Councilman Objects To Higher Density Rezoning

Fairhope, Alabama thefairhopetimes.blogspot.com 

 

Current house.

 

19763 Hwy 181
 

HWY 181 REZONING REQUESTED

Newly-elected councilman Gammon said he was unlikely to support a request by engineer S.E. Civil on behalf of Bonnie Baker to rezone 10 acres on S. Hwy 181 south of Quail Creek Drive from R-A to R-1, that would allow construction of about 16 new homes there (one vacant old house is there now).

His constituents worry about too much population density overburdening the city's infrastructure (utilities, traffic congestion, etc.) and causing a decline of quality of life here. Projects already approved will add 15K new residents, he said.

Current RA zoning would allow three lots if subdivided; 17 lots are planned on a cul de sac according to the developer's engineer, S.E. Civil.

Councilman Burrell sympathized about density concerns, but warned R-1 is not really very dense at all -- and years from now a future council could approve something even higher such as R-5 if this request were not granted now. 

Covey Run neighborhood property across the street is R-3, he said. Adjacent on the south side is R-2; north side is RA. Adjacent parcels not in city limits are county-zoned B-2, RSF-1, and RSF-E  -- in county planning district 37 (county map at very bottom).

PLANNING COMMISSION OK'D IT

Planning director Simmons said the planning commission approved it by a vote of 8-0 because it conformed to the city's comprehensive plan and was about the least dense zoning possible.

Tower Homes wants to build a "small neighborhood on big lots" priced in the neighborhood of $500K to $1 million, according to developer Will Hightower.

ORDINANCE LAID OVER

After the discussion the request was allowed to lay-over until the next meeting when a final vote will be taken.


Gammon far right in photo.


City limits in color.

 
County zoning map.




Comments

Anonymous said…
traffic is already a nightmare thru there
Anonymous said…
I agree that too much is being approved but I also agree with Burrell that this is probably the best case scenario for that property. These will be huge lots, relative to the surrounding developments.
Anonymous said…
Without exception, the lower the density, the better for aesthetics and quality of life. Maybe the city council is finally figuring this out? About time. We shall see.
Anonymous said…
Some body needs to light fire to get the state to widen the road there!
Fairhope Hoping said…
If some of our leaders are worried about density and impacts perhaps they need to go after these developers to pay for road/traffic improvements. Not enough money? Stop any development until the required funding is in place.
Anonymous said…
There has been a moratorium in place for the past year on bigger projects and apartments ....
Anonymous said…
I’m with Josh!! Put up resistance at every turn. Planning Commission is just a rubber stamp on the Planning Department. Publish the map showing approved projects yet to be built. That’ll wake you up to the overgrowth.
Anonymous said…
And another thing: The Planning Commission is running scared. Ever since they were sued by 68Ventures for allegedly “pretexting” a decision to deny two multiple occupancy projects with inappropriate comments caught on video during a meeting. The trial is set for early February.
Anonymous said…
Right. Planning commissions have to follow laws and regulations already on the books. City councils have more discretion but still have to follow precedents. Final arbiter is the circuit court system ...
Anonymous said…
City already has R-3 right across the 181 highway. They stand to lose the 68V lawsuit, at least the townhomes part on Dyer Road ....
Anonymous said…
Roads not keeping up with traffic congestion is a failure of political leadership. Ours are more concerned about which shelf books are on in the library and where to put the bay mud after dredging! Elections coming up this spring.
Anonymous said…
Right. Maybe that’s why Baldwin County no longer has its Planning Commission consider zoning change requests. Wasted everyone’s time. Fairhope needs an attorney who will find ways to push back on rezoning requests by showing the detrimental consequences to our community (lack of infrastructure, crowded thoroughfares, hazardous school zones, etc.). City Council and Mayor ought to serve their constituents who have overwhelmingly voiced their opposition to OVERdevelopment and OVERcrowding. Same old legal counsel plays only DEfense.
Fairhope Hoping said…
We tried elections a few months ago. There were anti-growth candidates on the ballot. They didn’t get elected, in part due to apathy, and in part to younger generations of families making a fortune off selling grandpa’s farm. Not a bright future here.
Anonymous said…
Yes. But at least one candidate suggested a fund to fight legal battles to limit the sprawl over our R-A greenspace and watershed. (The controversy over library books defeated those candidates for change. With the exception of Mr. Gammon, thank goodness).
Anonymous said…
Maybe Gamon can bring the discussions out of the back room again.
Anonymous said…
The 'anti-growth' candidates were also 'anti- free speech' candidates and wanted to legislate on a local level what kids were allowed to read. From what I have seen, kids these days don't read at all so we should support anything that they care to explore.