BRUNSWICK COUNTY — With a few boos from the audience following a tight vote, a site plan to bring almost 1,700 homes to Brunswick County passed earlier in the week.
READ MORE: 1,400 homes on the way to Brunswick, additional 1,700 tabled to next month
On Monday, the Brunswick County Planning Board voted 4-3, with Chair Clifton Cheek having to weigh in to break the tie. Jim Board, Ron Medlin, and William Bittenbender opposed.
The Hooper Tract site plan approval was tabled in June after planning board members expressed concerns with applicant Blue Fern Development’s build-out of 1,720 single family units in the unincorporated area of the county. Planning board members issued complaints regarding traffic congestion, a single-entrance access point and two emergency exits.
The developer withdrew the plan to address the issues. The applicant’s attorney, Sam Franck of Ward and Smith, said for two months the team redesigned the development.
“We have gone above and beyond the unified development ordinance to make the plan better still,” he said, noting many exceptional design qualities included.
The almost 595-acre development — located near The Bluffs and Coastal Haven neighborhoods — was reduced by 50 lots, bringing the unit count to 1,670. The team has increased entrances and exits, as well as enhanced streetscape buffers along Hooper Road and open space.
The development is allowed in the rural residential zoning area, which has a maximum of 2.9 units per acre. The plan is for 2.81 units per acre, to be built in phases over the coming decade, approximately 200 or so annually. No wetlands or floodplains are being built upon.
There are 145 acres of dedicated open space, though 89 acres are required. 115 of those acres are wetlands and 35 acres are uplands, the latter of which will encompass walking trails, kayak launches, and perhaps pedestrian bridges.
The developers are proposing 20 acres of recreation space, of which roughly 13 acres are required. Stormwater ponds are built to 100-year events and the site plan includes a 60-foot development buffer and supplemental natural vegetation, as well as a 20-foot street buffer on Hooper Road.
The development is slated to bring 14,500 vehicular trips in a 24-hour timeframe and prompted a traffic impact analysis. Because of its scope, the development team is making some roadway improvements, such as installing a traffic signal at the Mt. Misery and Hooper roads intersection and constructing eastbound and westbound right turn lanes on Mt. Misery Road.
A roundabout and northbound right turn lane will be installed on Hooper Road, which has four entrances and exits into the development. The team added an entrance off Black Chestnut Road since the board met in June.
There also will be improved and widened ramps near Mt. Misery Road at I-140 and U.S. Highway 74/76.
Planning board member Board said he recognized the “considerable amount of work” the team put into the revisions.
“However, in my opinion, it looks like we are just moving the traffic around,” he said. “They will be adding acceleration and deceleration lanes and some signal lights, but it won’t alleviate the situation.”
He questioned the NCDOT’s long-term plans for Hooper Road as well. The development team brought traffic engineer Ramey Kemp from RFK Engineers, who said the road can handle up to 18,000 cars and it fits within the development’s plan to have more than 14,000 by 2030.
“We can’t dedicate land to the DOT to widen roads, that’s up to them,” Franck said. “But we set up buffers for them to do that, which as a private land owner, that’s all we can do.”
He added the developer also asked for interconnectivity to The Bluffs development, to add another route, but were denied accessibility.
Around a half-dozen people, many from the nearby Bluffs community, spoke at the meeting, most against the development’s size. Some begged the planning board and developers to start considering greener practices. Bill Adams wished to see less tree-clearing and burning of timber, worried smoke inhalation would pose health issues. He also suggested the incorporation of solar shingles, and the use of more permeable surface measures to mitigate stormwater runoff and potential flooding.
Also highlighted were anxieties over evacuation plans and emergency needs not being met as more people migrate to the area.
Resident Don Hadley asked if anyone took into consideration the adequacy of infrastructure and how it will impact existing and new residents. By his estimates, the new development, along with The Bluffs and Coastal Haven communities would bring 10,000 or more people to the immediate area.
“The highway expansions, while I appreciate those, when we think about the total number of additional people added to drive these roads … have we thought about the number of resources needed to support those people?” he asked.
