Are you sure? right. Good morning everybody. Uh the meeting of the Escambia County Planning Board for December the 2nd, 2025 is hereby called to order with seven members present. We do have a quorum. Uh just a reminder to put your cell phones on silent or uh turn them off while we're in the meeting. And if you would please stand for the pledge of allegiance.
To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nationy andice for all. Right. Do we have uh 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. Motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries. The reasonzoning meeting minutes from the previous
meeting dated November the 4th, 2025 have been provided to the board. Are there any additions, deletions, or corrections? And if not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. Second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries. The reasonzoning hearing package for December 2nd, 2025 with findings of fact have been provided to the board members. I'll entertain a motion to accept the resoning hearing package with findings of fact and legal advertisement into evidence. Do
I have a motion? We got a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Second. And all those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Okay, motion carries. Will the court reporter please swear in members of staff? Raise your right hand swear testimony about the given case. All right. And the board has previously qualified staff to offer expert testimony in the area of land use and planning. Uh does anyone on the board have 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. For making our decision, the planning board will consider the relevant testimony. Exhibits entered into evidence and the applicable law. Each individual who wishes to address the planning board must complete a speaker request form and submit it to the planning clerk. These forms are on the table in the back of the room and you will not be allowed to speak and present and give testimony on the record at this
hearing before the planning board. Sorry, if you don't speak today at this at this meeting um after filling out a form, you will not be able to speak at the board of county commissioners hearing um for its final approval or denial. No new evidence can be presented at the BCC meeting. Therefore, all testimony and evidence must be presented here today. The planning board will provide a recommendation for each reasonzoning request. The VCC, 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 BCC 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 communications outside of this hearing with the members of the planning board regarding matters under consideration today are considered exparte communication. Expart expparte communications are presumed prejuditial under
Florida law and must be disclosed as provided in BCC resolution number 96-13. As each cases heard, I will ask that any board member who has been involved in any exparte communication to please identify themselves and describe the 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
resoning district would contribute to or result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The appropriate surrounding area with in 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. A consistent with comprehensive plan. The proposed zoning is consistent with the flu category as prescribed in LDC chapter 3 and with all other applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the
comprehensive plan. If the resoning is required, if resoning is required to properly enact a proposed flu map 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. Proposed zoning is consistent with the purpose and intent and with any other zoning establishment provisions prescribed by the proposed district in chapter 3. 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 the surrounding uses. The uses of any surrounding undeveloped land shall be considered the permitted uses of the applicable district. Compatibility is not considered with potential conditional uses or with any non-conforming 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 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. 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 is in the public interest to allow new uses, densities, and 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 we have no objections from the applicant, uh we'll allow staff to briefly briefly present photos and aerials of the property. Next, we'll hear from the applicant and any witnesses they may wish to call. And after that, we'll hear
from staff and any witnesses they may wish to call. And then we'll hear from members of the public who have filled out a speaker request form. We have two cases to be heard today. We have the resoning application for consideration. Case Z-20225-10, a request reszoning 362 West Oakville Road, 300 block West Oakville Road, and 227 Kenmore Road from HDMU High Density Mixeduse District, 25 dwelling units per acre to HCLI,
heavy commercial and light industrial district, 25 dwelling units per acre. As requested by Mayor Bush, the agent for Roy Listister and Fourstar Drywall, Inc., the owners, members of the board, have there been any experte communications between you, the applicant of the applicant's agents, attorney, or witnesses with fellow planning board members, or anyone from the general public prior to this hearing? Have you visited the subject property? And then also, please 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. No to all. All right. Uh staff, was notice of the hearing sent to interested parties? Yes, sir. And was notice of the hearing posted on subject property? Yes, sir. And Meredith, are you good with us going through the photos? Okay, great. Staff will go ahead and have you go through the maps and photography. Good morning, Allison Lindsay, Development Services. So, the Z2025-10. This is the
location map showing the uh parcels outlined in red. This is the 500 foot radius zoning map showing the current HDMU and the surrounding. This is the future land use map showing the future land use is mixeduse urban. This is the existing future land use showing u the residents and the businesses that are in the area. This is the aerial map of the site. And this is the public hearing sign that was posted along Kenmore. This is
another sign on Kenmore. And this is looking east along Kenmore Road. And then this is looking west along Kenmore. This is looking south onto uh one of the sites from Kenmore Road. Looking south onto the site from Kenmore. Looking north across Kenmore Road from the site. And this is looking north across Kenmore. This is the public hearing sign that was posted on West Oakfield Road. This
is another hearing sign that's on West Oakfield. This is looking east along West Oakfield. This is looking west along West Oakfield. Looking north onto the site from Oakfield. This is another uh site of a photo of the site on Oakfield. Looking north onto the site from West Oakfield. And looking south across West Oakville Road from the site. This looking south across West
Oakfield. And that's the maps and photography. All right. Thank you so much. I've never Yeah, I know. I've never heard anybody have fun in here before. So, this is great stuff. All right. Would the uh applicant uh Meredith, will you please come forward and do you have any witnesses you need to swear in? Uh, no. I don't believe so. All right. If you'll state your name and address for the record. Meredith Bush, 314 South Balin, Sweet 108, Pensacola, Florida 32502. All right. And did you receive a copy of the resoning hearing package with
the findings of fact and 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 code. All right, you're good to go. Um, thank you members of the board. So, you may recall we were here last month on this resoning application at which point in time there had been an issue with the uh sign being posted. Um, however, during that meeting, one of the board
