HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-08-2014 - 5aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 8, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 5 -a
SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit — Solar Array Off Redman Road in Cheeks
Township - Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments from
the Public or Applicant Accepted)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. March 5, 2014 Planning Board Abstract
and Handouts
3. April 2, 2014 Planning Board Abstract
and Handouts
4. Excerpt of Minutes from the February 24,
2014 Quarterly Public Hearing
5. Excerpt of Approved Minutes from the
March 5, 2014 Planning Board Meeting.
6. Excerpt of Minutes from the April 2, 2014
Planning Board Meeting
7. Planning Board Recommended Findings
of Fact and Conditions of Approval
8. Letter from Applicant Accepting
Imposition of Recommended Conditions
9. Script for Acting on Findings of Fact
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, 245 -2597
Craig Benedict, Director, 245 -2592
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a
decision on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application submitted by Strata Solar and
Stout Farms LLC proposing the development of a solar array in accordance with Section 2.7 Special
Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array - Public Utility of the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO).
The reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board recommendation and
any additional written evidence submitted since the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing.
This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input from the public or the applicant. While the
BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments from the public
or the applicant shall not be solicited.
As a reminder the review of this item is carried out in a quasi-judicial format. Decisions relating
to the approval or denial of SUP applications are based solely on the sworn testimony of all
parties involved with the case, both those for and against, as well as the review of competent
material and substantial evidence submitted during the public hearing. Hearsay or
unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony.
I
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing
and the March 5 and April 2, 2014 Planning Board meetings. Agenda materials for these
meetings can be viewed at:
• February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing-
http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/140224.pd .
STAFF COMMENT. The following testimony /evidence was entered into the record
at the public hearing:
Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site
plan, presented at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing.
ii. Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions
of the UDO.
iii. Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr.
Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on how the project complies
with the UDO.
The applicant entered copies of affidavits and a real estate report,
completed by Mr. Kirkland, into the record providing additional information
on the project's compliance with applicable standards.
iv. Handouts submitted at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing,
specifically:
1. E -mail from Chair Barry Jacobs, dated February 24, 2014, providing
background on the Efland School for Girls,
2. E -mail from Mr. Louis lannone of Strata Solar, dated February 24,
2014, responding to concerns from Ms. Wise, an adjacent property
owner. This included a response from staff, dated February 21,
2014, addressing some of Ms. Wise's concerns as well.
STAFF COMMENT. The applicant's response was presented
to the Planning Board at its March 5, 2014 regular meeting and
is contained within Attachment 2 of this abstract.
The applicant submitted additional written comment(s) on the
use of chemicals for treating grass on the properties subject to
the SUP application. These responses are contained within
Attachment 3. Staff has reviewed the response and has no
concerns related to the use of pesticides /fertilizers on the
properties.
3. Letter from Redman Rhino LLC, dated February 24, 2014,
concerning the project.
An excerpt of minutes from the public hearing is contained within Attachment 4.
• March 5, 2014 Planning Board meeting:
http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /documents /3.5.14PBPacket.pdf. The abstract and
handouts from this meeting are contained in Attachment 2. An excerpt of minutes from
this meeting is contained within Attachment 5.
t
• April 2, 2014 Planning Board meeting:
http: / /www.co.orange.nc.us /planning/ documents /4.2.14PBPacketWeb.pdf. The abstract
and handouts from this meeting are contained in Attachment 3. An excerpt of minutes
from this meeting is contained within Attachment 6.
Additional information, as contained within this abstract, will be entered into the record at the May 8,
2014 regular meeting.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
`cause an analysis to be made of the application' and pass that analysis on to the reviewing
body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following:
a. Application submittal requirements detailed within Section 2.7 of the UDO have been
satisfied.
b. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with respect to landscaping and buffering
requirements as detailed within Section 6.8 of the UDO.
c. Staff has made the determination that a formal Environmental Impact Statement would
not be required per Section 6.18 of the UDO.
d. The applicant has complied with specific development standards associated with the
development of a solar facility as detailed within Section 5.9.6 (C) of the UDO.
e. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal,
Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR), Orange County Health)
indicate there are no concerns associated with the request.
Please refer to the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet for additional
information.
f. The applicant has reserved portions of the property, denoted on the site plan, for future
roadway development consistent with existing access management strategies for the
area.
g. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the various goals outlined within the
Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including:
a. Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 1: Energy conservation, sustainable use of
non - polluting renewable energy resources, efficient use of non - renewable energy
resources and clean air.
b. Objective AE -15: Foster participation in green energy programs such as
installation incentives for solar hot water /solar generation /solar tempering in
residential or commercial construction. The County should develop programs that
will link citizens and businesses with options for alternative and sustainable energy
sources.
c. Objective AG -8: Encourage the use and production of natural fuel alternatives to
petroleum based products and pursue new types of energy sources.
Planning Board Review: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its March 5 and April 2, 2014
regular meeting(s) and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the SUP as well as the
imposition of several conditions associated with the development of the project.
M
Please refer to Attachment 7 for the Board's recommendations. Attachment 8 contains a letter
from the applicant accepting the imposition of the recommended conditions.
Planning Director's Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 of the
UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the application subject to:
• Approval of the recommended Findings of Fact as detailed within Attachment 7,
• The imposition of the recommended conditions detailed within Attachment 7, and
• The BOCC's ability to make an affirmative finding on the general standards outlined
within Section 5.3.4 of the UDO.
Staff has provided a script denoting the cadence of review and action on the recommended
findings in Attachment 9.
Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO,
evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning
Board's recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board
only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public
hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning
Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has determined the project would not require augmentation of
County budgetary outlays to support services and that anticipated revenues from property taxes
should supplement any increases in cost.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation;
2. Close the public hearing;
3. Approve the Findings of Fact, and impose the recommended conditions, as detailed
within Attachment 7; and
4. Make a motion approving the Special Use Permit.
As a reminder there is a script to aid Board members in their deliberations of this request in
Attachment 9.
VICINITY MAP - STRATA SOLAR Attachment 1 5
if'_I ACC A QDP IAI I ICG DCDMIT DCr111CCT
RGB
® Red: Band _1
® Green: Band _2
- Blue: Band-3
1 inch= 400 feet
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
01/10/2014
ATTACHMENT 2
ORANGE COUNTY
C 0 Py PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 5, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit — Solar Array off Redman Road in Cheeks
Township
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III 245 -2597
101
2. Applicant Affidavit(s) Submitted at the STAFF NOTE: These attachment(s) have
February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public been left out as they are already in the
Hearing record. Staff has included a handout from the
3. E -mail Correspondence Submitted at the applicant presented at the March 5, 2014
February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public meeting
Hearing
PURPOSE: To begin review of a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application
proposing the development of a solar array in accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits
and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array- Public Utility of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO).
As a reminder the review of this item is carried out in a quasi-judicial format. Decisions relating
to the approval or denial of SUP applications are based solely on the sworn testimony of all
parties involved with the case, both those for and against, as well as the review of competent
material and substantial evidence submitted during the public hearing. Hearsay or
unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony.
Applicants have the burden of establishing, by the submission of competent material and
substantial evidence, the existence of facts and conditions that demonstrate the project's
compliance with the UDO. Those opposing approval of the application shall have the burden of
establishing, also through the submission of competent material and substantial evidence, the
specific manner in which the proposal does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the
application.
Please remember to bring your copy of the abstract, attachments, and handouts from the
February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing.
CADENCE OF REVIEW: The review of a SUP is as follows:
• STEP ONE — PUBLIC HEARING: The first step in the review of an SUP application is
the holding of a public hearing to allow the applicant and other interested parties to
provide sworn testimony related to the proposal.
7
STAFF COMMENT: The required public hearing was held at the February 24,
2014 Quarterly Public Hearing where the following testimony /evidence was
entered into the record:
i. Staff entered the abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and
site plan, into the record.
ii. Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the
UDO.
iii. Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel
Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO.
The applicant entered copies of affidavits and a real estate report, completed
by Mr. Kirkland, into the record providing additional information on the project's
compliance with applicable standards.
iv. Staff entered an email and letter from adjoining property owners into the
record. The applicant testified they would address the concerns expressed by
both property owners and respond in writing to the County.
v. Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public.
• STEP TWO — PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviews the request
and makes a recommendation on the project's compliance with specific development
standards (Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array - Public Utility) and the general standards
(Section 5.3.2 Special Uses) of the UDO. Staff prepares a script to aid the Board in
making required findings and denoting the `evidence' utilized in rendering a decision.
STAFF COMMENT. This review will begin at the March 5, 2014 regular meeting
and be continued to the April 2, 2014 regular meeting where the Board will be
asked to make a recommendation.
This will allow the applicant to respond, in writing, to concerns from adjacent
property owners presented at the public hearing.
• STEP THREE — DECISION: The BOCC will receive the Planning Board
recommendation as well as any other written evidence, deliberate, certify the record,
close the public hearing, and then render a final decision.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing where
staff indicated the applicant proposing the development of a solar array on 2 parcels (PIN 9844 -06-
5971 and 9844 -17 -2687) of property totaling 52 acres in area, owned by Stout Farm LLC, off of
Redman Road (please refer to the vicinity map in Attachment 1).
During the public hearing the following comments and questions were asked:
1. A BOCC member asked the applicant about the use of chemicals to treat the grass and
asked for a list of products that would be used.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant indicated disturbed area(s) would be stabilized with
grass seed and chemical use would be consistent with the typical care of a residential
lawn. The applicant agreed to provide a list of possible chemicals that could be used to
`care for' the grass growing on site.
2. A BOCC member asked about stormwater runoff and if drainage ponds would have to be
built.
STAFF COMMENT: Both staff and the applicant stated the property had a natural grade
channeling stormwater towards Interstate 85.
Staff said the applicant would be required to submit both an erosion control plan and a
stormwater management plan as part of the project. Runoff from the property would be
strictly limited based on current regulations, addressing a concern expressed from both
adjacent property owners.
The applicant said they prefer to develop and install vegetated swales to convey and
capture stormwater as it is more environmental friendly and allow for greater natural
infiltration of water. This method was utilized at the solar facility off of White Cross Road
and has proven very successful.
The applicant indicated there would not be any mass grading on the property and existing
topography would be preserved.
3. A BOCC member asked how many solar facilities there were in Orange County.
STAFF COMMENT: There is a major solar facility, approved through the SUP process in
2012, off of White Cross Road. Several farms, including Maple View off of Dairyland
Road and the Pickard's Mountain Eco Institute off of Pickard Mountain Road, also have
large solar arrays located on their property.
4. A BOCC member asked if there would be a lot of noise emanating from the site.
STAFF COMMENT. The panels themselves had no electrical components on them
generating noise. There is a transformer in the middle of the property, over 500 feet from
adjoining property lines, which would generate some noise.
Due to its central location on the property, and the presence of required land use buffers,
the applicant testified adjoining property owners will not hear any noise from the property.
5. A Planning Board member indicated he was concerned over the removal of the trees
from the lot and increased levels of noise being heard from Interstate 85 over increased
levels of stormwater runoff. While the member expressed support for alternative energy
development the suggestion was made that such facilities are better located on
previously cleared sites or `brownfield' sites to avoid unnecessary clearing of forests.
STAFF COMMENT. The property has been timbered in the past as part of an agricultural
operation (i.e. tree farm). There are various timer rights that have been extended to allow
for the harvesting of these existing hardwoods and, from our standpoint, existing trees
were always intended to be `harvested' regardless of this project.
In effect, this will project will represent the redevelopment of previously disturbed property
as the trees will be removed as part of an agricultural operation.
Per County regulations the project will not be allowed to increase stormwater runoff
beyond what already exists in its current, forested, state. This means runoff will be
captured on -site to avoid impacting adjacent property owners.
The clearing of the property will not result in an increase in stormwater flow from the
property.
6. A member of the general public, Ms. Megan Tobin the owner of the Pickards Mountain
Eco Institute, expressed support for the project.
Staff Analysis. At the public hearing, staff said the project complied with the various provisions of the
UDO, including:
9
a. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of
Section 2.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
b. Staff has determined that the leased area of the property is of sufficient size to support
the proposed solar array.
c. Staff is satisfied that the proposed landscaping and buffering complies with the provisions
of Section 6.8 of the UDO.
d. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, DEAPR,
Orange County Health) indicate there are no concerns associated with the request.
e. Staff made the determination that a formal Environmental Impact Statement would not be
required per Section 6.18 of the UDO.
f. The applicant had submitted sufficient documentation denoting compliance with specific
development standards as detailed within Section 5.9.6 (C) of the UDO.
g. The proposal is consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan
concerning development, including:
a. Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 1: Energy conservation, sustainable use of
non - polluting renewable energy resources, efficient use of non - renewable energy
resources and clean air.
b. Objective AE -15: Foster participation in green energy programs such as
installation incentives for solar hot water /solar generation /solar tempering in
residential or commercial construction. The County should develop programs that
will link citizens and businesses with options for alternative and sustainable energy
sources.
c. Objective AG -8: Encourage the use and production of natural fuel alternatives to
petroleum based products and pursue new types of energy sources.
Staff is still awaiting the submittal of additional information, most notably written responses to
adjacent property owner questions (please see Attachment 3) prior to making a formal
recommendation. We anticipate completing our review in time for the April 2, 2014 regular
meeting.
Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO, the
BOCC has requested that the Planning Board recommendation be made available in time for
the May 8, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. As a procedural note, additional comments on the
application must be submitted in writing to the Planning Board in order to become part of the
official record of these proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board begin deliberating on the
application.
Michael Ha
From:
10
March 5, 2014 Planning Board
Item 7
Strata Solar response to questions raised
by adjacent property owner during public
Louis Iannone <liannone @stratasolar.co hearing
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:35 AM
To: Michael Harvey; Louis Iannone
Subject: Fwd: Strata Solar Response to Adjacent Property Owner Virginia Wise Concerns
Mike:
I copied you on the detailed response below to Mrs. Wise, but If you like you can also forward it to the Planning
Board. We'll be happy to discuss it or answer questions tonight.
