Pinckney Point near Bluffton has sat undeveloped for years. Could it become a park?
At the end of Pinckney Colony Road, about 2.5 miles off U.S. 278 near Bluffton, two padlocked metal gates abruptly halt any cars from going farther.
“No trespassing,” one sign reads.
“Passive park boundary,” says another.
On the other side of the gates sits 229 acres of undeveloped waterfront land owned by Beaufort County called Pinckney Point — a peninsula bordered by the Okatie and Colleton rivers. Developers and the county have fought over the future of the property for more than a decade.
Plans to develop it into a housing and marina complex were delayed for years by court battles, neighborhood opposition and legal questions about whether the dirt road leading to the land is county-owned or private.
The county purchased the land in 2013 for $6.95 million with plans to preserve it, but the lingering legal fight over the road has left the property in limbo.
A recent court decision by the S.C. Court of Appeals, however, could bode well for the county’s plans to build a passive park on the land. The decision, filed last week, affirmed a prior court order that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the county breached its contract with developers by allowing the road to be used publicly.
Still, county officials say the court battle could last years. The decision by the court of appeals is not yet final — the developer could ask the court to reconsider or appeal to the S.C. Supreme Court.
The county may begin planning for the park, interim County Administrator Eric Greenway said, but not until officials meet with their attorneys.
George Trenholm Walker, attorney for the developer, Road LLC, said Monday it was too early to comment on the court’s decision and that he had not decided his next steps.
The court decision
In 2013, Road LLC, which owns about 0.2 mile of the road leading to the undeveloped land, and Pinckney Point LLC, a Florida company that for years tried to develop the land into a luxury housing community, filed suit against Beaufort County.
The suit argued that a small portion of Pinckney Colony Road is private and asked a judge to enforce earlier agreements that limit access to the road.
The lawsuit dates back to a decade-old settlement agreement among the county’s zoning board, Pinckney Point LLC and two property owners which states, the road “is and shall be a private road.” In the agreement, the county stated that the road would allow for enough access to develop the property.
On March 14, 2013, Equity Resource Partners III LLC offered to buy the 229 acres from Beaufort County’s Rural and Critical Lands Board, according to the decision filed by the court of appeals.
Two months later, the developers, Pinckney LLC and Road LLC, sued the county to prohibit the sale of the property, according to the filing. After the county closed on the sale, the developers sought to prohibit the county from using the road for public access, claiming it was to be used only for a residential community, the filing says.
Months later, on Nov. 30, 2013, Road LLC agreed to sell its road parcel to Pinckney LLC for $5 million, the filing says. But property records show that Road LLC still owns the parcel.
At trial, in 2016, the developers argued that the county violated its agreements by giving developers “unusual hurdles” during development and by keeping the road public. The developers argued they suffered millions of dollars in damages, according to the filing.
During the trial, then-County Administrator Gary Kubic testified that the county had been interested in purchasing the property since 2003 and knew that Picnkney LLC wanted to build homes on the land, according to the filing. Kubic testified that the county wanted to prevent development of the property but did not restrict access to the land after the county’s purchase, the filing says.
Kubic did not return calls for comment.
The jury, according to the filing, found that the although the county did not breach its contract with Pinckney LLC, it did violate its contract with Road LLC. It awarded $5 million in damages.
The county then asked a judge to overrule the jury’s decision, according to the filing.
The trial court granted that motion finding that there was no evidence the county breached the terms of the agreement.
The developers appealed the ruling, arguing that the trial court was wrong in finding that: 1) there was no evidence to support the jury’s finding of breach of contract; 2) the $5 million in damages were speculative; and 3) the contract between the county and developers was null.
On March 3, the S.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of the county.
Future of the property
Dorothy Gnann, a former Beaufort County Council member, said she owned a portion of Pinckney Point before putting it under a conservation easement and selling it to the county.
Last week’s filing says Gnann was one of two previous owners of the road parcel.
She said she would support a passive park on the property as long as a stewardship program oversees it.
“I would like to see it go back to its original state, just to protect the Colleton and Okatie rivers,” she said. “If we had a stewardship program that is supported publicly by Beaufort County, I would love to see a passive park there.”
The Okatie River is a nursery for the area’s sea life, she said, and needs to be protected.
“When God created Beaufort County, I think, out of the kindness of his heart, he pushed the water back,” she said.
Although she initially fought for the road leading to the property to be private to protect the land, she thinks it should be used by everybody, she said.
“It’s a beautiful piece of property that needs to be preserved,” she said. “Just don’t open it up as a passive park without somebody to take care of it.”
Called Monday, Beaufort County Passive Parks Manager Stefanie Nagid said the county does have Rural and Critical Lands money to begin planning for the park, but would have to consult with the county’s attorneys about when to start.
But the road is still an issue.
“If the road is a private road, then it would severely hamper the opening of a public park,” she said.
Nagid said her goal was to start planning for the park in fiscal year 2022, which begins in July. That planning would include habitat restoration and land planning.
But the outcome of the lawsuit with developers, she said, will affect the planning process.
