DAPHNE — The Daphne City Council held a public hearing Monday for the request to change the city’s land-use ordinance to add bowling alleys and family entertainment centers as a use in a B-1 zone with Planning Commission approval.

A property owner at the northwest corner of Lawson Road and County Road 13 wishes to build a bowling alley in a B-1 zone. Bowling alleys are currently allowed in B-2 zones, general business, without planning-commission approval. The owner also runs the Gulf Bowl bowling alley in Foley.

Residents from all over Baldwin County expressed their opinion, both for and against the proposed change.

Susan Edmond — a Daphne resident who lives close to the discussed property — gave the council a petition with 69 signatures of residents opposed to the table-of-use change and re-zoning request. However, Sharon Wright — a representative of the proposed project — said she had a petition signed by more than 200 residents in favor of the bowling alley coming to Daphne.

Other residents in favor of the bowling alley cited the positive effects bowling would have on the community and increased tax revenue while some argued that there are much worse things that could be built.

“Bowling is the largest participatory sport in the country,” Fairhope resident Paul Yonkee said. “For those of you concerned about alcohol, again there is alcohol served right across the street at the convenience store.”

“Somebody is going to build something at that location,” Daphne resident Willie Robison said, stating that a B-1 zone allows taverns, bars, hotels and sewage-plant stations. “This would also generate approximately $75,000 in tax revenue for the city.”

“We buy that lot, and that is the extent of our rights,” Douglas Dugot, of Sehoy, said. “This is not about what I want or what someone else wants. It’s about what’s best for the city of Daphne.”

Most residents against the proposal argued the location isn’t suitable because of how close houses are to the property.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea in a residential neighborhood because of what I experienced with the (Hot Wheels) skating rink (on Main Street), and I know that if it’s approved and something goes amiss, nothing is going to be done,” said Jolee Havard, a Daphne resident of 60 years.

“I believe at this specific location, you have to take in the residential aspect,” Daphne Recreation Director David McKelroy said. “I think for a residential area this project is inappropriate.”

“This really just seems like a no-brainer to me,” Will Rice, of Daphne, said. “Anytime the argument from the other side is ‘Well, you could have something worse,’ then I think that says that this does not maintain the beauty of Daphne.”

The council voted unanimously to set the public hearing for the property’s re-zoning request from a B-1 to a B-2 for the Jan. 3, 2011 council meeting.

The subject has been argued and debated for more than a month.

On Oct. 18, the council voted 3-3 to set the public hearing date for Nov. 15, and the motion did not pass.

However, at the Nov. 1 meeting, the motion passed by a 4-3 vote. Councilman Bailey Yelding — who was absent for the Oct. 18 vote — voted in favor of the public hearing to be set for Monday’s council meeting.

Council members Yelding, Kelly Reese, Ron Scott and Cathy Barnette voted in favor of the motion. Councilmen John Lake, Derek Boulware and August Palumbo voted against it. Other than the addition of Yelding to the affirmative, the votes stayed the same both times the public hearing motion was made.

“My position has been clear,” Boulware said. “No doubt this is what Daphne could use. But, in my mind, there’s no doubt this is a high-impact business for a B-2 zoning.”

Palumbo disagreed with the proposed change to the land-use ordinance because the process of bringing in a bowling alley or family entertainment center via a table-of-use change would avoid council approval. He repeatedly asked Development Director Adrienne Jones and the rest of the council why this matter was not appearing solely as a re-zoning request.

“We shouldn’t go through this tortured, convoluted process where the council gives up their responsibility to the Planning Commission,” Palumbo said.

“Bowling is a very good activity, great activity. Whether or not it belongs there, I’m happy to discuss at the re-zoning hearing. However, these proposals to change the Land Use ordinance are highly unusual, and it sets a bad precedent.”

Barnette wanted the council to know that the Planning Commission is a group of volunteers, and that some of the comments directed toward them were unfair.

“The comments made to some extent make it seem like the Planning Commission has some ulterior motive,” she said. “This is in no way a usurp of power.”

By altering the table of permitted uses and placing bowling alleys under the B-1 district instead of forcing the developer to re-zone the property B-2, it would allow a developer only to need site plan approval from the planning commission and not a re-zoning approval from the commission and council.

When asked why the Planning Commission decided to give a favorable recommendation to the change in the table of uses but an unfavorable recommendation to the re-zoning request, Jones said the B-2 zone has “uses not appropriate for this location.” The re-zoning request received an unfavorable recommendation by a 7-1 vote.