Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission Regular - Regular Meeting

Good evening. At this time on call to order, our July 9th Ballin County Planning is on a commission. If you will, at this time, if you'll stand with me, we'll have a Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. I'll do the prayer first. Father, we're so thankful to you for this day, thankful to you for this opportunity we have to conduct the business before us. Now, Father, we pray that you'll guide us in this time. We thank you for this great county we live in and for all that make it possible to be that way. And Father, we just pray that what we do tonight honors you and shows respect to each other. Now, Father, thank you for this time. We pray this in the name of Jesus. Amen. with liberty and justice for all. At this time, I'll call the roll. Brandon Bias, Scott Schemberger, Michael Mullick, Greg Seibert, Michael Fletcher, George Waters, Reed Key, Doug Lipscomb. All right, we have a quorum. At this time, we will approve the set of the minutes. You all received a copy of that. The work session minutes and the regular meeting minutes of June the 4th. If there are no recommended changes for that, then I'd entertain a motion those be approved. So moved. Mr. Syvers made a motion the minutes be approved. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Mr. Mulligan seconded the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, the minutes are approved. All right, first item then is we have a consent agenda of three items. These are not public hearings, so we will go directly to these. We considered these in work session. So, gentlemen, let's... Somebody has something since that meeting. Uh, I would entertain a motion before consent agenda. This would be for approvals of P. R. 26 dash 17. The Tillwood Estates phase two subdivision extension P. R. 26 dash 18. The Silver Springs subdivision extension and the P. R. 26 dash 19. The mini lane PUD extension.

I'm making most proof.

Okay. Mr. Bice made a motion that we approve our consent agenda. Do we have a second?

Second.

And I heard Greg here second the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chairman votes aye for approval also. Okay. We'll go to our public hearings at this time, and Mr. Dixon, would you like to...

Just going to go over our normal public hearing rules. Just everybody please keep in mind that we have our rules that Anybody wants to speak has to sign up in the back. The chairman will call you to the podium when it's time for the case. Just keep all the comments on the point for the case being presented at the time. I think we have a limit of three minutes for individual and five minutes for a group. And just everybody keep in mind the state laws are very clear about how we have to handle subdivisions and if it meets all of our regulations, we really have no ability to deny something that has met all our regulations.

Okay. So I will encourage you again, if you think you want to speak, you may not right now think you do, but if you'll think about it and you say, well, I may want to say something, I wish you would go back out front, sign up, because she'll make sure your name shows up on my pad here, and I'll be glad to call on you at that time, and if at that time you choose not to speak, that'll be fine, but I prefer you to be signed up. so with that we're going to open the public hearing for case number spp 25-38 this is the benjamin's run subdivision and i'll ask our regular questions does anybody on the commission need to declare prior communication on this item okay miss waters thank you mr chairman

As you stated, this is case number SPP 2538, Benjamin's Run, a preliminary plot approval for a 91-lot mixed-use subdivision. The subject property is located on Planning District 22. It is zoned RMF 6 for multifamily districts and B2 for local business district. The subject property is located north of State Highway 98 and east of County Road 95. And the engineers of record is Todd Wheeler with Mullins LLC. As I stated, there are 91 lots proposed within the subdivision, three of those lots being the commercial lots and the rest being your multiple family townhouse lots. The public utilities available is Perdido Bay, Riviera Utilities, Baldwin County Sewer Service being served by the Lillian Treatment Plant, and Bright Speed for Broadband. A traffic study was conducted by Michael Smith with Alco Engineering, and it was reviewed and accepted with recommended roadway improvements. SAF has reviewed the proposed development for compliance with the Baldwin County subdivision regulations and applicable zoning requirements. The proposed density is consistent with the underlying RMF 6 zoning district and the site plan provides the required open space areas and common areas necessary to serve the development. The development utilizes private streets that are proposed to remain under private ownership and maintenance that will require approval by the Baldwin County Commission prior to final plot approval. The access for the proposed development will be permitted through LDOT. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions. Approval of the preliminary plat does not constitute approval of the proposed private road system. The applicant shall obtain County Commission approval of the private road request prior to final plat approval. Applicant shall construct all roadway improvements identified in the accepted traffic study, including the turn lanes and roadway widening improvements prior to submitting a final plat application. correct the label, the commercial lots, with the reference of lots A, B, and C to lots 89, 90, and 91. And then the applicant shall also coordinate with the Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Permit Engineer to ensure that the LID requirements are met and reflected in the drainage study. Here is your zoning map of the subject property, your site map, and an enlargement of the preliminary plot. You can see the commercial lots are up front, fronting off of Highway 98. Here is your preliminary plot and your drainage narrative with your landscaping plan and the results of the traffic study. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

okay any questions for staff by the planning commission members fabi i know we've dealt with this in the past but as a part of the process are we still at a minimum reaching out to the school system and is letting them know this is happening whether they respond or not is immaterial but that is still happening yes sir yes And I only ask that because they literally got the CO for a 12-classroom expansion at Alberta Elementary less than a month ago. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 88 townhomes are probably going to fill up those classrooms fairly quickly.

Sure. We have a shared, but no response was received from the Baldwin County Board of Education.

Thank you.

Probably this may be a question that the developer or the representative can answer, but usable open space, how is it defined on that map? How do I know what is usable?

Dehashed lines here.

So we're calling all those hatched areas as usable?

Yes, sir. Usable how? For recreational areas. Now, they have not identified playground areas and open grass space areas. They did put in a trail around their stormwater detention pond here that kind of connects around here. but that's how they have identified recreational trails with some options for playgrounds.

Okay.

And I guess the parking being placed in that usable open space doesn't count against that?

It is counted as open, but not usable. So you do have your CBU areas that is here on the west side of the development that abuts the lot. Well, here is referenced as lot A, but that's where your CBU is. But then you have areas outside of that that will be utilized supposedly for recreational that are counting towards that. And I did put in the legend here, what is the minimum requirement for the usable open space was right around 54,000 square feet, and they're providing around 59,200 square feet.

I guess I have a different idea about what usable means, but maybe we don't define that as well as we should, but...

Right, so the way our subdivision regulation identifies the usable, we don't quite call like playground areas. We do give them options between core areas, grass, green areas, but they don't necessarily have to say, okay, this is going to be utilized for a playground. They have variable options to utilize for the usable open space.

Yeah, Steve, this is one of those... By putting the trails there, how we define it has to be activated. Like it has to be something done to activate the space, trails or whatever. So it's activating it. Is this really the intent of what we're trying to go for? No, it's not.

Well, the reality of it is the type of units you have here. is no yard space very little there should be an actual like usable park in there somewhere i mean that's the whole point of open space to me is provide for something that the actual individual lot does not provide for right and i don't i just don't see it here um yeah it's definitely not the intent of how we what we wrote the usable open space criteria for this was not the intent of what we were trying to achieve though

I don't understand how you, excuse me if I'm interrupting, I don't understand this T-junction in the middle, the trails around the thing. I can understand we walk it, we might bike it, a playground area on the kind of bottom left is a square. I understand that one, but this between them, that doesn't make, I don't, that's more difficult to understand or to see. It looks like anything that's not used for detention basin or unit building footprint, we're calling common area or this open space, and that's like an alleyway. Between these 50 units in the middle.

I'm going to ask a question I should know the answer to. Do these trails have to meet ADA compliance?

Yes, that's been approved.

So we have curb ramps and crosswalks and all that. They'll have to have all that. Okay.

So the only access is 98?

Yes, sir. They have two access points onto Highway 98.

Seems dangerous.

Well, they don't really abut any other streets.

Okay, anybody else have questions for staff?

Is there a landscape plan that's attached to this?

It is on the screen. I realize that I left that off your staff reports, but it is on the screen. So along Highway 98 in the southeast corner, they are required to install a 25-foot landscaping buffer. adjoining the townhouses and the commercial district. They are required to plant a 10-foot buffer as well as for the rest of the perimeter on the north and east of the property. All of the west side was identified as wetlands. They are non-jurisdictional and the developer does not have any intention of impacting or modifying. So those natural areas are going to serve as a buffer.

I mean was it communicated this potentially spans to the East some point I'm going to say we have no.

We discussed that during the review and there was no indication that there was a there's room for future development connecting to the East side. At this moment.

Are they having curbside garbage pickup.

I'm going to defer to the applicant to answer that.

All right. Any other questions for staff? Parking be on each parcel?

What was that?

Parking will be required on each parcel?

The townhouses, they did provide us a lot layout that provides parking on their lots, but they are also being required to do the alternate street section, the 60-foot right-of-way that does allow for some on-street parking.

But how wide is each lot?

The townhouses, the minimum square foot for a townhouse is 2,500, so there's no... I don't know.

On-street parking is going to work if you have two double driveway for each lot. There's going to be no space for on-street parking.

We were not provided a... layout of what the townhouse is going to look like to know how many garages, you know, if they're going to have garages or not.

Yeah.

Again, we were not provided plans of what the townhouses are going to look like, but I believe there is a height limit of 35 feet per the RMF six zoning district. I could be incorrect on that without the book.

So we don't know if they're three bedroom, four bedroom.

It is not part of the subdivision requirement at this point.

Okay.

Any other? I got public comments, public input, so I'll make sure. Anybody else have any questions for staff? All right, let's go to that. Joe Rector is the representative of the developer. I'll let him come up, and then we have a couple of others. One other.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. My name is Joe Rector with Mullins LLC, 4900 Bayou Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida. A couple things I want to address. We talked about the comment about the not being provided the layout and the plan On the front cover of the submittal is a plan that shows the footprints and shows the parking and has that diagram on it that was part of the submittal package that I assume you guys...

So what does the parking plan provide, Joe, on each lot?

It shows the garage and the parking space on the lot, and then, like you said... We had to do the wider right-of-way with the wider streets divide street side parking So that's also parts takes away from some of your open space because you're making us use that for greater right-of-way So it's kind of the the thread in the needle here on that What they were asking us like the townhouse plans I

So entertain me here for a second. So three bedrooms, got some teenagers. Is there enough parking for three cars per unit or something like that?

