Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves conditional use for 2,677 sq ft educational facility at Carrier Landing Apartments
Summary
The Board of Adjustment approved a conditional use allowing a 2,677 sq ft educational facility at Carrier Landing Apartments to serve existing flight‑training tenants; staff said the proposal meets land‑use criteria and a neighbor voiced concerns about tenant mix and flight simulators.
Get email alerts on the Education Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Escambia County Board of Adjustment voted March 18 to approve a conditional use allowing a 2,677‑square‑foot educational facility at the Carrier Landing Apartments complex on Langley Avenue.
Richard Colbert, agent for Aerospace Housing LLC and owner of the adjacent Carrier Landing Apartments, said the facility is intended to serve existing tenant flight students and instructors as accessory space and will not increase external traffic because users are residents. "We really just consider this an additional accessory use for our complex," Colbert said.
Kimberly Wilson of Development Services reviewed the application against the county’s conditional‑use criteria — including compatibility with adjacent properties, parking and ingress/egress, indoor activities to limit nuisances, and required fencing and code compliance — and recommended approval. "Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use," Wilson told the board. The staff report noted a submitted site plan and a SILT survey and said parking will use the existing Carrier Landing lot.
Neighbor Linda Williams testified she lives directly across the street and questioned whether the original representations about tenant contracts and intended occupants were accurate; she also referenced high costs for advanced flight simulators. Williams asked whether only military aviators live there or whether anyone may rent units. Staff replied that the county does not regulate to whom property owners rent and that the conditional‑use review focuses on land‑use criteria rather than tenancy agreements.
A board member moved to accept staff findings and approve the request; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously.

