Council votes to pull settlement discussion after members question plans to again allow developer representatives into executive session
By Delayna Earley
The Island News
A planned closed-door discussion about Pine Island was pulled from the Beaufort County Council agenda Monday, Sept. 28, after council members disagreed over whether representatives for the developer should be allowed to participate in an executive session for the second time this month.
The disagreement comes two weeks after Pine Island developer Elvio Tropeano and attorney Ellis Lesemann participated in a portion of an executive session during council’s Sept. 14 meeting, a move that has since drawn allegations that the county violated South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act.
The South Carolina Environmental Law Project, or SCELP, sent a letter to the county Sept. 24 on behalf of its client, the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition, and other concerned citizens objecting to the Sept. 14 closed meeting and the planned Sept. 28 executive session. The organization argued that the meetings, as noticed, violated the state’s FOIA.
County officials have disputed that interpretation.
The issue resurfaced almost immediately during Monday’s caucus, when council was scheduled to enter executive session to receive legal advice related to a proposed settlement in the federal lawsuit filed in April by Pine Island Property Holdings LLC and Pine Island GC LLC.
Councilman York Glover initially moved to postpone the discussion until other parties involved in the Pine Island litigation could be notified and given an opportunity to participate.
That prompted a disagreement over which Pine Island lawsuit was actually before council and who currently holds party status in that case.
County Attorney Brian Hulbert told council the settlement discussion involved the federal lawsuit filed in 2026, in which the county and Pine Island developers are currently the only parties. The separate 2023 case, in which the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition was granted intervenor status, is currently on appeal.
SCELP disputes the significance of that distinction.
In its Sept. 24 letter, the organization argued that the only active Pine Island litigation is the developers’ appeal of the 2023 case, in which the Coalition remains an intervenor-defendant. The 2026 case has been stayed by U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel pending the outcome of that appeal. The Coalition’s motion to intervene in the newer case was denied without prejudice when the stay was issued, meaning it can be renewed if the stay is lifted.
Gergel wrote in his June order that the developers seek “substantially similar relief based on nearly identical facts” in the two cases and stayed the 2026 action to avoid potentially inconsistent rulings.
Councilman Lawrence McElynn objected to the planned executive session for a different reason, saying he did not believe a plaintiff in litigation against the county should be allowed into the closed-door meeting.
“I’d like to amend the agenda to remove this item from discussion in executive session, because it is simply inappropriate action to be undertaken in executive session,” McElynn said. “To have someone who is a plaintiff in litigation come to our executive session to discuss his position on this matter.”
Councilman David Bartholomew said he still wanted council to receive a risk analysis from its attorneys but believed any presentation from the developer should take place publicly.
“I still would like to get a risk analysis from our attorneys,” Bartholomew said. “And I think any presentation should be done out here in the public.”
Hulbert told council that who participated in the executive session was at council’s discretion and that members could choose not to allow outside parties into the closed-door meeting while still receiving legal advice from the county’s attorneys.
McElynn maintained his motion to remove the item altogether.
Other members questioned whether removing it was necessary because the published agenda called for council to receive legal advice related to the settlement offer and did not specify that Pine Island representatives would participate.
Hulbert clarified that the participation of outside parties was not part of the agenda item itself and was instead part of the planned presentation. Council could change who was permitted to participate without removing the item, he said.
McElynn remained opposed.
“I want this item in its entirety off the agenda,” he said. “If you want to make some other accommodations, then be my guest.”
The motion passed with the supermajority required to amend the agenda.
McElynn, Glover, Joe Passiment, Mark Lawson, Gerald Dawson, Bartholomew, Vice Chair Anna Maria Tabernik and Chair Alice Howard voted in favor of removing the item. Logan Cunningham and Paula Brown voted against it.
The Pine Island executive session item was then formally removed from the agenda.
FOIA questions follow Sept. 14 meeting
The disagreement follows the Sept. 14 executive session, when Tropeano and Lesemann were allowed into the closed-door meeting for part of the Pine Island discussion.
SCELP argues their presence took the meeting outside the scope of the FOIA exemption cited by the county.
South Carolina law allows a public body to close a meeting for certain purposes, including receiving legal advice related to pending, threatened or potential claims, matters covered by attorney-client privilege and the settlement of legal claims.
In its letter, SCELP argued that attorney-client privilege does not extend to an adverse party and that negotiating directly with a developer is not the same as receiving legal advice from the county’s attorneys. The organization contends substantive settlement negotiations should take place in public.
The organization asked the county to either exclude Pine Island representatives from the Sept. 28 executive session or provide the Coalition and its attorneys the same opportunity to participate. It also asked that settlement discussions with the developers be conducted publicly and that executive sessions be limited to receiving legal advice from the county’s attorneys.
County officials have maintained that council may invite people into an executive session to provide information before those individuals leave and council receives confidential legal advice from its attorneys.
The dispute comes as Pine Island Property Holdings again seeks to remove the approximately 502-acre St. Helena Island property from the Cultural Protection Overlay while retaining its underlying T2 Rural zoning.
The Cultural Protection Overlay prohibits golf courses, resorts and gated communities. The property’s owners have repeatedly sought to remove Pine Island from the overlay.
The legal fight over the property now involves two federal cases.
The first was filed in 2023 and dismissed by Gergel earlier this year. That dismissal is now before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition remains an intervenor-defendant in that case.
Pine Island Property Holdings LLC and Pine Island GC LLC filed another federal lawsuit in April challenging the CPO. Gergel stayed that case in June until the appeal of the earlier case is resolved, finding substantial overlap between the two cases.
Although council removed the Pine Island matter Monday, the proposed settlement offer has not gone away.
Following the vote, Hulbert told council he has a legal obligation to bring the settlement offer before council and provide the plaintiffs with an answer.
“They brought us a settlement offer so I have to present that settlement offer to council and I have to give the proponents, the plaintiffs, an answer,” Hulbert said. “So at some point we have to address the settlement offer put to us.”
It would not, however, be discussed that night.
Council entered executive session to discuss three other legal matters. When members returned, Howard reminded those in attendance that the Pine Island item had been removed and was not discussed during the closed-door session.
Delayna Earley, who joined The Island News in 2022, formerly worked as a photojournalist for The Island Packet/The Beaufort Gazette, as well as newspapers in Indiana and Virginia. She can be reached at delayna.theislandnews@gmail.com.