Council authorizes attorney to finalize settlement in AMDG 17 North BZA case, imposing conditions

The Finance Committee voted to authorize the county attorney to finalize a settlement in the litigation titled AMDG 17 North versus the County Board of Zoning Appeals that would grant the property owner the two variances requested at the June 30, 2024 BZA meeting, subject to specified conditions.

Council member Pryor made the motion to authorize the county attorney to finalize the settlement agreement and to allow the chairman to execute necessary documents. The committee recorded two explicit conditions in the motion: (1) before zoning permit approval the owner must complete the site-plan review process, and (2) prior to zoning approval the owner must obtain a certificate from the Charleston County Historic Preservation Commission (as described in the meeting record). The chair and multiple members framed the action as a settlement of a court case rather than a routine BZA appeal; staff and council members said the matter had to come back to council in connection with the lawsuit and the requested variances.

In discussion, members raised concerns about precedent and development intensity. Council member Grabowski and others said they preferred handling the matter in public rather than in executive session. Council member Grabowski, speaking from the district where the property is located, said granting the variances could allow roughly 9,000 additional square feet of commercial development on the site and warned about setting a precedent for increased commercial density farther north. The county attorney clarified that the property is already commercially zoned and that the variance at issue concerns setbacks, easements and parking buffers placed before adoption of the county’s CLDR (Comprehensive Land Development Regulations); staff recommended approval in their estimation because the restrictions made development infeasible without relief.

Council members questioned litigation risk if council rejected the settlement and discussed whether the Historic Preservation Commission could withhold the required certificate, in which case further legal proceedings could follow. Committee members acknowledged that a settlement reduces the risk of a court decision being imposed on the county.

The committee took a roll-call vote; the motion passed 5–4. Recorded roll-call votes on the record were: Boykin — Aye; Darby — Nay; Honeycutt — Aye; Kubrowski — Nay; Moody — Aye; Pryor — Aye; Sasse — Aye; Worman — Nay; Middleton — Nay. The motion passed with five ayes and four nays.

The committee’s authorization directs the county attorney to finalize the settlement and authorizes the chairman to execute documents once the specified preconditions are met. The meeting record does not show whether the Historic Preservation Commission has yet reviewed the site for the required clearance.