Orange Beach council approves Saltwater Cottages Phase 2 PUD after removing boardwalk and off‑site parking

Orange Beach — After a public hearing that drew neighborhood residents and attorneys, the Orange Beach City Council on Dec. 3 approved Ordinance No. 172 to rezone roughly 4 acres for the Saltwater Cottages Phase 2 planned unit development, with a council amendment withdrawing a proposed boardwalk and two off‑site parking spaces.

The council opened the hearing on the PUD request and heard a presentation from Griffin, the city presenter, who said the plan would convert four acres from RS‑1 to a PUD for five single‑family, three‑story homes. Griffin said each house would be six bedrooms and therefore required six parking spaces; the developer’s master plan originally included a ten‑space parking row with four spaces designated as off‑site accessory parking to serve Buena Vista and a boardwalk linking that row to the beach.

Neighbors and their counsel urged the council to reject the off‑site parking and boardwalk. Laura Coker, an attorney for nearby property owners, told the council that the zoning ordinance defines accessory uses as being located on the same lot as the principal use and said, “This is simply not permitted within the confines of the zoning ordinance.” She urged the council to deny the off‑site parking and boardwalk as inconsistent with RS‑1 rules.

The developer’s attorney responded that the PUD process is the vehicle the applicant was using and contended there is legal authority within a PUD to allow the requested features. “What we’re asking for is a PUD,” the attorney said. “You may like it or not like it, but legally it’s within a PUD context.”

Property owner Richard Williams, who said his family owns a house adjacent to the proposal, opposed the request and cited restrictive covenants and decades of single‑family use. “I respectfully disagree with the developer’s attorney when he says it’s legal,” Williams said, warning that the off‑site access would set a precedent and create an “attractive hazard” that would invite people to cross established yards.

Council members pressed staff on alternatives and legal constraints. Staff noted that, by right under RS‑1, the property could be replatted into three lots allowing up to six smaller houses; under the PUD the applicant proposed five larger houses. Multiple council members said the city has historically resisted granting north‑to‑south public access across private RS‑1 parcels and weighed that precedent against any public benefit.

Before voting, the council agreed to an amendment proposed on the floor: the applicant would withdraw the boardwalk and the two off‑site parking spaces designated for Buena Vista. The council also discussed a sidewalk requirement and made its inclusion contingent on any Fish and Wildlife review and the outcome of a possible variance.

A motion to suspend the rules for immediate consideration passed, then the council adopted Ordinance No. 172 with the stated amendment. The roll‑call vote was recorded in favor and the ordinance moved forward at first reading with the boardwalk and two off‑site parking spaces removed from the approval. The council noted that other plan elements — building heights, setbacks (with minor spacing deviations requested), density (five units vs. a by‑right six) — remain part of the approved PUD as presented.

What happens next: The ordinance was adopted on first reading with the amendment; sidewalk and other conditions remain subject to Fish and Wildlife review and any required variances. The council moved to executive session after completing the vote and did not reconvene for further public business that night.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article are included in the meeting’s speaker list.