01JanuaryCC - Nash Duggins Rezoning AppealLOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBERS Asheboro: (336) 318-6555 ● Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3555 http://www.randolphcountync.gov
RANDOLPH COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 204 East Academy Street • Post Office Box 771 Asheboro, North Carolina 27204-0771 Telephone: (336) 318-6555 • Fax: (336) 318-6550 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Jay Dale, Planning Director DATE: January 23, 2020
SUBJECT: Appeal of the decision of the Randolph County Planning Board approving the rezoning request of Nash Duggins
On December 3, 2019, the Randolph County Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the rezoning request of Nash Duggins. The request was to rezone 45.43 acres located on NC Hwy 49S and Old NC Hwy 49, Cedar Grove Township, from RA – Residential Agricultural District and RR – Residential Restricted District to CVOE-CD –
Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive – Conditional District. Tax ID# 7639187958.
Secondary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a 22-lot site built subdivision with a minimum house size of 1,750 sq. ft. as per site plan. Terry Charles Vuncannon is the property owner. Prior to the December 3, 2019, public hearing, the Technical Review Committee (TRC)
reviewed the revised request by Mr. Duggins. The TRC reviews requests to ensure that all requests meet the standards contained in the Randolph County Unified Development
Ordinance. The TRC has to see that the request (1) meets all technical requirements of the Ordinance and the Growth Management Plan and (2) is consistent, reasonable and
in the public interest before making a recommendation to the Randolph County Planning
Board. The TRC recommended this request for Mr. Duggins to be approved. This matter is now being appealed to the Randolph County Board of Commissioners by Mr. William L. Jones, based upon, “The developer’s plan to build ‘spec homes’ of the specified size is not compatible with the existing larger custom homes in Farmwood, and
places an unnecessary risk on the values of the existing homes. The submitted plan conflicts with the Growth Management Plan and Citizen’s Guide to Land Development.” As you are aware, the Randolph County Planning Board originally heard a similar request on September 11, 2019, and the Board denied Mr. Duggins request to rezone the
property. Mr. Duggins appealed the denial to the Randolph County Board of Commissioners who held a public hearing on October 21, 2019. Between the denial by the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners Public Hearing, Mr. Duggins
changed the site plan for his request. After debate and discussion, the Board of Commissioners presented Mr. Duggins with the option to either move forward with the
previously denied site plan or submit a new site plan for reconsideration by the Planning
Board. Mr. Duggins submitted a revised site plan and his application process restarted. As previously stated, the Randolph County Planning Board held a public hearing on the 22-lot subdivision on December 3, 2019, and the request was approved.
Mr. Jones first point of contention is that the developer, Mr. Duggins, plans to build “spec
homes” with a minimum heated square footage of 1,750. “Spec homes” are homes that are built by contractors with no intended buyer in mind and are different from custom homes in that the contractor builds the home to their specifications with the intent of selling the home. During all the public meetings and hearings for this proposal, there have been
many comments regarding minimum house size which Randolph County cannot legally
require or mandate. Multiple citizens in the existing phases of Farmwood noted how their homes were 2,000 sq. ft. or larger—greater than what was required by the restrictive covenants put in place by Mr. Charles Vuncannon when Farmwood was originally developed. Over time, those restrictive covenants were allowed to expire and it was only
after Mr. Duggins made his original application did the property owners discover the
covenants had expired. The property owners have since reinstated the restrictive covenants. According to the Development Impact Analysis, there are a total of 541 site built homes
within one mile of this request location, with 33 mobile homes in that same one mile area.
The homes ranges in size from 448 sq. ft. up to 4,003 sq. ft. with the average house size being 1,744.49 sq. ft.-a 5.51 sq. ft. decrease in the square footage being proposed by Mr. Duggins. Currently, there are 47 homes in the existing sections of Farmwood with the average square footage being 2,411.28 with the smallest being 1,520 sq. ft. and the
largest being 3,667 sq. ft. based upon Tax department data. Of those 47 homes, 3 homes
are less than 1,800 sq. ft. While Mr. Duggins’ request is for a minimum of 1,750 sq. ft. is below the average for Farmwood, it is above average for the area as a whole. Mr. Jones, in his appeal wrote, that the request “ . . . places an unnecessary risk on the
values of the existing homes.” No evidence from expert witnesses was given at the public
hearing that the proposed 22-lot subdivision would or would not impact the values of the existing homes. Based upon Tax department data, the average property value for the 47 homes in Farmwood is $285,211.70 with the minimum total property value being $173,810 and the greatest total property value being $496,240. (Total property value is
determined by adding the total land value to the total building value.” The home with the
lowest total property value, $173,810, is a 2,018 sq. ft. home built in approximately 1987 while the home with the highest total property value, $496,240, is a 3,153 sq. ft. home built approximately 2006.
Mr. Jones went on to say in his appeal that, “the submitted plan conflicts with the Growth
Management Plan and Citizen’s Guide to Land Development.” The Randolph County
Growth Management Plan is an advisory document that does not carry the weight of law such as the Unified Development Ordinance. That plan states on page 6, “The Randolph
County Growth Management Plan is not a detailed, lot by lot, site-specific land use plan as reflected on the zoning maps. Instead, the Plan prepares broad policy statements that
will, when combined with designated Growth Management Areas, form an overall growth
management philosophy for Randolph County. The Plan provides options to land owners and developers that will still accomplish growth management objectives.” It is designed to be used as an aid when considering various types of development. Even the Citizen’s
Guide to Land Development says on page 5, “It is important to note that Policy Guidelines
are not Zoning Ordinance Codes. They are designed to be flexible and could be used to provide guidance to Boards when making rezoning and other public policy land use decisions.”
The Citizen’s Guide to Land Development clearly states on the first page, “The information contained in this Citizen’s Guide to Land Development is a general outline and guide to land use planning and development in Randolph County. It does not include all applicable regulations but should be helpful to citizens as a quick reference and summary of County development standards and policies.” This is stated multiple
times in the Citizen’s Guide to Land Development so as to not confuse the public that it
contains or covers all aspects of land use land in Randolph County and North Carolina. As is required by the North Carolina General Statutes, the Randolph County Planning Board adopted the Consistency Determination and Finding of Reasonableness and
Public Interest statement that is included in this information packet. The Planning Board,
in this statement, found that Mr. Duggins’ request was consistent with the policies outlined in the Randolph County Growth Management Plan and that the request was reasonable and in the public interest, again, as required by the General Statutes.
I hope this memo and attached documents are helpful and please feel free to contact me
with any questions you may have.
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 1 of 22
RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES December 3, 2019 There was a meeting of the Randolph County Planning Board on Tuesday, December 3,
2019, at 6:30 p.m. in the 1909 Historic Courthouse Meeting Room, 145-C Worth St,
Asheboro, NC. Chairman Pell called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance. Pell called for a roll call of the members.
Jay Dale, Randolph County Planning and Zoning Director, called the roll of the members.
• Reid Pell, Chairman, present;
• Wayne Joyce, Vice Chairman, present;
• John Cable, present;
• Keith Slusher, present;
• Kemp Davis, present;
• Melinda Vaughan, present;
• Ralph Modlin, present;
• Michael Koehler, Alternate, present; and
• Reggie Beeson, Alternate, present.
County Attorney, Ben Morgan was also present. Dale informed the Chairman that there was a quorum of the members present for the
meeting.
Pell called for a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Consent Agenda:
• Approval of minutes from November 5, 2019, Planning Board meeting.
• Approval of agenda for December 3, 2019, Planning Board meeting.
• Approval of the Planning Board meeting schedule for 2020.
• Approval of Special Use Order for His Laboring Few Ministries.
• Approval of Resolution Changing the Date of the Planning Board meetings.
Davis made the motion to approve the consent agenda as presented with Slusher making the second to the motion. The motion was adopted unanimously. Pell called for any old business to be brought before the Board. Hearing none, the Board
moved forward with the cases on the agenda.
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 2 of 22
Dale read the Conflict of Interest statement. No Board members indicated a conflict with any of the cases to be considered. Dale then presented the first case of the night along
with site plans and pictures of the site and surrounding properties.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2019-00002920
JESSE J McADAMS, Denton, NC, is requesting a Special Use Permit at his residence
at 8664 Woods Dairy Rd, Concord Township. Tax ID# 6781748004. The Special Use Permit would specifically allow the applicant to obtain a Federal Firearms License and operate an in-home, internet sales, gunsmithing and small arms manufacturing without an outside firing range.
Pell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone was present in favor of the Special Use Permit request. Dale administered the oath to Jesse J McAdams.
Jesse James McAdams, 8664 Woods Dairy Rd., Denton, NC said he is a business owner of M&M Welding and Fabrications and is interested in obtaining a federal firearms license which will allow him to conduct small arms manufacturing and gunsmithing at home in the evening.
Modlin asked if all of this would be handled online or if there would be a lot of anticipated traffic. McAdams said some of his operation would be handled online but the main goal is for gunsmithing although there would not be a tremendous amount of traffic.
Cable asked if there would be a lot of traffic due to shipping. McAdams said he has two
driveways that are very accessible and there would not be an impact on the neighbors. Pell asked if there was anyone else present in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Pell closed the
public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion.
Davis made the motion to approve the Special Use Permit request on the specified parcel(s) on the Special Use Permit application, based upon the sworn witness testimony that is included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon
revisions, and that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety, the use
meets all required conditions and specifications, the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property, that the use is a public necessity and the location and character of use, if developed according to the plan(s) as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area and in general conformity with the Randolph County Unified
Development Ordinance. Slusher made a second to the motion to approve the Special
Use Permit request. Pell called the question on the motion to approve the Special Use Permit request for
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 3 of 22
Jesse J McAdams and the motion was adopted unanimously and the Special Use Permit was granted.
Dale informed McAdams that his Special Use Permit had been granted by the Randolph County Planning Board. Dale presented the second case of the night along with site plans and pictures of site
and surround properties.
REZONING REQUEST #2019-00002977 ISAAC D YOW, Asheboro, NC, is requesting that 1.17 acres out of 3.35 acres at 3313
Pisgah Covered Bridge Rd, Cedar Grove Township, be rezoned from RA – Residential
Agricultural and RR – Residential Restricted to HC-CD – Highway Commercial –
Conditional District. Tax ID# 7647783936. Secondary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow an automotive repair shop in a proposed 30 ft. by 50 ft. building and automotive sales with a 5-car display area as per
site plan. Pell opened the public hearing. Isaac Daniel Yow, 3313 Pisgah Covered Bridge Rd., Asheboro, NC said he would like
to have automotive repair and 5 car sales lot located at his home.
Joyce asked if there would be any outside storage for junk parts, etc. Yow answered no, he said he did not want a junk yard.
Cable asked if an outside fence was planned. Yow said there would be a fence installed
between the proposed building and neighbor. Davis asked about the location of the building in relation to the property line and if there would be a natural tree line between his property and the neighbor’s. Yow said the
existing wooded area would have to be thinned out and he would eventually install a fence
for the neighbor’s privacy. Cable asked if the fence would be 6 ft. or 8 ft. and if it would be a privacy type fence. Yow said he would install an 8 ft. privacy fence in the future. He said the neighbor indicated
that he is fine without a fence but he will install one out of respect.
Cable asked how much noise he would anticipate. Yow said it would be minimal, most of the noise would be contained within the building.
Slusher asked about the hours of operation, oil storage and disposal. Yow said he would
be open from approximately 4 p.m. until 9 p.m., he would purchase an above-ground oil tank for storage and contract with a waste oil management company that will pick up the used oil, antifreeze etc.
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 4 of 22
Pell asked if there was anyone else present in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Pell closed the
public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion.
Joyce made the motion to approve the rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are
included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and
as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Slusher made a second to the motion to approve the rezoning
request.
Pell called the question on the motion to approve the rezoning request for Isaac D Yow and the motion was adopted unanimously and the rezoning was granted.
Dale informed Yow that his rezoning request had been approved by the Randolph County
Planning Board. Dale presented the third case of the night along with site plans and pictures of site and surround properties.
REZONING REQUEST #2019-00003049 LANIER, INC., Asheboro, NC, is requesting that 1.84 acres located at the intersection of US Hwy 220 S and Lewis Ctry Dr, Union Township, be rezoned from RA – Residential
Agricultural District to CVOM-CD – Conventional Subdivision Overlay Mixed – Conditional
District. Tax ID# 7657758130. Primary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow the division of a lot in the Lewis King subdivision into 2 lots for manufactured housing as per site plan.
Pell opened the public hearing.
Don Lanier, 6048 Sandy Creek Church Rd., Staley, NC, officer for Lanier, Inc., told the Board that would require septic systems, have public water available and both lots meet the minimum lot size and road frontage requirements.
Davis asked if the driveway access would be located on Hwy 220 Bus. South. Lanier said he planned to have both driveways located to the south of each lot in lieu of site distance, with the possibility of the corner lot having access from either 220 Bus. South or Lewis Ctry Dr.
Pell asked if there was anyone else present in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion.
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 5 of 22
Davis made the motion to approve the rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination
of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are
included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth
Management Plan. Cable made a second to the motion to approve the rezoning request.
Pell called the question on the motion to approve the rezoning request for Lanier, Inc., and the motion was adopted unanimously and the rezoning was granted.
Dale informed Lanier that his rezoning request had been approved by the Randolph
County Planning Board. Dale presented the fourth case of the night along with site plans and pictures of site and surround properties.
REZONING REQUEST #2019-00003166 SLIDER SOLAR, LLC, Raleigh, NC, is requesting that 40.70 acres, out of 45.79 acres, on Hoover Hill Rd, just past Old Park Rd, Trinity Township, be rezoned from RA –
Residential Agricultural to LI-CD – Light Industrial – Conditional District. Tax ID#
7715861937. Primary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a 5-megawatt solar farm as per site plan. Pell opened the public hearing.
Tom Terrell, 300 N Green St., Greensboro, Fox Rothschild Attorneys at Law, representing Renewable Energy Services, said he has represented companies in three states designing over a hundred of these facilities and found that Counties which allow these facilities have realized the benefit of increased income without the traffic, noise,
and negative environmental impact to others. He said there is nothing to oppose although
people do not like change. Terrell said the same property had previously received a recommendation of approval by the Planning Board for a solar farm and due to issues with Duke Energy, the request was
not completed. He also said prior to the solar farm request, a request for a subdivision
had been made and denied because the neighbors did not want houses because of traffic among other things. Terrell provided a notebook to the Planning Board and discussed the contents including
the application; site plan; a copy of a 6-page letter that had been sent to the neighbors
including as much information possible regarding solar farms and their proposal, including contact information for the neighbors in case there were any questions or concerns; a section of the ordinance which pertains to solar just to show their request exceeds the
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 6 of 22
requirements of Randolph County; a statement from an electrical engineer who would be speaking to them as well; an operations and a de-commissioning plan; and a report,
“Increased North Carolina County Tax Revenue from Solar Development”, which
demonstrates the increase of taxable income of solar farms. Matthew Delafield, co-owner and chief operating officer of Renewable Energy Services which also owns Slider Solar, LLC. He said he has been with this project since its
conception in 2015 and the initial issues with Duke Energy have been resolved, allowing
them to ask for the Board’s approval once again to complete the project. Delafield said the proposed project is a 5 mega-watt solar farm, fairly standard in North Carolina, with fixed tilt panels which means the panels will sit about 20 degrees due south
to absorb as much of the summer sun as possible. He said he knows that people would
prefer to look at grassy fields rather than a solar farm so they design their projects with as little impact as possible, taking the neighbors into consideration. He said although the ordinance requires a Level 2 buffer, they have planned a Level 3 in addition to leaving as much of the existing vegetation as possible for more protection to the neighbors. He said
in addition to the buffers, they have already decided to remove the small section of panels
shown in the southeast corner of the site plan. Delafield stated that there would be a bond provided covering the cost of decommissioning the site in order to protect the County as well as the neighbors and the
maintenance plan is included in the notebook provided by Terrell. He asked the Board if
there were any questions for him. Vaughan asked how long it would take for the proposed buffer to be established. Delafield said it typically takes three to five years and they would be willing to add some
type of opaque screening along the road and the portions of property that adjoin
residences until the buffer could be established if needed. Vaughan said the greenery would be a more attractive buffer although she would like to suggest a maintenance clause. Delafield said they could increase the frequency of on-site checks for landscape as well.
Cable asked Delafield if he could confirm that the posts would be removed as part of the decommissioning plan. Delafield said the post as well as the subterranean conduit would be removed because it is economically motivating to do so; the posts are made out of stainless steel and are quite valuable. Cable asked if the surety bond would cover the full
45-years. Delafield said bonds are typically re-assessed every ten years to make sure
the value is still appropriate and the value of the bond is calculated by an independent engineer. Slusher asked Delafield how long he has been in business and how many solar farms
he is operating. Delafield said he has been in business since 2013; developing the
projects not operating. He said they are in partnership with Sole River Capital which has 85 projects in the Southeast and will be the end owner/operator of the facility. He said he believes they have six facilities in North Carolina which are either operational or under
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 7 of 22
construction and they are willing to abide by any concessions that are made upon approval.
Ricky Bevan, 4557 Hoover Hill Rd., Trinity, owner of the proposed property, said he and his wife Kay purchased the 100 acre property in 2008 beside their 32 acre tract of land where they reside to prevent development of the property. He said they put half of the acreage in conservation immediately to prevent it from ever being developed and have
tried to find a way to generate income from the remaining property other than chicken
houses and housing development that has low impact to the neighbors and is environmentally friendly . He said he is hoping the neighbors will see this proposal as a positive aspect for this property and the guarantee that the land will not be developed by anyone for the next 40 years.
Chris Sandifer, 3118 Green Rd., Spring Hope, NC, said he is an electrical engineer, a licensed electrician with unlimited license, has worked for Duke for 30 years and is also a Planning Board Member of Nash County where there have been 37 solar farms approved to date. He said he is a landowner with 100 acres of solar panels as well. He
also said he has been around solar for the last 10 years and is very familiar with the
installation and removal; the technology is not new, it has been around for at least 50 years, some even 100 years. He said this is a good way to maintain land within a family as tax rates rise and the project design will not endanger the health and safety of any of the residents in Randolph County.
Rich Kirkland, 9408 Northfield Ct., Raleigh, NC, Kirkland Appraisals, said he has been a certified general appraiser for 23 years as well as an MAI through the Appraisal Institute and has been asked to speak to the Board regarding the impact analysis included in the notebook provided by Tom Terrell. He said he has looked at approximately 650 solar
farms in the past eight years, most of them located in North Carolina. He explained the
process for his analysis and stated there is typically no real change in market value for surrounding real estate; if any, slightly on the positive side. He said usually when you find an impact to surrounding property values, it is due to environmentally hazardous material, odor, noise, traffic, stigma with the smallest impact being appearance which is usually
associated with cell towers, billboards, and tall buildings which cannot be screened like
solar farms. Terrell said Kirkland had concluded their presentation, however, they would be available for any additional questions if needed.
Morgan explained that the applicant or his representatives would have the opportunity to speak at the end and answer any questions anyone may have. Pell asked if there was anyone else present that would like to speak in favor of the
request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone present in opposition of the
request. Kim Lee, 4474 Old Park Rd., Trinity, NC, said the previous request for development of
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 8 of 22
modular homes on the property was consistent with the area and feels a solar farm is most definitely not consistent and is not in a typical location for one either. She said she
appreciated the appraiser coming up and stating what the solar farm would or would not
do to property values and would argue that there is a big difference between appraised values and saleability. She said Ricky Bevan said he hoped the neighbors would see this as a positive proposal; speaking on behalf of all the neighbors, they are all in opposition.
Lee said she would like to make a correction to a statement made by the attorney that a
housing development was approved for this site. She said Bevan purchased the property before a final decision could be made and the request was withdrawn. Lee asked if she would be permitted to speak on behalf of some of the neighbors who
were unable to attend; there was a short notice for the hearing, especially with the
holidays. Pell asked if she had a list of the people she was referring to. Lee said she didn’t have anything typed up but could give him the names. She said she had spoken directly to the Ruddick, Watkins, Johnson and Routh families which are all in opposition and could not be present for the meeting.
Lee said she is not opposed to solar, she believes the facilities serve a purpose and have a place in North Carolina, there are many locations within the County that are suitable for solar farms and the proposed location is not one of them.
Lee provided several handouts and photos with the following comments in opposition of
the proposal:
• She said she has concerns regarding the ownership of a company headquartered
out of Singapore, registered as a North Carolina company, not having North Carolinians best interest at heart (Exhibit #1);
• Other solar farms in Randolph County are located in less developed areas and are more suitable than the proposed site (Exhibit #2); and their investments were made
in a rural, not industrial area, prior to Bevan’s purchase and none of them would
have done so if the proposed site had been industrial. (Exhibit #3). She then referenced three objectives from the Randolph County Growth Management
Plan:
1. To encourage quality and Sustainable Growth;
2. Provide guidance on rezoning and growth related issues; and
3. Recognize that sustainable economic growth, environmental protection and rural
quality of life can be pursued together as mutually supporting public policy goals.
Lee said she would argue that a multi-acre industrial site would not meet the standard quality of growth in an area zoned for Residential Agriculture, especially by those that will be most affected by the facility including herself and her adjoining property owners and in regards to number 3, she said she would confidently speak for herself and her neighbors
in attendance, as well as those who were unable to attend, that construction of an
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 9 of 22
industrial solar farm would absolutely, concretely, and negatively impact their quality of life. She said based on this information, she feels it is the duty of the Board to deny the
request.
Lee said she and her husband have made their lifetime investment into this property and asked how it is fair for one man to profit from this type of project at the expense of everyone else around them.
Lee expressed concerns regarding the future quality of the water for them as well as their animals due to storm water runoff which feeds into their wells, creeks and ponds, sharing nearly 1400 ft. of property line with the proposed site (Exhibit #4). She also shared concerns of erosion from the runoff and provided photos (Exhibit #5), showing the existing
problems and mentioned the potential harm from toxic metals.
Lee then provided a handout (Exhibit #6) with information on potential lightning strikes and the damage that could occur to the equipment. She said if the equipment is damaged due to lightning strikes, we face an increased risk of fire, and toxic waste being be leached
into soil, impacting the wells, ponds and creeks. She then quoted different articles, one
stating there would be huge waste from solar panels in the future because they are hard to recycle; land used for solar farms would no longer be fit for farming; damaged solar farms could potentially become hazardous; and asked who would be responsible for cleanup. She said she read in her research that there is no current plan for the disposal
of waste from the 85,000 acres of solar panels weighing 475,000 tons.
Lee provided a portion of the Growth Management Plan including economic pie chart (Exhibit #7) and stated there is only 0.02% allocated for Environmental Protection which is nearly zero. She asked how we could feel secure in knowing that Randolph County
would have the ability take care of the any environmental impacts from an industrial facility
especially if damaged or destroyed. She also expressed concerns for a decommissioning plan when there is no way to predict costs and the requirements 30-40 years from now. Lee said her main concerns are health related and not knowing how a 5 mega-watt solar
farm will affect the health of her family and her adjoining neighbors 10, 20 or even 30
years from now. She said although solar companies will imply there is no proof that solar is harmful, there is no definitive evidence that these solar farms are not harmful either. She said a real health study takes 20 years of testing and she will challenge anyone in the solar industry present or across the nation, to produce a single study conducted that
proves they don’t pose a health danger.
Lee said she and her neighbors are not wealthy although they are 100% committed to combining their energy, efforts and resources as long, far and as hard as necessary to fight it the proposal, all the way to Supreme Court if needed.
Cable asked Lee if the proposed Level 3 buffer would it be sufficient aesthetically if installed. Lee said it would not grow tall enough to cover anything for a long time to be sufficient and if she had to prioritize, the aesthetics is at the bottom of her list. She said
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 10 of 22
the health related concerns are priority. Cable said she had mentioned aesthetics multiple times and asked again if the buffer would satisfy her. Lee answered no.
Modlin asked Lee about the location of her home and asked if her road was state maintained. Lee described her home in relation to the proposal and said her road is not state maintained; she and her neighbors work on it all of the time. Modlin said he understood her to imply that she would prefer a 40-50 home development rather than
solar. Lee said she never said she would like 40-50 homes. She said she wants
something consistent with the homes already there, possibly 10-15 acre tracts with compatible homes would be acceptable. She said she is not trying to prevent Bevan from making money off his property, she would just like to see it’s consistent with Residential Agricultural zoning. Davis said several of the Board members are farmers and realize
what it takes to pay for 100 acres of land. Vaughan said Bevan mentioned chicken
farming and asked Lee if there would be opposition due to the negative impacts associated with it. Lee said she would not raise a concern about a chicken farm because she moved into an agricultural area.
Pell asked if there was anyone else present to speak in opposition of the request.
Jason Meyer, 4669 Hoover Hill Rd, Trinity, NC, said he has concerns about run off from the property, the potential hazards that may affect his children and he expressed his concern for negative aesthetic changes and the reason they moved to the country to
begin with.
Kathy Hayes, 4643 Hoover Hill Rd, Trinity, NC, said she just picked up house plans to build her new home and has real concerns of how a solar farm will affect house value. She said if the request is approved, her entire back yard will have the view of solar panels.
She also said she has concerns of health related issued caused by solar due to the lack
of research. Hayes said she understands Bevan’s need to do something with the land, she just doesn’t feel solar is the right thing. She said if the proposal is approved, she doesn’t feel the
proposed buffer is enough.
Hayes then said she would also like to speak on behalf of her mom which lives at 4679 Hoover Hill Rd., and is probably most affected because her view will be of nothing but solar panels located approximately 15-20 feet from her drive.
Chris Boggs, 4461 Old Park Rd., Trinity, NC, said he has lived there for about 10 years and moved there to be in the country. He expressed his concerns for the possible decrease of property values and the unpleasing view that would be caused by a solar farm. He also talked about the elevation of the property preventing a buffer from actually
blocking the view of the solar panels and that a portion of the property shown on site plan
would be of no use due to shading. He said the Meyer’s property would literally be right next to the panels where his children play.
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 11 of 22
Pell asked if there was anyone else present to speak in opposition of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if anyone would like to answer some of the concerns from the opposition
before closing the public hearing.
Terrell said he would like to address some of the questions and concerns that have been mentioned. He said there is a claim that all neighbors are opposed to the request although Mr. Bevan could provide a list of neighbors that support his request. He said that most
solar farms are actually located on the road, contrary to what has been stated by the
neighbors and said the question to ask them would be if they are speaking about an older solar farm with no requirements or one of the newer farms with three times the buffer requirements.
Terrell said it is easy for a real estate agent to make statements of what would or would
not potentially affect property values, it is different when an appraiser puts his license on the line with an actual study showing the results. He said in regards to the Growth
Management Plan and the quality of life, this project would protect the rural quality of life. He said it is dark at night, unlike homes that have security lights and no noise from traffic.
Terrell also said solar panels have been classified as pervious which means there will be
little difference in water absorption from storm water, having no additional impact on existing water run off problems. Modlin asked if grass would be sewn, fertilized and maintained at a sod level to help with
the water run-off. Terrell answered yes and said there will be an erosion and
sedimentation control plan put into place by the County or State as well. Terrell said Cypress Creek has nothing to do with this project and the pine trees and power poles in the area are at much greater risk at getting struck by lightning than the
solar panels as mentioned and they are not banned. He said the statement that land
used for solar would be ruined for any future farming is incorrect, there are no harmful components of the panels. Terrell said that Bevans is currently paying agricultural tax rates and if approved, Mr.
Delafield would be paying significantly higher rates as a solar farm. He said there is no
plan for disposing of the panels because they are almost 100% recyclable and highly valuable. Terrell said regarding health issues, there is an electrical magnetic field produced by
everything including refrigerators, computers, etc., and the solar farm would produce no
more for you than standing in front of a refrigerator. He said the setbacks from the property line to the solar panels is actually 50 ft. which will meet or exceed County requirements. Cable asked if panels would be placed in the shaded areas mentioned by one of the
neighbors. Delafield explained that the site plan is a conceptual plan and once the shade
analysis is completed, they may find that some of the area(s) on the plan will not actually be utilized as shown; general design practices are to show the maximum footprint possibilities before studies are complete. He said in response to erosion control, it is
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 12 of 22
mandatory for sedimentation and erosion control plans be approved by the Department of Environmental Quality prior to any construction permits. He said the erosion control
plans could possibly be beneficial to the adjoining property owners with their existing run-
off issues. Davis asked what happens in the areas shown on the site plan that cannot be used. Delafield said the areas will remain as is. Cable asked approximately how large is the
shaded area that may not be used that would increase the setback. Delafield said he
would guess it to be two to three acres. Vaughan asked if an engineered sediment pond would address the issues of run off as well as any concerns of possible contaminants. Delafield said he is not a civil engineer
although he has worked with about 65 plans and the State has requirements in place for
addressing those issues. He said as far as contaminants, there have been countless testing done by government agencies that show no signs of contaminants associated with solar farms.
Cable asked if there was a possibility of putting measures into place to prevent any run-
off prior to beginning project. Delafield said all of the erosion control measures, required by the State, are taken prior to any grading or construction. Cable asked if the existing run-off problems for Ms. Lee would be eliminated if these controls were to be put into place. Delafield said he felt it would take care of the current issues because there are no
preventative measures being taken now. He said he feels the minimum requirement
would be silk-fencing and probably much more. Bevan told the Board he would be willing to trade land with neighbors to satisfy the property line and obstructed view issues that have been brought up. Pell said those
issues would be something that would have to be worked out amongst themselves.
Pell asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak regarding the request prior to closing the public hearing. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion.
Davis said there have been several solar farms throughout the County, the most recent being located on Gold Hill Rd., and it is located in a very populated area. He asked if they could be given some history on the application(s) for this property. Dale said approximately three years ago, basically the same request was made and recommended
by the Board to approve the request as Rural Industrial Overlay and it was pointed out by
Ms. Lee that the zoning would be inappropriate based on the Growth Management. He said he originally had hesitation for Light Industrial zoning due to the densely populated area and after reviewing it, decided Light Industrial zoning would be more appropriate for the request. He said the original request never moved forward to the commissioners. He
said the process has changed since the original request and the Planning Board now
makes the final decision. Davis asked why the request was never heard by the County Commissioners. Delafield said at the time, Duke Energy would not approve the formulated connections. He said over time, those issues have been resolved and they
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 13 of 22
are ready to move forward with the request. Cable asked if they were using the same technology as before. Delafield said it would be exactly the same although they have
resolved issues with Duke by coming up with a solution to bypass regulators that once
prohibited them to connect, now allowing them to proceed with the request. He said at the time of the first application, Cypress Creek was involved and no longer have an ownership stake in the project.
Davis asked if any of the decisions were made due to Bevans changing his mind or plans
for the project. Delafield answered no. He said it was a problem on their end and Mr. Bevans has been very patient with them to resolve all of the issues. Modlin said the farm he grew up on has been split by the Interstate 85/74, so he can
definitely understand the concerns of the neighbors not wanting their lifestyles to change.
