HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-27-2014 APPROVED 9/4/2014 MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
May 27, 2014
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning
Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on May 27, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Offices,
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 inembers will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning Board
members, Lisa Stuckey, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, and Herman Staats
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: James Lea, Paul Guthrie, Tony Blake, H.T.
"Buddy" Hartley, (not sworn in yet: Bryant Warren, Laura Nicholson, and Lydia Wegman)
Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Jacobs reviewed the following documents at the official's places:
- Blue sheets - Emails related to Item c-1- Class A Special Use Permit
- PowerPoint slides for Item c-1 - Class A Special Use Permit
- PowerPoint slides for Item c-2— Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendment
A. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Jacobs dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
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 50 acres in area, off of Mt. Sinai Road near Cascade Drive in Chapel Hill
Township.
Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck introduced this item.
Pete Hallenbeck: Good evening, everyone. We will start with the first agenda. I will turn it over
to Michael Harvey.
Michael Harvey: Thank you very much. Michael Harvey, current planning division. I think at
this point in time, since we are about to call a public hearing to order on a quasi-judicial item,
any individual intending to offer testimony before the Board, needs to come up and be sworn.
Those who were planning to speak were sworn in.
Michael Harvey: Good evening, once again my name is Michael Harvey. I am with the Orange
County Planning Department. It is my duty this evening to present you staff's abstract related to
a Class A special use permit proposing the development of a solar array public utility on a
parcel of property off Mount Sinai Road in the Chapel Hill Township of Orange County.
You will note that, beginning on page 3, you have staff's abstract. You also have four
attachments. Beginning on page 9, is attachment 1, which is the application packet. This
contains a narrative, an appraisal report, an environmental assessment application, as well as a
memorandum of lease for these properties. Attachment 2 on page 82 is the vicinity map
denoting the property. You will note -we will get to it in a minute -this property is located at the
intersection of Cascade and Mount Sinai Road. Attachment 3 beginning on page 83 are staff's
comments. This includes, on page 87, State Clearinghouse review comments on the proposed
project. And then finally, attachment 4, which is the notification materials where we sent out-
certified letters to all property owners within 500 feet, informing them of them public hearing.
I have a very brief presentation, and then I would like to turn it over to the applicant.
Michael Harvey reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
Powerpoint
MAY 27, 2014
AGENDA ITEM:
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT OF A
SOLAR ARRAY - PUBLIC UTILITY
PROPERTY INFORMATION
• PIN(s): 9881-38-8874 and 9881-49-3072.
• Size: Approximately 50 acres total.
• Zoning: Rural Buffer (RB).
• Future Land Use Map Designation: Rural Buffer.
• Growth Management System Designation: Rural.
• Joint Land Use Plan Designation: Rural Buffer— Rural Residential Area
REQUEST:
• Erect individual solar array panels on approximately 19 acres of property.
• Typical array is between 6 and 10 feet in height, with approximately 2 to 3 feet of
ground. Clearance, and approximately 63 feet in length.
• Arrays will be screened by an installed 50 ft. wide land use buffer.
• An 8 foot high chain link security fence shall surround the perimeter of the array field,
outside of the proposed land use buffer, to prevent access.
• REQUEST (Continued):
• Gravel paths/drives will be installed around these arrays in order to permit access by
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 Cascade Road.
• Initial soils assessment, required per Section 5.9.6 (C) (1) (d), indicates property can
support project. Applicant proposing condition that final, detailed, soil assessment be
completed after SUP issued due to expense.
— STAFF COMMENT: consistent with other similar projects.
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.
• 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 makes a recommendation on
the application based on the evidence and testimony offered into evidence during the
public hearing.
— STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Board is currently scheduled to meet and
review this item at their June 4 and July 2, 2014 regular meetings, which
convene at 7:00 p.m. each evening. Meetings are held in the lower level
conference room of the West Campus Office Building at 131 West Margaret
Lane in downtown Hillsborough.
• 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 documentation required for the review of the project
• Applicant has submitted required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit (i.e.
required by Section 2.7.3)
• There are goals/objectives/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 September 16, 2014
BOCC regular meeting.
4. Adjourn the public hearing until September 16, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Michael Harvey: As we all know from your packet, the property in question again intersects
with Mount Sinai/Cascade Road. It has frontage on Cascade, as well as Mount Sinai. We have
the Bishop Homestead here, where a portion of the solar facility is going to be located. The
total approximate acreage of both properties is 50 acres. It is zoned Rural Buffer. It is within
the rural buffer future land use map designation (of the Comprehensive Plan). It is also
designated rural on the Growth Management System Map and is located within the rural
buffer/rural residential area land use category as detailed within the Joint Planning Land Use
Plan.
The request is to erect individual solar arrays on the property, totaling approximately 19
acres. The typical array, according to the site plan, is anywhere between 6 to 10 feet in height,
with approximately 2 to 3 feet of ground clearance. The arrays will be approximately 63 feet in
length. They will be screened by an installed 50 feet land use buffer, which we will get to an
example in a moment. And there will also be an 8 foot high chain link fence surrounding the
perimeter of the array.
The applicant is proposing to develop gravel paths and drives around these arrays in
order to permit access. Vehicular access to the site is restricted by a 24 foot gate that will be
posed off of Cascade Road. There has been some concern expressed to staff over an initial
soils report. What I will stipulate is that the applicant, specifically beginning on pages 69 with
their environmental assessment, has supplied topographic, slope, and hydrological maps
detailing the project's ability to be developed on the property. The property is composed with
Georgeville soil according to the Orange County soil survey report. What the applicant has
specifically requested is that a final condition is that a detailed soil assessment, including
geotechnical compaction data, be done after the SUP is issued. Rationale for this is there is a
large expense incurred with respect to the production of this report, and they feel it is necessary
that the SUP be issued before they go into that level of detail. My comment at this point in time
is this condition - this request is consistent with other similar projects reviewed and acted upon
by this Board where such a report is required.
This is a copy of the site plan. A couple of things I want to bring to the Board's attention
-You will note that there are streams that are located on the property. Both our comprehensive
plan and the future land use plan —the joint land use plan between Carrboro, Chapel Hill and
Orange County- denote these areas as being resource protection areas. The applicant has
been made aware, and there are notes in the site plan indicating that these will be buffered in
accordance with article 6 of our unified development ordinance, the preservation of stream
buffers. The array is located on an upland portion of property and again, as indicated, it is
approximately 19 acres of coverage. This is the proposed access road off of Cascade, with the
access point going through the project. You will note that the applicant is indicating their
inverter and transformers. Transformers located at various key points of the property. This
here is a temporary staging area that will be eliminated once the project is developed, if
approved. And this green area here denotes the required 50 foot wide land use buffer, which
we are going to get to in a moment.
This is also from the site plan, providing the typical fence detail as well as the typical
elevation for the array. And this actually gives you a typical detail of the proposed buffer. As
required by the unified development ordinance, there has to be a 50 foot wide buffer Type D
land use buffer developed on this property. That requires a certain number of plantings per
every 100 linear feet. There has to be 7 evergreen trees. There has to be then 16 evergreen
understory trees and then a grand total of 68 shrub trees. And that is, again, for every 100
linear feet of the property. The proposed fence will be located on this side of the landscape
buffer, not here. So what you will see is the landscape buffer, and then you will have a fence
here securing the site.
As the Chair has already alluded, this application is a Class A special use permit. The
review if this permit is 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. The applicant, according to our regulations, ultimately has the
burden of demonstrating that the project complies with the provisions of the UDO. Anyone
opposing this application is required to demonstrate through sworn testimony and competent
material evidence that the project does not comply with the ordinance. You will remember from
past meetings, hearsay and unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony. What I will
remind the Board is if the applicant proves compliance with the applicable standards of the
ordinance, and there is no evidence it the record demonstrating that the project does not comply
with the regulations, then the permit must be issued.
The review process is as follows. We are in step 1. This is the review of the application
at a joint quarterly public hearing by the County Commissioners and the Planning Board. The
BOCC will be asked to —or is going to adjourn the public hearing to a date time certain, in order
to receive the Planning Board recommendation. Step 2 is the review of the application by the
full Planning Board, who is going to make a recommendation on the application, based on the
evidence and testimony entered into record. What I would like to remind everybody is that the
Planning Board is currently scheduled to meet and begin review of this item at their June 4 and
July 2 regular meetings. These meetings convene at 7 o'clock and are held at the west campus
office building —the Planning Department Building, at 131 West Margaret Lane in the main
conference room on the lower level. Step 3 will be the re-convening of the public hearing to
receive the Planning Board recommendation. As you will note, no additional public comment or
testimony is accepted at this hearing. This is specifically to allow the Board to receive the
Planning Board recommendation as well as any additional written testimony that has been
offered into the record. You will then take action on this proposal based on evidence entered
into the record this evening, as well as other written testimony introduced to the Planning Board.
Our initial review, which we have covered on pages 5, 6 and 7 of the abstract, is the
applicant has submitted documentation required for the review of this project. They have
submitted required documentation for a Class A special use permit, as outlined within section
2.7.3, and staff will indicate that there are goals, objectives and policies within the
comprehensive plan lending credence to the viability of the proposal. I will also point out to the
Board, that on page 7 we provide an assessment that this project appears consistent with the
various goals outlined within the joint planning land use plan. You will also note on page 8, we
have submitted this (application), per the joint planning agreement we have, to the Town of
Chapel Hill for review and comment. As of this time, we have not received any comments from
the Town of Chapel Hill, so we are obviously moving forward with the project.
The recommendation, as detailed in our abstract, is that you: receive this application;
you conduct the public hearing and accept public, County Commissioner, and Planning Board
comments; you refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to you in time for your September 16�2014 regular meeting; and that you adjourn the
public hearing until that date, in order to receive and accept the Planning Board
recommendation as well as any additional submitted written comments on the project.
Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, I would like to turn it over to the applicant.
Chair Jacobs: The attorney.
Michael Harvey: I'll turn it over to the attorney. Thank you, sir.
(StaffAttorney) James Bryan: Thank you. The Chair asked me to briefly mention some
ground rules for tonight. This is going to be a quasi-judicial hearing, which means that it has to
have a fair trial standard. We have both the petitioner and neighbors represented by attorneys
in this matter. When the witnesses have to be made available for cross examination, since we
have attorneys on both sides, we are going to let the attorneys take the lead on that and offer
their witnesses up to the other for that cross examination. One other point that I wanted to
make, just clarify for myself if nothing else, is the speaker's time - that any witness offered up
will have unlimited time to make their offer of evidence that is competent material and
substantial.
Chair Jacobs: May I ask one more clarifying question for you or for Mr. Harvey?When we
mention the two Planning Board meetings, what kind of testimony is acceptable at the Planning
Board meetings? Is it just written, not oral? Is that correct?
James Bryan: It depends on what this Board does at the end of this hearing. Once—A quasi-
judicial hearing has two big components of it. You've got the actual hearing where you present
evidence, and then you have the deliberations afterwards. Once the first part is ended, this
Board cannot get any more evidence, and that includes from other bodies. But, if you leave this
and continue it to another date where the hearing is open, then you can receive anything this
Board wishes.
Michael Harvey: Let me also re-iterate that we require written testimony to be submitted to the
Planning Board. The reason being is so that you have a record of it. We have allowed
individuals to speak before the Planning Board to essentially present that written testimony, and
obviously the Planning Board can ask questions of the applicant that there is an obligation that
they have to respond. When you adjourn this hearing, obviously you are adjourning it to a date
time certain to receive the Planning Board recommendation and any additional testimony
evidence that has already been entered.
Chair Jacobs: But essentially the people who want to speak are going to get their best
opportunity right now.
James Bryan: Yes sir.
Pete Hallenbeck: Mr. Harvey, you wanted to let the applicant speak now.
Michael Harvey: I do. However, before I do that, let me do a couple of housekeeping matters if
the Board will indulge me. First is, I would like the abstract, including all four attachments,
entered into the record. I would also like to ask that the attachment which the planning staff
provided —the blue cover attachment— be entered into the evidence as part of the record. I
would also ask that the Board accept and enter into the record the current iteration of the
Unified Development Ordinance, the current iteration of the comprehensive plan, the most
recent joint planning land use plan, and the Orange County soil survey into the record as part of
this request.
Pete Hallenbeck: We will now hear from the applicant then.
(Attorney) Mike Fox: Good evening, my name is Mike Fox, and I am pleased to be her tonight
to represent Sunlight Partners who is the applicant in this hearing. Miss Hayworth is handing
your clerk some written materials, which are in this format, which I was told the clerk will hand
out to each of the Commissioners and the Planning Board members. What I will do is briefly
introduce what we are going to do tonight, and then we will let our witnesses tell you about the
project.
Essentially we have three witnesses here tonight. All are experts in their field. The first
is Michael Wallace. Michael, will you stand up. Michael is an employee with Sunlight Partners
and is the project manager on this project and is a licensed engineer here in North Carolina and
in other states. Next, we have Tommy Cleveland, who is also an engineer here in North
Carolina, and his daytime employment is with the N.C. Solar Center. We have engaged him
separately as an expert on solar energy, and he will discuss those topics tonight. And then
lastly, but not least, Rich Kirkland is a licensed appraiser here in North Carolina, and Rich will
talk about the property value issues in this case.
If I could, let me just—since you - I believe you all have booklets now. Let me just flip
you through just the booklet, and then I'll get our witnesses up here so you can start hearing
from them. Tab one is a site plan for your reference, and we tried to make it large enough so
that it's readable. If you have any questions during the process, you can refer to that. Tab two
is a landscaping plan, which is essentially a site plan with the landscaping notes on it, in the
event you have questions about the landscaping plan.
Tab three is some information about Sunlight Partners and their company, and behind
that is the resume of Michael Wallace, detailing his experience. And I would tender that, along
with his testimony, as proof of his qualifications as an expert. Tab 4 is some illustrative pictures
of solar farms. Tab five is the information from Tommy Cleveland, the solar expert. The first
two pages are an affidavit. We had that prepared. Tommy's wife is—Her due date is tomorrow,
and we were concerned that Tommy might not be here. But, he was able to be here, and we
had an affidavit ready in case he couldn't. So, if he gets a phone call and he has to leave, I hope
you'll understand. We're hoping not. Behind that is Tommy's resume, which details his
education and professional experience, which we wound tender as an expert. And then Tommy
has a presentation behind that, which he will walk you through, on solar materials. The last tab
in the book, tab 6, is from Mr. Kirkland, and his report is included in that, along with his
conclusions. And at the end of the report there is his professional experience and resume,
which we would tender also qualifies him as an expert in the appraisal business.
