TERRA CEIA — The construction of a 600-acre solar farm will not move forward, according to one Terra Ceia property owner.

Attorney Mario Perez, representing Gertrude Respess, owner of farmland leased last year to Wilkinson Solar and its parent company Invenergy Solar Development, sent an email last week informing Invenergy contractor April Montgomery that Respess had decided not to pursue any further action with Invenergy.

“It’s pretty clear that at this point, she just wants to go ahead and stop the discussions and go back to the status quo,” Perez said.

Potential construction of the solar farm has sparked protest from Terra Ceia residents, as well as those who work at, or send their children to, Terra Ceia Christian School, leading them to ask the Beaufort County Board of Commissioners in its past two meetings to instate a moratorium on the solar farm.

Stated concerns about the project have ranged from its proximity to (directly abutting) the school, to long-term effects on what has previously been fertile farmland, to the economic impact of a possible closure of TCCS and taking 600 acres of farmland out of the Ag business economy to be replaced by property tax and, at a maximum, the salaries of three employees. Commissioners declined to act on the request of a moratorium.

Respess and her now deceased husband, Rhonda, signed a multi-decade lease with the company in July 2016. It is unclear whether the document is legal, as Lee County notary public Sarah Kerns was not present when the lease was signed, though she later notarized it, according to a past interview with Perez.

Perez said that Respess had received two payments on the lease, but the money was returned to the company this week.

“Please accept this letter as notice that she does not grant permission to Invenergy, its agents, servants and employees to perform another other activity on her farm other than to remove equipment previously placed on it. Any prior permission she or her husband may have given as part of the alleged lease agreement is hereby revoked,” Perez wrote in the email dated July 16.

The email specifies the company should remove its equipment — which Perez said was minimal — within the next 60 days.

As of Thursday afternoon, Perez had not spoken to Invenergy representatives, and did not know whether the company would back away from, or pursue, the project.

“To be honest, I don’t know. They’re obviously going to have some decisions to make as to how they’re going to respond,” Perez said. “I think the initial response was to work something out with Mrs. Respess. … They have to decide whether or not to roll up their tents or force the issue and try to litigate this — to litigate this is still an option.”

Perez also pointed out the North Carolina Utilities Commission has yet to grant a certificate of need for the solar farm, and appeared to be taking into account all sides of the issue.

“It seems to me that the commission is listening to everything,” Perez said.

An attempt to reach Montgomery was unsuccessful.

“This is a matter between the landowner and Invenergy that we are currently addressing and have no additional comment at this time,” Ryan Van Portfliet, a senior business development analyst at Invenergy, wrote in response.