On Aug. 12, the Clarendon County Council convened for a session that addressed several issues, including public concerns about local utilities, transportation improvements, and the ordinance regulating solar energy farms within the county. The council heard and considered public comments from members of the community, as well as representatives of solar development corporations.
The meeting began on a positive note, with the council recognizing the dedication and service of four county employees. The honorees included: Joshua Joyner, who has served as a Training Officer and EMT with the Fire and Rescue Department for five years. Carol Richburg, who has also completed five years of service as Deputy Clerk for the General Sessions Court and was recently promoted to Accounting Technician. Tanya Cox, who was honored for her 15 years of service as Senior Secretary with the Fire and Rescue Department, and Mary Sue McDowell, who has dedicated 25 years as Deputy Sermon Clerk with the Magistrate Department.
Public comments: Water quality concerns and county jurisdiction
The public comment section of the meeting was initiated by Curt Goodson, President of the North Shore Village Homeowners Association. Goodson brought forth concerns regarding the North Shore Water System, which he claimed has been problematic since he moved to the area four years ago. Goodson provided photos to both the Clarendon County Council and the Summerton Council the following evening, depicting the water quality that has afflicted the community. He noted that the water tank, which was cleaned approximately three years ago, was supposed to be maintained on a three-year rotation. Yet, he alleged there has been no communication from the Town of Summerton regarding the next scheduled cleaning.
County Administrator Lynden D. Anthony clarified that the water system in question is owned and operated by the Town of Summerton, not by Clarendon County. Goodson acknowledged this but emphasized that as residents of Clarendon County, the North Shore community lacks voting rights in Summerton and thus relies on the Clarendon County Council to address their concerns.
The council moved forward with several key board appointments, ensuring continuity in service and representation:
Tiffany Myers and William Scott Wannamaker, III were authorized to continue their terms on the Behavioral Services Board. Donald Bethune was reappointed to the Clarendon County Assessment Appeals Board representing District 2. Justin McArthur was appointed to serve a two-year term on the same board, representing District 3.
Transportation Committee: Addressing infrastructure needs
Acting as the Clarendon County Transportation Committee, the council approved a $30,000 drainage improvement project on Lake Marion Shores Road. This decision was explained by Anthony, who noted that recent development along the road had exacerbated existing drainage issues, particularly on the north shore side. The authorization allows for contracting out the project to address water pooling issues that have become a concern for the area.
Intergovernmental agreement with SCDOT: Preparing for natural disasters
The council also approved an intergovernmental agreement with the SC Department of Transportation. This agreement formalizes a reimbursement process for disaster-related debris clearing and maintenance of county-maintained roadways. Anthony clarified that this agreement is not related to any recent tropical storms but is a proactive measure to ensure that resources can be effectively utilized by both the state and the county during large-scale natural disasters. This formal arrangement replaces the previously informal cooperation between the county and the state and aligns with FEMA reimbursement rates, ensuring financial prudence in disaster response efforts.
Solar energy facility ordinance
Most of the meeting revolved around the public hearing on Ordinance 2024-05, which proposes amendments to the county’s Unified Development Code to regulate solar energy facilities. The ordinance seeks to address the growing interest in solar farm development in Clarendon County while balancing land use, safety, environmental concerns, and economic development.
Anthony kicked off the discussion by providing an overview of the current state of solar farms in the county. With five commercial solar operators already covering about 75 acres, Anthony explained that the ordinance was prompted by the significant increase in the size of solar projects seen nationally and regionally. He emphasized that the council’s task was to create a model that balances land use issues with the potential economic benefits and the long-term safety and well-being of the county’s communities.
County Chairman Dwight Stewart, provided historical context, recalling the hazardous waste site near Rimini in the 1980s that spurred the establishment of county-wide zoning laws. He used this historical perspective to underline the importance of careful land use planning, particularly when it comes to potentially hazardous developments like solar farms.
Public feedback: Solar industry vs. local concerns
The public hearing saw a diverse range of opinions, particularly from representatives of the solar energy industry and residents.
