AGENDA - Darlington County, South Carolina Minutes approved.docx · Web viewHe provided the Commissioners with copies of his presentation. ... and you shoot a deer that is near

DARLINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES -- September 20, 20165:30 p.m.Darlington County EMS/Annex

In compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of the agenda was provided to the local news media and persons requesting information.

Present: Chad White, Dist. 4 (Chair) Larry “Frankie” Jernigan, Dist. 8Mike Sprott, Dist. 1 (Vice Chair) Ralph Segars, Dist. 7 Travis M. Bishop, Dist. 6 Wes Woodard, Dist 5Kevin N. Brown, Dist. 2

Absent: Unseated Commissioner, Dist. 3

Staff: Terri Cribb, Director, Development Svcs Wayne Yarborough, Planner IIPaula Newton, Planner III Julie Ritz, Planner I

Community Members who spoke before the Commission:Betty Griggs Nolan JohnsonSharon Griggs Laura McPhailWilliam Griggs Leslie PetersonHal Johnson

Community Members:

I. CALL TO ORDER – Chairman Chad White called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Darlington County Planning Commission to order on Tuesday, September 21, 2016 at 5:30 p.m.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – All stood and recited The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

III. CITIZEN’S COMMENTS – (Maximum of 2 minutes per citizen; 30 min. total)

Chairman White stated that The Planning Commission would not be voting for or against the proposed solar farms. He stated they would hear Citizen’s Comments. He stated the Planning Commission may hear some information and consider recommendations on changing Article 19, the Renewable Energy Ordinance.

Chairman White called for those who wished to address the Commission during Citizen’s Comments.

Upon request, assistance will be provided to accommodate the special needs of handicapped persons attending the meeting. Special assistance requests should be made to Paula Newton, Planner III, at 843.398.4610 or [email protected] seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting.

mailto:[email protected]

Darlington County Planning Commission Page 2 of 17MINUTES – September 20, 2016Laura McPhail introduced herself, and Chairman White recognized her. Laura McPhail, 3917 E Old Camden Rd, stated the following:

She lives outside the 500’ notification area and did not receive a notification letter. The notification area should be greater than 500’. Notification should go out much sooner than it did. Education and information about the proposed development should be included. She is opposed to the proposed Solar Farm. During Personal Appearances, she asked to be heard again, and Chairman White recognized

her. She stated that the solar farm representative said at a previous meeting that mercury was contained in everyday appliances. She stated that a scientist stated that the mercury is contained, just like in a microwave. She stated that the 1’ per year infiltration rate would not allow containment if the solar panels were to drip into the soil.

Nolan J. Johnson introduced himself, and Chairman White recognized him. Nolan J. Johnson, 2403 Bethlehem Rd (Byrdtown Community), addressed the Planning Commission with the following points:

The proposed solar farm was less than 700’ from his front door. Their residence is greater than 500’ from the proposed solar farm. The distance from the farm to his front door is about the same distance as baseball player

hitting a home run over 500’(nearly every night) and a 167 yard Par 3 hole on most golf courses (that even bad players can probably get every now and then).

The ordinance is the specific issued, and he would talk to his Council Council representative at a later date.

He and his wife were raised in the Byrdtown Community, went to school and church there. They had moved away, but moved back a little over 3 years ago. This location put them closer to family, friends, church, and jobs. He was shocked, like other residents of the area, when he heard the news. They have known the landowners all of their lives. The landowners knew they would have opposition, which is why notification went out so late. Knowing they would have opposition, they also knew this was not the appropriate location. This is “downtown Byrdtown”, a farming community and a place to raise families. He has talked to other people in Darlington County who were unaware that solar farms are

“going up all over the county.” The solar panel representatives will tell you the good things about solar farms: Tax Credits Cut down on the Greenhouse Effect How they will save money on the power bill There are other landowners around the County who are waiting to see if the solar farms are

approved so they can put the farms on their property.He asked the Planning Commission to take all of these things into account when making any decisions regarding solar farms.

Betty Griggs introduced herself, and Chairman White recognized her. Betty Griggs read a prepared statement. In her statement, she stated that she and her husband, James Robert Griggs, Sr., were two of the people leasing the property for IS 100. She stated that they have withdrawn their names from the lease agreement before the Due Diligence Date of November 1, 2016, as they didn’t feel this is a wise investment. The income was badly needed in this depressed agrarian economy. She gave the following reasons:

Darlington County Planning Commission Page 3 of 17MINUTES – September 20, 2016

Lance Roddy of Innovative Solar had not provided them with a copy of the lease until after her call on September 16, 2016, after months of the Grigg’s requesting their copy signed March 23, 2015. Although the Griggs should have asked for a copy, it was not professional for the lease company or the attorney’s offices to not have provided copies to all the parties.

