Council approves land‑use change to allow nursing facility at 2277 SE Leonard Road

Port St. Lucie City Council approved Ordinance 25‑10 on March 10, 2025, a first‑reading legislative amendment to the city's comprehensive plan that changes approximately 1.45 acres at 2277 Southeast Leonard Road from "residential office institutional" (ROI) to "institutional." The amendment was requested so the existing assisted‑living facility can be classified consistently with the property's institutional zoning and to allow conversion to a convalescent/nursing home.

Bethany Grubbs with the planning department told the council the site has been developed as a 50‑bed assisted‑living facility contained in a roughly 14,000‑square‑foot building and is "approximately 1.45 acres in size." Grubbs said staff reviewed public‑facilities capacity, flood zone status and traffic; the property is in FEMA Zone X (not an area of flood concern) and an environmental assessment was not required because the site is already developed. Staff found that changing the land‑use designation to institutional would align the property's land use with its existing institutional zoning.

The applicant's planner, George Gentile, vice president of 2GHO Inc., told the council the owner purchased the property in 2017 and that the amendment is intended to make the use conforming to the zoning for reasons that include financing. Gentile said the facility operated as a nursing/retirement home in 1983 and has been nonconforming since a 2019 plan text amendment removed institutional from the ROI classification.

Grubbs said staff analyzed worst‑case traffic generation and that changing from assisted living to a nursing/convalescent home would have only a small traffic effect; she noted the conversion would generate "an increase in only 3 PM peak hour trips" compared with current operations. Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval at its Feb. 4, 2025 meeting; planning staff recommended the map amendment be approved as compatible with the city's zoning and comprehensive plan policies cited in the staff report.

The council held a public hearing; no members of the public spoke. Following discussion about terminology and the record (several council members and staff noted the item had been listed as "quasi‑judicial" on the agenda in error), a motion to approve Ordinance 25‑10 passed on council vote.

Council members and staff noted next steps: any changes to the building or site would require a separate site‑plan review and approval, which is the forum to address buffers or site modifications between the facility and adjacent single‑family properties. A city code provision cited during the discussion (section 158.282) was presented as relevant to nonconforming uses: if a structure containing a nonconforming use is damaged to more than 50% of its value, it cannot be rebuilt as the nonconforming use under current code; council members said that concern contributed to the applicant's request to make the use conforming.

The ordinance was approved by council (motion carried).