Subscribe to Registered Statements From Forum Participants
Get registered statements in your RSS reader or emailed to you as a daily digest.
A statement is registered if it is claimed, verified and civil:
- It is claimed if its author has claimed the statement by signing in before or shortly after submitting the statement.
- It is verified if it is claimed and its author has provided their street address in their registration and verified their email address by clicking the verification link emailed by Open Town Hall.
- It is civil if it is verified and it meets the guidelines for civility.
If any of these conditions are not met, then the statement is unregistered.
Statements are emailed at most once per day (in the morning).
Check out some recent Registered Statements from forum participants
Gray Smith inside Town Limits October 12, 2021, 12:33 PM
Name Gray Smith
Do you have comments regarding the consideration of Refined Local Concepts and Project Enhancements for the William Hilton Parkway Gateway Corridor? The other commenters have once again enumerated ALL of the reasons why the SCDOT proposed "Preferred Alternative" is a total disaster that would irreversibly scar the entrance to Hilton Head Island. It is totally out of scale for a 12 mile by 5 mile barrier Island, that is unique across all of the East Coast, and cherished by both its Residents, and its many annual Visitors alike.
As you well know, there are in excess of 7,000 of your current constituents who have made the effort to voice their opposition to this ill-conceived, "pave Paradise" plan as proposed by SCDOT. In addition, the poll that the resident of Port Royal Plantation conducted among his PRP neighbors, resulted in showing that 90% of the residents of that beautiful area of Hilton Head, are OPPOSED to the SCDOT debacle. Those 2 community responses in aggregate, ought to have made it clear to you that the vast majority of your Constituents DO NOT want the entrance to our Island, including the technically separate Hog Island and Jenkins Island, destroyed by the construction of 8 lanes (3 traffic and at least one shoulder lane)of a giant aircraft carrier-like, monolithic bridge structure that would bury much of Pinckney Island, including the present boat launch as a start. The continuation onto the Island of those 8 to 11 lanes (including turn lanes and merge lanes at numerous intersections, will result in the destruction of literally thousands of trees that are now very close to the current roadway.
The worsening of an already acute safety situation along these first 3 miles onto the Island, and the fact that SCDOT has NEVER provided you with ANY proof that their gargantuan project will actually solve any congestion problems, are 2 additional very pressing reasons why you should reject the SCDOT proposal, on its complete and multi-faceted lack of merit.
Here's the steps that I would take coming out of the Special Meeting today, if I was sitting there with you on the Hilton Head Town Council:
1. Tell the SCDOT that you are rejecting their proposal, on the basis of all of the fatal flaws that have been pointed out by yourselves and others who have studied the proposal.
2. Tell them that if they would like to replace the one bridge section that they deem to need replacement, with another bridge at the same location and of the same width and scale, by all means do that.
3. Work with the Town Traffic Department, the counter-party in Bluffton, the County, and the State, to implement a state-of-the-art Traffic Light Synchronization and Real-Time Computerized Sequencing System, from Buchwalter Parkway in Bluffton through to the entire Island. Do this before ANY concrete is poured, as in immediately...the first step.
4. Hire that Independent Traffic Engineering Firm that we have been urging all levels of local government to hire for 3 years. Task them with coming up with their own independent preferred solution, and, through the use of computerized modeling, compare the anticipated traffic flow characteristics of their solution, with all of the others that have been proposed, including the SCDOT one. You might stipulate that any plan proposed must include a direct flow link between the bridges and the Cross Island Parkway.
5. As Senator Davis has already assured us that the funding for the project will be there, when the RIGHT Project is proposed, the Independent Traffic Consulting firm should be allowed to take as much time as necessary to do the planning job right.
6. When the final plan emerges, one that preserves the ecology and natural beauty of the entrance to our Island; minimizes the environmental impact; minimizes the proliferation of concrete all over the waterways, Hog Island; Jenkins Island; and Hilton Head Island; one that ENHANCES the safety of the corridor rather than makes it more dangerous; and finally one that has been shown to actually reduce the traffic congestion during the 3 key times when it is a problem...then, and only then, accept and proceed with a project that EVERYONE will be happy with and proud of.
