HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-2019 Planning Commission Agenda PacketAugust S, 2019
Planning Commission Worksess ion Minutes
The Planning Commissionl1eld a Worksession on Monday , August 5, 2019 at 4:00 PM at
the City Municipal Complex , 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; Art Dyas; Harry Kohler; Richard Peterson; Clarice
Hall-Black; Robe1i Brown, Council Liaison; Buford King, Development Services
Manager; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager; Mike Jeffries , Planning
Technician; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and Ken Watson , City Attorney
Absent: Rebecca Bryant and Hollie MacKellar
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 4:08 PM and announced the meeting is
being recorded.
ZC 19.08 Greeno Road Corridor (GRC) Overlay Districts discussion, Buford King.
Mr. King gave a timeline for this proposed amendment and went over the frequently
asked questions that are listed in the document on the Planning Depaiiment's webpage.
Mr. King said staff will request the Commission to consider the amendment at the
September meeting and Mr. Dyas asked why. Mr. King explained the moratorium for
Greeno Road will expire on October 1s t . Mr. Dyas suggested the moratorium be extended
in order to have a special public meeting for residents to speak and not just at the public
hearing. Mr. Turner said we don't want to keep putting this off and Mr. Dyas said he just
wants to make sure everyone knows about the amendment. Mr. Brown stated staff,
Commission, ai1d Council have been talking about this for months and the same 30
people show up every time. Mr. King said a notice will be sent for the September
meeting. Mr. Watson explained a public hearing can't be opened without the
Commission taking action on the item. Mr. Turner said he isn't against a public meeting,
but he doesn't want to see this continued to be drng out. Mr. King said staff would be
willing to hold a public paiiicipation meeting to hear more feedback. Mr. Turner
suggested the Fairhope Public Libraiy as a possible location and recommended the
Council also be invited. Mr. Dyas said he would like to have notices mailed to all
property owners within the proposed c01Tidor. Mr. Peterson asked how mai1y citizens
have given feedback on the proposal and Mr. King replied approximately a dozen.
Mr. Turner adjourned the meeting at 4:50 PM.
Lee Turner, Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary
1
September 5, 2019
Planning Commiss ion Minutes
The Plmming Commission met Thursday, September 5, 20 19 at 5:00 PM at the City
Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; Rebecca Bryant; Harry Kohler; Hollie MacKellar;
Richm·d Peterson; Buford King, Development Services Manager; Hunter Simmons,
Plmming and Zoning Manager; Mike Jeffries, Planning Technician; Emily Boyett,
Secretary; and Ken Watson, City Attorney
Absent: Ali Dyas; Clarice Hall-B lack; and Robe11 Brown, Counc il Liaison
Chairman Turner call ed the meeting to order at 5:05 PM and announced the meeting is
being recorded.
SD 19.32 Public hearing to consider the request of Edward Loper and Johnathan
McMurray for plat approval of South Section Estates, a 4-lot minor division, Seth
Moore. The property is located on the west side of Section Street just south of Twin
Echo Court. Mr. Jeffries gave the staff report saying the prope1iy is approximately 4.5
acres and is unzoned in Baldwin Cow1ty. Staff recommendation is to APPROVE.
Mr. Moore was present to answer m1y questions. Mr. Turner asked if the property is in a
flood zone and Mr. Moore responded no.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public heming.
Rebecca Bryant made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE .
Hm1y Kohler 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the fo llowing vote:
A YE -Rebecca Brym1t, Harry Kohler , Lee Turner, Ho llie MacKellar, and Richmd
Peterson. NAY -none.
SD 19.33 Public hearing to consider the request of LA Development, LLC for Final
plat approval of Pinewood Subdivision, Phase 2, an 18-lot division, Ercil Godwin.
The property is located on the south side of Manley Road between Saddlewood
Subdivision and the City of Fairhope Soccer Complex. Mr. King gave the staff report
saying the property is approxim ately 7.42 acres and is zoned R-2 Medium Density Single
Fami ly Residential District. Staff recommendati on is to APPROVE with the following
conditions:
1. Installation of sidewalks in common areas as described in the staff report.
2. Completion of punch list items identified by the Construction Inspector via
sepm·ate con-espondence and also de scrib ed in the staff repo1i.
3. The warrm1ty period of the sanitary sewer lift station shall not commence until
initial st aii-up of the lift station m1d upon approval of the Water and Sewer
Superintendent.
4 . Reflect "Silage Drive" in lieu of "Dutch Road " as the street nmne on the final
plat. If the developer desires a street name change, that process may occur after
the final plat process.
Mrs. Bryant asked if the sidewalks have been installed and Mr. Godwin responded they
are under construction. Mr. Peterson stated the transformer is too close to the lift station.
Mr. Godwin explained the transformer was installed by Riviera Uti lities, but he will ask
them to move it.
1
September 5, 201 9
Planning Commi ssion Minutes
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Mrs. Bryant asked if the moving of the lift station should be a condition of approval and
Mr. Godwin answered he doesn't know if Riviera Utilities will move it.
Harry Kohler made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE with the
following conditions:
1. Installation of sidewalks in common areas as described in the staff report.
2. Completion of punch list items identified by the Construction Inspector via
separate correspondence and also described in the staff report.
3. The warranty period of the sanitary sewer lift station shall not commence until
initial start-up of the lift station and upon approval of the Water and Sewer
Superintendent.
4. Reflect "Silage Drive" in lieu of "Dutch Road" as the street name on the final
plat. If the developer desires a street name change, that process may occur after
the final plat process.
5 . The location of the transformer shall meet the approval of the City of Fairhope
Director of Operations.
Richard Peterson 2nd the motion and the motion carried w1animously with the following
vote: A YE -Rebecca Bryant, Harry Kohler, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, and Richard
Peterson. NAY -none .
SD 19.34 Public hearing to consider the request of The Teachers Retirement
Systems of Alabama for Final plat approval of Polo Place, a 3-lot subdivision, Tim
Lawley. The prope1ty is located on the north side of Polo Ridge Blvd. just west of S.
Section Street. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the prope1ty is approximately 13
acres and is unzoned in Baldwin County. Staff recommendation is to APPROVE with
the following condition:
1. Article V , Section E.2. Lot Standards -Lot Sizes
a. Memorialize in the final p lat approval the waiver oflot size and lot width
approved by the City of Fairhope Planning Commission at its March 12 ,
2019 regular meeting (preliminary plat approval case number SD 19.13).
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Paul Davis of 17674 Hitching Post Circle -He said RSA has installed a swell in the
greenspace between the new lots and the lots on Hitching Post Circle and it is working
well, but there is nothing in p lace to require them to maintain it. Mr. King said a note can
be added to the plat regarding maintenance of the common areas . Mrs . Bryant asked if a
minor subdivision is required to set up a property owners association and Mr. Peterson
asked who maintains the swell along the back of the lots on Hitching Post Circle. Mr.
King suggested tabling the request or amending the conditions of approval to include
adding a note to the plat for maintenance of the common area and adding a ce1tificate for
the engineer.
Having no one else to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Mr. Peterson asked if the common area needs a drainage easement and Mrs. Boyett
responded a 15 ' drainage and utility easement is shown for all perimeter side and r ear
boundary lines .
Hollie MacKellar made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE with
the following conditions:
2
September 5, 201 9
Planning Commi ssion Minu tes
1. Article V, Section E.2. Lot Standards -Lot Sizes
a. Memorialize in the final plat approval the waiver of lot size and lot width
approved by the City of Fairhope Planning Commission at its March 12,
2019 regular meeting (preliminary plat approval case number SD 19.13).
2. A note shall be added to the plat regarding maintenance of the common areas.
3. An engineer's certificate shall be added to the plat.
Han-y Kohler 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE -Rebecca Bryant, Harry Kohler, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, and Richard
Peterson. NAY -none.
SD 19.35 Public hearing to consider the request of Keith Glines for plat approval of
Glines Subdivision, a 4-Iot minor division, Steve Pumphrey. T he prope1iy is located
on the north side of Bishop Road between County Road 13 and S. Greeno Road. Mr.
Jeffries gave the staff report saying the property is approximately 5 acres and is m12oned
in Baldwin County. He stated the applicant has provided a letter fo1m Baldwin County
exempting it from the County's Subdivision Regulations. Mr. King explained the
applicant is requesting a waiver for all lots to front on a paved, publicly maintained street.
Staff recommendation is to APPROVE with the following conditions:
1. Recommendation of approval of waiver request from t he Subdivision Regulations
Article V, Section E.3.a. "that all lots shall front upon a paved, publicl y
maintained street."
2. Amend general note 1 on the plat to also reflect a 15' rear utility easement per
Ri viera Utilities requirements.
Mrs. Bryant asked if the access to the prope1iy is across someone else's property via a
dirt road and Mr. King responded yes. Mr. Pumphrey stated the access situation is not
uncommon in the county. He explained there is an existing easement with restrictive
covenants for the access.
Mr. Turner opened the publi c hearing.
David Love of 884 7 Oldenburg Drive -He cited concerns with stormwater and asked
what was planned for the common area. Mr. Pmnphrey stated there are no plans for
anything to be constructed on the common area.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. T urner closed the public hearing.
Richard Peterson made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE with
the following conditions:
1. Recommendation of approval of waiver request from the Subdivision Regulations
Article V, Section E.3.a. "that all lots shall front upon a paved, publicly
maintained street."
2. Amend general note 1 on the plat to also reflect a 15 ' rear utility easement per
Riviera U tilities requirements.
Harry Kohler 2 nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE -Rebecca Bryant, Harry Kohler, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, and Richard
Peterson. NAY -none.
Rebecca B1-yant stated a conflict with case SD 19.36 and recused herself. She remained
in the meeting to answer any question as the architect of the project.
3
September 5, 20 I 9
Planning Commission Minutes
SD 19.36 Public hearing to consider the request of Baldwin 4, LLC for Multiple
Occupancy Project approval of Fairhope Hardware MOP, a 6-unit project, Larry
Smith. The project is located at the nmiheast corner of the intersection of Fairhope
Avenue and Church Street, at 301 Fairhope Avenue. Mr. Jeffries gave the staff report
saying the property is approximately .20 acres and is zoned B-2 General Business District
and is in the Central Business District (CBD). He stated the project is remodeling an
existing historic building to house up to 6 units. Staff recommendation is to APPROVE
with the following condition:
1. Article IV, Section C.6.a. Expiration and Revocation
a. Any substantial deviation from the approved submittal during construction
or failure to provide for traffic control, safety, environmental protection
controls and/or best management practices and restoration of the site shall
be grounds for the immediate suspension of the Preliminary Plat approval
and/or issuance of a stop work order.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Turner asked if the applicant is still working to obtain a grant for the project and Mrs.
Bryant responded the site was ranked in the top two and received a historic property
designation.
Hollie MacKellar made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE with
the following condition:
1. Article IV , Section C.6.a. Expiration and Revocation
a. Any substantial deviation from the approved submittal during construction
or failure to provide for traffic control, safety, environmental protection
controls and/or best management practices and restoration of the site shall
be grounds for the immediate suspension of the Preliminary Plat approval
and/or issuance of a stop work order.
Richard Peterson 2nd the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: A YE -
Hany Kohler, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, and Richard Peterson. NAY -none .
ABSTENTION -Rebecca B1-yant.
UR 19.20 Request of AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the
proposed installation of approximately 650 linear foot of underground fiber optic
cable, Wade Mitchell. The property will run throughout the Twin Beech Estates
subdivision. Mr. Jeffries gave the staff report saying the project will consist of installing
650 linear foot of fiber optic cable in the City's right-of-way. Staff recommendation is to
APPROVE with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall follow the general comments related to utility work, as stated
in the staff report.
2. Applicant and applicant's contractor shall follow the Right of Way Installation
Permitting and Work Procedures document provided by the Building Official.
Richard Peterson made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE with
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall follow the general comment s related to utility work , as stated
in the staff report.
2 . App licant and applicant's contractor shall fo llo w the Right of Way Installation
Permitting and Work Procedures document provided by the Building Official.
4
September 5, 20 19
Pla nni ng Co mmis sion Min utes
Rebecca Bryant 2nd the motion and the motion can·ied unanimou sly with the following
vote: A YE -Rebecca Bryant, Hairy Kohler, Lee Turner , Hollie MacKellar, and Richard
Peterson. NAY -none.
Old/New Business
Greeno Road Corridor (GRD) Overlay Districts , Hunter Simmons -Mr. Simmons
demonstrated a new section on the City 's website "On-Going Projects" which lists the
GRC Overlay and has all of the documentation included for easy review. Mr. Turner
stated there has been a lot of push-back from this proposal , but it seems most of it is
misunderstanding and issues with inaccurate information. Mrs. Bryant said she wants
time for the Commission to discu ss the proposed amendments and make suggestions.
Mrs. MacKellru· asked what most of the opposition is regarding and Mr. Simmons
responded drive -throughs , buffers , and potential annexation.
Having no further business , Richard Peterson made a motion to adjourn. The meeting
was adjourned at 6:58 PM.
Lee Turner, Chaim1an Emily Boyett, Secretary
5
September 10, 2019
Planning Commission Minutes -Special Meeting
The Planning Commission held a Special Meeting on Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at
5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; Ali Dyas; Rebecca Bryant; Harry Kohler; Hollie
MacKellar; Richard Peterson; Clarice Hall-Black; and Robert Brown, Council Liaison;
Buford King, Development Services Manager; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning
Manager; Mike Jeffries, Planning Technician; Emily Boyett, Secretary ; and Ken Watson,
City Attorney
Absent: none.
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM and announced the meeting is
being recorded.
ZC 19.08 Public participation for Greeno Road Corridor (GRC) Overlay Districts,
Hunter Simmons -Mr. Turner stated this meeting is to a llow the residents to speak
regarding the proposed Greeno Road Corridor (GRC) Overlay Districts. He said the
Commission and City Counci l have not been comf01iable rezoning property along
Greeno Road because there is very little guidance in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance as to what it should be. Mr. Simmons gave a presentation and overview of the
related documents on the City's website and he went through the Frequently Asked
Questions. Mr. Dyas asked what this proposal will do to the underlying zoning for
parcels in the GRC overlay and Mr. Simmons responded it will not change the underlying
zoning but provide design guidelines if a property is developed. Mr. Simmons explained
a zoning change or a variance can be requested by a property owner if desired.
Mr. Turner opened the public participation.
Richard Thompson -He said this proposal will ruin prope1iy values for property inside
city limits.
Paul Nathan -He asked if existing businesses will be able to rebuild if destroyed by an
act of nature and Mr. King responded the CU1Tent regulations set a timeframe for non-
conforming structures and uses to be rebuilt.
Kip Dye -He asked how this will affect unzoned property and Mr. Turner stated it will
not apply to property outside city limits.
Cliff Street -He clarified this overlay will not affect unzoned property and Mr. Turner
responded as long as the property is outside city limits the GRC will not apply.
Kristy Street -She asked if the city will be annexing more properties after the
Comprehensive Plan is redone. Mr. Turner explained the Comprehensive Plan is a
steering document and the city does not have plans to annex any property.
Cecil Christenberry -He asked if existing uses will be allowed to continue and Mr.
Tumer said yes .
Mr. King explained the allowances for existing non-conforming uses are already
accmmted for in the c unent ordinance. Mr. Turner asked if a prope1iy is vacant for more
than 180-days would it be required to be torn down if non-conforming. Mr. Simmons
stated that is not the intent, but the wording can be modified to confirm.
Gary Wolfe -He said if all this is already in place why the change. He said the affect
will not be now but in 10-15 years when the current property owners are trying to sell.
He said none of the prope1iy owners were allowed to give input on the proposed
an1endments.
September I 0, 2019
Planning Commission Minutes -Special Meeting
Mr. Turner said this meeting is so the prope11y owners can give input and 660 letters
were mailed to invite all the propeliy owners to attend. Mrs. Bryant asked if the revisions
will be available for review and Mr. King responded yes, they will be posted to the
website.
Bob Griffn -He said this seems to be more restrictive than what is cunently allowed for
some locations.
Gene Tillman -He asked how many Commissioners or Council members own prope11y
on Greeno Road. Mr. Peterson said he lives a block off of Greeno Road and understands
the concerns, but he hasn't heard any complaints about what is trying to be accomplished
with this overlay district in terms of making Greeno Road more attractive , user friendly ,
and appealing.
Dan Blackburn -He stated he was representing approximately 75 to 100 people as their
spokesperson. He noted concerns with non-conforming use versus non-conforming
structures and the potential impact on propeliy values and financial burden for property
owners. He said there are 56 provisions in the proposal that could cause a structure to be
non-confopning. He stated concerns with applicability of the proposal and what would
constitute/~ site having to come into confonnity. He suggested the Commission stait
over or forward to the Council with an unfavorable recommendation.
John V anclak -He asked if the document will be available for review once changes are
made and prior to the Commission voting and Mr. Tmner responded yes, it will be posted
on-line and a public hearing will be advertised.
Valerie Conner -She asked if this will apply to the City 's greenspace at Greeno Road
and Edwards A venue· and residential houses on Greeno Road. Mr. King responded the
GRC overlay will not apply to residential zoned propeliy. He said it won't change the
City property unless it is developed.
Gary Gover -He suggested the City add the Fly Creek Watershed Restoration Project,
Volanta Gully Watershed Management Plan, and the Weeks Bay Watershed Management
Plan as documents to be used as references in planning and development matters.
Judy Thompson-She said a change of use can trigger the overlay district requirements
and asked if the Commission was aware of that statement.
Having no fmther business, Richard Peterson made a motion to adjourn . The meeting
was adjourned at 6:29 PM.
Lee Turner, Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary
2
Oc tober 7, 2019
Plarming Commiss ion Minutes
The Planning Commission met Monday, October 7, 20 19 at 5:00 PM at the City
Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Tumer, Chairperson ; Art Dyas; Rebecca Bryant; Harry Kohler; Hollie
MacKellar; Richard Peterson; Buford King, Development Services Manager; Hunter
Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager; Mike Jeffries, Planner; Carla Davis, Planner;
Samara Walley, Planner; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and Ken Watson, City Attomey
Absent: Clarice Hall-Black; and Robert Brown, Cow1cil Liaison
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5 :00 PM and announced the meeting is
being reco rded.
ZC 19.14 Public hearing to consider the request of Wendall Barnhill for an
amendment to the East Park PUD, Tom Granger. The property is located on the
north side of Parker Road just west of US Hwy. 98. Mr. Simmons gave the staff report
saying the site is approximately 12 .64 acres with 42 res idential lots and one commercial
lot proposed. He explained the request wiU increase the overall acreage, commercial
component, and greenspace but decrease single family lots , overal l density, and road
length. He noted the commercial lot is proposing B-2 uses and standards. Staff
recommendation is to APPROVE with the following conditions:
1. In addition to accessory structures , also prohibit accessory dwellings.
2 . To make use of the rearranged greenspace, add a walking trail on the site plan.
3. Provide an easement to access the pump station.
4. Provide proof of western easement that provides secondary access directly to
Greeno Road.
Mr. Dyas noted the north arrow is not correct. Mrs. Bryant asked why accessory
dwellings need to be prohibited versus meeting the current regulations and Mr. Simmons
explained the applicant is already prohibiting accessory structures and r equesting a higher
density.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Gary Gover of 300 Lincoln Street -He cited safety concerns with the existing fire station
and traffic increase with the new developments. Mr. Simmons noted this site will be
providing a second access which will be directly t o Greeno Road; however, the
commercial lot may require additional improvements to b e constructed.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE with the
fo llowing conditions:
1. In addition to accesso1y structures, also prohibit accessory dwellings.
2. To make use of the rearranged greenspace, add a walking trail on the site plan.
3. Provide an easement to access the pun1p station.
4. Provide proof of western easement that provides secondary access directly to
Greeno Road.
Hany Kohler 2nd the motion and the motion caiTied unanimously with the following vote:
A YE -Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, HaiTy Kohler, Lee Tw11er, Hollie MacKellar, and
Richard Peterson. NAY -none.
1
October 7, 2019
Planning Commission Minutes
ZC 19.15 Public hearing to consider the request of Rosetta Wasp and Mildred
Brown to rezone property from R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential
District to B-3b tourist Resort Commercial Service District, Larry Smith. The
property is located at the northeast corner of S. Ingleside Street and Nichols Avenue, at
309 S. Ingleside Street. Mr. Simmons gave the staff report saying the property is
approximately 1.6 acres and is in the Medical Overlay District (MOD). He stated there is
currently a single family residential house on the subject property. Staff recommendation
is to APPROVE with the following condition:
1. Re-plat to remove old setbacks and add new setbacks that reflect the new zoning
(B-3b, if approved). This will not require another case and can be approved at
staff level.
Mrs . Bryant noted this is a large lot and asked what else is could be done with the
remainder of the lot. She questioned the infringement upon the surrounding residential
properties. Mr. Simmons stated buffers will be required along abutting residential
properties as required by the Landscape Ordinance. Mr. Peterson questioned the parking
and Mr. Sirmnons said the applicant has proposed parking behind the existing building.
Mr. Turner cited concerns with lack of sidewalks, current on-street parking issues,
lighting, and promoting Downtown. Mr. Dyas noted this property is in the MOD and the
Commission recently recommended allowing restaurants in M-1 zoning district. Mr.
Jeffries stated parking requirements are based on use and will have to meet all
regulations.
Mr. Smith addressed the Commission saying the site plan is just conceptual, but the
applicant wants to use the two existing structures. He said they also want to work the
parking around the trees. He stated commercial uses are already allowed because the
property is in the MOD.
Chris Cullen, the applicant, said he understands the zoning change is forever, but he loves
the location and the existing home. He said his wife is from Fairhope and they just
moved here from Birmingham and want to open a second restaurant.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Reuben Odom of 767 Notihrop Avenue -He stated he thinks a restaurant is a good idea
but suggested a one-way drive-through. He also said sidewalks are needed.
Shelly Jenkins of 398 S. Ingleside Street -She asked if this will affect surrounding
properties from building single family residential homes on their properties. She also
stated concerns with traffic and the area becoming an entertainment area.
Gary Gover of 3 00 Lincoln Street -He noted there has been an increase of pedestrians
and cyclists on the east side of Greeno Road but there are no provisions for them, and he
would like to see the City provide suppo11 and infrastructure .
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner clo sed the public hearing.
Mrs. B1yant asked if sidewalks could be connected to existing sidewalks.
Hollie MacKellar made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE with
the following condition:
1. Re-plat to remove old setbacks and add new setbacks that reflect the new zoning
(B-3b , if approved). This will not require another case and can be approv ed at
staff l evel.
2. Sidewalks shall be required at the time of development.
2
October 7, 201 9
Planning Commissi on Minutes
Rebecca Bryant 2nd the motion and the motion ca1Tied unanimously with the following
vote: A YE -Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Hany Kohler, Lee Turner, Ho llie MacKellar,
and Richard Peterson. NAY -none.
SD 19.37 Public hearing to consider the request of Cottage Lane Fairhope, LLC for
plat approval of Cottage Lane Fairhope, an 8-unit condominium subdivision, David
Shum er. The property is located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Bishop
Road and Edwards A venue. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the property is
approximately 1.23 acres and is zoned R-4 Low Density Multi -Family Residential
District. Staff recommendation is to APPROVE with the following conditions:
1. Memorialize approval of case number SD 18.08 Cottage Lane Fairhope Multiple
Occupancy Project (MOP) that installed the vario us improvements to the site.
2. Applicant shall submit a formal plat for recording based upon the unit lines shown
on drawing "SP".
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE with the
following conditions:
1. Memorialize approval of case number SD 18 .08 Cottage Lane Fairhope Multiple
Occupancy Project (MOP) that installed the various improvements to the site.
2. Applicant shall submit a formal plat for recording based upon the unit lines shown
on drawing "SP".
Richard Peterson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the fo llowing
vote: A YE -Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Harry Kohler, Lee Turner, Ho llie MacKellar,
and Richard Peterson. NAY -none.
UR 19.21 Request of AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the
proposed installation of two small cell sites, Tim Hawkings. The project will be on
Quail Loop and at the southwest comer of the intersection of Gayfer A venue and Patlynn
Drive. Mr. Jeffries gave the staff report saying the project will consist of installing mini
cell towers or cell antennas to be co-located on existing utility poles. Staff
recommendation is to APPROVE with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall follow the general comments related to utility work, as stated
in the staff report.
2. Applicant and applicant 's contractor shall follow the Right of Way Installation
Permitting and Work Procedures document provided by the Building Official.
3. The applicant shall follow the design/color for each site as dictated by staff per
the "Site description and locations" section of the staff report.
4. The applicant is responsible for any Aid-to-Construction costs for new utility
poles or work needed to accommodate a co-locate.
5. The City of Fairhope reserves the right to modify or add r equirements such as but
not limited to cut sheets of proposed poles/fixtures, additional drawings, site
locations, design/color s, etc .
Richard Peterson made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE with
the fo ll owing cond itions:
1. The applicant shall follow the general comments related to utility work, as stated
in the staff report.
3
October 7, 20 I 9
Planning Commission Minutes
2. Applicant and applicant's contractor shall follow the Right of Way Installation
Permitting and Work Procedures document provided by the Building Official.
3. The applicant shall follow the design/color for each site as dictated by staff per
the "Site description and locations" section of the staff report.
4. The applicant is responsible for any Aid-to-Construction costs for new utility
poles or work needed to accommodate a co-locate.
5. The City of Fairhope reserves the right to modify or add requirements such as but
not limited to cut sheets of proposed poles/fixtures, additional drawings , site
locations, design/colors, etc.
Art Dyas 2nd the motion and the motion canied unanimously with the following vote:
A YE -Rebecca Bryant, Hany Kohler, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, and Richard
Peterson. NAY -none.
Mr. Jeffries stated case number IR 19.07 Hermitage Court Subdivision has been
withdrawn by the applicant.
Old/New Business
Side Stream Storage, Richard Peterson -Mr. Peterson stated the Fairhope Public
Utilities will be proposing the first 3 sites to install side stream storage systems which
will help prevent overflows due to excessive amounts of stormwater. He stated the sites
will be on Twin Beech Road, Quail Creek Drive, and Woodlands Drive.
ZC 19.08 Greeno Road Corridor (GRC) Overlay Districts, Hunter Simmons -Mr.
Simmons said staff is revisiting ideas and having more conversations regarding the
proposal. He stated the revisions will likely require the moratorium to be extended. Mr.
Dyas asked how many citizens have contacted staff since the last meeting and Mr.
Simmons said only 1 person has reached out. Mr. King stated most of the concerns are
regarding existip.g ordinances. Mr. Dyas suggested having another meeting to encourage
residents to have public engagement with staff. Mr. Simmons said looking at specific
properties with individuals would be beneficial and Mrs. Bryant agreed.
Having no further business, Richard Peterson made a motion to adjourn. The meeting
was adjourned at 6:17 PM.
Lee Turner , Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary
4
Summary of Request:
Public hearing to consider the request of GMC, Inc for a conditional annexation to Tourism Resort District that
amends the original TR District established by RSA on behalf of the Retirement Systems of Alabama . The
subject property, approximately 7.23 acres, is currently unzoned in Baldwin County located on the south side
of Old Battles Road across from Poviner Place subdivision. The property lies between the current Lakewood
Azalea Golf course holes two and three . If approved the subject property would be designated as Low -Rise
Residential Zone in the TR District.
Comments:
-The subject property was subdivided out in 2006 case SD 06.08 Colony at the Grand North Subdivision .
The approval of a waiver from the stormwater standards was also approved stating that "Drainage
calculations and plans will be provided at the time each parcel is individually subdivided or developed."
A current Subdivision Application conta i ning 10 lots was submitted, but due to the required Community
Meeting not being held until after the application deadline it was held off the November Agenda and is
scheduled for the December 2, 2019 Planning Commission Agenda. Attached is the proposed preliminary
plat.
-The proposed site contains a mixture of trees predominately live oaks and pines . During the subdivision
application proper tree protection would be required per Fairhope's Subdivision Regulations and if
annexation is approved Fairhope's Tree and Landscape Ordinance would be applicable.
-The TR District has criteria that the overall density for all residential areas shall be no greater than 3.5
units per gross acre within all of the acreage comprising the TR District.
o Important to note that the proposed 10 lot subdivision which is 1.38 units per acre would give the
TR District 3 .0 units per acre (882units/294acres)
-The TR District has criteria that all TR Districts provide at least 20% open space and/or green space .
o Currently there is 63.8 acres of green space exceeding the required 20% (58.8 acres).
Surrounding Area:
• North: R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential District and Planned Unit Development
• South: Unincorporated Baldwin County
• East: Tourism Resort District
• West: Unincorporated Baldwin County
Attachments Included:
Aerial of Area around Subject Property
Community Meeting Minutes
Copy of TR District Exert from Fairhope's Zoning Ordinance Article V Section G
SD 06.08 Colony at the Grand North Subdivision Recorded Plat
Watershed West Proposed Plat for Subdivision approval
Citizen Letters
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Annexation to the Tourism Resort District.
2 ZC 19 .1 6 Watersh ed West -Nov emb er 4, 2019
Watershed West Subdivision
COMMUNITY MEETING
October 9, 2019
MINUTES
A Community Meeting was held at the office of Goodwyn, Mills & Cawood , Inc.
(2039 Main Street, Daphne) at 10:00 a .m . on October 9, 2019 to discuss concerns
and answer questions regarding Watershed West Subdivision. The attached letter
was sent to the adjacent property owners (as evidenced by the receipts, also
attached) advising them of this meeting. Those in attendance signed in on the
attached sheet Attendees received copies of the Preliminary Plat.
Following is a summary of the meeting:
• Scott Hutchinson & Tim Lawley called the meeting to order and gave an
overview of what the project entails .
• Ray Hammock requested a copy of the list of adjacent property owners .
• Watershed property owners were told by RSA that they were the last
subdivision to be built.
• Schedule of events was requested -
o 1114 Planning Commission Meeting -Public Hearing
o City Council either 2nd Monday in Dec. or later.
• Is the County involved? Yes for turnout permit.