Caleb Lemoine, Development Manager for Savion, a utility-scale solar developer, expressed concerns that the proposed ordinance’s setbacks and vegetative buffer requirements would render solar projects in Clarendon County financially unviable. He pointed out that the 300-foot setback from property lines, along with a 50-foot-wide vegetative buffer, would significantly increase project costs and waste valuable land. Lemoine also questioned the five-mile setback from Lake Marion and the airport, noting that such restrictions seemed arbitrary and could hinder solar development.
Neil Lane, a concerned citizen of Clarendon County and longtime employee in the nuclear power industry, supported the development of solar power but underscored the importance of maintaining grid reliability. Lane highlighted the risks of grid instability during peak demand periods and emphasized that solar energy could play a critical role in ensuring grid resiliency in the face of increasing energy demands and the transition away from fossil fuels.
Adding to the discussion was the county auditor, who provided detailed information on the financial impact of existing solar farms in Clarendon County. The auditor, who lives in an area proposed for a solar farm, expressed no objection to solar developments but shared concerns based on past experiences with hazardous chemicals in the region. The auditor’s testimony also highlighted the financial benefits that solar farms bring to the county through property taxes, even when operating under fee-in-lieu agreements. She provided specific examples, noting that the Abbott Solar Farm on Raccoon Road, which was valued as agricultural property at $3,200 in 2018, is now assessed at $110,000 as commercial property after the solar installation. Similar increases in property values and tax revenues were reported for other solar farms in the county, demonstrating the economic impact of these developments.
A particularly notable exchange occurred between Councilman John P. Coker and Ron Bowman. Coker raised pointed questions about the maintenance and long-term viability of solar farms, comparing them unfavorably to agricultural operations like chicken houses, which have stringent setback requirements due to potential nuisances like smell.
Coker pressed Bowman on the lifespan of solar farms, questioning whether solar panels would still be productive after ten years and expressing concerns about what would happen if the panels were not maintained. He also highlighted the issue of grass maintenance around solar farms, noting that many solar facilities in the area have neglected to cut the grass, leading to overgrowth and potential fire hazards.
Bowman, representing New World Investment Partners, who had leased land to Savion for solar development, responded to Coker’s concerns by emphasizing that solar farms do not produce the same nuisances as agricultural operations, such as odor, and therefore should not be subject to the same stringent setback requirements. A solar developer stepped forward to address the concern of overgrowth and explained his company plants low growing clover because they do not want anything covering the panels. However, Coker remained skeptical, questioning whether electricity generated by solar farms was more important than food production, a point that Bowman addressed by pointing out that “we have plenty of food in this country.”
Furthering the debate, Jay Johnson, a local resident, raised critical questions about the financial viability of solar farms, citing statistics that indicate a high bankruptcy rate among solar companies. Johnson expressed concerns about who would be responsible for the cleanup of solar farms if the companies that operate them go bankrupt. He questioned whether Clarendon County would be left with the financial burden of decommissioning and restoring the land, a scenario he feared could cost millions of dollars.
Carmine Aderoles, with Solar Gen of South Carolina, addressed Johnson’s concerns by explaining that responsible solar developers include decommissioning plans and bonds in their leases to ensure that the land is restored to its original condition, regardless of the company’s financial status. However, Aderoles acknowledged that the cost of decommissioning could vary significantly over time, depending on market conditions and the value of recyclable materials.
Executive Session and final decisions: Amending the solar ordinance
Following an hour-long executive session, the council reconvened to discuss the solar ordinance further. They made several key amendments based on the public feedback and their deliberations:
-The setback requirement was reduced to 300 feet if adjoining property owners’ consent, otherwise it remains at 500 feet.
-The vegetative buffer requirement was reduced from 50 feet to 25 feet.
-The five-mile restriction was clarified to apply only to Lake Marion.
-A cap was established on zoning certificates once solar facilities in the county exceed 3,900 acres.
These changes were approved in the second reading, with legal counsel directed to prepare a revised version of the ordinance for review before the next meeting on Sept. 9.