Please don't be reticent to tell SCDOT their plan is UNACCEPTABLE as it stands. Instead, look to serve the Residents who are your Constituents, and those visitors who love this Island and its unique character, and keep bolstering our local economy by returning to it year after year. It is within your purview to insist on a 278 Corridor entrance to Hilton Head Island that compliments the Beauty of our Island, rather than the current proposal that is SO wrong in SO many aspects. Thank you - Gray
Coalition of Island Neighbors inside Town Limits October 12, 2021, 11:58 AM
Name Coalition of Island Neighbors
Do you have comments regarding the consideration of Refined Local Concepts and Project Enhancements for the William Hilton Parkway Gateway Corridor? There is no staff report and there are no presentation materials available on the Town website as of this moment, so COIN is not able to provide analysis of any report or presentation which may be made. We recommend that the Town Council provide adequate time and opportunity for the community to comment on any reports, presentations, or other materials shared with the Town Council prior to or during the October 12th special meeting before the Town Council takes any action on the SCDOT proposal for the SCDOT 278 Corridor/William Hilton Parkway Gateway Corridor project. Until that occurs, we incorporate by reference our previous comments on the SCDOT "Recommended Preferred Alternative" which is based on a flawed traffic model and which has been rejected as a complete failure by the community. We also incorporate by reference our previous comments on the last presentations by MKSK.
The "William Hilton Parkway Gateway Project" is a once-in-a-lifetime project and will impact Hilton Head Island for decades to come. A decision of this magnitude must not be based on a flawed traffic model, inaccurate assumptions, disrespect for the Historic Gullah community of Stoney, incomplete data, lack of end-to-end performance metrics, and limited cost estimates. Pursuit of excellence demands a higher level of performance and the community is calling for that to be delivered.
Ashleigh Phillips inside Town Limits October 12, 2021, 11:30 AM
Name Ashleigh Phillips
Do you have comments regarding the consideration of Refined Local Concepts and Project Enhancements for the William Hilton Parkway Gateway Corridor? I only have a few words to share, as I have written letters to the Mayor, Town Manager and all Town Council Members and Senator Tom Davis. Only three saw fit to acknowledge me and as a resident and tax paying citizen of Hilton Head Island, I find that unacceptable. I find it unacceptable for many reasons, but with the enormity and permanent impact that the 278 corridor project will have on our paradise island, I want to know the stance each council member. I want to know who is working for us and who is working against us. There are almost 7000 people on this island who oppose the current preferred alternative by SCDOT. More studies must be done before a permanent structure is built that will not solve a traffic flow problem. Listen to our voices. Listen to our opposition. Remember, you work for us and we vote.
Steven Baer inside Town Limits October 12, 2021, 11:16 AM
Name Steven Baer
Do you have comments regarding the consideration of Refined Local Concepts and Project Enhancements for the William Hilton Parkway Gateway Corridor? October 12, 2021
Comments to Town Council of Hilton Head Island:
There are now 7000 people very unhappy with SCDOT’s plans, and the current direction of this project. The number rises with each new revelation.
There is no sign that this project is under control. A key unrecognized factor is that it is the combination of traffic lights with worker and tourist peaks that is causing our congestion problem, not the bridges.
Also, sample measurements show that the peak traffic wanting to go to the Cross Island Parkway (CIP) is approaching 60%. BUT, efficient links to the CIP are outside the project scope. None of this has been sufficiently recognized or dealt with.
An Independent Engineering Review is urgently needed to help quantitatively evaluate our options using metrics such as: end-to-end traffic throughput, safety, environmental and community impacts.
There are many options on the table including: Repair 1 span and the lights; 4 lanes to Cross Island and local 278 with synchronized lights; SCDOT 6 lanes to Spanish Wells with, 4 traffic lights, complex u turns; 3/2 bridges; New bridges; Parallel roads; Bypass; Overpass, Underpass; and others, including various combinations of these.
