[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6294078,"mediaKeyId","2522174-39cb076bd8ece44473cb207bec7b1d27","parentId",2522174,"title","Planning commission backs broad zoning ordinance rewrite but keeps rezoning review and adds parking change","audioSeconds",945,"startMs",5452000,"endMs",6397000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2522174-39cb076bd8ece44473cb207bec7b1d27&start=5452&end=6397","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2522174-39cb076bd8ece44473cb207bec7b1d27/thumbnail_5452000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6294078/Baldwin-County/Alabama/Planning-commission-backs-broad-zoning-ordinance-rewrite-but-keeps-rezoning-review-and-adds-parking-change","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6294078-74b48a0d7aaed83cf513836e854af6de/orig.mp4?Expires=1770493442&Signature=VWofKmWzKX6lozHIaRYOSiUlSu9C1ZQzPpLiBL4Y0PjK10uFi5pebZcr7co7YCCZDme5hB-ps-fIkLlQ3bBBXd9picZO0B2tIlsW5Yn0p4Ue7-KTsjt1IJCeZ~UfeQNnJ~14k30Ix9m4fqv1R9KRplk5-elesRLhUveJ~fIPZlT0PpsEJHGvzny~3ZDIEJf7dBfQ~z~1Z7LEj-Ub0icodN6z7~WqaSO5ggueQ-L3AJdeWlDIYW1StjeIqKWkT5-YJGDuhGHololcu1rqmWLoYuMolNOb0SBtbzBP7ZI-XXVrhTNYXqCRy6pXJrDnZypvBIhX~sJhund0m-b0ft7wfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Baldwin County Alabama","date","2025-03-06T21:46:54Z","article","The Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission on March 6 recommended county approval of a major zoning text amendment package (TA25‑01) that rewrites planned development (PRD) rules, clarifies definitions, and adjusts wetland buffer rules in coastal plan districts — with two changes the commission specifically requested: preserve the commission’s role in initial rezoning review and increase the parking requirement for single‑family units.

County staff presented the comprehensive rewrite as a series of targeted updates meant to align the zoning ordinance with the county strategic plan, subdivision regulations and state and federal permitting practices. Staff emphasized several substantive changes:

- Definitions and clarifications: The ordinance will now adopt an updated definition of “agriculture” aligned with federal regulations and add a definition for “agricultural building.” The term “structure” was aligned with subdivision regulations.

- PRD overhaul: The PRD article was largely rewritten to clarify process and expectations. PRDs will be designed around activity centers identified in the master plan; developers must spell out any deviations from the underlying zone; large PRDs (250+ acres) require a conceptual site plan and phasing plans; and traffic and wetland studies are required earlier in the review process.

- Traffic and utilities: Staff said PRD applications must include an approved scope of work for traffic studies pre‑approved by the county engineer and performed by a licensed traffic‑engineering professional. The change is intended to ensure infrastructure impacts are assessed at the PRD stage.

- Wetlands and coastal provisions: Staff proposed special rules for Fort Morgan’s intermittently wet “interdunal swells,” reducing the automatic buffer on those features to 10 feet while encouraging avoidance of filling and requiring on‑site offset storage where filling is necessary. The draft also clarifies that jurisdictional determinations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (or an accepted professional delineation) govern application of the wetland overlay.

During the hearing, planning commissioners and citizens debated the package’s practical effects. Several commissioners voiced concern with language in the draft that would forward final zoning map amendments directly to the county commission (removing the planning commission’s public hearing role on rezonings). Commissioners said the planning commission’s review is valuable public input and recommended retaining the current process. Commissioner Greg Seibert moved that the planning commission recommend TA25‑01 to the county commission with the following changes: keep the existing rezoning review process (so rezonings continue to come before the planning commission) and add a requirement that the county commission send notice of action back to the planning commission. The motion also included an amendment to the parking schedule to increase required off‑street parking for single‑family and duplex units from two spaces to three.

Jay (county planning staff) described the changes in detail and answered commissioners’ questions about the PRD timelines, traffic‑study scopes and how phasing would be enforced: when a multi‑phase PRD is approved, local improvements would be tied to phase triggers so required road or drainage upgrades would be completed as specified in the phasing schedule. Jay said staff would require traffic studies and utility commitment letters appropriate to each phase.