Thanks
Louis Iannone
Site Acquisition and Entitlement
919 - 960 -6015 ext. 305
919 - 669 -0693 cell
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Louis Iannone <liannone@stratasolar.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:41 AM
Subject: Strata Solar Response to Adjacent Property Owner Virginia Wise Concerns
To: wisemom4444 @yahoo.com, Michael Harvey <mharve oran eg countync.gov >, Louis Iannone
<liannone@stratasolar.com>
Dear Mrs. Wise:
I wanted to provide a written response to your questions about the Strata Solar project near your home in
addition to the information our experts orally provided at the public hearing last week.
Strata Solar Development, LLC ( "Strata "), based in Chapel Hill, will operate and maintain the proposed`solar
farm, including the landscaped and buffer area. Strata has constructed more than 40 similar facilities around
North Carolina. Our construction process is well - planned and very efficient. It takes us about 4 months to
construct a facility. There may be some small delay if there were very bad weather, but it is highly unlikely that
the construction process would extend a month beyond the ordinary process.
Strata takes site safety very seriously. We have a dedicated security and safety manager that supervises security
on all of our sites. We employ security guards, who are often off -duty law enforcement offices, at night and our
on —site supervisors manage security during working hours. We also install security video on all sites to monitor
activity 24 hours a day. Our hiring practices including drug testing and background screening.
Most solar farms are located in residential areas such as this. Our expert appraiser has studied properties
located adjacent to solar farms to determine whether the facility has an impact on adjacent property values. He
found that adjacent property values are maintained. Our solar farms make good neighbors: they are quiet, the
solar panels are lower in height than any barn or home and they generate fewer vehicle trips than a single-
family home after construction.
11
You raised concerns about Electro Magnetic Field radiation (EMF). First, EMF is present wherever electricity is
in use. EMF is produced by magnets, electric tools, computers, radio and television transmitters, mobile phones
and medical devices, for example. EMF strength attenuates rapidly as the distance from the source increases.
The closest element of the solar farm to your property, a PV panel, is 150' from your property line. The closest
inverter to your property is 300' from your property line. Telecommunications transmitters are co- located with
the inverters.
The PV panels that make up the proposed solar farm produce a weaker EMF than many household appliances,
such as televisions and refrigerators. Inverters, used to convert electricity from direct current (DC) to
alternating current (AC), will be located in the interior of the solar farm- the closest is 300' from your property
line. Although they do produce EMF, the strength of the field declines rapidly with distance such that EMF
measured at the perimeter of the solar cannot be differentiated from background EMF. There will -be no EMF
effect upon your property.
No particulate matter is generated from our solar farms. The solar panels have no moving parts and are
constructed, from solid state materials. During construction, we will adhere to all NCDENR & Orange County
requirements regarding air and water quality.
The proposed solar farm will have no effect on ground water. We do not excavate the site- our posts are
mechanically driven directly into the ground. Trenching depth for wiring is no deeper than 36', well above
typical groundwater elevations in the area where we will be building. There are no batteries on -site.
In regard to stormwater, our site is located down gradient of your home. Our field run topography for the site
tells us your home is at an elevation of 688', draining to the west toward our site. The elevation of the nearest
rack on our site is 684'. We do not grade the site, and existing drainage patterns are maintained. Therefore,
existing drainage patterns will remain, which convey stormwater from the east (your home) to the west (our
site.)
I am happy to meet with you on -site if you would like.
Thank -you
Louis Ianonne
Strata Solar Development, LLC
Site Acquisition and Entitlement
919 - 960 -6015 ext. 305
919- 669 -0693 cell
2
ATTACHMENT 3 1 12
COPY OR COUNTY
ACTION AGENDA ITEM A STRACT
Meeting Date: d
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit — Solar Array off Redman Road in Cheeks
Township
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Vicinity Map Michael D. Harvey, Planner III 245 -2597
2. Applicant Submitted Evidence Via E -mail Craig Benedict, Director 245 -2592
On Use of Pesticides STAFF NOTE: Attachment 3 has
3. Findings of Fact
not been provided.
PURPOSE: To complete review of, and make a recommendation on, a Class A Special Use
Permit (hereafter 'SUP') application proposing the development of a solar array in accordance
with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array - Public Utility of the
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing
and the March 5, 2014 Planning Board meeting. Agenda materials from the February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing can be viewed at: hftp://oran-gecountync.gov/occierks/140224.pd
materials from the March 5, 2014 Planning Board meeting can be viewed at:
hftp://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/3.5.14PBPacket.pd
discussed at the March 5, 2014 Planning Board meeting the following testimony /evidence has
already been entered into the record:
i. Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan.
ii. Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the
UDO.
iii. Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel
Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO.
The applicant entered copies of affidavits and a real estate report, completed by
Mr. Kirkland, into the record providing additional information on the project's
compliance with applicable standards.
iv. Staff entered an email and letter from adjoining property owners into the record.
The applicant testified they would address the concerns expressed by both
property owners and respond in writing to the County.
STAFF NOTE: The applicant's response was presented to the Planning Board at
its March 5, 2014 regular meeting.
Return to Agenda
11
You raised concerns about Electro Magnetic Field radiation (EMF). First, EMT is present wherever electricity is
in use. EMF is produced by magnets, electric tools, computers, radio and television transmitters, mobile phones
and medical devices, for example. EMF strength attenuates rapidly as the distance from the source increases.
The closest element of the solar farm to your property, a PV panel, is 150' from your property line. The closest
inverter to your property is 300' fi-om your property line. Telecommunications transmitters are co- located with
the inverters.
The PV panels that make up the proposed solar farm produce a weaker EMF than many household appliances,
such as televisions and refrigerators. Inverters, used to convert electricity from direct current (DC) to
alternating current (AC), will be located in the interior of the solar farm - the closest is 300' from your property
line. Although they do produce EMF, the strength of the field declines rapidly with distance such that EMF
measured at the perimeter of the solar cannot be differentiated from background EMF. There will -be no EMF
effect upon your property.
No particulate matter is generated from our solar farms. The solar panels have no moving parts and are
constructed. from solid state materials. During construction, we will adhere to all NCDENR & Orange County
requirements regarding air and water quality.
The proposed solar farm will have no effect on ground water. We do not excavate the site- our posts are
mechanically driven directly into the ground. Trenching depth for wiring is no deeper than 36', well above
typical groundwater elevations in the area where we will be building. There are no batteries on -site.
In regard to stormwater, our site is located down gradient of your home. Our field run topography for the site
tells us your home is at an elevation of 688', draining to the west toward our site. The elevation of the nearest
rack on our site is 684'. We do not grade the site, and existing drainage patterns are maintained. Therefore,
existing drainage patterns will remain, which convey stormwater from the east (your home) to the west (our
site.)
I am happy to meet with you on -site if you would like.
Thank -you
Louis lanonno
Strata Solar Development, LLC
Site Acquisition and Entitlement
919 - 960 -6015 ext. 305
919 - 669 -0693 cell -
13
V. Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public.
The applicant has submitted additional written comment(s) on the project to address questions
from the public hearing about the use of chemicals for treating grass on the subject properties.
This is contained within Attachment 2. Staff has reviewed the response and has no concerns
related to the use of pesticides /fertilizers on the properties.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
`cause an analysis to be made of the application' and pass that analysis on to the reviewing
body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following:
a. Application submittal requirements detailed within Section 2.7 of the UDO have been
satisfied.
b. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with respect to landscaping and buffering
requirements as detailed within Section 6.8 of the UDO.
c. Staff has made the determination that a formal Environmental Impact Statement would
not be required per Section 6.18 of the UDO.
d. The applicant has complied with specific development standards associated with the
development of a solar facility as detailed within Section 5.9.6 (C) of the UDO.
e. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, DEAPR,
Orange County Health) indicate there are no concerns associated with the request.
Please refer to the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet for additional
information.
f. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the various goals outlined within the
Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including:
a. Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 1: Energy conservation, sustainable use of
non - polluting renewable energy resources, efficient use of non - renewable energy
resources and clean air.
b. Objective AE -15: Foster participation in green energy programs such as
installation incentives for solar hot water /solar generation /solar tempering in
residential or commercial construction. The County should develop programs that
will link citizens and businesses with options for alternative and sustainable energy
sources.
c. Objective AG -8: Encourage the use and production of natural fuel alternatives to
petroleum based products and pursue new types of energy sources.
Planning Director's Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 of the
UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the application subject to:
• Approval of the recommended Findings of Fact as detailed within Attachment 3,
• The imposition of the recommended conditions detailed within Attachment 3, and
• The Planning Board's and BOCC's ability to make an affirmative finding on the general
standards outlined within Section 5.3.4 of the UDO.
14
Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO, the
BOCC has requested that the Planning Board recommendation be made available in time for
the May 8, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. As a procedural note, additional comments on the
application must be submitted in writing to the Planning Board in order to become part of the
official record of these proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has determined the project would not require augmentation of
County budgetary outlays to support services and that anticipated revenues from property taxes
should supplement increases in cost.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Deliberate as necessary,
2. Review the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval as contained in Attachment 3,
3. If deemed necessary, suggest additional conditions or modifications to the site plan, and
4. Make an affirmative recommendation to the BOCC regarding the Findings of Fact and
Conditions of Approval as detailed within Attachment 3.
VICINITY MAP - STRATA SOLAR Attachment 1 15
rl ACC A -QDPr1AI i icy oI=DRAIT v =ni 1=42T
RGB
® Red: Band _1
1 inch = 400 feet
® Green: Band _2 0 s
b C
=Blue: Band-3
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
01/10/20]
Return to Agenda
Attachment 2
STRATA SOLAR LLC
50101 Governors Drive Chapel Hill NC 27517
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE: HERBICIDE
Herbicide use on Solar Farms owned and operated by Strata Solar will be
applied at the rate suggested by the manufacture. All spraying will be done by a
Licensed North Carolina Pesticide Applicator or an employee working directly under the
supervision of a license holder. Persons applying herbicides will use proper PPE
including but not limited to long pants and long sleeved shirts, eye protection, chemical
resistant gloves and boots, and respirators depending on weather conditions. Any PPE
that comes in contact with the herbicide will be washed according to the manufacturers
recommendations. If there are no recommendations given, soap and hot water are to
be used. All PPE will be washed separately form regular clothing. All persons who
come into contact with the chemicals will wash hands with soap and warm water before
visiting the toilet, eating, or using chewing tobacco. Chemicals will be used only where
there is no chance of contamination to ground water or wetlands. All empty containers
will be disposed at the proper location and with local codes. Should there be a major
spill of chemicals, the proper authorities will be contacted and the appropriate measures
will be taken to ensure the site is safe and cleanup has been done correctly.
Herbicides are typically applied to the areas under the racks holding the
solar modules. These areas are sprayed two times per year. This has been shown
to keep the weeds and grass under control so as not to shade the array. The fence line
will also be sprayed at this time. There has been no need to spray selective broadleaf
herbicides on the entire farm. Spraying will be done according to weather patterns. No
spraying will take place when there are windy or rainy conditions in the immediate
forecast.
Organic Herbicide use is being field tested and might come in to play in the
future. Herbicide use is limited to the fence line where sheep are being used to manage
the vegetation. All MSDS labels can be found on the manufacturer's web sites. These
will also be on the truck applying the herbicide. These include but are not limited to
Roundup Pro, Spectricide, 2,4d generic brands, and other generic glyphosate brands.
Should there be an emergency, please contact the local authorities
and contact the Strata Solar office
(919) 960 -6015
16
17
STRATA SOLAR LLC
50101 Governors Drive Chapel Hill NC 27517
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE: FERTILIZER
Fertilizer use on all farms owned and operated by Strata Solar LLC will be done
in accordance to manufacturer's recommendations. All Fertilizer applications will be
done by a licensed North Carolina Pesticide Applicator or an employee working directly
under the supervision of a license holder. Persons applying fertilizers will use proper
PPE including but not limited to long pants and long sleeved shirts, eye protection,
chemical resistant gloves and boots, and respirators depending on weather conditions.
Any PPE that comes in contact with the fertilizer will be washed according to the
manufacturers recommendations. If there are no recommendations given, soap and hot
water are to be used. All PPE will be washed separately form regular clothing. All
persons who come into contact with the chemicals will wash hands with soap and warm
water before visiting the toilet, eating, or using chewing tobacco. Chemicals will be
used only where there is no chance of contamination to ground water or wetlands. All
empty containers will be disposed at the proper location and with local codes. Should
there be a major spill of chemicals, the proper authorities will be contacted and the
appropriate measures will be taken to ensure the site is safe and cleanup has been
done correctly.
Fertilizers are applied based on two sources. One is a standard that is written on
the plan approved by each local authority. On other farms that have been built in
Orange County, the recommended rate of application for fertilizer use is 1,000
pounds per acre of 10- 10 -10. The suggested application is a split application of
500 pounds per acre in the spring and 500 pounds per acre in the fall. We also
take suggestions from soil samples taken from the site and analyzed by the North
Carolina Extension Agency. This provides us with a more accurate representation of
the amendments needed. All fertilizer applications will be done in consideration to
weather patterns. No fertilizer will be applied when a large storm event is expected.
All fertilizers applied will have MSDS sheets available on the truck doing the
application, on the manufactures website, and are available upon request from Strata
Solar. Fertilizer use is limited on sites where there are sheep managing the grass.
Should there be an emergency, please contact the local authorities
and contact the Strata Solar office
(919) 960 -6015
18
Attachment 4
Excerpt of February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes
APPROVED 4/15/2014
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
February 24, 2014
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning
Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on February 24, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Officers,
Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the
Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Planning Board members Maxecine Mitchell,
Johnny Randall, Paul Guthrie, Herman Staats, Tony Blake, and H.T. "Buddy" Hartley
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, Lisa Stuckey, Andrea
Rohrbacher and James Lea
Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. He reviewed the following items at
the members' places:
- Booklet/Blue Sheets /Cream Sheets /PowerPoint — Item C -1 — Class A Special Use
Permit
- Letter — Item C -3 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRS
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Board Member Buddy Hartley introduced this item.
1. Class A Special Use Permit - To review a Class A Special Use Permit application
seeking to develop a solar array /public utility station on two parcels of property, totaling
approximately 52 acres in area, off of Redman Road between the railway and Interstate
85/40 in Cheeks Township.
Buddy Hartley: An item involving a special use permit is a quasi - judicial setting, so
approval or denial of such permits are based on sworn testimony and evidence from individuals
who are speaking before the Board. So, we will ask that all individuals that wish to speak on
this be sworn to before the clerk.
