HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-2019 Planning Commission Agenda PacketG. ZC 19.17
4. Old/New Business
Approval Extensions
for a proposed amendment to Article IV, Section H. Multiple
Occupancy Projects in the City of Fairhope Subdivision
Regulations.
Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope
Planning and Zoning Department for amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance regarding Non-Conforming Structures and Master
Development Plans for PUDs.
• SD 16.27 Fairhope Falls, Phase Three
-Request for 1-year extension of the preliminary plat approval
• SD 16.34 Old Battles Village, Phase Four
-Request for 1-year extension of the preliminary plat approval
• SD 16.37 The Verandas, Phase 1
-Request for 1-year extension of the preliminary plat approval
• SD 17.03 The Verandas, Phase 3
-Request for 1-year extension of the preliminary plat approval
• SD 18.25 Garner Subdivision
-Request for 180-day extension of the preliminary and final plat approval
Discussion
• ZC 19.08 Greeno Road Corridor (GRC) Overlay Districts discussion
• Family Subdivision discussion
5. Adjourn
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 SO 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 containing 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 ofthe 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
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Annexation to the Tourism Resort District with the following
conditions:
2
1. Subject property development zone shall be labeled as low-rise residential zone.
2. Subject property use shall be limited to Single-Family Residential use only.
3. Future development shall be in substantial conformance to the simultaneously submitted
Subdivision Request SD 19.41 Watershed West a 10-lot major subdivision.
4. This approval does not determine the applicability or proper interpretation of any existing
easements, covenants, restrictions or other private contract rights, and accordingly does not
abrogate, limit, or impair any such existing easements, covenants, restrictions, or private
contract rights which may impose greater restrictions than this approval, the Zoning Ordinance,
the Subdivision Regulations, or other law.
ZC 19 .16 Watershed West-December 2, 2019
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear ms Boyer
Lynn Roberts <1roberts2800@gmail.com >
Thursday, November 7, 2019 9:52 AM
Emily Boyett
Rezoning of Lakewood
We strongly object to the rezoning of Lakewood We ask you to consider the ramifications of such action against the
apparent monetary gain of ONE entity!
Our area is beautiful now but we must protect it. Please help us maintain the integrity of our area
Thank you lynn and Johnny Roberts
Sent from my iPhone
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ellen Semple <ewsemple@gmail.com>
Thursday, November 7, 2019 7:00 AM
Richard.Petersen@fairhopeal.gov
Emily Boyett; Chris Semple
T&R Zoning Watershed West Subdivision
Good morning. My name is Ellen Waller Semple and I am writing to express my opposition to the T&R zoning request by
RSA for a newly developed subdivision, Watershed West.
My husband and I are currently constructing a new home at 18121 Woodland Dr . We are moving to the Eastern Shore
and specifically, Lakewood, for the beauty and quiet simplicity this area offers. We purchased our property about four
years ago. The development we have noticed is unparalleled.
I would like to think that decision makers would consider that property values increase when less is available to
purchase. I look at area like Carmel, California and other beautiful areas that I have visited . They continue to maintain
charm without over building.
I have looked over the documents presented at the Planning Commission Meeting on November 4, 2019 . I have to ask
myself, if truly this is the last development RSA will propose, how can 10 new housing units make a difference. Does it
outweigh the loss of beauty, with the trees and green space, that will be taken away?
In closing, I am writing this letter to ask you to vote against this development and any future development by RSA. It is
simply being overdone. Do we really want to be one of the la rge retirement villages in Florida? Do we want the area to
overbuild and home prices plummet? I understand the value of RSA to this area. I do believe however, a balance can be
achieved that is to the benefit of all and not just RSA . We should not lo se sight of what made this area attractive to start
with.
Thanks for you consideration .
Sincerely,
Ellen Semple
1
Mike Jeffries
From: Hunter Simmons
Sent:
To:
Friday , November 15, 2019 8:10 AM
Mike Jeffries
Subject: FW: Watershed West
From: Kimberly Jardine <kimjardine1958@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13 , 2019 12:03 PM
To: Hunter Simmons <hunter.simmons@fairhopeal.gov>
Subject: Watershed West
Hunter, I am writing to register my opposition to the above development. This will be a huge eye-sore in the middle of
our golf course. As a golfer, I cannot imagine having to deal with homes any more than we currently have to. This is a
beautiful tract of land with gorgeous old trees. We do NOT need more houses built on our course . RSA is getting greedy.
I am opposed to changing any deed restrictions or zoning to allow for Watershed West in the middle of Azalea. On
balance, it seems to me that there are far more cons than pros to this proposal. Kim and Quint Jardine
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sheila Ward <sheilabward@gmail.com >
Wednesday, November 20, 2019 2:59 PM
Emily Boyett
Lakewood
As a owner that lives on woodland drive in Lakewood Does Not want RSA to rezone this property.
Sincerely
Don & Sheila Ward
Sheila Ward
251.421.1408
Please note my new e-mail address
Sheilabward@gmail.com
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Bill Hyatt <william.hyatt7@gmail.com >
Wednesday, November 20, 2019 4:28 PM
Emily Boyett
Subject: Fwd : Watershed West
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bill Hyatt <william.hyatt7@gmail.com>
Date: November 20, 2019 at 4:26:13 PM CST
To: emily.boyett@fairhope.gov
Cc: Jimmy.Conyers@fairhopeal.gov, Jay.Robinson@fairhopeal.gov, Kevin.Boone@fairhopeal.gov,
Jack.Burrell@fairhopeal.gov, Robert.Brown@fairhopeal.gov
Subject: Watershed West
As a pro-development Realtor, investor and resident of The Colony at The
Grand (114 Mulberry Ln) and member of Lakewood CC, I am opposed to the
development of residential lots between holes 2&3 on the Azalea Golf Course. We have
numerous unsold homes being developed in The Colony including on #6 Azalea .
This 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.
Thank you in advance for your wise consideration of this ill conceived proposal.
Wm. W. "Bill" Hyatt CCIM
114 Mulberry Ln
Fairhope, Alabama 36532
251-605-2112 cell
855-898-8348 fax
wwhyatt7@bellsouth.net
william.hyatt7@gmail.com
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Boyett,
Patty Berkow < patricia.berkow@gmail.com >
Wednesday, November 20, 2019 4:58 PM
Emily Boyett
Re -zoning of Azalea holes #2 and #3 on Lakewood Golf Course
I am writing in opposition to the reasoning of the area on Azalea Course of Lakewood Golf Club . My husband and I live
on hole three of that course. I attended the meeting on November 4 when the issue was tabled until December. The City
made a short presentation regarding the space and showed an a rial view of the area in question. I was struck by this
photo. Not until seeing this did I realize that most likely every single one of those trees would have to be taken down in
order to build homes. These are some of the most beautiful live oak trees on the golf course. In the evening there are
owls that live in those trees that can be heard as dusk comes. Occasionally they land and sit on the fairway after the
golfers have gone. They are beautiful big birds . Recently there was a really nice article in a Canadian magazine that
spoke so highly of how beautiful the Dogwood course was, even mentioning the live
oaks. https ://canadiangolfer.corn/2019/11/05/lakewood-golf-club-point-clear-al/ This was before Azalea had re-opened after the
renovation . This re-zoning would leave 2 holes that are side -by-side that have hundreds years old live oaks replaced by
construction of houses for an unknown length of time and eventually those two holes will have no green space between
them, just houses. The hotel and golf course is a wonderful asset that Fairhope is lucky to have. A resort has to be
appealing in order for people to come. Before we moved here we came several times a year to stay at the hotel and
spend time in downtown Fairhope, it was so beautiful and relaxing because we felt we had gotten away from our
congested suburban lifestyle. To allow this construction on the course will change the feel from a relaxing resort course
to a more urban feel.
I hope I have not been too wordy, I do hope you have read to the end. Thank you for your attention .
Thank you,
Patty Berkow
Sent from my iPad
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Matthew Mosteller <drmattm@gmail.com >
Saturday, November 16, 2019 4:02 PM
Emily Boyett
Opposition to the Lakewood golf course development.
Dear Sirs, I am writing to express my opposition to RSA's proposed development on the Azalea golf course. I am under
the impression that it violates the covenants of the existing Lakewood area as well as contribute to the continued
assault on the low density character of Point Clear Please vote to deny RSA 'a request. Matthew Mosteller
Matt Mosteller 251 -454 -7851
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Planning Commission,
Connie Zubler <connie_zubler@icl oud .com>
Thursday, November 21 , 2019 2:21 PM
Emily Boyett
Jack Burrell; Robert Brown; Jimmy Conyers; Jay Robinson; Kevin Boone
RSA/ GMC -Watershed West Proposal for Re -zoning and Subdivision
As a resident of Lakewood Estates, I am concerned about the proposed re-zoning and subdivision that would cut
through the Azalea Golf Course. At Battles Road it will impact traffic on a narrow two lane road that will have limited
visibility for vehicles turnover into and out of the proposed subdivision.
Our beautiful old oak trees will also be impacted . Not will several trees be cut down to make room for a road into the
subdivision, but more trees will be cut down as houses are built along the tree line that currently separates Azalea #2
and #3 . Often the trees they plan on saving are damaged during the building process and eventually die. Some of these
live oaks are hundreds of years old. In fact, one of these oaks was measured in the last month and estimated to be 450
years old! These trees do not have any special designations so they need your help to protect them!
Finally, allowing a subdivision that impinges into the center of the golf course would set a dangerous precedent. All
other subdivisions have been along the perimeter of the golf course which limits the impact to residents' views, to
golfers and to the natural beauty of the area including our majestic live oaks.
Help preserve one of the most scenic areas in Fairhope and Baldwin County. Stop this harmfu l growth and vote against
RSA's proposed re-zoning and subdivision.
Thank you,
Connie Zubler
Sent from my iPhone
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good afternoon Ms Boyett,
Louis Mapp <lmapp@bellsou t h.net >
Thursday, November 21 , 2019 3:45 PM
Emily Boyett
Jack Burrell; Robert Brown; Jimmy Conyers ; Jay Robinson ; Kevin Boone
Watershed West Proposal for Rezoning and Subdivision any RSA/GMC.
date--NOV. 21 , 2019
Today
In addition to the many excellent reasons to deny this request that have already been given , I would like to add my
concerns about the speeding traffic on Battles Road.
My wife and I have lived in Point Clear Court for almost 20 years-and there has been a sidewalk along Battles Road for
about 15 years (just an estimate). On many days over the years since the sidewalk was installed, I have walked our pups
on the sidewalk . In the early days of the sidewalk, the traffic was not a problem-but now it is almost like racetrack. I
rarely see any law enforcement vehicles during my walks-or on the several trips I usually take on Battles Road each
day .
There are currently 6 exits (5 from developments--and 1 from a private home) on the short stretch of Battles Road-
from Scenic 98 on the West-to the intersection of Battles Road and Twin Beech Road on the East.
My greatest fear is that there is going to be a serious accident on this short stretch of road someday . I sure hope I am
wrong .
In the name of safety and livability, I urge the Planning Commission to deny this Rezoning and Subdivision request.