members raised some concerns uh regarding the HCLI designation and so we subsequently met with county officials um county planning staff, Mr. Jones and the planner and have prepared an amended request and submittal uh reducing our ask from the heavy commercial light industrial to commercial um that was provided to the county. However, I understand they had already uh published or sent out the HCLI
uh packet. So at this time I would ask that you would accept into evidence our amended uh commercial request and I would go through those findings to accept. Okay. We've got a motion to accept. Second. Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Any questions? Okay. All those in favor please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. All right. Thank you. um in the staff findings presented related to the HCLI throughout uh the staff's findings the county um
suggests and recommends that we reduce the ask to commercial. So um being having said that and that being the basis for the change number one whether or not it's consistent with the comprehensive plan the proposed amendment to commercial is consistent with the intent and purpose of the existing future land use category of mixeduse urban um mu permits commercial zoning and encourages redevelopment of underutilized parcels in built urban areas. The request advances policies encouraging infill
compact development and employment supporting uses near the US 29 and north Palifox arterial corridors. Comm implements the MU category by allowing a mix of commercial and light intensity non-residential uses compatible with the adjoining mixeduse and existing industrial activity. Number two, consistent with zoning district provisions. The proposed amendment to commercial is consistent with the intent and purpose of the land development code. The proposed comm zoning is
consistent with the stated purpose of the district to allow retail service office and like commercial activities while requiring all operations to be interiorized so within the confines of a building uh to maintain compatibility with the surrounding uses. The site's location between HDMU and HCLI districts and the history of commercial use are fully aligned with the purpose of COM as a transitional zoning category. Number three, compatible with surroundings. The proposed
amendment is compatible with surrounding existing uses in the area. The property is adjacent to heavy commercial, light industrial, and highdensity mixeduse zoning. Existing land uses include residential, neighborhood commercial, and HCLI intensity commercial service operations. The subject property has operated commercially for over 40 years, demonstrating its ability to coexist with the surrounding neighborhood without material adverse impacts. Commzoning strengthens compatibility by imposing interior operation requirements, buffering and performance
standards that ensure long-term coexistence. Approach number four, appropriate if spot zoning. Under staff's analysis, uh commercial would constitute a technical instance of spot zoning, but commercial is less intense than the HCLI and serves as an appropriate transitional district between HDMU residences and the nearby HCLI uses. Mitigating conditions include mandatory buffering and again interior commercial operations. ensure an appropriate balancing of interest and a logical
orderly development pattern. The amendment would be transitional in character between the adjoining districts. The proper property is directly adjacent to existing HCLI and in close proximity to other property zoned HCLI. And then number five, appropriate with changed or changing conditions based on 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's in the public interest to allow commercial zoning. The proposed resoning will contribute
to a logical and orderly development pattern. The Oakfield Kenmore corridor has undergone incremental commercial service development over several decades. The existing pattern of mixed residential and commercial and light industrial uses constitutes a change condition over time warranting formal recognition through commercial zoning. The resoning directs redevelopment to location already equipped with infrastructure and access to the arterial network, preventing sprawl and supporting public policy goals and reinvestment in urban corridors. And then because
resoning to commercial is subject to the same location criteria as any new non-residential use, um we have provided a compatibility analysis which meets the location criteria under section 3-2.10E5 of documented compatibility. I won't read the whole compatibility analysis to you, but that has been accepted into evidence um and goes through the established commercial pattern in the area. uh the fact that the properties have operated as four-star drywall uh for
about four decades. Um that it is a transitional location between the HDMU and HCLI. Um again, the uh corridor conditions and transportation network and ability to achieve long-term compatibility through design. Um commercial zoning requiring all operations to be inside the building. uh limited or restricted outdoor storage, buffering and screening, orientation of service areas away from residential properties, and compliance with the chapter 5 performance standards regarding noise,
lighting, dust, and vibration. Uh the property has not previously been upzzoned by the owner. Uh and I'm happy to take any questions. I understand there are a number of citizens here to speak as well. Okay. Uh board, are there any questions for the applicant at this time? Nope. All right. Thanks, Meredith. Uh staff, we'll get you to go ahead and make your presentation. Yes. So, this is the reasonzoning case Z2025-10 requesting the resoning from HDMU to HCLI,
but then the amendment to commercial. So, the staff findings were for HCLI because we didn't get this prior. So the um findings for criteria one, the proposed amendment to HCLI is consistent with the intent and purpose of the future land use category mixeduse urban. Mixeduse urban allows um residential development and different types of retail sales and services. the commercial future land use the sorry the flu allows uh retail sales and services as well as residential
um in the chapter 3 the comprehensive plan um the definition of incompatible and compatible I like to read it's 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 useful fulness of the other or would be detrimental to existing operations. The incompatibility would 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. Um, criteria B consistent with the land development code. The proposed amendment that was requesting the HCLI is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the land development code. The primary intent of this zoning category is to
allow for light manufacturing, large-scale, wholesale, and retail uses, major services, and other more intense uses than allowed in the HDMU district. All new non-residentidential uses proposed within the heavy commercial light industrial that are not part of a plan unit development shall be on parcels that satisfy the locationational criteria. The subject parcels do not meet the location criteria as found in section 3-2.11e of the LDC. Nor do the two local roads
meet requirements for a local road acting as a collector as stated in LDC 3-1.62. 62 the both the properties are on local thorough affairs rather than on the arterial or collector roads as required for location criteria. Adding more commercial activities in the area usually results in heavier traffic which could overwhelm the current roads and public transportation systems. Oakville Road primarily accommodates a blend of residential and commercial activity of properties,
while Kenmore is predominantly residential. Expanding heavy commercial and light industrial along these two local rows poses risk to the neighborhood's character, potentially altering the community's overall aesthetic. Such growth could lead to an influx of industrial businesses into residential areas which would negatively impact the adjacent and abudding homes along these roads. HCLI development um even though the block already has some HCLI development and is