He said the day and age we live in, there will be change. He also said no one wants to see land removed from agricultural use any more than him, however, he feels this would probably the best use of the property in minimizing traffic from Hoover Hill Rd.
Modlin made the motion to approve the rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination
of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well
as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth
Management Plan. Davis made a second to the motion to approve the rezoning request. Pell called the question on the motion to approve the rezoning request for Slider Solar,
LLC., and the motion was adopted unanimously and the rezoning was granted.
Dale informed Delafield that his rezoning request had been approved by the Randolph County Planning Board.
Pell asked for there to be a 10 minute break @ 8:24 p.m., before proceeding to the next
case. The Planning Board reconvened at 8:33 p.m. Dale presented the last case of the night along with site plans and pictures of site and surround properties.
REZONING REQUEST #2019-00003161 NASH DUGGINS, Asheboro, NC, is requesting that 45.43 acres located on NC Hwy 49S and Old NC Hwy 49, Cedar Grove Township, be rezoned from RA – Residential
Agricultural District and RR – Residential Restricted District to CVOE-CD – Conventional
Subdivision Overlay Exclusive – Conditional District. Tax ID #7639187958. Secondary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a 22-lot site built subdivision with a minimum house size of 1,750 sq. ft. as per site plan. Property
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 14 of 22
Owner: Terry Charles Vuncannon.
Pell opened the public hearing.
Nash Duggins, 3092 Old NC Hwy 49, Asheboro, NC, said he has addressed some of the concerns raised by the neighbors during the previous request and feels that he meets all of the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance as well as the Growth
Management Plan. He said he feels that it is important to point out that the staff from the
Planning Department have made a recommendation to the Planning Board to approve the request. He pointed out some of the changes that have been made to address the issues from the neighbors such as the removal of an additional access point to the residual acreage between two lots; shortened the Farmwood Ln extension, providing
access to the residual land by Hwy 49; reduced the number of requested lots; and has
added a “no burn” statement on the plat. He said there would be no burning, there would be grinding of stumps and debris from the clearing of the property and everything would be disposed of properly. He said they have even went one step farther to add a statement that agricultural uses cannot come through Farmwood which would currently be allowed
without this proposal. He said the acreage calculation mistakes have all been corrected
and he doesn’t know of any other technical mistakes that were an issue. He asked the Board if they had any questions for him. Dale said a letter has been provided by NCDOT stating no additional connections would
be allowed to NC Hwy 49, requiring any further development to access through
Farmwood and an additional letter was issued, dedicating an SR number by NCDOT to show that Farmwood has been taken over by the State. Duggins said he was correct and the assigned number for Farmwood is SR 3304.
Davis asked Duggins if Farmwood Ln would end as shown on the current plat. Duggins
said it will end for right now with the possibility of future use if additional approvals are granted. He said every other road in Farmwood has a finished cul-de-sac and this road was left with gravel at the end with intensions of future development. Davis asked if the road (at lot 20) will have a cul-de-sac or will it be a dead-end road. Duggins said it will be
a dead-end, leaving the possibility for future development just like it is now with enough
distance for a turn around. Cable asked if the road extension would provide access to Hwy 49. Duggins answered no.
Joyce said NCDOT said they could not enter from NC Hwy 49 if he has understood correctly. Duggins said it would be more dangerous to add an additional entrance to Hwy 49. He also said they will not be required to do anything additional to the existing entrance of the development. Joyce said when you look at Farmwood versus Oak Hollow, there
may be 3 times more houses located in Oak Hollow with only one entrance and there
have been no issues. Duggins said that is correct. He said he thought there were over 100 lots in Oak Hollow and Farmwood currently has approximately 47 and if approved, he would be adding 22 lots.
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 15 of 22
Pell asked if there was anyone else present to speak in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone present to speak in opposition of the request.
Lou Jones, 1487 Allen Ct, Asheboro, NC, thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. He said first of all, since the letter regarding no additional entrances has been mentioned, he would address that first. He said NCDOT was asked about entrances for this proposal as an extension of 22 lots in Farmwood rather than developing a separate parcel as
requested by the neighbors due to the 1,750 sq. ft. house size not being compatible with
the existing homes in Farmwood, particularly with the homes in Phase 3. He said NCDOT was never asked to consider an entrance to develop the 200 acres as a separate parcel so it cannot be concluded that the only way to develop this property is through Farmwood.
Jones said he spoke to Mr. Charles Vuncannon years ago regarding the future of
Farmwood and he was told that Farmwood Ln was left purposefully with a dead end, providing the possibility of future development and stated he would require the same deed restrictions that were currently placed on Farmwood.
Jones said in regards to the changes that have been made, he saw the concession that
had been made for agricultural access which he appreciates. He said he would like to point out that the other changes made by Duggins’ proposal are corrections, not concessions, and should not be implied as such. He said the house size proposed is still 1,750 square feet and feels it is not compatible with the existing housing. He said
compatibility, was upheld by the Board on September 10, 2019. He said the refusal to
change the square footage to be in line with the existing homes in Farmwood, particularly Phase 3, was noted three times in the written Findings of the Board’s decision. Jones said Farmwood homes average over 2,400 square feet although the minimum
required square footage is 2,000. He said the proposed house size is 650 square feet
(27%) smaller than average and that number becomes important. He said the County Commissioners determined there had been a level of change exceeding 10 percent, which they defined as “significant”. He asked the Planning Board to consider the same definition be considered when deciding that the proposed homes are substantially smaller
than the existing homes in Farmwood. He said there are three homes in the 1,500 square
foot range with a total of eight homes less than 2,000 square feet within Phase 1 and Phase 2 although the average home within the entire community is 2,400 square feet. He said the average house size in Phase 3 is 2,579 square feet, making the proposed house size 829 square feet (32%), smaller. He said the large variance of house size constitutes
a threat to the value of the existing homes and he doesn’t understand why the request is
before the Board again when there have been no changes made by the Developer to increase the house size. He said it was a major issue in the findings by the Board previously.
Jones said although the agricultural access issue has been resolved and the neighbors
do not want anyone to be able to access the additional land through Farmwood. He said Farmwood is a cul-de-sac community and Farmwood Ln should become a dead end street for future Farmwood lots only or terminated as a cul-de-sac. He said they don’t
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 16 of 22
want someone to buy the additional land, develop mobile home parks and access the property through Farmwood without restrictions placed on it.
Jones said Farmwood is currently a custom home subdivision and the minutes from the previous meeting referenced the possibility of building “spec” homes to start the development; builder’s would not want to build on a lot requiring homes to be larger than 1,750 square feet due to costs of construction. He said they want to maintain the
characteristic of a custom built home, cul-de-sac neighborhood picked deliberately by the
neighbors for those reasons. Jones said current Farmwood homes have a total value assessed by the Tax Department as $13,743,000.00, generating tax revenue for the County at a little over $105,000.00. He
said if the potential decrease of home values are no more than 10%, it would be a
decrease in $1.3 million tax value which needs to be considered by the Board. He asked those in the audience in support of his arguments to stand up. There were 24 citizens who stood in support.
Jones thanked the Board for their time and asked them to deny the request. He said
there has not been enough change to warrant approval and it does not meet the requirements to be compatible to the existing neighborhood. Ann Shaw, 1555 McDaniel Dr., Asheboro, NC said there is no benefit to current
Farmwood residents with the rezoning proposal. She said there has been no
consideration for the concerns of the residents by Mr. Duggins since the last meeting on September 10, 2019; he is still refusing to increase the minimum house size to be compatible with the adjoining property; there is still uncertainty of what will happen with the remaining portion of the 200 acres; he is still vague about access; and is adamant
about using Farmwood’s existing access although it has been requested he obtain a new
access. Shaw said in regards to the letter from NCDOT, she was told by a Division Engineer that a separate entrance could be considered at the request of the Randolph County
Commissioners and she didn’t feel that NCDOT would force another development to use
Farmwood for access if it was a separate development from Farmwood as they have requested. Shaw said after years of construction, residents of Farmwood can finally see a possible
end to the construction phase and they do not want see the heavy trucks and equipment
funneled through Farmwood for a new section for years to follow. She said Duggins will be exposing their neighborhood to over 200 acres of unknown development and she has still not heard definitively that extending Farmwood Ln would not eventually create a link between new NC Hwy 49 to Old Hwy 49.
Shaw said kids ride their bikes throughout the neighborhood with and without their parents and the traffic from clearing the property of debris will become a safety issue. She said Duggins’ intensions may be good but after seeing so many errors and inaccurate
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 17 of 22
statements made from the beginning of the process, there is no confidence in Duggins’ ability to create anything that is compatible to Farmwood as it currently exists, with what
appears to be his first attempt at real estate development. She said she doesn’t want their
homes and investments to be diminished by being part of his experiment. Shaw told the Board that Duggins had shared his resume with the neighbors at the Neighborhood Information meeting to give them an idea of what he has developed and asked if she could share copies with the Board. Pell asked her to give a copy to the Clerk for the
record. She said after reviewing the resume, there is nothing that shows Duggins has had
experience in subdivision development in the past, she said Duggins has still not made any concessions because of the cost to him so he insists on using their neighborhood, their resources and access points at their expense. She said she would say again, “There is absolutely no benefit to current Farmwood residents with this rezoning proposal”. She
said this proposal will only cause problems for the residents which will be avoided by
keeping his development separate and apart from Farmwood. Pamela Freeman, 2248 Farmwood Ln., Asheboro, NC, read from a prepared letter written to the Board and informing them that there had been steps taken to reinstate deed
restrictions of Farmwood and the residents of Farmwood are united. She said one of the
ongoing concerns from the residents is what will happen with the remaining portion of the 200 acres of which they have never been given a clear answer. Freeman said she had heard there would be 53, one-half acre lots developed and wondered if that was the reason for the 1,750 square feet. She asked who would be responsible for the decreased
value of her home, given the proposed square footage is much less than the average
home in Farmwood. She said there has already been costs to them for repairs needed after road work was completed. She mentioned the original owner, Charlie Vuncannon and the care he had for the residents of Farmwood but his son just wants to sell the property and cut all ties from Farmwood.
Freeman discussed the access off NC Hwy 49 and the costs involved being too cost prohibitive for anyone leads them to believe that by extending Farmwood Ln, it will eventually become access to the rest of the property. She also pointed out that the names for the owner of the property, applicant for the request and the name on the restrictive
covenants were all different and asked if that did not warrant the request to be null and
void. Freeman discussed the changes Duggins made for the most recent proposed plat with the lot and access changes and said there have been no changes to the minimum square
footage. She said the final statement of the Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis,
provided to the Planning Board at the September 10, 2019, meeting stated “that the request is not reasonable and in the public interest for all of the reasons stated above; the applicant refused repeated requests by area residents and the Randolph County Board to increase the minimum house size to be more compatible with the existing
portions of Farmwood.” She said if the proposal was not reasonable at the September 10,
2019, meeting, then it is still not reasonable. Freeman also mentioned Duggins’ resume which he provided to the area residents at
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 18 of 22
their request. She told the Board several things she found in her research indicating that Duggins is not currently a licensed general contractor. Morgan told Freeman that
Duggins’ general contractor’s license is not relevant to the request for development. Freeman said she was pointing out her findings to show Duggins’ character. Morgan told Freeman the Board did make decisions for development on one’s character.
Wade Dawkins, 1501 Allen Ct., Asheboro, NC, said he would like to read from a statement emailed to the Planning Department (copies were given to the Board prior to
the meeting), written by Ron, Julie and their son, Seth Parrish who also reside in
Farmwood. He said they could not be present for the meeting because they were currently out of the country. The letter stated that they had invested their lifetime of savings into their property for the up-scale nature of the neighborhood, quietness and the streets that were used only by the residents. The letter also stated their concerns for the decrease in
value to their homes if smaller homes were allowed; the proposal would not be keeping
with the standards of compatibility, comparability or similarity with the immediately surrounding neighborhoods of Farmwood or Oak Hollow; and their investments would be stolen from them if this proposal were to be allowed. The letter stated that the seller and developer of the proposal wanted to use the name and reputation of the Farmwood
Subdivision to make it more attractive to potential buyers; if the proposal is to be called
Farmwood it should have the same standard and current restrictions equal to the average square foot of the present homes. There was a statement thanking the Board for the sincere thoughts and deliberation they would put forward in serving everyone with wise and fair decisions. The letter followed up by asking everyone present at the meeting in
agreement, to stand in support. There were 23 citizens who stood in agreement.
Wayne Simpson, 1524 Allen Ct., Asheboro, NC, said he is not asking for development not to take place, he just wants it to meet the same standards as Phase 3 which is 2,000 square feet for the minimum house size. He said all of the homes in that section are larger than the minimum and most are custom built homes. He said if the same standards are
not followed, he would ask that it not be part of Farmwood but rather a separate
subdivision with its own entrance and at a minimum, having its own construction entrance to prevent construction traffic passing through Farmwood. He said they are putting their trust in the Board to make the right decision.
Charles Scott Morgan, 1530 Allen Ct., Asheboro, NC said he would address one of the
arguments that he felt Duggins would have regarding the square footage of his home. He
said his home is approximately 1,900 square feet on the bottom level with the potential of being over 3,000 square feet if the upstairs were to be finished. He also said he would like to point out that Mr. Charles Vuncannon, the original developer of Farmwood, was great about checking on the subdivision to make sure it was maintained as required.
Morgan then referenced another subdivision on the mountain, stating that the house sizes
continue to increase instead of decrease, causing home values to rise. He said he would like to see the same for his subdivision, protecting their investments.
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 19 of 22
Pell asked if there was anyone else present that would like to speak in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Pell asked Duggins if he would like to address any of the
comments or questions regarding the request.
Duggins said Morgan’s house was not one of the two houses he was going to point out but appreciated him doing so. He said 1525 and 1460 Allen Ct. are 1,995 and 1,911 square feet per tax records within a phase that should be a minimum of 2,000 square feet and were both spec homes which they seem to have a problem with and should not be
an issue.
Duggins then addressed several of the “character” statements made against him before moving forward with issues and questions regarding the proposal.
Duggins said he does not know what will be done with the remaining portion of 200 acres at this time but it will have to come before the Board again for any future development
request, a mobile home park would not be allowed without rezoning either. He said up to
3 mobile homes could be placed on the property as it is without rezoning.
Duggins said he would not agree with Shaw because he has made concessions and corrections and pointed out that Shaw along with two others live in the phases of 1,500 square foot minimum. He said he does not understand how she can complain about the
2,000 square foot minimum.
Duggins said he did not know how many times he had already answered the question regarding the thoroughfare to NC Hwy 49 but no one in their right mind would pay to install a road across the creek--it is unaffordable.
Duggins said regarding construction traffic, Shaw has lived through two other phases of
the development and this would be no different.
Duggins then said the personal attacks started on him at the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) and he made the comment that he did not have to be there. He said he would like make it clear for the record, he asked to have the second NIM to try and clear up any additional questions and make clarifications to the changes that had been made
since the first application and meeting.
Duggins said the residents have signed to reinstate two sets of restrictive covenants, one set allowing the 1,500 and the other set for 2,000 square feet minimum house size. As far as the additional entrance, it is cost prohibitive whether anyone wants to hear that or not.
Duggins then said the Parrish family has complained about the square foot value and
stated they would have never bought a home in Farmwood if they thought smaller homes could be built in the already well-established neighborhood when they purchased in a Phase that required only 1,500 square feet to begin with.
Duggins said several people have stated that he is not showing good faith or willing to
negotiate which he will argue. He said the original proposal asked for much less square
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 20 of 22
footage, starting at 1,400 (which he said was an actually an error), then increasing to 1,500 then 1,700 and now 1,750. He said at some point you have to stop and make a
business decision. He said he should not be asked to spend thousands of dollars to build
a construction entrance that is not normal or required, it is not good business.
Duggins said, in reference to Morgan’s statements, there are much smaller homes built next to larger homes on the Mountain as well and it has not affected the value of their homes; he said he feels 250 square feet will not affect the value of existing homes in
Farmwood either.
Cable asked what changes have been made since the last Planning Board meeting. Duggins said 3 lots were dropped, decreased the extension on Farmwood Ln., added a flag lot on the back side to eliminate and access point that had been a concern and changed the overall acreage that was shown on the site plans.
Cable asked if he had changed from burning to grinding to satisfy people as well. Duggins said the notes on the plat had been changed although he had not realized it was there to begin with, it was an oversight of his and he never had intensions to burn.
Cable asked if there is a letter provided by NCDOT that states he cannot have a separate entrance. Duggins answered yes and provided him with a copy.
Cable said he understands it is not cost effective for anyone to come off NC Hwy 49 and
cross the creek for development and asked if that was correct. Dale said he had asked Mack Summey, an engineer about that earlier and Summey told him it would basically require some kind of a bridge to cross.
Davis asked if the residual 200 acres would be landlocked in any way. Duggins
answered no. He said there is access to Old Hwy 49 and new NC Hwy 49. Davis asked
if developing any of the remaining property would require crossing wetlands and creeks from old Hwy 49. Duggins said there is access to this property near a gravel road (McDaniel Rd), beside Silos. Cable asked how much property was on that side of the creek off old Hwy 49. (It was not known).
Duggins said he would also like to mention that the rumor of 53 half-acre lots has never
been mentioned by him and regulations would not allow that small of a lot size. He said he had only mentioned the possibility of large tracts of land at this point. Morgan reminded the Board that future lot development would require another public hearing.
Vaughan said she is from the Farmer community and they have a lot of pride in the
neighborhood and the adjoining neighborhood creating a desirable community. She
asked how hard it would be to raise the square footage to 2000 square feet even though she felt people would probably build larger homes. She said she felt it would be a sense of security for the existing residents even though 1750 square feet is the marketable number right now. Duggins said the cost of construction prohibits the commitment and
he felt the 1,750 square feet meets the middle off the current 1,500 and 2,000 square foot
minimums currently there and agrees that people will build what they choose just like the existing residents have done, most of them being larger than required.
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 21 of 22
Vaughan asked if he had set pricing for the lots based on his studies. Duggins said the prices have not been announced publicly although he feels the cost of the lots will not be
under $30,000.00, which will drive the type of housing as well.
Pell asked if anyone else had any questions. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion and a motion.
Joyce said he has sit through a lot of housing development requests in the past and this must be the most emotional one he has ever sat through. He said he has looked through
the Randolph County Growth Management Plan and has found nothing by law that
prohibits the approval of the request from the Board. Slusher said the biggest difference for him from the last meeting and this one is not the square footage, it was the mistakes which were questioned as intentional and feels they
have all been addressed. Joyce agreed.
Cable said he agrees with the previous statement by Slusher. He said Duggins alluded to the mistakes made and he feels the Board has tried to hear all sides and proceed with caution. He said there were a lot of unanswered questions at the last meeting causing
him to deny the request. He said he lives on a 5 acre tract of land in a development that
requires a minimum of 2,000 to 2,200 square foot house size and he thinks the smallest house is 4,200 square feet. He said builders will build based on supply and demand. Cable said there are some fence mending required from both sides, which the Board
cannot fix, but they can ask for all involved to good stewards and neighbors. He said he
had originally thought Duggins should be willing to create a new entrance on NC Hwy 49 and after reading the email from NCDOT, it appears they don’t want Duggins to have an additional entrance.
Cable then thanked everyone for their passion, for being civil and for remembering that
we are all good Randolph County residents. Joyce made the motion to approve the rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination
of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are
included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth
Management Plan. Slusher made a second to the motion to approve the rezoning
request. Pell called the question on the motion to approve the rezoning request for Nash Duggins and the motion was adopted unanimously and the rezoning was granted.
Dale informed Duggins that his rezoning request had been approved by the Randolph County Planning Board.
Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 22 of 22
Having no further business, Pell called for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Cable made the motion to adjourn with Slusher making the second to the motion. Pell called the question on the motion to adjourn and the motion was adopted unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10: 06 p.m. with 47 citizens present.
RANDOLPH COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA __________________________ Planning Director
__________________________ _______________________________ Clerk to the Board Date
Minutes approved on
January 7, 2019
Slider Solar, LLC
Rezoning Evidence
Applicant’s
Exhibit
Application for
Solar Energy Facility
Randolph County Planning Board
December 4,2019
Applicant: Renewable Energy Services
Location: 4783 Hoover Hill Road
Parcel #: 771586L937
Acreage: 45.7900
Proposed District: LI-CD (Solar Energy Facility)
Property Owners: Ricky and Kay Bevan
-q
_-4. r
\,t
__j
\
b.*
F--
ITI
If
I
I
I
I
Application
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
Department of Planning & Zoning
204 E Academy St - PO Box771- Asheboro NC 27204-0771
APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE
Date: 10/31/20'19
Parcel #:7715861937
Applicant: RlCl<Y & KAY BEVAN
Address:4857 HOOVER lllll RD
City, St. Zip: TRINITY, NC 27370
Owner: BEVAN, RICKY LANE
Address:4857 HOOVER HILL RD
City, St. Zip: TRINITY, NC 27370
CONTACT NAME; TON1 DELAFIELD
,,,f,b
Permit #: 201 9-000031 66
Permit Type Code: PZ 2
Location Address: 4783 HOOVER HILL RD
TRINITY, NC 27370
ContactPhone: 919723-7473
PARCEL lNFORMATION
Lot num r'.
Acreage: 46.2600
Subdivsion:
Township: 19 - TRINITY
ZONING INFORMATION
ning istrict 1
Zoning District 2:
Zoning District 3:
Growth Management Areas:
Specialty District:
Watershed Name:
Class A Flood Plain On ProP?
Flood Plane Map #:
DENTIAL
PRIMARY GROWTH AREA
N/A
LAKE REESE WATERSHED
NO
Flood Plain Map #: 371077O400J
DISTRI
REQUESTED CHANGE:
Area To Be Rezoned:
Lot Size lndicator:
Proposed Zoning District
Proposed Use(S):
45.7900
ACRE(S)
LI-CD-LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONAL DISTRICT
REZONING FROM RA TO LI TO ALLOW FOR A SOLAR ENERGY
FACILITY.
Condition(S)
Total Permit Fee: $100.00
coMMENTS; PROPOSED SOLAR FARM - REZONING RA TO Ll TO ALLOW FOR A
SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY
The undersigned ownerlapplicant do hereby make application for a PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE as
allowed by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance
Eric Martin
Authorized County Official Si
- LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER.
Asheboro: (336) 31 8-6565 - Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov\-/
APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page: 1 of 1
Site Plan
ffiffi
lu
oo(,i3l8A8 AOU3I3 UY1(,8
crl'uv'to8 ultg'Is
i
IF
3,Io
ao
F
3!,*l{lr i
lg *rrli r-l! lLnI; LU
!!
ii
l! .-,
!! Lr
IIdt
1EE1t!;!
t:,8
EEli5E
II!r
Qnla
I'
iiI:
fi
.lFI
cl
'l
aEl
EEIsl
d=l
ETI
za
" IE,.t
!liiii:
Ei6{n!ts
;fiiII!
ilillili
;5;E!i:e
Eiii;iii
iiEEtiiil!fi:iil
F:13!Pi E
i: ir
l;!ii
riiii
g:EE:
:ttli
iIE!i!!ir:
li!:!r
Ea#Hi
EEiE6;! 6 !IsF
ilEii:r:t rd?
lip:;E
;liiEi
!l9tt:
lila!iE:r!
IEi!!:ii
E::a
rlg6
lq
I:
j
ii
tE
EI.t
EE
.3
Eral
Eqil
,a
E!
i!irII
r8.
Et!!
E!?:
!r
t;rl
i!
EE
fuE!B:
lEi
6rEt!!
!:E
s!3
ir!rli
iiE
A]<trl
>iF2t(,
>1
E-
iiEi!ri*
q:;t
!!iE
!t!l;!6p
ii!:
itaE
lEl;ITIi
[3eii:!E
E
I
2iI
?!
It
ld
:liBt;
ttIEt!
ftIlrllt!!
.e
l!
iirEt
,ligEa
iiiiiit. t rl8
;E!;;;
;ili;E
EEdv!l
i ! iEtE:
iEiiHiE
iIEE:!E
!lti:5;
t5lu
Eq
;iir;rlii!Ei!
,ffiilfillliii
Illiiiifi!iffr
rAsil,
I t',
1
,l
t., tt\5,I!i€
Aa239EI
1r:iff,,#,
9t
ET
I
EIII
,I
at
ilid
El
9t
f,
fl
I
It
aI
a
di
clL2tlrloUJ
0-
'Go
i'r.
t
zti'
/\
,LI
'ta Pi
\
,l
-ti
6
t---
||:
i
a
aI
H
lr
I 5,i
$
n
I
I
III
I
I
Ii
uJEJ<lFi
<tFI
a
d-1
a
AE
iu
\
e5
E'
ta2'$
i;
t"
!za7t9
I
F
i/
I-L -lt
I
I
IH
I
I
:INlrN:N'TI€
u
\5li)
,
E
$
!
n
3 t
I
t
I
E
a
t i
E
I
Jt
I
i
I
6
f;!
37
a
B!I
6
al9gro3trgfgdtl vuo:' fioE
E
(
p
t
i=
i,l
Eltltr
tEt
t
r.-,-ir
_ Ji,
:
I
EI
t!
i
t
IiII
I
:
6
!t
E
,I
PtI
Letters to
Neighbors
E Fox Rothschild,,'
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
\-'l 300 N. Greene Street, Suite 1400
Greensboro, NC 27401
T: 336.378.5200 F: 336.378.5400
www.f oxrothschild.com
TOM TERRELI,
Direct No: 336.378.5412
Email : TTenell@Foxrothschild.conr
November 19,2019
Dear Neighbor:
I represent Renewable Energy Services, a North Carolina-based company that is planning
to construct a solar facility on Ricky and Kay Bevan's property at 4857 Hoover Hill Road. An
enclosed map shows you the tract proposed.
Because you own property abutting or near the proposed facility, I would like you to have
full information and the names of individuals who can answer your questions. We will meet with
your personally or communicate by phone or email, whichever is easier.
'['om Terrell : 3 3 6-3 78 -5 412 (direct number) or tterrell@fbxrothschild.com
Matt Delafield (9i9) 637-1139 (direct number) or rndelafieldf@r-e-services.com
Below are answers to several frequently asked questions that might be helptul or of
interest.
What is t'solar energy"?
Solar energy is simply the conversion of sunlight into useable energy in the form of
electricity. It is one of the many types of "renewable energy" that does not use fossil fuels.
Why solar energy?
From an environmental perspective, it is just common sense to replace polluting energy
from non-renewable sources with renewable clean energy. From an economic perspective, it
makes sense to replace more costly production methods with methods that ultimately lower the
total energy costs for consumers. And from a land use perspective, cities and counties across the
country are realizing that solar farms have far less impact on neighbors than a subdivision or other
types ofuse.
Are all utilify companies investing in solar?
All major utility companies in the United States generate portions of their energy tiom
"clean" sources that do not create toxic by-products (e.g. coal ash and air emissions). Sunlight is
A Pennsytvanra Limited Liability partnershrp
Calrfornia Colorado Delaware District of Columbia FloridaNevada New Jersey New York Norih Carolina pennsylvania
Georgia lllinois Minnesota
South Carolina Texas Washington
\-/
one of those clean sources. Duke Energy owns a variety of solar facilities, including a 450-acre
facility in Union county. Additionally,large companies such as Amazon, Google, and Apple use
solar energy to provide energy to their server facilities, and many other large companies like
Walmart and IKEA have joined the "Renewable Energy 100" that use roof-mounted solar on some
of their facilities, among other solar technology.
How does a solar facilify work?
A more common (and colloquial) term for a solar facility is "solar farm." Solar farms use
decades-old technology to convert a sun's rays into useable electricity that can power homes,
businesses, churches, and schools.
Generally described, solar "panels" are placed onto steel frames (called "racks") that are
driven into the ground so that very little land is disturbed. These panels passively receive the sun's
light, which in tum causes electrons in the solar cells to move and collide. This movement
generates a direct current that is converted at the site to alternating current before being transferred
to the electrical grid. There are no fumes, emissions, or by-products.
Are solar farms common in North Carolina?
Yes. The first phase of solar farms placed most of them in the eastern part of the state, but
the current trend is for Piedmont area development.
Where will the energy go?
The energy will be purchased by Duke Energy through what is called a "power purchase
agreement" with a subsidiary of Renewable Energy Services called Slider Solar. Duke Energy
will redistribute the electricity to its customers, likely in the Trinity area of Randolph County.
Why is a subsidiary involved?
Practically all forms of real estate development (e.g. subdivisions, shopping centers, cell
towers, and industrial parks) are owned by site-specific LLCs to meet standard lending
requirements.
Will I be able to see the solar farm?
Only temporarily. The facility is being designed to leave ample room to plant thick
evergreen buffers along Hoover Hill Road. The buffers are designed to block views. The
Randolph County Zoning Ordinance calls this a "Level 3 Buffer," which is described as follows:
"A Level 3 Buffer will be 35' wide consisting of the following: two (2) staggered
rows of fast growing evergreen trees evenly spaced ten (10) feet apart. . . One (l)
row of mixed vegetation including evergreen trees and shrubs, canopy trees and
under story trees . . . The following plant heights shall be required at time of
planting: Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of four (4) feet . . . evergreen shrubs
shall be a minimum of three (3) gallon size.
The enclosed plan shows the location of the buffers. This is the same plan that Renewable
\-, Energy Services will ask to be approved. Additionally, unlike houses, it will be completely dark
at night.
Are there other design elements a neighbor should know about?
Yes. Solar farms are designed to have minimal impact on both the host tract and
surrounding tracts. The County requires this facility to retain 30% open space on the parcel where
it is to be built. Additionally the project's design will be approved by the NC Department of
Environmental Quality to ensure all stormwater will be properly contained.
Are solar farms safe?
Yes. Despite a variety of misinformation on the intemet, solar farms are safe. The EPA
has extensively tested solar panels and concludes that they are completely safe. Another common
question asked relates to the electromagnetic fields, or EMF, generated by the solar farm inverters.
The amount of EMF exposure to a person on the outside of a solar farm is less than the person
receives when inside his or her own home.
For more information on this topic, the N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center at N.C. State
has numerous resources. One such paper can be found at https://content.ces.ncsu.edu./health-and-
safety-impacts-o f-so lar-photovoltaics.
Do solar farms produce noise, traffic, Iight or odor?
No. The inverters are the only components of a solar farm that produce a noise. When
standing directly next to one you might hear a hum similar to an air conditioner. From outside the
facility they are impossible to hear over ambient noises created by wind, birds, background traffic,
etc.
The average solar farm generates one or two vehicle trips per month, as contrasted with an
average single family home that generates 9.52 vehicle trips per day (lnstitute of Transportation
Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th ed.). One home (or a group of new homes, such as a new
subdivision), on the other hand, would generate traffic and suburban noise in the form of lawn
mowers, leaf blowers, and common noises created whenever people gather.
