Tag: bill place

The Latest On The Pebble Creek Golf Club Rezoning

“I Feel Very Strongly That This Board Let This Neighborhood Down.” — Hillsborough Commissioner Ken Hagan

On June 9, chief assistant Hillsborough County attorney Cameron Clark explains the need for the “constrained remand” by the Board of County Commissioners, as “Save Pebble Creek” supporters hold up “Remand” signs. ***(Photo is a screenshot from the BOCC’s June 9 Land Development Hearing on YouTube)***

The group calling itself “Save Pebble Creek” has very few opportunities left to try to, as they see it, save their neighborhood. The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) voted 5-1 on June 9 to “remand” the proposed GL Homes project — the home builder has been trying for year to purchase the 149 acres of the Pebble Creek Golf Club’s golf course (which closed in July 2021) and build 250 single-family homes on the property — back to the Zoning Hearing Master (ZHM) on Monday, July 20, 6 p.m., but for a very limited, constrained purpose.

Just for clarification, a “remand” in a land development or zoning context “occurs when a higher authority (like a court or appellate board, in this case, the 2nd District Court of Appeals) sends a project application or dispute back to a lower authority (like a local planning commission or, in this case, the BOCC) for further review, additional findings, or reconsideration.”

Chief assistant county attorney Cameron Clark (photo) told the Board that the only part of the case that could be remanded was to add an “ex parte” communication (Note – An “ex parte” communication in land development is any “one-sided” communication between a project applicant, supporter or opponent and a decision-making board member outside of a public hearing) by Ace Golf and still-Pebble Creek Golf Club owner Bill Place to District 5 County Commissioner Donna Cameron Cepeda.

In his email to Comm. Cepeda dated Apr. 7, Place wrote, “I believe the GL [Homes] project offers the best possible solution for residents and we have worked with them every step of the way,” which will need to be included in the official record of the project.

And, while the remand will not include the last line of Place’s email (but it is a matter of public record), it said, “I did not want to make the offer before your position was taken on this (not that it would have influenced), but I would be quite happy to support your re-election.”

After Clark explained to the commissioners exactly what the BOCC could and couldn’t remand, Dist. 7 Comm. Joshua Wostal moved to remand Place’s ex-parte communication issue to the Zoning Hearing Master at the BOCC’s zoning hearing on July 20.

After the motion was seconded by Dist. 1 Comm. Harry Cohen, Board Chair & Dist. 2 Comm. Ken Hagan explained to the Save Pebble Creek supporters (who held up “Remand” signs behind Clark as he spoke) in attendance that no public comments could be made at that meeting.

Prior to the vote, Comm. Hagan asked Clark, “Do you see any avenue or opportunity to broaden that remand at this time?”

Clark responded, “I would say that’s very difficult. It’s not impossible but all the issues that have already been discussed in this case…the evidence that’s been submitted…that the Board discussed in its denial and that were discussed by the court…essentially, those are closed issues at this point. So, new evidence on, say, the desirability of maintaining open space, things of that nature, would not be helpful at this point because, essentially, it’s already been determined that those issues were resolved by the court.”

Hagan then said, “I’m just going to say, having represented Pebble Creek for 24 years…I feel very strongly that this Board let this neighborhood down. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed and the county attorney has made it very clear what our options are [now].”

Dist. 6 Comm. Chris Boles then asked Clark, “When this comes back before us, after the July 20 [ZHM] hearing, will there be an opportunity for public comment at that time, and will it be limited only to what happened at that hearing? Would you expound upon that?”

Clark responded, “So, just as the ability to comment at the July 20 ZHM hearing is going to be limited — and I believe this comes back to [the BOCC] Land Use in September — there will be a new oral argument opportunity but it would be limited to that issue only because everything else that’s [already] in the record is going to be the same as it was in July 2023, and there’s already been oral arguments on all of those issues.”

The commissioners then voted 5-1 (Dist. 4 Comm. Christine Miller was absent) in favor of the remand, with Comm. Hagan casting the lone dissenting vote.