There were too many unknowns, hazards and potential health risks. They were uncomfortable with several sections in the lease agreement. The subrogation clause was too broad, such as the following points: The lessee has the right to sublet without prior consent of the leasor The lessee may borrow funds against the premises are collateral, without the lessor’s input. Company borrowing against the property, No claims for damages for fire, explosion, etc. can be brought against the Solar Farm company

for property one, in, or about the premises. The agreement has a strong defensive connotation toward Innovative Solar. They could not and would not jeopardize their grandchildren’s current home investments. The community is very close and there is enormous concern about having a “power plant” in

the neighborhood. Although the income is greatly needed and very beneficial because of the depressed farming

economy over the last several years, in good conscience they cannot support this project.She thanked the Planning Commission, Chairman White thanked her.

James R. Griggs, Jr. introduced himself and his wife, Cindy. Chairman White recognized Mr. Griggs. Mr. Griggs stated that he and the Chapman’s were still interested in the proposed solar farm going on their properties. He stated he thought it was a good thing. He stated they did not want to put the solar farm on their properties to make anyone mad or to hurt anyone. They did not approve of something different. They would leave the decision in the Planning Commission’s hand. Mr. Griggs thanked the Planning Commission, and Chairman White thanked him. He also requested to be heard at Personal Appearances, and Chairman White recognized him. He stated he would like to know how much of the chemicals were in the solar panels. He stated that just like warnings on medications which help to protect people, he wondered if the solar panel information would do the same thing. He stated that this information could be just like the apple scare in the 1980’s (apples were bad for you and could cause cancer). Later information concluded that it would take 1,000,000 apples a day. He thanked the Commission again, and Chairman White thanked him.

Mr. Leslie Peterson introduced himself, and Chairman White recognized him. Mr. Peterson lives at 3600 Byrdtown Road. He stated the following:

He received a letter two weeks ago regarding the solar farm, and he felt it said something different than what he subsequently found out.

He stated Ms. McFarland came to his house and showed him a map where the proposed solar farm would be located.

He stated it was very near his house. He moved there to retire and spent quite a bit of money last year getting it into the condition it

is in. He didn’t think there was enough background and research as to the health hazards this is

going to have 5-10 years from now. He think that more research should be done on the health hazards toward humans, as well as

the future impacts on ponds, wildlife, etc. before they are approved.He thanked the Planning Commission, Chairman White thanked him.

Darlington County Planning Commission Page 4 of 17MINUTES – September 20, 2016During Personal Appearances, Sharon Griggs, of 2435 Mockingbird St., asked to be heard, and Chairman White recognized her. She read a prepared statement, which includes:

She has contemplated the solar farm issue for the last few weeks after she was made aware of the proposal. She has educated herself on numerous issues.

The issue was not necessarily over electricity. In her opinion, “the heart of the matter isn’t providing a product for consumers the true goal is

to provide an extravagant lifestyle for a faceless man from Innovative Solar.” This “faceless man” has convinced himself that he is savvier than the average man, especially

the “rural hicks of Byrdtown, or the countrified Darlington County. In essence, these ‘bovine’ people can never be intelligent enough to investigate and challenge an authority.”

“This man does not have integrity (and) should show his face to address their concerns.” Over five hundred fifty (550) concerned citizens have signed a petition. They “aren’t wearing rose colored glasses: If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably

is”. “This entrepreneur is seasoned, trying to use the free money that the government is giving out

in subsidies”. She felt like he was “actually clever, ruthless, and unconscionable to play on the weaknesses of

people needing money, with his money being guaranteed, and the landowner’s money not being guaranteed and the promises to bolster weak seasons.” Her family is the landowner, and they thank God for the rain that day.”

She went on to say, “We the commoners are guaranteed an eyesore that may possibly contribute to” the other things that “poison our environment”.

Upon the “sale of the farm, this Innovative Solar man will be scott-free and her family, speaking for the Griggs, would be left to live with the unattained money goals, broken friendships, loss of peer respect, a field that resembles a Star Wars movie set, instead of open farm land.”

She stated that they had listened to the history of the development of resources to produce electricity. She stated the only problem was the key objective to each of these industries was left out: their development has actually been to produce electricity, not pad a person’s pockets with government money.

She stated that the power point showed that there would be no burden on the community, but in essence no jobs will be provided. She likened it to the self-checkout lanes at Wal-Mart, maybe that will boost their lagging profits. She also stated that it was like shutting down more coal power plants, causing hundreds more jobs lost.

She stated that her husband works with an excess power by-product that is produced by that industry, and that power companies don’t want to buy it. So, that should be shut down, too.

She can understand the dilemma that the farmers have been given with the temptation, but at the cost of self-respect.

It was up to them to stop “this man” from making fools out of another “group of peons, as he sees every community and Planning Commission he conquers”.

She stated he has appointed himself the ruler and he knows how to work the system. As far as she is concerned regarding mercury and children, she stated she had worked with

children for 21 years and had a genuine love for children. She stated that the same government that approved a solar panel in front of a school is the same government that built schools full of asbestos, make families feel pressured to immunize their children with mercury-filled shots. As a government employee, she said that the day and time she allowed the government to make anymore life decisions for her children is also the day that she is allowed to hand-pick the officials. On the way to school that morning with her 11-year old child, the flashing light


has a solar panel that runs it. With the overcast day, the 35 mph speed limit on the 55 mph road was not flashing. It made her stop and think, “no sun, no flash”.

