County Council forwards solar energy ordinance
By Samantha Lyles, Staff Writer, slyles@newsandpress.net
At their February 6 regular meeting, Darlington County Council passed second reading of a contentious renewable energy ordinance by a vote of 7 to 1. Ordinance 16-19 sets county regulations for the location, construction, and operation of renewable energy systems.
Residents of the Byrdtown community began registering concerns with the Darlington County Planning Commission and County Council last summer, saying this ordinance allowed large-scale solar panel installations too close to rural homes. Many of those same residents attended this meeting and reiterated their worries over potential health problems and negative aesthetics.
Council member David Coker expresses concerns about the renewable energy ordinance. Photo by Samantha Lyles
Though 16-19 came up for second reading more than once, Council repeatedly sent it back to the Planning Commission to incorporate information from citizens and solar energy developers in an effort to address concerns of both parties. After a January 17 work session focused on the nuts and bolts of solar energy systems, Council came away with a consensus on how to proceed, and that version of the ordinance returned to their agenda for the Feb. 6 meeting.
Council member David Coker (District #8, Hartsville) cast the lone dissenting vote on second reading. During deliberations, Coker offered two amendments, the first of which proposed to require a vegetative buffer around the entire solar energy installation. This idea immediately drew protest from vice chair Le Flowers, who worried that such a requirement might start a trend of citizens asking council to forcing landowners to screen displeasing features from public view.
“Where does this stop? I mean, if we don’t like someone’s barn, can we make them screen that barn? If we don’t like the fact that they have a tractor collection out front so you can see it, do we make them screen it?” Flowers asked. “Where do we stop with telling landowners what they can and cannot do on their property?”
Coker responded that he only wanted the screening requirement applied to the renewable energy systems specified in the ordinance. His first amendment received a second from Council member Joyce Wingate Thomas, but failed adoption by a vote of 6 to 2.
Coker’s second proposed amendment would have required developers to secure a $50,000 bond to pay for future decommissioning of these sites. Mozella “Pennie” Nicholson offered a second, but then voted against the amendment. Wingate Thomas again voted with Coker, but the motion failed 6 to 2.
After the vote, Council member Lewis Brown explained his support for the renewable energy ordinance, saying that it could help address an imbalance in Darlington County tax revenue yields. Brown said that currently, three of the county’s eight districts produce about 80 percent of the total revenue.
“I don’t think it’s a healthy scenario and I personally, over the next four years, would like to see that elevated where all parts of the county are contributing and we prosper,” said Brown.
He spoke of the potential for “significant revenue” through the development of solar energy systems, noting that there are 10 to 15 projects currently considering location in Darlington County.
The amended version of Ordinance 16-19 includes the following stipulations:
• The setback distance between a solar energy system’s fence line and the nearest residential property line must be a minimum of 50 feet. The minimum setback distance from the fence line to the nearest residence must be at least 200 feet.
• Council opted not to cap a project’s size by acreage, but by total power output. The maximum allowable wattage output for a solar energy system will be 75mw, and the minimum physical size will be 1 acre.
• The required vegetative buffer shall be comprised of plantings that will match 100 percent of the solar panels height within three years. Buffer plantings will only be required along borders facing residences, not along borders facing highways or non-residential properties.
• Developers will not be required to take out a bond to pay for future decommissioning costs when the solar energy system reaches the end of its life.
Third and final reading of Ordinance 16-19 should take place at Council’s March 6 regular meeting.
In other matters, Council approved a revised vehicle purchase list from the Darlington County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO). The new list submitted by Sheriff Tony Chavis removed requests from the previous administration for pickup trucks and replaced those with more patrol vehicles. The total package includes 24 vehicles: 20 fully equipped patrol vehicles, 1 special purpose vehicle with no law enforcement identifiers, and 3 administrative vehicles which could be outfitted for patrol at a later date.
Council previously approved a lease-purchase budget for DCSO of $857,600. This request allocates an additional $33,000 to transfer a Chevy Tahoe from the Coroner’s Office, raising that total to $890,195.
The Sheriff’s Office also received approval to transfer $32,374 from its fuel budget to purchase body armor for 38 Class 1 deputies currently working with expired protective gear or no body armor at all. The agenda request form stated that DCSO staff could not locate records “concerning the purchase, maintenance, disposal, or grant applications with regards to body armor.”