PAB narrowly approves Bluenest plan to redesignate 92-acre Redland site, limits and conditions debated

The Miami‑Dade County Planning Advisory Board voted 5–2 to approve a motion forwarding BlueNest at Chrome (CDMP20240015) to the Board of County Commissioners after a lengthy hearing that centered on stormwater, infrastructure capacity and how best to achieve "urban design" compatibility with surrounding agricultural and estate parcels.

James McCall, staff presenter, described the application as a request to redesignate roughly 92 acres south of Southwest 272nd Street between Crome Avenue and 172nd Avenue from State Density Residential (1–2.5 du/acre) and a small existing Business & Office area to Low‑Medium Density Residential (up to 13 du/acre) with an expanded Business & Office allocation. The applicant has proffered a covenant limiting development to a maximum of 700 residential units and committing 20% of units to for‑sale workforce housing. Staff recommended transmitting the application to state and regional agencies with changes — notably additional stormwater conceptual planning, a pump station commitment, drainage protections, and staff's preferred land‑use alternative (low density with a DI‑1 density increase and urban‑design provisions). McCall told the board staff wanted time during transmittal for the applicant to add compatibility measures and additional parcels staff recommended.

Applicant representatives emphasized a regional housing shortage and argued the project would provide workforce homeownership opportunities and neighborhood‑serving retail. "This application provides for 20% of its units as workforce housing for sale, an opportunity to address the crisis that has been plaguing our county for far too long," Patrick Gassan, counsel for BlueNest, told the board. The applicant said it had submitted a conceptual stormwater master plan and was negotiating with county agencies on required mitigations and pump‑station planning.

Public comment divided. Multiple speakers representing nearby families and community groups said workforce homes and jobs were needed locally and urged approval; several longtime Redland residents warned the proposal would change lot sizes and traffic patterns and asked that impact fees be retained and spent in the local area. "This is an area which is zoned EUM...these lot sizes are gonna be half that," said Mary Waters, a Redland resident, asking the board to consider compatibility with estate zoning. A community member also raised concerns about stormwater and the need for endangered‑species review.

Board discussion focused on a handful of unresolved technical but consequential points: stormwater management for regional drainage, whether the applicant could or should add two adjacent parcels staff recommended be included, and whether the DI‑1 urban‑design approach or the applicant's requested Low‑Medium designation best matched county policy goals. Staff emphasized that stormwater capacity and level‑of‑service questions could be dispositive: "If it will not be met, we have to recommend denial," Garrett Rowe said regarding level‑of‑service policy.

After extended debate the board majority voted to approve and transmit the applicant's request with the applicant's proffered covenant. The motion, made by Board Member Carlos Diaz Padron and seconded by Board Member Horatio Huembez, passed 5–2. The record shows five members voted yes and two members opposed. Staff had recommended transmittal with changes; the board's adopted motion directed the application to move forward to the Board of County Commissioners for review. Staff noted that unresolved stormwater and drainage items will be reviewed by DERM and could affect later approvals or require additional conditions at the BCC stage.

Next steps: the PAB recommendation will be included in the package sent to the Board of County Commissioners, which is scheduled to consider the application at the BCC hearing. The applicant must continue to coordinate with county agencies on stormwater, pump‑station design, drainage protections for agricultural areas and any required wildlife or historic‑resource reviews.