Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Okeetee Village topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission declines to recommend approval of Okeetee/Cherry Point village rezoning after traffic, timing and school questions
Summary
Beaufort County planning commissioners voted unanimously to deny recommending approval of a proposal to rezone 121.43 acres near Cherry Point/Highway 170 to a village place overlay, citing uncertain funding for Highway 170 improvements, unresolved intersection performance issues in the TIA, and timing concerns tied to development agreements and school siting.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Okeetee Village topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beaufort County Planning Commission members unanimously voted to deny recommending approval of a rezoning that would have changed 121.43 acres along Okeetee/Cherry Point Road from rural (T2) to a mix of T4 Neighborhood Center and T3 Neighborhood Open under a village place overlay.
Staff planner Rob (speaker 3) told the commission the item first came before the panel in October 2024 and that staff and the applicant have since provided a full traffic impact analysis (TIA) and revised regulating-plan materials. Rob said staff’s primary concerns remain the mix of transect zones and, critically, the timing and funding for off-site improvements to Highway 170 — improvements that a failed capital-project sales-tax referendum had previously been expected to help fund.
Kevin Sullivan, the county transportation planner, said the TIA is under county review and models worst-case scenarios in a two-phase approach (phase 1 and a 2035 phase 2 that includes a future school). He flagged several intersections that, under some scenarios, would operate at Level of Service E or F unless off-site improvements are in place or otherwise mitigated.
Dylan Turner, the applicant’s traffic engineer, said the team used refreshed 2024 counts and conservative assumptions (including a 3% baseline growth rate) and presented worst-case trip generation for retail-heavy uses to be precautionary. He said some local and on-site improvements would be required by SCDOT and by the applicant in order to secure certificates of occupancy.
Developer representatives described multiple plan changes in response to resident and staff comments: a reduction in proposed commercial square footage for Parcel A (from 290,000 to 260,000 sq ft), a reduction in Parcel D1 commercial to 90,000 sq ft with a contractual conversion option to residential, and a correction to school-site zoning to permit school uses. Attorney Walter Nestor explained a development agreement could be used by County Council to tie the timing of building permits or rooftops to required public improvements or to require land-use covenants restricting specific future uses.
Robert Otting, chief operating officer of the Beaufort County School District, said the district owns Parcel D1 and is under contract to swap land with the developer; he described the parcel as suitable for a future middle school but said there is no immediate funding to design or build one and that work would not start in the next five years under current plans. Applicant Richard Schwartz told commissioners he had reduced density (capping the project at 258 units), circulated a draft development agreement to residents, and updated the TIA in response to concerns.
Public comment was mixed. Several commercial real-estate professionals and nearby residents supported the village overlay as a way to create local, walkable goods and services and to provide a future middle-school site; many residents of Malin Bluff, Cherry Point and River Oaks opposed the rezoning, arguing infrastructure (roads, water, schools, stormwater) is already strained, the TIA relies on growth assumptions and other developments that increase traffic, and the county lacks a committed funding source to make the corridor improvements they say are necessary.
In deliberations commissioners focused on timing: multiple members said the school parcel was a potential public benefit but that Highway 170 improvements and other public infrastructure were not sufficiently funded or planned to support the scale of rezoning now. One commissioner summarized staff’s position: that any movement should be accompanied by a development agreement tying timing and mitigation to permitting.
Commissioner (speaker 8) moved to deny the commission’s recommendation of the rezoning ordinance; the motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous show of hands. With that vote the Planning Commission will not forward a recommendation of approval to County Council for this rezoning application.
The commission took a 10-minute recess before moving to the next item.
