The URL can be used to link to this page

02FebruaryCC - Slider Solar Rezoning AppealPlanning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 1 of 22 RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2019 There was a meeting of the Randolph County Planning Board on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, at 6:30 p.m. in the 1909 Historic Courthouse Meeting Room, 145-C Worth St, Asheboro, NC. Chairman Pell called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance. Pell called for a roll call of the members. Jay Dale, Randolph County Planning and Zoning Director, called the roll of the members. • Reid Pell, Chairman, present; • Wayne Joyce, Vice Chairman, present; • John Cable, present; • Keith Slusher, present; • Kemp Davis, present; • Melinda Vaughan, present; • Ralph Modlin, present; • Michael Koehler, Alternate, present; and • Reggie Beeson, Alternate, present. County Attorney, Ben Morgan was also present. Dale informed the Chairman that there was a quorum of the members present for the meeting. Pell called for a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Consent Agenda: • Approval of minutes from November 5, 2019, Planning Board meeting. • Approval of agenda for December 3, 2019, Planning Board meeting. • Approval of the Planning Board meeting schedule for 2020. • Approval of Special Use Order for His Laboring Few Ministries. • Approval of Resolution Changing the Date of the Planning Board meetings. Davis made the motion to approve the consent agenda as presented with Slusher making the second to the motion. The motion was adopted unanimously. Pell called for any old business to be brought before the Board. Hearing none, the Board moved forward with the cases on the agenda. Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 2 of 22 Dale read the Conflict of Interest statement. No Board members indicated a conflict with any of the cases to be considered. Dale then presented the first case of the night along with site plans and pictures of the site and surrounding properties. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2019-00002920 JESSE J McADAMS, Denton, NC, is requesting a Special Use Permit at his residence at 8664 Woods Dairy Rd, Concord Township. Tax ID# 6781748004. The Special Use Permit would specifically allow the applicant to obtain a Federal Firearms License and operate an in-home, internet sales, gunsmithing and small arms manufacturing without an outside firing range. Pell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone was present in favor of the Special Use Permit request. Dale administered the oath to Jesse J McAdams. Jesse James McAdams, 8664 Woods Dairy Rd., Denton, NC said he is a business owner of M&M Welding and Fabrications and is interested in obtaining a federal firearms license which will allow him to conduct small arms manufacturing and gunsmithing at home in the evening. Modlin asked if all of this would be handled online or if there would be a lot of anticipated traffic. McAdams said some of his operation would be handled online but the main goal is for gunsmithing although there would not be a tremendous amount of traffic. Cable asked if there would be a lot of traffic due to shipping. McAdams said he has two driveways that are very accessible and there would not be an impact on the neighbors. Pell asked if there was anyone else present in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion. Davis made the motion to approve the Special Use Permit request on the specified parcel(s) on the Special Use Permit application, based upon the sworn witness testimony that is included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions, and that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety, the use meets all required conditions and specifications, the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property, that the use is a public necessity and the location and character of use, if developed according to the plan(s) as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area and in general conformity with the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance. Slusher made a second to the motion to approve the Special Use Permit request. Pell called the question on the motion to approve the Special Use Permit request for Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 3 of 22 Jesse J McAdams and the motion was adopted unanimously and the Special Use Permit was granted. Dale informed McAdams that his Special Use Permit had been granted by the Randolph County Planning Board. Dale presented the second case of the night along with site plans and pictures of site and surround properties. REZONING REQUEST #2019-00002977 ISAAC D YOW, Asheboro, NC, is requesting that 1.17 acres out of 3.35 acres at 3313 Pisgah Covered Bridge Rd, Cedar Grove Township, be rezoned from RA – Residential Agricultural and RR – Residential Restricted to HC-CD – Highway Commercial – Conditional District. Tax ID# 7647783936. Secondary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow an automotive repair shop in a proposed 30 ft. by 50 ft. building and automotive sales with a 5-car display area as per site plan. Pell opened the public hearing. Isaac Daniel Yow, 3313 Pisgah Covered Bridge Rd., Asheboro, NC said he would like to have automotive repair and 5 car sales lot located at his home. Joyce asked if there would be any outside storage for junk parts, etc. Yow answered no, he said he did not want a junk yard. Cable asked if an outside fence was planned. Yow said there would be a fence installed between the proposed building and neighbor. Davis asked about the location of the building in relation to the property line and if there would be a natural tree line between his property and the neighbor’s. Yow said the existing wooded area would have to be thinned out and he would eventually install a fence for the neighbor’s privacy. Cable asked if the fence would be 6 ft. or 8 ft. and if it would be a privacy type fence. Yow said he would install an 8 ft. privacy fence in the future. He said the neighbor indicated that he is fine without a fence but he will install one out of respect. Cable asked how much noise he would anticipate. Yow said it would be minimal, most of the noise would be contained within the building. Slusher asked about the hours of operation, oil storage and disposal. Yow said he would be open from approximately 4 p.m. until 9 p.m., he would purchase an above-ground oil tank for storage and contract with a waste oil management company that will pick up the used oil, antifreeze etc. Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 4 of 22 Pell asked if there was anyone else present in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion. Joyce made the motion to approve the rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Slusher made a second to the motion to approve the rezoning request. Pell called the question on the motion to approve the rezoning request for Isaac D Yow and the motion was adopted unanimously and the rezoning was granted. Dale informed Yow that his rezoning request had been approved by the Randolph County Planning Board. Dale presented the third case of the night along with site plans and pictures of site and surround properties. REZONING REQUEST #2019-00003049 LANIER, INC., Asheboro, NC, is requesting that 1.84 acres located at the intersection of US Hwy 220 S and Lewis Ctry Dr, Union Township, be rezoned from RA – Residential Agricultural District to CVOM-CD – Conventional Subdivision Overlay Mixed – Conditional District. Tax ID# 7657758130. Primary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow the division of a lot in the Lewis King subdivision into 2 lots for manufactured housing as per site plan. Pell opened the public hearing. Don Lanier, 6048 Sandy Creek Church Rd., Staley, NC, officer for Lanier, Inc., told the Board that would require septic systems, have public water available and both lots meet the minimum lot size and road frontage requirements. Davis asked if the driveway access would be located on Hwy 220 Bus. South. Lanier said he planned to have both driveways located to the south of each lot in lieu of site distance, with the possibility of the corner lot having access from either 220 Bus. South or Lewis Ctry Dr. Pell asked if there was anyone else present in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion. Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 5 of 22 Davis made the motion to approve the rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Cable made a second to the motion to approve the rezoning request. Pell called the question on the motion to approve the rezoning request for Lanier, Inc., and the motion was adopted unanimously and the rezoning was granted. Dale informed Lanier that his rezoning request had been approved by the Randolph County Planning Board. Dale presented the fourth case of the night along with site plans and pictures of site and surround properties. REZONING REQUEST #2019-00003166 SLIDER SOLAR, LLC, Raleigh, NC, is requesting that 40.70 acres, out of 45.79 acres, on Hoover Hill Rd, just past Old Park Rd, Trinity Township, be rezoned from RA – Residential Agricultural to LI-CD – Light Industrial – Conditional District. Tax ID# 7715861937. Primary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a 5-megawatt solar farm as per site plan. Pell opened the public hearing. Tom Terrell, 300 N Green St., Greensboro, Fox Rothschild Attorneys at Law, representing Renewable Energy Services, said he has represented companies in three states designing over a hundred of these facilities and found that Counties which allow these facilities have realized the benefit of increased income without the traffic, noise, and negative environmental impact to others. He said there is nothing to oppose although people do not like change. Terrell said the same property had previously received a recommendation of approval by the Planning Board for a solar farm and due to issues with Duke Energy, the request was not completed. He also said prior to the solar farm request, a request for a subdivision had been made and denied because the neighbors did not want houses because of traffic among other things. Terrell provided a notebook to the Planning Board and discussed the contents including the application; site plan; a copy of a 6-page letter that had been sent to the neighbors including as much information possible regarding solar farms and their proposal, including contact information for the neighbors in case there were any questions or concerns; a section of the ordinance which pertains to solar just to show their request exceeds the Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 6 of 22 requirements of Randolph County; a statement from an electrical engineer who would be speaking to them as well; an operations and a de-commissioning plan; and a report, “Increased North Carolina County Tax Revenue from Solar Development”, which demonstrates the increase of taxable income of solar farms. Matthew Delafield, co-owner and chief operating officer of Renewable Energy Services which also owns Slider Solar, LLC. He said he has been with this project since its conception in 2015 and the initial issues with Duke Energy have been resolved, allowing them to ask for the Board’s approval once again to complete the project. Delafield said the proposed project is a 5 mega-watt solar farm, fairly standard in North Carolina, with fixed tilt panels which means the panels will sit about 20 degrees due south to absorb as much of the summer sun as possible. He said he knows that people would prefer to look at grassy fields rather than a solar farm so they design their projects with as little impact as possible, taking the neighbors into consideration. He said although the ordinance requires a Level 2 buffer, they have planned a Level 3 in addition to leaving as much of the existing vegetation as possible for more protection to the neighbors. He said in addition to the buffers, they have already decided to remove the small section of panels shown in the southeast corner of the site plan. Delafield stated that there would be a bond provided covering the cost of decommissioning the site in order to protect the County as well as the neighbors and the maintenance plan is included in the notebook provided by Terrell. He asked the Board if there were any questions for him. Vaughan asked how long it would take for the proposed buffer to be established. Delafield said it typically takes three to five years and they would be willing to add some type of opaque screening along the road and the portions of property that adjoin residences until the buffer could be established if needed. Vaughan said the greenery would be a more attractive buffer although she would like to suggest a maintenance clause. Delafield said they could increase the frequency of on-site checks for landscape as well. Cable asked Delafield if he could confirm that the posts would be removed as part of the decommissioning plan. Delafield said the post as well as the subterranean conduit would be removed because it is economically motivating to do so; the posts are made out of stainless steel and are quite valuable. Cable asked if the surety bond would cover the full 45-years. Delafield said bonds are typically re-assessed every ten years to make sure the value is still appropriate and the value of the bond is calculated by an independent engineer. Slusher asked Delafield how long he has been in business and how many solar farms he is operating. Delafield said he has been in business since 2013; developing the projects not operating. He said they are in partnership with Sole River Capital which has 85 projects in the Southeast and will be the end owner/operator of the facility. He said he believes they have six facilities in North Carolina which are either operational or under Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 7 of 22 construction and they are willing to abide by any concessions that are made upon approval. Ricky Bevan, 4557 Hoover Hill Rd., Trinity, owner of the proposed property, said he and his wife Kay purchased the 100 acre property in 2008 beside their 32 acre tract of land where they reside to prevent development of the property. He said they put half of the acreage in conservation immediately to prevent it from ever being developed and have tried to find a way to generate income from the remaining property other than chicken houses and housing development that has low impact to the neighbors and is environmentally friendly . He said he is hoping the neighbors will see this proposal as a positive aspect for this property and the guarantee that the land will not be developed by anyone for the next 40 years. Chris Sandifer, 3118 Green Rd., Spring Hope, NC, said he is an electrical engineer, a licensed electrician with unlimited license, has worked for Duke for 30 years and is also a Planning Board Member of Nash County where there have been 37 solar farms approved to date. He said he is a landowner with 100 acres of solar panels as well. He also said he has been around solar for the last 10 years and is very familiar with the installation and removal; the technology is not new, it has been around for at least 50 years, some even 100 years. He said this is a good way to maintain land within a family as tax rates rise and the project design will not endanger the health and safety of any of the residents in Randolph County. Rich Kirkland, 9408 Northfield Ct., Raleigh, NC, Kirkland Appraisals, said he has been a certified general appraiser for 23 years as well as an MAI through the Appraisal Institute and has been asked to speak to the Board regarding the impact analysis included in the notebook provided by Tom Terrell. He said he has looked at approximately 650 solar farms in the past eight years, most of them located in North Carolina. He explained the process for his analysis and stated there is typically no real change in market value for surrounding real estate; if any, slightly on the positive side. He said usually when you find an impact to surrounding property values, it is due to environmentally hazardous material, odor, noise, traffic, stigma with the smallest impact being appearance which is usually associated with cell towers, billboards, and tall buildings which cannot be screened like solar farms. Terrell said Kirkland had concluded their presentation, however, they would be available for any additional questions if needed. Morgan explained that the applicant or his representatives would have the opportunity to speak at the end and answer any questions anyone may have. Pell asked if there was anyone else present that would like to speak in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone present in opposition of the request. Kim Lee, 4474 Old Park Rd., Trinity, NC, said the previous request for development of Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 8 of 22 modular homes on the property was consistent with the area and feels a solar farm is most definitely not consistent and is not in a typical location for one either. She said she appreciated the appraiser coming up and stating what the solar farm would or would not do to property values and would argue that there is a big difference between appraised values and saleability. She said Ricky Bevan said he hoped the neighbors would see this as a positive proposal; speaking on behalf of all the neighbors, they are all in opposition. Lee said she would like to make a correction to a statement made by the attorney that a housing development was approved for this site. She said Bevan purchased the property before a final decision could be made and the request was withdrawn. Lee asked if she would be permitted to speak on behalf of some of the neighbors who were unable to attend; there was a short notice for the hearing, especially with the holidays. Pell asked if she had a list of the people she was referring to. Lee said she didn’t have anything typed up but could give him the names. She said she had spoken directly to the Ruddick, Watkins, Johnson and Routh families which are all in opposition and could not be present for the meeting. Lee said she is not opposed to solar, she believes the facilities serve a purpose and have a place in North Carolina, there are many locations within the County that are suitable for solar farms and the proposed location is not one of them. Lee provided several handouts and photos with the following comments in opposition of the proposal: • She said she has concerns regarding the ownership of a company headquartered out of Singapore, registered as a North Carolina company, not having North Carolinians best interest at heart (Exhibit #1); • Other solar farms in Randolph County are located in less developed areas and are more suitable than the proposed site (Exhibit #2); and their investments were made in a rural, not industrial area, prior to Bevan’s purchase and none of them would have done so if the proposed site had been industrial. (Exhibit #3). She then referenced three objectives from the Randolph County Growth Management Plan: 1. To encourage quality and Sustainable Growth; 2. Provide guidance on rezoning and growth related issues; and 3. Recognize that sustainable economic growth, environmental protection and rural quality of life can be pursued together as mutually supporting public policy goals. Lee said she would argue that a multi-acre industrial site would not meet the standard quality of growth in an area zoned for Residential Agriculture, especially by those that will be most affected by the facility including herself and her adjoining property owners and in regards to number 3, she said she would confidently speak for herself and her neighbors in attendance, as well as those who were unable to attend, that construction of an Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 9 of 22 industrial solar farm would absolutely, concretely, and negatively impact their quality of life. She said based on this information, she feels it is the duty of the Board to deny the request. Lee said she and her husband have made their lifetime investment into this property and asked how it is fair for one man to profit from this type of project at the expense of everyone else around them. Lee expressed concerns regarding the future quality of the water for them as well as their animals due to storm water runoff which feeds into their wells, creeks and ponds, sharing nearly 1400 ft. of property line with the proposed site (Exhibit #4). She also shared concerns of erosion from the runoff and provided photos (Exhibit #5), showing the existing problems and mentioned the potential harm from toxic metals. Lee then provided a handout (Exhibit #6) with information on potential lightning strikes and the damage that could occur to the equipment. She said if the equipment is damaged due to lightning strikes, we face an increased risk of fire, and toxic waste being be leached into soil, impacting the wells, ponds and creeks. She then quoted different articles, one stating there would be huge waste from solar panels in the future because they are hard to recycle; land used for solar farms would no longer be fit for farming; damaged solar farms could potentially become hazardous; and asked who would be responsible for cleanup. She said she read in her research that there is no current plan for the disposal of waste from the 85,000 acres of solar panels weighing 475,000 tons. Lee provided a portion of the Growth Management Plan including economic pie chart (Exhibit #7) and stated there is only 0.02% allocated for Environmental Protection which is nearly zero. She asked how we could feel secure in knowing that Randolph County would have the ability take care of the any environmental impacts from an industrial facility especially if damaged or destroyed. She also expressed concerns for a decommissioning plan when there is no way to predict costs and the requirements 30-40 years from now. Lee said her main concerns are health related and not knowing how a 5 mega-watt solar farm will affect the health of her family and her adjoining neighbors 10, 20 or even 30 years from now. She said although solar companies will imply there is no proof that solar is harmful, there is no definitive evidence that these solar farms are not harmful either. She said a real health study takes 20 years of testing and she will challenge anyone in the solar industry present or across the nation, to produce a single study conducted that proves they don’t pose a health danger. Lee said she and her neighbors are not wealthy although they are 100% committed to combining their energy, efforts and resources as long, far and as hard as necessary to fight it the proposal, all the way to Supreme Court if needed. Cable asked Lee if the proposed Level 3 buffer would it be sufficient aesthetically if installed. Lee said it would not grow tall enough to cover anything for a long time to be sufficient and if she had to prioritize, the aesthetics is at the bottom of her list. She said Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 10 of 22 the health related concerns are priority. Cable said she had mentioned aesthetics multiple times and asked again if the buffer would satisfy her. Lee answered no. Modlin asked Lee about the location of her home and asked if her road was state maintained. Lee described her home in relation to the proposal and said her road is not state maintained; she and her neighbors work on it all of the time. Modlin said he understood her to imply that she would prefer a 40-50 home development rather than solar. Lee said she never said she would like 40-50 homes. She said she wants something consistent with the homes already there, possibly 10-15 acre tracts with compatible homes would be acceptable. She said she is not trying to prevent Bevan from making money off his property, she would just like to see it’s consistent with Residential Agricultural zoning. Davis said several of the Board members are farmers and realize what it takes to pay for 100 acres of land. Vaughan said Bevan mentioned chicken farming and asked Lee if there would be opposition due to the negative impacts associated with it. Lee said she would not raise a concern about a chicken farm because she moved into an agricultural area. Pell asked if there was anyone else present to speak in opposition of the request. Jason Meyer, 4669 Hoover Hill Rd, Trinity, NC, said he has concerns about run off from the property, the potential hazards that may affect his children and he expressed his concern for negative aesthetic changes and the reason they moved to the country to begin with. Kathy Hayes, 4643 Hoover Hill Rd, Trinity, NC, said she just picked up house plans to build her new home and has real concerns of how a solar farm will affect house value. She said if the request is approved, her entire back yard will have the view of solar panels. She also said she has concerns of health related issued caused by solar due to the lack of research. Hayes said she understands Bevan’s need to do something with the land, she just doesn’t feel solar is the right thing. She said if the proposal is approved, she doesn’t feel the proposed buffer is enough. Hayes then said she would also like to speak on behalf of her mom which lives at 4679 Hoover Hill Rd., and is probably most affected because her view will be of nothing but solar panels located approximately 15-20 feet from her drive. Chris Boggs, 4461 Old Park Rd., Trinity, NC, said he has lived there for about 10 years and moved there to be in the country. He expressed his concerns for the possible decrease of property values and the unpleasing view that would be caused by a solar farm. He also talked about the elevation of the property preventing a buffer from actually blocking the view of the solar panels and that a portion of the property shown on site plan would be of no use due to shading. He said the Meyer’s property would literally be right next to the panels where his children play. Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 11 of 22 Pell asked if there was anyone else present to speak in opposition of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if anyone would like to answer some of the concerns from the opposition before closing the public hearing. Terrell said he would like to address some of the questions and concerns that have been mentioned. He said there is a claim that all neighbors are opposed to the request although Mr. Bevan could provide a list of neighbors that support his request. He said that most solar farms are actually located on the road, contrary to what has been stated by the neighbors and said the question to ask them would be if they are speaking about an older solar farm with no requirements or one of the newer farms with three times the buffer requirements. Terrell said it is easy for a real estate agent to make statements of what would or would not potentially affect property values, it is different when an appraiser puts his license on the line with an actual study showing the results. He said in regards to the Growth Management Plan and the quality of life, this project would protect the rural quality of life. He said it is dark at night, unlike homes that have security lights and no noise from traffic. Terrell also said solar panels have been classified as pervious which means there will be little difference in water absorption from storm water, having no additional impact on existing water run off problems. Modlin asked if grass would be sewn, fertilized and maintained at a sod level to help with the water run-off. Terrell answered yes and said there will be an erosion and sedimentation control plan put into place by the County or State as well. Terrell said Cypress Creek has nothing to do with this project and the pine trees and power poles in the area are at much greater risk at getting struck by lightning than the solar panels as mentioned and they are not banned. He said the statement that land used for solar would be ruined for any future farming is incorrect, there are no harmful components of the panels. Terrell said that Bevans is currently paying agricultural tax rates and if approved, Mr. Delafield would be paying significantly higher rates as a solar farm. He said there is no plan for disposing of the panels because they are almost 100% recyclable and highly valuable. Terrell said regarding health issues, there is an electrical magnetic field produced by everything including refrigerators, computers, etc., and the solar farm would produce no more for you than standing in front of a refrigerator. He said the setbacks from the property line to the solar panels is actually 50 ft. which will meet or exceed County requirements. Cable asked if panels would be placed in the shaded areas mentioned by one of the neighbors. Delafield explained that the site plan is a conceptual plan and once the shade analysis is completed, they may find that some of the area(s) on the plan will not actually be utilized as shown; general design practices are to show the maximum footprint possibilities before studies are complete. He said in response to erosion control, it is Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 12 of 22 mandatory for sedimentation and erosion control plans be approved by the Department of Environmental Quality prior to any construction permits. He said the erosion control plans could possibly be beneficial to the adjoining property owners with their existing run- off issues. Davis asked what happens in the areas shown on the site plan that cannot be used. Delafield said the areas will remain as is. Cable asked approximately how large is the shaded area that may not be used that would increase the setback. Delafield said he would guess it to be two to three acres. Vaughan asked if an engineered sediment pond would address the issues of run off as well as any concerns of possible contaminants. Delafield said he is not a civil engineer although he has worked with about 65 plans and the State has requirements in place for addressing those issues. He said as far as contaminants, there have been countless testing done by government agencies that show no signs of contaminants associated with solar farms. Cable asked if there was a possibility of putting measures into place to prevent any run- off prior to beginning project. Delafield said all of the erosion control measures, required by the State, are taken prior to any grading or construction. Cable asked if the existing run-off problems for Ms. Lee would be eliminated if these controls were to be put into place. Delafield said he felt it would take care of the current issues because there are no preventative measures being taken now. He said he feels the minimum requirement would be silk-fencing and probably much more. Bevan told the Board he would be willing to trade land with neighbors to satisfy the property line and obstructed view issues that have been brought up. Pell said those issues would be something that would have to be worked out amongst themselves. Pell asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak regarding the request prior to closing the public hearing. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion among the Board members and a motion. Davis said there have been several solar farms throughout the County, the most recent being located on Gold Hill Rd., and it is located in a very populated area. He asked if they could be given some history on the application(s) for this property. Dale said approximately three years ago, basically the same request was made and recommended by the Board to approve the request as Rural Industrial Overlay and it was pointed out by Ms. Lee that the zoning would be inappropriate based on the Growth Management. He said he originally had hesitation for Light Industrial zoning due to the densely populated area and after reviewing it, decided Light Industrial zoning would be more appropriate for the request. He said the original request never moved forward to the commissioners. He said the process has changed since the original request and the Planning Board now makes the final decision. Davis asked why the request was never heard by the County Commissioners. Delafield said at the time, Duke Energy would not approve the formulated connections. He said over time, those issues have been resolved and they Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 13 of 22 are ready to move forward with the request. Cable asked if they were using the same technology as before. Delafield said it would be exactly the same although they have resolved issues with Duke by coming up with a solution to bypass regulators that once prohibited them to connect, now allowing them to proceed with the request. He said at the time of the first application, Cypress Creek was involved and no longer have an ownership stake in the project. Davis asked if any of the decisions were made due to Bevans changing his mind or plans for the project. Delafield answered no. He said it was a problem on their end and Mr. Bevans has been very patient with them to resolve all of the issues. Modlin said the farm he grew up on has been split by the Interstate 85/74, so he can definitely understand the concerns of the neighbors not wanting their lifestyles to change. He said the day and age we live in, there will be change. He also said no one wants to see land removed from agricultural use any more than him, however, he feels this would probably the best use of the property in minimizing traffic from Hoover Hill Rd. Modlin made the motion to approve the rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Davis made a second to the motion to approve the rezoning request. Pell called the question on the motion to approve the rezoning request for Slider Solar, LLC., and the motion was adopted unanimously and the rezoning was granted. Dale informed Delafield that his rezoning request had been approved by the Randolph County Planning Board. Pell asked for there to be a 10 minute break @ 8:24 p.m., before proceeding to the next case. The Planning Board reconvened at 8:33 p.m. Dale presented the last case of the night along with site plans and pictures of site and surround properties. REZONING REQUEST #2019-00003161 NASH DUGGINS, Asheboro, NC, is requesting that 45.43 acres located on NC Hwy 49S and Old NC Hwy 49, Cedar Grove Township, be rezoned from RA – Residential Agricultural District and RR – Residential Restricted District to CVOE-CD – Conventional Subdivision Overlay Exclusive – Conditional District. Tax ID #7639187958. Secondary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a 22-lot site built subdivision with a minimum house size of 1,750 sq. ft. as per site plan. Property Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 14 of 22 Owner: Terry Charles Vuncannon. Pell opened the public hearing. Nash Duggins, 3092 Old NC Hwy 49, Asheboro, NC, said he has addressed some of the concerns raised by the neighbors during the previous request and feels that he meets all of the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance as well as the Growth Management Plan. He said he feels that it is important to point out that the staff from the Planning Department have made a recommendation to the Planning Board to approve the request. He pointed out some of the changes that have been made to address the issues from the neighbors such as the removal of an additional access point to the residual acreage between two lots; shortened the Farmwood Ln extension, providing access to the residual land by Hwy 49; reduced the number of requested lots; and has added a “no burn” statement on the plat. He said there would be no burning, there would be grinding of stumps and debris from the clearing of the property and everything would be disposed of properly. He said they have even went one step farther to add a statement that agricultural uses cannot come through Farmwood which would currently be allowed without this proposal. He said the acreage calculation mistakes have all been corrected and he doesn’t know of any other technical mistakes that were an issue. He asked the Board if they had any questions for him. Dale said a letter has been provided by NCDOT stating no additional connections would be allowed to NC Hwy 49, requiring any further development to access through Farmwood and an additional letter was issued, dedicating an SR number by NCDOT to show that Farmwood has been taken over by the State. Duggins said he was correct and the assigned number for Farmwood is SR 3304. Davis asked Duggins if Farmwood Ln would end as shown on the current plat. Duggins said it will end for right now with the possibility of future use if additional approvals are granted. He said every other road in Farmwood has a finished cul-de-sac and this road was left with gravel at the end with intensions of future development. Davis asked if the road (at lot 20) will have a cul-de-sac or will it be a dead-end road. Duggins said it will be a dead-end, leaving the possibility for future development just like it is now with enough distance for a turn around. Cable asked if the road extension would provide access to Hwy 49. Duggins answered no. Joyce said NCDOT said they could not enter from NC Hwy 49 if he has understood correctly. Duggins said it would be more dangerous to add an additional entrance to Hwy 49. He also said they will not be required to do anything additional to the existing entrance of the development. Joyce said when you look at Farmwood versus Oak Hollow, there may be 3 times more houses located in Oak Hollow with only one entrance and there have been no issues. Duggins said that is correct. He said he thought there were over 100 lots in Oak Hollow and Farmwood currently has approximately 47 and if approved, he would be adding 22 lots. Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 15 of 22 Pell asked if there was anyone else present to speak in favor of the request. Hearing none, Pell asked if there was anyone present to speak in opposition of the request. Lou Jones, 1487 Allen Ct, Asheboro, NC, thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. He said first of all, since the letter regarding no additional entrances has been mentioned, he would address that first. He said NCDOT was asked about entrances for this proposal as an extension of 22 lots in Farmwood rather than developing a separate parcel as requested by the neighbors due to the 1,750 sq. ft. house size not being compatible with the existing homes in Farmwood, particularly with the homes in Phase 3. He said NCDOT was never asked to consider an entrance to develop the 200 acres as a separate parcel so it cannot be concluded that the only way to develop this property is through Farmwood. Jones said he spoke to Mr. Charles Vuncannon years ago regarding the future of Farmwood and he was told that Farmwood Ln was left purposefully with a dead end, providing the possibility of future development and stated he would require the same deed restrictions that were currently placed on Farmwood. Jones said in regards to the changes that have been made, he saw the concession that had been made for agricultural access which he appreciates. He said he would like to point out that the other changes made by Duggins’ proposal are corrections, not concessions, and should not be implied as such. He said the house size proposed is still 1,750 square feet and feels it is not compatible with the existing housing. He said compatibility, was upheld by the Board on September 10, 2019. He said the refusal to change the square footage to be in line with the existing homes in Farmwood, particularly Phase 3, was noted three times in the written Findings of the Board’s decision. Jones said Farmwood homes average over 2,400 square feet although the minimum required square footage is 2,000. He said the proposed house size is 650 square feet (27%) smaller than average and that number becomes important. He said the County Commissioners determined there had been a level of change exceeding 10 percent, which they defined as “significant”. He asked the Planning Board to consider the same definition be considered when deciding that the proposed homes are substantially smaller than the existing homes in Farmwood. He said there are three homes in the 1,500 square foot range with a total of eight homes less than 2,000 square feet within Phase 1 and Phase 2 although the average home within the entire community is 2,400 square feet. He said the average house size in Phase 3 is 2,579 square feet, making the proposed house size 829 square feet (32%), smaller. He said the large variance of house size constitutes a threat to the value of the existing homes and he doesn’t understand why the request is before the Board again when there have been no changes made by the Developer to increase the house size. He said it was a major issue in the findings by the Board previously. Jones said although the agricultural access issue has been resolved and the neighbors do not want anyone to be able to access the additional land through Farmwood. He said Farmwood is a cul-de-sac community and Farmwood Ln should become a dead end street for future Farmwood lots only or terminated as a cul-de-sac. He said they don’t Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 16 of 22 want someone to buy the additional land, develop mobile home parks and access the property through Farmwood without restrictions placed on it. Jones said Farmwood is currently a custom home subdivision and the minutes from the previous meeting referenced the possibility of building “spec” homes to start the development; builder’s would not want to build on a lot requiring homes to be larger than 1,750 square feet due to costs of construction. He said they want to maintain the characteristic of a custom built home, cul-de-sac neighborhood picked deliberately by the neighbors for those reasons. Jones said current Farmwood homes have a total value assessed by the Tax Department as $13,743,000.00, generating tax revenue for the County at a little over $105,000.00. He said if the potential decrease of home values are no more than 10%, it would be a decrease in $1.3 million tax value which needs to be considered by the Board. He asked those in the audience in support of his arguments to stand up. There were 24 citizens who stood in support. Jones thanked the Board for their time and asked them to deny the request. He said there has not been enough change to warrant approval and it does not meet the requirements to be compatible to the existing neighborhood. Ann Shaw, 1555 McDaniel Dr., Asheboro, NC said there is no benefit to current Farmwood residents with the rezoning proposal. She said there has been no consideration for the concerns of the residents by Mr. Duggins since the last meeting on September 10, 2019; he is still refusing to increase the minimum house size to be compatible with the adjoining property; there is still uncertainty of what will happen with the remaining portion of the 200 acres; he is still vague about access; and is adamant about using Farmwood’s existing access although it has been requested he obtain a new access. Shaw said in regards to the letter from NCDOT, she was told by a Division Engineer that a separate entrance could be considered at the request of the Randolph County Commissioners and she didn’t feel that NCDOT would force another development to use Farmwood for access if it was a separate development from Farmwood as they have requested. Shaw said after years of construction, residents of Farmwood can finally see a possible end to the construction phase and they do not want see the heavy trucks and equipment funneled through Farmwood for a new section for years to follow. She said Duggins will be exposing their neighborhood to over 200 acres of unknown development and she has still not heard definitively that extending Farmwood Ln would not eventually create a link between new NC Hwy 49 to Old Hwy 49. Shaw said kids ride their bikes throughout the neighborhood with and without their parents and the traffic from clearing the property of debris will become a safety issue. She said Duggins’ intensions may be good but after seeing so many errors and inaccurate Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 17 of 22 statements made from the beginning of the process, there is no confidence in Duggins’ ability to create anything that is compatible to Farmwood as it currently exists, with what appears to be his first attempt at real estate development. She said she doesn’t want their homes and investments to be diminished by being part of his experiment. Shaw told the Board that Duggins had shared his resume with the neighbors at the Neighborhood Information meeting to give them an idea of what he has developed and asked if she could share copies with the Board. Pell asked her to give a copy to the Clerk for the record. She said after reviewing the resume, there is nothing that shows Duggins has had experience in subdivision development in the past, she said Duggins has still not made any concessions because of the cost to him so he insists on using their neighborhood, their resources and access points at their expense. She said she would say again, “There is absolutely no benefit to current Farmwood residents with this rezoning proposal”. She said this proposal will only cause problems for the residents which will be avoided by keeping his development separate and apart from Farmwood. Pamela Freeman, 2248 Farmwood Ln., Asheboro, NC, read from a prepared letter written to the Board and informing them that there had been steps taken to reinstate deed restrictions of Farmwood and the residents of Farmwood are united. She said one of the ongoing concerns from the residents is what will happen with the remaining portion of the 200 acres of which they have never been given a clear answer. Freeman said she had heard there would be 53, one-half acre lots developed and wondered if that was the reason for the 1,750 square feet. She asked who would be responsible for the decreased value of her home, given the proposed square footage is much less than the average home in Farmwood. She said there has already been costs to them for repairs needed after road work was completed. She mentioned the original owner, Charlie Vuncannon and the care he had for the residents of Farmwood but his son just wants to sell the property and cut all ties from Farmwood. Freeman discussed the access off NC Hwy 49 and the costs involved being too cost prohibitive for anyone leads them to believe that by extending Farmwood Ln, it will eventually become access to the rest of the property. She also pointed out that the names for the owner of the property, applicant for the request and the name on the restrictive covenants were all different and asked if that did not warrant the request to be null and void. Freeman discussed the changes Duggins made for the most recent proposed plat with the lot and access changes and said there have been no changes to the minimum square footage. She said the final statement of the Reasonableness and Public Interest Analysis, provided to the Planning Board at the September 10, 2019, meeting stated “that the request is not reasonable and in the public interest for all of the reasons stated above; the applicant refused repeated requests by area residents and the Randolph County Board to increase the minimum house size to be more compatible with the existing portions of Farmwood.” She said if the proposal was not reasonable at the September 10, 2019, meeting, then it is still not reasonable. Freeman also mentioned Duggins’ resume which he provided to the area residents at Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 18 of 22 their request. She told the Board several things she found in her research indicating that Duggins is not currently a licensed general contractor. Morgan told Freeman that Duggins’ general contractor’s license is not relevant to the request for development. Freeman said she was pointing out her findings to show Duggins’ character. Morgan told Freeman the Board did make decisions for development on one’s character. Wade Dawkins, 1501 Allen Ct., Asheboro, NC, said he would like to read from a statement emailed to the Planning Department (copies were given to the Board prior to the meeting), written by Ron, Julie and their son, Seth Parrish who also reside in Farmwood. He said they could not be present for the meeting because they were currently out of the country. The letter stated that they had invested their lifetime of savings into their property for the up-scale nature of the neighborhood, quietness and the streets that were used only by the residents. The letter also stated their concerns for the decrease in value to their homes if smaller homes were allowed; the proposal would not be keeping with the standards of compatibility, comparability or similarity with the immediately surrounding neighborhoods of Farmwood or Oak Hollow; and their investments would be stolen from them if this proposal were to be allowed. The letter stated that the seller and developer of the proposal wanted to use the name and reputation of the Farmwood Subdivision to make it more attractive to potential buyers; if the proposal is to be called Farmwood it should have the same standard and current restrictions equal to the average square foot of the present homes. There was a statement thanking the Board for the sincere thoughts and deliberation they would put forward in serving everyone with wise and fair decisions. The letter followed up by asking everyone present at the meeting in agreement, to stand in support. There were 23 citizens who stood in agreement. Wayne Simpson, 1524 Allen Ct., Asheboro, NC, said he is not asking for development not to take place, he just wants it to meet the same standards as Phase 3 which is 2,000 square feet for the minimum house size. He said all of the homes in that section are larger than the minimum and most are custom built homes. He said if the same standards are not followed, he would ask that it not be part of Farmwood but rather a separate subdivision with its own entrance and at a minimum, having its own construction entrance to prevent construction traffic passing through Farmwood. He said they are putting their trust in the Board to make the right decision. Charles Scott Morgan, 1530 Allen Ct., Asheboro, NC said he would address one of the arguments that he felt Duggins would have regarding the square footage of his home. He said his home is approximately 1,900 square feet on the bottom level with the potential of being over 3,000 square feet if the upstairs were to be finished. He also said he would like to point out that Mr. Charles Vuncannon, the original developer of Farmwood, was great about checking on the subdivision to make sure it was maintained as required. Morgan then referenced another subdivision on the mountain, stating that the house sizes continue to increase instead of decrease, causing home values to rise. He said he would like to see the same for his subdivision, protecting their investments. Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 19 of 22 Pell asked if there was anyone else present that would like to speak in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Pell asked Duggins if he would like to address any of the comments or questions regarding the request. Duggins said Morgan’s house was not one of the two houses he was going to point out but appreciated him doing so. He said 1525 and 1460 Allen Ct. are 1,995 and 1,911 square feet per tax records within a phase that should be a minimum of 2,000 square feet and were both spec homes which they seem to have a problem with and should not be an issue. Duggins then addressed several of the “character” statements made against him before moving forward with issues and questions regarding the proposal. Duggins said he does not know what will be done with the remaining portion of 200 acres at this time but it will have to come before the Board again for any future development request, a mobile home park would not be allowed without rezoning either. He said up to 3 mobile homes could be placed on the property as it is without rezoning. Duggins said he would not agree with Shaw because he has made concessions and corrections and pointed out that Shaw along with two others live in the phases of 1,500 square foot minimum. He said he does not understand how she can complain about the 2,000 square foot minimum. Duggins said he did not know how many times he had already answered the question regarding the thoroughfare to NC Hwy 49 but no one in their right mind would pay to install a road across the creek--it is unaffordable. Duggins said regarding construction traffic, Shaw has lived through two other phases of the development and this would be no different. Duggins then said the personal attacks started on him at the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) and he made the comment that he did not have to be there. He said he would like make it clear for the record, he asked to have the second NIM to try and clear up any additional questions and make clarifications to the changes that had been made since the first application and meeting. Duggins said the residents have signed to reinstate two sets of restrictive covenants, one set allowing the 1,500 and the other set for 2,000 square feet minimum house size. As far as the additional entrance, it is cost prohibitive whether anyone wants to hear that or not. Duggins then said the Parrish family has complained about the square foot value and stated they would have never bought a home in Farmwood if they thought smaller homes could be built in the already well-established neighborhood when they purchased in a Phase that required only 1,500 square feet to begin with. Duggins said several people have stated that he is not showing good faith or willing to negotiate which he will argue. He said the original proposal asked for much less square Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 20 of 22 footage, starting at 1,400 (which he said was an actually an error), then increasing to 1,500 then 1,700 and now 1,750. He said at some point you have to stop and make a business decision. He said he should not be asked to spend thousands of dollars to build a construction entrance that is not normal or required, it is not good business. Duggins said, in reference to Morgan’s statements, there are much smaller homes built next to larger homes on the Mountain as well and it has not affected the value of their homes; he said he feels 250 square feet will not affect the value of existing homes in Farmwood either. Cable asked what changes have been made since the last Planning Board meeting. Duggins said 3 lots were dropped, decreased the extension on Farmwood Ln., added a flag lot on the back side to eliminate and access point that had been a concern and changed the overall acreage that was shown on the site plans. Cable asked if he had changed from burning to grinding to satisfy people as well. Duggins said the notes on the plat had been changed although he had not realized it was there to begin with, it was an oversight of his and he never had intensions to burn. Cable asked if there is a letter provided by NCDOT that states he cannot have a separate entrance. Duggins answered yes and provided him with a copy. Cable said he understands it is not cost effective for anyone to come off NC Hwy 49 and cross the creek for development and asked if that was correct. Dale said he had asked Mack Summey, an engineer about that earlier and Summey told him it would basically require some kind of a bridge to cross. Davis asked if the residual 200 acres would be landlocked in any way. Duggins answered no. He said there is access to Old Hwy 49 and new NC Hwy 49. Davis asked if developing any of the remaining property would require crossing wetlands and creeks from old Hwy 49. Duggins said there is access to this property near a gravel road (McDaniel Rd), beside Silos. Cable asked how much property was on that side of the creek off old Hwy 49. (It was not known). Duggins said he would also like to mention that the rumor of 53 half-acre lots has never been mentioned by him and regulations would not allow that small of a lot size. He said he had only mentioned the possibility of large tracts of land at this point. Morgan reminded the Board that future lot development would require another public hearing. Vaughan said she is from the Farmer community and they have a lot of pride in the neighborhood and the adjoining neighborhood creating a desirable community. She asked how hard it would be to raise the square footage to 2000 square feet even though she felt people would probably build larger homes. She said she felt it would be a sense of security for the existing residents even though 1750 square feet is the marketable number right now. Duggins said the cost of construction prohibits the commitment and he felt the 1,750 square feet meets the middle off the current 1,500 and 2,000 square foot minimums currently there and agrees that people will build what they choose just like the existing residents have done, most of them being larger than required. Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 21 of 22 Vaughan asked if he had set pricing for the lots based on his studies. Duggins said the prices have not been announced publicly although he feels the cost of the lots will not be under $30,000.00, which will drive the type of housing as well. Pell asked if anyone else had any questions. Hearing none, Pell closed the public hearing for discussion and a motion. Joyce said he has sit through a lot of housing development requests in the past and this must be the most emotional one he has ever sat through. He said he has looked through the Randolph County Growth Management Plan and has found nothing by law that prohibits the approval of the request from the Board. Slusher said the biggest difference for him from the last meeting and this one is not the square footage, it was the mistakes which were questioned as intentional and feels they have all been addressed. Joyce agreed. Cable said he agrees with the previous statement by Slusher. He said Duggins alluded to the mistakes made and he feels the Board has tried to hear all sides and proceed with caution. He said there were a lot of unanswered questions at the last meeting causing him to deny the request. He said he lives on a 5 acre tract of land in a development that requires a minimum of 2,000 to 2,200 square foot house size and he thinks the smallest house is 4,200 square feet. He said builders will build based on supply and demand. Cable said there are some fence mending required from both sides, which the Board cannot fix, but they can ask for all involved to good stewards and neighbors. He said he had originally thought Duggins should be willing to create a new entrance on NC Hwy 49 and after reading the email from NCDOT, it appears they don’t want Duggins to have an additional entrance. Cable then thanked everyone for their passion, for being civil and for remembering that we are all good Randolph County residents. Joyce made the motion to approve the rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan. Slusher made a second to the motion to approve the rezoning request. Pell called the question on the motion to approve the rezoning request for Nash Duggins and the motion was adopted unanimously and the rezoning was granted. Dale informed Duggins that his rezoning request had been approved by the Randolph County Planning Board. Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 22 of 22 Having no further business, Pell called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Cable made the motion to adjourn with Slusher making the second to the motion. Pell called the question on the motion to adjourn and the motion was adopted unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10: 06 p.m. with 47 citizens present. RANDOLPH COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA __________________________ Planning Director __________________________ _______________________________ Clerk to the Board Date Minutes approved on January 7, 2019 Slider Solar, LLC Rezoning Evidence Applicant’s Exhibit Application for Solar Energy Facility Randolph County Planning Board December 4,2019 Applicant: Renewable Energy Services Location: 4783 Hoover Hill Road Parcel #: 771586L937 Acreage: 45.7900 Proposed District: LI-CD (Solar Energy Facility) Property Owners: Ricky and Kay Bevan -q _-4. r \,t __j \ b.* F-- ITI If I I I I Application COUNTY OF RANDOLPH Department of Planning & Zoning 204 E Academy St - PO Box771- Asheboro NC 27204-0771 APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Date: 10/31/20'19 Parcel #:7715861937 Applicant: RlCl<Y & KAY BEVAN Address:4857 HOOVER lllll RD City, St. Zip: TRINITY, NC 27370 Owner: BEVAN, RICKY LANE Address:4857 HOOVER HILL RD City, St. Zip: TRINITY, NC 27370 CONTACT NAME; TON1 DELAFIELD ,,,f,b Permit #: 201 9-000031 66 Permit Type Code: PZ 2 Location Address: 4783 HOOVER HILL RD TRINITY, NC 27370 ContactPhone: 919723-7473 PARCEL lNFORMATION Lot num r'. Acreage: 46.2600 Subdivsion: Township: 19 - TRINITY ZONING INFORMATION ning istrict 1 Zoning District 2: Zoning District 3: Growth Management Areas: Specialty District: Watershed Name: Class A Flood Plain On ProP? Flood Plane Map #: DENTIAL PRIMARY GROWTH AREA N/A LAKE REESE WATERSHED NO Flood Plain Map #: 371077O400J DISTRI REQUESTED CHANGE: Area To Be Rezoned: Lot Size lndicator: Proposed Zoning District Proposed Use(S): 45.7900 ACRE(S) LI-CD-LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONAL DISTRICT REZONING FROM RA TO LI TO ALLOW FOR A SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY. Condition(S) Total Permit Fee: $100.00 coMMENTS; PROPOSED SOLAR FARM - REZONING RA TO Ll TO ALLOW FOR A SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY The undersigned ownerlapplicant do hereby make application for a PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE as allowed by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance Eric Martin Authorized County Official Si - LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER. Asheboro: (336) 31 8-6565 - Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov\-/ APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page: 1 of 1 Site Plan ffiffi lu oo(,i3l8A8 AOU3I3 UY1(,8 crl'uv'to8 ultg'Is i IF 3,Io ao F 3!,*l{lr i lg *rrli r-l! lLnI; LU !! ii l! .-, !! Lr IIdt 1EE1t!;! t:,8 EEli5E II!r Qnla I' iiI: fi .lFI cl 'l aEl EEIsl d=l ETI za " IE,.t !liiii: Ei6{n!ts ;fiiII! ilillili ;5;E!i:e Eiii;iii iiEEtiiil!fi:iil F:13!Pi E i: ir l;!ii riiii g:EE: :ttli iIE!i!!ir: li!:!r Ea#Hi EEiE6;! 6 !IsF ilEii:r:t rd? lip:;E ;liiEi !l9tt: lila!iE:r! IEi!!:ii E::a rlg6 lq I: j ii tE EI.t EE .3 Eral Eqil ,a E! i!irII r8. Et!! E!?: !r t;rl i! EE fuE!B: lEi 6rEt!! !:E s!3 ir!rli iiE A]<trl >iF2t(, >1 E- iiEi!ri* q:;t !!iE !t!l;!6p ii!: itaE lEl;ITIi [3eii:!E E I 2iI ?! It ld :liBt; ttIEt! ftIlrllt!! .e l! iirEt ,ligEa iiiiiit. t rl8 ;E!;;; ;ili;E EEdv!l i ! iEtE: iEiiHiE iIEE:!E !lti:5; t5lu Eq ;iir;rlii!Ei! ,ffiilfillliii Illiiiifi!iffr rAsil, I t', 1 ,l t., tt\5,I!i€ Aa239EI 1r:iff,,#, 9t ET I EIII ,I at ilid El 9t f, fl I It aI a di clL2tlrloUJ 0- 'Go i'r. t zti' /\ ,LI 'ta Pi \ ,l -ti 6 t--- ||: i a aI H lr I 5,i $ n I I III I I Ii uJEJ<lFi <tFI a d-1 a AE iu \ e5 E' ta2'$ i; t" !za7t9 I F i/ I-L -lt I I IH I I :INlrN:N'TI€ u \5li) , E $ ! n 3 t I t I E a t i E I Jt I i I 6 f;! 37 a B!I 6 al9gro3trgfgdtl vuo:' fioE E ( p t i= i,l Eltltr tEt t r.-,-ir _ Ji, : I EI t! i t IiII I : 6 !t E ,I PtI Letters to Neighbors E Fox Rothschild,,' ATTORNEYS AT LAW \-'l 300 N. Greene Street, Suite 1400 Greensboro, NC 27401 T: 336.378.5200 F: 336.378.5400 www.f oxrothschild.com TOM TERRELI, Direct No: 336.378.5412 Email : TTenell@Foxrothschild.conr November 19,2019 Dear Neighbor: I represent Renewable Energy Services, a North Carolina-based company that is planning to construct a solar facility on Ricky and Kay Bevan's property at 4857 Hoover Hill Road. An enclosed map shows you the tract proposed. Because you own property abutting or near the proposed facility, I would like you to have full information and the names of individuals who can answer your questions. We will meet with your personally or communicate by phone or email, whichever is easier. '['om Terrell : 3 3 6-3 78 -5 412 (direct number) or tterrell@fbxrothschild.com Matt Delafield (9i9) 637-1139 (direct number) or rndelafieldf@r-e-services.com Below are answers to several frequently asked questions that might be helptul or of interest. What is t'solar energy"? Solar energy is simply the conversion of sunlight into useable energy in the form of electricity. It is one of the many types of "renewable energy" that does not use fossil fuels. Why solar energy? From an environmental perspective, it is just common sense to replace polluting energy from non-renewable sources with renewable clean energy. From an economic perspective, it makes sense to replace more costly production methods with methods that ultimately lower the total energy costs for consumers. And from a land use perspective, cities and counties across the country are realizing that solar farms have far less impact on neighbors than a subdivision or other types ofuse. Are all utilify companies investing in solar? All major utility companies in the United States generate portions of their energy tiom "clean" sources that do not create toxic by-products (e.g. coal ash and air emissions). Sunlight is A Pennsytvanra Limited Liability partnershrp Calrfornia Colorado Delaware District of Columbia FloridaNevada New Jersey New York Norih Carolina pennsylvania Georgia lllinois Minnesota South Carolina Texas Washington \-/ one of those clean sources. Duke Energy owns a variety of solar facilities, including a 450-acre facility in Union county. Additionally,large companies such as Amazon, Google, and Apple use solar energy to provide energy to their server facilities, and many other large companies like Walmart and IKEA have joined the "Renewable Energy 100" that use roof-mounted solar on some of their facilities, among other solar technology. How does a solar facilify work? A more common (and colloquial) term for a solar facility is "solar farm." Solar farms use decades-old technology to convert a sun's rays into useable electricity that can power homes, businesses, churches, and schools. Generally described, solar "panels" are placed onto steel frames (called "racks") that are driven into the ground so that very little land is disturbed. These panels passively receive the sun's light, which in tum causes electrons in the solar cells to move and collide. This movement generates a direct current that is converted at the site to alternating current before being transferred to the electrical grid. There are no fumes, emissions, or by-products. Are solar farms common in North Carolina? Yes. The first phase of solar farms placed most of them in the eastern part of the state, but the current trend is for Piedmont area development. Where will the energy go? The energy will be purchased by Duke Energy through what is called a "power purchase agreement" with a subsidiary of Renewable Energy Services called Slider Solar. Duke Energy will redistribute the electricity to its customers, likely in the Trinity area of Randolph County. Why is a subsidiary involved? Practically all forms of real estate development (e.g. subdivisions, shopping centers, cell towers, and industrial parks) are owned by site-specific LLCs to meet standard lending requirements. Will I be able to see the solar farm? Only temporarily. The facility is being designed to leave ample room to plant thick evergreen buffers along Hoover Hill Road. The buffers are designed to block views. The Randolph County Zoning Ordinance calls this a "Level 3 Buffer," which is described as follows: "A Level 3 Buffer will be 35' wide consisting of the following: two (2) staggered rows of fast growing evergreen trees evenly spaced ten (10) feet apart. . . One (l) row of mixed vegetation including evergreen trees and shrubs, canopy trees and under story trees . . . The following plant heights shall be required at time of planting: Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of four (4) feet . . . evergreen shrubs shall be a minimum of three (3) gallon size. The enclosed plan shows the location of the buffers. This is the same plan that Renewable \-, Energy Services will ask to be approved. Additionally, unlike houses, it will be completely dark at night. Are there other design elements a neighbor should know about? Yes. Solar farms are designed to have minimal impact on both the host tract and surrounding tracts. The County requires this facility to retain 30% open space on the parcel where it is to be built. Additionally the project's design will be approved by the NC Department of Environmental Quality to ensure all stormwater will be properly contained. Are solar farms safe? Yes. Despite a variety of misinformation on the intemet, solar farms are safe. The EPA has extensively tested solar panels and concludes that they are completely safe. Another common question asked relates to the electromagnetic fields, or EMF, generated by the solar farm inverters. The amount of EMF exposure to a person on the outside of a solar farm is less than the person receives when inside his or her own home. For more information on this topic, the N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center at N.C. State has numerous resources. One such paper can be found at https://content.ces.ncsu.edu./health-and- safety-impacts-o f-so lar-photovoltaics. Do solar farms produce noise, traffic, Iight or odor? No. The inverters are the only components of a solar farm that produce a noise. When standing directly next to one you might hear a hum similar to an air conditioner. From outside the facility they are impossible to hear over ambient noises created by wind, birds, background traffic, etc. The average solar farm generates one or two vehicle trips per month, as contrasted with an average single family home that generates 9.52 vehicle trips per day (lnstitute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th ed.). One home (or a group of new homes, such as a new subdivision), on the other hand, would generate traffic and suburban noise in the form of lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and common noises created whenever people gather. Solar farms do not emit any light and only operate during the day. There will be no lighting at night. Additionally, the facility produces no odors. In other words, you won't be able to hear it, smell it, see it, or be aware of traffic generation. Do solar farms harm property values? Literally hundreds of studies have been done in numerous states (including North Carolina) by certified and licensed appraisers using industry standard methods. Many of the studies have been audited by independent appraisers. Practically all ofthe studies have used the standard paired sales analysis that uses actual market data to compare the sales price of a home adjoining a solar farm with sale of a comparable home in the same general areaand time period that does not adjoin a solar farm. These studies have concluded that solar farms possess none of the characteristics that typically would cause harm to adjoining property values, such as excessive traffrc generation, noise, odor, dust, or environmental hazards - thus explaining why adjoining properties are not devalued. A solar farm might be different from what a neighbor is used to, but "difference" itself is not a factor that harms property values. How long do solar farms last? A standard lease is 30 to 40 years. Once the solar farm is no longer needed, it can be easily decommissioned by lifting out the panels and pulling up the steel posts holding the frames, and the land can be retumed to its natural state. In other words, unlike a subdivision, the land can easily be returned to agriculture. Virtually all parts of the facility are recyclable. Additionally, the project will be posting a decommissioning security with Randolph County to ensure it is removed at the end of its useful life. Does the community receive taxes from a solar farm? Yes. Although there are reductions in the amount of personal and property taxes paid for solar facilities, local governments receive much more tax revenue from a solar facility than land under agricultural or forest tax exemptions. A recent 2019 study looked at tax data from 50 North Carolina counties and tabulated the tax income to the county for the solar farm parcels in the year before it was converted, and the tax income to the county in the year after conversion to a solar farm. The average increase in taxable income to the county was 2,000 percent from these parcels. Randolph County was listed as 35th in solar power generated. Will this be a large facility? Large is a relative term, but the average facilities being built today are more than ten times larger than what is proposed on this relatively small tract. Is this the same facility proposed in2016? Essentially, but with a key difference. You may remember this project from when it was originally presented to the Planning Board in September of 2016. After the Planning Board voted to support the project, Duke Energy changed its technical requirements for connecting to its utility lines. Over the past two years, RES has worked with Duke Energy to create an altemative solution to the technical rules it had imposed statewide. Now that the connection issue is resolved, RES must go through local approval again. The key difference relates to the proposed vegetative buffer. In 2016, RES proposed a "Level 2 Buffer" which required only a single row of evergreens along the road frontage. The current buffer is approximately three times thicker. What is the approval process involved? 6* The Randolph County Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on December 3'd, and an official notice either has been mailed to you or will be mailed. You have a right to attend and to speak. In the meantime, please let us know if you have questions or concems. Our offer to meet with you is sincere. Although I have represented numerous solar energy companies in the siting of more than 100 facilities in North and South Carolina and Virginia, I pass this site almost every day driving to my family's farm farther down Hoover Hill Road. This part of Randolph County has been my home for 57 years, and I'm excited that land nearby is being used in ways that benefit both the environment and Randolph County. Sincerely Thomas E. Terrell, Jr. TET/ths I l ! I { ,l I ,8qi /a\(ry:ll lP IBtol^lml-t<t>tl l9 l" F F BHhrti IE E Eil EIE iE !l!, ll Ti!n rI tl il I 3 I a I I r i B a a t H I .: ILa I=EIEto Hglor lge t t2!li r iffffiii{iiiii#iliff ffiiili#iiiHiiHIF rTm lt i; : lrl ei ri,niri "'!lllliiii r ffli,ffli tlil ;Ii! Effilq #ff ,6t!,i j 3lI 3 li lot>l{ lDLIt>! IE larlt fl- I Il Ir III, t!i-o-E Gtlilt2iE, /-Ii t I 6 i!berit, 4 y'+\ :.; tha-3r: a 89,tf? 6.! :t- 9' !H!; se-I#ridil tr!t iiiiful' ii;E E;;i E!5i irt-r!!5 ii!!'! ffil#H,u iiilifili irrli:e! 67 :E!r5r!t a,t, F! TE, tii T : d ! a tao, aIo .T rL' I q + Aw !]gf!SLDER 8OLAF, LLC SOLAF EXENOY SYsTEI o oo I pLAIt DRII|XOS #Hft , ;i "it t I ;|: I i !I i I I ' F EI I II I! Ea t II i I It i I a Iq I I I ; I II I : Ig E5I T i ! a I! Bevan, Ricky Lane (Bevan, Kay S)- Hoover Hill Rd . NC 27370 Kersey, Jeffrey W 4365 Old Park Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Watkins, Jason (Watkins, Carrie) 4363 Old Park Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Bevan, Ricky Lane (Bevan, Kay S) 4857 Hoover Hill Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Meyer, Jason R (Meyer, Kimberly C) 4669 Hoover Hill Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Welborn, Ruth Wall 4679 Hoover Hill Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Ruth, Langley M (Ruth Denise) Po Box 78 Trinity, NC 27370 Bevan, Ricky Lane (Bevan, Kay S) 4857 Hoover Hill Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Lee, George W ll (Lee, Kimberly W) 4474 Old Park Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Hedrick, Rodney Allen 4678 Hoover Hill Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Hill, Emory C 4945 Hoover Hill Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Johnson, Darrell (Johnson, Sharon) 4445 Old Park Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Allnutt, Patricia W (Allred, Janice \A/) - Additional Owners 1002 Springwood Ln Archdale, NC 27263 Stanley, Charles (Stanley, Mary Ruth) P O Box 716 Trinity, NC 27370 Carrillo, Luzmila 4712 Hoover Hill Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Guinn, Brian 4710 Hoover Hill Road Trinity, NC 27370 Lee, George W ll (Lee, Kimberly W) 4474 Old Park Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Mooney, Margie S 4662 Hoover Hill Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Johnson, Darrell E (Johnson, Sharon G) 4445 Old Park Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Evans, Ronald D Sr (Evans, Pauline A) 4714 Hoover Hill Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Johnson, Darrell E (Johnson, Sharon) 4445 Old Park Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Walker, Nancy W 4804 Hoover Hill Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Hayes, Kathy (Barnes, Randall Jay) 4643 Hoover Hill Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Walker, Dwight (Walker, Nancy VV) 4804 Hoover Hill Rd Trinity, NC 27370 Solar Ordinance Use: Special Use District: Screening and Fencing: Site Plan Requirements: Other Requirements: Solar Energy Facility LI, HI, RIO Solar Energy Facilities shall be enclosed by a fence not less than six [6) feet in height which shall be approved by the Planning Director. Solar Energy Facilities shall maintain a Level 2 Buffer. Dimensions of the property and adjacent lots and streets. Location, use and ownership of all existing and proposed buildings, and there dimensions. Streets, traffic circulation and parking areas with spaces. Services areas, off-street loading facilities, service drives and dimensions thereon. Location of all proposed landscaping, with property buffers between other uses and open spaces. Location of allflood zones and streams. Stormwater drainage and sanitary sewer where applicable. Size and location of signs. Erosion and sedimentation control plan. Lighting plan. Signage, Site Maintenance Plan - The applicant will be required to submit a plan that will show scheduled maintenance of the property (trimming of vegetation, routine maintenance of the equipment etc.) Decommissioning Plan - The applicant willbe required to submit a plan defining conditions upon which decommissioning will be initiated [i.e. end of land lease, no power production for 1.2 months, abandonment etc.) Furthermore a form of surety equal to 100 percent of the cost of decommissioning under the plan, as estimated by a North Carolina licensed engineer under seal, and approved by the County Planning Director and County It-79 attorney, either through cash, a surety performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit or other instrument readily convertible into cash at face value, either with the County or in escrow with a financial institution designated as an official depository of the County. This surety shall be retained by the County to cover the cost of the decommissioning requirements. II-80 Health and Safety STATBMENT OF CHRISTOPHER SANDIFER, P.E. Slider Solar, LLC 4783 Hoover Hill Road, Trinity, NC PIN 7715861937 Experience and Backqround I received a BS in electrical engineering from Clemson University in 1975 andhave used this electrical engineering education ever since. I have received the Certified Energy Manager designation from the Association of Energy Engineers. 2. I am licensed by the State of North Carolina as an Electrical Contractor with the Unlimited Classification, and I am registered by the State of North Carolina as a Registered Professional Engineer in North Carolina. This license and registration allow me to perform acts and provide opinions in public forums that those without these privileges may not lawfully perform or provide. 3. I have training and experience reviewing building codes as well as zoning and land use ordinances and regulations. My opinions with regard to issues related to solar farms, solar farm locations, and solar farm safety have been accepted injudicial and/or quasi-judicial forums in the State of North Carolina including municipal or county subdivisions of the State. 4. I have been employed in the solar industry for the past 7+ years, and I am familiar with the concepts of electrical engineering and design. I previously worked for Duke Energy and its predecessors in various roles including interconnecting solar farms to the electric gnd' 5. My experience in the solar industry has taught me that solar farms are a practical solution to the need for sources of clean and renewable energy to power modern society. 6. I grew up on a farm in South Carolina and currently live on my own farm in Nash County, North Carolina. I also manage an additional 1,700 acres of family-owned, traditional farmlands in Lee and Warren Counties in North Carolina. My family and I currently lease approximately 100 acres in Lee County, North Carolina for solar energy production (three 5 MW farms) on jointly own property with plans to expand the lease area. 7. As an engineer, electrical contractor, farmer, and landowner, I have an abundance of tangible experience with solar farm design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Consequently, I understand the labor, equipment, and procedures required for a safe and environmentally responsible decommission and subsequent removal of a solar farm's facilities. I also understand the importance of having a steady and stable cash flow for a percentage of the farm business income. RE 1 8. I serve on the Nash County Planning Board. Nash County was one of the first counties in NC to assess and approve photovoltaic solar farm in NC. We have approved approximately 37 utility-scale solar farms to date. The Board's experience with solar farms, as well as that of the Nash County Planning Department, has been very positive, and we look forward to more solar projects to benefit our community. Description of the Facility 9. Slider Solar, LLC proposes to construct a solar energy system (commonly referred to as a solar farm) on an approximately 46-acre tract owned by Ricky and Kay Bevan on Hoover Hill Road. 10. I am familiar with the proposed use, including this Special Use Permit request. I have inspected and studied the location and siting of this proposed project. I am also familiar with, and have personal knowledge of, the site plan for the proposed solar farm. 11. The zoning of the Property subject to this application is Residential Agricultural (RA) The RA zoning district allows solar farms as a Special Use. 12. Petitioner's application and the associated Site Plan comply with all required conditions and specifications set forth in the Iredell County ZoningOrdinance. 13. The Solar Farm will consist of photovoltaic (PV) modules, commonlyknown as panels, mounted on metal frames, called "racks". The racks are supported by metal pilings that are hydraulically pressed into the ground to minimize soil disturbance. 14. The Solar Farm will meet all setback requirements set forth in the ZoningOrdinance 15. No lighting is proposed for the site, meaning it will be dark at night 16. The active area of the proposed Solar Farm will be secured by a six (6) foot tall chain link security fence with secured gated entrances for security purposes. It will have visible warning signage concerning voltage. 17. Access to the site will be from a driveway off of Hoover Hill Road as shown on the Site Plan. This driveway will provide entry for occasional maintenance vehicles as well as provide 2417 access for fire department and other public safety vehicles. The driveway will be permitted by the NCDOT before beginning construction. On average, a solar farm this size will generate fewer vehicle trips in one month than an average single family home generates in one day. Accordingly, there is no factual basis for asserting that the facility would be materially dangerous from the standpoint of traffic safety. 18. All solar components and equipment will have a United Laboratories (UL) Listing (or equivalent listing) and will comply with all Building Codes and the edition of the National Electrical Code that has been approved by the NC Department of lnsurance at the time of construction. 