Greystone/north Shelby residents speak out against Tattersall Park plan

by

People opposing Ebsco Industries’ proposal to develop 33 acres of undeveloped land in Tattersall Park near Greystone and Brook Highland say their primary objection is a plan for more than 300 multi-family units, according to a survey conducted by Greystone residents.

Instead, they’d rather see upscale and casual dining, green space, boutique shopping, walking paths and a small amphitheater, according to survey results shared with about 85 people who showed up for a meeting at The Church at Brook Hills Tuesday night.

More than 370 people have taken the survey so far, and 85% of them said they opposed the multi-family component of the development plan being considered by the Hoover Planning and Zoning Commission.

Ebsco Industries on Oct. 14 asked Hoover for permission to build up to 170 senior adult multi-family housing units, up to 137.5 other multi-family units, a hotel with up to 125 rooms and up to 45,000 square feet of climate-controlled commercial space, including retail and restaurant space.

More than 1,900 people have signed a petition opposing the request, Greystone resident and organizer Ashley Lovell told the crowd that gathered Tuesday night.

“This is loud and clear messaging to the decision makers that we don’t want what they’re proposing,” Lovell said.

The opposition isn’t just coming from Hoover residents. About 52% of the survey respondents live in the Shelby County portion of Hoover, while 45% live in Shelby County but outside the Hoover city limits. A significant number live in Brook Highland, and 98% of survey respondents live in single-family homes that they own. About 58% have lived there for more than 10 years.

About 43% of survey respondents have a negative feeling about the existing developed areas in Tattersall Park, while 37% have a positive feeling.

About 70% said they have negative feelings about other recent developments along Alabama 119, while only about 7% indicated they had positive feelings about recent developments along 119.

The biggest concerns with Ebsco’s proposed development plan were traffic, housing density, community character, property values, and crime and safety.

Lovell and Dale Gorham, another Greystone resident who helped organize and run the meeting, noted that Ebsco’s traffic engineer did not take into account future traffic from some other nearby developments not yet fully occupied, such as The Whitby’s 321 apartments directly across Alabama 119 from Tattersall Park and The Cottages at Greystone not far down the road.

Opponents said they’re also concerned Ebsco has not allowed enough parking spaces for all the people who would live, shop and visit in the proposed Tattersall “village center.” The developer allotted only one parking space per residential unit, Lovell said.

Gorham added that residents could “forget about company coming to see you. There’s no place for your company to park.”

And while there would be some designated parking for people in the units designated for residents ages 55 and older, the rest is slated as street parking, Lovell said.

Of the 15% of survey respondents who did not oppose residential development, the vast majority of them said they would prefer to see condos, townhomes or age-restricted housing that is owned by the residents, not leased.

Gorham said that while apartments might be nice for a while, “we all know what happens to apartments 20 years down the road. They tend to go downhill.” Renters tend to be less invested in the community, he said.

Gorham said some of the Greystone residents have asked Ebsco to consider condominiums or townhomes instead of apartments, and Ebsco has chosen to pursue apartments instead, saying it’s more economically feasible. While he doesn’t blame Ebsco for wanting apartments, he hopes the company and Hoover officials will listen to nearby residents’ objections, he said.

Robert Sbrissa, another Greystone resident, said “housing is not necessarily bad, provided it’s the right kind of housing.”

Brent Dupuy, a resident of The Magnolias in Brook Highland, said while he doesn’t necessarily support Ebsco’s plan as submitted, he actually wouldn’t mind a little residential because it would help put residences near some of the commercial development and encourage walkable communities instead of everybody having to get in a car to go places.

Ebsco officials told the Hoover zoning board on Oct. 14 that residential development actually brings less traffic than commercial development, but Gorham said he doesn’t believe that would be the case.

Lovell said her desire is for Ebsco to stick with the covenants that came with the land when Ebsco bought it from the Daniel Corp. in 1989. Those covenants called for Tattersall Park to be for commercial use only, not residential, she said.

Lovell said she and Gorham plan to take their survey results to Ebsco in the hope that Ebsco will modify its request to the city of Hoover in response to residents’ concerns.

Gorham said one of the biggest things he has learned from this experience is that the eastern side of Hoover doesn’t have any of its residents on the Hoover City Council and needs better representation in city government. The Hoover Planning and Zoning Commission also is appointed by the mayor, except for the City Council member on the zoning board, so there is a lot of power concentrated in a small number of people, he said.

“We’ve got to get someone on the City Council from our side of town,” Gorham said.

The Hoover Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to take up the Tattersall Park development plan again on Nov. 12. If the zoning board recommends approval, the matter goes to the Hoover City Council for a final vote, likely on Dec. 2.

Some area residents are encouraging people to continue to sign the petition against the current Ebsco plan on change.org and give feedback through the survey here.

See the full Voices for Tattersall meeting at The Church of Brooks Hills on The Hoover Channel YouTube page.