County Council votes 5-3 against Solar Moratorium
An over-capacity crowd filled the chamber as the Darlington County Council heard remarks in favor of and opposition to Ordinance 26-05 during their September 10 meeting. PHOTO BY STEPHAN DREW
Darlington County Council Chairman Bobby Hudson (center) presents Resolution 820 to members of the SC State Guard. PHOTO BY STEPHAN DREW
By Stephan Drew, Editor
After an hour of impassioned testimony from residents on both sides of one of the region’s most contentious land-use debates, Darlington County Council voted 5-3 on Thursday, September 10, to reject a proposed nine-month moratorium on new solar and wind energy development — but not before agreeing to significantly tighten the rules governing future projects.
The council’s September meeting was dominated almost entirely by public comment on Ordinance 26-05, which would have halted the acceptance, review, and approval of any permits or applications for new solar energy systems and wind farms in the county for nine months. The proposal drew dozens of speakers to the podium — landowners, longtime residents, solar industry representatives, veterans, and young people alike — each offering a distinct perspective on how the county should balance private property rights, economic opportunity, and community character.
The public hearing unfolded as a study in contrasts, with speakers frequently invoking competing values: individual property rights versus neighborhood protections, economic development versus environmental preservation, and the promise of new revenue versus the fear of irreversible change.
Supporting property rights and opposing the moratorium, one landowner whose family has held its land for generations told council that pursuing a solar lease was, for him, a means of preserving his family’s legacy rather than losing it. He said a moratorium would disrupt his carefully considered plans and stressed he had no wish to create conflict — only to secure his land’s long-term future — and urged council to vote the ordinance down.
That sentiment was echoed by a resident whose family currently participates in a solar project. He warned that new restrictions could render existing agreements “unworkable” and noted that solar revenue has allowed the county to grow its tax base without raising school or property taxes. Another speaker built on the property-rights argument by invoking the legal doctrine of “Vested Rights,” arguing that South Carolina law shields landowners from having the rules changed on them after the fact — a point he tied to the nation’s approaching 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the “inalienable rights” it enshrines.
Industry voices also pushed back on the moratorium. A speaker involved in solar farm construction rejected claims made by opponents, telling council there are “no chemicals, no noise and no residue to land and water” associated with the projects, and pointed to potential partnerships with local technical schools to better inform the public and train students for jobs in the sector. A solar developer described the extensive regulatory framework already governing the industry, including stormwater analysis requirements, calling solar farms “well-regulated” and stating his company invests millions of dollars in host communities. He said he welcomed direct feedback from concerned residents.
Supporting the moratorium, a 25-year combat veteran who recently relocated to the county delivered some of the hearing’s most pointed remarks. Describing more than $500,000 invested in his property, he raised concerns about declining property values, increased noise and traffic, and disruption to local wildlife. “If I had known this would happen, I would have never moved here,” he said, urging council to slow down and thoroughly study the impact of large-scale solar development. He also asked whether the county could direct future projects toward abandoned or remote parcels rather than sites near established neighborhoods.
A young resident read a prepared statement opposing solar development and specifically asked council to reject the proposed Kelleytown project. Another speaker argued the county had become a target for developers because of weak local ordinances — a claim immediately disputed by a subsequent speaker, who countered that Darlington’s appeal to solar companies stems from its proximity to regional energy infrastructure, not lax regulation.
Concerns about accountability and cost also featured prominently. One resident argued that construction crews for solar projects largely do not hire local workers and questioned who would bear liability in the event of damage or disaster, urging council to require larger financial bonds. Another speaker built on the “Vested Rights” argument raised earlier, contending that the property rights of neighboring landowners who oppose nearby solar development deserve equal consideration as well.
Perhaps the hearing’s most detailed critique came from a resident who described the prospect of 400- and 600-acre solar sites and as much as 20 miles of panels “zig-zagging through neighborhoods.” Framing the debate as a choice between being “Pro-Community” or “Anti-Community” — and insisting she was firmly the former, not “Anti-Solar” — she argued that financial harm to nearby property owners, particularly the inability to resell homes near solar installations, would not be shared broadly but “borne solely by the property owners.” She questioned how installations would fare against severe weather and noted that while solar panels themselves are silent, associated transformers and converters are not. She called on council to expand setback distances, strengthen vegetative buffers, and increase required financial assurance bonds.
Another moratorium supporter told council, “Your decisions will shape the landscape and character of Darlington County for generations to come,” displaying photographs of residents and property that would be affected by nearby projects and describing the toll on local deer and wildlife populations. A separate speaker focused specifically on environmental impact, describing how land-clearing for solar construction destroys trees and vegetation that wildlife depend on for food, while extensive perimeter fencing blocks traditional animal foraging routes. He urged council to more rigorously study ecological effects before approving future projects.
