[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6364290,"mediaKeyId","2164969-5e0ff52dc66262a4fb115e5a4927eec0","parentId",2164969,"title","Commissioners approve RSF‑1 rezoning for Johnson property, deny planned residential development","audioSeconds",1512,"startMs",1848000,"endMs",3360000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2164969-5e0ff52dc66262a4fb115e5a4927eec0&start=1848&end=3360","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2164969-5e0ff52dc66262a4fb115e5a4927eec0/thumbnail_1848000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6364290/Baldwin-County/Alabama/Commissioners-approve-RSF1-rezoning-for-Johnson-property-deny-planned-residential-development","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364290-59bf6f9b4333a1b5c971dbb65e623f16/orig.mp4?Expires=1773737506&Signature=TR0eh3aZ11RTorTemZc8~4ODrH-EMSlT-suZnvGi-wRGCdvfypWkEgNxIqGwZtyznnbdJa473flpzRhRYldMPCq14BtHmMfB~mtjFIglqso-pGrUk9hfjdpdwAb534yeVumT~nicpmj08CR24N33osfwNbcEERY9x2KYkFfT2r~2vxcIOGB9zdsq~aCJ3ktOjjXPkGsyDkMb1J5UUFFHqfP8TvcOS4i04NSMeizEmWCo034NVvfgSGNQPwvW-9UsUZqF8c1JHF4iobatmaCMFhGVAz19RynUc4oCWwrlDfUkjJTZIKnOP3nohf2IvxC7BH0l~Uo79vspBKLHBMaoZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Baldwin County Alabama","date","2025-01-29T05:06:25Z","article","Baldwin County commissioners on Jan. [date not specified] approved a rezoning from rural agriculture (RA) to RSF‑1 and separately denied a planned residential development application for an adjacent parcel near Alberta (case Z-2449).

Planning staff presented the request as a rezoning to RSF‑1 with a proposed density of 2.2 lots per acre and approximately 45 acres of open space in the PRD layout. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning and recommended approval of the PRD with conditions. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning by a 4–2 vote; for the PRD the Planning Commission recommended denial 6–0.

Duane Smith of Anchor Engineering, representing the developer, described the PRD concept as a more amenity-focused layout with larger shared green spaces and wet ponds intended as stocked amenities rather than dry detention basins. Smith said the plan sought to provide better connectivity and neighborhood design compared with a standard subdivision.

Nearby residents and other commenters raised concerns about wetlands, drainage, lot sizes and whether the proposed PRD met the ordinance’s intent. One resident said the property is “very hilly” and expressed concern that grading and drainage changes would flood adjacent lanes and creeks. Tracy Gamble, speaking as a resident, asked how the composite density would be shown on the map and whether the county should reconsider its master plan as the area develops.

Commission discussion focused on the difference between rezoning and PRD approvals. Several commissioners said they were comfortable approving the underlying rezoning to RSF‑1 (which carries a 30,000-square-foot minimum lot size and roughly 1.45 units per acre as the ordinance defines RSF‑1), but said the submitted PRD layout appeared to functionally produce much smaller, 60-foot-wide lots and therefore undermined the intent of the PRD process. One commissioner observed that a PRD should not be used to circumvent density and subdivision standards and moved to deny the PRD application; the motion to deny the PRD passed unanimously.

The commission then voted to approve the rezoning to RSF‑1. The approval applies to the rezoning itself; preliminary plat approval and any required traffic study will occur during subsequent subdivision or PRD preliminary-review stages if the applicant pursues those steps.

