12DecemberPB
Planning Board December 5, 2023 Page 1 of 3
RANDOLPH COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING 204 E Academy Street, Asheboro NC 27203 (336) 318-6555
RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA
DECEMBER 5, 2023
1. Call to Order of the Randolph County Planning Board.
2. Roll call of the Board members.
3. Reorganization of the Board.
4. Consent Agenda:
● Approval of agenda for the December 5, 2023, Planning Board meeting.
● Approval of the minutes from the October 26, 2023, and November 7, 2023,
Planning Board meetings.
5. Conflict of Interest
● Are there any Conflicts of Interest or ex parte communication that should be
disclosed?
● If there is a Conflict of Interest, the Board must vote to allow the member
with the Conflict of Interest to not participate in the hearing of the specific
case where the Conflict of Interest has been identified.
6. Old Business.
7. New Business.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2023-00002821
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
Quasi-judicial Hearing on the request by AUSTIN ROBERTS, Sophia, NC,
and their request to obtain a Special Use Permit at 2720 Devie Canoy Dr,
Back Creek Township, Tax ID #7724954859, 21.49 acres, RA - Residential
Agricultural District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain a Special Use
Permit to specifically allow obtaining a Federal Firearms License for the sale
and manufacturing of firearms at the owner’s existing residence as per the
Page 1 of 226
Planning Board December 5, 2023 Page 2 of 3
site plan.
REZONING REQUEST #2023-00002995
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
Legislative Hearing on the request by OLD LIBERTY SOLAR, LLC,
Durham, NC, and their request to rezone 388.68-acres on Whites Memorial
Rd, Franklinville Township, Tax ID #7774905395, 7784000854,
7784112105, 7784215160, 7784412108, 7784306023, 7783295229,
7783187376, 7783288668 and 7783387254, Secondary Growth Area, from
RA - Residential Agricultural District to RIO-CD - Rural Industrial Overlay -
Conditional District. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would
specifically allow a 44-megawatt ground-mounted utility-scale photovoltaic
solar farm and battery energy storage system used to produce renewable
energy as per the site plan.
ROAD RENAMING REQUEST - ROAD #1
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
Legislative Hearing on the request to name a new road from the intersection
of Old Red Cross Rd and a new State road to the intersection of Shiloh Rd
as MICHAEL LEE LN. Randolph County intends to name this road to
ensure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens around and working on the
megasite facility.
ROAD RENAMING REQUEST - ROAD #2
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
Legislative Hearing on the request to name a new road from the intersection
of Old Red Cross Rd to the intersection of Shiloh Rd as OLD RED CROSS
RD. Randolph County intends to name this road to ensure the health,
safety, and welfare of citizens around and working on the megasite facility.
ROAD NAMING REQUEST - ROAD #3
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
Legislative Hearing on the request to name a new road from the intersection
of Julian Airport Rd to the end as PIERCE DENNY RD as requested by the
residents along the road. Randolph County intends to name this road to
ensure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens around and working on the
megasite facility.
ROAD NAMING REQUEST - ROAD #4
Page 2 of 226
Planning Board December 5, 2023 Page 3 of 3
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
Legislative Hearing on the request to name a new road from the intersection
of Dogwood Way to the end as CAMELA WAY. Randolph County intends to
name this road to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens around
and working on the megasite facility.
ROAD NAMING REQUEST - ROAD #5
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
Legislative Hearing on the request to name a new road going into the west
side of the Greensboro – Randolph Megasite as DOGWOOD WAY as
requested by Toyota Battery Manufacturing. Randolph County intends to
name this road to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens around
and working on the megasite facility.
ROAD NAMING REQUEST - ROAD #6
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
Legislative Hearing on the request to name a new road going into the south
side of the Greensboro – Randolph Megasite as CAROLINA LILY RD as
requested by Toyota Battery Manufacturing. Randolph County intends to
name this road to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens around
and working on the megasite facility.
8. Update from the Planning Director
9. Adjournment.
Page 3 of 226
Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2023 Page 1 of 7
RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 26, 2023
There was a special joint meeting of the Randolph County Planning Board and Randolph County Board of Commissioners on Thursday, October 26, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. in the 1909 Historic Courthouse Meeting Room, 145-C Worth St, Asheboro, NC. The purpose of this
meeting was to hold a public hearing on the proposed Northeast Randolph County Growth
Management Plan and its potential adoption.
For information regarding the Randolph County Board of Commissioners portion of this
meeting, please see the Randolph County Board of Commissioners minutes.
Chairman Pell called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. on behalf of the Planning Board and welcomed those in attendance. Pell called the roll of the Board members.
• Reid Pell, Chair, present;
• Kemp Davis, Vice-Chair, present;
• John Cable, present;
• Melinda Vaughan, absent;
• Reggie Beeson, present;
• Ken Austin, present;
• Barry Bunting, present; and
• Brandon Hedrick, Alternate, substituting for Vaughan, present. County Planning Staff including Cory Hartsoe, Eric Martin, Kayla Brown, Kim Heinzer, and Tim Mangum were present for the meeting.
Pell opened the public hearing for the Planning Board. Tonya Caddle, Planning and Zoning Director, explained the process of the development of the Northeast Randolph County Growth Management Plan and asked for Jesse Day,
Planning Director, and José Colón, Regional Planner, from the Piedmont Triad Regional
Council to make a presentation and answer questions from the Boards. (See Exhibit #1 for the PowerPoint presentation that was done by Day and Colón.) Day and Colón presented the Boards with the methodology of the plan, a brief description
of the proposed plan along with the Executive Summary, policy areas, and the various
meetings that were held for the development of the plan.
Page 4 of 226
Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2023 Page 2 of 7
Colón stated that the plan is to be a policy framework and is a living long-range plan. Colón thanked the Steering Committee, County Planning Staff, and the public for being so engaged in the process. Colón opened the floor to questions from the Boards.
Pell asked if the Planning Board members had any questions. Hedrick stated that members of the Planning Board have had opportunities to review the draft plan and provide feedback.
Davis stated that he thought that the draft plan was great and involved a lot of time and that the plan may change over time, and it will be interesting to see how the County moves forward.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
NORTHEAST RANDOLPH COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published Legislative Hearing as required by the Randolph County Unified Development
Ordinance, Article 400, Section 411, Item B, on the Northeast Randolph
County Growth Management Plan. At the conclusion of the Legislative
Hearing, the Randolph County Planning Board will make a recommendation
on the adoption of the Northeast Randolph County Growth Management
Plan to the Randolph County Board of Commissioners. Pell called for anyone wishing to speak regarding the Northeast Randolph County Growth
Management Plan to come up and address the Boards.
Morgan read the rules for the public hearing session including the time limits for each speaker. Morgan called the first speaker and each speaker followed in the order as indicated in these minutes.
Karen Scotton, 548 W Railroad St, Staley, rose to address the Boards as the Mayor of Staley and she stated that she was speaking on behalf of the Board of Commissioners for the Town of Staley. Scotton stated that the people in the area of Staley loved their way of life and did not mind having to drive to get what they needed. The people in the area
are asking that the area north of US Hwy 64 E, east of NC Hwy 49 N, and south of US Hwy 421 be changed to a Rural Growth Area as a way to protect the agricultural community and farmers. Doug Nixon, 668 S Main St, Staley, said that his portion of the County had always been
an agricultural area. Nixon spoke about the concerns regarding well water and said that if progress gets out of control, the results can be tragic. Sybil Burgess Murray, 9833 US Hwy 64 E, Ramseur, stated that she has been coming to these meetings and has been just observing. Murray stated that she agreed with Section
6.6b in the Northeast Randolph County Growth Management Plan. She stated that she
Page 5 of 226
Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2023 Page 3 of 7
wants the area to be attractive, without industrial development. Murray reminded the Boards that farmers often must use US Hwy 64 E to access different parts of their farms.
Candi Langley, 2454 NC Hwy 49 N, Ramseur, was present on behalf of property owners
Joseph G and Rosemarie Gulla who own the Marley House at 10435 US Hwy 64 E. Langley stated that the Marley House has been on the National Register of Historic Places since the 1990s. The Gulla’s were not able to attend the meeting and Langley read their letter for the Boards. (See Exhibit #2 for the letter from the Gulla’s.)
Beverly Mooney, 566 Parks Crossroads Church Rd, Ramseur, rose and told the Board that she and her husband are the owners of Millstone Creek Orchard and that they want the area left in a Secondary Growth Area. Mooney stated that people come to this area looking for things that they cannot find at home.
Charles Isom, 1016 Sherwood Ave, Archdale, stated that he moved from Guilford County to Randolph County in the City of Archdale in 2004 due to the area having the way of life and the same values that he has. Isom stated that he did not want to see the County destroyed and turned into something like Guilford County or Chatham County.
Maggie Dunn, 352 W Franklinville St, Staley, addressed the Boards by saying that she has lived in this community for 35 years. Dunn shared agricultural concerns and the amount of money that various agricultural operations bring into the County's economy. (See Exhibit #3.)
Debbie Highland, 6865 Brooksdale Rd, Staley, addressed the Board and told them about the historic school in the area that was built between 1919 and 1921 and how it provided a valuable service to the African American community.
Eric Christenbury, 7244 Old Staley Rd, Staley, stated that he is a landowner and business
owner and wants to know who is driving the pressure for development and why we want to move in this direction. Christenbury stated that if he wanted services like water and sewer, he would live in the municipalities. He also stated that he is concerned with traffic congestion and crime rates. Christenbury stated that he would like to see a minimum lot
size of ten acres and only allow single-family residences in municipalities.
David Fogleman, 1316 Browns Crossroads Rd, Staley, addressed the Boards by stating that industrial and residential development is not always compatible. Fogleman talked about people going to the North Carolina Zoological Park to see various animals and he
felt that his eighteen acres are just as valuable due to the wildlife on this property. He
states that industrial operations often promise benefits but asks if the benefits outweigh the negative impacts on the community. Sue Scotton, 1839 Browns Crossroads Rd, Staley, talked about the issues of agricultural
equipment and its impact on the traveling public and how many times crashes are caused
by agricultural equipment. Scotton stated that it was important that as the County continued to grow and expand into rural areas these concerns be addressed.
Page 6 of 226
Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2023 Page 4 of 7
Travis Pugh, 6422 Goldfield Rd, Liberty, addressed the Boards by saying that everything that is being done is being driven by money. Pugh stated that he is a fourth-generation farmer and hopefully, he is raising a fifth-generation farmer. Pugh stated that he has been
offered money for his farm that would allow his family to live comfortably for several years.
He stated that agriculture is the backbone of Randolph County and what would happen if the Toyota megasite closed. He asked the Boards to listen to the citizens and do what they are asking.
Kim Lackey, 2334 Shady Grove Church Rd, Staley, said that much of her comments have
already been covered and stated that agriculture is important to Randolph County as shown by the results of a survey about the Farm, Food and Family Ed Center. Lackey asked that the rural areas be protected and treasured.
Amelia Lackey, 2334 Shady Grove Church Rd, Staley, told the Boards that she is a
member of the Providence Grove Future Farmers of America and that many people in the chapter want to keep the family farms alive. She stated that the FFA gives students real-life hands-on experience and that the decisions made tonight will impact future generations and their families.
Emily Scotton, P O Box 22, Staley, addressed the Boards by stating that there have been no considerations made for education in the draft plan. E. Scotton talked about staffing issues at the school where she teaches and stated that the plan does nothing to address staffing shortages. She asked the Boards to consider making the changes as requested
by K. Scotton to keep the area rural.
Melda Dyer, P O Box 626, Ramseur, shared a saying with the Boards that “Enough is too much already.” Dyer stated that he has lived all over the world and the Randolph County and Staley is her favorite place to live. Dyer closed her comments in prayer.
Gwendolyn McIntosh, 7217 Margaret Chapel Rd, Staley, stated that she is known as “Ms. Gwen” and she loves her little Mayberry, and that the community does not need anything. Pell asked if there was anyone else that wanted to address the Boards.
Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for the Planning Board. Pell asked if there were any questions from Planning Board members.
Davis stated that he appreciated the agriculture community and that he understood what
they were trying to do. Davis stated that changing the Growth Management Area will not change someone's way of life or the value of the property. Day said that the draft plan is not a zoning document and will not change the zoning of a property. Day stated that the plan recognizes where transportation and infrastructure
exist, and he read sections from the draft plan as examples to clarify.
Page 7 of 226
Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2023 Page 5 of 7
Davis stated that the draft plan is not a change in zoning and Day stated that Davis’ statement was correct and that the draft plan tries to help balance a lot of information into the decision-making process.
Cable asked about the Primary Growth Area along the US Hwy 64 E corridors and buffers and scenic corridor options. Davis stated that much of the area looks as if it is already preserved.
Hedrick talked about the provisions in the Randolph County Unified Development
Ordinance that address scenic corridors and the process that must be followed to have the corridors approved. Hedrick said that it was great that the community came out to let their concerns be heard.
Beeson asked about the width of the Primary Growth Area along the NC Hwy 49 Corridor and Day said that it is five hundred feet on each side of the road from the centerline. Pell asked about the width of the Primary Growth Area on the US Hwy 64 E corridor and
Day said that it is 1,000 on each side of the road from the centerline.
Cable stated that NC Hwy 49 is buffered five hundred feet on each side and US Hwy 64 E is buffered 1,000 feet on each side and he was told that he was correct.
Caddle reminded the Boards that they needed to understand the request and that it is not
good planning practice to have no transitional area between the Primary Growth Area and the Rural Growth Area as is being requested at the meeting. Caddle stated that such as change could lead to unintended consequences in the future,
Cable stated that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners still control zoning,
buffers, etc. and that a transitional area should be considered. Caddle reminded the Board that the draft plan is not a zoning plan and does not speak to specific zoning regulations.
Hedrick talked about the differences between the Primary Growth Area and the
Secondary Growth Area as outlined in the draft plan. He stated that zoning questions would still come to the Planning Board and it would be unusual for the Planning Board to approve something that was inconsistent with the draft plan.
Pell asked if there were any other questions from the Planning Board members. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion.
Pell reminded the Planning Board that they could recommend approval of the plan as
present, approval of the plan as amended, recommend rejection of the draft plan, or postpone a decision on the draft plan.
Page 8 of 226
Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2023 Page 6 of 7
Cable stated that he felt that a lot of smart people sat on the Steering Committee and that they did a good job and took a lot of time looking at the issues. Cable said the entire process was about getting ideas to protect the future and protect growth in the County
because development will be coming to the County. Cable stated that since the Planning
Board cares about the County and their decisions are not driven by money, they take the time to research the issues and listen to the citizens and that he is proud to serve on the Planning Board and appreciates the passion of the citizens.
Hedrick stated that the draft plan is a static document that is subject to change and it will
serve as a catalyst to change the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and other development procedures and that it is important to take all of these various items into consideration.
Pell stated that everything will still come to the Planning Board and the Board of County
Commissioners if appealed and that the County is required to have a plan in place. Austin said it was no accident that farms and farmland preservation was the number one priority in the plan for the Steering Committee. Austin said the Boards are going to do
everything they can to protect your and my way of life and reminded the citizens that they
are represented on the Planning Board and they would do their best to protect Randolph County and its citizens. Hedrick asked about the verbiage on page two is something that Toyota wanted in the
plan.
Beeson stated that he felt that statement was the only change that he wanted to see in the draft plan.
Cable asked if Beeson wanted to amend the verbiage on page two about heavy truck
volume and Beeson replied yes. Hedrick stated that the Planning Board should just make a recommendation and let the Board of County Commissioners figure out the wording for this section.
Beeson stated that the provided motion covers any changes that the Planning Board may want to make to the draft plan. Austin made the motion to RECOMMEND APPROVAL to the Randolph County Board of
County Commissioners that the Randolph County Northeast Growth Management Plan,
which is included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the Randolph County
Northeast Growth Management Plan presentation, be adopted as presented or as may be amended. Beeson made a second to the motion to RECOMMEND APPROVAL to the Randolph County Board of County Commissioners for the Randolph County Northeast
Growth Management Plan.
Page 9 of 226
Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2023 Page 7 of 7
Pell, having a proper motion and second, called the question on the motion to RECOMMEND APPROVAL to the Randolph County Board of County Commissioners that the Randolph County Northeast Growth Management Plan, and the motion was
adopted unanimously.
Having no further business, Pell called for a motion to ADJOURN the meeting. Davis made the motion to adjourn, with Cable making the second to the motion.
Pell, having a proper motion, and second, called the question on the motion to ADJOURN. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m., with 51 citizens present.
RANDOLPH COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
________________________ Chairman
_________________________ _______________________________ Clerk to the Board Date
Page 10 of 226
to/2612023
1
+
Gro$th Management
Plan Update
Rondolph Counta
Ii. .rstnra/ G.outi ,rlLrnuo.rn.nt l'ln n
tus uloptelni2oog.
me uqote jnes on the Northeostenl
Pottion ol Rondolph County.
,+
Section r - Overview aod Purpose
S€ction 2 - BuildiDg the Vision
Scction 3 - Mapping Future Go$,th
S€ction 4 - Gro*th Mamgement
Policies and R€aommendations
Section 5 - Existing Condition Maps
s€ction 6 - Randolph County Board of
Colnmissioners Resolution
Appendix, Credits, and Sourc€s
2
1
EXHIBIT
1
rrt
15
Tat le of Cont€nts
I
Page 11 of 226
to/26/2023
+
-)I
l
+
Municipal Meetings. Met with repres€ntatiws from Ashebolo,
FranHinville, Lib€ty, Ramseur, Randleman
and sraley for feedback on gm$th issues
Public Meetings
:. M€etin$ held on April r8, June 29 and
A[8ust 31
Public input sun e, (Nearly z5o responses)
i, Agricultlue, industrial and housing issues are
top mtrled
T
rt I!m
!
Planning
4
2
Polic) Areas
,ll
)r\
$
4
r
r:!
Steering Committee
r 6 meetings since January. Review gmrrth data, Policy areas and crafted
new recoomenilatioDs
I
ll
r{
Ari
I
5r0'tj
Page 12 of 226
to/26/2023
-
Gmrrth Modeling Analysis
Complete w/ Methodologr
P8. 26-39
Toyota Megasite One-mile
Bufier/Enhanced Area
Updated one-mile buffel to rellect preriousl]
approved Toyota Mast€r ASreement (Pg. 2)
Existing Condition Maps Added
Pg. 55-62
Updatcs sltrce
August rvork
session
Erecutive Sumrnarlr
Pg. iii iv
5
3
Page 13 of 226
EXHIBITto\
10435 US Hwy 64 E
Staley, NC 27355
October 23, 2023
Dear Member of Randolph County Planning Board and Randolph
County Commissioners,
My name is Joseph Gulla. My wife and I own the property 10435 US
Hwy 64 E. This property contains the Marley House, a home on the US
Historical Register. The Marley House was built in 1816 and has been
improved and expanded over more than 200 years. lt is a uniquely
beautiful vernacular structure.
The property also contains a farm that was significant in its day and
presently, it is used to help develop the skills of new farmers. ln the last
10 years, 7 farmers have worked the land and developed their unique
farming brands. We need farmers and the farms that they create to
feed us.
My wife Rosemarie and I request that the Hwy 64E corridor from the
Chatham County line to Vaughn York road be designated in the
Seconda rv Growth Catesorv as this best fits the historical and
agricultural nature of our property and many others in the area
Sincerely,
Joseph & Rosemarie Gulla
(919) 274-06s3
ma rleys.mills.fa rm @gmail.com
Page 14 of 226
II
I
I/
I
\i
o
i-
'!)'J
I ..l Il
,.
Ei
Page 15 of 226
Marley House - A Vernacular Farmhouse
1816 - single pen log cabin with a loft
L830-40 - second story and shed room
1850 - rear wing
1920 - enlarged including porch
1990 - accepted to national historic register (one
of 18 places in Randolph County)
Mill, stagecoach station, farm, post office, store,
and community with a school (40 people in 1897)
Page 16 of 226
The Buildings
Marley House and Shed
1816
Ellis Barn - 1833 and 2009
Womble House - mill house
from 1835
Nixon Barn - 1925
Little Office Building - 1910
Pluck House, NC Post Office
- 1875
Pack House
Blacksmith Shed
McDuffie Barn - pre 1930
Potters Shed - 1850
Corn Cribs - 1920
Mill Dam - pre 1790
2: r..r lol
I
i
:t
E
,i/.
n'
\
r0
',r,
^d
W,
ti
Page 17 of 226
Historic Marley Mill
- Historic because the former mill on the
property was operating in 1790. The first room in
the house was built in 1816, and the Ellis Barn,
although raised in 2009, has the frame from a
barn that was originally built in 1833.
- Marlev because the Marley family was
associated with the property from the start.
Benjamin then Thomas and others as well.
Page 18 of 226
The People
- Benjamin Marley (1755-1815) and Rachel Swain i.1764-t8.37l
- Land Grants: 1793 (25 acres), 1795 (50 & 100 acres) and purchases of land
totaling 881 acres
- Thomas Marley (L794-1.862) and Polly (1796-1857) then Lavina
(t824-18821
- Had house built in 1816; inherited 211 acres after Benjaman's death
- More that 20 enslaved children born 1839-1883
- George Clymer Underwood (1835-1903)
- Clvil war surgeon studied at Jefferson in philadelphia
- Bought 115 acres in 1869
- iean Vollrath and Greg Talbott
- Restored house and moved many old building to property
Page 19 of 226
.!
\
F
!t
if
;
Page 20 of 226
Log wall
exposed
from L8L6
portion of
the house.
---
I
Page 21 of 226
1860 letter
from NYC to
NC; addressed
to lohn W
Staley at
Marleys Mills
PO
Post Office dates: 1827-1868 then 1875-1905
lh fg-/l".Li 'or/;'!',,n /n o,
f'h (
Page 22 of 226
EXHIBIT
\4.-+
4'+.rt
o<4a
+Q
t"AD
s
a
+or
5oApt(o
o€
cc"
s*
)
a(
4
o ey
\
q
?
o
It5
5t
co*
A
+s
\
3
\
sIJ
a-
,
oto STALEY'
*f
so{,s
,>-
7
o
o
B
,
OT DRE
roa,k€
I
I
(
,
.qa
.i'a
5
Page 23 of 226
i"
$o.'
RD
o
f
a
"3
,
$.
d.1*
5o4Ps1o'
421
A4ao
kJDar r no
*.o*r. '^t
5
4
-ruxtfit
2 s"r
t4^
'+ti
taley
ar*n
%o
5
,6TIJ3
1,c,
2
olo
'ALEY
Ro
7l,a
f'o
2
r,1
r^a#
eoo+*
"t
z
DR
'?L*
a
l*
oJt
5
6t
T
I
I
JTtf
oe
"""'s"
Z
Page 24 of 226
t'Y :.IE
\"
?
!
-\
{-/
t-
/
t
.t
I-.3A
-_l
\]
,l
t ri:
,%o,i,.
,#v
'?,,
't I
)t v!ll
!
tt-I:::.5
l,'
7
i
/
I
(trl .,
i
-\R
H
F16
oPdO4*
"*)-t
/
\
\\
Page 25 of 226
Page 1 of 5 11/7/2023
November 7, 2023
1. Call to Order of the Randolph County Planning Board. There was a meeting of the Randolph County Planning Board on November 7, 2023, at
6:30 PM in the 1909 Historic Courthouse Meeting Room, 145-C Worth St, Asheboro,
NC. Chairman Pell called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance.
2. Roll call of the Board members. Reid Pell, Kemp Davis, John Cable, Melinda Vaughan, Reggie Beeson, Ken Austin,
Barry Bunting were present. Brandon Hedrick was absent. County Planning Director
Tonya Caddle and Associate Attorney Aimee Scotton were also present along with
County Planning staff members Kayla Brown, Melissa Burkhart, David Harris, Kim
Heinzer, and Eric Martin.
3. Consent Agenda: On the motion of Beeson, seconded by Cable, the Board voted 7-0 to approve the
Consent Agenda as follows:
● Approval of agenda for the November 7, 2023, Planning Board meeting.
● Approval of the minutes from the October 3, 2023, Planning Board meeting.
● Approval of the Randolph County Planning Board Meeting Schedule for
2024.
4. Conflict of Interest
Pell asked the Planning Board members if there were any conflicts in the cases before
the Planning Board tonight. There were no Conflicts of Interest or ex parte
communication identified by Planning Board members.
● Are there any Conflicts of Interest or ex parte communication that should be
disclosed?
● If there is a Conflict of Interest, the Board must vote to allow the member
with the Conflict of Interest to not participate in the hearing of the specific
case where the Conflict of Interest has been identified.
5. Old Business. There was no old business for the Planning Board.
6. New Business.
REZONING REQUEST #2023-00002454
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
Legislative Hearing on the request by TARNIK FUNDS, LLC, Spring, TX,
and their request to rezone 3.66 acres on the intersection of US Hwy 64 E
Page 26 of 226
Page 2 of 5 11/7/2023
and Lee Layne Rd, Columbia Township, Tax ID #8712578454, Municipal
Growth Area, from RA – Residential Agricultural District and RR -
Residential Restricted District to HC - Highway Commercial District. It is the
desire of the applicant to rezone the property to allow any uses allowed by
right in the HC - Highway Commercial District.
Caddle presented the first case along with site plans and pictures of the site and
surrounding properties.
Pell opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of the
request to come forward and address the Planning Board.
H R Gallimore, 231 S Fayetteville St, Asheboro, NC, rose to address the Planning
Board. He gave an overview of the surrounding properties and stated that the owner
wants to rezone the property to HC - Highway Commercial District.
Cable asked about the proposed use of the property and Gallimore said that the
owner has not specified a proposed use.
Davis stated that since this is a straight rezoning, the allowable uses on the list
provided by the Planning Staff contain ninety-two uses. Davis asked how far this
property is from Eastern Randolph High School and Gallimore stated it is around
three-fourths of a mile.
Gallimore stated he guesses that the property will probably be used for retail uses
but he does not know at this time.
Cable stated that his concern at this site is the creek and flood zone on the property
and he feels that the Planning Board is in the dark on the specifics of this request.
Gallimore stated that he would defer to Randolph County Environmental Health and
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality for any concerns regarding
the stream or the flood plain.
Caddle stated that approximately 2.50 acres are in the floodplain. Caddle also stated
that the North Carolina Department of Transportation has said they prefer the access
off of Lee Layne Rd to reduce potential congestion on US Hwy 64 East.
Pell called for anyone else in favor to address the Planning Board. Hearing none,
Pell called for speakers in opposition to address the Planning Board.
Jim Raines, 7929 US Hwy 64 E, Ramseur, thanked the Planning Board for their
service and said that he was unsure of this request other than the desire to rezone
the property to HC - Highway Commercial District.
Page 27 of 226
Page 3 of 5 11/7/2023
Caddle stated that the request is for a straight rezoning and it would allow any uses
as specified in the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance.
Pell told Raines that the Planning Board cannot ask about a proposed use since it is
a straight rezoning request.
Raines told the Planning Board that he was asking the question as a neighbor and
that the ninety-two potential uses could open the area up to a variety of uses. Raines
said that asking for a proposed use of the property was a reasonable request.
Raines talked about questions regarding water quality and it will be more important
with the proposed waterlines that will be running to the Wolfespeed Site in Chatham
County. Raines said that it might be time for the Planning Board to look at the Table
of Permitted Uses and add more specific uses and remove some uses. Raines
closed by saying that he felt it was important for the Planning Board to know what
the property owner is requesting and that requiring a Conditional District is not a big
thing.
Vickie Bulla, 196 Lee Layne Rd, Ramseur, stated that she owns the adjoining
property and that there is a lot of trash in the stream and heavy rains can cause the
property to wash onto her property. Bulla talked about the potential traffic and trash
problems and stated that the area is mostly a farming community and if the new
owners would keep the site clean, she would not be opposed to the request.
Pell asked if there was anyone else in opposition who would like to speak. Hearing
none, Pell called on Gallimore to address the concerns raised by the neighbors.
Gallimore told the Planning Board that he was representing his client and reminded
the Planning Board that the County rezoned 1,800 acres to HI-CD - Heavy Industrial
- Conditional District with no idea of what was going to happen at the site and he felt
it was unrealistic to require site plans and the other requirements from the Randolph
County Unified Development Ordinance. Gallimore stated that there is still a lot of
oversite of development on the County and State level and that can stunt growth,
and he advised the Planning Board to let the systems that are in place work and let
the property be in the HC - Highway Commercial District.
Pell asked if there was anyone else that wanted to speak.
Raines stated that the County does have a process that approves and encourages
growth and that the 1,800 acres that Gallimore mentioned will be mostly good for the
County. Raines closed by stating the Conditional Districts are here to help control
growth and he asked the Planning Board to look to the long-term future of the
County when they make a decision.
Pell closed the public hearing.
Davis said that this property should probably be zoned HC - Highway Commercial
Page 28 of 226
Page 4 of 5 11/7/2023
District but, through no fault of the applicant, the Planning Board has no control over
the future development of this parcel.
Austin said that he agreed with Davis and that the Planning Board will continue going
through the straight rezoning process until some changes are implemented. Austin
said that the staff could probably identify more things that could fit on this property
and the Planning Board has to make a difficult decision.
Davis said that the Governing Board makes it difficult for the Planning Board to make
a decision.
Cable said that, like Gallimore, he does not think the property is going to be a drive-
in or other potential uses on the list. Cable stated that his concern is the creek and
that the Planning Board heard from the adjacent resident about problems caused by
the stream. Cable said that by approving this request they are giving the applicant a
blank canvas and he would like to know what is going to happen on the property.
Beeson stated that he agrees that the property does fit the HC - Highway
Commercial District, but he also has concerns about the creek and the allowed uses
and that the Planning Board should think long and hard about the allowed uses by
right.
Bunting said that he has problems with the request.
Pell stated that before development took place, the developer would probably be
required to do a site plan, a portion of the property would probably be used as a
sediment pond and that the run-off to the adjoining property would be handled by the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.
Cable stated that he agreed with Pell and that the two citizens most impacted by the
request spoke against this request and part of the Northeast Randolph County
Growth Management Plan contains information about protecting the citizens.
Austin asked if the Planning Board could table this request to allow the staff and
Planning Board to look at clarifying the classifications.
Pell said that he would rely on Caddle and Scotton to advise the Planning Board on
this question.
Caddle stated that she thought it would have to be a different application and that
tabling the request would not change the question before the Planning Board.
Pell said the applicant could withdraw the request, they could resubmit the request
and they have the appeal process with the Board of County Commissioners.
Caddle said that much time would be involved with amending the Randolph County
Page 29 of 226
Page 5 of 5 11/7/2023
Unified Development Ordinance as staff would have to formulate the changes for
presentation to the Planning Board and finally to the Board of County
Commissioners for adoption.
On the motion of Davis, seconded by Austin, with a vote of 5-2, Cable, Beeson
voting no, the Board voted to deny the request with the motions contained in the
Planning Board Packet.
7. Adjournment. Caddle talked briefly about the meeting schedule the Planning Board had adopted
earlier and she said there had been some interest in changing the start time of the
Planning Board meetings.
Beeson, Austin and Cable said that a 6:00 P.M. meeting time would be good.
Davis said that 6:00 P.M. is hard for farmers and he would like to see some kind of
change made to accommodate the farmers.
Caddle said the decision was entirely up to the Planning Board.
On the motion of Cable, seconded by Austin, the Board voted 7-0 to adjust the Planning
Board Meeting schedule to have meetings during standard time at 6:00 P.M.
(November through March) and during daylights savings time to have meetings at 6:30
P.M. (April through October) and that the new schedule would start on January 1, 2024.
Caddle and various Planning Board members had informal discussions about updates
to the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance.
At 7:10 p.m. on the motion of Davis, seconded by Cable, the Board voted 7-0 to
adjourn.
________________________________
Chairman
____________________________________
Clerk to the Planning Board
Page 30 of 226
CASE SUMMARY FOR SPECIAL USE REQUEST #2023-00002821
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Quasi-
judicial Hearing on the request by AUSTIN ROBERTS, Sophia, NC, and their request to
obtain a Special Use Permit at 2720 Devie Canoy Dr, Back Creek Township, Tax ID
#7724954859, 21.49 acres, RA - Residential Agricultural District. It is the desire of the
applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit to specifically allow obtaining a Federal Firearms
License for the sale and manufacturing of firearms at the owner’s existing residence as
per the site plan.
ALL WITNESSES FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS MUST BE SWORN IN BEFORE GIVING TESTIMONY.
Page 31 of 226
OATH FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS
(Special Use Permit Request,
Variances or Appeals)
NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY
Before opening the public hearing on a case, the
Chair must administer an oath or affirmation to those
wishing to speak on a specific case. (This oath is
specified in NCGS 11-11.)
The Chair should say,
“The Planning Board will now hear testimony for and
against this request. Anyone wishing to testify on this
request must come forward and take the oath. Only
those taking the oath may give testimony for this
request.
“Do you swear, or affirm, that the evidence you shall
give to the Board in this action shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you,
God.”
Page 32 of 226
PARCEL INFORMATION:
ZONING INFORMATION:
Zoning District 1: RA-RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
Zoning District 2:
Zoning District 3:
Specialty District: N/A
Watershed Name: NONE
Class A Flood Plain On Prop?: NO
3710772400JFlood Plane Map #:
Total Permit Fee: $100.00
COMMENTS:
The undersigned owner/applicant do hereby make application for a SPECIAL USE PERMIT as required by the
Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance. By making this application the owner/applicants acknowledge that no work
may be done pursuant to a Special Use Permit issued by the County Planning Board except in accordance with all
conditions that may be imposed by the Board. It is also acknowledged that any restrictions or conditions imposed
shall be binding on the owner/applicants and their successors in interest.
SPECIAL USE REQUESTED: TO OBTAIN A FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE FOR THE SALE AND
MANUFACTURING OF FIREARMS AT THE OWNERS EXISTING RESIDENCE
Signature of Applicant:
Melissa Burkhart
Authorized County Official
Applicant: ROBERTS, AUSTIN
City, St. Zip: SOPHIA, NC 27350
Address: 2720 DEVIE CANOY DR
Owner: ROBERTS, AUSTIN TRUSTEE
Address: 2720 DEVIE CANOY DR
City, St. Zip: SOPHIA, NC 27350
Permit #: 2023-00002821
Parcel #: 7724954859
Date: 10/17/2023
Location Address: 2720 DEVIE CANOY DR
SOPHIA, NC 27350
Permit Type Code: PZ 3
CONTACT
NAME:AUSTIN ROBERTS Contact Phone:336 906-8852
D W CANOY EST MP2TR 11
COMMON
ACCESS
Acreage: Township:21.5600 02 - BACK CREEK
Subdivsion: Lot number:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Page: 1 of 1
- LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
Department of Planning & Development
204 E Academy St - PO Box 771 - Asheboro NC 27204-0771
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Page 33 of 226
Roberts Request Location Map
BECKERDITERD
DEVIECANOYDR
1 inch equals 400 feet
Directions to the site: US Hwy 311 N -
(L) Beckerdite Rd - (L) Devie Canoy Dr -
Site on (L) at 2720 Devie Canoy Dr.
Page 34 of 226
Roberts Special Use Permit Request
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
FA
W
DR
DEVIECANOYDR
BECKERDITERD
1 inch equals 600 feet
Rezoned for 79 lot
site-built subdivision
in 2004
A Place in
the Heart Camp
SUP for auto-dealers
license in 1994
Request
location
Legend
Parcels
Structures
Type
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
Roads
Streams
50 ft. Stream buffer
County zoning
Districts
CLOE
RA
RLOE
Page 35 of 226
Roberts Special Use Permit Request
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
DEVIE
CANOYDR
1 inch equals 200 feet
Applicant's
residence
Legend
Parcels
Structures
Type
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
Roads
Streams
50 ft. Stream buffer
Page 36 of 226
Roberts Special Use Permit Request
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
FA
W
DR
DEVIECANOYDR
BECKERDITERD
1 inch equals 600 feet
Rezoned for 79 lot
site-built subdivision
in 2004
A Place in
the Heart Camp
SUP for auto-dealers
license in 1994
Legend
Parcels
Structures
Type
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
Roads
50 ft. Stream buffer
County zoning
Districts
CLOE
RA
RLOE
Streams
Page 37 of 226
Roberts Special Use Permit Request
BECKERDITERD
DEVIECANOYDR
1 inch equals 400 feet
Legend
Parcels
Roads
50 ft. Stream buffer
Page 38 of 226
Roberts Special Use Permit Request
Picture 1:
Drive into request
location.
Picture 2:
Adjacent residences
at request location.
Picture 3:
Property across
road from request
location.
Picture 4:
Adjacent residence.
Picture 5:
Drive to request
location on left as
seen looking toward
Beeson Farm Rd.
Picture 6:
Drive to request
location on right as
seen looking toward
Apache Trl.
Page 39 of 226
o o :Egg =o
.
OE
i!
.95
'
CE
leaa
D
o ri
3:
*
es
g
I
q3
i1
;
e:
{
38
6
c:
l
$1
5
ri
E
E8
z I
ol,o
s
€o
o 6oJI'r
Bo€t o3!oz E f;a
o E 2
{o I
8 a
E8 YH 9l
h
,nc
I
88o
Fo
t,
o E 2o a o
E E8
E I
o tFz I
-1
"
li
i
r
Q<
<
<
<
P9
9
9
9
=,
2
2
2
2
ds
i
B
B
ad
i
d
i
r
i
qE
,
,
o o
gc
!
zo =!
fl 9.
a
z
88
Page 40 of 226
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH ORDER Choose the decision. SPECIAL USE PERMIT
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY AUSTIN ROBERTS SPECIAL USE REQUEST #2023-00002821
NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
Having heard all the evidence and argument presented at the hearing on December 5, 2023, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the application is complete, that the application complies with all of the applicable requirements of the Randolph County
Unified Development Ordinance for the development proposed, and that therefore the application to make use of the property located at 2720 Devie Canoy Dr for the purpose indicated is hereby Choose the decision., subject to all applicable provisions of the
Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance.
HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Choose the decision. THE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AUSTIN ROBERTS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING:
1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where
proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Click here to enter findings of fact.
2. That the use meets all required conditions and specifications. This conclusion is
based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Click here to enter findings of fact. 3. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property,
or that the use is a public necessity. This conclusion is based on the following
FINDINGS OF FACT: Click here to enter findings of fact. 4. That the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as
submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located
and in general conformity with the Growth Management Plan for Randolph County. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Click here to enter findings of fact.
Page 41 of 226
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Randolph County Planning Board has caused this Special Use Permit to be issued in its name and the property owners do hereby accept this
Special Use Permit, together with all its conditions as binding on them and their
successors in interest.
Adopted on December 5, 2023.
_____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board
ATTEST
_______________________________
Kimberly J. Heinzer,
Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board
Page 42 of 226
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT
NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
“I make the motion to APPROVE this 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 the 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.”
If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I
second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the
motion.
Page 43 of 226
MOTION TO DENY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
“I make the motion to DENY this 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 may
materially endanger the public health or safety, or the use
does not meet all required conditions and specifications, or
the use may substantially injure the value of adjoining
property, that the use is not a public necessity and the
location and character of use if developed according to the
plan(s) as submitted and approved, or will not be in
harmony with the area and in general conformity with the
Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance.”
If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I
second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the
motion.
Page 44 of 226
Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 1 of 4
RANDOLPH COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT AND MAP AMENDMENT EVALUATION
APPLICATION #2023-00002995
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative Hearing on the request by OLD LIBERTY SOLAR, LLC, Durham, NC, and their request
to rezone 388.68-acres on Whites Memorial Rd, Franklinville Township, Tax ID
#7774905395, 7784000854, 7784112105, 7784215160, 7784412108, 7784306023, 7783295229, 7783187376, 7783288668 and 7783387254, Secondary Growth Area, from
RA - Residential Agricultural District to RIO-CD - Rural Industrial Overlay - Conditional District. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a 44-megawatt
ground-mounted utility-scale photovoltaic solar farm and battery energy storage system used to produce renewable energy as per the site plan.. GENERAL INFORMATION
Property Owner: Rodney Brown, Cody Matthew Allred, John David Allred
Hearing Type: Legislative Small Area Plan: None
Flood Plain Overlay: Yes
Airport Overlay: None
Existing Use: Tax deferred farms
SITE INFORMATION AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
Direction Adjacent Zoning Adjacent Land Use
North RA - Residential
Agricultural District Single-family residential
South RA - Residential
Agricultural District Single-family residential
East RA - Residential
Agricultural District Single-family residential
West RA - Residential Single-family residential
Page 45 of 226
Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 2 of 4
Agricultural District
TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION
Information from North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT):
No comments have been received from NC Department of Transportation.
ZONING INFORMATION
Zoning History: There is no history of a rezoning, Variance or Special Use
Permit at the request location.
Proposed Zoning District Standards from the Randolph County Unified
Development Ordinance, Article 600, Section 621 (ex. Fencing, buffers, etc.):
SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY
Zoning District: HI, LI, RIO
Screening and Fencing: Solar Energy Facilities shall be enclosed by a fence not less
than eight feet in height. Solar Energy Facilities shall
maintain a Level III Buffer.
Required Plans: a. Dimensions of the property and adjacent lots and
streets.
b. Location, use, and ownership of all existing and proposed buildings, and their dimensions.
c. Streets, traffic circulation, and parking areas with spaces.
d. Services areas, off-street loading facilities, service
drives, and dimensions thereon.
e. Location of all proposed landscaping, with property buffers between other uses and open spaces.
f. Location of all flood zones and streams.
Page 46 of 226
Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 3 of 4
g. Stormwater drainage and sanitary sewer where applicable.
h. Erosion and sedimentation control plan.
i. Location and type of security lighting.
Signs: Signs shall be permitted as described in Article 600, Section
634.
Other Requirements: a. 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.)
b. The applicant will be required to submit a plan defining
conditions upon which decommissioning will be initiated (e.g., end of land lease, no power production for twelve months, abandonment.) Furthermore, a form of surety equal to one-hundred percent of the cost of decommissioning under the plan, as estimated by a
North Carolina licensed engineer under seal, and approved by the Randolph County Planning Director and Randolph County Attorney, either through cash, a surety performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit or other instruments 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.
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
The Technical Review Committee has reviewed this request 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 Northeast Randolph County Growth Management Plan were identified by the Technical Review Committee as supporting the above conclusion.
Page 47 of 226
Technical Review Committee Report and Map Amendment Evaluation Page 4 of 4
Policy 5.2.a: The County should continue to encourage and promote environmentally
responsible industries within Randolph County.
