Letter: Questions to consider about Tomoka Oaks golf course development

What are your neighbors talking about this week?

  • By
  • | 4:00 p.m. December 4, 2023
  • Ormond Beach Observer
  • Opinion
  • Share

More Tomoka Oaks questions

Dear Editor:

If the City Commission said 272 homes on the former Tomoka Oaks golf course were too many, why is the developer now asserting a right to build 317 homes?

Why are they calling any significant reduction of homes “an exercise in futility”? Was it a futile exercise when hundreds of residents turned out in historic numbers at five public hearings to oppose the overdevelopment plan?

Does Florida’s newly enacted Community Planning Act preempt local government power to approve or reject development applications? Will this eliminate public hearings?

While the new statute is designed to protect development property rights, does it equally protect adjacent property rights?

Can Ormond Beach land use codes and policies still protect the neighborhood character, safe traffic flow, and the inherent property rights of 550 homeowners in Tomoka Oaks, 990 homeowners in The Trails, and all the homeowners in neighboring Talaquah, Escondido Condos, and Tomoka Oakwood North Condos?

After less than three years of ownership, do corporate property rights take legal precedence over the rights of adjacent homeowners who have owned their properties for more than 60 years?

Would Tomoka Reserve developer property rights be satisfied if the city allowed, as it did in 2006, a 122-unit townhouse development in the center of the golf course property, with the surrounding golf course footprint preserved in perpetuity?

Did a 75-day study by the Planning Board and a 42-day review by the City Commission deny the Tomoka Reserve golf course developers, as they claim, opportunity for “meaningful” negotiations?

If the Tomoka Reserve golf course redevelopment plan legally meets all Ormond Beach standards, why did the applicants find it necessary to recently hire a Ponte Vedra attorney to claim the city’s land use decisions violate Florida property rights statutes?

Has this attorney considered case law precedent, established in the 2014 Heatherwood Holdings case by the U.S. 11th Judicial Court of Appeals, protecting communities from golf course conversions to residential housing even after the golf course has closed?

Jeff Boyle

Ormond Beach

Send letters up to 400 words to [email protected]. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.


Latest News


Your free article limit has been reached this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited digital access to our award-winning local news.