Orange Beach council defers wetlands zoning change after hours of public comment

Orange Beach city officials on May 6 paused action on a zoning-text amendment that would remove wetlands from density calculations and add a 15-foot setback, after more than three hours of public testimony from landowners, developers, engineers and residents.

Planning staff presented the proposal as two changes: exclude wetlands when calculating permitted density and add a 15-foot setback from delineated wetlands, with wetland delineations verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The planning commission had recommended the change 7–0. Griffin, a city planner, summarized the request and noted it would align certain lots with surrounding RS‑1 neighborhoods.

Opponents said the change would amount to a de facto downzoning for some owners and could sharply reduce property values. "People who invested a lot of money in the city purchased property, and this is a massive taking," said John Price, a resident who gave his address at the podium and urged the council to consider mitigation alternatives such as a city mitigation bank. Developers and owners said Corps verification and an expansive definition of wetlands could block projects or delay them for years. "If this amendment passes, our project, despite millions already invested under the current rules, will be dead in the water," said Bruce Bigler of Bay Area Developers.

Engineers and wetland consultants warned that the proposed 15‑foot setback and the exclusion of wetlands from density calculations create uncertainty about how low‑quality versus high‑quality wetlands would be classified, and that a flood of variance requests could follow. "A low‑quality wetland can pop up at any moment in time just based on the plant species that shows up," said Jason Alley, who urged careful definition. Vince Lucido, a local engineer, called the setback "ridiculous" and warned that arbitrary lines will have uneven effects across properties.

Council members and staff repeatedly framed the change as an initial step to address escalating flooding problems and the city’s broader infrastructure needs. Several council members said they supported protecting wetlands but also wanted to avoid unintended consequences and potential legal challenges. One council member suggested adding the amendment to the city's moratorium and completing a comprehensive drainage study before acting.

After public comment and council discussion, the body agreed to delay a final decision and take the next two weeks to consider the draft, public input and whether to place a moratorium or handle changes via variances. The council instructed staff to publicize the possible moratorium and to return with more detailed analysis at the next meeting.

Next steps: the council will revisit the amendment in two weeks and may add the item to a moratorium notice or bring a refined ordinance back for a later vote. No final ordinance was adopted at the May 6 meeting.