October 16. I don't know where
All right. Good morning. Is this I guess that's working. Uh this meeting of the Escambia County Planning Board for October 7th, 2025 is hereby called to order with six members present. We do have a quorum. Just a reminder to put your phones on silence or turn them off. And if you would please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nationy
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. So moved. Second. Got a motion and second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed, I will note we do have seven uh board members here with us now. Uh the planning board meeting minutes for September 9th have been provided to the board members. I'll entertain a motion to accept the planning
board meeting minutes into evidence. Do we have a motion? So move. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. All right. Motion carries. Planning board hearing package for October 7th has been provided to the board members. I'll entertain a motion to accept the planning board hearing package and the legal advertisement into evidence. Do I have a motion? So moved. Motion, a second. Second. All right. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand.
Motion carries. All right. Today in our regular meeting, we have one public hearing, a smallcale amendment application for consideration in case number SSA 2025-06. It's a request a flu change or future land use change of 2300 North Highway 29 block from RC rural community to I industrial as requested by Meredith Bush agent for David and Diane Fitzpatrick the owners. Um Meredith,
would you like them to go ahead and present uh any photos and signs on the property? Okay. All right, board. I'll go ahead and present. Rachel Whitmire, development services coordinator. Case SSA205-06. Here's the location map. We have the 500 foot radius zoning map. This is the existing future land use map. And here's the proposed future land use map. This is just showing the DESAP map where
it was currently opted out. And here's an aerial. We have the notice of public hearing signs posted on the property. This is looking onto the site from Highway 29. Looking south along Highway 29, looking east across Highway 29 and looking north along Highway 29. And that concludes maps and photography. All right. Um, Meredith, did you um did you get a copy of staff's findings
and the report back? Yes. Okay. And were you in agreement with with those? Yes. Okay. Um, I don't know if you want to add anything to this, but we don't have any speakers on the issue and um I know typically if we have staff and the party in agreement that will try and expedite the case. If there's no objection from any other board members. Okay. None from council or staff. So if if there's no objection, then I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve 2025-06.
Second. All right. A motion to second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All opposed? Okay. Motion carries. That is all we had today on the regular meeting. So, we'll adjourn that and we will call to order the planning board resoning meeting uh for October 7th. Hereby call to order with seven members present. We do have a quorum. 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. So moved. A motion to a
second. Second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries. The reszoning meeting minutes has been provided to the board dated August 5th, 2025. Are there any additions, deletions, or corrections? If not, I'll entertain a motion. So moved. So moved. All right. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries. The hearing package for October 7th with the findings and facts have been provided to the board members by staff.
Um, I'll entertain a motion to accept the resoning hearing package and findings of fact and legal advertisement into evidence. Do I have a motion? Motion to accept. A motion to have a second. Second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Those opposed? Okay. And the resounding hearing package with findings of fact u will be marked included in the record for all today's cases. Will the court reporter please swear in members of the staff? swear or affirm the testimony about this case will be the truth. The whole truth and so you do it.
Yes, sir. All right. And the board has previously qualified staff to offer expert testimony in the area of land use and planning. Um if anyone has any questions regarding their qualifications and ability to offer expert testimony, please say so. If not, we'll carry on. Okay. At this hearing, the planning board is acting under its authority to hear and make recommendations to the board of county commissioners B the BCC on resoning applications. These hearings are quasi judicial
in nature and 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 a decision, the planning board will consider relevant testimony exhibits entered into evidence in 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 boardroom. You will not be allowed to speak until we receive a completed form. And please note that only individuals who are present and give testimony on the record today will then be able to speak at the subsequent hearing before the board of county commissioners. And at that time, no new evidence can be presented at the BCC. Therefore, all testimony and evidence must be presented here today.
The planning board will provide a recommendation for each reszoning request to the BCC which will review testimony documents and exhibits, consider the closing arguments, and make a final decision. All decisions by the BCC are final and anyone who wishes to seek judicial review of the decision of the board of county commissioners must do so in a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days of the date the BCC approves or rejects the recommended order of the planning board. All written or oral arguments or communications outside of this hearing with members of the
planning board regarding matters under consideration today are considered exparte communications. Exparte communications are 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 exparte communication to please identify themselves and describe that communication as required 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 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 uses and conditions and is not necessarily the same area required for mailed notification.