Save Pebble Creek founder Leslie Green released this statement after the BOCC’s vote:

“It is unfortunate that after the BOCC voted against the rezoning application, its decision-making authority was ultimately limited by a court ruling that prevented the Board from relying on its original reasons for denial, including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.

“I believe that if the County had pursued one additional appeal, the BOCC’s denial would have been upheld, and this matter could have been resolved much sooner. We were hoping for a much broader remand that would have allowed consideration of the soil contamination issues and an update to the 2022 traffic study. I fear living here during the soil cleanup.”

The History Of The Case

As Clark explained prior to the vote, the BOCC first denied the GL Homes rezoning application in July of 2023: “The developer appealed that denial to circuit court, where the applicant prevailed,” Clark said. “The county then appealed that ruling to the appellate court, where the county prevailed. It was sent back to the circuit court, where the circuit judge essentially ‘fixed’ his order and once again quashed the Board’s denial from July of ‘23, which effectively rewinds this application back to [that date]. The effect of the court order is to place significant restraint on the Board’s action.” We will update this story after the July 20 ZHM hearing.

Hillsborough Seeking New Hearing In Pebble Creek Rezoning Case

Judge ‘Quashes’ County Commission’s Decision To Prevent Rezoning Of The Golf Course. So, What’s Next?

Long-time Pebble Creek resident Leslie Green, who started the “Save Pebble Creek” organization, says her only motivation is to preserve the natural beauty of her community. Green is waiting to see what happens next in the attempt to rezone the Pebble Creek golf course.

Long-time Pebble Creek resident Leslie Green is still in limbo, but it’s nothing new for the founder of “Save Pebble Creek,” the organization she started two years ago in an effort to prevent Pebble Creek Golf Club owner Bill Place and his Ace Golf from rezoning the golf course land to allow for further residential development.

Development company GL Homes had attempted to rezone the 149-acre golf course property in order to build 250 single-family homes. At that time, Green and her Save Pebble Creek group began holding community meetings and distributing petitions asking the community to oppose Place’s plan to sell the golf course to GL Homes. And, although there were some members of the community who supported the idea of redeveloping the shuttered golf course, the campaign resulted in a flurry of emails to Hillsborough County Commission Chair and District 2 Commissioner Ken Hagan.

Place then sued Green for defaming his character and for interfering with his attempts to find a developer. She filed a countersuit in May 2022, but then sought to have Place’s suit dismissed under Florida’s Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. A little more than two years later, that case still has not been decided.

In July of 2023, GL Homes’ attempt to rezone the golf course property was denied 5-2 by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), after Hagan said he had received 1,800 letters from residents of the community, the vast majority of which were in opposition to the rezoning.

Green, whose home has faced the golf course for more than 30 years, applauded Hagan’s efforts to preserve the beauty of her community. Hagan said at the time that Place only had a couple of options going forward:

“He can come up with another developer with a different plan that might be more acceptable to the residents,” Comm. Hagan said after the July 17 meeting. “We’ve also discussed the possibility of the county purchasing the golf club to convert it to a county-owned course, but he (Place) would have to come down in price a lot for us to be interested.”

Green also suggested that Place might’ve been waiting for this year’s elections, when three of the seven Commission seats are up for grabs, in the hopes that perhaps the new commissioners might look more favorably upon the rezoning proposal.

But, GL Homes found another option. In October of last year, the home builder appealed the county commission’s denial of the rezoning request to Hillsborough County Circuit Judge Paul Huey.

*At the June 10 Town Hall meeting hosted by County Commissioner Ken Hagan, Leslie Green thanked Hagan for his efforts to prevent the rezoning of the Pebble Creek golf course.*

Eight months later, on June 24, Judge Huey “quashed” the decision by the BOCC to deny the rezoning, which means, in legal terms, “to set aside or void.” (Note-For a lot more information about why the BOCC’s decision was quashed, see page 4.) It also meant that now, the county had its own decision to make: Either ask Judge Huey for a rehearing, appeal the judge’s verdict to a higher court, or allow GL Homes to proceed with its development plan.