She felt like the person that responded to her comment last meeting about blackouts” played on (her) stupidity.” It is brown-outs in California when there is a rise in the amount of solar power and the other power companies aren’t allowed to provide, which in essence could lead to blackouts.

She was looking out for her family. She really felt like if it was thought through, hopefully the solar farm would not have been placed near a residence. She felt like they didn’t think that far in advance. She stated that there are those residents who live near the existing power lines who have plenty of adequate space to put them there. She stated that if “they had the choice to put the solar farm in someone else’s yard versus their own, they wouldn’t do it.”

She concluded her remarks. Chairman White thanked her.

Chairman White asked if anyone else wished to make comments. Hearing none, he called for the next agenda item.

IV. PERSONAL APPEARANCES - (Maximum of 10 minutes per citizen; 30 min. total)

Chairman White called for this agenda item, and stated that Mr. Hal Johnson and Mr. William Griggs wished to make a personal appearance before the Planning Commission.

Hal Johnson introduced himself. He stated that he lived at 2449 Mockingbird St, Hartsville, SC, in the middle of the Byrdtown Community. He stated he had a good view of the proposed solar farm. He stated they had another 150 signatures since the last workshop, but did not have a copy. He stated the majority of them were from the Sherrill’s Mill area. He provided the Commissioners with copies of his presentation. Mr. Johnson stated that some of the handout was information provided to him by Dr. Brooks McPhail, who has a doctorate in toxicology.

Mr. Hal Johnson made the following statements: They still have issues with the way the checklists and the applications were filled out. He did not believe any of those issues were remedied yet, to his knowledge. They still have the wetlands issue. Site plans are still inaccurate and misleading. The jobs that Mr. Roddy stated would be created would only be short-term, task specific jobs

(like putting a fence up), because no one has the expertise to install the solar panels, run the wiring, etc. The jobs would only last four (4) months.

Power bills would not be lower. The Community will not benefit. There is a possibility that individual power bills may increase because it costs more to produce

PV solar, at 12.4 cents per kilowatt hour. Everything used now is anywhere from 8.4 cents to 9.5 cents/ per kilowatt hour. Solar would be a 33% increase.

If there were a fire, the fire department may not be able to access the property because there is no road into 185 acres. He stated that anywhere from 40 acres in, there would be no access.

There is still not a letter from the Fire Department, indicating approval. There are still not any structural plans from a public engineer. There are not any DHEC permits. Several times Innovative Solar was told they had to provide all the items on the checklist to get

an approval. IS sent a letter respectfully asking to waive those requirements for approval, and were told that it was possible to get a Conditional Final Approval. He looked through the


ordinance and couldn’t find anyone who had the authority to give a Conditional Final Approval. It appears in several emails and letters.

Mr. Johnson then spoke to the health risks as prepared by Dr. McPhail: Cadmium: Some of the things Cadmium can cause are low birth weight in children; lung

cancer; emphysema; enlargement of the right side of the heart associated with lung disease, kidney lesions, loss of kidney function (gout, arthritis), bones to lose density and fracture easier, endocrine disruptions, and prostate cancer.

Cadmium is a component in solar panels. Mercury: Some of the things Mercury can cause are kidney damage, autoimmune disease,

glomerulnephretis proteinuria, endocrine disruption, thrombocytopenia, nervous system deterioration, impairs hearing, speech, vision, and gait, involuntary muscle movements, corrodes skin and mucous membranes, difficulty with chewing and swallowing.

Arsenic: Some of the things Arsenic can cause are pulmonary disease, acute effects of bronchitis and chronic effects of lung cancer, bronchitis and laryngitis.

Lithium: One of the things Lithium can cause are heart disease, and it is a neurotoxin. Selenium: Some of the things Selenium can cause are hair loss, nail pathology, and tooth

decay, as well as cardiomyopathy.

Mr. Johnson spoke about the Decommissioning Plan. He stated he saw the agenda with the possible changes to the ordinance. The current requirements are inaccurate.

Mr. Johnson asked the following questions: Does this Planning Commission consider solar farms a development? Can the construction of these solar farms begin without Planning Commission approval? If no approval is needed by the PC, then why did IS 93 need the approval? If the solar farms are approved, then what is the appeal process?

Mr. Johnson requested that a moratorium be placed on existing and future permitting of solar farms until staff and residents can recommend changes to the ordinance in order to protect the future of Darlington County.

Mr. Johnson thanked the Planning Commission, and Mr. White thanked him.

William Griggs introduced himself and provided the Commissioners with handouts. He stated he lived on 2405 Mockingbird St.