A logical and orderly pattern shall require demonstration of each of the following conditions. Condition A, consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed zoning is consistent with 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. Criterion 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 proposed district in chapter 3. Criterion 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 six with surrounding uses. The uses of any surrounding undeveloped land shall be considered the permitted
uses of the applical district. Compatibility is not considered with potential conditional uses or with any non-conforming or unapproved use. Also, in establishing the compatibility of a residential use, there is no additional burden to demonstrate the compatibility of specific residents or activities protected by fair housing laws. Criterion 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 sightsp specific balancing of interest between the isolated district and the adjoining lands. And criterion 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 or likely to create or contribute to sprawl. At the beginning of each case, as long as there's no objections from the applicant, I'll allow staff to briefly present the location and zoning maps and photos of the property. Next, we'll hear from the applicant and any witnesses that they may wish to call. Then,
we'll hear from staff and any witnesses they may wish to call. And finally, we'll hear from members of the public who have filled a speaker request form out. There are two cases to be heard today. The first is the reasonzoning application for consideration is case Z2025-07 which requests reszoning of the 2300 north block or 20 2300 North Highway 29 block from
RMU rural mixed use district two dwelling units per acre to HCLI heavy commercial and light industrial district 25 dwelling units per acre as requested by Meredith Bush agent for David Fitzpatrick and Diane Fitzpatrick, the owners. Members of the board, have there been any exar exparte communications between you and the applicant of the applicant's agents, attorneys, or witnesses with fellow planning board members or anyone from the general public prior to this hearing? Have you visited the subject property? And please 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. Uh, no to all, but I am a friend of David Fitzpac. Just do business. No to all. All right. Staff, was notice of the hearing sent to all interested parties? Yes, sir. Was notice of the hearing posted on subject property? Yes, sir. All right. And Meredith, you good with photography and Okay, we'll have go ahead and do that. Again, Rachel Whitmer,
development services coordinator, KC 20257. Again, we have the location map of the property, 500 foot radius zoning map, future land use map that was approved with the previous case SSA 20256 again showing the DEAP map where the property was recently opted out and an aerial map. Notice of public hearing signs posted on the property. Looking onto the site from Highway 29. Looking
south along Highway 29. Looking east across Highway 29. And looking north along Highway 29. And that concludes staff maps and photography. All right. Thank you. And now I'll have the applicant please come forward and just state your full name and address for the record again. Meredith Bush, 314 South Balin Street, Sweet 108. Okay. And do you receive a copy of the resoning hearing package with the findings of fact? Yes. And you understand that you have the burden of providing
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. Okay. And were you in agreement with staff's findings? In fact, yes. Staff fully supports the application. Okay. Uh again, we don't have any speakers signed up for this specific case. Uh board, if we would uh entertain a motion to expedite this case as well. Um I'll I'll entertain a motion. Motion to expedite.
Second. All right. Got a motion to expedite and approve the case. We got a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All right. That case passes. All right. Uh we'll move on to our second and last case we've got today. Uh the resoning application for consideration is case number Z-20225-08 which requests resoning of the 200 block West Burgess Road from HTMU highdensity mixed use
district 25 dwelling units per acre and HCLI heavy commercial and light industrial district 25 dwelling units per acre to HCLI heavy commercial and light industrial district 25 dwelling units per acre as requested by Meredith Bush agent for 200 block Burgess Road LLC, the owner. Uh, members of the board, have there been any exparte communication between you, the applicant, the applicant's agent, attorneys, witnesses with fellow planning board members, or anyone from the general public prior to this hearing? Have you visited the subject
property? And please also disclose if you are a relative or business associate of the applicant or the applicant's agent. No to all. No all. No to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. No to all. All right. Staff, was notice of the hearing sent to all parties? Yes, sir. Was notice of the hearing posted on the subject property? Yes, sir. All right. I'll have you go through the photos and aerials at this time. This is case Z202508. Here is a location
map of the property. The 500t radius zoning map, future land use map, aerial map. Notice a public hearing sign posted on Burgess Road. This is looking onto the site from Burgess Road. Another view of looking onto the site from Burgess Road. Looking east along Burgess Road. Looking across Burgess Road from the site. Looking west towards Burgess and Maxim. This is a notice of public
hearing sign that was also posted along Maxim Street. Looking onto the site from Maxim. Looking north along Maxim. Looking across Maxim Street from the site. And looking south along Maxim. That concludes Madison photography. All right. Thanks so much. And then Meredith, I'll have you come back up.
