Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors object to Camellia Square final plat, cite drainage, wildlife and traffic concerns
Summary
Neighbors objected to the Camellia Square proposed subdivision on July 28, raising concerns about drainage, building height, traffic and noise while county staff agreed to meet with residents and carry the first final plat over for further review.
Residents of Maxwell Place told the Mobile County Commission on July 28 they have multiple unanswered questions about a proposed subdivision that includes a 56-unit low-income senior housing project adjacent to existing neighborhoods.
Why it matters: Final plats approve land divisions and can allow construction to move forward. Residents said the proposal’s setbacks, drainage plan, building height and long-term traffic and public-safety impacts are unclear, and they asked the commission and county staff for additional study and explanations.
Clyde Edwin Taylor, an adjacent property owner at 9831 Maxwell Run, said the neighborhood had only five days to respond and listed questions about whether the senior complex would be a single-story PUD or a multistory apartment, and whether a hydraulics/drainage study has been or will be conducted. Taylor asked whether the developer would be responsible for any changes on neighboring properties if runoff patterns change and called for clarification on setbacks ("there's a 10 foot setback for people who live along the property on the north side ... but there's a 25 foot ... off of Bergman Road").
Leon Hampton, who lives at 9819 Maxwell Run, also testified about noise from a nearby event venue at 9940 Lifeline Court called Celebrations and about speeding on subdivision streets, noting a posted 20 mph limit and requests for enforcement. Hampton said he had contacted Mobile Police and Alabama State Troopers and suggested speed bumps, but added he was told the county could not install them.
County staff response: Planning and engineering staff said Tim (county planning staff) would meet with the residents to answer specific questions, and commissioners asked staff to ensure residents’ questions were addressed. During the agenda discussion the commission agreed to carry over the Camellia Square final plat (the first plat listed under agenda item 33) to a future meeting so outstanding questions could be resolved before final action.
Discussion versus decision: residents’ remarks were part of public comment. The commission did not approve the Camellia Square final plat on July 28; commissioners asked staff to meet individually with the residents and carried the first plat over for further review.
Clarifying details residents requested included the project’s building height (single story vs. multistory), whether the project is a planned unit development, whether a hydrology study has been done, the composition of proposed vegetation and acoustic barriers, and whether volunteer fire department resources can serve a potential multistory building.
What’s next: county planning staff and an engineer (Kim) offered to follow up with residents and provide contact information; the commission carried the Camellia Square plat forward for consideration at a later meeting after staff and resident discussions.
