Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – July 15, 2024

County Commission — Monday, July 15, 2024

BodyBaldwin County, Alabama

SessionCounty Commission

DateMonday, July 15, 2024

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 2:58:04

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:05

Good evening.

0:06

At this time, I'm gonna call our July 11th, 2024 meeting of the Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission to order.

0:14

At this time, if you will, if you'll stand with me, I'll have a prayer and a pledge of allegiance.

0:23

Father, we're thankful to you for this day.

0:25

We're thankful for, especially for this county we live in, and uh for the opportunity we have to be here tonight.

0:31

We pray your blessings on this meeting.

0:33

We're thankful for all that make this meeting possible.

0:36

We're thankful for our elected officials, our first responders, so many that uh make this a great place to live.

0:42

And Father, we do ask that you just be with us as we conduct this business tonight.

0:46

May we do it in a way that honors you and show respect to each other, and we pray all this in the name of Jesus.

0:52

Amen.

0:54

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

1:02

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

1:13

At this time, I'll call roll Brandon Bias, Robert Davis, Jason Padgett, Michael Mullock, Greg Siebert.

1:23

Here, Jamie Stratager here, Mike McKenzie, here, Glenn Seal, Diane Burnett here, Michael Fletcher, here, Danny Bolton here, George Waters, Reed Key.

1:36

Here.

1:37

All right, we have a definite quorum tonight.

1:40

Um at this time, you all received a copy of the minutes from our June 6th work session and our June 6th regular meeting.

1:48

So you have those minutes.

1:50

If there are no corrections, I'll entertain a motion that they both be approved.

1:54

So moved, Mr.

1:55

Chairman.

1:56

Is that Mr.

1:57

Davis?

2:01

All right, Mr.

2:02

Davis made a motion to approve.

2:03

Mr.

2:03

Bolton second the motion.

2:05

All in favor say aye.

2:06

Aye.

2:07

Any opposed?

2:08

Minutes are approved.

2:12

All right.

2:14

Mr.

2:14

Dixon, you need to say some words before we begin.

2:34

So good evening.

2:35

We have uh several um public hearings for for everyone tonight.

2:41

Just a few of our guidelines for our public hearing process.

2:45

Public comments should only be made during the public hearing portion of the meeting.

2:49

Uh state when you when you come up to speak, state your name and address in the microphone for the record.

2:54

Uh comments should be directed uh directly towards the chairman, and he can uh defer them to whoever needs to answer.

3:02

Uh comments should be focused on the application the only the application being presented at that time, and uh comments are limited to three minutes per individual.

3:11

And if there's someone here speaking for a larger group, just state that and that if you're speaking for a larger group, you can uh uh be extended to five minutes.

3:20

Um the rezoning cases that we have.

3:22

You'll see this in a lot of our presentations tonight.

3:25

Um our rezoning cases are are evaluated by these 10 uh or 11 criteria that are out of our zoning ordinance.

3:32

One, is it compatible with uh the current development pattern?

3:35

Two, does it change has it has any conditions changed since originally zoned?

3:39

Three, does it uh conform to the master plan?

3:42

Four, uh does it conflict with any public improvements?

3:46

Five, does it have any adverse impacts on traffic?

3:48

And that's really about the track the overall traffic system for for uh zoning cases, not not any uh localized issues.

3:56

Uh number six would be is it consistent with the development pattern of the area?

3:59

Number seven, is it logical expansion of the adjacent zoning?

4:02

Number eight, uh timing is the timing appropriate for the uh given the development trends.

4:07

Number nine, does it impact any environmental or historic uh uh areas?

4:12

And then number 10, uh does it have any adverse impacts on health safety and wellness?

4:17

So when the staff is going to their presentations tonight, you'll see them hit on all those points, but those are the the ten uh criteria.

4:23

Of course, we have the 11th catch-all if there's any out, you know, kind of anomaly uh that we need to consider for the rezoning.

4:29

But uh you'll see that all the all the um presentations today, but those are the those are what has to be considered for rezoning cases and then the subdivision cases obviously is looking at does it meet the regulations or does it not?