Just to make sure again that you received a copy of uh staff findings for this case as well. Yes. And you know that you've got the burden of providing substantial confident 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. Correct. Okay. We do have a few speakers on this case, but I will um let you go ahead and and do your presentation. and we'll uh then we'll have staff go and then have the public come up. Uh thank you chair and members of the board. Uh you may recall
seeing this case or this property previously. Um I'll go back through um our revised findings but would note a couple differences in today's presentation than the prior one. We have um done more thorough community outreach. uh had a site plan circulated with the surrounding neighbors um noting that there will be no access off Maxim Road and agreed to uh record a deed restriction limiting access off Maxim Road. So to the extent that alleviates some of the traffic concerns or
neighboring concerns um so let me just jump into the criteria. Uh number one consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the propo of the uh future land use category MU. The LDC recognizes HCLI as appropriate within the MU and um being adjacent to major transportation networks. The site sits between an arterial Burgess Road and near Highway 29 making it a logical transition zone between higher
intensity commercial um and industrial activity and the lower intensity residential areas. Um criteria two consistent with the zoning diff district provisions. The proposed amendment to HCLI is consistent with the intent and purpose of the land development code. The primary intent of the district is to allow light manufacturing, largecale wholesale and retail uses, major services, and other more intense uses than allowed in the commercial district. the variety and intensity of non-residential uses within the HCLI district is limited by the applicable flu
and their compatibility with surrounding uses. All commercial and industrial operations are limited to within the confines of buildings and are not allowed to produce undesirable effects on other property. Um criteria three uh compatible with surroundings. The proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding existing uses in the area. The parcel is surrounded by other HCLI zoning. The comprehensive plan and LDC define compatibility in terms of complimentary or mitigating design
not uniformity with required buffering, controlled access, again as indicated by our um willingness to deed restrict the property and limit access off maximum and adherence to modern performance standards. Industrial and residential can coexist. The corridor already contains both HDMU and HCLI, demonstrating that such land uses are historically compatible when managed through zoning and site design. This amendment simply strengthens the existing development pattern rather than creating a new conflict. Uh number four, appropriate spot zoning. The amendment request, if granted,
would not create spot zoning. the property is directly adjacent to existing HCLI and is in close proximity to other property zoned HCLI. Uh five, appropriate with changed or changing conditions based on the existing uses and intensities and the zoning district allowances. The proposed amendment would not create urban sprawl and would be compatible with existing development. It is in the public interest to allow HCLI zoning. The proposed resoning will contribute to a logical and orderly development pattern. The prevalence of HCLI and commercial development in the immediate vicinity
is itself evidence of changing conditions and a market demand for additional industrial land. Escambia Countyy's economic development goals emphasize job creation and diversification of the industrial tax base. This amendment responds to those needs by reinforcing not disrupting the the existing development trend along Burgess Road and Highway 29. Growth pressures in this corridor warrant careful expansion of HCLI ensuring that underutilized parcels are developed efficiently in accordance with comprehensive plan policies. Thus, the reszoning is not premature but a timely
response to ongoing regional economic growth. And then uh resoning to HCLI requires you meet locationational criteria. And here uh we do through our proximity to the intersection. The parcel is along Burgess Road and within um 0.13 miles of the intersection of Burgess Road and Highway 29. And so we would uh respectfully request you approve the application and happy to address any questions or concerns. All right. Thank you. Uh board members, are there any questions for the applicant at this time? Yes. I have a quick uh request from Miss Bush. Um,
in reading, uh, could you elaborate for the board a little bit more on what has been, uh, the developer has agreed to as far as the buffering and and, uh, keeping stuff out of sight? Just share with us a little bit for the neighborhood. Uh, sure. And there's a site plan in our submitt. If we could pull that up. Uh, let me see what page that is. She's got it. Okay. So you'll see here um across the top of the property there um the blue uh hashed area is a vegetative buffer that will remain non-disturbed. So there would
be no access off maximum. Um you do see the um structures there which would include um you know everything within the confines of the building. Um and and that is the portion of the property being um being reszoned. It's a splitzoned uh partial. Down to the front you've got a that's a storm water pond and then there is a a lay down yard. Um and then also in the packet is um there's a covenant restriction which would um provide no commercial traffic shall access or utilize Maxim
Street. All design, construction and operation of any future development on the property shall be directed exclusively to Burgess Road for ingress and egress. So, um, the I will I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. Right. And we agree to buffering and fencing as required or requested by the county. And these and these are uh all basically as a result of our first go around with this in response to the neighborhood's concerns and legally and I mean you're obliged and obligated to the county.
Correct. Okay. Thank you very We um we wanted to be good neighbors and uh so we continued to work with the county, did additional community outreach. Um you'll see on the site plan in the packet, it has the signatures um and votes of the surrounding uh neighborhood association uh where they worked very closely with the owner developer to um you know come up with a plan that both would allow the development but also protect the interests of the surrounding community. If if
I may to clarify, um, Andrew Homer, Development Services. Um, just as point of clarification, we're not doing, we're not looking at a reasonzoning contingent upon anything. Reszoning is resoning. We often run into situations where we're that are somewhat similar when we plat subdivisions where you would have a bunch of lots that would the rear of the lots would
all face a street and we would have a one- foot non-access easement kind of deal set up so that everybody doesn't have an extra driveway onto the street. Um we are not saying that this resoning is conditional. We are saying yes it's it's a logical idea. This is something proposed civily to resolve any issues for that also to also thank you Joe.