2 19. The proposed Solar Farm design will protect against soil erosion and sedimentation. During construction, erosion control measures will be maintained in accordance with County regulations as well as NCDEQ-Land Quality Section regulations. The project will comply with all State of North Carolina and Iredell County storm water regulations. NCDEQ considers solar panels to be pervious rather than impervious because there is ample opportunity for ground absorption of rain that flows off panels to the ground below. 21. Sound during operation of the Solar Farm will be indistinguishable from ambient background noise (cars, wind, birds, etc.) at the property lines. 22. The proposed operational Solar Farm will not create any fumes, odors, traffic congestion, or other nuisance factors. 23. When the Solar Farm ceases operations, all structures and equipment related to the Solar Farm will be removed. 24.The proposed Solar Farm will connect to and serve the existing power grid. Power distribution lines will be located underground, where practical, except for interconnection of the facility to the power grid. 25. There are no on-site refuse or service areas proposed, as this is an urunanned facility. This Solar Farm facility will have no impacts upon demand for municipal or county utility services as the facility will not be connected to public water or sewer services. 26. Solar farms are safe, non-hazardous, unobtrusive, environmentally friendly, and advance the public necessity of adopting renewable sourcing of electricity. Because they are unpaved, they have beneficial stormwater and groundwater recharging effects. 27. As stated above, the proposed solar farm will consist of photovoltaic (PV) modules ("Panels") mounted on racks that are driven into the ground. These Panels are safe and create no emissions. Solar farms enjoy widespread support from environmental organizations. 28. Solar technology like that proposed for the Property, is not new; solar panels and basic solar technology have been in operation for more than 50 years in the United States. The solar array may contain moving parts. All electric components will have an Underwriters Laboratories (UL) listing and will comply with the edition of the National Electrical Code in effect at the time of construction. 29. From my education and experience, I know that electromagnetic fields (EMF) are present wherever electricity is present. For example, EMF is produced by magnets, electric tools, ,J 20. The proposed Solar Farm will neither emit odor nor generate dust, as even uses such as farming can. computers, radio and television transmitters, mobile phones, and medical devices. EMF is produced by a variety of natural sources as well as the production and distribution of electrical power. Ordinary household appliances such as televisions and refrigerators produce EMF. EMF strength attenuates rapidly as the distance from the source increases. 30. PV panels produce weaker EMF than many household appliances such as televisions and refrigerators. 31. Inverters used to convert electricity from direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) power, will be located in the interior of the solar facility. Although the inverters inside the solar farm facility produce EMF, the strength of the fields decline rapidly with distance such that EMF measured at the perimeter of the physical facility is generally immeasurable when compared to background EMF. 32. Electricity is vital for our everyday lives and our growing economy, and aging traditional generation plants, such as coal and nuclear, will need to be shut down and replaced with new generation facilities. Solar energy is a clean, inexpensive, and unlimited resource that should be preferred to conventional sources ofpower such as coal, gas, and nuclear energy. These conventional sources of electricity are expensive, finite resources that require significant environmental disruption and public safety risk to extract and utilize. 33. There is an electrical substation located on Hoover Hill Road. In order to effectively distribute electricity, the solar farm has to match the voltage of the line it is "tapping" into. Therefore, the electricity generated and transmitted by a solar farm does not increase the electrical voltage already running through the existing lines of the subject property and adjacent neighborhood, nor does it increase the current in the lines because it simply replaces current from other sources. 34. Solar farms are a public necessity in that they generate clean energy for use by the community and surrounding areas. The proposed Solar Farm will generate clean, inexpensive energy and is an unlimited resource with little environmental impact. Conventional sources of electricity are expensive, finite resources that require significant environmental disruption and public safety risk to maintain and extract. 35. Solar farms make good transitional land uses. Solar farms, such as the one proposed, allow property owners like the Bevans to maintain large areas for future development while generating income from the property. At the end of the useful life of the proposed Solar Farm, the land is easily redeveloped for home or other land uses or restored to farming. 36. North Carolina now has several hundred solar farms, and most of them were approved with the same or very similar health and safety standard Randolph County uses for special use permits. In other words, towns and counties throughout North Carolina have made findings in a similar hearing that solar farms do not materially harm public health or safety. I am not aware of a town or county that made such a finding that was not overturned by a court of law. 4 37. After construction is completed, this site will be seeded with native grasses for surface soil stabilization purposes. This ground cover will predominantly be maintained mechanically. The vegetation that grows in close proximity to equipment pads or supporting pilings is normally maintained with a post emergence herbicide. The application rate per acre is generally 10%o or less than the typical application rate for Roundup Ready@ soybeans 38. Based upon the above facts and upon my experience as the engineer of record for many solar farms in North Carolina, it is my professional opinion that the proposed Solar Farm will not be detrimental to or materially endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. 39. Based upon the above facts and upon my experience as the engineer of record for many solar farms in North Carolina, it is my professional opinion that the proposed Solar Farm will have adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or other necessary facilities provided. 40. Based upon the above facts and upon my experience as the engineer of record for many solar farms in North Carolina, it is my professional opinion that the proposed Solar Farm will have adequate measures taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. 41. Based upon the above facts and upon my experience as the engineer of record for many solar farms in North Carolina, it is my professional opinion that the proposed Solar Farm will in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of Randolph County except as such regulations may be modified by appropriate County departments during site plan review. 5 EMF Chris Sandifer PE 3118 Green Road Spring Hope, NC 27882 919-632-6519 22 November 2019 ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS and INTERFERENCE Any time there is an electric current in a conductor, Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) are emitted The lnternational Commission on Non-lonizing Radiation Protection has established 0.833 Gauss as the limit for prolonged human exposure to electro-magnetic fields. A large utility scale inverter and its power transformer have the highest levels of magnetic fields operating in a solar facility. Those levels range from 0.15 - 0.5 G at a distance of two feet from the source. The same or higher level of EMF can be found at typical utility substations or industrial facilities. At an unmanned facility like a solar farm, prolonged exposure is never an issue. At 150 feet distance from the source, the transformer's and inverter's EMF levels drop below 0.5 G or less, falling to levels that are similar to the earth's background magnetic field. No other solar PV components emit EMF that is measureable above the earth's magnetic field. There is no EMF produced at night. r.--,The earth's surface EMF (measured at0.2 to 0.65 gauss) causes a compass needle to point to the north. A compass placed directly on a solar panel during full output or positioned anywhere around the panel continues to point north. That compass needle is not deflected by the comparatively weak field of a solar panel. Solar panels actually help reduce environmental EMF. 100 amperes in a conductor produces the same EMF whether its source is a solar generator or a nuclear plant. Locally generated power reduces the need for energy to be transmitted from distant power plants or substations. The net effect is to reduce the total EMF in the environment. Electromagnetic lnterference (EMl) includes all modes of EMI noise and interference. Radio Frequency lnterference (RFl) is the energy component of EMI that is radiated at radio frequencies. Most home electronic equipment and appliances meet the standard of FCC Section 15, Part B standard limits for EMl. This is the reason microwave ovens and TVs do not emit RFl. The equipment specified for a commercial solar facility should certainly meet the FCC Class B limits so there would be no observable RFI outside the project boundaries. The inverter equipment specified for the Slider Solar LLC project fully complies with the FCC Section 15, Part B standard. ,PE*ama *fr Market Impact Study Kirkland Appraisals, LLC Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI 9408 Northfield Court Raleigh, North Carolin a 27 6O3 Phone (919) 414-8142 rkirkland2@email.com www. kirklandappraisals. com November 25,2019 Matt Delafield Renewable Enerry Services, LI.C 540 Sanford Road, Unit C Pittsboro, NC 27312 RE: Slider Soler Impact Study, Rendloph Coun$r, IIC Mr. Delafield At your request, I have considered the impact of a solar farm proposed to be constructed on approximately 40.70 acres out of a parent tract of 46.20 acres located at 4783 Hoover Hill Road, Trinity, North Carolina. Specifically, I have been asked to give my professional opinion on whether the proposed solar farm will have any impact on adjoining property value and whether "the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony witJl the area in which it is to be located." To form an opinion on these issues, I have researched and visited existing and proposed solar farms in North Carolina, researched articles through tJ'e Appraisal hrstitute and other studies, and discussed tJ:e likely impact with other real estate professionals. I have not been asked to assign any value to any specific property. This letter is a limited report of a real property appraisal consulting assignment and subject to tJle limiting conditions attached to this letter. My client is Renewable Enerry Services, LLC represented to me by Matt Delatre1d. My findings support the SUP application. The effective date of this consultation is November 25, 2019. Standardc and ilethodologr I conducted this analysis using the standards and practices established by the North Carolina Appraisal Board, the Appraisal Institute, and that conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The analyses and methodologies contained in this report are accepted by all major lending institutions, and they are used in North Carolina and across the countr5r as the industry standard by certifred appraisers conducting appraisals, market analyses, or impact studies and are considered adequate to form an opinion of the impact of a land use on neighboring properties. These standards and practices have also been accepted by the courts of North Carolina at the trial and appellate levels and by federal courts throughout the countr5r as adequate to reach conclusions about the likely impact a use will have on adjoining or abutting properties. The aforementioned standards comp€rre property uses in the same market and generally within the same calendar year so that fluctuating markets do not alter study results. Although these standards do not require a linear study that examines adjoining property values before and after a new use (e.g. a solar farm) is developed, some of these studies do in fact employ this type of analysis. Comparative studies, as used in this report, are considered an industry standard. 2 Determlnlng what is an External Obsolercence An external obsolescence is a use of property that, because of its characteristics, might have a negative impact on the value of adjacent or nearby properties because of identifiable impacts. Determining whether a use would be considered an external obsolescence reqrrires a study that isolates that use, eliminates any other causing factors, and then studies the sales of nearby versus distant comparable properties. The presence of one or a combination of key factors does not mean the use will be an external obsolescence, but a combination of these factors tend to be present when market data reflects that a use is an external obsolescence. External obsolescence is evaluated by appraisers based on several factors. These factors include but are not limited to: 1) TraIIic. Solar Farms are not traffic generators. 2) Odor. Solar farms do not produce odor 3) Noise. Solar farms generate no noise concerns and are silent at night. 4) Environmental. Solar farms do not produce toxic or hazardous waste. NCDEQ does not consider the panels to be impervious surfaces that impede groundwater absorption or cause runoff. 5) Other factors. I have observed and studied many solar farms and have never observed any characteristic about such facilities that prevents or impedes neighbor from fully using their homes or farms or businesses for the use intended. Propored Use Description The proposed solar farm is to be constructed on approximately 4O.7O acres out of a parent tract of 46.2b- , acres located at 4783 Hoover Hill Road, Trinity, North Carolina. Adjoining land is a mix of residential and agricultural uses. A{ioinlng Properties I have considered adjoining uses and included a map to identiff each parcel's location. The breakdown of those uses by acreage and number of parcels is summarized below. Total Parccls 86.960/o 8.7Oo/o 4.35o/o IOO.OO% lOO.OOolo AdJotntng Urc Brcatdosa Acrcagc Residential 44.ll%o Agricultural 34.960/o Agri/Res 2O.93o/o 3 T j'ir ffi I I II I a I T T TtrfI I I I rl Ir..*EI cta Dtt}I E x I I ; I I \ 'l E EI I IT II q I dr*I*\IrtsE& I I r I I I I II I I I II I rl .dlII I I{.'. E "1',',\r tuh I --il *IrTEI Ir i I EII I I Eat 1 I \-criJ i\t t1h r;Ir I {I;1l--l t1 \ a q* 4 Surrounding UsG. # I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo l1 12 13 l4 15 16 t7 18 19 20 2l 22 23 UAP ID 7715687681 7715779823 7715879400 77t5973325 77t5972110 7725070111, 7715464476 771596r300 7775868245 7775A6713A 7715866076 7715863298 7715863210 7715856930 7715759550 77r5754556 77r5765141 77t5659606 77r5750857 7715666091 7775663502 7715669815 7715677558 GIS Data Acrcr Prcrcnt Urc 39.65 Agricultural 10.35 Residential 1.85 Residential 1.95 Residential O.92 Residential 43.03 AgrilRes 0.90 Residential 2.26 Residential O.92 Residential O.7O Residential 0.84 Residential O.92 Residential 0.93 Residential 0.84 Residential 13.05 Residential 13.02 Residential 5.00 Residential 10.00 Residential 5.03 Residential 5.02 Residential 1 1. 18 Residential 5.00 Residential 32.23 Agricultural Dlrtancc (ftt IIomc/Peucl N/A N/A N/A 675 470 365 195 190 220 N/A 235 200 320 345 365 770 325 320 N/A N/A N/A 445 N/A Owncr Bevan Elevan Hill Walker Walker Allonutt Evans Carrillo Guinn Stanley Hedrick Welborn Meyer Mooney Hayes Watkins Kersey Johnson Johnson Johnson Ruth [,ee Iree AdJoin Acrcr 19.290/o 5.03% O.gOYo o.95% o.450/o 2O.93o/o O.44o/o l.7Oo/o O.45o/o O.34Vo o.4lo/o O.45o/o O.45Yo o.4Lo/o 6.35o/o 6.33o/o 2.43o/o 4.860/o 2.45o/o 2.44o/o 5.44yo 2.43o/o 15.68% AdJoin Parccle 4.35o/o 4.35o/o 4.35o/o 4.350/o 4.350/o 4.350/o 4.35o/o 4.35o/o 4.350/o 4.35o/o 4.35o/o 4.35o/o 4.35o/o 4.35o/o 4.350/o 4.35o/o 4.350/o 4.35o/o 4.350/o 4.35o/o 4.35o/o 4.35o/o 4.35o/o Total 205.590 IOO.OO% 1OO.OO% 363 I. Market Andysis of the Impact on Vdue from Sol,ar Farms I have researched hundreds of solar farms in numerous states to determine the impact of these facilities on the value of adjoining property. This research has primarily been in North Carolina, but I have also conducted market impact analyses in Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Oregon, Mississippi, Maryland, New York, California, Missouri, Florida, Montana, Georgia, Kentucky and New Jersey. I have included a subset of matched pairs on the following pages that highlight NC solar farms with a few from neighboring states. There are nurnerous additional supplemental matched pairs from other states tllat I couid cite as well. Wherever I have looked at solar farms, I have derived a breakdown of the adjoining uses to show what adjoining uses are typicai for solar farms and what uses wor.ild likely be considered consistent with a solar farm use similar to the breakdown that IVe shown for the subject property on the previous page. A summary showing the results of compiling that data over hundreds of solar farms is shown later in the Harmony of Use section of this report. 5 I also consider whether the properties adjoining a solar farm in one location have characteristics similar to the properties abutting or adjoining the proposed site so tJlat I can make an assessment of market impact on each proposed site. Notably, in most cases solar farms are placed in areas very similar to the site in question, which is surrorrnded by low density residential and agriculturaf uses. [n my over 6OO studies, I have found a striking repetition of that same typical adjoining use mix in over 907o of the solar farms I have looked at. Matched pair results in multiple states are strikingly similar, and all indicate that solar farms -which generate very little tra-ffic, and do not generate noise, dust or have other harmfi.rl effects - do not negatively impact tJ,e value of adjoining or abutting properties. 6 1. Matched Patr - AM Bert Solar Fatm. Goldsboro. NC This solar farm adjoins Spring Garden Subdivision which had new homes and lots available fo. ,.*V construction during the approval and construction of the solar farm. The recent home sales have ranged from $200,000 to $250,000. This subdivision sold out the last homes in late 2014. The solar farm is clearly visible particularly along the north end of this street where there is only a thin line of trees separating tJle solar farm from the sing[e-family homes. Homes backing up to the solar farm are selling at the same price for the same floor plan as the homes that do not back up to tJ:e solar farm in this subdivision. According to the builder, the solar farm has been a complete non-factor. Not only do the sales show no difference in the price paid for the various homes adjoining the solar farm versus not adjoining the solar farm, but there are actually more recent sales along the solar farm than not. There is no impact on the sellout rate, or time to sell for the homes adjoining the solar farm. I spoke with a number of owners who adjoin the solar farm and none of them expressed €rny concem over the solar farm impacting their property value. The data presented on the following page shows multiple homes that have sold in 2Ol3 and 2Ol4 adjoining the solar farm at prices similar to those not along the solar farm. T?rese series of sales indicate that the solar farm has no impact on the adjoining residential use. The homes that were marketed at Spring Garden are shown below. Artericma SqFt 3.194 Bed / Eath 3 t35 Precidcnti.l SqFt 3.400 Bed / Bath5/35 Vbinn SqFt 3.449 Bed I Bathl5t3 hrce S2I/.900 @i1;"1'," fE,tffil::'":ir'}-;EEEI: ', '" Pnce 5244.900 ftrce 949.900 ffi hrce 959.900 View Now D View Now n ViewNow >\liew Now t Vlew Now D Pnce S24Z9O0 W IL L,.! *s ,n \ J 7 A{Jolnlng Edcr Aftcr Eoler Ferm Complct.d TllX ID Oracr Acrcr D.tc Sold 36OO195570 Helm 0.76 Sepl3 3600195361 Leak 1.49 Sep-13 36O0f99891 McElrayer 2.24 Jul-14 3600198632 Foresman 1.13 Aug-14 3600196656 Hinson 0.75 Dec-13 fetchcd Pdrr As ofDate: TA.x ID 0 0 9/3l2or4 Sdcr Prlcc $2so,ooo $260,000 $250,0OO $2s3,000 $25s,ooo $2ss,600 $2s3,000 Sdcr Hcc $247,ooo $245,OOO $246,ooo $246,OOO Sdcr Prlcc $24o,ooo $198,000 $24o,ooo 3,48 $74.27 3,400 $74.41 cBA I/GBA Styrc 3,427 $72.07 Ranch 3,4OO $72.06 2 Story 3,414 $72.07 3,414 $72.07 Bullt 2013 2013 2014 2014 2073 2013.4 20r3 Bullt 2012 2013 2012.5 20t2.5 Bullt 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Bullt 20r3 20r3 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 20r4 2013.625 201.4 GBA 3,292 3,652 3,292 3,400 3,453 I/GBA $7s.94 $71.19 $7s.94 $74.4r $7s.85 Stylc 2 Story 2 Story 2 Story 2 Story 2 Story Average Median Ovrrcr Feddersen Gentry Acror 1.56 r.42 Acrcr r.57 1.61 1.55 1.59 1.59 Detc Sold Feb-13 Apr- 13 Datc Sold Dec- 12 Sep- 12 Nov- 12 \.27 l. l3 A(Jolnlng &lcr Aftcr Sohr Fern Aluounccd Average Median 7.49 1.49 AdJolalag Sdcr Bcforc Soler Ferm AtrnouncGd TAX ID Oraor 36O0183905 Carter 36OO193O97 Kelly 3600f94189 Hadwan Average Median GBA 3,347 2,532 3,433 I/GBA style $71.71 1.5 Story $78.20 2 Story $69.91 r.5 Story Detc Sold Oct-13 Dec- l3 Oct-13 Mar-14 Jun- 14 Jun- 14 Apr-14 Apr-14 $219,000 $219,000 Sdor Prlcc $248,o00 $2s3,ooo $238,000 $2so,ooo $224,000 $242,000 $2s8,ooo $255,000 $74.9s $74.95 |/GBA stylc $72.94 2 Story $74.41 2 Story $74.51 2 Story $75.94 2 Story $92.03 2 Story $85.66 2 Story $73.48 2 Story $73.85 2 Story $2.8s $74.46 I/GBA stylc $68.68 2 Story $69.57 1.5 Story $67.74 2 Story $70.O7 2 Story 2,940 2,940 Ifoerby Saler Aftct Solet Fera Complctcd TAX ID Oraor Acrcr 360019371O Barnes l.l2 3601105180 Nackley 0.95 3600192528 Mattheis l.l2 3600198928 Beclsnan 0.93 3600196965 Hough 0.81 3600193914 Preskitt 0.67 360O192t813 Bordner 0.91 3601104147 Shaffer O.73 GBA 3,400 3,400 3, r94 3,292 2,434 2,825 3,511 3,453 Average o.9l o.92Median Ifcerby Sdcr Bcforc Soler Farm Anaouaccd TAXID Orlor Acrc. Detc Sold 3600191437 Thomas l.l2 Sep-12 36O0087968 Lilley 1.15 Jan-13 36O0087654 Burke 1.26 Sep12 3600088796 Hobbs O.73 Sepl2 Average $246,000 $249,000 Sdcr Prlcc $225,000 $238,000 $24o,ooo $228,oo0 $232,750 $233,OOO 3,374 $69.01 3,349 $69.13 3,189 3,346 Bullt 2012 2012 2012 20r2 GBA 3,276 3,42r 3,543 3,254 Median t.o7 1.14 2012 2012 8 Matchcd Palr Sunmary AdJotur Solar Farm Avcrage Mcdlan Sales Price $253,600 $253,000 Year Ehrilt 2Ol3 2Ol3 Size 3,418 3,400 Price/SF $74.27 $74.4r lllearby Solar Farrn Avcragc Mcdian $246,000 $249,000 2014 2014 3, 189 3,346 $77.8s $74.46 Pcrccatagc Dlffcrcnccr Median Price Median Size Median Price/SF -2Yo -2o/" Oo/o I note that 2308 Granville Drive sold again in November 2015 for $267,500, or $7,500 more than when it was purchased new from the builder two years earlier flax ID 3600195361, Owner: I"eak). The neighborhood is clearly showing appreciation for homes adjoining the solar farm. The Median Price is the best indicator to follow in any analysis as it avoids outlying samples that would otherwise skew the results. T?re median sizes and median prices are all consistent throughout the sales botl: before and after the solar farm whether you look at sites adjoining or nearby to the solar farm. The average for the homes nearby the solar farm shows a smaller building size and a higher price per square foot. This reflects a corrunon occurrence in real estate where tJ'e price per squurre foot goes up as the size goes down. This is similar to the discount you see in any market where there is a discount for buying larger volumes. So when you buy a 2 hter coke you pay less per ounce than if you buy a 16 oz. coke. So everr.r.-z comparing averages the indication is for no impact, but I rely on the median rates as the most reliable indication for any such analysis. I A'M Bcat Sol,ar Farm, Goldsboro, IYC View of home in Spring Garden with solar farm located through the trees and panels - photo taken on el2slrs. View from vacant lot at Spring Garden witJl solar farm panels visible through trees taken in tJle winter of 2Ol4 pior to home construction. This is the same lot as the photo above. a \1 -3r - It),lt 1*-*.*- { T1 L--l t-l-i I -"1 {.-r. t ffi 2. Matched Pair - White Cross Solar Farm. Chapel HiIl. NC 10 |/Acrc lllotcr Conf By $5,614 Clear cut Betty Cross, broker $6,109 Wooded Dickie Andrews, broker new solar farm was built at2l59 White Cross Road in Chapel Hill, Orange Count5r in 2013. After construction, the owner of the underlying land sold the balance of the tract not encumbered by the solar farm in July 2013 for $265,000 for 47.20 acres, or $5,606 per acre. Ttris land adjoins the solar farm to ttre south and was clear cut of timber around 1O years ago. I compared this purchase to a nearby transfer of 59.09 acres of timber land just south along White Cross Road that sold in November 2O1O for $361,000, or $6,109 per acre. After purchase, this land was divided into three mini farm tracts of 12 to 20 acres each. These rates are very similar and the diference in price per acre is attributed to the timber value and not any impact of the solar farm. Typc TAX ID Owner Adjoins Solar 9748336770 Haggerty Not Near Solar 9747184527 Purcell Acrer 47.20 59.09 Date Jul-13 Nov- 1O Prlce $26s,000 $361,000 The difference in price is attributed to the trees on the older sale. No impact noted for the adjacenry to a solar farm according to the broker. I looked at a number of other nearby land sales without proximity to a solar farm for this matched pa,ir, but this land sale required the least allowance for differences in size, utility and location. 11 Metched Palr Sunner5r Sales Price Adjustment for Timber Adjusted Tract Size Percentage Dlffcrcncer Median Price Per Acre AdJotar Soler Ferm Aver8gc iledlan $s,614 $s,614$soo $soo $6,114 $6,114 47.20 47.20 OYo Ifcerbyz Soler Fenn Avcregc Ucdlen $6,109 $6,109 $6,109 $6,10e 59.09 59.09 This matched pair again supports the conclusion tllat adjacency to a solar farm has no impact on adjoining residential/ agricultural land. 3. Matched Pair - WagsteIf Farm. Roxbolo. NC t2 Prlcc alilc$164,000 $8,714 $130,O0O $8,739 This solar farm is located at ttre northeast corner of a 594-acre farm witl approximately 30 acres of solar farm area. This solar fiarm was approved and constructed in 2013. After approval, 18.82 acres were sold out of the parent tract to an adjoining owner to the south. This sale was at a similar price to nearby land to the east that sold in the same time from for the same price per acre as shown below. T}?c Adjoins Solar Not Near Solar TAX ID Oracr 0918-17-11-7960 Piedmont 0918-00-75-9812 et al Blackrvell Acraa 18.82 14.88 Prcrcat Urc Agriculatural Agriculatural DrtG Sold 8lls/2013 12127 l2Or3 lrcsr\r Soler Faru Avcregc Mcdlea $8,73e $8,739 14.88 14.88 Matched Palr Summrry Sales Price Tract Size Pcrccntegc Dllfcrcaccr Median Price Per Acre AdJolar Solar Farm Avcragc f odlaa $8,714 $8,714 18.82 78.82 Oo/o This matched pair again supports the conclusion that adjacency to a solar farm has no impact on adjoining residential/ agricultural land. I --ar 7 tl I ,+ ) \ 1\ \i lir.: !I I It 13 4. Matchcd Pair - Mulbcrry. Sclmer. TN Ttris solar farm was built in 2Ol4 on 208.89 acres with the closest home being 480 feet away. This solar farm adjoins two subdivisions with Central Hills having a mix of existing and new construction homes. Lots in this development have been marketed for $15,000 each with discounts offered for multiple lots being used for a single home site. I spoke with the agent with Rhonda Wheeler and Becky Hearnsberger with United County Farm & Home Realty who noted that they have seen no impact on lot or home sales due to the solar farm in this commrrnit5r. I have included a map below as well as data on recent sales activity on lots that adjoin the solar farm or are near tl:e solar farm in this subdivision both before and after the announced plan for this solar farm facility. I note that using the same method I used to breakdown the adjoining uses at the subject property I show that the predominant adjoining uses are residenlierl and agrictrltural, which is consistent with the location of most solar farms. 