Leroy Godfrey Jr. for Berkeley County Council District 6 — campaign logo
Berkeley County • Cane Bay Lake Village

The 21 Questions — A Living Scorecard

Twenty-one questions from the county's own record on the 5,500-home Cane Bay Lake Village project. As answers arrive, they're marked, sourced, and credited — and what's still open stays plainly open. Not opinion. Their documents. Their page numbers.

11 ✔ Answered
2 ◐ Partial
8 ✘ Open

Scorecard current as of September 24, 2026. This counter updates as answers come in.

“Answered” means the question now has a documented answer — whether from the County’s own record, from my own verified research submitted to the Council, or from the project’s engineering team when I took the question directly to them. Every answer below shows its source. Every open question is still open.

Every item below is quoted or summarized directly from Berkeley County’s own official backup packet for the Cane Bay Lake Village / Gramling rezoning (Bills 26-38–26-50) and its binding Development Agreement (Bill 26-59). Each one lists the exact page — and shows you the actual page — so anyone, including a Council member, can check it.

The ask is simple: the county has no business voting yes on 5,500 homes until the open questions are seriously answered — in writing, on the record, before the vote. That’s not anti-growth. That’s doing the homework before the shovels hit the ground. And where the homework has been done — by the county, or by this campaign — the answer is marked, sourced, and credited below.

Approved at third reading — September 28, 2026. The vote is cast. The watching begins.

This scorecard stays live: what was answered is credited, what wasn’t stays open — in writing, on the record. See what was promised →

Page numbers refer to the September 14, 2026 Land Use Committee meeting packet — the county’s own official backup packet for the Cane Bay Lake Village / Gramling rezoning (Bills 26-38–26-50) and its binding Development Agreement. Each exhibit below is that actual packet page, unedited, with the county’s page number printed on it. Pull the full packet yourself from the county’s agenda portal.

A note on page numbers: the original submission of these red flags to the county was compiled from an earlier County Council backup packet for this item (1,458 pages), which used different page numbers. The page numbers and exhibits on this page have been updated to match the September 14, 2026 Land Use Committee meeting packet (2,075 pages) — the packet currently before the committee — so every citation here matches the page image shown and the packet the public can pull today. Same documents, same words; only the packet pagination changed.

Traffic & the Traffic Study

✔ ANSWERED On the record / County documents

The traffic study didn't cover the whole project.

The study modeled 5,006 homes. The plan allows up to 5,500 — nearly 500 homes of traffic never studied.

“Since the TIA contemplates development of lesser intensity than that which is supported in the PD, staff finds that the verbiage related to the TIA should be refined…”

📄 County Staff Summary — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 321

ANSWERED — The Council acknowledged on the record (Sept. 14) that the developer “can build no more than 5,006 homes” until an updated traffic study is completed. The binding ceiling of 5,006-until-studied is now on the record.

View the receipt — Staff Summary, packet p. 321 Actual packet page: Staff Summary, packet p. 321

Open full-size in a new tab →

✘ OPEN

The fix for that gap was left blank.

Staff wrote language requiring an updated study when the project grows — the line showing the applicant's actual document was blank in the packet Council received.

“Present Verbiage: [left blank in the record]”

📄 Staff Summary — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 321

OPEN — The condition requiring an updated study as the project grows still shows the applicant’s commitment line blank in the packet Council received. Not yet addressed.

View the receipt — Staff Summary, packet p. 321 Actual packet page: Staff Summary, packet p. 321

Open full-size in a new tab →

✔ ANSWERED On the record / County documents

No cap on commercial square footage.

The study assumed ~249,000 sq ft of commercial. Staff's own unresolved condition admits a cap didn't yet exist. (The new Development Agreement now sets it at 400,000 sq ft — 60% more than was ever studied.)

“Establish a commercial square footage cap within the appropriate regulating document.”

📄 Staff Summary, Staff Recommendation conditions — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 321

ANSWERED — The study assumed ~249,000 sq ft of commercial space; the Development Agreement now sets the cap at 400,000 sq ft. The number is documented — and it is roughly 60% more than was ever studied.

View the receipt — Staff Summary, packet p. 321 Actual packet page: Staff Summary, packet p. 321

Open full-size in a new tab →

✘ OPEN

The growth math ignores building already underway nearby.

The study uses a flat 2.29–2.5% growth rate and never counts specific approved development next door — like Gants Road (recorded plat Aug 2025, county road agreement Feb 2026). The county's own ordinance requires a tougher Tier 2 study for exactly this cumulative impact.

