Planning commission endorses WA207 motorplex PUD and large‑scale land‑use change after hours of debate

The Putnam County Planning Commission on Aug. 12 voted to recommend both a large‑scale future land use amendment (CPA 25‑000003) from Agriculture to Urban Reserve and a zoning map amendment (PUD 25‑00003) to establish a 440‑plus‑acre WA207 Motorplex and mixed‑use planned unit development adjacent to the Palatka airport and business park.

Staff presentation and procedural context Zachary Baker of Planning and Development Services opened the large‑scale map amendment presentation and explained that because the proposal exceeds 100 acres it must be transmitted to state agencies for coordinated review if the Board of County Commissioners elects to transmit the application. Baker outlined the site context: twelve parcels now under common ownership of WA207 LLC, roughly 1.5 miles of combined road frontage on County Road 309C and State Road 100/Reed Street, adjacency to the City of Palatka boundary, the K. Larkin Airport, the Putnam County Business Park and large industrial uses nearby. He said municipal water and sewer are in the immediate vicinity and that connection and DRC review will be required if the applications advance.

Project scope and applicant presentation Agent Patrick Kennedy and project counsel Charlie Douglas presented on behalf of WA207 LLC (the Legacy and Mosler families and affiliated entities). The applicants described a long‑range, multi‑phase plan for a motorsports and driver‑training complex with ancillary lodging, retail, event space, motorsports museum, garageplex residences, karting, and limited industrial uses. The presentation described an initial capital investment estimate in excess of $200 million, an initial direct payroll of about $4 million for roughly 50 primary jobs and broader annual economic impact estimates provided by the applicant and Putnam County Chamber of Commerce representatives.

Public comment and key concerns The PUD and CPA applications drew a large public turnout and a mixture of support and opposition. Supporters included Sheriff Billy Deloach (who described training benefits for deputies), Joe Pickens (St. Johns River State College president, who described potential education partnerships), chamber representatives, local business owners and residents who said the project could provide jobs, hotel stays and tourist spending. Opponents and concerned residents raised noise, traffic, flooding/wetlands, the pace of development, precedent for converting agricultural land, annexation and transparency. Several speakers said they could hear existing gun ranges, airport traffic or intermittent event noise at their homes and urged stronger mitigation measures. Others urged caution and asked for written guarantees for berms, buffers, hours of operation and monitoring.

Staff and commission questioning Commissioners asked detailed questions about utility provision (private package plants vs. municipal hookups), impervious surface allowances (the Urban Reserve future land use anticipates higher impervious cover for non‑residential areas), stormwater and wetlands, timing and phasing, hours of operation and noise standards, and the relationship between annexation, utility provision and the city of Palatka. Staff noted development review committee (DRC) and state agency review would be required if the BOCC transmits the CPA to state review; DRC would address engineering, wetlands delineation, stormwater, traffic and operation details. The applicant stated that private water/wastewater package plants are technically feasible and that the team prefers municipal utilities if available; staff pointed out comprehensive plan language that ties certain industrial permissions to existing utilities.

Commission action and next steps After extensive discussion and public testimony, the commission first moved to recommend approval of CPA 25‑000003 to transmit the land‑use change to the Board of County Commissioners for state coordinated review (required because the amendment exceeds 100 acres). The commission then recommended approval of the PUD zoning map amendment (PUD 25‑00003) with staff‑recommended edits to the development agreement. Commissioners emphasized that the DRC process would be comprehensive and that a number of technical conditions – wetland delineation, stormwater plans, FDOT coordination for right‑of‑way and ponding, noise mitigation, and written buffers/berms – will need to be resolved before any permits are issued. The BOCC will next consider whether to transmit the CPA for state review and will hold a separate review for the PUD; DRC and other agency approvals would follow BOCC action.