Latest Headlines
- Cantonment Man Sentenced To Prison For Drug Possession, Evidence Tampering, Fleeing
- A Warming Trend To Begin Thanksgiving Week
- Central High Cheerleaders Perform At Halftime Of Alabama Game
- ECSO: Truck Stolen In Bratt, Note Left Behind Claims Woman Was Attacked, Kidnapped
- Hundreds Of Families Receive Thanksgiving Meal During Food Distribution
- Two Northview High Career Academies Create Food Cart
- Escambia County Corrections Welcomes 12 New Officer Trainees
- Special Election To Replace Matt Gaetz In Congress Set For April Fools’ Day
- Food Distribution Held Friday In Walnut Hill, Saturday In Cantonment
- Escambia Schools Announce Top 10 Teachers Of The Year
Escambia County To Hold Public Input Meeting On Future Land Use Agricultural Areas
October 8, 2020
Escambia County Development Services Department will host a citizen engagement meeting on Monday, October 26, at 6 p.m. about the proposed transitional future land use category for agricultural areas.
The Agricultural Residential (AR) future land use category is intended for routine agricultural and silvicultural (forestry related) related activities and low to medium density residential uses. It also allows for commercial activity limited to those endeavors ancillary to agricultural and silvicultural pursuits or in support of agricultural activities such as seed, feed and food outlets, farm equipment and repair and veterinary services.
The category would allow for a residential maximum density of one dwelling unit per four acres.
The meeting will be held on Monday, October 26 at the Escambia County Central Office Complex at 3363 West Park Place. It will be live streamed on the county’s Facebook page.
Agenda items will include:
- Proposed draft Ordinance amending the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of establishing the “Agriculture Residential” (AR) future land use category; and
- Proposed draft Ordinance amending the Escambia County Land Development Code for the purpose of implementing the new AR future land use category.
A form for additional public input will also be made available after the meeting.
For more information, call (850) 595-3466 or email ADHOLMER@myescambia.com.
Click map to enlarge.
Comments
15 Responses to “Escambia County To Hold Public Input Meeting On Future Land Use Agricultural Areas”
The ole saying is follow the $$. Who benefits from all these zoning changes? They don’t just wake up one morning and decide it’s a good day to do it. Are the property owners selling to the developers and the developers asking for the changes? Maybe a Commissioner could answer why this has even come to the table. Beulah has been ruined by development and not enough roads and utilities have been updated to go along with the growth. The psychology has been change it/build it/fix stuff later. No prior information and no vote by the citizens— just worthless meeting
@ Jacqueline Amen! County planning and greed has ruined Cantonment. The roads out here cant maintain the volume and yet they allow more and more subdivisions to be built. There are no developer impact fees, thus no preplanning to support the needed expansion of fire, EMS, or law enforcement. That means the taxpayers, not the developers will pick up those fees. The mess here should be a warning to everyone else. It’s coming to you. Greed is a powerfully motivated machine of destruction. I have been of the opinion the Citizens of Cantonment should incorporate the area in order to be done with the negative and destructive influence of the county commission. Anyone want to start the petition?
Jacqueline, you are correct.
THIS is what WILL HAPPEN, some yuppie moves in a subdivision, adjoining an agriculture producing field and files lawsuit on farmer for these things:
Ag operations have smells, noises, dust, and substances used that aren’t always compatible with residential subdivisions.
Thousands of acres are used as well for hunting. Same scenario will happen, “he shooting at my house, my kids are outside”
Just look at Nine Mile and Beulah how well the county manages growth.
NO TO THIS Mr. Barry
In the early 1990’s, the state of Florida was having counties implement the Growth Management Act. Rural areas were vehemently opposed to governments
Putting ANY land use and zoning rules. The rallying cry was that people should be left alone to build as much as they wanted… everyone wanted no restrictions on densities at all! Takings! Communism! Leave us alone to build and subdivide as we please!
Thirty years later, and people are now throwing up their hands at proposals to increase densities because they DON’T want more development, more residents/people moving in, and overwhelming the quality of life of country low density living, and city life.
My, my, how the pendulum swings.
As was asked in the meetings of the 1990’s, “What do you envision
This community looking like in 10, 20, even 30 years from now?”
That question is now back before you. And instead of grumping and complaining, maybe it’s time to take that question very, VERY seriously, lest, indeed, it becomes all urbanized, especially from Molino Park Elementary and south.
Closing thought: Imagine 15 new traffic signals between Molino and Cantonment, and no service roads!
How do the people actually stop this? If county wants to control the land we pay for we pay taxes we pay for tooo many permission for resiculous permits to build or do whatever on our own private property … starting to be communist ! Some of these peeps need out of office ! I live in the country to be away from others crowded ! I like it quiet I like it open & peaceful !!!! Ya know wonder what we could do ? I mean petitions ??? Strike?? Idk we are the ones that pay a lot of money taxes for me almost )
$2k a year .. so who pads their pockets ? We do we the people are their salary & roof & grocery providers , so enough is enough ! Some feathers gonna be really ruffled with this crap! There has to be some law or something that protects the American people’s landowner rights!!! Now crap this is ridiculous they can take down & put up monuments & flags or whatever all down town city limits public places but people’s private property???!!!! No that is a violation! If we want to have as many living on our parcels outside the city that is none of any politician or anyone’s business !!! We did census count we buy what we have to put there we have power bills etc .. next thing ya know have to have permission to live off grid in tents & limitations on that & how many rows of green beans we plant !!!
