Let me ask question. You're not going to comment on that. She don't want to ask a question. I do want to ask question. I'll just have to ask. You can ask the board. Yes. Yes. I'm telling you. Not now. Not now. The process hasn't started yet. I I just would like to know how to turn in photos. This gentleman will not allow me to speak to this young lady. Okay. And I just want the ability to speak to her. You let me know.
We need to get Does anybody have a pink form they haven't filled in or turned in? I know. I know. We need to get this for about two years.
All right. Good. All right. Good morning, everybody. Um the meeting of the Escambia County Planning Board for April 7th is hereby called to order. Uh with seven members present. Uh we do have a quorum. Just a reminder to please put your phones on silent or turn them off while we're in the meeting. So not to disrupt uh business today. If you would please stand for the pledge of allegiance.
To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Thank you. Uh, do we have proof of publication? Yes, sir. Did the publication meet all legal requirements? Yes, sir. I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading of the legal advertisement. Have a motion. So moved. Have a second. Second. All those in favor,
please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries. Planning board meeting minutes for March 3rd have been provided to the board. Uh members, are there any additions, deletions, or corrections? If not, I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Second. Motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All right. The planning board hearing package for April 7th has been provided to the board members. I'll entertain a motion to accept the planning board hearing package and legal advertisement into evidence. Do I have a
motion? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Okay. All right. So, just uh some housekeeping for everybody. We are in the regular planning board meeting and we'll the first four cases we're going to kind of go back and forth um between this meeting and the reasonzoning meeting because the items we have on the regular agenda um need to happen before the items on the resoning meeting um and they've got to go in order. So,
we'll be kind of jumping back and forth. Um, so I just want to give everybody a heads up. But first, we're going to start off uh with a small scale future land use map application for consideration. It's case SSA 2026-04. This represents a future land use change of 7209 Lilian Highway from MU mixeduse urban flu to P public flu as requested by Escambia County, the owner of the property.
Uh staff was notice of the hearing sent to all interested parties. Yes, sir. And was notice of the hearing posted on the subject property? Yes, sir. Okay. Staff, can I have you present the maps and photographs for this case? Good morning, planning board. This is Caleb McCertie, AICP planner on behalf of Eskeami County Development Services. Yes, again, this is a future land use map change from mixuse urban to public. This is the location of property along Lilian Highway. This is the 500 foot radius zoning map showing the current zoning of high density mixed use.
The future land use um existing is mixeduse urban and the requested future land use is public. There is a wellhead protection area 20 year um in the vicinity. This is an aerial showing the existing fire station that is currently on the property. This is our notice of public hearing sign for the uh future lanyard change. This is looking south onto the site from Lillian Highway.
Um, this is also looking onto the site to get a better view of the building. Um, this is the parking area, the pooling area on the site. This is looking east along Lillian Highway and northeast from the site across Lillian Highway. northwest from the site across Lillian and looking west along Lillian. That concludes the maps and photography for this case. All right. Thank you very much. Um this time we'll have the representative
uh for this application please come forward. State your full name and address for the record. Um David, how's it going? Uh David Cordley, county architect. I'll just use the facility maintenance which is 100 East Blunt Street. Um, but I'm here on behalf of the design and construction administration department or division within facility management. Um, I'll keep this brief because I'll be up here about six times today, I think. So, uh, and if we don't have any speakers, I'll probably ask if I could have an ex expedite approval as we get there later on, but um, you'll hear this a lot. I mean, we're really just trying to reclassify uh, these properties as what
they should have been intended to, you know, from the beginning. Not sure why they weren't, but it's just to ensure that it's it provides public safety to the surrounding communities. So, this one's pretty straightforward. It's a already a fire station. It's It hasn't been in operation for a little bit now, but we're trying to uh get that going again, help people's property taxes. Uh we're going to actually deconstruct that. It's actually pretty good red steel. We're going to reuse it at public works um or at the new uh training center for the fire. And um you know, as
as opposed to the findings, being a staff member, I mean, I agree with them. We've been developing this somewhat now. We're engaged with civil engineers, with architects. So, um, you know, I think the request is is warranted. Uh, it meets the comprehensive plan. Um, it's consistent with that. Uh, the land development code. I mean, the site is already used as a fire station, so the compatibility is pretty straightforward. Um, it's obviously a public benefit. Um, it's essential emergency service and public safety for the surrounding community. And um yeah,
based on the analysis, you know, I agree with staff and take any questions. Thank you very much. Okay. Um is there any questions for this the speaker or the applicant? Okay. And we did not have any uh one signed up to speak publicly on this. So board, I'll entertain a motion on this uh smallcale future land. It motion to approve. All right, we've got a motion to approve. We got a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All
those opposed? Motion carries. All right. So, this will be uh the first time we're going to uh journ the regular meeting. Um and we're going to gave in the reszoning meeting at this time. All right. So, this meeting of the Escambia County Planning Board for April 7th is hereby called to order with seven members present. We do have a quorum. Do we have proof of publication? Yes, sir. Did the publication meet all legal requirements? Yes, sir. I'll entertain a
motion to read the legal advertisement. So moved. Got a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. Reszoning meeting minutes from the previous meeting dated March 3rd, 2026 have been provided to the board. Are there any additions, deletions, or corrections? If not, I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Got a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All right. Reszoning hearing package for April 7th
with findings of fact have been provided to the board. I'll entertain a motion to accept the resoning hearing package with findings of fact and legal advertisement into evidence. Do we have a motion? So moved. We have a second. Second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Those opposed. Okay. Will the court reporter please swear in members of staff? All right. And the board has previously qualified staff to offer expert testimony
in the area of land use and planning. Uh does any board members have any um questions regarding their qualifications and ability to offer expert testimony? All right. Seeing none, at this hearing, the planning board is acting under its authority to hear and make recommendations to the board of county commissioners, the BCC, on resoning applications. These hearings are quasi judicial in nature, and these hearings are like evidentiary hearings in a court of law, however less formal. All testimony will be given under oath, and anyone
testifying before the planning board may be subject to cross-examination. All documents and exhibits that the planning board considers will be entered into evidence and made part of the record. Opinion testimony will be limited to experts and closing arguments will be limited to the evidence in the record. Before making our decision, the planning board will consider the relevant testimony. The exhibits entered into evidence and the law. Each individual who wishes to address the planning board must complete a speaker request form and submit it to the planning board clerk.
These forms are on the table in the back of the room and you will not be allowed to speak until we receive a completed form. Please note that only those individuals who are present and give testimony on the record at this hearing before the planning board will be allowed to speak at the subsequent hearing before the board of county commissioners. At that time, no new evidence may be presented at the BCC. Therefore, all testimony and evidence must be presented here today. Planning board will provide a recommendation for each reszoning request to the county commission
which will review testimony, documents, and exhibits, consider the closing arguments, and make a final decision. All decisions by the county commission are final. Anyone who wishes to seek judicial review on the decision of the BCC must do so in a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days of the date that the BCC approves or rejects the recommended order of the planning board. All written or oral communication outside of this hearing with members of the planning board regarding matters under consideration today are considered exparte communication.
Exarte communication is presumed presidential under Florida law and must be disclosed as provided in BCC resolution number 96-13. As each case is heard, I will ask that any board member who has been involved in any expert take communication to please identify themselves and describe the communication as acquired by section 2-7.2 of the Escambia County Land Development Code. The planning board's recommendation to the BCC shall include consideration of the
following approval conditions. The approval conditions. The applicant has the burden of presenting competent substantial evidence to the reviewing board establishing that the requested zoning district would contribute to or result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The appropriate surrounding area within which uses and conditions must be considered may vary with those and con with those uses and conditions and not necessarily the same area required for mailed
notification. A logical and orderly pattern shall require demonstration of each of the following conditions. A consistent with comprehensive plan, the proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use flu category as prescribed in LDC chapter 3 and with all other goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. If the resoning is required to properly enact a proposed flu map amendment transmitted for state agency review, the proposed zoning is consistent with the proposed flu and conditional to its adoption. B. consistent with zoning district
provisions. The proposed zoning is consistent with the purpose and intent and with any other zoning establishment provisions prescribed by the proposed district in chapter 3. C. Compatible with surroundings. All the permitted uses of the proposed zoning, not just those anticipated by the resoning applicant are compatible as defined in chapter 6 with the surrounding uses. Uses of any surrounding undeveloped land shall be considered the permitted uses of the applicability
is not considered with potential conditional uses or any nonconforming or unapproved uses also in establishing the compatibility of a residential use. There is no additional burden to demonstrate the compatibility of specific residents or activities proect protected by fair housing laws. D appropriate if spot zoning where the proposed zoning would establish or reinforce a condition of spot zoning as defined in chapter six. The isolated district would nevertheless be transitional in character between the adjoining districts or the differences with those districts
would be minor or sufficiently limited. The extent of these mitigating characteristics or conditions demonstrates an appropriate sight specific balancing of interest between the isolated district and the adjoining lands and e appropriate with changed or changing conditions. If the land uses or development conditions within the area surrounding the property of resoning have changed, the changes are to such a degree in character that it is in the public interest to allow new uses, densities or intensities in the area through resoning and the permitted uses of the proposed
district are appropriate and not premature for the area likely to create or contribute to sprawl. At the beginning of each case, as long as there are no objections from the applicant, we will allow the staff to briefly present location and zoning maps and photos of the property. Next, we will hear from the applicant and any witnesses that they may wish to bring. Next, we'll hear from the staff and any witnesses they may wish to call. And finally, we'll hear from members of the public who have filled out one of the pink uh speaker request forms. There
are six cases to be heard today. And we'll start with the reszoning application for KZ-20226-07 which requests reszoning of 7209 Lilian Highway from HDMU highdensity mixed use district 25 dwelling units per acre to pub or public district dwelling unit density limited to vested residential development as requested by Escambia County. the owner, members of the board. Have there been any expert communication between you and the applicant of the applicant's agent,
attorneys, or witnesses with fellow planning board members or anyone from the general public prior to this hearing? Also, have you visited the subject property? And also disclose if you are a relative or business associate of the applicant or the applicant's agent. No to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. that all. All right, staff. Um, we'll have you go ahead and present maps and photographs for KC 2026-07.
Thank you, Chairman. Caleb McCarti again, development services. This is the location map along Lillian. This is the 500 foot radius zoning map. The zoning is high density mixeduse. The future land use change at pending BCC approval is would be public wellhead protection area in the vicinity and the aerial map showing the current fire station on the property. This is our notice of public hearing sign that we placed on the property. Also looking south onto the site also
from the side of the building onto the site as well. um along Lillian Highway and looking northeast from the site across Lillian northwest across Lillian and looking west along Lillian. That concludes our maps and photography. I would say that we have um we have found that it met all the criteria for the resoning um as associated with the future land use request and um that would conclude our findings as well. All right. Thank you. Um, at this time I'll have the applicant come
forward and um, we will have you state your full name and address again for the record and have you sworn in. I think you were sworn in as a member of staff, so we might not need to do that twice. All right. Yeah, David Cordinley, county architect with with the facilities management department. And again, um, I'm sorry, 100 East Blunt Street Facility Management. Um, again, this is just changing, you know, a zoning issue that to put a fire station in there. Um, that will always be a
fire station. Um, I think that it's consistent, it's compatible, appropriate, and, um, certainly in the public's interest. So, I won't go through any of the other stuff unless there's specific questions. We're just replacing that with a new state-of-the-art fire station. All right. Um, and we did not have any speakers sign up. board. Are there questions for the applicant or for staff? All right, seeing none and with no speakers, I will entertain a motion for this reszoning case.
I'll make a motion to approve. Okay, we got a motion in a second. Any discussion on the motion? All right, all those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Okay, motion carries. Thank you. All right. So, now we will um put our resoning meeting meeting on pause and we will jump back to our regular planning board meeting. You didn't know we were going on so many trips today. Um all right. So, we now are on our second public hearing um in our regular meeting and
this is a smallcale future land use map amendment. Application for consideration is case SSA 2026-05. Request a future land use change of 551 West Kingsold Road from recreational flu to public flu as requested by Escambia County, the owner of the property. Uh staff was notice of hearing sent to all interested parties and were notices of the hearing posted on the subject property. Yes, sir. Yes. All right. Very good. Uh we'll go ahead and look at the maps and photographs that we've got
for this case. Yes, Caleb McCardi, Scambia County. Um this is the location map of the property along Kingsfield. The 500 foot radius zoning map, the current zoning of the property is recreational. The existing future land use is also recreational. The proposed future land use as being requested is public. And this is the aerial photo of the property is currently vacant. This is the
notice of public hearing for the future land use change. This is looking south onto the site from West Kingsfield. This is also looking onto the site from West Kingsfield. Um there's a storm water pond um on abuing the property, not on the property, but abudding the property along Kingsfield. And this is looking west along Kingsfield. This is across from Kingsfield. That's the Bentley Oaks entrance to the subdivision. And this is looking east along West Kingfield.
