(ESCAMBIA COUNTY, F.L.) --- Possible land-use changes to a parcel on Jacks Branch Road raised density fairness concerns for officials and residents at the Escambia County Board of Commissioners meeting.
August 6, Attorney Meredith Bush, on behalf of Long and Moore Lands Company, presented the case to remove a parcel from the adopted Escambia County Mid-West Sector Plan on Jacks Branch Road. Approved in July by the Planning Board and accepted by staff, Bush stepped up to the podium at the first public hearing, calling the move an “opt-out” of the sector plan that would make it Agriculture Residential (AR) on the Future Land Use (FLU) map.
“On this 160 acres, it would actually reduce the density from 214 homes to 40 homes, one home per four acres, so actually a greater size lot than what was mentioned by the speaker,” Bush said, adding, “We're simply asking that the question be sent to the state for those reviewing agencies to review and provide comments.”
(Photo: Attorney Meredith Bush suggesting a state review for an opt-out in the sector plan for a portion of Jacks Branch Road)
Bush explained that while “it is an opt-out,” the change “would fall under your comprehensive plan and zoning.”
“We feel we've met the criteria,” Bush said, adding county staff supported the application. Noting, “I have not been here for the whole history,” Commissioner Ashlee Hofberger asked Bush if there were prior opt-outs.
Answer: yes. Seventeen to be exact.
Not only have there been, but Bush said, “this Commission has discussed actually repealing and removing the sector plan."
“But instead, it's piecemeal, letting the state review each application,” Bush said.
(Photo: Commissioner Ashlee Hoffberger confirms board history shows many previous "opt-out" recommendations in the sector plan)
The problematic sector plan “goes back better than 20 years,” according to Commissioner Steve Barry, who said two decades later, “we have it and are trying to navigate around it as well as possible.”
Confirming “it is true,” John Priestly, who lives 2,500 feet away, said, “there's nothing to this size that's been done.”
(Photo: Resident John Priestly discusses his property density compared to an adjacent lot being given density privlege)
Priestly should know, since he and the applicant were part of the original zoning density outlines; however, he has watched the applicant see a “5,900 percent increase in density.”
“Both of us were obligated to keep 50% of the land,” Priestly said. “You're gonna let him walk away from the commitments that he made to get him that density.”
While Priestly said that by approving the review of the application, and possible approval, “you're gonna leave the rest of us with that obligation.”
“Should I choose to develop that or sell it to someone who will, that obligation will remain on me,” Priestly said.
Resident Brooke Whitehurst’s opposition was also personal, noting she grew up on Jack's Ranch Road with her grandparents owning 22 acres there.
“This plan is upsetting from start to finish for me,” Whitehurst said. “I get very emotional about the land and the conservation.”
Death is behind the emotion.
(Photo: Commissioner Steve Barry speaks at length about a county sector plan history at the August 6 meeting)
“The last time I spoke on this, I mentioned I've lost two family members on Jack's Ranch Road,” Whitehurst said. “I can't see adding more traffic.”
Commissioner Barry said he relates.
“I suspect I'm quite a bit older than her, but I had a couple of classmates that were killed on Jack's Branch Road in vehicle accidents in the early 90s,” Barry said.
After nearly $8 million in improvements a decade later, Barry said while the road is safer, the sector plan remains an issue.
(Photo: Margaret Hostetter asked Commissioner Barry a question he could not answer at the August 6 Board of Escambia County Commissioners meeting)
Margaret Hostetter came to the podium to ask Barry, “If somebody has received benefits and this opt-out takes place, would they not be required to return the density benefit they were given when the community and commissioners voted it into effect?”
Barry did not answer, but the commissioner did say he “wanted to dissolve the sector plan several years ago related to a different topic.”
“There were considerable entitlements that came with the adoption of the sector plan in 2006 to those three properties,” Barry said.
However, “at the time, there was a concern that to dissolve the sector plan would then put some of those underlying entitlements at risk and put the county at litigation risk from those folks for the loss of those entitlements."
The board approved the recommended opt-out to go before the state despite resident opposition.
0
0
Comments