“…is in proximity to other development generating a significant number of average daily and/or peak hour trips… [and] has potential to cause detrimental cumulative impacts to the overall transportation network.”

📄 TIA §4.2.2 — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 93; Berkeley County Code (Tier 2 TIA trigger); Gants Rd deed/plat records

OPEN — Never addressed. The County’s own ordinance calls for a tougher Tier 2 cumulative-impact study for exactly this situation.

View the receipt — Traffic Impact Analysis §4.2.2, packet p. 93 Actual packet page: Traffic Impact Analysis §4.2.2, packet p. 93

Open full-size in a new tab →

Water, Flooding & Stormwater

✔ ANSWERED My research → submitted to the Council

The “by-right” number used to sell this admits it ignores wetlands, roads, and infrastructure.

The figure used to argue “they could build this many anyway” was, by the county's own footnote, never adjusted for the very things the zoning code requires be subtracted first.

“Calculations demonstrate maximum zoning density yield based on gross acreage and do not account for required infrastructure or development-limiting factors.”

📄 Staff Summary, By-Right Yield footnote — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 305

ANSWERED — I ran the by-right number to the ground using the County’s own footnote and records. Realistic yield is far below the “paper maximum,” which was never adjusted for wetlands, required roads, or infrastructure. My by-right analysis and the “Honest Weights & Measures” comparison are submitted to the Council for the record.

📄 Read the by-right breakdown (PDF)
View the receipt — By-Right Yield footnote, packet p. 305 Actual packet page: By-Right Yield footnote, packet p. 305

Open full-size in a new tab →

✔ ANSWERED On the record / County documents

A flooding concern was answered by talking, not by a study.

When a resident's stormwater-runoff worry was raised, the applicant's engineer answered verbally at the meeting — no submitted study for that property.

“…the applicant’s engineer, James Thomas, stated that the development does not have any direct discharge points to the individual’s property.”

📄 Planning Commission Recommendation — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 323

ANSWERED — The County’s Stormwater Drainage Report (Sept. 14 packet) documents detention designed to the 100-year storm with no adverse downstream impact. The system holds peak discharge below the pre-developed rate through the 2-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year storms — meeting both the 2009 and 2026 manual thresholds and state/federal standards. I verified this against the record and submitted it to the Council.

📄 Read the stormwater fact sheet (PDF)
View the receipt — Planning Commission Recommendation, packet p. 323 Actual packet page: Planning Commission Recommendation, packet p. 323

Open full-size in a new tab →

✔ ANSWERED On the record / County documents

Even a supporter asked the county to force upkeep of stormwater ponds not maintained today.

A speaker who backed the rezoning still asked staff to require basic pond maintenance — a sign the existing drainage isn’t being kept up, before a single new home is built.

“…requiring the applicant to maintain the design volume of the stormwater ponds.”

📄 Public Comment Summary — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 322

ANSWERED — This is answered by Berkeley County’s own adopted standard — the Covenants for Permanent Maintenance of Stormwater Maintenance Systems, adopted by the Berkeley County Stormwater Management Program on September 1, 2008. Every new development is required to record it, and it runs with the land (§9). Plainly: the HOA must maintain the ponds; if it doesn’t, the County can step in, fix them, and bill the HOA. The upkeep the supporter asked for is already required and enforceable under the County’s own 2008 standard. (Source: Berkeley County Stormwater Management Program — standard Stormwater Covenant, adopted Sept. 1, 2008.)

§2 — “The Owner, its successors and assigns, including any homeowners association, shall adequately maintain the stormwater facilities, BMPs, and improvements on the Property…”
§5 — “In the event the Owner… fails to maintain the stormwater facilities… or fails to make repairs… within a reasonable time frame… the County may enter upon the Property and take any and all action necessary to correct deficiencies… The Owner… shall be responsible for any and all expenses incurred by the County in taking such corrective action.”

Standing follow-up (the honest open piece): the authority to enforce exists; the fair question that remains is whether the County will use it, and how that upkeep gets watched over the years.

📄 Read the stormwater fact sheet (PDF)
View the receipt — Public Comment Summary, packet p. 322 Actual packet page: Public Comment Summary, packet p. 322

Open full-size in a new tab →

✔ ANSWERED On the record / County documents

Flooding was a top concern at both hearings — with no new study in between.

Five weeks apart, opponents cited the same top issues: traffic, flooding, public services. What changed was buffer wording and two meetings — not a new drainage or flood study.

