Loading...
PB Minutes 20110303-Approved Page 1 of 15 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board March 3, 2011 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Richard Collier, Chair Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Andy Heath, Vice Chair Jane Daughtridge, Current Planning & Zoning Manager Troy Barboza Sam Burgess, Subdivision Review Planner Melissa Gott Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Dan Hilla Tamara Murphy Anthony Prinz Chairman Richard Collier opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Collier reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of the January Planning Board Meeting Minutes Dan Hilla made a motion to approve the January Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. Andy Heath seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the January Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: Subdivision Appeal (SA-29, 01/11) – Appeal by AFTEW Properties to overturn the 4-0 decision by the County’s Technical Review Committee denying the installation of gates in The Village at Motts Landing located near the 50 block of Saunders Road (SR-1187), North side. Sam Burgess provided information pertaining to location, access and nearby land uses, and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Burgess stated The Village at Motts Landing is located in the south central portion of the County’s jurisdiction, noting Phase I of the project encompasses the road network, which includes entrances from Saunders Road and River Road. Mr. Burgess presented various photos depicting the various land uses located near the development, as well as the entrances, the streetscape, a cul-de-sac and the road stubs off the main roadway. He stated several residential homes have been established in the area on Motts Landing Road. For reference purposes, Mr. Burgess also provided a photo of a Jersey barrier Page 2 of 15 being used in the Autumn Hall community located off Eastwood Road to keep traffic down and prevent people from entering the property without authorization. Mr. Burgess provided a brief history of The Village at Motts Landing project. He explained that Phase I of the project was preliminarily approved for 170 lots in 2004. The road network for a majority of the project was designated for public use; however, a smaller portion of the roads was designated for private use. The approved plan included two entrances to the project, which provide good traffic flow and interconnectivity between River Road and Saunders Road. The roads in Phase I have been constructed and have been recorded in the Register of Deeds Office. Mr. Burgess stated the developer, to his credit, made the decision to put in the entire road network and infrastructure at the beginning enabling him to then simply plat lots and build houses. Mr. Burgess explained the developer, builder, and project superintendent approached the Planning & Inspections staff in November 2010 to address concerns related to trespassers entering the project particularly after hours and creating a nuisance for the existing residents. He noted several domestic complaints were filed, several periods of vandalism took place, and construction debris had been dumped onsite late at night. During that meeting, staff informed the developer they did not feel gates at the entrances were an option for the project and offered several options to them, such as a stepped-up presence of law enforcement, the possibility of adding additional security at night, and providing some type of temporary barrier such as a Jersey barrier. He acknowledged that some of those efforts were made by the developer, but apparently the vandalism and trespassing continued as the winter months progressed. The developer and his stakeholders came back to the Planning staff in January to report that although they had made efforts to mitigate some of the unsavory activities taking place in the development, there were ongoing problems. Staff continued to maintain that gates were not a reasonable alternative, particularly on public roads, because gates would inhibit free flowing traffic and staff has proposed future connectivity running from this project to the north through Sycamore Landing and also eventually out toward Equestrian Estates. Mr. Burgess reported staff offered the developer the option of taking their concerns back to the Technical Review Committee for consideration in January 2011. Subsequently, the Technical Review Committee met concerning the issue and made the decision to deny the consideration for gates at the entrances to The Village at Motts Landing and recommended that the options presented, such as Jersey barriers and a stepped-up law enforcement presence, be tried once again. He explained the petitioner was given the opportunity to appeal the Technical Review Committee’s decision to the Planning Board, which they have done. Mr. Burgess concluded the staff presentation, stating the Technical Review Committee does not believe gates would be a solution to the trespassing issues and referred the board to a letter crafted by staff based on the TRC decision, which outlined three specific elements as to why the proposed gates would not be useful. Melissa Gott asked if TRC felt the gates wouldn’t be reasonable because they would not prevent