Applicants withdraw Fairhope-area rezoning after residents object

Sweetwater Investments LLC withdrew a request to rezone roughly 29 acres east of State Highway 181 and south of County Road 32 in the Fairhope area after residents pressed the Baldwin County Commission on compatibility, stormwater and traffic impacts.

The rezoning application, filed as case Z2534, sought to change the property from RSF-1 (low-density residential) to RSF-3 (higher-density single-family residential). Selena, a planning staff member, told commissioners the site is in Planning District 39, is currently vacant and is identified on the county Future Land Use map for conservation or low-impact development potential; staff reported a neighborhood center node less than one mile away and noted local provisions that could permit RSF-3 near that node.

The application drew three public speakers in opposition and one in support. Jessica McDill, speaking on behalf of the Radcliffe family, said the tract sits next to working horse farms and a polo-pony operation and argued the request would conflict with the area’s low-density character. “This property is not only the property they live on, but also a working horse farm,” McDill said, and she pointed to lot-size differences between nearby parcels and RSF-3 lot standards.

Resident David Sewell urged the commission to respect the intent of District 39 and the Barnwell Landmark District, saying the zoning was created to limit incremental development and that the area’s predominant pattern is lower-density residential. Sewell and others told commissioners they saw no demonstrable hardship that would justify upzoning.

Opponents also raised environmental concerns: McDill said the headwaters of Green Branch bisect the property and that the application included no stormwater or natural-resource protections. She also said the district’s rules require a traffic study if a rezoning would add a threshold number of trips; she said she believed the threshold to be “75 trips in an hour” and told the commission no traffic study had been provided.

Kathy Barnett of Dewberry, representing the property owners, asked the commission to table the matter so the applicants could respond to community concerns and explore alternatives. After discussion on procedure and community reaction, the applicants requested a withdrawal. A motion to accept the applicant’s withdrawal passed by voice vote; no roll-call tally was recorded on the transcript.

Why it matters: The exchange highlights tensions facing rapidly growing parts of Baldwin County: residents and citizen advisory boards seeking to preserve low-density character and protect natural drainage features, contrasted with landowners and developers seeking higher-density entitlements. The withdrawal leaves the property at its current RSF-1 designation unless the owners refile.

What happened next: Commissioners approved the withdrawal and the case will not return to the commission unless resubmitted or as otherwise required by county procedure.