SULLIVAN’S ISLAND — On Ion Avenue, close enough to the beach that you can hear seagulls caw, an overgrown parcel sits in stark contrast to the manicured lawns and beach houses that line the street.

Thick shrubbery partially shrouds its entrance that’s set far back from the residential street. Topped with cacti and pine, a concrete bunker is built into an earthen mound here. The World War II-era bunker spans six properties, with gun batteries bookending the structure.

Now, three of those properties are poised to be developed.

Developer Patrick Marr, a Sullivan’s Island resident, had ambitions of placing homes atop the bunker. Marr, who’s worked on other high-profile island developments like the newest iteration of the “Wedding Cake House,” worked with Charleston-based firm Loyal Architects to bring three concepts for the homes to Sullivan’s Island’s Design Review Board in February.

The designs consisted of homes cascading down the mound, with at least one story of each home perching on top of the bunker. Each property would be unique, constructed with different materials and design elements to avoid a row of identical homes, Marr said.

“These houses are going to be able to stand on their own with completely distinct designs, just as private owners of each lot would do. We will ensure that the houses will reflect the island character,” he said.

The bunker is listed in the town’s historic resources survey as the Fort Marshall gun battery. Built for use in World War II, the bunker held munition for the army’s coastal defenses on Sullivan’s Island.

When a property is a town-designated landmark property, the appointed body of architects, interior designers and preservationists evaluate developments to ensure they preserve the historic character of the property.

The South Carolina Court of Appeals has handed down two separate decisions that have the potential to affect both quality of life and property ownership on Sullivan's Island.

In a 2-1 ruling on Feb. 18, the Court of Appeals overturned a Circuit Court decision that SC Lighthouse, doing business as Pacaso, a California-based company that sells fractional ownerships in luxury homes, was operating as a short-term rental on the island, which banned short-term vacation rentals around 25 years ago. According to the Appeals Court decision, selling shares of the vacation home "does not constitute commercial use of the property."

A week later, on Feb. 25, the Appeals Court upheld a Circuit Court ruling that the town's Oct. 7, 2020, settlement agreement in Bluestein vs. Sullivans's Island concerning property abutting the Maritime Forest is invalid. As part of the agreement, the town opted to settle the lawsuit by implementing a "selective thinning" plan for the Forest that would consist of the removal and trimming of vegetation on the accreted land.

The parties in the long-term lawsuit stipulated that the settlement agreement could not be "modified or amended, nor could any of its provisions be waived, except upon mutual agreement of all parties or their authorized agents in writing."

The agreement also provided that it would be “binding upon and inure to the benefit of all the parties, and their heirs, successors and assigns.”

However, after a new City Council was elected in May 2021, the Town brought a declaratory judgment action against Property Owners in February 2022 seeking an order that the settlement agreement was invalid and unenforceable, arguing that it unfairly bound future councils to this agreement.

The Court of Appeals sided with the town, finding, “Our courts have consistently invalidated contracts that bind future governing bodies because the contracts involved the bodies’ legislative functions or governmental powers.”

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.