Consistency Analysis: The type of development being proposed for this request is one
that is environmentally responsible as shown by the supplied documentation and the site plans and these types of industries are encouraged in Randolph County. Policy 5.5.a: Randolph County recommends that applicants proposing commercial
development show the appropriate suitability of the location as it relates to the character
of the surrounding land uses and other factors included in this plan.
Consistency Analysis: The applicant through their supplied documentation and site
plans has shown that the proposed use can be appropriate in this community as it will
have a minimum impact once all plantings and buffers have fully grown.
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 parcel in this rezoning request is subject to the Conditions agreed upon between the
property owner and the Planning Board. These Conditions will limit the amount and type
of development on the property reducing the impact on adjoining parcels. The proposed
use will also increase the tax base and increase economic activity within the County.
It should be noted that this recommendation is only the opinion of the
Technical Review Committee based on information supplied by the applicant
before the public hearing. Additional information provided at the public
hearing could cause the Planning Board to either accept or reject these
recommendations.
Page 48 of 226
PARCEL INFORMATION:
ZONING INFORMATION:
Zoning District 1: RA-RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
Zoning District 2:
Zoning District 3:
Specialty District:
Watershed Name: NONE
Class A Flood Plain On Prop?: YES
Flood Plain Map #: 3710776400J
Growth Management Areas:SECONDARY GROWTH AREA
Flood Plane Map #:
Total Permit Fee: $100.00
COMMENTS:
REQUESTED CHANGE:
The undersigned owner/applicant do hereby make application for a PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE as
allowed by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance.
Area To Be Rezoned: 387.0000
Lot Size Indicator: ACRE(S)
Proposed Zoning District: RIO-CD-RURAL INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY CONDITIONAL DISTRICT
Proposed Use(S): AN APPROXIMATE 44 MW AC GROUND MOUNTED UTILITY
SCALE PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR FARM AND BATTERY ENERGY
STORAGE SYSTEM USED TO PRODUCE RENEWABLE ENERGY
Condition(S):
Applicant: OLD LIBERTY SOLAR, LLC
City, St. Zip: DURHAM, NC 27713
Address: 5315 HIGHGATE DR, STE 202
Owner: BROWN, RODNEY
Address: 2377 WHITES MEMORIAL RD
City, St. Zip: FRANKLINVILLE, NC 27248
Permit #: 2023-00002995
Parcel #: 7774905395
Date: 11/03/2023
Location Address:
Permit Type Code: PZ 2
CONTACT NAME:TOM DELAFIELD Contact Phone:919 723-7473
CLARENCE HEDGECOCKTR 1
Acreage: Township:11.7900 08 - FRANKLINVILLE
Subdivsion: Lot number:
Melissa Burkhart
Authorized County Official Signature of Applicant:
APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page: 1 of 1
- LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
Department of Planning & Zoning
204 E Academy St - PO Box 771 - Asheboro NC 27204-0771
APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE
Page 49 of 226
Old Liberty Solar, LLC, Request Location Map
DENNY DR
CARLALLREDRD
OLD LIBERTYRD
M
I
L
L
B
O
R
O
R
D
GREENLEA F LN
RALEIGHDR
WHITESMEMORIALRD
T
I
P
P
E
T
T
R
D
1 inch equals 1,000 feet
Directions to the site: NC Hwy 22 N -
(L) Walker Store Rd - (L) Whites
Memorial Rd - Site on (R)
approximately 3/4 mile.
Page 50 of 226
Old Liberty Solar, LLC, Rezoning Request
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
DENNY DR
RALEIGHDR
WHITESMEMORIALRD
T
I
P
P
E
T
T
R
D
OLD LIBERTYRD
CARL ALLRED RD
1 inch equals 1,000 feet
Legend
Parcels
Structures
Type
!(Multi-address Structure
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
!(Miscellaneous Structures
Roads
Streams
50 ft. Stream buffer
Flood plains
County zoning
Districts
CVOE
CVOR
LI
RA
RM
RR
Page 51 of 226
Page 52 of 226
Page 53 of 226
Page 54 of 226
Old Liberty Solar, LLC, Rezoning Request
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
DENNY DR
RALEIGHDR
WHITESMEMORIALRD
T
I
P
P
E
T
T
R
D
OLD LIBERTYRD
CARL ALLRED RD
1 inch equals 1,000 feet
Legend
Parcels
Structures
Type
!(Multi-address Structure
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
!(Miscellaneous Structures
Roads
Streams
50 ft. Stream buffer
Flood plains
County zoning
Districts
CVOE
CVOR
LI
RA
RM
RR
Page 55 of 226
Old Liberty Solar, LLC, Rezoning Request
DENNY DR
RALEIGHDR
WHITESMEMORIALRD
T
I
P
P
E
T
T
R
D
OLD LIBERTYRD
CARL ALLRED RD
1 inch equals 1,000 feet
Legend
Parcels
Roads
Streams
50 ft. Stream buffer
Flood plains
Page 56 of 226
Old Liberty Solar, LLC, Rezoning Request
DENNY DR
RALEIGHDR
WHITESMEMORIALRD
T
I
P
P
E
T
T
R
D
OLD LIBERTYRD
CARL ALLRED RD
1 inch equals 1,000 feet
Legend
Roads
Growth Management
Secondary Growth Area
Rural Growth Area
Page 57 of 226
Old Liberty Solar, LLC, Rezoning Request
Page 1 of 2
Picture 1:
Request location as
seen from Whites
Memorial Rd.
Picture 2:
Property across
road from request
location on Whites
Memorial Rd.
Picture 3:
Request location
on left as seen
looking toward
Walker Store Rd.
Picture 4:
Request location on
right as seen looking
toward Carl Allred
Rd.
Picture 5:
Request location as
seen from Carl
Allred Rd.
Picture 6:
Property across
road from request
location on Carl
Allred Rd.
Page 58 of 226
Old Liberty Solar, LLC, Rezoning Request
Page 2 of 2
Picture 7:
Request location
on right as seen
looking toward
Tippett Rd.
Picture 8:
Request location left
as seen looking
toward Whites
Memorial Rd.
Picture 9:
Request location as
seen looking from
Old Liberty Rd.
Picture 10:
Property across
road from request
location on Old
Liberty Rd.
Picture 11:
Request location on
left as seen looking
toward Millboro Rd.
Picture 12:
Request location on
right as seen looking
toward Pugh Dr.
Page 59 of 226
OLD LIBERTY SOLAR _ RANDOLPH COUNTY, NC
Old Liberty Solar - Rezoning Application
10/27 t2023
PrcpertY owner Name I i..o?d lum!.rl o._,"1 nr.dolph Cdnty Cu.re.t
77a4tt2105
77332$654
17,],-71-2105
713r-106423
7744 295229
7743 1A 1376
7733-23 3664
174!)3.1245
46 55
11525
4495
1179
25.45
25.15
9/2/2016
ll2ol2at1
!2O/2A13
s/6l2ors
46.55
11526
11.79
25 35
26.15
OLD LIBERTY SEELEY SOUIR LLC I,IDOLPH COUNTY . REZONING PERMIT APPUATION
u=e
Page 60 of 226
OLD LIBERTY SOLAR - RANDOLPH COUNTY, NC
Old Liberty Solar - Rezoning Permit Conditions for Approval
10t27 t2023
The applicant, Old Liberty Solar LLC, proposes the following conditions to be imposed
to meet the standards ofthe Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance:
1l 0ld Liberty Solar will submit a complete Erosion and Sed imentation Control Planto
Randolph County prior to obtaining the required building and electrical permits.
2) Old Liberty Solar will submit a final site plan including all access road locations to the
Randolph County Fire Marshall for approval prior to the construction of Old Liberty
Solar.
31 0ld Liberty Solar shall have the flexibility to use any fencing which meets the
requirements ofthe National Electric Code (NECl.
4l This permit shall carry five years of vesting
OLD LIBERTY SOUIR LLC ,DOLPH COUNW. REMN INA PERMIT APPLICATION
..rl
Page 61 of 226
to /2a /2a23
Parcel number: Refer to aEtached document
Application numbel
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
Department of Planning & Development
204 E Academy St . Asheborc NC 27204-0771
APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE
Job contact name
Job contact phone number
Ton DeLafield
(919) 121-7413
Job contacle-mail: tdelafreld@r-e-se!vices.com
01d Liberty solar LLCOwner
Address 5315 tliqhqate Drive, Suite 202
City. ST ZIP NC 2 7713
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Townshipl N/ASubdivision name
N/ASubdivision lot #:
Address:Approximalely 237? whires Uehorial Road Franklinville, NC 27248
DEED INFORMATION:
Date recorded: Refer to aElached document Deed acreage Refer to attached document
ZONING INFORMATION:
Zoning District(s): Re6idential Asriculrural District
GroMh Management Area(s): secoDdary crowth Area
SpecialtyDistrict: NoEe
Watershed Name: None
Flood Map *-.3ia07"/a4aoJ
Class A Flood Plain On Prop? No
REQUESTED CHANGE:
Area to be rezoned 11A4146A2\,11A1295229,11a1tA1316. ??333372s{(approrimately3STacres)
Proposed Zoning Diskic{(s)Rural hdust!iaI ove!Iay Di6rrrct
Proposed Use(s)
Condition(s)
systeh uEed to produce reoewable energy
N/A
The undersigned owner/applicants do hereby make an application for a pROpERry ZONING CHANGE as
allowed by the Randolph County Zoning Ordinance.
Marrhew Delaf i el cl -.,*,, -
Signature of Owner/Applicant Dale
Dale
Please e-mail the signed and completed form to
planning@randolphcountync. gov.
ta /2a /2a23
Authorized County Zoning Official
LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER
Asheboro: (336) 318-6555
randolohcohtto /
Rev 1011312023 Page 1 ol2
Date:
Rezoning Apphcation
Page 62 of 226
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
Department of Planning & Development
204 E Academy St . Asheboro NC 27204-0771
SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Detailed site plans for property rezonings must be submitted to Randolph County Planning Staff belore
applicat ons are considered final and accepled The Randolph County Unified Developfient Odinance, Atlicle
600, Section 621 contains the detailed regulations and items that must be included on submitted site plans.
PLANNING BOARD REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVING OR OENYING PROPERTY REZONING
According to the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance, Article 400, Sections 41'1 and 412. and
applicable North Carolina General Statutes, the Randolph County Planning Board must find the following on all
rezoning requests for the request to be approved:
That the request is consistenl with lhe adopted Randolph County Gtov",th Managemenl PIan, and
That the request is reasonable and t) the public interest
lfthe request is inconsistent with the Randolph County GtoMh Management Plan or lhe tequest is unreasonable
or not rn the public interest, the Randolph Planning Board must deny the request.
Any appeals of the decision of the Randolph County Planning Board on matters of property rezoning may be
made to the Randolph County Manager's Otfice as outlined in lhe Randolph County Unified Development
Ordinance, Nlicle 4OO, Seclion 411. ltem A. Any appeal must be made within fifteen days ofthe decision by the
Randolph County Planning Board.
1
2
LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER
Asheboro: (336) 318€555
randolPhcou
Rezonrng ApPlication
hitp /
Rev 10/13/2023 Page 2 ot 2
Page 63 of 226
OLD LIBERTY SOLAR - RANDOLPH COUNTY, NC
Landowner Consent Form ';l
To: Randolph County Planning & Zoning Department/ Planning Board
Subject: Old Liberty Solar, LLC - Rezoning and Special Use Permit Request
I, Rodney B. Brcwn, being the property owner ofparcels 7784OOOAS4,77A4ll27O5,
77 A4215160, 77 844\2lOA, 77A4306023 & 77 7 4905395, glve co n sent to Old Liberty
Solar, LLC and its agents to act on my behalfin appllng for any rezoning and/ or special
use permits necessary for the development and construction ofa utility-scale solar farm.
LANDLORI)
Printed Name
Date B-ro: 2-3
Bv
OLD LISERTY SOI./IR, LL(
Page 64 of 226
OLD LIBERTY SOLAR _ RANDOLPH COUNTY, NC
Landowner Consent Form
To: Randolph County Planning & Zoning Department/ Planning Board
subjectr old Liberty Solar, LLC - Rezoning and special Use Permjt Request
l, John David Allred, being the property owner of parcels 778328A668 &17A33a7254'
give consent to Old Liberty Solar, LLC and its agents to act on my behalfin applyinB for
any rezoningand/ or special use permits necessary for the development and
construction ofa utility-scale solar farm.
LANDLORD By lo\u \l Rvr I Arrr" I
Date: 8.5'. ? O? 3
OLD LIESRIY SOLAR LLC
tr.S
Printed Name: P\r\'\o.iA. nU^rA
Page 65 of 226
OLD LIBERTY SOLAR _ RANDOLPH COUNTY, NC
Landowner Consent Form
To: Randolph County Planning & Zoning Department/ Planning Board
Subject: 0ld Liberty Solar, LLC - Rezoning and Special Use Permit Request
l, Cody Mafthew Allred, and wife, Staci Isaacs, being the property owner ofparcels
77A3295229 &77A3187376,8ive consent to Old Liberty solar, LLc and its agents to act
on my behalfin applying for any rezoning and/ or special use permits necessary for the
development and construction ofa utility-scale solar farm.
N dLANDLORDlll
printed Name: Cody Matthew Attred
Dare:Aug 31,2023
OLD LIBERTY SOLAR. LLC
t=;l
Page 66 of 226
Proposed Operations and Maintenance Plan
Old Libeny Solar LLC
Randolph County. North Carolina
Contact Information
For all non-emergency corresponde[ce during the operation ofthe solar farm. parties should
direct inquiries to the following Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Providerl
Company: TBD
Aftention: TBD
Phone: TBD
Email: TBD
Address: TBD
Maint(.nance Sen'ices
During the operational life ofthe Old Libeny Solar project. the Operations and Maintenance
Provider shall provide services at the approximated frequency outlined below. although the exact
scope is subject to revision. pursuant to the final Operations and Maintenance contract execuled
by Old Libeny Solar with the O&M Provider at the time ofcommercial operation. lt is expected
that the O&M Provider shall make even- effort to note items ofconcem outside ofthe scope of
scheduled visits, inspecting. and assessing items that may be problematic. For the avoidatce of
doubt. any mention ofrepons or notifications shall be directed from the O&M Provider to the
owrer of Old Liben) Solar. and not to the County. unless obligated to do so by Coung. State. or
Federal regulations.
Item Service Service Description Frequency
L Monitoring. Reporting, Inventory
I I Daill'
Monitoring
Monitor inverter and meter output data for
recordkeeping and to identily issues
Dailr
1.2 \{on1hl\
Rcponing
Provide monthly operating report for the project
lhat ma) include a summa4 ofthe follouing:
operations. weather data. project performance.
any environrnental or site disturbances.
safety/accident reports. maintenance and
inspection reports. any proposed maintenance for
the upcoming month.
Monthh
1.3 Annual
Reporting
Provide aniual output/performance.
maintenance. and inspection repons for the
project's preceding operational year.
AnnuallT
1 .1 lncident and
Maintenance
Reporting
Providc a uritten repon ofanl event involving
unplannrd sen iees. pcrsonn(l tniun ('ccurrinE
(|n site. r anr malerial JamaFc Io thc proje(l.
No later than five
(5) business days
after the
occunence. or
mmediatcly for
Page 67 of 226
t.5
I,6 Spare Parts
).2
1.1
).6
2.7
1.8
1.9
:.0
3. Site/Land
1.2
(BhSS) Monitori InventoS
and Maintenance
OSHA recordable
events- but no
later than 24
hours.
Secu ty
Incident
Reporting
Notifr facility ouner following O&M Provider
receiving information indicating a security issue
on site.
Immediately. but
no later than 24
hours.
Storage and maintenance of replacemenl
equipment for the facility.
( heck coolant qr.ralitl
As Needed
Evcn 3 MonthsBaftery Cabinet
Chiller
BESS Block
Noises
( hcck lirr abnorrnal noise dLrring operalion Monthlv
Monthl!BESS Block
Alarm
Check cabinet front LED wamings/PcS HMI
readings-
BESS Illock
ITSS
Twice per Year
DaillIIESS Illock
IJatterics
Balance batteries. Monitor daily, recalibrate at
three weeks
BESS BCP and
Site Controller
L]PS
Check batteries E\ery 3 Months
I]F-SS I]SS
( ontrols
Check the function ofthe fire supp.ession
devices. Additional checks performed. as
needed. by contracted local sen'ice provider
Annualll
BESS lllock Check the grounding connections Evcn 3 Months
Every 3 MonthsSpare Pans
As Needed- uith
t-vpical 4-5x per
Year
Annualll
Maintain vegetation. remove debris. and other
general landscaping for all propeny within the
fenced area as uell all propcrq immediatel)
sunou.ding the fence. as required by local
Chcck lbr leqihrlit\
ordinances or ecl conditions
Vegetation
Management
N
BESS
Twice per Yearlnspect projecl acreage for erosion. runoff.
depressions. or other concems. Inspect all
drainage systems (culverts. basins. etc) and
ensure the,\ are funclioning and free ofdebris
that would pre\ ent \.!ater from flowing
2.
1.5
i.l
Ground
lnspection
l.l
Check control panel FSS barery voltage.
Check spare pans inventory level (A 3-month
supply of main spare parts inventory is typical
for BESS)
unimpeded.
Page 68 of 226
3.1 Perimeter and
l'ence
Inspection
lnspect all fencing lbr possible damage.
intrusion. vandalism. and rhefl. as *'ell as
overgrouth of nearby vegetation. Inspect
signage to ensure all originall) inslalled srgns Jre
securelv attached and legible
Twice per Year
3..1 Road Inspection Inspect all roads for damage caused by erosron
or severe weather.
Twice per Year
3.5 Security
Inspection
lnspect the enlire facility l'or signs ofvandalism
or olher securit\ relaled issues.
Iwicc per Year
4. llattery Enerl.-"- Storage S) stem (BESS) Maintenance
,1.l Battery Cabinet
Chiller
Every 3 Months
4.2 Site Controller
HVAC
Clean air liller Every 3 Months
1.i BFISS Block
Signage
Check safet) signage and arc flash stickers for
wcar and tear. replace ifnecessary.
Evcry 3 Months
,1.1 PCS Air Filters Check PCS air hlters. Clean or replace filters.
Notc: Some environmenls may require more
frequent sen icing and frequencl uill be
updated. as nceded. during vcar l.
Everl 3 Months
PCS/ BCP/
Torque Check
Check the torque marks on all PCS/ BCP *iring
connections. Tighten as needed.
Annualll
4.6 BESS Torque
Check
Check the torque marks on all BESS cabinet
busbars and other wiring connections. Tighten as
needed.
Annualll
1.7 BESS Fire
Suppression
System
Controls
Replace backup batteries Even 3 Years
BESS Fire
Suppression
System
Replace powder camisters.Even l0 Years
5. DC-Side System lnspection
5.l Racking
Inspection
lnspect all racking. racking mounts, racking
fasteners. actuaton. motors. joints and
conduiting affixed to racking to confirm proper
operation. as well as for an1 signs ofdamage.
corrosion. or instabilit-v. Ifissues are identified.
perform maintenance in accordance u,ith
manufacturer's recorrunendations.
Annually
5.1 Racking
Grounding
on one racki ng structure per cnclosure
Annuallv
4.5
.1.8
I Use air gun to clean the condenser and air inlets.
I
Measure and record grounding continuity
between module. rack. and grounding conductor
Page 69 of 226
r.l
i..l Broken Module
Replacement
5.6
5.7
5.ri
5.9
Module
Physical
Inspection
Visr.rally inspect 207o sampling ofmodules for
soiling. breakage, delamination. and discoloring
The sample area shall systematically rotate each
year so that the whole facility is inspected every
5 years. Inspections may be done on foot or by
aerial visual anallsis.
Annually
Ifbroken modules hare previousll been
idenlified or are identified at the time ofroutine
inspection. O&M Provider uill replace lhem
with ne\! modules a1 the sole expense ofthe
facilitv o*ner.
As Needed
Module IR Pcrlbrm aerial inliared inspcction ol_all solar
modules 1o identrfv irrcgularities.
Annualh
\lodule
Ilcctrical
Inspcction
lnspect underside ofmodule arrays for properll
secured conductom. home run splifters. and wire
management or chafing concems.
Annualll
Insulation
Iesling
Perform insulation resistance testing on
conductors. if issues suspected.
As needed
Module
Degradation
Testing
Permanently identi! 502 ofbenchmark strings
ard IV Curve. trace those slrings lo gauge
module degradation.
Annualll
Wirc Inspeclion Visualll, inspect wiring for damage or exposed
conductors.
Tuice per Year
Combiner Box
and Enclosure
Inspections
Electrical and mecharical inspection of
combiner boxes and associated disconnects.
Visualll inspect bonding bushings and
grounding. door seals. conduit sealant. lnspect
interior and exterior ofall enclosures for signs of
damage. water intrusion. corrosion. and correct
signage. Check tbr wire damage especially at
entrance/exit locations. terminal corrosion. any
discoloration. and inspect fuses for proper
functionalit\. Rcmore Desl debris as needed.
'fuice per Year
Combiner Box
and Enclosure
Torque
Inspections
Confirm and correct terminal torque seflings for
both sides ofall fuse holders. grounded terminal
bar. grounding bar. PV output circuit. and DC
disconnects. Re-torque. as needed.
Annuallv
IR Enclosure
Inspcction
Perlorm infrared thermal inspection ofall
lerminalions and cunenl arresling de\ ices in
accordance with NETA-A-IS Section 9.4.
Annualll
6. AC-Side System Inspection
Invener
Inspection
As outlined b1'
manufacturer
6.1
5. 10
5.r2
Perform routine maintenance uork on all
inverters. Maintenance shall be conducted in
accordance with manufacturer's recommended
Page 70 of 226
schcdule and as dictatcd b) any $arrano
requirements.
6.2 Invener
Enclosure
lnspection
Check all enclosures for loose or broken
connections and for evidence oflocalized
heating or water ingression. Check door seals,
conduit bushings, and conduit sealant for
integrity. Ifissues are identified. re-seal. corect,
or otherwise repair
Annuall)
6.3 In\ erter Air
Filters and
Translbrmer
Heal Sinks
lnspect all air filters for each inverter and heat
sinks. Ifnecessary. clean and/or replace.
As outlined b1
maurufaclurcr
6.1 lnverter IR
Inspcction
Perform infrared thermal inspection of all power
generalion lerminations at each invener in
accordance with NETA-ATS Section 9.4 as PPE
allows.
Annuallv
6.5 lnverter
Cooling Fans
Inspect in\erter cooling fans for proper operation Annualll
6.6 Inverter Comms
Test
Verifu HMI is operating correctly. and record
phase inDut voltage
Annuallv
6.1 Invcrter iault Record and clear all faults on inrener Annualll. or as
needed
6.8 Inverter
Signage
lnspcction
Visuall,," inspect equipment and ensure all labels
and safeq instructions are affixed and legible.
Annuallr
6.9 lnvener
Termination
lnspection
Visually inspect all electrical termination
fasteners for proper torque per existing torque
marks. Re-torque or repair, ifneeded.
Annually
6.10 Transformer
OEM
Maintenance
Visually inspect. clean. and peform preventative
mainlenance, as needed. on all transformers as
specifi ed by manufacturer.
Annuallv
6.11 General
Transformer
Inspection
lnspecl inside primall and secondary side of
ground mounted translbrmcr enclosures lbr signs
of orerheating. oil leakage. or pests.
Annuallv
6.12 Transformer Oil
Monitoring
Record oil level. currenl and max pressLlre, and
currenl and max lemperature oftransformer oil.
Also. confirm proper operation of load break oil
immersed rotan s\\itch.
Annualll
6.13 Inverter and
Transformer
Pad
Inspect pad is cleaned and frcc ofcracks.
erosion. or other structural damagc.
lnspect all latches and seals on enclosure of
disconnect to ensure it firnctions correctlv.
Visuallv inspect terminations and confimr
Annually-
6.14 AC Disconnect Annuall)
Page 71 of 226
6.15
6.16
6.11
6.t8
1.)
7.2
7.1
terminal torque settings. Check for evidence of
arcing.
MV Isolation
Devices
Check all grid irclarion devices (GOAB.
Recloser, Overhcad Cutouts) for proper function
Tuice per Year
Recloser
lnspection
Inspect iecloser and meter enclosurcs for
moistue. re-seal ifnecessaq. Record and
confirm proper rccloser setpoints per utility's
requested settings.
MV IR
Inspection
Perform infrared thermal imaging ofall MV
system components and identi$ any
inegularities.
Annuall)'
Srvitchgear
Preventative
Mainlenance
Conduct ssitchgcar pre\ entati\e mainlcnance in
compliancc n'ilh manufacturer's guidelines.
Annualll
7. Battery Energy Storage Systems (UESS) Inspection
BESS Block
Battery cabinets
BCP and PCS
lnspection
Inspccl outsides of containers.Every 3 Months
BESS Block
Battery cabinets
BCP cabinets
and PCS
Inspection
Inspect interior and clean BESS Block inside
containers.
Tuice per Year
BESS Block
Interior
lnspection
Inspect doors on BESS Block (BESS. BCP.
PCS). Check thc latches. they should open and
close properll'. Inspecl containers for door seals
and clean ifwater present or ifdirb-.
Even 3 Months
8. DAS/SCADAInspection
8.l General DAS
Inspection
Perform monitoring s)stem maintenance per
manufacturer's suggested schedule. Veri$
aftachment and Seneral orientation of
pyranometers and module temPerature sensors.
as uell as check MET station and verii
functionality o1-back-up power supply.
T*ice per Year
8.1 Pvranometers Clean pyraoometer dome rl'ith an approved cloth
and inspect conncclions
Each sitt' r isit
8.1 P)'ranometer
Calibration
Pro\ider to $ork uith facilitl ouner to calibrate
pyftmometer a-\ Per manufacturer's
specifications.
As Specified b1
Manufaclurcr
Twice per Year
Page 72 of 226
8.'1 l)alrlnstrument
Accuracy and
Communication
Vcrification
Annually
8.s Tuice per Year
9. Testilg
9.1 IV Curve St ng
Testing or
Module Level
Thermal Audit
Test lV curve on all st ngs or thermal audit on
all modules
Annually
9.2 Transformer Oil
Testing
Sample transfomer oil and test in accordance
with nationally recognized testing standards and
methods.
Once every 2
Years
9i Point-to-Point
Testing
Inspect a randomly selected sample ofcombiner
boxes (roughly 5-10%) and modules. checking
the grounding for \ ear. corrosion. connection
strenglh, and poiDt-to-point resistance belween
modules. rack. and EGC. All locations and
resistances shall be documented. Identif any
resistance readings above 0.5 ohms.
Alnuall-v',
10. Substation
t0.l Substation
Troubleshooting
Perform troubleshooting at the project collection
substation lbr alarms, evenls ofpo$er loss /
communication. Provide diagnostic summary
based on logged plant data. rela) event files,
tracing wire connections, or findings fiom other
testing equipment.
Ongoing
10.2 Substat')n IIV Monitor HV equipment. Ulilize HV switching
and Froundin! to isolale componenls for
troubleshooting and failed component
replacement.
10.3 Substation
OIiM Required
Inspections
Complete the full visuai/mechanical/electrical
inspections and tests as recommended by
ANSINETA and the OEM o\\rer manuals per
the respective intervals including but not limited
to Generator Step-Up tansformer. Switchgear.
Circuit Breakers. Disconnecl S\ritches.
Metering, Capacitor Banks as applicable.
Protective Relays. CTsPTs. Control House.
Station Po$er. and Substation Groundin
Annualll. or at
manufacfurer's
recommended
frequency
Test MET station sensors (GHI and POA
pyranometeB, ambient temperature. back of each
module sensor, anemometer, meter. and inverter
communication).
Inspect facility's data loggcrs and
communication devices.
Data Loggers
and Comms
Ongoing
Page 73 of 226
{E
HEALTH AND SAFETY
ASSESSMENT REPORT
Old Liberty Solar
44 MWnc Photovoltaic Facility with
-15 MWac / 4-hour Battery
Randolph County, NC
ABSTRACT
This is an assessment ofthe potential health and safety
impacts ofthe proposed 44 MWAc Old Liberty Solar
photovoltaic facility with batt€ry enerSy storage (BE5) in
Randolph County, NC. Considering the project d€sign and
location, the assessment €valuates the potential positive
and neSative impacts ofthe project on public health and
safety. Most ofthe project area willb€ covered by solar
equipm€nt, whi€h produces valuable electricity without
produchganv dir. water. or sorlemrssrons. The pnmary
health and safety risk ofthe system €quipment is toxicity,
which h considered an detailin this assessment. The battery
equipment willoccupy a tiny portion of the site's footprint
and willprovide many benefits to the electric grid. The
primary health and safety risk ofthe battery equipmeht is
lire, which is minimized by advanced battery tech6oloSies,
2417 monitoring, new battery regulations, and the lonS
distance between the equiprnent and the public. The
conclusion ofthe assessment is that the Old Liberty Solar
facilitywillnot create negative health end safety impacts.
The clean eleckicaty the project willproduce will reduce the
burning offossilfuels, which will r€duce pollution and
provide millions ofdollars'worth of localpublic health
benefitg as a result, bas€d on U.S. EnvironmentalProtection
Tommy Cleveland, PE
Consuhing Ingineer
Solar Health and Safety Expert
August 22,2023
\
\
t
\
Page 74 of 226
Tommy Cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: Health and Safety Assessment Report
PaBe I of 24
a
Proiect Overview:
. Project Nam€: Old Liberty Solar. Developer: Renewable Energy Services
. Project Area (inside fence): -234 acres
. Pv Capaciiy: 44 MWAc (_57.2 MWo.)
. Solar Panels:bi facial.rystalhne silicon:
Hanwha Q Cells 580W or equivalent. Structure: sinBle-axis trackers (north
south rows,60' E to 50'W). lnverters: €entral station type: SMA
Sunny Central4000 (4.0 MW)or
. Eattery En€rgyStorese IBES):14 to 18
MwA. with 4-hour duralron (-60 MWh),
AC coupled. Battery Type: lithaum'ion batteries,
manufactured by a Duke Energy
approved battery cell vendor. Poini of lnt€rconnection to Grid: Duke
En€rgy Pr08ress 230 kv transmission
lne passinS along SE corner of project area
. tnterconnection Equipmenr: Du ke E nergy Progress 2 30 kv switchyard and project's 34.5kv/2 30kV su bstation adjacent to
th€ pornt of interconne€taon
Report Author
The author ofthis report is Tomfiy Clevel.nd, PE, (the "Author")a consulting engineer licensed as a professional engineer in
Nc s nce 2007. Mr. Cleveland Eraduated from North Carolina State universitv ("NC state")with underSraduate and mast€r's
degrees in mechanicalengineering, where hefocused on energy- His solar career started with his master's thesis, whi€h led
to workinS over 12 years at the North Carolina Clean EnerSY Technology Center at NC
State lJniversity. while at the universaty, Tommy worked on nearlY every aspect ofsolar
energyi from teaching, !o testing equipment, to research & development, to leading a
statewide stakehold er Srou p in the development ofa template solar ordinance 0urinB
his time at NC stale, North Carolina installed more photovoltai€ ('Pv") capacity than
any state otherthan California, mostly in the form of 2 5 MW^c utility_scale soler
facilities covering around 40 a€res each. UtilitY-scale solarwas unfamiliar to the
hundreds ofcommunities around the state wh€rethe systems were proposed, and
many ofthore communities had q!eshons about the te€hnologY and its potentialto
harm public h€alth or the environment in their community. ManY ofthose questions
found their way to Mr. Cleveland and he expanded his already broad knowledge ofPV
to research and find answers to the questions beinB asked Overtime he b€came an
Ne.hh nld s,.ly rnp*rs
expert on the potential health and safety impacts of Pv and was the lead author ofthe
2017 NC State whrte paper on the topic (pictured to the left). Since mid_2017 Mr.
Cleveland has worked as a solar engineer at an energy engineeringfarm conducting
fd tiberty Solar (with batteries) - Randolph County, NC
E
a
a
E
r9j0N rm E@
Health & Safety
ryffi
56
CEEECE I
ffi
\
q f*ffi
Assessment Report
Page 75 of 226
Tommy cleveland, PE old Liberty Solar: Heahh and Safety Assess ment Report
PaZe 2 of 24
interconnection commissioning of utility'scale solar and battery facilities for utilities in North and South Carolina. ln this role
Mr. Cl€veland was the engineer responsable for (intercon n ection ) com m issioning over 60 PV sites and 4 battery sites.
Page 76 of 226
Tornmy Cleveland, PE Old Liberty Sola. Heahh and Safety Assessment Report
Page 3 of 24
This report assesses the potential health and safety impacts ofthe
proposed old tiberty solar44 MWac solar photovoltaic with battery energy
storage project. The old Liberty Solar facility, located in Randolph County,
North Carolina, will rnstall crystalline silicon solar panels on single'axrs
track ng racks that slowly rotat€ each row ofpanels to follow th€ sun
across lhesky targe €entralstation inv€rters willconvert the DCsolar
electr city 8€nerated by the solar panels into Srid syn€ed AC electri.itY.
conta nerized battery systems, capable ofstoring and discharginB energy,
wrll be located at the point of interconnection to the grid Transforrners will
boost the volta8e ofthe Pv and battery inverter! for conh€ctron to an
onste substation that connects to a transmission power hne runninS
thro!gh the project.
Photovoltaic (PV)panels are not new. Th€y have been used and studaed for ov€r40 Years and are wellunderstood by the
scientific community. Utility scale solar facilities are newer, but they too have been installed and studied for over a decade,
and tcientists also have a clear understanding of their function and rmpacts.
Utrity scale battery energy storage systems are newer still but have been maturingvery quickly in the last few years. Old
Lrberry Solar wall ure a leading lithium-ion battery technology from a top manufacturer.
Photovoltaic systems produce emission-fr€e electricity. Thi5 replaces electricity production from fossilfuel power plents that
produce ha rmful em issions. The health benefits ofclean solar electricity are hard to put a dollar fiSure on, but the EPA'S best
attempt at doingjust that puts thevalue in the Carolinas between 1.7 and 3.8 cents per kwh produ€ed. Even at the bottom
end ofthis range, thi! equates to approximately S1.4 million of publac health benefit peryear forthe Old Liberty Solar proje€t,
and overS43 million in 30Years.
The onty identifiable risks to health and safety ofthe PV aspects ofthe Old Liberty Solar project are not unique to solar but
exrst for any source or use ofelectricity These ar€ el€ctrc shock, arc flash, and fir€. Du€ to world-class safety regulations in
the u.5. and an experienced solar industry, these risks are extremelY low, and the sec!re and isolated nature ofground_
mounted PVfacilities, includinS Old Liberty Solar, resultt in minimal risk to the generalpublic.
common concerns about toxicity and EMF from solar facilities are understandable, but the operating characteristics and
materials present in the equipment means that neithertoricity nor EMF pose a materialriskto public health or safety.
Research and experience regarding heat island effect and solar glare shows that, like other utility'scale Pv projects, the old
Liberty Sotar project willnot create €ither ofthese potentialimpacts. The sangle-axis trackers at Old tiberty Solar that will
keep the panels facing in the direction of the sun minimrzes th€ potentialfor the project to create any glare.
Modern US battery codes and standards minimire the risk offire, effedivelY
removing the risk ofexplosion. A battery flre would damage equipment but
due to the distance between the batteries and the public, a fire would not
ne8atively impact public health or safetY.
Sased on my knowled8e ofengineering and science, personal experience with
PV and battery technology, review of acedemic research, and review of
project materials provided bY Ren€wable Energv Services mv findinSs and
opinions are summari2ed as follows:
I
I
I
It,
I
. The old tiberty solar project will result in a significant reduction of regional air pollution'
. The old LibertY Solar proiect will not result in anv negative impacts to public h€alth or safety'
. The Old Liberty Solarfacilitv willnot increase the t€mperature ofthe area !urroundingthe site'
. The Old LibertY Solar facility is not expected to create any Slare hau ards or other negative Slare impacts
. The Old Liberty Solar proj€ct will not create bothersome noise for any neiShbors'
Exe,EqIlye5urnIEry
Page 77 of 226
Tolnmy Cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: Health and Safety Assessment Report
Page 4 of 24
lntroduction
Purpose:
Thrs report assesses the potential health and saf€ty impacts ofthe proposed Old Liberty Solar ("Old Liberty") 44 MWa. solar
with battery enerSy storage (BES)project. lt also seeks to educate readers on the health and safety impacts ofphotovoltaic
and battery energy storaBe systems usinB accurate scientafic sources of
information, including providinS resour€es forfurther reading.
System Overview: Solar with Batteries
The proposed Old Liberty Solar facility is a utility'scale photovoltaic
Senerataon facilitywith lithium'ion batt€ry en€r8y storage. The energy
rtllrllrllrl
storaSe is in the form ofcontainerized battery systems with inverters separate from the PV inverters, whrch is referred to as
"AC coupled" batteries. The batteries willallbe located in a single area nearthe point of interconnection to the grid. ln
general, the batteries are charged by solar during peak hours afld discharSed wh€n there is little or no sun shining but Erid
electricity is in hiSh demand, and it repeats this cycle daily.
Overview of Potential lmpacts:
The proposed solar photovoltaic (PV)and 8ES system is likelyto remain in operation at least 30 years, and this repon
considers its potentialimpacts in Randolph Countyfrom the start ofconstructaon onward, including decommissioning ofthe
p.oject and restoration of the land. This assessment considers allaspects ofthe project but focuses on those unique to solar
with battery energy storege projects.
PotentialPositive Health and Safety lmpacts:
Every utilaty-scale PV project siSnificantly reduces pollution by producing emissionJree electricitythat r€places electricity
that otherwise would have been larSely produced by burninS coaland natu ral 8as. 8u rning these fossilfuels for electricity
production is a sagnificant source ofair, water, and soilpollution, so reducing their use is a clear public health benefit.
The US Environmeotal Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a study to determine how much pollution PV systems save and
to estimate th€ public health value ofthe cleaner air, water, a6d soilthey provide. These experts calculated that in the
Carolinas, based on the sunshine available, the way eledricity is produced, and the public health impacts offossilfu€l
fired electricity, every kilowatt-hour (kwh) of 5olar electricity produced provides 1.7 to 3.8.ents of public health benefit.l
At lhr! rate of benellt, the Old Liberty Solar p.o,ect will produce Sr.4 - S3.2 million of public health benefits every year,
which would add up to S43 - 997 million over the lile ofthe proiect. The publac health benefits ofBenereting pollution-
free electri€ity with PV are v€ry significant.
It is relatively simple to replace a small amount ofgrid enerSy with utility scale solar energy, but as the portion of grid
enerBY provided by solar becomes more siBnificant it becomes increasingly challenging to integrate more sotar withour
sacrifi€in8 reliability or power quality. Energy storage is a simpte sotution to overcom€ most ofthese challen8es, and
recent cost reductions and increased experi€nce makes it f€asibt€ to rnteBrate significant energy storage into solar
facilities. While many types ofenergy storaSe are technically possibt€, battery energy stora8e has proven to be most
practical. So, the inclusion of battery en€rgy storage in projects like Otd !iberty Sotar improve the economics ofthe
prolects, such that some p.ojects may not be feasibte without the benefits of the batteries.
Ihe positive benefits ofphotovoltaics are widely understood and welldocumented, so this report wi not address them
further. Furthermore, the positive public heatth impacts ofthe otd Liberty 50tar project siSnificantty outweiSh any heatth
and safetv risks, as described below. The ability ofener8y storage to facititate increased sotar energy on the Brid is wrdetyunderstood and wel document€d, but dire.t anarvsrs ofth€ positive b€nefits of a battery system is ress common. a rife
ronmental ProtectDn ASency, pubtic Heatth Beoetits-perkWh ofEneryy Efficiencv and Reneeabt€ Energy inlhe U5: ATechnicat
ltrlrllrllrl
FOLLOW THE BATTERY ICON FOR
ASSESSMTNT OF BATTERIES
Battery Assessment
IqE!
d Ed, May 2021,
Page 78 of 226
Tommy Cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar:Health and Safety Assessment Report
Potentia lNegotive Health and Safety lmpacts:
all ele ctricity g€nerating facilities, including photovollaics and batteries, provide some potentialfor negative health and
safety impacts, however the Old Lrberty project does not present negative health and safety rasks to the Seneral public
due to its location or technology lphotovolta ic gen erat ion with battery enerSy storaSe). The only aspect of the PV portion
oi rhe system at Old Liberty Solar that presents risk ofphyecalharm is the potentralfor electricalshock, ar. flash, or flre,
which are hazards present with any electrical system and not uniqu€ to solar. There are several other aspects of PV
syltems that often raise publac health and safety concerns, but no other asp€ct of PV systefis poses eny material risk of
neBative public health or safety impacts.
Page 5 of 24
cycle environmentalimpacts assessm€nt of utility scale batteryenergy storage in Celifornie found that when the positive
and negatve carbon ampacts of batteri€s are consider€d, that the batteraes reduce the carbon footprint ofthe grid due to
the gtorage's ability to store and release solar energy that otherwise would have gone unconsumed due to curtailment.'1
L ke PV systems, battery systems also produce a limrted electricalsho€k and arcflalh hazard, however unlik€ PVsystems,
batteries also have the potentialfor toxicity, fire, and explosion hazards. while it is possible for lithium-ion batteries to
catch fire, release toxicgases, and even explod€, thes€ hazards at the Old tib€rty Solarsite do not pose any risk to the
generalpLrblic because the battery 5ystems are outdoors and hundreds of f€et from the closest neighbor.
t-lrllrllrl
r=rtrtlrllrl
The major health and safety risk ofthe project is not due to th€ solar or battery technologies but is standard construction
hazards for construction workers building the site, which does not pose any safety risk to the general pu blic.
Utrlity-scale PV is becoming a mature, but stillrapidly growing, industry.-fte underlying PV technologies ofsilicon and
cadmiLrm t€lluride have been studied in the laboratory and in the field for well over 30 years. So, the products, practices,
regulations, and polacies in the PV industry heve a well established base to build on. Also, research literature on potential
negative impacts of photovoltaics Boes back decade!. Modern utility-scale battery ener8y storage is a rapidly emerSing
industry,largely building on the success oflithium ion batteries in consumer products and electric veh icles. So, the
products, practices, regulations, and polices in the gES industry ar€ changinS extremely rapadly, often with technology
change ieading policy and regulations changes. Even thou8h there have been years ofexperien€e with batteri€s in laptops
and phones, stationary multi'm€Sawatt batterysystems at solar facilities are stallquite new. The industry is only a handful
ofyears old, with equipment to be installed in 2023 or later being much more maturethan technology installedjust 3 or 4
years ago. ln thattame, codes and standards have gonefrom beinS designed for smalllead acid battery emerSency back
up power to being robust re8ulations built on severalyears ofeerly 8ES o(p€rience with input from a wide array of
battery stakeholders and experts.lust 3-4 years aSothe reSulations for stationary battery left system safetyto the
equrpment manufacturers. DurinS this "wild west" period of!tility-5cale BES development manyvaluable rafety lessons
were learned.5€e below for severalpublications on the potentialhealth and safety impacts ofbatt€ry energy storage
Sources for Further Reading on Eattely lmpacts:
. Sandia Nationel Labi Grld 5.a1e Enerpv 5lo,.l&. Haz.r,d Analvs,! & Des en obrect vei Ior Sv(em. August 2020
. Energy Respoflse solutions, lnc.: Enerev 5to!E8q5y{fl51c1y-!pop!!!c vi,!!!!r! Ee!qllsupn! !llIl'rs:!s!