“…individuals who spoke in opposition… primarily cited traffic, flooding, and public services constraints as concerns.”

📄 Public Comment Summaries, May 28 & June 23 — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 322

ANSWERED — The analysis behind “no adverse downstream impact” is in the County’s Stormwater Drainage Report: the detention basins store runoff and release it slowly to match the pre-developed peak rate, modeled through the 100-year storm. Verified against the record and submitted to the Council.

Honest note: this controls the new development’s runoff to pre-developed rates — it is not, by itself, a cure for flooding that already exists from years of prior growth.

📄 Read the stormwater fact sheet (PDF)
View the receipt — Public Comment Summaries, packet p. 322 Actual packet page: Public Comment Summaries, packet p. 322

Open full-size in a new tab →

Water & Sewer Utilities

✘ OPEN

The water & sewer “sign-off” is a two-sentence email.

For 5,500 homes, there is no gallons-per-day figure, no plant-capacity number, no analysis anywhere in the 2,075-page packet. The entire documented concurrence reads:

“Taurean, BCWS concurs with the Lake Village PD. Thank you, Josh Cooper, BCWS Engineering: Engineering Manager.”

📄 BCWS Concurrence Email, May 7, 2026 — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 977

OPEN — Still only the BCWS concurrence email. No gallons-per-day figure, no plant-capacity number, no analysis in the 2,075-page packet. The capacity question remains open.

View the receipt — BCWS concurrence email, packet p. 977 Actual packet page: BCWS concurrence email, packet p. 977

Open full-size in a new tab →

Schools

◐ PARTIAL

There's no readable school-capacity analysis anywhere.

Staff says the School District “concurs” with conditions, then lists none in readable text; the underlying letter is a scanned image. No student-yield, capacity, or cost figure exists showing the fees and an unbuilt site can keep pace.

“…BCSD issued a letter… which stated that the district administrators concur to the PD proposal… identified the following collaborative conditions… [conditions not in extractable text]”

📄 Staff Summary — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 318 & BCSD letter exhibit (scanned image)

PARTIAL — The school contribution is documented ($1,850/home, ~$10.175M total — confirmed on the record by Supervisor Cribb). But there is still no readable student-yield or capacity analysis showing the schools can keep pace. Funding known; capacity analysis still missing.

View the receipt — Staff Summary (schools), packet p. 318 Actual packet page: Staff Summary (schools), packet p. 318

Open full-size in a new tab →

Fiscal Accountability

✘ OPEN

Zero fiscal analysis. In the entire packet.

A text search of all pages turns up no “fiscal impact,” no “cost per pupil,” no “cost of service.” The $10M / $1,850 / $500 figures are round, negotiated numbers with no independent study testing whether they cover what 5,500 homes cost taxpayers to serve.

““fiscal impact” — 0 results. “cost of service” — 0 results. “cost per pupil” — 0 results.”

📄 Full-text search of the 2,075-page Sept. 14 Land Use packet — run the search yourself from the county’s agenda portal

OPEN — “Fiscal impact,” “cost of service,” “cost per pupil” — 0 results across 2,075 pages. No independent study tests whether the negotiated dollar figures cover what 5,500 homes cost to serve.

✘ OPEN

Staff admitted the application wasn't finished when it was approved.

Below the approval recommendation, staff lists what still had to happen — including matching the application's own acreage numbers and finishing the binding agreement.

“Verify and ensure consistency of parcel acreages among varying regulatory documents… Continued coordination… to finalize the draft Development Agreement (DA) for Council’s consideration.”

📄 Staff Summary, Staff Recommendation — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 321

OPEN — Staff listed items that still had to be finished after the approval recommendation. Not addressed on the record.

View the receipt — Staff Recommendation, packet p. 321 Actual packet page: Staff Recommendation, packet p. 321

Open full-size in a new tab →

Process & Paperwork

✘ OPEN

The legal document doesn't have the project's own name filled in.

The binding Planned Development text — the rulebook for this land for a generation — calls the project “[Name TBD]” dozens of times, including in the density-cap and design sections.

“…the Village of [Name TBD]… (appears throughout the binding PD text)”

📄 PD Text Exhibit — throughout; see, e.g., Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 338

OPEN — Confirmed against the Sept. 14 Land Use packet: the binding PD text still reads “the Village of [Name TBD].” Open until a corrected text appears in the record.

