Summerville Board of Architectural Review (B.A.R.) Meeting Addresses Community Concerns on Proposed Development on 500 N Main St, site of Old Hospital and Current County Services Building
Summerville, SC – The Summerville Board of Architectural Review (BAR) held an unusually contentious meeting on Tuesday October 1st, drawing significant public interest regarding the proposed development at 500 N Main St. The developer leading the project was seeking a conceptual review from the board, with no voting on approvals or demolition taking place during this meeting. This review was to offer the developer feedback on the concepts provided as they move forward with their design for a multi-phase, mixed-use project that includes a three-story county services office building, park area, new commercial buildings, open spaces, and parking spaces.
Read the full BAR Packet that includes the developer's most recent presentation.
Hearing from Public Comment
Community members were given a chance to voice their opinions, with concerns ranging from environmental impact to the preservation of the town's historical identity. Many impassioned residents came during the public comment period before the BAR before the presentation of the newest plans to express their concern. One resident, Peter Gorman, highlighted the need to protect the town’s charm, urging that "new buildings shouldn’t overshadow our heritage.”
Tommy Feagin who's an independent candidate for Dorchester County Council emphasized the Pine Trees and Azaela bushes on the property and how removal of them would be "destroying the historic district of Summerville". He later went on to question the workforce housing element of the proposal saying that if local governments subsidized housing that "they're going to send illegal immigrants in here to shoot us up...", said Feagin.
Many echoed these sentiments, calling for a balance between modern development and Summerville’s rich architectural history. Walker Smith a local resident became animated and said, "I don't with all of my heart soul and mind like the plan for 500 Main St, it's the ugliest thing I've ever seen in my life, it looks like it belongs on Hwy 17A in Mt Plastic! It's disgusting".
Former Summerville Town Councilman Bill McIntosh remarked, "It's not ready, it's not right, send it back without any debate. It puts the cart before the horse. The whole game here is demolition", referring to the old historic hospital from 1937.
Hearing from Developer Presentation
The developer, The Furman Company, presented their vision for the project, which includes a three-story office building, surface-level parking, and the creation of open spaces, including a "welcome park" at the corner of Main Street and Highway 78. They emphasized their commitment to being intentional and thoughtful in the design, aiming to foster dialogue with the community.
Current Conceptual Site Plan that the public and BAR members were commenting on:
The developer explained that initial plans to demolish the old hospital were changed after hearing feedback from residents. Instead, they plan to incorporate the historical significance of the hospital, particularly the portico of the current county services building, into the design. The developers were working closely with an arborist to save as many trees as possible.
Below is the tree study that took place of 500 N Main. Green shows trees that are considered grand trees that can't be taken down, unless they were replaced with a similarly sized tree. Red shows either unhealthy or invasive trees. Unmarked dots are trees that fall inbetween those two categories.
The developer also addressed concerns raised by Mr. Tommy Feagin about the preservation of trees, stating that an arborist care plan would be implemented to maintain the trees, contributing to the aesthetic and environmental quality of the area. During the presentation the developer's representative suggested wanting to hold additional community workshops to encourage dialogue and feedback from the community.
Hearing from BAR Members
During the feedback session from the BAR members, one member expressed dissatisfaction with the scale of the county services building, stating that it felt “massive” and out of place for Summerville, suggesting that it resembled a building from Mt. Pleasant. Despite the developer’s assurance that they had incorporated brick to match the local character, the BAR member stood firm, noting, "I can’t live with it.”
Another member found the presentation “underwhelming,” commenting that it didn’t represent the developer’s stated goals. She expressed concern about the placement of commercial buildings along the roadside, which she believed would obscure the old county services building, giving it the feel of “just another suburban shopping mall.”
A third BAR member remarked that the developer had missed the mark and seemed to have disregarded previous feedback from the board. The developer responded by noting changes made since their last presentation, including the removal of a parking garage and reducing density, though the hospital building remained a sticking point for the board.
Conclusion
The meeting ended without any formal votes. BAR members encouraged the developer to look into more traditional designs that blends into the Town better. It’s clear that the conversation around this project is far from over. Both the developers and the community will continue to engage in dialogue to ensure that any future development fits within Summerville’s character while addressing the town’s growth needs.
The board will vote on specific aspects, such as the demolition of structures, in future meetings. Stay tuned to SummervilleNews.net and our community Facebook group for the latest from Summerville Town and Dorchester County Council's to follow coverage of this issue.
Why does the article above not name the three BAR members who made the comments stated, just as it names citizens who make public comments? Who are those BAR members?