Okay. Also too and because and because of the of the substantial of work that the clients did with the community. One of the requirements of zone is always to look out for the for the for the neighboring properties to help preserve that. And they work in the neighbors. They work very well. You have a speaker coming right now to try to look out for the best interest of the community with those standards with those de restrictions. As you stated, it's not conditional,
but it shall be done because of their of their willingness and the neighbors wanting. So, and that's good collaboration. We want more neighbors to help resolve some of these conflicts like that to help balance and provide where both parties can live in harmony and work together and the community. They were adamant about some things and that's the purpose of trying to bring in these uses together where they can live in a in a spirit of collaboration.
All right. Anybody? Yeah, I got one point. Uh so the northern road um there's no no talk about the access from Westmont. Um is there anything that's been talked about with Westmont? Can Westmont even Can you access this property from Westmont? Can Westmont be um used in any way, shape, or form? We're we're going to go back to the north side of the uh to the northeast corner.
We've not had any discussion regarding that. Um we we can go through that at development review. Uh I'm I'm not aware of the condition of the rightway. As you can see on the map, it doesn't look like we have right ofway for a culde-sac at that point. So that will be fully addressed where that HCLI meets the HDMU to the north. And on the site plan, uh you'll notice that um it does show a fence and it also shows um let's see what it's called. Um the the required landscape buffer in
the red. I don't know if it's colored on the the one in the package, but on the red which goes up and meets with that access buffer, right? And so that appears to preclude access from Westmont, although there's not a deed restriction that specifies Westmont. There are no plans to at this point to access from that area. The only access is off Burgess. The only thing I guess that concerned me was looking at this site plan. The red goes all the way around, opens up right where Weston ends,
and then goes down to the south. So that's just want to make sure that that's being addressed. Oh, I see what you're I'm looking at it the other way. I see what you're saying. A as as a reminder, resonings are not site plan specific, but we staffwise can hold them to that when they come through DRC. Yeah, we'll work closely with the county and make sure that Thank you. All right. Any further questions for the applicant
at this time? Okay. Uh this time we'll go to staff's presentation. Yeah, I'll do it. That's fine. Um hi Andrew Homer, uh development services as to the first criteria. You're going to have to scroll. Okay. The proposed amendment to HCLI is consistent with the intent and purpose of future land use category. MUU is stated in the comprehensive plan. Mixeduse
urban is intended for a mix of residential and non-residential uses promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses. The commercial flu category is intended for professional office, retail and wholesale service and general business trade. Residential development may be permitted only if secondary to a primary commercial development. The range of allowable uses include residential, retail and services. Professional office,
light industrial, recreational facilities, public and civic. In accordance with the comprehensive plan, maximum densities and intensities are encouraged in underutilized properties and mixeduse urban to promote the efficient use of existing roads, utilities, and infrastructure. Any future commercial development must go through development review and meet all current standards. As to the second criteria, proposed amendment to reszone to HCLI is consistent with the
intent and purpose of the land development code. As stated in the comprehensive plan, uh I'm sorry, in the land development code, HCLI establishes appropriate areas and land use regulations for a complimentary mix of industrial uses with a broad range of commercial activities. The variety and intensity of non-residential uses within HCLI isn't limited by the applicable flu and compatibility with surrounding uses. All commercial and industrial operations are
limited to the confines of buildings and are not allowed to produce undesirable effects on other property. Next, please. Okay, we keep going. Um, additionally, per section 3.211, uh, reszoning to HCLI, the district is suitable for areas to receive bulk deliveries by truck and location served by major transportation networks and able to avoid undesirable effects
on nearby property and residential uses to avoid undesirable effects on other properties. Therefore, um, meeting the criteria stated, the applicant has engaged with the neighbors within the residential subdivision and has provided substantial documentation related to adherence to this purpose of the request for reszoning to HCLI. Furthermore, the subject property meets the location criteria as it is along Burgess Road, an arterial roadway and within one quarter mile
of another arterial roadway, which is Highway 29. Uh, in a memo dated August 29th, 2025 from Transportation and Traffic Staff, comments have been provided concerning the resoning request. TTEO has no concerns regarding the proposed smallcale amendment and reasonzoning. Please note that TTO's review is solely based on the application submitted submittal packet.