Those who were speaking to this item were then sworn in.
19
Michael Harvey: Good evening. I am Michael Harvey of the Orange County Planning
Department. I have been duly sworn, and my job here this evening is to present to you a Class
A special use permit application proposing the development of a solar facility south of Redman
Road.
What I would first of all like to do this evening is reiterate to the Board what you have
before you. The applicant, in this case Strata Solar, has provided you a copy of affidavits that
they will be reviewing and entering into evidence this evening, outlining their presentation. As
also has been explained, you have three colored pieces before you. The first, a green item, is
an email correspondence submitted by the Chair, Chair Jacobs. This email specifically
documents the Efland Home for Girls, provides some background information on this particular
parcel property. There is a blue piece of paper. This is email correspondence between County
planning staff and Strata Solar to an adjacent property owner. Last but certainly not least is a
cream yellow piece of paper that's been issued by another adjacent property owner, specifically
Redman Rhino, LLC, offering their support for the project.
The first thing I would like to do before I begin with the presentation is ask that Board
recognize that the abstract, which we have before you this evening, which includes: Attachment
1, an application packet; Attachment 2, a property vicinity map; Attachment 3, staff comments
concerning this project; and Attachment 4, the notification materials and certification for the
mailing, be entered into the record.
Commissioner Dorosin arrived at 7:08 pm.
Chair Jacobs: So do you need a motion to that effect?
Michael Harvey: I just need an acknowledgement.
Chair Jacobs: We acknowledge that it has been entered into the record. Thank you.
Michael Harvey: Thank you very much. Without further ado, I know we have a long meeting
ahead of us. I'll be as quick as I can.
Michael Harvey reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
FEBRUARY 24, 2014
AGENDA ITEM: C -1
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT OF A
SOLAR ARRAY - PUBLIC UTILITY
PROPERTY INFORMATION
• PI N(s): 9844 -06 -5971 and 9844 -17 -2687.
• Size: 52 acres.
• Zoning: Rural Residential (R -1), Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection overlay,
and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
• Future Land Use Map Designation: Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node
(CITAN).
• Growth Management System Designation: Urban.
SURROUNDING USES: Map
C
REQUEST:
• Erect individual solar array panels on both properties (52 acres).
• Typical array is between 7 and 8 feet in height, with approximately 2 to 3 feet of ground
clearance, and approximately 63 feet in length.
• Arrays will be screened by existing vegetation and an 8 foot high chain link security
fence, topped with 3 strand barbed wire, shall enclose the perimeter of the array to
prevent access.
REQUEST (Continued):
• Gravel paths /drives will be installed around these arrays in order to permit access by
Strata Solar technicians to service the panels. In certain areas there will be natural,
grass, paths depending on soil.
• Vehicular access to the site is restricted by a 24 foot access gate off of Redman Road.
• An overhead, medium voltage, power line will be installed along the western portion of
the property allowing the proposed facility to tie into the power grid via an adjacent Duke
Energy substation.
SITE PLAN: Map
REQUIRED REVIEW:
Project involves the review of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2.7 of the UDO.
Held in a quasi - judicial format meaning all parties, for and against the application,
provide sworn testimony as well as competent material and substantial evidence on the
merits of the proposal.
Applicant has burden of demonstrating project complies with the provisions of the UDO.
REQUIRED REVIEW (continued):
Anyone opposing the application is required to demonstrate through sworn testimony
and competent material and substantial evidence that the project does not comply with
the provisions of the Ordinance.
Hearsay or unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony.
If applicant proves compliance with applicable standards, and there is no evidence in the
record the project does not comply, the permit must be issued.
REVIEW PROCESS:
Step One: Review of application at a joint Quarterly Public Hearing by BOCC and
Planning Board. BOCC adjourns the public hearing to a date /time certain to receive the
Planning Board recommendation.
Step Two: Review of application by Planning Board who will make a recommendation
on the application based on the evidence and testimony offered into evidence during the
public hearing.
Step Three: BOCC reconvenes public hearing to receive Planning Board
recommendation. No additional public comment/testimony is accepted. BOCC takes
action on the proposal.
STAFF INITIAL REVIEW:
• Applicant has submitted all documentation required for the review of a the solar array
(Section 5.9.6)
• Applicant has submitted required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit (i.e.
required by Section 2.7.3)
21
• There are policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence to the viability of the
proposal
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive the application,
2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments.
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 8, 2014 BOCC
regular meeting.
4. Adjourn the public hearing until May 8, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning
Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive the application,
2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments.
3. Continue the Public Hearing until March 18, 2014 to allow the applicant and staff to meet
with local property owners and respond, in writing, to their concerns.
Michael Harvey: This project, and this refers to attachment 2 of your packet, involves two
parcels of property owned by Stout Farm, LLC, totaling 52 acres in area. The parcels of
property are zoned Rural Residential, Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay, and
are located in the MTC overlay — the major transportation corridor overlay district, which is along
the interstate. The area in question is located within the Commercial Industrial Transition
Activity Node and is designated an Urban area on our Growth Management System designation
map. And you have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation before you in the packet you have.
In fact you have copies of all PowerPoint presentations that are going to be reviewed this
evening, including the one from Strata Solar in that packet.
This is an expanded view of that last map we just showed you, showing surrounding uses.
Again, here are the two parcels of property. This is Redman Crossing Road here. To the north
of the railroad tracks, you have residential land uses located in the Ten Year Transition area per
our Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. You have property to the east, large tracts,
undeveloped property located in a commercial industrial transition activity node. You have a
residential property, the Efland Home for Girls, here. It is also located in the commercial
industrial transition activity node. You have an existing Duke Energy substation here; the
NCDOT weigh station here; an existing commercial operation in the economic development
transition activity node; and several undeveloped large parcels of property, also in the economic
development transition activity node.
As I previously indicated, the applicant is erecting individual solar panels on both parcels of
property, which Strata Solar is going to be leasing. A typical array is anywhere between 7 and
8 feet in height, depending on the slope and angle of the actual array, with approximately 2 to 3
ground clearance, and they are going to be approximately 63 feet in length. This is also
summarized in our abstract. Arrays are going to be screened by existing vegetation and which
will be augmented with additional vegetation as necessary and required by County regulations,
also enclosed by an eight foot high chain link security fence, topped with barbed wire that will
enclose the perimeter of the property. There will be gravel paths throughout the site in order to
permit access to the individual arrays by Strata Solar technicians to service the panels. As
stipulated not only in application, but on the site plan, in certain areas there are going to be
natural grass paths, depending on the soils. Vehicular access to the site is restricted by a 24
foot wide access gate off of Redman Road. There will be - this site will have an overhead
22
power line connecting to Duke Energy and to the adjacent power — excuse me — the adjacent
existing substation, which I identified for you just a few moments ago.
And this is the site plan. What I would like to bring to the Board's attention is as follows: You
have approximately 11 to 12 acres of open and landscaped space on the property. The area in
this general vicinity has several streams that will be protected by a 60 foot — 65 foot stream
buffer. That includes these wetland delineated areas, here and here. This shows the MTC
transportation corridor buffer that's required to be 100 feet. There is the required mandated 50
foot type D land use buffer along this property line. According to the applicant, they are going to
maintain either existing foliage or plant new foliage to our existing buffer standard. The height
of the trees is actually anticipated to get anywhere from 15 to 20 feet in height before it has to
become managed or topped, and that's to insure that they are not going to have shadow
created on the actual individual solar panels; but you are looking at a 15 to 20 foot high buffer.
This set of panels along this area of the property here is actually set back 150 feet from the
identified residence, again the Efland — the former Efland Home for Girls, which is currently
being lived in. Here is the access point off of Redman. You will also note on the site plan,
planning staff has required the applicant to reserve /identify a potential future road right of way.
As this Board will recall, we have an access management strategy in the Efland area to insure
perpetual ingress /egress access to several parcels of property, both to the west and the east,
that are landlocked. They have shown the required access area that would be running through
this property, consistent with that plan. Once again, here is the utility substation, which is where
the power — where the facility is going to be tied in to. And this of course here is the existing
Rhino manufacturing plant.
As the planning board Representative Hartley has indicated, this is reviewed under the Class A
special use permit process, as identified within section 2 -7 of our Unified Development
Ordinance. It is held in a quasi - judicial format, meaning that all parties both for and against the
application will provide sworn testimony as well competent material evidence on the merits of
the proposal. The applicant ultimately bears the burden of demonstrating the projecting
complies with the provisions of the UDO. Anyone opposing the application is required to
demonstrate through sworn testimony and competent material and substantial evidence that the
project does not comply with the UDO. And I will remind you, as we have identified in our
abstract, hearsay and unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony. Last, but certainly
not least, if the applicant proves compliance of applicable standards and there is no evidence in
the record that the project does not comply, there is a requirement that we issue the permit.
At this juncture, what I would like to do is call the Board's attention to page 6 of our abstract, just
so I can run down staff comments, which are contained in Attachment 3 of your abstract. First
being that we have heard from the Sheriff's department that has indicated they have no
concerns over this project, and I will go back to the site plan. EMS staff has actually indicated
that the Efland Fire Department — not Eno — I apologize for the typo - will serve this site and they
will provide emergency services as well. Both Deputy Chief Hallenbeck and Orange County
Emergency Services have indicated they have no concerns over the development of the
proposed site. As we have identified in this abstract, and as with other solar projects, there is
no septic or well systems proposed for the property; so there will be no requirement for
environmental health review or permitting. We have met with representatives of the Department
of Environment Agriculture Parks and Recreation, who have provided you a memorandum
specifically on the Efland School for Girls — indicating in this memorandum, which you will find in
Attachment 3, that given the substantial buffer that is being proposed and the setback of the
array from the facility, they do not anticipate any negative impact on that historic structure.
23
Orange County Solid Waste has indicated the request, if approved, will not impact their ability to
provide services.
We have submitted this to the State Clearing House, as we are obligated to do by our ordinance
for environmental review. We have gotten no negative comments back from the State
concerning this project. It goes without saying that, if approved, this project will have to go
through all local permitting, including: storm water, erosion control, zoning, building and what
not. There will be issues identified and addressed at those permitting stages to address various
independent issues. One concern that has been brought to our attention, and I would like to
address to the Board now and have Strata Solar expand on this answer if they feel necessary.
One concern expressed that this will create additional runoff problems in this portion of the
property and even here for the manufacturing use. What I would like to remind the Board is, per
our ordinance and consistent with State law, Strata Solar is obligated to basically insure and
maintain existing runoff that is predevelopment, post development; meaning once all the trees
are removed; the solar panels are erected, all the storm water generated from the site has to be
maintained and kept on the site consistent with how the property existed before it was touched.
The property, based on the contour data on your site plan, actually slopes in this general
direction. So, as development occurs, existing storm water patterns will be maintained, and
Strata Solar has informed staff you should not see any negative impacts on adjacent property.
Having said that, I will just remind the Board one last time, once they go through the storm water
process they are going to have to guarantee to the satisfaction of County staff and according to
our local regulations: 1. There will be no off site impacts; and 2. They are going to be
maintaining the storm water flow as currently exists on the property.
With that, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, what I would like to do is turn this over to
Strata Solar and let them present their application. I will get into staff's recommendation at the
appropriate time, and if you have any initial questions for me, I will be more than happy to
answer them.
Buddy Hartley: Any questions or comments from the Board? Any questions or comments from
the planning board?
Commissioner Price: On the storm water runoff, how much land disturbance will there be?
Michael Harvey: I'm going to let Strata Solar answer that question, but what I will tell you quite
candidly is that there will be sufficient disturbance on this site to require a storm water permit.
Buddy Hartley: Would the applicant want to make the presentation to the Board?
Dave Neill: Thank you Chairmen, members of the Commission, members of the Planning
Board. My name is Dave Neill. I am an attorney with the law firm of Smith, Moore,
Leatherwood, 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2800, Raleigh, NC, and I have the pleasure of
appearing before you today on behalf of Strata Solar and the Stout Family Farm, under which
we have negotiated a long term ground lease for the — for the site that's been referenced by Mr
Harvey.
This evening, we lawyers don't get to put on — we don't get to provide the evidence, but we do
get to play ringleader or ringmaster and provide those who can provide that evidence that you
need to render your decision. Let me give you a preview of the four witnesses that we would
bring for your information this evening. First, Louis lannone, and I'll ask — sneaking up behind
me — Louis, immediately at my six o'clock — Project Director and site acquisition for Strata Solar,
CA
who will speak about Strata Solar, its background, and its overall plans for this site, to the extent
that information has not been already provided by staff. Behind him in second will be Brent
Niemann, Public Engineer, with a focus in civil engineering, who is also employed by Strata and
is the project engineer on this project. He will speak to a number of the detailed engineering
questions, including the storm water runoff potential and grading issues that may be of interest
to the Board members and the planning board. Also, another engineer, Gabe Cantor, who is
the director of engineering at Strata Solar — his background is in mechanical and manufacturing
engineering. He has worked with Strata and has designed the electrical systems for Strata over
the years, and he will be available to speak to questions that may arise regarding matters
related to electrical engineering in particular for a facility such as this. And finally, as I know you
will all be excited to hear, a fourth witness, Mr. Rich Kirkland of Kirkland appraisals, and MAI
appraiser, licensed here in North Carolina, who will provide information on his findings, that are
at your place, relating to his market study and appraisal relating to the lack of offsite impacts
from a low impact development of this nature.
Rather than belabor this any further, we would just like to ask, to the extent it has not already
been done, that the application by Strata Solar be entered into the record as our evidence that
we will provide foundation for; and also that staff report, to the extent it has not already been, we
would endorse it and have it entered into the record, as it does provide a cogent summary of the
materials that you will hear later this evening. And with that, I will turn it over to Lois lannone,
Site Acquisition and Project Director for the Stout Farm Project.
Louis lannone: Thank you Board members and Planning Board members. Mr. Neill covered
quite a bit of my introduction. That's a list of the professionals that will speak. I am Louis
lannone. I am a real estate developer and I work in site acquisition and entitlement for Strata
Solar. I've been a developer for 25 years.