Thank you,
Louis Mapp
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
jiminpointclear@att.net
Friday, November 22 , 2019 10 :34 AM
Emily Boyett
Cc: Jack Burrell ; Robert Brown ; Jimmy Conyers; Jay Robinson ; Kevin Boone; 'Lou is Mapp ';
Richard Peterson
Subject:
Importance:
Good afternoon Ms. Boyett,
RE: Watershed West Proposal for Rezoning and Subdivision any RSA/GMC.
date--NOV. 21, 2019
High
Today
I would like to endorse the comments by Mr. Mapp. Everyone in the Point Clear Court Property Owners Association has
expressed their concern and alarm over the increasing traffic hazards on County Road 44. I have included (below) the
letter previously sent to Mr. Richard Peterson. I assume he has shared this letter/email with all Planning Commission
members and members of the City Council. As reiterated below, we, and others who share our concern, see no added
benefit to Fairhope by pursuing this development. What we do see is a negative impact on the safety and quality of life
of all Fairhope residents.
Please consider our concerns during your deliberations.
r.
James E. Morgan, Jr.
Point Clear Property Owners Association
Email that was Sent on Oct 31, 2019
Mr. Peterson:
As the Acting President of the Point Clear Court Property Owners Association (PCCPOA), I would like to endorse the
comments made by Mr. Landau. All of the residents of this Association stand united in our opposition to this never
ending cycle of construction and development along County Road 44/Battles Road . As you and the city may recall, we
went through this same process with Pat Achee's Pointe Place development and Water Shed East. It was understood by
all at that time that the city would curtail further and future access to Rt. 44. There was even a consideration at that
time to transfer road responsibility from the County to the City to better control development along this single east-west
corridor between Scenic 98 and Section Street .
As a 13 year resident of Point Clear Court, I can attest to the increasing safety hazards and congestion this continued
development has caused . Rt . 44 is used by hundreds of workers going to and from work at the Grand Hotel each
morning and afternoon; for access to the Lakewood Colony Club and Pool on Battles Road from the Grand Hotel; and
more significantly from those who have partied just a little too much at The Supper Club and the Grand Hotel. We have
already had one death (running into one of our trees) since I have been living here, and, the County (in their wisdom and
over our objections) removed the rumble barriers at the corner of Twin Beech/Battles Road/Rt. 44. This has only added
to speed concerns and the poor safety conditions on this Road. It is virtually unsafe to walk or bike on the sidewalks
from our Court to Scenic 98---for fear of being run down by trucks and fast cars exceeding the speed limit. Association
residents/drivers have been overtaken/passed by speeding vehicles on a road with a 35 mph speed limit. It is now
dangerous to exit and enter our Court entrance because of the heavy traffic conditions. No one is enforcing speed limits
or safety considerations along this corrido r.
1
Maybe the Planning Commission should study and consider restricting access to this part of Rt. 44 and diverting and
increasing traffic flow along County Route 32, which is far less populated .
This Association is not against growth. But this Association wants to see growth that is well planned and combines the
needed infrastructure that supports and benefits all the population, not just developers . If that means new roads and
other rights-of-way in and across the Lakewood Golf courses, that should be addressed and studied as an alternative to
the proposal RSA is putting forward . If RSA and Lakewood residents want this new housing development, let them
design this project so it is totally internal to the RSA and Lakewood property, with no access to Rt. 44. That benefits
everyone .
Thank you,
James Morgan
Point Clear Court Property Owners Association
End of original message sent on Oct 31, 2019
-----Original Message -----
From: Louis Mapp <lmapp@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 3:45 PM
To : emily.boyett@fairhopeal.gov
Cc: Jack Burrell <jack.burrell@cofairhope.com>; Robert .Brown@fairhopeal.gov; Jimmy.Conyers@fairhopeal.gov;
jay.robinson@fairhopeal.gov; Kevin Boone <kevin.boone@cofairhope .com>
Subject: Watershed West Proposal for Rezoning and Subdivision any RSA/GMC. Today date--NOV . 21 , 2019
Good afternoon Ms Boyett,
In addition to the many excellent reasons to deny this request that have already been given , I would like to add my
concerns about the speeding traffic on Battles Road .
My wife and I have lived in Point Clear Court for almost 20 years-and there has been a sidewalk along Battles Road for
about 15 years (just an estimate). On many days over the years since the sidewalk was installed, I have walked our pups
on the sidewalk. In the early days of the sidewalk, the traffic was not a problem-but now it is almost like racetrack. I
rarely see any law enforcement vehicles during my walks-or on the several trips I usually take on Battles Road each
day.
There are currently 6 exits (5 from developments--and 1 from a private home) on the short stretch of Battles Road-
from Scenic 98 on the West-to the intersection of Battles Road and Twin Beech Road on the East.
My greatest fear is that there is going to be a serious accident on this short stretch of road someday . I sure hope I am
wrong .
In the name of safety and livability, I urge the Planning Commission to deny this Rezoning and Subdivision request.
Thank you,
Louis Mapp=
2
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Craig Dahle <cdahle@mobileso .com>
Friday, November 22, 2019 1 :14 PM
Emily Boyett; Jack Burrell; Robert Brown; Jimmy Conyers; Jay Robinson; Kevin Boone
Watershed West proposal
We are longtime residents of Point Clear and members of the Lakewood Golf Club and we wish to express to you our
strong opposition to any zoning approval and development of golf course property known as Watershed West.
The Lakewood Golf Club is an iconic golf course and a vital and important feature of the equally iconic Grand Hotel. This
regrettable development proposal does something none of the various other developments about and near the golf
course do -it dissects into the interior of the golf course in a most negative fashion. It would forever alter the integrity
of the Lakewood golf course and it is hard to imagine anyone would be in favor of this. It should matter that there is no
one that we know or associate with that is in favor of this development.
It would also be very detrimental to the infrastructure and traffic in and about Battles Road.
This project needs a big thumbs down.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa & Craig Dahle
P.O. Box 1493
Point Clear, AL 36564
1
Commission Members,
I am writing to express and explain my complete opposition to the proposed re-zoning and
development request from GMC on behalf of the RSA known as Watershed West. As a new resident
to Baldwin County but long-time resident of the area, I am astonished at the fast and furious
development quickly changing our community. And in this case, change is not positive . Since being
notified of the Watershed West proposal, I have made it a mission to learn more about the overall
community plans, large scale county as well as city plans, zoning ordinance details and
unfortunately the creation and misuse of the Tourist and Resort zoning designation.
I started with the Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Master plan which encompasses the
communities throughout the county. The plan varies for each area based on geography, natural
resources and industry. This is what it states about our specific area.
" The Eastern Shore of Mobile Bay is comprised of Fairhope, Daphne, Spanish Fort and
surrounding areas including Montrose, Point Clear and Belforest. It is known for beautiful
landscapes and access to Mobile Bay and River Delta. In addition, these areas h ave developed as a
bedroom community for employment in Mobile with suburban services, which accompany this
demographic. The Eastern Shore is pursuing new growth opportunities in education,
medicine/healthcare, technology, CGI, movie production and aerospace opportunities. However,
this community has a strong sense of identity and care for its environment and
landscape and will not be willing to significantly compromise for the benefit of
growth itself. Growth on the Eastern Shore will need to characteristically fit with its
history"
All development for our area should be aligned with the master plan. Over the past few years, many
do not fit with this well-defined strategy to protect the precious assets of this area. While you can
responsibility grow and develop, the development h appening now appears out of control and
ruining the character and value of this treasured place we all call home. While I personally do not
like what I am seeing, my disappointment is paled compared to the disgust and anger of those who
grew up here or long-time residents. Ill planned development is a major issue causing the
destruction of the beautiful green spaces, loss of historical old live oak trees, the disappearance of
habitat and slow decline of the character so beloved by residents and tourist. Those who have
visited the Fairhope and Point Clear areas through the years are seeing the change and wondering
why anyone would allow this to happen to such a wonderful community, so it is not only the
residents who see this destruction as a travesty. To continue to support unbridled growth is to tip
the scales of diminishing return to a point of no return.
Is the goal to push so much development in this area that 4 lane roads are necessary to allow
proper traffic flow , remove all safety for pedestrians and r ecreational activities, increase the
infrastructure needs so greatly we ruin the natural assets of tributaries and Mobile Bay? I don't
believe so and was relieved to h ear Mr. Art Dyas caution the other commission members that it
may be time to pause and review the Tourist and Resort Zoning designation. His wisdom in this
matter should be commended as this type of development ONLY exacerbates the issues the
community is currently facing. The TR zoning is meant for a specific type of development only and
is now being used as a means to push as much density into an area as possible for the benefit of the
developer. Please stop allowing this misuse and consider modification of this zoning designation.
As yo u look at the proposal for Watershed West, please consider the application and how it truly
fits into the overall plan for Fairhope. Review the 9 points which are outlined to see if it can be
forced into the criteria or actually supports the overall plan.
1) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
2) Compliance with the standards, goals and intent of the ordinance.
3) The character of the surrounding property. including any pending development
activity.
4) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development.
5) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-
development conditions.
6) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the city.
7) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions.
8) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions,
potential physical impacts and property values.
9) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, including noise, traffic, visible
intrusions, physical impacts and property values.
I feel if not opposed and cleverly marl<eted as fitting into the zoning criteria, it has a good shot of
being approved. I understand the need for development and certainly understand the attraction to
the area, but these types of proposals are essentially the ammo to kill the proverbial "golden goose".
The Watershed West proposal does not fit the criteria, in fact, it is not legal. The very land they
propose to develop is part of the original Lakewood Golf course and must adhere to the strict
covenants and restrictions of the subdivision . Secondly, it has huge impact on the natural
resources. While the plan states minimal trees will be removed, they are simply playing a shell
game to force a homeowner to remove the historic old live oaks and pine trees in order to build a
home. These trees cannot be replaced and certain habitat such as the fox squirrel and bald eagle
depend on them for food and shelter. Third, this development will have impact on the quality of
life, intrude on privacy and diminish the property value of the established homes. My husband and
I are two of the many people effected by even the consideration for such a development. We just
finished building our dream home on a lot in Lakewood Club Estates and knew we were choosing a
perfect location due to the long-standing character and strong covenants associated with the
subdivision.
Last, to approve a development on the interior part of the golf course is reckless . It demonstrates a
lack of judgement in setting a dangerous precedent and forcing additional liability on the golfers.
There is legal precedent which demonstrates liability can be pushed to the developer and or
approving branch of government due to redevelopment of the course . This specific proposal also
increases safety issues for pedestrians and others entering and leaving the subdivision. For these
and all the points mentioned above, I do not see any other option other than non-recommendation
or denial for this request. I invite you all to come walk this area, with the plans, and see exactly how
this will affect this area and the future of the community.
