Benton, AICP, Planning Manager. Mr. Benton stated, as the Chair noted, items A and B, regarding the Fort Pierce Commerce Center, future land use map amendment and planned non-residential development are up for consideration. The applicant’s representatives have requested a continuance of the public hearing to the November 20, 2025, meeting at 6 p.m. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, allow comments from anyone who may not be able to attend in November, and then vote to continue both items to that meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS 9A: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS 9B: None. BOARD DISCUSSION 9A & 9B: None. Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 3 | P a g e 9A: Motion: Approved; Continuation granted to the November 20, 2025, P&Z Meeting. Motioner –– O’Dell- Second – Lounds RESULT: CONTINUE MOVER: Board Member Billy O'Dell SECONDER: Board Member Ed Lounds AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None B. Fort Pierce Commerce Center - PNRD Rezoning & Preliminary Plan- THIS ITEM IS QUASI- JUDICIAL CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 19, 2025, JULY 17, 2025, AUGUST 21, 2025 , & SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 MEETINGS STAFF PRESENTATION: Kori Benton, AICP, Planning Manager. Mr. Benton stated, as the Chair noted, items A and B, regarding the Fort Pierce Commerce Center, future land use map amendment and planned non-residential development are up for consideration. The applicant’s representatives have requested a continuance of the public hearing to the November 20, 2025, meeting at 6 p.m. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, allow comments from anyone who may not be able to attend in November, and then vote to continue both items to that meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS 9A: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS 9B: None. BOARD DISCUSSION 9A & 9B: None. 9B: Motion: Approved; Continuation granted to the November 20, 2025, P&Z Meeting. Motioner –– O’Dell - Second – Lounds RESULT: CONTINUE MOVER: Board Member Billy O'Dell SECONDER: Board Member Ed Lounds AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 4 | P a g e C. Angle Road - Petition to Rezone +/- 20 acres on Angle Road from AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential -1) to RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family-5) - CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2025, MEETING STAFF PRESENTATION: Irene Szedlmayer, AICP, Senior Planner, with Planning and Development Services. Ms. Szedlmayer stated that all public notification requirements were met per St Lucie County Development Code Section 11.00.03. Ms. Szedlmayer presented to the board the proposal of the approximately 20-acre parcel on Angle Road that has a Residential Urban (RU) land-use designation allowing up to five units per acre. Nearby residential projects include the Eagle Bend PUD to the east—approved in January 2024 for up to five units per acre on about 343 acres—and the Pineapple Grove PUD about 4,000 feet west, which includes 402 lots on 194 acres (about two units per acre) and has recently begun construction after final site plan approval. Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission resume the public hearing on the subject petition, evaluate the proposed rezoning and forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: Commissioner O’Dell asked about Angle Rd being able to accommodate the daily trips listed in the traffic report. Ms. Szedlmayer answered that road work will be required. Conversation continued. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Leah Heinzelman, PLA, ASLA, with Cotleur & Hearing. Ms. Heinzelman presented the Board with an overview of their plans for the 20-acres. Nik Schroth, with NAI South Coast, spoke about why they selected this piece of property and their goals for the area. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH APPLICANT: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner Lounds asked if the applicant would be using Jenkins Road as an entrance and exit point or would it all be on Angle Road. Ms. Szedlmayer stated that we do not know that information at this point. Conversation continued. Chair Binner and Planning Manager Kori Benton reminded the board that this is just a rezone application. Motion: Motion to approve with staff’s recommendations. Motioner –– Lounds - Second – O’Dell Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 5 | P a g e RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Ed Lounds SECONDER: Board Member Billy O'Dell AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: Darren Guettler D. Keen Road - Petition to Rezone +/- 10 acres on Keen Road from the the AG-1 (Agricultural -1) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial Light) Zoning District- THIS ITEM IS QUASI-JUDICIAL STAFF PRESENTATION: Don Arellano, Planner II, with Planning and Development Services. Mr. Arellano stated that all public notification requirements were met per St Lucie County Development Code Section 11.00.03. Mr. Arellano presented a petition for applicant Anna Knapinska of Canna Lady Farm LLC, seeking to rezone approximately 10 acres from AG-1 (Agricultural-1) to IL (Light Industrial). The site is on the west side of Keen Road, about one-tenth mile south of St. Lucie Boulevard. It has a TVC (Towns, Villages, and Countryside) Future Land Use designation, lies within the TVC and Airport Overlay Zones, and is located inside the Urban Service Boundary. Staff recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve the Official Zoning Atlas Amendment to designate the subject +/- 10.00-acre parcels IL (Industrial, Light). BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: None. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner O’Dell asked if the applicant was aware of the increase in the ad-valorem taxes and about the public notice's reply. Mr. Arellano replied that the ad-valorem had not been discussed and that there were no public responses received. Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 6 | P a g e Motion: Motion to approve with staff’s recommendations. Motioner –– Guettler- Second – Neese RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Darren Guettler SECONDER: Board Member Larry Neese AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None E. Sunnyland Farms PUD - Petition to Amend the Zoning Atlas from PUD (Planned Unit Development) to PUD (Planned Unit Development and approve the Preliminary Development Plan STAFF PRESENTATION: Irene Szedlmayer, AICP, Senior Planner, with Planning and Development Services. Ms. Szedlmayer stated that all public notification requirements were met per St Lucie County Development Code Section 11.00.03. Ms. Szedlmayer presented the applicant’s proposal to develop 458 single-family homes on 229 acres at a density of 2 units per acre. Because the property currently lacks roadway frontage, the project will include construction of Laidback Way from Orange Avenue to the site and a connection to Angle Road via Old FFA Road. The plan also reserves approximately 17.93 acres for a future K-8 school and preserves 11.12 acres of wetlands and buffers along with 15.4 acres of native upland pine flatwoods habitat. Staff recommended the Planning & Zoning Commission evaluate the proposed PUD, present any modifications consistent with the Standards of Review, and formulate a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the PUD and Preliminary Development Plan. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: Commissioner O’Dell asked about the results of the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Szedlmayer explained that most residents are not looking forward to a road coming through the neighborhood. Conversation continued. Commissioner Lounds asked who gives the right of way to expand Old FFA Road. Mr. Benton answered that the part of the Northwest development plan is dedication of the right of way. Conversation continued regarding traffic and open space. Chair Binner asked if there are any stipulations that the Developer is required to follow before CO’s are issued. Ms. Szedlmayer replied that the contact between the County and Developer would need to be reevaluated once the project has been approved. Conversation continues regarding the condition of Laid-Back Way, FFA Rd. and traffic generation. Commissioner Lounds asked if the County owned the right-away to Laid-back Way. Mr. Benton stated yes. Commissioner Fogarty asked the status on Serenoa and the Pineapple Grove PUD’s. Mr. Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 7 | P a g e Benton reports that the Pineapple Grove PUD (202 acres, 404 single-family homes) is actively moving forward, with Phase 1 nearly or already recorded. He added that Serenoa has submitted a final site plan for 319 single-family detached lots, reduced from an earlier 558-unit mixed proposal, and it is expected to be acted on by early January. Commissioner Fogarty asked whether the projects have negotiated road improvements. Mr. Benton says Pineapple Grove will add turn lanes and upgrade a section of Rock Road, and Serenoa must pave and add turn lanes where the road transitions to chip seal. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Brian Nolan, AICP, ASLA, with Lucido and Associates. Mr. Nolan describes the 229-acre PUD proposing 458 single-family homes, 17.9 acres dedicated to a future school, 89 acres of open space, preserved wetlands and uplands, two gated access points, trails, stormwater ponds, and an amenity center. The project revives an expired 2005–2007 PUD, lies within the urban service boundary, will connect to city utilities, and helps complete needed roadway links. A neighborhood meeting was held, and he supports staff’s recommendation for approval. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH APPLICANT: Commissioner Lounds urges making some of the larger ponds’ true recreational areas with sloped banks for activities like swimming and fishing, given limited green space. Mr. Nolan agrees. Commissioner O’Dell asked what concerns came from the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Nolan says the main issue raised was traffic on Old FFA Road. Chair Binner asked about gas service, gating, and raises safety concerns about the clubhouse location and school-area traffic flow. Mr. Nolan says gas is available but undecided, the community will be gated, and they will consider the design issues noted. Commissioner Fogarty explained that school designs already accounted for parent queuing, including multiple pickup lanes, and increasingly emphasized bike and golf cart access, with parking areas planned for golf carts. She noted the district had become more deliberate in recent years about preventing parents from stopping on roads and medians, leading to larger front parking lots for queueing at new schools such as Western Grove. Chair Binner described ongoing issues with parents parking on roads and sidewalks. Mr. Nolan then requested that their traffic engineer address the board’s traffic concerns. Luke Lambert, PE, with Traffic Mobility Consultants, stated that the traffic study—reviewed and accepted by county staff and their consultants assumed 12% of project traffic (about 35 trips) use Old FFA Road, while 88% would travel south via Sunnyland Drive and Laidback Way. That southbound volume drove the need for turn lanes on Laidback Way, Sunnyland Drive, and Orange Avenue, and justified a future traffic signal at Orange Avenue and Laidback Way. Commissioner Lounds asked whether most project traffic would use Laidback Way or Old FFA Road, and Mr. Lambert reiterated that 88% were expected to use Laidback Way toward Orange Avenue because it was the shorter route. Mr. Nolan then clarified required roadway Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 8 | P a g e improvements: turn lanes at Orange Ave/Laidback Way and the extension of Laidback Way to Sunnyland Drive were to be completed before the first CO; improvements to Old FFA Road and Sunnyland Drive were scheduled around the 156th unit; and signalization at Orange/Laidback Way was required at buildout. Mr. Benton noted Mr. Lambert’s traffic figures reflected peak- hour trips. Commissioner Lounds asked that the applicant’s commitment to recreational areas on the lakes be added as a condition, and Mr. Benton confirmed it could be included. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Summary of Resident Concerns: • Traffic and Road Safety: Residents opposed opening or expanding Old FFA Road, citing it as too narrow, with drainage issues, and unsafe for children, particularly autistic kids. Many feared increased traffic would lead to accidents, honking, and unsafe conditions for walking or biking. Some noted existing traffic on nearby roads (Angle Road, Orange Avenue, Johnston Road) is already heavy and hazardous, worsened by nearby developments. • Impact on Neighborhood: Concerns included loss of quiet and comfort, disruption to a tight-knit, multi-generational community, and negative effects on elderly residents and families with special needs children. • Alternative Access: Residents suggested using major roads like Rock Road, Orange Avenue, or existing nearby streets instead of opening Old FFA Road to development traffic. • Overdevelopment: They noted multiple nearby developments (Pineapple Grove, Golden Ponds, Ryan Homes, Sunny Farms) would collectively increase traffic on small roads, causing congestion and safety hazards. • School and New Development Concerns: Residents were worried about additional traffic from schools and new housing using the same small roads, creating cumulative safety risks. • Local Knowledge: Many residents emphasized they take care of each other, know the area intimately, and were concerned that road expansion would threaten the well- being of children and neighbors. • General Frustration: There was skepticism about planning decisions, prioritization of developer convenience over safety, and lack of adequate infrastructure improvements to handle additional traffic. Heather Buxton - 1420 Old FFA Rd George Calderon - 1732 Old FFA Rd Robin Robomorte - 1750 Old FFA Rd Marshodee Williams - 1616 Old FFA Rd Cynthia Adams - 25765 Orange Ave BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner Slay stated that traffic on Orange Avenue was already severe and dangerous, with frequent backups near bus stops, and adding another traffic light would worsen it. He Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 9 | P a g e opposed the PUD, saying it added too much density and negatively impacted existing residents. Commissioner O’Dell agreed, noting the development lacked safe traffic patterns, was very dense, and did not fit with the neighborhood, and moved to deny it. Motion: Motion to Deny. Motioner –– O’Dell- Second – Neese RESULT: DENY MOVER: Board Member Billy O'Dell SECONDER: Board Member Larry Neese AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: Darren Guettler F. Sunnyland 44 - Proposed Future Land Use Map Amendment from RS (Residential Suburban) to MXD (Mixed-Use Development) STAFF PRESENTATION: Irene Szedlmayer, AICP, Senior Planner, with Planning and Development Services. Ms. Szedlmayer stated that all public notification requirements were met per St Lucie County Development Code Section 11.00.03. Ms. Szedlmayer presented to the board the applicant’s proposal to amend the future land use from RS to MXD, capping residential density at 3.1 units per acre and limiting height to 35 feet. The plan included 130 townhouse units, a seven-acre future school site, upland and wetland preservation, and an amenity center. Access was planned via Old FFA Road, Sunnyland Drive, and future connections to adjacent developments. The building spacing formula was adjusted to allow closer townhouse placement. Construction of Sunnyland 44 was conditioned on completion of Old FFA Road to Angle Avenue and Sunnyland Drive to Orange Avenue. Staff recommended approval of both the future land use and zoning amendments. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: Commissioner Lounds asked about the staff conditions. Ms. Szedlmayer stated these are similar. They would be outlined with the final site plan that you need, the construction of the roads. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Brian Nolan, AICP, ASLA, with Lucido and Associates. Mr. Nolan presented to the board a preliminary PUD site plan proposed 130 townhome units in four- and six-unit buildings at 3.09 units per acre, consistent with surrounding densities. 53% of the site would remain as common open space (above the 35% requirement) and 30% would be preserved as native upland habitat (above the 15% requirement), including restoration of a Melaleuca stand. On-site wetlands would be preserved. The townhomes will be planted with two-car garages, 25-foot driveways, Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 10 | P a g e 70-foot internal rights-of-way, and 12-foot planting strips. Internal nature trails and a connection to the southern development were included. Architectural elevations were enhanced with glazing and coach lights. The site lay within the urban service boundary and FPUA service area, near existing residential development. Staff and developers emphasized wetland and upland preservation, the school site set-aside, and roadway connectivity from Orange Avenue to Angle Road. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH APPLICANT: Chair Binner voiced the following concerns: the logic of connecting the project to Angle Road, saying it doesn’t make sense to add more traffic there. Suggested keeping traffic to the east, closer to I-95, where the road network can handle higher volumes. Commended the lot sizes and project density. Suggested Rock Road may be a better access route than Laid Back Way. Chair Binner warned that additional access points onto Angle Road will overload the corridor. He noted the project overall is “awesome,” aside from access concerns and noted that Rock Road access routes traffic toward commercial areas and I-95. Commissioner Slay stated that the developer had met all requirements and had done a commendable job with the project’s design. He explained that his concerns came from personal experience as a local resident who lives near the proposed site. He spoke about the emotional difficulty of watching the rapid growth occurring in Fort Pierce, noting that long-time residents do not want the community to evolve into something resembling Port St. Lucie. According to Slay, many existing residents cannot afford the new homes being built in the $350,000 to $400,000 range, especially when most local wages average around $50,000 per year. He added that increasing rents and rising housing costs are placing further pressure on long-standing residents. Commissioner Slay expressed his belief that much of the area’s growth is being driven by buyers from outside