the dumping and asked if the majority of dumping was being done by foot traffic instead of vehicular traffic. Page 3 of 15 Mr. Burgess stated that the developer could address that topic more thoroughly, but he would presume that the dumping was coming primarily via vehicular traffic. He also noted there may be foot traffic from the northern and eastern flanks of the project. Ms. Gott asked if the TRC’s decision to deny the request for gates was based upon the interconnectivity issue or their belief that the gates would not prevent dumping. Mr. Burgess explained the decision was primarily based on the interconnectivity, along with the fact that the streets are designated and constructed as public. The TRC had also expressed concern that if the proposed gates were placed at both entrances, it would give the impression to current and potential residents that the development was a permanently gated community; and therefore, could result in a significant challenge in removing the gates once the development expanded and the problems subsided. Ms. Gott asked if staff’s concerns could be satisfied by a compromise allowing the developer to install temporary gate structures, posted with signs stating they were temporary and would be removed on a specific date. Mr. Burgess stated his opinion it would not be a satisfactory situation, noting staff had made it abundantly clear to the developer that gates at the entrances weren’t a viable solution and had suggested the use of temporary Jersey-type barriers at strategic points within the project itself instead of at the entrances. He again expressed concern that gates at the entrance would give the appearance of permanence to both current residents and those who may purchase property within the subdivision. Mr. Burgess commented he felt the developer may be heading toward wanting a gated community when the streets have already been established and approved as public streets set up for the free flow of traffic between River Road, Saunders Road, and points north and east once Phase II becomes preliminarily approved and developed. Ms. Gott asked if the developer had the option to request that all of the roads within the project be designated as private rather than just one small section of roads designated as private. Mr. Burgess responded that the developer had made the request several years ago, but the Technical Review Committee voted at that time to require the roads remain designated as public. In response to a question from Ms. Gott, Mr. Burgess explained that the developer did not appeal the decision of the Technical Review Committee to require the roads to remain designated public at that time. He noted the TRC was adamant the roads remain public based on the public roads that have been built to NCDOT standards. Mr. Burgess stated his opinion that the TRC would most likely vote again to leave the roads designated as public. At the request of Ms. Gott, Mr. Burgess affirmed the developer’s remedy would be to again appeal the TRC decision. Jane Daughtridge added that the proposed development is much larger than what is currently in place so the interconnectivity that will occur out to to Carolina Beach Road will be an important issue. She expressed confidence that was the reason the TRC in the past denied the request to Page 4 of 15 allow the roads to become private. She also noted the sense among almost everyone that as the area populates, the problems will subside so making the roads private and intercepting that interconnectivity would be counterproductive to the big picture. Ms. Gott expressed concern that in the meantime the developer is trying to build a very nice development and building has become much slower because of the economy and noted that Jersey barriers are very difficult to navigate around, which will make it difficult to show and sell lots. Ms. Gott expressed a desire to protect the property owners and residents temporarily until there is more development in the neighborhood, which would alleviate the problem. She asked if Zoning staff could possibly enforce the removal of the gates after the achievement of 50% build-out on the project or if it was even reasonable to police the removal of gates. Ms. Daughtridge explained that enforcing removal of the gates would be a subdivision issue, but noted the County doesn’t have a process in place to enforce that type of scenario. She asked Sharon Huffman to provide guidance on the issue. Ms. Gott stated she did not want to put the County in the situation of having to file a lawsuit to enforce removal of gates that were temporarily allowed by the Planning Board. Ms. Daughtridge commented that Jersey barriers have wheels on the bottom and can be moved with the proper equipment, although not easily. While not an ideal situation, it would be easy enough to move the barriers to allow traffic to go through to show a lot if an appointment was made in advance. Sharon Huffman stated she would be happy to comment on the issue, but it may be more productive to allow the applicant to make their presentation and then allow her to address the issue if needed. Dan Hilla asked if staff was aware of any other neighborhood in New Hanover County where gates have been allowed on public roads. Sam Burgess stated he was not aware of a neighborhood where gates had been