Residents oppose Charleston Place zoning changes as developer argues townhomes reduce traffic
Loading...
Summary
Developer asked council to modify a PUD to add townhomes; neighbors raised traffic, safety and covenant concerns. Council discussed additional buffering and voted to preserve green space shown on the site plan as a maintained, undeveloped amenity.
A contested rezoning request drew a large turnout at Columbus City Council on Dec. 9, as developer Dave Erickson sought permission to modify a planned-unit development (PUD) in Charleston Place to add townhomes and adjust lot sizes.
Erickson (Tiger Creek Development) told the council his firm is proposing 93 total homes for the project — 10 more than previously approved — but said the product mix change (adding townhomes) will reduce vehicle trips per day compared with single-family lots. He presented traffic estimates and cited Institute of Transportation Engineers data; the developer said the revised plan would generate about 644 vehicle trips per day compared with about 747 if the original single-family configuration were built.
Neighbors from Charleston Place, Promenade and the adjacent communities strongly opposed the change, saying the neighborhood had been approved and marketed as single-family detached homes. Residents raised three central concerns: increased traffic and safety (especially at the Promenade and Charleston Place exits onto Highway 27), the long history of promises tied to the 2014 approvals, and the permanent governance and cost consequences of adding townhomes that would require a sub‑HOA.
Ben Sorrell and Catherine Gant, speaking for adjacent residents and homeowners associations, urged councilors to hold the developer to prior commitments and not approve a higher-density product without additional access or mitigation. Multiple speakers said construction traffic already cut through Promenade despite earlier restrictions and asked for assurances that construction access would be enforced.
Council members pressed the developer and staff on traffic modelling and buffering. Mayor Pro Tem (councilor identified in transcript as Mayor Pro Tem) described meeting with the developer about a possible additional outlet to relieve traffic and said, "I cannot support this going forward unless you can get another outlet." Erickson responded that, practically, alternative outlets were constrained by wetlands, high‑tension lines and property control, and offered a planting buffer and preservation of green space as compromise measures.
After extended public testimony and council discussion the council approved a motion to require that the green space shown on the site plan be maintained and preserved by the developer or any successor in interest in perpetuity. Related questions about a proposed 50‑foot buffer were discussed and later modified in committee; a proposal for an evergreen planted corridor was offered by the developer as an alternate measure.
No final adoption of the rezoning ordinance was recorded at this meeting; staff and the council said the matter would return for a formal vote next week with conditions and any additional technical materials.
