Public says no to Long Savannah Plantation

Commission hopes for a compromise

Lack of time usually precludes us from attending County Planning Commission meetings. But some meetings are too important to ignore. Yesterday's involved a very large subdivision which required moving the Urban Growth Boundary. Not only did we attend the meeting, we spoke against the development.

The developer's plans have been well-publicized and have been covered in the Post and Courier. To recapitulate, the developer wishes to undertake a project which encompasses some 4800 housing units, as well as commercial space. However much of the land on which the housing will be built is on the rural side of the County-defined Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The developer is seeking approval for its Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is asking the County to move the UGB to include approximately 3 sq. miles in the urban side and which is now on the rural side. The development - to be known as Long Savannah Plantation - is close to the intersection of Bees Ferry Road and Savannah Highway, and very close to the County's northern border.

A long and complex hearing
The hearing was long and the plans full of complexities. The County Planning Staff opposed the development. Amongst other things, it thought that insufficient evidence had been presented to meet the legal test to allow the movement of the UGB. But Staff also thought the project should be considered again in the light of the new Comprehensive Plan, work on which is scheduled to begin in July 2007. Prior to the conclusion of the meeting, the Chairman of the Planning Commission asked the attorneys for Red Top and the Developer whether the parties were prepared to meet and see if they could come to some compromise. They agreed and the developer agreed to submit a new proposal within 60 days.

Two main issues - what will happen to Red Top and implication of moving the UGB?
There may have been a number of issues drawing the roughly 200 people to last night's meeting. But judging from their comments, there were two main issues - the very adverse impact on the Red Top community, and the implications of moving the UGB. Members of the Red Top community were very conspicuous in their white T-shirts and made up major part of the attendees. Many rose to speak against the development, and there would've been four or five more if not for the fact that they gave up their time, to enable their attorney to speak longer than the chairman-imposed three-minute limit.

Red Top is a long-standing African American community. One of the speakers last night was a 94 year old resident who had spent all his years there. He and others were concerned as to what would happen to the community if the development were allowed as planned. Bear Swamp Road, which cuts through Red Top would be the major link between Long Savannah and Bees Ferry Road. The developer planned to widen it to 4 lanes, a move coupled with the density of traffic arising from Long Savannah, would lead to the demise of the community in its present form, it was argued. Other roads out of the development were planned through the adjoining Hunt Club and Grand Oaks Communities, two relatively recent residential developments. But access still remained to be negotiated with the communities.

Movement of the UGB was opposed by all speakers, some because of its impact on Red Top, for others because of the broader implications. The UGB was set for a purpose - amongst other things, to preserve the rural ambience of a significant part of the County. It should not be moved to enhance the profitability of a development. To move it was a breach of faith on the part of the County.

Some notable opponents
We were not counting the number of speakers who rose to oppose the development but they probably amounted to over 20. The attorney representing Red Top spoke for some 20 minutes and was followed by Representative Brown who represents the area in the SC House of Representatives. He was followed by Mr. Herbert Fielding who was once a member of the House. Ms. Louise Maybank, Chairman of the Greenbelt Advisory Board voiced concern about the implications of moving the UGB and the impact on heritage sites such as Red Top. She also questioned the Conservation Easements planned by the developer and wondered whether they really could be called as such.

This is a very big development
Some speakers drew attention to the scale of the development and compared its size to that of the Daniel Island and Seabrook Island developments. We "guesstimated" that the revenue stemming from the sales of the 4800 residential units and the commercial properties could amount to about $1.5 billion. Taking a line through the profitability of other home builder- developers, profits could be of the order of $300 million over the project life, we thought.

Dana Beach of the SC Coastal Conservation League and Christopher Morgan of the City of Charleston were among the final speakers. Mr. Beach opposed the project but it was hard to tell this from his speech. Interestingly, the Chairman of the Commission asked at its completion as to whether he was "for or against". Mr. Morgan also opposed the development and had a list of issues that needed to be addressed

Deferment agreement precluded speakers for the development
There was only one speaker who rose in favor of the project. He was the attorney for the developer. There were probably more in attendance but their speeches were moot considering his request for a deferment and an agreement by the parties to meet and attempt some compromise.

There are considerably more hurdles over which the developer must jump before any plan is approved. Apart from another hearing before the Planning Commission, there are more public meetings, and hearings before the Finance Committee and Count Council. So any compromise that might be achieved over the next 60 days, still will not be written in stone.

Concern over compromise
We are concerned about the compromise, pushed by the Chairman, that is to be sought between the Red Top Community and the Developer. The issue is wider than just Red Top. Concern about movement of the UGB is felt by many members of the County generally. We were assured by the attorneys for Red Top that this concern will not be abandoned.

We also believe that the developer was surprised by the opposition to the scale of the development and the movement of the UGB. There was opportunity for the developer to seek deferment before the meeting last night. By waiting until after the meeting suggests surprise.

>b>Deferment will give time for reflection
A respite for 60 days will give the developer time to reflect on and amend its plans, and for the Red Top attorneys to look at more information, particularly the traffic study that has just been released. There will be more time to consider the developer's argument for movement of the UGB.

What the law states
The law (Comprehensive Plan 3.2.6) states that to change the UGB, any one of the following criteria must be met:

A. There was a significant error in the original Comprehensive Plan adoption.
B.. In adopting the Comprehensive Plan,, the County Council failed to take into account facts, projections or trends that were reasonably foreseeable to exist in the future.
C. Events, trends or facts after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan have changed the County Council's original findings made upon plan adoption
D. Events, trends or facts after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to change the character or condition of an area, making the proposed amendment necessary.

The developer claimed that Criteria D applies and justifies its request for a change in the UGB.

What the developer says.
In their presentation, County Planning staff provided some extracts from a letter written by the developer supporting its application and which relate to paragraph D above:

• "Updates the Urban Growth Boundary to the natural geographical restraints of the area as defined by a Wetland Survey….".
• "Solidification of the Plantation District by protecting it with the addition of 1149 acres of land within Long Savannah Plantation." (note: this acreage is located on the outside of the proposed UGB)
• "Passage of the half cent sales tax that provides funding for the expansion of Bees Ferry Road and the desire to extend the Glenn McConnell Parkway to the Westbridge Road Connection…."
• City of Charleston desire to create an Urban Center at the intersection of Glenn McConnell Parkway and Bees Ferry Road via a Neighborhood Gathering District defined as the West Ashley Circle, which is a Bonded Road Improvement.

We don't understand all of that stated above. But what we do understand seems to fit into what should be taking place on the urban side of an urban growth boundary. As the urban side of the UGB becomes filled with more development, as is expected, does this give grounds for moving it? We hope not.