Monday, February 17, 2014

Lll@RBl OVOIRROHBl PQQlOVBlS

ebruary 2000: Ounty OnsiUeratiOnOthe Veggett1ract |ater
3erkeley al|) PUD
- Approved PUD:
1
Total of 11frontage road11 comments by County Council recorded in PUD:
- ''The project includes a provision to prvide a road access easement frm St.
Gregory Catholc Church site to the project's main entrance. This prvision is
viewed as a positive measure because it is believed that in the near future a
traffic signal wibe placed at the entrance where it intersects with Buckwalter
Parkway The two entry points along US Highway 278 wibe the only permanent
access points to the site in conjunction with the access frm St. Gregory Catholic
Church."
The county may be pointing to this statement as the "agreement" by
Berkeley Hall's developer to provide for a frontage road. There is no
disagreement that the original plat for Berkeley Hall shows an easement
running from Berkeley Hall Boulevard toward the church but stopping at
the west boundary of the protected wetlands. If the easement had been
developed and exercised it would have indeed provided a third means of
accessing the "site" (i.e.: Berkeley Hall) in addition to the main entrance
at the U.S. 278/Buckwalter intersection and the service entrance further
west on U.S. 278. Note that the focus is providing a third point of
access to Berkeley Hall, not to the church.
- "Mrs. Gnann asked if the PUD includes a prvision for an access rad frm St.
Gregory Catholic Church property to Eagles Point? If not, is there a prvision for
an access rad frm the Meggett Tract to Eagles Point? Mr Bowers noted that
as part of the apprval of the Eagles Point PUD it had to prvide access
easements to the adjacent community There is an access easement frm
Eagles Point to St. Gregory Catholic Church."
Focus is on providing interconnecting access between PUDs which was
apparently a county objective in 1999; such a policy would keep traffic
between PUDs from having to travel on U.S. 278. Mrs. Gnann is asking
whether there will be a system of roads to allow traffic flow between
Eagles Point and Berkeley Hall (the "Meggett Tract"). Mr. Bowers notes
April 12, 1999
(corrected date)
2
Monday, February 17, 2014
that the Eagles Point PUD provided for an easement between Eagles
Point and the church. There is no implication of access to and from U.S.
278 itself.
- "Mr Conner: As to St. Gregory Catholc Church master plan, it does not, at this
time accommodate a tie to Eagles Point There is a rad that leads in that
direction, but there is a cul-de-sac and cemetery planned up against that prperty
lne. The Church's building committee was concered about excess traffic using
it as a shortcut frm Eagles Point to US Highway 278."
Essentially the county is acknowledging that the church made a decision
not to exercise its easement with Eagles Point because the church was
concerned that, if built, such an interconnection between the church and
Eagles Point could be used for Eagles Point traffic to access U.S. 278 via
the church campus. The fact that the county did not insist on its
construction is further evidence that the county did not intend for such
access between PUDs to be used for access to U.S. 278.
- "Mrs. Gnann noted that there are plans to construct a new fire station between
the two PUDs. The fire station has to enter US Highway 278 then travel that
rad to access the main entrances of both PUDs. It would seems to make so
much sense if there could be some small area that would prvide access frm
one PUD to the other Council should consider it policy to continuously stress
interconnection between the PUDs."
Again the Council is talking about the advantages of interconnection
between PUDs Eagles Point and Berkeley Hallj , in this case so that
emergency equipment could reach either PUD without having to travel on
U.S. 278. The "small area" referenced is access via the church campus.
Again, no discussion about providing access to/from U.S. 278.
- "Mr. Conner remarked that there are plans to construct a frntage rad that
interconnects frm the fire station site to St. Gregory Catholic Church site. There
is an opportunity to continue that frntage rad to the Meggett Tract entrance.
Representatives of St. Gregory Catholic Church would prbably be wi ing to look
at some sort of break away gate in order for emergency vehicles to gain access
to Eagles Point."
Note that Council is citing the "opportunity" to continue the planned east
frontage road west to Berkeley Hall's entrance. Use of the word
"opportunity" supports the statement of the attorney for Berkeley Hall's
3
Monday, February 17, 2014
developer that the easement granted to the church was for the church to
exercise if it (not the county) so desired. (As noted below, it never did.)
Taken in context the Council is still focused on how to provide access
between PUDs, in this case for the limited purpose of providing access to
both PUDs for emergency equipment. ("Break away gates" would
obviously be intended to restrict use of an access road between the
church and Eagles Point.)
PUD documentation includes two Master plans:
- Plan identified "as revised February 28, 2000" shows an easement between the
Meggett Tract and the St. Gregory site.
- Plan identified "as revised March 5. 2003" does not show an easement.
.A
.
M
'"0UcOc
,t -
Monday, February 17, 2014
- Comments of Lewis Hammet (represented developer during County consideration of
Meggett Tract PUD):
4
Developer never agreed to grant County any easement.
Developer included right for the Church to connect to Berkeley Hall entrance, if the
Church wanted to do so.
- Church al so had option to connect to Eagles Pointe. Never exercised.
