Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Access Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission defers Buckwalter Parkway access‑management amendment after residents raise 5B/Bluffton Parkway concerns
Summary
The commission deferred an amendment to the Buckwalter Parkway access management plan to allow staff to reword a passage residents said might facilitate the previously discussed Bluffton Parkway relocation (project "5B"); staff and the MPO modeling underpin the update but residents asked for more engineering detail and wetlands analysis.
The Beaufort County Planning Commission voted to defer consideration of an amendment to the Buckwalter Parkway access management plan after residents and several commissioners said draft language could be read to facilitate a previously debated relocation of Bluffton Parkway (sometimes referenced in the meeting as project “5B”). Staff agreed to revise the wording and return with clearer diagrams.
County engineering staff explained the amendment updates the southern Buckwalter corridor and that the regional MPO model provided projected volumes used in the study. The package refines preferred signal spacing (staff cited a 2,000‑foot preferred spacing) and sketches potential future alignments and connectivity where developers are proposing new access. Kevin, Beaufort County Engineering, said the plan is intended as a corridor guidance document to help developers site access consistent with county mobility and safety goals.
Several commissioners and members of the public said the draft’s reference to a potential future Bluffton Parkway relocation alarmed residents near the corridor. One commenter requested the commission ensure the access plan “unequivocally does not facilitate or necessitate” construction of the 5B alignment. Other public speakers pointed to wetlands and stormwater constraints and urged that conceptual design, property‑owner coordination and an engineering basis be completed before any code changes.
Staff and the project applicant asked for a deferral so staff could reword the contested language; the commission accepted the request and set a return window discussed for February. Officials said the amendment will be revised to remove or clarify language that raised concerns and that further mapping and a black‑and‑white plan graphic would be provided to commissioners and the public.
Next steps: staff will revise the draft amendment language, produce clearer plan graphics and return the item to the commission; public comments requesting additional environmental and property coordination analysis will be included in the record.