On July 5, the county filed a petition to the Circuit Court for a rehearing.

Judge Huey’s ruling on the developer’s appeal was that, “The court cannot find that the Board of County Commissioners relied on competent, substantial evidence when it denied GL Homes’ proposal.”

The judge also felt that the BOCC’s decision was more of a personal attack on Place, even though neither he nor his Ace Golf submitted the rezoning proposal. Although the Board’s original decision was based on the rezoning “not being infill and not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan,” the judge saw that GL Homes’ rezoning request was recommended for BOCC approval by the county’s Planning Commission and the zoning hearing master (ZHM), both of which said the proposed development was consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The judge also noted that Hagan said he was basing his decision to deny the rezoning, in part, on the Pebble Creek resident emails that accused Place of “spiteful tactics, intimidation, vindictiveness, innuendo, and fearmongering.”

But, in its petition for rehearing, the county claims that Judge Huey, “overlooked record evidence or misapprehended several points of law or fact in a manner that the County believes fundamentally affected the Court’s Order Granting Petition for Writ of Certiorari (“Order”). The County requests rehearing and requests that this Court rescind its Order Granting Petition for Writ of Certiorari and issue an Order Denying Petition for Writ of Certiorari.”

In other words, the county said that Judge Huey did not consider all of the factual evidence upon which the county based its decision, claiming, “The Application for rezoning as proposed would result in a complete change to the character of the existing community, by eliminating the central feature of a neighborhood which has existed for decades. Further, this decision has the potential to impact redevelopment of other similar communities within the State of Florida.”

The county’s arguments for requesting the rehearing included the following:

1. There was Competent Substantial Evidence for the BOCC to Deny Petitioner’s Application. As the Court notes in its Order, the Florida Supreme Court has set forth a framework that requires rezoning applicants to prove that their proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and complies with all procedural requirements of the zoning ordinance. If a rezoning applicant provides competent, substantial evidence that its application is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the Board may still deny the application to accomplish “a legitimate public purpose,” at which point the Board has “the burden of showing that the refusal to rezone the property is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable.”

2. The county’s petition also says, “Ultimately, the Court concluded that there was no competent substantial evidence that the Application did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, nor was there competent substantial evidence to support the County’s legitimate public purpose for denying the Application. However, in reaching the above conclusions, the Court overlooked competent substantial record evidence on which the Board could have relied, or misapprehended several points of law or fact.”

“Under this Court’s limited scope of review, it must be determined whether the record contains any competent substantial evidence to support the Board’s denial. In evaluating the evidence presented, it does not matter whether there is also evidence to support a conclusion different from that reached by the Board for ‘the point is that when the facts are such as to give the County Commission a choice between alternatives, it is up to the County Commission to make that choice — not the circuit court.’”

As for the evidence that the BOCC made the correct decision, here is a summary of what the petition for rehearing says:

1. [The Application] is inconsistent with he Comprehensive Plan.

2. The open space character of the subject property is an integral part of the neighborhood.

3. The removal of the open space around which the surrounding existing neighborhood was developed and constructed would not protect nor maintain the neighborhood’s character

4. The golf course was opened in 1967, five years before the Pebble Creek Planned Development was rezoned. The golf course was included as a central part of the zoning, and integral to the neighborhood design.

5. The golf course also was an integral part of the neighborhood’s character. The golf course is identified on the plan as the center of the planned development, around which the other uses in the neighborhood were designed and planned.

6. Because the golf course came first, it is a central component — or cornerstone — of that planned development. To completely replace this use, which currently makes up 25 percent of the acreage of the planned development, with additional residential housing, is a significant change to the character of this golf course community.

7. There is testimony in the record taken by the ZHM that supplements the other record evidence that the existing 150-acre golf course is the centerpiece of the neighborhood, and that to completely eliminate its use and to replace it with a residential development would be to lose an integral part of the neighborhood itself.

