South Carolina bill would let local governments delay permits when infrastructure lags, with safeguards
Loading...
Summary
Sen. Tom Davis described a pending 'concurrency' bill that would let counties and municipalities limit or defer development permits where roads, water, schools or public safety capacity are inadequate, while requiring objective service benchmarks, plans to address deficiencies and legal 'safe‑harbors' for local governments.
Sen. Tom Davis told a regional delegation meeting that he is sponsoring legislation to give local governments statutory authority to apply 'concurrency' standards — delaying or conditioning building permits — when infrastructure such as roads, water and sewer, schools or public safety cannot support new development.
Davis said the proposal is not intended to halt growth but to align development with the capacity on the ground. "Not to kill growth, not to impose moratoriums," he said. Instead, he said, concurrency would allow a local government to say "no, not now" or "no, not to that degree" when there is an objective shortfall in level of service.
The senator told attendees that the bill would require jurisdictions to adopt measurable level‑of‑service baselines, publicly document deficiencies and publish a multi‑year plan to address them so that any refusal to issue permits could be defended against regulatory‑takings claims. He also said the legislation would include a form of safe harbor for local governments that follow the statute's procedures so that a developer would face a heightened burden to overturn a denial.
Davis cited experience in Florida and Maryland as precedents and said some South Carolina counties are already informally applying similar constraints. He suggested exemptions or special treatment for affordable‑housing projects and for targeted urban infill where growth is desirable.
Local board members asked whether concurrency could be applied to long‑standing development agreements. Davis answered that vested‑rights and takings issues are central to that question and that the bill would be drafted to allow phased or limited application rather than an outright permanent moratorium.
If enacted, the law would change the tools available to local planners and elected officials when infrastructure upgrades lag development. Davis urged local officials to share concrete examples of deficiencies with their state delegation and said he expects a crossover window in about a month to determine which chamber's vehicle will move forward.
The delegation did not vote on any measure; the discussion ended with Davis inviting written local input and pledges of staff support for municipalities seeking to apply for state programs.
