Neighbors raise title and traffic concerns; commission holds Belmont Park Estates plat

The Mobile County Commission on April 13 heard extended public comment about a proposed subdivision, Belmont Park Estates, after neighbors raised disputed title and traffic concerns and asked the commission to delay action until ownership questions were resolved.

Julie Dutton, who gave her address for the record, said historical documents filed in 1980 show a 60-foot roadway easement with a 5-foot reserve strip on the south side of the right-of-way and argued that driveways opening onto Labrador Trail would harm neighborhood quality of life. "We are not here to stop the development," Dutton said. "What we don't want are driveways coming out onto Labrador Trail over that 5 feet." David Floyd, another nearby resident, said Labrador Run effectively has one way in and out and asked the commission to require a title search before approving additional access points.

County engineering staff responded that the department had reviewed the applicant's submission and that the preliminary plat, as presented, meets the subdivision regulations. The staff representative said the applicant asserts title to the 5-foot strip and that, absent a civil claim proving otherwise, the department must evaluate the application based on the materials submitted. "We evaluate on what's provided to us, and we make sure that all the documentation ... meets our regulations," the engineering staff said.

The applicant's surveyor, identified in the record as C. Hudson, said his firm performed an ALTA land-title survey and a title commitment and that those searches revealed no chain of title evidencing a conveyed 5-foot reserve strip. Hudson said documents that reference a "reserve" do not necessarily indicate conveyance and noted the property has been transferred several times. He confirmed the proposed development includes 25 lots and said the applicant intends driveways to connect to Labrador Run unless a separate service road is built.

County legal counsel told commissioners that holding the item over to the next meeting typically is permissible under the statutes that govern subdivision approvals and suggested waiting for Commissioner Dewitt to participate. After discussion, a motion to hold the preliminary-plat item over to the next meeting was made and seconded; the commission approved the holdover. The record does not identify the motion maker or seconder by name.

What happens next: the preliminary plat was not finally approved; final construction details (stormwater, detention) will return for later review, and any civil claim to title would need to be litigated or otherwise resolved before it could alter the county's administrative approval. The commission did not start construction work today and the decision was postponed to the next meeting so the parties can pursue title clarifications and for Commissioner Dewitt to participate.