Louis lannone presented the following PowerPoint slides:
Strata Solar Development
Stout Farm
Solar Electric Power Plant
Orange County, NC
Public Hearing Presentation
Strata Representatives
• Louis lannone, Site Acquisition & Entitlement
• Brent Neimann, PE, Civil Engineering
• Gabe Cantor, PE, Electrical Engineering
• Rich Kirkland, MAI, Real Estate Appraiser
• Dave Neill, Land Use Attorney
Schedule of Presentation
• Strata Solar
• Solar Electric Power Plants
• Similar Visual Impacts
• Appraisal Analysis
• Engineers' Affidavits
• SUP Conditions
Strata Solar
25
• NC is 5th ranked state in solar energy generation
• Strata is largest solar developer in NC and the sixth largest solar contractor in the nation
• Operate 50 5 -MW farms
• Will construct approx. 50 farms this year
Job Creation
• 80 professional staff: engineers, project managers, attorneys, accountants, technicians
• 500 — 1,200 construction staff
• Average 1,000 NC jobs throughout the year
Fuquay Solar Farm (photo)
5MW Solar Farm
• 30 -50 acres total, 25 ac panel footprint
• 25,000 3'x5' Solar Panels, fixed on aluminum racks, up to 10' high excluding utility poles
• Use existing land contours; very minimal grading, 100 SF around each inverter pad
•
1% impervious surface
White Cross Solar Farm (photo)
• Panels — Polycrystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cell Panels; flat -blue color
• Sun passes through glass, hits high -grade silicon and releases electrons in DC current
• DC current is captured in a tributary system, converted to AC current and transferred
Duke Energy local lines
• No fuel used, no waste, no emissions
• NC Utility Commission issues Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience for Solar
Plant (NC Public Policy to promote renewable energy)
• Power sold to Duke Power under a long -term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)
• PPA is regulated by NC Utility Commission
• Project is financed through combination of tax credit investors and PPA revenue
• DENR Erosion Control Permit, DOT Driveway Permit and Local Municipal Electrical
Permit
• Project does not impact municipal services, schools, utilities, etc.
• Typical project is surrounded by installed or existing buffers which are subject to
conditions added by the municipality
• Easily removed; Salvage Value > Removal Cost
Stout Solar Farm Area (photo)
Visually Similar Impacts
• Single - Family Development
• Manufacturing Facility
• Warehouse
• Public Works / Public Utilities
• Schools
Appraisal Analysis
• Low Impact Development
• No noise
• No Emissions
M
• No Odor
• No Hazardous Materials
• No Traffic
Appraisal Analysis
• Much lower in height, traffic, noise, light etc. than most other development
• "Dark at night."
• Passive Use Harmonizes with Adjacent Uses
• Establishes certainty of a long term, low intensity use
Professional Engineers' Affidavits
• Will not endanger public health or safety
• Project will meet all codes
• Project will generate less traffic than one house.
• No utilities are required or used.
Solar Farm Meets SUP Conditions
• Use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare
• Use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, and the use is a public
necessity
• Location and character of use are in harmony with area and in compliance with
Comprehensive Plan
Brent Nieman, professional engineer, will speak to some civil engineering issues. Gabe Cantor,
PE runs all of our engineering, but he will speak principally to electrical engineering issues.
Rich Kirkland, MAI on some evaluation issues, and Mr. Neill you've heard. The schedule of the
presentation will be that I will tell you a little bit about Strata Solar; describe a solar electric
power plant; describe some similar visual — some uses that we feel like are similar visual
impacts; the appraisal analysis; and the engineers will speak and then just briefly touch on the
S.U.P. conditions.
North Carolina is the 5th ranked state in solar energy generation and Strata is the largest
developer in North Carolina, and we are actually the 6th largest developer in the nation. We
have just completed approximately 50, 5 megawatt farms, and this plant will be a template 5
megawatt project that we do. And our goal is to construct another 50 this year; so we are
operating 50 of these plants at this point. So we do everything from this point — site acquisition,
entitlement. We construct the plants. Of course we design it, get all necessary approvals, and
then we own and operate the plants for 20 years or more.
We create quite a bit of jobs. We have 80 professional staff approximately in Chapel Hill. That
includes engineers, project managers, attorneys, accountants, technicians; and we employ
anywhere from 500 to 1200 construction staff on about a dozen jobs at one - at any given time.
It's about a 3 to 4 month construction cycle, so — and about 100 to 200 people on each job, so
we can have quite a bit of employees at any point in time. We average about 1,000 employees
over the course of a year in North Carolina.
This is a typical 5 megawatt farm. This is in Wake County, in Fuquay. That's a 40 or 50 acre
project with a 25 acre panel footprint - a typical project. A typical 5 megawatt farm is 30 to 50
acres with a 25 acre footprint, approximately 25,000 3 x 5 solar panels fixed on aluminum racks,
up to ten feet high, excluding a handful of utility poles that we will install to connect to the
existing power lines. We basically do not grade. We will clear trees and use existing land
27
contours, very minimal grading, 4 or 5 ten foot square 100 square foot pads inside the plant that
have an inverter and a transformer. And then we will re -plant the project, and at the end of the
day the project will have approximately 1 percent impervious surface.
This is a project just completed in Orange County. This is the White Cross Solar Farm. This
gives you an idea of — that's just a pretty good perspective of what panels look like and how we
follow the existing contours. I feel like that's been very positively received in the County - The
White Cross Solar Farm. The panels are polycrystalline silicon photovoltaic cell panels. As you
just saw, they are flat blue in color. Sun hits the panels, hits really what is very similar to
computer chip material, and that creates a small amount of DC current. Each one of those
panels is like a giant tributary. It's sort of like water coming down a mountain. The DC current
accumulates in this tributary system. It's converted to AC current in each one of these inverters
and then the transformers convert it to exactly the same power that's in the Duke Energy local
lines. This is a completely passive system. There is not fuel; there is no waste; no emissions;
no noise; no moving parts; no operator. It's a truly passive renewable energy system.
We are required to obtain, from the North Carolina utility commission, a certificate of public
necessity and convenience for each plant. We've obtained probably 70 of these at this point.
And it is the policy — it is the public policy of the state of North Carolina to promote renewable
energy. The power is sold to Duke Power under a long term 20 year power purchase
agreement contract. That contract is also regulated by the utility commission, and the projects
are financed through a combination of tax credit investors and the income from these power
purchase agreements. We will of course obtain all necessary DEANR permits, DOT permits
and a local electrical permit. We don't usually get a building permit, because we don't really do
any construction. The project will not impact municipal services, schools, utilities. A typical
project is surrounded by either the installed buffers Mr. Harvey spoke about, or has existing
buffers, and those buffers are generally subject to conditions that you all could set. At the end
of the 20 or 30 years, if the project is extended, they are easily removed, and the site is put back
to — close to - its original condition, and in general, the salvage value exceeds the removal.
This - I think Mr. Harvey had a better map — shows the location of the project, and it's
surrounded by a variety of uses - I believe within the center —in a long range plan area -
designated area for commercial development. These are some of the uses around the facility
and things that we think create a similar impact- a large scale single family residential
development; a manufacturing facility; warehouse; there is a public works facility adjacent to the
site; a large school facility. Mr. Kirkland will speak in more detail about this, but solar farms are
low impact developments. They create no noise, no emission, no odor, no hazardous materials
and almost no traffic — one trip a month to maintain the site. They are much lower in height,
traffic, noise, light, etc. than most other development. They are literally dark at night. We don't
propose any lighting on this sight. It is a passive use and it generally harmonizes with adjacent
uses and it establishes the certainty of a long term, low intensity use. Our engineers will speak
to the following issues in general. This project will not endanger the public health or safety. The
project will meet all of your codes. The project will generate less than trip per month, and no
utilities are required or used.
In conclusion, these are your general SUP conditions, and we would just like to close by saying
that we feel like we are going to present evidence that we meet all three of these conditions.
The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare. The use will
maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, and the use is a public necessity. And
the location and character of the use is in harmony with the area, and in compliance with your
comprehensive plan. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, I would be glad to
answer them.
Dave Neill: Mr. lannone, in the Board's package, under tab one is a document titled, Affidavit of
Louis lannone. Is this your statement?
Louis lannone: Yes
Dave Neill: Is it truthful?
Louis lannone: Yes, sir.
Dave Neill: And does it contain your signature that was given under oath?
Louis lannone: Yes
Dave Neill: We would offer the affidavit of Louis lannone into the record.
Our next witness is Brent Neiman, civil engineer and project engineer for the project.
Brent Neimann: Good evening. My name is Brent Neimann. I am a civil engineer with Strata
Solar. I have been sworn into the record this evening. I prepared the plan that was submitted
with the application. I am very familiar with this type of development. I have been with Strata
Solar for about a year and a half. In that year and a half I have worked on approximately a
hundred solar farm sites of this size or larger in general. This is the standard size project that we
undertake. It is a five megawatt AC facility. This particular site is pretty much covered in
vegetation as it exists today. As Mr. Harvey spoke to, we will prepare the necessary approvals.
We worked closely with Wesley Poole on our White Cross Farm, and we will prepare the
erosion and sedimentation control plans that are consistent with the ordinances. As he spoke
to, there are existing streams and wetlands in the southwest corner of the property. In general,
the property slopes that direction, including from the northeast towards the southwest. As the
other gentleman has spoken to, this is a very low impact development. We don't propose any
grading. The only grading we do will be the installation of the access, which we will obtain a
NCDOT driveway permit for. And there is a minor amount of grading at the inverter areas to
divert surface water away from the facilities- basically just to keep them dry, but that is very
minimal activity. In general this is a very pervious project. We have provided a letter to Mr.
Harvey as well, from the state of North Carolina DEANR, division of water quality, to that effect.
The panels on the racks have approximately one inch gap between each panel, and the racks
themselves have anywhere from four inches to eight inches between those racks. Water hits
the panels, finds those voids between the panels, hits the ground, and you have surface
drainage just like you had before. No change in the surface pattern, so there is no introduction
of additional water. We are not moving water to other areas of the site. It hits the ground as it
did pre - development and continues on that path. You do have a requirement in your ordinance
for a pre and post calculation for the one year 24 hour storm. We will certainly meet those
requirements as well.
A little bit about our construction practices - We utilize logging mats for temporary stabilization of
the site. We don't use gravel. The logging mats are placed on site to prevent rutting, or in wet
areas, or as construction sites go - during rain events it's going to get muddy. So those are in
place to allow access of material, specifically where the staging area is for delivery of material.
The staging areas are not nearly large enough to store material. We strategically plan deliveries
and installation of material so that the material sits for a very minor amount of time — a day or
two — before it is placed into the areas of the site that it will be installed in, and then it is
immediately installed. That staging area is temporary only. There will not be any permanent
/o
storage of any materials on the site. As they stated, there is no noise associated with this. It is
a fixed rack. We drive the post into the ground with a machine similar to what NCDOT uses to
drive guardrail posts. Embedment depths range anywhere from three feet to eight feet,
depending on soil conditions. This site - we can drive the post in approximately 3 to 4 days, so
it's a very quick operation. From there, the racking — the underground begins. We do some
underground trenching toward the inverters. The only overhead we do is when we interconnect
to the utility once we've converted it to AC power and stepped up the voltage. So we have
some underground going and the racking begins, and this is a progressive project; so, as one
operation has started with the racking and it progresses to another area, in that area we can
start to put the modules on the rack. So again, the material is staged and it's put right into use.
The typical construction time from for this is anywhere from three to four months. We do have,
you know, some clearing to do on this particular site; so it may take us a couple weeks longer to
get through those trees. But it's about a four month process on a site like this for us, from the
day that we show up to put the driveway in to the day that we stabilize the site. As they
discussed, we will be grading this at the end, just to smooth everything out; prepare the bed for
seed; and we will seed and straw this. We have typically been using Bermuda grass. That's
what we hope to do. If not, it will be some other native grass that we can get to grow, hopefully.
Mr. Harvey spoke to it. We do have some buffers proposed, and we will evaluate the potential
to use the existing trees wherever possible; and if they don't satisfy the buffer requirements or if
the species is not right, then we will plant the buffer per — I believe it's a type D land use buffer.
So we have discussed this, and we are aware of it. This project generates almost no traffic,
following construction. Everything is monitored remotely. Each inverter area — we can see
down to the combinations of panels together, what's performing and what's not performing; so
the maintenance is basically an as needed. So, it's monitored on the web. We can see when
it's making power, when it's not making power, and we can tell which areas of the sites are a
problem and do a lot of pre- diagnosis before we come out. Quite often, the most frequent trips
for maintenance are actually the vegetation maintenance. So we take full responsibility for that
and have that in house as well. We mow the grass. We trim the bushes — whatever is
necessary for the farm — fertilize. So that's - it generates far less traffic than any single family
home would, because there is no manned activity there on a daily basis. This project doesn't
affect traffic obviously, because of that requirement. There is no noise associated with the
project. There is no dust. There is no odor. There is no light reflection. The panels are
designed to absorb the light, not reflect the light, so there is no glare. I spoke to the storm
drainage. We will comply with the Orange County requirements. I believe that the location and
character of this use is in harmony with the area in which it's located. It's a very low intensity,
low impact development project. We have built many farms in this same type of environment.
So, to summarize, it is my professional opinion, based on my experience as an engineer of
record on many rural solar farm facilities in North Carolina and my familiarity with the proposal
and its design, an establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed solar farm will not
be detrimental to endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. It is
also my professional opinion, based on the familiarity with this proposal and my review of the
applicable provisions of the Orange County UDO, that the proposed solar farm facility meets all
of the requirements of the UDO for issuance of the requested special use permit. I'll be happy
to answer questions you may have.
Dave Neill: Mr. Neiman, you know what I'm going to ask you. Are you familiar with this
instrument?
Brent Neimann: Yes, I am.
30
Dave Neill: Is this instrument titled, Affidavit of Brent Neimann, PE, and is it a fair summary of
your testimony this evening?
Brent Neimann: Yes, it is.
Dave Neill: And did you execute it under oath?
Brent Neimann: Yes, I did.
Dave Neill: We would offer tab 2, Affidavit of Brent Neimann, into evidence. I would also ask,
Mr. Nieman, do these panels move, track, with the sun? How does that work?
