Titusville board allows developer to intervene but rules appellant lacks standing; hearing closed

The Titusville Board of Adjustments and Appeals on Feb. 26 voted to name Apollo Gardens an interested party in an appeal of a site development permit but then concluded the appellant did not have standing to pursue the appeal and ended the quasi-judicial proceeding.

Attorney Eric Page of the Schutzen Bowen law firm asked the board to grant Apollo Gardens party status, citing Titusville Resolution No. 24-1997 and arguing the developer could be “adversely affected” if the board revoked the permit. The board approved that request by roll call.

Why it matters: The decision ended formal consideration of an appeal that neighbors say challenges the city’s consistency review and the project’s access from Demeritt Drive. Residents and elected officials packed the chamber and urged the board to hear the case on its merits, citing safety, traffic, drainage and comprehensive-plan concerns.

City staff and counsel had split positions on the board’s authority to hear the appeal. Eric Page argued the board’s jurisdiction is limited to land-development regulation appeals and urged dismissal because the appellant’s claims stemmed from the city comprehensive plan. City staff counsel, citing code sections that incorporate comprehensive-plan consistency into administrative permit reviews, told the board it had previously heard similar questions and should proceed. The board rejected the motion to dismiss and determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The third and dispositive issue was standing. Vicki Conklin, who filed the appeal, told the board she lives in the Royal Oak neighborhood and signed the appeal “in my capacity individually and as an authorized member” of Royal Oak Neighbors LLC. She said she filed the appeal within 30 days of the permit decision and described potential harms including traffic, emergency-service impacts and flooding. “I am a citizen, I’m a taxpayer, and I’m a voter living in Titusville,” Conklin said.

Eric Page argued Conklin had submitted her appeal as an individual and had not shown the special, property-specific injury required to establish standing under applicable law; he also cited map evidence and distances between properties. The board then took a roll-call vote on whether Conklin had standing and the motion to approve her standing failed by recorded votes of Chairman Taylor (No), Vice Chairwoman Van Diven (Yes), Member Beckles (No), Member Green (Yes) and Member Wheelers (No). With the failure of that motion the board concluded Conklin lacked standing and closed the hearing.

Public comment was extensive. Dozens of neighbors signed cards authorizing Conklin to act as their agent and several spoke in support. City Council member Megan Moscoso and Brevard County Commissioner Katie Delaney both criticized the board’s handling of the hearing; Delaney’s prepared letter — read into the record — urged the board to revoke the permit and require an alternative access route that complies with the comprehensive plan. Fair-housing attorney Pablo Herrider of Florida Legal Services also addressed the board, reminding members that the Fair Housing Act protects people with disabilities and urging inclusive, lawful housing decisions. Resident speakers emphasized a 22-foot width for Demeritt Drive, alleged flaws in the traffic impact analysis, claims that the permit was issued Nov. 11, 2024, and that an appeal was filed Dec. 5, 2024. One resident stated the project is an "84-unit development." Several residents said they paid a $625 filing fee to bring the appeal.

The board’s actions: The board (1) granted Apollo Gardens party status to participate in the proceeding; (2) denied the developer’s request to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and concluded it could hear the matter; and (3) found the appellant, Vicki Conklin, did not have standing as an affected property owner, closing the hearing without a merits decision.

What the board did not decide: Because the board ended the proceeding for lack of standing, it did not rule on the substantive merits — i.e., whether the site development permit is consistent with the comprehensive plan or the adequacy of the traffic study.

Looking ahead: Several residents and speakers indicated they intend to pursue further administrative or legal options, including appeals or requests for judicial review; the record includes references to possible litigation and demands for revised or supplemental traffic analyses. The board announced a recess and then continued with nonrelated agenda items before adjourning the meeting.

Votes at a glance: Allow Apollo Gardens to intervene — approved (roll call: unanimous yes). Deny motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (i.e., proceed to consider standing) — approved (board determined it had jurisdiction). Approve appellant Vicki Conklin’s standing — motion failed (Chairman Taylor: No; Vice Chairwoman Van Diven: Yes; Member Beckles: No; Member Green: Yes; Member Wheelers: No).