A 25-foot-wide townhouse is probably not going to be three bedrooms. You physically can't build that in that space.

Okay. Yeah, Bob.

Yeah.

Wondering.

Yeah. I've seen.

Joe, do you guys know what the proposed... I have no idea who's going to build the townhomes. So you don't know how many bedrooms?

We're working for the developers trying to develop the property, and he's not the guy that's going to develop it. The property, and the property of the east, that piece of property we're looking at is already zoned RSF6, which is the zoning that allows to do 25-foot-wide townhomes on the property. It's not that way to the east, not that way to the west. That's why he purchased this piece of property, because it was already zoned for what he was wanting to do.

I didn't see a dimension on the driveway width. How wide is the driveway?

It's a single car driveway width.

So the zoning ordinance requires, this is RMF 6, so it's a multi-family zone, which does allow townhomes as part of it, but it requires two on-site. Right.

Yeah, the plan accounts for, I didn't see a dimension on the width of the driveway.

Yeah, it would have to meet our standards, which is usually 12 feet wide or something like that. Yeah.

all those details by the way would will um be looked at when they submit their site plans for each town hall right what else you got yeah i was just any any other specific questions that were that needed to be addressed um i would answer for you there was any other concerns that was earlier the one i was i remembered with those two the

He asked me about the garbage collection.

Oh, the garbage. This is what we were just talking about. We had to get all the letters for the utilities. Yeah, for solid waste. I don't recall off the top of my head. I wasn't prepared to answer that specific question tonight on the solid waste.

And usually in those letters, they don't state how the solid waste is going to be picked up, the waste management is going to pick it up. They just say, well, we're willing to serve and we have the ability to serve. But usually they don't. you know specify whether it's going to be dumpsters or cards.

Well I don't see any space reserved for a dumpster so I guess that's it.

No that was my point though but really my point was had it been considered because you know that's a lot of garbage containers would be out on the side of the street and without seeing the units I didn't know if they had garage front which I assume they did. They do. Those containers get put away somewhere because pretty Ugly.

Yeah, well, I mean, an eight-unit townhome, you can't really build a backyard.

No, that's my point. I was just making sure it was considered in some way. It's not.

It's one of those things we just... If they want a dumpster at the kiosk, then I guess that's their space there at the front, or... Again, a lot of those things are things that are addressed in the site plan that we would have to flesh out when we get to the design stage of this.

If you would like to make it a condition of approval, we can most certainly reach back out to Solid Waste to confirm how they plan on collecting the waste and revise the plan as needed to allow for dumpsters, if that's how they plan on collecting it.

What were you intending your trail just to circumvent the pond and the other landscape areas within the site plan?

To circumnavigate around that? I mean, so there's Yeah, it's similar to how you guys required us on the project that was done across the street. Sailor's Landing, 226 unit PUD, it's got a lot of these same type improvements. It has a similar type deal, have a trail system there as well. So it would probably be we work with staff and engineers to see what they felt was the best material to be used and whatever the recommendation is when we're in the design phase of it is what we would end up being used because it has to be approved by them.

Sidewalks are not required in RM6.

They did... Sidewalks. I don't see sidewalks.

The sidewalks are required on the roadways. The trails are a separate thing from the roadways.

That's where I'm going. So sidewalks are required? Yes.

Yeah.

Any other questions for Mr. Rector? Okay. I have one other person. Joe, let me call this one other up. If we get any other questions, we'll call you back. David Sanderson.

Commissioners, I am the landowner to the east side of the property. I'm zoned B3, and I don't know. I couldn't tell by looking at the plan if they had a physical barrier between the two properties or not. I saw they had a 25-foot landscaping buffer, but I'm zoned B3, and they're obviously a high-density residential. I would like to see a physical barrier between the two of us if possible.

As in like a fence?

Something to keep the renters on their side, yes.

So our zoning ordinance only requires natural buffers. We do not require fences. or metal wood fences, we don't require that. If they want to do that, that would have to be more of a voluntary action by the developer. We only require a natural landscape buffer.

Between a heavy business zoning and a high density residential? Okay.

And that buffers 25 feet on the side, the buffer along right here, 98 and then this are a parcel on the southeast corner is 25 feet beyond that point around the perimeter. It's only 10 feet, 10 feet. Yes. It'll be between his parcel in the RMF six zoning would be 10 foot wide.

Anything else?

Okay, that's it. Okay, thank you, sir.

So is test a test, or is that someone? All right, if you're a test and you want to speak, you can come up now. That's how it showed up on my... And Hunter is for one of the other ones, right? It's not on this one. Okay. Sit tight, Hunter. All right, that's all I had signed up to speak then. Does anybody have any further questions for the developer's representative or for staff before I close the public hearing?

Bobby, will we... Once we approve this tonight, or if we do approve it tonight, we won't see this again when it hits the design phase or anything, will we?

No, sir.

Because this plan, unfortunately, is falling into the same category as the last development that Mr. Joe referenced, Sailors Landing, which I believe we tabled because the application was fairly incomplete. much in the same way that this one is, although this one does fulfill the minimums. Repeat to me, you said we could put a condition on it regarding solid waste?

If you would like for us to verify how the solid waste plans to collect the garbage, we can put in a condition that if it's by the means of dumpsters that they update the plot to reflect where the dumpsters are going to be located.

Because this very definitely fulfills the bare minimums of making it through the process. Thanks.

Mr. Seidman, if you remember the one across the street that you referenced, it was the PRD, so we had a little bit more leeway of things we could ask for.

But you're right.

The same thing is that there was a lot of these details weren't really clear, like how they were activating their spaces, how they were doing it. So if it's the commission's choice, you can certainly table it and get these answers before you approve it, because you won't see it again.

Oh, that's why I asked. I don't know if I don't know if there's the appetite to do that because it does fulfill, again, the absolute bare minimums of what need to be done in order to move on to the next step, which we could have a discussion about whether that's correct or not.

But I think there's enough questions about some of these details to not know enough specifics about the requirements. So I think you have enough ability with the questions you're asking. if you want some more details about the open space, about the trash pickup, and things like that.

Layout for the parking, the width of the driveways, the width of the, you know.

There's enough question on the requirement side about those items that if you wanted to, if you felt you needed to, to get more information, you could certainly do that.

Yeah, Greg, this definitely feels like the letter of the regulation.

You put it much better than I'm thinking, so. All right, thank you all.

Any other comments? Joe, you may have to come back up to answer this. My question is, have you done enough drainage design? I know that comes later, but have you done enough to know that you're not going to use those common areas in the back for drainage, which I have seen many times is the case?

Actually, that's not the case at all. I'm surprised I guess you guys don't have what we submitted because this submittal we submitted months ago and have had multiple multiple multiple rounds back and forth of comments from the staff to get where we've got with this we had to do a full stormwater report on this way more so than anyone that we've done for the 20 years I've been coming here and doing work is way far in depth with with stormwater analysis that was had to be submitted and turned in on this project so we've done a lot of this work back and forth, had comments just at the plan based on what we were told to revise it to be able to get it to a place to be able to be approved and meet the new rules and the new requirements. We submitted a sketch plan and got that commented on and reviewed and addressed that had a different layout than this, and we changed it to this to meet the comments we got that time. So our client is just looking for an off ramp at some point. It's been one year and four months to this point, and he still doesn't have a primary plan, doesn't even know if we can develop this project. He may have bought a piece of property he can't develop yet.

So he's looking for some conclusion to at least know

What's going to cost to build this project? And until we get to a point where we can start to figure that out, we're just kind of like moving the pen around on the paper and not getting anywhere, really.

You submitted a drainage narrative.

Yes.

And that hasn't been- I would just like to add that after multiple rounds of review and revisions back and forth with the development group, staff did receive revisions after the staff report had already been prepared and published. So we have not had a chance to go back and re-review those revisions because the staff report had already been published because the developer did not meet the deadline prior to the publishing of the staff reports. So we will have to take into consideration those revisions during the construction plans review to review the revised drainage documents that reference the LID, which is the low impact development features that they are having to incorporate in this development?

Well, I asked the question that I asked because, first off, I'm not real keen on I get it that it meets the letter of the regulations. I'm not keen on the type of usable open space that we have on the project. I only ask the question, if we did approve this, only for it then to come to you folks or for SAF to review for engineering design, Now, all of a sudden, we're using some of those usable open spaces for drainage, which I know they probably would then have to come back, but that's the reason I asked how far down the road you guys have gotten to look at that, because you're calling it usable open space, and at some point, you're going to do a design, and I just wanted to know if you'd done enough to know that you're not going to use that space for it, because... And they have.

So, in the revisions that were provided after the staff reports was published... Excuse me. If any of the areas that's indicated for usable open space turns out to be impacted by those revisions with any sort of drainage conveyance or drainage facility, they would not be able to move forward that way. They will have to meet the minimum space required for the usable space as indicated. No other form of conveyances or structures are to be in those areas.

okay anybody else have any questions for mr rector and for the you know any of this stuff because you get to the design you may end up meeting the design requirements and it may cost you a building it may cost your unit you're not going to know that until you get to the final design though you're not going to know it today because we haven't done all of that yet well fabi if i heard you correctly there

There was information regarding the drainage, for instance, information regarding drainage that was received after this was done, which was not incorporated into what we're making a decision on right now. Y'all have it. Y'all have it. It's not reflected here.

We do have a revised drainage study. That they submitted. However, our permit engineer has not reviewed it fully to ensure that it meets the requirements of our LIB.

That it meets the requirements without there having to be changes made to what we're looking at.

That's right. So as Jay mentioned, if you feel that you would like for our staff to be given additional time to review those documents prior to making a decision that's within your ability to do so tonight.

or that we have to meet the requirements of that study in the construction plans.

