Committee - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Amen. . . Thank you. Bye.

Good evening. I would like to call the Committee on Auxiliary Service meeting to order. I ask for Ms. Jenny Lee Walsh to provide the invocation for us and for Councilman Marshall West to lead us in the pledge of allegiance of the flag.

If you will, please bow your heads. Dear Lord, we thank you, Lord, for this new day. We pray, Lord, that tonight that you would guide our council. We pray that you would help all discussions, Lord, to glorify you. We thank you, Lord, for their leadership. And we pray, Lord, for our communities and all who have come out tonight, Lord Jesus. In your name we pray. Amen.

Madam Clerk, has this meeting been properly noticed via the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, sir, it has.

Thank you. First, we have a recognition item recognizing a veteran of the Olympic participation, Mr. Gerald Baxley.

Mr. Cribb, members of County Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Tonight I would like to recognize veterans from Berkeley County that competed in the Golden Age Games. A little back story, the Golden Age Games were inspired by programs that promote healthy aging, fitness, and recreation. The VA initiated the National Veterans Golden Age Games in 1985. It was to underscore the preventative and therapeutic value of sports medicine for older veterans who received their healthcare at the VA facilities. The mission was clear, encourage physical activity through the competitive sports for positive outcomes and better health and wellness. Through its fitness for life focus, the National Veterans Golden Age Games is a premier showcase for the rehabilitation value of sports, fitness, and wellness provided in the lives of veterans aged 55 and beyond. VA research and clinical experience verify that sports rehabilitation plays a crucial role in helping with weight loss, improving chronic conditions, and providing a fun way to de-stress. This year, the 2026 National Games were held in, excuse me, Tampa, Florida from June 27th to July 2nd. Tonight, I would like to recognize the veterans from Berkeley County who participated on our team. Can I call your name? Please come up, please. We got two missing, okay. Mr. A.C. King. Mr. King participated in four of probably the toughest events that the games had to offer. The next is Mr. Richard Dick Ligon. Mr. Ligon received the gold medal in the bench press and also the silver medal in billiards. The next we have Ms. Demetria Gerald. Oh, wow. Okay. Thank you. And if we ever have to go into fending for ourselves, she's on my team because she won the bow hunter compound female age 60 to 64 and the gold medal for that and the bronze and the bow hunter compound female overall. So she's on my team. And we also have Ms. Nicole White. Ms. White won the gold medal, women's doubles pickleball, the silver medal, shuffleboard, the bronze medal, table tennis, and she placed sixth in the bowling. Two individuals that were a part of the team that are not here today are Mr. Michael Klontz, who placed fifth in the golf, and Ms. Shannon Flowers, bronze medal, three on three basketball. At this time, I would like Ms. White to come up and say a few words.

First off, thank you to Berkeley County. We know that without your support, none of this would have been possible. So on behalf of the six Berkeley County athletes, we extend our deepest gratitude for your generous support financially and also for the gear that we were able to wear and represent Berkeley County. What you guys did is very impactful to the veterans. And like Mr. Baxley said, it gave us that momentum to get moving for fitness is medicine. And we are able and willing to just keep going and moving. It also allowed us to interact with some veterans and share stories and build more camaraderie. So it's a wonderful event. And hopefully we'll all return next year. We appreciate you and we thank you so much.

Chairman, I think an investigation needs to be done because this team cheated.

Because these two ain't over 30 years old.

I was thinking the same thing.

I understand that.

You make sure I can see everyone. OK, perfect. Keep smiling.

One, two, three. Couple more.

Yep, ain't no way.

Next on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the regular committee meeting held on June the 8th, 2026. Move for approval. Second. Second. Are there any corrections to these minutes? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Nay. The minutes stand approved as presented. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? We stand adjourned. Thank you.

Good evening. I'd like to call the Committee on Justice and Public Safety meeting to order. Ms. Clerk, has this meeting been properly noticed via the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, sir, it has.

Thank you, thank you. First, we have the approval of minutes from the regular committee meeting held on July 13, 2026, which has been distributed.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any corrections? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? The minutes stand approved as presented. Next, we have a discussion item. Councilman Tommy Newell.

Lately, we've witnessed throughout the country, but more so here in the county, where these young people during the summertime, and maybe on the weekends, will rent an Airbnb within Sangaree, Tall Pines, Cane Bay, and have these parties. And just recently, when one such, and I don't know if it's here or not, but somebody was killed, they were shot. I don't know if it's overstepping our authority for us to do something about it, but it stretches our sheriff's office when they have to respond at multiple houses throughout the county. I mean, Cane Bay is 15, 20 minutes away, and I know, and I've got footage of one that happened in Tall Pines. Whenever the sheriff's office showed up, they scattered Then when the sheriff's office left, they came back out to Woodworks and went right back to the party until they were called again. And this, I mean, people own the house. Maybe there's something we can do. Maybe there's a business permit of some sort, something, some ordinance that says that, you know, you can't have parties. But again, we overstep in our bounds when we do that. I'm asking because there's people who literally live beside these houses and have children or elderly and they shouldn't be subjected to these young folks tearing the place up, making a party out of it. So I brought this up for the public to see that we're trying to discuss it and if there is any appetite or avenue for us to address it, then I think we should.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Newell, my only initial thought on this and comment would be is I believe in our current ordinance, or A, we'd have to get with the sheriff on this, but I believe in one of our current ordinances in the sheriff's department, if he goes, if he responds to a bar or nightclub, and they're causing a disturbance, he has the ability to shut it down. Perhaps something similar, if it could be done, could be done with these parties you're talking about where if he gets one call, he can go in and shut it down and not have them return. It's my initial thought on hearing this. If it has to be licensed, I think that's where we'd have to change, update the ordinance or see whether they can legally do that in terms of shutting down a party that's being disruptive or violent to the neighbors.

I mean, collectively, if we put our heads together, we'll come up with something. This is not the only problem in Berkley County. It's throughout the country. So I don't want to reinvent the wheel also. Agree.

Any other comments or discussion? Thank you, Mr. Newell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Next, we have consideration prior to third reading. Bill number 26-31, an ordinance to amend the Code of Ordinances. I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on this? All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? That motion carries. Next, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second. Motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? We're adjourned. Thank you.

Good evening. I'd like to call the Committee on Land Use to order. Madam Clerk, has this meeting been properly noticed via the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, sir, it has.