Suzanne Sternkopf questioned emergency services being able to reach everyone in a timely fashion.
“Last year, I called an ambulance and it took 20 to 25 minutes to get to my house in The Bluffs before all this stuff,” she said.
Jonathan Warner added to the chorus, noting services in the county already are maxed out. He pointed to the post office working out of tents in a parking lot in Leland, the landfill in Bolivia nearing capacity, and the water conservation alert issued earlier in the spring.
“Infrastructure is not there to handle it all now and I don’t know how that benefits Brunswick County,” he said, asking the planning board to request shrinking the development size or delaying the project altogether.
Franck was allowed to address public comments and said infrastructure improvements may be needed, but they also cost money. Not to mention the private property owner isn’t responsible for upkeep in most of those areas, as that’s the focus of area governments and state agencies.
“When you approve development like this, they are taking steps to significantly increase the tax base to the community and therefore significantly increase the available funds to respond to those infrastructure needs,” he countered.
Vice Chair Jason Gaver asked Brunswick County attorney Ryan King potential outcomes should the board vote down the site plan “because the feel good police showed up.”
Though not answering on the developer’s behalf, King said a lawsuit could be filed in Superior Court to hold the county liable or the development team could revise its plans and bring them back again. Gaver added it would be the taxpayers who ended up paying for any costly litigation.
Despite agreeing with residents over some issues, like the amount of trees being razed, Gaver added: “If we get into the game of denying things because we don’t like them, nothing will ever pass.”
Alternate board member Cecelia Herman agreed: “Our hands as a planning board are tied.”
This was an issue their fellow colleague, Board, who took up at the top of the meeting. He wrote out a list of thoughts accumulated over the last 10 months about the planning board’s purpose, output and feedback from the community-at-large. The planning board is the final decision-maker for developments in Brunswick County, unless an appeal is made to commissioners; this differs from most boards in surrounding counties and municipalities where planning’s suggestions are often given to town councils or county commissioners to make final determinations.
Board said the planning board is pinned as the villain for every decision made in the county, when it is the county commissioners who appoint them and hold them accountable to what’s written in the UDO. He expressed frustration about state and county needs that should be addressed when considering developments, not just what’s listed in county code.
“With all of its modifications to meet the requirements of the county UDO, this board will likely approve this development because it meets those requirements,” Board said. “However, has anyone spoken to the sheriff’s department about increased coverage needs? Has anyone spoken with the Northwest Fire Department to see if it has enough manpower and equipment to add almost 1,700 homes to an already crowded area with limited access? Has anyone asked the NCDOT what their intent is on expanding Hooper Road in the event of a catastrophic emergency? Has anyone asked the school board of education about plans for elementary, middle and high school expansion in the area? I think not because the UDO doesn’t state they have to.”
Board said it will be taxpayers who pay the price for “unchecked developments” and listed suggestions for commissioners to consider moving forward. First, he requested to make it mandatory for all departments to attend critical technical review committee meetings, which take place before development applications go to the planning board. The TRC brings together varied city staff departments and other agencies, such as fire, NCDOT, water and sewer, to provide insight into a site plan, and ensure all regulations are met before permits are issued and construction begins.
Secondly, Board asked for the commissioners to attend numerous joint meetings with the planning board to get a fuller grasp on the scope of needs community-wide when it comes to developing land in North Carolina’s fastest growing county. He saw this including meetings with: the NCDOT to discuss the process used to determine capacity on existing roadways; the board of education to address increased student populations and schools to meet the growth; the North Carolina Association of Fire Chiefs to hear about equipment and personnel needs; and with county and state stormwater commissions to assess best practices that help mitigate flooding.
“Your board of commissioners must take the responsibility to care,” Board told the crowd, noting text amendments to the UDO the planning board has suggested have been voted down by commissioners. “We need a more restrictive UDO in the county so we can do a better job of maintaining development of this county without destroying it.”
Some in the audience applauded Board for speaking out.
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