8. Pebble Creek was “uniquely designed” to incorporate the golf course, and by removing it “you are removing the very thing that built the community.” The golf course was a “primary reason” or “major factor” for some of the homeowners to live in the community.

9. In the Court’s Order, the Court notes that “[t]he Board argues logically that because the neighborhood was designed and built around the golf course, the land acts as a fundamental ‘centerpiece,’” which appears to imply that that the Board’s determination about the neighborhood having been designed and built around the golf course was based merely on logic and inference, rather than substantial competent evidence in the record. However, the County used future land use maps, zoning maps, the prior approved plan, and lay witness fact-based testimony to support its determination.

10. The Board also cited evidence that supports that the retention of the existing zoning accomplishes “a legitimate public purpose.” As argued at the Hearing, the legitimate public purpose is to protect the character of the neighborhood, which is not only a recognized public purpose under current case law, but also a mandate of the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

11. Judge Huey also ruled that the Board’s decision was based, in part, on the belief that the president of Ace Golf “lacks good sense and common decency.” However, the basis for the Board’s denial must be found in its adopted resolution, and not in singular comments made by a particular commissioner regarding an application or voting on an application.

The Board’s petition concluded that, “The record contained competent, substantial evidence that the Application was inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, and that there was a legitimate public purpose to maintain the existing zoning, and therefore support a denial of the Application. Moreover, the Court misstated the Board’s reasons for denial of the Application by relying on a commissioners’ comments rather than the Board-adopted resolution.”

Comm. Hagan says that once Judge Huey rules on the Petition for Rehearing, the county has 30 days to accept his decision or appeal the judge’s ruling to an appellate court.

Meanwhile, Green says, “We still feel that the BOCC made the right decision and the rehearing will give them the opportunity to give the judge more clarity to see that they did in fact use proper evidence in making their decision.”

The bottom line, she adds, is that, “This is my home. Rezoning the golf course will change completely the character and beauty of our neighborhood forever.”

She’s holding out hope that the county’s Tampa Sports Authority will be able to purchase the golf course and reopen it, as Comm. Hagan mentioned could happen at his June 10 New Tampa Town Hall meeting (as we reported last issue).

In the meantime, all Leslie Green can do is continue to wait.

bill place Leslie Green New Tampa pebble creek pebble creek golf club Pebble Creek Rezoning save pebble creek

What’s Next For Pebble Creek?

Although I never considered Pebble Creek to be its own suburb — to me, New Tampa is a Tampa suburb; Pebble Creek is a subdivision within that suburb (more on this below) — semantics aside, this community of 1,300 or so single- and multifamily residential units has been in the news quite a bit lately.

First, owner Bill Place and his Ace Golf’s attempt to rezone the shuttered Pebble Creek golf course into 251 homes was voted down 5-2 by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on July 17.

Some were surprised that Commission Chair and District 2 Commissioner Ken Hagan, who has long been considered to be pro-development, was the commissioner who proposed turning down the rezoning.

Hagan said that although there was some duplication of resident feedback received, he and the six other commissioners received more than 1,300 emails and letters about the proposed rezoning, “and more than 80% of those were telling us to not allow it. Candidly, I do not recall another rezoning request that generated so much feedback. We’ve got like three binders full of resident emails and correspondence.”

Even though some of the residents who filled the commission chamber on July 17 and another 60+ in an overflow room supported the rezoning — because proposed developer GL Homes would clean up what can only be called the blighted former golf course and help increase the value of the existing homes — and also spoke at the July 17 meeting, Hagan said it was clear that the vast majority of Pebble Creek residents did not support the rezoning plan.

And, while the Save Pebble Creek group, organized and led by long-time Pebble Creek resident Leslie Green, cheered the commissioners’ rejection of the proposed rezoning, Hagan said that Place only has a few options going forward.

