Beaufort Co. officials want to take protected land for development. Council says not so fast

A rushed proposal by Beaufort County officials to gain access to 60 acres of protected land off Okatie Highway in Bluffton for a library and ball fields was postponed by the County Council, at least for now.

The proposal, pushed by County Administrator Eric Greenway, raised eyebrows for several reasons:

▪ The 60 acres would have been taken from the Rural and Critical Lands Preservation Program, which one council member described as “sacred.”

▪ The county proposed swapping the 60 acres with two parcels of land the county already owns, totaling 18 acres. Another council member questioned the point of the swap, noting that one of the two tracts already is protected from development.

▪ Greenway pushed the proposal at the Nov. 14 council meeting without giving the Rural and Critical Lands board time to review it and make a recommendation, as would be customary.

▪ The proposal was presented as a resolution, meaning it could have been passed with one vote Monday, without allowing time for multiple readings and public input.

“On its face, the loss of 60 acres of protected land in exchange for just 18 acres is concerning,” the Coastal Conservation League’s South Coast Director Jessie White said. “In addition, there is no analysis of the resource values lost and gained in this exchange.”

Council member Chris Hervochon also was not happy with the idea.

“I personally view that program [Rural and Critical Lands] as sacred. I think, even if we’re doing the right thing, even if the values are one for one, even if the stormwater impact is exactly the same, the public perception of ‘you took a property, you swapped it out, did it with one vote and didn’t send it back to Rural and Critical,’ potentially breaks the trust of us, with the public, with that program.”

Councilman Tom Flewelling said he didn’t understand the urgency. Ultimately, the council voted unanimously to postpone their vote so that the Rural and Critical board could review the swap and give the council its recommendation.

The County’s Community Development code does allow for land swaps within Rural and Critical, the cases where the land is either “no long suitable” or “needed for county use.”

The county says that the Rural and Critical board members weren’t shown the proposal because they didn’t hold their regular meeting. The council was only shown the proposal, according to county spokeswoman Elizabeth Wood, to “inform the council and receive guidance on the timeline to advance.”

However, Greenway painted a different picture when he was asked why the board hadn’t seen the proposal. While mentioning the Rural and Critical board’s lack of a November meeting, Greenway expressed that the board hadn’t received the proposal because Monday night was the last opportunity to get the resolution passed with current County Council members.

“If you all want to postpone it, just understand that it’s gonna have to come back in January,” Greenway said. “When not only do we have to reeducate you all again, but we’re also going to have to bring four new council members up to speed on this issue to try to get an affirmative vote.”

But the council wasn’t convinced.

“Even if it means having to bring four new people up to speed, I’d rather let them” have a say, said Flewelling. “Even though I would love to have a voice, I think it is appropriate for the council to wait and apparently staff isn’t enthusiastic about that.” Flewelling did not seek another term on the council, after redistricting put him in a new district.

The Rural and Critical Lands Board Chair Walter Mack declined to comment on the matter until the board has had the opportunity to look over the proposal, saying the board and the county have always worked well together.

Rural and Critical is a property tax, passed by Beaufort County multiple times since 1999. The money raised by the tax goes toward buying and protecting farms, forests, cultural and historic sites, passive parks and land critical for environmental protection. The Rural and Critical Board is under the umbrella of county government but operates autonomously.

The county’s proposal

The protected land would be split into three parcels, known as the Evergreen tract and New Leaf Parcel A and B. The county is targeting the Evergreen Tract and New Leaf Parcel B for the swap. New Leaf Parcel A, containing the wetlands the land was originally obtained to protect, will remain in the Rural and Critical Lands program.

The county estimates that only six of the 20 acres of the Evergreen tract will be used for the library and 25 of the 40 acres of New Leaf B will be used for the ball fields. The rest will be a buffer for the protected land, according to county spokesman Chris Ophardt.

In exchange, the county will add 18 acres of land, Camp St. Mary’s, a former summer camp for Catholic kids and waterfront property the county bought in 1999, and a parcel of land off of Bluffton Parkway, to the program. A smaller portion of the county’s property off Bluffton Parkway, parcel B, will be kept with the county looking to acquire more land and establish a recycling processing center there.

While the acreage is far from equal, the estimated value of the land is near equal, Ophardt said. However, the land has not been appraised.

White, of the Coastal Conservation League, called for an assessment of the natural resource values of Camp St. Mary’s and the Bluffton Parkway parcel to “ensure they will meaningfully contribute” to Rural and Critical’s inventory and compensate for the loss of already protected land.

The Evergreen and New Leaf tracts were included in Rural and Critical for stormwater management and to protect the headwaters of the Okatie River, according to White. The county is insistent that the goal of protection will still be accomplished despite the added facilities, which they say will be environmentally sensitive.

Flewelling, who’s district encompasses Camp St. Mary’s, said because the site was originally purchased by the county with the intent of protecting the land, adding the land to Rural and Critical’s inventory wouldn’t accomplish much.

“It’s kind of like the Rural and Critical lands program is swapping property that they own, for property that they own,” he said.

A similar land swap was done in 2015, when the county was planning its animal shelter near the same area.