That concludes the photos and maps for this case. All right. Thank you very much. Um David, we'll have you come back up as you're representing the county again on this case. Yes, David Cordinley, county architect facility management. This is just another location that u the county has identified with the increase of with the schools. I think you have Kingsfield Elementary School and Ransom Middle School there. Um and just with the large influx of single family homes, this just seemed an ideal location. Um it's consistency or consistent with the comprehensive plan. Um and the proposed
public zoning I think aligns with the public future land use. Um it's consistent with the land development code transportation traffic. They have no issues with it. Um it's compatible with its surrounding use. Uh those include low density and mixed use, low density residential. So there is a need um I think for public safety an increase in public safety here. Uh this request does kind of all these kind of constitute spot zoning, but I think it's justified. The designation supports logistical and orderly development of public services. Um and kind of keeps those properties
so that they can only be public services and not sprawl or development. Um and uh yeah, just from the experience of the growth in that new area, um I think that we agree with all the staff's findings. It's an essential service that will support the the local area. So with that and is that the same development as the all the other ones we have it um surveyed. We have all these all these properties we do the survey the tree survey invasive species other kind of species identifying all that. We're working with civil engineering right now to see the county actually owns that
that pond controls that. So we're wondering if we can just minimize actually putting another one make it deeper but we're still in those design talks early stages. So that's all I have for you. All right. Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant? All right. We did not have any uh public speakers on on this either. So, um if there's no questions for staff or the applicant, then I will entertain a motion. I'll move to approve the All right. Got a motion. Do we have
a second? Second. All right. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. All right. So that moves forward and we will um put a pause on the regular meeting, jump back to the resoning meeting for our second resoning hearing uh for case number Z2026-08. request reszoning of 551 West Kingfield Road from recreation district dwelling unit density limited
to vested development to public district dwelling unit density limited to vested residential development as requested by Escambia County the owner members of the board have there been any exparte communication um for you on this case uh if you would we'll go ahead and start. No to all. Not at all. No to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. All right, staff, if we could have the maps and photographs for KC 20268. Yes, this is the location map showing the
subject property along Kingsville. The zoning of the property is recreational. The future land use pending would be assigned public. The site is currently vacant as shown here. This is our notice of public hearing sign for the resoning placed on the property. South on the site from Kingsville. This is looking south on the site from Kingsville. Uh the ab budding stormwater pond along Kingsfield. Looking west along Kingsfield. Looking across Kingsfield from the
site and looking east along West Kingsfield. That concludes our maps. for photography. We did find that the request met all the criteria. Um these re recreational zoning for what's intended um creates issues um for any potential development. I would say they request it um um future land use is otherwise um limited to no residential density as well. Nor would it allow any type of commercial
development. It's only intended for public use for federal, state, and local institutional uses. All right. Thank you very much. Any uh questions for staff? When we expedite these, what is the minimum that we need to go through to expedite these that there's no uh speakers? Sure. For these quasi judicial resonings, you have to verify
that there's been no exparte communications. Uh you have know what you're adopting. Uh there's no requirement that the board that the staff has to read all criteria or staff findings aloud. I'd recommend a motion to uh for approval or denial be based on competent substantial evidence and that uh staff's findings if you if you all decide to accept them be uh accepted into the record. So with that being said, uh I'd like to move forward with expedited um approval on this
and accepting the status findings as fact. Sure. It's just regular approval, but it's just kind of expediting the process like you said there. Um you all know the matter before you you the chair can entertain a motion uh really at any time. There's no requirement that any portion be read out loud there. Uh it may be useful if there are speakers or you all want more information. Second. So I think yeah we got a motion and a second on table or any discussion on the motion. Okay. All those
in favor please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. Okay. Motion carries. So, now we're going to move back to our regular meeting and put our resoning meeting on pause. And I do have a I've got one speaker um other than the applicant on this case. Uh this is a smallcale future land use map amendment application for consideration. Case SSA 2026-06 request future land use change of 9350 Gulf Beach Highway from MUS
mixed suburban flu to P public flu as requested by Escambia County. Uh was notice of the hearing sent to all interested parties and notice of the hearing posted on the subject property? Yes, sir. Yes. Okay. And now we'll go ahead and see the maps and photographs for this case. This is our location map showing the subject property along G Beach Highway. This is the 500 foot radius zoning map. The current zoning is low density residential. The existing future
land use of the property is mixeduse suburban. The requested future land use is public. This is in an airfield influence planning district one. Um there is a small amount of isolated wetlands on the rear of the property. Uh we showed the flood zones. Um there's no extringent flood zones located on the property and this is an aerial there's existing fire station facility on the property. Our notice
of public hearing for the map change is shown here. This is looking northwest onto the site from Guff Beach showing the existing fire station. Looking north along Guff Beach Highway. Looking across Guff Beach Highway from the site and this is looking south along Guff Beach Highway. That concludes our maps and photographies for this case. We have found that it had met all the criteria of the request. All right. Thank you very much. Now have the um applicant come forward.
Dave, if you'll come forward again and um if we've got, you know, if you want to run through this one or I'm sure it's similar to the other two as well. It's Yeah, it's similar. Uh David Cordley, County Architect Facility uh Management Department, uh 100 East Blunt Street. Um it is it's similar to Myrtle Grove um in in the respect that it's it's an existing fire. It's actually an active fire station right now. Um, for this one, it's one of our larger ones. And,
um, so what we did is we actually purchased the property that's just north of it that was, I think, a waste services property. So, we early on we we knew that there was a potential wetlands. We're still identifying that whether it's I mean, it's identified a wetland on our GIS, but I think it was man-made. So, we're we're trying to stay out of that that portion of the site. So, hopefully that'll relieve any any kind of stress about adding uh, you know, more storm water. But, the idea is that we are going to demo all that. the waste services build a new structure and then while this one's still in operation and then we'll tear this one down and uh reuse this building.
But um there was that and I think this one was in a the Navy's potential what is it potential risk one I believe uh for for the takeoff and landing in one of their two of their um yeah accidental potential zone one. So we're we're aware of that. Um but this is yeah to reszone this property to construct a new Escambia County to replace fire station 14 or or Pleasant Grove. Um we believe that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and proposed future future
land use change to public. Um public zoning limits the site to government and institutional uses preventing residential or commercial development. Uh it's prop it's compatible with the surrounding lands use. Uh both transportation staff and NAS Pensacola reported no concerns. Um, and then I obviously agree with the staff finds uh this request is consistent with the land development code and and recommends approval. I know we have a speaker here today, so I'd be happy to answer any any questions. All right. Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant at this time? All right. See none. Okay, we need you. We'll get you back up here. Okay. All right. Um,
so now we'll have we did have one speaker sign up and then Kurt uh Burgie Berg. Sorry about that, Mr. Berg, if you would just state your name and address for the record and then we will get your time started. Kurt Berg, 9550 North Loop Road and uh I own the property at 9540 as well. So, uh my questions are pertaining to the retaining pond. I own the property that has an adjoining
retaining pond and um I I can't find a um on the site proposal um if there's going to be an extension of that uh retaining pond because that's going to affect my my pond as well. Uh plus I'm a little concerned with the extended footprint of uh you know the concrete and stuff like that. uh if that retaining pond is going to have to be extended and if so what that process is. That's
all the questions I have. I gotcha. Um, so I think for that certainly not something we're going to dive into deep today as the, you know, the buildout or extension of that pond, but I I think that the right folks are in this room that you need to be in contact with, and that would be Horus and his staff or even David himself um to help you get information on that as this were to move forward. And so I you know still got to go to development review for design review and all
that and that at that time is probably when most of those your answers would be the site plan's not available now. So if if I may there is a pre-application let me understand pre-application that always has been submitted where we did some general concepts and they submitted some general designs of course on once we get the initial uh uh that'll be all everything is public record you can take a look at it but please stay in contact with Mr. Caleb and with the with our public service and they'll be glad to show you everything and work with you. All right. Okay.
Glad to. That's all I had. All right. Very good. Thank you. Very good. Take his name. We've got no further uh speakers on this case. If we've got no questions uh for the applicant or for staff, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve SSA 2026-06. All right. We've got a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. Okay. Motion carries. So, we will um actually adjourn our regular meeting now
and we'll go back to our resoning meeting where we will stay the rest of this morning. So, we are on to our third resoning case and this is case number Z2026-09. request reszoning of 9350 Gulf Beach Highway from LDR low density residential district four dwelling units per acre to PUB public district dwelling unit density limited to vested residential development as requested by
Escambia County members of the board have there been any expparte communication between you and the applicant of the applicant's agents attorneys or witness fellow planning board members have you vis visited the subject property and disclose if you're also a relative business associate of the applicant or the applicant's agent. Uh Steve Oelenic from NAS Pensacola. I did provide comments on this. No to all. No, but I drive by it about every day. Not to all. No to all. No to all. No to
all. All right. Um staff was notice of the hearing sent to all interested parties and notice of the hearing posted on the subject property. Yes, sir. Great. Can we have uh maps and photographs for case Z2026-09? Yes. This is the location along G Beach Highway. The current zoning of the map is low density residential. The future land use pending would be public. This is an airfield
influence planning district one. Um this is again showing the wetlands on the rear of the property. A fuzzle map is provided as well and the aerial map showing the existing fire station. This is the required notice of public hearing we placed on the property. Looking northwest at the existing fire station, looking north along Guff Beach, looking across Guff Beach from the site and looking south across Guff Beach. That concludes our maps and for photography. Um for a summary,
we found that it did meet all the criteria for the request. I would say that from our purposes for these type of reasonzonings, um facilities may have plans um as indicated from a submitt recently for a new fire station. The current zoning in these type of situation, it creates issues when it comes to these public type of uses for expansion. um the lowdensity residential um it it it's not necessarily compatible
um with what's currently being used for. So it's corrective in action and we found that it has met all those criteria for this request. Again, Mr. Speaker, if you don't have any uh public input, uh I'd like to move along and yeah, we did um have Mr. verge, but I think he got he's okay. Very good. We do not have any speakers. I'd like to make a motion to approve Z202609. Second and the staff's findings as fact. Okay. And second stands. All right. We've got a motion and a second. All
those in favor, please signify by raising right hand. All those opposed. Okay. Motion carries. All righty. Uh we will move on to our fourth resoning case. This is a resoning application. Uh KC 2026-06 request reszoning of 4707 uh Marcel Drive from MDR medium density residential district 10 dwelling units per acre to HDMU highdensity mixeduse district 25 dwelling units per acre
as requested by Jacqueline Jamont. owner. Members of the board, have there been any experte communication on this case we're about to hear? No to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. And at all. All right. Great. Um staff was notice of the hearing sent to all interested parties and hearing posted on the subject property. Yes, sir. Great. uh at this time. Um as long as the applicant's okay with it, um we'll do maps and photographs for this case.
