BENNETTSVILLE — During the first part of a two-part meeting last week, Bennettsville City Council moved through a wide-ranging agenda that included digital signage, annexations, spending oversight, fireworks, large gatherings, budget transfers and debated language defining the duties of the city administrator, William Simon, Jr.
Council approves Digital Signage Ordinance
Council approved second reading of Ordinance 26-06-003, establishing policy support for digital signage. The proposed digital sign will be located along the U.S. 15-401 bypass and is intended to improve communication with residents, visitors and travelers entering Bennettsville by providing a platform for public notices, community events, emergency information and promotional messaging related to economic development and tourism.
Discussions centered on whether the city should impose content restrictions on digital billboards, including restrictions related to language, adult content, alcohol, tobacco and potentially derogatory messaging.
Bennettsville Planning and Zoning Manager Ms. Denise Miller spoke before council, attempting to bring clarity to the issue prior to council taking a vote. She explained that the digital signage proposal would not override the existing sign ordinance and pointed out existing ordinance language has previously been used to address offensive signs.
Councilwoman Caraline Harpe questioned whether billboards are classified as signs, also asking if other municipalities restrict content on digital billboards, whether the sign would receive power as a city utility customer and whether future signage proposals should first go through the Planning Commission.
Miller answered that she did not know how other municipalities handled their sign ordinances but promised she would find out and Administrator Simon added that the digital sign will be a customer of the City of Bennettsville for its electrical needs.
Councilman Tyrone Davis made a motion to vote on the ordinance, which was seconded by Councilman Cy’Heim McRae. Voting to approve Ordinance 26-26-003 by a nearly unanimous vote, Councilwoman Caraline Harpe cast the lone dissenting vote.
Annexations advance
Moving on to questions of annexation, Administrator Simon said, “The purpose of annexation is to promote orderly growth and development of the municipality by extending city boundaries to areas that can be efficiently served by municipal utilities, infrastructure, and public services. Annexation helps ensure consistent land use planning, economic development opportunities, and equitable provision of services for residents and businesses within the community.”
Simon went on to remind council of a map he previously provided to them highlighting where the address of the property in question is located. He said, “They are petitioning to be annexed into the city and it’s before you tonight for consideration for [its] second week.”
Following a brief discussion, Council unanimously approved Ordinance 26-06-002 annexing 804 Anel Street into the city. The property was identified as tax map number 032261 018.
Next, Council moved on to discuss the Wallace Road tract annexation, or Ordinance 26-07-00001. The parcel of land is identified by tax map number 032-14-01-00003.
Administration said the matter had previously been considered but required corrected ownership information. The proposed annexation involves a 10.18-acre vacant tract near the city boundary and lake, with the owner seeking to sell the property to a developer for a residential community. The property was expected to come in as single-family residential zone.
Councilwoman Harpe questioned what municipal services the city would be committing to provide, noting that the petition requested water and sewer service.
Administrator Simon answered that water, sewer and electrical service were available in the area, but the cost to the city could not be estimated until a development plan was submitted.
Harpe next asked whether the city would be committed to providing utilities without knowing whether the development would include one home or 20 homes. Simon confirmed the city would be committed to providing connections, while emphasizing annexation is part of the city’s overall goal of increasing its tax base. When asked about the maximum number of homes possible under the current zoning, Simon said he estimated between 20 and 25.
The Wallace Road annexation passed its first reading, over Councilwoman Harpe’s objection. Saying she objected based on a desire for more information, Harpe requested her dissent be recorded because she wanted more information about the project. It was also clarified during the meeting that any change from the anticipated single-family residential zoning, such as to apartments or commercial use, would have to go through the Planning Commission, including a public hearing and return to council.
Council amends Oversight Ordinance to include real estate
During the meeting, Council also approved the second reading of Ordinance 26-06-005, which requires prior council approval for purchases that equal to or exceed $50,000.
The ordinance was described as primarily intended to give council oversight of administrative spending and discussion focused heavily on whether real estate purchases should require council approval regardless of price.
Council discussed whether real estate should be included in the ordinance, handled in a separate ordinance or addressed through language on administrative duties. The city attorney explained that, as written, a real estate purchase under $50,000 would not require prior council approval. Administration said it was not interested in purchasing any real estate without council approval and suggested language requiring all real estate purchases come before council.
After a lengthy debate centered around whether to amend or table the ordinance, Councilwoman Harpe restated her earlier motion to add language exempting real estate purchases from the ordinance’s general threshold and requiring council approval regardless of amount. The amendment passed, and Council then adopted the ordinance on second reading with the real estate language included. The final vote was five in favor, with Councilmen Gregory Scott Sr. and Tyrone Davis in dissent.
Private Property meets Public Safety
The meeting also included public comment on the proposed large gathering ordinance, where one resident urged council to avoid penalizing residents for private events that do not create safety or nuisance problems.
She said she had reviewed provisions related to disorderly conduct and noise and argued that residents should not be fined for hosting gatherings at their homes when they are not blocking public safety access, creating disorderly conduct or littering. “I think people should be able to have something at their home and they are not creating a problem for anyone else,” she said, asking council to take that into consideration during their discussions.
Later in the meeting, Councilwoman Wanda Weaver presented a proposed ordinance addressing nuisance parties or large gatherings, saying the measure was aimed at large, unsafe events rather than ordinary family gatherings. She said she was “not opposed at all of having parties at your house,” but was concerned about events in residential areas with approximately 200 people where guests were charged admission. Weaver said this has happened twice in her district and “it was a mess.” Weaver emphasized that the ordinance was not intended to prohibit family reunions or ordinary parties at private homes.
Mayor Abraham shared that his main concern was whether emergency services could access streets if guests parked along the road. Otherwise, he said, if a property owner was doing something wrong, law enforcement should address that person directly rather than penalizing everyone. Councilman Scott objected to the term “nuisance party,” saying that “words matter” and that a birthday party or anniversary should not automatically be labeled a nuisance. He said he preferred the term “large gathering,” and council members agreed the title could be changed.
Councilman McCrae raised concerns about how the ordinance could be enforced, particularly on private property. “Private property is private property, and you do what you want to do at your house,” McCrae said. He cited examples such as brunches, Sunday dinners or small paid gatherings that could unintentionally be pushed under the umbrella of the ordinance.
Weaver clarified that it was meant for “large parties that are blocking roads, traffic, pedestrians in the road, passed out in the road,” and similar public safety issues.
Council also discussed whether existing laws regarding open containers, business licenses, permits and public safety already addressed some of the concerns. Following the debate, council approved the ordinance addressing large gatherings within the city of Bennettsville.
Budget Transfer Proposal
Council also considered Ordinance 26-06-00004, which would require prior approval before budgetary transfers.
Councilman McCrae said he did not feel the Finance Committee has yet had enough time to return a report and suggested Council send the item back to the committee for discussion. The motion was approved.
Administrator Duties Ordinance spurs call for workshop
During the meeting, Council introduced Ordinance 26-07-00005, which defines the duties and responsibilities of City Administrator Simon.
Councilman McCrae said the language appeared to reserve certain appointments to council, including the city attorney, finance officer, chief of police and city engineer, but said the ordinance should be adapted to Bennettsville. Members also discussed adding or clarifying positions such as fire chief and director of public utilities.
Councilman Gregory Scott recommended that council take more time with the ordinance, saying it appeared to have been adapted from another municipality and should be made specific to Bennettsville. He suggested a workshop or further review involving both council and administration.