Based SvsteE:, Aug 2017
. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): !GIcL!19Egsr:!q!!!ql4Y l!!!!)bcc! .,un€ 2020
. New york state Ener8y Research and Development Authority: lsqYqLq?tEll|qlqa\|5lqraqe Svslem Guidebook
, December 2020
. Electric Power Research lnstitute (EPRI): Lng'aYllaEgg!!]EBEtgln counc I (Eslc) Enersv slorase lmelementation
Gltdl, March 2019
: Batakr shnan, Srutsch,l.mit, et al, Environmental lmpacts oi Utility-scale Battery Sto.age in cal ornia,2019 IFFF 46th Photovoltar
5pecial,st5Conference(PvSc),lune2019,
Unlltv Scale-BatterY-StotaPe_in-Calirornia athx
Page 79 of 226
Tommy Cleveland, PE Old Liberty Sola. Health and Safety Assess ment Report
To meetthe Randolph County soler ordinance, Old Liberty Solarwill provide a 35ft ve8etative buffers l2 stagSered rows of
everSreen trees spaced 10ft apart, with l row ofmired vegetation includinS shrubs, canopy trees and understory trees),
within the 50ft of manimum setback. This is a siSnificant setback buffer compared to many solar faciliti€s and most other
land uses, and multiple rows ofvegetative scre€nin8 is uncommon around existing solar facilities and many other land
uses. This combination ofsignifi€ant setback and thick vegetative screening willseparate the public from this project and
minimize its impacts, including th€ visual/a€nhetic rmpa€t of seeing the equipment.
B€fore addr€ssinB each ofthese impact cateSories, this report provrdes an overview of utility-scale photovoltaicand
battery enerSy storaSe equipment and facility €onstruction and operations. Th€se photos should hetp introduce utihty-
scale PV and batteries to any reader who has not toured a facility during construction or operation
Page 6 of 24
. Electric Power Reseerch lnstitute (EPRI): Les5on! Learned: i,th um on Batterv Storase Fire Pr.vent o. and
!l!lrt!!r..-lllL June 202 r
€vidence for the lack of any siSnificant environmental, health, or safety impact ofthe proposed Old Liberty project is
provided by the required State Environmental Review clearinShouse (the "State ClearinShouse") review, which h required
as a part ofthe project's Certificate of Public Conv€ni€nce end Necessity ("CPCN")application process. The North Carolina
Environ mental Policy Ad of 1971(c.S. 1134 r-13), also known as the State Environmental Polic"y act ("SEPA"), defines the
state policy designed to meintain and protect the state's environment. The statute requires state aSencies to thefullest
extent possible identify siSnificant environmentaleffects oftheir actions and to implement measures to minimize
negative effects. The State Clearinghous€ consists ofallapplicabl€ state agencies, who revaew and comment on every
request for a CPCN. The State Cl€aringhous€ includ€s the North Carolina Department of Naturaland Cultural Resources,
NC Wildlife Resources Commission, The Oivision ofWaste Management, North Carolina Oepartrnent of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, and others.Ihe Old Liberty project has not yet applied for a CPCN, but before this required certificate
isgranted bythe NC utilities Cornmission, the State Clearinghouse must reviewthe proposed project and find itto be in
compliance with the Nonh carolina Environmentai Policy Act.
ln addition to the State Clearinghouse revi€w, the Project has many environmental regulations and permittinB processes
that it must comply with. One notable environmental protection regulation is the Sedimentation Pollution ControlAct of
1973.r This act requires construction projects, includinB utility'scale solar faciliti€s, to meet requirements designed to
keep sediment from ent€ring our natural watercourses (e.9. streams, rivers, lakes, etc.)and to keep sediment from
washing onto adjac€nt property. The North carolina Depanment of Environmental Quality (DEo enforces the act through
their localofflces spread around the state, which includes requiring OEQapprovalofa site specific erosion and
sedimentation control plan before disturbi6S any soil. The approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan must be
adher€d to throughout construction and until adequate Sroundcover to stabili?e the soil is establashed.
Thh assessment report willaddress allthe potentialhealth and/or safety risks ofthe Old Laberty project, including
common concerns that have no potentialfor public health impact. Specifically, this report addresses the following
possible neSative impacts/concernsi
. ElectricalShock and Arc Flash . Toxicity / Chemical . Heet lsland Effect. Fire and Emergency Response . Electromagneti€ rrelds (EMF) . Glare and noise
rNonhaarclma Envtronmentat euatry webpage: E rcron .nd S€diment ControlLaws.nd Rutes, reriev€d 2/8/2023,htlps://deq nc.s@/ebouVd16ro.s/energr minerar-andra.d resources/erosion and-sedrhent--*.y".r.*"i *0,.*,_.ontrot taws ..djut€s
Page 80 of 226
TommV C eveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: Health and Safety Assessment Report
To understand the potential impacts of a utility'scale Pv and battery system it is helpful to understand the components ofthe
tacil ty, as well as how a facility is constructed and maint.ined. The components and practices in this overview are typicalof
the industry and representative of th€ proposed Old Libeny Solar project. The initialsite work occurs first, but the order of
the olher construction steps is flexible and may occor con€urrently.
Equipment, Construction, and Operations'
I n it i a I S ite WO f k fconst ruction entrance/driveway, sedimentation and €rosion control insta llation, clearins a nd
8rubbrn8, potentially somegrading, perimeter fence, and rnt€rnal roads)
t
Page 6 of 24
U n de fgfO U nd WO[k (trenctring for wires from Pv combiner boxes to inv€rters, invert€r pad installation, medium
vo tage cables to interconnection equipment)
y':l
PV Pa nel StfUCtU fe/Ra Cking (dravinc of sreer pire!, instalretion of rackinS "tables", installation of pv paneisl
, Photo sou'ces:autho., ncre usa,com, N€ DEQ blu€oakenerry,com, 'olarbuilde'mag,com,
hbc'inc,com, solarp'oles'ional,com, en.,com,
dynapower.com, ie_corp.com,ccrQnew.com,andlandiscontlactingcom
Lj
tlFIE tll
- <(_
,,1
JI
t \
F-
--l
!.-J
r
Page 81 of 226
Tommy Cl€veland, PE Old Liberty solar: H€alth and Safety assessment Repon
PaEe 7 of 24
EleCtfiCal WOIk (connectlon of pv module wirin& combin€r bores, inverters, batteries, transformers, interconnection
facilities)
-I
:i
r-ltrttrtlrl
-
T
Ilf d
,,
rl
I
t:
t
ill
rl
!
I
7
_t
T
L
E sta blish m ent Of G fO u nd Cove f t,"quired to ctose out sedimentation and erosion controt permit)
a
1
E
Page 82 of 226
Tommv Cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: Health and Safety Assessment R€port
Page 8 of 24
Operations and MaintenanCe (2417 monirorin& vegetation maintenance, preventative maantenance)
II
Electrical Shock and Arc Flash
Any el€ctricity over 50 volts presents an electricalshock harard,
includrng the electricity in PV and battery facilities. However, like
electnca systems rn buildings, the solar and batleryfacility must adhere
lo the National Electrical Code (NEC) and th€ €quipment must be
.e(rfred to the appropriate Ut safety standards. Unlik€ buildings,
menrbers ofthe public ere restricted from entering a utility-scale solar
fac 1rty. To help ensure that only qualified people have access to the
equrpment, the NEC requires a secure perimeter secunty fence with
electnca warning si8ns. The lack ofpublic access coupled with the high
U.S electrical safety standards essentially €liminat€s the risk ofelectric
shock for the publac.
rtllrllrllrl
ln c rcuits with siSnificant available fault current there is another
electricalhazard, called arcflash, which is an explosion ofenergythat
can occur due to a short circuit This explosive release of energy causes a Fr"rr' i F'n't'r'r t' r' ' ''rr' !\/'rrrr'c s(/ri
flash of hght and heat, creatinS a shockwave that can Inock som€one offtheir feet. The risk ofarc flash in a solar and battery
fa.il ty is no different than the risk at commercial or industrial buildings, ercept that solar facilities are much less accessibl€.
Equrpmentwith an arc flash risk r€quir€ arc flash warning labeh, and only trained personnel wea ring the proper p€rsonal
protective equipment are allowed in it. Due to the secure perimeter and the high u.S. electrical safety standards there is
essentially no arcflash risktothe public.
Fire Risk and Emerqencv Response
Everv elecrricatsystem has some risk ofstarting a fire, iocluding electricalsystems in residential, commercial, and industrial
bu, dings. lt is this ha.ard that motivated creation ofthe Nationel ElectricalCode over 100 years ago. Due to the hiEh
standard required by the NEC, modern electrical systems rarelY start fires. Like electri€al sYstems in buildings, ground
moLrnted photovoltaac systems and battery energy storage systems must also adhere to the NEC, includin8 sechons of the
NEC w th specific rules for PV and for batteries.
Fire Risk: Solar
tn rhe rare case thar a PV system has a fault that starts a fire, th€re is very little combustible material present for it to ignite
The onty flammabte portions of pV panels are thefew thin plastic layers, the plasti. iuncnon box, and the ansulation on its
w res. The inverters are atso capabte of igniting, however like PV modules, they consist primarily of non flammable materials
ffXoFr
a.
---r..* 15-
t
D
[r*n,il,,,
Page 83 of 226
PaSe 9 of 24
The inverters and transformers are located on concret€ pads or raised st€el platforms thet are isoleted from other equipment
and vegetation, so a fire in this equipment poses little tr€at ofspr€ading.
Heat from a smallflame is not adequate to rgnite a PV panel, but an antensefire or an electncalfault can iBnite a PV panel.
one real-world example illustratingthe low flammability of Pv panels occurred durinSruly 2015 in an arid ar€a ofCalifornia
Three acres ofgrass under a utility-scale Pv facilaty burned without iSnrtang the panels mountedjust above the grass t
another example occurred recently (2022)in Florida, where there was a s-acregrass flre under a portion ofa 400-acre PV
facility that did not ignite eny modules.5
Tommy cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: Health and Safety Assessment Report
Fire Risk: Transformers
The most siSnificant fire hazard at a utility-scale solar facility may b€ the oilin the transformers. There are medium voltaSe
trangformers dispersed throughout the site located by each inverter, called inverter step-Lrp ("lSU") transformers, and there
is a larSe transformer in the interconne€tion substation, known as the generator step'up ("GSU") transformer. Traditionally
these types oftransformers are filled with a non PCg mineraloal, which is derived from petroleum, and is €lectrically
insLrlating but flammable. A popular alternative to mineraloil is a transformer fl!id made ofbiodeBradable veSetable oil, such
as FR3 by Cargillor VG'100 by GE. This type ofoil not only has severalperformance benefits over mifleraloil, but it is ako
dramatically reduces the fire hazard oftransformers. These ve8etable oils' flash point of 330"C is dramatically hotter than
mineral oil transformer fluid (150'C). Unlike mineral oil, FR3 and VG-100 are classifled as a ('class, "high-fire-point", "fire-
resistant", and "less-flammable" fluid. Also classified as "nonpropagating", it is self extinSuishing, and will not continuously
burn if iSnited. Mineraloil, however, willkeep burningfor hours when lgnited, with no feasible way to stop it untilallthe oil
is consLrmed. However, neather mineral oal- or veSetable oal-fllled transformers create a fire hazard for the community or
property surroundinS the solarfacility because even in a worst-case scenario of a transformer fire, this equipment is located
in the middle ofa field, far from other flammable materials and far from neighboring properties. Typically, the only thin8 at
risk of beinB iSnfed by a transformer fire rn a utilaty'scalar facality is the groundcover (i.e grass, clover, etc.), which is only a
risk in particularly dry conditions. A grass fire is relatively €asy to control and poses neSligible fire risk to the community.
There are best practaces for how to prepare for and conduct an emerSency response at a transformer. For example, see the
NERC lessons learned document in the SoLrrces for Further Reading at the end ofthis s€ction,
Fire Risk: Batteries
Batteries can store a lot ofener8y, which makes them valuable but can also m€an th€y have the potentialto unintentionally
releas€ that energyv€ry quickly, which can €ause a fire or even lead to an o(plosion. Th€ degree offire risk varies Sreatly not
only between battery chemistries but also between different battery sygtems. There have been some fires at utility scale
batteries in recentyears in the US and around the world, however newer battery syst€ms have learned from these
experienceg and have corrected many of problems that led to th€se early fire9.7 Our understandinB of banery fires and how
to avoid them has rapidly increased the last fewyears as e)(p€rience ha! grown from near rero to many thousands of
systems. Wath this experien€e has €ome improved battery systems and improved €odes and standards.
Gen€rally, all utility scale batteries are packaSed in outdoor rated containerized enclosure with a battery manaSement
system (BMS), which includes HVAC capabilities. By farthe most common type ofutility,scale battery is lithium-ion. While
there are several diflerent lithium-ion ch€mistries, allthevarieties on the market today consist ofcells that each contain a
solid anode and cathode separated by liquid electrolyte, which is generally flammabte. Many ofthese ce s are connected into
a module, several modules are connected in a rack, and several racls are connected in the containerized battery system. Eachlevelhas physical barriers and a protective battery management system
The fire risk starts at the celllevel, where ifa cellfaults or is abused in some way it often produces heat. tt ir possjbte for theheating to continue untirth€ cerr is generating heat more quickry than it can dissipate the heat, resurting in a rapid,
accereratinS nse in temp€rature, which a5 known as lhermar runawav. when the cerr reaches high temperatures, it vents
, Matt Fountain The Trabwe. Fne bre.k oL,t .r Topa. sota r Farm. ,6wBMM N€ws 13, Ftre breaks outarlac*son Co. sotarrarm. Au
uly 2015 www-ranluirobisoo.com/newr/tocat/articleJ9O5s539.htmt
Elst 2022,www voutube.com/watchTv=bvE 80ux2mc7 EPRr, Lessons Learned:Lithium ton BatteryStor
r-ltrttrtlrl
ate Frre Prevention and Mititation -2021, lune 2021
Page 84 of 226
Page 10 of 24
gases that are often flammable and toxic. The heat from a single cell in thermal runeway could cause nearby cells to also go
into thermal runaway, causing more heat and the potential to drive more cells into thermal runaway. However, there are
ear y warning siEns ofproblems beforethere is any smoke or fire, allowing for automatic protection systems to act early
enough to avoid the worst impacts and potentially avoid iherma I runaway alltogether. The nationalelectricalcode (NEC)
req! res that the battery be certified to UL 1973, the battery safety standard for stationary batteries, which includes a
requ rement that the battery module does not allow fire outside of the module or any explosaon. The NEC also requires the
battery system to be certified to UL 9540 that addresses the safety ofthe entire battery syslem-
ln addition to updated equipment standards, there are new installation standards, notability the (National Fire Protection
Assoc atron)NFPA855 Standard for the lnstallation ofStetionary Energy Storage Systems which €oversthe "derign,
construction, installation, commissioninS, operation, maintenance, and d ecomm ission ing of stationa ry ESS." This stendard
addresses everythingfrom hazard assessment to emergency response planning, and determines when large scale fire testing
per UL 9540A is r€quired. Ut 9540A is the U.S.'s "Ten M€thod for €va luatin8 Th€rma I Runaway Fire Propagation in 8attery
fnergy Storage Systems", which was first published in late 2017 and has recently had a siBnificant impact on the safety of
battery systems. Thetest starts with a celllevelten and only proceeds to modul€, unit, and installatron leveltests ifthe
lowe.leveltests find a fire risk. The UL9540Atest forthe cell levelconsists ofattempts to cause the batteryto burn or emit
flammable gas. The abuse tests include driving a 2.5-inch nailthrouSh the battery, overcharSingthe battery to 200% of
nom nal €har8e, and shon cir€uiting the positive and negative terminak of the battery. Any offgassrng h captured and
analyzed to determine the gases released, and the tests are videoed, with allthis data an.luded in the test results.
Wrth lithium ion batteries there is always some risk offire, however when built and installed in compliance with the modern
US battery safety codes and standards the risk offir€ is.xtremely smelland the risk of explosion is practically zero. Due to
the isolation ofthe Old Liberty Solar batteries from the public due to being located inside of the solar facility and proper
emergency response planning and traininS, even a battery explosion would not impact the public. ln a worst-case scenario of
a large fire in a battery enclosure that destroys the entire unit, the only potentialimpact to the public is due to the smoke
emrtted by th€ fire. The lmoke from a lithium-ion battery fire is very similar to the smokefrom a fire of a similar mass of
cornmon plasticss, which is more toxic than wood smoke and likely more toxic than the smok€ from a burnin8 building.
However, at Old Liberty Solarthe significant distanae from each battery enclosure to the nearest neighbors makes the
potentialhealth impact from smoke from e battery fire insignificant.e
Th!s, ther€ is very little chance of a fire in the batteries at Old Libe(y Solar, and even the worst case situation ofa fir€ in a
engle battery enclosure would not produce €nou8h smoke for lonS enouSh to have a material impact on public h€alth.
Tommy Cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: Health and Safety Assessment Repon
Emergency Response: Solar
No specialequipment is required to respond to a fire in.ident at a utility scal€ PVfacility. The most important thingfor flrst
responders to know is that as lon8 as th€ sun is shiningon the PV panels they will p rod uce voltage that is dan8erous to touch,
but there is no danger in touching undamaged panels. There are multiple electrical d isco n nect switches in PV systems which
alows problem areas to be electrically isolated quickly.
Rrsks of fire associated with vegetative ground cover are reduced by landscaping plansthat k€ep this vegetation low. Local
emer8ency responders typically have access to open lork€d gates and traaning on the electrical hazards within the site. 5o,
they ar€ abte to safety €xtinguish grass fires inside of the facility, or monitor and protect the areas surrounding the facility, to
ensure the fire does not spread to surrounding areas. The solar facility is remotely monitored around the clock, and
rerpondang perronnet are avaitabte for emergencies. The lnternationa I Association of Fire FiShters (laFF) provides online
trarningon responding to fires at photovoltaic facilities at f.!,r.rrr t r;-! I !!"'1"1
s sandta NationatL.boratories, Grid4cate EneGy Storage HalardAnalysis & Design obiectilet for Svttem s.fetv, August 2020,
httosi//www osr .ov/5etoiets/ourU1662020
, an example oftoric smoke impact analvsis fo.a prcjectusingTena MetaPack lithiom_ion battery with a church and resrdences
ds A;e.rsiE;t Final Repoft orn i 34 LLC 8.ttery Enertv storate svstem Pr€pared for s'ntaapproximately 200 feet from the batteries: HaI.
sarbara CounW, Nov. 2019,
5 bEl
Page 85 of 226
Tommy Cleveland, PE Old L berty Solar: Health and Sdfety assessment Report
Sources for Further Reading on Fire and Emergency Response:
. Duke EnerSy: Fke Saletv Guidelines for Rooftop dnd Ground Mou.ted Solar Photovo taic (PV)Svstem!. September
2015
. North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC):.1c:!p!:lCarned. Subltation Fires: worllElrrth fu:!
Responders, February 2019
. Sandaa National Labr Grd sca e tnersv Sloraqe Hazard Andlvs s & oes En Obrect ves lor Svstem. August 2020
ltrlrllrllrl
. EnrUy Storff,('as'o. rtron lESA),
and Thermal Event Safetv. September 2019
. Eledric Power Research lnstitute (€PRl): Enersv Storaee lntesration Council (ESIC) Enerev Storape lmolementation
Gq!!!, March 2019
. Electric Power Research lnstitute (EPRI)r Proactive Farst Resoonder Enpaqement for Satterv Enerqv Storaee Svslem
Owners and Ooerators. Septenber 2021
. Tesla: Lithium-lon Eatterv Emereencv Response Guide, 2022 (Verslon 2.6)
. also see Souaces lof Funhet Reoding on Bottery lmpoctJ on page 5 ot this report
Itllrllrllrl
Toxicitv (Equipment and Operations)
Toxicity is probably th€ mon €ommon health and safety concern about photovoltaic systems, althouSh as detaaled below th€
systems do not pose a materialtoxicity riskto the public or the environment. This report examines all possible sources of
toxicity, from site construction to decommissionin8 at the end of the project life. The potentialsources oftoxicity are
orSanized into two categori€s: €quipment and op€rations and maintenance (O&M)
Toxicity: Equipment
Themain equipment ata solarfacility is PVmodules (a.k.a. solar panelsor PVpanels), meralstructures for mountinS the sotar
panek, and wiring to collect the electricity they produce. The other major components are inverters and transformers.
lnverters are €nclosed power eledroni. equipment that do not contain liquids and are treat€d tike other etectronic waste at
the end oftheir life. Transformers conrain non toxic mineratoitor vegetabte oitand are no different than the typicat
lransforfiers outside ofmost residences, s€hools, and shopping centers. Soler panels heve raised the most public concerns
related to toxicity, so they are covered in depth below, but since transformers contain liquid they ar€ also addressed. Theother components in thefacility inctude the steelracking, the conduits (pvc plastic and gatvanized steel), and copper andaluminum wires. The conduit and wir€s are normar construction materials. The racking for the pv paners i9 generafly
Salvanized steel posts with SalvanDed steelor aluminum cross memberr. None ofthese supporting materials {wire, conduit,and racking) create a toxicitv con€ern. The galvanized coating on the steet is a zinc coating, and zinc js a vitat mineratforhuman hearth. PVc prastic and garvanized steer conduits and afl tvpes of copper and aruminum warang have been buirdingnapres for many decades. These materiars hav€ not caused a toxicity concern in buirdings where peopre are croseto this
Page 1l of 24
Emergency Response: Batteries
No sp€cialequipment is n€eded to respond to a batteryfire. ln fact, many faciliti€s direct firefighters to not fight the battery
fire at all but to allow the fire to burn itselfout. ln thi5 case, the site's emergency response plan likely calls for a defensive
firefishtinB a pproach in which firefighters may spray adjacent equipment with water to ensure the fire doesn't spr€ad
beyond a single batt€ry enclosure. when the plan calls for actavely fiBhting the battery, the best method is to douse the flre
with larSe volumes ofwater. The NFPA855 inrtallation standard requires thatthe facility create an emergency response plan
and provide the plan and trainingto the localfir€ depanm€nt. Th€ appropriate first respond€rs' adaons willvary depending
on the type of battery at the site, so it is vitalthat the facility create an emergency response plan specific to the equipment
and procedures ofthat facility and educatethe localfire departments on the equipment and the response plan. The National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA}provides on-linetrainingon PVand €nergy Storage: htto! //catalop.lpa orE/Ene.ev
Storae€ an.l So ar 5v5tems Safctv On ne TranrUg:ru882 asox
Page 86 of 226
PaEe 12 ol 24
equipment day and night so ther€ is no reason to thinkthey have any risk ofcr€ating a toxicity concern when used at a utility
Tommy Cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: Health and Safety Assessment Report
Contents of PV Panels
The Old Lrberty Solar pro,ect willinstalltop ofthe hne silicon'based PV panels sourced from a reputable manufacturer
meetrnS established criteria includingthird-party ratings for performance, reliability, and bankability (BloombergTier l, the
hi8hest ratinglo). Specifically, the project plans to use a bi-facial monocrystalline silicon module. The proiect plans are
designed based on 580 watt modules manufactured by Hanwha Q Cells, but other manufacturers make equivalent modules
that could be used instead with no change in quality, should the project be unableto source that speciflc module. The PV
panels are the fiost expensive and most important component in a solar facility, so the own€r performs due diliSence to
ensLrre that the paneh selected and delivered to the project are properly manufactured, certified, and tested.
The draSram below shows the components ofa typical single-glass silicon PV panel, including a closeup ofthe solar cells and
the electrical connections. Over 80% ofthe weight of a PV penel is the tempered front glass cover (or, front and back heat-
strengthened glasr) and the structural aluminum frame, which work together to create a stronS, durable panelthat outlasts
its typrcal25 to 3o'year performance warranty. The encapsu lation ,l lms are clear plastic lamination layers that protectthe
cells and electrical contacts from moisture for the life ofth€ panel. These layers also maintain the panel as a sinSle unit in the
event of breakaSe of the Slass cove(s), similar to the film rn auto wandshields that ke€ps them watertight and from
fraEmenting if the windshield shatters.
S. @bd Cu lusb .r'a Et.,roft€n .ord.r 6 u$n b rn.d' bbd.i!
I
I t
,
, thelirancialinformationfirm Bloomberg has ddeloped a lienng svnem for PV module makec b.sed on bankabrlitvthat i5 the standard the PV
ndustry us€s to differentiate between the hundred5 ofma'uladureR of 3olar fiodulet on the marker Ti€r 1E lhe hiShest ofth.e€ tieE which a'e
,\
A! can be seen in the above diagram, there are no liquads to leak from a brok€n panel. The plastic layers are inert. The silicon
pv cells are nearly 100% silicon, which is harmless and is the s€cond most common €lement in the Ea(h's €rust. The only
components of a PV panelthat have.ny potential of toxrc impact rs the solder used to connect the solar cells toSether and to
rhe busbars at the end of the panel, and the thin strips of silverthat collect electricity from each c€ll. The solder, which is th€
banki confidence in a man!facturer's PV panelta5 demonstrate d by the r willingne$ to 5upplv proFd financrnS backed onlv bY the
The detailt are described bY BloomberSNEr in this documenr Pv ModuleTier l Lii MerhodoloSy
S
\\
12 03
Page 87 of 226
Tommy cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: Health and Safety Assessment Report
Page 13 of 24
same tin-lead solder standard in the electronac industry, is 36% lead. The tany amount ofsalver in a paneldoes not cr€ate a
toxicity hazard, but it does add potential rec"yclingvalue.
Even thou8h there is only a tiny amount oflead in each panel, the totalamount of lead in allthe PV modules in a utility-scale
project adds up to a considerable amount of lead. However, these PV panels are spread out over a large area and when the
amount of lead in the PV panels is compared to the amount of lead naturally occurrinS in the soil under the PV array, it is
obvious that even ifallthe lead somehow lea€hed out ofevery module (which as explained below is impossable), the increase
in total lead in the soilwould be less than the naturally occurring difference between differ€nt soils. Across the US soils
naturally have between about 10 and 50 mg of lead per kg ofsoil, with the average beinB somewhere in the 20s. Across 83
USGS survey locations across N.C., the values ranged from 5 to 46 with an avera8e of 20 and a m€dian of 18.11 For a location
that naturally has 15 mg of lead per k8 ofsoil, allthe lead in allthe PV modules in the facility would havethe sam€ amount of
l€ad asjust the top 4 inches of soilat the site.r':
0 ?{.5Fn
c(s - 5oo"2o@l
CrrT. - 2.8em
The leading alternative Pvtechnologyto silicon based Pv is cadmium telluride (CdTe), whi(h is byfarthe most common thin
film PV technology. While Old Ljberty Solar plans to us€ silicon modules and not.nyCdTe modul€s, this assessment report
is stlll provlding a basic introduction to CdTe modules in case a switch is necessary and because it ls not uncommon for
slakeholders to have confusion aboulthe differences in the ls,o technolo8ies. CdTe is reterred to as thin film because the
active layers are less than 1/10ri the thickness ofa human hair. Figure 3 above contains two images, on the left is a not,to-
scale diagram ofthe layers for a CdTe PV module lthickne5s dimension provid€d in image), and the right image is a photo of
two First Solar CdTe modules showing the back ofone module and the front ofanother. The PV cells consrst of an incredibty
thin layer ol cadmium t€lluride with an even thinner coatinS of cadmium sulfide (roughly 1/60th the rhickness ofthe CdTe
film). Above rhese active lavers is a transpar€nt conductinE metat oxide, commonty tin oxide (snor), and betow the active
layers is a laver of metal to conduct awav the electricity. This thin stack s sandwiched between two sheets of heat,
strength€ned Slass that provides elecrical jnsulation and physical protection. Lake siticon modules there is no liquid to teak.
The onlv aspect ofCdTe modules that raises toxicity concern is the cadmiun in rhe.admium te uride end cadmium sutfide.
Cadmium ie a toxic heavy metal, but when cadmium is chemically bonded to tetturium in the crystaltine cadmium te uride
compound, ir hasontv l/1oo'ih toxicityto humansofcadmium on its own {i.e. not bondedto anotherelement in a compound,
at5o known as free cadmium) 13 The compound .admium telluride is very stabte, so it does not easity break down intocadmium and tellurium.
', Smrth,0.B., Can.on, w.F,, Woodruff,1.G., Sotano, Fedefto, (rlburn ,I E., and Fey, 0.1.,2013, Geochemrca and Mrneratogrca Data forsoils ofthe Conterminoos Unit€d Stat€s: U.S. GeotogicatsuNey Data!, Pv: 12I of le.d (p€r panet) per 55 ft, {pa^efootprint ot 21.5 tr, /Sround cover.Ee lat|o o, O,4O)0.223 got l€ad/ft,
33 ft) soild€pth.65ft:14.61 g of lead / 55 ft:0.225 Eol lead/fr,C. Miller, r.M. Petec, and 5. Zaveri, Thin Fih CdTe photovott.ics
sere5 801, 19 p., http //oubs.us$.rov/dy8o1/
,l 1s m8 orlead per ks ofsort.45 ks of soit pe. ftr . 4 inches {0.3
I
242.O
andthe U.S. E.ertyTransition in 2020,
Cedmium
Tallurid.
(Cdle)
Ftaute 3 Contents of Codmun lelturide Ponels lsout.e: NRELL Frant ond Reot ,hota of htst solot senes TCdfe Ponels lsoutce: Fnt Sotot
Page 88 of 226
PaEe 14 ol 24
Cadmium telluride PV panels have been in use for decades, and their potential for creating a health hazard ha! been studied
as long. As shown in the sections below and the some ofthe readang resou.ces linked at the end ofthis section, CdTe panels
are exiremely safe and do not pose any rask to p!blic health and safety, including when installed in larSe numbers.
Ftg!rc 4. Close up photo ol tnpdct poht thot brcke
the glo$lraht oltha PV ponel
less than the levels d€fined bythe US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)to have no adverse health eff€cts.ln the cas€ of
water, the health screening levelis the same as the maximum concentration level(MCL)set by the EPAforwater quality in
publ c water systems. Thas study demonstrates that there is no risk to public health from lead leached lrom broken PV panels.
PFAS
Some solar opponents have raised q!e5taons about the possibility of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS" ) chemica ls
being emitted by solar panels. PFAs chemi€als are a Sroup of man'made ch€micals informally known 5s "forever ch€micah"
due to their durability in the environment. Thege chemicals have been used in many industrialand aonsumer products for
over 60 years, in€luding food packaging materiah, firefiShting foam, waterproof clothinB, staan resistant carpet treatments,
and thousands more.
Tommy Cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: Heahh and Safety Assess m ent Reporr
Broken PV Panels
There is 2ero risk oftoxicity escapefrom undamaged PV panels because
any lead is sealed from air and water eposure. lndividual panels damaSed
duflnB the life ofthe solar facility are id€ntified in days to months through
either remote monitoring ofsystem performance or from visual
rnspections during maintenance by onsite staf{. ln 2019 an international
team of experts conducted an lnternational Energy A8ency - Photovoltaic
Power Systems Programme (lEA-PVPS) study to assess ifthere is a public
health hazard caused by lead leaching from the broken PV panels during
the lfe ofa utility-scale solar facility utilizing conservativ€ assumptions to
evaluat€ extreme scenarios.la The study €xamined worst case exposure
routes of soil, air, and Sround water for a typical 100 MWa. PV facility. For
erdmple, the worst case residential grou ndwater exposure assumed that
all broken panels from the entire array were within 25 feet of the
Broundwater well, and the chemicals rel€ased from every broken panel
transported to the same Srou ndwat€r well. The studyfound that worst
case lead exposure via air, soil, and waterw€re each orders of magnitude
As explained in a fact sheet from the Unversity of Michigan entitled 'Facts about solar panels: PFAS contamination", PV
panels do not contain PFAS materiak.rs Neither the self cleanrnS coatin8 on top of the solar panel, the edhesives in the panel,
nor the front or rear covers/substrates contain PFAS. The "backsheef', or tradrtional rear substrate of a silicon PV panel, is
the thin opaque plasti. layer on the rear of a single-Blass PV panelthat provides ele€trical insulation and physacal protection
for the rear ofthe pV cetk. Potl,vinyl fluoride (PVF)is the base materialfor the most common backsheet material(Tedlar), but
sev€rat other materials have also been !sed as backsheets, some consisting of multiple layers. Depending on whi€h definition
of pFA5 that rs used, PVf may be classified as PFAS, however the most recent and app|cable definition ofwhat is and is not a
2019, Human heakh riskasetsment methodsforPV, Part 2:6reaka8e risks,lnternationalEnergv
:2019. lsBN 978 3'905042_87'9, septembe. 2019
ber 12, F.cts aboln tolar p.nels: PFAS contamrnation, BY Or Ann ck Anctl'
1! P sinha, G. Heath,a. wade, K xomoto,
Asency (lEA)PVPsTask 12, R€ponT12 1s
L5 'Ctean Ene4y in Michitan" series, Num
!'{
\
\
Page 89 of 226
Tommy Cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: Heahh and Safety Assessment Report
PaEe 15 of 24
PFAS material was created by the OrSanization for Economic Co'operation and Developm€nt (OECD)t6 in 2021and PVF does
not meet this modern PFAS definitionrT.
However, not all PV panels even have a backsheet, in factthetrend in PV module design is to replace the backsheet with a
thin she€t ofglass sothat the module has thinnerfront and rear sheets ofglass instead ofa thicker sheet offrontglass and a
thin plastac backsheet. Eifacaalmod!les like those planned forOld Liberty Solar, require a clear Slass covering on their back
to allow light to reach the rear ofthe PV cells and therefore do not have a backsheet. Thus, the bi facielmodules et Old
Liberty Solar should not contain any PFAS, by any definition ofPFAS.
PV Panel End-of Life
Pv panels last a very long time, but they do not lart forever. Their output declines sli8htly each year, but panels rarely fail rn
less than 40 years. The expected economic life of utility scale PV panels is 25 40 y€ars, at which pointthey may be replaced
by new panels or the entire project may be decommBsioned, brinSing the land back to how it was before the solar facility
was installed. ln both instances, the oriSinal PV panek are removed from the site. The Randolph County ordinance require3
th.t Old Liberty Solar provide a decommissioninS rur€tyto corer 100% oI the coit of d€commissionint io that in any
worst-case scenario the cou nty will have lh€ lunds rcquired to properly decommission the site. There are three possible
fates for solar panels at the ehd oftheir economic life at a project:
. Reuse: lvlost likely when the PV panels at the Old Libe^y Solar project are decommissioned they will still produce at least
75% of their onBanaloutput and have another decade ol produ.trve life, making them most valuable to be reused as
solar panels on rooftops or ground mounted applications. Markets for used solar panels exist today and are likely to be
mLr.h more mature and widely available in 30-40 years when the Old tiberty Solar PV panels nearthe end oftheir lif€.
. Recycling:Any panels that are not reused as workanS panels
could be recycled. Currently in the US, it is possibleto recycle
the largest constituents ofsilicon PV panels (glass, aluminum
frame, copper wires) usinSthe existingglass and metal
recycling inkastructure. Today this recycling comes at a cost
prehium to disposingthe panels in a landfill. However, as PV
recycling technology improves and the number ofpanels
reaching end-of-life increases dramatically, it is possible that in
the future recyclinS PV panels will more than pay for itself.
Rec'ycling plants buih specifically to recycle PV panels can
recycle nearly 100% ofthe panel, including the valuable silver
and refined silicon they contain, and can b€ optimized for the
task, signiflcantly reducin8the cost to recycle each panel. ln
2018 the first industrial-scale PV-specific recycling plant was
built, in France, and in 2022 the first large scale PV recycling
plant in the US was built. These initial PV recycting ptants witt
not have the capacity to recycle the mittions ofinstalled pV
panels, but in the cominS decades ir is expected that pv-specific recy€tang ptants wi become much more conmonptace
PV recy€lin8 technoloSv is €learlv still in its infancy. How€ver, it h expected that when the old Liberty pv panels reach
the end oftheir usefutlife in 30+ years, the US pv recycling infrastructure wilt be robust, such that reuse or recycting of
the PV panek willbethe preferred opnons or required bv new u.s. reSurations, as it has been for years rn Europe.
rhe 50lar EnerSy rndLrstries association lSErA) narted the sEra Nationat pv Recycling proSram severat years a80 toaccelerate PV recycrinS in rhe u5. c!rrenfly the program agSreSates the services oftered by recycrinE ven d ors and pv
manufacturers, making it easier for the industry to select a cost-effective and environmentally responsibte end-of life
'6 0Ec0 rsan irtergovernmentar orSanization with representativesof3S industriarzed countries. ocED deveroped the updated definition inrerpo.reto an rnternational cal for ,.protramme! .nd retutatoryap Proach*to reduc€ emirsDns andthe contentol relevahrperfluorinated chemicattolconcern in p.oducts.nd to worktoward tloba I e lim, naron, where a ppropnate and tech n r.a y fea sibte.,, OECOPorta on Perand PolV F uorinated Chem cahI OEco 12021). Re(oncit'nt lermrnology ot th;i niveEe of Per- and Potyftuoro. tkyt Subrta hces: Recommendations and proECD s€neron Rrst M.naSem€nt, No.61, OECD
=kryrr:)- --_v
=-i cJllr
Ca,
4i.{I
www.o€cd.orqlchemicalsaf etv/portatoerfl uorinated_
Page 90 of 226
Tommy Cleveland, Pt Old Lib€rty Solar:Heahh and Safety Assessment Report
Page 76 of 24
management solution. The pro8ram idenlifies Prelerred Recyclint Panners throuth an evaluation proc€ss. These
partners are capabl€ ofr€cyclint Pv module!, inverlers, and oth€r r€lated equipment today. The current SEIA PV
Recycling Partners are listed on the program's webs ie, and full acc€ss to the program and the Preferred Recycling
Partners s available to SEla members.
. Disp6al: lf panels are not reused or recycled, federalwaste management laws (Resource Recovery and ConseNation
act, RcRAlrequire that Pv panels,like any other co m mercia l/indu strial warle, be disposed ofproperly, which would
typically be in a landflll. ln order to determine the proper disposal m€thod, RCRA requires that all commercial/industrial
waste be identifi€d as either hazardous or non'hazardous waste, which is Senerally determifled for PV panels utingthe
Torc Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)test developed by the u.s. EPA. This test seeks to limulate landfill
conditions and checkfor leaching of8 toxic metak and 32 organic €ompounds. Limited data has been published about
the TCLP test result5 ofsolar panels, but it is known that some older silicon panels that contain more lead than modern
panels exce€d the TCLP test limits for lead. Researchers at Arizona State University's Photovoltaic Reliability Laboretory
have donethe most rob!st investaSation of methodt for conductinS accurate TCLP test on PV panels, and their latest
research found that all three ofthe modern crystalline silicon PV panels tested passed the TCLP test, classirying them as
non-hazardous waste.rg
a worst case scenerio would betons of PV panelr being dasposed ofin a non-sanitary landfill, which is essentially a huge
prle ofgarbage with little to no effon to minimDe lets€hing from the waste. This typ€ of landfillis ill€galin many world
regions, including in North Carolina. a recent IEA-PVS research study on PV panels disposal risks used this worst-case
ir!uation lo evaluate the potentialfor cancer and non'cancer harards throuSh comparison ofpredicted exposure-point
concentratrons in soil, air, Eroundwat€r, and surfac€ waterwith risk based screening level5 created bythe EPAand the
world Health Organization (wHO).1e One the report's authors, Gavin Heath with the Us oepartment of Energy's Nataonal
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), summarized lheir flndin8s about lead in silicon PV panels this way: 'under the
worst-case conditions, none ofthem exceeded health screen ing thresholds, meaningthey're not deemed to potentially
have significant enough risk that you'd want to do a more detailed health nsk assessment."':o The worst'case scenerio
defrned in the research has many conservative assumptions, and thus likely overestimates the risk ofdisposalin a Don
sorirory landfill. lt is important to stress that North Carolina only allows solid waste disposal in sanitary landfills, which
are en8ineered facilities with plastic liners,leachate collection systems, and covers, allofwhich dramatically reduce the
potential for human exposure compared to the non-sanitary landfill assumed in the study. This and other research show
that ifthe Old Liberty solar PV paflek are disposed of in a landfillthey willnot create any negative p!blic health impact.
ln 2019 the North Carolina leSislature passed HB 329 (S L.2019 132), requirin8 the NC Department of Environ mental Qu ality
("OEQ') to prepare a r€port to guide rulemaking regardinS decommissionrng of solar PV and other reneweble energy facilities
and proper disposaloftheir equipment. The report issued January 1, 2021and litled FinalRepotton the Activities Conducted
ta tstoblish o Regulotory Progrcm fot the Monogementond Decommjssioning ol Renewoble Energy Equipment, provides a
thorough discussion addressrng many questions landowners and communities may have about solar decommissioning. DEQ
compiled the input and commentary ofnumerous stakeholders, including the renewable enerSy industry, environmental
organirations, and academia, including the author and uc state University's cleen EnerSv Technology Center' The report is
we I researched and very anformative. DEQprovides sev€ral key flndinBs and recommendations, but no recomm€ndations for
changes in NC regulations of solar faciliti€s. One ofthe TePort's keY lindingt is th.t "accordinS to Oivltlon ol waste
Management .xp€rts, tf every end-of-ltfe Pv modul€ ls dispded of in landfills, landfill cep.cllles willnot be negalivelY
impaded."
tn south carolina in 2021, the south carolina legislature required the sc Department of Health and Environmental control
(oNEc)toprepareareportslmilarinscopetotheNcDEQrepo(pUblished2o21'whilethisr€portdoegnothaveanyimpact
on regulations at Old tiberty, stakeholders may find valu€ in the report' SC DHEC was required to pr€pere a report on
research and re€ommendations on End-of.Life ManaSement of Photovoltaic Modules and Energv storage svstems,
:! ramtrhmani, G., et al. (2019). Alsesing vaiabrlitv inToxicltvTestrngof PvModules ln2019IEEE45thPhotovoltaicSpecralists
2475.2481). lrnrtute ol Llectri..'and Elct I'onrtt Fngrnee.slnc. httot //doi.or!/10,1109/PVsC40753 2019 89a0781
P!b icly-accessrble veBron:
1! P Sinha, G. Heath, A. wade, k. xomoto, Human health rlsk a5ressmentmethodsforPv,Part3r Module ditpo5al risks, lnternatlonal
Eierry Agency{rEA)PVPslatk 12, ReportTl2_15:2020. lsBN 978 3 906042 96 1, MaY 2020
MedLa, Landnl[ng old Solar Pane]s L kelv safe Ior Humane,lEA Rerearch 5u€8ests, April2020,
Page 91 of 226
PaEe 77 of 24
addressinSsix specific issues laid out by the legislature. The 50-pa8e report titled FinolRepofton the activities Conducred to
Estoblish o Progron lor End-of-Life Monogenent of Photovoltoic Modules dnd Energy Storoge Systemswas issued iune 30,
2022. The report describ€s end-otnite ofPV modules topicsthat aliSn with the content ofthis health and rafety
ass€ssmenl, including th€ followinS concluslons: "The Oepartment oftl€alth and Environmental Control belicves it is in the
best interest of South Carolina to continue to promot€ the us€ of solar err€rgy in our state to decrease enerty Gosts,
pro,lole economic dev€lopment, increas€ consumerchoice in energy consu,nption and hopefully reduce pollution and
€missions." The report continues, "We must also be sure not to compromise human and environmental health in the process
of installinS and decommissioninE solar energy facilities." ThrouShout the report DH€C suggests commonsense approaches to
ensuring the long-term safety of utility-scale solar based on state and federal regulations.
