Apopka officials and residents spent nearly an hour Wednesday evening debating growth, development policy and the role of the city’s Planning Commission during the City Commission’s first discussion workshop before the regular commission meeting. 

Much of the conversation centered on whether the city should revisit how development decisions are reviewed amid increasing concerns over traffic, water capacity and infrastructure demands tied to Apopka’s rapid growth. 

Mayor Nick Nesta repeatedly stressed that the workshop was not intended as an attack on current Planning Commission members, but rather a broader discussion about procedures and growth management strategies. 

“I think it’s clear the Planning Commission took this as a little bit of a slap in the face, and I apologize for that,” Nesta said. “I think it was just to have discussion on what we can do, what we can’t do … to slow down development.” 

Nesta said the new commission is trying to ensure they are “not leaving any stone unturned” as the city evaluates ways to address residents’ concerns about growth and infrastructure — as evidenced in the recent elections that brought big changes to City Hall. 

Commissioner Sam Ruth, who previously called for the city to reevaluate the Planning Commission, said his concerns were tied less to individual board members and more to the pace of development and whether city infrastructure is keeping up. 

“Since the last time I sat on this council, we’ve added 10,000 rooftops, another 30,000 people to the city,” said Ruth, who previously served as commissioner from 2014 to 2016. “The underlying issue that the community has as a whole is we’re over-building, under-promising, and we’re making no changes on the infrastructure that supports it.” 

Ruth said the discussion was intended to “slow the development down” while the city reassesses infrastructure and planning needs. 

Four of the seven Planning Commission members attended the workshop and defended the board’s role in the development process, emphasizing that members are required to operate within the city’s comprehensive plan and land development code. 

Planning Commission member David Woods said commissioners are limited in what they can legally consider when reviewing projects. 

“We can only, as a Planning Commission, do what we’re statutorily allowed to do,” Woods said. “It’s up to yourselves and the DRC[Development Review Committee] to take a deep dive.” 

Wes Dumey, another Planning Commission member, said the board is often misunderstood and noted that members serve as unpaid volunteers. 

“We are volunteers,” he said. “My paycheck is a big fat zero.”  

Dumey also pushed back against the idea of reapplying for his position amid ongoing discussions surrounding the board. 

“I’m here to be part of the solution,” Dumey said. “But I’m not going to suffer the indignity of being asked to reapply for a position.” 

The workshop also included discussion about City Commission meeting schedules and procedures. 

Commissioners largely agreed to keep meetings on Wednesdays, though several members supported moving evening meetings from 7 p.m. to 6 p.m. to make attendance easier for residents and staff. 

Vice Mayor Diane Velazquez argued maintaining at least one daytime meeting remains important for seniors, parents and residents unable to attend evening meetings. 

Officials also discussed potentially holding workshops on an as-needed basis rather than before every commission meeting. 

During public comment, several residents raised concerns about growth, traffic congestion and infrastructure limitations.  

Resident Leroy Bell urged commissioners to make board appointments more accessible to residents. 

“You need to open it up to the citizens and give them a chance to let them be a part of what’s going on,” Bell said. 

Future workshop topics listed on the agenda included transportation planning, utility infrastructure, citizen advisory boards, the city’s comprehensive plan and the city’s pioneering agreement process.