Titusville council denies PD South rezoning after residents warn of flooding and habitat loss

Titusville, Fla.

The Titusville City Council on Nov. 11 rejected a developer'led request to change the future land-use map and rezone property at South Singleton Avenue and State Road 405 for a 62-unit townhome proposal known as PD South. After more than two hours of technical presentations and nearly as many public speakers describing recent flooding, the council voted to deny the small-scale amendment and the rezoning.

The applicant's attorney, Anna Long of Dean Mead, said the project team could not obtain required permits if post-development runoff exceeded existing conditions and that the developer would "ensure that the net flow after developed will be less than it is today." She also said the proposal would place roughly 10.81 additional acres into conservation.

But residents and several council members said those assurances were not enough given recent heavy rains. Long-time neighbor Tom Dobson told the council the site drains into a lake on his property and that the area is among the city's most sensitive stormwater management zones. "This is the wrong plan in the wrong place at the wrong time," Dobson said during public comment. Similar appeals were made by more than a dozen other neighbors, who submitted a petition signed by 65 residents and presented photos and local flood observations.

City staff and consultants presented site assessments and technical analysis. Karen Teufer of Kimley-Horn, the stormwater engineer on the project, showed topographic and drainage maps and said the team planned detention ponds to capture on-site runoff and that state and city rules do not allow increasing peak flow or volume to adjacent wetlands. "We are committing to reducing our net runoff from the site," Teufer said. Traffic consultant James Taylor said the land-use amendment being proposed would actually reduce the theoretical maximum trip generation compared with the current future-land-use build-out, and that intersections would operate within FDOT and city capacity standards under the study assumptions.

Still, council members raised compatibility and timing concerns. Member Stockel said PD zoning (which allows flexible development standards) is inappropriate for the parcel and voiced worry that rezoning now would preclude meaningful review of engineered site plans later. Member Moscoso and others stressed recent flooding and the city's need to update its stormwater master plan before approving major changes.

Member Stockel moved to deny the comprehensive-plan amendment (SSA 2-2024); the motion passed on a roll-call voice vote with Member Nelson, Mayor Connors, Vice Mayor Cole, Member Stoeckle and Member Moscoso recorded in favor. The council then separately denied the rezoning ordinance; those motions carried. The council did not approve a continuance requested by the applicant.

What happens next: With both the plan amendment and rezoning denied, the applicant may revise its proposal, provide additional technical analysis and seek future hearings. Council members said they want more robust engineered assurances and clearer connections to the city's forthcoming stormwater work before reconsidering large-scale zoning changes in this drainage-sensitive area.