Thank you very much. First on our agenda, we have the approval of the meeting minutes from the regular committee meeting held on July 13th, 2026, which has been distributed. Move for approval. Second. Motion by Councilman Newell, second by Councilman Owens. Are there any corrections to these minutes? Not hearing any, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The minutes stand as presented. Next up, we have considerations prior to first reading. First up is bill number 26-57, an ordinance to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina. In regards to Joe T. Newell for TMS numbers 242-02-00-001, a plus or minus 1.43 acres located on Westeria Street in the vicinity of Latson from the Manufactured Residential R2 District to the Agricultural Flex 1 District and County Council District 4. Ms. Simmons.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, note my recusal.

Please note Mr. Newell's recusal. Thank you. Ms. Simmons.

The applicant is seeking this down zoning so to place a second primary dwelling on the subject parcel. According to the applicant, the subject parcel contains one primary dwelling and one accessory dwelling unit. Upon review, staff recommended approval. Planning Commission did as well. In a unanimous vote, there were no citizens present in opposition at the time of the meeting.

So this is a down zoning, making it less restrictive in density, correct?

Correct.

Bless the pleasure of council.

Move to approve.

Are the motions a second?

Second.

Motion by Councilwoman Stern, a second by Councilman Owens. Any other discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-58, an ordinance to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina. In regards to Charlie F. Kennington for TMS numbers 121-00-00-011, plus or minus five acres located on Highway 6 in the vicinity of Moncks Corner from the Agricultural Flex 1 District to the Rural Neighborhood Commercial RNC District and County Council District 6.

The applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to place a golf course, a golf cart business on the property. Upon review, staff recommended approval. Planning Commission did as well in a unanimous vote. There are no citizens present in opposition at the time of the meeting.

Mr. Simmons. Mr. Chair. Mr. West. Mr. Simmons. This is right beside the gas tank on Highway 6 and across from the school? Yes, sir. Okay.

Move for approval. Motion by Councilman West. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilman Pinckney. Any other discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next up is Bill number 26-59, an ordinance duly approving and authorizing the county supervisor to enter into the development agreement for name to be determined by and between Berkey County, South Carolina, and Ben Gramling of Gramling Brothers Real Estate and Development on behalf of BMG Realty. to 3rd LLC, JTG to 3rd LLC, MRG LLC, Builders Capital LLC, CBI Holdings LLC, Cane Bay Lakes LLC, Daniel Lakes LLC, HTC South Live Oak LLC, for a plus or minus 2,029.88 acres assemblage located on approximate to South Live Oak Drive, Highway 17A, Black Tom Road, Cane Bay, and Wynwood communities in the vicinity of Monk's Corner as pursuant to the Local Government Development Agreement Act and Berkeley County Ordinance Number 97-1-2 as amended. Ms. Simmons, we've talked a lot about the Cane Bay developments. This is the planned agreement or the contract document we've been talking about that goes with the rezoning. Is that correct?

Correct. The development agreement.

Development agreement. Yes, ma'am. Any questions of counsel on this? Not hearing any, what's the pleasure of counsel?

Move for approval.

I have a motion by Councilman West, second by Councilman Owens. Any other discussion?

Not hearing any, all in favor please say aye.

Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next up, we have considerations prior to second reading. First up is bill number 26-37, an order to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina, in regards to Tristan Simmons of Universal Towing on behalf of Robert Rickert for TMS numbers 161-15-00-011, plus and minus point. six acres located on south high book drive candlewood lane and black tom road in the vicinity of monk's corner from the manufactured residential r2 district to the general commercial district gc and county council district six the applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to place a towing company on the premises should the rezoning be approved the applicant will need to seek a special exception for the board of zoning appeals for primary use outdoor storage

Upon review, staff recommended approval. Planning Commission did as well in a unanimous vote. There are no additional stakeholders present at the time of the Planning Commission meeting in opposition.

Mr. Chair. Mr. West. Ms. Simmons. This is the signalized corner of South Live Oak Drive and Black Tom. Are there going to be any screening requirements with this?

Yes, sir. They'll have to conform to the ordinance requirements for screening in buffer yards.

Is that screening through this special exception?

Correct. It will be addressed as part of the special exception process.

Thank you.

Move for approval. Motion by Councilman West, a second by Councilman Pinckney. Any other discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next up, we have bill number 26-38. These have the next, forgive me, the number 12 or so have to do with the Cane Bay plan development. First up is bill number 26-38, an order to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina, in regards to Ben Grambling on behalf of Cane Bay Lakes LLC for TMS numbers 180-00-03. 179-00-00-053 and 054, a plus or minus 56.66 acre portion of TMS numbers 179-00-00-036, 180-00-03-088 and 89, a plus or minus 658.68 total acres located near Fairwinds Boulevard, Waupu Trace, Marion Shores Court, Four Seasons Boulevard, Sea Runner Lane, and Granton Edge Lane in the vicinity of Monk's Corner from the Plan Development Mixed Use Assessment for Cane Bay Plantation PDMU District to the name to be determined, Plan Development Mixed Use Village PDMUV District and County Council District 6, Ms. Simmons.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To recap, the applicant is seeking to rezone to the Lake Village PD, supporting 5,500 dwelling units of varying types and a variety of commercial, institutional, and other uses developed in a neo-traditional context with an accompanying development agreement. Most recent regulatory documents contemplate 400,000 square feet of commercial square footage. The subject assemblage is held under multiple zoning districts and the department estimates that the buy-right zoning yield to be around 5,700 dwelling units. This estimate is based on gross acreage and does not account for required infrastructure or other development limiting factors.

Ms. Simmons, quick question on that, because I know a lot of us have been working on this and stuff like that. On the current PD he has there now, where we got the approximate 3,900 dwelling entitlements he has, that's what 24 dwelling units per acre is what his current entitlement is on that portion?

Correct. Currently within the Cane Bay PD are development rights for multifamily, which can be constructed to a density of 24 units to the acre.

Thank you.

In addition, there are about 314 acres of empty or undefined PD zoned property, and as such, no density metrics are applied or allocated to that specific parcel. As such, and as mentioned earlier, our estimates are simply that, an estimate. The PD's intended mixture of uses, form-based code, neo-traditional design context, set asides for open space and public facilities, and diverse housing and multimodal transportation options, as well as interconnectivity and other elements are not achievable in the current zoning. The gross residential density of the project amounts to roughly 2.75 units to the acre. So based on our estimates, the item before council offers an improved development pattern, mitigatory framework, and less density that can be accomplished by right.

Ms. Simmons, I know this question's come up, so I think this is a good point to clarify it at. How many points of ingress and egress are there to Cane Bay proper with this new development? If I'm looking here, it looks like there's what, three or four, is that correct?

