SC Supreme Court could intervene in White Tract legal battle
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN AWENDAW: Atlanta-based PulteGroup’s controversial housing project will eventually include more than two hundred homes, all on septic. Environmental groups and residents continue to challenge the development. (Source: OSM)
Brandon Lockett/StaffAtlanta-based Pulte Homes plans to eventually build more than 200 homes across 182 acres on the Tract, according to the Law Project.
A spokesperson for Pulte Group, Pulte Homes’ parent company, did not respond to a request for comment on the latest legal move.
The environmental groups contend the homes’ septic tanks could illegally discharge human excrement into the refuge — a common issue in other septic tank developments across coastal South Carolina.
“If Cape Romain is not worthy of the highest level of protection, no place is truly protected,” Grace Gasper, executive director of Friends of Coastal South Carolina, wrote in a news release.
State officials are lending their support to the non-profits’ cause.
“These valuable wetlands, in their present condition, must be preserved and the site left undisturbed so as to prevent irreparable harm pending resolution of the contested case proceedings,” Tom Mullikin, the director of the S.C. Department of Natural Resources, wrote in an affidavit accompanying the groups’ Sept. 16 petition.
Mullikin noted that the project falls within the refuge’s congressionally approved acquisition boundary, meaning the feds have highlighted the area for future inclusion in the refuge. That means it’s also a conservation priority for the state, he wrote.
“Commencement of construction, including clearing, grading and filling of the wetlands, would permanently eliminate a resource of significant value to the State of South Carolina,” Mullikin added.
State Sen. Chip Campsen, who represents the area in the Statehouse, wrote in a separate affidavit that the pause should be reinstated while the legal battle continues. Campsen, R-Isle of Palms, said that allowing construction to continue before a court can formally weigh in on the merit of the environmental groups’ allegations, “set(s) a dangerous precedent for further degradation of our coastline in these environmentally vulnerable areas.”