Council approves study of land-development concurrency, requests updates
Loading...
Summary
The council approved staff to study land-development concurrency — rules that would limit new development until infrastructure exists — while flagging legal questions and the need to involve the school system; staff set a target of June 7 for deliverables and regular updates.
Greenville County council voted to advance a study of land-development concurrency, a planning tool that would link development approvals to available infrastructure.
County staff member (Speaker 3) described concurrency: "concurrency regulations would allow for development to meet up Development could only proceed so long as the infrastructure was there to support it," and noted identical bills are pending in both the state House and Senate that would enable local governments to adopt such standards. Staff also cited Lexington County as a jurisdiction that had adopted a concurrency ordinance and recommended waiting for state legislative movement while studying the legal ramifications.
Councilmember (Speaker 4) and others asked whether the school district should have a formal role in the process — Speaker 4 noted the practical problem of a large subdivision ("400 plus unit subdivisions") prompting school capacity needs and asked whether the school system could be given an explicit consultative role without hampering the county's 60-day review timeline. Staff acknowledged that including external entities could affect statutory review windows if those entities do not respond promptly.
Unidentified Speaker 7 raised legal concerns and reported checking the legislative website, noting a concurrency bill had been introduced and that a recent co-sponsor sign-on had occurred; Speaker 7 recommended the county ttorney's office do a deep dive into the legal basis and limitations before policy adoption.
Councilmember (Speaker 6) argued for the study as a growth-management tool, saying it would help plan police, fire, EMS and school capacity rather than leave the county reactionary to new development. Staff said the effort could be performed in-house or supplemented by consultants and that they would provide regular updates; staff identified a June 7 milestone for the work and said they would inform the council if more time were needed.
A motion to approve the concurrency study carried with unanimous 'Aye' votes. Staff will proceed with the study, coordinate on legal review and provide periodic updates to the council toward the June 7 target.