I heard the adjacent landowner ask about a permanent barrier between his property and yours as the landowner that concerns you when your development comes in next to me. Have you given any consideration to try to keep people off of your neighbor's land? I know y'all want to be good neighbors. I know he wants to be a good neighbor, but

So I'm not the developer.

I understand. But is there any consideration given to keep people from off of his land?

I mean, the buffers are your requirements.

That ain't what I asked.

So the consideration is, I'm sure you've seen every subdivision, they have fences around their backyards, but is it a requirement? No. No. But I would also say, isn't there a requirement, though, between heavy commercial and everything when they're adjacent to residential? Also, there's a level of buffers that the commercial side also has to have, right?

That's right. So if your development was existing.

It's not just on one side. It's on their side, too.

Well, since their zoning, their business was there first before the development, it is on your side.

No, I'm saying if it was ever redeveloped or anything like that. Yeah, it's whenever it's being redeveloped is whenever that would take place.

So is there something on that B3 now?

As far as like a fence, I'm not sure.

No, as far as the business. Business.

That property owner can probably speak on behalf of that because I'm going to look in the area here. It's very vegetated. There is some structures here along 98, but that property owner can probably answer as to what sort of

Business is being conducted. But not on the piece up where it's adjacent to this. Okay. Right. Any other questions?

I just have a comment. I think we're going to see this from time to time where They meet the requirements, but it's not what we expect. We're going to see this time to time where the developers are on the edge, and they meet the requirements. But it's not really what we wanted, but they're doing it anyway, and I think we're going to see it occasionally.

I think what puts this on a little bit difficult situation is that it's not your typical subdivision because it's a high-density development. It puts it a little bit in the gray area, even though we still have to go by our subdivision regs. I get that. But it makes us, I think, ask some of these questions that we normally wouldn't ask on your typical subdivision. All right. No other questions? Thank you, Mr. Rector. I'm going to close the public hearing. We've talked about it, I think, enough. Now it's time to decide what we want to do. Unless you have a question. If not, I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that Benjamin's Run development be tabled for till, this is June, this is July, to the September Planning Commission meeting in order to allow staff time to review the updated drainage narrative. think I would like to see the solid waste to pick up situation be reviewed and dealt with and also I'd like to see a plat that clearly designates the the parking situation for each unit all right it sucks made a motion do I have a second all right mr. lips gonna second the motion any questions on the motion

Two meetings? No later than two meetings?

No later than two meetings.

If they are ready prior to September.

That would be fine.

That would be okay with you?

Yep.

Okay.

Any other questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Motion carried.

Okay. This time we'll open the public hearing for case number SDP 26-06, Laterna Phase 1A Subdivision. Does anybody need to declare prior communication on this item? Ms. Waters?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. All right, so the next two agenda items are going to be two phases of the same development. So the staff reports are going to be very similar that will be presented. This is the application for SPP 2606, Lanterna Phase 1A, a preliminary plot approval for a 54 lot residential subdivision. subject property is located in planning district 15. this phase is zoned rmf6 which is multiple family districts as i mentioned the request is 50 or 54 lots which are going to be townhouses this development is associated with an already approved prd site plan The public utilities proposed is Bell Forest Water System, Riviera Utilities, Baldwin County Sewer Service with treatment plan at the Malbus, and AT&T at the Broadbent. A traffic study was conducted by George Young and it is being reviewed by the permit engineer and the Baldwin County Highway Department. A wetland delineation report prepared by Craig Martin with wetland science identify jurisdictional wetland on the northeast portion of the subject property and these wetlands are reflected with a 30-foot natural buffer as shown on the plot. Wetland buffer signage shall be installed and maintained in the field to clearly identify and protect the buffer area from disturbance. The Lanterna development consists of approximately 89 acres and contains multiple zoning districts, including RSF 2 for single family residential and RMF 6 for multifamily residential. The property also includes areas zoned B2. However, the commercially zoned portion of those parcels of the property are not included in the approved PRD site plan or preliminary plots. The development is proposed in multiple phases, identified as Phase 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B. Staff is recommending approval of the Lanterna Phase 1 preliminary plot with the following conditions. The applicant shall coordinate with the Baldwin County Highway Department and permit engineer regarding the traffic study to ensure it meets the requirements necessary for review and consideration of the roadway improvements. An aid to construction for the roadway improvements will be required and will be coordinated between staff and the developer. the applicant shall submit a minor subdivision application to split the B-2 portion of the property from the RMF-6 as the commercially zoned properties are not included in the approved PRD site plan. Here is your zoning map of the subject property, the site map, your preliminary enlarged, Again, these are the townhouses. And then an approved PRD site plan reflecting all of the phases for the development. Here is your drainage narrative and a landscaping plan of various buffers. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, any questions for staff?

So this is in the county and it butts right up against city of Daphne, correct?

That's correct. The red in the site map reflects the city of Daphne.

Okay.

Any other questions? All right, I'll start with Sam Ding.

My name is Samuel Dean. My wife's right back there. I'll be speaking on her behalf as well.

My wife was born and raised on Pleasant Road.

Okay. And we have built two homes on Pleasant Road. It was a dirt road for years. We have watched tentatively the west to east expansion from Main Street in Daphne out to what used to be Highway 27, which is now 181 for the last 50 years. It's now reached our doorstep finally. This subdivision will butt right up to the west side of our property as drawn and we will have a large holding pond right to the right side of our fence. We are asking that the road that leads from the south of the subdivision and tentatively ties into Pleasant Road be eliminated or at least cut back and a cul-de-sac be put in with access to the subdivision being from the two proposed entrances off of 181. There's many subdivisions that have one access point, one way in and one way out. This one is proposed to have three access points. We met with Mr. Ackerman last week about extending Pleasant Road over to Rigsby Road, and he informed us that the county was looking for more east to west alternatives. Now, Parker Lane is already over there. Let's see, what's the name of that subdivision? Parker Lane ends at the east point of Patch Subdivision with the road already primed and ready to be cut through there. And that would give a new west-east corridor from Highway 13 over to 181 that would run parallel to Highway 64 and Pleasant Road. And I don't have to emphasize how bad the traffic already is with three schools within a mile of Pleasant Road. We can't even hardly get out of our driveway as it is. The west side of my property is only 60 yards away from the center of the proposed center of the access road, and we're not interested in having a turning lane in front of our house. Also, there are two houses that are assessed value north of 850K. Ours is included in one of those. So value for our property What is that?

That's your three minutes actually.

Okay. Well, just a couple more minutes. Last point is just eight inches below the old farm dirt is a solid layer of the hardest red clay in Baldwin County. You should have seen it out there with Hurricane Danny. You had 24 inches of water standing out there for two weeks. Now, my wife and I, members who make up the Volovecky's property, are distant cousins. And we have no interest in them being denied the right to self-determination by selling their property. We just ask you all to look at this very closely and how it will affect the embedded property owners who have been embedded in the Belforce community since the 1870s. Thank you for your time.

Thanks, sir. Bobby, let's make sure we're all clear on this. This plan's already been approved by the county commission.

Yes, sir.

We can't, we're not here to debate the layout as such. It's already been approved. The conditions for setbacks were all established by the county commission's approval of that PUD.

Yes, sir. That's correct. No.

I just want to make sure everybody on the Planning Commission, you didn't know that. We're not here to debate whether roadways need to be changed. It's already been approved as such. All right. Ben Schoenfield. I may have said that wrong, and I'm sorry if I did.

My name is Ben Schornfeld. I live two or three doors down from Mr. and Mrs. Dean. I have the same concerns they do, the value of the property. I live in the original house she grew up in, first house on the dirt road in 1940. This entire project, 89 acres, the majority of it is on 181, was presented, I believe, in sometime in 2024 to the city of Daphne for them to annex it into the city. That annexation was declined by the city of Daphne and withdrawn by the developer. And now it's come. Then in November of 24, this entire project came back to you folks for approval, which has been done. And Never has there been any mention, to our knowledge, of an entrance exit on Pleasant Road, always on 181. And maybe we don't know the information. And based on the information that's come out with Lanturner A, 54 units, And then the next one, B, 24 units, total of 78. Well, the entire unit, the entire project, 89 acres, consists of 132 single family and... I can't remember the number now, but anyway, a total of 295 units, condos or apartments, whatever you call them, and houses, with the traffic going on to 181. We have no objection to that, but to overload Pleasant Road, that's already been mentioned, would increase the traffic flow substantially. It's already increased, and the potential in it extension, a pleasant road over to Rigsby across 181 so that you get faster traffic flow and ease. The part that Mr. Dean was talking about a while ago was to have an access road on Parker Lane, which would be the north part of this original part of this subdivision. And that cuts into or goes right into 13, right beside that assisted living facility, could extend straight on across to 181. And then you'd have a west east corridor, as opposed to dumping the traffic out on Pleasant Road. So Our request is that you seriously consider not approving the entrance-exit on Pleasant Road and have no idea why the City of Daphne requirements would be different, stricter, whatever, than the county. And whether, to our knowledge, there was never any information presented to residents about an entrance on Pleasant Road. So that's our main concern.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Chris Jones.

Good afternoon. You mentioned there's a traffic study done. Is that correct? Yes.

Can you highlight that for us?

I mean, what did that show as far as the congestion? I just want to touch on what they're talking about because when at Parker Lane, if any of y'all live in this area, you can't get out on this road as it is right now. patch place that you're talking about that's 20 acres they got 65 pads on that right now 65 at an average of two cars that's another 120 that and they're building up in there right now they're already halfway through and now we're going to add another 300 pads here roughly two two cars that's another 600 cars so i'm just curious is to traffic

Currently, we do have a revised traffic study that was again submitted after the staff report was published. We are sharing that information. We have shared this information with the Baldwin County Highway Department, as well as we have contracted a third party consultant to review the traffic study and get back to the developer with comments. So we do not have a finalized because we're still, that's why I mentioned in the section of the traffic study that is under review.

So it's everything we're talking about right now is contingent upon that, is that correct? And so how do we as the owners in this area know and get to understand what this study is? I need to be educated on that.

