Commissioners approve RSF‑1 rezoning for Johnson property, deny planned residential development

Baldwin County commissioners on Jan. [date not specified] approved a rezoning from rural agriculture (RA) to RSF‑1 and separately denied a planned residential development application for an adjacent parcel near Alberta (case Z-2449).

Planning staff presented the request as a rezoning to RSF‑1 with a proposed density of 2.2 lots per acre and approximately 45 acres of open space in the PRD layout. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning and recommended approval of the PRD with conditions. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning by a 4–2 vote; for the PRD the Planning Commission recommended denial 6–0.

Duane Smith of Anchor Engineering, representing the developer, described the PRD concept as a more amenity-focused layout with larger shared green spaces and wet ponds intended as stocked amenities rather than dry detention basins. Smith said the plan sought to provide better connectivity and neighborhood design compared with a standard subdivision.

Nearby residents and other commenters raised concerns about wetlands, drainage, lot sizes and whether the proposed PRD met the ordinance’s intent. One resident said the property is “very hilly” and expressed concern that grading and drainage changes would flood adjacent lanes and creeks. Tracy Gamble, speaking as a resident, asked how the composite density would be shown on the map and whether the county should reconsider its master plan as the area develops.

Commission discussion focused on the difference between rezoning and PRD approvals. Several commissioners said they were comfortable approving the underlying rezoning to RSF‑1 (which carries a 30,000-square-foot minimum lot size and roughly 1.45 units per acre as the ordinance defines RSF‑1), but said the submitted PRD layout appeared to functionally produce much smaller, 60-foot-wide lots and therefore undermined the intent of the PRD process. One commissioner observed that a PRD should not be used to circumvent density and subdivision standards and moved to deny the PRD application; the motion to deny the PRD passed unanimously.

The commission then voted to approve the rezoning to RSF‑1. The approval applies to the rezoning itself; preliminary plat approval and any required traffic study will occur during subsequent subdivision or PRD preliminary-review stages if the applicant pursues those steps.

The rezoning (Z-2449) is approved and the PRD application was denied; the developer may revise and resubmit the PRD or pursue a standard subdivision consistent with RSF‑1 standards. Where required, staff indicated a traffic study will be required at the preliminary-plat stage.