Regards,
Tracy A Frost
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent :
To:
Cc:
Carroll Sullivan <carrllsull@aol.com >
Saturday, November 23, 2019 5:42 PM
Emily Boyett
Carroll Sullivan
Subject: Fwd : RSA Proposed Major Subdivision in Middle of Golf Course between Azaela 2 & 3
Begin forwarded message:
From: Carroll Sullivan <CSullivan@ScottSullivanLaw.com>
Date: November 22, 2019 at 4:06 :25 PM CST
To: lee.turner@frontier.net, rebecca .bryant@watershed.pro, holliemackellar@gmail.com,
adyas@msn .com, chall-black@bayshorechristian.org, robert.brown@fairhopeal.gov
Subject: RSA Proposed Major Subdivision in Middle of Golf Course between Azaela 2 & 3
Dear Commissioners & City Council Liaison :
In further opposition to the above application, RSA should be denied TR Zoning for the following
additional, independent reason:
The Fairhope Zoning Ordinance speaks in terms of the resort owner, RSA, and the TR Zoning
classification . But, to initially qualify for consideration, the resort owner "must" have a hotel, golf course
and a "marina." See page 52.
RSA should be deemed no longer qualified for this and future TR Zoning because it no longer has a
tourist "marina" as it once did and within the meaning of the TR ordinance when it was passed in 2005.
The Grand Hotel gasoline tanks for the re-fueling of watercraft have been recently removed . Boat
owners must now go to Fly Creek for re -fueling. The on -site supply store for oil and supplies has been
closed . The GH channel markers have been recently removed . The GH channel is no longer maintained
or dredged out to the Beacon . Some of the the larger yachts can enter or leave the former basin only at
high tide .
What was once a tourist "marina" over the past many, many years can only now be used by Lakewood
Members. The facility is no longer open for business to hotel guests or the public as it once was.
Consequently, tourists are now blocked from using it. Implicit in the ordinance requirement of a marina
to qualify for TR Zoning consideration is that it would be for the use and benefit of tourists (like the
hotel and golf course).
For all intents and purposes, the site no longer serves as a marina facility for tourists. Accordingly, under
the applicable Zoning Ordinance, TR Zoning is due to be denied on the pending RSA application.
Respectfully yours,
Ca1Toll H. Sullivan
Scott, Sullivan, Streetman & Fox, P.C.
251.433.1346 Office
1
251.605.0347 Cell
csullivan@scottsulli vanlaw.com
Li nkecl[n \ Web
One Saint Louis Centre
1 Saint Louis Street, Suite 2500
Mobi le, Alabama 36602
2
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Torrey DeKeyser <torreyva@gmail.com >
Sunday, November 24 , 2019 10 :4 8 AM
Richard Peterson
Emily Boyett
Opposition to Watershed West development
Please share my additional thoughts with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council regarding the RSA's
proposed Watershed West development. I remain strongly opposed to any development in the beautiful live oak grove
between the Lakewood Golf Azalea Course just off Battles Road. This would be a total departure from anything else at
Lakewood because it would be in the middle of the course, rather than on the perimeter, a bad precedent for other
potential real estate overreach. It also goes against the covenants of the original Lakewood neighborhood and stands to
interfere with the golfing experience itself, not to mention the negative environmental and safety impacts it would
create .
Others who oppose this proposal have outlined for you specific violations with current P & Z policies so I won't repeat
those in this communication . What bothers me most about the proposed Watershed West is that it very simply is
WRONG. If elements of Fairhope policies are such that this might be approved, then I would submit that those policies
are WRONG and should be changed to prevent such short-sighted development now and in the future. Short term
financial gain for developers should not supercede the preservation and conservation of the natural beauty of our
beloved community which, frankly , is a large part of the lifeblood of Fairhope 's continu i ng health as a vibrant place to
live and visit and pay taxes and spend tourist dollars . You have the opportunity to do the RIGHT thing and stop this in its
tracks!
Thank you for the opportunity express my opinion.
Kindest Regards,
Torrey DeKeyser
529 Owl's Nest Place
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garet Smitherman <garetsmitherman@gmail.com >
Sunday, November 24, 2019 12 :07 PM
Emily Boyett
Re zoning and annexation of Azalea Course
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 particular. I also have concerns regarding
personal/property damage to homeowners if this development is approved due to it being placed in the 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. Ultimately, where does it end if this step is taken? Many residents already feel that our
community is being overdeveloped. The charm and beauty ofour community is at stake. Again, if this measure is
approved, where does it end? Thank you for your consideration .
Sincerely,
One of the Countless in Opposition
Garet Smitherman
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tom <tojmot@gmail.com>
Sunday, November 24, 2019 2:37 PM
Richard Peterson
Emily Boyett
Watershed West
Dear Members of the Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission :
I am a resident of Fairhope and am opposed to the proposed Watershed West development. Please stop the overdevelopment
of the beautiful Point Clear area and protect the beautiful trees and wildlife .
Thank you,
Tom Johnson
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kate Stockham <kcsargyle@aol.com>
Sunday, November 24, 2019 5:02 PM
Richard Peterson
Emily Boyett
Watershed West
Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission Members,
I am a lifelong Alabama resident who has enjoyed visiting Point Clear/Fairhope for over 60 years. With each trip
especially over the last 10 years, the growth in developments has been amazing and at the same time shocking. The
beautiful trees, greenery, and wildlife areas have been replaced by clear-cut, lot-line, cookie -cutter homes. I am asking
the Commission to oppose the Watershed West development. Protecting the area's natural beauty by saving the
remaining trees (especially the live oaks), floral plants, wetlands, and the wildlife that thrives in these areas can start by
stopping this development.
Respectf u I ly,
Kate Stockham
1
24 November 2019
DOUGLAS BURTU KEARLEY, SR.
5666 Buerger Lane
Battles Wharf
Fairhope, Alabama 36532
Dbkearley@aol.com
Via email only: richard.peterson@fairhop eal.gov
c/c: emi ly .boyett@fairhopeal.gov
Re: Propsed Watershed West Development
Dear Members of the Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission:
I am a resident Battles Wharf and I am opposed to the proposed Watershed West
development in the middle of the Lakewood Golf Course off of Battles Road.
The area proposed for development is an grove of large live oaks. In addition, the
residents of the development to the East, who purchased homes knowing they would have
a golf course view will now face the rear of the proposed houses and the access road.
This is wrong.
In the spring of 20 19, there was a major sewerage spill at the Battles Road/ Twin Beach
Road lift station-this proposed development will only stress the sewerage system further.
Please deny this project
Sincerely,
Douglas B. Kearley, Sr.
DBK/bk
NO~ r 1
rV
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Adam Milam <amilam@milam-law.com>
Monday, November 25, 2019 11 :46 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; Carroll Sullivan ; Pam Milstead; Shelley Milam; Elizabeth Phyfer; matt
mcdonald; Marcus McDowell
Subject: ZC 19.16 -Conditional Annexation to TR -Zoning Criteria Violations, Illegal and
Unconstitutional
Importance: High
ZC 19 .16, which requests to annex 7.23 acres of the Lakewood Azalea Golf Course between Holes 2 and 3 for a
10 lot subdivision to be built, should be denied . I previously outlined why the application should be denied primarily
based on that it violates governing covenants and restrictions that run with the land in f avor of the adjoining home
owners in Lakewood Club Estates . And therefore, the requested action is inconsistent with Alabama law which is a
criteria for the Commission's recommendation .
In supplement, I write to address the fact that the Teachers and Employment RSAs' violates Fairhope 's Zoning
Ordinan ce in several respects, violates the TR District express and implied requirements and intent, and is otherwise
arbitrary and capricious .
I. The Tourism Resort District
The Tourism Resort District ("TR") is one of eight Special Districts authorized by Fairhope's Zoning Ordinance ,
Article Five. The Intent of the TR district include s:
1. provide for large acreage under unified control to be planned and developed as a whole
2 . encourage the growth of resort-oriented ... properties
3. provide places for resort -type amenities
4. promote increased privacy
5. promote the preservation and enhancement of existing natural landscape features and their scenic
qualities
6. create a zoning clas sificat ion which allows fle xibility and creative development concepts that would not be
possible through conventional zoning regulations
Attempting to grab a non-contiguous 7.23 acres out of an existing resort amenity that has major current tourist
appeal in order to build yet another 10 lot/.3 acre subdivision is the antithesis of the TR District Inten t. And
therefore, does not meet the Intent of the Zoning Ordinance .
The current request also violates the Location Requirements of the TR District. Specifically, the Zoning
Ordinance requires that "At the time any real property is submitted for zoning as part of a TR Distri ct zoning
classification , the following existing 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 property being submitted to the TR
District zoning classification : ... a Marina ." A marina is defined as "is a dock or basin with moorings and
supplies for yachts and small boats .... A marina may have refueling , washing and repair facilities , marine and
1
boat chandlers, stores and restaurants. A marina may include ground facilitie!> such as parking lots for vehicles
and boat trailers." Marina-Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Si nce 2005, the Grand Hotel gaso l ine tanks for re -fueling have been recently removed . Any boat owners must
now go to Fly Cr eek for re-fueling Second, the Grand Hotel channe l markers have been recently removed. The
Grand Hotel channel is no longer ma intained or dredged out to the Beacon. The larger yachts can only enter or
leave the former basin only at high tide.
The once marina is no longer open for business to the public or hotel guests who are not presently allowed to
dock their boats there as t hey once did . Consequently, tourists are now blocked from using the former basin
fac il ity. Simply put, the site no longer serves as a marina l i ke it did in 2005. Therefore, the current app lication
fai l s to meet the Locat ion Requirement of a Marina.
Next, the curre nt app licat ion v iolates clear intent of t he Size Requ i rement of a TR District bei ng 175 Acres, the
intent of being developed as a whole, and purpose of all ow i ng creat ivity in order to form an attractive tourist
r esort ar ea to attract, well, tourist. Specifica ll y, to all ow the current annexation on a non-contiguous 7 .23 acre
p lot, that is cu r rently an attractive tourist go lf course to become just another residentia l subdivision, t hat is not
in comp li ance w ith the n eighboring Lakewood Cl ub Estates, does not meant the i ntent of the TR District.
II . Zon in g and Annexation
A. Zoning
The general ru le in Alabama is that "[a]n arbitrary and capricious o r dinance should be set as ide [and not
approved in the first place] whether there is, or is not, a comprehensive zoning plan." COME v. Chancy, 289 Ala. 555,
565 ,269 So.2d 88, 97 (1972). A zoning ordinance may be set as ide [and not approved] if it'' 'passes the bounds of
reason and assumes the character of a merely arbitrary fiat.'" Leary v. Adams, 226 Ala. 472, 476, 147 So. 391, 394
(1933). The ul t imate test "is whether the ordinance creates zones ... that ... are consistent with the land use pattern of
the area, and bear a substanti al relationship to the pub li c health, safety, mora l s, and general welfare ." Chancy, 289 Ala.
at 565,269 So .2d at 97.
Zon i ng may be "arbitrary and capricious" in several ways. First, spot zoning is arbitrary and capricious. Spot
zoning occurs when municipal officials attempt to partially zone a municipality or zone by "pi ecemeal." Johnson v. City of
Huntsville , 249 Ala. 36, 29 So.2d 342 (1947). As stated above, "[a]n ar bitrary and capric ious ord in ance [wi ll ] be set aside
[and] ... any theory of 'spot zoning' would have to give way to the larger princip le." Chancy, 289 A la. at 565, 269 So.2d at
97. 'Spo t zoning amendments are those which by their terms si ngle out a part icu l ar lot or parcel of land, us ually small i n
re lative size, and place it in an area, the land use pattern of which is inconsistent with the sma l l lot or parce l so placed ,
thus proj ecti ng an inharmonious l and use pattern.
