Jump to content

Annexations


vicupstate

Recommended Posts

Thought I would start a new thread.  I will update with major annexations as they occur.

 

The City is currently processing several annexations in Cainhoy that total 883 acres (1.38 sq. miles).  Four 'doughnut holes' will be eliminated, including one really large one.  The large, northern-most doughnut hoie in the map is one of them. 

 

http://www.charleston-sc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/497

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 4 months later...

Thought I would start a new thread.  I will update with major annexations as they occur.

 

The City is currently processing several annexations in Cainhoy that total 883 acres (1.38 sq. miles).  Four 'doughnut holes' will be eliminated, including one really large one.  The large, northern-most doughnut hoie in the map is one of them. 

 

http://www.charleston-sc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/497

These annexations received final approval at last week's Council meeting.  This acreage is part of the larger planned Cainhoy Plantation development.  There's another unrelated 70 acre tract pending annexation approval in the Cainhoy area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...
  • 11 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Mount Pleasant annexes 400 acres and in the process establishes a northern Wando to ocean boundary between it and Awendaw.

 

Mt Pleasant annexes Bulls Bay Golf Club

 

This was interesting as well:

Mount Pleasant’s municipal boundary line now extends up Highway 17 to Awendaw’s border, but officials are also keeping an eye trained across the Wando River, specifically at unincorporated Cat Island, Paradise Island and the Woodville section of the Francis Marion National Forest.

“The city of Charleston could annex Cat Island, then Paradise Island and into Woodville,” Page said.

Mount Pleasant includes all three areas on the town’s web page promoting the benefits of annexing into the town.

Former Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, who extended that city’s boundaries up the Cainhoy Peninsula across the river from Mount Pleasant years ago, disavowed any intent to annex 600-acre Cat Island while he was in office. Charleston’s current mayor, John Tecklenburg, has not considered Cat Island, spokesman Jack O’Toole said.

The island is privately owned, undeveloped, and has no road or bridge connections. Mount Pleasant has included the island in its “rural conservation” planning area, although the town has no jurisdiction there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

2016: 39 acres  73 residents. 29 Housing units.

New construction in the existing city limits is accelerating. Slightly more than 1,000 Single Family units in 2016. Over 1,800 units from Multi family in 2016. Both figures are historic records. The city estimates it's population as just under 143,000.      

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 11:31 AM, vicupstate said:

2016: 39 acres  73 residents. 29 Housing units.

New construction in the existing city limits is accelerating. Slightly more than 1,000 Single Family units in 2016. Over 1,800 units from Multi family in 2016. Both figures are historic records. The city estimates it's population as just under 143,000.      

 

My take on Charleston Mayor Tecklenburg is that annexation is not high on his priority list but time will tell.  There are several parcels up for annexation on tonight's city council agenda.  There's also a 45 acre annexation in the West Ashley area that is being fought by many residents over density concerns and that the property is historic and should be preserved from development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Similar to Watson Hill a few years ago, North Charleston is seeking to annex West of the Ashley. Watson Hill was Dorchester County and this is Charleston County.

I expect some effort to stop it or at least stop further movement by N.C. Conservationist have a lot of interest in maintaining the undeveloped nature of the Hwy 61 corridor. 

North Charleston seeks to annex West Ashley Plantation in the Hwy 61 corridor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've tried hard to like North Charleston for being so progressive since Charleston over time has accepted it or else die, and every time I see what it actually is, an endless suburban sprawl in Charleston's backyard that considers itself a city when it...really is not, I cannot accept its status as South Carolina's third largest city, hear of it and just wish the North Area had stayed unincorporated. It will be good though that they are building a new transport center because that train station now is...the pits.  It's an ugly arrival in Charleston that degrades the lowcountry.

Edited by charleslpearson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 2:33 PM, vicupstate said:

Similar to Watson Hill a few years ago, North Charleston is seeking to annex West of the Ashley. Watson Hill was Dorchester County and this is Charleston County.

I expect some effort to stop it or at least stop further movement by N.C. Conservationist have a lot of interest in maintaining the undeveloped nature of the Hwy 61 corridor. 

North Charleston seeks to annex West Ashley Plantation in the Hwy 61 corridor

Does N Chas not intend to honor the Charleston County UGB line?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ZUMAN2 said:

Does N Chas not intend to honor the Charleston County UGB line?

 

That is a good question. When the UGB was established I think it was more of an agreement between Charleston City and Charleston County.  I doubt anyone thought much about N.C. being in this area. I don't remember if the UGB came before Watson Hill or not.

Also, i don't know how binding the UGB is to begin with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vicupstate said:

That is a good question. When the UGB was established I think it was more of an agreement between Charleston City and Charleston County.  I doubt anyone thought much about N.C. being in this area. I don't remember if the UGB came before Watson Hill or not.

Also, i don't know how binding the UGB is to begin with. 

I believe Watson Hill is in Dorchester County so the UGB would not be applicable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 2:33 PM, vicupstate said:

Similar to Watson Hill a few years ago, North Charleston is seeking to annex West of the Ashley. Watson Hill was Dorchester County and this is Charleston County.

I expect some effort to stop it or at least stop further movement by N.C. Conservationist have a lot of interest in maintaining the undeveloped nature of the Hwy 61 corridor. 

North Charleston seeks to annex West Ashley Plantation in the Hwy 61 corridor

North Charleston is looking to expand again in West Ashley.  I doubt Charleston Mayor T-burg takes any legal action against N Chas.  He's too soft.  I miss former Mayor Joe Riley when it comes to annexation issues.

https://www.postandcourier.com/news/north-charleston-proceeding-with-more-annexation-in-west-ashley-likely/article_8b55c084-df5c-11e7-acfe-43a8c94005f7.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Charleston is looking to expand again in West Ashley.  I doubt Charleston Mayor T-burg takes any legal action against N Chas.  He's too soft.  I miss former Mayor Joe Riley when it comes to annexation issues.
https://www.postandcourier.com/news/north-charleston-proceeding-with-more-annexation-in-west-ashley-likely/article_8b55c084-df5c-11e7-acfe-43a8c94005f7.html
 
Sounds like it is going to court. I don't see how it can be contiguous to the larger property but I guess the Supreme Court will have final say. Riley probably would have acted sooner, but it would likely go to court eventually too.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Spartan said:

Development along that corridor is inevitable. IMO, Charleston County, City, and North Charleston should create a plan for how it will happen and try to minimize the impacts of the thousands of homes that will fill in that area over time.

Conservation of that corridor is deeply entrenched.  You may end up eating those words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so? How much land of the land is conserved?
If you're right, then annexation out there doesn't matter to begin with.
I can't link it from phone but today's Post and Courier has an editorial that is a start.

I am not a master on the subject but any attempts to develop this area have been rebuffed in the past. I would expect opposition from P&C, Historic Charleston Foundation, Preservation Charleston, the Conservation Bank, National Trust for Historic Preservation and probably many others.

It is also outside tje Urban Growth Boundary.

The editorial lays out a strong case for contiguity doesn't exist.

My guess is the annexation is not legal, which would stop it but some other kind of compromise might happen too.

It will probably resolve in a month or be a protracted battle that literally lasts a decade.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm skeptical about how effective the urban growth boundary is. How is it enforced? Does North Charleston acknowledge/care about it? Does Charleston County actually preclude any development based on it? It seems like the lack of development there today is more indicative about how how far away it is from everything more than the urban growth boundary itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.