Gabrielle Russon
The developers seeking to turn the former Tomoka Oaks golf course into a 300-house gated community are suing Ormond Beach after the city rejected its plans earlier this year.
The federal lawsuit was filed the day after Christmas in the U.S. District Court’s Orlando division.
“The City Commission’s final order reflects an attempt to ‘strong-arm’ Triumph Oaks into relinquishing its constitutional and statutory rights,” the lawsuit said, which is asking for “actual, compensatory and consequential damages” for the failed development.
“The City’s determination that the Property of Triumph Oaks has no zoning entitlements or development rights has eliminated all economic and beneficial use of the Property.”
A group of local business leaders purchased the golf course for $2.6 million with plans to redevelop it into single-family homes. The 18-hole public golf course, which closed in 2018, is surrounded by 500 lots in the existing Tomoka Oaks neighborhood. The new development would add about 300 homes onto what would be called Tomoka Reserve.
The issue drew big crowds at city meetings as residents were fiercely opposed to the development’s size.
“They did not care how we as a neighborhood felt, nor how the city of Ormond Beach felt about this special property, now deemed the ‘hole in the donut.’ Maintaining the charm of our neighborhood as well as ensuring the quality of life in Ormond Beach is so essential,” the Tomoka Oaks Homeowners Association wrote on its website this Fall.
The City Commission unanimously denied the investment group’s request to designate the former golf course as Residential-2 low-density zoning, leading the developers’ attorney to warn litigation was coming, according to the Daytona Beach News-Journal.
“I don’t appreciate the convoluted threat,” City Commissioner Lori Tolland said at the April meeting.
In the 91-page lawsuit, Triumph Oaks detailed the one-year fight to develop the land and said it made concessions when residents and the city’s planning department and officials brought up their concerns. Eventually, the developers refused to eliminate at least 100 homes in the Planned Residential Development plans, the lawsuit said.
When the Ormond Beach Planning Board voted down the project in January, the lawsuit said, “One Planning Board Member remarked, ‘Three times now, we have told them what we wanted.’ Another Planning Board Member remarked that the subject request for reinstating the R-2 zoning map label for the Property ‘doesn’t even come close to what we think we were looking for in terms of how we want our city to develop.'”
Behind the scenes, the developers said they obtained emails that showed the City’s Planning Director had asked for the City Attorney’s help to come up with a rationale to deny the zoning change.
“The Undisclosed City Emails reveal that the City’s Planning Staff was having issues with the analysis of why the R-2 zoning is not appropriate zoning,’” the lawsuit said. “The Undisclosed City Emails further reveal that the City Attorney offered his assistance to the City’s Planning Staff and then proceeded to rewrite the entire Staff Report that was initially drafted by the City’s Planning Director.”
Ormond Beach City Manager Joyce Shanahan and the developers’ attorney did not respond to messages for comment.
3 comments
Victoria Olson
December 31, 2024 at 9:28 am
Why do developers have the right to file a lawsuit because no one wants the development? This is the risk a developer takes when doing a project, they can be shut down due to numerous reasons and the local residents have made their voices heard in disagreement. The never ending Greed to constantly destroy the environment is mind boggling, none of it is Affordable housing, something desperately needed. Perhaps they need some cheese with their whine.
Gary Mostert
December 31, 2024 at 9:43 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the denial by the City to allow a residential build-out of the former golf course. The existing homeowners surrounding the course bought those properties surrounding a green space, and a green space it should remain. The developers only concern is to manipulate the use of the property so as to make a maximum ROE with no regard for the quality of life for surrounding residents.
Of course we all know what the eventual outcome will be; the court will fall in lockstep with the developers and the existing homeowners can go to h*ll, the City will be happy because they were “forced” to accommodate the developers (with the added bonus of add’l. tax revenue) and will be able to avoid the blame because there “is nothing they could do,” the developers will make millions, and stories of congestion quality of life issues in the area will sell papers for years.
Jennifer L Bright
December 31, 2024 at 2:19 pm
I think the bigger issue here is the City is refusing to reinstate the R-2 zoning map label for the Property with out good cause.
There are obtained emails that showed the City’s Planning Director asking for the City Attorney’s help to come up with a rationale to deny the zoning change. So there must not have been cause in the existing Land and Development Code (LDC).
City Attorney offered his assistance to the City’s Planning Staff and then proceeded to rewrite the entire Staff Report that was initially drafted by the City’s Planning Director.
If the City had GOOD CAUSE, there would be nothing for the developers to argue.