Correct, there are three interconnections intended within Cane Bay, one at Fairwinds, one gated interconnection at four seasons and mind you four seasons is currently only served by one way in and out and then also one inter interconnection at the coves community also the tia contemplates six connections to highway 17a so that's three to cane bay proper six to 17a and then like we discussed i think last time zero connections going to winwood correct correct thank you Preliminary development terms contemplate exactions and contributions related to transportation, schools, emergency services, water and sewer, attainable housing, stormwater, open space and buffer yards, as well as a contemplation or consideration for a residential improvement district.

So we want to roll this last time. This might be the next slide coming up. Do you have what we requested in terms of putting in a side-by-side comparison of what they can currently do there now by right versus what the PD gets them? So there you go. And we got copies of that for the public?

Yes, sir, we do.

Okay, we put those out on the podium. I'm sure that'll be helpful. So I think this shows the comparison of what he can do there and come inside your office tomorrow and apply for versus what the PD and plan development documents are getting them, development agreement documents are getting them. Any questions of counsel for staff or the applicant?

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. West.

One of the biggest concerns that I've heard with this whole thing is roads and infrastructure. How Black Tom Road connects to 176, how 176 connects to 17. This is a 20, 25, 30 year project. What are we implementing this time that we didn't in the original Cane Bay to ensure that the infrastructure gets the money they need and the time they need? How are we paying for that?

Sure. So in addition to a $10 million contribution, the applicant is required to mitigate, per the traffic study, there are explicit timelines and triggers for certain external roadway connections. The roadway design standards support bicycle and pedestrian accessibility as well as interconnectivity.

And the internal roads will all be private for the majority, say all?

Correct. All of the roads are intended to be privately maintained with the exception of the accesses that will serve public facilities, so the school and the emergency services facility, as well as the access that will tie into Fairwinds.

What about the RID district?

I will say I'm not intimately familiar with what's proposed. I'll defer to my colleagues at left.

How does the RID district play into the overall landscape of that area of Berkley County when it comes to roads? Is the RID district only gonna be used to support roads inside of this development, or is it gonna be used for infrastructure improvements at key interchanges, or how is that? How does that play?

I believe that the intention is for this to be used for infrastructure projects as related to the development.

Okay, so anything that would happen at 176 at Black Tom, 17A, Nexton Boulevard, Cane Bay Boulevard?

Correct. That's currently listed in the DA. The county receives the vast majority of those funds for infrastructure improvements. That's all still being negotiated, so it's hard to say for sure.

But the intent is?

The intent is, yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Simmons, if you go back to that chart, just something I was noticing, I spent a question of some folks in terms of the buffer yards. It looks like, depending on what zoning you have on your property, he's offering a greater buffer yard to those folks with this planned development than what he would have to offer during a rather by-right development.

Correct.

Mr. Chair.

Mr. West.

That's a great question, because most of that stuff that has existing development next to it right now is zoned Flex 1, and everybody's worried about that buffer. If somebody were to develop that, much like the Sandy Run project that's running out on Jedburgh Road, what are the buffers for Flex 1 versus something that's already developed, like Wynwood?

So where single-family residential is developed adjacent to other single-family residential, so let's just Let's talk about the flex one zone parcel which adjoins Many residential properties. There is no buffery are required Thank you

Mr. Chairman, don't Mr. West? Yes.

Mr. Cribb. Outside of traffic infrastructure, which people come to us quite a bit about that, I hear a lot about schools and capacity at schools. And I know the school districts opened up two new schools over there recently. Thank goodness. Can you characterize, and the school district doesn't have a seat up here when this thing is tracking, even though we're in communication with them. Can you characterize the steps or the things in place to mitigate impacts on schools at this point?

Sure. The applicant has committed to a $1,850 residential unit permit fee. Uh, so with each residential building permit, um, that is applied for prior to issuance that, that school, um, contribution will need to be remitted. Uh, in addition, the regulatory documents contemplate a, uh, approximately 30 acre school site.

Did you say 1850?

Correct.

At 5,500 units. Is there a commercial?

No, sir.

There's not a commercial square footage?

Not for schools.

That full billed out 10.175 million. Sound about right? Mm-hmm. All right.

Thank you. One last question, Ms. Simmons. It might be more of a question for stormwater folks. But I know they've done their stormwater studies and turned it over to the county review and stuff like that. And just clarifying on what the stormwater regulations say that if there's a gallon of water flowing off a piece of property as it stands right now with no development, once they make a development, then it's got to be that same amount of water coming off during a rainstorm. Is that an accurate statement?

I'll defer to my colleagues in engineering.

Good evening, council. That's correct, but it also refers to discharge rates. So the rate leaving post-development needs to be less than the rate leaving pre-development.

Okay, and we've reviewed their documents and they comply with that? Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions of council? What's the pleasure of council on this?

Mr. Chair. Mr. West. Are we voting on 38 through 50 at the same time?

No, sir. Each one will be read out individually.

So we are on just bill number 38?

2638, but it all contemplates everything inside the plan development and development agreement. Okay.

Thank you. I make a motion to go ahead and approve 2638. Second.

Any other discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Nay. Who was that? Steve Davis.

Steve Davis.

I just came off Blacktown Road, man. Traffic is horrendous. Welcome, Mr. Davis.

Next up is same development, Bill number 26-39, an order to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina in regards to Bing-Gramling on behalf of BMG to 3rd LLC and JTG to 3rd LLC and MRG LLC for TMS numbers 180-00-03-021, plus or minus 3.48 acres located on South Live Oak Drive in the vicinity of Moncks Corner from the planned development, mixed use, assessment for Cane Bay Plantation PD MU District to the name to be determined plan to develop mixed-use village PD MUV District and County Council District 6. Pleasure of counsel. One quick question I do have. Have we come up with a name yet on the development or is it still yet to be determined?

Lake Village is the official name.

Lake Village is going to be the official name, thank you. All right, any other discussion? Motion by Councilman Owen, second by Councilman West. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

That motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-40, an order to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina in regards to Ben Grambling on behalf of Builders Capital LLC for a plus or minus 2.7 acre portion of TMS numbers 180-00-03-087 plus or minus 37.87 acres located near Radiant Blue Way and Calm Water Way in the vicinity of Monk's Corner from the planned development mixed use assessment for Cane Bay Plantation PDMU District to the Lake Village Planned Development Mixed Use Village PDMUV District and County Council District 6.