allowed on public streets in the unincorporated area of New Hanover County. Anthony Prinz commented there was a 4-0 vote by the TRC denying the request for gates, but only one TRC member was present at the Planning Board meeting. He stated it would be beneficial for the committee to hear what the concerns were from a public safety/emergency response perspective as he imagined the Sheriff’s Department and Fire Services had provided comments about the gates. Sam Burgess stated one of the departments expressed concern regarding the potential delay in reaching a resident in distress if gates were installed at the entrances. Various TRC members had also commented that the installation of gates at the southern and western entrances couldn’t assure that trespassers would be deterred because of the vast amount of vacant property located in the northern and eastern areas, which can easily be accessed by foot traffic and ATV traffic and create a nuisance. It was the consensus of the Technical Review Committee that setting up Page 5 of 15 barriers at strategic points in the northern portions of the development may mitigate some of the concerns and fears expressed by the residents. Mr. Burgess reiterated Ms. Daughtridge’s statement that most of the problems will cease as development continues to increase as the economy improves. He commented this is a situation where the developer took the initiative to put in the entire road network for Phase I with the hope that there would be tremendous building throughout the entire project, but unfortunately that situation hadn’t materialized. He stated staff was aware of the need to remedy the situation and believes they have provided adequate options to the developer to mitigate the trespassing and disturbance of the peace in the neighborhood. Anthony Prinz stated he would like to know if Fire Services had commented on whether gates would hinder their ability to respond to emergencies in a timely manner. Mr. Burgess stated he couldn’t recall the specific comments made by Fire Services personnel about whether there would be any undue delay in responding to emergency situations; however, he would expect a delay with any type of gate situation. Dr. Arnold Sobol, the applicant, spoke on his own behalf. Dr. Sobol expressed appreciation of County Staff, the Planning Board and the residents in attendance. He complimented the residents on showing concern for their neighborhood by attending the meeting. Dr. Sobol explained there had been a significant amount of vandalism, mischief, illegal activities, and dumping of debris and waste in the neighborhood. He noted that most of the problems were not caused by foot traffic, but were caused by people in vehicles. He disagreed with the use of the Jersey barriers, which were used in the Autumn Hall development because: 1) a very large device like a track hoe is required to move them; 2) the Village at Motts Landing doesn’t have any unpaved areas where that type of barrier could be used, while the Autumn Hall barriers are placed at the end of roads leading to to unpaved areas; 3) a Jersey barrier is a very static device that anyone could walk or drive around with little effort; and 4) a Jersey barrier is a great place to put graffiti. He estimated there would be graffiti on the barriers within 48 hours of installation. Dr. Sobol noted they have also installed “Road Closed” signs, but people ignore the signs and drive around them. Dr. Sobol stated he’d had a number of communications with Sgt. Murray and Sgt. Scott of the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office, and they had been very gracious and had been on the site. He explained that while the deputies were onsite, there are no problems, but the trespassers return when the deputies leave because the area is totally open. Dr. Sobol reported he had also employed private security to monitor the area and block the roads coming from the east. He noted those roads had been barricaded with very large pipes and “No Trespassing” signs were posted every fifty feet (50’) on trees, etc. as requested by the Sheriff’s Department. The signs and barricades were inspected by the Sheriff’s Department and photographs were taken of them, but it has made no difference whatsoever. The people that choose to create mischief manage to find a way in whenever they desire and actually make very quick entrance via the open roads coming into the development. Mr. Sobol commented they have tried the recommended options several times, but haven’t had any measure of success. Page 6 of 15 Dr. Sobol stated that the interconnection will come in Phase II and Phase III, but they are a long way from the completion of Phase I. He noted that 29 residents had moved into the neighborhood during the last eighteen months and he felt they were entitled to peaceful occupation of their homes. Dr. Sobol stated his opinion that the residents can’t have peaceful occupation of their homes unless the gates are installed. He explained the developer and the Sheriff’s Department have done everything they could, but the problems have continued. Dr. Sobol commented as to the NCDOT and the question of accessibility, the proposed gates are siren activated gates. He noted the issue had been discussed with Fire Services and they agreed that the proposed gates will open