Tree Board Worries About Proposed Resort's Threat to Old Trees; Angered by Lack of Tree Law Enforcement

At its last meeting, the Tree Board discussed how the proposed Colony at the Grand TR district ordinance (to settle a lawsuit; Aug 9th council meeting)--may threaten some of the numerous old live oak trees on the property (north of Old Battles Rd., Pt. Clear).

This proposal originated via a 2006 lawsuit (case cv-2006-900250, Judge Partin) filed by some Pt. Clear residents (Fairhope Pt. Clear Association for Responsible Development)--alleging the city issued an illegal building permit allowing more habitable floors in the condo tower than were approved. In their lawsuit, they ask the court to order the building be modified to conform; and the city to pay their legal bills. (The City contends it was misled by the developer concerning the permit.)

Horticulturist Fidler reported that city staff, the developers, and plaintiffs attorneys together came up with the tree proposal: ". . . they felt like they shouldn't have to adhere to every bit of the tree ordinance . . . save big stands . . . not every single tree . . . this is a compromise . . not to have any more high rises."

Committee Member Maria Gwynn said the County Planning and Zoning Commission approved the condominium towers (in 2005) for only 5 habitable floors, but 8 were built instead. Three of the floors were supposed to be reserved for parking; the total 100' height is not disputed.

[Publisher's Note: According to web postings, Gwynn is a member (Executive Secretary) of the citizen's group suing the city/developer (FPARD). In part of its lawsuit, that group contends the City of Fairhope erroneously issued a building permit for too many habitable floors in the condo tower (8 vs 5)--the total 100' height is not disputed. The city is being asked to pay their legal bills--and the developer to modify the condo tower building to conform.]

Member Bolton: ". . . if my opinion matters . . . my opinion is . . . say hell no . . . you're not cutting down any trees . . . we're not bargaining with you either!"

Chairman Green: " . . . parts of this (proposal) allow suspension of the tree ordinance . . . essentially they're drawing up their own tree ordinance . . . a nasty precedent."

Member Kingrea: "They didn't draw up their own ordinance!" He explained this would be an entirely new type of zoning--an addition to existing ordinances, not an exemption. "I'm for anything that settles the lawsuit . . . ."

Gwynn said she really didn't trust the developers; but hoped they wouldn't clear cut the property--because that would reduce its value to them. Another member concurred that developers generally can't be trusted and removing old trees would not make financial sense to them; but he would like to see more of the proposal before passing final judgement. Green said he thought the proposed ordinance had already been printed in the local newspaper. Kingrea suggested Committee Members could come to the next council meeting to express their opinions.

Bolton: "(Council) needs to know our position . . . before they vote . . . otherwise what are we doing on this committee . . . sounds to me like it doesn't matter what we do . . . why even talk about it?"

Fidler: "That's probably true!"

Fidler went on to reveal that (in conjunction with this proposal) she's been instructed not to enforce the tree ordinance in the city's extra-territorial planning jurisdiction anyway. She added she thought the legal authority for the tree ordinance itself--and the process now nearing completion to update the current ordinance, were contributing factors for the enforcement suspension as well.

Member Bolton: ". . . a city's built on law . . . ordinances are part of the legal structure . . . it ought to be enforced . . . . . . don't want to waste my time at these meetings if we have a moot voice."

"If we're sitting on a committee . . . that has no teeth . . . no regulatory ability . . . then I don't want to be on it."

The Committee then appointed Kingrea to ask the Mayor/Council/City Attorney for an explanation: exactly why enforcement was suspended; and decided to expedite the new ordinance's adoption.

(this video overlaps about 2 min. with prior)