Kershaw County adopts two‑year building permit allocation system after heated public hearings

Kershaw County Council voted on May 12 to adopt a two‑year building permit allocation system aimed at slowing the county’s rapid housing growth while preserving options for negotiated large developments. The ordinance passed on third reading as amended following extensive public testimony and a lengthy council discussion.

The ordinance establishes annual permit allotments by category (major‑subdivision single family; single family outside major subdivisions; and a combined multifamily/accessory dwelling unit category). Councilman Schumick proposed and won a multi‑point amendment that: combines multifamily and ADU permits into a single pool; reserves 80% of major‑subdivision allotments for projects with approved site plans; caps any single applicant at 20% of the single‑family‑outside allocation; makes applications complete only when permit fees are paid; and gives council authority to periodically re‑evaluate the system.

Supporters said the measure is a necessary, time‑limited tool to manage infrastructure strain and preserve community character. Linda Franklin Moore, a resident who spoke during the public hearing, told council that permit allocation is “a start” to manage constrained sewage, water and school capacity. Vice Chairman Russell Brazzle and other supporters argued the system creates a predictable cap and leaves negotiated development agreements (PDDs) and potential master‑plan districts (MPDs) as avenues for large projects that can offset impacts.

Builders and industry representatives raised objections during the public hearing. Emily Martin, representing the Builders Industry Association, said the draft largely mirrors Mount Pleasant’s model but omits that town’s fair‑housing exception and removes grandfathering protections used elsewhere. Several local builders and developers warned the change, together with new lot‑size and other ordinances, could strain smaller contractors and slow housing supply.

Council members debated speed and scope. Councilman Jones and Councilman Brazzle said they feared the package of nine related ordinances was moving too quickly and could unintentionally harm local builders; they voted against the final measure. Supporters said the ordinance uses historical averages and that the council can adjust allocations if categories under‑use permits.

The ordinance expressly allows development agreements to be exempted from the allocation cap; council and staff discussed using MPDs or PDDs to negotiate infrastructure and density for larger developments. Planning staff said MPD language can be drafted and presented as a title‑only item at a future meeting.

Council recorded votes and procedure: the Schumick amendment passed on a roll call; the ordinance as amended passed on third reading and was recorded as approved by a majority of council members present (vote recorded in the meeting minutes). The ordinance takes effect according to its text and includes a required six‑month monitoring interval and a two‑year review horizon.

Next steps: staff will implement the permit application procedures, enforce the fee requirement that completes applications, and report to council on permit utilization at scheduled intervals. Council also agreed to consider a title‑only master‑plan district ordinance at a future meeting to create a negotiated path for large development projects.