SURF CITY — A proposed residential development failed to garner support in Surf City after a council member raised concerns it could cause fire safety risks for residents.
READ MORE: No property tax increase in Surf City budget, but sewer costs are rising
Surf City Council unanimously rejected the rezoning request last Tuesday to shift 20.2 acres of a 29.08 parcel from the rural agricultural to conditional mixed use district to build 99 townhomes on JH Batts Road. Applicant Jesse Zimmer previously sought to rezone the entire property at the June council meeting but council similarly denied the proposal.
Council member Jeremy Shugarts said then he would need to see more details for the proposal because it was submitted without a site plan.
Zimmer included a specific plan for residential development at last week’s public hearing. However, council and residents still took issue with the proposal’s single entry and exit on JH Batts Road.
“I have trouble with any of these developments being put in where they only have one access,” council member John Koloski said. “We had a bad fire years ago on Atkinson Road. There was only one access in and one access out. And that’s something that’s done and overdone.”
The fire destroyed seven homes on Atkinson Road in 2017.
Community development director Amy Kimes said staff recommended using Sea Oaks Drive or an undeveloped portion of Aldrich Lane as potential additional ingress and egress into the development. She noted new traffic generation would be a concern with either option.
Kimes noted the NC Fire code previously required developments with more than 30 units to have two separate fire access roads, but will be updated in January to 100. The Office of the State Fire Marshall cited a 2021 bill, HB 489, as the reason for the change.
The bill was supported by the NC Home Builders Association. The North Carolina Fire Marshals’ Association and North Carolina State Fire Association recently raised concerns about a separate law backed by the lobby organization, SB 166; it prohibits local governments from enacting fire prevention regulations outside the state’s residential code requirements.
Applicant Zimmer said he would accept a condition for a secondary access but needed certainty that he could move forward to coordinate with nearby property owners and determine the best solution.
Koloski expressed concerns that potential access options were too close to the current entrance.
“Atkinson Road, where this fire was,” he said, “a house caught on fire and it took 64 minutes for five other houses to burn right to the ground. Having an access road at the beginning of your neighborhood isn’t going to help the people at the back of your neighborhood.”
Kimes noted the property may contain wetlands and a traffic impact analysis would be necessary if approved. She also raised concerns about utility access due to the town’s sewer capacity waitlist.
Three residents spoke in opposition to the rezoning over traffic, safety, and wetland loss. Thirteen residents raised similar issues at the June meeting.
“If we have a fire we’re in trouble,” Dorothy Blanton said.
Council member Jeremy Shugarts encouraged Zimmer to return with a revised plan before making the motion for denial.
“I [don’t want] to put the cart before the horse,” he said. “I want to make sure that things are right. This sets the precedent for everything else.”
Tips or comments? Email info@localdailymedia.com.
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our morning newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
