[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 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE DETONTI HISTORIC DISTRICT ON THIS PARKING LOT CASE.
Attend Monday, Aug 6, 2pm, Board of Adjustment meeting, Govt Plaza, either in support of our member DeTonti and the DDD zoning ordinance, or just to hear the sides presented in regard to expanding hard surface, street level parking lots in the DDD. The BOA will make pertinent decisions we all have an interest in following. “What happens there can happen here.”
On July 31, the President of DeTonti and a former Board member appeared before City Council to address the Downtown Development District zoning code which was passed in response to a changing downtown that has successfully drawn more and more residential development to support a clearly re- energized downtown and her businesses. These are facts which bring great promise for our city after decades of decline. These changes have been largely motivated by urban trends across the country, including younger residents returning to urban life as their preference. Realtors in Mobile have witnessed this. Businesses have followed, bringing tax dollars to our city. An improved zoning code that is more respectful of residential life further encourages this growth and improvement. Thus an upward cycle is established which can only benefit all Mobilians.
Good urban planners have recognized these trends, written books about it, and begun to change the narrative of the latter half of the 20th Century. It is no longer desirable to sacrifice all to the auto-Gods of another era. Will every citizen embrace the change? Of course not. Is the trend strong enough and with enough growth to demand that even cities slower on trends respond? Absolutely.
The current question before the Board of Adjustment on Monday, August 6, is one we all have a vested interest in following:
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. Note 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 penalty 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, the DeTonti Board and neighbors made several discoveries, as follows:
1. The project was to be a hard surface parking lot*; 2. The parcels are zoned T5.1*; 3. T5.1 zones under the DDD code prohibit surface parking lot development* and further, 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, as required, had been provided*; 7. The documentation in the public record for this approval included several aerial photographs, dates unknown, and a letter from a prior owner stating that "at various times" people parked on the parcels. All is undated information, which is pertinent because a parcel loses legal nonconformity status after a 24 month lapse in the nonconforming use.* 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. The western boundary of the combined parcels is the historic district boundary of DeTonti Square HD. If developed as proposed, 255 and 257 St Joseph will join the southernmost existing, operational parking lot on tht block, such that the entire city block bordering DeTonti's eastern perimeter will be a hard surface auto desert. Some say a parking lot is better than a vacant lot. Not so. A vacant lot has potential for improvement, but once a variance is granted, the status remains indefinitely, thus prohibiting more resident-friendly businesses that could bring energy and greater safety to that end of St Joseph St. That area, after hours and afer dark, is unappealing if not frightening, and desperately needs good urban planning to bring in energizing activity. We have sacrificed enough downtown surface to the auto Gods. We need the combination of improved transit and better planning that parks more cars on a surface footprint, which the DDD code encourages. 12. 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 given a notification list, and told to address the labels using the list. The total appeal fees paid by private citizens was approximately $300. Each time citizens have requested hardcopy documentation from the file, a new fee has been imposed and paid by residents. Attorney fees added to these fees could result in costs of up to or over $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 brought these facts to the City Council on July 31. The Council stated they were unaware, though the citizens had been told that the Council had approved the parking lots. The DeTonti residents were well received by both Council and the administration, but nothing changed, and the case is to be heard by the Board of Adjustments on August 6th.
From the perspective of the GSC, this is a matter beyond supporting a member group, DeTonti, but more importantly, to stand, in all cases without exception, for the Ordinances that protect our residential quality of life and personal investments, for transparency in government decision-making, and for all procedures that promote rather than silence the voice of private citizens.
"What happens there can happen here."