Brent Neimann: No, this is a fixed tilt system. Our panels are oriented due south, sometimes a
slight adjustment to the west, depending on the topography; but this site is set up at due south.
It's a fixed tilt. It's tilted at about 25 degrees from horizontal, but there are no moving parts.
Dave Neill: Our next witness is Gabe Cantor, electrical engineer, and Director of Engineering
for Strata Solar.
Gabe Cantor: Hello, my name is Gabe Cantor. I have been sworn in this evening, and I have
been asked to talk about — give an opinion about — if there's any potential health effects from
electromagnetic fields generated from the proposed solar farm. Electromagnetic fields are
generated whenever there is a charge that's moving. So, whenever electricity is used, an
electromagnetic field is generated. They are generated from natural sources, such as the
earth's magnetic field, such as solar flares, or from power distribution lines. Electromagnetic
fields decrease rapidly with distance, so as you double the distance, the field intensity will
increase by the cube of that distance. So, double the distance and the field intensity decreases
by 1/8; triple the distance, it's decreased by 1/27, and so on and so forth. At the perimeter, the
electromagnetic field generated by our equipment is indistinguishable from background
electromagnetic fields. In — I guess in summary, I mean, based on my education, research and
experience in the solar industry, it is my professional opinion that the proposed farm does not
generate any more EMF than the existing electrical lines and will not materially endanger the
public health or safety.
Dave Neill: I have before me the affidavit of Gabriel Cantor, PE. Are you familiar with this
document?
Gabe Cantor: Yes, I am?
Dave Neill: Is it a fair summary of your testimony?
Gabe Cantor: Yes, it is?
Dave Neill: Dave Neill: And on the last page, is this your signature, given under oath?
Gabe Cantor: Yes, it is.
Dave Neill: And we would offer tab 3, affidavit of Gabriel Cantor, PE into evidence this evening.
Our final witness is Rich Kirkland, of Kirkland appraisals. I would direct your attention to tab 4.
In addition to the affidavit that hopefully his testimony will support, you will find behind that, the
31
Kirkland Appraisal market study that I understand Mr. Kirkland will be referencing frequently; so
you may want to have that out.
Rich Kirkland: Good evening. Again, my name is Rick Kirkland. I am a commercial general
certified appraiser in North Carolina. I've been working the Triangle as an appraiser for 19
years. Focus is commercial, but a big focus of what I do is land. I do a lot of land appraisals,
subdivisions and things of that nature. I was hired by Strata Solar to look at the question of
whether or not there is going to be an impact on the property value of the adjoining properties to
the solar farm. To that end, I have visited a number of solar farms across the state. I have
done research through the appraisal institute's loan library. I have gone out and looked at raw
data. I have gone out and looked at solar farms; looked at - for what we call matched pairs. The
textbook answer for whether or not a property is going to be impacted — the way you look for
that, the appraisal institute teaches, is you look for what's called a paired sale analysis, or a
matched pair. Essentially, you are basically looking for two properties that are identical in every
way, except for one difference, and that is what you are measuring for. In this case we are
measuring for, adjacent to a solar farm. The best example I was able to find was in Goldsboro.
There is a solar farm that Strata Solar built, called the AM Best Solar Farm, and there is a new
subdivision being built adjoining this solar farm. They have lots that back up to the solar farm,
and they have lots that don't. They are all being marketed the same. They are all being sold.
There are a number of sales that have happened; I believe there are five that have happened in
2013, of homes that back up to the solar farm. These are selling for the same houses, for the
same floor plans as the ones that are across the street or down the street away from the solar
farm. I talked to the brokers. They said the solar farm is a non - factor as far as things go. I
walked down the street. I knocked on doors. I talked to the folks who bought these homes that
live next to the solar farm. No one expressed any concern about it. Some of the property
owners were aware that the solar farm was under construction when they bought, and some
were not. Regardless of whether they knew or didn't know, they were paying the same prices.
So, this really is a strong indication that there is really no impact on these adjoining property
values. Homes in this subdivision are selling in the $240,000 to $260,000 price range. And so,
that is the textbook way you look for this. This is — as far as it goes, there is nothing else to
adjust for. These are identical uses. Since then, it's not actually in my report, but I've actually
found a couple of other matched pairs that I would just briefly discuss. Specifically, the White
Cross - the tract of land — the parent tract that that solar farm was built on — They sold off that
piece in 2013, and it sold for a price — I can reference it here — I'll tell you the right amount — It's
selling for $7,500 an acre. Again, I've done a lot of work in that area lately for the local
environmental groups. Looking at the recent sales, there was a sale — very similar size tract of
land — 27 acres sold for $7,900 an acre, slightly more - the comp that's not next to the solar
farm, but that one also had mature timber on it, which is the difference that I saw there. So, that
again showed that, for residential agriculture land, no impact adjacent to the solar farm. I've
also identified property that I reference in my report as the Zebulon Solar Farm. It's in Zebulon,
North Carolina. Some of the information there is actually dated. Since I wrote this report last
month, I've identified since then that a tract of 25 lots — a package of 25 lots — that are
referenced in there as "The Meadows of Duke's Lake." Those sold to a builder. A builder
picked up all of those lots — paid $25,000 a lot for those. Again, that's a package deal where
you buy 20 some odd lots. You don't — it's like when you buy a can of coke. If you buy a case,
you're going to pay a lot less per can than you would if you just bought one can. Same thing
with builders when they buy lots; when they buy a big package, they get a discount of 30 to 50
percent off of sort of market value. But I compare those to some other bulk sales that have
happened in that Wendell /Zebulon area in 2013, and there were two other sales of similar
packaged lots that were selling for $15,000 a lot and $12,000 a lot. So, again, this one that was
next to this proposed solar plant actually was selling stronger than other similar developments in
32
that area. So, all the matched pairs are really showing strong information that there is no impact
from the solar farm adjacency — that it's not really affecting property values in any way. And that
goes in well with how you normally look for what would cause a problem, or a discount, or a
diminishment in value. There is normally something you would point to, such as a use that is
going to cause a lot of noise, or something that's going to bring an odor, or something that's
going to bring an awful lot of traffic to that area. But, the solar farm is not going to have any of
those things. It's silent. I've visited over 25 of these farms so far, and I have never heard
anything outside the fence. I have never smelled anything. I've never experienced anything
that would suggest to me that there was an issue. The one issue that folks come up with and I'll
point out, is appearance, you know, they don't like the way it looks. I've looked and included in
there — I've shown pictures of greenhouses, which is the most similar use I can think of other
than — well it's the most similar other type of development use I have found. I take pictures of
greenhouses all the time now. Again, they are very similar, very compatible use, which makes
sense. A greenhouse really is just trapping solar energy also. And again — proximity to
greenhouses — there has never been anything to suggest that has ever been a problem either.
So, for all those reasons, it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm is going to
have no impact on adjoining property values. I also looked at the question of harmonious use,
and I've broken down a list of the adjoining uses on a number of the solar farms I've looked at,
and it shows that most of the adjoining uses where these are going are residential or agricultural
in nature. Most of these are not being located in industrial areas necessarily. There certainly
are some examples where they are in those transition areas, but most of these solar farms are
being located in areas where agricultural and rural uses are transitioning into more residential
suburban areas. That is one of the other reasons I'd conclude that this is a harmonious use,
and so it is my professional opinion that this is a harmonious use for that.
Dave Neill: Mr. Kirkland, I have here under tab 4 in the Board and commission's package, the
affidavit of Richard C. Kirkland, MAI. Are you familiar with that document and its contents?
Rich Kirkland: I am.
Dave Neill: And they are truthful?
Rich Kirkland: Yes
Dave Neill: And that is your signature, given under oath?
Rich Kirkland: It is.
Dave Neill: We would offer tab 4, the affidavit of Mr. Kirkland, as our last exhibit of evidence for
this matter for our case. Unless there are questions from members of the Board, or from the
commission, we would offer to the Board, our application and ask for your support, as I know
the seat still has to go before the planning board and back to the commission later on. We
believe that we've provided competent material and substantial evidence of the requirements
and compliance with the requirements of the special use permit, a class A special use permit,
and we stand ready to answer any additional questions and would also welcome questions or
comments from others who are here this evening who may have competent evidence to offer.
Buddy Hartley: Are there any questions or comments from the Board?
Commissioner Rich: I have a question about the noise, or lack of noise. I met with someone
today that is not — that is going to be a neighbor to another proposed solar farm, not this one,
33
and they are concerned about the noise. It's just that hum. Their property backs into where the
proposed farm is going to be. So, can you just talk a little bit about — I mean I understood what
he said, that you can only hear it if you are close to it. But, if your property actually backs into
where the proposed farm is going to be, if you are sitting on your deck and reading the
newspaper, are you going to hear that hum?
Gabriel Cantor: We typically locate - the inverter has a fan for cooling purposes. That's the
piece of equipment that converts the DC electricity that's generated by the panels in the fields to
AC, which is the same type of electricity that flows through the wires in your house. That piece
of equipment has a fan for cooling purposes and a transformer associated, so there is a small
hum. Those are typically located in the middle of the field. In this case, the closest one to a
property line is about 300 feet. You would not be able to hear that until you approach within
about 50 feet has been my experience. So, you have to be inside of the property line to hear it.
Commissioner Price: I have a question about the vegetation maintenance. You say you are
going to plant grass. I don't know how you're going to mow it underneath all those panels, but
I'll let you worry about that; but what about other vegetation? I mean, is there going to be
weeding, or you mentioned fertilizer? Will there also be any other pesticides, and how much,
because I am concerned about that runoff?
Brent Niemann: We actually have specialized mowing equipment that can make a pass
underneath the panels. It's actually pretty interesting. It works pretty well. We wouldn't use any
more treatment to the grass than any other residential home would to establish a yard. So, to
the extent necessary to maintain weeds — we would not be applying any pesticides above and
beyond what you would apply to your house to grow grass. We treat it just like a lawn. It will be
just like a lawn.
Commissioner Price: So, would you be able — I mean I'm asking you this now; but for future,
would you be able to provide a list of what chemicals you would be using, and how much. I
mean personally I don't use any on my lawn, so I can't gauge.
Brent Niemann: Ok, so I personally have someone treat my lawn at home.
Commissioner Price: I mean if you can't give an answer now -
Brent Niemann: I don't know the specifics.
Commissioner Price: Well could you provide that for us, or to staff?
Brent Niemann: Sure, yes, we can do that, absolutely.
Commissioner McKee: It was mentioned earlier in the presentation, about the runoff basically,
as I understood it, staying on the property. Will there be — Are you talking about building
sediment basins and control ponds to keep that on the site, or how are you going about that? I
am hearing some concern over that.
Brent Niemann: Sure, as any development project, especially with the amount of clearing and
growing associated with this project — I believe your question earlier — I forgot to address that.
It's about 44 acres, is about the project disturbance acreage. Yes, we will be providing
sedimentation and erosion control features; more than likely a sediment basin or two, depending
on topography and location relative to the project. Post construction, at the White Cross Solar
34
Farm, because we have such low impervious values, less than one percent, we are able to
install typically, vegetated swales to treat the runoff.
Chair Jacobs: I have a question for Mr. Harvey. It's not dissimilar to Commissioner Rich's
question. How many solar farms do we currently have in Orange County?
Michael Harvey: We have one solar facility, the White Cross Solar farm that was permitted by
this Board with the issuance of a Class A special use permit. We have several private property
owners who have erected solar facilities on their property. Several examples include: Mr. Bob
Nutter, off of Dairyland Road; there is one at the Eco- Institute off of Pickards Mountain Road;
and we have several small properties that have solar facilities, solar panels, either on the
houses or on the residential property. But, as far public utility facilities, this will be our second.
Chair Jacobs: And are you aware of any complaints that have been brought to you by
adjoining property owners regarding those panels or facilities.
Michael Harvey: I can testify I have not received any noise complaints, and there have been no
investigations conducted by the planning department or the Sheriff's department, who would
obviously enforce a noise ordinance.
Johnny Randall: Now, I am all for solar. I have a solar water heater. I hope to have photo -
voltaics on my house, and some of my best friends are in the solar business; but I would like to
make a couple of comments to Strata Solar about this, and I'm sorry if I haven't had the
opportunity or made the opportunity to make these before, as a planning board member. But, in
terms of property value, I don't know if they've considered the fact that this wooded site is
between 1 -85 and the residential area, which I'm sure provides a significant sound buffer. And I
don't know how that will affect what will be coming from 1 -85 subsequent to the logging of that
site. I know that there is railroad track right behind those residences, so you know they get
intermittent noise, I'm sure; but that's different than a constant sound from 1 -85.
The other comment is also for Strata Solar. This is clearly not a significant natural area;
however, looking at aerial photos, it's largely hardwood and maturing trees and I would just like
to say that for future site choices, I would encourage you to choose sites that are perhaps
redevelopment sites, gray fields, brown fields that would be more in line with your sustainability
mission. Because losing 52 acres of trees, which are going to suck up not only pollutants, but a
lot of carbon dioxide and sequester that over the long term, kind of offsets what you — the
philosophy — What I believe your organization, your company, does is to reduce carbon
emissions to the environment, but by taking out 52 acres, there's 52 acres that's not going to be
taking up carbon, sequestering that. But, at the same time I know this can be re- developed or
developed in other ways, apartment complex for instance, which you know - So, I'm just pointing
that off for your future land use. And as far as the runoff goes, let's say there are, you know on
the low side, a hundred trees per acre, and you've got 52 acres, 5,200 trees. A modest size
tree can transpire over 100 gallons of water per day; therefore, 520,000 gallons of water per day
could be leaving that site. So, you might need to calculate that as well, in terms of about how
much water is going to be running off the site. I don't know if you're going to check the amount
of runoff post tree harvest or pre tree harvest, but I think you should do that post tree harvest.
That's all I've got.