Meanwhile, Green, who is still the defendant in a suit brought by Place and Ace Golf (that hasn’t yet seen a judge’s decision rendered) that she defamed the golf course owner, said that what happens next isn’t her primary concern. “Let’s see what he comes back with,” Green said. “Maybe he’s waiting for new commissioners to be elected (in 2024) who might vote differently.”

Two weeks after the BOCC vote, Niche.com named Pebble Creek as the second “Best Suburb to Live In” the Tampa area, 3rd “Best for Families” and #9 “Best to Buy a House,” according to Niche.com’s analysis of reviews and a number of statistics.

Ace Golf bill place Ken Hagan New Tampa pebble creek

Pebble Creek Golf Club Nears Finale

Chuck Leisek has spent many of his mornings the past 15 years hitting golf balls at the Pebble Creek Golf Club (PCGC), where he lives just off the 12th hole.

The 86-year-old never broke 70, but shot his age plenty of times, has just missed a hole-in-one on the No. 2 and No. 6 holes, and loved every day he was out on the course.

When he found out that the golf course was shutting down for \good on July 31, he and his wife Janice, also an avid golfer, were crestfallen.

“We never thought in our wildest dreams this golf course would ever be closed,” says Leisek. “It’s deeply disappointing. And that’s an understatement.”

The writing, however, had been on the wall for the past few years, as owner Bill Place, who bought the club in 2005, has been actively trying to sell the property the past five or so years.

The first weekend in June, letters were sent out informing residents that the 6,436-yard golf course, the oldest in New Tampa, was shutting down for good.

Place said there is no special event or farewell scheduled for the club. The last one out on the 31st will turn off the lights, lock the door and that will be it.

Place is currently negotiating with Pulte Homes on building 230-240 single-family homes on the golf course.

“Never once when I bought the course was I even thinking it would be a development site,” Place says. “We took what was then a failing golf course that was horribly maintained, and we put in probably $2 million over the first five years. We put in new greens, built a new banquet room, and really got the club making money initially.”

Included in the improvements was Mulligans, the popular Irish pub that opened in 2007, but also will close July 31.

Place says the 2008 recession stopped the club’s momentum, and it has been on and off ever since.

Leisek says he remembers when Place bought PCGC and restored the course to its previous glory, but says he is one of many who questions how much money Place actually has been losing.

And, although he says he had heard rumors of Place “skulking around trying to sell it,” it was still a surprise to everyone he knew when they received notice that PCGC was officially closing.

Place says club members like Leisek, however, were far and few between at Pebble Creek.

Although there are roughly 1,400 homes in the community, only 13 residents are among the club’s 70 current members. He describes the support from the community as non-existent.

“I don’t mean that negatively, like people despised the golf club,” Place says. “There’s just not that many golfers (living) in Pebble Creek.”

The view from hole 1 could soon be replaced by homes, if Bill Place has his way.

He says that when he approached the HOAs about having all homeowners pay for a social membership to keep the club alive, it was rejected.

“We do get a fair amount of public play,” Place says. “That’s essentially what kept us going as long as we did.”

Golf courses have struggled in recent years, especially as amenities in large communities, but the number of rounds played in 2020 actually were up nationally 13.9 percent from 2019, according to Golf Datatech, primarily because of people looking for relatively safe recreation activities during the pandemic.

It is the largest increase in rounds played since Golf Datatech, which specializes in golf market research, started tracking stats in 1998. Place says that surge was short-lived at Pebble Creek.

“Even though we had a little bit of a bump from Covid-19, I’ve already started to see it back off as people go back to work,” Place says. “We’re on a path to repeat 2018 and 2019, when we lost money those years.”

Place also says that merely maintaining the course had become financially untenable. He says that PCGC still has its original irrigation system and that “it failed miserably during this recent drought.”

He adds, “It was time.”

Pebble Creek was built by a group of nine investors and opened in 1967, at a price tag of $500,000, 20 years before Arnold Palmer visited to help dedicate the opening of Tampa Palms Golf and Country Club by playing the first round.

