Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Decision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies subdivision variance for lot reduced by Baldwin Beach Express right‑of‑way
Summary
The commission denied variance SV26‑08 for a property reduced to about 2.6 acres after a 2009 Baldwin Beach Express right‑of‑way acquisition, concluding the current owner did not demonstrate the hardship required for relief.
The Baldwin County Planning & Zoning Commission voted on June 4 to deny subdivision variance SV26‑08, which would have allowed development of a planned unit or RV/boat storage on a parcel reduced below the county’s three‑acre minimum.
Staff presented the case and said the 2009 Baldwin Beach Express right‑of‑way acquisition reduced the parcel’s area; staff supported a hardship limited to that governmental taking and recommended approval conditioned on coordination with the town of Somerdale and other listed requirements.
Commissioners questioned whether the hardship standard attached to the current owner, noting the property was already reduced to roughly 2.6 acres when the present owner purchased it. One commissioner said the current owner bought the property knowing its reduced size and therefore had not demonstrated the hardship required for a variance.
The applicant, who identified himself as Matt Burn, described plans for storage units and asked when the PUD requirement was clarified; planning staff (Jay) explained the county is applying state law definitions that treat multi‑tenant, multi‑unit storage developments as subdivisions requiring PUD/site‑plan review and a three‑acre minimum for PUD development. Staff and several commissioners reiterated the legal distinction between zoning and subdivision rules and the technical lot‑size requirement.
Staff also reported receipt of several emails from adjacent property owners opposing the variance. After discussion, Commissioner Doug Lipkcom moved to deny SV26‑08 on the basis that it did not meet the minimum acreage requirement and that the current owner did not suffer the taking; the motion was seconded and carried.
The denial was limited to this variance request; staff noted that any future proposal must comply with Baldwin County and Somerdale subdivision regulations and that the applicant may pursue other, compliant uses for the property.
