By Beth Eberhard and Winona Specht
March 31, 2023
Protecting the Places You Love. This is the motto of the Aiken Land Conservancy. With the pending sale of Rose Trace, they may need to change it to Profiting From the Places You Love.
About Rose Trace
Rose Trace, a 132-acre wooded property located between Richardson’s Lake Road and Southwood subdivision, was donated to the Aiken Land Conservancy (ALC) in December of 2014 by Paul and Phyllis Rosen.
In the Winter 2015 ACL newsletter, Phyllis Rosen said of their donation of Rose Trace to Aiken Land Conservancy, “I feel as if we’ve saved a life. Our intention is to preserve these wonderful woods and protect them for the future.”
Above: The trails in Rose Trace are enjoyed daily by local walkers, who keep the trails cleared of fallen limbs and other woody debris.
Below: Spring comes to life at Rosen Trace in ferns, fungi, irises, and a small stream with a simple board for crossing. Last summer, this box turtle was seen laying a clutch of eggs only moments before this photo was taken.
The article goes on to say, “… it gives them comfort to know that Rose Trace is in the hands of an organization that shares their conservation values and will take care of the property as they would. “
“Properties like Rose Trace are a big part of what makes Aiken so special,” said Phyllis. ”We wanted to do our part to preserve the beauty, character and open space that drew us here in the first place.”
ALC President Larry Comegys wrote in the same 2015 newsletter of Rose Trace, “…we are honored to take over the reins of this beautiful property. Donating land with conservation value is one of the finest gifts that a person can leave for future generations…This is an important and exciting addition to our properties that protects valuable open space adjoining urbanized Aiken.”
The Pending Sale of Rose Trace
Yet, Larry Comegys recently sent a letter to ALC supporters declaring, “It was intended that ALC would sell the property and use the funds to support our operational needs, particularly to add full-time conservation staff to our team.” (1) Days later, he amended this statement to read, “It was intended that ALC would later sell the property, using the proceeds to help build the endowment needed to fulfill our legal commitments to regularly, in perpetuity, monitor the properties we protect through conservation easement.”
Rose Trace is currently listed as a sale pending through Coldwell Banker Realty with a price tag of $700,000. The 132.02 acre land was listed as ALC’s top asset in in their 2021 Form 990 — valued at $1,320,000. (2)
This sale would have gone down quietly except for a chance encounter that Dr. Winona Specht had with a neighbor who told her of ALC’s plan to sell Rose Trace. Specht, who holds a doctorate in Ecology, walks these woods at least once a day and knows the value of this large contiguous plot of land for its diversity of plant and animal life, having regularly seen deer, fox, and owls among other wild residents of this area that is described by Comegys as a “mini Hitchcock Woods.” Specht contacted another woods-walker, Beth Eberhard, who as an environmental educator also knew the value of the diverse ecosystems contained within Rose Trace.
Sights on a spring walk at Rose Trace: Bee pollinating some fragrant horse sugar blossoms; a native Hawthorne tree in bloom; longleaf pine catkins forming a heart. (Photos courtesy of Beth Eberhard)
Starting on March 12, Beth Eberhard and Winona Specht began trying to contact ALC by email, phone, and even visiting their downtown office, but received no response. Ten days later they began posting about the sale on NextDoor and Facebook. Their posts locally went viral. To date the posts have been viewed more than 12,000 times and hundreds of people have commented on the posts; with most comments expressing outrage and disappointment about the sale.
Suddenly, Comegys began returning calls, sent out letters to ALC supporters, and was interviewed by the Aiken Standard; which ran a front-page article on March 25 that only provided ALC’s perspective and dismissed disagreement as “social media.” According to the Aiken Standard, “he declined to disclose the sale price;” but that sale price will be a matter of public record on the county land data base within a month or two of the sale.
Aiken Land Conservancy’s Reasons for the Sale
In an initial letter, Comegys said, “Finally, selling the property removes a significant liability concern for ALC due to the high level of unauthorized trespass that occurs on the property.”
