Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Pine Island topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, tribal representative and developers debate Pine Island plan and CPO protections
Summary
Dozens of public commenters and a tribal representative urged Beaufort County Council to uphold the Conservation Protection Overlay and consult tribes, while developers and supporters argued a downzoning with a golf-course parcel would reduce overall density and environmental impact.
Dozens of residents, community leaders and a tribal representative urged Beaufort County Council on April 14 to reject any carve-outs to the Conservation Protection Overlay on Pine Island and to preserve protections for Saint Helena Island.
Speakers described the CPO as essential to protecting Gullah Geechee culture and local livelihoods, and the Yemassee tribal representative said the tribe has statutory claims that require formal consultation. Supporters of a developer-backed downzoning told the council the plan would reduce housing density and impervious surface compared with what current zoning would allow.
Why it matters: Speakers said the dispute will affect the cultural survival of Saint Helena and the livelihoods of fishers and crabbers, and could set a precedent for future development on other sea islands.
Robert New, of Wallace Landing Retreat, said the CPO has “protected the island from the onslaught of golf course developers” and accused Pine Island proponents of seeking a “Greenway giveaway” that would carve out an exception. “Will the people of Beaufort County, through their representatives, betray the future of Saint Helena for 30 pieces of silver?” New asked.
Several residents raised practical concerns. Carrie Major, a Saint Helena native, said construction “will affect” her husband’s crabbing business and pleaded for more recreational facilities for children instead of high‑end development.
Representatives allied with the developer argued the proposed plan is a permanent downzoning compared with existing entitlements. Kevin Dukes, a real estate attorney speaking for the developer, told council the plan would convert land that could host “a hundred houses 60 feet from the water” into open space and a golf‑course parcel, and would reduce the number of allowable docks by roughly 90 percent. Dukes said the plan would yield community benefits including a donated community center site and ongoing funding mechanisms tied to future sales.
A tribal representative speaking for the Yemassee (Yamasee) nation said the tribe has “original title” claims under a 1707 statute at large of South Carolina and demanded formal consultation and a halt to further planning until consultation is completed. The representative argued that substituting Gullah Geechee consultation for formal tribal consultation is “not inclusive.”
Other public commenters split: Craig Reeves and several residents urged council to review the developer’s written offers and consider the proposal’s lower density and potential community benefits, while a number of long‑time island residents urged the council to preserve the strengthened CPO language that they said expressly bans golf courses and gated resort development.
No final land‑use decision was recorded during the April 14 meeting. The council heard public comment and committee updates on planning items but did not take a final vote on Pine Island rezoning at this session.
Ending: The Pine Island controversy is expected to return to county review in subsequent hearings; speakers asked the council to sustain the CPO and to ensure formal tribal consultation before approving any changes that might affect cultural and historic resources.