Where is the applicant? Are okay. Is that okay? Do and then we'll get y'all up here. Okay, great. Oh, uh Mr. Adams, um for case Z 2022606, had you had any export communication? Not at all. At all. Okay, great. All right, we'll go ahead and run through those photos now. Okay, so this is our location map. This is our 500 foot radius zoning map. This is the future land use map
of mixeduse urban uh well it is in a 20-year well here protection uh area. That's that map. This is an aerial map of the site. I notice a public hearing sign. Uh it's looking west onto the site uh from Marcil. This is northwest from Marcil looking at site and this is north along Marcel Drive. Uh northeast from the actual site of Marcil uh east across from
Mercil. And this is south along Mercielle Drive. Uh south along Mercil Drive again. And that concludes our maps. All right. Thank you very much. And uh this time I'll have uh the applicant and their representatives go ahead and come forward. And just a reminder for um all speakers and applicants that we are back in our quasi judicial meeting and so u we will have everybody swear in uh under oath for all their testimony. So, um,
good morning and if you would just state your full name and address for the record and we'll have you sworn in. Um, Jacqueline Gem, um, 4707 Marcel's Drive. All right. Great. And then, did you receive a copy of the resoning hearing package with findings of fact? Yes. Okay. And you understand that you have the burden of providing by substantial competent evidence that the proposed resoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan, furthers the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, and is not in conflict with any portion of the county's land
development code. Yes. All right. You floor is yours. Um the um Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, Connie. Yes, thank you. The proposal for um the reasoning is um from um medium density residential to um HDMU. Um the proposal is for a prof professional service office which is to provide
service for emotional um relational services um to the community. The future land use is stated as um muou. Um and so part of that is really to analyze the compatibility which is for mixed residential and nonre residential which falls within the professional services. The escambia county land development code provides additional guidance to analyze um this compatibility. The um section
316 states that location criteria within the zoning district um it it it would be a smallcale dispersed neighborhood with mixed um residential and non-residential use. The services prof for professional service office offering individual couples and family for relational, emotional and behavioral therapy as well as educational services for supervision to intern therapies which intended
as a daily necessity. The requested amendment for the HDMU zoning district which is aligned with um anticipation for the HDU. We have today joining the church which for the appraisal of the property it is coded as church that is along the south of um there is a vegetation which will serve as a buffer for um the residential um in addition sorry section 223 of the design standard manual state
the buffer will protect the lower in in intensity use for the higher intensity use to provide the aesthetic attraction barrier um for the use that is being proposed. The proposed reszoning um of approximately 0.55 acres um consisting of medium density residential to high density mix use will not um result in any zoning conflict with existing use as established in the analysis. The
resoning will potentially allow local residents access to neighborhood professional service, which includes the individual for individual um couples and families for emotional um relational and behavioral therapy as well as for educational for supervision for internists. it is in close um proximity to homes and in turn also commercial um um services and so
with that I'm proposing for consideration for as it is considered for mixed um use urban. All right, thank you very much. Are there any questions uh for the applicant from the board? All right, I'm not seeing any. if we if we uh do need to get you back up here, we certainly will. Okay. Yeah. Thank you very much. All right. So, um at this time, we will move on to the staff's presentation. Sure. So, we're going to go through the criterion and staff findings of this
resoning. I'm sorry. My name is Kim Wilson, urban planner. Um starting with criterion A of the land development code consistent with the comprehensive plan. uh staff finds that uh in the findings that in a scam county uh comprehensive plan and its implementing document the land development code the county must consider the issue of compatibility of adjacent uses in determining the suitability of the development projects. Highdensity mixeduse is an allowed zoning category for uses uh and density within the mixeduse urban. However, uh the comprehensive plan
prohibits incompatible development in section 3.04. 04 incompatible compatible development is defined as incompatible development is new development proposed to be constructed next to existing development wherein the proximity of the two kinds of development would each diminish the usefulness of the other or would be detrimental to existing operations. The incompatibility excuse me can arise from either land use or structure size and design. Compatible development is
new development proposed to be constructed next to existing development in which the proximity of the two kinds of development would each complement or enhance the usefulness of the other. The intensity of the proposed resoning requested is compatible with low impact lowintensity residential development along Marcel Drive. Infield development is defined as development of new housing or other land uses on vacant or underutilized land in existing development areas
which focuses on the reuse and repositioning of obsolete or underutilized buildings and sites. Per the definition of the comprehensive plan, staff found that the reasonzoning requested of HDMU is not consistent with the comprehensive plan due to the existing single family residential uses that abut the subject property. Uh we have a zoning map that will show that if you see the zoning map, the property does not meet the definition of infield development because of the high density
mixeduse allowed by HDMU zoning district as stated stated in house 1.4. for uh the reasonzoning requested would allow more intense residential and commercial development that would not protect the character of the existing residential neighborhood. On to criterion B consistent with the land development code. staff finds that the proposed reszoning of the subject parcel from medium density residential to highdensity mixeduse is not consistent with the intent and purpose of
the land development code. The current zoning, the current MDR zoning is intended to provide for residential neighborhood development at moderate density with well-connected streets and urban streets and urban pattern greater than low density residential districts. Surrounding the parcels are predominantly uh medium density residential and the subject property is adjacent to a medium density zone residential zone parcel. The requested reszoning
would increase the density from 20 10 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre. A significant and substantial change. According to section 3-2.9F of the land development code, highdensity mixeduse zoning is appropriate only in mixeduse suburban, mixeduse urban or commercial future land use categories. In areas where intermixing of uses is established, future uses are uncertain or redevelopment is likely given the predominant residential character of
the surrounding area within this older subdivision known as Montclair number four, unit number four. Uh which consists of primarily of single family homes. Uh the range of commercial type uses permitted under requesting under the requested high dens mixeduse zoning category together with the substantial increase in allowable density would be clearly incompatible with the established neighborhood pattern and character. The proposed reszoning to highdensity mixeduse would introduce an isolated and inconsistent zoning designation that is not supported by the
existing development trends or an in indefinitable uh transition of uses in the area. Furthermore, creating a zoning classification that is out of character with the surrounding properties and not part of the logical or coordinated land use pattern. Um therefore the requested uh is not appropriate uh is inconsistent with the established development pattern of the area uh and it falls uh to meet the location I'm sorry it fails to meet the location criteria and intent of
the land development code. Uh additionally in the memorandum dated March 6, 2026 from transportation and traffic operations staff uh the comments were provided concerning the resoning request. uh they had no concerns regarding the proposed resoning. Um and their review is based solely on the application submitted packet. Uh therefore uh their comments uh do not limit or supersede any comments uh provided uh that may be provided by TTO staff during the development process review process. Um on to criterion D appropriative spot zoning findings by staff. Uh, by definition,
the proposed HDMU zoning would create or reinforce a condition of spot zoning as there is no HDMU zoning on the adjacent property. Uh, and it would extend extend I'm sorry, privileges not generally afforded to the other similarly uh situated properties in the area. Criterion E, appropriate with change or changing conditions. uh staff findings uh or staff finds that the land uses and development conditions adjacent to or near the subject property are not changing
and would not create incompatibility within the immediate within the immediate area. The property is located on a local roadway and is adjacent to single family dwellings. While the potential uses allowed under the resoning request district may be appropriate in general, the surrounding areas uh has not uh experienced suffic sufficient changes to justify the reasonzoning. Um and the appropriate HDMU designation would not reflect existing or evolving development patterns. Therefore, uh staff concludes the request, uh to reszone from medium density residential to high
density mixeduse is not appropriate due to lack of change or changing conditions in the surrounding area. And uh that concludes staff's findings for the resoning requested at 4707 Marcel Drive. All right. Um, are there any questions for staff's presentation from the board? Uh, yes. Um, when I was reviewing
this, I got to ask him or Horus, how did we get here? This is I mean, this is I mean, these ladies spent a lot of money and and certainly there's some guidance. There is a lot. They had a lot a bit a tall hill to climb. Mr. Now, there has been several discussions and I and and I and and I want to be very very respectful. There have been several discussions on the challenge of this request that staff had to write and go by the criteria in the code. It I mean several I can
go I can go into the litany of the history but at this time I prefer not to do that. even even one of our old um what I want to say one of the farmer planners that we've had she met with him Miss Allison um there was a there was a pre-application all of these things came up yet when there is an an insistency that let's do it and they say well if we get denied at least
we know for ourself basically But but but we we do know that these things are very very I don't want to costly they are very very time consuming and and it's not it is not always easy for staff to to try to not to put our feelings to the side but we had to put up based upon what we have to do. The code said we cannot be biased. We have to based upon what the land development code says. This yes
perhaps the services may be good but the reasoning criteria again this this property was separate from the church. The church this was a parsonage that the church sold off completely as a senior family home. And there were some other things that were done not perhaps according to everything the way it should have been done. And now we got to where they they brought it and this is where we
are today. I can go more in depth but not to be I don't want to I don't want to basically just just want to try to be as gentle as I possibly can if you understand what I'm saying Mr. B. But again there have been much much much discussion. So I I just I wanted to ask for the for the lady's sake the applicant our job is to not consider typ necessarily the end use as you describe it. It's simply the the zoning as it stands. But uh Horus, in your estimation or the county's estimation,
what is it that um the current zoning will prohibit them from doing that they wish to do? In other words, what's the ask will allow them that they cannot do in the current zoning because be because of the because of the commercial aspect of this request where they will have people coming in services being offered commercial it's a commercial operation and that's what triggers the reasonzoning now MDR MDR does allow for certain type of group living arrangements as someone
living there with conditional use approval but however their their main thrust. They wanted this to basically function as a clinic with customers coming in with with with with providers there. So they wanted this commercial operation and MDR is a single family dwelling district. It's adjacent to a MDR zoning. of the the little kids criteria as a challenge because we just don't look at the end use the potential uses that could go there. This can be destroyed be removed and basically you
can put an one of the most intense residential use could be an an apartment and we know how sometimes that definitely causes problems. So, but it's it's older subdivision single family homes. Yes, the current what they may be requiring may be very useful, very need needful, but I've been doing this for over 20 some years. Things change and then come in. What if house? Why? Why? Why? So as much as gently as I possibly can, we try to provide as much information as we possibly
can. Yes, Kim. Yeah. And spot spot zoning. All of these things is a problem with this use for this specific parcel in question respectfully. So going back to this lot when it was originally pulled out was this part of Mont Clair 4 this specific lot or was the lot that it was pulled out of part of it? This was a it was a church the there was a church as a talking to prior to that. So was this lot part of the original subdivision? this the square that I'm looking at right now was it or the lot
that it was pulled from specifically from that? We will have to look in that. No. No. According to Caleb Yeah. No, we didn't see it in the Caleb Mccardi Pler. Um we didn't see this. This appears to have been cut out from the church parcel and therefore separate from the platted subdivision of Monontlair Uniform. Okay. So there was no CCRs or anything attached to it that would have been when it was plotted. No. and and and again and and and as a matter of fact, a little bit more history, the the church people came to see me and I tried to provide as much information as I possibly can
with as much respect as I possibly can that this it was used as the parsonage. Yeah. Um, I do have a question. What was, unless I'm just blind or miss something, what was your findings on criterion C? I don't see that in C.
Um, the clerk pointed out that criterion C may have been a scrivener's error between the findings of criteria D. Okay. The third paragraph, I believe, is the beginning of criteria C. Um, and the criteria was appears to have been left out in an absence. So, what is what question you see? Surrounding uses surrounding uses. So, so if Yeah. So basically that was a scripture but we could we could correct that surrounding
uses is predominantly single family homes. Yeah. It was not appropriate, right? Not appropriate and inconsistent. Yes. Yeah. That's it, Mr. All right. Yes, sir. And we'll and if we we'll sort of if we can we'll fix that going forward. Just make sure. Yes. Yes, sir. Thank you. All righty.
Um, all right. We do have a couple speakers that have signed up here. So, for those members of the public who wish to speak on this matter, please note that the planning board bases our decision on approval conditions and exceptions described in section 2-6.8 of the Escambia County Land Development Code. Um, if so, if you will please limit your testimony to the approval conditions and exceptions described in section 2-6.8. eight. And also note that those individuals who are present and give testimony today on the record at this hearing before the planning board
uh will be allowed to speak at the subsequent hearing before the BCC. So if you would like to speak on this case or any case as we move forward, you must speak today to be able to speak at the county commission meeting as well. All right. So I've got Cynthia Wells. If you would please come forward, state your name and address for the record. We'll have you sworn in and then we'll start your time. Good morning everyone. My name is Cynthia Wells and my address um my personal address is um 7920 Melbourne Avenue, Pensacola, Florida 32534.
You may go ahead. Good morning. Um Dr. Jacqueline Herb this facility that she recently purchased um with the with the um the church property. It was that this is not we're not trying to open up a clinic. We're just trying to do a private counseling service for our community. This um property was adjacent to a church which would be very conducent to having a mental health therapist office there um with the church. And that orange part right there that you see that is all commercial. That first part right there is um Dollar General. It's right across the street from us. And then the church is right next to it. And then with that when they when they she bought
this property, we thought that whole yellow part would be her property. And so right now with the resoning that they've given us, which is so interesting, we can't even drive into this property without um access to the church because that point they cut out. You can't even drive into this property. So it's been resone. I think I want I'm requesting to be resone. We can get that whole all that yellow part there because that's what she thought she was purchasing. And then we can have it commercially because like I said that it's commercial all around it. And there's the pictures are very biased. The pictures that you did give us, you don't see the Dollar General that is right there across the street from us. And then the church right there. Like I said,
we're trying to That's a Dollar General right there. Yes. And that's the corner lot. Yeah. That's the That driveway is a Dollar General. And across from us, that's our drive. That's our drive across from that is a Dollar General. So it's not as such a residential and we're telling that we're just trying to do C. We're not doing a clinic. It's a private We are mental health therapists. We don't we're not slack people. We're just trying to do healthy families coming in to do counseling. It's not about hospital and a lot of a lot of traffic. People come one hour at a time. They're not coming five and six time a day. So I'm just very um I don't I don't know why we
are here. I don't know why we cannot have this as this building was the church Sunday school. When we open got this property was offices and desk and and stuff pianos in there. It was a church Sunday school building and we just trying to do counseling. It's not residential as they say it is. I'm just cons I'm concerned. We spent a lot of money, a lot of time. I was in the office as a therapist. I had to leave because so we could I'm now I'm out of work. But we can I I work at Baptist Hospital as a mental health therapist. I mental health and behavior is the last first thing to cut. We're trying to create a mental health facility here in the community in this area and
we just we're fighting to help our community and help the church and the people around the church. I don't understand why it's such a a struggle to do mental health out of this out of this. This this was a Sunday school. A Sunday school. It's two pianos. We kept the pianos. The pianos are there. is a a big they had a community room and a worship room and everything and it was a church. Like I said, I I'm requesting that they can just we can reszone it. We can have access to the driveway on her property and then we can make it commercial. So we can't do it just to a counseling office. That's what she was trying to do. We can only do
the parcel in front of us. Sorry. We can only legally be the part the applicated parcel. That's it. So we can't do anything else. And Mr. Van Horn, we again many times We as staff, we try to provide as much education as we possibly can and then we even try you may need to get other provide other assistance to to try to help understand. We we saw that and we we we try to do the best we possibly can without taking and do and then then then we we try to
do the best we possibly can and in many cases and I can understand some of the confusion you know to houses of worship can be on any zoning in Scambia County. So I get where they're coming into this and everything like that. So I can get where the change of use concern comes in. So I see that, you know, if I saw that as well, I get that confusion. Horus, if the applicant were to reside at the house and uh conduct business out of the home, that would be acceptable. It's still It's still in the current zoning. In the current No, no, it would not. No, sir. Yes,
sir. One more one more question regarding if something happened with the church and they decided on their second parcel to also try HDMU since it would be adjoining and it would be part of their, you know, their adjoining parcel. Would that make life easier at all? I mean, you would then have a joining HDMU around you minus the MDR, you know, south of you. Is there any chance of that helping? This is the situation. The church sold the property. The church does
not own the property anymore. No, I think he's referring to the church retain the the part that's behind them and and adjacent to them. We discussed that thoroughly with the church when they first started doing this and we provided that option there well because they wanted to remove the portions. We told them that they that'll be for the potential. But again, we can only provide as much counsel and education as we possibly can that there's a process where maybe that can learn to,
but they wanted to go this route. All right. Uh we do have a one last speaker, Elizabeth Hoffner. If you would please come forward and state your name and address for the record and be sworn in. Good morning. Good morning. Do I do this with you? Uh, full name is Ruth Elizabeth Hoffner. I live at 4621 Marseilles Drive, Pensacola. 32 55.