• Are they any other golf courses with interior roads? Yes.
• How many trees lost to roadway? 2 Oaks, 1 Hickory & 4-5 Pines.
• When will road go in? Spring 2020.
• Drainage? There will be a small retention pond.
• What's going to be done to stop light pollution? No answer given.
• Is there a restriction on garbage cans? Same restrictions as Watershed.
• Landscaping buffer; don't want to look at the inside of their garages or see
their children's toys , garbage cans , etc. A proposed landscape screen
along the east side of the entrance road will be suggested to Owner.
• How many cars will there be per household? No answer given.
• How many trees lost on sidewalk? Two on County ROW.
• Was there an Environmental Impact Study? Not necessary.
• Have Fish & Wildlife been contacted? Not required.
• What about the impact for golfers at holes 2 & 3? No answer given.
• Will they install a screen on east side of entrance? Will be suggested to
Owner.
WATERSHED WEST COMMUNITY MEETING MINUTES
Page 12
• What about the golf cart path/crossing at entrance? The cart path crossing
will be the same as it is in other areas.
• What happens when fed ex comes wheeling in and runs someone over? No
answer given.
• What happens when my golf ball goes through the fed ex truck window? No
answer given.
• What happens when my golf ball hits a lady unloading groceries? No
answer given.
• What's the process for comments? You can attend the Planning
Commission meeting.
• What about the 4 Oak trees behind Hole #2? One is 450 years old with a 20'
circumference. How is it going to be saved? There is no plan to remove
that tree.
• What is the price range of the lots? We don't know that.
• The drainage ditch is going to be open? Can it be closed? It is closed. It's
more of a swale that will flow with the original landscape.
• What about the setbacks? Setbacks were explained.
• Has RSA asked GMC to consult with the golfers at Lakewood? Carol
Sullivan provided contact info -
Susan Pruet , President -251-490-1047 pruetsa@mindspring.com
Paula Kendrick, VP -770-330-1070 kendrickpk@yahoo.com
• Are they going to authorize street ready golf carts? No answer given.
• Will there be a gate? Yes.
• Why Annex? An explanation was given; primarily, it would allow
narrower R. 0. W., and allow us to save more trees.
• What is the difference between TR/R1/R2? An explanation was given; TR
is low rise, R1 restricts to a 100' lot width, TR allows more trees to be
saved and therefore is more aesthetically appealing.
• Site plan was emailed to all attendees after the meeting.
Meeting adjourned.
Article V Section G
Special Districts TR -Tourism Resort District
G. TR-Tourism Resort District
t. Intent -It is the purpose of this Article in creating a Tourism-Resort District ("TR District") to:
• provide for large acreage under unified control to be planned and developed as a whole;
• encourage the growth of re-sort-oriented residential and mixed-use properties around resort
properties;
• provide places for resort-type amenities coupled with proximately located hote l, residential
and commercial uses ;
• promote a sustainable future, and encourage and develop connections between environmenta l
quality and economic vitality;
• provide for a mix of residential types that are desi g ned to form a compact, compatible and
stable neighborhood directed toward res01t and tourism trade;
• support the development of a comprehensive pedestrian network with linkages to and between
residential and resort areas;
• promote increased privacy by permitting private roadways within the TR District property;
• promote the preservation and enhancement of existing natural landscape features and their
scenic qualities;
• create a zoning classification which allows flexibility and creative development concepts that
would not be possible through conventional zoning regulations and allow for certain
modifications and exemptions from existing subdivision and other regulations;
• provide places for social interaction and recreation;
• provide general merchandising convenience destinations for both residents and tourists; and
• create development opportunities which encourage multiple use of recreational and other
resort-type amenities by hotel guests as well as residents within the TR District.
2. Siz e Requirements-A TR District must initially contain at least 175 contiguous acres.
3. Location Requirements -At the time any real property is submitted for zoning as part of a TR District zoning
classification, the following existin g resort amenities must be situated within the real property being subjected
to the TR District zoning classification or within two (2) miles of the real prope1ty being submitted to the TR
District zoning classification:
• An existing full-service hotel (i.e., a hotel providing hotel room accommodations , on-site
dining (w ith on-site kitchen), conference facilities and swimming pool) containing a
minimum of 300 hotel rooms;
• at least one (1) 18-hole championship go lf course with related facilities (driving range and
other golf practice areas), a clubhouse (which shall provide food services and contain an on-
site kitchen), swimming pool and tennis courts (which uses and facilities may be provided in
the form of a private or semi-private club or pursuant to use agreements which require the
approval of membership privileges and the payment ofa membership fee and monthly dues
and charges); and
• a marina.
The resort property containing the foregoing required resort attributes need not be located within the municipal
limits of the City or otherwise subjected to the TR District zoning classification. The owner of the real property
upon which such resort faci lities described above are situated shall have the right (but not the obligation), in its
discretion, to cause any of its property to be annexed into the municipal limits of the City at any time and to
cause all or any portion of its property to be zoned as part of the TR Di strict.
4. Residential Density Li mitations -The overall gross density for all residential areas within a TR District shall
be no greater than 3 .5 uni ts per gross acre within all of the acreage comprising the TR District.
FA IRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 52
Article V Sectio11 G
Special Districts TR -Tourism Resort District
S. Open Space Requirements -All TR Districts shall provide at least 20% open space and\or green space, as
herein defined. As used herein, open space and/or green space may consist ofany real property which is (a)
part of a natural area, including tree and other preserves, lak es, beaches, walkways , walking trails , pedestrian
ways, walkways, walking paths , creeks and other waterways , including wetland areas and ponds, and water
areas which serve as retention, de tention or similar holding basins and (b) any real property usable for active or
passive recreational purposes , including, without limitation, play grounds, swim and tennis facilities , green or
open areas, parks , golf course amenities such as golf cow-se , fairways, greens, bunkers, driving ranges and other
practice facilities but shall not include any rights-of-way .
6. Uses and Development Zones -
a. Uses Allowed and Development Zones .
(1) Uses Allowed --Uses allowed within the TR District may include any and all of the following:
(i) Single-family attached and detached dwell ings;
(ii) Multi-family residential dwelling units, senior living fac ilities, low-ri se, mid-rise
and a limited number ofhigh-rise residential buildings (incl udin g
condominiums);
(iii) Hotels, conference facilities , restaurants, bars , swimm ing pools , tennis courts,
golf courses, club houses , count!}' clubs and re lated amenities and facilities ;
(iv) Specific office, retail and limited commercial uses as well as any of the
foregoing uses which are combined with residential uses in the same bu ilding so
lon g as the residential uses are located on the second and higher floors of such
building; and
(v) Nature and recreational areas and faciliti es .
(2) Development Zones --The follow in g described development zones (collectively, the
"Development Zones") are permitted within a TR District: (a) Recreation Zone ; (b) Low-Rise
Residential Zone, (c) L imited Commercial Zone, (d) Mid-Rise Residential Zone, (e) High-Rise
Residential Zone and (f) Res01i Zone. The Development Zones within a TR District (0 shall be
established on the zoning map for such TR District, (ii) may be used only for the uses set forth
below applicable to each Development Zone and (iii) shall be subject to the dimensional and other
standards and requirements establ is hed be low for each Development Zone.
b. Recreation Zone . The following re strictions and limitations shall apply to all areas designated as a
"Recreation Zone" on the zoning map for the TR District:
(l) P ermitted Uses -Go lf courses, golf driving ranges and go lf practice facilities; tennis courts and
related facilities ; lak es, docks, boat launches, fishing and swimming piers and similar structures ;
pools, spas , swimming areas and related facilities ; playgrounds ; amphitheaters , performance and
other social gat hering venues and faci li ties; clubhouses , bathhouses, changing facilities ,
clubhouse-related restaurants and lounges, retail pro-shops an d rental service facilities ; fitness
facilities, conference facilities , educatio nal fac il ities, and maintenance and service facilities for
any of the foregoing uses; similar us es and facilities related to the foregoing ; natural areas, parks ,
playgrounds , picnic areas and shelte rs , trails, boardwalks , paths , wa lkways and pathways ,
landscaping, drainage, soil conservation, wetlands, creeks waterway and other water areas , and
conservation areas .
(2) Dimensional Standards -
FA IRHOPE ZONING ORJJJNANCE 53
Article V Section G
Special Districts TR -Tourism Resort District
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Height. Building Height not to exceed 45 feet.
Build-To Lines . 20 foot front ; 15 foot rear and 5 foot sides.
Minimum Lot Size. None.
Parking. One parking space for each 500 square feet of gross heated and cooled floor
area of any building.
c. Low-Rise Residential Zo ne. The following restrictions and limitations shall apply to all areas
designated as a "Low-Rise Residential Zone" on the zoning map for the TR District:
( I) Permitted Uses -Attached and detached dwelling units {which includes, without limitation,
cluster homes , patio homes, duplexes, multi-famfly units, apartments, condominiums, townhouses,
and zero -lot line homes); accessory structures such as attached and detached garages with garage
apartments (garage apartments will not count as a separate dwelli ng unit), swimming pools, tennis
courts, tennis and pool equipment and maintenance facilities; congregated attached or detached
dwellings requiring specialized services to be provided , inc luding, but not limited to , independent
senior housing, assisted senior housing and Alzheimer care facilities and nursing home faci lities
("Senior-Oriented Communities"); associated services relat ing to Senior-Oriented Communities,
including, but not limited to, health-care and medical facilities , laundry, dining and food
preparation facilities , wellness and recreational facilities, retail and office facilities, storage and
maintenance facilities and other uses and facilities commonly found in Senior-Oriented
Communities; and any of the Permitted Uses allowed in the Recreation Zone .
(2) Dimensional Standards -
(i) Height. Building Height not to exceed 35 feet.
(ii) Build-To Lines.
(iii)
a. Detached Dwellings: 5-foot front; 5-foot rear and 0-foot sides; provided,
that (x) each lot shall have at least one (I) side property line which is at
least 12 feet from the dwelling on the adjoining lot and (y) if access to a
dwelling is provided via a lane or alley, there is no minimum rear build-to
line for any garage constructed at the rear of a dwelling.
b. Attached Dwellings: 5-foot front; 5-foot rear and 0-foot sides; provided ,
that (x) there must be a minimum distance of 12 feet between buildings and
(y) if access to a dwelling is provided via a lane or alley , there is no
minimum rear build-to line for any garage constructed at the rear of a
dwelling.
Minimum Lot Size. 2,100 square feet.
Parking. All uses other than Senior-Oriented Communities, two (2) spaces per
dwelling unit; Senior-Oriented Communities, one (1) space per dwelling unit.
d. M id-Rise Residm1tial Zo n e . The following restrictions and limitations shall apply to a ll areas
designated as a "Mid-Rise Residential Zone'' on the zoning map for the TR District:
(1) Permitted Uses -Multi -family units, apmiments , condominiums, townhouses; Senior-Oriented
Communities; associated services relating to Senior-Oriented Communities , including, but not
limited to, health -care and medical facilit ies, laundry , dining and food preparation facilities ,
FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 54
Article V Section G
Special Districts TR -Tourism Resort District
wellness and recreational facilities, retail and office facilities, storage and maintenance facilities
ru1d other uses and facilities commonly found in Senior-Oriented Communities; and any of the
Permitted Uses allowed in the Low-Rise Residential Zone and the Recreation Zone.
(2) Dimensional Standards -
(i) Height. Building Height not to exceed 55 feet; provided , however, that(]) if the
Building Height ofany buildings within the Mid-Rise Residential Zone may
exceed 3 5 feet, then the Application for TR District zoning shall set forth the
maximum number of dwelling units which may be developed within the Mid-
Rise Residential Zone in buildings which exceed 35 feet in Building Height.
(ii) Build-To Lines. 20 foot front; 15 foot rear and O foot sides; provided that (x)
there must be a minimum distance of 20 feet between bui !dings and (y) if access
to a dwelling is provided via a lane or alley, there is no minimum rear build-to
line for any garage constructed at the rear of a dwelling .
(iii) Minimum Lot Size. None.
(iv) Parking. All uses other than Senior-Oriented Communities, two (2) spaces per
dwelling unit ; Senior-Oriented Communities , one (1) space per dwelling unit.
e. Limited Commercial Zone. The following restrictions and limitations shall apply to all areas
designated as "Limited Commercial Zone" on the zoning map for the TR District:
(1) Permitted Uses -Those retail , office and other uses which are set forth as permitted uses in Table
3.1 (Use Table) of the Zoning Ordinance in effect as of January I , 20 IO for all 8-1, B-2 B-3a, B-
3b and B-4 zoning districts ; home occupations and convenience stores with gasoline service;
attached single-family residential uses located above retail or office uses ; and all Permitted Uses
allowed in the Low-Rise Residential Zone and the Recreation Zone.
(2) Dimensional Standards -
(i)
(iii)
(iv)
Height. Building Height not to exceed 45 feet.
Build-To Lines . 15 foot front; 10 foot rear and O foot sides; provided that there
is a minimum distance of l O feet between buildings.
Minimum Lot Size. None.
Parking. Two (2) parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross heated and
cooled retail and office floor area of any office or retail building ; and two (2)
parking spaces for each single-family dwelling unit.
(3) Maximum Density -No more than 108,000 gross square feet of non-residential floor area shall be
allowed within aJl Limited Commercial Zones of the applicable TR District.
f. High -Rise Residentia l Zone . The following restrictions and limitations shall apply to all areas
designated as "High-Rise Residential Zone" on the zoning map for the TR District:
(1) Permitted Uses-A limited number of high-rise multi-story re sidential attached dwelling units ;
any of the Permitted Uses allowed in the Mid-Rise Residential Zone, the Low-Rise Residential
Zone and the Recreation Zone.
(2) Dimensional Standards -
FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 55
Article V Section G
Special Di stricts TR -Tourism Resort District
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Height. Building Height not to exceed 100 feet; provided , however, that (I) not
more than two (2) buildjngs total may be constructed at heights higher than 55
feet and (2) the Application for TR District zoning shall set forth the maximum
number of dwelling units which may be developed within the High-Rise
Residential Zone in buildings which exceed 55 feet in Building Height.
Build-To Lines . 20 foot front; 1 5 foot rear and O foot sides; provided, that there
is a minimum distance of20 feet between buildings.
Minimum Lot Size. None.
Parking. Two parking spaces for each dwelling unit.
g. Resort Zone . The following restrictions and limitations shall apply to all areas designated as "Resort
Zone" on the zoning map for the TR District:
(1) Permitted Uses --Full-service hotels; conference facilities; spas, swimming pools, tennis courts
and other outdoor recreational areas and uses; marinas; accessory structures and accessory uses
normally found in a hospitality development, including , without l irrutation, food services, gift and
novelty shops , barber and beauty shops provided primarily for the convenience of visitors or
patrons of the premises and contained within a principal building, maintenance facilities
(including laundry and other maintenance facilities); restaurants, nightclubs, bars , taverns, day
spas; and any of the Permitted Uses allowed in the Limited Commercial Zone (subject to the
requirements of Paragraph e(3) of Section 6 of this Article), the Mid -ruse Residential. Zone, the
Low-Rise Residential Zone and the Recreation Zone.
(2) Dimensional Standards -
(i) Height. Building Height not to exceed 55 feet.
(ii) Build-To Lines. 15 foot front; 10 foot rear and O foot sides; provided, that there
is a minimum djstance of 10 feet between buildings .
(iii) Minimum Lot Size. None.
(iv) Parking. One (I) parking space for each hotel room.
h. Additional Provisions.
(1) The term "Building Height" as used herein shall mean the vertical distance measured from the
average elevation of the proposed finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of
the main roof structure of the building (but specifically excluding all other projections or
aiticulations from such roof or building).
(2) Access to adjoining properties is not required.
(3) Build-To Lines are measured from the property lines of a lot and allow buildings and structures to
be built up to the Build-To Lines . Build-To Lines only apply to buildings/str uctures with covered
roof. Canopies and awnings and second story porches, decks and balconies may overhang any of
the Build-To Lines by up to 24 inches; provided, however, that in no event shall any such items
overhang actual lot/property lines .
(4) If any uses within a Development Zone will utilize permitted uses from another Development
Zone (i.e ., if within the Limited Commercial Zone , uses will include single-family uses allowed
FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 56
Article V
Special Districts
Section G
TR -Tourism Resort District
within the Low-Rise Residentia l Zone), then the dimensional standards for the other Development
Zone (i.e., the Low-Rise Residential Zone) will be applicable to such use .
7. Private Streets and Adjacent Property Connectivity -An applicant may request that all or any portion of
the streets and roadways within the TR District property be private streets . Such request shall be set forth
in the Application for TR District zoning . Any request for private streets within any portion of a TR
District must be approved by the City. No access to and from the TR District property and any adjoining
property shall be required.
8. Modification of Subdivision and Other Regulations of City -The TR District zoning classification is
intended to encourage the development of land as part of a planned community, en.courage flexible and
creative development concepts of site plaru1ing, preserve the natural amenities on the land by encouraging
scenic and functional open space, accomplish a more desirable environment than would be possible through
the strict application of zoning and subdivision regulations, and provide a stable environmental character
compatible with sunound areas. Accordingly , the Application may propose provisions which alter, amend
or otherwise exempt the TR District property or portions thereof from certain provisions of the City's
Subdivision Regulations and other regulations.
9. Appl ication Requirements for TR District Zoning -In lieu of any other provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance, in order to request the zoning of property to a TR District classification, an applicant shall
submit an application (the "Application") for TR District zoning to the City, which Application shall
include the following:
a. Legal Description . A legal description of the property for which TR District zoning is requested .
b. Zoning Map . A zoning map which shall reflect the general areas of proposed development by
Development Zone (established pursuant to Section 6(b) above). Proposed or existing major roads, if
known, within the subject property shall be reflected on the zoning map as well as any major arterial
roads lying adjacent to the property . The zon.ing map need not reflect individual lots or blocks or
streets to be developed within the Development Zones of the TR District property .
c. Maxim um Residential Density. The maximum number of residential dwelling units (density)
allowed within the proposed TR District.
d. Max imum Density A llowed in Limited Commerc.ial Zone. The maximum gross square footage of
non-residential floor area allowed within the Limited Commercial Zones of the proposed TR District.
e. Open Space or Green Space Requirements . The open space or green space requirements which
shall apply to the entire TR.District Property as a whole ( expressed as a percentage of the total acreage
within the proposed TR District property).
f. Quantitative Data Regarding Size of Each Development Zone. Quantitative data indicating the
approximate acreage within each Development Zone within the proposed TR District property.
g. Priva te Streets. If private streets will be utilized, a general description of which streets will be private
and whether any gates or other limited access devices will be utilized for such private streets. The
Application should also specify who will be responsible for maintaining all private roads or streets
within the proposed TR District property . If pr.iv ate streets wi II be utilized, access easements over such
private streets will be granted for public emergency vehicles (i.e ., police, fire and ambulance), utility
vehicles (for maintenance and repair and meter reading, etc.), garbage collection vehicles and all other
governmental vehicles and employees in connection with the performance of their required
governmental services.
h. Genera l Description of Restrictive Covenants. A general description of any proposed restrictive
covenants to be placed upon the TR District property.
FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 57
Article V Section G
Special Districts TR -Tourism Resort District
i. Permitted Uses and Dimensional Standards for Development Zones . Any permitted uses and
dimensional standards for any Development Zone which are different from those set forth herein .
j. Request for Exemptions . Any requests for an exemption from the provisions and requirements of the
City's Subdivision Regulations or any other ordinances or regulations of the City.
k. Storm Water Management Plan. A storm water management plan for all of the property within such
TR District, which storm water management plan shall be implemented by the applicant in the manner
and in accordance with the requirements set forth in said storm water management plan . The storm
water management plan shall comply in all respects with the City's storm water management
regulations as set forth in the City 's Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations , subject to any
exemptions or modifications thereto set forth in the City-approved Application or the storm water
management plan attached to said Application . ln addition , such storm water management plan must
satisfy all state and federal regulations and requirements.
I. Traffic Study. A traffic study for the prope1ty within the TR District, which traffic study and the
recommendations and requirements set forth therein shall be implemented by the applicant in the
manner and in accordance with the time table set forth in said traffic study.
m. Miscella neous Matters , The Application shall contain such other terms and provisions as agreed to
by the developer and the City.
n. Review and Approval of Application. Following submission of the Application to the City , the
Application shal l be subject to review and approval by the City in accordance with the terms and
prov isions of Section C(l) of Article II of the Zoning Ordinance. To the extent set forth as an
exemption or exception in the Application approved by the City, the provisions of the Application shall
supersede anything to the contrary set forth in the City 's Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations
and any other ordinances or regulations of the City.
10. Additions to TR District -Additional properties may be added to any TR District at any time and from
time to time by filing an amendment to the original Application. Such amendment shall specify the
Development Zones within the additional property being added to the TR District. The addition of
additional property to a TR District must be approved in the manner set forth in Article II of the Zoning
Ordinance. To the extent any additional properties are added to any TR District, the City may require
different development criteria including, without limitation, the requirement that roads and streets be
public, from those set forth in the original Application for the TR District previous ly approved by the City .
11. Amendments -Changes or amendments to any Application for TR District zoning shall be processed in
the same manner as the original request; however, the following changes to an Application may be made
with the approval of the Director of Planning and Building for the City or any other individual employee of
the City designated by the City's Planning and Building Director to act on his or her behalf: (a) any
Development Zone may be shifted, enlarged or reduced by not more than 200 feet in any direction and (b)
slight changes may be made in the detail of the Application for TR District zoning that do not change the
intent, meaning, dimensional standards and other major aspects of the Application for TR District zoning
may be approved by the Director of Planning and Building .
12. Other Reg ulations Not App licable -It is the intent that the Application for TR District zoning set forth
development criteria applicable to the property and that flexibility be allowed in the construction of
improvements thereon . Accordingly , except as set forth in the Application and in this TR District zoning
classification , no other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall be applicable to the property which is
zoned as a TR District.
13. Building Permits -The developer of the TR District shall proceed wi.th the development of the prope1ty in
accordance with the Application and no furth er approvals shall be required except as set forth herein . Upon
application for a building permit for the construction of improvements on any parcel within the TR District,
if the City's Planning and Building Director or any other individual employee of the City designated by the
F AJRH0PE Z0NJN(} ORDINA NCE 58
Article V Section G
Special Districts TR -Tourism Resort District
City's Planning and Building Director to act on his or her behalf shall determine that the intended use of
the improvements is a "Permitted Use" (as defined in this TR District zoning classification) and satisfies
the dimensional standards within the applicable Development Zone of such TR District as set forth in the
approved Application for such TR District, then a building permit sha ll be issued for such improvements.
14. Changes to Ordinance -Following the City 's approval of an Application for TR District zoning, no
subsequently adopted amendments to or modifications of the Zoning Ordinance (including subsequent
modifications to this TR District zoning classification), no amendments to or modifications of the City's
Subdivision Regulations and no other ordinances adopted by the City which alter, change, modify or amend
any of the matters set forth in this Ordinance or which are set forth in the approved Application for TR
District zoning shall be effective with respect to the real prope1iy described in such approved Application
for TR District zoning.
15. Utilities -All utility lines within a TR District shall be located underground.
16. Signage -All signage within the TR District sha ll comply with the City's signage regulations set fo1ih in
the Zoning Ordinance in effect as of January 1,2010 .
H. MO-Medical Overlay District
1. Intent -The intent of the Medical Overlay (MO) District is to estab lish and provide for the logical expansion
of medical office needs to accommodate the growing community and region. Medical uses vary in need and
impacts on the community . The MO District is also intended to establish and accommodate highly-
specialized, unique uses and development types related to the medical field and to acconunodate additional
specialized needs and growth of the medical field and community . ft is the express intent of this MO district
surrounding the existing medical center to be as generous as possible in permitted uses while at the same time
maintaining a clean, attractive community that provides an extension of the medical office needs for medical
practices and appropr iate facilities for the medical community it serves. Property located within the MO
District is pennitted the use allowed by right of the underlying zoning district. The provisions relating to
nonconformities in Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply to all properties within this MO District.
2. Location -By virtue of its location to an existing medical center (Thomas Hospital), it is intended that this
district be allowed for future expansion to the following boundaries: North to parcels abutting the south side
of Morphy Avenue, South to those parcels that are in the City of Fairhope abutting the north side of Greeno
Lane, East to parcels abutting the west side of Greeno Road , and West to parcels abutting the east side of
South Ingleside Street.
3. District Classification -The following overlay district is hereby established: Medical Overlay District-MO.
Uses and standards allowed in this district shall be as follows:
A. Permitted Uses: The following uses and structures are permitted in this district:
(1) Medical offices
(2) Hospitals and nursing homes
(3) Medical and dental clinics
(4) Laboratories for medical and dental uses
(5) Funeral homes
(6) Animal hospitals, provided the boarding of animals occurs in completely enclosed buildings
(7) Child and adult day care facilities and group home faci liti es
(8) Adult congregate living facilities
(9) Helistop in conjunction with hospitals
(I 0) Emergency services
(11) Parking structures
(12) Colleges and universities
FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 59
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Chris Harber <dexbones@gmail.com>
Tuesday, October 29, 2019 11:49 AM
Richard Peterson
Emily Boyett
Subject: Proposed Development in Lakewood Estates
Dear Mr. Peterson,
First, I would like to thank you for your service and leadership in our community. Fairhope has been part of my life for
46 years and happily now my permanent residence . It's charm and culture are clearly products of the work you and your
colleagues do on behalf of the city planning commission and city council.
Unfortunately, I feel compelled to share with you a concern I have, that is echoed by dozens of my neighbors, regarding
RSA's proposed development in Lakewood Golf Course and Estates, where the new development is for 10 lots/homes
that will be in the interior of the golf course on the Azelea Course between holes 2 and 3.
As I understand it, the development is mo t ivated purely by achieving a short term financial gain for RSA and and is not
aligned with the development's original covenants nor the resident's desire to preserve the natural beauty and charm of
our neighborhood. Our community has had severa l meetings and email conversations with civic leaders regarding the
impact of this proposed development and we have learned that:
• The request is to have land/ development rezoned into Fairhope as a Tourism-Resort District. Currently the
property is designated county and un-zoned. The TR district designation is unfair for homeowners as it gives
enormous flexibility to the developer with little recourse. As I'm sure you are aware, the TR designation has
very different guide lines vs a R-1 residential designation .
• Propose building 10 lots, none of which meet Lakewood Club Estates criteria and covenants.
• Setbacks are only 10 feet in this proposal. Such small setbacks are only allowed with TR zoning .
• Proposal will dictate los ing a substantia l portion of the beautiful trees in the wooded area and the wildlife that
resides in the tree grove. The engineers stated 12 trees would be removed for the road, but that will push the
responsibility of removing other trees to landowners as they build.
• No environmental study has been done to investigate how the proposed development affects the wetlands,
Point Clear Creek and Mobile Bay .
• No golfer group was consulted when developing this project inside the golf course
• There is currently no area on the 36 holes of Lakewood golf courses where homes are inside the course.
As you can imagine, this proposed development is alarming for our neighborhood. Particularly when you consider that
this only benefits an o rganization, which is not part of our local commun ity.
I respectfully ask that you carefully weigh the consequences of this development relative to the the motivation behind it
and deny their application to build .
Very Best Regards,
Chris Harber
18109 Woodland Dr.
Lakewood Estates
954-993-0646
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Chris Harber <dexbones@gmail.com >
Tuesday, October 29, 2019 11 :42 AM
Hunter Si mmons; Mike Jeffries
Subject: Proposed development in Lakewood Estates
Dear Mr's Simmons and Jeffries,
First, I would like to thank you for your service and leadership in our community. I can appreciate that
maintaining balance and between economic growth and the preservation of community values can be a challenging
task.
However, I feel compelled to share with you a concern I have, that is shared by dozens of my neighbors, regarding RSA's
proposed development in Lakewood Golf Course and Estates, where the new development is for 10 lots/homes that will
be in the interior of the golf course on the Azelea Course between holes 2 and 3.
As I understand it, the development is motivated purely by achieving a short term financial gain for RSA and and is not
aligned with the development's original covenants nor the resident's desire to preserve the natural beauty and charm of
our neighborhood. Our community has had several meetings and email conversations with civic leaders regarding the
impact of this proposed development and we have learned that:
• The request is to have land/ development rezoned into Fairhope as a Tourism-Resort District. Currently the
property is designated county and un-zoned. The TR district designation is unfair for homeowners as it gives
enormous flexibility to the developer with little recourse. As I'm sure you are aware, the TR designation has
very different guidelines vs a R-1 residential designation.
• Propose building 10 lots, none of which meet Lakewood Club Estates criteria and covenants .
• Setbacks are only 10 feet in this proposal. Such small setbacks are only allowed with TR zoning.
• Proposal will dictate losing a substantial portion of the beautiful trees in the wooded area and the wildlife that
resides in the tree grove . The engineers stated 12 trees would be removed for the road, but that will push the
responsibility of removing other trees to landowners as they build.
• No environmental study has been done to investigate how the proposed development affects the wetlands,
Point Clear Creek and Mobile Bay.
• No golfer group was consulted when developing this project inside the golf course
• There is currently no area on the 36 holes of Lakewood golf courses where homes are inside the course.
As you can imagine, this proposed development is alarming for our neighborhood . Particularly when you consider that
this only benefits an organization, which is not part of our local community .
I respectfully ask that you carefully weigh the consequences of this development relative to the the motivation behind it
and deny their application to build .
Very Best Regards,
Chris Harber
18109 Woodland Dr.
Lakewood Estates
954-993-0646
1
Mr. Mike Jeffries
Mace and Lisa Ritchey
18020 Woodland Drive
Lakewood Club Estates
Point Clear, AL 3564
Phone: (504) 928-5769
October 25, 2019
Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission
Re: Case: ZC 19 .16
Req: Conditional Annexation to TR
PPIN# 282038
Dear Mr. Jeffries:
First, please forgive my length here. But with what is at stake in our world
has us doing our best to convey to you some deep expression and what we feel are
pertinent details.