Public comment included a short presentation by resident Ben Gould asking for clarity about the Randall/RSF‑2 mapping and noting the community expectation for single‑family zoning where appropriate. Gould said of RSF‑2: “RSF 2 is 15,000 square foot lots. I’ve sat here since it started here in about 50 foot wide lots, 400 houses. That’s crazy.”

The commission voted in favor of forwarding TA25‑01 to the Baldwin County Commission with the stated modifications. The recommendation will appear on the county commission’s agenda for final action; the county commission may accept, modify or reject the planning commission’s recommendation.

Staff said next steps include incorporating the commission’s requested changes into the draft and forwarding the revised amendment package for county commission consideration and public hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Baldwin County Commission Planning and Zoning Meeting, March 6, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission on March 6 recommended county approval of a comprehensive zoning text amendment package (TA25‑01) that revises PRD rules, wetland protections and technical definitions — but asked that rezonings continue to be reviewed by the planning commission and that single‑family parking minimums increase.","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},6294084,"Votes at a glance: Baldwin County planning commission approves several site plans and forwards multiple rezoning recommendations",317,1448000,1765000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2522174-39cb076bd8ece44473cb207bec7b1d27&start=1448&end=1765","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2522174-39cb076bd8ece44473cb207bec7b1d27/thumbnail_1448000.jpg","/articles/6294084/Baldwin-County/Alabama/Votes-at-a-glance-Baldwin-County-planning-commission-approves-several-site-plans-and-forwards-multiple-rezoning-recommendations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6294084-88f0fabee52fd330879cbd9b957d94ca/orig.mp4?Expires=1770493442&Signature=PvOQ-r595fKtryaV3ECg2dFMrw30tLTxcd0FtyCXO7YYoDfu5XmetF77~d8nuqKM4GLgz9Y-N6P7eFZu5D6LEne9-Q6a8xKLq9eJKGL2HroHxpX2p947OTMDAxCT2cikAGFohpClaQksB7oJI-3RobsI6eY~3hspAly-PKaQSRGILEURUg0-icxmLtO7LfI8XSwRzZbXXzuVLKKF-BULnZKDbzifU74Le5BM76gPklzKu-s6AF3OJnoZ~1qTsi5ytCr-527cX~NekUH8P44icl6YtbLCePabjq9XY6lAf3M9ne68sH8AFws9id4C82GodCY46kDf27kE5hPYS-u8Jg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission on March 6 approved multiple items on its agenda, including two site‑plan and subdivision actions, and recommended several rezoning requests to the Baldwin County Commission. Most votes followed staff recommendations and passed by voice vote.

Key outcomes

- SPP25‑02 — BFLC Styx River East Phase 3: The commission approved a nine‑lot subdivision off Langham Road and Goat Cooper with staff conditions, including showing an existing dirt road through Lot 9 and a required turn lane on County Road 64; motion to approve with staff conditions was made and carried by voice vote.

- SRP25‑03 — Emerald Coast RV Park (revised site plan): The commission approved a revised site plan for the RV park south of Brewer Road and west of County Road 605. Staff noted the property lies inside the City of Foley’s municipal jurisdiction for subdivision review; the city has approved a three‑lot subdivision that splits the 40‑acre parcel and keeps the RV park as Lot 2. The commission approved staff conditions and noted the applicant must record the revised site plan and seek permit extensions as needed.

- SV25‑03 — Cody Conner subdivision variance: Approved on the consent agenda.

Resolutions and rezonings recommended to county commission

- Z25‑01 — Southern Storage Solutions LLC: Planning staff recommended, and the commission voted to recommend approval of rezoning from RA to RSF‑2 for a 34.59‑acre property; the recommendation will be forwarded to the county commission.

- Z25‑03 — Resner property: The commission recommended approval of rezoning from RSFE to B‑2 for a roughly 3‑acre parcel along State Highway 181 and will forward the recommendation to the county commission.

- Z25‑05 — Warner property: The commission recommended approval of rezoning from RSF‑1 to RSF‑2 for a 1.7‑acre vacant parcel near Liberty Street and Wydell Avenue and forwarded that recommendation.

Procedural notes

Most votes were by voice and followed staff recommendations. For items that change zoning, the commission’s recommendations will be considered by the Baldwin County Commission at future public hearings.