Okay. Yes. All right. Very good. You will get your time started. Thank you. I do go by Elizabeth. That's why I wrote it on that paper if that makes a difference. Okay. So, with this situation, um, hello Miss Jam. I'm Elizabeth. I'm the that lives in the blue house two doors down from you. Hello. We've never actually met and I certainly don't want to have
any discontent with my neighbors. Um the house is right next door. When we built our homes and moved in there, that house was still part of the church. So, us three ladies are part of the Habitat. So, the house is right next door, Habitat for Humanity, which is affordable homes and children, families, and that was part of the thing when we looked at the neighborhood being close there by the church. The Dollar General was just being built. So, hey, it's nice to have a corner store.
And most of the neighborhood while it is kind of an older neighborhood, nice calm, you know, crime rate low, there's a lot of walking traffic, but you know, still a very quiet neighborhood. Concerns with what Miss Jamant wants to do. First, when they bought the house, they had told us all they were turning it into a Airbnb. So, she never has planned to have it as a residence for herself,
it doesn't sound like. And then I guess whatever fell through with that and now we're at this point with having the therapy, which I believe she already does. She's got a business license and everything there, but it is only her at this time. Her proposal and what is up in the pictures, she has turned the four bedrooms into four offices. So, while the other lady said, "Oh, it's just one person at a time." It's not. There's going to be four therapists there, which means a
minimum of four clients or patients. And what kind of therapy are those other um therapists going to do? She also wants to be able to do educational services and has even started calling herself a school director. So, is that planned for in that little building? The driveway for her is across the street from another house. It's not directly across the street from the Dollar General, but the
concern is one, taxes will go up if that becomes commercial for us in the immediate neighborhood. um the increase of traffic and I'm glad people get therapy because a lot of people need it but sometimes that brings a bad element in as well depending on whatever type of therapy that they're going through. a lot of children in our neighborhood. Children that play actually outside and ride bikes and play ball and you know us as parents don't have to
sit out there all the time because we know it's a safe neighborhood and everything's going well. Oh, does that mean me? Yeah. Sorry. Thank you very much. Is there any questions for the speaker or No. Okay. Um any further questions for staff or the applicant? And Mr. Wilson, if I may, I want to I I do want to we have to look at all of the potential uses, and that's critical. That that is that's critical. Not Not the current operation
that they may be trying to go through that. And there are still some challenges with that, but we have to look at all of the reasonzoning and all of the potential uses that could go there and all of those other potential uses respectfully could have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties in close proximity to the intended use. Okay. Uh and Miss Hoffner, you're welcome to take a seat if you want to at this time. Yes, ma'am. U Mr.
Yes. Regardless of what may be the decision um here today, I want to ensure a level of integrity. Um at no point in time was there ever discussion for AB and B. I don't even know what that is. Um so at no point in time was that ever discussed. I I am a licensed um marriage and family therapist. I'm a school director. I worked with the Toro University which
is an online program. I am the school director for the um doctorate in marriage and family therapy, the ma the master in marriage and family therapy and the um master um in of arts with um specialization in addiction which is located in California but we are an online university. So in terms of my profession um stated as a school director that is what is being referred to. So at
no point in time was there intent to do um school director at 4707 Marcel's Drive. And as stated and I repeat at no point in time was there ever a discussion or stated ABNB. I don't know what that is. I go with my profession. I study as a um my doctorate is in marriage and family therapy and my license I'm licensed in Florida in Virginia, Georgia and Texas. So no point in time and as uh I
just want to state that um in terms of integrity. Thank you. All right. Any further questions? No, I just wanted to, you know, while we are woefully underserved uh in the mental uh health of our county, that's without a doubt. Um this is why on this board we are uh kind of isolated in the fact that we have to keep it subject only to the zoning at hand. And unfortunately, as you ladies knew, you had a pretty tall hill to climb coming in here. It's unfortunate that
uh I I think the county does pretty good usually trying to head off these situations and this one just this is difficult. I I I hope that you are able to find a place that doesn't uh look in your favor currently, but I don't know how the board will vote, but I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time and effort to uh be part of the process. Thank you. Um, if there's no further questions, I will entertain a motion if uh fellow board member would like to make one.
Well, unfortunately, I'll make the uh motion to uh take the staff's findings in effect and deny the request for resoning. All right, I've got a motion. Do I have a second? Any discussion on the motion? All right. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. All right. Motion carries. Uh we will move on to our next case. Have we Is there an update
at this time? I do not see the applicant. Um All right. Hey board, uh, Andrew Homer, Development Services. I received a call from Mr. Paige, the agent, this morning, but prior to the meeting, he was in an accident. Uh, and I don't believe he's going to be able to make it. We're going to have to look at moving this to next month. Okay. Um, you you have speakers. Uh staff is recommending approval,
but you have speakers one on each side of the issue. So yes, see that. Um yeah, I think if the applicant is not here um to state their case, then um is it best for us to table this until next month? I think you have a couple of options here. You could hear evidence and then continue it for the vote or further discussion or you could postpone everything
entirely. Okay. Board. Um I will take direction from what this board wants to do. Um I would think out of respect for the people that did make the trip here, we listen to their say. I don't know if that uh dilutes or or waters down their argument if we then continue it into next month. How can we hear and weigh comments if the applicant is not here to um answer to them? What what you could get on the Oh, I'm sorry. I was going to say what you could get on the record
is the uh comments from the public if they weren't able to make it next month. You'd at least have that on your record. Mhm. Um, obviously the the applicant is not here to refute or cross-examine anything they say and isn't here to make his own case. So, I guess it's at your discretion. Um, can I would agree with that? It's discretion of the board. The applicant, while maybe not his choice not to be here, the board could proceed with hearing testimony should it choose to do so. Uh,
it's discretion of the board. Does um the ability for the applicant to not cross-examine a witness that's given testimony under oath diminish our decision if we're basing it on facts that we're being given? If the applicant doesn't have the opportunity to object or cross-examine? Sure. This becomes part of the evidentiary record. Should he address want to address the issues, he could watch the recording and address whatever comments he deemed necessary to
address in his presentation at the next uh planning board. Um I think it's a workable, but it ultimately comes down to what the board wants to do. Mr. Chair, I would think it would be fair to hear the people on either side today and then go to a continuence next uh next month for the again if they cannot make it next month, they will be on the record and they will therefore be able to speak at the county commissioners. Uh I just think that it's somewhat cumbersome I know to be here at whatever time 9:00 on a Tuesday. So I would out of respect for them,
I would move that we hear them and then continue the case on the next month and hopefully they can make the trip a second time. All right. So we've got a motion um to hear speakers for this case today with knowing that we will have a continuence of that case into next month. Is there a second? Do we want to ask the speakers their desire before we make a decision for them? Sure, we sure can. U I've got I cannot read the Yes. Mr. Thomas and Miss Hilda, are y'all um wanting to
speak today or would you be available to Okay. All right. So that's two. And then I've got Mr. Scott Bell as well. You'd like to speak today or wait till next month. Okay. All right. Mr. Rushing, that's that's good. I mean, I'll second that then. Okay. We got a second a motion in a second. Um, all those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All right. So, the motion carries. So, we've got a resoning application for consideration case Z2026-10
reszoning request of the 5200 block 5203 and 5209 West 9M Road from low density residential district LDR for dwelling units per acre to commercial district 25 dwelling units per acre as requested by Buddy Page the agent for Ivon Han Desi Arita Han and Lindsay and Timothy Lindsay the owners um have board members has there been any experte communication uh on this case Z206-10? No to all.
No to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. Staff was notice of the hearing sent to all interested parties and notice of the hearing posted on the subject property. Yes, sir. All right. and we'll now take a look at the maps and photographs for KC 2026-10. Thank you, Caleb McCertie for Escambia County. This is our location map showing the properties along West Nile Road. This is the 500 foot radius zoning map. The current zoning assigned of the property
is low density residential. The future land use map shows the property as mixeduse suburban and this is a aerial photo of the properties. This is the notice of public hearing sign we placed on the property. Um since there were a couple properties we have placed three as required. This is looking south onto the site. There is existing house I believe there.
This is also looking south to try to capture the surrounding uses through there. You see apartments abuing the property. It's fine. This is looking east along NMI road. And this is looking across NM Road. Looking west along NM Road. And that concludes our maps and photos for this case. All right. um board, how do we want to proceed with this? Do we want staff to go through their
findings or do would you rather hold off on hearing um findings from either the applicant or staff until next month? What's the best way you'd like to move forward with this? Well, personally, we've read the the findings. I've read the findings where they are. I think I understand where they are. What we don't know the uh is with the speakers. I would be more interested in hearing the speakers and Okay. keeping that into a continuence. All right. So, we'll hold off on that until next month and we will have uh our speakers come forward. Um and again,
you got to speak at this hearing uh before you can speak at the board of county commissioners meetings. Since we are doing this today, if uh the three of you were not here to speak next month at the meeting when we vote on this, um your attendance and testimony will be recorded here today and added into that report that's given to the county commission. So, um all right, we will start off. Uh Thomas, if you'll come forward, state your name and address for the record and be sworn in. Sorry. Thomas Kilstadius, 120 Cookamo Road, Pensacola, Florida 32534.
Uh, yes. Uh, for when I would really like to hear what the county had to say at this meeting. I don't know if they can go back and do that, but that would be very, very important. Um, we own property on the other side of the power line to this property. Um, I'm for it. I think everything in that area needs to go commercial. Everything's going to be commercial eventually. I would propose um they did it on the other side of nine mile all that used to be every had to reszone it reszone it do this finally the county said everything pretty much over there they reszoned it commercial by
middle school all that people were petitioning they reszone that again it I think anybody that lives in that strip eventually has to face reality that that is all going to go commercial apartments um high density they're doing um OF8 right across the street the biggest development in scam county in the history that I know of Escambia County um people that want to actually build a resident that whatever they should realize what's happening in that area. I mean eventually it's going to be if they don't want to live in a commercial area they should not build there. They should not buy thing
to me that that's there because eventually they're just going to be in heavy traffic residential. Um I don't know why anybody would want to oppose it. It's actually excellent for the property values in the area. all the homeowners that live property in there, their property go up in value. Um, and like I said, pretty much, you know, in the Bula Middle School area, that has just changed drastically in the last 5 years. Um, now south of that, um, it's going to change. You know, Sterling Properties,
he's in there. They do high-end commercial properties. Um, they're starting to they want to sell properties in that area, immediate area. Um, I just think it's good for everything. and I wait for the day when they'll just reszone the map in there. We don't have to have all these meetings. Um people don't have to individually reszone it. They'll just say, "Hey, from here to here, it's going to be all commercial." Because that's the whole pretty much the whole area is going to be right now. Um but again, I come to listen what they had to say about it. Um that was really
important. I may not be able to be here next month. Um, so I don't know if you can reconsider that for other people in here want to listen. I mean, obviously that's one of the most important things. What does county have to say? You know, I mean, obviously the people selling it, they want to go commercial. We've already know that end. So what what does the county have to say? I mean, I hope y'all are for it. I mean, again, you know, they start putting shovels across the street there. Uh, that's going to be a whole mess anyway. So, anybody that doesn't want to be there, they got five years to get out of there, move, do whatever, you know, because it is going to
be commercial, you know, that's just a handwriting on the wall. And that's all I have to say. I hope you guys vote for it. Um, I'm definitely 100% for it. Thank you. Thank you so much. And may I add something? Uh, staff findings are published uh on the agenda. You can read what staff findings were. uh our staff can help you if assist you if you're looking to find I'll be happy to I'll be happy to email them to you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, the next speaker we have is Scott Bell.
