Clarendon County Council advanced a six-month moratorium on certain data center and battery energy storage system developments Aug. 24, but the measure would not stop the proposed Project 59 data center in the county industrial park.
Council unanimously gave second reading to Ordinance 2026-18 during a special called meeting. A public hearing is expected before third and final reading at council’s Sept. 14 regular meeting.
The moratorium would temporarily pause land-use and development approvals for data centers and battery storage facilities outside areas zoned Industrial I or Industrial II. It would not take effect unless council gives it final approval.
The county’s Unified Development Code does not specifically define either type of facility. The six-month pause would give officials time to determine where the developments may locate and establish standards addressing issues such as setbacks, buffers, noise, lighting and emergency access.
The Clarendon County Planning Commission unanimously recommended the moratorium Aug. 3. Council gave the ordinance first reading Aug. 10.
Councilman Pat Coker said he requested that second reading be added to the Aug. 24 special meeting to move the ordinance forward more quickly. Without the moratorium, he said, the county’s existing code could allow data centers in other areas if planning officials determined they were similar to already permitted uses.
“We’re trying to stop it from going in your backyard,” Coker said.
Project 59 would be excluded
The moratorium would not affect Project 59 because its proposed location is zoned Industrial I.
Santee Electric submitted a request on the developer’s behalf, and the county Planning Department issued a conditional determination July 16 finding that the proposed operation, as described, was most similar to light industrial use and could locate in the district.
Because the project is proposed for an industrial district and has not requested local tax incentives, it would not require approval from County Council if it meets all applicable requirements.
Coker said the county could not use the moratorium to block a qualifying project in the industrial park.
“The moratorium has nothing to do with the data center that’s already been put in application form for the industrial park,” he said. “We can’t stop that.”
Questions about when officials knew
The timing of the moratorium and Project 59 has led to questions about when county staff, council members and the public learned of the proposal.
Business Development Director George Kosinski said Santee Electric Cooperative approached county staff around the second week of July and submitted a land-use request to the Planning Department on behalf of a developer he identified as “Five Nines.”
Kosinski said County Council did not know about the proposal at that point. County staff received information and answered questions through Santee Electric until Aug. 17, when officials spoke directly with the developer for the first time.
Rep. Fawn Pedalino said on social media that she asked Council Chairman Jay Johnson in late July whether a data center was under consideration and was told the proposed moratorium was proactive.
Johnson later said he did not know about Project 59 when Pedalino questioned him July 28. He said he learned Aug. 6 that a company was negotiating with Santee Electric.
Council publicly discussed the potential project during its Aug. 10 meeting. The county released a public notice and project fact sheet Aug. 19 addressing residents’ questions about the proposal.
Pedalino has criticized the county for not informing residents earlier and has called for a public forum involving county officials, utility representatives and the developer. An online petition opposing data center development in Clarendon County had collected 301 signatures by the afternoon of Aug. 19.
Public hearing set for third reading
The Aug. 24 agenda did not include public comment or a public hearing on the moratorium.
County Administrator Walt Ackerman said before the meeting that the county typically holds public hearings before second reading, but a hearing is required before final action rather than at a particular reading.
South Carolina law requires public hearings before county councils take final action on certain ordinances, including zoning and subdivision regulations. Notice must be published at least 15 days before those hearings.
Whether the temporary moratorium definitively falls within that category was not established. Ackerman said the county followed guidance favoring proper notice rather than risk holding a hearing without the full notice period.
Pedalino first questioned why the notice requirement prevented public input Aug. 24. In a later post, she said that the moratorium may not fall within one of the six categories specifically identified in state law but said residents still should have an opportunity to be heard.
Johnson said during the meeting that public comment would be accepted before third reading.
Council is expected to hold the public hearing Sept. 14 before deciding whether to give the moratorium final approval.