Solar farms do not emit any light and only operate during the day. There will be no lighting
at night. Additionally, the facility produces no odors. In other words, you won't be able to hear
it, smell it, see it, or be aware of traffic generation.
Do solar farms harm property values?
Literally hundreds of studies have been done in numerous states (including North Carolina)
by certified and licensed appraisers using industry standard methods. Many of the studies have
been audited by independent appraisers. Practically all ofthe studies have used the standard paired
sales analysis that uses actual market data to compare the sales price of a home adjoining a solar
farm with sale of a comparable home in the same general areaand time period that does not adjoin
a solar farm.
These studies have concluded that solar farms possess none of the characteristics that
typically would cause harm to adjoining property values, such as excessive traffrc generation,
noise, odor, dust, or environmental hazards - thus explaining why adjoining properties are not
devalued. A solar farm might be different from what a neighbor is used to, but "difference" itself
is not a factor that harms property values.
How long do solar farms last?
A standard lease is 30 to 40 years. Once the solar farm is no longer needed, it can be easily
decommissioned by lifting out the panels and pulling up the steel posts holding the frames, and
the land can be retumed to its natural state. In other words, unlike a subdivision, the land can easily
be returned to agriculture. Virtually all parts of the facility are recyclable. Additionally, the project
will be posting a decommissioning security with Randolph County to ensure it is removed at the
end of its useful life.
Does the community receive taxes from a solar farm?
Yes. Although there are reductions in the amount of personal and property taxes paid for
solar facilities, local governments receive much more tax revenue from a solar facility than land
under agricultural or forest tax exemptions.
A recent 2019 study looked at tax data from 50 North Carolina counties and tabulated the
tax income to the county for the solar farm parcels in the year before it was converted, and the tax
income to the county in the year after conversion to a solar farm. The average increase in taxable
income to the county was 2,000 percent from these parcels. Randolph County was listed as 35th in
solar power generated.
Will this be a large facility?
Large is a relative term, but the average facilities being built today are more than ten times
larger than what is proposed on this relatively small tract.
Is this the same facility proposed in2016?
Essentially, but with a key difference. You may remember this project from when it was
originally presented to the Planning Board in September of 2016. After the Planning Board voted
to support the project, Duke Energy changed its technical requirements for connecting to its utility
lines. Over the past two years, RES has worked with Duke Energy to create an altemative solution
to the technical rules it had imposed statewide. Now that the connection issue is resolved, RES
must go through local approval again.
The key difference relates to the proposed vegetative buffer. In 2016, RES proposed a
"Level 2 Buffer" which required only a single row of evergreens along the road frontage. The
current buffer is approximately three times thicker.
What is the approval process involved?
6*
The Randolph County Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on December 3'd, and
an official notice either has been mailed to you or will be mailed. You have a right to attend and
to speak.
In the meantime, please let us know if you have questions or concems. Our offer to meet
with you is sincere. Although I have represented numerous solar energy companies in the siting
of more than 100 facilities in North and South Carolina and Virginia, I pass this site almost every
day driving to my family's farm farther down Hoover Hill Road. This part of Randolph County
has been my home for 57 years, and I'm excited that land nearby is being used in ways that benefit
both the environment and Randolph County.
Sincerely
Thomas E. Terrell, Jr.
TET/ths
I
l
!
I
{
,l
I
,8qi
/a\(ry:ll
lP
IBtol^lml-t<t>tl
l9
l"
F
F
BHhrti
IE
E
Eil
EIE
iE
!l!,
ll
Ti!n
rI
tl
il
I
3
I
a
I I
r i B a a t
H
I .:
ILa
I=EIEto
Hglor
lge
t
t2!li
r
iffffiii{iiiii#iliff
ffiiili#iiiHiiHIF
rTm
lt
i;
:
lrl ei ri,niri
"'!lllliiii
r ffli,ffli
tlil ;Ii!
Effilq
#ff
,6t!,i
j
3lI
3
li
lot>l{
lDLIt>!
IE
larlt
fl-
I
Il
Ir
III,
t!i-o-E
Gtlilt2iE,
/-Ii
t
I
6
i!berit,
4
y'+\
:.;
tha-3r:
a
89,tf?
6.!
:t-
9'
!H!;
se-I#ridil
tr!t
iiiiful'
ii;E
E;;i
E!5i
irt-r!!5
ii!!'!
ffil#H,u
iiilifili
irrli:e!
67
:E!r5r!t
a,t,
F!
TE,
tii
T
:
d
!
a
tao,
aIo
.T
rL'
I
q +
Aw
!]gf!SLDER 8OLAF, LLC
SOLAF EXENOY SYsTEI
o
oo I
pLAIt DRII|XOS
#Hft
, ;i
"it
t
I
;|:
I
i !I
i
I
I '
F
EI
I
II
I!
Ea
t
II
i
I
It
i
I
a
Iq
I
I
I
;
I
II
I
:
Ig
E5I
T
i
!
a
I!
Bevan, Ricky Lane (Bevan, Kay S)- Hoover Hill Rd
. NC 27370
Kersey, Jeffrey W
4365 Old Park Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Watkins, Jason (Watkins, Carrie)
4363 Old Park Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Bevan, Ricky Lane (Bevan, Kay S)
4857 Hoover Hill Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Meyer, Jason R (Meyer, Kimberly C)
4669 Hoover Hill Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Welborn, Ruth Wall
4679 Hoover Hill Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Ruth, Langley M (Ruth Denise)
Po Box 78
Trinity, NC 27370
Bevan, Ricky Lane (Bevan, Kay S)
4857 Hoover Hill Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Lee, George W ll (Lee, Kimberly W)
4474 Old Park Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Hedrick, Rodney Allen
4678 Hoover Hill Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Hill, Emory C
4945 Hoover Hill Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Johnson, Darrell (Johnson, Sharon)
4445 Old Park Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Allnutt, Patricia W (Allred, Janice
\A/) - Additional Owners
1002 Springwood Ln
Archdale, NC 27263
Stanley, Charles (Stanley, Mary
Ruth)
P O Box 716
Trinity, NC 27370
Carrillo, Luzmila
4712 Hoover Hill Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Guinn, Brian
4710 Hoover Hill Road
Trinity, NC 27370
Lee, George W ll (Lee, Kimberly W)
4474 Old Park Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Mooney, Margie S
4662 Hoover Hill Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Johnson, Darrell E (Johnson, Sharon
G)
4445 Old Park Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Evans, Ronald D Sr (Evans, Pauline
A)
4714 Hoover Hill Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Johnson, Darrell E (Johnson, Sharon)
4445 Old Park Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Walker, Nancy W
4804 Hoover Hill Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Hayes, Kathy (Barnes, Randall Jay)
4643 Hoover Hill Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Walker, Dwight (Walker, Nancy VV)
4804 Hoover Hill Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Solar Ordinance
Use:
Special Use District:
Screening and Fencing:
Site Plan Requirements:
Other Requirements:
Solar Energy Facility
LI, HI, RIO
Solar Energy Facilities shall be enclosed by a fence not less than
six [6) feet in height which shall be approved by the Planning
Director. Solar Energy Facilities shall maintain a Level 2 Buffer.
Dimensions of the property and adjacent lots and streets.
Location, use and ownership of all existing and proposed
buildings, and there dimensions.
Streets, traffic circulation and parking areas with spaces.
Services areas, off-street loading facilities, service drives and
dimensions thereon.
Location of all proposed landscaping, with property buffers
between other uses and open spaces.
Location of allflood zones and streams.
Stormwater drainage and sanitary sewer where applicable.
Size and location of signs.
Erosion and sedimentation control plan.
Lighting plan.
Signage,
Site Maintenance Plan - The applicant will be required to submit
a plan that will show scheduled maintenance of the property
(trimming of vegetation, routine maintenance of the equipment
etc.)
Decommissioning Plan - The applicant willbe required to submit
a plan defining conditions upon which decommissioning will be
initiated [i.e. end of land lease, no power production for 1.2
months, abandonment etc.) Furthermore a form of surety equal
to 100 percent of the cost of decommissioning under the plan,
as estimated by a North Carolina licensed engineer under seal,
and approved by the County Planning Director and County
It-79
attorney, either through cash, a surety performance bond,
irrevocable letter of credit or other instrument readily
convertible into cash at face value, either with the County or in
escrow with a financial institution designated as an official
depository of the County. This surety shall be retained by the
County to cover the cost of the decommissioning requirements.
II-80
Health and Safety
STATBMENT OF CHRISTOPHER SANDIFER, P.E.
Slider Solar, LLC
4783 Hoover Hill Road, Trinity, NC
PIN 7715861937
Experience and Backqround
I received a BS in electrical engineering from Clemson University in 1975 andhave used
this electrical engineering education ever since. I have received the Certified Energy
Manager designation from the Association of Energy Engineers.
2. I am licensed by the State of North Carolina as an Electrical Contractor with the
Unlimited Classification, and I am registered by the State of North Carolina as a
Registered Professional Engineer in North Carolina. This license and registration allow
me to perform acts and provide opinions in public forums that those without these
privileges may not lawfully perform or provide.
3. I have training and experience reviewing building codes as well as zoning and land use
ordinances and regulations. My opinions with regard to issues related to solar farms, solar
farm locations, and solar farm safety have been accepted injudicial and/or quasi-judicial
forums in the State of North Carolina including municipal or county subdivisions of the
State.
4. I have been employed in the solar industry for the past 7+ years, and I am familiar with
the concepts of electrical engineering and design. I previously worked for Duke Energy
and its predecessors in various roles including interconnecting solar farms to the electric
gnd'
5. My experience in the solar industry has taught me that solar farms are a practical solution
to the need for sources of clean and renewable energy to power modern society.
6. I grew up on a farm in South Carolina and currently live on my own farm in Nash
County, North Carolina. I also manage an additional 1,700 acres of family-owned,
traditional farmlands in Lee and Warren Counties in North Carolina. My family and I
currently lease approximately 100 acres in Lee County, North Carolina for solar energy
production (three 5 MW farms) on jointly own property with plans to expand the lease
area.
7. As an engineer, electrical contractor, farmer, and landowner, I have an abundance of
tangible experience with solar farm design, construction, operation, and maintenance.
Consequently, I understand the labor, equipment, and procedures required for a safe and
environmentally responsible decommission and subsequent removal of a solar farm's
facilities. I also understand the importance of having a steady and stable cash flow for a
percentage of the farm business income.
RE
1
8. I serve on the Nash County Planning Board. Nash County was one of the first counties in
NC to assess and approve photovoltaic solar farm in NC. We have approved
approximately 37 utility-scale solar farms to date. The Board's experience with solar
farms, as well as that of the Nash County Planning Department, has been very positive,
and we look forward to more solar projects to benefit our community.
Description of the Facility
9. Slider Solar, LLC proposes to construct a solar energy system (commonly referred to as a
solar farm) on an approximately 46-acre tract owned by Ricky and Kay Bevan on Hoover
Hill Road.
10. I am familiar with the proposed use, including this Special Use Permit request. I have
inspected and studied the location and siting of this proposed project. I am also familiar
with, and have personal knowledge of, the site plan for the proposed solar farm.
11. The zoning of the Property subject to this application is Residential Agricultural (RA)
The RA zoning district allows solar farms as a Special Use.
12. Petitioner's application and the associated Site Plan comply with all required conditions
and specifications set forth in the Iredell County ZoningOrdinance.
13. The Solar Farm will consist of photovoltaic (PV) modules, commonlyknown as panels,
mounted on metal frames, called "racks". The racks are supported by metal pilings that
are hydraulically pressed into the ground to minimize soil disturbance.
14. The Solar Farm will meet all setback requirements set forth in the ZoningOrdinance
15. No lighting is proposed for the site, meaning it will be dark at night
16. The active area of the proposed Solar Farm will be secured by a six (6) foot tall chain link
security fence with secured gated entrances for security purposes. It will have visible
warning signage concerning voltage.
17. Access to the site will be from a driveway off of Hoover Hill Road as shown on the Site
Plan. This driveway will provide entry for occasional maintenance vehicles as well as
provide 2417 access for fire department and other public safety vehicles. The driveway
will be permitted by the NCDOT before beginning construction. On average, a solar farm
this size will generate fewer vehicle trips in one month than an average single family
home generates in one day. Accordingly, there is no factual basis for asserting that the
facility would be materially dangerous from the standpoint of traffic safety.
18. All solar components and equipment will have a United Laboratories (UL) Listing (or
equivalent listing) and will comply with all Building Codes and the edition of the
National Electrical Code that has been approved by the NC Department of lnsurance at
the time of construction.
2
19. The proposed Solar Farm design will protect against soil erosion and sedimentation.
During construction, erosion control measures will be maintained in accordance with
County regulations as well as NCDEQ-Land Quality Section regulations. The project will
comply with all State of North Carolina and Iredell County storm water regulations.
NCDEQ considers solar panels to be pervious rather than impervious because there is
ample opportunity for ground absorption of rain that flows off panels to the ground
below.
21. Sound during operation of the Solar Farm will be indistinguishable from ambient
background noise (cars, wind, birds, etc.) at the property lines.
22. The proposed operational Solar Farm will not create any fumes, odors, traffic congestion,
or other nuisance factors.
23. When the Solar Farm ceases operations, all structures and equipment related to the Solar
Farm will be removed.
24.The proposed Solar Farm will connect to and serve the existing power grid. Power
distribution lines will be located underground, where practical, except for interconnection
of the facility to the power grid.
25. There are no on-site refuse or service areas proposed, as this is an urunanned facility.
This Solar Farm facility will have no impacts upon demand for municipal or county
utility services as the facility will not be connected to public water or sewer services.
26. Solar farms are safe, non-hazardous, unobtrusive, environmentally friendly, and advance
the public necessity of adopting renewable sourcing of electricity. Because they are
unpaved, they have beneficial stormwater and groundwater recharging effects.
27. As stated above, the proposed solar farm will consist of photovoltaic (PV) modules
("Panels") mounted on racks that are driven into the ground. These Panels are safe and
create no emissions. Solar farms enjoy widespread support from environmental
organizations.
28. Solar technology like that proposed for the Property, is not new; solar panels and basic
solar technology have been in operation for more than 50 years in the United States. The
solar array may contain moving parts. All electric components will have an Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) listing and will comply with the edition of the National Electrical
Code in effect at the time of construction.
29. From my education and experience, I know that electromagnetic fields (EMF) are present
wherever electricity is present. For example, EMF is produced by magnets, electric tools,
,J
20. The proposed Solar Farm will neither emit odor nor generate dust, as even uses such as
farming can.
computers, radio and television transmitters, mobile phones, and medical devices. EMF is
produced by a variety of natural sources as well as the production and distribution of
electrical power. Ordinary household appliances such as televisions and refrigerators
produce EMF. EMF strength attenuates rapidly as the distance from the source increases.
30. PV panels produce weaker EMF than many household appliances such as televisions and
refrigerators.
31. Inverters used to convert electricity from direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC)
power, will be located in the interior of the solar facility. Although the inverters inside
the solar farm facility produce EMF, the strength of the fields decline rapidly with
distance such that EMF measured at the perimeter of the physical facility is generally
immeasurable when compared to background EMF.
32. Electricity is vital for our everyday lives and our growing economy, and aging traditional
generation plants, such as coal and nuclear, will need to be shut down and replaced with
new generation facilities. Solar energy is a clean, inexpensive, and unlimited resource
that should be preferred to conventional sources ofpower such as coal, gas, and nuclear
energy. These conventional sources of electricity are expensive, finite resources that
require significant environmental disruption and public safety risk to extract and utilize.
33. There is an electrical substation located on Hoover Hill Road. In order to effectively
distribute electricity, the solar farm has to match the voltage of the line it is "tapping"
into. Therefore, the electricity generated and transmitted by a solar farm does not increase
the electrical voltage already running through the existing lines of the subject property
and adjacent neighborhood, nor does it increase the current in the lines because it simply
replaces current from other sources.
34. Solar farms are a public necessity in that they generate clean energy for use by the
community and surrounding areas. The proposed Solar Farm will generate clean,
inexpensive energy and is an unlimited resource with little environmental impact.
Conventional sources of electricity are expensive, finite resources that require significant
environmental disruption and public safety risk to maintain and extract.
35. Solar farms make good transitional land uses. Solar farms, such as the one proposed,
allow property owners like the Bevans to maintain large areas for future development
while generating income from the property. At the end of the useful life of the proposed
Solar Farm, the land is easily redeveloped for home or other land uses or restored to
farming.
36. North Carolina now has several hundred solar farms, and most of them were approved
with the same or very similar health and safety standard Randolph County uses for
special use permits. In other words, towns and counties throughout North Carolina have
made findings in a similar hearing that solar farms do not materially harm public health
or safety. I am not aware of a town or county that made such a finding that was not
overturned by a court of law.
4
37. After construction is completed, this site will be seeded with native grasses for surface
soil stabilization purposes. This ground cover will predominantly be maintained
mechanically. The vegetation that grows in close proximity to equipment pads or
supporting pilings is normally maintained with a post emergence herbicide. The
application rate per acre is generally 10%o or less than the typical application rate for
Roundup Ready@ soybeans
38. Based upon the above facts and upon my experience as the engineer of record for many
solar farms in North Carolina, it is my professional opinion that the proposed Solar Farm
will not be detrimental to or materially endanger the public health, safety, morals,
comfort, or general welfare.
39. Based upon the above facts and upon my experience as the engineer of record for many
solar farms in North Carolina, it is my professional opinion that the proposed Solar Farm
will have adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or other necessary facilities
provided.
40. Based upon the above facts and upon my experience as the engineer of record for many
solar farms in North Carolina, it is my professional opinion that the proposed Solar Farm
will have adequate measures taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to
minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.
41. Based upon the above facts and upon my experience as the engineer of record for many
solar farms in North Carolina, it is my professional opinion that the proposed Solar Farm
will in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of Randolph County
except as such regulations may be modified by appropriate County departments during
site plan review.
5
EMF
Chris Sandifer PE
3118 Green Road Spring Hope, NC 27882
919-632-6519 22 November 2019
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS and INTERFERENCE
Any time there is an electric current in a conductor, Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) are emitted
The lnternational Commission on Non-lonizing Radiation Protection has established 0.833
Gauss as the limit for prolonged human exposure to electro-magnetic fields.
A large utility scale inverter and its power transformer have the highest levels of magnetic
fields operating in a solar facility. Those levels range from 0.15 - 0.5 G at a distance of two
feet from the source. The same or higher level of EMF can be found at typical utility
substations or industrial facilities. At an unmanned facility like a solar farm, prolonged
exposure is never an issue.
At 150 feet distance from the source, the transformer's and inverter's EMF levels drop below
0.5 G or less, falling to levels that are similar to the earth's background magnetic field. No
other solar PV components emit EMF that is measureable above the earth's magnetic field.
There is no EMF produced at night.
r.--,The earth's surface EMF (measured at0.2 to 0.65 gauss) causes a compass needle to point to
the north. A compass placed directly on a solar panel during full output or positioned
anywhere around the panel continues to point north. That compass needle is not deflected by
the comparatively weak field of a solar panel.
Solar panels actually help reduce environmental EMF. 100 amperes in a conductor produces
the same EMF whether its source is a solar generator or a nuclear plant. Locally generated
power reduces the need for energy to be transmitted from distant power plants or substations.
The net effect is to reduce the total EMF in the environment.
Electromagnetic lnterference (EMl) includes all modes of EMI noise and interference. Radio
Frequency lnterference (RFl) is the energy component of EMI that is radiated at radio
frequencies. Most home electronic equipment and appliances meet the standard of FCC
Section 15, Part B standard limits for EMl. This is the reason microwave ovens and TVs do
not emit RFl. The equipment specified for a commercial solar facility should certainly meet the
FCC Class B limits so there would be no observable RFI outside the project boundaries. The
inverter equipment specified for the Slider Solar LLC project fully complies with the FCC
Section 15, Part B standard.
,PE*ama *fr
Market Impact
Study
Kirkland
Appraisals, LLC
Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI
9408 Northfield Court
Raleigh, North Carolin a 27 6O3
Phone (919) 414-8142
rkirkland2@email.com
www. kirklandappraisals. com
November 25,2019
Matt Delafield
Renewable Enerry Services, LI.C
540 Sanford Road, Unit C
Pittsboro, NC 27312
RE: Slider Soler Impact Study, Rendloph Coun$r, IIC
Mr. Delafield
At your request, I have considered the impact of a solar farm proposed to be constructed on approximately
40.70 acres out of a parent tract of 46.20 acres located at 4783 Hoover Hill Road, Trinity, North Carolina.
Specifically, I have been asked to give my professional opinion on whether the proposed solar farm will have
any impact on adjoining property value and whether "the location and character of the use, if developed
according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony witJl the area in which it is to be
located."
To form an opinion on these issues, I have researched and visited existing and proposed solar farms in
North Carolina, researched articles through tJ'e Appraisal hrstitute and other studies, and discussed tJ:e
likely impact with other real estate professionals. I have not been asked to assign any value to any specific
property.
This letter is a limited report of a real property appraisal consulting assignment and subject to tJle limiting
conditions attached to this letter. My client is Renewable Enerry Services, LLC represented to me by Matt
Delatre1d. My findings support the SUP application. The effective date of this consultation is November 25,
2019.
Standardc and ilethodologr
I conducted this analysis using the standards and practices established by the North Carolina
Appraisal Board, the Appraisal Institute, and that conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice. The analyses and methodologies contained in this report are accepted by all major
lending institutions, and they are used in North Carolina and across the countr5r as the industry
standard by certifred appraisers conducting appraisals, market analyses, or impact studies and are
considered adequate to form an opinion of the impact of a land use on neighboring properties. These
standards and practices have also been accepted by the courts of North Carolina at the trial and
appellate levels and by federal courts throughout the countr5r as adequate to reach conclusions about
the likely impact a use will have on adjoining or abutting properties.
The aforementioned standards comp€rre property uses in the same market and generally within the
same calendar year so that fluctuating markets do not alter study results. Although these standards
do not require a linear study that examines adjoining property values before and after a new use (e.g.
a solar farm) is developed, some of these studies do in fact employ this type of analysis. Comparative
studies, as used in this report, are considered an industry standard.
2
Determlnlng what is an External Obsolercence
An external obsolescence is a use of property that, because of its characteristics, might have a
negative impact on the value of adjacent or nearby properties because of identifiable impacts.
Determining whether a use would be considered an external obsolescence reqrrires a study that
isolates that use, eliminates any other causing factors, and then studies the sales of nearby versus
distant comparable properties. The presence of one or a combination of key factors does not mean the
use will be an external obsolescence, but a combination of these factors tend to be present when
market data reflects that a use is an external obsolescence.
External obsolescence is evaluated by appraisers based on several factors. These factors include but
are not limited to:
1) TraIIic. Solar Farms are not traffic generators.
2) Odor. Solar farms do not produce odor
3) Noise. Solar farms generate no noise concerns and are silent at night.
4) Environmental. Solar farms do not produce toxic or hazardous waste. NCDEQ does not
consider the panels to be impervious surfaces that impede groundwater absorption or cause runoff.
5) Other factors. I have observed and studied many solar farms and have never observed any
characteristic about such facilities that prevents or impedes neighbor from fully using their homes or
farms or businesses for the use intended.
Propored Use Description
The proposed solar farm is to be constructed on approximately 4O.7O acres out of a parent tract of 46.2b- ,
acres located at 4783 Hoover Hill Road, Trinity, North Carolina. Adjoining land is a mix of residential and
agricultural uses.
A{ioinlng Properties
I have considered adjoining uses and included a map to identiff each parcel's location. The breakdown of
those uses by acreage and number of parcels is summarized below.
Total
Parccls
86.960/o
8.7Oo/o
4.35o/o
IOO.OO% lOO.OOolo
AdJotntng Urc Brcatdosa
Acrcagc
Residential 44.ll%o
Agricultural 34.960/o
Agri/Res 2O.93o/o
3
T
j'ir ffi I I II
I
a
I
T
T
TtrfI
I
I
I
rl Ir..*EI cta Dtt}I
E
x
I
I
;
I
I
\
'l
E
EI
I
IT
II q I dr*I*\IrtsE&
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
II
I
rl
.dlII
I
I{.'. E
"1',',\r tuh
I
--il
*IrTEI
Ir i
I EII I
I
Eat
1
I
\-criJ
i\t
t1h
r;Ir
I
{I;1l--l
t1
\
a
q*
4
Surrounding UsG.
#
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
l1
12
13
l4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2l
22
23
UAP ID
7715687681
7715779823
7715879400
77t5973325
77t5972110
7725070111,
7715464476
771596r300
7775868245
7775A6713A
7715866076
7715863298
7715863210
7715856930
7715759550
77r5754556
77r5765141
77t5659606
77r5750857
7715666091
7775663502
7715669815
7715677558
GIS Data
Acrcr Prcrcnt Urc
39.65 Agricultural
10.35 Residential
1.85 Residential
1.95 Residential
O.92 Residential
43.03 AgrilRes
0.90 Residential
2.26 Residential
O.92 Residential
O.7O Residential
0.84 Residential
O.92 Residential
0.93 Residential
0.84 Residential
13.05 Residential
13.02 Residential
5.00 Residential
10.00 Residential
5.03 Residential
5.02 Residential
1 1. 18 Residential
5.00 Residential
32.23 Agricultural
Dlrtancc (ftt
IIomc/Peucl
N/A
N/A
N/A
675
470
365
195
190
220
N/A
235
200
320
345
365
770
325
320
N/A
N/A
N/A
445
N/A
Owncr
Bevan
Elevan
Hill
Walker
Walker
Allonutt
Evans
Carrillo
Guinn
Stanley
Hedrick
Welborn
Meyer
Mooney
Hayes
Watkins
Kersey
Johnson
Johnson
Johnson
Ruth
[,ee
Iree
AdJoin
Acrcr
19.290/o
5.03%
O.gOYo
o.95%
o.450/o
2O.93o/o
O.44o/o
l.7Oo/o
O.45o/o
O.34Vo
o.4lo/o
O.45o/o
O.45Yo
o.4Lo/o
6.35o/o
6.33o/o
2.43o/o
4.860/o
2.45o/o
2.44o/o
5.44yo
2.43o/o
15.68%
AdJoin
Parccle
4.35o/o
4.35o/o
4.35o/o
4.350/o
4.350/o
4.350/o
4.35o/o
4.35o/o
4.350/o
4.35o/o
4.35o/o
4.35o/o
4.35o/o
4.35o/o
4.350/o
4.35o/o
4.350/o
4.35o/o
4.350/o
4.35o/o
4.35o/o
4.35o/o
4.35o/o
Total 205.590 IOO.OO% 1OO.OO% 363
I. Market Andysis of the Impact on Vdue from Sol,ar Farms
I have researched hundreds of solar farms in numerous states to determine the impact of these facilities on
the value of adjoining property. This research has primarily been in North Carolina, but I have also
conducted market impact analyses in Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Oregon, Mississippi,
Maryland, New York, California, Missouri, Florida, Montana, Georgia, Kentucky and New Jersey.
I have included a subset of matched pairs on the following pages that highlight NC solar farms with a few
from neighboring states. There are nurnerous additional supplemental matched pairs from other states tllat
I couid cite as well.
Wherever I have looked at solar farms, I have derived a breakdown of the adjoining uses to show what
adjoining uses are typicai for solar farms and what uses wor.ild likely be considered consistent with a solar
farm use similar to the breakdown that IVe shown for the subject property on the previous page. A
summary showing the results of compiling that data over hundreds of solar farms is shown later in the
Harmony of Use section of this report.
5
I also consider whether the properties adjoining a solar farm in one location have characteristics similar to
the properties abutting or adjoining the proposed site so tJlat I can make an assessment of market impact
on each proposed site. Notably, in most cases solar farms are placed in areas very similar to the site in
question, which is surrorrnded by low density residential and agriculturaf uses. [n my over 6OO studies, I
have found a striking repetition of that same typical adjoining use mix in over 907o of the solar farms I have
looked at. Matched pair results in multiple states are strikingly similar, and all indicate that solar farms -which generate very little tra-ffic, and do not generate noise, dust or have other harmfi.rl effects - do not
negatively impact tJ,e value of adjoining or abutting properties.
6
1. Matched Patr - AM Bert Solar Fatm. Goldsboro. NC
This solar farm adjoins Spring Garden Subdivision which had new homes and lots available fo. ,.*V
construction during the approval and construction of the solar farm. The recent home sales have ranged
from $200,000 to $250,000. This subdivision sold out the last homes in late 2014. The solar farm is
clearly visible particularly along the north end of this street where there is only a thin line of trees
separating tJle solar farm from the sing[e-family
homes.
Homes backing up to the solar farm are selling at
the same price for the same floor plan as the homes
that do not back up to tJ:e solar farm in this
subdivision. According to the builder, the solar
farm has been a complete non-factor. Not only do
the sales show no difference in the price paid for the
various homes adjoining the solar farm versus not
adjoining the solar farm, but there are actually
more recent sales along the solar farm than not.
There is no impact on the sellout rate, or time to
sell for the homes adjoining the solar farm.
I spoke with a number of owners who adjoin the
solar farm and none of them expressed €rny concem
over the solar farm impacting their property value.
The data presented on the following page shows
multiple homes that have sold in 2Ol3 and 2Ol4
adjoining the solar farm at prices similar to those
not along the solar farm. T?rese series of sales
indicate that the solar farm has no impact on the
adjoining residential use.
The homes that were marketed at Spring Garden
are shown below.
Artericma
SqFt 3.194
Bed / Eath
3 t35
Precidcnti.l
SqFt 3.400
Bed / Bath5/35
Vbinn
SqFt 3.449
Bed I Bathl5t3
hrce S2I/.900 @i1;"1',"
fE,tffil::'":ir'}-;EEEI: ', '"
Pnce 5244.900
ftrce 949.900
ffi hrce 959.900
View Now D View Now n
ViewNow >\liew Now t
Vlew Now D
Pnce S24Z9O0
W IL
L,.!