Good morning, Scott Bell. Uh 5924 Belg trail, Pensacola 32526. Okay. from the testimony you're about to give. I do. Um so this is the complete counterpoint to the last gentleman that came up. Um you know the question is does the prop proposed zoning contribute to a logical and orderly development plan uh for this area. Um I'm going to say this this resoning is you know not
allowed under Scambia Countyy's land development code chapter 3. uh it's not necessary and it's contrary to the uh successful development of the of the Bele area. Um it's not in the public's best interest. It threatens to lower our property values and I think that the noise, the congestion um will will decrease the the uh pull of residents uh towards that area. Um just because you know you know change is coming doesn't mean change is good, right? doesn't mean that residents who
are already there, who have been there for years, you've got Nature Trail, you've got the U Bellidge Forest neighborhood that I live in, and I live in the souththeast corner. My my property uh butts with the southeast corner of the proposed resoning. Um it would it would basically lower our quality of life. Right. So, right now, when I pull out onto Nine Mile Road from my neighborhood, and I can say the same for Nature Trail, the traffic is ownorous. It's dangerous. You take your life in your hands trying to get out into that traffic, right? There's not going to be
another traffic light that's going to, you know, help things make things better or safer. So, this this is a bad idea. Go jumping right to commercial opens it up for anything, right? Anything could go in there, right? We're not we're not we're not kind of graduating to a higher use. That probably would make more sense than just jumping right to commercial. So, now you're introducing uncertainty into this process. Um, so let me just move down your approval conditions. Is it consistent with the comprehensive plan? No. It says right in your in your guidance in chapter 3, it does not meet f
future land use, general distribution and extended uses as per the table in the land development code uh chapter 3. Is it consistent with zoning provisions? No. See see above. Is it compatible with surroundings? No. It encroaches upon and threatens the quality of life of surrounding LDR neighborhoods creates more noise, more traffic, more congestion. Nine Mile Road does not support the smooth ingress and egress of traffic from that area if it were to be moved to
uh commercial. It threatens the successful development of site 8. To date, there has been no ground broken on site 8. So, if you're starting to move commercial across the street, well, you just threaten your development of site 8. We're all looking forward to a successful site 8 development, right? This has been promised and proposed by the commissioners for years. And if you start making it commercial, more commercial across the street, well, you you're just pulling those commercial developers uh and and and owners away from
that area. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All right. And our final speaker is Miss Hilda. If you'll please come forward, state your name and address for the record and be sworn in. My name is Hilda Kilarios. I live at 120 Koko Road, Pensacola 32534.
I do. Um I'm just here to support the resoning of the um West Nine Mile Road and we have a property there and just to oppose the uh what the previous speaker the property value there already increase and if the real estate already crazy gone crazy so it's just the truth and that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Those are the only speakers we had for this case. So,
um, as we did have for our motion, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Ask a question. Sure. What is this going to be like apartment duplex is what they're looking at doing there? We do not know the potential. Go ahead. We haven't had any, excuse me, Cayla McCarti, planner for Escambia County. We haven't had any submitts um to our development review committee. Um, so, but the commercial would allow apartment duplexes just like the other ones we have. Correct. Yep. It would allow the variety of uses of the commercial zoning district. Yes.
Right. Um so again, we will rescheduled the Yes, sir. I I'd like to add that uh it should be addressed the cost of readvertising this uh the subsequent meeting. Uh it's you all's decision whether it should be borne by the applicant, which it likely it's you all's choice. Uh but the cost of readvertising and all the mailers there should be addressed today on that continuence. Can we back up and ask what is keeping us from going ahead and voting today? Nothing. You can
go ahead and vote. This was a properly advertised and noticed meeting. Uh it's you all's decision to weigh whether you all would like to hear from this speaker uh and have him there's can be no new evidence presented at the BCC the board of county commissioners meeting when this when this is voted upon. So that effectively would eliminate his ability to uh speak during that meeting and have uh his uh presentation sharable at that point. But it's it is you all's decision. This was a properly
advertised uh meeting. Mr. Chair, could we have Mr. Mccardi read the findings in the record? If I may, if I may. Um, as Mr. Andrew Homeman, the deputy director, uh, we we we've been talking to the applicant, the owner for a long time on this. There was other so so and Mr. Paige is definitely aware. As a matter of fact, there was another reasonzoning that he did want it. We talked him
off the ledge on that one. Uh but we did tell him that it's still going to be quite challenging. So, this been going back and forth about by how long, Joe? Well, it seems like a couple years. Keep in mind um as your your attorney explained moving forward um the cases that are proposed and brought before the board, it's not staff's argument to make to prove their point or to argue the applicant's point. We just simply do findings based on the code. Um in this case,
you you know you have lots of options of what you can do. Do bear in mind the applicant would then you know could say listen um board I didn't get a chance to make my case I didn't get a chance to refute statements that were made in opposition to my case these are all things please weigh uh in your decision on what to do I would say to the speaker my only reservation I I get it uh is that that is Mr. pages uh trade and livelihood and I I'm curious to it's a big jump from LDR to
commercial to one of the speakers points uh and I almost would like to hear him defend that but uh you know we cannot present any new evidence is my understanding and that would be I guess my uh inclination to move for a continuence and have the applicant bear the cost of advertisement unfortunately uh due to the fact that it was already u I I don't know I Mr. Fears you you can give me an opposing view on that one I I would support that. Um
then they bear the cost of readvertising. I I think that's yeah I think that's reasonable here in this circumstance. And I'd like to clarify something. Did uh Mr. page request a continuence verbally. No, sir. He he told me that he would try to make it. Uh but he still I don't know the extent of the incident. Uh I do know that the vehicle was he believed it was needing to be towed in which case he wouldn't have a way to get here. So
Again, I do believe that the board can proceed how how they wish to. They can either offer provide for a continuence with cost to be paid by applicant or move forward with uh potentially a vote today. Thank you. Mr. Council, what is you know if we offer that and he refuses what happens to the case at that point? we have it continued and he didn't agree to advertise and we can't do it if we don't advertise. We seem to be in a conundrum. This was
a properly advertised meeting. It's his responsibility to be here or have someone else be here. It's not on the county to make sure that people show up for these. That's a good point. All right. So I guess to my point, if we continue and give them the opportunity to do so and they choose not to pay for uh the advertising cost, we at that point next week we can make our summary judgement.
Is that correct? But I would think if they don't pay for it as recommended from the planning board, we will not bring it to this board because we won't bring it to you all because if the board make a decision, y'all are the government authority and if they refuse to pay it, then they have their own other proper recourse. We just won't bring it because it got to be advertised. I can add one final thought here. We do have another case to be heard and Mr. Paige can be contacted to see his status. we could come back and revisit this matter after hearing the
subsequent case uh first. So that decision could be postponed till later today. Yeah, you all really get the choice though, whatever you all want to do. Let's move on to case 11 then. All right, I'll uh I'll reach out and try to get you an update. All right, sounds good. Okay, and we'll take a quick five minutes recess real quick and then we'll get to our last case. Yes sir. Yes sir. Got too many.
All right, we'll uh get this party started back up. All right, so uh we've got another our last resoning case depending on what happens, I guess, with the other one. Um, but the reasoning application for consideration uh is case Z2026-11 requesting resoning of a 15.59 acre portion of 1400 block north highway 29 from LDMU lowdensity
mixeduse district 7 dwelling units per acre to HCLI heavy commercial and light industrial district 25 dwelling units per acre amended to commercial district 25 dwelling units per acre. As requested by Meredith Bush, the agent for DP Developers of North Florida LLC, the owners, members of the board, has there been any exparte communication on KC 2026-11? No to all. No all.
Not to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. All right. And we'll get Mr. Pile when he gets back in here. Uh staff, was notice of the hearing sent to all interested parties and notice of the hearing posted on the subject property? Yes, sir. All right. And Meredith, if you're good with photos and Okay, we'll go ahead and have staff present maps and photographs for the case. Excellent. Thank you, Caleb McCardi, Escambia County Planning. This is the location map showing the subject property. This is a 500 foot radius zoning map. The zoning assigned to the property is low
density mixed use. The future land use designation is mixed use suburban. This is a aerial showing the property off of Highway 29. And also we want to indicate the portion that is being requested. This has been split out um from the overall portion. This is the notice of public hearing sign as placed on the property. This is looking onto the site from Highway 29. Looking north along 29
there and looking across north highway 29 towards Cedar Tree Lane. Looking across 29 from the site and looking south along 29. That concludes our maps and photos for this case. All right. Thank you very much. Um, and Tim, we went through the exparte communication, so just going to ask if you've had any exparte communication on Z61. Okay, very good. All right, Meredith, I'll have you come
forward and state your full name and address for the record. Meredith Bush, 314 South Balin Street, Sweet 108, Pensacola, Florida, 32502. Attorney and agent for the applicant. All right. And as the attorney, we do not need to have you sworn in. Um, and you received a copy of the reasonzoning hearing package with the findings of fact. I did. Okay. And uh do you understand you have the burden of providing by substantial competent evidence that the proposed reasonzoning is consistent
with the comprehensive plan furthers the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan and is not in conflict with any portion of the county's land development code. I do. All right, you can go ahead. Um thank you members of the board. We appreciate the opportunity to present. Um, as indicated by the staff, the 15.59 portion of the overall property has already been divided. That lot was split out in February. We're just waiting on the property appraiser to actually update the maps, but the division has already occurred. So, we are just talking about the
portion indicated on your screen right now and not the whole piece. Turning to the criteria and the code, we are in agreement with staff's findings. I'll run through the resoning criteria. Um, as far as number one, consistency with the comprehensive plan, the proposed commercial zoning is consistent with the mixeduse suburban future land use designation. MUS permits a mix of residential and non residential uses, including retail and service uses. Um, criteria two,
consistent with zoning district provisions. The comm district is intended to accommodate general retail and service uses. subject to performance standards governing compatibility. Um this request al the ultimate development will comply with these standards and of course would be subject to development review under the land development code. We are consistent with the intent and purpose of the district compatible with surroundings criteria three. The proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding development. The property is located along an arterial corridor
and is in close proximity to HCLI zoning and industrial uses. Commercial uses represent a lower intensity use relative to those entitlements. Nearby residential areas would be protected through buffering setbacks and operational standards and the proposed commercial zoning district does not introduce impacts that would material diminish any surrounding properties. uh for appropriative spot zoning. Although there is no adjacent commercial, the proposed
resoning would not constitute impermissible spot zoning. The subject properties located along a major arterial corridor where commercial uses are anticipated and appropriate under the comprehens comprehensive plan. The presence of existing HCLI zoning and the industrial park activity in the vicinity demonstrates that the area already supports non-residential uses of greater intensity than those permitted under the comm zoning. Uh the request represents a logical and incremental
extension of compatible non-residential zoning along this corridor and is supported by the surrounding development pattern. Um therefore it's not an isolated or arbitrary zoning decision. is corridorbased, demand driven inconsistent with suran surrounding land use patterns. And then uh criterion five as to changed or changing conditions. Um conditions along the highway 29 corridor in this area have materially changed. There is um exper uh continued
growth and development in the area resulting in an increased demand for neighborhoods serving retail and service uses. The subject property represents a prime infill opportunity to address this demand uh due to its location size and access to the major transportation corridor. Um and then as far as resoning to um commercial, we do meet the location criteria. Um just as a bit of background, we initially had applied for HCLI zoning because of the fact that there's HCLI on both sides of
the industrial park. However, given um you know concerns regarding the intensity of those uses and recognizing the county's uh position that commercial is a much better fit, we modified and amended our ask uh reduced down to the commercial uh zoning category. And with that change, uh the county has, you know, agreed and supports our application and we would adopt their findings. Happy to take any questions. All right. Any questions for the applicant at this time?
All right, if we need you to get back up here, we'll call you up. Thanks, Meredith. Uh, next, we'll have staff make their presentation. Excellent. Thank you, Caleb McCarti. Again, on behalf of Escambia County, present these findings for 2026-11. Again, the future land use of this property is mixeduse suburban. The requested uh reszoning is currently LDMU, low density mixed use, and request it to be changed to HCLI, heavy commercial, light industrial. Um
again, we did um have an amendment um based upon commercial. Um issue there was that we advertised um as heavy commercial, light industrial. However, we received the amendment to commercial after that. So, we had to address it. um kind of in both ways which would made it a little bit more unique. Um so I'll continue into the criteria at this time for criterion A if this is consistent with the comprehensive plan. We found that the proposed amendment to
ACLI and the amendment requests to commercial are consistent with the intent and purpose of the future land use category mixuse suburban. The mixuse suburban future land use area allows a mix of non of residential and non-residential uses that are compatible infield development. Note that the consistency with the mixed use suburban future land use is limited to non-industrial and related uses and other provisions for screening and buffering of commercial uses as required and comprehensive future land use 5.5.1 with the exception of residential development.
Redevelopment of properties is encouraged to promote the efficient use of roads um and utilize the service infrastructure. Furthermore, in accordance with comprehensive plan future land use 2.1.2, the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals to promote compact residential development by allowing allowing reszonings to higher densities within the future um land use of mixeduse suburban category. And then comprehensive plan um housing 1.1.5 encourages
mixeduse development with housing within close proximity to non-residential uses for criterion B consistent with the land development code. We found that the proposed amendment to ACLI is not con consistent with the intent and purposes of the land development code. The current zoning of a lowdensity mixuse allows for a mix of lowdensity residential uses and non-residential retail sales and services. The request to reszone to ACLI would allow more diverse and intense uses with greater
density than the lowdensity mixeduse district. The HLI zoning district is appropriate when providing transitions between areas zoned or used for high density mixuse and areas zoned or used for heavy commercial or industrial. The request to HCLI zoning district is limited by the mixeduse suburban future land use category. Industrial and related uses of HCLI are not allowed within mixeduse suburban future land use. Note that the applicant has provided an updated request for this resoning by amending the requested change to the commercial zoning district.
