- April 10, 2026
If city officials felt there were too many of one type of development in a certain area, could they restrict or change land uses?
In recent years, constructions of businesses, particularly storage units and car washes, have been met with criticism from residents, many of whom have told Ormond Beach Planning Board members and city officials that the city's existing businesses serve the current need.
Planning Board member Al Jorczak broached the topic at the board's meeting on Thursday, April 9.
"I'm trying to get to where our rules and regulations limit our ability to say what do want that community to look like," Jorczak said.
Local governments are currently constrained by the effects of Senate Bill 180, which prohibits them from making land development regulations more restrictive or enacting moratoriums — at least until Oct. 1, 2027, when the bill's provisions will sunset.
SB 180 aside, Planning Board Director Steven Spraker explained that the elimination of a business use in a zoning district would require data analysis of a "legitimate public purpose" to support the Planning Board's and City Commission's direction.
Using storage units as an example, Jorczak said that the fundamental question was: Is there a better use for the property in which a potential new storage facility is proposed?
He acknowledged that property owners have rights, but as the board looked at the issue from a planning standpoint, he said maybe there should be a way to direct what they want the city to look like. Nobody wants to see storage units lined up and down U.S. 1, he said.
"That would not be something I think that the residents of Ormond Beach, or even the city officials, would particularly like to see, but they (property owners) have the ability," Jorczak said. "If you had the land available to do that."
During his comments, Jorczak referenced one particular project — a 166,000-square-foot storage facility coming to 490 N. U.S. 1. The property spans about 24 acres and is zoned Light Industrial, meaning it didn't need to go before the Planning Board or City Commission for approval.
Each property is unique, Spraker said, and zoning is a framework.
"It is a menu of choices," he said. "So if you don't like the menu of choices and you want to amend it, I say once Senate Bill 180 is either modified, repealed or expires, you have that option."
At the same time, he added, the project at 490 N. U.S. 1 represents a $19 million investment.
"So somebody's done the market research," Spraker said. "Somebody believes that the growth of the U.S. 1 corridor is going to require that."
There was a similar conversation in the early 2000s about the city having too many banks, Spraker added. Since then, several banks have been redeveloped or demolished.
If something has already been zoned a certain way, Board Chair Doug Thomas said he wasn't interested in trying to take property rights away from owners and tell them what they can or can't do.
"There's a lot of residents in the city who would like you to put a sign out at the border of Georgia and say nobody else can move to Florida," Thomas said. "But just because that's what those people, that minority of people, say doesn't mean that that's what's best for everyone."
Newly appointed board member Amber Bobak, who became involved in the city due to concerns with the Circle K project in her neighborhood, said she understood Jorczak's point. The construction of the gas station at 699 S. Nova Road is now underway, and because it was an allowed use on the former Bank of America property due to its B-8 Commercial zoning designation, the project didn't need the City Commission's approval, even though there are already two gas stations on the other side of Nova Road.
Bobak said there does appear to be an imbalance between residents' property rights and those of commercial property owners.
" I think that's what's being addressed here is, 'How do we come up with a more balanced situation?'" she said.
Board member Troy Railsback said he would feel frustrated as a property owner if he bought land that a permitted use, and one day, it was changed.
"So someone who buys in the Airport Business Park, we're going to tell them that they can't put an airport manufacturing business and a supply business in the Airport Park, because there's too many of them in there?" Railsback said.
