HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-2022 Planning Commission MinutesSeptember 8, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
The Planning Commission met Thursday, September 8, 2022, at 5 :00 PM at the City Municipal
Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairman; Rebecca Bryant, Vice-Chair; Art Dyas; Harry Kohler; John
Worsham; Clarice Hall-Black; Hollie MacKellar; Corey Martin, City Council Liaison Hunter
Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager; Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager;
Casey Potts, City Planner; Michelle Melton, City Planner; and Chris Williams, City Attorney.
Absent: Allie Knutson, Secretary.
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM.
Chairman Turner stated that there would be no discussion for Item 3 Old/New Business on the
agenda. He also stated that many letters had been received asking about apartments at the
intersection of State Highway 104 and State Highway 181, there are no requests for apartments
on the agenda.
Approval of the Minutes, August 1, 2022:
Councilman Martin made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 1, 2022, meeting.
John Worsham seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote.
A YE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-
Black, Hollie MacKellar, and Councilman Martin.
NAY:None.
UR 22.12 Request of CSpire for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed
underground installation of approximately 5,536 LF of buried fiber cable in the ROW of County
Road 13 from Fairhope A venue to Mosley Road.
Summary:
Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented the case summary and showed a map of the
proposed installation along County Road 13.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of UR 22.12 subject to the following conditions:
1. A pre-construction meeting shall be held with the City prior to issuance of any permits.
2. Consultation with the City's horticulturalist, to determine if the required depth of bore must
be increased so that no trees are impacted by the project. The contractor is responsible for
any damaged trees.
3. At all street crossing locations, conduct potholing to determine exact location and elevation
of existing utilities. Reflect the exact elevation of utilities and GPS coordinates of the
pothole locations on a set of as-built drawings.
a. An additional right-of-way permit may be required for the potholing procedures.
4. Follow-up activities below required by staff and the applicant:
1
September 8, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
a. Upon satisfactory review and approval by ROW Construction Inspector, as-builts
will be submitted to the mapping technician for inclusion in GIS utility maps as
needed.
5. Provide draft door hanger for approval at time of pre-construction.
6. Provide a Traffic Control Plan to ROW Inspector prior to commencement of any work.
7. Ensure enough space for proposed work is available within existing easement, if not
applicant is responsible for either expanding existing easement or acquiring an additional
easement.
8. Applicant shall contact Alabama One Call to locate all existing utilities (750ft max per
day).
9. Utilities boxes shall be concentrated near existing boxes.
10. For permitting purposes, applicants shall provide subsurface utility engineering quality-
level C, unless otherwise required by the Fairhope Building Department
AC-Spire Representative was present but had nothing further to add.
Motion:
Art Dyas made a motion to approve Case UR 22.12, subject to staff recommendations.
John Worsham seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-
Black, Hollie MacKellar, and Councilman Martin.
NAY:None.
ZC 22.08 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicants, Clint Martin, and Natalie
Maddox, acting on behalf of the Owner, Dynamic Holdings LLC, to establish an initial zoning of
B-2, General Business District, concurrent with conditional annexation into the City of Fairhope.
The property is approximately 0.61 acres and is located on the east side of US Highway 98, south
of Spring Run Drive, north of the Wolfe-Bayview Funeral Home. PPIN #: 91211
Summary:
Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented the case summary.
The subject property is currently outside the City of Fairhope's municipal boundary and zoned B-2 by
Baldwin County, located in District 8. The site is undeveloped with plans of building an office using the
existing drive to the north. This is a straight re-zoning request and does not include a site plan for
intended uses. Future uses, if approved, shall meet the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Case ZC 22.08, PPIN 91211, be approved for conditional annexation, with initial
zoning of B-2 General Business District.
Neither the Applicant nor the Owner were present to speak.
Chairman Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
2
September 8, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
Motion:
John Worsham made a motion to recommend approval of Case ZC 22.08, PPIN 91211, for conditional
annexation to B-2, to City Council.
Harry Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-
Black, Hollie MacKellar, and Councilman Martin.
NAY:None.