If you have 4 acres and thought you might one day sell an acre or build a home for older parents or your kids…consider your plans GONE. Your pocket has been picked.
Not really sure who Commissioner Barry is representing. Imo, however, it is not me.
Crime in molino is up,prostitution in the parking lots,obvious drug users crawling everywhere amazing how much has changed in the 7 years of moving out this way we have been ready to sell our property this just finalized the decision
If the county is looking for lawsuits this is a good way to go. The people in the northend of escambia county live here for a reason , leave it alone. The properties that are owned are owned under that land zone.
If the vote (should i say pretend to)to re-zone our beautiful country side retreat , it will ruin the life we sought to live out here. I understand there has to be growth but at some point there has to be a line drawn. We all live out here for a reason. If they change the zoning they will continue to keep changing it to fit 1 parcel to every .34 of a acre just like Pensacola. We don’t want the city life. We don’t want the clogged traffic unless its because you are behind a tractor that works on the farm. We all wanted that farm life. To enjoy nature. We pay higher taxes out here which is ok because you have to pay for what you want. I don’t want a bunch of subdivisions & trailer parks or low income houses. That what the city has & that’s why we don’t live in the city.
I moved North 25 years ago to get out of the city. Well, guess what, now I am back in the city, horrible traffic, and development all around me. I was told back then one of the purposes of the land development code was to prevent “urban sprawl”. So, here we go again and so much for preventing “urban sprawl”. Looks like those in power are encouraging “urban sprawl” and our District 5 commissioner appears to be in favor of “urban sprawl” instead of protecting the north end from becoming another urban area. To late now district 5 you already voted to keep him for another term.
This is a joke, they will not listen to the residents on the north end. Steven Barry thought it was a good idea to vote to change the zoning up here from 1 per 20 to 1 per 10 and decided to hold a town hall meeting a couple days after the vote was final. Who does he represent anyway? Sounds like the county will do what they want, and to heck with the people. You will anger the entire north end of the county if this garbage goes thru, but what do they care.
several years ago they held one of these worthless meetings to “be fair and give input to the county” well IT WAS A LIE and it was a DISASTER ” there is no where else to go except north so those who own a lot of land start saving for higher taxes – and the rest of us be prepared for more traffic
we need more conveniences for sure up here BUT not done helter skelter
Part of the problem with this new ordinance is the way the county has changed the definitions so that even previously protected agriculture and silviculture land could be considered “existing rural communities”.
They are also striking out the requirement to direct new growth to existing Rural Community (a Future Land Use/FLU designation) areas any by weakening the language there.
The county never tells anyone that every lot of record, no matter the size, can already have a residence on it. You can see many smaller parcels already within the Agriculture FLU areas (light green on map). But they keep saying that you need a 20 acre parcel to have a home.
This is a big change to the Comprehensive Plan to benefit developers.
Because a developer could not put in a subdivision up there, the county (at Comm. Barry’s lead) is trying hard to remove the protections for Ag land so that it can be accomplished.
They even contracted an outside of the area planner (for up to $10K) through the attorney’s office to justify this change and they bypassed the regular planning staff to come up with this attempt at an ordinance. Beware.
A new Future Land Use category is not needed.
The County can already develop within or expand the existing Rural Community FLU category areas (dark green areas on the map.)
The risk of allowing subdivisions on northern Ag land is that incompatible uses may result as housing subdivisions encroach on farm land.
Once farm land and timber land are carved up, you can never piece it back together.
It also costs local government more money to provide and maintain the new infrastructure (expanding roads, new stormwater structures, etc.) and services (schools, fire, EMS) for developing subdivisions so far from the existing infrastructure. Studies have shown that new development doesn’t pay enough to support itself with the property taxes assessed.
Escambia County already is having problems providing adequate EMS and fire coverage, and they are not able to maintain all the roads and bridges they are responsible for now.
Many are concerned about crowding out the existing farms and timber lands that, along with related businesses, contribute a significant contribution to our local economy.
Ag operations have smells, noises, dust, and substances used that aren’t always compatible with residential subdivisions.
Also, open land has great value for processing stormwater and we have seen the effect of over development (flooding) in many other areas of the county south.
Growth has already come to Beulah and areas of Cantonment, but the County does not seem to be prepared for it with adequate roads to deal with the traffic nor the needed services that new development demands.
We don’t need to promote subdivision sprawl up in the northernmost part of the county to make the situation worse.
There are simpler solutions to allow smart growth in our county and long term land use decisions shouldn’t be subject to political considerations.
There goes the neighborhood.