A developer wants to remove wetlands in Orange County. Will it make Osceola flood?
Three years ago, as Hurricane Ian dropped nearly 18 inches of water on Central Florida, flooding from Shingle Creek left hundreds of Osceola County residents stranded.
Now Orange County is considering a development that threatens to increase the flood risk.
The Tuscana project would bring over 1,600 hotel rooms and 5,200 multi-family dwelling units to an area of agricultural-zoned land near Central Florida's theme parks and close to parts of 20-mile long Shingle Creek, extending into sensitive wetlands that serve as the headwaters to the Everglades and run through Osceola County.
'Florida originally had like 4 million acres of wetlands and … they're like the kidneys of our land so the pendulum of protecting them as they get more rare is critical,' said Gabrielle Milch of the Sierra Club, noting that wetlands absorb stormwater that otherwise can run off into neighborhoods. 'We've tried to do a good job but the competing interests of economics and social values doesn't always consider the environmental impacts.'
Last week the Tuscana project was set to be reviewed by Orange County's Development Review Committee. But applicant Kimley-Horn, representing developers Shingle Creek Co-owners LLC and Geyer Development LLC, amended its rezoning proposal the night before in an apparent effort to make it more palatable.
Included was a 22-acre decrease, from 58 to 36 acres, of the portion of the development that would remove wetlands. The entire development would occupy 227 acres surrounded by undeveloped forest and lying on the eastern portion of Shingle Creek Basin.
Kimley-Horn had already requested waivers from the county's code to build at a higher density, raising some buildings over 200 feet in the air. In this case, the company argues, the more intense development mitigates the environmental impact by reducing the buildings' footprint and the amount of wetlands affected.
Orange County staff said they didn't have enough time to review the new details and scheduled a decision on whether to move the proposal to public hearings at the next development committee meeting on April 2.
Kimley-Horn declined an interview request from the Orlando Sentinel.
While Orange County staff has many questions for the developer, Tuscana is being judged under more relaxed county rules established in 1987, but later tightened. The developer only needs to show it is attempting to minimize the project's wetland impact and that it doesn't require a cumulative impact analysis, said Tim Hull, environmental programs administrator for the Orange County's environmental protection division.
Kimley-Horn is seeking to make that case. Project Manager Jennifer Stickler told the committee board that the developer plans to offset any impact to the wetlands by preserving over 176 acres.
In 2023 the county adopted a more stringent code that more aggressively protects wetlands, but Tuscana began its application process right before the new code took effect. However, Hull said the county will require Kimley-Horn to explain in more detail how it will handle stormwater as part of its project.
'Shingle Creek is a very important drainage basin in the county,' Hull said. 'The county is very tuned in to flood concerns… once the applicant is at the level where they're providing engineering plans that's when they provide more details on stormwater management.'
Even though the impacts may be felt in Osceola, that county is not involved in the process, Hull said. Instead the South Florida Water Management District, which oversees waters in both Orange and Osceola, has oversight and it has already issued a preliminary permit for the development, he said.
Environmentalists say that's a concern.
John Capece is an environmental researcher who leads Kissimmee Water Keeper, a global network of water protection organizations. Capece said it's alarming that the development is even under consideration, given its invasion into critical wetlands that store so much water.
'The undeveloped complex there west of Shingle Creek where Tuscana is proposed is the largest wetland complex remaining along the Shingle Creek System,' Capece said. 'Whenever you constrain a flood plain, you have the potential to enhance flooding that will occur in other areas.'
Even with the existing level of devleopment, flooding along Shingle Creek during Hurricane Ian in 2022 rendered more than 500 homes uninhabitable in the Good Samaritan retirement community at Kissimmee Village.
Adding to Capece's concern, climate change has made previous flood maps outdated and extreme rainfall events more common, he said. A 2022 study Capece was involved with researching for the South Florida Water Management District estimated that extreme rainfall events would increase by roughly 60% regionwide, including in Orange County, from 2020 through 2059.
'It's a huge amount,' Capece said. 'And it'll generate even more than 60% runoff or flooding because much of the initial rainfall is stored in various parts of wetlands…therefore every acre of wetland, every acre of storage potential becomes more critical.'
