Land Use, Natural Resources, and Transportation

General Statement of Policy

South Carolina’s counties have played a vital role in maintaining natural resources, governing the wise use of land, and making public infrastructure decisions. Protection of natural resources must be a shared effort between the state and local governments. Counties recognize the importance of home rule and community input regarding land use, natural resources, and infrastructure decisions and have traditionally opposed statewide legislation that would preempt existing local authority over these matters. County officials acknowledge their responsibility to carry out policies formulated by the General Assembly regarding matters of statewide concern. To that end, if state law mandates that local governments assume new or expanded responsibilities, the General Assembly should provide adequate guidance and funding to accomplish legislative aims.

LAND USE

Compensation to Landowners for All Local Standards Affecting Property — Oppose an "inordinate burden" bill or similar legislation that attempts to change the constitutional standard or establishes a new process which determines when compensation is due a landowner for a "taking".

Comprehensive Planning Act of 1994 — The underlying concept envisioned by the Comprehen-sive Planning Act of 1994 should not -be amended. Oppose any effort to dilute or undercut the Act’s framework and concepts.

Farm and Forest Lands — Continue to monitor.

Manufactured Housing — Oppose preemption of local government zoning and land use authority with regard to manufactured housing.

Riparian Buffer Zones — Continue to closely monitor developments regarding this issue.

State Preemption of Local Zoning Authority — SCAC acknowledges that local citizens require and expect local governments to establish and adopt local zoning ordinances. To that end, neither the state nor outside entities should affect the operation of locally adopted ordinances in the area of land use.

Statewide Growth Management (Smart Growth) — Oppose state control of local land use planning.

Policy Positions

Clean Water, Clean Air, and Wetlands — Counties have long recognized that efforts to ensure clean water and air and to protect wet-lands transcend governmental boundaries-. These efforts require close cooperation between federal, state and local governments. To that end, counties acknowledge the federal and state role in setting and implementing clean water, clean air and wetland standards. To ensure full coordination of environmental efforts, the Association of Counties, and those counties directly impacted, should be included in all decisions affecting local obligations for carrying out measures designed to protect natural resources.

Conservation Statement — SCAC recognizes that adequate open space contributes to the quality of life of our citizens by providing recreational opportunities, enhancing air and water quality, and preserving and protecting South Carolina’s unique natural beauty. These attributes, in turn, support economic development and improve property values. SCAC, therefore, supports state conservation pro-grams that:

• Enhance property values;

• Provide recreational opportunities;

• Protect historic properties;

• Preserve unique attributes that make a community distinctive, such as scenic views or architectural design elements;

• Improve air and water quality;

• Encourage agricultural activities;

• Work in conjunction with local zoning and land use planning requirements; and

• Respect property rights of landowners.

Opt-Out Provision: Any conservation program adopted by the State of South Carolina should provide for counties to opt out if:

• Sufficient funds for the purchase of the property have not been secured;

• Maintenance and liability issues have not been addressed to the satisfaction of the affected county;

• Participation would impede a local government’s ability to carry out its zoning and land use planning functions, or deny a community’s right to notice and participation in the conservation process;

• Devaluation of land would have a significant impact on the tax base of the county.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: Counties may request that a cost/benefit analysis be provided to demonstrate the impact on county revenue when properties are removed from the tax roles or reduced in value for conservation purposes.

Property Rights: Support only conservation programs that promote agreements with willing property owners. Vigorously oppose the use of coercion or intimidation to secure land for conservation.

Funding: Funding state conservation pro-grams shou-ld not reduce state funding to counties. However, consider proposals that require local match for participation.

Authority: County Council must retain authority to make decisions in these matters unless dele-gated to another entity by the county council.

DHEC Regulation of Wastewater Treatment Facilities — Establish a task force with diverse membership to study compliance problems for wastewater treatment plants under the Clean Water Act. Address protection for new capital investment projects already finished, protection for existing systems currently and diligently complying with DHEC regulations where substantial progress is evident, grandfathering-in of existing structures, and allowing sufficient time to plan for compliance prior to a deadline.

