Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Duke Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council postpones decision on Duke Energy’s 1,000-acre Notch Road rezoning for staff review
Summary
After presentations from Duke Energy and more than a dozen public speakers both for and against, Greenwood County Council voted to postpone a rezoning request for a proposed 1,005.71-acre solar project to allow staff to clarify whether the project is permitted under existing FA zoning before council acts.
Greenwood County Council postponed consideration of a zoning map amendment tied to a proposed Duke Energy solar project on and near 5 Notch Road, voting to delay action for two weeks so staff can deliver clearer guidance on whether the project can proceed under existing Forest Agricultural (FA) zoning or requires rezoning to Rural Development District (RDD).
Vice Chairman Pruitt read the ordinance for three parcels totaling 1,005.71 acres at 11155 Notch Road and Duke Energy representative Bowen presented maps showing panel setbacks, vegetative buffer visualizations and areas of wetlands that the company said would be left undeveloped. Bowen described the design as preliminary and highlighted a stakeholder website for project updates.
Planning staff (Carol Coleman) told council that FA zoning lists "utility" and "utility station/substation" among allowed uses and that, in her view, a utility zoning compliance letter could be issued with the conditions required by the county’s solar ordinance. Several council members pressed staff and Duke about why Duke sought rezoning to RDD if utility uses were allowable in FA. Coleman said she reviewed planning commission records and found no evidence a 2000-era FA district explicitly intended to exclude solar projects.
Public commenters were divided. Landowners Wade C. Alexander and Joanne Harrison Alexander spoke in favor, saying leases preserve timberland and provide needed revenue; Wade argued the project would supply tax revenue for schools and roads and keep parcels intact. Opponents raised concerns about the project’s scale, sight lines, possible impacts to wildlife and the comprehensive plan’s discouragement of RDD zoning in the relevant areas. One speaker said supporters appeared to be paid by Duke, an allegation not substantiated in the hearing.
Councilmember Templeton moved to postpone the request for two weeks to allow staff and the county attorney to provide additional information; the motion passed on a 4–2 vote. Council directed staff to consult with the applicant and return with a clearer interpretation of the zoning code and the possible conditions if the project were treated as a utility by right.
What happens next: staff and the county attorney will review the FA and RDD language, meet with Duke Energy, and report back at the next meeting. The postponement pauses action but does not prohibit the applicant from continuing outreach or preparing materials.
