Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council advances Cane Bay planned-development package with $10 million traffic commitment from developer

Berkeley County Council (committees) · July 14, 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

Berkeley County council combined and advanced a series of rezonings for a proposed Cane Bay planned development that staff says supports about 5,500 dwelling units; the developer agreed to a $10 million contribution for traffic infrastructure, a school-site reservation and other mitigation measures.

A majority of the Berkeley County council voted to combine and advance a set of rezonings that together form a development agreement for a large Cane Bay planned development (PD) that staff estimates would support roughly 5,500 dwelling units and a mix of commercial and institutional uses.

Miss Simmons, senior planning staff, told council the PD is intended to produce a lower gross density and a mix of housing and commercial types compared with a by-right buildout. "The PD contemplates a mixture of uses, new traditional design elements, set asides for open space and public facilities," Miss Simmons said, adding the county estimates a by-right zoning yield on the assemblage of about 5,700 units and that the PD’s gross density would be about 2.7 units per acre.

Developer Ben Grambling, president of Grambling Brothers Real Estate and Development, described the proposal as the firm's "last piece" in the community and said the team views the project as an opportunity to create a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood rather than simply adding housing. "This is a one-time opportunity to do something that's unbelievable," Grambling said.

Planner Michael Wyke of DPZ outlined the master plan’s concept, including two neighborhood centers, public waterfront access and a network of streets, sidewalks and trails intended to distribute traffic and support multimodal travel. Engineer Mark Cherry said several intersections are being designed to full mitigation standards from day one and that some intersections are expected to meet signal warrants immediately.

Key commitments presented to council included: - A $10,000,000 developer contribution designated for traffic infrastructure and intersection improvements; - Reservation of roughly 30 upland acres for a future school site and a residential-unit school development permit fee of $1,850 per unit; - A $500 per residential-unit emergency-services permit fee and reservation of a 2.5-acre emergency services site; - A requirement to update the traffic-impact analysis (TIA) every five years and deliver intersection improvements required by the TIA; and - A developer commitment to provide a corridor easement for future water/sewer expansion and to internalize certain roadway repair costs resulting from utility work.

Council members pressed developers and staff on several items. Supervisor Cribb asked why a developer would pursue a PD if they could build more by right; Grambling responded that the PD and associated negotiations produce a higher-quality community and tie the developer to specific mitigations and public amenities. One council member requested the number of attainable housing units be increased from the developer’s initial 50 micro-units; Grambling said negotiations were ongoing and drafts showed an increase in that number.

Miss Simmons also told council the PD regulatory documents would apply to the master developer and successors, creating predictability and codifying commitments such as non-connectivity to the neighboring Wynwood community where requested by residents.

Council combined bills 26-38 through 26-50 for discussion and, after questions and a developer presentation, approved the combined package to move forward through the reading process on a voice vote. The motion carried and the items will proceed to later readings for final action.

The council asked staff to prepare a side-by-side summary that contrasts what could be built by right versus what the development agreement would allow, to make clear the tradeoffs being negotiated. Next procedural steps are continued negotiation on development-agreement terms, and subsequent readings before final adoption.