the community rather than by local needs, describing Fort Pierce as becoming an “overnight hotel” for individuals from South Florida moving north for more affordable living while often commuting back south for work. While emphasizing that these broader issues are not the applicant’s fault, he explained that they nonetheless affect the community’s culture and identity and raised concerns for residents living near Old FFA Road and the Golden Ponds area, which have remained largely untouched for many years. He pointed out that the property in question is landlocked, making access solutions inherently challenging. Commissioner Slay further stated that Rock Road would serve as a more appropriate entrance for the project than Laid Back Way, cautioning that residents on Cardinal and Orange would strongly oppose any increase in traffic near their neighborhood. Consensus from Chair Binner and Commissioner Slay • Agreed that the design quality and compliance of the project were strong. • The primary issues requiring further evaluation relate to: o Traffic circulation and the avoidance of additional load on Angle Road. o Protection of existing neighborhoods from increased congestion. o Consideration of long-term community impacts and maintaining Fort Pierce’s character. Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 11 | P a g e Mr. Nolan acknowledged the concerns raised about potential traffic impacts on Angle Road and committed to working with consultants and staff to explore alternative access options. He stated that the project is highly consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code, noting that it exceeds requirements in several areas. Emphasizing his deep roots in the community as a fourth-generation Floridian with lifelong ties to the Treasure Coast, he explained that the project’s design is significantly less dense and more preservation-focused than developments commonly seen in Port St. Lucie. Mr. Nolan also noted that county regulations frequently direct developers toward PUDs, which influences how projects are structured. He reiterated that he understands the concerns voiced by residents, many of which had already been discussed during the neighborhood meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Residents expressed strong opposition to any changes that would affect Old FFA Road, emphasizing that it is a narrow, rural roadway that cannot safely support additional traffic. They described the road as a one-lane route where cars must pull over to allow others to pass, with many vehicles parked along the roadway due to the absence of driveways and garages. Residents stressed that widening the road would be impossible without encroaching on existing homes, trailer lots, or newly built housing across the street. Many felt that increased traffic from a new development—combined with existing growth such as the Ryan Homes project—would overwhelm the area, diminish their quality of life, and erase the agricultural, quiet, country character that drew them to the neighborhood. Several residents raised safety concerns, noting the presence of elderly individuals, including those with cognitive impairments, as well as children with autism who regularly walk along the road. They stated that heavier traffic would create dangerous conditions for vulnerable residents, caregivers, and those who frequently walk in the area. Others shared frustration that longtime residents’ opinions were being overlooked in favor of growth aimed at attracting new residents rather than serving the existing community. Residents also expressed fear that the development would bring in out-of-area buyers, change the culture of the neighborhood, and lead to a pattern of dense, urban-style growth similar to what occurred in Port St. Lucie. They stressed that the community values its open space, familiarity among neighbors, and its agricultural identity, which they believe would be lost. Overall, the public comments reflected a deep concern about traffic, safety, loss of rural character, affordability, and the long-term cultural impact of new development on Old FFA Road and the surrounding area. Heather Buxton - 1420 Old FFA Rd Robin Robomorte - 1750 Old FFA Rd Marshodee Williams - 1616 Old FFA Rd George Calderon - 1732 Old FFA Rd BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner O'Dell cited previous discussion and public safety concerns as the basis for the motion to deny. Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 12 | P a g e The motion to deny was seconded by Commissioner Slay. Motion: Motion to Deny. Motioner –– O’Dell- Second – Slay RESULT: DENY MOVER: Board Member Billy O'Dell SECONDER: Board Member Lawrence Slay AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: Darren Guettler G. Sunnyland 44 PUD - Request to amend the Official Zoning Atlas from AG-1 (Agricultural-1) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) and approve the Preliminary Development Plan STAFF PRESENTATION: Irene Szedlmayer, AICP, Senior Planner, with Planning and Development Services. Ms. Szedlmayer stated that all public notification requirements were met per St. Lucie County Land Development Code Section 11.00.03. Please reference 9F. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: None. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Please reference 9F. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: None. Motion: Motion to Deny. Motioner –– O’Dell - Second – Slay RESULT: DENY MOVER: Board Member Billy O'Dell SECONDER: Board Member Lawrence Slay AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: Darren Guettler H. Sentinel Grove Technology Park - Proposed Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 13 | P a g e Amendment from AG-5 (Agricultural-5) to SD (Special District). STAFF PRESENTATION: Thad Crowe, AICP, Senior Planner, with Planning and Development Services. Mr. Crowe stated that all public notification requirements were met per St Lucie County Development Code Section 11.00.03. Mr. Crowe presented to the board the first of three proposals with required public hearings for a large-scale amendment to change 1,218 rural AG- 5 acres into a Special District for a hyperscale technology and data center park. The site is a former citrus area near Orange Avenue and Minute Maid Road. The Special District would allow data