The Martin County Local Planning Agency voted 4–1 on Nov. 6, 2025, to recommend denial of a package of comprehensive plan changes proposed for the Waterside property that would reclassify roughly 396 acres from agricultural to low‑density residential and amend multiple policies and figures in chapters 1, 2, 4 and 11 of the comprehensive growth management plan.

Staff presented the request and recommended denial. Jenna Nabi, senior planner with the Growth Management Department, told the agency the proposed text changes include site‑specific policies limiting the Waterside parcel to a maximum of 1,050 residential units, a requirement that "prior to the issuance of the 100th building permit, a monetary contribution of a thousand dollars per residential unit shall be donated to the Martin County Community Land Trust," and a requirement that future development be processed as a planned unit development. Staff concluded the application did not demonstrate compliance with Policy 4.7.a.7 subsections 1, 2 and 5, which concern internal consistency with the comprehensive plan, compatibility with adjacent land uses, and demonstration that reasonable capacity does not exist on suitable land in the existing primary urban service district, and recommended denial of the text amendment and of the concurrent future land use map amendment (CPA 21‑12).

Applicant representative Morris Crady, senior partner with the firm identified in the record, argued the proposal constitutes infill development adjacent to the existing primary urban service district and the South Florida Gateway PUD. Crady said the owners would cap the Waterside residential yield at 1,050 units, commit to a $1,000 per‑unit contribution to the Martin County Community Land Trust (an amount he estimated would exceed $1 million over buildout), require that future approvals be processed as a PUD, and fund all capital improvements and extensions of water, sewer and road infrastructure needed to serve the project. "So there will be no burden on taxpayers," Crady said during his presentation.

Crady and his consultant team also criticized the county's residential capacity methodology, arguing it assumes maximum densities on many parcels and therefore overstates buildable capacity within the existing urban service district. He said a privately commissioned analysis by GAI Consultants showed substantially lower realistic capacity (about 64% for a prior planning horizon); county staff noted it had recently updated the residential capacity analysis (adopted by the Board of County Commissioners the prior Tuesday) and that the county's approach has been litigated and found consistent with state statute in previous administrative proceedings.

Agency members questioned assumptions about maximum density and compatibility with adjacent industrial uses. Member Rick and others said empirical experience in Martin County often yields densities below the theoretical maximums used in some analyses. County planning staff and the applicant discussed the presence of a 16‑acre U.S. Army Corps of Engineers easement along the canal fronting the site and other site constraints. The utilities representative, Leo Rapetti, technical service administrator with Martin County Utilities, said an advanced wastewater treatment analysis had not been completed for the proposal and that the county provides standard primary/secondary treatment with disinfection; he said the same treatment system serves the area north of Southwest 96th Street.

After deliberation, the LPA took two formal votes. First, the agency voted 4–1 to recommend denial of the Waterside site‑specific text amendment, with Member Hartman the sole opposing vote. The agency then voted 4–1 to recommend denial of the Waterside future land use map amendment (CPA 21‑12); again, Member Hartman voted no. Both items will be considered next by the Martin County Board of County Commissioners.

Details and clarifications

- Site acreage: Waterside parcel ~396.06 acres; adjacent freestanding industrial urban service district ~250 acres; combined area affected by the USD expansion proposed by the applicant ~646 acres.
- Proposed unit cap and contribution: The applicant proposed capping the parcel at 1,050 units and a $1,000 per‑unit monetary contribution to the Martin County Community Land Trust, payable prior to issuance of the 100th building permit.
- Proposed processing and infrastructure: The applicant would require future development approvals via a PUD and has stated the owner/developer will fund required capital improvements (water, sewer, roads, traffic) so the county would not bear the cost.
- Capacity analyses: The applicant cited a consultant (GAI Consultants) analysis that it says shows limited remaining residential capacity (approximately 64% in a prior horizon); county staff pointed to a recently adopted residential capacity analysis showing more capacity, and staff noted the county’s methodology (counting maximum allowable density) has been used historically and has been reviewed in prior administrative hearings.

What happens next

Because the LPA recommendation is advisory, both the site‑specific text amendment and the future land use map amendment will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, which may adopt, modify or reject the proposals or remand them for further analysis. The transcript and staff report indicate the items will appear on the commission's agenda for further public hearings.