Summerville council approves MOU with Dorchester County to advance 500 North Main redevelopment

The Summerville Town Council approved a memorandum of understanding with Dorchester County to advance redevelopment of the 500 North Main Street site after extensive public comment and council debate at its Sept. 11 meeting.

The memorandum, described by county and developer representatives as a framework for a revised “park option,” includes restrictive covenants intended to protect a veterans memorial and some historic elements of the former Dorchester County Hospital. Supporters said the agreement will bring private investment, return the site to the tax rolls and create new park space downtown; opponents said the MOU is not sufficiently binding to protect the historic building or prevent future high-density development under DMX zoning.

Dorchester County representative Jason Ward told the council the county supported the version of the plan on the agenda. “We are appreciative of the opportunity to work with town council as well as the Furman Company to come up with a project, now known as the park option,” Ward said. Developer Robert Poppleton said the Furman Company is ready to continue design work and community outreach; “We are committed to continue to listen and dialogue,” he said.

More than a dozen residents and preservation advocates urged the council to keep the entire 500 North Main property in the historic district and to pursue adaptive reuse instead of demolition. Longtime resident LeGree Walker Smith said the old hospital is part of family and town history. “The old hospital means something to me because I was born there,” he said. Preservation leaders and several speakers noted that the town’s Board of Architectural Review and the Planning Commission previously recommended denying removal of the property from the historic district.

Speakers critical of the MOU raised the legal form of the agreement. Several preservation-minded council members and residents said a memorandum of understanding and restrictive covenants are weaker than the more binding instruments — such as a memorandum of agreement or a development agreement — that could limit future uses once the site is rezoned DMX. One council member urged tabling the measure until the town could secure language that would bind future third-party owners; others said doing so would risk losing outside investment.

Hayward Hudson, who addressed the council as a property owner, urged adaptive reuse and criticized the lack of traffic and financial feasibility studies in proposals so far. “No economic feasibility studies or cost benefit analyses have been presented,” Hudson said, adding that the site currently provides the town’s only tree canopy between I-26 and downtown.

Council members debated whether the MOU and the accompanying restrictive covenants would be enforceable if the county later sold the land. Council discussion included requests for explicit legal assurances and for including the covenants in any future sale agreement. Several speakers from the developer and the county said they would include the town in future sale and contract language and that the developer would hold a community input meeting before entering the town’s design-review process.

Council amended the motion to act on the MOU together with the related second-reading item on removing the property from the historic district and then took a vote. The motion passed; at least one council member recorded opposition during the roll call.

Next steps outlined at the meeting include finalizing covenant language for inclusion in sale documents, a community input meeting by the developer before design-review submission, and continued negotiation between the town and Dorchester County over how restrictions will be applied to any future developer.