ZC 22.09 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Jade Consulting, LLC, acting
on behalf of the Owner, RW Battles, LLC, to establish an initial zoning of B-2, General Business
District, concurrent with conditional annexation into the City of Fairhope. The properties are
approximately 21.18 acres and are located near the northwest corner of Greeno Road and Old
Battles Road. PPIN #: 391374, 17515, 391372, 391376, 391373, 391379, 391375
Summary:
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, presented the case summary.
The subject property is currently outside the City of Fairhope's municipal boundary and zoned B-4 by
Baldwin County, located in District 8. The subject property lies within the City ofFairhope's permitting
jurisdiction and a permit has been issued for the site and the Publix development is under construction.
This development received a Multiple Occupancy Project (Case SD 21.09) approval at the February
2021 Planning Commission Meeting. This is a straight re-zoning request and does not include a site plan
for intended uses. Future uses, if approved, shall meet the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance requirements.
The only plans for this property at this time, are the Publix and the outparcels. Annexation would provide
no changes to the current plans. This area is considered a future commercial node.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Case ZC 22.09, Shoppes at Point Clear, be approved for conditional annexation, with
initial zoning of B-2 General Business District, with the following condition:
1. Case ZC 22.11 shall be approved by City Council, or lot lines adjusted, to ensure subject
property is contiguous to Fairhope Corporate Limits.
Trey Jinright, Jade Consulting, stated that annexation will bring site plan approvals to Planning
Commission in additional to tax revenue. The thirteen acres to the north would make it contiguous and
commercial will expand there are well.
Chairman Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion:
Art Dyas made a motion to recommend approval of ZC 22.09, Shoppes at Point Clear, for conditional
annexation to B-2, to City Council subject to staffs condition.
John Worsham seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
3
September 8, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
AYE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Hollie
MacKellar, and Councilman Martin.
NAY:None.
ZC 22.11 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Jade Consulting, LLC, acting
on behalf of the Owner, The Grand Reserve at Pelham, LLC, to establish an initial zoning of B-2,
General Business District, concurrent with conditional annexation into the City of Fairhope. The
properties are approximately 13.30 acres and are located on the west side of US Highway 98, just
south of Pale Moon Court. PPIN #: 39376, 210314
Summary:
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, presented the case summary.
The subject property is currently outside the City of Fairhope's municipal boundary and zoned RSF-E
(Residential Single Family Estate District) by Baldwin County, located in District 8. The subject
property lies within the City of Fairhope' s permitting jurisdiction. The properties to the south currently
have an application for conditional annexation to B-2 as well. This is a straight re-zoning request and
does not include a site plan for intended uses. Future uses, if approved, shall meet the Fairhope Zoning
Ordinance requirements. This area is considered a future commercial node.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Case ZC 22.11, 18323 Greeno Road, be approved for conditional annexation, with
initial zoning of B-2 General Business District.
Trey Jinright, Jade Consulting, had nothing further to add.
Chairman Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion:
John Worsham made a motion to recommend approval of ZC 22.11, 18323 Greeno Road, for conditional
annexation to B-2, to City Council.
Harry Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Hollie
MacKellar, and Councilman Martin.
NAY:None.
ZC 22.10 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Aaron Collins with SE Civil,
acting on behalf of Owner, Burgess Thomasson, Jr., et al., to amend the existing PUD (Planned
Unit Development) for Montrose Preserve PUD. The properties are approximately 53.94 acres
and are located on the west side of US Highway 98, across from the Rock Creek Subdivision.
PPIN#:75979,75980,75981,59675,75978
Summary:
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, presented the case summary.
4
September 8, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
This is the third proposed amendment to the PUD. Authorized agents include S.E. Civil, Larry Chason
with Chason & Earle Real Estate Brokers and Developers, L.L.C., as well as David Connor with
Blackburn & Connor Attorneys At Law.
Two options were proposed for this PUD amendment, 1. Provide options to allow Lots 4-6 to be sold
individually ("Option A") or combine Lots 4-6 as one (1) lot to be sold ("Option B"); and 2. To add
five development phases. Otherwise, the PUD remains the same with one slight exception. The new
entrance from U.S. Hwy 98 has been shifted to align with an existing median crossover. Setbacks and
other dimensional requirements, as well as uses, shall follow R-1, Single-Family Residential
requirements unless otherwise referenced on the proposed site plan. Option A includes 18 residential
lots and 5 development phases while Option B includes 16 residential lots and 5 development phases.