*s ,n
\
J
7
A{Jolnlng Edcr Aftcr Eoler Ferm Complct.d
TllX ID Oracr Acrcr D.tc Sold
36OO195570 Helm 0.76 Sepl3
3600195361 Leak 1.49 Sep-13
36O0f99891 McElrayer 2.24 Jul-14
3600198632 Foresman 1.13 Aug-14
3600196656 Hinson 0.75 Dec-13
fetchcd Pdrr
As ofDate:
TA.x ID
0
0
9/3l2or4
Sdcr Prlcc
$2so,ooo
$260,000
$250,0OO
$2s3,000
$25s,ooo
$2ss,600
$2s3,000
Sdcr Hcc
$247,ooo
$245,OOO
$246,ooo
$246,OOO
Sdcr Prlcc
$24o,ooo
$198,000
$24o,ooo
3,48 $74.27
3,400 $74.41
cBA I/GBA Styrc
3,427 $72.07 Ranch
3,4OO $72.06 2 Story
3,414 $72.07
3,414 $72.07
Bullt
2013
2013
2014
2014
2073
2013.4
20r3
Bullt
2012
2013
2012.5
20t2.5
Bullt
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
Bullt
20r3
20r3
2013
2014
2014
2014
2014
20r4
2013.625
201.4
GBA
3,292
3,652
3,292
3,400
3,453
I/GBA
$7s.94
$71.19
$7s.94
$74.4r
$7s.85
Stylc
2 Story
2 Story
2 Story
2 Story
2 Story
Average
Median
Ovrrcr
Feddersen
Gentry
Acror
1.56
r.42
Acrcr
r.57
1.61
1.55
1.59
1.59
Detc Sold
Feb-13
Apr- 13
Datc Sold
Dec- 12
Sep- 12
Nov- 12
\.27
l. l3
A(Jolnlng &lcr Aftcr Sohr Fern Aluounccd
Average
Median
7.49
1.49
AdJolalag Sdcr Bcforc Soler Ferm AtrnouncGd
TAX ID Oraor
36O0183905 Carter
36OO193O97 Kelly
3600f94189 Hadwan
Average
Median
GBA
3,347
2,532
3,433
I/GBA style
$71.71 1.5 Story
$78.20 2 Story
$69.91 r.5 Story
Detc Sold
Oct-13
Dec- l3
Oct-13
Mar-14
Jun- 14
Jun- 14
Apr-14
Apr-14
$219,000
$219,000
Sdor Prlcc
$248,o00
$2s3,ooo
$238,000
$2so,ooo
$224,000
$242,000
$2s8,ooo
$255,000
$74.9s
$74.95
|/GBA stylc
$72.94 2 Story
$74.41 2 Story
$74.51 2 Story
$75.94 2 Story
$92.03 2 Story
$85.66 2 Story
$73.48 2 Story
$73.85 2 Story
$2.8s
$74.46
I/GBA stylc
$68.68 2 Story
$69.57 1.5 Story
$67.74 2 Story
$70.O7 2 Story
2,940
2,940
Ifoerby Saler Aftct Solet Fera Complctcd
TAX ID Oraor Acrcr
360019371O Barnes l.l2
3601105180 Nackley 0.95
3600192528 Mattheis l.l2
3600198928 Beclsnan 0.93
3600196965 Hough 0.81
3600193914 Preskitt 0.67
360O192t813 Bordner 0.91
3601104147 Shaffer O.73
GBA
3,400
3,400
3, r94
3,292
2,434
2,825
3,511
3,453
Average o.9l
o.92Median
Ifcerby Sdcr Bcforc Soler Farm Anaouaccd
TAXID Orlor Acrc. Detc Sold
3600191437 Thomas l.l2 Sep-12
36O0087968 Lilley 1.15 Jan-13
36O0087654 Burke 1.26 Sep12
3600088796 Hobbs O.73 Sepl2
Average
$246,000
$249,000
Sdcr Prlcc
$225,000
$238,000
$24o,ooo
$228,oo0
$232,750
$233,OOO
3,374 $69.01
3,349 $69.13
3,189
3,346
Bullt
2012
2012
2012
20r2
GBA
3,276
3,42r
3,543
3,254
Median
t.o7
1.14
2012
2012
8
Matchcd Palr Sunmary
AdJotur Solar Farm
Avcrage Mcdlan
Sales Price $253,600 $253,000
Year Ehrilt 2Ol3 2Ol3
Size 3,418 3,400
Price/SF $74.27 $74.4r
lllearby Solar Farrn
Avcragc Mcdian
$246,000 $249,000
2014 2014
3, 189 3,346
$77.8s $74.46
Pcrccatagc Dlffcrcnccr
Median Price
Median Size
Median Price/SF
-2Yo
-2o/"
Oo/o
I note that 2308 Granville Drive sold again in November 2015 for $267,500, or $7,500 more than when it
was purchased new from the builder two years earlier flax ID 3600195361, Owner: I"eak). The
neighborhood is clearly showing appreciation for homes adjoining the solar farm.
The Median Price is the best indicator to follow in any analysis as it avoids outlying samples that would
otherwise skew the results. T?re median sizes and median prices are all consistent throughout the sales
botl: before and after the solar farm whether you look at sites adjoining or nearby to the solar farm. The
average for the homes nearby the solar farm shows a smaller building size and a higher price per square
foot. This reflects a corrunon occurrence in real estate where tJ'e price per squurre foot goes up as the size
goes down. This is similar to the discount you see in any market where there is a discount for buying larger
volumes. So when you buy a 2 hter coke you pay less per ounce than if you buy a 16 oz. coke. So everr.r.-z
comparing averages the indication is for no impact, but I rely on the median rates as the most reliable
indication for any such analysis.
I
A'M Bcat Sol,ar Farm, Goldsboro, IYC
View of home in Spring Garden with solar farm located through the trees and panels - photo taken on
el2slrs.
View from vacant lot at Spring Garden witJl solar farm panels visible through trees taken in tJle winter of
2Ol4 pior to home construction. This is the same lot as the photo above.
a
\1
-3r -
It),lt
1*-*.*-
{
T1
L--l t-l-i I
-"1
{.-r.
t ffi
2. Matched Pair - White Cross Solar Farm. Chapel HiIl. NC
10
|/Acrc lllotcr Conf By
$5,614 Clear cut Betty Cross, broker
$6,109 Wooded Dickie Andrews, broker
new
solar farm was built at2l59 White Cross Road in Chapel Hill, Orange Count5r in 2013. After construction,
the owner of the underlying land sold the balance of the tract not encumbered by the solar farm in July
2013 for $265,000 for 47.20 acres, or $5,606 per acre. Ttris land adjoins the solar farm to ttre south and
was clear cut of timber around 1O years ago. I compared this purchase to a nearby transfer of 59.09 acres
of timber land just south along White Cross Road that sold in November 2O1O for $361,000, or $6,109 per
acre. After purchase, this land was divided into three mini farm tracts of 12 to 20 acres each. These rates
are very similar and the diference in price per acre is attributed to the timber value and not any impact of
the solar farm.
Typc TAX ID Owner
Adjoins Solar 9748336770 Haggerty
Not Near Solar 9747184527 Purcell
Acrer
47.20
59.09
Date
Jul-13
Nov- 1O
Prlce
$26s,000
$361,000
The difference in price is attributed to the trees on the older sale.
No impact noted for the adjacenry to a solar farm according to the broker.
I looked at a number of other nearby land sales without proximity to a solar farm for this matched pa,ir,
but this land sale required the least allowance for differences in size, utility and location.
11
Metched Palr Sunner5r
Sales Price
Adjustment for Timber
Adjusted
Tract Size
Percentage Dlffcrcncer
Median Price Per Acre
AdJotar Soler Ferm
Aver8gc iledlan
$s,614 $s,614$soo $soo
$6,114 $6,114
47.20 47.20
OYo
Ifcerbyz Soler Fenn
Avcregc Ucdlen
$6,109 $6,109
$6,109 $6,10e
59.09 59.09
This matched pair again supports the conclusion tllat adjacency to a solar farm has no impact on adjoining
residential/ agricultural land.
3. Matched Pair - WagsteIf Farm. Roxbolo. NC
t2
Prlcc alilc$164,000 $8,714
$130,O0O $8,739
This solar farm is located at ttre northeast corner of a 594-acre farm witl approximately 30 acres of solar
farm area. This solar fiarm was approved and constructed in 2013.
After approval, 18.82 acres were sold out of the parent tract to an adjoining owner to the south. This sale
was at a similar price to nearby land to the east that sold in the same time from for the same price per acre
as shown below.
T}?c
Adjoins Solar
Not Near Solar
TAX ID Oracr
0918-17-11-7960 Piedmont
0918-00-75-9812 et al Blackrvell
Acraa
18.82
14.88
Prcrcat Urc
Agriculatural
Agriculatural
DrtG Sold
8lls/2013
12127 l2Or3
lrcsr\r Soler Faru
Avcregc Mcdlea
$8,73e $8,739
14.88 14.88
Matched Palr Summrry
Sales Price
Tract Size
Pcrccntegc Dllfcrcaccr
Median Price Per Acre
AdJolar Solar Farm
Avcragc f odlaa
$8,714 $8,714
18.82 78.82
Oo/o
This matched pair again supports the conclusion that adjacency to a solar farm has no impact on adjoining
residential/ agricultural land.
I
--ar
7
tl
I
,+
)
\
1\
\i
lir.:
!I
I It
13
4. Matchcd Pair - Mulbcrry. Sclmer. TN
Ttris solar farm was built in 2Ol4 on 208.89 acres with the closest home being 480 feet away.
This solar farm adjoins two subdivisions with Central Hills having a mix of existing and new construction
homes. Lots in this development have been marketed for $15,000 each with discounts offered for multiple
lots being used for a single home site. I spoke with the agent with Rhonda Wheeler and Becky
Hearnsberger with United County Farm & Home Realty who noted that they have seen no impact on lot or
home sales due to the solar farm in this commrrnit5r.
I have included a map below as well as data on recent sales activity on lots that adjoin the solar farm or are
near tl:e solar farm in this subdivision both before and after the announced plan for this solar farm facility.
I note that using the same method I used to breakdown the adjoining uses at the subject property I show
that the predominant adjoining uses are residenlierl and agrictrltural, which is consistent with the location
of most solar farms.
5.OO
7.OO
6
I
az.ot
2t.oa
,i1oo
29
>4 1
tr -od J
r.qs
4
8rrl-E I
ro
eeilSEo2t2r.Og
ul,o5
l8
27
72
tt.al
22.04 zsrtiT
z{dr
I
v
H
2,r
"1
T
x
:l cf
.2)
AdJoiaing Ure Breakdosn
Commercial
Residential
Agri/Res
Agricultural
Totel roo.oo% 100.oo%
Acrcagc
3.40o/o
12.84o/o
10.39olo
73.37o/o
Parcclr
0.034
79.37o/o
3.450/o
t3.790/o
t4
PuLlEg
2 Gmge
2 Gmge
4 GmBe
2 Gmge
From the above map, I identified four recent sales of homes that occu:red a{oining t}re solar farm both
before and a.fter the announcement of the solar farm. I have adjusted each of these for differences in size
and age in order to compare these sales Ermong themselves. As shown below a.fter adjustrrent, tJ:e median
value is $130,776 and tJ:e sales prices are consistent with one outlier which is also the least comparable
home considered. The close grouping and the similar price per point overall as well as the similar price per
square foot both before and a-fter the solar farm.
frtchcd Pd?.
*&7
t2
15
16
T/IX ID
0998 A 019
0998 A 021
0900 A 060
TAX ID
0900 A 01 1.o0
0900 A 003.00
o99C A OO3.O0
099C A OO2.O0
Acru
2.65
r.20
1.00
1.OO
Brllt
2007
201 I
2@2
1999
Oraat
Henson
AmeBon
Smallrcod
Hessing
Aremge
Medim
OrEGr
Henson
Amerson
Smallmod
Hessing
Aremge
Medim
Drtc Sold
Jul- 14
Aug-12
May-12
Ju-15
DrtG Sold
Jul- 14
Aug-12
May-12
Jm-15
Sdor Prlco
$130,O0O
$130,000
$149,9OO
$130,OOO
$134,975
$13O,OOO
&Ior Hcc
$130,OOO
$130,0oo
$149,9OO
$130,OOO
OBA
1,511
1,586
1,596
1,742
I/GBA Etylc$86.04 1 Story
$81.97 1 Story
$93.92 1 Story
$72.95 i Story
1.46
r. r0
2005
2005
1,619 $83.721,591 $84.00
A(ru.tn rt.r
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
,500
$o
$o
$o
-$7
I&7
t2
15
16
TAX ID
0900 A 01 1.oo
0900 A @3.oo
099C A OO3.00
099C A OO2.OO
Acao
$134,97s -$1,875
$130,0@ $o
Acror
1.00
2.73
1.03
Totd
$131,sss
$l30,ooo
$140,70($r23,so1\/
BEllt
$2,600
$o
fi,746
$7,80O
*4,26
94,673
OBA
$6,453
$o
-$939
-$r4,299
-$2,196
-$470
P.rErt
$o
$o
-$1s,0oo
$o
-$3,7sO
$o
$131,,r40
$130,776
aty'G
t I adjusted all of the comparables to a base line 2011 Year Built and 1,586 s.f. based on Lot 12
I also considered a number of similar home sales nearby that were both before and after the solar farm was
announced as shown below. These homes are generally newer in construction and include a number of
larger homes but show a very similar price point per square foot.
Ifeuby Sdcr Boforo Soler Ferm Aaaouaced
O?acr
Durrance
Berryman
Nichols
D.tc Sold
Sep- 12
Apr-72
Feb-13
Sdcr Prlcc
$16s,ooo
$2l2,ooo
$16s,00o
$180,667
$16s,00o
Sdcr Prlcc
$120,000
$148,900
$134,450
$134,4s0
1.59
1.03
Acrca
1.00
2.34
1.67
1.67
Bullt
2072
2007
2072
2010
2012
Bullt
2010
2008
2009
2009
GAA
2,O79
2,O45
1,966
2,030
2,O45
GBA
r,626
1,585
1,606
1,606
I/GBA
$73.80
$93.94
$83.87
$83.87
I/GAA Atylc Perllag
$79.37 1Story 2Garage
$103.67 1Story 2Garage
$83.93 1Story 2Garage
$88.99
$83.93
Average
Median
Ifcer$ Selor Aftcr Soler Frrn Aanouaccd
TAX ID Oracr Detc Sold
O9ON A 040 Carrithers Mar-15
(X)gC A 043 Cherry Feb-15
Average
Median
Stlc Perllag
1 Story 2 Garage
1 Story 2 Garage
TAX ID
(x)gB A 019
o99B A O2t
0900 A 060
G)ON A O40
099C A 0r+3
Oracr
Durrance
Berryman
Nichols
Carithers
Cherry
Average
Median
Detc Sold
Sep12
Apr-12
Feb-.13
Mar- 15
Feb- 15
Acrca
$o
-$7,soo
$o
$o
-$7,soo
-$1,87s
$o
Bullt
-$82s
$+,2+o
-$82s
$6oo
$2,234
$798
-$113
15
I then adjusted tJrese nearby sales using the same criteria as the adjoining sales to derive the following
breakdown of adjusted values based on a 2011 year built 1,586 square foot home. The adjusted values are
consistent with a median rate of $ 128,665, which is actually lower than the values for the homes that back
up to the solar farm.
Ifcerby Sdcr AdJu.tcd A4ru.tEGDtrt
Sdcr Prlcc
$l65,ooo
$212,000
$l6s,ooo
$120,000
$148,900
$16s,s00
$165,000
GBA Stylo-$39,127 $0-$47,s83 $0
-$31,892 $o-$2,es2 $0
$e4 $0
-$30,389 'Z $O 7
-$35,510 7 $O 7
Perllag Totd
$125,o48
$ 161,157
$132,283
$1 17,648
$743,727
$134,034
$128,66s
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o77
* I adjusted all ofthe comparables to a base line 2011Year Built and 1,586s.f. based on Lot 12
If you consider just the 2015 nearby sales, the range is $117,648 ta $143,727 with a median of $130,688.
If you consider the recent adjoining sales the range is $123,501 to $131,553 with a median of $127,527.
This difference is less thart 3o/o in the median and well below the standard deviation in the sales. The entire
range of the adjoining sales prices is overliapped by the range from the nearby sales. These are consistent
data sets and summarized below.
Matchcd Palr Sumnary
Sales Price
Year Ehrilt
Size
AdJolnr Soler Farm
Avcragc Mcdian
$134,975 $130,000
2005 2005
1,619 1,591
I[carbSr Aftcr Soler Ferm
Avcragc Mcdlen
$134,450 $i34,450
2009 2009
1,606 1,606
Price/SF $ae.zz $a+.oo $es.az $83.87
Based on the data presented above, I find that the price per square foot for finished homes is not being
impacted negatively by the announcement of the solar farm. The difference in pricing in homes in the
neiglrborhood is accounted for by differences in size, building age, and lot size. The median price for a home
after those factors are adjusted for are consistent throughout this subdivision and show no impact due to
the proximity of the solar farm. This is consistent u/ith tl:e comments from the broker I spoke with for this
subdivision as well.
I have also run a number of direct matched comp€rrisons on tfre sales adjoining this solar farm as shown
below. These direct matched pairs include some of those shown above as well as additional more recent
sales in this community. In each of these I have compared the one sale adjoining the solar farm to multiple
similar homes nearby that do not adjoin a solar farm to look for any potential impact from the solar fiarm.
Perccl Soler
3 Adjoins
Not
Not
Not
Addrcn Acrcr
491 Dusty 6.86
820 Lake Trail 1.00
262 Country 1.00
' 35 epril 1.15
Detc Sold Selor Prlcc Bullt
ro/2812u,6 $176,000 2OO9
61812018 $168,000 2ors
r/17/2or8 $14s,0oo 20oo
8l1612016 $185,000 2016
I/GBA BR/BA
$97.72 312
$8e.8e 4/2
$77.e6 312
$e3.43 312
GBA
r,801
1,869
1,860
1,980
Perk
2-Gar
2-Gar
2-Gar
2-Gar
Stylc
Ranch
Ranch
Ranch
Ranch
Othcr
16
A(lolala3 &lo Aqfr.t.d
Tlno tlt. t-E GI.A PrrL OthGrPerccl tolu Addrqt
3 Adjoins 491 Dusty
Not E20 Lake Trail
Not 262 Coutry
Not 7 35 April
-$8,324
-$5,4s0
$1,138
$12,OOO -$3,360 -$4,890
$12,000 $6,s2s -$3,6E0
$12,OO0 -$6,475 -$13,380
Tbtd
$176,0OO
$163,426
$1#,396
$17E,283
AvasatG
Dllr Dl.t.!c.
4ao
?Yo
tT/"
-|vo
6t%
The best matched pair is 35 April Loop, which required the least adjustment and indicates a -17o increase in
value due to the solar farm adjacency.
A(lolalag Rcrldcatld Edcr Aftcr Soler Frrn Bullt
Perccl
t2
Soler Addrsrr
Adjoins 57 Cooper
Not 191 Amelia
Not ' 75 April
Not 345 Woodlmd
Drtc Sold Sdsr Prlcc Built
2126/2019 $163,000 20rr
813/2Or8 $132,000 2005
3/1712077 $134,000 2Or2
12/2912016 $131,000 2OO2
I/GBA BR/BA PetL Atytc Othcr
$102.77 312 2-Gar 1.5 Story Pool
$86.05 312 Drive Ranch
$84.38 312 2-Crprt Ranch
$92.91 3/2 l-car Ranch
Acrca
r.20
1.00
o.85
1.15
CBA
1,586
1,534
1,588
1,410
AdJolalng Edc. Adju.tcdTlnc Sttc YB CIA PrrL OthcrPrrccl Soler
12 Adjoins
Not
Not
Not
Addre:: Srlcr Prlcc
57 Cooper $163,000
191 Amelia $132,000
' 75 Ap.il $I34,OOO
345 Woodland $131,00O
$2,3o3
$8,02e $+,ooo
$8,710
$3,960 $2,685
-$670 ? -$135
$s,89s $9,81r
$s,ooo
$s,ooo
$s,ooo
I/GBA BR/BA$9s.e8 3/2
$86.ls 3/2
$8s.42 312
Totel o/" DlfI
$16s,000
$155,947 4Vo
$155,224 5o/o
$160,416 2o/o
Averrgc 4o/o
Dlrtraec
685
$10,00o
$s,000
The best matched pair is 191 Amelia, which was most similar in time frame of sale and indicates a +4Vo
increase in value due to the solar farm adjacency.
A(lolalag Rorldcntld Sdcr Aftcr Soler Ferrn BulltPerccl Soler15 Adjoins
Not
Not
Addrcrr
297 Cowttry
185 Dusty
53 Glen
Acrcr
1.00
1.85
1.13
D.t.sold Sdcr Prlcc Bullt
9l30/2016 $15O,OOO 2OO2
811,7l2ors $126,040 2OO9
3l9l2or7 $126,000 reee
GBA
1,596
1,463
t,475
Pert
4-Gar
2-Gar
2-Gar
StylG
Ranch
Ranch
Ranch
Othsr
Brick
Perccl Eolar
15 Adjoins
Not
Not
Addrcrr Srlcr Prlcc
297 Country $150,000
185 Dusty $126,0,10
53 Glen $126,000
Adlotatng 8dc. Adju.ted
Tlnc Sltc Y-B GI"A PerL Othcr Totrl o/o DllI
$lso,o00
$145,150 3yo
$144,460 4o/o
AYGrrtc 3o/o
Dlrtencc
650
S+,3ss
-$1,699
-$4,411
$1,890
$9,167
$8,269
$10,o0o
$10,ooo
The best matched pair is 53 Glen, which was most similar in time frame of sale and required less
adjustrnent. It indicates a+4yo increase in value due to the solar farm adjacency.
The average indicated impact from these three sets of matched pairs is +47o, which suggests a mild positive
relationship due to adjacency to the solar farm.
I have also looked at several lot sales in this subdivision as shown below.
These are all lots within the same community and the highest prices paid are for lots one p€rrcel offfrom the
existing solar farm. These prices are fairly inconsistent, though they do suggest about a $3,000 loss in the
lots adjoining the solar farm. This is an atypical finding and additional details suggest there is more going
on in these sales than the data crunching shows. First of all Parcel 4 was purchased by the owner of the
adjoining home and therefore an atypical buyer seeking to expand a lot and the site is not being purchased
for home development. Moreover, using the SiteToDoBusiness demographic tools, I found tl:at tJ:e 1-mi1,
radius aronnd this development is expecting a total population increase over the next 5 years of 3 people.v
t7
This lack of growing demand for lots is largely explained in that context. F\rrthermore, tJre fact that finished
home sales as shown above are showing no sign of a negative impact on propert5r value makes this data
unreliable and inconsistent with the data shown in sales to an end user. I tl:erefore place little weight on
this outlier data.
Perccl Soler
4 Adjoins
10 Adjoins
l1 Adjoins
Not
Not
Not
Avoregc
fcdlea
Htgh
Los
Pcr Acrc l[ot A{Jolar
$8,706 $r7,726$8,415 $20,000
$9,543 $20,000
$8,160 $13,r77
Vo Dl"lL.ot
l9o/o
28o/o
l60/o
7o/o
Addrer
Shelter
Carter
Cooper
75 Dusty
Lake Ttl
Lake Trl
A{lolnr
$14,416
$14,s06
$16,728
gt2,2Ls
Acrc!
2.O5
1.70
r.28
r.67
t.47
L.67
4ltal2or9
Date Sold Saler Price AdJ for Tlme
ro/2s/2or7 $16,000 $16,728812/2Or8 $14,OO0 $14,306
e/ 17 /2ot8 $12,OOO $12,2ls4l18l2or9 $20,ooo $20,000rr/7l2or8 $rs,ooo $13,1774lr8l2o1e $20,ooo $20,000
0/AC
$7,8Os
$8,23s
$e,37s
$11,976
$s,saa
$11,976
4lral2or9
A(l for Time
$s, too
$8,41s
$e,s43
$11,976
$s,s64
$l1,976
Pcr Acre
$ro,972
$11,976
$r 1,976
$8,964
o/o DIFIAC
2lYo
3U/o
2U/"
9o/o
18
5. Matched Pair - Neal Hawkins Solar. Gastonia. NC
This project is located on the south side of Neal Hawkins Road just outside of Gastonia. The property
identified above as Parcel 4 was listed for sale while this solar farm project was going through the approval
process. The property was put under contract during tJle permitting process with the permit being
approved while the due diligence period was still ongoing. After the permit was approved the property
closed witJl no concerns from the buyer. I spoke with Jennifer Bouvier, the broker listing the propert5r and
she indicated that the solar farm had no impact at all on the sales price. She considered some nearby sales
to set the price and the closing price was very similar to the asking price within the typical range for the
market. The buyer was aware that tJle solar farm was coming and they had no concerns.
This two-story brick dwelling was sold on March 20,2Ol7 for $270,000 for a 3,437 square foot dwelling
built in 1934 in average condition on 1.42 acres. The property has four bedrooms and two bathrooms.
7
@
G
r
t,.
.!
r.rr4lC
19
5. Matched Pair - Summlt Solar. Movock IYC
This project is located at L374 Caritoke Highway, Moyock, NC. This is an 80 MW facility on a parent tract of
2,034 acres. Parcels Number 48 and 53 as shown in the map above were sold in 2016. The project was
under construction during the time period of those sales and the permit was approved well prior to that in
2015.
I looked at multiple possible matched pairs for the two sales as shown below. This gives a range of impacts
with the most significant impacts shown on the second comparable where matched pairs ranged from plus
6%o to 15%. The sales are all in the adjoining mixed community that includes older residential dwellings
and generally newer manufactured homes.
These two matched pairs are significantly further from the adjoining solar panels than typical at 1,060 to
2,O2O feet.
A{Jolnlag Rcrldcatld Eelor Aftcr Solar trrrn Conplctcd
# Soler Fern Addr... Acrcr Dttc Eold Sdcr Prlcc48 Adjoins 129 Pinto 4.n 4115/2076 $17O,OOO
Not 102 Timber 1.39 4ll/2016 $175,500Not 120 Rmchland 0.99 lO/l/2O14 $17O,OOO
AdJoinlng 8do Adiurted
Thnc Acrcr YB GLA
$o $1o,ooo -$29,4s4 $13,43s
$l0,2oo $lo,00o -$20,230 $3,284
Bullt
r985
2009
2002
CLA
1,559
1,352
1,501
I/GI"A
$r09.04
$129.81
$1 r3.26
Stylc
MFG
MFIf
MFC
BR/BA
3/2
3/2
3/2
BR/BA PerL Totd
$170,000
$169,4s1
$r73,2s4
o/" DlIf
Oo/o
'2o/o
$o
$o
$o
$o
I
ET
T
y,
tl
E
20
I
53
toluFrm
Adjoins
Not
Not
Not
Addrr3.Bullt
97a
1985
2003
1988
l/cLA
$138.81
$9s.88
$120.99
$1 15. r3
BR/BA
sl2
412
312
312
aty'G
Ruch
Ruch
Rmch
Rmch
o/o Dlff
l5o/o
l3o/o
6Yo
$206,0oo
$193,0OO
$196,0OO
$219,9O0
OLA
1,484
2,013
1,620
1910
PerL
Det gu
Gmge
N/A
Gtr +3 det Gu
105 Pinto 4.99
111 Spu 1.15
1O3 Mmhdl L.O7
127 Rmchlmd 0.99
L2l L6l2O16
2l r12016
3l2el2or7
6l9l2o7s
A{lotnlng Sdcr AdJurtodTlnc Acrer Y'B GLA BR/BA ParL Total
$206,000
$o $174,746
$s,000 $r79,743
-$l0,0oo $r94,278
$3,860
$1,470
$e,8e6
$l0,oo0
$l0,oo0
$l0,ooo
-$6,755
-$24,s00
-$10,99s
-$2s,35e
-$8,227
-$24,523
$o
$o
$o
2t
7. Matched Pair - White Cross tr. Chapel Hill. IIC
This project is located in rural Orange County on White Cross Road witll a 2.8 MW facility. This project is a
few parcels south of White Cross Solar Farm that was developed by a different company. An adjoining
home sold after construction as presented below.
AdJolalag Rcrldcatld Sdor Aftcr Soler Fern Coaplctcd
Soler TAX lD/Addrcr. Acrcr Dete Sold Selcr Hce Bullt GBA a/OBA BR/BA PerL Aty'c
Adjoins 97482114578 11.78 212912016 $34O,0O0 1994 1,601 $212.37 313 Garage Ranch
Not 42OOBOldGreensbor r2.@ L2/2812O75 $380,000 2OOO 2,075 $183.13 3/2.5 Garage Ranch
A(lolnlag Rcrldontld Sdcr Altor Soler Perm AdJolalag Selcr A JurtcdSoler TAX IDlAddrG.. Sdcr Prlcc Thnc Acrer Y-B GLA
Adjoins 974a217457a $340,000
Not 42OOB Old Greensbor $380,000 $3,800 $O -$15,9@ -$43,402
BR/BA
$s,ooo
PerL
$o
Totd
$340,0O0
$329,438
o/o Dlff
3Vo
t
]
22
E. Matched Pair - Tracv Solar. Bailev. NC
This project is located in rural Nash County on Winters Road with a 5 MW facility that was built in 2016. A
local builder acquired parcels 9 and 10 following constmction as shown below at rates comparable to otlter
tracts in the area. They then built a custom home for an owner and sold that at a price similar to other
nearby homes as shown in the matched pair data below.
A(lolalag had t lo Aftcr tolrr FrrE CoEt l3t3d
, Solu hrE TAI ID OrEto! Grut@
9 &lO Adjoins 316003 Coart Kingsmill
Addrqr
9162 WinteB
Aclar
13.22 7l21l2ot6 $7O,0O0
alac othcr
$5,295
94,0oo
$5,840 Doublcwidc, structw.
$7,O41 Gnrel &irc for sub, deed
$4,266 Small cmetery,rcoded
Not
Not
Not
Not
& 316@r
6056
:l:}211
106807
3437
4t
23.46
tl.22
18.73
Elllingrly
Ftlcher
Pcrry
Vaughm
Weikcl
Gardner
N/A
427 YowE
10533 Conc
Claude Lsis
1 1354 otd
lawi! Sch
rol2r12016
7l 18l2o17
slrol2o\7
Usting
$164,000
$137,0@
979,OOO
s79,9OO
E E
"I:TIliJ-
!lF- -
,r."l
I
.*J.
B n
t
*t
rI
I
IT
23
AdJotntng Salcr AdJuetcd
Tlac Acrcr Locatloa Othcr
$o
-$soo
-$1,00o
$213
AdJ l/Ac o/o Dlll
$s,29s
$o
-$292
-$3s2
-$213
$4oo
Aqrohht R.3tdantld tdd Aftot &lu Frn CoDpl.tGd
I Solrr trrrn ! Addr... Acrc DrtG Sold &lcr Hcc
9 &1O Adjoins r 9162 WirteB 13.22 11512017 $255,0OO
Not ,r 7352 Rcd Fox 0.93 6130/2016 $176,000
$o
$o
$o
$o
fi292
$o
$o
$4,400
$5,340
$s,689
#+,zoa
l7o/o
-lo/o
-7Yo
l9o/o
Bullt
2016
2010
aty'G
Rmch
2-story
Average 7%
GIA I/GLA AR/BA
r,616 $157.E0 312
r,529 s115.11 312
Othcr
1296 sf wkshp
A{lotntng Selcl A{Jurtcd
Tlme Acrer Y-B Stylc Othcr Total o/o Dlff
$255,000
$5,000 $15,000 $252,399 Lo/o
GLA
$o $44,000 $7,392 $5,007
The comparables for the land show either a significant positive relationship or a mild negative relationship
to having and adjoining solar farm, but when averaged together they show no negative impact. The wild
divergence is due to the difficulty in comping out this tract of land and the wide variety of comparables
used. The two comparables that show mild negative inlluences include a property that was partly developed
as a residential subdivision and the other included a doublewide with some value and accessory
agricultural structures. The tax assessed value on the improvements were valued at $60,000. So both of
those comparables have some limitations for comparison. The two that show significant enhancement due
to adjacenry includes a propert5r with a c€metery located in the middle and the other is a tract almost twice
as large. Still that larger tract a-fter adjustment provides the best matched pair as it required tJle least
adjustrnent. I therefore conclude that there is no negative impact due to adjacenry to the solar farm shown
by this matched paA.