Tommy Cleveland, PE old Libeny solar: Heahh and safety Assessment Reporr
Transformer Oil
While PV modules and inv€rters do not have any liquids that coold leak into the environment, the generator step-up (GSU)
transformer in the substation and the inverter step-up (lSU) transformers located with each inverter do €ontain an oil. Several
types oforlcan be used in transformers to provide the needed electrical insulation and coolanS, but the most common type of
transformer oil is mineral oil, which has been used in transformers since transformers wer€ first manufactured in the 1890s.
Due to the large volume of oil contained in a GSU transformer, they are installed with a secondary containment structure
und€rthem to contain any oilleaked or spill€d. The smaller ISU transformers are approximately the same size as the
transformers located throuShout every communityi behind schools, shopping centers, apartments, etc., and they typically do
not provide secondary containment. However, onBoing monitorinS oftransformer temperature and pressure, and regular
preventative maintenance, is hkely to find the rare leak when it is stillsmall before it has a chance to leak much oil.
There was a time when most transformer oilwas toxic. From 1929 to
1977 polychlorinated biphenyls {PCBs), a man-made alternative to
mineraloil, was commonly used as transformer oilinstead ofmineraloil.
However, the toxacity of PCBS was eventually understood, leading to PCBS
beinE banned in the us in 1979. Todav, transformers either use mineral
orlor vegetable oil, both ofwhich are free ofPCSS. Mineraloilis non-
toxic to humans, in fa€t "baby oil" that is commonly used to soothe
babies' skin is a sc€nted min€ral oil. Although non-toxic to humans,
mineraloil isan environmental contamineteand harmfultoaquatic
ecosystems, so any release to the environment should be avoided. The
potentialfor negative environm€ntal impact from spalled vegetable oilrs
much less because these oils are biodegradable, sothe timethey impact
the environment is short-lived. Federalregulations datinB back to the
Cl€an water Act of 1973 require that facilities with significant qlantities _ r, ' , !.
of oil prevent pollution of waier.rl The current EpA regutatrons require
that facilities with over 1,320 Sallons oil, and with the potentiat for spi ed
orlto impact surface water, develop and imptement an oit spi prevention, controt and countermeasure (spcc) plen. whrle
the risk of negative environmental impact from a trandormer oilspill/leat cannot be etim nated entrrety, these regutarions
along with standard industry practices result in a low probability for a substantial spilt and a high probability for a quick ctean,up response to minrmite impact if a spillwere to ever occur.
Contents of Batteries
The conponents of rithium ion batteries vary because there are many differ€nt batt€ry chemistnes in use and severardifferent cell construction tvpes and while lithium itselfis oon-toxic,50me tithium ion batteries do inctude sometoxic heavymetars sLrch as cobart, nicker, or manSanese. DurinSthe operationallife ofthe batteries any metars in the cels are searedin!ide ofthe batteries and thus have no impa€r on human hearth. The sorvent based riquid erectroryte in each c€, is very
rnlrllrllrl
?, Environmenta I Protection Agency, webpage: Olervrep ot theillt Control, and count€rmeasure (5pCC) R€gutation,
I
i
I
T
e
Page 92 of 226
Paee 1.8 of 24
diffi.u t lo get to leak out of a celland willqui€kly evaporate ifit does. ln addition to the battery cells, the battery system also
includes a battery management system that consists of sensors, switches, and similar controls equipment. The battery
enclosure is typically an outdoor rated steelenclosure.
Tommy Cleveland, PE Old Libe(y Solar Health and Safety Assessment Repon
Batteries End-of-Life
The performance ofstationary batteries slowly degrades, eventually resultinB in enouBh red!ction ofenergy capacity thatthe
battery is considered to have reached the end of its life. lhe expect€d lif€span of lithium-ion batteries is on the order of 10 to
20 years.
r-1lrllrllrl
At the end of its life the batteries willbe safely decommissioned, which willinvolve de-energiring the batteries to a low
vo tage, disconnecting each battery module from th€ syrtem, removinB battery modules and associated components,
prepafing the |st of materials and components for removal, disposal, or recycling, and then shipping them to their next
locat on. Transport ofsome battery components, including shippingvia a shipping provider, is r€gulated by the United States
oepartment of Transponation (u.S DOT).
Most of th€ non-battery components of the system hav€ readily available scrap markets, such as steel, aluminum, and
copper. Much like end-oflife PV modules, end-of-life batteries can be repurposed for second life applications, rec.ycled, or
landiilled.
. RecyclinS - Lith iu m ion batteries are rec'yclable. C urrently on ly a small percentage of lith iu m-ion batterieg a re reaycled,
but that is changrn8 very quickly. The US isjust stanrngto build facalities that can fully recycle lithi!m-ion batteries into
battery constituents ready to build new lithium ion batteries. While there are many challen8es to creatinS a robust, cost
effective collection and recycling rndustry for llthium-ion batteries, it does appear to be technically possible. The US
Department of Ener8y as well as several industry Sroups and private companies are investing in research and
development that they hope will lead to widespread recyclin8 of lithium-ion batteries in the US.
. Dlsposal-When batteries are not repurposed or recycled, batteries ar€ dispos€d as waste. Battery disposalis governed
by EPA Universalwaste rules, which require warte handlers to separate hazardous materials for disposal under fed€ral
lawg but allowthe disposalofthe remaining non hazardous waste per state and localrequirements, Once the fire risk h
removed from the batteries (either by mechanical or chemical means), non-ha2ardous materials not recovered for reuse
or reqcling can be disposed ofthrough municipalwaste streams. while some lithium chemistries ere considered non
harardous, many batteries have toxic constituents that require treatment as hazardous materials. The potential toxicity
of Li-ion battery materials veries widely by cheminryi for etample, where nickel, cobalt, or lead are present in battery
chemistries in significant quantities, precautions must be takeh at disposal or incineration sites in line with the harards of
thos€ individual materials.':l
Toxicity: Operations & Maintenance
The operations ind maintenance (O&M) activities for e solar and battery enerSy storaSe site are rather limited. Often the
most srgnificant effort is maintenance ofthe vegetation on the site. The PV equipment and the batt€ry equipment require
5ome, but limited, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.
Stte and Solar Operations & Maintenance
The onty two aspects of operahons and maint€nance lO&M) of solar syrtem that have rais€d concerns about toxicity are the
flurds used to wash PV panek and herbicides used to maintain veg€tation'
. panelwashing - Across North Carolina there is ample rain to keep the panels clean.lfthe panek need to bewashed, at
would occur infrequentlv and tvpically with use of onlY deionized water and cleaninS brushes
.Herbicides-Theindustrystandardpracticeformaintainingthevesetationatsolalfacilitiesissimilartohowmostcities
maintaintheircitYparks,whichistheyplimarilyrelyonmowingandstrinstrimmersforveEetationmanaSement,and
use herbicides alo68 fences, in roads, and around some equipment Parks and solarfacilit'Ps ako use herbicides to
strategically remov; problem weeds, especially woody weeds, to maintain a healthy cover ofthe desired speci€s of
storate Assoc anon (ESA), End_of Lfe ManatementolLithiumronEnergYsto.aSeSYttems,Apnl2020
Page 93 of 226
Tommy Cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: Health and Safety Assessment Report
Ba tteries Opera tion a nd Ma intena nce
8attery operation does not produ.e any emissions, and they require very little maintenance during their operating lifetime.
lhe bettery systems require some scheduled maintenance for things Ike cleaning HVAC air filters and annual or semi annual
visualchecks ofelectracalconnectaons. Some systems use an anti-fre€ze liquid coolant thet might require replacement during
the lif€ of the system, but this does not pose a health or safety haiard
sources for Further Reading on Toxicity/End-of-Life:
.lnternationalRenewableEnergyAgency(IRENA):EndofLfeman,reement solar Photovoltarc Panels.lune 2016
. Eledric Power Research lnstitute (EPRI): Environmental and Economic Cons derations for PV Module End of Life
lvlln age m €_!l, December 2018. EPRI: Feasib litv Studv on Photovohdrc Modul€ Recvc|ne In th€ U.rted 51ates. April 2018
. EPRI: Solar Photovoltaics End of Llfe Mdnaeement lnlosraphic. March 2021
PaSe 19 of 24
Erasses and other low-growinS ve8etation- This mode of herbicide use applies significantly less herbicide volume than is
commonly applied in NC agriculture. For exampl€, Round up-Ready crops are common row crops that have been
engineered for the entire field, including the crops, to be sprayed with Round-Up (Slyphosate) several times each season.
Additionally, farmers applyinS most types of herbicides to their fields are not required to be c€rtified or licensed, but a
NC commercial pesticide applicators license is required to apply any herbicide to a solar facility.
. Nal ona Renewab e Energ! Labo'ator! lNRt'- , Apr 2021
. North tarolna D.partmenl of En!ronmenrJ Q!a ty
.lanurry 2021
apr t020. L, "'8, o,o8" i o a
. EPRI , Apr I 1021
lwebPaBe)
rt]lrllrllrl
r-rtrtlrllrl
rtllrllrllrl
Electromaqnetic Fields (EMF)
Exposure to EMF, or electric and magnetic flelds, is a fact ofeveryday modern tife. Etectromagnetic fields come in many
different frequencies, ranging from Brid electricity with a frequency of 60 hertr to x-rays and gamma rays that are bittions of
billions of tames faster. The faner the freq uenc] the stronSer the E M F Th e E M F com in8 fiom grid etectricity, inctudin8 from
the inverters, transformers, and AC wir€! to be used at the Old Liberty Solar fa€ility, has much tower frequency and therefore
much lower energy than the EMf from cell phones, wireless internet, and even radio and Tvtowers. The sotar panets, the
batleries, and the wires connecting both ofthem to th€ inverters carry direct current (OC)electricity, which has a frequen€y
of zero hertz, and thus produces static etecnic and magneti€ fietds. The votta8e and current ofthese circuits are both
relativelv low, so the ele€tric and magnetic fields they produce are both rather weak. The static maSnetic fi€tds the pv paneh
generate are rnuch weakerthan the Eanh's naturalstatic magnetic fietd, which can be demonstrated by a compass stillpointing north when placed nearthe panets.
Electric fields are created around wires and equipment wherever a voltage exisrs, however it is easity btocked with commonmaterials such as metar, wood, and soir. The world Hearth organization (wHo) in 200s concrud€d that there were nosubstantive health issues rerated to erectric fierds (0to 1o0,0oo Hz)at revers generally encountered by members ofthepublic 13 The proposed solar project does not produce any vottages hiSherthan the existing power tines, and therefore doesnot produce any electric fields not genera y en€ountered by members ofthe pubtic.
'?r wHo factrheeti Electromagnetic tields and public heatth, Erposure to extremety tow frequency tietds, I u ne 2007, www.who.invo€h-e nf / or b licatia
^s
/ I acts / f s322 / e n /
Page 94 of 226
PaSe 20 of 24
Magnetic fields are the other aspect ofEMF, and they are created by electric current, Typical am€ricans are exposed to about
1mi igauss of magnetic field from grid electricity (60 Hz)on averaSe durinBtheir day, primarily from sources at homes and
work:2. The primary source of magnetic fi€lds in a solar lacility are the inverters and th€ short s€ction ofwires between ea.h
central inverter and its step-up transformer. To convert drrect current to alternating curent, anverters use a series ofsolid
state switch€s that turn offand on severalthousand tim.s a second, cr€ating EMF in the range of 5 kHz to 100 kHr, whach is
m!ch fader than the 60 Hz ofgrid electricity but still mu(h slower than even the lowest frequency radio siSnah. The hi8hest
electrical current of any portion ofthe solar facility occurs in the inverters, ISU transformeE, and th€ few f€et oI wire
between them, makinS this the gource forthe gtron8est ma8netic fields in the facility.
Srnce the strength of a magnetic field decreases dramatically with incr€asing distanc€ from the source, these magnetic fields
only extend about 50-300feet from the inverter and ISU transformer, atwhich point the magnetic fields would be expected
to rneasure less than 0.5 milli8auss, which a5less than halfthe typical American's averaSe 60 Hz EMF exposure over a day.2t'6
The locations ofthe inverters and ISU transformers at the Old Liberty proj€ct have been preliminarily identafied, which results
in most inverter pads being wellover 1,000 feet from thc closest home and no inverter pad closer than 400 fe€t from a
home. The substation is ov€r 700 feet from the closest home. Thus, the EMF from the inverters and ISU transformers are not
expected to extend to any residential property. Similarly, the magnetic fields from substations Senerally do not extend far
enoLrgh to leave the fence around the s!bstation, so the same can be expected forthe Project's substation,'?T
The bottom line is that the EMF from the Old Liberty Solar PV system willnot leavethe solar site boundary, and th!s willnot
increase the EMF exposure of any neighbors. Even if some €MF from the PVfacility were to sdend beyond the fenced
per meter ofthe site, there wo!ld stillbe no public heallh impact because low levels of€xtremely lowfrequency (ELt)EMF
exposure are not harmfulto humans. Alter extensive study ofthe potential health impacts ofEMF from Srid electricitythe
World Health Organiration (WHO) concludes:
"Despite extensive rcsearch, to dote therc is no evidence to conclude thotexposurc to low level electrcmognetic
fields is hormfulto humon heolth."')8
Tommy Cleveland, PE Old Libedy Solar: Health and Safety Assessment Repon
Sources for further Reading on EMF:
. Electric Power Research lnstitute EMF and Yo!r Hialih: 2019 uDdate.December 2019. World Health Organization; Eiectrohrpner. F,eld! {accessed September 2022)
Heat lsland Effect
Th€ localized effects oflarge-scale Pvfacilities on temperature and moisture are not yet wellunderstood. However, the
locdlzed micro-climate effects oflarge-scale PV facilities are understood wellenough to determine that they do not create a
heat island effect similarto the w€ll documented urban heet island effect from dark, massive, surfaces in urban
env ronments, such as asphalt paved streets and parkinB lots, that cause urban areas to be significantlY warmer than the
surounding rural area during the day and night. The changes that solar panels mav make to the way land absorbs, reflects,
and emits the eherSy from sunlight are minimalcompared to th€ €hanges created by buildings, vehicl€s, and many miles of
concrete and asphett 8y comparison, solar panelr absorb and reflect a similar amount of golar energy as ve8etation and soil
,! wortd Heatth organiration (wBol, webpage: Electromasn.tic Fields -Typicalexpoture levels at home and rn the envtonment.
www.who.rnl/peh'€mf /.bout/whatisEMF/en/index3.htm
:l studv ofAcoustic and EMF Levels f.om Solar Photovoltaic Projects.Iechfnvnonm€ntal, lnc, Oecemb€.2012,
r,tPRr technica repon, E ectr[ and Magnetc Field Exposure Levels (O to 3 GHz)in Occupational Environmerts near Photovoltarc Energv
Generation Facilities, November 2012,httos://ww.eori.com/.e5earch/Droductt/1023797
eEtlqbe!!1!ta!!!!4-t&!/r!!e!-LilEl
tectrornagnetic rietUs - summary of health effecB,'word HeathOrgan raton (wHo), webpase E www.who.rnt/peh
Page 95 of 226
PaBe 21of24
Solar pan€ls are lightweight and cannot store large amounts of therma I enerSy, and theground remains covered in
v€8€tation with its naturalerposure to air and water.
Tommy cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: Health and Safety Assessment Report
lnitral research into the potentialfor PV systems to €ause a heat island effect have Lrsed a variety oftechniques, includin8
conceptual en€rgy flow calculataons, advanced fluid dynamic computer simulations, and field measurements of
temperature ':e
30 :IThis re5earch found a range ofdiff€rent effects on temperature, but none indicatethat a large PV
system could affect the temperature ofthe surroundang comm!nity- Most found that compared to similar undeveloped land
the airtemperature in a solar facility increases durinS th€ day, but the niShttime resLrlts were mix€d. Some studres found PV
sites to be cooler than non-Pv sites at night, but others found them to be warmer. Much ofthis variation is likely €xplained by
the different climates studied but may aho be due to the different methods ofthe studies. Much ofthe resear.h on solar
heat island effect occurred in arid reSions ofthe U.S. southwest where the results are unlikely to tranrlate perfectly to w€tter
climates in the southeast. ln a written statement ofevidence Greg Barron'Gafford, leading solar heat island effect r€searcher,
saYs that he expects that when the area under the PV array is v€getated with grass that the localized heat hland effect his
research found in dry climates willbe 8reatly reduced.3r
The available studies agree that the slight increase of air temperature in the PV site dissipates quicklywith height and
distance from th€ panels as natural processes remove and spread the heat. As a result, any temperature increase that may
occur at the Old Liberty Solar project during the day willbe limited to the site and willnot increase the temperature ofany of
the surrounding community.
Sources for Further Reading on Heat lsland Effect.
. EPA: L€.rn About H€at slands,laccessed September 2022)
Glare
Photovoltaic panels are desi8ned to absorb, and thus not reflect, the solar €nergy that they receive. However, when sunlight
strikes the glass front of a solar panelat a glancang angle a significant portion ofthe solar radiation is reflected, which can
potentially lead to solarglint (a bri€f flash) or gla re. Glint orglare can temporarily impact a persont vision, including pilots
landingaircraft, or motorists d riving veh icles Howev€r, theconditions requiredfor a PV project to createglare rarety occur.
PVfacilities, such as Old Liberty Solar, that utili.e sinSle axis trackers to slowly rotate the solar panels to follow the sun have
€ven less potential to create Slare because the trackers help avoid a situation where sunlight hits the panels at a gtancing
an8le. Mo5t modern trackers implement an advanced control strategy known as "backtracking" that increase5 ihe electricity
produ€tion ofthe site by flattening the tilt of the
panels early and late in the day to keep the rows of
solar panels fiom shading one another. BacktrackinS
can result in brief periods near sunrise and sunlet
wherethe sun strikes the paneh at a gtancing angte,
creating a situation that could result in a few
minutes of visible glare at sunrise and sunset. For
anyon€ to see this glare they must be tooking a.ross
the solar panek in the direcnon ofthe rising or
setting sun, which is a situation where the sLrn Fgure 7.20 MW PVSysten ot tndiohogohs lntehotionol atrpan lpho
':eBrotdb€nt, A3hlev & (.avenhoff, Eric &Geor8ero, Matei& 5aitor, oavid. (2019).rhe obseryed Effects of uritity,kat€ photovottarc! onNeaFsurrace a(Temperature and Ener,v Barance. rournarofApprEd Mereoro ogv.na cr,-",oioev. ii.'ro.rrzsrrAMc-o-18{271.1.r0 Bairon Gafford, G. a. etar. The photovohai. Hear rsrand EffectrLaGer sorarpo;;rpr"^, ac,""r" r"""ir".p".tures. s.i Rep.6,35o7o;dor: 10.1038/yep3so7o 12016).I V. Fthen.tis and y. yu, ,,Anatysit of th€ potentiafor a heat istand eftect in larg€ solarfarmr,,2013 IEEE 39th Photovoh.rc SpeciatrstsConler€nce {PvsC),r.mpa,FL,2013,pp. 3362 3366, doi: 1o.l109/PVsC.2013.6745171.rrG. Baron,Gafford, Statement of Evidence byGret Barron,Gafford on Sotar Heat ki.ndi.g tsrues, Ma y2018,
EEiIII
Page 96 of 226
Tom.r]y C eve and, PE Old Liberty Solar: Health and Safety Assessment Report
A clear indication ofthe ability to avoid Slare problems from lar8e ground-mou nted PV systems arethe PV systems innell€d
on a rports arross the U.5., includinS Oenver lnternationa and lndianapolis lnt€rnational. While there is the potentlal for a PV
system to create 8lare, there is aho the abilityto predictwhen and wher€ a system may create Slare and incorporate any
needed mitigation before connruction. The Federal Avialron Administration (fAA)and th€ U.S. Department of EnerSy (DOE)
developed specialized solar glare analysis software to predict when and where a PV project may produce glint orBlare for
sensrtlve receptors nearby. That original software technology has been licensed to a 3'd firm (For8e Solar)that continues to
improve and reUne the software, which has been validaled to accurately predict solar 8lare.
n May of 2021, the FAA replaced the long-standing interim solar glare policywith a (final)policy that no longer restricts solar
developed on airport property from creatin8 glare visible to pilots. Th€ policy explains that the new acceptance ofglare
vrsib e to pilots is in recognition that pilots often experience Slare during landing from bodies ofwater and that glare from
so ar rs not meaningfully different.sr The new policy does still prohibit on-airport PV systems from creating any Slare visible in
an arr trafflc controltower. while the fAA policy only applies to Pv develop€d on airpo( property, it is reasonableto follow
th€ same policyfor PV plants sited near airport property.
The two closest airports in the National Plan of lntegrated airport systems (NPlaS)34 are the asheboro RegionalAirport (HBll
and 5 ler City Municipal Airpon (sCR). Asheboro RegionelAirpon is approximately 11.S miles southwest ofthe closest solar
pan€l and Siler City Munacipal Airport is over 13 miles soUtheast ofthe closest solar panel. Neither airport has an air traffic
connollower, and without an air trafric controltower it s impossible for Slare lrom the Old Liberty facality to impact air
traffic controllers' vision, which as noted above is the only glare concern that the FAA enforces for PV built on airport
property. Previous FAA Suidance was to conduct a software glare harard analysis when a PV facility i9 proposed to be within 5
nautrcalmiles (s.7s miles)ofan arrpon. Additionally, wth both airports beinS over 10 miles away from the projed, there is
no chance for Old Liberty to creat€ any glare hazard at these airports. The Old tiberty project does not heve any plans to
conduct a software glare hazard analysig ofthe projeci, which in the autho/s opinion is a reasonable plan that does not cause
a public health risk.
Page 22 of 24
obv ously will create significant glare for the viewer with or without the solar project.
Sources for Fufther Reading on Solar 6lare:
. Nataonal Renewable EnerSy Laboratory (NREL):&r:!arch afd Analvs s
:,hptovolta c Modu es. July 2018
. Forgesolar: PV Plannrns and q are analvsis softw.rd helo documentation, {accessed September 2022)
50 ar panels are silent, but some ofth€ other components ofa PV system produce som€ sound, althouSh they are rarelY
heard by anyone outside ofthe project f€nce. The loudest equipment is the inverters, butthe transformers and tracking
systems also make somp sound These numerous sourc€s ofsound aredispersedthroughoutthefacility, butthephysics of
sound are such that these dispersed sources of round are non-additive. For example, if there are 50 inverters spaced across a
utiity-scale solar facility and you are close enough to hear som€ inverter noise, you could turn off the 49 inve(ers farthest
trom yo! and you likety wouldn'r notice the difference between the sound from 1 inverter and the sound from 50 inveners.
Even if two inverters are right next to each oth€r and afl even distance from you, the perceived volume ofth€ sound coming
from the two inverters is very similarto the sound from just one invener. so, the potentialfof someone offsit€ to hear anv
Aviation Administ.ation Polcy: Reviewof50lar Enerfl Svnem Prciectton Federally_Obhgated Ai'podl"
svstem o.oiects_on_f edeEllv'oblirat€d
._ -r" il;;;%" "f rr.grt.d a-p"d Svst€ms (N Plas) dertifies n€arlY 3'310 existinE and p'o poied a trpo ns that are ind uded in the
nano;a I airpon syst€m Th; N plAS conta ins .[ commercia r eervrce a 4orts, all relieler .tports, ind selecled poblic_own.d ge neral avEtion
d pofl s www fa..qov/atroort5/old.nrn. caoactv/noEs
Nqilc
Page 97 of 226
Page 23 of 24
sound Benerated inside a utility-scale PV proj€ct is determined by the clorest and loudest sour.e ofsoLrnd. Thus, some simple
analysis ofthe sound coming from the clos€st sources to a point of interest, such as a home, can etfectively estimate the lev€l
ofsound from the PV project at that location.
Tommy cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar: H€alth and Safety Assessment Report
B€Iore providing site-specific analysis of the potentialfor noise impacts from the Old tiberty project, it is usefulto put the
sound from the PV project in context. Ourworld is tullofsounds, day and night, even in quiet ruralareas, and any sounds
from the Pv project would be in conce( with the existinS sounds. The appropriate analtsis metric is not if the sounds are
audible, but ifthey are noticeable or bothersome, and US and int€rnationalorganizations have publhhed Suidance on this
topic based on research on how sound impacts the public.
ln 1972, the US passed the Noise ControlAct, which required the EPA to define criteria for protecting rhe publac health and
wellbeing from noise interference. ln response, the EPA developed guidance that rncluded recommended sound levek limits
at residential structures {or places in which quiet is a basis for use}r5 This gurdance re€ommends that noises at residences be
limited to 55 dBA Lo, where L6 is the average sound levelofa 24-hour period with the inclusion ofa 10 dB penalty during
the nighttime hours of 10PM to 7AM. 5o, the 55 dgA td^ limit could be met with 55 dBA daytame noise a6d 45 dBA niShttime
noise, or a 24-hour noise (Lq)of48.6 dBA. ln addition to the EPA Surdanc€, the United Nations WHO pLrblished "Guidelines
for Community Noise" (1999) whi€h suggested daytrme and niShttime prot€ctive noise levels, which are to be applied outside
the bedroom window.16 During the day (7AM to 11PM), the equivalent continLrous sound levelthreshold to protect against
serious annoyanc€ is 55 d8A Lq, and 50 dBA Lq to protect against moderate annoyance. Durin8 the ni8ht (11PM to 7AM), the
averaged equivalent continuous sound levelthreshold is 45 dBA Lq. So, the EPA and the WHO recommend similar daytime
norse lamrts (-55 dBA and 55 to 50 dgA, respectively), and srmilar niShttime limits as well ("45 dBA and 45 dBA, r€spectively).
Without iocal noise regulations or recommendations, these recommended noase limits from EPA and WHO provide well-
established criteria for acceptable noise in rural residential areas.
At this staS€ of proj€ct development, the site plan package cao be used to €onduct a preliminary screening level noise impact
assessment. Available sound power data from representative equipment is used in this assessment, so the installed
equipment could have somewhat different noise g€n e ration, but the difference is expected to be insignificaht. Both the pV
paneh and the batteri€s require anveners, which is the loud€sr piece ofeqLripment in the facitity_ The pV inverrers are
planned to be a 4.0 MW central model, and this assesgment used sound data from one of the most common central inverters
on th€ market today, with a capacity of3.6 MW. The battery inverters are not yet specified, but wi not be a6y targer or
loud€r than the PV inveners.
Generally, the difference in sound from different transform€rs of a similar capacity is minimal, so like the inverter, the
representative sound data forthe substation transformer is expected to be verysimilarto the equipment instatted at Otd
Liberty. Thethird and finalcomponent that makes some noise is the motor in the kacker system, which is often located in
the center ofsome rows ofsolar panels. There is a wide variety oftracker system systems with varying numbers, sizes, end
styles ofmotors. oLre to the uncertainty about the trackerthat willbe installed, a very conservative gound power level is used
for the tracker motors in this assessment, The lsL, transformers located with ea€h invener also makes some noise but i9
siSnificantly quieter than the invener, so it has ne8ligible impad on the sound levet heard some distance from the
inverter/transformer pair, so for simplicity the tSU transformers are not inctud€d in this screening t€vel noise impact
The followinS analYsis starts with the sound power levelofthe €quipment, which is measured in decibeh but is different than
sound pressure level, which is also measured in decibek and is used to describe how loud a so!nd is to humans. The sound
power levelofthe equipment is a measure ofthe totalacoustic energy emitted from a source ofnoise. The sound power
levelvalue and the distanc€ between the €quipment and the person is allthat rs needed to catcutate the toudness ofthe
sound in the person's €ars, which as the sound pressure level. The sound power levels of representative equipment are as
followsrT: 3.6 MW inverter: 10l dBA, substation transforme. 88 dBA, and track€r motors: 90 dBA. The distance used in this
r! U5 EnvnonmentalProtedio. As€.cv IEPA),'htorm.rion on Levels of Envtonmenl.lLote Reauisiteto prorect pubtic Heatth and wettare wnh Anadequar€ Ma4m of safev, 1974, hnos ii eo6 lltlrovi r r.illppr qr]lo@!]1!t!)r]!.dqLt!tl9Ll!u!!riwo d He.[h ors.nEtion (wHO), "cuid€linerloraonnlnity No,*", rggs, !!lp!]li!j I *r,o.f-,uru^dt"ttoeol/rolr/, rnveft€r and !!bn.mn hnilorme. $und dal. provided m sp.€dedv sol,r sound study R.pNt, Rel/rro r a,r"a ro/zsl:ozo. c,oaucea by au,nsMco.nnellfor ouk€ En.rgY plor.cr n c.b:rlrcoun!, Nc rracler 6oror d.ta..d inverre. data pr@ded i. xaliiki, et..t. itoie,con 2o2o conlerenc.
Page 98 of 226
Page 24 ol 24
sound assessment is a6 estimation ofthe closest distance b€tween that equipment and a residence, which willprovide an
estimar on ofthe worst case noise at the homes closest to the project.4o0-ft is used as a conservativ€ distancefor the
invert€rt and 100 ft is used forthe tracker motors. The subsiation transformer is located in the substation, which is much
fu(her from the closest residence, over 700 feet. The battery inverters will be located near the substation and assumed to be
at least 700 feet from the closest residence. The sound pressure level (in dBA)€an be calculated from the sound power level
(rn dBA) and the dinance from the source as follows:
Sound pressure level = sound power level - 20 x lo8 (distan€€ in feet)
. PV lnv€rters: 101dBA- 20 x log (400 feet)= 49 0 dBA
. Battery lnverters: 101 dBA - 20 x log (7m feet) = 44.1 dBA
. Substation transformer: 88 dBA- 20 x log (700 feet) = 31.1 dBA
o Tracker motorsr 90 dSA - 20 x lo8 (100 feet) = 50.0 dBA
Allthree ofthese worst cas€ sound estimates for the Pv system m€et the EPAand wHO recommended Euidelines for
daytime noise in a residentialsetting, which as the only time the PV inverters and tracker motors are expected to make any
noise The battery inveners may operate at ni8ht, and these inv€rters meet the EPA and WHO re€ommended guidelinesfor
davtlme noise in a residential setting. lt is important to note that this analysis assumes a clear line-of-sight area between the
equipment and the residence, so anyvegetation or other obstacles between the PV equipment and the residen€e willreduce
the sound reaching the resrdence compared to these estimates. lt is also rmportant to note that the tracker motors only
operare for shorr periods of time throuShout the day and the inverters only produce their maximum sound when operatinS
at maximum power. While this simplified noise impact asressment is limited in capability compared to noke analysis
software, this analysis reflects the physi€s of sound propagation and uses noise data from representative equipment,
allow ng for a simple yet arcurate estifiate ofworst-case sound impacts.ln conclusion, the Old Liberty project is not
exp€cted to create noise int€rference or be bothersometo any neighbors.
Tommv cleveland, PE Old Liberty Solar:Health and Safety Assessm ent Report
Sources for Fufther Reading on Noise:
. world Health OrSanization (WHO), GrrEEl !rrlA4E!!ql!r!!r!C, 1999
Conclusions
Based on my knowledge ofenSaneering and science, perlonalexperience with PV and battery technologv, review of
academ c research, and review of materials provided by Renewable EnerSy Services and Palladium Energy about the
proposed Old Liberty Solar PV and battery energy stora8€ facilitY in Randolph Countv, North Carolina, myfindinSs and
oprnions are sLrmmarized as follows:
. The Old Lib€rty Solar proiect willresult in a siSnaflcant reduction ofregionaleir pollution.
. The old Liberty Solar proiect will not result in any negative impacts to public health or safety
. The Old Liberty Solar facility wallnot increase the tomperatur€ ofthe area surroundinBthe site.
. The Old Lrberty Solarfacility is not expected to create any glare hazards or oth€r negativeSlare impacts.
. The old Liberty solar proiect will not create both€Bome noase for any neighbors.
rtrlrllrllrl
p,r,,rtned An Ov.ruewofSound rrom Comme( alPholovoni. ao t'es
Page 99 of 226
Kirkland
Appraisals, LLC
Richard C. Ki*land, Jr., MAI
9408 Nonhfield Coun
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Phone (9191414-4142
rk,rkla nd2, sma,1.com\\r k,rklandaDDrai*rls c{)m
August 21, 2023
Mr. Tom Delafield
Old Liberty Solar, LI-C
5315 Highgate Drive, Suite 2O2
Durham, NC 27713
R.E: Propo..d Old Libcrty Solar FarD, Crtl Alttld Ro.d, Rarldelmr,r, Ratldolph Coutrty, NC
Mr. Delafield
At your request, I have considered the impact of a 44 lv{W solar farm with a Battery Enerry Storage
S]'stem (BESS) \rith a l5 IIw 4-hour capacity, proposed to be constructed on a portion of a 387-
acrc assemblage of land on CarI Allred Road, Randleman, RaJdolph County, North Carolina.
Specifically, I hale been asked to give m! professional opinion on whether the Foposed solar farm
wiil have eny impact on adjoining property value and whether 'the location and character of the use,
if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, wil be in har'mony with the area in
uhich it is to be located."
To form a, opimon on tllese issues, I have researched and visited existing and proposed solar farms
in North Carolina, rcsearched articles through the Appraisat lnstihrte and other studies, and
discussed the likely impact with other rea.l estate professionals. I have not been asked to assign any
velue to any speciric property.
This letter is a limited report of a rca.l property appraisel consulting assignment and subject to the
limiting conditions attached to this letter. My client is Old Liberty Solar, LLC, represented to me by
Mr. Tom Delalield. My rindings support the application. The eflective date of this consultation is
August 21, 2023.
concluaion
The matched pair analysis in the attached report shows no impact in home va.lues due to abuttrng
or adjoining a solar farm as well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or
agricultural land u'here there are suffcient setbacks and buflering as identified in the aialysis. The
citeria that tvpicall,v correlates vrith downward adjustnents on property values such as noise, odor,
and t aIlic all indicate that a soler faim is a compatible use for rural/residentiel tr nsition areas and
that it \r,ould function in a hannonious manner with this area.
Very similar solar farms in very similar areas have been found by hundreds of to$ns and counties
not to have a substantiat injury to abutting or adjoining properties, and many of those findings of no
impact have b€en upheld by N.C. Courts or overtumed by N.C. Courts when a tloard found
othenrise lsee for exarnple DellingeL u. Lin@ln Cnuntgl. Similar solar farms have b€en approved
adjoining a$icultural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments. Industrial uses mrely
absorb negative impacts from adjoining uses. This same pattem of development has been identified
in this report shouing that this is not a local phenomenon, but found in Virginia, North Carolina,
Marlland, Tenness€e, and Florida as rcpresentative of the Mid-Adantic and Southeastem U.S.
Page 100 of 226
Bas€d on the data and analysis in this rpport, it is my professional opinion that the solar farm
proposed at the subject property wi[ have no impact on the value of adjoining or abutting property
and that the proposed use is in harmonl $ith the area in which it is located. I note that some of
the positive implications of a solar farm that hale been exprcssed by people Iiving next to solar
farms include protection from future development of rcsidentiat developments or other more
intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and chemicals fiom former farming operations, protec[on Fom
light pouution at night, it is quiet, and there is no traJEc.
Similarly, the pa ed sales data on BESS s.vstems in this report show no impact at distances much
closer than the proposed 840 feet at the project, which supports a frnding of no impact on the
adjoining property latue.
Il tou have anr questjons pleasr call me an\ tune
Sincereh,
- -7,c kt( /.
Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI
State Certilied General Appraiser
Nicholas D. Kirkland
State Certifed General Appraiser
. z:@) ,
Page 101 of 226
3
Ta ble of Co nte nts
CoEclulio!.
I. Propo.cd ProJcct a.Ed A4roLEilg U!.....
U. cthodoloEr &d DLcu.rlo[ oflauc..
III. Rracafth olr Sohr Farat............
A. Apprais3l Market Studies...........
B. Arucles .......
C, Broker Commental\
Iv. UnlectlltyStudle.....
A- University ofTexas at Austin, May 2018
B. Universio ofRhode lsland, September2020..-...... ---- ..-.
C. Georgia Institute ofTechnolog/, October 2020.......-.........-.........
D. Master's Thesis: ECU by Zachar! Dickerson July 2018 .............
E. la$rence Berkeley National lab, March 2023............................
V. Aas€aaor Sut3cyr
Vt. soLr F.rE ldcntii.d lD Rardolph eld A4rohirg courtic.
Vtr, M.rlct AtrdyrL ofth. IDpect on V.lu. ioD SoI.i FrrEs ..
A. NonhCdrolinaDat2l......................
B. Southeastem USA Data - Over 5 MW......
C. Summary of National Data on Solar Farm
VlI. ScoF of R..crrch.................................
B. SFdic Fectorr R.Ltcd To IDp.ct o! V.luc
,L Baftcry E rerE Storrgc 8yttcr6 (BEgSl
A. BESS Paired Sales Analysis/Market Research ......................-....
XL Conclu!ioa....
XII. Certltrcrtio!..
Professrcnal Exprnence
Professronal A-fllliauons
Education ..............
Continuing EducaLjon
,.1
t2
t4
t4
t7
1a
l8
18
l9
20
2l
22
2A
30
33
34
6
68
70
7l
74
76
92
93
94
94
94
94
Page 102 of 226
4
I. Proposed Proiect and Adioining Uses
Proposed UBe Dcacrtptior
This 44 MW sola, farm with a Battery EnerB/ Storage System (BESS is proposed to be constructed
on a portion of a 387-acre assemblage on Carl Allred Road, Randleman, Randolph County, North
C€rolina. Adjoining tand is primarily a mix of residential and agricultural uses, which is very typica.l
of solar farm sites.
AdJoi[hg Propcrtieg
I have considered adjoining uses and included a map to identjry each parcel s location. The closest
adjoining home is proposed to be 105 feet from the closest solar panel, the average distance is 673
feet. The clos€st adjoining homes are along Tippet Road and includes a number of trailers and
manufactured homes.
The breakdown of those us€s by acreage an(i number of parcels is summarized belo\i
The BESS ]IiI be a 15 MW system \rith a 4 hour duration. The BESS is located at the point of
interconnection sho(-n on the map,
AdjotrtEg u.. Br..rtilot,n
Acrcrg. P.rcclt
Residential 46-47'k aa-32'Y"
Agncultural 32-8qL 4.9!'/a
Agn/Res 19.6701, 4.9?t
Commercial O-97"/o l-64"1,
Total loo.oo% roo.oo%
The BESS Il,ill be located to the north of Carl Alred Road in the red box shown in the second map
along B,ith the ne$ substation- The closesl non participating home to the substatron/BEss is 840
feet at 1982 Tippett Road.
Page 103 of 226
o
(
lo'23
:J
tt i.-f
\
I
I
!
I
\
ls
t
t
*--I
I
25
4
I
7
6
5
E7t
i4
\
;t
1
t'
4
\
ls5
lr
t:
I
56
a
61
60
58
57
r
I
I l
rTi
t
Page 104 of 226
su.rou!diog U...
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
),2
l3
14
l5
16
17
la
l9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
2a
29
30
3l
32
33
34
35
36
3?
3a
39
40
4t
42
{i
Cls Drt.
UAP lD Onc! Acr.. Pr..crt U.c
777492a99Oninchum 13.04 R€sidential
77E4O22S6IFlinchum 4-a2 Rcsrdential
77A4O32a24 Coley 9.33 Rcsidential
77EZ|O4447O Routh 21.44 A8n/Res
7784O3a066 BroM 2-rq R.sidential
77E41331m Julian t9.t5 Rcsidenrial
77E4139451 Julian 41.3a Agncultural
7784326603 M shall 42-Y AtE/Res
778443a105 Wdd 64.$ ASnoltual
77E45tr869 Allred 6.70 Rcsidential
778451056a AllEd 3.10 RcsideDtial
77844194$Gallimore 3.m R.sideDtial
77A44ta294 Jtmine2 3.m Residendal
77845O3a59C@beth 3..1O Residential
7784506223 Cmb.th 45-m ASnottual
7784406792 Broffi i.43 R.sidential
77A44AA644 wown l.15 Residential
77q4a{r6339 stutts l.lo R.sidential
7784405295 Hdyok o.41 R.sidentisl
77A44A2O24N e* Hon^n 4.5 Commerci.r
778349a51a Stutts 6.lO Resid.ntral
Z8349279tWilliuson 1.37 R.sid.ntial
77a3491488 Chavez 2.8 Residcntial
7783490115 Craven 9-6{) Resid.ntial
7793a58O6 Cmven 3.2O R.sidential
za34ao688 willerr 4n Residcntial
77834a1467Williuson 1.20 Resid.ntial
77E34a1373 Elliott l.7o R.sid.ntial
7783483129 Paschlc 2-qJ Residcntial
77a3474y)5 Cook 2-!3 Residcntial
7783470892 Ranahll 1.32 Residential
77q337a6.fi West 7.E3 Resid.ntial
77E3373985 Glass 3.(b Residcntial
77833a110O Glass 1.47 R.sid.ntEl
77$28aol9 Glass r-78 Residential
77a327398O Glass 4.3O Residential
77E32604t9 Glass 4.tlo Rcsidential
77a3189065 Glass 1.5O Resid.ntEl
77a3179664 Maness l.0O Residential
77a3177666 Me.ss O-87 R.sidential
77a3178466 Maness 5.53 Rcsidential
77a3175904 Mde ss l.0O Residrntial
Adrola
2.a4vo
I.050/0
2.O3vo
4.6Avo
o.4av"
4.33vo
9.OT/
9.2tvr
14.6v"
o_6aol,
o.650/"
0.65%
9.410/d
0.310/"
o.2f/o
o.240/"
o.ur/"
o.97./o
1.33%
o.w"
o.45vo
2.Ov/o
o.ze/o
0,93/o
o.2e/"
o.37"/"
o.63/.
o.5l%
o.2q/o
1.7f/"
o.67"/0
o.3vi
0.3F/,
o_94vr
o. ./.
