Comp Plan EAR Transmittal (PZTXA2026-00001) & Live Local Act

The Comprehensive Plan EAR Transmittal, specifically the new Table 1-6, "Zoning District Consistency," proposed to be added to Policy1.1.2 of the Future Land Use Element.On its face, Table 1-6 reads as a housekeeping clarification — it simply lists which zoning districts are consistent with each Future LandUse category. But this table has a direct and, I believe, unaddressed bearing on the Live Local Act eligibility dispute currently before thisCity involving the Causeway Cove development.

As the Board and Commission is aware, Representative Trabulsy has publicly argued that the submerged portions of the CausewayCove site — zoned A-2, Aquatic Development — are not covered by the Live Local Act, because A-2 is a distinct, non-commercial zoning classification. The City's own Development Order for that project takes the opposite position: that the underlying C-5 TouristCommercial zoning controls, and A-2 is merely an overlay that does not affect Live Local Act entitlement.

Table 1-6, as drafted, weighs into that dispute — and not in a neutral way. It lists A-2, Aquatic Development, as one of the zoning districts consistent with the General Commercial and Marine Commercial Future Land Use categories. Both of those categories are defined elsewhere in this same Comprehensive Plan chapter as permitting marinas, hotels, restaurants, and retail by right. By contrast, the more protective A-1, Aquatic Conservation designation, is never paired with a commercial category in this table — only withConservation/Open Space and Hutchinson Island Residential.

That distinction matters because Florida's Live Local Act statute, Section 166.04151(7), defines "commercial use" for eligibility purposes as any parcel "zoned to permit such uses by right... irrespective of the local land development regulation's listed category or title." In other words, the statute looks past what a zoning district is called and asks what it actually permits. By formally tying A-2 to commercialFuture Land Use categories that authorize marinas and hotels by right, Table 1-6 gives future applicants and the City's own staff a textual basis to argue that A-2 satisfies that statutory test — regardless of how the district is titled, and regardless of whether A-2 is treated as an overlay or as its own base zoning.

To be clear: there is no expectation to resolve the Live Local Act dispute tonight — that is a matter for the City Attorney, theCommission, and ultimately the courts or the Legislature. My concern is narrower. Neither the staff report, nor the Matrix of ProposedAmendments, nor the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's response documents mention this interaction at all. Table 1-6 was drafted as a routine seven-year statutory compliance update, with no apparent awareness that it lands squarely inside an active, high-profile eligibility fight the same week it is coming before this Board.

I'd ask the Board to do one of the following before recommending transmittal:

• Direct staff to obtain a written opinion from the City Attorney on whether Table 1-6's linkage of A-2 to commercial Future Land Use categories affects the City's legal position on Live Local Act eligibility for aquatic-zoned parcels, before this language is adopted; or
• At minimum, direct that this concern be entered into the record and forwarded to the City Commission and City Attorney ahead official adoption, so the City does not inadvertently lock in comprehensive plan language that undercuts its own negotiating position— or the public's position — in an active state-level dispute.

Attached is a version of this emailed to the Fort Pierce City Commissioners, the Planning Department, and the State Representative and staff.