Combining lots 4-6 into one lot would remove an access road to the lots.
Originally presented in 2015 and approved in 2017, many revisions accommodating Commissioners, as
well as surrounding neighbors, and other outside agencies, lead to the approval of Ordinance 1596,
known at the time as the Thomasson PUD, which contained 77-lots. Central to those concerns were
connections to existing public roads within Montrose. In 2021, Ordinance 1742, an amendment known
as the Montrose Preserve PUD, provided a revised layout consisting of 18 residential lots. In March
2022, Staff received a Preliminary Plat application for Lots 1-6 only, which conflicted with both the
conditions of approval and Ordinance limitations of the currently approved PUD. Consequently, Staff
rejected the application. One of the existing conditions of approval is that "A Preliminary Plat shall be
required that includes the entire acreage. At minimum, the Preliminary Plat shall provide street access
to each of the 18 lots and be in substantial conformance with the street layout as proposed on the Master
Site Plan. The Preliminary Plat shall be approved by the Fairhope Planning Commission prior to
issuance of any building permits for any property located within the PUD." It has been implied that staff
added this condition prior to the City Council public hearing on January 24, 2022. For clarification, this
condition was discussed at the first Development Review Committee meeting on November 10, 2021,
and remained unchanged during the following instances. Throughout the process, no one expressed
opposition to this condition.
Option A or B appears reasonable assuming the overall intent of the PUD is achieved. Staff has concerns
that the phased development of these options could create problems. Staff is not opposed to phased
construction, i.e., building required improvements prior to the creation of new lots, but does believe the
PUD should be comprehensively planned. The PUD approves a conceptual plan, but the Preliminary
Plat resolves details. Chairman Turner stated it was standard to approve a PUD then require a
Preliminary Plat to make sure that everything works. Mr. Simmons agreed and stated the proposed
development phases are Phase 1: 3 lots, Phase 2: 3 lots (Option A) or 1 lot (Option B), Phase 3: 8 lots,
Phase 4: 3 lots, and Phase 5: 1 lot. It is not an efficient use of the City's resources to allow 1 and 3 lot
residential phases, especially when it is unclear whether the intents of the overall PUD can be achieved.
Staff recommendations are not arbitrary, they reflect the rules and regulations adopted by the City
Council and the Planning Commission. Mr. Simmons referenced the first paragraph of the City's
Subdivision Regulations, the Purpose of the Regulations.
There is no access to existing roads in Montrose, other than Lots 1-3, which utilized the 3rd Street rights-
of-way. Access to each lot will be provided via Highway 98 and/or Main Street. Mechanisms for
providing access to each lot are not finalized, but the final solution may include, but not be limited to,
the following options: Vacation of rights-of-way, agreements to include a privately maintained road in
5
September 8, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
a public right-of-way, shared access via easements inside lot lines, and/or garbage and recycling will be
provided by the City of Fairhope Public Works. All streets shall be approved by the Director of Public
Works. The subject property is serviced by the following utilities: Sewer is Fairhope Utilities, Water is
Daphne Utilities, Power is Riviera, and Telecommunications is AT&T. Adequacy of public utility
infrastructure shall be required prior to submitting for a Preliminary Plat application.
Questions/comments that staff still have concern Common Areas that should be created separate from
the residential lots along with a documented maintenance plan by the 18 ( or 16) individual owners as
proposed by the Applicant as well as the dark green area being common and not part of the resulting
lots. Definitive delineations of wetland boundaries, stream protections, floodways, and flood zones are
needed. Questions about how drainage will be managed, what does a grading plan to accommodate
access and drainage look like and what will those changes affect. Garbage collection was discussed in
previous reviews; Lots 1-14 were to be collected along a route that generally followed the 3rd Street and
Ledyard Street unopened rights-of way. Removing access through Lots 4-6 would require garbage trucks
to re-route to the U.S. Highway 98 entrance to access Lots 7-14. This re-route may be acceptable, but
increased travel times and expanded garbage routes will need to be reviewed/approved by Public Works.