located near the major arterial this zoning is not suitable as a transition for HDMU. The continued encroachment of the HCLI into residential streets suggests that commercial zoning would be more appropriate. Um, commercial zoning serves as a transition between areas zoned or used as highdensity mixed use and areas zoned or used as heavy commercial or industrial. The commercial designation allows for a broader range of commercial activities
compared to the HDMU while still maintaining a level of intensity that is lower than the heavy commercial light industrial. And then commercial operations uh will still be limited to um the use inside of a building. the uh traffic and transportation gave comments for um this project and he both stated that both are local roads. Um there's no bike lane on either roadway and
um the pave should there's no pave shoulder on either rideway and the street classifications they're both local roads and the TTO had no concerns regarding the proposed resoning criteria C compatible with surrounding uses the proposed change does not doesn't fit well with the surrounding properties the area includes clude lands zoned HDMU and HCLI. The property in properties in question are zoned HDMU which allows a mix of residential and neighborhood type
commercial uses. Staff acknowledges that there are HCLI uses in the area. However, increasing the heavy commercial, light industrial uses along the two local roads will continue to overwhelm the residential character of this neighborhood and place more intense uses on the residential block. And if you would look at the um the existing future land use map that I've got up here, you'll notice that the parcels and asphoning are in the blue outline and around it you see single
family commercial and then over by off of Kenmore there's a subdivision called the enchanted village subdivision which is all multifamily. So if you look all along Kenmore, it's all single family, maybe mobile homes and a couple of vacant lots. So criteria D appropriate with spot zoning. By definition, the proposed amendment would not be considered spot zoning as there is HCLI zoning adjacent to the subject property and the recommendate the recommended
commercial would would be spot zoning. However, it is less intense for this area. appropriate uh criteria E appropriate with changed or changed conditions. The conditions in the area have not changed. The development within the area does have a mix of residential and non-residential uses. However, the HCLI would allow more intense uses to spread further among the residential residents along Kenmore and Oakville. And that's uh end of
staff's findings. All right. Thank you uh board. Are there any questions for staff? All right, seeing none, um we'll move on to public comment. And for those members of the public who wish to speak on this matter, please note that we base our decision on the approval conditions and exceptions described in section 2-6.8 of the land development code. And during our deliberations, planning board will not consider general statements of support or opposition. So,
please try and limit your testimony to the approval conditions and exceptions described in section 2-6.8. And then just a reminder that if you haven't signed up to speak, um if you'd like to speak to the board of county commissioners, you will need to speak here today as well. So, I've got our first speaker is Melissa Johnson. If you would please come forward, uh state your name and address for the record and be sworn in and we'll start your three minutes. If you state uh state your name and address. Melissa Johnson,
111 Kenmore Road. Thank you. And then we'll have you get sworn in. Yes. All right. You're you can go ahead and start. I'm not um my concern is I'm not in agreement with the reszoning. I'm concerned about my property value going down. The area is already congested with big trucks coming through through all every day loud trucks. Um the noise and the that particular um area is is primarily a lot of older residents that's been
living there for many many years. Um I've been there um quite some time myself. But um that is my major concern. The property value there's already loud noise. is already congested. Thank you. Thank you. And um you on the map show exactly where you where you live at. We want to see. Actually, I live um where the location where the house is. If you could put it the picture back up there.
There's a fence, a black fence. If you seen the black fence, my house is the next house. So, I'm actually closer to the particular lot than anyone else probably is. Um, Mr. Chair, can Yeah, for the benefit showing that east and west, I could show um exactly where I live. Okay, stop right there. You see that fence right there? That black fence, right? Yes. Hey, my house is the next house. Gotcha. Correct. All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of this speaker
and the rest of them, could I ask staff to maybe explain why you are in agreement with a uh commercial and as opposed to HCLI you were against, but the commercial uh designation does work in your estimation? Is that correct? Um let let me put it this way. It is a it appears to be from the requirements of the land development code a better alternative as a transition zoning from
from the black and white language of that section commercial is a better transition based upon that language and and fact and and due to the close proximity of commercial staff did recognize that fact yet staff does recognize the fact clearly and explicitly that even with commercial there still are some issues with compatibility but but because of the commercial that's limited commercial that's
within the area and the code does recognize commercial as a transition between heavy commercial and and and HDMU that's why staff said that that could be a better alternative for the planning board to consider with understanding that compatibility because of the existing land use of the area and and and and and and I must say this for the record. I drive that area every single day going from my grandson to PJC I mean to PJS. So it's a honestly I shouldn't do it but it's a
cut through. So would it be safe would it would it be safe to say that uh the commercial designation gives you the ability to restrict outside storage uh outside activity buffering and that uh it would afford similar to if we were building a house. There's a review process that people would have the opportunity to give input and to hear what they plan on doing and what their buffering plans to be. Is that accurate or not? that and in some points you are accurate. Yes, the commercial
does allow for more intense higher performance standards that will be much more protect the citizens. Yet on the other side, the flip side is that it does allow for more intense uses as well. But because of the like you said inside the inside uses plus this is an existing building as well. So so those things could help with that issue but with the intense of the commercial
uses that can still come that still will have an impact. Everyone know that when you up zones you do get more traffic period. We don't have traffic cranes, but that is a factor where more people can travel those roads. So, so compatibility is still an issue, but the commercial zoning is mentioned in the land development code as an alternative and there are more protections that are in place, but the uses are still a factor as well. And yes, Mr. uh u Mr. Paul, you you were
correct where the HCLI would allow the outdoor storage and the commercial would not. Now, the from what I understand, I think the drywall business is not in operation. So, I'm not sure how long it is not been in operation. So, if there were any inconsistent or or incompatible uses, you know, they're gone once the business is not in operation. But the the main area if you look at it, yes, the one of the parcels is adjacent to HCLI, but for the majority of it is all HDMU.