The area surrounding the property has undergone extensive residential growth and the development of supporting commercial uses within the confines of buildings may be appropriate in the vicinity to serve these residential neighborhoods. Per the commercial zoning district location criteria is found in section 3-2.10 E4 AB and C. The requester may satisfy the requirement by designing the site to reduce adver adverse impacts to surrounding residential uses by locating intensive commercial
elements farthest away from any residential uses in the area. The property does not abut any single family residential zoning districts. Therefore, the commercial zoning district is consistent with the intent and purpose of the future land or the land development code. Furthermore, per land development code provision section 3-2.10 10F the proposed resoning to commercial can be established within the f future land use of mixeduse suburban. Also our TTOR traffic and
transportation operation staff um have provided a comment related to the resoning and they have no concerns for this request. Criterion C compatible with surrounding uses. We found that the proposed amendment to ACLI would not be compatible with the surrounding uses. Um the subject property shown to be currently vacant within a 500 foot radius. We identify properties within the zoning districts of low low density residential LDR, medium density residential, MDR,
and LDMU. Area contains primarily single family residential uses. Per the land development code, compatible is defined as a condition in which land uses, activities, and conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use, activity, or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use, activity, or condition. Furthermore, the comprehensive plan defines incompatible incompatible development as incompatible development is new development proposed to be constructed next to existing
development wherein the proximity of the two kinds of development would each diminish the usefulness of the other or would other or would be detrimental to existing operations. The incompatibility can arise from either land uses or structure size and design. Compatible development is new development proposed to be constructed next to existing development in which the proximity of the two kinds of development would each complement or enhance the usefulness of the other. Per the requested amendment to commercial zoning, the request is found to be compatible with
the surrounding uses of LDMU zoning district. To achieve compatibility, the land development code provisions require implementation of screening and buffering, limiting impact of site lighting, site access, and placement of commercial elements away from surrounding residential uses for commercial uses that may abut the residential uses. Incorporating these standards to achieve compatibility is required to limit any potential negative impacts to surrounding properties so that the uses although different can coexist in support of each other through the sight specific
development review process. Compatibility of the commercial zoning district uses can be achieved by incorporating required buffering and screening of adjacent residential uses. The commercial zoning district also requires commercial uses to be inside of buildings and on-site lighting to not be reflected offsite. Criterion D, appropriate if spot zoning. By definition, we found that the proposed amendment to commercial would be considered spot zoning as there are no abuing commercially zoned properties in the area. The commercial zoning district requested is higher in
density intensity than the LDMU surrounding zoning district. Although the spot zoning to commercial is not prohibited, compatibility with surrounding uses must be considered upon site development to ensure that the proposed properties do not experience adverse impacts of the requested zoning district allowances. Criterion E appropriate with changed or changing conditions. We found that the land uses or development conditions within the area surrounding the property have changed. The
surrounding area is undergoing extensive residential development. Per the approved master plan development for be Bellaterara development review number 240198 PSD-mp 440 single family residential lots are planned in that area. We provided exhibit A to promote efficient use of existing public roads, utilities and service infrastructure. The comprehensive plan encourages redevelopment and other underutilized properties to maximize development densities and
intensities in the future land use category mixeduse suburban. The subject property lies along a principal arterial road of north north highway 29 which serves as the primary north south corridor within the county. Additionally, the site lies between ACLI zone properties to the south and along the north highway 20 line and nil road and the central commerce park to the north which contains well established industrial and heavy commercial type uses due to the development
within the area. Considerations to allow new uses, densities and intensities in the area can be considered through resoning. The request would not create or contribute to sprawl as the allowances of the requested zoning district will be combined to the subject property acquage. That is our staff's findings for this resoning request. All right, board. Any questions for staff? All right, seeing none. We do have several speakers that have signed up and uh just a reminder if you haven't uh to speak at the board of county commissioners meeting, you will need
to speak here today as well. Um, and so I will call your name and you'll just come forward, state your name and address for the record and and be sworn in. Uh, we've got Jim Homac. Jim Homac 1700 Scenic Highway, apartment 900, Pensacola, Florida. Co-owner of the property.
I do. And I don't really have any any comments at this point in time. I just want to make myself available uh for any questions you may have either now or later. All right. I appreciate you. We uh we need you. We'll get you back up here. Thank you. Next speaker is Sharon Coburn. You all just please come forward, state your name and address for the record and be sworn in. Hi Sharon Coburn, 1100 Ridgeway Canto. Hi. Um, I'm here for a lot of reasons, but one of the things that I'll let the other people
talk more about it, but this is the notice that I was given for what was we're going to talk about today. And this is the map that I was given. And I this is my property right here that abuts this map that I was given. So, um, I've had this for a while and then when you published the agenda, I was able to look and I read through everything and what comes to mind is what exactly were we meeting about? So, the letter that I have states that we're having a hearing for this parcel of
land to change the zoning from LDMU um to heavy commercial and light industrial. And it shows the map of the property in question. But when you look at the information posted online and attached to the agenda agenda, the information is different. It says heavy commercial and light industrial amended to commercial. And then the proposal that you go through that Miss Bush prepared um the del with the developers she's requesting um or or they put how it meets the heavy commercial light
industrial and then if you go down there's like 60some pages. It also goes through the commercial. So, as a resident, as I'm reading through this, I'm not sure exactly what's being asked for, and I think that this public document that we have, it's not clear what's being asked for. I feel like we shouldn't even be having this meeting for this property at this point in time. Um, all of the pictures show, they don't show that property, they show this property and then
this property is snuck in at the end. I I feel like this makes it seem kind of sketchy, kind of slimy to to like put this in at the last moment. It doesn't give us as homeowners time to prepare adequately for what they're asking for. So, we've had time to prep a lot of time to prepare for the um heavy commercial, light industrial, but very little time to prepare for the change of switching it to commercial. It's not really clear in the notes what exactly the property
that we're doing. Are we only talking about this red square? Is that going to be commercial? Do they still want the rest to be the um light industrial heavy? I it's just not clear in the documentation that's provided exactly what we're here for, what we're doing for. I also um want to notice that this is the second time I've been here for property surrounding us where we're talking about split zoning and we don't have it properly recorded during the meeting that we're having here. We don't have any proof. We don't have it's not on the records. second
time that we've been here that we've done this. This uh the first time was a different property that uh was on Neil Road and now same thing with this property. Um I do want to take a couple of very much there any questions for the witness? No. All right. Thank you very much. I'm sorry y'all know I'm sorry. Where's that $10 jar? Mhm. I think I I might have said turn your
phones off at being at the regular meeting and not the resoning meeting. So, he he turned it back on when we got into this one. All right. Um, our next speaker is Jacqueline Rogers. If you would please come forward, state your name and address for the record, and be sworn in. I hope we have adequate time to give the all the information so we can also give it at the BCC meeting. My name is Jacqueline Rogers and I live at 1420 Ridgeway Camp to Florida 32533.
Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. I do. Okay. So, I'm going to go talk fast since we only have three minutes. Um, this zoning request should not be approved because it does not meet the criteria. Criterion B, this proposed zoning is not consistent with the propo purpose and intents prescribed by that district. Purpose A uh says that the primary intent of this district is to allow more diverse and intense commercial
uses than the neighborhood commercial allowed within the mixeduse district. Right now, it has a mixed LDMU and you're going to do more intense district. New and expanded residential development is limited, but we don't need more commercial uses. That district already allows quite a few retail um sales and services, and they're more appropriate to the lowdensity residential properties existing right now under construction. Right on the side of that, if you look on the map uh uh where that brown is, they're building homes. There's almost 90 homes there. Okay. In section u
in the section 3-2.10 of the commercial district it says the um reszoning is only appropriate if it provides a transition between areas zoned or used as highdensity mixed use and areas zoned or used as heavy commercial or industrial. If you would put the zoning map up for me right there and I have it in my hand. There's no heavy there's no HDMU there's no there's no HCLI adjacent to this property. So this is inappropriate. It's not consistent. Criterion B, criterion C,
um, you have to decide if it's compatible. Now, you can't say, well, maybe in the DRC we can make it compatible with screening. It's not compatible. The things that right now it's allowed lots of commercial uses. So Highway 29, okay, you're going to put some commercial uses, doctor's offices, restaurants, things like that. But this commercial would allow hotels, motel, public lodgings right next to all that housing, public utility structures, warehousing or maintenance facilities for government facilities, shooting arrangement, amusement centers. That's what commercial allows.
Outdoor storage um to allow to a principal use, parking garages, self- storage facilities. That's what this would allow. Commercial dwellings up to 25 dwelling units. LDMU only allows seven. So you have LDMU right there, right behind it. The rest of that property they're saying is going to stay seven units, but you're going to allow 25 units up there. And it allows 150 height maximum. That with 10 foot ceilings, that's 15 stories. Is that appropriate on that property next to those single family homes? They say there's no single family dwellings um zoning, but there are on the ground
single family dwellings. Criterion D, this is so much an example of a spot zoning. Even your staff said it, but they said um you know that we can atten attenuate this by splitting it out. And again, we didn't know about this split until they throw that up and make the change. Criterion E, there's no changing um conditions around this property except for the lowdensity residential that this county approved. This is the plan that they approved. They opted out of the sector plan, went to LDMU, and then this is the big plan that they did. So, they don't meet all those criterias.
And I just my final thing I'd like to say, the board action, thank you very much to the attorney or whoever decided to put the board action on the back of this sheet. But even if it meets all that criteria, you are allowed to deny this if it changes the quality of life. And that's what that board action says in the land development code. It's still never enough time, guys, to to present this. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our next speaker is Jane Harrington. If you'll please come forward, state your name and address for the record. I'm gonna get you sworn in.
Jane Harrington. I live at 1170 Ridgeway, Ken Tment, Florida 32533. Do you swear or the testimony? Yes, I do. Okay. I'm the older of all of us. I have been out there for 25 years at 1170 Ridgeway. And originally, this was going to be behind my property, but it's going to be a little bit above it, but it's going to decrease my quality of life. In my house, I have two and a
half acres. I love to get outside. I love to be able to smell the sweet breezes and the flowers and the animals that are behind my home. And this will decrease a lot of the older residential area. This is an older residential area. We have lots of property. And you put this behind us and it's going to decrease what we can enjoy when we come home from work or as we are retired to stay there
and have a peaceful existence. Now, originally the buildings were going to be behind my home. I'm shaky. Be behind my home. They were going to be patio homes. What happened to that? That we could have, you know, that's residential. That's great. But if you're going to build a a road that comes down, which I'm down from 29 in this other property and build buildings, they're going to back up to my property and take away my sanctuary, my calmness, my hope for retirement in peace.
And I hope you will reconsider not making it commercial, but remember the people that already been living there for 25 and 30 years. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Lewis Harrington. If you please come forward, state your name and address for the record and be sworn in. You didn't want to speak. You wanted to donate time. Uh we've I haven't allowed for that. um as chair and so we won't start today but I do see here that um he's indicated that you
did not want to speak but that you are against um the resoning so got you here on the record. All right, our next uh speaker is Danielle and I will not butcher your last name. So, oh my gosh, Oyson Reader. I met my husband on a traffic accident. I was the police officer that came to his crash and I looked at his driver's license and I butchered it. I said the same thing. I was like, "Uh, Mr. Ashen Reader." So,
you can't do any worse than I did. Fair. All right, we'll get your we'll let you state your name and address and get you sworn in. My name is Danielle Oxenriter. My address is 1375 Ridgeway, KTO, Florida 32533. Okay. Do you follow my testimony about I do? Can I just begin? Okay. Um I've got to cut this short because we only have three minutes. So, I'm here today not for me. I'm not here for my family. I'm not even here for my neighbors who
I know and love. I'm here for the 90 families who haven't moved in yet. I'm here for the the an entire development of folks who will purchase their homes and never be told that the property immediately adjacent to theirs is being considered for HC development. Um so it is for these families and people I may never meet that I submit the following. Um and I do have some pictures but I don't want that to take up my time. Um, and I won't go over the staff findings because you've read them, but the staff findings state over and over again that this application is incompatible.
Um, this that that there's not Okay. Um, it's not compatible with the surrounding uses of the area. The applicant's property is within 500 ft. It actually abuts right to it. And I have pictures that show from me to that flag. That's how far the the commercial property is um from the the actual single family homes that are right there right now. Um the of this new Belterra um subdivision. I would like to add those into evidence, but um as the applicant pointed out, the property is located
on high 20 highway 29. There are plenty of other parcels up and down that road that are would that would be compatible with high um high HCLI. um this one right now. Um and yes, the parcel on the northwest corner of Neil Road was given this HCI zoning, but it is not connected in any way to this parcel. So, this parcel of butts up to low density residential. It's single family homes. That's what this that's what's surrounding this property. Um, Lenar Homes put in these subdivisions um before
um the the property on Neil Road was considered I'm sorry, they put these subdivisions in after the the property was considered uh the the Neil property was given the the HCLI zoning. Um now um that those homes are are here, it is your responsibility to protect them. And with that, I now um ask the board do just what I have done. Stand up for the 90 new families, welcome them in our community. I ask know I beg you to preserve their quality of life and future property values.
