By By the Editorial Staff,Robert Behre/staff

Copyright postandcourier

Ultimately, County Council still would make the call to reject rezonings that would appear to overburden infrastructure. But it certainly would be easier and more likely for County Council to say no if the planning staff said it failed the test.

Earlier this year, state lawmakers introduced legislation that would allow cities and counties to start concurrency programs that would condition zoning approvals on the adequacy of infrastructure or public services. But as we noted then, even if such a bill passes, it would only be the starting point. Local governments would have to engage in a thoughtful public process to design a zoning ordinance that would help ensure existing public infrastructure and public services can support the increased demands generated by a proposed development — and what would happen if they can’t. Would the applicant have to provide them? Or simply wait? Or mitigate the situation in some other way?

County Council’s possible zoning amendment also will need to get those details right.

It’s important to note County Council already has discretion over zoning changes, and it should use what authority it already has.

Not coincidentally, the discussion about considering infrastructure as part of zoning decisions came at the same time County Council was being asked to approve a controversial request to rezone a 2.4-acre parcel on Cane Slash Road on Johns Island, where a developer sought permission for new uses such as a hotel, motel, parking garage, gas station and greater housing density. The county’s planning staff recommended approval, as the property was on the urban side of the growth boundary and envisioned as mixed use in the county’s master plan.

But mindful of residents’ concerns over traffic and the like, County Council wisely voted it down.