Again, I will also be happy to answer any questions, but the substance of our
presentation is from our three witnesses, and with that I will ask Mr. Wallace to come up. In
keeping with the County attorney's direction, after each of my witnesses is through with their
presentation, I will offer them to Mr. Brooks, the attorney for the neighbors, for an opportunity for
him to question them.
Michael Wallace: Thank you, Mike. As stated, my name is Michael Wallace, representing
Sunlight Partners and Cate Street Capital. Cate Street Capital is a management company that
sources, develops and commercializes businesses within the green renewable energy markets.
We have projects roughly over several states —solar as well - California. We do biomass in
Maine. We are working on paper mills in the state of Maine, and also any type of venture with
renewable energy and green energy. Cate Street is based in Portland, Maine, employs 30
people with expertise in operations, finance, marketing, and engineering. In addition to
operating environmentally responsible businesses, we believe in being good neighbors and
participating regularly in causes, organizations and activities in the communities that our
projects are located in. So, essentially what that means is we're here to be a good neighbor to
this County, adhere to the ordinance, and also do what we can to answer any questions that
you guys might have tonight.
So my main objective is to walk through the site plan with you guys and explain kind of
what we're doing. So if you can turn to tab one please for me. There are a couple of things I
would like to point out with this site plan. What you will notice is we have three inverter stations
located here, here and here. You will also notice that the main entrance to the property comes
off Cascade Drive. The reason that location was initially chosen was because of the ease of the
location. There is grading —there is no grading that needs to be done there. We essentially
can put our road in and travel up through the site much easier than if we came off the other
drive access. If we came off this way, there are many trees that we would have to cut and
remove to get a road up through there. So that was the initial reason that that location was
picked. This inverter right here, which was kind of, probably most of the concern to the public -
This inverter is located 117 feet off the main road. So the noise level of that inverter at 10 feet
away is roughly 68 decibels. As you move out that number to the 117 foot mark, you are in
roughly the 46 decibel range, to 44, and that does not include the buffer that will be placed in
the property. So, that would be considering if you were open in a field, and it was just coming
across that open area with nothing else for those sound waves to bounce off of.
Another thing to make note of is this is our buffer that comes around the entire property,
here. And that buffer, as we will kind of get to in a second, on page 2 of the site plan, includes
shrubs as well as undergrowth trees and then above canopy trees for the main purpose, so that
that fence line is not something that will be seen. The fence is represented as an 8 foot chain
link fence per the ordinance and again it is the purpose of the buffer so that that fence will not
be seen to the public or the residents on either side of it. The stream that sits on both sides, we
are adhering to the 80 foot buffer around that stream. You will see the small area of trees that
will be removed. The reason that tree line comes back where it does, so that we don't have
issues with shading the solar panels. All silt fences will be placed in here to control any runoff
or storm water that may come if we had a very heavy thunderstorm to take care of that. Site
grading will be left as is, so the purpose is not to come in with any type of heavy machinery or
equipment and make this site flat. The purpose is to leave it as is and place our panels on the
exiting grade. There have been concerns with pesticides and herbicides. There will be none.
Twice a year, the site will be mowed. Anything that may come under the panels would use a
standard weed whacker to remove that. That will be done with a local landscaping company as
well, in the area. Traffic into the site—you will be looking at probably twice a month, and that is
just more or less to check on the inverters and make sure everything is functioning as it should.
The construction trailer lay down site will be there approximately four months to allow the panels
to come in, with approximately a truck per day as panels come in. Traffic from workers are
probably 2 to 3 cars a day during that four month period of time and then again after that it will
just be a couple of times a month.
If we could really quick go over to tab two, which will kind of talk a little bit about the
buffer, which I think is very important. The focus of that buffer is the evergreen trees on the—
the seven trees —and then I believe it's sixteen or— sixteen trees that come in the 100 foot
section. The purpose of these trees right here will be a minimum of eight feet, once planted.
Those trees will grow to roughly 30 feet plus. These trees under the canopy will be a minimum,
I believe, of 6 feet. Those are 16 evergreens. Eight feet tall —excuse me those will be a
minimum of eight, and will not have the growth expectancy of the larger trees, and then the
shrubs are roughly under just right in front of the fence line. So again, the purpose of this buffer
is so that the residents on the other side do not see the chain link fence that will be there. And
that fence is there to protect the property and the assets inside the property.
So I think I have covered —talked a little bit about the noise that I wanted to hit. Also,
something that is important just kind of to note—the panels do get dirty over time. And what we
are planning on doing with those panels is they will be washed one to two times per year with
water only. So there will be no chemicals or any type of cleaning agent that will be put on those
panels. So essentially this is going to be a chemical free installation, and we will maintain that
throughout the life of the site.
Mike Fox: Michael, before I ask Mr. Rooks if he has any questions for you, will you confirm,
according to the attorney that you were sworn?
Michael Wallace: Michael Wallace, I was sworn in.
David Brooks: Mr. Wallace, I am David Rooks, and I represent some of the residents. Who is
your employer?
Michael Wallace: I work for Cate Street Capital.
David Rooks: And who is the applicant in this case?
Michael Wallace: The applicant is Sunlight Partners.
David Rooks: And I notice that your site plan says Binks, LLC on it.
Michael Wallace: Yes sir.
David Rooks: And what is Binks, LLC?
Michael Wallace: Binks, LLC was a name given to —We have several solar projects in the
state that we are working on in the same process as this one right now. And each site was
given a name as it made it through the process for the North Carolina Utility Commission to
identify each site.
David Rooks: Binks, LLC is a company is it not?
Michael Wallace: It is a company, yes, correct.
David Rooks: A limited liability company.
Michael Wallace: Yes sir.
David Rooks: And who are the principals of Binks, LLC?
Michael Wallace: It is going to be Sunlight Partners.
David Rooks: Okay. Does Sunlight Partners actually own any operating solar farms?
Michael Wallace: Ah, no, currently—Well let me take that back. They put in a whole array in
California, and I do not know the size of that. They do not currently still operate that. They sold
that off, but I do not know what that number is.
David Rooks: And if this project were approved and constructed, would Sunlight Partners,
through whatever entity it might have created, own that entity—own that array?
Michael Wallace: Yes sir, they would. Sunlight Partners is working with a company—
Sundurance Energy—who is a company, a construction company- Conti -who does work in the
state of North Carolina. It's a joint venture, 50/50. Sundurance will come in and set up the
panels and maintain them from an O and M standpoint under the joint venture. And Sunlight
Partners acts as the developer in this venture.
David Rooks: And after it is all constructed, will Sunlight Partners continue to have an interest?
Michael Wallace: Yes sir.
David Rooks: And this is a departure from your normal practice.
Michael Wallace: No it is not, sir. We uh —typically this is what we do as a company.
David Rooks: I'm confused, because you told me a few minutes ago that Sunlight Partners
owns only one solar farm in the country.
Michael Wallace: Correct. So Cate Street Capital works with several companies across the
country in ventures like this, whether it is biomass, whether it be paper mills, and they are wholly
owned by Cate Street Capital; but they operate on their own terms. So Sunlight Partners will
continue to own and operate this with Sundurance as a 50/50 venture, which is typical to how
Cate Street Capital operates their businesses.
David Rooks: That's all I have. Thank you.
Michael Fox: If I could, Mr. Wallace, just get you to clarify one question. Could you explain the
relationship between Sunlight and Cate Street? Is one owned by the other and is that...?
Michael Wallace: Yes, so Sunlight Partners is a company that is wholly owned by Cate Street
but operates under its own entity. We, Cate Street, has a —obviously an interest in the party.
We work with Sunlight, as a representation of ine being here tonight, and it is part of our interest
to see the project successful with Sunlight Partners.
Michael Fox: And just to clarify, could you — I think you mentioned it briefly, but I don't think
you explained it—the Cate Streets principal business, and the sister companies that - to
Sunlight—that Cate Street owns.
Michael Wallace: Yes, so the uh —there are several sister companies under Sunlight Energy,
approximately 48 in the state of North Carolina now, that are under this same process
submitting applications for solar within the state of North Carolina.
Michael Fox: I was actually asking about the sister companies to Sunlight that Cate Street
owns in your business - green energy business.
Michael Wallace: Oh, yes. Yes, absolutely. Sorry, Mike. We have several other companies
within — one operating within the state of Florida, one operating within the state of Maine,
another within the state of New Hampshire. And these are different ventures for renewable
energy— some solar, some biomass, some into the paper mill industry— all with the same type
of function of coming in and trying to operate some sort of renewable energy entity under a
company that Cate Street in turn owns and operates.
Michael Fox: Thank you, Mr. Wallace. I'd next like to ask Tommy Cleveland to come up. And
Tommy if you would indicate whether you were sworn previously, and give your credentials.
Tommy Cleveland: Good evening. My name is Tommy Cleveland, and I have been sworn in
this evening. My background is I am a mechanical engineer with degrees from N.C. State and
have been a solar energy engineer at N.C. Solar Center, which is an extension and
engagement center at N.C. State University, for just over 10 years now, where I have been
working with these technologies for the last ten years.
I am here tonight as a private engineer, having been engaged by the applicant, and I
have been a professional engineer in North Carolina since 2008. And I want to talk tonight
about the technology and any health and safety concerns that would result from the technology.
And my general plan by how I am going to do that is to talk about what the technology is, how it
functions, and what's there in the— in the site, so you can become familiar with what's there and
thereby see the health and safety implications— really the lack of health and safety concerns
because of the technology.
So, if you would flip to tab five in your books, I've got a few visuals, and I will try to
describe that as much as I can for everybody that can't see the presentation.
We'll wait a minute and see if we can get this on the screen.
Alright, thank you. There is a brief overview on the solar center. Anyone not familiar with
the solar center, it is a very well respected national center for solar energy research and
promotion. It has been around since 1988. And here are the layers that are in a solar panel or
PV module. What is going to be used in this project and what is typical across projects by this
developer and other developers in North Carolina is a crystal and silicone PV module. There
are other types of photovoltaic modules or PV modules that have different chemistries, but the
vast majority in the world right now are silicone based, which is a very benign element—you
know the main ingredient in sand —very common in the whole crust of our earth. But then there
are other things there. The silicone layer is really just a small percentage—3 or 4 percent by
weight of the whole panel — and there are other things there. The heavier part, the main part is
a sheet of tempered glass. So this is typical glass that's tempered, that has an anti-reflective
coating on it, and if it does break, it breaks up into tiny little safe pieces of glass. There are two
encapsulation layers on the other side of those cells, and they are there to keep moisture away
from the cells, so they have a very long life. The panels generally come with a 25 year power
warranty that says after 25 years this thing will still produce 80 percent of what it did on day 1.
So, it is a very long lasting product. And then there is a very heavy duty plastic back sheet that
protects the back of the cells from any kind of physical damage while being installed, and then a
junction box where the wires finally come out the back.
Inside the cell, this really just to show that there's not any toxic or worrisome materials
inside the cell. It's almost entirely silicone with tiny bits of phosphorus and boron that get added
on each side, and that makes it a functioning solar cell, with little bits of very thin layer of inetal
on the back and some thin strips of inetal on the front to conduct away those electrons. And
then in the full array these serve to send DC electricity to an inverter. In that inverter, that DC
direct current electricity is converted to alternating current, and synced up to the grid's
alternating current. And then normally there is a transformer on the edge of this to take that to a
higher voltage, to whatever the voltage is of that local power line. It is often a misconception
that a large solar system like this would need special power lines brought in or would have to
connect to really large power lines. These are connecting to common distribution power lines,
you know like the size you would see running down any highway road, not a large road but just
small wooden poles. These aren't the large metal poles. These are just small wooden poles
that this power can feed into.
This is an image of what it looks like putting all of these panels out in the field. This is
from a different developer, but here in North Carolina. It is how these are commonly installed
and how they are planned to be installed for this project. It is galvanized steel structures that
are just driven into the ground, so there is no concrete in the ground. These are just pounded
into the ground with machinery, and at the end of the life, they could be pulled out and the
ground left just as it was beforehand. As you heard Mike say, there are no plans for grading of
the site. These will just follow the natural contours of the site. As you can see here, you don't
have to tear up the grass or vegetation that's there before these go in. You can just go right on
top of that and just pound in these structures. And then you've got aluminum cross members
that bolt on top of that and finally the panels holding to that aluminum framework. And you end
up with a large array— a field of the solar panels, but still, lots of space. It's a little bit hard to tell
from this angle, but there are still lots of space between those panels. So there is lots of room
for rainwater that hits the panels and drains to the bottom side of the panel to absorb into the
ground — right there, that vegetative ground right in front of the panel, because each area of
panels is really fairly small.
As I'm sure many people are aware, there have been lots of similar size solar farms
going in in North Carolina the last couple of years. In fact they are becoming common here
across the state. One of the largest systems was put in by Apple, a little bit further west in the
state, in Maiden. This is a photo of it under construction, but it has now been operating for
some time. This is quite a bit larger that the project proposed here, but just to give an example
of another project in the state.
So in conclusion, the solar system is safe and environmentally friendly for the area.
There are no site emissions. Those panels are entirely encapsulated and there is no water
intrusion. There is air intrusion. There is not water. There is no solution, no materials coming
out into solution from the water, nothing released into the air, nothing released in to the soil. In
fact, it is cleaner than not putting it there, because it is offsetting emissions from other plants.
About half of the state's power electricity, power generation comes from coal and natural gas,
which does have harmful local emissions. So this is directly offsetting those emissions from a
nearby power plant, and we have seen widespread support of solar by many environmental
organizations demonstrating the positive environmental aspects of the systems. A couple of
local examples— EPA building in RTP has repeatedly put on new rooftop solar systems,
showing there the lack of concern for the panels causing any trouble for their workers in their
own buildings. They have put in systems in 2002, 2010, and 2011. They just kept adding, more
systems to the top of their own buildings. These technologies have been around for 50 years,
this crystalline, silicone technology, so it's not anything there that is going to surprise us.
There's lot of experience for many decades now, of these being implemented out in the world.
Michael Fox: Tommy, just two - two quick questions. One, do these panels move in any way,
or are they fixed?
