Council Questions Legality of Proposed Landmark District

Fairhope, Alabama

Edited for clarity. Edited to add "meeting minutes."

Barnwell community on CR3 east.

Jerkiewicz store.


Old School

BILL NOW IN STATE LEGISLATURE

At a meeting in early March, the city council unanimously passed a resolution opposing the proposed Barnwell Landmark District legislation now in the state legislature on numerous legal grounds including such a thing not being a "recognized legal entity in the state" and there being "no consistent or transparent approach for defining its boundaries." (see the resolution at bottom)

It goes on to criticize its "over-inclusive" size (44 square miles) including portions of the city itself ... and "many other disparate communities that share little or no heritage" with Barnwell."

The resolution goes on to "offer to work with other interested parties to better define the legal status of Landmark Districts in the state."

About a half mile stretch of CR3 east of Highway 98 comprises the heart of the traditional Barnwell community; several old buildings still stand there including a former general store, school, and fire department.

If approved by county voters in a referendum, the landmark district would prevent any annexation of areas included into the city by the state legislature.

City officials say they have no interest in annexing such a large area.



Resolution passage meeting minutes


MAYORS SUPPORT RESOLUTION

According to mayor Wilson, thirteen Baldwin county mayors are also supporting the resolution, including Daphne and Spanish Fort's.

House Bill 203, sponsored by Representative Joe Faust, seeks to schedule a referendum by county voters this year to establish the Barnwell District.

If approved by county voters, the landmark district would prevent any annexation into the city by the state legislature.  Mayors say such annexation is an important tool cities use to control unwanted growth and development.


ZONING UNWANTED THERE

Several of the proponents for the new district vehemently oppose Fairhope annexing any of the area and imposing its land use zoning there; it has long been talked about at city hall that when the city reached 25,000 population, it would be able to seek to annex areas immediately outside city limits ... to smooth-out the city's highly irregular (jagged) city limit lines.

The 2020 census currently being taken is expected to put the city's population over that mark.

Currently, most of the area east and south of the city outside city limits is still un-zoned; residents could elect to adopt county-administered zoning but have thus far declined to do so.

The city does issue building permits and regulate subdivision of property within its extra-territorial planning jurisdiction however. It also collects sales tax (1/2 rate) from the few retail businesses there.


ON HOLD DURING CORONAVIRUS CRISIS

Mayor Wilson says the Resolution was sent to the legislative delegation in Montgomery, but she was told the council's resolution will not be discussed further during the current coronavirus emergency.

Sources say proponents may seek to amend the proposal before a vote in the Senate.

(Senator Chris Elliot posted on Facebook questioning this timeline. He said the bill will be introduced in the Senate this summer as planned; has not formally received the council's objections.)



