Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents push back on Nexton/Creekside annexation; developer proposes conservation subdivision approach
Summary
At a public hearing on a proposed Nexton/Creekside annexation and rezoning, the applicant outlined buffers, voluntary school impact fees and land donation for a public safety site; multiple residents urged enforceable protections for traffic, flooding, wetlands, schools and rural character.
An applicant presenting a proposed annexation and rezoning for the Creekside/Nexton area updated the Somerville Town Council on revisions to a development plan and described a conservation subdivision/open‑space approach intended to preserve buffers, wetlands and rural character.
The applicant said the proposal would not annex land outside the property owned by the company, would not change existing residents’ county residency or school impact zones, and includes a voluntary school impact fee (cited as $1,850 per new home under an agreement with Berkeley County school officials). He also said the developer would donate land for a future fire or police station and proposed enhanced buffers along Wild Game Road and Sheep Island Road to limit the visibility of future homes and protect adjacent residences.
Multiple residents spoke during the public hearing and voiced opposition or concerns. Alvin Lumpkin Jr., who lives near Sheep Island and Waugeen roads, said residents accept growth but want "smart, responsible growth" with enforceable safeguards and asked the council to require caps on residential density, permanent protected buffers around churches and cemeteries, road improvements and traffic mitigation completed before homes are occupied, and expanded emergency services and evacuation capacity prior to increased population.
Bernie Mazek, representing a multi‑generation landowning family, asked the council to preserve existing access (Woodrow Road) and warned about impacts to environmentally sensitive wetlands and potential flooding. Other residents, including Mark Smith and Brian Ambrose, cited traffic congestion on Highway 176 and Highway 16, school capacity concerns, and harm to the rural character of New Hope. Peter Wallace, chair of the planning committee, offered thanks for UDO revisions and supportive comments for clearer procedures.
Council did not take a vote on the annexation or rezoning at the meeting; the mayor invited the applicant to hold wider public meetings with town and county staff and to revise the proposal. Several residents explicitly requested "clear, enforceable conditions" be tied to any approval and urged delaying irreversible actions until mitigation and infrastructure commitments are secured.
