Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers and counsel warn St. Clair County 15,000‑sq‑ft lot minimum could price out housing and trigger legal risk
Summary
Developers and land‑use counsel urged changes to the draft subdivision regulations, saying a 15,000 sq. ft. minimum would force sacrifices in amenities, reduce land values and could raise takings and Fair Housing Act concerns; commissioners agreed to send the draft to legal review and discuss on Tuesday.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers and land‑use counsel urged caution as St. Clair County considers new subdivision regulations that set a 15,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size in unincorporated areas. Rhett Loveman, a developer and Land Development Committee chairman for the Greater Birmingham Association of Home Builders, told commissioners the new minimum "is 2.5 times more than what I'm currently doing at Lakemont Village," and said the change would force his projects to drop amenities such as sidewalks, irrigation and underground utilities.
Martin Evans, general counsel for the Birmingham Homeowners Association, warned the commission about legal exposure. He said several provisions — minimum lot sizes, single‑family only language, setback and right‑of‑way demands — could trigger constitutional takings claims or have disparate impacts under the Fair Housing Act if they raise housing costs. Evans recommended clearer, spelled‑out variance standards and protections for projects already under way. The chair said the board would move the draft to county legal review and return it to the commission for further action, asking staff and counsel to identify grandfathering options and clarifications for the variance process.
"We're not opposed to subdivision regulations," Loveman said, "We're just looking for some relief in certain areas." Evans added that if the regulations "cause such an increase in lot cost that goes into house cost that makes housing unattainable, it will have the effect of not allowing affordable housing that would violate the Fair Housing Act." Commissioners traded examples about sewer requirements, on‑site system permitting (ADEM/Public Service Commission review) and what constitutes a vested preliminary plan; several commissioners said they wanted protections for developers who have already invested in engineering and infrastructure. The board indicated it would consider a 30‑day tabling or referral to legal counsel and planned to place the item on the Tuesday agenda to document progress and next steps.