The dwelling that was built on the site was a build-to-suit and was compared to a nearby homesale of a
property on a smaller parcel of land. I adjusted for that differenced based on a $25,000 value for a l-acre
home site versus the $7O,O0O purchase price of tJle larger subject tract. The other adjustments are typical
and show no impact due to the adjacenry to the soliar farm.
The closest solar panel to tJle home is 780 feet away.
I note that the representative for Kingsmill Homes indicated that the solar farm was never a concern in
purchasing the land or selling the home. He also indicated that they had built a number of nearby homes
across the street and it had never come up as an issue.
24
9. Matched Pair - Manatee Solar Farm. Parish. FL
T?ris solar farm is located near Seminole Trail, Pa:rish, FL. The solar Iiarm has a 74.50 MW output and is
located on a 1,180.38 acre tract and was built in 2016. The tract is owned by Florida Power & Light
Company.
I have considered the recent sale of 13670 Highland Road, Wimauma, Florida. This one-story, block home
is located just north of the solar farm and separated from the solar farm by a railroad corridor. This home
is a 3 BR, 3 BA 1,512 s.f. home with a carport and workshop. The property includes new custom cabinets,
granite counter tops, brand new stainless steel appliances, updated bathrooms and new carpet in the
bedrooms. The home is sitting on 5 acres. The home was built tn 1997.
I have compared this sale to several nearby homesales as part of this matched pair analysis as shown
below.
trote
Renov,
Renov.
Renov
Renov-\/
Soler
Adjoins
Not
Not
Not
Not
TAX lD/Addrcrr
r3670 Highland
29Ol Anowsmith
602 Ehrtch Cassidy
2908 Wild West
13851 Highland
Detc Eold
8l2rl2or7
rl3tl2o18
slsl2ol7
7 | r2l2or7
9l r3l2or7
8rl.l Prlcc Bullt
$255,000 1997
$225,000 t979
$220,000 2001
$254,O0O 2003
$2.t0,000 ,97a
Acrcr
5.00
1.91
1.00
r.23
5.OO
(}BA
1,5t2
1,636
r,560
r,5s
1,636
I/CBA BR/BA Perk Style
$168.65 313 Carport/Wrkshp Ranch
$137.53 3/2 2 Gmgs/Wrkshp Rmch
$141.03 3/2 N/A Ranch
$163.45 312 2 Garage/Wrkshp Rmch
$146.70 4/2 3 Garage Ranch
[Et
/
I
tr
f,'
'l
td
&.
tr,
25
Eoler
Adjoins
Not
Not
Not
Not
A{Jolnlng Selcr AdJu:tcd
TAX lD/Addrcr Tlmc Acrcr Y'B
13670 Highland
29O1 Arrowsmith $2,250 $1O,OOO $28,350
602 Burtch Cassidy -$2,2OO $10,OO0 -$6,160
2908 Wild West $0 $10,O0O -$10,668
13851 Highland $o $o $31,920
GLA BR/BA PerL lfotc Totd
$2ss,000
-$1O,oOO $1o,OoO $262,073$2,000 $22s,2ss-$10,000 $244,eoo-$10,000 $255,825
o/o Dlff
-$8,s27
-$3,s8s
-$3,432
-$e,oes
$s,ooo
$s,000
$s,ooo
$s,ooo
-3o/o
l2o/o
4o/o
Oo/o
Avcregc 3o/o
The sales prices of the comparables before adjustrnents range from $220,000 to $254,000. After
adjustments they range from $225,255 to $262,073. The comparables rzrnge from no impact to a strong
positive impact. The comparables showing -3yo and +4o/o impact on value are considered within a typical
range of value and therefore not indicative of any impact on property value.
This set of matched pair data falls in line with tJle data seen in other states. The closest solar panel to the
home at 13670 Highland is I , 180 feet. There is a wooded buffer between these two properties.
I have included a map showing the relative location of these properties below.
i
.l
^Qatsdv
e6t
//
%o*
'-.-
oaSc6ab
| "r'i--
t
a' .'
l
26
1O. Matched Pair - McBride Place Solar Farm. Midland. IiIC
This project is located on Mount Pleasant Road, Midland, NortJr Carolina. The property is on 627 acres on
an assemblage of 974.59 acres. The solar farm was approved in early 2Ol7 for a74.9 MW facility.
I have considered the sale of 4380 Jo5mer Road which adjoins tJre proposed solar farm near the northwest
section. This property was appraised in April of 2Ol7 for a value of $317,000 urith no consideration of any
impact due to the solar farm in that figure. The property sold in November 2018 for $325,000 with the
buyer firlly aware of tlle proposed solar farm.
BR/BA
3/2
312.s
212
3/2
PrrLGt
Det z(Gtr
zrlo{prl
2xGr
EtylG
Rmch
cnft
Rmch
Rmch
Othcr
Outbldg
Eq. Fac.
I have considered the following matched pairs to the subject property.
A(Jolatag Rcrldorthl grlc. Aftor toler Fm AppsoyGd
Sohr Addrc[ Acrar Drt.6old Edcr PHcc Bullt GBA I/GBAAdjoins 43SoJoyner 12.OO l1/22l2or? $325,0OO 1'979 1,598 $203.38
Not 387o Ekmod 5.5O 8/24/2016 $250,000 1986 1,551 $161.19
Not 8121 Irrcr Rocky 18.00 2l8l2ol7 $355,0OO 1977 r,274 $278.65Not 13531 Cabams 7.89 512012016 $267,750 1981 2,300 $116.41
\-/
!
\
-r(fNr:>t'
Sgptrst,
L
oo)fetb
C/.-?_-
P.n;'"f '
I
@ 2018 Google
C
27
AdJotalng Edcr AdJurtcd
Tlmc Acrcr IB GLA BR/BA Park Othcr
$7,500t $7,loo
$8,O33
$s2,000
-$48,OOO
$33,OOO
-$12,250
$4,970
-$3,749
Condltloa
$10,0oo
$2o,ooo
$2,273
$23,1s6
-$3s,832
$2,soo
$3,000
$o
$7,soo
-$15,000
$7,soo
Total
$32s,000
$317,s23
$330,226
$296,702
"/" Dlfl
2o/o
-2o/o
9o/o
-S2,ooo
$o
$o
Avcragc 3o/o
After adjusting the comparables, I found that the average adjusted value shows a slight increase in value for
the subject property adjoining a solar farm. As in tJle other cases, this is a mild positive and within the
typical range of real estate transactions. I tl:erefore conclude that tl:ese matched pairs show no impact on
value.
I note that the home at 4380 Jo5rner Road is 275 feet from the closest proposed solar panel.
I also considered the recent sale of a lot on Ikisti Lane tJlat is on the east side of tJle proposed solar farm.
Tltis 4.22-acre lot sold in December 2Ol7 for $94,000. I spoke with the broker, Margaret Dabbs, who
indicated that the solar farm was considered a positive by both buyer and seller as it insures no subdivision
will be happening in that area. Buyers in this market are looking for privary and seclusion. The other lots
on Kristi Lane are likely to sale soon at similar prices. Ms. Dabbs indicated that they have had these lots on
tJle market for about 5 years at asking prices that were probably a little high and they are now selling and
they have another r:nder contract.
28
11. Matched Pair - Conetoe Solar. Edgecombe Countv. NC
This project is located on NC 42 East to the west of Conetoe. This is an 80 MW facility located on 910.60
acres out of an assemblage of 1,389.89 acres.
I have considered a manufactured home adjoining the project tJ at sold after the project as identified as
Parcel 14 along Leigh Road. T?ris home was 1,515 feet from the closest solar panel. This home is located on
0.49 acres, was built in 2005, and has a gross living area of 1,632 s.f. This property sold on March 8, 2016
for $31,000, or $19.00 per squ€rre foot. I compared this to a simiLar manufactured home that sold on July
2l,2016 as shown below.
The adjusted price per square foot for the two show no efiective difference in the price per square foot.
AdJolntag Rcrldcnttd Sdcr Aftcr Solar Farm Coaplctcd
# TAX ID Acrcr Datc Sold Sdcr Prlcc Bullt14 475GOO-9962 O.49 31712016 $31,OOO 2OO5
Ncarby Rcrldcatlal Sdcr After Solar Farn Conpletcd
# TAX ID Acrcr Dete Sold Sdcr Prlcc Butlt474G*8535 0.968 7l2rl20t6 $18,OOO 1996
GBA
r632
GBA
980
I/GBA
$19.00
Notc
Manufactured
0/cse
$18.37
Notc
Manufactured
TAX ID
Adiurtnentr
Acrer t-B cBA Totel *lr.f
4756-00-9962
474G@-8s3s -$3,000 $3,240 $O $18,240 $re.Or
This data indicates no difference attributable to the proximity/adjacency to the solar farm.
a
-1
)
-!b
a
]
I
;p*a
/
,
\H
29
12. Matched Pair - Beetle-Shelbv Solar. Cleveland Countv. NC
This project is located on Bachelor Road at Timber Drive, Mooresboro, NC. This is a 4 MW faciliqr on a
parent tract of 24 acres.
I have considered a custom home on a nearby property adjoining this solar farm. This home is located on
10.08 acres, was built in 2013, and has a gross living area of 3,196 s.f. This propert5r sold on October 1,
2018 $416,000. I compared this to several nearby homes of similar size on large lots as shown below.
AdJolalag Rcrldcatld Sdcr Aftcr Soler Frrn Approvcd
Soler Addrcrr Acrcr Detc Sold Edcr Prlcc Bullt
Adjoins 1715 Timber 10.08 1Oltl20t8 $416,000 2013
Not 1021 Posting 2.45 2lrsl2llg $414,0OO 20oo
Not 2521 Wood 3.25 7l3ol2ol7 $350,000 2003
Not 356 Whitaker 7.28 1/9l2or7 $340,OOO 1997
GBA I/GBA BR/BA
3, 196 $130.16 413.5
4,9s7 $83.86 414.5
3,607 $97.03 414
3,276 $rO5.72 414
atytc Othcr
1.5 story Pool, Scm Prch
1.5 story Scrn Prch
1.5 story Pool, sunroornRanch Pole barn
PerL
2xGar
2xGar
4xGar
2xGar
t
.t
tt t
\
r
\
F
.!
I
F:
I
f,
30
AdJolnlng Sdcr A{lurtcd
Tlmc Acrcr Y-B GLA BR/BA PerL Other Total
$416,0o0
$398,276
$371,048
$392,s34
o/" Diff
4o/o
ll%o
60/o
$10,s00
$1s,3OO
$15,oOO $gZ,OZ+ -$58,s98 -$1o,ooo
$12,000 $Z+,SOO -$15,952 -$5,000 -$5,0OO
$s,ooo $38,080 -$846 -$s,000
Avcragc 7o/o
The data on these sales all show that the subject property adjoining the solar farm sold for more than these
other comparable sales. These sales suggest a mild increase in value due to proximity to the solar farm;
however, the subject property is a custom home with upgrades that would balance out that difference. I
therefore conclude that these matched pairs support an indication of no impact on property value.
31
13. Matched Pair - Coutthouse Solar. Garton Countv. NC
This project is a 5 MW faciJity located on 161.92 acres on Tryon Courthouse Road near Bessemer City that
was approved in late 2016 but has not yet been constructed due to delays in the power purchase agreement
process with Duke Progress Enerry.
I have considered a recent sale of a home (Parcel 13) located across from this approved solar farm project as
well as an adjoining lot sale (Parcel 25) to the west of this approved project.
I compared the home sale to similar sized homes with similar exposure to count5r roads as shown below. I
considered tl:ree sirnilar sales that once adjusted for differences show a positive relationship due to
proximity to the solar farm. The positive impact is less than 5% which is a standard deviation for real estate
transaction and indicates no impact on propert5r value.
A{Jotrhg Rcrldcntld 8.1c. AftGr Soler Frrn ApptovGd
Soler Addrcr Acrcr lrrtc Sold
Adjoins 2134 Tlyon Court. 0.85 3ll5l2ol7
Not 214 Kiser 1.14 rl5/2or7
Not 101 Windward 0.30 3l30l20l7
Not 5550 knnox 1.44 l0ll2l20l8
Selcr Prlcc
$t I 1,ooo
$94,ooo
$104,ooo
$1 15,ooo
Bullt
2001
1987
1995
200,2
$s33
-$128
-$s,444
l/cse
fi7.26
$69.94
$91.31
$9s.95
BR/BA
312
3/2
312
312
Stylc
Ranch
Ranch
Ranch
Ranch
o/o Dlfl
CBA
1,272
1,344
1,139
r,224
Prrk
Drive
Drive
Drive
Drive
A{lolnlag Rerldcatld Sdcr Aftcr Soler Ferm Approvcd
Soler Addrcr Acrer Detc Sold Selcr Prlcc
Adjoins 2134 Tryon Court. 0.85 3ll5l20l7 $111,000
Not 214 Kiser l'14 ll5l2ol7 $94,OOONot 101 Windward 0.3O 3l3ol2ll7 $IO4,OOONot 555O l,ennox 1.44 10/12/2018 $115,000
AdJolalng Sdcr AdJurtcd
Tlmc Acrcr Y-B GLA Totd
$l l1,ooo
-$1,s11 $rO2,234
$s,61s $ll3,8ss
-$2,3e6 $106,3ss
$e,212
$4,368
-$sos
AVo
-3o/o
4o/o
3o/oAvcregc
Similarly, I compared the lot sale to four nearby land sales. Parcel 25 could not be subdivided and was a
single estate lot. There were a number of nearby lot sales along Weaver Dairy that sold for $43,000 to
$3O,0OO per lot for 4-acre home lots. Estate lots typically sell at a base homesite rate that would be
z
21
,d,r
-
;
I
32
represented by those prices plus a diminishing additional value per additional acre. The consideration o'
the larger tract more accurately illustrates the value per acre for larger tracts. After adjustments, the landr-.
sales show a mild positive impact on land value with an average increase of 9o/o, which supports a positive
impact.
Aqrohlat R..tdolttd Ird 8dG. Aft.r 8ol.r trrrE ApproyGd
Solu Addrc.. Acr.. Drta &ld tdor Prlco l/AcAdjoins 5021 Bucklmd 9.66 3l2tl2018 $58,500 $6,056Not Cmpbell 6.75 l0l3rl20\8 $42,0OO $6,222Not Kiser 17.65 rrl27l2or7 $69,000 $3,909Not 522WeaverDairy 3.93 212612018 $30,000 $7,634Not 779 Sunyside 6.99 3/612017 $34,0OO $4,864
Aqrotlht tdG. Aqru3t.d
Tlrlc Acr.r Totd
$s8,soo
$s9,333
$s0,139
$5s,os7
$48,O49
AvarttG g%o
-$77s
$@7
$s7
$1,062
$18,107
-$19,sO8
$2s,000
$12,987
Dltf trotc
I homesite only
-1o/"
149/0 6 arcs less usable due to shapc (SOYo)
6Vo
tg/o
33
14. Matched Pair - Mariposa Solar. Gaston Countv. NC
This project is a 5 MW facility located on 35.80 acres out of a parent tract of 87.61 acres at 517 Blacksnake
Road, Stanley that was built in 2016.
I have considered a number of recent sales around this facility as shown below.
The first is identified in the map above as Parcel 1, which is 215 Mariposa Road. This is an older dwelling
on large acreage with only one bathroom. IVe compared it to similar nearby homes as shown below.
A{lolnhg Rcrldcatlel Selcr Aftcr Soler Ferm Approvcd
Solar Addrcrr Acrcr Datc Sold Sdcr Prlcc Bullt
Adjoins 215 Mariposa 17.74 t2lt2/2O17 $249,000 1958
Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3lll20tg $153,000 1974
Not r10 Airport 0.83 5/rO/2Ot6 $166,000 1962
Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9120/2018 $242,500 1980
Not 1201 Abernathy 27.OO 5l3l20l8 $390,000 r97O
GBA
1,551
t,792
2,165
2,156
2,190
*/GBA
$160.54
$8s.38
$76.67
$112.48
$178.08
BR/BA
3lL
412
312
3/2
3/2
PrrL
Garage
Garage
Crprt
Drive
Crprt
Stylc
Br/Rnch
BrlRnch
BrlRnch
1.5
Br/Rnch
I qt1
l,it
i
in-
.:Y
Aqjohlnt R..ldGrtlrl &lG. AftGr gol.r FrrE Approrcd A{lolnlng 6dcr A4rurtGd
34
AcsG3 GLll BR/BA PerL Othor 96 Dlff -VTlncYBSoler Addrou Actr.
Adjoins 215 Mriposa 17.74
Not 249 Muiposa 0.48
Not 11O Airport 0.83
Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01
Not 1201 Abemathy 27.OO
DrtG Eold 8dc. PHcc
L2lL2l2OL7 $249,mO3lrl2o19 $1s3,0oosllol2016 $166,mo9l20l2Or8 $242,fiO5/3/2018 $39O,0OO
-$s,s83
$7,927
-$s,621
-$4,552
-$17,136
-$4,648
-$s7,34s
-$32,760
$129,45O
$r26,82s
$95,47s
-$69,450
-$2O,576 -$10,00O
-v7,s78 -$1O,0OO
-$6E,04E -$10,OOO $5,OOO
-$60,7os -$1o,OOO
Totd
$249,@0
$229,154
$239,026
$221,961
$212,533
8o/o
40/o
llYo
r50/o
AYrsaI. 9/o
The average difference after adjusting for all factors is +97o on average, which suggests an enhancement due
to the solar farm across the street. Given the large adjustments for acreage and size, I will focus on the low
end of the adjusted r€rnge at 47o, which is within the typical deviation and therefore suggests no impact on
va1ue.
I have also considered Parcel 4 that sold a.fter the solar farm was approved but before it had been
constructed ,J]2016.
A(Jolnlng Rcrtdeatld Sdcr Aftcr 8ol.r tr rt! Approvcd
Sohr Addrcu Acrer Dete Sold 6eler klce Bullt
Adjoins 242 Mariposa 2.91 9l2ll20rs $180,000 1962
Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3lrl20r9 $153,000 1974
Not 110 Airport 0.83 5l1012016 $166,000 1962
Not 1249 Backsnake 5.01 9l2O/2O18 $242,500 l98O
GBA
1,880
t,792
2,165
2,156
I/GBA
$95.74
$8s.38
$76.67
$112.48
BR/BA
3/2
4/2
312
312
PrrL aty'c Othor
Carport Br/Rnch Det Wrkshop
Garage Br/Rnch
Crprt Br/Rnch
Drive 1.5
AdJolntlt RG.ldcntld Eds Afltcr tolrr trua Approy.d A(Johhg &16. Aqju.tcd
Solu Addrsr Acrc. Drtc Sold 8r1.. P?lcG TIEG YB Acr6Adjoins 242 Miliposa 2.91 9l2ll20l5 $IEO,OOO
Not 249 Muiposa 0.48 3lrl20r9 $153,0OO -$15,807 -$12,852 $18,468
Not 110 Airport 0.83 511012016 $166,000 -$3,165 $0 $15,808
Not 1249 Ellacksnake 5.01 9l2O/2Or8 $242,500 -$21,825 -$30,555 -$15,960
BR/BA PrrL Othcr Totd % Dllr
$180,Om
-$3,OOO $25,000 $172,322 4vo
$25,ooo $175,043 3%
$2,000 $25,000 $1@,218 rlo/o \-,
AvGrata 6a/o
AdJolnlng Sdcr AdJurtcd
Tlme S/Ac
g7,s6s
$38 $e,2ls-$ez $6,447_$zor $11,081$7 $s,027
GLA
$7,513
-$28,600
-vo,942
The average difference after adjusting for all factors is +67o, which is again suggests a mild increase in value
due to the adjoining solar farm use. The median is a 4Yo adjustrnent, which is within a standard deviation
and suggests no impact on property value.
I have also considered the recent sale of Parcel 13 that is located on Blacksnake Road south of the project. I
was unable to find good land sales in the same 2O acre range, so I have considered sales of larger and
smaller acreage. I adjusted each of those land sales for time. I then applied the price per acre to a trendline
to show where tJle expected price per acre would be for 2O acres. As can be seen in the chart below, this
lines up exactly with the purchase of the subject property. I therefore conclude that there is no impact on
Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm.
AdJotntng Reridcntlal Land Sdcr Aftcr Solar Farm Approvcd
Solar Tax/Strcet Acrer Datc Sold Seler Prlcc S/Ac
Adjoins 1.74339/Blacksnake 21.15 6129l21l8 $160,000 $7,565
Not 227852/Abernathy 10.57 51912018 $97,000 $9,177
Not 17443/t*$on 9.87 9/7l2ot8 $64,000 $6,484
Not 164243/Nexis 9.75 2lr l2}tg $110,000 $11,282
Not 176884/Bowden 55.77 6lt3l20t8 $280,000 $5,021
35
S/Ac
srzm
S10,mo
Ss,om
9s,om
Sa,om
s2,000
So
+S/Ac
-
Expon. (S/Ac)
0.m 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
I
Finally, I have considered the recent sale of Parcel 17 that sold as vacant land. I was unable to find good
Land sales in the same 7 acre rErnge, so I have considered sales of larger and smaller acreage. I adjusted
each of those land sales for time. I then applied the price per acre to a trendline to show where the expected
price per acre would be for 7 acres. As can be seen in the chart below, tJris lines up with the trendline
running right through the purchase price for the subject propert5r. I therefore conclude that there is no
impact on Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm. I note t]rat this property was improved with a 3, 196
square foot ranch built in 2018 following the land purchase, which shows that development near the solar
farm was unimpeded.
Adjoining Rcrldentlal Laad Sder After Solar Farm Approved
Solar Tar/Strcct Acrcr Date Sold Salcr Prlce l|/Ac
Adjoins 227O39/Maiposa 6.86 1216/2017 $66,500 $9,694
Not 227852/A&rnathy 10.57 51912018 $97,000 $9,177
Not 17443/l*$on 9.87 917l2ll8 $tr,000 $6,484Not 177322lRobinson 5.23 5lt2l2OL7 $66,500 $tZ,ZtS
Not 203386/Carousel 2.99 7 /1312018 $43,500 $14,548
AdJotntng Sdee AdJurted
Tlmc Locatloa f/Ac
$s,os+
-$r ro $e,o6l-$147 $6,338
$217 -$r,272 $11,661-$zoz -$1,455 $12,832
s14 000
S10,mo
512,m
Sa,om
$o,om
Sq,om
--+-- 5eries1
-Expon.(Seriesl)
S2,om -
So0.m 2.m 4.m 6.m 8.00 10.00 u.00
36
15. Matched Pair - Cl,arke Couatv Solar. Clarke County. VA
This project is a 20 MW facility located on a234-acre tract that was built in 2017
N
:I
I
H
i
if,:;\"
tr
!l
\
E
r-
Bullt
't979
1942
1986
1990
1975
l/oBA
$21 1.93
$135.02
$r17.2O
$177.73
$178.57
BR"IBA
312
312
414
312
3lr
P.rL
Dct Gu
2Gt
2 Gar
3Gr
Drive
aty'c
Rmch
Rmch
2 story
2 story
Rmch
Oth.s
Unfin bsmt
37
I have considered a recent sale or Parcel 3. The home on tJris parcel is 1,230 feet from the closest panel as
measured in the second map from Google Earttr, which shows the solar farm under construction.
IVe compared this home sale to a number of similar rrral homes on similar parcels as shown below. I have
used multiple sales tlat bracket the subject property in terms of sale date, year built, gross living area,
bedrooms and bathrooms. Bracketing the parameters insures that all factors are well balanced out in the
adjustments. The trend for these sales shows a positive value for the adjacency to the solar farm.
A{Jolnla3 Rmldcatld Edc: Aftcr toler llrn Approvod
Eolrr Addrc.. Acrc. Detc Sold Sdcr Prle
Adjoins 833 Nations Spr 5.13 rl9l2017 $295,OOO
Not 85 Ashbl, s.09 9l1rl2or7 $315,ooo
Not 541 Old Kitchen 5.O7 9l9l2ol8 $370,OOO
Not 4174 Rocklmd 5.06 L/2l2Ol7 $3OO,OOO
Not 40O Sugar Hill 1.OO 61712018 $180,O0O
OBA
1,392
2,333
3,157
1,688
1,008
A{lotata! XBldutld &16 Aft.r &lu lrrE Approrod Aqrohht &lo AqrErt.d
lolu Addu. Acrq Drt. &ld talu klc fiE. Acro lB OI.A BB/BA PrrL Otios
Adjoing E33 Nation! Spr
85 Arhby
*1 Old Kitchen
4174 Rockled
4OO Sugu HiU
5.13 rl9l2ot75.09 9lrr/2Or7s.o7 9l9l2oras.06 rl2/2or71.OO 6l7l2orE
-$6,3{X)
-$1E,500
-$9,0oo $4s,ooo
-$6,615 -$3a,116
-$18,130 -$62,057
-$23,10O -sr5,782
$s,040 $20,s71
$29s,000
$315,0m
s370,OOO
$300,000
$lEO,OOO
Totd
$29s,OOO
$27r,969
$279,313
$264, I 18
$267,61 1
% Dlff
Not
Not
Not
Not $10,000
-$7,00o
-$7,00o
-$r2,000
s3,000
$1s,ooo
$15,0OO
$15,mO
$ls,0oo
aYo
5V.
Itr/.
9/o
8/oAvctrt
38
16. Matched Pair - Candace Solar. Princctou. NC
I I
*
{h 4.,
4
'"/:A I
I
This solar farm is located at 4839 US 70 Highway just east of Herring Road. This solar farm was completed
on October 25,2016.
Y
4
iF..-:."
I
13
r
il
t
EI
I
7t
E
--..r
:
==-=E
-:.-!
-l
:-::
-
T:*
ffi::*--*--
i;:-:::ii:i::re
L=T===:-.,*";t,
I I.
q
I
/Google Earth
39
I identified three adjoining sales to this tract aft.er development of tJle solar farm witll frontage on US 70. I
did not attempt to analyzn those sales as they have exposure to an adjacent highway and railroad track.
Those homes are therefore problematic for a matched pair analysis unless I have similar homes fronting on
a similar corridor.
I did consider a land sale and a home sale on adjoining parcels without those complications.
The lot at 499 Herring Road sold to Paradise Homes of Johnston County of NC, Inc. for $3O,0O0 in May
2Ol7 and a modular home was placed there and sold to Karen and Jason Toole on September 29, 2017. I
considered the lot sale first as shown below and then the home sale that followed.
AdJolalng Lead Sdcr Aftcr Solu Fetm Approvcd
Drte Sold Selor Prlce
A{lolalng Edor AdJurtod
Othcr TltlG Sltc Othct TotdParcel Eoler
16 Adjoins
Not
Not
Not
Addrcu
499 Herring
37 Becky
5858 Bizzell
488 Herring
Acrer
2.O3
o.87
0.88
2.73
sl 1 12017
7 /2312Or9
8/ 17 l2ot6
t2l20/2016
$3o,ooo
$24,s00
$18,ooo
$3s,ooo
$4,900
$3,600
$3o,ooo
$27,72r
$21,99o
$3s,389
Yo Difl
8o/o
27o/o
-78Vo
Sub/Pwr -$1,679
$s90
$sas
Avoregc 5o/o
Following tJle land purchase, the modular home was placed on the site and sold. I have compared tlds
modular home to the following sales to determine if the solar farm had any impact on the purchase price.
AdJolnlng Rcrldcntlel Sdcr Aftcr Solrr Fern Approvcd
Prrccl Soler Addro:r Acror Deto Sold Sdcr Prlcc
16 Adjoins 499 Hering 2.O3 9/27/2017 $215,000Not 678 wc 6.32 3l8l2OL9 $226,000Not 1810 Bayv 8.70 3126/2018 $170,OO0
Not 1795 Bayv r.78 r2lL|2OL7 $194,000
AdJolDlnt R..tdoatld Erlcr Al AdJotalag tdG. A(Ju3tGd
Prrccl tolu Addr63 TIEG EltG t-B OIA
16 Adjoins 499 Hening
Not 678wC -$10,037 -$25,0OO $24,8@ $37,275Not 1810 Bayv -$2,579 -$20,OOO $11,900 $O
Not 1795 Bayv -$1,063 $O $2I,964
i/GBA BR/BA PerL Stylc Othcr
$91.26 413 Drive Modular
$122.29 3/2.5 Det Gu Mobile Agbldgs
$72.L6 312 Drive Mobile Ag bl,{gs
$97.88 4/3 Drive Modular
Enllt
20t7
1995
2003
2017
GBA
2,356
1,848
2,356
1,942
BR/BA PrrL Oth.r Totd % Irtlf
$21s,0oo
-$s,0o0 -$7,so0 -$20,000 $220,599 -3vo
$159,321 26ot/o
i214,9O2 Oo/o
AYt
96 Dlfi Dl.trBcc
484
ao/o
The best comparable is 1795 Bay Valley as it required the least adjustrnent and was therefore most similar,
which shows a 0% impact. This signifies no impact related to the solar farm.
The range of impact identified by these matched pairs ranges are therefore -3o/o to +26/o with an average of
+87o for t]le home and an average of +5o/o for t]le lot, though the best indicator for the lot shows a $5,000
difference in the lot value due to the proximity to the solar farm or a -l2Yo impact.
40
Conclusion
T?re solar farm matched pairs shown above have similar characteristics to each other in terms ofv
population, with most of tJle projects being in areas with a l-mile radius population under 1,0OO, but with
several outliers showing solar farms in farm more urban areas.
The median income for the population within 1 mile of a solar farm is $+9,+a5 with a median housing unit
value of $182,219. Most of tJre comparables are under $350,000 in the home price, with $770,000 being
the high end of the set of matched pairs in my Larger data set.
The adjoining uses show that residential and agricultural uses al€ the predominant adjoining uses.
