Battles Trace Phase 9 preliminary plat tabled after residents press concerns about tree clearing, drainage and density

The Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission opened a public hearing on SD 25.04 — Battles Trace Phase 9 — on Feb. 3, heard more than a dozen residents and stakeholders, and tabled the preliminary plat to the commission’s next meeting after the developer agreed to meet with city staff on landscaping, tree protection and pond maintenance.

SD 25.04 covers a portion of the larger Battles Trace TR (tourism/resort) district and, as presented by staff, proposes an 81‑lot major subdivision on about 22.4 acres. Planning staff told the commission the TR district contains customized rules and a separate set of guidelines adopted when the TR zoning was created; staff noted the phase meets the TR density cap and 20% open/green‑space requirement as presented but called attention to areas of steep graded slope where additional trees and shrubs would help long‑term buffering and reduce erosion risk.

Developer and design representatives said the project aims to provide a mix of housing types (including townhomes and carriage homes), pocket parks and pedestrian connections that they described as consistent with TR‑district objectives. Michael Mann of Kent Architecture described design goals including tree‑lined streets, porches and pocket parks intended to produce human‑scale walkability.

More than a dozen residents spoke during the hearing. Debbie Manning, representing a petition signed by about 200 Colony homeowners, said the phase deviates from the original development plan and warned the addition of carriage homes and townhomes would increase density and change the subdivision character. “I respectfully request that the Fairhope City Planning Commission listen to the valid concerns of the 200 homeowners of the colony and disapprove the proposed phase 9 plan of carriage and townhomes. I'd like to add that just because you can doesn't mean you should,” Manning said.

Other speakers raised related concerns: whether Sweetwater/Lakewood pond capacity and siltation have been re‑checked; whether tree buffers along Hilltop’s border would be preserved or clear‑cut; whether steep slopes would be graded and revegetated; and whether emergency vehicle access is adequate on narrow private roads. A local forester and certified arborist provided an inventory of existing trees in the adjoining common area and warned leaving that vegetation unprotected would increase sediment runoff into local ponds and Mobile Bay.

Planning staff and the developer discussed slope geometry and proposed stabilization (the developer noted typical 4:1 slope grading that would be sodded and replanted in native species); staff asked for clarification about restored planting details and tree preservation plans. Several commissioners stressed they wanted more information on erosion control, landscape density and pond O&M.

Given the volume of public comments and outstanding technical questions, the developer agreed to meet with the city horticulturalist, the chair of the city tree committee and the planning staff to discuss revised landscape/planting plans and to provide up‑to‑date O&M documentation for the detention ponds. The commission, with the developer’s assent, voted to table SD 25.04 until the next regular meeting to allow those follow‑ups and to bring back any revised materials. Commissioners indicated the table was meant to allow the parties to address neighbors’ environmental and safety concerns before a final commission decision.