Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Berkeley County committee lifts moratorium to allow study of proposed 191-home Lazy Hill development
Summary
After hours of public comment both for and against, the Land Use Committee voted to lift a moratorium on a 142-acre Lazy Hill proposal so developers can move from concept to staff review; opponents cited traffic, wetlands, school capacity and a pending historic-resources review.
The Berkeley County Land Use Committee voted April 27 to lift a long-standing large-scale development moratorium for a 142.41-acre property owned by Lazy Hill Trust, allowing the applicant to advance a conceptual plan for an R1 cluster subdivision and begin staff-led technical review.
Jason Dangerfield of Lazy Hill Trust said his family has stewarded the property for six generations and asked the committee to “move forward so these concerns can be studied, measured and evaluated with facts.” He said the project team — including consultant Jason Hutchinson of Thomason Hutton — has proposed measures such as a traffic circle and engineering studies to address traffic, drainage and preservation questions.
Supporters from the Dangerfield family urged that lifting the moratorium would provide data and staff oversight rather than immediate rezoning or approval. “This step is about getting as much information as possible before any final decision is made,” Lily Dangerfield said during public comment.
Opponents, including a neighborhood spokesperson for Berkeley Run HOA, told the committee the application violates the county comprehensive plan, lacks required traffic and school-capacity analyses, and notes potential jurisdictional wetlands and a pending review by the State Historic Preservation Office that could delay federal permits under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The neighborhood representative said, “This application fails on its own merit” and urged denial.
Council members debated safeguards to make any future approvals more accountable, discussing options such as a development agreement or planned-unit development to record promises (for example, a roundabout, setbacks and buffers) in writing. Several council members emphasized that current zoning could allow substantial development by right and that the moratorium process exists to surface issues early.
The motion to lift the moratorium was made by Councilman Brooks and seconded by Councilwoman Stern; committee discussion recorded at least two nays (Councilman Pinckney and Council member Davis) but the motion passed in committee. Committee members noted the action simply allows the project to proceed to the next stage of staff review; any rezoning, development agreement or final approvals would return to council for separate votes. The committee said the item will go to full council at the end of the month.
What happens next: If full council concurs, the applicant and county staff will proceed with traffic, stormwater and other technical studies cited during the hearing. Any formal rezoning, development agreement or other land-use approvals would require subsequent public hearings and votes.
