Baldwin County Subdivision Regulations Work Session – November 18, 2024
Baldwin County Subdivision Regulations Work Session – November 18, 2024
This work session, held by the Baldwin County Commission, focused on proposed amendments to the county's subdivision regulations. Staff presented responses to over 85 comments received from the development community, citizens, and the planning commission. Topics included clarifying definitions, review timelines, open space requirements, stormwater management, low-impact development (LID), and utility regulations—particularly sewer systems. Public speakers overwhelmingly opposed many changes, arguing they would increase housing costs and burden homeowners. The commission directed staff to redraft the amendments, incorporating the feedback, and to schedule a public hearing for January 7, 2025.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Tommy Faust (local banker, father): Expressed concern that increased development costs hurt affordability for first-time homebuyers; opposed the proposed sewer changes, stating the current system works well.
- Tucker Dorsey: Argued regulations oppose free-market economics and will price out residents; urged letting the market determine housing choices.
- Judy Smith (closing agent, 26 years): Emphasized affordability crisis; noted that many first-time buyers rely on gifted down payments and struggle with monthly payments; opposed additional open space mandates as unnecessary.
- Andy Bills (HOA board member, represents 21 D.R. Horton HOAs): Stated HOAs and homeowners oppose increased dues; common areas are rarely used except for dog waste; regulations will raise costs and deter buyers.
- Chloe Kelly (resident): Requested the revised document be circulated for additional comment before the public hearing; highlighted median household income of ~$73,000 and that many families cannot afford a $212,000 home; concerned about enforcement language.
- Justin Palmer (representing a group): Asked that edits start from the original document to avoid legal issues; cited a case where a minor subdivision took eight months and cost $13,000 due to subjective enforcement; requested a minor subdivision definition for lots under five with no new development.
- Kat Holiday (HOA board member, 15+ associations): Open space increases association maintenance costs; residents do not use these spaces; the new calculation is somewhat reasonable but still burdens HOAs; asked if the county would take ownership of common areas.
- Lisa Burke (representing a group): Noted wage growth of 34.31% (2018–2023) but poverty increased 39% from 8.9% to 12.4% (2020–2022); urged withdrawal of proposed amendments to preserve affordable housing; referenced a written report from Baldwin County Sewer Service.
- Road Builders representative: Advised studying economic impacts before implementation; stated grinder pumps are not the main cost driver—air conditioning and roofs are; asked for careful consideration of costs.
- Reed Key: Represented residents who support balanced regulations to protect quality of life; noted planning commission often hears requests for buffers and landscaping.
Discussion Items
- Staff presentation (Jay, Planning Director):
- Reviewed 85–90 % of comments as clarifications with easy resolutions.
- Proposed changes include: keeping the definition of 'development' as is; adding definitions for flag lots, low-impact development; removing the 24-month deed restriction on family subdivisions; revising sketch plan fees to a flat rate ($500–$2,000); clarifying street section requirements based on lot width; establishing review time frames (14 days for no-deficiency letter, 30 days for final plat review).
- Open space: switched from a flat percentage to a sliding scale based on lot size and number of lots (e.g., 600 sq ft per lot for lots <15,000 sq ft; 400 sq ft per lot for 15,000–30,000 sq ft; total min. 1,000 sq ft per lot).
- Stormwater/LID: Set performance standards (1-inch runoff reduction, 80 % sediment reduction, 50 % nutrient reduction); LID techniques qualify for reduced lot width (60 ft).
- Sewer: Proposed requiring gravity systems for developments over 50 lots unless a waiver is granted by the county engineer; staff argued gravity reduces long-term homeowner costs and maintenance compared to grinder pumps (citing $18,000 per grinder station in a retrofit example).
- Enforcement: Standardized language across ordinances; violations must be confirmed by staff before action.
- Commissioner comments:
- Commissioner Underwood questioned who bears the cost of detention pond and buffer maintenance; noted existing HOA burdens; supported regulations as protection for quality of life.
- Commissioner Ball asked for cost comparison of gravity vs. grinder systems; Jacobs Engineering consultant stated gravity is generally preferred and less burdensome for homeowners (no electrical costs, less service-life risk).