'Of one thi n g there can be no doubt. The law is well settled that 'spot zoning' as properly know n and understood, and
'spot zoning' ordinances, as properly identified, are inva li d on the genera l ground that they do not bear a substantial
r e lationship to the publi c health, safety, morals and general welfare and are out of ha r mony and in conflict w ith the
comprehens ive zoning ordinance of the particular municipa l ity.' 1 £. Yokely, Zoning Law and Practices 8-3 (3d ed.)
In this case, the 7.23 ac re is a sma ll t ract of land cur rently used as a golf course and subject to the covenants
and restrictions of Lak ewoo d Club Estates. The lot size and homesites of the proposed subdivision are inharmonious
wit h the current surrounding homes in Lakewood Club Estates. Therefore, this proposed zoning runs afou l of Alabama's
spot zoning laws .
It is important to note, that this land is currently Baldw in County Unzoned. The subject property and holes 2 &
3 are situated within District 17 where there is noTourist Resort Designation. In contrast, there is a Tourist Resort
Designation in the adjoining Baldwin County District 26 where the Grand Hotel i s located. To date, Fairhope's TR District
and addition s have all been contiguou s. This carve -out, spot zoning is not contiguous.
2
Second, zon i ng that leaves the exer ci se of property rights to the w h ims of a special group, like RSA, is arbitrary
and capricious. Alabama l aw states, "Nor can the exercise of property rights be left to the caprice, whim or aesthetic
sense of a special group of ind ividua ls." Johnson v. City of Huntsville, 249 Ala. 36 , 40, 29 So.2d 342, 345 (1947). See City
Council of Montgomery v. West, 149 Ala. 311, 314, 42 So . 1000, 1000 (1907) (" 'Ordinances which invest a city council ...
with a discreti on whic h is purely arbitrary, and ... exerc i sed in the interest of a favored few, are ... invalid.'" (quoting
Smith on the Modern Law of Municipal Corporations§ 530)). This ZC request would never have a snowball's chance if
the app li ca nt were not RSA.
Th ird, zoning that is inconsis tent with a comprehensive plan is arbitrary and capricious. Zoning must be done
"in accordance with a comprehensive plan."§ 11-52-72, Al a.Code 1975. "There must be a comprehensive pl an .... [T ]he
owner of prope1ty may use it as he sees fit, provided it is not a nuisance ... nor within the proh i bition of zoning
ord inances." Davis v. City of Mobile, 245 Ala. 80, 82-83, 16 So.2d 1, 3 (1943) (emphasis added). In addition to the Zon ing
Ordinance's TR District description, intents and requirements, Fairhope's Comprehensive Plan states that one of its
purposes is to encourage and support t ourist to Fairhope and protect Fa i rhope's tourist attractions. Removing a 7.23
acre chunk out of one of Fairhope's greatest tourist attracti ons, the Lakewood Golf Course, to build a 10 lot subdivis ion
violates the Comprehensive Plan.
B. An nexation
This is a request for Cond i t iona l Annexation. It request annexation of l and which homeowners in Lakewood Club
Estates have property rights, and members of the Lakewood have lega l
rights to. "A labama's statutory methods of annexation require that property owners consent to the annexation before
an annexation of t he ir property can occur. See Ala.Code 1975, § [§] 11-42-1 through 11-42-88." City of Fultondale v.
City of Birmingham, 507 So.2d 489 ,491 (Ala.1987) (pl u rality opinion) (emphasis added) (noting that unanimous consen t
is not required under all methods of annexation)." '[A]n unreasonab le annexation i s inval id or vo i d.'" City of
Birmingham v. Community Fire Dist., 336 So.2d 502, 504 (A la.1976) (quoting 2 McQuillin , Munici pal Corporations § 7.23
(Rev. ed., 1966)). 11 '[A) munici pal corporation may not extend its boundaries by the annexation of terri tory ... where it
would be unreasonable to do so.' " Id. A ll persons with legally cognizab le prope rty r ights and interests are considered to
be, at least in part, property owners. And the i r views, opinions and requests must be followed when the property being
annexed affects their property rights. It would be unreasonab le not to.
Therefore, for al l reasons stated above, and all the reasons previously brought to the Commission 's attenti on ,
the application is due to be Recommended for Denial. Thank you for your consideration .
Regards,
Adam M. M ilam , Esq .
M il am & Milam, L.L.C.
20252 State Highway 181 , Suite C
Fairhope, Alabama 36532
Direct Dia l (251) 928-0191 ext. 301
Fax (844) 273-4029
Mobile (251) 680-0108
Pleas e note our address has recently changed .
PLEASE NOTE :
3
Th is email is confidential, an d ma y be protected by the attorney -c lient p1i v ilege. It i s intend ed for the sole use
of the recipient(s) named above. lf yo u have recei ved thi s e mail in error, please notify us immediately by rep ly
email. a nd the n delet e the m essage fro m y our system. Please do no t copy it o r use it for any o ther purpose. or
di sclose its contents to any othe r per so n. To do so could vio late s tate and federal privacy laws. Thank yo u for
your cooperatio n.
From: Adam Milam
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 11:38 AM
To: mike .jeffries@fairhopeal.com; Emily Boyett <emily .boyett@cofairhope.com >; Lisa A. Hanks, MMC
<Lisa.Hanks@fairhopeal.gov>; burford.king@fairhopeal.gov; karen .wilson@fairhopeal.gov; info@watershed.pro;
hollie@localpropertyinc.co m; holliemackellar@gmail .com; jnr@frazergreene.com; jimmy.conyers@mandmbank.com
Cc: Tracy Frost <tracyafrost@gmail.com>; Effie Thompso n <e ffiesthompson@gmail.com>; Carroll Sullivan
<c arrllsull@aol.com>; Pam Milstead <pmilstead@milam-law.com>; Shelley Milam <s milam@milam-law.com>; Elizabeth
Phyfer <p hyfers@bellsouth.net>; mmcdonald@joneswalker.com; Marcus McDowell <mmcdowell@wbbwlaw.com>
Subject: ZC 19.16 -Conditional Annexation to TR -Zoning Criteria Violations, Illegality and Un cons titutional
Importance: High
Fairhope Planning Department and Planning Commission:
I am a Fairhope resident, and have the pleasure of represe nting residents of Lakewood Club Estates, Ow l's Ne st ,
Poviner's Place and the Battles Road Protection Group.
Because the RSA's Application for Annexing 7.2 acre s of the La kewo od Azalea Golf Course, between holes 2 and 3, to TR
Di strict to allow for the construction of a road and .3 to .4 acre home-sites violates multiple Zoning Crite r ia under Art. II,
Sec. C, Sub-S ec. (e), and violates controlling Alabama Law, as outlined below, th e Application must be Recommended for
Denial in accordance with the Planning Commission's power and discretio n.
First, the application i s illegal, unconstitutional and violates applicable law.
History:
After WWII, the Waterman Steamship Company, built inter olia, an 18-hole go lf course (would become known
as Aza lea), and a swimming pool.
In 1959, Lakewood Club Esta tes , Unit 1, was established and the Grand Hotel Development Corp., reco rded
Covenants and Restrictions that would run and govern the land . Ex. A. A map was also reco r ded in Baldwin
County Probate showing the homes and the go lf course. Ex. B.
In 1966, The Grand Hotel De velopme nt Corporation deeded, via Warranty Deed, the subj ect Golf Course
property, and other property, to Grand Hotel Company. Ex. C. In that Warranty Deed, the Golf Course was
specifically made subject to th e Rest rictions and Cov ena nts of Lakewoo d 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 go lf 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 w ith Grand Hotel Company
conferring rights to the re side nts of Lak ewood Club Estates and member s of Lakewood Golf Club to the golf
co urs e.
At thi s time, it was exp ress ly agree d and required under la w, the Restrictions & Cov en ants, Maps/Plats, and
Ag re eme nts, that the subject property would r emain a go lf course, that all Lakewood lo ts would be at least an
acre in si ze, and any proposed c hanges to the property would have to be subm itted t o an architectura l review
committee.
4
In 1981, Marriott Corporation purchased the property, and its deed is also made subject to governing
Restrictions and agreements. Ex. F.
Fast Forward 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 specifica ll y 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. 8, 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 la w enacted by the state. Article 1, Sec. 10,
Constitution of the United States; Article 1, Sec. 21, Constitution of Alabama 1901 .... A muni cipality 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 Zon ing to TR as proposed violates governing covenants, restrictions
and agreements, the ZC application must recommended for Den ia l.
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 la w 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 Prop., § 3398:
1111 '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 re strictio ns
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.
'' '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 purch aser,' "
Collins, 938 So.2d at 389 (quoting Scheuer, 218 Ala. 270, 118 So. at 660 (emphasis added) (quoting 4 Thompson
on Re al Prop., § 3398)). The Scheuer Court then proceeded to note "[i]n such cases the equitable right to
enforce such mutua l covenants is rested on the fact that the building scheme forms an inducement to buy, and
becomes a part of the consideration . Th e buyer submits to a burden upon his lot because of the fact that a like
burden is imposed on his n eighbor's lot, operating to the benefit of both, and carries a mutual burden resting on
the seller and the purchasers."
5
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 flooding 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. 11, Sec. C, Sub-Sec. C. All such members 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
property in fee simple, such a home with 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,
6
constitutional and complicated issues that w ill requ ire time and potentia ll y Co urt involvement . For t hose reasons, and
be ca use we are dealing with such a historical and crucial aspect of Fairhope, Alabama, this must be Den ied at thi s time.
Regards,
Adam M . Milam, Esq.
Milam & Milam , L.L.C.
20252 State Highway 181, Suite C
Fairhope, Alabama 36532
Direct Dial (251) 928-0191 ext. 301
Fax (844) 273-4029
Mobile (251) 680-0108
Pleas e note our address has recently changed.
PLEASE NOTE:
This e mai l is confi dential, and may be protected by the aLto rney-c1ient pri vi lege. It is intended for the sole use
of the recipi ent(s) named above. If you h ave received this email in error, please notify u s immediately by re ply
email , and then de lete the message from yom system. Please d o not copy it or use it for any oth e r purpose, or
di sclose its contents to any other person . To do so could vio late state and federa l privacy laws. Thank you for
yo ur cooperation.
7
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subjec t :
Dear Ms . Boyett :
Lis a Pr ice <ch oh o p hub @grna il.com >
M o nda y, No vemb er 25, 20 19 8:52 AM
Emily Boyett
Propo sed "Wate rshe d Wes t" Subd iv isio n Origina l Lake wood Cl ub Est at es
Will you please distribute the below e-mail to all the City of Fairhope planning and zoning commiss ioners .
