The lush landscape pictured here behind Renzo Falcinelli's future home (in a pre-construction photo) is now destroyed.
When Myrtle Trace was developed, a buffer area was set aside as a nature preserve, as mitigation for wetlands filled by the developer. Then the agency that required the nature preserve granted a new permit allowing development of the nature preserve, located near Conway in Horry County. SCELP assisted a neighborhood group in overturning this new permit. The developer has now filed suit seeking to reinstate its permit.
This case involves a development near Conway known as Myrtle Trace. In the late 1980s, the development obtained an OCRM certification and Corps of Engineers permit allowing the filling and excavation of wetlands. As mitigation, an 8.5-acre tract of land was designated as a protected buffer area. The property was in a strategic position between the residential area of Myrtle Trace and the busy Conway Hospital complex. Signs were posted on the property saying: "Conservation Area, Do Not Disturb." Plats showing the property as a "wetland" and "buffer" were recorded, and similar notations were shown on zoning map.
Then another developer decided he wanted to build an assisted-living center on the tract. He convinced the property owner, International Paper Realty, to sell him the tract. International Paper told him about the mitigation buffer requirements, but sold him the property at a price in line with its buffer status. The new developer then clear-cut the tract. He then applied for a storm water permit to build his assisted-living center. OCRM issued a decision denying the permit, but told the developer that if he left a 32-foot strip as a buffer, and purchased $20,000 of credits in an unspecified wetlands "mitigation bank," the agency would approve the development.
SCELP challenged OCRM's decision. Unfortunately, the Administrative Law Judge upheld the agency decision in the initial phase of the appeal.
This case was heard by the DHEC Board in 2001. The Board voted to reverse the ALJ and OCRM and deny the developer's permit. The Board said that approval of this permit would set a dangerous precedent allowing mitigation areas to be developed up and down the coast.
The developer appealed to state court and due to technical defects in the Board's order, got the case sent back to the DHEC Board.
In October 2004, the Board again unanimously denied the developer's permit. The Board's order was issued in early 2005. The developer has now appealed this case to Circuit Court.
A related case, in which we are asking the Court to clarify the legal restrictions on use of the "buffer tract", is on hold pending the outcome of the permit case.
