Development of Porters Neck Area: Lowes Project

The following post has been sent to us by Harvey Molloy, a resident of Porters Neck Plantation.

Development of Porters Neck Area
Lowe’s Project

While most will agree that the less traffic the better, development is progress. However the proposal for developing the land at Porters Neck Center to the North and West of the Porters Neck Road intersection is flawed.

When the existing Porters Neck Center was developed the Map of Road Access that was submitted showed four access roads, three were actually provided (see map book 37 page 62). Of the three access road actually built, only one, the Porters Neck Road access is traffic light controlled.

Now comes the new project which will take the Porters Neck Road access and make that the ONLY access for over 4000 cars a day to a Lowe’s Home Improvement Center and many more as the land is built out. In addition the DOT said that they must put a 500 foot island in the access road. This means that the North access road is now denied for entry to the existing shopping center. One observer stated that they could put a gap in the island to allow access to the existing businesses in Porters Neck Center. Well if the island is to guarantee free flow to the new project, if you put a left turn opening in it, doing so cancels the effect of the island in the first place.

At the June County meeting the developer said that there was a road in back of the Porters Neck Center. The comment was either uninformed or intended to mislead. The only passageway behind the existing shopping center is a narrow delivery space behind the existing commercial establishments that is effectively blocked if a delivery truck is servicing those stores.

The problem is not with Lowe’s, rather it is the poor planning of the developer and efforts to build a minimum cost project without any concern that the traffic issue has been addressed.

This observer thinks first, it is not in the best interests of Lowe’s to allow poor planning; second, it is certainly not in the best interests of local residents and taxpayers to allow poor planning; and third, in the end all issues can be resolved if the developer will act in good faith and provide a second viable access/egress to the project.