South Carolina subcommittee hears testimony on S.227 concurrency bill to tie development to infrastructure capacity

The Labor, Commerce and Industry (LCI) subcommittee heard extensive testimony on Senate Bill S.227 — a concurrency bill that would allow local governments to adopt ordinances ensuring public facilities and services (roads, schools, water, sewer, emergency services and others) are available “concurrently” with new development.

Supporters told the panel the bill is a permissive tool to reduce strain on services and to make developers and local governments plan and pay in proportion to the impacts of new projects. Representative Wetmore, who filed a companion bill in the House, said the measure is a “safety valve” for local governments facing rapid growth and roughly 20 local moratoriums statewide. “This creates a mechanism for a proportional share. So in my mind, this really is a balanced approach to, you know, smart growth moving forward,” Representative Wetmore said.

The bill’s staff summary, read by Rebecca, says section 1 would define a concurrency program in local zoning code; require governing authorities to ensure public facilities and services are adequate based on documented level-of-service standards and proportionate-share methodologies; allow local governments to require contributions to offset a development’s proportionate impacts; require consideration of amounts already paid through development impact fees; and permit written proportionate-share or cost-sharing agreements between property owners and governments. Section 2 would authorize planning commissions to prepare recommended regulations for qualifying land development projects.

Proponents argued the statute provides clarity and a standardized framework. Tyson Smith, the Charleston-based attorney and planner who drafted the bill, said the authority for concurrency can be legally argued today but is often unclear to lay local officials. Smith said the bill would put level-of-service calculations and proportionality rules in statute, allow written agreements to allocate up-front costs, and reduce uncertainty that currently deters some local governments from using similar tools. “This legislation is absolutely neutral…there’s nothing about this program that would say developers are gonna pay any more than they are today,” Smith testified.

Environmental and conservation groups framed the bill as a tool to limit sprawl and protect open space. Zach Buhrer, Land, Water and Ocean Project Manager for Conservation Voters of South Carolina, said concurrency can be tied to multiple infrastructure systems (not only traffic) and can include timing requirements so infrastructure is in place when developments come online. Emily Poole, an attorney for the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, said concurrency could reduce the litigation that sometimes follows conditional approvals by giving a clear mechanism for conditioning development on infrastructure improvements.

Builders and developers expressed concerns about safeguards. Alex James, government affairs director for the Home Builders Association of South Carolina, said his group opposes the bill as written because it could duplicate the state’s existing impact-fee statute while removing or weakening specific statutory guardrails. James cited requirements currently in the impact-fee law — independent studies by qualified consultants, limits on allowable uses (for example, excluding routine maintenance and administrative costs), time limits and refund rules — that he said are not spelled out in S.227 as drafted.

Local-government associations offered a measured response. Erica Wright of the Municipal Association of South Carolina and John Winges of the Association of Counties said member feedback is mixed; both organizations described the bill as a permissive “tool in the toolbox” that some jurisdictions (for example, Charleston and Summerville) would likely implement immediately while others would not. Wright said members worry the measure could be used to give counties veto-like authority over municipal development if ordinances are not carefully drafted.

Committee members pressed witnesses on how S.227 would differ from authorities that counties and cities already use — traffic impact analyses, unified development ordinances (UDOs), conditional zoning and existing development-agreement statutes. Witnesses answered that many of those tools already exist but that the bill’s value is in codifying clear, public methodologies (level-of-service metrics, proportional-share calculations and explicit agreement authority) so planning commissions and governing bodies feel confident using them.

The subcommittee did not vote on the bill. Members said they intend to hold multiple additional hearings to collect more input, including testimony from local planners and transportation stakeholders, and to examine overlaps with the state impact-fee statute. The subcommittee chair said staff will schedule follow-up sessions. The committee adjourned with no formal action taken.