Jimmy Swick looks over his notes
One "hot button" item at the 21st of May Commission meeting was the comprehensive plan ammendment to change 1.18 acres of land currently owned by Wayne and Linda Bryant from an agricultural to an industral/light warehousing land use classification. This has been a re-occuring item on the commission's agenda, having been tabled many times in the past while one piece of information or another was gathered.
To speak for the applicants, former Mayor and realtor Jimmy Swick stepped up to the microphone.
"Mr. Mayor, my name is Jimmy Swick, agent for the Bryants." He discussed the history of this application. He said that there have been many meeting and much discussion about this, and said that perhaps the commission would like to speak, since they were the one who wanted it tabled last time."
Commissioner Lewis said "I think we have discussed this, as Jimmy stated, two months, three months now? I think it has been well discussed, well advertised, I am ready to go ahead and take action on it."
Ms. Cain said "As instructed at the last city commission meeting, the commission asked what the total number of industrial zoned acres in the city was, and how much was developed and undeveloped."
The totals were as follows: 2474 acres are currently zoned industrial, of that 452 acres are in use as industrial, the number available within the City of Alachua is 2022 acres.
Robert Perez "This memorandum that just came out speaks directly to my question. There was previously in every one of the other presentations we have seen on this particular piece of property, including the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council's submission on concurrency, etc. The future land use element, which essentially addresses the number of acres available for development of this particular specific type within the City's land use plan, presently, and I am just going to say that the number of acres zoned industrial is 2474, per the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. And the number of developed acres with primary use of industrial is 452. So, we are looking at 2000 acres of future land use element here. I would just like to remind the commission and the honorable mayor, that if this passes this evening, it goes to Tallahassee, and the future land use element [is the number one element which the DCA will look at]."
"We have over 2000 acres available for this type of business to be located. For us to continue to change or amend our future land use map when these particular clients have 2022 acres to choose from I think is just almost laughable. Secondly, I think it is definitely going to be something that the Department of Community Affairs will look at when it goes to Tallahassee. Thank you."
Bob Bieniek, with Robert Perez waiting to speak behind him.
Bob Bieniek spoke next. "I am just a little bit curious. It says we have zoned so many acres, we have developed so many acres, and we have available so many acres. I am not sure that that word available is the correct definition because how many of them are for sale, and how many of them can be bought? I think that that is kind of an issue."
Mayor Coerper asked Planning and Zoning to shed some light on that. Maggie Taylor, head of P & Z, said "I have no clue." Mayor Coerper said "Waco has approximately 1200 acres." He figured that there must be about 700 acres available that is non-Waco property.
Commissioner Lewis said that one of the problems is the size of the property. "If you got 40 acres zoned light industrial, you just don't cut out and acre and three tenths." He went on to say that this would certainly be an asset to the City, as far as he is concerned.
Erik Garland: "Let's tax it industrial..."
Erik Garland said "If it has been zoned industrial for 40 years and it is not for sale, it shouldn't be zoned industrial." He concluded, "If he wants it zoned industrial, then lets start taxing it industrial and he will find out that it is either industrial or it is agricultural."
Mr. Perez came up to speak again. "Mr. Bieniek brought up an excellent point. I would also like to bring up that if this does pass and goes to the Department of Community Affairs under the circumstance of having this much industrial land zoned industrial land supposedly available that this might be an excellent opportunity of an administrative review by the Department of Community Affairs on just how many acres we have that are zoned industrial and aren't available and why, because our zoning is supposed to be consistent with usage. If we have this much land zoned, and it is not available, and it is not presently being built on, or there are not site plans presented or building permits actually presented by our city, then the Department of Community Affairs would be a perfect place to go through every single acre that we have zoned industrial here and find out why it is not available, or why it is not being built on. Why should we have speculatively zoning, which is industrial land presently under ag exemption, and somebody can't find 1.18 acres to buy? This is absolutely absurd. So I think this would be an excellent opportunity of an administrative review by the DCA of all the zoned land. Thank you very much."
David Robbins speaking, with Pat Murphy waiting in the wings.
David Robbins: "As I said at the last meeting when this issue came forward, this may well be an appropriate piece of land to be rezoned industrial. However, the City Commission does not have to make that decision at this time. It will still be available to be rezoned industrial after we give it a thorough review of our future land use plans." He stressed that the City has no idea what the owner is going to do with this land.
Pat Murphy asked to direct questions to Mr. Swick. Permission was granted, and he asked "Mr. Swick, Wayne and Linda Bryant, their intention is to build an office and facility to be able to run their construction company out of?" This was a key question, asked repeatedly by both Commissioners and by audience members, which Mr. Swick never before answered. This time, however was different. He confirmed that that was the original intent. "It has been since 8/25/99 when this application came before the commission and the application was paid. The man owns an extensive building and contracting business in I believe now 13 states. He went to school here." He went on to say since the process was so long, that the Bryants have been forced to purchase another piece of property. "The point here, before the commissioners were very inquisitive about what exactly are we going to do, my response was by professionalism, being on that board up there for six years, getting bogged down from the point that is on the table now discussing zoning, the commission seemed to be more interested in who is going to do what where with that property."