He restated one of Dr. McPhail’s statements: If you are a hunter, and you shoot a deer that is near the solar “power plant” farms, you should

not eat it, because they are eating the grass and vegetation around it.o Hunting is a great past-time of their community (Byrdtown).

Mr. Griggs stated he is requesting a moratorium for all existing and future solar farm applications. He encouraged the Planning Commission to address the following issues in the ordinance:

Require a detailed decommissioning plan. He stated they really liked the decommissioning plan for the solar farm that was on the Maryland federal land. They thought it was laid out well and would be a great template.


Require a bond for the complete cost of the decommissioning. He stated they had seen decommissioning plans that could cost into the millions of dollars. There needs to be a security that if the company goes bankrupt that there is a bond.

Require that the setbacks be at least 500’ in respect to a residence. Require that solar panel height be no more than 80% of the height of the buffer. If the solar

panels are 14’ tall, then require 16’ buffers. Require that the buffers should cover 100% of the entire perimeter from day one, and not wait

three years. Require retention ponds to retain the water runoff. Firefighters should be trained where solar farms are located. Chemicals for maintenance should be made known to the public. Water buffers should be increased 500’. All property owners with ¼ mile of the proposed solar farm should be notified, so that

communication is better with the community.Chairman White thanked him.

Chairman White stated that the Planning Commission was going to be making some recommendations to County Council to improve the Ordinance, and that should address some of the concerns. He stated that County Council that actually approved the ordinance. He stated that some of the recommendations will address setbacks, buffers and the decommissioning plan.

Chairman White closed Personal Appearances.

V. PART OF IV PERSONAL APPEARANCES

VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – August 16, 2016

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Travis Bishop and seconded by Commissioner Frankie Jernigan to APPROVE as written the minutes from the regularly scheduled meeting of the Darlington County Planning Commission on Tuesday, August 16, 2016. Motion carried unanimously. VII. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – September 20, 2016

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Kevin Brown to APPROVE the agenda for this regularly scheduled meeting of the Darlington County Planning Commission on September 20, 2016.

VIII. COMMUNICATION TOWER APPROVAL - None

IX. PRELIMINARY APPROVALS - None

X. FINAL APPROVALS – None

XI. APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION ALONG PUBLIC ACCESS - None

XII. VARIANCE REQUESTS – None

XIII. SITE DEVELOPMENT – None


XIV. OLD BUSINESS – None

XV. NEW BUSINESS

1. Amendment to Article Nineteen

Chairman White called for this agenda item. He has asked Staff to get copies of ordinances from other counties. He stated they had that information and the community’s comments, concerns, and recommendations. He stated that the Commission would look at the other ordinances from other counties, as well as reviewing Darlington County’s ordinance with an eye to the concerns everyone seems to have and see if they can make a recommendation to County Council to amend the current ordinance. His understanding of the current ordinance is that if a developer meets the ordinance then the project does not come before the Planning Commission. For example, another solar farm developer has met the ordinance, and the project has been approved by Staff. He asked if there were any questions from the audience.

Hal Johnson asked if the solar farm was considered a development. He didn’t mean a subdivision, but any kind of industrial or commercial development, according to the Ordinance, Planning Commission does have the authority to vote for or against developments and communication towers. He stated that in their view this counted as development. Chairman White responded that may need to be addressed in the ordinance so that it would give the Commission the authority to do something in that regard.

Mr. Griggs asked that since the Community had spoken out against it what options do they have? Chairman White stated that Darlington County does not have zoning, and that is a problem with issues such as this. He stated his best recommendation to them would be to contact County Council and see about getting ordinances revised. He stated it would be County Council that puts a moratorium like they were requesting.

Mr. Johnson stated that permits would not be issued unless every single item on that checklist is met. Chairman White stated that was his understanding.

Julie Johnson asked what the requirements for the Public Hearing were and if they had been met. Chairman White asked for clarification. Mrs. Johnson stated the ordinance stated the notification letters must be posted 15 days in advance, and it was not postmarked 15 days in advance. She asked if the community could request another public hearing. Planner III Paula Newton stated that the notice must be publicized in the newspaper 15 days in advance, which it was. Julie Johnson challenged this statement with “the ordinance actually says that you are supposed to contact us when the application is received. And (staff) received the application back in April, and they received the letter in August.” Interim County Administrator Charles Stewart asked for a moment to review that ordinance. Julie Johnson again asked for another public hearing, stating that the requirement for a Public Hearing had not been satisfied, since the Planning Commission could not do anything. Chairman White stated he did not know the answer, but that there was a good turnout as compared to the last couple of public hearings.

