Land use
Court agrees to move ‘expeditiously’ on Magic Oaks appeal
The state Court of Appeals agreed last week to expedite its consideration of an appeal in a lawsuit challenging Georgetown County’s approvals of the Magic Oaks residential development after the developer said delays threaten the project’s financing.
Neighbors say the county violated state law in approving a zoning change for the 8.3 acres on Pawleys Creek between the Hammock Shops and Village Shops because the existing zoning failed to follow the future land use maps in the county comprehensive plan.
Magic Oaks, whose principal is Tripp Nealy, plans 27 homes on the property. It needed the change from a mix of residential and commercial zoning districts to a “flexible design district” to alter the building setbacks for the portion of the property closest to Highway 17.
But the neighbors argued in a suit filed in June 2024 that the county failed to bring the zoning into compliance with the “conservation preservation” designation on the future land use maps, which wouldn’t have allowed any residential development.
The suit also claimed that County Council failed to follow the law by approving the Magic Oaks plan with a change to the location of a proposed kayak launch rather than sending the change back to the Planning Commission for review.
Magic Oaks successfully moved in Circuit Court to strike the claim about the kayak launch, because it was dependent upon a parking agreement with the Hammock Shops that was not reached.
The neighbors appealed.
Magic Oaks, represented by the Bellamy law firm, tried unsuccessfully to have the appeal dismissed and sanctions imposed, saying its purpose was to delay the development.
The neighbors, represented by Keep It Green Advocacy, pointed out it was Magic Oaks that sought to strike their argument about the kayak launch.
Last month, Magic Oaks asked the Appeals Court to expedite its consideration of the case so it can be returned to Circuit Court, saying the developer is at risk of defaulting on loans for the project. The neighbors argued that those are the risks of “speculative land development.”
“Unfortunately, Appellants’ position is not wholly unexpected,” Magic Oaks said in a filing. The neighbors’ objection “is another example in a long list of actions taken to delay development and effect an injunction to the severe detriment of developers like Magic Oaks.”
It attached a list of three other suits brought by Keep It Green Advocacy on behalf of neighbors and community groups challenging county land use decisions that are currently on appeal. Two are awaiting decisions, the third is expected to be heard in December.
The Appeals Court said the latest Magic Oaks filing was too late to be considered in its decision for expedited consideration, but it approved the request anyway.
The court rosters are already set through October. “However, this appeal shall be handled as expeditiously as possible,” the court said.
