Manatee County commissioners voted to deny a proposed planned development commercial rezone at State Road 64 and U Line Road after residents and technical staff raised repeated concerns about stormwater, historical drainage paths and the Mill Creek watershed.

The application sought to rezone 15.3 acres for up to 195,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial in three project areas, with a proffered schedule limiting some high-trip uses and a 30% open-space commitment. The applicant also limited a grocery store to 30,000 square feet in the primary project area and allowed self-storage as a lower‑trip option in project area 3.

Residents urged the board to deny the straight rezone because the parcel lies within the Mill Creek watershed and is adjacent to drainage features that neighborhood speakers said have already been modified and are channeling water onto private property. Julie Spicer, a long-time resident who said her family “endured the burden of protecting our private wetland,” urged commissioners to require on-site retention for dewatering activities and to use NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall standards in on-site design. Mark Vander Rea and other neighbors presented maps and photos they say show repeated summer flooding in the area.

Staff confirmed the site falls within the Mill Creek watershed and told commissioners the Mill Creek Watershed Management Plan and updated FEMA/NOAA data are the county’s best available guidance and will be used in site design. Traffic staff said a background projection already shows certain SR 64 segments with a future level-of-service deficiency driven by previously approved developments; the project itself, under present-day conditions, would operate at an acceptable level of service, staff said, though SR 64 is forecast to be deficient in future background analyses.

After extended deliberation, Commissioner Crystal Phelps moved to deny the rezone and send the applicant back for work on stormwater management and traffic coordination with FDOT and county public works; the motion carried 4–3 (Felts, Ballard, McCann, Bearden in favor of denial; Cruz, Sadiq and Ron opposed). The denial was recorded as a return to a January 8, 2026 hearing date so applicants and staff can present additional engineering information and neighborhood outreach materials.

The board’s action preserves the applicant’s ability to return with stronger drainage and access commitments; staff told commissioners Mill Creek WMP requirements (including NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall guidance) and a 50% reduction target for certain outfall flows will be applied at site‑plan stage. The applicant’s civil engineer said the proposed project will build on-site ponds and that discharges will be matched to historical discharge locations; the board nonetheless directed stricter documentation and neighborhood meetings before reconsideration.