Sumter County Council denies second reading of rezoning at 3535 Broad Street after residents cite driveway and traffic concerns

The Sumter County Council on July 8 denied second reading of RZ2505, a request to rezone the rear portion of property at 3535 Broad Street to commercial, after council members and multiple residents said a proposed driveway onto Teberry Drive would harm neighborhood access and safety.

The rezoning request concerned the back half of the parcel at 3535 Broad Street, which currently contains commercial development in the front and residential zoning in the rear. Planning staff told the council the applicant could potentially create a new driveway access from Teberry Drive; neighbors and several council members said changing access patterns would increase traffic and parking impacts in adjacent residential streets.

Residents who spoke during public comment urged the council to deny the rezoning. Matthew Franklin, a resident who said he lives off Teberry, said he and a neighbor took photos of the site and asked the council to view the condition on the ground. “My neighbor and I went out last week and took a couple photos in case anybody had had a chance to go out there,” Franklin said.

Mike Sigorski, another resident, said the driveway and rezoning could be “a smoke screen for something a lot larger” once the parcel is rezoned. “Once they get that rezoned, then they can do whatever they want to build and disturb the community,” Sigorski said.

Longtime Wintergreen resident Jim Brown told the council traffic there already creates unsafe conditions: “You cannot make a legal left turn. Now, I bet you people do but that means you gotta make a left, go to the cutout, and go and then make a right.” Brown referenced a recent fatal crash in the area and said added driveways could raise local safety risks.

Joyce Prince, who said the road would run behind her house, told the council she could not imagine how a new access would “change our way of living,” and urged denial.

Council discussion referenced Article 6 of the county zoning ordinance on nonconforming uses and noted that, while the parcel’s existing access is long-standing, new driveway or road construction could trigger additional land‑use implications. Planning staff said the property has partial commercial development in front and residential zoning in back and that driveway location and septic feasibility can affect lot development.

A motion to deny second reading of RZ2505 was made and seconded; the council then approved the denial by voice vote. The motion was recorded as denying the second reading; no roll-call tally was given in the meeting record.

The council’s action leaves the parcel’s rear zoning unchanged for now. Planning staff and the applicant may return with revised access plans or a different zoning request, but no follow-up proposal was presented during the July 8 meeting.

The denial followed several other rezoning and land-use items considered earlier on the agenda; several of those were approved on first or third reading.