If you find all the talk about the Maritime Forest legal proceedings complicated, you’re not alone! The Island Eye newspaper recently ran a comprehensive article that will bring you up to speed on the legal back and forth between those who want to radically cut the forest and those who want to save this natural sea wall that protects all of us from sea rise and storm surge. Here is the article in full:
October 28, 2025
Nicole Seitz
Over the past 15 years, a legal battle involving the Town of Sullivan’s Island’s maritime forest and some homeowners who front it has been tossed back and forth more than the sea spray along the accreted land in question. This month, the issue is again before the South Carolina Court of Appeals as the appellants respond to a 2023 decision ruling that a 2020 settlement with the town was unenforceable.
The nearly 200-acre maritime forest on the southern tip of Sullivan’s Island has been described as resilient, flourishing, and protective — but the same could be said of the dispute between a few front beach property owners and the Town of Sullivan’s Island, the proprietor of the land in trust. Now back in court are the parties in a case that began in 2010, when oceanfront homeowners who could no longer see the ocean sought to force the town to trim and maintain original views of a shoreline that had moved farther away. Both parties are resilient — each has sued and countersued.
Things change — especially on a sea island. Sullivan’s Island is a barrier island, formed when water moves sand over time. Usually, barrier islands and oceanfront homeowners fight erosion and the very real threat of losing property. On the north end of Sullivan’s Island, this is the case. However, due to jetties built in the late 1800s, Sullivan’s Island is one of the few barrier islands in the United States with such extensive accretion of sand, land, and vegetation that a forest was created, sustained, and continues to grow.
Walk through the maritime forest today along sandy footpaths and wooden boardwalks and you’ll find secluded benches surrounded by thick underbrush and windswept trees. Many species of birds, butterflies, and bumblebees are visible, as are scurrying squirrels. Nocturnal creatures such as rodents, rabbits, raccoons, opossums, and coyotes remain hidden by day. Signs warn of coyotes in the area and of strong ocean currents, holes, and drop-offs — a caution to anyone who might swim nearby. Turn one way and see the beach as the path opens up; turn the other and catch glimpses of homes in the distance, obscured by trees and brush.
Expand
Ultimately, this maritime forest acts as a protector of the Sullivan’s Island coast. It absorbs wave and wind energy before it reaches inland, meaning the homes behind it are better protected from storms — as is Mount Pleasant.
This role of Sullivan’s Island as a Lowcountry protector is nothing new. Walk in the footsteps of history at the western end of the Sullivan’s Island Nature Trail in the maritime forest. Before the First Siege of Charleston in 1776, Col. William Moultrie led the construction of Fort Sullivan, the island’s first military fortification. It consisted of a 16-foot-thick palmetto cribbing filled with sand. During the Battle of Sullivan’s Island, the native sabal palmetto trees enabled Americans to fend off British warships, marking the first major victory of the American Revolution.
Sand and trees as protectors — that’s precisely the benefit provided by the maritime forest. Yet nature has a tendency to grow and change. That growth is at the root of the ongoing litigation. The appellants claim their property values have diminished because of the forest, yet a simple online search for homes along Atlantic Avenue fronting the maritime forest shows that the accretion is often listed as a positive feature, increasing privacy and protection while maintaining ocean views and access.
At the heart of this pending litigation is the notion that the Town of Sullivan’s Island is obligated to maintain the maritime forest vegetation — and that by not doing so, the town is in breach of contract. The most recent voided settlement spells out those obligations in detail. The original deed gives the town this power but does not obligate it.
Attorney for the plaintiffs, James Hood, said his clients “simply want the Town of Sullivan’s Island to do what it promised to do. Nothing more and nothing less.”
Expand
History of the litigation
After Hurricane Hugo ravaged the Charleston area and residents began to rebuild, the Town of Sullivan’s Island sought to protect the accreted land through a heavily restricted deed with the Lowcountry Open Land Trust. After watching a developer bulldoze accretion on Isle of Palms to make way for development, the town had the foresight to protect its own accreted land for residents’ safety as well as for its aesthetic, educational, and ecological value.
In 2010, homeowners Nathan and Ettaleah Bluestein, M.D., along with Theodore Albenesius III and Karen Albenesius, applied for a permit to cut down vegetation between their homes and the ocean. When they were denied, they sued the town (Bluestein v. Town of Sullivan’s Island). They argued that their property values were affected, that the forest was a nuisance harboring wild animals, and that their ocean views and breezes were obstructed. They pointed to the 1991 deed, claiming it required the town to keep the vegetation at the low-brush state that existed when the deed was enacted.
For a decade, the case went through several courts, including the South Carolina Supreme Court and the South Carolina Court of Appeals. In 2018, the Court of Appeals sided with the town. In 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling and recommended further proceedings due to the “ambiguity” of the 1991 deed’s language regarding maintenance obligations. A settlement was reached that same year, with the town agreeing to selective trimming — provided the homeowners obtained necessary permits and funded the work.
A new Town Council was elected in 2021. In 2023, it challenged the 2020 settlement, and a circuit court judge ruled it unenforceable, stating that a previous Town Council cannot dictate what a future Council must do with its governmental powers under the deed.
Expand
This month, the 2023 reversal was appealed by Nathan Bluestein and Theodore Albenesius III. Ettaleah Bluestein, M.D., passed away in 2019, and Karen Albenesius has since divorced and is no longer a plaintiff.
At the Oct. 8, 2025, hearing before the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the appellants’ attorney, James Hood, described his response to the nullification of the 2020 settlement:
“I think it’s illogical, and I think a conclusion that determines that maintenance of your property as you’re obligated to do it by the restrictive covenants that you negotiated, put on it, and then purchased it back — if you can’t do that as part of your proprietary function, then you can’t put on restrictive covenants. You can’t put historic easements. You can’t encumber property in the future.”
In response, attorney for the town, Greenville-based lawyer William Wilkins, argued that the 2020 settlement was too restrictive on future Town Councils.
“This prior Council is attempting to dictate to future Councils how it must spend taxpayer dollars of some unspecified amount. Without question, this is impairment of governmental powers.”
Looking forward
In April 2024, the Town of Sullivan’s Island hired a director of resilience and natural resource management, Rebecca Fanning, to use evidence-based decision-making to advise on land management and lead community engagement events fostering appreciation for the island’s natural resources.
Fanning said her role’s creation “has been a tremendous step in the right direction toward evidence-based land stewardship practices tailored to the unique challenges and opportunities of the barrier island environment.”
Sullivan’s Island is Fanning’s hometown, and she spent her childhood playing in the island’s maritime forest and forested batteries.
“I am uniquely aware of the forest succession that has taken place since the year Hugo hit,” Fanning said, “and the added value of those woods with their wonderful understories for providing forage and shelter for migratory warblers, nesting painted buntings, southern leopard frogs, fireflies, mosquito fish, praying mantises, and a host of other amazing creatures that call this place home.”
“Last year under my leadership,” she said, “several front beach homeowners pursued permits to remove more than 1,000 invasive popcorn trees from the maritime forest. Once the invasive removals were complete, I seeded the areas with beautiful saltmarsh mallow to suppress next year’s invasive reemergence, and a riot of pink blossoms emerged to greet the bumblebees that depend on native plant nectar and pollen to feed their young. We are only just getting that popcorn removal permitting process the attention it deserves, and I expect we will at least double that number this winter season.”
Town Administrator Joe Henderson said, “The town is committed to protecting its governmental powers by acting in the public interest on matters concerning the preservation and maintenance of the maritime forest now and in the future.”
Expand
At the Oct. 8, 2025, hearing, Wilkins also spoke about the validity of the 2020 agreement:
“This contract provides in perpetuity. It is to last forever, and that certainly is not a proprietary function that is appropriate. I might add that this contract says it is binding on the parties, their heirs, their successors and assigns, clearly making this a contract to last in perpetuity. The agreement also says it may not be modified or amended ‘except upon the mutual agreement of all parties and their authorized agents.’ This is clearly an attempt to give private citizens — the parties, their heirs, their successors and assigns and their authorized agents — the ability to veto any future act that any future Council wishes to take with regard to the accreted land.”
A land trust sign on the nature trail in the maritime forest claims this property at the heart of the lawsuit is “protected forever.” To many residents, it’s a promise of good stewardship for the future, but for a few, it’s a challenge — and a reminder that the fight continues.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals is expected to issue its decision by early 2026.
Island Eye News
