Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Development Mitigation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee advances Pulte mitigation agreement to council with one dissent

Charleston City Traffic and Transportation Committee · March 25, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee voted to move to council a revised agreement with Pulte Homes under which Pulte would pay $500,000 to the city in lieu of immediate construction of certain traffic mitigation at Cane Slash and River Road, retain sidewalk and connection obligations, and post a 125% bond; one council member recorded a no vote.

The Traffic and Transportation Committee on March 24 voted to move to City Council a revised agreement with Pulte Home Company LLC to address traffic mitigation tied to the Shade Tree PUD.

City legal staff explained the new agreement would let Pulte pay $500,000 to the city rather than immediately constructing certain mitigation improvements at Cane Slash and River Road. Pulte would retain obligations to build the Cameron‑to‑Kimberlin sidewalk connection (estimated at about $27,000) and would post or otherwise secure a bond equal to 125% of the cost of required improvements; payments would be used by the city to complete mitigation once plans are finalized.

Pulte representative Matt Raines said the approach preserves trees that would otherwise be removed and avoids immediate rework if the larger Southern Pitchfork realignment proceeds later. Raines said roughly $131,000 of design and engineering costs have already been spent and Pulte offered the remaining $500,000 as the payment in lieu.

Committee members sought clarity on timing, bond terms, and contingency if the Southern Pitchfork does not proceed or if state permitting delays the Kimberlin connection; staff and Pulte said the developer retains the sidewalk obligation and the bond protects the city if construction does not occur within the agreed window. One council member expressed discomfort with approving the agreement without further review; another moved to advance with the condition that the questioning member meet with staff before the council report. The motion carried and the item will proceed to council; one member recorded a no vote.

The committee’s action advances the agreement for formal consideration by City Council; staff will coordinate follow‑up briefings requested by members.