Here we go… using their own words
The Town of Perdido Beach is requesting approval to rezone 2.62± acres from R-1, Single Family District to OR, Outdoor Recreation District. The Parcel Identification Number is 05-63-04-18-0-001-001.000.
+++++
REZONING APPLICATION PROCESS
Standards For Approval
Perdido Beach Land Use and Zoning Ordinance –
http://www.townofperdidobeach.org/ordinances/landuse_zoning/Land%20Use%20and%20Zoning%20Ordinance.pdf
Section 1.2 Purpose Pursuant to Section 11-52-72 Code of Alabama, 1975, as amended, the purposes of the regulations contained within this ordinance are to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; and to avoid undue concentration of population… Such regulations are made with reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this ordinance shall be: (a) Considered as minimum requirements…
++++++++
Background –
The Town Council is considering a change from R-1 to OR zoning on a piece of property that the town owns. Some definitions are needed…
R-1 Single Family District: This zoning district provides for medium density residential development consisting of single family dwellings on medium lots and is limited to one dwelling unit per lot.
OR Outdoor Recreation District: This zoning district is intended to preserve open areas for outdoor recreational activities as defined in Article XXII of this ordinance.
What can you do on an OR zoned piece of property? There are two types of uses Conditional and Permitted.
Section 23.2 Permitted Uses defined –
Uses in the table of permitted uses identified by “P” are PERMITTED as of right, subject to the conditions specified in this ordinance.
Section 23.4 Conditional Uses defined –
Uses in the table of permitted uses identified by “C” are permitted upon conditional use approval by the Planning Commission as to location and the site plan appropriate with regard to transportation, access, water supply, waste disposal, fire, police protection and other public facilities; as not causing undue traffic congestion or creating a traffic hazard; and in harmony with the orderly and appropriate development of the district in which the development is to occur.
Recently these very specific items listed below were MOVED by the Town Council from Conditional use to Permitted use against the vote of the appointed Planning Commission.
Park, playground, public park, Public Pier, Public Boat Launch and other outdoor recreational uses were moved.
As listed in the Town of Perdido Beach Zoning Ordinance removing these items from Conditional Use effectively ELIMINATES oversight when putting these items on a piece of property. That means no oversight on all factors with regards to transportation, access, water supply, waste disposal, fire, police protection; as well as not causing undue traffic congestion or creating a traffic hazard; and ensuring the implementation is in harmony with the orderly and appropriate development of the district in which the development is to occur. More details on how “text amendments” work – http://noboatlaunch.com/news/text-amendments/
So NOW approving the rezoning effectively approves the PUBLIC boat launch and pier… pretty slick, huh.
++++++++
On to the Rezoning the Town Council and Mayor are pushing on 9/17/18 –
The factors the Town of Perdido Beach uses for rezoning are referenced in Section 19A.3 of their Land Use and Zoning Ordinance.
Section 19A.3
In deciding whether to recommend approval of a proposed amendment to the Land Use and Zoning Ordinance or the Official Zoning Map, or in deciding whether to adopt a proposed amendment to such, the Planning Commission and Town Council shall consider whether the proposed action is consistent with the following inquiries:
(a) Is the requested change compatible with the existing development pattern and the zoning of nearby properties?
No. The nearby properties have been Residential and Private for more than 70 years. Anyone investing in property in town and the surrounding areas within the last 70 years made their decisions based on those facts. All development since that time has been based on these factors. There is property zoned OR to the north of the property under review that is PRIVATE. That is not the same as PUBLIC. The adjacent PRIVATE OR property is for the use of specific residents who have purchased property within it. The only PUBLIC OR property in town is by the fire station with direct access off of hwy 97.
(b) Has there been a change in the conditions upon which the original zoning designation was based? Have land uses or conditions in the near vicinity affected by the proposed action changed since the zoning was established or last amended?
NO. There have been no changes.
NO. The usage has been single family residential homes and private property for more than 70 years.