Proposed Barnwell landmark district


 Resolution opposing landmark district.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Some body needs to fix the lack of zoning out in the county before it becoms an even bigger mess.
Anonymous said…
Agree with Anonymous. It also gives “bad actors” leverage when they try to overbuild just outside the city limits.
Also the size of the proposed historic district is ridiculous.. I would guess the population of the cities opposing this is much higher than the rest of the county. Can’t our state reps count ?
Anonymous said…
Why so big? Why not just Barnwell?
Anonymous said…
This does not pass the smell test. Politicians doing what they do.
Anonymous said…
Fairhope started this by going outside their city limits with their rules and regulations.
Anonymous said…
All of them are slick politicians and can not be trusted.
Anonymous said…
They don't want zoning because it could limit their profit whn they sell their family farm to developers.
Anonymous said…
Planning and zoning is quite the question,especially since the individuals planning the zones do so at the whim of those doing the planning.Prime example is the zoning changes by city and county to individuals that have appointed or elected postilions and use that position to garner inside information to use it to their advantage. That advantage is to be able to rezone with out any input form adjacent property during closed door meting.
Anonymous said…
Let those folks form there own city if they want to!
Anonymous said…
Lot of self-righteous people on here making accusations but offering no facts or proof.
Thank God you’re not running the show!
Anonymous said…
Not running the show? last I checked the people have a Constitution. They elect represenatives who work for those people. Meetings are to be open to press and those same people. Now on Hwy 181 there was a farm. That farm has been set to be developed into Apt., store front buisness, and commercial space. The developer, owner is our local municipal judge. The roads there are one lane each way. Fairhope Av. has a school that at certain hours leads to traffic jams. This is just one farm field and one money hungry elected person. Is this how you want Fairhope to become?
Anonymous said…
Biggest problem with Fairhope is complainers! The world changes, communities change, you want to go back to Fairhope of horse and buggy days, no, you like the modern conveniences. Other people deserve to live here also and the Constitution gives them rights also. I don’t agree with everything but the world doesn’t revolve around me. Get over it!
Anonymous said…
Change is not the problem. And your anger is interesting, why are you angry at alternative thought. Development is fine if the roads are built for it. The police can patrol it. The sewers can handle it. The electrical grid can meet it. And the tax payer should not have to pay to upgrade a neighborhood so a developer can cash in. The biggest drain on a negborhood is apartments. Get over it, how about you look past your nose for a change and relize there is cause and effect. You mow down a field that water goes? The wildlife goes? the clean air? Added polution? Who pays for essential sevices that come to more use at Apt.Not to worry though shortsighter. We are headed for a depresion like this world has never seen and you will wonder why you did not have a horse and buggy.
Anonymous said…
Not the least bit angry, just trying to give,, you,, an alternative thought. It’s always those who see things one way that call others shortsighted or get derogatory, my nose is just fine. Overdosing on pessimism is bad for your health.
Anonymous said…
Alternative thought? I believe I said that development is not the problem. Call the kettle black, its those that throw rocks that cry when then tossed back. Pessimism? I believe that the top Republican just said no more funding, so states can declare bancruptcy. Record unemployment-oil companies going to close. If you do not have a paycheck, shortsighter how can you pay rent. So in the long run if the apartments do? get built? The renters will stop paying and the owner will go sorry bank. And the bank will say sorry customers get the idea, cause and effect.
Anonymous said…
Show me the rock I threw at you?
Anonymous said…
This is a trick, cooked up by big property owners and shady Goat Hill politicians in some smoke filled back room -- who oppose zoning in the area, not to prevent development but to promote more of it!
Anonymous said…
Capitalism is painful for some!
Anonymous said…
Ah self righteous,thank God not running,complainers,go back horse buggy,get over it,derogatory, not a lot of ideas or alternat views in those attack words. But hey have a nice day anyway.
Anonymous said…
awwwwwwwwwwww, did my opposing point of view hurt your feelings?
Anonymous said…
Maybe I missed it Awwwwwwwwwwww, what opposing view. What is your idea other than tossing at others. It shows limited thought. And you could never hurt my feelings shortsighter.Awwwwwwwww.
Anonymous said…
i try not to assume that the politicians, developers, and fellow citizens are all operating with the worst of motives and bent upon destroying Fairhope as quickly as possible. Right now I feel like I am part of a slim majority.. I do not agree with everything any of them have done but all I see is a simple difference of opinion on how things should operate. The most common theme is the rapid growth and development of Fairhope. For better or worse that should be coming to an abrupt halt for the next couple of years. The system might take a few months to clear out but multi family and spec building won’t be happening. I happen to prefer
slow development and I plan to make the mayor and council aware of it. They need to make the planning department assess
proposed development in that light. I hope those thinking like I do will make it crystal clear that we prefer slower for the immediate future.





Anonymous said…
So you throw another derogatory comment at me but will accuse this comment of being rude towards you. I gave you my ideas; I can’t make you comprehend them.
Anonymous said…
Long live the free enterprise system and the rights of property owners.
Anonymous said…
There's some real nut jobs on here!