62 homes could change Southwick’s route to Maybank

A proposed 62-home neighborhood on Johns Island could change how existing Southwick drivers reach Maybank Highway: new streets would connect Southwick and Fern Hill drives to an entrance opposite St. Johns Woods Parkway, where the applicant’s traffic consultants recommend a stoplight.⁠[1][2]

Charleston planning staff recommended approval of the zoning and subdivision-concept requests listed for the Oct. 21 Planning Commission meeting. The records reviewed do not establish the commission’s action or a final City Council zoning decision. This remains an account of the proposal and staff reviews—not a confirmed development approval.⁠[3][4]

Three housing numbers serve different purposes. The concept 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.⁠[1][2]

The August development guidelines require two of the project’s seven parcels to be annexed from Charleston County into the City of Charleston, South Carolina. The planned unit development covers approximately 15.61 acres between Fern Hill and Southwick drives off Maybank Highway.⁠[2][3]

The traffic study recommends the signal opposite St. Johns Woods Parkway instead of the Southwick Drive signal assumed in its no-build scenario. That is a proposed change in signal location—not a report that an existing stoplight is being moved. A major assumption underpins the design: in the study’s 2028 development scenario, 90% of traffic otherwise using Southwick to reach Maybank would divert through the new Cross Island Extension and project entrance.⁠[2]

The model 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 seconds modeled for 2025 conditions. These are intersection delays, not island-wide commute times.⁠[2]

City Traffic & 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.⁠[5]

Drainage received a more mixed assessment. The Aug. 5 stormwater review said submitted calculations did not meet required runoff-rate and volume reductions for 2-, 10- and 25-year storms. On a separate channel-capacity question, the applicant said an updated model showed no overtopping; reviewers responded that the grass channel would not contain modeled 100-year flow and requested changed dimensions. Whether these findings were resolved before the October meeting is not established in the records reviewed.⁠[5]

The same review records changes and closed concerns, too. Proposed wet detention ponds had been replaced with infiltration basins. Reviewers closed a house-runoff-routing concern after the applicant said house impervious areas would drain toward streets and the basins. Grassy rear-yard areas could still drain offsite along existing drainage patterns. Closing that routing comment was not the same as resolving the separate runoff-calculation and channel questions.⁠[5]

In an Oct. 20 letter, adjoining homeowners Alex Nosov and Alena Astakhava asked for denial or delay, saying they had not received updated stormwater materials referenced in the review responses. They also raised concern about preserving the gravel-drive access they said serves their property and is shared with 1730 Fern Hill Drive. Another commenter, George Gratzick, supported the project and its proposed stoplight and road extension.⁠[6]

The two requests have different approval paths. The Planning Commission makes a zoning recommendation to City Council, which has the final say; subdivision approvals belong to the commission itself. Staff support should not be confused with either completed action.⁠[3][4][7]