Woodlands developer to seek variance
Published: Saturday, August 21, 2010 at 3:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, August 20, 2010 at 11:30 p.m. 
TUSCALOOSA | The Woodlands of Tuscaloosa will ask the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a special exception and a variance at Monday’s meeting of the board.
The meeting is set for 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. The issues include a fence at the development’s entrance on Hargrove Road and a request to subdivide the property into two pieces, said John McConnell, the director of planning and development services.
The Woodlands is a large, newly constructed apartment complex next to Snow Hinton Park that has been at the center of a controversy over flooding this summer. Hargrove Road in front of the development has flooded four times since its construction. The road hadn’t flooded since the early ’90s before the development’s construction.
John Wathen, Creekkeeper for Hurricane Creek, has monitored the flooding. He opposes the special exception for the fence and the variance for the property subdivision.
“There is no accountability if the City Council rubber-stamps these special exemptions after the fact,” Wathen said. “Why should a developer even attempt to follow the rules if all he has to do is do it the way he wants to and then come back and get a special exemption?”
The developers are asking for a special exception related to a fence at the property’s entrance.
All property has a “required front yard” that lies between the front property line and the setback line, McConnell said. Any fence built in that space in a residential area can be no more than 4 feet tall and must be 50 percent open.
The fence built at the entrance to the Woodlands is in its required front yard and is up to 6 feet tall in some places and its construction is solid.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment can provide a special exception for a taller or denser fence if the board finds it desirable for security or privacy and it will not damage the neighborhood’s character or appearance. The city engineer must also determine that it does not present a traffic hazard
Neither the planning staff nor the city engineer objected to the special exception for the fence, McConnell said.
But Wathen said the city shouldn’t allow it.
“The special exception on the fence was requested after the fence was built,” Wathen said. “This should have been done in the initial plans. There’s a reason for this and it’s safety. For them to build it and then come back and ask for a special exemption is a slap in the face of the process.”
The developers are asking for a variance that would allow the property to be subdivided into two pieces of property. McConnell said city zoning ordinances prohibit a development being subdivided into two developments.
The city approved a design for a single development. The zoning ordinance’s intent is to prevent a single development from becoming and functioning as two developments, McConnell said. That could lead to a dysfunctional development, he said.
The developer is asking that a part of the development that has not yet been built on be carved out as a separate lot. McConnell said the reason the developer gave was related to financing.
This is what they want to separate from the finished section. If subdivision is allowed, there would be no way to hold the entire complex accountable for environmental or other enforcement actions. (JLW)
It is quite obvious that the developer has no concerns for the rules. Massive amounts of sediment are leaving this site creating stream beds that are inundated with soil causing more flooding! (JLW)
The developer wants to designate what it has finished building now as Phase I of the development, McConnell said. The undeveloped property would be developed later as Phase II. The developer’s bank wants the two phases financed separately, he said, and that requires the property to be subdivided.
To qualify for a variance, the property owner must have a hardship. Part of the hardship the developer listed is how the flood area divides the property in two, McConnell said.
Wathen noted that if the developer says that flooding is a hardship, that’s not a valid reason for granting the variance.
“It was self-induced in my opinion,” Wathen said.
Wathen said he doesn’t want to see the developed portions of the property isolated from the developed portions of the property. Planned unit developments are approved as one piece of property and should remain that way, he said.
“These plans were flawed from the very beginning,” Wathen said. “They should be held accountable and the entire property should be held accountable.”
McConnell doesn’t believe that the flood area’s location on the property is a valid hardship because the flood way existed when the development was designed and it was designed around the flood area. But McConnell doesn’t oppose the variance if the developer will agree to certain conditions. (WHAT CONDITIONS set this developer above the law? JLW)
But McConnell said he wants the developer to agree to legal documents that would prevent the property from ever being allowed to function as two developments. It must be required to continue to function and flow as one development.
(It seems to me that the city is trying to find excuses to allow this even though it breaks the rules set and approved by the citizens of Tuscaloosa. We need new politics or new politicians in Tuscaloosa. No developer or development is more important than the safety and well being of citizens! JLW)
Irresponsible planning and poor accountability are the problems causing this subtle disaster with every rain event.
What good are laws that are broken and then waived to accommodate the developers profit? (JLW)
Hurricane Creek and Black Warrior River yesterday 08/20/10.
Irresponsible planning and poor accountability are the problems causing this subtle disaster with every rain event.
What good are laws that are broken and then waived to accommodate the developers profit? (JLW)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to leave a comment. No profanity! No personal attacks please.