Developers, lawyer and commissioners clash over 15,000‑sq‑ft minimum in draft subdivision rules

St. Clair County commissioners spent the bulk of a Thursday work session debating a draft of new subdivision regulations that would impose a uniform 15,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size in much of the unincorporated county. The discussion featured a developer who said the change would force cuts to amenities and a land‑use attorney who warned parts of the draft could raise constitutional and Fair Housing concerns.

Developer Rhett Loveman, who identified himself as a Birmingham‑area developer and Land Development Committee chairman for the Greater Birmingham Association of Home Builders, told commissioners the proposed minimum is a major jump from the 6,000‑square‑foot lots builders commonly use in the county. He said his Lakemont Village phase‑one project (78 lots) averages about $330,000 per sale and would contribute roughly $100,000 in county revenue at current prices, and that moving to 15,000‑square‑foot minimums would make the infrastructure and lot economics “unsustainable” for projects that now provide sidewalks, underground utilities and community greens.

Martin Evans, general counsel for the Birmingham Homeowners Association, told the commission the draft’s reliance on a broad variance process and provisions such as a single‑family‑only requirement could create legal exposure. "If the regulations cause such an increase in lot cost that makes housing unattainable, it can have the effect of violating the Fair Housing Act," Evans said, urging clearer standards and signaled concern about regulatory takings for projects with existing investment.

County staff and the commission pressed for protections for developers already underway while stressing county responsibilities. The county engineer and commissioners noted separate state permitting for on‑site sewer systems (Alabama Department of Environmental Management and a Public Service Commission‑approved sewer management entity) and said they built variance mechanisms into the draft to allow exceptions where engineering or permitting makes smaller lots feasible.

After extended back‑and‑forth about grandfathering, investment‑backed expectations and the potential for lawsuits, the chair proposed a narrow procedural path: move the draft to the county attorney for legal review and either adopt a motion subject to that review or table the measure to a date‑certain so existing projects are not unexpectedly harmed. Commissioners agreed to put the item on the agenda for the next Tuesday meeting with language crafted for legal review and clearer guidance on which in‑progress developments (preliminary plats, recorded instruments or substantial construction) could continue under prior rules.

The commission did not take a final vote on adoption. The next procedural step is the county attorney’s legal review and a formal commission action on Tuesday that may either table the draft for 30 days or adopt it with legal caveats and grandfathering language.