Tyler's Ridge Project Pulled

Tyler's Ridge is located on land bordered by N.C. 22 (running to left) and Airport Road from the new roundabout near the Moore County Airport and Sandhills Community College, which is in the top right portion of the aerial photograph. Photo by Don McKenzie

As of Thursday, April 21, 2011

All of the controversy surrounding the Tyler’s Ridge at Sandhills development evaporated Tuesday when an attorney for the developer withdrew the application for a conditional-use permit.

“We are withdrawing the application in hopes of bringing forth a new application, if that is the wish of the property owner,” David Neill, a Raleigh attorney representing Jim O’Malley, told the Southern Pines Town Council at its monthly meeting.

The move pre-empted a vote by the council on whether the application for the mixed-used development complied with the town’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).

Council member Mike Fields made a motion that the application did not comply because it did not constitute a Planned Residential Development (PRD) since the proposed apartment complex was not a “structurally integrated subdivision” as defined by the UDO.

Essentially, the UDO requires multifamily structures to be at least 200 feet apart and contain no more than 10 units. But those restrictions don’t apply in a PRD.

Plans for Tyler’s Ridge included a commercial development on the north side, featuring small shops and a restaurant. A multifamily development that would have been on the south side included 232 one- and two-bedroom dwelling units on 34.95 acres.

Robert Hayter, owner of The Hayter Firm in Pinehurst, said Thursday that the project’s future would be determined after discussions with his staff, subcontractors and O’Malley.

“We have not made a recommendation to our client because we have to assess the time and cost involved in resubmitting the application,” Hayter said. “We can’t just start over. So far, the project has been a significant waste of time and money for all concerned. I need to have a very thorough conversation with my client.”

Hayter said it was never the intent of his company to submit a noncompliant application.

“That’s not how we do business, but that’s how it turned out,” he said. “We have a positive legacy of past projects in Southern Pines based on quality, sound land use and orderly growth. We’re not going to change who we are because of this situation.”

Instead, Hayter said work needs to be done on the UDO because the current project approval process in Southern Pines is “complicated, uncertain and not that simple.”

“That’s how broken the code is,” he said.

Apparently the council agrees, because it is close to hiring a consulting firm to go over the UDO with a fine-tooth comb.

The document was adopted in 1989 and has been revised numerous times since then.

“We will want whomever is selected to revamp our UDO to hopefully make it more streamlined and more user-friendly,” Fields said Thursday. “The UDO has become so cumbersome and complicated that even town staff and other professionals are missing things. The Tyler’s Ridge application is not the first to have compliance issues arise after it has been submitted to the town.”

Council member Chris Smithson agreed that the process has been “a little difficult for quite some time.”

“It is a little messy,” Smithson said. “I think the overall intent of the UDO has always been good. It just needs to be easier to comply with and easier to enforce.”

Although the Tyler’s Ridge application was withdrawn, Smithson said he wouldn’t be surprised to see a new application soon.

“I don’t think the project is gone,” he said. “It doesn’t appear that they would have to change very much to make it comply with the UDO. It doesn’t seem like they’d have to start from scratch.”

The first time around, the controversial project led to public hearings in back-to-back months at both the council and Southern Pines Planning Board levels. The Planning Board voted 4-2 on Jan. 20 to recommend that the council deny a permit for the 46.3-acre project at the corner of N.C. 22 and Airport Road.

Board members said their decision was based on findings of fact that suggested the development’s proximity to the Moore County Airport could possibly compromise public health and safety.

The property is zoned Planned Development (PD) and is on the west side of N.C. 22 between Airport Road and Aiken Road and across from Warrior Woods Road. The site also adjoins property owned by Sandhills Community College and a private property owner, Esther Frye.

Opposition to the project centers around safety concerns, aircraft noise, a glut of apartments in Southern Pines, current commercial space vacancies in Moore County and the project’s proximity to the Sandhills Horticultural Gardens.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards prohibit the construction of any structure that would encourage public assembly in a runway protection zone (RPZ), areas that extend beyond the edge of a runway.

RPZs are trapezoidal zones that have specific land-use regulations to keep runways clear of any obstacles that could hinder takeoff and landing. They begin 200 feet beyond that area usable for takeoff and landing.

The airport is seeking federal funds for expansions that it hopes to make over the next three years in preparation for the back-to-back U.S. Opens in 2014. Expansion plans include the extension of the airport’s main runway 600 feet toward N.C. 22 and 400 feet toward Hardee Lane in Whispering Pines.

The commercial portion of the project would be in the airport hazard overlay zone, but the residential portion would not.

However, part of the residential portion is under the eventual departure path for planes coming off the main runway at the airport once the expansion is complete.

Hayter told the Planning Board that the information before it complied with FAA standards and data from the airport authority. He also noted that the town has to assume a certain amount of “relative risk” with the property and described the discussion during the Planning Board public hearing as “sensational” and “worst-case.”

