2001-09-20 Work Session
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION WITH PLANNING BOARD PAGE 798
SEPTEMBER 20, 2001
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a Work Session with the Planning
Board on Thursday, September 20, 2001 at 5:00 P.M. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover
County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members present were: Vice-Chairman Robert G. Greer; Commissioner Julia Boseman;
Commissioner William A. Caster; Commissioner Nancy H. Pritchett; County Manager, Allen O’Neal;
County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell.
Members present from the Planning Board were: Walter R. Conlogue, McKinley Dull, David
C. Girardot, Rodney Q. Harris, Michael J. Kennan, Ernest J. Puskas, Robert Franklin Smith, and
Planning Director Dexter Hayes.
Vice-Chairman Greer called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone present. He
announced that Chairman Davis would arrive late due to a prior commitment.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Walter Conlogue, a member of the Planning Board, requested the audience to stand and
say a silent prayer. He then led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
DISCUSSION OF ROAD CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN SUBDIVISIONS, NEW STREETS
AND EXISTING STREETS
Mr. Conlogue advised that the joint meeting had been requested to discuss the following
issues with the Board of County Commissioners:
Connectivity Problems Between Subdivisions, New Streets, Existing Streets and New Public
Facilities (Schools and Parks):
The area north of Ogden Park is an example of where
approximately 7,000 homes are located with approximately 2,000 people who travel Murrayville
Road, College Road, and Gordon Road to enter Eaton Elementary School or Ogden Park with no
connector street system between neighborhoods.
Traffic Issues at the Veterans Park School Complex:
This is an example of a development project
where an effort should have been made to involve the Parks and Recreation Department, Board of
Education, Planning Board, and TRC when addressing and approving new subdivisions.
Mr. Conlogue turned the meeting over to Mr. Baird Stewart, Senior Planner, and Mr. Frank
Smith, a member of the Planning Board, to report on the Ogden area.
Senior Planner Stewart presented a map showing the location of Ogden Park Road, Market
Street, Gordon Road, subdivisions north of Ogden, and the proposed extension of Military Cut-Off
Road to the Northern Outer Loop as proposed in the Thoroughfare Plan. A connector street system
proposed by the Planning Board was shown on the map. The purpose of the connector is to improve
the flow of traffic in this area. The major obstacle to overcome will be to connect Gordon Road to
Ogden Park Drive on the northwest side of the property.
Mr. Frank Smith reported that four months ago, it became apparent to the Planning Board
that growth would continue in the area between Gordon Road and Market Street. The State
Transportation Plan includes a thoroughfare connecting Military Cut-Off to the interchange on the
future bypass. If some type of a collector street system is not developed through the existing and
proposed subdivisions, the thoroughfare planned by the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) may not become reality. An effort has been made to work with developers when planning
new developments to allow for a connection between the southern end toward Ogden Park as well
as the north side where the future bypass will be located. This is a common sense way to address the
traffic flow in this area. There is an existing road that runs along the westside Eaton Elementary
School and through Ogden Park that could serve as the connector. The tennis courts would have to
be removed; however, there is property on the back side of Ogden Park that can be used for the
displaced tennis courts. The idea is to use this public facility to help address traffic in this area.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION WITH PLANNING BOARD PAGE 799
SEPTEMBER 20, 2001
Mr. Smith concluded his presentation by stressing the importance of connecting roads with
the thoroughfare and stated that the Planning Board would like to take a more pro-active role in
addressing these issues.
Vice-Chairman Greer asked if the County could set aside rights-of-way, who would pay to
build the road connector in Ogden Park.
Planning Director Hayes responded that the Planning Board has been working with two
property owners and developers in Carolina Coastal and the Planters Walk West Bay Estates projects
to make better road connections. The West Bay project developer has agreed to provide an 80-foot
right-of-way for the north-south connection terminating in the area near the park on the south, and
he has agreed to build the road. The issue is to determine how the connections to the south will tie
into the corridor running north and south.
Discussion followed on whether the other developer would agree to set aside a right-of-way.
Planning Director Hayes explained that in the subdivision approval process, the County can require
developers to build connectors piece by piece as an area is developed. Currently, the interchange is
on the State’s Thoroughfare Plan; however, this project has not been funded. This will be the only
interchange to be built between the Porters Neck area and interchange being built near NorthChase.
The primary issue is how the connector road can run through Ogden Park.
Parks Director, Neal Lewis, reported that originally Ogden Park did not connect to Gordon
Road, and the County purchased a small piece of land to make the connection. Years later, plans were
made to build 2,000 homes north of Ogden Park and build an elementary school next to the Gordon
Road park entrance. It is too late to turn back, but this type of planning should be done in advance
during the design process, because a road connector changes the dynamics of a park. Roads in parks
are designed to safely move people through these facilities with use of speed humps, gates, reduced
speed limits, and walking trails. Bond proceeds and grants were used to develop Ogden Park. This
means that any facility disturbed has to be replaced according to conditions stipulated in the grant.
If the connector road is located as proposed, tennis courts worth $250,000, restrooms, and a parking
lot will be displaced. In addition to replacing these facilities, the chance of the County receiving more
grants in the future would be severely damaged. Currently, there is a $500,000 grant application
pending for Veterans Park which could be jeopardized.
Further discussion followed on what procedures could be implemented to identify road
connectors on undeveloped land to let developers and residents know where these roads will be
located. Mr. David Girardot, a member of the Planning Board, suggested establishing a mechanism
whereby all parties involved with a development project will meet and discuss the plan with the
Planning Board to avoid future problems with connector roads.