Stormwater Management and Sediment Control — If the 1991 Act is amended, support efforts to bring about increased flexibility and cooperation in addressing storm-water and sediment control. To that end, the following changes should be adopted: 1) handle storm-water quantity issues through regional approaches that account for basin-wide and statewide concerns; 2) provide more local discretion in how sediment is con-trolled on a site-by-site basis; 3) apply more "common sense" and less "textbook" approaches with provisions for follow-up evaluations.

"C" Funds — Oppose any further erosion of local government control and diminution of "C" fund allocations available for county road work. Research means to increase "C" fund distribution to counties heavily impacted by tourism and advise the General Assembly of counties’ concerns about the current methodology for distribution of "C" funds as it relates to paving and improvement programs for local secondary roads.

County Provision of Water and Sewer Infrastructure — Support legislation to give county residents a greater voice in the provision of services from municipalities and Public Ser-vice Commission regulation of those services.

Development of Subdivision Water Supply and Sewage Treatment/Disposal Systems (Septic Tanks) — Support changing DHEC Regulation 61-57, which governs subdivision water supplies and septic tanks, to give greater control over these decisions to local governments.

Protecting County Water Systems — Oppose legislation that would result in county water systems competing against municipal systems in the unincorporated areas of the county.

Road Maintenance Agreements with SCDOT — Support a coordinated effort between the counties and SCDOT to work out an agreement which clarifies responsibility and accountability on the issue of road maintenance and repair, particularly in areas heavily impacted by tourism. Funding for state and local commitments should be emphasized.

Tax Lien Status for Governmental Service Fees — Support legislation to give governmental service fees on tax bills the same tax lien status as unpaid property taxes.

SOLID WASTE

Displacement of Solid Waste Haulers — Op-pose legislation that would give preferences to solid waste haulers.

Electronic Recycling Funding — Electronic material recycling is an important issue. DHEC and RMDAC should conduct a statewide study to gauge the effect on each of the 46 counties before any fee-based program is put in place. Closely monitor this issue for any developments which address the cost of such a program to the counties.

Landfill Height Restriction — Solid waste landfill siting issues should be left to local government. These issues, including vertical height restrictions, are too complex and involve too many issues unique to a particular site to lend themselves to a statewide law that gives no consideration to the community, geography or economy.

Solid Waste Trust Fund — Funding for recycling and reduction programs is important. Encourage the General Assembly to maintain the integrity of the Solid Waste Trust Fund.

2000-2001 Land Use, Natural Resources
and Transportation Steering Committee:

Gonza Lee Bryant, Chairman
Greenwood County Council Vice Chairman

Paul J. Allen, Abbeville County Director
Frank Brafman, Beaufort County Council Chairman
David L. Ferguson, Fairfield County Council Chairman
G. O’Neal Hamilton, Marlboro County Council Chairman
Sel Hemingway, Georgetown County Council Chairman
H. Bernard Horne, Saluda County Council Chairman
Ann H. Hughes, Oconee County Supervisor
James N. Kier, Greenwood County Manager
Henry Moss, Jasper County Administrator
William R. Owens, Chesterfield County Council Chairman
Timothy E. Scott, Charleston County Council Vice Chairman
Kit Smith, Richland County Council Chairman
Dwight L. Stewart, Jr., Clarendon County Council Chairman
Thomas C. Taylor, Beaufort County Council Chairman
Pete Thompson, Lancaster County Council Vice Chairman
Richard Treme, Williamsburg County Supervisor
J. W. Wall, Jr., Allendale County Council Chairman

SCAC Board Members

Dozier Brooks, Greenville County Council Chairman
Robert M. Haynie, Greenwood County Board of Voter Registration
Judith K. Spooner, Berkeley County Council Vice Chairman
W. B. Wilson, Williamsburg County Council

President's Appointees:

Philip D. England, Aiken County Planning and Development Director
Charles C. Gunnin, Jr., Horry County Solid Waste Authority
L. Gregory Pearce, Richland County Council Vice Chairman

SCAC Staff Contact: Robert W. Hemphill, Jr.