Make a motion to approve 26-40.

A motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion by Councilman Owens and second by Councilman West. Any other discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Nay. That motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-41, an order to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina in regards to Ben Gramling on behalf of CBI Holdings LLC for TMS numbers 180-00-03-001 plus or minus 314.41 acres located on South Live Oak Drive, Pitt Road, Murray Lane, Turbin Way, and Black Tom Road in the vicinity of Monk's Corner. from the Plan Development Mixed-Use PDMU District to the Lake Village Plan Development Mixed-Use Village PDMUV District and County Council District 6.

Make a motion to approve bill number 2641. Second.

Motion by Councilman Owens. A second by Councilman West. Any discussion? Not hearing any. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

That motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-42, an ordinance to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina, in regards to Ben Grameen on behalf of Cane Bay Lakes LLC for TMS numbers 180-00-03-008, 007, 006, 004, 003, 085, and 056. and 055, a plus or minus 177.5 total acres located on Pitt Road near Fairwinds Boulevard and Sunrunner Lane in the vicinity of Monk's Corner from the Agricultural Flex 1 District to the Lake Village Plan Development Mixed Use Village PD MUV District and County Council District 6.

Make a motion to approve bill number 2642. Second. Second.

A motion by Councilman Owens, a second by Councilman West.

Any discussion? Yes, Mr. Chairman. What's the total acreage of all these Ordinance No. 26?

We just read it in an earlier one. It's 2,000. Total assemblage acreage is 2,029.88 acres. Thank you. Any other discussion on bill number 2642? I have a motion by Councilman Owens, a second by Councilman West. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Nay. That motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-43, an ordinance to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina, in regards to Bingramming on behalf of Cane Bay Lakes LLC for TMS numbers 180-00-03-067 and 080 and 079, a plus or minus 22.69 total acres located near Ruminous Lane in the vicinity of Monk's Corner from the manufactured R2 district to the Lake Village planned development mixed-use facility Village PDMUV District and County Council District 6.

Make a motion to approve bill number 2643.

Second.

Any discussion on that one? Not hearing any, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Nay. That motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-44, an ordinance to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina, in regards to bin grambling on behalf of Daniel Lakes LLC for TMS numbers 180-00-03-076 and 195-00-00-033, plus or minus 798.75 total acres located on Ruminous Lane and Pinecrest Drive, Wynwood Lake, Harvest Road, Farrell Street, and McLaurin Avenue in the vicinity of Monk's Corner from the Agricultural Flex 1 District to the Lake Village Plan Development Mixed Use Village PDMUV District and County Council District 6.

I make a motion to approve bill number 2644. Second.

A motion and a second. Any discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Next up is bill number 26-45, an order to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina, in regards to Bingraming on behalf of Daniel Lakes LLC for TMS numbers 180-00-03-029, plus or minus 18.31 acres located on South Live Oak Drive and Ruminous Lane in the vicinity of Monk's Corner from the General Commercial GC District to the Lake Village Plan Development Mixed Use Village PDMUV District and County Council District 6.

I'll make a motion to approve bill number 2645.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Nay. That motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-46, a notice to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina in regards to Ben Grambling on behalf of Daniel Lakes LLC for TMS numbers 180-00-03-038, a plus or minus 7.05 acres located on South Live Oak Drive in the vicinity of Monk's Corner from the manufactured residential R2 district to the planned development mixed use village PDMUV district and county council district six.

Make a motion to approve bill number 26-46. Second.

I have a motion and a second by Councilman West. Any discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. That motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-47, an ordinance to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina, in regards to Ben Grambling on behalf of HTC South Live Oak LLC for TMS numbers 180-00-01-004. and 161-00-01-057 plus or minus 13.87 total acres located near Murphy Lane in the vicinity of Monk's Corner from the Agriculture Flex 1 District, the Lake Village Plan Development Mixed Use Village PD MUV District and County Council District 6.

I'll make a motion to approve bill number 2647. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. That motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-48, an ordinance to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkey County, South Carolina, in regards to Ben Gramming on behalf of HTC South Live Oak LLC for TMS numbers 180-00-01-071, plus or minus 3.16 acres located on South Live Oak Drive in the vicinity of Monk's Corner from the Agricultural Flex One District, and the Rural Neighborhood Commercial RNC District, respectively, to the Lake Village Plan Development Mixed-Use Village PDMUV District and County Council District 6.

I'll make a motion to approve Bill No. 2648. Second.

A motion and a second. Any discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. That motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-49, an order to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkey County, South Carolina, in regards to Ben Grambling on behalf of HTC South Live Oak Drive LLC for TMS numbers 180-00-01-041. and 048, a plus or minus 7.27 total acres located on South Live Oak Drive from Oakley Road in the vicinity of Monk's Corner from the General Commercial GC District to the Lake Village Plan Development Mixed Use Village PDMUV District and County Council District 6.

Make a motion to approve bill number 2649. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-50, an ordinance to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkey County, South Carolina. In regards to Bingraming, on the behalf of HTC South Live Oak LLC for TMS numbers 180.00.01.003, 042, and 043, a plus or minus 3.31 total acres located on South Live Oak Drive in the vicinity of Monk's Corner, the manufactured residential R2 district, to the Lake Village Planned Development Mixed Use Village PDMUV District and County Council District 6.

I'll make a motion to approve Bill number 2615. Second.

Ms. Simmons, I do have a question. Maybe it's not even a question, just a point of clarification. I'm reading a lot of these individual parcels out. A lot of them are already zoned R2 and general commercial, so you can get increased densities there with R2 being lot sizes of 14,000 square foot or an average of... what is it, 10,000 square foot if you do development or even some of the GC that can put apartments on general commercial, correct?

Correct. GC supports multifamily at a density of 10 units to the acre. Also, R2 supports cluster subdivision, which allows an applicant to subdivide down to 5,500 square feet with an average of 7,000. Density bonus is also available up to 3.5 dwelling units to the acre.

So in a lot of these parcels that he's assembled, being GC and R2, you could already put a pretty decent density on there with GC apartments. Any other discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Nay.

That motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-51, an ordinance to amend article two definitions, article four and table use, article five, urban residential zoning districts, article six, rural zoning districts, article seven, commercial and industrial zoning districts, and article 11, supplemental regulations to the Berkeley County zoning and development standards ordinance as amended to clarify and adjust requirements for accessory uses including but not limited to accessory dwelling units, ADUs. Ms. Simmons, this is part of our incremental zoning rewrite we're doing where we've looked at the accessory dwelling units on each lot and updated some of the specifications as stated in this table, correct?

