Fairhope council hears wide-ranging objections and requests for fixes to proposed zoning rewrite

Fairhope City Council met in a special session to consider a broad package of zoning ordinance amendments that would change where single- and two-family homes are allowed and tighten rules for townhomes, multifamily buildings, mixed-use development and stormwater controls.

Planning staff briefed the council on the package and said the draft drew from the comprehensive plan and consultant work. Hunter, a city planner, said the team examined roughly 340 zoning parcels across the city and estimated about 100 properties in the historic/tourist commercial B3A and B3B districts would be affected by earlier drafts before staff proposed leaving one- and two-family uses in those particular districts. "Let's not do that. I think we heard enough concern. Let's let's tackle the solution another way. Leave single family, two family alone within B3A, B3B," Hunter told the council, then outlined a possible new "vacation home" category with a business license, off-street parking rules and sign limits for short-term rentals.

Why it matters

The ordinance package touches multiple parts of Fairhope's land-use code and, if adopted, would change the rules for properties in commercial nodes and older mixed-use pockets. Council members described the review as an effort to balance long-term goals in the comprehensive plan — including encouraging appropriate density in commercial nodes — against immediate neighborhood concerns about parking, historic homes and owners' rights.

Public comments and key disputes

More than a dozen residents and property owners spoke. Trey Cordy, a downtown resident, pressed staff to permit townhomes or multifamily options in some B3 areas, arguing townhomes "can condense the units together, leave most of the area um open area" and help preserve trees. Several property owners in a small B4 pocket near the central business district asked whether targeted rezoning back to B3 or a case‑by‑case approach could protect existing homes while preserving options for future modest infill.

Affordability and growth

Several speakers raised affordability as a central concern. Mac Walcott asked how the ordinance would increase housing affordability, noting the comp plan calls for a range of housing types. Council members and staff responded that the city faces competing goals — preserving neighborhood character and infrastructure capacity while trying to provide more housing options — and that the ordinance must be tuned to those tradeoffs.

Mixed-use and downtown rules

Council and downtown developers debated how to encourage genuine mixed-use buildings without inviting large office blocks or creating parking shortfalls. Staff proposed CBD-specific standards including minimum lot area or density thresholds and a first-floor commercial ratio. Developers and some council members urged using density and parking-based controls — rather than strict minimum lot sizes — so small historic downtown parcels can support one or two residential units above active commercial ground floors.

PUDs, site-plan review and stormwater

The staff presentation also proposed tightening Planned Unit Development (PUD) triggers and requiring site-plan review for uses such as gas stations, hotels and mixed-use buildings so the city can place conditions on specific projects. On stormwater, staff proposed impervious-surface limits in residential zones aligned with county practice to reduce runoff; engineers and several residents warned that implementing strict, citywide technical submittal requirements could be costly for homeowners and asked for phased or area-targeted rules supported by a technical manual.

What the council decided and next steps

Council members did not vote on the entire package at the session. They signaled support for some staff clarifications — notably leaving single- and two-family uses in B3A/B3B while developing a vacation-home regulatory path, and asking staff to consider alternatives to lot-size minimums in the CBD. Staff committed to refine text, consult the planning commission where appropriate, run a parking study and prepare a city stormwater manual to inform any final rules. The council said it may hold follow-up work sessions on specific items.

Context and immediate effects

If the amendments move forward as revised, owners of homes in targeted commercial zones could see property uses clarified (some preserved as nonconforming structures, others eligible for specific permits); developers said they want clearer, predictable rules so feasible mixed-use projects remain possible downtown. Staff and residents agreed the package requires additional technical detail — especially on parking, nonconforming-use allowances, and stormwater procedure — before final adoption.

The city plans further outreach and technical refinement; the council did not adopt final ordinance language at the special meeting.