Without any No Trespassing signs posted on the land, it is hard to fathom how “unauthorized trespass” could occur.
According to David Brandner, who owns the majority of a pond that is partly within Rose Trace boundaries, he removed a tree on ALC property that was blocking a spillway to the dam and threatening the stability of the dam. This was the action of a responsible land owner who was spending his own time and resources to fix a problem on adjoining land that could have led to increased erosion and ultimate failure of a dam that was largely on his property. Is this an example of a “high level of unauthorized trespass”?
In 2021, Beth Eberhard was told by attorney Jim Cunningham, one of the ALC trustees at the time, that pedestrians could walk the trails. Since that time, she has seen no evidence of anyone using the woods in a manner that would be a liability, cause damage, or reduce the value of the property.
In phone conversations with both Winona Specht and Beth Eberhard on March 23-24, 2023 Larry Comegys asserted that liability and the costs of maintaining the property were among the reasons for the sale. ALC owned land abutting Three Runs Plantation that is used by equestrians, although this did not seem to be an issue of liability for the organization (which did sell the property to the TRP HOA in 2021, where it is adjoins existing HOA common space.) In many years of walking the trails in Rose Trace, neither Eberhard nor Specht have seen any evidence of maintenance work, except for putting up several small boundary signs along the edge of the property.
Mr. Comegys declined to make Board Meeting minutes available upon request, even though Section 33-31-1602 of the South Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act allows members of nonprofits to view organizational records, within certain guidelines. (3)
Rather than putting a conservation easement on the property, ALC decided to put deed restrictions allowing the property to be sold off in 15 acre or greater lots. According to David Brandner, whose property abuts Rose Trace, the developer of Kemper Downs subdivision made an offer of $800,000 for Rose Trace, which they declined in favor of a buyer from Atlanta who wants to build and use it as equestrian property.
In a letter to supporters on March 23, Comegys wrote, “In selling the property we are mindful of the need to protect it from the level of development that is permitted in the city under the current zoning. Therefore, it is being sold with significant restrictions on any future development and is not being sold to a developer. Those restrictions, combined with the challenging topography of the property and its limited access, constrain its future use.”
While it is commendable that ALC didn’t sell to a developer, there is apparently nothing in place that would stop the prospective buyer from turning around and selling off as many 15-acre lots as he could. During a phone call to Eberhard, Comegys stated that the buyer would probably develop two or three equestrian properties on the land. Although Comegys said, “Habitat will not be lost,” it is hard to fathom how a house, barn, paddock, and meadow for two or three properties would not result in significant habitat loss; and there are no restrictions on development within any fifteen acre or larger parcels.
The Topography Issue.
Comegys also wrote that the “challenging topography” Could limit this land’s use. The topographical map of Rose Trace, which is available through the Aiken County property database, shows that about 45 acres of Rose Trace is on fairly level terrain, easy to develop topography wise. Anyone can see that the topography of Rose Trace is not much different than in surrounding developed areas such as Huntcliff and Coachman Drive.
Parts of Rose Trace are hilly with several streams running through the valleys, but other areas with similar landforms, such as Kalmia Hills, have been heavily developed. As a point of fact, the City of Aiken recently approved building a 330-unit apartment complex on 30 acres of country near USC-Aiken, along Gregg Highway, with some challenging topography. It can be done.
If the Aiken Land Conservancy wanted to protect this land from future buyers, the question must be asked as to why the deed restrictions allow it to be subdivided into 15-acre lots. It is unknown if ACL has placed any other deed restrictions on Rose Trace.
Comegys’ claim of limited access to the property seems valid at this time, as the only access to the property is along Huntcliff Trace and from the private Hackamore Drive. However, Don Moniak remarked about these publicly accessible maps that, “anyone can see there are access alternatives other than the Huntcliff Trace road for an imaginative and well capitalized developer.”
