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

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.