Council rejects first reading of plan to build new fire station inside Jimmy Moore Park after extended public opposition

Melbourne City Council on July 8 rejected, on a first-reading motion, a proposal to change the future land-use designation and approve a site plan for a new fire station on the eastern end of Jimmy Moore Park.

The vote came after more than an hour of testimony from residents who said the 18,000-square-foot building, accompanying parking and a 40-foot training tower would remove playground and picnic areas, require an eight-foot masonry wall and worsen flooding for nearby homes. Fire Chief Chuck Bovofar and the project architect said the site meets operational needs and includes buffers and design elements intended to limit impacts.

The council heard detailed presentations from the city planning staff and the city fire chief, and dozens of residents spoke during public comment. Opponents said the plan would take roughly 40 percent of the park's open grass areas, kill mature trees, and reduce a unique nearby community play space used for little league and family gatherings. Multiple residents said the park already suffers from deferred maintenance and that alternatives should be pursued.

Architect Jobe (Joby) Ballant of PGL Architects presented a conceptual site plan that included a single-story station with a small two-story portion for support spaces, crew living quarters, an internal community/training room and apparatus bays on the east side of the building. Ballant said the plan would add public parking, improve ADA access and replace existing worn playground equipment with an accessible playground and future restroom building. Ballant estimated the site work would reduce pervious area by a small percentage and said the design team would try to save trees where feasible.

Fire Chief Chuck Bovofar said the current Station 72 is 55 years old, lacks modern contaminant controls for firefighter health, and that updated facilities improve response capability and on-scene safety. He said the proposed location best serves the department's response-area geometry and also would allow storage of reserve apparatus and certain specialty equipment close to the maintenance shop. He said some training would still be performed at the county training center but that operational needs justify an updated station at the suggested site.

Residents and neighborhood representatives disputed operational claims and pushed staff to consider alternative sites, including a larger city/county-owned parcel on Sarno Road discussed elsewhere in council business. Speakers repeatedly asked for a full alternatives analysis and for the city to preserve the park's open space. Many asked for more tree-saving design options, smaller building footprints, or relocation of the training elements to a nonresidential site.

Following public comment and staff responses, a motion to approve the land-use change and site plan failed on first reading when council members split, and a subsequent motion expressly to deny the future-land-use change passed by roll call (Bassett: yes; Hanley: no; Kennedy: yes; Smith: yes; LaRusso/Russo: yes; Mayor Alfrey: yes). That denial means the specific land-use amendment before council will not move forward as written; staff advised that as the city is the applicant, the matter could be revised or withdrawn before second reading.

Next steps: staff said the second-reading schedule remains available (the ordinance was scheduled for second reading on July 22), but the denial signals council direction to pursue revisions or alternatives. Council members asked staff to continue exploring other sites, to provide a clearer breakdown of costs and to return with options that preserve park function and respond to neighborhood flooding concerns.

Speakers quoted in this report are those who identified themselves during public comment and at the dais; direct quotes are from the public record.