5.OO 7.OO 6 I az.ot 2t.oa ,i1oo 29 >4 1 tr -od J r.qs 4 8rrl-E I ro eeilSEo2t2r.Og ul,o5 l8 27 72 tt.al 22.04 zsrtiT z{dr I v H 2,r "1 T x :l cf .2) AdJoiaing Ure Breakdosn Commercial Residential Agri/Res Agricultural Totel roo.oo% 100.oo% Acrcagc 3.40o/o 12.84o/o 10.39olo 73.37o/o Parcclr 0.034 79.37o/o 3.450/o t3.790/o t4 PuLlEg 2 Gmge 2 Gmge 4 GmBe 2 Gmge From the above map, I identified four recent sales of homes that occu:red a{oining t}re solar farm both before and a.fter the announcement of the solar farm. I have adjusted each of these for differences in size and age in order to compare these sales Ermong themselves. As shown below a.fter adjustrrent, tJ:e median value is $130,776 and tJ:e sales prices are consistent with one outlier which is also the least comparable home considered. The close grouping and the similar price per point overall as well as the similar price per square foot both before and a-fter the solar farm. frtchcd Pd?. *&7 t2 15 16 T/IX ID 0998 A 019 0998 A 021 0900 A 060 TAX ID 0900 A 01 1.o0 0900 A 003.00 o99C A OO3.O0 099C A OO2.O0 Acru 2.65 r.20 1.00 1.OO Brllt 2007 201 I 2@2 1999 Oraat Henson AmeBon Smallrcod Hessing Aremge Medim OrEGr Henson Amerson Smallmod Hessing Aremge Medim Drtc Sold Jul- 14 Aug-12 May-12 Ju-15 DrtG Sold Jul- 14 Aug-12 May-12 Jm-15 Sdor Prlco $130,O0O $130,000 $149,9OO $130,OOO $134,975 $13O,OOO &Ior Hcc $130,OOO $130,0oo $149,9OO $130,OOO OBA 1,511 1,586 1,596 1,742 I/GBA Etylc$86.04 1 Story $81.97 1 Story $93.92 1 Story $72.95 i Story 1.46 r. r0 2005 2005 1,619 $83.721,591 $84.00 A(ru.tn rt.r $o $o $o $o $o $o ,500 $o $o $o -$7 I&7 t2 15 16 TAX ID 0900 A 01 1.oo 0900 A @3.oo 099C A OO3.00 099C A OO2.OO Acao $134,97s -$1,875 $130,0@ $o Acror 1.00 2.73 1.03 Totd $131,sss $l30,ooo $140,70($r23,so1\/ BEllt $2,600 $o fi,746 $7,80O *4,26 94,673 OBA $6,453 $o -$939 -$r4,299 -$2,196 -$470 P.rErt $o $o -$1s,0oo $o -$3,7sO $o $131,,r40 $130,776 aty'G t I adjusted all of the comparables to a base line 2011 Year Built and 1,586 s.f. based on Lot 12 I also considered a number of similar home sales nearby that were both before and after the solar farm was announced as shown below. These homes are generally newer in construction and include a number of larger homes but show a very similar price point per square foot. Ifeuby Sdcr Boforo Soler Ferm Aaaouaced O?acr Durrance Berryman Nichols D.tc Sold Sep- 12 Apr-72 Feb-13 Sdcr Prlcc $16s,ooo $2l2,ooo $16s,00o $180,667 $16s,00o Sdcr Prlcc $120,000 $148,900 $134,450 $134,4s0 1.59 1.03 Acrca 1.00 2.34 1.67 1.67 Bullt 2072 2007 2072 2010 2012 Bullt 2010 2008 2009 2009 GAA 2,O79 2,O45 1,966 2,030 2,O45 GBA r,626 1,585 1,606 1,606 I/GBA $73.80 $93.94 $83.87 $83.87 I/GAA Atylc Perllag $79.37 1Story 2Garage $103.67 1Story 2Garage $83.93 1Story 2Garage $88.99 $83.93 Average Median Ifcer$ Selor Aftcr Soler Frrn Aanouaccd TAX ID Oracr Detc Sold O9ON A 040 Carrithers Mar-15 (X)gC A 043 Cherry Feb-15 Average Median Stlc Perllag 1 Story 2 Garage 1 Story 2 Garage TAX ID (x)gB A 019 o99B A O2t 0900 A 060 G)ON A O40 099C A 0r+3 Oracr Durrance Berryman Nichols Carithers Cherry Average Median Detc Sold Sep12 Apr-12 Feb-.13 Mar- 15 Feb- 15 Acrca $o -$7,soo $o $o -$7,soo -$1,87s $o Bullt -$82s $+,2+o -$82s $6oo $2,234 $798 -$113 15 I then adjusted tJrese nearby sales using the same criteria as the adjoining sales to derive the following breakdown of adjusted values based on a 2011 year built 1,586 square foot home. The adjusted values are consistent with a median rate of $ 128,665, which is actually lower than the values for the homes that back up to the solar farm. Ifcerby Sdcr AdJu.tcd A4ru.tEGDtrt Sdcr Prlcc $l65,ooo $212,000 $l6s,ooo $120,000 $148,900 $16s,s00 $165,000 GBA Stylo-$39,127 $0-$47,s83 $0 -$31,892 $o-$2,es2 $0 $e4 $0 -$30,389 'Z $O 7 -$35,510 7 $O 7 Perllag Totd $125,o48 $ 161,157 $132,283 $1 17,648 $743,727 $134,034 $128,66s $o $o $o $o $o $o $o77 * I adjusted all ofthe comparables to a base line 2011Year Built and 1,586s.f. based on Lot 12 If you consider just the 2015 nearby sales, the range is $117,648 ta $143,727 with a median of $130,688. If you consider the recent adjoining sales the range is $123,501 to $131,553 with a median of $127,527. This difference is less thart 3o/o in the median and well below the standard deviation in the sales. The entire range of the adjoining sales prices is overliapped by the range from the nearby sales. These are consistent data sets and summarized below. Matchcd Palr Sumnary Sales Price Year Ehrilt Size AdJolnr Soler Farm Avcragc Mcdian $134,975 $130,000 2005 2005 1,619 1,591 I[carbSr Aftcr Soler Ferm Avcragc Mcdlen $134,450 $i34,450 2009 2009 1,606 1,606 Price/SF $ae.zz $a+.oo $es.az $83.87 Based on the data presented above, I find that the price per square foot for finished homes is not being impacted negatively by the announcement of the solar farm. The difference in pricing in homes in the neiglrborhood is accounted for by differences in size, building age, and lot size. The median price for a home after those factors are adjusted for are consistent throughout this subdivision and show no impact due to the proximity of the solar farm. This is consistent u/ith tl:e comments from the broker I spoke with for this subdivision as well. I have also run a number of direct matched comp€rrisons on tfre sales adjoining this solar farm as shown below. These direct matched pairs include some of those shown above as well as additional more recent sales in this community. In each of these I have compared the one sale adjoining the solar farm to multiple similar homes nearby that do not adjoin a solar farm to look for any potential impact from the solar fiarm. Perccl Soler 3 Adjoins Not Not Not Addrcn Acrcr 491 Dusty 6.86 820 Lake Trail 1.00 262 Country 1.00 ' 35 epril 1.15 Detc Sold Selor Prlcc Bullt ro/2812u,6 $176,000 2OO9 61812018 $168,000 2ors r/17/2or8 $14s,0oo 20oo 8l1612016 $185,000 2016 I/GBA BR/BA $97.72 312 $8e.8e 4/2 $77.e6 312 $e3.43 312 GBA r,801 1,869 1,860 1,980 Perk 2-Gar 2-Gar 2-Gar 2-Gar Stylc Ranch Ranch Ranch Ranch Othcr 16 A(lolala3 &lo Aqfr.t.d Tlno tlt. t-E GI.A PrrL OthGrPerccl tolu Addrqt 3 Adjoins 491 Dusty Not E20 Lake Trail Not 262 Coutry Not 7 35 April -$8,324 -$5,4s0 $1,138 $12,OOO -$3,360 -$4,890 $12,000 $6,s2s -$3,6E0 $12,OO0 -$6,475 -$13,380 Tbtd $176,0OO $163,426 $1#,396 $17E,283 AvasatG Dllr Dl.t.!c. 4ao ?Yo tT/" -|vo 6t% The best matched pair is 35 April Loop, which required the least adjustment and indicates a -17o increase in value due to the solar farm adjacency. A(lolalag Rcrldcatld Edcr Aftcr Soler Frrn Bullt Perccl t2 Soler Addrsrr Adjoins 57 Cooper Not 191 Amelia Not ' 75 April Not 345 Woodlmd Drtc Sold Sdsr Prlcc Built 2126/2019 $163,000 20rr 813/2Or8 $132,000 2005 3/1712077 $134,000 2Or2 12/2912016 $131,000 2OO2 I/GBA BR/BA PetL Atytc Othcr $102.77 312 2-Gar 1.5 Story Pool $86.05 312 Drive Ranch $84.38 312 2-Crprt Ranch $92.91 3/2 l-car Ranch Acrca r.20 1.00 o.85 1.15 CBA 1,586 1,534 1,588 1,410 AdJolalng Edc. Adju.tcdTlnc Sttc YB CIA PrrL OthcrPrrccl Soler 12 Adjoins Not Not Not Addre:: Srlcr Prlcc 57 Cooper $163,000 191 Amelia $132,000 ' 75 Ap.il $I34,OOO 345 Woodland $131,00O $2,3o3 $8,02e $+,ooo $8,710 $3,960 $2,685 -$670 ? -$135 $s,89s $9,81r $s,ooo $s,ooo $s,ooo I/GBA BR/BA$9s.e8 3/2 $86.ls 3/2 $8s.42 312 Totel o/" DlfI $16s,000 $155,947 4Vo $155,224 5o/o $160,416 2o/o Averrgc 4o/o Dlrtraec 685 $10,00o $s,000 The best matched pair is 191 Amelia, which was most similar in time frame of sale and indicates a +4Vo increase in value due to the solar farm adjacency. A(lolalag Rorldcntld Sdcr Aftcr Soler Ferrn BulltPerccl Soler15 Adjoins Not Not Addrcrr 297 Cowttry 185 Dusty 53 Glen Acrcr 1.00 1.85 1.13 D.t.sold Sdcr Prlcc Bullt 9l30/2016 $15O,OOO 2OO2 811,7l2ors $126,040 2OO9 3l9l2or7 $126,000 reee GBA 1,596 1,463 t,475 Pert 4-Gar 2-Gar 2-Gar StylG Ranch Ranch Ranch Othsr Brick Perccl Eolar 15 Adjoins Not Not Addrcrr Srlcr Prlcc 297 Country $150,000 185 Dusty $126,0,10 53 Glen $126,000 Adlotatng 8dc. Adju.ted Tlnc Sltc Y-B GI"A PerL Othcr Totrl o/o DllI $lso,o00 $145,150 3yo $144,460 4o/o AYGrrtc 3o/o Dlrtencc 650 S+,3ss -$1,699 -$4,411 $1,890 $9,167 $8,269 $10,o0o $10,ooo The best matched pair is 53 Glen, which was most similar in time frame of sale and required less adjustrnent. It indicates a+4yo increase in value due to the solar farm adjacency. The average indicated impact from these three sets of matched pairs is +47o, which suggests a mild positive relationship due to adjacency to the solar farm. I have also looked at several lot sales in this subdivision as shown below. These are all lots within the same community and the highest prices paid are for lots one p€rrcel offfrom the existing solar farm. These prices are fairly inconsistent, though they do suggest about a $3,000 loss in the lots adjoining the solar farm. This is an atypical finding and additional details suggest there is more going on in these sales than the data crunching shows. First of all Parcel 4 was purchased by the owner of the adjoining home and therefore an atypical buyer seeking to expand a lot and the site is not being purchased for home development. Moreover, using the SiteToDoBusiness demographic tools, I found tl:at tJ:e 1-mi1, radius aronnd this development is expecting a total population increase over the next 5 years of 3 people.v t7 This lack of growing demand for lots is largely explained in that context. F\rrthermore, tJre fact that finished home sales as shown above are showing no sign of a negative impact on propert5r value makes this data unreliable and inconsistent with the data shown in sales to an end user. I tl:erefore place little weight on this outlier data. Perccl Soler 4 Adjoins 10 Adjoins l1 Adjoins Not Not Not Avoregc fcdlea Htgh Los Pcr Acrc l[ot A{Jolar $8,706 $r7,726$8,415 $20,000 $9,543 $20,000 $8,160 $13,r77 Vo Dl"lL.ot l9o/o 28o/o l60/o 7o/o Addrer Shelter Carter Cooper 75 Dusty Lake Ttl Lake Trl A{lolnr $14,416 $14,s06 $16,728 gt2,2Ls Acrc! 2.O5 1.70 r.28 r.67 t.47 L.67 4ltal2or9 Date Sold Saler Price AdJ for Tlme ro/2s/2or7 $16,000 $16,728812/2Or8 $14,OO0 $14,306 e/ 17 /2ot8 $12,OOO $12,2ls4l18l2or9 $20,ooo $20,000rr/7l2or8 $rs,ooo $13,1774lr8l2o1e $20,ooo $20,000 0/AC $7,8Os $8,23s $e,37s $11,976 $s,saa $11,976 4lral2or9 A(l for Time $s, too $8,41s $e,s43 $11,976 $s,s64 $l1,976 Pcr Acre $ro,972 $11,976 $r 1,976 $8,964 o/o DIFIAC 2lYo 3U/o 2U/" 9o/o 18 5. Matched Pair - Neal Hawkins Solar. Gastonia. NC This project is located on the south side of Neal Hawkins Road just outside of Gastonia. The property identified above as Parcel 4 was listed for sale while this solar farm project was going through the approval process. The property was put under contract during tJle permitting process with the permit being approved while the due diligence period was still ongoing. After the permit was approved the property closed witJl no concerns from the buyer. I spoke with Jennifer Bouvier, the broker listing the propert5r and she indicated that the solar farm had no impact at all on the sales price. She considered some nearby sales to set the price and the closing price was very similar to the asking price within the typical range for the market. The buyer was aware that tJle solar farm was coming and they had no concerns. This two-story brick dwelling was sold on March 20,2Ol7 for $270,000 for a 3,437 square foot dwelling built in 1934 in average condition on 1.42 acres. The property has four bedrooms and two bathrooms. 7 @ G r t,. .! r.rr4lC 19 5. Matched Pair - Summlt Solar. Movock IYC This project is located at L374 Caritoke Highway, Moyock, NC. This is an 80 MW facility on a parent tract of 2,034 acres. Parcels Number 48 and 53 as shown in the map above were sold in 2016. The project was under construction during the time period of those sales and the permit was approved well prior to that in 2015. I looked at multiple possible matched pairs for the two sales as shown below. This gives a range of impacts with the most significant impacts shown on the second comparable where matched pairs ranged from plus 6%o to 15%. The sales are all in the adjoining mixed community that includes older residential dwellings and generally newer manufactured homes. These two matched pairs are significantly further from the adjoining solar panels than typical at 1,060 to 2,O2O feet. A{Jolnlag Rcrldcatld Eelor Aftcr Solar trrrn Conplctcd # Soler Fern Addr... Acrcr Dttc Eold Sdcr Prlcc48 Adjoins 129 Pinto 4.n 4115/2076 $17O,OOO Not 102 Timber 1.39 4ll/2016 $175,500Not 120 Rmchland 0.99 lO/l/2O14 $17O,OOO AdJoinlng 8do Adiurted Thnc Acrcr YB GLA $o $1o,ooo -$29,4s4 $13,43s $l0,2oo $lo,00o -$20,230 $3,284 Bullt r985 2009 2002 CLA 1,559 1,352 1,501 I/GI"A $r09.04 $129.81 $1 r3.26 Stylc MFG MFIf MFC BR/BA 3/2 3/2 3/2 BR/BA PerL Totd $170,000 $169,4s1 $r73,2s4 o/" DlIf Oo/o '2o/o $o $o $o $o I ET T y, tl E 20 I 53 toluFrm Adjoins Not Not Not Addrr3.Bullt 97a 1985 2003 1988 l/cLA $138.81 $9s.88 $120.99 $1 15. r3 BR/BA sl2 412 312 312 aty'G Ruch Ruch Rmch Rmch o/o Dlff l5o/o l3o/o 6Yo $206,0oo $193,0OO $196,0OO $219,9O0 OLA 1,484 2,013 1,620 1910 PerL Det gu Gmge N/A Gtr +3 det Gu 105 Pinto 4.99 111 Spu 1.15 1O3 Mmhdl L.O7 127 Rmchlmd 0.99 L2l L6l2O16 2l r12016 3l2el2or7 6l9l2o7s A{lotnlng Sdcr AdJurtodTlnc Acrer Y'B GLA BR/BA ParL Total $206,000 $o $174,746 $s,000 $r79,743 -$l0,0oo $r94,278 $3,860 $1,470 $e,8e6 $l0,oo0 $l0,oo0 $l0,ooo -$6,755 -$24,s00 -$10,99s -$2s,35e -$8,227 -$24,523 $o $o $o 2t 7. Matched Pair - White Cross tr. Chapel Hill. IIC This project is located in rural Orange County on White Cross Road witll a 2.8 MW facility. This project is a few parcels south of White Cross Solar Farm that was developed by a different company. An adjoining home sold after construction as presented below. AdJolalag Rcrldcatld Sdor Aftcr Soler Fern Coaplctcd Soler TAX lD/Addrcr. Acrcr Dete Sold Selcr Hce Bullt GBA a/OBA BR/BA PerL Aty'c Adjoins 97482114578 11.78 212912016 $34O,0O0 1994 1,601 $212.37 313 Garage Ranch Not 42OOBOldGreensbor r2.@ L2/2812O75 $380,000 2OOO 2,075 $183.13 3/2.5 Garage Ranch A(lolnlag Rcrldontld Sdcr Altor Soler Perm AdJolalag Selcr A JurtcdSoler TAX IDlAddrG.. Sdcr Prlcc Thnc Acrer Y-B GLA Adjoins 974a217457a $340,000 Not 42OOB Old Greensbor $380,000 $3,800 $O -$15,9@ -$43,402 BR/BA $s,ooo PerL $o Totd $340,0O0 $329,438 o/o Dlff 3Vo t ] 22 E. Matched Pair - Tracv Solar. Bailev. NC This project is located in rural Nash County on Winters Road with a 5 MW facility that was built in 2016. A local builder acquired parcels 9 and 10 following constmction as shown below at rates comparable to otlter tracts in the area. They then built a custom home for an owner and sold that at a price similar to other nearby homes as shown in the matched pair data below. A(lolalag had t lo Aftcr tolrr FrrE CoEt l3t3d , Solu hrE TAI ID OrEto! Grut@ 9 &lO Adjoins 316003 Coart Kingsmill Addrqr 9162 WinteB Aclar 13.22 7l21l2ot6 $7O,0O0 alac othcr $5,295 94,0oo $5,840 Doublcwidc, structw. $7,O41 Gnrel &irc for sub, deed $4,266 Small cmetery,rcoded Not Not Not Not & 316@r 6056 :l:}211 106807 3437 4t 23.46 tl.22 18.73 Elllingrly Ftlcher Pcrry Vaughm Weikcl Gardner N/A 427 YowE 10533 Conc Claude Lsis 1 1354 otd lawi! Sch rol2r12016 7l 18l2o17 slrol2o\7 Usting $164,000 $137,0@ 979,OOO s79,9OO E E "I:TIliJ- !lF- - ,r."l I .*J. B n t *t rI I IT 23 AdJotntng Salcr AdJuetcd Tlac Acrcr Locatloa Othcr $o -$soo -$1,00o $213 AdJ l/Ac o/o Dlll $s,29s $o -$292 -$3s2 -$213 $4oo Aqrohht R.3tdantld tdd Aftot &lu Frn CoDpl.tGd I Solrr trrrn ! Addr... Acrc DrtG Sold &lcr Hcc 9 &1O Adjoins r 9162 WirteB 13.22 11512017 $255,0OO Not ,r 7352 Rcd Fox 0.93 6130/2016 $176,000 $o $o $o $o fi292 $o $o $4,400 $5,340 $s,689 #+,zoa l7o/o -lo/o -7Yo l9o/o Bullt 2016 2010 aty'G Rmch 2-story Average 7% GIA I/GLA AR/BA r,616 $157.E0 312 r,529 s115.11 312 Othcr 1296 sf wkshp A{lotntng Selcl A{Jurtcd Tlme Acrer Y-B Stylc Othcr Total o/o Dlff $255,000 $5,000 $15,000 $252,399 Lo/o GLA $o $44,000 $7,392 $5,007 The comparables for the land show either a significant positive relationship or a mild negative relationship to having and adjoining solar farm, but when averaged together they show no negative impact. The wild divergence is due to the difficulty in comping out this tract of land and the wide variety of comparables used. The two comparables that show mild negative inlluences include a property that was partly developed as a residential subdivision and the other included a doublewide with some value and accessory agricultural structures. The tax assessed value on the improvements were valued at $60,000. So both of those comparables have some limitations for comparison. The two that show significant enhancement due to adjacenry includes a propert5r with a c€metery located in the middle and the other is a tract almost twice as large. Still that larger tract a-fter adjustment provides the best matched pair as it required tJle least adjustrnent. I therefore conclude that there is no negative impact due to adjacenry to the solar farm shown by this matched paA. The dwelling that was built on the site was a build-to-suit and was compared to a nearby homesale of a property on a smaller parcel of land. I adjusted for that differenced based on a $25,000 value for a l-acre home site versus the $7O,O0O purchase price of tJle larger subject tract. The other adjustments are typical and show no impact due to the adjacenry to the soliar farm. The closest solar panel to tJle home is 780 feet away. I note that the representative for Kingsmill Homes indicated that the solar farm was never a concern in purchasing the land or selling the home. He also indicated that they had built a number of nearby homes across the street and it had never come up as an issue. 24 9. Matched Pair - Manatee Solar Farm. Parish. FL T?ris solar farm is located near Seminole Trail, Pa:rish, FL. The solar Iiarm has a 74.50 MW output and is located on a 1,180.38 acre tract and was built in 2016. The tract is owned by Florida Power & Light Company. I have considered the recent sale of 13670 Highland Road, Wimauma, Florida. This one-story, block home is located just north of the solar farm and separated from the solar farm by a railroad corridor. This home is a 3 BR, 3 BA 1,512 s.f. home with a carport and workshop. The property includes new custom cabinets, granite counter tops, brand new stainless steel appliances, updated bathrooms and new carpet in the bedrooms. The home is sitting on 5 acres. The home was built tn 1997. I have compared this sale to several nearby homesales as part of this matched pair analysis as shown below. trote Renov, Renov. Renov Renov-\/ Soler Adjoins Not Not Not Not TAX lD/Addrcrr r3670 Highland 29Ol Anowsmith 602 Ehrtch Cassidy 2908 Wild West 13851 Highland Detc Eold 8l2rl2or7 rl3tl2o18 slsl2ol7 7 | r2l2or7 9l r3l2or7 8rl.l Prlcc Bullt $255,000 1997 $225,000 t979 $220,000 2001 $254,O0O 2003 $2.t0,000 ,97a Acrcr 5.00 1.91 1.00 r.23 5.OO (}BA 1,5t2 1,636 r,560 r,5s 1,636 I/CBA BR/BA Perk Style $168.65 313 Carport/Wrkshp Ranch $137.53 3/2 2 Gmgs/Wrkshp Rmch $141.03 3/2 N/A Ranch $163.45 312 2 Garage/Wrkshp Rmch $146.70 4/2 3 Garage Ranch [Et / I tr f,' 'l td &. tr, 25 Eoler Adjoins Not Not Not Not A{Jolnlng Selcr AdJu:tcd TAX lD/Addrcr Tlmc Acrcr Y'B 13670 Highland 29O1 Arrowsmith $2,250 $1O,OOO $28,350 602 Burtch Cassidy -$2,2OO $10,OO0 -$6,160 2908 Wild West $0 $10,O0O -$10,668 13851 Highland $o $o $31,920 GLA BR/BA PerL lfotc Totd $2ss,000 -$1O,oOO $1o,OoO $262,073$2,000 $22s,2ss-$10,000 $244,eoo-$10,000 $255,825 o/o Dlff -$8,s27 -$3,s8s -$3,432 -$e,oes $s,ooo $s,000 $s,ooo $s,ooo -3o/o l2o/o 4o/o Oo/o Avcregc 3o/o The sales prices of the comparables before adjustrnents range from $220,000 to $254,000. After adjustments they range from $225,255 to $262,073. The comparables rzrnge from no impact to a strong positive impact. The comparables showing -3yo and +4o/o impact on value are considered within a typical range of value and therefore not indicative of any impact on property value. This set of matched pair data falls in line with tJle data seen in other states. The closest solar panel to the home at 13670 Highland is I , 180 feet. There is a wooded buffer between these two properties. I have included a map showing the relative location of these properties below. i .l ^Qatsdv e6t // %o* '-.- oaSc6ab | "r'i-- t a' .' l 26 1O. Matched Pair - McBride Place Solar Farm. Midland. IiIC This project is located on Mount Pleasant Road, Midland, NortJr Carolina. The property is on 627 acres on an assemblage of 974.59 acres. The solar farm was approved in early 2Ol7 for a74.9 MW facility. I have considered the sale of 4380 Jo5mer Road which adjoins tJre proposed solar farm near the northwest section. This property was appraised in April of 2Ol7 for a value of $317,000 urith no consideration of any impact due to the solar farm in that figure. The property sold in November 2018 for $325,000 with the buyer firlly aware of tlle proposed solar farm. BR/BA 3/2 312.s 212 3/2 PrrLGt Det z(Gtr zrlo{prl 2xGr EtylG Rmch cnft Rmch Rmch Othcr Outbldg Eq. Fac. I have considered the following matched pairs to the subject property. A(Jolatag Rcrldorthl grlc. Aftor toler Fm AppsoyGd Sohr Addrc[ Acrar Drt.6old Edcr PHcc Bullt GBA I/GBAAdjoins 43SoJoyner 12.OO l1/22l2or? $325,0OO 1'979 1,598 $203.38 Not 387o Ekmod 5.5O 8/24/2016 $250,000 1986 1,551 $161.19 Not 8121 Irrcr Rocky 18.00 2l8l2ol7 $355,0OO 1977 r,274 $278.65Not 13531 Cabams 7.89 512012016 $267,750 1981 2,300 $116.41 \-/ ! \ -r(fNr:>t' Sgptrst, L oo)fetb C/.-?_- P.n;'"f ' I @ 2018 Google C 27 AdJotalng Edcr AdJurtcd Tlmc Acrcr IB GLA BR/BA Park Othcr $7,500t $7,loo $8,O33 $s2,000 -$48,OOO $33,OOO -$12,250 $4,970 -$3,749 Condltloa $10,0oo $2o,ooo $2,273 $23,1s6 -$3s,832 $2,soo $3,000 $o $7,soo -$15,000 $7,soo Total $32s,000 $317,s23 $330,226 $296,702 "/" Dlfl 2o/o -2o/o 9o/o -S2,ooo $o $o Avcragc 3o/o After adjusting the comparables, I found that the average adjusted value shows a slight increase in value for the subject property adjoining a solar farm. As in tJle other cases, this is a mild positive and within the typical range of real estate transactions. I tl:erefore conclude that tl:ese matched pairs show no impact on value. I note that the home at 4380 Jo5rner Road is 275 feet from the closest proposed solar panel. I also considered the recent sale of a lot on Ikisti Lane tJlat is on the east side of tJle proposed solar farm. Tltis 4.22-acre lot sold in December 2Ol7 for $94,000. I spoke with the broker, Margaret Dabbs, who indicated that the solar farm was considered a positive by both buyer and seller as it insures no subdivision will be happening in that area. Buyers in this market are looking for privary and seclusion. The other lots on Kristi Lane are likely to sale soon at similar prices. Ms. Dabbs indicated that they have had these lots on tJle market for about 5 years at asking prices that were probably a little high and they are now selling and they have another r:nder contract. 28 11. Matched Pair - Conetoe Solar. Edgecombe Countv. NC This project is located on NC 42 East to the west of Conetoe. This is an 80 MW facility located on 910.60 acres out of an assemblage of 1,389.89 acres. I have considered a manufactured home adjoining the project tJ at sold after the project as identified as Parcel 14 along Leigh Road. T?ris home was 1,515 feet from the closest solar panel. This home is located on 0.49 acres, was built in 2005, and has a gross living area of 1,632 s.f. This property sold on March 8, 2016 for $31,000, or $19.00 per squ€rre foot. I compared this to a simiLar manufactured home that sold on July 2l,2016 as shown below. The adjusted price per square foot for the two show no efiective difference in the price per square foot. AdJolntag Rcrldcnttd Sdcr Aftcr Solar Farm Coaplctcd # TAX ID Acrcr Datc Sold Sdcr Prlcc Bullt14 475GOO-9962 O.49 31712016 $31,OOO 2OO5 Ncarby Rcrldcatlal Sdcr After Solar Farn Conpletcd # TAX ID Acrcr Dete Sold Sdcr Prlcc Butlt474G*8535 0.968 7l2rl20t6 $18,OOO 1996 GBA r632 GBA 980 I/GBA $19.00 Notc Manufactured 0/cse $18.37 Notc Manufactured TAX ID Adiurtnentr Acrer t-B cBA Totel *lr.f 4756-00-9962 474G@-8s3s -$3,000 $3,240 $O $18,240 $re.Or This data indicates no difference attributable to the proximity/adjacency to the solar farm. a -1 ) -!b a ] I ;p*a / , \H 29 12. Matched Pair - Beetle-Shelbv Solar. Cleveland Countv. NC This project is located on Bachelor Road at Timber Drive, Mooresboro, NC. This is a 4 MW faciliqr on a parent tract of 24 acres. I have considered a custom home on a nearby property adjoining this solar farm. This home is located on 10.08 acres, was built in 2013, and has a gross living area of 3,196 s.f. This propert5r sold on October 1, 2018 $416,000. I compared this to several nearby homes of similar size on large lots as shown below. AdJolalag Rcrldcatld Sdcr Aftcr Soler Frrn Approvcd Soler Addrcrr Acrcr Detc Sold Edcr Prlcc Bullt Adjoins 1715 Timber 10.08 1Oltl20t8 $416,000 2013 Not 1021 Posting 2.45 2lrsl2llg $414,0OO 20oo Not 2521 Wood 3.25 7l3ol2ol7 $350,000 2003 Not 356 Whitaker 7.28 1/9l2or7 $340,OOO 1997 GBA I/GBA BR/BA 3, 196 $130.16 413.5 4,9s7 $83.86 414.5 3,607 $97.03 414 3,276 $rO5.72 414 atytc Othcr 1.5 story Pool, Scm Prch 1.5 story Scrn Prch 1.5 story Pool, sunroornRanch Pole barn PerL 2xGar 2xGar 4xGar 2xGar t .t tt t \ r \ F .! I F: I f, 30 AdJolnlng Sdcr A{lurtcd Tlmc Acrcr Y-B GLA BR/BA PerL Other Total $416,0o0 $398,276 $371,048 $392,s34 o/" Diff 4o/o ll%o 60/o $10,s00 $1s,3OO $15,oOO $gZ,OZ+ -$58,s98 -$1o,ooo $12,000 $Z+,SOO -$15,952 -$5,000 -$5,0OO $s,ooo $38,080 -$846 -$s,000 Avcragc 7o/o The data on these sales all show that the subject property adjoining the solar farm sold for more than these other comparable sales. These sales suggest a mild increase in value due to proximity to the solar farm; however, the subject property is a custom home with upgrades that would balance out that difference. I therefore conclude that these matched pairs support an indication of no impact on property value. 31 13. Matched Pair - Coutthouse Solar. Garton Countv. NC This project is a 5 MW faciJity located on 161.92 acres on Tryon Courthouse Road near Bessemer City that was approved in late 2016 but has not yet been constructed due to delays in the power purchase agreement process with Duke Progress Enerry. I have considered a recent sale of a home (Parcel 13) located across from this approved solar farm project as well as an adjoining lot sale (Parcel 25) to the west of this approved project. I compared the home sale to similar sized homes with similar exposure to count5r roads as shown below. I considered tl:ree sirnilar sales that once adjusted for differences show a positive relationship due to proximity to the solar farm. The positive impact is less than 5% which is a standard deviation for real estate transaction and indicates no impact on propert5r value. A{Jotrhg Rcrldcntld 8.1c. AftGr Soler Frrn ApptovGd Soler Addrcr Acrcr lrrtc Sold Adjoins 2134 Tlyon Court. 0.85 3ll5l2ol7 Not 214 Kiser 1.14 rl5/2or7 Not 101 Windward 0.30 3l30l20l7 Not 5550 knnox 1.44 l0ll2l20l8 Selcr Prlcc $t I 1,ooo $94,ooo $104,ooo $1 15,ooo Bullt 2001 1987 1995 200,2 $s33 -$128 -$s,444 l/cse fi7.26 $69.94 $91.31 $9s.95 BR/BA 312 3/2 312 312 Stylc Ranch Ranch Ranch Ranch o/o Dlfl CBA 1,272 1,344 1,139 r,224 Prrk Drive Drive Drive Drive A{lolnlag Rerldcatld Sdcr Aftcr Soler Ferm Approvcd Soler Addrcr Acrer Detc Sold Selcr Prlcc Adjoins 2134 Tryon Court. 