Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission Regular - Regular Meeting

Good evening. At this time, will call to order our May 7 Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. And if you will, we'll stand at this time, we'll have a prayer and a pledge of allegiance. Father, we're thankful to you for the day, for the blessings we've enjoyed and especially the blessing of living in this great county. Thank you, father, for this opportunity we have to meet.

We get grant pray that you'll grant us wisdom tonight as we conduct the business before us. May we honor each other, show respect to each other, and honor you in all that we say and do. We pray 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, liberty and justice for all.

Alright. At this time, I'll call the roll. Brandon Baez. Scott Schamburger. Here. Michael Mullick. Here. Greg Seibert. Here. Michael Fletcher. Here. George Waters. Reed Key. Doug Lipscomb? Here. All right. We have a quorum. All right. You all received a copy of the minutes of our last meeting, April 2, the work session minutes in our regular meeting. Unless there's comments, changes, I'll entertain a motion they be approved.

So moved.

All right. So I've just made a motion to approve. Do have a second?

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a second.

Mr. Schamburger has second the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, minutes are approved. All right, we have one item on the consent agenda. This is not a public hearing which was discussed at our work session. So I will introduce that item which is HCA 20 six-one. This is the Clawson Carport Highway Construction setback appeal.

I don't know staff feels like you need to you want to say anything on that one or you just want us to move on it. Let me do this. Let me just ask, anybody on the planet commission have any questions? We discussed this in the meeting. Need staff to come up and say anything. I think we were all good with it being on the agenda, so I think we're good. I'll entertain a motion on this.

Recommend approval HCA 2,601.

Okay. Mr. Fletcher is recommending making a motion that we approve this item. Do I have a second?

Seconded.

Mr. Seiberg, I second the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. That takes care of our one and only consent agenda item. Now we'll move to our public hearings. Mr. Dixon, do you need to share with us Yeah. Before we get started?

I didn't copy our presentation, but I know it by heart at this stage. Well, thank you all. We do have several pretty pretty full agenda tonight with a lot a lot of public hearings, so just wanna make sure everybody knows that our public hearing rules. If you're coming to speak, come up to the the podium in front of me here to address the the chairman. You have three minutes for each individual to speak.

If you're speaking on behalf of a group, the Chairman can give you five minutes. The biggest thing is just to be courteous, kind of stay to the point of the item at hand on the agenda. And just a reminder that the state law is very clear when subdivisions meet all of our regulations that we have little discretion approve it if it's meeting all of our regulations. I'll be glad to answer any questions.

Okay. I'll just reiterate, there's quite a few of you here tonight. Let me just say it. Just in case you went right by it, if there's any item that you wish to speak on tonight, please go back out front and register at the desk. She'll send it back up here so I'll know to call on you. Some of our meetings here lately, we've gotten folks that didn't sign up and it kinda throws a kink in things. So if you get if you wanna speak, even if you think you might, you're not sure, I would suggest you go back out and register to vote, register to speak. Excuse me. And you will come to this podium and please address your questions to me, and then I'll direct them further. Don't don't turn and talk to the public.

Talk talk to me, and we'll we'll ask the, you know, folks to come up and speak that we need to get help from if we need to answer a question. Alright. With that, then we'll go to our public hearing items. And our first item, I'm gonna open the public hearing for case number PUD20. This is the Oak Ridge RV Park Phase 2. Ms. Waters?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you stated, this is case number PUD2601 Oak Ridge RV Park Phase 2. The request in front of us today is for a site plan, a final site plan approval for phase two. The property is located in Planning District 5.

It is unzoned. It is located on the East Side of Highway 2 87, Rabin Road and North Of Lewis Cooper Road, North of Bay Minette. As I mentioned, the final site plan approval is proposing 35 units. The public utilities providers are going to be North Baldwin Utilities serving water and sewer in Baldwin EMC, serving the electrical. Drainage narrative was submitted and reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Permit Engineer.

STEP is recommending approval with the following specific conditions. And I can come back to those in a minute. Here's your locator map. Lewis Cooper Road may require additional roadway improvements, and that is one of your specific conditions of approval. Here is your proposed site plan where I've highlighted the existing phase one contains 116 units and the proposed phase two contains 35 units.

A updated traffic study was submitted for staff review and it did not require any additional roadway improvements on the main road. Here is your landscaping buffer. I did include a condition of approval requiring that the applicant revise the landscaping plan submitted. As you can see, the landscaping plan only covers phase two. And this does trigger a landscaping plan throughout the entire project. Therefore, they'll have to extend that 10 foot buffer where possible along the whole perimeter of the development. And with that, I am happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Anybody on the planning commission have any questions for staff?

And I wanted to say that I don't believe the citizen is here today, but we did receive emails of objecting the proposal due to nuisance.

Okay.

All right. No one else. And the only one I had signed up was the engineer Chris. Did you want to say anything?

I just got any questions.

All right. Chris is here representing the applicant. Does anybody need to ask Chris a question?

Bobby, do you know, are they gonna, is there gonna be any signage around Lewis Cooper Road kind of, because that's gonna end up being another entrance.

Yes, that is the proposed secondary entrance.

But what I'm what I'm saying is that's not the main entrance. So are people gonna be coming in and be coming in on the backside of the of the development with the main entrance is on the is on the other side? Right. They gonna be directed to go so everybody's going in the same place or

Well, their main existing entrance as of right now, it is a boulevard entrance. However, I'll let Chris speak to that if they're going to prohibit access off Lewis Cooper or if they're just going to

There point it to the

could be a scenario somebody pulls in there wrong or they're gonna have to try to turn around to get back onto the road off of Lewis Cooper to get back on the other road to get to the main entrance or

they're be to access off Lewis Cooper all the way into the development. So, let me go into the site plan. Like, as you can see right here, I'll try to zoom in.

Okay, I got you. I see it.

Lewis Cooper comes down, it will be improved all the way where it connects to phase

So Chris, they will be able to come in either way?

Yes, Okay,

that's all right.

There's a cul

de sac there if you get turned around, you can use that cul de sac and go either way.

Alright. I didn't I didn't see the cul de sac. So Alright. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Alright. Since Chris has made it up here, now is your chance. Anybody else got any questions for Chris? Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir. Thank you.

Chris, real quick. Can you point me to the dumpster where your dumpsters are located here?

So we have one right there behind the clubhouse. Right there where it says 24, there's a there's a new dumpster for this phase behind the clubhouse.

Yeah.

I have a question. Is one dumpster enough for what's our total?

There's

two. There's two total.

So if you look at my cursor up here on the north side behind the clubhouse, and there's one right here that's for phase one and one for phase two on the north side right off the road.

Yeah. There's two of them in phase one, and there's an additional one for this phase.

Okay. Anybody else?

Alright. Thank you, Chris.

Thank you.

That's all I had signed up. Anybody fail to sign up? Alright. With that, I'm a close the public hearing. Unless staff or anyone has questions for staff, I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion for approval case number PUD26-one subject to staff condition.

Okay. Mr. Schamburger has made the motion to approve. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Michael Mullick second the motion. Did anybody have any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Alright, now we'll open the public hearing for case number PUD26-two and SV26-four. This is the Stanley Storage subdivision and a variance attached to it. Waters, you have this one also?

Yes, sir. All right. As you mentioned, this is a PUD site plan approval and a subdivision variance for Stanley Storage site plan. The request in front of you is a request for a commercial planned unit development site plan approval for five storage buildings along with a subdivision variance from article six related to the landscaping buffer and usable open space requirements. The subject property is located in Planning District 17.

It is unzoned and is located East Of County Road 11 and Southeast Of Monk Road. Five of the building units that are being proposed, four out of those are pre existing to the site. And as I mentioned, the applicant is requesting a variance to not have to provide usable open space, as well as a variance from the landscaping buffer due to the existing buildings. Some of those buildings already provide a buffer and does not allow enough space to provide a contiguous buffer. The public utilities available are Riviera Utilities providing electrical and on-site septic tank for the existing office on the property.

I'm not gonna read through it, but here's your criteria for the responses from the applicant regarding the variance. Step is recommending approval of that and of the site plan. Here's your locator maps and your site plan and your landscaping plan and a drainage narrative. The engineer of record did provide a drainage narrative and it was accepted by our permit engineer where resulted that the one building that's proposed will not trigger the requirement of management area. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for staff? Okay. I believe I only have one signed up on this item. That's the, representative Tim Lawley. Do you need to come up and speak?

