BY TRACY LEE TATE
Special to the Times
LAKE BUTLER—The proposed location of an RV park in Providence has been a frequently and hotly debated topic at meetings of the Union County Board of County Commissioners for several months, with a large number of residents of that area speaking up during the public comment portions of the meetings, with almost all seeming to be opposed to the project.
The proposed park, and the special exception it required, were approved by the commissionin 2019. Since then, there has been little done on the project until recently when some preliminary site work had been done. Property owner Delbert Smith appeared before the board several months ago to seek approval of a variation/update of the site plan that was submitted in 2019 when the project was approved, stating his intent to actively proceed with the project now. The board had already been discussing RV parks and its desire that none be located in the county due to the increased demand for county services such an enterprise would create, with little compensation to the county through ad valorem taxes to fund the services.
With the previous discussions of the board in mind, as well as the large number of residents in opposition to the project, commissioners found themselves faced with several questions concerning the park. There is no provision in the land development regulations that allows an approved project to be later disallowed, even after the passage of several years. After much discussion, it was decided to consult with David Theriaque, the attorney who handled most of the property rights and land use issues associated with the proposed phosphate mining issue in the past. Theriaque came to the board’s last regular meeting in November to give the board some options on dealing with the situation, which he reiterated at the special meeting held on December 7.
Before Theriaque’s comments, several citizens of the Providence area spoke to the commission during the public comment segment of the meeting.
Asher Sullivan told the board that he had looked into everything concerning the RV park and questioned the board members as to “how did the board (in 2019) vote on something that it did not have the authority to vote on.”
Clint Wilson said he couldn’t understand how the board could approve something with such a negative impact on the community. “The commissioners are elected to represent the community, and the community does not want this,” he said. He said he understood the board was worried about a lawsuit if they rescinded the approval on the project, but considering the community’s negative impact, the citizens may need to get an attorney and sue the county for not doing its job.
Justin Ltoso said he also did not want the RV Park in the county and expressed his fear that its presence would cause and increase in crime and drug activity in the area.
Randall Wagoneer, who said he would be the park manager, told commissioners that the business would bring revenue to the county, which it had often been stated as being needed. He said it would be a short-term RV park, not a drug hazard.
Ramon Garcia Cruz asked about what would happen if the park were sold sometime in the future and was no longer locally owned. “Things can and will change,” he said.
James Marshall said he had been a resident of Providence for 30 years and that he did not feel that the owners were capable of running an RV park. “Providence is a community, and the community does not want this,” he said.
Walter Tovkach said that he lived about a mile outside of Providence and feels that it is unlikely that the owners will get permits for the water and septic for the park, saying they would not be granted if they were applied for properly. He said that an essentially transient population was a large potential problem and that a place where transients were living would not be conducive to the community. He warned the board that it may see litigation if the project is allowed to go forward.
Jed Douglas said he hoped the board would do the right thing for the citizens. He said that he lived right across the road from the future park location and was worried about his three children.
Patricia Harris and Greg Clyatt also stated that they hoped the board would do the right thing and prevent a negative impact on county resources.
When Theriaque spoke to the board, he reminded them of the four options he had given them at the previous meeting – 1) do nothing; 2) make a motion to rescind the special exception; 3) not rescind the motion but require the owner to comply with the original site plan from March 2019; or 4) amend the land use regulations to allow the project. He said the legal ad, which appeared in the Union County Times on Thursday, March 14, 2019 was clear as to what was to be decided upon and that there had been no citizen outcry about the project then. He also noted that if the board rescinded the approval, Smith might file suit against the county in circuit court, with the county’s main defense being the improper approval. He said that such a lawsuit would be based on the fact that the 2019 approval was “quasi-judicial” and that state law gave the owner only 30 days from the date of the action to question the improper approval. Therefore any suit brought now would not have “legs.”
Commissioner Mack Johns asked Theriaque if the county could still be sued and was answered with a yes. Theriaque added that such a lawsuit had a very remote chance of being won by Smith.
Commissioner Jimmy Tallman said that he was opposed to the 2019 action, but that he had voted along with the rest of the board at that time since there was no public response to the issue then.
“The motion was a mistake” and, while he was in favor of the second option given by Theriaque, he would like to see Smith reimbursed for what he had vested in the project, as it was caused by the board’s mistake. “I don’t want to see him take a huge loss when he spent the money based on the board’s mistake.” he said.
Theriaque said that if the majority of the board wanted to agree to this reimbursement, then they should have an attorney contact Smith and see about the cost, with receipts.
Johns said that he did not think any of what had been done in the past had been done out of malice, and credited County Coordinator Jimmy Williams with digging up all of the history of what was done in 2019, saying “we need his position.” He agreed with Tallman that the approval must be rescinded. “I grew up in trailer parks, poor ones, and such things do not bring in revenue, they will be a cost to the county.”
Theriaque said he had spoken with Smith and that, while they “agreed to disagree” the conversation was amicable. The board requested him to talk with Smith to get a fair number for the amount needing to be reimbursed. The board approved unanimously to approve the cost incurred by Smith on the original (2019) plan.
