Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council to uphold denial of Royal Oak plan; council declines immediate reconsideration
Summary
Citizens and neighborhood groups urged the Titusville City Council not to reopen its earlier unanimous rejection of a comprehensive‑plan amendment for the Royal Oak golf course property, citing drainage, recharge and deed dedications; council indicated it will not rescind the denial and asked staff to continue a small‑area study and, at a later point, provide executive‑session briefings on litigation and settlement offers if appropriate.
Residents from the Royal Oak neighborhood and nearby homeowners urged the City Council on June 9 to stand by its February denial of a comprehensive‑plan amendment requested for redevelopment of the former Royal Oak Golf Course. Speakers said the property functions as a regional drainage/recharge area, that historical dedications and drainage parcels complicate redevelopment, and that litigation pressure should not substitute for planning evidence.
At the meeting the city attorney said the applicant had requested that council rescind its prior order denying the amendment; that request would require a new motion and majority vote. Several residents and neighborhood representatives said no new technical evidence had been supplied and that the city’s small‑area study — directed after the February decision — is already underway and should be completed before any reconsideration. "Please follow the evidence, protect the integrity of Titusville's planning process," said Seth Adams, a resident speaker who noted the risk of allowing litigation to become a tool to change land‑use outcomes.
Vicky Conlin, speaking on behalf of Royal Oak Neighbors LLC, asked council to abide by its unanimous February denial and to allow the small‑area study to proceed. Other residents asked for the RFP for the study to be published broadly, requested that hydrology and recharge be included, and said the city should review recorded 1960s dedications and easements before any change.
Member Nelson said he would not move to rescind the previous denial; the council did not take action to reopen the decision. Nelson asked the city attorney to schedule an executive session if the applicant's settlement offer requires confidential discussion; the city attorney said she would explore options and, if appropriate, arrange an executive session after coordinating with opposing counsel.
Residents and council agreed the small‑area study should proceed and that the technical questions raised — drainage, stormwater impacts, recharge soils, and recorded dedications — must be addressed before any subsequent proposal might be considered.