0.33%
o.22vo
o_ 190/,
t.21vo
o.2v/
adjoh
L640/o
t.64vo
t.64?6
|.64./o
t.640/0
L64vo
L640/o
1.640/"
t.640/0
t.640/o
t.64%
1.640/o
'l.tv7o/n
),.64r/0
1.640/0
t.64vr
t.640/0
t.64vd
t.640/0
t.64vn
1.640/0
t.64vo
1.640/o
t.(Av"
\.64"/"
l.64vo
\.64"/"
t.64vo
1.640/0
t.64./"
t.640/0
L.64Vo
Dl3t.!cc lftl
Eoa.,/Pu.l
l,l to
745
645
1,320
I,430
I, tas
1,165
1,090
455
250
2*
420
395
745
475
1,150
I,245
|,270
1,545
|,420
l,6z10
665
rrco
575
135
265
2m
125
Page 105 of 226
e
43
45
46
48
49
50
5l
52
53
54
55
56
58
59
60
61
MAP ID
7783145100
77a3t44297
7743t44460
7743144533
7783t44653
7743t&7732
77A3ta3a4t
7783099080
7743191027
77831,91484
77a3@9491
7783094432
7743092301
7773945928
77739907@
7774901,225
777490297r
77749t1,425
7774424t41
GIS Drtr
Acre. Pr€rcnt U.c
l oo Residential
1.OO Residential
1.00 Residential
l OO Residential
LOO Residential
Loo Residential
1.00 Residentlal
1.15 Residential
0.80 Residentlal
L39 Residenlal
1.80 Residential
l-17 Residential
13.66 Residential
lLa6 Residential
7.78 Residential
lO.1a Residential
8.55 Residential
6.42 Residential
26.s0 Asd/Res
Distrncc lftl
Homc/Parcl
I05
I95
250
160
ta5
26
17()
3lo
230
290
430
N/A
630
630
N/A
N/A
820
260
1,155
Millikan
Carter
Millikan
Fleming
bvell
Hedgecock
Denny
Middleton
AdJotn
o-2rk
o.22vr
o.22%
o.22d/"
o.22vo
o_224/o
o_25./.
o.l7t/o
o.3v/a
o.3q/.
o-260/0
2.94%
2-sq/o
|.70v6
2.2?/o
t-85r/0
t.4tr1
5.78v.
Aitloi!
t.64vo
't _644/"
1.64yo
1.tAo/r
1.6q%
1.6401
I _64./,
t.64va
l.fr7o/"
1.64%
t.64v"
L64y.
t-640/o
t.64yo
t.64v.
\-64vo
t.64yo
't.649,0
Total 458.560 1OO.OO% 1OO.OO% 673
Page 106 of 226
13
Dctnogrephlca Aroutld Subject Propcrty
I have pr.rlled demogaphic data around a 1 mile, 3 mile and s-mile ndius from the middle of the
project as shourl on the following pages.
The census data for the 1 mile and 3 mile radius for this area shows a prcjected decline in
population anticipated for the coming years, while the s-mile mdius supports a mild incrcase.
t
T.
Salem
'rR-andleman
' !r.1rtiv il:e
a n
a :la
a'I ' - [- [ L1t li.ltt r'tl l€!I
Ramio UT
FIt---41
a
b'oro
Page 107 of 226
9
o esn
27218, Fonrl'tuL, r.'in C.d'fl
2ol3 .d'.. Hourhord l^od
horr4 ufr t o@Fq $du .d t nm
cmxro{q,.|liuJn
Housinq Profile
Page 108 of 226
o esn
27:.1, F..nu'Mn., xdrh C.@in.
?61! ts tri nourhord rn.on
ndrnt udb t oqFE r.b..d t.M
fu.&drHfulnlunt'bvY.b
Profil
10
Page 109 of 226
o esr!
11
10?6 &de Bourrlc. rnt@
H{q u{r. lr o@Fnr re-.1rm
cu aalo niai rl.lr.
Housinq Profile
Page 110 of 226
12
II. Methodology and Discussion of Issues
Stq4delds s4{Msthalfqfag
I conducted this analysis using the slandards and practices established by the Appraisal
Institute and that conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The
analr_ses alld methodologies contained in this report aie accepted b], all major lending
institutions, and they are used in Virginia and across the country as the indusby standard by
certified appraisers conducting appraisals, market analyses, or impact studies and are
considered adequate to form an opinion of the impact oI a land use on neighboring properties.
These standards and practices have also been accepted br" the coufts at the tial and appellate
levels and by federal courts throughout the country as adequate to reach conclusions about
the iikell, impact a use \i'ill have on adjoining or abutting properties.
The lvpe of anal],sis employed is a Matched Pair Analysis or Paired Sales Analysis. This
methodolog/ is outlined in The Apprafual of Real Betate, T[elfth Edidon by the Appraisa.l Institute
pages 438-439. It is turther detail€d in Real Eatete Dameges, Third Edition, pages 33-36 by
Rarldall Be[ PhD, MAL Paired sales anah sis is used to support adjustments in appraisa] $'ork for
factors ranging ftom the impact of having a garage, golf course vie\r!,, or additional bedrooms. It is
an apprcpriate methodologr for addressing the question of impact of an adjoining solar fann. The
paired sales anarysis is based on the theory that \r'hen two properties are in aI other respects
equivalent, a single difference can be measured to indicate the difference in price bet\rleen them. Dr.
Bell describes it as comparing a test area to control areas. In the exa,'nple provided by Dr- Bel] he
shoi!,s five paired sales in the test area compared to I to 3 sales in the confol areas to deterrnine a
differcnce. I have used 3 sales in d1e control areas in my analysis for each sale developed into a
matched pair.
DeterminiDg what ls ell ExterDel Obsolesce[ce
The aforementioned standards compare propert_v uses in the same market and generally within
the sane calendar year so that flIrctuatjng maikets do not alter study results. Although these
standards do not require a linear studl that examines adjoining property values before and
after a new use (e.9. a solar farm) is developed, some of these studies do in Iact employ this
type of analysis. Compaiative studies. as used in this report, are considered an industry
standard.
An extemal obsolescence is a use of properlv that, because of its characteristics, might have a
[egative impact on the va]ue of adjacent or nearby properties because ot jdentifiable impacts.
Determining $hether a use $ould be considered an external obsolescence requires a study that
isolates that use, eliminates any other causing factors, and then studies the sales of nearby
versus distant comparable properties- The presence of one or a combination of key factors does
not mean the use il"ill be an external obsolescence, but a combination of these facton tends to
be present rhen market data rcflects that a use is an extemal obsolescence.
External obsolescence is evaluated by appraisers based on seveml factors. These Iactors
include but are not limited to:
1) Tmlfic. Soiar Farms are not trafflc generators.
2) Odor. Solar farms do not produce odor.
3) Noise. Solai farms generate no noise concerns with noise levels below ambient noise
outside of the fence in most layouts and makes even less noise at night.
Page 111 of 226
5) Appearance/Viewshed- This is the one area that potentially applies to solat farms.
However, solar farms are generally required to prcvide significant setbacks and landscaping
buffers to addrcss that concern. Furthermore, any consideration of appearance of vie$'shed
impacts has to be considered in comparison l^ith currently allowed uses on that site. For
example if a rcsidential subdivision is already an allowed use, the question becomes in what
way does the appearance impact adjoining property oll'ners above and beyond the appearance
of that allo$ed subdivision or other similar allowed uses.
6) Other factors. I have observed and studied many solar farms and have never observed
any characteristic about such facilities that prevents or impedes neighbors from fuUy using
their homes or farms or businesses for t}Ie use intended.
Solar farms have been increasing in size in recent years. Much of the data collected is from
existing, older solar farms of smaller size, but there are numerous examples of sales adjoining
75 to 80 MW facilities that show a similar trend as the smaller solar farms. This is
underctandable given that ihe primalv concern relative to a solai faim is the appeaiance or
vie.r'of the solar farm, $'hich is tlpically addressed through setbacks and landscaping bufferc-
The relevance of data from smaller solar farms to larger solar farms is due to the pdmary
question being one of appearance. II the solar farm is properly screened, then little of the solar
farm would be seen ftom adjoining propertl_ rcgaidless of how many acres are involved.
4) Environmental. Solar farms do not produce toxic or hazardous waste. Grass is
maintained \rnderneath the panels so there is minimal impervious surface aiea.
I have split out the data for the matched pairs adjoining larger solar farms only to illustrate the
similarities later in this report.
13
Steps I volved iIl the Aaalysis
The paired sales analysis employed in this report follows the following process:
1. Identily sa.les of property adjoining existing solar farms.2. Compare those sales to similar prcper !r* that does not adjoin an existing solar farm.
3. Conlirmation of sales 6re noted in the analysis write ups.
4, Distances from the homes to panels aie included as a measure of the setbacks.
5. Topographic ditrerences across the solar farms tlemselves are likewise noted a-long with
demogaphic data for comparing similar areas.
Therc are a number of Sale/Resale comparables included in the write ups, but most of the data
shown is for sales of homes after a solar farm has been announced (where noted) or after a solar
farm has b€€n constrtcted.
Relstive Solar Farm Sizea
Larger solar farms are often set up in sections where any adjoining owner would only be able to
see a small section ofthe project even if there were no landscaping screen. Once a landscaping
screen is in place, the primary view is effectively the same B'hether adjoining a 5 MW, 20 MW
or 10O MW facilit).
Page 112 of 226
14
III. Research on Solar Farms
A. Apprq'tsol Mo.rket Studies
I have also considered a number of impact studies completed by other apprais€rs as detailed below
crhaRcaick - Plopert!. Vrlue lepect Study: Aqieccnt Prcpcrty Velucs Soler lmp.ct S_tud!r: A
Study of Eight E:dstlng Sollr Facllttic3
Paficia Mccarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, CRA and Andre\r'R. Lines, MAI $ith CohnReznick completed an
impact study for a proposed solar farm in Cheboygan County. Michigan completed on June 10,
2O2O. I arn familiar with this study as well as a number of similar such studies completed by
CobnReznick. I have not included all of these studies but I submit this one as rcpresentative of
those studies.
This study addresses impacts on value from eight difierent solar fams in Michigan, Minnesota,
Indiana, Ilinois, Virginia and Nonh Caro]ina. Thes€ solar farms are 19.6 Mw, lO0 MW, 11.9 Mw,
23MW,7l MW,61 MW,40 MW, a-nd l9 MW for a range from 11.9 Mw to l0O MW *ith an arerage
of 31 MW and a median of 3l .5 MW- Thej- anallzed a total of 24 adjoining property sales in the Test
Area aIld 81 comparable sales in the Control Area over a five year period.
The conclusion of this study is that there is no evidence of any negative impact on adjoining
propertv values based on sales prices, conditions of sales, overall marketability, potential for new
development or rate of appreciabon.
Cbrbthr P. KaUe & Asroclates - Prop.rty llrpect AtreIFir - Propoled Solar Power Plaat
Gutb.rie Roed, Sturrts Dreft, Augurte County, VirBirla
Christian P. Kaila, MAI. SRA a,ld George J. Finle]. MAI de!€loped an impact stud]'as refer€nced
above dated June 16, 2020. This $as for a proposed 83 lv{W facility on 886 acres.
Mr. Kaila jntervie*ed appnis€rs !r'ho had mnducted studies and reviewed universitv studies and
discussed the comparable impacts ofother development that i|as alloq'ed in the area for a
comparative analysis ofother impacts that could impact viewshed based on existing allowed us€s
for the site. He also discussed in detail the various other impacts that could cause a negative
impact and ho$ solar farms do not have such characteristics,
Mr. Iaila also interviewed county plannerc and real estate assessors in eight differcnt virginia
counties u'ith none of the ass€ssor's identi&ing any negative impacts obs€rved for e-xisting solar
projects.
Mr- Xa a concludes on a finding of no impact on pmperty values adjoining the indicated solar farm
Fred Beclq MAI, CCIM - lmpect A.DrlFi3 in LiacolE couEty 20t3
Mr. Frcd Beck, MAI, CCIM completed an impact analysis in 2013 for a proposed solar farm that
concluded on a negati\e impact on value. That report relied on a single cancelled conx?ct for an
adjoining parcel $'here the contracted buyers indicated tllat the solar farm $'as the rcason for the
cancellation. It a.lso relied on the activities of an assessment impact that $as applied in a nearby
Mr. Beck uas interviewed as part of the Christian Ka-lia study noted above. From that I quote "Mr.
Beck concluded on no eflect on moderate priced homes, and only a 5% change in his limited
Page 113 of 226
research of higher priced homes. His one sale that fell through is hardly a reliable sample. It also
was misleading on Mr. Beck s part to rcport the lower re assessments since the primary cause of the
re-assessments were based on the County Official, who lived adjacent to the sola.r farm, appeal to
the assessor for reductions with his o*'n home." ln that CIay County Case study the noted lack of
lot sales after announcement of the solar farm also coincided with the rccession in 2008/2009 a.nd
lack of lot sales eflectively defined that area during that time.
1i
I fur*rer note, tllat I was present at the hearing il'here Mr. Beck presented these findings and the
predomina.nce of his argument before the Lincoln Counry Board of Commissioner's \\'as based on
the one cancelled sale as well as a matched pair analysis of high end homes adjoining a four-story
call center. He hwothesized that a similar impact from that example could be compared to being
adjacent solar farm without explaining the signficant difference in view, setbacks, landscaping,
baJfic, light, and noise. F\rlhermore, Mr. Beck did have matched pairs adjoining a solar fa]m in his
study that he put in the back of his report and t}rcn ignored as they sho$ed no impact on properq
value,
Also noted in the Christian Kalia interview notes is a response from Mr. Beck indicating that in his
opinion "the homes were higher priced homes and had full view of the solar farm-' Based on a
description of screening so that "the solar farm would not be in tul view to adjoining proper!
o\rTrels. Mr, Beck said in that case, he would not see any drop in propert! value."
Northstar ApFaisaf CoEpsEy - IEpact AralFis for NlchoDus Run Solsr, Pll4grovE, NJ,
September 16, 2020
Mr. William J- Sapio, MAI uith Northsta, Appraisal Company considered a matched pair analysis
for the potential impact on adjoining property values to this prcposed 150 MW solar: farm. Mr.
Sapio considered sales activitl in a subdivision I o\rn as Point of Woods in South Brunsuick
Township and identified two rccent new homes that were constructed and sold adjoining a 13 MW
solar farm and compared them to similar homes in that subdivision that did not adjoin the solar
farm. These homes sold in the $1,290,450 to $1,336,613 pnce rarge and these homes were rougNy
2O0 feet from the closest solar panel.
Based on this analysis, he concluded that the adjoining solar farm had no impact on adjoining
property value.
Mery cclinton Clay, MAI - Mccracke! County Solar PrcJect Value Impact Report, July 10,
2o21
Ms. Mary Cla],, MAI reviewed a report by Kirldand ApFaisals in this case and also provided a
difiering opinion of impact. She cites a number of other appraisal studies and interestingly fnds
fault with heavily rcsearched opinions, while praising the results of poorly rcsearched studies that
found the opposing view-
Her analysis includes details from solar faLms that sho\r, no impact on \due, but she dismissest}lose.
She cites the University ofTexas study noted later in this rcport, but she cites only isolated portions
of that studv to conclude the opposite of what that study specifically concludes.
she cites the university of Rhode Isla-nd study noted alter in this report, but specifically excludes theconclusion of that study that in rurat areas the] found no impact o; property;a.lue.
She cites lot sales near Spots)'lvania Solar without conlirming the purchase prices *,ith brokers asindicative of market impact and has made no attempl to compare lot pdces that aiecontemporaneous. In her 5 rot sares that she identifies, alr of the rot prices decline il,ith time from
Page 114 of 226
16
2Ol5 through 2019. This includes the 3lot sales prior to the appmval of the solar farm. The
{lecrease in lot values shown in this chart are more indicative of the trend in the market, than of any
rmpact related to the solar farrn. OtheNise, how does she explain t}te drop in price from 2015 to
2017 prior to the solar farm approval.
She considers data at McBride Place Solar Farm and does a sale/rcsa.]e a.nalysis based on Zillow
1 Iome Value Index, which is not a rcliable ,ndication for appreciation in the market. She then
adjusted her initial sales prior to the solar farm oler 7 years to determine what she believes the
home should have appreciated by and then compares that to an actual sale. She has mn no tests
or any analysis to show that the appreciadon rates she is using are consistent with the market but
more importatly she has not attempted to confirm any of these sales $ith market participants. I
have spoken with brckers active in the sales that she cites and they have a-ll indicated that the solar
la.m \r'as not a negative factor ln marketrng or selling those homes.
She has considered lot sales at Sunshine Fams in Grandy, NC. She indicates that t}Ie lots next to
rhe solar farm are selling for less tllan lots noi near the solar farm, but she is actually using lot sa.les
next to the solar farm prior to t}Ie solar farm being approved. She also ignorcs recent home sales
adjoining this solar farm after it $as built that sho\I' no impact on prDpert!'value.
She also notes a couple of situations where solar developers ha!€ purchas€d adjoining homes and
resold them or \\,here a nerghbor agleement was paid as proof of a negatlve impact on property
!,alue. Given tlat t]rcre ar€ over 2,500 solar farms in the USA as of 2018 according to the U.S.
Energf Information Administaton and ther! are or y a handful of such examples, this is clearly not
an industry standard but a business decision. F\rthermore, solar developers 3re not in the
business of flipping homes and are in a position !'ery similar to a bar ( that acquires a home as
OREO (Other Real Estate O$ned), \r'here homes are frequently sold at discounted prices, not
because of any drop in value, but because they are not a Bpically motivated s€ller. Market value
requires an analysis of a qpicary' motivated buyer and seller. So these 6re not good indicators of
market value impacts.
The comments throughout this study are hea\:.f in adjectiles, avoids stating facts contrar)' to the
conclusrcn and shous a strong selection bias
Kevln T. UGGb, If,AI - corcoru solrt IlnDaGt study, Jurc 19, 2017
Mr. Kevin Meeks, MAI rcviewed a report bj Kirkland Appraisals in this case and also Provided a
additional research on the topic with additional paircd sales. The sajes he considered are well
presented and sho\r' that the] $ere confirrned by third parties and all of the broker commentarl' is
aligned rith t}Ie conclusion that the adjoining solat farms considered had no impact on the
adjoining home lalues.
Mr. Meeks also researched a l0O MW project in ChisaSo County, lmo\rn as North Star Solar Garden
in MN. He intervie\\,ed local appraisers and a broker \\ho was actively marketing homes adjoining
that solar farm to likewise support a fmding of no impact on property vaue
Coaclu.ior of Impect Stuiuct
of the sA studies noted three included actual sales data to derive an opinion ofno impact on !?'lue'
ThetwostudiestoconcludeonanegativeimpactincludestheFredBeckstudybaserionnoactual
salesdata'andhetlassinceindicatedthai[ithlandscapings.reenshewouldnotconcludeona
negative impact. The other study by Ma.a, Ciay sho\r's improper adjustrnents for time a lack of
.oifir-.tion of ""1." "omparables, and exclusion of data that does not support her position'
I have relied on these studies as additional suppon for the findings in this impact anab sis'
Page 115 of 226
B. Artlcles
FarE Jourael Grr4t Edltor, l,[arch.22,2021 - Soler's Iepect otr Rural PrcPCrty v.lue3
Andy Ames, ASFMRA (American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers) published this
anicle that includes a discussion of his survey of appraisers and studies on the question of property
value related to solar farms. He discusses the universitv srudies that I have cited as *'ell as Patricia
Mccarr. MAI.
He also discusses the fndings of Donald A. Fisher. ARA. $ho sersed six years at the Chair of the
ASFMRA'S National Appraisal Revieu Committee. He is also the Executive Vice President of the CIIY
Pomeroy Appraiser and has conducted several market studies on solar farms arld properq/ impact.
He is quoted in the article as saying, 'Most of the locations were in either suburban or rural areas,
arld all of those studies found either a neutral impact, or ironically, a positive impact, where va.lues
on properties after installation of solar farms went up higher tha.n time trends."
Howard Halderman, AFM, President and CEO oI Halderma-n Real Estate and Farm Management
attended the ASFMRA solar talk hosted by the Indiana Chapter of the ASFMRA and he concludes
that other rurat properties would likely see no impact arld faimerc and lando$Trers shown even
consider possible benefits- 'In some cases, farmers $'ho rent land to a solar company will insure the
viabilitl of their farlning ofteration for a longer time period. This rnakes them better long term
tenants or Iarld buyers so one can argue that higher rcnts and land values will follow due to the
positive impact the solar leases offer.'
More recently in August 2022, Donald Fisher, ARA, MAI and myself led a webinar on this topic for
the ASFMRA discussing the issues, tie univercity studies arld specilic er€mples of solar farms
having no impact on adjoining FoperB va]ues.
Itatioml Retre*eble Eaergy laboratory - Top Five l.srge-Scale Soler Mytb, February 3, 2Of6
Megan Day rcports folm NREL regarding a numb€r of concerns neighbors often express. Myth #4
regarding properq !?lue impacts addresses specifically the numercus studies on wind farms that
show no impact on property value and that solar farms have a significantly reduced visual impact
from wind farms. She highlights that the appearance can be addressed through mitigation
measures to reduce visual impacts of solar farms through vegetative screening. Such mitigations
are not available to $ind farms given the heiBht of the windmils and again, those studies sho$ no
impact on value adjoining wind farrns.
North Carolille State UatveEity: NC Clea[ E[ergy Techaolog/ CeDter WLlte Paper: Balatrcltrg
Agricurtual Productivity wlth Ground-BGed Solar Photovoltaic lPVl Developmetrt (VeEiotr 2),
Mey 2Ol9
Tommy Cleveland and David Sarkisian \nrote a white pape, for NCSU NC Clean Ener$/ Technolog/
Center regarding the potentia.l impacts to agicultural productivilv from a solar faim use- I have
intervie(ed Tommy Cleveland on numerous occasions alld I have also heard him speaL on these
issues at lengtb as r€ll. He addresses many of the common questions regarding ho!r' solar farms
work and a detailed expl6nation of how solar farms do not cause significart impacts on the soils,
erosion aIld other such concems. This is a heavily researched paper \r'ith the references included.
North Cerolia. State UaiveBlty: NC Clean EDerg'Jr Techtology C€nter White P.pcr: Heelth
..lrd Sefety Llpects ofSol,ar Photovoltaica, May 2017
17
I have also considered a number of articles on this subject as well as conclusions and analysis as
noted below.
Page 116 of 226
Tommy Cleveland r.Jrote a white paper Ior NCSU NC Clean Energ/ Technolog/ Center rcgarding the
health and safety impacts to address common questions and concems rclated to solar farms. This
is a heavily researched i{hite paper addressing questions ranging from EMFS, fire safety, as well as
vegetation control and the breakdown ofhog a sola, farm works.
18
C, Brokcr Corn rentary
I have additional commentary fiom other states including New Jers€y and Mich8ai that provide the
same conclusion.
[V. Universitv Studies
I have also considered the folowing studies completed by four diJlerent universities related to solar
farms and tnpacts on property values.
Unttarsitg o.f Texa.s at Austln, May 2078
An Exploretiou of ProFrty-V.lue lmpact3 Near UtIity-Scele Sole! IlstelLtioo.
In the prccess of \lorking up the matched pairs used later in this report, I have collected comments
ftom brokers who have actually sold homes adjoining solar farms indicatinS that the solar farm had
no impact on the marketing, timing, or sales price for the adjoining homes. I have comments fiom
12 such brokers within this report including brokers from Kentucl.ry, Virginia, Tennessee, and North
Carolina.
A
This study considers solar farms Aom t\ro angles. First it looks at $'here solar farms are b€ing
located and concludes that the]'are being located primari\'in loll densi$ residential aieas $here
tlere are Iener homes than in urban or suburban areas.
The s€cond part is more applicable in that they conducted a survey of appraisers/assessors on their
opinions of the possible impacts of proximiF to a solar fa.rrn. They consider the question in terms of
size of the adjoining solar farm and how clos€ the adjoining home is to the solar farm. I am !,ery
familia, rith this part of the study as I u,as interviewed by the researchers multiple times as they
i{ere developing this. One ven important question that they ask \rithin the surve! is verv
illustative. They asked if the appraiser being suFeyed had ever appraised a propefty next to a
solar Iarm. There is a very noticeable divide in the answers provided bv appEise6 who have
e.perience appraising property next to a solar farm versus appraisers $'ho self-identiry as having Do
er?erience or knoR'ledge related to tlEt use.
On Page 16 of that study they have a chart showing the responses from appraisers related to
proximi$ to a facililv and siz€ of the facili!, but ther- separate the answers as shown belo\' $ith
apprarsers with experience in appraismS properties next to a solar farrn shown in blue and those
ino.?erienced shoun in brown. Even within 10O feet of a 1O2 MW facili0 the response from
e).?erienced appraisers \rerc 57o at most on impact. While inexperienced appraisers came up urith
significanu}+ higher impacts. This chart clearly sho\,!s that an uninformed respons€ $idet] diverges
from the sales data available on this subject.
Page 117 of 226
19
Chart 8.2 - Estimates of Property v.lue lmpacts (%) by Size of F.cility,
Disl.nc., & R.spond.nt Typ.
Have you asessed a home near a utlty-scale solar rnstallahon?
Y.r r,5r,^/ -Y.t 2d/nv -Y6 rorr*/ ib r.9Mw -iro 26/lw -iro to2r/lw
B. Untwrsttg ol Rhode Isl/Ind., s,ept4rn,€,. 2O2O
kopcrty value lEp6ct3 of ComrDcrciel-Scsl. SoLr Etrcrgy h ltelrrchulctt! .Dd
Rhode Isl,aBd
The University oI Rhode Island published a study entitled Eopcny V.luc tEp.ctr of CoEEerclal-
Scele Soler EDeEy Lr Db.lachu.ctt. ald R.bodc lalrld on September 29,2020 with lead
rcsearchers b€ing Vasundhara Gaur arld Corey l,ang. I have rcad that study and interviewed Mr.
Corey Irng rclated to that study. This study is often cited by opponents of solar farms but the
findings of that study have some very specific caveats according to the report itself as $€ll as Mr.
Iang from the intervieu.
While that study does state in the Abstmct that they found depreciation of homes within l-mile of a
solar farm, that impact is limited to non rural locations. On Pages 16-18 of that study under
Section 5.3 Hetercgeneity in treatment effect they indicate that the impact that they found was
limited to non rural locations with the impact in rural locations effectively being zero. For the study
thev defined tural'as a municipality/to\rnship with less than 850 population per square mile.
Furthermore, the question cited above do€s not consider a.ny mitigating factors such as landscaping
bulTers or screens which would presumably reduce the minor ifipacts noted by expenenced
apprais€rs on this subject-
The conclusion of the researchers is shorrr on Page 23 indicated that 'Results from our survel of
residential home ass€ssors show that the majority of respondents believe that proximity to a solar
installation has either no impact or a positive impact on home values."
This analysis supports tlle conclusion of this rcport that the data supports no impact on adjoining
Property lalues.
Page 118 of 226
2t)
The] further tested the robustness of that finding and even in areas up to 2,OOO population per
square mile they found no statisticaly signiflcant data to suggest a ne8ative imPact. They have not
sp€cificaly defmed a point at which tiey found negative impacts to begin, as the sensitivity study
stopped checking at the 2,ooo-population dataset.
Where they did find negative impacts $as rn high population density areas that uas largely a factor
of running the study in Massachusetts and Rhode Island which the study specificsly cites as being
the 2,d and 3d most population dens€ stetes in the USA. Mr. lang in conversation as well as in
recorded presentations has indicated that the impact in these heavily populated areas may rcflect a
loss in va.lue due to the scarce greenery in those areas and not specificaly related to the solar farm
itseli In other words, any development of that site might IEve a similar impact on prop€rty value.
Based on this study I have checked the population for the Frsildinvile Township of Randolph
CounB . This torrrship hes a population of 1 O ,273 people for 2022 based on hometou'r ocator.com
and a total area of 4 I .O9 square miles for an indication population density of 250 people pff squar€
mile. This is well b€low the threshold indicated by the Rhode lsland Study for a finding of no impact
on property value.
I therefore conclude that the Rhode Island Study supports the indication of no impact on adjoining
properties for the proposed sola.r farm project.
fowoship Ol Franklinville Dele & Detnognphics (As of July 1,2023)
Popsln.,i . l"lq..rrld.
PlFdio . c.qp qr,t.r j
]totr9tlc
rbEtrrbn 6t ldtrr
aS (!8 04.)
rw@er!)
3?e (7 t*,
!tal,7aa
tr07 s
!a
POPULATIOII
..:
HOUSEI]OLOS
ti-rlG.dr.EE
Ar.!r rr.&?told r.@[
tc,r!.nbrlt,!ryr
:a :.'
a.@
25a@
z&
c.Georgta ,'lstit'ltc ol Technowg, October 2O2O
Ut tty-Scalc Aohr Ferma attd Agrlcultural l,eld Valuea
This study was completed by Nino Abashidze as Post Doctoral Research Associate of Health
Economics and Analytics tabe (HEAL), School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technologr'. This
reseaich was started at North Carolina State University and analyzes prcperties near 451 utility
scale ground mount solar installations in NC that generate at least I MW of electric power. A total
of 1.676 laild sales within s-miles of solar farms were considered in the analvsis.
Page 119 of 226
')1
This analysis concludes on Page 21 of the study "Although there arE no direct efrects of solar farms
on nearby agricultural Iand values, we do find evidence that suggests constructiofl of a soliar fam
may d€ate a small, positive, optron -value for land owners that is capitalized into land prices.
Specincaly, after constmction of a nearby solar farm, 1('e find that a8riculturEl larld that is also
located neai transmission infrastructure may incrcase modestly in value."
This stud] supports a fmding of no impact on adjoining agricultural prcp€rty values and in some
cases could support a modest increase in value,
D. Dld.st?r's Thesls: WU W Zqchtrg ,}i,ckers,'r &tly 2018
A Sohr FerE iD fyBscLFrd? Re.idelt Penp€ctlt€. ofutflltlt-Scdc SoLt h Eattcfit
ltorth C€roUae
2lta
Irgurc ll Rerided! polnr\e ncgalrte \ord.horccs b! Eeogr0phi( sclints lbr bolh qucslton.
This study was completed as p6rt of a Master of Science in Geography Master's Thesis by Zachary
Dickerson in July 2018. This study s€ts out to address thrce questions:
1- Are there differcnt aspects that affect rEsident setisfaction regerding solar farms?
2. Are there vadations in satishction for .esidents among differcnt geographic settings, e.g.
neighborhoods adjac€nt to the solar farms or distences from the solar farms?
3. How can insight from both the utility and plandng sectors, combined with loowledge
gained from rcsidents, ft]I gaps in communication and policy writing in rcgatd to so]ar
farms?
This $as done though suFey and interview with adjacent end nearby neighbors of existing solar
farms. The positive to neutra.l comments regarding the soler fsrms wer€ signifcantly higher than
negative- The r€searcher specifically indicates on Page 46 'The results show that respondents
generally do not believe the solar fatms pose a thrcat to t}leif prcperty llalues."
The most negative comments rcgsrding the solar farms were about the lack of information atout the
appro!?I prccess and the solar fatm project prior to consEuction.
Page 120 of 226
E, Iaurence Berkel.eg l{ational La.h, Morch 2023
Sheddiag fight on lrrge€cale solar iDpectr: A.D enalysL of propcrty v.lues.lrdprori,rtty to photovoltalc. ectoss .ii U.S. 3tate3
This study B'as completed by researchers including Salma Elmallai, Ben Hoen, K. Sydny Fujita,
Dana Robson, and Eric Brunner. This analysis considerc home sales before and after solar farms
r.erc installed srithin a 1 mile radius and compared them to home sales before a.rd after the solar
farms at a 2-4 mile radius. The conclusion found a 1.57. impact within I mile ofa solar farrn as
compared to homes 2-4 miles fiom sola.r farms. This is the largest study oI this kind on solar end
addresses a number of issues, but also does not address a numb€r of items that could potentially
ske{ these results. First of all, the studt found no impact in the thre€ states with the most solar
farm activitv and only found impacts in smaller sets of data. The data does not in any $ay discuss
actual visibilit] of solar farms or address existing vegetation scre€ns. This lack of addressing this is
highlighted by the fact that they suggest in the absfact that vegetative shading may be needed to
address possible impacts. Another notable issue is the fact that they do not address other possible
impacts $ithin the radij being considered. This lack of considemtion is well illustrated within the
studt on Figure A.1 where they shou satallite images of Mccra\r'Hill Solar Farm in NJ and Intel
Folsom in CA. The Folsom image clearLy shoB,s large highBays separating the solar farrn from
nearby housing, but with to$'er offce buildings located closer to the housing being considered. In
no place do they address the pres€nce of these toweN tlat essentially block those homes from the
solar farm in some places. An excerpt of Fig. A. 1 is shoun below.
A
For each of these locations, I have panned out a little further on coogle E3rt}I to show the ereas
iilustated to more accurately rcflect the gcneral area. For the Mccraw HiIl Solar Fa]rn you can see
there is a large distribution waEhouse to the \rest along with a large ofnces and other industrial
uses. F\rrther to the west is a large/older apartment complex (Princeton Arms). To the east there
are more large indusfial buildings. Ho$tver, it is even more notable that 1.67 miles away to the
llest is CEnbury GoIf Club. Given how this analysis was set up, these homes around the industrial
buildings ale being compared to homes withm this county club to help establish impacts from the
A
lntel \Folaofir'
22
>T a
-
!
)
4
)
,
I
a
a
Page 121 of 226
2:\
solar farm. Even considering the idea that each set is compared to itself before and after the solar
farm, it is not a rcasonable supposition that homes in each area would appreciate at the sarne mtes
even if no solar farm was included. Futhermore the site where the solar farm is located an all of
the surounding uses not improved $ith rcsidential housing to the south is zoned Research Oflice
(RO) which a.llows for: manufacturing, preparation, processing or fabrication of products, with all
activities and product storage taking place within a completely enclosed building, scientifc or
research laboratoies, \r,arehousing, computer centers, phamaceutical opemtions, omce buildings,
industrial office parks zunong others. Homes adjoining such a district would likely have impacts
and inlluences not seen in areas zoned and surrounded by zrning strictly for rcsidential uses.
Page 122 of 226
2.1
:
?
I
,
I
-
I
I
t
/
LI
\
I
t
I
I
I
I
'1.
)
\
ir
i
I'
U
I
L!',r. I
+r
i
)
t.
I
Ii
I
l
I
/
Page 123 of 226
25
I
IaI
I
)I
I
u
I
I\
sI
rF -ti
I|,
-t
{
t
Page 124 of 226
26
iln the lntel Folsom map I have sho\rrr the images of two of the Intel Campus buildings, but there
:rre roughly 8 such buildings on that site \[ith additional solar panels instaled in the parking lot as
shown in that image. I included two photos that show the nearby housing having clear and close
Iie\\'s of adjoining office parking lots. This illustrates that the homes in that I mile mdius are
significandy more impacted by the adjoining office buildings than a solar farrn located distandy that
are not within tle viewshed of those homes. Also, this solar farm is located on l,and adjoining the
Intel Carnpus on a tract that is zoned M I PD, which is a Light lndustria-l/Manufacturing zoning.
Nearby homes. F\rthermore, the street vie$,at the solar farm shorrs not only the divided fourlane
highway that separates the office buildings and homes from the solar farm, but also shows that
Ihere is no landscaping buffer at this location. All of these factors are iSnored by this study. Below
is another image of the Folsom Solar at the comer of Iron Point Road arld Intel West Driveway which
sho$'s just ho\ir close and ho$' unscreened this project is.
-
Compare that image flom the Mccraw HiI street view facing south from County Rte 571. There is a
distant view and much of the project is hidden t'l' a mix of berms and landscaping. The analysis
makes no distinction betw€en these projects.
The third issue \rith this study is that it identifes impacts fouo$ing develoPment in areas \r'here
ifr"y ".,. *,., 'more adverse home price impacts might be found where LSF/PS 0arge-scale
D lT-
I
TI ="4
rl
E:-.
'-..a
ri;
hih"qt*H llq
E
Page 125 of 226
photovoltaic project) displace green space (consistent rith results that sholv higher property values
near green space." The problem with this statemeflt is that it assumes that the geenspace is
somehow guaranteed in these areas, when in fact, ther- could just as readily be developed as a
residentia.l suMivision and have the same impacts- They have made no etrort to difierentiate loss of
greenspace through other development purposes such as schools, subdivisions, or other uses
versus the impact of solar farms. ln other words, they may have simply identified the impact of all
forms oI development on property value. This uould in fact be consistent uith the comments in the
Rhode Isknd srudl' uhere the researchers noted that the loss of geenspace in the high\ urban
areas i|as likely due to the loss of greenspace in particular and not due to the addition of solar
panels,
Despite these three shortcomings in the analysis - the lack of difierentiating landscape screening,
the lack of consideration ofotler uses \lithin the area that could be impacting property values, and
the lack of consideration of altemative development impacts - the study still only lound impacts
between 0 and sqo with e conclusion of 1.5% within a l-mrle radius- As discussed later in this
report, rcal estate is an imperfect market and real estate transactions rypically sell for much wider
\,?riability than 5% even \r'here there are no external factors operating on property value.
I thercfore conclude that the minor impacts noted in this study support a finding of no impact on
prcperty value. Most appraisals show a vaiation between the highest and Iowest comparable sale
that is subst ntially greater than 1.5% and this measured impact for all it flaws would just be lost in
the static ofnormal real estate transactions.
Page 126 of 226
V. Assesaor Survew
I have attempted to contact all of the assessor deparunents in North Carolina to determine how local
assessors are handling solar farms and adjoining property values. I have spoken perconally with a
number of assessors, but much of this data was obtained via emai. I have 39 counties in NC that
have both responded to these questions on propefty lalue and also ha!'e sola, farms in thet county.
I have excluded responses from assessors from counties where there are no current solar farms.
As can be seen in the chart belo',r', of the 39 responses all of the responses have indicated that they
make no adjustrnent to properties adjoining solar farms. Several assessors indicated that it would
require an adjoining property o\Irler to appeal their properB' value \\ith data showing a negative
impact before the,1 r'ould make any adjust nent and to date they have not had that happ€n.
I also point out specifically Cla] Coun[. I spoke \\ith t]re assessor there specifically about
adjustments that were applied to some pmperties near a solar farm back in 2008/2011. She was
unar,are of the details of that event as she u'as not in this position at that time. As discussed earlier
in this report the lower re assessments at that solar farm were based on a County OIlicial, who
ou'ned property adjacent to the solar farm, who made an appeal to the ass€ssor for reductions for
his own property. The noted lack of lot sales after announcement of the solar farm hou€ver
coincided with the recession in 2009 and lack of lot sales effectively defmed that area during that
time, but without relying on any data the assessor made that change in that tme frame based on
conversations with the assessor. Since then, CIay County has confirmed that they do not curently
make any changes to adjoining property values and the current county assessor was not even aware
that they had in the past done so.
Page 127 of 226
'29
NC Assessor Survey on Solar Farm Properiy Value Impacts
Countl Assessor s Name Numbcr oi F.rrms Change in Adjacent Propert! Va1ue
No. hI vill lok ar dab in 2o2s
\o mas aFa'er sEndardssdPd
3,2 m r Darc.l, I d 3parelsIes rhln 10, ho. rn th. qdkg
3
r io sud.n.', .3! Fc.$'ns cmi
2 6 7 d.Fndln3 on t eakdtun
-16
Neentiw Imla.r on Adjoining Value = Yes:0
NeFtiE ImFcr on Adioniravalu€ = No: 39
Page 128 of 226
30
VI. Sol,ar Farms ldeutified in Randolph and Adjoining Counties
Page 129 of 226
31
Tot.l Ur.d Av3. Dr.t clo...t AdjotltraU.. hy Act.
ortDut Acr6 lcr.. to hoD. 1106. R.. agtl Aart/lcoo
(xw)
6 SrBra charham
39 Pir 64 Chatham
107 Ha!rcod Mo.tgomery
142 Pine valley
I43 Pinesag.
l4a Trinilv RndolDh
161 w.st SilerSuirs Chatham
163 Sil.! 42, Chalh
16 M@E I
la7 Babrsias Almde
Rddolph
202 Hlghvay 2ll
203 Sprc*ood
210 S.db.n:- Fam
214 H€nry R dolph
232 Dabeslsnr
236 Mustang
236 P.gasus Chatham
307 Hopkins Randolph
30a Hop.v€ll Fhends Randolph
309 Mom,ngvie* Rddolph
313 Ma.ning Almdc
326 K.ndall R dolph
327 OId C.dar Randolph
32A Z.ha Rildolph
329 Sp.narMeador r.R dolph
3a9 Qu,Dcf Davidson
352 Gil€ad Monqom.q
37a L.xrngton 64 Davidson
393 loo3whitne' Aldde
4O4 Flei{rod Chathan
453Thomssville Davidson
464 R,dgeba.k Ra.dolph
4al west Fiw. Solar Guillord
4aTThund.rhead Rddolph
soa oarklburr Davi&on
522 Cladslon. Fam Mooft
550whrskerSolT Monteom.n
6t9H.alingSpnn8F David.on
623 Slid.r Randolph
69a Sdut Randolph
705 Counb Fam Guilfod
7la Cab,n Crek MontAom.N
7la Cab,n Cftek whole MontAon.ry
735 Quak r CEek
a20Momgorery Montgom.rr
422 F lo
467 Soulh Davidso! Davidson
369 Old River
97a Hoowr Davidso.
