Palm Bay City Council on Thursday approved a request to change the future land-use designation of a roughly 2.8-acre parcel owned by CenterPointe Church from public/semi-public (PSP) to low-density residential (LDR) but voted down a related rezoning for an adjacent 10-acre parcel.

Acting growth management director Althea Jefferson told the council staff found the 2.8-acre amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and the planning-and-zoning board recommended approval by a 4–1 vote. Council voted 3–2 in favor of Ordinance 2025‑43, with Deputy Mayor Jaffe, Councilman Johnson and Councilman Langevin voting aye and Councilman Hammer and Mayor Medina voting no.

Bill Price of Price Family Homes, representing the contract purchaser, said the change would allow construction of residences that match the character of surrounding neighborhoods and help fund expansion of the church campus. “We’re going to build residences on that property,” Price said, describing plans for single‑story homes and an HOA-managed subdivision and arguing the proposal matches the neighborhood pattern.

Opponents — including several residents who live next to the church property — urged the council to preserve the parcel as public/semi-public land and keep it as a green buffer between the commercial corridor on Malabar Road and adjacent neighborhoods. Speakers raised traffic concerns on Emerald and nearby residential streets, potential strain on school capacity, loss of trees and wildlife habitat, and the prospect that development would displace homeless encampments into neighboring yards. “This is the last natural barrier separating Palm Bay’s commercial corridor from our neighborhoods,” one resident said, adding that the smaller roads were not built for the additional traffic.

The debate intensified when the city attorney and staff briefed council on a recent change in state law commonly called the Live Local Act. City attorney summary: under Fla. Stat. §166.04151, housing developed by religious institutions that contain a house of worship can proceed with higher densities under a live-local procedure if 10% of units are guaranteed as affordable, and the statute creates an administrative path for some projects. Jefferson and city manager Morton warned the council the state law limits local control for church‑owned properties in certain circumstances and that a live-local project could be built administratively in the future even without a council zoning action.

Council then considered a rezoning application for an approximately 10-acre parcel immediately south of the 2.8-acre site that would have changed zoning from RR (rural residential) to RS‑2 (single-family). Planning and Zoning recommended denial of the rezoning 4–1; at council the rezoning motion failed on a 3–2 roll call (Deputy Mayor Jaffe in favor; Councilmen Johnson, Hammer and Langevin and Mayor Medina opposed or recorded as nays in the roll call sequence), leaving the larger parcel with its existing rural designation.

Council members split along lines of infrastructure caution and land‑use consistency. Opponents emphasized the rarity of remaining rural-residential parcels inside the city and urged preservation of larger lots and green buffers. Supporters pointed to staff findings of consistency and to risks posed by the state live-local law, arguing that denying the small-scale plan change would not prevent other options for development on church property.

The council’s actions leave the 2.8‑acre parcel eligible for residential development under the new land-use designation while the 10‑acre site remains rural residential; any future multifamily proposal for church‑owned property could still be pursued under state live-local provisions. The council also directed staff to continue following up with the school board’s preliminary letters on capacity and utility and transportation reviews as later applications proceed.

Ending: The council’s split votes reflected competing priorities — protecting remaining rural lots and neighborhood buffers, and enabling a church sale intended to fund campus improvements. Future steps will include any subsequent site‑plan reviews or site‑specific development applications that return to council, and staff said they will provide updated traffic and school‑concurrency materials as the applications move forward.