Mount Pleasant residents press council over Patriot’s Point plan and conservation easement; mayor withdraws tourism fee

Mount Pleasant — Residents, conservation advocates and council members pressed the Town Council this week over plans for Patriot’s Point, raising concerns that proposed permanent structures and infrastructure would violate a South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) conservation easement and that the rollout of a proposed tourism development fee (TDF) lacked transparency.

At a special public-comment session that preceded the regular council meeting, dozens of residents and representatives from conservation groups urged elected officials to protect green space at Patriot’s Point and to clarify whether parts of the project would be built on land covered by a DNR easement. Tori Sanders, speaking for the Coastal Conservation League, told the council: “The development standards and permitted uses directly violate the terms of that conservation easement held by DNR.”

Why this matters: Patriot’s Point is a mixed-use site proposed for hotels, conference facilities and other structures. Several speakers said portions of the site are already subject to a conservation easement that limits permanent improvements, and they warned that building on those areas would harm migratory-bird habitat and shoreline green space the town’s tourism economy depends on.

Many speakers also criticized the timing and process used to advance the project and an associated tourism development fee. Mayor Will Haney — addressing the public after widespread criticism — said he had withdrawn support for the tourism development fee and apologized, telling the room he would accept responsibility: “I take full responsibility as the leader of this town.” Several residents said the announcement came too late and that council members and the public had insufficient time to review large, complex materials provided near Thanksgiving.

Public concerns and evidence presented

- Conservation easement: Multiple speakers, including Sanders, said the DNR holds a conservation easement covering roughly 20 acres on the site and that the easement “expressly prohibits the execution of any permanent improvements except such minimal improvements necessary for the security, safety, or convenience of the public.” Residents and conservation advocates told the council they believe planned permanent structures — cited in public materials as including a conference center and a “1,000-space parking garage” — would not meet that standard.

- Trail and local access: Residents who use Peyton’s Trail and other Patriot’s Point amenities emphasized that the trail is in poor repair and should be preserved or restored, not pushed aside by new roads or buildings. Noah Moore and David Quick described the trail as a local recreational resource and urged the town to prioritize public access and habitat restoration.

- Process and timing: Speakers repeatedly criticized how materials and binders were distributed to council, saying they arrived during the week of Thanksgiving and left little time for review. Several council members echoed that concern in discussion, asking for a timeline and public accounting of when staff and council were briefed and why the planning commission was not used first in the sequence of approvals.

Response from project representatives and town officials

Mike Bennett, identified in public comment as the leaseholder for large portions of Patriot’s Point, said the property is already zoned under Waterfront Gateway District and that the current plan remains subject to those entitlement limits: “We have about a thousand feet on the harbor, and we have a significant setback off that harbor…In the middle where the lawn will be, we’re entitled to go 65 feet.” Bennett said many elements would be lower-density and that the design concept includes a “seaside village” of 1- to 3-story buildings.

Mayor Haney and several council members acknowledged mistakes in how the matter was handled. Councilors called for clearer timelines and stronger committee review of large proposals going forward. Council members on both sides of the debate said first readings are not final and that second readings and committee review provide opportunities for public input and amendment.

What the council agreed to do

Council members asked staff to produce a clear timeline and full disclosure of the sequence of events and communications related to the Patriot’s Point proposals. Several council members asked the Planning, Legal and Judicial (PLJ) committee to review ordinance-placement procedures so major items are routed through committees before first reading when appropriate. Several members also said they will seek greater transparency about any future proposals that could affect conservation easements or public land.

Votes at a glance

- Tourism development fee: Mayor Haney said he has withdrawn support for the proposed tourism development fee; council members noted that the fee will not be reintroduced automatically and would require a Council member to place it back on a future agenda.

- Zoning/development entitlements: Project representatives said they would not move forward on zoning elements tied to the Patriot’s Point Development Authority until outstanding easement issues are resolved; Bennet said a formal zoning withdrawal by the applicant was “forthcoming.”

Key quotes

- “The development standards and permitted uses directly violate the terms of that conservation easement held by DNR.” — Tori Sanders, Coastal Conservation League. - “I take full responsibility as the leader of this town.” — Mayor Will Haney. - “I should have had the fortitude to say, You know what? We need to pause. We can’t move forward with this unless this DNR issue is resolved.” — Councilmember Whitley (during council remarks).

Background and context

The Patriot’s Point property has long been the subject of proposals to generate tourism revenue while retaining public amenities. Speakers at the meeting referenced earlier agreements and prior public votes related to parks and recreation funding and said those histories shaped local skepticism. Several council members reiterated that first-reading votes advance items for discussion and that final decisions occur at second reading after public hearings, committees and further scrutiny.

What’s next

Council members and staff said they will produce a detailed timeline of how the proposal was developed, what notifications were sent and when. Planning commission hearings on related items were set to continue in the weeks after the meeting, and council members indicated they will press for planning-committee review and public committee meetings before any further formal actions on Patriot’s Point or related funding measures.

Ending

Public commenters urged the town to treat Patriot’s Point as an environmental as well as a development resource and pressed for repairs to the trail, protection of tree canopy and clearer public processes before major approvals. Council members said they heard those concerns and vowed to pursue procedural changes and fuller public disclosure.