Beaufort County stands by Pine Island vote, despite push to scrap it
A Beaufort County councilman’s bid to undo the vote that halted a contentious Pine Island golf course development failed Monday, as the council said no to a rarely-used “motion to rescind” and left its original rejection in place.
The council — which initially voted 10-1 against entering into the agreement with the developer— said no to the motion, which was brought forward by one of their own, Councilman Logan Cunningham. If approved, the motion would have brought the 11-member body back to the drawing board on whether to enter into agreement on a development that has sparked years of debate, votes and even litigation.
The developer and his lawyer have said that council previously made a decision based on a staff report that included “manipulated language” and “incomplete legal information.”
Cunningham’s proposal fell short, with him and council members Paula Brown, Tom Reitz, and David Bartholomew voting in favor.
Some against the motion, including Chairwoman Alice Howard, thought revoking the vote would set a “very dangerous precedent” for the county moving forward, especially when dealing with future developments. Others said they had sufficient information to vote in the first place.
Others questioned whether Cunningham’s motion adhered to Robert’s Rules of Order, the parliamentary guide the council follows. When asked, county attorneys did not answer publicly whether the motion was in compliance.
How did we get here?
Cunningham informed his colleagues and the public that he would bring forward a rarely used “motion to rescind,” or otherwise undo, the landslide Sept. 22 vote that halted the development agreement and any negotiations between the developer and the county.
Because Cunningham announced his intention before the vote, his motion required only six votes in favor, or a simple majority.
He was the sole council person in favor of entering the agreement in the initial vote, and one of only two elected officials who wanted to continue negotiations with the developer. It has always been his intention to minimize rooftops and docks in the county, he told the hundreds in attendance on Monday.
He emphasized that the developer has a right to build 149 homes and 90 docks with the current zoning and necessary permitting. Unlike the golf course option, there are fewer explicit community benefits in the full density plan.
Cunningham did not think the public had sufficient time to review the revised development agreement before the vote. The process of a second and third reading never happened, which didn’t allow public education, he said.
The developer said the council acted without all of the necessary information and accused opponents Monday of “intentionally manipulating a federal study” after the property was bought with a restriction banning golf courses, despite the zoning overlay previously allowing them.
Developer offered to drop lawsuit
Councilman Bartholomew, who supported the motion, told the public that the developer had offered to drop one of its two pending lawsuits against the county if negotiations were re-initiated.
Filed in 2023, both lawsuits centered on the legality of the county’s decision to deny the developer’s efforts to build a golf course. The first was an appeal of the county’s planning commission’s decision that the zoning overlay did not allow for a three six-hole golf courses. It remains in state court.
The second, now in federal court, directly challenges the legality of St. Helena’s Cultural Protection Overlay, which has prohibited resorts, gated communities, and golf courses since the late 1990s to preserve Gullah-Geechee culture.
“If I can save the taxpayer some money to get rid of some litigation, I’m open to that option too,” Bartholomew said.
It is unclear at this time how much litigation initiated by the developer has cost taxpayers.
This story was originally published December 8, 2025 at 11:13 PM.