(c) Does the proposed zoning improve conformity of land use to the Town’s Master Plan?
NO. per Master Plan – “As required by Alabama State Code, this Town’s Master Plan is made with the general purpose of guiding the coordinated and harmonious development of Perdido Beach and its environs which will, in accordance with present and future needs, best promote health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare, including adequate provision for traffic, the promotion of safety from fire and other dangers, adequate provisions for light and air, the promotion of good civic design and arrangement, wise and efficient expenditure of public funds and the adequate provision of public utilities and other public requirements”
There have been numerous concerns raised and ignored by the Town Council and Mayor regarding issues relating to safety and general welfare, traffic problems which will be generated by this rezoning, law enforcement issues, pollution problems, and poor use of funds relating to the project tied to this rezoning. Absolute disregard for the Master Plan and citizens raising concerns.
(d) Will the proposed change conflict with existing or planned public improvements?
YES. The change to Public zoning will bring an overflow of traffic and parking causing a loss of access to the 26 deeded parking lots on the north side of the State St egress (These parking lots are THE reason that there is even an egress area between the lots under review and the lot directly to the north in the first place). Increased traffic due to the PUBLIC rezoning will also block the entrance access to the parkway and beach area directly to the north of the lots under review. This has already been a problem and he town has no method to deal with the current traffic and parking congestion there since there is no law enforcement or town court.
(e) Will the proposed change adversely affect traffic patterns or congestion?
YES. The towns roads can not handle any additional traffic caused by rezoning an interior area to PUBLIC. The proposed usage will cause additional traffic and stress to the area by large trucks and boat trailers. The turnouts onto hwy 97 are dangerous and the roads are narrow. The main access is gravel with deep ditches and insufficient width/turning radius for two vehicles with trailers to pass or meet at the intersection of Hwy 97. Also the previously mentioned congestion at the State St egress area is an unresolved area of concern.
(f) Is the proposed amendment consistent with the development patterns in the area and appropriate for orderly development of the community?
NO. The property under review has been residential lots for more than 70 years and should remain so for a single family residential home to be built there. Anyone investing in a home or property in the Town of Perdido Beach or on Soldier Creek made their decision based on land plats of the area showing only residential usage in this section of town for the last 70 years. Making a change from residential to PUBLIC zoning in the middle of this area would completely destroy the community and the creek by pushing development in a commercial/PUBLIC direction away from the single family residential development it has historically been.
(g) Is the proposed amendment the logical expansion of adjacent zoning districts?
NO. There are no adjacent OR lots that are PUBLIC. There is only private and residential property surrounding the lots under review. This has been the case for over 70 years.
(h) Is the timing of the request appropriate given the development trends in the area?
NO. Absolutely not. Baldwin County is the fastest growing county in Alabama. It is completely inappropriate to force a PUBLIC, high use, large vehicle facility in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood that has existed for more than 70 years.
(i) Will the proposed change adversely impact the environmental conditions of the vicinity or the desirable historic resources or nature of the Town?
YES. Increased crime and illegal activity, traffic and parking problems, noise, pollution, and unwanted confrontations are associated with PUBLIC areas. This has been a quiet residential neighborhood for more than 70 years. Soldier creek has never in that time had a PUBLIC high use/access facility on it. There have been no studies done by the town to determine the impacts to town streets and safety, creek boat traffic safety, or impacts to wildlife regarding noise and environmental polution. There are already unsolved problems with trash at the proposed location where the town has stated they can’t even afford to put up a sign.
(j) Will the proposed change adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the Town?
YES. The highest ranking law enforcement official in the county Sheriff Hoss Mack has made statements delivered to both previous public hearings on this rezoning. He has stated his objection to this rezoning and the proposed conversion to a PUBLIC boat launch facility due to MULTIPLE issues relating to public safety. This is on record and should not be ignored.
(k) Other matters which may be appropriate.
There are other issues not addressed here however this should be sufficient for any individual to make a well reasoned vote. Please follow the rule of law.
