What's at Stake
Inappropriate and harmful annexations have caused growth to outpace infrastructure in many regions of our state, burdening taxpayers and hindering local and regional planning efforts. Without changes to outdated annexation laws, questionable annexations, rezoning and the extension of services to remote areas will continue to induce sprawl, hinder regional planning and cause taxes to increase.
Challenges
Our state's Comprehensive Planning Act requires counties to create land use plans that plan for future growth. Counties use these plans to identify areas for dense urban, suburban and rural growth, and to direct future infrastructure in the most cost effective manner. This planning saves taxpayer dollars and strengthens communities.
If a developer’s agenda conflicts with the county plan, developers often purchase unincorporated properties zoned for low density and not identified for future infrastructure extension. If the developer’s petition to be annexed is accepted, the property can then be developed at the developer’s desired density, regardless of the county's plan.
In a race to grab large parcels of land, often a municipality will annex a strip or “shoestring” of property, sometimes only a few feet wide. That allows a city to reach out into a rural area not originally intended for development. This undermines planning efforts and burdens taxpayers with providing services such as police and fire protection, water and sewer services and road construction and maintenance.
Very few people affected by an annexation proposal have the authority to challenge it. Current law allows three types of annexations. Of these, only one type of annexation allows someone other than the Attorney General to challenge it. Because of this narrow allowance for oversight, a developer and a municipality can work together to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize development outside of a county’s comprehensive plan.
Next Steps
Require annexing governments’ actions to be consistent with local comprehensive land use plans and allow annexations of large parcels only if the property already receives “urban” services, is already developed for “urban purposes,” or if a high percentage of the boundary of an unincorporated parcel is contiguous with a municipal boundary.
Clarify and expand statutory standing to contest inappropriate annexations and improve public oversight of the annexation process by ensuring adequate public notice of both 75 percent and 100 percent annexations.
Require municipalities to provide a "plan of services" to explain how the municipality will pay for and support the proposed growth.
Consider separate legislation to facilitate municipal annexation of “doughnut holes” to make providing services more efficient.
For more information:
Patty Pierce, Coastal Conservation League, 803-771-7102
Patrick Moore, Coastal Conservation League, 843-522-1800
Fast Facts
Questionable annexations have brought large scale residential sprawl to the doorsteps of Francis Marion National Forest, ACE Basin, Cape Romain Wildlife Refuge, the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge, and Congaree National Park.
Current annexation practices have produced substantial unfunded growth that threatens the viability of service provisions such as police and fire protection, education, and water and sewer in places such as Awendaw, Beaufort, and Yemassee.