Darlington County neighbors push back against proposed 417-acre solar project

DARLINGTON COUNTY, S.C. (WPDE) — A proposed utility-scale solar farm in Darlington County is drawing opposition from neighbors who say the project could put solar panels just feet from their backyards and change the character of their rural community.

Stripe Solar, LLC, a 417-acre solar project developed by Jacksonville, Florida-based Palladium Energy, remains in the planning process with the county.

The project is one of more than 30 solar developments Darlington County leaders have in the planning or negotiation stages.

But in the Clyde Road community in the Kellytown area, residents say they do not want the project in their neighborhood.

“This project will not benefit our neighborhood in any way,” Darlington County resident Beth Johnson said.

The proposed project would involve leasing land from property owners in the area, many of whom neighbors say are farmers.

Residents who spoke with ABC 15 said they are concerned about the potential impact of the solar farm on the area’s landscape, wildlife and rural character.

The proposed site is surrounded by nearly 70 property owners, according to neighbors.

Darlington County’s solar energy regulations establish setback requirements for solar energy systems.

Under Section 14 of Ordinance 16 through 19, solar energy systems must be set back 50 feet from adjoining property lines or 200 feet from the nearest residence.

READ MORE: Multiple arrests during MBPD check of City Hall lot; alleged alcohol, loitering offenses

Johnson, Earl McElveen and Billy Earl showed ABC 15 where they believe the solar panels could be located in relation to their properties.

“So for our friend’s house here, I mean, you’re looking at the end of their property line, and then the barn there is Mr. Billy’s,” Johnson said.

Earl said the area behind his property could eventually be cleared for the solar development.

“Everything straight back, including all that woods right there, forest will be clear cut and it will be solar panels, all that,” McElveen said.

Earl also pointed out his home in relation to the proposed site.

The exact terms of proposed leases between Stripe Solar and individual property owners have not been made public.

According to the Realtors Land Institute, utility-scale solar land lease rates in South Carolina generally range from about $300 to $1,000 per acre per year once a formal lease is executed.

ABC 15 was unable to reach the property owners who are expected to lease land to Stripe Solar, LLC.

The concerns come as Darlington County leaders consider a nine-month moratorium on accepting, reviewing or approving new solar energy systems and wind projects.

Neighbors say they support the proposed moratorium and want county leaders to use the time to conduct a comprehensive review of the county’s renewable energy regulations.

Residents want that review to address issues including project size, density, setbacks, buffering requirements and environmental protections.

“You got this thing that comes into it, and I understand that side, you’re going to hear this ‘it’s my land and I can do what I want’ that will come in conversation a lot,” McElveen said. “That is true, but where do you draw the line though when what you’re doing on your property is affecting 48 to 78 other people?”

Another resident said the neighborhood has taken steps to preserve its rural aesthetics.

“Our concern remains is that we have rights too,” Johnson said. “This particular neighborhood, they have several restrictions. You don’t see power lines running in this neighborhood because people bought in this neighborhood and it was really important to them to have underground power to keep the aesthetics of their neighborhood beautiful.”

Darlington County leaders are expected to vote next month on a second ordinance related to the proposed moratorium.

Neighbors also told ABC 15 that surveyors were in their community Thursday.

ABC 15 reached out to Palladium Energy for comment on the Stripe Solar project, the company’s planning process and concerns raised by residents.

As of publication, the company had not responded.