Correct. We've also increased allowances for accessory uses from 65% to 85%. And we've also added some flexible placement options for all accessory structures to include ADUs to align with what was recently written into the Flex One District.

It's a pleasure. Council?

Mr. Chairman. Mr. Davis.

Is that you? Yes. Yes, sir, Mr. Davis.

How is this impacted by Ordinance 26? It has any bearing on it? The one we just, the council just approved?

These are text amendments to our zoning ordinance to increase flexibilities for accessory dwelling units and accessory structures.

Well, my question is, Will it have an impact on ordinance 26 that we just, committee just passed in committee?

Mr. Davis, it will not have any impact if passed on.

Wait a minute. She's the expert. I'm asking her the question.

So these text amendments would not apply to any plan developments.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Simmons. Any other discussion? Pleasure, counsel.

Second. I have a motion by Councilman West, second by Councilman Newell. Any other discussion? Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davis.

What brought about the necessity to change these for this amendment?

To increase housing options in response to the affordable housing crisis. We look at this as one tool in our toolbox of creating housing options or improving housing options, I should say.

Increase population.

More so to create more options for attainable or affordable housing.

Increase population. Thank you. Mr. West.

Adding ADUs doesn't make any more babies. What it does do is allow people to build a mother-in-law suite. I'm talking to you because this is what this is about.

It does allow people to have... That's not what this is.

Mr. Davis, we've had multiple meetings on this. This is an incremental zoning rewrite that we've had multiple special meetings on. Council sat right here in this council chamber and went through, correct me if I'm wrong, 10 to 12 different items that were important to council for us to look at in a zoning... Ordinance rewrite. That's what we're doing. These first two we got here are the first steps of 12 different council initiatives to look at our zoning ordinances. So this is nothing new. We've been talking about this for over a year and a half.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Newell. Did Councilman Davis attend that meeting? I'd have to get with the clerk to find out if he was at those meetings or not, Mr. Newell.

I'm a pretty smart fellow. I can learn things from reading and assessing what's going on.

Well, you're not hearing what I'm saying. Mr. West has the floor, Mr. Davis.

The intent of this, so that somebody can have a mother-in-law suite on their own site, their college student can come back to their house and live there because rents are too damn high. Everybody knows that we have a housing shortage. This isn't meant to increase the number of housing units. It's meant to increase the opportunities for families to live together. Now, maybe there's some other consequences I don't know about, but when my little girl goes to college and she wants to come home, I'm letting her and I'm building her a place to do it. Amen. And this puts the onus on the private market, not the public market, to solve a housing crisis. This ain't tax dollars going to pay for somebody else's apartment. This is private money fixing a global problem. Pay attention.

Any other discussion?

Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cribb. There was a resident, I went out to a resident's property a few years ago, a gentleman bought a really large lot of 17A, and it had a modest house on it, very small, which he's happy with, and he wanted to build a garage on the site And he has a boat, not a bunch of boats. And it's a huge yard, so he wanted to have a garage for a tractor. And he was limited to the size of the garage he could build. I mean, his yard was gigantic. And because he had a modest home and not a 4,000 or 5,000 square foot home, he couldn't build... Nobody would complain about this. He couldn't build the size garage just to store the basic equipment to keep up with the property. I know we keep saying ADU, ADU, but is a garage in that same category of an accessory dwelling unit on site? And if I'm looking at this, his property's multiple acres. His garage could be no greater than 1,650 square feet or am I looking at a different category?

It's two different categories, if you will. So the tax amendments seek to do two things. Create flexibilities for accessory dwelling units pursuant to the table notated there in the slideshow, but also increase flexibilities for accessory structures like garages. Accessory structures are those that are not intended to be occupied by a resident. They're not residential structures. And so what we've done, we've increased the 65% rule that you mentioned to 85%. but we've also eliminated the threshold on parcels that are one acre in size or larger. So we recognize that a lot of these one acre parcels are more rural in context, where elimination of the cap makes sense contextually.

Thank you. Ms. Simmons, point of clarification on that too. This is nothing different than what's already currently in the ordinance. We're just changing or updating the sizes to Mr. Cribb's point where somebody can build maybe a slightly bigger garage than what they wanted to because they built a more modest house, correct?

Right, so if they meet the size threshold or the acreage threshold, if their parcel's one acre or larger, there's no accessory structure cap.

Any other discussion? Yes. Mr. Davis.

Yes. Say the person who built his accessory structure, they prevented from renting that out to somebody?

I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. We have accessory structures, which are just like garages, carports, those types of things. And then we also have accessory dwelling units. An accessory dwelling unit is designed to be a separate living quarter. Currently in the ordinance, an accessory dwelling unit is limited to just 25% of the size of the primary structure's heated square footage up to 850 square feet. and they cannot be rented out at all. So these tax amendments not only adjust the size allowances, which are tiered based on lot size, but it also eliminates the rental restrictions. So these accessory. So they can't be rented out. They can't be, yes, sir.

Any other discussion?

Mr. Chair.

Mr. West.

Ms. Simmons, these aren't allowed in planned subdivisions. These are for rural properties or properties that are outside of a planned development.

It would be applicable to all base zoning districts, so no planned development districts.

So Foxmont couldn't do it? You couldn't go into Moss Grove or Nexton or Cane Bay or Carnes and do any of this?

Correct. Accessory dwelling units would be governed by those specific PDs. Some PDs do have flexibilities for accessory dwelling units already written into them.

Any other discussion? A motion by Councilman West, second by Councilman Newell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. That motion carries. Next up is Bill number 26-52, an ordinance to amend Article 2 definitions, Article 6, rural zoning districts, Article 4, use table, Article 13, innovative site and subdivision design, and other amendments related thereto of the Berkeley County Zoning and Development Standards Ordinance as amended to establish a transitional agriculture zoning district with a conservation subdivision option for the rural areas of the county.

Move for approval.

A motion by Councilman Newell, second by Councilwoman Stern. Mr. West.

Ms. Simmons, the buffer yards and the frontage along highways, how does that, how is that shown in this text? Is it increase what was already there? Is it decrease it? When somebody wants to come in and put a subdivision somewhere, what would this not allow?