0.85 3ll5l20l7 $111,000 Not 214 Kiser l'14 ll5l2ol7 $94,OOONot 101 Windward 0.3O 3l3ol2ll7 $IO4,OOONot 555O l,ennox 1.44 10/12/2018 $115,000 AdJolalng Sdcr AdJurtcd Tlmc Acrcr Y-B GLA Totd $l l1,ooo -$1,s11 $rO2,234 $s,61s $ll3,8ss -$2,3e6 $106,3ss $e,212 $4,368 -$sos AVo -3o/o 4o/o 3o/oAvcregc Similarly, I compared the lot sale to four nearby land sales. Parcel 25 could not be subdivided and was a single estate lot. There were a number of nearby lot sales along Weaver Dairy that sold for $43,000 to $3O,0OO per lot for 4-acre home lots. Estate lots typically sell at a base homesite rate that would be z 21 ,d,r - ; I 32 represented by those prices plus a diminishing additional value per additional acre. The consideration o' the larger tract more accurately illustrates the value per acre for larger tracts. After adjustments, the landr-. sales show a mild positive impact on land value with an average increase of 9o/o, which supports a positive impact. Aqrohlat R..tdolttd Ird 8dG. Aft.r 8ol.r trrrE ApproyGd Solu Addrc.. Acr.. Drta &ld tdor Prlco l/AcAdjoins 5021 Bucklmd 9.66 3l2tl2018 $58,500 $6,056Not Cmpbell 6.75 l0l3rl20\8 $42,0OO $6,222Not Kiser 17.65 rrl27l2or7 $69,000 $3,909Not 522WeaverDairy 3.93 212612018 $30,000 $7,634Not 779 Sunyside 6.99 3/612017 $34,0OO $4,864 Aqrotlht tdG. Aqru3t.d Tlrlc Acr.r Totd $s8,soo $s9,333 $s0,139 $5s,os7 $48,O49 AvarttG g%o -$77s $@7 $s7 $1,062 $18,107 -$19,sO8 $2s,000 $12,987 Dltf trotc I homesite only -1o/" 149/0 6 arcs less usable due to shapc (SOYo) 6Vo tg/o 33 14. Matched Pair - Mariposa Solar. Gaston Countv. NC This project is a 5 MW facility located on 35.80 acres out of a parent tract of 87.61 acres at 517 Blacksnake Road, Stanley that was built in 2016. I have considered a number of recent sales around this facility as shown below. The first is identified in the map above as Parcel 1, which is 215 Mariposa Road. This is an older dwelling on large acreage with only one bathroom. IVe compared it to similar nearby homes as shown below. A{lolnhg Rcrldcatlel Selcr Aftcr Soler Ferm Approvcd Solar Addrcrr Acrcr Datc Sold Sdcr Prlcc Bullt Adjoins 215 Mariposa 17.74 t2lt2/2O17 $249,000 1958 Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3lll20tg $153,000 1974 Not r10 Airport 0.83 5/rO/2Ot6 $166,000 1962 Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9120/2018 $242,500 1980 Not 1201 Abernathy 27.OO 5l3l20l8 $390,000 r97O GBA 1,551 t,792 2,165 2,156 2,190 */GBA $160.54 $8s.38 $76.67 $112.48 $178.08 BR/BA 3lL 412 312 3/2 3/2 PrrL Garage Garage Crprt Drive Crprt Stylc Br/Rnch BrlRnch BrlRnch 1.5 Br/Rnch I qt1 l,it i in- .:Y Aqjohlnt R..ldGrtlrl &lG. AftGr gol.r FrrE Approrcd A{lolnlng 6dcr A4rurtGd 34 AcsG3 GLll BR/BA PerL Othor 96 Dlff -VTlncYBSoler Addrou Actr. Adjoins 215 Mriposa 17.74 Not 249 Muiposa 0.48 Not 11O Airport 0.83 Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 Not 1201 Abemathy 27.OO DrtG Eold 8dc. PHcc L2lL2l2OL7 $249,mO3lrl2o19 $1s3,0oosllol2016 $166,mo9l20l2Or8 $242,fiO5/3/2018 $39O,0OO -$s,s83 $7,927 -$s,621 -$4,552 -$17,136 -$4,648 -$s7,34s -$32,760 $129,45O $r26,82s $95,47s -$69,450 -$2O,576 -$10,00O -v7,s78 -$1O,0OO -$6E,04E -$10,OOO $5,OOO -$60,7os -$1o,OOO Totd $249,@0 $229,154 $239,026 $221,961 $212,533 8o/o 40/o llYo r50/o AYrsaI. 9/o The average difference after adjusting for all factors is +97o on average, which suggests an enhancement due to the solar farm across the street. Given the large adjustments for acreage and size, I will focus on the low end of the adjusted r€rnge at 47o, which is within the typical deviation and therefore suggests no impact on va1ue. I have also considered Parcel 4 that sold a.fter the solar farm was approved but before it had been constructed ,J]2016. A(Jolnlng Rcrtdeatld Sdcr Aftcr 8ol.r tr rt! Approvcd Sohr Addrcu Acrer Dete Sold 6eler klce Bullt Adjoins 242 Mariposa 2.91 9l2ll20rs $180,000 1962 Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3lrl20r9 $153,000 1974 Not 110 Airport 0.83 5l1012016 $166,000 1962 Not 1249 Backsnake 5.01 9l2O/2O18 $242,500 l98O GBA 1,880 t,792 2,165 2,156 I/GBA $95.74 $8s.38 $76.67 $112.48 BR/BA 3/2 4/2 312 312 PrrL aty'c Othor Carport Br/Rnch Det Wrkshop Garage Br/Rnch Crprt Br/Rnch Drive 1.5 AdJolntlt RG.ldcntld Eds Afltcr tolrr trua Approy.d A(Johhg &16. Aqju.tcd Solu Addrsr Acrc. Drtc Sold 8r1.. P?lcG TIEG YB Acr6Adjoins 242 Miliposa 2.91 9l2ll20l5 $IEO,OOO Not 249 Muiposa 0.48 3lrl20r9 $153,0OO -$15,807 -$12,852 $18,468 Not 110 Airport 0.83 511012016 $166,000 -$3,165 $0 $15,808 Not 1249 Ellacksnake 5.01 9l2O/2Or8 $242,500 -$21,825 -$30,555 -$15,960 BR/BA PrrL Othcr Totd % Dllr $180,Om -$3,OOO $25,000 $172,322 4vo $25,ooo $175,043 3% $2,000 $25,000 $1@,218 rlo/o \-, AvGrata 6a/o AdJolnlng Sdcr AdJurtcd Tlme S/Ac g7,s6s $38 $e,2ls-$ez $6,447_$zor $11,081$7 $s,027 GLA $7,513 -$28,600 -vo,942 The average difference after adjusting for all factors is +67o, which is again suggests a mild increase in value due to the adjoining solar farm use. The median is a 4Yo adjustrnent, which is within a standard deviation and suggests no impact on property value. I have also considered the recent sale of Parcel 13 that is located on Blacksnake Road south of the project. I was unable to find good land sales in the same 2O acre range, so I have considered sales of larger and smaller acreage. I adjusted each of those land sales for time. I then applied the price per acre to a trendline to show where tJle expected price per acre would be for 2O acres. As can be seen in the chart below, this lines up exactly with the purchase of the subject property. I therefore conclude that there is no impact on Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm. AdJotntng Reridcntlal Land Sdcr Aftcr Solar Farm Approvcd Solar Tax/Strcet Acrer Datc Sold Seler Prlcc S/Ac Adjoins 1.74339/Blacksnake 21.15 6129l21l8 $160,000 $7,565 Not 227852/Abernathy 10.57 51912018 $97,000 $9,177 Not 17443/t*$on 9.87 9/7l2ot8 $64,000 $6,484 Not 164243/Nexis 9.75 2lr l2}tg $110,000 $11,282 Not 176884/Bowden 55.77 6lt3l20t8 $280,000 $5,021 35 S/Ac srzm S10,mo Ss,om 9s,om Sa,om s2,000 So +S/Ac - Expon. (S/Ac) 0.m 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 I Finally, I have considered the recent sale of Parcel 17 that sold as vacant land. I was unable to find good Land sales in the same 7 acre rErnge, so I have considered sales of larger and smaller acreage. I adjusted each of those land sales for time. I then applied the price per acre to a trendline to show where the expected price per acre would be for 7 acres. As can be seen in the chart below, tJris lines up with the trendline running right through the purchase price for the subject propert5r. I therefore conclude that there is no impact on Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm. I note t]rat this property was improved with a 3, 196 square foot ranch built in 2018 following the land purchase, which shows that development near the solar farm was unimpeded. Adjoining Rcrldentlal Laad Sder After Solar Farm Approved Solar Tar/Strcct Acrcr Date Sold Salcr Prlce l|/Ac Adjoins 227O39/Maiposa 6.86 1216/2017 $66,500 $9,694 Not 227852/A&rnathy 10.57 51912018 $97,000 $9,177 Not 17443/l*$on 9.87 917l2ll8 $tr,000 $6,484Not 177322lRobinson 5.23 5lt2l2OL7 $66,500 $tZ,ZtS Not 203386/Carousel 2.99 7 /1312018 $43,500 $14,548 AdJotntng Sdee AdJurted Tlmc Locatloa f/Ac $s,os+ -$r ro $e,o6l-$147 $6,338 $217 -$r,272 $11,661-$zoz -$1,455 $12,832 s14 000 S10,mo 512,m Sa,om $o,om Sq,om --+-- 5eries1 -Expon.(Seriesl) S2,om - So0.m 2.m 4.m 6.m 8.00 10.00 u.00 36 15. Matched Pair - Cl,arke Couatv Solar. Clarke County. VA This project is a 20 MW facility located on a234-acre tract that was built in 2017 N :I I H i if,:;\" tr !l \ E r- Bullt 't979 1942 1986 1990 1975 l/oBA $21 1.93 $135.02 $r17.2O $177.73 $178.57 BR"IBA 312 312 414 312 3lr P.rL Dct Gu 2Gt 2 Gar 3Gr Drive aty'c Rmch Rmch 2 story 2 story Rmch Oth.s Unfin bsmt 37 I have considered a recent sale or Parcel 3. The home on tJris parcel is 1,230 feet from the closest panel as measured in the second map from Google Earttr, which shows the solar farm under construction. IVe compared this home sale to a number of similar rrral homes on similar parcels as shown below. I have used multiple sales tlat bracket the subject property in terms of sale date, year built, gross living area, bedrooms and bathrooms. Bracketing the parameters insures that all factors are well balanced out in the adjustments. The trend for these sales shows a positive value for the adjacency to the solar farm. A{Jolnla3 Rmldcatld Edc: Aftcr toler llrn Approvod Eolrr Addrc.. Acrc. Detc Sold Sdcr Prle Adjoins 833 Nations Spr 5.13 rl9l2017 $295,OOO Not 85 Ashbl, s.09 9l1rl2or7 $315,ooo Not 541 Old Kitchen 5.O7 9l9l2ol8 $370,OOO Not 4174 Rocklmd 5.06 L/2l2Ol7 $3OO,OOO Not 40O Sugar Hill 1.OO 61712018 $180,O0O OBA 1,392 2,333 3,157 1,688 1,008 A{lotata! XBldutld &16 Aft.r &lu lrrE Approrod Aqrohht &lo AqrErt.d lolu Addu. Acrq Drt. &ld talu klc fiE. Acro lB OI.A BB/BA PrrL Otios Adjoing E33 Nation! Spr 85 Arhby *1 Old Kitchen 4174 Rockled 4OO Sugu HiU 5.13 rl9l2ot75.09 9lrr/2Or7s.o7 9l9l2oras.06 rl2/2or71.OO 6l7l2orE -$6,3{X) -$1E,500 -$9,0oo $4s,ooo -$6,615 -$3a,116 -$18,130 -$62,057 -$23,10O -sr5,782 $s,040 $20,s71 $29s,000 $315,0m s370,OOO $300,000 $lEO,OOO Totd $29s,OOO $27r,969 $279,313 $264, I 18 $267,61 1 % Dlff Not Not Not Not $10,000 -$7,00o -$7,00o -$r2,000 s3,000 $1s,ooo $15,0OO $15,mO $ls,0oo aYo 5V. Itr/. 9/o 8/oAvctrt 38 16. Matched Pair - Candace Solar. Princctou. NC I I * {h 4., 4 '"/:A I I This solar farm is located at 4839 US 70 Highway just east of Herring Road. This solar farm was completed on October 25,2016. Y 4 iF..-:." I 13 r il t EI I 7t E --..r : ==-=E -:.-! -l :-:: - T:* ffi::*--*-- i;:-:::ii:i::re L=T===:-.,*";t, I I. q I /Google Earth 39 I identified three adjoining sales to this tract aft.er development of tJle solar farm witll frontage on US 70. I did not attempt to analyzn those sales as they have exposure to an adjacent highway and railroad track. Those homes are therefore problematic for a matched pair analysis unless I have similar homes fronting on a similar corridor. I did consider a land sale and a home sale on adjoining parcels without those complications. The lot at 499 Herring Road sold to Paradise Homes of Johnston County of NC, Inc. for $3O,0O0 in May 2Ol7 and a modular home was placed there and sold to Karen and Jason Toole on September 29, 2017. I considered the lot sale first as shown below and then the home sale that followed. AdJolalng Lead Sdcr Aftcr Solu Fetm Approvcd Drte Sold Selor Prlce A{lolalng Edor AdJurtod Othcr TltlG Sltc Othct TotdParcel Eoler 16 Adjoins Not Not Not Addrcu 499 Herring 37 Becky 5858 Bizzell 488 Herring Acrer 2.O3 o.87 0.88 2.73 sl 1 12017 7 /2312Or9 8/ 17 l2ot6 t2l20/2016 $3o,ooo $24,s00 $18,ooo $3s,ooo $4,900 $3,600 $3o,ooo $27,72r $21,99o $3s,389 Yo Difl 8o/o 27o/o -78Vo Sub/Pwr -$1,679 $s90 $sas Avoregc 5o/o Following tJle land purchase, the modular home was placed on the site and sold. I have compared tlds modular home to the following sales to determine if the solar farm had any impact on the purchase price. AdJolnlng Rcrldcntlel Sdcr Aftcr Solrr Fern Approvcd Prrccl Soler Addro:r Acror Deto Sold Sdcr Prlcc 16 Adjoins 499 Hering 2.O3 9/27/2017 $215,000Not 678 wc 6.32 3l8l2OL9 $226,000Not 1810 Bayv 8.70 3126/2018 $170,OO0 Not 1795 Bayv r.78 r2lL|2OL7 $194,000 AdJolDlnt R..tdoatld Erlcr Al AdJotalag tdG. A(Ju3tGd Prrccl tolu Addr63 TIEG EltG t-B OIA 16 Adjoins 499 Hening Not 678wC -$10,037 -$25,0OO $24,8@ $37,275Not 1810 Bayv -$2,579 -$20,OOO $11,900 $O Not 1795 Bayv -$1,063 $O $2I,964 i/GBA BR/BA PerL Stylc Othcr $91.26 413 Drive Modular $122.29 3/2.5 Det Gu Mobile Agbldgs $72.L6 312 Drive Mobile Ag bl,{gs $97.88 4/3 Drive Modular Enllt 20t7 1995 2003 2017 GBA 2,356 1,848 2,356 1,942 BR/BA PrrL Oth.r Totd % Irtlf $21s,0oo -$s,0o0 -$7,so0 -$20,000 $220,599 -3vo $159,321 26ot/o i214,9O2 Oo/o AYt 96 Dlfi Dl.trBcc 484 ao/o The best comparable is 1795 Bay Valley as it required the least adjustrnent and was therefore most similar, which shows a 0% impact. This signifies no impact related to the solar farm. The range of impact identified by these matched pairs ranges are therefore -3o/o to +26/o with an average of +87o for t]le home and an average of +5o/o for t]le lot, though the best indicator for the lot shows a $5,000 difference in the lot value due to the proximity to the solar farm or a -l2Yo impact. 40 Conclusion T?re solar farm matched pairs shown above have similar characteristics to each other in terms ofv population, with most of tJle projects being in areas with a l-mile radius population under 1,0OO, but with several outliers showing solar farms in farm more urban areas. The median income for the population within 1 mile of a solar farm is $+9,+a5 with a median housing unit value of $182,219. Most of tJre comparables are under $350,000 in the home price, with $770,000 being the high end of the set of matched pairs in my Larger data set. The adjoining uses show that residential and agricultural uses al€ the predominant adjoining uses. These figures are in line with tJle larger set of solar farms tJlat I have looked at with the predominant adjoining uses being residential and agricultural. fetched Pelr Sunnery Aql. U.c. By Acrc.gc 1 nllc Rrdlur l2OrO-2O19 D.t l IYene I AM Best 2 White Cross 3 Wagsta-If 4 Mulberry 5 Gastonia SC 6 Summit 7 White Cross II t Tracy 9 Manatee 10 McBride 11 Conetoe 12 Beetle-Shelf 13 Courthouse L4 Mariposa 15 Clarke Cnty 16 Candace Clty Goldsboro Chapel Hill Roxboro Selmer Gastonia Moyock Chapel Hill Bailey Parrish Midland Conetoe Shelby Bessemer Stanley White Post Princeton gt tc Acrca NC 38NC 45 NC 30 TN 160 NC 35NC 2,034 NC 34NC 50 FL 1,180 NC 627 NC 91O NC 24NC 52 NC 36vA 234 NC 54 Populrtioa 1,523 273 336 467 4,689 342 273 372 48 398 336 27A 551 7,776 578 444 Avg. Hourl-g Utrtt $148,375 $s19,929 $27o,72s $771,746 $126,562 $281,731 $3 19,929 $99,219 $29r,667 $2s6,306 $96,Ooo $t92,692 $139,404 \/ $137,884 $374,453 $107,171 uw 5.OO 5.OO 5.OO 5.OO 5.OO 80.00 2.AO 5.OO 75.00 75.00 80.00 4.00 5.OO 5.OO 20.00 5.00 Topo Ahtft 2 50 6 50 48 4 35 10 20 140 2 52 150 95 70 22 50 47 150 2 RG. 3AY6 5o/o 7o/o l3Yo 331io 4Vo 25o/o 29y" 2Yo 72o/o 5o/o 22o/o 48o/o 4AYo 74Vo 760/o AglRcr 23o/o 5lo/o AgYo 10% 23o/o 94Yo TSyo 7 lo/o l%o TAYo 78o/o O%o 52o/o 52o/o 461io OYo Ag Oo/o 44o/o 4Vo 73o/o Oo/o OYo OYo Oo/o 97Yo lOYo l7o/o 77o/o OVio Oo/o 39%o 24V" 24o/o 7Yo 97o/o Oo/o 39o/o Oo/o Oo/o 3o/o 44o/o 2o/o OYo Oo/o Oo/o OYo Oo/o lYo Oo/o Oo/o lo/o Oo/o 6%0 Oo/o 44o/o Oo/o Oo/o fcd. Inconc $37,3s8 $67,477 $41,368 $40,936 $3s,os7 $79,1 14 $67,47r $43,940 $7s,ooo $63,678 $37,160 $s3,s41 $45,968 $36,43e $81,O22 $s1,002 Com/Iud AYCragc Ucdlen HIgh Lor Slider Solar NC 346 23.46 51 5.OO 2,034 80.00 24 2.AO 41 24Yi" Ta%o 760/o 2Yo 460/o 52o/o 94o/o Oo/o 777 $53,533 390 $48,485 4,689 $81,02248 $3s,Os7 $2o4,6t2 $782,279 $374,453 $96,ooo 44o/o 2lo/o 35o/o 1,166 $57,008 $178,042 I have pulled 27 matched pairs from the above referenced solar farms to provide the following summary of home sale matched pairs and land sales next to solar farms. The sunmary shows that the range of differences is from -5% to +7yo with an average of +2o/o and median of +lVo. This means that the average and median impact is for a slight positive impact due to adjacenry to a solar farm. However, this 17o rate is within the typical variability I would expect from real estate. I therefore conclude that this data shows no negative or positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. Similarly, the 7 land sales shows a medizrn impact of OVo due to adjacency to a solar farm. The range of tJrese adjustrnents range from -l2o/o to +l7%o. Land prices tend to vary more widely than residential homes, which is part of that greater range. I consider this data to support no negative or positive impact due to adjacenry to a solar farm. v Residential Dwelllng Matched Palr Adloining Solar Farms Pair SolarFarm City St te Area 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban 2 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban 3 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban 4 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban 5 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban 5 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban 7 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban 8 AM Best Goldsboro NC Suburban 9 Mulberry Selmer TN Rural 10 Mulberry Selmer TN Rural 11 Mulberry Selmer TN Rural 12 Mulberry Selmer TN Rural 13 Mulberry Selmer TN Rural 14 Neal Hawkins Gastonia NC Suburban 15 Summit Moyock NC Suburban 16 Summit Moyock NC Suburban 17 White Cross ll Chapel Hill NC Rural 18 Trary Bailey NC Rural 19 Manatee Parrish FL Rural 20 McBride Place Midland NC Rural 21 Conetoe Conetoe NC Rural 22 Beetle-Shelby Mooresboro NC Rural 23 Courthouse Bessemer NC Rural 24 Mariposa Stanley NC Suburban 25 Mariposa Stanley NC Suburban 26 Clarke Cnty White Post VA Rural 27 Candace Princeton NC Suburban 4t Tax lD/Address Sale tHe Sale Price Adj. Sale Price % Diff 36m195570 Sep-13 s25o,(m36m198928 Mar-14 s250,0m s250,m0 @6 36m195351 Sep-13 S260,m36m194813 Apt-14 S258,(m S258,m r% 36m199891 Jul-14 S2$,(m36m198928 Mar-14 5250,0@ S250,m M 35m198632 Aug-14 s253,0m 36m193710 0ct-13 s248,0m s248,m 2% 36m196556 Dec-13 s255,0m3601105180 Dec-13 S253,0m S253,(m r% 36m182511 Feb-13 s247,W36m83905 Dec-12 s240,0m s245,m r% 3ffit82784 Apr-13 s245,0m36m193710 0ct-13 s248,0m s248,m -t% 35m195:t51 Nov-15 s257,5m36m195361 Sep-13 S260,0m S267,8m @6 GXnA011 Jul-14 s130,0mo9!,cA043 Feb-15 s148,9m s86,988 -5% GBCAm2 Jul-15 s130,0mGX'0NA040 Mar-15 s120,0m su!2m 7% 491 Dusty Oct-15 S175,0misapril Aug-16 S185,ocD 5178,283 -1% 2g7country Sep-16 S150,0m 53Glen Mar-17 s125 0m St4/,,M 4% 57 Cooper Feb-19 S163,0m1g1Amelia Aug-18 S132,(m 5$5,947 4%139179 Mar-17 S270,0m139179 Mar-17 s270,0m s270,m0 Wo 129 Pinto Apr-16 s170,0O 102 Timber Apr-16 s175,5m s169,451 W6 105 Pinto Dec-16 S205,0m 127 Ranchland Jun-15 5219,9C[) 5191,278 6% 2018 Elkins Feb-15 $/m,O(D 42mB Old Greensbor Dec-15 S38O,0m $29,438 3% 9162 Winters Jan-17 S255,0m 7352 Red Fox Jun-16 5175,0@ 5252,399 t% 1!1670 Highland Aug-18 S255,0m 1!1851 Highland Sep-18 S24O,0@ 5255,825 A6 4380Joyner Nov-17 5325,0003870Elkwood Aug-16 5250,0@ 5317,523 2% 287leigh Mar-16 S310m 63 Brittany Jul-16 s18,0m s30,372 2% 1715Timber Oct-18 S415,0m 1021 Posting Feb-19 9140m 5398,275 4% 2ill4Tryon Court. Mar-17 S111,0m 5550 Lennox Oct-18 S115,0m 5106,355 4% 215 Mariposa Dec-17 S249,0O 110 Airport May-16 S166,(m 589,026 4% 242 Mariposa Sep-15 518O,0mlloAirport Apr-16 S165,m 5175,043 3% 833 Nations Spr Jan-17 S29t0m 541Old Kitchen Sep-18 5370,0@ $219,3t3 S% 499 Herring Sep-17 S215,0m 1795 Bay Valley Dec-17 s194,0m 52t4,$2 016 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 80 80 2.8 75 75 80 5 MW Appmx Distance 280 280 280 2N 280 2g 280 280 /m tm 480 650 685 275 1,060 2,020 t,479 780 1180 275 1515 945 375 1155 570 12:t0 488 4 5 5 5 20 5 42 land Sale Matched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms Pair Solar Farm City State Area 1 White Cross Chapel Hill NC Rural Average Median High Low MW Tax lDlAddress Sale Date Sale Prlce Acres $/ACs 974a3367]70 Jul-13 S265,m0 47.20 55,614 9747tU527 Nov-10 5351,000 59.09 56,109s 91817117960 Aug-13 5154,000 18.82 58,7t4 918m759812 Dec-13 S130,0m 14.88 58,7375 316003 Jul-15 S70,0m 13.22 Ss,29s 6056 oct-16 S164,0m 4L00 54,000 5 5021 Buckland Mar-18 s58,5m 9.66 s6,056Kiser Nov-17 s69,0m fi.65 53,9095 174339 Jun-18 5160,000 zt.ts 57,565 2278s2 May-18 S9Z0m rc.57 59,7n5 227039 Dec-17 S65,s00 6.85 59,694 777322 May-t7 s55,500 5.23 572,715 5 49!l Herring May-17 $0,m0 2.03 SLA,nB zl88 Herring Dec-15 $5,m0 2.17 515,129 Average Median High Low 2 Wagstaff 3 Tracy 4 Courthouse 5 Mariposa 5 Mariposa 7 Candace MW 18.96 5.m 80.m 2.80 Roxboro NC Bailey NC Bessemer NC Stanley NC Stanley NC Princeton NC Avg. Distance 674 480 2,020 275 Ru ral Rural Rural Sub Sub Sub %Daf 2% L% 7% -5% %Dilt Adj. s/Ac ss,278 58,737 Sa,am Ss,19o 57,s65 59,5% S1G,o1s 6% @5 t7% r4%\J w Wo -12% Average Median Hlgh Low 5.00 5.m 5.m 5.@ AYerage Medlan High [ow 4% @5 t7% -t2% 43 II. Harrrony of Use/CompatibiliW I have researched over 600 solar farms and sites on which solar farms are proposed in North Carolina and Virginia as well as other states to determine what uses and types of areas are compatible and harmonious with a solar farm. The data I have collected and provide in this report strongly supports the compatibility of solar liarms with adjoining agricultLlral and residential uses. While I have focused on adjoining uses, I note tJlat there are many examples of solar farms being located within a quarter mile of residential developments, including such notable developments as Governor's Club in Chapel Hill, which has a solar farm within a quarter mile as you can see on the following aerial map. Governor's Club is a gated golf community with homes selling for $300,000 to over $2 million. The subdivisions included in the matched pair analysis also show an acceptance of residential uses adjoining solar farms as a harmonious use. Beyond these anecdotal references, I have quantified the adjoining uses for a number of solar farm comparables to derive a breakdown of the adjoining uses for each solar farm. The chart below shows the breakdown of adjoining or abutting uses by total acreage. It. ,I L I a 44 7Wo Rcr =Sub = I have also included a breakdown of each solar farm by number of adjoining parcels rather than acreage. Using botl: factors provides a more complete picture of the neiglrboring properties. Average Median High Low Average Median High Low L996 LL% LW Wo 6t% 65% Lm9' @6 s3% 57% 7ffi% 0% 24% 2@6 L0fJ/o o% 2Wo 8% o% 96% Wo v6 2L5 4,670 25 u9 661 483s 90 7% o% 95% W" t% @6 Wo (Yo 8% w6 6% w6 78% W. 345 2t5 4,570 25 848 551 483s 90 4% o% 78% o% Ind = Indurtrld.Con = 92% L0fJ.Yo L0p96 M 94% 10096 L0f,6 22% 9% 5% LO(]/o o% 2% M Wo W" Rcr = Both of the above charts show a marked residential and agricultural adjoining use for most solar farms. Every single solar farm considered included an adjoining residential or residential agricultural use. These comparable solar farms clearly support a compatibility with adjoining residential uses along with agricultural uses. Ind = Indurtrld.Con =Sub = Avg. Ust Closest to Home Home AllRes AllComm Uses Uses By Adjoining Acreage Res Res/AG Comm lnd Total Solar Farmr Conrldered: 493 Avg. Dist Closest to Home Home By Number of Parcels Adjoining Res Comm lnd AllRes AllComm Uses Total Soler Farnr Coarldered: 493 UI. Summary of Local Solar Fanrr Proiects On the following pages I have included a summary of solar farms in Randolph and adjoining counties to show the typical location, adjoining uses, and distances to homes in the area. 45 Avg.Dlrt Clor..t A{Jotntn3u..btAcr. to hono Hono Rcr Agt Agrl/Ro ConIh.tnc AYarrSa Xcdler HrCh Lor Totd Output Acrcr lxsl Urcd AcrcrPrrccl I County Clty 6 Chatham Chapel Hill 19 Chatham Chapel Hill 39 Chatham SilerCity 107 MontgomeryTroy 142 Moore West End 143 Moore West End 148 Randolph Trinity 161 Chatham Siler City 163 Chatham Siler City 166 Moore Aberdeen 187 Alamance Graham 193 Randolph Climax 2O2 Moore West End 203 Moore Candor 210 Moore Carthage 214 Randolph Liberty 232 Moore Biscoe 236 Moore Robbins 286 Chatham SilerCity 307 Randolph Denton 308 Randolph Asheboro 309 Randolph Seagrove 313 Alamance Elon 326 Randolph Liberty 327 Randolph Asheborc 328 Randolph NewHope 329 Randolph Asheboro 349 Davidson Denton 352 Montgomery Mount Gilead 378 Davidson lexington 393 Alamance Graham zK)4 Chatham Moncure 453Davidson Thomasville 464 Randolph Lib€(y 481 Guilford Whitsett 487 Randolph Asheboro SOSDavidson Ttromasville 522 Moore West End 550 MontgomeryCandor 619 Davidson Denton Strata 1.57 Vickers 2 Pittr 5 Haywood Pine Valley 4.996 Pinesage 4.996 Trinity West Siler Suits Siler 42I Moorc I 2.66 Ebkatsias 4.996 Climax Higlway 211 Spicewood 6.4 SedberryFam 5 Henry 5 Dabestani 2.496 Mustang Pega.sus 2.69 Hopkins Hopewell Ftiends MomingView Manning Kendall 5 Old Cedar Zelda Spencer Meadow-Ipse Quincy Gilead Lexington 64 lOO3 Whitney Flatwood Thomasville 30 Ridgeback West River Solar 40 T?runderhead 2 Clarksbury Gladstone Farm Whiskey Solar 6.986 Healing Springs 14.154 98.57 47.92 99. 16 89.44 141.9 64.41 195.07 60.06 25. I 25.52 4A.O7 308.05 40.16 31.38 N,2 28.15 49.71 104.9 t7 16.2 102.53 67.43 68. 16 45.48 21 70.8:l 189.02 1o2.67 tt7.r3 142.47 .+6.8 367.48 37.96 429 37.3 49.2 72.44 85.19 433.84 14.19 12.6 47.92 53 37.4A 625 830 1,894 625 1.,174 545 3A2 347 661 1,538 655 422 521 328 504 7,528 248 884 989 &a 275 140 1,060 340 450 250 205 190 191 67 331 250 110 80 95 150 825 255 205 205 200 lOOo/o 2lo/o 2o/o 25o/o 7Vo 2Oo/o 38o/o 13o/o 78o/o 19o/o 4lo/o 77Vo 4o/o 3o/o 75o/o 24o/o 62Vo l0oP/o l3o/o 75o/o IOOP/o 23o/" 27o/o 25% 49o/o lOVo lgYo 47o/o 3o/o 3Oo/o 3OYo l4Vo gAVo 44Vo lOVo 630/o 5o/o 8o/o l3%6 23o/o U/o 58o/o 680/o 1U/o 6o/o 8Oo/o 29o/o 57Vo 78o/o 8lo/o Oo/o 6l%o 960/o Oo/o 5lo/o 50o/o 3tr/o Oo/o 87o/o 64Yo Oo/o 7 lo/o 3T/o 75o/o 2lo/o 9U/o OVo 48o/o 83o/o Oo/o 59o/o 6Yo Oo/o 53o/o 3U/o Oo/o 4@/o 86/o 72o/o 73o/o ff/o 73o/o 3U/o 260/o 8G/o Oo/o Oo/o 3ff/o Oo/o Oo/o Oo/o 2T/o Oo/o 84o/o 34o/o 2T/o OYo Oo/o OVo 2lo/o Oo/o 60/o 35o/o OVo Oo/o Oo/o 8lo/o lA/o 12o/o 640/o llo/o Oo/o Oo/o OYio 6ff/o OVo 37/o 6Yo l5o/o 4%o U/o ff/o U/o tr/o 8/o U/o 33o/o V/o 4Vo U/o 59/o @/o ff/o 73o/o U/o 4Vo U/o U/o V/o V/o U/o U/o tr/o U/o 29o/o Oo/o Oo/o 2o/o lo/o 5o/o Oo/o 79/o T/o 3o/o U/o 3T/o l8/o Oo/o @/o U/o Totd Iiumbcr of Solrr F.rta.40 7.75 5.OO 40.00 r.57 101.8 67.4 433.8 t4.2 822 639 3975 2ra 3Oo/o 27o/o \ooo/o 2Yo 45o/o 5lo/o 96o/o A/o 10.21 lo I 1.8 43.43 43.23 46.8 154 299 40.5 32 55.2 373.94 65.9 39.7 373.9 10.0 1,255 792 r,oa2 445 293 218 686 629 503 3,975 344 7U 445 235 520 445 135 90 2t5 175 87 470 175 90 271 205 1060 67 8o/o U/o 79o/o U/o l8o/o 6Vo 84o/o OVo 31.38 29.21 38.81 22.71 43. l9 46 IV. Specific Factors on Harmony rrith the Area I have completed a number of Impact Studies related to a variet5r of uses and I have found tJlat tJ,e most corunon areas for impact on adjoining values typically follow the following hierarchy with descending levels of potential impact. I will discuss each of these categories and how they relate to a solar farm. i. Hazardous material 2. Odor3. Noise 4. Traffic 5. Stigma 6. Appearance 1. Hazardous material The solar farm presents no potential hazardous waste b5product as part of normal operation. Any fertilizer, weed control, vehicular tra.ffic, or construction will be significantly less than typically applied in a residential development or even most agricultural uses. The various solar farms that I have inspected and identified in the addenda have no known environmental impacts associated with the development and operation. 2. Odor The various solar farms that I have inspected produced no odor. 3. Noise Whether discussing passive fixed solar panels, or single-axis trackers, there is no negative impact associated with noise from a solar farm. The transformer reportedly has a hum similar to an FIVAC that can only be heard in close proximity to this transformer and tJ'e buffers on the property are su.fficient to make emitted sounds inaudible from the adjoining properties. No sorrnd is emitted from the facility at niCht. The various solar farms that I have inspected were inaudible from the roadways. 4. TraIIic The solar farm will have no onsite employee's or staff. The site requires only minimal maintenance. Relative to other potential uses of the site (such as a residential subdivision), the additional tra.ffic generated by a solar farm use on this site is insignificant. 5. Stigma There is no stigma associated with solar farms and solar farms and people generally respond favorably towards such a use. While an individual may express concems about proximity to a solar farm, tJ:ere is no specific stigma associated with a solar farm. Stigma generally refers to things such as adult establishments, prisons, rehabilitation facilities, and so forth. Solar panels have no associated stigma and in smaller collections are found in yards and roofs in many residential communities. Solar panels on a roof are often cited as an enhancement to the property in marketing brochures. I see no basis for an impact from stigma due to a solar farm. -- 47 6. Appearance Although "appearance" has been ruled by NC Courts to be irrelwant to the issue of "harmony with afi area,' I note that larger solar farms using fixed or tracking panels are a passive use of the land that is considered in keeping with a rural/residential area. As shown below, solar farms are comparable to larger greenhouses. T?ris is not surprising given that a greenhouse is essentially another method for collecting passive solar enerry. The greenhouse use is well received in residential ln:lal areas and has a similar visual impact as a solar farm. The solar panels are all less tJlan 15 feet high, which means that the visual impact of the solar panels will be similar in height to a typical greenhouse and lower than a single story residential dwelling. Were the subject prope(y developed with single family housing, that development would have a much greater visual impact on the surrorrnding area given that a two-story home with attic could be three to four times as high as these proposed panels. 