Stakeholders urge guardrails and planning as Legislature hears broad testimony on S.227 concurrency authorization

The LCI ad hoc subcommittee held a long hearing on S.227, a bill that would authorize local governments to adopt concurrency programs that link development permits to available public infrastructure. Stakeholders across the spectrum supported the idea of better planning but differed sharply on how strict state authorization should be.

Chairman opened the discussion by saying he did not intend to move the bill at the meeting but wanted input from stakeholders. He described concurrency as different from impact fees: concurrency allows a local government to delay or limit permits when essential infrastructure is not in place, whereas impact fees require developers to pay for added capacity.

Developers and builders warned that poorly designed concurrency can halt projects and raise housing costs. Mike Satterfield, CEO of Haven Homes and Haven Communities, recounted a denied 83-townhome project that "was denied based on schools," extending project timelines and adding months to a multi-year development cycle. He highlighted examples of high infrastructure costs developers sometimes shoulder, citing a roughly $5.5 million sewer extension and a $2 million traffic circle as local obligations that affect project economics.

Mark Nicks of the Home Builders Association described long permitting cycles in some counties ("over 4 years"), rising fees and the effect of delay on financing costs that are passed to buyers. He supported better planning and financing mechanisms such as congestion mitigation fees that would fund infrastructure in advance.

Conservation and planning advocates said concurrency, when implemented with statutory guardrails, can prevent sprawl and protect public services. Zach Bier, Land and Water Policy Director for Conservation Voters of South Carolina, said South Carolina has seen roughly 80,000 new residents recently and urged concurrency with functioning release mechanisms so it does not become a permanent barrier to development. Emily Poole of the South Carolina Environmental Law Project said legislative authorization would give local governments the legal cover to adopt concurrency and align it with comprehensive plans and capital improvements programs.

County officials and municipal counsel stressed implementation challenges and legal risk. David Chenis, chair of the Dorchester County Council and a vice president of the South Carolina Association of Counties, urged clear guardrails to avoid litigation costs that smaller counties may not afford and said concurrency should not be used as "a bludgeon." Sarah Weathers, associate general counsel for the Municipal Association of South Carolina, recommended an amendment to limit concurrency programs to a jurisdiction's statutory planning boundaries to avoid counties effectively regulating development inside municipal limits.

Across testimony, several recurring proposals emerged: require explicit level-of-service standards tied to specific infrastructure categories (water/sewer, roads, public safety), align concurrency with an adopted capital improvements plan (CIP) that includes funding commitments and timelines, provide proportionality so developers are not forced to pay all up-front costs without reimbursement, include a release mechanism or pathway for permits once planned improvements are funded, and exempt or protect affordable/workforce housing projects.

Committee members repeatedly returned to two tensions: (1) how to ensure concurrency is narrow enough to withstand legal challenge and avoid regulatory takings (many mentioned limiting level-of-service metrics to critical infrastructure rather than schools/recreation), and (2) how to preserve predictability for developers while allowing local governments to manage growth. The chairman said he and staff would draft amendments in the coming weeks and hold another subcommittee meeting for stakeholder comment.

There was no committee vote on S.227 during the session.

Representative viewpoints and a representative quote: "If the core problem is we want better planning, then the Chamber's all in to help. If the core problem is we wanna stop development, then that's where we're gonna have some challenges with this bill," said Bailey Vincent of the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce. Zach Bier said: "Concurrency can facilitate better planning and avoid unchecked sprawl, but only if implemented with the functioning pieces that allow it to work as intended."

Next steps: staff will draft proposed guardrails and the subcommittee will reconvene to consider amendments and receive stakeholder feedback.