62 homes—and a different stoplight plan for Maybank

A proposed 62-home neighborhood on Johns Island comes with a traffic change reaching beyond its future residents: new streets connecting Southwick and Fern Hill drives to a Maybank Highway entrance opposite St. Johns Woods Parkway.⁠[1][2][3]

Charleston planning staff recommended approval of the PUD zoning and concept-plan requests scheduled for the Planning Commission’s Oct. 21 meeting. The commission’s decision was not established in the records reviewed for this report.⁠[1][4]

Three housing numbers serve different purposes. The concept plan shows 30 detached homes and 32 townhomes. The proposed zoning sets a ceiling of 69 dwellings. Kimley-Horn’s April 2026 draft traffic study, prepared for DRB Group, analyzes a larger scenario: 38 detached and 38 attached homes, or 76 total.⁠[2][3]

The study recommends a signal at the new entrance opposite St. Johns Woods Parkway instead of the Southwick Drive signal assumed in its no-build scenario. This is a proposed change in signal location—not a report that an existing stoplight is being moved.⁠[3]

A major assumption underpins that arrangement: in the study’s 2028 development scenario, 90% of the traffic that would otherwise use Southwick to reach Maybank would divert through the new Cross Island Extension and project entrance.⁠[3]

The draft predicts acceptable overall operations at the new signal, but not an improvement for every route compared with its no-build case. For drivers still entering Maybank directly from Southwick, it models evening side-street delay of about 59 seconds, versus about 44 seconds with the no-build Southwick signal. Both are below the roughly 385-second delay modeled for 2025 conditions. These are intersection delays, not island-wide commute times.⁠[3]

Written comments show the competing stakes. George Gratzick supported the project and its proposed stoplight. Alex Nosov and Alena Astakhava, identifying themselves as adjoining homeowners at 1726 Fern Hill Drive, asked for denial or delay until technical questions were answered. Their letter also raised concern about preserving their shared gravel-drive access.⁠[5]

The transportation review offers an important counterpoint: city Traffic and Transportation reviewers marked their Aug. 6 review “Approval” and listed “No TRC Comments.” They separately relayed a request from the mayor for an easy-to-understand diagram showing the signal, road network and Heritage driveway.⁠[6]

Drainage concerns also appear in the review history. The city’s Aug. 5 stormwater review said submitted results did not meet required runoff-rate and volume reductions for 2-, 10- and 25-year storms. It closed a separate runoff-routing concern after the applicant said house runoff would drain toward streets and infiltration basins. Whether the other August objections were resolved before Oct. 21 is not established in the records reviewed.⁠[6]

The two requests have different next steps. Zoning requests go from a Planning Commission recommendation to City Council for a second public hearing. Concept-plan approval is a separate step before submission of preliminary plats and road-construction plans.⁠[4][6]