Snee Farm subdivision OK despite lawsuit

The Mount Pleasant Town Council granted final approval of a rezoning request Tuesday that will allow the I'On group to build 57 homes on seven acres owned by Snee Farm Country Club, even as some residents begged council to await the outcome of a lawsuit challenging whether the developers have the right to build there.

The meeting room was unusually packed by the dozens of residents from Snee Farm, Mount Pleasant's oldest golf course community, who came out to speak on both sides of the emotionally charged issue. As residents went to the podium one after another, their neighbors sat in the audience either applauding or shaking their heads indignantly.

Town council voted 6-3 on the second and final reading after little discussion; the land was rezoned from conservation/recreation/open space to planned developed/mixed use.

Mark Lipsmeyer, I'On Group's chief operating officer, said he would like to see development begin within a year. The company is purchasing the seven acres from the Snee Farm Country Club, which has said it will use the money to pay for replacement of the aging clubhouse and pool.

The proposal has divided residents of Snee Farm. Some believe it will improve the value of the neighborhood, while opponents worry it will increase traffic, create storm water drainage problems and establish a precedent for building on what they claim was legally set aside as recreational land. The golf course was not rezoned, though some fret that a developer will one day attempt to take that land too as the town continues to grow.

"I would say their main concern is they bought their houses and paid a premium for them based on that recreational area, that it would always be there", said Thomas Goldstein, who is representing a group of residents in their lawsuit against the country club owners, JKM Holdings LLC, who bought it four years ago from Club Corp. of America for $2.4 million.

"It's a slippery slope. If you can cut off (these) acres today, how many acres will they want to cut off five years from now, where does it stop?"

The lawsuit is based on a deed restriction dated Nov. 19, 1975, that states the land in question will remain as a recreational complex only. The developers argue they are not impeding the clubhouse, nor do they have plans to touch the golf course, though critics say they will be taking aesthetically pleasing open space.

Goldstein told council members they should wait to act until the lawsuit is settled, though attorney Larry Richter, who is representing JKM Holdings LLC, told council the outcome of private litigation is "none of your business"."Why act?" he asked rhetorically just before the council vote. "Because the lawsuit is as bogus as the accusations you've heard here tonight.

"If there were a delicate way of saying you could judge the credibility of those who came here tonight (opposing the project), I would say it."
Lipsmeyer called his project "smart growth". Infill development, he said, is the best way to add new homes to the increasingly popular town while attempting to mitigate the impact on existing infrastructure. The controversy, Lipsmeyer said, reflects the growing rub between the developers looking to serve the needs of the massive numbers of newcomers heading to the coast and the residents who have lived in the greater Charleston region for decades.

"It's a constant battle," he said. "People continue to move to this area of the country and this city, and that's the way it's going to be. The city and infrastructure needs to accommodate the growth in some fashion."

By Molly Parker , Staff Writer