center facilities, IT and utility infrastructure, limited supporting uses, and solar generation, with no residential uses except a caretaker. The developer must fully fund and maintain all required infrastructure including private water/wastewater systems, utilities, roads, and impact mitigation. The project would allow up to 15 million square feet over 20 years, with the first 5 million square feet serving as a checkpoint to review impacts. Strict standards apply, including large setbacks and buffers to screen the development, noise and lighting protections, 35% open space, high-security, and storm-hardened design. A detailed PNRD review must evaluate economic impacts, compatibility with surrounding agriculture, power and cooling water demands, emergency service coordination, and long-range traffic impacts on Orange Avenue, Snead Road, and other corridors. The site must also meet siting requirements such as proximity to high-voltage power and an arterial roadway and avoidance of wetlands and flood areas. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: None. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Patty Tobin with HJA Design Studio. Ms. Tobin presented a proposal for a future land use amendment for a 1,218-acre site to a Special District to allow technology, utility, and data center uses. The site is ideal due to nearby transmission lines, a new substation, large contiguous acreage, minimal environmental constraints, and distance from residences. The project will operate as a secure utility campus with no public traffic, preserving oak hammocks, maintaining rural character, and providing large setbacks (800 ft on Orange Ave, 200 ft on Minute Maid, major buffers on north/east). The plan commits to 35% open space, native vegetation preservation, modernized stormwater, reduced nutrient runoff, and self-sufficient water and wastewater. Traffic impacts are low, with only 300–400 employees in the first 5- million-sq-ft phase. Noise limits are stricter than industrial standards. The request meets comprehensive plan goals for economic development and targeted industries, and data centers would be the only non-ag use allowed. Next steps include the transmittal hearing, Department of Commerce review, rezoning (PNRD), and community outreach, including a meeting with nearby property owners. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH APPLICANT: Commissioner O’Dell questioned the applicant about the project’s proposed square footage, comparing the 15 million sq ft request to major landmark buildings. Ms. Patty Tobin clarified that the project was capped at 15 million sq ft. Commissioner O’Dell asked whether the development would be one building or several; Mr. Scott Bullock (developer representative) explained it would be a multi-building campus, with typical data-center buildings around 250– Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 14 | P a g e 300k sq ft and two stories, allowing for significant open space and buffers. Commissioner O’Dell asked about tenants, and Mr. Bullock stated no tenants had been selected yet. Mr. Bullock also confirmed the site currently had only an agricultural water allocation and that new permits would be required, noting modern data centers use far less water than older facilities. Commissioner O’Dell then asked about construction duration. Mr. Bullock said the full buildout had a 20-year horizon, dependent on power availability from FPL and market demand. Commissioner O’Dell referenced the applicant’s narrative claiming 6,000 jobs during the first phase and asked how many construction workers would actually be on site. Mr. Bullock said the 6,000 figure was a statewide economic impact estimate and did not have the on-site number available. Commissioner O’Dell emphasized the need for those numbers, especially because construction would produce the highest traffic impacts. Commissioner O’Dell stated the Traffic Impact Report lacked any construction-phase analysis, which he considered essential given the large volume of concrete trucks, worker commutes, and heavy equipment expected. He also stated local roads such as Orange Avenue, Minute Maid Road, Sneed Road, and Rim Ditch would not support that traffic without more information. He requested construction-phase traffic projections, skilled-labor estimates, and clarification on water management permitting. Mr. Bullock responded that water management permits would come later in the process but agreed the project would bring significant employment. Commissioner O’Dell concluded that the board would need the missing construction-phase data before making a decision. Mr. Benton explained that the project was at the future land use amendment stage, where staff and a third-party traffic consultant evaluated roadway capacity and maximum buildout assumptions. Mr. Benton clarified that detailed traffic routing, construction impacts, and site- specific improvements would occur later during the PNRD rezoning and final site plan reviews. Commissioner O’Dell questioned the absence of the third-party traffic review and the lack of construction-phase traffic analysis, noting both were critical. Commissioner O’Dell challenged the assumption of a two-mile radius and asked whether the amendment could affect the Strategic Intermodal System. Mr. Benton responded that the applicant’s engineer used the two-mile baseline based on FDOT input and that more detailed analysis would occur at later stages. Mr. Benton confirmed the amendment could potentially impact SIS facilities and said staff had already engaged FDOT. Commissioner O’Dell requested that the results of the FDOT consultation be provided when available. Chair Binner asked whether the applicant would consider reducing the proposed 80-foot height limit, given that data-center buildings are typically two stories. Mr. Bullock, representing the applicant, said 80 feet was already allowed and that buildings would likely utilize that volume, but the large setbacks and buffers would reduce visibility. Chair Binner then asked about water-cooling sources, cooling system types, and generator usage limits. Mr. Bullock said water sources would be determined through Water Management District and DEP permitting, that systems were typically closed loop, and that modern facilities used far less water than older data centers. Mr. Bullock