The cost to gain access to the property would be high. However, with escalating land prices and the fact that this is the only remaining tract of privately-owned land of its size within Aiken City limits, any future developer would stand to make a hefty profit.’
The ALC Funding Issue
In his interview with the Aiken Standard, Larry Comegys claimed that the ALC is “underfunded.” In response to this, Don Moniak made a comment on our initial Aiken Chronicles letter to the editor that:
“His [Larry Comegys’] latest claim to the Aiken Standard that his organization is ‘underfunded’ is an ill-advised and lame excuse. According to its Calendar year 2021 tax filing, this charitable organization had revenues of more than $200K and assets totaling $8.0 million that included an investment and security account with a $3.2 million balance.”
Mr. Moniak forwarded his comments to Mr. Comegys, who has yet to respond.
Community Sentiment
Community backlash to the pending sale has been strong. On NextDoor, comments included the following:
“The hypocrisy of their statement! They are going to develop land (destroy it) in order to do their conservation work?”
“Sounds like the Aiken Land Conservatory should be re-named Aiken Land Sell Outs to the highest bidder”
“I just want to say that I don’t feel this recent move will provide a lot of confidence that this Aiken Land Conservancy is prepared today to serve the desires of many who want to leave a land gift that will be appreciated for generations like Hitchcock Woods.”
The Right to Sell or the Right Thing to Do?
The Rosens donated Rose Trace (4) to the ALC as an unrestricted gift. The Aiken Land Conservancy certainly has the right to sell the property, as several commenters on social media have pointed out. However, to sell it with deed restrictions allowing it to be developed into 15-acre lots doesn’t seem to be the right and environmentally responsible thing to do for an organization built on the idea of land conservation.
Through the years, the Aiken Land Conservancy has raised millions of dollars, as stated in their mission statement, “to preserve Aiken’s unique character and natural and historic resources for present and future generations through advocacy and land protection.” The ALC has done important work that no other local entity is doing.
Yet in the sale of Rose Trace, they may undo the public’s trust in their land conservancy work. Protecting or profiting: the answer will only be made as clear as their transparency in this deal.
Left: Entrance to Rose Trace. Right: Hanging from a branch is a piece of blue surveyors tape that appeared last week, marking the boundaries of Rose Trace. (Photos courtesy of Winona Specht)
_____________________
Footnotes
(1)
(2) Aiken Land Conservancy’s 2021 Form 990. See page 38.
Financial information on the Aiken Land Conservancy can be found at https://search.scsos.com/charities.
Or at the Propublica Nonprofit Explorer page.
(3) The pertinent sections of SC non profit law governing inspection of records follows;
SECTION 33-31-1601. Corporate records.
(a) A corporation shall keep as permanent records minutes of all meetings of its members and board of directors, a record of all actions taken by the members or directors without a meeting, and a record of all actions taken by committees of the board of directors as authorized by Section 33-31-825(d).
(b) A corporation shall maintain appropriate accounting records.
(c) A corporation or its agent shall maintain a record of its members in a form that permits preparation of a list of the name and address of all members, in alphabetical order by class, showing the number of votes each member is entitled to cast.
(d) A corporation shall maintain its records in written form or in another form capable of conversion into written form within a reasonable time.
(e) A corporation shall keep a copy of the following records at its principal office:
(1) its articles or restated articles of incorporation and all amendments to them currently in effect;
(2) its bylaws or restated bylaws and all amendments to them currently in effect;
(3) resolutions adopted by its board of directors relating to the characteristics, qualifications, rights, limitations, and obligations of members or any class or category of members;
(4) the minutes of all meetings of members and records of all actions approved by the members for the past three years;
(5) all written communications to members generally within the past three years, including the financial statements furnished for the past three years under Section 33-31-1620;
(6) a list of the names and business or home addresses of its current directors and officers; and
(7) its most recent report of each type required to be filed by it with the Secretary of State under this chapter.
HISTORY: 1994 Act No. 384, Section 1.
SECTION 33-31-1602. Inspection of records by members.