Commissioner Pritchett advised that she could not vote to run a connector road through
Ogden Park because of the changes that would occur in the park as well as the possibility of the
County losing future grant awards. She agreed with the need to establish a mechanism whereby all
parties will meet and discuss the location of road connections to address the current and future flow
of traffic in an area.
Mr. Ken Dull explained that the Planning Board was trying to focus on the future when
proposing a connector road along the boundary of Ogden Park. Currently, the traffic is extremely
congested in the Ogden area, and the connector road is needed to assist with the traffic flow.
After further discussion of the need to plan better for the future, Vice-Chairman Greer stated
that he felt both boards would like to see better connectivity of roads between new developments,
existing subdivisions and existing roads. A policy should be developed to require better coordination
of large projects with the Planning Board to be sure that road stubs are installed and roads are
properly connected.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION WITH PLANNING BOARD PAGE 800
SEPTEMBER 20, 2001
ARRIVAL OF CHAIRMAN DAVIS
Chairman Davis arrived at 5:40 P.M.
THE ROLE OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Vice-Chairman Greer advised that an appeal had been filed by the developer of the Veterans
Park Condominium Project on the decision rendered by the Technical Review Committee (TRC).
The Commissioners cannot discuss the merits of this case, but the Board would like to be informed
on the subdivision approval process.
Mr. Ken Dull reported that the TRC meets twice a month and reviews only the technical
aspects of projects. The TRC cannot make decisions beyond what is written in the Zoning Ordinance.
Most cases are clear, but the Veterans Park Condominium project was more complex and there was
disagreement among the members of the TRC and Planning Board on the decision rendered.
A lengthy discussion followed on why the TRC did not address traffic as part of the approval
process. Mr. Conlogue explained that when a case is presented to the TRC, the property is already
zoned for a particular use. The petitioner comes in with a plan that has already met zoning
requirements. The plan has been reviewed by the NCDOT, N. C. Storm Water Division, New
Hanover County Storm Water Division, New Hanover County Fire Services, and the New Hanover
County Water and Sewer Department. Reports are received from these agencies, and the TRC is
responsible to review the merits of the project and make sure it is in compliance with existing
regulations.
A lengthy discussion was held on the appeals process as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.
Deputy County Attorney, Kemp Burpeau, advised that Section 32.2 of the Zoning Ordinance says
that a decision of the Planning Board or the TRC can be appealed to the Board of County
Commissioners. Since the ordinance does not specifically name what persons can appeal, Staff has
interpreted the language to mean that any aggrieved party can appeal. The appellant can be the
petitioner, aggrieved property owners with appropriate standing, or a governing body.
Vice-Chairman Greer commented on the TRC being responsible for reviewing all projects
based upon compliance to County rules and regulations, and he asked how the Board of County
Commissioners could legally refuse to accept a decision made by the TRC if all requirements had been
met by the developer.
County Attorney Copley explained that when an appeal is heard, the appellant(s) must provide
evidence to the Board of County Commissioners to show that the TRC decision was in error. The
burden of proof is upon the appellant(s). If the Board finds that the TRC was correct in their ruling,
the Board would have to uphold the decision made by the TRC.
Planning Director Hayes referenced the lack of clarification in the appeals process as outlined
in the Zoning Ordinance and stated if a project is reviewed by the TRC and all requirements have
been met, the TRC can require the developer to provide a road connection into a neighborhood as
a condition of the subdivision approval process. If the neighborhood is opposed to the road
connection because of traffic concerns, the aggrieved neighbors can file an appeal to the Board of
County Commissioners because this is the only way they can challenge the decision made by the TRC
on the road connector.
A lengthy discussion followed on the need to clarify the ordinance regarding road
connections. Mr. Rodney Harris advised that requiring developers to install street connectors in
subdivision approvals has upset developers and adjoining neighbors. From a planning perspective,
street connectors should be required to plan for the future. Currently, road connectors are usually
required as a recommendation of the Planning Staff. In the past, efforts have been made to connect
two neighborhoods that are dissimilar, i.e., a high density neighborhood with a low density
neighborhood. These are not popular decisions and the ordinance needs to clearly define this issue.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 28
WORK SESSION WITH PLANNING BOARD PAGE 801
SEPTEMBER 20, 2001
Mr. Ernest Puskas referenced remarks about the County not being able to build roads and
noted that Veterans Drive and Ogden Park Road were built by the County. He requested an
explanation of when the County can build roads so the members of the Planning Board will
understand the procedure.
County Manager O’Neal explained that counties are permitted by State Statutes to build roads
for their own internal use and for industrial parks, schools, or government complexes. Counties by
State Statutes cannot build roads for subdivisions.
Mr. Smith emphasized the importance of not allowing subdivisions to be developed with no
controls in place to disperse traffic.
After a lengthy discussion on the need to address the appeals process and better define road
connections in the Zoning Ordinance, Vice-Chairman Greer requested the Legal Department to
review these items and prepare a recommendation to be presented to the Board of County
Commissioners.
County Attorney Copley advised that the Legal Department would be glad to review the
ordinance, but stated it was difficult to write an ordinance to cover every situation. There are two
issues involved with the appeals process: (1) due process for the people who have a right to be heard
and express objection to a decision rendered by the TRC; and (2) the affected property owner. There
could be a situation where the developer could not meet the requirements of the TRC. That person
should also have a mechanism of appeal. In order to appeal, somebody has to have legal standing,
be an adjoining property owner, or an aggrieved person impacted by the ruling of the TRC.
On behalf of the Board, Vice-Chairman Greer expressed appreciation to the members of the
Planning Board for their comments and interest in serving on the Planning Board.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chairman Greer adjourned the meeting at 6:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucie F. Harrell
Clerk to the Board