Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Pine Island topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer says Pine Island down-zoning would remove 100 houses, add conservation and private investment
Summary
A developer representative told the Natural Resources Committee that a proposed Pine Island down-zoning would permanently remove 100 residential units, preserve roughly 360 acres, donate an initial $3 million to a community center and attract $100 million in private investment.
Kevin Dukes, a real-estate attorney, used the committee's public-comment period to describe a proposed rezoning to down-zone property known as Pine Island and to express support for related green-space and rural-and-critical-land initiatives.
“My name is Kevin Dukes. I'm a real estate attorney with the law firm of Harvey and Batty,” Dukes said, and he summarized the developer’s plan, which he said is now on file with county staff. Dukes said the proposed down zoning would remove about 100 residential units from development capacity and produce a density equivalent to one unit per 10 acres on much of the land.
Dukes said the plan would preserve roughly 360 acres of open space, achieve a 90% reduction in permitted docks, protect approximately 30,000 feet of shoreline along Village Creek, Eddings Creek and the Morgan River, and remove about 1,000,000 square feet of impervious surface. He also said the proposal would move vertical structures farther from shorelines (to 50 feet on 365 acres rather than 60 feet) and would include a donation of a parcel in the Corners community plus an initial $3,000,000 and a defined revenue stream to fund a community and recreational center on St. Helena Island.
Dukes said the proposal would also generate private investment and jobs: he cited an anticipated $100,000,000 in private investment, a projection of 35 to 70 permanent jobs and “hundreds of part-time full-time equivalent jobs during construction,” and he argued the plan reduces traffic by about 60 percent compared with the previous entitlement.
Dukes said the plan had been developed over three years of community engagement and requested that the committee and staff engage with the proponents to formalize a development agreement and preserve the project features. No formal zoning action was taken by the committee during the meeting; Dukes’s remarks were part of the public-comment record.
Dukes asked for the committee’s help in negotiating a development agreement that would lock in the conservation outcomes and community investments he described.