The 40' undisturbed buffer provided adjacent to U.S. Highway 98 is conceptually illustrated on the site
plan but may require adjustments due to an existing powerline to meet the intentions of the PUD. The
rights-of-way are currently under the jurisdiction of Baldwin County and the 3rd Street ROW is not
vacated. Moreover, two former County Commissioners went on record stating that they would not
support a vacation of this ROW nor a ROW Use Agreement. Fairhope may be agreeable to accept the
rights-of-way if requested by Baldwin County. However, the Baldwin County Commission makes that
request to the Fairhope City Council. The Applicants are responsible for discussions with Baldwin
County to initiate that process. If the rights-of-way are accepted by the City of Fairhope, the City Council
may choose to keep the rights-of-way unopened, open them, agree to a limited use agreement, including
hold harmless agreements, or even vacation. The City cannot determine which option is preferable prior
to accepting the rights-of-way. Staff is willing and prepared to draft an Acceptance Resolution to present
to City Council if/when the request is made. If rights-of-way remain unopened access to Lots 7-14 (and
potentially including 4-6) would be through private easement agreements among the individual lot
owners.
Regarding Option A versus Option B, the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance provides that the Planning
Director may administratively approve minor amendments to PUD's that are in substantial conformance
with the approved plan. If Planning Commission and City Council agree, and assuming clarifications
are provided with the Preliminary Plat and the intentions are transparent, administrative approval could
allow a reduction in lots without requiring a full PUD amendment, which can take 3-4 months.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Case ZC 22.10, Montrose Preserve PUD Amendment, be denied.
Art Dyas asked what the Applicant would need to do to receive a recommendation of approval from
staff. Mr. Simmons replied that the full list of things that need to be resolved, is under the Preliminary
Plat application. This amendment is essentially to remove the conditions of the Preliminary Plat
requirement and he does not agree with it. All of the other departments would be reviewing the
Preliminary Plat, with this case, not everyone is at the table, including Daphne Utilities. For example, it
is not known how Daphne Utilities will access Lot 14. Art Dyas asked why previously platted streets
were not being opened in this PUD. Mr. Simmons replied that the streets do not belong to the City.
6
September 8, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
When the PUD was accepted, it was stated that the Developer would accept the roads, the City did not
accept one-hundred-year-old, unopened ROW's. Councilman Martin added that the Applicant is not
complying with what the City usually asks for and the Preliminary Plat needs to be done to be in
compliance with our Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Turner stated that he agreed with Councilman
Martin and added that the Applicant did not want the streets to connect and neither did the residents in
Montrose, massive oak trees would have to be cut down. Councilman Martin added that the streets are
very narrow, the streets would need to be much bigger to be in compliance. Art Dyas asked why access
was not coming out to Main Street if there is an issue with the utilities. Chairman Turner replied that it
is not known if there is an issue with utilities. Mr. Simmons went over the street access options; one
option is to split the ROW's as shown, another option would be to do a Hold Harmless Agreement for
access to lots, or there may already be a vacation document in place. They could also put the access
inside the lots in an easement to have a private drive.
David Conner, Blackbum & Connor Attorneys at Law, stated that this request has been made
complicated. The packet shows a 77-lot approved PUD, which shows the roads, with no requirement to
have Preliminary Plat to be designed for the whole site. A Master Plan is usually done. The approved
PUD does not allow connections, they requested the unopened RO W's to be vacated. He does not want
the PUD to revert back to 77-lots. The Commissioners periodically approve 3-4 lot subdivisions.
Chairman Turner replied that minor subdivision are done for 4 lots or fewer if no public infrastructure
is being added. If infrastructure is to be added, a Preliminary Plat is required. Mr. Conner replied that
the Applicant is avoiding submitting a Preliminary Plat for all 53 acres at once that would require design
and paying engineering costs for the whole subdivision. They want to do the Preliminary Plats in five
phases and Dr. Booth potentially wants Lots 4-6 to be combined. They are proposing private streets and
changed the design for access from US-Highway 98 per ALDOT. Many of the other issues that have
been raised have caused confusion and that this is no different than any other development.
