Developers propose 131‑lot subdivision on Edgefield Highway; neighbors and developers debate traffic, fencing and building-separation waiver

At a public hearing the council considered a concept plan to annex approximately 38.9 acres along Edgefield Highway, Williams Lane and Union Church Lane and to zone the property Planned Residential (PR). The concept plan proposes 131 single‑family lots (lot sizes described in the staff packet at about 5,875 to 8,375 square feet), a proposed density of about 3.37 lots per acre, roughly 7 acres of common open space, sidewalks, trails and clustered mailboxes. The developer requested a waiver to allow multi‑story buildings to be 15 feet apart (the zoning ordinance standard cited in the packet states multistory buildings require 20 feet separation), and Planning Commission recommended approval with nine conditions.

Project and conditions: Staff’s summary and the concept plan show public entrances from Edgefield Highway and Williams Lane, a required traffic study reviewed and approved by SCDOT and the city traffic consultant, a 20‑foot perimeter buffer where lots abut existing residential properties, a proposed 6‑foot solid fence on the western boundary along a gas easement, and traffic calming elements (for example, speed tables) proposed on the longer neighborhood roads. Planning Commission conditions included monument‑sign size limits, traffic‑calming measures, SCDOT review and required mitigation, revisions to the concept plan for administrative review, required recording of conditions within 180 days and potential reconfiguration of open space if a wet pond does not qualify as an amenity pond.

Public concerns and developer responses: Project representative Kurt Hanna addressed council and asked that SCDOT requirements (for left‑turn and right‑turn lanes at the Edgefield Highway egress) be determined by the traffic study and DOT, not imposed as a mandatory requirement if DOT refused approval. He also requested flexibility so that required perimeter fencing could be constructed by builders as homes are built rather than as a precondition to lot sales. Neighbors raised concerns about traffic speed and sightlines on SC‑19. Greta Robinson, who said she is the neighborhood spokesman and lives on Union Church Lane, described difficulty making left turns on Highway 19 due to speed and curves and urged strong safety measures for children and seniors in the neighborhood: “I can't tell you how many times I've come off from coming from work... I'm getting off work and I'm trying to make a left turn in a truck or trailer... there's no time for them to stop.”

Fire and building safety: Council members noted the fire marshal’s concerns about close building separation and the importance of construction materials; staff explained the separation standard derives from the city's zoning ordinance (the existing standard dates to the ordinance language adopted in 1999, per staff). The developer said most units are anticipated to be two‑story homes and noted the project had been reduced from an earlier larger plan to produce a smaller, higher‑quality development.

Outcome and next steps: Planning Commission recommended annexation, Planned Residential zoning and approval of the concept plan with conditions; council took the item up on first reading. Staff and the applicant will be required to provide a traffic study, meet the conditions listed by Planning Commission and return for subsequent proceedings as required by ordinance.