Gadsden County planning workshop explores removing 1,000‑foot church setback for alcohol sales; no vote taken

The Gadsden County Planning Commission held a workshop on a proposed revision to the countyalcohol beverage ordinance that would remove the current 1,000‑foot restriction between churches and establishments that sell alcohol and reduce the required distance between alcohol vendors and public parks and schools from 1,000 feet to 500 feet. Chairwoman Bowie said the session was a workshop and that the commission "will have to reconvene to vote and pass it on to the county commission."

The proposal, presented by the principal planner, would also add definitions in the countyland development code for commercial establishment parking areas, "to‑go" containers and other terms, and would align the county code with state standards that allow certain restaurants to sell sealed to‑go alcohol if they meet criteria in Florida law. The principal planner explained that Florida law allows restaurants with at least 2,500 square feet of service area, the capacity to serve 150 patrons at one time and that derive at least 51% of gross food and beverage revenue from food to sell sealed to‑go alcoholic beverages.

The proposal prompted extensive public comment. Randy Ross, pastor of the church at Tallibana and president of Tallibana Christian School, told the commission he represented "faculty, teachers, parents, students, churches, pastors, and their people here in Gadsden County," and said community members were "a little baffled, a little shocked by this proposal to remove this safety barrier". He warned directly: "To think that a bar could open across the street from my school or my church is just shocking to me."

Other speakers echoed safety and liability concerns. Dara Moore, a resident, said "there is always somebody at an establishment, whether it's lawful or not, whether anybody's watching or not, is willing for any amount of money to purchase a drink for an underage person," and urged commissioners to consider how accessibility and to‑go containers could increase underage access. School board member Leroy McMillan said he was "begging" the commission not to reduce the buffer and said the proposal "provides more of an opportunity for someone that's in an establishment that serves alcohol. Theythey're closer to our kids." Nolan Coombe urged caution, saying changing the ordinance now "opens the door for it to be lightened more later."

Planning staff and the county attorney fielded questions about how the countyand state licensing interact. The County Attorney noted the state statutory provision referenced in the presentation (chapter 561.02, subsection 2(a)(4)) and explained that some liquor licenses are population‑based and limited, while the special restaurant license tied to food‑sales thresholds is not capped in the same way. The attorney said, "I will do research on it. But as of today, I am not aware of any limitation as to how many of those can exist in a certain geographical area."

Commissioners and staff discussed alternatives and tools other counties use to balance growth and protections. Commissioner Hernandez and others raised the idea of designating economic opportunity zones or using planned unit developments (PUDs) to allow more flexible rules in targeted commercial corridors while preserving buffers in residential or preservation areas. Staff suggested using ArcGIS to map schools, churches and playgrounds and to identify vacant or commercially zoned parcels that could be candidate sites for development without changing countywide buffers.

Commissioners confirmed the workshop did not include a vote. Chairwoman Bowie and staff said the ordinance will be returned for further review; staff were asked to produce mapping and to examine whether a targeted zone or PUD approach could allow economic development without removing community protections. The principal planner and county attorney said they would research licensing limits, possible legal exposure, and the feasibility and timing of drafting zoning tools for the commissionand later the Board of County Commissioners to consider.

The meeting included a visible demonstration of local opposition: the chair counted approximately 40 people who stood and were recorded as opposing the ordinance change. No formal motion was made and no final action on the ordinance occurred at the workshop.

Commissioners said staff would return with refined options and additional analysis and that the planning commission would reconvene for a formal hearing or vote in the future.