Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Townhomes topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Apopka council denies downtown land-use change after residents warn of gentrification

City of Apopka City Council · December 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council voted 4–1 to deny a developer’s request to change future land use for a 0.27-acre downtown lot from residential medium to mixed-use; residents and a councilmember said they oppose three townhomes on a historically single-family street.

The Apopka City Council voted 4–1 on Dec. 3 to deny first reading of Ordinance 31-21, a small-scale future land use amendment that would have changed the designation for a 0.27-acre lot at 155 M A Board Street from residential medium to mixed-use, allowing a higher density. Planner Junson presented staff’s recommendation and the DRC’s approval; applicant Amer Gawad of Magic Houses LLC said the request conforms to the comprehensive plan and the downtown vision.

Several residents, including Francina Boykin, urged denial. Boykin said the proposed three townhomes would “wall out” and alter a historical, majority-Black community along M A Board Street and called the proposal the “beginning of gentrification” in that corridor. “Those homes were built in the mid‑1980s… this is not small scale, it is the beginning of gentrification of a very quaint historical community,” Boykin said.

Commissioner Anderson said he was representing residents’ concerns and moved to deny the ordinance on first reading; Commissioner Smith seconded. The motion carried 4–1, with Commissioner Nesta voting in opposition. The council’s action keeps the current future land use designation in place while preserving the city’s downtown planning objectives for other areas.

Council discussion referenced whether a community meeting had been held (planning staff said yes, but the meeting attended by residents had only one attendee), and commissioners pressed the applicant and staff about neighborhood compatibility, notice and the interpretation of the comprehensive plan in a downtown context.