Anybody have any questions? Okay. Let's take these, let's deal with the variance request first. Let me close the public hearing. I don't think anybody has signed up. Anybody else has signed up, so I'm going close the public hearing. So let's take these one at a time. Let's deal with the variance first.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion for approval of the variance SV26-four subject to staff recommendations.

Okay. Ms. Schemberg has made a motion to approve the variance. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Michael Mullet second the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, the motion carries. Now let's deal with the PUD.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve PUD 20 six-two, excuse me, subject to staff recommendations.

Mr. Schenberger has made a motion to approve the PUD. Do I have a second?

I'll second that as well.

Mr. Muller can second that motion as well. So anybody have any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries.

All right.

We'll open the public hearing now for case number SC26-nine. This is the Bella Costa Subdivision. I have failed to ask this on others, but, usually I get the same answer. Does anybody need to declare prior communication on this? I'm surprised I didn't get my hand slapped on that one, but, alright.

Drove the public hearing and Ms. Mosley.

Hi. This is for case number SC2609, Bella Casa Subdivision. It is the request is for a preliminary and final plat approval for a five lot subdivision. It's located in Planning District 2. It is unzoned.

Its location is North of Interstate Highway 65 And West Of Raven Road. Again, the request is for Bella Casa Subdivision, a five lot residential subdivision. Total acreage is 25.61 acres, and the smallest lot will be three acres. Utilities will be North Baldwin for water, septic, and then Southern Pines for electric. Drainage narrative was prepared and stamped by Michael Smith, Alco Engineering, and it was accepted by the Baldwin County Permanent Engineer.

There's a location, aerial map. The plat is enlarged so you can see details. Again, the request is for a five lot residential subdivision. Any future improvements will require all applicable local, state and federal permits and will need to adhere to the Baldwin County access management plan. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat for case number SC2609, Bella Costa Subdivision be approved for conditions.

Specific conditions or any future improvements will require all applicable local and state federal permits and will need to adhere to the Baldwin County Access Management Plan and to correct the final plat to read 50 foot natural buffer. Any questions?

Thank you, Ms. Mosley. Anybody have any questions for staff? Okay. Am I right? I do not have anyone signed up for this? Okay. No one signed up. Alright. With that, I will close the public hearing, entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion for approval case number SC26-nine subject to staff condition.

Mr. Schoenberg has made a motion to approve. Do have a second? I second. Okay, Mr. Lipscomb second the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. All right. I'm open to public hearing now for case number SC26-ten. This is the Maytower Estates Subdivision. Anybody need to declare prior communication on this item? Ms. Mosley?

Yes, sir. This is for SC 2610 May Tower Estates Subdivision. It's a preliminary and final plat approval for an eight lot subdivision. It's located in Planning District 2. It is unzoned.

Its location is North Of Interstate Highway 65 and West Of Raven Road. Again, the request is for the Maytower State Subdivision, eight lot residential subdivision. The total acreage is 27.33 acres, and the smallest lot will be 3.01 acres. Utilities will be North Bowen Utilities, the septic, and also Southern Pine Electric. Drainage narrative was prepared to stand by Michael Smith with Alco Engineering and accepted by the Baldwin County permit engineer.

Here's our locator map, aerial, preliminary plat, enlarge for detail. Again, the request is for an eight lot residential subdivision. Any future improvements will require all applicable local, state and federal permits and will need to adhere to Baldwin County Access Management Plan. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat for case number SC2610 Mayflower Estate Subdivision be approved with conditions subject to compliance with the Baldwin County subdivision regulations. Specific conditions or any future improvements will require all applicable local, state, and federal permits that will need to adhere to the Baldwin County Access Management Plan.

Any questions?

Okay, any questions for staff? All right, just like the last one has no one signed up representing it. Jay, any further comments on that easement? We wanna leave it alone or just let it stand as a prescriptive and just Yeah.

I mean, it's a it's a existing prescriptive easement. Howard Park maintains that road that accesses the property to the south. Yeah. I think we can just leave it as it is.

K. There's something I'm fine with it if y'all are. This is now's the time to do it if you wanted to do something, obviously. Okay.

Yeah. It accesses just one home, so it's not like you access much property.

Alright. I'm gonna close the public hearing and entertain a motion on this item.

Make a motion that we approve case number SC 20 six-ten subject to staff condition.

Okay. Mr. Mullins made a motion to approve. Do I have a second?

Seconded.

Mr. Seibert seconded the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. We'll open the public hearing now for, case SC26-thirteen, the Cheval Farm subdivision. Does anybody need to clear prior communication on this item?

Miss Waters?

Thank you, mister chairman. This, this application was prepared by Mary Booth, but I will be presenting for her tonight. As you mentioned, this is case number SC2613ChevalFarms. The request for you today in front of you is a nine lot residential subdivision. The subject property is located in Planning District 18.

It is unzoned and located on the East Side of County Road 48, South Of County Road, West of County Road 65 in the Robertsdale area. The total acreage of the property is about 27 acres, and there are proposed nine lots. The utilities proposed are wells. The city of Robertsdale is providing power and on-site septic tanks. Here is your vicinity map,

your aerial,

and your overall preliminary plat with enlarged details. And here is a site plan reflecting the proposed driveway spacing. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions. The specific conditions is please show the driveway spacing on the final plat to ensure future residential driveways are installed in compliance with the access management plan. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. I have three folks signed up, all in support. So it's up to you if you want to speak. I'll start with Leaf Dunn.

My name is Leaf Dunn. My wife's here. We've been residents of this particular area for twenty years now. And we believe that the work that the current owners have done is excellent with respect to the planning and foresight that they put into where the lots are going and to try to keep both the current feeling of the lot and yet allow for expansion and growth that's going to happen in the future. So I believe if you could approve this plan as it currently is with certain growth provisions, then we're excellent and would be very happy to answer any questions you might have.

Okay. All right. Any questions? Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Renee Beasley? No, Renee? Alright. Randall Tillman?

I think he is the Okay.

Alright. That's all I have signed up to speak.

I have a question and it's about I guess it's the quantity of driveways that's you know, it's almost like I'm looking at two flag lot two flags, you know, where did they look at maybe combining some of these? You know, what is our driveway space here on this?

Let me see if she listed on here. She stated here under her analysis that County Road Fourier is classified as a local road, and that distance just has to be 120 feet from each access point. Okay.

And they'll have to meet that requirement even if they have to do shared driveways. And that's why we're asking them to dimension those locations so that anybody that buys a lot knows where that driveway has to be placed because of that your concern Commissioner Seaward.

Okay, any other questions? Alright. I had no one else signed up. I'm gonna close the public hearing. I entertain a motion.

Mister chairman, I make a motion to approve case number SC two six dash one three subject to staff recommendation.

Okay. Ms. Schamberger has made a motion that we approve. Do I have a second?

Seconded.

Mr. Seiberg, second the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Okay. At this time, I'll open the public hearing for case number SC 20 six-fourteen. This is the replat of Lot 27 Ranches Of Creekside Preserve Subdivision.

Anybody need to clear prior communication on this item? Ms. Mosley?

Yes, sir. This is for SC2614, the replat of Lot 27 Of Ranches Of Creekside Preserve Subdivision. The request is for a preliminary and final plat approval for a four lot subdivision. Subject property is located in Planning District 2, unzoned. Location is North Of Interstate Highway 65 and Northwest Of Rabin Road.

The request again is to replat the of Lot 27 Of Ranches Of Creekside Preserve, a four lot residential subdivision. The total acreage will be 49.86 acres. The smallest lot will be 8.4 acres. Utilities will be well water, septic, and electric will be southern pine pine electric. The drainage narrative was prepared and stamped by JE Hamlin PE and accepted by the Baldwin County permit engineer.

Here's a locator map, burial map. Here's the recorded plat of the Ranches Of Creekside Preserve filed on 07/03/2025. Here's the preliminary and final plat for the subdivision. Here it is enlarged. The request is for a four lot residential subdivision.