So the comments above hold no bearing on any TTO comments made during the DRC three. Within the 500 foot radius zoning staff identified property zoned HDMU and HCLI as indicated on the existing land use map. Subject parcel is adjacent to and abuing parcels that are HDMU zone to the north along maximum which consist of a uh single family residential. The proposed uses of the HCLI zoning district would be
incompatible with the surrounding residential uses along maximum as the requested resoning would establish HCLI type uses in contrast to the single family residential uses. However, the applicant has provided documentation related to the compatibility of the resoning proposal to establish compatibility with the adjacent residential uses. The applicant has committed to restricting vehicular access to Burgess Road only and to preserve a 10- foot
plus or minus wide vegetative buffer along Maxim Street rightway. Based on the community engagement and documentation showing commitments from the applicant, the proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding properties in the immediate area. Note that if the resoning is approved, LDC requires extensive buffering and screening of abudding commercial and light industrial uses and activities and such requirements required to mitigate incompatibilities
between uses evaluated as required on the county's development review process. The commitment shown on the associated site plan will be implemented during site plan review. The fourth uh spot zoning. By definition, the proposed HCLI would not establish or reinforce the condition of spot zoning because there is HCLI to the adjacent on the adjacent properties offering more commercial uses while contributing to consistency with the
existing development pattern along Burgess Road. appropriate or change conditions. The land uses or development conditions within the area surrounding the properties have not changed. The development within this area has remained HCLI and HDMU and substantial commercial development is prevalent in the vicinity of the subject property. And that concludes staff's findings. All right. Thank you board members. Any questions for
staff on their presentation at this time? All right, seeing none, we will move to uh public comment. So for members of the public who wish to speak on the matter, please note that the planning board bases our decision on the approval conditions and exceptions described in section 2-7.2 of the Escambia County Land Development Code. During our deliberations, the planning board will not consider general statements of support or opposition accordingly. Please try and limit your testimony to the approval conditions and
exceptions described in section 2-7.2. Please also note that only 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. All right. And then when you come up, uh, if you will, just please state your full name and address for the record and then we'll have you sworn in and get your time started. So, I've got Donald Fabian.
Good morning, Donald Fabian. I'm a resident of Westmont Street and um, a gentleman brought this up earlier, but we didn't hear the fine details on the Westmont Street. All right. And I'll have you get sworn in real quick and then we'll start your time. I'm sorry about that. You're good. Truth to truth. Yes. All right. Good to go. Okay. Okay. So, um I heard it said that the only uh exit and entry and exit will be on Burgess. One of the things we're worried about is in the future if you
can access it from Westmont. Westmont then would be a shortcut. You could zip through Westmont on Terry and off of Palifox. and we were really worried about that becoming a major issue. Um, I mean, we're really opposed to any development with the woods being brought down. We just had a large section in a neighborhood brought down and the noise level has dramatically increased. I mean, it used to be real peaceful. Uh my wife has lived on that road since 1973 and the changes which are
always going to happen but we're getting a lot more noise and used to be very quiet easy road. main concern is the if you access can access that property now this development from Westmont Street you can cut through and get off and it would be a shortcut for people on Palifox when there's a traffic grid. So that was I don't know if it was addressed that that would not be accessible or not. So the portion of the property if you can look at the map there uh that is adjacent to
Westmont is already heavy commercial light industrial the resoning is specific to the portion that is HDMU um anything that would let's say the reasonzoning goes through anything that would be allowed is what's allowed currently on that portion that is adjacent to Westmont. Not okay. Currently, it's just all woods. So, you're saying that would not be touched. I'm saying any zoned that way, but any development would need to meet the requirements of the land
development code, but it the portion touching Westmont is already zoned HCLI. So, anything allowed under that zoning would be allowed if it meets the requirements of the code. And and and and would do you understand your concern and as as a director, Mr. Holmes is absolutely absolutely correct and I'm glad I'm glad you're Well, you turn your mic on, horse and I'm glad u Mr. um Rush brought that up. Uh we we would definitely and and I believe you heard the applicant said that that
that definit will be looked at wholeheartedly. Yes. Right now, if someone want to exit, if that was open, if someone want to exit that right now because it's already zoned for it, they could respectfully they could. I want to be truthful. They could, not truthful, but want to tell you what the law says right now. They could. Yet with the understanding with what's going on right now, we would definitely with this new development coming in. We're going to look at that wholeheartedly. We about to put fencing. We about to ask them to maintain the buffering and
all of those things. But we will definitely work just like we did for maximum. Equity and fairness is due to your subdivision as well. I'm sorry, not what exactly do you mean by buffering? buffering, fencing, maintaining existing vegetation if applicable. We can have a higher fencing there just like we're gonna do on them. We could put with the zoning category, it go up to eight, it can go up. Yeah. So, so equity and fairness is due to all when it come to planning and zone department. So, we would definitely consider your concerns as well and I believe they will too. So,
something else to keep in mind, uh, Westmont is a local street, right? looking at the map. If, let's say, somebody came in today with a site plan wanting to use that, there are going to be issues regarding access. Um, a commercial use trying to go up a residential street, down another residential street just to get to the arterial. There would be serious issues there. Uh, but we don't we don't have a site plan proposing that in front of us, so I can't say for certain.