With that being stated, I am writing this letter to express my wife's and my
deep opposition to the proposed RSA 's request to -.zone and develop what the RSA
has titled "Watershed West."
I have been a resident of Lakewood Club Estates and Point Clear, Alabama,
both, for 43 years. The unabated greed and land acquisition and accompanying
development exhibited by the RSA in Point Clear has to stop somewhere/sometime.
With the RSA 's attempt to zone this small parcel of land (7 .27 acres) to "Tourism
and Resort" (T &R) is a mistake that can be avoided through your denying RSA 's
zoning and annexation request for this very small but so beautiful piece of property.
The creation of T &R zoning was a mistake at its inception. But more importantly
T&R has "NO" place inside of the original, strictly residential, R-lA designed,
Lakewood Club Estates. The "original" Lakewood Club "Estates" (and I
specifically put emphasis on the words of original and estates throughout this
letter), is and always has been, since home sites started in the late 50's, and are R-
IA type designated community. The original Lakewood Club Estates run the same
zoning footprint, which is R-1, as our neighbors' homes on Mobile Bay, that run all
along Scenic Highway 98 here in Point Clear. Again, this zoning request by the
1 lH T t, ' ' 2 0 19 0
:fb ..... .
RSA deals with the "original" Lakewood Club Estates. All previous RSA zoning
requests , and all their Point Clear developments, to date, have not had anything to
do with the original Lakewood Club Estates.
The RSA 's prolific , um·elenting development in Point Clear, to this point in
time, has all been outside of the original, designated Lakewood Club Estates. As
you are probably aware over the past decade , RSA has been approved for up to
"800" home lots all around the original Lakewood Club Estates , here in Point Clear.
To that I say so be it. But, now that they are trying to develop a non-conforming,
much higher density subdivision, tota1ly inside the original Lakewood Club Estates ,
and more so , trying to stuff their 10 cookie cutter homes, and a road, in between
two interior golf course holes on the Azalea course, holes 2 and 3 . This zoning
request, for the absurd T&R designation, within an historically R-lA type
community, and inside the golf course proper, represents greed at its highest level.
For as stated with 800 already approved home lots in and around the original
Lakewood Club Estates , the RSA does not need these additional 10 home sites to
add to their "for sale" inventory . Reflecting upon that, the RSA received a rezoning
from T &R to condominium on Quail Run, inside of Lakewood Club Estates and
built 6 new condominiums. That request came three years ago, the condominiums
were completed two years ago and only two have sold since they started marketing
them three years ago , now. A perfect illustration of them over saturating their "for
sale" inventory . Adding , the RSA still has original condo units for sale at their
monstrosity Colony high rise condominium. The condos in this development have
been on sale for a decade now.
The incredibly majestic and beautiful 100 year old oak tree grove that has its
home on this 7 .27 acre tract of land, that the RSA is attempting to develop and
destroy here, has no business being developed. Again, the RSA has enough
property and development going on all around Lakewood and in Point Clear, to
greedily attempt to now development inside the original Lakewood Club Estates , of
which this tiny piece of land that we are focusing on is a part of, bas agam, no
business being developed.
In addition, the RSA wants to use the ridiculous T &R zoning to get beyond
the existing historical and precedent set lot size footprint, that exists for all the
custom built homes inside the original Lakewood Club Estates , since the 1950's.
The lot sizes inside Lakewood Club Estates are all 1 acre plus and all have custom
homes built on them, whereas the RSA wants to divide this little piece of land into
10 home sites , yes , TEN, with 9 of them ranging between .29 and .40 acres (the end
lot of the development set for .70 acres). Obviously , the density that they are trying
to greedily stuff into this piece of land does not even come close to the existing lot
2
and home sizes that were covenantly built here, stai1ing in the l 950's, and are still
being built today, to those R-lA lot size standards. The homes that the RSA
proposes to have built on these minuscule lot sizes are cookie cutter homes, e.g., the
lot buyer is offered an option of home styles to choose from so they a ll end up
looking alike. The original Lakewood Club Estates, if you drive through it, does
not have a single home that is not custom built and has its own personality. Again,
I cannot reiterate enough that the T &R zoning request, upon its creation, was in no
way intended to be utilized for any residential development, such as this request
does, to the interior of the original Lakewood Club Estates. There is no tourism
associated with any homes being built on this piece of property.
To annex and zone this piece of property to T &R for the RSA will be a
Pandora's box for them to take their developing greed into every inch of Point
Clear, Alabama, under the guise of a T &R zoning, to boot!
Lakewood Club Estates and Point Clear do not care to become, nothing
personal to Lake Forest, Lake Forest II. And with that reflection, again; the RSA
already has 800 approved home sites in Point Clear. And, all of those 800 sites are
on the periphery of the original Lakewood Club Estates. Noting none being
developed/crammed in between two golf holes. Adding, the RSA does not even use
the words "Lakewood" for any of its developments since none of their
developments have been a part of the original Lakewood Club Estates. In addition
to this zoning request's huge nonconformity to the original Lakewood Club Estates'
lot, home size and density, this also becomes a safety issue as well. For when one
looks at this site and its proximity to a now very busy, getting busier by the day,
road, Alabama 32/Battles Road, from traffic hazards to golfer's liability, the
potential for property damage and injury should also be factors in denying this
request.
So please, Mr. Jeffries, we beg of you, to do not recommend to zone/annex
this beautiful piece of prope11y to the whims of a T &R designation.
3
Adding, if you are not familiar with the incredibly beautiful piece of
property, that is at stake here, and its need to be left undeveloped, drive into
Lakewood and wa1k the property for yourself. I fee] you and any of your fel1ow
commissioners will be able to more greatly appreciate our reaching out to you like
this to deny this request. The 100 year old oak trees, the great horned ow ls, the ba1d
eagles, the woodpeckers, and the fox squinels , that all inhabit this special piece of
property, not to mention all of the long time residents of the original Lakewood
Club Estates up and down golf hole Azalea number 2, will not only be ready to
greet you on your visit, but in their own way, I am sure would express their
desperate desire to have their homes left intact and be able to let future generations
of Lakewood residents, golfers and visitors that come to Lakewood and Point Clear
from around the world, along with the majestic wildlife, enjoy its beauty, serenity
and majesty. Noting that since the RSA started their massive development plans
around the original Lakewood Club Estates, the residents are no longer able to
enjoy seeing the otter ad beaver frolic in Point clear Creek nor find any rabbits
snacking in our yards. They have all been run off by this massive influx of
development by the RSA. If the RSA is allowed to develop this piece of property
within the original Lakewood Club Estates it wi11 only guarantee the demise and
elimination of a plethora of additional animals that inhabit the Point Clear Creek
area.
In closing, again, we appeal to you to please deny/recommend "NO" to the
Fairhope City counsel regarding this zoning request/annexation application. This
beyond greed development has "NO" place inside of this golf course, where there
have never been, and should never be , any homes built within the Lakewood golf
course's interior. This small piece of land, and all of Point Clear for that matter~ is a
treasure that the monster RSA has no appreciation for, nor desire to preserve.
Please reign in their greed with a "NO" recommendation of the RSA 's request, as
they have enough to say grace over with all the additional approved land
development they have received over the years and have yet to even sell.
Thank you in advance for all of your time, reading my letter, and the "NO"
consideration to this request by the RSA.
Sincerely,
Mace and Lisa Ritchey
4
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
10-28 -19
Gentlemen,
Douglas T Luce Jr <dluce@centurybankms.com>
Monday, October 28 , 2019 10 :30 AM
Mike Jeffries; Hunter Si mmons; Emily Boyett; Richard .Petersen@Fairhopeal.gov
STRONGLY OPPOSE WATERSHED WEST SUBDIVISION
I have a house on the golf course at Lakewood and I am strongly opposed to the Watershed West Subdivision
and any zoning changes within the confines of the original and existing Lakewood Golf Course.
I feel this would be detrimental to the not only those living on the course but the surrounding areas as well.
Sincerely,
DOUGLAS T. LUCE, JR .
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Fairhope leaders,
Peter Vanlingen <van@centurybankms.com>
Monday, Oct ober 28 , 20 19 10 :4 1 AM
Emily Boyett; Richard Peterson ; Mike Jeffries ; Hunter Simmons
Opposition to Watershed West subdivision
I live in Stillwood subdivision off Section Street, and have been a long time member of Lakewood. I am in
opposition to the proposed home sites called Watershed West . I am also in opposition to any zoning changes
to make it easier for developers to cram any more houses in Point Clear or Fairhope. I understand that we live
in a wonderful area, and growth is a natural progression, however it needs to be smart growth . I play go .If
regularly and adding houses between #2 and #3 Azalea is just plain obtrusive ! The Live Oak trees in that
parcel of land are fabulous and should not be touched .
Thank you for your understanding, and please take extra care in your decisions to keep our Fairhope beautiful.
Peter vanlingen
President & CEO
MS. 601-947-7511
AL. 251-270-1575
~~ ~ ........ CENTU R Y BANK
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Boyett,
James Sumner <js@jimsumnerandassociates.com>
Saturday, October 26 , 2019 9:43 AM
Emily Boyett
Message for Fairhope Planning & Zoning Commission re Watershed West Project
proposal
Please see that the Planning & Zoning Commission gets the following message. Thank you.
TO: Fairhope Planning & Zoning Commission
RE: Watershed West Project proposed by Retirement System of Alabama
We write to vigorously oppose the proposed development of the Watershed West at the
Colony by the Retirement System of Alabama.
Although we are not residents of Fairhope, we have been very frequent visitors and guests of
residents there throughout our lives. In particular, we have had numerous opportunities to
visit the Lakewood area and walk or cart through the very area under consideration for
development. We have always viewed this magnificent property as both beautiful and
serene-an extraordinary gift of nature that deserves to be preserved in perpetuity.
Regardless of the stated arguments in favor of this development-which has every appearance
of being solely profit-driven -the long-term devastation to the environment, the wildlife
habitat, the beautiful heritage live oaks, the peace and serenity of the area, and the overall
quality of life for those who live there would be monumental and catastrophic.
We strongly urge the Planning & Zoning Commission to soundly reject this project and any
other version that may be proposed going forward. This is clearly a situation in which you
have only one opportunity to get it right. At any other time, it would be too late .
We appreciate your consideration of our thoughts and concerns,
Deanna & Jim Sumner
Birmingham
JIM SUMNER
1
Jim Sumner & Associates, LLC
Post Office Box 430197
Birmingham, Alabama 35243-0197
Telephone: 334.462.9944
E-Mail: js@jimsumnerandassociates .com
Confidentiality Notice -The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments to it is intended only for
the named recipient and may be legally privileged and include confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this e-mail or its attachments is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately of that fact by return
e-mail and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments to it. Thank you.
2
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Ross Bratlee <rgbratlee@gmail.com >
Sunday, Octobe r 27, 2019 11 :05 AM
Emily Boyett; Richard.Petersen@fairhopeal.gov; mikejeffries@farihopeal.gov;
hunter.simmons@farihopal .gov
Suzanne Bratlee
Subject: Watershed West Subd ivision (WWS) Proposal
Dear Ms. Boyett, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Simmons,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Watershed West Subdivision (WWS)
development.
As you are aware, the WWS development would be located inside the original Grand Hotel Golf Course
that was established in the 1940's and adjacent to Lakewood Club Estates that was established in the
1960's. The developer is asking for a TR zoning request. The TR zoning request is not compatible with
the R-1 zoning requirements of Lakewood Club Estates and their neighborhood covenants that are over
50 years old.
The proposed access road from Battles Rd into WWS is ill-planned. The proposed road has a cart path
crossing, a pedestrian crossing and would create an intersection from another established
subdivision. This would create very limited visibility from cars entering, carts crossing and pedestrians
using the sidewalk. The amount of traffic that this road would create in the middle of the golf course
also needs to be addressed. Golfers hitting traveling vehicles is definitely a liability and is definitely a
safety issue .
Further, current traffic on Battles Road already poses a threat to safety because of excessive speeds that
I have personally witnessed by many drivers along th is 35 MPH road. The add ition of another entry and
exit along Battles will only introduce further risk to driver and pedestrian safety.
The 10 Lot subdivision would also create unnecessary liability for golfers and safety issues for the
eventual homeowners. The Lakewood Golf Club Membership bylaws clearly state it is the golfer's
responsibility for any injuries and property damaged dur i ng play. The existing membership was not
asked to sign these bylaws with a 10 home subdivision and a road that is definitely "in play". The Golf
Membership was never consulted regarding the development and the developer has not done a study of
potential future liability concerns.
The developer has also not done an environmental impact study. Engineers have stated the water will
be diverted under the course and travel to Point Clear Creek. Currently, residents from Azalea Ridge and
Point Clear Stables subdivisions are complaining of runoff issues and have enlisted an attorney to help
their situation. WWS would put even more runoff into the already stressed Point Clear Creek.
Please do not allow the developer to annex this property into the city of Fairhope. The annexation is
simply an avenue to obtain the TR zoning des ignation and build the Watershed West Subdivision. WWS
subdivision will forever scar a community treasure that was created in the 1940's, create unlimited
potentia l liability for our residents, as well as visi ti ng tourist s, and continue to burden our overstressed
infrast r ucture.
1
Thank you all for hearing my concerns and those of other local residents.
Sincerely,
Ross
Ross G. Bratlee
Email: rgbratlee@gmail.com
Phone (Mobile): 720-394-1815
2
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Margaret < margaret31139@att.net >
Sunday, October 27 , 2019 8:37 PM
Em i ly Boyett
RSA subdivision
I live across the street from the proposed RSA subdivision on the Lakewood Golf Course, and I would like to register my
opposition to the completion of this subdivision. The add ition of houses in the middle of the greens will brutalize the
beauty of the golf course . And the harm to the environment due to cutting of trees and water runoff will surely be an
issue . In addition, we already have enhanced traffic on this two-way street with the addition of the continuous building
on Battles Road; surely this addition will only add more traffic and noise. Please consider halting this project.
Thank you.
Margaret Davis
18356 Point Clear Court
Fairhope
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1
Emily Boyett
From :
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mrs . Boye t t,
Olivia Smitherman <oksmitherman@gmail.com >
Sunday, October 27 , 20 19 8:54 PM
Emily Boyett
Save the Live Oak Grove
I am writing in concern over the proposed Retirement Systems of Alabama rea l estate development-Watershed West-in
the beautiful live oak grove on the Lakewood Azalea Golf Course. I grew up on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and have
traveled frequently to Fairhope and Point Clear since I was a young girl and I now visit frequently with my two
daughters and husband to stay out my in laws beautiful home overlooking the Azalea Golf Course. I have
many fond memories as a young girl and now as an adult of the beauty that is Fairhope, the landscape. The
live oaks, the wetlands, and the bay all have a place near and dear to my heart.
I am strongly against this proposal for many reasons . The proposed development will dictate losing a
substantial portion of the beautiful trees i n the wooded area and the wildlife that resides in the tree
grove. No environmental study has been done to investigate how the proposed development would affect the
wetlands and Point Clear Creek. Also , there is currently no area on the 36 holes of Lakewood golf courses
where homes are inside the course . It is a bad precedent and could be a precursor to other interior
development, which would completely change the Lakewood Golf Course and the entire community .
I hope the zoni ng comm ission takes a long look at the concerns before making a decision. Thank you for your
time
Best ,
Olivia Smitherman
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
October 27, 2019
florrye@aol.com
Monday, October 28, 2019 9:14 AM
Richard Peterson
Emily Boyett
Battles Road Preservation Group
Dear Fairhope Planning Commission and City Planner :
As concerned residents of Lakewood Club Estates, my wife and I vehemently oppose the
development of Watershed West. Besides the egregious element of removing gorgeous,
irreplaceable live oak trees, the Grand Hotel logo, the personal component of a golfer's
personal liability while playing on the Lakewood course is enormous .
While my wife and I contemplated many retirement areas, we chose Point Clear, and
more specifically The Colony because of its beautiful live oak trees and pristine golf
courses. However , had we known this development was driven solely by greed, we
certainly would have chosen more wisely. When is enough, enough?
Regards,
Richard Doss Cleveland
l
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
David De Keyser < david.p.dekeyser@gmail.com>
Monday, October 28 , 2019 9:19 AM
Emily Boyett
Subject: A note for the Fairhope Planning Commission regarding RSA development (Watershed
West)
Hello there,
I wanted to email to pass along my comment for the Planning Commission . My stepmother, Torrey De Keyser, mentioned
you could be the best person to contact. Thank you for the help! My statement is as such:
I grew up in Mobile and spent so much time in Fairhope with friends and family and know what it means to drive
out even just right past the Causeway, away from city, to enjoy the openness and nature that Fairhope provides.
While I do not currently live in Alabama anymore (but spend time there during the winter), I was shocked to hear
about the possible upcoming Watershed West development that is under consideration.
As I have heard, this project will cut up and scatter much of what makes the area it would be settled in so
wonderful. Lakewood and the area around it are best enjoyed because of the live oaks and the beautiful pockets
of nature that have been preserved. I am sad and shocked to hear that it might be lost. I would hope the Planning
Commission would be able to better serve the community by not rezoning and not allowing this development
project to go through . Furthermore, the annexation and rezoning would disrupt the community and residents of
the area to a degree that is not properly acknowledged, studied, or considered . I would hope deeply that this
would change.
Fairhope is a place I can still go , even years after leaving Alabama, to spend time in and enjoy what I love most
about the South -its natural beauty and unmolested groves of oak and Spanish moss . To think of that of being
ruined is disheartening in the extreme and I again strongly put my voice in opposition to the Watershed West
development.
Thank you,
David DeKeyser
David DeKeyser
571-215-0994
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern :
Brooks Chew <brooks.chew@gmail.com >
Monday, October 28, 2019 9:55 AM
Richard Peterson
Emily Boyett
Opposition to Watershed West Subdivision
I am writing to express my adamant opposition to the proposed Watershed West Subdivision {WWS) development
located off of Battles Road. Unfortunately, I will be out of town on Monday, November 4 and unable to attend the
meeting in person.
As you are aware, the WWS development would be located inside the original Grand Hotel Golf Course, destroying
beautiful green space including gorgeous live oak trees and creating hazards for golfers, pedestrians, and vehicles .
The requested TR zoning is not compatible to the R-1 zoning requirements of Lakewood Club Estates {adjacent to the
proposed development) nor to the other surrounding neighborhoods, including Pointe Place, Point Clear Court, and
Owl's Nest.
As a mother with young children, I am especially concerned about the ill -planned access road from Battles Road, directly
across from Poviner Place. This road will create a four-way intersection on a very busy road . Additionally, the proposed
road would have a golf cart crossing and a pedestrian cross i ng with very limited visibility for cars entering the road,
golfers crossing on the path, and pedestrians using the sidewalk. This is an acciden t waiting to happen.
Since the road would be located inside of an active golf course , there is a very legitimate risk of golfers hitting vehicles,
homes, and/or pedestrians on this proposed road. Because it is the golfer's responsibility for any injuries or property
damage resulting from play, this creates an inherently unfair burden on golfers. The members of Lakewood Golf Club
have not agreed to these requirements with a 10-lot subdivision located inside of he golf course. In fact, every golf
member to whom I have spoken is opposed to the proposed development. The golf membership has never been
consulted about this proposed development nor has the developer conducted a study of future liability concerns.
As a member of Lakewood Golf Club and as a resident of the area, I am extremely concerned about the location of a
road and homes inside the golf course-destroying valuable green space and cutting down immense live oaks in the
process . The landscape would be forever changed in a most detrimental way .
Additionally, it is my understanding that the developer has not conducted an environmental impact study. Given the
vast problems already faced by our water and sewer systems and the runoff issues already incurred along Point Clear
Creek, it would be egregious to allow any aspect of this proposed development (i ncluding rezoning) to move forward
without an environmental impact study.
Please do not allow the developer to annex this property into the City of Fairhope. Annexation and/o r approval ofthe TR
zoning request would allow a project to move forward that wil l forever scar a community treasure that was created in
the 1940s, create unlimited potential liability for our residents, and add additional burden to our overstressed
infrastructure .
Thank you for your cons ideration of the strong opposition to this project .
1
Sincerely,
Brooks Chew
322 Poviner Place
Fairhope, AL 36532
2
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear All,
Ritchie Prince < rp@princemckean.com>
Monday, October 28, 2019 9:59 AM
Mike Jeffries; Hunter Simmons ; Richard Peterson; Emily Boyett
STRONG OPPOSITION TO Watershed West
I live at the end ofTwin Beech Road (County Rd 44) and have lived there since 1972. With a child in college and another
about to go next year I am sensitive to people's need to make money, but this flurry of development has become an
unabated nuisance. The constant pressure and push to increase the population where I grew up and have raised a
family is really abhorrent. Enough is enough. RSA and Lakewood AND Fairhope has jammed so many houses in and
around the Pt. Clear and Battles Wharf area that the quality of life I and many others have enjoyed for MANY YEARS is
now under threat. I am also a golfer and have played golf at Lakewood since the late 1970's. I have watched RSA and
the Robert Trent Jones golf trail destroy what was my favorite 27 holes of golf anywhere around here. I cannot tell you
how many golf balls I have hit into the area where Watershed West is proposed to be developed . It is actually offensive
to me that someone wants to put houses there.
I have seen the houses being built on and near Lakewood since there was a dirt road fronting the Colony property.
have heard that Baldwin County is the larges t land mass county east of the Mississippi River but have no idea if that is
true. True or not there is PLENTY of land for builders and people to move to Baldwin County without putting any more
of them in or around Lakewood. I am not concerned necessarily with Baldwin County growing, for a population increase
in a nice area is virtually inevitable and even natural. What I oppose is the full on assault on any unused patch of ground
in the Pt. Clear and Battles Wharf area . It needs to stop somewhere .
Do not allow Fairhope to annex this property just so the zoning can be changed to make it easier for a developer to cram
more houses in there . I am begging the leaders who are in charge of this to make it harder for that specific area to
continue this exponential expansion. I am asking for protection. I would love to know how many houses have been built
between Section Street and Scenic 98 in the last ten years. How many sewer hook ups have been completed? How
many more acres no longer have the ability to absorb water? You do understand don't you that every gallon that cannot
be absorbed into the ground will eventually run to the Bay don't you? Do you really want to kill the golden goose? The
Bay is under assault from every angle, and if it goes so will a great deal of property value and revenue for the entire
county. Please do not ignore the pleas and arguments against the expansion -they are real. What are the arguments in
support of more houses and more people and more strain on the area's infrastructure? I hope to hear those, but sadly I
already know they are shallow and short sighted.
Have any of you seen the fox squirrels that live in that area and in the area where RSA and Lakewood have already put
houses on Battles Road? They are being run over by cars now. Until last year I had never in my life seen a dead fox
squirrel, but since the development boom I have seen several. I am no tree hugger, but please -someone with some
authority and sense of reason has to stop this bleeding at some point. Save the fox squirrels. Save the dirt and
trees. Save the Bay. Save what is left of the peace and tranquility that so many have moved to and that many more
have grown up with . Keep Scenic 98 scenic and STOP THE GROWTH -PLEASE.
Cordially and passionately,
Ritchie Prince
J. R. M. Prince , Esq .
PRINCE, McKEAN, McKENNA & BROUGHTON , LLC
25369 U.S. Highway 98 , Suite B
1
Daphne , Alabama 36526
25 1.625 .8732 Telephone
251 .625 .8734 Facsimile
251.767 .5515 Cell
ACCESS MY PROFILE HERE: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/ritchie-prince/11/a44/311
Confidentiality Notice -The infonnation in and content of this telecopy transmission is legally privileged and
confidential, and is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the
infonnation or content of this telecopy is strictly prohibited. If you have received this copy in error, please
immediately notify us by telephone and return the original telecopy to us at the address shown above. It is not
the intention of the sender or the named recipient to waive the attorney-client privilege , the attorney work-
product doctrine, or any secrecy or proprietary rights in this material.
Payment Notice for New Clients -For out-of-state payments over $5,000.00, this law firm accepts only bank
wire transfers. For out-of-state payments under $5,000.00, we accept only wire transfers , and cashier's checks
and ce11ified checks issued by local banks. With any wire transfer or local check, there is a waiting period of
seven (7) days after deposit in the firm's account and confirmation by the issuing bank before any of the funds
will be transferred to other parties. This law firm does not accept money orders (Western Union, USPS, etc.) or
other electronic payments (ACH deposits, telephone fund transfers , etc.).
2
I Page 1
Please complete the form below.
First Name*
Last Name*
Email Address *
Phone Number
Message*
October 27, 2019
Required Fields
Susan
Shows
susan.shows@gra .org
(404) 332-9770
To: City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Committee
From: Susan and Gary Shows
As a City of Fairhope property owner (Lot 13 Pov iner Place, 101 Paddock Drive, and 705 Fairhope Ave), we
write in opposition to the proposed Watershed West Subdivision (WWS) development.
The proposed WWS would be located inside the historical Grand Hotel Golf Course and adjacent to
Lakewood Club Estates. Both of these are well -established and treasured assets of the City. The TR zoning
request sought by the developer is not compatible with the R-1 zon i ng requirements of Lakewood Club
Estates and their homeowner covenants.
We are also concerned about the proposed access road that intersects with Battles Road -a heavily
traveled route. The proposed road has a cart path and pedestrian crossing, creating limited visibility for
users of the sidewalk and new road.
As members of the Lakewood Golf Club , we are aware that golfers are responsible for injuries and
property damage occurring during play . The WWS development places new hazards for members and
hotel guests. We are unaware of the Lakewood membership being consulted regarding the development,
nor are we aware of any study of potential liability concerns as a result of the new development.
We urge the Committee to undertake further study before considering the developer's request to annex
this property into the City of Fairhope. At a minimum, we request additional analysis including:
An environmental impact study to determine runoff issu es, and specifically how water will be diverted
under the course and travel to Point Clear Creek.
An assessment of the burden on the City's overall infrastructure
An assessment of the potential increased liability to golfers and hotel guests as a result of 10 homes being
bu i lt within the golf "play" area.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan and Gary Shows
How do you prefer we contact you?
[x ] Email J
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern :
Chew, Brian <bchew@htk.com>
Monday, October 28, 2019 10:21 AM
Richa rd Peterson
Emily Boyett
Strong Opposition to Watershed West Subd ivision
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Watershed West Subdivision (WWS)
development located off of Battles Road . Unfortunately , I will be out of town on Monday, November 4
and unable to attend the meeting in person.
As you are aware, the WWS development would be located inside the original Grand Hotel Golf
Course, destroying beautiful green space including gorgeous live oak trees and creating hazards for
golfers, pedestrians, and vehicles .
I am a Lakewood Member, and play the course regularly . I will say that the location of these homes is
squarely in what would be considered the field of play . Shots struck just slightly off line from #2 and
#3 tee boxes currently fall harmlessly in the green space between the two holes . That will not be the
case if this subdivision is approved, as the homes and other property of those who will live in the
proposed neighborhood will be constantly hit by golf balls. Because it is the golfer's responsibility for
any injuries or property damage resulting from play, this creates an inherently unfair burden on
golfers. The members of Lakewood Golf Club have not agreed to these requirements with a 10-lot
subdivision located inside of the golf course . In fact, every golf member to whom I have spoken is
opposed to the proposed development. The golf membership has never been consulted about this
proposed development nor has the developer conducted a study of future liability concerns.
Furthermore , the landscape would be forever changed in a most detrimental way.
The requested TR zoning is not compatible to the R-1 zoning requirements of Lakewood Club Estates
(adjacent to the proposed development) nor to the other surrounding neighborhoods, including Pointe
Place , Point Clear Court , and Owl's Nest.
I am especially concerned about the ill-planned access road from Battles Road , directly across from
Poviner Place. This road will create a four-way intersection on a very busy road. Additionally, the
proposed road would have a golf cart crossing and a pedestrian crossing with very limited visibility for
cars entering the road, golfers crossing on the path , and pedestrians using the sidewalk . Battles Road
currently has a speed limit of 35 mph, with vehicles frequently traveling at far greater speeds than the
posted limit. This makes for an especially dangerous situation for pedestrians , golf cart drivers and
others .
Additionally, it is my understanding that the developer has not conducted an environmental impact
study . Given the vast problems already faced by our water and sewer systems and the runoff issues
already incurred along Point Clear Creek, it would be egregious to allow any aspect of this proposed
development (including rezoning) to move forward without an environmental impact study .
Please do not allow the developer to annex this property into the City of Fairhope . Annexation and/or
approval of the TR zoning request would allow a project to move forward that will forever scar a
1
community treasure that was created in the 1940s, create unlimited potential liability for our residents ,
and add additional burden to our overstressed infrastructure .
Thank you for your consideration of the strong opposition to this project.
Brian Chew
384 Fairhope Avenue, Suite 3
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: 25 1-990-00 70
Registered Representative of, and Securities and Investment Advisory services offered through Hornor, Townsend & Kent ,
Inc. (HTK), Registered Investment Advisor, Member FINRA/SIPC -Eight Tower Bridge , 161 Washington Street, Suite 700-
Conshohocken, PA 19428 610-771-0800. **1847Financial is not affiliated with Hornor, Townsend & Kent, Inc.
Registered representative of and securities offered through Hornor, Townsend & Kent, LLC (HTK), Registered Investment
Advisor, member FIN RA/SI PC, 600 Dresher Road, Horsham, PA 19044, (215) 957-7300. HTK does not accept time-
sensitive or action-oriented messages delivered via e-mail, including authorization to "buy" or "sell" a security or
inst ructions to conduct any other financial transaction.
This message, including any attachments, is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential
and privileged information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and
destroy or delete the original message. Also, please be aware that if you are not the intended recipient, any review,
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action or reliance based on this message is prohibited by law.
