Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors urge commissioners to halt or slow Tomoka Reserve development over traffic, compatibility and density
Summary
Multiple Ormond Beach residents urged the City Commission to delay approval of the Tomoka Reserve development, citing a flawed traffic plan, inadequate sidewalks, compatibility and lot-size concerns and requests to preserve PRD protections and higher-quality design.
Residents from Tomoka Oaks and nearby neighborhoods pressed the Ormond Beach City Commission to delay or reject the proposed Tomoka Reserve development, warning it would overload local streets and be incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods.
Tom Fitzgibbon of Tomoka Oaks told the commission he is "objecting to the development order for Tomoka Reserve," calling the project's traffic-circulation plan "fundamentally flawed." He said Tomoka Oaks Boulevard is "a narrow 2 lane road with no continuous sidewalks" and said the proposal would add roughly "2,500 daily trips" onto streets he described as unsafe for increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
Neighbors raised several concrete concerns: lack of sidewalks and safe nonmotorized access, potential backups at the Tomoka Oaks Boulevard diamond intersection that could "trap residents" in their driveways during peak hours, and a developer traffic study that residents said understates peak-turning demand. Multiple speakers urged requiring a traffic signal and a 3.5-foot exclusive right-turn lane at Nova Road before approving the project.
Other commenters described land-use and design problems. Michelle Zirclebach said the developer was proposing "100 by 70 foot lots," noting the neighborhood average is roughly "100 by 100" (about 10,000 square feet), and called the proposed lots and house sizes incompatible with the surrounding area. Missy Herrero urged preserving the property as a planned residential development (PRD) to secure buffers, landscaping and architectural controls. Denise Corley and Mary Greenlees raised broader transparency and fiscal concerns, questioning the speed of negotiations and whether the city was adequately protected against lawsuits and long-term infrastructure costs.
Several residents accused the developer of aggressive tactics: Zirclebach said the developer "attempted to bully private citizens" and sought private communications through a court order, and urged commissioners to account for conduct when evaluating approvals.
No formal vote on the rezoning or development order occurred at the meeting. Commissioners acknowledged receiving the public comments and indicated the matter would remain part of upcoming hearings and negotiations; several people asked for additional traffic study work and for future public meetings at dates that maximize resident participation.
The commission held no final action on the Tomoka Reserve proposal during this meeting; residents and commissioners noted upcoming meetings on March 13 and March 20 where the matter may be revisited.
