Planning Commission grants conceptual approval for new Fairbanks Dr. subdivision

A plan to bring a new 90-lot subdivision to Fairbanks Drive behind Governors Park received conceptual approval from the City of Charleston Planning Commission last week. The proposed 17-acre community, which is being developed by Daniel Island Riverside Developers LLC, includes both single-family detached homes and townhomes.

The project last appeared before the Planning Commission for conceptual approval on Nov. 15.

But a decision on the matter was deferred by the commission after Daniel Island Neighborhood Association President Marie Delcioppo and two residents of the nearby Oaks at Rivers Edge community expressed concerns about the plans and their frustration over a lack of communication by the developer. At the time, residents said they had not been contacted about the new development, although it sits in close proximity to their condominiums. Oaks at Rivers Edge resident Bob Farina spoke out at the Nov. 15 session about the placement of the new townhome units.

“The complication we see is that these homes have to face the road to the left, so the back of their homes—their garages, the trash removal driveway, the parking—all of that is going to be facing the pond,” said Farina. “The site plan calls for a 15-foot evergreen surrounding that, but we’re all on the second, third and fourth floor looking right over those trees.”

Commission members asked that the developer meet with the residents to discuss the plans. At the Dec. 21 meeting, Freeman Milligan, owner of F.H. Milligan Design LLC, spoke on behalf of the developer and informed the commission that they had in fact engaged with the residents as requested and had taken their concerns into consideration. The view from building six at the Oaks at Rivers Edge, which is the structure closest to the proposed development, would only show features of the new complex that are higher than 10 feet off the ground, due to a vegetative buffer, he said.

“You wouldn’t see any garages, cars or parked cars,” Milligan told the commission. “Just the top three floors of the building.”

Initially, the Oaks at Rivers Edge HOA had asked the developers to remove all eight of the proposed townhomes in the subdivision, said Farina, but they later reduced that request to four. Milligan told the commissioners that they were not able to accommodate that request, but did eliminate two of the proposed units, bringing down the total to six.

“The developer can’t afford to lose any more units, so we decided to move things around and work with it the best we could,” said Milligan.

After Milligan’s presentation, Farina noted that a few of the details had been left out. He told the commission that he had just seen the proposed changes that day and due to two members of the Oaks at Rivers Edge HOA being out of town for the holidays, they had not been able to consider the new proposal as a board.

“We have not had a chance, our board nor our owners, to participate in this,” he said. “So we cannot support this. We have to say we are against it.”

Delcioppo expressed concerns that the project did not meet “Daniel Island appropriate zoning and Architectural Review Board standards.” Lee Batchelder, zoning administrator for the City of Charleston, responded that they would be addressing those issues as city planners work through the design process with the developer.

Commissioner Angie Johnson, a Daniel Island resident, asked whether or not any consideration had been given to moving the proposed roadway separating the new development from building six at the Oaks, to provide more of a buffer between the two.

“Yes, we can do that,” responded Milligan.

The revised subdivision conceptual plan then received unanimous approval by commission members, with the condition that the road be shifted south, closer to the townhomes and away from the Oaks.

Both Johnson and her fellow Planning Commission member Harry Lesesne expressed disappointment that the new plan featuring six townhomes versus eight had not been provided to residents sooner, but they were pleased to see both parties had at least engaged with each other on the overall project.

“I am troubled that this wasn’t shared until today,” noted Johnson during the session. “That’s always a frustration when that happens....I think that obviously we have to have a fine line between them owning the property and being able to develop it and current residents over there. I think it would have been a long shot to eliminate (all eight townhomes) completely. I feel like it’s a good compromise and I do think if that if we move that street in and buffer that last building a little bit more, I’d be on board with that.”

“It’s unfortunate that the communication didn’t happen sooner, but I think what the applicant has done is what the board asked them to do at the last meeting, which is to come back with revisions and address the concerns of the neighbors,” added Lesesne.