Um and and of course resonings are not contingent upon any sort of site plan. So that's that would be a a hiccup shall we say if someone were to propose that. Okay. Um I guess have you mentioned what exactly the business is? That's that's so again yes it's not contingent upon anybody's plan. uh if someone comes in to reszone a piece of property from one category to another,
anything allowed under that other category can go on there. It's not contingent upon a site plan. That's that's why the board has to look at all the possible uses. And just with the size of the property, we look at the size of the property as Jewish state is a factor. There are so many other factors of parking, storm water pond sign, setbacks. So you really cannot get no respectfully you can't get no huge industrial plant on these. There's no way here because of the constraints of the lot and the other requirements that comes along with that. But again glad you're here is
resonings that are not conditional but equity and fairness. We're going to have to look at yours as well just like we did for them and we was glad to do it. And I believe that the the the uh the the company will will want the same for you as well. Okay. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would share uh with the gentleman that that the difference uh we there's a stark difference between I believe the last time we saw this uh and the proposal. The only reason I tell you that
is that out of all the zoning changes we see, we would beg the developer to communicate and talk to and they never do. And it appears to me that the developer that Miss Burgger is representing seems to be open and seems to be communicating and is certainly making more of an effort than I would say 99% of the other uh proposals because quite frankly they'd come in here and say too bad it's that we'll do what we want. We don't really care. And I and I'm I'm I'm just I'm just sharing that with you. I think that you may want to take advantage of the uh uh spirit of collaboration I
think that they're offering. I'm just throwing that out there. And Mr. and and and and I can concur. Mr. Power been doing this a long time and and many of the other planning board members. Um so we see that and we hear that. but with trying to balance property rights of both sides which is what smart planning and we and we believe in collaboration many times the rules and regulations don't always give us that opportunity but when they are when they want to do that we we as
department we try to push for that wholeheartedly I know you may still have a concerns but keep on talking to me afterwards okay I can get you there I'm sorry I I hate to be this guy. But again, the reasoning is not contingent upon the site plan proposed. Completely understand. Right. Right. Okay. All right. Well, thanks. Thank you. All right. Next, we have Carrie Fabian. If you'll please come forward, state your name and address for the record, and then be sworn in.
Morning. Carrie Fabian. I live on Westmont Street. What's your name? Carrie Fabian, raise your right hand. Truth. Truth. Yes, sir. I'm worried about the property taxes, too. I mean, the air quality, too, once they tear down all the forest because they've destroyed everything right here by the on-ramp on 29. We have no woods at the end of Terry Drive anymore, and we also have livestock down there. The briquettes have horses. So now we have all the noise from the interstate
where people are getting on right there on 29. Then as you get on to 29 right there where Palifox goes over the interstate, they've destroyed all the woods on both sides. Actually all four sides of that overpass. There's no trees there anymore. There's all the displaced animals. There's all the dust. There's all the noise. All we hear all night and day is the construction of them banging those concrete posts in the ground. So there's no trees there. And then you come down Palifox, they've torn them down on both sides of our Palifox before you get to Burgess. So now
we're going to have no woods on all four sides. Palifox, both sides, right before Olive Road. Then you come down. Now they're wanting to tear down all the woods on Burgess. So we're going to have nowhere for animals, all the dust, all the noise. They'll come in, they'll build a building, and then it'll be abandoned in a couple years. And then they'll have no trees, which makes our quality of air bad. It makes our property taxes. They're probably going to change. Um, I don't know what else to say. I'm really worried about when they tear all the woods down. Not just the noise,
but the air quality. Everything is a disaster over there. I don't know if you guys have been to that side of town, but it's it looks like a bomb went off. Whether you take a ride off Terry Drive on to Palifox or a left, they've torn down all the trees on both sides. I don't know if they're widening it or what they're doing, but then when you come down Burgess now, we're going to have no trees down there either, which means more noise. So, we're going to have the construction noise from the front where Palifox is. We're going to have the construction at the back where Terry Drive dead ends at the interstate where you get on right there by um 29. And now we're
going to have it at the end of our street. So, we're basically surrounded by all this. And they're also wanting to build an apartment complex right next to the church on Terry Drive, which is going to be even more construction. So now we're just completely surrounded. So if if they're going to tear down the woods at the end of the street, all they're going to do is just build a building. Is that what they have planned? I mean, are property taxes going to go up? What's going to happen? There's plenty of other vacant lots in town where they could build this heavy industrial or whatever. I don't know why they keep destroying that side of town.