MKSK and HDR have spent almost $250,000 and a year trying to sort this out, but cannot prove they have done so successfully, or ever will. How much longer should taxpayers pay for this, while postponing the detailed planning required?
On Sept. 20, 2021, after MKSK’s slides became available, I sent you a detailed analysis of their Sept. 13, 2021 presentation. An excerpt is shown at the end of these comments.
On October 8, 2021, five of us sent you a copy of a letter to Beaufort County Council indicating major problems with the County’s oversight and tactics regarding Corridor planning. Those include using political means to impede the Town’s effort to acquire quantitative data.
There are many things wrong with this project including incomplete Scope, questionable forecasts, lack of end-to-end quantitative analysis, lack of proof that any plan will solve the problem, and political meddling. You have the power to deal with and repair all of this.
I think that will actually speed up the project, since it will repair the many logical gaps that exist now that might stall it in later proceedings.
Your first and most important task is to use Independent consultants with the proper tools and expertise who can properly evaluate the end-to-end traffic flows, costs and impacts of the various proposals in front of us. Do not listen to people pushing a particular plan, especially if they say they have the only good plan. They have no real proof. Their plan may be better or worse than other alternatives. All plans should be subject to the same independent, quantitative, evaluations and comparisons.
If you or a loved one required treatment for a complex medical problem, would you want it provided the same way that Route 278 Corridor planning is being handled today?
7000 people have indicated that they want an Expert “Mayo Clinic” type solution, not the incomplete, politicized treatment without X-rays or MRI’s we are now receiving.
Steven Baer (for 7000 petition signers)
Synopsis of Comments on MKSK’s September 13, 2021 Presentation
MKSK seems to have addressed comments from some audiences, while missing quantitative traffic measurement, other community concerns, CIP connectivity, forecast and other issues. This reminds me of someone getting one side of a Rubik’s cube correct and ignoring all the other sides. More specifically (MKSK Slide # shown):
1. The needed forecast analysis has not been done. (62) The Forecast growth factor (2018- 2045) used is 1.384 - the same as SCDOT’s assumption. This takes no account of the causes, actual growth, time of day, length and possible modulating factors behind the growth.
2. How can travel speed be effectively limited and enforced? (40)
3. Efficient CIP and Local 278 Links Ignored (42) – While this slide shows the study area including these links, they are not treated in the later slides. Fig. 5 attached (from 7/18/21 Comments to SCDOT) shows some of the problem areas. Ignoring these will result in delay, extra costs, and the possibility that the wrong plan may be chosen.
4. What is the efficiency/throughput of the signalized intersection at WH? (53, 57) What does this add to the problem in 5 below?
5. What is the efficiency/throughput of the combined traffic signals and intersections at Squire Pope and Spanish Wells? (64, 67, 70) Each of these lights, no matter how well designed, has a throughput limited by startup, and clearance time, as well as cross traffic times. (See Figure 3.2 attached from the FHWA manual.) Two close signals in tandem, no matter how well synchronized, have additional throughput constraints. This is an extremely complex problem, best suited to Simulation Analysis. (An example of the complexity of this issue is shown by Reference 1.)
Why is this so Important? As the throughput efficiency goes down, the capacity of an extra lane may be completely eaten up. My very rough calculations last year show 50-60% throughput, even with synchronization, so we may be near a tipping point. That means that all the cost, grief and impacts of wider bridges and lanes may be wasted. There is no sign that we understand this sufficiently to risk $300 million.
6. Getting around the traffic lights. There are some real questions that have never been sufficiently looked at:
• If most of the bridge traffic flow is to/from the CIP, why route it through Stoney?
• If trying to route it through Stoney, why impede it with traffic lights?
• There are several ways of tackling thus that can be sorted out in the following table. None of these have ever been quantitatively analyzed to the point that we can properly understand and compare them.