Capece said the county or developer should be required to do computer modeling of flooding. State agencies in charge of overseeing multiple counties have become lax, he said.
Tuscana is just the latest illustration of the pressures growth is placing on environmentally sensitive areas in Central Florida. Once protected, Split Oak Forest soon will have a highway slice through a portion of it despite fierce community opposition.
There may be more stringent guidelines in the future. Hull said Orange County's new updated code increases environmental protections. While Tuscana is being considered under the earlier codes, the Board of County Commissioners has the ultimate say as it balances growth with conserving land. The project is scheduled to be presented to the board on May 20.
Gordon Spears formerly sat on the planning and zoning advisory board of Orange County. He said not only will the development increase flood risk but the area lacks urban infrastructure.
'It may pass the development review committee but it wouldn't surprise me if the board of county commissioners don't pass it,' Spears said.
The Shingle Creek basin not only offers wetlands that store water to mitigate flooding but trails and bike paths that are close to the heart of many in the region.
A mother of five, Lauren Allen brought two of her children to the development committee meeting where she spoke against Tuscana. Allen said her kids, who range in age from 7 to 18, enjoy the creek and are worried the development will destroy a treasured play spot.
'One of the things my daughter said is she was very concerned that they were not going to be any more beautyberries because when she had been hiking on one of the trails with her grandma they found them,' Allen said. 'Her grandma said next time we'll make some beautyberry jam but now she's worried she'll never get to make beautyberry jam.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court rejects NFR effort to re-open Centennial Park eminent domain case
A state appellate court has again rejected a request from a South End land owner to overturn its decision in an eminent domain proceeding seeking 10 to 12 acres of land for the proposed Centennial Park project. The request, by Niagara Falls Redevelopment (NFR) and an affiliated company, Blue Apple Properties Inc., came in response to efforts by city officials to reclaim ownership of approximately 5 of the roughly 12 acres of property subject to the eminent domain ruling because NFR never properly gained title to what was previously the 10th Street Park. NFR filed a motion in the Appellate Division Fourth Department of New York State Supreme Court in March asking the justices there to review and reverse their July 28, 2023, unanimous ruling that the city was justified in seeking to use eminent domain to take up to 12 acres of undeveloped land for the park and events center project. Lawyers for NFR had argued that the claim by the city that it already owns some of the proposed park property, based on newly discovered evidence, 'probably would have produced a different result' if the appeals court justices had been aware of it in 2023. 'Because this new evidence is manifestly inconsistent with the facts on which (the July 2023 ruling) is based, (NFR) respectfully asks this Court to vacate (the ruling),' NFR's lead lawyer, John Horn, wrote in a filing with the Fourth Department. Horn also asked the appeals court to 'reject and annul' findings by the Niagara Falls Common Council that the proposed park project would be a public benefit or serve a public purpose. In a blunt, but unsigned, three-sentence decision released on Friday, the court wrote, 'Now upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is hereby ordered that the motion is denied.' Mayor Robert Restaino did not comment on the appeals court ruling. A spokesman for NFR could not immediately be reached for comment. In their original ruling, the Appellate Division justices wrote that 'the city's determination to exercise its eminent domain power 'is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.'' The justices said they came to that conclusion because the Centennial Park proposal would develop parkland and other recreational space as well as 'revitalizing and redeveloping a longstanding vacant lot, which was a blight on the city.' The Niagara Falls City Council has directed the city's corporation counsel to 'take all necessary steps to commence any and all legal action ... in order to declare the transfer of (10th Street Playground, 907 Falls St.) null and void.' The city's special counsel for the Centennial Park project, the Buffalo-based law firm of Hodgson Russ, has filed what is known as a quiet title action to reclaim the former parkland. A quiet title action is a legal proceeding where a lawsuit is filed to establish clear ownership of a property. The city claims the transfer of the playground property in 2004 was not properly completed. NFR has insisted the property was 'lawfully' transferred, and is fighting the quiet title action.