David Diehl, S.E. Civil, stated that he has done hundreds of PUD's, dozens in Fairhope. Firethom was
approved with a Master Plan, each phase was brought in with its own plat. He has never been asked to
engineer an entire development as a condition of approval.
Chairman Turner opened the public hearing.
Martha Rester, 23073 Main Street, asked if there would be access to the PUD from Main Street. She
had concerns about topography of the PUD if it was developed in phases as well as the traffic on Main
Street.
Gerald Gyanuzzi, 10 Via Maria, stated that it was unclear how Lot 18 is separated by Rock Creek and
how it is being accessed. He also asked what the buffer would be to the south of Lot 18 and how it would
be maintained as well as the buffer on Us Highway 98. He also wanted to know what the impact would
be on Rock Creek.
Judy Barlow, 7144 Chapman Street, spoke on the letter that Debbie Quinn sent to the Commissioners
as she could not attend the meeting. If the engineering is not done all at one time, their concerns are the
topography of the area, storm water damage and ingress, egress of the storm water, electricity, roads and
ROW's as it is not clear whether they will the County's or the City's.
7
September 8, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
Kim Dye, 20389 Main Street, was concerned about Main Street access as well as the lack of
consideration for the whole PUD. Doing the PUD in phases is not a total plan. She asked what would
happen to the land and utilities if the whole PUD is not developed.
Chairman Turner closed the public hearing and asked that the comments about access to Main Street,
topography, Lot 18, the buffer to the south, and phasing, be addressed.
Mr. Diehl stated that only three lots have driveway access to Main Street, there is no access to Ledyard
Street. Lot 18 accesses from Highway 98, requiring a permit through ALDOT. There is not a buffer to
the south, but a buffer can be added. He also stated that he has never had to engineer a whole PUD
before. Chairman Turner asked if he had ever done 18 lots in 5 phases before, Mr. Diehl stated that he
had not. Chairman Turner compared the PUD to Firethorn originally being flat pecan orchards and stated
that the topography of the subject PUD supports staffs concerns. Mr. Diehl stated that approval of the
PUD does not create lots until Final Plat is approved. There is no danger of the lots being created and
not being able to be engineered or accessed. John Worsham replied that during the last amendment of
the PUD, the first condition required a Preliminary Plat and at the time of that approval, there were no
objections to that requirement. Mr. Diehl stated that he did not see that condition. Councilman Martin
added that this condition has been known and has not been done so it seems like the Applicant is wanting
to bypass that condition. Mr. Diehl responded that they are not wanting to bypass anything, they just
want to do it in phases, and he is worried that this would set a precedent that all PUD's would need to
be engineered in full. Mr. Simmons stated that he was worried about creating a precedent for a 300-lot
subdivision to be done in 100 phases. Councilman Martin asked if Mr. Diehl was comfortable with
skipping that condition and not drawing out the entire plan, to which Mr. Diehl replied yes and that, that
is what they always do. Mr. Simmons stated that there is typically some preliminary planning done to
be able to estimate costs. The condition did not say that they would need to engineer everything, at a
minimum, access to each lot to ensure access and infrastructure. The Klumpp PUD and Fly Creek PUD
were used as examples. Mr. Diehl responded that their client wants to engineer and build Phase 1, give
the option of Phase 2 to be purchased, and then engineer the remaining phases. Larry Chason stated that
the proposed phases have been five blocks for 100-years, the family could have sold the blocks. They
have received phone calls from others who may want to purchase proposed Phases 3-5.
Art Dyas asked how staff would feel if there were less phases. Mr. Simmons stated that staffs goal is
to meet the intent of the PUD. If the 6 lots were on the other end, staff might not have a problem with
that because selling those lots and developing them would not block access to the rest of the property
for the access, the easements, and the infrastructure. The intent is not to drive up costs, it is to ensure
access and utilities are provided to all lots. Harry Kohler asked if staff would be willing to have one
more meeting the Applicant to discuss the bare minimum that would need to be done, Mr. Simmons
replied that access is the biggest item, which is why it was made a condition, because it expands on other
concerns and conversations that need to be had with ALDOT. Hollie Mackellar stated that they found
out tonight that Lot 18 does not have access on the plans and may or may not be developed. Harry
Kohler stated that it seems like the Applicant may not need to go to the full extent normally required for
a plat to satisfy some of the concerns, decreasing the engineering costs. He added that it seemed like the
compromise would be to deny the request for the PUD Amendment with the understanding that further
discussions could occur between staff and the Developer that may decrease the engineering costs.