agreed that generators would be for backup only, with primary power from FPL. Chair Binner asked about battery storage and potential fire risks. Mr. Bullock explained batteries would be distributed at each building within mechanical yards, not in a single large compound. Regarding noise, Chair Binner noted concerns about 24/7 fan Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 15 | P a g e operation. Mr. Bullock said sound-attenuation systems, enclosures, and setbacks would keep noise low at the property line. Commissioner Lounds questioned how the applicant planned to handle stormwater from a potential 15-million-square-foot (345-acre) building footprint. Commissioner Lounds noted the volume of rainfall that would need to be managed and asked the applicant how such a large amount of water would be stored or treated. Mr. Bullock responded that the site would include an extensive, modern stormwater treatment system, using portions of the 1,200-acre property for dedicated stormwater areas, and that all systems would meet Water Management District requirements. Commissioner Lounds asked whether Mr. Bullock was familiar with the property, whether soil borings had been performed, and whether the applicant knew about the subsurface shell layer. He noted that the land had previously been proposed as a shell mine and questioned how a reservoir could be retained in a “shell pit.” Mr. Bullock said borings had been completed and then deferred the technical question to Jordan Haggerty of Kimley-Horn, the project’s civil engineer. Mr. Haggerty, PE, of Kimley-Horn explained that although the project’s 15 million sq ft of building area was large, standard stormwater design principles still applied at scale. Mr. Haggerty said roughly 20% of the 1,200-acre site would be used for stormwater lakes and treatment areas, all fully permitted under South Florida Water Management District rules and compliant with new statewide nutrient-removal standards. Commissioner Lounds expressed concern about the volume of stormwater the site would have to manage, noting millions of gallons could accumulate during heavy rainfall and emphasizing that impervious surfaces would eliminate natural absorption. Commissioner Lounds questioned whether stormwater would be stored in reservoirs or pumped into the ground and asked to see the Water Management District’s findings. Mr. Haggerty replied that the site currently had minimal storage and much of its runoff already drained into nearby C-23 and C-24 canals. Mr. Haggerty said the proposed project would create substantial new on-site storage, retain water longer for treatment, and reduce nutrient impacts before water left the property. Commissioner Lounds reiterated concerns about absorption and runoff, and Mr. Haggerty confirmed he understood, explaining that the new stormwater system would be designed to hold and treat water on-site to meet all regulatory requirements. Commissioner O’Dell asked whether the applicant’s traffic engineer was present and questioned the lack of a construction-phase traffic analysis, noting the applicant’s narrative referenced “thousands of skilled trade positions” over a 20-year phased buildout. Commissioner O’Dell said the description was too vague to understand potential traffic volume on the surrounding two-lane roads and asked who determined the two-mile radius. Mr. Kerr, PE, the applicant’s traffic engineer with Kimley Horner Associates, explained that construction- phase traffic studies are not typically performed at the land-use stage, as they require site- specific building and phasing details developed later during site plan review. Mr. Kerr said the two-mile radius followed the county and MPO’s standard methodology and had been discussed with the county’s third-party reviewer. Commissioner O’Dell asked for the third-party reviewer’s report, and Mr. Kerr said correspondence existed, but he was unsure what the county had. Chair Binner then clarified that the meeting involved only the land use map Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 16 | P a g e amendment, and that detailed traffic impacts, construction-phase plans, and operational conditions would be addressed later during the PNRD process. Mr. Benton confirmed that was correct. Vice-chair Slay said he struggled with the land-use request because the area was historically ranching and hunting land where he grew up, and he could not visualize a massive 80-foot, multi-million-square-foot project in the county’s most agricultural region. Vice-chair Slay questioned how the project aligned with local culture, rural character, and the wishes of surrounding landowners. Vice-chair Slay compared it to recent warehouse development he already viewed as intrusive and expressed concern about visibility, safety at the dangerous Rim Ditch/CR-68 intersection, and the project’s placement far from the I-95 corridor. He also questioned the long-term tax status of the remaining open land and whether the project’s heavy energy use would offset the local benefits expected from previously approved solar farms. Mr. Bullock said he understood the concerns and had met with neighbors. Mr. Bullock said the applicant tried to preserve the rural feel along Orange Avenue and maintain agricultural or buffer uses along project edges. Mr. Bullock acknowledged the scale of the proposal but said data centers were isolated, low intensity uses. Mr. Benton explained that many details open- space allocation, agricultural preservation, buffers, building placement, and infrastructure impacts would be resolved during the PNRD process. He said staff’s support came from the site’s proximity to regional power infrastructure and the absence of sensitive environmental lands. He noted that 35% open space was required and that options could include stormwater areas, reforestation, or continued agricultural use. Mr. Benton also responded to Vice -chair Slay’s power-consumption concerns, explaining that Florida Power & Light was developing cost-recovery mechanisms similar to impact fees so that new large power users would cover the cost of additional energy supply rather than shifting that burden to existing customers. Christen Spake, Esq., with Gunster Law Firm, representing the applicant, emphasized that the commission was seeing the project at a very early stage and that this