The commission recorded no formal roll‑call tallies in the meeting transcript for these items; actions were entered into the record by motion and voice vote and will be reflected in county commission hearings where applicable.","At its March 6 meeting the Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission approved a set of consent and regular‑agenda items including two site plan actions and recommended several rezonings to the county commission.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6294090,"Baldwin County planning commission tables 377‑lot Cambridge subdivision after residents raise flooding, traffic and school capacity concerns",2933,1947000,4880000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2522174-39cb076bd8ece44473cb207bec7b1d27&start=1947&end=4880","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2522174-39cb076bd8ece44473cb207bec7b1d27/thumbnail_1947000.jpg","/articles/6294090/Baldwin-County/Alabama/Baldwin-County-planning-commission-tables-377lot-Cambridge-subdivision-after-residents-raise-flooding-traffic-and-school-capacity-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6294090-6affd208660384b2cdf7dceafa4a7bad/orig.mp4?Expires=1770493442&Signature=Dhm2zLpr9kaytwe2-oehDYd8qA-QwYe-eDCSKekuzCkx~4RF9462vfvHaL5lwn8lSAH5Yx2Ovd23aseaeLvsYLOao3wt~dwm493FXcJYoVuq5wrdnhmsW1SheVxWf1q0~mNYLFD~ZmHzhArIQWGbTM1ssBmpVAKLz98zWxWEBaW2wEG9ESX5Kjk~5QhZ7TAs9IV6xmZ74GLunLGRO2Hs03MMM0G2tF44rKUJmc1mF4VYFwvGMyOfBXauo9LtwlIH5~Al~sNDlTYqWHuatFaGot-l62V-AHhwRxwIquXohSn-EV0jTieo6NFX1cjxLRO9oIzYOJuCLRswW1dPDOwnlg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission on March 6 voted to table action on PRD25‑01, the Cambridge Subdivision, a proposed site‑planned residential development of 377 lots, after more than two hours of staff presentations, developer comments and public testimony raising concerns about flooding, traffic and local school capacity.

Staff planner Selena Rhodes told the commission the proposal covers multiple parcels in Planning District 12 near the intersection of County Road 54 and County Road 55 and would be developed in four phases. Rhodes said the developer provided two wetland delineations and a Clean Water Act permit application, and staff recommended approval with conditions.

Developer Duane Smith of Anchor Engineering said the project’s composite density is 2.49 units per acre and that the team had adjusted plans to respond to earlier reviews. “It’s actually 2.49 units per acre, not 3.49,” Smith said, and he told commissioners the team had prepared drainage work “much further along than what you typically do for PRD because of the site and past water issues.”

The core of the meeting became public testimony. Dozens of residents said drainage on the site and nearby roads is already inadequate and would worsen with additional development. “The only thing that has changed since then is we’ve gone from 445 houses to 377,” said resident Donnie Dearborn, referring to earlier proposals and denials. Multiple speakers said longtime wet conditions on the property would require large retention areas and that nearby two‑lane roads and local schools could not absorb the added traffic and enrollment.

Commissioner George Waters told the public the commission had limited discretion where by‑right zoning applies. “That piece would allow you a little over 400 lots,” Waters said, explaining that the portion already zoned R‑3 could be developed under existing rules even if the PRD were not approved.

Commission discussion returned repeatedly to lot widths and overall density. Some commissioners said they were open to a revised plan that would increase lot widths from 50 feet to 60 or 70 feet to reduce density; others said they remained concerned that a PRD of this shape functionally resembled a conventional subdivision rather than the clustered, amenity‑centered developments the PRD rules were intended to enable.

After deliberation, Planning Commissioner Robert Davis moved to table PRD25‑01 to the May meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the plan and address commissioner and public concerns; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

The commission’s action was procedural: tabling keeps the case alive and gives the applicant time to return with revisions. Rhodes and the applicant said they would use the interval to revisit lot configuration, drainage and traffic mitigation measures and to prepare any required traffic and wetland documentation for the next submission.

The commission did not adopt or deny any zoning changes at the March 6 meeting; the tabling postpones a recommendation to the county commission until the applicant re‑files or returns on the scheduled date.","Facing sustained public opposition about flooding, roads and school capacity, the Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission voted to table a plan for a 377‑lot Cambridge planned residential development (PRD25‑01) until its May meeting to allow the developer to revise the plan.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission backs broad zoning ordinance rewrite but keeps rezoning review and adds parking change

Votes at a glance: Baldwin County planning commission approves several site plans and forwards multiple rezoning recommendations

Baldwin County planning commission tables 377‑lot Cambridge subdivision after residents raise flooding, traffic and school capacity concerns