County transmits Southeast Hawthorne Road plan amendment with 149‑unit cap and greenway

Alachua County commissioners voted to transmit a large‑scale comprehensive plan amendment for an 82‑acre parcel at Southeast Hawthorne Road and Lakeshore Drive to the Florida Department of Commerce after the applicant proffered a text change limiting the site to single‑family detached housing and a 149‑unit maximum and designating roughly 200 feet along the eastern edge as a greenway.

The amendment, filed as Z25000003, would convert existing combinations of low density residential, estate residential and commercial land uses to a mix of low density residential and conservation and is paired with a companion rezoning that the applicant said would further constrain units to 149 if eventually approved. County staff recommended transmission to state review; the Planning Commission previously recommended against transmittal in a 4‑3 vote.

County planning staff and the applicant said the change would allow removal of underused commercial parcels on Hawthorne Road to make a financially viable neighborhood while protecting wetlands and a strategic ecosystem on the site. "This project's about 81 acres," said Clay Swager of EDA Consultants, the applicant representative, during the applicant presentation. Swager also identified the proposal’s marketing name as "Eastwood Preserve." Alachua County Environmental Protection Department director Steve Hostetter described the county’s strategic ecosystem program and told the board that "strategic ecosystems are 47 areas that were designated by the county as the most critical, large green connected areas of the county worthy of protection that weren't already in protection."

Staff said the parcel is partly within the East Side Greenway strategic ecosystem and contains wetlands concentrated on its northern portion; county environmental staff reviewed the applicant’s environmental resource assessment and concurred that the proposed map amendment could be consistent with protection policies if conservation areas and management plans are required later in the development review process. The applicant said it plans to place roughly the northern third of the site into conservation, a number the applicant estimated at about 28–30 acres after additional ground‑truthing by county environmental staff.

Key numbers provided to the board included: an existing maximum of 131 dwelling units under the current mix of land uses; a theoretical maximum of 221 units at the land‑use level in the applicant’s initial map presentation; and a proffered cap of 149 units tied to the rezoning proposal and the applicant’s proposed text amendment. The applicant estimated about $38 million in private investment for site work and homebuilding, roughly $33 million in taxable value on 149 homes and nearly $800,000 in county impact fees; the project team also said the subdivision would connect to GRU water and sewer and deliver a developer‑funded lift station to GRU for public use.

Environmental and infrastructure constraints were focal points of the hearing. County staff and the applicant noted that because the site drains to Newnan’s Lake and lies within the Orange Creek Basin Management Action Plan area, state and county water‑quality rules apply. Staff said county code requires the post‑development average nitrogen and phosphorus loads to be at least 10% lower than pre‑development averages; for impaired water bodies the applicant must satisfy Florida DEP requirements (the applicant cited a 95% reduction requirement referenced in state guidance for this basin). County public works staff said stormwater design must control both rate and volume and that wetlands and wetland buffers shown on the applicant’s plans would be preserved and carried forward into later plans.

The hearing included more than an hour of public comment. Supporters — including neighborhood organizations, business groups and residents who identified as East Gainesville advocates — told commissioners the project would bring market‑rate and workforce‑oriented single‑family housing to an area that has seen little private residential development for decades and could attract retail and services. "We are here in strong support of the changes that are recommended today to the land use and zoning code," said Adrian Hey Santos of Gainesville's People. Chamber of Commerce speakers and other commenters said rooftops are a precondition for grocery stores and other neighborhood amenities.

Opponents, including multiple property owners along Lakeshore Drive and longtime residents and conservationists, urged the board to preserve the current comprehensive plan designations. Speakers cited risks to Newnan’s Lake and to wetlands, concerns about increased traffic on narrow Lakeshore Drive, and the conservation value of the East Side Greenway corridor. Several technical speakers, including a professional geologist, described local hydrogeology and warned that filling sandhill recharge areas could change flood dynamics; a number of objectors also said they had not received clear notice of changes in the application between the neighborhood workshop and the Planning Commission hearing and described the shift from an earlier state‑residential scenario to the current low density/conservation map as significant.

Commission discussion focused on whether the applicant proffer — the 149‑unit cap and the 200‑foot greenway — materially addressed environmental and community concerns and whether the county should send the amendment to the state for review. Commissioner (last name) Prizia told colleagues she had opposed the project initially but after reviewing the proffers and community feedback she had changed her position: "I started out being, when I first heard about this development, I was against it... I changed my mind. And I am in support of the motion." Several other commissioners said they had carefully weighed environmental testimony and neighborhood input before supporting transmission.

A single motion to transmit the comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce with the applicant’s proposed text amendment (primary use limited to single‑family detached housing, 149‑unit maximum, and the 200‑foot greenway designation) was made and seconded on the floor; the board voted to transmit the amendment. The Planning Commission's prior recommendation against transmittal (4‑3) was noted in the staff report and in the public record. The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally in the published record of the hearing; the clerk recorded the motion as carried.

What happens next: transmission sends the amendment to state review and to the standard review agencies (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the water management district, FDOT and others). If the board ultimately adopts the change after the state comment period, later discretionary approvals would be required: adoption of the plan amendment, the companion rezoning and the applicant’s preliminary and final development plans; each of those steps carries additional technical review of stormwater, habitat protections, gopher tortoise relocation or conservation plans (FWC coordination if tortoises are found), tree preservation and other conditions. The applicant and staff said that detailed conservation management plans and engineering would be created and reviewed at the preliminary development plan stage.

The decision to transmit sets a state review clock but does not authorize construction. The board’s action leaves open further hearings and technical reviews that must demonstrate compliance with the comprehensive plan, county land development regulations and state water‑quality requirements before any building permits are issued.