Any future improvements will require all applicable local, state, and federal permits will need to adhere to the Baldwin County Access Management Plan. History, the Ranches Of Creekside Preserve Subdivision was approved on 02/03/2025 and recorded on 07/03/2025. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat for case number SC2614 replat of Lot 27, the Ranches Of Creekside Preserve Subdivision be approved for conditions. Specific conditions, any future improvements will require all applicable local, state, and federal permits and will need to adhere to the Baldwin County Access Management Plan. Final plat corrections.

Plat needs to be in black and white for better recording quality. Correct the setback line on Lot 27 A, and correct warding in the site data to read natural wetland buffer. Any questions?

Okay. Any questions for staff? Supposedly, the, red lines through the middle of the wetlands, are those the location of the maybe the banks of the stream bed within that?

That's a drainage e dome, I believe.

It's a drainage easement?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Alright. Any other questions for staff? I think I only had one signed up. Mister mister Tillman. Okay. I'm going make one comment I made in work session. I used to be where you were doing these and I used to get hammered sometime on some of these things. It's my turn to hammer somebody. I'm joking somewhat but Lot 27 C, there are two uplands on that and the back upland is cut off by the buffer of the wetlands which I thought was a terrible mistake.

That old property owner to me should think about that, but and he could subdivide that lot in the future to want to use that in the back. He's cutting himself off without having to redo that both those lots, but that's just me. It meets our regulations because you got a buildable site up front, but it's I think it's terrible from design that we don't have some way to be able to access that back part without getting into the buffer. That's what I would have said too.

That's my only comment.

Mister Tillman's was the only one that signed up. I had no one else. Anybody else have any questions? Okay, I'm going close the public hearing. I'll entertain a motion.

Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve case number SC26-fourteen, subject to staff recommendations.

Schamberg has made a motion to approve. Do I have a second?

I'll second it. Mr. Mullica, I

second the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Oh, chairman voted aye for the in favor. I'm sorry.

Despite twenty seventh seat box.

Yeah, well, I'll let it go. Okay, I'm going to open a public hearing now for, case number SPP 202. This is the Baywood Point Clear. Does anybody need to clear prior communication on this item? Okay. Miss Waters?

Thank you, mister chairman. As you stated, this is case SPP twenty five thirty two, the Baywood of Point Clear. The request in front of you is a preliminary plat approval for a 21 lot residential subdivision. The subject property is located in Planning District 8. It is currently zoned RSF one, single family district.

The property is located North Of County Road 34 and West of County Road 13. The proposed lots are about 21 lots and the total acreage of the site is approximately 29 acres with the smallest lot size being 30,000 square feet. Water and sewer are going to be provided by Fairhope Utilities and Riviera Utilities for electrical. A traffic study was not was not required due to the number of lots. A drainage narrative was prepared by Chris Lieb with Lieb Engineering, and he was reviewed and accepted by the Planning and Zoning Permit Engineer.

A wetland report was prepared by Craig Martin with Wetland Science and identified a non jurisdictional stormwater management area that is proposed to be filled as part of the proposed development. The engineer of record has provided calculations that have compensated for the storage of the existing stormwater management area. The request in front of you is preliminary plot approval for 21 lots in Planning District 8, zoned RSF 1. The minimum density permitted within the RSF 1 District is 1.4 units per acre, and the proposed development reflects a density of approximately 0.6 units per acre, which is well below the minimum, the maximum density allowed. The proposed subdivision will consist of lots that are 120 feet in width in a minimum lot area of 30,000 square feet.

And the applicant has applied for a rezoning request for the parcel located immediately west of the subject property proposing the same RSF 1 zoning. And the approval of this request would negate the local provision of Planning District 8 to provide a 20 foot landscaping buffer that would otherwise be required due to the existing BCZ zoning district. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions, that if the proposed rezoning of pin number 632816 west of the subject property is not approved, the applicant shall provide a revised plat to reflect a 20 foot landscaping buffer in the landscaping plan. And that the applicant shall also provide a revised preliminary plat reflecting the removal of the 10 foot strip along the north property line created by slide 33 d. Here is your locator map and your zoning map and your preliminary plat and your landscaping buffer.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Alright. Any questions for staff? Ms. Waters?

Yes, sir.

On the right entryway just passed on the left hand side, is that a kiosk, mail kiosk? What is that?

Right here.

I can't see where. Right here. Just past the existing lot on the on the left hand side.

Yes. That's their common area for a CBU.

Okay. Alright.

Anybody else have any questions?

Commercial? Mark, is a commercial turnout permit not require the traffic study also? Is that No. Still lot driven? They don't have to do that, right?

No, it's only triggered by 50 or more lots.

Okay.

Good.

Any other questions? Can you explain that number two in the specific conditions in regards to that 10 foot strip along the north property line?

Yes. So I'm just gonna bring up the zoning map. It's a little bit hard to see because I don't have the parcel on the West side highlighted. So the proposed parcel that is being proposed for a rezoning on the West side, right after the Burmeister subdivision was recorded, the applicant came back and did a replat of Lot 1 administratively, which created a 10 foot strip between the City Of Fairhope subdivision. So these lots here on the north side and between the existing parcel that we're considering the subdivision.

So it created a 10 foot strip between those two. And just recently, he has vacated that 10 foot strip to go back to just a two lot subdivision, north and south without the 10 foot strip. So, I just need a preliminary plat that's revised to show that. So I'm going to try to zoom in in here. If you can see here the boundary on the north side, barely noticeable, reflects that 10 foot strip. So with the action that they took to vacate that, I just need a revised plot.

Okay. Any other questions? Alright. Only had one signed up. Chris, you're it. Do you have anything you need to say on this one? Any questions for Chris? All right, Chris is the only one I had signed up. There are a lot of you here tonight. I guess we'll get to it in a moment. I'm not sure which one it is, but All right. I'm going to close the public hearing on this item. I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve case number SPP25-thirty2 subject to staff recommendation.

Okay, Ms. Schemberg has made a motion to approve. Do I have a second?

I second.

Mr. Lipscomb second the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. We're going open a public hearing now for case number SDP20, The Orchard at HorseNet. Anybody need to clear prior communication on this item?

Ms. Mosley.

Okay, one second. Oh, you did. Thank you. Yes, sir. This is for SPP2601, The Orchard At Horseneck.

The request is for preliminary plat approval for a three lot residential subdivision. Subject property is located in Planning District 5. It is unzoned. Its location is Southeast Of US Highway 98 and Northeast of County Road, 112 off of Horse Neck Road. The request is for preliminary plat approval for a three lot residential subdivision.

The total acreage is 10.05 acres, and the smallest lot will be 1.33 acres. The utilities will be septic, North Bowen Utilities for water, and Alabama Power for electric. The drainage narrative was prepared and stamped by Schumer Consulting LLC, David Schumer PE, and it was reviewed and accepted by the planning and zoning permit engineer. There were public comments were received for the SPP 2601. Here's your location map, your aerial.

This is the recorded plat of Horset Creek Plantation Subdivision that was recorded on 09/19/2016. Here's the preliminary plat of Orchard At Horse Neck three lot residential subdivision. Here's an enlarged plot. Again, this is a resident, a re sub of Lot 11 of Horse Neck Creek Plantation sub, slide number 200575 AD. That will create a three residential lots.

A shared driveway is required to meet the access management plan. The applicant will need to install the major residential shared driveway prior to submitting for the final plat approval. The history Horstack Creek Plantation Subdivision final plat was recorded on 09/19/2026. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat for the case number SPP2601, the the Orchard Up Horsenack Subdivision be approved with conditions. The specific condition is the major residential shared driveway must be installed, inspected, and accepted before submitting for the final plat application.

The final plat must show the location of the major residential shared driveway and must meet the access management plan specifications. Any questions?

Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. Well, I had my question in the work session, but I think I I see I finally hit the jackpot here with some of you here for this item. So I think I'll wait till I hear the comments. We'll go from there. Anybody else have any questions for staff? Alright. I'll start with those in support. The Wiggins family, I've got Micah, Kimberly, and Caleb.

If all of you, all three want to speak. You're welcome to come on up and one at a time. Speak if you wanna speak. Either Do you wanna speak? You you're welcome to at this time if you want.

All three can speak or you can represent three but if you wanna do it that way.

