Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Conservation Greenbelt topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays Greenbelt funding decision for UT tract conservation easement amid access and value concerns
Summary
Dorchester County’s PDB committee and council members asked for more time and information before approving a $500,000 Greenbelt contribution to a conservation easement proposed by the Lowcountry Land Trust on roughly 297 acres near St. George.
Dorchester County officials voted on March 17 to delay consideration of a $500,000 Greenbelt fund contribution toward a proposed conservation easement on about 296.7 acres owned by the UT family near the town of St. George.
David Ray, chief conservation officer for the Lowcountry Land Trust, described the project as a bargain-sale conservation easement in which the land trust and the landowner are providing match. “We have that in addition to the very large amount of donated value that the landowner would be making in bargain selling this conservation easement,” Ray said, and noted the trust had secured a $300,000 award from the state conservation bank.
Ray and planning staff described environmental and agricultural values on the property — mapped prime farmland soils, wetlands, and portions in the 100‑year floodplain — and said much of the property is upland that developers have eyed. Ray also emphasized public benefits such as water quality protection that flows to the Edisto River and habitat connectivity identified in state and county mapping.
Council members on the Planning, Development & Building committee raised multiple concerns: some described the requested county contribution as a low percentage of the easement value compared with typical bargains; several members pressed for public access provisions, questioned the limited amount of Greenbelt funds relative to the county’s stated conservation goals, and asked for clearer demonstration of development threat and public benefit. One council member said the existing agreement would spend limited taxpayer funds on a privately held property with “no access to the property” and recommended negotiating more public benefits for the investment.
After discussion, the committee voted to delay the item for further negotiation and investigation; the committee specified a 90‑day window for follow-up discussion. The delay was unanimous. Staff and the land trust will return with additional analysis and potential negotiated changes to the funding agreement.
