Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission adopts major Baldwin County zoning changes, removes one proposed District 26 amendment
Summary
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.
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.