5
5
313a
$7.5
a5 t9
75
445.5
1207
575
625
430
r.$a
655
422
521
1,524
33t
250
425
135
125
175
90
l15
tuj/" tv/" eh ot"
a%29a 6a!a 3eh op/o
2!/o 5ek 26vp tyh
1ah e/" au/" a%
3av" 2q/o e/o 330/0
r3v" 57'/" 3U/" ty/o
r9"/" aP/" ff/" eh41y" .y/o tya s4/"
t?vr 6t90 2P,n e/o
4Eo W/" Gh enTle e,n uc" r3a"
15% 5t% 34% e/o
24sh cJ^ 22C"
62v" 3A/" ff/"
tvJv" a!" ov" tv/"
t3yo 470/o ovp 0%l
\570 8tvo 2t"/" oqtl
231" 7190 6ra
2?"k 3?t" 350/" Ot"2*/o 75eh ty/" e/o
4q/o 2rv" tt/" z-yhrw" gty/" ty^ 0a/.
r<Pk Gk at o G/.
410k 4apk 1e/o 'h?/o &?h 1//o to/o3/lk uta (a90 so/o
3f,/o sqk 11qo Gh
t40/o e/o ea 1qh
98ok ek ek 2va
44% 53yo tyk 3qa
2tv/o 45P/o 35vo Vk
63vo u% tvk 37va
*k 4tt/o 37ato laa/o
avo wk 64" v^t3ve 1ra rs.h
23vo 79h 4".n V4
44vo 33% 2loh t /o
4qa xP/o lyk G6
35s/s 5P/" tv/o t4r"
Tk 97'/" tP/" tv/"
t!/s 7a/" q^
2qk 3n/o 32qa t"/q
tavo 7go ?/" e/oqlo 43vo 4g/" e/o6%aoo/o]lql"3o/9
tty/o 19vo 4te/o oot,
\20/o 6vk 22/o 2aro
2271
l.2ss
235
154 a3
2ta
503
5
32
552
SO
u75
€55
1207
575
7t6.2
571
1,213
254
530
150
50
130
2% @1 ooa Ar
1207 0
244
191
Page 130 of 226
I have researched hundreds of solsr farms in numerous states to determine the impact of these
facilities on the value of adjoining propert-v. This rcsearch has primarily been in North Carolina,
but I have also conducted market impact analyses in Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Oregon, Mississippi, MarJ,land, New York, Califomia, Missouri, Florida, Montara, Georgia,
Luisiana, and New Jers€y.
On the follo\.ing pages I have considered matched pair data specific to Pitt Countl, and adjoining
counties. Alter tllat I consider solar farm data thrcughout North Carolina, \i'hich repeats some data
ftom the first set,
Wherever I have lmked at solar farms, I have dedved a brcakdown of the adjoining uses to shou
\ihat adjoining uses are \pical for solar farms and what uses would likely be considered consistent
with a solar faim use similar to the breakdo'r'n that IVe shovm for the subject property on the
previous page. A summary showing the rcsults of compiling that data over hundreds oI solar farms
is shown later in the Scope of Research sectron of this report.
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 that I can make an assessment of
market impact on each proposed site. Notably, in most cases solai fams aft pliaced in aieas verj-
similar to the site in question, u'hich is surmunded by low density r€sidential and agricultural uses.
In my over 9O0 studies, I have found a striking repetition of that same Bpical adjoining us€ mix i,
over 9070 of the solar farms I have looked at. Matched pair results in multiple states are sfikingly
simila.r, and all indicate that solar farms - which generate very little traffic, and do not generate
noise, dust or have other harmful effects - do not negativel], impact the va.lue of adjoining or
abutting prcperties.
33
VII. Market Analysis of the Impact on Value from Solar Farms
In the nex-t section I have considered matched pair data throughout the Southeast of the United
States as being the most similar states that would most rcadily compare to North Carolina. This
includes data ftom Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and
Meryland. I focused on projects of 5 MW and larger though I have signifcant supplemental data on
solar farmsjust smaller than that in North Carolina that show similar results. This data is available
in my flles.
I have additional supporting infomation from other states in my files that show a consistent pattem
across the United States, but again, I have focused on the Southeast in this ana.lysis.
across the United States, but again, I have focused on the Southeast in this analysis.
Page 131 of 226
34
A. I{orth @rorl,ta lhta
The lollowing pages detail the matched pairs and ho$ they were derived
1 Matched Palr - AM Be3t Solat Fairn. Gol&boro. Wavre Courtv. NC
This 5 Mw solar farm adjoins spring Gardcn subdivision which had new homes and lots available
for new construction dudng the approval ard construction of the solar faim. The recent home sales
have ranged from $20O,OO0 to $250,000. This subdivision sold out the Iast homes in late 2014.
The sotar fafm is clearly visible panicularly along the north end of this sEe€t wherc there is only a
thin line of trees separating the solar farm fmm the single-family homes.
Homes backing up to the solar farm are selling at the same price for the same lloor plan as the
homes that do not back up to the solar farm in this suuivision. According to the builder, the solar
farm has been a complete non-factor. Not only do
the sales show no dilTerence in the pdce paid for
the various homes adjoining the solar farm versus
not adjoining the solar farrn, but there are acrually
more recent sa.les elong the solar farm than not.
There is no impact on the sellout late, or time to
sell for the homes adjoining the solar farm.
I spoke \rith a number of oli'ners who adjoin the
solar farm and none of them expresged any
concern over the solar farrn impacting their
propert_v va]ue.
The data presented on the following pagt sho$€
multiple homes that have sold in 2013 a,td 2014
adjoining the solar far'm at prices similat lo those
not along the solar fa-rm. Thes€ series of sales
indicate that the solar fa-rm has no impacl on the
adjoining residential use.
i
F.\(
Page 132 of 226
3l-,
The homes that *ere marketed at Spring Carden are sho\rn belo\r
&t'.
\
I
-{
\a
ET
Int"Ja.
I
}It
Eh
f
'r-
=v
I
I
r..l
T I
.r,*.:aI r l!: !!lr ,g!El
The homes adjoining the sola, farrn are consideEd to have a light landscaping scrcen as it is a
nairow row of existing pine trees supplemented with evergreen plantings.
Page 133 of 226
3ti
913/2Or4
adlotrtla S.1.. aft.r Solu FUE Co6pr.t!d
TAX ID
36m195570
360019536r
3600199491
360019a632
3600196656
o.76
1.49
2.24
l.l3
0.75
$25O,mO
$260,mO
$250,0O0
$253,mo
$255,m0
BiIlt
20t3
2013
20t4
20t4
20t3
cEl
3,652
3,292
3,4@
3,453
$75.94 2 Story
$71.19 2 Story
$4aS 2 Story
t27
t13
r.o7
Bullt
2013
2013
2013
2014
m14
m14
m14
2014
OBA
3,292
2,431
2,425
3,511
3.453
a/cB^
$72.91
$74.41
$74.sr
$75.94
$92.03
$85 66
873.4a
s73 a5
2 Story
2 Story
s253,600
s253.00o
ml3 4
mt3
3,418
3,4m
s71.27
S7.1..4I
AdJotlht a.1.. Aft.r 6olu Fue A!!oon..a
tax lD Om.r 4.t.. D.t. &ld0 Fedders.n I s6 F.b l3
0 G€ntr,v 112 Apr t3
s247,000
$245,000
arllt
20t2
201:l
oBA a/CEA Str.
3127 $72.07 Rm.h
3,.1OO $72 06 2 StoN
1.49 $246,0@
$246,000
,Jl2.5
2012.5
3,414
3,4t4
s72.O7
s72.O7
Adjolulng S.lc. Bcror. sol.r rda an!ou.c..l
IAX ID
36m143905
36m193097 Kelly
157
t 6l
t55
S.pl2
$240,Om
$19a,0@
$2.,1O,0@
Eualt
20t2
20t2
2012
OBA I/GBA Ati.
3,3a7 S7t.7t 1.5 Sto,r
2,532 $7a.20 2 Storv
3.a33 $69.91 1.5Story
r.59
t59
$219,0@
$219,0m
20t2
20t2
$74 9s
$74 95
Il.att ad.. Aft.r Solu rrtE CoEDl.t.d
T ,xID Ora.t Acr..
3600193710 Bam.6 1.r2
3601105140 Na.kl.y 0.95
36m19252a Mairheis l.t2
36ml9a92a B..lms 0.93
36m1 965 Houd 0.81
3600193914 Pr.sldrt 0.67
3@OlS4a13 Bordncr 0 91
3601104147 Shatr.r o73
D.r. aold
Ocr 13 $248,000
$253,000
$238,000
$250,000
$224,0@
$242,00O
$25a,0m
$255,0@
2013 625
2014
$77 a5
Icctr 4.I.. E.for. Solu FUD Annosic.a
a X lD Orn.t 4.r.. Drt. aol.t
3600191437 Thomas 1.12 s.p.l2
360ma796a Lilley I l5 Jd 13
360m47654 Burke 1.26 S€p 12
360O08a796 Hobbs 0 73 S€p'12
$225.m0
$23a,0m
$240.0m
$22a,0m
2012
20t2
2012
2012
OBA
3.2?6
3,421
3,543
3,254
l/oBA 51y'.
$6a 6a 2 Story
$69 57 lsstory
0 9l
o92
s246.000
$249,m0
3,149
3,3.,16
$232,7fi
s233,000
20r2
20t2
3.374
3 349
$69.0r
$69.13
Page 134 of 226
uatched Pair suElnaty
Aqjoias solar Err,r
AwcraSc U€dtan
Sales Price $2s3,600 $253,000
Year Built 2013 2OI3
Size 3,414 3,400
rcarty Solrr FarE
Avcragc M€dian
$246,000 $249,0002014 2014
3,1a9 3,346
Pricc /SF $74.27 674.41 $77.8s $74.46
PGrccrt.te Differc!cca
UI,
I note that 2308 Granvile Drive sold again in November 2015 for $267,500, or $7,500 more than
when it was purchased nev"'from the builder two years earlier (Tax ID 3600195361, Ownefl L.eak).
The neighborhood is clearly showing apprcciation for homes adjoining the solar farm.
The Median Price is the best indicator to follo$' in any analysis as it avoids outlying samples that
would otherwise ske*' the results. The median sizes and median prices are all consistent
throughout the s€.les both before and after the solar farm r(hether you look at sites adjoining or
nearby to the solar farm. The average size for the homes nearby the solar farm shows a smaller
building size and a higher price per square foot. This rcflects a common occurence in real estate
where the price per square foot goes up as the size goes down. So even comparing averages the
indication is for no unpact, but I rely on the median rates as the most reliable indication for any
such analysis.
I have also considered four more recent resales of homes in this community as sho\{n on the
folowing page. These comparable sales adjoin the solar farm at distances Enging from 315 to 400
feet. The matched parrs show a range from -9'/o to +60/0. The ra.nge of the average dillerence is -27.
to + 1% \lith an avemge of 07o end a median of +O.57o- Thes€ comparable sa]es support a finding of
no impact on property value.
Page 135 of 226
^tj6t.ilat rtd.lri.l srl.r AIt.r s.l.r,u! ^rr'.rnl
^diot!t'r R.'rd.!tid srr.r ^ft
clA ER/EA Prrt oth.r
38
Aaj.llha Ir..ra.!tt., tr.lo lnr lrold rrq Att.d.aPual &lu a'tarsr asn D.a. aold ..tn ttl(
2 14 6/rcl20r7 $,?30,0ool 15 l/3/xr3 $26o.oirl
63a Fn.ndl 0116 7/3r/rr! $267,m0
2403cl rll. 0 6e 4/13lrrq $)63,m0
D.t.&la r.l..1116
^djohrar R. dcErirr srl.. ffr
l15
D.t. a.ld a.r6 hre
2012
I have also considered the original sales prices in this subdivision relative to the recent rcsa.le values
as shoq,n in the chart below. This rate of appreciation is right at 2-5olo over the last 6 years. ZiUow
indicates that the average home value rithin the 27530 zip code as ofJanuarJ'2014 was $101,300
and as ofJanuar)'2020 that average is $118,100. This indicates an average increase in the market
o[ 2.37olo. I conclude that the appreciation of the homes adjoining the solar farm are not impacted
by the presence of the solar farm based on this data.
atr. OtL.i Dl.t&..
2 Ston
Page 136 of 226
lnitialSale
Address Date Price
1 103 Granville Pl 41112013 5245,Un
2 10s trin 71112014 52s0,m
3 2312 Granville 12/1/2013 5255,m
4 2312 Granville 5/112015 5262,m
5 2310 Granville 8/1/2013 S25O,W
6 2308 Granville 9/U20t3 526qN
7 2304 Granville 9/112012 519&m
8 102 Erin 8/112014 5253.W
Second Sale
Date Price
7/2712O1a 526s,m
6/19/2017 528r,m
s/1/201s 5262,W
5/u2018 528/,9@
s/74/2079 5280,W
71/12/2O7s s267,s$
6/t/2017 s22s,W
11/1/2076 527o,m
39
% Apprec.
Apprec. Apprec. %/Year
S2o,ooo B.t6/, t.s3yo
s30,000 12.00p,6 4.M%
SZ00o 2.75% 1s4%
s22,900 A.74% 2.97%
S3o,ooo 12.00% 2.07%
s7,500 2.AA% r.370/.
527,M t3.64% 2.8iy.
S17,ooo 6.72y. 2.9ayo
Average
Median
Year
Diff
5.32
2.97
1.41
3.00
5.79
2.20
4.75
2.25
246%
2.4104
Page 137 of 226
40
2. Matched Pair - Galtoda SC Solar, Gastosla. @!!sE qs!!!y,!Q
I
t
,
:I
t
I
Er
I
El^
7
E E,
-tr
**j:
-s!
N,
I
"\
/i
I
I
1\I
I
1
I
t
i'-\li
I
Page 138 of 226
This 5 MW project is located on the soutl side of Nea-l Hawkins Road just outside of Gastonia. The
property identined above as Parcel 4 \nEs listed for sale while this solar farm project was going
thrcugh the apprcval prccess. The prcperty li,as put under contract dudng the permitting process
with the permit b€ing approved while the due diligence p€riod was still ongoing. ltlter the permit
\ras approved the property closed with no concems from t}rc buyer. I spoke with Jennifer Bouvier,
the broker listing the property and she indicated that the solar faim had no impact at all on the
sales price- She considered some nearby sales to set the p ce and the closing price was very simila.r
to the asking pice within the typical range for the market. The buyer was aware that the solar farm
$'as coming and they had no concerns.
11
225
This tu'o story brick dwelling was mld on March 20,2017 for $270,000 for a 3,437 square foot
d\r'eling built in 1934 in average condition on 1.42 acres. The plopety has four bedrooms a.nd two
batlrooms. The landscaping screen is light for this adjoining home due to it being a new planted
landscaping bufler.
^aj.hrnr i..rd€nd.r &r.. ^ft
A{tro,ns 60e Near Haq*ins I 12 3/lo/20r7 $27o,0o04/17/tor8 $22s,0ooNd $3DauasE ss rso rL,rrtrl)or3 s26..soo274 s11712013 $243 orx)
ftrJ.t!hs sd.. A.Uu.t..lAddr6. na.
l41a \_ Modena $7.319
363 Dallas Bess $746
l6l2 Dallas ChN $4,110
t32,271 ,S10,000
$9rr
$53100
$257 29A
Tta. Slt. YB
) 25t)
Slrc YB GLA AR/AA P.rt Other
I also considered the newer adjoining home identified as Parcel 5 that sold later in 2017 and it
likewis€ sho\ls no negative impact on pmperty value. This is also considered a light landscaping
bufler.
A'rjohlEt R..i.ta!thl ad.. Aft.r a.lu l.E ApDror.a
aol! Addr... ad.. D.t.6oln sd.r Prt..
Adjorns 6rr Near Haslons o?3 716/2ot7 $zaa,oar
r21l slir fts1 0 sr ?/30/2013 $230,oo0Not 2367Colonywds A52 a/H/20rA $242,OOONol 1010 Straab.rr] I 00 lo/4/2013 $315,000 $135l9
^djoinirg s.r€r ^dju.r.d
62.3m
$t,2t0
$l?,32s
GI,]I
$24.12a
$a.003 $s.000
$23a.0m
$284.83a
$275.052
3/3
3/3
3/25
Page 139 of 226
3. Matched Pair - Summit /Ranchlaa& Solar. Movock Currttuck Countv. NC
JI
ITIt
I
trF--'.'I
I
I
7
I
,lt
I
!
"/
I I
II
I!!
-I !t
T I
II t
F
I
I
a
I
T
I
T
r;
I
\II
\/)
.:
a
D
NE.
t
I>
Page 140 of 226
4',.1
This project is located at 1374 Caritoke Highway, Moyock, NC. This is a, 80 MW faciliq, on a parent
tract of2,034 acres. Parcels Number 48 and 53 as shown rn the map above were sold in 2016. The
project was under construction during the tirne period of the frst of the matched pair sales a.nd the
permit \l,as approved wel prior to that in 2015.
I looked at multiple sales of adjoining and nearby homes and compared each to multiple
comparables to show a range of impacts fmm - l0o/o up to +11% with an a\,€rage of +27o and a
median of +3%. These ranges are well \rithin tlpical real estate !?r-iation and supports an indication
of no impact on property value.
^djor.hr R.rrd.trfisr srre' r
4/1s/r01'j $r70000
4/ l/20r6 $r7s soor0rr/20r4 $r70oon
AdloininA 4.1.. Adlu.t.d
^dj.inint &.rd.norr 3.,.3 ^
115
D.t. sold 6.1.. Prr..
2.013
$r ls l3
$6,747 $ro,ooo $6,755 $25,359
-$2,212 $10,mO ,$24,s00 $a,227
$13,399 $lo,0o0 $10,995 -$24,s23
Ttm. sit. IB GLA BR/BA P.rli Oth.r
$206,000
$177,633
s176,212$5,000
.$ro,00o
Page 141 of 226
^djoi!rEt &3rd.ntl.r s.r.r ^
cL^ ER/B^ P.rL oth.r
44
^djoi!ht &.rd.rtl.r 3r.1.. An
^djoh
I!t Errd..tlrl 3.r.r ^
$473.u[
$4q3 s64
3r0.0m $rs,ooo $4s6623$10.000 $414 s62
.$65,Or7 lls,m.325.OOO
$46,036 iro.000
Page 142 of 226
'1ir
4. Matched Pair - Tracv sol.er. Bailev. Nash Countv. NC
I I
t
!
Ir
I
E
l'a
5iA
g.
E
-!
t
E
I ,
t
7II
I
It
)
.(
Page 143 of 226
.l(i
This project is located in rural Nash Count] on Winters Road \rith a 5 MW facility that Ixas built in
2016 on 50 acres- A loca.l builder acquired parcels 9 and 10 following construction as shown belo{
at rates comparable to other tracts in the area. They then built a custom home for an oI,Trer and
sold that at a pdce similar to other nearbJ homes as shown in the matched pair data below. The
retained woods provide a heaw Iandscaped bufler for this homesite.
^4orr!!! lor .n6 rrid .orr
Drt. &rd d- ErB a/^. eu
is,a{ Doua.s&, ruduE,
t7,er cnfr6r roruub, d.ad
l4,h sdr emr.'y,rl*d
Adlotrlng aal€s AdJu.tcd
Tt6c ac!€! Loc.tion Othcr AdJ 0/Ac % Dlff
$s,29s
$0
-$z)2
-$352
-$2r3
$4O0
$z)2
$o
$o
$o
-$500
-$r,ooo
$213
$4,40O
$s,30
$s,6a9
$4,266
tv/o
- lvd
-v/o
tq/d
$0
$o
$0
$o
Average 1%
Adjoirtrs ad.. Adlurtcd
Ttmc Ac.c. YB
^ajot!i!. kid.lrid d- m{ &l.r rr- c.!pld.d
GLA Style
$o $44,0oo $7,392 $5,007 $5,0OO
Othcr Tot.l 0/6 DlIf
$255,000
$15,000 $252.399 r./"
The compaiables for the land show either a signilicant positive relationship or a mild negative
relationship to having and adjoining solar fa-rm, but when averaged together they show no negative
impact. The $ild divergence is due to the difficulty in comping out this tract of land and the wide
varietv of comparables used. The two comparables that show mild negative influences include a
property that was partly developed as a rcsidential subdMsion and the other included a doublewide[ith some value and accessory agdcultural structures, The tax assess€d value on the
improvements wer€ valued at $60,000. So both of thos€ comparables have some limitations for
comparison. The two that shoB,signiicant enhancement due to adjacency includes a property vrith
a cemetery located in the middle and the other is a tract alrnost twice as large. Still that laryer tract
after adjustrnent pmvides the best matched pair as it required the Ieast adjustment. I therEfore
conclude that there is no negative impact due to adjacency to the solar farrn sho$n b! this matched
pair.
Page 144 of 226
1i
The d\lelling that lr'as built on tle site uas a build-to-suit and rr,as compared to a nearby homesa]e
of a propert}" on a smaller parcel of land. I adjusted for that differenced based on a $25,O0o value
for a 1 acre home site versus the $70,000 purchase price ot the larger subject tract. The other
adjustments are typical a.nd show no impact due to the adjacency to the solar farm-
The clos€st solar panel to the home is 780 feet a*'ay.
I note that the representative for Kingsmill Homes indicated that the solar farm was never a concem
in purchasing the land or selling the home. He also indicated that they had built a number of
nearby homes across the street and it had never mme up as an issue.
Page 145 of 226
1lJ
5 Matched PaiI - McBride Place solar Fa-na, Midlend, Csbsrr$ CouIlty, NC
I
E
This Foject is located on Mount Pleasant Road, Midland, North Carolina. The property is on 627
acres on .rn assemblage of 974.59 acres. The solar farm was approved in early 2017 for a74.9 MW
facilia.
-
B
,/
-.--hft {l
It,
/
77
/
\
{.
E
a.
I t
tl
I
I
/
I
I
I
\
E
!
t
Iq'II
/l
Il-
Page 146 of 226
49
I have considered the sa.le of 4380 Jo].ner Road *hich adjoins the propos€d sola, farm nea.r tle
north\r'est s€ction. This pmperty \r'as appraised in Apdl of 2017 for a value of $317,000 with no
consideratron of any impact due to the solar farm in that figure. The propery' sold in November
2018 for $325,000 with the buyer fully aware of the proposed solar farm- The landscaping buffer
relative to Jo)'ner Road, Hayden Way, Chaiel Court and Icisti tane is considercd medium, *hile the
landscaping for the home at the north end ofchanel Crurt is considered very light.
I have considered the following matched pairs to the subject property.
^diorrrrt R.nd.!tr.r s.r.. Aaddr.rt a/oEA
l2 00 /22l20r7 Sn2j,rno r i!3 $2or r3
3lr7o nkuood 3/2412016 $2s0 0m r 55r $L6r !
43ltr7 $ls5 0m 1274 $273 6;
l:r;31 Carutus i/zorrol. 5267 754 2 300 SLl6lr
CoDdltlor GLA BR/BA Prrt Othcr % Diff
AdjoiDins Sares Adjusted
Tioe Acres YB
$7,50O
' $7,100
$8,033
$52,000
$48,000
$33, OOO
$12,2s0 $10,000
$4,970
-$3,749 $20,000
$2,273
$23, r s6
-$35,832
-$2,OOO
$o
$0
$2,soo
$3,000
$0
$7,s00
,$ r 5,000
$7,soo
Total
$325,0OO
$r7,s2s
$330,226
$296,702
3vo
I also considered the recent sale of a lot at 5800 Kristi Lane tllat is on the east side of the prcposed
solar ferm. This 4.22-acre lot sold in December 2Ol7 for $94,OO0. A home was built on this lot in
2019 with the closest point fmm home to panel at 689 feet. The home site is heavily $'ooded and
their remains a wooded buffer beti!'een the soliar panels and the home. I spoke t(.ith the broker,
Margaret Dabbs, \r'ho indicated that the solar famr $las considered a positive by both buyer and
seller as it ensures no subdivision will be hapFning in that area. Buyers in this market are looking
for pdvacy and seclusion.
The breakdo\rn of recent lot sales on lkisti are shorrn beloB *,ith the lowest price paid for the lot
with no solar farm exposure, though that lot has exposure to Mt Pleasant Road South. StiI the
older lot sales have exposure to the solar farm and sold for higher pdces than the front lot and
adjusting for time would only increas€ that difference.
AdJoiEirg Lot Sale3 After Solrr rrtm Butlt
Parcel Solar Addrds Acr6 Drte SoldAdjoins 5811 Knsti 3.71 s/1,/2ora
Adjoins s8oo Kristi 4 22 \2/r/2or7
Not s822 Knsu 3.43 2/24/2o2o
Ar1€3 Pricc
s100,ooo
$94,000
$90,ooo
S/Ac $/Lot
$26,73a $100,000
$22,275 $94,000
$26,239 $90,OOO
The lot at 5811 h?isti lane sold in May 2018 for $10O,0O0 for a 3.74-acre lot. The home that IItss
built later in 2018 is 5O5 feet to the closest solar panel. This home then sold to a hommwner for
$530,000 in April2020. I have compared this home sale to other properties in the area as shoilm
The home at 4380 Jol.ner Road is 275 feet from the closest solar panel.
Page 147 of 226
50
ldj.lrtra R..l.t.!dd ad6 Alt.r SolG F@ Blltt
s6l& aa.tr.n acr.. D.tc soid 4.1.. Ptt..Adjorns sall Krisri 374 3/3r/202O l53o.0m3915Tmia I6a \2/9/2019 t+95 Ot]o
Not 6742 Mmar.. I 33 3/3/20m t16O,oOO
Nol 314 old Hickory 124 9/24/2019 a4s2 s$
1994
$137 3a
$126 3t
$12r 32
$126 1a
s/3 s
3/3 s
3.454
3,919
3,903
ata
sol.i A.tarc.. ft!. SItc YB OLA BR/BA P.rL Oat r Totd % Dtll !4 DlltAdlorns 58lr linsn SS3O,om Soi
Noi 3915T ra $6,2aS 527,225 .$3.a52 $m,om $504.657 5%
Noi 6782 Mdat.. Sl.l89 346,000 $4,995 $5.0OO S5I7.1a3 P.
Not 314 Old Hr.kory $10.6aO 52,463 .$2 a39 -$lO.Om S492,3O3 7/o
After adjusting the comparables, I found tlrat the alerage adjusted lue shows a slight increase in
value for the subject property adjoining a solar farm. As in the other cases, this is a mild positive
impact on value but within the t pica.l range of real estate fansactrons.
I also looked at 5833 lftisti l,gne that sold on 9 /1412O2O lor ffi2s,OOO. This home is 47O feet ftom
the closest panel.
D.t. aold ad6 t le
9/t4/2O2O $25 dn
)2/34/2AO 68 Oa1)
6/30/2020 S6m OX)
6/ la/2o20 $600 0o0
4.373
4.139
$142 92
$142 oa
BI/BA
4ta
2m5
2007
Adlotnlna 4.1.. Adju.t.d
$9,220
$6,4ss
$7,233
sl.a60
-$6,133
$2a,042
s42,930 $5.mo
$25.0(n
$15.000
$625,000
6594,303
$63r.356
116. att. YB GLA aR/aA P.rt
The average difference is opl. impact and the diJlercnces arc all r .ithin a close mnge with this set of
comparables and supports a finding of no impact on propert)' value.
I have also looked at 4SO4 Chanel Court. This home sold on January l, 2020 for $393,500 for this
3,010 square foot home built in 2004 with 3 bedrcoms, 3.5 bathrooms, and a 3-car garage. This
home includes a full partialy finished basement that signilicandy complicates comparing this to
other sales. This home previously sold on Januar] 23,2017 fot $399,000. This \r?s during the
time that the solar farm \r'as a lglo\In factor as the solar farm u,as approved in earll 2Ol7 aJld
public discussions had already commenced. I spoke [ith RacheUe Kilrnan \rith Real Estate RealB,
LLC the buter's agent for this tansaction snd she indicated that the solar farm \\as not a factor or
consideration for the bu)er. She noted that you could see the pa.nels sort of through the trees, but
il uasn't a concem for the buyer. She llas not familiar \rith the earlier 2Ol7 sale, but indicated that
it u'as likely tm high. This again goes back to the panially finished basement issue. The basement
has a fireplace, and an installed 3/4 bathroom but otherwise bare studs and concrete flooIs u'it].
dillerent buyers assigning varying value to that paftry fmished space. I also reached out to Don
Gomez witi Don Anthony Reallv, LL as he was the listing agent.
I also looked at the recent sale of4599 Chsnel Court. This home is within 31O feet of solar penels
but notably does not have a good landscaping screen in pliace as shou'n in the photo belo$'. The
plantings appear to be less tllan 3-feet in height and only a narroq, limited rreen of existing
hard*,oods were kept. The photograph is ftom the listing.
Page 148 of 226
According to Scott David with Better Homes and Gardens Paracle Realty, this propenr- was under
contract for $550,000 contingent on the buyer being able to sell their formd home. The former
home $as apparendy olerpriced and did not sell and the contract sfetched out over 2.5 months.
The seller lras in a bind as they had a home they were t ling to buy contingent on t-his closing and
\r'ere about to lose that opportunity. A cash buyer offered them a quick close at $500,000 and the
s€ller accepted that ofler in order to not lose the home they were trying to buy. According to Mr.
David, the original contracted buyer and the actual cash buyer neler considered the solar farm as a
negative. In fact Mr. David noted that the actual buyer sa$'it as a gleat opportunity to purchase a
home ilhere a new subdivision could not be built behind his house- I therefore conclude that this
property supports a finding of no impact on adjoining property, even wherc the landscaping screen
still requires time to grow in for a year-round screen.
I also consider€d a sale/resale analysis on this property. This same home sold on September 15,
2Ol5 for $462,000. Adjusting this upwErd by 50% p€r year for the five years between these sales
dates suggests a value of $577,500. Comparing that to the $550,000 confact that suggests a 57o
do$Trward impact, which is within a B?ical market variation. Gi!,en tllat the broker noted no
negative impact from the solar farm and the analysis above, I conclude this sale supports a finding
ofno impact on value.
I
nil
;I .T ,1.
-
!ry
fF,I tuIT
i {
arE f /
ir1
-F
f
\,r€
,ll
I
rltU
Page 149 of 226
52
6. Matched Pai' - Mariposs Solar. Caltop Countv. NC
This project is a 5 Mw facilit!located on 35.80 acres out of a parent tract of 87.61 acrcs at 517
tslacksnake Road, Stanley that was built 20\6.
around this facility as shown below.
Parcel 1, $'hich is 215 Mariposa Road. This is an older
I have considered a number ofrecent
The first is identilied in the map above
dwelling on large acreage with only one
shorrl belo\r'. The landscaping buffer for this home is
IVe compared it to similar nearby homes as
considered light.
Aiuotltnt tu.i.t.!tt.l S.1.. A[ct Aolr F.tE AEE ovcil
Aol.r A.ldr... Acr.. Drtc &ld S.1.. PncG Eullt
Adjotls 215 M*iposa 17 74 l2/)2l8l7 S249,0OO I95a
Nor 249 Mdiposa o4a 3/ll29l9 $l53,mo 1974
Nol ll0Arrpon 083 5/10/2016 $166,000 1962
Nor 1249 BlacklMle 501 9/2O/20IA $242,5OO 19AO
OBA
),551
1,792
2,t65
2,156
2,tE)
a/oaa
s160.54
sas 3a
Et6 67
$l12 48
$178.04
AR/BA
3lr
4/2
312
312
3/2
atr.
B/Rnch
1.5
Not l20l Abemathy 27.@ 5/3/2OlA $390,000 1970
J \
ts.
\,\
I
l,t,
!-
)
E
qE I
Page 150 of 226
^djoi.tng k.td.n tt.l sd.r ^ ^djotrlnrs.r.i ^djuncd
$63,F3 $10,000 $s.{xn)
The average dilference aJter adjusting for all factorc is +9% on average, which suggests a.n
enhancement due to the solar faim across t}le street. Given the large adjustments for acreage and
size, I will focus on the low end of the adjusted range at 4%, which is within the typical deviation
a.nd therefore suggests no impact on value.
I have also considered Parcel 4 that sold after the solar farm \\as approved but before it had been
consmrcted in 20I6. The landscaping bufler for this parcel is considered light.
^arorarar 3.16 ^di!(.d
Adj6intng R..td.!ti.l 4.1.. Aftcr Aol.r r.ra Appror.a
aohr Ail.l.... 4.r.. D.t. sol.l ad.. Prtc Butlt
Adlorns 242 MartDosa 2.91 9/2ll20r5 $IAO,OOO 1962
Not 249 Mdiposa o4a 3/r/2019 Sls3,ooo 1974
Not rr0Airpon oaJ s/1O/2Ot6 $166,000 1962
Not 1249 Blacksnak. 5.0I 9/2012018 $242,5n0 19aO
$3s.33
$76 67
$n2 4a
3/2
3/2
3/2
PrL Attl. Othcr
Carpon Br/Rn.h Der Wrkshop
^.r.rnra! brd.!thr 3d.. ^^
2 er 9/2rl20r5 Sr&).dx)r/r/20rs s15r.o(r
. n3 5/10/2or6 S16.,000s0i e/2ol2013 $242,s00
sr5.307 sr2 332 $r3 !,3
$3 165 $0 Sr:.!o3
$2r,32s $l0,sss $ r5 !60
T?re average ditrerence after adjusting for all factors is +6%, u,hich is again suggests a mild increase
in value due to the adjoining solar farm use. The median is a 4yo adjustrnent, uhich is \rithin a
standard deviation and sug8ests no impact on property value.
I have also considered the rccent sale of Parcel 13 that is located on Biacksnake Road south of the
prcject. I was unable to find good land sales in the same 20 acre range, so I have considered sales
of larger a.nd smaller acreage. I adjusted each of those land sales for time. I tien applied the price
per: acrc to a hendline to show where the expected price per acre wouid b€ for 20 acres, As can be
seen in the chart belor', this lines up exactly wjth the purchase of the subject property. I therefore
conclude tllat there is no impact on Parcel 13 due to proximit-v to the solar farm.
AdjoiriDg R..ld.ntt.l Lrrd sal€s Aftcr aol.r F.rE App.ovcd Adjoiring S11G3 Adju8ted
Solar Ter/atrcet Acles DrtG aold srl.s Pric. a/Ac TiEe S/Ac
Adjoins 174339/Blacksnake 21.15 6/2912018 S160.000 57,565 $7,565
Nor 227as2lAbemathy rO.S7 519/2O1a $97,000 $9.177 $38 $9,21s
Not 17443/trson 9.a7 917 /2O1a $64,000 $6,484 -$s7 i6,447
Not r642a3lAlexis 9.75 2lrl2119 $110,000 $tt,2a2 -$201 $ll,oal
Not 17688a/Bowden 55.77 6/ 13/2018 $28o,ooo $s,021 $7 $5,027
Page 151 of 226
5,1
S/Ac
slzm
51q@
58,0@
s6.0@
s4,0@
52,o@
So
Erpon. (S/Ac)
-Eeon
{S.riesl)
0.@ 10.00 20.00 n.00 40.00 50.oo m.oo
Finally, I have mnsidered the rccent sale of Parcel 17 that sold as vacant land. I $as unable to find
good land sajes in the same 7-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 Eendline to shou
Nhere the expected price per acre would bc for 7 acres, As can b€ seen in the chart belo\r', this Iines
up $ith the trendline running dght through the purchase price for the subject properq. I therefore
conclude that there is no impact on Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm. I note that this
property \r'as improved \\ith a 3,196 square foot ranch built in 2018 folo\tring the land purchase.
\\'hjch shows that development near the solar farm was unimpeded.
A'Uot!tng Rcltdcrttrl Lrld s.lca Aftcr Solrr Frrm Approvcd
solrr T.r/St.cct Acrc! D.tc Sold Srlc. Prtcc UAc
Adjoins 227039lMariposa 6.A6 12l6l2017 $66,s00 $s,6s4Nol z27a52lAbemathy 10.57 5/9/n118 $97,ooo $9,t77Nor \7443ltrEion 9-A7 917/2ota $64,000 $6,484Nor 177322lRobinson 5-23 5112l2O)7 $66,soo $12,715
Not .203386/Carousel 2-99 71131)ora $43,soo $14,s4a
Aitjotntag sdc. Aitlu.t.d
Tim. Locrttor l/Ac
$9,694
$116 $9.061
$r47 $6,338
$217 ,$1,272 $11,661-$262 $1,455 $12,832
s14m
5r2.6U
510,m
58.0m
s6,0@
54,0(D
52,0@
50
0.@ 2.@ 4.@ 5.0 a.m 10.00 1200
\,
\
Page 152 of 226
7- Matched Pair - Candac€ solar. Prhc eton. Johnston Courtv. NC
t
,i.
i*!
i
This 5 MW solar farm is located at 4839 US 70 HiShway just east of Herring Road. This solar farm
\r'as completed on octolf't 25,2016.
,I
I
t._E-l
^
I
I
EI
i!f
ff
l
I
I|r
/
t t
-!
t
;
a
I _)
I
I\
\
/iiN Google Earth
Page 153 of 226
5(i
I identifled three adjoining sa.les to this tract aJter development of the solar farm with trontage on US
70. I did not attempt to analyze those sales as they have exposure to an adjecent highway snd
railroad track. Those homes are thercfore problematic for a matched pat analysis unless I have
similar homes fronting on a simil,ar corridor.
I did consider a lend sale and a home sale on adjoining parcels without those complications.
AaJohlnt Lr!.r arr.. Alt.r &l& t tt ArE ov.a
P.!..1 aol.r Addt6. lcr6 D.t. aold ad6 Prt6
16 Adlorns 499 H.moa 2O3 5/l/2o17 S30,0oo
Not 37B.cW o.a7 7/23/2019 $24,5OCt
Not 5858 Bizcll 0.3a 3/1712016 $I3,0oo
Not 4a8 H.mns 2.13 12120/2016 $35,@O
The lot at 499 Herring Road sold to Paradise Homes of Johnston County of NC, Inc. for $3O,0OO in
May 2017 and a modular home was placed therc and sold to lGren and Jason Toole on September
29, 2017. I considered the lot sa.le first as sho\rn b€lou'and then the home sale that follo*€d. The
landscaping bufrer relative to this parcel is considered medium.
Adjoi.t!! s.r.. Adju.t.d
Ot!.r TtE. Att. Oth.t
Following the larld purchase, the modular home was placed on t1le site and sold. I have compared
this modular home to the following sales to determine iI the solar farm had any impact on the
purchase pice.
s390
$389
s3,600
s27,721
s2l,99o
t35,389
a'tjollllt i..ld.ntld 4.1.. lft .r &lu rr'a aDprd.d
Pu..! aoru ldA'... Acr.. D.t. A.ld 4.1.. E le16 Adjo'n! 499 H.mns 2 03 9127/2017 $2t5,c/J)Nor 673 wc 6 32 3/3/2ols $226,000
Nor lalo Bsr V 3 70 3/2612013 $170,000
17958.\ V 173 l2ll/ml7 S194,0O0
a/cl^ !i/!A t rL aty'. orLt
$91 26 4/3 DnE Modular
$122.29 3/25 D.ro.r Mobl. Aa bld3!
$7216 3/2 DnE Mot'il. Aabl4!
$97 aa 4/3 DnE Modul.r
^.j.hht r-l.6rlrl .d- ^t^{.rrLr..r- ^anrr.rt
310.037 t2s 0m t11.3(r
s) s7s 3ro 06 tl I 'xDsr 063 sl
The best comparable is 1795 Bay Valley a6 it requircd the least adjustrnent .rnd was thercforc most
similar, which shows a 0% impact. This signifes no impact rclated to the solar farm.
The range of impact identified by these matched pairs ranges are therefore -3% to +26% \ ith an
average of +89o for the home and an average of +4% for the lot, though the best indicetor for the lot
shows a $5,0OO difference in the lot value due to the proximilv to the solar far'm or a -1270 impact.
2.356
1.942
Page 154 of 226
5i
NC
This project was built in 2016 and located on 532 acrcs for a 78.5 lvl1iv solar farrn uith the closest
home at 125 feet from the closest solar panel with ar average distance of423 feet.
I considered the recent sale of a home on Roslin Farm Road just north of Running Fox Road as
shorvn below. This sale supports an indication of no impact on property value. The landscaping
buffer is considered light.
Aar.l.l.a l-la..tld a.l- lrtn a.rn a.r ltI.t.a!ol, aai.-. a€- D.r. &la 4.1.. ho
^djohs
6a,l!l RoslD Fad l.0o 2/13/201e llss.oooNoi 6ss.2 s,m Canad\ 243 9/5/2017 Sl8s,ooor.63 s/4rore lr4s.ooo063 r/r7l20Ie irso,mo
adioiN 634e RGr. F8m
0
E
l.
)
Page 155 of 226
9. M.tchcd Palt - b.Eovrttsc Solrr 42. Counte Line Rd. F.v.tt.vllL. Cupberl,Ed
Couatv. I{C
.r',:
ilri,
I:Yr'ar,!E.'a-
q
irtl
,l
/
z
I
.b..
*lJ
nl(
t
II
I7
E!
ruJI
Itl'\2rI
I'
[,-
D
7 s.
)7 s
-t.1
\
'\
I
\
Page 156 of 226
59
This project \i'as built in 2017 and located on 413.99 acres for a 71 MW with t}Ie closest home at
1 35 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 375 feet.
I considered the recent sales identified on the map above as Parcels 2 aJId 3, \l,hich is directly acmss
the street these homes are 33O and 340 feet away. Parcel 2 includes an older home built in 1976.
$'hite Parcel3 is a new home built in 2019. So dle prcsence ofthe solar farm had no impact on neu
consmiction in the area,
The matched pairs for each of these ar€ shown below. The tandscaping bufrer rclatile to these
parcels is considercd light.
A.Ijollrlt Rdt'l..rl.l art.. r't.! &l! tuo atprd.i
AdF'ns 2e21cou rh ,ie3 423l2ore $3s,0oo
17 o0 7/3/20r! $2!o,0ooNol .?roeJohnM(M 77lr 4/2s/2o13 $32o,(n
B.!.k/Pond
cLA 8R/B^ P.rL
^diohtlr R..td.Etr.r 3.r.. ^
r 17 s/xt2orc $16s,000o60 5/3/2013 $r5s.00n. '/ : _ /oln $/10 000
Adlorns 293s Counr!Ln
Nor 7031 cl$n Mill
Both of these matched pairs adjust to zrn average of +30/6 on impact for the adjoining solar farm,
meaning there is a slight positive impact due to prcximity to the solar farm. This is uithin the
standard +/- of tlpical rcal estate Eansactions, which sbongly suggests no impact on prop€rl
value. I noted specifically that for 2923 Count Line Road, the best comparable is 2109 John
McMillan as it does not have the additional rental unit on it- I made no adjustnent to the other sele
for the value of that rental unit, uhich would have pushed the impact on that comparable
down*,ard - meaning there would have been a more significant positive impact.