Interim County Administrator Charles Stewart stated that the ordinance provides for “upon receipt of a completed application”, and that the application had not been completed. Julie Johnson asked if when the application was completed would there be another notification and public hearing. Someone else asked if there would be a 15 day notice. Interim Administrator Charles Stewart stated that the 15 day

Darlington County Planning Commission Page 9 of 17MINUTES – September 20, 2016notice had nothing to do with the mail out, it had to do with posting it in the paper. Julie Johnson stated that was something that needed to be looked at, too. Someone from the audience pointed out that not everyone receives the paper. Interim Administrator Stewart stated that he was not trying to be controversial, he was trying to apply what was written in the Ordinance only: the requirements are for the distance for property owners to be notified and that notification is sent out ahead of time. Someone stated it was post marked on the 5th (August). Interim Administrator Stewart stated that it had a week to be delivered in the mail and that was reasonable. The 15 day notice being referred to is specifically speaking of time for the notice to be placed in the paper so that the public will be notified. This is a common space of time for public notification to be sure that it can be circulated in the public, not just the people in the immediate vicinity to know, but for all people. The mail doesn’t have to be 15 days in advance. He stated that staff’s interpretation of “upon receipt of solar farm application” is when it has to be done, but the Public Hearing, the way the ordinance is currently written, is held by the Planning Commission, but they make no decision. He stated that was one issue they may address. He stated the three that have not been approved had a public hearing. There may not be a problem with doing another one, but there could be litigation from the opposing side. (There was not anyone in the audience representing Innovative Solar.) He stated that the County Attorney may be consulted on that issue.

Interim Administrator Stewart stated that as far as the question as to what constitutes “development”, the County currently interprets the ordinance that this does not fall under that development category. He stated that when the representatives from the Community and he met, he explained that particular article in the Development Standards Ordinance is in regard to neighborhood developments. The previous articles that specifically state line by line what must be followed is the solar farm ordinance and the general ordinance requirements ahead of that. This is something the PC can take under advisement and change. Although the ordinance could be interpreted different ways, the way it is written and read, the order that it is printed and designed, that it is specifically talking about neighborhood development and communication towers. The others follow other requirements. Follow this, your permit is issued. The PC can make that recommendation, as well, if they want to hear every permit that is issued. It is there decision to make that recommendation. Then, of course, it is Council’s ultimate decision. When asked if the recommendation would go to Council for a moratorium, Chairman White responded that the PC would look at everything and make recommendation to Council, letting them know of the concerns. Mr. Johnson wanted to know if it would go to the next County Council meeting, Chairman White responded yes. Mr. Johnson wanted to know if the Council would make a decision, and Chairman White responded that he could not speak for them.

Someone from the audience asked if the solar farm was approved, would it be put in front of a house. Interim County Administrator asked for clarification, in that if tomorrow morning, Innovative Solar would show up with everything that is on the checklist, the County would have to issue the permit. Since two of the landowners have opted out of the lease (for IS 100), it may mean the application is null and the developer must start all over, because the loss of that property to the development of the solar farm would mean a redesign.

Commissioner Jernigan asked to be recognized, and Chairman White recognized him. Commissioner Jernigan stated that the audience may want to listen to the recommendation before they say much else. Some of the recommendations may be pleasing, some may not. Staff made some recommendations.

Interim Administrator Stewart stated he wanted to speak for Staff so that all would understand. Staff is not taking an opinion on whether to leave the ordinance as-is or to make changes. The things that

Darlington County Planning Commission Page 10 of 17MINUTES – September 20, 2016are in red in the draft changes of the ordinance are a culmination of research from all other Counties that had stiffer regulations, and the red changes are for information, suggestion, and consideration. County staff is not telling you what to do; County staff is showing you what others have done.

Commissioner Sprott requested to be recognized, Chairman White recognized him. Commissioner Sprott requested a section-by-section review, with the members of the Planning Commission discussing each recommendation to see if they agree with staff recommendations or wish to change the recommendations. Commissioner Jernigan stated that he was in agreement.

As the Commissioners were discussing Article 19, there were shouted comments from the audience, trying to sway the Commissioners in their decisions or recommendations. Chairman White firmly, yet nicely, stated that the time for Public Comment was closed and this point in the meeting was deliberation and discussion time among the Commissioners and with Staff. He thanked everyone for their comments and invited them to stay for the entire meeting.

The following changes to Article 19 Renewable Energy Systems were discussed, motioned, and voted on per section, per Chairman White’s request:

Sec. 19.1 Definitions

Interim Administrator Stewart read the suggested changes:

Solar Farm definition. Staff suggested possible change “…The minimum size for a solar farm is five acres” to one acre. Most counties have a one-acre requirement.

Wind Farm definition. Staff suggested possible change “…The minimum for a wind farm is five acres” to one acre.

Commissioner Mike Sprott requested to be heard, Chairman White recognized him. He asked why there was not a maximum acreage. Interim Administrator Stewart stated that some farms in other locations can be huge. Even though it is rare, someone might have 2,000 acres of land and put in a 500 or more acre wind / solar farm. Commissioner Sprott expressed concern over the size, especially in light of a fire response and access. Chairman White stated it would need to meet the other requirements. Interim Administrator Stewart stated that may be something the Commission would like to add to the latter part of the Ordinance that there are required travel paths that a fire truck would be able to use. He stated he felt sure the solar company would design it so they could drive through a wash them. Commissioner Sprott again expressed concern and stated that there should be a maximum acreage. Chairman White stated that there should be a requirement for approval by Planning Commission. Interim Administrator Stewart stated those were good suggestions and would best fit in the section on design requirements.