How you doing? Good evening. Is it my time to ask a question if I want to? I'm sorry? Can I ask a question to you? Sure. Question. So with us having the family plot that we have, we first bought the lot. I think the rules hadn't been changed yet about family exemptions or whatever. So we bought it with the intent to put our family on it.

This family never sell it. If I was with the driveway, we didn't really care where it went because we're gonna be there for the rest of our lives, hopefully. So with that, it went into it with that intention. But from what I understood after that, I think it may be in 2025, they changed it to you can't do any exemptions if you're already in the subdivision. So my confusion came to where

does

that leave us now? And I think, I don't think you can legally give any advice, but we bought this with the intent and the dream to have our family over there. Never, like I said, never to divide it, to sell it, to put apartments, trailers, none of that stuff. So I didn't really know where we were to go from there, but the recommendation was just to push it through and see. And we we worked with everything how we needed to, and we got to this point. So we're gonna do the best we can. If there's any recommendations or any changes that we need to make, we'll happily make those just to see that we can have the dream that we had before we started.

You want me to address it, Jay? You want to

How are you locked?

Well, let me just we talked to this by some length in our work session.

Mhmm.

You got a couple of issues. Obviously, you stated one, because this is a lot in the subdivision, the exemption process is not allowed. You would have to do what you're doing right now. You'd have to apply for a subdivision like this. The other issue you have, which is somewhat out well, the attorney would say it's out of our control. There are restrictive covenants when you bought that lot that says that you cannot divide this property other than through a subdivision exemption. But that is even that's not even allowed. So you really aren't able to do it and meet your restrictive covenants. You may have neighbors here tonight. There are lot in opposition.

So that means that every neighbor has the right to file. We don't. The county went out. But then your neighbors have the opportunity to file civil action against you because you would be in violation of your restricted covenants.

For sure.

So that's where if we approved it, I'll just go this way, if we approved it tonight, because in some sense you actually meet our subdivision regulations, I think that's why staff is recommended approval because it actually meets the regulations. But we all know because even I went and read the restrictive covenants, there's a violation there. But that's a civil action that we required. So that's what you're going to be up against. If we approve it, you're going be up against what your neighbors choose to do.

Makes sense.

Jay, is that fair enough?

That's 100 percent correct. So any kind of deed restrictive or restrictive covenants are really outside of our

And I don't know where this group as a whole will go. We could very well approve it because technically, just as staff has said, it meets our regulations. Mhmm. But you have that issue with the restrictive covenants, which is outside of the perimeter of this.

Just off the top of your head, do you know when that was instated or was that written in the

So it's it's actually been in there for quite a while. And what it says is that no exemptions under the section can apply to a proposed subdivision that result in a major change of a recorded plat. Mhmm. Major changes are adding additional lots to a recorded plat. So it's not that exemptions.

So that's been in there forever. Basically, it doesn't allow a recorded plat to be able, through an exemption process, be increased in density, right, through an administrative process. So it's been in there for, I'm not really sure how long, it's for quite a while. But it's yeah. But as the chairman said, this does your proposal meets all of our subdivision regulations, we're kind of bound this board is kind of bound to what our regulations say, not what any kind of outside restrictive covenants or deed restrictions deal with. Just I think the biggest thing is for you to be aware that there are outside of issues that are outside the county's purview to to deal with.

Yeah. Understand that.

K. Anything else? Anybody have any questions?

So to be clear, he can't subdivide it. He oh, he could.

Yeah. He can.

But he'll be subject to civil action by his Okay. If they choose to. So So I'll say that to all those that came in opposition tonight. I hope you understood what we were just saying. This actually meets the subdivision criteria for to be approved, but it does not meet your restrictive covenants if you live in that subdivision. So the only way to stop this is through your actions against him through a civil action. It's not something we can stop because he meets our regulations. So, if that changes any of your opinions before you come up and speak, that's free you're free to still come up and speak, though. Anything else?

How how many how you're trying to put three houses on the property Three.

Overall? Mhmm.

My mom and my in laws and then mine.

So are we two? So right. So the

issue is any any lot of record could have two no more than two dwellings.

No more than two dwellings.

Right. So

it would have to if you wanna have three dwellings, like he's saying, it would have to be at least two different lots.

You do two houses in Two out

on one lot and one on a separate lot. Yeah.

You do you do two houses in a carriage house?

Two dwelling units.

Two dwelling?

Yeah. Two dwellings. Yeah. It's a primary dwelling and a secondary dwelling as well. All of those allowed.

Yeah.

What would we face civil action by denying it since it approves our I mean, that's there's some liability exposure for us. That would just say, I just brought

it down to our regulations, not to restrict. So we would be liable if we do if we don't follow our regulations.

Yeah. No. Technically, we do not. Okay. Thank

you. Sorry for the position

you're in,

but That's the struggle I'm in. Yeah. It's a tough spot. Yeah. Alright. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Did anyone else in the family were you representing the three? Okay. Alright. I'm gonna call on the others of you that signed up, and you're still free to come up and speak on this. Let me get back, hon. Alright. John Stewart. Do you want to speak?

Yes. Okay.

And Lisa, if you wanted to speak, you're welcome to come right up behind him and be prepared. Okay. Alright. I understand.

I'll try not to take up too much time.

But Three minutes.

Three minutes. I want to say that, or begin by saying that I'm not against any reasonable use of this land. If the owner wants to build the three houses that you're talking about, I'm not opposed to that. When I purchased this home, I did so with the understanding of the covenants when I purchased a home. So I bought that home in the hopes of trying to live out my retirement from the army and enjoy my peace and stability that I'm trying to provide myself and my family.

And, you know, that's one of the reasons we chose this property. So for them to come in and try to separate that or subdivide it, that goes against what we actually came out here to do. Oh, I know this is something that many veterans choose or or spend most of their lives trying to do. And that and like I stated shortly, just to have that peace, you know, if you can imagine everything that we've gone through, You know, so that's what I'm after. And I won't say what's happened between now and since we moved there, but with the disruptions and things of that nature that has happened, I just don't want to see that continue to happen.

Okay.

Again,

I'll try to keep it short, but I'm not opposed. There's a lot more things that I could probably talk about. But I guess one of the questions, major questions I have is what prevents them from getting an exemption? Because I've tried looking at these guidelines and regulations and such, but

They can't get an exemption because it's a lot in a subdivision, and our regulations will not allow you to do an exemption of a lot. If it was a

Major change.

Raw piece of land out, not in a subdivision, meets and bounds, they could do an exemption there, but not but not in within a subdivision.

So within the whole Baldwin County guidelines and subdivision or regulations, there is no alternative avenue for them to take in order to build the three houses on there other than what they're trying to do now?

That's correct. Okay. So

well, that's my opposition there.

Okay.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your service.

Thank you.

All right, Joey Demko.

Thank you. Allow me to speak. Look, I'm I'm the property owner that that borders that whole entire property. I own that big pond and all. Y'all probably seen the picture when she showed But but every all my property borders all of I've been out there for years, me and my wife. And all all all all these country folks out there, nobody wants a subdivision. I I don't I hope and pray that never happens. So I don't know what how this all will work out, but but you can see where my property's at. So any any I do all the runoff. Everything that comes off of these properties in front of me ends up into my pond.

It's a five acre pond. So they did allow me a 30 acre I mean, a 30 foot easement whenever they sold the property. And I have a buffer. It's a wetland buffer in there. It's kind of protected, but if it's a lot of dirt work, I will see it. I see it for years when the timber company cut all the timber on. When they cut all the trees, everything run into my pond. That's that's not what I'm complaining about. The the case is is that I don't wanna see three lots and end up with ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty trailers out there. I mean, that's that's not what I I hope that never happened. And And if he wants to build one or two houses like it was said, I'm all for

it. Okay?

But thank you.

Thank you, Jeff? Duke? Yeah. Okay. Just as it said. Yeah.

I submitted my comments. Yeah. I submitted my comments online. Well, actually, emailed them. The one question that I have is you said that they, qualify for the, immediate family exemption through Baldwin County regulations.

But is it not doesn't they have to let me see which way was I going. The your regulations state that any of the new newly created lots must most generally front a public road. Well, if you look at the way the subdivision is laid out, the road runs east to west, yet the road the lots are laid out north to south. None of the only lot that would front a public road is on is on the front.