These figures are in line with tJle larger set of solar farms tJlat I have looked at with the predominant
adjoining uses being residential and agricultural.
fetched Pelr Sunnery Aql. U.c. By Acrc.gc 1 nllc Rrdlur l2OrO-2O19 D.t l
IYene
I AM Best
2 White Cross
3 Wagsta-If
4 Mulberry
5 Gastonia SC
6 Summit
7 White Cross II
t Tracy
9 Manatee
10 McBride
11 Conetoe
12 Beetle-Shelf
13 Courthouse
L4 Mariposa
15 Clarke Cnty
16 Candace
Clty
Goldsboro
Chapel Hill
Roxboro
Selmer
Gastonia
Moyock
Chapel Hill
Bailey
Parrish
Midland
Conetoe
Shelby
Bessemer
Stanley
White Post
Princeton
gt tc Acrca
NC 38NC 45
NC 30
TN 160
NC 35NC 2,034
NC 34NC 50
FL 1,180
NC 627
NC 91O
NC 24NC 52
NC 36vA 234
NC 54
Populrtioa
1,523
273
336
467
4,689
342
273
372
48
398
336
27A
551
7,776
578
444
Avg. Hourl-g
Utrtt
$148,375
$s19,929
$27o,72s
$771,746
$126,562
$281,731
$3 19,929
$99,219
$29r,667
$2s6,306
$96,Ooo
$t92,692
$139,404 \/
$137,884
$374,453
$107,171
uw
5.OO
5.OO
5.OO
5.OO
5.OO
80.00
2.AO
5.OO
75.00
75.00
80.00
4.00
5.OO
5.OO
20.00
5.00
Topo
Ahtft
2
50
6
50
48
4
35
10
20
140
2
52
150
95
70
22
50
47
150
2
RG.
3AY6
5o/o
7o/o
l3Yo
331io
4Vo
25o/o
29y"
2Yo
72o/o
5o/o
22o/o
48o/o
4AYo
74Vo
760/o
AglRcr
23o/o
5lo/o
AgYo
10%
23o/o
94Yo
TSyo
7 lo/o
l%o
TAYo
78o/o
O%o
52o/o
52o/o
461io
OYo
Ag
Oo/o
44o/o
4Vo
73o/o
Oo/o
OYo
OYo
Oo/o
97Yo
lOYo
l7o/o
77o/o
OVio
Oo/o
39%o
24V"
24o/o
7Yo
97o/o
Oo/o
39o/o
Oo/o
Oo/o
3o/o
44o/o
2o/o
OYo
Oo/o
Oo/o
OYo
Oo/o
lYo
Oo/o
Oo/o
lo/o
Oo/o
6%0
Oo/o
44o/o
Oo/o
Oo/o
fcd.
Inconc
$37,3s8
$67,477
$41,368
$40,936
$3s,os7
$79,1 14
$67,47r
$43,940
$7s,ooo
$63,678
$37,160
$s3,s41
$45,968
$36,43e
$81,O22
$s1,002
Com/Iud
AYCragc
Ucdlen
HIgh
Lor
Slider Solar NC
346 23.46
51 5.OO
2,034 80.00
24 2.AO
41
24Yi"
Ta%o
760/o
2Yo
460/o
52o/o
94o/o
Oo/o
777 $53,533
390 $48,485
4,689 $81,02248 $3s,Os7
$2o4,6t2
$782,279
$374,453
$96,ooo
44o/o 2lo/o 35o/o 1,166 $57,008 $178,042
I have pulled 27 matched pairs from the above referenced solar farms to provide the following summary of
home sale matched pairs and land sales next to solar farms. The sunmary shows that the range of
differences is from -5% to +7yo with an average of +2o/o and median of +lVo. This means that the average
and median impact is for a slight positive impact due to adjacenry to a solar farm. However, this 17o rate is
within the typical variability I would expect from real estate. I therefore conclude that this data shows no
negative or positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm.
Similarly, the 7 land sales shows a medizrn impact of OVo due to adjacency to a solar farm. The range of
tJrese adjustrnents range from -l2o/o to +l7%o. Land prices tend to vary more widely than residential homes,
which is part of that greater range. I consider this data to support no negative or positive impact due to
adjacenry to a solar farm.
v
Residential Dwelllng Matched Palr Adloining Solar Farms
Pair SolarFarm City St te Area
1 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban
2 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban
3 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban
4 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban
5 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban
5 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban
7 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban
8 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban
9 Mulberry Selmer TN Rural
10 Mulberry Selmer TN Rural
11 Mulberry Selmer TN Rural
12 Mulberry Selmer TN Rural
13 Mulberry Selmer TN Rural
14 Neal Hawkins Gastonia NC Suburban
15 Summit Moyock NC Suburban
16 Summit Moyock NC Suburban
17 White Cross ll Chapel Hill NC Rural
18 Trary Bailey NC Rural
19 Manatee Parrish FL Rural
20 McBride Place Midland NC Rural
21 Conetoe Conetoe NC Rural
22 Beetle-Shelby Mooresboro NC Rural
23 Courthouse Bessemer NC Rural
24 Mariposa Stanley NC Suburban
25 Mariposa Stanley NC Suburban
26 Clarke Cnty White Post VA Rural
27 Candace Princeton NC Suburban
4t
Tax lD/Address Sale tHe Sale Price Adj. Sale Price % Diff
36m195570 Sep-13 s25o,(m36m198928 Mar-14 s250,0m s250,m0 @6
36m195351 Sep-13 S260,m36m194813 Apt-14 S258,(m S258,m r%
36m199891 Jul-14 S2$,(m36m198928 Mar-14 5250,0@ S250,m M
35m198632 Aug-14 s253,0m
36m193710 0ct-13 s248,0m s248,m 2%
36m196556 Dec-13 s255,0m3601105180 Dec-13 S253,0m S253,(m r%
36m182511 Feb-13 s247,W36m83905 Dec-12 s240,0m s245,m r%
3ffit82784 Apr-13 s245,0m36m193710 0ct-13 s248,0m s248,m -t%
35m195:t51 Nov-15 s257,5m36m195361 Sep-13 S260,0m S267,8m @6
GXnA011 Jul-14 s130,0mo9!,cA043 Feb-15 s148,9m s86,988 -5%
GBCAm2 Jul-15 s130,0mGX'0NA040 Mar-15 s120,0m su!2m 7%
491 Dusty Oct-15 S175,0misapril Aug-16 S185,ocD 5178,283 -1%
2g7country Sep-16 S150,0m
53Glen Mar-17 s125 0m St4/,,M 4%
57 Cooper Feb-19 S163,0m1g1Amelia Aug-18 S132,(m 5$5,947 4%139179 Mar-17 S270,0m139179 Mar-17 s270,0m s270,m0 Wo
129 Pinto Apr-16 s170,0O
102 Timber Apr-16 s175,5m s169,451 W6
105 Pinto Dec-16 S205,0m
127 Ranchland Jun-15 5219,9C[) 5191,278 6%
2018 Elkins Feb-15 $/m,O(D
42mB Old Greensbor Dec-15 S38O,0m $29,438 3%
9162 Winters Jan-17 S255,0m
7352 Red Fox Jun-16 5175,0@ 5252,399 t%
1!1670 Highland Aug-18 S255,0m
1!1851 Highland Sep-18 S24O,0@ 5255,825 A6
4380Joyner Nov-17 5325,0003870Elkwood Aug-16 5250,0@ 5317,523 2%
287leigh Mar-16 S310m
63 Brittany Jul-16 s18,0m s30,372 2%
1715Timber Oct-18 S415,0m
1021 Posting Feb-19 9140m 5398,275 4%
2ill4Tryon Court. Mar-17 S111,0m
5550 Lennox Oct-18 S115,0m 5106,355 4%
215 Mariposa Dec-17 S249,0O
110 Airport May-16 S166,(m 589,026 4%
242 Mariposa Sep-15 518O,0mlloAirport Apr-16 S165,m 5175,043 3%
833 Nations Spr Jan-17 S29t0m
541Old Kitchen Sep-18 5370,0@ $219,3t3 S%
499 Herring Sep-17 S215,0m
1795 Bay Valley Dec-17 s194,0m 52t4,$2 016
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
80
80
2.8
75
75
80
5
MW
Appmx
Distance
280
280
280
2N
280
2g
280
280
/m
tm
480
650
685
275
1,060
2,020
t,479
780
1180
275
1515
945
375
1155
570
12:t0
488
4
5
5
5
20
5
42
land Sale Matched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms
Pair Solar Farm City State Area
1 White Cross Chapel Hill NC Rural
Average
Median
High
Low
MW Tax lDlAddress Sale Date Sale Prlce Acres $/ACs 974a3367]70 Jul-13 S265,m0 47.20 55,614
9747tU527 Nov-10 5351,000 59.09 56,109s 91817117960 Aug-13 5154,000 18.82 58,7t4
918m759812 Dec-13 S130,0m 14.88 58,7375 316003 Jul-15 S70,0m 13.22 Ss,29s
6056 oct-16 S164,0m 4L00 54,000
5 5021 Buckland Mar-18 s58,5m 9.66 s6,056Kiser Nov-17 s69,0m fi.65 53,9095 174339 Jun-18 5160,000 zt.ts 57,565
2278s2 May-18 S9Z0m rc.57 59,7n5 227039 Dec-17 S65,s00 6.85 59,694
777322 May-t7 s55,500 5.23 572,715
5 49!l Herring May-17 $0,m0 2.03 SLA,nB
zl88 Herring Dec-15 $5,m0 2.17 515,129
Average
Median
High
Low
2 Wagstaff
3 Tracy
4 Courthouse
5 Mariposa
5 Mariposa
7 Candace
MW
18.96
5.m
80.m
2.80
Roxboro NC
Bailey NC
Bessemer NC
Stanley NC
Stanley NC
Princeton NC
Avg.
Distance
674
480
2,020
275
Ru ral
Rural
Rural
Sub
Sub
Sub
%Daf
2%
L%
7%
-5%
%Dilt
Adj.
s/Ac
ss,278
58,737
Sa,am
Ss,19o
57,s65
59,5%
S1G,o1s
6%
@5
t7%
r4%\J
w
Wo
-12%
Average
Median
Hlgh
Low
5.00
5.m
5.m
5.@
AYerage
Medlan
High
[ow
4%
@5
t7%
-t2%
43
II. Harrrony of Use/CompatibiliW
I have researched over 600 solar farms and sites on which solar farms are proposed in North Carolina and
Virginia as well as other states to determine what uses and types of areas are compatible and harmonious
with a solar farm. The data I have collected and provide in this report strongly supports the compatibility of
solar liarms with adjoining agricultLlral and residential uses. While I have focused on adjoining uses, I note
tJlat there are many examples of solar farms being located within a quarter mile of residential developments,
including such notable developments as Governor's Club in Chapel Hill, which has a solar farm within a
quarter mile as you can see on the following aerial map. Governor's Club is a gated golf community with
homes selling for $300,000 to over $2 million.
The subdivisions included in the matched pair analysis also show an acceptance of residential uses
adjoining solar farms as a harmonious use.
Beyond these anecdotal references, I have quantified the adjoining uses for a number of solar farm
comparables to derive a breakdown of the adjoining uses for each solar farm. The chart below shows the
breakdown of adjoining or abutting uses by total acreage.
It.
,I
L
I
a
44
7Wo
Rcr =Sub =
I have also included a breakdown of each solar farm by number of adjoining parcels rather than acreage.
Using botl: factors provides a more complete picture of the neiglrboring properties.
Average
Median
High
Low
Average
Median
High
Low
L996
LL%
LW
Wo
6t%
65%
Lm9'
@6
s3%
57%
7ffi%
0%
24%
2@6
L0fJ/o
o%
2Wo 8%
o%
96%
Wo
v6
2L5
4,670
25
u9
661
483s
90
7%
o%
95%
W"
t%
@6
Wo
(Yo
8%
w6
6%
w6
78%
W.
345
2t5
4,570
25
848
551
483s
90
4%
o%
78%
o%
Ind = Indurtrld.Con =
92%
L0fJ.Yo
L0p96
M
94%
10096
L0f,6
22%
9%
5%
LO(]/o
o%
2%
M
Wo
W"
Rcr =
Both of the above charts show a marked residential and agricultural adjoining use for most solar farms.
Every single solar farm considered included an adjoining residential or residential agricultural use. These
comparable solar farms clearly support a compatibility with adjoining residential uses along with
agricultural uses.
Ind = Indurtrld.Con =Sub =
Avg. Ust Closest
to Home Home
AllRes AllComm
Uses Uses
By Adjoining Acreage
Res Res/AG Comm lnd
Total Solar Farmr Conrldered: 493
Avg. Dist Closest
to Home Home
By Number of Parcels Adjoining
Res Comm lnd
AllRes AllComm
Uses
Total Soler Farnr Coarldered: 493
UI. Summary of Local Solar Fanrr Proiects
On the following pages I have included a summary of solar farms in Randolph and adjoining
counties to show the typical location, adjoining uses, and distances to homes in the area.
45
Avg.Dlrt Clor..t A{Jotntn3u..btAcr.
to hono Hono Rcr Agt Agrl/Ro ConIh.tnc
AYarrSa
Xcdler
HrCh
Lor
Totd
Output Acrcr
lxsl
Urcd
AcrcrPrrccl I County Clty
6 Chatham Chapel Hill
19 Chatham Chapel Hill
39 Chatham SilerCity
107 MontgomeryTroy
142 Moore West End
143 Moore West End
148 Randolph Trinity
161 Chatham Siler City
163 Chatham Siler City
166 Moore Aberdeen
187 Alamance Graham
193 Randolph Climax
2O2 Moore West End
203 Moore Candor
210 Moore Carthage
214 Randolph Liberty
232 Moore Biscoe
236 Moore Robbins
286 Chatham SilerCity
307 Randolph Denton
308 Randolph Asheboro
309 Randolph Seagrove
313 Alamance Elon
326 Randolph Liberty
327 Randolph Asheborc
328 Randolph NewHope
329 Randolph Asheboro
349 Davidson Denton
352 Montgomery Mount Gilead
378 Davidson lexington
393 Alamance Graham
zK)4 Chatham Moncure
453Davidson Thomasville
464 Randolph Lib€(y
481 Guilford Whitsett
487 Randolph Asheboro
SOSDavidson Ttromasville
522 Moore West End
550 MontgomeryCandor
619 Davidson Denton
Strata 1.57
Vickers 2
Pittr 5
Haywood
Pine Valley 4.996
Pinesage 4.996
Trinity
West Siler Suits
Siler 42I
Moorc I 2.66
Ebkatsias 4.996
Climax
Higlway 211
Spicewood 6.4
SedberryFam 5
Henry 5
Dabestani 2.496
Mustang
Pega.sus 2.69
Hopkins
Hopewell Ftiends
MomingView
Manning
Kendall 5
Old Cedar
Zelda
Spencer Meadow-Ipse
Quincy
Gilead
Lexington 64
lOO3 Whitney
Flatwood
Thomasville 30
Ridgeback
West River Solar 40
T?runderhead 2
Clarksbury
Gladstone Farm
Whiskey Solar 6.986
Healing Springs
14.154
98.57
47.92
99. 16
89.44
141.9
64.41
195.07
60.06
25. I
25.52
4A.O7
308.05
40.16
31.38
N,2
28.15
49.71
104.9
t7
16.2
102.53
67.43
68. 16
45.48
21
70.8:l
189.02
1o2.67
tt7.r3
142.47
.+6.8
367.48
37.96
429
37.3
49.2
72.44
85.19
433.84
14.19
12.6
47.92
53
37.4A
625
830
1,894
625
1.,174
545
3A2
347
661
1,538
655
422
521
328
504
7,528
248
884
989
&a
275
140
1,060
340
450
250
205
190
191
67
331
250
110
80
95
150
825
255
205
205
200
lOOo/o
2lo/o
2o/o
25o/o
7Vo
2Oo/o
38o/o
13o/o
78o/o
19o/o
4lo/o
77Vo
4o/o
3o/o
75o/o
24o/o
62Vo
l0oP/o
l3o/o
75o/o
IOOP/o
23o/"
27o/o
25%
49o/o
lOVo
lgYo
47o/o
3o/o
3Oo/o
3OYo
l4Vo
gAVo
44Vo
lOVo
630/o
5o/o
8o/o
l3%6
23o/o
U/o
58o/o
680/o
1U/o
6o/o
8Oo/o
29o/o
57Vo
78o/o
8lo/o
Oo/o
6l%o
960/o
Oo/o
5lo/o
50o/o
3tr/o
Oo/o
87o/o
64Yo
Oo/o
7 lo/o
3T/o
75o/o
2lo/o
9U/o
OVo
48o/o
83o/o
Oo/o
59o/o
6Yo
Oo/o
53o/o
3U/o
Oo/o
4@/o
86/o
72o/o
73o/o
ff/o
73o/o
3U/o
260/o
8G/o
Oo/o
Oo/o
3ff/o
Oo/o
Oo/o
Oo/o
2T/o
Oo/o
84o/o
34o/o
2T/o
OYo
Oo/o
OVo
2lo/o
Oo/o
60/o
35o/o
OVo
Oo/o
Oo/o
8lo/o
lA/o
12o/o
640/o
llo/o
Oo/o
Oo/o
OYio
6ff/o
OVo
37/o
6Yo
l5o/o
4%o
U/o
ff/o
U/o
tr/o
8/o
U/o
33o/o
V/o
4Vo
U/o
59/o
@/o
ff/o
73o/o
U/o
4Vo
U/o
U/o
V/o
V/o
U/o
U/o
tr/o
U/o
29o/o
Oo/o
Oo/o
2o/o
lo/o
5o/o
Oo/o
79/o
T/o
3o/o
U/o
3T/o
l8/o
Oo/o
@/o
U/o
Totd Iiumbcr of Solrr F.rta.40
7.75
5.OO
40.00
r.57
101.8
67.4
433.8
t4.2
822
639
3975
2ra
3Oo/o
27o/o
\ooo/o
2Yo
45o/o
5lo/o
96o/o
A/o
10.21
lo
I 1.8
43.43
43.23
46.8
154
299
40.5
32
55.2
373.94
65.9
39.7
373.9
10.0
1,255
792
r,oa2
445
293
218
686
629
503
3,975
344
7U
445
235
520
445
135
90
2t5
175
87
470
175
90
271
205
1060
67
8o/o
U/o
79o/o
U/o
l8o/o
6Vo
84o/o
OVo
31.38
29.21
38.81
22.71
43. l9
46
IV. Specific Factors on Harmony rrith the Area
I have completed a number of Impact Studies related to a variet5r of uses and I have found tJlat tJ,e most
corunon areas for impact on adjoining values typically follow the following hierarchy with descending levels
of potential impact. I will discuss each of these categories and how they relate to a solar farm.
i. Hazardous material
2. Odor3. Noise
4. Traffic
5. Stigma
6. Appearance
1. Hazardous material
The solar farm presents no potential hazardous waste b5product as part of normal operation. Any fertilizer,
weed control, vehicular tra.ffic, or construction will be significantly less than typically applied in a residential
development or even most agricultural uses.
The various solar farms that I have inspected and identified in the addenda have no known environmental
impacts associated with the development and operation.
2. Odor
The various solar farms that I have inspected produced no odor.
3. Noise
Whether discussing passive fixed solar panels, or single-axis trackers, there is no negative impact
associated with noise from a solar farm. The transformer reportedly has a hum similar to an FIVAC that
can only be heard in close proximity to this transformer and tJ'e buffers on the property are su.fficient to
make emitted sounds inaudible from the adjoining properties. No sorrnd is emitted from the facility at
niCht.
The various solar farms that I have inspected were inaudible from the roadways.
4. TraIIic
The solar farm will have no onsite employee's or staff. The site requires only minimal maintenance. Relative
to other potential uses of the site (such as a residential subdivision), the additional tra.ffic generated by a
solar farm use on this site is insignificant.
5. Stigma
There is no stigma associated with solar farms and solar farms and people generally respond favorably
towards such a use. While an individual may express concems about proximity to a solar farm, tJ:ere is no
specific stigma associated with a solar farm. Stigma generally refers to things such as adult establishments,
prisons, rehabilitation facilities, and so forth.
Solar panels have no associated stigma and in smaller collections are found in yards and roofs in many
residential communities. Solar panels on a roof are often cited as an enhancement to the property in
marketing brochures.
I see no basis for an impact from stigma due to a solar farm. --
47
6. Appearance
Although "appearance" has been ruled by NC Courts to be irrelwant to the issue of "harmony with afi area,'
I note that larger solar farms using fixed or tracking panels are a passive use of the land that is considered
in keeping with a rural/residential area. As shown below, solar farms are comparable to larger
greenhouses. T?ris is not surprising given that a greenhouse is essentially another method for collecting
passive solar enerry. The greenhouse use is well received in residential ln:lal areas and has a similar visual
impact as a solar farm.
The solar panels are all less tJlan 15 feet high, which means that the visual impact of the solar panels will
be similar in height to a typical greenhouse and lower than a single story residential dwelling. Were the
subject prope(y developed with single family housing, that development would have a much greater visual
impact on the surrorrnding area given that a two-story home with attic could be three to four times as high
as these proposed panels.
7. Conelusion
On the basis of the factors described above, it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm will
be in harmony with the area in which it is to be developed. The breakdown of adjoining uses is similar to
the other solar farms tracked.
re
.-\.a-
.---*.-T4
\
Ia
*
H *---.r&lf
=rEqilir,,l
rffi
48
V. Conclusion
The matched pair analysis shows no impact in home values due to abutting or adjoining a solar farm as
well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or agricultural land. The criteria that typically
correlates with downward adjustments on property values such as noise, odor, and traffic all indicate that a
solar farm is a compatible use for rural/residential transition areas and that it would function in a
harmonious manner wit]l this area.
Very similar solar farms in very similar areas have been found by hundneds of towns and counties not to
have a substantial injury to abutting or adjoining properties, and many of tleose findings of no impact have
been upheld by N.C. Courts or overtLlrned by N.C. Courts when a board found otherwise (see, for example
Dellinger u. Linmln Countgl. Similar solar f;arms have been approved adjoining agrictrltural uses, schools,
churches, and residential developments. Industrial uses rarely absorb negative impacts from adjoining
llSES.
Based on the data and analysis in this report, it is my professional opinion that tJle solar farm proposed at
the subject property will have no impact on tfre value of adjoining or abutting property and that tle
proposed use is in harmony with the area in which it is located. I note that some of the positive
implications of a solar farm that have been expressed by people living next to solar farms include protection
from future development of residential developments or other more intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and
chemicals from former farming operations, protection from liglrt pollution at niglrt, it's quiet, and there is no
trafEc.
If you have any further questions please call me any time.
Sincerely,
//,\-
Nicholas D. Kirkland
Trainee Appraiser
,(_-
Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI
State Certified General Appraiser
{-t,"7t
v
t
49
Limiting Conditions and Assumptions
Acceptance of and/or use of this report constitutes acceptance of the following limiting
conditions and assumptions; these can only be modified by written documents executed by
both parties.
* The basic limitation of this and any appraisal is that the appraisal is an opinion of value, and is, therefore,
not a guarantee that the property would sell at exactly the appraised value. The market price may differ from
the market value, depending upon the motivation and knowledge of the buyer and/or seller, and may,
therefore, be higher or lower than the market value. The market value, as defined herein, is an opinion of the
probable price that is obtainable in a market free of abnormal influences.
* I do not assume any responsibilit5r for the legal description provided or for matters pertaining to legal or title
considerations. I assume that the title to the property is good and marketable unless otherwise stated.
* I am appraising the property as though free and clear of any and all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise
stated.
.!. I assume that the property is under responsible ownership and competent property management.
a I believe the information furnished by others is reliable, but I give no warranty for its accuracy
.:. I have made no survey or engineering study of the property and assume no responsibility for such matters.
All engineering studies prepared by others are assumed to be correct. The plot plans, surveys, sketches and
any other illustrative material in this report are included only to help the reader visualize the propert5r. The
illustrative material should not be considered to be scaled accurately for size.
.3. I assume that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render
it more or less valuable. I take no responsibility for such conditions or for obtaining the engineering studies
that may be required to discover them.
* I assume that the property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including
environmental regulations, unless the lack of compliance is stated, described, and considered in this
appraisal report.
.:. I assume that the property conforms to all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions unless
nonconformity has been identihed, described and considered in this appraisal report.
.:. I assume that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, and other legislative or administrative
authority from any local, state, or national government or private entit5r or organization have been or can be
obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based.
* I assume that the use of the land and improvements is confined within the boundaries or property lines of the
property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in ttris report.
a I am not qualihed to detect the presence of floodplain or wetlands. Any information presented in this report
related to these characteristics is for this analysis only. The presence of floodplain or wetlands may allect the
value of the property. If the presence of floodplain or wetlands is suspected the property owner would be
advised to seek professional engineering assistance.
.:. For this appraisal, I assume that no hazardous substances or conditions are present in or on the propert5r.
Such substances or conditions could include but are not limited to asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foaminsulation, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum leakage or underground storage tanks,
electromagnetic fields, or agricultural chemicals. I have no knowledge of any such materials or conditions
unless otherwise stated. I make no claim of technical knowledge with regard to testing for or identiffing such
hazardous materials or conditions. The presence of such materials, substances or conditions could allect the
value of the property. However, the values estimated in this report are predicated on the assumption that
there are no such materials or conditions in, on or in close enough proximit5r to the property to cause a loss in
value. Ttre client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired.
* Unless otherwise stated in this report the subject property is appraised without a specific compliance survey
having been conducted to determine if the property is or is not in confonnance with the requirements of the
50
Americans with Disabilities Act (effective 1126/92l,. Ttre presence of architectural and/or communications
barriers that are structural in nature that would restrict access by disabled individuals may adversely a{fect--.
the propert5r's value, marketabilit5r, or utilit5r.
* Any allocation of the total value estimated in this report between the land and the improvements applies only
under the stated program of utilization. The separate values allocated to the land and buildings must not be
used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used.
A Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication.
* I have no obligation, by reason of this appraisal, to give further consultation or testimony or to be in
attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless further arrangements have been made
regarding compensation to Kirkland Appraisals, LLC.
* Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of
the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through
advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior written consent and approval of
Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, and then only with proper qualifications.
* Any value estimates provided in this report apply to the entire property, and any proration or division of the
total into fractional interests will invalidate the value estimate, unless such proration or division of interests
has been set forth in the report.
.!. Any income and expenses estimated in this report are for the purposes of this analysis only and should not be
considered predictions of future operating results.
A This report is not intended to include an estimate of any personal property contained in or on the property,
unless otherwise state.
.:. This report is subject to the Code of Professional Ethics of the Appraisal Institute and complies with the
requirements of the State of North Carolina for State Certihed General Appraisers. This report is subject to
the certification, definitions, and assumptions and limiting conditions set forth herein.
.:. The analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed based on, and this report has been prepared in
conformance with, our interpretation of the guidelines and recommendations set forth in the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of i989 (FIRREA).
* This is a Real Propert5r Appraisal Consulting Assignment.
v
51
@rtiftcation
I certiff that, to the best of my knowledge and beliefi
The statements offact contained in this report are true and correct;
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions,
and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions;
I have no present or prospective interest in the propert5r that is the subject ofthis report and no personal interest with
respect to the parties involved;
I have no bias with respect to the propert5r that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this
assignment;
My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results;
My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a
predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the
attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of the
appraisal;
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformit5l
with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the
Appraisal Institute;
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7
8.
9.
10.
11.
t2.
13.
The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity
with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
fire use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized
representatives;
I have not made a personal inspection of the propert5r that is the subject of this report and;
No one provided significant real propert5r appraisd assistance to the person signing this certification.
As of the date of this report I have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal
Institute;
I have completed a similar impact analysis for the same client on the same project in 2016 as detailed earlier in this
report,
Disclosure of the contents of this appraisal report is governed by the bylaws and regulations of the Appraisal Institute and the
National Association of Realtors.
Neither all nor any part of the contents of this appraisal report shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media,
public relations media, news media, or any other public means of communications without the prior written consent and
approval of the undersigned.
k/u',<--
Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI
State Certified General Appraiser
Nicholas D. Kirkland
Trainee Appraiser
oollt
1
52
Kirkland
Appraisals, LLC
Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI
94O8 Northfield Crurt
Raleigh, North Carolina 27 603
Mobile (9191414-8142
rkirkland2@snail.com
www. kirklandappraisals. com
PRoFl'ss,offez EEPERIE N cE
Ifttrland Appraisalr, ILC, Raleigh, N.C
Commercial appraiser
Herter & CoEDany, Raleigfr, N.C.
Commercial appraiser
2003 - Present
1996 - 2003
PRoI.Ess,o,YAL AF T tr,IATI oN s
MAI (Member, Appraisal Institute) designation #11796
NC State Certtfied General Appralser # A4359
VA State Certified General Apprai:er # 4OOlOl729l
SC State Certtfied General Apprairer # 6209
FL State Certilied Gi'eneral Appraiser # R23950
IL State Cettified Geaeral Appraiser # 553.002633
OR State Certified Gcneral Apprairer # COOL2O4
Eoucertox
Bachelor of Arts in EngliBh, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
2001
1999
1993
CoNTtrU,}IG EDUcsTIoN
lncome Approach Case Studies for Commercial Appraisers
Introduction to Expert Witness Testimony for Appraisers
Appraising Small Apartrnent Properties
Florida Appraisal [.aws and Regulations
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update
Appraisal of REO and Foreclosure Properties
Appraisal of Self Storage Facilities
Land and Site Valuation
NCDOT Appraisal Principles and Procedures
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update
Forecasting Revenue
Wind Turbine Effect on Value
Supervisor/Trainee Class
Business Practices and Ethics
Subdivision Valuation
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update
Lrtroduction to Vineyard and Winery Valuation
Appraising Rural Residential Pnoperties
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update
Supervisors/Trainees
Rates and Ratios: Making sense of GIMs, OARs, and DCFs
Advanced Internet Search Strategies
Analyzing Distressed Real Estate
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update
2018
2018
20t8
2018
2018
2017
2017
20t7
2017
20t6
2015
2015
2015
2014
2014
2014
20t3
2012
20t2
20tr20ll20tl
20tl20ll v
Business Practices and Ethics
Appraisal Currictrlum Overview (2 Days - General)
Appraisal Review - General
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update
Subdivision Valuation: A Comprehensive Guide
Office Building Valuation: A Contempora5r Perspective
Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate
The Appraisal of Small Subdivisions
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update
Evaluating Commercial Construction
Conservation Easements
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update
Condemnation Appraising
Land Valuation Adjustment Procedures
Supporting Capitalization Rates
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, C
Wells and Septic S5rstems and Wastewater lrrigation S5rstems
Appraisals 2002
Analyzing Commercial kase Clauses
Conservation Easements
Preparation for Litigation
Appraisal of Nonconforming Uses
Advanced Applications
Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis
Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches
Advanced Income Capitalization
Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate
Report Writing and Valuation Analysis
Property Tax Values and Appeals
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, A & B
Basic Income Capitalization
20tL
20,09
2009
2008
2008
2008
2007
2007
2006
2005
200s
2004
2004
2004
2004
2002
2002
2002
2002
2000
2000
2000
2000
1999
1999
1998
1999
t999
1997
t997
1996
53
Operations and
Maintenance Plan
Proposed Operations and Maintenance Plan
Slider Solar, LLC
Randolph County, North Carolina
Contact Information
For all non-emergency correspondence during the operation of the solar farm, parties should
direct inquiries to the following Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Provider:
Company: TBD
Attention: TBD
Phone: TBD
Email: TBD
Address: TBD
Maintenance Services
During the operational life of the Slider Solar project, the Operations and Maintenance Provider
shall provide services at the approximated frequency outlined below. It is expected that the
Provider shall make every effort to note items of concern outside of the scope of scheduled
visits, inspecting, and assessing items that may be problematic. For the avoidance of doubt, any
mention of reports or notifications shall be directed from the Operations and Maintenance
Provider to the owner of Slider Solar, and not to the County, unless obligated to do so by
County, State, or Federal regulations.