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Zoning█████████████████████████████████████████████62%

Procedural████████████16%

Animal Welfare███████10%

Noise Ordinance██3%

Transportation Safety█2%

Public Engagement█2%

Environmental Protection█2%

Religious Observance█1%

Agriculture█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – July 15, 2024

Note: The transcript refers to the meeting as occurring on July 11, 2024, while the instructions specify July 15, 2024. This summary uses the date provided in the instructions. The meeting was called to order at approximately 10:00 AM with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll call established a quorum, and the minutes from the June 6 work session and regular meeting were approved unanimously.

Consent Calendar

Preliminary approvals (4 extensions): PER 24-25 (Two Lakes RV Park), PER 24-26 (Flamingo/Plantation RV Park), PER 24-29 (Malbus Park Place Apartments), and PER 24-30 (South Bend Village) were each granted a one-year extension. Approved unanimously.
Remaining consent items: CSP 24-01 (Office space, Loxley), SC 24-27 (Prickett Subdivision), and SD 24-10 (Coleman Family Division) were approved after a brief public hearing with no objections.

Public Comments & Testimony

G Paul’s Farm (CSP 24-25): Adjacent property owner John Thompson expressed confusion about a dog grooming/boarding facility being built as a barn without proper site plan approval. He noted that the business advertised a soft opening before the CSP hearing. Staff clarified that the building was permitted as an accessory structure, but the kennel use requires CSP approval. The applicant confirmed no animals are currently on site.
Coastal Church (CSP 24-19): Glenda Turner, a neighbor, asked about traffic impacts and whether the expansion includes a school. Staff said it is only a church addition; the county is improving County Road 64. No opposition voiced.
Fincher Property (Z 24-19): Ray Moore of Rawls Road opposed the rezoning, citing traffic on Highway 59 and multiple recent subdivisions. He asked how many homes were planned; the applicant did not specify. Moore stated the area is overwhelmed by new subdivisions, causing traffic, trash, and power outages.
Lipscomb Property (Z 24-22): No public speakers.
Ginn & Donna Enterprises (Z 24-23): Iris Baker and Nick Good opposed, citing flooding, drainage, traffic on County Road 20, and loss of rural character. Applicant John Farley argued the property has only 11 acres of wetlands and asked for a tabling to provide more information.
Keith Property & PRD (Z 24-24 / PRD 24-03): No public speakers. Applicant Dwayne Smith supported the 24-lot development, noting amenities and green space.
Frank Property / Farmington PRD (Z 24-25 / PRD 24-02): Kim Frank opposed, citing dangerous farm equipment traffic on County Road 95, drainage issues from a nearby subdivision, and incompatibility with the rural area.
Smarlia Kennels (CSP 24-12): Multiple neighbors spoke in strong opposition:
- Glenn Hopper described 20 years of constant barking, noise, and traffic on Farmers Lane, calling it a “puppy mill.” He said code enforcement only recently took action.
- Melody Weeks (Wilkes) described 4 a.m. trash truck noise, loss of quiet enjoyment, and the slow expansion of the kennel from a few dogs to 165.
- Deborah Jones reported loud music from employees and dangerous traffic on the narrow road.
- Yuri Ellison asked for the noise to stop, stating the operation has grown beyond what was originally intended. Applicant Michelle McCarty explained the business grew unexpectedly after a Good Morning America segment, but said they are willing to implement noise mitigation measures. She noted only about 60 dogs are housed outdoors. Code enforcement officer Vince confirmed dogs barked during his inspection but not when he first arrived.