2
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Eric Zubler <eric_zubler@yahoo .com>
Monday, October 28, 2019 11:19 AM
Richard Peterson
Emily Boyett
Lakewood Club Estates
Dear Members of the Fairhope City Planning Commission,
I am 91 years old and have settled with my son and his family in Lakewood Club Estates about two years ago. As a now
"retired golfer" enjoying life on a golf course here in Fairhope has been one of the joys of my latter years. However,
proposals for developing some of the most beautiful portions of our golf course are troubling for me, my family, my
neighbors, active golfers, and all of Greater Fairhope . We have something very unique in this part of the state and if we
continue to allow unfettered development we will be just another small town with loads of subdivisions in empty fields.
Please do not allow RSA to build more homes in the middle of a golf course some consider equivalent to the Masters'
course in Augusta, Georgia. Without natural, large open areas with those gorgeous Live Oak trees, our region and its
landmark golf course become just another stop on the Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail. Please allow us to enjoy this
unique and scenic portion of Fairhope undisturbed.
Do not allow this area to be annexed, and certainly not as a Tourist-Resort area as opposed to the R-! Zoning, where my
"Sweet Home Alabama" is located.
Sincerely,
Chester E. Zubler
18247 Woodland Drive
Fairhope, Alabama
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Sirs or Madams,
Eric Zubler <eric_zuble r @yahoo.com >
Monday, Octobe r 28, 2019 12 :02 PM
Richard Peterson
Emily Boyett
Lakewood
I am writing about the proposal to annex a portion of the Lakewood Golf Course as a part of the City of Fairhope. This
annexation will be an unfortunate change to our neighborhood and all of Fairhope. If this development proceeds we
will lose the character of our neighborhood and the golf course will become divided between two of the first three
holes. The road into this addition will be a dangerous intersection for vehicles whether they are golf carts or
automobiles or delivery and service trucks.
Please consider carefully if Fairhope wants to add this extremely small parcel to its city limits.
Yours truly,
Connie Zubler, esq .
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Chairman Turner,
Eric Zubler <eric_zubler@yahoo .com >
Monday, October 28, 2019 10 :46 AM
Richard Peterson
Emily Boyett
Proposed Lakewood Estates Add ition
Almost two years ago my wife and I purchased a home in Lakewood Estates which could accommodate our three
generation family, including two teenagers and my 90 year old father. We were very, very attracted to Lakewood due to
the large square footage needed to make our unique arrangement work for all five of us. However, the beauty of the
trees and golf course are what truly cinched our decision to buy in Lakewood as opposed to many other locations we
considered all over Greater Fairhope. The trees in Lakewood are the equiva lent of those found only in unique tourist
destinations such as St. Simons and Jekyll Islands qn the Georgia coast, where our family has vacationed since the
1970's. Preserving these unique features of the Greater Fairhope landscape is essential to preserving our unique draw
to tourists and residents alike.
Further, the trees that do survive this addition will likely be severely impacted as their roots systems, which reach to
their widest limb lengths, will be damaged and cause certain decline and eventual death for more of "Fairhope's
Treasured Trees." Fairhope has been a designated Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Society for 35 years , if we
are to maintain this standing with integrity we have to preserve the remaining Live Oak trees all over our region. Also,
these trees, and this unique island of nature, in the middle of the golf course, are a part of a wider ecosystem with the
surrounding waterways and treed neighborhoods adjacent to the golf course. If we allow this property to become
denuded of its amazing vegetation the waterways, animal life, and reciprocal relationship as shelter and animal feeding
grounds with the rest of Lakewood/Point Clear will be lost or severely eroded forever. I would hope RSA and/or the City
of Fairhope would conduct thorough and unbiased environmental studies of the entire ecosystem before development
occurs, from the nearby creeks and ponds, to the wooded portions of Lakewood, over to the bay, it is all one large
ecosystem/watershed .
Should this development proceed, I would also hope new homes in this area would reflect the unique, historic
architecture of our neighborhood. La kewood is Fairhope's ONLY neighborhood with what architects call "Fine
Architecture" -meaning homes that are, for the most part, not from common house plan books and reflect styles of
architecture rarely seen in Baldwin County, if not in the state of Alabama. I would sincerely hope this new portion of
Lakewood reflects the charm and dignity of this neighborhood without destroying the natural environment surrounding
the development . Large, treed lots, zoned R-1, not TR, are necessary to make Lakewood continue as one of Fairhope's
unique neighborhoods.
Please stop this over-development for a company (RSA) already in the midst of developing some 800 homesites within
the City of Fairhope. My worst fear is that this new subdivision will be cut, the recession will return, and we will all have
to lo ok at an empty, fenced-in and staked out subdivision for a decade or more. Finally, as a man offaith the limbs of
those beautiful Live Oak trees seem t o be reaching up to God, giving our thanks for al l the blessings we share in this
beautiful, unique portion of the United States. Are you ready to help us preserve a small portion of God's creation right
in Fairhope's backyard?
With thanks for your consideration,
EricZubler, M.div.
18247 Woodland Drive
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:
Good morning,
Kristin Koppen <kkoppen@koppengroup.com >
Monday, October 28 , 2019 12 :26 PM
Emily Boyett
Please save the Lakewood Live Oak Grove!
High
Please save the Lakewood Live Oak Grove from destruction. These live oaks and this edge of the property is lovely and
does not need to be another subdivision. As former residents of Fairhope and now residents of Daphne, we enjoy the
beautiful, wonderful land in south AL. Please do not destroy this beautiful space.
Kristin Koppen & Dale Emge
425 Village Drive
Daphne,AL
H: 251.264.2770
C: 314.703.8203
kkoppengroup@koppengroup.com
This email transmission is confidential and contains information proprietary to Koppen Group that may be covered by
professional or other privilege. The contents of this transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. Recipient may use such information only in the context of the terms of the existing agreements
in effect between both parties. Any use, copying, re -distribution, or disclosure of this proprietary information is
prohibited, and will be prosecuted to the extent allowed by law. Sender does not give any warranty as to the
completeness of this e-mail. If you have received this transmission in error, please delete and notify sender .
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Officials,
eterreso n@att. net
Monday, October 28 , 2019 5:08 PM
Em ily Boyett; Richard.Petersen@Faihopeal.gov ; Mike Jeffries ; Hunter Simmons; Jack
Burrell; Robert Brown; Jimmy Conyers ; Jay Rob inson ; Kevin Boone
Oppos it ion to RSA Lakewood golf course development
We are writing to voice our strong opposition to the latest development proposal by the RSA to cut a road into the
Azalea golf course and build houses between fairways #2 and #3 . We live on Woodland Drive and built a house on hole
#1 of Azalea in 2011. We have invested a substantial amount in this property and chose to build where we did because
of the unobstructed view onto the golf course and beyond, a view we paid a considerable amount to secure. While our
home is not in direct view of the proposed new homes, our neighbors down the street are. There has been in increase
in the number of houses getting much needed and expensive r~novations in the past years. Those investments are
being undermined by the RSA's unfettered development and consequent reduction in attractiveness of the area . The
developments that the RSA has done have been on much smaller lots with lower priced homes, a drag on the value of
the orig inal neighborhood. What we fear most is that this project will be started - a road cut, a model home built, and
then not be finished and stand as an eyesore for years. This is a terribly conceived plan from the start. To squeeze 10
homes on a relatively narrow strip of land between 2 fairways is inane. Golf balls are, and will continue to be , hit into
that are where the proposed houses will be located . No one in their right mind would want to live t here . The personal
safety of your family and property would be at cons t ant risk, you could only be out in your yard at times when the
course is closed . When these lots don't sell and the project is abandoned leaving a paved road and a single model
home , the impact on the golf course, the neighbors and the environment will remain.
While our loss of property value may not be your concern, the impact on the environment and the toll on infrastructure
should be . There has been very rapid development in the Point Clear/ South Fairhope are in recent years and the toll on
the infrastructure and environment is clearly starting to show. The sewage overflow from the Twin Beech station a
while back was the first I had hear of in the 8 years we have lived i n the area but will undoubtedly not be the last. The
amount of runoff from the ever expanding concrete cover continues to stress the Bay and the loss of trees and habitat
for the wi ldlife will never be replaced. Two weeks ago a neighbor spotted a bald eagle in a tree on the golf course. We
truly don't need to take down all the trees and concrete over every spare inch so that a couple developers can make a
buck while the current residents and the environment pay the price . We don't.
This project should not even be being brought to the City of Fairhope as the Lakewood neighborhood is not in the City of
Fairhope, as you know. They are only bringing it to the City because the project i s so out of line with what the rightful
zoning authority, Baldwin County, would allow. That should tell you what you need to know-this project is out of line
with the existing neighborhood.
Please stop this ill-conceived, potential albatross from com ing to fruition. Once the trees are taken down (many of
which were quietly removed during the recent renovation to the Azalea course) and the road is cut, the damage will be
done even if a single lot is never sold .
Thank you for considering our position .
Sincerely,
Edie And Doug Terreson
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
October 28, 2019
Dear Sir/Madam,
Mary Van Antwerp <mavah@aol.com >
Monday, October 28, 2019 11 :40 AM
Emily Boyett
Live Oak grove in Lakewood .. .forwarded letter
I li ve and work in the Mobile area and have called the Eastern Shore my other home for the last 35 years after my
parents moved to Fairhope. Several relatives live in the area , so I always enjoy travelling across the bay to visit, dine out,
shop and attend arts and enterta inment events . I also enjoy the natural beauty of the area, and , of course, the beautiful
sunsets!
I am writing to you today to ask that you save the beautiful oak grove situated on the Lakewood Golf Club Azalea
Course 's 2nd and 3rd fairways (the proposed Watershed West development). This grove is not only hab it at for wildlife , but it
is part of the natural beauty and charm that attracts people to the area . Please do not re-zone the area of the proposed
Watershed West as Tourism-Resort (TR). Th is would be a detriment for the people who live on the perimeter of the
co urse , the go lfers who play on the course and anyone else who visits the area to enjoy the natural beauty . It is fine for
homes to be on the perimeter of a golf course, but to remove this grove of oaks to cut a swath through the course for a
few homes would be a shame. This is not sensib le development and it would not benefit the community . It is my
understanding that the engineers stated that 12 trees would be removed for the road , but more trees would be removed
by the people building on these proposed lots. Since this development would be inside the golf course, there is a risk of
injury to homes , res iden ts , visitors and golfe rs . There are plenty of other areas in Baldwin County where ten homes can
be built! To allow this project to go forward would only benefit a few people at the detriment of the surrounding community
and landscape. It is more important to protect the beauty of the course so that it can attract people from all over to play
here . That benefits the community and nature. I understand that Baldw in County is growing fast. There is a lot to attract
people to it, namely its natural beauty. We should try to preserve the beauty that draws people here and utilize more
sensible and less destructive deve lopment. I do not want to see us lose that charm that we love so much!
Thank you for your time and consideration . Again , I ask you to please not allow this project to go forward . Please
do not re-zone this area to TR .
Respectfully ,
Nancy V. Shaneyfe lt
P.O. Box 50717
Mobile, AL 36615
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent :
To:
Subject:
Mary Van An t werp < mavah @aol.com >
Mond ay, O ct o ber 28, 2019 11 :38 AM
Emily Boyett
Lake w ood live oa k g rove
Dear Planning Commiss ion Members ,
As a Baldwin County resident I'm dismayed by the RSA dec ision to develop the live oak grove on the Lakewood golf
course . Our county is ex perienc ing growth that is s ignificantly impacting our infrastructure and the beauty of our natural
spaces . Clearly 10 new homes are probably not a particular threat with regard to infrastructure (although 10 in that
location will become 10 in another area of the course, then 5 in another and so on), but there are other issues at play .
First , given the breadth of the RSA 's reach in terms of real estate development it's hard to comprehend the need to
destroy this particular piece of property for the sake of 10 houses . I understand the need to establish a sound foundat ion
of investments to assure the ongo ing liquidity of the system , but 10 homes wil l not make or break the wealth of the
portfolio . While the RSA has done some lovely projects over the years, this is just one that has the potential to have a
negative impact for years to come . As a county resident who is concerned with the unbridled growth that is threatening so
muc h of what makes this the place I love , I am hard pressed to rema in silent about this particular plan .
Second , the land in question sits in the middle of an ex tremely popular and lovely golf course that brings tourists from far
and wide and which hosts significant tournaments . I have never heard of placing homes in the middle of fairways on a golf
course . Certainly golf courses are surrounded by homes on the perimeters , but th is sits in the middle of two holes . Not
only will it impact the appearance of the particular holes , but the homes themselves will be at risk from the golf balls .
Maybe they could put up netting or something , but imag ine the ugliness of that. The appeal of the course will be forever
changed and a precedent will be se t to continue to do the same across the course. Why do these homes have to be built
in that particular loca ti on? The RSA owns plenty more land for development.
Th ird , the grove is a beautiful stand of old growth trees that will have to be removed , forever altering not only what golfers
and surrounding homeowners see , but the natural hab itat of a number of native animals. Our Eastern Shore amb ience
should not be altered by removal of its natural beauty . That is happening far too often in far too many areas of the county .
It's one thing to build homes in the middle of an already treeless field . It is quite another to cut down old growth trees ,
particularly if they are healthy. The homeowners on either side of it (who are on the perimeter of the course , l might add)
did not buy or build where t hey did to look at unnecessary houses or garages and cars and service vehicles going in and
out. They moved there to have the view of the open space and beaut iful env ironment it offers.
Fourth , on looking at the proposed layout , it seems that there are potential safety issues as the new road running off of
Battles Road will have to cross the cart path . While I'm sure that most cart drivers are cognizant of surround ing dangers , it
just seems to be one added detriment to the project.
It is my sincere hope that the commission will put a stop to this development. It is time to consider more carefully the way
we grow our county . Not every project has to be given the green light. For the sake of the future of what is currently
beautiful , natural , and inviting about our county , please do not allow this project to move forward .
Thank you for your attention .
Sincerely,
Mary Van Antwerp
Daphne
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Petrovic Insurance <petrovicins@gmail.com >
Sunday, October 27 , 2019 3:28 PM
Mike Jeffries
Battles road /RSA road
Please note: we are opposed to the entrance road that RSA has requested ; It is right across our sub division & we feel it
will create traffic issues as well as safety issues. Please do not allow this to occur. It will have I feel a negative impact on
our property .
Thank You,
Steve & Janet Rae Petrovic
370 Povi ner Pl.
Fairhope,AI 36532
Phone: 262-782-3001
Fax: 262-782 -2242
petrovicins@gmail.com
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Annjo Lemons <annjolemons@bellsouth.net>
Sunday, October 27, 2019 9:26 AM
emily.boyette@fairhopeal.gov; richard.petersen@fairhopeal.gov; Mike Jeffries; Hunter
Simmons
Future home building on Lakewood Golf Course
Dear council members and planners,
My husband and I live on the Azalea Course at Lakewood and are very concerned about the proposed housing
development between holes 2 & 3. We feel that this will set a dangerous precedent of building new homes inside the
golf course itself. Please stop this proposed project.
Thank you .
Annjo and David Lemons
Sent from my iPhone
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mike,
Edwin Ahrens <edwin.ahrens@yahoo.com>
Saturday, October 26 , 2019 8:50 AM
Mike Jeffries
new homes on Lakewood golf course
the new development between holes 2 and 3 of the Azalea course
would be a mistake. It would create additional traffic on Battles
Road and create potential insurance risk for golfers who might hit a
ball that wound up hitting a house. Thanks for your consideration!
Ed Ahrens
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
steve coleman <co 1emansteve24@gmail.com >
Friday, October 25, 2019 4:44 PM
Mike Jeffries
RAA
Please stop the destructive greed of the RSA
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Mike
Charlie Ba iley <char lie.b.bailey@gmail.com >
Monday, October 28, 2019 4 :33 AM
M i ke Jeffries
Watersh ed West
Please note my total opposition to the Watershed West development.
Thanks
Charlie Bailey
Lakewood
Sent from my iPhone
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mike,
Lila Bailey < li lambailey@gmail.com>
Monday, October 28, 2019 4:28 AM
Mike Jeffries
Watershed West
Please note my complete opposition to the Watershed West development.
Thank . You,
Lila Bailey
Lakewood
Sent from my iPad
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Dear Mr. Jeffries,
Richard Lancaster <r1ancaster3@gmail.com >
Sunday, October 27, 2019 8:58 PM
Mike Jeffries
My w ife and I are members of Lakewood and are presently building a new home in Pointe Place Subdivision. We object
to the Wate rs hed West Subd ivis ion because of the many reasons stated by the other objectors and join th em in their
object ions. I am a go lfer and it is reasonably to be expected that errant golf balls will land i n the subdivision. No
subdivision should be located on the go lf course for that reason a lone .
Sincerely,
Richard Lancaster, MD
Richard J. Lancaster, M.D .
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ladies/Gentlemen:
gemonday@aol.com
Sunday, October 27, 2019 5:29 PM
Emily Boyett; Richard .Petersen; Mike Jeffries; Hunter Simmons
Watershed West Planned Development -Lakewoo d Golf Course
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Watershed West Subdivision (WWS) development.
My wife (Cindy) and I moved to Point Place subdivision about 3 years ago . We initially enjoyed walking on the sidewalk
on Battles Rd to Scenic Hwy 98. The increased traffic due to the development of the Colony has made this more
dangerous and speeding vehicles are common . I've personally been to the Fairhope Police Dep artment 3 times to voice
my concern regard ing speeding vehicles.
The proposed access road for WWS to Battles is poorly planned . In addition to the heavier traffic volume and speeding
vehicles, another access road directly across from Point Place entrance at Poviner Place only adds to potential
congest ion. T here will also be golf cart traffic adde d to the mix creating further opportunity for an accident. Th e
pedestrian walkway will become more dangerous for use .
Has a traffic study been done to address the concerns noted above and the impact of increased traffic load? The Colony
will cont inue to be developed only further adding more traffic load to this section of Battles Road?
Please do not allow the developer to annex this property into the city of Fairhope. The annexation is simply an avenue to
obtain the TR zoning designation and build the Watershed West Subdivision. This is a beautiful area and the majestic
oak trees on this port ion of the golf course are sign ificant contributor to the beauty . Th e in creased traffic load and
congestion created will take away from the natural beauty and create a potentially dangerous situation .
Thank you .
Greg & Cindy Monday
323 Poviner Place
Fairhope , AL 36532
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ladies/Gentlemen :
James Herndon -Ignite <ja mes @ignitefarm .com >
Sund ay, October 27, 2019 4:12 PM
Emily Boyett
Richard .Petersen @Fairhopeal.gov; Mike Jeffr ies ; Hunter Simmons
Watershed We st Planned Dev elopment -Lakewood Golf Cour se
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Watershed West Subdivision (WWS) development.
As you are aware, the WWS development would be located inside the original Grand Hotel Golf Course that was
established in the 1940's and adjacent to Lakewood Club Estates that was established in the 1960's. The developer
(RSA) is again asking for a TR zoning request as they did for the housing development along Azalea hole #5 on Battles
Trace Road . The TR zoning request is not compatible to the R-1 zoning requirements of Lakewood Club Estates and their
neighborhood covenants that are over 50 years old . Likewise, the R-1 zoning is not compatible with any of the other
surrounding neighborhood developments. Like the Battles Road 7 house development on hole #5, it appears no traffic
studies have been conducted and no utilities impact studies have been made or presented . Also like the development of
the 7 home, there will be more devastation to old centennial oak trees and other indigenous vegetation. While
assurances were given to the contrary, the area along hole #5 was basically clear cut has been the case throughout the
Colony development as it rapidly expands all the way through to Section Street. Likewise, promises were made (and
pre-development plans submitted) reflected that there would be green buffer zone along Section Street in front of and
around the apartment development at Section and Battles Road . To the contrary, the land was basically clear cut with
only a few small brushes/trees left along the surrounding roads . This apartment development and clear cutting has led
to major drainage issues and flooding in the Beaver Creek, Polo Ridge, Point Clear Stables and surrounding
neighborhoods.
The proposed access road from Battles Rd into WWS is ill planned . The proposed road has a cart path crossing, a
pedestrian crossing and would create an intersection from another established subdivision (Pointe Place). An already
dangerous pedestrian walkway along Battles Road will be inherently worsened. The proposed ingress/egress road to the
subdivision will create very limited visibility for cars entering and exiting the access road as well as for the golf carts
crossing the road and pedestrians using the Battles Road sidewalk. The amount of traffic that this road would create in
the middle of the golf course also needs to be addressed. Golfers hitting traveling vehicles is a real danger and safety
is sue, which creates a significant liability concern for golfers and safety issues for the eventual homeowners. The
Lakewood Golf Club Membership bylaws clearly state it is the golfer's responsibility for any injuries and property
damaged during play. The existing membership was not asked to sign these bylaws with a 10 home subdivision and a
road that are definitely "in play''. The Golf Membership was never consulted regarding the development and the
developer has not done a study of po t ential future liability concerns .
The developer has also not done an environmental impact study. Engineers have stated the water will be diverted
under the course and travel to Point Clear Creek. Currently residents from Azalea Ridge and Point Clear Stables
subdivisions are complaining of runoff issues and have enlisted an attorney to help their situation . WWS would put even
more runoff in to the already stressed Point Clear Creek.
Since the development of the Colony at Battles Trace was begun, RSA has run rough-shod over the Planning and Zoning
Board, the City Council and the city administration . The callous disregard for the historic integrity and beauty of area is
appalling. Even more appalling is that they are allowed to do as they please without any real oversight or hard
questions . Many persons in the area and members of the club will be significantly negatively impacted and none of
1
these affected parti es have been given a vo i ce i n t h i s process or decis ion except to try and create a wave of protest
t hrough a short-notice w ri tten appeal process.
Please do not allow the developer to annex this prope rty into the city of Fairhope. Th e an n exation i s simply an avenue
t o obta in t he TR zon in g designation and bu ild t h e Waters hed West Subdiv ision . WWS subdivision w i ll forever scar a
commu nity treasure that was created in the 1940's, create u nlim ited potential liabil ity for our res idents, as we ll as
visiting t ourists, and continue to burden our over st r essed infrastru cture. Please do your duty t o the communit y as a
whole and not to a over-bearing financial heavy we ight with po litica l co nn ect ions .
Thank you.
Ja mes Herndon
2
Mike Jeffri es
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pam Swara t <di sta b all @msn .com >
Sa t urd ay, Oc to be r 2 6, 201 9 1 :57 PM
Mi ke Jeffries
Wate rsh ed wes t subd ivi sion
We are 100 % o p posed t o t he Waters hed west subd iv is ion.
Please don't approve t h is subdivision.
Don and Pam Swarat
6268 Willowbridge drive
Fairhope , Alabama 36532
Sent via the Samsung Gala xy Note9, an AT&T SG Evolution capable smartphone
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Merri l Miller <mmillerinteriors@gma i l.com >
Saturday, October 26, 2019 1:2 1 PM
Emily Boyett; Richard Peterson ; Mike Jeffries; Hunter Simmons
Re : Watershed West subdivision Azalea #2 & #3
On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 11:30 AM Merril Miller <mmillerinteriors@gmail.com> wrote :
Well here we go again covering up more property. RSA has done well with some of their developments, fortunate for
them at the beginning but unfortunate what will happen at the end. Always history repeats it self. Not only will RSA
suffer but the residence that live there will suffer the most. Enough is enough! Do not know how the land can handle
anymore? Not much more to say but whoever heads this project up has no consideration to the pitfalls this can create!
Very concerned,
Merrill Miller
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
apharrhume <apharrhume@gmail.com>
Saturday, October 26, 2019 11 :37 AM
To:
Cc:
Emily Boyett; Richard Peterson; Mike Jeffries; Hunter Simmons
Battles Road Preservation Group
Subject: Watershed West Subdivision (Aza lea 2 and 3)
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the above proposed development on Azalea 2 and 3.
As a Lakewood member I have enjoyed the beauty of the existing golf courses and the green spaces on the
interior of the courses. As I understand it the Lakewood Subdivision covenants never envisioned TR zoning
being proposed on the interior green spaces . It is not compatible with the Lakewood covenants.
The proposed development will expose Golfers to personal liability due to the proximity of the homes to the course. It
will create an unnecessary risk for the homeowner and the golfer.
The development increases the traffic on Battles Wharf Road and increases the chance of a serious accident sface the
cart path runs parallel to the road. There is already enough traffic on this road .TH ere is no need to increase the
chance of a serious accident.
The environmental exposure as I understand it has not been addressed by an environmental impact study .The impact of
the development during construction and post construction as it relates to the land, air, noise and water needs to be
addressed.
There is absolutely no need to build interior homes on the Lakewood golf course when other options for development
exist.
Thank you for your consideration in denying approval of this proposed development.
Pharr and Lisa Hutne
Sen t from my Sam su ng Gal ax y , an AT&T LTE smar tp hone
--------Original message--------
From: Battles Road Preservation Group <batt1esgroup2@gmail.com>
Date: 10/25/19 5:03 PM (GMT-06:00)
To : Battles Group <battlesgroup2@gmail.com>
Subject: Richard Peterson email corrected
Richard Peterson email is Richard.Peterson@fairhopeal.gov
Please submit emails of opposition to the Watershed West subdivision (Azalea #2 and #3) by noon on Monday, Oct 28.
We need to flood the city leaders with our concerns . If they do not hear us, it will get approved. Golfers are liable for
damage and injury. You don't want to pay for a broken window or worse when 10 homes are in the middle of the
course .
Planning & Zoning
Emily Boyett -Emily .Boyett@Fairhopeal.gov
Richard Peterson -Richard.Peterson@Fairhopeal.gov
1
City Planners
Mike Jeffries -mike .jeffries@fairhopeal.gov
Hunter Simmons -hunter.simmons@fairhopeal.gov
2
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from my iPhone
James Massey <jamesmassey@wa ltmasse y.com>
Friday, October 25, 2019 9:44 PM
M i ke Jeffries
I am appose to the water Shea's west on azalea holes 2&3
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carroll Sullivan <carrllsull@aol.com>
Friday, October 25 , 2019 2:06 PM
Emily Boyett
Carroll Sullivan
Proposed RSA Development between 2 & 3 Azaela Golf Course at Lakewood
Dear Members of the Fairhope Planning & Zoning Commission:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the above with planned access off Battles Road (County Road 44). In
addition to the obvious loss of beautiful trees, including a 450 year old oak, loss of aesthetics and negative impact on the
environment (wildlife and runoff to wetlands), this is also terrible for golfers and the Lakewood Course as the plan has
the development invading the middle of the original 1947 layout.
This is the first time a major subdivision has been proposed for the interior (as opposed to the periphery) of the existing
Lakewood Course .
The road coming onto the golf course off County Road 44 will invite trucks and other motor vehicles in like never before.
This will pose safety issues for vehicles, future homeowners and golfers, alike. The proposed zoning and precedent it
would set will adversely affect traffic patterns and congestion on County Road 44. Ingress and egress off County Road 44
will be harmful to the safety of pedestrians and joggers using the sidewalks and bikers who frequent this stretch of
roadway .
The intersection of the present golf cart path and the proposed new road will be too close to County Road 44 between 2
green and 3 tee box. It will be an accident waiting to happen .
As I write this email, I can foresee a FedEx truck barreling off County Road 44 into a golf cart or golfer within close
proximity to that turn.
The proposed crossing will be dangerous. Golfers cannot look left and view for any appreciable distance before
proceeding onward. Here, there is no distance. It's all right there. A golfer can look left, proceed carefully thinking it's
clear and get hit anyway by a fast moving motor vehicle entering off County Road 44.
The Fairhope Subdivision Regs require the applicant (when outside the City lim~ts) to submit plans to the County
Engineer for his review. And "the County Engineer's approval shall appear on the Plat to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission." See pages 15 & 17. As late as October 21, none of this had been done. As of that late date, the County
Engineer had not received an application from RSA or its engineers to connect to County Road 44.
This proposed development is also detrimental to nearby neighborhoods including Lakewood, residents on Woodlands,
Point Clear Court, Povenor Place, Owl's Nest Place, Crane's Place and Carolina Court.
For the reasons set forth above including safety and non-compliance with the Fairhope Subdivision Regs, It is
respectfully submitted that the subject application is due to be and should be denied. Thank you.
Carroll Sullivan
513 Owl's Nest Place
Fairhope, AL 36532
1
Mr. Mike Jeffri es
Oct ober 25, 20 19
Page 2
Finally, there are the aes th et ics. The area between holes 2 and 3 o n the
Azalea Course is a beautiful g ree n area with many s ub stantial and attra ctive o ld
oak trees. As you probably know , the oak tree is parl of th e lo go for the
Lakewood Go lf C lub. To lose any of those trees, or to dimini sh the ir
attract iveness by building h o uses und er and around th e m , cannot b e jus tifi ed un de r
any s tretch of th e im agin at ion .
I hope that yo u w ill cons id er all of th ese iss ues and that your cons id eration
of those iss u es w ill le ad you t o conclude that the Waters hed West Subdivision is
an id ea whose time has not yet come.
W ith best regards, I am
GMW.kb
Very tnily yours,
~1 <.. r\.,C . w CvU ((___
George M. Walker
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lynn Robe rts <lroberts28 00 @gm ail.com >
Friday , October 25, 2019 12:3 9 PM
Mike Jeffries
Battles road project
I'm writ in g t o express my strong opposit ion t o th e rezoning and subsequent development of the property on the
Lakewood subdivision golf course off battles road .
I live in the subdivision but even if I didn't I would be opposed to this development. There are magnificent oak trees that
would be destroyed and always with development the topography is altered We already have probemsvwith water
runoff from rainwater and from what I understand no studies have done to alleviate this problem
Thank you lynn Roberts
Sent from my iPhone
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Jeffr ies,
Monde Donaldson <mondedonaldson@gmail.com >
Fr id ay, October 25 , 2019 11:25 AM
Mike Jeffries
Wat ershed West
It has come to may attention that the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) has in the
works a project entitled Watershed West in the middle of the Lakewood Golf Course off Battles Road.
As a resident of Baldwin County for 40 years and a frequent visitor to that area for
the past 10 years I would l ike to express my opposition to such a plan .
One of my major concern is safety -safety for the golfers and the residents. My son
is a Fed Ex driver in Mobile County. Do you think it is safe to have delivery trucks
crossing in front of golfers? These drivers (and with the increase of Sunday deliveries
from Amazon and Fed Ex) are delivering all day and sometimes even into the evening.
