BEAUFORT — A marathon public hearing went into the early hours of the morning of Sept. 23 before Beaufort County Council called for a vote on the question before them.
At issue was a proposed development agreement for a golf resort on the St. Helena Island property referred to as Pine Island. Hundreds of Beaufort County residents turned out for the hearing, and approximately 70 signed up to make their voices heard. There was no shortage of impassioned arguments on both sides of the equation.
When it was all said and done, the vote wasn’t even close.
If that sounds vaguely familiar, a similar drama played out in 2023, when county council denied an application for a zoning variance that would have allowed the golf course construction.
Two years down the road, the property owner, identified only as Pine Island Property Holdings LLC, was back with a similar zoning-change request. This time, a development agreement was part of the mix. In it, the property owners offered the county a list of incentives, ostensibly intended to sweeten the deal and motivate council to greenlight the project.
Included in the development agreement was a $3.47 million grant for affordable housing, a $2.5 million grant for a community and recreation center, and various other financial commitments that would be made available if council approved the agreement.
In addition to financial incentives, the project also promised a reduction in housing density compared to what’s allowed by the current zoning and 360 acres of protected open space.
“Beaufort County has never seen a proposal that delivers so much to the community while placing such high protections on the environment,” Dukes said.
In return, the county needed to approve a golf course where it’s prohibited by the St. Helena Island Cultural Protection Overlay.
It was, despite the accommodations made by the development agreement, an uphill battle for the development team, fronted by developer Elvio Tropeano and Beaufort-based attorney Kevin Dukes. The Beaufort County Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the zoning change in May 2025 and the county staff’s evaluation of the development agreement and zoning change resulted in a recommendation to deny both applications.
Explaining that a project’s consistency with the county’s comprehensive plan is the primary measure by which it is judged, county Planning Director Rob Merchant said, “We at the staff level, from evaluating the comprehensive plan, believe that this is not consistent with the comprehensive plan.”
Dukes discussed the project for just under an hour, at which point public comments started and continued until 1:18 a.m.
Those speaking in opposition to the plan, by and large, made it clear that they were unwilling to trade the protection afforded by the overlay for what the developers were offering.
“No promises of gifts or financial gain can bring back culture,” said St. Helena resident Marie Gibbs.
Following public comments, Kevin Dukes was given one more chance to address council when Brian Hulbert, the county attorney, intervened, pointing out that another attorney had already taken that opportunity. Ellis Leseman, an attorney for the Tropeano team, had spoken moments earlier, and that address could be counted as the developer’s opportunity for rebuttal.
“His response was directly contrary to the public comment that was here before us,” Hulbert said.
After a few moments of back and forth, County Council Chair Alice Howard agreed to give Dukes two minutes to speak.
As council moved to debate adoption of the development agreement, it was difficult to get a read on how the vote might go.
Council first voted on a motion put forth by Councilmember Logan Cunningham to continue negotiations with the development team.
“I am land rights person,” said Councilmember Mark Lawson. “This is our first reading, so I’m probably going to vote yes just to keep negotiating to see how far we get.”
Lawson’s support was all that Cunningham’s measure could muster, and the motion was defeated 9-2.
Following the vote, Tropeano and Dukes made a beeline to Hulbert and made clear their intention to withdraw their request for the zoning change, an action the county allowed after scrambling to connect with Merchant.
Council moved quickly to vote on the central matter, adopting the proposed development. Councilmember Larry McElynn put forward a motion to deny approval of the development agreement. Untold hours of conversation, debate and consternation came down to this minute in the early hours of the morning.
McElynn’s motion passed by a vote 10-1, affirming the council’s intent to deny adoption of the development agreement.
With the crowd quiet after the vote, Vice Chair Anna Maria Tabernik asked, “Does everybody understand what that motion said?”
Opponents of the project still in the room after more than seven hours took that as a cue and erupted in cheers.
Dukes declined to offer a comment after the vote.
Speaking to The Post and Courier after the vote, Penn Center Executive Director Robert Adams asserted that it was always clear that a golf course on Pine Island was incompatible with comprehensive plan.
“We know that. The staff said that. The planning commission said that. This is the only logical outcome,” Adams concluded.