Tommy Cleveland: At this site they'll be fixed. There are designs that move, but these will be
fixed.
Michael Fox: And, are there any batteries on this site that store energy?
Tommy Cleveland: Good question. No, that's— people often feel like, or expect there to be
batteries, but there are no batteries. There are really only those two components. There are
the panels, and they feed the power directly to the—to the inverter.
Michael Fox: That's all we have. Do you have any questions? Okay. Alright, thank you
Tommy.
And our final witness here this evening is Rich Kirkland. And Rich, if you would come up
and affirm that you were sworn, and talk about your credentials.
Rich Kirkland: Hi, again my name is Rich Kirkland. I was sworn in. I am a local MAI appraiser
coming out of Fuquay. I was um — I've been appraising for about 18 or 19 years now. It starts
to run together, but a common bit of what I do—a big part of what I do is land appraisals. I
appraise land for subdivision developers, for local environmental groups. Land is a big focus of
what I do. Let's see, I'm state certified general, and again I was hired to address the question of
whether or not this property is going to have impact on adjoining property values. I was also
asked to consider whether or not this was a harmonious use or not. To that end, I have done
research through the appraisal institute. I have spoken with three other MAI's about this, other
folks who have been researching on this. And, I have found that there really is not a lot of
national studies that show any information on this; so I had to go out and do my own. The
appraisal institute method for identifying whether or not there is any kind of impact on property
value is this idealized thing called matched pair or paired sales analysis. That is where you just
look at two properties that have sold, and you want to isolate things down to where there is only
one difference, and then you can measure to see if that one difference had anything. So in this
case I'm looking for a property that sold next to a solar farm and one that is not next to a solar
farm to see if there is anything there. I found a really good — really an ideal set of matched pairs
— a series of matched pairs in Goldsboro. The AM Best Solar Farm is adjoining a new
development going in. There are new homes being built. Some of the homes are backing up to
the solar farm, and some of them are not. They are being sold —the exact same floor plans are
being sold for the same price — both backing up to the solar farm, as well as those that are down
the street. I spoke with the sales agents about it. They said that they've had no issues or
concerns with that. I spoke with the developer. They had no concerns or issues with selling
that. And I stopped and I knocked on the doors of some of the folks that bought those homes
that back up to the solar farm, and they again said they have no real concerns with it and didn't
really care.
I have included in my report some pictures of the view from the homes that are there in
Goldsboro, and there is also a series of matched pairs. You can see the homes that are selling.
There's—This is an image in the yellow. That is the area where the solar farm was put in.
Excuse me. And Spring Gardens subdivision is the subdivision where the homes are going in.
You can see they are still listing. They are still selling homes out there. It is going to be really to
see this, but these are the different home sales I've looked at since the solar farm. I've got
different categories where I've looked at them. Some of them are showing homes that sold
before the solar farm was announced. I've got some that are showing when it's been
announced but not built and then those since they built the solar farm. You can see going
through there, especially after the solar farm was announced and built; they are still going for
the same prices - and again the same price per square foot. So it is strongly showing that the
solar farm itself is having no impact on those home prices, whether it's adjoining or not adjoining
through that area.
I've looked at, additionally, another solar farm in Zebulon. This one has actually been
approved but not built. And there is no way you are going to be able to read all that information
unless your eyes are way better than mine; but to sum up, there is a subdivision up here that
was put in place and developed before the downturn in the market, and they sold one lot in the
back that you can't even see there before the downturn. Those lots sat there through the whole
downturn. And the solar farm that got approved —after it got approved, those lots went on the
market. They sold at a discount- a bulk discount for multiple lots. It's very common in
subdivisions, and I compared that to bulk lot sales of two other subdivisions nearby out in the
Zebulon area. Again, it's a rural sort of transition area where you have single family homes and
rural properties next to each other. The other areas that are selling the bulk lots, they actually
sold at much deeper discounts than the lots that sold next to the solar farm. So again, the
matched pairs here are showing that there is really no impact from that potential solar farm right
there.
Then also, closer to this location, I looked at the solar farm on White Cross— solar farm
that's — it's now operational. They actually—after that solar farm was built—this is in Chapel
Hill — after it was built—the - actually from the parent tract the land was—the solar farm was
built on —the owner of that sold the rest of the property they had, and again it is selling at very
similar prices to those tracts of land in the area. So looking at those different matched pairs, I'm
seeing no sign of any impact on property values due to the proximity of that solar farm or any of
those solar farms. And again, the location of these comes into harmony of use. I've visited over
40 solar farm sites. The first 22 I've looked at are in this chart here. I broke down showing what
kind of uses are near these solar farms. Where are the solar farms going, and you can see that
the vast majority of the uses that these properties are located are agricultural and single family
residential. There is very little of these being developed in commercial or industrial areas.
These are all going to these areas where there is that transition area. That makes sense
because you need some open acreage, some land, to put the panels on; but you also need
users, homeowners, to receive that power. So going through that, again I'm finding that this is a
typical area where a solar farm would be located.
I go through and looked at the various components of why there would be an impact. A
lot of times if there is going to be an impact, you would find it, and you would identify it with a
certain thing, whether it's traffic or noise or odor or hazardous materials, things like that. This
site is going to have less traffic than even a single— one single family home on the site; so
traffic is not going to be an issue here. There is —of the 40 sites I have been to, I have never
smelled anything that was attributable to the panels. As far as noise goes, I have never heard
anything off of those. Trying to think— Hazardous materials—There is no hazardous materials
that are proposed for this location. The question that comes up mostly though is appearance.
And I've again tried to show some pictures of some greenhouses next to these solar panels. So
on the left are greenhouses, and on the right are solar panels, and I consider those to be very
similar visual impacts. Both are very typically found in these sort of transition areas, between
agricultural areas and residential single family homes. In fact this location here is right around
the corner from my house and right off the road.
So again, to sum up it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm is going to
have no impact on these adjoining single family and agricultural uses, and that it is not going to
have any impact on property values, but also that it is a harmonious use.
Michael Fox: Mr. Rooks, do you have questions for Mr. Kirkland?
David Rooks: Mr. Kirkland, is this the first time you have appraised for this applicant in a
special use permit application?
Rich Kirkland: No.
David Rooks: How many have you done before?
Rich Kirkland: One - one more.
David Rooks: And have you done any other appraisal work for this applicant.
Rich Kirkland: No
David Rooks: Have you visited the site—the Cascade Drive area?
Rich Kirkland: Yes. Yes sir.
David Rooks: And have you have you actually gone to each of the lots that are adjacent and
contiguous?
Rich Kirkland: I drove the neighborhood. I did not specifically like walk on anybody's
property, no.
David Rooks: So you have not visited any of the lots.
Rich Kirkland: Again, I visited from the road. I did not walk on anybody's property.
David Rooks: The Best commercial site, in Goldsboro...
Rich Kirkland: The AM Best site?
David Rooks: Have you visited that site?
Rich Kirkland: I have.
David Rooks: Have you actually walked the lots?
Rich Kirkland: Those, yes I have.
David Rooks: And were you able to see the solar farm from those lots.
Rich Kirkland: I was.
David Rooks: You were?
Rich Kirkland: Yes.
David Rooks: And what time of year did you go?
Rich Kirkland: Winter.
David Rooks: And was that a fully developed subdivision at the time that you went?
Rich Kirkland: They were still building.
David Rooks: That's all I have. Thank you.
Michael Fox: Thank you, Mr. Kirkland. Those are all the witnesses we have. I'd like to just
take a brief moment to conclude and also give the Board an opportunity for any questions, if the
Board has any before I conclude—the Planning Board or the County Board.
Pete Hallenbeck: I think go ahead with your conclusion. And we want to get all the
information, and then we'll be able to ask you better questions.
Michael Fox: Great. Thank you. My conclusion is fairly short. We believe that this is a good
project on its own, and it's a good project for Orange County and for this area that it's in. There
are none of the traditional negatives that you see with some sort of proposed zoning project.
There is no noise, no pollution, no traffic, no smell or odor. The site will be buffered and
screened so that it will not be visible from the adjoining properties. And importantly to Orange
County in particular, your County has made a point to promote sustainable businesses and
sustainable energy. And there have been other sites similar to this that have been approved,
and we feel that this site is worthy of approval as well. I know that there have been some issues
about the particular zoning classification that this site is in —a rural buffer zone —and we
understand that, and we understand that part of your goal was not to have traditional
commercial development or industrial development in that zone. We feel that this project
supports your goals of keeping that as a buffer zone, because you will not have commercial
development in terms of shops or industrial development, businesses, buildings. This is a very
passive use. It is really the best use if you want to keep land open and available for agriculture,
because once — if the lease is ended at some point, you know after 15, 20, 30 years, it's very
easy to go in and disassemble this site, and the land is back exactly like it was. So it preserves
the land in the way that it is even better than a traditional single family subdivision, because
once that goes in it, that is what it is always going to be. And you are going to have all the
issues related to that—traffic—You are going to have to build, you know, the water system and
the sewer system out to support that. You are going to have to have the additional schools. So,
you know even a single family subdivision has a price to pay, although that is generally
considered a desirable use. This site has none of those negatives. We feel like that, you know,
here tonight we've presented competent evidence that would allow your boards to find that this
should be approved. We've presented evidence that it would maintain or promote the public
health, safety or general welfare; that it would maintain or enhance the value of contiguous
property; and that it was in harmony with the area in which it is located, and it is in compliance
with the plan for the physical development of the County. As a final note, I would like to ask that
our exhibits be entered into evidence. And we would be happy to answer any questions the
boards may have, and thank you for your time, and ask that you would consider this and
approve it.
Pete Hallenbeck: All right. Thank you very much. At this point, and Mr. Brian you can correct
me if I am making a procedural mistake here - the gentleman there - and i forget your name—
the attorney.
Chair Jacobs: Mr. Rooks
David Rooks: David Rooks, R-O-O-K-S.
Pete Hallenbeck: Ok, thank you, Mr. Rooks. Is there additional evidence that you would like to
enter?
David Rooks: There is.
Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, before we continue, may I ask anyone coming to speak
obviously speak directly into the microphone as humanly possible so that we can insure the
recording picks up everything.
Pete Hallenbeck: Very good, thank you. Alright, well Mr. Rooks, I know everybody's got
questions. I know people would like to talk, but I think it would make sense to get all the
information out there first. So if you would like to present any evidence, please go ahead and
do so now.
David Rooks: What we have done is—the neighborhood opponents have sort of organized,
and I'm trying to organize that organization and present it to the—to the board in the most
expeditious way possible. I would first of all ask that, of the folks in the audience who are— live
in the adjoining neighborhood who are not planning to speak, but are nonetheless opposed to
the project, would you please stand. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Chairman and council, I tender all of
these folks to be cross examined as opponents to the project. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, at this point we are going to start with our first witness, who is a resident—
Bob Cantwell. He is going to make a presentation: and then after that we are going to have two
expert appraisers testify; and then following that, we are going to have a group of residents
come and testify to you, summarizing their views. So we will at this point call Mr. Cantwell. And
I ask that he confirm that he is — his name and that he has been sworn.
Robert Cantwell: My name is Robert Cantwell, I have been duly sworn in. Nice to see you all.
The speaker provided 3 printed appraisals and read the following statement:
Statement to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, May 27, 2014.
My name is Robert (Bob) Cantwell. My wife Lydia Wegman and I live at 5704 Cascade
Drive, where we have been for twenty-three and a half years. Our property is immediately
contiguous with the proposed solar development, which, should it be approved, will be almost
literally in our back yard.
I am a supporter of solar energy. I accept the principle that landowners have the right to
use what they own and to prosper from it. But the exercise of that right will likely affect the
health, wealth, and well being of everyone nearby in one way or another. That's why we're here.
We live in many environments, local and global; reverence for one implies reverence for the
other. Consistency does not require that we accept an installation which jeopardizes property
values and quality of life, and which is grossly incompatible with the character of the
neighborhood--not when there are better alternatives. In any case it will not advance the cause
of solar energy to allow an Arizona company, without any feeling for life on the ground here in
North Carolina, to go wherever Google Earth tells them to go.
The Unified Development Ordinance of Orange County states that in order to grant a
Special Use Permit, the County Commissioners must find that "the location and character of the
use...will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located," and that"the use will maintain
or enhance the value of contiguous property..." (UDO 5.3.2(c),(b). [my emphasis]
The proposed project does not satisfy either of these conditions.
We bought our house because we wanted to live in the Rural Buffer. As we understood
it, the Rural Buffer was conceived to preserve so far as possible the rural character of Orange
County by erecting a barrier against suburban sprawl; a phrase one heard consistently at the
time was "open space."
Today we see seven or eight acres of ineadow from our north windows and porch. Were
this project to be approved, we will see, given the rising topography of the land, a solid wall of
solar panels whose metal frames, rising well above the top of the eight foot fence at the edge of
the property, will glint and glare in our direction all day long. Only two decades or more of tree
growth--roughly the useful life of the solar project--might conceivably insulate us.
That the project is so close to a residential neighborhood raises a host of troubling new
concerns for all of us on Cascade Drive. Among these are reflection from the panel frames; the
audible buzz of the inverters and the whirr of the transformer; the microclimatological effect of a
twenty-acres surface operating at 120 degrees; grass and brush fires; hail, hurricane, or tornado
damage; animal incursion; and the potential for leaching or leaking of hazardous materials and
the possible contamination of our wells and New Hope Creek.
Here then is an unforeseen and unprecedented problem for Orange County: the site
proposed is immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood more than half a century old. As
far as we know two large-scale solar utilities have so far been approved in Orange County;
neither is situated next door to a residential neighborhood. And none should be. Our ordinances
must be rewritten to guarantee it.
No other public utility as far as I know has so large a footprint as this one. No other
permitted use so dominates the landscape as a solar array on this scale. Nothing that I can
think of even remotely resembles it--unless you can imagine a twenty-acre mini-storage facility.
No other public structure that I can imagine, other than a penitentiary, requires thousands of feet
of chain-link fence nor hundreds of plantings to secure the perimeter and block the view. The
point is that while a solar installation may be technically a "public utility," it is not, on this scale,
compatible either with a residential neighborhood or with the Rural Buffer, if"Rural Buffer"
means anything. However high the fence or dense the plantings, this facility with its 18,000
panels over twenty acres will permanently transform one of the most tranquil and bucolic
residential neighborhoods in Orange County into what amounts to an industrial zone.
