Bonita Springs council denies Dean Street rezoning after lengthy public debate; allows rehearing without prejudice

Bonita Springs City Council voted 4-3 to defeat a rezoning application that would have allowed a developer to build 48 attached two-family villas on roughly 4.6 acres at Dean Street and Matheson Avenue, then later approved denying the petition without prejudice so the applicant may refile after changes.

The proposal from Sagamore (presented by attorney Neil Montgomery and planner Patty Kulak of RVI) would have rezoned property from TFC-2 (two-family conservation) to a residential planned development (RPD) allowing 48 dwelling units. The project team said density would be 10.4 dwelling units per acre (below the comp-plan maximum of 11.6), include enhanced landscaping, a littoral rain garden/dry detention system, two guest parking areas and a sidewalk on Matheson Avenue.

The developer's consultant team included civil engineer Michael Herrera, transportation consultant Jim Banks (JMB Transportation), environmental consultant Connor Goulding (in for Jeremy Stirk) and economist Richard Foreman. Patty Kulak told the council the plan had been revised since earlier hearings to increase side-yard setbacks, expand landscape buffers, add roughly 10 guest parking spaces (bringing total guest spaces to about 24), and upgrade the stormwater approach.

Why it mattered: neighbors said the plan's scale and traffic loading would overwhelm narrow, residential streets and risk more flooding in a part of the city that has experienced repeated storm surge and rain flooding. More than a dozen residents spoke in opposition at the meeting, citing vehicular counts, child safety at bus stops and past flood damage to nearby houses. Supporters, including several downtown business and economic-development representatives, said the town needs infill market-rate housing for employees and younger residents.

Residents described what they said were unresolved safety and drainage risks. Diana Walker, a resident of Matheson Avenue, said, "I see mothers walking their children to the bus stop right there on Matheson... This scares me," and called for the site to remain at its current zoning. Several other speakers emphasized narrow streets, existing stop-sign backups on Dean Street and the frequency of pedestrians and e-bikes.

The project team defended the technical studies. Transportation consultant Jim Banks told council the development would generate only a small fraction of the adjacent roads' capacity'"1.8% of Dean Street's capacity and 0.3% of Matheson Avenue's capacity" according to the filed traffic impact study'and that, in staff review, the development would not create off-site transportation deficiencies requiring mitigation. Civil engineer Michael Herrera said the post-development stormwater controls and interconnected dry retention basins would reduce flow rates and nutrient loading compared with the site's current uncontrolled runoff.

Council split and outcome: After public comment and council questions, a motion to approve the rezoning as conditioned by staff failed on a 3-4 vote. The record shows the council found the single deviation requested (a reduction in building separation from 20 to 10 feet) and the resulting density raised material concerns for several members. After that vote, councilors who opposed approval moved and passed a separate motion to deny the petition without prejudice, clearing the way for the applicant to revise and return to the council with modifications.

What remains unresolved: The applicant indicated the units would be condominium or common-ownership product (not single-platted lots) and said price points would be "comparable to market"; no sales prices were specified. Neighbors and council members asked for clearer commitments on parking enforcement, guaranteed reduction in unit count or building separation, and more detailed stormwater assurances tied to construction approvals.

Votes at a glance: The motion to approve the rezoning as submitted failed (Yes: 3; No: 4). The council then approved a denial without prejudice to allow the applicant to return with modifications (motion passed by recorded vote).

The council did not adopt any construction or land-use permits at the meeting; any revised petition will need to return for rehearing and any subsequent development requires local development order and building permits.