islandpacket.com - The Island Packet Online

• Archive Search

Search Everything in the Lowcountry and the Coastal Empire.

Settlement offers county little at Pinckney Point

Comment on this | | | | | | | |

Beaufort County Council's decision not to settle a Pinckney Point road dispute and instead let the courts decide the issue was a good one.

The council voted 9-2 last week to turn down a mediated settlement that would have allowed the developer to move, widen and pave the road on the peninsula between the Okatie and Colleton rivers.

This settlement does a great deal more for the developer at Pinckney Point than it does for the general public, which County Council represents. It offered the council no compelling reason to vote for it. The county is in no worse position for having turned it down.

But for the developer the settlement would have meant being able to move ahead with developing 76 lots on the peninsula. To build that many homes, the developer must have at least a 50-foot right of way for a paved, two-lane road to the subdivision. Without that right of way, county zoning permits as few as five lots that could be subdivided later, county zoning officials have said. County planning staff had recommended the council agree to settle.

The developers sought a variance from the county's Board of Zoning Appeals, but the board turned it down 3-2 in September. That decision threw into question the future of 13 proposed waterfront lots, as well as the overall number of homes the developer could build. The developer filed a lawsuit appealing that decision.

The county, in a separate action, has asked a judge to decide who owned the road after another property owner in the area laid claim to it.

Under the proposed settlement, the developer agreed to move the road out of the river buffer area, revegetate the area and pave the road with pervious pavement. Stormwater controls would direct runoff onto the property rather than into the nearby marsh.

That's all well and good, but the current dirt road has done no discernible harm to the river. And the intense development that a new, wider road would open up is much more likely to do so. The developer also has asked to build seven community docks with up to 70 boat lifts, a request still being reviewed by state officials. That defacto marina should be stopped.

We don't need revegetation, stormwater controls and pervious payment under the current circumstances. And if down the road, the court sides with the developer and rules the road can be moved, then the developer should take the same steps to mitigate its impact. That's the right thing to do.

Under the settlement, the road also would have been deeded to the county, which has been maintaining it for the past 20 years. That maintenance is a strong argument for the county's claim to it, and another reason for saying the county gains little from this settlement.

There's no rush to move ahead with the project from the public's standpoint. Let the courts decide.

| | | | | | |