Commissioner Sprott recommended a 500-acre maximum. Interim Administrator requested clarification on the size of a solar / wind farm. Chairman White stated “minimum one-acre, maximum 500 acres”. The Commissioners agreed.

Chairman White called for a motion.

A MOTION was made by Chairman Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Travis Bishop to RECOMMEND to County Council that Section 19.1 Definitions be amended to include a minimum of

Darlington County Planning Commission Page 11 of 17MINUTES – September 20, 2016one acre and a maximum of 500 acres in the definitions for Wind Farm and Solar Farm. Motion carried unanimously.

Sec. 19.2 – Integrated Energy Systems

Commissioner Sprott asked to be recognized. Chairman White recognized him. Commissioner Sprott requested the following changes:

Item. 8(a) and (e). to be changed to add “…to practice in the State of SC” after “…by a licensed engineer.”

Chairman Chad White recommended a sweeping change to the ordinance where “by a licensed engineer” is referred to the words “to practice in the State of SC”. The Commissioners agreed.

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Frankie Jernigan and seconded by Commissioner Mike Sprott to RECOMMEND to County Council to add the phrase “to practice in the State of South Carolina” to the phrase “licensed engineer”. Motion carried unanimously.

Sec. 19.3 – Integrated energy systems permitting process

No changes recommended.

Sec. 19.4 – Solar and Wind Farm Facilities

Interim Administrator Stewart read the suggested changes by Staff:

Item 3: Setbacks. Suggested change “…must be set back 20 feet from the edge of all the property lines and public right of way” to “…200 feet from property lines or 1000 feet from the nearest residence whichever is greater. Distances may be reduced with the permission from adjoining property owner. Solar Farms must be 50 feet from roadways.” Commissioner White stated that this increased the current ordinance by a factor of 50. He stated that was more restrictive than he would want. He stated he knew that some of the other counties (Barnwell) requires 50’ from any road and 100’ from any abutting residential properties, which is probably not enough.

Interim Administrator Stewart stated that because the project is called a ”solar farm” that Staff had looked at Ag Permitting requirements for the State of South Carolina. The State maintains authority over farms and farming activities and refuses to let the counties make any decisions. He stated these recommendations by Staff are similar to the set of rules for farming activities such as a poultry farm. He stated there was a smell associated with poultry farms. He stated that was why other ordinances may not be that restrictive.

Commissioner Mike Sprott requested to be heard, and Chairman White recognized him. Commissioner Sprott requested the change “from roadways” to “from public right-of-way”. He stated that some roads have a wider right-of-way than others.

Commissioner White suggested 500’ from the nearest residence. Commissioner Sprott agreed.


Commissioner White suggested 100’ from the property line. Commissioner Sprott agreed.

Chairman White asked the Commission for their input on 500’ from the nearest residence and 100’ from the property line. Commissioner Segars asked for clarification on the 1320’ that was suggested by someone in the audience. Chairman White stated that number should be for notification. Commissioner Segars thanked Chairman White.

Commissioner Woodard requested to be heard regarding the setbacks. Chairman White recognized him. Commissioner Woodard stated that his concern about the setbacks, and the landscaping requirements, causing not as much acreage to use, which could severely impact the landowner’s use of the property for this purpose. Chairman White stated that the ordinance still allows for the setback to be reduced with permission from the abutting residence. Commissioner Woodard stated that most likely the companies would be dealing with several neighbors and the likelihood of getting that permission was small. Commissioner Segars stated the property owner would still be compensated for that amount of property in the setback and the landscaping. Commissioner Sprott agreed with Commissioners Segars and White.

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Frankie Jernigan to RECOMMEND to County Council the changes presented with modifications as discussed. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 13: Screening

Interim Administrator Stewart read the suggested Staff changes:

Staff Suggestion: Change “Screening. The perimeter adjacent to residential properties shall be screened by landscaping and/or berm. A berm is a vegetated earthen wall at least five feet in height. Screening is not required along properties adjacent to non-residential uses” to

“That where property abuts residential property, solar collectors must be screened so as to not be seen from the adjoining property line by means of a vegetative buffer. This buffer shall be 36” – 48” in height at planting and must reach a height of 10 feet within thee (3) years of planting. The vegetation must be planted at a spacing interval between 8’-10’ on center.”

IA Stewart stated that was taken directly from another county’s screening requirements in their ordinance.

Commissioner White had some thoughts on this suggestion: Screening should be from all properties and public rights-of-way – not just residential properties – with a double row of vegetation alternately space to block, and the fencing should be on the inside of the vegetation so as to not be fully visible (in other words: two rows of alternating trees and the fence on the inside of the trees all the way around). Commissioners Sprott and Jernigan agreed. None of the remaining Commissioners disagreed, and some nodded assent.

