Titusville board finds appellant lacks standing, ends appeal of Apollo Gardens permit

The Titusville Board of Adjustments and Appeals on Feb. 26 rejected an appeal of a site development permit for the proposed Apollo Gardens apartments after finding the appellant did not have standing, and allowed the project’s developer to participate in the proceeding as an interested party.

The ruling matters because residents argued the project would violate the city’s comprehensive plan by using a local residential street — Demeritt Drive — as the primary access route, creating traffic and safety concerns for adjacent neighborhoods. County Commissioner Katie Delaney urged the board to rescind the permit in a written statement read during the meeting.

At the outset of the hearing the board granted Apollo Gardens’ motion to intervene and be designated an interested party. Attorney Eric Page, representing Apollo Gardens, told the board he sought party status so the developer could protect its entitlement if the board found otherwise: “we are asking to intervene in the events that the board does not find consistency with Mr. Parrish’s recommendation,” Page said, citing the city’s resolution on quasi‑judicial proceedings.

Page also asked the board to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the city’s land development regulations — not the comprehensive plan — define the board’s authority. The board voted unanimously to deny that dismissal request and to proceed with the hearing, a result the chair summarized as the board having authority to consider the matter.

The third issue before the board was whether appellant Vicki Conklin had standing as an “affected property owner or his agent” under Titusville code. Conklin said she filed the appeal timely and that she lives in the adjacent Royal Oak subdivision and represents Royal Oak Neighbors LLC; she told the board she paid a $625 filing fee to bring the formal appeal. “We paid $625 to come to you because the city is not listening to us and they’re violating their comprehensive plan,” Conklin said.

Dozens of nearby residents spoke in support of Conklin’s standing at the hearing, with several signing cards authorizing her to represent them. Speakers cited potential traffic, emergency‑response, flooding and property‑value impacts if the 84‑unit development proceeds with access from a 22‑foot‑wide residential street. “The traffic study is flawed … this should not go forward,” said resident Elizabeth Parker, who described the proposal as an 84‑unit project.

City counsel and staff cited Titusville code provisions in debate. The city attorney’s memo identified Titusville code section 34‑249 and related code sections that require an affected property owner or agent to file an appeal. Apollo Gardens’ attorney referenced city ordinance language at 31‑51 and case law to argue the board lacked jurisdiction over comprehensive‑plan claims.

After discussion the board voted on Conklin’s standing. The roll call on the motion to approve her standing was: Chairman Taylor, No; Vice Chairwoman VanDiven, Yes; Member Beckles, No; Member Green, Yes; Member Wheelers, No. With two votes in favor and three opposed, the motion failed. The board concluded Conklin did not have standing and the public hearing on the appeal ended. The chair said, “With this vote that ends this procedure, we’re not going forward.”

During public comment several speakers and a county commissioner said they would consider legal options if the city allowed the project to proceed. Pablo Herder, a fair‑housing attorney with Florida Legal Services, urged officials to treat developments in ways that comply with federal fair‑housing protections for people with disabilities. Other speakers described prior incidents at comparable facilities in nearby cities and cited concerns about increased emergency calls and public‑safety impacts.

The board took three formal steps during the meeting: it granted Apollo Gardens party status, denied the developer’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and rejected the motion to find the appellant had standing. The meeting record shows the board allowed Apollo Gardens to intervene before ultimately deciding the appellant lacked standing; the board did not reach the substantive merits of the comprehensive‑plan claims.

The board closed the item and later recessed; staff said several applications are scheduled for the next meeting. Residents in the chamber urged the board to reconsider its standing vote; several said they intend to pursue appeals or litigation under the city code and state law.

The board did not adopt a new decision on the permit itself; the meeting record reflects only the procedural rulings described above.