My name is Lisa Price . I am a resident of the original Lakewood Club Es t ates . I am writing you to ask you to please deny
the RSA's zoning, subdivision, and anne xation application . The beautiful 7.27 acre piece of property that the RSA
greedily wants to turn into the Water Shed West subdivision , by cramming in 10 non -custom built homes on just those
7 .27 acres of land is not only over development, dangerous to golfers and residents alike, going to eliminate 100 plus
year old live oak trees but, as I understand it, is not even legal under the covenants and restrictions established by the
original Lakewood Club Estates . That piece of property has never been platted for development through all its owne r s
because of the covenants and restrictions that were established starting in the 1950s with the original 18 golf holes and
the 29 lot 1 custom home estates . The interior portions of the original 18 holes of the Lakewood Golf Course (Azalea
holes number 1-5 and 14-18 and Dogwood holes 10-18) have never had any interior development, again because those
holes have been designated by the covenants and restrictions to remain undeveloped and only as golf holes in
perpetuity. For those myriad of reasons, I respectfully ask that you deny the zoning/subdivision/annexat ion application
put before you by the greedy RSA .
Respectfully ,
Lisa Price
1
Echvanl Fros t
l tl'I OI . Wuod h1rnl 1)1. l'o i1 11.Cl c;1r , ,\I ::l (i.iti -1• I'll ,n l ·: (2.1 1)20'.l-78a8 •
E-iVl ai I: 11 i 11 .r Fn ,~t,;!'grn ai I .c< ,n 1
DaLc : Nciv c mi>cr 2:1, '2019
Fairhope PI.uming Commission
161 North Section Street
Fairhope, Al 36532
Dear Plam1i11 g and Zoni11 g Co 1nrnis sio11
I am writing today to protest the proposed ;umexation/subdivision designated as ''\1/atershed Wesl". This proposal has
significant an d direct impact to m y property. Lakewood Club Es lales was formed in 1959 as ;m Estate and Golfing
community. This proposed developmenL vio lates the intent, use, and quiet enjoyment of Lakewood Club Estates.
The prope1ty designated fo r "Watershed \!Vest" was never platled to be used for any thing 0Ll 1er than a recreational Golf
course . This proposal has many delrimental issues to the sw-rounding community such as safely, environmental, and legal.
The e lected a11d appointed officials in Lhe cily of Fairhope are charged with upholding and protecting the property rights of
its community . We, in Lakewood Cl ub Estates, are in the Coun ly yet the cily or Fairhope is being asked to reach inlo our
quiel neighborhood and violate the very covenants and res llictions we have been held to sin ce 1959. I would hope you can
understand wh y this is devaslating to us.
It is very upsetling Lo have lo defend against lhe very peopl e who are supposed to prolccl the properly rigli ts of it5
conununity . Point Clear h as always been a. quiet low-densily residential/recreational area. T h e already approved TR zoning
has forever changed the face of our quainL and charming conmrnnity c.md is irreversible. This proposal is ye t another attempt
to abuse an already ab u sed zoning designation.
Please help us to protect om rights, prolcct yow-liability, and preserve th e qualily ol' life in om community.
Sincerely,
Edw;m l Frost
Emily Boyett
From: SARA EMAIL <Jedens1@aol.com>
Monday, November 25, 2019 11 :57 AM
Emily Boyett
Sent:
To:
Subject: RSA DECIMATION OF AZALEA
As you look at the proposal for Watershed West, please consider the application and how it
truly fits into the overall plan for Fairhope. Review the 9 points which are outlined to see if
it can be forced into the criteria or actually supports the overall plan.
1) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
2) Compliance with the standards, goals and intent of the ordinance.
3) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending
development activity.
4) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development.
5) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-
development conditions.
6) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the city.
7) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other
jurisdictions.
8) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions,
potential physical impacts and property values.
9) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, including noise, traffic,
visible intrusions, physical impacts and property values.
SARA E.
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
SARA EMAIL <Jedens1@aol.com>
Monday, November 25, 2019 11 :57 AM
Emily Boyett
Subject: Azalea and RSA decimation
SARA E.
Attempting to grab a non-contiguous 7 .23 acres out of an existing resort amenity that has major current tourist
appeal in order to build yet another 10 lot/.3 acre subdivision is the antithesis of the TR District Intent. And
therefore, does not meet the Intent of the Zoning Ordinance .
The current request also violates the Location Requirements of the TR District. Specifically, the Zoning
Ordinance requires that "At the time any real property is submitted for zoning as part of a TR District zoning
classification , the following existing 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 property being submitted to the TR
District zoning classification: ... a Marina ." A marina is defined as "is a dock or basin with moorings and
supplies for yachts and small boats .... A marina may have refueling, washing and repair facilities, marine and
boat chandlers , stores and restaurants . A marina may include ground facilities such as parking lots for vehicles
and boat trailers ."
1
4
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;
• Meets
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and regulations;
or
• Meets
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the
planning jurisdiction of the City."
• Meets
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval SD 19.41 Watershed West with the following conditions:
1. Approval of ZC 19.16 Watershed West.
2. Cart path running parallel to County Road 34 shall be relocated in a dedicated easement no less
than 10' wide across common area 1, the ROW, and common area 3.
3. Utility easements per Riviera Utilities requirements shall be shown on plat.
a. Front -15'
b. Rear-15 '
C. Side-10'
4. This approval does not determine the applicability or proper interpretation of any existing
easements, covenants, restrictions or other private contract rights, and accordingly does not
abrogate, limit, or impair any such existing easements, covenants, restrictions, or private
contract rights which may impose greater restrictions than this approval, the Zoning Ordinance,
the Subdivision Regulations, or other law.
SD 19 .41 Watershed West -December 2, 2019
Summary of Request:
Public hearing to consider the request of Glenn & Sally Boom owner and applicant for a 2-lot minor
subdivision. The property is located at the southwest corner of 2nd Street and Adams Street; approximately
610'± East of Main Street. The subject property is approximately 1.18 acres and the applicant desires to
divide the property into two residential lots .
Comments:
The subject property is in Fairhope's Extra Territorial Jurisdiction and therefore must follow Fairhope 's
Subdivision Regulations . The proposed subdivision according to Fairhope's Subdivision Regulations is a minor
subdivision and has been reviewed accordingly. Fairhope's Subdivision Regulations Article VI Section D
requires the provision of sidewalks along all streets in the Planning Jurisdiction of Fairhope. The preliminary
plat does not illustrate sidewalks and therefore the applicant is requesting a waiver.
The proposed subdivision does not include the building of any infrastructure or improvements therefore a
tree protection plan, landscape plan, and other criteria required for a major subdivision is not applicable .
The proposed subdivision did not trigger a traffic study. Concerning storm water runoff none of the existing
flow patterns will be changed by this rep lat. Water services will be provided by Daphne Utilities. Power is
supplied by Riviera Utilities.
Waiver Request:
Article VI Section D. Sidewalks requirement in the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations which states,
"sidewalks shall be installed on all streets within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Fairhope."
The applicant has provided a letter stating that the only existing sidewalks in the i mmediate vicinity are
along Main Street. Therefore, the applicant has placed a note on the preliminary pla t stating that sidewalks
will be constructed at the time of home construction .
Article VI, Section G. Fire Hydrants r equirement in the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations which states,
"fire hydrants shall be installed along each street at a maximum interval of four hundred fifty (450) feet, or
at the ends and center of each block, or at otherwise required by the fire authority having jurisdiction."
The applicant states that an existing fire hydrant is located at the intersection of Main Street and Adams
Street. This is more than the 450' distance requirement. The applicant does not wish to place fire hydrants
and is therefore requesting a waiver .
A. WAIVER STANDARDS: (Staff response in blue)
Waivers may be granted where the Planning Commission finds that the following conditions exist :
1. An extraordinary hardship may result from st r ict compliance with these regulations due to unusual
topographic or other physical conditions of the land or surrounding area not generally applicable to
other land areas.
Article VI Section D. -Sidewalks: Though no hardship is presented, currently there are no sidewalks in
the nearby vicinity. Sidewalks will, however, be established at the time of construction .
Article VI, Section G. -Fire Hydrants: The applicant has not presented an extraordinary hardship .
2. The condition is beyond the control of the sub -divider.
Art icle VI Section D. -Sidewalks: Not applicable for this individual case .
Article VI, Section G. -Fire Hydrants: Not applicable for this individual case .
3. The requested waiver will not have the effect of nullifying the purpose and i ntent of the r egulations, the
Zoning Ordinance , or the Comprehensive Plan.
2 SD 19.42 Wi ld wood of Montro se -December 2, 2019
Article VI Section D. -Sidewalks: Staff finds that this waiver will not nullify the intent of the regulations
because the existing character of the surrounding properties is such that there are no sidewalks .
However, the applicant will be required to meet the requirement at the time of any new construction .
Article VI, Section G. -Fire Hydrants: As stated, fire hydrants must be located within 450' of the subject
property. The closest hydrant is not within the 450' radius and thus requires the fire department to lay
more than 1000' of fire hose to reach proposed Lot 2 for firefighting purposes. The applicant states there
is not an existing water main large enough along Adams or Second Street to install a new fire hydrant.
According to the applicant, permission from the Baldwin County Highway Department is required
because Main Street will have to be bored underneath to install a larger water main . No documentation
verifying this requirement was provided in the application . Staff will recommend the denial of said
waiver. It should be noted that the construction of fire hydrants (installation of infrastructure) will trigger
the requirement of a 2-/ot major subdivision (submission of plans and profiles of the new fire hydrant and
water main).
4. The waiver is the minimum deviation from the required standard necessary to relieve the hardship;
Article VI Section D. -Sidewalks: Because sidewalks will be established at the time of development, the
waiver would be minimum deviation from the required standard.
Article VI, Section G. -Fire Hydrants: The applicant has not presented any hardship associated with site
that would justify the approval of this waiver. Therefore, Staff will recommend the denial of said waiver.
It should be noted that the construction of fire hydrants will trigger the requirement of a 2 -lot major
subdivision .
5. The waiver shall not have an adverse effect on adjacent landowners, or future landowners, or the public;
Article VI Section D. -Sidewalks: No , the waiver shall not have adverse effects.
Article VI, Section G. -Fire Hydrants: The absence of a fire hydrant within the appropriate radius could be
a potential safety concern for surrounding properties.
6. The waiver is necessary so that substantial justice is done.
Article VI Section D. -Sidewalks: Staff is neutral on this standard.
Article VI, Section G. -Fire Hydrants: Staff does not find a substantial hardship and would therefore
recommend denial of this waiver.
The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV.B.2. Approval Standards:
f/2. 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:
3
a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and/or the
City's Zoning ordinance, where applicable;
• Not applicable
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;
• Not applicable
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
• The subdivision illustrates a 10' drainage and utilities easement on the western
perimeter of Lot 1. A 15' easement is required . Also, the establishment of a fire
SD 19.42 Wildwood of Montrose -December 2, 2019
hydrant within 450' has not been provided neither have justification for a waiver . Due
to the requirement of a fire hydrant, a major subdivision will be triggered.
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal Jaws and
regulations; or
• Meets
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within
the planning jurisdiction of the City."
• Meets
Recommendation:
Staff recommends TABLING SD 19.42 to allow the applicant to submit the following:
4
1. Submission of Plans and Profiles of a fire hydrant within 450' of the subject property and resubmission of the
application to reflect a major subdivision containing a preliminary plat approval request in lieu of concurrent
preliminary and final plat approval;
2. Revision of the preliminary plat to reflect a 15' drainage and utilities easement along the western perimeter of
Lot 1; and
3. Acceptance of the waiver request to allow sidewalk installation at the time of new construction, with this
requirement to be reflected on the preliminary plat .