Item Service Service Description Frequency
1. Monitoring, Reporting, Inventory
Ll Daily
Monitoring
Monitor inverter and meter output data for
recordkeeping and to identify issues
Daily
t.2 Monthly
Reporting
Provide monthly operating report for the project
that may include a summary of the following:
operations, weather data, project performance,
any environmental or site disturbances,
safety/accident reports, maintenance and
inspection reports, any proposed maintenance for
the upcoming month.
Monthlv
1.3 Annual
Reporting
Provide annual maintenance and inspection
reports for the project's preceding operational
year.
Annually
1.4 Incident and
Maintenance
Reporting
Provide a written report of any event involving
unplamed services, personnel injury occurring
on site, or any material damage to the project.
No later than five
(5) business days
after the
occulTence, or
immediately for
OSHA recordable
events, but no\-1
later than 24
hours.
1.5 Security
lncident
Reporting
Notify facility owner following Provider
receiving information indicating a security issue
on site.
Immediately, but
no later than 24
hours.
1.6 Spare Parts Storage and maintenance of replacement
equipment for the facility. Storage may occur on
site or at a separate storage facility.
As Needed
2. Site/Land lnspection and Maintenance
2.1 Vegetation
Management
Maintain vegetation, remove debris, and other
general landscaping for all property within the
fenced area as well all property immediately
surrounding the fence, as is reasonable.
As Needed
2.2 Perimeter and
Fence
Inspection
Inspect all fencing for possible damage,
intrusion, and overgrowth of nearby vegetation.
Inspect signage to ensure all originally installed
signs are securely attached and legible
Twice per Year
2.3 Road
lnspection
lnspect all roads for damage caused by erosion or
severe weather.
Twice per Year
2.4 Security
Inspection
Inspect the entire facility for signs of vandalism
or other security related issues.
Twice per Year
3. DC-Side System lnspection
3.1 Racking
Inspection
Inspect all racking, racking mounts, and
conduiting affixed to racking for any signs of
damage, corrosion, or instability.
Once per Year
3.2 Module
Inspection
Visually inspect 25o/o sampling of modules for
soiling, breakage, delamination, and discoloring
The sample area shall systematically rotate each
year so that the whole facility is inspected every
4 years. Inspections may be done on foot or by
aerial visual analysis.
Once per Year
J.J Broken Module
Replacement
lf broken modules have previously been
identified or are identified at the time of routine
inspection, Provider will replace them with new
modules at the sole expense of the facility owner
As Needed
3.4 Wire Inspection Visually inspect wiring for damage or exposed
conductors.
Twice per Year
3.5 Combiner Box
Inspections
Electrical and mechanical inspection of combiner
boxes and associated disconnects. Visually
inspect bonding bushings and grounding, check
for wire damage especially at entrance/exit
locations, terminal corrosion, any discoloration,
and inspect fuses for proper functionality.
Remove pest debris as needed.
Twice per Year
\-/
3.6 Combiner Box
Torque
Inspections
Confirm and correct terminal torque settings for
both sides of all fuse holders, grounded terminal
bar, grounding bar, PV output circuit, and DC
disconnects.
Once per Year
4. AC-Side System lnspection
4.1 Inverter
Inspection
Perform routine maintenance work on all
inverters. Maintenance shall be conducted in
accordance with manufacturer's recommended
schedule and as dictated by any warranty
requirements.
As outlined by
manufacturer
4.2 Inverter Air
Filters and
Transformer
Heat Sinks
lnspect all air filters for each inverter and heat
sinks. If necessary, clean and/or replace.
As outlined by
manufacturer, but
no less than 4
times per year
4.3 Transformer
Inspection
Visually inspect and clean, as needed, all
transformers as specified by manufacturer
Once per Year
4.4 AC Disconnect Inspect all latches and seals on enclosure of
disconnect to ensure it functions correctly.
Visually inspect terminations and confirm
terminal torque settings. Check for evidence of
arcing.
Once per Year
5. DAS/SCADE Inspection
5.1 General DAS
lnspection
Perform monitoring system maintenance per
manufacturer' s suggested schedule. Verify
attachment and general orientation of
pyranometers and module temperature sensors,
as well as check MET station and verify
functionality of back-up power supply.
Once per Year
5.2 Pyranometers Clean pyranometer dome with an approved cloth Each site visit
5.3 Pyranometer
Calibration
Provider to work with facility owner to calibrate
pyranometer as per manufacturer's
specifications.
As Specified by
Manufacturer
5.4 Data/Instrument
Accuracy and
Communication
Verification
Test MET station sensors (GHI and POA
pyranometers, ambient temperature, back of each
module sensor, anemometer, meter, and inverter
communication)
Once per Year
6. Testing
6.1 IV Curve String
Testing or
Module Level
Thermal Audit
Test IV curve on all strings or thermal audit on
all modules
Once per Year
6.2 Thermal
Imaging
Thermal imaging of all overcurrent protection
devices (OCPD) and bolted electrical
connections, these include combiners,
disconnects, inverters, and transformers.
Once per Year
6.3 Transfer Oil
Testing
Sample transformer oil and test in accordance
with nationally recognized testing standards and
methods
Once every other
Year
6.4 Point-to-Point
Testing
Inspect a randomly selected sample of combiner
boxes (roughly 5-10%) and modules, checking
the grounding for wear, corrosion, connection
strength, and point-to-point resistance between
modules, rack, and EGC. All locations and
resistances shall be documented. Identify any
resistance readings above 0.5 ohms.
Once per Year
Decommissioning
Plan
Decommissioniug Plan- Slider Solar" LLC
Randolph County Parcel: 77 15861937
When the facility is abandoned or permanently ceases to produce energy for sale to the utility,
the operator of the facility will do the following, at a minimum, to decommission the project.
I . The anticipated life of the solar facility is between 35-45 years.
2. The anticipated decommissioning process is as follows:
(a) Remove all non-utility owned equipment, structures, fencing, foundations, and
conduiting, including equipment that may be buried below grade.
(b) Remove all graveled areas and access roads, if any, unless the owner of the
leased property requests that they remain in place.
(c) Decommissioning shall be completed within three hundred and sixty-five
(365) days of abandonment or the cessation of the solar facility's operation.
3. The operator of the facility is responsible for the decommissioning process and shall
be responsible for all expenses to restore the property back to a condition similar to its state prior
to the construction of the facility, as per the Ground Lease Agreement between landlord and
tenant, having an effective date of May 7 ,2018.
4. Within 30 days of the facility reaching Mechanical Completion, Slider Solar, LLC will
provide a decommissioning surety, in favor of Randolph County, by either cash deposit,
performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or other instrument readily convertible into cash at
face value. Prior to issuing the surety, Slider Solar shall obtain a decommissioning estimate,
under seal, by a third-party engineer licensed in North Carolina. This decommissioning estimate
shall include both the cost of decommissioning and removing the equipment, as well as the fair
market salvage value of all of Slider Solar's equipment. The value of the surety shall be 125o/o of
the difference between the decommissioning cost and the fair market salvage value.
Slider Solar, LLC
Print Name
Title:
By
Date:
Tax Base
Enhancement
a
,.\
-
I'
*a
O
Lt{\
]lr
*
T
t
I ,.g*'f t.r
I
lncreased North Carolina
County Tax Revenue from
Solar Development
NC SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY ASSOCIATION
o
-l
I
tI
*
rl$"#r
+ ?t
{-/!
t
I ncreased N orth Ca roli na
County Tax Revenue from
Solar Development
NC SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY ASSOCIATION
Authors'
Claire Carson
Daniel Brookshire
Jerry Carey
Daniel Parker
Design
Samantha Radford
About North Carotina Sustainable Energy Association
North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association (NCSEA) is a 501(c)3 non-profit advocacy
organization driving policy and market development to create clean energy jobs, economic
opportunities, and affordable energy. NCSEA has served as a respected, trusted, and
collaborative resource to North Carolina and beyond since 1978. Our goal is to cultivate
a robust clean energy system and energy economy that unifies and benefits all market
actors: consumers, businesses, the clean energy industry, and utility energy providers.
NC SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY ASSOCIATION2 North Carotina Property Tax Revenue from Sotar Development
Overview
Over the past decade, North Carolina has been a national leader in solar energy deployment. Most
of the solar energy capacity built in North Carolina has come from utility-scale facilities constructed
and f inanced by private solar companies, which have created thousands of jobs and have directly
invested a combined $11.6 billion, mostly in economically-challenged (Tier 1 and Tier 2) rural
counties across the state.l
Increased property tax revenue due to solar development is an economic benefit to counties across
North Carolina. Using publicly available property tax data from 50 North Carolina Counties, this
report quantifies the tax revenue increase on properties that NCSEA identified as having solar
developed on them through 2017. Overall, the properties with solar facilities paid almost $10.6
million in property taxes in the year after the facilities were developed compared to only $513
thousand in the prior year; a nearly 2,OOO percent increase. Chart t highlights the experience of 10
counties, showing the total property taxes collected on parcels where solar facilities were built, in
the year prior to and year after construction. Tax data for the 50 counties included in this study is in
Appendix 1.
Chart 1. Annual Propefi Taxes Paid on Reat Estate Parcets with Sotar Projects
.Data represents taxes collected in the year before and after a large solar project was built.
Source: County Tax Offices, North Carolina Utilities Commission and NCSEA Renewable Energy Database
s7m.000
$600,000
$500.000
$400.000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
SO II
*t" ""..* "rC
.."
"*s
{r'9- *"" $.*"'
".a"t-
."'"-
: Before Solar rAfter Solar
'1. RTI lnternational. Economic lmpact Analysis of Cleon Energy Development in North Corolino-2)l9 lJpdate. May 2019.
NC SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY ASSOCIATION3 North Carotina Property Tax Revenue from Sotar Devetopment U
I
North Carolina Property Taxes and Abatements Primer
ln North Carolina, real estate taxes are the responsibility of counties and cities. The taxes are based
on a valuation of all property in a county/city. The taxes consist of two parts - 1) real property taxes,
consisting of land and buildings, and 2) personal property taxes, consisting of equipment such as
trucks, machinery, and solar equipment. Solar systems increase both real property and personal
property taxes (Map i). Solar increases the real property taxes paid on a parcel of land by classifying
the land as having a "commercial" use, which increases the assessed real property taxes. Solar
increases personal property tax revenue because valuable new solar equipment is installed on the
property. Often, solar systems additionally pay a roll back tax that reclaims three back years of real
property tax if the property formerly had a 75 percent tax reduction for agricultural use. ln almost all
cases, the private owners of the solar facilities, and not the rural landowners, pay all three of
these taxes.
Discussions of eliminating North Carolina's personal property tax abatement for solar energy have
claimed that solar costs the counties instead of benefiting them. This study makes clear that this is
not the case because even though the personal property tax on the new solar equipment receives
an 80 percent reduction in valuation (N.C. G.S. ss 105-275 section 45), the personal property tax
collected after solar has been developed is significantly more than what was previously collected.
Furthermore, the real property taxes are still assessed at a 100 percent valuation.
As one of the 35 active property tax exemptions in the state under North Carolina General Statute ss
105-275, the personal property tax abatement for solar energy is clearly attracting new development
across the state and providing significantly more property tax revenue than counties received prior
to solar installation. These new tax dollars can be used on schools and local services and are an
effective economic development tool for otherwise struggling rural parts of the state.
NC SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY ASSOCIATION4 North Carotina Property Tax Revenue from Solar Devetopment
Map 1 . Percentage lncrease in Annual Property Tax Revenue After Solar
Methodology
All tax data in this report is publicly available from county tax offices. Data was collected March
through June 2019. NCSEA used its Renewable Energy Database and county GIS maps to identify
parcels corresponding to solar installations. Tax data for each parcel was collected from either a
county's online tax bill search or by contacting the county tax administrator. The tax data is not from
a single tax year. Rather, "Before solar" tax payments are from the year before a solar installation
went online, and "after solar" data was taken one year after a solar installation went online. The one-
time rollback tax payment is included in the "after solar" data in Appendix 1 and Map 1.
This data does not include business personal property tax paid on public utility-owned solar
equipment. Public utilities are taxed by the North Carolina Department of Revenue, which passes tax
dollars back to the counties. The counties receive this tax as a lump sum and do not have visibility
to the amount of tax paid on a specific public utility asset. There are eight solar projects (166 MW
combined), including four projects larger than 5 MW, not included in this report, This significantly
underreports tax revenue since business personal property tax increases with solar project size.
For example, the 65 MW Warsaw Solar Facility in Duplin County, which is owned by a public utility,
is not included in this report. A project of the same size, Shoe Creek Solar in Scotland County, paid
over $160,000 in tax on solar equipment alone in the year after installation.
NC SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY ASSOCIATION
.:, ;
5 North Carotina Property Tax Revenue from Sotar Development m
Appendix 1. Tax Revenue lncrease Before and After Sotar in 50 Counties
NC SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY ASSOCIATION
1 Bladen 216 9 28,226 523,232 1,7540/o 1
2 Currituck 140 3 10,326 435,656 4,1190/o 3
3 Robeson 111 24 30,586 652,176 2,0320/0 1
4 Nash 106 19 11,518 427,430 3,611%1
5 Catawba 105 13 19,371 469,902 2,326%2
6 Halifax 1U 7 173U 383,195 2,1110/o 1
7 Anson 104 6 12,440 486,299 3,809%1
8 Wayne 93 23 17,197 409,953 2,284%1
I Cumberland 93 6 2,135 478,497 22,3120/o 1
10 Rutherford 91 6 6,228 256,343 4,016%o 1
11 Cleveland 82 21 51,837 41 6,1 83 703%1
12 Scotland 80 12 20,476 509,218 2,387Yo 1
13 Duplin 78 20 18,595 338,076 1,718%1
14 Johnston 66 15 9,053 377,889 4,0740/o 3
15 Northampton 65 12 13,102 249,725 1,806%1
16 Vance 56 12 12,539 257,050 1,950%1
17 Columbus 53 18 12,546 275,945 2,0990/o 1
18 Hertford 50 8 6,1 01 254.8U 4,0770/o 1
19 Lenoir 48 11 10,235 252,322 2,365%1
20 Pasquotank 43 3 3,446 152,157 4,3160/o 1
21 Bertie 42 3 2,629 1 18,093 4,392%1
22 Montgomery 35 4 3,M6 152,157 4,3160/o 2
23 Wake 35 11 58,913 247,624 320Yo 3
24 Rowan 34 8 14,024 127,797 811o/o 2
25 Franklin 33 8 7,995 186,898 2,238Yo 2
26 Granville 33 7 7,346 153,633 1,992%2
27 Pitt 32 12 3,801 150,454 3,859%2
28 Lee 32 7 15.454 161,230 943o/o 2
29 Harnett 31 7 1,989 70,519 3,4460/o 2
30 Rockingham 30 6 15,328 169,4't8 1,005%
31 Alamance 28 5 5,900 74,816 1,168%2
32 Moore 27 5 1,989 70,519 3,4460/o 3
33 Warren 26 6 4,217 112,825 2,576Yo 1
PV
Capacity
Rank
Total Property
# ot Tax Paid onSolar Participating
Projects ParcelsBefore
Solar
Total Property
Tax Paid on
Participating
Parcels After
Solar
County
Economic
Tier
County Percent
lncrease
Capacity
(MWac)
6 North Carotina Property Tax Revenue from Sotar Devetopment U
1
NC SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY ASSOCIATION
u Chatham 25 7 12,123 1 17,660 871%3
35 Randolph 23 6 3,610 88,274 2,345Yo 2
36 Guilford 22 6 5,697 124,177 2,08A%2
37 Sampson 21 6 6,715 111,972 1,5670/o 1
38 Washington 21 2 2,4U 85,s32 3,4140/o 1
39 Union 20 4 2,993 110,104 3,579%3
40 Jones 20 4 2,424 75,053 2,997Yo 1
41 Davie 15 3 3,208 76,U1 2,296%3
42 Person '15 5 7,270 72,603 899%2
43 Caswell 15 3 1,366 71,077 5,103%1
44 Greene 14 4 2,258 il,994 2,778%1
45 Pender 10 2 2,711 48,0U 1,673%3
46 Perquimans 10 2 2,809 24p83 789Yo I
47 Gaston 10 2 736 37,424 4,985%2
48 Cabarrus 5 1 255 47,533 18,515%3
49 lredell 5 1 385 1 5,1 65 3,8430/,3
50 Stokes 4 1 173 12,272 6,993%2
Pv
Capacity
Rank
County Capacity
(MWac)
#ot
Solar
Projects
Total Property
Tax Paid on
Participating
Parcels Before
Solar
Total Property
Tax Paid on
Participating
Parcels After
Solar
Percent
lncrease
County
Economic
Tier
Total zfi? 3!16 513,494 t0,595,791 I,9ffi6
7 North Carotina Property Tax Revenue from Sotar Devetopment
Mrs. Kim Lee’s
Evidence
Exhibit #1
r . tv vPvr a tr'ctlclwclot; \rrt
Company name or number
I I tg v\rt ctrti YYvr l(f
Search
f,
Companies Officers
. Loo in/Sion uo
Slider Sol ar, LLC
Company Number
1398933
Status
Cunent Active
lncorporation Date
3 September 2014 (over 5 years ago)
Company Type
Limited Liability Company - Domestic
Jurisdiction
North Carolina (!l$)
Registered Address
. 2626 Glenwood Ave Ste 550. Raleigh. 27608.NC. United States
Previous Names
. Hardison Solar, LLC
Agent Name
Corporation Service Company
Directors / Officers
. Cor@Eny-,agent. Qypress Creek Renewables, LLC, member. Geoff Fallon, authorized person. Mike Stanton, authorized person. Noah HEg, authorized person
o Peter Bruno, authorized person
Registry Page
httpSJAruAUSgSIe.gov/onli ne_services...
https ://opencorporates. com/@m panles/us_nc/1 396933 th
Now available: over 400m key company lifecycle events, from officer changes to gazette notices'
Readlnore on Qulblog.
1U3r2019 Cypress Creek Renewables, LLC (member) :: OpenCorporates
The Open Database Of The World
Company name or number Search
'o Companies ' Officers
. Log in/SigLup
Slider Solar, LLC > All officers
Cypress Greek Renewables, LLG
Gompany
Slider Solar, LLC
Nameey@,LLc
Address
Sgrry,-y9u-n@(tsiC-lagged in to see this address
Position
member
encor porqqgl
Other resources
. Search Google for'Cypress Creek Renewables, LLC'. SearCh Little-Sis for'Cypress Creek Renewables, LLg'
Other officers in Slider Solar, LLC Showing first 30 (see all)
. Cor@PanY.,agent. Geoff Fallon, authorized person. Mike Stanton, authorized Person. Noah H&, authorized Person. Peter Bruno, authorized Person
See all
Last updated August 282019,7.24PM (3 months ago)
S i m i I a rly-named-sfficers
Found 364. Showing first 30
. CYPRESS CREEK RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT ,..LLQ, gOVEMOT, E TOWHEE SOLAR'
LLC (Washington (US),21 Dec 2017-).
htss:/lopencorporates.com/off ce 1s13224/.7 24 1t
1AA2U9 Cypress Creek Secures $200m Prefened Equity lnvostment I Cypress Creek Renewables
NEWS I AUGUST 07,2018
Cypress Creek Secures $200m Preferred Equity lnvestment
Cypress Creek Renewables, a leading developer and owner ofsolar generating assets, today announced that a group led by
Temasek, a global investment company headquartered in Singapore, has agreed to purchase preferred equity interests in
Cypress.
The $200 million investment represents the purchase by the group of preferred stock and warrants to purchase up to an
aggregate 10 percent stake of the common stock. Proceeds will support the compan/s continued growth through creation,
investment, maturation and monetization of its development portfolio. Cypress will continue to operate under its existing
management and add two independent directors to its Board.
"Temasek has shown itself to be a patient, forwardjooking partner focused on generating sustainable long-term returns - and
it is this shared vision that makes expansion of our relationship quite natural" said Cypress CEO Matt McGovern. "The
confidence Temasek has shown in our business model and development portfolio is a firm endorsement of our strategy, which
we look fonruard to refining and executing on in tandem in the years to come."
Founded in20'14 by Ben Van de Bunt (Chairman), Michael Cohen (President), and Matt McGovern (CEO), Cypress has grown into
a leading developer, investor and operator of solar generating assets in regulated and deregulated markets. By the end of 2018
the Company will have developed and placed-in-service over 3.2 GW of projects and own 1.7 GW on-balance sheet.
About Temasek:
lncorporated in 1974, Temasek is a global investment company headquartered in Singapore.
Supported by its network of international offices, Temasek owns a US$235b portfolio as at 31 March 2018, with significant
exposure to singapore and the rest of Asia. our investment activities are guided by four investment themes and the long-term
trends they represent Transforming Economies; Growing Middle lncome Populations; Deepening Comparative Advantages;
and Emerging Champions. Our investment stratery allows us to capture opportunities across the sectors in which we invest
that help bring about a better, smarter and more connected world. We actively seek sustainable solutions to address present
and future challenges. Across the three pillars of the Temasek Charter, we recognize the need to do well as an investor; to do
right as an institution; and to do good as a steward. For more information on Temasek, please visit unl ,rr.temasek.com.sg
( https://www.temasek.com.sglen/index. html).
!9
https://ccrenew.corn/nantrs/cypres+creek+ecures.prefene&equity-investmenU 1t
I
Exhibit #2
1AU2019 Randolph County GIS
q)Randolph
County GIS eutck Search tdentify Communtty lnfo
Zoom
ln
Zoom
Out
htps://gis.randolphcountync.gov/randolphjs/1t
Tools
t
Print
fif,dlffii
Map Themes
ItrIE.-!.IIJJ ffitr{ffi
ffi
Effi
IlIs:-In*-Ll
Fffig IITf-llj.4AJ
ffi'3
Search More...Maps
Locate
Me
Full
Prev
't2ti,2019 Randolph County GIS
Maps Tools More..Search
Hide
Locate
Me
Zoom
ln
Zoom
Out
Full
Prev
Randolph
Gounty GIS
Map Themes
ldentify Community lnfoQuick Search
Prlnt
s
1thttps :l/gis.randolphcountync.gov/randolphjs/
83ffi
Eiffi
fiTEffi':A
1AA2U9 Rarddph County GIS
Randolph
County GIS
!q
https ://gis. randolphcountync. gov/randolphis/1t
ldentify Community lnfo
t!Maps Tools
I
Prlnt
li.,ffim
TffiTEtr j
HT
:
t.,'
{i&ffim
ffi
;.:i.! tfiffif,Tffi
I.]
tl
More...Search
Hide
Locate
Me
Zoom
ln
Zoom
Out
Prev
12t2f2019 Randolph County GIS
MapsSearch Tools More.Randolph
County GIS euick Search tden6fy community tnfo
Map Themes Prlnt
Locate
Zoom
Me
ln
Full
*
Hide
Zoom
Out
Prev
1thttps ://gis. randolphcountync.gov/nandolphjs/
ffii
nfl
ilffiffiE$
I(i-.1"-a* .i,IJ
EEg[ffi
E+F:4U:-:iir-: U,
f,EffiM
a?:f+1.\/,:"5{ i}^l^::.:.3
EEffiSS
Exhibit #3
b 12/il2019 Randdph County GIS
=search
Maps More...Tools
Hide
Zoom
ln
Zoom
Out
Prev
Randolph
County GIS Quick Search ldentify Community lnfoJ
I
Map Themes Print
?j
https://gis. randolphcountync. gov/randolphjs/1t
Locate
Me
Full
Exhibit #4
IH
@
TI
mli
i ()o(tEtt a lotffi urFt
cTr'srtof EClt
oo
afli'l!
Et
E
&{
fi..,
$hr
I
ii
!i
IIal
il
li
ii
iii
m
LU
rl
IT
ii
3t
I
a 1
I
!I
III
!
I
I
I I Ii It I
!
I
I N
II
EI
I
I
II
I
t
I
I
I II
t
I!
I
II
I
II
I
II
III
t,
It
i@
iir
I
I,
iTIttI
a
II
T
I
I
I
;i
fi
ti
l!
i!ltr!
Ilfi,t
li,
fi
ft
$b
$
fis
fi
tr
fi
$
I
III
IIII
I
:
I
i
I
i
I
I
k
E
3lilB
$
Hf
E
I
EI
9'I
5
il
$I
I
!I!tl
iir
+
af;
3rs
EE
I
I
r:l'
ri
ll
\..1
IE
il
3
3g
B]rl
JI
EI
Gb
6
It'I
TI
II
halt
il!
lr
t
I!
I
tIt
li
!
7a
IE
-
Exhibit #5
'-/
I
I
EqG
I If ,e;,
't'
,)
.1 l,
I
tt
tl
c ,:
I
t
ItII
\.-
aN .'1 I
r
.
I 1'
i'
I
I
).!t-I
i*I|, d
I'
r",-
r-
I
LJ'J
I
ri a111-*:-t=-r
'l&'..u
a-1 t*a.-
/1Itt,t. jr J,tt
t,,il
w I
I
/
I
{it.l
T1
.lI/
.rl
lq-r
'r
a
u
\'z\"-{,
/\
/
t
t
a/I
a
\'
I
12
A
\s
N-\,
)-
\
t-
\
\^
I
Exhibit #6
te
12t3t2019 Why do solar projects need surge protection?
q
their large surface area and
placement in exposed
locations, such as on
rooft ops or ground-mou nted
in open spaces.
"Coincidentally, California,
where the solar industry has
enjoyed its most rapid scale-
up, has one of the lowest
risks for lightning in the
United States," said Dan
Sylawa, senior business
development manager of
renewable energ/ at Phoenix
Contact, which provides surge protection devices (SPDs). "As solar power installations have moved beyond the
California market, the potential impact of lightning-lnduced array failures has increased. This has been most
evident as array installations have moved into the Southeastern United States, one of the most lightning-prone
areas of the country."
Solar contractors aren't always aware if they're building in a lightning-prone area. Alltec, which also provides
SPDs, incorporates data from the U.S. Lightning Detection Network in a free tool that allows solar contractors to
assess the lightning risk of their projects.
Lightning is about 50,000'F-five times hotter than the sun-so it's not surprising rt can be detrimental to solar
equipment.
"lf the solar panels are
struck directly, lightning can
burn holes in the
equipment or even cause
explosions, and the entire
system is destroyed," said
Ethan Pace, SPD product
manager at Alltec.
But the effects of lighting
and other overvoltages
aren't always so strikingly
2t15
--
-
V*r il*-="-_t
Exhibit #7
o
FINANCE - REVENUES . EXPENDITURES
There ore mony sources of revenue svoiloble to the County which ore not directly reloted to specific progroms nor
generoied by deportments through user fees or gronl ossistonce. We refer lo these os Generol County Revenues, which con
be used for ony public purpose outhorized by fhe Boord of Counfy Commissioners. These funds represent the moiority of
lhe revenue resources ovoiloble to the County. Some of these revenues ore delermined by fie County; olhers ore merely
collections, outside of the County's obility to control. Regordless, they ore criticol in providing the funds necessory for the
County to meet its responsibililies lo its citizens. The primory Generol County Revenues ore described below.
Revenues
' 4ta,lt, +r s s.(t r Prm;tt F:q
Li:rnxt SaDrc€
Lo<d ODtion
TE
78t4
nava n (I
ld Uliorrn lurt
47t|,
Expenditures
Er !tnnt
{smln 9t{
:6r{
6anrirl
,{
Proiecred Generol Fund 2AO8-2OO9 P ubli c School Expendituie
Ad Volorem Propefi loxes - levied on reol ond personol property (including motor vehicles)which is not specificolly
exempted by slolute. The totol volue of oll such toxoble property becomes the lox bose. The County Commissioners set o
tox rote per $ 1 00 of voluotion. The proposed tox role is 55.5C per $ 100. This tox is the lorgest revenue in the budget ond
provides lhe greotest flexibility in meeting the finonciol needs of the County.
Locol Optlon Soles Toxes - proceeds from the locol portion of lhe tox on retoil soles. Merchonts collecl slote ond locol
soles loxes ond remit the totol omount to the stote. The locol soles lox portion is distribuled lo locol governments monthly.
Currenfly, the County receives 2.25% on reloil soles tronsoclions. On Oclober I , 2009, the role will reduce to 2.00%. Mosl
of the lox is unreslricted; however, o portion of the Articles 40 ond 42 toxes ore restricled for school conslruction or debt
service on obligolions reloted to school construclion. The remoinder is ovoiloble for unreslricled purposes.
lnveslment Eornings - interest eorned on certificoles of deposil ond other demond deposits. North Corolino Generol
Stolutes restricl the types of finonciol instruments in which o locol government moy invesl its idle funds.
Timsfcm CmcmI
Dcbt Scrvlqr8.06%
o.oo%
a
b--*
Cultunl mdReationelr.7696
Nash Duggins
Rezoning Evidence
Mangum, Timothy V.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Name: Ron and Julie Parrish
Address: 1391 McDaniel Dr, Asheboro, NC 27205
Phone: 336-521-4949
Email: Julie. H. Parrish@gmail.com
Rezoning Request applicant name: Nash Duggins
Rezoning request location: Farmwood Subdivision
Planning & Zoning Mtg. 12-3-19
Our family, Ron and Julie Parrish and adult son, Seth Parrish reside at 1391 McDaniel Dr,
Farmwood Subdivision, Asheboro, NC.
Our comments are in reference to the Nash Duggins request to add an additional22lots to the
west of Farmwood Lane/Allen Court, of which HE is titling Farmwood Phase 4.
-We own a lot within the Farmwood Subdivision and a home with acreage bordering the
Farmwood Subdivision. We have worked in Federal Law Enforcement our whole lives and
have invested our lifetime of savings into this property within Farmwood. Our main reasons for
purchasing a home here was the up-sale nature of the neighborhood, quietness, and the streets
that were used only by the residents.
