12/3/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 99 fn;E1029 In reviewing the County Commission Meeting video and the School Board Meeting video, it is very evident that the County Commission may have been mislead by several remarks Mr. Barkett made. Mr. Barkett was the only person at the County Commission Meeting or the School Board Meeting that spoke in favor of changing the Ordinance. Please note that he was hired and paid to speak in favor of the change. No one else from the public or private sector spoke for the change. One of Mr. Barkett's major points was totally inaccurate. He incorrectly stated that the School Board was not concerned with the distance of separation from the school, clearly defined in Chapter 300. This is misinformation. I do not believe he purposely meant to mislead the County Commission, but made an interpretation of some earlier remarks he heard which were totally false regarding the School Board's position. The video of the School Board Meeting clearly reveals that the School Board is unanimously in favor of leaving the existing Ordinance intact with no change and no lessening of the separation. This was the strong, undivided, and unanimous position of the School Board. In fact, the video reveals that some Board Members felt that if uniformity is needed, perhaps those areas with less separation than the existing County Ordinance should in fact increase the separation distance to match the existing County Ordinance. Mr. Barkett's second main point was that the Board should not be concerned so much with the concerns of just one denomination - the Baptists. As we reviewed the video of the Commission, I heard several denominations disagree with the change, not just the Baptists referred to by Mr. Barkett. It is our opinion that the Commission should hear the voice of the Baptists, the other church denominations, the School Board and the other citizens opposed to any change, and not Mr. Barkett's single restaurant owner who wants to change the regulations simply for monetary reasons. It is true that different church denominations, just as different individuals, viewed the consumption of alcohol policies differently. But one cannot argue with the Forest Park Baptist Church representative, Reverend Paul Mace, who spoke clearly regarding the fact that a change of this Ordinance could dramatically affect the buffer of protection they now have around their facilities under present zoning. We believe that the same injustice would apply to a number of unaware churches and schools in this County. We believe that if you further consider this issue, the County should be obligated to notify everyone whose existing rights might be affected so they have an opportunity to be heard. We believe this should require the County to notify every church and school, private and public, about the Ordinance change. We also believe that the proposed Ordinance change to say that on premises consumption shall not be Dated within 1000 feet of a school but reduce it to 500 feet for churches is completely unfair and insensitive to the needs of the churches which are working with the same children as the schools. To say that it is not okay to be within 1000 feet of schools but it is okay to reduce this distance to 500 feet of a church because one restaurant wants to be able to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises is totally wrong. Many churches have schools - some churches which do not have a school today will have one tomorrow. Although several Commission members were very sympathetic to the pizza owner's self-imposed problems, several points seemed obvious to us: 1. The problem was created by the restaurant owner's locating in an area where it is not legal to serve alcohol. It would appear that the restaurant owner could continue to operate without selling alcohol (many do). Or, they could relocate to a properly zoned area. The landlord of this new facility would have (or at least should have) known exactly what was allowed here and what was not. It is the landlord's and tenant's responsibility to go by the governing regulations and not the County's responsibility to bail people out of a self-made problem. The building is brand new. The owner knew the regulations. The site plan and building were just recently completed. The building is so new there are still new businesses just moving in. 2. If the County Commission feels this is a unique and special circumstance, then the proper procedure is not an Ordinance change, but rather a Special Exception or a Variance. Not a reduction to 500 feet for everyone, but rather a specific measured distance for this one unique and special hardship causing the need for a Variance or Special Exception. The problem is, this situation is not special and unique, and is caused by the restaurant owner's desire to sell alcoholic beverages to be consumed on the premises in opposition to the existing, successful Ordinance regulation. 3. We believe the County Commission was influenced by improper information regarding the School Board's unanimous opinion not to change the Ordinance. Surely the County Commission would have to have a very strong and substantial reason to contradict the School Board's decree on this issue. The School Board wants it left as it. That is a clear message from the Indian River County School Board. We think the County Commission would need very strong and valid reasons to vote in opposition to the request of the County School Board for what they feel is wise for the students. and families attending the school system. Many churches also have schools. DECEMBER 3, 1996 53