Rebecca Bryant replied that it is outlined in the condition of approval that the Preliminary Plat shall
provide street access. Mr. Simmons stated that he cannot provide all of the answers, utilities and outside
agencies are needed, which is what happens during Preliminary Plat.
8
September 8, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
Councilman Martin stated that things should not be done out of order and that the Subdivision
Regulations are in place in order to protect the morale and greater good of the community. Going out of
order with this project sets a bad precedent and could put the City in harm's way regarding infrastructure.
Motion:
Per staffs recommendation, Councilman Martin made a motion to recommend denial of ZC 22.10,
Montrose Preserve PUD Amendment, to City Council, due to the lack of adherence to staffs condition
of approval requiring a Preliminary Plat depicting the access and street layout for the PUD in its entirety,
with the concern of potentially impacting the infrastructure, morale, and greater good of the community
as well as setting a precedent for future cases.
Clarice Hall-Black seconded the motion.
Chairman Turner asked if there was any further discussion. Art Dyas asked when the Applicant could
come back with another application to amend the PUD, if this request were to be denied. Mr. Simmons
replied that they could submit for Preliminary Plat or a new idea for a PUD Amendment at the next
submittal date. He would be in support of denying the amendment, but extending the time allowed to
accommodate these goals, if City Council has the power to do so.
The motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Hollie
MacKellar, and Councilman Martin.
NAY:None.
Executive Session -To discuss pending or potential litigation pursuant to Alabama Code Section
36-25A-7(a)(3).
Attorney Chris Williams made a declaration to move to Executive Session to discuss pending or
potential litigation.
Motion:
Art Dyas made a motion to close the public meeting and move to Executive Session.
John Worsham seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Hollie
MacKellar, and Councilman Martin.
NAY:None.
The Commissioners left the dais at 6:28 p.m.
The Commissioners returned to the dais at 7:05 p.m.
Motion:
John Worsham made a motion to reconvene the public meeting.
Rebecca Bryant seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
9
September 8, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
AYE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Hollie
MacKellar, and Councilman Martin.
NAY:None.
Adjournment
John Worsham made a motion to adjourn.
Councilman Martin seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Hollie
MacKellar, and Councilman Martin.
NAY:None.
Adjourned at 7:06 p.m.
Lee Turner, Chairman
Q Wz~ -
Alie Knutson, Secretary
10
ST A TE OF ALABAMA )
COUNTY OF BALDWIN )
DECLARATION AND OPINION
My name is Christopher S. Williams. I am over the age of nineteen (19), and I make this
Declaration and Opinion based upon my own personal knowledge, information and belief. I am
an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Alabama and have been duly appointed Attorney
for the Fairhope Planning Commission for the City of Fairhope, Alabama ("Commission"). I am
offering this Declaration and Opinion in compliance with Section 36-25A-7 of the Code of
Alabama (1975).
On the .8th day of September, 2022, at a meeting of the Commission, there will be made a
motion calling for an executive session to discuss with the Commission's attorney the legal
ramifications of and legal options for pending or future potential litigation pursuant to Alabama
Code§ 36-25A-7(a)(3).
Prior to the Commission voting to convene the executive session, I am offering this
Declaration and Opinion for the purpose of stating that Section 36-25A-7 of the Code of Alabama
(1975) is applicable to the planned discussion, and I hereby request that this written Declaration
and Opinion be reflected in the minutes for said meeting. I will further advise the Commission
that if any deliberation begins among them regarding what action to take relating to pending or
threatened litigation based upon the advice of counsel, the executive session shall be concluded
and the deliberation shall be conducted in the open portion of the meeting or the deliberation shall
cease.
This Declaration and Opinion shall not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.
Dated this 8th day of September, 2022.
Christopher S. Williams, Esq.
Attorney for Fairhope Planning Commission
City of Fairhope, Alabama