- November 26, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
The 147.94-acre former Tomoka Oaks golf course property has been zoned PRD for 17 years. Map courtesy of the city of Ormond Beach
The developers of the proposed Tomoka Reserve subdivision are leaving another Ormond Beach Planning Board public hearing with a recommendation of denial.
On Thursday, Jan. 11, the board reviewed a request to rezone the 147.94-acre former Tomoka Oaks golf course property from a Planned Residential Development to R-2 “Single-family low density" during its meeting, held at Tomoka Christian Church. Developers Carl Velie, Ray Barshay, Sheldon Rubin and Emily Rubin are pursuing a rezoning since their previous plan to construct 272-homes was turned down by the City Commission last November.
The property was zoned R-2 prior to 2006, when it was rezoned PRD to allow a developer to build 35 townhomes and six condo buildings on 30 acres of the golf course, a development that never took place due to the recession.
But the board believed that, just because it was previously zoned R-2, doesn't mean it should be today, voting unanimously to recommend the commission deny the rezoning request.
"Just because it used to be, to me, is not meeting the burden of proof," Board Chair Doug Thomas said.
The golf course has been coined the "hole in the doughnut" by Tomoka Oaks residents and Dennis Bayer, the attorney representing its homeowners' association, because it is completely surrounded by the neighborhood. Planning Board member Troy Railsback said the developer purchased the former golf course property knowing that it came with a lack of entitlements since it was zoned PRD for the last 17 years.
"If you fill the doughnut with a non-conforming use, or bad ingredients, it's going to taste bad and it's going to make us sick," Railsback said. "They're looking for sweet jelly to explode the whole doughnut hole."
Planning Board members were on alert since the start of the meeting.
Earlier that morning, they had each received a letter from Karl Sanders, the attorney representing the developers, opposing that the HOA be granted party intervener status, which allows them to present their case before the board and the City Commission.
The board saw it as an intimidation tactic and said it was an example of how developers are bullying volunteer boards and commissions their way.
"I do not like getting an email at 7:18 this morning with the applicant sending out a letter with all kinds of objections and conditions and everything else," Thomas said. "I look at that as either being totally unprepared or intimidation — and if you're going to try and intimidate me, you might as well hit me upside the head with a two-by-four, because you're going to get my attention."
Thomas said he didn't appreciate being notified at the last minute, saying it was unfair to both the board members and the residents who attended the meeting.
Board member GG Galloway said coming to the board with threats or with the intent to bully the board to approve a project is inappropriate.
"It's now time that we stand up to the land use attorneys and we work together instead of threaten us with words like, 'I'm going to go nuclear on you,'" Galloway said.
Sanders apologized to the board, saying that the letter he wrote was not written for the board, but for City Attorney Randy Hayes, and that the opposition has to be raised to be part of the record.
"My communication was designed to ensure that Mr. Bayer had as much time as this board deemed necessary, he deemed necessary, to provide a meaningful opportunity to present his clients' objections and concerns," Sanders said.
The previous 272-home development order application was directed by the City Commission to be reviewed again by the Planning Board due to concerns about density, traffic and irrigation in the buffer. Instead of continuing to pursue this, the developers opted to ask for a rezoning, which could allow them to build more homes than their previous proposal.
Planning Director Steven Spraker said there's been a lot of numbers floating around regarding the number of homes that could be built on the former golf course.
"Quite honestly, we don't know until we see a site plan that's been engineered, it's taken into (consideration) tree preservation, natural areas," Spraker said. "So we're not going to be able to answer it."
The city's planning staff recommended the Planning Board deny the developers' rezoning request to R-2, stating that the PRD should be preserved because of the property's unique characteristics and because a PRD zoning provides the opportunity to "harmonize the challenges presented by the proposed development of the former golf course land in a manner that best satisfies the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and land development code regulations," according to a staff report.
"The actions taken by Triumph Oaks of Ormond Beach I, LLC, show an unwillingness by the applicant to address concerns that have been identified by the Planning Board, the City Commission, and the residents of Tomoka Oaks subdivision," the staff report states.
