Disclaimer: The GSC seeks to serve as an information source about community issues, especially as they relate to neighborhoods, quality of life, and protections for our historical legacy. The information presented is a citizen-editorial blog, supported by news reports, attendance at planning, council, or community meetings, public information or records review, and interviews. Every attempt is made at accuracy but this does not represent to be legal analysis or information. Member Collaborative groups may submit editorial blogs for consideration for publication.
The GSC issued information on several zoning cases that came before the Planning Commission in May, 2018, at the request of members. This blog seeks to update readers.
1. 2 properties on Conti Street, application to change zoning from R1 to B2, applicant withdrew request.
2. 137 Tuscaloosa St home on National Registry of Historic Buildings set to be demolished. The latest update from sources in the historic development community is that a second or third investor has come forward and is trying to relocate the building to save it.
3. 1805 Government Street shelter application, denied approval at first step, see full blog for details
4. Full Zoning revision remains in progress; Planning division remains committed to the GSC to co-host a community meeting when the first draft is published and public input is requested.
5. Application for a 36 stall car wash at Dauphin and Sage (Graf Dairy property) is not fully resolved by the denial at the Planning Commission in May, which dealt only with the specific application that day dealing with site plan details rather than with the "Use" question itself. Neighbors remain vigilent.
6. Several important announcements this summer stir midtown conversations and midtown residents are encouraged by the GSC to learn all you can before you support or oppose these:
A. Airport move from west Mobile to Brookley, a move that so far seems to have the support of a vast majority (polls show citizen support at over 80%) but little information is yet available about issues such as Where are the air lanes to approach and take off? What do studies show noise levels will be? How will the move impact surrounding residential areas? How will the move impact existing urban traffic patterns, especially in light of the delay in the bridge development? The airport authority promises a study so the GSC encourages citizens to get the details.
B. USA will move their football program away from Ladd and build a campus stadium, and seek $10M in city dollar support for the move. The mayor and Chamber of Commerce have voiced support for a USA home stadium and the city contribution. The question becomes what is left at Ladd, and how will the city support Ladd and surrounding neighborhoods so that this move does not leave behind deteriorating infrastructure as has happened in other cities and other areas of our city. Additionally, the Bay Bears announced they will relocate to another city in 2019, leaving yet another unused sports venue to join Ladd and Civic Center and Museum facilities which seem to contradict an urban rebirth.
C. The Mobile-New Orleans rail line fell through when Gov. Ivey refused her support.
7. A private citizen reported to GSC, and GSC confirmed, that land disturbance work began without permitting at a site at 255 & 257 St Joseph Street ( across from the post office.) in late spring. Notice that the GSC, in its Mission statements, includes the improvement of our neighborhoods through enforcement of city code (signs, zoning, nuisance, building, etc). Since this builder did not follow Code, the GSC stated support for a fine and requirement that if the project is not approved, the builder return the raw earth to a vegetated space to prevent runoff and other negative results. None of that happened, but the builder/contractor was issued a stop work order until permitting was completed.
During followup, area neighbors reported several discoveries, as follows:
1. The project was to be a surface parking lot*; 2. The parcels are zoned T5.1*; 3. T5.1 zones under the DDD code prohibit surface parking lot development* and the DDD prohibits all new surface parking lot development in the DDD Code.*4. The builder/contractor did not apply for either a use variance or a zoning change as required under city Code and city enforcement procedures*; 5. On May 25, a letter from Planning explains that code does not allow the project proposed unless further information could be submitted*; 6. Planning staff review following this May 25 letter later awarded administrative approval to the contractor on the basis of the parcel being covered by the "legal non-conformity" status of the parcel when the DDD was adopted. This decision was provided verbally to neighbors who inquired, but as of 7/5/18, no written administrative approval letter of decision with sustantiating finding of fact had been provided*; 7. The documentation in the public record for this approval included several aerial photographs showing cars on the vacant lots, dates unknown, and a letter from a prior owner stating that at various times people parked on the parcels. * 8. A review of permitting history showed no permit to operate as a parking lot dating back to the early 1990's. This was verified by a record search requested by citizens* 9. Citizens asked in writing that the approval be vacated since there was no legal basis - as required by the Code - for the approval decision, and would avoid a formal appeal to the Board of Adjustment.* 10. Citizens were informed they, as private citizens, would have to appeal the administrative approval to the Board of Adjustment. 11. When Citizens delivered their letter of appeal, they reported they were made to: a. Pay an appeal fee; b. Pay postage for notification mailouts to owners of record in a 300 ft perimeter from site; c. Also paid for blank envelope labels and given a notification list, and told to address the labels using the list. The total appeal fee paid by private citizens was approximately $300. Each time citizens have requested the documentation from the file, a fee has been charged and paid by residents. Attorney fees added to these fees could result in costs of up to $1,000 which private residents are paying in an attempt to simply hold the city accountable to follow the requirements of the DDD which the City Council legislated. [*statements asterisked are verified in public record]
The residents involved will bring these facts to the City Council on July 31 at the Council meeting at 10 am, Government Plaza, and the GSC encourages attendance so that the Council will recognize that citizens are engaged on the need for ordinances to be enforced as legislated.