Sumter County council denies one rezoning, advances a larger multi-parcel request to second reading

Sumter County Council on Monday rejected a request to rezone about 14.05 acres at 2144 Bridges Road but voted to advance a separate, larger rezoning request covering 10 parcels at 4520 Pinewood Road to second reading.

Helen Rudman, planning staff, told the council that RZ2524, filed by property owners Shanda Sumter and Mark Hurley, sought to reclassify two parcels from Agricultural Conservation to General Residential so manufactured homes could be placed on the southern portion. Rudman said the site lacks public sewer, the northern portion sits in a special flood hazard area, and that septic-size requirements and floodplain constraints make GR less appropriate than R15 or R9 for this location. Planning Commission recommended denial. The council opened a public hearing, heard no public comment on RZ2524, and denied the rezoning on a voice vote.

Rudman described RZ2526 as a request from 10 property owners to change 48.46 acres from Conservation Preservation (CP) to Agricultural Conservation (AC). She said the applicants’ stated aim was to permit lifetime family-conveyance subdivisions that the current CP minimum lot size (5 acres) prevents. Rudman noted the parcels sit within the 2040 comprehensive plan’s military-protection planning area and observed that Department of Defense reviewers typically object to lot sizes smaller than one unit per acre around installations; she also cited limited public road frontage and constraints from well-and-septic separation standards.

During the public hearing, residents were divided. Robert Parker, who said he initiated the application, described the request as a family conveyance to place a home for a relative. Neighbors including Janet Godin, Joy Clemens and Daniel Burpile opposed the change, citing inadequate lot sizes for septic systems, increased traffic on privately maintained dirt roads, ecosystem impacts near Manchester State Forest and the Poinsett Electronic Combat Range, and past denials. Arnold Nimrow and others supported the applicants, arguing the change would permit one house for a family member without broad neighborhood change.

Council members questioned infrastructure limits and noted only two of the 10 parcels have public road frontage, limiting market-rate subdivision. One councilor said he would support second reading but planned follow-up conversations with proponents and opponents before third reading. The motion to approve second reading of RZ2526 passed by voice vote.

What happens next: RZ2526 advances to third reading and any subsequent final vote; some council members said they will seek more information and speak with neighbors before a final decision.