Page 157 of 226
10. Matcbed Pair - Su ilh Farm. Xecnebec Rd. ulillow sprilrE. Wake Countv. NC
60
This project was built in 2015 and located on 49.6 acles (with an inset 11.25 acre parcel) for a 6.4
MW project with the closest home at 135 feet with an average distance of 105 feet.
I considered the 2017 sale identilied on the map above. which is 205 feet away from the closest
panel. The matched pairs for each of these are shown below followed b,v a more recent map showing
the panels at this site. The average dillerence in the three comparables and the subject property is
+3% aJter adjusting for differences in the sales date, year built, gross living area, and other minor
differences. This data is supported by the comments from the broker Brian Schroepfer $ith Keller
wfiams that the solar farm had no imFrct on the purchase price. The landscapin8 screen is
considered light.
Adlotnt.t &.td.ntt.l 4.1.. Att.t s.lt t rmADpFv..l
P.E.l 361.. Ad.lr... Act.. D.t. &ld 4.1.. Pd..
Adjoins 7513 G).n willo{ 079 9/l/2017 $l850OO
Not 296a Tram 069 7/I7lXol? $1S5,0m
Nor 205 Pin. Buft 097 l2l29l2017 6191,000
Not l2l? old Hon.vcun I 00 l2l15/2017 $176.000
6123 9S
$11990$ 2 97
BR/BA P.rt sty'.3/2 Gar BR/Rn.h
3/2 Dnvc BR/Rb.h
3/2 5 Drik BR/Rnch
3/2 s 2carprr lrYlRnch
ER/EA P.rL Oti.tSolu A'l'1r...
\djoins 7513 Gl.n willotr
2964 Tram
Not 205 Prn. Bur
Nor l2l7 Old Honercut
$1.915
$r.ss7
.$9.6aa
-$5.000
$t35.000
$r35,316
$\72.4A7
$r7a.433
,q'I
I
L-
I
1
rl
--..
L.04 l-
e
l- /I
..4^t=
)
1,492
I 323
1,553
Page 158 of 226
61
11. Match€d Patu - Camder DaE. CeEdelr. Csaden Countv. NC
This 5 Mw project ii?s built in 2019 and locatEd on a portion of49.83 acres.
The comparable at 548 Trotma.n is the most similar and required the least adjustrnent sho*'s no
impact on property value. The otier two comparables were adjusted mnsistently with one sho\ring
significent enhancement and another as sho[ing a mild negative. The t€st indication is the one
rcquiring the least adjustment. The other two sales required significant site adjustments which
make them less reliable. The best comparable and the average of these comparables support a
finding of no impact on Foperty value.
Parcel 1 noted above along with the home on the adjoining parcel to the north of that parcel sold in
late 2018 alter this solar farm was approved but prior to consfuction being completed in 2019. I
have considered this sale as shou'n belo$'. The landscaping screen is considered light.
Aar.tllla l-la..tl., &16lftc a.lu !&6lrrrot.a
l'tarn. re6 D.t. &la n l- lrt6
AdJoDs 122 N Mrll Dam 12 l9 ll/r/2o13 o3so,om12.10 5/3t/20la i309.000
N6r 193 SAnd Hrll3 2@ r2l22l2ot'1 $235,w)Nor l4O Sl..A Hls 2 05 3/1212019 $33o,o0o
3/3 5
% Ditt
Ad&hht a.1.. Aarr.t.a
ail.lrs. tlo. altc
s4a Trorm $6 163
19a smd Hills $4.803 f*5,00o
140 Sleepy Hlw .$9,2sa $4s,000
$3,090
12,350
$a,250
s35,377
sr3,r49
BA/tA
95,Om
$s,ooo s30,000
g350.ooo
$3s2,4sO
$369.343
3'12
I
I
I
)l
\
-
T
irt
,
--t\
1l ^r
liI
ffi'-'
Page 159 of 226
62
12. lllatchcd Pei, - Gt.ndy Solsr, Gnndy, Curritucl couqtv. NC
r
I
,trl
II
2t
t.tit
-ti
-
I
I II
I
tI
I
E1
\!'l
I
f
l
.r.
4 r
T
1
\
M
t
\
*
t)
I t
r BC
I{
)E z
Page 160 of 226
ti3
This 20 Mw project uas built in 2019 and located on a ponion of 121 acres.
Parcels 40 arld 50 have sold since construction began on this solar farm. I have considered botb in
matched pair analysis below I note that the marketing for Parcel40 (120 Par Four) identifled the
lack of homes behind the house as a feature in the listing. The marketing for Parcel 50 (269
Grandy) identined the properf as "very private." landscaping for both of these parcels is
considered light.
]rdJ.rnlla R-id.!ti,r 5rr.. ^ft.' aolr l.m AEFov.daols A.tdr€. rrdd D.t. a.ld sd.. Prtc.
Nor 102,.agu€ l/s/2020 $300,000Nor rr2 Meado{ Lk 0 92 2/2A/2019 S26s,t$1)
e/2s/2o20 $Ba,$o
Aqjotntrg sare. Adju.t.d
Addr... Iio. Btt.
102 T€ague 84,636
ll2 Meado* l-lr $4.937
ll6 Rsr.toot -S12 SSA
$1,s00
$1a,550
$2.900
$9ro $10,000
$7,30a $r0,oo0 $r0,o00
'9313
$2o,o0o
s20.000
s20.000
$315,000
$327,774
$299,544
^.joirirt R..id.rtiar s.lcr
YB GLA BR/BA P.rk Oth..
a.lt ad.lr€r As..
Adjo,ns 269 Gtudr- O 7a
Not 307 Glady
lo3 Bmch 0 95
Nol 103 sp.ins Ll
ArUot!r!! ad.. Adlu.t.d
A.tdra! TtE. alt.
307 cran{ $s,ss
103 B.ach $4,a47
103 SpringLl $7,a71
Drt. Bord 4.1.. Prtc.
$2l,8so
$22.99
$a,725
$270
$5,000
$275,0m
$272,225
$243,273
s20,mo $275,912
Both of these matched pairs support a frnding of no impact on value. This is reinforced by the
listings for both prop€rties identifying the privacy due to no housing in the rear of the property as
part of the marketing for these homes.
Page 161 of 226
6'1
Corclu8iou - NC Datr
x.tcLcd t& al[a.rt I Dir. R.dls.l2o2c2o23 D.trl
$43.321
$53,317
$133,373
IT
5m
55%
22
1,523
564
1,515
$7,35a
$3s.057
651002
6126,562
$2a1,731
$99,219
11a3.435
$230,2a3
3s
$55.312
g2ar.73l
The solar farm matched pairs shoilrl abo\'e have similar characteristics to each other in terms of
population, but u,ith several outliers showing solar ferms in fa,rn more urban areas. The medien
income for the population within 1 mile of a solar farm is $54,845 \r'ith a median housing unit value
of $206,862. Most of the compatables are under $300,000 in the home price, though I have
matched pairs in multiple states over $1.000,000 adjoining solar farms. The adjoining uses show
that residentia.l a.nd agicultuEl uses are the predominant adjoining uses. These ligurcs are in line
i1ith the larger set of solar farms that I have looked at with the predominant adjoining uses being
rcsidenlial and agricultural and similar to the solar farm breakdou'n sho\ln for the southeast as
sho\(Tl later in this report-
Based on the similarity of adjoining uses end demographic data betueen these sites and the subject
property, I consider it rcasonable to compare these sites to the subject prcperty.
I have puled 32 matched pairs from the above referenced solar farms to provide the follo$ing
summarl of home sele matched pajrs and land sales next to sol-ar farms- The summary shows that
the range of difleEnces is from -10% to * 10% with an average of +2yo and median of +2%. This
means that the average and median impact is for a slight positive impact due to adjacency to a sola,
Iarm. However, this +2% to rate is within the tlpical variability I would expect from rcal estate. I
therefore conclude that this data shoB,s no negative or positive impact due to adjacency to a solar
farm.
While the range is seemingly wide, the graph below clearly sho\ls that the vast majori!" of the data
falls between 0% and +5%. There were only 2 indicators showing an impact below zero and they
$ere -lToand l0%. The other thirty rcsuhs ranged from zero to +1070.
I thercfore conclude that these matched pairs support a finding ofno impact on lalue at the subject
properrr* for the proposed prcject, which as proPosd ('ill include a landscaped buffer to scrcen
adjoining residential properties.
Page 162 of 226
65
i
lndicated lmpacts Arranged by -olo
t0 l5 ll
t
Page 163 of 226
I have also considered a number of projects thrcughout the southeast which includes a numb€r of
solar farms much larger than those considercd injust North Carolina. I have shown tlle results
belo]I,. The full $rite ups similar to the NC qrite-ups are available in my flles.
CoEcluaion - Southe$t Ovct 5 MW
^dI un. rv ^cE.rc
r allc Rrdtr t2o10 2o2o
The solar farm matched pairs sho\nrl above have similar characteristlcs to each other in terms of
population, but \rith several outliers sho$ing solar farms in farm more urban areas. The median
income for the population \\ithin I mile ofa solar farm is $60,037 $ith a median housing unit value
of$231,408- Most of the comparables are under $30O,0O0 in the home price, \rith $483,333 being
the high end of the set, though I have matched pairs in multiple states over $1,0O0,O0O adjoining
solai farms. The adjoining uses sho$ that residentral and agricultural uses are the predominant
adjoining uses. These Iigures are in line with the larger set of solar farms that I have looked at with
the predominant adjoining uses being residential and agricultural and similar to the solar farm
breal<doirn sho$'n for Virginia and adjoining states as well as tlle propos€d subject proPerty.
Based on the similarilv of adjoining uses and demographic data between these sites and the subject
properu*, I consider it reasonable to compare thes€ sites to the subject properu*.
I have pulled 56 matched pairs from the above rcferenced solar farms to provide the following
summary of home sale matched pairs and Iand sales next to solar fafms. The summary shows that
the range of dillerences is from -loyo to +1070 with an average of +1% and median of +1%. This
means that the average and median impact is for a slight positive impact due to adjacency to a solar
faim. However, this +1 to rate is within the trpical variabililv I ll'ould expect from real estate- I
thercfore conclude tlEt this data sho$'s no negative or positive imPact due to adjacencr- to a solar
farm.
Page 164 of 226
$i
While the range is seemingty wide, the graph below clearly shows that the vast majority of the data
falls betwe€n -5% a,ld +5yo and most of those are clearly in the O to +5% range. This data stlongl]'
supports an indication ofno impact on adjoining residentral us€s to a sola, farm.
I thereforc conclude that these matched pairs support a finding of no impact on i€lue at the subje.ct
property for the proposed project, which as proposdd \trill include a landscaped bufrer to screen
adjoining rcsidentiel pmperties.
lndicated lmpacts SE USA
-:., Arranged Smallest to Largest
:l l(-l
Page 165 of 226
(I]
c. sI,/,rurlg:ry ol llo,tional Data on sol.ar Fd'nns
I have worked in 24 states related to solar farms and I ha!'e b€en tracking matched pafs in most of
tlose states. On the folowing pages I provide a brief summary of those findings showing 36 solar
farms over 5 MW studied with each one providing matched pair data supporting the fmdings of this
report,
The solar farms surnmary is sholm below Bith e summary of the matched pair data shou'n on the
followinS page.
I AM B.3r Ool&boro2 Mllt rs S.lm.r3 L.onard Hu3hr*il,.a Gs.ronr sc oa.tmia! SUnE M6ckBa.l
" M!n .. Pbrn3h
! ltkB.d. Mdlrnd
9 Cr.nd Rrd8. St..tm
rO Don,nd lndi.naphs
rr Manr... SEnl.l
12 Cbrk. cn$ wht Fo.r
13 Fl.6rn!l6 Fl.dnston
ta F.rchr*n Fr.nchtdn
16 Mccrar East w,nd$r
15 Thron rslk T,ntd Fall.
r7 S,nm sdDl Circl.
1a C.n&c. Pnnc.td
19 walk.r Barham.vill.
20 lnnd46 HoF Mills
21 rnn&42 Fay.t.rll.
22 D.h,ll. llF.r
23 Tur ll lrF.r
2a Sun,irh wille SFrng
2! P!c1u.. Rck! -Iuc.m
25 Awa Vrll.y Tucion
2? S.pnt Slony cr*
2a Crmd.n Dam Clmd.n
29 orandf Crandl
30 ChlhFon ftlim
3r Eddy Il Ed6'
32 Somr*r S@r*1
33 DG Ahp Pqla Aqu
aa B:r.fd B.f B.r.rd Bar
a6 Mrnr.Dad. MBmi
36 spoNrlEno Parr.s
NJ
NC
TX
160
627
532
l2l
ll.ra37s
$t26,562
t2Sl,?31
1167,5t5
lla7,2t4
i1t0,361
$253,t33
s2ao,172
0143,320
32
Page 166 of 226
G9
From these 36 solar farms, I have derived 94 matched pairs. The matched pairs show no negative
impact at distances as close as 1O5 feet between a solar panel and the nearest point on a home.
The range of impacts is - 10% to + 10% with an average and media.n of + 17o.
AvcraSc
UcdtrE
Higb
Low
uw
44.80
14.OO
617.00
5.OO
Avg.
Dlatanca
569
400
1,950
145
Averuge
Median
Hith
lndicated
lmpact
lvo
l0%
-10va
While the range is broad, the two cherts below shou the data points in mnge fiom lowest to highest-
There is only 3 data points out of 94 that show a negetive impact. The rest support either a finding
of no irnpact or q of the data points suggest a positive impact due to adjacency to a sola, farm. As
discussed earlier in this report, I consider this data to strongly support a fmding of no impact on
value as most of the findings are within Opical market \,Eriation and eveD within that, most are
mildly positive findings.
National lmpact Data
on Solar Farms Over 5 MW
Arranged Smallest to Largest
.:,
Page 167 of 226
70
VIII. Scope of Research
I have rEs€arched o!€r 1,000 solar farrns and sites on which solar farms arc existing and proposed
in North Carolina Virginia, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucry- as weu as other states to determine what
uses are tlpicalry found in proximity $ith a solar farm. The data I have collected and pmvide in this
report strongly supports the assertion that solar farms are having no negative cons€quences on
adjoining agricultural and residential values.
B€yond thes€ references, I trave quantified the adjoining uses for a number of solar farm
comparables to derive a breal<dorrl of Oe adjoining uses for each solar farrn. The chart below
sho\i,s the breakdourl of adjoining or abuttjng uses by total acre3ge.
5300 887
704
5,210
so
887
708
5.210
90
344
218
25
2la
25
rooo/.
o<,/,,
IIAh
I have also included a breakdo$n of each solar farm by number of adjoining parcels to the solar
farm rather than based on adjoining acreage. Using both factors prcvide a more complete picture of
the neighboring prcperties.
100
Both of the above charts show a marked resideDtial and agricultural adjoining use for most solar
farms. Every single sola.r farm considered included an adjoining residential or
residential/agdcultural use.
I1,,.
65""0",
Hreh 100""
Nl Com
R.. . i..ld.nttd, t. AgtcEltlrc, CoE
Totd aolx Putu Co!.t.l.r.d: ?Ol
clor€.i
Rc!/ G Conn ldd AvA HoDG HomcR,
Tot.l Aol! FEtu Con.lil.rcd: rO5
At - A3dcrltrt., coa E
Page 168 of 226
77
f,K. S Factors Related To IE on Value
I have completed a number of Impact Studies rclated to a variety oI uses and I have found that the
most common aieas for impact on adjoining va.lues typicafly follow a hierarchy uith descending
levels of potential impact. I will discuss each olthese categories a.nd how they relate to a solar farm.
1. Hazardous material
2. Odor
3. Noise4. Trafiic5. Stigma6. App€arance
A solar farm prcsents no hazardous waste blproduct as part of nomal operation. Any Iertilizer,
weed control, vehicular tallic, or construction will be signficandy less thai q?ically applied in a
residentia.l development and even most agricultural uses.
The various solar farms that I have inspected and identilied in the addenda have no knollrr
environmental impacts associated with the development aIld opemtion.
1. Hazsrdoua Eaterial
2. Odor
The various solar farms that I have inspected produced no odor
3. Noise
whether discussing passive fl\ed solar panels, or single axis trackers, tl.ere is no negative impact
associated with noise from a solai faim. The tansformer has a hum similar to an fryAC that can
only be heard in close proximiry to this bansformer and the buffers on the prcperty are sulficient to
make emitted sounds inaudible from the adjoining properties in most cases.
The various solar farms that I have inspected were inaudible from adjoining road$'ays
4. Tralfrc
The solar farm \r'ill have no onsite employee's or staff The site requires only minimal maintenance.
Relative to other potentral uses of the site (such as a residential suMivision), the additionat trefiic
geneEted by a solar farm use on this site is insigniicant.
5. Stigma
There is no stigma associated with solar farms and solar farms and people genemlly respond
favorably towards such a use. while ar individual may express concems about proximity to a solar
Iarm, there is no specifrc stigma associated with a solar farm- Stigma generally refers to things such
as adult establishments, pdsons, rehabilitation facilities, and so forth.
Solar panels have no associated stigma and in smaller collections are found in yards and roofs in
many residential cornmunities. Solar farms are adjoining elementa4', middle and high schools as
u€ll as churches and suMivisions- I note that one of the solar farms in this report not only adjoins
a church, but is actually located on land owned by the church. Solar panels on a roof are often
cited as an enhaJrcement to the property in marketing brcchures.
Page 169 of 226
i2
I see no basis for an impact from stigma due to a solar farm
6. Appearaace
I note tllat larger solar far'ms using fixed or tracking panels are a passive use of the land that is in
keeping with a rural/residential area. As shown below, solar farms are comparable to larger
gEenhouses. This is not surprising gil,rn that a gleenhouse is ess€ntially arother method for
collecting passive sola.r enerry. The gr€enhouse use is well rcceived in residential/rural areas and
has a similar visual impact as a solar farm.
tffF
II
-
The solar panels aie all less than 15 feel high, which means that the visual impact of the solar
panels $ill be similar in height to a r]"pical greenhouse and louer thar1 a single-story rcsidential
dr\elling. Were the subject properu.. developed uith single famil,v housing, that development would
have a much geater visual impact on the surrounding area given that a t1t'o story home with attic
( ould be three to four times as high as these proposed panels.
whenever you consider the impact ofa propos€d project on viewshed or u'hat the adjoining owners
ma! s€e from their propert_v it is important to distinguish whether or not they have a prctected
\ielr'shed or not. Enhancements for scenic vistas ere often measured ll,hen considering properties
that adjoin preserved open space and parks. However, adjoining lend *ith a preferred view today
conveys no guarantee that the property will mntinue in the current use, Any consideration of the
impact of the appearance requires a consideration of the wide variety of other uses a property
already has the right to be put to, which for solar farms often includes suMivision development,
agricultural business buildings such as poulty, or large g€enhouses and the like.
Dr. RaIldall BeI, MAI, PhD, and author of the book RreI E trtc D[D.I.!, Thtd Edition, ofl Page
146 ryiews oI bodies of $ater, cilv lights, natural seftings, parks, golf courses, and other amenities
are considered desirable features, particularly for residential properties." Dr. Bell continues on Page
147 that ryie$ amenities may or mat not te protected b]- lau or regulation. It is sometimes argued
lhat \ieu's have value onll if they are protected by a vie$'easement, a zoning ordinance, or
I
-
$.\l
I
=
Page 170 of 226
i:l
covenants, conditions, and Estrictions (CC&RS), afthough such protections are rclatively
uncommon as a practical matter. The market often assigns significant value to desirable vie*'s
irresp€ctive ofwhether or not such vie$,s are protected by law.'
Dr. Bell concludes that a view enha.nces adjacent property, even if the adjacent property has no legal
right to that view. He then discusses a'boEowed" view where a home may enjoy a good vieu'of
vacant land or property beyond with a reasonable expectation that the view might be partly or
completely obstructed upon development of the adjoining land. He follows tllat with'This same
concept applies to potentially undesiBble views of a new development when the development
confonns to applicable zoning and other regulations. Arguing value diminution in such cases is
difficult, since the possible development of the offending property should have been kno(,n." In
otlEr words, if there is an a.llowable development on the site then arguing value diminution with
such a development \lould be difficult. This further extends to developing the site with altemative
uses that are less impactfi. on the vie$' than curendy ellowed uses.
This gets back to the point that if a proper$ has development rights and could currently be
deve)oped in such a $'ay that rcmoves the vieu,shed such as a residential suLtdivision, then a less
inEusive us€ such as a solar farm that is easily screened by landscaping urculd not have a greater
impact on the vie$'shed of any perceived value adjoining properties claim for viewshed. Ess€ntia.ll],,iI there are more impactful uses curendy allowed, then hoil'can you claim damages for a less
impactful use.
7. Conclusiotr
On the basis of the factors described above, it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar
farm will not negatively impact adjoining property values. The only category of impact of note is
appearance, (.hich is addressed through setbacks and laidscaping buffers- The matched pair data
supports that conclusion.
Page 171 of 226
i1
X. Batterv Energv Storage Svstem (BE,SSI
The closest adjoining home to the BESS component of the subject property is shown belou at a
measured distance of 84O feet.
f En a.r. h.na^d nra *'.9
g t.D.r.rm{ ,moc
I considered the following battery storage lacilities in a variety of states for a comparison of similar
battery energr' storage systems (BF-SS) in proximirr* to residential uses. I have also searched t]rcse
areas for recent sales to see if t}rere is any impact on property va.lues near these bettery storage
facilities, which will be addressed in the following section.
The primary us€ of this larger set is to sho$' compatibility of BESS and residential uses as well as
sho*ing gpicat setbacks beireen these uses. These measured dislanc€s ere from the closest point
on the home to tl.e closest piece of equipment. Where I have N/A, the facility does not have an
aerial image that I can use to measure that distance. These distances were measured using
CoogleEarth.
,d oh oE O&
F
fl1aJ-;.-rgrl:xn
I -.,/'t4,,-,.o
tat,Iz)
ia@
(
Page 172 of 226
Summary of 8attery Data
t- i,
496
419
1,196
172
# Name
1 Ozone Park
2 Pomona
3 Asheville
4 East Hampton
5 Diablo
5 Prosped
7 Brazoria
8 Gambit
9 Churchtown
10 West Chicago
11 McHenry
12 Plumstead
13 Vista
14 Chisholm
15 Port Lavaca
15 MaBnolia
Distanae frcm
Closest Home
30
270
130
410
320
400
130
215
430
2@
155
130
uo
180
Average Distanae
Adjoining Home
203
1196
452
733
351
400
438
243
N/A
450
283
943
172
875
N/A
190
City/State Ac.es Capacity
Queens, NY 0.35 3 MW
Rockland, NY 28.5 N/A
Asheville, NC 12.36 9 N ,V
E. Hampton, NY 17.58 5 MW
Concord, CA 11.45 2m MW
W. Columbia, TX 2.3 10 MW
Brazoria, TX 17.58 9.95 MW
An8leton, TX 6.24 100 MW
Pennsville, NJ 3.13 10 MW
Chicago, lL 5 19.8 MW
McHenry, lL 2.75 19.8 MW
Hornerstown, Nl 14.39 19.8 MW
vista, cA 0.88 40Mw
Ft Worth, TX 21.74 zfiNNU
Prt [avaca, TX 1.44 9.9 MW
Houston, TX 0.87 9.95 MW
AveraSe
Median
High
283
238
840
30
Page 173 of 226
ll, EEss Pall€d sales Arulgsigrlq*Et Resecrch
I considered the follolring battery storage facilities in a %riety of states $here I was able to identiry
adjoining residential home sales- These home sales were then compared to similar homes in the
area that sold in the same time frame but were not in proximity to the BESS. This is caled a paired
sales analysis and I have us€d this to determine if there is any impact that could be attibuted to the
adj acency/proximilv to the BESS.
I - OzrDe Patk Bettcrtes
This s] stem is located on 99(h Steet in Jamaica, Queens, New York- The belo* image shows the
battery pack parcel outlined in red with a bowling alley to the north, a school to the south and
homes to t}le east and west as ]I,ell as a church to the west. Based on aerial imagery, this site was
instaled in early to mid-2018.
The two closest stmctures are the school at 65 feet and a church at 30 feet from the batteries. The
nearby homes are on the opposing blocks, but the proximity to the school does ilustrate a high
confidence in public saJety related to the battery facility and acceptance within that community.
EI
627K
917
528X
90EX
.F
52E(
625K
633K
93
4
I
755X
651X
904X
a4l x
903X
903X
886X
B/vo
.9
I
148X
\t
15
8
I
2--4
7
T
Page 174 of 226
245
275
305
195
1S5
30
l
2
3
a
to
11
).2
13
l5
006
0.14
10636 98rh Sr
roo.oo"/" 100.oo"/. i703
The closest recent home sale is 10726 lols Sbeet that sold on October 9, 2018, after the batter]
storage facilit) was installed. This home is 345 feet from the closest battery and has a ven_
obstructed view of that area based on the shfllbs amund the battery storage site as rell as a stdp of
landscape greenery be$een the t$o sites. The sales price *as $600,000 for this 3 BR/ 1.5 BA home
that $.as built in 1930 0n a 0.06 acre site.
I compared this to a similar home built in 1930 in the same sSIe and same size that sold at 10762
1oli Street on October 9, 2018 for $590,000. This home isjust down the sbeet but further from
the battery storage system and sold on the same day for $10,000 less. The proximity to the battery
does not correlate to value impact in this instance as the home further away sold for less. This
second home is across the street from the three-story John Adams High School u'hich likell'
accounts for the lower price for this second property compared to the first which was adjacent to the
same school, but not acrcss from the building itseli
The matched pairs support a finding oI no impact on value due to proximitv to the batten svstem.
Page 175 of 226
78
2 ' PoEoae Brtteric!
This battery storage system is located at 23 Diltz Road, Pomona, Rockland, New York. This location
is more remote than the otler system $'ith greater distances separating homes from batteries, but
all of the adjoining us€s are residential or park. This battery site is located at the end of a road for
estate like homes on large acreage adjoining or in close proximity to Harriman State Park. There are
some s3les on Dritz Road adjoining the baltery site and none of the broker statements identify that
as a concem. But given the park, the Man$ah River exposure it is dimcult to use thes€ sa.les for
matched pairs as there are too manl unique factors and matched pairs require one unique factor.
St l, the site shows harmonious use in connection wit}l rcsidential uses. The closest identified
home is 270 feet.
V
o
r,{
t ,4
Page 176 of 226
79
3 - Aahcvllle Eae4y Storag€ SFtcm
f,
2t
.- t,
t?II I
\t r I
I Ir
E
I dat
€of;' p
Hfltr{{E
IIIE
E rififlIqffi II
J
4t3 +f,fi!r rir t nIilaIIIIDIE
ffi
-
I
I
T
i-9
t-ilEItTE
E @$6D\Itir6
IEJ il lptrID
a
11
5GB
#iD-
ru
f-r
,
(
This 9 MW baftery storage system is located on a parcel \rith a substation built in 2020 (substation
u,as bult much earlier). This facilit) has significant residential development amund it but no recent
sales to consider,
.aa
!flt
1l
{
(*
tt^l)
Page 177 of 226
80
There is a nearby home sale that is locat€d on Tax Parcel 8047 (just below the identifier for Parcel9).
This home is 550 feet from the nearcst battery equipment and most of that distance is heavily
\1ooded. This home has a streret address of 95 Forest Lake Drive, Asheville, NC and it sold on April
26,2022 for $51O,0O0 for this 4 BR/3 BA ranch with 1,931 square feet including the daylight
basement aiea. The home also has a 2 car garage. I did not attempt a paired sale as this home has
no visibility of the BESS despite the Foximity and arguably has a better view with less screening to
the substation, which is also closer to the home.
Similarly, new homes are bem8 built to the south on Rangley Dri\€ with Prices ranging from
$431,000 to $566,000. These homes include those that back up to the Parcels II through 14inthe
adjacent parcel map.
Page 178 of 226
131
4 - E rt grtnpton EEGrgr St6ag. SFtcE
This 5 lvfw baftery storage system is locatd on a parcel with a substation and a natural gas pea.ker
plant. This ma-kes it difficult to use for analysis gi!,en the multiple uses on this psrcel, but I hare
included a visual of homes in the general area that have sold recentiy for reference. There is
significant wooded acreage separating this BESS and nearby homes.
5 - Dbblo Eaeqy Stotale Syatem
This 2OO MW battery storage rystem is located on a parcel with signiicant adjacency to industrial
uses and residential us€s. For these reasons it lould be diffcult to measure impacts due to the
other adjoining industrial uses that might also ha!€ an impact- Gilen that most of the adjoining
uses are industrial, I heve not dug further on this one.
6 - Pro.pect Etretgy Storage Systcto
This lO MW battery storage system is located on a parcel adjoining a large substation in Brazoria,
Tx- The oriy adjoining home is 40o feet away. This home has not sold since the BESS was
mmpleted in 2019. F Lrrthemore, this home has an unobstructed view of the substation which
would make it a difflcult home for impact analysis.
t-:
l-.i-.-i i LTD
,EtqY'rI
tr"?
(rj
/":^
.tG
;@
,-. t -/
aF
-9b,- d\T *tid\.3 l
'1,
rq
t e
t,
f_
I
g
%
i I,)l I
I
Page 179 of 226
t\2
7 - Brerorla Ea.rg7 Storage Sydatn
This 9.95 MW battery storage system is located on a parcel adjoining multiple homes within 150 feet
of the battery equipment. Therc have been no recent sales since this was built in 2020.
fIE*NE|.iE
Eru*a !'ldL-#.!E
E
-E
r
E
*
-
T
Ir
-
I
I
!
1 a bJL-
ts
E
H
I Br'' -:"t*+ 'r
ii:
I
I
P
I
:
7
3
I
,:
I
Page 180 of 226
13;l
8 - G.lnblt Ener6/ Storage
This 102-4 tvfw battery storage system is located otrW. Live Oak St€et, Angleton, Texas. This is a
new facility and placed online in June 2021. This system is a good lmetion as therc euE no other
extemalities adjoinin8 it to potentially impact the ana.lysis. The substation associated with this is
located to the easl along N. walker SEeet.
be.Edkg
BI*l&tad
CI-EEfrE,€I
IE:
I
-.
_Et
t
6v
I B
IE
a
!
-
El3
EG@E
ffi4rE'I
15
.aE
!
a
Wil
rf,ttrt
E
E++ltlFffiFtl
EL:S
25
--il"1i
g:e
t].
[:
-ll
r r...r
t-
I
6
While I cannot do any analysis of impact from the most recent adjoining sales as thcr- all occurred
beforc this site was built, but the adjoining homes to the north are selling llith new homes ranging
fom $40O,0O0 to $600,000.
The most recent adjoining home sale to the $,est l^as 852 Marshall Road that sold on April 5, 2021and presumably the] were aware of the batterl storage facili$ as it would ha.,e been under
construction at the time of sale. This bdck ranch with 3 BR, 1 BA with 1,220 s.i of g.oss living area
and built in I98O on O.4O acres sold for $165,000, or $135 per s.f.
I have compared that sale to 521 Catalpa SEeet that sold on September 11, 2020 for $155,OO0 for a
3 BR, 2 BA bdck ranch with 1,220 s.i built in 1973 with a single car gamge. Adjusting this price
upward by 9% for growth in the market for time, 3.5olo for difference in age, downward by g6,000 for
the additional bathrmm, and $4,000 for the garage, the edjusted indicated value of this home is
$16a,375, which is right in line with 852 Ma hall Road and supports a finding of no impact on
Property velue.
I ha!,e also compared that sale to 521 W Mimosa Sbeet that sold on Februar! 26, 2O2l tor
$15O,00O for this brick ranch with 3 BR, 1.5 BA with 1,194 s-i built in 1976. Adjusting this sale
up$tsrd by 4% for grofih in the market over time, up{rard 2yo for difierence in age, and doimward
Page 181 of 226
u4
by $5,OOO for the additional half batlroom, I derive an adjusttd indication of$154,0OO. This is 7%
less than the home price at 852 Marshall Road which suggests an enharcement due to proximity to
the battery storage system.
I have also compared t}lis sale to I164 Thomas Drive that siold on May 20, 2O2O for $187,O0O for
this brick ranch with 2-car garage, 3 BR, 2 BA rith 1,259 s.f. and built in 1998. Adjusting this
uF,a.rd by 13% for grouth over time, do\rnward by 97o for difrerence in age of construction,
do*nward by $8,OOO for the garage, dourl\r'ard $6,000 for the additional bathmom, I derive an
indicated va.lue of $ 18O,48O. This is a 9% difierence suggesting a negative impact on property !€lue.
However, tlis comparable requir€d the lar8est amount of adjustrnents and is not consider€d as
heavil] as the other t$o comparables. This home is l8 years newer and with better batlroom
situation as a I bathroom house is a significant issue for most buyerc.
The second compa.rable considered r€quired the Ieast adjustment and suggests a positi!'e impact on
property value. The medien indication is the firct mmpamble which shows no impact on prop€rty
value. Given this data set I conclude that the best indication fiom these matched pairs supports a
finding of no impact on property value- The home at 852 Marshall is 180 feet from the project
oudine shoun,
9 - Chu.rchtowtr Bettcry Storagc
This 10 MW battery storage system is Iocated off N- Brcadway, Pennsville, NJ. The aeia-l imagery
does not shou' this system yet so I was not able to determine distances to adjoining homes or
identi! any adjoining homes. Given the large substation, adjoining basebal fields end religious
facilities this would be a challenging site for ar impact analysis in any case.
Page 182 of 226
8;
10 - wert Chicago B.ttcry Storege
This 19.8 MW battery storage system is located ofi P sen Road, Chicago, Illinois. This facility has
condominium and single family housing to the north and single family housing nearby to the south,
but also adjoining an outdoor storage area aIld a large powedine easement. I was not able to do any
analysis on this site as there have been no rccent sales identiJied.
;
I
I
[:.tl
I
TB
Page 183 of 226
This 19.8 MW battery storage system is located olf I[inois Highway 31, McHenry, Il]inois that was
built around 2016. This is facility fronts on the highway but has rea, adjacency to a number of
houses.
u(i
11 - McHerry Battery Storege
Ttrere I,ere two recent home sales along W. High Street, but they efrectively adjoin the small
commercial us€ between the battery storage facility. That complication makes it dimcult to
determine if the commercial use \!as tlr impact or if the commercial use buffered any impact
making any finding ofi of analysis suspect and uncertain.
I have howe!,er considered the recent sa.le of 209 N Dale Avenue that adjoins the battery storage site
and is 290 feet fiom the nerest equipment.
That home soid on June 30,2O2l for $265,000 for a vinyl-siding ranch \rith 3 BR, 2.5 BA, built in
1960 with a gross living area of 1,437 square feet, or $184.41 per s.f. The propeily has 5 attached
garage spaces. As identified in the listing the home was completely rcno\,?ted with stainless steel
appliances a.nd granite countertops. This u?s listed by Lynda Steidinger with Berkshire Hathaway
Homeservices Starck Real Estate and the buyers agent \las Ivette Rodriguez Anderson with Kellet
williams.
The home directlr_ acrcss the street, 208 N DaIe Avenue, sold on June 16, 2021 for S275,00O for a
cedar siding ard stone ranch .,\'ith 3 BR, 2.5 BA, built in 1961, with a goss living area of 1,446 s.i,or $190.18 p€r s.f. This home also has 1,101 square feet of finished basement space tlat is
a.F II ,
il
.t
ls t{
.t
ry
t"
alEr
E--l
o
',y,/
I I
I.E
a m
ry Storage
t
209 |f o.b 4E >-il I
-Ft
rl _t
fl
Page 184 of 226
l.t7
currendy used as an office but could be an additional bedroom. This home also has been updated
and includes stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops.
The size diJlerence is nominal a,ld the additional 3-car ga.rage bays at the 209 N Dale is considered
to be balanced by the finished basement space at 208 N Dale, though the finished office space is
somewhat superior to garage space. But bala.ncing thos€ two factors out the difference in price per
square foot is 3%. This is considered negligible and attributable to the slightly superior firished
basement space and not any impact relative to the battery storage facility.
I also looked at 3802 Clover Avenue, *hich is two blocks to the north. This stone and siding lanch
with 3 BR, 2 BA, built in 1956, with a gross living area of 1,200 s.f. sold on October 21, 2021 for
$231,000 or $192.50 per s.i The property has been updated with a new kitchen and a new bay
window and includes a partially finished basement with an additional bathroom in it and the total
basement area is an additional 1,200 s.f. This is the smallest home in the neighborhood that I
found and it further ilustates that the price p€r square foot typically goes up as the size goes doun.
Adjusting this goss sale pice upward by $36,498 for the sma.ller size based on 8O7o of the price per
square foot for this purchas€, I derive an adjusted sales price to compare to the subject property of
$267 ,49A. 1 consider the basement to balance out the extra garage space at the subject. This
indicates a differcnce of 17o from the purchase price of the 209 N Dale Avenue, which is attributable
to the 4 months difference in time. I consider this comparable to further support a finding of no
impact on value,
While I haven't written up the other sales in the neighborhood t]lere are numerous recent home
sales ranging bom $172,000 to $306,000, but most of these homes are also over 2,000 squEue feet
in sizr- The subject property sold for more per square foot than most of these other s€les pardy due
to the smaller overall size, pardy due to the significant renovations, and partly due to the additional
garage space. Still, this shows that the 209 N Dale Avenue sale is not being impacted by the battery
storage facility a.nd has in fact been updated above what is typical for the neighborhood, though
given the similar updates at 208 N Dale Avenue, this may be the bend for the area.
The two sales compared to the 209 N Dale Avenue saie supports a finding ofno impact on properE
value due to the battery storage facilio.
Page 185 of 226
88
12 - Plumsted Erergy Storage
This 19.8 MW battery storage system is located on Monmouth Road, Cream Ridge, New Jersey.
There is only one adjoining home as sho[n in the image to the south, but it is located just 148 feet
from the nearest piece of equipment and 96 feet from the fence line. There were existing tre€s, but
they were supplemented \riti a 12 fmt [ooden privary fence with smaller e!,ergreens between tlle
fence and propertv line. The privacy fencr at this location is olersized as the battery units include
IMC units on top of the battery pods that enend the height of the units greater than requirEd at
the subject property. The road frontage was not landscaped and chainlink fencing was us€d on the
rest of the property.
The adjoining home at 797 Monmouth Road has not sold rccently and no further analysis is
possible at this site.
I
-.
:Jw&-,,E
\
t.\.F
'l
oPlumsted -Ehergy Storage
Page 186 of 226
It!l
13 - Virta En€rg]r Storege SystcD
This 40 MW battery storage system is located off OIi!'e Avenue, vista, California. This facility has
signilicant commercial development around it but also housing to the south as close as 115 feet
from the closest equipment as sho!\.n in the aerial map below.
p,
.t
r
-I
+l
i.
il ir
iiilllll
tl
a
1
;
r+a.-
.I
rt-
fG
t .i--i1
, ,:] ,I
ft ----I
i
II
-rl,]
.F
l' ,'
s1.
Page 187 of 226
90
14 - Chi3holE G,rtd Energy Storag€
This 200 MW battery storage system is located at 9400 Asphalt Drive, Fort Worth, Texas. This is a
new facility and in close pmximity to those homes near the substation.
The prop€rty to the west of the BESS is an asphalt plant with a lot of vacant land separating the
homes from the active plarlt. Still this complicates any analysis of this from an impact erralysis
standpoint. I therefore have not attempted to do so.
I
I
S
t:
I
t ,\ll
I
Page 188 of 226
91
15 - Port Lavaca BESS|
This 9.9 MW battery storage system is located in Port Lalaca, Texas. lt was built in 2020 and is
entirely surrounded by agicultural and utility uses. I have not attempted ary impact analysis on
this facility.
16 - BRP Magrolia BESS
This 9.95 N,lW battery storage system is located off Floyd Road, t€ague City, near Houston, Texas
There have not b€€n anv adjoining home sales since it was built so no analysis is currently possible
The adjoining homes are bet\r'een 18O and 2O0 feet from the BESS equipment.
Summary
I was able to complete paired sales analysis on three of tllese situations with data coming fiom
Ozone Park in l,[Y. Gambit in TX and McHenrv in IL.
The paired sales analysis identifes no impact on adjoining properties based on actual home sales
adjoining simila, projects.
Most of the situations identified shou€d homes closer to a BESS than the sales identified. But I can
only measure for impacts once a home has sold-
The sa.les data supports a finding of no impact on properlt value for homes ranging hDm 180 to 345
feet from the nearest equipment- The proposed project has no home clos€r than 840 feet, which is
significandy further away than necessary to protect prcperty value.
F
.lis
I
q
at rl- --
Page 189 of 226
92
XI. Conclusion
The matched pair analysis sholls no negative impact in home va.lues due to abutting or adjoining a
solar faim as well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or agricultural land. The
criteria that tlpica.l\ corelates with downu,ard adjustments on property values such as noise, odor,
and t alnc aI support a finding of no impact on property value.
Very similar solar farms in very simila.r ar€as have been found by hundreds of towns and counties
not to have a substantral injury to abutting or adjoining prcperties, a.nd many of those fndings of no
impact have been upheld by appellate courts. Similar solar farms ha!'e been approved adjoining
agricultural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments,
I ha!,e found no dillerence in the mix of adjoining uses or proximity to adjoining homes based on the
size of a sola, farm and I hale found no signi-Ecant difference in the matched pair data adjoining
larger solar fams versus smaller solar farms. The data in the Southeast is consistent with the
larger set of data that I hale natronally, as is the more sp€cific data located in and around North
Carolina-
Bas€d on the data and analysis in this report, it is my professional opinion that the solar farm
proposed at the sub.ject property uill have no negatilE impact on the value of adjoining or abutting
proper!. I note that some of the positive implications of a solar farm tllat have been expressed b]
people living next to solar farms include pmtection from future development of rcsideDtrel
developments or other morc intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and chemicals from former farming
opeEtions, protection from light pollution at night, it is quiet, ard there is no traIlic.
The BESS component is signifcantly furtler a$ay from nearby homes than necessary to protect
adjoining property value and also supports a finding of no impact on property value.