So it would offer an alternative to what can be achieved by right currently. And so if we compare this framework to what can be achieved in flex one, there are several positive takeaways. So for instance, under the conservation subdivision option, not only is someone required to set aside the 100 foot perimeter or public paved Perimeter roadway buffer. They are also required to place an additional 200 feet of green way back of that so we're looking at a total of 300 feet of depth along I'll just say scenic corridors specified Rural corridors to help preserve character So I keep using that sandy run

Property is an example, and it's not even Sandy run anymore, but that's what it was years ago. But instead of having by right flex one, where they clear cut everything from the front road to the back property corner, they're going to have a 300 foot buffer along the main, along the main road. And they're also going to have buffer boundaries along existing properties.

Yeah. So the ordinance contemplates a 50 foot perimeter buffer yard along the perimeter of the project site. So where we currently do not require a buffer yard or residential adjoins residential, there would be a 50 foot perimeter buffer. And the 200-foot greenway buffer, if you will, that's contemplated to be established back of the 100-foot buffer, achieving 300 feet of total buffer yard, is required to be placed along arterial and secondary roadways mapped within rural living, conserved land, open space, and rural hamlet node designations of the one Berkeley Comprehensive Plan. So I can't recall specifically if Jeb Berg and the section you mentioned is actually mapped within those designations. Off the top of my head, I'll have to look at that.

But it would be an undisturbed buffer, or they have to replant, or how do those buffers work?

So it shall be preserved in its existing state. Where vegetation has been removed within the last 10 years, it's required to be restored to its natural pre-disturbance condition, and that's the 200-foot, what we're calling scenic corridor preservation greenway. The 100-foot buffer that's required to be stacked along the corridor, so the typical minimum 100-foot buffer is required to be planted in accordance with the type D standard if it's deficient.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Newell.

So what you're saying is like on 402, it's nothing but timber. Somebody comes in and they want to clear cut it, put something on there. When you drive down 402, how much in footage will you see of trees?

So if it was wooded in it?

Currently.

Currently? I apologize. I'm not sure I understand the question.

Right now they can clear cut how much of that property up to the road.

Oh, so under the Flex 1 scenario, it would just be beyond that 100 foot required along the roadway?

But this gives you basically an additional 200 feet of that roadway?

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you. Mr.

Chair, if I...

Mr. Davis, hold on one second. To clarify even more, maybe for the public's education, this is meant to create more green space in the Flex 1 zoning districts. So Mr. West and I went through this with some of the stuff on Lazy Hill. So if a Flex 1 district currently right now, as it's zoned, has the ability to build 100 homes, To do that, they'd have to clear cut their entire property to build those 100 homes. What this ordinance is designed to do is to allow them to still build that same number of homes that they have the current rights to do right now, 100 homes, but do it on a much smaller footprint and set aside and leave the green space there, making it a lot smaller where there's more green space and setting that aside to be parent conservation. Mr. Davis.

Yes. Lot size matters in reference to this transitional to conservation subdivision. The lot sizes.

Right, so if someone meets the conditions for the conservation subdivision option, which means that they set aside their primary protected land as permanent open space, and that includes land that can't be developed in a conventional subdivision scenario, so jurisdictional wetlands, FEMA floodways, existing utility rights of way, and minimally required buffer yards, They set that aside first and the balance is essentially what can be developed. The applicant must then set aside 50% of what's left over after they take out that primary protected area. So essentially 50% of the developable acreage is required to be set aside also for conservation. The balance then is eligible for subdivision down to a minimum of 16,000 square feet. I will say as a condition for development under this option, these properties have to be served by public water.

Say that again.

These subdivisions must be served by public water.

Public water.

Correct.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Mr. Chair.

Mr. West.

Just so I can make sure I have an understanding. I think I understood it from what you just said. But net acres, where they can develop under Flex 1, it was a 100-acre track. They used to be able to develop and have to because the stormwater requirement is essentially the whole 100 acres so that they could put the retention ponds in, roads, and all those other things. Now we're saying... that no matter what, 50% of that has to remain green space in addition to what is already gonna be green because it's wetlands or riverine waters or some other acid.

We do allow for a little bit of overlap with stormwater ponds, provided they meet certain conditions. So, for instance, man-made water bodies shall not exceed 30% of the total secondary protected area, and these stormwater ponds must be designed to a 100-year storm event, which exceeds typical current minimum standards, and also proposed as part of the manual update.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Pinckney.

I need some clarification here as well. When you're talking about 50% of such property must be preserved, right, for green space?

Correct, 50% of the developable acreage, and that's on top of what we call primary protected, the land that can't be developed anyway.

Is that throughout Berkeley County, period?

It would only be if an applicant were to pursue a rezoning to a new district that we're calling the Transitional Agricultural Zone. So right now, in order for someone to pursue a conservation subdivision option, they have to pursue a rezoning, and you all will have the opportunity to evaluate that.

Okay, and I realize that's when we're talking about building homes, right? Correct. What about other developments? I'm just going to use this as an example because it's still a little heartburn with me. When you talk about the solar panel, is that applicable to those guys as well?

For this, what we prepared is a narrowly tailored ordinance. We've created a new district called the Transitional Agricultural Zone, and we have modeled this new district based on what's currently supported in Flex 1 as well as our R2 district. It's almost like a hybrid between the two zoning districts. Agricultural uses are fairly limited and only applicable to those parcels that exceed 30,000 square feet in size. So within the framework for this new zoning district is the option to... TO DEVELOP UNDER A CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION. SO SOLAR FARMS ARE NOT SUPPORTED IN THESE TEXT DEMANDS. OKAY.

I'M GOING TO LET THAT SUMMER JUST FOR A LITTLE WHILE.

THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. DAVIS. MR. SIMMONS, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WHO MAKES THE DETERMINATION, THE LANDOWNER TO PUT HIS PROPERTY UNDER THIS ZONING

Um, so anytime we interface with an applicant that's looking at developing under flex one and they have access to public water, we've been offering this as an option. Um, in fact, we have one applicant that's already filed an application for rezoning to the new district that will be coming down the pipe to you guys in a couple of months.

And one of the prevailing interests or concern is public water.

Uh, right. Public water is required. We, we acknowledge that a 16,000 square foot lot would not be able to support both well and septic.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Newell. Why would we offer this to folks when it hasn't passed yet?

To support conservation-minded development patterns to protect rural character and open space preservation.

I understand that. I mean, I'm all for that. You know me. I want the biggest buffers that we can find. But what if we voted this down? What would we do?

the applicant would have to withdraw.

Okay.

Just a point of clarification. Davis. With this 2650, won't we be discussing where you had multiple meetings on also?

Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cribb. Mr. Davis asked this question. So it's up to the landowner to decide regular Flex 1 or Conservation District. And I remember this was born out of... This kinda got created during the whole R15 thing out in the Cordsville community. And there was a piece of property, as part of the R15, it was all of a sudden we see this image of it's gonna be developed. And we found ourself in a position with the landowner and the buyer begging for buffers. But we don't have anything in place. So a lot of this feedback came from the property owners, the conservation folks, the adjacent property owners. Few things come to us that the four or five or six different groups that have an interest in it like. This has been one of them to where the property owner and if the government says we now want a 300 foot buffer, they don't lose any density. and then adjacent property owners that want buffering or protect scenic corridors and all the different stakeholders that were arguing about pretty much everything back then. This was, I don't know, this was somebody on council sat down one day and came up with this. It was kind of born out of a whole lot of different feedback from the whole Flex One R15 situation. So now it's an option there and instead of begging each person case by case by case to donate buffer, be kind to your neighbor, all that stuff, it's a buy right option they can choose within the Flex One. And what percent of our undeveloped property in this county is owned Flex One?

It's been a while since I pulled the metrics, but it's the majority of land that can't be zoned.

It was 80% last time I looked. So most of the undeveloped property in this county is a Flex 1 rural zoning district. So this, I have a feeling most applicants would apply for this. And if you're in the audience wondering, why would a developer apply for this? they can build the same amount of units. So on the conservation side, we hear less impact on the woods and the buffers, but the developer is building less miles of road, less impervious surface. They're running water lines to a much more, instead of all over 500 acres, they're potentially running water lines to less than half of that. So if you're wondering like, well, how does the developer win? So it's no matter how you look at this thing from all the different stakeholder vantage points, we've heard nothing but positives, and I haven't heard a negative about this one yet. So appreciate your work on this one.

I will say this is not a conditional use allowance within Flex 1, so someone has to rezone in order to use this option.

Any other discussion? Not hearing it, I have a motion by Councilman Newell, second by Councilwoman Stern. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Councilman Pinckney, a second by Councilman Owens to go from Flex 1 to RNC and County Council District 7. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-34, an order to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Brookie County, South Carolina in regards to Tyler and Carmen Garrett survivorship for TMS numbers 142-01-01-027, a plus and minus .80 acres located on Panopolis Road and Themes Road in the vicinity of Panopolis from the General Commercial GC District to the Agriculture Flex One District and County Council District Six. Ms. Simmons.

The applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to downzone to support the existing residential land use on the property. Currently, the existing use is non-conforming, and this rezoning, if approved, will remedy that.

Mr. Chair. Mr. West. This is another downzoning from GC to Flex 1? Correct. This is good. Thank you. Move for approval. Second.

A motion by Councilman West, a second by Councilman Newell. Any other discussion? Not hearing any, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next up is bill number 26-35. Move for rule. A motion by Councilman Pinckney, a second by Councilman Owens to go from Flex 1 to Light Industrial and County Council District 7. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. That motion carries. Next, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion by Councilman Pinckney, a second by Councilman Newell. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? We stand adjourned. Thank you. You're up, sir. You can talk.

Good evening. I would like to call the Committee on Public Utilities meeting to order. Ms. Clerk, has this meeting been properly noticed via the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, sir, it has. Thank you.

First is the approval of minutes from the regular committee meeting held July 13, 2026, which have been distributed.

So moved. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Are there any corrections? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes stand approved as presented. Next, we have an agenda item. Boards, commissions, and application process and procedure. Mr. Chairman.

Yes, sir. I move to approve the residential application process for boards and commissions that require all applicants or nominees to originate from a respective district representative be presented during a council meeting and to authorize background checks for all nominees prior to appointment.

We have a motion. Second. Do we have a motion to approve? I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. And a second. Any discussion?

Mr. Chairman.

Yes, sir.

This came about from a certain incident we had some time back with my appointee. For 11 years, he did a great job and made a terrible decision. This will give us the opportunity to put this out for the public to be a part of the process to get on these boards and commissions, and by such, will help us vet the best appointee that we can come up with. So instead of just asking somebody, hey, you wanna be on this commission? Now we can advertise it, people can, can put their names in a hat, and we can pick the best ones for positions on boards and commissions.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Any other discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next, we have consideration prior to second reading, Bill number 2653, an ordinance authorizing An amendment to Ordinance Numbers 14-07-21 and 18-05-21 by amending Section 7 regarding the stormwater management utility rates. Mr. Herring. Oh, sorry.

Mr. Chairman, just a quick question. So this is just updating the ordinance comply with what we approved in the budget in terms of the updated rates and calculation for commercial zoning, correct? Yes, sir. Move for approval. Second.

Any other discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

We have first and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? We are adjourned.

Good evening, I'd like to call the Committee on Operations Meeting to order. Ms. Clerk, has this meeting been properly noticed by the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, sir, it has.

First, we have the approval amendments from the regular committee meeting held on July 13, 2026, and the special committee meeting held on July 27, 2026. That's not a trick question. Move for approval. Second. I have a motion, finally, and a second, finally. Are there any corrections to these minutes? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The minutes stand approved. Next, on recommendation of conservation easement from the Berkley County Greenbelt Advisory Commission, Mr. Nick Yoder.

Mr. Chair, will you note my refusal?

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Council. I just have one item tonight for you all. The Berkeley County Greenbelt Advisory Commission recommends approval of Lawson's Pond Conservation Easement in Council District 7 in partnership with Lowcountry Land Trust and the South Carolina Conservation Bank. This is a 90-acre diverse parcel located off of Highway 6 between Cross and Utahville with an historic pre-Civil War built home in good condition. and the conservation easement will protect the property from development in perpetuity.

Move approval. Second. Any discussion? I'd like to say something here in a second. These Greenbelt funds, in my opinion, have been focused on conserving a good bit of property for development, but I see a lot of revolutionary war or war history, the property being bought and preserved. I'd like to see more, I won't say more focus, but I'd like to see more on Native American history, slavery, the Huguenots over in Fuji area, stuff like that. If it takes for us to spend money on an archeological survey, then I think we need to do that too. But just buying property just because it has a house on it from 1855 to me, I mean, it's a long, skinny piece of property. I mean, it's 90 acres, but still. I'd like my opinion. I still have seven other colleagues that have to agree. that we start diversifying our portfolio.

Got it? Yes, sir. I understand that. I'll pass that on to the Commission for sure.

Mr. Chairman, I join you and Tommy New with that concern. I think Berkeley County, the state of South Carolina, is made up of a diverse history, and it should be reflected anytime and every time when we possibly can. Thank you.

