Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cross Access Corridor Udo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pender County board rules Oyster Creek Landing connection is a required cross-access corridor
Summary
The Board of Adjustments found that a connection between Oyster Creek Landing and Pansy Lane qualifies as a cross-access corridor under the county UDO and denied an appeal seeking to allow a gate at that location.
The Pender County Board of Adjustments on July 16 denied an appeal from Oyster Creek Landing LLC, ruling that the connection between the new Oyster Creek Landing commercial development and Pansy Lane is a required cross-access corridor under the county’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Daniel Adams, Pender County planning and community development director, told the board that the approved site plan for Oyster Creek Landing included a paved drive-aisle stub intended to provide cross access to adjoining nonresidential parcels. Adams said staff concluded a gate placed at that location would "render the cross access corridor useless" because it would prevent the alternative passageway between adjoining developments required by UDO §7.4.0.4. Adams also cited N.C. Gen. Stat. §160D-403, which bars deviations from approved development plans without written approval.
Amy Schafer, attorney for Oyster Creek Landing LLC, argued the physical conditions at the Pansy Lane connection — notably a mature oak tree and narrow space where people historically drove around the tree — made a through-connection impractical and unsafe. Schafer asked the board to recognize the connection as a private right-of-way rather than a cross-access corridor and said a Knox-box gate with emergency access could address fire and EMS concerns.
Pender County Fire Marshal Amy Burton testified the sand-and-gravel surface and canopy conditions do not meet fire-code standards for an emergency-access roadway. Burton also described the county’s Knox-box key system for emergency access and said that if a gate were placed it should be equipped to allow emergency responders to enter.
After public testimony from nearby residents who said they rely on the Pansy Lane connection to reach Highway 17 and local businesses, board member discussion focused on whether the corridor was established in the approved site plan and whether any administrative modification or waiver had been properly requested. Board counsel noted the cross-access corridor location had been negotiated during site-plan review and that no written approval existed authorizing a gate.
Board member motioned to deny the appeal on the basis that the connection meets the UDO definition of a cross-access corridor; the motion passed and the appeal was denied. The board accepted staff presentation slides into the record.
Speakers on record included Daniel Adams (Pender County planning director), Amy Schafer (attorney for Oyster Creek Landing), Richard Collier (engineer for the developer), Fire Marshal Amy Burton, and multiple local residents who described traffic and safety conditions on Pansy Lane.
