COASTAL OBSERVER

A tax break that reduced the value of property on Pawleys Creek by $3.6 million has cast doubt on a request to change the zoning for a proposed residential development.

But the property owner’s attorney said the tax credit has no impact on the development of a portion of the 16 acres.

“He took advantage of a state law to qualify for an agricultural tax exemption, and that’s all there is to it. There’s nothing more here,” said Dan Stacy, attorney for David Tanner.

County Council this week gave the second of three readings to the rezoning over the objections of neighbors, area residents and one council member who has questioned the tax breaks state wide. Opponents also wanted the county to conduct its own survey of wetlands on the site, which is shown as “conservation preservation” on future land use maps.

The developer and his engineers said the project to construct 27 homes on the property between the creek and Highway 17 is allowed under the current zoning, a mix of “general commercial” and “general residential.” 

They sought a “flexible design district” zoning to allow houses on property now zoned for commercial use to be located closer to the interior street and farther away from the existing businesses at the Hammock Shops and the Village Shops.

The zoning change has the support of the citizens group Keep It Green, which has sued the county over four previous land use decisions, because it would limit development to medium density rather than the high density allowed by the current zoning.

But the group opposes changing the “conservation preservation” designation on the future land use maps.

“It’s an inconsistency,” said Cindy Person, chief counsel for Keep It Green Advocacy, but one that the county created by not bringing the zoning into compliance with the maps, she added. The issue is a key element of the lawsuits that are now pending before the state Court of Appeals.

Keep It Green also questioned whether the “conservation preservation” designation was tied to the tax break, which county records show reduced the value of the property. Person noted that Tanner, who inherited the property, placed it in a trust. She urged the county to confirm that the trust agreement didn’t contain any restrictions on the property.

If it does, “that’s a huge problem, and you’ll be glad you reviewed it,” she said.

Stacy told the council that wasn’t necessary.

“There is no requirement ever that a trust ever be published,” he said. “It appears to be a little bit disingenuous to try to insinuate that there was some inappropriate conduct on behalf of Mr. Tanner.”

As for the tax credit, Stacy said that wasn’t due to a conservation easement, but to the size of the property, which includes 11 acres of salt marsh.

“It’s the state law and there’s nothing inappropriate,” he said, adding that the Burroughs & Chapin Co. gets a tax break for growing pine trees on property in downtown Myrtle Beach.

Micky Stikas, owner of the Village Shops, opposed the zoning change because the county ordinance prohibits bars and taverns from being located with 300 feet of residential property. He said the change would make the existing businesses on his property non-conforming uses.

“It violates every tenet of good land use policy as well as county zoning ordinances,” he said.

Keep It Green also questioned the wetland study that was confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Duane Draper, who chairs Keep It Green, said there was no evidence that the agency actually looked at the property.

Keep It Green offered to pay for a wetlands study of its own, but the developer, Tripp Neely, declined.

“You don’t get a second opinion on a Corps letter. The Corps is the final authority,” said Steve Strickland, owner of Earthworks, which designed the project, known as Magic Oaks. “In 30 years, I’ve never seen a County Council or Planning Commission ask for a second opinion.”

Kathy Reid, who lives on the creek north of the Tanner property, said she filed a complaint with the Corps that wetlands were filled without a permit.

“There was an unauthorized wetland fill done on that property and they had no record of it,” she said. “There’s a new, open investigation into the wetlands fill on that property.”

Charles Oates shook his head. He is the project manager for the Brigman Co., which did the wetlands deliniation.

“The wetlands violation they are investigating is on Ms. Reid’s property where she built the bulkhead that blocks the water onto this property,” Oates told the council. “The violation that is being investigated is actually on her property.”

Neely said he had spent close to $100,000 on “due diligence” for the Tanner property, which he has an option to buy.

“I thought this would be just a slam dunk,” he said. “It is a drastic down-zoning.”

The goal of the project is to create a residential development that won’t impact Pawleys Creek, Neely said, adding that he has fished in the creek for over 35 years.

“I’ve got an offer, a guy that’s wanting to put a beachwear store up at the front of it, and to be honest with you, the way it’s zoned now, I’d probably make more money,” he said.

The council deferred a vote on the rezoning last month because the Corps hadn’t approved the extent of the wetlands.

With that done, Council Member Stella Mercado confirmed that the change would reduce future density and that the project includes a public kayak ramp and sidewalks that would connect with the Hammock Shops and Village Shops.

Council Member Raymond Newton confirmed that a second opinion was not common for wetlands studies, and added that he found talk of agricultural tax breaks “derogatory.”

Council Member Clint Elliott confirmed that a beachwear store could be built under the existing zoning.

“I’m a little concerned about the forest and agriculture thing,” Council Member Bob Anderson said.

He said the tax break that was created by the legislature in the 1970s has continued to grow and costs Georgetown County $5.4 million in annual revenue.

Anderson also questioned the wetlands approval, saying he also talked with the Corps of Engineers.

“As far as you all are concerned, the story is not over,” he told his colleagues before casting the lone vote against the change.