7. Who pays for all the trails and parks? How much? (52, 53)
8. The Plan still takes significant ROW from Stoney (58-60) Existing ROW = 78’ SCDOT = 130’ MKSK = 118’
9. How do you keep pedestrians and bikers from using the WH traffic light to travel between the 2 multi-use trail systems? (54, 57)
This is outrageous, given this is a $300 million project, which will grow even more when the missing parts are discovered and added.
Jessie White outside Town Limits October 12, 2021, 10:19 AM
Name Jessie White
Do you have comments regarding the consideration of Refined Local Concepts and Project Enhancements for the William Hilton Parkway Gateway Corridor? Dear Town Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on behalf of the Coastal Conservation League. My name is Jessie White and I’m the Conservation League’s South Coast Office Director.
We are grateful for the Town’s wise decision in bringing on consultants MKSK to identify creative, comprehensive solutions with a focus on planning a community-oriented gateway onto the island that properly recognizes the historical and cultural significance of native islander communities like Stoney. We commend MKSK’s study of the road corridor project and believe many of their recommendations should be incorporated into the final project design, particularly narrower lane widths and wider bike/ped pathways that are sufficiently setback and buffered from the road. However, these recommendations cannot make up for the core failures infecting SCDOT’s preferred alternative for the William Hilton Parkway/US 278 Corridor.
Based on our analysis and expert traffic engineer’s report, moving forward with SCDOT’s proposal will not address the stated project purpose of relieving traffic congestion in the corridor. We are deeply disappointed that the proposal involves widening the roadway from four to six lanes. Adding more lanes will not improve the flow of traffic, and the wider road will be more harmful to the environment and island communities. Moreover, it is precisely these roadway “improvements” over time that have led to the destruction of the thriving center of culture, community, and prosperity that once defined Stoney.
There is no doubt that the existing bridge over Mackay Creek is structurally deficient and must be replaced. We supported Beaufort County’s 2018 penny sales tax, which raised matching money for the bridge replacement and other improvements, seizing an important opportunity to make the project area more friendly to drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, and nearby residents. Unfortunately, SCDOT’s proposal does not do enough to accomplish these goals. Instead, SCDOT’s proposal will result in further significant adverse impacts to Stoney without providing any meaningful community mitigation, will not address traffic congestion in the corridor, and will result in significant long-term consequences to growth management and traffic patterns on the island as a whole.
The scope of the project study area was too narrowly defined.
SCDOT artificially terminated the study area at Spanish Wells Road, which fails to incorporate a full understanding of how traffic flows through the corridor and onto significant road connections such as the Cross Island Parkway.
Our study of data collected by SCDOT shows that there are points of congestion outside of the project study area drawn by SCDOT—both to the south and north—that are contributing to the congestion in this area. Our study indicates its predominately commuters moving on and off island for work that creates gridlock. In addition, SCDOT’s analysis did not factor in the removal of the toll on Cross Island Parkway, which will significantly affect how traffic moves on and off the island. Indeed, we understand traffic counts since the opening of the Cross Island Parkway have already indicated a substantial shift in traffic patterns.
The underlying data and assumptions are flawed.
SCDOT’s underlying data and assumptions are flawed because they fail to account for the effect of traffic lights on traffic moving through the corridor and instead project an unsubstantiated growth rate to justify additional lanes.
Real-time traffic data from 2019 demonstrates that AM/PM peak rush hour traffic is caused by commuters. Meaningful, comprehensive solutions to this issue exist such as van pools, flexible work hours, temporary limitations on turn movements, investment in public transit and workforce housing; however, such solutions were summarily dismissed by SCDOT.
Without addressing these core deficiencies, it is impossible for SCDOT’s proposal to make any real difference in how traffic flows through the corridor, let alone provide meaningful changes to address the true causes of congestion.
Taken together, SCDOT has provided an overly simplistic approach that does not comprehend existing conditions and will not solve congestion issues through the corridor,
Instead, SCDOT’s insular approach will likely lead to additional long-term traffic problems on arterial road networks on the island, on top of introducing unnecessary amounts of new pavement and further encroaching into the already burdened Stoney community. In light of the overall project scale and the magnitude of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to valuable community, cultural, and environmental resources, we continue to believe that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be conducted, and more holistic solutions should be explored.
