Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council demands answers from Beaufort County and SCDOT after proposed William Hilton Parkway bridge option draws fire
Summary
A Beaufort County/SCDOT proposal to advance a reduced, single‑span eastbound bridge option along William Hilton Parkway prompted strong objections from council members who raised safety, access to Pinckney Island, neighborhood impacts and construction sequencing concerns; council asked staff to transmit technical questions to the county and DOT before voting on a joint resolution.
Beaufort County and staff briefed the Town Council on a revised William Hilton Parkway project package that county staff and SCDOT presented as the feasible option within available funding. The revised package narrows the previously envisioned multimillion‑dollar corridor project to a solution that replaces the eastbound span with a single long‑span ("lifeline") structure while deferring full corridor upgrades.
Councilman DeSimone and others delivered detailed technical objections. DeSimone warned the lifeline option would remove direct access to Pinckney Island from the eastbound approach, force U‑turn maneuvers at the Windmill Harbor signal, alter emergency‑response routes, and produce design constraints that would preclude building a future westbound structure adjacent to the new span without substantial environmental and property impacts. He said he planned to vote against the town—s proposed joint resolution unless those concerns were addressed.
Other council members echoed those concerns and asked staff to request written responses from Beaufort County and SCDOT on a set of specific questions: whether the proposed alignment preserves continuous access to Pinckney Island and local neighborhood fronts; how emergency access and turnaround capacity would be preserved; the anticipated right‑of‑way and property impacts (including town‑owned parcels and potential acquisitions on Jenkins/Pygmy/Pinkney areas); and whether any grant or State Infrastructure Bank approvals depend on a broader corridor scope.
Town staff agreed to forward council—s issues to Beaufort County and SCDOT and to request detailed engineering exhibits and rationale for the selected option. Staff also noted the county had adopted a related resolution; town staff will provide a redline of changes that county staff made to the town—s suggestions and will bring a version suitable for council consideration at the next council meeting. Multiple council members said they needed DOT to address the technical questions before the town would give municipal consent or sign a joint resolution.
Councilmembers did not adopt the joint resolution at the workshop. Instead they directed the manager to ask the county to seek DOT answers to the council—s questions and to provide any granular exhibits that show property, right‑of‑way impacts, and traffic operation assumptions.
