Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – October 7, 2024

County Commission — Monday, October 7, 2024

BodyBaldwin County, Alabama

SessionCounty Commission

DateMonday, October 7, 2024

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 3:49:14

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

0:04

Good evening.

0:07

At this time, we're going to start our meeting.

0:09

I want to welcome you to our October 3rd Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

0:14

I'm going to call it to order.

0:16

At this time, I'm going to ask if we'll all stand, we'll have a prayer and a pledge of allegiance.

0:26

Father, we pause now to when we think about the world problems of wars in this world, and especially when we think about our neighboring states that have suffered greatly from this terrible hurricane when we here locally know exactly what they've had to deal with.

0:42

Father, we should all be thankful and feel blessed for this place that we live in right now.

0:48

We're fortunate people.

0:50

Now, Father, we call on you to bless us this night, give us insight and wisdom in the business we conduct here.

0:56

May we show respect to each other and honor to you in all that we say and do.

1:01

We ask this in the name of Jesus.

1:03

Amen.

1:05

I pledge allegiance to the lab of the United States of America.

1:10

And we should stand one nation under eye and with liberty and justice for all.

1:27

Okay, at this time I'm gonna call roll Brandon Bias here, Robert Davis, Scott Schamburger, Michael Mullock, Greg Seibert here, Jamie Stratager, Glenn Seal, Diane Burnett, Michael Fletcher, George Water, here Reed Key.

1:50

All right, we have a quorum.

1:56

And before we go any further, we want to welcome Mr.

2:00

Scott Schamberger to his first meeting tonight, and uh welcome him as part of our planning commission.

2:12

All right, at this time, I uh you've all received a copy of the last minutes of the work session and the regular meeting on September the 5th.

2:22

No one has any changes.

2:25

I'll entertain a motion that both of those be approved.

2:28

So moved.

2:29

Mr.

2:29

Cyberts made a motion that they be approved to have a second.

2:33

Mr.

2:34

Davis, second the motion.

2:36

All in favor say aye.

2:38

Aye.

2:39

Any opposed?

2:40

Minutes are approved.

2:43

Mr.

2:43

Dixon, you'd like to have a few words before we get started.

2:55

All right.

2:55

Thank you, Mr.

2:56

Chairman.

2:57

Uh a few rules real quick before we start our public hearing.

3:01

We do have several items on the agenda tonight, and as you can see, it's a full house, so we need to be uh very mindful of our guidelines to make sure we get through the meeting as smoothly and seamlessly as possible.

3:15

So uh first I go over our public hearing guidelines.

3:19

So when when the public comments should only be made during the uh public hearing portion of the meeting, uh when you approach the uh podium there, state your name and address in the microphone for the record.

3:32

Uh comments should be directed at the planning commission chairman, and uh he can uh get the right answer from the right staff member or or commission member.

3:41

Uh comments should be focused on only on the application that's being presented at that time, and then uh comments from individuals should be limited to three minutes.

3:49

Uh we will have a timer going, you'll see.

3:51

Uh, and if you're speaking on behalf of a group, uh please state your name, what group you're speaking on behalf of, and then you can get five minutes uh if you're speaking for a group.

4:01

Um there are several rezoning cases uh this evening.

4:06

If uh you'll you'll all see this in all the staff reports, but there are uh 11 criteria that rezonings must be judged by uh according to our zoning ordinance.

4:14

Number one is uh is it compatible with the development pattern?

4:18

Number two, has there been any changes to the uh conditions since originally zoned?

4:22

Number three, does the proposal conform to the master plan?

4:26

Number four, does it conflict with any public improvements?

4:30

Number five, does it have any adverse effect on traffic?

4:33

And again, on the rezoning phase where we're talking about traffic, we're talking about the overall traffic uh transportation network, any kind of specific local traffic improvements will be addressed at a future uh development phase.

4:46

Uh number six, is it consistent with the development pattern?

