Fairhope, Alabama
POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES POSSIBLE?
After another lengthy council meeting, by a 3-2 margin the city council approved an amendment to the already-approved (in 2006) Fly Creek Village PUD that would allow about the same number of apartments rather than just town homes/condominiums in the next phase of the development behind the Publix grocery store.
Population density remains about the same as well.
The developer has one year to begin the project or it reverts back to the original 2006 concept.
Councilmembers Boone, Mueller and Brewer voted in favor; Ford and Burrell against.
The Planning Commission had voted 8-1 for approval in January (Mayor Kant voted in favor then too).
(The city's Environmental Committee had informally discussed the amendment at its meeting last week and, citing more green space and a wider creek buffer, the majority also concluded that it was preferable to the current plan: They are asking for volunteers to help them monitor the creek during construction, though.)
NEIGHBORS OPPOSED IT
Again, mostly residents of neighboring Rock Creek and Sandy Ford subdivisions spoke out against it citing concerns such as traffic, impact on Fly Creek, and potential reduced home values.
A smaller group spoke in favor, including designer Stuart Speed of the Leaf River Group citing improved environmental friendliness (compared to current plan), better compliance with the city's comprehensive growth plan, and the need for up-scale apartments in the city.
Before the vote, one frequent speaker who also publishes a weekly political blog, got applause after threatening to defeat the mayor and anyone who voted in favor of the project in the upcoming August municipal election; and council president Burrell referenced mayor Kant's famous 'Keep Fairhope, Fairhope' campaign pledges of 2000 and 2004 as a reason to vote against the amendment.
(Burrell ran for mayor in 2008, before councilman in 2012)
COUNCILMAN CLAIMS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST
After the vote, when asked by a Times reporter if he felt any conflict of interests and ever considered recusing himself from the deliberations since he lives in the neighborhood as well, councilman Burrell became visibly agitated and denied it was a problem.
The Times had received several inquiries from citizens about the appropriateness of Burrell's participation given his close proximity: He lives on nearby Alice Lane off of Parker Road just west of the Publix store; his home is not adjacent to Fly Creek, but only 3 lots over from it.
He said he did not know for sure if the apartments would adversely affect his home's value, but conceded they could.
(The Times had raised the issue with Burrell about two weeks earlier: the mayor said then that former councilman Stankoski, who also lived in the area, always recused himself for such neighborhood matters)
State ethics laws prohibit elected/appointed officials from personally benefiting by actions they take in office; however in this case, since the motion was approved and Burrell opposed, the issue is probably moot.
MORE HURDLES TO COME
Before construction begins, the developer must present a detailed site plan to the Planning Commission and city council for approval.
Those meeting are open to the public too ... .
 |
| New plan for 4 apartment buildings at lower right |
 |
Original apartment plan (2015) |
POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES POSSIBLE?
After another lengthy council meeting, by a 3-2 margin the city council approved an amendment to the already-approved (in 2006) Fly Creek Village PUD that would allow about the same number of apartments rather than just town homes/condominiums in the next phase of the development behind the Publix grocery store.
Population density remains about the same as well.
The developer has one year to begin the project or it reverts back to the original 2006 concept.
Councilmembers Boone, Mueller and Brewer voted in favor; Ford and Burrell against.
The Planning Commission had voted 8-1 for approval in January (Mayor Kant voted in favor then too).
(The city's Environmental Committee had informally discussed the amendment at its meeting last week and, citing more green space and a wider creek buffer, the majority also concluded that it was preferable to the current plan: They are asking for volunteers to help them monitor the creek during construction, though.)
NEIGHBORS OPPOSED IT
Again, mostly residents of neighboring Rock Creek and Sandy Ford subdivisions spoke out against it citing concerns such as traffic, impact on Fly Creek, and potential reduced home values.
A smaller group spoke in favor, including designer Stuart Speed of the Leaf River Group citing improved environmental friendliness (compared to current plan), better compliance with the city's comprehensive growth plan, and the need for up-scale apartments in the city.
Before the vote, one frequent speaker who also publishes a weekly political blog, got applause after threatening to defeat the mayor and anyone who voted in favor of the project in the upcoming August municipal election; and council president Burrell referenced mayor Kant's famous 'Keep Fairhope, Fairhope' campaign pledges of 2000 and 2004 as a reason to vote against the amendment.
(Burrell ran for mayor in 2008, before councilman in 2012)
COUNCILMAN CLAIMS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST
After the vote, when asked by a Times reporter if he felt any conflict of interests and ever considered recusing himself from the deliberations since he lives in the neighborhood as well, councilman Burrell became visibly agitated and denied it was a problem.
The Times had received several inquiries from citizens about the appropriateness of Burrell's participation given his close proximity: He lives on nearby Alice Lane off of Parker Road just west of the Publix store; his home is not adjacent to Fly Creek, but only 3 lots over from it.
He said he did not know for sure if the apartments would adversely affect his home's value, but conceded they could.
(The Times had raised the issue with Burrell about two weeks earlier: the mayor said then that former councilman Stankoski, who also lived in the area, always recused himself for such neighborhood matters)
State ethics laws prohibit elected/appointed officials from personally benefiting by actions they take in office; however in this case, since the motion was approved and Burrell opposed, the issue is probably moot.
MORE HURDLES TO COME
Before construction begins, the developer must present a detailed site plan to the Planning Commission and city council for approval.
Those meeting are open to the public too ... .
 |
| elevation |
Comments
A battle of the big egos, but neither one will ever be awarded for high ethics standards.
Brewer never fails to disappoint.
If people in Fairhope want change you will only get that when you vote.
Yet, you people to continue to elect Can't and his crew over and over and over again.
You have no one to blame but yourselves.
We all know that the developers could not build the original plan on that property and that building apartments allows them to build and run within a year. Single property and work / life is a community/village concept.
Fairhope will be sorry for this decision.
First wave of signs will be available soon, please remember to have spot lights and cameras on all signs. We want to discourage the "kids" (wink, wink) from stealing the signs in the middle of the night.
Hopeless, old, senile Mike Ford took the low road again and played to the crowd as did Burrell who knowingly broke state ethics laws again.
I would not call a hundred and fifty mis-informed people from one or two neighborhoods an overwhelming majority in a town of 18 thousand folks.
Your own POA's did not take positions on it so it may not even be a majority there either.
We did not have a traffic problem before the sprawling subdivisions like Rock Creek.