View the receipt — PD text (“Village of [Name TBD]”), packet p. 338 Actual packet page: PD text (“Village of [Name TBD]”), packet p. 338

Open full-size in a new tab →

The Deal & the Process

✘ OPEN

The core number was set with Council leadership before the public hearings.

By the developer's own letter, the 5,500 figure was set with the Supervisor and Council when a development moratorium was lifted — roughly 18 months before the public got its hearings.

“As requested by the Supervisor and Council when the moratorium was lifted, we have capped the allowable density of the project at 5,500 units.”

📄 Developer’s Letter to County Councilors — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 959

OPEN — By the developer’s own letter, the 5,500-home figure was set with the Supervisor and Council when the moratorium was lifted — roughly 18 months before the public hearings. Documented in their letter; never addressed as a process concern.

View the receipt — Developer’s letter, packet p. 959 Actual packet page: Developer’s letter, packet p. 959

Open full-size in a new tab →

✔ ANSWERED My research → submitted to the Council

The “it’s actually a downzoning” pitch rests on a number the county called unreliable.

The developer's central selling point only works if the “by-right” number is real — and staff's own footnote (see #5) says it isn't. Strip out the wetlands and the framing collapses.

“…this rezoning is actually a downzoning that reduces the number of homes we are currently allowed to build by right.”

📄 Developer’s Letter — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 959 (cf. staff footnote, p. 305)

ANSWERED — Same foundation as #5. The “it’s actually a downzoning” framing only works if the by-right number is real; the County’s own footnote says it was never adjusted for wetlands or infrastructure. My side-by-side analysis is submitted to the Council for the record.

View the receipt — Developer’s letter, packet p. 959 Actual packet page: Developer’s letter, packet p. 959

Open full-size in a new tab →

◐ PARTIAL

A supporter stood up and listed seven basic protections the plan didn't include.

The same speaker who backed the project asked the county to require seven safeguards — from keeping construction traffic out of existing neighborhoods to a secondary emergency exit for Four Seasons. When supporters must ask for that much, it shows how little was nailed down.

“…restricting construction traffic… infrastructure improvements along Cane Bay Blvd… third-party inspections… a conservation easement… restoring lake access… a secondary emergency-vehicle access… maintain the design volume of the stormwater ponds.”

📄 Planning Commission Public Comment Summary — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 322

PARTIAL — Of the seven the supporter asked for, here’s where they stand on the record:

  • ✔ Stormwater-pond upkeep — now addressed through the recorded Stormwater Covenants (see #7).
  • ◐ Buffer / greenspace — improved: the Windwood buffer went from 15 ft to 25 ft plus a 50-ft Windwood Preserve (see #18).
  • ✘ Still open on the record: construction-traffic routing out of existing neighborhoods; Cane Bay Blvd improvements; third-party inspections; a conservation easement; lake access; and a secondary emergency exit for Four Seasons.

One resolved, one improved, five still open. Progress worth naming — and a list still worth finishing.

View the receipt — Public Comment Summary, packet p. 322 Actual packet page: Public Comment Summary, packet p. 322

Open full-size in a new tab →

Windwood

✔ ANSWERED On the record / County documents

Up to 5,500 homes next door — and zero road connections to Windwood, by design.

The plan is deliberately no street connection to the existing neighborhood, written into the binding agreement.

“Mr. Gramling mentioned that no roadway connections are proposed for the Windwood community; he also mentioned that the decision will be memorialized within the development agreement.”

📄 Planning Commission Recommendation — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 322

ANSWERED — On the record: Windwood petitioned against connectivity, and the developer added no street connections — written into the binding agreement. (Gramling on the record; Staff Summary: “no roadway interconnections … to/through the Windwood Community”; Chairman Obie: “zero connections.”) A legitimate point — kept in the credit column.

View the receipt — Planning Commission Recommendation, packet p. 322 Actual packet page: Planning Commission Recommendation, packet p. 322

Open full-size in a new tab →

✔ ANSWERED On the record / County documents

The only buffer for Windwood is 15 feet of trees and a wire fence — that no one has to maintain.

The binding text makes the “wooded” buffer thinner than it sounds: it can thin down to just the four-foot fence, and no one is obligated to replace a thing.

“…no maintenance of vegetation in the buffer is intended, nor is there any obligation to replace trees or other vegetation that may fall, die, or be removed.”

