Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Newington Multifamily King Charles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors pack council chamber to oppose proposed multifamily development at Newington entrance; council offers developer chance to address safety and traffic
Summary
A proposed annexation and rezoning for an 11-acre, 180-unit apartment project at Lewton Drive and King Charles Circle in Newington drew intense opposition from residents and schools, who cited traffic, school safety and flooding concerns. Councilors asked the developer to return with mitigation measures rather than immediately deny the petition.
Neighbors, school officials and neighborhood leaders urged the Town Council on July 10 to reject an annexation and rezoning that would allow a large multifamily project at the King Charles/Lewton Drive entrance to Newington Plantation.
Why it matters: The parcel sits directly across from two elementary schools and residents warned that hundreds of additional daily vehicle trips would exacerbate existing congestion, endanger children walking or biking and strain school-bus operations. The proposal has become a flashpoint for debates about growth, neighborhood character and where higher-density housing should be sited in Summerville.
Residents and civic leaders described repeated traffic incidents at the intersection and said school drop-off and pick-up already create daily gridlock. Chad Daugherty, superintendent of Dorchester District Two Schools, told the council the corridor already serves about 1,500 students, 26 buses and that nearly 8% of pupils walk or bike, and asked for traffic impact studies and specific safety commitments for students. Several speakers described serious crashes and two past fatalities in the corridor.
Opponents included homeowners, HOA leaders and the Newington Swim Team coach. Larry Collette, HOA president, described the proposed apartments as incompatible with Newington—s single-family design and warned of safety risks to children. Multiple speakers cited the town—s comprehensive plan, which they said directs multifamily development to downtown and certain corridors rather than interior single-family neighborhoods.
The developer and representatives pushed back on some claims and said the project would go through DOT traffic review, include required road improvements if warranted and provide impact fees and parkland donations. Andy Smith and Jamie Williams, representing the developer, said the 11-acre portion the council was asked to annex was part of a larger concept and that DOT would determine needed turning lanes or signals. They said roughly 8.17 acres would be developed, not 13, and that they planned to donate roughly 23-25 acres to the town for parks and greenway connections and to pay required school impact fees.
Council reaction was mixed. Several council members acknowledged the strength of neighborhood opposition and traffic-safety concerns and said they would not support the project as currently presented. Others said they would consider allowing a first reading so the developer could return with a plan that directly addresses school safety, traffic mitigation and buffering. Council members repeatedly invited the developer to meet with neighbors and the school district and to bring a revised concept or a development agreement that commits to specific safety and infrastructure improvements.
No final rezoning or annexation vote was recorded at the meeting on this item. Council members encouraged additional community engagement, a thorough traffic analysis and more specific commitments if the developer wants the council to favor annexation and multifamily zoning.
