Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sector Plan Opt Out topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board recommends transmission of 800+‑acre opt‑out despite large public opposition
Summary
The planning board on July 7 recommended that an 800+ acre opt‑out application (OSP202601) for Jacks Branch/Well Line be transmitted for further review, a decision that drew sustained opposition from residents and some board members who warned that the deletion would remove the core of the sector plan.
The Escambia County Planning Board recommended on July 7 that an 800‑plus‑acre opt‑out request be sent to the Board of County Commissioners and, if transmitted, to state reviewing agencies for comment. The request would reassign the parcel from multiple sector‑plan categories to Mixed Use Suburban.
Applicant agent Meredith Bush told the board the proposal is intended to reconcile a mismatch between existing zoning and the sector plan and that staff’s analysis shows the request meets comprehensive‑plan amendment criteria. “This is a portion of a much larger sector plan…and prior opt outs totaled 252.7 acres,” she said, adding that state review will address whether the sector plan’s integrity is triggered or affected.
Hundreds of residents and several property owners spoke through a lengthy public record. Opponents argued the request would cut a large hole in the center of the Jack’s Branch DSAP, erode the plan’s transportation backbone (including the proposed Woodlands Parkway), and put wetlands and watershed protections at risk. “Opting out of this 800 is cutting a hole in the middle of the sector plan,” attorney Will Dunaway said. Flooding, water quality and the loss of a promised town center were repeated themes.
Supporters and the applicant countered that the request is a legal remedy when owners have lost development rights under the DSAP and that the opt‑out process exists precisely to allow parcel‑specific corrections. Staff noted the proposal represents about 9.3% of developable acreage in the sector plan and that traffic and infrastructure agencies had not raised immediate capacity objections to transmitting the request for review.
The board split on the issue during deliberations but ultimately moved to recommend approval and transmission for county and state review. The planning board’s action is a recommendation; the Board of County Commissioners will next decide whether to transmit the opt‑out to state agencies for written comments and review. If transmitted the state review will generate a report on statewide and interagency impacts before any final local adoption vote.
While the county’s action does not itself authorize construction, residents and some board members called for the county commission to demand clearer assurances on the status of MOUs, infrastructure timing and enforceable commitments before any final approval.