Mr. Swick said that The Deerstand was interested in buying the property and building a new Deerstand out there. "I am just trying to be as forthright and honest as I can be. And I would just like to ask the commissioners, when is the last time you have been out there to see this run down piece of an excuse of a property that we have going toward the city of Alachua with all these brand new industrial building on both sides of the roads?" He accused the commission on being bent on keeping the land agricultural. "I cannot see why in the world we are going to keep this piece of property agricultural on one acre when it is going to cost $10,000 to clear it to grow string beans and corn."
Mr. Murphy said "That having been settled, I am wondering if the industrial classification is needed by the…"
Mr. Swick cut in. "The only reason we ever requested the industrial is that the LDRs require that if there is any storage of any type at all on the property, it had to be zoned industrial. This man wanted to put his business there with three ladies and a man to tend to the actual business at hand, but if he came in with a truckload commercial doors or whatever he would be able to store those doors and that is the only reason the industrial was ever requested. However, instead of changing streams in the middle of this, after basically two years, we would like to just continue this application. This is where all the effort has been."
Mr. Murphy said "The main reason I made that comment Mr. Mayor is that there is obviously some new information coming forward about the possible use of this property, and that being said perhaps the applicant, whoever the new party applicant might be, needs to readdress that issue, say 'This is what our intended use is, this is what we want the classification to really be', and proceed with it that way. We can turn around and re-advertise if need be if there is a new applicant involved. I understand Mr. Swick's dissatisfaction with the length of time, and I would be also. But it looks like the land use change is different than what is on the application."
Maggie Taylor, head of Planning and Zoning, was asked what by Mayor Coerper what the correct land use classification would be in this instance. She hesitated for a bit, and then offered "Just like Jimmy said. If there are going to have outside storage or any kind of storage outside…"
Mayor Coerper: "But that was for that business before."
Maggie Taylor: "That was for the construction. We can't change the application in mid stream. It would have to be re-advertised and re-posted."
Mayor Coerper pressed, asking what the zoning category should be.
Maggie Taylor: "Commercial? Commercial Intensive Probably."
Mr. Swick disagreed. "Commercial would not work." He stated that if there was any storage, then it had to be industrial. "We are not trying to Tire Rendering plant here sir. We are trying to get a piece of property contiguous and consistent to everything that is out there in that area right now. And it is probably one of the most highliest developed… We have a four story building going on right across the road right now."
David Jakupko said that he wanted to hear an answer to whether or not the taxes on a piece of property were charged on the zoning or charged on the property use. It was decided that it was land use. Mr. Jakupko took objection to the idea that if a person's use was not consistent to its zoning that the person should lose their zoning. "To me, that sort of sounds a little bit, get real close to communism versus the Good Old American Way. We talked about speculative zoning. I think that is only investment. When we got a piece of property and it is zoned industrial as the IBM was for so long, it is used for agricultural purposes, it is being kept green, it is growing, it is producing food… All these things. Why should those people who have done it as an investment be forced to use it for something other than what they want to use it for at this time?"
Mr. Perez said "That if you have something that is speculatively capable of being used, it should be taxed by what it is zoned for. If a person comes in and has one hundred acres zoned industrial, gets an ag exemption on that property and keeps it that way for 30 years, it is the City that is losing out on the tax money, and it is the other citizens in the city who have to make up the difference by increases in their taxes that are required to run the City."
Erik Garland agreed with Mr. Swick, saying that no one would move in if a house was put there. "Let the man put his business in, and let him move forward."
Commissioner Robbins pointed out that across the street was residential/agricultural. She felt that the speculative zoning of property was a problem. "I personally don't feel that it is our responsibility as a commission to be involved in people's investment ventures by granting rezoning of property in hopes that they can make more money on it in the future." She said that she will not be supporting the rezoning of this property. "And as far as Mr. Swick said, it seems that there is some conflict as to what is going to be on there."
Commissioner Lewis asked the City Attorney "Is there any law that mandates you have to tell people what you going to build on a piece of property when you get it rezoned."
Mr. Malphurs said that there was no law that required it. "They can answer it, but they are not required to."
Commissioner Lewis said "Well, I agree with Erik, I don't think anyone is going to live in a house out there anyway."
Mr. Bieniek spoke, saying that no one should be asking what will be built on land during a rezoning. Much of the rezoning will be for speculation, that is the way the system works, and it has worked well for all cities in the state of Florida.
A motion was made by Commissioner Lewis and seconded by Commissioner Hills to change the classification on the future land use map.
Commissioner Robbins pointed out that this is not a simple rezoning, this is a change to the city's future land use map, and as such requires that the City have a shortage of land in that classification and that they know what is going to be put in.
A vote was taken, with Commissioner Lewis and Commissioner Hills voting 'yes', and Mayor Coerper, Commissioner Robbins and Commissioner Burgess voting 'no'.
Bonnie Burgess explains her vote
while Mayor Coerper looks on.
Before casting her vote, Commissioner Burgess said "I would like the applicants to know why I voted the way that I did. Amendments to our future land use map [are] killing us right now. We have more industrial and commercially zoned property than we need. In addition, we need to develop a policy that makes sense. Maybe something like a neighborhood commercially, or something more in line where we are headed. There are residents still living in that area, and I am new at this but this is what Bonnie Burgess thinks." | 