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Kevin Brown to RECOMMEND to County Council to delete in its entirety the verbage of Sec. 19.2(13) and rewrite the section presented with changes discussed above. Motion carried unanimously.


Item 14: Buffers around water body

IA Stewart stated that to be consistent with other changes that Staff makes the following recommendation:

Suggestion: change 40-foot vegetated buffer to 50-foot.

IA Stewart stated that the i.e. section in parenthesis are examples and not all inclusive, thus the word “wetlands” did not need to be added.

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Ralph Segars to RECOMMEND to County Council to change the 40-foot vegetated buffer to 50-foot, and rewrite the section to include the Staff recommendations, with changes as listed above. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 17: Commissioner White suggested that the phone number needed to be a 24-hour phone number.

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Frankie Jernigan to include a 24-hour number contact number. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 22: Decommissioning Facility Plan

IA Stewart read the proposed Staff changes:

Staff suggestion: Delete subsections a, b, c, & d, to read

“An applicant must include a decommissioning plan that describes the anticipated life of the solar farm, the estimated decommissioning costs in current dollars, the method for ensuring that funds will be available for decommission and restoration, and the anticipated manner in which the solar farm project will e decommissioned and site restored. Following a continuous six (6) month period in which no electricity is generated, the permit holder will have six (6) months to complete decommissioning of the solar farm. Decommissioning includes removal of solar panels, buildings, cabling, electrical components and any other associated facilities below grade as described in the decommissioning plan. Prior to issuance of site approval, the applicant must provide the county with a performance guarantee (surety or performance bonds, certified check or irrevocable letter of credit) in the amount of $50,000 or 125% of the estimated decommission cost. Estimates shall be determined by an engineer to practice in South Carolina. Decommissioning Plan must be passed by conveyance to successive owner(s).”

Commissioner Sprott suggested to add “whichever is greater” after “125% of the estimated decommission cost.” Commissioner Woodard agreed, stating the way the suggestion is written allows them to choose, and $50,000 is a lot less than 125% of the decommission Cost. Commissioner Segars suggested eliminating completely the $50,000. Commissioner White also suggested adding “whichever is greater”. Commissioner Sprott also suggested adding “licensed” in between “engineer” and “to practice in South Carolina”.

Chairman White asked if there was any further discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion.

Darlington County Planning Commission Page 14 of 17MINUTES – September 20, 2016A MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Kevin Brown to RECOMMEND to County Council to delete in its entirety the verbage of Sec. 19.2(22) subsections a, b, c & d, and rewrite the section presented with changes discussed above. Motion carried unanimously.

Section 19.5 – Public Notification

Staff requested that the PC clarify this section regarding the notification of property owners. Commissioner White suggested changing the notification to property owners within a quarter mile of the solar farm. Commissioner Segars asked if there was a possibility of discriminating against a renter. IA Stewart stated there was no way to know who the resident is but that the property owner would be responsible for notifying the renter. Staff also requested clarification on the 15-day notification time period for both newspaper and property owners to receive the notification letter. Commissioner White suggested that the letters go out the same time as the newspaper letter. IA Stewart stated that the State of SC rules are postmarked 15 days before. All Commissioners agreed.

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Wes Woodard to RECOMMEND to County Council to amend Section 19.5 to increase the property owner notification to one-quarter mile from the proposed solar farm and change the first class mail notification to read postmarked 15 days in advance. Motion carried unanimously.

Section 19.6 – Solar/wind farm permitting process.

IA Stewart read the suggested changes:

Staff suggestion: Delete all subsections of 19.6 and rewrite the section to include, as follows:

1. Request for District Letter, which includes reviewing for certain development standards districts (airport, MS4, floodplain, etc.).

2. Submit solar/wind farm application and payment.3. E-911 Address Inquiry and Approval.4. Restrictive Covenants Affidavit 5. Submit three (3) 11x17 (or larger) site plans by land surveyor, engineer, or landscape architect

to include:(a) Developer’s name, address, and phone(b) Property boundaries with dimensions, and identify adjacent property owners and Land

uses (i.e., residential, commercial, farmland, or wooded)(c) Road(s) layout and public roads(d) North arrow and vicinity map (may attached Assessor’s Tax map of vicinity)(e) Identify existing and proposed structures, include dimensions (i.e. equipment location,

fencing)(f) Tax Map Number, Scale (engineer scale, i.e. 1 inch = 30 feet or 1”=30’) and date(g) Bodies of water (i.e. lakes, ponds, and streams) with minimum 50 foot buffer shown,

flood hazard areas, wetlands, adjacent ditches, and easements(h) Proposed surface covers (i.e. grass, gravel, etc.), location and size of land disturbance

and vegetated landscaping.6. Submit sealed structural plans with foundation details certified by licensed engineer,

wiring/thermal diagram, and vertical illustration of panels and maximum height.7. Facility Decommission Plan


(a) Decommissioning Plan(b) Confirm surety, performance bond, letter of credit or certified check(c) Must be passed by conveyance to successive owners.