The board was not there to rehash the previous 272-home development order application, Sanders said.
All the developers are asking now, he said, is that the city revert the zoning district back to what it was historically: R-2.
"So to the extent that there are any questions or concerns of any kind about any proposed development on this piece of property, we're not going to talk about that tonight," Sanders said. "That was the purpose of the prior hearings, where the PRD development was an attempt to negotiate an agreement that was acceptable to both the city and to the neighbors. That failed, so we move forward."
The property has no zoning entitlements under a PRD without a development order, Sanders said. There's nothing the developers can do on the property without a rezoning granting them new entitlements, he argued.
"We want an opportunity to have the same rights for our property," Sanders said. "We're entitled to have development rights for our property, just like everyone else, and what everyone is entitled to, in any jurisdiction, is a zoning code that lists zoning districts, allowed uses and development standards. We don't have that anymore because the PRD expired, so we're in limbo."
Bayer said he was made aware that the developers were opposing the HOA be granted party intervener status at about 4:50 p.m. Thursday. The Planning Board meeting started at 6 p.m.
Bayer said he didn't want to further delay the process, but that they would raise the issue when it came before the City Commission as they believe they have sufficient evidence to support a party intervener status.
"My clients are the doughnut that surround the hole," Bayer said. "They're the hole that's trying to come in now and affect substantially our neighborhood."
If the developers are given an R-2 zoning, they can then "paint the canvas however they want," Bayer said. A site plan review is all they would need to develop the property, and that's a technical process.
"As your staff has pointed out, if that canvas is painted under a PRD designation, then you're going to help pick the colors, you can help pick the confines," Bayer said. "We go through the same process that was there before."
Tomoka Oaks resident Carolyn Davis said that the property isn't in "limbo," as the attorney argued. The developers can bring back a development order under a PRD zoning to be considered by the commission.
"Nowhere does the now-expired development order state the land use will revert to R-2," Davis said, citing the city's 2006 PRD development order.
That order was for a maximum of 119 units, and the 2006 developer was represented by Rob Merrell, who is also part of the legal team representing the current developers. If the Planning Board members inquire about an acceptable density, that's what she would point to.
"In fact, Rob Merrell described it as the poster child for smart development," Davis said. "I could not agree more."
The PRD process was working, Tomoka Oaks resident Michelle Zirkelbach said. What failed is that it didn't give the developers exactly what they wanted.
"I have my daughter's seventh grade citizenship project," she said. "On here, what we want: Open land. We want space. What we don't want: A bunch of junk jammed in a doughnut hole."
Board member Mike Scudiero said that when he buys something, he likes to know what he's buying.
"It sure seems to me like the applicant bought a piece of property with no entitlements, as was said here tonight," Scudiero said. "It's like buying a car without an engine — seems like a bad idea to me."
Board member Barry du Moulin said he didn't understand why the developer insists on building as many homes as possible on the property. He raised concerns about infrastructure and traffic and said the property could instead be developed similar to Broadwater, which has large estate homes.
"If you develop these kinds of estates on that property, I think that would be a jewel for the developer," du Moulin said.
If something is to be developed on the former golf course property, board member Al Jorczak said it should be "above and beyond" anything ever done in Ormond Beach.
"We should be moving toward excellence and not just whatever the common practices are, even in other communities," Jorczak said. "It's a special community and it's a special spot."
Maybe, it requires a special zoning district too, he added.
The developers and their attorneys kept telling the board at previous hearings that the board needed to tell them what they wanted for Tomoka Reserve, board member Angeline Schull said.
"We did," she said. "We told you less density and you weren't willing — we had the slightest change of like three or four homes, so it's very frustrating for you to come back now and say, 'Oh, well now we want R-2 so we can put more homes in there.'"
Thomas said that when the developers bought the property in 2021, it was zoned PRD. In his opinion, it should remain zoned as such.
"Three times we have told them what we want, and three times they have just walked away and said, 'The heck with that, we're not doing that,'" Thomas said. "So here we are, and it's going to be ... a unanimous decision."