Solar installations are a comparatively new phenomenon. There is nothing yet really
comparable to a twenty-acre solar installation built cheek-by-jowl next to a preexisting
residential neighborhood. For this reason we believe Sunlight Partners has not shown and
cannot show that their project will "maintain," let alone "enhance," our property values. On the
contrary, we all know it to be the case that the value of our homes and our property will be
markedly reduced and the appreciation on our investment largely or wholly lost.
The developers, Sunlight Partners in Mesa, Arizona, have targeted North Carolina to
take advantage of tax credits, a renewable energy requirement, and favorable zoning
regulations; by March 2013 they had applied for nineteen new projects in the state.
(http://www.biziournals.com/charlotte/print-edition/2013/03/29/solar-industry-sees-briqht-future-
in.html?paqe=all) The proposed solar array is not a "farm" in any sense but major commercial-
industrial project conceived exclusively in technical and economic terms without the least
consideration for the neighbors or the neighborhood. Its boundaries reach to the very edge of
adjacent properties, observing only the legal minimum setbacks, while both construction access
and electrical transformer-inverter equipment lie well within earshot along our gateway
residential street. (1 am not clear from the testimony we just heard what will happen to the
leases, but our understanding has been that they are sold, sometimes as soon as the facility is
built out.) Our understanding is that Sunlight Partners will likely sell its lease to the investment
company that owns them even before the project is fully built out. While there may be a short-
term tax benefit to Orange County, in the long run the project's only effects will be to despoil the
neighborhood, enrich the investors and the developers, and, for potential new residents,
compromise Orange County's reputation for livability.
(So just let me repeat)This issue is not about solar power. It is about siting an extensive
solar utility, typically associated with thinly settled rural areas, deserts, rooftops and brownfields,
in sharp juxtaposition with a long-established residential neighborhood. We on Cascade Drive
do not want to be the test-case for large-scale solar utilities in any of Orange County's back
yards.
Bob Cantwell
5704 Cascade Dr.
Chapel Hill, NC
David Rooks: If I may ask this witness like two questions. Mr. Cantwell I'm going to ask you to
indentify the photographs. I'm going to hold up first, this photograph and if you could identify for
the record what this photograph is of.
Robert Cantwell: Up to the trees in the distance is our lot, is Nunn Acres lot number 3.
Beyond those trees, the field, which is the whole extent of the background of the photograph, is
where the solar panels will be located from one end to the other.
David Rooks: So this is where the panels would go in this photograph.
Robert Cantwell: That's right.
David Rooks: And this is what is there now.
Robert Cantwell: That's right
David Rooks: And that is the view that you now have from your property.
Robert Cantwell: It is.
David Rooks: I am pulling out now, the second photograph, which we will put up. If you will
identify this photograph.
Robert Cantwell: That is the solar array at White Cross, mentioned in earlier testimony,
approved by the County I'm not sure how long ago. It was built up, I think about a year ago, and
we offer that image by way of comparison to suggest what the—what might occur in that field
should the project be approved.
David Rooks: I am going to mark the first -the current- as exhibit as one —the photograph of
what is as exhibit one. I am going to mark the other photograph — proposed - as exhibit two.
And I'm going to tender that to the clerk for the record, and I tender the witness.
Michael Fox: Excuse me, Mr. Cantwell. I'm sorry we both have to share the same mic here
so. I don't want to get in your space too much, but I do have a few questions for you. My name
is Mike Fox. I am an attorney with Sunlight. Do you have any personal experience with solar
farms, solar energy or solar power?
Robert Cantwell: No.
Michael Fox: Okay. So all of the issues that you just testified to of potential problems, you
don't have any personal experience with that?
Robert Cantwell: With the issues, certainly I do. I have been following residential
development in Orange County for the 24 years I've lived here, and to some extent I am actually
quite familiar with -with the kinds of issues that affect quality of life, open space. The rural
buffer designation — I was involved in that debate 24, 25 some odd years ago. So, I would say I
have some familiarity with these kinds of issues. I actually taught a course in development and
suburbanization at UNC Chapel Hill for a number of years.
Michael Fox: But you don't have any personal experience in relationship to solar farms,
correct?
Robert Cantwell: No.
Michael Fox: And the picture there that you took of the solar farm — I think it's White Cross. Is
that correct?
Robert Cantwell: Correct.
Michael Fox: Are you aware whether or not that solar farm is required to have buffering like the
one — like what's proposed here?
Robert Cantwell: My understanding is that it's not required to have buffering. We did note a
few dead shrubs along the perimeter, and I didn't know what the origins of the shrubs might
have been. But as far as I know, buffering is not as — not required of that installation.
Michael Fox: So, the picture that you presented is — is not representative of what you might
see if you look out your back door, because this project would have landscaping, trees, shrubs
that would obscure.
Robert Cantwell: No. No, as I testified just a moment ago, the topography of the land will
make it essentially impossible for either fencing or plantings to obscure our view of the solar
panels. It doesn't make the installation invisible. On the contrary, the installation will be visible
over the top of the fence. I don't know how many years it will require to grow a tree that can
fully obscure the view of the solar array you're proposing.
Michael Fox: You are aware that at their planting, the trees are a minimum 8 feet.
Robert Cantwell: Yes
Michael Fox: And that ultimately they will grow to approximately 30 feet.
Robert Cantwell: Ultimately, for how many years will that be?
Michael Fox: I get to ask the questions here.
Robert Cantwell: Sorry.
Michael Fox: And as far as your opinion of property value, do you have any expertise in terms
of assessing property values.
Robert Cantwell: We have actually hired professional appraisers to address that question.
Michael Fox: And that's what you are basing this on.
Robert Cantwell: Absolutely.
Michael Fox: Okay. I don't have any further questions. Thank you, Mr. Rooks.
David Rooks: Mr. Chairman, at this point we call Pam Davis. And I believe earlier we had
circulated Mrs. Davis' appraisal report. I would ask at this point, Mrs. Davis, if you would briefly
summarize your background, education, knowledge and experience in appraising, and then a
summary of your work in this particular case.
Pam Davis: My name is Pam Davis. I am a state certified -
Pete Hallenbeck: Have you been sworn in?
Pam Davis: I have been sworn in, yes. I am a state certified residential real estate appraiser in
Orange County, have been for almost 30 years. My license number is A-76. There is now over
7,000 appraisers in the state, and I am number 76, so I have been doing this a long time. My
home base is Chapel Hill, Orange County. I'm not from Zebulon. I'm not from Goldsboro. I'm
from Chapel Hill. I've done thousands of appraisals here, and what I did was look specifically at
this property that is owned by the Cantwell and Weigman, which if you look at that diagram up
on the screen —where you see the blue area and you see the road to the left—their property is
immediately to the south. In fact the green line actually goes through a portion of their vacant
lot. They've got a vacant lot there immediately to the south and then their house in a 2 acre lot
a little bit further south. So, in order to address this and try to determine whether this solar farm
would affect their value, I did an estimate of their property value as it is —with the home and 2
acres - and then a separate evaluation of the vacant lot, which is also about 2 acres.
So, appraising the property as-is is a very simple task for me. That's what I've been
doing for 30 years. Appraising the property assuming that the solar farm already exists was a
little bit more difficult. So, to do that, I reviewed the site plan. I visited the White Cross property,
and I made a determination in my mind of how the view would change, which is essentially as
those pictures showed —the before and after -the current and the proposed. There is not a lot
of data out there about single family houses selling adjacent to solar farms since it's such a new
development. So, I looked at other adverse conditions, such as power lines, power transition
lines, busy highways, transformers, anything that could be a negative view. And having done
this for 30 years, I could — I was very comfortable in evaluating the affect.
In Chapel Hill, we seem to value our privacy, our views, our aesthetics, more than some
other areas of the state. Chapel Hill is not Burlington, where there is industrial and commercial
development everywhere. Chapel Hill is - prides itself on maintaining wooded areas, natural
areas. It is more valuable in Chapel Hill than anywhere else to maintain a beautiful view.
Buyers will pay a premium for lots or homes with views of golf courses, or lakes, or mountains,
or anything that's pretty to look at—a meadow. That view over there is very gorgeous. It's very
serene. It's very pretty. I estimated the value of their property with the 2 acres, their home,
which is about 2200 square feet, built in 1990, in its existing condition and its existing view, to
be $365,000. I then went back and re-evaluated, using some of the same and some different
comps to estimate what would that property be worth with the second view in the backyard,
taking away the value of that view. And I came up with $330,000. That is a 10 percent decline
in value for that particular property. I did the same thing with the lot, the vacant lot, and I
estimated the value of that lot with the view to be $95,000 as it currently is. I estimated the view
— I mean excuse me, the property with the solar farm view, as of the same day, to be $62,000.
That's roughly a 35 percent decline in value. That is a vacant lot. It's gonna—the external
obsolescence is going to impose a higher penalty on the vacant land than it does the total
property. And then I believe my support has been submitted, both before and after, for both
properties, and it was specific to the Cantwell's house. I didn't do an appraisal of any other
property—just that property.
David Rooks: Mrs. Davis, did you use the term external obsolescence?
Pam Davis: Yes.
David Rooks: And would you explain to the board what that means.
Pam Davis: External obsolescence is an effect on a value of a property from something
outside the property. Again, it could be anything. It could be - It could be anything. It could be
a highway. It could be a power line. It could be a sewer plant, noise, view. It creates a
negative impact on property value, but it isn't on the property itself. It's adjacent.
David Rooks: So that's a term used in the appraisal business for something external to the
property that has an impact on value.
Pam Davis: Yes.
David Rooks: Mrs. Davis, did you have occasion to form an opinion as to whether the use, as
proposed by the applicant - and you have heard their application, read their application and
heard their testimony tonight— Did you form an opinion as to whether the use as proposed, of
the adjacent property for a solar farm, would maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous
property that you appraised?
Pam Davis: I have.
David Rooks: And what is that opinion?
Pam Davis: As I stated on this particular property I thought it was a 10 percent negative effect
on the home with the 2 acres and a 35 percent effect on the vacant lot.
David Rooks: Is it your opinion that the use as proposed, if it were installed, would not
enhance or maintain the value of the contiguous property?
Pam Davis: It would not.
David Rooks: That's all I have. It is your witness.
Michael Fox: Thank you Mr. Rooks and Mrs. Davis. I'm Mike Fox, and I apologize for being in
your space her, but we're sharing one microphone. A few questions just about the basis of
your opinion; as I listened to your testimony, it appeared that there was really one factor here
that you viewed as an external obsolescence, and that was the view. Is that correct?
Pam Davis: Yes.
Michael Fox: So, you didn't consider noise, odor, anything like that?
Pam Davis: At this point I can't determine whether those will be factors or not, so I did not
account for those.
Michael Fox: So yours was solely based on your opinion that the view was a negative.
Pam Davis: Yes.
Michael Fox: Okay. You indicated that you had looked at the solar farm on White Cross Road.
Are you aware that that solar farm does not require any buffering or screening?
Pam Davis: It did have a fence, and it did have minimal landscaping.
Michael Fox: Right. Did you examine the landscaping plan for this project in the course of
your review?
Pam Davis: I examined what's up there on the screen, yes.
Michael Fox: So, did you take into account any of the landscaping that is planned and required
by this plan?
Pam Davis: Yes. But, as Mr. Cantwell stated, the property rises so it isn't going to be fully
blocked by trees and shrubs.
Michael Fox: Would it be your opinion that at the time that the trees are grown there would be
no negative impact?
Pam Davis: I can't answer that question. At the time the trees—Show me what the view
would look like, and I'll tell you whether I think it would.
Michael Fox: I'm actually really glad you brought that up. Did you look at any solar farms that
had screening?
Pam Davis: I only looked at White Cross. I only had a few days, a week to do this appraisal.
Michael Fox: Why did you not look at others that had screening?
Pam Davis: Where are they?
Michael Fox: Again, I get to answer the questions, and you are here testifying as an expert.
Would you not consider it within your job duty to try to find a similar solar farm?
Pam Davis: I did. I went to White Cross Road.
Michael Fox: But it's not the same because it doesn't have any screening, does it?
Pam Davis: It doesn't have the same screening, but that doesn't prohibit me from forming an
opinion.
Michael Fox: Did you make any effort to find any other solar farms?
Pam Davis: I looked at the one at Maple View on Dairyland Road.
Michael Fox: Okay, and does that have screening?
Pam Davis: No.
Michael Fox: Okay. Did you make any effort to find any solar farms that were completely
screened and buffered from the adjoining properties?
Pam Davis: Did I make any effort. I looked at what Orange County solar farms were. That's
the extent, so no.
Michael Fox: You are well aware that the best method for determining whether or not there is
any impact on a particular property is to find an identical situation and measure the impact,
correct?
Pam Davis: Yes.
Michael Fox: Did you attempt to do that?
Pam Davis: Yes. But as I stated, since solar farms are new, Chapel Hill —this area doesn't
have that data, and what happens in Zebulon and Goldsboro is not necessarily the same.
Michael Fox: Even if it's the only comparable that you can look at?
Pam Davis: Well I think a more relevant issue is looking at some other adverse effect on value.
Michael Fox: Would you not consider your appraisal incomplete if it didn't at least consider
sales beside an existing solar farm that was similar to the one that is being planned here?
Pam Davis: If I had those, I would.
Michael Fox: So, knowing what you know now, you feel like you appraisal is incomplete.
Pam Davis: No.
Michael Fox: I thought that's what you just said, that if you had those, you would have looked
at them.
Pam Davis: They don't exist in Orange County.
Michael Fox: No, you didn't say— My question was if you knew about those now, would you
consider them in your appraisal.
Pam Davis: If they were in Orange County, and they were relevant, yes.
Michael Fox: So if there was one in Chatham County you would consider that like it was on the
moon.
Pam Davis: No, I would consider the data and what it could show me.
Michael Fox: So are you aware now that there are numerous residential single family
properties that are located adjacent to existing solar farms that could have been analyzed to see
whether or not there was any negative impact on property?
Pam Davis: If you are talking statewide and nationwide, yes. If you are talking, Orange
County...
Michael Fox: But it's your opinion, you don't feel like it was necessary to look at those to come
to your opinion?
Pam Davis: No
Michael Fox: Are you aware that there is a large nationwide study of the impact of these wind
turbines and the impact on property values on homes within their view shed.