for the siren of any emergency vehicle. Dr. Sobol noted that the development is bounded to the north by Motts Creek. To the east is an undeveloped tract upon which they have installed the signs, but there are still some people that will come come through there. In addition, they had an incident two days prior to the meeting that required the Sheriff’s Department to respond. Dan Hilla asked Dr. Sobol to clarify if his request was for temporary gates or permanent gates for the subdivision; because it was his understanding the gates would be temporary. Dr. Sobol responded he would be amenable to making the gates temporary to provide the residents with the necessary protection. Mr. Hilla asked Dr. Sobol if he was willing to purchase the expensive electronic gates as a temporary measure. Dr. Sobol affirmed that he would be willing to purchase the electronic gates as a temporary measure and he was aware of the cost. Tamara Murphy asked if Dr. Sobol had compared the cost of hiring an operator to move the Jersey barriers when necessary versus the cost of the electronic gates. Dr. Sobol replied that he had done a cost comparison and it was astronomical because the devices to move the barriers would be detrimental to a paved street because they aren’t light and the Jersey barriers would offer no protection because they can be easily driven around. Chairman Collier stated he was not in favor of installing permanent gates at the entrances, nor was he in favor of permanent gates at the previous TRC meeting; however, he does have empathy for the residents. Noting that if temporary gates were installed and the problems were still occurring after sixty days, he would recommend removal of the gates because they didn’t solve the problem. Chairman Collier stated he would not support a permanent gate on a public street, but he would support a temporary gate to assist the neighbors with the current situation. He then asked Dr. Sobol to clarify his definition of “temporary” gates. Dr. Sobol stated that his version of “temporary” would be either placing a time limit on the gates or when the neighborhood reached 50% capacity. He stated his belief that the problem will alleviate itself when there are a large number of people living there. He commented that with Page 7 of 15 50% of the lots in the neighborhood occupied, the gates would no longer be needed and could simply be left open. Chairman Collier explained that once the point is reached and the vandalism ceases, the gates would need to be removed because gates can’t remain permanently on a public street opened or closed. Dr. Sobol stated that as long as there is no more vandalism, the gates could be eliminated. Terry Ando, stated he represented the builder, Premiere Homes and had attended every meeting with the Planning staff, the County Attorney, and the Technical Review Committee. He provided some background, noting Premiere Homes made an agreement with Dr. Sobol in July of 2009 and has 90 lots in the first phase, which is approved for 170 lots. They have built five model homes and sold thirty homes and sites to date. He noted they have built 17 homes and have 13 families living in the neighborhood. Mr. Ando stated that everything Dr. Sobol has stated about securing the property has been done in every possible way with the assistance of Premiere Homes, except for the front entrances. The streets with “Road Closed” signs also have chain gates that people ignore and go around so the problems still exist. They have received reports that people are knocking on neighbors’ doors after midnight. People are dumping debris at all hours of the day in the back section of the property. Mr. Ando reported that the most recent incident occurred when he was in his office and heard two gun shots. He found three teenagers with a rifle or shotgun in the car and called 911. The Sheriff’s Department responded and issued a citation and that case will be going to court on a later date. Mr. Ando stated his belief that if the situation continues, the gates should be installed on a permanent basis. He acknowledged that Mr. Collier was against permanent gates and Dr. Sobol had talked about temporary gates, but commented that if he sells you a home and you see gates there, you will have an indication that the gates will be there on a permanent basis. If temporary gates are installed, that must be disclosed to that potential homebuyer. He reflected on the discussion during the TRC meeting attended by Ms. Huffman, noting she had asked how temporary would be defined. He stated that if tonight’s vote is based on temporary or permanent gates, he would like for the decision to be clearly defined because if you give someone gates, they are going to think they are permanent, not temporary. Mr. Ando stated that if his company can’t complete their job in Phase I, Dr. Sobol will not be able to proceed to Phase II and Phase III, which will provide the previously discussed interconnectivity. He noted they had secured the back entrances, but he doesn’t believe the issue can be resolved until the front entrances are also secure. He commented that the teenagers with the weapon entered through the front entrance. Mr. Ando explained that measures had been taken, including the recommendations made by the TRC. He stated both the developer and the builder have been very proactive in addressing these issues. He explained that as everyone is aware, the economy is down and if they don’t have the ability to sell homes and produce, there will be a direct effect on the county. Mr. Ando stated that the building industry creates private jobs and County jobs as well. On a final note, he asked the Planning Board to consider installing gates on a permanent basis and not on a temporary basis. Page 8 of 15 Chairman Collier asked if anyone was present to speak in opposition of the appeal. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Chairman Collier then offered the applicant a five minute rebuttal period. Terry Ando noted various communities throughout the County that have or have had gates and expressed concern that the builder and developer had been told they could not have gates in The Village at Motts Landing, but had been given a reason for the denial of gates. He noted that Dr. Sobol had even checked into changing the streets from public to private streets. Mr. Ando then reviewed the history of the subdivision, commenting that the homes in the subdivision range in price from $350,000 to $450,000. He stated they feel they have done a good job of selling 30 houses in the subdivision since they began in July 2009 and opened the models in November 2009. He noted they have good homeowners, and they only want to ensure that the residents can live their active lifestyle and be protected in their community. He explained that a significant amount of the problem is coming through the main gates from Saunders Road and River Road. The other property has been posted and access has been blocked. Mr. Ando stated the gates proposed by Dr. Sobol had gone through the approval process with the County and are actually operated by a Knox gate system, which is a type of gate approved by the County. He commented that the siren system is not approved by the County or Fire Services. He reported that the information on the Knox gate system was included in the proposal package submitted to TRC and the Planning Board. Anthony Prinz commented that there had been a lot of discussion about the mischievous activity and the trespassing, but it hadn’t been related to the site plan. In reviewing the photos, he noted it appeared that White Swan Court and Jacob Mott Drive were primarily where the problems were occurring. Mr. Ando provided details of how the trespassers enter the development from Saunders Road and turn onto the cul-de-sac and Jacob Mott Drive to a stub road leading to future development. He noted trespassers continue through there onto Fayemarsh Road, which is an open area with developed lots. Mr. Ando explained the latest incident involving the teenagers and the weapon happened on one of the vacant lots there. He noted these situations happen throughout the subdivision, not only in the undeveloped land. He explained dumping has occurred in the undeveloped land off Jacob Mott Drive, where Fayemarsh Road wraps around. There are also issues with four wheelers and go carts. Unfortunately, there is activity throughout that section of the development. He stated that Dr. Sobol is against putting the Jersey barrier there because it will cut off access by the residents that have purchased property who enjoy riding their bikes and walking in that area. A Jersey barrier would also limit access for others who may be interested in purchasing lots from Dr. Sobol that aren’t currently under contract with Premiere Builders. Anthony Prinz asked Mr. Ando to show the areas of concern on the neighborhood map to the board, particularly White Swan Court and Jacob Mott Drive. Mr. Ando provided the locations of the mischief on the map and noted trespassers can freely enter the development from Saunders Road and River Road. Page 9 of 15 Mr. Prinz asked if some of the trespassers were entering the subdivision from Grand Champion Road, which appears to back up to that area. Mr. Ando explained that Dr. Sobol had installed large pipes in that area and posted the area with “No Trespassing” signs. The pipes would have to be moved with a backhoe so that area has been secured. That situation appears to have been remedied, but people are still coming in through Jacob Mott Drive. Anthony Prinz commented that since the problems are occurring on those two streets, the gates should be installed on those two streets instead of on the main entrances. Mr. Ando explained that trespassers can also access the problem areas by entering from River Road on Bellamy Parke Way. Chairman Collier commented that Fayemarsh Road is a private road. Sam Burgess confirmed that Fayemarsh Road is a private road. He indicated where the private roads within the development begin and end, noting that the balance of the road network is designated as public. Melissa Melissa Gott asked if the developer could by right actually install a gate at the intersection of Motts Village Road and Bellamy Parke Way, as well as at Jacob Mott Drive. Mr. Burgess stated the developer could install gates at the intersection of Motts Village Road and Bellamy Parke Way, and at Jacob Mott Drive. Anthony Prinz asked if the installation of gates at those locations would require the approval of the Technical Review Committee. Mr. Burgess & Chairman Collier confirmed the installation of gates at either