GULF SHORES, Ala. — Conflicting ordinances and confusing resolutions have led to a messy situation for the Gulf Shores City Council and their decision of the future of Plash Island I.

In a letter to the city of Gulf Shores, the development requested changes to their planned unit development ordinance.

The request asked for an abolishment of the termination and automatic reversion in the event that the project does not meet its deadline.

City attorney David Whetstone posed concern of the legality of a zoning reversion. Because it would be considered a rezoning, he explained that the proper procedure to notify the public would be required for a zoning change.

“I’ve opposed a reversionary clause every time it has come up,” Whetstone said.

Because of the approval of the specific PUD in a BTL zoning, the development was granted a higher density and height than usual. Andy Yarbrough, a representative for Plash Island I, expressed concern of losing provisions if a lapse in the PUD occurred.

Also weighing on the council’s decision is the 2005 Plash Island/Bon Secour River Land Use Study. The study suggested maximums of 22 story developments with 25 dwelling units per acre. However, the city conducted a second study, the Future Land Use Plan, that revised the area to be a single family zoning with one to four units per acre.

Because Plash Island I’s site plan is riding on the coat tails of the high density study, there is a worry that they might lose their ability to develop as planned.

Plash Island I was on county, unzoned land and chose to annex into the city.

“We came into the city, simultaneously submitted our site plan and requested this BTL/PUD zoning that we received. So to revert back, even to a BTL, you would be reducing our allowed density by more than 40 percent and would be restricting our height,” Yarbrough said. “So we are asking that our BTL/PUD zoning remain in place unless the city council exercises their legislative authority to rezone our property.”

Secondly, the development asked that the council abolish the existing automatic death of the site plan after any specified time period, as well as a five year extension from the date of the request approval.

In the letter of request written by attorney G. David Chapman, he wrote that if the developments are not completed in the five year period, any modifications to the site plan will comply with the 2005 Plash Island/Bon Secour River Land Use Study.

To date, an ordinance blocks the council from granting another one year extension on the site plan. There is also an inconsistency with zoning and site plan ordinances that cause conflict.

“We’ve got some clean up work to do with these ordinances because we have to make them at least say the same things,” Whetstone said.

The original site plan would expire in August 2010 if the development was not completed.

City planner Andy Bauer explained the downfall of the economy and real estate market has caused the slowdown of development and, because of the uncertainty of the future, Plash Island I is pushing for an infinite site plan and PUD.

The planning department staff has suggested a one year extension to allow enough time to tackle the issue of the muddled PUD.

The City Council will have to rectify the current provision that limits extensions to one year and one time.