Offering a middle path, several speakers argued for compromise rather than an outright moratorium or unchecked approval. One resident, estimating that a proposed site would directly affect roughly 20 neighboring properties, warned of “economic obsolescence” if the county fails to capitalize on solar development but asked council to impose stricter site regulations. A speaker, referencing the Legacy Solar project, agreed that neighboring property owners’ concerns deserve serious weight and suggested that expanded setbacks and vegetative buffers could soften the visual impact on adjacent homes while still allowing the county to meet growing energy demand. Another resident raised the concept of agrivoltaic farming — the practice of combining crop or livestock production with solar energy generation on the same land — arguing that many of the concerns raised during the hearing “can be managed” through thoughtful design rather than an outright ban.
A lifelong county resident, whose own home could eventually be surrounded by solar development, offered one of the hearing’s strongest endorsements of renewable energy, declaring “solar power is our future” and pointing to successful international examples. She described the potential for continued vegetation growth on project sites and even the ability to grow and sell produce on solar farmland, framing the decision to lease land for solar as a matter of individual choice that others should not dictate.
Not every speaker addressed solar policy directly. One resident used his time to strongly criticize the council’s recent $1.3 million purchase of 235 acres in Lamar, arguing that with no development plans yet in place for the property, the funds would have been better directed elsewhere.
Following public comment, council members offered their own views before voting.
Councilmember Angie Godbold, who supported the ordinance, told her colleagues that solar farms “were smaller when they started” and argued that a moratorium would serve as a prudent safety measure to prevent the county from being overwhelmed by increasingly large-scale projects.
Councilmember Kirk Askins, also in favor, described the proposed nine-month pause as a “timeout” that would allow the county to review outstanding studies and craft improved solar regulations. Askins also paused to reflect on the anniversary of September 11, thanking local veterans and first responders for their service and sacrifice.
Councilmember David Coker spoke against the moratorium, pointing to recent changes that have already expanded required buffers, setbacks, and vegetative screening around solar sites. He said he considers a 600-foot setback adequate and noted that any remaining concerns could be addressed through future Fee In Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) agreements negotiated with individual developers. Coker emphasized that although he opposes the moratorium, he supports strict regulation of the industry and encouraged any resident with questions about his position to contact him directly.
When the vote was called, council rejected Ordinance 26-05 by a margin of 5-3, allowing solar and wind development applications to continue moving through the county’s evaluation and permitting process without interruption.
While council declined to pause solar development altogether, it took a significant step toward tightening the rules such projects must follow. Council approved the First Reading of Ordinance 26-06, which amends the county’s Development Standards for Renewable Energy Systems. Under the amended standards, solar panels will be prohibited from sitting within 100 feet of a neighboring property line, and within 600 feet of another property owner’s residential building. Developers will also be required to install a continuous horizontal vegetative buffer capable of reaching the full height of the tallest solar panel on the property within three years of installation. In addition, within six months of a project’s first date of electricity production, developers must obtain and deliver to the county a surety or performance bond, or an irrevocable letter of credit, in an amount equal to $50,000 or 125 percent of the project’s estimated decommissioning costs — whichever figure is greater. The ordinance will require two additional readings and council approval before it can be finally adopted.
In addition to the solar debate, council conducted a full slate of other business during Thursday’s meeting.
Council gave unanimous, final approval to Ordinance 25-24, authorizing the purchase of 233.7 acres outside the Town of Lamar in the former Newman Swamp School District.
Council also approved Resolution 820, honoring the members of the South Carolina State Guard and formally recognizing September 2026 as National Preparedness Month.
Council approved a series of previously budgeted expenditures under the county’s 2026-2027 budget, none of which alter the county’s overall appropriation of funds. Among the convenience centers, council authorized $60,610.68 for the purchase of two 35-yard compactors, replacing units that had grown outdated and were beyond further repair. The Roads and Bridges Department will receive a new 2025 International Day Cab truck at a cost of $152,995, replacing a 2010 model nearing the end of its productive life. The county’s 911 communications system will be upgraded through the $86,207.50 purchase of an Eventide NexLog 740 DX Series recording system, which offers newer computing resources, an updated Linux platform, modernized interfaces, expanded storage, and ongoing software and security updates.
The Environmental Services Department will receive two new Peterbilt roll-off trucks at a combined cost of $509,938, replacing aging vehicles for which replacement parts have become difficult and expensive to obtain. EMS purchases totaled nearly $290,000, including $202,277.41 for durable medical equipment to outfit a new ambulance and $87,065.70 for IV fluid warmers, which are required by regulation to prevent hypothermia in patients receiving IV fluids in the field.
The single largest expenditure approved was $3,765,715.82 for the replacement of 186 public safety radios throughout the county, an investment that includes new equipment, system upgrades, integrated communications infrastructure, chargers and other equipment. Finally, council approved $78,936 as the county’s required local match for the Airport Improvement Program project at the Darlington County Airport. The project carries a total cost of $3,107,491, the majority of which — $2,949,619 — is covered by Federal Aviation Administration grants, with the remaining balance split evenly between the South Carolina State Aeronautics Commission and Darlington County, each contributing $78,936.
Council’s decision leaves the county’s solar and wind permitting process intact for now, though the newly advancing development standards signal that future projects will face a considerably higher regulatory bar. Ordinance 26-06 is expected to return before council for additional readings in the coming months.
The Darlington County Council will next meet on Thursday, October 8.