- November 27, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
The Ormond Beach City Commission is sending the developers of Tomoka Reserve, the proposed 272-home subdivision development for the former Tomoka Oaks golf course, one step back down the review process.
On Tuesday, Nov. 7, the commissioners unanimously voted to return the development proposal to the city's Planning Board in hopes that developers Carl Velie, Ray Barshay, Sheldon Rubin and Emily Rubin will submit a site plan with less density and one that better conforms to the existing Tomoka Oaks residential neighborhood. It was not a decision favored by the developer.
"Can they send us back to the Planning Board involuntarily, is the question?" Attorney Rob Merrell asked, interrupting commission discussion.
"Yes," City Attorney Randy Hayes said.
"OK. Have at it," Merrell said.
About 200 people attended the commission meeting at Calvary Christian Church, many of whom were wearing red shirts asking the commission to save the 147-acre golf course.
The development, which first held a neighborhood meeting two years ago, arrived to the City Commission with a unanimous recommendation of denial for a development order by the Planning Board and city staff due to concerns with density, traffic, incompatible lot widths with the existing Tomoka Oaks community and the developers' proposed planting plan for the 50-foot buffer.
City Commissioner Susan Persis — who represents Zone 3, the zone the development is located — said she hoped a new application reviewed by the Planning Board would address these concerns, starting with a "substantial reduction of units."
"This is a distinctive piece of property in a desirable location and we have only one chance to make a right decision," Persis said.
The former golf course property has had a low density residential future land use for a long time, Merrell told the commission. When the developers bought the shuttered golf course in 2021, they did so with that understanding.
"I don't think [residents] knew that there wasn't always going to be a golf course," Merrell said.
He said his clients took that into consideration when they began to consider how to develop the property.
"We said, 'You know, in order to be respectful of the people that are around us that we know are surprised by this, we probably should come up with a custom plan that respects the neighbors,'" Merrell said. "And so we started this process and this dialogue with them voluntarily."
A Planned Residential Development zoning designation, he explained, meant more negotiation than if the developers submitted a site plan under an R-2 "Single-Family Low Density" zoning, which the property had before it was rezoned to a PRD in 2006 for a 122-unit townhome and condominium project in 30 acres of the golf course. This was never built due to the recession.
In May, the developers submitted an application to develop the former golf course under an R-2 zoning map amendment, should the commission deny the development order, an option referred to in past meetings by the Tomoka Oaks volunteer Homeowners Association's lawyer Dennis Bayer as the "nuclear option."
The developers' latest site plan of 272 homes with a density of 1.84 units per acre was a reduction from their previous proposal of 276 units with a density of 1.87 units per acre.
Two types of lots were included: 60-foot by 120-foot lots in the interior of the subdivision, and 80-foot by 125-foot lots along the perimeter of the property.
"This has been two years coming," Merrell said. "And this is the first time that we've been able to be in a place where somebody could say, 'Here's what we want you to do, and we would support the project, if you did it.' ... I'd really like to hear from you guys."
The Tomoka Oaks HOA has been asking the developers build 100-foot-wide lots on the property since the beginning.
"We have had extensive negotiations," Bayer said. "Unfortunately, a lot of our proposals that have been ignored."
Issues regarding the buffer, density and traffic are still unresolved, he said.
The threat of developing under an R-2 zoning, which Merrell said would eliminate the 50-foot buffer and turn into a 6-foot buffer, put negotiations at a standstill, Bayer said.
"'You don't like our bad project, now from our perspective, we'll make it even worse,' is kind of how my clients saw it when it came up in our discussions," Bayer said. "So instead of having conducted meaningful negotiations, we hit an impasse and that's why the decision is ultimately going to be up to you."
A total of 26 people spoke at the commission meeting. Of those, 24 spoke against the development.
Tomoka Oaks Resident Carolyn Davis, who continues to challenge whether the development of the golf course is legal because the property's original covenant declared it to be used perpetually as a golf course, said that 18 years ago, when the 2006 development came before the commission, three attorneys — Hayes, Merrell and Mayor Bill Partington, who was a commissioner at the time — all agreed that the golf course should be protected.
"Here we go again, same piece of property, same three attorneys, same questions regarding the use of the land," Davis said.
Jim Rose, Tomoka Oaks HOA golf course committee chair, said this has been a long process. The Planning Board dedicated 11 total hours in three hearings to this development.
"I was amazed by the degree of attention that they gave all the people and respect they gave people who came up and testified," Rose said. "And I want to thank the commission. We've met with all of you and you've given an opportunity for the citizens of Tomoka Oaks to tell their fears and their concerns and we appreciate that too."
Residents of neighboring subdivision The Trails were also present at the commission meeting, with traffic being a top concern as they feared residents leaving Tomoka Oaks may use their neighborhood streets to access Granada Boulevard rather than go out through Tomoka Oaks Boulevard to Nova Road, particularly during an emergency.
"The developers say they will make sure there are emergency exits from the proposed development," resident Darla Widnall said. "It doesn't matter. All roads lead to The Trails."
Two people spoke in favor of the project, one of whom was Tyler Travis. He said that, while he respected the views of the Tomoka Oaks residents about keeping the golf course as is, he is generally in favor of new development.
"I also don't understand why if the residents see this golf course as so important, see it as a viable business, that they didn't purchase it themselves a few years ago for the price that the developers bought it for," Travis said. "... I think we'd all agree that 150 acres in the middle of Ormond Beach is a priceless piece of property."
Persis said she has yet to hear from one resident of Tomoka Oaks who is in favor of the development. She also cited the fact the Planning Board and city staff didn't recommend the project. The plan before the commission, she said, is one that she could not support.
Her fellow commissioners agreed.
"The entrance reminds me of the U.S. 1/I-95 corridor," Commissioner Travis Sargent said. "It's outdated. It has serious safety issues."
Commissioner Lori Tolland, who shared she lived in Tomoka Oaks when she first moved to Ormond Beach in 1989 and whose father taught her older children how to golf on the course, said she was familiar with the property and the concerns raised by citizens.
"The former golf course is nestled within Tomoka Oaks community," Tolland said. "It's extremely special and unique. It should not be considered a simple infill project, protecting urban sprawl, but rather a new development project that will have a lasting impact in our community."
She mentioned the covenant of keeping the golf course forever, as well as the Tomoka Oaks residents who have researched the issue thoroughly to voice their opposition.
"Just because [developers] have the right to develop the property does not make this proposal in front of us acceptable," Tolland said. "It simply is not compatible are a good fit for this very special and unique property."
Commissioner Harold Briley echoed sentiments by Planning Board members at their last hearing, including that the reduction of four lots was not a significant change and that the development was too important an issue to make a decision on quickly.
"I'm not saying that we just keep kicking the can down the road, but I think there's a potential that we could come up with a lot better of a project that I think is much more acceptable to everyone," Briley said.
Partington said the proposed development was too dense and had too many unaddressed traffic concerns. By remanding it back to the Planning Board, he said he believed those issues could be addressed.
"We've got one chance to get this right," Partington said. "And so taking a little extra time doesn't bother me one bit."