Well, they provided a strip, and that strip counts as their frontage. All three lots have a strip that comes back out to the

System of same flags.

They're referred to as flag lots. I get what you're saying, but because that strip, that qualifies for their frontage.

Okay. Well, as I said, I've submitted my opposition comments online, and I just wanted to come here and read reiterate that opposition.

Okay. Thanks, sir. Yep. Will Addison. And Lisa, if you want to speak after him, you're welcome. Just come come right on up behind him.

Good afternoon. I am a resident of Lot 1 K. Of that subdivision. I bought the first lot that was in that existing subdivision with the understanding that on those 18 lights, you were only allowed to have two structures. I had another member of the family begged me to let them move into on on my property where there were two structures now. No. You can't violate the rules of that subdivision. So now somebody comes along and wants to take one eighteenth of our subdivision and do what they want to do with it. And I don't think that's proper. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Lisa, did you wanna speak? And Lisa, I'll let you give me your last name. It's probably as simple as it looks, but I'd rather you say it.

It is. It's Lisa Vigneer.

Okay.

Since I only have three minutes and I've learned several things at this meeting that I didn't know before, it's unfortunate that this meets the guidelines to make a subdivision because some of us, it's new property owners that bought with the intention to not be around subdivisions, that we open a floodgate where other subdivisions can come in the future. So that is unfortunate, and I do oppose it. And it does sound like you've already addressed the fact that, you know, it's in the covenants. That was already addressed. So there's no reason for me to read that.

But we can all have heart wrenching, sincere, and I mean that, sincere stories and compete with that on a personal level. And I am sorry for these people not understanding what Horse Neck, property owners wanted, and still want, and that is we want Horse Neck to be without subdivisions. If we say yes to one, that's just gonna be a floodgate. So I hope that you do find that some of these moves with the little strip of land coming to the road are comes down to just basic right and wrong. You know, the right thing needs to be happen.

It is obvious just from sitting in this meeting, are plenty places to go and open up a subdivision, and I understand this might be a little different because it was originally supposed to be for family. You can have additional houses, you just can't subdivide it, you can't make a subdivision. If you're gonna uphold what we homeowners or property owners thought was gonna be somewhat binding, but obviously this is just a waste of paper. I hope not. So I'm asking you to please look and see if what was done to create this subdivision, was it right? I mean, it's obvious. They put a lot of thought in how are we gonna make this work? How are gonna beat the system?

Your covenants protect you for that. Right? So the paper you referenced is not wasted. That's just we can't enforce those for you. You and your neighbors in that subdivision have to enforce those. So that's the situation we're in. You bought that property with that protection, and that protection still exists for you.

On a civil level, going

through Correct. The

We just are not in a position we do not have any authority to understand that. Enforce those So your homeowners association effectively, property owners will need to do that for you. So the action we take here today is really kind of a moot point for you, if that makes sense.

Yes. So that's pretty much what I said. Know, now that I'm here, I'm hearing that. It's unfortunate that the laws don't support the needs of the property owners. But, again, I understand from being here that we have an opportunity to go civilly if we have to. And I certainly just do not want the floodgates of subdivisions open on that road. There's plenty of other places to go. As it is, we got hit with the Palm Beach Expressway coming through one and a half miles down the road.

Let me say to you and let me say for the others that spoke in opposition. If this was approved tonight by us, which more than likely was the action we're gonna have to take, he still has to record a plat.

Okay.

If he records the plat, now he has the opportunity to go pull permits to build on them. Somewhere in that process, if you want to stop that, again, will be up to you and your neighbors to do that because we can't enforce that.

I understand that.

Or he could walk away. He's sitting here tonight and he's hearing everything you're hearing. He may choose I know what I would do if I was in his shoes. I wouldn't be taking action where I know I'm gonna get sued by my neighbors, but that I don't know.

That's I mean, it really is unfortunate for

us to decide.

Because everybody here seems to be good people. So it's not personal. Personal as a home as a property owner, as being at this age, I have my sob stories, you know, getting a property where we think we're going to be in a row without subdivisions, because I grew up in subdivisions. You know, my husband and I, Ken, are in Metairie, Louisiana, all through other subdivisions living in Daphne in a subdivision being encroached there. So we appreciate your time. I did learn a lot. Thank you very much.

Thank you. So folks, know this is an odd situation for us. Okay? So we'll just have to take what we're allowed to do here tonight and take action on that. Unfortunately, it's going to be on you folks what you do after this meeting, based on what the owner does. That's all I had signed up to speak. Oh, okay. Sure. If you signed up, you you just be sure and tell me what your name is so I can

My name is Kim Wiggins. I'm Related to the both of the property owners. I understand the concerns that the neighbors have regarding what we're trying to do. I don't know what their idea is or their ideas are as far as what we plan to do with the property. We do we we bought the property just like they did with the expectations of our family living there in a peaceful environment as well.

And so we would like to, along with my son and his wife and her parents and my husband and I, we would like to have the opportunity that they too have. We didn't do with the expectation of building some huge subdivision. We want three little houses just like everybody else in the neighborhood, but like their they they want a little piece of paradise too. That's what we want. And I understand that there are covenants in place.

I understand that there may be some, you're not sure of who we are, what our our our goals are, what our expectations are, but I can assure everyone in the in the room that we just want to live too. We don't have any expectations of putting 15 or 20 trailer, it's six of us, three couples, six of us and we just wanna live peacefully, we don't we don't want a huge development, we don't wanna put a lot of buildings on our property, Three houses, that's what we want. And so I understand, you know, like I said, I understand the apprehension. Perhaps they don't know us. We're just like everybody else.

Well just, I don't, I'm not hearing any of that from them. I think they want you to do the same that they do. They can't have three houses on their lots either. You're you're asking for something that they're not allowed to do either. So that's why those restrictive covenants are there, established for the whole development, some guidelines to go by. They're just asking that you go by the same guidelines they do. That's what I'm hearing. It's really an unfortunate situation for you guys. They all could do the same thing you're doing. Mhmm.

They could come to us and ask for a subdivision for three lots just like you have. Most every lot probably would qualify. But your restricted covenants are what's preventing that. So it's it's that's a document outside of us that you're gonna have to deal with legally and it's not something that we can help you with in that regard.

And I understand that. So my question is, if that's the case, if there's if that's we're only allowed to have two two houses per lot, what is the purpose of requesting subdivision if you're only allowed to have two I mean if you're only allowed to have two houses, what's the what's the purpose of this whole process? I don't understand that.

It allows you to get three lots if you didn't have a restrictive covenant.

So If

you didn't have those restrictive covenants in place that forbid you from having three, you could come here and ask for these three lots, we'd approve it, and you could go get your three lots. It's that one document that you when you bought whoever bought the lot

Mhmm.

That that that binded you to that document that says you won't do more than two.

So two structures. So does that are those residential structures or are those also commercial or

I'll let mister Dixon refer to that for you.

Two well

Two dwellings.

Two dwellings. So two homes, two two livable structures. Yeah.

So two livable structures. So you could have as many other

types of structures of sheds

and and garages and things of that nature.

A dwelling has to have a bedroom, a bathroom, and a kitchen.

Okay. If it

has those three elements, it's a dwelling. And then you can only have two two structures that have those those three criteria.

Okay. Well, I appreciate your time.

Thank Thank you. Alright. I think with that, we've covered all signed up. So I will close the public hearing. Anybody have any questions? Moshe, do you have anything to add? Now's the time. Anybody?

No, sir.

If, the applicant wanted to withdraw their request, can they do that now?

I mean, the the commission would have to approve it, but I I would just kind of reiterate what we talked about in the work session is that I I fully understand where everybody's coming from this, but just please understand where our our role in this process is. Our role is to in, enforce the Baldwin County subdivision regulations. So all the things that have been discussed outside of this, really is not in in the purview of this this board. So, yeah, it does meet our regulations, I think we would just need to keep our focus on how it does or does not.

Okay. Understood.

We we could move forward with our decision. It will be up to the property owner if he chooses to move forward with what he's heard tonight. He could just drop this if he wanted to.

Get approval, but

Yeah.

There's been no real violation until a

plat There's

there's no violation until the plat gets recorded.

That's right. Yeah.