4:50

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

4:54

Number eight, is the timing appropriate given development trends?

4:57

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

5:01

Uh number ten, uh, does it have any adverse impact on health safety and wellness?

5:05

Uh and then course number 11 is there's any special conditions about uh any particular property that's being proposed could also be considered.

5:14

Um the subdivision cases, the state laws uh as we go over every every month.

5:21

This is very clear about this is that if the uh application for subdivision is meeting all the subdivision regulations, um the state law is very clear that this board must approve it.

5:32

Um they cannot deny it uh if it's meeting all the the subdivision regulations that's presented.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Zoning█████████████████████████████████████████████48%

Animal Welfare███████████12%

Procedural███████7%

Master Planning███████7%

Environmental Protection██████6%

Community Engagement█████5%

Transportation Safety███3%

Flooding███3%

Water And Wastewater Management██2%

Summary of Proceedings

Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – October 7, 2024

The Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission met on October 7, 2024. The raw transcript repeatedly calls it the 'October 3rd' meeting, but the date provided for this summary is October 7, 2024. The commission acted on a consent agenda, a kennel site plan, multiple rezoning requests, a planned residential development, an RV park, and a subdivision. Rezoning and PRD actions were recommendations to the Baldwin County Commission; subdivision and site-plan approvals were commission decisions. Public comment rules were announced: three minutes for individuals and five minutes for group representatives. Staff also reviewed the 11 rezoning criteria and the state-law standard requiring approval of subdivision applications that meet subdivision regulations. Roll-call tallies were not reported; votes were taken by voice.

Consent Calendar

CSP 24-27 (Dollar General store), CSP 24-33 (Southern Line), SC 24-31 (resubdivision of Lot 3, Pearson Family Division), SC 24-33 (Lingerg Estates), and SC 24-41 (resubdivision of Lot 1, Defilit Philippi property) were approved by one voice vote, subject to staff conditions.
STP 24-16 (Fleet subdivision) was removed from the consent agenda because an opponent signed up, and it was heard separately.

Fleet Subdivision (STP 24-16)

Project description: an 11-lot subdivision off County Road 86, east of County Road 86 and south of Hurricane Road; the smallest lot is about three acres; no traffic study was required due to lot count, and the drainage report was accepted by the permit engineer. Staff recommended approval subject to administrative final plat review.
Public position: Neil Armand Trout, a neighboring 800-acre landowner speaking with other CR 86 families, opposed the plan. He cited about 3,000 acres of federally supervised forever-wild-type conservation land, potential harm to gopher tortoises and red-headed woodpeckers, more septic systems, wells, and wetland runoff, lack of public utilities, and questioned a 24-year-old wetland survey. He called the approval process a 'rubber stamp.'
Applicant response: representatives said a current wetland delineation had been accepted, the property is not in a forever-wild area, and the applicant would correct lot-number labeling. The owner said water and electric service are being arranged and the property has been dry.
Outcome: approved subject to staff conditions.

Smoralgia Dog Kennel (CSP 24-12)

Project description: the owner sought CSP approval for a dog kennel in the RA district near Robertsdale. The kennel operated before 2006 zoning and had drawn years of barking complaints; staff said improvements increased intensity and triggered site-plan review. The applicant proposed enclosing outdoor kennels with concrete block and spray foam, a revised management plan, relocated dumpster, delivery apron, and staff conduct acknowledgments. Staff recommended approval with conditions, including management and renovation plans on file.
Opposition: Don Hopper said dogs bark constantly and doubted the construction would stop noise; Glenn Hopper urged denial, citing 16 years of complaints and the one-lane road; Judge and Rosalind Coggin said evening noise ruined their property; Gary Ellison questioned whether existing low buildings could be safely renovated and wanted drainage contained; Melanie Wilkes said she remained opposed.
Applicant/management response: dogs would be inside from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. under the plan, rotated outdoors in small groups during the day, clients would not visit the site, and construction could be completed within a year.
Discussion/outcome: commissioners asked about structural adequacy, HVAC, septic, and maximum dog counts. The chairman noted the county has no noise ordinance. A motion carried to approve with staff conditions plus two added conditions: construction completion within one year of CSP approval, and compliance with USDA minimum space requirements for dogs.

