Commissioners deny Tidewater 2 PUD after residents and staff raise traffic, trees and drainage concerns

St. Lucie County planning staff, the applicant and more than a dozen residents debated a rezoning and PUD amendment that would add townhomes and single-family lots in the White City area before the Board of County Commissioners voted to deny the request.

Thad Crow, senior planner with the county’s Planning and Development Services, described the site’s context — a large, vegetated tract between U.S. 1 and Oleander Avenue — and said the revised plan reduced unit counts in response to prior review. Staff told commissioners the proposal now showed 168 total units: 94 townhomes and 74 single-family lots, with 44% open space, but continued to raise concerns about native tree loss, substandard local road widths (notably Oleander, Sager and Ulrich), and stormwater and drainage constraints. Crow said the applicant’s plan would remove a substantial share of protected tree diameter and recommended further reductions to protect canopy trees and preserve neighborhood character.

Jeff Alexander, vice president for Meritage Homes, and Leah Heinselman, the applicant’s planner, described the company’s experience and said they had reduced density and increased buffers after multiple neighborhood meetings. Traffic and stormwater consultants presented technical reviews and told commissioners that the traffic impact study met the county’s adopted methodology and that the proposed internal site circulation would concentrate townhome access onto U.S. 1 and the single-family access to Oleander. The civil engineer said the stormwater design will rely on lakes, bioswales and a control structure to reduce discharge to the existing 24-inch pipe under Oleander.

A string of residents told the commission they had worked with the applicant but remained worried about increased traffic on narrow, shoulderless streets; stormwater and flooding; loss of mature trees and wildlife displacement; and a perceived mismatch between higher-density townhomes and the “historic” White City neighborhood. Several speakers described narrow local streets where two vehicles can barely pass and said school and retail traffic already created safety issues on nearby routes.

Planning and Zoning recommended denial at its February hearing; staff’s final report listed conditions under which staff would support approval, including increased on-site tree preservation, larger lots in places and more transportation or drainage mitigation. After public comment and deliberation, Commissioner Clasby moved to deny the PUD; the motion was seconded and the board adopted the denial in a roll-call vote recorded as: Commissioner Townsend — yes; Commissioner Lowery — yes; Commissioner Leith — yes; Commissioner Clasby — yes; Chair Fowler — yes. The motion carried and the PUD amendment was not approved.

County staff said the applicant can revise the plan and return, and the applicant’s team indicated willingness to continue design work and mitigation discussions. Several commissioners urged further work on tree preservation, lot sizing and traffic and noted that while the applicant had made concessions, the current proposal did not yet satisfy the county’s standards.