All right. Uh we'll move on to our next speaker, uh Beverly Bins. If you'll please state your name and address and for the record and be sworn in. Beverly Bins, 6052 Arctic Street, Pensacola. Be the truth. Yes. All right. You're go ahead and get started. Well, I'm totally against this reasonzoning. I bought some property that is on Broham. You have uh Dick Moises right here and
then the road behind it is Broahham. I bought this piece of property for my grandson to build a house there. I own property on Arctic Street where I live and this is maybe a block away and as it is now it takes 20 to 30 minutes to get out of my neighborhood because of the traffic. Then once they put bigger businesses in there, there's going to be more traffic. The school bus stops are going
to have to be moved because right now you can walk from the property on Brznahham to the corner on Palifox and there is a school bus for high school children, middle school children, and elementary school children. And then at my neighborhood about a block away, not quite a block, there's more school bus stops for elementary children, middle school, and high school and adding more.
Yeah, this she's doing the one on Palifox that was pulled. I'm just making sure we're on the right. Yeah, it was the This is the one that's between Kenmore. Yeah. and and Oakfield, but we had another one that was on Palifox near the Dick Moyes. I think that's the one Dick Moyes is on Palifox. So, I call it Palifox, but we but but that case was pulled. Yeah. Oh, it's okay. But if we if we reszone this, then the property that I bought for him to have a nice home to grow up
in in a neighborhood with other children that it it's just going to go away because you're going to have these big buildings there that's so unnecessary. There's so many other properties that could be reszoned. There's children still play in these streets and I don't want my grandson not to be able to ride his bike up and down the road because of all the heavy traffic and God knows what it's going to draw in there. You know, we don't have a problem. Well, we have crime,
you know, because we got Tiki Lane right there. But it it it's going to get worse and we need to really save these neighborhoods while we can. This is the case that was being This is Z25 number 12, which is the third case for today. So you're you're speaking on the first case for today. So your comments are relevant to later, but it's actually being Yeah, I'm talking about the reasoning there for uh Dick Moyes property, right? Come in January. In January? Well, I got the
letter for it. So they got to resend everything. Okay, that's the one that I was talking about. The reasoning of D. They're close to each other to be fair. Justice. Justice. Yeah. Ma'am, you are right. The issues the issues are still the same because you did mention Tiki Lane. Tiki Lane is in this area. So, so, so, so, so your concerns may be similar on each side. I just want to be clear. She did mention Tiki Lane. And Tiki Lane is in the circle area. So, she Tiki Lane. It was
it was so bad with the crack and all this other stuff. Yeah. Yeah. But anyway, just the reasoning there for Dick Moyes, it would just cause a whole bunch of problems. I mean, we can't get in and out of our neighborhoods and the kids that walk along there, they really don't, you know, it's just unnecessary. Yeah. I mean though I bought that property just for the fact that I remodeled my home on Arctic Street. It's right there. And then I bought the one that's behind Dick Moy's property
for my grandson and his mother. And I I don't want to I don't feel comfortable building another home if it's going to be reszoned to where I don't know what they're going to build there, but it'll be in my front yard. I don't think it it's it's a good idea right now at this point to reszone that area. There is so many other properties and so will will she get another notification for when the case is
actually on the agenda comes up. Yes, ma'am. But I do want to ask our legal counsel for how we want to do her testimony. Her testimony bas is primarily to a case that's not being addressed at this time. Her concerns may be similar, but we got to I want to preserve and protect the record that that's my number. So, how would do would they need to do the planning board need to hear that? I just want to be clear to preserve the record. It's up to the board how to weigh their the evidence. if it's in the same vicinity January when y'all do it again. So I I think since we were getting
testimony for not this case that we're voting on here today but for one that we'll hear in the future um we will uh I'll take suggestions from the board but maybe we just strike this evidence that we've heard here today for this case out of the record and then allow uh you to come back. Now it says December the 2nd on the resoning. Right. That's a So, because they didn't get all the stuff back, they had to We just found out they had to push it a month because of that. So, but it will be back. I'm so sorry. Oh, no. No, no, no. You're good. You're good. No reason. It happens. So,
but thank you for letting me speak anyway. For the record and we'll see you again. For the record, I want to be clear with the record as the as the the the the attorney for the case that's the case that's coming. it they did not have everything ready for this case. Therefore, it was based upon them. That's why but the medals and everything were already out. So that's why we still had to come to this case and have to pull I just want to be clear to preserve the record always. Yes. Well, thank you. So, so what would the suggestion be for us to have that stricken from the from the
record as that's one approach. You could also just wait accordingly and and move on. Okay. She wanted an opinion on this. I don't I don't know that that you were here to talk about this one that we're looking at. Uh I don't I believe so because the one I'm talking about is the one on old Palifox in between uh Kenmore. Gotcha. Yeah. Okay. So I'll just kind of take chairman
