Scotland County board approves special-use permit to expand 80‑MW Cypress Creek solar project amid heated public debate

The Scotland County Planning and Zoning Board voted Dec. 9 to approve a special‑use permit to add roughly 100 acres to an existing 80‑megawatt Cypress Creek solar project, a move proponents said improves project efficiency while some residents warned it accelerates loss of farmland and rural character.

The board’s decision covers two added tracts — one north of Gilles Road and one south of Old Wire Road — that would increase the project from about 406 acres to roughly 560 acres while keeping the facility at an estimated 80 megawatts. The board approved the permit after Cypress Creek representatives described site conditions, buffers and project oversight measures and after more than an hour of public comment.

Why it matters: board members and residents framed the vote as part of a larger land‑use question facing the county. Speakers raised the county’s pending comprehensive land‑use plan and a recently adopted solar ordinance as tools the board can use in future reviews. Supporters emphasized local economic and construction benefits and project conditions; opponents emphasized long‑term loss of agricultural land and limits on transmission capacity.

Project details and developer commitments Cypress Creek representatives said the expansion would not change the project’s rated capacity (still 80 MW) but would increase acreage to allow panels to be spaced for greater energy yield and reduced in‑row shading. Michael Forte, senior project developer for Cypress Creek, said the project was resubmitted to Duke Energy in September and that anticipated Duke notifications were targeted for Jan. 10; he added that, if selected, construction would likely be several years out with an estimated in‑service window around 2029.

Tom Tyrone, an attorney representing Cypress Creek, described two parallel review tracks: a legislative conditional rezoning process for the northern tracks and a special‑use permit process for the parcel zoned Heavy Industrial adjacent to the middle school, which requires evidentiary support. "There are 2 applications in front of you," Tyrone said, and added the company had presented the documentation they considered necessary for the special‑use review.

Cypress Creek described several site conditions it agreed to as part of the application package: increasing the school‑side setback from 50 feet to 100 feet; installing a denser vegetative buffer near the school and along roads; planting trees 6–8 feet tall at installation to meet a three‑year visual screening target; locating the site entrance away from the school; preparing a construction management plan to avoid high‑noise activity during testing and school events; and hiring an independent party to monitor construction compliance.

Company representatives also said the land would be leased (typical commercial leases cover the life of the project) and that decommissioning obligations would return the property to prior condition after project retirement. Cypress Creek’s presentation included a tax‑revenue estimate for the overall project; company staff described an estimate of roughly $3.5 million in tax revenue tied to the project scope, but did not provide a single standardized timeframe in the public presentation for that figure.

Public comment and board concerns Resident speakers and several board members aired broad concerns about cumulative land conversion, the county’s agricultural heritage and whether the county should limit large solar tracts near prime farmland. Multiple commenters said Scotland County has already lost a significant share of agricultural land statewide; one planning‑board member noted the county is preparing a new comprehensive land‑use plan as an additional tool to address those long‑term tradeoffs.

School coordination was a central topic: Cypress Creek staff said they had met with the school superintendent and other school officials, discussed construction timing and testing schedules, and agreed to enhanced vegetation and setback commitments to reduce impacts on Carver Middle School (school representatives were unable to attend the meeting). Board members sought assurance that the company’s written application and presentations would be incorporated into the special‑use record as enforceable commitments.

Timing, approvals and next steps Cypress Creek told the board it had filed interconnection paperwork with Duke Energy and expected a notification in January; the company said a final contract and any site construction would be contingent on Duke’s interconnection process and would likely occur several years after contract award. The board’s vote on Dec. 9 approves the special‑use permit application at the local level; Cypress Creek and the landowners will still need to satisfy any remaining regulatory, permitting and utility‑interconnection conditions before construction.

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes from the Oct. 16 meeting — motion approved (voice vote; "aye" recorded). - Special‑use permit for property adjacent to Carver Middle School (owners listed in the application as Philip and Ellen Futrell; Scott County tax parcel indicated in the meeting as "309, lot 1 parcel 006") — motion approved (motion, second; voice vote: aye). - Motion to postpone miscellaneous business items (major subdivision forms, digital zoning explanations and related items) to the next regular meeting (Dec. 18) — motion approved (motion by Daniel; second by John; voice vote: aye).

What the record shows and what remains Board minutes and the special‑use application package will be the formal record for the conditions Cypress Creek described at the meeting. Company representatives said some commitments would be included in the application materials; board members asked that school coordination measures and buffer requirements be explicitly included in the special‑use record.

The project remains subject to Duke Energy’s interconnection process, any outstanding county permitting steps and compliance with conditions recorded on the special‑use permit. The comprehensive land‑use plan and new county solar ordinance — both discussed during public comment — were cited repeatedly as important near‑term references for future proposals.

Sources: meeting presentation and public comment at the Scotland County Planning and Zoning Board special meeting on Dec. 9, 2024; statements by Cypress Creek representatives (Michael Forte, Tom Tyrone); planning staff and board discussion.