Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Somerset Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee declines to recommend county acceptance of Somerset Point Phase 2 roads after resident appeals
Summary
Beaufort County Public Facilities Committee heard pleas from residents who said Phase 2 roads were built to county standards but voted 4–7 not to recommend that the county accept the Phase 2 roads into its maintained inventory; the County Transportation Committee will not fund maintenance if accepted.
At its Jan. 20 meeting, the Beaufort County Public Facilities Committee failed to recommend that county council accept seven roads in Somerset Point Phase 2 into the county road inventory. The committee vote on the recommendation to forward the item to the full council ended 4–7.
The item came after three public commenters explained why Phase 2 should be treated the same as Phase 1. Resident Ron Fox said the county storm drains run through both phases and that there is a clear drainage connection between Phase 1 and Phase 2, adding, “I invite members of this committee, if they have not already visited the area, it might be a good thing to do so that you can actually see what the setup is.” Eric Bickman, who signed the original application asking the county to consider the roads, said the developer built the Phase 1 roads to county standards and that he believed the developer intended all roads to be county roads. Bickman warned that failing to accept the roads would create division within the community and place long-term costs on homeowners.
Staff reported that Phase 1 comprises about 3.25 miles and was deeded to the county years ago, while Phase 2 includes roughly 0.95 miles across seven roads. Transportation staff told the committee that the original master plan did not explicitly require Phase 2 to be accepted and that the County Transportation Committee (CTC) voted not to fund maintenance of these roads if they were added to the county inventory. Staff estimated potential near-term public works maintenance costs of about $35,075 and 20-year resurfacing costs in the range of $2,000,000–$2,440,000.
Committee members debated policy history, long-term maintenance liabilities, parity between neighborhoods, and options available to residents. Several members emphasized the risk of setting a precedent that could create a domino effect of petitions to accept private roads countywide. One council member said the CTC’s refusal to fund the roads was a key consideration. Another member noted that although the neighborhood may meet some county standards, meeting the technical standard is only one of multiple criteria in the county’s private-road policy.
A roll-call recommendation vote was conducted. The recorded recommendation votes were: Brown (Yes); Bartholomew (Yes); Passamut (No); McAllen (Yes); Glover (No); Dawson (No); Howard (No); Tabernick (No); Lawson (No); Reed (Yes); Cunningham (No). With four votes in favor and seven opposed, the motion to forward a positive recommendation to county council failed.
Because the CTC indicated it will not fund maintenance from C funds, staff told the committee that accepting the roads would require identifying an alternate funding source for resurfacing and ongoing maintenance if council were to approve it. Staff also described available stormwater credit and manual processes residents may pursue if they meet best-management-practice criteria.
Next steps: the committee did not forward a positive recommendation; the petitioner may pursue other avenues such as continued engagement with staff, exploring stormwater credits, or bringing further evidence about standards and funding options to the full council in the future.