I don't think that is what was envisioned when the Lakewood Golf Course area was developed.
Access from Battles Road across the course is appal lin g. All other residents
live on the perimeter of the course.
Just as important to me is the nature of this development. No golf group, association
or neighborhood group was consulted when this project was under development.
Fairhope does not want to be known as a community where development becomes
a priority over the character and charm of the city. Green space, trees, peace and
t ranquility are what the Eastern Shore experience is all about. It is my understanding
that none of the lots in the proposed area meet the Lakewood Club Estates criteria
and covenants . RSA should not be allowed to go forward with this project just to line
their own pockets with no regard for safety, abiding by the wishes of the residents
and meeting community standards.Please cons ider voti ng no to this project when it
comes to your attention for action .
Thank you,
Monde Donaldson
2 Iron Clad Port
Spanish Fort, Ala. 36527
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hunter Simmons
Friday , October 25 , 2019 10:53 AM
Mike Jeffries
FW : Watershed project we are very much against
From: Carolyn Strickland <carolyndavisstrickla nd@gmai l.com >
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 10:26 AM
To: Hunter Simmons <hunter.simmons@fairhopeal.gov>
Subject: Watershed project we are very much against
Carolyn
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bill Hyatt <wi ll iam .hyatt7@gmail.com >
Fr iday, October 25 , 2019 10:52 AM
Emily Boyett
Richard .Petersen@Fairhopeal.gov; Mike Jeffries; Hunter Simmons; 'Battles Road
Preservation Group '
Watershed West
As a pro-development Realtor, investor, res ident of The Colony at The Grand {114 Mulberry Ln) and member of
Lakewood CC, I am vehemently opposed to the development of residential lots between holes 2&3 on the Azalea Golf
Course. While I respect the investment acumen of the RSA (not necessarily Mr. Bronner) enough is enough. We have
numerous unsold homes being developed in The Colony including on #6 Azalea.
I lived here from 2001-2014 and moved back a year ago to enjoy all the benefits of living in Fai rhope and as a
member of Lake wood. This is the worst lack of planning in the wrong location that will certainly have a negative affect
on every member of Lakewood. It will be an eyesore and the homes would be bombarded with golf balls from two
directions; not to mention destruction of some of the most beautiful oak trees on the golf course. Please vote this
proposed development down. I will be in attendance at the planning meeting, if there is room due to the tremendous
opposition from every golfer I know.
Thank you in advance for your wise consideration of this ill conceived proposal.
Wm. W. "Bill" Hyatt CCIM
LanDel Realty LLC
23210 Hwy 98 Suite 4-A
Fairhope, Alabama 36532
251-605-2112 cell
855-898-8348 fax
wwhyatt7@bellsouth.net
wil1iam.hyatt7@gmail.com
-an Individual Member
h ttp:/ /w w w.loop net.com / P rof ile/ 148283810 2 1 / Bill-H y att /
Romans 8:28
Jeremiah 29:11
CONFIDENTIALlTY NOTICE: Th is Electronic Ma il (e-ma il) contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is sent. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED . If you have received this communication in error,
please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or telephone.
WARNING: Landel Realty LLC is acting solely in the capacity of soliciting, providing and receiving information and proposa ls and negotiating the same on behalf of
its clients/customers. Landel Realty LLC makes no represen tation or warranty, express, implied or otherw ise, that acceptance of any item or terms contained
herein will guarantee acceptance of such by its client/customer in any formal , binding document. No parties shall be bound to any terms, conditions or
agreements whatsoever contained herein until the appropriate parties execute a formal legally bind ing agreement.
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hunter Simmons
Friday, October 25 , 20 19 10:10 AM
Mi ke Jeffr ies
Fwd : Watershed West Subdivision
Get Outlook for Android
From: Paula Kendrick <kendrickpk@yahoo .com >
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 10:07 :01 AM
To: Hunter Simmons <hunter.simmons@fair ho pea l.gov >
Subject: Fwd: Watershed West Subdivision
Subject: Watershed West Subdivision
Please know we are opposed to the construction of a subdivision on the
Azalea golf course at Lakewood. We need to preserve the beauty that
attracts people to Fairhope. This construction is planned in the middle
of beautiful old oak trees which will obviously be damaged by this
construction.
We hope you wi l l vote against this project and preserve the beauty and
tranquility of Lakewood/Fairhope .
Sent from my iPhone
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Phillip De Keyser < phillip.dekeyser@gmail.com >
Friday, October 25, 2019 7:52 AM
Emily Boyett
Proposed Watershed West Development
I am opposed to the proposed Watershed West development. The new development will set a precedent on the golf
course area by allowing homes on the interior areas of the golf course. Allowing the homes on the interior will ruin the
feel that Lakewood Golf has maintained for decades. Please do not set a precedence that future developers will use to
their advantage.
Sincerely an appreciative local golfer,
Phillip DeKeyser
251.776.0490
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi, Emily,
Kate Browning De Keyser < kmichelebrowning@gmail.com >
Friday, October 25, 2019 10:4 3 AM
Emily Boyett
Re : Save the Heritage Oaks
My in-laws live on Owl's Nest Place in the lovely city of Fairhope. My husband, son and I enjoy visiting their home. We
especially delight in the peace and beauty of the location on the Lakewood golf course. It is a house where we have
celebrated many holidays, our engagement, and lots of lazy weekends. My son loves going for golf cart rides with his
grandparents around Lakewood and taking in all of the natural beauty. I was very upset to hear about the plans of the
RSA to develop the land across the course from their home. When my in-laws built on Owl's Nest Place, they were
assured that the land across the course from them would remain untouched. I can't imagine how things will change if
this development is carried out. The loss of the peaceful view, the loss of the lovely oaks and azaleas, the change in
roads, etc . It is my understanding that none of the lots meet Lakewood Club Estates criteria and covenants. I could
hardly believe it when I heard that t he road to the propos ed homes would go d i rectly across the cart path at an unsafe
location , putting golfers at risk . My in-laws are members of Lakewood and my father-in-law is part of a regular group
that meets each Saturday morning. I can't imagine how this will change his weekends for the worse.
Please save this land and live oaks that are so beau tiful and help to create a lovely oa sis along the golf course in the
great City of Fairhope!
Please share my t houghts and concern s with the members of the commission :
Lee Turne r , Chairman
Rebecca Bryant, Vice-Chair
Henry Koehler
Art Dyas
Clarice Hall -Blac k
Robert Brown (City Council liaison)
Thank you ,
Kate DeKeyser
(251)753 -1166
I 0 =-1 Virus-free . www.avq .com
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms. Boyett,
David Smitherman <smitherman.david@gmail.com>
Frida y, October 25 , 2019 9:47 AM
Emily Boyett
Save the Lakewood Like Oak Grove
I am writing to ask that you share this feedback with the Planning Commission. I grew up spending summers, holidays,
etc. with my late grandmother in Fairhope. These are the oldest memories I have of my life; playing and exploring in the
beautiful NATURAL habitat that we have all come to love in Fairhope.
Now as a father of two, my children's first memories are virtually identical. Please reconsider destroying this beautiful
habitat to add more houses. We take multiple trips a year to Pt. Clear and one of the highlights is playing the Azalea golf
course with friends and family. I truly believe it is one of the most beautiful courses I've played; especially the first 3-4
holes mostly BECAUSE of the live oaks .
There have been seemingly hundreds of houses popping up all AROUND the golf course over the last 5-10 years. Please
don't start a precedent of building INSIDE the golf course . It really detracts from the appeal of Lakewood, and I can only
imagine we're not the only family that will look to relocate future golf trips, vacations, etc.
Thank you for your consideration. Please keep nature's beauty in tact.
Sincerely,
David Smitherman
(205) 516-8852
Sent from my iPad
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good Morning,
Garet Smitherman <garetsmitherman@gmail.com>
Friday, October 25 , 2019 9:01 AM
Emily Boyett
Oak Grove Development
I'm writing in protest to the propsed annexation of the oak grove between holes 2 & 3 at the Lakewood Club off of
Battles Road for residential development. I understand the proposal would result in the removal of over a dozen
heritage oaks solely for the access road, not to mention the numerous others that will be removed during home
construction. Im unaware of any other inter-course development and believe this sets a bad precedent if approved.
With the amount of development going on in the Fairhope/Point Clear area, this seems a step too far. The beauty of
Fairhope and Point Clear lives in these oaks, and this grove in particula . I also have concerns regarding personal/property
damage to homeowners if this development is approved due to it being placed in he middle of a golf course. Ive grown
up playing in that grove, and I now play in that grove with my two nieces, 5 & 3. I hope to be able to continue to do so in
the future. Thank you for your consideration. Please share with the planning/development committee.
Sincerely,
Garet Smitherman
Sent from my iPhone
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hunter Simmons
Friday, October 25, 2019 10 :10 AM
Mike Jeffries
Fwd : Watershed West Subdivision
Get Outlook for Android
From: Paula Kendrick <kendrickpk@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 10:07:01 AM
To: Hunter Simmons <hunter.s immons@fairhopeal.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Watershed West Subdivision
Subject: Watershed West Subdivision
Please know we are opposed to the construction of a subdivision on the
Azalea golf course at Lakewood. We need to preserve the beauty that
attracts people to Fairhope. This construction is planned in the middle
of beautiful old oak trees which will obviously be damaged by this
construction.
We hope you will vote against this project and preserve the beauty and
tranquility of Lakewood/Fairhope.
Sent from my iPhone
1
Mike Je f fries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mr Jeffries
Michael Jo h nson <mjohns o n91 149 @gmail.com >
Frid ay, October 25 , 2019 9:50 AM
Mike Jeffr ies
Watershed We st Subdivision
I am "OPPOSED " to this Subdiv ision being bui lt between Azaleas #2 & #3 Fairways. This is the only Housing project
being proposed between t wo Fairways on any Robert Trent Jones course . It destroys the beauty of the Azalea Golf
Course. It puts Golfers & Vis iting Golfers in Lega l Limbo from stray gol f hits. Places residents in potential harm from
errant golf ba ll s.
As a Citizen of Fairhope I am opposed to this Subdivision being built and hope you will agree and support our reque st.
Mich ael Johnson
Respectfully
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sam Di xon <spdixonjr@aol.com >
Thursday, October 24, 2019 2:54 PM
Richard Peterson ; Hu nter Simmons ; Mik e Jeffries
Emily Boyett
Case: ZC 19.1 6. Conditional Anne x to TR. PPIN# 282038
To : Members of the City Plannings and Zoning Commission Lee Turner, Chairman Reb ecc a Bryant , Vice-Chairwoman
Henry Koehler Richard Peter.son Art Dyas Clarice Hall -Black Robe rt Brown
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
The RSA request of the above indicated Case ZC 19.16 must be denied and I urge you to recommend it be denied at the
scheduled November 4, 2019 meeting Planning and Zoning Meeti ng.
There are a plethora of reasons for recommending a denial of the RSA request and only one reason, that being
money/greed (RSA financia l ga i n) to recommend approval. I urge you to consider the character of the surrounding
property, Lakewood Estates, adequacy of public infrastructure to support the development, impacts on natural
resources including existing conditions and ongoing post development, impacts on adjacent property and surrounding
neighbors including noise, traffic, visibl e intrusion, physical impacts and property values . And if all the above is not
enough to recommend denial, try a bi t of Common Sense! The Grand Hotel and the Lakewood Golf Club in particular are
regional and state treasures. To even consider developing the interior of this beautiful golf course is the epitome of
pure greed in action. The actual loc ation on the course RSA has chosen for their initial assault is even more appalling ,
7+acres of the most beautiful oak tree laden property in the Fairhope and Point Clear area . All for the want of ten more
lots to develop . Public sentiment against this proposal is overwhelming and I ask that you serve and protect your
commun ity in an appropriate manner by r ecommending denial of the request.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Yours truly,
Sam P. Dixon, Jr .
18268 Woodland Drive
Point Clear, Al.
Sent from my iPad
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Lee Turner, Chm
Rebecca Bryant, Vice Chm
Henry Koehler
Richard Peterson
Art Dyas
Clarice Hall-Black
Robert Brown
Buford King, City Planner
Sandra Hammock <sandrawhammock@gmail.com>
Thursday, October 24, 20 19 1 :26 PM
Richard Peterson
Emily Boyett
Watershed West Subdivision Zoning
Dear Planning Commission Member and City Planner,
I am a resident of Watershed and live on Owls Nest Place. I write this letter in strong opposition to the Major Subdivision
Proposal by RSA which they are calling Watershed West.
The development would forever adversely affect the iconic and historic Lakewood golf course . The change would not be
reversible when RSA has to (in all probability)unload their money losing golf courses.
There are times when the city of Fairhope must stand up and say "This project is not in the best interest of our city's
future". After Dr. Bronner and RSA are long gone, we still have to live here.
If you approve this development, you become complicit with and a partner of RSA.
Sincerely,
Sandra Hammock
Sent from my iPhone
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Lee Turner,Chair
Rebecca Bryant, Vice Chair
Henry Koehler
Richard Peterson
Art Dyas
Clar ice Hall-Black
Robert Brown
Buford King, City Planner
Ray Hammock <rayhammock@gmail.com>
Thursday, October 24, 2019 10:56 AM
Richard Peterson
Emily Boyett
Watershed West Major Subdivision
Dear Planning Commission member and City Planner,
As a resident of Watershed, I am opposed to the Major subdivision proposal by RSA called Watershed West
There are valid safety issues at the ingress/ egress point on Battles Road . There are safety concerns for future residents
of Watershed West. The r e are environmental issues.
My main concern is for the "Crown Jewel" of Fairhope, the Grand Hotel and Lakewood Golf Course. This development
would forever change the historic beauty of Lakewood. After Dr. Bronner retires in the near future, I think RSA would
thank you for not letting this iconic course to be spoiled. When RSA decides to rid it's portfolio of money losing golf
cou rses, you could proudly say, "We helped save a part of what makes Fairhope the great city it is".
Please vote no on th is proposal. Don't become a partner with RSA in this huge mis-step with Lakewood Golf Course.
Sincerely ,
Ray Hammock
525 Owls Nest Place
Sent from my iPad
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rick Phyfer <rick.phyfer.hdxo@statefarm.com>
Thursday, October 24, 2019 8:42 AM
Emily Boyett
FW : Proposed Watershed West Subdivision
l am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Watershed West Subdivision {WWS} development.
As you are aware, the WWS development would be located inside the original Grand Hotel Golf Course that was
established in the 1940's and adjacent to Lakewood Club Estates that was established in the 1960's. The developer is
asking for a TR zoning request. The TR zoning request is not compatible to the R-1 zoning requirements of Lakewood
Club Estates and their neighborhood covenants that are over 50 years old.
The proposed access road from Battles Rd into WWS is ill planned. The proposed road has a cart path crossing, a
pedestrian crossing and would create an intersection from another established subdivision. This would create very
limited visibility from cars entering, carts crossing and pedestrians using the sidewalk. The amount of traffic that this
road would create in the middle of the golf course also needs to be addressed. Golfers hitting traveling vehicles is
definitely a liability and is definitely a safety issue.
The 10 Lot subdivision would also create unnecessary liability for golfers and safety issues for the eventual
homeowners. The Lakewood Golf Club Membership bylaws clearly state it is the golfer's responsibility for any injuries
and property damaged during play . The existing membership was not asked to sign these bylaws with a 10 home
subdivision and a road that are definitely "in play". The Golf Membership was never consulted regarding the
development and the developer has not done a study of potential future 1.iability concerns.
The developer has also not done an environmental impact study. Engineers have stated the water will be diverted
under the course and travel to Point Clear Creek. Currently residents from Azalea Ridge and Point Clear Stables
subdivisions are complaining of runoff issues and have enlisted an attorney to help their situation. WWS would put even
more runoff into the already stressed Point Clear Creek.
Please do not allow the developer to annex this property into the city of Fairhope. The annexation is simply an avenue
to obtain the TR zoning designation and build the Watershed West Subdivision. WWS subdivision will forever scar a
community treasure that was created in the 1940's, create unlimited potential liability for our residents as well as
visiting tourists and continue to burden our overstressed infrastructure.
Thank you .
R.iclcPhlJfer, CLU
P.O. Box 1179
Fauhope, AL 36533
OHice (251)928-7500
Fax(251)928-8653
www.rickphy:fer.com
A State Fann Insurance Companies
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Linda Dugins <ldug i ns@gmail.com >
Wednesday, October 23 , 2019 10:30 PM
Emi ly Boyett
Tourism-Resort zoning along the Lakewood Golf course
As Alabamians, who now spend most of the year in Park City, Utah, we have come to value and appreciate open space,
mountains, beaches and live oaks!!!!
Please save this patch of land and live oaks that a r e so beautiful and help to create a lovely oasis along the golf course
and the ever growing community of Fairhope!
Linda Ferguson Dugins
Robert Dugins
1
Mike Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Linda Dugins <ldugins @gmail.com >
Wednesday, October 23, 2019 10:29 PM
Mike Jeffries
Tourism-Resort on the Lakewood Golf course
As Alabamians, who now spend most of the year in Park City , Utah, we have come to value and appreciate open space,
mountains, beaches and live oaks!!!!
Please save this patch of land and live oaks that are so beautiful and help to create a lovely oasis along the golf course
and the ever growing community of Fairhope!
Linda Ferguson Dugins
Robert Dugins
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
jedens1@aol.com
Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:20 PM
Richard Peterson ; Emily Boyett
jedens1@aol.com; JNunnally@baldwincountyal.gov
Proposed subdivision INSIDE of AZALEA GOLF COURSE
Dear Richard Peterson and Emily Boyett,
RSA is proposing a subdivision (Watershed West) ·in between 2 golf holes on the Lakewood golf course. So
many variables need to be reconsidered as this will create more problems than any monies to RSA.
This short-term gain comes with forever consequences:
*This property is part of the original golf course established in late 1940' s.
*The Lakewood Club Estates homes are zoned R-1. This new subdivision is proposed for Tourism & Resort
(TR) zoning. TR zoning is not compatible with the Lakewood Estates covenants.
*The property where the Owl's Nest Place homes are located was never part of the golf course and was
purchased by RSA from an adjacent landowner to develop those 10 homes.
*Nowhere on the 36 holes of Lakewood are homes INSIDE the golf course
*Golfers are liable for damage or injury-there is greater chance for both with homes inside the
course. Right-handed golfers are more likely to hook the ball off of the tee. These homes are directly in the
line of "hooks", whether the golfer is teeing from Tee#2 or Tee#3.
*Environmental impact study has not been done
There are numerous large live oaks that will be affected by these homes in the middle of the golf course.
There are great-horned and barred owls, eagles -heritage oaks and endangered species.
*Water will be diverted under the course to the Point Clear Creek which is already stressed
*Numerous large live oaks will be affected by this subdivision
*Garbage trucks, maintenance trucks, UPS, etc will be in harms way of flying golf balls when servicing these
homes
*Battles Road is parallel to the cart path and the cart path is very close to Battles Rd making it a short time for
vehicle and golf cart to react when confronted with one another -not even possible to widen -another
liability.
*Traffic on Battles Road increases daily with all the new subdivisions. Battles Rd and 32 are the only east-west
roads in Point Clear to Scenic 98.
*Sell what RSA has built before building more. Only 2 of the duplexes build by RSA a year ago on Quail Run in
Lakewood Club Estates have sold.
Additionally, in the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, it states on page 17, item K.:
" ... the applicant shall be required to submit evidence in writing that plans for the subdivision shall have
been received by the County Engineer for his/her review." Page 15, " ... the County Engineer' approval shall
appear on the Plat to be review by the Planning Commission." THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE! This is
proceeding without proper review and approval and is in violation of City and County regulations .
This subdivision is literally in the middle of the golf course . A road will be in the middle of the course, bringing
cars, garbage trucks, maintenance trucks , UPS trucks ... all in harm's way of fly i ng golf balls. The golfer is liable
for any damages or injuries, yet the engineers stated no golfers were consulted during the planning of this
subdivision. The past several years, more and more ofthe green space has been developed into subdivisions
1
by RSA. However, none of these suba1visions has been INSIDE the course. RSA is proposing a 10-lot subdivision
between the fairways of Azalea course holes 2 and 3. The proposed subdivision is Watershed West.
There are numerous large live oaks that will be affected by these homes in the middle of the golf course . This
green space where Watershed West is proposed is in an area where golf balls are constantly hit. Homes do not
belong in the interior of the golf course. Building homes here will not make or break RSA, however, building
homes here will forever change the golf course. The Lakewood golf course is special. What makes it special are
the live oaks and lush green space.
Please do not allow RSA to annex this property. There is no place for a subdivision in the middle of a golf
course. Agreeing to annex this property will bring short-term gains with forever consequences. Please do not
allow this desecration of this lovely golf course.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter,
Saralynn C. Edens
Saralynn C. Edens
517 Owl's Nest Pl
Fairhope, AL 36532
678/4620074 (c)
Sent from Windows Mail
2
Dear Mr. Jefferies,
Jam writing to express my extreme opposition to the proposed Watershed West
subdivision development. This development proposal, in my opinion, sets a very
dangerous precedent for our community. I have looked at this from every vantage
point and see no positive outcome for the city or community with the request to
first, annex into the city, re-zone to Tourism and Resort district and build on the
interior of the golf course. Let's start with the first of annexing into the city. The city
is simply a trigger to garner access to the atrocious zoning known as Tourism and
Resort. This designation allows all flexibility and autonomy to the developer. lt is
noted the intent of the TR zoning is to do the following:
1. Promote a sustainable future, and encourage and develop connections
between environmental quality and resort areas
lam unsure how a sustainable future for the environment includes destroying
green space between two holes on a golf course? While the plans call for limited
removal of trees, it is simply farcical. This is a shell game to push the
responsibility of the removal of the trees onto the property owner once the lot is
purchased. There is no way homes can be built of these lots without the
destruction on most of the centuries old majestic live oaks and pine trees. I
implore each member of the city-planning department, planning and zoning
commission and city council to walk this area and see first hand what would
truly happen if approved.
2. Provide a mix ofresidential types that are designated to form a compact,
compatible and stable neighborhood directed toward resort and tourism
trade.
Our community is booming with development. In fact I believe our infrastructure
is being challenged to keep up with the pace. This specific area has been a
preserved and historical area of this community for centuries. My husband grew
up on the bay next door to the hotel. While the area has changed drastically since
that time, most of the growth and development has been done in a manner
which does not detract or destroy the quite and serene nature of Point Clear. The
subdivisions are quite and most settled among the old oaks and green spaces so
treasured by the community. How does a compact, resort type of residential area
fit into this area of our community?
3. Promote increased privacy by permitting private roadways within the TR
District Property
Once again, the wording sounds great on paper, but privacy is a joke. This
proposal would put houses in plain sight, front and back, to adjacent
I ' I m
neighborhoods. In fact, if anything this encroaches on privacy planned and
developed for the established neighborhoods in the area. Secondly, a private or
public road for the proposed plat is ill planned. The road proposal has a ca rt path
crossing, pedestrian crossing and entry/exit point of the neighborhood
intersection. This allows very limited visibility for for cars entering, carts
crossing and those using the crosswalk areas.
4. Promote the preservation and enhancement of existing natural landscape
features and their scenic qualities
This development will forever change the natural landscape and scenic qualities
of our beautiful area. There is no possible way for the proposed development to
meet this goal. When you destroy the ver y essence of the landscape, remove
wildlife and create unknown environmental issues, this area can never be
restored.
5. Create a zoning classification which allows flexibility and creative
development concepts that would not be possible through conventiona l
zon in g regulations and a ll ow certain modification and exemptions from
existing subdivis ion and other regulations
Please read the #5 again out loud. P lease tell me how this benefits the city or
community? This intent, while bold and honest, a ll ows full flex ibil ity to a
developer to fur ther destroy our area. They will be given permission to NOT
follow the guidelin es outlined for all oth ers. Our zoning regulations, which could
and should be updated to better protect this community, do not need to be
modified to help one entity find loopholes.
This community is a treasure, which should be treated as such and protected. The
fast and furious pace to overdevelop will destroy the very essence of Point Clear and
set a precedent that nothing is valued more than the all mighty dollar. Once
destroyed, we w ill NOT be given the opportunity for a "do over". With all efforts
there is a point of d i minishin g returns, and this proposal would definitely tip the
scales in that direction.
You have the opportunity to preserve th is beautiful area before it becomes
compl etely unrecognizable. If you do not stand up and stop the "ever changing face
of Baldwin County, who will? I am asking you to "recommend NO" to the City
Co uncil and stand behind the many in our community who strongly oppose as well.
Regards,
Tracy Frost
October 19 , 20 19
Mikejeffties
P.O. Box 429
Fairhope, AL 36533
D ear Nfr J effries,
Bonnibel & Bill Byars
501 O wls Nest Place
Fairhope, AL 36563
612-710-4653
v\Te are very concerned abou t the proposed zonin g of the Lakewood Golf Club property
between holes 2 and 3 on the Azalea fr om the county to TR for a n ew subdivision . The
rezoning is n ot in keeping with the R-1 zonin g of The L akewood Golf Estates w hich is
part of the history of L akewood Golf Course. The property where I live, ·watershed
One, was n ever part of the G olf Course a nd was purchased by RSA from the a dj acent
property owner to deve lop Watershed One s ubdivision which consists of l O cottages on
one stree t Owls Nest Place.
vVe beli eve this sh ort t e rm finan cial gain fo r RSA is fulfilling one man's dream (Dr.
Bronner) but h as forever consequ ences. It will m ean the loss of old grm,vth li ve oak trees
and many o ther trees including long leaf pine trees and the natural h abitat that th e grove
of trees provide. This is esse ntial, as it is well known that USA and Canada h ave lo st
approximate ly 3 billion birds due to co nst ructio n , development and pesticides e tc . P lus
just the b eauty to see the diverse wildl ife that all of u s see on L akewoo d Golf Course. We
know ch ange is inevitabl e but does n eed to be controlled t o preserve wh at we can , eve n
w ith this tiny little piece of p roper ty.
Vie woul d appreciate yo u looking carefull y at the lo n g term affects of rezoning th is
property which w ill b e the first subdivision that is actually in the inte rior of the golf
cou rse and p ossibly the b eginning of addition al subdivis ions within t h e interior of t he
golf course. This will foreve r change L akewood as we know it. As you know, Zone TR
properties do not acll1ere to the City o r County setbacks an d guid e lines for co nstruction
nor to t h e City's Tree Ordinance. I am sure there are sever a l live oaks on the property
which would qualify for H eritage Trees.
v\Te wo uld appreciate the the city p lanners to con si der this proposal with vision for th e
future.
Thank you for yo ur tim e and visio n for he lping preserve L akewood a n d it's wonder fu l
history and beauty.
Since rel y yours,
Bonnibel & Bill Bya rs
()(, f
yl3
Dear Mr. Mike Jeffries,
I am writing you this letter to voice my strong opposition to the request by RSA to
have Watershed West rezoned to Fairhope with Tourism/ Resort designation. This
action will forever change the Lakewood Golf Course and community. Opening up this
site to TR zoning will allow RSA to essentially put up many different dwellings includin g
the possibility of a 45' tall building according to the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance. I
realize this is not what is planned but it is possible. None of the proposed building lots
meet Lakewood Club Estates criteria and covenants. Set backs are only 1 Oft with this
proposal. This can only happen w ith TR zoning.
This proposal will also dictate losing at least 12 magnificent Live Oaks for building
of the road. In addition, the subsequent homeowners will be responsible for the
removal of many other live oaks in order to build. We are talking about the destruction
of century old live oaks and the wildlife that resides in this wonderful tree grove.
No environmental study has been done to see the impact this will have on Point
Clear Creek and Mobile Bay. Drainage for this development wi ll go directly to Point
Clear Creek which is already taxed from numerous other developments in the area.
Lastly, La kewood has 36 holes of golf and not one area has homes on the interior
portion of the course.
I appreciate your consideration in this matter. Please vote NO on changing this
zoning . Thank you .
Respectfully, Karen Dixon
OCT 1 II
~6
w
• The hou ses squeezed on Old Battles at the Camellia development with driveways directly onto
the traffic flow and blocking existing homeowners' views, and
• The three n ew lots squeezed in front of existing homes on Azalea #12, and
o The planned destruction of the historic and beloved Golf Clubhouse to be replaced with more
homes while building a new c lubh ouse nearby in the style of all the Robert Trent Jones
clubhouses, los ing th is old and treas ured Point Clear landmark, a favorite among golfers, and
• Possible homes sandwiched into the northwest comer of the Azalea #2 hole along Battles Road
and who knows what else,
... Lakewood will look a11dfeel Like any other overdeveloped golf course in America!
If this develop goes forward, what do we tell our grandchildren when they say to us and to our elected
offic ials, "How did you let this J,appen? How did you stand by and let this beautiful place become
marginalized a11dforever altered by squeezing in houses in every 1100k a11d cranny? WJ,y did you let
these centuries-old heritage oaks die? Why did you destroy this natural habitat for our native woodland
creatures? Wlto thought a road with houses in th e middle of a golf course was a good idea?"
I do not have an answer for them. Do you?
Here is llte bollom line: Just because tlze RSA !,as th e right to build houses in this gorgeous oak grove
does not make it RIGHT! And just because previous leaders allowed this 3+ acre carve out 011 tlze golf
course does not mean that it was RIGHT nor that this Commission and Council have to let tltat stand!
Destroying this amazing three acres with houses is wrong on all levels. If you let tltis move forward it is
a betrayal of our trust and the Commission's duty for "the general welfare of our present and future
residents ... " The RSA real estate juggemaut will only continue until Lakewood is no longer "
desirable course nor are the surrounding perimeter neighborhoods sought after.
I am a proud member of the RSA and clearly it is in my best interests for it to do well in its investments.