Right? So if if it gets approved tonight and then they civilly work whatever and he just never records a flat, then there's no nothing ever happens. So but, yeah, I think, again, just I would just encourage you guys to kinda stay focused on what what is in our purview and what's not and

and what Right. Alright. Any other questions? Alright. With that, I think I close the public hearing. I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve case SPP 26 dash o one, Orchard At Horse Neck Subdivision, subject to staff conditions.

Alright, mister Seibel, just made a motion that it be approved. Do I have a second?

Second.

Ms. Schamburger second the motion. Any questions? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Alright. Everybody good for continuing on? Okay.

We'll go now to our next case and open the public hearing for case number SPP26DashO5, the JWG Estates. Miss Waters?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you stated,

Let this me ask. Does anybody need to clear prior communication on this item? I didn't think so. Go ahead.

As you stated, this is case SPP2605, the Estates, the preliminary plot approval for three residential lots subdivision. This subject property is located in Planning District 18. It is unzoned, and it is located North Of Underwood Road and West Of Daughtery Road. As I mentioned, the request is for three residential lots. The total acreage of the property is about two acres.

The utilities provided are going to be Riviera Utilities for Water, Baldwin EMC for Electrical and Baldwin County Sewer Service for sewer. Firefall results were submitted and were adequate and setbacks are reflected on the plat. The applicant is proposing a three lot residential subdivision where Lots 1 And 2 are proposed to be accessed via a shared driveway, while Lot 3 will continue to utilize the existing driveway connecting to Underwood Road. The proposed lots will be serviced by public water and sewer, and Lots 1 And 2 will be connected to underground power, while the existing overhead power servicing Lot 3 will remain. The proposed shared driveways for Lots 1 And 2 must comply with the requirements of the access management plan.

Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions that the applicant shall apply and obtain an approval for commercial turnout permit, and that the applicant shall submit a final plot application, which will be reviewed administratively by staff following the installation inspection and approval of the shared residential driveway. Once the final plat is approved, the applicant will have ninety days to circulate the plat for signatures and record it. Here is your locator map and your preliminary plat showing the proposed driveway. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Alright. Any questions for staff?

And I forgot to mention that Underwood Road is a classified as a minor collector, which requires a minimum distance of 240 feet between the existing and the proposed driveway. That's why the easements between Lot 1 And 2 is almost so far west.

K.

And, Bobby, you may have said, but is the plat showing a drive out a driveway going into Lot 2 existing?

Yes. And that is going to be removed.

You probably said it and I just Alright, anybody have any questions? Alright. Hunter, you're the only one signed up. You need to speak? Okay.

Anybody have any questions? That's all I had signed up to speak. So I'll close the public hearing. Do you have questions or comments? I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve case number SPP26-five subject to staff recommendations.

Ms. Schamberg has made a motion to approve. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Mr. Mullick second the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Open the public hearing now for case number SRP20. This is the Dinerman Place. Anybody need to clear prior communication on this item?

Miss Wilson.

Alright. This is SRP2604 for Dieterman Place. This is a revised plot. So we have two recorded plots in two existing subdivisions that are proposing to combine them. It is in Planning District 16 in the Montrose community.

It is on North Windingbrook Brook Drive. The properties are zoned RSF two. The total acreage is one acre. Here is a picture of the zoning map showing the two existing parcels with the yellow highlighting the total combined area, a vicinity map, and the proposed plot. This is a common lot line move request to delete two lots and combine them into one, but it is coming before you since we're taking we're changing the outer boundaries of two existing subdivisions.

Here is a detailed view. There are wetlands on the property that were previously platted. If you choose to approve one of our specific conditions is to reflect a five foot buffer around the non jurisdictional area. And with that, I'll answer any questions.

Okay. I don't know that I asked this, does anybody need to clear prior communication on this item? Thank you. Alright. Anybody have any questions?

Do we have anyone signed up for this item? Hasn't shown up on my

believe the applicant It is

just popped up. Do you want to speak?

No, sir. If y'all have any questions, I'll be glad.

Alright. Seth Moore is here to represent any applicants. Anybody have any questions for him? Okay. With that, I'm gonna close public hearing. Entertain a motion. Yes, sir.

I'll make a motion that we approve, case number SR SRP26Dash04 subject to staff recommendation. Okay. Mister Mullicks made a motion that we approve. Do I have a second?

Who

was that then? Alright, Mr. Fletcher second the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. All right. We'll open the public hearing now for, case number SRP 20 six-seven and SV 26 dash o seven. This is a replat of lots one and eight of Lee in The States. Does anybody need to clear prior communication on this item? Okay. Miss Wilson?

Alright. Mister chairman, staff has received a request by the applicant to withdraw both the variance and the revised plat request. The applicant is here if you would like to ask them any questions on why they would like withdraw it. At this time, you guys can make a motion since it's within seven days of the meeting. You guys will need to approve the applicant's request to withdraw. If you choose to do that, the case will go away. They can resubmit if they would like at a later time. If you do not wish to honor the request to withdraw, I can proceed with presenting and y'all can take action.

K. Alright. Let me ask I'll ask you. Does anybody here need to ask questions of the applicant?

They don't they don't have any they wanna withdraw. We just honor the request in my mind. Let them

I'm fine with that. Yeah.

Okay.

I'm gonna I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing then if we're gonna do that and I'll entertain a motion.

Mister chairman, I make a motion that case number can I do them both at the same time I guess? Can I take them both Jay? The variance and

Just Okay. Do

Let me start over. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that case number SRP26-seven and variance SV26-seven be withdrawn from the agenda. At. At the applicant's request.

Yes. Is that good enough?

Yeah. And in case there's any public question, that just means everything stays as is. If they come to us with a new request that requires another Planning Commission hearing, everything will proceed as it did. New signs, new public notices, if their request triggers a public hearing. Okay.

Seconded. Aye. Ms. Schemberg made the motion that we withdraw. Mr. Socket seconded. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. Wow.

Okay.

I'll let the room, we will does anybody need a break? Are we good to go on? Everybody good? Alright. Alright, let's open a public hearing now for case number SV26-three, the Woodmont Phase 2 Lot 120 variance request. Anybody need to clear prior communication on this item? No? Alright. Ms. Mosley.

Okay. It's for SV2603, Woodmont Phase 2, Lot 120, variance request. The request is for variance from subdivision regulation section 5.1.1, building setback requirements. The subject property is located in Planned District 18. It is unzoned.

The location is Lot 120 of the Woodmont Phase 2 subdivision, East Side Of Trone Drive in Foley. Again, the request is for a variance from the subdivision regulations section 5.1.1, 5.1.1 building setback requirements. Staff analysis. The applicant is requiring a variance from the front building setback line to allow an attached garage. Existing dwellings are constructed within the allowable setbacks.

The applicant needs to extend four foot into the front building setback, making the front building setback 26 foot from the front property line on the mid block bulb out traffic circle. Staff recommends denial of the subdivision variance request per article eight, section 8.1 e of the Baldwin County subdivision regulations. E reads, Inconvenience, financial concerns or self imposed conditions shall not be considered as a hardship for the proposed of the grant of the, I'm sorry, of the variance. No public comments were received. This is the applicant's response to variance criteria.

I do believe y'all have read that. Here's your location map, your aerial. Here's your recorded plat. Your recorded plat enlarged to show Lot 120 and you can see it's on the bulb. Here's the variance request enlarged to show details.

As you can see, it protrudes out on the northwest corner four inches. Variance request to allow the northwest corner of the proposed garage addition to extend into the required 30 foot building setback. Staff recommends that the subdivision variance request for case SV2603 Woodmont Phase 2 Lot 120 be denied due to non compliance with the Baldwin County subdivision regulation section 5.1.1 building setback requirements. If it is the pleasure of the planning commission to choose to approve the requested subdivision variance, staff recommends the following conditions. One, record a replat of Lot 120 of the Woodmont Phase 2 referencing the encroachment.

The proposed garage addition to extend into required 30 foot fronts building setback generates a four foot encroachment. Memorialize that a single family residential substructure was constructed within the allowable building setback on Lot 120 of the Woodmont Phase 2 Subdivision as recorded with slide number 2393d. A, a variance is limited to the A four that's what is mentioned in the encroachment area. Approval of the variance is subject to the town of Summerville for approval of the same. Any questions?