7. Conelusion On the basis of the factors described above, it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be developed. The breakdown of adjoining uses is similar to the other solar farms tracked. re .-\.a- .---*.-T4 \ Ia * H *---.r&lf =rEqilir,,l rffi 48 V. Conclusion The matched pair analysis shows no impact in home values due to abutting or adjoining a solar farm as well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or agricultural land. The criteria that typically correlates with downward adjustments on property values such as noise, odor, and traffic all indicate that a solar farm is a compatible use for rural/residential transition areas and that it would function in a harmonious manner wit]l this area. Very similar solar farms in very similar areas have been found by hundneds of towns and counties not to have a substantial injury to abutting or adjoining properties, and many of tleose findings of no impact have been upheld by N.C. Courts or overtLlrned by N.C. Courts when a board found otherwise (see, for example Dellinger u. Linmln Countgl. Similar solar f;arms have been approved adjoining agrictrltural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments. Industrial uses rarely absorb negative impacts from adjoining llSES. Based on the data and analysis in this report, it is my professional opinion that tJle solar farm proposed at the subject property will have no impact on tfre value of adjoining or abutting property and that tle proposed use is in harmony with the area in which it is located. I note that some of the positive implications of a solar farm that have been expressed by people living next to solar farms include protection from future development of residential developments or other more intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and chemicals from former farming operations, protection from liglrt pollution at niglrt, it's quiet, and there is no trafEc. If you have any further questions please call me any time. Sincerely, //,\- Nicholas D. Kirkland Trainee Appraiser ,(_- Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI State Certified General Appraiser {-t,"7t v t 49 Limiting Conditions and Assumptions Acceptance of and/or use of this report constitutes acceptance of the following limiting conditions and assumptions; these can only be modified by written documents executed by both parties. * The basic limitation of this and any appraisal is that the appraisal is an opinion of value, and is, therefore, not a guarantee that the property would sell at exactly the appraised value. The market price may differ from the market value, depending upon the motivation and knowledge of the buyer and/or seller, and may, therefore, be higher or lower than the market value. The market value, as defined herein, is an opinion of the probable price that is obtainable in a market free of abnormal influences. * I do not assume any responsibilit5r for the legal description provided or for matters pertaining to legal or title considerations. I assume that the title to the property is good and marketable unless otherwise stated. * I am appraising the property as though free and clear of any and all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated. .!. I assume that the property is under responsible ownership and competent property management. a I believe the information furnished by others is reliable, but I give no warranty for its accuracy .:. I have made no survey or engineering study of the property and assume no responsibility for such matters. All engineering studies prepared by others are assumed to be correct. The plot plans, surveys, sketches and any other illustrative material in this report are included only to help the reader visualize the propert5r. The illustrative material should not be considered to be scaled accurately for size. .3. I assume that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. I take no responsibility for such conditions or for obtaining the engineering studies that may be required to discover them. * I assume that the property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including environmental regulations, unless the lack of compliance is stated, described, and considered in this appraisal report. .:. I assume that the property conforms to all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions unless nonconformity has been identihed, described and considered in this appraisal report. .:. I assume that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, and other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entit5r or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based. * I assume that the use of the land and improvements is confined within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in ttris report. a I am not qualihed to detect the presence of floodplain or wetlands. Any information presented in this report related to these characteristics is for this analysis only. The presence of floodplain or wetlands may allect the value of the property. If the presence of floodplain or wetlands is suspected the property owner would be advised to seek professional engineering assistance. .:. For this appraisal, I assume that no hazardous substances or conditions are present in or on the propert5r. Such substances or conditions could include but are not limited to asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foaminsulation, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum leakage or underground storage tanks, electromagnetic fields, or agricultural chemicals. I have no knowledge of any such materials or conditions unless otherwise stated. I make no claim of technical knowledge with regard to testing for or identiffing such hazardous materials or conditions. The presence of such materials, substances or conditions could allect the value of the property. However, the values estimated in this report are predicated on the assumption that there are no such materials or conditions in, on or in close enough proximit5r to the property to cause a loss in value. Ttre client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. * Unless otherwise stated in this report the subject property is appraised without a specific compliance survey having been conducted to determine if the property is or is not in confonnance with the requirements of the 50 Americans with Disabilities Act (effective 1126/92l,. Ttre presence of architectural and/or communications barriers that are structural in nature that would restrict access by disabled individuals may adversely a{fect--. the propert5r's value, marketabilit5r, or utilit5r. * Any allocation of the total value estimated in this report between the land and the improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate values allocated to the land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. A Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. * I have no obligation, by reason of this appraisal, to give further consultation or testimony or to be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless further arrangements have been made regarding compensation to Kirkland Appraisals, LLC. * Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior written consent and approval of Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, and then only with proper qualifications. * Any value estimates provided in this report apply to the entire property, and any proration or division of the total into fractional interests will invalidate the value estimate, unless such proration or division of interests has been set forth in the report. .!. Any income and expenses estimated in this report are for the purposes of this analysis only and should not be considered predictions of future operating results. A This report is not intended to include an estimate of any personal property contained in or on the property, unless otherwise state. .:. This report is subject to the Code of Professional Ethics of the Appraisal Institute and complies with the requirements of the State of North Carolina for State Certihed General Appraisers. This report is subject to the certification, definitions, and assumptions and limiting conditions set forth herein. .:. The analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed based on, and this report has been prepared in conformance with, our interpretation of the guidelines and recommendations set forth in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of i989 (FIRREA). * This is a Real Propert5r Appraisal Consulting Assignment. v 51 @rtiftcation I certiff that, to the best of my knowledge and beliefi The statements offact contained in this report are true and correct; The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; I have no present or prospective interest in the propert5r that is the subject ofthis report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved; I have no bias with respect to the propert5r that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment; My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results; My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of the appraisal; The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformit5l with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute; 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 8. 9. 10. 11. t2. 13. The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. fire use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives; I have not made a personal inspection of the propert5r that is the subject of this report and; No one provided significant real propert5r appraisd assistance to the person signing this certification. As of the date of this report I have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute; I have completed a similar impact analysis for the same client on the same project in 2016 as detailed earlier in this report, Disclosure of the contents of this appraisal report is governed by the bylaws and regulations of the Appraisal Institute and the National Association of Realtors. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this appraisal report shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, or any other public means of communications without the prior written consent and approval of the undersigned. k/u',<-- Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI State Certified General Appraiser Nicholas D. Kirkland Trainee Appraiser oollt 1 52 Kirkland Appraisals, LLC Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI 94O8 Northfield Crurt Raleigh, North Carolina 27 603 Mobile (9191414-8142 rkirkland2@snail.com www. kirklandappraisals. com PRoFl'ss,offez EEPERIE N cE Ifttrland Appraisalr, ILC, Raleigh, N.C Commercial appraiser Herter & CoEDany, Raleigfr, N.C. Commercial appraiser 2003 - Present 1996 - 2003 PRoI.Ess,o,YAL AF T tr,IATI oN s MAI (Member, Appraisal Institute) designation #11796 NC State Certtfied General Appralser # A4359 VA State Certified General Apprai:er # 4OOlOl729l SC State Certtfied General Apprairer # 6209 FL State Certilied Gi'eneral Appraiser # R23950 IL State Cettified Geaeral Appraiser # 553.002633 OR State Certified Gcneral Apprairer # COOL2O4 Eoucertox Bachelor of Arts in EngliBh, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 2001 1999 1993 CoNTtrU,}IG EDUcsTIoN lncome Approach Case Studies for Commercial Appraisers Introduction to Expert Witness Testimony for Appraisers Appraising Small Apartrnent Properties Florida Appraisal [.aws and Regulations Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update Appraisal of REO and Foreclosure Properties Appraisal of Self Storage Facilities Land and Site Valuation NCDOT Appraisal Principles and Procedures Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update Forecasting Revenue Wind Turbine Effect on Value Supervisor/Trainee Class Business Practices and Ethics Subdivision Valuation Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update Lrtroduction to Vineyard and Winery Valuation Appraising Rural Residential Pnoperties Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update Supervisors/Trainees Rates and Ratios: Making sense of GIMs, OARs, and DCFs Advanced Internet Search Strategies Analyzing Distressed Real Estate Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2018 2018 20t8 2018 2018 2017 2017 20t7 2017 20t6 2015 2015 2015 2014 2014 2014 20t3 2012 20t2 20tr20ll20tl 20tl20ll v Business Practices and Ethics Appraisal Currictrlum Overview (2 Days - General) Appraisal Review - General Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update Subdivision Valuation: A Comprehensive Guide Office Building Valuation: A Contempora5r Perspective Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate The Appraisal of Small Subdivisions Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update Evaluating Commercial Construction Conservation Easements Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update Condemnation Appraising Land Valuation Adjustment Procedures Supporting Capitalization Rates Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, C Wells and Septic S5rstems and Wastewater lrrigation S5rstems Appraisals 2002 Analyzing Commercial kase Clauses Conservation Easements Preparation for Litigation Appraisal of Nonconforming Uses Advanced Applications Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches Advanced Income Capitalization Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate Report Writing and Valuation Analysis Property Tax Values and Appeals Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, A & B Basic Income Capitalization 20tL 20,09 2009 2008 2008 2008 2007 2007 2006 2005 200s 2004 2004 2004 2004 2002 2002 2002 2002 2000 2000 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1999 t999 1997 t997 1996 53 Operations and Maintenance Plan Proposed Operations and Maintenance Plan Slider Solar, LLC Randolph County, North Carolina Contact Information For all non-emergency correspondence during the operation of the solar farm, parties should direct inquiries to the following Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Provider: Company: TBD Attention: TBD Phone: TBD Email: TBD Address: TBD Maintenance Services During the operational life of the Slider Solar project, the Operations and Maintenance Provider shall provide services at the approximated frequency outlined below. It is expected that the Provider shall make every effort to note items of concern outside of the scope of scheduled visits, inspecting, and assessing items that may be problematic. For the avoidance of doubt, any mention of reports or notifications shall be directed from the Operations and Maintenance Provider to the owner of Slider Solar, and not to the County, unless obligated to do so by County, State, or Federal regulations. Item Service Service Description Frequency 1. Monitoring, Reporting, Inventory Ll Daily Monitoring Monitor inverter and meter output data for recordkeeping and to identify issues Daily t.2 Monthly Reporting Provide monthly operating report for the project that may include a summary of the following: operations, weather data, project performance, any environmental or site disturbances, safety/accident reports, maintenance and inspection reports, any proposed maintenance for the upcoming month. Monthlv 1.3 Annual Reporting Provide annual maintenance and inspection reports for the project's preceding operational year. Annually 1.4 Incident and Maintenance Reporting Provide a written report of any event involving unplamed services, personnel injury occurring on site, or any material damage to the project. No later than five (5) business days after the occulTence, or immediately for OSHA recordable events, but no\-1 later than 24 hours. 1.5 Security lncident Reporting Notify facility owner following Provider receiving information indicating a security issue on site. Immediately, but no later than 24 hours. 1.6 Spare Parts Storage and maintenance of replacement equipment for the facility. Storage may occur on site or at a separate storage facility. As Needed 2. Site/Land lnspection and Maintenance 2.1 Vegetation Management Maintain vegetation, remove debris, and other general landscaping for all property within the fenced area as well all property immediately surrounding the fence, as is reasonable. As Needed 2.2 Perimeter and Fence Inspection Inspect all fencing for possible damage, intrusion, and overgrowth of nearby vegetation. Inspect signage to ensure all originally installed signs are securely attached and legible Twice per Year 2.3 Road lnspection lnspect all roads for damage caused by erosion or severe weather. Twice per Year 2.4 Security Inspection Inspect the entire facility for signs of vandalism or other security related issues. Twice per Year 3. DC-Side System lnspection 3.1 Racking Inspection Inspect all racking, racking mounts, and conduiting affixed to racking for any signs of damage, corrosion, or instability. Once per Year 3.2 Module Inspection Visually inspect 25o/o sampling of modules for soiling, breakage, delamination, and discoloring The sample area shall systematically rotate each year so that the whole facility is inspected every 4 years. Inspections may be done on foot or by aerial visual analysis. Once per Year J.J Broken Module Replacement lf broken modules have previously been identified or are identified at the time of routine inspection, Provider will replace them with new modules at the sole expense of the facility owner As Needed 3.4 Wire Inspection Visually inspect wiring for damage or exposed conductors. Twice per Year 3.5 Combiner Box Inspections Electrical and mechanical inspection of combiner boxes and associated disconnects. Visually inspect bonding bushings and grounding, check for wire damage especially at entrance/exit locations, terminal corrosion, any discoloration, and inspect fuses for proper functionality. Remove pest debris as needed. Twice per Year \-/ 3.6 Combiner Box Torque Inspections Confirm and correct terminal torque settings for both sides of all fuse holders, grounded terminal bar, grounding bar, PV output circuit, and DC disconnects. Once per Year 4. AC-Side System lnspection 4.1 Inverter Inspection Perform routine maintenance work on all inverters. Maintenance shall be conducted in accordance with manufacturer's recommended schedule and as dictated by any warranty requirements. As outlined by manufacturer 4.2 Inverter Air Filters and Transformer Heat Sinks lnspect all air filters for each inverter and heat sinks. If necessary, clean and/or replace. As outlined by manufacturer, but no less than 4 times per year 4.3 Transformer Inspection Visually inspect and clean, as needed, all transformers as specified by manufacturer Once per Year 4.4 AC Disconnect Inspect all latches and seals on enclosure of disconnect to ensure it functions correctly. Visually inspect terminations and confirm terminal torque settings. Check for evidence of arcing. Once per Year 5. DAS/SCADE Inspection 5.1 General DAS lnspection Perform monitoring system maintenance per manufacturer' s suggested schedule. Verify attachment and general orientation of pyranometers and module temperature sensors, as well as check MET station and verify functionality of back-up power supply. Once per Year 5.2 Pyranometers Clean pyranometer dome with an approved cloth Each site visit 5.3 Pyranometer Calibration Provider to work with facility owner to calibrate pyranometer as per manufacturer's specifications. As Specified by Manufacturer 5.4 Data/Instrument Accuracy and Communication Verification Test MET station sensors (GHI and POA pyranometers, ambient temperature, back of each module sensor, anemometer, meter, and inverter communication) Once per Year 6. Testing 6.1 IV Curve String Testing or Module Level Thermal Audit Test IV curve on all strings or thermal audit on all modules Once per Year 6.2 Thermal Imaging Thermal imaging of all overcurrent protection devices (OCPD) and bolted electrical connections, these include combiners, disconnects, inverters, and transformers. Once per Year 6.3 Transfer Oil Testing Sample transformer oil and test in accordance with nationally recognized testing standards and methods Once every other Year 6.4 Point-to-Point Testing Inspect a randomly selected sample of combiner boxes (roughly 5-10%) and modules, checking the grounding for wear, corrosion, connection strength, and point-to-point resistance between modules, rack, and EGC. All locations and resistances shall be documented. Identify any resistance readings above 0.5 ohms. Once per Year Decommissioning Plan Decommissioniug Plan- Slider Solar" LLC Randolph County Parcel: 77 15861937 When the facility is abandoned or permanently ceases to produce energy for sale to the utility, the operator of the facility will do the following, at a minimum, to decommission the project. I . The anticipated life of the solar facility is between 35-45 years. 2. The anticipated decommissioning process is as follows: (a) Remove all non-utility owned equipment, structures, fencing, foundations, and conduiting, including equipment that may be buried below grade. (b) Remove all graveled areas and access roads, if any, unless the owner of the leased property requests that they remain in place. (c) Decommissioning shall be completed within three hundred and sixty-five (365) days of abandonment or the cessation of the solar facility's operation. 3. The operator of the facility is responsible for the decommissioning process and shall be responsible for all expenses to restore the property back to a condition similar to its state prior to the construction of the facility, as per the Ground Lease Agreement between landlord and tenant, having an effective date of May 7 ,2018. 4. Within 30 days of the facility reaching Mechanical Completion, Slider Solar, LLC will provide a decommissioning surety, in favor of Randolph County, by either cash deposit, performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or other instrument readily convertible into cash at face value. Prior to issuing the surety, Slider Solar shall obtain a decommissioning estimate, under seal, by a third-party engineer licensed in North Carolina. This decommissioning estimate shall include both the cost of decommissioning and removing the equipment, as well as the fair market salvage value of all of Slider Solar's equipment. The value of the surety shall be 125o/o of the difference between the decommissioning cost and the fair market salvage value. Slider Solar, LLC Print Name Title: By Date: Tax Base Enhancement a ,.\ - I' *a O Lt{\ ]lr * T t I ,.g*'f t.r I lncreased North Carolina County Tax Revenue from Solar Development NC SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION o -l I tI * rl$"#r + ?t {-/! t I ncreased N orth Ca roli na County Tax Revenue from Solar Development NC SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION Authors' Claire Carson Daniel Brookshire Jerry Carey Daniel Parker Design Samantha Radford About North Carotina Sustainable Energy Association North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association (NCSEA) is a 501(c)3 non-profit advocacy organization driving policy and market development to create clean energy jobs, economic opportunities, and affordable energy. NCSEA has served as a respected, trusted, and collaborative resource to North Carolina and beyond since 1978. Our goal is to cultivate a robust clean energy system and energy economy that unifies and benefits all market actors: consumers, businesses, the clean energy industry, and utility energy providers. NC SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION2 North Carotina Property Tax Revenue from Sotar Development Overview Over the past decade, North Carolina has been a national leader in solar energy deployment. Most of the solar energy capacity built in North Carolina has come from utility-scale facilities constructed and f inanced by private solar companies, which have created thousands of jobs and have directly invested a combined $11.6 billion, mostly in economically-challenged (Tier 1 and Tier 2) rural counties across the state.l Increased property tax revenue due to solar development is an economic benefit to counties across North Carolina. Using publicly available property tax data from 50 North Carolina Counties, this report quantifies the tax revenue increase on properties that NCSEA identified as having solar developed on them through 2017. Overall, the properties with solar facilities paid almost $10.6 million in property taxes in the year after the facilities were developed compared to only $513 thousand in the prior year; a nearly 2,OOO percent increase. Chart t highlights the experience of 10 counties, showing the total property taxes collected on parcels where solar facilities were built, in the year prior to and year after construction. Tax data for the 50 counties included in this study is in Appendix 1. Chart 1. Annual Propefi Taxes Paid on Reat Estate Parcets with Sotar Projects .Data represents taxes collected in the year before and after a large solar project was built. Source: County Tax Offices, North Carolina Utilities Commission and NCSEA Renewable Energy Database s7m.000 $600,000 $500.000 $400.000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 SO II *t" ""..* "rC .." "*s {r'9- *"" $.*"' ".a"t- ."'"