P & Z Approves New Tourist Resort to Settle Lawsuit: Could Compete With Downtown Businesses, Threaten Live Oak Trees if Ok'd by Council

At its June meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve changes to the controversial Colony at the Grand project (Battles Rd., Pt. Clear)--which may also lead to the settlement of a lawsuit against the city by a neighborhood group (Fairhope-Pt. Clear Association for Responsible Development).

In case number cv-2006-900250.00 filed 12-15-2006--plaintiffs claim they have "suffered or are threatened with irreparable harm;" and are seeking declartory, mandamus or injuctive relief by Judge Partin(bench trial). They claim the city erred by issuing a building permit (# 600476) for the Bayview ll condo tower--allowing 8 habitable floors vs the previously approved 5 floors. The 100' height is not disputed, just the usage of floors.

The plaintiffs are asking the building permit be revoked (hard to do since its already built) or the building be modified to conform: and for the city to pay their legal bills.

The plaintiff, Fairhope-Pt. Clear Association . . . is an unincorporated association (about 125 members)--founded by Robert Callahan Sr.--and composed of individual residents of Baldwin County(Lakewood Estates and other surrounding neighborhoods mostly outside the city limits) according to media records. Ian McPherson is its Vice President and Nancy Marr is also a member. The organization is apparently not required to divulge its full membership and no public record of such exists. (Someone close to the lawsuit tells the Times the membership wants to remain anonymous)

An ancillary group, the District Seventeen Community Associaton Inc. (also supporting the lawsuit)has as members Attorneys A.J. Cooper and Charles Durgin, and Twinn Beech Rd. resident Stacy Quiotes.

Commissioner Fran Slade said she needed more time to study the proposal--and was the only no vote.

Slade: ". . . tremendous amount of material . . . hard to get handle on it . . . a big step . . . 175 acres added to the city . . . is this really what those (citizens) who voted on the Comprehensive Plan (Village alternative) had in mind . . . a big deal . . . hard to decide what's right, wrong . . . do we really want a town that large . . . a huge place . . . or (keep it) small?"

Commissioner Bob Clark sympathized with Slade: "This is a huge undertaking as far as Fairhope is concerned . . . all sorts of special provisions you can operate on . . . appreciate Slade's comments . . . hard time getting my arms around it too . . . a very, very important thing . . . spent the better part of last 40 days going through it . . . bottom line is . . . although some things i don't like . . . its probably right thing to do."

Clark went on to lament the fact he had heard so little from the public concerning the re-zoning.

The only elected Planning Commissioners (Mayor) Kant and (Councilman) Ford both voted yes (although Ford reserved his right to change when the Council votes). Commissioner Fidler (the city's current Public Work's Director) also voted in the affirmative. Comm. Wilson, Turner, and Charles also voted yes.

The Mayor expressed concerns about the height of the proposed second tower (100 ft) and Fidler brought out that 20 acres of the proposed total 37 acres of "green space" would be taken up by the lake and asked if any of the lawsuit's plaintiffs (FPAFRD) were present: they weren't.

[Planning Attorney Gill indicated he thought they (plaintiffs) would view the re-zoning favorably.]

The new plan (for 638 residences--plus 108,000 sq. ft. new commercial space) is to replace the current version (637 residences), which caused the neighbors' lawsuit over the number of habitable floors in the condo tower (Bayview II -- approved by the County's Planning and Zoning commission in 2001). The property is to be concurrently annexed into the city.

The 100' height of the towers is not in dispute, just the usage of floors.

The lawsuit against the City/Developer alleges the city illegally issued a building permit in 2006 for 8 habitable floors when the county had only approved 5--the other floors were to be used for a parking garage, machinery, etc. (the total 100 ft. height is not disputed). The plaintifs are seeking a mandamus from Judge Partin to alter the existing building--or reach some other settlement(such as being proposed). Plaintiffs are also seeking payment of their legal fees.

If it gets final approval from the City Council at an upcoming meeting, the project is to consist of:

1. 59.2 acres of low rise residential housing (35' max height)
2. 44.7 acres of mid-rise (55' max height)
3. 11 acres of high-rise (100' height) one more similar tower would be allowed
4. 7.1 acres commercial (40' height)

Main concerns seem to be:

1. The new 108,000 sq. ft. of commercial space may eventually compete with downtown businesses.
2. Numerous live oak trees may be in danger since the city's tree ordinance is to be suspended for most of the project (except the designated commercial & recreation areas).
3. Increased traffic on S. Scenic 98, S. Section St., Twinn Beech Rd., etc.
4. The proposed privates streets (but still with city garbage/trash pick-up) will set a precedent.
5. No detailed site plan will be required (but each individual sub-division plat would still have to be approved by the P & Z )

These and other deviations from existing regulations will have to be incorporated into the city's sub division regulation.

City Planning Director Smith describes the proposed new TR zoning ordinance:

General manager of the Grand Hotel, David Clark, supported the proposal:

Commisioner Slade expressed serious doubts:

Many of these live oak trees may be threatened (Battles Rd. area):

A small "oak tree preserve" is to be designated on a SW portion of the property (recreation land).

These old newspaper articles describe the history. Complete articles are available from the online Press Register Archives.