[{"_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",6122340,"mediaKeyId","2695137-9406ff728841b005432c4bd81636beb6","parentId",2695137,"title","Residents voice concerns over court access and local emergency services during Baldwin County meeting","audioSeconds",208,"startMs",4926000,"endMs",5134000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2695137-9406ff728841b005432c4bd81636beb6&start=4926&end=5134","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2695137-9406ff728841b005432c4bd81636beb6/thumbnail_4926000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6122340/Baldwin-County/Alabama/Residents-voice-concerns-over-court-access-and-local-emergency-services-during-Baldwin-County-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6122340-fd3a698752311cdf60933f0d6c0b5d31/orig.mp4?Expires=1770992283&Signature=UvTKfZZHcBSa3hf88hsRCTx5UI~QIzA2cyTVf~4cSWeCmLKlcH6QxQpbXIFezgJJQvg8aY2Qu60oQbVfdBHTo6IX~d1HUuoYDHm8QynfwhtrRwxS7z1KBNIlO0CEQL2-7SiRrOfKDJV3zP5dnb2Kr7yFXHP43bRZn4CuHbQ16nPOjZcgKKe-RTC388UhCpxUL1OVK1Om4imkVQmOzKwQiW9ZRQSHtC6drdQji9AhTpbURYQouAMSfig2tBC0WhdInEP-BtWKZS0cPfhCsH0WNJJ7yxVNAatcZrNH~wlOpxh1TBFTEq5IN0jzGqCAo3u-adblursAChIq8O83ZKaSOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Baldwin County Alabama","date","2025-03-19T04:34:51Z","article","At the Baldwin County Commission public-comment period, two residents urged improvements to court and emergency services and to county technology and access.

Thomas Jenkins, who identified himself as a Gulf Shores resident and contractor, said he has been frustrated by what he described as poor response and follow‑through from emergency and judicial services. Jenkins said he made a sworn statement reporting a threat to his life and that the responding entities had not located or identified the alleged subject; he told commissioners it had left him fearful and without adequate assistance. “Can this room hear me? Help us,” he said in his public remarks.

Blair Castro, an attorney and recent Baldwin County resident, spoke about access to the circuit clerk’s satellite offices and county technology capacity. Castro said she attempted to reach the Foley satellite clerk’s office repeatedly over three days and could not get through. She said the county clerk’s main office told her one phone line serves Foley, Fairhope and Bay Minette, forcing in‑person travel of up to an hour for a simple records question. Castro urged the county to add phone lines, ensure phones are answered during business hours or provide alternative contact methods and noted she has built similar public‑sector portals in neighboring jurisdictions.

Both speakers urged greater responsiveness from county services. Commissioners acknowledged the comments; no formal action or staff directive was recorded in the transcript during the meeting minutes portion. The transcript records multiple commissioners thanking county staff for their work and recognizing county employees earlier in the meeting.

The commission did not record any immediate directives or votes in response to the public comments during the meeting; follow‑up would typically be handled by relevant county offices (circuit clerk, sheriff, planning or county administration) after the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Baldwin County Commission Regular Meeting, March 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Two public speakers criticized county services: one called for improved emergency response and court handling of threatening complaints; another raised accessibility and technology gaps in the circuit clerk’s offices and recommended improved phone service and online portals.","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},6122345,"Votes at a glance: Baldwin County approves rezonings, consent agenda and routine business",86,1656000,1742000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2695137-9406ff728841b005432c4bd81636beb6&start=1656&end=1742","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2695137-9406ff728841b005432c4bd81636beb6/thumbnail_1656000.jpg","/articles/6122345/Baldwin-County/Alabama/Votes-at-a-glance-Baldwin-County-approves-rezonings-consent-agenda-and-routine-business","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6122345-918088de985ad6e5187d4d3476e8b635/orig.mp4?Expires=1770992283&Signature=baw97ru4E4URDlp24C6VLfmxV0h4th4GsS1HwLz3OtZ42SPS-uSEw1hxecfZNYjuEESH6ze1BufdFg-caL0WRaDH7AcA-Rfw3XZQW0EQTqkpGtzP5BNaGwTyKQvi5YlrMz8vHHH0x7drTkxgiFwduH6gcUCCtWojTU8tFsIAww~b5nvtA4TYfM13a6bSZQwOEHeA6yI3Ad-gZC9cYLdVap~ZcofGUEoTAQH8pyfm1TOR1QdXSZtUWDa0E-rEIoorUzg4ozNq5kFuJxCzex1KpysGYqy7kTjJyGzJOxAjdBzO6MVGzPnn~NG5EfKOp3K~mgPxGQfjaYXNTN22hegdbQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Baldwin County commissioners completed several routine and land‑use actions during the meeting, approving minutes, payment of county bills, a consent agenda item, multiple rezoning requests and a planned residential development application.

Key outcomes recorded in the meeting transcript:

- Approved minutes from the “March ’55 regular meeting” (motion, second, voice vote). The transcript records the motion and an affirmative voice vote.

- Approved payment of county bills (motion by Commissioner Ball; second not clearly attributed; voice vote recorded).

- Approved BA 2 (motion and second; voice vote recorded) and approved the consent agenda as discussed in the work session after adding GA 1 to the consent agenda.

- Approved rezoning case Z24-51 (Hagel property) to allow a 1-acre lot sale; staff and the planning commission recommended approval and no public speakers signed up for the hearing.

- Approved rezoning case Z24-55 (No Doubt Holdings LLC) from BCZ to RR for a contractor’s yard; staff recommended approval; no public speakers signed up.

