Fairhope, Alabama
 |
| Thompson Hall Quadplexes |
OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS IN UNZONED COUNTY
A site plan for a 16-unit multiple occupancy project at the NE corner of Thompson Hall and Twin Beech Roads was delayed due to inadequate green space. (The proposed density 8 units/acre requires 25% green space.)
 |
| Old satellite photo. |
This project is outside of city limits in the unzoned county but within the city's extra-territorial jurisdiction for multiple occupancy projects, so both the city and county planning commissions have to approve it. (Both tabled the proposal for more study at earlier meetings.)
City staff report: "75 foot construction setbacks required by the county highway department result in a site ... challenging to attain 25% green space."
The planning commission could choose to grant a waiver instead or the developer could reduce density.
(There was some disagreement between the project engineer and city staff about whether right-of-way set backs could be included in the green space calculations.)
Provision Investments LLC, is the owner of the 1.9 acre property. S.E. Civil is the project engineer.
 |
| Site already cleared. |
 |
| site plan |
Comments
You must be new here. First rule of Fairhope. The developer$ alway$ get their way.
#thefairhopeway
Comment 2: Witless, destructive, and tiresome sniping
Let's encourage more of the former and marginalize the latter.
I had trouble with the setback code when I built a garage in my back yard; it needs rewording and clarification to be understood even by those who work with code.
I’m sure you read it and are informed before you comment?
Neither obtuseness in reading local ordinances nor mendacity in overinterpreting others' comments on this board amount to a compelling argument. They do, however, suffice to reveal--once again--the bizarre and relentless compulsion to traduce everything Fairhope. As such, the comments should be valued at the same level as Comment 2 (i.e. not at all).
I will agree, though, that name calling is not productive. Maybe the developers are innocent; maybe they are trying to game the system. If our government officials do their jobs, though, it scarcely matters. Let's enforce our zoning with an eye toward preserving the character of our fair city.
"Clear and easy" was directly responsive to YOUR complaint that YOU could not navigate our ordinances when building YOUR garage--offered as evidence that the city ordinances are inscrutable.
Proven wrong, you now wish to pretend that the argument you made only yesterday was not your argument.
Your garage was controlled by the (clear and easy) city ordinances; the apartment project is controlled by city AND county ordinances. Only by conflating the two could one makes such a foolish demand as this: "tell me where it states that the 25% greenspace is after (not before) setbacks and right of ways and in this case after both are applied."
That's like demanding that we show you where traffic control laws state that it's illegal to use your car as a murder weapon.
Developers bought this land knowing that multiple jurisdictions control the zoning. They must comply with both, which includes doing the diligence required to build legally. In this case, it seems, things are not so "clear and easy."
If this truly was not your first rodeo, you'd already know that life, business, and the law can be that way--more than any of us care for it to be.