Can you confirm the depth of the garage? Is 24 feet or is that 26? I can't really read it. 24

feet. 24.

24. Okay.

Any other questions for staff? So it's only going four feet over the, Red Lane?

Yeah. Yes, sir.

Okay.

That's right. Okay.

Any other questions? Okay.

I have, two signed up in support, Clay McCool or Timothy Strickland. Either one of you two can come up and speak or both if you want to. Well, I

just wanna

try to explain it.

Alright. Yeah, please. Don't yeah.

Come to

the mic.

And and first, I wanna thank you. I had no idea when I moved to my house that I was in Summerdale because half the neighborhood, I think, is in Summerdale and the other half of the street is just in the county. I mean, they even have different utilities and everything.

Mean Oh, wow.

It's a crazy type thing. So when I started doing this without an HOA, I thought, well, this shouldn't be that hard. And and when I contacted the company, they said, yeah, we'll look into all of it. We wanna do it right. And I said, I'd rather pay extra and get it done right because I wanna make sure that this this is my end end of life home. Sounds kind of negative, but you know, I retired here. I I love cars. And I've I've got more cars than I need, but I kind of collect cars and I I want them to be protected. Also, with my house being set back from the road because of the I think she called it a bulb.

Yes, sir.

I call it a continuing cul de sac. But anyway, it's got that weird thing in there. And the weird thing is what's the problem is the fact that right where it curves, that's the four foot corner that's there. And if you look at the garage and what I what my plans are, won't be able to tell the thing wasn't put on there from day one. It's gonna be the same brick, the same structure on the roof, everything.

I mean, I'm paying to have it done really, really nice. But that's what I want, that's what I want for my neighborhood. But it's that little stretch. And if you look at the houses next to me that don't have the bulb, their garages are actually gonna be still further up toward the road than mine is. So I'm just and the only other thing would be to to offset it four foot to the side, which would not look good. It would require lots of extra structure stuff. And that's just all I'm asking. And I appreciate your time.

Thanks, sir.

I have

a couple of questions. Okay. Ahead. For you. Did I do I understand correctly that you do not have a HOA in this community or do Correct. There is no HOA?

No HOA.

Is there any kind of architectural review covenants or anything like that that would stipulate your there's nothing like that.

Okay. Like I said, I

didn't even know I was in Sourdough.

Sure. Okay.

Well, I'm just I I guess look. I sympathize with your request candidly. I I kinda see what you're trying to do, and I can appreciate you'd want to line this up architecturally to make this look, you know, nice.

It'll look

better for the neighborhood.

Sure. I listen. I'm I I get it. I'm I'm just trying to understand a little bit more I guess about sort of the request. So this is I don't I can't see the front of your house, but I assume this is just an extension of the existing garage coming straight out. Well, the is flush. Sorry.

So it's not an extended garage. So all I wanted to do is just make it from a 20 by 20 to a 20 by 40.

Right. So but you'll be able to double stack cars, Your car collector is what I'm hearing.

Correct. And

and there's another thing, and this is for for my wife and I, is we're gonna build a step case on the very back that's like a full size instead of the pull down stairs. Yeah. So we can safely go up and do Into

your house.

Storage and stuff.

Okay. Alright.

That's that's what the plan is.

Would you build this if you don't get your variants? Are you still gonna build it?

I I don't know at this point. I I like I say, it's a dream of mine. Sure. I've lived in Alabama all my life and this is where I wanted to retire. Fair enough. Thought with an HOA and everything it would just not be an issue.

But you have no HOA, right?

Correct.

Is no Sorry, I'm just trying to clarify that because part of my question would be if you have an HOA that has already either voted yes or no in favor of this or an architectural review committee, right, that had already come forward and said, hey, we're good with this, right?

Right. Or we're not good with

this, whatever their position may be.

No. And like I say, the neighborhood is actually in two different areas. I I mean, the street.

Okay.

Part of it is in Summerdale, part of it is in, I think, Baldwin County.

Got it. So Alright. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Alright. Timothy Strickland, you want to speak?

No, sir.

Okay. Alright. So I'm gonna go to those in opposition. Hunter Keiser?

Evening. Mister McCool's actually, he's correct. There is no HOA in that neighborhood. We've been extremely fortunate there. I do oppose this, and the main reason is well, two main reasons. One is I wanna make sure that everything stays uniform in the neighborhood. The neighborhood is nice. It's clean. We wanna make sure all the aesthetics stay similar in that regard. The other two, I assume that this would be tying in in to the roof structure.

What is that going to do to water runoff? With this being further out to the road, that area right there is pretty flat. So what would that look like on the south side of his residence? So those would be my main concerns.

Okay.

My property is directly to the immediate north.

Okay. So Alright.

That's all I got. Thank you.

Thank you. Billy White?

Good evening.

Good evening.

I was told to put opposition because y'all were in the denial mode. I'm actually on the same side as them. I am the builder. Okay. And there has been a lot of process with this. A lot of it because of what mister was saying, with part of it being county zoned and part of it being Summerdale zoned. As part of their specific conditions, I actually already do have approval through Summerdale from Lena Salter. She's actually the one who directed me to you guys for this variance. Our surveyor actually had to come out three separate times to actually get the correct curve of that setback line. It is exactly three foot 11 inches and fifteensixteen within the setback, only on that corner.

As far as the look of it, I brought pictures which I guess I can just hand these up there to y'all. This is the actual neighborhood along with all of the structures that are built on the front of their garages there. I'll give you the second one, this is the third one. Initially to respect the setback, we were going to do a four foot offset but like Mr. Kaiser in opposition just said, part of the problem with doing that setback would be the water runoff because we could not tie into the existing drainage that's on the house and have it go down into a French drain system.

We had paid for a new architectural design which put it over the setback and requested this variance in order to do a standard gable tie in which will make it match the three houses to the south end with their gable front along with Mr. Strickland's home which is across the street, which the exact same gable front end extension on his house with a window above it. Mr. McCool is spending extra money to try to make this look like the rest of the homes within the neighborhood. The biggest concern for him and his wife is the car collection.

Right now, they just sit out in the driveway, and he takes turns pulling them in and out so they're not just all getting sunbaked. I know y'all probably don't know me, but as a builder, I don't halfway do anything. Everything we do, we try to do it with excellence and we take pride in what we do. The whole purpose of this variance is if that bulb was four feet further down, this would not be an issue. And initially it wasn't.

The first submitted plans we had did have that garage bumped over four feet outside of the natural direction of the home. And I think that the neighborhood would have a bigger problem if we did that because it would look extremely out of place. The roof structure could no longer be a gable. It would have to be a hip roof, and it would look like no other garage addition on that entire street. Doing it this way, it will be a longer garage, but it will look like most of the other houses that are in there, just extend it a little further out and allow us to use the same water drainage gutter French drain system that currently exists on the property without having to do any land disturbance around it. That's all I got.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Anybody have any questions? Thank

you. Hey. Real quick. Sorry.

Yes, sir.

You're fine. Public school. This elevation is with the variance?

Yes, sir. Correct.

Okay. All right. Everything you're showing me here is with the variance other

than Except front for the front sheet

that showed us originally respecting the setback. Yep. But that creates way more problem for not only the home, but also the neighborhood doing it that way because of the roof having to be a hit instead of a gate.

Got it. Okay.

Yes, sir. Is your son Dale? Last name. Cousin.

It's Cousin. Alright. I have one more signed up. McNadol? I may not have said that, I said all I have is a last name. So Yeah. I want to give us your whole name if you don't mind.

Good evening. I'm Jason McDaniel. I'm the residence just south of him at Lot 121.

K.

So when I walk out my front door, I'm almost seeing 26 foot of garage. The water run off like mister Hunter Where is it gonna go? There's not much drainage there already. I know this. Because my house was the thirteenth house built in that subdivision. I strongly oppose it. I'm sorry for my neighbor. I like cars too. Store them somewhere else. Thank you for your time.

Okay.

Alright. That's all I had signed up. Speak on this item. So I will close the public hearing. And now it's time. Anybody's got any questions for staff or any comments?