The RSA has done many positive thin gs for this community during its ownership of the Lakewood Golf
Course and Grand Hotel. But no one can convince me that building these IO homes is going to make or
break my retirement fund. There are plenty of other places-Battles Trace for one-where they can
expand. T o my dismay, I now feel that our littl e street of IO small homes was the quiet experiment that
ultimately launched this golf course real estate encroachment. By buying a lot and building our home at
Watershed we unwittingly helped catalyze thi s const ruction overreac h. So we h ave challenged ourselves
to do tlte RIGHT thing NOW by doing all we can to block this proposed subdivision BEFORE IT'S
TOO LATE. I recognize that tltis is a difficult issue am/ appreciate your thoughtful consideration to
use this as an opportunity to take a stand and do the RIGHT thing NOW.
I implore you to block this an nexati on, this development and any future plans for the RSA to come ba ck
with a work-around for this special grove. This property should be preserved as is and protected to be
enj oyed in the present and for countless others in the generati ons to come.
If you wish to discuss this filrther, please do not hesitate to contact me. I stand r eady to hel p.
S incere ly,
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mr. Peterson,
tomgsfm@aol.com
Monday, October 21, 2019 12:53 PM
Richard Peterson
Emily Boyett
Home sites on Azalea Golf Course
Please vote (no) on the site to build homes on Azalea Golf Course in Lakewood Country Club proposed by RSA.
This will change the layout of Lakewood Residential Area and forever change Azalea Golf Course.
I have been a member of Lakewood since 2005.
Regards,
Tom Gortemooler
1
1820 I Woo &u1d Dr. l'oi111 Clear, .'\I au.'i (i J.• 1'111 11 1<·: (2,1 I )20!1-78at'i •
E-tl·lail:l \ill,·Fro st i!/g111ail.rn1n
Dal e: Odo lier 18 , 20 I 11
Pl,umi11 g ;u1d Z o11 i11 g Commissio11
Fairhope Pl.uming Commissi on
l GI North Section Street
Fairhope, Al 36532
Dc;u· Pl ;u t11i11g a 11cl Zoning,
•
I am wri ting you to express m y oppositi o n to the p roposed RSA re -zoning and development on B attles Road desig11a.tccl a.s
"1Na.ters hed \1Ve st". As a resident or Lakcll'ood C lub Es tates, l11is proposed re-zoning ;-u1d d evelopment has rn ;my
d cl.rimcutal impacts to ou r subdivis ion, as well as, the surrouJ1ding commw1iti es.
The original inten tion and d esig11 of Lakewood Club and Estates was n ever in tend ed lo be anyl.l ,i ng ol11er l1 1an an R-1 low
cl cnsily Golfing commw1ily. A ckU1gc u1 use ;me! zoning wi ll have nollung but negaGve results to current properly own e rs,
and the co mmunity as a whole. The proposed zoning ;mcl ckvclopme11 t wi ll sel ,m unacceptable precedent for d evelo pment
wil.lun long establi sh ed gTeen zo11e areas. These d1;mges wi ll acid n othing lo the exisG n g community except increased traJli c,
n oise ,md lig h t po lluGon, safety ;u1 d rnvironmenta.1 issues and destructio n o r green space.
The proposed re-zoning is for a TR zoning classifi cation, whic h circunwents nom1al zoning guidelines . Some hig hligh ts o f
this TR zoning arc a.s fo ll ows:
• TR circumvents se tbacks require d by all ol11er zonu1g
• TR cfrcw11vents C ity/Co unty co11 trol of use
• T R circumvents established communities from ;my input or concern s for adjacent d evelopment
• TR forces bu.i.lding permits lo b e iss ue d wi l.l1 littl e or no r eview or appro,·,tl b y C ity/County
I am frankly shoc ked by l11e fact that, after read ing l.l1 e criteria s p e ll e d out d c li1ru1g a TR district, a gover nm ent entity would
ever grant s u ch a zo ning d csig11atio n.
I in vite you to look at l11 c s igh t o f this proposed developme nt, a nd sec for yourself, how devclopme11L in this location wi ll
affect th e l.rccs, wildlife ,Uld general aesthetics of one o r l11e m ost tn.:asurecl ar e as in l.l1e s t;Lle of Alabama.
Please d e ny any zoning or a pplication r eq u est 0 11 this site as it clearly undcrnru1es all co,·en ants ,Uld restrictions l11 e
s urrow1dmg commw1ily are b ou nd.
Sincerely,
Mike Jeffries
From: Hunter Simmons
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, Octob er 22, 201 9 7:36 AM
Pa tricia Johnson
Cc: Mike Jeffr ie s
Subject: RE : In reg ards to :
We will pass along your comments to the Plannihg Commission and the City Council.
Thank you,
Hunter
-----Origina I Message-----
From: Patricia Johnson <t imbu ktu5555@icloud .com>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 10:41 PM
To: Hunter Simmons <hunter.sim mons@fairhopeal.gov>
Subject: In regards to:
* The request to have land/ development rezoned and annexed into Fairhope as a Tourism-Resort (TR) District.
Currently the property is designated county and un-zoned . The TR district designation is a disaster for existing
homeowne r s as it gives enormous fle x ib i lity to the de ve loper with li tt le recourse. Setbacks are only 10 feet in this
proposal. Such small setbacks are only allowed with TR zoning .
* Anne xation into the city will forever change the La kewood Golf Course and our commun ity .
* None of the lo ts meet Lakewood Club Estates criteria and covenants .
* The propo sed development will dictate losing a substantial portion of the beautiful trees in the wooded area and the
wildlife that resides in the tree grove . The engineers stated 12 trees would be removed for the road, but that will push
the responsibility of removing other trees to landowners as they build! Also, foundations of homes atop extensive root
systems of oak trees can cause their death after construction.
* There is currently no area on the 36 holes of Lakewood golf courses where homes are inside the course. Hom es are
on the perimeter, but not the interior, It is a bad precedent and could be a precursor to other interior development.
* No golfer group was consulted when developing thi s project inside the golf course and there is a risk of injury to
home s and individuals. Most golfers apprecia te the natural beauty that has been retained throughout much of the
Lakewood courses and this particular spot is one of the most beaut ifu l and is admired and appreciated by all who see it.
* The road to the homes would go directly across the cart path at an awkward and dangerous spot, putting golfers at
risk of service veh icles and autos turning on and off of Battles Road .
* No env i ronmental study has been done to investigate how the proposed development affects the wetland s, Point
Clear Creek and Mobile Bay.
I have lived on the bay for 67 years and hate to see it taken over by developers with tacky and poorly planned schemes.
Please reconsider.
Si ncerely,
Patty Johnson
Sent from my iPad
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
513 Owls Nest Place
Fairhope, AL 36532
October 14, 2019
Carol Sullivan <csu11ivan3814@gmail.com>
Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10 :56 AM
Emily Boyett
opposition letter to RSA development on Battles Road
To: Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission
Lee Turner, Chairman
Rebecca Bryant, Vice Chairman
Henry Koehler
Richard Peterson
Hollie MacKeller
Art Dyas
Clarice Hall -Black
Robert Brown
Dear Commissioners :
I am writing to oppose the proposed RSA subdivision on Battles Road which would enter the Azalea Golf Course at
Lakewood between golf holes two and three. The subdivision would be unlike any other on the golf course as it enters
from a busy Highway 44. The houses would be interior to the course itself. All other subdivisions are either on the
periphery or enter from the small winding roads in Lakewood.
A dangerous environment will be created for golfers and for any residences built between two fairways like this. It will
also intrude on the golf experience during construction as well as after construction. The Lakewood golf course will
never be the same if this kind of subdivision is granted.
I implore you to vote "NO'' on the subdivision .
Thank you,
Mrs . Carol Heacock Sullivan
1
From: Todd Landau <toddmlandau@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 1:14 PM
To: Richard Peterson <richard.peterson@fairhopeal.gov>
Cc: csullivan3814@gmail.com; Louis Mapp <lmapp@bellsouth .net>
Subject: Opposition to RSA Development at Lakewood Golf Club
Dea r Mr. Peterson,
Please share my opposition to the proposed RSA development impinging on Country Road 44 (Battles
Road) and Lakewood Golf Course (Azalea Fairways #2&3) with your P&Z members in advance of the
meeting on November 5 (as I may be out of t own and unable t o attend).
I am a resident of Point Clear Court and a member of Lakewood Golf Club . I wish to make plain my
opposition to the RSA project.
First, beyond the noise, the disruption and the inconvenience of the construction itself, which will
certainly continue for more than a year, the RSA development threatens a permanent additional traffic
burden on the safety of our part of Battles Road to pedestrians, dog walkers, bicyclists and other
drivers. It is already, at times, even now, an uncontrolled high speed thoroughfare, with vehicles that
lose control and come off the roadway (leaving tire marks in the grass or skid marks on the
roadway). Adding another forty or more vehicles to the existing level of daily congestion is a
dangerously bad idea .
Second, no matter how "beautiful" the RSA development might be on paper, and notwithstanding the
moneys to be generated by the construction and sale of more homes, and by property taxes and
services to those new homeowners, there ar e multiple community detriments that outweigh the
financial considerations, includ ing the destruction of pristine habitat for bi r ds and other wildlife, the loss
of irreplaceable trees , and the partial sacrifice of a valued part of one of the most beautiful golf courses
in Alabama .
There are plenty of attractive potential building sites for RSA to develop successfully further to the East
of Section Street (County Road No. 3). However, in the relatively narrow space between Scenic Highway
98 and County Road No. 3, developers have already built more than 500 new homes in the span of just a
couple of years, and hundreds more are already approved or under construction . It is already too much .
Accordingly, I hope that you and your colleagues will weigh the detriments carefully and that you will
conclude, along with me and so many others, that it is simply unreasonable to force the RSA project into
this relatively small geographical area that is already so overburdened.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further reasons in support of my opposition to the
RSA project.
Sincerely yours,
Todd M. Landau
Email : toddmlandau@gmail.com
Cell: (908) 451-6381
Home : (251) 517-7726
18423 Point Clear Ct .
Fairhope, AL 36532 -6847
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc :
Subject:
Adam Milam <am ilam@milam-l aw.com>
Monday, October 28, 2019 11 :38 AM
mikeJeffries@fairhopeal.com; Emily Boyett; Lisa A. Hanks , MMC ;
burford .king@fairhopeal.gov; karen.wilson@fairhopeal.gov; info@watershed .pro;
hollie@localpropertyinc.com; holliemackellar@gmail.com ; jnr@frazergreene.com;
jimmy.conyers@mandmbank.com
Tracy Frost ; Effie Thompson; Carroll Sullivan ; Pam Milstead; Shelley Milam; Elizabeth
Phyfer; matt mcdonald ; Marcus McDowell
ZC 19.16 -Conditional Anne xation to TR -Zoning Criteria Violations, Illegality and
U nco nstitutio na I
Attachments: Ex . A -1959 Lakewood Club Estates Cov. Restrictions .pdf; Ex . B -Map Plat Lakewood Club
Estates Unit 1.pdf; Ex . C -1966 Warranty Deed Grand Hotel Co .. pdf; Ex . D -Lakewood
Club Estates & Golf Course Maps Plats 2 -.pdf; Ex. E -Lakewood Club Estates & Golf
Course Maps Plat.pdf; Ex . F -Marriott & Lakewood Golf Club 1981 Agreement.pdf; Ex. G
-1999 Deed to Po int Clear Holdings.pdf
Importance: High
Fairhope Planning Department and Planning Commission:
I am a Fairhope resident , and have the pleasure of representing residents of Lakewood Club Estates, Owl's Nest,
Poviner's Place and the Battles Road Protecti on Group.
Because the RSA's Application for Annexing 7 .2 acres of the Lakewood Azalea Golf Course, between holes 2 and 3, to TR
District to allow for the construction of a road and .3 to .4 acre home-sites violates multiple Zoning Criteria under Art. 11,
Sec. C, Sub-Sec. (e), and violates controlling Alabama Law, as outlined below, the Application must be Recommended for
Denial in accordance with the Planning Commission 's power and discretion.
First, the application is illegal, unconstitutional and violates applicable law .
History:
After WWII, the Waterman Steamship Company, built inter alia, an 18-hole golf course (would become known
as Azalea), and a swimming pool.
In 1959, Lakewood Club Estates, Unit 1, was established and the Grand Hotel Development Corp ., recorded
Covenants and Restrictions that would run and govern the land. Ex. A . A map was also recorded in Baldwin
County Probate showing the homes and the golf course . Ex. B.
In 1966, The Grand Hotel Development Corporation deeded, via Warranty Deed, the subject Golf Course
property, and other property, to Grand Hotel Company. Ex. C. In that Warranty Deed, the Golf Course was
specifically made subject to the Restrictions and Covenants of Lakewood Club Estates. Ex. C, Exhibit 1, Paras. 10
& 11. In addition, the future maps and plats of Lakewood Club Estates all depicted the homes, commons areas
and golf course as part of Lakewood Club Estates and subject to the restrictions therein. Ex. D.
In 1967, Lakewood Golf Club, Inc., was formed and it entered into an Agreement with Grand Hotel Company
conferring rights to the residents of Lakewood Club Estates and members of Lakewood Golf Club to the golf
course.
1
At this time, it was expressly agreed and required under law, the Restrictions & Covenants, Maps/Plats, and
Agreements, that the subject property would remain a golf course, that all Lakewood lots would be at least an
acre in size, and any proposed changes to the property would have to be submitted to an architectural review
committee.
In 1981, Marriott Corporation purchased the property, and its deed is also made subject to governing
Restrictions and agreements. Ex. F.
Fast Forwa r d to 1999, when owner Host La Jolla, LLC (a division of Marriott) sold via Statutory Warranty Deed to
Point Clear Holdings, Inc. ("PCH"), predecessor to RSA. Ex. G. Which again subjects PCH's interest to all
Restrictions and other matters on Exhibit B, which shall be binding on "said GRANTEE, its successors and assigns
forever." Exhibit B specifically subjects the owner's interests to the Lakewood Clubs Estates Restrictions &
Covenants, Maps, Slides, and to the 1981 Lakewood Golf Club Agreement. Ex. G, ex. B, Paras. 30 & 42. The
governing Restrictions, Maps, Slides, and Agreement subject the Golf Course property, including this subject
property, to be operated as a golf course, and definitely not as .3 to .4 acre homesites in the middle of the golf
course and Lakewood Club Estates .
.Alabama law:
Alabama law is clear, municipalities cannot enact zoning ordinances that violate restrictive covenants or other
agreements that govern the land.
"It is our conclusion as shown above, that the contract between the parties created a covenant running with the
land. The obligation of this contract cannot be impaired by a law enacted by the state. Article 1, Sec. 10,
Constitution of the United States; Article 1, Sec. 21, Constitution of Alabama 1901 .... A municipality being a
creature of the state cannot be deemed to have and exercise more power in the legislative field than does its
creator. Town of Boaz v. Jenkins et al., 32 Ala.App . 299, 25 So.2d 394." Alabama Supreme Court in Allen v.
Axford, 285 Ala. 251 (Ala. 1969). Because Zoning to TR as proposed violates governing covenants, restrictions
and agreements, the ZC application must recommended for Denial.
Second, Alabama law of equitable and implied easements, makes the ZC application in violation of Alabama
law.
"The Supreme Court of Alabama recently outlined the development of the law in Alabama regarding implied
restrictive covenants in the case of Collins v. Rodgers, 938 So.2d 379 (Ala.2006).40 In Scheuer v. * 524 Britt, the
Court quoted with approval the following language from 4 Thompson on Real Pro p.,§ 3398:
"" 'Where the owner of a tract of land adopts a general scheme for its improvement, dividing it into lots, and
conveying these with uniform restrictions as to the purposes for which the lands may be used, such restrictions
create equitable easements in favor of the owners of the several lots, which may be enforced in equity by any
one of such owners. Such restrictions are not for the benefit of the granter only, but for the benefit of all
purchasers. The owner of each lot has as appurtenant to his lot a right in the nature of an easement upon the
other lots, which he may enforce• in equity.
11 'Whether such restriction creates a right which inures to the benefit of purchasers is a
question of intention, and to create such right it must appear from the terms of the grant, or
from the surrounding circumstances, that the grantor intended to create an easement in favor
of the purchaser.' "
Collins, 938 So.2d at 389 (quoti ng Scheuer, 218 Ala . 270, 118 So. at 660 (emphasis added) (quoting 4 Thompson
on Real Prop .,§ 3398)). The Scheuer Court then proceeded to note "[i]n such cases the equitable right to
2
enforce such mutual covenants Is rested on the fact that the building scheme forms an inducement to buy, and
becomes a part of the consideration. The buyer submits to a burden upon his lot because of the fact that a like
burden is imposed on his neighbor's lot, operating to the benefit of both, and carries a mutual burden resting on
the seller and the purchasers."
In Alabama this general rule has been applied to implied restrictive easements that the golf course property will
only be used as a golf course . "The record in this case reflects that USX, prior to the sale of the first residential
lot in the Heatherwood subdivision, recorded numerous plat maps, one of which was recorded prior to the sale
of the first residential lot in the Heatherwood subdivision, which identify the property at issue in this case as a
golf course and list the names of the roads in the sectors outlined in these maps, all of which are derived from
the names of golf courses and golf tournaments. The record also reflects that the deed to each residential lot in
the Heatherwood subdivision is subject to the covenants and easements recorded by USX which contain various
references to the property at issue as a golf course as outlined above. In particular, these deeds, through
reference to these various covenants and easements, note that Heatherwood is a "planned residential and golf
community," require owners of residential lots to construct a golf cart storage area, and prohibit the
construction of a fence on those lots which are adjacent to a fairway, tee, or green on the golf course property.
In addition to these documents, the record reflects that USX distributed the "Heatherwood Documents," which
refer to the Heatherwood development as a "golf course community" and require every homeowner in the
subdivision to be a member of the "Heatherwood Golf Club," to many, if not all, prospective lot purchasers. The
record further reflects that USX created various marketing materials which highlight the benefits of living in a
"golf course community" in an attempt to attract prospective purchasers. USX also erected a sign at the
entrance of the development which noted that Heatherwood is a "golf course community." Furthermore, the
property at issue has been used exclusively as a golf course since it began operating in 1986." In re
Heatherwood Holdings, LLC, 454 N.D. Ala . B.R. 495 (2011).
Therefore, even if one were to disregard the express covenants that run with the land, the ZC application is still
illegal because it violates the implied restrictive covenants and easements guaranteed to Lakewood Club Estates
owners and members of Lakewood Golf Club. The application is in clear violation of Zoning Criteria Art. II. C. e,
(3), (6), and (7).
Second, as these proposed residential homes, yards and street will obviously house men, women and children who play
in their yards, ride bikes on the street, the laws governing negligent golf course design and approval, nuisance, trespass
and other laws concerning errant golf ball injuries must be considered. The case law is too extensive and this email is
already too long. But liability can be had on the City, RSA, groundskeepers, and other entities when homes and people
are place in harm's way on a golf course and become injured as a result.
Third, based on the history and importance of the Lakewood Golf Course, Lakewood Estates, as outlined above, the ZC
application violates the zoning criteria in that 1) violates the Comprehensive Plan, 2) violates the standards, goals, and
intents of the Ordinance, 3) the character of the surrounding property, 4) impacts on adjacent property, and 5) impacts
on the surrounding neighborhood.
Fourth, it is undisputed that the drainage system will shoot the run-off into Point Clear creek. It is no secret that Battles
Road and Point Clear Creek cannot handle the current run-off. The application admits the co -efficient will be increased
from .30 to .43 with this development. Therefore, the application violates ZC Criteria (5) impact on natural
resources. The project will only increase the amount of floodin g on scenic 98 near the Grand Hotel entrance as the
increased water flow, flows down Point Clear Creek to the Bay.
Fifth, as this development impacts and violates all owner's rights of Lakewood Club Estates and members of Lakewood
Golf Club there is serious legal issue with adequacy of Notice under Art. II, Sec. C, Sub-Sec. C. All such membe rs and
owners have ownership and legal interest in the Golf Course surrounding the proposed development, which is directly
adjacent and well within 300 feet. However, the applicant only noticed 20 other owners, other than itself, which own
3
property in fee simple, such a home witn the application. That violates the Notice Rule. All persons with membership
and ownership interest on the golf course adjacent to the proposed application must be given notice.
And finally, even if you are not absolutely convinced as to the correctness of the issues above, this application was just
filed on September 23, 2019. The 20 owners that did get notice only got it on October 23, 2019. These are serious,
constitutional and complicated issues that will require time and potentially Court involvement. For those reasons, and
because we are dealing with such a historical and crucial aspect of Fairhope, Alabama, this must be Denied at this time.
Regards,
Adam M. Milam, Esq.
Milam & Milam, L.L .C.
20252 State Highway 181, Suite C
Fa irhope, Alabam a 36532
Direct Dial (251) 928-0191 ext. 301
Fax (844) 273 -4029
Mobile (251) 680-0108
Please note our address ha s recently changed.
PLEA SE NOTE:
Th is email is confidential. and may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is i ntended for the sole use
of the recipient(s) na med above . If yo u have received thi s e mail in error. please notify us imm edia tely b y reply
email, and then delet e the m essage fron_1 your system. Please do not copy it or use it for a □y other purpose. or
disclose its contents t o any o ther person. To do so co uld v io late state a nd federal privacy laws. T hank yo u for
your cooperatio n.
4
EXHIBIT A
-2-\'6)411~-11 111Nn$)CI0.02
rns:.-u:-mt 512159 I-age 3of 19
PARCEL l:
From the Soatbeut corner of Lot 21 of the North PoiDl Clar SabdMdon, according to ·:he plat thereof
recorded in the Offlce cl the Probale J-of Baldwbl Coamy, Alabama in Map B4X lit l, Pap 149,
which point is on the WfSlerD bowldary of the righl of way of the paved hipway know !, as the Mobile
Road, run South 20 dep-eea 30 IDimllll W• ·a1ooa said right of way line 115.50 feet ti, a point for the
POINT OF BEGINNING; theuce conwwe South 20 dean-30 mlmda W• along the t iid West line of
said right of way 632. 70 INt to the point of curvature of an imgu1ar curve to the left; thet ,::e along the arc
of said curve and alooa said right of way line, panllel to and 35 feet from the centerlim of said Mobile
Road 311,00 feet, more or less, -to an iron marker set at a point on said right of way linl which is at the
Northwest comer of property now or formerly of Mn. J..te E. Cole; (said point bean S :,uth 03 degrees
07 miDutts 15 NCOadl Eat 302.24 feet from the point of curvann-e of said curve); thenci, run Sousb 36
American Land Title Association Commitment
Schedule A
(Ccmtlaued)
Valid Oaf1tH4ddti!H~ (Sdvet arc Attached
CommitmaJt No: 98 t 63
File No: 98863
de,rees 01 miDuta 45 secoodll West and along the Westeni boundary of said propcny of ( :3le 368.48 feet 10
an iron mvm in a fence tine of the East bowidary of the propeny herein described ; th1 ,u:c run South 22
deip-ees 50 ~1 West along the Western boundal'y of said property of Cole and along I aid fence line and
the continuation thereof 361.34 feet, more or less, 10 the margin of Mobile Bay; thence n111 Sorthwettwardly
along !he marain of the said Bay 108,00 feet, more or less, 10 the Southeast comer of proper ::1 now or fonnerly
of Vlralnim L Arnold, which point is oo the Southward projection of the boundary line fence between the
propeny herein described and the said property of An1old; thence run along said projection a :d along said fence
line North 22 depees 36 DWIUhll East 363.30 rea, more or less, to an iron ma.rm in saii , fence line; th~e
run North 36 dep-ees 01 mbwt.es 12 seconds Eut and alons the said boundary line fence 24 l.94 reet 10 an iron
ma.ricer at the Northea1t corner of said propeny of Amo.Id; lhalce run North 69 dep'ees 07 a 1Jnutes I! secoodt
West along a wire fence on the boundary line between the propeny herein dcscrioed and t :e said property of
Arnold 133,20 feet, more or Jess, to lhe Northwen comer of said property of Arnold (wll 1,:h. point ls located
accordilli to a deed from Mu Mahomer 10 Vkpllua L. Arnold dated July 6, 1'46 and rec ~-rde1fin tbe Office
ot the Probate Judp of BaldwiD County, Alabama in Deed Book 109, Papa 145 tlu,~J&h 149, as being
Soutb 1023,8 feet and Wmt 534.!0 feet from the Solltheut comer of Lot 28 of the said !•forth Pomt Clear
SubdlTisfon); thence run Saudi 22 depeea 37 minutia Sci lecoadl Wat alons a fence 01 1 the bolllldary line
between !he property herein described a.od the said property of Arnold and the contiDuatic l of said fence line
610,13 feet, more or less, to the margin of Molllle Bay; thence run Westwudly alo!J8 ~ margin of the Bay
800,D feet. more or leu, t:o the point; thence coorinue Northwanlly and a1ong the ma.r 1in of Mo.bile Bay
1750.00 feet, more or less, to a point 111 the NortbW'llt comer of propeny conveyed by Ma1 :11ahomer, Trustee
10 Gnmd Hotel Corporatioo by deed dated April .24, ·1940 and recorded in the Office of 1be Problie Judae
of BalchriD CoUDty, Alabama in Deed Book 71, Papa 393 tbroup 394 and comctly de, :ribed In correction
deed from Mal Mabomer to Edward A. Roberta dated JUWUJ 30, 1946 and recorded in ,,a.id Offlce in Deed
Book 103, ~ 245: thence nm Soutb 65 ~ 51 mlDuta Eut ffl.14 feet, more or :.ess. to the POINT
OF BEGINNING. All rneasuremenu being according co a !lllVey by Ruben C. Rester, a ~ Land
Surve,or, dated February 24, 1912.
PARCEL 2:
Begin u !he Half Section cornet on the line between Sedioa 361 Towmblp 6 South. lb t.,e l East and
Section 31, Towmhip 6 Soulb, Raa,I 2 Ealt, BaJdwtn COUDty, Alabama; thence Nortl 1 89 dep-ees 00
minutes Ease 1770,80 fea to the cemer of Poml Clear Creek; thence along said centerlir 1:1 of said Creek
and generally North 17 depeee 12 mlllutel 4' IKaodl W• 534.31 feet to a point: t ·1 ence North 89
dep-ea 52 mfnuta 15 NC:ODdl r...t 334,60 feet to a polm; !hence North 17 deana 01 mb JJtel 4! seconds
West '3.0 feet to an iron pin in a fence cornet at the SoudlW'llt COfflfll' of property fom 1:::ly of Jordan;
theoce North 89 depeel 52 ISlhmta U aecondl r...t 6'6.52 feet to an iron pin in a fell( 11, comer; thence
North 00 dep"eel 15 muaa 55 ~ F.ut 283.81 feet to an iron pin in a fence com , r; thence South
89 dep'Ns 33 mlmlua 09 MICIODdl Eut 59,00 r• to an iron pin: !beoce North 00 dqm P 29 minutes 32
secondl East 424.15 feet to an iron pin ; thence South 89 deaft,es 56 mbmtel 13 secoads East. lW,66 feet
to a concrete molDIIDClll; lheace Soudl 00 dep'Na 19 m1Duta 35 MCDDds West 79.0 fl "!t 10 a concrete
monument: thence Soadl89 dearem 07 DWlura 15 secoadl Eut 411.0 f• to a concrete n ,:1nwnent; thence
South 0G clfpaa ·23 mlmm 35 MCOadl West 477.10 Cell to a concme mooumeor; j lfflCC Soutb 88
dep'et9 53 milnaa 13 NCODdl Eat 297.lO feet 10 a concrete monumcur: wnce Sout h. 89 dqrea 11
minutes 25 secoodl Eut 20!.30 fee to a point; thence South 00 depw 33 minute : ,:J seconds West
69.51 feet 10 a poinli thence South 89 deareea 53 mlmata 13 secondl East 661.00 reet 10 a point on the
East line of Secdoa 31, Towmblp 6 South. Raup l Eat; thence North 00 deirees 20 ml 11,uces 23 secooda
Eaa along said Section line 1306.07 feet to a point; thence Nonh 89 dep'elS 03 mbwtel : 1.5 MCOods West
Ammcao Land Title Associa:ion Commitmen1
Schedule A • Continued
(Coadlwed)
Instr11R11t sms9 l'.aJJt Sof 19
Commitment No: 9 1 U3
File No: 98863
of 399,36 reet 10 an old iron pin In a fenc. corner; !hence South 5! dqp:Ns 22 minutes E Lit along said fence
line 203.31 fed IO an old iron pin in a fence along the Eut line of Lot 10 of sald Troost s1 I-vey; thence North
36 dear-ea 57 mi.mltm East along said fena. line and the Eut line of said Lot 10, a <fut.an : e of !37,39 feet 10
the North boundary lilie of said Troost surve,-; !hence South 48 cl.-, 06 minutes Eut a. 1,i along said North
bounda,y line 601.59 r• 10 an iron pin in a fence comer at the illtersection of said North )OUndary line with
the East line of Lot 7 of said Troost survey: thence South 36 deer-18 minutes West al , 1 na a feru:e line and
1he East line of Lot 7 a distance of 801,60 feet 10 an old iron pin on the Nonh right of wa:' line of the Mobile
Road; thence South 48 deina 11 minute! 03 NCODds East along said Nonh right of wa) line 197,96 feet to
a point which is the intersection of said North righl of way line with the Eutem boundary : i ne of Lot 6 of said
Troost sutvey: thence North 36 dearees 18 minllt&t F.ut alo111 said Eut line of Lot 6 a dis ,ll!U of801.30 feet
10 a poiru on the Nonh boundary line of said Troost survey; thence South 48 dep'ees 06 tdnutes East alo;1g
said North boundary line 395,10 reet IO a point wblch Is lhe immection of said North bo\ 1Kiary line whh the
Eastern boundary line of Lot 4 of aald Troolt sw-vey; thence Soutb 37 deaJ-ee, 04 mlDut, 11 30 seconds West
along the Eastern boundary line of Lot 4 a diswce of 688.90 reec to an iron pin in a fence c : mer; theoce Soutb
48 desm, 04 mlmda 30 secondl Eut 191.33 feet to a polm on lbe Eastern boundary I ine of said Troost
survey; thence South 36 de&J'ee:I 36 mlDnta 30 sccoocb Wesc along the Eastern boWldl .I)' of said Lot 3 a
di.,unce of I 1%,50 Ced to a point on the North riaht of way l!DC of the Mobile Road; Ihm: i South '7 cfean,et
57 minutes F.alt 3.91 felt ro the P .C. of a 4261.33 foot radius curve to the rig) t.; thence continue
Soutbeutwanlly Ilona 1he arc of said curve 533.63 reet to the P. T. or Jaid curve; thence S :1 uth 40 dep-eea 46
milwta 30 secoods £..a alona said North right of way line 476.15 reet to a point; lhenci I Nortll 75 c1ecrea
57 m1auta Eut 229.14 feet co a point on the division line between said Sectlool 31 and 2 6; thence North 00
~ 21 minutes Elllt along said divilion line 1161.00 feet IO Che POINT OF s ntGINNING . All
mwuremems being according to a survey by Bubert C, a.ter, a Rqlstend Lasad Sune, r.,r, dated February
24, 1982.
