THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, February 8, 1997 TAG: 9702060247
SECTION: REAL ESTATE WEEKLY PAGE: 18 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: About the Outer Banks
SOURCE: Chris Kidder
LENGTH: 108 lines
Recent mention of the proposed Currituck Sound bridge set off a flurry of e-mail.
The first message, sent out to surfers around the country, painted a picture of Corolla as ``out-of-the-way and only sparsely developed'' and asked if it was too late for the Surfrider Foundation, an environmental action group, take a stand against the bridge.
``While the bridge would aid in hurricane evacuation,'' the e-mailer wrote, ``it would also likely spur additional development, spoil the natural beauty of the area, increase congestion during evacuation, and increase the potential for catastrophic loss . . . which is a drain on the public pocketbook.''
Words of encouragement came from as far away as the West Coast. ``In Orange County we have fought against a whole series of new roads . . . We lost . . . Southern Orange County's watershed is doomed to urban sprawl,'' wrote one surfer in response.
``Fight the good fight. Don't let the Outer Banks look like Huntington Beach!! Contact the Alliance for a Paving Moratorium in Arcata, Calif.,'' he advised.
In fact, the local Surfrider group has already been involved in this issue and others affecting the quality of Outer Banks beaches and water resources. Brant Wise, Kill Devil Hills, logged in with a local take on the project.
``The area the bridge is going is at 75 percent build-out,'' wrote Wise, correcting the initial misconception that Corolla had survived the last decade untouched.
Because the majority of the land has already been subdivided and sold off, Surfrider's main concern was storm water run-off from the bridge, he said. ``The water in this area is stagnant for all practical purposes and does not need the additional pollution.''
Wise's response seemed to cap the flow of e-mail on the subject, but the original instigator wrote back. ``I started this fire and I appreciate your information. What's your perspective on the effect the bridge will have on the northern Outer Banks?'' he asked.
Several e-mail messages had expressed concern about the bridge increasing development density. Currituck County already has stringent zoning and density restrictions in place.
Because the land is already platted and, for the most part, developed, by the time the bridge is completed (projected for about 2005) future development will be a moot point without a major revamping of county rules.
It would be impossible to say how much the prospect of the bridge affected current development. Area developers and real estate agents were certainly instrumental in pushing the bridge project along.
But all of the major residential developments in the Corolla area were under way before the bridge was even close to being a done deal.
In fact, the bridge isn't a done deal yet, although funding has been approved and land for the bridge access at the Corolla end has already been purchased. But there's been little opposition to the project from the beach.
Beach property owners are concerned about hurricane evacuations, of course - and that's the state's justification for the project. But I suspect most support is less about safety than about convenience and property values.
Will the bridge change the northern Outer Banks? Not really. The change that matters has already happened. Today, in the minds of investors and vacationers, Corolla isn't ``out of the way'' or remote or isolated: it's where the action is.
By the time the bridge is built - in typical government fashion, with infrastructure lagging 10 years or more behind reality - traffic may justify a second bridge, a six-lane expressway between Kitty Hawk and Corolla beach and dozens of traffic lights.
It's not a pretty picture. But I don't expect it will slow development, reduce rents or inhibit investors. Property values in a resort community play by their own rules but most of those rules aren't all that different from anywhere else.
Easier access to the Tidewater Virginia area will help, not hurt, the Corolla real estate market. It will change the character of the place and the kinds of people who want to live or vacation there, but it will keep the dollars rolling in.
Wise's comment about pollution speaks to another issue a reader recently raised. A Norfolk reader is shopping for vacation property north of Duck. Her real estate agent discouraged her from buying soundfront.
``The water there is very shallow and we hear that the grasses smell during certain times of the year,'' the reader wrote.
It's not that any vegetation along the sound has an inherent smell: the odor is caused by vegetation that dies and washes up to the shoreline and decays. This typically occurs in canals, sheltered bays and other areas where there's not much water movement.
According to Al Wood, N.C. Cooperative Extension Service agent in Currituck County, the odor problem hasn't been widespread, judging from the few inquiries he's received. He doesn't know which plants are involved but he's almost sure it's not duckweed. It might be milfoil, he said.
What causes the plants to die is another mystery. ``I can't say whether it's a natural happening or pollution related,'' said Wood.
One local real estate broker said that 1995 had been a bad year for rotting vegetation. ``I heard it was caused by pollution from the Villages at Ocean Hill sewer system,'' he said, adding the sewer problem was fixed and he knew of no problems in 1996.
Susan Ruiz-Evans, an extension service agent in Dare County, hadn't heard about the problem. She asked N.C. State for help identifying the culprit plant but her contact there hadn't heard anything either. Whatever the plant is, she said, probably the only legal way to eliminate it would be to rake the plants out of the water. Water quality regulations prohibit the use of any chemicals.
I first heard about - and experienced - the smell several years ago while visiting a waterfront home in Southern Shores and, I can tell you from first-hand experience, it's most unpleasant. The homeowners had found it disagreeable but short-term and not something that happens every year.
Making buyers aware that occasional unpleasant smells may exist in some soundfront areas is good, but is the problem bad enough to justify steering buyers away from the sound? I'd like to hear from readers about this. MEMO: Send comments and questions to Chris Kidder at P.O. Box 10, Nags
Head, N.C. 27959. Or e-mail her at realkidd(AT)aol.com