So as far as, like, seeing the finalized report, we don't have that to share. We have it, but we're not ready to share just because it hasn't been finalized. So we don't want to, you know, share a report that has not yet been accepted.

Gotcha. But what I'm asking is, so say this report comes back and says, whoa, there's just way too much traffic. Our infrastructure is not there, which we know is not in all of Ballin County, but the growth is just out real right now.

So I can probably how that process works. This is a common process with all developments is when we have our traffic. So it's all contingent on to the primary flat. Does it authorize them to go to construction? This is a proven the layout to our subdivision regulation. There's a whole nother phase that happens after this. Okay. It goes to the engineering, the detailed engineering review. Include the traffic study and we don't we don't release it to construction until the highway department and the county engineer is comfortable with the traffic projections and improvements that are going to be required.

There's going to be all stock improvements done.

Okay. So gotcha. That's kind of part of the next phase of plan development. Okay. Yes.

And also, I'm representing everybody on the north side, which is the Sahoy subdivision. Just want to talk about the buffer. You talked about the natural buffer. What is that natural buffer? I mean, what is the footage of that? And there are really a lot of old oak trees on this property. Look, I'm not against – I understand we've got to move forward with – progress and everything and you don't want to tear down anything but everybody's concerned about all these oak trees that they're gonna be tearing down is what we're worried about and you know is there gonna be a buffer yes so over here in this area that I don't know if you can see my cursor which is the north side of the development

This is all the jurisdictional wetland area. This area is protected with a 30-foot buffer. This area is not allowed to be disturbed, therefore it will remain as is. And then around the perimeter areas of the development, there is a 20-foot landscaping buffer being planted in these areas where you see the vegetation here.

Yes, but are they going to come through and just tear all those trees out and then replant?

I mean, is that something that you're... No, oftentimes...

It's all undisturbed? Okay, that's cool.

Yes, oftentimes I try to utilize the natural buffering and just plant additional.

Gotcha. And last was, so when the... Originally, last time we did this and zoning was changed, there was a huge uproar. I don't know if you all remember or not, but it was about the flooding side, especially around the wetlands area and everything. So has anything changed since then with somebody going out and the whole delineation that you were talking about? Has anything changed on it?

Well, so this – yeah, this – Part of our, our review that starts the earlier part of the room has happened with the stormwater narrative. There, you know, they're meeting or exceeding all requirements and what we do also, this is really more part of the next. Phase of construction plan review is re, evaluate their stormwater impacts to the watershed too. So we don't look at just the site, but we look at the watershed with our tool and we make sure that we are. the design accommodates and does not cause off-site issues. So that's all going to be taken care of.

Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. Well, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Thank you, sir. Let's see. Michael Taylor.

All right. Thank you, guys. So I am here on behalf of the Sahoy Property Owners Association. I'm on the board. And to touch on a few things that Mr. Jones mentioned, he is correct. There are some serious issues with flooding, especially with the lots in Sahoy that abut this property along where the wetlands are. And just to give you a little history on stuff that probably predates you guys even being in your current role versus your current position up here, back when 181 was widened, there were thousands and thousands and thousands of yards of sand dumped in the wetland on the north side to the west side of 181. And I know that for a fact because I'm one of the ones that was in the sand business that bid on that sand to go in there. I didn't get the job. The sand went in there, and I know it for a fact. Second thing is Caroline Oaks, when that was approved, they also, which is the property abutting to the north, They also were approved to fill in some wetlands. So your wetlands, just like a water hose, the volume of water that's coming in there has not changed. But when you pinch that water hose off, the velocity gets higher. And so what's happening is when you get a significant rainfall, that water travels from east to west until it gets to the pond at Sahoy, and it makes a turn. And if you look... Bear with me one second. On the pond that is shown, so there's two iterations. So that's another question that I got. There's two iterations of the pond. One has a road that cuts through the middle of it, and the other one does not. So I don't know what's what with the hill. So if you go to the next page, Mal. If you can, yeah, there's a road in this area that splits that pond, so I don't know what's, if that road's gonna, if it went away or if it didn't go away or if it's gonna be there or if it's not gonna be there.

So this was part of the original conceptual for the PRD. They are allowed to relocate some of their roads. That is not considered a major change internally. So this is the actual plot design here. As you can see, this is the preliminary plot. You can see the road is in between the two proposed stormwater ponds.

say but that's different than what what is shown on there on your original this is the preliminary plot the conceptual plan from the prd was not a more fine-tuned detailed plan like what we have in front of us the size and the shape have changed and so that's what i'm getting now also on the north side of this pond that's shown on on your screen now is close to where these lots are that are experiencing currently. And this is, I've documented proof that those lots have water that runs across the back of them coming out of that wetland. And that water is traveling from the northeast to the south to this pond. So if you raise the elevation of this pond whatsoever on the north side, what, yeah, yeah. The far northeast corner of that pond, if that elevation is raised whatsoever, it's going to impede. I think I got five minutes instead of three since I'm representing an organization. I paused it. If you raise that elevation whatsoever, it's going to back that water up and put it in these people's yards and potentially in their houses. So there's some serious issues that need to be addressed right here on that corner and in that pond and some... further discussions or whatever you want to call it on how that pond is going to be constructed. It's a real deal. The last thing is that somebody mentioned it earlier. This is on the city. Sahoy is in the city limits. This is not. That creates a potential for jurisdictional finger pointing, which I'm trying to avoid. I talked to the city about this issue, and now I'm here talking to the county about it, so everybody knows about it. And if there's an issue that needs to be resolved, hopefully we can get all parties together, which I've got a call to the engineering department, hopefully, and get somewhere with them here shortly. But hopefully we can all sit down and say, here's what is actually happening, this is what we anticipate to happen, and this is how we make it happen. So I'm not saying don't deny the subdivision or whatever y'all, it may be too late, whatever the case may be. All I'm simply doing is raising a legitimate issue that is known and proven and trying not to further exacerbate that issue. So, anyway, that's what I've got. I appreciate you guys listening to me. And I'll be glad to work with the... Trey Genwright and those guys, they do a great job. So I'll be glad to work with them, tell them what I know, walk out there with them, show them videos that I've got, whatever the case may be. So anyway, thank you very much. Okay, thank you.

Will Graham? Crystal, Scott's having to leave at this point.

Good evening. I'm Will Graham with Jade Consultant. I'm the civil engineer on the project. So I just kind of wanted to start with, I guess, answering a few of the concerns that have been brought up. As far as the traffic study, we have spent a number of months kind of working with the staff at the Highway Department and the Planning and Zoning Department, really trying to nail down the traffic study and what all is needed and required. It's been a long collaborative process. We've gotten some comments back from them a few weeks ago and have just submitted our updated traffic study we've also just submitted it to aldot as well and so we're going to continue working with them and anything that is required in that traffic study you know will be completed per the traffic study and per the requirements by planning and highway department as far as drainage we've done an extensive stormwater study of the of the area and kind of identified how we need to handle it. It's a very complex area right there, very flat and does not perp very well. That's why we've got a large number of ponds and ponds that are quite large. We need a good bit of storage. We're decreasing release flows at all the stormwater storm events up to 100 years for the different directions that this drains this this project drains one into the wetland that um we were just talking about and then one to the um source eat west so i get turned around when it's kind of turned around um to the west um and so we've submitted our our stormwater study to the county with we're currently under beginning our review for the CPR, the construction plan review process. And so any concerns they have or that neighboring property owners have, we'd be happy to hear them and listen to them and make sure that we account for that. We certainly don't want to cause any problems. We've done a lot of work to make sure that we are helping the issue and not hurting the issue. I don't remember if there were any other Questions brought up. I guess the PRD site plan, the approved site plan is the one that is shown on the screen right now with just the one east to west road cutting through the drainage area. And the approved site plan does have the connection to Pleasant Road. The stub to the west is in order to pick up what you know in the future may be an extension of Parker to be able to increase connectivity to 13 and from 13 to 181 you know one of the big things we're trying not to do is bottleneck traffic into one area if we can increase connectivity to the surrounding street network we can disperse that as you know as well as we can to not bottleneck, you know, right onto 181 or right onto Pleasant Road or, you know, all of it onto Parker if we were to. So I guess if you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them.

I do, but I'm going to let anybody else. Anybody have any questions? This is going to back up to the previous project we just had. In fairness, I think I have to ask you the same thing.

Yes, sir.

So let's start with garbage pickup on this particular unit.

On Phase 1A?

Since this is townhomes. I mean, you guys talked about how that's going to be done. Is it curbside?

Yes, sir. It'll be curbside.

Curbside pickup? Yes, sir. You already got it worked out with the...

Yes, sir. I believe so. Okay.

And I didn't ask Bobby this because I knew you would be up here anyway, but the open space, I see a playground. My question is, do you have other open space planned for other areas of the development? This is not the only playground for the whole development, is it?

no sir no so I guess on the screen now is in the next phase of the townhomes there's a large green open grass area up in the subdivision proper or I guess are the single-family subdivision there's a long green space available right there for you know recreation football open space for that sort of thing and then we have a trail that will be um activating the you know central part getting back over to the uh the wetlands and the kind of the the natural areas of the uh subdivision um there will also be a um an area right next to the pond just west of it kind of on the other side of that long green area that will be a an amenity area as well yep okay

Anybody else have any questions?

I have a question on the, what is the utility that runs through the project? Is that gas or electricity? Is that on the northeast kind of? Is that diagonal?

Yeah, that's a power line. It's a power line. A high-tension power line.

Anyone else? All right, thanks, sir.

All right, thank you.

All right, Grant. Caleb? All right, no comment. That's all I had signed up to speak on this particular item. And this is just for Phase 1A. We'll open the public hearing from 1B. All right, anybody have any questions for staff? All right, I'm going to close the public hearing. Up to you guys. What do you want to do?

I'll make a motion we approve this case subject to staff conditions.

All right. Mr. Bias has made a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Seconded. Mr. Seibert has seconded the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Motion carries.

