Board fails to approve Blackwell comprehensive-plan amendment after debate over loss of commercial land and traffic

The Board considered Item P39, a small‑scale comprehensive plan amendment for the Blackwell property on State Road 54, intended to allow a mixed‑use planned development with multifamily housing and neighborhood‑scale nonresidential uses. Staff described the proposal as a PD that would reduce full‑commercial entitlements in favor of a mixed product — roughly 290 multifamily units and up to 100,000 square feet of nonresidential uses in supporting testimony. Staff recommended adoption and noted a companion MPD rezoning (P44).

During extended debate, several commissioners questioned converting a large commercially designated corridor — discussed in the hearing as potential for roughly 2,000,000 square feet of commercial development under existing land‑use entitlements — into a residential heavy mixed use. Concerns included the county’s priority to preserve employment land, the existing number of apartments in the market, and traffic and public‑safety consequences on SR‑54. Supporters of the amendment emphasized staff modeling that the proposed PD would generate fewer vehicle trips than full commercial buildout and pointed to a letter of support from the CEO of a nearby HCA Florida hospital emphasizing the value of nearby housing for employees.

Public comment was limited in the record; the Board engaged applicants and staff in technical questions about connectivity, pedestrian improvements and the scale of nonresidential uses. At roll call, the votes were: Oakley (Aye), Wakeman (Aye), Starkey (Abstain), Yeager (No), Mariano (No). With no majority in favor, the comprehensive plan amendment failed (did not receive the required majority) and therefore the companion rezoning P44 could not proceed.

County staff said the outcome means the zoning application must be evaluated in light of the comprehensive plan result and that no further zoning action would be recorded at this time. Commissioners asked staff to consider future opportunities for employment-generating uses in other locations and to reopen the broader discussion of SR‑54 corridor capacity and land-use policy.