Please note on the record that Councilman Davis is not arguing for once. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pinckney.

I too agree with you wholeheartedly because history is history. History doesn't have any color to it. And money is money. It has no color to it. It's all green. So when we start making these decisions, we need to keep that in mind. And I applaud you for your wisdom.

Thank you, sir. Well, in all fairness, you were around whenever they planted the trees in the county.

And you know what? You know what?

You guys said let them be late. Don't flip the switch. All right, I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Motion carries. Next, a consideration of a resolution authorizing Berkey County to submit an application to the South Carolina Department of Parks. I have a motion. Do we need a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Motion carries. I obtain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

We're done.

Good evening. At this time, I'd like to call the special council meeting to order. Madam Clerk, has this meeting been properly noticed via the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, sir, it has.

Thank you. First up, we have public comment. If you signed up to address council, please state your name and address. And remember to speak, please speak into the microphone. There is a time limit of four minutes per speaker. And first up, welcome Ms. Erin Toolin.

Good evening. Tonight you're being asked to move forward on a development agreement covering more than 2,029 acres of Berkeley County. 2,029 acres. And yet the ordinance before the public still calls this project name to be determined. If we don't even have a final name, why are we already being told the negotiations have concluded? And why does this ordinance ask that you declare that this agreement benefits the health safety and welfare of berkeley county citizens before the citizens have been shown exactly what those benefits are our roads are not promises on paper our schools are not promises on paper flooding drainage emergency services traffic infrastructure are not problems that disappear because a developer signs an agreement. But there is one sentence in this ordinance that every citizen in the room should understand. Council is being asked to approve the development agreement with such changes as the Berkeley County supervisor shall approve. That's an extraordinary amount of discretion for an agreement involving more than 2,000 acres and potentially generations of development. Berkeley County has heard enough promises about what growth will bring us someday. We live with those consequences today. This is not anti-growth. This is pro-accountability. Before one more massive development is approved, show the citizens the numbers. Show us the traffic impacts. Show us the infrastructure. Show us who pays. Show us the final agreement. I also feel that all the LLCs involved in this agreement, not just the developer, should be required to come and stand and listen to the citizens, not just the developer. And then let the public be heard. 2,029 acres is too big for a blank check. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next up, welcome Ken Lee. According to state law, this public meeting is out of order. because a matter of such gravity and magnitude as a 2,029 acre development agreement between Grambling and County Council announced barely 72 hours before the meeting requires exceptionally full and timely proper notice publication which has not been given. Clear evidence of this is that council doesn't provide a copy of ordinance 97 to which ordinance 26 refers and it is unavailable on the internet preventing complete public understanding of the matter in a timely fashion. We know, however, that Ordinance 97 was used for Nexton and French Creek development agreements, both areas containing sparse populations. The 17A Black Tom area referred to in Ordinance 26 contains ballpark 10,000 people. That will be impacted. Such a difference in population densities makes any use of ordinance 97 to justify the project envisioned in ordinance 26 arbitrary. Improper, out of order, and would require much greater public consideration than any SNAP special meeting of the County Council would allow. This public meeting is out of order because there is no Exhibit A attached to the agenda packet, making it impossible for the public to understand the exact location or purpose of Ordinance 26. This public meeting is out of order because Mr. Grambling's still incomplete and pending zoning change application process has been rendered illegitimate due to the infamous, disorderly, and capricious vote of the 623 Planning and Zoning Commission. We all remember that. Anybody hasn't seen that? on the video. Ordinance 26 is simply an attempt to end run around the proper order of the county zoning process. Ordinance 26 reference to unspecified police powers arouses the deepest suspicion of already wary public and requires explanation prior to the adoption of this ordinance. The Berkeley County Citizens Alliance will resist this arbitrary use of ordinance 26 to end run the normal zoning procedure and will proceed to county circuit court to stop this disorderly and high-handed process within 30 days of passage of this ordinance and Grambling's filing of it with the county register of deeds. We have no guarantees that Mr. Grambling will do anything he says he'll do. Okay, we've got promises, we've got lots of meetings, we've got extensive Exhaustive mediums, but there's no guarantees. All we can look at is past performance. Okay, let's look at Cane Bay. On August the 8th, 2024, Channel 2 News announced 30, emergency flash flood rescues there. Mr. Grambling comes up here and says, well, I'm sorry about that, but I want five more square miles to full of flood zones to do that work in. Why doesn't he, why isn't he required to submit his flood, his master plan for flood waters to a certified, to be certified by a, a, engineer, a legitimate engineering company, come back with that, and why doesn't he provide a flood zone bond to indemnify people that suffer from his accidents?

We may have one more speaker. Is John Battaglia here? Okay. Next up, we have reports from standing committees. First up is Committee on Land Use, Councilman Philip Obey, District Number 3.

Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Land Use met earlier this evening, and the committee recommended approval for Bill Number 26-59, and all other items on my agenda discussed will be reported out on August 24, 2026. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my report.

Thank you, Councilman Obey. Next up is Committee on Operations, Councilman Tommy Newell.

Mr. Chairman, the committee on operations met earlier this evening and recommends approval for the resolution allowing the county supervisor to apply for the undiscovered South Carolina grant through SCPRT on behalf of Cypress Gardens. All other items discussed will be reported out at the regular county council meeting scheduled for August 24th, 2026. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my report.

Thank you, Councilman Noll. Next up, we have first reading. Bills for first reading are not discussed or voted upon. The bills are read into the record by title only and thereafter sent to the proper committee for further consideration. Bill number 26-59, an ordinance duly approving and authorizing the county supervisor to enter into the development agreement for, named TBD, by and between Berkeley County, South Carolina, and Bing Grambling of Grambling Brothers Real Estate and Development on behalf of BMG III, LLC, JTG III LLC, MRG LLC, Builders Capital LLC, CBI Holdings LLC, Cane Bay Lakes LLC, Daniels Lake LLC, and HTC South Live Oak LLC. for a plus or minus 2,029.88 acre assemblage located approximate to South Live Oak Drive, Blacktown Road, Cane Bay, and Wynwood communities in the vicinity of Muntz Corner as pursuant to the Local Government Development Agreement Act and Berkeley County Ordinance 97-1-2 as amended. Next up, we have a resolution. We have a resolution authorizing Berkeley County to submit an application to the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism for funding under the Undiscovered South Carolina Grant Program on behalf of Cypress Gardens. Do I have a motion?

So moved. Second. Any discussion?

All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next up, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? We are adjourned.