motion to strike a testimony. All right, we got a motion to strike. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor, please signify by raise your right hand. All right, so we'll strike that and then we'll have you back uh for that case next month and you'll get should get another mailer. Is that correct? Okay. All right. Well, thank y'all so much. Yes. No problem. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our um next speaker is Ma Johnson. If you'll please state your name and address for the record. Yes, sir. Good morning. My name is Ma Johnson. Um, my address is 828 Tina Avenue. Um,
we have family probably uh within that area. Okay. And I'll have you get sworn in real quick. Sorry. This case be the truth, the whole truth. Yes. Okay. We um similar to the lady that left uh she was saying we've been I've been in this area for 30 some odd years. My family's been in there for uh maybe 48 and in the area and the traffic is bad. We don't want We would like to see more
houses in there um in the area. We don't want to see uh industrial coming. We don't need any more traffic. We don't need any more pollution. We need some retail um and professional services for our elderly that are right there. We got a lot of them uh 70 plus years old and they already can't get out of their um neighborhoods and get across Highway 29. God forbid they try to do uh get across Palifox when you're coming down Kimmore to uh take that shortcut to just go as
far as my um my neighbor said yesterday, I can't even go to TJ Maxx without going all the way down and going and catching a light and doing this. So, we kind of, you know, we we kind of uh covet that little area and especially when they're taking grandkids to West Florida, which used to be Woodham High School. We're a little sick of change. We don't mind it, but can we go into change that it's going to benefit everybody in the neighborhood, not just the uh commercial and corporations last time I was here? And I'm totally we don't we do not want storage again.
I've run out so many people that wants the Florida dream and want to live in a storage unit and I came before the board before they put that one there on Highway 29. And he said, "I'm going to clean it up. I forgot my picture to show you how many times I had to go out there and pick up trash." And you know, everybody, I just would like the commissioners and to understand and look at the people who live there and been there for a long time. We welcome everybody. But we've been
here a long time. We've been picking up trash. We've been picking up stuff before the homeless population. We were helping addicts and trying to get them rehabilitated and and doing things, but now all comes in is commercial and nothing that's beneficial to the people that's been here a long time. So, we'd like to see some doctors. We thank uh Sacred Heart for putting the urgent care, but we don't need another storage unit over there. We need some housing so our children can come and
work and live closer to us as we age and they could go drive over to Navy Federal and then come by and stop and bring me something on the way back. You know, I hadn't gotten there yet, but I anticipated, you know, and that's my son. He has to come through the neighborhood because we had we lost three men in our that's been longstanding residents in our community. So, he has to be able to come through there too and help them until they go on to glory. Now, once they go to glory,
then we'll do whatever. Okay. But thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Um board, do we have any questions uh for staff or the applicant at this time? And I'll just uh ask again with this request that they've asked to go to commercial and instead of the uh HCLI that prohibits storage units in the commercial setting. Correct. Let's look up the Let's look
up the uses. I don't want to speak off off record. Um I think warehouses are still a warehouses are yes they are still if you can um if you go to the code and and that's that's that's the thing even with commercial it does allow for more intense uses but again the code does allow for that to be considered as an alternative but the compatibility the single family homes the the the close
proximity ity. All of those things are factors as well that still that still may have a that still need to be considered. And now and even with I'm just trying to lay all the facts out for you. This is a this this was even a little tedious for staff. Um, even with the high density mixed use, the high density mixed use category, it does allow for similar type uses that are in the commercial
uh allowance. But what it does for high density mixed use, it basically eliminates the sides where basically if someone would have to if they want a high density mix use and if they and if that uses allow for it, they could have conditional use approval in which that use could come before the board of adjustments and they can see the neighbors can see the tide, the size and the square footage. But that's what it it'll be much more specific with high density. But the uses are
very similar the existing but the size component isn't factor and that's what the commercial allows. There's no specific size component. So I want to lay all the facts out for you. But again staff does recognize that HTMU the transitional zoning is commercial. That's why Steph said that could be a better alternative if the board decide to go in that direction. will understand that compatibility is still an issue. If you look at the existing land use map, it's primar it's
predominantly a a residential development pattern, high density misuse development pattern. Yes, you do have limited commercial uses out there. You have to you have to really really drive it the same limited but within that within that specific close proximity that's the issue for staff is yet the compatibility as Miss Alison did a good job in her case explaining that.
