Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission considers three annexation petitions; approves two and declines action on a third
Summary
At its Jan. 27 meeting the Summerville Planning Commission reviewed three annexation petitions for parcels in council district 4. The commission voted to recommend annexation for a 0.95‑acre Hershey Park LLC parcel and for a 2.77‑acre Upsher parcel; a smaller 0.48‑acre petition by Edward H. Tupper failed to advance because it was not contiguous.
The Summerville Planning Commission on Jan. 27 heard three public hearings on proposed annexations in council district 4 and took mixed action.
The commission voted to recommend annexation of a 0.95‑acre portion of TMS 136000249 (Hershey Park LLC) on Orangeburg Road and Hershey Circle to be combined with adjacent town parcels and rezoned from Dorchester County R‑2M (single‑family/manufactured) to town GB (general business). Planning staff presented the map and commissioners moved to approve; when the chair called the vote, commissioners answered “aye.”
Separately, the commission considered a petition by the trust agreement of Jane K. Upsher seeking annexation of TMS 136090049, a 2.77‑acre parcel along Central Avenue and Old Parsonage Road, with a request to zone the property GB (general business) after annexation. Edward Shepherd, speaking for the applicants, said the Upsher property was “under contract” and that no specific development plan had been finalized. After public comment, including multiple residents who said the parcel sits in the middle of an established residential neighborhood, commissioners voted and the record shows the motion to recommend annexation carried; several commissioners explained on the record they opposed the change but the motion passed and the commission forwarded the recommendation to town council.
A separate petition by Edward H. Tupper to annex TMS 136090006 (approximately 0.48 acre at 1526 Central Avenue) was discussed together with the Upsher petition because applicants sought concurrent annexation. Staff explained the smaller parcel was not itself contiguous to the town limits and could not be annexed independently; commissioners temporarily tabled that petition pending action on the Upsher parcel. After the Upsher motion, commissioners returned to the Tupper petition and concluded that because it was not contiguous it could not stand alone; the motion to approve the Tupper annexation therefore died and no recommendation was forwarded to council on that parcel.
Residents from Old Parsonage Road voiced opposition to commercial zoning in the middle of a residential area. Wayne Gibbons said the neighborhood contains “approximately 30 families” and warned that placing commercial property “in the middle of a residential neighborhood is not to our benefit.” Don Patrick and several other long‑time residents described family roots in the neighborhood stretching back generations and cited traffic and drainage concerns.
The commission’s actions represent a recommendation to town council; council must act to complete any annexation or zoning change. The record shows the commission approved the Hershey Park LLC petition and the Upsher petition (to be forwarded to council) and took no action to forward the Edward H. Tupper parcel due to noncontiguity.
