Brooksville council denies rezoning for 41‑acre Wiscon Road development after flood, traffic and lot‑size concerns

Brooksville — The City Council voted 4–0 on Aug. 12 to deny a rezoning request that would have converted a 41.22‑acre parcel along Wiscon Road from planned multifamily to planned residential, a proposal the developer said would create up to 93 single‑family lots.

The application, heard as Ordinance 9‑83 (R7‑2024‑4), was presented by Cody Bogart of Newkirk Engineering, who described a plan with 93 lots (50 feet wide by roughly 100 feet deep) and a large preserved floodplain/retention area on the western portion of the site. Bogart said the eastern portion would carry the lots and that the developer anticipates standard traffic improvements and a homeowners association to maintain buffers and a uniform fence where required.

City planning staff, represented by Community Development Director Steve Goldman, told the council the site totals about 41.22 acres and that prior entitlements for multifamily/townhome development had lapsed under a sunset clause. Goldman said staff found the proposed single‑family plan generally comparable to nearby developments and recommended approval with the conditions listed in the staff report, including preservation of trees in a 20‑foot buffer, a mail kiosk, a walking path and required transportation analysis.

But multiple council members and residents raised concerns about lot width, neighborhood character, drainage and wastewater capacity on Wiscon Road. One council member urged fellow members to "go look behind Lowe's" to inspect existing narrow‑lot subdivisions and the wet conditions there; others said Wiscon Road is already congested and that approving the rezoning while nearby projects are still under construction risked exacerbating traffic problems. Members also noted a substantial portion of the site lies in the floodplain and questioned whether proposed retention and mitigation would adequately address drainage.

Goldman and Bogart repeatedly said a traffic study and detailed site engineering would be required as the project proceeds, and Bogart argued the smaller lots respond to market demand and help make the project feasible while allowing preservation of floodplain on the western half of the property. "We're adding parks, buffers and a large retention area," Bogart said, noting the design was driven by market viability as well as the site's constraints.

After deliberation the council voted on a motion to deny the rezoning application; the motion passed by roll call, 4–0, denying the applicant's request. The result means the developer will not receive the requested rezoning entitlements at this time. The council record shows the earlier multifamily entitlements had lapsed, leaving the site effectively without active entitlements until the council approves a new zoning decision.

Next steps: The applicant may revise the proposal and return to the planning and zoning process, or the developer could pursue other lawful avenues; the council did not vote to approve an alternative plan. The meeting record shows interest among some members in delaying similar approvals until nearby projects are built and their traffic impacts are measured.

(Reporting in this article is based on the council's quasi‑judicial hearing, testimony from the applicant and planning staff, and public comment presented during the meeting.)