Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning Withdrawal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Applicant withdraws rezoning request for Off Highway 297; property to remain LDR

3211153 · May 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At the May 6 Escambia County Planning Board meeting, the applicant for rezoning case Z202403 announced withdrawal of the request to rezone Off Highway 297 and Off Highway 297 A from LDR to MDR; no recommendation or vote was taken.

At the May 6 meeting of the Escambia County Planning Board, the applicant for rezoning case Z202403 withdrew the request to change the zoning of property off Highway 297 and Highway 297A from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density Residential). The applicant said the property will remain zoned LDR.

The announcement came during the planning board's rezoning hearing. Planning staff had described the case and the procedural background; the applicant said the rezoning had previously been considered by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners and had been the subject of circuit court review. The applicant stated, "At this time, we're gonna withdraw the application, and not move forward with the rezoning to MDR. So we're gonna stick with the LDR." (Applicant)

Because the application was withdrawn, the Planning Board did not make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and no vote on rezoning occurred. The chair closed the rezoning hearing and the meeting proceeded to the regular Planning Board agenda.

The board's role at a rezoning hearing is to receive evidence and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners; the BCC makes the final decision. The applicant's withdrawal leaves the property's zoning unchanged pending any future filings.

Planning staff noted the procedural history of the case in the record and reminded attendees that only testimony taken at the planning hearing is part of the evidentiary record for later BCC consideration.