Ormond Beach commission approves Tomoka Reserve development order after marathon public comment

The Ormond Beach City Commission voted 3–2 to approve a development order for Tomoka Reserve, a planned residential development on roughly 147.94 acres of the former Tomoka Oaks golf course that would create 254 single-family lots.

The commission’s decision came after a presentation by Planning Director Steven Spraker and more than three hours of public comment in which neighbors said the project would overwhelm the neighborhood’s narrow streets, threaten emergency evacuation routes, reduce tree coverage and raise concerns about legacy golf-course chemicals in the soil. Residents and the Tomoka Oaks Homeowners Association urged commissioners to send the plan back to the planning board or to approve it only with stronger conditions.

Spraker told the commission the development order was a zoning-level document that grants entitlement to proceed to a preliminary plat, and that key elements of the proposal include a 50-foot perimeter vegetative buffer, retention of 16 historic trees, at least 20% of the site left in a natural state, required traffic improvements (including a traffic signal at Nova Road and Temecox Boulevard) and a five-year expiration on the development order. He said soil remediation is a state-regulated process overseen by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and that the city will not issue construction permits until any state remediation requirements are satisfied.

Dennis Baer, attorney for the Tomoka Oaks Homeowners Association, urged the commission to reduce lot coverage and impervious surface limits, increase perimeter lot widths to 100 feet and require a 30-foot rear-yard setback to improve compatibility with the existing neighborhood. "Reduce the intensity of development on each individual lot," he said, asking commissioners to heed experts who previously recommended lower densities.

Many residents echoed those requests. "These 7 conclusions are false," said Jeff Boyle, summarizing what he said were staff-report findings that the project would cause no crowding, no environmental harm, and no safety problems. "Vote no, you will act on truth," Boyle told the commission.

Commissioners debated the legal and procedural context. City Attorney Randy Hayes said the matter was complicated by pending litigation and a limited time window that staff said made tabling the item impractical. Commissioners discussed whether to deny the application, approve it, or approve with conditions; the city attorney and planning staff noted some technical items would be addressed during the preliminary-plat and site-plan phases. Developer representative Rob Merrill said the project team could be willing to discuss adjustments during subsequent plan review but that litigation counsel limited detailed negotiations at the dais.

The final roll-call recorded three votes in favor and two opposed. Commissioner Howard Bridal, Commissioner Lori Tolland and Commissioner Travis Sargent voted yes; Commissioner Kristen Deaton and Mayor Jason Leslie voted no.

What happens next: approval of the development order gives the applicant entitlement to move forward to the preliminary plat stage, where construction drawings, stormwater, utilities, detailed landscaping and further environmental/traffic review will be required. The city will require either installation of the traffic signal prior to first certificate of occupancy or a bonded alternative, per the development order language. Residents asked for additional enforceable conditions (reduced lot coverage, stricter perimeter-lot standards, stronger tree protections) and many urged the commission to secure contractual or permit-level guarantees before construction begins.

The commission’s vote ends this agenda item but not the controversy: opponents said they would continue to press the case in the public record and in court.