PARCEL 3:
The East Hair of the Soadlealt Quarter of the Soudamst Quarter of Section 30, Tow :1 1hlp 6 South,
Raap l East, Balclwia COIIIIIY, Alabama
PARCEL 4:
From the Soutbeatt comer of Lot 28 of North Point Clear SubdMsion of a portion o·' the Southeast
Quarter of the Sou&bweet Qlw1er of Sedloll 15, TOWDlbip 6 Souda, Raap l East, 11 ,::ording to plBl
thereof recordm in Map Book 1, Paa-Ht of the records in lhe Office or tbe Judp of tbe l>robale Court
or Baldwin Cowity, Alaheme, nm Soulia 101.3.8 feet to a poim, lbeuce Wm& 534,5 feet 1 :, a point on the
wire fence tha1 awb die l!'.llterD bowldaiy of lhe Grand Hotel Property for ti: 1: POINT or
BEGINNING, lllcnee Soudl 22 dlpees 30 mbwtel Wat Ilona said fence 586.5 feet, mo1 t or less, to the
margin of Mobile ea,, dMml:e r..tnrdly along lbe margin or said Bay 76.! reet to a poir 1, thenc:e Norm
22 deare,es 301llimas Eat parallel to the aforesaid fence 331..5 feet, more or less, to a poit i , thence North
35 dep-eea 45 ...... F.Mt 245.1 reet to a wire fence that divides the said Gnnd Haul Property from
the property bcmll dclaibcd, thence alang said fence North 69 dftnel 20 minutes West I ::13.l feet lO the
POINT OF BEGINNING, all ill fndioml Secdoa 3', Towmblp 6 South, Raap 1 Ea t .
American Land Tide Assocwlon Commitment
Schedule A • Continued
(Continued)
lnstrwient 512159 Pi!)I 7of 19
Commitment No: 9 1863
FDe No: 98863
North 13 dep"ld 39 minutes Wm along a fence 359.60 teet to a fence comer; thence S :1 uth 1, d'IJ'ffl l3
minutes West alOD& a fence W.00 teet to a fence comer ; thence South 73 dejp:ees 22 111 l 11utes F.ast alons a
fence 348.00 t• to a point; thence North 62 degrea 10 minut-.s Ea:¢ a distance of 19.! 1:1 feet 10 a point on
a fence line; thence North 18 dear-!8 mh:wtee Ea1t along said fence 140.18 ffft :o the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
C. All of Lakewood Club Eatata, Unit One, recorded in Map Book 5, Pap 81 of th :, ret0rds ia the
Office or the Judp or Probate, Baldwm County, Alabama, as amended by a plat entitled • ;1 :e.an-aapmem
and Alteration ot Lot 6A, et al, of Laknood Chm F.ata&es, Unit Out" recorded in Misc tUaneous Book
17, Pap 190 of the records in the Offlce of the Judp ol Probale, Ba1dwiD County, Ala lama.
D. All of Lakewood Club Estates, Unit Two, recorded in Map Book 5, Pap 198 of tlJ t records in the
Office or tbe ludp or Probate of Baldwin County, Alabama. with ihe eitccptlon of Lot 1 7, 10, 11, 12,
13 and l4.
E, All of Lakewood Club Estates, Unit 4, n:wrded in Map Book 9, Pap 9 of the recc1 r .s in the Office
of tbe .1udp or Probate, Baldwln County, Alabama .
F. All of Grand Manor, a Coadommlum, recorded in Aparimm& Ownersblp Book J ,. Pap 1 or the
records in Ille Office of the ladp of Probate of' BaldwlD Coun&y, AJabama. as amende J. by insuwncnt
dated Jull' 12, urn and recorded in Apartmma Ownenbfp Book 1, Pap 51 and furt' 1.:r amended by
instrument dated June 26, 1913 in Aputmeal OwaenltJp Book 1, Pate 129, more panic darly described
a.s follows: commencing a.I a point where the Soutbwestert:, line or Oak Avmue intmccts th I Nortlnnsteriy
line of Lot 27, "Rearranaemmt and Alteradon ofl.oq 6A, 7, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29, :.akewood Club
E.mt,s, Unit Ode", as per plal recorded in l't4Jscdhmeoua Book 17, Pqe 179, Pnlba&e Coun Reamla,
Baldwin CoUDt:,, Alabama ; thence Norlh 43 dep-as !l mknms West 196.69 feet to 11e POINT OF
BEGINNING of the property herein dcscnl>ed; thence continue North 43 ~ 52 mlnul 11 1 West, 162.09
feet to a point at the P.C . of a 981.34 root radius curve to the ld't; thence Northnstwan Jy along the arc
of said curve, 1()6.03 reee to a point; lhence South 45 depwl 41 mfnutel 22 seconds\\ F.st 196.ll feet;
thence South 47 dep-ees 26 mimda 10 aecoadl Wat W.65 feet; thence South 49 dee :·ees .5.5 minutes
40 secoudl Wm 199. 72 f•; thlml:e South 63 dfcrea 28 miDutell 40 NCOlldl West 130.Ci I. feet to a poinr:;
thence South 42 dep'lls 52 mbmtel 20 HCODdl East 133.33 r.t to a point on the arc: of ,, .50 foot radius
curve; !hence Soutbwardly and Soutbeutnrdly alq the ar1: of said curve, 149.13 teat :1 a point: thence
South 33 degrees 52 mimlta 20 HCODdl FMl U9.'79 fed; thence North 61 ~ 43 mh i ltm 40 seconds
East 231.95 fat; d!encc Nort.la 49 desrea 24 miDatN 40 teCODdl Eut 122,04 feet; 1 Lenee North 48
dep'llll'I 19 miDuta 04 secoadl .r...c 197.40 r•: tbcDce North 40 dep'IIIII 11 mlmsua 12 seconds East
111.25 feet; ~ Norda 59 decnes 15 mmuta 41 seconds Eut 90.61 ree1 lo 'he POINT OF
BEGINNING.
G. Also, colillDC:DCina al a poim where lhe Soudl'"9teriJ line of Oak Avmue irufflects tb 1, Nonhwesterly line
of Lot 27, "Rlarnqmiem aad Alttmadoa of Laa 6A, 7, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and ::·P, Lakewood Club
Estates, Ualt oa.• u per plat rca,rded in Mltallmeon, Book 17, ,.. 179, Prob ,1te Court Records,
Baldwin County, Alabama; lbeocc North 41 depeea 52 11WB1Ce1 West, 19'.69 fed; thee 1# Soudl 59 dep-ee,
15 miuules 41 HCODdl Wm 90.67 f•; thence Sooth 40 delnllS 11 mlmal 02 MCODl l!I West 111.15 teet:
thence Soudl 41 ~ 19 mlmdea 04 NIICOllda W• 197.40 flee; thence Soulb 49 de1 :ree1 24 minutes 40
seconds West. 222.04 feet; lhencc Soutb 61 depws 43 miDuaa 40 lllCOlldl WIit 231.!I ! fed to the POINT
OF BEGINNING of the propeny herein described; thence ran Soatb. 33 dep-. 52 mmi lt,.s 20 seconds East
a distance of 50.21 feet; lhenl;e nm Nortb '1 dep-eel 41 mfmsts 40 secoadl Eat a di: 1ancc of 12 feet to a
point; thence run South 15 dep-ees 54 mmuta 50 RCODdl East a di.stance of 211,61 feet ,:, a point; !hence run
Ami:rlcim Land Title Association Commitment
Schedule A • Continued
(Continued)
Il'ISt ruaent 512159 Pa Ill 9of 19
Coaunitmmt No: 98l i t3
FDe No: 98863
run South 34 depeei 27 mlnuta 39 seconds West 104.30 feet 10 a point; !hence tun Sot .lb !2 dear-31
mmutes 06 secoadl East 209.14 feet 10 a point on the West line of Lot 10 of said Troost'• S irvey of the Point
Clear Traci; theoce along said West line of Lot 10, Troost'1 Sune, of the Point Clear T ·m tun South ~Ii
dep-ees 37 m1uutel 40~seconch West 399.36 rtet lo a point; thence run South 5!! cfevl i, 43 minutes 33
seconds East 203.ll leet to a point on the East lioc of said Lot 10, Troolt'1 SUl"fey of the I 0:.tm Clear Tract;
thence along said East line of Lot 10, Troost'• Sune, or the Point Cl* Tract run No11b 36 desrffS 57
mmutes 58 sec:oods Ea.,t 5!11.71 feet 10 a point on the South righi of way line of Pfnqrovt Drtve; said point
also being the P.C. of a curve to the left having a central anslc of 29 dep-ees 19 minutes and li radius of 151,91
reec; thence along said South right of way line of J'lnearo•• DriTe run Northw-estwardly at, ,·,s the arc or said
curve 78.24 feet to the P .T . of said curve; thence cominuing along said South right of way line of Pinegrove
Drive run Nortt. 77 dep-eel 25 minutes 00 secou.ds West 185,60 feet to the P .C. of a curve -:> the right having
a central angle of 57 dearees 01 miDuta 41 HCOacla and a radius of 66.2' fete ; thence cor.linuing alon1 said
South right of way line of PinearoH Drive run Nonh'"5tWardly along the a.re of said curv 1 65,95 leet to the
P.T . of said curve ; thence conti1111ing along said Soudl rigbl of way line of Pinep'ove Di I re run North 20
de,nes 23 mlnut• 19 secondl Wet& 81,03 teer to a point on the South right of way line of Lakewood Drtn;
thence aJong said South right of way line of Lakewood DriTe run North 71 dep'HI 'J7 m :1JUtts 13 seconds
Wat 44,86 feet 10 the POINT OF BEGINNJNG.
o •. Commm:i"i al a poitu on the Wett right of way line of Sa:ticm Sa-, Polat Clear, Al.thama, wb i•rc it ii
lmcrsec:ted by the Sou&h right of way line of 8amr Creek Dme, as $hown on the pill of Labwoc ii Oab
F.lahs, Unit Sh, as recorded on Slfd.e No, 1147-B oftbe Protme Court Recotds, Baldwin CIIUlll l ', Alabama;
~ along said West rigbc of way line of Sec:tioa SU. nm Soath 00 dl!Cfflll 20 mbndes 23 1eo rllds w-,
162.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING or lhe property herein descnl>ed; 1beDce COlllinuing So Jth 00
dear-20 mlnatm 20 tecoDdl W• 70, fed to a aiq, top iron; tbemce nm North 89 df&rea !13 )mmtel 1J
NCCllldl Wtllt; 621.0 feet to a rebar iron; ~ Ml Nordl 00 ~ 33 mbm&a 35 MCOClda Euf , 69,51 feet
to a rcbai' iron; !hence run Noltb 119 depW9 11 millllta 25 teamdl Wes&, 205.30 felt co a CODCRt, i ID0lllllllm;
&hence nm North 88 ~ 53 mbmal 13 lfCOIMII Wat, ffl.20 fed to a concme moawnent: tbt :ice run
Nonh 00 dcpees 23 m1nw135 aecoadll Eat, 60.1 teet to a poinl: thence nm Soudl 89 depas 0 1 ammta 40
IIICODdl £ail. !!20.0 feet to a palm; lhellce run SoatJa 61 dlp'ela 50 mlnutel 18 seconds l.ut, 1'4 95 ,_ to a
poinl; the= run Soudl U dep-eeil 53 DlDita U HCGDdl Fa, 450.0 feet to lhe POJNT OF BE<;:INN'ING.
COHTAlllllfG 1 .8239 &CRBS
American Land Title Association Commim,,-n1
Schedule A • Continlled
Valid Only If Sdledl.llc B and ::over are Anached
lnstMIIElt 512159 Pi! i l2of 19
EXHIBITB
-3-~!~'-I aNW»IO,Ol
Instr~, 512159 P•ge 13of 19
Commitmeot No: 98 !63
File No: 98863
SCHEDULE B • SECTION 2
Schedule B of the policy or ;iolici:s to be issued will contain t!ccptions to the following matte, J; unless the same
are disposed of to the satisfaction of the company :
l. All wcs due in the year 1999, which are a lien but DOt yet dUe and payable .
S. Anythina to I.be comrary notwilh . .cmdq, this policy does not al:1empC to set 0111 the manne r in wbicb all lhc
minerals in. oo or under the property described in Sdlldule "A" are oow ve:necl, and this ·1:ilicy does not
insure any minerau in, on or under the propmy dacribed in Sdaedule "A" nor any ri&hU :>r easements in
connection therewith .
6. Reservation of a non exclusive cuemcm for inpess and Cjl'CU bcnefi&ina the Lot 10 partt I, which ea.semen,
sh.all run over lhe streeu as sec 01J1 in Deed from Poml Clear Bay Hot1II Umlted Parmer ;blp, an Alabama
Limited Parcmnblp to Ha.a La Jolla. Iac., a Ollawan Corpandoa by Deed daled Jul I' 18, 1'95 and
recorded July 11, 1"5 in RIii Propll1J BclOk 631, ,.._ lll! &broup 11125.
8. Reservadon of oil, pa ml otbcr minenls, and all ri&)Us in conmaion lhmwllh. as corw i.ncd in deed from
DelwJ't Iac.. u A.lablma corporadaa 10 PotOIIIIIC Hotel Llmkld Putalnldp, a Del 11.wan limited
par1Dll'Sbip dlted Aapllt 13, l!JIS and reconW Allplt 20, 1915 in Rltl Propere, Boe lit 224, Pace 187
thn>up 18'.
lO. Easemcnl gnated by MarrlOU'I GnDd Hocal to Udlldll loud oldie City ol. Foley da ,,=-1 October a. 1995
and recorded N~ 1, 198' in Rell Proprty BGOII 131, Papi a11 dlroup _820 .
(Coadllued)
lnstl"llEnl 512159 P,IJJ I· 14of 19
American Lw Tide Association Commiunen& Valid Only if Schedule A, Schedule B-2 ar d Cover ari: Attached
Schedule 8 • Section 2
Commitment No: 988 'i3
1-'!le No: 98863
CONTINUATION OF SCHEDULE B • SECTION l
42. Terms and conditions of that c:enain unrecorded agrecmcru entitled Mantoet Corporatfoo -l:..akewood GoU
Club Aareemeat dated October 1, 1911 u amended by aareement between Lakewood Col • Club and Polat
Clear Bay Rota Umited Pu1nershlp dated Mardi 22, 19H a.nd recorded in the Office of the Judae of
Proba&e of Baldwin County, Alabama in Ra.I Property Book 563, Pap 1526.
46 . Easement granted South Central BeU Teleplloae Compuy, R1'1era Utilities and Storer , :able
Commllllkatlom. lac. by Potomac Hotel UmJtad dated NoYember ll, 1984 and rccordc :. Decanber 1.7,
1984 in Real Property Book 200, Papa 7" Cbroqb ffl.
NOTE : The ~rding refemiccs refer to the records ill the Ofllce of tbc Judp of Probate of Baldwm Coumy ,
Alabama, Wilm Otherwise indlcaud.
American Lanu Ti1le AssocWion Comminncnt Valid Only if Schedule As~~~/,~ ~pfoare Attached
Schedule B -S"'1on 2
(f) Encroachment of sanitary sewer pump station along the Northwest side of the
propeny described in Surveyor Parcel 2 as shown on survey by Donald F. Co !mian
dated June 14, 1999.
(g) Encroachment of block he.adwall over the North line of the property described r.s
Surveyor Pared l as shown on sUJVey by Donald F. Coleman dated June 14 , 1999.
(h) Differences between actual and recorded distances and bearings as shown on 51 t'Vey by
Donald F. Coleman dated June 14, 1999.
(i) Ally other matters shown on survey by Donald F, C oleman dated June 14, 15 !19.
RIDERB :
(a) Encroachment of dirt road along the South line of Surveyor Parcel 5 as shown 1.1n
survey by Donald F. Coleman dated lune 14, 1999 .
(b) Encroachment of dirt road over the North line of Surveyor Parcel 3 as shown 11:i
detail C of the survey by Donald F. Coleman dated June 14, 1999 .
( c) Location offences, ditches, brick walls, columns, utility lines and utility facilitiei and
improvements as shown on survey by Donald F. Coleman dated June 14, 199!
(d) Encroachment of cart path over the North line of Surveyor Parcel 3 as shown :n
survey by Donald F. Coleman dated June 14, 1999 .
(e) Unrecorded gas line easement running over and across portions of Surveyor Pi reel 3
and Surveyor Parcel 9 llll shown on survey by Donald F. Coleman dated Jun,, 14,
1999 .
(f) Encroachment of sanitary sewer pump station along the Northwest side of the
property described in Swveyor Parcel 2 as shown on survey by Donald F. Co 1:man
dated June 14, 1999.
(g) Encroachment of block headwall over the North line of the property descnoed i s
Surveyor Parcel 1 as shown on survey by Donald F. ColeDlAJI dated June 14 , 1999.
(h) Differences between actual and recorded distances and bearings as shown on s1 1vey by
Donald F. Coleman dated June 14, 1999.
(i) Any other matters shown on survey by Donald F. Coleman dated June 14, IS 99 .
tfnyOll<ilveh . 254381.l
Jnstr111ent 51215'3 FI ge 19of 19
□NIA I □Accept e d I IZI Revise and Resubmit per comments
Cross Reference : Zoninz Ordinance Artic le IV . S ite D es izn Standards Section A. OJJen Svace
Comments: Actual greenspace required cannot be determined, as the land area of the storm water infrastructure
atld wetlands is not provided. Please provide data as required by the article above to determine greenspace
requirements. The 3. 77 units per acre density listed is based upon the entire 5.31 acre site before removal of the
items listed above. Drawin2 COl has been revised to reflect 1.07 acres of 2reenspace, or 20% of the total site.
Article V, Section C.4. Greenspace Design Require me nts -A ll e li gible g reenspace shall confonn to the following
de s ign requirements:
a. Maximize pub lic expos ur e and p ub lic acce s to gree nspace .
b . Streets shall a li gn ad j ace nt lo gree nspace.
c. Greenspace sha ll not be located adjacent to a co ll ector or arteri a l street.
d. Due regard sha ll be shown for a ll natural fea tures suc h as lakes , ponds , wa ter co urses, hi storic si tes a nd other similar feat w-e s which , if
pre served , wi ll add attractiveness and va lu e to the property .
e. The amount, distiibution, lo cation, and type of greenspace provided s hall be context se ns itive w ith the built envi ron ment around it.
f. Refor to table 4-1 which indi cates th e ca tegories, types, and general sizes of greenspace Urnt are to be used to meet th e City requirements.
For th e purposes of thi s secti on rural character is co ns idered I dwelling unit per acre or less. subu rb an c harac ter is consi de red 2-4 units per
acre and urb an character and vill age cen ter is consid ered more th an 4 uni ts oer acre.
□NIA I □Accepted J IZIRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: See Article V, Section C2for more information. This section cannot be evaluated until the exact
greenspace requirement is k11ow11 because a land area minus the storm water ponds, wetla11rl area, etc. is not yet known .
Assuming 15% green space is correct, 0. 7965 acres, or 34,695.54sf of green space is required. The proposed green space
is approximately 23,000sf, which includes the sand i11filtratio11 area. (This was measurer/ using the measuring tool in
Adobe -measurements from CAD.files will be more accurate). Drawing C0l has been revised to reflect 1.07 acres of
greenspace, or 20% of the total property . The breakdown that arrives at 5.46 units per acre "net,, density from
which the 20% 2reenspace reQuirement is derived is also identified on drawin2 COl.
Article V, Sectio n F.3 .b. Storm Water Standards -Submittal R e guirem ents -Adverse Effects
b. Adverse Effec ts -Where it can be rea sonably anticipated that additional quantity or velocity of runoff from
developm e nt of a subdivision will overload existing down st ream drainage facilities, approval shall be withheld
until there is subm itt ed to the Co mmission a plan to mitigate damage to downstream property which w ould or might
resu lt from the subdiv is ion under consideration . Downstream drainage structures shou ld be considered
when sizing detention outfall structures , with proof of th is s ubmitted to the Commission. The hydraulic elevations
resulting from channel detention shal l not adversely affect adjacent prope1iies.
□NIA I □Accepted I ~Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: The Stornuvater Management Plan did not include any statements addressing adverse ejfectl' -one
pond is discharging to private property and tlte other to the ROW -what is the plan to mitigate downstream adverse
effects? Staff is especially concerned about the drainage to the adjacent private proper(v that does 1101 appear to
contain any type of natural or improved conveyance system, and a drainage ease me flt across the private property is
not mentioned in the various documents. The EOR indicated in follow-up correspondence and in the revised
stormwater management plan that there will be no significant off-site flows affecting the (adjacent private)
property. The EOR indicates that his client has been advised to inquire with the adjoining property owner
(PPIN 24268) about obtaining a drainage easement, but does not believe a drainage easement should be a
requirement for approval of the Multiple Occupancy Project. As a condition of approval, staff wilJ request a
drainage easement across adjacent PPIN 24268. Staff will reiterate that post development flows across PPIN
24268 have been calculated as less than or equal to predevelopment flows, but those flows are across private
property for wh ich there is not a readily apparent drainage way or conveyance system. An existing utility
easement (instrument# 1744994) is in place connecting subject property to Bishop Road that may possibly
used for a stormwater conveyance system.
Article V. Section F.6. Stonn Water Standards -Eros ion Co ntrol
□NIA I □Accepted with comments I IZIRevise and Resubmit per comments
Cross Reference: National Engineering Field Manual for Conse rvation Practices and Alabama Han dbook.for
Erosion Con trol, Sediment Co ntrol and Storm Water Management on Construction Sites
and Urban Areas
3 SD 19.40 Tin Tops at Gayfer November 4, 2019
amend the document to re:.fleci the TSS removal of each teclmique so tht1t tlli,., as-designe,I informatio11 is
memorialized i11 tl,e doc11me11I. The combined TSS removal of all four techniques combined is 82.5%, and is
reflected in an amended stormwater management plan. The TSS removal of each techniques in is included in
the amendment.
Article V, Section F.J l.j (l )-(5) Required Use of Low Impact Development (LID) Tec hniques (Continued)
f. The following LID techniques are available for use by applicants given the particular circumstances and
characteristics of the proposed subdivis ion:
(1.) Wet Basins: The City finds the potential benefits of wet basins are , among other items , a llo w in g sed im entation to
fa ll out of storm water attenuating flows , assistin g in evapotrnns piration , and impro ving the stormwater quality. Special
design considerations are : groundwater elevations , large surface areas are encouraged , special attention s ho uld be given
in pervious soi l, surface area of the basin should take into acco unt nutrient loading from lawns for example in order to
treat and improve storrnwater quality to the maximum extent possible, ens urin g that an adequate base flow is provided to
maintain water level s, t hey are not recommended to be constructed in an in line fac ili ty , utilize low s lop es, the use of
forbays are recommended, upstream and downstream areas shal l be cons id ered in the design in accordan ce w ith
Fairhope standards. Recommended characteristics are: The approach slop es shou ld be 4: 1 or less around the perimeter,
s id e s lop es 3 : l or le ss (below the water level , beyond th e safety bench), safety bench j ust below water elevat ion (4 '
wide, 6"-12 " deep), energy is dissipated prior to entering the basin, can be excavated below the ground surface.
(2 .) Rain Gardens: T he City fmds the potential benefits ofrain gardens are , among other items , small scale flow
attenuation , in filtration , limited evapotranspiration , allowing sed im ents to be h·apped , and water quality treatment.
Special design considerations are: Typicall y, sma ll er areas and drainage areas are used for rain garden design , specia l
attention shou ld be given in pervious soils, recommended for use in hydrologic soil groups A and B, not recommended
in high swe ll soils. Recommended characteristics are: Small scale and frequent use in drainage areas, the choice of
landscaping materials, soi l mix , and other c haracte ri stics are crucial to the success of a rain garden. Rain gardens can be
highly visible and utilized as a visual amenity in a proposed development.
(3 .) Permeable Pavement System s : The City finds the potential benefits of permeable pavement systems are among
other items , flow attenuation , infiltration , and filtration of storrnwater. There are many products and strategies that can
be utilized , and the City is open to the use of varied products in accordance with manufacture recommendations .
Consu ltati on with the city prior to design of the product to be utilized is suggested. Special design consideration are: Use
in areas with hydro lo gic soil groups A and B , specia l attention shou ld be given in pervious conditions, not recommended
in areas with high swell soi ls, ground water tables should not in1pact the ability of water to infilh·ate, the technique
works best in low slopes .
(4.) Sand Filter: The City finds that the potential benefits of sand filters are, among other items , flow attenuation,
infilh·ation reducing sedimentation, and providing filtration of stmm water. Special design considerations are: Best used
in small drainage areas , special attention should be given in pervious soi ls , recommended use in areas with soi ls with
good permeability in hydrological soi l group s A and B, not reconunended in high swell soils.
(5 .) Grass Swales: The City finds that the potential benefits of grass swales are, among other items , in straining
stormwater, providing limited quality treatments, while providing some moderate flow attenuation. Special design
considerations are: Typically work best in smaller drainage areas where volumes are reduced , special consideration
should be given in pervious soi ls, not recommended with high swell soils , should have low slopes, adjacent areas and
layout shou ld be considered in the design . Suggested characteristics where topography , soi ls , and slope pennit vegetated
open charmels and spaces should be considered as a significant or a primary means of stormwater conveyance .
□NIA I □Accepted I ~Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: As stated previously, please amend the Storm Water Ma11ageme11t Plan to include the TSS removal of
the Sand Filler, Grass Swale, and Pervious Pavement so that their "as -designed" TSS removal is illcluded in the
Storm Water Ma11ageme111 Plan document. The amended stormwater management plan indicates an 80% TSS
removal for the sand filter, 60% TSS removal for the dry detention basin, for a combined TSS removal of92%
covering 1.82 acres. The second drainage basin covers l.75 acres and the grass lined swale (50% TSS removal)
and dry detention pond (60% TSS removal) combined have a net 80% TSS removaJ. The third drainage basin
of 1.75 acres flows into a dry detention pond with 60% TSS removal. The aggregate of the three drainage
basins yields 82 .5% TSS removal for the site.
Article VI, Section F. Constructio n Standards-Water System
5
a. All subdivisions shall ha ve water service. The water service sha ll be provided by either Fairhope Publi c
Utilities or an a roved water service.
SD 19.40 Tin Tops at Gayfer November 4, 2019
b . Prim ary wate r se rv ice m ay be indi v idu al we l I ty pe syst em s th at have been a pp roved by t he Bald w in Coun ty
Hea lth De pa rtm e nt and th e Fa irh o pe Publi c Utili t ies Water De pa rtm ent.
c. All wate r syst e m s co nstru ct ed w ithin a subdi v isio n and a ll water syste m s co nstru ct e d out s id e o f a subdi v is ion
but se r vic in g a s ubdi v is io n s hall be co nstru ct e d in accord a nce w ith t hose ce1iain "S t and ard S pe cifi cati o n s fo r
Con struct in g Sani taiy Sewer Fac ili ties a nd Wate r Fac ili t ies "
d. Wate r mete rs s ha ll be placed in s id e th e prope 1iy lin e at th e sta1i of t he ut ili ty eas em e nt.
□NIA I □A cc e pte d I IXIRevise and Resubmit per comments
Cro ss R efe re nce: Standard SJJ ec ificat ions for Cons truct in £ Sa nit ar y Sewer Fac il ities an d Water Fac ilities
Comments: The application within Stalldard S11.eci{lcations {pr Constructing Sa11itarr. Sewer Facilities and Water
Facilities was 1101 i11c/uded with subject application -please provide with follow-up corresponde11ce. The
application was submitted as requested along with the EOR's follow-up correspondence. As a condition of
apprnval, the Utilities Director of Operations requests that the water meters serving each unit be placed on the
side of tbe driveway respective to the unit, in lieu of both meters located to one side of each driveway as shown
on drawin2 C04.
A rticle VI, Secti on H. C on struction Sta nd a rd s-Sanita ry Sewerage
1. AU s ubdivi s ions s ha ll have sanitar y sewer se rvi ce . Th e sewer servi ce shall be prov id e d b y e ither the Fairhope
Publi c Utiliti es or an a pproved sewer se rv ic e .
2 . All sanitary se w e r syste ms con st ruc te d w ithin a s ubdivi s ion and all sanitary sewer syste m s con st ructed outs ide of a
subdi v is ion but se rvicin g a subdi v ision sha ll be co nstructe d in accordance w ith those ce1iain "Sta ndard Specifi catio ns
for Con structing Sanitar y Se wer Fac iliti es and Wat e r F aciliti es" w hich is o n fil e a t the
City of Fairhop e Water & Se we r Depa1im e nt.
3. Indi v idual se pt ic t a nk type system s th at have been a ppro ve d by t he B a ld w in Co un ty H ealth Depa rtm ent a nd t he
Fairh o pe Publi c Utiliti es Sewer D e pa rtm ent m ay be utili ze d.
