Sunny. High 86F. NW winds shifting to SSE at 10 to 15 mph..
Partly cloudy skies. Low 67F. Winds SSW at 5 to 10 mph.
Updated: June 5, 2026 @ 4:46 am
Editorials represent the institutional view of the newspaper. They are written and edited by the editorial staff, which operates separately from the news department. Editorial writers are not involved in newsroom operations.
Berkeley County Council is weighing whether to lift the county’s large-scale development moratorium for the Sandy Run Solar project, which would generate 198 megawatts of electricity. The proposal is fiercely opposed by residents in Cross, where it would be built.
Berkeley County Council is weighing whether to lift the county’s large-scale development moratorium for the Sandy Run Solar project, which would generate 198 megawatts of electricity. The proposal is fiercely opposed by residents in Cross, where it would be built.
The word “rural” appears at least 82 times in Berkeley County’s comprehensive plan, whose preferred vision for the county’s growth “minimizes conversion of rural land and maintains more rural, open space preservation.” So it’s no wonder residents in Cross, a small unincorporated hamlet just west of Lake Moultrie, are upset because County Council recently voted in favor of a proposed 1,500-acre solar farm on land now forested by pines.
While council members agreed to consider this project, they ultimately must vote against it, at least until its developers do much more to address concerns of nearby residents regarding the impact this massive solar farm would have on their quality of life. 
As county Supervisor Johnny Cribb told reporter Komlavi Adissem, council’s recent decision marks more of a starting point than a final decision. Four years ago, County Council put a moratorium on any new development with more than 75 homes or covering more than 75 acres — unless council votes in favor of letting such a proposal go through its normal approval process. With the solar farm, that process has now begun, and Mr. Cribb told us while he cannot predict the outcome, he has faith that his colleagues will do the right thing. We share that hope but also believe Mr. Cribb should have a vote in such matters.
Currently, the county’s rules allow him to vote only to break a tie, and that must change. Last month, three of nine council members — Phillip Obie II, Tommy Newell and Steve Davis — either recused themselves or abstained, so this key vote on the solar farm was made by only five members, two of whom voted no. Had Mr. Cribb been allowed to vote, it would not have been approved; neither of Cross residents’ elected representatives, District 7 Councilman Caldwell Pinckney Jr. and Mr. Cribb (who is elected countywide), supports this, which should be a big red flag.
Getting this decision on the solar farm right has importance beyond the Cross community, however, as Berkeley should expect to see many more such requests.
Its countryside, as in many rural parts of our state, is largely forested. Much of this land once was owned by paper companies, but they since have sold off much of their old holdings to investment companies. Many of these companies have continued growing timber, but as more paper and pulp mills close across our state, prices have dropped. And that means some landowners are considering what other uses could provide the sort of financial return they would like.
Berkeley’s comp plan designates much of the area around Cross as “rural living,” but the plan was written when the market for timber was stronger; many might reasonably have assumed these forests would remain forests, but that’s less certain these days.
So County Council should get ahead of this not only by focusing on the solar farm proposed outside Cross but also by reviewing its rural zoning and greenbelt program to ensure they’re working as robustly as possible to provide the protection for rural land that residents — and the county’s own comprehensive plan — call for.
A solar farm might not be as damaging to the rural character of a place as other uses, such as major residential or commercial development or even a data center, but residents fear a solar farm still would disrupt their area’s natural beauty and way of life. Their specific concerns include soil degradation, water-resource-management concerns and disruptions to local ecosystems.
This solar farm application should serve as a wake-up call for Berkeley County Council to recognize the changing nature and financial dynamics of the rural areas council members cherish and want to conserve. We offer no specific prescription about what changes are needed, but council’s ongoing work to update its zoning policies and administer its new greenbelt-land-conservation program are the most obvious levers to pull. A rules change to let the county supervisor — the only member elected at-large — fully engage in these decisions by voting would help, too.
Click here for more opinion content from The Post and Courier.
The Post and Courier
148 Williman Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: 843-853-POST (7678)
News tips/online questions: newstips@postandcourier.com
Delivery/subscription questions: subserve@postandcourier.com
Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks.
We recommend switching to one of the following browsers:
, Post and Courier, an Evening Post Publishing Newspaper Group. All rights reserved. | Terms of Sale

source