Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Pine Island topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects attempt to rescind denial of Pine Island resort after hours of public comment
Summary
Beaufort County Council on Dec. 8 rejected a motion to rescind its Sept. 22, 2025 denial of a proposed Pine Island gated golf resort. Dozens of public speakers accused the developer of trying to use legal pressure to overturn the Community Protection Overlay; council members debated Roberts Rules and possible litigation risks before voting the motion down.
Council members rejected a bid to undo their Sept. 22 denial of a proposed gated golf resort on Pine Island, voting down a rescission motion after more than an hour of public comment and extended council debate.
Council member Logan Cunningham moved to rescind the earlier 10-1 vote that denied development agreement ordinance 2025-44, saying the item deserved renewed review and additional public education. ‘‘I move that council rescind the vote council took on agenda item 13C of the 09/22/2025 agenda which was to disapprove ordinance 2025-44 to authorize a development agreement between Beaufort County and Pine Island Property Holdings LLC,’’ Cunningham said when he made the motion.
The public comment period beforehand was dominated by opponents of the development. Queen Quet, speaking for the Gullah Geechee Sea Island Coalition, urged council to uphold the Community Protection Overlay (CPO) and described a rescission as ‘‘procedurally improper’’ and destabilizing to public trust. Resident Parker Moore said the project ‘‘reeks of privilege and exclusivity’’ and accused the developer of buying the land despite apparent restrictions. Attorney Jessie White of SCELP argued the attempt to rescind was legally invalid under Roberts Rules and the county code, saying there was no continuing action to rescind because council had never adopted the development agreement.
Council members then discussed parliamentary questions, legal risk, and community input. Some, including Councilman Mark Lawson, argued the developer has by-right options and that procedural rules limit councils ability to rescind. Others, including Councilman Bartholomew, said they were open to negotiation if it could reduce litigation costs. County counsel and the parliamentarian repeatedly advised caution and noted that rescission applicability depends on whether the prior denial constituted a final action.
The council took a roll-call vote on the rescission motion. The clerk recorded the votes as: Cunningham: yes; Brown: yes; Reitz: yes; Bartholomew: yes; Passamont (sic): no; Lawson: no; Glover: no; Dawson: no; Tabernick (Vice Chair): no; Chair Howard: no. The motion failed.
Why it matters: The vote preserved the September decision that denied the developers request and maintained the Community Protection Overlay for Saint Helena Island as applied in that decision. Supporters of the denial said rescinding it would signal that well-resourced applicants could overturn local protections, while backers of reconsideration argued reconsideration might reduce litigation risk and potentially produce community benefits.
What comes next: With the rescission defeated, the status quo remains while litigation and related requests continue to be possible outside the councils rescission path. The council did not adopt any new development approvals related to Pine Island at the meeting."
