St. Lucie County commissioners table 2098 Johnston Road PUD after neighbors press traffic, drainage and lot-size concerns

St. Lucie County commissioners voted on Aug. 5 to table consideration of a rezoning and site-plan package for 2098 Johnston Road after residents raised traffic, drainage and compatibility concerns and the applicant agreed to take more time to work with staff and neighbors.

The proposed project would have created a planned unit development with 82 single-family lots on about 110 acres in the towns, villages and countryside (TVC) future land-use designation. Planning staff said the project was designed at the TVC maximum of 2 dwelling units per acre and included a system of ponds, littoral planting and landscape buffers intended to create more separation between new homes and existing large-lot properties along Johnston Road.

Staff and the applicant described site-design features intended to reduce direct adjacency impacts: a variable west-side buffer that in places totals more than 100 feet when pond and easement widths are counted, 6-foot sidewalks on both sides of internal streets, and preserved open space that just exceeds the land-development-code requirement. The project's traffic-impact report estimated the development would generate about 841 daily trips, with roughly 62 AM peak-hour trips and 82 PM peak-hour trips.

Neighbors told commissioners that the project would worsen long-standing problems on Johnston Road and nearby local roads: narrow pavement, flooding at several locations, limited right of way, and fast through-traffic on adjacent canal roads used as cut-throughs. More than a dozen residents spoke, describing years of living with large lots, livestock and a rural character they said the PUD would not match. Several residents said they had experienced flooding and property damage during heavy rain events and questioned whether the proposed stormwater design would accept historic flows from parcels to the west.

The Planning & Zoning Commission considered the petition earlier and, after debate and one commissioner recusal, first failed a motion to approve and subsequently voted 4–2 to deny without findings. Staff recommended approval subject to several conditions, including detailed erosion‑and‑sediment controls, a tree/vegetation mitigation plan, enhanced plantings in the western buffer, and a requirement that the final site plan explicitly accept and mitigate the historic drainage flow from the western neighbors.

At the Aug. 5 meeting the applicant told the board they had increased several buffer and planting commitments since the Planning & Zoning review, and that they were prepared to provide right-of-way dedications along the northern frontage to accommodate a future connection if needed. Commissioners and staff discussed long-term connectivity and the potential for a future road connection to properties east of the site; the applicant requested that any required cross-access agreement include protections so the connection would not become the primary entrance for a future unrelated development to the east.

After extended discussion, Commissioner Townsend moved to table the item so the applicant could meet again with neighbors and revise the plan. The applicant withdrew the item for the evening and agreed to return after further work. The board did not approve or deny the rezoning; the matter was tabled "until further notice."

What happens next: The applicant will revise the submittal to address the board and neighbors' concerns about lot configuration, drainage, and access. When the applicant re-files, the petition must be renoticed and will return to Planning & Zoning and then to the Board for a final decision.

Residents and property owners who spoke at the hearing urged the board to require larger lots, additional turn lanes, and more robust drainage assurances before approval. Planning staff emphasized that under the current TVC land-use map the site is eligible for 2 units per acre, and that some elements of the applicant's design—such as the large littoral areas and open-space layout—reflect attempts to respond to compatibility concerns.

The board's decision to table preserved the applicant's opportunity to revise the plan; it also postponed a final judgment on whether the development meets the county’s standards for logical and orderly growth and on detailed mitigation for traffic and hydrology.