Pam Davis: I saw what was included in the preliminary submission about a wind farm study
that talked about values within a ten mile radius.
Michael Fox: Did you examine that study?
Pam Davis: I did, but that would be like saying does this solar farm impact the value in
Carrboro. Its ten miles away.
Michael Fox: So you think— it's your professional opinion that the only relevant comps are the
ones in the neighborhood.
Pam Davis: No, not the only relevant comps. But, a wind farm isn't a solar farm, and we don't
have wind farms. And a study with a ten mile radius can show anything.
Michael Fox: Well what you are assuming in your conclusion is that the solar farm is going to
be an adverse condition, a negative view, correct?
Pam Davis: Yes.
Michael Fox: Did you test that assumption at all on any other known solar farms and sales
next to it, or is that just an assumption on your part?
Pam Davis: It's an assumption on my part.
Michael Fox: I don't have any further questions.
David Rooks: Mrs. Davis, the assumption Mr. Fox says that you made, is that an assumption
based on your years of experience and knowledge of appraising in Orange County, North
Carolina.
Pam Davis: Yes.
David Rooks: That's all I have.
Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for interrupting, but I feel it necessary that I correct
some statements that have been made here this evening in error.
Pete Hallenbeck: Please do so.
Michael Harvey: The first is that the White Cross solar facility that keeps being referenced is
actually required to have a buffer. And as I reported to the Board a week and a half ago, based
on a question asked by Chairman Jacobs, they have been served with a notice of deficiency of
the required buffer, which is actually supposed to be 70 feet, to the same standard has not been
installed properly. They have not received final approval from the department, and they are
required to install more landscaping.
Mr. Nutter's facility on Dairyland Road was installed prior to there being any County
regulations with respect to the development of a solar facility and was approved as part of not
only his existing farm operation —which as you all know, we do not regulate farm activities — but
was also approved as part of a special use permit, previously issued by the department—
excuse me, by the board of adjustment to allow the operation of a camp retreat center on the
property, offering insight into how agricultural operations can not only be run, but adaptive re-
use for agricultural properties. And in that context, the solar panels were allowed to be erected.
Pete Hallenbeck: Thank you.
David Rooks: Mr. Chairman, at this point we call Mr. Bill Stafford. I'm going to ask - Mr.
Stafford is also an appraiser, and I'm going to ask him to briefly summarize his education,
training and experience in appraising.
Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, Mr. Stafford, have you been sworn?
Bill Stafford: Good evening. I have been sworn in. My name is William C. Stafford. Again, I
do not live in this area. I have lived in this area, but I live in New Bern, North Carolina. I am a
licensed general appraiser in the state of North Carolina and have been licensed since the
board was founded in 1991. I have been an appraiser for 37 years. I have done all sorts of
commercial, as well as some residential jobs in my earlier years. For the past essential six years
I have only done commercial work. And during this six year period, the bulk of my practice is in
two forms. One of those forms is that I am a professional review appraiser. I work for a
company out of Georgia, have worked for as many as two out of Georgia, and I do commercial
review work all over the United States. I do mainly— I am licensed in North Carolina, as well as
Tennessee and Georgia, and during this process of commercial review I have done as—
typically if you take out 48, 52 weeks a year, and you've got 2 weeks of holidays and 2 weeks of
vacation otherwise - I do somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 subdivision analysis reviews a
week. So you can do the math on that, and you're going to get just under a hundred a year. So
I've seen a lot of different projects, and basically my role as the review appraiser is to protect
the client—clients being financial institutions. The other part of my practice has been a litigation
practice, basically being called in to handle situations like this and condemnation cases and any
type of a case that might involve or necessitate some type of litigation. I do some fee work,
straight up appraising for banks, but probably no more than one case a month on average of
that type. So I've been at this for 37 years and feel very qualified to render an opinion.
David Rooks: Mr. Stafford, you arrived on the scene in this case, relatively late in the day. Is
that not correct?
Bill Stafford: Yes sir.
David Rooks: As in today.
Bill Stafford: This morning.
David Rooks: And if you would explain to the Board what it is you have done on you busy day.
Bill Stafford: Well first off, I was out of town over the weekend but received contact from one
of the homeowners. Spoke with her on Saturday morning. She gave me Mr. Rooks' number. I
spoke with him yesterday afternoon, somewhere around 3:30 and I was deluged with a various
amount of information. And so, concerning this project, the first thing I did today was to go by
Kinston, North Carolina, having grown up in Kinston, I was very familiar with that solar field
that's there.
David Rooks: Goldsboro.
Bill Stafford: Went by Kinston first. Then I went to Goldsboro second and spent a good
amount of time there. I have a friend that lives in that subdivision, real good friend, Mrs. Pam
Hammond. And so we spent— I spent some time in that subdivision today and then drove up to
meet with the property owners association, or concerned group and spent some time with them
while they toured me around the four contiguous properties and looked at those. So that's what
I have done today as far a physically taking a look at things.
David Rooks: If you would explain to the Board what you observed when you visited the
Kinston and particularly the Goldsboro sites.
Bill Stafford: Well the Kinston site that there is location of—to my knowledge hasn't— in a
report that I had been seen advantage of, didn't disclose any sales that came about afterwards.
But, I'm very familiar with that property. I know there's a lot of other issues that are around that
property, as well as manufactured home parks and other issues as well as the solar field that's
in that neighborhood. But I think—you know I was given a copy of—tonight, a little while ago,
and I don't see any mention of that; but that's one of the jobs that I did today was take a look at
that.
Then I went to Goldsboro. Getting to Goldsboro, I visited every lot that touched that
property. On none of those lots, and I took pictures but with time being on short I am not in a
position to produce those. I can produce them tomorrow. But I saw no pictures on those lots
that showed that farm. I'm going to say it again. I saw no pictures from those properties that
depicted seeing that solar farm. When I went around on the front side of it, over around which
would be the south and east side, it looked to be a very industrial makeup that bordered that
property on those areas. I haven't had time to check the zoning on that. I don't know if Mr.
Rooks has, but I have not.
Then today, again visiting the site, I was able to basically support the same pictures that
you are seeing there, and I won't expound on that.
David Rooks: So did you visit every lot in the subdivision adjacent to the solar farm in
Goldsboro that was the subject matter of the applicant's appraiser's testimony.
Bill Stafford: Yes sir, I did.
David Rooks: And from each of those lots that you visit, did you look out to see if you could
observe the solar field?
Bill Stafford: Yes sir, I did.
David Rooks: And were you able to see the solar field from any of the lots you visited today?
Bill Stafford: No, I was not.
David Rooks: Now based on your knowledge and experience as an appraiser, do you have an
opinion as to whether the solar farm, as proposed and if built, would maintain or enhance the
value of the contiguous properties on Cascade Drive.
Bill Stafford: In my opinion it goes into the discussion, which you have heard mainly a lot
about, of the external obsolescence factors that affect value which are outside the subject
property line, the subject being what we are really appraising or talking about. And I am of the
opinion that it would have a negative impact.
David Rooks: So is it your opinion that the solar farm, if approved according to the plans,
would not maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous properties?
Bill Stafford: It would not maintain or enhance the contiguous properties.
David Rooks: Are you prepared to prepare a written report if given the opportunity to do so?
Bill Stafford: Yes sir.
David Rooks: I tender him for cross.
Michael Fox: Mr. Stafford, my name is Mike Fox. We've got two microphones here, so we've
got a little space. I understand that you indicated you were only retained or I assumed you were
hired by a neighbor. Is that correct?
Bill Stafford: I was hired by the association, homeowners association, correct.
Michael Fox: Okay, and that just occurred today, so you've had limited time to delve into this.
Bill Stafford: That is correct.
Michael Fox: So you haven't had the opportunity to look at any actual sales beside an existing
solar farm to determine whether or not they have an impact.
Bill Stafford: I looked at the information that was provided to me, which had —which was
reflective of two sales at that time. The report that has been delivered tonight I believe has five
sales. I looked at those two sales, and then I still reviewed as part of my inspection every lot on
that road that was a residential lot that had a house on it going along that property line.
Michael Fox: Well do you disagree with the numbers that were in the report?
Bill Stafford: No sir, I don't disagree with the numbers.
Michael Fox: And those numbers indicate that there was no decrease in values.
Bill Stafford: Yes, but that report—that report that's being delivered depicts a different view
from what I heard in the testimony that I'm reporting.
Michael Fox: Well let me get you to look at a photo on page 8 of the report. Do you see that?
Bill Stafford: I do.
Michael Fox: And let me get you to look at the bottom picture, and for the Board's information
this is behind tab 6 in the appraisal, page 8 of the appraisal. Can you see the solar panels
through the trees there?
Bill Stafford: I could not depict that that is a solar panel at all. Keep in mind as well; today I'm
looking at it as of today's date. That's when I went was today.
Michael Fox: Okay.
Bill Stafford: So this is a situation here where the trees are with the leaves off.
Michael Fox: Correct, and the leaves are on today, correct?
Bill Stafford: Is it your opinion that if you can't see the solar farm, it has no impact?
Michael Fox: I think that is—that would be my opinion, that if you could not see it, it would not
have an impact.
Michael Fox: Okay. Alright, I don't have any further questions. Thank you.
David Rooks: Mr. Chairman, at the fact that he —On short notice we had to find Mr. Stafford,
and he is not able to have a report for you tonight, sort of begs the question as do we have an
opportunity at some point in the future to tender a report to you.
Pete Hallenbeck: I believe the answer to that is yes. We have a planning board meeting
coming up in June and we can — I believe we can take written testimony and comments at that
time. Is that correct?
James Bryan: If you are going to accept anything at a future date, you are going to have to
allow the opposing side to cross examine anything that is submitted. Anything like this should
be submitted with the actual appraiser there to testify about it.
David Rooks: Okay. At this point we will call mister—We want to try and deal with that
question at some point this evening.
James Bryan: We can deal with it...
David Rooks: I guess my question is this, I think we need another hearing, to do what I want
to do, which is to have him present his report, and to allow the applicant the opportunity to cross
examine. My judgment of what the law allows is there should be no further submissions after
tonight unless you continue and re-open the hearing for the purpose of receiving additional
submissions.
Pete Hallenbeck: I'd rather not get into a discussion with the attorneys; but I think my advice
stands that you can continue this if you want, but if you give an opportunity for one side to
present evidence, you have to allow the other side.
James Bryan: I think if the Commissioners agree, I think we should continue to get
information. You should continue to get that in writing, and it will be the decision of the Board of
County Commissioners as to whether or not to continue the hearing, and I'm sure that decision
will be based on what they have seen and heard tonight.
David Rooks: Alright. Thank you, sir. At this point, we call Mr. Bob Thomas.
Bob Thomas: Hello, I am Robert Thomas. I was sworn earlier today and I am a certified
residential real estate appraiser. I have been one for well over a decade. I was a training
appraiser for years before that and have lived in this area for about two decades. I have
appraised many homes in the Chapel Hill area. I have appraised many homes in the subject
subdivision, all kinds of homes. I am very familiar with it. I have friends who live there and I am
— I know the subdivision very well. The thing is that the point that's been made again is about
external obsolescence. What is something —there could be something that is aside from the
property, outside the boundaries of the property that have a negative impact. And in looking at
that question, which is the question here, you have to consider the particular thing you are
looking at. It is not— It's a truism in real estate that the three most important things in real
estate is location, location, location. And you can't just look at the general proposition, what's
the effect of a solar farm on any property. You have to look at the effect of a solar farm on a
particular property, and you can tell from looking out here that there are a lot of people who live
in this subdivision that don't like the idea. This is a well established subdivision. It was built
between the 1960s and the 1980s. It has all different kinds of properties. It has contemporaries.
It has ranches. It has colonials, but it also has 1 to 2 acre lots. It's very nicely located with
respect to Duke, with respect to UNC. It's right between the two of them. You can jump over to
Hillsborough. It has a very bucolic appearance, and that is what attracts these people to it—
bucolic appearance, convenience of location, and the fact that it has a kind of a community to it.
And it's this, this bucolic feel of the community that makes it as valuable as it is. It's um —
Anything that would detract from that would definitely negatively impact value. Now I have not
looked at the particular question of how a solar farm would impact value; but it is my opinion, as
well as the other two appraisers who are representing the homeowners, that it would have a
negative impact. I have addressed the questions many times in my career of something that is
antithetical to a house, to a particular property. I have dealt with properties that have been
large, built beside very small homes and what kind of effect does that have. What kind of effect
does it have when you are on a busy road versus a quiet road within the same neighborhood?
Sometimes it is as much as a 25 percent hit in value. Houses that have— houses that have
power lines, high tension power lines through the front yard - and that again depends on which
neighborhood you are talking about. You talk about say, Green Street over in Durham. It's in
Trinity Park. This is an older established neighborhood with vintage homes. People like living
there. But if you live on Green Street where the high tension wires go through the front yards of
people, you are talking about a 25 percent hit in value, as opposed to any place else in Trinity
Park except if you're on Gregson or Duke Street. It matters. If you took the same high tension
wires and you were putting them in a neighborhood that is not quite as desirable, it would be a 5
to 10 percent hit. It matters where you are. And in this neighborhood, which is - I can only think
of bucolic— if you are talking about something that is visible, then you are talking about
something that is going to matter. It's going to take a hit. It's going to be a big hit because it's
going to be against the character of the neighborhood.
Do you have any questions for me?
Michael Fox: Just briefly, Mr. Thomas, do I understand that you live in the neighborhood?
Bob Thomas: I live in Durham.
Michael Fox: Oh, okay. Were you hired to do an appraisal?
Bob Thomas: No, I was not hired to do an appraisal at this time. I have appraised maybe ten
properties in the subject subdivision over the years.
Michael Fox: Were you asked to be here by someone tonight, or did you just come on your
own?
Bob Thomas: I was contacted on Saturday by one of the homeowners.
Michael Fox: Okay, to come and speak against this?
Bob Thomas: I was to come and give my opinion as to the effect of what the solar farm would
be.
Michael Fox: And did you do a formal appraisal.
Bob Thomas: No.
Michael Fox: Why not?
Bob Thomas: I said that I didn't have any experience with solar farms, that in the time that was
allotted, that I would not be able to do that. It wouldn't make any sense, but, that I would
consider it in my opinion as an appraiser with decades of experience in the field, almost two
decades I should say. That it would be similar to other things that you see that are sort of
unusual, but that experience tells you will have a negative impact.
