Council authorizes settlement with Cedar Hill Acquisition; Hughey residents urge denial or delay over proposed mine

Berkeley County Council authorized the county supervisor to settle Cedar Hill Acquisition LLC v. Berkeley County on terms recommended by the finance committee. The authorization came after an extended public comment period in which multiple Hughey-area residents urged the council to deny or at least delay any settlement tied to a large proposed sand-mining operation on Charity Church Road.

Cynthia Lawrence, a longtime Hughey-area resident, told council that she had met with a Cedar Hill representative and was presented with proposed terms that included deed restrictions on future residential density and an initial $20,000 community‑improvement payment. Lawrence denied any improper agreement and said she has records of text messages related to developer outreach.

Riley Edgar, speaking for the Hughey Residents Group, asked the council to "deny or at the very least defer voting on a settlement with Cedar Hill" until the county completes a more robust community-engagement process and explores alternatives. Edgar and other speakers said the proposed mine — described by residents as much larger than recent operations in the area — would harm rural character, strain roads and threaten wells, drainage and school capacity.

Alvin Lumpkin told council more than 400 residents had signed a petition opposing annexation and the proposed eleventh amendment to the Nexton agreement (related to a separate agenda item). Lumpkin argued the amendment would "terminate all rights, obligations and authority" the county currently holds over the annexed land and said the developer's one-time payments for fire and EMS (quoted in the amendment as $111,750) were inadequate to cover long-term costs.

Finance committee members recommended settlement terms "as stated in committee," and council approved the authorization during the regular meeting. Several council members said they had pushed for delay previously and emphasized they remain committed to representing Hughey-area constituents; one council member reiterated a preference for further engagement before finalizing terms.

Council did not receive testimony from other outside agencies during the meeting; staff and committee chairs indicated that the settlement terms had been discussed in committee and that the authorization moves the matter forward to the supervisor for final execution as provided by committee direction.