hearing concerned only the land-use change, with detailed traffic, engineering, and operational data to be provided later during the PNRD rezoning process. She asked for the commission’s support for the land- use amendment and assured them that the applicant would incorporate the commission’s concerns and return with answers at the appropriate stage. Vice-Chair Slay then explained his struggle to reconcile the proposal with the deeply agricultural character of the Orange Avenue area where he grew up, describing the project’s 80-foot buildings and 15 million square feet as incompatible with the surrounding ranchlands and difficult to visualize in the rural landscape. Vice-chair Slay questioned why such a facility wouldn’t be located near I-95 like other large warehouses, raised safety concerns about adding traffic to the dangerous Rim Ditch/SR 68 intersection, and asked how leftover portions of the site would function—whether as taxable agricultural land or open space. Mr. Bullock responded that they have met with neighbors and understand the importance of preserving the rural look of Orange Avenue, committing to substantial buffering, reforestation, and maintaining agricultural character along the edges while placing the development deep within the property. Mr. Benton explained that many details—building placement, buffering, stormwater, open-space allocation, and phasing— would be addressed during the PNRD process, which requires at least 35% open space and can Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 17 | P a g e incorporate agricultural uses or reforested areas. Slay also questioned whether the project’s heavy energy consumption would undermine the local benefit of the county’s numerous solar farms, and staff noted that FPL is implementing policies to ensure large new power users cover the cost of additional demand without affecting existing ratepayers. Ms. Spake reiterated that the applicant will bring detailed responses forward in the next phase, and Mr. Benton outlined the procedural path: after the commission’s recommendation, the land-use amendment goes to the BOCC for transmittal to state agencies, and although this specific petition will not return to the Planning & Zoning Commission, the full PNRD rezoning and development plan will come back for public review. Finally, in response to Vice-chair Slay’s question about whether the land would revert to AG-5 if the project does not proceed, staff said no reversion clause is currently included but such a policy could be considered by the BOCC. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Residents voiced significant concerns about the scale and location of the proposed project, noting that millions of square feet of development and 80-foot buildings are not compatible with the county’s last major agricultural area or the rural character west of the Urban Service Boundary. Many described the proposal as urban sprawl that would permanently alter a historically ranching and farming region. Traffic and safety were major issues. Residents stated that the traffic study was too limited, failed to include construction traffic, and ignored known problems, especially unsafe road segments already stressed by ongoing solar construction. They warned this project would make dangerous corridors even worse. Residents also questioned the power demand and infrastructure, noting the area’s power lines are already constrained and that no clear explanation was provided for how such a large energy-intensive facility would be serviced. They urged the county to obtain accurate information from FPL before advancing the project. Environmental concerns included stormwater, flooding, runoff, groundwater protection, and hurricane/tornado risks, as well as potential contamination from batteries, generators, and other data-center components. They worried that large impervious areas and heavy equipment would harm nearby waterways and agricultural operations. Noise, lighting, and visual impact were highlighted, with fears of persistent generator noise, skyglow, and industrial lighting that would disrupt residents, livestock, and wildlife. Several expressed concern about uncertainty, saying the project description has changed multiple times, with no confirmed end user, and that approving the land-use change could allow other intensive uses if plans shift or fail. Residents also raised issues of transparency and notification, stating many nearby property owners were never invited to neighborhood meetings. Overall, residents urged commissioners to protect agricultural land, avoid incompatible development, and deny the land-use change or require much stricter safeguards and clearer information before moving forward. Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 18 | P a g e Peter Harrison – 23285 Orange Ave Charles Pascall – 21600 Orange Ave Cynthia Adams - 25765 Orange Ave Joseph Hale – 398 Naranja Ave Justin Akerly- 1865 S Brocksmith Rd Tammy Harrison - 24551 Orange Ave Wes McCurry with the Economic Development Council of St. Lucie Short conversation between Commissioner O’Dell and Mr. McCurry regarding urban sprawl. BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner Lounds explained that the board had three options, to approve the land-use amendment, deny it, or continue the item to get more answers on traffic and water. He said he had mixed feelings about the project’s potential revenue versus its costs to the county. Chair Binner reminded the board that this hearing was only for a land-use change, not the detailed PNRD review, and warned against holding the applicant to standards that applied to later stages. He noted that any restrictions the board wanted such as limits on generators, lighting, or battery spacing could be added to the special district. Commissioner Guettler and others noted the unusually large allowances in the proposal. Vice-Chair Slay said the land-use simply did not fit the surrounding rural area. Commissioner O’Dell questioned the range of uses allowed in the special district, arguing it could justify facilities like warehouses or even a power plant outside the Urban Service Boundary. Chair Binner clarified that the listed uses were intended to directly support a data center, not general industrial activity. Attorney Spake stated that secondary uses were meant to be tied to a data center and said the applicant was willing to clarify that. She and another applicant representative confirmed they were not trying to keep agricultural use solely for tax benefits. When Commissioner O’Dell pressed on what would happen if no tenants were secured, Mr. Bullock said no buildings would be constructed without a signed 20-year power contract, and the land would remain agricultural unless a tenant committed. As discussion turned to a vote, Vice-Chair Slay stated he opposed the amendment because the proposed land use did not fit the area and made a motion to deny. Commissioner Guettler seconded the motion. Commissioner O’Dell agreed the board needed better data but acknowledged the motion to deny was already on the floor. Motion: Motion to Deny. Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 19 | P a g e Motioner –– Slay- Second – Neese RESULT: DENY MOVER: Board Member Lawrence Slay SECONDER: Board Member Larry Neese AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: Darren Guettler I. Ordinance Amending St. Lucie County Land Development Code by Amending Section 7.10.30 Reasonable Accommodation Procedures to Provide Procedures for Review and Approval of Certified Recovery Residences STAFF PRESENTATION: Kori Benton, AICP, Planning Manager, with Planning and Development Services. Mr. Benton stated that all public notification requirements were met per St Lucie County Development Code Section 11.00.03. Mr. Benton presented a county-initiated text amendment to Section 7.10.30 – Reasonable Accommodation Procedures. The update, developed with Interim County Attorney Gavin Barbieri, was properly advertised on October 3rd and is required due to recent changes in Florida Statutes regarding certified recovery residences. Mr. Benton reviewed the history of the county’s procedures, noting their adoption in 2013 and the 2022 update shifting appeals to the Circuit Court. The amendment aligns local regulations with the FHA and ADA, clarifying how the county processes requests for accommodations to ordinances and standards for people with disabilities. Key changes include: • Formal integration of requirements for licensed or certified residential providers, including recovery residences. • A 30-day county deadline to acknowledge applications and requesting additional information. • A 30-day applicant response period and written confirmation when an application is deemed complete or abandoned. • Authority for staff to request site-specific details such as proposed improvements, parking, transportation, and utility needs. Applicants must demonstrate disability eligibility and that the accommodation is reasonable and necessary to provide equal housing opportunity. Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 20 | P a g e BOARD DISCUSSION: None. Motion: Motion to approve. Motioner –– O’Dell - Second – Lounds RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Billy O'Dell SECONDER: Board Member Ed Lounds AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None J. Ordinance Amending the Text of the Land Development Code to Clarify a Vegetation Removal Permit, Clarify a Vegetation Removal Permit from a Vegetation Removal Exemption, to Provide for Mitigation Exemptions for the Construction of Certain Non-Site Related Roadways, an Exemption for Road Construction within Existing County Right-Of-Way, an Exemption for Water Control District System for Drainage Purposes, and an Exemption for Residential Properties that meet the provisions of Section 163.045, Florida Statutes, and to Update Obsolete Department Names and Titles Kori Benton, AICP, Planning Manager, with Planning and Development Services. Mr. Benton stated that all public notification requirements were met per St Lucie County Development Code Section 11.00.03. Mr. Benton presented a county-initiated amendment to Land Development Code Sections 6.00.03, 6.00.04, and 6.00.05, addressing vegetation removal permits and exemptions. The update was developed collaboratively by Planning and Development Services, the County Attorney’s Office, Environmental Resources, and Public Works, and the public hearing was properly noticed. The amendment refines existing regulations to balance infrastructure needs with natural resource protection. It clarifies the difference between vegetation removal permits and exemptions, updates provisions for when tree mitigation is required, and identifies situations where mitigation is not required. These include certain public infrastructure projects, road construction within county rights-of-way, stormwater management corridors, water control district maintenance, and removal of hazardous trees certified by a licensed arborist under Florida Statutes. Mr Benton explained that the changes ensure consistency with long-standing practices for public improvements. For example, county roadway projects—such as Midway Road—may remove trees without inch- for-inch mitigation but typically incorporate new landscaping to maintain corridor character. The amendment extends similar exemptions to private applicants constructing required public roadways or stormwater facilities as part of an approved development plan. The proposal also updates outdated department names and titles and confirms that the Environmental Resources Department will continue evaluating vegetation removal applications. Based on consistency Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, October 16, 2025 6:00 PM 21 | P a g e with the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, staff recommended forwarding a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner Lounds clarified with Mr. Benton that the proposed amendment does not relate to agricultural activities. Mr. Benton confirmed that the amendment specifically applies to situations where trees may be removed to accommodate the extension or improvement of public roadways within county rights-of-way. Commissioner Lounds acknowledged this clarification. Motion: Motion to approve with staff’s recommendations. Motioner –– Lounds - Second – Slay RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Ed Lounds SECONDER: Board Member Lawrence Slay AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: Darren Guettler 10. WORKSHOPS None. 11. OTHER BUSINESS None. 12. ADJOURN There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned