The Conservation Alliance has challenged Comp Plan Amendments which would cause negative effects on Martin County's quality of life, our urban boundary, 4-story building height limit and river protections --

  • The Alliance stopped High (75 upa) Density allowed by the 2001 Mixed Use Amendment  - The Alliance/County Settlement reversed the 75 unit per acre density cap that would have replaced our low 15 unit per acre cap and repealed the bonuses and subsidies to place intense commercial uses (crematoria, adult bookstores) in low-density single family neighborhoods.  Even the 4-story building height limit was put at risk by the 75 upa since the Ordinance "supercede" language inserted by Former County Attorney Fry meant that the 75 upa overrode conflicting Comp Plan provisions.  Maggy Hurchalla’s OpEd 9/1/2002 entitled “Beware amendment to Comp Plan that would change Martin County…” details the county’s expert testimony.   
  • In 2006, the Expressway (“EORB”) Amendment authorized urban development at all four corners of I-95 and Bridge Road intersection.  The original EORB proposal included over 400 acres, so most of the land that was later in the Extreme Sports proposal.  The amendment was repealed which saved taxpayers millions in roads and  other services.  Without this challenge,  Extreme Sports would likely not have been stopped since the Extreme Sports Comp Plan Amendments in 2012 would not have been needed. 
  • River Pollution - The Alliance and 1000 Friends protected our waterways from sewage package plants proposed on the rim of Lake Okeechobee in the Camayen Comp Plan Amendment. The Dept of Environmental Protection agreed with us and the Amendment was repealed in 2007.
  • 4-Story Building Limit  -- The Alliance and 1000 Friends fought the AgTEC Amendment in 2010 which establishes a stand-alone urban district in the western agricultural areas, miles outside the urban boundary/west of Palm City.  AgTEC was leap frog sprawl growth from our urban boundary - but it was okayed  by asserting it was a "peninsula of Port St. Lucie urban services" into Martin County - setting an unwanted precedent.  Although the AgTEC land use remained, the challenge brought limits and fixes in a “glitch bill” including correcting language that failed to specify application of the 4-story height limit.
  • Article 3 Zoning LDR in 2002 added language that allowed PUD clusters in Agricultural Land Use, anti the 20-acre minimum lot size of the Comp Plan.  The County withdrew that language when we challenged it.
  • Economic Element – The Alliance argued need was a requirement to convert land to commercial.  More commercial land was not needed on a parcel south of the C-44 when there were large areas of vacant commercial and industrial within the Indiantown Urban Service District.
  • Steen vs. Martin County was an effort to assist neighborhood residents in their challenge to require more than a minimum 25 ft. setback from the river across from Cracker Barrel. The neighbors settled.
  • Future Group rewrite of the Comp Plan – We worked to stop the weakening of the entire Comp Plan - the rewrite dictated by the Future Group.
  • Ordinance 913 Wetlands LDR challenge is still in process - to clearly spell out the requirement to preserve "ALL"wetlands instead of just "delineated" wetlands.  Wetlands exist in nature; it is the "landward extent" that is determined by a qualified biologist applying the state methodology -- usually not until development is proposed.  Opponents of CPA #13-5 are raising claims of entitlement to destroy wetlands in agricultural areas.