A proposed housing development in Hobe Sound could move forward under Florida’s brownfield program after a developer asked the Martin County Board of Commissioners to designate the property as potentially contaminated land eligible for state-supported cleanup.
County staff told commissioners the request involves property slated for a luxury residential development that may be complicated by environmental contamination tied to its former use.
“Section 376.79 of Florida statutes defines brownfields as real property, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicated by actual or perceived environmental contamination,” said Jenna Knobbe, a senior planner with Martin County’s growth management department.
Knobbe said the site carries a future land-use designation of residential estate density, allowing up to two units per acre, and is split between two zoning districts.
“The site has a future land use designation of residential estate density, which allows a maximum of two units per acre,” she said. “And there are two different zoning designations over this property, the R2 and R2B zoning districts.”
Designation as a brownfield would allow the developer to participate in a state program administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection that offers incentives to clean up contaminated sites.
“There are state-based financial incentives to promote the voluntary cleanup and remediation of these sites,” Knobbe said. “If this property were to be designated as a brownfield, then it would be eligible to become part of that program.”
Environmental attorney Michael Schnaps-Tyler of Cobb & Cole, speaking on behalf of developer Oasis Development LLC, outlined the results of preliminary environmental testing conducted on the former flower nursery site.
“The primary constituents of concern at this site are pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers, arsenic and dieldrin,” Schnaps-Tyler said. “We’ve done a really good job of defining where it is in the soil so that we can have an understanding of what needs to be removed to accommodate redevelopment and cleanup of the site.”
Schnaps-Tyler said the Dec. 9 meeting marked the first of two required public hearings, with a second scheduled for Jan. 6. If the designation is approved, the next step would be a formal cleanup agreement with the state.
“Assuming that goes well and you all approve the brownfield area designation, in 2026 we will execute what’s called a brownfield site rehabilitation agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,” he said. “That is the voluntary cleanup agreement that says, ‘Treat me like I am the responsible party that needs to clean up this site.’”
He described a multi-step remediation process that includes defining the extent of contamination, designing and implementing a cleanup plan — likely involving source removal — followed by reporting, at least one year of groundwater monitoring and, ultimately, applying for site closure.
“All reports and all work [would] be done by licensed professional engineers and geologists,” Schnaps-Tyler said. He added that testing must be conducted by certified laboratories and reviewed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Commissioners raised questions about disclosure to future buyers, financing for the cleanup and the background of one of the applicants.
Commissioner Eileen Vargas asked whether homebuyers would be informed about the site’s history.
“I always advise my clients to do that, especially on brownfield redevelopments,” Schnaps-Tyler said. “And that would certainly be the case here as well.”
Commissioner Edward Ciampi questioned whether the developer had demonstrated the financial capacity to complete the cleanup, noting the board had only received a letter of intent.
“A letter saying I can afford to do this doesn’t really jump the bar for me,” Ciampi said.
Schnaps-Tyler said additional documentation could be provided before the next hearing.
“There are additional financial information. We can work on it,” he said. “We can provide it in advance of the Jan. 6 second reading to show you that the financial resources are available.”
Vargas also raised concerns about an applicant’s past legal issues following comments from a member of the public.
“So the applicant is the one that was sent to prison for Medicare fraud?” Vargas said. “So we’re going to take his word for it.”
Schnaps-Tyler responded that the development entity is a LLC with multiple parties involved.
“Our client is an LLC. There are other people associated with the business and the investment here,” he said. “I don’t know of any brownfield area designation criteria that are impacted by what happened previously.”
Despite the concerns, the board voted unanimously to move the proposal forward to a second hearing on Jan. 6, requesting that the developer provide additional financial documentation. A final decision on the brownfield designation is expected at that meeting.