Given the significant public investment in time, resources, and taxpayer funds associated with this road project, we urge you to take seriously the fundamental flaws in SCDOT’s analysis. Town Council should come together to unanimously insist that the project scope be broadened to include the whole corridor and more accurate traffic patterns, and, at a minimum, that MKSK’s recommendations are incorporated in the final project.
Thank you for your consideration of these important issues.
Tom Sharp inside Town Limits October 11, 2021, 4:10 PM
Name Tom Sharp
Do you have comments regarding the consideration of Refined Local Concepts and Project Enhancements for the William Hilton Parkway Gateway Corridor? T. Sharp Private Citizen notes to Council 10-11-21 concerning Gateway Corridor project
Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. Due to the 3 minute citizen comment limit I will dispense with the platitudes and get right a very frank message with due respect.
Again, we come to the point of muddling along on the Gateway Corridor project. This is disappointing due to the huge impact this highway will have on our island’s future. SCDOT Secretary Hall is patently waiting for some direction. Last week, she also made it clear that funding is not an issue.
The bridges portion is manageable with some serious value engineering. There is community support for a build “three lanes and drive two” for overall reduction in size.
Stoney Preferred Option is totally unsafe.
The Stone section on the other hand is a safety disaster. The preferred alternative even with its ensuing band aids continues to be horribly unsafe for both residents and motorists. Why?
1. 6 - 10 lanes of pavement
2. 3 complex intersections within 4/10 of a mile
3. Actual operating traffic speeds of 50-60 mph
4. 22 driveway access points
5. Double U-turns lanes with lane weaving maneuvers to exit – twice in ½ mile !!!!
This unsafe design does not meet most states’ DOT safety design standards. I would not have approved this alternative when I was Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Transportation. My Chief Engineer and his design team would not have considered the design – unsafe for the motoring public and neighboring residents.
Additionally, this unsafe design does not meet the original funding objectives of State infrastructure Bank. To remind you,
1. eliminate congestion and
2. increase safety.
So concerning the congestion relief requirement, SCDOT has written that they are unable to determine a Level of Service (LOS) for this ½ mile section. This is a very bad indicator of highway design. So the funding requirement was not met. Problem? Maybe.
And concerning the safety improvement requirement you know that historically, this ½ mile stretch of highway accounts for 10% of accidents, injury, vehicle deaths for whole island. This is based on two intersections, now we have three intersections with increase traffic. I will let you follow the trend and make your own conclusions. It was suggested recently that this stretch of highway may be known as the Congested Collision Corridor. I hope this is not the case.
The Stoney Overpass Safe Option Defined.
Since no one on the island is comfortable with this very dangerous intersection design, what option do you have? There is ONE very viable and safe option – Stoney Overpass Safe Option
The safest transportation design and community friendly design is a Stoney Overpass option which allows continuous free flow of traffic from the Moss Creek intersection to the Cross Island parkway. Imagine this as the final phase of the Cross Island Parkway being extended off island to Moss Creek. Imagine, yes imagine we have an example right here on the island.
Let’s quickly define the Stoney Crossover Safe Option design:
1. Two main thru traffic lanes each way, four lanes TOTAL. This allows for the safe movement of the 90 % of the traffic which does not stop between Moss Creek and the Cross Island. This is your primary traffic movement. Design to it.
2. One - three lane overpass between Squire Pope and Spanish Wells. Two traffic lanes and one bike /ped lane.
3. Overpass constructed on town owned land – three options exist where the town owns land on both sides of 278.
4. Two parallel local roads to manage local traffic with safe access to 278.
5. The two local traffic roads can be built of 85-90% on Town owned land – limited disruption.
Preliminary engineering Design of the Stoney Crossover Option.