Michael Fox: So you didn't look at any comps beside actual solar farms.
Bob Thomas: No
Michael Fox: So you have an opinion, but you didn't test it.
Bob Thomas: The only thing that I could think of to test it against would be with solar farms
that would be in similar subdivisions, and I don't know of any of those.
Michael Fox: Did you look for any of those?
Bob Thomas: No, I did not.
Michael Fox: I don't have any further questions. Thank you.
David Rooks: At this time, we would call Mr. John Petranka.
John Petranka referred to the following items, as submitted to the clerk, in his testimony:
May 27, 2014
To the Planning Board and County Commissioners:
My name is John Petranka and my wife is Sally Gewalt. We have lived in the Falls of New
Hope Neighborhood on the corner of Falls Drive and Cascade Drive since 1991. We chose to
live in this neighborhood intentionally and specifically because it is located within the Rural
Buffer where we believed that thoughtful zoning regulations would work to preserve the rural
qualities of Orange County.
We are writing to express our strongest opposition to granting a Class A Special Use Permit for
the solar power development proposed to be built directly across the street from our home at
2531 Falls Drive. We think that a development of this size (ca. 20 acres of panels) is not in
harmony with the existing neighborhood and its surroundings. The fact that it is sited directly
adjacent to the gateway to our long-established neighborhood will cause us (and our neighbors)
to unjustly bear a large penalty in terms of noise, visual blight and reduced property values.
My general objections to the proposed development are:
1. A development of this size and industrial nature is inappropriate within the Rural Buffer, and
does not serve to promote the values for which the Buffer was established. In addition I question
whether this project is truly a public necessity, or whether it is more properly seen as an
investment opportunity for the developers to take advantage of before tax incentives expire.
2. Even if one argues that such a development could be appropriate within the Rural Buffer, the
siting of this proposed project is inappropriate, being directly adjacent to a long-established ca.
100 home neighborhood. More personally, it is within 75 feet or so from our property (and even
closer to some of our neighbors) and will almost certainly result in our and our neighbors'
property values decreasing.
3. The process thus far has been skewed heavily towards the applicants. From the date that the
certified letters from Orange County arrived on Saturday May 10, we have had only eleven
business days (Monday the 26th being Memorial Day) to digest the information in the
application, attempt to hire legal representation, and obtain appraisals and other credible
evidence with which to advocate against the project. Of course, this is in addition to trying to
balance work and family life. On the other hand, the applicants submitted the application in early
December, 2013 and have had ample opportunities to fine tune the application. They have had
an abundance of time as well as corporate-scale financial and human resources at their
disposal.
I respectfully request that you grant a continuance of the Public Hearing in order to give us a fair
and reasonable amount of time to gather credible opposing evidence. I urge you to give
particular consideration to the financial harm that will likely befall us and our neighbors if this
application as well as to the impacts of noise, visual blight/glare and general inappropriateness
of this proposed site. I also ask you to consider the two very important inadequacies in the
application that I discuss below.
In closing, I want to say that our objection is not necessarily to building solar plants in Orange
County. Appropriately sited solar plants can be an asset. However, the siting of this large-scale
development is not at all compatible with the area for which it is proposed.
Thank you very much for considering our concerns,
John Petranka and Sally Gewalt
Below I discuss two particular concerns about the proposed development. The first has to do
with whether the soil types and compaction study requirement of the UDO has been met for the
SUP submission, and the importance of requiring a geotechnical study before a possible SUP
approval. The second concerns what I believe is a seriously flawed noise impact projection
submitted by Binks, and my own assessment of the potential noise impact of the project.
I. Apparent Omission of Soils Report and Compaction Studies Required for an SUP
Application of This Nature.
In Section 5.9.6 C 1 of the Orange County UDO (page 5-79, of the UDO, revised
3/19/14), Submittal Requirements are listed for Solar Arrays— Public Utility Class A
Special Use Permit. There are four submittal requirements as stated here:
(C) Standards for Solar Array— Public Utility (Class A Special Use Permit)
. (1) Submittal Requirements In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the
following shall be submitted as part of the application:
. (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.
. (b) Plans and elevations for all proposed structures and arrays as well as descriptions of
the color and nature of all exterior materials.
. (c) Landscape Plan, at the same scale as the site plan, showing existing and proposed
trees, shrubs, ground cover and other landscape material
. (d) A soils report denoting the types of soil on the property including detail on the
compaction necessary to support the proposed development.
----------------
Requirement (d) appears to state in plain language that a soils report and soil
compaction study are required as a part of the SUP Application. Although I have been
told by Planning Staff that a soils map was submitted, I can find no such soils report or
soil compaction study anywhere in the Binks Application materials included in the
Hearing Agenda. There is, however, a Geotechnical Note on the Site Plan that states:
"A geotechnical report will be produced following SUP approval. Report will be a
subsurface exploration utilizing soil test borings performed with a drilling rig in
accordance with ASTM D 1586 utilizing hollow stem auger drilling."
The following is an e-mail communication regarding the soil test requirement sent from
Mr. Mallett of the Planning Staff to Cascade Drive resident Robert Cantwell (who
forwarded to me Mr. Mallett's comments). Mr. Mallett stated:
"Yes, a reporting of the soils is a required component. This section is meant to
ensure that applicants are not proposing to build on alluvial soils and soil types
consistent with environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands). The submitted plan
has limited the request to upland areas and avoided the environmentally sensitive
streams. They have also mapped out the soil types and environmental features on
the properties. Staff feels this meets the requirement below, but is by no means the
end point. The Geotech notes refer to the fact that they will do additional borings
prior to construction. The common practice for this type of project would be to bore in
areas that would have a potential for weight load (e.g. the service road to ensure
soils will support vehicles) and avoiding major subsurface rock features. "
----------------
I have scoured the SUP Application in the Hearing Agenda for any document that
provides a soils report or the soils map that Mr. Mallett mentions, but have not found it.
My concerns are these:
The SUP Application Submittal Requirements are clearly stated, and requirement (d)
seems to plainly require a soils report and compaction study be submitted with the
Application (not after the SUP has been approved, as Binks proposes). I have found no
instance of any documentation related to soils in the Binks Application, nor have I come
across any provision in the UDO stating that the soils and compaction studies are an
optional component of the submission or that they are required conditionally, depending
on the nature of the site that is being developed. If I have overlooked anything in the
SUP Application or UDO contrary to what I have stated above I apologize, and I will
stand corrected.
A full geotechnical report should be required for this project for the following reasons.
This development calls for a large-scale 20 acre, 5 megawatt power installation requiring
the erection of 18,354 solar panels in 966 strings. Based on the site plan drawings, the
panels will be held up by relatively small supports along their length. The structures will
be subject to wind shear, soil-soaking rains and other stresses, so a full assessment of
soil properties is critical in order for planning staff to fully understand the site's suitability.
The report could well reveal soil compaction characteristics, subsurface rock features at
a shallow depth (as I do on my property about 125 feet away from the project boundary)
or other unknown but important features that would affect the Planning Staff's opinions
and recommendations, as well as State regulatory agency approvals. In addition, the
property owners affected by this project would then have an opportunity to review and
comment on the soil test data.
I therefore request that the applicants be required to submit a full soil
geotechnical report before the SUP is considered, and that the Commissioners
grant a continuance of this Hearing until after the full geotechnical report has
been conducted and planning staff, State regulatory agencies and adjacent
property owners have had a chance to review and comment on it.
----------------
II. Flaws in the Binks Application Regarding Inverter Types, Inverter/Transformer
Locations, and the Subsequent Projected Noise Levels.
Summary.
• The inverter locations and inverter/transformer configurations depicted in the Binks aerial
diagram (p.12 of Meeting Agenda) are completely different from the inverter/transformer
locations and configurations depicted in the Binks Site Plan.
• The applicants' assessment of the project's noise impact due to the inverter/transformers
is entirely based on these incorrect inverter/transformer locations and configurations, and is
therefore likely invalid.
• The applicants' incorrect representation of the inverter locations, inverter types and
noise levels serves to favor their application and to underestimate the projected impact of
the development's noise on neighboring properties. Furthermore, the applicants have not
included any information on the type, location, and noise characteristics of the step-up
transformer(s) at the site, which may themselves produce considerable additional noise.
• In my own analysis below I estimate that the likely noise levels at the nearest property
line would be much higher than the Bink's assessment (47.54 dB compared to an estimate
of less than 38 dB by Binks), and that noise levels could ultimately be even higher once
step-up transformer noise is factored in.
• A noise level of 47.54 dB is over three times the current perceived ambient sound, and
the noise impact could be even greater after transformer noise levels are factored in. This
constant inverter/transformer drone would be an unacceptable intrusion on our privacy and
reasonable expectation of peace and quiet in this long-established neighborhood within the
Rural Buffer.
• The applicants' noise impact assessment is faulty as a result of using false
assumptions about the types, configurations and locations of the inverter/transformer
units. The applicants should be required to submit valid sound level testing data for
the actual inverter/transformer configurations that they have proposed to use and
then estimate noise impacts from their true locations as depicted in the site plan. We
therefore request that the Commissioners grant a continuance of this Hearing until
after a valid noise impact assessment has been conducted by the applicants and
Planning staff, and adjacent property owners have had a chance to review and
comment on it.
Details Regarding Binks' Faulty Noise Impact Assessment:
1. Supporting Documentation Submitted by the Applicants. In the "Binks Solar Project
Narrative" under the subheading "Noise" (p.11 of the Agenda document) the applicants state
that they will use Advanced Energy Solaron 500 inverters to convert DC power to AC. These
are 500 kW devices and nine of them are depicted as being scattered across the site in the
aerial diagram on p.12 of the Hearing Agenda documents. The applicants have drawn yellow
circles around each inverter location purporting to show a boundary beyond which noise levels
will not exceed 38 dB (i.e. beyond a distance of ca. 105 feet from the inverter). Based on this
aerial diagram, the shortest distance from an inverter to any neighboring property along
Cascade Drive measures approximately 201 feet (distance to the Cantwell/Wegman property,
Nunn Acres Subdivision, Lot 3).
In Attachment B of the Application, the applicants submitted the results of laboratory noise tests
of the Advanced Energy Solaron 500 inverter. In that report, the stated overall noise level for a
single Solaron 500 inverter is about 68 dB at 1 meter (= 3.28 feet). Importantly, no noise data
were submitted for the site's step-up transformer(s).
2. Why the Inverter Noise Data in the Application is Incorrect.
A. In contradiction to the aerial diagram showing nine inverter units scattered broadly across the
site, the Site Plan depicts three 1500 kW triple inverter "stations", each presumably consisting of
three 500 kW inverter units (and, also presumably, at least one step-up transformer). No noise
data were provided by the applicants for this type of triple inverter station configuration, and no
information was provided regarding noise from the step-up transformers that are associated with
them.
In the absence of information from Binks regarding the exact inverter/transformer configuration,
I made the assumption that each station comprises three Solaron 500 inverters (ignoring any
potential contribution of transformer noise) and estimated the combined noise produced by each
inverter station. The triple inverter station noise level can be estimated by summing the noise
from each inverter using the calculation shown in Appendix I. This calculation shows that almost
ten times as much sound pressure and twice as much perceived noise (77.54 dB vs. 68 dB at 1
meter) will be produced by a triple inverter station compared to a single inverter unit. 77.54 dB
may well be an underestimate of the total noise produced, since the applicants provided no data
on step-up transformer type, location or noise, which should be added to the inverter noise
figure.
B. The distance from the nearest triple inverter station to an adjacent property is much shorter
on the applicant's Site Plan versus what is depicted on their aerial diagram. The triple inverter
station closest to Cascade Drive on the Site Plan is approximately 104 feet from the
Petranka/Gewalt Property (#15 BI A Sec 1 Falls of New Hope Estates). This is in contrast to the
distances shown the aerial diagram, where the shortest distance from a single inverter to the
Cantwell/Wegman Property is ca. 201 feet. Since sound intensity increases exponentially with
decreasing distance to the source, these inaccuracies in distances in the Application are very
important.
3. What is the Combined Effect of Noisier Inverter Stations Being Sited Closer to
Adjacent Properties than is Depicted in the Binks Application? The closest triple inverter
station shown on the Site Plan is located across from the intersection of Falls Drive and
Cascade Drive. The distance from that inverter station to the closest property line
(Petranka/Gewalt) along Cascade Drive was estimated using the scale on the Site Plan. That
distance is approximately 104 feet. The following Table summarizes the noise levels expected
at the Petranka/Gewalt property line based on the revised noise calculations and triple inverter
distances contained in this document.
Distance (Feet) Distance (meters) Sound Level (dB)
3.28 1 77.54
6.56 2 71.54
13.12 4 65.54
26.25 8 59.54
52.49 16 53.54
104.99 32 47.54
209.97 64 41.54
419.95 128 35.54
839.90 256 29.54
Note that the noise level 104 feet from the inverter station at the Petranka/Gewalt property line
would be at least 47.54 dB. This is much higher than the figure that the applicants state in the
Binks Solar Project Narrative (p.11 of the Hearing Agenda): "The sound generated by the Binks
Solar project will be less than 38 dB(a) at any point along the property boundary...". Using the
site plan's actual triple inverter locations and the noise levels recalculated here, one would need
to be approximately 310 feet from a triple inverter station before reaching Binks' 38 dB threshold
(source: Estimating Sound levels With the Inverse Square Law; http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.qsu.edu/hbase/acoustic/isprob2.html ). Again, the noise added by a step-up transformer
was not included in the Binks analysis; including transformer noise would cause overall noise
levels to be even higher at nearby properties.
4. What are Current Noise levels at the Nearest Property Line? Sound levels at the
Petranka/Gewalt property line were estimated using the Sound Meter application on a Nexus 7
tablet on Monday May 26, at approximately 2:30 PM. Although we were not able to obtain a
calibrated sound meter on short notice, this tool should provide a reasonable estimate of
background sound levels. Readings were taken on the Petranka/Gewalt property line near the
corner of Cascade Drive and Falls Drive at a point nearest the proposed location of the
Cascade Drive inverter station. A photo of the location at which the measurements were made
and a close-up of the Sound Meter application reading are shown in Appendix II. The current
ambient sound readings were around 32 dB, with occasional spikes of up to ca. 40 dB that
correlated with nearby birdsong.