and my grandmother actually bought the the land on Terry Drive in 1951. So, we've been in that neighborhood 74 years now. And we've just seen so many trees and so much torn down. And we just if we could stop it or prevent it or delay it, that's what I'd like to do. Or if we could just buy the woods if they're for sale, can we get a price? I'm not aware if they're for sale, but um I know that the applicant heard you and I guess if your
client is interested in that, you can reach out. Um and I appreciate you speaking. I don't know if anybody has questions for the speaker. Um okay. And then I would just say, you know, if you're if you are in your home uh and it's a homesteaded uh property that the max that your property tax can increase even if the millage rate or anything doesn't change and stays flat is is uh up to 3% as it stands right now. Uh some of that, you know, obviously might be changing over the
next year or two. And I guess we'll just kind of see what happens from state level on that. But um that is the max at this point that a homesteaded parcel in the state of Florida can go up a year is 3%. So are they going to be required to plant more trees if they tear them all down and clear a lot for another warehouse? I think today we we don't make those decisions, but when they go through their development process or site review process, uh when they have another meeting back here at the county, uh that they will go through all that and the county uh at at times does make requirements
for for things like that at that, you know, at that next step in the process. Okay. So, and that that's another opportunity too to come and and for the neighborhood to give input as well. It's for November for the November 7th meeting. No, that that would be probably a couple months. Right. Right. Uh I will talk to you after it's completely se it's a completely separate process, but I give you my card and and if they decide to come back in for development like for any
site plan resorting is separate from site plan. So if they come in different rules, different processes and I promise you that that that that last question we'll be able to address that question once we know more and go through process and you can be informed with that process and and get plans and all of that. So So well, can you can you mention that there's plenty of empty buildings here at Town and Country? I think they can see all that. I I don't think we build here tearing down the woods. Yeah. I think they hear you. They hear you. They really do. They hear you. The the
community hear you because all these are taping live. So they do hear you. You're still going to do it then. But I thought I'd come. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. You have the right to You have the right to come and and and speak in these forums. Thank you. All right. Next, I've got uh Daryl Stewart. If you'll please come forward, state your name and address for the record and be sworn in. Daryl Stewart, 7301 Maxim Street. Raise your right hand.
I do. I have one question uh and also I'd like to make a statement after that. This uh is being changed from HDMU highdensity mixed juice district and HCLI heavy commercial and is being changed to HCLI heavy commercial. Well, if both categories are included in the from category,
then why does it even have to be reszoned? So, it's split zoning. Was that Yeah. The the the parcel is currently splitz zoned. Yes. From the original zoning that came through that the county did. Um they're trying to clear it up by making it all one category. Okay. Okay. Good question, Mr. Stewart. Okay. I just uh didn't see that until today. The other statement I wanted to make was uh without showing any type of favoritism as to what uh the neighborhood feels about this. The
general consensus of the neighborhood and I am the president of the homeowners association on Maximum Street, Diamond Acres. The general consensus of the neighborhood is that at some time in the future something is going to go on that corner and we would much rather deal with somebody who has been upfront and agreeable to our our requests and what we considered an equitable change from one zoning condition to another. We would much rather work with somebody like that that the
owner of the property has been insistent on doing. When this came to you all before, the gentleman that presented it and it was the acting owner at the time did not present it to us in that manner. He has since been kind of removed from the ownership situation and the gentleman that is conducting it now has been very upfront and direct with us to our demands and our requests. That is
why currently the homeowners in Diamond Acres do not have any objections. A matter of fact, I checked with them just a few days ago to see if there were any new problems that anybody foresaw in this zoning change and there are none. That is our situation. Thank you very much. Any questions for the speaker? All right, seeing none, uh we have one more speaker and it's Donald Watson.