Megan Toben: Hi thanks for the opportunity to jump in here. My name is Megan Toben and
I've been sworn in. I'm going to tell you the truth; I actually came to speak in support of the
35
agricultural zoning, which we're going to talk about later. But, I didn't realize Strata was her
proposing one of these, and I actually was one of the first — our farm was one of the first sites
that Strata put a solar farm on, probably was it like six years ago on Pickards Meadow. It's
been three or four, I don't know, it's been awhile, and it's been wonderful. They come quietly
and take care of whatever needs to be taken care of. We usually don't even notice that they
come. They take care of the grass. The grass is beautiful there. It's better than it is in our
pastures. The solar panels are gorgeous and it's actually a place of pride for us and for our
neighborhood, that, you know, North Carolina was maybe lagging in renewable energy
development before Strata came in, and now, you know if we have the choice between any of
the choices we have for energy, be it hydro fracturing or coal or nuclear, this is by far and away
the one that we want to support, Orange County. So, please give them every courtesy.
Thanks.
Commissioner Gordon: I just wanted to ask a technical question, because Johnny Randall
was sworn, but we didn't enter into the record what his credentials are to make those
statements. I don't know if that's important, but he does have credentials. You might want to
enter those into the record.
Johnny Randall: I am a professional biologist, plant ecologist, and botanist — Master's, PhD in
botany and plant ecology.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to:
1. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to
the County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 8, 2014 BOCC meeting.
2. Adjourn the public hearing until May 8, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning
Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Commissioner Rich: Commissioner Dorosin brought to my attention that we have two
recommendations on the back of the presentation and only one recommendation in the packet.
Is the recommendation in the packet the one that we're going with?
Chair Jacobs: On the sheet that I'm operating from, there is only one.
Michael Harvey: If I may - We have a recommendation in the packet to take this, essentially to
adjourn your public hearing to May 8 and submit this to the planning board for them to move
forward. As I discussed with Chair Jacobs and Mr. Hartley, given some of the comments we
received from adjacent property owners via email, we suggested if the Board had additional
questions or comments, that there was an alternative that this Board could conceivably engage
in, with respect to adjourning this hearing to a day and time specific if they felt additional
testimony was necessary. Which is why, Commissioner Rich, you are seeing this on your
PowerPoint presentation; but the motion obviously was to go with staff's recommendation as it
is currently contained in the abstract.
Chair Jacobs: So, is it your intention to ask for a substitute motion, or are you satisfied with the
motion?
Commissioner Rich: No, I just think for me it would have been good to have both of these
here, so I would have known what we were doing. It's fine. I'm fine with that motion.
36
Commissioner Gordon: I have a question about this. If we don't continue the public hearing
until March 18th, then there won't be a chance for applicant and staff to meet with local property
owners. Is that correct?
Michael Harvey: Without speaking for Strata Solar, in your packet, and it has already been
introduced into evidence, Strata Solar has committed to meeting with adjacent property owners
to address or discuss their concerns. Staff has also indicated to Strata Solar that we will be
meeting with them with the property owners. There will be time. Obviously you can accept
written evidence, written updates, as the planning board can. I think, Commissioner Rich, just
to further explain why you have the dual recommendations. We didn't get adjacent property
owner comments until after the, obviously, abstract went out. So, we were trying to, quote,
hedge our bets and give the Board as much leeway, and give the Board as much support in
terms of a motion that would address your needs.
Commissioner Gordon: Well I'll move a substitute motion of the second recommendation.
Chair Jacobs: Well why don't we hear from Commissioner Dorosin first. He's been waiting to
speak.
Commissioner Dorosin: I just want to ask a procedural question. We're having this public
hearing today. We're going to vote to send it to the planning board for their consideration, and
they're going to hold a — receive public comment in their meetings?
Michael Harvey: They can receive written comments per the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), which become part of the record and part of their deliberation. Now, if I am an
interested party and wish to comment or talk about what I've written, that's been allowed at the
planning board; but typically it's only written comment.
Commissioner Dorosin: So there is going to be some — It's going to go to the planning board.
They're going to take in everything they heard today. They're going to review it. They're going
to make some comments, maybe, and come back, and we're going to meet again. This is going
to come back, according to the first motion, on May 8th, and then at that time we're going to not
take any additional public comment. It's going to be one of those fake public hearings, where
it's a public hearing, but the public is not allowed to give comment, and then we're going to vote
at that time on the CUP, presumably.
Chair Jacobs: Yes, presumably, right, with whatever additional materials were presented to
the planning board, which presumably could include neighbor's concerns as addressed to Strata
Solar or the planning board.
Commissioner Dorosin: Right. Well, I just — So, I understand that's the way that things have
been done, and that's how it's been set up; but it strikes me as being not the most efficient
process. If we value the planning board's input in this, I would think that input would be relevant
to the actual public hearing where the public gets to comment as well. So, I just wonder if, in
the future, it wouldn't make more sense to have the planning board review the application and
bring forward a recommendation, and then we — and that is part of this public hearing that
people get to comment on. So they get to see what the planning board has said. They get to
see how the applicant has responded to the planning board's suggestions, and then — Now of
course it might take another round after that, but conceivably at this point, we could have a vote,
with all the people here. So, maybe this is something to put onto our procedural review agenda,
37
but it seems to me that this doesn't seem like the most efficient or expeditious way of doing it.
And I have concerns about that.
Michael Harvey: If I may add, that subject matter is actually coming up later this evening.
Commissioner Dorosin: Excellent. I wish it had come up first, but thank you. I know there is
some discussion about this.
Michael Harvey: And again, without belaboring the point, we have a staff recommendation.
We wanted to provide you with an additional recommendation if you felt it may be necessary to
continue this public hearing to allow any additional public comment. So, we wanted to give you
both concepts of what you would like to do.
Commissioner Rich: I'll be quick. I wasn't criticizing. I actually think it's important to see the
different options that — I mean often we don't see the different options, and I think it's important
to see that. I wasn't criticizing.
Michael Harvey: And I didn't take it that way. I just wanted to make sure you understood why,
all of a sudden, you are seeing it here instead of also in the staff report.
Commissioner Gordon: So staff doesn't have a recommendation.
Michael Harvey: Staff's recommendation is that you send this to the planning board, adjourn
this to May 8th. If you believe additional testimony is necessary, you cannot adjourn the public
hearing until May 8th, because no additional testimony will be accepted. If you believe additional
public comment is necessary then our recommendation then will be that you adjourn this public
hearing until the March 18th regular meeting where you reconvene the public hearing to accept
additional public comment.
Commissioner Gordon: Otherwise, it goes to the planning board and people can write their
comments.
Michael Harvey: Yes, ma'am.
Commissioner Dorosin: So, I just wanted to ask, could we, instead of — Could we do some
combination of this? In other words, couldn't we potentially amend the motion on the floor to
allow for additional public comment when it comes back on May 8th? You just described it as
saying, if we wanted more public comment we should set it for March 8th, and then presumably
at that point we would adopt the proposal that's on the floor. And I'm just wondering if —
Couldn't we do them both at the same?
Michael Harvey: My concern would be that the planning board would then begin deliberations
with comments made this evening. Any additional comments, this would be a reconvening of
the public hearing with just the County Commissioners. So, the planning board would begin
deliberation on this item based on everything they've received here this evening, and I wouldn't
advise the planning board to make a recommendation until after the March 18th if you do
continue this. Because, obviously they're basing their decisions on matters entered this
hearing, but they aren't going to have comments from March 18th until afterwards. So, if you
forward this to the planning board for the March regular meeting, they can discuss the merits of
the application based on the testimony they've received, but they can't make a decision if there
is going to be an extended public hearing; which is why it is just more appropriate, if you're
going to extend the public hearing, to do that, and then submit this to the planning board for
their April regular meeting, where they have all the facts to deliberate on.
Commissioner McKee: I realize and also agree that the process is a bit cumbersome. My
concern is that we not change up the process in the middle of a project, that we move this
forward under the process that we've got; and then that we, either later in this when we talk
about it, or in a later meeting we discuss what process we need to go to, if we need to go to
another one. But, I would prefer to go ahead with the process we've got in place, and move this
project forward.
Commissioner Gordon: I have a procedural question for the attorney or somebody, and that
is, some people just came in who wanted to speak. We haven't actually closed the public
hearing yet. We've got a motion on the floor and a second, but we haven't voted on it. If people
wanted to withdraw those motions and let people speak, could they?
James Bryan: Yes.
Commissioner Gordon: Well that's what I would suggest.
Commissioner Pelissier: Well that was also one of the things that I wanted to say is that we
should accept additional public comment, and I do want to make another comment about the
public hearing. I thought, and I can't remember at the last meeting, that when we make such
motions that we adjourn the public hearing to receive the planning board comments, when it
comes back, it's not really a public hearing; so I wouldn't call it a fake public hearing. And I think
we have to make sure we have the correct title so that we are not misleading anybody in the
public about what we're doing, and this is our public hearing, tonight.
Commissioner Dorosin: So, we are the body that makes the decision on the CUP, right, not
the planning board? So, I don't understand why their deliberations would necessarily have to be
subject to testimony under oath or anything else. And I think if we are going to receive the
planning board's comments as part of the record, then the public hearing is not over. So, either
that becomes part of the record of the public hearing, and so then there's opportunity for more
comment; so again I think it's either, if we're taking more evidence, which is what I think the
planning board recommendation would be considered, then the public hearing is still open; and
if it's still open, then anybody should be allowed to comment; and if it's closed, then there
shouldn't be any evidence added to the record, which is why the planning board's
recommendation should come at the front end.
Chair Jacobs: Let me suggest two things — one is that I think there is sentiment on the board, if
the motion maker and the seconder are comfortable, to table consideration of the motion to
entertain whether there is any additional public comment at this time — secondly, as far as your
point, as Mr. Harvey pointed out, we have a whole discussion of process, and I think some of
your points relate directly to that process and are well taken in regard to calling something a
public hearing when it's not, or else actually having a public hearing, if that's what we're going to
call it. But, I would suggest that, while your points are well made and well taken, that looking at
all the people who are here for other items, and the fact that we are going to discuss this toward
the end of the meeting, that we just at this point table the motion for consideration until we see if
there additional public comments and then have this discussion of process; and we could
always talk about how it may relate to other items. But, at this point, move forward and see if
there are people who had comments about this proposal. If you do, you need to come identify
39
yourself, and come forward and be sworn. If you sent written comment, then it will be included
in the record anyway, and you don't necessarily have to speak.
Commissioner McKee: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw or table the motion until we get further
public comment, since we have someone who wishes to speak, if the seconder will agree to
that.
Commissioner Price: Oh, I definitely will agree
Chair Jacobs: Was there anyone else here who wanted to speak on this item, who would not
need to come forward and be sworn? If not, I'm going to say that we have a motion that was
previously tabled and seconded, to move this item -
Commissioner Gordon: I am withdrawing my substitute motion.
Chair Jacobs: Commissioner Gordon is withdrawing her substitute motion.
- to refer this to the planning board to return a recommendation for our May 8th 2014 meeting.
Now do we any additional comment on this motion?
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
Attachment 5 — Excerpt of Approved 4/2/14
Approved March 5, 2014 Planning
Board Minutes
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2014
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar Grove
Township; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony
Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-
Large Chapel Hill Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large
Bingham Township; Vacant- Eno Township Representative; Vacant- Hillsborough Township Representative;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz,
Special Projects Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Beth Trahos, Mike Brough, Donna Easterlin, Don Easterlin, Brent Niemann, Louis Lannoue, Rich
Kirkland, Gabe Cantor
HANDOUTS: Email from Alice Gordon to Peter Eckhoff,• Email from Louis lannone to Michael Harvey- Memorandum
from Michael Brough to Orange County Planning Board
AGENDA ITEM 7: CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Class A Special Use Permit application
seeking to develop a solar array /public utility station on two parcels of property, totaling
approximately 52 acres in are, off of Redman Road between the railway and Interstate 85/40
in Cheeks Township. This item was heard at the February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing.
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract.
Tony Blake: Were Ms. Wise's concerns addressed?
Michael Harvey: She has not responded to me. I have met with her three times since the public hearing to review
the site plan with her and I will meet with her again to review this item. Strata Solar has reached out to her on two
occasions where they said here are our responses, we would like to meet with you. I can't tell you whether she
agreed to that.
Paul Guthrie: Have there been any other letters since the public hearing?
Michael Harvey: No sir except this one.
Lisa Stuckey: Everything has to go into the public record, either orally at the public hearing or in writing although we
can ask for clarification tonight.
41
Approved 4/2/14
Michael Harvey: This packet will be entered into the record when the quarterly public hearing is reconvened
including this email and any other emails as we move forward.
Lisa Stuckey: Do you need any feedback from us?
Michael Harvey: Only if you have questions you want staff or Strata Solar to respond to by the next meeting.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: made by Paul Guthrie to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
42
Attachment 6 — Excerpt of Draft
1 Minutes from April 2, 2014
2 Planning Board Meeting
3
4
5 MINUTES
6 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
7 APRIL 2, 2014
8 REGULAR MEETING
9
10
11 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar
12 Grove Township; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative;
13 Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative
14
15
16 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township
17 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Vacant- Eno Township Representative; Vacant -
18 Hillsborough Township Representative; Vacant- At- Large;
19
20
21 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz,
22 Special Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado: Special Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
23
24
25 OTHERS PRESENT: Brent Niemann, Louis lannone, Beth Trohes, Rich Kirkland
26
27
28 HANDOUTS: Email from Louis lannone to Mrs. Wise
29
30
31 AGENDA ITEM 7: CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Class A Special
32 Use Permit application seeking to develop a solar array /public utility station on two parcels of
33 property, totaling approximately 52 acres in are, off of Redman Road between the railway and
34 Interstate 85/40 in Cheeks Township. This item was heard at the February 24, 2014 quarterly
35 public hearing and was discussed at the March 5, 2014 Planning Board Meeting.
36 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
37
38 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract.
39
40 Pete Hallenbeck: I have a comment regarding the letter regarding the fields that might be omitting from this and 1
41 would like to state I am an electrical engineer and I am comfortable with the statement being submitted.
42
43 Michael Harvey: It is appropriate for a member of the board to make a motion to approve staff findings beginning on
44 page 22 through page 34 finding in the affirmative as recommeded by staff and then begin deliberation on the
45 information provided on the pages 35 through 37. On page 38, staff has recommended seven conditions on this
46 project.
47
48 MOTION made by Tony Blake to approve pages 22 through 34 to find in the affirmative and non - applicable where
49 indicated. Seconded by Herman Staats.