PCGC was once dubbed the “grandaddy of New Tampa golf courses.”

At its outset, the semi-private Pebble Creek Golf and Country Club was a hit. It quickly reached 300 members in 1967 and stopped accepting any additional members so there was room for the occasional non-member golfer. Over the years, improvements were made (the course actually opened with no bunkers) so it could host bigger tournaments, and membership ebbed and flowed.

*******

Mulligan’s Irish bar was a popular spot for golfers and Pebble Creek residents.

When it comes to selling the 149-acre course to a developer, which appears to be Pulte Homes, Place knows he will have a fight on his hands. Efforts to rezone the property and getting Pebble Creek’s two homeowners associations (HOAs) on board will be an uphill battle.

“Everyone is devastated,” says Wayne Rich, the president of the Pebble Creek Village HOA, which represents about 300 homes. “Nobody is excited about it.”

Rich says roughly 100 homes between the two HOAs are located on the golf course, and could have their backyards replaced by new neighbors. He has seen what Pulte is proposing, and says he’s “not crazy about it.”

A group on Facebook, as well as another group of residents, have already mobilized to oppose any development, emboldened by last year’s success at stopping Place from getting a brownfield designation for the course.

DR Horton, one of the original interested buyers of PCGC, had done preliminary testing two years ago and discovered that there were contaminants on the golf course before withdrawing its interest.

A brownfield site is a property that is contaminated, which hinders efforts to expand or redevelop it. But, there are significant tax credits offered to help clean up brownfield properties. Hillsborough County commissioners voted against the request.

Without those tax credits, Place will likely foot the bill. A preliminary estimate, he says, indicated it would take 6-9 months to decontaminate the soil. That alone could cost Place $1 million.

But, he still has potential developers like Pulte lined up.

Leisek will get in a few more rounds before then, and he says his golf membership is being transferred to Plantation Palms in Land O’Lakes, roughly 20 minutes away and also owned by Place.

He says it won’t be the same, and will miss member dinners in the clubhouse and even visits to Mulligan’s.

But, what he’ll miss most is a golf course he shared 2-3 times a week with his friends and neighbors.

“We had a lot of good times here,” Leisek says. “It’s very depressing. Very upsetting.”

For Rich, who remembers the many Mother’s Day banquets he attended at the club, July 31 will mark the end of an era.

“The golf course is part of the heritage of this community,” he says. “It’s sad to see it go.”

bill place golf mulligan's pebble creek golf club

Pebble Creek Golf Course Not Designated A ‘Brownfield’ Site

The plan to have the Pebble Creek Golf Club (PCGC) designated as a “brownfield” site has failed, saving the property value of many of the homes that surround the golf course.

Bill Place, whose Ace Golf Inc. owns the PCGC and has been trying to sell it for years now, said he will still go ahead with plans to decontaminate and sell the golf course to developers.

Place had been seeking the brownfield site designation for the golf course, which carries with it a state tax credit equal to roughly 75% of the cleanup costs.

A brownfield site is a property that is contaminated, thus hindering efforts to expand or redevelop it. In 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency created a tax-credit program to help clean such properties up, so it could be reinvested in, helping the local economy as well as the local environment. The EPA estimates there are more than 450,000 brownfield sites in the U.S.

However, the word “brownfield” carries with it a negative connotation, especially in regards to a “green” golf course, causing Pebble Creek residents to rally together to fight against the course receiving the designation. There were petitions signed, a meeting on Nov. 30, and there were public hearings on Dec. 9 Dec. 16, prior to the vote.

The message from the residents was clear — the brownfield site designation wasn’t deserved, carried with it a stigma and that they wanted the golf course to remain a golf course.

While at least one Pebble Creek resident registered support to doing what was necessary to get the course cleaned up — “the cat is out of the bag,” said Pamela Jo Hatley — the overwhelming majority were opposed to using the brownfield site designation to do so.