Discussion Items

Coastal Church (CSP 24-19): Staff recommended approval for a lobby and classroom addition. No questions from the commission. Approved.
G Paul’s Farm (CSP 24-25): Commission discussed the situation where a barn was built and used for a kennel without proper permits. Staff explained that the building was permitted as a barn, but the business cannot open without CSP approval. The commission approved the site plan with staff conditions, despite one opposed vote.
Three Amigo Subdivision (SC 24-28): A three-lot subdivision on Highway 181. A neighbor asked about future use; staff said only subdivision is being considered, not future buildings. Approved.
Fincher Property (Z 24-19): Staff recommended approval of rezoning from RSF-3 to RSF-4. After public comment opposing, the commission voted to recommend denial to the county commission (8-1, with one abstention).
McCarty Property (Z 24-21): Rezoning 1.6 acres from B2 to RMF-6. Staff recommendation approved. No opposition. Motion to recommend approval passed unanimously.
Lipscomb Property (Z 24-22): Rezoning 6.5 acres from B2 to RSF-2. Staff recommended approval despite non-conformance with the master plan. The commission voted to recommend approval (8-1).
Ginn & Donna Enterprises (Z 24-23): Staff recommended denial of rezoning from RA to RSF-1. After extensive discussion, the commission voted to table the case to the next meeting to allow the applicant to provide additional information. Motion carried 7-3.
Keith Property & PRD (Z 24-24 / PRD 24-03): Staff recommended approval of both rezoning and PRD for a 24-lot development. The PRD includes open space and amenities. Commission approved both (9-1, with one opposing later).
Frank Property / Farmington PRD (Z 24-25 / PRD 24-02): Staff recommended denial of both rezoning (RA to RSF-1) and PRD (102 units). The commission voted to recommend denial of both (9-1).
Hall’s Creek Farm (SC 24-26): Large lot subdivision (28 lots, each 20+ acres) on 600+ acres. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Approved (9-1).
Smarlia Kennels (CSP 24-12): Extensive discussion about noise, traffic, and non-conforming use. The commission initially had a motion to deny, but after discussion, the motion was withdrawn. A motion to table the case to the October meeting passed on a roll call vote (7-3). The applicant will return with a detailed noise mitigation plan and kennel management plan.

Key Outcomes

Consent Calendar: Four extensions and three site plan/subdivision items approved unanimously.
Coastal Church: Approved.
G Paul’s Farm: Approved with staff conditions.
Three Amigo Subdivision: Approved.
Fincher Property: Recommended to county commission for denial (8-1, one abstention).
McCarty Property: Recommended to county commission for approval (unanimous).
Lipscomb Property: Recommended to county commission for approval (8-1).
Ginn & Donna Enterprises: Tabled to next meeting (7-3).
Keith Property & PRD: Approved both rezoning and PRD (9-1).
Frank Property / Farmington PRD: Recommended denial of both (9-1).
Hall’s Creek Farm: Approved (9-1).
Smarlia Kennels: Tabled to October meeting (7-3) for a comprehensive noise mitigation plan.
Next Meeting: Scheduled for August 1, 2024 (per chair’s adjournment).

Meeting Transcript

Good evening. At this time, I'm gonna call our July 11th, 2024 meeting of the Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission to order. At this time, if you will, if you'll stand with me, I'll have a prayer and a pledge of allegiance. Father, we're thankful to you for this day. We're thankful for, especially for this county we live in, and uh for the opportunity we have to be here tonight. We pray your blessings on this meeting. We're thankful for all that make this meeting possible. We're thankful for our elected officials, our first responders, so many that uh make this a great place to live. And Father, we do ask that you just be with us as we conduct this business tonight. May we do it in a way that honors you and show respect to each other, and we pray all this in the name of Jesus. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. At this time, I'll call roll Brandon Bias, Robert Davis, Jason Padgett, Michael Mullock, Greg Siebert. Here, Jamie Stratager here, Mike McKenzie, here, Glenn Seal, Diane Burnett here, Michael Fletcher, here, Danny Bolton here, George Waters, Reed Key. Here. All right, we have a definite quorum tonight. Um at this time, you all received a copy of the minutes from our June 6th work session and our June 6th regular meeting. So you have those minutes. If there are no corrections, I'll entertain a motion that they both be approved. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Is that Mr. Davis? All right, Mr. Davis made a motion to approve. Mr. Bolton second the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. All right. Mr. Dixon, you need to say some words before we begin. So good evening. We have uh several um public hearings for for everyone tonight. Just a few of our guidelines for our public hearing process. Public comments should only be made during the public hearing portion of the meeting. Uh state when you when you come up to speak, state your name and address in the microphone for the record. Uh comments should be directed uh directly towards the chairman, and he can uh defer them to whoever needs to answer. Uh comments should be focused on the application the only the application being presented at that time, and uh comments are limited to three minutes per individual. And if there's someone here speaking for a larger group, just state that and that if you're speaking for a larger group, you can uh uh be extended to five minutes. Um the rezoning cases that we have. You'll see this in a lot of our presentations tonight. Um our rezoning cases are are evaluated by these 10 uh or 11 criteria that are out of our zoning ordinance. One, is it compatible with uh the current development pattern? Two, does it change has it has any conditions changed since originally zoned? Three, does it uh conform to the master plan? Four, uh does it conflict with any public improvements?

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com