location would not require the approval of the Technical Review Committee. Melissa Gott asked if the geography in those areas was such that if gates were installed no one could drive around them, noting she would like to determine if a Jersey barrier or a gate would make any difference. Mr. Burgess explained that it depended on the extent of the barrier and whether it extended past the roll-type curb or not. Mr. Ando commented that if there are vacant lots, the gates will have to extend on both sides to brick columns, trees, etc. For that reason, he believes that gating the entrances is the solution to the problem. There are two medians in the entrances, which would make it difficult to go around gates at the entrances. Page 10 of 15 Ms. Gott stated that when she looked at the entrances, they appeared to be open enough that people could actually drive around the gates. Mr. Ando identified the proposed location of the gates on the photos and explained the gates would be placed further down the entrance road beyond the second island so that traffic could turn around if they didn’t have access to the development. Ms. Gott asked, since most of the dumping is occurring at the back of the property, if would be acceptable to the applicant to place a gate at the Motts Village Road and Bellamy Parke Way intersection, which is already private, and if the board deemed fit, place a temporary gate at the Motts Village Road and Jacob Mott Drive area. She commented that it wouldn’t appear to be a gated community, but it would still gate off the property where they are having difficulty. Mr. Ando stated that decision would have to be made Dr. Sobol. Ms. Gott explained that would provide them with at least one gate by right and only requesting approval of one temporary gate. Mr. Ando stated there were other gated communities throughout New Hanover County and asked why this particular community couldn’t become a gated community. Chairman Collier explained that issue had already been reviewed and resolved. The community was approved with public streets and gates are not allowed on public streets. He explained the board couldn’t address that issue because it wasn’t before them for consideration. Chairman Collier noted the board has offered a solution that would achieve the proposed purpose, which is installing one permanent gate by right or even two gates in by right in the locations proposed by Ms. Gott. The County needs the interconnection for the future. If the board allows the interconnectivity to be cut off today, it will not be there for later. The board has upheld the rule in other similar situations where subdivisions have come in with public streets and later requested to return those public streets to private streets. We have tried to give leniency and assistance where we can, but giving up the public streets now would result in the County never getting them back. He explained that as previously stated by Mr. Ando, the gates would never be removed because they would be selling the public the perception of a gated community. In response to a question from Mr. Ando, Chairman Collier stated that Dr. Sobol could request the roads be changed from public to private, but he believed that request had been made previously and denied. Melissa Gott offered a creative solution to the applicant, suggesting they could by right install a gate at the private road intersection, and then depending on the tree line, put a Jersey barrier across the other location to prevent access to the area where they are having difficulty, but the gate at the intersection would allow the vehicular access needed by the developer. Mr. Ando explained the lots had been sold and homes will be constructed where Ms. Gott suggested the Jersey barrier be placed so that would not be helpful. He noted the gates suggested Page 11 of 15 at Bellamy Parke Way and further down at the stub-out at Jacob Mott Drive would be options for Dr. Sobol to consider. Tamara Murphy asked Mr. Ando the distance from the curb to the tree line. Mr. Ando estimated the distance from the curb to the tree line to be 40’-50’. Ms. Murphy suggested Jersey barriers be placed there and pipes be installed further down to prevent people from driving around the barriers. Ms. Gott stated she was concerned about installing gates on the public areas because a future purchaser would assume the gates were permanent, regardless of how many times they were told the gates were temporary or how many disclosures they signed acknowledging that fact. She suggested that the developer provide controlled access by putting in a temporary barrier, such as a Jersey barrier or pipe to block the loop road and then installing a gate at the other intersection on the private road to provide vehicular access to show the lots or construct homes. Ms. Gott emphasized that the developer could install permanent gates on the private roads without giving a false impression to a potential homebuyer and Jersey barriers are clearly temporary in nature and wouldn’t be deceptive. Anthony Prinz, acknowledged that TRC had approved the private roads within the development and upheld the public roads for the remaining sections because there is additional connectivity planned to the east of the existing development and asked Mr. Burgess to explain the decision and describe