Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pulls proposed R‑2 annexation on 0 Gaefer Road after applicant offers to lower density
Summary
Fairhope council withdrew a public hearing on a conditional annexation and rezoning request for 5.2 acres at 0 Gaefer Road after the applicant asked to amend the application to R‑1 (15,000‑square‑foot lots); the planning commission had recommended denial of the original R‑2 request.
The Fairhope City Council on Monday pulled from the agenda a proposed ordinance that would have annexed about 5.2 acres at 0 Gaefer Road and rezoned it to R‑2 medium‑density single‑family residential.
The move came after the applicant’s representative said the developer would amend the request to R‑1 with a 15,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size, which staff said it could support with a future, properly advertised public hearing.
Planning staff had told the council the area is shown in the city’s long‑range plan as among the lower‑density parts of the growth area and that the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of the R‑2 request. Planning staff said the county’s existing RSFE zoning equates to large lots (the county minimum there is roughly 80,000 square feet) and that the city’s straight annexation default would in many cases result in larger lot sizes; R‑1 contains subcategories with lot sizes from about 15,000 to 40,000 square feet.
Jay Broughton, representing the applicant, told the council, “we do think that it would be in the best interest of the city and conform with the, you know, future land use map, long term vision of the city if y'all would grant us an amendment to our request to r 1 with a 15,000 square foot lot size. So we would like to formally make that request to amend our application for for conditional annexation.”
Hunter, a planning staff member, summarized the procedural options: because the case had been advertised for R‑2, any change to R‑1 requires re‑advertisement and another public hearing. Hunter said staff could support R‑1 (15,000‑square‑foot lots) if the applicant submits the revised application and the council reposts the item. The staff memo and the planning commission had recommended denial of the R‑2 request.
Mayor Sherry Sullivan asked the council whether to pull the item from the agenda; several council members indicated support. The mayor then announced, “No public hearing on item 5. We're pulling it from the agenda,” and said staff would re‑advertise and schedule the new hearing date.
Because the public hearing was not opened and the item was pulled, the council did not take a formal vote on zoning for the property. Staff and the applicant said the earliest next appearance would be after the required readvertisement and notification steps.
The applicant, Tallawampah Properties LLC, or its representative will need to submit a revised application and a replat (combining the three existing lots into one, per staff’s description) if it seeks the R‑1 zoning. The council noted that, if the council had opened the hearing and denied the R‑2 request, the applicant would have been barred from the same rezoning request for 365 days under the city zoning code.
The council moved on to the next agenda item; the zoning request will return only after reposting and the statutory advertising period.