By denying this application, you are not harming the applicant. They can still sell or use their property as it is currently zoned and allows for lowdensity residential uses or non-residential retail sales and services. But if you fail to deny this application, you will cause the irreparable you will cause irreparable harm to to 90 new families, some of who have never purchased homes. This is going to be their first purchase. They're going to come in and they're going to find out, oh my gosh, they they're now going to put in these this commercial monstrosity, and I have to listen
to it. I have to hear it. It's it's my kids. I may not be able to play in the street because I don't know what other traffic it's going to bring in. Um, this is two seconds. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Uh, our next speaker, last speaker I've got signed up here for this case is Linda Dean. If you'll please come forward and state your name and address for the record and we'll get you sworn in. Sorry. Okay. It said all right. Um, and I don't see on
here you didn't check if you're for or against it. If you'd like us to or if you don't want to say, you don't have to. I just wanted to make sure. All right. Okay. That's fair. All right. So, we've got no further speakers on the item. Are there questions from the board um at this time for staff or the applicant? Yeah, I would ask staff could you could you uh expand a little bit upon how from HCLI it is no way in any shape or form compatible and then when it goes to
commercial it is compatible. I I mean just what's the what's the boil it down for me? So the future land use of the property is mixed shoes suburban from LDMU to HCLI is a pretty drastic jump. Um, but we found that the commercial uses, although LDMU, the current zoning, does allow for commercial uses, all the uses of the LDMU district were found to be available
in the commercial zoning district. Um, with it fronting Highway 29, the principal arterial road, um, the current request to commercial would be more compatible than the big jump to ACLI. Yeah. Did you have a question about something? I had those pictures that I asked to be put into evidence of the single family homes so that you were able to see. That is correct. Family homes, but also how close they are actually to because it says in in the findings that or several times that
there sometimes it says that aren't there and some that there aren't single family homes and then sometimes it says that they are there. So, I just want to put in evidence they are actually there. Yeah, you did ask that. Um, and so that would be a decision for the board to um, accept that into evidence or not. Is there physical copies of these? I didn't find out about this meeting until 21 hours ago. So, I was copies, but I do I did run out in that time and take photos. I could email them. What I tried to do before this started so that so without physical copies,
it'll be an issue. Uh, timing is an issue here. Unfortunately, uh typically the process is you bring physical hard copies. You lay a foundation of what the who, what, when, where of the photos are, and the board gets to decide whether to admit those into evidence with them being a digital copy. Uh there's just not really a way to do that sufficiently. Uh today, I would politely say that in that sheet that you guys sent out, there's nowhere that says that I have to bring
as as evidence from a lay person. I'm not an attorney. I'm not I'm not one of these wonderful board members. Like I don't even work for staff. I would not know that. How I I don't even know where I would find that information. So I would ask the board understand that none of that me lay person just trying to support my community. And I and these photos even though that they're not hard copy, you can still look at them and you can still see the same thing as if they were standing here copy. They haven't. Ultimately, the decision does belong to the board. Can I help bridge the gap
here? Let me ask the speaker a question. If you could step to the podium, please. And if you could take our photography to the satellite image, could you just point out where the pictures are on the satellite of that you have personally taken and you would like for us to consider? I I would be glad to. It's just photos. Definitely. Just stay right there. And you'd ask me to guide her finger. I'm a I'm a I'm a teacher. So, you know what I mean? Like, I got to be at the board. I'm sorry. So, if you look at the brown clay, those it it's it's I'm not kidding. It's from here to to that
to that um that flag pole. And I just wanted you to see that they're they're they're already there. We're not talking about right now. What you're seeing is blank. Um and I noticed that it was not put in the applicant's um portfolio. They went out of their way not to show any of the the the photos of the the the homes that are there. And that's what I I wanted to show you was there are actually there are single family homes there on the ground and they are right they they they're right there. So understood. Thank you. I've traveled that corridor. I'm familiar with the development. I
know probably what you took a picture of. Okay. I appreciate that. That's all I wanted to Thank you. Then I have a question for staff. Uh, can you just confirm, Caleb, that I'm sure there's a protocol and a process for amendments. Uh, can you confirm that the amendment filed by the applicant is compliant with that timing and the process of public knowledge and all of that? Yeah. So, we publish um the actual findings and the finalization of the case approximately what
a week or so. we we strive to do earlier, but typically it's about a week. The advertisements go out about two weeks um as required. So, that was somewhat of a conundrum for staff because we had to address the public notice as well as the amendment requested. And the advertisement then is not required to be accurate because an amendment can be compliant after the advertisement
is mailed. It wasn't an upzoning. So, you know, our legal legal position taking the stance that if it's a less intense use, it can be bumped down by request without needing to amend the advertising. Uh ultimately though it is up to the board whether to to uh how how they would like to weigh that. Mr. Chair. Yes sir. Is is there usually y'all have pictures where somebody stood on the road from the
county right and took left right south. I mean y'all y'all don't show the new houses. Yes sir. You're correct Mr. Adams. Due to the size of the property the property we're talking about is 15 acres. Um I think we provided a photograph showing south highway 29 um that didn't capture that. I can tell you the um the testimony that there is correct there has been substantial growth in this area. Um the development and res reference as you see here from the time that this map
was created to today I'm looking at current GIS those parcels have been delineated. So, it takes some time. There's house is under construction. Um, but it takes some time for that information to be updated. That southern development where the triangle piece believe is um referenced as Enclave at Bellotera. It's a very new subdivision. Um, I believe it's about 90 lots of single family. So, but our photographs didn't capture that for sure. So, can I ask a question? Can we go to the next
page down on this? We're talking about resoning that specifically. Correct. That portion. Correct. Can So, can I ask something? The mailer that went out. So, is it an active I know it's a lesser piece, but is that accurate? We can not sure the correct configuration even. So, the the lots have not yet been updated on the property appraisers map. So even though the lot is created and that is what you know the official records everything the 15 acre portion is what the property we're
referring to that that map doesn't yet exist. The property appraiser has advised that it's going to be 90 days for famil. So for that reason, our application shows the overall piece and says it's a portion of 15 acres. The survey submitted, everything shows it's just the 15 acres. There's a cover letter in part of the backup that says, you know, everyone understand the maps that are uh, you know, indicated are reflecting the, you know, the current map. However,
they're placeholders because it's a 15 acre split. So, um the only map that exists other than this which was created, you know, Drew is is for the overall Porsche. Yeah, just a little and if I may, Mr. Let me real quick, Miss Rogers, just about the notice on the map. Okay. Um more testimony, but nowhere on here is there a link that says they will add the Jack and Rogers. Nowhere on here is a link that says you can go see any updated information. It doesn't even tell you you can find
the staff findings on the notice. So that's not on there. So there's no I mean I I went and looked, but when did they put it? When did they change it? I mean there's no date on there to when the applicant changed their thing. So yes, it's a it's maybe not an upzoning, it's a downzoning, but there's a different argument. There are different uses and how do you prepare as the public? So this is what the whole entire piece is what was advertised. Thank you. Okay, Horus,
were you um Yeah, I'm sorry for the uh I mean we we got to understand this is that we try to work with other governmental agencies as part of their processes. When it come to the property appraisers office and their maps, we don't we cannot control their timetable. Um the survey explicitly calls out the 15 acres, the information provided and we know that sometimes pictures and diagrams
and and we resone the legal descriptions and and there is on the website when you get the packages there's clear please contact us as quickly as you possibly can. So so it's still b if if it feel like your decision I will find it still would not change. We as Caleb said so well the the better alternative was the commercial because HLI a little challenging and they agreed to that. So, but it's up to the planning board. If they feel they want to make sure that the staff, you can.
Of course, we don't want nothing to be to be to be litigated over a technicality, but we but we really do believe that we are in compliance with the way that we did this procedure being that the surveys and everything did show the 15 acres and and and and Bubba Peter's office, they maps and they don't, but there's a background. Well, they received it. They just got to update their maps and and this is standard operating procedures for like when we do commercial DRC processes. It's the
standard operating procedures. And if I may just address some of the other questions, you know, it is routine, maybe not routine, but it does occur where we come in for a more intense zoning and even in the hearings determine, hey, you know what, this is a better fit. Can we agree to, you know, amend on the not on the fly, but obviously in the middle of a public hearing to go to a lower category, um, in which case you don't have the benefit of a written analysis from
staff or an updated application here. Although the advertisements went out for the HCLI, we were contacted about going down to the commercial. We said, "Sure, absolutely. That still meets our ultimate needs amended." And so the um findings do reflect that, you know, we've made the amendment to commercial um fully appropriate and within the the bounds of law as well as the fact, you know, it would be concerning if let's say we only advertised the 15 acres and came in and said
we want to do the whole piece, you know, versus it being the converse where we're actually what the public received notice of a greater, you know, potential impact and we're coming in saying it's actually a smaller impact. It's a less intense category. It's a 15 acre portion. Um, you know, short of us I mean, I don't know what we could have done to to had the maps created before now. I mean, obviously other agencies and entities work well with us and sometimes they we get the maps quickly. Sometimes it takes a longer time. Um, you know, it used to be, I think, six months to
get a split record. You know, actually the GIS updated now it's about 90 days. So, we're just within that that time frame. as far as uh some of the other you know statements of these speakers um you know the fact that this is split zoning well it it appears that it would be a split zone property but it's not because again now they're two separate parcels and again the surveys in the backup show two separate parcels um you know spot zoning is not prohibited it's not an absolute
bar simply because there's no adjacent commercial doesn't mean that this commercial is not allowed Um, you know, we have met the criteria. We agree with staff's findings. Staff's report is competent and substantial evidence that supports approval. Um, the owner of this property is the developer of the surrounding neighborhoods that have been referenced. So, the fact that there are 90 homes, you know, in one portion and and I believe the backup talks about the 440 that are coming,
that's part of the basis as to why this makes good zoning sense. I mean, there are all these residences coming out there and there is a need for, you know, a large retail space, a grocery, some sort of neighborhood services to, you know, facilitate those residents. Um, no one is certainly going to, uh, you none of this is done in the dark. It's not a secret that we're here asking for it. So, someone buying property in the area, if they are paying attention to what's going on, they'll see the signs, they'll talk to their neighbors,
they'll see, you know, the development there. So, um, you know, we've met the criteria and appreciate your consideration. Again, Mr. Homecak's here and can answer any more specific uh development questions, but as you all know, you know, it's not contingent upon the ultimate proposed use. It's um the zoning category and we meet the criteria. So, and and if I may, and that's the purpose of planning. You try to plan for for where we know that development is coming to try to plan for you have when they get this have some retail services.
If this were like agriculture areas and zoning but different story but this highway 29 which is a major major arterial. So try to plan for those type of economic for the for the residents so when they come there they can have some anchors there. They don't have to drive so far out and that's that's what planning mean planning. So it's probably not going to be apartment duplex of 420. It may be other commercial. Correct. Yes. Again, you know, we can put anything within that category, but the intent is not for any residential. There's a residentially
um developed master plan that's being modified to carve out specific commercial uses, retail uses that will serve th that new neighborhood, those new neighborhoods. So, you know, and if we were able to do contract zoning and say this is what we're doing and tell you and have you get, we would do that. But the law doesn't allow that. So, but no, it's not apartments or anything like that. Do we have any further questions for the applicant or staff?
Mr. Homac. Yeah. First of all, on the setback issue with the residential, uh there's a utility easement that comes down the side of that property right there. I believe it's about 30 ft and and the houses don't even go all the way up to the property line. So, so there is going to be a decent setback for the houses that are already being constructed. Uh, what our intention is is to bring a grocery anchor retail center to the property. That that's what we want to do. And when we've talked to the builders about, you know, that's what what our plan is, that's what we'd like to get accomplished. Obviously, they were very excited about it because they they
know all their 90 or 100 future home buyers are going to want to have a grocery anchored retail center in front of them, too, where they can go do their shopping. So, we think it's a a use that's that's much needed in that area and with all the rooftops. I mean, I think I counted 400 500 new homes that have been built within a mile, two mile radius in the last three or four years in just that area. So, that's our intention. That's what we want to bring to the site. Anything else? Thank you. Um, further questions? Okay, we We have uh no further speakers at this time
and ordered. If there's nothing for staff or the applicant, I'll entertain a motion on KZ 20226-11. Is there a motion for the case one way or the other? I'd like to move for approval based on staff findings for the commercial um for Z2026-11.
All right, I've got a motion. Is there a second to the motion? If there's no second, the motion will die for uh a lack of a second. All right, motion has failed due to a lack of a second. Um floor is back open to take a motion on this case to take action.
