Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pine Island Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters clash over Pine Island development and the cultural protection overlay
Summary
Several residents addressed the council on Pine Island and the county's Cultural Protection Overlay, with speakers sharply divided between those who say the CPO restricts local economic opportunity and those who warn that development risks displacement and environmental harm.
Public comment dominated the latter portion of Beaufort County Council's Dec. 9 meeting as multiple residents weighed in on proposed Pine Island development and the Cultural Protection Overlay (CPO).
"The CPO and the development of Pine Island is not as straightforward as it seems," said Ahava (speaker 22), who told council that the CPO is failing to prevent displacement and that the committee is pressuring developers to build "160 plus homes" that she said could harm land and waterways. She asserted that the land was legally purchased and that prior compromises reduced the original scope, and warned that building homes can increase displacement risk rather than prevent it.
Other commenters urged development as an economic opportunity. A speaker who identified himself as a local postmaster and supporter of developer Elvio Troppiano said the project would create jobs and educational opportunities on St. Helena Island. Jindia Blunt, who described youth programs she runs, told council that a Pine Island golf-course project could provide space for youth activities and workforce training.
Speakers asked the county to consider community-driven solutions: one suggested forming a St. Helena Economic Development Committee and hosting a market to support Gullah Geechee artisans and local small businesses.
Council did not take an immediate formal action on Pine Island during the meeting. Comments highlighted conflicting local views: some residents and faith leaders supporting the developer's changes as a source of jobs and facilities, others urging stricter protection and questioning whether the CPO is meeting its goals.
