Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Opt Out topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board backs 160‑acre opt‑out and recommends rezoning for Jack’s Branch parcel
Summary
The Escambia County Planning Board on July 7 recommended that a 160‑acre Jack’s Branch parcel be removed from the Midwest sector plan and that the site be rezoned from agricultural to rural residential (1 unit per 4 acres). Staff said the request met statutory opt‑out and comprehensive‑plan criteria; neighbors raised concerns about wetlands and local road capacity.
The Escambia County Planning Board voted July 7 to recommend that a 160‑acre parcel along Jacks Branch Road be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners and the state for review as an opt‑out from the Midwest sector plan, and separately recommended approval of a rezoning that would allow one dwelling per 4 acres.
Staff planner Caleb McCarty summarized maps and technical materials showing wetlands, flood‑zone areas and prime soils, and confirmed that staff’s finding was that the application met the comprehensive‑plan amendment criteria. “This is our location map showing a 500‑foot buffer and a 2,500‑foot buffer of the property,” McCarty said in his presentation.
Meredith Bush, the applicant’s agent and a certified planner, told the board the opt‑out and rezoning are “not a final decision” but a step to align the future‑land‑use designation with existing zoning and property rights. “This is an opt‑out of the sector plan, of a 160‑plus or minus acres…we feel that we do meet the criteria,” Bush said, adding that staff supports transmission.
Members of the public urged the board to weigh environmental and infrastructure impacts. “I’ve walked it up, hunted all that land in there…there’s a sheet of iron rock that runs up under this property,” said Jackie Hodge, a nearby resident, describing localized drainage and wetland concerns. Other speakers warned about traffic on narrow local roads and the potential for fragmented watershed impacts.
Applicant and staff replied that environmental regulation and stormwater review occur at later site‑plan and permitting stages and that the requested rural residential category would lower the sector‑plan allocation for the parcel (the applicant’s materials showed a reduction to roughly 40 dwelling units maximum on the site). Owner Jerry Long also addressed the board: “I’ve had it for 20 years now,” he said, and said he intends to follow wetlands and other regulatory requirements.
After discussion the board voted to recommend the opt‑out be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners; the rezoning recommendation (Z2026‑12) was also approved by the board by a 4–1 vote. Both actions are recommendations only: the county commission will make the next local decision and, for the opt‑out, state agencies will review whether the sector plan’s integrity is affected.
The commission will schedule separate hearings; the planning board emphasized that neither transmission nor a rezoning decision would bypass subsequent environmental or DRC‑level reviews required before development.