E&E News
a day ago
- E&E News
Sierra Club to lay off dozens of employees
The Sierra Club this week announced plans to lay off about 30 employees, according to the environmental group's staff union. The latest round of cuts to the organization's national staff, announced Tuesday, comes after the group previously announced plans in May to lay off 10 employees at the Sierra Club's chapters, the Progressive Workers Union said in a news release. Those chapter staffers were placed on administrative leave with layoffs effective in early July. The Sierra Club's staff union decried the layoffs, which come as the group is combating the Trump administration's efforts to roll back environmental regulations. Advertisement 'The Sierra Club must be a strong leader against the Trump administration's attempts to eliminate bedrock environmental policies and protections,' said Dylan Plummer, unit representative for the Sierra Club Unit of the Progressive Workers Union. 'It's incomprehensible that the Sierra Club board and executive leadership would again discard the very people who stand on the front lines every single day to carry out this work.'


The Verge
a day ago
- The Verge
Republicans are determined to make you pay more for gas
Things are getting nutty in the world of vehicle fuel economy standards. Last week, Transportation Secretary (and ex-reality TV contestant) Sean Duffy declared that he was resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that govern vehicle fuel efficiency in the US. Duffy confidently declared that the current CAFE standards, in which fuel economy would increase 2 percent per year for passenger car model years 2027–2031 and 2 percent per year for light-duty trucks model years 2029–2031, 'illegally' considered electric vehicles, and therefore were null and void. So while it works on reversing those standards, Duffy said the Trump administration would simply stop enforcing the current ones. The rules were being rewritten to make 'vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States,' Duffy said. Experts say rolling back the CAFE standards will have the opposite effect: cars will be less fuel efficient, forcing their owners to shell out more for gas over time. While it works on reversing those standards, Duffy said the Trump administration would simply stop enforcing the current ones 'Making our vehicles less fuel efficient hurts families by forcing them to pay more at the pump,' Katherine García, director of the Sierra Club's Clean Transportation for All program, said in a statement. 'This action puts the well-being of our communities at risk in every way imaginable. It will lead to fewer clean vehicle options for consumers, squeeze our wallets, endanger our health, and increase climate pollution.' The CAFE standards were first issued in response to the 1973 energy crisis. The law requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set standards for the 'maximum feasible' average fuel economy levels that car and truck manufacturers can achieve in their fleets in a given model year. If the Biden rules were allowed to play out, new cars and passenger trucks would have to travel on average 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. Individual vehicle owners would save an average of $600 in fuel costs over the life of their vehicles. And the US would avoid having to burn more than 70 billion gallons of gasoline through 2050, resulting in more than 710 million metric tons of pollution out of the air — the equivalent of taking more than 230 million vehicles off the road. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are racing ahead with a budget reconciliation bill that would zero out fines for automakers that fail to meet the current CAFE standards — in effect making those rules completely toothless. Noncompliance fines have brought in hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal coffers over the years. Stellantis, which owns Jeep and Dodge, paid over $400 million in civil penalties from 2016–2019, and then $190.7 million from 2019–2020, while General Motors paid $128.2 million in 2016–2017, Reuters reports. 'This action puts the well-being of our communities at risk in every way imaginable.' Naturally, the automakers are giddy at the possibility of zero consequences for exceeding fuel economy standards. 'The standards are out of sync with the current market reality and immediate relief is necessary to preserve affordability and freedom of choice,' Stellantis told Reuters. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents Detroit's Big Three automakers, praised the Republican bill, as well as Duffy's novel interpretation of the current CAFE standards. In 2022, this same group praised President Joe Biden's CAFE standards as 'good and appreciated.' These are the same companies that used to claim to care about fighting climate change and creating a world with 'zero emissions,' as GM once said. Carlos Tavares, who recently resigned as CEO of Stellantis, said last October that he supports stricter emission and fuel economy rules in Europe and the US because he wanted to be on 'the right side of history.' He recalled in wrenching detail the experience of his daughter driving through a wildfire in Portugal, in which the heat was so intense it melted the door panel of her car. Now, when faces with proposals that would worsen the effects of climate change by allowing automakers to make more polluting vehicles, those same automakers are enthusiastic in their support. This shouldn't come as any surprise. Automakers were complicit in the first Trump administration's attempt at weaken fuel economy standards. And they support the administration's efforts to nullify California's ban on the sale of gas-powered cars and trucks by 2035. They are firmly on the side of making more money, not preventing wildfires and floods caused by a heating planet.