All right. Now we're going to open the public hearing. And I have a feeling some of the comments we heard are somewhat on this one also. So... But we'll open the public hearing for case number SPP 26-07. This is Laterna Phase 1B. So does anybody need to declare prior communication on this item? Didn't think so. Ms. Waters?

That's right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So phase 1B of the lane turn on development is for a preliminary plot approval for 24 lot residential subdivisions. I mean, residential lots. This is where you're going to have your RSF2 zoning. Again, with the PRD approval, they do have reduced setbacks in lot areas of such. The conditions are still applicable from phase one to phase 1A to 1B. They're all the same. The staff analysis are also the same. So I have the enlarged preliminary plan. This is the phase that connects to Pleasant Road. So I'm happy to answer any questions if any. can you remind us of the overall requirements for access for development of this size so the subdivision regulations requires to access on any subdivisions that have 50 or more lots but remember this is a PRD so there was a lot of special requirements that went through that process and and

As we talked about in the work session with our kind of regional transportation plan, some of these are kind of filling some of those gaps in their area. So this connection to Parker Road and multiple access, it's not typically a requirement, but because of the location of this and kind of the bigger picture of our transportation plan, we're trying to get better interconnectivity throughout that area.

just increases the overall connectivity in that whole area.

Any other questions?

So a lot of questions about flooding and where the water goes. All these retention ponds, that's all completed before any of these phases?

So all of the detention stormwater management facilities you see on the plat, we review a preliminary drainage study, and then they go deeper into detail and more of their civil design during the construction plant.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Anybody else?

I have a question. What would, you know, this Parker Lane, Parker Lane has been referenced. What makes not that feasible for, let's say, an additional entrance?

Well, let me bring up the aerial imagery. So if you will look at it here. Parker Lane that ends at this subdivision and you have this track of land right in between that's currently just a private property that is not open. So it would take someone to purchase the right-of-way or possibly develop this parcel to actually connect Parker Lane to the Lanterna development. I do not believe the current property owners of Lanterna own this parcel.

This is a question maybe for the developer, whoever, has that been entertained, or have these people, let's say, where Parker Lane would go across this, I'm going to call it a wooded lot, but has that been approached, or that may reduce some... We make sure, just like Daphne did with the subdivision to the west, they plan for those connections, just like we're planning for it with Lantana, and then ask whoever

as the properties are developed.

It's planned and it will come whenever that does get developed. Thank you.

Anyone else? All right. No. One for 1B. Oh, really? Okay. Okay. All right. If you've already spoke, we heard your comments. I think some of your comments were applying to this particular leg of the development. Was there anybody else that hadn't already spoke that didn't sign up? I just want to make sure. Okay. Well, come on up.

Yeah, Ben Schoenfeld, I spoke earlier. I'd like to talk about 1B. It's pretty obvious that the flood and the water conditions that were talked about from the people from Sahoy are of no interest. Right here on this phone, I've got videos and pictures from April of 2014. In 24 hours, we had 12 inches of rain. You'll pull up on that screen Fairclough Place. There's a big, I call it a lake because it's definitely not a pond. If you pull that up, look on this. I'm going to look up here. It's a good-sized pond that's back on Faircloth, the cabinets and the properties that Faircloth owns. That completely ran over all the way out to Pleasant Road. It was nowhere for the water to go. Now, maybe that was the one time never to happen again, but we do have hurricanes around here, and I can promise you, if you look at my front yard, which you can't see, my front yard on Pleasant Road that joins Faircloth Place, the water was up in my yard and I'm two feet up, but the front yard and all the way out on Pleasant Road was filled up with water. So that lake, you could call it a retention pond, it filled up, and I promise you, again, pull the map up so somebody can see the thing.

Is this the map you're wanting to see?

I can't hear you, so I don't know what you said. Right there. Faircloth Place. You see that lake? See that brown spot right there? That's his lake. And it is a lake. You couldn't ski on it, but it's a big lake. It's bigger than any retention pond, including the one right down on Pleasant Road that's probably 15 feet deep and an acre by the church. Every bit of that water would have flowed into whatever's all of that property. and including out the Pleasant Road. So, you know, there is a water problem. And if you want to, you know, I'd be glad to share any pictures and videos from April 29, 2014. But I appreciate you all considering that, because it is a problem, and it's going to be worse. Every one of these townhouses and apartments, or townhouses and homes, If you haven't ever noticed, on Pleasant Road at 181, the storage building, when it was built years ago, it was built up off the ground. Concrete and asphalt. And if you look at the first two or three houses right next to it, every time it rains, you can go down there right now, and you'll see water standing there in the front yard. There's no place for the water to go. This is farmland, as hard as a hard pan. And anyway, appreciate your thoughts.

Thank you. All right. Just for clarity again, I know this is sometimes hard to understand. We are not here approving the engineering plans for drainage tonight. That developer will be responsible for submitting that to the county and go through a process where they will review those. Mark, you want to talk to that?

yes a couple of things we did meet with several of these residents last year last week we had a public outreach meeting about the extension of pleasant road to rigsby including in that project is a regional stormwater pond and that is for the very reason they're bringing up the exact points we're we're trying to address with our projects as well as we're working with this developer and his engineer of record to make sure that the regional stormwater challenges are addressed through this development. Right now there's nothing there to accommodate stormwater. We've just constructed a regional stormwater pond to the west of this location because there's no outfall on Pleasant Road. So we're actively working now to, our next phase will be to pipe the water along Pleasant Road to the west to get it away from the residents that are seeing this water in their front yards. So there's some regional stormwater improvements that the county is implementing and we're also looking at the, as we mentioned in my presentation earlier, when we connect a new road we also look at what impacts it will have on the existing roadway networks. We're currently in the early stages of evaluating some regional improvements needed along this Pleasant Road segment and whatever improvements are determined or warranted any development along this area would have to pay in and pay their fair share to make sure that those improvements accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by any development along this segment and in any area any development within the general area of this location not just this one development So we have some plans that we're working on currently today, and they will be coordinated with any development plans that also are proposed at this location.

Okay. Thank you, Mark. All right. Any questions for staff? I'm going to close the public hearing. I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve, subject to staff conditions.

All right, Mr. Bias 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. Open the public hearing now for case number SPP 26-09. This is the CWS Stable Side Estates Phase 1 Subdivision. Does anyone need to declare prior communication on this item? Okay, Ms. Mosley.

Good afternoon.

All yours.

It's taking a minute. Hold on for just one second, okay? Okay. There we go. Good afternoon. This is for case number SPP 2609 CW stable side states phase one. It's a preliminary plat approval for 16 lots residential subdivision. It's located in planning district 18 is unzoned. The location is east of Bowling County Beach Express and north of County Road 38. Again, this is a preliminary plat approval for a 16 lot residential subdivision. The smallest lot will be one acre and the total acreage is 33.75 acres. The utilities will be septic. Water will be East Central Ballin County Water Authority. Electric will be Ballin County EMC. A drainage narrative was prepared and stamped by Chris Lee, PE, and it was reviewed and accepted by the Planning and Zoning Permanent Engineer. Yes, there was a wetland delineation provided by Wetland Sciences. Here's our location, Planning District 18, unzoned. Aerial map. Our wetland delineation. Here's a copy of our Chris Lieb, our drainage narrative. The history of there was a common lot line move done 11 19 2025 and it was approved and it was also SPP 20 legacy Hill subdivision, which was approved 11 7 2024 was approved the conditions and developer chose not to move forward with this project Here's a copy of preliminary plat of CWS stable side estates phase one and Here's an enlargement of the plat. Again, this is SPP 2609, Stable Size Estates Phase 1, the 16-lot residential subdivision. All residential lots will be accessed through single residential drives and must adhere to the Ballin County Access Management Policy. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat for case number SPP 2609, CWS Stable-Side Estates Phase 1 be approved with conditions. All required wetland buffers in common areas shall be marked with permanent signage is one of the conditions. And then also the second condition has already been satisfied. The quick claim deed for the 40-foot to Baldwin County was already provided. Any questions?

All right, any questions for staff?

I have one question. It's on the wetlands and when we post them or signage them, And we call that permanent. You know, I know that it'll be part of our inspection process. Is there any follow-up to that? Or is, you know, hey, you know, any what down the road? Or do we just make sure they put it in there one time as soon as they pass inspection? Are we done with that?

I believe there is maintenance follow-up, Ashley.

we're going on good faith that that it that sign stays there and it's okay all right thank you any other questions for staff all right i have one signed up tim vaslo

Tim Boslow, 20804 Brown Lane. I was up here for the previous options of this property. I got a couple questions. I emailed somebody today with five questions, brief questions. Did you all get that?

It may have been me, sir. I was in a meeting this morning.

Okay. I don't know if they got that or not.

No, sir.

Okay. I'll be quick here. If it's a subdivision, they called a subdivision. Are the subdivision regulations, do they apply here with no internal roads and all the driveways off of Brown Lane? What would the landscape look like on Brown Lane?

Section 6.2, the landscape buffer, 50 lots or more is when that's what goes into effect. So this is just 16.

And then they're all an acre or more. Right away on the road there, like 30 foot right away.

Okay.

And the intersection right there, the misaligned intersection, we talked about that previously also, where it looks like you've got 45 feet cut out for Baldwin County. Yes, sir. What is that triangle? What is that for?

That is a corner clip that's going to be dedicated, actually already dedicated to Baldwin County.

Like for a future turn lane or roundabout? What are we talking about there?

hard corn like that. These old right-of-ways did not have corner clips or radius at the intersection, so when we had developments come in, we'd get that to allow for proper sight distance and things. It basically improves the safety of the intersection.

Yeah, because when you come out Brown Lane, you've got to really put your nose out there and get clipped off when you're coming out there right now. Okay. So that covers that. So a couple years ago Baldwin County was doing the painting of Brown Lane and they stopped, they did the yellow down the middle and then the, I guess the white edge lines, they were scraping, I guess they scraped the weeds before they paint, is that how they do that? whatever they do, the maintenance. But then they stopped because they were just tearing up Brown Lane. They said it was just crumbling as they were going down there with the machine. With all these new lots up here and construction equipment and new traffic, Brown Lane is already deteriorating. Do we have plans or are there plans to overlay that or anything like that?

