The proposed Pine Island project on St. Helena Island once again took center stage at Monday night’s Beaufort County Council meeting.

In a surprising twist, a council member proposed revisiting the council’s decision from September, urging to overturn their earlier vote that had rejected the development.

Back in September, members of the county council had convened with the developer and his attorney in an open session to discuss a revised development agreement.

That particular meeting extended into the early hours, ending around 2 a.m., after extensive public input. Ultimately, the council decided against further discussions and negotiations.

Rumors circulated within the community suggesting that Beaufort County Councilman Logan Cunningham might make a bold move during Monday night’s session to reverse the previous decision against the development.

Council chamber was once again packed to its capacity, with dozens of people watching from an overflow space outside of the chambers.

Many of those community members were made of St. Helena residents, who were once again frustrated the development was back as a topic of discussion.

Before Cunningham could even make the rumored motion, several community members took the stand to air out their frustrations on council who would be weighing the decision.

“This whole discussion about re-development; there’s nothing that pisses me off more than a politician thinking he knows better than what the people want,” said one St. Helena resident. “There’s 16,000 people in your district. That’s about 4000 houses. Get in line with what the people want, or I swear to God, I will go to every house in your district and tell them what you’re doing.”  

Another community member who owns 70 acres of undeveloped land on the island said he receives calls weekly from developers looking to purchase and develop his land.

He said the Pine Island development has caused developers to get comfortable with seeking the island as its next project.

He claimed the developer, Elvio Tropeano’s plans reeked of “privilege and exclusivity” and would “tear the very fabric of what Saint Helena Island is and what it stands for.”

He called out Cunningham for considering a motion to resend council’s previous vote.

“When a single council member can erase a landslide vote with a procedural stunt because a developer doesn’t like the outcome, then this chamber no longer is a place of public service. It’s a place where powers bought and traded, not earned,” he said.

Another community member and island resident also called Cunningham’s efforts to rescind the decision “beyond bewildering” and an “open slap in the face.”

Cunningham made his motion later in the Monday meeting.

He argued that council and the public did not have enough time to review the development agreement presented in September thoroughly before a permanent vote was made.

“We are required to give a two week notice for a public hearing and public notice, and I think we should,” said Cunningham. “The only problem with that is the process of that is to get all the information to the public. The information to the public actually wasn’t five days. It was the Friday before when our agenda actually got published. The public had a 48-hour notice to review a contract agreement or the documents that were presented for the agenda on Monday. Yes, there was a presentation done. Yes, it went on for hours. I’ve said it before. I’m very thankful that everybody came out, but I do not believe that is a responsible job of us educating the public.”

Cunningham said the public was led to misleading and false information about the development plans.

A part of the assumptions he said he’s seen or heard is that ‘if the golf course isn’t approved, then any type of development on the property would not happen.’

“That property is zoned for a minimum of 160 houses, 160 septic tanks and 90 docks,” said Cunningham. “And a lot of people say that it’s not going to get done, it’s not going to be done.  Well, as of right now, through the final SRT project, the first 40 have already been applied for. People still believe that no development is an option but it’s already beginning.”

Developer, Tropeano, also took the stand for the first time in a while to argue his side.

He said the development agreement presented to council in September fits into what islanders were asking for. Cultural and environmental conservation and protection.

He argued that the land, which is zoned for the 100+ homes and 90+ docks, was cut into a fraction of that in the new development agreement. That plan would include the golf course.

“I do find it ironic that we’ve got another series of letters coming in with the same rationale urging denial of a development agreement, citing the same language, citing the same reasons, citing the same facts, that golf is corrosive and disruptive to a culture. You all know that is not the case at all,” said Tropeano. “I would like the opportunity to educate the public on that not being the case.”

Tropeano asked council to consider the rescind vote so the public can be educated on the golf courses’ economic and environmental impacts, which he said were included in the development agreement.

Council went back and forth in their discussions but didn’t turn their back on the previous decision.

Several council members said rescinding their vote would set a dangerous precedent.

Council ultimately voted 6-4 to deny recalling their previous vote.