Mandatory Permits/Agreements:-Utility Company Agreement-Lease Agreement-Stormwater NPDES Permit from SCDHEC-Encroachment Permit by SCDOT or Darlington County Roads and Bridges-Fire Department Review and Approval per International Fire Code

If Applicable Approval Letters:-MS4 Approval (mandatory for wind/solar farm within MS4 district-FAA letter (mandatory for wind-solar farm within Airport District)-Septic systems approved by SCDHEC indicating sewer capacity/existing septic tank affidavit-DHEC letter approving well or DCWSA approving water tap-Receipt of road and stop signage paid (for new roads only)-South Carolina Public Services Commission Approval (Nameplate of 75 or more megawatts)

8. Public Hearing. A public hearing will be scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission once all requirements are met.

IA Stewart pointed out that the Restricted Covenants Affidavit would have to be filed as part of the application. The Decommissioning Plan would have to be in the Restrictive Covenants, and they would have to file the Affidavit that it is being put in the Restrictive Covenants. He stated the Commissioners should further consider that this change means that the Solar Companies must have all of the requirements before filing an application and before ever getting to the PC or having a Public Hearing. These changes put the onus back on the developer that before they market for development that all requirements are complete. Chairman White agreed.

IA Stewart stated that subsection 7 supports the fact that the Decommissioning Plan requirements must be in place before the application is filed.

IA Stewart stated that the mandatory approval by Fire / EMS is access to the site, not throughout.

IA Stewart stated that his understanding of this ordinance change is that all the ordinance must be in place on file as an application, and then there will be a Public Hearing. He requested the Planning Commission make a suggestion that all conditions must be met before the Public Hearing is met. Chairman White stated that it could be included in subsection 8. IA Stewart suggested “The Public Hearing will be held once all other conditions are met.” Chairman White agreed. He asked for comments or recommendation from the Commissioners:

Commissioner Sprott suggested that subsection 6 read: “Submit a complete set of sealed construction plans and specifications, including the design or all structures, foundation details, wiring, thermodiagrams, vertical illustration of panels with maximum height, a grading plan with drainage details, and the maintenance service road plans certified by a licensed engineer in South Carolina.”

Commissioner Sprott stated that the Public Hearing should not be held until all requirements are met. Commissioner Jernigan agreed.


A MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Kevin Brown to RECOMMEND to County Council to delete in its entirety the verbage of Sec. 19.6, and rewrite the section to include the Staff recommendations, with changes as listed above. Motion carried unanimously.

Section 19.8. – Fees.

Chairman White called for a discussion of this section. Commissioner Mike Sprott proposed to change the fees from $400 to $1000 plus costs. Chairman White requested clarification regarding solar farms versus integrated energy systems, allowing integrated energy systems (home systems) to stay $25. Commissioner Sprott agreed with that clarification.

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Frankie Jernigan to RECOMMEND to County Council to change the 19.8 from $400 to $1000 plus costs, and leave Integrated Energy Systems fees at $25. Motion carried unanimously.

Section 19.10 Ex Post Facot. IA Stewart read the following additions:

Staff suggestion: Add the following language:

“All submissions pending final approval shall comply with updated ordinance.”

Section 19:11.


“The provision of this ordinance shall be included and incorporated into the Code of Ordinances for Darlington County, as an amendment thereto and shall be appropriately renumbered to conform to the uniform numbering system of the code.”

Section 19.12.


“This ordinance shall become effective upon public hearing and third reading of County Council.”

IA stated that 19.10 provides that anyone not yet meeting the current standards must go back and meet any new standards adopted within the ordinance after third reading.

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Frankie Jernigan to RECOMMEND to County Council to include in DSO Article 19, sections 19.10, 19.11 and 19.12. Motion carried unanimously.

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Travis Bishop to RECOMMEND sending to County Council the changes, deletions, and additions to Article 19, Renewable Energy Systems, specifically Secs. 19.1, 19.2, 19.4, 19.5, 19.6, and 19.8, as well as adding 19.10, 19.11 and 19.12, with changes and additions as discussed. Motion carried unanimously.


XVI. STAFF REPORTS - None

XVII. COMMISSIONERS REQUESTS/COMMENTS –

Chairman White stated that the proposed changes should address a lot of the concerns the citizens have expressed – maybe not everything. He stated if anyone had any additional concerns that they may want to appear at the County Council Meeting for the Public Meeting.

XVIII. ADJOURNMENT

A MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Frankie Jernigan to ADJOURN the regularly scheduled meeting of the Darlington County Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Darlington County Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 15, 2016, a MOTION was made by Commissioner Mike Sprott and seconded by Commissioner Frankie Jernigan to APPROVE as written the minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the Darlington County Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 20, 2016. Motion carried unanimously.

Documents

AGENDA - Darlington County, South Carolina Minutes approved.docx · Web viewHe provided the Commissioners with copies of his presentation. ... and you shoot a deer that is near