And Mark stepped out, but that would be a question for the highway department. He can get with you after the meeting. That's part of our normal maintenance. Because that's existing county roads. It would be part of our normal maintenance cycle. So Mark Ackerman, he's here, but he just stepped out.

He can get with you after the meeting. Yeah, because it's getting pretty bad on the sides. And there are no white lines anymore. Okay. Well, this one here probably doesn't apply here, but was there any thought of making these three to five acre lots instead of one acre lots? But I guess that's not even in your ballpark. All right, and then phase two, I'm hearing it's big lots coming off of 38? Yes, sir. Is that what I'm hearing? Yes, sir. But all the driveways would be off of 38? Nothing internal, right?

That will be heard next month.

Heard next month? Mm-hmm. Okay. All right. And there's no natural gas out here yet. Are there plans? Is there plans for natural gas?

I cannot answer that, sir.

Out this way? No. Okay. And no plans to shave down Thrill Hill anymore, like we've talked about before? All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

So I wish Mark hadn't stepped out, because he's asked, to me, a valid question. If that roadway's already deteriorated, is it not on the developer?

It's not. As long as it's paved and meets our width, which it does, then no, it's not part of the subdivision regulation.

Regardless of the condition of it?

Regardless of the condition, yeah. All right.

How far apart do the driveways have to be that are going to be coming off of Brown Lane?

So our access management plan, this is a minor residential street, so I believe this would be treated kind of like any other... street inside a neighborhood because it doesn't go anywhere. So basically, the short answer is it varies. Like if it was on a major through street, it could be up to 250 feet. That's what I was asking. This street would be treated like a minor local residential street.

Okay, any other questions?

Is there a representative of the developer here? Because I had no one signed up. Do you want to speak or not?

Okay.

I had no one else signed up. So I'm going to close this public hearing. Unless you have questions, I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve case number SPP 26-09, subject to staff conditions.

Okay, Mr. Seidlitz made a motion to approve. Do I have a second? I'll second it. All right, Mr. Mullick seconded the motion. Any questions on the motion?

Okay.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right, we will now... Open the public hearing for case number, let me make sure I'm right here, SRP 26-09. This is the replat of lot one of Frolic Subdivision. Does anybody need to declare prior communication on this item?

all right all yours wilson we have srp 2609 the replat of lot one of sherry frolic subdivision this is a common lot line move request but it is a major change to a recorded subdivision since they're changing the outer boundaries it is located in planning district 12 off backler road The request is to relocate the lot line between an existing lot in a recorded subdivision and an adjacent parcel not within the recorded subdivision. No new lots are being created. Again, the applicant is requesting to relocate a lot line. The parcel is within the City of Loxley's ETJ. Loxley has chosen to review the request administratively, so the Baldwin County Planning Commission must hear it. The proposed lot line move meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance. Here's an aerial image with the two subject properties highlighted in yellow. And again, this is at the corner of 49 and Fackler. It's zoned RSF2. This is a copy of the original subdivision. You can see parcel one on the corner. That is the subject property. Then there's a gap and then it shows parcel two and parcel three. When they originally plotted this subdivision, kind of unusual to have parcel one and then a section not within the subdivision. So that's what we're talking about today. Here is a copy or an image of the proposed replat. And on the next slide, I've highlighted the section that we're moving. The lot one is moving 63 feet into the part outside of it. So it's just a standard common lot line shift. But since technically the outer bounds of parcel one are changing, it must be approved by the Planning Commission. and staff is recommending approval. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, any questions for staff? Okay. Does anyone signed up on this one? Because I don't, unless Elizabeth, you're gonna send me something. I'm sorry?

Just Hunter Smith.

Oh, there you are. You moved on me. Do you have any comments you need to make? All right. Mr. Smith's here. If anybody has any questions for him. All right. I'll close the public hearing. I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion that we approve case SRP 26-09.

Mr. Mullins made a motion that we approve. Do I have a second? Second. Second. by second motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Motion carries.

All right. Open public hearing now for case number s r p 26 dash 10. This is the reply out of lot two of bond and main subdivisions. Anybody need to clear prior communication on this item? That's Wilson.

all right um again an srp for a replot for a common lot line shift changing the outer boundaries of the subdivision this was formerly the casella subdivision it is in plan in district 12 on county road 68 and again we're relocating the lot line between an existing law and a recorded subdivision and an adjacent parcel outside of the recorded subdivision the total acreage is 13 acres for this one A little bit of property history. You've seen this parcel several times at this point. Mr. Casella requested a four lot subdivision to further divide this parcel in 2024. That request has been presented to and approved by the Planning Commission, but a final plot was never recorded. Mr. Casella has decided not to move forward with the four lot subdivision. Today's request is to revise the recorded lot two parcel The adjacent property owner is going to complete a common lot line exemption to bring a part of lot two bonds in Maine into their existing parcel. This constitutes a major change and must be approved by the Planning Commission. Upon approval, an exemption request will be submitted to complete the common lot line move and a replat of lot two bonds in Maine will be recorded. Here's the subject property. It is zoned RA, rural agriculture, as well as the adjacent parcel. This is a copy of the original recorded flat that created lot one and lot two of Bonds and Main. This is an image of the approved request for a four lot subdivision. It was gonna have four lots and the developer was gonna build a road to access those lots. Yes. And the new request, the blue parcel is going to be what's left of lot two, Bonds and Main. The middle orange portion is what is being removed and added to the yellow parcel at the top. This is the image of the new plat once it's recorded.

and staff is recommending approval on condition that a common lot line exemption is applied for and i'll be happy to answer any questions okay any questions for staff okay so the the blue section shows the new new lot two the orange section is to be removed and combined to the yellow parcel is that the one labeled lot one or is that the one labeled keith and tracy are keith and tracy So are we creating a parcel that doesn't have rope?

We're not creating a parcel. The Heath and Tracy parcel is already in existence. They're making it larger. Okay. And I did want to point out on this blue, you do not see the wetland buffer, but I did receive a revised plot that does show that 30-foot buffer. And with this common lot line move, it will do away with the previously approved four-lot subdivision, so that will no longer be on the table.

But Mr. Bias does raise a question that I thought of. So do we somehow make sure these are done together i mean you don't want that yeah that deed recorded it creates that standalone lot there and then all of a sudden like they did on this other one they said oh we decided we don't want to do this now we've got a parcel sitting there they would need to submit it all at the same time first yeah they they need to i just wanted to we ensure that they do we do and i've talked to the applicants and the adjacent property owner they are excited they want this they're they're ready

Right, and Fabia has pointed out that in the survey it says property line to be deleted.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

All right.

All right, so now I've got comments on, so if you were here for the last project, the Cornelius and Mercer, were you guys here for the last item?

Not here?

All right. Are you Haley Cornelius? Okay. Well, come on up. Well, if you want to speak, I have to get you to come up to the podium.

Hey, I'm Haley Cornelius.

I'm actually the owner of what says Tracy and Heathard, and I will be purchasing the two and a half acres. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Any questions?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thanks.

That was easy enough. How about Sherry? All right, you're good. All right, that's all I had signed up to speak. I'm going to close the public hearing. Unless you have questions for staff, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion that we approve case number SRP 26-10.

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

I'll second.

Mr. Pye, I second the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Last item of open public hearing for case number SV 26 dash 10. This is the County Road 19 RV Park variants. Anybody need to clear prior communication on this item? Wilson.

All right, and I did call it an RV park variance, but I go into detail later. It's more of a access for a major project variance. So this is case number SV2610. It is a variance from the subdivision regulations for the definition of a flag lot. This subject property is unzoned in Planning District 34 in the Bon Secure area off County Road 19. The request is for a variance for the definition of a flag lot. One of the applicant comments is the requested variance is necessary due to an existing 50 foot wide access flag that was established prior to the adoption of the current 60 foot entrance width requirement. Because of existing property boundaries and recorded access limitations, expanding the entrance to 60 feet is not reasonably attainable, creating a practical difficulty if strict compliance is required. Here's an aerial imagery showing the subject property highlighted in yellow. A detail of the property, and we'll get into more details in a second. Here's a proposed site plan. This property is for sale. The potential buyers want to put an RV park on there. And the proposed width of 50 feet does not meet the 60 foot requirement. Since it's already an existing lot, but they would be expanding it, they would need to meet the new conditions of a 60 foot flag requirement. This is a lot of words, but it's all pretty applicable, so if you bear with me. The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum width of the flag portion of a lot. Current regulations state the flag portion of all lots must be a minimum of 60 feet wide. This flag was approved in July of 2020. At that time, the minimum width of a flag was 30 feet and the minimum width of access for a major project was 50 feet. This property is currently restricted towards any development except the development of two single family dwellings because the flag does not meet the current minimum width requirements. This variance would allow for future development of a major project such as an RV park. The property has several restraints that will not allow the 50-foot flag to be increased. The property to the south, lot 5, is 40,847 square feet. If lot 5 were to sell the subject property a 10-foot strip of land to increase the flag portion, lot 5 would be below the required 40,000 square foot requirement. In addition, Lot 5 cannot gain additional square footage from the west, as there is a platted common area between Lot 5 and the subject property. The subject property cannot gain 10 feet from the property to the north, as it is also currently served by a 50-foot flag, and we cannot increase the nonconformity. And I've tried to kind of outline a couple possible outcomes with this. During our meetings with the developers, there was kind of three possible outcomes. First, the Planning Commission can vote to approve the variance allowing the existing 50-foot flag to service the RV park. Second, the variance could be denied and no major project, which is anything other than two single-family homes, would be allowed on the property. The third possibility is where it gets a little complicated. The third possibility is that the Planning Commission can deny the variance request. The applicant would then proceed with donating the flag portion of the lot to Baldwin County and platting the flag as right of way. The plat would show a 50-foot right of way that terminates at the bulk of the property. The road within the right-of-way would be paved to county standards. The right-of-way would then be presented to the county commission where they would vote to accept the road for maintenance or record as not county maintained. Because there is an option to convert the flag to right-of-way, staff is recommending denial of this variance request. Now I have photos to make it a little easier to understand. Here's the recorded plot. This was in Foley's ETJ at the time. Our county engineer signed off, planning director, and it's showing the lots with the two 50 foot flags. Kind of explaining the limitations of expansion. So the developer has talked to the owner of lot five. The lot five did entertain selling them 10 feet, but that would put them below the 40,000 square feet. Then we said, why don't you get some of the land off the back? Can't do that because they're not adjacent and that's common area. And again, 50 foot flag to the north. Leaving essentially their only option is to donate this 50 foot flag to the county build a road flat it is right away and that would alleviate the access issue since then they would not be served by a flag they would be served by a right-of-way and just a reminder the article 8 for variance states that Where it is found that extraordinary hardships or practical difficulties may result from strict compliance with these regulations, Planning Commission may approve variances so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured, provided that such variance shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations. In the staff recommendation, the applicant can choose to donate the flag portion of the property to Baldwin County as right-of-way. Then they could construct a road that meets county standards. That road would terminate in a hammerhead or similar design that would then open to the main bulk of the property. This would eliminate the requirement of a flag lot, as the lot would be accessed by a county right-of-way instead of a flag. the existing 50 foot width is suitable for a county roadway. As previously mentioned, the applicant has requested a variance from the minimum flag width to allow for the development of an RV park. Unless information to the contrary is revealed at the public hearing, staff feels this variance request should be recommended for denial due to the ability to convert the flag to right-of-way. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, I have a question. In your three options and then the paragraph you just read, they can't do in this subdivision, dedicate that right-of-way in this subdivision process to the county for right-of-way? When they do the subdivision?

