Beaufort County planning commission recommends denial of 121-acre Cherry Point rezoning over traffic and timing concerns

BEAUFORT COUNTY, S.C. — The Beaufort County Planning Commission on Jan. 7 recommended denial of a zoning map amendment that would have rezoned 121.43 acres near Cherry Point (Okeetee Highway) from T2 Rural to T4 Neighborhood Center and T3 Neighborhood Open with a village place type overlay.

The commission’s unanimous recommendation denies the applicant’s request to rezone the tract and forwards that recommendation to county council. Commissioners and staff said persistent uncertainties about traffic impacts on S.C. Highway 170, the absence of a funded plan for off-site road improvements and the timing of needed infrastructure improvements outweighed the revisions the developer made to the plan.

Staff and traffic engineers told the commission the updated traffic impact analysis (TIA) included new 2024 counts and considered a two-phase buildout with a worst-case Phase 2 that adds a school site. Kevin Sullivan, a county transportation planner, said the county’s review showed some intersections could produce unacceptable levels of service without major off-site improvements. Dylan Turner, traffic engineer for Kimley Horn, said the study used conservative travel estimates and that "E is about a minute to a minute and a half, and F is over a minute and a half" of average vehicle delay at a signalized intersection — a scale that, he said, indicates severe delay when intersections fall to E or F.

Why it matters

Highway 170 already carries heavy traffic in the Okatie/Cherry Point corridor and multiple speakers told the commission the road’s capacity and safety are community priorities. County staff noted that a local capital-project sales-tax referendum that could have funded improvements recently failed, leaving no clear funding source for the off-site widening and intersection changes traffic engineers say would be needed to mitigate the development’s peak impacts.

What was proposed and what changed

The applicant reduced commercial square footage in several parcels (Parcel A from 290,000 to 260,000 square feet; Parcel D1 from 125,000 to 90,000) and capped residential units at 258, with an agreed conversion mechanism where 1,000 square feet of commercial could convert to one dwelling unit (the applicant said conversion details would be in the development agreement). The applicant also revised plan details near a proposed school entrance and changed the school-site zoning to T3 Neighborhood Open (a subzone to allow school uses as a special use) after staff pointed out the earlier T3 neighborhood designation would not have permitted schools.

The school district and land swap

Representatives of the Beaufort County School District said the district is interested in the site for a future middle-school-sized parcel (the district’s chief operating officer, Robert Otting, described the district as "interested in this property"). Otting said the district’s next likely school need in the Bluffton area is a middle school and that the parcel under discussion is too small for a standard high school. He said the district currently owns a different parcel D1 on Highway 170 and the two parties have discussed a land swap; the district said any final decision about building would depend on funding and planning processes and that no construction timeline is in place.

The applicant and development agreement

The project team and applicant, including land planner Dan Kiefer (Whitmer Jones Kiefer) and applicant/owner representative Richard Schwartz, said they had engaged residents and revised the plan to reduce density and add restrictions residents requested (no lodging, no self-storage, larger buffers on some edges). Walter Nestor, attorney for the applicant, described how a development agreement between the county and owner could bind timing, off-site improvements and use restrictions in enforceable ways. Nestor called development agreements a common tool that can “require the owner within a certain period of time to record restrictive land use covenants.” The applicant also provided a draft development agreement and said some neighborhood requests were incorporated into that draft.

Staff recommendation and unresolved concerns

County staff and the county transportation planner repeatedly told commissioners that the primary unresolved issue was timing: without a funded, committed package of off-site improvements on 170 and its intersections, intersections in some modeled scenarios still fall to failing levels of service. Sullivan said some mitigation measures identified in the TIA depend on broader corridor improvements — such as converting full-movement intersections to limited-movement or "R-cut" configurations and widening 170 — that currently lack a funding source. Staff recommended the commission weigh traffic-service levels and the timing of mitigation heavily and noted many of the mitigation and timing questions would normally be addressed in a development agreement if council were to approve rezoning.

Public comment and community concerns

More than two dozen members of the public spoke. Opposition from nearby residents — including homeowners from Malin Bluff and Verdier View, who said the property’s animal uses and access have already caused local problems — was a central theme. Residents raised concerns about traffic on Highway 170, the lack of confirmed funding for off-site improvements, environmental risks to headwaters that feed the May River and trust issues based on previous development outcomes in the area. Supporters — including several local real-estate and development professionals — argued the plan would provide walkable services and a village center for several new and existing neighborhoods, contain trip-making locally and provide an appropriate location for a future middle school adjacent to Okatie Elementary.

Commission action and next steps

After discussion, a commissioner moved to recommend denial of the rezoning; the motion passed by a unanimous show of hands. The planning commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to county council (through community services and land use committee) for final decision. Staff and the applicant said a development agreement and further refinements could be considered in subsequent reviews, but multiple commissioners said the project is premature until off-site road improvements and funding commitments for the corridor are clarified.

Quotations

"E is about a minute to a minute and a half, and F is over a minute and a half," Dylan Turner, traffic engineer, Kimley Horn, said describing average vehicle delay measures used in the TIA.

"We are interested in this property," Robert Otting, chief operating officer, Beaufort County School District, said of the district’s discussions with the developer about a land swap for a future school site.

"We do it together or we don't," Richard Schwartz, applicant and owner representative, said when describing his approach to negotiating conditions with neighborhood stakeholders.

Ending

The commission’s recommendation does not itself change zoning; county council will consider the matter at a later date. If council moves to approve any rezoning, staff said a development agreement would likely be used to manage timing of development, off-site mitigation obligations and enforceable land-use restrictions.

(Reporting in this article is based solely on the Planning Commission meeting record and on public comments presented at the meeting.)