All right board any questions for staff for the applicant? Yes. May I just get to cut to the chase? I I understand we have to uh keep in consideration all the possibilities, but can I just ask what the impetus was for the change from the applicant to go to HDLI and why commercial would modify you uh as opposed to HDMU? So the uh as I understand the um owner Mr. Listister is in is elderly, 90s something years old and in relatively poor health. Um and has
been trying to sell the business for quite some time. Um has had several um interested purchasers of the um property looking to do similar um a similar operation. It's been a drywall company. I think one may I may be misspeaking. I want to say plumber, but I could be making that up. Um, however, because of the zoning and concerns over the zoning, uh, the deals fell through and so they're seeking to have it, they wanted to go to HCLI because they thought it would be
an appropriate fit given that it's adjacent to the HCLI. Um, however, after staff's comments that commercial would be more appropriate, they've elected to to seek commercial zoning. Um there are no plans at this time that I'm aware of to do any storage facility or anything like that. Um I would just remind the board that um while I appreciate Mr. Jones comments regarding compatibility um staff's findings and analysis. I mean even the last sentence itself um staff recommends
commercial zoning for the subject area. Throughout the findings um staff recommends uh commercial as a more appropriate zoning category. Um one of the neighbors uh Miss Na Johnson when she spoke commented the need for retail and professional services which are allowed in commercial zoning. um you know any concern about uh property values going down while uh I'm not an appraiser uh you know my understanding of property value would be that commercial zoning would actually increase
not decrease property values um they would have to meet again performance standards and um if you'll go back to the uh existing land use map um while the county references the uh residential multif family and single family dwellings surrounding in the red that's all commercial and then this site on both sides there's commercial the two single family uh
those are part of the properties being reszoned I mean that's part of this owner so those homes that are SF in the blue are not impacted other than I mean that's you know my client's property and then you've got commercial uh on both sides ides. It's existed as a commercial development for, you know, quite some time. And so we're just asking to make the zoning align with the use uh for, you know, um marketability and for uh you know, my client's wish to maximize his property rights.
All right. Any further questions for staff or applicant? If not, I'll accept a a motion for this case. Make a motion to approve zoning as requested for um commercial. I'll second it. Okay, we got a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed? Motion carries. All right. Next, we'll go to the resoning application for consideration. Uh case Z-20225-11 which requests reszoning of 5700 highway 99 from
agricultural district one dwelling unit per 20 acres to RR rural residential district one dwelling unit per 4 acres as requested by Mayor Bush the agent for Clint W. Parker and Rachel Parker, the owners. Board members, have there been any exparte communication 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. Not at all. Not to all. Not all. Note to all. Not to all. All right. and staff will have you go ahead and present the photographs. Allison Lindsay, Development Services. Uh this is the reasoning request Z 202511 requesting from agricultural to rural residential. This is a location map showing the location on Highway 99
just south of Molino. This is the 500 foot radius zoning map showing the agriculture as a current zoning and the surrounding parcels or RR and A. This is the future land use of rural community. This is the aerial photo of the subject property and this was the public hearing sign that was posted along Highway 99. This is looking onto the subject property from Highway 99. Looking north
along Highway 99. This is a photo looking south along Highway 99. Looking west across Highway 99 from the subject property. And that's all the maps and photography. All right. Thank you very much. Um, and Meredith, I'll have you go ahead and come on up and if you would just go ahead and give your um rundown of of this case for us. Um, thank you. Do we have speakers on this case? We have one. Um,
in this case, uh, slightly different than the last one. Staff is recommending approval. Um, however, I will go through the, um, criteria as to criteria one consistent with a comprehensive plan. The proposed resoning from agg to rural residential RR is consistent with the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan U and the rural community future land use designation. The RC category recognizes smallcale settlements and crossroads communities that provide housing and limited
services to the surrounding agricultural and rural areas. The RR district directly implements this policy framework by allowing a balanced mix of lowdensity residential and agricultural uses. As to criteria 2, consistent with zoning district provisions, the proposed RR zoning district is consistent with the purpose and intent of section 3-2.3 of the Escambia land develop Escambia County Land Development Code. The RR district is expressly designed to allow a mix of single family
homes on larger lots while continuing to preserve agriculturally productive lands. The R district is expressly intended to provide transitional areas between agricultural and low in low density residential lands. The subject property appro approximately 20 acres possesses the size access and existing use pattern appropriate for RR designation. Its location along Highway 99, a collector roadway serving Molino and surrounding communities, supports limited expansion of the RR
district to provide a modest increase in residential opportunities. Number three, compatible with surroundings. The proposed RR zoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning designations, which include a mix of agricultural, rural, residential, and rural mixeduse properties. The area is characterized by lowdensity residential homes, pastures, and small-scale agricultural operations, all of which will remain viable under the proposed district.
