Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ta25 01 Zoning Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs broad zoning ordinance rewrite but keeps rezoning review and adds parking change
Summary
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.
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.
