Connect with us:   Subscribe to the paper  |   View the mobile edition  |   Get daily e-mail news  |   Get mobile alerts  |   Share your photos  |   Report news  |   Place an ad  |   Contact us


W. Ashley development wins initial approval

Charleston City Council sets smoking fine

The Post and Courier
Wednesday, April 9, 2008


Charleston City Council gave its initial approval Tuesday to a town-sized development of 1,600 homes, plus shops and offices, on a 287-acre West Ashley tract behind Village Green, which would be connected to a much larger development called Long Savannah.

Also Tuesday, City Council revised Charleston's smoking ordinance in response to a recent court decision, making violations of the smoking ban a civil fine of no more than $25, rather than a criminal offense with the potential for up to 30 days in jail.

Master plan

See the proposed Long Savannah development master plan -large file

The West Ashley development plan revises the second phase of Village Green and incorporates it into Long Savannah, forming a combination of more than 1,500 acres with potentially 5,000 homes and a new commercial hub on the city's western edge.

By most accounts, it could take 20 years or more to fully develop what is planned there.

Mayor Joe Riley, city planners and the Coastal Conservation League are among those who support the plans. They say roughly 1,700 acres of planned city and county park land around the developments will form a permanent edge to the suburbs, and including shops and offices in the plans will reduce the amount of traffic leaving the communities.

"We believe the community will actually enhance the West Ashley area," said Megan Desrosiers of the Coastal Conservation League.

John Ungaro of the Hickory Farms subdivision near the proposed developments told City Council members more development could make traffic unbearable.

"The Glenn McConnell (Parkway) cannot handle the traffic that is on it now, from Bees Ferry Road to (Interstate) 526," he said. "The Glenn McConnell cannot handle the traffic from Long Savannah."

The plan for the land behind Village Green, owned by HPH Properties, now goes to the city's Planning Commission, where it will be considered with the Long Savannah plan, which already has initial approval from City Council.

Both plans will return to City Council together later this year.

Councilman James Lewis voted against the HPH Properties plan, and Councilman Louis Waring was absent from the meeting Tuesday.

The changes to the city's smoking ordinance were opposed by three council members — Lewis, Tim Mallard and Deb Morinelli. Lewis and Morinelli opposed the original smoking ban, which prohibits indoor smoking in businesses with limited exceptions.

"I think it's the most ridiculous thing we've ever done," Morinelli said.

Some opponents of the ban, like council members Larry Shirley and Aubry Alexander, were pleased to see the penalties significantly reduced. Businesses that repeatedly violate the ordinance could lose their business licenses, but City Council would have the final say.

Charleston's smoking ordinance is being challenged in court. The changes are meant to make the city's ordinance more similar to a Greenville ordinance upheld by the S.C. Supreme Court.

Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@postandcourier.com.




Article tools




Latest local stories




Sponsored Links


Notice about comments:
Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.

Comments

This article has  4 comment(s)

Posted by pithy on April 9, 2008 at 1:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does the initial approval place the responsibility of building new schools and roadways to handle this "town sized" development on the developers shoulders? It should. These developers build these new sub-divisions without regard to the already over crowded schools and roadways. Do we really need more new houses?



Posted by Early on April 9, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

pithy, no they don't unfortunately. It will become a crisis before anything is done, greased palms are in the works and it doesn't matter to those folks. In other states they look at the big picture and the developer is in part responsible for the impact but not here, no not here!



Posted by losangeles on April 9, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In Los Angeles County, developers are required to build schools and roads when such large developments are proposed. The City of Santa Clarita is a good example of this. And it has some of the only decent schools in the area. What developers don't have to do is improve capacity on the freeways systems which are ground to a halt as people try to get from the suburbs to their jobs in the City of Los Angeles. If you don't include jobs in this "new" city people will continue ot have to travel to Charleston for work and the roads between Long Savannah and downtown will be gridlocked. Learn from others mistakes. Require developers to contribute to mass transit solutions before they overwhelm the exiting infrastructure.



Posted by Thomas1776 on April 9, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This will do nothing but create more of a mess in West Ashley. The developers are lobby council big time. Bet they have given many of our elected leaders some freebies under the table.

People in that area will be raving mad by the time it's to late to put a stop to it. Everyone's taxes are going to go up because of all of this. Are you not tired of over 50% of your income going to taxes. Then the taxes you have to pay from your net?

This out of control insanity has got to be stopped. And it starts with who we have elected that are not really representing us in the name of profit. Nancy Cook wants a slice of the pie and the power. She has no other reason otherwise to run for council. It's all about power and money.




(Requires free registration.)

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

Search Charleston.Net Archives for Latest News






Charleston.Net Customer Care | Subscribe to Paper, Register for email news updates, manage your online account, place a classified ad, or contact us




Charleston.net logo

Copyright © 1997 - 2008 the Evening Post Publishing Co.

Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of service, Privacy policy and our Parental consent form. (Updated 2/9/2007)