STUART — Martin County’s controversial Land Protection Incentives Amendment has again been upheld by the state Department of Community Affairs.

The department and an administrative law judge had previously ruled in favor of the initiative that allows agricultural landowners to cluster houses on part of their property in exchange for the preservation of the rest of the tract.

Charles Gauthier, the director of DCA’s division of planning, issued an order Monday denying the appeals by the Martin County Conservation Alliance and finding the Land Protection Incentive Amendment in compliance with county and state laws.

The order was questioned by the Conservation Alliance, which is considering appealing to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, but was praised by the Martin County Economic Council.

“A lot of care and contemplation went into the creation of this amendment,” said Bob Raynes, chairman of the Economic Council of Martin County, “so while we were confident it would more than meet requirements, we’re still grateful for this decision.”

Raynes called the Conservation Alliance’s opposition to the amendment part of a series of “frivolous attempts to undermine the county’s informed, big-picture visioning for Martin County’s environmental and economic future.”

The Land Protection Incentives Amendment would not promote sprawl, Raynes said. The amendment does protect natural resources, identifies land most appropriate for preservation as contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses.

Recognizing that the priority of the public obtaining broad swaths of environmentally sensitive lands would pose too crushing a burden on taxpayers, the Land Preservation Incentives Amendment was created to inspire donations of large land tracts in exchange for the right to cluster communities on a smaller portion of the property, Raynes said.

However, Donna Melzer, the president of the Conservation Alliance, said she was disappointed in the DCA ruling.

The group was looking for a ruling requiring that there be no increase in the number of houses allowed in western Martin County, Melzer said.

The Conservation Alliance will do some research and conduct a board meeting to determine whether to file an appeal, Melzer said.

Commissioner Susan Valliere, the author of the amendment, said she thinks an appeal would be “futile” because “it’s a good amendment.”

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm and is filed under Martin County. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.