Assistant Planning Director Jennie Turner presented the staff report, noting that the Board of Commissioners had directed staff to initiate a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance. Following their feedback received during the February 26th work session, staff clarified that sidewalks are to be required on both sides of new streets, and that developments adjacent to planned sidewalks must provide an easement in lieu of constructing sidewalks.
Ms. Turner reviewed the proposed changes to Section 5.6.10, Sidewalks and Pedestrian Circulation, which include the requirement for sidewalks along new streets and a 15-foot-wide easement adjacent to the right-of-way for future public sidewalk installation. She explained that the Planning Director would have the discretion to reduce the required easement width in cases where such a requirement would create significant hardship. She also outlined the exceptions, noting the Director's authority to waive requirements where environmental constraints, topography, or existing conditions render compliance impractical and no reasonable alternative design exists.
Ms. Turner presented maps illustrating the proposed side paths, trails, and sidewalks for the Northern and Southern Mainland areas of Currituck County as outlined in the adopted Connect Currituck plan. She clarified that the locations identified in the plan would be subject to the new provisions of the text amendment.
Chairman Bass asked for clarification on what constitutes a "major subdivision." Ms. Turner explained that a major subdivision is any subdivision that is not categorized as minor, family, or no-review—typically those involving the construction of roads to NCDOT standards and consisting of more than five or six lots. She added that the proposed amendment includes an existing exemption for subdivisions with five or fewer lots, which are not required to install sidewalks.
In response to Chairman Bass’s question about ten-acre lots, Ms. Turner noted that such subdivisions fall under the “no-review” category and are exempt from the sidewalk requirements.
Mr. Corbell asked whether sidewalks would be located on the street side of drainage ditches, rather than the property-owner side. Mr. Newns responded that NCDOT generally prefers sidewalks to be set farther from the road for safety purposes.
Ms. Krause requested clarification on the timing of sidewalk installation for developments along designated corridors. Ms. Turner explained that previously, sidewalks were required to be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). Under the new amendment, only the recording of the required easement is necessary prior to CO, with the actual sidewalk construction to follow later.
The board discussed safety and the required sidewalk widths. Ms. Turner noted that sidewalks must be at least five feet wide, with a ten-foot width required along major corridors.
Ms. Krause also raised concerns about the financial burden of sidewalk construction potentially shifting to taxpayers, since developers would no longer be responsible for installation. Ms. Turner responded that NCDOT has plans to make future highway improvements, including the installation of pedestrian pathways. Ms. Krause expressed support for sidewalks as part of a healthy, connected community but remained concerned about the public cost of their construction.
Ms. Turner concluded by presenting the applicable review standards, goals, and policies for the proposed text amendment, delivered the Consistency Statement, and recommended approval based on staff’s findings.
In response to a question from Ms. Krause about whether easements are required on both sides of the street even if development exists on only one side, Ms. Turner explained that exceptions apply. For instance, a trail could serve as an equivalent pedestrian circulation route if it is at least eight feet wide and constructed with a hard surface to meet ADA standards.
Mr. Hedrick asked whether existing developments would be required to provide easements. Ms. Turner confirmed that the requirement applies only to new development or redevelopment. Mr. Hedrick expressed concern that this could result in disjointed or "spotty" sidewalk networks. Ms. Turner noted that in many cases—particularly along major corridors—sidewalks can be accommodated within existing easements.
Mr. Hedrick motioned to approve PB 25-07 Currituck County Text Amendment because the request is in conformance with the General Purpose and Intent of the Unified Development Ordinance and is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Imagine Currituck 2040 Vision Plan, including Land Use Policy 2.1.
Mr. Corbell seconded the motion, and the motion was approved unanimously 6-0.