The introduction of additional single family residential lots on rural scale parcels will reinforce Molino's community identity and sustain local institutions such as schools, volunteer services, churches, and small businesses by modestly increasing population density in a manner consistent with existing development patterns. Uh number four, appropriate uh if spot zoning. The requested resoning does not constitute impermissible spot zoning. The property is within close proximity to other RRZoned parcels and forms a natural extension of the existing
rural settlement pattern along Highway 99. Even if viewed as a spot-zone district, the resoning would be transitional in nature, providing an appropriate buffer between agricultural lands and the more developed uh residential areas of Molino. Therefore, the resoning represents a rational and predictable refinement of the zoning map consistent with the comprehensive plan's rural community hierarchy. And five, appropriate with changed or changing conditions. Uh the Molino area has experienced incremental residential growth and community investment signal signaling
gradual change consistent with Escambia County strategy for reinforcing designated rural centers. Highway 99 has become a modest rural corridor serving existing homes, churches, and small agricultural and service operations. The area has experienced incremental RR resonings and rural home construction consistent with RC policies. The reasonzoning will not require extension of new public infrastructure and there thereby will avoid sprawl. Um again, staff's findings support
uh our request, so we would ask that you reszone to RR. All right. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? All right, staff, we'll have you go through your presentation. Okay, this is the reasonzoning at 5700 Highway 99 future land uses rural community. The request is from agricultural, which is one dwelling unit per 20 acres to rural residential, which is one dwelling unit per four. So criteria A consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed resoning to rural residential
is consistent with the rural community the RC future land use category. The RC allows two units per acre while RR district limits density to one unit per four acres preserving the low inensity rule pattern. In accordance with the comp plan future land use 3.1.4. 4. The request remains compatible with the RC future land use designation and supports residential development at densities
appropriate for rural areas. The criteria is consistent. The criteria for consistency has been met and that the transition from agricultural to rural residential zoning supports the protection of rural and agricultural land while allowing limited residential use in alignment with the comprehensive plan. The RR district is intended to function as a largely self- sustaining rural area characterized by detached single family homes on large lots consistent with limited infrastructure
in the rural land use pattern. The district also accommodates essential public facilities and compatible non-residential uses that serve the rural population and maintain agricultural community character. Criteria B, consistency with the land development code. The proposed amendment to RR designation is consistent with the LDC regarding allowable uses and densities. However, according to the county's GIS system, the property contains prime soils across its entirety. Pursuant
to LDC chapter 3 section 3-2.3E, new or expanded uses must be cited to avoid the conversion of prime farmland. Where avoid avoidance is not feasible, impacts are limited to 5 acres or 10% of the development parcel, whichever is greater. For the 20.28 28 plus or minus acre parcel. This standard allows disturbance of up to 5 acres as 10% of the parcel which would be 2.03 is
less than the allowable density of the zoning. An environmental assessment will be required before consideration of the site development approval through the development review process. Additionally, in a memo dated November 13, 2025, the Transportation and Traffic Division comments that the um Highway 99 parcel is has two bike lanes, number of lanes,
two bike lanes, none. Um and the there is no the the county improvement plan there is no street classification u improvements at this time and the TTO had no concerns regarding the proposed uh resoning compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment is compatible with the existing land uses in the surrounding area. Properties around the area are designated as agricultural,
rural residential, and rural mixeduse, and are developed with single family residents, mobile homes, and some vacant. The requested RR zoning is consistent with the established residential pattern, and it supports the prevailing large lot development characteristics of the area. Spot zoning. The RR designation would not constitute spot zoning. Uh the adjacent parcels to the east and north are already zoned rural residential and the parcels immediately south are zoned
agricultural. Applying the rural residential district to the subject property would provide an appropriate transition land use buffer between the surrounding districts. Criteria E appropriate with changed or change conditions. The land use conditions and patterns in the Molino area have changed over time. Reason increases in residential development within Escambia County have prompted applicants to request resoning to rural residential, which allows a density of one dwelling unit per four acres. The proposed RR designation would provide a logical transition
between the adjacent RR, RMU, and agricultural zoning districts. Existing developments in the area are predominantly in the area predominantly consist of large lot residential uses while supporting agricultural activities. The RR district with its established permitted uses, density standards and development intensities is consistent with these existing patterns and would integrate seamlessly within the current land use framework of the Molino area. And that concludes
staff's findings. All right. Do we have any questions for staff? All right, we'll move on. We have uh do have one public speaker, Matt Crosby. If you'll please come forward and state your name and address for the record and be sworn in. Yes. Matt Crosby, 5500 Highway 99, Molino, Florida. Truth. Yes. Hey, so just want to express my concern for the zoning. If we can go back to look at the map here. My property is located just south of this in the yellow. previously
zoned a VR3 zoning designation which allowed for one dwelling unit per two acres. I want to note where his property is a subject property that's slated for reszoning across the street is now uh owned by Escambia County. It is the 4H agricultural extension center. So, the findings for me to be consistent with a a RR zoning for a one dwelling unit per four acres could impact the county's position here going forward as far as offsite adverse impacts such as noise from agricultural activities that occur there. Whether it be lighting, whether it be noise,
you put more residents in that area, you could create more problems. Um for me I look at the partials to the south currently zoned a each house there is three residents each house is on 20 acres uh there is no density there developed the other or our property surrounding it is viable farmland currently been farmed so is this subject parcel today is currently being farmed u they do this every year it's always been it we see a trend here now with people coming up buying these 20 acre parcels wanting to put in these hobby farm lots for development and profit so What we're doing is
we're losing valuable agricultural properties in the Molino area. There is enough slated development from Highway 196 south to Kingsfield, 1400 acres there to to provide residential zoning, multif family residential. We don't need to promote urban sprawl by having these hobby farm lots pop up, get developed all over the place. Right. So, the county has already denied Thomas Henry, big 1400 acre parcel north end of the county for these hobby farm lots. Um, will it be developed? I'm sure. Right, guys? I mean, at the end of the day, development will occur and
get there. I just think now is not the right time for that. Um, you know, again, going forward, um, this property that the county had at some point in time when they acquired it was zoned BR3, same as mine. Allowed for one dwelling unit per two acres at, uh, right there on Chalker and Highway 99. So, that had density, right? The county acquires this property, turns it into the 48 a extension center. They applied to reszone it. So they remove the density, right? BR3 one dwelling for two acres.
