South Carolina Circuit Court Judge Scott Sprouse on Friday denied an injunction against a hotel and parking garage in downtown Beaufort, which opponents are trying to block.

The ruling was a victory for 303 Associates, which is developing the projects, and the city, which approved them.

Graham Trask, who brought the lawsuit, said the merits of the case still haven’t been decided. Sprouse’s ruling, he said, just “kicks the can down the road.” He plans to appeal.

It was the second time in six months a judge has refused to overturn city of Beaufort approvals of the two projects, which are located within the Beaufort Historic District. The district was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1969.

Sprouse’s ruling denying the declaratory judgment and injunction against the projects was not based on specific arguments of the lawsuit, which involved the city’s approval process. The case was heard May 11.

Rather, Sprouse noted that Judge Bentley Price had previously heard the same case as part of a January administrative appeal of the approvals by the city’s Historic District Review Board (HRB). The administrative appeal was brought by Trask and the Historic Beaufort Foundation.

In that case, Price upheld the HRB’s approvals of a hotel and parking garage. Trask and the Historic Beaufort Foundation then appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

In denying Trask’s request for a declaratory judgment and injunction against the projects, Sprouse referenced the “parallel case” in the same court, the Beaufort County Court of Common Pleas.

“The Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ administrative remedies have not been exhausted since their appeal to the South Carolina Court of Appeals is still pending,” Sprouse wrote in his five-page ruling. “Furthermore, the Court finds that the issues in that case are identical. While the Declaratory Judgment Act is a general law that could be utilized in this case if an administrative procedure were not available, the Court finds that it is not applicable in light of the parallel case.”

Sprouse also pointed out that South Carolina has a long-standing rule that one judge of the same court cannot overrule another.

“It hypothetically could result in competing orders from the same court, which is exactly the problem that the above-referenced statutes seek to prevent,” Sprouse wrote. “This principle of South Carolina law also makes the request for a permanent injunction/mandamus and attorney fees improper.”

Former Beaufort City Attorney Bill Harvey, who argued both the Historic Beaufort Foundation/Trask appeal and the Trask lawsuit on behalf of the city, said Sprouse’s ruling means Trask won’t get “two bites at the same apple” in the Beaufort Court of Common Pleas.

“They’ve already had their bite at the apple, and they lost before Price and they’ve appealed that,” Harvey said.

Dick Stewart of 303 Associates noted that two different judges have now ruled against the opponents.

“What we’ve done is followed the legal processes, and we have vested rights to go ahead and build those projects,” said Stewart, adding the hotel and and parking projects are moving forward.

While it may look like a victory for the city and 303 on the surface, Trask said, Sprouse’s ruling just defers a ruling on his lawsuit’s merits.

“Judge Sprouse effectively said that in his opinion, the ‘administrative appeal’ process must conclude before the declaratory judgment case can be decided on,” Trask said.

The administrative appeal of Trask and the HRB is waiting to be scheduled before the South Carolina Court of Appeals in Columbia.

Trask also is planning to appeal Sprouse’s ruling in his lawsuit to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, “where the merits will finally be adjudicated.”

Opponents of the downtown projects have argued the hotel and parking garage don’t meet zoning requirements because they have frontages greater than 100 feet, making them “large footprint buildings.” In the city’s historic district, large footprint buildings require special exceptions from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

They’ve also argued that preliminary approvals of the projects expired.

The city and 303 have countered that large footprint exceptions were not part of the zoning code until after 303 Associates’ projects were approved. Public review of the projects, they’ve also said, has been extensive.