Beaufort County Council denies Cherry Point rezoning after months of opposition and traffic, environmental concerns

Bluffton — Beaufort County Council voted on March 24 to deny a rezoning request for a roughly 20‑acre parcel in the Cherry Point area, following extended public comment and a detailed presentation from the applicant and technical consultants.

Dozens of residents from Cherry Point, River Oaks and neighboring developments addressed the council in opposition, saying new upzoning would increase flooding, stormwater runoff, traffic and loss of tree canopy that supports local wildlife. "We are looking towards the future. What we see in our future are trees and rivers, not asphalt and buildings," resident Felice LaMarco told the council during the public hearing.

Speakers from the applicant team and the Beaufort County School District presented alternative plans and mitigation measures. Richard Schwartz, the applicant’s contract owner, described revisions to an earlier plan and said the submission now proposes a village‑place overlay with reduced residential density (the applicant cited a plan reduced to 258 multifamily units from a larger initial allowance) and an offer to coordinate a land swap with the Beaufort County School District to locate a potential middle school on a portion of the parcel.

Walter Nestor, land‑use counsel for the applicant, said the rezoning request follows the county’s comprehensive‑plan place‑type guidance and that the submission includes a Village Place Type regulating plan and a proposed development agreement to bind project commitments.

Dylan Turner, a traffic engineer retained by the applicant, told council the project would fund and construct several capacity and safety improvements — including widening Cherry Point Road and adding receiving lanes — and said some of the junctions the project affects would improve from a failing level of service without the proposed mitigation. He said the developer’s upfront infrastructure work could also support a future signal identified on the Highway 170 corridor plan.

School district representatives told council the district is interested in a land swap that would make a larger parcel available for a middle school; the district’s representative said the swap would give the district more suitable acreage than an existing parcel it currently holds on Highway 170.

Despite those concessions, council members and many residents said the cumulative development pressures in northern Bluffton, existing traffic and stormwater concerns, and repeated committee recommendations against the request counseled denial. The Rezoning had previously been denied by the Planning Commission and the Natural Resources Committee (committee members recorded a 6–1 vote against, with one abstention, at Natural Resources, as commenters noted).

Council discussion focused on whether to approve the upzoning only if a fully negotiated development agreement and school land‑swap were in place; staff told council that in South Carolina the development‑agreement process typically runs in parallel with rezoning, and that the county generally does not begin negotiating a development agreement in detail unless council indicates willingness to approve the rezoning.

Councilmember Alice G. Howard moved to deny the rezoning and set reasons including that the proposal "would not result in development that is adequately served by public facilities such as streets, potable water, sewer, stormwater management... schools, parks, police, fire, and emergency medical facilities" and that certain development‑code criteria were not met. The motion was seconded and carried; the ordinance seeking rezoning was denied at the March 24 meeting.

Why it matters: The Cherry Point parcel is one of the largest undeveloped tracts near northern Bluffton; council’s denial preserves the current zoning and limits immediate opportunity for denser development. Residents and school officials asked for a broader, coordinated analysis of growth and school capacity for the Bluffton area.

What’s next: The applicant may revise the plan and seek future consideration. Staff told council that if council were to indicate support in principle, staff and county attorneys would negotiate a development agreement in parallel for consideration at final reading; otherwise, there is no active development‑agreement contract binding the applicant to the commitments described in public comments.