Contact Ted M. Natt Jr. at tnatt@thepilot.com.

More like this story

Matt_Woodruff 2 years, 1 month ago

"He also noted that the town has to assume a certain amount of “relative risk” with the property"

What the heck? That is the most absurd thing that I have heard yet. They have been given the facts but willingly choose to ignore them. They should NOT be allowed to build in the runway protection zone at the very least.

OldPilot 2 years, 1 month ago

Not one but two members of the Council moved to deny the application, for essentially the same reasons. The lawyer for the developer withdrew the application because they were facing a certain vote denying the permit. They didn't want that vote on the record in case they have the extremely bad idea of wasting more time and money coming back with some small revision to their proposed development with the hope that somehow it might squeak thru this time. Of course that ignores the fact that no matter how you modify the design it doesn't change geography. 230+ apartments, a day care center, and some shops under the approach and departure to an airport is a bad idea, always was, always will be, and no small cosmetic change to twist it into compliance with the UDO changes that fact.

stanley10 2 years, 1 month ago

@ OldPilot Yea, We really would not want anything in the approach to the runway, Like Sandhills community College or all the homes around Sandhills or in Whispering Pines. Plus who would want all of that tax base from the apartments or Daycare or the Shops or the jobs they would create. How silly to think that would be good for the Town.

TooHot 2 years, 1 month ago

Hard to believe that the UDO is cumbersome and hard to work with. Imagine that. Another fine example of wannabes in government trying to tell producers and job creators how to do things.

Matt_Woodruff 2 years, 1 month ago

Sarcasm while hiding behind a computer screen, priceless! Are you running for Town Council this fall?

OldPilot 2 years, 1 month ago

Stanley, you are correct and I agree. No sane person would want a residential development with 400-500 people under a runway approach/departure. The college and the McNeil school aren't residential but locating them where they are probably wasn't the best decision given that, according to it's website, the airport has been there since the late 1930s. Thankfully it appears another mistake will be avoided. From what I read in The Pilot the folks in Whispering Pines regularly complain about noise and homes off the end of the runway are a source of concern. From what I read in The Pilot airplane accidents happen and it's a good thing that you and other concerned citizens recognize the safety issue. As you state Southern Pines absolutely could use the tax base and that is an excellent argument for building the project somewhere else, such as closer to "downtown" Southern Pines. I'm sure everyone who resisted this ill conceived project appreciates your support!

OldPilot 2 years, 1 month ago

Steve, you are 100% correct but for one or two tiny points: Moore County contributes nothing to the day to day operation of the airport, which it owns. It does contribute match dollars to secure grants for airport improvements from time to time, typically 3-5% of the grant. So if a $100,000 grant can be secured for a $3,000 to $5,000 by the county that's a bad investment? Privatize the airport? The only potential buyers would be developers. Problem: the airport has accepted federal funds over the years, thus has to stay open as an operating airport for 20 years since the last federal dollars were received. That's a long time to wait for a return. Plus the county wouldn't sell it anyway: it generates jobs, tourism, local pilots and aircraft owners use their aircraft for business and companies doing business in Moore County require airport access. "...close that airport today, and no one...would notice? Tell that to the people whose kids get to fly as Young Eagles. Ever heard of medivac flights? How about pilots and aircraft owners who fly medical patients on a charitable basis, patients who because of finances, the restrictions on commercial airliners and/or the lack of commercial service who would otherwise not be able to secure certain medical care. Other than these minor points you are 100% correct. PS: there are pilots and aircraft owners who are members of MENSA and/or Phi Beta Kappa, nice you take notice of that fact!

OldPilot 2 years, 1 month ago

Steve, let's go back to basics. Medivac helicopters are the ones with the big propeller on top, carry acute trauma patients and land almost anywhere. Airplanes have wings, propeller(s) on the front, carry a variety of medical patients and land at airports. If you can't understand a 95-97% return for every dollar spend to secure grant funds for infrastructure improvement I can't help you. If you think grants are a bad idea criticize Congress and the airport improvement program, not Moore County and the airport which have the foresight to secure such funds for infrastructure improvement. Maybe you didn't understand that those grant dollars are spent in Moore County? Let's try one more time, Moore County does NOT pay for any of the day to day operational costs of the airport, that is paid by fuel sales, hangar rental etc. Your precious taxpayer dollars do not support the airport, it charges enough to cover it's operating expenses (unlike virtually all other governmental or quasi governmental institutions) but doesn't run at a profit, because it isn't a private enterprise, it's part of the county infrastructure, the county where you live. PS: this is the self proclaimed golf capital of the world, tourism is important. Every dollar that flows into the county via tourism benefits in one way or another virtually every business in the county. Folks who own and operate aircraft do so in no small part for business reasons. Companies doing business in the county need immediate airport access.
I know facts are inconvenient but that's life.