The county decides it's in its best interest and it's compatible with the surrounding land use to change it and reszone it to agricultural use for the county 4 extension center. This paral is directly across the street from the county's or this subject partial in question for resoning. So the county at some point when they acquired that property thought it was the best suited use would be agricultural. So they reszoned it for that. Um, you know, that's my expression and my concern. Obviously, the infrastructure needs to grow there. There's 4-inch flushing hydrants that run up and down 99. There's no 8 inch lines there for that. Fire safety becomes a concern, but more or less
obviously the more people that get up there on these hobby farm lots. Um, especially across from the extension center could create possess a problem for the county for that 4H agricultural extension center. Um, do y'all have any questions for me or just kind of wanted to present my case and and my findings for what I feel may, you know, impact the property? I got a question. Matt, do you farm up there? So, no, I do not farm. I currently do farm up there, but I haven't done it in years. I've got sod planted on my property currently under agricultural exemption. We've cut
that sod twice now. Um, but other than that, no. I mean, I live at 5,500 Highway 99 just south of that. But, so you're south. That's correct. So, if you go down, I'm south right there in that area right there. I own two parcels there totaling 13 and a half acres. Uh, so one being there, uh, and then one being south of that. Just Yeah. Come on down. Right. Right. Just south of that. Now, if you'll see, if you go back up north, those are three parals right there. All single family residential, but they're on 20 acre parals a piece that adjoins the subject property.
And then you'll see the extension center directly across from the proposed zoning. Yeah. Any other questions for the witness? Yep. I don't I don't maybe not for the witness, but I'm curious uh if somebody could kind of expand upon that the GIS uh findings that the soils are such that it would uh possibly be a hindrance to somebody doing exactly what he's saying.
Somebody came in to do the uh what read like to me that I don't know that you could actually do one and four acres as the zoning implies based on the soils. Is that true or not? I think he's talking about criterion B, the little section you talked about environmental. Yeah. And Matt, we you can take a seat if we need to. We'll get you back up here, though. Thank you, Doug. Come in. So, ask me your question again. coming. So you you mentioned in the it says because the
the GIS findings the soils are such that they may have a difficult time basically just going in just because we uh if zoning goes to what is requested it doesn't necessarily mean that somebody can go in there and build one house for every four acres based upon the the soils. one question and two I guess would be for horse the uh speaker prior to this mentioned that you know across the way at one point where you had it zoned in a residential man manner and now you and you basically took that
zoning out. I'm just curious about why the why and where why you would do that for the extension center and now we're going back the other way. All right. So we'll address the soils. So it's 20.28 plus or minus acres. So if they could do you know it's one house per four acres um as long as they could avoid the the prime soil area even though you know you still have to you are limited um for the five acres. So so it's all prime soils it states. So what you're saying is they
could only probably it would it would restrict that construction. Is that correct? Yes. For the whole 20 acres. Yes. And then as far as the I think he said it was V3. I'm not sure but but VR3. So um the A center was VR3 but across the way was VAG1. And so this this all changed when we had the 2015 uh rewrite and we took the 35 zoning districts and combined them into
14. And then this and they also had to match with the future land use at the time too. So this was VR3 to be correct. It used to be what the a extension center was on. It was VR3 100%. That's just want to make sure on the record it's correct. Yeah. extension. Correct. The extension used to be VR3. Now, correct. Well, we we didn't I don't like to call it a reszoning because we didn't actually reszone it. We just recategorized the uh classification. The
classification. Yes. Yes. And I And we had And I'm not sure what the pri I didn't look at the future landing was prior to that, but we had to make sure that whatever the it is. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Do we have any further questions for staff or the applicant at this time? All right. Uh we do not have any further speakers um for this case. So we'll entertain a motion one
way or the other. Um unless we have I don't know if he was signing up to speak or No. just push. Yeah. You know, I would again remind the board that we're to look at the criteria and in this case, uh, both staff and applicant, um, has met the criteria. While I appreciate Mr. Crosby's, uh, concerns, um, the county property being resoned as part of the countywide resoning, I don't know that that's relevant. Um again given the soils um the issue with the soils it's and
and the limitation that one dwelling unit per four acres it's not that a huge subdivision or something like that is going to go in the area. Um you know and and if the you know ultimate owners of the property choose to farm in a hobby farm fashion and agriculturally use a portion of their land that doesn't create an incompatibility with the um area. Um it's my understanding Mr. Crosby himself owned land in the area which was sold for development. And so, you know, any objection to other land in the area being sold for development. I don't know
if that's disingenuous or not, but we would just again remind the board we've met the criteria and ask that you approve the resoning. And and if I I'm sorry I was I was sorry I was out. I I as I definitely understand Mr. Crosby concern and and if and if you recall there was there was some limitations. We had a 1.20. And that's why when the board say 4 acres in a farming country, you still can respect the surrounding properties which may be farmland and and you still got the same if
a house on 4 acres that's pretty much relatable for the protections of existing properties compatible with the farmland. A house on 4 acres that's you can't have you can't have you can't put no commercial. You got because agriculture uses still got to have people still got to live there. So that's why four acres on a house and still with the protections for agrarian uses as well as to protect the surrounding farmland. That's why staff recommended that this would think this would be a
good choice because it's four acres, one house per four acres. All right. Thank you. Uh, no sir. If you were called up to for cross- examination, you would you would be able to. Um, but that was not the the case in this time. Um, board, if there again, if you got questions uh for witness, staff, or the applicant, we can take those at this time. Otherwise, we'll take a motion on on this
one way or the other. I appreciate Mr. Crosby's u concerns, and I do too. I'm this is my district and I I love agriculture. I love the farmers. Uh but our job is to make sure that this meets the criteria and that's what we have to vote on and the staff said says that it does. They agree. So I motion to approve. Second. We got a motion, a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. All right. Motion carries.
That was the last item on the agenda for today. Uh staff, do y'all have anything for the board? Got a meeting on January 6 next month? Yes. Where we should have two reasonzonings, a small scale and an ordinance. And that's Tuesday, January 6. Very good. Anything else? And we stand adjourned.