Saturday, November 15, 2014

Colonial Inn Town Home Project Gets Go-Ahead

Fairhope, Alabama


front view
A proposal to construct a 5-unit town home project on property once occupied by the old Colonial Inn hotel on Mobile St. at Cliff Dr. was narrowly approved (5-4 vote) by the Planning Commission at its November meeting.

Some members expressed concerns over increased rainwater runoff caused by the plan, which allows for more than the usual impervious surface area (larger footprint) -- to allow covered garage space for 10 cars

The project, proposed by Edward Overton and his brother Wes, is designed to resemble the old inn, which burned in the mid-1990s.

The brothers grew up in the old hotel, operated then by their father Edward Overton Sr. -- a former mayor of the city Fairhope.

Old Colonial Inn
Since the project drains almost directly into the bay, the majority thought the increased runoff would not be of significance; the others thought the regulations should apply uniformly at all times -- with no exceptions.

(The developers had appealed the matter to the circuit court, which decided the Planning Commission had discretion.)

The city council must still approve the site plan.

rear view

site plan


Anonymous said...

This looks like a fantastic project - a great addition to Fairhope! I can't believe the planning commission was concerned about the project. I'm sure the tree huggers that are so concerned about protecting the weeds at Knoll Park will be up in arms when they learn about this. Please remember that the tree huggers are the minority group in this town but just happen to be the ones that protest the loudest. Remember Mr. Mayor and Council, we elected you to make common sense decisions for the citizens of Fairhope, not knee jerk reactions based on protesting tree huggers. It's time to do the right thing. Make this happen.

Robbie Wolff said...

I'm a "Tree Huger" and I like the idea and I think Mrs. Overton would too..!

Anonymous said...

Our city council help do not have to live with the consequences of their uninformed decisions

Anonymous said...

It looks like a good plan, but everyone should follow the same rules, especially for drainage requirements. He just needs to make it a little smaller to comply. No big deal.

Anonymous said...

I respectfully disagree with the comment regarding making the project "smaller" to comply with the drainage requirements. I support the right for a builder to design and build a project that a consumer will purchase and that the builder can profit from. It doesn't matter how big the project is as long as the builder can show how he/she will control any drainage issues. My gut instinct is that some locals will protest because they think the project is to large and they will use the "drainage requirements" to ensure the project is shrunk to a size "they" feel is adequate. I would guess that these folks are the minority voice with an agenda to have things the way they want them. Let the project stand as is until it's proven that drainage issues will occur. Don't stall progress!

Anonymous said...

I will say that this is of utmost importance; I own a unit in a condo on Mobile Street and the water comes all the way from Church St. and ends at the Bay;years ago when our bld was built there was a lot behind it and the City allowed a subdivision of ALL VERY LARGE homes; with almost no grass left; all concrete, etc. and we get flooded out...the first time it happened I went to the surveyor and asked what special drainage was required put in, say routing the water over to Pier Street so it could go down the drainage system; he said "nothing was required". I think it would be great and Mrs. Overton would approve; however, in order to avoid problems and possible lawsuits, drainage is very important to us all. (Incidentally, one of my clients just sold the Piano from the Colonial Inn that their late brother had restored). JoAnne Kerr