what the area will look like in the future. Mr. Burgess confirmed that the TRC made a decision in 2004 to approve a small section of Motts Landing as a private gated community, but they required designated public roads because of what exists to the north and the east of the property. Mr. Prinz commented that the action taken by the TRC to approve those as private roads was intended to allow that area to become a gated community, but the remainder was intended to remain public to provide future interconnectivity and free flow of traffic through those areas. Mr. Burgess confirmed the TRC’s intentions to allow the area with private roads to become a gated community within the development and provide future interconnectivity by requiring the other roads remain public. He identified the future location of Phase II and Phase III of The Village at Motts Landing and the road stub for the Sycamore Grove development that carries the name of one of the streets within The Village at Motts Landing. He noted the opportunity for a north-south connector and an east-west connector to Carolina Beach Road through Equestrian Estates and into The Village at Motts Landing via the public road network set up in Phase I. Mr. Prinz asked if there was a master plan for the balance of the property within The Village at Motts Landing. Page 12 of 15 Mr. Burgess responded that staff had seen a general development plan in 2000-2001, which generally outlined a road network and the approximate number of lots that displayed road stubs to the north and east based on the County’s recommendation to facilitate a north-south connector running parallel to Carolina Beach Road. Sharon Huffman, responded to Ms. Gott’s questions regarding whether the County could legally allow a temporary gate, how it could be accomplished, and whether the County would be subject to a lawsuit if a temporary gate was approved. Ms. Huffman commented that she delayed her response because she was reasonably confident the answers would become evident to the board members as the applicant presented their case. Noting the builder had already stated the problems with the scenario better than she, Ms. Huffman explained that once the gates were installed, the community would become a gated community in the mind of the community at large and in the minds of the residents of The Village at Motts Landing. There would be no way to reverse that perception so she had no doubt there would be litigation from a myriad of directions if temporary gates were approved and installed at the entrances on the public streets. Ms. Huffman commented that everyone empathized with the situation and those listening to the presentation at the TRC meeting tried to determine if there was a reasonable alternative to what appeared to be a request for permanent gates. She noted the request was never specifically presented as a request for “temporary” gates at the TRC meeting. Ms. Huffman stated there were many factors to consider, for example, how the definition of temporary would be determined, if temporary would refer to a specific period time or to a percentage of build-out, if it would be calculated for only the first phase or for all of the phases in the development, and how would the gates impact the acceptance of the roads into the NCDOT system for maintenance. She also noted that gates won’t stop all of of the trespassing, particularly the issues with four-wheelers and go-carts. . Ms. Huffman stated the County could only consider temporary gates on a public street and it would be very difficult to include all the requirements needed to prepare an iron-clad agreement between the County and Dr. Sobol to install temporary gates. She reviewed several variables which would need to be included in an agreement and commented on the litigation that could result between the developer, the county and the lot owner. Ms. Huffman commented it was her opinion that gating the entrances would be an unusual situation that would create many future problems. She praised the board for their efforts to provide the developer with other options to resolve the problems in the development. Chairman Collier asked Dr. Sobol to respond to Ms. Gott’s suggestion to place gates on the two areas with private streets. Dr. Sobol responded he was adamantly opposed to Jersey barriers because he didn’t believe it would accomplish anything, except providing the perfect site for graffiti. He also stated Jersey barriers can be driven around with very little effort, and are therefore, not an acceptable solution. Dr. Sobol expressed certainty that utilizing gates at the entrances would be the best solution to the neighborhood’s problems, noting his goal to prevent the dumping from Saunders Road. Page 13 of 15 Chairman Collier asked if Dr. Sobol had any interest in gating the private areas, noting he wasn’t sure the board supported gating the community completely. Chairman Collier acknowledged that Jersey barriers can be driven around, but explained that gates could be installed on the private streets to prevent trespassers from going off the public streets into the private areas, and a temporary structure could be placed at the end of Jacob Mott Drive to deter trespassers as well. Dr. Sobol stated that gating the private areas as proposed by Ms. Gott would not protect the