Fairhope, Alabama
Updated to include Commissioner Elliot's Facebook comments at bottom.
DELAY ONLY TEMPORARY?
An usually reliable source tell the Times that ADEM has given clearance for the gas station at the NW segment of the new roundabout: no wetlands are involved there, but since the city issued no land disturbance permit the hole dug up earlier in the month will have to be filled in before one can be issued.
The property is owned by Thomson and M J Rotch and valued at $172,500, according to current online county land records; driveway accesses were added during the roundabout's construction.
A stop-work order was issued by the city's building department, but since the property is outside of the city limits and is still un-zoned, if all other legal requirements (ie. appropriate building plans submitted) are met, the project will likely go forward.
Mayor Kant told the city council at its last meeting that the worker doing the digging on August 5th told a city employee that "we're building a gas station ... and there is nothing you can do about it" -- and he said (the worker) two county commissioners were aware of the project. (Commissioner Elliot told the Times' later he was not one of them)
Construction and growth outside of the city limits has become a major issue in the election campaign -- and some candidates are advocating for expedited implementation of the new village model task force committee recommended by the comprehensive growth plan consultants as a way to deal with such issues in the extra-territorial planning jurisdiction: more planning personnel will be needed to handle the increased workload though.
The comprehensive plan map keeps property all along the Fairhope Avenue corridor residential, with commercial in village centers at Hwy 181 and at Greeno Road only: it is not itself a legally-binding document though.
This gas station has become a metaphor for deficiencies of the city's growth plan.
ANNEXATION VOLUNTARY
There is currently no practical, legal mechanism for annexing such property into the city limits (unless requested by property owners) and county residents have repeatedly rejected enacting county-administered zoning themselves in county Planning District 14: Un-zoned property is generally of higher value than zoned because of wider commercial development potential.
Exploring pulling back city police and fire protection (and other amenities) to the city limits has been mentioned in the past as a possible way to encourage annexation,-- but never seriously considered by the city council. (Some city services must be provided to utility customers beyond city limits, according to state law, is the reason often given.)
Once city population reaches 25K though, other means of annexation become available, according to officials.
Commissioner Elliot's comments:
Updated to include Commissioner Elliot's Facebook comments at bottom.
 |
| proposed station site must be filled in? |
DELAY ONLY TEMPORARY?
An usually reliable source tell the Times that ADEM has given clearance for the gas station at the NW segment of the new roundabout: no wetlands are involved there, but since the city issued no land disturbance permit the hole dug up earlier in the month will have to be filled in before one can be issued.
The property is owned by Thomson and M J Rotch and valued at $172,500, according to current online county land records; driveway accesses were added during the roundabout's construction.
A stop-work order was issued by the city's building department, but since the property is outside of the city limits and is still un-zoned, if all other legal requirements (ie. appropriate building plans submitted) are met, the project will likely go forward.
Mayor Kant told the city council at its last meeting that the worker doing the digging on August 5th told a city employee that "we're building a gas station ... and there is nothing you can do about it" -- and he said (the worker) two county commissioners were aware of the project. (Commissioner Elliot told the Times' later he was not one of them)
Construction and growth outside of the city limits has become a major issue in the election campaign -- and some candidates are advocating for expedited implementation of the new village model task force committee recommended by the comprehensive growth plan consultants as a way to deal with such issues in the extra-territorial planning jurisdiction: more planning personnel will be needed to handle the increased workload though.
The comprehensive plan map keeps property all along the Fairhope Avenue corridor residential, with commercial in village centers at Hwy 181 and at Greeno Road only: it is not itself a legally-binding document though.
This gas station has become a metaphor for deficiencies of the city's growth plan.
ANNEXATION VOLUNTARY
There is currently no practical, legal mechanism for annexing such property into the city limits (unless requested by property owners) and county residents have repeatedly rejected enacting county-administered zoning themselves in county Planning District 14: Un-zoned property is generally of higher value than zoned because of wider commercial development potential.
Exploring pulling back city police and fire protection (and other amenities) to the city limits has been mentioned in the past as a possible way to encourage annexation,-- but never seriously considered by the city council. (Some city services must be provided to utility customers beyond city limits, according to state law, is the reason often given.)
Once city population reaches 25K though, other means of annexation become available, according to officials.
Commissioner Elliot's comments:
"I'd like to clarify a few points about the roundabout and rumors of a gas station. I figured some facts would help. The intersection of 13/48 is in a partially in the city and partially in the county. It's also governed by something called extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). This means that while portions of this area are in the county, the City of Fairhope issues (or refuses to issue) building permits and has subdivision authority over this property. It's worth noting that the city (no matter the mayor and no matter the council makeup) must issue permits and permissions if all requirements are met. For any candidate for elected office to tell you differently is disingenuous and disappointing.
The corner in question (North West) is in the county and has not been annexed into the city. (the property owner would have to request it). When county zoning was adopted by the voters some time ago, this area decided not to go along and consequently this area is un-zoned. Yep...un-zoned and that's what the voters decided. Should we ask the voters again? YES and soon and that's the ONLY way to address this issue and many like it county wide. But it's the voters decision not any elected official so please place blame appropriately.
So, we're left with an un-zoned parcel on the north west corner of a major intersection at one of the gateways to the City of Fairhope.
A portion of this property needed to be acquired in order to construct the roundabout at 13/48.
One of the requests of the owner while negotiating the price of the right of way to be acquired was access to the remaining parcel. This is completely normal in the right of way acquisition process and is routine. As you can imagine, sellers want to know how (and where) they are going to access their property once the road improvement is constructed. As a result of this negotiation, the 13/48 roundabout project (and the project plans) included two aprons constructed only on right of way to allow access to the remaining parcel.
As I understand it, during the right-of-way acquisition process, the owners of this property (who live just to the west and have owned both parcel for some time) entered negations to sell the remainder of the corner and completed the sale some time after the right of way acquisition process was completed.
The new owner of the remaining parcel owns and operates a number of gas stations in Baldwin County. Accordingly, I can understand where the rumors began.
Since the property is un-zoned, but in Fairhope's ETJ any building permit or change that required subdivision approval would be approved (or denied) by the City of Fairhope. However, as of today, I know of no application to the city of this kind.
Any speculation about the future of this corner is just that at this point but I would stay involved and make your opinion known to your city leaders. I've discussed this with many of them and feel that they agree with your concerns.
I hope that this gives you in depth understating of this issue and again appreciate you taking the time to decipher the rumors. Please feel free to contact me any time if I can be of further assistance. My cell phone number is 487-1567 or please feel free to get me anytime at ctelliott@baldwincountyal.gov"
Comments
In this case, we believe our reporting has proved so far to be substantially accurate: A gas station was planned there for some time, city planning/building officials had no warning, and the proper land disturbance permit was not obtained. All of that came from the mayor himself or was discussed during a public work session.
Current online county property records may not indicate that land ownership has changed, but that is not our fault: if they are not accurate the reasonable question would then become "why aren't they?"