'Rural lifestyle' land-use rules already targeted for expansion, which isn't a good sign

Among his many talents as an author, George Orwell was great at coming up with ironic euphemisms that, in the dystopian worlds in which his stories were set, meant pretty much the exact opposite of what you would expect.

In his classic novel, "1984," for example, writings and photographs are fed into "the memory hole" ― a large incinerator ― so they'll be forgotten rather than remembered. The book's "Ministry of Truth" is actually dedicated to the spreading of untruths. And so on and so on.

I bring this up because the phrase "rural lifestyle" is starting to take on an Orwellian meaning in Martin County. And if the current trajectory doesn't change soon, I fear something similar could happen in the other counties along the Treasure Coast.

Redefining the meaning of 'rural'

On Dec. 5, the Martin County Commission is scheduled to consider granting preliminary approval to an amendment to its "rural lifestyle" land-use category. It's been only a little more than a year since the commission adopted the original version, despite significant public opposition and a legal challenge ultimately resolved in the county's favor by the state's Administration Commission.

The rural lifestyle land-use designation allows more intense development outside of the county's designated urban services areas, provided certain criteria are met.

As originally adopted, the land-use designation could only be applied to tracts 1,000 acres or larger, adjacent to an urban services boundary. That seemed like a way to limit the number of opportunities developers would have to build housing subdivisions in what have historically been agricultural areas in the western part of the county.

Well, the amendment commissioners are scheduled to consider at their next meeting would loosen those restrictions: If a parcel is at least 3,000 acres, then it could be up to 6,000 feet from an urban services boundary.

For perspective, there are 5,280 feet in a mile. So this amendment would significantly extend the boundaries where development would potentially be allowed under the rural lifestyle rules.

Critics' fears are coming true

Here's a shocker: On the same agenda, there's a request from a developer to build a golf course community near where Kanner Highway and Bridge Road intersect. This project would cover 3,902 acres. And yes, it happens to be within 6,000 feet of the urban services boundary.

All the people who argued the initial land-use change was going to set a precedent that would lead to more and more incursions into Martin County's agricultural lands must feel like Nostradamus now.

It's not surprising developers avoided trying to get property rezoned for rural lifestyle while the lawsuit challenging the commission's initial decision was pending. But this is at least the second rural lifestyle project proposed since the lawsuit was resolved.

And, less than 15 months after the regulations were adopted, there's already this movement to make them less restrictive so more farmland will be "in play" for real estate speculators.

It's probably not a great object lesson for St. Lucie County, where officials are considering changes to the "towns, villages and countryside" element of their comprehensive plan, which could lead to less-restrictive zoning in western agricultural areas.

Nor for Indian River County, where a series of meetings are underway to help determine the future of growth and development there.

The goalposts keep moving

Sticking with my Orwell analogies, it's a bit like how in "Animal Farm," the pigs kept changing the rules about how the farm was run until their hold on power was firmly secured.

Oh, but don't those rural landowners have property rights? Of course they do. They have rights to build whatever was allowed by the zoning on their property at the time they purchased it.

They don't have the unfettered right ― or at least they shouldn't ― to build whatever type of development suits their interests at the moment, without regard to what constitutes good public policy.

On that score, the staff's report on the development project up for consideration Dec. 5 seems pretty clear: "Changing the land use to Rural Lifestyle does not appear to fulfill a public service need," it says on Page 8.

Ken Bakst, the property owner, said the project will add money to the tax base, preserve open space and even provide treatment for some of the dirty water flowing through the C-44 Canal.

All that may be true, but the amendment will still open the proverbial barn door for future developments that may not be as beneficial.

Bakst said he hopes to build 175 homes (not the 195 called for in the plans sent to commissioners), which is actually less than the current agricultural zoning would allow. However, the rural lifestyle designation allows the houses to be clustered much closer together than the agricultural zoning would.

By clustering them together, that leaves more room for golf courses, as well as guest houses, so-called "golf cottages" and course employee dormitories.

One of the selling points of rural lifestyle was supposed to be a provision that requires a significant portion of the property to be designated as "open space." But this definition of open space allows golf courses, polo grounds or other recreational facilities to be built there.

Not facilities that are necessarily open to the public, just the people who live there. Is it really correct to say developers are "sacrificing" land for open space if what they're really doing is using it for amenities that will drive up profits on the land where they do build? I would say no.

Rules preserving agricultural land slipping away

Commissioners are likely to mention that whatever action they take on Dec. 5 won't be final, which is true. If they grant preliminary approval to the amendment, it will have to be forwarded to various state and local government agencies for review because it's a comprehensive plan change.

Theoretically, commissioners could vote the change down after the other agencies have completed their review processes, but we all know that's not likely to happen.

After that amendment is ratified, it will just be a matter of time before another amendment is proposed, seeking to further weaken the rules in order to cater to some developers' specific wishes. And so on and so on, until the pigs are running the farm.

This column reflects the opinion of Blake Fontenay. Contact him via email at blake.fontenay@tcpalm.com or at 772-232-5424.

This article originally appeared on Treasure Coast Newspapers: Developers are already asking to expand a controversial land-use rule