The Cane Bay Lake Village Record

Supporters argue that if this rezoning is denied, 5,721 homes could be built “by right” anyway. That figure appears in the County's own staff summary — but the County's own table shows it combines two very different kinds of numbers: roughly 1,793 units from acreage-and-density calculations on this land, plus 3,928 units of a PD-wide “entitled but not permitted” accounting balance that the record never ties, parcel by parcel, to these 2,029 acres. Before Council votes, that math deserves to be explained — in plain black and white.

📄 Read / Download the 42-Page Record (PDF) 5.7 MB · Every numbered flag cites the exact County packet page — and that page is reproduced in the Exhibits so anyone can check it.

Before You Read This — Five Questions

Five questions Berkeley County Council should be able to answer before the August 24 Second Reading. Every one is drawn from the County's own record.

---

• 1
  Traffic Why does the County’s own Traffic Impact Analysis model 5,006 homes when Council is being asked to authorize 5,500?

  That same study already projects 55,332 net new external weekday vehicle trips — for the smaller number it did model. (Exhibit p. 817)

• 2
  Commercial Why does the later commercial cap contemplate 400,000 sq. ft. when the traffic study was built on roughly 250,000 sq. ft.?

  The traffic math and the commercial entitlement don’t describe the same project. (Exhibits pp. 108, 566)

• 3
  Water & Sewer Where is the full-buildout water and wastewater capacity analysis for 5,500 homes?

  The documented concurrence in the record is a two-sentence email. (Exhibit p. 1206)

• 4
  The “By-Right” Number What parcel-by-parcel, net-acreage calculation supports the 5,721-unit “by-right” figure?

  The County’s own table builds it from ≈1,793 units of acreage-and-density math plus 3,928 units of Cane Bay PD “entitled but not permitted” balance — a figure staff say was computed on gross acreage and does “not account for required infrastructure or development-limiting factors.” The record has not shown how those 3,928 units are legally allocated to this land. (Exhibits pp. 564–565; Appendix B, p. 40)

• 5
  Fiscal What is the projected 20-to-25-year fiscal impact of 5,500 homes on County services and the School District?

  And what share is paid by the developer and new revenue, rather than by existing taxpayers, sales-tax payers, and utility customers? (Appendix A)

Compiled by Rev. Leroy Godfrey Jr., a Windwood resident and candidate for Berkeley County Council District 6, submitted in his capacity as a resident seeking a complete public record. Spot an error? Tell us and it will be corrected — that's the standard.