SD 19.42 Wildwood of Montrose -December 2, 2019
hydrant within 450' has not been provided neither have justification for a waiver. Due
to the requ i rement of a fire hydrant, a major subdivision will be triggered .
d . The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and
regulations; or
• Meets
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within
the planning jurisdiction of the City. 11
• Meets
Recommendation:
Staff recommends TABLING (with applicant's consent) SD 19.42 to allow the applicant to submit the follo w ing :
4
1. Submission of Plans and Profiles of a fire hydrant within 450' of the subject property and resubmission of the
application to reflect a major subdivision containing a pre l iminary plat approval request in l ieu of concurrent
preliminary and final plat approval;
2. Revision of the preliminary plat to reflect a 15' drainage and utilities easem ent along the western perimeter of
Lot 1; and
3. Acceptance of the waiver request to allow sidewalk installation at the time of new con struction, with this
requirement to be reflected o n the preliminary plat.
SD 19.42 Wildwood of Montrose -December 2, 2019
Some sod has been laid and some areas seeded . Progress has been made to stabilize the entire site and
some items removed from the punch list . There are not any major deficiencies.
The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV.8 .2. Approval Standards.
"2. 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:
3
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;
• Meet5
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
• Meet5
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and regulations;
or
• Meets
e. The proposed subdivisio n otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the
planning jurisdiction of the City."
• Meet!i
Recommendation :
Staff recommends approval SD 19.43 Tracery with the following conditions :
1. Remaining items referenced above in the comment section are corrected to the
satisfaction of Kim Burmeister or the Development Services Manager.
2. The warranty period of the sanitary sewer lift station shall not commence until start-initial
start-up of the lift station and upon approval of the Water and Sewer Superintendent.
SD 19.43 Tracery Final -December 2, 2019
Article V, Section D.3.e. Street Standards -Street Layout
a . Access to Adi acent Property -Street co1mections to abutting properties shall be provided at least at interval s
not to exceed the maximum block length specified in Section D.4., by extension of a paved street that meets
C ity constrnction requirements to the boundary of the abutting property. A temporary turnaround shall be
provided for those streets subject to the following:
(1) A circular turnaround with a diameter of 30 to 42 feet. lf a center isla nd is provided in th e turnaround , the
outside diameter shall be 45 feet with a 20 to 24-foot lane maintained at a ll times. Circular turnarounds may be
design ed to incorporate a future traffic circle or roundabout, as provided in Article V., Section D.5.h., when
futw·e streets will intersect at that point.
(2) For extensions serving 5 lot s or more, a cu l-de-sac shall be required . Pe1manent dead -end streets shall not
exceed 1,320 feet ( 1 /4 mile) in length. Pennanent dead-end streets with a pavement width of 20 feet or less
shall be provided with a turnaround having a roadway diameter of at least 70 feet and a right-of-way diameter
of at least 100 feet. Permanent dead-end streets with a pavement width of more than 20 feet shall be provided
with a tw11around having a roadway diameter of at lea st 80 feet an d a right-of-way
diameter of at least 100 feet. At non-pennanent dead-end street, provide a temporary turn-around with at least a
70' diameter constructed with an all -weather surface.
(3) For street extensions serving four or fewer lots, no temporary turnaround is required .
(4) All access streets to adjacent property that are not connected at the time of the improvements shall be posted
with a stop sign blank reading "Fuhire Through Street." The si2:J1 shall be posted by the Subdivider.
□NIA I iZJAccepted with comments I □Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Phase 5 connects Phase lA to Phase 3 within the Firethorne development and as a result no
"future through street" signage is requi red.
Article V, Section D.3j Street Standards -Street Layout
a. Street Lights -Street lights are to be paid for or installed by the developer at the time of development. Street
I ights shall be approved by the Planning director and/or his/her authorized agent and the E lectrical
Superintendent. Pole height shall be no more than 15 feet from fin ished grade. The type and style of lights
and poles will be detennined and agreed upon by the developer and the utility provider. AU other approvals,
including the design layout of street lights , w ill be granted by the electrical superintendent. The utility
provider shal l be responsible for the install ation and maintenance of the street lights. Outside the City of
Fairhope, the homeowner 's association will be responsible for the maintenance, if applicable, and energy
costs of the lights and this responsibility shall be noted on the plat.
□NIA I IZJAccepted with comments I D Revise and Resubmit
Cross Reference: Article IV, Section C. J. b. (12) Street lighting plan
Comments: Streetlights are not in place at the time of review however a copy of an aid-to-construction receipt
to Baldwin EMC or streetli~hts was included w ith the Final Plat annlication.
Article V, Section D. 5.a. (8) Street Standards -Street Design -General Requirements -Street Trees
Street trees shall be planted on center in all planting strips according to the following:
(a) All trees shall be at least 15 gallons and/or 1.5" to 2.5" in diameter when planted ;
(b) Trees shall be planted at least every 25 feet from intersections . A tree shall be planted one per lot or at least every 50
feet, but no closer than 10 feet;
(c) Tree species and tree placement shall be approved by the City Horticultu1ist;
(d) All trees shall be pruned so that no foliage, limbs or other obstructions exist between 2½ and 10 feet from the
adjacent street grade;
( e) In areas where planting strips are optiona l and not provided, sidewalks ten feet or greater shall provide 4' x 4' tree
wells along the curb so that trees may be planted in conformance with these re quirements .
□NIA I IZJAccepted with comments I D Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Comments: Drawing LP200 was included that indicates the location of street trees to be installed
during the bond period -Subdivision Performance Bond# PB03021400004 from Philadelphia Indemnity
Insurance Company was submitted with the Final Plat application. Included within the total performance
bond amount of $122,586.25 is $19,0 00.00 for street trees. (76 trees times $200.00 times 125% for the bond
amount= $19,00 0.00)
I Article V, Section D. 6. Street Standards -Pedestrian Area Design Standards
4 SD 19.44 Phase 5 of Greenbriar at Firethorne -December 2, 2019
All streets shall include a pedestrian area compri sed of a planting strip and a sidewalk, according to the standards in
Table 5 .3 u1 Appe ndix A. The developer mav have the fle x ibi I itv to construct the sidewalks within 2 years of final
plat approval. A letter of credit guaranteeing the construction for 125 % of the engu1ee:r's estunate is required. At the
end of 2 years, all sidewalks shall be completed by either the developer or City, using the letter of credit. The areas in
which the sidewalks will be poured shall be graded and compacted at the tune the subdivision infrastructure is
constructed. The pedestrian area shall be designed according to the following minimum standards :
a. All sh·eets supporti.ng residential land uses shall have a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk on each side of the street with
the back edge of the sidewalk being the edge of the light-of-way .
b. All streets supporting public institutions and public facilities lan d uses shall include a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk
and 8-foot wide planting strip on each side of the street.
C . All streets suppmting non -residential land uses in cludin g commercial , office, and mixed-use villages, shall have :
(1) a minimum 15 ' wide sidewalk, with tree wells according to Article V., Section D.5.a.8.(e) on each s id e of the
sh·eet; or
(2) a minimum 10' wide sidewalk and minimum 6-foot wide planting strip on each side of the sh·eet.
d. Sidewalks shall inc lud e curb ramps meeting accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities act at all
intersections and any non-grade driveway or land intersecting the sidewalk.
Article V, Section D. 6. Street Standards -Pedestrian Area Design Standards (continued)
e. Sidewalks shall be constructed of a minimum 4" concrete surface meeting City construction standards. Where
applicable, sidewalk materials shall be used and constructed to encourage maximum tree preservation.
f. Streets in rural and agricultural subdivisions meeting all requirements of Article V., Section D.7.c. and d . are not
required to provide sidewalks .
g, Where applicable, sidewalks shall be configured in a manner that provides for maximum tree preservation .
□NIA IZ!Accepted with □Revise and Resubmit per comments
comments
Cross Reference: Article V Section D.5.a.8.(e) and D. 7.c and d.
Comments: Sidewa lks shall be installed within two years of final plat approval as included in the recitals of the
subdivision performance bond agreement. The Engin eer of Record's (EOR) schedule of values indicate 3,603
linear feet of sidewalk to be installed. At $23.00 per linear feet with a 125% bond markup, the bond amount
within the performance bond is $103,586.25. Combined with street trees, the total bond amount is $122,586.25
reflected in Performance Bond# PB03021400004.
Article VI, Section A. Construction Standards-General
The sub-divider shall be required to install, or construct unprovements hereinafter described prior to havmg released
bond or other surety which guarantees the installation of such improvements . All improvements requi.i·ed shall be
constructed in conformity with these regu lations and in conformity with Chapter 19, Streets, Sidewalks, and Other
Public Ways, of the Code of Ordi.nances for the City of Fairhope, as amended. All improvements shall be designed
and sealed by a Project Engineer. The Project Engineer shall carry Errors and Omissions Insurance at a
minimum coverage of at lea st $1,000,000.
□NIA I !ZIAccepted with comments I D Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: A certificate of insurance with the City of Fairhope listed as a certificate holder was furnished as
requested.
Article VI, Section C. Construction Standards-Curbs and Gutters
Curbs and gutters shall be installed on all streets within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Fairhope, except on those streets
which are eligible for the rural design standard expressed in Table 5.3, Appendix A of these regulations . On streets requiring curb
and gutter, either valley type or ban-ier type concrete curb and gutter which meets the City's standards and specifications
expressed in Chapter 19 of the Code of Ordinances, as amended shall be installed . Curbs and gutters shall be designed and
installed in accordance with good engineering practice . Face of curbs shall be not less than six inches in height. Backfill behind
curbs shall slope to the back of the curb for drainage . Markings shall be added to the curb to indicate the location of water
and sewer laterals.
□NIA [ !ZIAccepted with c01runents [ □Revise and Resubmit per comments
Cross Reference: Table 5.3, Avvendix "A" City of Fairhope Subdivision Re~ulations
Comments: Ass istant Public Works Director Arthur Bosarge inspected the site and had no comments.
I Article VJ, Section E.6. -8. Construction Standards-Storm Water
5 SD 19.44 Phase 5 of Greenbriar at Firethorne -December 2, 2019
The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article I V.B.2. Approval Standards. Address each
of these criteria with either a "meets" or "does not meet". If any of the cri teria is n ot met, a denial should be
recommended.
"2. 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 a nd
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;
• meets
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and
regulations; or
• meets
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safet y, welfare or property within the
planning jurisdiction of the City. 11
• meets
Recommendation:
Staff recommends APP ROVA L of case# SD 19.44, Firethorne Phase 5 Fin al Pl at cont ingent up on t he following
conditions:
8
1) Compl etion of punch li st items sha ll be to the satisfact i oh of City of Fa irhope staff prior to pl acing approval
signatures on the final plat.
