COASTAL OBSERVER

The developer of 27 lots between Pawleys Creek and Highway 17 says it risks defaulting on its loans if the state Court of Appeals doesn’t move quickly on an appeal filed by neighbors who oppose the project.

The neighbors say that’s the risk that comes with “speculative land development.”

Magic Oaks LLC, whose principal is Tripp Nealy, held an open house for real estate agents on the property in February. Nealy said he was moving forward with approval from his lawyers in spite of a lawsuit challenging Georgetown County’s decision to rezone the property as a “flexible design district” to allow the development.

Last month, Zach Crowl of the Bellamy law firm, asked the Court of Appeals to “expedite consideration” of an appeal from a Circuit Court judge’s decision that struck one element of the neighbors’ complaint: that County Council improperly gave its final approval after the location of a proposed kayak launch was moved. The neighbors, represented by Patrick Hubbard and Cindy Person of Keep It Green Advocacy, argued that the change should have been sent back to the Planning Commission for review.

The neighbors said Judge David Caraker erred in finding the issue of the kayak launch was “moot and immaterial.” To reach that decision required considering evidence that didn’t exist when the council made its decision, they argued.

After the appeal from the neighbors – Micky Stikis, Elizabeth Martin, Don and Kathy Reid and Tall House Farm partnership – Magic Oaks sought its dismissal and asked the appeals court to impose sanctions.  Magic Oaks said the purpose of the suit was to “hinder and delay” the development.

The Appeals Court denied the motion.

The neighbors pointed out that it was Magic Oaks which sought to strike the reference to the kayak ramp in their complaint in the first plan.

In a filing last month, Magic Oaks told the Appeals Court that it “will suffer substantial harm if this case is delayed and is not resolved in an expedited manner.”

It wants a decision on the appeal as soon as possible so the suit can move forward in Circuit Court.

It points out that the suit doesn’t allege any “bad acts” by Magic Oaks, it only challenges the county’s “validly passed ordinances.”

While the neighbors didn’t seek an injunction or restraining order against the development, the effect of the appeal is “an injunction without posting bond to protect Magic Oaks,” according to the filing.

Magic Oaks has a loan secured by the 8.3 acres, which it bought, along with adjacent marsh, from David Tanner for $3.9 million. The deal included the sale of a house and lot in Magic Oaks to Tanner.

Tanner inherited the property from Reese Hart, a scientist and magician, who is buried on the property along with his wife.

“The delayed resolution of this matter places Magic Oaks in danger of defaulting on these contractual obligations,” according to the filing.

It that’s so, the neighbors said in a filing last week, the “alleged financial predicament is the result of their own choices.”

The sale of the property and the mortgage were completed before the 60-day window for challenging the county’s approval had closed, the neighbors noted.

Magic Oaks “now attempt to use an imprudent business decision for which they are responsible to ask for special treatment,” the neighbors said, adding that to grant it “would set a dangerous precedent.”

Appeals of land use decisions, “which often involve delay and expenses, are a necessary and proper part of the process,” they said in a filing.

And far from being “validly passed,” they argue that the county ordinances changing the zoning and future land use plan were void because the county failed to follow state law.

The appeal is one of four brought by Keep It Green Advocacy that is pending in the Court of Appeals.

A three-judge panel heard arguments in a suit challenging approval of two townhouse projects in the Parkersville area on May 13. The case was dismissed by the Circuit Court and an appeal was filed in January 2024 seeking to overturn that decision.

A month later, the Appeals Court heard arguments in a suit challenging the rezoning of the county’s former tech park to allow a townhouse development. A Circuit Court judge also dismissed the suit. An appeal was  filed in August 2023.

A third suit, over the county’s approval of a townhouse project on Petigru Drive where construction has already started, is tentatively scheduled for arguments in December. The appeal was filed in November 2023 after the suit was dismissed in Circuit Court.