- Commissioner Ball also emphasized that open space requirements are minimal (grassed areas) and landscaping costs are short-term (two-year bond period).
- Commissioner Gruber noted inflation has driven house prices up, not regulations.
Key Outcomes
- Direction to staff: The commission gave approval to redraft the proposed amendments incorporating all comments discussed in the work session.
- Next steps: The revised document will be advertised for a public comment period and a formal public hearing scheduled for January 7, 2025, at which the commission may take action.
- No vote was taken; this was a work session to guide staff.
Meeting Transcript
For being here. Thank you for this work session. I asked Skip Gruber, our county commissioner, to do the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm going to do the invocation. So please stand real quick and do the implications. Please bow with me. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for this day. Lauriers, we we go through this and let us make the right decision for this county. And Lord, thank you for this weather that we have receiving in Jesus' name. Amen. Please join me for a pledge. A pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands. One nation under God, individual with liberty and justice for all. All right, Jay, thank you. And I did forget to tell y'all this. Please, if you just a uh friendly reminder to watch your phones, put them on silent if you don't mind. Thank you. All right. Mr. Chairman, you guys ready? Yes, sir. Waiting for you. All right. Well, thank you all for uh for the meeting this morning and taking the time to go through this. Uh before we get started, um, I really wanted to kind of uh thank everyone for uh providing a lot of great comments on the draft uh regulations uh that we presented a month or so ago. Um the development community did a good job, you know, coming together and with a real organized and unified uh list of comments that that were really good and and help um will definitely make this a much better document than uh then uh with the with the changes that we're we'll go over today. But the uh you know we had a lot of good comments from the development community from the citizens uh and from the planning commission. So it was really good process to go through and uh have a lot of um points brought up that uh were good points that we didn't realize uh with our previous wrap, but we'll we'll go through those today. Um one of the things too, just to cover real quick is um the there's been a lot of questions about just you know the timing, what why it's important to address this now. And you know, with the current regulations, what what we face every month and and through um through our development review process, there's a lot of unclarity in the uh existing regulations, and it's kind of causing a lot of confusion about what's required, what's not required, the review process doesn't get consistent reviews and it delays the development reviews and and kind of puts the the uh planning staff, the planning commission, the county commission, and and the developers kind of in a little bit of a gray area. So one of the main things that we're trying to accomplish with this um is to make sure we have a very clear document of exactly what's what's required and what's not required and the exact time frames that things must be processed in. Um and we'll cover a lot of that today, but just wanted to say that's you know there is some urgency to get this done because I think the the longer we go with this, the the more confusion and unclear it continues on through our design and development review process. So getting uh getting started now. So what we're gonna do today, we're gonna talk about kind of the common topics that we are received in the comments. Um we'll discuss each one of those and and offer potential resolutions for each. And I think you know, we'll see today that there's you know, 85 to 90 percent of the comments are are good clarity things that will have an easy resolution that I think will will meet everybody's needs. There are a couple topics we'll have to discuss in a little more detail, but the vast majority um will be incorporated with with no issues. Um after we go through the whole presentation to discuss all the comments. Um we'll have a period where the public can come up with the three-minute time period to provide any additional feedback. Uh and after that's done, we'll discuss time frame uh to complete and adopt the subdivision regulations after today. So the com so going through the comp the topics we were received. The first one, we had a few comments that were really related to old regulations that really aren't even in the current regulations or the proposed amendments. So you know, we're not we're not considering anything that was in old regulations. Like we've moved on beyond that some time ago, and we're not gonna bring any of those back. So the second topic was uh, which is the the vast majority of it is just really clarifying a lot of items in there that would reduce the inconsistent interpretation that's kind of occurring right now. The um third is to establish review uh time frames that that uh each step of the permitting process must be completed within. Uh the fourth would be open space requirements. There was a lot of great comments about open space, um, mainly just about some of the design requirements and how to calculate required open space. Stormwater and uh low impact development requirements, um, there was some comments on that, mainly about clarity of how we are gonna judge those those things, uh the utility requirements, and then finally enforcement. So getting into some of the clarification items, and I'm gonna try to go through these pretty fast because I said pretty much every one of these are just we agree and we'll we'll fix it, you know.
openpublica.com