A large development proposal Orange County commissioners had previously rejected for the Shingle Creek watershed is now back in motion, following a series of votes commissioners made Tuesday to accept a special magistrate’s recommendation to approve plans proposed by developers and area landowners.
The special magistrate issued the recommendation earlier this month in response to a challenge developers raised against commissioners’ decision to reject the proposed Tuscana project. Project plans call for building more than 4,800 apartment units and nearly 1,300 hotel rooms on nearly 230 acres of land just west of the Shingle Creek preserve.
That land includes nearly 59 acres of wetlands, a key point of concern for environmental advocates and the county’s Environmental Protection Division.
Project background and previous denials
Commissioners voted unanimously last year to reject the project, in keeping with recommendations from EPD and following years of back-and-forth negotiations between developers and county staff.
RELATED: Strike three. Proposed Shingle Creek development is out after Orange County denial
Between 2022 and 2025, developers submitted 11 different versions of their plans for Tuscana to the county, according to Special Magistrate Igmedio E. Pantaleon. Over time, those plans reduced the proposed development’s footprint, reflecting what Pantaleon calls “a genuine, iterative effort to respond to County input rather than a static or unresponsive posture.”
Still, Kobo Development’s latest proposal — the one commissioners rejected in May 2025 — doesn’t satisfy the county’s environmental staff. That’s despite developers’ promise to slightly reduce wetland impacts by partially elevating two access roads that would be built for the project.
Speaking Tuesday, Environmental Programs Administrator Tim Hull said county staff “can appreciate” that developers’ road elevation plans make the Tuscana proposal “a little bit better than what was proposed in May 2025.”
“But essentially, all the elements of inconsistency in the staff report remain. And so EPD's position is still recommending denial,” Hull said.
Despite EPD’s outstanding concerns, commissioners ultimately voted to accept the special magistrate’s recommendations to allow the Tuscana plans to advance. The cost to the county of not doing so — legally and financially — could have been great.
The legal landscape and environmental concerns
The special magistrate’s recommendations were issued in response to a challenge developers filed under the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, or FLUEDRA. That law allows property owners to challenge a government decision they feel is “unreasonable or unfairly burdens” their use of the land.
Separately, Tuscana developers also advised the county earlier this year of their intent to legally challenge the project’s rejection under the Bert Harris Act, which allows landowners to seek monetary damages based on a loss of fair market value. Specifically, developers allege a loss of more than $112 million due to the county’s rejection of their plans for Tuscana.
A different cost has been top of mind for District 1 Commissioner Nicole Wilson, who oversees the area in which Tuscana would be built.
“The cost of this type of impact to this wetland system will be devastating,” Wilson said Tuesday. “We're going to end up cost-burdening the entire area, based on the fact that if we continue to soak up Shingle Creek, we will pay for it, either now or later.”
District 5 Commissioner Kelly Martinez Semrad echoed those concerns, arguing that paving over wetlands near Shingle Creek — the headwaters of the Florida Everglades — would heighten flood risk, ultimately driving up flood and property insurance costs.
“We have filled in Mother Nature so far she can't take it anymore, and we're all suffering the rate in our property insurance and our flood insurance,” Martinez Semrad said. “I'm not willing to risk our property insurance continuously going up.”
But District 3 Commissioner Mayra Uribe said she worries about the hefty legal costs the county would almost certainly face should commissioners reject the special magistrate’s recommendations and open up the county to a lawsuit from developers and a group of area landowners.
Taxpayers would ultimately be on the hook for those legal costs, county staff confirmed Tuesday.
“It is not a wonderful circumstance. This isn't anything to be excited about. But what I do look at is what our job is: to protect taxpayer dollars that are invested in Orange County,” Uribe said.
For her part, Martinez Semrad maintained that the county should be willing to go to court and fight for its right to make local planning decisions.
“I know this might be legally risky, but I'm not willing to risk working families’ homes flooding,” Martinez Semrad said. “When has Mother Nature ever not won? … The answer is never. Mother Nature always takes back what is meant to be hers.”
The outcome
Ultimately, commissioners voted 4-3 to approve two motions. For both, Martinez Semrad, Wilson and District 2 Commissioner Maribel Gomez Cordero were the three voting against.
The first approved motion — to accept the special magistrate’s recommendations to accept the Tuscana developers’ proposal — will effectively “resolve everything,” including the Bert Harris claim and risk of further legal challenges, County Attorney Lee Bernbaum said.
The second approved motion was to have the county attorney’s office respond to the Bert Harris claim, as is required by state law.
Following Tuesday’s votes, a representative for Shingle Creek Co-Owners provided a written statement describing the Tuscana project as “thoughtfully designed to balance environmental considerations with private property rights and the need for housing and economic opportunity in one of Orange County’s most important tourism corridors.”
As commissioners and staff ended their discussion of the Tuscana project Tuesday, Wilson remarked that the board’s votes had effectively “paved over paradise.”
