Trask and HBF Ask Court for Reconsideration in Beaufort Hotel and Parking Garage Case

Graham Trask is making good on the promise that he will not give up in the legal battle over a hotel and parking garage planned in downtown Beaufort. As previously reported by Beaufort Insider, the SC Court of Appeals ruled against Trask and in favor of Dick Stewart and 303 Associates when they upheld the decision of the lower court three weeks ago. Last Thursday, Trask and Historic Beaufort Foundation (HBF) asked the Court of Appeals to reconsider their decision to allow the hotel and parking garage building permits to move forward, citing two major concerns with their judgments: 1) the court’s order that Beaufort’s Historic District Review Board (HDRB) implement the possibility of appeal at every stage of their process, and 2) an error in the timeline the court used to come to its decision. Read the two Petitions for Rehearing in their entirety here and here.

HDRB Appeal: A Controversial Precedent

The SC Court of Appeals’ decision to require appeals at each stage of the HDRB process—conceptual, preliminary, and final approvals—is cause for concern according to Trask and HBF. The petition for rehearing states that this requirement is unsupported by statutory or case law and poses a risk of overwhelming the judicial system. HDRB applicants may feel compelled to file appeals at every stage to preserve their rights, creating the potential for procedural chaos and significant resource strain on the courts and stakeholders alike.

Declaratory Judgment: Misunderstanding the Timeline

The appellate court’s decision included an assumption that the original legal action was filed after an appeal was heard by the HDRB. But in fact, the declaratory judgment was filed three months prior to the HDRB appeal, addressing different issues and involving different parties. This misunderstanding by the Court of Appeals gives Trask reason to ask for reconsideration.

The declaratory judgment sought clarity on zoning and procedural irregularities, particularly whether large projects like the hotel, parking garage, and apartment project required special exceptions under the Beaufort Code. The HDRB appeal, by contrast, primarily addressed design and aesthetic considerations.

Key arguments in the petition for rehearing include:

1. Expired Approvals: Preliminary approvals for both the hotel and parking garage projects had expired before final approvals were sought, violating Beaufort’s zoning requirements.
2. Failure to Secure Special Exceptions: The projects required special exceptions from the Zoning Board of Appeals due to their size and location within the historic district. These special exceptions were never obtained.
3. Erroneous Certificates of Appropriateness: The city erroneously issued certificates for the parking garage that were never approved by the HDRB.

Broader Impact on Beaufort

This case underscores the tension between preserving Beaufort’s historic character and facilitating development. Trask and HBF argue that approval of oversized projects, including a four-story hotel with a rooftop bar and a large parking garage, without adequate procedural safeguards, threatens the integrity of the National Historic Landmark District.

Trask and HBF also argue that the HDRB’s decisions failed to meet the Beaufort Code’s requirements for compatibility, no adverse impact, and consistency with preservation guidelines. Approval of these projects without sufficient evidence or adherence to procedural rules risks setting dangerous precedents for future development in Beaufort.

Next Steps

The petition for rehearing calls for the Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision and address procedural and substantive issues. Beaufort residents and preservation advocates statewide await the outcome, which could redefine how development is managed in the City of Beaufort and across South Carolina.

Stay tuned to Beaufort Insider for further updates.