You are aware that limited to no real engineering work was completed by SCDOT and MKSK on a Stoney Overpass Option. We heard “inclines too long, too much land required, too expensive”, etc. HDR in their independent study said I quote:
“SCDOT had limited information on concepts that allowed for free flow movement of US 278. Concepts include grade-separated interchanges at Spanish Wells and at Squire Pope…... Additional information, to include estimated cost and LOS, should be provided by SCDOT to further document the process ………( of evaluating free flow traffic design) ”
The big question is of course: Why did the Town and County not follow up on this study recommendation???
The County Council and Town Council need to immediately re-engage HDR to complete two actions:
1. to complete the proper preliminary engineering design study of feasibility, cost, and Level of Service (LOS) of The Stoney Overpass Safe Option.
2. Revisit the traffic growth projections based on very recent analysis which suggests traffic growth projections have been grossly overstated. This analysis suggest initially that two lanes each way can provide a Level of Service of C or D during peak traffic and off peak a Level of Service B. The Town should analyze and verify this finding.
And finally, as far as the Stoney Community is concerned, The Stoney Overpass Safe Option provides for vast community improvement rather than just “mediation” and a plague which references “the once thriving Stoney community …”. How?
1. Increase land value by providing local road access private land for future development
2. Maintain land value for residents fronting the corridor due to safe access on local roads
3. Increase traffic safety for Stoney residents along the corridor
4. Provide business development opportunities with a Gullah Heritage Park, cultural festival, handicraft sales.
Respectfully and proactively submitted.
Bob Soltys inside Town Limits October 11, 2021, 3:12 PM
Name Bob Soltys
Do you have comments regarding the consideration of Refined Local Concepts and Project Enhancements for the William Hilton Parkway Gateway Corridor? Hilton Head Town Council: Sometime soon you will be making a final decision about the Gateway Corridor Project (GCP), a decision that has the potential to dramatically change our island. You have received recommendations and proposals from SCDOT, town staff, MKSK, and others. However, except for a few HHI residents that spoke for 3 minutes at 2-3 public town meetings, you have not heard from the vast majority of HHI residents, the people who elected you and who you report to. Nor, have you asked us for our opinion.
As such, a number of us in Port Royal Plantation (PRP) are concerned and are taking action. As a start we have posted a question on Nextdoor asking the PRP subscribers where they stand on the project. Do they support it or not. The intent is to provide this information to you to allow you to make a more fully informed decision when the time comes to cast your final “vote”* on the project.
Here is an abbreviated version of what we posted:
As a HHI resident, it is important that your town council knows where you stand regarding the GCP. Either you support the project as it is currently proposed or you do not. There are three choices:
1. Support 3 lane bridges on & off the island
2. Support replacing the one (of four) 2 lane bridge that is deteriorating and extending the useful life of the other 3 bridges for 35 years through routine maintenance.
3. Have no preference or opinion.
You only need to reply with a number: 1, 2 or 3. Given the number of anticipated replies, any additional comments you make will not be acknowledged.
To date we have 63 replies. Of those, 8 support #1 (3 lane bridges) and 55 support # 2 (2 lane bridges); a ratio of 7:1 in support of #2. Assuming that trend continues, it says that 90% of PRP landowners are not in favor of the current plan to replace our existing two lane bridges with three with lane bridges. It is also reasonable to assume that, if it were possible for us to ask the entire population of HHI where they stand, we would learn that the majority are not in favor of the current plan.
It is easy to challenge how we came to this assumption. Rather than do that, perhaps the council might see fit to ask their constituents how they feel, and how they would like you to “vote”*.
It should also be noted that when the 2019 penny referendum was passed the intent was, “to fund important projects to improve our local roadways and bridges.” $80M was to be allocated toward traffic improvements and bridge reconstruction on US278 near Hilton Head Island, $30M to be allocated toward US21 corridor improvements on Lady’s Island, and $10M to be allocated toward the installation of sidewalks and pathways throughout the county. This has now morphed into a $300 million project with a much wider scope. Now that these specifics have been established, HHI residents should have an opportunity to voice their opinions on whether they still support it or not. No one is disputing the need for bridge replacement. The issue is that the scope & cost of the project has expanded well beyond the original intent for the penny referendum.
