Campbell County supervisors and rec advisers split on rezoning, seek more study before land use changes

The Campbell County Board of Supervisors and the Recreation Advisory Council met to discuss a pending rezoning request for land at the Seneca site that has been earmarked for a long-planned Countywide Park and a competing industrial development plan.

The advisory council told supervisors it wants the county to retain the park acreage and begin phased development of a multipurpose sports complex. Maurice Pearman, chairman of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, closed the presentation by saying, “As the Campbell County Park Advisory Council, we would like to see ... retain the property that’s earmarked for the Countywide Park” and to “begin finding budget opportunities to build it.”

Why it matters: county staff says several state and regional economic-development grant programs require at least 50 contiguous acres to qualify; county economic-development staff has submitted a rezoning request and said grant deadlines and the need for water and sewer access are driving the timing. If the county rezones the parcel for industrial use to pursue grants, speakers warned, the county risks losing the acreage that recent master plans set aside for a regional park.

What the advisory council presented: The council described the Seneca site’s original master plan as a multi‑phase Countywide Park laid out across roughly 214 acres that had been intended to serve the whole county. Presenters said that since purchase of the larger property, roughly 85 acres have been removed from the park footprint and multiple lots (identified in the presentation as Lots C, D, E, V and F) have been marketed or sold. The council asked supervisors to at minimum keep the roughly 36‑acre core parcel that remains at the end of the current park footprint.

Council members emphasized recreation and economic arguments. Timberlake representative Zach Horsley and other presenters described how multipurpose turf and natural fields, indoor gym space, lighting and sponsor-supported concessions could host travel tournaments and generate visitor spending on lodging, meals and shopping. Presenters cited a council survey of 217 respondents and a Placer AI geolocation summary that showed heavy weekend use at Timberlake Park (the presentation reported more than 2,500 people at Timberlake Park on some game days) to underline local demand.

Speakers also pointed to outside examples. The group toured Monogram Sports Complex and presented its operating model (two turf and four grass fields, private sponsorships, in‑house maintenance). The Monogram contact told the council the complex’s operating budget after setup runs in the mid hundreds of thousands of dollars annually and that sponsorship packages can be used to offset operating costs.

County staff perspective and grant timing: Nina (economic development staff) told the board she prepared and submitted a rezoning request to allow the county to apply for state or federal industrial-site grants that typically require at least 50 contiguous acres and basic site infrastructure (water, sewer, road access). Nina said the county can submit a grant pre‑application while the rezoning and planning process proceed; awards would be contingent on condition(s) such as securing required acreage and infrastructure.

Supervisors and staff raised practical constraints and tradeoffs. Board members and staff noted that running water and sewer and building road access are expensive and that industrial-site grants often come with programmatic strings (for example, limits on later converting the site to nonindustrial uses). Several supervisors emphasized that county capital demands are broad—public safety, roads, schools and other services all compete for the same funding—so any major parks investment would need to be weighed against other priorities.

No formal land‑use vote recorded. Staff said the rezoning application is on the planning commission docket and, on the meeting schedule shown to the board, a board public hearing is planned for March. Board members did not vote to halt the rezoning; one supervisor summarized the current posture as proceeding with the process unless the board directs otherwise.

Outlook and next steps: The advisory council urged the board to pursue phased park investments and to retain the park core; economic‑development staff urged the board to clarify the county’s vision for the parcel (recreation, industry, or a mixed use). Staff also flagged water/sewer and road access as immediate funding needs for any future use and said grant applications and rezoning are being pursued in parallel so the county remains eligible for available funding.

The meeting ended without final decisions on rezoning. Supervisors asked staff to provide additional information on grant requirements, the effect of rezoning on future grant awards, and possible scenarios that could preserve park acreage while pursuing infrastructure grants.