Miami‑Dade County’s Planning Advisory Board voted 6–2 to forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners supporting a land‑use redesignation and a proffered covenant for the Bluenest Development LLC proposal in the Redlands, after a packed public hearing in which area residents and younger prospective buyers offered sharply divided views.

Staff recommended changing the site’s requested designation to low‑density residential with a DI‑1 (design increase) overlay, and asked the applicant to accept a proffer limiting unit count. Applicant counsel Pedro Gaston and other representatives said the developer wants to deliver workforce homeownership opportunities and offered a covenant limiting development and committing to public‑water and sewer connections, road improvements and a transit “last‑mile” contribution. At the hearing multiple speakers in favor described the proposal as workforce housing and home‑ownership opportunity; many neighbors opposed it on grounds of traffic, drainage, environmental impacts and loss of single‑family character.

The PAB ultimately accepted staff’s recommended land‑use change subject to conditions the board added: (1) the applicant must place in the CDMP covenant an express cap of 284 total units (the covenant offered by the applicant), (2) the applicant will add a financing “buy‑down” commitment for workforce buyers that staff will anchor in the covenant, and (3) the applicant will evaluate and work toward off‑site roadway infrastructure (discussed at the meeting as a route toward US‑1) to address access and circulation. The board recorded two “no” votes from its roll call; the motion passed by 6 votes to 2.

Staff and several board members repeatedly emphasized that a prior public presentation by the applicant’s representative that they might expand the project to about 500 units required separate review and could not be implemented informally — the planning process allows acreage and unit changes only following formal CDMP or community‑council actions.

The hearing included an unusually large turnout: the chair said more than 100 speaker cards were marked in favor and about 25 opposed, and the board heard a representative sampling of comments from both sides. Staff said additional environmental and stormwater analysis, right‑of‑way and traffic engineering, and the final covenant language must be cleared in later permitting and zoning stages; the board’s recommendation transmits the matter to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.