Yeah, that's in essence what... I'm sorry? What's in front of me today is just a variance. So what we're saying is that they can move forward with a... PUD for the RV part that's required, but part of that PUD is going to have to be platting a right-of-way with the proper access. We're just saying you can't do it through a variance, but if you want to build... Basically, the road is gravel now, and they were trying to not have to improve the road access, but when it's platted for right-of-way, it has to be approved to our standards. So yeah, there's a clear option there. They could just simply... So why do this right away? Do the putt all at one time?

So the reason we're doing the variance is so they don't have to pave the roadway. Yes. Okay. I get it now.

So who pays for the road?

That's what Steve is saying. How this was typically handled is that they would, if they're trying to develop the back parcel to whatever, it doesn't really matter what it is, is they would do a subdivision, whether it's a plat or a PUD, and that access road just like our interior roads for any other plat would be platted as a road as a county right-of-way improved accounting standards that would access the rest of the development parcel because the problem is right now this flag lot the flag portion pole portion doesn't meet the standards so it can't be further intensified like it can't be the non-conformity can't be increased so what about the flat the other flag

next to it, it's in the same situation.

Right.

Can we take both of them?

But that's a different parcel. I know. If they ever try to do something on the adjacent one, they would have to do something somewhere else. So this is one of those indications where we see a lot of these flag lots. But in essence, what happens long term is it kind of boxes those back parcels into a corner that they really can't do much more than two lots because they don't have adequate access without building another road.

And I kind of missed some of the conversation, but as it stands now, the applicant, even if they wanted to pave the flag, they couldn't because the flag's not wide enough. They can only pave the flag if they donate it as right-of-way. Yeah.

One of your options sounded like to me that we would have to deny. They'd have to go ask the county, see if the county would take it as right-of-way, then pave the road. I'm thinking, well, why go to the county and not just do it now?

Because they can't because it's not enough access.

Then I'm going to go to Mark. If they go to the county and say, would you take over this for right-of-way if we pay it to county standards, is it automatic or is the county going to look at it and say, no, we're not?

It's never automatic. It has to go to the commission, but if they bond it, do everything, build it to our standards, then we would definitely be open to accepting it for maintenance.

Let me clarify something. It's getting a little confusing here. There's two different things. The subdivision regulations says it has to be front, a platted, public right-of-way. A plotted public right-of-way is different than a county-maintained road. We don't say you have to front a county-maintained road. I regularly say you have to plot the road. But in order to plat the public right away, you have to improve the roadway to our standards. We don't have to accept it for maintenance, but. And that's something the county commission decide whether they want to or not. So, what's being described here is not talking about donating a right away prior. It is saying that they're asking for a variance to be able to proceed with the with the without having. A platted public right away. in place and we're saying well no you don't meet the hardship requirements of the variance because you have an option to do what what you just described like hey come in with your pub plated right away improve the roadway to our standards and do all that as part of the overall rv development So they have the option to ask for variance. I mean because again these are existing lots this 50-foot and These aren't they're not proposing fee simple lots back here But the fact is that a RV park PUD cannot be approved with only 50 foot of public highway frontage It has to be 60 feet of highway frontage And so that's when the flagpole comes into play that it's only 50 feet so it does not meet the roadway frontage requirement to further divide

Any other questions for staff? If they were to put two homes on this, would it still be out of compliance because it's not 60 foot?

Nope. Every parcel is allowed two residential structures. Every parcel in the county. Oh, okay.

But if we approve the variance, if we approve the variance, If I heard you correctly, can they still not move forward with the RV park?

They can still move forward with the RV park. They would not have to plat the right-of-way. So the RV part has an option to go forward either way.

If we approve the variance, it can go forward or the donation abroad.

We're just saying because there's not a hardship. There's a way to meet our regulations. That's why our rules for, as we talk about with every variance we ever hear, there has to be a proven hardship that the strict enforcement of our regulations can't be achieved. Well, there's options to achieve our requirements here. So it doesn't mean the threshold for a variance approved.

I just want to add one thing also that if you choose to not approve the subdivision variance, this property is currently under a cold case violation with our department for the multiple dwellings on site. Therefore, if they are not able to proceed with the rv park they will be required to disconnect or remove some of those extra dwellings beyond the two allowable units on site i'm not aware okay any other questions for staff we have one signed up i'm going to call them but i'm going to make sure the concern i have now is

If they donate and then the county says no.

It doesn't matter. It's still a plated right-of-way, so it meets our requirements. Okay. So you have to separate the county acceptance for maintenance from plating a public right-of-way. Those are two very different things.

Okay, I understand.

The county is not ever required to accept anything for maintenance. Right. We choose to accept most things, but a lot of little small dead-end streets like this, we don't accept.

Yeah. It really would become up to the commission, but currently does not meet our goals and objectives, but would still be considered a public right-of-way with a public street, just not county-maintained. We have those all over the county.

Okay. I understand. Thank you.

Bottom line, as an environment, it's a partnership.

This property zones on with this come back before us or a site plan.

Yeah Whatever it will never be part comes forward in whatever form it comes forward You're going to come back to you as a PD because I said you're not here in the RV park today You're in the access issue Okay, uh Kim Kelly

Do you need to recuse yourself? okay sorry i didn't know that was a problem doug um i'm kim kelly my son brent roland and i are representing both the seller and the potential buyer for this property it is not planned as a pud it is just planned as a very low density rv park lots of open space that you guys were talking about all of the things that you see there in the middle They're gonna be dog park and there's gonna be a place for a shower facility those type of things so it's a it's a very low density as You know other things that we've seen out there for RV parks. This is this is a great little place But in the interest of time, I'm just gonna read this that we've prepared We appreciate the work that the planning and zoning and the County Commission do and to help ensure that we've got responsible growth throughout Bowling County. And we understand that regulations exist to protect public safety while encouraging orderly development. And we're here today asking for a reasonable variance that we believe is consistent with those goals. The property that we have under contract is legally existing a flag-shaped parcel that was created before the 60-foot flag lot requirement was adopted. The access strip measures approximately 50 feet in width. At the time that it was created, the width met the county's requirements. The property's physical dimensions cannot be reasonably changed, as was mentioned by the county. And this makes it, because of the neighboring properties, this makes this a hardship that's unique to this parcel rather than one that's been created by the current owner or the applicant. Our request is very straightforward to allow the existing 50 foot access to serve the proposed RV park rather than requiring a 60 foot wide access corridor. One of the reasons that we respectfully ask for this variance is that we've been informed that the same 50 foot corridor could potentially be accepted if it were constructed as a county road with pavement built in the county standards. That creates an important question. If a 50-foot corridor can be safely functioned and function as a public county road carrying public traffic, it's difficult to understand why the same corridor would be considered inadequate for a privately owned driveway serving limited access to the RV park. The county road generally carries greater traffic volume, accommodates general public, and has broader long-term transportation demands than a private entrance. A private RV entrance is controlled access, lower traffic volumes, and can be designed specifically for the needs of the development. Our proposal does not seek to reduce safety standards. The clients are fully committed to meeting all the applicable engineering, drainage, emergency accesses, fire and safety, and construction requirements established by Baldwin County and any other reviewing agencies and additional improvements are recommended in enhancing safety. They will be willing to work with staff to address any of those issues. Granting this variance would not create a dangerous situation, nor would it undermine the purpose of the ordinance. Instead, it would recognize the unique circumstances of this existing parcel while still allowing responsible development under the county oversight. We also respectfully note that the variance exists for situations exactly like this. They allow the county to consider unique properties with strict applications of regulations that create unnecessary hardships without providing corresponding public benefits. This request is not intended to avoid complying with county standards. We simply ask that the board recognize that the parcel was created before the ordinance changed and that the difference between the 50-foot and the 60-foot access width under the specific circumstances does not create a public safety hazard. Approving this variance would allow reasonable use of the existing parcel while still protecting the public's interest. We appreciate your considering this and would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Okay. Anybody have any questions?

Okay.

Well, dang, Doug.

Her brother-in-law is also my house accountant. I'm conflicted.

