Is Bluffton’s zombie road project rising again? Parkway connection may be on the table

The Town of Bluffton may be reviving an unpopular road extension project six months after the county’s leadership said it wouldn’t support it by eliminating the needed funding for the initiative.

Tuesday evening, there may be a discussion at town council about annexing land in the project’s area. The 64 acres of property, in two parcels, from the Grande Oaks community and upzoning them to include commercial space. However, plans included in the meeting’s agenda packet include a future map of the town. In the map, an infamous, uncompleted stretch of Bluffton Parkway is seen snaking through the two parcels.

When Bluffton Parkway reaches Buckwalter Parkway, the road splits off, leaving motorists to briefly ride along Buckwalter before returning to Bluffton Parkway about one mile later. The Bluffton Parkway Phase 5B would make it so that Bluffton Parkway is continuous, adding 2.5 miles of road to connect the two pieces. Many residents of area neighborhoods are strongly against the realignment often citing wildlife and increased traffic as their chief concerns.

Opponents of the realignment 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.

But the town is adamant they are not considering 5B. The alignment of the road shown in the future maps isn’t what the 5B phase laid out. However, the effect is similar. The land would be purchased and eventually developed to connect the two ends of the parkway creating the “Future Bluffton Parkway.”

The annexation of the parcels won’t cost the town any money, according to the agenda documents.

Bluffton Town Manager Stephen Steese did not return phone calls for comment Monday.

5B was last taken up by Beaufort County, but the council decided unequivocally that they would not support the project. “We’re going to remove the county from any use of county funds toward discussion or study of 5B,” Council Chair Joe Passiment announced before any discussion on the issue in March.

“This is something that’s been brought up since 2006. Just because something was passed back then doesn’t mean it’s right today,” said Council Member Logan Cunningham, who represents the district where the project is focused.