Bingston Property (Z24-18), Childress Property (Z24-28), and Cambridge Subdivision PRD (PRD 24-05)

These three cases were linked and heard together but voted on separately. Staff recommended approval of all three.
Z24-18 proposed rezoning 21 acres from RA to RSF3 north of County Road 54 and west of Highway 59. Z24-28 proposed rezoning the Childress property from RA/B3 to RSF2. PRD 24-05 proposed a 445-lot planned residential development at 3.06 lots per acre, with 33.828 acres of total open space (31.72 usable), including a sports field, trails, playground, pickleball courts, fishing pier, and kayak launch.
Staff noted two wetland delineations (about 2.87 acres and 2.1 acres, plus 1.9 acres of non-wetland ditches) would need to be reconciled; an Army Corps of Engineers permit was pending; a traffic study would be required at the preliminary plat stage.
Public opposition cited an already congested CR 54/55 intersection, no traffic light, flooding history tied to a drainage pond area, master-plan inconsistency, impact on farming, and the size/density of the proposed homes. Applicant Dwayne Smith said about 65 percent of lots would be 62 feet wide and about 35 percent would be 52 feet wide, and that large detention lakes were designed to improve watershed drainage.
Commissioner discussion raised concerns that the PRD density was inconsistent with the master plan and surrounding character. The commission recommended denial of Z24-18 on grounds of traffic safety, wetlands, flooding, and non-compliance with the master plan; recommended denial of Z24-28 on safety, stormwater management, traffic, and master-plan inconsistency; and denied PRD 24-05 because it depended on the failed rezoning.

Kaifer Property (Z24-37)

Project description: rezoning from RA to RSF1 in Planning District 22 on County Road 91. Staff recommended approval, with all but one criterion met; the traffic factor could be mitigated by driveway spacing or future road classification.
Public comment: neighbor Tracy Gamble supported the application and said it conformed to the master plan.
Outcome: recommended approval by voice vote.

Duke's Property (Z24-38)

Project description: rezoning from B2 to B3 in Planning District 15. No development plans were presented; the existing tenant would continue. Staff found all criteria met and no public opposition was signed up.
Outcome: recommended approval subject to staff conditions.

Buckley Property (Z24-39)

Project description: rezoning about 7.3 acres from RA to RSF1 south of Gayford Road exit, west of Liberty Lane, in Planning District 37. Adjacent properties are residential; staff recommended approval despite the master plan's conservation-development potential classification.
Outcome: recommended approval by voice vote.

Ham Enterprises Property (Z24-40)

Project description: request to rezone 22.87 acres from RA to RSF3 adjacent to Spanish Cove near Lillian. Staff recommended approval, noting the parcel is a Spanish Cove lot historically included in the community's planned development and covenants. New RSF3 lots would be about 10,000 square feet, while existing nearby RSF3 lots are non-conforming at about 6,500 square feet.
Public opposition: residents presented petitions and cited failing infrastructure, flooding, drainage, road congestion on AL 98 and AL 99, school and sewer capacity, covenant/division concerns, and impacts to Perdido Bay. Mobile Baykeeper raised wetland and stream concerns. Several speakers asked the commission to deny the request or table it until Spanish Cove's covenants are resolved.
Applicant response: the property is already part of Spanish Cove, access is through the community, and the plan would provide larger lots and more affordable brick-and-stick homes.
Commissioner discussion noted most surrounding land is RA and the density jump from RA to RSF3 was a concern.
Outcome: the commission recommended denial on the basis of flooding issues, traffic safety, and incompatibility with the master plan. One commissioner voiced opposition to the motion, but the motion carried.

