Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Commissioners,
I would like to respond to a statement made by the attorney for the Costco applicant in his closing argument at the hearing on the Kanner CPUD project.
In his closing, the applicant's attorney mocked citizens' concerns about negative impacts of the proposed Costco project. He said citizens opposed many projects that were ultimately built without the anticipated problems. He specifically referred to the Publix on Hutchinson Island and then mentioned my name as someone "who knows something about this."
Indeed, my partner, Howard Heims, and I represented Citizens to Protect Hutchinson Island who challenged a County development order for construction of the Hutchinson Island Publix supermarket as originally proposed. The challenge was resolved with an agreement between the developer and the residents which satisfied most of the residents' concerns.
For instance, the initial site plan provided for construction that would have destroyed massive areas of wetlands and marine habitat.
Unlike the Costco developer, the Publix developer agreed to scale back the project significantly to protect and preserve wetlands and marine habitat, which were not impacted in the final project. Drainage features also were added to protect the wetlands and water quality.
Unlike the Costco developer, the Publix developer agreed to use native vegetation for landscaping and to maintain opaque native vegetative buffers along A1A as well as on the north and south boundaries of the site.
Like the Costco developer, the Publix developer paid an environmental consultant to provide a report finding no protected plants or animals on the site.
Like the Costco project, the Publix project site did, in fact, have protected species on site.
Development was temporarily enjoined by the Martin County Circuit Court to allow for the rescue of gopher tortoise and threatened or endangered plants that the citizens' environmental consultant found on the site. The Costco and Publix projects had the same environmental consultant – Ed Weinberg; the citizens' environmental consultant in both cases was Greg Braun.
The size of the Publix store was dramatically reduced to make it a "boutique" Publix as opposed to the original full-size supermarket planned for the site. The remainder of the project also was scaled back, and the developer made other concessions to reflect the public's concerns.
The Costco applicant's attorney was not involved in the Publix development and may be unaware of the facts. But to suggest that the Publix development opposed by residents was ultimately built as initially proposed without negative impacts is simply false.
The Publix project was revised to comply with the Martin County Comprehensive Plan and to address citizens' concerns, especially with respect to destruction of wetlands, and was built pursuant to an agreement reached between the developer, the citizens, and the County.
Most importantly, unlike the Costco project site plan, the Publix project site plan was revised to save wetlands and marine habitat, to save threatened and endangered species, and to scale back the size of buildings and parking areas.
Unlike the Costco project, citizens' concerns were addressed by the Publix developer and by local government representatives. (“Concessions" made by the Costco developer in response to concerns raised by commissioners did not address concerns raised by residents.)
Many members of the public who attended Monday's meeting were puzzled by your refusal to enforce our local ordinances and comprehensive plan. They were puzzled by the fact that you don’t seem to care about wetlands and environmental concerns that are important to our quality of life as well as to the quality of our waterways. They were puzzled by the fact that staff members were not familiar with the law and Comp Plan provisions that should have been reviewed in preparing staff’s report and recommendation.
I am baffled as to why you, as elected representatives of the citizens of Stuart, are so deferential to developers and their counsel while banging the gavel and demanding "civility" from residents. It appears that your "civility" rules apply only to residents.
Please don't tell us that residents "don't understand the process." When you say you support clean water and responsible growth but your actions support the opposite result, residents fully understand they are not being treated with the honesty and respect that we deserve.
Ginny Sherlock
Smart growth requires planning. Planning Departments in Counties and Cities put together a Future Land Use Plan for that reason. They do this to mitigate issues such as building in a wetland or destroying wildlife habitats. When Cities annex, they should be required to follow the existing Future Land Use Plan. Not so with a project coming before the City Council in Stuart where a proposal for 4 four story apartment buildings, a big box store, a liquor store, 18 pump gas station and a strip mall are being considered. This project is proposed to be built next to a High School in a Wetland where wildlife abounds. With all the apartments, condos and townhomes already in the pipeline, the Cities own consumptive water usage will push the limits of its capacity if this development gets approved.Growth is expected. We cannot expect that all the land will be preserved. But we can expect that those who represent us follow the comp plans and not let developers make decisions for them by skirting laws. In this case, the project will impact roads by adding roughly 8000 automobiles a day, compromise already overcrowded schools and will destroy wetlands and wildlife in its path. There are many properties closer to major highways where this project would be a better fit. We hope the City Council will take into consideration those they represent by scaling down this project and not caving to a developer that has his own self-interest above the communities. Martin County has taken steps to put forth plans that have created a beautiful metropolis and the City should be required to follow those rules. That is why people choose to live here in the City designated, the Most Beautiful City in America.
Jackie Blake
Martin County, Florida
By Virginia Sherlock, Stuart
In pleading for support from the community by asking more residents to subscribe to local newspapers, the Stuart News should consider how you support the community — or not.