SD 19.44 Pha se 5 of Gre e nbriar at Fire t horne-Decemb er 2, 2019
Our main objection is that what was initially advertised and sold as one thing has slowly
become another. What appeared to be the plan of a Mercedes or a Toyota as now
become a Ford or a Chevy -strange comparison, but you get the idea. All you have to
do is drive through this area called Firethorn and you can tell immediately which are
the Truland homes and which are the Horton -in character, building materials, design,
size and sadly in quality reputation most of all. I resent being sold one product and
getting something far different. I would think that the new residents of Firethorn
would object as well and it is their homes that will also be affected.
It is also this kind of business and procedures that make the citizens of our area not
trust the officials who ore in charge of such decisions and results. I think that Truland
who now has larger -much larger -areas around to developed is in a hurry to finish in
Firethorn and this is the method of getting out of this development regardless of the
effect on the homes and homeowners they leave behind. It also reflects on the City of
Fairhope.
John and Anna Mitchell
C1lALIU
Planning Dept.
555 S. Section St.
Fairhope, Al,
Gentlemen,
'Nov. 25 , 20 19
I live at 170 Club Dr. and this i s the second letter con cerning SD19.44, Phase 5 of Greenbriar at
Fairhope.
Wh en I wrote the first letter I had not received m y water and sewe r bill cove1ing period of 10-1-2019 t o
11-2 -2 019. For six months prior to the bill for 11-2 my combined water and sewer cost was 25.5 1. The
cost of water and sewer from 10-1 fto 11-2 was 2 01 .0 3 -a difference of $175.52 and all b ecause the
scews in my toilet tank jiggled loose and ran all night flooding my bathroom. I stated this in m y first
letter.
My next step is to call a plumber to examine the water pipes in the attic to see if they were affected
wh en we heard the other pipes vibrating when Firethorne LLC"s equipment shook the eaith in back of
me .
I cannot get in touch with Firethorne by phone because they won 't return my calls. I cannot find an
add r ess for them and they have so many departments, you are my l ast r ecourse. At l east yo u could tell
them they are cau si n g one resi d ent of Fairhope a lot of grief.
Thank you for yo ur consideration.
Sincerely,
lf-1~4~c
Henri Etta Burnett
170 C lub Dr.
Fa irhope, Al.,
25 1 929-1950
Planning Dept.
555 S. Section St.
Fairhope, Al.,
Gentlemen,
Re: Case: SD19.44, Phase 5 of Greenbriar at Fairhope Nov. 18, 20 19
I live at 170 Club Dr. and I have several comments about the recent road construction behind my house
that lasted several weeks under the direction of Firethome Development. After many calls initiated by
me and my daughter, a man who said bis name was Sam, called back and said he would send someone
out to look at the damage to m y house. No one came and I am gl ad to have this opportunity to h ave my
say because I h ad given up.
Tried to send this to emilvboyett@fairhopeal.gov but they couldn't deliver it, so I am hand delivering.
For several weeks the heavy equipment sh ook my house vibrating the plumbing so that both screws
that hold the toilet tank in the master bath jiggled loose and my bath flooded during the night. I woke
up to a mess but was able to tum the water off, empty the tank, tighten the screws and soak up the
water on the floor before it got to the carpet. I'm proud to tell you this because I"m 88 years old.
When they knocked a 25 "diameter limb off of a beautiful oak tree on the property line , the eaith shook
and I gu ess that was wh en my porch cracked and the baseboard in the dining rnom buckled. They are
both on the same side of the house. The dead limb is still there and I'm afraid that beautiful tree will
not survive. I don't know of anyone else wh o suffered any damage that they can see other than the
noise and vibration.
I am fearful there may be damage to the foundation, under my carpets, wood and vinyl floors and will
probably never know. I will be watching close ly when they start building houses behind me. I don't
like Firethorne Development, LLC and wouldn't buy a dog house from them.
Sincerelv_
-f{/~-4?.·
Henri Etta Burnett
170 C lub Dr.
929 -1950
RESOLU T ION NO : 2 0 19-0 2
A RESOLUT ION AMENDING ARTICLE IV, SECT ION H . MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY PROJECTS OF TH E
CITY OF FAIRHOPE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, A l abama Code Section 11-52-31, expressly authorizes a municipal planning
commission to adopt subdivi sion regulations governing the subdivision of land within its
jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to amend the Subdivi sion Regulations as
hereinafter provided .
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANN I NG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA, as follows :
1. Article IV, Section H. Multiple Occupancy Projects of the Subdivision Regulations is
hereby revised to rea d as fo ll ows:
H. MlJT, UPT E QccuPA NCY PROJE CTS:
l. Any project that w ill invo lve or otherw ise resu lt in three (3) o r mor e uni ts (wh ether cont iguous or
otherwise) bein g constructed on r eal prope1ty fo r occupa ncy, regardless of t he form or type of
ownership or ri ght of possess ion of said units, unl ess otherwise regul ated by these Regul ations in
another Article and/or Section h ereof, s h a ll comply with the fo ll owing term s and condit ions of
t his Sect ion H.
2. T he Subdivider sh a ll sub mit t o the P la nning Commission via t he C ity of Fairho pe Planning
Department a preliminary p lat and pl ans fo r such proj ect, which m ust, at a m in imum, com p ly
with the fo llow ing r equ irements:
(a) Eac h p r elim in ary plat an d p lans sh a ll comp ly w ith the stonn wate r requ ireme nts of Article V,
Sectio n F h ereof.
(b) Each prelimin a ry plat and p lans shall comply with the traffic requirements of Art icle IV,
Secti on C l(h) hereof.
(c) Any and a ll im provements constru cted i n con necti on w ith the project shall be constructed
st ri ctly in accor dance w it h Artic le VI hereof.
(d) The minimum setback for any build ing(s) constructed in connection w ith a project from the
property lines shall b e twenty feet (20 ') on all s id es for un zoned p ro perty. Property w ithin City
of Fairhope's corporate lim its s ha ll com p ly w it h t he minimu m set back require me nts of the
C ity of Fai rh ope Zo nin g O rdinance.
(e) No b u ilding or other improvement t o be constru cted in connect ion with a project shall exceed
th irty -five feet (35') in h eight for u nzo ne d property . T h e 20 foot minimu m setback
req uirement m ay be increased by t he P lanning Commission based on the size of the build ing,
the location of the driveways, and other factors. Property w ith in the C ity of Fairhope
corporate li mits shall comply w ith the height re qu irem e nts of the City of Fairhope Zoning
Ordinance .
(f) Each preliminaty plat and plans shall othe1wise confom1 to the terms of Article I , Section A
hereof.
(g) Each prelirnina1y plat and plans shall comply with the greenspace requirements of Article V,
Section C. hereof.
3. Each preliminary p lat and plans shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of
Section C, and the final plat and plans shall be submitted in accordance witb Section D of Article
IV hereofrelating to pre1iminary and final plat submittals , respectively.
4 . The fili.ng fee for any project regulated in accordance with this Section Hof this Article IV shall
be the same as the filing fee for an application for a Minor Subdivision for four ( 4) or fewer units ,
or a Major Subdivi s ion for five (5) or more units .
DULY ADOPTED this _ day of ______ _, 2019.
Lee Turner, Chairman
Attest:
Emily Boyett, Secretary
Article IV Section H.
Pr o cedur e For Plat Approval Multiple Occupan cy Projects
f. Appendix B.
5. Intent -It is the intent that the provisions of this Section G of Article [V apply to all
Property which has been zoned as pa1t of a TR District. Accordingly, in the event ofany
conflict or ambiguity between the terms and provisions of this Section G of Atticle IV
and any of the other sections a1ticles or provisions of the Subdivision Regulations, the
terms and provisions of this Section G of Article IV shall at all times contro l.
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 li cation for such Propetty), no
subsequently adopted amendments to or modifications of the Zoning Ordinance
(inc ludin g 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 fo1th in this Section G of this A1ticle IV or which are set fotth in the approved TR
District Zoning Application shall be effective with respect to the real prope1ty described
in such approved TR District Zoning Application.
H. Mw T{PLE QccuPANCYPRo,1EcT,S;
I. Any project that will involve or otherwise result in three (3) or more units (whether
contiguous or otherwise) being constructed on real prope1ty for occupancy , regardless of
the form or type of ownership or right of possession of said units , unless otherwise
regulated by these Regulations in another Article and/or Section hereof, shall comply
with the following terms and conditions of this Section H.
2. The Subdivider shall submit to the Planning Commission via the City of Fai.rhope
Planni11g Depmtment a preliminary p lat and plan s site plaA for such project, which
site plan must, at a minimum , comply with the following requirements:
(a) Each preliminary plat and plan site plan shal l comp ly with the storm water
requirements of Article V , Section F hereof.
(b) Each preliminary plat and plans site plaA shall comply with the traffic requirements of AJticle rv ,
Section C l(h) hereof.
(c) Any and a ll improvements constructed in connection with the project shall be
constructed strictly in accordance with AJticle VI hereof.
(d) The minimum set back for any building(s) constructed in connection with a project
from the property lines shall be twenty feet (20 ') on all sides for unzoned prope1ty.
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 constrncted in connection with a project
shall exceed thirty-five feet (35 ') in height for unzoned property. The 20 foot
minimum setback requirement may be increased by tbe Planning Commission based
on the size of the building, the location of the driveways , and other factors. Prope1ty
within the City of Fairhope corporate limits shall comply with the height
requirements of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance.
F ;t lRJJOPE SUBDIV ISIO N REGULA TIO NS 29
Article JV Section H.
Pr ocedure For Plat Approval Multipl e Occupan cy Pr oj ec ts
(t) Each preliminary plat and plans site plan shall otherwise conform to the te1ms of Article I , Section A
hereof.
(g) Each preliminary plat and p lans site plan shall comply with the greenspace requirements of A1ticle
V , Section C. hereof.
3. Each preliminary plat and plans site plan shall be submitted in accordance with the
requirements of Section C , and the final plat and plans shall be submitted in
accordance with Section D of A1ticle IV hereof relating to preliminary and final plat
submittals, respectively . ; provided , however, that a Subdivider may tl'lake application
for simultaneous preliminary and final plat approval.
4. The filing fee for any project regulated in accordance with this Section Hof this Article
IV shall be the same as the fl-RY filing fee for assessed against an application for a Minor
Subdivision for four (4) or fewer units, or a Major Subdivision for five (5) or more units .
F ~URflOPE S UBDIVISION REGULATIONS 30
A rticle V
Spe cial Districts
Article V
Special Districts
A . POD-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
Section H
Medical Overlay District
A. PUD -Planned Unit Development
1. Intent -The special standards li sted in this section for th e Planned Unit Development district are intended
to :
• Permit flexible development of projects which are comprehensively planned as a single deve lopment
with a functional master development plan which fully considers the entire site as an integrated project
and give broad consideration to impacts and relationships to surrounding areas .
• enco urage opportunities for development innovation tailored to a particular site, that while c learly
furthering the goa ls of the comprehensive plan, could not exp licitly be established by genera ll y
app licabl e standards or guidelines;
• allow mixed-use development which offer a greater variety in type , de sign , and layout of buildings ;
• encourage land conservation, and more effic ient use of open space ;
• permit modification of certain controls in a manner so as to produce large area developmen t ananged
to better serve community need s.