- Berkeley Hall PUD pre-dated any Access Management Planning by the County
and any related discussions of road building in the area.
There was no expectation that the Church would seek to connect with Berkeley
Hal l .
- Expense and permitting hurdles in crossing wetlands.
- Church developed other acceptable and more reasonable methods of access.
- Church would have needed to get Berkeley Hall to agree to:
nature of plan
landscaping requirements
hours of operation
long term maintenance cost sharing
no such discussions have ever been had.
County has since been seeking to force frontage road construction.
- Coercing St. Gregory's.
- Including the frontage road in the road improvements to be financed by the
temporary sales tax increase. No discussion with either St. Gregory or Berkeley
Hall.
Monday, February 17, 2014
- Arguments
5
County:
, .
''
I
I
tJ
II
,
J/
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
II
1
I
II
! ,
I I
,,
,,
t
l
I
I
I I
I I
II
ACL o> SEME
Ll ; |
ol
,,
'I
J,'
I
/
'
I
'
I
I
/ , I
111 I
/
/
- PUD is a valid and legal ordinance of Beaufort County.
- PUD specifies that the intent of the County as reflected in the minutes of Council
consideration of the PUD was for an easement to be provided between the
Berkeley Hal l entrance and the Saint Gregory campus.
Council actually recognizes that an easement has been provided to the
church. Church was free to exercise easement if it so desired, could
obtain permission to breach protected wetlands and reach agreement
with Berkeley Hall on how resulting access would be constructed and
operated.
Council was clearly supporting interconnection of PUDs to keep traffic
between PUDs from having to make use of U.S. 278 (most especial ly
emergency equipment for the new Indian Hill Fire Station).
There was no discussion of using such an easement to bring church
traffic to and from U. S. 278.
6
Monday, February 17, 2014
- That easement can and should be used by the County to construct the west
frontage road to provide access from U.S. 278 to the Saint Gregory campus (and
to any other businesses, etc. established as a result of the sale by Saint Gregory
of portions of its campus for development).
There is simply no language in the PUD that supports such an assertion.
Further there was no grant of an easement in favor of the church or
county to allow use to be made of private Berkeley Hall Boulevard for
any purpose. If Council had determined that access to and from U.S.
278 was part of the PUD it would have insisted on an easement to allow
legal use of Berkeley Hall Boulevard, It did not.
Why? Because the Council was focused on encouraging PUD
interconnection; not on providing alternative means of providing church
access to U.S. 278.
- Simply because somehow the legal plats and property descriptions do not
contain reference to the easement Berkeley Hall is still obligated to provide it.
The church never sought to exercise the easement (nor have they ever
raised the issue with Berkeley Hall). Official, stamped, county approved
plats have not included any record of an easement since at least 2003.
Further the use to which to county is attempting to force fit onto this
nonexistent easement, access to the church from U.S. 278, was never
contemplated in the Council's review of the Meggett Tract PUD.
Berkeley Hall is NOT obligated to provide the church access to U.S. 278.
Berkeley Hall:
- Council frontage road discussion during the consideration of the Meggett Tract
PUD seems more focused on County preference to have adjoining PUDs (in this
case Berkeley Hall and Eagles Point as the Saint Gregory campus is not
considered a "PUD") interconnected. County's preference was to allow traffic
between adjoining PUDs to flow without having to access U.S.278. The only
specific relevant discussion focuses on the ability of emergency vehicles from the
Indian Hill Fire Station reaching either PUD without having to travel on U.S. 278.
In any event no interconnection has been made between St. Gregory's and
Eagles Point. Therefore, county's preference was not mandatory.
7
Monday, February 17, 2014
- Utilization of the original easement was an option of the Church, not the County.
It was never exercised by the Church, and, as of 2003 anyway, the easement no
longer exists.
- There certainly was no discussion in Council about using the Berkeley Hall
entrance as an entrance to the Church much less a school and whatever other
commercial developments result from commercial development of the property.
- The inclusion of protected wetlands between the Church and Berkeley Hall within
the right-of-way of the potential frontage road also argues that the "easement"
was, as Hammet argues, purely a political expedient.
- Other than providing emergency equipment the option of reaching Berkeley Hall
without traveling on U.S. 278 the only practical legal use of an access road
between the church and Berkeley Hall would have been to enable Berkeley Hall
residents who are also members of Saint Gregory's to reach the church without
venturing out onto U.S. 278. Not surprisingly Saint Gregory's apparently
determined that that small benefit was not worth the cost of making use of the
easement.
(The Packet is fond of making reference to Berkeley Hall's "obligation" to
provide "vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian" access to Saint Gregory's. But if
not from Berkeley Hall where else could the bicyclists and pedestrians have
come from?)
- Finally, it the county really thought it had the legal right to build the west frontage
road they would have simply pursued an enforcement action. Instead the county
is attempting to condemn. (Such condemnation is also of dubious legality but
that is a story for another time.)
- Conclusion: Berkeley Hall has no moral or legal obligation to provide access for
the county's proposed west frontage road.
Ed. note: Original minutes of the April 12, 1999, council meeting