SULLIVAN’S ISLAND — A unique forest on this barrier island will stay wild with minimal intervention.
The South Carolina’s Appeals Court rejected efforts from a pair of homeowners to enforce a “selective thinning” plan that would have required an unprecedented number of trees in the lush forest to come down.
The Feb. 25 decision closes the door on a 2020 settlement between Sullivan’s Island and property owners who live near the wooded area that’s cropped up on accreted land over the past 70 years. The agreement laid out a maintenance plan that included removing small trees and clearing vegetation in areas near homes and beach paths throughout the forest.
In 2023, the settlement was tossed but two property owners, Nathan Bluestein and Theodore Albenesius, III, filed an appeal to restore the agreement and push the town to maintain the forest.
Attorneys for the town and the homeowners argued their cases before the state’s appellate court last fall.
The homeowners’ attorney, James Hood, told The Post and Courier shortly after oral arguments were heard last October that he and his clients were “hopeful that the Court of Appeals will order the town of Sullivan's Island to do what it agreed to do.”
But the court ultimately sided with the town.
In an opinion authored by Judge John Geathers, the court found that the agreement would bind future town councils to the terms of the settlement.
“As a result of this settlement agreement, the decision of the current or future town councils to alter or stop the selective thinning plan … would require and be conditioned upon the consent of private individuals,” Geathers wrote.
Attorneys for the homeowners did not immediately respond to requests for comment in time for publication. Town Administrator Joe Henderson declined to comment on the Feb. 25 outcome.
The decision brings to close another chapter in the maritime forest’s highly-litigated history.
Maritime forest dispute spans over 15 years
The forest is somewhat of a novelty in South Carolina. Where many beaches are eroding faster than sand can be replaced, Sullivan’s Island is growing. The placement of the Charleston Harbor Jetties blocks sand that would flow away from the town’s shores keep much of the sediment in place on the island’s south end.
The accretion of sand and sediment has become the site of a lush, young forest where visitors can trek through a shaded trail system to access the beach, the Charleston Light overlooking the path.
The town purchased the 200-plus acres from the Lowcountry Land Trust in 1991. Under the property’s deed restrictions, town leaders are able to trim vegetation to maintain public access and keep mosquitoes under control. However, the forest was to largely remain in its natural state.
Some residents view the forest as a revered resource. Others are less-than-thrilled by its untrimmed nature. Overgrowth and mosquitoes, coyotes and rats, loss of both beach access and ocean views were among the chief complaints from neighbors of the lush forest listed in a 2010 lawsuit filed by a handful of homeowners against the town of Sullivan’s Island.
Litigation dragged on for years. It seemed the matter was all but settled in 2020, when the town agreed to maintain the maritime forest through “selective thinning.” The thinning would remove trees in specific areas near homes, with some exceptions, and clearcut vegetation near beach paths.
Some, though, called for the conservation of the forest with a desire for it to remain wild. Sullivan’s Island For All, a group formed by concerned residents in support of preserving the maritime forest, lobbied for the town to re-examine the agreement.
It took a new slate of town council members, led by current Sullivan’s Island Mayor Pat O’Neil, to do so. In 2021, town leaders voted to hire an outside attorney to conduct a legal review of the settlement.
In 2023, Charleston County Circuit Judge Jennifer McCoy deemed the agreement “unenforceable.” The agreement restricted council from adopting future regulations preserving or maintaining the land as public interests change, McCoy determined.
The Feb. 25 decision from the appeals court affirmed that judgment.