2. Size -A Planned Unit Development sha ll be am inimum of 3 acres.
3. Permitted Uses -1:Jses-The PUD District shall be assembled using any of the current base zoning
districts provided in Fa irhope Zoning O rdin ance. The li st of permitted uses shall be described and
contained in the stte--master development plan accompanying each Planned Unit Development.
4 . Ordinance and Site PlaRMaster Development Plan Required -E ach Planned Unit D evelopment shall
hav e an Ordinance that estab lis hes the d e velopment ofregulations for the district. In approv in g a Planned
Unit Deve lopment, the ordinance s ha ll re ference the master development plan site plan , which shall
prescribe development stand ards. The master development plan site plan after approval shall become patt
of the amending ordinance . All development shall be in confonnance with the approved master
development plan 8ite Plan and development regulations.
a. Master development plan. The master deve lopment plan sha ll include the following information :
(I .) Written Documentation
a . A legal description of the parcel upon which the PUD is to be built;
b. The name of the present owner(s) and. if different. the person(s) who wi ll be the
owner(s) of the parcel(s) during the deve lopment of PUD;
c . A statement of development objectives, including a description of the character of
the proposed development and its re lationship to sunounding areas;
Article V
Specia l Districts
Section H
Medical Overlay District
d. A statement of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and pertinent regulations:
e. A development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the
PUD is expected to begin and to be completed, and anv applicable phasing of
construction:
f. A statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to future selling or leasing of all
or portions of the PUD. including land areas and dwelling units:
g _ Estimated percentages of the PUD to be devoted to each type of land use, including
anv subcategories ofresidential, commercial and institutional uses, open space, and
recreational areas:
h . A plan for the intended manner of permanent care and maintenance of open spaces,
recreational areas, common areas, and private streets and drives.
(2.) A site plan, which shall include the following items, either on the site p lan or on an
accompanying document:
a . The name of the development:
b . The legal description of the property on which the PUD is to be developed:
c . Scale:
d . North arrow:
e . A vicinity map showing the parcel in relation to the surrounding property and a
general description of the suJTounding area, including the current zoning and land
uses of the suJTounding area:
f. A boundary survey prepared and certified by a surveyor who is licensed as a
surveyor by the state. The survey must show all streets which are adjacent to the
parcel, all easements and rights-of-wav on the parcel and the location of any existing
buildings or other structures which sha ll be a part of the PUD:
g. Contours and elevations shown on a separate topographical survey:
h. The density of land use to be allocated to all parts of the PUD. together with
tabulations by acreage and percentage of the parcel to be occupied by each proposed
use:
1. Proposed lot lines and dimensions:
j. Location, size. and character of proposed buildings and structures. including :
i. Identification of the base zoning district related to the contemp lated use(s)
of the building. If any proposed building does not met the standards of the
base zoning district associated with it, provide a description of the specific
standards which are not met by the proposed building, a description of the
deviations from those standards, and the reasons why the deviations are
necessary:
11. Distribution of housing types:
111. Number of units, stories. and maximum heights:
1v . Proposed floor areas of all units:
v . Elevations of buildings and structures indicating exterior materials:
vi. Location of accessory structures or accessory dwellings:
k . The location and size of all areas to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved as commonly
owned space. public parks, recreational areas and similar public or semi-public uses;
I. The location of utility easements:
m . The existing and proposed circulation system of streets, both public and private,
including:
i. Location and dimensions of streets. alleys, driveways, and points of access
to public rights-of-way:
ii . Notation of proposed ownership:
iii. Location. dimensions and capacities of parking areas:
iv. Service. loading and maneuvering areas:
v . Service yards, including, but not limited to. location of dumpsters : and
v1. Pedestrian circulation:
v11. Materials with which parking areas. driveways, streets, sidewalks, and trails
will be covered:
n . The locations. intensity . and height of exterior lights:
A rticle V
Special Districts
Section H
Medical Overlay District
o. The locations of mechanical equipment and proposed screening;
p. Location of outside storage and /or display;
q. Proposed drive-through locations ;
r. Landscape plan in accordance with the City s Tree /Landscape Ordinance, including;
i. Location of existing trees, indicating which trees will be
preserved/removed;
11. Treatment of materials used for private and common open spaces;
iii . The proposed treatment of the perimeter of the PUD including materials and
techniques to be used;
s. The location, size, and character of any common open space, or any commonly
owned facilities, and the type of organization which will own and maintain anv
commonly owned open space or facilities;
t. Location, materials, and elevation of any and all fences and /or walls;
u. Location and size of all signage;
v. Hours of operation of any nonresidential use;
w. Mitigation of noise, fumes, odors, vibration or airborne particles:
x . Drainage
y . Access and location of utilities .
z. Any additiona l data, plans, or specifications which the applicant or the City believes
is pertinent .
5. Conditions Related to Approval
a ?reapplication co nf'ere nce. Befo re filing an application for a Planned Unit Development, the
prospective applicant shall schedule a preapplication conference with the Planning Director. At the
preapplication conference the prospective applicant shall present to the Planning Director a proposed plan
for review, and discuss pertinent development matters including, but not limited to, the following:
b. Application. In addition to the general criteria for zoning map amendments, a map amendment to the
PUD district shall include a preliminary master development plan to be reviewed for compliance with
the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, this ordinance, and the health, safety. and general
welfare of the people of the City.
a. The required preliminarv master development plan shall include those items described in
Article V. Section A.4.a (master development plan). The preliminary master development
plan is intended as a draft, which will be edited and improved based upon review of staff,
Planning Commission, and City Council prior to adoption as a final master development plan
that may be codified with the Ordinance that creates/amends a PUD.
b. In addition to the general criteria for zoning map amendments, a map amendment to the PUD
district shall include review of the following conditions for compliance with the goals and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan and this ordinance.
i. Setbacks for building structures
ii. Public street access
iii . Vehicular traffic, circulation, connections, and parking
iv. Screening or buffer zones
v. Hours of operation
vi. Activities or uses permitted on the property
vii. Building or structure heights
viii. Landscaping
ix. Maximum lot coverage, impervious percentages
x . Pedestrian circulation
xi. Signs
x11. Mitigation of noise, fumes, odors, vibration or airborne particles
x111. Exterior lighting
xiv. Exterior construction materials
Article V Section H
Special Districts Medical Overlay District
--I-A-addition to the general criter ia for ;w»-ifl.g map amendments, a map amendment to the PUD
district shall include review of the following conditions for compliance with the goals and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and this ordinance .
a. Setbacks for building structures
s. Public street access
c. Vehicular traffic , circulation , connections, and 13arking
d. Screening or b1:1ffer zones
e. Hours of 013eration
f. Activities or uses permitted on the propert:y
g. B1:1ilding or structtll'e heights
h. Landscaping
1. Maximum lot co¥erage, impervio1:15-percentages
J. Pedestrian circ1:1lation
k. Signs
I. Mitigation of noise, fomes, odors , vibration or airsome particles
m. eicterior lighting
n. eicterior constrnction materials
o. S13ecial fire protection
p. Outside storage and display of merchandise
q. Refose and waste storage
r. Lot size and dimensions
s. Accessory b1:1i ldings
t. Drainage
u. Other infonnatim1 shovm on the site 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 pem1its must be consistent with the
Planned Un it 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 structw-es to each other may be
approved by the Director of Planning and Building .
8. Failure to begin construction -Construction of the approved deve lopment must begin within one year
from the date of the approval of the master deve lopment plan by the City Council. Any approved changes
in the p lan shall not extend the time at which sa id one-year period begins to run. The planning commission
may. no sooner than 60 days prior to the end of said one-year period, upon the written request of the
app licant, extend such one-year period for a period of not more than s ix month s if, in the judgment of the
planning commission, such additional t ime is warranted.
In any event, the construction of the PUD must be started within two years of the approval of the master
development plan by the city council. Failure to begin the development of the PUD within said one-year
period, or the period as extended. shall automatically void the master development plan, and the zoning
classification sha ll automatically revert to R-A .
B. CBD -Central Business District Overlay
l. 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 s hall provide an environment for shopping,
restaurant and ente1tainment, cultural and artistic institutions , offices . governmental functions , and
I Dewberry·
October 22, 2019
Mr. Buford King
City of Fairhope
161 North Section Street
Fairhope, AL 36532
Dewberry Engineers Inc. 251 .990.9950
25353 Friendship Road 251.990.99 10 fax
Daphne, AL 36526 w w w .dewberry.com
Re: Fairhope Falls, Phase Three, Preliminary Plat Extension
Dear Buford:
According to my records, Fairhope Falls Phase 3 Preliminary Plat was approved by the Fairhope
Planning Commission on January 3, 2017, and prior to expiring in January of 2019, a 1 year extension
was granted and is now set to expire on January 3 , 2020. The County has also granted an extension
which is set to expire on February 21, 2021. As such, we would like to request on behalf of the d eveloper,
TH Fairhope Falls 2018, LLC, a 1 year extension of the preliminary plat approval. This would align the
approvals of the City and the County whereby the expiration period would be generally the same time.
The developer's plans to begin construction are somewhat based on the absorption rate of the lots in
the other recorded phases. They hope to begin construction within the next year.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please advise if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
DEWBERRY
Je~
Senior Planner
Cc: Project No. 50082843
Page 1 of 1
~ Dewberry·
October 22, 2019
Mr. Buford King
City of Fairhope
161 North Section Street
Fairhope, AL 36532
Dewberry Engineers Inc . 251 .99 0.9950
253 53 Friendship Road 251 .99 0.9910 fax
Daphne, AL 36526 www.dewberry.co m
Re: Old Battles Village, Phase Four, Preliminary Plat Extension
Dear Buford:
According t o my records, Old Battles Village, Phase 4 Preliminary Plat was approved by the Fairhope
Planning Commission on January 3, 2017, and prior to expiring in January of 2019, a 1 year extension
was granted and is now set to expire on January 3, 2020. We would like to request on behalf of the
developer, Truland Homes, LLC, a 1 year extension of the preliminary pl at approval. The developer's
plans to begin construction are somewhat based on the absorption rate of the lots in the other recorded
phases. They hope to begin construction within the next year .
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please advise if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
DEWBE
~
Cc: Project No. 50083831
Page 1 of 1
I Dewberry·
October 22, 2019
Mr. Buford King
City of Fairhope
161 North Section Street
Fairhope, AL 36532
Dewberry Engineers Inc . 251.990.9950
25353 Friendship Road 251.990.9910 fax
Daphne, AL 36526 www.dewber ry.c om
Re: Verandas, Phases One and Three, Preliminary Plat Extensions
Dear Buford:
According to my records, Verandas, Phases 1 and 3 Preliminary Plats were approved by the Fairhope
Planning Commission on January 3, 2017, and prior to exphing in January of 2019, a 1 year extension
was granted and is now set to expire on January 3, 2020. We would like to request on behalf of the
developer, The Verandas, LLC , a 1 year extension of the preliminary plat approval . The developer has
completed Phases 2 and 4 on the east side of the extensiv e wetland area on site and is now set to begin
construction on the west side. Construction is set to begin within the next year.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please advise if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
DEWBE
~
Steven Pumphrey
Senior Planner
Cc : Project No. 50086218
Page 1 of 1