Land use
Developer claims citizens group behind lawsuit filed by others
The developer of 27 lots on Pawleys Creek is seeking damages from a citizens group that it claims is behind a lawsuit challenging Georgetown County’s approval of the project.
Keep It Green is using the lawsuit filed in June against Magic Oaks LLC, the county and two others to try to “hinder and delay this residential development as they have attempted to do with numerous other developments in Georgetown County,” according to a counterclaim filed last month in Circuit Court.
Keep It Green was not a plaintiff in that suit.
Neighboring property owners of the 8.3 acres between the creek and Highway 17 brought suit after the county rezoned the tract as a “flexible design district.” The property had been zoned “general residential” and “general commercial.” It was shown on the county’s future land use maps as “conservation preservation,” which doesn’t allow development.
The suit argued that the county should have changed the zoning to comply with the land use maps. Its failure to do so made the change to the flex district zoning void, according to the filing.
The suit also argued that the rezoning of the commercial tract would put the adjacent Village Shops “planned development” out of compliance with the zoning ordinance because it prevents taverns and nightclubs within 300 feet of a residential district.
And, it claimed that a change to the Magic Oaks project to place a public kayak launch on the north side of the property should have been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
The plaintiffs – Micky Stikas, Elizabeth Martin, Don and Kathy Reid, and Tall House Farm partnership – asked the court to overturn the rezoning and declare that the county violated the law. They are represented by Cindy Person, chief counsel of Keep It Green advocacy, and Patrick Hubbard, a law professor at the University of South Carolina.
The attorneys also represent the plaintiffs, including Keep It Green, in four other suits challenging Georgetown County land use decisions. Three of those were dismissed by Circuit Court judges and are on appeal.
“Notably, after three consecutive Orders of Dismissal, KIG has refrained from naming itself as a Plaintiff in this action, but has provided its in-house counsel to represent all Plaintiffs,” according to the counterclaim by Magic Oaks. “The gist of all of these lawsuits is the false and incorrect assertion that residential development in Georgetown County is incompatible with the Georgetown County Comprehensive Plan and thus in violation of state and local law. This lawsuit is no different.”
The complaint notes that Magic Oaks, whose developer is Tripp Neely of RCB Land Holdings, and David Tanner, the former property owner, met with Keep It Green after initially proposing to rezone the 8 acres to “general residential.” (Tanner and RCB Land Holdings are also defendants.) The citizens group praised the change to a flex district because it limited the number of lots to 27, calling the move “a big win for the community.”
Keep It Green and others, including some of the plaintiffs, raised objections when the zoning change came up for County Council approval. It received final reading on April 23.
The property was transfered on June 10 when the deed and a mortgage were recorded, and a suit was filed June 18, before the 60-day deadline set by state law for challenging zoning changes.
Magic Oaks claims the plaintiffs knew of the loan and “filed this lawsuit to hinder and delay” the project. The developer has suffered damages “in the form of default on security obligations, interest, delay, changing market conditions, lost profits” and other consequences yet to be identified, according to court filings.
It seeks actual and punitive damages from all the plaintiffs for interfering with present and future contracts and for a civil conspiracy with Keep It Green.
The developer also asks the court to require that the plaintiffs post a bond to cover interest and lost profits due to construction delays while the suit is pending.
Magic Oaks has also moved to strike the portion of the original complaint dealing with the kayak ramp. The Hammock Shops, which are adjacent to the proposed ramp, last month told Magic Oaks it is “unable to provide access,” according to court filings.
“It was clearly identified in the development plan that the public kayak launch was subject to this contingency,” according to the counterclaim. “Still, Plaintiffs ignored this and brought their claims prematurely.
A hearing on the motion is scheduled this month.
Georgetown County has also asked the court to dismiss the suit, saying, as it did in the three cases on appeal, that the plaintiffs failed “to state any justiciable claims” and denying that “any clearly established constitutional rights” were violated.
