Bluffton Town Council approves annexation. Do residents fear the 5B “zombie” returning?
A proposed annexation connected to an unpopular road project passed first reading Tuesday night despite Bluffton residents bombarding town council members with concerns and opposition.
The controversy stems from a long-delayed and highly controversial roadway that would connect the two ends of Bluffton Parkway, sometimes known as Bluffton Parkway Phase 5B or 5B for short. Agenda documents for the annexation of 65 acres from the Retreat at Grande Oaks include a future land use map of Bluffton that shows a “future Bluffton Parkway,” with the realigned road shifting the signaled intersection south of where it currently sits.
Many residents of area neighborhoods have spoken out strongly against the realignment often citing wildlife and increased traffic as their chief concerns. Opponents have likened it to a zombie. No matter how often they voice their displeasure with the idea, it keeps returning. At multiple points in the past two decades, 5B has been a topic of conversation that was usually met with vitriol.
“You can continue to put stylish makeup on this pig, as you’ve been doing since 2011. But this is still the same pig looking to get fatter by stuffing it with special interest monies. Anyone with a mind can see through this one, so let’s just slaughter this pig for eternity,” said Nancy York of Rose Hill.
Also included was a 5B right-of-way donation from 2011, because it stated that developer University Investments would donate land to the town at no cost to extend Innovation Drive to Bluffton Parkway.
Blufftonians came out in droves to voice their opposition to anything that would promote the 5B realignment. But, council was not phased, insisting the annexation had nothing to do with the realignment.
“Unfortunate, you came the wrong night. We’re not talking about 5B,” said council member Fred Hamilton.
And so, the focus was on the annexation which would give the town roughly 65 acres of land, 28 of which would be commercial space. That’s down from the 32 acres that was originally proposed, according to town attorney Terry Finger.
Because the county already owns the land, Kevin Icard, Bluffton’s director of growth management, insisted that nothing is changing with the parcels. The difference being that the town will determine the parcels’ future.
“Ultimately I do believe that this annexation request is probably best for our residents. It gives us control over what goes there versus if we left it in the county,” said council member Emily Burden.
The discussion at Tuesday night’s meeting was only the first reading. The annexation will need another approving vote before it can become official. The next discussion will likely be at next month’s county council meeting on October 8.