Candy Land RV Park (PUD 24-04 and CSP 24-32)

Project description: a roughly five-acre RV park with 14 units, south of County Road 12 South and east of Norris Lane, Planning District 21. No traffic study was required, and drainage calculations were accepted. Staff recommended approval with the standard PUD/CSP conditions.
Discussion: the applicant answered questions about turning aprons and the landscape plan, including utility-line limits on tree planting.
Outcome: approved subject to staff conditions.

Eight Mile Creek Estate Subdivision (SDP 24-17)

Project description: a 16-lot subdivision in Planning District 13 on County Road 64 extension. No traffic study was required because of lot count. Drainage narrative and wetland reports were provided. Staff condition required commercial turnout review plans showing common driveway locations and sight distance before administrative final plat approval.
Outcome: approved by voice vote.

Key Outcomes

Consent items approved; Fleet subdivision approved.
Smoralgia Dog Kennel approved with added one-year completion and USDA space requirements.
Bingston, Childress, and Cambridge PRD recommended for denial.
Kaifer, Duke's, and Buckley rezones recommended for approval.
Ham Enterprises rezoning recommended for denial.
Candy Land RV Park and Eight Mile Creek Estates approved.
No new business or public comments were offered; the chair indicated they were adjourned to a future November meeting date.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening. At this time, we're going to start our meeting. I want to welcome you to our October 3rd Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I'm going to call it to order. At this time, I'm going to ask if we'll all stand, we'll have a prayer and a pledge of allegiance. Father, we pause now to when we think about the world problems of wars in this world, and especially when we think about our neighboring states that have suffered greatly from this terrible hurricane when we here locally know exactly what they've had to deal with. Father, we should all be thankful and feel blessed for this place that we live in right now. We're fortunate people. Now, Father, we call on you to bless us this night, give us insight and wisdom in the business we conduct here. May we show respect to each other and honor to you in all that we say and do. We ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the lab of the United States of America. And we should stand one nation under eye and with liberty and justice for all. Okay, at this time I'm gonna call roll Brandon Bias here, Robert Davis, Scott Schamburger, Michael Mullock, Greg Seibert here, Jamie Stratager, Glenn Seal, Diane Burnett, Michael Fletcher, George Water, here Reed Key. All right, we have a quorum. And before we go any further, we want to welcome Mr. Scott Schamberger to his first meeting tonight, and uh welcome him as part of our planning commission. All right, at this time, I uh you've all received a copy of the last minutes of the work session and the regular meeting on September the 5th. No one has any changes. I'll entertain a motion that both of those be approved. So moved. Mr. Cyberts made a motion that they be approved to have a second. Mr. Davis, second the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. Mr. Dixon, you'd like to have a few words before we get started. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh a few rules real quick before we start our public hearing. We do have several items on the agenda tonight, and as you can see, it's a full house, so we need to be uh very mindful of our guidelines to make sure we get through the meeting as smoothly and seamlessly as possible. So uh first I go over our public hearing guidelines. So when when the public comments should only be made during the uh public hearing portion of the meeting, uh when you approach the uh podium there, state your name and address in the microphone for the record. Uh comments should be directed at the planning commission chairman, and uh he can uh get the right answer from the right staff member or or commission member. Uh comments should be focused on only on the application that's being presented at that time, and then uh comments from individuals should be limited to three minutes. Uh we will have a timer going, you'll see. Uh, and if you're speaking on behalf of a group, uh please state your name, what group you're speaking on behalf of, and then you can get five minutes uh if you're speaking for a group. Um there are several rezoning cases uh this evening. If uh you'll you'll all see this in all the staff reports, but there are uh 11 criteria that rezonings must be judged by uh according to our zoning ordinance. Number one is uh is it compatible with the development pattern? Number two, has there been any changes to the uh conditions since originally zoned? Number three, does the proposal conform to the master plan? Number four, does it conflict with any public improvements? Number five, does it have any adverse effect on traffic?

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com