All right. Any questions from any of the other members? Thank you, ma'am.

Thanks.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify something, just kind of. while we have our the position of denial just because because you know um the points are made are are you know i understand what they're saying but so the flag lot in itself like we said it can continue to be utilized as it was planted because it was prior to the current regulations of the 60 feet so we're not denying use of the property we're saying hey you can use it for your two houses but The problem is, even an RV park is a type of subdivision, so you're creating additional units or lots, even if they're not feasible lots, they're additional units by the state's definition of subdivision. So in 5.4, the subdivision regulations, I think I'm in the right spot. Yeah, but it is, it's a defined subdivision in the state. It is. RV park is clearly a defined subdivision in the state. Any non-conforming, basically, I can't, I've lost it, but It says, basically, you can't further increase the level of nonconformity. So adding, even if it's five RV lots, that's increasing that level of nonconformity, which is not allowed by the regulation. So in this case, there's a pretty simple solution where, you know, to solve the problem, it's like, well, just, you know, plow the road, you know, and then you don't increase the level. You actually bring it into conformity. And that's kind of where we're at. And I know the RV part and any kind of multi-unit development becomes kind of a lot of questions about it's not a subdivision. Well, by state definition, any division of property for sale, lease, or building development is a subdivision. So basically, if it's two or more units of any kind, it's a subdivision. And so it has to meet those hard requirements. So, again, it's not that we necessarily have a problem with the, you know, because we know there's an existing code violation out there. We've got to get it cleaned up. This is the way to get it cleaned up. But the variance is just not the way to follow the code on how to clean it up.

Okay. Any questions? So, bottom line, if we deny the variance, they have the ability to come back, donate that strip to the county as right-of-way.

They can bring that back with their PUD plan for that very RV park and just show that little white area with the dash on it as a right-of-way with a hammerhead or cul-de-sac turnaround, and it has met our requirements, and it's ready to go.

Yeah.

All right, that's all I had signed up before I close the public care and make sure anybody else on this item.

All right, I'm gonna close the public hearing unless anybody has further comments. I'll entertain a motion. If you got a question now, time to ask. So before we make the motion,

I'll make a motion that we deny case number S. V. 26 dash 10.

Okay, Mr Mullins made a motion to deny. Have a second. I'll second Mr by second emotion. Any questions on the motion? All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that request is denied. Alright, that's the last of our cases for the night, I believe. I don't believe we have anybody signed up for public comments. All right. Anybody in the Planning Commission have any comments? I have one. You can beat me up later. Elizabeth, this probably applies to you more, and I'm going to pick on you because... Be sure on y'all's, this is, I don't think I'm directionally challenged, but it took me a while on some of these cases. If you take images and put them on the same sheet and they change directions, please make sure North Arrow's on there. I had a lot of problems on that Main and Bond, whichever ones, because there were this and that. And actually, the image you had tonight would have been nice to have had in the package where you had it color-coded, because it took me a while to figure out with all the lines And I've been doing this a long time. I was thinking if I had problems, somebody else would. Maybe these guys are quicker than I am. But that's just a suggestion, if you don't mind. Anybody else have any comments?

And we were just speaking, and I understand that frustration. But sometimes, Kim, our hands are tied as to what the rules are, whether we common sense says something or not. For that, I apologize. Not for the rules, because I didn't make them, but the rules we're bound to go by. I still love you.

All right. Jay? Jay? Yeah, we got a couple of things. He's got a couple of things he needs to share.

I got a couple of things, yeah. One, just I don't know how much y'all have tracked this or not, but just to update on our planning jurisdiction agreements. You know, we had four different planning jurisdiction agreements for subdivision cases. Some other things we're building, that's a different story. But we had one with Loxley, Magnolia Springs, Somerdale, and Foley. 3 of those 4 are expiring this month and the beginning of this month. So. Locksley Somerdale and Magnolia Springs agreements will be expiring and they're not going to be renewed. Not at least not by the current commission. I think they'll decide. The next commission will decide whether they want to enter anything like that or not. But, um. just why would they be against it because i know magnolia springs i'm on the board there also and why are they why is the new commissioners against i'm not sure the new i don't know i don't know what the new commissioners think about it i'm just it's not about being for or against the fact is is that well if they don't vote for it they're against it well yeah but so the whole when sb 107 passed years ago The ability to exercise plan jurisdictions before SB 107 was totally up to cities. They could decide whether they wanted to or not. The county really couldn't say yes or no. They were just along for the ride. SB 107 flipped that and said the counties, you can decide if you want to allow the cities to do that and you come into an agreement. of alabama no matter what it is still unincorporated baldwin county and we are the county is still responsible for whatever happens in those areas so there's a lot of issues that are happening where you have developments being reviewed and approved by cities and the county's kind of stuck with whatever happens right Well, that's kind of flipped. Our regulations are actually more stringent on stormwater and other things than most of the cities at this point. So the fear that these areas aren't being properly reviewed from an infrastructure standpoint and impact standpoint is no longer there. Um, and just, it really just boils down to like, it creates a lot of confusion. It creates double fees for anybody that lives in those areas. We get calls all the time from people like, well, why do I have to go to such and such city? I live in the county, you know, and it creates a lot of confusion, a lot of things. And, and, and so anyway, it's not, I don't know that it's necessarily anybody's, you know, really for it. It's just, but the whole, you know, reason behind SB 107 was If you're in the city, you're in the city. If you're in the county, you're in the county. And we'll draw those jurisdictions about to stop this kind of overlapping mess. These four, from what I understand, these four agreements were in place. It's almost like a temporary measure, so to speak, to allow the cities to kind of get their comprehensive plans built and decide what they want to annex and kind of get their plans together. And basically, we're at the end of that period now. So there's just no appetite for them to be renewed at the moment.

Yeah, I mean, the SB107 was a 20-pound sledgehammer trying to crack a walnut. I mean, it caused a lot of issues around the state, but probably none more than here in Baldwin County, I think. Right.

But anyway, so, yeah, that's that's kind of where we're at. And it does. Like I said, we're, you know, with our current regulations, you know, and where we're going with things, you know, we've got some some good things in place and we're making sure things are managing everything the right way. So it's not as impactful as it once was. I guess that's what I'm saying. Yeah. So the other thing, and I'm pretty sure most of you already know this, but this is my last meeting. You guys know I'm, yeah, yeah, yeah. So my wife and I accepted jobs in Jacksonville and moving back home closer to family. And so, you know, it's been in the works for a little while, but we had to get the master plan finished and some other things. But, you know, so that's my thing. But enjoyed working with you all. Appreciate everything you all do. They've got to advertise. They started advertising this week. It's being advertised.

I don't know. I know that Frank Lundy is going to step up and kind of help as an interim step.

And I appreciate that. And the good thing is, like I said, we've gotten... Over the last few years, we've gotten some really good regulations in place. We've gotten some good processes in place. And that's all going to carry on. And, you know, so it's going to be okay.

Many of us were, I don't want to say heartbroken or sore when Matthew left. Matthew Brown helped us to get some areas zoned and some different steps made. And it's like, you know, I mean, he wore big shoes. I mean, he did a lot to help us. And you have stepped in and, you know, I don't think any of us have been dissatisfied with what we've seen come out of this position since you've been there. And, you know, it's just... It's another gap or, you know, we hope we get somebody as good as you. And so we trust the process.

I hope you get some money back. You're part of the reason why I accepted this position when I met you. Because I'm not really a political person. I don't like it.

But I do. Good job. Yeah.

Why don't you introduce our newest staff person?

Oh, yeah, we do have a new planner. She's quietly sat back there all night tonight. Dana is our new planner.

Dana, wave your hand so everybody knows for sure.

Yeah, so I'm sure Selena will have her.

If we didn't run her off tonight, we'll see her next month.

All right. Yeah, so I'm sure Selena will have her on some presentations with you guys soon.

Okay, just as a reminder, you all got a copy of the master plan update. We're going to try to put that will be on the agenda for next month.

That's the plan, yeah.

And we'll be making a recommendation to the county commissioners. Okay. Well, be sure if you got any – read that document. If you got any comments, send those in so those can be considered.

And I appreciate you guys coming early today to go over that and the time you all will spend reading everything. Like I was saying during the work session, I know I'm biased with the thing, but I'm pleased with where it is. And I'm sure there's some things that need to be tweaked in there and fixed, but I thought it came together pretty well.

Our intent is to move this along to county commissioners for approval, but Jay's also done a lot of work and staff on changes to the zoning regs. So we're gonna immediately jump into that the following meeting. The data center and the solar are some of the big. But there are other minor revisions. I say minor. There are other revisions that we've all talked about that needed to be made that Jay and staff have incorporated in this particular revision. So we're going to look at that right behind getting the master plan moved on. Right. And that's what we have in this binder.

Yeah, that's what you've got copies of. You can see all the changes. A lot of the changes are just kind of cleanup stuff and kind of cleaning up. the conditional use process from a normal site plan process. But the bigger things in there are the two design standard sections for solar farms and for data centers. We've got some pretty specific things written for that based off of, did a lot of research from around the country about proper regulations, how to properly regulate those and manage them should they ever happen. And anyway, but just take a look at those. But those are the two main sections. But the rest, you'll see a lot of red throughout.

Elizabeth, did you have an extra copy with you on this binder? Yes, Greg didn't get one. He came in later, so I'm going to get him one. Anything else? Yes, sir, Mark.

We have a road and bridge meeting, 8.30 on Tuesday, in this very room. Okay. We'll be, Jay and I will be doing the same presentation. Actually, possibly be a little bit longer. We'll go into the transportation elements a little bit more in depth, being that it's road and bridge. But we invite everybody to attend. It's a public meeting of the commission there. We'll also be discussing some of our successes with some of our past partnerships. and hopefully what's on the horizon for the future.

Okay. Tuesday at 8.30?

Yes. Here. Okay. Anything else?

Thank you, Jay. We appreciate it.

All right. If nothing else, we're adjourned.