Resident, PRP HHI
* Based on recent statements by various individuals, the extent of the Town Council’s authority is in question. We are hopefully that the town will ultimately have the power to reject any proposal that includes 3 lane bridges if it decides that is in the best interests of HHI residents.
Name not shown outside Town Limits October 11, 2021, 10:31 AM
Name peter stephenson
Do you have comments regarding the 15 Wimbledon, DRB-002231-2021, agenda item? Consideration should be given to protecting the natural area adjacent to the lagoon on the South side of the proposed development. This year and in previous years it has been a nesting site for 2 pairs of Blue Herons, 5 pairs of Anhingas and a roosting area for as many as 25 White Ibis. In addition 2 alligators and numerous turtles can be found in the lagoon.
A 20 foot corridor seems insufficient to maintain this wild life sanctuary and I feel we should make modifications to the proposed plan to accomodate this wild life area.
I also strongly support not destroying the Osprey nest located opposite the entrance to the Island Club Resort
Name not shown inside Town Limits October 10, 2021, 6:13 PM
Name Theresa Lee
Do you have comments regarding the 15 Wimbledon, DRB-002231-2021, agenda item? I ask the town to please reconsider this large development for many reasons some of which include:
Safety - Can Folly Field Road safety handle this traffic? In addition to traffic in the neighborhoods it supports it is the truck route for Port Royal. Golf carts and Mokes frequently use Folly Field Road. Bikers do as well. The town's trolley makes many stops along Folly Field Road. Pedestrians cross Folly Field road to get to the beach. With this development hundreds of additional cars will be added daily to the mix. During the busy tourist season ( which seems to get longer each year) that combination will become deadly at some point.
Capacity - Folly Field Beach Park and Islander Beach Park are at capacity already. They simply cannot handle hundreds of more beach goers each day. I understand there is a move already to close Island Beach Park to nonresidents. If that happens where will these time share tourists go each day??
Quality of life for Hilton Head residents - I ask if additional time shares are consistent with the long term vision we have for our island?
Shawn Zink inside Town Limits October 7, 2021, 2:25 PM
Name Shawn Zink
Do you have comments regarding the 15 Wimbledon, DRB-002231-2021, agenda item? I have plenty of issues with this development starting with the zoning change that no one in the FF community wanted. The access off of Folly Field Road will oversaturate the traffic in this area. There has not been any "official" traffic study done to access what this will do to our already overburdened road. Has SCDOT voiced any concerns? 15 Wimbledon Court is the address of this property and access should be from the street address via Wimbledon Court. It's convenient that when it was (and still is) a Port Royal Property that they did not want anyone to access the property via Folly Field road but only through Wimbledon Court. There was a fence that prevented that all along Folly Field until Hurricane Matthew. The main entry point they are planning will to close to the owners of 70 and 72 Folly Field Road to leave their property safely.
They state that the buildings will be 3 and 4 story structures with under building parking. That would make them 4 and 5 story buildings that do not esthetically blend in with the surrounding Folly Field Community. I want to make it clear that the parking area constitutes as level as well as the dwelling levels. There are no 5 story buildings lining Folly Field Road, but if this plan is approved, there will be 3-5 story building on Folly Field Road.
As far as parking, +/-221 parking spaces for 166 units does not seem reasonable as timeshares at Island Club have stated that parking is the biggest issue for them as one space per unit is not sufficient. Vacationers do not only arrive in one vehicle in this day and age. You also need parking for the workers that will be working there as well which even tightens the parking situation. The leisure path on Folly Field Road is utilized daily by infants to senior citizens, walking, running, and bicycling. There are already numerous safety concerns due to Electric Bicycles, Electric Scooters and unauthorized Golf Carts on the path. My spouse alone has been hit twice by cars in the Folly Field Area by distracted drivers that do not know the area.
Lastly, has anyone asked any of the utilities if the infrastructure for a previously zoned recreational property is sufficient to support 166 units plus amenities of this Timeshare Resort? As a member of the Folly Field Community I can say I feel Sewer and Water will definitely be impacted as it is over-stressed at times now.