50 VOTE: Unanimous
51
52 MOTION made by Herman Staats to approve Section 5.3.2 on page 35 keeping in mind the conditions on page 38.
53 Seconded by Tony Blake.
54 VOTE: Unanimous
43
DRAFT
55
56 MOTION made by Tony Blake that the proposal will abide by Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) with the inclusion of the seven
57 recommendations from staff on page 38. Seconded by James Lea.
58 VOTE: Unanimous
59
60 MOTION made by Tony Blake that the proposal will abide by Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) with the inclusion of the seven
61 recommendations from staff on page 38. Seconded by Herman Staats.
62 VOTE: Unanimous
63
64 MOTION made by James Lea to recommend approval of the project with the seven conditions with futher intidiation
65 there is competent material or substantial evidence in the record providing the applicant does not meet the UDO.
66 Seconded by Tony Blake.
67 VOTE: Unanimous
68
69 MOTION by Tony Blake to adjourn. Seconded by Herman Staats.
70 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
K
44
Attachment?
CASE NUMBER: SU- A -1 -14
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
STOUT FARM LLC AND STRATA SOLAR
REQUESTING A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT A SOLAR ARRAY - PUBLIC UTILITY
ON 2 PARCELS OF PROPERTY OFF OF REDMAN ROAD
FURTHER IDENTIFIED UTILIZING ORANGE COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S)
9844 -06 -5971 AND 9844 -17 -2687.
Applications for a SOLAR ARRAY - PUBLIC UTILITY are required to demonstrate compliance with
general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 (A) and (B) as well as 5.9 of the Orange
County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following:
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located
where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted;
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a
public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of
contiguous property); and
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will
be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with
the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or
in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners;
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following
specific standards:
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
(2) Applicable provisions of Article 3 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of
Dimensional Requirements) of the UDO,
(3) Applicable landscape provisions detailed within Section(S) 5.9 and 6.8.6 of the UDO,
(4) Specific regulations governing the development of individual Special Uses, in this case
regulations detailed within Section 5.9.6 of the UDO,
(5) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site
(6) The aforementioned general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Board regarding the application in question.
The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist in deliberations.
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Yes"
indicates compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance)
Ordinance
Requirements
Section 2.2
The application for a
Class A Special Use
Permit shall be on forms
provided by the Planning
Department.
2.2.4 (D)
Applications must be
accompanied by the fee
amount that has been
established by Board of
County Commissioners.
Application fees are
nonrefundable.
2.7.3 (B) (1)
A full and accurate
description of the
proposed use, including
its location, appearance,
and operational
characteristics.
2.7.3 (B) (2)
The names and
addresses of the owners
of the property
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained the
completed application
packet for the request.
Staff testimony from the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
that the applicant had
paid all applicable fees
as required by the
adopted fee schedule.
X Yes No Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a
detailed narrative
outlining the nature of
the request as well as a
formal, professionally
prepared, site plan.
X Yes No
Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained the
required information
45
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Ordinance
Requirements
2.7.3 (B) (3)
Relevant information
needed to show
compliance with the
general and specific
standards governing the
Special Use
2.7.3 (B) (4)
Twenty -six (26) copies of
the site plan prepared by
a registered N.C. land
surveyor, architect, or
engineer.
2.7.3 (B) (5)
If the application involves
a Preliminary Subdivision
Plat, 26 copies of the Plat
prepared in accordance
with Section 7.14 shall be
provided.
2.7.3 (B) (6)
A list of all parcels located
within 500 feet of the
subject parcel and the
name and address of
each property owner, as
currently listed in the
Orange County tax
records.
2.7.3 (B) (7)
Elevations of all structures
proposed to be used in
the development.
W.
PLANNING
BOARD
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED
TO SUPPORT
BOCC
FINDINGS
FINDINGS
FINDINGS
X Yes No
Attachment 1 of the
_Yes No
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained the
required detail including
a site plan denoting the
boundary of the property.
X Yes No
Staff testimony from the
_Yes No
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
indicating required
copies of the site plan,
prepared by Strata Solar
and sealed by Mr. Brent
Niemann License
Number 026475 were
submitted as part of
Attachment 1.
_X_ Not
The Project does not
_ Not applicable
applicable
involve a preliminary
X Yes No
subdivision application
Attachment(s) 1 and 4 of
the February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained the
required information
X Yes No While no buildings are
proposed for the site,
Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan containing
elevations of the
proposed solar arrays.
Yes No
Yes No
Ordinance
Requirements
2.7.3 (B) (8)
26 copies of an
Environmental
Assessment or
Environmental Impact
Statement as required by
Section 6.16 of the UDO
2.7.3 (B) (9)
Method of disposal of
trees, limbs, stumps and
construction debris
associated with the
permitted activity, which
shall be by some method
other than open burning.
2.7.3 (B) (10)
Statement from the
applicant indicating the
anticipated development
schedule for the build -out
of the project.
2.7.3 (B) (11)
Statement from the
applicant in justification of
any request for vesting for
a period of more than two
years (five years
maximum)
PLANNING
BOARD
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
FINDINGS
_X_ Not
The Project will not result
applicable
in any disturbance
requiring the submission
of an Environmental
Assessment per Section
6.18 of the UDO. As
such this requirement is
not applicable.
Yes _ No
Attachment 1 of the
packet, as well as
applicant testimony, from
the February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
referenced the submitted
site plan containing a
note stating the project
will comply with
applicable County Zoning
and Solid Waste
Management
regulations.
Yes _ No Attachment 1 of the
packet, as well as
applicant testimony, from
the February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
indicating the project
would be completed
within a year of approval
of all required permits.
X Not applicable
The applicant is not
requesting vesting of the
project.
47
BOCC
FINDINGS
Not applicable
Yes _ No
Yes _ No
_Not applicable
SECTION 2.7.5 CLASS A SPECIAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ( "Yes" indicates
compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance)
PLANNING
W.
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
Yes
Yes
Yes
[•C
[•C
[•C
BOARD
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED
TO SUPPORT
Ordinance Requirements
FINDINGS
FINDINGS
A. The Planning Director
X Yes No
Attachment 4 of, and
shall give public notice
staff testimony from, the
of the date, time and
February 24, 2014
place of the public
Quarterly Public Hearing
hearing
indicating public notice
was sent via certified mail
B. Such notice shall be
X Yes No
on February 7, 2014 for
published in a
the February 24, 2014
newspaper of general
Public Hearing. This
circulation in Orange
included photo copies of
County once a week for
the certified mal receipts.
two successive weeks,
with the first notice to be
The legal ad was
published not less than
published in the News of
ten days not more than
Orange and the Herald
we days prior to the date
Sun on February 12, 2014
of the hearing.
and again on February 19,
2014.
C. The Planning Director
X Yes No
shall post on the
affected property a
The property was posted
notice of the public
on February 12, 2014.
hearing at lest ten days
prior to the date of said
hearing.
As previously indicated
D. Written notice shall be
X Yes No
public notice was sent via
sent by certified mail to
certified mail on February
all adjacent property
7, 2014.
owners not less than 15
days before the hearing
Attachment 4 of the
date. Adjacent property
February 24, 2014
owners are those whose
Quarterly Public Hearing
property lies within five
abstract contained staff's
hundred feet of the
mail out certification, a
affected property and
copy of the notification
whose manes and
letter, copies of the
addresses are currently
certified mail receipts
listed in the Orange
dated February 7, 2014,
County tax records.
and the mailing labels as
provided by the applicant
for all property owners
within 500 feet.
W.
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
Yes
Yes
Yes
[•C
[•C
[•C
. •
SECTION(S) 3.3 BASE ZONING DISTRICT — AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL AND 6.3 LAND USE
INTENSITY MEASURES ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance)
Ordinance
Requirements
Section 3.3 and 6.3 of the
UDO provides the land
use intensity measures
governing the
development of projects
within the County.
The applicant has applied
for a Special Use Permit
within the Rural
Residential (R -1) general
use zoning district. The
dimensional and ratio
standards associated with
the R -1 zoning district are
as follows:
Minimum lot size — 40,
000 square feet
Minimum lot width — 150
feet
Required front yard
setback — 40 feet
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
X Yes No Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet indicating the
properties subject to the
application totaled 52
acres of land area.
X Yes No Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan indicating the lot(s)
had 686 and 620 feet,
respectively, of frontage
along Redman Road (SR
1311)
X Yes No
Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan indicating the arrays
will be setback
approximately 47 feet
from Redman Road (SR
1311)
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes
Yes
(m
(m
Yes No
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS
Required side yard X Yes No Attachment 1 of the
setback — 20 feet February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan indicating the arrays
will meet the required 20
foot side yard setback.
Required rear yard
X Yes No
Attachment 1 of the
setback — 20 feet
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan indicating the arrays
will meet the required 20
foot rear yard setback.
Floor Area Ratio - .088
_X_ Not
Attachment 1 of the
sq. ft. or 199,330 sq. ft.
applicable
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
(52 acres x 43,560 x.088)
packet contained a site
plan indicating no
buildings are being
proposed for the property
Minimum gross land area
_X_ Not
Not applicable — This
applicable
proposed project is not
subject to the minimum
gross land area
requirement as detailed
within Section 3.3 of the
UDO
Required Open Space -
X Yes No
Applicant and staff
.84 or 1,902,700 sq. ft.
testimony from the
(43.68 acres)
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
(52 acres x 43,560 x .84)
indicating there is
approximately 45 acres
of open space as defined
within Article 10 of the
UDO.
50
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes No
Yes No
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Yes No
Ordinance
Requirements
Required Livability Space
Required Recreation
Space
Required
Pedestrian /landscape
ratio - .21 or 475,675
sq.ft. (10.92 acres)
(52 acres x 43,560 x .21)
PLANNING
BOARD
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
FINDINGS
_X_ Not
Not applicable — This
applicable
proposed project is not
subject to the minimum
required livability space
as detailed within Section
3.3 of the U DO
_X_ Not Not applicable — This
applicable proposed project is not
subject to the minimum
required livability space
as detailed within Section
3.3 of the U DO
Staff testimony from the
X Yes No February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
indicating there is
approximately 11.7
acres of
pedestrian /landscape
space on the property
comprised as follows:
1. Required Major
Transportation
Corridor (MTC)
buffer —
approximately 1
acre
2. Stream buffer
area — south west
portion of project
— 9.6 acres
3. 50 foot Type D
land use buffer
along eastern
property line —
1.1 acres
51
BOCC
FINDINGS
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Yes _ No
SECTION 5.9.6 (C) SOLAR ARRAY— PUBLIC UTILITY ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No"
indicates non - compliance)
Ordinance
Requirements
Section 5.9.6 (C) of the
UDO establishes
additional submittal
requirements and
standards of evaluation
for a solar array public
utility
5.9.6 (C) (1)
In addition to the
information required by
Section 2.7, the following
shall be submitted as part
of the application:
5.9.6 (C) (1) (a)
A site plan showing all
existing structures on the
property, any proposed
buildings or structures
that are necessary to
support the proposed
array, existing and
proposed storage areas,
parking and access areas,
topography at a contour
interval of five feet, any
officially designated
floodplains or alluvial
soils.
5.9.6 (C) (1) (b)
Plans and elevations for
all proposed structures
and arrays as well as
descriptions of the color
and nature of all exterior
materials
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
X Yes No Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan denoting required
information.
X Yes No Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan denoting required
information.
The site plan indicates
no buildings are
proposed for the site.
52
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes
Yes
No
(m
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS
5.9.6 (C) (1) (c) X Yes No Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Landscape Plan, at the Quarterly Public Hearing
same scale as the site packet contained a site
plan, showing existing and plan denoting required
proposed trees, shrubs, information. Existing
ground cover and other foliage is going to be
landscape materials. preserved along the
eastern and southern
boundary line to satisfy
required landscape
requirements.
Section 5.9.6 (C) (2)
Standards of Evaluation
5.9.6 (C) (2) (a)
All on -site utility and
transmission lines shall, to
the extent feasible, be
placed underground.
5.9.6 (C) (2) (b)
The height of proposed
arrays and support
structures shall not
exceed 40 feet.
5.9.6 (C) (2) (c)
Individual arrays /solar
panels shall be designed
and located in order to
prevent reflective glare
toward any inhabited
buildings on adjacent
properties as well as
adjacent street rights -of-
way.
X Yes _ No
X Yes _ No
X Yes No
Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan denoting required
information, specifically
Note 20.
Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan denoting required
information, specifically
in the elevation drawings
of a typical array.
Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan denoting required
information, specifically
Note 21.
53
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes No
Yes _ No
Yes _ No
Yes No
Ordinance
Requirements
5.9.6 (C) (2) (d)
A clearly visible warning
sign concerning voltage
must be placed at the
base of all pad- mounted
transformers and
substations.
5.9.6 (C) (2) (e)
All mechanical equipment
of principal solar energy
systems including any
structure for batteries or
storage cells, shall be
completely enclosed by a
minimum eight (8) foot
high fence with a self -
locking gate, and provided
with screening in
accordance with the
provisions of Section 6.8.
5.9.6 (C) (2) (f)
The applicant shall submit
proof of liability insurance
covering bodily injury and
property damage
demonstrating a minimum
coverage limit of $
500,000.00 per
occurrence.
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS FINDINGS
X Yes _ No Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan denoting required
information, specifically
N ote 16.
X Yes _ No
Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan denoting required
information.
The applicant is
proposing an 8 foot high
fence and a 50 foot wide
Type D land use buffer
as required within
Section 6.8 of the UDO.
X Yes _ No Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a
narrative indicating proof
of insurance would be
provided prior to
issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
Staff recommends a
condition of approval be
that a copy of the policy
be submitted prior to the
issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy
54
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes _ No
_Yes _ No
Yes _ No
Ordinance
Requirements
5.9.6 (C) (2) (g)
A Type D Land Use Buffer
shall be provided along
any portion of the
perimeter of the parcel,
easement, or leasehold
area located adjacent to
property zoned, or
otherwise utilized for,
residential use except
where such property is
owned, leased or consists
of other utility easements
currently used for
electrical distribution or
transmission purposes.
Existing vegetation may
be used to satisfy the
landscaping requirements.
5.9.6 (C) (3)
Decommissioning
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS FINDINGS
X Yes _ No Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a site
plan denoting required
information.