Page 190 of 226
93
:l
il
XII. Certification
I cenify rhal, ro the b.st ol By loowledge md b.liei
I have nor made a per$nal insp.clron of the property ihar is the subJ..l of this repon, andi
13
The srardents of fact .ontahed in rhis repoft d. rlu. snd corftti
The reported oaly$s, opinions, ed con.lusions s. liErted or y by the report.d sssuDptions md liBiting
conditions, and are ny persnal, unbk*d protessional dal!*s, opmrons, 6d concluBions;
I
a.
9
10
1I
t2
I hav. no Fesnt or prosp€ctiv. int.r.st n ti. prcp.rty tbat is th. subj<t of this r.pon od tro p.rsal
ht.r.st win r.spet to tb. pani6 irvolv.d;
I havc no bias with r.spect to tlt. prop.rty that is th. subjed of this r.port or to tlr parties involved with this
My 68ag.m.Dt m this asigm.nt wes not contintot upon dev.lopiht or .cpo.ting pr.d.t.l]mcd r.sultsl
My .obpmeuon for coDpletilg thrs assgn@at rs not contiDg.nt upon rie dd.lopEcnt or r.porting of a
pr.d.temined valu. o. direction u value tnat favors th. cau* of rn. c[.nt, tn€ dount ofthe value op!n!on,
$e a(ai@ent of a sbpulated resull, or tn. o.cunen.. of a subsequ.nr €vent dire.dy r.lated to tI€ imend.d
Th. r.port.d ealyes, opitrioDs, ed @nclu3ioDs sE. dd.lop.d, ed this r.pon has bED pr.pe.d, ih
conlomity with th. r.quir@.!ts ot th. Code of Prof.sional Ettuca ud Stud{ds of Prot sioual Appraissl
Pladic. of th. Appraisel Institur.i
My ea\ss, opmrons md conclustons were devclop.d, ed this r.pon has been pr.pd.d, in conforEity sth
th. Undom Steddds of Professional Appraisal Practicc
Th. us of tnis r.pon is subj..r ro rh. r.qur.n.nrs of the Apprdsal Institut. relarint ro reis by lls duly
authoriud r.pr.$nrativ.s;
No one provid.d sigtuficmt r.al prop.rty apprasal assistoce to tlt. pereD sigrMg this ..rtfication.
As of th. dete of tltrs rrpon R chdd C Kirklmd Jr has .oEpl.t.d th. contiluitrg .ducation progra fq
O.signat d M.6b.rs of th. App.dsal lnstirutr As ot &. date of tlus r.port Nichola! Kilklmd has coEpl.t.d
th. sted*ds ed Etltrcs Educadon R.qun@cDts for Cedidates of rh. Apprais€l lnstitute.
I have not perfom.d ssices, regsding tie prop.rty that is dr subl.ct of tlris rcport witlm t}le thr.. y.d
p.riod Doediat.ly precedidg ac..ptece of this assignm.nt
Di$losu.. ol th. cont.nts of this appra$l rcport is 8ovm.d by the bylaws dd .cgulations of th. ApPraisal lnstitut.
and the Nauonel Assiation of R.altors
Neith.. all nor oy part of rh. contents of rhis apprdsal r.pon shall be dis$mlnated to th. pubLc tlrough adv.rtiM8
media, publi. relations m.dia, nNs media, or any ornd public meds oI communications withour the priot Mitts
consr and approval of tb. undersigned.
/{y,/-
Richad C Ktkland, Jr , MAI
Stat C.ni5.d Gendal Apprds
(
z:n;a
Stat. Cert6.d Gmdal Appras
Page 191 of 226
9.1
Kirkland
Appraisals, LLC
Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI
9408 Nonhfield Court
Raleish, Nortl Carotina 27603
Mobile (919)414 8142
rkrklan(t-l irma'] com
$1\1\ kirklandrppraiels.com
2003 Pres€nt
1996 - 2003
Proje ss.i,ono,l AJfillo,tTo'ls
MAI (Member, Appraisal Insrrute) designal ron # 11796
NC State Ccrtiftcd GeDersl Apprailcr f A 1359
vA Strtc Ccrtitred Gcaerel Apprefuer # .1o0 1 0 1 729 1
SC Stltc Ccrtilied Ge[eral App'.ailcr # 6foq
FL Strte Certtfrcd Gcnerat Appnis€r # R23950
cA Strte C€rtlf,ed Gcltcr.l Apprai!.r # 321885
MI Stete C€rtificd Gelcrrl ApFai!€r # 1.101076620
PA Sttc C€rttfrcd GGEGr.l Apprat!€r fl GA004598
OH Stlte C.rtified Gcaerel Apprailcr # 2021008689
IN Strtc C€rtlfied Gclcral Apprai!€r # C(i42 I 00052
2001
t999
&,uca,tlott
Brchclor of lrt i! EaitLh, Univerci$ of Nonh Carolina. Chapel HiI 1993
@ntlnulng Educatlon
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisgl hactice Update
Sexual Haiassment Prevention Training
Appraisal of l,6nd Subject to GrDund kases
Floida Appraisal Laws and Regulations
Michigan Appmisal Law
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraiso.l Practice Uldate
Uniform Appraisel Standards for Federal l.and Acquisitions fYellow Book)
The Cost Approach
Income Apprmch Case Studies for Commercial Appraisers
lntroduction to Expert WitDess Testimony for Appraiserc
Appraising SmaI Apertment Properties
Florida Appraisal taws and Regulations
Uniform Standards of Professiona-l Appraisal Practice Update
Appraisal of REO and Foreclosure Properties
Appraisal of Self Storage Facilities
Land and Site Valuation
NCDOr Appraissl Principles end Procedures
Uniform Standards of Flofessional Appraissl Practice Update
Forccasting Revenue
2022
2021
2021
2020
2020
2020
20t9
20t9
2018
2018
2014
2018
20ta
2017
20t7
20\7
20t7
20t6
20l5
Ptoiesslono.l ExlErlence
Krklend Apprailek, LLC, Raleigh, N.C.
Commercial appraiser
Ilcrte! & CoBDaBy, Raleigh, N.C.
Commercial appraiser
Page 192 of 226
1)n
wind Turbine Efiect on Value
Supervisor/Trainee Class
Business Practices a.nd Ethics
SuMivision Valuation
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update
Intoduction to Vineyard and winery Valuation
Appraising Rural Residential Properties
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisl Practice Update
Supervisors /Trainees
Rates and Ratios: Making sens€ of GIMS, OARS, and DCFS
Advanced Intemet Search Sbategies
Analyzing Distressed Real Estate
Unifom Standards of Professional Appraisa.l hactice Update
Rrrsiness Practims and Ethics
Appraisal Curriculum Overview P Days General)
Apprais3.1 Revie\i' - Genei€l
UniIom Standards ot hoGssional Applaisal Practice Update
SuMivision Va.luation: A Comprehensive Guide
Omce Building Valuation: A Contemporary Pe$pective
Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate
The Appraisal of SmaI SuMivisions
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisa-l Practice Update
Evaluating Commercial Consf uction
Conservation Easements
Unifom Standards of Professional Appraisal kactice Update
Condemnation Appraisin g
l,and Valuation Adjustment Procedures
Supporting Capitaliztion Rates
Unifom Standards of Professional Appraisa.l Practice, C
Wells and Septic Systems and Wastewater lrrigation Systems
Appraisa-ls 2002
Analyzing Commercial lrase Ctrauses
Consewatlon Easements
Preparation for Litigation
Appraisal of Nonconfoming Uses
Adva-nced Applications
Highest and Best Use and Market Ana-ll sis
Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches
Ad nced Income Capitalization
Valuation oI Detdmental Conditions in Real Estate
Report Writing a.nd Valuatron Analysis
ProperB Tax Values and Appeals
Uniform Slandards of Prcfessional Appnisal Practice, A & B
Basic Income Capitalization
2015
2015
20t4
20t4
20t4
2013
2072
2012
2011
201r
2011
20tl
20t1
2017
2009
20CI)
2008
2008
2008
2007
2007
2006
2005
2005
2004
2004
2004
2004
2002
2002
2002
2002
2000
2000
2000
2000
1999
1999
1998
t999
1999
1997
1997
t996
Page 193 of 226
KimleyDHorn KIMLEY.HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC
NC License #F-0102
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Subiect
Old Liberty Solar, LLC
Travis Fluitt, P.E , Kimley-Horn and Associates, lnc
September 1, 2023
Old Liberty Solar Farm - Tnp Generation
v]5
9 /r/2023
Krmley-Hom has revrewed the tnp generation potential of the proposed Old Liberty solar farm located
off Whites Memorial Road and Carl Allred Road in Randolph County NC. The ITE Trip Generation
Manual does not provide trip generation rates for solar farms Therefo€, the tnp generation was
estimated based on the antEipated number of employees both duing construction and a full buildout
Dunng consttucton it is estimated that a maximum of 40 workers will be on site each day. Though
some workers will carpool, as a worst case it is assumed that all workers anive individually in the AM
peak hour and depart rndividually in the PM peak hour There are also anticipated to be approximately
8 truck deliveries per day duflng construction with only 1 vehicle on-site at any given time As a worst
case, it is assumed thal 2 trucks enter and exit during each peak hour Therefore, il is antopated that
in a worst case condition, there will be approximately 42 entenng trips and 2 exiting trips in the AIV
peak hour and 2 entering tnps and 42 exiting trips in the PM peak hour The construction entrance is
proposed on Carl Allred Road.
Upon completion the site will have no full-trme staff. There wll be '1-2 employees thal wll service this
srte once every several months The result is thal this sile is expected to generate less than '1 trip per
day on average Table 1 below summarizes the anticipated trip generation of the site
Table I
Solar Farm Traffic Generation Uehicles)
Scenario Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ln Out ln Out ln Out
Construction <100 <100 42 2 2 42
Bu ld out
Please feel free to conlact me at 919S53-2948 or travis flu t@k mlev'horn com with any questlon or
comments.
421 Fayetleville S'lreel, SuIe 600, Raleigh, NC 27601@ @
Page 194 of 226
Kimley,>)Horn
Purpose
This decommissioning plan is provided by Old Liberty Solar, LLC (the "Prqect Company")and wlldetail
the projected decommissioning demands associated with the proposed projecl.
The purpose of this decommissioning plan is lo provide procedures and an opinion of probable
construction cost for partial or full closure of the solar facrlity A decommissioning plan and estimate are
being provided to satisfy the specific guidelines set in the Randolph County Unified Development
Ordinance ("UDO') Seclion 600, Page 224, Other Requrrements (B) This decommissioning plan details
general provisions for facility deconstruction and site restoration. This decommissroning plan shall take
effect upon tacility abandonment, discontinualion ofoperation, or expiration ofthe use permit as defined
by the Randolph County Code
OLD L'BERTY SOLAR
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
SEPTEMBER 2023
Anticipated Service Life of the Project
At the end of its project life, the Solar Facility shall be decommissioned rn accordance with this
Decommissioning Plan ("Plan") restoring the site to as close to its agreed-upon postiecommissioned
state as practicably posslble upon expiration or termination of the Power Purchase Agreement The
Solar Facility carries an expected useful lifetime of 40 years, including potential replacement or
upgrades to equrpment during that time
Decommissioning responsibilities include the removai of perimeter fences any concrete or steel
foundations all metal structures (mounting racks and trackerc), all photovoltarc (PV) modules
aboveground and underground cables kansformers, nverters, fans, switch boxes, substation and
otherwise restoring the premises to its original condition or mutually-agreed upon state. Other Plan
activities include the management of materials and wasle, associated erosbn & sedimentation control.
and a decommrssionrng fund agreemenl overvrew
Site Location
Old Liberty Solar LLC proposes to build a photovoltaic (PV) solar facility ("Solar Facility') in Randolph
County, NC. The Facility is located on Carl Alfred Road and within tax parcel identifcation numbers
777 4905395, 7784000854, 77U112105, 778/,215160. 778/,412104, 7784306023, 7783295229,
7783187376, 7783288668, 778338725a \" Ptopedy').
Page 195 of 226
Kimley,>)Horn Paqe 2
Decommissioning Risk Over the Lifecycle of a Pro.iect
The probability of an event that would lead to abandonment or longterm interruption is extremely low
during the first 25 to 30 years of the Project lfe Accordingly. the risk of decommissioning the Proiect
is extremely low during this time ftame because
Project owners have sophrstcated financing shuctures that allow the lender or tax equity
partner to step in and rectify the event that may lead to abandonment.
Most critical solar components have original equipment manufacturer (OEM) warranties
with long terms lhal include labor and parts A warranty is an agreement or guarantee
outlined by a manufacturer to a customer that defines perlormance requirements for a
product or service Warranties g ve customers a form of insurance rf the purchased product
or service does not adhere to quality standards. These warranties assure the Projecl
owner, financing parties, and olher stakeholders, thal equipment will perform as expected
which minimizes the risk of a de'commissioning event. Average warranty lengths for cr ical
solar components range flom 5 to '10 years, with produclion warranties on solar panels
extending to 25 years
Solar projects consist of many networked components designed to absorb solar energy
and convert to electrical energy The failure of any single component will not resull rn a
substantial reductron ol energy generation that could lead to a decommissioning event
Solar projects are requrred io marntain replacement value property damage insurance
coverage and business interruption insurance coverage Busrness interruption insurance
covers the loss of income that a busrness suffers aier a drsaster or equipment failure.
Typrcal solar business interruptron insurance covers income loss for twelve months from
the date ofthe event triggering the loss.
The replacement costs of solar components will lypically decline over time and
accordingly, costs to replace farled or damaged equipment after lapsed OEIV warranties
will not create large financial hurdles for the Project.
ln the early stages of the Project, the resale value of the equipment is significantly higher
than the decommissioning costs. resulting in a nel positive (revenue).
Considering the reasons slated above. a decommissioning bond early in the life of a solar prqect life
is not required to assure the coverage facility removal and sile restoratton costs.
Solar power is an increasingly popular form of renewable energy around theworld and as an alternative
to the burning of fossil fuels. solar ranks alongside wind and hydropower as essential energy options
for the future of the planet Solar also offers the additional benefit of being easier to build, operate, and
decommission with minimal environmental risks. Recent rises in popularity and use can be lanked to
lower rnstallation and operation costs and it is expected that this pattern will continue, further reducing
lhe risk of a decommissioning event
Page 196 of 226
Kimley,>)Horn
Decommissioning Risks Over Time
As previously noted, the probability of a decommissioning event that would lead to abandonment or
long{erm financial interruption is extremely low during the first 15 to 20 years of the Project life and
accordingly, the financial risk lo decommrssion the Project is also extremely low A risk analysrs
approach is presented here for informational purposes only and has not been considered in the
decommissioning cost estimates present in this Plan.
It is impodant to note that there are two aspects to consider when evaluating the risk for
decommissioning the Projectl
1 The risk ofthe need to decommission the Project as a whole (Prqect termination risk), and
2 The risk of failing to recuperate the cost of the decommissioning actrvities
(decommissioning f unding)
The most important concern for the Randolph County is the abthty to recuperate the cost of
decommissioning and restoration of the land to pre-Project conditions The presence of a Power
Purchase Agreement (PPA) in thefirst40 years ofthe Project makesthe likelihood of decommissronrng
very low during that time.
Risks over the expecled ftfe ofthe prqect include, but were not limited io:
Years 1-5 - Minimal Project termination or flnancial nsk due to presence of PPA w[h
guarantee to purchase power. resale of value components. componeni warranties, value
of facility.
Years 5-15 - Similar consideration ol prevDus period, excepl minimal increased financial
risk due to the decrease in resale value of used componenls and rise in technologrcal
rmprovements of new equrpment in market
Years15-25 - Similar consideration of previous period, with slightly increased risk as
warranties sta( to expire Value of equipment is still substantial but decreasing
Years 25-30- Similar consideration ofprevious period, warranties continue to expire;value
of equipment drmrnrshes with age and technological improvements in market.
Years 30-40 - PPA expires, Project termination and funding risks increase value of
equipment diminishes, and technological improvements ln market A rise in salvage value
of removed equipment due to diminishing natural resources and improvements in the
efficiency of recycling/extraction technologies wrlloffset the cost of decommissioning
Commencement of Decommissioning
This Plan assumes that the Facility wll be decommissioned under any of the following conditions:
1. The land lease (including the exercise of any extension options) ends and will either not
be renewed or a new lease will not be entered into forthe Project.2. The system does not produce power for sale for a consecutive 12-month period, except
in the instance of a force majeure event in which the Prqect is being repaired and/or
restored
Page 197 of 226
Kimley,>)Horn
3 The system is damaged and w I not be reparred or replaced
Removal of Nonutility Owned Equipment
To decommission the Solar Facility, the Prqecl will rnclude at a minimuml
Disconnection from the utility power grid
Removal of all Facility components: panels, rnverters, wire, cable, combiner boxes,
lransformers, racks, trackers. tracker motors weather monitoring, control system
apparatus, etc
Removal of all non-utility owned equipment (al poini of interconnection), conduits,
structures, fencing, and foundatrons lo a depth of al least three feet below grade
ln order to minimize rmpacts to vegetated areas and prevent erosion at the time of
decommissioning it is not anticrpaled that the site will be re-graded
Plant vegetation suitable for the locatron native to the region, and which matches
surrounding vegetation
The decommissioning process will maximize the recycling, reuse and salvage of applicable facihty
components which are outlined in the oprnlon ol probable construction costs. Based on the extent of
decommrssionrng prior to beginning constructron activities the developer will submii applicable
demolitron and construction plans and perm t applrcations which wrll outlrne the schedule and extents
ol demolrtion Decommissioning activities wll not begrn prior to issuance of approved permits by local
regulalory agencies with appropriatelurisdrclon
The owner ot lhe leased propr, may request in writrng for certain items to remain, e.9., access roads
This decommissioning plan is based on curent besl management practices and procedures This Plan
may be subject to revision based on new standards and emergenl best management practices at the
time of decommissioning Permits wll b€ obtained as required and notification will be given to
necessary stakeholders pnor to decommisgoning
Restoration of Property
At the time of decommissioning, the Prqecl Company will restore the Solar Facility to a meadow-lake
or olher agreed upon condrtion. All waste and excess materials wlll be disposed of in accordance with
municipal, provincial, and federal regulations Waste that can be recycled under municipal paogaams
will be recycled accordingly. Provided, however, the Prqect Company shall not be required to replace
any structures that were removed to build the Solar Facility
The restoration will consist of de-compactron of the topsoil by disking or til ing and re_vegetation of the
property At the end of the project the area will be seeded and fertilized with native vegetation as needed
lo return the site to as close as prachcable to ortginal or rn[ially agreed-upon condition Landscaping
and entrance will remain following site restoration The fulure use of the land will be determined al the
time of decommrssioning. Deciding factors will be rnfluenced by County land use and comprehensive
plans and regulations at such time in the future
Page 198 of 226
Erpenses associated with decommissDning the Poect will be dependent on labor costs at the time of
decommissioning For the purposes ot thrs report, cunent RSMeans data was used to estimate labor,
material, and equipment expenses Fluctuation and inflation ot the labor costs were not factored into
the estrmates.
The developer will coordinate with the County to monitor vegetation and drainage following restoration
until permanent vegetaton is eslablished Erosion and sediment control re-seedrng, sorl stabilization,
weed control and fe(ilization will be provided by the developer as needed until the site is stabilized and
approved to be completed by the County
Upon completion of the site restoratron. a final report of activities will be submitted to the County
documenting the process and resulls
Time Period to Complete Decommissioning
The Project Company will have twelve (12) months from the date decommissionrng commences to
complete decommissionrng. Provided. however lhe Project Company shall be able to request an
exlension of an additional six (6) month intervals if it is in good faith diligen{y decommissioning and is
delayed due to weather conditions or other items outside its control
Party Responsible for Decommissioning
The Project Company is responsable for this decommissioning, provided however that the Projecl
Company may conhact with a third-party to perform the decommissioning on its behalf Nothing in thrs
plan releves any obligation that the real estate property owner may have to remove the Facility as
outlined in the Conditional Use Permit in the event the operator of the Facility does not fulfill this
obligation
Decommissioning cost Estimate and Bonding
An engineer's opinion of probable construction cost and analysis of matefial salvage value were
prepared as part of this decommissioning plan Exhibit A summarizes the probable costs and salvage
values associated with decommissoning Exhibit B summarizes probable costs associated with
decommrssioning exclusive of salvage values. Exhibit C summanzes probable costs associated with
trucking panels to approved recycling facilities
Old Liberty Solar, LLC will be required to submit detailed engrneering plans at the time of
decommissioning, and obtain construction permits as required by appropriate authorities
The total probable cost of decommissrcning excluding a salvage but including a 1.50/o inflation factor is
$1,738,000 lnflation accounts for approximately $428,000 over a 2o-year period
Resale/Salvage Value Estimate
There is a robust secondary markel for resale of solar PV panels worldwde and a network of facilities
availabb for recycling panels. Solar PV panels are estimated to degrade less than 0.5% per year,
meaning fhey're expected to operate at 90% of capacity after 20 yeats Panel manufactlrers wilt
Kimley ))Horn
Page 199 of 226
Page 6
guarantee the performance for each rndividual modlle and replace defectNe modules per the terms of
warranty Panels can lherefore be sold for a pnce higher than their scrap value
In general. the highest component value would be expected al the time of construction with declining
value over the iife of the Projecl Over most of the Project's life componenls such as the solar panels
could be sold in the wholesale markel for reuse or refurbishment As panel efflciency and power
produclron decrease due to aging and/or weathering the resale value will dechne accordingly.
Secondary markets for used solar components include other utility scale solar facilities wth srmilar
designs that may require replacemenl equrpmenl due to damage or normal wear over time; other
buyers (e g. developers consumers) that are willing to accept a slightly lower power output in return
for a significantly lower price point when compared to new equipment The solar facility's additional
supporting components, such as inverters transformers, rackng and piles, can be dismantled and
tesold for scrap value lnvedets and transformers are colhplised of salvageable materials such as
copper, aluminum, and silver Piles and other steel components can likewise be recovered and
salvaged Resale values at the end oI Year 20 for equipment of significant value were calculated wth
straight-hne depreciation after an instant depreciation of the original matenal cost
A currenl sampling ot reused solar panels rndicales a wide range of pricing depending on age and
condition ($0.10 to $0 50 per watt) Future pncing of solar panels rs difficult to predict currently, dueto
the relativeiy young age of the markel, changes to solar panel technology and the ever_lncreasing
product demand Using strarght line deprecEton, a conseryative estimatton ot ihe value of solar panels
rn Year 20 at $0.005 per watt would yield approximately $560.907 lncreased costs of removal, for
resale versus salvage, would be expected to Preserve the integrity of the panels; however, the net
revenue would still be substantially higher than the estimated salvage value
The resale value of components such as trackeas, may decline more qulckly however, the salvage
value of the steel that makes up a larger portion ofthe tracker is expected to stay at or above the value
used in this report.
The pice used to value the steel rn this report is $152.18 per ton The price used to value copper in
lhis report is $2 13 per lb.
The cost estimate for Year 20 shows thal lhe net cost to decommissDn the slte is (Salvage Value
($1.894 000 00) - Decommissioning Cost ($1,3'10 000.00) = Net Surplus ($585,000 00)) Additionallv
was assumed inflation of 1 5% per year over the next 20 years, the net surplus would increase (Net
Surplus wth lnflation valued at $776.000 00)
Kimley,>)Horn
Page 200 of 226
Kimley,>)Horn
EXHIBIT A
D EC O M M I SSS'OA/'NG COS T EST I MAT E
Page 201 of 226
*'4dodddmoFoE Enol*!rdelr'I.&!ol6dutyrh.EnglEgdftd
Kimley.>>Horn
Page 202 of 226
doaompdieM^'dd,.ditr.colbcdgod.ontFvful]tr 6 En,.B n nr rm d l.P.ud dJl h Eniivr,uds,M E:69lr rft!.dhEad6dd-lidprrl*lhdF@d
Kimley r)Horn
l!',1!o,all
Page 203 of 226
Kimley,>)Horn
DECOMMISSI
EXCL
Page I
B
G COST ESTIMATE
ING SALVAGE
Page 204 of 226
DE.mni.joilie c.tm.b Pm Form.Kimley DHorn
cn,.t66b'dioffisddt63oBnDn.dPdM
hEigdlldcd.!.6spd(jdd@dgcd'Mql,@l
Page 205 of 226
Kimley ))Horn Page I
EXHIBIT C
TRUCKING COST BREAKDOWN
Page 206 of 226
Old Liberty Solar
Randolph County, NC
PanelTrucking Costs
$/mo/truck rental
$/mo/truck labor (FT+benefits)'
$/motruck maintenance
$/mo/kuck insurance
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,000
5,000
500
1 000
10,500.00S/monruck cost
Ugallon gas
miles /gallon
Mileage (Asheboro, NC to Raleigh, NC) roundtrip
380
8
140
66.50luel cost per trip $
Capacity in tons per trip
lolal number of panels
panel weight (tons)
Misc. Waste (tons)
20
78.652
2,360
20
trips 1
Loading/unloading hours per lrip
road hours pertrip
hours per day
1
10
21
46.7per month per lruck
truck months
Subtotal o, Truck and Labor Cost
Fuel Cost
$
$
$
31.500
7.914
39,,t1,4Trucking Cost
*Assumes truck labor works half of the month at slandard h truck rates
Page 207 of 226
PIN REID CALC_ACRES ACCT_NAME ACCT_ADDR ACCT_ADDR2 ACCT_CITY ACCT_STATE ACCT_ZIP
7784510568 64297 3.15127821 ALLRED, RICKY D (ALLRED, GINGER K)2463 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784512666 64299 0.93749285 ALLRED, RICKY D (ALLRED, GINGER K)2463 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784511869 64298 6.78238109 ALLRED, SIMON LEE 2491 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783092301 85616 13.878 ALLRED, TIMOTHY WAYNE 2061 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783184653 63963 0.9506733 BROWN, JESSICA DANIELLE (BROWN, RANDALL SCOTT)1978 TIPPETT RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7773990709 60410 7.86904003 BROWN, RODNEY 2377 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784406792 64281 1.4077511 BROWN, RODNEY B 2377 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784038066 80949 2.22363492 BROWN, RODNEY B 2377 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784408644 64282 1.13348198 BROWN, RODNEY BRYON 2377 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783184732 63964 0.98127671 BROWN, RUTH ANNETTE (MORTON, BRENDA LEE)1978 TIPPETT RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784506223 64296 44.52210637 CAROBETH PROPERTIES LLC 214 WILLIFORD CT HIGH POINT NC 27262
7783099491 91206 1.79602966 CARTER, JOHN WAYNE (CARTER, SUSAN ANDRE)1348 RIERSON RD TOBACCOVILLE NC 27050
7783185100 63965 0.904393 CAVENDER, BLANCHE HILL R 1926 TIPPET RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 272487783183841639590.89041377 CHAVEZ, ALEJANDRO (CHAVEZ, TRACY)18 MORNING STAR LN GARNER NC 27529
7783491488 64118 2.08149179 CHAVEZ, ERASTO MARTIN (LOPEZ, MARIA DEL PILAR CANCINO)2255 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 272487784032824829919.33275673 COLEY, E GLENN JR (COLEY, JOYE L)4208 JESS HACKETT RD CLIMAX NC 27233
7783474995 64099 2.35279599 COOK, TERRY L (COOK, LARRANIE M)3524 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 272487783475851641030.87444068 COOK, TERRY L (COOK, LARRANIE M)3524 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783385806 64051 2.88378097 CRAVEN, JANICE ELAINE 2193 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 2724877834901156411710.1096 CRAVEN, JANICE ELAINE 2193 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7774937583 60789 4.87585006 DAVIS, LARRY N 3533 OLD LIBERTY RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7774911425 60782 6.50891377 DENNY, JEFFREY WAYNE (DENNY, PATRICIA VUNCANNON)2127 DENNY DR RANDLEMAN NC 27317
7783481373 64111 1.69818733 ELLIOTT, HAZEL H 2135 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7773985928 90327 11.84130534 FLEMING, DARRELL SCOTT (FLEMING, SELENA A)2021 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7774928990 60785 13.02970051 FLINCHUM, JIMMY LANDON (FLINCHUM, DAWN S)3554 OLD LIBERTY RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784022861 81522 4.85563251 FLINCHUM, JIMMY LANDON (FLINCHUM, DAWN SHEPPARD)3554 OLD LIBERTY RD C/O FLINCHUM FLOORING FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784419453 64285 3.11960805 GALLIMORE, DANNY RAY PO BOX 115 CEDAR FALLS NC 27230
7783189065 63967 1.473185 GLASS, ANDY CLAY 2375 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783280419 63997 4.14312674 GLASS, ANDY CLAY 2375 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783271654 63993 2.4476174 GLASS, GARRY C 2444 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783273980 63995 3.99469977 GLASS, GARRY C 2444 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783288019 85194 1.757 GLASS, GARRY C 2444 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783381100 64050 1.76826809 GLASS, GARY C 5866 WILLARD RD STALEY NC 27355
7783373985 64044 3.12403529 GLASS, SHIRLEY K 2499 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783379526 64049 2.00980322 HAITHCOCK, SHIRLEY RAY HEIRS 3382 KIDDS MILL RD C/O TAMMY SPORTS FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784405295 64279 0.40634785 HANYOK, RICHARD A PO BOX 1072 RANDLEMAN NC 27317
7774902971 60780 8.57545491 HEDGECOCK, MICHAEL COTY 918 HAVEN AVE REDWOOD CITY CA 94063
7783473531 64097 2.42446198 HUBBARD, SHARON ALLRED (ALLRED, WAYNE PAUL)1581 LAWRENCE HEIGHTS AVE ASHEBORO NC 272057784418294642842.94313137 JIMINEZ, NELSON ALFREDO (JIMINEZ, PATRICIA B)2423 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784133100 64253 20.34186803 JULIAN, DAVID W 3712 OLD LIBERTY RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 2724877841394516425541.14191921 JULIAN, PHILLIP WYATT (JULIAN, JOYCE A)1314 HENLEY COUNTRY RD ASHEBORO NC 27203
7774901225 60779 10.16917584 LOVELL, WALTER LEROY 2543 WICKER LOVELL RD RANDLEMAN NC 273177783175904639470.99170485 MANESS, BRENDA T 2321 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783177666 63948 0.91702113 MANESS, BRENDA T 2321 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 272487783178466639495.54968931 MANESS, BRENDA T 2321 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783171573 84896 13.068 MANESS, BRENDA TROTTER 2321 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783179664 63950 1.04476319 MANESS, DEMPSEY LEE 2354 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784326603 64268 43.94908887 MARSHALL, TIMOTHY W (MARSHALL, KRISTIE L)2732 RALEIGH DR FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7774828141 60740 25.72943525 MIDDLETON, GEORGIA (MIDDLETON, ANDRAE)3288 OLD LIBERTY RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783191027 63970 0.77274376 MILLIKAN, DOROTHY LEE 2030 TIPPETT RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783098432 63925 1.17939997 MILLIKAN, DOROTHY LEE (WILSON, TERESA MILLIKAN)2030 TIPPETT RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783184460 63961 0.93150695 MORTON, WESLEY (MORTON, BRENDA L)P O BOX 61 RAMSEUR NC 27316
Page 208 of 226
PIN REID CALC_ACRES ACCT_NAME ACCT_ADDR ACCT_ADDR2 ACCT_CITY ACCT_STATE ACCT_ZIP
7783184533 63962 0.90815679 MORTON, WESLEY (MORTON, BRENDA L)P O BOX 61 RAMSEUR NC 27316
7784402024 81532 4.444 NEW HORIZON BUILDINGS AND CONCRETE LLC 2299 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783483129 64113 2.72452753 PASCHKE, MICHAEL L (PASCHKE, LINDA J)2121 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783191484 91207 1.39182681 ROBERTSON, MATTHEW W 2032 TIPPETT RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784044470 82992 21.50983873 ROUTH, MICHAEL THOMAS 3631 OLD LIBERTY RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783395547 64054 1.99102071 SMITH, MARGARET H (SMITH, EARL JAMES)2271 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784406339 64280 1.14373302 STUTTS, GARLAND J (STUTTS, ROSA)2323 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783498518 64122 6.15249836 STUTTS, JAMES DANIEL 2256 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7774923950 60784 5.77882823 WALLACE, JACK (WALLACE, SYBIL J)3444 OLD LIBERTY RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7784438105 64286 64.43986761 WARD, JAMES L (WARD, JUDITH ANN)1049 SNOWDON CT ASHEBORO NC 27203
7783184297 63960 0.93053588 WARD, JAMES M (KIDD, CHARLENE)1938 TIPPETT RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783378656 64048 7.81870387 WEST, DENNIS R (WEST, VIRGINIA H)699 ACADEMY ST FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783480688 64110 4.1892566 WILLETT, JOHN ROBERT (WILLETT, DEBORAH C)2151 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 272487783373890640431.02305076 WILLIAMS, JAMES S (WILLIAMS, COURTNEY G)2513 CARL ALLRED RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783492791 64119 1.36064903 WILLIAMSON, ALEXANDER JAMES 2255 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 272487783481467641121.23864298 WILLIAMSON, GEORGINA H (WILLIAMSON, JOHN DARRELL)7339 W FRIENDLY AVE STE F GREENSBORO NC 27410
7783475677 64102 1.20001353 YORK, BOBBY DEE 2055 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 272487783470892640941.32178181 YORK, JAMES RANDALL (YORK, LENA MARIE)2053 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
7783472649 64096 0.88914983 YORK, JAMES RANDALL (YORK, LENA MARIE)2053 WHITES MEMORIAL RD FRANKLINVILLE NC 27248
Page 209 of 226
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION AND FINDING OF REASONABLENESS AND PUBLIC INTEREST
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING BY OLD LIBERTY SOLAR, LLC REZONING REQUEST #2023-00002995
NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD According to North Carolina General Statutes § 160D and the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance, the Randolph County Planning Board finds that the proposed
zoning district map amendments to RIO-CD - Rural Industrial Overlay - Conditional
District as described in the application of Old Liberty Solar, LLC, are consistent with the
Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and the Northeast Randolph County
Growth Management Plan and are reasonable and in the public interest for the following
reasons:
1. Determination of Consistency with the Northeast Randolph County Growth Management Plan. A. Consistency with Northeast Randolph County Growth Management Plan
Map
The Randolph County Growth Management Plan map for the southeast area shows the parcel to be rezoned in an area designated as Secondary Growth Area which generally provides for transitional residential development with a medium density and is unlikely to have access to both public water and sewer within the
foreseeable future. B. Consistency with Growth Policies in the Northeast Randolph County Growth Management Plan
Policy 5.2.a: The County should continue to encourage and promote
environmentally responsible industries within Randolph County. Consistency Analysis: The type of development being proposed for this request is one that is environmentally responsible as shown by the supplied documentation
and the site plans and these types of industries are encouraged in Randolph
County.
Page 210 of 226
Policy 5.5.a: Randolph County recommends that applicants proposing
commercial development show the appropriate suitability of the location as it relates to the character of the surrounding land uses and other factors included in
this plan.
Consistency Analysis: The applicant through their supplied documentation and site plans has shown that the proposed use can be appropriate in this community as it will have a minimum impact once all plantings and buffers have fully grown.
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 parcel in this rezoning
request is subject to the Conditions agreed upon between the property owner and the Planning Board. These Conditions will limit the amount and type of development on the property reducing the impact on adjoining parcels. The proposed use will also increase the tax base and increase economic activity within the County.
Adopted on December 5, 2023.
_____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board
ATTEST _______________________________
Kimberly J. Heinzer, Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board
Page 211 of 226
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA UPON REQUEST BY OLD LIBERTY SOLAR, LLC
WHEREAS, a 388.68-acre parcel, having the Randolph County Parcel Identification
Numbers of 7774905395, 7784000584, 7784112105, 7784215160, 7784412108,
7784306023, 7783295229, 7783187376, 7783288668 AND 7783387254 is currently zoned RA - Residential Agricultural District by Randolph County, North Carolina;
WHEREAS, the Randolph County Planning Board has conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on December 5, 2023, to consider the proposed rezoning on application number
2023-00002995, and all procedural requirements found in North Carolina General Statute 160D and the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance have been satisfied; WHEREAS, the Randolph County Planning Board has found that the proposed rezoning
is consistent with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and the
Randolph County Growth Management Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest, and the Randolph County Planning Board has adopted a separate statement to this effect; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING
BOARD THAT, the property is hereby rezoned to RIO-CD - Rural Industrial Overlay -
Conditional District. The official Randolph County Zoning Map and the Randolph County
Growth Management Plan Map are hereby amended, if necessary, to reflect the same and this Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
Adopted on December 5, 2023.
_____________________________________ Chair, Randolph County Planning Board
ATTEST
_______________________________
Kimberly J. Heinzer, Clerk to the Randolph County Planning Board
Page 212 of 226
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
and the Map Amendment Ordinance, 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.
Page 213 of 226
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.
Page 214 of 226
Technical Review Committee Report Page 1 of 1
RANDOLPH COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative
Hearing on the request to name a new road indicated in red below from the intersection of Old Red Cross Rd and a new State road to the intersection of Shiloh Rd as MICHAEL LEE LN. Randolph County intends to name this road to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens around and working on the megasite facility.
It should be noted that this recommendation is only the opinion of the
Technical Review Committee based on information supplied by the applicant
before the public hearing. Additional information provided at the public
hearing could cause the Planning Board to either accept or reject these
recommendations.
Page 215 of 226
Road Renaming Request: Michael Lee Ln
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
D
E
VI
N
E
Y
R
D
U
S
H
W
Y
4
2
1
O L D R E D C ROSS RD
H
A
R
O
LD
M
E
A
D
O
W
R
D
SHI
L
O
H
R
D
1 inch equals 400 feet
Existing segment of Old
Red Cross Road to be
renamed.
KÈ
Legend
Parcels
Structures
Type
!(Multi-address Structure
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
!(Duplex/Complex
!(Miscellaneous Structures
Roads
Page 216 of 226
Technical Review Committee Report Page 1 of 1
RANDOLPH COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative
Hearing on the request to name a new road indicated in red below from the intersection of Old Red Cross Rd to the intersection of Shiloh Rd as OLD RED CROSS RD. Randolph County intends to name this road to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens around and working on the megasite facility.
It should be noted that this recommendation is only the opinion of the
Technical Review Committee based on information supplied by the applicant
before the public hearing. Additional information provided at the public
hearing could cause the Planning Board to either accept or reject these
recommendations.
Page 217 of 226
Road Naming Request: Old Red Cross Rd
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
US
H
W
Y
4
2
1
OLD RE D CR OSS RD
S
H
I
L
O
H
R
D
1 inch equals 400 feet
New road to be named
Old Red Cross Rd.
KÈ
Legend
Parcels
Structures
Type
!(Multi-address Structure
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
!(Duplex/Complex
!(Miscellaneous Structures
Roads
Page 218 of 226
Technical Review Committee Report Page 1 of 1
RANDOLPH COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative
Hearing on the request to name a new road indicated in red below from the intersection of Julian Airport Rd to the end as PIERCE DENNY RD as requested by the residents along the road. Randolph County intends to name this road to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens around and working on the megasite facility.
It should be noted that this recommendation is only the opinion of the
Technical Review Committee based on information supplied by the applicant
before the public hearing. Additional information provided at the public
hearing could cause the Planning Board to either accept or reject these
recommendations.
Page 219 of 226
Road Naming Request: Pierce Denny Rd
!(
!(
!(
CRUTCHFIELD
F
A
R
M
R
D
J
U
LI
A
N
A
IR
P
O
R
T
R
D
JU
LIA
N
AIR
P
O
RT
R
D
1 inch equals 169 feet
New road to be named
Pierce Denny Rd.
Legend
Parcels
Structures
Type
!(Multi-address Structure
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
!(Duplex/Complex
!(Miscellaneous Structures
Roads
RoadCenterlines
RoadCenterlines
Page 220 of 226
Technical Review Committee Report Page 1 of 1
RANDOLPH COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative
Hearing on the request to name a new road indicated in red below from the intersection of Dogwood Way to the end as CAMELA WAY. Randolph County intends to name this road to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens around and working on the megasite facility.
It should be noted that this recommendation is only the opinion of the
Technical Review Committee based on information supplied by the applicant
before the public hearing. Additional information provided at the public
hearing could cause the Planning Board to either accept or reject these
recommendations.
Page 221 of 226
Road Naming Request: Camela Way
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
US
H
W
Y
4
2
1
JU
LIA
N
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
U
S
H
W
Y
4
2
1
US
H
W
Y
4
2
1
JULIAN
AIRPORT
RD
1 inch equals 229 feet
New road to be named
Camela Way.
Legend
Parcels
Structures
Type
!(Multi-address Structure
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
!(Duplex/Complex
!(Miscellaneous Structures
Roads
Page 222 of 226
Technical Review Committee Report Page 1 of 1
RANDOLPH COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative
Hearing on the request to name a new road indicated in red below going into the west side of the Greensboro – Randolph Megasite as DOGWOOD WAY as requested by Toyota Battery Manufacturing. Randolph County intends to name this road to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens around and working on the megasite facility.
It should be noted that this recommendation is only the opinion of the
Technical Review Committee based on information supplied by the applicant
before the public hearing. Additional information provided at the public
hearing could cause the Planning Board to either accept or reject these
recommendations.
Page 223 of 226
Road Naming Request: Dogwood Way
1 inch equals 400 feet
New road to be named
Dogwood Way.
Legend
Parcels
Structures
Type
!(Multi-address Structure
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
!(Duplex/Complex
!(Miscellaneous Structures
Roads
Page 224 of 226
Technical Review Committee Report Page 1 of 1
RANDOLPH COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified Legislative
Hearing on the request to name a new road indicated in red below going into the south side of the Greensboro – Randolph Megasite as CAROLINA LILY RD as requested by Toyota Battery Manufacturing. Randolph County intends to name this road to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens around and working on the megasite facility.
It should be noted that this recommendation is only the opinion of the
Technical Review Committee based on information supplied by the applicant
before the public hearing. Additional information provided at the public
hearing could cause the Planning Board to either accept or reject these
recommendations.
Page 225 of 226
Road Naming Request: Carolina Lily Rd
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
SHIL
O
H
R
D
U
S
H
W
Y
4
2
1
STARMOUNTRD
H
OO
T
S
H
O
L
L
O
W
R
D
1 inch equals 583 feet
New road to be named
Carolina Lily Rd.
Legend
Parcels
Structures
Type
!(Multi-address Structure
!(Permanent Structure
!(Temporary Structure
!(Duplex/Complex
!(Miscellaneous Structures
Roads
KÈ
Page 226 of 226