Summerville wants to take a breather before it sprawls itself to death

[Infinite1]

^ and "dense" or density are akin to curse words around these parts. Remember, this is the same town that institute a 14,000 SF minimum lot size a few years ago. Unitl this area get serious about regional planning, Summerville, Dorchester County, Goose Creek, Moncks Corner and Berkeley County will continue to sprawl together to form one big Suburbopolis (copyright SLG, 2006)

[digital_sandlapper]

Summerville recently commissioned a traffic study which discovered that around 8% of the 138 miles of roads around Summerville are severely congested. In 2030, after all the road projects are finished, about 29 percent of the roads will be severely congested, according to the study. On the other hand, without the projects, 42 percent of local roads would be severely congested in 2030.

Some residents said they wanted municipal officials to use the study not just to decide where to add more lanes but to manage growth. For example, if the computer model shows that a new development will overcrowd the roads, council should not approve that development.

The bummer is that I read absolutely nothing in the article about the proposed commuter rail line to downtown Charleston, or about mass transit in general for that matter.

[krazeeboi]

Dorchester County and the town of Summerville councils are proposing adequate public facilities ordinances to manage residential growth in the county. The draft ordinances would halt new residential development if developers do not invest in water, sewage or schools needed to handle their developments

[Spartan]

This is a good example of city & county cooperation, and we all know that something needs to be done to manage the growth in that part of the Charleston Metro.

[krazeeboi]

Well, as expected, the proposed ordinance is causing a bit of a stir among Summerville residents as well as homebuilders. It was the first public hearing on the county's controversial adequate public facilities ordinance, which would require developers to demonstrate that roads and schools could handle more people before a new development can be approved. A few hundred supporters argued that the ordinance as written might need work, but something needs to be done because it doesn't make sense to keep putting more people on congested roads and students in overcrowded schools. The opponents agreed that the county needs to do more to control growth. But they argued that the ordinance is not the way to do it. They also argued that if the county needs more roads and schools, it doesn't make sense to slow down building, which helps pay for new roads and schools.

[krazeeboi]

County Council gave initial approval to a six-month moratorium Monday on new residential developments around Summerville.

It's a good step in the right direction.

[Infinite1]

The adequate facilities ordinance is a bad idea. Having to "prove" that adequate roads, utilities and schools are IN PLACE prior to any development is simply stopping developement. Why, because all the roads are stressed and the schools are packed. So what is the impetus to build new ones. Typically, its a response to developement. But if development is halted until schools are built....what good reason do you have to build a school. Its a circular argument. Do you widen a road to nowhere, build a school and then allow development. Furthermore, artificially controlling the housing supply will lead to skyrocketing prices in one of the few relatively affordable areas. See Mt Pleasant for reference.

I understand what they are trying to do, but this is not the right approach.

[Spartan]

The adequate facilities ordinance is a bad idea. Having to "prove" that adequate roads, utilities and schools are IN PLACE prior to any development is simply stopping developement. Why, because all the roads are stressed and the schools are packed. So what is the impetus to build new ones. Typically, its a response to developement. But if development is halted until schools are built....what good reason do you have to build a school. Its a circular argument. Do you widen a road to nowhere, build a school and then allow development. Furthermore, artificially controlling the housing supply will lead to skyrocketing prices in one of the few relatively affordable areas. See Mt Pleasant for reference.

I understand what they are trying to do, but this is not the right approach.