Commission approves concept for Oaks at Georgetown Phase 3; residents ask about buffers and pump timing

The Georgetown Planning Commission on May 18 approved a concept amendment to the Oaks at Georgetown residential plan community, permitting the developer to submit a preliminary site plan for Phase 3.

Jim Ericson, a licensed civil engineer with Solutions IPM, presented the proposal on behalf of Jam GT Oaks LLC, saying the revision moves 28 townhome lots from Phase 2 into Phase 3 without increasing the overall unit count from the original 2007 RPC. Ericson described Phase 3 as roughly 41.98 acres within a 95.77‑acre project site and said the plan preserves an overall density of 7.8 dwelling units per acre (Phase 3 at 5.43 du/acre).

Ericson said the revised plan changes some lot dimensions (townhomes from 24 ft to 20 ft wide in phase 3; single‑family lots from 60 ft to 55 ft), removes rear alleyways, refines the road network after the neighboring Village of Cinderberry asked that a planned right‑of‑way connection be removed, and adds a stormwater pond and a centralized amenity area with a pool and clubhouse. He said the project will meet or exceed DNREC stormwater and erosion controls and tie into regional drainage constructed with Phase 2.

During public comment, resident Gary Hutcherson, who said he lives at the dead end of Cinder Way, asked how tree clearing and buffer distances would affect his property. Ericson estimated, from an unscaled plan, that rear lot depths are a minimum of 100 feet and suggested roughly a 50‑foot separation from the property line to new planting; he offered to provide an exact measurement after the meeting. Another resident, Scott Smith, asked when the Phase 3 pump station would be built; staff and the presenter said they did not have a firm construction date but expected the pump station to be installed as part of the land‑development engineering and recommended contacting the project engineers for details.

A commissioner moved to approve the amendment to the residential plan community concept so the applicant could pursue preliminary plan approval, and another commissioner seconded. The commission took a roll‑call vote: Commissioner Allen — yes; Commissioner Roach — yes; the chair — yes. The motion carried.

The approval allows the applicant to prepare and submit a preliminary site plan and later return for preliminary and final site plan review and engineering acceptance. The project team and staff said they will provide more detailed, scaled plans and specific measurements at those subsequent hearings.