- November 21, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
Ormond Beach and Tomoka Oaks residents stand and applaud the commission's decision to deny the golf course rezoning request. Photo by Sierra Williams
The "hole in the doughnut," Tomoka Oaks golf course. Image from Ormond Beach meeting documents
Ormond Beach and Tomoka Oaks residents filled the meeting space for the Tomoka Oaks golf course rezoning application. Many wore "Save Tomoka Oaks" T-Shirts. Photo by Sierra Williams
Attorney for the applicant Karl Sanders. Photo by Sierra Williams
Attorney for the applicant Karl Sanders (right) with his expert witness Mark Karet, Zev Cohen and Associates director of planning. Photo by Sierra Williams
Attorney for the Tomoka Oaks HOA Dennis Bayer. Photo by Sierra Williams
Ormond Beach residents from the Tomoka Oaks neighborhood speak out against the rezoning application. Photo by Sierra Williams
The Ormond Beach City Commission. Photo by Sierra Williams
The Tomoka Oaks abandoned golf course will remain a golf course, for now.
Ormond Beach’s City Commission unanimously upheld the city Planning Board’s 7-0 decision in January to deny the controversial Tomoka Oaks property a rezoning. All five commissioners at the April 16 meeting ultimately felt the 148 acres and the surrounding residential neighborhoods were best served without the high density an R-2 residential development zoning would add to the area.
Instead, the 147-acre property will stay a Planned Residential Development zoning.
“The PRD ... represents smart growth for our community,” Commissioner Susan Persis said.
The golf course is currently zoned a PRD. Triumph Oak of Ormond Beach I LLC, the property owner, was applying to change the zoning to R-2, “single family low density.” The applicant’s attorney, Karl Sanders, argued that the city had no reason beyond public opinion to deny the Triumph Oak zoning request.
Sanders argued that the commission not approving the zoning change would leave the applicant without a way forward for development; it would also leave the city open to a $40 million lawsuit.
“No one wants to do that,” he said, “which is why I implore you to follow what the law requires.”
FROM COMPROMISE TO THREAT OF LAWSUIT
Sanders argued that without the R-2 zoning designation, the City Commission was leaving the property owners without any entitlements to move forward with developing their property.
“You have to assign something,” Sanders said. “You cannot leave someone in no man’s land.”
The golf course opened in 1962, remained in-use for almost six decades, and was listed with an R-2 zoning, according to April 16 meeting documents.
In 2006, the property was rezoned to a PRD to allow a previous property owner to build 35 townhomes and six condo buildings on 30 acres of the golf course. The development was intended to be a “low impact development,” the documents said, to preserve the “unique characteristics and historical connection” between the golf course and subdivision.
But then the recession hit, the development was never built, and the development order expired in 2014. The golf course closed in 2018.
Triumph Oaks purchased the property in 2021 with the land still zoned for a PRD. The owners first applied for a 272-single-family residential development order to replace the order that expired.
But the issue, Commissioner Travis Sargent said, was that in Triumph’s development order application there was no willingness to negotiate down on the number of homes.
Sargent said the developers repeatedly asked, “What can we do?” but made no moves to compromise when told the issue was the number of homes planned for the development.
“How did we start off with, ‘We want to listen to the residents,’ and now we’re under threats?” Sargent said.
In November 2023, the commission rejected the development order request and sent it back to the Planning Board for further review, but the applicant instead withdrew its application. Sanders argued that decision left the applicant with no choice but to pursue the R-2 zoning change.
Sanders said the R-2 zoning aligns with all of the city’s land development code and comprehensive plan’s requirements. He brought in his own expert planning witness, Mark Karet, planning director of Zev Cohen and Associates, to review the application.
When Sanders asked if Karet could think of a reason to deny the application, Karet said no.
Based on this application, Karet said, “There can’t be a legitimate purpose for denying a person the ability to develop their property.”
Sanders also submitted several handouts to the commissioners of earlier drafts of city planning staff’s reports and emails between Ormond Beach Planning Director Steven Spraker and City Attorney Randy Hayes. The emails and reports, Sanders said, showed staff were having difficulty finding a reason to deny to the zoning request.
The Observer was unable to obtain the documents in time for publication.
Commission members took offense to Sanders submitting the packets of information during the meeting, instead of ahead of time, allowing no time for the commission to read the information. They appreciated even less Sanders’ allusion to a pricey lawsuit.
“I really do think it was totally inappropriate and really rude to supply documents tonight,” Commissioner Lori Tolland said. “And I don’t appreciate the convoluted threat, either.”
R-2 ZONING NO LONGER FITS
But the commission agreed with its Planning Board’s decision: The R-2 designation from years prior no longer fits with what exists in the area.
Many residents were concerned about how the additional traffic would strain the area, especially as the golf course only had one entrance, and the commissioners agreed.
“I don’t see this as being safe,” Persis said.
Persis also said a large development built under the R-2 designation would alter the characteristics of the neighboring communities. Tolland agreed, saying this is what everyone has told the developers all along.
“You didn’t hear the residents, you didn’t hear the planning board and you haven’t heard what the commissioners are saying now,” Tolland said.
The Tomoka Oaks Homeowners Association lawyer Dennis Bayer also made a presentation during the meeting under an intervener status. He argued the property has changed significantly since the last time it held the R-2 zoning.
“What you’re dealing with here is a golf course that was constructed at the same time as all the 340-some residences in that neighborhood,” Bayer said.
Bayer brought in his own witness, planner Tommy Harowski, with over 50 years of planning experience. Harowski submitted a study in advance of the April 16 meeting based on the almost 300-home development that was planned for Triumph Oaks’ development order application.
“It’s not automatic that rezoning to R-2 is mandatory or even maybe the most appropriate choice 60 years on,” Harowski said. “The facts have changed.”
He said the compatibility of the project depends not just on the surrounding properties’ zonings, but on the proposed development’s impact on the existing subdivisions.
“In summary, the proposed development creates a negative, intrusive impact in Tomoka Oaks,” Harowski said.
As far as Sanders’ argument that the city was leaving the developer without development entitlements, Bayer said, one just has to look at what the expectation of development was when Triumph Oaks bought the property.
“If their arguments are true that it has no entitlements on it, it had no entitlements when they bought it, either,” Bayer said.
FINDING THE ‘MAGIC NUMBER’
Ormond Beach Deputy Mayor Harold Briley said that, to him, it seems most residents are open to some form of development at the golf course, but the “magic number” hasn’t been found yet.
“I don’t think it’s not about ‘We’re not going to let you develop,’” Briley said.
A PRD, Briley said, does not prohibit development. Spraker said that designation still allows the developer to negotiate. Mayor Bill Partington said the original 2006 agreement suited the needs of the residents and the uniqueness of the property.
“It made sense on what is an exceptionally unique piece of property,” Partington said.
The PRD zoning made sense to protect both the city as a whole and the residents who live adjacent to the golf course, he said. Partington said he was convinced by the testimony that the PRD zoning was the best way to continue protecting the city’s comprehensive plan, land development code — and residents.
A path forward to developing the golf course, Spraker and Briley said, is going to need to find a compromise the residents and developers can agree on.
“I think the key point is finding that [number] where the applicant and the residents and then the city can live with,” Spraker said, “whatever that magic number is.”