We are greatly concerned about this addition of these homes with much less square footage
than the average of Farmwood and we know it will decrease the value of our home, which is
our main life investment. We would have never bought here if we thought smaller homes could
be built in this already well-established neighborhood called Farmwood. We feel like allowing
homes to be built that are hundreds of square feet less than the average in Farmwood wil!
certainly lower the value of the larger homes and they are NOT within keeping of the standards
of compatibility, comparability, nor similarity with the immediately surrounding neighborhoods
of Farmwood and Oak Hollow. We feel Iike noone should be given the privilege of de-evaluating
a long-standing up-sale community by adding to it, lesser valued homes. The proposed square
footage of 1750, is appx. 850 square feet less than the average of the whole neighborhood. An
850 square feet difference is in no way comparable to the present homes.
Personally, I feel like the value of our life investment, our savings, our home and land that we
have worked for all of our lives are being stolen from us, if these lesser square footage houses
are allowed to be built and called Farmwood. The Farmwood Phase 4 proposed subdivision
plan is not equal to the square footage and character of the present Farmwood Community,
and therefore should not be called Farmwood.
Julie Parrish <julie.h.parrish@gmail.com>
Thursday, November 28,2019 9:51 PM
Planning DL
Farmwood Zoning lssue
1
I
I
ln the proposal letter for appeal to the County Commissioners Meeting, the Developer stated
he has met most of the requests brought forth from the Farmwood Community, but we haven't
seen him meet any of our requests or issues in writing or in person. From the very beginning
our two big concerns were the lower square footage homes and Farmwood Lane being turned
into a thoroughfare accessing 22 new lots and probably the rest of the 200 acres.
The Seller and the Developer of the Farmwood Phase 4 development wants to use the name
and reputation of the Farmwood Subdivision to make it more attractive to potential buyers. This
plan is very similar to a 'knock off' which is; "a copy or imitation, especially of an expensive or
designer product", and usually is of less quality than the name brand product. The homes of
the present Farmwood Subdevelopment were individual custom homes and are of an up-sale
standard and are designer products.
Please do not allow our neighborhood to be degraded by allowing lesser square footage homes,
'knock offs' to be built. And Please consider every square foot of every home here has been
worked for.., saved for.., to PAY for.... Please, Do not lessen the value of our investments by
allowing smaller homes to be built and called Farmwood. lf this happens to obtain approval,
and our home values decrease, who will be held accountable for our loses?
We have been dealing with the same issues now for over 6 months, have taken off work for
numerous meetings, written many letters, and have talked to hundreds of folks in reference to
this proposal. We have earnestly tried to communicate with and negotiate with Developer
Duggins. What we have received in return has been: his attendance at the meetings, no
waivers, no compromises and no good faith effort to negotiate whatsoever. His statements at
the beginning like, "We're not going to build another entrance." , " We are not building homes
larger than 1700 square feet " and we'lljust see... what happens" have given us the impression
he is unwilling to negotiate with his potential neighbors on any of the present issues or potential
future issues. Without the ability to negotiate, compromise, or communicate effectively, we feel
like there's no hope for carrying through with a development that is in any way comparable with
the present day Farmwood Subdivision.
Also, if we understand it correctly, the Farmwood Subdivision was originally slated for 3
Phases. All of those lots have been sold, and that owner/developer has passed away, leaving
the adjoining 200 acres to his son. lf the Farniwood Subdivision was complete with Phase 3,
then what gives Developer Duggins the right to use the name for future phases? I'd like for the
County Attorney to address this question.... Can they legally use the Farmwood Subdivision
Name if the Original Sub-Division has been completed?
We also have great concerns about the accuracy and veracity of the documents he has
presented at meetings, because there have been numerous inaccuracies and mistakes, that
have tried to be corrected or changed verbally. When asked for references or background
information on other subdivisions he has developed, he became defensive and relayed the
name of one complex in Raleigh. We are in no way against developing the adjoining area, but
if it is going to be called Farmwood then it needs to have the same standard and current
restrictions, be custom built homes and be equal to the average of square footage of the present
day homes.
2
lf the average is 2,600 square feet and he is proposing 1750 square feet, that is an 850 square
foot difference. lf we split the difference, that would be 2175 square footage homes as an
average. We are not even asking for that. We are asking for the minimum square footage to
be 2,000 square feet or NOT be called Farmwood and just be another Sub-Division with its own
entrance.
PLEASE consider the facts, opinions, and feelings of those you serve and do not allow this
Phase 4 developmental plan to be approved without:
-raising the minimum square footage of the homes to 2,000 square feet
-changing the name and using another entrance if it does not equal the Present Farmwood
Community.
Because of changes and inaccuracies, the appeal at the Commissioner's Meeting could not be
heard. We are personally saddened by the fact that the paperwork offered by the developer
has created many time delays, inadequacies, and unanswered questions. We greatly value
your time, and our time, and we appreciate the sincere thoughts and deliberation you will put
forth in serving everyone by wise and fair decisions. Again, thank you for serving the hard
working citizens of our treasured Randolph County.
lf there are those who agree with what I've said, please feel free to stand to show your
agreement.
Thank you so much for your time and for allowing our voices to be heard.
Sincerely, Ron, Julie and Seth Parrish
3
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATON FOR REZONING REQUEST #2019-00003161
NASH DUGGINS, Asheboro, NC, is requesting that 45.43 acres located on NC Hwy 49S and Old NC Hwy 49, Cedar Grove Township, be rezoned from RA – Residential
Agricultural District and RR – Residential Restricted District to CVOE-CD – Conventional
Subdivision Overlay Exclusive – Conditional District. Tax ID #7639187958. Secondary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a 22-lot
site built subdivision with a minimum house size of 1,750 sq. ft. as per site plan. Property
Owner: Terry Charles Vuncannon. The Randolph County Technical Review Committee has met on the above listed case,
and after review of all applicable standards contained in the Randolph County Unified
Development Ordinance and the Randolph County Growth Management Plan, the
Technical Review Committee finds that this request:
• Meets all technical requirements of both the Ordinance and the Plan;
• Is consistent, reasonable and in the public interest; and
• Should be approved by the Randolph County Planning Board.
The following policies from the Randolph County Growth Management Plan were
identified by the Technical Review Committee as supporting this conclusion.
Policy 6.5 The protection of viable rural neighborhoods should be encouraged by
compatible residential development to insure the continued existence as a major housing
source and as a reflection of the long-term quality of life in Randolph County.
Policy 6.6 Development in designated flood zones shall be avoided. Subdivision lots that are partially within designated flood zones shall compute the minimum lot size as that
area located outside the flood zone.
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
Department of Planning & Zoning
204 E Academy St - PO Box 771 - Asheboro NC 27204-0771
APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE,t1l
Applicant: DUGGINS, NASH
Address: 3092 OLD NC HWY 49
City, St. Zip: ASHEBORO, NC 27205
Owner: VUNCANNON, TERRY CHARLES
Address: 221 MYRTLE LN
City, St. Zip: |\,4YRTLE BEACH, SC 29572
CONTACT NAME: DUGGINS, NASH
Datei 1013112019
Parcel #: 7639187958
Permit #: 201 9-000031 61
Permit Type Code: PZ 2
Location Address:
Contact Phone: 336 382-6327
PARCEL INFORMATION:
Lot num f
Acreage: 200.0500
Subdivsion:
Township: 04 - CEDAR GROVE
ZONING INFORMATION:
Zoning District RA-RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
SECONDARY GROWTH AREA
MUN ICIPAL AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT
NONE
YES
Flood Plain [/ap #: 3710763900J
REQUESTED CHANGE:
Area To Be Rezoned:
Lot Size lndicator:
Proposed Zoning District:
Proposed Use(S):
Condition(S):
Total Permit Fee: $100.00
COMMENTS:
The undersigned owner/applicant do hereby make application for a PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE as
allowed by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance
Kimberly Heinzer
Authorized County Official natu Ap
- LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Archdaleffrinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov
APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page: .l of 1
Zoning District 2:
Zoning District 3:
Growth Management Areas:
Specialty Oistrict:
Watershed Name:
Class A Flood Plain On Prop?:
Flood Plane Map #:
45.4300
ACRE(S)
CVOE-CD-CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION OVERLAY EXCLUSIVE
CONDITIONAL DISTRICT
TO ALLOW A 22 LOT SITE BUILT S/D AS PER SITE PLAN -
APPLICANT PROVIDING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WITH ,I750
SF MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE
Duggins Request Location Map
TAYLORSCREEK
D
R
F A R M W O O D L N
OLD NC HWY 49
OAKHOLLOW DR
CABLECREEKRD
MCDANIELDR
DEERHOR NCT
ARROWSTONEDR
RICHARDSCIR
MCDANIEL RD
SHAW ST
BENLAM
BET
H
R
D
ALLENCT
N C H W Y 4 9 S
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Directions to site: NC Hwy 49 S - (R)McDaniel Dr - (L) Farmwood Ln -Site at end.
Duggins Rezoning Request
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
TaylorsCreek
TaylorsCre e k F A R M W O O D L N
DEERHORN CT
ARROWSTONEDR
MCDANIELDR
MCDANIELRD
BE
N
L
A
M
B
E
T
H
R
D
SHAW ST
OAK H O L L O W DR
ALLENCT
T
A
YLORSCREEK
D
R
OLD NC HWY 49
N C H W Y 4 9 S
The request is located in Municipal Airport Overlay District.1 inch = 1,000 feet
Farmwood Phase3 (Rezoned 2000)Farmwood Phase2 (Approved 1990)
Oak HollowWest S/D
Keyaee Hills S/D(Rezoned 2000)
Silo's(Rezoned 2005)
Requestlocation
?k
Legend
ParcelsStructures
Type
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
!(Miscellaneous Structures
Roads
Streams
50 ft. Stream buffer
Flood plains
City of Asheboro
Overlay zoning districtsCounty zoning
Districts
RA
RBO
RE
RR
Duggins Rezoning Request
TaylorsCreek
TaylorsCre e k F A R M W O O D L N
DEERHORN CT
ARROWSTONEDR
MCDANIELDR
MCDANIELRD
BE
N
L
A
M
B
E
T
H
R
D
SHAW ST
OAK H O L L O W DR
ALLENCT
T
A
YLORSCREEK
D
R
OLD NC HWY 49
N C H W Y 4 9 S
The request is located in Municipal Airport Overlay District.1 inch = 1,000 feet
Farmwood Phase3 (Rezoned 2000)Farmwood Phase2 (Approved 1990)
Oak HollowWest S/D
Keyaee Hills S/D(Rezoned 2000)
Silo's(Rezoned 2005)
?k
Legend
Parcels
Roads
Streams
50 ft. Stream buffer
Flood plains
North Carolina
Randolph County
Protective Covenants
SKP Rentals, LLC, the owner in fee simple and developer of the real property now duly
platted, as________________, which said plat is now recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of
Randolph County, North Carolina, in Plat Book___, Page, ____ hereby makes the following declaration
as to limitations, restrictions and uses to which all lots in said subdivision may be put, hereby specifying
that said declaration shall constitute covenants to run with the lots in said subdivision and shall be binding
on all parties, corporations, and all persons or firms claiming under them and for the benefit of a
limitations upon all future owners of lots in said subdivision. This declaration of restrictions is designated
for the purpose of keeping said lots in said subdivision desirable, uniform and suitable in architectural
design, and to insure the use of said lots for attractive residential purposes only, to prevent nuisances, to
prevent the impairment of the attractiveness of the property, to maintain the desired tone of the
community, and thereby to secure to each residential lot owner the full benefit and enjoyment of his home
with no greater restriction upon the free and undisturbed use of his site than is necessary to insure the
same advantages to the other site owners. Anything tending to detract from the attractiveness and value
of the property for the residence purposes will not be permitted.
The Protective Covenants are as herein specified:
1. All lavatories and/or toilets shall be built indoors and connected with outside
septic tank until such time as a sewer system shall be maintained, at which time the
purchaser, his successors or assigns, agrees to connect said premises therewith without
delay.
2. Not more than one residence may be built on any one lot.
3. No manufacturing or commercial enterprise, or enterprises of any kind shall be
maintained upon any of the lots in said subdivision, nor shall said lots in any way be used
for other than strictly residential purposes.
4. No nuisance, or offensive, noisy, or illegal calling or transaction shall be done,
suffered, or permitted upon the lands in said subdivision, nor shall any lot or part of said
subdivision be used or occupied injuriously to affect the use, occupation, or value of the
adjoining or adjacent premises for residence purposes, or the neighborhood wherein said
premises are situated. No livery stable, barn or stable whatsoever or public garage or
filling station, shall or will be erected or suffered or permitted to be erected on any part of
the lands of this subdivision.
5. No horse, cow, hog, goat or similar animal shall be kept or maintained on said
property or any portion thereof, nor shall any chicken yard be maintained thereon.
6. No billboards, sign boards or unsightly objects of any kind shall be maintained
on said lands in this subdivision or any part thereof with the exception of a sign “For
Sale” or “For Rent,” which sign shall not exceed 2 feet by 3 feet, except development
signs.
7. Nothing but a single, private dwelling or residence designed for the occupancy of
one family, shall be erected on any lot in this subdivision, nor shall said premises be used
for any purpose other than residential purposes; no condominiums will be permitted; no
mobile homes will be permitted and no modular home will be permitted.
8. No trailer, basement, tent shack, garage, barn or other outbuilding erected on this
tract shall at any time be used as a residence, temporarily or permanently, nor shall any
structure of a temporary character be used as a residence; no unsightly garbage cans will
be permitted.
9. No junk cars will be permitted upon any of the lands in this subdivision.
10. Any residence erected in the subdivision shall contain a minimum of 1750 square
feet of heated living area exclusive of garage, porch, or carport areas: Two copies of the
proposed building plan shall be submitted to the developers who shall enter approval or
rejection of one copy of the building plans and shall return same to lot owner within ten
(10) business days of delivery to developer. Developers shall keep one (1) copy of the
plans for their records and for the purposes of determining if the building is accomplished
according to the approved plans. No changes or alterations to the plan may be made
without written approval of one of the developers. No residence shall be erected without
the written approval of the developers; provided however, that the requirement of this
Paragraph 10, with respect to approval of building plans, shall cease when all lots in said
subdivision have residences constructed thereon.
11. Detached garages for use appurtenant to the dwelling are permitted, provided that
said garages are constructed of brick, framing or other materials comparable to that used
in the dwelling, and provided specifically that no tin or metal garages shall be permitted.
12. No outbuilding shall be allowed on the premises unless permitted by the
developers.
13. All fuel oil tanks shall be buried and be beneath the surface of the ground.
14. No landowners in the tract shall maintain any offensive or dangerous pets.
15. Th developers reserve the right to subject the real property in this subdivision to a
contract with the appropriate power Company for the installation of overhead electric
cables and/or the installation of street lighting, which may require a continuing monthly
payment to said power Company by the owner of each building lot in the amount to be
determined and charged by said company. All electric service to each house must be
installed underground.
16. There shall be no cement or cinder blocks visible in any home or building erected
on any lot.
17. All houses shall be built at least 60 feet from the front property line and at least
10 feet from the side property line.
18. All dwellings erected on said premises shall have full foundation walls.
The above restrictions are placed on the property and lots hereinabove specified and set
forth as a part of the general scheme or plan of development for the benefit of all owners
of property hereinabove specified and said covenants are and shall be binding upon all
present and future owners of said land, their successors, heirs and assigns, and shall be
covenants running with the land, binding on all future owners of said property. These
covenants shall be effective until _____________________
This the ____ day of ______, ______
SKP Rentals, LLC
by
________________________________________ (SEAL)
Member/ Manager
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY
I, ____________________, a Notary Public of said County and State, certify that __________________,
personally came before me this day and acknowledged that he as Member Manager of SKP Rentals,
LLC, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing on behalf of SKP Rentals, LLC.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this the _______ day of _________, 2009.
____________________________________
Notary Public
____________________________________
Typed Name of Notary
My Commission Expires: __________
CITIZEN SIGN.IN SHEET
November 14,zOLg
Duggins Rezoning Request
Location: NC Hwy 49 S
t
2of
Name Address CiW. State. Zio
t 5 s5 f\-c'Dc-ui'b-/N 5t"-L"'.', N c )-7
d^a*ry /-r'aV dl/t/1/ cF /sl-fira, n/<RZa.o
l+8C /+LL-zp c-T zas-Ast <7
70r7 (2720
Sn0Sy)JTY r c
,n,o r tl-
t
//"
*
t3lt /',Ao^*l.lr.k hrrgrzo N c- eZlU
G-frQGt<L
)ibvo Puct*fu,*NC ZTzar4L2
flCI-,1X,4b {MnaNuurl, Ui1,,({',hiloftJ Nt t;111r
n{-sl'i",^u.lYtn frlL^cg.
w1') k &r llu )1/4(()
I
ttal E il*l aLJ"hbfu',il 05.01
n6<e * cApLA
-9H / /\-/N
/+lLt:D" Ao^0 ,,a,1 ,a-7L0
/)rA,/n.-.,) //)/ \
7,/* (r,, m
Qlt t4w,pt N.
+6l,hr44 tOe )r>os
/", -i ^J'rflip Jrlil,ftrm
r\ I
I
7qz o t4,ttz lr t/\
t .kffi ebrz'a-Z.t:7zzz
}n4lr,, * (o\uu.
CITIZEN SIGN.IN SHEET
November 14,2019
Duggins Rezoning Request
Location: NC Hwy 49 S
Name Address CiW. State. Zin
I 1.".-.^Tl'\**{a3o All." C+A<J.obu^ r{c- arra(
t) x,a tj'Jr lf"t'r4'l^":-f v\'\,..t, r-s ,r-J c2-? Z
fr',.l,c Sd)l l7 aq .0lt"o <)-\/ //
lkV"(l,{>z fl/lu c r /a4,tu-
(
Page 1 of 6 11/6/2019 Development Impact Analysis
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS County of Randolph, North Carolina Department of Planning & Development 204 E Academy Street, Asheboro, NC 27203 (336) 318-6555
Development policies outlined in the Randolph County Growth Management Plan are specifically designed to encourage long term planning among property owners, developers and County government. The Development Impact Analysis is a key component of this Plan and its use will increase public awareness of the relationship of growth, rural environmental impacts and the capacity
of local government to provide adequate public facilities based on future land use demands.
PRELIMINARY PLAT NAME Plat name and section: Farmwood Phase 4
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Owner of Record: Developer: Name: Terry Charles Vuncannon Name: Nash Duggins Address: 221 Myrtle Ln Address: 3092 Old NC Hwy 49 City, ST ZIP: Myrtle Beach, SC 29572 City, ST ZIP: Asheboro, NC 27205 E-mail: E-mail: nash.duggins@gmail.com Phone: Phone: 336 382-6327 Representative: Engineer/Surveyor: Name: Nash Duggins Name: H Mack Summer, Jr., PE Address: 3092 Old NC Hwy 49 Address: P O Box 968 City, ST ZIP: Asheboro, NC 27205 City, ST ZIP: Asheboro, NC 27204 E-mail: nash.duggins@gmail.com E-mail: mack@asheboro.com Phone: 336 382-6327 Phone: 336 328-0902
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Parcel: 7639187958 Acreage: 200.05 acres Growth Management Area: Secondary Growth Area Township: Cedar Grove Fire District: Westside Existing Zoning: RA, RR Existing conditions:
WATERWAY DESCRIPTION Does the site contain any streams or rivers? Yes Stream name: Taylors Creek Does the site contain any flood zone area? Yes Approximate acreage: 45.03 acres Does the site lie within a watershed? No Watershed: N/A Does the site contain wetlands? Yes Type: Freshwater forested/shrub wetland Other comments:
Page 2 of 6 11/6/2019 Development Impact Analysis
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(If appropriate, attach a letter outlining in detail, the scope of the request.)
Plat name and section: Farmwood Phase 4 Subdivision type: Site built Requested zoning: CVOE-CD Total acreage of development: 45.43 acres Total number of building lots: 22 Minimum housing size: 1,750 sq. ft. Total acreage of proposed open space (if applicable): 0.00 acres Total road frontage of proposed development: 4,124.75 ft. Average frontage of lots: 164.99 ft. Width of lot with smallest amount of road frontage: 50.00 ft. Width of lot with greatest amount of road frontage: 343.66 ft. Is the 1:4 ratio maintained for Rural Growth Areas? N/A Property is currently being used as: Residential Commercial Industrial Farming Leased hunting Vacant Other Features unique to this property: Ravines Hills Mountains Rights-of-way Easements Cemeteries Other
UTILITIES IMPACT Water source: Individual well Sewer source: Septic system Electrical source: Underground (If the electrical service cannot be underground, the developer must provide a letter From the utility provider stating reasons why utilities cannot be underground.) The distance, location and provider of the nearest public water and sewer source.
Service type Distance Location Provider
Public water 2.09 miles Tot Hill Farm Rd City of Asheboro
Public sewer 0.69 miles NC Hwy 49 S City of Asheboro
Page 3 of 6 11/6/2019 Development Impact Analysis
PUBLIC EDUCATION IMPACT (Provided by Board of Education) School system: Randolph County Schools
School impacted Grade
level DPI Capacity Current
membership Impact Farmer Elementary K-5 541 299 5 Southwest Middle 6-8 619 540 3 Southwest High 9-12 970 864 2 Uwharrie Ridge 6-12 732 439 Current mobile classrooms present:
School Number of mobile classrooms Farmer Elementary Southwest Middle Southwest High Uwharrie Ridge Current traffic assessment: School Traffic assessment Farmer Elementary Good Southwest Middle Congested Southwest High Congested Uwharrie Ridge School construction plans:
School Construction plans Farmer Elementary n/a Southwest Middle n/a Southwest High n/a Uwharrie Ridge
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IMPACT (Provided by NCDOT) Road(s) directly accessed by development
Road name Speed limit Average daily traffic count Farmwood Ln 55 mph 114 Condition of the road accessed by the development: Good Characteristics of road(s) directly accessed by development: Paved Curves Graveled Blind spot(s) Single lane Intersection(s) Bridge(s) Hill(s)
Page 4 of 6 11/6/2019 Development Impact Analysis
The proposed development with 25 lots will generate an additional 150 total vehicle trips per day. Is the ADT count greater than 4,000 which would require a turning lane? No
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS (Within One mile of proposal) Housing patterns in subdivisions:
Subdivision Type Number of lots Average acreage Bernard & Lois Joyce Site built 2 2.49 Bingham, Holder & Ferree Site built 5 23.85 Cable Creek Hills Site built 47 1.51 Cedar Grove Woods Site built 19 3.14 Dot Lambeth Mobile home 4 1.02 Farmwood Site built 55 2.01 Glenn Rush Estates Site built 4 9.12 Gopher Woods Estate Site built 24 0.60 Granite Ridge n/a 1 1.76 Jesse & Jacquelyn Varner Site built 5 1.96 Keyauee Hills Site built 20 1.15 Larry McKenzier Site built 12 0.41 Meadowdale Acres Site built 28 1.07 Nora Hoover Site built 4 3.18 Oak Hollow West Site built 118 1.93 Old Forest Site built 11 1.23 Ridge Manor Estates Site built 7 0.88 Ross Voncannon Estate Site built 13 3.06 S A Lowe, Jr Site built 10 0.93 Samuel & Janet Hunt n/a 1 19.96 Vernon & Kurney Poole Site built 12 3.73 Westbriar Estates Site built 11 1.74 Willow Oaks Site built 5 7.27 Winding Woods Site built 24 1.04 Windingwood Development Site built 34 1.15 Wood Bluff Site built 19 1.15 Total number of site built homes .......................................................................................................................................... 541 Average square footage of site built homes ................................................................................................. 1,744.49 sq. ft. Largest site built home by square footage .................................................................................................... 4,003.00 sq. ft. Smallest site built home by square footage .................................................................................................... 448.00 sq. ft. Total number of mobile homes ................................................................................................................................................. 33 Percentage of site built homes ...................................................................................................................................... 94.25 %
Page 5 of 6 11/6/2019 Development Impact Analysis
Percentage of mobile homes ............................................................................................................................................. 5.75 % Total number of acres ...........................................................................................................................................3,769.69 acres Average acreage .............................................................................................................................................................. 4.69 acres Total acreage in tax-deferred farms ................................................................................................................... 985.54 acres Community Land Uses Commercial Farming Forestry Industrial Residential Church facilities Other: Special Community Districts Airport Overlay District Cluster Subdivision Overlay District E-1 Districts Rural Lot Subdivision Overlay District Rural Business Overlay District Industrial Overlay District Scenic Corridor Overlay District Commercial Environmental Overlay District Voluntary Agricultural District Conventional Subdivision Overlay District Unique Rural Land Uses in the Community HLPC Landmark/Cultural Heritage Site National Historic Landmark National Forest Natural Heritage Designated Sites Trailway as part of the County Greenway Plan Youth Camp(s)
AGRICULTURAL IMPACT (Within One mile of proposal) Adjoining farm properties:
• n/a
Are all well minimum setback lines noted on plat? N/A
Tax-deferred farm properties
Property owner Parcel ID Location David Harold and Edith B Briles 7629395690 R1193; S David Harold and Edith B Briles 7629799971 Old Hwy 49; S Harold J and Geraldine B Brubaker 7730267991 R1326; S Deeded Access Harold J and Geraldine B Brubaker 7730271673 R1326; S Deeded Access Harold J and Geraldine B Brubaker 7730173823 R1326; Both Peter H Chong 7629633177 R1163; R49 William Nash and Allacin Martin Duggins 7730222028 R1193; N Benjamin J Frazier 7639247564 R1199; W No Rd Frtg Jane L Gallimore 7720704739 R1193; R1107 Roger L and Ann B Greene Life Estate 7720751971 R1348; No Rd Frtg
Page 6 of 6 11/6/2019 Development Impact Analysis
Property owner Parcel ID Location Betty H Hunt 7720843553 R1319; W Mark L Hunt Trustee 7730523255 W Lloyd Bingham; Tr2 Emogene W Jarrell Life Estate 7629915087 James C & Emogene Jarrell; Tr2 Dorothy L Lambeth 7720938281 R1319; E Dorothy L Lambeth 7720949732 R1319; E No Rd Frtg Max R Lanier 7720606831 R1193; R1107 Michael Ray and Dana Lanier 7720823757 R1319; W Michael Ray and Nancy S Lanier Trustee 7720625828 R1318; Both Cliff H Loflin 7629822458 R1163; N No Rd Frtg Cliff H Loflin 7629932833 R49; S Cliff H Loflin 7639141732 R49; S Sue Ellen and James D Lowe 7730248894 R1320; W Jerry Thomas McDowell 7720408540 Jerry T McDowell; Tr2 Lonnie R and Shirley K Saunders 7730061458 R1326; S No Rd Frtg Mark W and Brenda L Walker 7730701343 R1163; E Mark W and Brenda L Walker 7730715684 R1161; W Deeded Access Jasper C Winslow 7629754711 R49; N Jasper C and Joann S Winslow 7629659616 R49; N
Farm operations that begin after the development of a major residential subdivision must abide by
the 100 ft. waste setback rule on the farm property.
OTHER MATERIALS SUBMITTED Buffer site plan Land Clearing Debris Plan Open Space Uses and maintenance agreements, if applicable Proposed deed restrictions Soil analysis Soil erosion plan, storm water management plan, etc. Other:
Duggins Rezoning Request
Picture 1:
Request location.
Picture 2:
Existing residence
along Farmwood Ln.
Picture 3:
Existing residence
along Farmwood
Ln.
Picture 4:
Existing residence
along Farmwood Ln.
Picture 5:
Entrance to
Farmwood
Subdivision to right
as seen looking
along NC Hwy 49S.
Picture 6:
Entrance to
Farmwood
Subdivision to left as
seen looking along
NC Hwy 49S.
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION AND FINDING OF REASONABLENESS AND PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING BY NASH DUGGINS REZONING REQUEST #2019-00003161
NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 153A-341 and 342, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the proposed zoning district map amendments to CVOE-CD –
Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive – Conditional District as described in the application of Nash Duggins are consistent with the Randolph County Unified
Development Ordinance and the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan and
are reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: 1. Determination of Consistency with the Growth Management Plan. A. Consistency with Growth Management Plan Map
The Randolph County Growth Management Plan map for the southwest area shows the parcel to be rezoned in an area designated as Secondary Growth Area.
Secondary Growth Areas are an area for medium density, predominately residential and allows for transitional land use patterns. This property is located between NC Hwy 49 S and Old NC Hwy 49.
B. Consistency with Growth Policies in the Growth Management Plan Policy 6.5 The protection of viable rural neighborhoods should be encouraged by
compatible residential development to insure the continued existence as a major housing source and as a reflection of the long-term quality of life in Randolph
County.
Consistency Analysis: This request, as presented, would be consistent with the Plan, in that the proposal is a compatible residential development keeping with the previously established
pattern in the existing sections of Farmwood. The request identifies that site built homes are a major housing source in this part of the County and reflect the long-term quality of life that the County wants to its citizens.
Policy 6.6 Development in designated flood zones shall be avoided. Subdivision lots that are partially within designates flood zones shall compute the minimum lot
size as that area outside the flood zone. Consistency Analysis: This proposal ensures that residential development does not occur in areas designated as flood zones. The proposal has all residential development outside
of the established flood zones.
2. Statement of Reasonableness and Public Interest Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis: The policies listed above illustrate how this request is consistent with the
Ordinance, the Plan and applicable General Statutes. The Development Impact
Analysis shows that within one-mile of the proposal, there are approximately 541 site built homes and 33 mobile homes. The average site built house size within the same one-mile radius is 1,744.49 sq. ft. indicating that the proposal of 1,750 sq. ft. is reasonable and in the public interest as being compatible with surrounding
development.
_______________________________ _______________________________ Randolph County Planning Director Chair, Randolph County Planning Board
_______________________________ _______________________________ Clerk to Planning Board Date
MOTION TO APPROVE
A CONDITIONAL DISTRICT REZONING
NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
“I make the motion to APPROVE this rezoning
request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the
rezoning application to the requested zoning district
based upon the Determination of Consistency and
Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest
statements that are included in the Planning Board
agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation
and as may be amended, incorporated into the
motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the
site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions,
also incorporated into the motion and that the request
is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth
Management Plan.”
If making a second to the motion, please change to
say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading
the rest of the motion.
MOTION TO DENY
A CONDITIONAL DISTRICT REZONING
NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
“I make the motion to DENY this rezoning request to
rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning
application to the requested zoning district based
upon the Determination of Consistency and
Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest
statements that are included in the Planning Board
agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation
and as may be amended, incorporated into the
motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the
site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions,
also incorporated into the motion and that the request
is not consistent with the Randolph County Growth
Management Plan.”
If making a second to the motion, please change to
say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading
the rest of the motion.