I just keep coming back to I it was advertised as something else. I know was higher on both the use and the size and I understand with the property appraiser but even in this this is not the same thing. I know that's what Drew this should have been brought back when it was all properly done. That's my opinion. If I was bringing it forward I wouldn't have brought it with this. Um that's what I'm drawn back to. I've been this is not correct. I I've been in a meeting where we have changed the
um the applied reasonzoning on the fly and I was okay with that because it was an existing parcel. This changes the parcel and the reasonzoning category after the advertisement and the general public did not have I don't know if they had or not because I was not paying attention when the amendment actually went live on the site. But Eric, even still
we're talking about in this subject property, this one singular page is dictating this. So I understand, if I may, can we just agree to readvertise that our costs, come back next month, the staff's findings are going to be the same? I don't know that the property appraiser is going to have the maps updated again in February. We were told it would be 90 days. I can of course call Mr. Peters and ask. I'm sure he'd be willing to, especially with a nudge from the planning board perhaps, you know, do what they can to assist.
um you the surveys, the cover letter, everything that we submitted clearly indicates 15 acres. The the picture though does show much larger than 15 acres. So rather than a denial today, I would much prefer we just come back next month. The individuals here are on notice of what's happening. They'll get another postcard in the mail that says commercial that says, you know, here's here are the boundaries. Um, it's not going to change staff's findings or our position. So,
but you would come back with commercial only though on that on the findings, not just HCLI. That's right. I would I would ask staff that too. So, I mean because what it was mailed out was for HCLI. Correct. And that's the reason that they wrote it the way they did. Um, but yeah, but would it just be a straight commercial and a straight, you know, findings of approval? If if that is desire of the board, we will gladly they're going to pay for advertisement. We will gladly come up with a straight request for commercial so that everyone the public they have
so they going they can show up. They can start doing what they need to do. I think that's a lot cleaner. Okay. But if you all I mean that's I will want some other people's thoughts on this before I say it. For for less confusion also. Do you mind if you go to page 289 on your presentation? 289. Why is this in here? I can address that. So, this was a approved is an approved master
plan for Bella Terra. Um, this was important to staff's findings because this master plan has 440 single family homes. Um that's not including the triangle that's referenced in Enclave and the cottages at Bellotera. That's an additional hundred or so homes. So um as Mr. Homiac attested that that's over 500 um lots that are currently in some form of development. Um the developer and their team has been in conversation. They understand that there is a
um resubmitt that is expected of this if this was to proceed um and it would modify that. Obviously, they would lose some residential lots there um and those type of things. So, we're we're in conversations about that um proceeding with. So, right now this is actually approved. This this could be done today. It is a master plan that that it's very particular. Um each phase of that master plan would need to proceed through the preliminary plaque construction plans, final pla phases. But now with that 15 acres out that drastically changes the footprint, but it the plan
is still in place, but they'll change it changes the footprint of how this plan is done. As such, this is approved. They'll modify the master plan. Yes, modify the master plan. It's just confusing for you. I'm assuming for, you know, the public, they're going to see this as part of it and not knowing what part of we are on this without any explanation. So, I wanted to clarify that for, you know, for myself and also for the residents around there that this is actually an approved plan. The 15 acres is going to change this plan. This is actually can be done now. And
that's and that's extremely important position that you make. It would have to be modified if it is approved. And as you can see, that's as I said before, that's what planning is. You would want some type of retail services to accommodate the potential for those residential units, homes, and families. So, they may not have to come so far in town. So, a planned urban development would have been probably a more desirable avenue than this. We're kind of doing it backwards. I
wouldn't say we're doing it backwards. I I would say this. I would I mean not I would say again not for the the for the benefit of the public it seems like it is backwards and it does seem confusing. I understand the applicant's point that hey it's lesser u but it seemed like it does I don't know if it matters now but I think I think I think to have all to clear to clarify for the community to make sure there is no avenues openings for any litigation over technicalities if that is the
wishes if that desire the board and if the owner consent or the attorney consent to that we could see where clarity, clarification, going straight forwardness is always because y'all want to got to make that decision and y'all have to have peace on the inside when you make your decision with this in there. That's more the reason why I even come out. You chisel out 15 acres, but you're showing the whole parcel, you know. I'm sorry. It's in the public record. You're showing the whole parcel as a full development inside of it, you know, and then there's only one image
showing the chiseled out area. I would That's my 10 cents. Yeah. And I I would remind the planning board that although we can request um with the property appraisers office, this is a very common um thing that planning staff deals with when it comes to splitting property every single day. And I'm familiar with the combination and splitting process. It may not be rectified by the next Yeah. Yeah. But I'm I feel like this was a little step ahead, but that's just me.
All right. So, um applicant has offered to readvertise and bring this back in a month for the parcel that's being split out strictly on a switch to commercial basis. Is that the move we'd like to go in? So, I'll take a motion. I'll move forward for that. Second it. All right. We've got a motion on the table bring this back uh be readvertised by the applicant. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. Okay. Thank you. Uh,
Meredith. Um, all right. Did we get any word from uh Mr. Paige? Mr. Jew is coming right now. Spoke with Mr. Paige. Uh, he is okay with bumping it to next month and he will take on the cost for advertising. Good. All right. Very good. So, we'll continue that. That motion will stand. Um,
and we will continue that KC2026-10 to Yeah. Oh, did we? I guess we need to make a motion. I feel like we started to and maybe never got I believe it was pending, but you all can vote on it now. Okay. What was the case number? Z2026-10. Make a motion that we continue 2026-10. applicant with applicant bearing cost of readadvertisement. All right, I got a motion. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor,
please signify by raising your right hand. All right, motion carries. Uh staff, do we have any updates? I would like just because we're moving all uh several cases. These cases that have been moved will not be going to the BCC on May 7th. I will send out new advertisements probably next week to show a May 5th planning board meeting and a June 17th BCC. So those should start going out by the end of next week. And Mr. Walker,
if we can, we want Mr. Homer came up and I hope we keep this online because I think it's some relevant information that need to be that he need to say to make the public a aware of some issues that are going on that definitely has drastically impact my department and someone who is is very sad that it happened to. So, I I just want to get this out there uh on the record again, and I will speak with our public information office. We did run they did run
um an alert on our website. Someone is sending out fake invoices um ostensibly from our department. It's not us. Um and I've spoken with neighboring jurisdictions. It's happened to them as well. What's going on is we when we publish we publish the all the pages turned in including the application. It'll have an applicant's uh email on it. Someone is copying our logo,
putting it on a document, sending it out saying they owe money. If they click the link, it's a scam. Uh it it's been happening with us. City of Pensacola, City of Gulf Breeze, all the way down the panhandle it's happening. So, um, we we had that incident come up again today twice. Uh, and I will be to two of the applicants and, uh, I'll reach out to PIO and have that run again on our website. All right. Thank you for the uptake. Please beware of any any invoices that you may get
that stand for my department. You please contact development services department immediately. contact us because unfortunately it's happened to somebody today and they paid them $5,000. All right. And uh I didn't have any forms filled out for public speaking, but if we do have anybody that would like to, we'll Jacqueline, if you want to come forward, we'll get you three minutes for public forum. Again, I do want to say thank you for putting
the um board criteria on there. I hope you guys get a copy of this that um that it says that even if the reviewing board finds from the record that the applicant has presented competent substantial evidence establishing the prior conditions, the board, that's you guys, shall then consider whether maintaining the current zoning will serve a greater public interest. And that's great that you guys put it on there. Thank you. That was kind of a hassle before. If the board finds that no new uses, densities or intensity of use of the proposed zoning, any resoning will likely diminish
the quality of life, reduce property values, confer special benefit on the subject to the property to the detriment of the community as a whole or create adverse impacts upon surrounding properties more than the uses, densities or intensities of the current zoning. So, I mean, I know we've said this before, adnauseium, there's sometimes um just to say you can still deny it if it meets all the criteria. Of course, the lawyer's going to tell you you have to, but if you find that the current zoning has enough of what it needs to have for the community's good,
you're allowed to deny it. So, I'm not speaking on a particular one, but I again I my only other suggestion is could you guys just put a link on here to say check the backup? there's going to be the um staff findings and the working case um on the agenda and give the link to the agenda because I know it most people don't. Um the other thing is you guys on on highway 29 things you you're going across the highway on a divided highway. No one's crossing four lanes. They're not worrying about
the effect over there. So your 500 radius is over there and that's just wrong. It should be around around the property. But there is no reason staff should not be looking 360°. Nobody cares across what's across Highway 29. I'm not talking about just this property. This has happened on so many things. Why does someone from the public have to go and take pictures because we might not come. We might not I'm my mom's on hospice. I might not be able to come if I don't come and talk about the criterion and how I don't think what they're saying is correct. you guys have denied other
ones today for for some of the same things. So, we have to trust that the staff is really going to take pictures of everything. So, clean up the files, but also take pictures of what's actually on the ground and and look at what's you you have plans talk about what's actually already approved. I feel like today there was advoc advocacy for the applicant and not for the citizens and we can't always be here and so we need obviously you guys are the arbitrators of fact but I don't feel
like the staff should be pulling or or omitting evidence that that's another thing I'd like to say. Thank you. Thank you. And then did you also want to Okay. So, so I don't speak land code ease. I I had a crash course in it last night. I was up real late. My eyes are spinning. But if we could make this easier for somebody like me that's dumb and and trying to figure this out, it would be better. So, when you publish things and and I didn't even know I could find it online. So,
if you like she said, put the website on the notice, but also when you're publishing things, if you could put in there a link to the the commercial, the code and what is available, like what does that mean? So that somebody that's dumb can go and click and they'll say, "Oh, okay. These are they want commercial or high heavy commercial, light industrial. This is what that means. This is what they're asking for." Like the more information you can supply to the public, I don't do your job. I will never do your job. I appreciate that. In fact, you all do your job,
but it's not for me. But, but I can't afford an attorney like Mrs. Bush to come and speak on my behalf. So, you have to do your best to give me as much information as possible and and I feel like I have to get a I have to have a second job in order to to to catch up to speed to get here to be able to speak somewhat eloquently. Um, so I I I applaud you for putting that on the back as well. And and I know that we're continuing to get better. Like that's, you know, 4 always
getting better. But I would I would try to to it's your job. You're my advocate. So give me as much information. Arm me with the same information that you arm the attorneys with. You know, they they went to law school. I didn't. So give give me more if you would if and that's that's all I have. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Right. Thank you. And uh we had one more. Um I was just going to address earlier about um about the um on the 9m. It was the Z 2026-10.
Uh Mr. Bell was talking about inconvenience and going out. I go out of there. I'm right next to that. Said I go all the time. You don't put your life in danger unless you're driving crazy and trying to get in between. They have a light up at um at um um inbula up further by the Publix that breaks the traffic. So if you wait till the traffic that's not if they develop something it's not going to change it right there. Also he's talking about lowering property values. That does not lower property value. Realize that that that that's already that case has already been Oh,
okay. I thought they were doing a public forum on on just addressing things in in in the future. Okay. I I was just saying when they put a red light in there, it breaks up everything anyway. So, if anybody's worried about convenience, you know, that that stops that. We we have state we have state troopers that really love that substation. Do they really? Okay. I live Well, they did, if you're familiar with NM Road, the crazy between Lowe's and Home Depot and Publix. That was really busy. Same thing. Hard to get out. They put one light on Bowman. That changed everything when they did that light in there. So, you know, they they control that a little bit,
but I just that's all I'd say. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Um I don't think we have any further Yes. And and I want to say this if if there's if there's anybody and I know I'm putting myself out there again. If there's anybody we my staff I got a outstanding planning on department. We take a whole bunch of hits which is part of our job. We get lied on. We get talked about even rejected. But it's our job. We're public servants. We don't mind providing any
type of information on our processes. Land use is complicated. It's complicated. But we are here. We may can't put everything on the paper. But if you have a question, you see something on the paper, call us. Call me. We don't mind talking. We'll take the time and we'll explain it because and if we don't things that we don't know, we got an outstanding legal department. We can always contact our legal department. So, so we don't the process may not be as you want them,
but we're going to make sure that our processes are in alignment with the state statutes as and we're going and our legal department is going to make sure that our processes and our procedures are in alignment with the state statutes and what we do because we do know land use has the tendency to cause litigation. So, we going to always try to stay out of litigation as much as we possibly can. I don't had enough. M Mr. Speaker, I'll just ask Horus if horse if anything that uh that they
suggested the links, etc. Is that too difficult to apply to the package? No, we will always take a look at those suggestions because when we start doing those things, there are costs involved, right? We may have to add some things and then all of the all these things are good. We'll do what we can. good suggestions, but we start making links. They've got to all all that things require. So, obviously, it's been it's been suggested. I would ask from the board that you guys do research and
let us know if it's too ownorous. It's too ownorous. But, uh, to your point, I don't think it ever hurts to, you know, we have a select few that have waited through the difficulties and kind of know their way around it. But, anything we can do to make it less intimidating. I hate seeing somebody up here shaking. I mean, this is an pretty mly looking bunch up here. You should be feeling really confident about yourself when you're talking to us. But I just anything we can do to make it easier for the public to be part of the process, I think, would be welcomed
if it isn't. Yes. We just don't want to because see if if if we try things and it doesn't work, then that's a Mr. Jones, you said it. So therefore, I say we're going to try to explore all those possibilities and we'll come back to you and give you a report. But if we say yes, we're going to do that and we cannot do it, it come back on us. So I want to always leave the opportunity that we're going to do our level best to explore and to try to do we possibly can to fine-tune our
processes. Hey Horus, it is just a suggestion if you decide to do it. one of them little square things where you can just take a camera and it'll show the link. Go right straight to the package. Be done. QR code. Yeah. So, if you got some young people that know how to do it, yeah, all those things help. Do you want to also speak for public forum? All right. Great. Jane Harrington. Um, I wanted to say that one week after I received my letter, I called and talked to a man named Andrew
and he did not tell me anything had been changed on that plat. And I expressed to him my concerns that what was already planning to be built behind me was going to change and why and what was going to be built. And I understand from this morning that it's going to be a grocery store about a grocery store. Well, we've already got two within a half a mile of that property. So,
why mess up that piece of property that's going to be residential, which we will have families around there and make our lives better and move it further down or across the street. It's just that this person wants to sell that piece of property to make some money and destroy everybody else's life. But I had already called, okay, and was not told that it had been changed. And that was a week after I got the letter. So, was it done after that? And andrew didn't know that.
Yeah, you you can talk to him afterwards, but you don't have to respond. Don't respond. Right. Um, all right. We've got no further speakers. I think uh we got our marching orders. We'll be back here on May 5th. May 5th. That's right. And uh if anything nothing else, we stand adjourned.