The rezoning (Z-2449) is approved and the PRD application was denied; the developer may revise and resubmit the PRD or pursue a standard subdivision consistent with RSF‑1 standards. Where required, staff indicated a traffic study will be required at the preliminary-plat stage.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Baldwin County Commission Regular Meeting, January 28, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The commission approved rezoning from rural agriculture to RSF‑1 for a parcel near Alberta (case Z-2449) but denied the developer’s planned residential development (PRD), citing concerns the PRD undermined intended density and design standards.","taxTitle","Baldwin County, Alabama","taxId",12621,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6364293,"Commissioners table Randall property rezoning after public concern over traffic and mapping",1167,638000,1805000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2164969-5e0ff52dc66262a4fb115e5a4927eec0&start=638&end=1805","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2164969-5e0ff52dc66262a4fb115e5a4927eec0/thumbnail_638000.jpg","/articles/6364293/Baldwin-County/Alabama/Commissioners-table-Randall-property-rezoning-after-public-concern-over-traffic-and-mapping","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364293-76ea16ba792dd105ab98c11099149f0d/orig.mp4?Expires=1773737506&Signature=lk33EzgZ8lhtNDb2Yvugt9B9V8E3sY-AKhD0v~gOS7AEbuCQJq6rS9SlEaCl3Wz3CVYJP2ac49yzlSzlxd9X66aPM3mQMY2CMCPD~RWeaGbNK0UdKwirQyWlUPokqJTvNA2JrIO2OodH9DWj~TI1IEQmD8kEKw6S1zR1Z4W11xs9twTobdQlINqKXOVkT-btg7x-03uL59VKZ48T28ymvTzgm3cgvsYeOPMPgjy00NPtfGVC67kKbzjC8gjU0BGDHKt1DyANcQ~JYOSCOchHV1ALYCcOz6Dy5jcEI~Js~19XHPFmjYbQKOjF5i2FQmLb8xwu~Mg1-0ypfVz3VYIUMw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Baldwin County commissioners on Jan. [date not specified] tabled a rezoning request for a 31.7-acre parcel on State Highway 104 (case Z-24-47, Randall property) after a public hearing in which nearby residents raised traffic and mapping concerns.

Staff had presented the request to rezone the front 10 acres from BCZ (community preservation) to B-2 (neighborhood business) and the remaining 21.79 acres to RSF-2 (single-family residential). Planning staff recommended approval and the Planning Commission had recommended approval by a 4–2 vote, but several residents urged the commission to delay a decision until more information was available.

The matter drew comments from the applicant’s attorney and multiple residents. Joseph Thetford, an attorney with Chason and Chason representing Robert Randall, said the proposal is consistent with the county’s land-use guidance and is a logical transition from the nearby commercial node: “This is consistent with the flume. This is, the flume says this is appropriate for [the] density development potential, which includes B-2,” Thetford said. He told commissioners there are no specific development plans yet and that traffic impacts would be addressed at the subdivision or site-plan stage.

Several neighboring property owners asked the commission to deny or delay the rezoning. Gary Little, a resident of the Veranda subdivision, said prior rezoning requests had been rejected and that residents’ property investments and neighborhood safety should be protected: “Are you concerned about their investment? They represent over $157,000,000 of investment, and they represent over 200 voters and a large property tax base,” Little said. He also cited crashes and congestion at the intersection of Lawrence Road, St. Michael’s Way and Highway 104 and questioned the need for more commercial zoning along 104.

At least one resident also questioned a mapping discrepancy in the public materials, noting the application documents listed the parcel in Planning District 15 while the property is within District 37. A planning staff member identified in the hearing as Jay acknowledged the discrepancy as a typographical error and said the review used District 37 regulations.

After public comment and commissioner questions about allowable uses in B-2 (staff advised that some uses such as animal kennels require site-plan approval), one commissioner moved to table the case to the Feb. 18 meeting so staff could address outstanding questions. The motion passed unanimously. No development plan or final site design was approved; staff and the applicant will be expected to return with clarifications at the continued hearing.

The public hearing was officially closed before the motion to table. The commission did not vote on rezoning or adopt any ordinance at the Jan. hearing.

The case remains pending; the next public hearing is scheduled for Feb. 18, when the commission will revisit the request and any additional information provided by staff or the applicant.","A request to rezone 31.7 acres on State Highway 104 (Z-24-47) was tabled to Feb. 18 after resident concerns about traffic, mapping errors and neighborhood impacts; staff had recommended approval.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners approve RSF‑1 rezoning for Johnson property, deny planned residential development

Commissioners table Randall property rezoning after public concern over traffic and mapping