📄 Binding PD text — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 384

ANSWERED — The Sept. 14 packet increased the Windwood buffer from 15 ft to 25 ft, plus a 50-ft “Windwood Preserve” — a real improvement over the original clause, and I’m marking it a win. On the narrower question of maintaining the buffer: the party that owns the buffer land carries responsibility for it, and I’m not going to hold up a decision this size over a tree a storm knocks down. Credit where it’s earned — this one’s resolved.

View the receipt — PD buffer text, packet p. 384 Actual packet page: PD buffer text, packet p. 384

Open full-size in a new tab →

The Rules the Project Writes for Itself

✘ OPEN

The project gives itself power to waive the county's own code — on subjective grounds.

The Planned Development builds in its own waiver process, letting it depart from uniform county standards on judgment calls like “desired character” — inside a document that still has no name.

“The waiver results in a design that aligns with the desired character of the Village of [Name TBD]… supports innovative architecture, sustainability, or technological advancements.”

📄 PD Text Exhibit, Waivers/Modifications — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 338

OPEN — The PD builds in its own waiver process, letting it depart from uniform County standards on judgment calls like “desired character.” Not addressed.

View the receipt — PD waiver provision, packet p. 338 Actual packet page: PD waiver provision, packet p. 338

Open full-size in a new tab →

✔ ANSWERED My research → submitted to the Council

The “affordable housing” is a shell game — and it's half of what the committee's own Chairman demanded.

The binding Development Agreement sets aside 125 truly affordable (income-restricted) units — and pads the number with 125 market-rate “Compact Homes” that are simply smaller houses at full price. Land Use Chairman Obie asked for at least 250 affordable units. On 5,500 homes, real affordable housing is about 2.3%.

“…the Property Owner agrees 125 residential units shall be Attainable Units… (80% or less of AMI)… and 125 shall be Compact Homes… available at market rate.”

📄 Binding Development Agreement — Sept. 14 Land Use packet p. 1146

ANSWERED — The agreement sets aside 125 income-restricted units and pads the count with 125 market-rate “Compact Homes.” On affordability itself: at 80% AMI for the Charleston–North Charleston MSA (roughly $62,100 for one person to $88,700 for a household of four, HUD 2025), I’ve documented who this actually reaches. My affordability analysis is submitted to the Council for the record.

View the receipt — Development Agreement, packet p. 1146 Actual packet page: Development Agreement, packet p. 1146

Open full-size in a new tab →

The Stormwater Standard — Run to Ground

✔ ANSWERED My research → submitted to the Council

The “2026 stormwater standard” — run to ground, and now updated.

For weeks, residents heard that this project “exceeds the 2026 stormwater standard,” and that a new 2026 manual applied. Those statements sent good people searching for test results and for a manual that governs. So I filed a FOIA request and read the County’s own records. When I did, the truth was that the 2026 Stormwater Design Standards Manual had not yet been adopted — Berkeley County’s own signed Stormwater Management Program called it a work still “being developed and adopted,” and the 2009 manual remained the operative standard.

📄 FOIA records & Berkeley County’s own Stormwater Management Program (Jan. 2026); UPDATE: Stormwater Design Standards Manual 2026, Berkeley County Forms & Documents (Sept. 2026)

UPDATE — September 2026

That has now changed, and I’m recording it here promptly, as I promised. A resident, W.S., flagged that the County has since posted a new Stormwater Design Standards Manual 2026 — dated this month — which has replaced the 2009 version on the County’s Forms & Documents page. I verified it. From the manual’s own text, it was adopted by the County Engineer under the authority the ordinance grants, not by a Council vote. I’m still confirming the exact effective date and full process, and will update this line as I do.

What this means for the record: the update residents were waiting on is, at last, in force. The fair, forward question is which standard governed this project’s own drainage review — that review predates the new manual — and, going forward, that every new project be measured against the now-current 2026 standard from the start.

The credit here belongs to an involved neighbor who read carefully and spoke up. That’s how the record gets more accurate for everyone.

📄 Read the 2026 manual on the County’s site (PDF) →

ANSWERED — The original finding stands for its timeframe, and the September 2026 change is recorded above. Two-page fact sheet on the original research, with the County’s own page numbers:

📄 Read the stormwater fact sheet (PDF)
Check it yourself. Every page shown above is from the county’s own September 14, 2026 Land Use Committee packet, available to the public on the Berkeley County agenda portal. Spot an error? Tell us and it will be corrected — that’s the standard.
Following the Record: Cane Bay The Receipts The 42-Page Record

Let's Talk About District 6

Call or Text: (843) 485-VOTE

godfreyforcountycouncil@gmail.com

Join the Campaign Donate