Charleston County Council heard more than an hour of public testimony on a request to rezone two parcels at 1136 and 1154 Beas Ferry Road from R4 (low-density residential) to UR (urban residential), a change staff and the planning commission recommended against because it conflicts with the county’s future land‑use designation.

Staff said the R4 zoning allows roughly four dwelling units per acre while the UR district permits up to 16 units per acre and higher‑intensity residential uses. The parcels lie in flood‑zone AE areas and border single‑family neighborhoods and a church; staff said Criteria A and B for the rezoning were not met and both staff and the planning commission recommended disapproval.

The applicant team — Joseph Tecklenburg of CC&T Real Estate, developer Tony Berry and civil engineer Dominic Jones — told council the proposal targets for‑sale workforce housing rather than rentals. Tony Berry said the project would include voluntary deed restrictions limiting density “to no more than 10 units to the acre,” capping building height at three stories for townhomes, and reserving 15 of every 100 units as deed‑restricted for 75 years to buyers earning no more than 120% of area median income. “We are confident this plan is a piece of the larger puzzle to provide more workforce housing at no cost to the taxpayer,” Tecklenburg said.

Supporters included former Charleston mayor John Tecklenburg, lenders from Ameris Bank and multiple buyers from prior Prosperity/Carolina 1 projects who described down‑payment assistance and first‑time‑buyer outcomes tied to similar developments. Ameris Bank’s testimony cited roughly $500,000 in combined down‑payment assistance used by recent buyers and said a large share of the builder’s purchasers have been first‑time buyers.

Opponents — led by the Preservation Society of Charleston and local residents — argued the proposal contradicts the comprehensive plan’s “urban, suburban cultural community protection” designation and that the planning commission had already recommended disapproval for a lower‑density version earlier this year. Sam Spence of the Preservation Society said the developer’s entitlement request is powerful and that an accountable planned‑development process would better protect public interests than voluntary deed restrictions. Neighbors raised traffic, school‑capacity and emergency‑services concerns and questioned whether infrastructure upgrades would be secured before higher density is allowed.

Council did not take a final rezoning vote at this meeting; the item was heard as a public hearing with applicant commitments and extensive public comment. County staff said any future approval would need to satisfy zoning criteria and noted state and county stormwater and environmental regulations would apply. The applicant’s engineer said stormwater ponds were designed to meet the county stormwater ordinance and South Carolina Department of Environmental Control standards, and that the project team had sought DOT records and planned to coordinate on a deteriorated culvert on Bear Swamp Road.

Next steps: The hearing record will remain part of the planning process and council may take the rezoning back up at a later meeting; no formal rezoning action occurred during the session.