5. What Would the Perceived Noise Levels be at the Projected 47.5 dB versus the Current
32 dB Ambient Level? Noise levels at the Petranka/Gewalt property line would be
approximately 15.5 dB louder than the current rural background sounds. This equates to a
perceived tripling of sound levels (psycho-acoustic studies have determined that people
perceive a doubling in sound levels with each 10 dB increase in sound, so an additional 15 dB
would cause a tripling; Reference: Perceptual attributes of acoustic waves— Loudness,
http://acousticslab.orq/psychoacoustics/ ).
• Conclusion: The applicants' noise level data incorrectly states the locations, types and
combined noise levels of inverter/transformers at the Binks site. At the Petranka/Gewalt
property boundary there will be a continuous 47.5 dB or greater inverter drone during sunny
days that will be perceived as being at least three times louder than the current ambient
rural sounds. Since the applicants did not base their laboratory noise analysis on triple
inverter units and apparently did not factor in transformer noise, the noise levels could be
even higher at property lines bordering this development.
• The applicants' noise impact assessment is faulty as a result of using false
assumptions about the types, configurations and locations of the inverter/transformer
units. The applicants should be required to submit sound level testing data for the
actual inverter/transformer configurations that they have proposed to use and then
estimate noise impacts from their true locations as depicted in the site plan.
This noise impact will be a completely unacceptable intrusion on our privacy and our right to
peace and quiet in this long-established neighborhood. We urge the Planning Board and County
Commissioners to reject this project as being inappropriately sited, and also as inappropriate to
the ideals and policy goals for which the Rural Buffer was established.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this statement of some of the omissions,
inconsistencies, and inaccuracies in the Binks SUP application.
Respectfully Submitted,
May 27, 2014
John G. Petranka
2531 Falls Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
919-383-7855
919-667-6112 (cell)
john.petranka(a�qmail.com
Appendix I
Calculation of Noise Produced by a Group of Three Inverters. Assuming that each 1500
kW inverter group consists of three Advanced Energy Solaron 500 inverters, the noise level
generated by adding all three can be calculated as shown below (source: The Engineering
Toolbox: Adding Decibels. http://www.enqineerinqtoolbox.com/addinq-decibel-d 63.html )
The resulting sound pressure level when adding equal sound pressures is calculated by the
formula:
Lpt = Lps + 20 log (n), where:
Lpt = total sound pressure level (dB)
Lps = sound pressure level from each single source (= 68 dB at a distance of one meter for
each inverter in the group of three)
n = number of sources (= three 500 kW units per 1500 kW station)
Substituting: Lpt= 68 dB + 20 x log (3)
Lpt= 68 dB + 20 x (.47712) = 68dB + 9.54 dB
So, Lpt = 77.54 dB at 1 meter
Appendix II: Sound Level Measurements
Background Sound Averaging ca. 32 dB. Periodic increases are attributable to songs of
nearby birds.
Location of Sound Measurement. Corner of Cascade Dr. (to Sally's right) and Falls Dr.
(intersecting on the left). Proposed 20 acre development is property along Cascade Dr.
behind zoning sign.
John Petranka— My name is John Petranka, and I have been duly sworn. My wife and I have
lived in the Falls of New Hope Neighborhood for almost 23 years. We live at 2531 Falls Drive,
which is right on the corner of Falls and Cascade and directly across the street from the
proposed development. We chose to live in our neighborhood intentionally. We specifically
chose this area because it was located within the rural buffer, and we believed that the
thoughtful zoning regulations in the rural buffer would work to preserve the rural character of
Orange County. Tonight I want to express our strong opposition to a granting of a special use
permit for the proposed project. I have outlined our general reasoning for opposing the project
in a written statement that I submitted to staff earlier today; and since that statement overlaps
with much of what previous speakers have already said, I won't cover that ground again. I
would however like to address two specific deficiencies that I found in the applicant's submittal
that I believe are very important.
The first of these has to do with whether the soil types and compaction study
requirements of the UDO have been met for the SUP submission. In section 5.9.6 C 1 of the
UDO there are specific submittal requirements for solar arrays of this scale, that is utility scale
solar arrays. Part C 1 states that in addition to the information required by section 2.7 the
following shall be submitted as a part of the application. In submittal requirement D—there are
4 requirements listed — D reads as follows: "A soils report denoting the types of soil on the
property including detail on the compaction necessary to support the proposed development."
This language appears to be plain and straightforward that a soils report and a compaction
study are required for submittal. I have not been able to find any documents concerning soils in
the applicant submittal materials, although staff has told me—the planning staff has told me
there is a soil map of some sort. I don't know what detail that map contains because I haven't
see it. However, in the site plan for the development, the developers proposed to conduct a
geotechnical study after approval of the SUP. A full geotechnical report should be required prior
to consideration of approval of the SUP submission for the following reasons:
First, this development calls for a large-scale 20 acre, 5 megawatt power installation
requiring the erection of 18,354 solar panels in 966 strings. Based on the site plan drawings and
the information you saw tonight these are going to be held up by relatively small supports along
their length. The structures will be subject to wind shear, to soil-soaking rains and other
stresses, so a full assessment of soil properties is critical in order for planning staff to fully
understand the site's suitability. Such a report could well reveal soil compaction characteristics,
subsurface rock features at a shallow depth - and by the way, I have rock outcrops in my yard,
just a 100 or so feet away from the boundary - or other unknown but important features that
would affect the Planning Staff's opinions and recommendations, and also possibly the State
regulatory agency approvals. In addition, the property owners affected by this project would then
have an opportunity to review and comment on the soil report, which we have not had.
So I request, even though it may cost extra expense for the developers— may eat into
their profits ultimately a little bit— I request that the commission require submission of a full soil
test as required by the UDO before any decision is made on the SUP.
The second issue that I want to touch on has to do with the serious flaws in the Binks
noise impact assessment. I think these flaws invalidate this assessment. The applicants
initially based their impact assessment on two documents. Could I turn on the overhead? Does
someone know how to do that? So this is included in the application packet. In this view of the
site the applicants showed eight, 500 kilowatt inverters scattered across the site, none of which
are located particularly near to an adjacent property. The nearest one to a property along
Cascade Drive would be this on, which is 200 feet away. The applicants also submitted data
from an independent testing lab on the type of inverter that they propose to use—a Solaron —
anyway, it's a 500 kilowatt inverter from a particular company— In that testing, the lab said that
the noise produced by this inverter at 1 meter was 68 decibels. This is the data you heard
earlier tonight, I believe from Mr. Wallace. However, in the current— in the site plan the
locations are not scattered across the field as shown here, but rather are concentrated in 3
locations. So, this is the inverter transformer nearest to Cascade Drive, and there are 2 others
located here and here. I want to note that this is not a single inverter. This is a station
consisting —excuse me a 15 kilowatt station —wait let me think about that— 1500 kilowatt
station rather than a 500 kilowatt station. So it's 3 of these 68 decibel producing units together.
In addition, there is apparently a transformer associated with this, and transformers in
themselves produce noise. So it's really very difficult to determine the total noise that's going to
be produced from this unit, since we don't exactly know what the unit is comprised of. However,
I attempted to calculate the noise from 3 separate 68 decibel sources, which is apparently what
this includes without considering the additional noise that could be produced by a transformer.
So I found the formula to do this on the web, and there is actually a place where you can plug in
the numbers. I double checked the numbers by hand to make sure that they were correct, and
instead of 68 decibels for this unit, it produces 77.54 decibels. That does not include any
transformer noise. How much louder is 77.54 decibels? Well it's not a linear scale, so it's
roughly 10 times, a little less than 10 times the sound pressure and twice the perceived
loudness of 68 decibels. I then used the same methodology that the applicants used in their
proposal here, in which they estimated the noise at different distances from the source. And
you can see if you do it in meters it's a little bit easier because it's whole numbers, but a meter
is about 3.3 feet. That with each doubling of distance from the source, the sound level drops by
6 decibels, and you can see this goes down by 6 decibels with every doubling of distance from
the source. I then measured the distance from the inverter on Cascade Drive to my property
line and got a different figure from Mr. Wallace. Using the scale on the site plan, I determined
that the distance from the inverter on Cascade Drive to my property line was 104 feet
approximately, as best as I could determine using that method. At that distance the sound level
at my property line would be 47.54 decibels. So how loud is 47.54 decibels compared to the
ambient sound on my property? I didn't have time to get a calibrated sound meter, but I did
download an app that most people agree, at least online, is a fairly good and fairly accurate tool.
We went out to our side yard at the property line near the development. The development
would be on this side. This is Cascade Drive here. This is Falls coming in. That's my wife
holding the meter, and that's the sign for the hearing. And this is what I saw. I did this a couple
of times at different times of the day. We have about a 32 decibel background. I just want to
point out that these little blips that you see is birdsong. So how much difference is 32 decibels
from 47 decibels? Well it's 15 decibels and the perceived difference in sound levels is different
from the decibel number, but for every 10 decibels there is roughly a doubling in perceived
sound —the psycho acoustic sort of thing. So this means that the sound in my property
boundary will apparently go up by about 3 fold at the property line. So, what I submit to you
then is that the applicant's noise level data incorrectly states the locations and the types and the
combined noise levels of the inverter transformers at the Binks site. It also emits the contribution
of the step up transformer on the Cascade side; so we don't really know how much noise this
thing is going to produce.
At our property boundary there will be a continuous 47.5 decibel or greater inverter
drone during the sunny days that will be perceived as being at least 3 times louder than the
current ambient rural sounds. And since the applicants didn't base their laboratory noise
analysis on triple inverter units and apparently did not factor in transformer noise, the noise
levels could be even higher. I submit to you that the applicants' noise impact assessment is
faulty as a result of using false assumptions about the types, configurations and locations of the
inverter/transformer units; and that the applicants should be required to submit sound level
testing data for the actual that they are going to install at the site and have proposed to use and
then estimate the noise impacts from their true locations as depicted in the site plan. Thank
you.
David Rooks: I tender the witness.
Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness, but I would like to object to the portion
of his testimony related to the sound testing that he did. I didn't hear any evidence that he was
an expert or had any sort of experience in this. And as this Board knows, all the evidence that
you consider has to be competent testimony, and if you have an expert opinion it must be
rendered by someone who has been qualified as an expert.
David Rooks: At this point we call Jim Spainhour.
Jim Spainhour: My name is Jim Spainhour. I have been sworn in.
I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns. I moved to Chapel Hill in 1969 and
have lived in Orange County for 35 of the last 45 years. For the last 14 years, I have lived at
5502 Cascade Drive with my wife, Anne Oliver. Our home is on lot 1, which if you were to look
up here at this map and see where Cascade Drive starts to take a turn to the right and you get
the staggered part of the boundary on the —where the solar panels are—We have the first lot
there. We are bordered by 250 feet of ineadow with those panels, despite the fact that we only
have a half an acre lot. Yes, thank you. That's our location there.
I'd like to echo the sentiments that others have regarding the Special Use General
Standard that stipulates maintenance or enhancement of the value of contiguous properties. In
his appraisal report, Ms. Massey suggests the derived external depreciation of this particular
external obsolescence might be overcome by shielding it from view. Also, in their application,
Sunlight Partners endorsed Mr. Massey's conclusions by quoting him. Quote, "My professional
and expert opinion is that solar farms that will not be visible, will have no impact on the market
values of the surrounding properties. The solar farms with landscaping and natural buffers will
not create a negative externality for the surrounding properties as they will not be visible."
I have noted our property has 250 feet of frontage on 2 different sides of the meadow.
There is actually a sort of an entranceway to the meadow that's been used for years, right there
that's next to our property, so it actually swings around. I think we have the only situation that's
like that. Our house is also only about 50 feet from the property line. So it's very close. It's
only a half an acre. It's less than a half an acre lot. The orientations of views from the ground
floor are east from our kitchen and dining area and south from our living room. From our ground
floor, we currently enjoy expansive views of the meadow through large casement windows and
sliding glass doors. From our ground floor, even with best intentions, a densely planted, mature
green screen along an 8' chain-link-fence, because of the uphill slope—we have a slope also
that goes up the other side of the slope that Lydia and Bob have problems with — and we are
pretty sure we are going to be able to see the backsides of the panels from our side.
On the second floor of our home is our master bedroom. This is one of those unique
times, and I won't say this often to many people, but I'd love to have all 200 of you come to my
master bedroom. This window here is actually a sliding glass door. Can everyone hear me? It's
a sliding glass door. We have literally a 6 feet by 7 foot window from a 15 to 16 foot vantage
point out over this entire back side of the meadow—from here all the way back. We can see all
the way to the Kirkland Farm in the winter time. For 5 months out of the year, we would see
approximately 75 percent of all of those solar panels —8 feet— 15 feet—We'd be looking right
over it.
I also have a letter here from a person. I was having email exchanges with a gentleman
who was interested in buying my house. This started before I knew about the solar field
proposal, and it comes from Dr. Christopher Carr, who is a professor at Arizona State University
and is very interested in moving to Chapel Hill —wanted to move to Falls of New Hope. He
emailed several people in the neighborhood —wanted to know about our houses. He gave us
certain things that he needed. I emailed him back, and literally 6 hours after I emailed him back
was when the letter came in announcing. So the next day I said, Hey look, in the interest of full
disclosure, there is a solar farm that might be going in behind us. It is not written in stone at this
point in time, but it might go in behind us. And that was pretty much the end of our discussion
when he found out how large it was going to be. He submitted a letter actually, to the Orange
County planning department, not because I asked him to do this by the way. But, he seemed to
be concerned enough because that's the neighborhood he wants to move in, whether it's my
house or someone else's house. And I can read this for you if you would like, or I can skip to
this second paragraph: "To be direct, I will withdraw my efforts to purchase either of the two
homes or any other in Falls of New Hope Neighborhood if Orange County permits any part of
the meadow to be converted into a solar panel farm."
My wife and I are very much in favor of green energy. We really are, but we don't think
that you need to have windmill turbines right off of— right off of Wrightsville Beach. We don't
think that you need to have biodiesel fuel installations next to daycare centers and we don't
think that this solar installation needs to go in Falls of the New Hope. Thank you.
David Rooks: Any cross examination?
Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness, but I would object to the hearsay
testimony about the letter. As the Board knows in these types of hearings, you are only allowed
to consider sworn testimony under oath, and obviously the submission of a letter from someone
who wasn't here is hearsay and should be stricken.