On Aug. 3, you featured a story about a proposed Costco project. The headline on the website was: "After seven years, Stuart finally could be giving Costco what it wants: an OK to build here."
The story lavished praise on an out-of-state developer who wants to build a Costco warehouse store and a huge apartment complex on already overburdened South Kanner Highway near Martin County High School. There are so many residents who oppose the project that the location of the final hearing had to be moved to the Blake Library auditorium to accommodate members of the public who do not believe the project is suitable for the chosen location. Why not put the Costco out closer to the I-95 interchange where there is less residential development?
Ninety-nine percent of the story recited the "benefits" of having a Costco store in Stuart with only a few lines devoted to the comment of an opponent (who represents hundreds of residents).
Other stories written by your local government reporter are similarly supportive of massive development projects which are destroying the small-town character of the city of Stuart.
Our local newspaper has become a cheerleader for development that is harmful to our waterways, our neighborhoods, and our quality of life. Please don't expect local residents to support your newspaper when you clearly don't support local residents.
See below an excellent Letter to the Editor in todays Stuart News from Ginny Sherlock.
And yes Stuart News management, as a daily subscriber I totally agree with Ginny.
We all chose to live here for the small town ambiance. If we wanted the big chitty life style there is plenty to the south in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach and even to the north in St. Lucie.
Monday August 9, 2021 at 5:00pm at the Blake Library ( not City Hall ) the Stuart City Commission will vote on the future of Stuart, the most intense use of a Costco Box Store with 400 4 story tenements plus other commercial uses on Kanner/Willoughby next to and across the street from 1 story single family residential low density.
Kanner is our neighborhood, we live in Kanner fronting residential communities and Kanner is our access to the rest of our lives. Kanner is already six lanes in the US-1 to Route 95 area and will probably never be further expandable.
Already existing traffic in the US-1, Monterey, Martin High area is congested with many times through the day multiple traffic lights needed for passage.
Any land planner knows you do not put the most dense/intense uses next to low density residential and Costco/400 4 story tenements/plus a lot more is the most intense dense use.
Shame on Costco Management for selecting an inappropriate location. Do you think Costco Management or the New Jersey developer care about Small Town Stuart?
The 5 City Commissioners need to hear from you if you support Small Town Stuart.
The quality of life you save may be your own.
Thank you,
Bob Ernst
Dear Stuart City Mayor and Commissioners – via emails:
Re: The August 9, 2021 consideration of Costco Proposal:
Martin County Conservation Alliance requests that you reject the project as
submitted because it compromises environmental and community protections
including allowing negative impacts to Our Small Wetlands and Our Waterways/Waters
Martin County Conservation Alliance is a nonprofit organization working since 1964 for the protection of our environment and our community. As the rest of south Florida was being browardized, Martin County residents wanted to do better. Currently Martin County is considered a special place because we did do better.
Please don't change that.
Martin County Conservation Alliance with multiple other organizations sponsored a community seminar about "Protecting Small Wetlands" when the county was reviewing a proposal to allow small wetland mitigation, negative impacts. The outpouring from the community was strong and well-reasoned. The County rejected the proposal.
Science has established that so-called nonfunctional wetlands are degraded wetlands that can be saved, restored and should be - for our waterways, our water, our community. The importance of wetlands and native trees have been well-established.
The City of Stuart should reject the intense Costco project proposal with negative impacts to small wetlands and native habitat and community.
Wetlands and our native trees are important for our waterways, water, and flooding protection. Stuart stood strong to work for healthier waterways; this is not in that character. City officials understand that when the waterways and environment are not healthy, the community and economy take hits.
We look around Florida, around the country and world, and see the harmful results of the impact of increased intensity of development like the proposal, the weakening of environmental protections -- all amplifying the negative community effects of climate change.
Wetland and native tree protections are critical for the community, for the economy, for the environment, for our present and our future. This site has importance on all aspects and can stand for how to do it right, not how to do it with maximum intensity.
Page Two
To: Stuart City Mayor and Commissioners
Re: Please reject the Costco Proposal as proposed
Our waterways are of far greater impact to our economy than one project. Our reputation for developing responsibly is a great attraction for good future growth. The increased traffic will impact the environment, the community, the safety near schools, and people wanting to live in Stuart.
Please reject the Costco project unless substantial changes are made to maximize protecting and enhancing wetlands and native habitat onsite and protecting community.
Please stand for and with the residents and businesses that understand the long-term negative impact of such intense development and the precedent set for future development. Companies all over the world are stepping up to the challenges of climate change. Those of you who promised environmental and community protections during campaigns would be remiss in approving the project as is.
Costco is an organization that does not need to inflict negative impacts to environment and community to succeed.
Respectfully submitted:
Martin County Conservation Alliance
/s/ Donna Melzer
By: Donna Melzer, Chair
We Care Martin
Copyright © 2021 We Care Martin - All Rights Reserved.