(a) Subject to subsection (e) and Section 33-31-1603(c), a member is entitled to inspect and copy, at a reasonable time and location specified by the corporation, any of the records of the corporation described in Section 33-31-1601(e) if the member gives the corporation written notice or a written demand at least five business days before the date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy.
(b) Subject to subsection (e), a member is entitled to inspect and copy, at a reasonable time and reasonable location specified by the corporation, any of the following records of the corporation if the member meets the requirements of subsection (c) and gives the corporation written notice at least five business days before the date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy:
(1) excerpts from any records required to be maintained under Section 33-31-1601(a), to the extent not subject to inspection under Section 33-31-1602(a);
(2) accounting records of the corporation; and
(3) subject to Section 33-31-1605, the membership list.
(c) A member may inspect and copy the records identified in subsection (b) only if:
(1) the member’s demand is made in good faith and for a proper purpose;
(2) the member describes with reasonable particularity the purpose and the records the member desires to inspect; and
(3) the records are directly connected with this purpose.
(d) This section does not affect:
(1) the right of a member to inspect records under Section 33-31-720 or, if the member is in litigation with the corporation, to the same extent as any other litigant; or
(2) the power of a court, independently of this chapter, to compel the production of corporate records for examination.
(e) The articles or bylaws of a religious corporation may limit or abolish the right of a member under this section to inspect and copy any corporate record.
HISTORY: 1994 Act No. 384, Section 1.
SECTION 33-31-1603. Scope of inspection rights.
(a) A member’s agent or attorney has the same inspection and copying rights as the member the agent or attorney represents.
(b) The right to copy records under Section 33-31-1602 includes, if reasonable, the right to receive copies made by photographic, xerographic, or other means.
(c) The corporation may impose a reasonable charge, covering the costs of labor and material, for copies of any documents provided to the member. The charge may not exceed the estimated cost of production or reproduction of the records.
(d) The corporation may comply with a member’s demand to inspect the record of members under Section 33-31-1602(b)(3) by providing the member with a list of its members that was complied no earlier than the date of the member’s demand.
HISTORY: 1994 Act No. 384, Section 1.
SECTION 33-31-1604. Court-ordered inspection.
(a) If a corporation does not allow a member who complies with Section 33-31-1602(a) to inspect and copy any records required by that subsection to be available for inspection, the circuit court in the county where the corporation’s principal office in this State, or, if none in this State, its registered office, is located may summarily order inspection and copying of the records demanded at the corporation’s expense upon application of the member.
(b) If a corporation does not within a reasonable time allow a member to inspect and copy any other record, the member who complies with Section 33-31-1602(b) and (c) may apply to the circuit court in the county where the corporation’s principal office in this State, or if none in this State, its registered office, is located for an order to permit inspection and copying of the records demanded. The court shall dispose of an application under this subsection on an expedited basis.
(c) If the court orders inspection and copying of the records demanded, it also shall order the corporation to pay the member’s costs, including reasonable counsel fees, incurred to obtain the order unless the corporation proves that it refused inspection in good faith because it had a reasonable basis for doubt about the right of the member to inspect the records demanded.
(d) If the court orders inspection and copying of the records demanded, it may impose reasonable restrictions on the use or distribution of the records by the demanding member.
HISTORY: 1994 Act No. 384, Section 1.
(4) Rose Trace is composed of two parcels
a. A 15.72 acre parcel fronting Huntcliff Trace on the south end of the property.
b. A 116.3 acre parcel north of the smaller parcel.
The larger parcel is bordered on the north by an undeveloped 27 acre property owned by “Metro Homesites”, easily accessible from Kemper Downs; and a 47-acre parcel. Add the 10 acres of undeveloped land owned by Kemper Downs Homeowner Association, and the total of private, contiguous, large-acreage parcels amounts to an island of 209 acres of undeveloped land surrounded by well developed residential areas.
Correction: ALC owned property in Three Runs Plantation, but sold it to the Home Owners Association in 2021, with restrictive covenants.