More info on the Coves controversy

The developer of the Coves at Charter Oak wants to put up a gate across a little road called Sedley that connects his new subdivision with the older Vinton Highlands subdivision. As I stated in a previous post, there was no mention in the council communication of what the “neighborhood concerns” were that would necessitate the installation of a gate to separate the subdivisions. In fact, it doesn’t even specify which neighborhood(s) had the concerns.

At the council meeting Tuesday night, Councilman Bill Spears said that it was his understanding that Vinton Highlands residents wanted it closed. Spears explained that when the annexation agreement was being negotiated, he received numerous complaints from one resident of Vinton Highlands whose property is on the dead-end portion of Sedley, and a petition with 25 Vinton Highlands signatures wanting to keep the road closed. (For the record, there are roughly 250 homes in the subdivision and the neighborhood association hasn’t met in the last three years.)

So why was the road built, you may wonder. Well, the fire department and city staff wanted there to be two access points for the purposes of fire protection, so the road was built by the developer as part of the annexation agreement. Fire Chief Tomblin admits that it would be very rare that they would have to use that access point, but it is needed in case of emergency.

Then there’s this letter from Mike Stauffer, the developer, to Bill Spears dated June 20. It states:

Thank you very much for your assistance in obtaining approval of the proposed access control gate for the north end of the Coves at Charter Oak subdivision. The existing Weaver Ridge and Vinton Highlands neighborhood associations and the future residents of the Coves will be well-served with reduced traffic and safer intersections because of this action.

So now it appears that Weaver Ridge also wanted the road blocked. That wasn’t mentioned at the council meeting Tuesday night. What difference does it make to the folks in Weaver Ridge? According to the letter, they’re concerned about traffic volume and safety at intersections. Let’s consider those for a second. Here’s a map of the area in question:

Vinton Highlands and The Coves map

The part outlined in blue is Vinton Highlands, and the red outline shows The Coves. Right in the middle of where the two meet is Sedley and where they want to put the gate. To the south, you see where The Coves’ main street, Mooring Way, intersects with Charter Oak Road. Directly south is Weaverridge. Just take a moment to get your bearings there.

Now, tell me: what traffic/safety issues are there here? Clearly none. Sedley isn’t exactly what one would call a shortcut. Nobody’s going to get from Frostwood or Big Hollow to Charter Oak or Weaverridge any quicker by wending their way through these two subdivisions. Not only that, the street isn’t currently open, so there’s no historical data to back up their assertion, nor has a traffic study been done. So that argument doesn’t wash.

Part of the problem with this issue is that the city has no set policy to use as a guide. Other neighborhoods that have gotten diverters or other obstructions installed got them in spite of the city’s regulations. So maybe this would be a good time for the city to develop a policy regarding the obstruction of public streets. Perhaps the Traffic Commission can help with that task.

The Council on Tuesday sent this issue to the Traffic Commission to be vetted. That process will include a public hearing.

One thought on “More info on the Coves controversy”

  1. Good update on this topic and nice catch on the letter. What struck me most was it appeared from that letter that the developer believed that he had already been given permission to install the gate and indicated that he’d be doing so in June. Is that a typo on his part or had he been led to believe by Councilman Spears and the two staff members that he could install the gate? If he had been led to believe that, there is a much larger problem here involving failure to understand existing policy and authority levels and the failure to bring items of this type to the City Council for open discussion early in the process.

Comments are closed.