Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gate Waiver Emergency Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Oyster Creek Landing request to install gated access with Knox box
Summary
After finding the Pansy Lane connection to Oyster Creek Landing is a required cross-access corridor, the Board of Adjustments also denied the developer’s later request for an administrative waiver to install a gate with a Knox emergency-access lockbox.
Following its decision that the Pansy Lane connection is a cross-access corridor, the Pender County Board of Adjustments on July 16 denied Oyster Creek Landing LLC’s administrative waiver request to allow a gate secured by a Knox emergency-access box at that location.
Planning staff told the board the waiver request was submitted after the site was constructed and after the approved site plan established the cross-access location; staff argued waiving the requirement post-construction prevents consideration of alternative designs and would undermine the UDO’s interconnectivity objectives. "Waiving the requirement diminishes the interconnectivity that's required by regulation in the UDO and then desired by policy by county policy in the comprehensive land use plan," Daniel Adams said.
Applicant counsel Amy Schafer argued the gate was requested for safety and trespass concerns at a location where a mature oak tree and existing fences make a full vehicular connection unsafe. Schafer proposed a conditional solution: a Knox-box gate equipped for emergency access that would be removed if Pansy Lane were later improved or an adjacent property developed.
Pender County Fire Marshal Amy Burton said an emergency-access roadway must meet minimum standards — a 20-foot width and an all-weather surface — and that the sand-and-gravel corridor and narrow clearances near the tree do not currently meet those standards. Burton also described the county’s Knox-box system and said that, while the system provides emergency access, unlocking and operating a gate can add time in the response sequence.
Board discussion weighed procedural timing — the applicant’s request came after construction and after the approved site plan location was set — against the applicant’s safety arguments. Board members concluded the waiver criteria were not met. The board denied the waiver by recorded motion; members also voted to incorporate the prior hearing’s testimony and submitted materials into the record for this matter.
The denial means the developer cannot install the gate as proposed; the board left open the possibility that alternative solutions (removal of the tree, improvement of Pansy Lane, a different gate proposal brought during site-plan review, or future waivers) could be pursued but would require further approvals and supporting evidence.
