- April 28, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
At Monday's meeting, Attorney Rob Merrell said the developers would be willing to "round out" the intersection to improve traffic flow. Rendering courtesy of the city of Ormond Beach
Attorney Rob Merrell speaks during the public hearing for the proposed Tomoka Reserve development on Monday, Aug. 21. Photo by Jarleene Almenas
Board members Angeline Schull, Doug Thomas and Barry du Moulin listen during the public hearing for the proposed Tomoka Reserve development on Monday, Aug. 21. Photo by Jarleene Almenas
Board members Troy Railsback, Angeline Schull, Doug Thomas, Barry du Moulin and Al Jorczak listen during the public hearing for the proposed Tomoka Reserve development on Monday, Aug. 21. Photo by Jarleene Almenas
Board members Mike Scudiero Troy Railsback, Angeline Schull, Doug Thomas, Barry du Moulin, Al Jorczak and GG Galloway listen during the public hearing for the proposed Tomoka Reserve development on Monday, Aug. 21. Photo by Jarleene Almenas
Attorney Dennis Bayer speaks during the public hearing for the proposed Tomoka Reserve development on Monday, Aug. 21. Photo by Jarleene Almenas
When it comes to the development of the Tomoka Oaks golf course — if it happens — Ormond Beach Planning Board members want to get it "right."
And after receiving a new site plan three days before the Tomoka Reserve's continued public hearing on Monday, Aug. 21, the board members voted unanimously to follow city staff's recommendation: Continue the meeting to Tuesday, Sept. 26, at Calvary Christian Center, to let the Planning Department review the developers' new proposal in depth.
"I think what's more important, no matter which side you're on, is that we get it right," Board member GG Galloway said. "That's what we're talking about. What is fair to both sides?"
Monday's meeting was a continuation of a five-hour Planning Board meeting held on July 13, when over 30 residents of Tomoka Oaks and surrounding neighborhoods voiced their opposition to the development. Board members were also concerned about the development proposal, especially its density, the traffic it could generate and its compatibility with Tomoka Oaks.
Since then, developers Carl Velie, Ray Barshay, and Sheldon and Emily Rubin have altered their proposal for the 147-acre golf course at 20 Tomoka Oaks Blvd. Changes include reducing the number of lots from 276 to 272, eliminating the proposed 50-foot lots in the interior of the subdivision and replacing them with 60-foot lots, and replacing some of the 80-foot lots around the perimeter with 90-foot lots and 100-foot lots.
The developers also agreed to follow staff's recommendations on setbacks, add sidewalks on Tomoka Oaks Boulevard and retain the existing 50-foot buffer between Tomoka Oaks and natural preservation areas on the golf course.
City Planning Director Steven Spraker said the developers submitted their changes after the city publicly advertised the meeting. He recommended that the board, if it wants to consider the changes, do so at a new public hearing.
"It needs to be reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee," he said. "It needs to be advertised, and it needs to give a chance for everyone to review it and then to provide public comments to the board."
Velie expressed the developers' view of the outcome of the meeting in a statement to the Observer.
"Our efforts to accommodate constructive feedback shared by planning board members, city staff, and neighbors, following the July hearing, has taken our repurposed Tomoka Reserve plans back for another step in the public hearing process," Velie wrote. "This was not the outcome we were looking for, but we’re fine with taking one step back in the hopes to take two steps forward in the approval process. We’ve made good progress and will continue to work in good faith to hammer out a good win-win for our proposed community within Ormond Beach.”
Dennis Bayer, the attorney representing the volunteer Tomoka Oaks Homeowners Association, said he thought further delays in the review process would be unfortunate. Still, he acknowledged that the HOA continues to have "areas of significant disagreement" with the developers.
"This development is going to have a significant impact on the quality of life of the existing, taxpaying property owners in the area, and that's what is fueling the comments that we're making," Bayer said.
Two of the major disagreements surround lot sizes and density.
At the last meeting, the HOA and many residents said they want the developer to make all the development's perimeter lots 100-foot lots.
This is not urban infill. This is the development of open recreational green space, and it's been developed around by the homeowners expecting it to remain open space."
— Dennis Bayer, attorney representing the Tomoka Oaks HOA
Attorney Rob Merrell, representing the developers, said the developers didn't believe this was possible. They proposed a compromise: adding 90-foot lots and 100-foot lots to the perimeter to replace some of the previously proposed 80-foot lots.
"I think what most of the folks were saying from the audience from the Tomoka Oaks community [was], 'We want the back of our lots to look like the back of your lots,'" Merrell said. "So to a great extent, we've done that. And I will remind you that in addition to that, we've come up with a buffer that I think is significant."
The HOA continues to push for 100-foot lots around the perimeter.
In terms of density, Bayer said removing four lots from the plan wasn't a big change. Board members agreed.
"I'm no math whiz, but the compromise between zero and 276 is not 272," Board member Mike Scudiero said.
Bayer asked the board to consider the density of the last development that was approved for the golf course property, which is zoned as a Planned Residential Development. In 2006, the City Commission approved a 122-unit development on 30 acres of the golf course.
Due to the 2008 recession, it was never built.
"This is not urban infill," Bayer said. "This is the development of open recreational green space, and it's been developed around by the homeowners expecting it to remain open space."
Traffic has also concerned residents.
At the previous July 13 hearing, Sans Lassiter, president of LTG Engineering and Planning, said a traffic study conducted by his firm calculated that the subdivision would add about 2,774 daily trips. The study found that the existing diamond intersection at Tomoka Oaks Boulevard and St. Andrews Drive was sufficient.
City staff disagreed and recommended the developers reconfigure the intersection. At Monday's meeting, Merrell said the developers would be willing to "round out" the intersection to improve traffic flow. The developers will also add landscaping.
"We recognize that this ends up being the entrance to our community, so we're going to do this 100% on our dime," Merrell said.
If the commission approves the development, the developers will also apply to the Florida Department of Transportation for a traffic signal at Nova Road and Tomoka Oaks Boulevard within 30 days.
Some residents believe the golf course's original 1963 covenant — which stated that the land must be used perpetually as a golf course — remains valid.
For board member Barry du Moulin, that's an issue to double-check.
"If we build on land that shouldn't have been built on, that's going to be a mistake," he said.
Attorneys representing the developers, the HOA and the city believe the covenant was released in the 1970s.
"We recognize that this ends up being the entrance to our community, so we're going to do this 100% on our dime."
— Rob Merrell, attorney representing the developers
Board Chair Doug Thomas, who lives in Tomoka Oaks, said he was glad city staff and the board will take time to review the new changes, because the plans have continued to evolve between each meeting. This issue is too important, he added.
"What happens if we just went ahead now and either voted yes or no?" Thomas said. "What changes are going to be made between now and when it goes to the City Commission?"
Board member Troy Railsback said he thought the development could be altered to better conform to the area, and he remained concerned about density.
"I think there's an opportunity to not try and squeeze as many properties in there as possible," he said.
The development is essentially an "enclave within an enclave," said board member Al Jorczak. All developments add traffic, but he'd like to see if there are ways to mitigate impacts to surrounding neighborhoods.
"It's a little bit like asking cattle and sheep to graze on the same piece of property, and that's probably not reasonable," Jorczak said.
The proposal needs more work, he said. If a different use for the property is possible — something he said was probably unlikely — he encouraged citizens to bring it forward.
Board member Angeline Schull said the board needs to take the time to review plans and address all concerns.
"This is not a typical neighborhood that we have going in here," she said. "This is not like Plantation Oaks that has nobody around it. ... It is infill, but this is not derelict land infill. This is a beautiful piece of property inside a community."
