Planning Board Regular Meeting - Monday, July 13, 2026 - 2:00 p.m. Update

Here are updates to the Planning Board Regular Meeting which took place on July 13th, 2026 at 2PM

PZAH2025-00001 STAFF UPDATE
Causeway Cove 601 Seaway Drive

Agenda /   Video      / Agenda Item

It was a full house although many were disappointed when it was announced that the public would not be allowed to speak on the Agenda Item as it was an informational update discussion only which statutorily does not require comments. The audience was directed to contact their state legislature for concerns regarding the Live Local Act. 

Dana Trabulsy District - 84  Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, FL 34982-563 (772) 710-1410 dana.Trabulsy@flhouse.gov

Final Development Component

• residential units 913 units
• Affordable housing units Minimum 366 units (40%)
• Residential floor area 1,029,426 sq. ft.
• Commercial floor area 292,091 sq. ft.
• Total floor area 1,321,517 sq. ft.
• Density +/- 22 dwelling units per acre (30 du/Ac maximum)
• Hotel components (2x) (TIA) 407 rooms total
• Retail component (TIA) 72,622 sq. ft.  
• Marina component (TIA) 218 marina slips 

During the meeting, the Planning Director Kevin Freeman provided a presentation. He identified that the Notice of Approval, specifically that there are 31 Conditions of Approval.  Supporting documentation can be found in the Agenda Item

My Personal Observations:

I am not a lawyer, only a concerned citizen who has a knack for digging in and want our community to grow in the best way possible and in the best interest of our local citizens. I understand that growth is inevitable. My purpose is to hopefully highlight common concerns that may go unnoticed with regard to this topic. We should help each other be more educated and aware. My opinions are only that and you should use your due diligence to independently research in determining your own opinions.

• Surveys from 2025 Application and 2026 Approval is different
• Site Plan from 2025 Application and 2026 Approval is different
• Work Housing is now included but not required in this instance. In 2025, Employer-Sponsored Housing Policy was enacted. The 2025 Live Local Act declares it state policy to provide affordable housing to employees of hospitals, healthcare facilities and governmental entities, allowing developers to create a preference for these employees. This allows developers in receipt of federal low-income housing tax credits or other governmental funding sources to create a preference for housing the specified employees, assuming such preference conforms to the Internal Revenue Code Section 42(g)(9).
• The 2025 application specified 1 hotel, the 2026 approval is now 2 hotels totaling the same 407 rooms but with expanded sqft footprint.
• The Consultation from Haly that used to guide the Planning staff's update mentioned compliance although, there is no attachment of any State involvement from the FDOT, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). There is only conversational between the Consultant and/or applicant and external departments with the assumption of accuracy. Applicant must still comply to all external state agency departments prior to applying for permits.

Overstated Density Calculations

• While the Live Local Act strictly preempts local governments from restricting height and density maximums, it explicitly requires projects to remain otherwise consistent with the local comprehensive plan and environmental regulations and does not strip the city from challenging how the calculation is determined as a duty to protect the health, safety, and infrastructure of Hutchinson Island. The approval recommendation relies on a glaring abusive mathematical loophole. regarding acreage which grossly inflates thee project's true density. Of the entire 42 acre parcel, approximately 25 acres is submerged under the waters of the Indian River Lagoon. This was identified in the 2025 topographical survey but not in the updated border survey which was used in the compliance determination. In summary, 913 residential units, two Hotels, and 72,622 square footage of retail space will be developed on 17 acres of actual land. Additionally, the total density doesn't reduce to accommodate the hotel footprint which would realistically reduce the actual available acreage to approximately 12 acres for shared remaining 913 residential units and 72,622 of retail space, causing  an unprecedented environmental and infrastructural hazard to this strip of dry barrier island is . While there has been recent changes to the city Future Use Element, I cannot find where submerged lands were now included in density calculations, therefore,  including the 25 +/- acres would violate the strict intent of the Fort Pierce Future Land Use Element. There are also additional county requirements for Hotels/Resorts, with stricter considerations to HIMU (Hutchison Island). 
• The density calculation uses the same acreage is being applied to the Hotel and Retail, essentially double counting. Common sense dictates that if all these elements are not on top of each other, the acreage should be counted exclusively, yet they are double counted.

Land Development Limitations

• There seems to be a discrepancy of compliance between the new Site Plan and the Environment Assessment, ,where a newly added Megayacht dock to plans built over high density seagrass which I believe is state ordinance restriction.

Height Determination

• The mile radius mentioned that it allows for 200 ft, yet the original determination was based on the Kings Landing condo project which was cancelled. There was no mention of exactly which building in downtown Fort Pierce is used to determine the allowance of 200 feet.

FDOT requires the threshold requirements

•  According to census and discussions, the populates on Hutchison Island will go up 80% and traffic 50%. There are concerns by the FPUA.
• Public transportation would be required, however it is unsure as to how the bus will turn around on A1A.

Commercial Hotels, Marina Expansion, and Residential

• There seems to be no governance or discussion regarding the commercial aspect and it's qualifying inclusion under the Live Local Act. The independent consultant did not specify any information or compliance regarding the Commercial Retail, Hotel, or Marina. The application does not specifically state, only inferred that these are ancillary secondary and appurtenant to the owners,  tenants and guests.  If it these elements are open to the general public, they should not qualify under the Live Local Act, ie, it's oversight restrictions, funding or tax benefits.

The Soil Contamination & Lack of State Discovery

• To date, not a single state agency has conducted any independent environmental discovery on this site. That is a terrifying oversight given this property’s history. This land went from a trailer park to an active boat yard, and it sits directly adjacent to a long-standing wastewater treatment plant. Common sense dictates a massive risk of industrial soil contamination. Yet, there has been no state-level discovery to prove this soil is safe for human habitation, nor any state geotechnical evaluation to prove this compromised manmade barrio island property can physically sustain five massive 17-story towers. A private consultant cannot legally clear these severe structural liabilities. Not to mention potential impacts to the causeway bridge which is anchored adjacent to the property. I hope that this is done under the Building Department's responsibility.

Developers can Sue Local Governments

• Unfortunately, developers can now sue local governments for challenging the application, even if justified. The 2025 Civil Actions and Building Moratoria expedites civil actions filed against local governments for violating the Live Local Act and caps attorney fees and costs at $250,000. The amendments allow a county to enforce a building moratorium against developments that qualify under the Live Local Act for no more than 90 days in any three-year period after the county has prepared an assessment of affordable housing in the business impact estimate for the ordinance imposing such a moratorium. This ability to sue makes local establishments with limited legal counsel of funding hesitant to conduct their due diligence and maintain the best interest of the community. [2]

References:

• St Lucie Municipal Codification: 3.01.00. - ZONING DISTRICT USE REGULATIONS
• 2025 Live Local Act Update -  Holland & Knight 2
• Fort Pierce Comprehensive Plan