Beaufort County could undo their vote against the Pine Island development. What we know
In a rare move, Beaufort County officials may overturn their own decision to reject the controversial golf course development on Pine Island.
Councilman Logan Cunningham recently informed his colleagues and the public that he will bring forward a “motion to rescind,” or otherwise undo, the Sept. 22 10-1 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 requires only a simple majority from the 11-member body.
Representatives for the developer said the council made its September decision without all the relevant information, even after an hours-long meeting that went late into the night. But the move to rescind will likely infuriate opponents of the project, raising questions about the council’s ability to stand by its own choices.
The move is also intended to stave off pending litigation against the county. LLCs representing the developer sued the county twice, challenging cultural protections for the area on St. Helena Island and the county’s decision to deny development.
Development representatives made it clear publicly and in court documents that they would drop the lawsuits if the county voted in favor of the development.
Cunningham was the sole council person in favor of entering the agreement in the initial vote. He was one of only two elected officials that wanted to continue negotiations with the developer.
If Cunningham’s motion is approved, it will roll the process back to where the council was before the Sept. 22 vote, county spokesperson Hannah Nichols said. Saying yes does not automatically approve the agreement between the county and the developer.
Cunningham will likely bring his “motion to rescind” to the council’s final meeting of the year on Dec. 8. The motion will not appear as an actual agenda item as set by the county, Nichols said.
Decisions made with ‘incomplete information’
Elvio Tropeano, who has served as the public face representing the owners of Pine Island, addressed the council’s decision in a November public meeting.
When the council last rejected the development plan, they made a decision based on a staff report that included “manipulated language” and “incomplete legal information,” he said.
“When information is withheld or manipulated, you’re not making policy, you’re managing someone else’s narrative,” Tropeano told the council.
The decision makers were not given access to a signed settlement agreement that would have dropped all pending litigation against the county, Tropeano said.
But for Grant McClure, the south coast office director for the Coastal Conservation League, an opponent of the development, the developer’s argument is “not very compelling.”
“There’s no reason they shouldn’t have had all the information before them,” McClure said, citing both public meetings and private meetings between attorneys on both sides. “They had ample time and ample opportunities to provide everything the county needed to arrive at an informed decision.”
The lawsuits
In 2023, the LLCs representing the developer filed two lawsuits against Beaufort County.
Both motions 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.
St. Helena’s Cultural Protection Overlay, known as the “CPO,” is the zoning amendment that prohibits the development of resorts, gated communities and golf courses in an effort to preserve Gullah-Geechee culture. It has been in effect since the late 1990s.
The second lawsuit was a civil action directly challenging the legality and constitutionality of the CPO itself. That action has since been transferred to federal court, where it remains on “stay” until Dec. 15.
Specifically, it calls into question whether the CPO’s restrictions on hotels, resorts and golf courses violated the developer’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, and whether the ordinance places an unconstitutional burden on the ability to conduct interstate commerce.
Both cases are still pending, according to Nichols.