I mean, you know, I'll I'll jump on this first. You know, I guess my thoughts are regardless of the intended use, this addition, to me, seems like it's going to take place whether the variance is granted or not. So I sort of sympathize with the homeowner, and desiring to do this in a manner that is more architectural pleasing, and certainly, you know, feels better in my mind and my personal view with the subdivision rather than having this offset of four feet. So, you know, with that, I could be in favor of granting the barrier to the applicant.

Okay. Any other comments and or questions?

I feel like the oversight, not probably legally de minimis in the grand scheme of things is relatively de minimis to this project.

So, you know, I

sympathize with everyone's opinion, that's just, I respect them all rather, that's just my thought. I think it would be much more pleasing to have all of that in line. I think it would look better for the homeowner and for their neighbors.

I agree with Scott, however, by adding the addition to the garage, in my opinion, whether it lines up or not, it's not going to look the same as the rest of the neighborhood. Cause when I drive down the street, you know, if I'm coming in there, if I drive down the street, whoever's on the other side of that 26 foot addition, you know, as far as I know, that's the last house on the street. Cause the garage cut has cut the rest of it off.

Well, that garage shows it shows it where it comes out. It actually lines up with the house just below it. I mean, I'm just looking at the aerial now just to kind of get an idea, but I I hear what you're saying.

Yeah. I'm I and I I'm I'm sympathetic. I'm I'm to his, you know, to his plight and all that but I also understand that you you know, and he's attempting to be as uniform as possible but the bottom line is he's changing the look of the street.

He's gonna do it

when you give him a parent.

Well, I don't disagree with that. Don't disagree with that at all. But.

Alright, any other comments? Well,

with any variance, yeah, we have very kind of strict guidelines of how we must review variances, and it just didn't meet the the specific guidelines in in our regulations. But, yeah, this this is another kind of unique situation because there's pluses and minuses on both sides.

Like I

said, you have to do to make it fully more architecturally kind of fitting, just kinda extend that roof out, know. But it also does on that is that that area is already a concrete driveway, you're not adding

You're not impacting impervious services. You could tie into existing gutter systems.

The house is built well north of the side setback line. Had they built the house a little bit further south this year? We did. Yeah. Yeah. So there's a lot of Except. Right.

The bulb went there.

Yeah. All about is really causing it, which is, you know, you guys know about landing on those are usually done in between phases to have temporary turnarounds. Yeah. And so it really has or have emergency turnarounds sometimes if it's got a real long street. So it's not

He bought his neighbor's house. We we wouldn't even be looking at a variance.

Yeah. Or or if the or when the builder built that house, had they built it four feet by themselves, had plenty of room to do.

Yeah. It

would not have been

an issue then either. Yeah. But the the reason for for recommended knowledge is that by the yep. By the strict review criteria, the staff has to go by to present the case to you guys. That's how we analyze it. This is kind of why we we put it before you or to you so you can kind of look at our analysis, look at kind of the exterior factors from the from the neighborhood comments, from the owner's comments, and make your decision from from everything included.

Alright. Any other questions? Alright. We've already closed the public hearing. So at this point, if none other, I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion that we approve case number SV26-three variance subject to staff recommendations.

Alright. Ms. Chambers made a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. Is that Michael? Yep. Mr. Fletcher has seconded the motion. Alright. Any questions on the motion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Was that everybody? I wanna be careful before I vote because I don't want to create a tie or anything. So alright. I vote aye in favor. All opposed? I think I heard everybody vote in favor. So the motion carries.

Open the public hearing now for case number SV26-six. This is another variance request from Mr. Robert Wells. Somebody need to clear prior communication on this item. K. Miss Wilson.

Alright. This is case s v 2606, the Robert Wells flag lot variance. It came to us as a common lot line move exemption. It is located in Planning District 4 West Of Bay Minette. The current zoning on the property is r r and there are two parcels involved since it's a common lot line move.

The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum lot width of the flag portion of the lot. Current regulations state the flag portion of lots must be a minimum of 60 foot wide. And I think it's gonna look better if I'll go back to that one. So these are the current conditions. You have the property to the north, the property to the south.

There is an existing easement. You can see the dirt driveway. Here it's shown on the survey. They are proposing to do a 30 foot flag to encompass the existing believe it's a 25 foot easement existing. They're requesting the 30 foot flag.

So the applicant is requesting a 30 foot flag to access an existing parcel. This property is currently served by a 30 foot easement. The owner of the land that transfer the 30 foot easement into permanent ownership to the parcel it serves, the granting of a 60 foot strip of land would be above and beyond any historical ownership. There are no other hardships that staff is aware of that would prevent the granting of a 60 foot flag. Staff is recommending denial of this request due to a lack of hardship on the land.

This request was originally received as a common lot line move exemption between the two parcels. Neither lot is part of a recorded subdivision. No new lots or accesses are proposed. This variance is from section 3.2 of the subdivision regulations. The definition for flag lot that outlines they need to be 60 feet wide and no more than 800 feet long.

I've included a section for variances. Y'all are familiar with the reasons we can grant a variance. As previously mentioned, the applicant has requested a variance from the minimum flag lot width to transfer an existing easement into a flag access. Unless information to the contrary is revealed at the public hearing, staff feels this variance request should be recommended for denial due to a lack of hardship on the land that would present prevent a 60 foot flag. If it's the pleasure of the Planning Commission to approve this variance, the exemption would be administratively approved to complete the common lot line exemption request.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

K. Any questions for staff?

So there's a home there's homes on each lot, and all the utilities are connected. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Alright.

Robert Wells?

Good afternoon, gentlemen. All

right. Basically, what we're trying to do is correct the fifteen year wrong. During the initial leg out of the property, my grandparents deeded both my lot and the lower lot to myself and another family member. Now in a rush at the time, because their health had started failing drastically and quickly, nothing was ever surveyed. Nothing was ever measured. No tapes were pulled on it that I know of. Okay? Now my home was established in 2007. The deed did not become mine until 2013. Now at the time when I saw this, you know, unfortunately, I didn't see it till after the deed was driven up.

I'd always assumed my property line and what had always been discussed would have been as it's proposed. Now the reason we're doing this now is because my other family member has decided to sell that piece of property. So now I'm faced with not a 30 foot by a 132 foot east. K? That's the dimensions.

But my legal access to my property is less than 30 feet wide because it's only accessible through that one overlap piece that you see on the mountain. Okay? I have to operate under the premise that potentially somebody could come and fence off that easement, and that would be my only access to my my property as it stands right now. As it was owned by a family member, this was never a concern, you know, but now it has become a concern. And, unfortunately, y'all changed the rules last year to a 60 foot instead of 30 foot that was originally required when our properties were lie laid out.

Now other potential issues is if if I were forced to relocate my driveway because the easement itself, though it's not represented on this, the line for the easement would actually run through the actual drive over of the driveway itself. It'd be about a third to halfway into it. In order to relocate it north, there's currently a power pole, a telephone junction box, a fiber optic junction box, and a water meter in that section. So shifting the driveway is not feasible. My uncle and I have talked about it, you know, plenty of well, over the past few months, And we both agreed that, you know, in the beginning, that's where the property line should have been to start with.

I asked him if he'd be willing to sell it. He's willing to sell that, but nothing more. You know, anything more would start impacting his property values and his ability to sell. Plus, it would really, really make the lot look odd if you put a 60 foot chunk out there on the end of it. So basically requesting that this be approved so I can actually just gain ownership of my driveway, which already exists. No new driveways being added. No new structures are being added. No new nothing is being added. Just that lot line moves so I can own my driveway. You know? So if y'all have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

You're on the the North side, right, I guess? Am I looking? You're the top. And your uncle still has the bottom?

Yes. Is he here?

No. Unfortunately, was planning on being here, but he had a medical condition. He is currently in Mobile Infirmary right now.

Okay. Sorry to hear that.

Okay. And You said you're more than welcome to call him if you like.

No. No.

No. We're

gonna take your word for it.

We're gonna Any questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. Alright. Sarah, did you wanna speak?

Like he said, mister Chastain, the owner to the south, was planning on being here, and he is amenable to what we have proposed, but he's been very adamant that that is the limits of what he will allow. If it's not allowed, then this would just continue as it has been. And that would impose potential issues on Mr. Wells. When it sells, you never know when you're gonna get a bad neighbor.