homeowners so he would prefer to install temporary entrance gates that would be removed or left open once 50% of the homes had been constructed, with the proviso that residents were informed the gates were temporary. He felt that would result in a substantial reduction in dumping and in the rate of mischief. In response to a question from Chairman Collier, Dr. Sobol explained that vandalism, mischief, dumping and trespassing had occurred on both the residents’ property and on the undeveloped lots. Anthony Prinz stated he did not support the idea of gates on public streets because the public funds the maintenance of those roads and should be able to travel on them at any time. He also stated because of the four-wheelers and the trespassers coming from Grand Champion Road, he didn’t believe gates at the entrances would solve the problem although they might be somewhat of a deterrent. He expressed concern that if gates were installed at the entrances, they would become permanent and disrupt the future planned interconnectivity in that area, resulting in more stress on Saunders Road, River Road, and Carolina Beach Road. Mr. Prinz stated his recommended solution was to install two gates on the private section as proposed and approved by the TRC and then put in a temporary Jersey barrier on Jacob Mott Drive. He noted the lack of graffiti and vandalism on the barriers in the photos and commented that if Jersey barriers were okay for Autumn Hall, they would also work for this community. Vice Chair Andy Heath stated the photos showed quite a bit of construction fencing in the areas just coming under construction and asked if there was also vandalism in those areas marked off with the construction fencing. Dr. Sobol stated the dumping was occurring approximately 30-40 yards behind that lot on an unpaved area and in areas occupied by residents as well. Vice Chair Andy Heath commented that every developer has issues with people illegally dumping at construction sites. He recommended the developer use construction fencing and temporary, moveable chain link gates to address the situation. Dr. Sobol stated he had tried those options, but vandals drove over and through the fencing and it was difficult to fence the many open areas. Vice Chair Heath stated eliminating the open areas with construction fencing would help address the problems and would probably be equitable to the cost of steel entry gates. Page 14 of 15 Anthony Prinz stated several compromises had been offered that were not accepted by the developer. Anthony Prinz made a motion to deny the request by AFTEW Properties to overturn the 4-0 decision of the County’s TRC to deny the installation of gates at The Village at Motts Landing located near the 50 block of Saunders Road. Melissa Gott seconded the motion, explaining the County had offered a reasonable alternative and she wanted to avoid future litigation. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to deny the request by AFTEW Properties to overturn the 4-0 decision of the County’s Technical Review Committee to deny the installation of gates at The Village at Motts Landing located near the 50 block of Saunders Road. Technical Review Committee Report (January and February) Sam Burgess reported The Village at Motts Landing appeal was the only item on the TRC agenda for the month of January. Chris O’Keefe updated the board on the ordinance improvement effort. Staff has begun the process of reviewing sections of the ordinance, beginning with the planned development and industrial districts. Information on the planned development proposal has been sent out and information regarding potential changes to the industrial districts will go out in the near future. Mr. O’Keefe explained the basic process will be: 1) identification of the issue to be addressed; 2) preparation of information regarding the issue, possibly including proposed draft language; 3) sending information and draft language to the Sunshine List and others that have indicated a desire to participate in the ordinance improvement process; 4) posting information on the County’s websites, including the Ordinance Improvement webpage and Facebook, and utilizing blogging when possible to provide as many opportunities as possible for the public to interact on the proposals; 5) offering meeting opportunities; 6) consideration and recommendation of the proposed ordinance changes by the Planning Board; and 7) consideration and approval of the proposed ordinance changes by the County Commissioners. The hope is to interact with the public early in the process to receive comments and incorporate changes people feel are important into the ordinance. Chairman Collier asked Mr. O’Keefe for an update on the status of the Market Street Corridor Study. Chris O’Keefe explained the Market Street Corridor Study presentation was given to the Commissioners at their February meeting and staff planned to place the study on the agenda at their first meeting in April. He stated staff will recommend adoption of the plan and noted the model ordinance language contained in the appendix would not become part of the ordinance until further consideration. Page 15 of 15 Richard Collier adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________________ Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director