If you'll please come forward and state your name and address for the record and be sworn in. Donald Watson, 6688 Westmont Street, Pensacola, Florida. Yes, I do. I have three major concerns. When I retired from the army in 1995, I bought the house I currently live in at Westmont Street. I spent quite a bit of money fixing that place up to make it almost soundproof. However, when they did the construction on the interstate,
they tore down. I don't know what y'all call a buffer zone. What? A piece of paper with toilet paper wrapped around it. What? Because my decibel level went up so high. I had to put in $5,000 worth of windows just to make my house retainable again so my wife and dog doesn't go crazy at night hearing Jake breaks. That's not my quality of life. I bought that house under the pretext. I'm not I'm not there to make money off it. I don't look for anything. I'm going to live there till I die. I want to live there comfortably with a good quality of life. It
was when I moved in. Slowly but surely things have been changing. moving my quality of life. Do y'all want me to move? I I I want a quarter million dollars for my piece of property. I'll let y'all have it right now. Other than that, why don't y'all leave me alone? Let me live my life. I'll let you live yours. I can name five places right now. My neighbor stated, "There's empty buildings right here. You can move in. Do anything you want." How do I know? You say, "We we don't guarantee what's going to go in there." I don't want a methodone clinic in my
neighborhood. You can't tell me it's not coming. You're going to put the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America in there. We can talk, right? But you need to tell me what's going in there before you do it. I have a say in my neighborhood. I didn't I defended this country for 20 years. I retired and went to the police department for 20. I defended the city of Pensacola for 20 years there. I can't defend my house. I can't defend my yard, my wife, my dog from what you all want to put in. I have
an option in life. The buffer zone they put in for the interstate is totally inadequate. I had to work with uh things in the army where you put in generators next to division headquarters in the field. You had to build a buffer barrier to where it could not be heard within a hundred yards or you'd be detected by the enemy. Am I the enemy? Y'all are not putting in buffer zones. If you take out all the trees along Burgess, that's going to double the sound. Again, I'm not a rich
man yet. Y'all haven't paid me my $250,000 from my house. I cannot afford to put in another $5,000 worth of windows, double pain, triple pain, gas filled. I can't do all that. I have a life to live and y'all are not letting me live it right. The Westmont Street. I live on Westmont Street and I'm quite happy. When I moved there, it was a quiet neighborhood, nice neighborhood. Is that my time? Yeah. I'll give you a couple more seconds if you want to just wrap up real quick. For 30 years
since I moved there, that road West Mont Terry pothole city. And because it's a dead-end street, nobody will come in and fix it. They will not repair our street. They patch it. Big trucks come down, next thing you know, the patches are gone. You're back in pothole city again within two weeks. We have more new patch on that road than we have asphalt. If they do this and they go through, I guarantee we're going to get a new street, but we're also going to get tons of traffic, which will further mess up my life. Sir, I do not want Westmont either fix the road and make
a weight limit on it or go somewhere else. Any questions for me? Yeah. Any questions for the All right. Thank you, Mr. Watson. All right. That's the last speaker that we have. Um, are there any further questions for staff or for the applicant from board members at this time? Okay. Otherwise, we'll uh I'll entertain a motion on on this case one way or the other if someone would like to make one.
If I may just briefly Yes. point something out. Um while it doesn't specifically state that no traffic shall utilize Westmont Street, the covenant restriction, which again is not, you know, we understand the zoning is separate. Um it does say state that all design um construction operation of any future development on the property shall be directed exclusively to Burgess Road for ingress and egress. So while it, you know, it doesn't say restricted from Westmont,
it does say exclusively to Burgess. So to the extent that may um alleviate some of the concerns and again I was point as was pointed out by the county, the property on Westmont is already HCLI. So you know it doesn't um impact or it won't change anything that as was indicated anything that we would be able to do it can already be done on the Westmont access. Um and anything related to the construction on the interstate that's unfortunately out of our hands. So
we've we've wrapped public comment at this time, but um you will have a chance to speak at the bord of county commissioners meeting and on the 7th or Yeah. Um so I apologize. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I'm ready to make a motion based on staff findings that we approve the application of Z 20258. Okay, I've got a a motion to approve. Second. Got a second. Is there discussion on the motion?
Do we need to um in the motion have any spec specification on the buffering and such? No sir. No. Thank I just wanted to make sure I just want to point out to the speaker and reiterate what I've already said that you have a uh to the folks in the crowd that you have a willing uh developer. I think you should keep the lines communication open. Talk to Horus and the majority of what I've heard between Jake Break and Pile Drive has to do with the interstate. That's unfortunate because that's terrible. Um, but it and quite frankly doesn't
have anything to do with this particular one other than the buffer which I understand and I appreciate the other gentleman who as a direct result of the first time this came through these changes have been made and I believe they're they're significant. So, thank you. Uh, any further comments? Otherwise, I'll call a question. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Uh that's the last case we had for today. Is there uh don't have anyone signed up for public forum?
Is there anything from staff before we close out here? Our next meeting will be Tuesday, November 4th. We do have a small scale and two resonings kind of like today. Okay. All right. Um I think that's it. So we stand adjourned.