X Yes _ No
Attachment 1 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained a
narrative detailing the
applicant's
understanding of our
decommissioning
requirements and further
indicating they will
comply with these
applicable standards in
the event the use of the
site as a solar array —
public utility is ceased.
55
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes _ No
Yes _ No
56
Section 5.3.2 (B) SPECIAL USE — SPECIFIC STANDARDS CLASS A SPECIAL ( "Yes" indicates
compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (B)
In addition to the general
standards the following
specific standards shall be
addressed by the
applicant before the
issuance of a Special Use
Permit
X Yes No
Section 5.3.2 (B) (1)
Method and adequacy of
provision for sewage
disposal facilities, solid
waste and water service.
Attachment 3 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained
correspondence from
staff indicating there are
no problems with respect
to compliance with this
standard.
No sewage system or
well is proposed.
Waste will be disposed
of by a private
contractor. Orange
County Solid Waste has
indicated they have no
concerns associated with
the project.
Yes No
Ordinance
Requirements
Section 5.3.2 (B) (2)
Method and adequacy of
police, fire and rescue
squad protection.
Section 5.3.2 (B) (3)
Method and adequacy of
vehicle access to the site
and traffic conditions
around the site.
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS FINDINGS
X Yes No Attachment 3 of the
February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
packet contained
correspondence from
staff indicating there are
no problems with respect
to compliance with this
standard.
X Yes No
Fire protection will be
provided by the Efland
Volunteer
Fire
Department,
rescue
service by the Orange
County
Emergency
Management,
and police
protection by
the Orange
County
Sheriff's
Department.
The Fire Marshal
indicates they had no
problem with the
proposal as submitted.
Staff has verified with the
deputy chief of the
Efland volunteer fire
department (Pete
Hallenbeck) his
department has no
concerns.
No concerns have been
expressed by the
Sheriff's office.
NC DOT has indicated
they have no concerns
over the project.
A condition of approval is
Strata Solar shall obtain
a NC DOT driveway
permit prior to the
commencement of land
disturbing activity
associated with the
project.
57
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes No
Yes No
W
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) SPECIAL USE — GENERAL STANDARDS CLASS A SPECIAL ( "Yes" indicates
compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance)
iii. Applicant testimony
from Mr. Louis
lannone, Mr. Bret
Niemann, Mr. Gabriel
Cantor, and Mr.
Richard Kirkland, on
how the project
complied with the
UDO including the
affidavit entered into
the record at the
Public Hearing and
written
correspondence
submitted to the
March and April
Planning Board
meetings.
iv. Adjacent property
owner a -mails and
applicant responses.
Comments from the
BOCC, Planning
Board, and the
general public.
BOCC
FINDINGS
Will _Will
Not
PLANNING
BOARD
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
FINDINGS
In accordance with Section
5.3.2 (A) (2), the Board of
Commissioners shall also
consider the following
general conditions before
the application for a
Special Use can be
approved:
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a)
X Will _Will
Based on evidence
Not
presented at the hearing
The use will maintain or
including:
promote the public health,
safety and general welfare,
i. Staff abstract and
if located where proposed
attachments,
and developed and
including the SUP
operated according to the
application and site
plan.
plan as submitted.
ii. Staff testimony on the
project's compliance
with the UDO from
the Public Hearing
and the March /April
Planning Board
meetings.
iii. Applicant testimony
from Mr. Louis
lannone, Mr. Bret
Niemann, Mr. Gabriel
Cantor, and Mr.
Richard Kirkland, on
how the project
complied with the
UDO including the
affidavit entered into
the record at the
Public Hearing and
written
correspondence
submitted to the
March and April
Planning Board
meetings.
iv. Adjacent property
owner a -mails and
applicant responses.
Comments from the
BOCC, Planning
Board, and the
general public.
BOCC
FINDINGS
Will _Will
Not
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b)
The use will maintain or
enhance the value of
contiguous property (unless
the use is a public
necessity, in which case
the use need not maintain
or enhance the value of
contiguous property).
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Will _Will
Not
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
Based on evidence
presented at the hearing
including:
i. Staff abstract and
attachments,
including the SUP
application and site
plan.
ii. Staff testimony on the
project's compliance
with the UDO from
the Public Hearing
and the March /April
Planning Board
meetings.
iii. Applicant testimony
from Mr. Louis
lannone, Mr. Bret
Niemann, Mr. Gabriel
Cantor, and Mr.
Richard Kirkland, on
how the project
complied with the
UDO including the
affidavit entered into
the record at the
Public Hearing and
written
correspondence
submitted to the
March and April
Planning Board
meetings. This
included a real estate
evaluation indicating
the project would not
have an impact on
adjacent property
value.
59
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Will _Will
Not
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c)
The location and character
of the use, if developed
according to the plan
submitted, will be in
harmony with the area in
which it is to be located and
the use is in compliance
with the plan for the
physical development of
the County as embodied in
these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or
portion thereof, adopted by
the Board of County
Commissioners.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Is _ Is
Not
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
Based on evidence
presented at the hearing
including:
i. Staff abstract and
attachments,
including the SUP
application and site
plan.
ii. Applicant testimony
from Mr. Louis
lannone, Mr. Bret
Niemann, Mr. Gabriel
Cantor, and Mr.
Richard Kirkland, on
how the project
complied with the
UDO
60
BOCC
FINDINGS
Is _ Is
Not
61
RECOMMENDATION:
Neither the Planning Board nor staff has received any information that would establish grounds for making a
negative finding on the general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health,
safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in
compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County.
The Planning Board has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found
that the applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO.
Provided the Board of County Commissioners finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards, the
Board could make a positive finding on this application. In the event that the BOCC makes the determination that
the permit can be issued, the Planning Board recommends the attachment of the following conditions to the
Special Use Permit:
(1) The applicant shall cause a formal and detailed landscape and tree preservation plan shall be submitted
and approved by the Orange County Planning Department within 180 days from the approval of the
Special Use Permit.
(2) A revised site plan shall be submitted denoting the required Pedestrian /Landscape Ratio for the project
as required under Section 3.3 of the UDO. This revised sheet shall be submitted within 180 days from
the approval of the Special Use Permit.
(3) That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County Inspections
Department requesting authorization to commence construction of the proposed solar array. The
application, including all applicable fees, shall be submitted within 180 days from the approval of the
Special Use Permit.
(4) That the Orange County Fire Marshal's office shall review and approve the final site plan, as part of the
normal building permit review process, and that any and all modifications be made to address fire code
issues and access prior to the issuance of the permit authorizing the commencement of land disturbing
activities.
(5) The applicant shall provide a detailed, scaled, map to the Orange County Fire Marshal's office and the
Efland Volunteer Fire Department denoting the location of all storage areas for batteries, master cut -off
switches, and other similar devices to ensure the protection of emergency responders in the event of a
catastrophic incident on the property. This map shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy by the County allowing for operation of the facility to commence.
(6) That prior to the commencement of land disturbing activity the applicant shall submit all necessary
stormwater, grading plans, and erosion control applications to the Orange County Erosion Control
Department for review and processing. These applications shall be submitted within 180 days from the
issuance of the SUP.
(7) That the applicant shall submit the approved site plan to NC DOT for review and comment. In the event it
is determined that the applicant is required to apply for, and receive a, driveway permit from NC DOT to
allow for the project to be developed, the applicant shall submit all necessary applications as required by
NC DOT within 180 days from the issuance of the SUP and provide planning staff with a copy of the
issued permit.
Attachment 8
SMITHMOORE
f
LEATHERWOOD
s
April 15, 2014
Michael D. Harvey AlCP, CFO, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County Planning Department
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Re: Special Use Permit Conditions — Strata Solar — Redman Road
Dear Michael:
Thank you for sharing the draft special use permit conditions. The conditions set out
below are acceptable to Strata Solar:
(1) The applicant shall cause a formal and detailed landscape and tree preservation
plan to be submitted and approved by the Orange County Planning Department
within 180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
(2) A revised site plan shall be submitted denoting the required Pedestrian/Landscape
Ratio for the project as required under Section 3.3 of the UDO. This revised sheet
shall be submitted within 180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
(3) That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County
Inspections Department requesting authorization to commence construction of the
proposed solar array. The application, including all applicable fees, shall be
submitted within 180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
(4) That the Orange County Fire Marshal's office shall review and approve the final
site plan as part of the normal building permit review process, and that any and all
modifications be made to address fire code issues and access prior to the issuance
of the permit authorizing the commencement of land - disturbing activities.
(5) The applicant shall provide a detailed, scaled map to the Orange County Fire
Marshal's office and the Efland Volunteer Fire Department denoting the location
of all storage areas for batteries, master cut -off switches, and other similar devices
to ensure the protection of emergency responders in the event of a catastrophic
incident on the property. This snap shall be submitted prior to the issuance by the
Elizabeth C. Trahos I Direct 919.755.8760 1 Fax 919.838.3167 1 beth.trahos @smithmoorelaw.com
Smith Moore Leatherwood UP ■ Attorneys at Law ■ www.smithmoorelaw.com
434 Fayetteville Street Two Hannover Square Suite 2800 PO Box 27525 (27611) Raleigh, NC 27601 ■ 919.755.8700
Atlanta, GA ■ Charleston, SC ■ Charlotte, NC ■ Greensboro, NC ■ Greenville, SC ■ Raleigh, NC ■ Wilmington, NC
62
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFO, CZO
April 15, 2014
Page 2
County of a Certificate of Occupancy allowing for operation of the facility to
commence.
(6) That prior to the commencement of land disturbing activity the applicant shall
submit all necessary stoimwater plans, grading plans, and erosion control
applications to the Orange County Erosion Control Department for review and
processing. These applications shall be submitted within 180 days from the
issuance of the SUP.
(7) That the applicant shall submit the approved site plan to NC DOT for review and
comment. In the event it is determined that the applicant is required to apply for
and receive a driveway permit from NC DOT to allow for the project to be
developed, the applicant shall submit all necessary applications as required by NC
DOT within 180 days from the issuance of the SUP and provide planning staff
with a copy of the issued permit.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
TrM LEATHERWOOD LLP
Elizabeth C. Trahos
ECT /cdf
63
M
Attachment 9
SCRIPT FOR ACTING ON STRATA SOLAR — SOLAR ARRAY OFF OF REDMAN
ROAD
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION:
May 8, 2014 BOCC meeting
NOTE — Blue text denotes BOCC Chair /Member required action
1. Chair will explain the purpose of the item is to receive the Planning Board
recommendation.
For the project, the purpose of the meeting is as follows:
To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make
a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP) application submitted
by Strata Solar and Stout Farms LLC proposing the development of a solar array in
accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array -
Public Utility of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
2. Chair will declare the public hearing re- convened for the purpose of receiving the
Planning Board recommendation and ask staff to make their presentation.
NOTE — The re- convening of a hearing is solely for the purpose of receiving the Planning
Board recommendation and allowing any new information, previously submitted in
writing, to be entered into the record. The hearing is not intended to solicit additional
input from the public or the applicant.
While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments
from the public or the applicant shall not be solicited. The accepting additional public
comments at this stage of the review (i.e. the reconvened hearing) would constitute a
violation of the UDO.
3. Staff will review the abstract and ask it be entered into the record. Staff will review the
Findings of Fact (Attachment 7) for the Special Use component of the project.
4. Questions will be asked of staff.
5. A motion will need to be made to close the public hearing.
NOTE — once this is done staff cannot answer questions or
provide additional detail.
W
6. The BOCC will first need to take action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The
findings of fact have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions
to approve or deny. The cadence on taking action should be as follows
a. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and
2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
Attachment 7 of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
b. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of
the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
Attachment 7 of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
c. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 3.3 and
6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
Attachment 7 of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
d. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of 5.9.6 (c) of the
W
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 7
of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
e. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of
the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
Attachment 7 of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual malting the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
f. A motion will need to be made regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of
the Ordinance as follows
(NOTE — Whomever makes the motion will have to cite the `evidence' in the
record utilized justifying the motion to approve or deny. Attachment 7 contains
the recommendations of the Planning Board including the evidence utilized to
reach the conclusion. This `evidence' must be spelled out explicitly by the
Commissioner making the motion.
If the motion is to deny then the Commissioner making the motion will have to
spell out explicitly the evidence within the record utilized to justify a negative
finding):
i. Motion finding either there is or is not sufficient evidence in the record
the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the
use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general
welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according
to the plan as submitted.
67
This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the
record of these proceedings, including:
NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If
the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find
compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) this list must be read verbatim
so it is in the record.
• Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application
and site plan.
• Staff testimony on the project's compliance with the UDO from
the Public Hearing and the March /April Planning Board
meetings.
• Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret
Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on
how the project complied with the UDO including the affidavit
entered into the record at the Public Hearing and written
correspondence submitted to the March and April Planning
Board meetings.
• Adjacent property owner a -mails and applicant responses.
Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general
public.
and
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered
into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance
with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the
Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2) (a).
ii. Motion finding there is or there is not sufficient evidence in the record the
project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use
will maintain the value of contiguous property.
This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the
record of these proceedings, including:
NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If
the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find
M
compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) this list must be read verbatim
so it is in the record.
• Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application
and site plan.
• Staff testimony on the project's compliance with the LIDO from
the Public Hearing and the March /April Planning Board
meetings.
• Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret
Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on
how the project complied with the UDO including the affidavit
entered into the record at the Public Hearing and written
correspondence submitted to the March and April Planning
Board meetings. This included a real estate evaluation
indicating the project would not have an impact on adjacent
property value.
and
• A lack of competent "material and substantial evidence entered
into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance
with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b), the
Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2) (b).
iii. Motion finding there is or is not sufficient evidence in the record the
project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use
is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in
compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as
embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan.
This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the
record of these proceedings, including:
NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If
the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find
compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) this list must be read verbatim so
it is in the record.
• Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application
and site plan.
C:
• Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis lannone, Mr. Bret
Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on
how the project complied with the UDO
and
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered
into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance
with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c), the
Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2) (c).
7. Motion to either approve or deny the Special Use Permit
If the motion is to approve the Special Use Permit, this motion would also need to
include language indicating the BOCC imposes the recommended conditions as detailed
within Attachment 7 of the abstract package. Second. Vote