Kershaw County Council approves ordinance requiring fire hydrants for minor subdivisions; debate centers on cost and implementation

Kershaw County Council on April 22 approved on second reading an ordinance amending the Kershaw County Unified Code of Zoning and Land Development Regulations to require installation of fire hydrants for minor subdivisions where existing public water infrastructure can sustain required fire flow. The vote was 3-2.

Council members and staff framed the ordinance as a public-safety measure that closes a gap in the county's rules. County attorney Mr. DeBose described the rule's scope: “a minor subdivision … does not involve more than 10 lots” and, if fire flow exists and other exemptions do not apply, the proposed code would require hydrant installation. Fire Chief Bullard told the council the change applies only where water mains and right-of-way already exist: “the utility right away will already be in existence because the water line will already be there.”

Supporters said the requirement will reduce future costs and improve the county's insurance and emergency response outcomes. Councilman Shumate, who moved the ordinance, said he was “fully supportive” because the county otherwise faces higher costs later if hydrants are missing. Opponents warned the rule could impose disproportionate burdens on small local builders and create administrative work for county staff. Vice Chairman Bridal said, “Any anytime we create a law, we create red tape,” and questioned whether the county should shift the obligation or provide a clear protocol for developers.

Council members pressed staff for details on implementation: when hydrants are required, how costs are set, and whether the county might collect funds and coordinate installations through water providers. Chief Bullard said hydrant spacing and flow rules would follow fire-code norms—hydrants typically must be within 500 feet of structures—and described practical constraints in parts of the county that lack sufficient water flow. Mr. DeBose said many details would be handled by the developer interfacing with local water providers but acknowledged council could explore alternatives, including the county receiving funds and facilitating installation.

Several council members asked staff to return with clearer protocol before third reading. The ordinance advanced after the council vote 3-2. Supporters voting yes were Councilman Shumate, Councilman Tucker and Councilman Danny Cato. Councilman Bridal and Councilman Jones voted no. Council members and staff said they expect to refine implementation steps before the final reading.

The second-reading approval does not by itself require installations to begin immediately; council members directed staff to provide follow-up information on how costs would be set, whether the county can accept funds and coordinate with water providers, and the operational burden on planning and fire staff ahead of third reading.