The Apopka City Council voted 4-1 to deny a future land use amendment for a proposed development of three townhomes at 155 M A Board Street, ultimately supporting residents’ concerns that the townhomes would be a detriment to the surrounding community. 

Commissioner Nick Nesta cast the sole vote in favor of the application, which, had it passed, would have changed the future land use designation for the 2.7-acre vacant property from Residential Medium to Mixed Use.  

Such a change would have permitted the owner, Magic Houses LLC, to build the three townhomes, increasing the permitted density from 10 to 15 units per acre. 

Amr Gawad, representing the developer, defended the proposal by stating that the application aligned with the city’s comprehensive plan. He referred to the city’s 2004 joint planning agreement with Orange County, which focused on revitalizing downtown.  

Gawad argued that the new townhomes would increase the city’s tax base and that “it helps everybody. The city goes into the future. Downtown Apopka becomes on the map,” he said to the City Council. 

Commissioner Nadia Anderson opposed the project, stating that based on communications from several residents, the community was against the project because it didn’t align with the area, which is comprised of single-family homes, and would likely decrease property values.  

“Ideally, our job is to make sure that we are protecting the community — protecting the values in that community — and throwing in three townhomes is not in the best interest of the community,” she said.  

During public comment, resident Francina Boykin highlighted this opposition. She called the townhome development a potential “eyesore” that would also create “traffic clutter” due to the anticipated number of vehicles per unit.  

“This is not small scale,” she said. “It is the beginning of gentrification of a very quaint, historical community.”  

Boykin added that if Mildred A. Board – a lifelong resident, educator and community advocate for whom the street is named – were alive today, she would object to the townhomes. 

Gawad told the council that a community meeting for the townhome development, mandatory as part of the application process, “was attended, [and] it was very positive.”  

However, Commissioner Alexander H. Smith countered this, noting that according to the meeting summary he read, only one person attended. 

“I brought it up because when you were asked ‘was a community meeting held,’ you said ‘yes, and everybody was pleased,’” Smith told Gawad. “So, it made it appear that there was a group of people there, when it was actually only one person there.”  

Gawad maintained that the low attendance did not negate the fact that the development team had properly advertised the meeting.