Michael Jacobson, the president of the Pebble Creek Homeowners Association, said that the contamination was mostly concentrated around the tee boxes and greens, and that the brownfield designation would suggest that the entire 150 acres was contaminated, having as much as a $62-million impact on property values in Pebble Creek.

Jacobson was one of 14 speakers registered on Dec. 16 to voice their disapproval of the designation.

Following 30 minutes of public comments, the county commissioners voted unanimously against the 150-acre property being declared a brownfield.

“I’ve represented North Hillsborough for a long time and, candidly, I do not believe I’ve ever seen a neighborhood more engaged and unified in opposition to an issue,” said County Commissioner Ken Hagan, who District 2 includes Pebble Creek. “This is evidenced by the over 300 emails, 150 letters and 450 residents who signed an online petition and — with the exception of (one) — 100 percent being in opposition to the brownfield designation request for the Pebble Creek Golf Course. I want to deny that request today.”

While admitting that the future of the PCGC was “uncertain,” Hagan cited a number of concerns. First, the loss of 30 jobs that would result if the designation was granted and not meeting the economic productivity threshold that is required.

Also, the county has never before designated an active golf course as a brownfield site, and that all recent brownfield approvals have been zoned for their intended uses in advance of the brownfield request, which did not happen in this case. “Not only is this request putting the cart in front of the horse,” Hagan said, “but it would potentially be precedent setting.”

Place was disappointed in the decision, but said that he understood. He had even offered to pull his request for the designation, but it was too late.

“I didn’t expect the pushback when I started this,” Place said afterwards. “I realized as we got into it that it is a poorly named program. It conjures up images of the superfund industrial sites (which are designated as polluted locations that require a long-term response to clean up hazardous material contaminations). The reality is, brownfield is used across the country in a number of locations, including golf courses. But, I get it. I understand. If I lived there, and someone told me it was gonna be a brownfield, I’d be concerned, too.”

So what now? Place says he will pay for the testing, which will take place over the next few months.

DR Horton, one of the original interested buyers of the PCGC, had done preliminary testing two years ago and discovered contaminants on the golf course before withdrawing its interest. South Florida developer 13th Floor, however, remains interested.

Place said that after DR Horton did its “very preliminary” testing of the golf course, he paid $50,000 to a company that did more extensive testing. High levels of arsenic and dieldrin were discovered, from insecticide applications before he owned the property, Place says. He added that those chemicals were banned prior to 2000, and he bought the course in 2005.

“The company told me this is not unlike what they have seen on golf courses this age,” Place says. “It’s not as excessive as some they have seen, but yes, it’s contaminated beyond state levels and we’ll have to clean it up before anything else can be done with the property.”

Place estimates the potential cleanup could cost $1 million, though 13th Floor has told him it could cost as much as $2 million. Without the tax credit from the brownfield designation, which would have covered three-fourths of that cost, Place will have to foot the bill.

Place said while the remediation of the contamination begins, 13th Floor will concurrently start a rezoning effort. While it is likely to meet some resistance, 13th Floor has already held a number of meetings with the HOA as well as residents.

While the property could accommodate as many as 600 homes on it, 13th Floor has already agreed to build fewer than 300. Place says that number is now projected to be between 220-250.

Place also said 13th Floor has agreed to other concessions requested by residents as well.“I certainly expect there will be people opposed to this being anything but a golf course,” Place says. “But there’s also people that realize that if it’s a certainty that the golf course is going away, why don’t we try and get as much as we possibly can from the developers to make this as good a situation as we possibly can?”

There are only 20 golf club members among the residents in the 1,400 or so homes in Pebble Creek. Place says he spends $500,000 every year on labor and fertilizers. The 53-year-old course, which opened in 1967, still has its original irrigation system.

“We’ve just been band-aiding it and band-aiding it,” Place,says. “It would cost a half-a-million dollars to put a new one in. The golf course is not viable going forward. It’s just not paying the bills. We don’t see another away. You can only operate a losing operation for so long before you’re like, ‘Okay, why am I doing this?’”

bill place brownfield pebble creek pebble creek golf club