□N IA I □A c c ept ed J IX!Revise and Resubmit per comments
Cro ss R efe re nce : S tanda rd Specificat ions fo r Cons tructin~ San it ary Sewe r Fa c ilit ies an d Wa ter Fac ilities
Comments: The application within Standard S11.eci{lcations {pr Constructing_ SanitarJ!. Sewer Facilities and Water
Facilities was not i11cluded with subject application -please provide with follow-up correlJJonde11ce. The
application was submitted as requested along with the EOR's follow-up correspondence. A copy of the
application was furnished to Mr. Richard Peterson, Fairhope Public Utilities Director or Operations .
The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV.8.2 . "Approval Standards ". Each of these
criteria is addressed below with either a "meets" or ''does not meet" comment. If any of the criteria is not met,
a denial will be recommended.
Consistency with Plans, Regulations and Laws -The Planning Commission shall not approve the subdivision
of land if the Commission makes a finding that such land is not suitable for platting and development as
proposed, due to any of the following:
a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City's Zoning
ordinance, where applicable;
meets
b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan or any other plan or
program for the physical development of the City including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a
Parks Plan, a Bicycle Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program;
meets
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
see conditions of approval
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and regulations;
meets
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property wit hin the
planning jurisdic t ion of the City."
See conditions of approval
6 SD 19 .40 Tin Top s at Gay f er Nove mb er 4, 2019
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) r emoval has been designed to remove 82.5 % of TSS (80% r equired). If it is the
pleas ure of the Ci t y of Fairhope Planning Commission t o approve Case # SD 19.40, staff recommends the
approval contain the following conditions of approval :
8
1. A drainage easement, to be reviewed and approved by the City of Fairhope Planning Commission's legal
counsel, shall be prepared and r ecorded for the conveyance of stormwater outfall from Outlet Control
Structure #1 across PPIN 24268.
2. A landscape plan in compliance with ordinance# 1444 (including tree protection details) shall be
submitted as a component of the "for construction" drawings prior to issuance of a land disturbance
permit.
a. The 20' front landscape buffer contemplated by section 20.5-4_14 is not applicable because
subject property is not located within the City of Fairhope. The Planning Commission may wish to
require this buffer via condition of approval.
b . The Planning Commission may wish to require via condition of approval that section 20 .5-4_11
"Buffer Zone Landscaping " shall apply to all lot lines adjoining subject prope r ty. Currently, Buffe r
Zone Landscaping is only required along the lot line bordering PPIN 109947 due to its R-4 Low
Density Multi-Family residential zoning . Adjoining properties affected by this condition of
approval include:
i. PPIN 13818 (west)
ii. PPIN 24268 (north)
iii. PPIN 27184 (northeast)
iv . PPIN 24269 (northeast)
v. PPIN 2500 (east)
3. The Utilities Director of Operations r equests the water meters serving each unit be placed on each side
of the driveway respective to the unit, in lieu of both meters located to one side of the driveway as
shown on drawing C04.
4. Subject development is an MOP and not a typical subd ivision . In lieu of the final plat approval procedure
required for a typ ical subdivision , the closeout procedure for subject developmen t includes the follow
procedures and/or documents :
a. One copy of the landscape as -built drawings with a statement from the landscape architect of record
indicating the various landscape features have been completed as -designed . The landscape as-built
drawings shall be submitted at a time to be determined by the Building Official and Development Services
Manager when the initial Certificate of Occupancy (CO) request appears to be imminent.
b. One copy of the as -built site/civil construction drawings as required by Article IV, Section.D .1 .b.{18) at a
time to be determined by Building Official and Development Services Manager when the initial Certificate
of Occupancy (CO) request appe ars to be imminen t. Include the engineer's certificate in a similar fashion
to that of typical subdivision closeout submittal.
c. One copy of the recorded stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan and Agreement in a similar
fashion to that of a typical subdivision closeout submittal.
SD 19.4 0 Tin Top s at Gay fer Novemb er 4, 2019
Article II Section A
Procedures Review Bodies
(2) The mayor, the city councilperson, and the city administrative official shall be ex -officio members of
the commission having full privilege of participation in the business of the commission, including
voting privileges. Their terms shall correspond to their respective official tenures except that the terms
of the administrative official se lected by mayor shall terminate with the term oftbe selecting mayor.
(3) All members shall serve without compensation but may be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in
connection with their official dut ies. All members shall be provided with relevant information
outlining conflict of interest laws.
( 4) The City Director of Planning and Bui lding shall serve in an advisory capacity to the commission and
shall attend a ll meetings, unless excused by the commission, but shall not vote.
(5) The terms of the six members citizen employees shall be on accordance with the applicable law;
provided; however, that nothing in this zoning ordinance shall be construed so as to shorten the term of
any current cit izen appointee.
(6) The vacancy on the commission shall be filled for the un-expired tenn by the mayor in the case of
members appointed by the mayor or by the council in the case of a member selected by the counci].
Members appointed by the mayor may be removed by the mayor and the member appointed by the
council may be removed by the council for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office after a
pub lic hearing held pursuant to written charges .
c. Rules of Procedure : The Planning Commission shall establish bylaws under which to operate as provided
by law .
d . Duties and Powers Under Zoning Ordinance: The Planning Commission shall have the foll.owing powers
and duties under the Zoning Ordinance:
(1) To review and make recommendations on zoning amendments for compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan .
(2) To review and approve site plans consistent with the standards in thjs ordinance and the existing
zoning for the property.
(3) To propose zoning amendments to the City Council;
(4) To advise the City Council on implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, and;
(5) Other duties as authorized by the Code of Alabama (1975), as amended, and the City Code.
3. Director of P I a n n in g-anc-1-Rtt-i-la-i-n-g
The Director of Plannmg afla-Bu-iM-iH-gc-sha ll be the municipal etri-le+»g-tJtS.f ~l'e-rz.oning fti r. ur the ronini!
olliCt!r· repr s~rtuui e whose duties shall be as follows :
a . The Director of Planning-aH-El-8-1:f-i.14-Hg-is authorized and empowered on beha lf and in the name of the
council to administer and enforce the provisions of this ordinance including:
( 1) Receive applications;
(2) Inspect premises, and issue certificates of zoning compliance, etttl-El-iHg-f)em+i-l's-and certificates of
occupancy for uses and structures which are in conformance with the provisions oftbis ordinance;
(3) Interpret the meaning of the ordinance in the cow-se of enforcement;
(4) Propose zoning amendments as provided in this ordinance ; and,
(5) Advise the Planning Commission and City Council on implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. The Director of Planning and Building shall keep records of al+-f3 e-r-m iLs. and certificates ofoccupancy
issued, maps, plats and other documents with notations of all special conditions involved. He shall file and
safely keep copies of all sketches and plans submitted, and the same shall f01m a part of the records of his
office and shall be public record .
4. Board of Adj ustments
a. Establishment and Authority: The Board of Adjustment of the City of Fairhope, A]abama is hereby
established according to the Code of A labama (1975) as amended.
F A1RH0PE ZONING ORDINANCE 5
Article III Section C
Zoning Districts Dimension Standards
C. Dimension Standards
1. Lots and Principal Structure
Table 3-2 indicates general dimension standards for lots and principle structures in all zoning districts. Unless
otherwise specified in Section D. -Special Conditions for Uses, or Article V. -Special Districts , all lots and
princip le structures shall meet these standards.
Table 3-2: Dimension Table -Lots and Principle Structure
Dimension Min. Lot Area/ Min. Setbacks Max. total lot
District or Allowed Units Per Lot Width Front Rear Side Street coverage by
use Acre (UPA) side l)Fi n'4Dle-i.n
structure~.
RIA 3 acres/ -198' 75' 75' 25 ' 50 ' none
R-1 15,000 s.f./ -100 ' 40 ' 35' JO ' b 20 ' 40%
R-la 40 ,000 s.f./ -120' 30' 30 ' 10 ' b 20' 25%
R-lb 30,000 s.f./ -JOO' 30 ' 30' 10 ' b 20' 25%
R-lc 20,000 s.f./ -80' 30 ' 30' JO' b 20' 25%
R~2 10 ,500 s.f./ -75' 35 ' 35 ' IQ' b 20' 37%
R-3 7,800 s.f./ -65 ' 30' 35 ' 8' b 20' 35%
R-3 PGH 4,000 s.f./ -40 ' 20' 15 ' IQ ' b 10 ' 32.5%
R-3TH 2,400 s.f. i/ -24' 20' 35' o •c 20' 45%
R-4 10 ,500 s.f. for two 75' for two 30' 35' IQ ' b 20 ' 30%
dwelling units plu s dwelling units
6,500 s.f. for each plus 5 ' for each
additional unit/ 7 UPA additional unit
R-5 10,500 s.f. for two 75 ' for two 30 ' 35' JO 'b 20' 30%
dwelling units plus dwelling units
4, JOO s.f. for each plus 5' for each
additional unit/ 10 additional unit
UPA
R-6 2 acres with a ma.-x . of 250' 25 ' 20 ' 20' b 25' NIA
5 acres i/ -
B-1 None/ -none 20 ' d 20' none 0
B-2 None/ -none 20 'd none r none 0
B-3a 7,500 s.f./ -60 ' 30 ' 35 ' 10' 30%
B-3b 7,500 s.f./ -60' 20 ' 20' none e none
B-4 None/ -none 20 ' 20 ' 10'
M-1 None/ -none nones none r none 0 none
M-2 None/ -none nones none h none h none
PUD See Article V., Section A.
VRM See Article VI., Section A.
NVC See Article VI., Section B .
eve See Article VI., Section C.
a . Structure may exceed the bui lding height provided the lot width is increased by IO feet for each additional foot in height
Max.
height
30 '
30 ' •
35 '
35 '
35 '
30 ' •
30'
30'
30 '
30 '
30'
30'
30' I
30' kl
30' I
30 ' I
30' I
45 '
45'
b. \\ lten: a d.11ve\\3Y i in the side. and e:tends past the front uf the pnncipk structure. tl1e ·ide se1bacl.. .-hall be l 5 •. Dm , 11cy • ·l:utll nN be
,, ithm J f, I of the ~1de lot line. fh area betv,een the side 1111 linc and Jrh ewm shall be, c!!elal.ed nm.I remam peni0t1S.fl-F~ways-+e-wttl1-i+1 ..;;
~HWIHHl-~i11&-:1Afl-a-s-itl<H;~t0aGl<-0 l:...J~
c. End units shall have a minimum side yard of IO '.
d . Where a lot abuts residential property on both sides, the front setback shall be in line with adjacent structures.
e . Where a lot abuts residential property, the side setback shall be IO '.
f . Where a lot abuts residential property to the rear, the rear setback shall be 20 '
g . In the case of exi sting adjacent establishments, the setback shall be the average within I 00 feel on either side of the proposed structure.
h. Where a side or rear lot abuts residential districts , the set backs shall be detennined on an individual basi s.
1. R-6 Districts may be larger than 5 acres provided they meet all the special design requirements of Article Y., Section 0 .5.
j . Individual lots in the R-3 TH district may be as small as 2,400 square feet , however each unit must have a minimum of3,600 square feet made
up of lot area and common or public open space according to the standards in Article IJI , Section 0.2.
k. Central Business District 35'.
FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 2 1
Article Ill Sectio11 C
Zoning Districts Dimension Standards
I. A buil ding located in any commercial zone may have a height of 35 ' if it contains both residentia l and commercial space . The residential use
must make up at least 33% of the total area oftl1e building and be located on the second and/or Oiird floor and retail or office space must be
located on ground and/or second floor . (See Site Plan Review Article 11, Section C, Sub-section 2-Site Plan , for approval procedures)
2. Residential Accessory Structures
Table 3-3 indicates dimension requirements for residential accessory structures.
Table 3-3: Dimension Table -Residential Accessory Structures
Dimension Set bac.ks Ma.t. lolal lo t Max. heig ht Min. structur e ii@
F ront Rear Side Street co ver age by separa tion fr om hnkr•,lrtul
District side accessory principl e 1,1~1
or use structure s truc lurc [;l'llllll•T
RIA Behind 15 ' 15 ' 50 ' 30%of 30 ' 50 ' for f.!
front required rear agriculture
building yard structures ;
line of 10 feet for all
princ iple other accessory
structure structures
R -3PG H• Behind none same as same as 25%of 20 'butno 5' ~
rear required principle principle required rear taller than
building structme structure yard * the principl e
line of structure
I prin ciple
structure
ll other Behind 5' 5' no nearer 25%of 30 ' but no JO ' ~
resid ential rear than required rear taller than
distric ts building principle yard the principle
line of structure structure
pri nciple
structure
'. *one det ached garage up to 600 square feet shall be al lowed fo r Patio /garden homes m add1t1 on to the maximum total lot coverage for other
accessory structures subject to al I oth er acces sory structure dimension standards.
3. Yards
No part of a yard or other open space required for any bui lding for the purpose of complying with the provisions
of this ordinance shall be included as part of a yard or other open space similarly required for another building.
Every part of a required yard or collli shall be open to the sky , except for permitted accessory structures and the
ordinary projection of sills, cornices , buttresses, ornamental features , chimneys, flues , and eaves, provided the
projections shall not extend more than two feet beyond the yard area requ irements.
4. Free-standing Commercial Structures
a. Any freestanding single use or tenant retail building in the Greeno Road Village Center as contemplated in
the Comprehensive Plan shall not have a building footprint larger than 18,000 square feet.
b. Any free standing sing le use or tenant retail building in any other business zoning district shall not have a
building footprint larger than 8,000 square feet.
D. Special Conditions for Uses
The following special conditions shall apply to all districts where the uses are permitted or permitted by special
exception. These special conditions are in addition to the generally applicable standards that apply to all uses
within a particular zoning district. In the case of a conflict between the generally applicable standard for the
zoning district and the specific standard for the use listed in this section , the more specific standards in this
section shall apply.
1. Recreational Vehicle Parks
F A IRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 22
Article V Section A
Special Districts PUD Planned Unit Development
Article V
Special Districts
A. PUD-Planned Unit Development
B. CBD -Central Business District Overlay
C. FH-1 Flood Hazard District
D. R-6 Manufactured Homes
E. AO -Airport Overlay
F. P-1-Parking District
G. TR -Tourism Resort District
H. MO -Medical Overlay District
A. PUD -Planned Unit Development
1. Intent -The special standards listed in this section for the Planned Unit Development district are intended
to:
• P mlit tlex ible dev lopruent of projects wllich are comprehen ·i •el planned a a single development
\, hh a functional master de, elopment plan\ hkh fullv con iders the entire site as an in tegrated projecl
aml gi e broad cons ideration to impac and re latiomh ip.s o ·urround in!! areas.
• encourage opportunities for development innovation tailored to a particular site , that while clearly
furthering the goals of the comprehensive plan, could not explicitly be established by generally
applicable standards or guidelines;
• allow mixed-use development which offer a greater variety in type, design, and layout of buildings;
• encourage land conservation, and more efficient use of open space;
• permit modification of certain controls in a manner so as to produce large area development arranged
to better serve community needs.
2. Size -A Planned Unit Development shall be a minimum of 3 acres.
3. Perm itt •d Uses llies---The PUD District slJall be assembled WJing am oflhe cwTe.nt base zoniug
districts prO\·ided -in.Fairhope Zoning-Ordinan e, The list of permitted uses shall be described and
contained in the S-ft:@--master de e) pmeot plan accompanying each Planned Unit Development.
4. Ordinance and Stte---P-1-attM a ter De,· lopmeut Plan Required -Each Planned Unit Development shall
have an Ordinance that establishes the development of regulations for the district. In approving a Planned
Unit Development, the ordinance shall reference the master development plan ·t@-\3"1-an, which shall
prescribe development standards. The master devel pmeot plan si:~1-aH-after approval shall become part
of the amending ordinance. All development shall be in conformance with the approved tnaster
deYelopmem plan ~~and development regulations.
a. Ivlaster de e lopment plan . The master de\elopment plan shall include cbe following ioforrnarlon:
(1 .) Written Docume111ation
a. A Je~al description of the parce upon which the PUD i to be bu i]t
b . The name of {be presenr wnerl ·) and. if different. the person( ) ho will be the
ownerr } of the parcel(s) durin!! the de •elopmem of P D.
c. A sracement of de elopment objecri 'es. ineluding, a de cription of the character of
tile propo ed de ... elopmem and it relation blp to surroundim.~ area :
FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 44
Article V Section A
Special Districts PUD Planned Unit Development
o. The locations of mechanical equipment and proposed screening:
p. Location of outside storage and 'or displav;
g. Proposed driYe-throucli locations:
r. Landscape plan in accordance with che Cit\ ·s Tree Landscape Ordinance. including:
1. Location of existing trees, indicating which trees will be
presen ed removed:
ii. Treatment ofma1erials used for private aud common open spaces:
11 1. The proposed treatment of the perimeter of the PGD including materials and
techniques to be used:
s . The location. size, and character of am common open space. or anv commonh
owued facilities. and the t, pe of orn:anization which will owu and maintain anv
common!, owned open space or facilities:
t. Location. materials. and ele" ation of anv and all fences and/or walls:
u. Locati on and size of all signage;
"· Hours of operation of anv nonresidential use;
\\. Mitigation of noise. fumes. odors, vibration or airborne particles;
x. Drainage
v. Access and location of utilities.
z. Any additional data. plans, or specifications which the applicant or the Citv believes
is pertinent.
5. Conditions Related to Approval
a Preupplicmiun c:onfenmce. Before filing an application for a Plrumed Unit Development, the
prospective applicant shall schedule a preapplication conJerence with the Planning Director. At the
greapplication conference the prospecti\e applicant shall present to the Planning Direcmr a proposed plan
for rev ie\\. and discuss peninent development matters including. but not limited to. the following:
b. Application. ln addition to the general criteiia for zoning map amendments. a map amendment to the
PUD district shall include o preliminan: muster dc.,velopment plan to be reviewed for compliance with
fhe goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. this ordinance. and the health. safet\. and general
welfare of the people of the Cir,.
a. The required prelimim11T master development plo11 shall include those items described in
Article V. Section A.4.a (master development plan). The preliminarv master development
Ian is intended as a draft. which will be edited and im roved based u on review of staff.
• 1anniug Comm ission. and Citv Council prior to adoption as a final master development plan
that mav be codified\' ith the Ordinance that creates/amends a PUD.
b. In addition to the 2eneral criteria for zoniu!! map amendments. a map amendment to the PUD
district shall include review of the fo ll owing conditions for compliance with the goals and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan and this ordinance.
i. Setbacks for b ui ldin2 structures
ii . Public street access
iii. Veh icular traffic. circu lation. connections. and parking
iv. Screening or buffer zones
\. Hours of operation
vi. Acti,-iries or uses pennitted on the prope1ty
vii. Building or structure hei!!hts
'viii. Landscaping
ix. Maximum lot coverage, imperYi011s percentages
x. Pedestrian circulation
xi. Signs
xii. Miti!?.ation of noise. fames. odors. v ibrarion or airborne particles
xiii. Exterior lighting
xiv. Exterior construction materials
FAIRHOPE ZONIN G ORDINANCE 46
Article V Section A
Special Districts PUD Planned Unit Development
----+i~-aEIEl-i-t-H:lH----t~"!-1era-l-tri ter i a for ZOH-t+J-g-fltaj'l-ttHIBM HHl-r-1-t:s,a-tHa-J7---a-tf1-tm d m en t to 11-l e-llld-Q
El-i-sfA€t--5-R-a+l-----i-H€-l-~'-IBW--B-f--l'He--fo 11 ow i n g co 11 d i l ion s ro r ee-1-l'!-13-1-i-a-Ree----w-i-tlt-th e g oa Is an d-i1~-t-e-H-Hl+-#le
b0fl-lf)'Feltefl-s-i---ve-----P----tan-ancl I h is ordinanc e.
a. Setbacks for building structures
Ir.--Public street acc ess
&.-Veh i cu la r traffi-e,--€-tFC-H-lati-f:t1-i-,--c-eH+i-eet-itl11 s, a 11 d park in g
~6fee!-l-ing or buffer zoH-es
e. Hours of op e-ffl-l-i-oo-
f. Act iviti es or uses pe rmitted on th e pr operty
g. Bui ld ing~1'--St-ructure he ights
~andscaping
i. Ma .>i imum lot cov erag e, imperv ious percent~
-~Peeestrian circulation
1'. Signs
t:-----MiL:it'-<'lt-i0fl-€1-H-1-&i-s<:,"',----f+HfH~s-,---ed-eFS--.---¥-iblmi-eH----0F-c'lifl30f-l-1€-----~
Hr.-fu.:teriof----l-i-gl-tt-i-ng
1+.---------N<-terior construction IHareJ!ffi-l-s
~pecial fire protection
jCb---GH1:s-i-e €----S to rage a n€1---e-l-sj3-l-ay-et=-n-l-ef€fl~
~e and v,aste storago
f;---b-0K-i'l€-----r1H€1---d~+R-e11-s--i-011-s
5-:-----Af.-'€-t.'SWl'Y-f.ltl~6.+A-g:S
+,-----------Gr-a-i-n-age
H~4-A€-F-+H-feR--B-a-t~eA-SfH,}W,I on the s it e plan
6. Building Permit Compliance -No building pennit for any structure shall be issued , nor shall a Certificate
of Occupancy be granted until the development plans are consistent with the site plan and development
regulations of the approved Planned Unit Development. All building permits must be consistent with the
Planned Unit Development.
7. Planned Unit Development Amendments -Changes or amendments to a Planned Unit Development
shall be processed in the same manner as the original request. Slight changes in the detail of the Planned
Unit Development that do not change the intent, meaning, relationship of structures to each other may be
approved by the Director of Planning-aHEl------8-1:1-i-k---li-n-g .
8. F ailu re l be gin cons tructi on -Constmction of the ap pi ov d deH!Jopment must begin within one vear
from the da te 1..ifthe a pprO\a l of them ter de elopment plan b:r th City Cou ncil. An} ppm ed changes
in the pl an sha ll not ·r nd the li me af wh ich sa id one -vear period beein to run. TI1e pl a naim~ co mmjss i n
ma,. no sooner lhan 60 davs prior to the end of sa id one-,ear period. apon the "ritten request of the
appli can t. e ·t nd such one-ear pe r iod for a period of not more tlum si • m mh • if. in the ju d gment ofthe
pla nninl! commi ion, uc h additional time i warramed.
'J.n am e ·enL the con rruction of the PUD must be tarted within two vears of the approval of the mas ter
de ve lopment plan b the citv council. Failure to beine the development of the PUD within said on e-vear
peiiod, or the pe1 i od as extended. shall automacicallv void he master de,-elopment plan, and tbe zonine
cla sificarion hall automatica lt • revert to the zonine classification in effect for such oarcel prior to i
being rezoned a Plaimed nir Development DistricL
B. CBD -Central Business District Overlay
1. Intent -The Central Business District overlay is intended to preserve downtown Fairhope as the "Regional
Village Center" and focal point for the City. The CBD overlay shall provide an environment for shopping ,
FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 47
Article VII
Non-conformities
A. Purpose and Intent
Article VII
Non-conformities
A. Purpose and Intent
B. Non-conforming Structures
C. Non-conforming Uses
D. Non-conforming Lots
E. Maintenance of Non-conformities
F. Adjacent Land
Section A
Purpose and Intent
This ordinance seeks to protect the public health , safety, and general welfare, and avoid any unreasonable invasion
of established private prope1iy rights. The elimination of existing buildings and structures or uses that are not in
conformance with the provisions of this ordinance is as much a subject of health, safety and general welfare as is the
prevention of the establishment of new uses that would violate the provisions of this ordinance. Lawful non-
conformities can adversely affect orderly development, maintenance, and use and taxable values throughout the
City. To avoid undue hardship, non-conformities that came into existence Lawfully should be allowed to exist
subject to conditions in this Article; however, the conditions should seek to ultimately secure compliance with the
comprehensive plan.
B. Non-conforming Structures
Structures that were legally constructed prior to the adoption of this ordinance, but which could not be constructed
under the terms of this ordinance are considered legal non-conforming structures . A legal non-conforming structure
may continue to exist subject to the following :
l. Non -onforminl! stru.clltr . r th part· fa torture thut ar non -rnnfo1m1n2: ma, not bee. ponded eithi:r
horfaontallv. or yerricnll . Alteration and expansions may-fu+lev,:-#i-€---R-eH-€(:lfl+01'1-H+A~t:e&',k-GR-~-~-H01+-
Wfl-Fel'ffitl'lg--s-ft:ieShallcoJI1onn to au cumm re!!Ulatio .
2. The structure shall remain legal in all other regards except for the non-confmmance that existed upon adoption
of the ordinance that made the structure non-confonning .
3 . A non-conforming structure, which is not intentionally damaged , destroyed , or removed, may be restored within
one year from the date of the event. If the structure is not re-constructed in one year all restorations and
improvements shall be in compliance with applicable ordinances. The burden of proof of date of damage or
destruction shall be on the person proposing the restoration .
FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 78
A rticle IV Section H.
Pr ocedur e For Pl at Approval
f. Appendix 8.
Multipl e Occ upan cy Pr oj ects
5. Intent -It is the intent that the provisions of this Section G of Article JV apply to all
Prope1ty which has been zoned as part of a TR District. Accordingly, in the event of any
conflict or amb iguity between the terms and provisions of this Section G of Article IV
and any of the other sections , art icles or provisions of the Subdivision Regulations the
terms and provisions of this Section G of Article IV shall at alJ times control.
6. Amendments -Following the zoning of any Property as a TR District (as evidenced by
the City's approval of a TR District Zoning App lic ation for such Property), no
subseq uently adopted amendments to or modifications of the Zoning Ordinance
(including subsequent modifications to this TR District zoning classification), no
amendments to or modifications of the City 's Subdivision Regulations and no other
ordinances adopted by t he City w hi ch a lter, change, modify or amend any of the matters
set forth in this Section G of this Article IV or whic h are set forth in the app roved TR
District Zoning Appl ication sha ll be effectiv e with respect to the real propetty described
in such approved TR District Zoning Application .
H. Ml!LUPLE OcqJPANCYPRO,IECfS:
1. Any project that will involve or otherwise result in three (3) o r more units (whether
contiguous or otherwise) being constructed on real prope1ty for occupancy, regardless of
the fonn or type of use of said units, unless otherwise regulated by these Regulations in
another Article and /or Section hereof, shall comp ly with the following te1ms and
condition s of this Section H .
2. The Subdivider shall submit to the Planning Commission via the City of Fairhope
Planning Department a preliminary plat and plan s site plan for such project, which
site plan must, at a minimum , comply with the fo ll owing requirements:
(a) Each pre liminary plat and plans site plan sha ll comply with the storm water
requirements of Artic le V, Section F hereof.
(b) Each pre liminary plat and plan s site plan shall comp ly with the traffic requirements of Article IV ,
Section C l (h) hereof.
(c) Any and all improvements co nstructed in connection with the project shal l be
constructed strictly in accordance with Atticle YI hereof.
(d The minimum set back for any building(s) constructed in connection with a project
from the prope1ty lines sha ll be twenty feet (20 ') on a ll sides for unzoned property.
Property within City of Fairhope 's corporate limits shall comply with the minimum
set back requirements of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance.
(e) No building or other improvement to be constructed in corn1ection with a project
shall exceed thirty-five feet (35 ') in height for unzoned property. The 20 foot
minimum setback requirement may be increased by the Planning Commission based
on the s ize of the building the location of the driveways , and other factors. Property
within the City of Fairhope corporate limits shall comp ly with the height
requirements of the City of Fairhope Zon in g Ordinance .
F ,HRHOPE S UBD!l'ISJON REGUl A TJONS 29
A rticle JV Section H.
Pr ocedur e For Plat Approval Multipl e Occupan cy Projects
(f) Each pre liminary plat a nd plans s ite plan s ha l I otherwise co nform to the terms of Altic le l Section A
hereof
(g) Eac h pre liminarv plat and plans site pla11 shall comp ly with t he greens pace requirem ents of Aiiicle
V , Section C. he reof
3. Each pre liminary plat and plan s s ite plan s ha ll be s ubmitted in acco rd ance w ith the
requirem e nts of Secti o n C and Section D of Altic le JV he reof re latin g to preliminary
a nd final plat s ubmittal s, respectively~; provided , h owever that a Subdi't'ider may
make application for simultaneous preliminary aHd fina l plat approval.
4 . The filing fee for any project regulat ed in acco rd an ce with this Section H of this Atticle
lV sh a ll be the same as any filing fee assessed against a n application for a M inor
Subd iv is io n .
F A IRHOPE S U BDIVISFON REGULA TJO NS 30
FAIRHOPE PLANNING COMMISSION DEADLINES 2020
AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date 5:00PM
January 6, 2020 Monday
February 3 , 2020 Monday
March 2, 2020 Monday
April 6, 2020 Monday
May 4, 2020 Monday
June 1, 2020 Monday
July 6, 2020 Monday
August 3 , 2020 Monday
September 10, 2020 Thursday
*Moved due to Labor Day Holiday
October 5, 2020 Monday
November 2, 2020 Monday
December 7, 2020 Monday
January 4, 202 1 Monday
Submittal Deadline 9:00AM
November 26, 2019 Tuesday
December 17, 20 19 Tuesday
*Moved due to the Chris tmas holiday
January 28, 2020 Tuesday
February 25, 2020 Tuesday
March 24, 2020 Tuesday
April 28, 2020 Tuesday
May 26, 2020 Tuesday
June 23, 2020 Tuesday
July 28, 2020 Tuesday
August 25, 2020 Tuesday
September 22, 2020 Tuesday
October 27, 2020 Tuesday
November 17, 2020 Tuesday
*Moved due to the Thanksgiving holiday
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ARE HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
FAIRHOPE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX AT 161 N. SECTION STREET
IT JS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO SEE THAT ALL SUBMITTALS ARE MADE IN A
COMPLETE AND TIMELY SEQUENCE AND TO HA VE THE CASE PRESENTED BEFORE THE
COMMISSION AT SCHEDULED MEETINGS.
**INCOMPLETE SUBMITTALS WILL NOT BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA.**