- Approved rezoning case Z24-56 (Green property) to accommodate a lot-line adjustment (rezone RSF1 to RSF2 for 0.5 acre); staff recommended approval; no public speakers signed up.

- Approved rezoning case Z24-57 (B-3 to B-4 in Loxley area) as recommended by staff and the planning commission; no public speakers signed up.

- Approved PRD24-10 (Twin Lakes Phases 1 and 2) — a planned residential development for RV sites near Gulf Shores/Orange Beach — with conditions including required plat amendments if casitas (small cottages) are constructed and submission of construction plans and plats prior to sales.

- Adopted the advertised zoning map amendment and the text amendments to the zoning ordinance (TA2051) excluding a removed change to Section 2.3.26 (Planning District 26). The commission first voted to remove that District 26 change and then approved the remaining package.

Where the transcript records only voice votes, the record shows motions, seconds and “aye” responses but does not provide a roll‑call tally of yes/no votes; the meeting minutes should be consulted for official vote tallies.

The commission recorded each approval by voice vote during the meeting; individual roll-call tallies were not provided in the transcript.","The commission approved multiple rezoning and PRD requests, adopted most of TA2051 zoning amendments, and passed routine business items including minutes and payments.",{"_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},6122347,"Commission adopts major Baldwin County zoning changes, removes one proposed District 26 amendment",638,2429000,3067000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2695137-9406ff728841b005432c4bd81636beb6&start=2429&end=3067","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2695137-9406ff728841b005432c4bd81636beb6/thumbnail_2429000.jpg","/articles/6122347/Baldwin-County/Alabama/Commission-adopts-major-Baldwin-County-zoning-changes-removes-one-proposed-District-26-amendment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6122347-7e2d44ab34aa810567adb2a4c5b65c1e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770992283&Signature=QNVdtYMn3ml8LVHmExJKbtJHW4nnrEMNGCx5z2htlp-5CroHPnEewgn262t4ZbOX-MjhbZXqtCkDALdhk8HeusR4ccvBvyQX0Gn-7r8F7LyEsLPtqKqU59A3~wrgPNA7G8OgjPGOHx0bb0Enowx~ogMd22UtTqMsrR9sLMuTWdp-Q1QkAJ0-OGmZPMi7Kn75TU8wYtP~jfmjl8uMkky7HQwtx8jgXgzrzQa5jzeJ5P2tao5KrQIDyXhbB1s20Sjo5xp8iF8rvtHPLFgl9zi~HjU2y9fzz8C8-YQsyT~5v~Uv03iAuWm2PheM8HneTKGcUymifIBTrFviN53xTc157A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Baldwin County commissioners on the dais approved a broad set of zoning map and text amendments (TA2051) that revise Planned Residential Development standards, clarify the wetland and stream overlay, and set firm staff-report and hearing timelines, while removing a proposed change affecting Planning District 26.

The changes, presented by county planning staff, update definitions and local provisions, revise standards in several zoning districts, and rework PRD (planned residential development) requirements — including stricter submittal materials and design expectations. Commissioners removed a single proposed amendment to Section 2.3.26 affecting Planning District 26 after a motion from Commissioner Underwood.

The planning presentation said PRDs must not increase underlying density and that any variations from the underlying zoning must be explicitly listed in the PRD application. Planning staff said PRDs should be organized as “one or more neighborhoods that are oriented around activity centers,” locating higher-density residential and any allowed commercial uses within those centers. Staff also said PRDs will now require traffic studies and four core submittals: a proposed land-use plan, an open-space plan, a circulation plan and a conceptual utilities plan.

Planning staff told the commission that the wetland and stream overlay district will be clarified so the overlay boundary is established by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determination (JD). Staff said landowners may voluntarily submit a professional delineation instead of waiting for a federal JD, but the Corps’ JD will control whether a wetland is jurisdictional for the overlay. The text also identifies narrow exemptions, including certain nationwide permits and defined agricultural activities.

Staff also proposed deadlines to shorten review time: a staff report must be delivered within 45 days of a complete application and the county commission’s public hearing for a rezoning must be held within 60 days of a complete application. The measures were described as intended to reduce delays in the multi-step rezoning process.

Commissioner Underwood urged extra local engagement for the change to Planning District 26, saying residents there are “very vocal” and asked that the single District 26 amendment be removed from the package for further outreach. The motion to remove Section 2.3.26 passed; the commission then approved the remainder of the map and text amendments as advertised.

A member of the public, Ben Gould of Fairhope, testified during the public hearing that while he supported RSF2 lot sizes, he objected to the possibility of commercial development near the Highway 104/181 intersection, citing the local master plan language and asking commissioners to defer to nearby residents. Planning staff explained the master plan shows moderate density for that area and said the map amendment under consideration proposed RSF2 for the specific property.

The county will now implement the PRD submittal checklist, update the wetland overlay procedures, and apply the new timelines for staff review and public hearings.

The commission record shows the motion to adopt the zoning map amendment and the advertised text amendments (excluding the removed District 26 change) passed by voice vote; individual roll-call tallies were not recorded in the transcript.","Baldwin County commissioners approved a package of zoning map and text amendments (TA2051) that rewrites Planned Residential Development rules, clarifies the wetland overlay, and sets review deadlines — but voted to remove a proposed change for Planning District 26 for further local engagement.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Residents voice concerns over court access and local emergency services during Baldwin County meeting

Votes at a glance: Baldwin County approves rezonings, consent agenda and routine business

Commission adopts major Baldwin County zoning changes, removes one proposed District 26 amendment