- : Before Solar rAfter Solar '1. RTI lnternational. Economic lmpact Analysis of Cleon Energy Development in North Corolino-2)l9 lJpdate. May 2019. NC SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION3 North Carotina Property Tax Revenue from Sotar Devetopment U I North Carolina Property Taxes and Abatements Primer ln North Carolina, real estate taxes are the responsibility of counties and cities. The taxes are based on a valuation of all property in a county/city. The taxes consist of two parts - 1) real property taxes, consisting of land and buildings, and 2) personal property taxes, consisting of equipment such as trucks, machinery, and solar equipment. Solar systems increase both real property and personal property taxes (Map i). Solar increases the real property taxes paid on a parcel of land by classifying the land as having a "commercial" use, which increases the assessed real property taxes. Solar increases personal property tax revenue because valuable new solar equipment is installed on the property. Often, solar systems additionally pay a roll back tax that reclaims three back years of real property tax if the property formerly had a 75 percent tax reduction for agricultural use. ln almost all cases, the private owners of the solar facilities, and not the rural landowners, pay all three of these taxes. Discussions of eliminating North Carolina's personal property tax abatement for solar energy have claimed that solar costs the counties instead of benefiting them. This study makes clear that this is not the case because even though the personal property tax on the new solar equipment receives an 80 percent reduction in valuation (N.C. G.S. ss 105-275 section 45), the personal property tax collected after solar has been developed is significantly more than what was previously collected. Furthermore, the real property taxes are still assessed at a 100 percent valuation. As one of the 35 active property tax exemptions in the state under North Carolina General Statute ss 105-275, the personal property tax abatement for solar energy is clearly attracting new development across the state and providing significantly more property tax revenue than counties received prior to solar installation. These new tax dollars can be used on schools and local services and are an effective economic development tool for otherwise struggling rural parts of the state. NC SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION4 North Carotina Property Tax Revenue from Solar Devetopment Map 1 . Percentage lncrease in Annual Property Tax Revenue After Solar Methodology All tax data in this report is publicly available from county tax offices. Data was collected March through June 2019. NCSEA used its Renewable Energy Database and county GIS maps to identify parcels corresponding to solar installations. Tax data for each parcel was collected from either a county's online tax bill search or by contacting the county tax administrator. The tax data is not from a single tax year. Rather, "Before solar" tax payments are from the year before a solar installation went online, and "after solar" data was taken one year after a solar installation went online. The one- time rollback tax payment is included in the "after solar" data in Appendix 1 and Map 1. This data does not include business personal property tax paid on public utility-owned solar equipment. Public utilities are taxed by the North Carolina Department of Revenue, which passes tax dollars back to the counties. The counties receive this tax as a lump sum and do not have visibility to the amount of tax paid on a specific public utility asset. There are eight solar projects (166 MW combined), including four projects larger than 5 MW, not included in this report, This significantly underreports tax revenue since business personal property tax increases with solar project size. For example, the 65 MW Warsaw Solar Facility in Duplin County, which is owned by a public utility, is not included in this report. A project of the same size, Shoe Creek Solar in Scotland County, paid over $160,000 in tax on solar equipment alone in the year after installation. NC SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION .:, ; 5 North Carotina Property Tax Revenue from Sotar Development m Appendix 1. Tax Revenue lncrease Before and After Sotar in 50 Counties NC SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION 1 Bladen 216 9 28,226 523,232 1,7540/o 1 2 Currituck 140 3 10,326 435,656 4,1190/o 3 3 Robeson 111 24 30,586 652,176 2,0320/0 1 4 Nash 106 19 11,518 427,430 3,611%1 5 Catawba 105 13 19,371 469,902 2,326%2 6 Halifax 1U 7 173U 383,195 2,1110/o 1 7 Anson 104 6 12,440 486,299 3,809%1 8 Wayne 93 23 17,197 409,953 2,284%1 I Cumberland 93 6 2,135 478,497 22,3120/o 1 10 Rutherford 91 6 6,228 256,343 4,016%o 1 11 Cleveland 82 21 51,837 41 6,1 83 703%1 12 Scotland 80 12 20,476 509,218 2,387Yo 1 13 Duplin 78 20 18,595 338,076 1,718%1 14 Johnston 66 15 9,053 377,889 4,0740/o 3 15 Northampton 65 12 13,102 249,725 1,806%1 16 Vance 56 12 12,539 257,050 1,950%1 17 Columbus 53 18 12,546 275,945 2,0990/o 1 18 Hertford 50 8 6,1 01 254.8U 4,0770/o 1 19 Lenoir 48 11 10,235 252,322 2,365%1 20 Pasquotank 43 3 3,446 152,157 4,3160/o 1 21 Bertie 42 3 2,629 1 18,093 4,392%1 22 Montgomery 35 4 3,M6 152,157 4,3160/o 2 23 Wake 35 11 58,913 247,624 320Yo 3 24 Rowan 34 8 14,024 127,797 811o/o 2 25 Franklin 33 8 7,995 186,898 2,238Yo 2 26 Granville 33 7 7,346 153,633 1,992%2 27 Pitt 32 12 3,801 150,454 3,859%2 28 Lee 32 7 15.454 161,230 943o/o 2 29 Harnett 31 7 1,989 70,519 3,4460/o 2 30 Rockingham 30 6 15,328 169,4't8 1,005% 31 Alamance 28 5 5,900 74,816 1,168%2 32 Moore 27 5 1,989 70,519 3,4460/o 3 33 Warren 26 6 4,217 112,825 2,576Yo 1 PV Capacity Rank Total Property # ot Tax Paid onSolar Participating Projects ParcelsBefore Solar Total Property Tax Paid on Participating Parcels After Solar County Economic Tier County Percent lncrease Capacity (MWac) 6 North Carotina Property Tax Revenue from Sotar Devetopment U 1 NC SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION u Chatham 25 7 12,123 1 17,660 871%3 35 Randolph 23 6 3,610 88,274 2,345Yo 2 36 Guilford 22 6 5,697 124,177 2,08A%2 37 Sampson 21 6 6,715 111,972 1,5670/o 1 38 Washington 21 2 2,4U 85,s32 3,4140/o 1 39 Union 20 4 2,993 110,104 3,579%3 40 Jones 20 4 2,424 75,053 2,997Yo 1 41 Davie 15 3 3,208 76,U1 2,296%3 42 Person '15 5 7,270 72,603 899%2 43 Caswell 15 3 1,366 71,077 5,103%1 44 Greene 14 4 2,258 il,994 2,778%1 45 Pender 10 2 2,711 48,0U 1,673%3 46 Perquimans 10 2 2,809 24p83 789Yo I 47 Gaston 10 2 736 37,424 4,985%2 48 Cabarrus 5 1 255 47,533 18,515%3 49 lredell 5 1 385 1 5,1 65 3,8430/,3 50 Stokes 4 1 173 12,272 6,993%2 Pv Capacity Rank County Capacity (MWac) #ot Solar Projects Total Property Tax Paid on Participating Parcels Before Solar Total Property Tax Paid on Participating Parcels After Solar Percent lncrease County Economic Tier Total zfi? 3!16 513,494 t0,595,791 I,9ffi6 7 North Carotina Property Tax Revenue from Sotar Devetopment Mrs. Kim Lee’s Evidence Exhibit #1 r . tv vPvr a tr'ctlclwclot; \rrt Company name or number I I tg v\rt ctrti YYvr l(f Search f, Companies Officers . Loo in/Sion uo Slider Sol ar, LLC Company Number 1398933 Status Cunent Active lncorporation Date 3 September 2014 (over 5 years ago) Company Type Limited Liability Company - Domestic Jurisdiction North Carolina (!l$) Registered Address . 2626 Glenwood Ave Ste 550. Raleigh. 27608.NC. United States Previous Names . Hardison Solar, LLC Agent Name Corporation Service Company Directors / Officers . Cor@Eny-,agent. Qypress Creek Renewables, LLC, member. Geoff Fallon, authorized person. Mike Stanton, authorized person. Noah HEg, authorized person o Peter Bruno, authorized person Registry Page httpSJAruAUSgSIe.gov/onli ne_services... https ://opencorporates. com/@m panles/us_nc/1 396933 th Now available: over 400m key company lifecycle events, from officer changes to gazette notices' Readlnore on Qulblog. 1U3r2019 Cypress Creek Renewables, LLC (member) :: OpenCorporates The Open Database Of The World Company name or number Search 'o Companies ' Officers . Log in/SigLup Slider Solar, LLC > All officers Cypress Greek Renewables, LLG Gompany Slider Solar, LLC Nameey@,LLc Address Sgrry,-y9u-n@(tsiC-lagged in to see this address Position member encor porqqgl Other resources . Search Google for'Cypress Creek Renewables, LLC'. SearCh Little-Sis for'Cypress Creek Renewables, LLg' Other officers in Slider Solar, LLC Showing first 30 (see all) . Cor@PanY.,agent. Geoff Fallon, authorized person. Mike Stanton, authorized Person. Noah H&, authorized Person. Peter Bruno, authorized Person See all Last updated August 282019,7.24PM (3 months ago) S i m i I a rly-named-sfficers Found 364. Showing first 30 . CYPRESS CREEK RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT ,..LLQ, gOVEMOT, E TOWHEE SOLAR' LLC (Washington (US),21 Dec 2017-). htss:/lopencorporates.com/off ce 1s13224/.7 24 1t 1AA2U9 Cypress Creek Secures $200m Prefened Equity lnvostment I Cypress Creek Renewables NEWS I AUGUST 07,2018 Cypress Creek Secures $200m Preferred Equity lnvestment Cypress Creek Renewables, a leading developer and owner ofsolar generating assets, today announced that a group led by Temasek, a global investment company headquartered in Singapore, has agreed to purchase preferred equity interests in Cypress. The $200 million investment represents the purchase by the group of preferred stock and warrants to purchase up to an aggregate 10 percent stake of the common stock. Proceeds will support the compan/s continued growth through creation, investment, maturation and monetization of its development portfolio. Cypress will continue to operate under its existing management and add two independent directors to its Board. "Temasek has shown itself to be a patient, forwardjooking partner focused on generating sustainable long-term returns - and it is this shared vision that makes expansion of our relationship quite natural" said Cypress CEO Matt McGovern. "The confidence Temasek has shown in our business model and development portfolio is a firm endorsement of our strategy, which we look fonruard to refining and executing on in tandem in the years to come." Founded in20'14 by Ben Van de Bunt (Chairman), Michael Cohen (President), and Matt McGovern (CEO), Cypress has grown into a leading developer, investor and operator of solar generating assets in regulated and deregulated markets. By the end of 2018 the Company will have developed and placed-in-service over 3.2 GW of projects and own 1.7 GW on-balance sheet. About Temasek: lncorporated in 1974, Temasek is a global investment company headquartered in Singapore. Supported by its network of international offices, Temasek owns a US$235b portfolio as at 31 March 2018, with significant exposure to singapore and the rest of Asia. our investment activities are guided by four investment themes and the long-term trends they represent Transforming Economies; Growing Middle lncome Populations; Deepening Comparative Advantages; and Emerging Champions. Our investment stratery allows us to capture opportunities across the sectors in which we invest that help bring about a better, smarter and more connected world. We actively seek sustainable solutions to address present and future challenges. Across the three pillars of the Temasek Charter, we recognize the need to do well as an investor; to do right as an institution; and to do good as a steward. For more information on Temasek, please visit unl ,rr.temasek.com.sg ( https://www.temasek.com.sglen/index. html). !9 https://ccrenew.corn/nantrs/cypres+creek+ecures.prefene&equity-investmenU 1t I Exhibit #2 1AU2019 Randolph County GIS q)Randolph County GIS eutck Search tdentify Communtty lnfo Zoom ln Zoom Out htps://gis.randolphcountync.gov/randolphjs/1t Tools t Print fif,dlffii Map Themes ItrIE.-!.IIJJ ffitr{ffi ffi Effi IlIs:-In*-Ll Fffig IITf-llj.4AJ ffi'3 Search More...Maps Locate Me Full Prev 't2ti,2019 Randolph County GIS Maps Tools More..Search Hide Locate Me Zoom ln Zoom Out Full Prev Randolph Gounty GIS Map Themes ldentify Community lnfoQuick Search Prlnt s 1thttps :l/gis.randolphcountync.gov/randolphjs/ 83ffi Eiffi fiTEffi':A 1AA2U9 Rarddph County GIS Randolph County GIS !q https ://gis. randolphcountync. gov/randolphis/1t ldentify Community lnfo t!Maps Tools I Prlnt li.,ffim TffiTEtr j HT : t.,' {i&ffim ffi ;.:i.! tfiffif,Tffi I.] tl More...Search Hide Locate Me Zoom ln Zoom Out Prev 12t2f2019 Randolph County GIS MapsSearch Tools More.Randolph County GIS euick Search tden6fy community tnfo Map Themes Prlnt Locate Zoom Me ln Full * Hide Zoom Out Prev 1thttps ://gis. randolphcountync.gov/nandolphjs/ ffii nfl ilffiffiE$ I(i-.1"-a* .i,IJ EEg[ffi E+F:4U:-:iir-: U, f,EffiM a?:f+1.\/,:"5{ i}^l^::.:.3 EEffiSS Exhibit #3 b 12/il2019 Randdph County GIS =search Maps More...Tools Hide Zoom ln Zoom Out Prev Randolph County GIS Quick Search ldentify Community lnfoJ I Map Themes Print ?j https://gis. randolphcountync. gov/randolphjs/1t Locate Me Full Exhibit #4 IH @ TI mli i ()o(tEtt a lotffi urFt cTr'srtof EClt oo afli'l! Et E &{ fi.., $hr I ii !i IIal il li ii iii m LU rl IT ii 3t I a 1 I !I III ! I I I I Ii It I ! I I N II EI I I II I t I I I II t I! I II I II I II III t, It i@ iir I I, iTIttI a II T I I I ;i fi ti l! i!ltr! Ilfi,t li, fi ft $b $ fis fi tr fi $ I III IIII I : I i I i I I k E 3lilB $ Hf E I EI 9'I 5 il $I I !I!tl iir + af; 3rs EE I I r:l' ri ll \..1 IE il 3 3g B]rl JI EI Gb 6 It'I TI II halt il! lr t I! I tIt li ! 7a IE - Exhibit #5 '-/ I I EqG I If ,e;, 't' ,) .1 l, I tt tl c ,: I t ItII \.- aN .'1 I r . I 1' i' I I ).!t-I i*I|, d I' r",- r- I LJ'J I ri a111-*:-t=-r 'l&'..u a-1 t*a.- /1Itt,t. jr J,tt t,,il w I I / I {it.l T1 .lI/ .rl lq-r 'r a u \'z\"-{, /\ / t t a/I a \' I 12 A \s N-\, )- \ t- \ \^ I Exhibit #6 te 12t3t2019 Why do solar projects need surge protection? q their large surface area and placement in exposed locations, such as on rooft ops or ground-mou nted in open spaces. "Coincidentally, California, where the solar industry has enjoyed its most rapid scale- up, has one of the lowest risks for lightning in the United States," said Dan Sylawa, senior business development manager of renewable energ/ at Phoenix Contact, which provides surge protection devices (SPDs). "As solar power installations have moved beyond the California market, the potential impact of lightning-lnduced array failures has increased. This has been most evident as array installations have moved into the Southeastern United States, one of the most lightning-prone areas of the country." Solar contractors aren't always aware if they're building in a lightning-prone area. Alltec, which also provides SPDs, incorporates data from the U.S. Lightning Detection Network in a free tool that allows solar contractors to assess the lightning risk of their projects. Lightning is about 50,000'F-five times hotter than the sun-so it's not surprising rt can be detrimental to solar equipment. "lf the solar panels are struck directly, lightning can burn holes in the equipment or even cause explosions, and the entire system is destroyed," said Ethan Pace, SPD product manager at Alltec. But the effects of lighting and other overvoltages aren't always so strikingly 2t15 -- - V*r il*-="-_t Exhibit #7 o FINANCE - REVENUES . EXPENDITURES There ore mony sources of revenue svoiloble to the County which ore not directly reloted to specific progroms nor generoied by deportments through user fees or gronl ossistonce. We refer lo these os Generol County Revenues, which con be used for ony public purpose outhorized by fhe Boord of Counfy Commissioners. These funds represent the moiority of lhe revenue resources ovoiloble to the County. Some of these revenues ore delermined by fie County; olhers ore merely collections, outside of the County's obility to control. Regordless, they ore criticol in providing the funds necessory for the County to meet its responsibililies lo its citizens. The primory Generol County Revenues ore described below. Revenues ' 4ta,lt, +r s s.(t r Prm;tt F:q Li:rnxt SaDrc€ Lo<d ODtion TE 78t4 nava n (I ld Uliorrn lurt 47t|, Expenditures Er !tnnt {smln 9t{ :6r{ 6anrirl ,{ Proiecred Generol Fund 2AO8-2OO9 P ubli c School Expendituie Ad Volorem Propefi loxes - levied on reol ond personol property (including motor vehicles)which is not specificolly exempted by slolute. The totol volue of oll such toxoble property becomes the lox bose. The County Commissioners set o tox rote per $ 1 00 of voluotion. The proposed tox role is 55.5C per $ 100. This tox is the lorgest revenue in the budget ond provides lhe greotest flexibility in meeting the finonciol needs of the County. Locol Optlon Soles Toxes - proceeds from the locol portion of lhe tox on retoil soles. Merchonts collecl slote ond locol soles loxes ond remit the totol omount to the stote. The locol soles lox portion is distribuled lo locol governments monthly. Currenfly, the County receives 2.25% on reloil soles tronsoclions. On Oclober I , 2009, the role will reduce to 2.00%. Mosl of the lox is unreslricted; however, o portion of the Articles 40 ond 42 toxes ore restricled for school conslruction or debt service on obligolions reloted to school construclion. The remoinder is ovoiloble for unreslricled purposes. lnveslment Eornings - interest eorned on certificoles of deposil ond other demond deposits. North Corolino Generol Stolutes restricl the types of finonciol instruments in which o locol government moy invesl its idle funds. Timsfcm CmcmI Dcbt Scrvlqr8.06% o.oo% a b--* Cultunl mdReationelr.7696 Nash Duggins Rezoning Evidence Mangum, Timothy V. From: Sent: To: Subject: Name: Ron and Julie Parrish Address: 1391 McDaniel Dr, Asheboro, NC 27205 Phone: 336-521-4949 Email: Julie. H. Parrish@gmail.com Rezoning Request applicant name: Nash Duggins Rezoning request location: Farmwood Subdivision Planning & Zoning Mtg. 12-3-19 Our family, Ron and Julie Parrish and adult son, Seth Parrish reside at 1391 McDaniel Dr, Farmwood Subdivision, Asheboro, NC. Our comments are in reference to the Nash Duggins request to add an additional22lots to the west of Farmwood Lane/Allen Court, of which HE is titling Farmwood Phase 4. -We own a lot within the Farmwood Subdivision and a home with acreage bordering the Farmwood Subdivision. We have worked in Federal Law Enforcement our whole lives and have invested our lifetime of savings into this property within Farmwood. Our main reasons for purchasing a home here was the up-sale nature of the neighborhood, quietness, and the streets that were used only by the residents. We are greatly concerned about this addition of these homes with much less square footage than the average of Farmwood and we know it will decrease the value of our home, which is our main life investment. We would have never bought here if we thought smaller homes could be built in this already well-established neighborhood called Farmwood. We feel like allowing homes to be built that are hundreds of square feet less than the average in Farmwood wil! certainly lower the value of the larger homes and they are NOT within keeping of the standards of compatibility, comparability, nor similarity with the immediately surrounding neighborhoods of Farmwood and Oak Hollow. We feel Iike noone should be given the privilege of de-evaluating a long-standing up-sale community by adding to it, lesser valued homes. The proposed square footage of 1750, is appx. 850 square feet less than the average of the whole neighborhood. An 850 square feet difference is in no way comparable to the present homes. Personally, I feel like the value of our life investment, our savings, our home and land that we have worked for all of our lives are being stolen from us, if these lesser square footage houses are allowed to be built and called Farmwood. The Farmwood Phase 4 proposed subdivision plan is not equal to the square footage and character of the present Farmwood Community, and therefore should not be called Farmwood. Julie Parrish <julie.h.parrish@gmail.com> Thursday, November 28,2019 9:51 PM Planning DL Farmwood Zoning lssue 1 I I ln the proposal letter for appeal to the County Commissioners Meeting, the Developer stated he has met most of the requests brought forth from the Farmwood Community, but we haven't seen him meet any of our requests or issues in writing or in person. From the very beginning our two big concerns were the lower square footage homes and Farmwood Lane being turned into a thoroughfare accessing 22 new lots and probably the rest of the 200 acres. The Seller and the Developer of the Farmwood Phase 4 development wants to use the name and reputation of the Farmwood Subdivision to make it more attractive to potential buyers. This plan is very similar to a 'knock off' which is; "a copy or imitation, especially of an expensive or designer product", and usually is of less quality than the name brand product. The homes of the present Farmwood Subdevelopment were individual custom homes and are of an up-sale standard and are designer products. Please do not allow our neighborhood to be degraded by allowing lesser square footage homes, 'knock offs' to be built. And Please consider every square foot of every home here has been worked for.., saved for.., to PAY for.... Please, Do not lessen the value of our investments by allowing smaller homes to be built and called Farmwood. lf this happens to obtain approval, and our home values decrease, who will be held accountable for our loses? We have been dealing with the same issues now for over 6 months, have taken off work for numerous meetings, written many letters, and have talked to hundreds of folks in reference to this proposal. We have earnestly tried to communicate with and negotiate with Developer Duggins. What we have received in return has been: his attendance at the meetings, no waivers, no compromises and no good faith effort to negotiate whatsoever. His statements at the beginning like, "We're not going to build another entrance." , " We are not building homes larger than 1700 square feet " and we'lljust see... what happens" have given us the impression he is unwilling to negotiate with his potential neighbors on any of the present issues or potential future issues. Without the ability to negotiate, compromise, or communicate effectively, we feel like there's no hope for carrying through with a development that is in any way comparable with the present day Farmwood Subdivision. Also, if we understand it correctly, the Farmwood Subdivision was originally slated for 3 Phases. All of those lots have been sold, and that owner/developer has passed away, leaving the adjoining 200 acres to his son. lf the Farniwood Subdivision was complete with Phase 3, then what gives Developer Duggins the right to use the name for future phases? I'd like for the County Attorney to address this question.... Can they legally use the Farmwood Subdivision Name if the Original Sub-Division has been completed? We also have great concerns about the accuracy and veracity of the documents he has presented at meetings, because there have been numerous inaccuracies and mistakes, that have tried to be corrected or changed verbally. When asked for references or background information on other subdivisions he has developed, he became defensive and relayed the name of one complex in Raleigh. We are in no way against developing the adjoining area, but if it is going to be called Farmwood then it needs to have the same standard and current restrictions, be custom built homes and be equal to the average of square footage of the present day homes. 2 lf the average is 2,600 square feet and he is proposing 1750 square feet, that is an 850 square foot difference. lf we split the difference, that would be 2175 square footage homes as an average. We are not even asking for that. We are asking for the minimum square footage to be 2,000 square feet or NOT be called Farmwood and just be another Sub-Division with its own entrance. PLEASE consider the facts, opinions, and feelings of those you serve and do not allow this Phase 4 developmental plan to be approved without: -raising the minimum square footage of the homes to 2,000 square feet -changing the name and using another entrance if it does not equal the Present Farmwood Community. Because of changes and inaccuracies, the appeal at the Commissioner's Meeting could not be heard. We are personally saddened by the fact that the paperwork offered by the developer has created many time delays, inadequacies, and unanswered questions. We greatly value your time, and our time, and we appreciate the sincere thoughts and deliberation you will put forth in serving everyone by wise and fair decisions. Again, thank you for serving the hard working citizens of our treasured Randolph County. lf there are those who agree with what I've said, please feel free to stand to show your agreement. Thank you so much for your time and for allowing our voices to be heard. Sincerely, Ron, Julie and Seth Parrish 3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATON FOR REZONING REQUEST #2019-00003166 SLIDER SOLAR, LLC, Raleigh, NC, is requesting that 40.70 acres, out of 45.79 acres, on Hoover Hill Rd, just past Old Park Rd, Trinity Township, be rezoned from RA – Residential Agricultural to LI-CD – Light Industrial – Conditional District. Tax ID# 7715861937. Primary Growth Area. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow a 5-megawatt solar farm as per site plan. The Randolph County Technical Review Committee has met on the above listed case, and after review of all applicable standards contained in the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance and the Randolph County Growth Management Plan, the Technical Review Committee finds that this request: • Meets all technical requirements of both the Ordinance and the Plan; • Is consistent, reasonable and in the public interest; and • Should be approved by the Randolph County Planning Board. The following policies from the Randolph County Growth Management Plan were identified by the Technical Review Committee as supporting this conclusion. Policy 3.7 Sustainable economic growth, environmental protection and quality of life shall be pursued together as mutually supporting growth management goals. Policy 3.10 Site specific development plans shall be required that reduce storm water impact by designing new industrial development in a manner that minimizes concentrated storm water flow using vegetated buffer areas or retention ponds. 'It, '*.11.1: COUNTY OF RANDOLPH Department of Planning & Zoning 204 E Academy St - PO Box 771 - Asheboro NC 27204'0771 APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Urt ^Applicanr: RICKY & KAY BEVAN Address: 4857 HOOVER HILL RD City, St. Zip: TRINITY, NC 27370 Owner: BEVAN. RICKY LANE Address: 4857 HOOVER HILL RD City, St. Zip: TRINITY, NC 27370 CONTACT NAME: TOM OELAFIELD Date:10/31/20'19 Parcel #:7715861937 o(J Permit #: 20 1 9-00003166 Permit Type Code: PZ 2 Location Address: 4783 HOOVER HILL RD TRINITY, NC 27370 Contact Phone: 919 723-7473 Lot number: Acreage:46.2600 Subdivsion: Township: 19 - TRINITY ZONING INFORMATION: Zoning District 1: Zoning Oistrict 2: Zoning District 3: Growth Management Areas: Specialty District: Watershed Name: Class A Flood Plain On Prop?: Flood Plane Map #: RA.RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT PRIMARY GROWTH AREA N/A LAKE REESE WATERSHED NO Flood Plain Map #: 3710770400J REQUESTED CHANGE: Area To Be Rezoned: Lot Size lndicator: Proposed Zoning Oistrict: Proposed Use(S): Condition(S) Total Permit Fee: 5100.00 CoMMENTS: PROPOSED SOLAR FARIV1 - REZONING RA TO Ll TO ALLOW FOR A SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY The undersigned owner/applicant do hereby make application for a PRoPERTY ZONING CHANGE as allowed by the Randolph Couty Zoning Ordinance Eric Martin Authorized County Official Si a U pplica nt . LOCAL TELEPHONE NUI\4BER . Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Archdaleffrinity: (336) 819-3565 http://www.randolphcountync.gov 45.7900 ACRE(S) LI.CD-LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONAL DISTRICT REZONING FROM RA TO LI TO ALLOW FOR A SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY. APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE Page: 1 of '1 PARCEL INFORMATION: Slider Solar, LLC, Rezoning Request Location Map H IL L S VILL E R D W AL L LN CARLTON DR NELSON RD OLD MARLBORO RD BYRD LN HOOVER HILL CT VALLEY DR HIL L S D ALE PARK DR PEARL AVE L A K E S I D E D R HO OVER HILL RD OLD PARK RD F L IN T HILL RD C RAVEN PINE S R D 1 inch = 1,000 feet Directions to site: US Hwy 64 W - (R)Hoover Hill Rd - Site on (L) just pastOld Park Rd. Slider Solar, LLC, Rezoning Request !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( LittleCarawayCre ek OLD PARK RD HOOVER HILL RD The request is located in Lake Reese Watershed Area.1 inch = 500 feet Rezoned for minorsubdivision (2006) Requestlocation Legend ParcelsStructures Type !(Permanent Structure !(Temporary Structure !(Duplex/Complex Roads Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer Overlay zoning districtsCounty zoning Districts CVOE RA RR •• HOO V E R H I L L R O A D (50' P U B L I C R / W ) OLD PAR K R O A D GRASS(TYP.) DISTANCE BETWEENRACKS 3/4" (TYP) SEE N O T E # 1 2 F O R MAX . H E I G H T RE Q U I R E M E N T GRASS(TYP.) \\se r v e r 2 0 1 2 \ c o m p a n y \ E n g i n e e r i n g \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 1 8 0 3 6 . x x R E S S o l a r \ 1 180 3 6 . 0 6 S l i d e r S o l a r \ 1 _ _ D w g \ B A M o d e l F i l e s \ C 1 0 0 1 S i t e P l a n - S l i de r S o l a r . d w g , 1 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 2 0 : 5 7 A M , J o h n M Slider Solar, LLC, Rezoning Request OLD PARK RD HOOVERHILLRD The request is located in Lake Reese Watershed Area.1 inch = 400 feet Legend Parcels Roads Streams 50 ft. Stream buffer Slider Solar, LLC, Rezoning Request Picture 1: Residence on request location. Picture 2: Request location. Picture 3: Adjacent residence. Picture 4: Adjacent residence. Picture 5: Adjacent residence. Picture 6: Adjacent residence. MOTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL DISTRICT REZONING NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to APPROVE this rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is also consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion. MOTION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL DISTRICT REZONING NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD “I make the motion to DENY this rezoning request to rezone the specified parcel(s) on the rezoning application to the requested zoning district based upon the Determination of Consistency and Findings of Reasonableness and Public Interest statements that are included in the Planning Board agenda, submitted during the rezoning presentation and as may be amended, incorporated into the motion, to be included in the minutes, as well as the site plan(s) with any and all agreed upon revisions, also incorporated into the motion and that the request is not consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan.” If making a second to the motion, please change to say, “I second the motion . . .” and continue reading the rest of the motion.