David Rooks: And I would point out, it's hearsay only when it is asserted for the fact of the
matter, not when it'd being offered just to prove that it was stated.
Michael Fox: Well I think you are offering it to prove that—
David Rooks: That it was stated.
Michael Fox: We can argue about that one later.
David Rooks: And at this point we call Mr. Daniel Mattingly.
Daniel Mattingly: My name is Daniel Mattingly, and I have been sworn in. And, the clerk is in
the process of distributing copies of my statement that includes four photographs that I'll be
referring to.
Again, good evening, I am Daniel Mattingly. My wife, Mary Sue Cherney and I live at
5420 Cascade Drive, which is a contiguous property to the proposed solar array and public
utility station. I would like to speak to two concerns that we have about the project. One is in —
I'm going to need to address it in some detail and it's a little technical, and so that's why I
wanted you to have copies. There are about 9— or 7 points, and I'll get to that in just a second.
Before I launch into that, I just want to make it clear that we are very strong supporters of
alternative energy sources and green energy technologies. Our house is passive solar design. I
drive a Prius that gets 54 miles per gallon. We subscribe to the Duke Power manager, so they
turn off our air conditioner in times of high demand to save energy. And we belong to several
organizations that strive to support—to reduce greenhouse gases and other threats to the
environment. While we very strongly support solar energy as an energy source when they are
appropriately sited, we are very disturbed about this project because it would be built quite
literally on top of our property and our neighborhood. So,just basically, the first point is the
more technical one. The second one is—will be very brief.
So the first point is the issue of potential flooding on our lot. Because of the topography-
Is there a pointer? So, because of the topography—this is our lot here— lot number 2, and the
fence will be located less than 50 feet—well I'll give it, since it may not be exactly to scale— so
the minimum border of 50 feet from our property line. So if you look at the gradient lines on a
clearer copy of this map, which I assume everybody has, what you see is that there is a 9 foot
drop in elevation from the center of the field to our house, and so we get flooding. When it rains
very heavily we get some flooding on our property. After we moved in, the first time it happened
we actually had water in our crawl space and damage to the house and had to do a repair. We
also put in some drainage and barriers and so forth to control that, and since then, so far we still
get about 2 to 6 inches of standing water, but it doesn't cause any problems.
The problem that I'm concerned about with the field and the way that the array is laid out
— so if you look at those 7 points, first of all, the ground beneath each solar panel is not going to
get the same rainfall as the ground in between the panels. So it will be a relatively dry area.
The ground in between panels is going to get direct rainfall and the runoff from each panel, so
that will be a relatively wetter area. On a level surface that water would tend to seep in from the
wetter to the dryer areas and probably equalize. However, you'll notice that the panels are
going to be lined up facing so that the water in between the panels will tend to run downhill, and
so the slope of the field will cause the water in the wetter areas between the panels, instead of
seeping to the dryer areas, it is going to begin to flow downhill. And so we are going to get
increased water, and any increased water on our property is going to be a problem.
And so, the—also right now, as is pointed out in my written statement, the field is a
hayfield, and it is an excellent— it's like a sponge when it rains. So it absorbs a lot of water that
protects us from flooding. So, if the vegetation between the panels is not as effective at
absorbing the water, that's going to aggravate the problem, so we have a major concern. We
have been unable to find any data on this, presumably because solar arrays, as has been
pointed out, are not located in areas like this, on top of a residential neighborhood that has been
established, as has been pointed out, for over 50 years. So, I'm not going to—You can read it
in the statement there. Because of the concern about the flooding on our particular property, we
feel that it is certainly not going to meet any of the criteria in the UDO for a special use permit.
And the likelihood of flooding and damage to our property and home is not addressed in the
application, thus the applicant has failed to meet the requirements of the UDO. For this reason,
my wife and I urge you to deny the application. However, in the event that the application is not
denied, we— continuance of this process that would allow us to get an assessment from a storm
water management expert and to be able to estimate the risk, the degree of risk, the potential
for damage, the likelihood of that, and whatever may be involved in addressing that. And so
because we had 17 days notice, including 2 weekends and a holiday, we haven't had time to be
able to get this matter addressed.
And so, I do have a couple of questions for the Board members. One is who is going to
pay for this assessment. Two -Who would pay for whatever prevention measures would be
necessary for us to protect our property? Three -Who would pay for damages, should the
flooding occur? Whether you believe in climate change or not, it looks like storms are getting
worse, and even without that fact, the history of this area is Hurricane Fran. You know it is not a
maybe, it's an eventuality. And also, who would be responsible for paying for other unforeseen
damage and problems that might result from this project.
So that's my first point. The second point is —oh and also I just want to refer to the
photos. The first two photos that you have show the back of our house from the field, facing our
house, and if you look over to the right at the air conditioner— Oh, thank you. So, over here,
this is the area where the flooding occurs, and then the second photo is a closer shot of that
area. So you can see this here is where the flooding occurs. Over here is a drain that I put in
and some barriers to prevent the water from running into the crawl space. And this is where we
get the 2 to 6 inches of standing water.
So the second point that I want to make is about property value decline. And no I am
not an expert, so I am not an appraiser. But I do — I am a property owner, and I have some
common sense. At least I think I do. And so, according to the scale drawings on the
application, the chain link fence topped with barbed wire or razor wire that hasn't been
mentioned, but if you look at installations, they all have that, is going to be less than 50 feet from
our property boundary; and the nearest solar panel here would be 70 feet from our property line.
In his testimony as an expert witness regarding the impact of solar farms on adjacent property
values, which is attachment c of the application, Mr. David Massey states that the solar farms
with the proposed landscaping buffers and natural buffers will not create a negative externality
for the surrounding properties. And I —well - It's clear from the other two photos. The third
photo is the view from our house. Now Mr. Fox keeps repeating and asking questions to make
the point that, well, when these trees grow to 30 feet, are you going to be able to see the solar
array." Well if they grow to 30 feet, maybe not. However, I am 64 years old. I really seriously
question whether I am still going to be walking around on the planet when trees grow from 8 to
30 feet. In the meantime, this would all be solar panels, and the fence would be right here.
That's about 50 feet, and so you put an eight foot fence and eight foot trees, or evergreen trees
- That by the way if you notice on the drawing, they're spaced apart. So they are not grown
together, and then the second row of trees—The point being that from our house, on the
second story, which is what this view is, you will see over that fence, and you will see over those
trees until they grow to 30 feet. And so, until that time it is obviously an externality that has a
negative impact. I can't imagine what this is going to look like when it is covered with solar
panels. Even the prettiest views that the applicant showed today of all the shiny blue and green
grass and all that, compared to this; if that's what was out there when we looked at this
neighborhood 25 years ago, I wouldn't have bought this house.
So that's the view from the house. This is the view from the yard. You can see - if it's
not easy to see on this, it's a little easier on the photos you've got—that there is a porch swing
right here facing this. So, because you are at ground level now, what is going to dominate this
view right now is not so much the solar panels, but the 8 foot high chain link fence topped with
razor wire. Again, those 8 foot trees are going to be spaced far enough apart that we may not
see over them, but we are going to see between them. And again, until that vegetation grows
up to the level of the fence and the thickness to totally block the fence, we are going to see that
stuff, and it ain't going to be pretty.
I just want to conclude by saying thank you for the opportunity to address you on these
issues. And I also would like to respectfully plead with you to deny this special use permit. This
project does not belong in this neighborhood.
David Rooks: Mr. Fox
Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness.
David Rooks: Call Carol Boggs.
Carol Boggs: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am Carol Boggs, and I am speaking for
myself and in the role of substitute for the president of the Falls of New Hope Association. I am
the vice president. I have been duly sworn in, and I have been designated as the person to
deliver the statement from the Falls of New Hope.
The Falls of New Hope Association opposes the proposed solar energy project to be
located on Cascade Drive. We do not believe this proposal meets the condition for approval of
a Special Use Permit as delineated in Section 5.3.2 (A)(2).
Residents of Falls of New Hope, whether located next to the proposed power plan or
away from it, have numerous questions about the impact on our environment and safety,
questions that are not answered by the applicant's proposal. For that reason, we do not believe
the project will "maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare."
You are being given the statement, and you will see attached to it, a map of the
subdivision, and if you imagine that map, it is adjacent to what you see on the screen at the
front of the room.
Falls of New Hope resident also question whether, if it approved this application, the
County Board would meet the condition that the use will "maintain or enhance the value of
contiguous property." An appraisal being presented to you tonight indicates a negative impact
on property values for one homeowner in our neighborhood. Additional appraisals have been
arranged for by at least ten additional homeowners in the neighborhood, but were not able to be
completed due to the short notice given for this meeting. We do note that, based on the tax
assessments done by Orange County, land values for properties in our neighborhood are 10 to
140 percent higher than those in Hideaway Estates and Trinkus Manor, two similar
neighborhoods less than one mile away. The fact that Orange County has recognized that
people in our neighborhood have paid a premium for their property relative to that in very similar
nearby neighborhoods demands a close consideration of impacts of an industrial project like this
one. The location and character of this proposal are not in harmony with the area in which it is
to be located. The location is not surrounded by open, agricultural or natural land, nor is it
located in an industrial or commercial area. Instead, it is not just next to, but sited directly in one
of the most scenic rural residential neighborhoods in Orange County. This project will be the
closest structure to at least two of our neighbor's homes, closer than the houses are to one
another. All access to the project occurs through our neighborhood. Construction traffic,
consisting of the movement of heavy equipment for clearing land, and semi trailer trucks
delivering thousands of solar panels will occur on the road that every person in our
neighborhood must use to enter and leave the neighborhood. A road used not just for vehicular
traffic, but by bike riders and pedestrians who have moved to our neighborhood to enjoy its
surroundings and access to the Triangle Land Conservancy lands across the street. The quiet
natural environment is part of why we have all moved here and paid a premium for our property
and homes to do so.
We realize that you will not be voting on this proposal tonight, but hope that when you do
vote, you will reject it. There is a clear consensus in our neighborhood that this proposal should
not be implemented.
That is the first of my comments. My personal comments—The Falls of New Hope
subdivision has existed for nearly 50 years. We first came upon it in 1971 when seeking rural
Orange County property to build a home. Driving toward the New Hope Creek on Mount Sinai
Road, I spotted Joe's (Joseph F. Matthews, Jr.) sign. Later that day my husband and I met him
there and chiefly because he emphasized his intention to maintain the rural character of the
community and the individuality of the homes as they were contracted and built, we bought land
on the creek. Joe explained plans for the 9 acre "Gardens of the Falls" lying along a bend in the
creek just above a natural dam and cascade. Joe wouldn't have called himself a naturalist, but
he loved the creek and the quiet rural spaces and the trees and plants that grew there. He
expressed that when naming the streets in the community, for example; Falls and Cascade
Drives; as well as Caprea Court (goat willow or pussy willow Cedronella (Cedronella
canariensis), Celastrus (Celastrus paniculatus) and Charlock, the wild field mustard that grows
gold in the meadow along Cascade.
As long as he lived, he worked to maintain and expand our park, creating paths
bordered by azaleas, camellias, and day lilies. He placed a swing and picnic tables beside the
creek for community meetings there. In the beginning, he employed the youngsters in the
community to help create winding trails and plant bushes. Years ago our sons worked with him
on Saturdays to build those paths and plantings, and both boys grew to love the place as much
as we do.
We plan to live here until they carry us away, and our estate planning includes the boys
living in our house again if they want to. We are not the only retirees planning to remain here
forever, relying on the neighborhood to maintain its unique character far into the future. It's
important for both personal and economic reasons.
Today the nine acre park is still owned and enjoyed by the association members, as
designated in Joe's will. He had no wish to commercialize the park area and specified that if we
failed to maintain it we would lose it. He strongly emphasized that the rural nature of the
neighborhood be respected, and today's residents continue to participate in workdays and
association business meetings in the spring and the fall to follow his plans.
So when I learned of plans for a solar power plan for the meadow beside Cascade Drive,
I referred to Google images, entering solar farm and solar array and similar terms. As I scrolled
through them, the first one hundred, then two hundred and more images, it became glaringly
apparent that none of them - not one -was in a residential community. There must be a reason
for that.
I've learned that European countries place solar collectors on every roof or flat surface,
using available structures to preserve the green spaces. Friends visiting Germany confirm that.
While being first can be a good thing, however, being the first residential community in
the County to suffer a solar power plant intruding among its homes is definitely not one of those
things. Let's put solar collectors atop the shopping centers, the parking lots, businesses,
hospitals, big box stores and factories where they fit best. If Germany can do it, we can too.
An article in the "News of Orange" on Friday, December 13, 2013 included comments by
some of the County Commissioners in support of enhancing open land in the rural buffer to
make agricultural land more profitable for farmers, using examples such as an ice cream store
placed in the middle of a dairy farm, and a saw mill, a small family thing, but both farther than 40
feet from homes. Perhaps this meadow is right for something more suitable for a mixed
residential agricultural setting. A power plant occupying 20 acres is neither small nor supportive
of the land or the residents it intrudes upon.
Finally, my conclusion must be that despite any potential value of solar energy, this is
simply not the place for a power plant.
David Rooks: Mr. Fox, any questions?
Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for Mrs. Boggs.
David Rooks: Carol Blackmore.
Carol Blackmore: I have been duly sworn in. I am a resident of the Falls of New Hope
Neighborhood. I am opposed to the special use permit under consideration today.
In regard to this Special Use Permit, I am concerned that the Orange County Planning
Department does not follow its own comprehensive plan objective AE-15 recommendations
which aim to "foster participation and incentives for solar generation in residential or commercial
construction." This goal is not met by this application and should not be cited as a reason to
accept it.
This proposal is for an industrial scale for profit commercial utility that does not belong in
an agricultural field in a rural buffer zone along the perimeter of an established residential
neighborhood. The applicants own attachment A, Clean Energy Results/Ground Mounted
So/ar Photovoltaic Systems, published by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources,
Environmental Protection and Clean Energy Center "encourages designating solar installation
locations in industrial and commercial districts or on disturbed land." The Massachusetts DOER
also strongly discourages designating locations that require significant tree cutting, because of
the important water management, cooling, and climate benefits trees have. This project would
cut five acres of trees. Please follow these guidelines and deny this application.
Orange County Planning Department review of this application also cites "compliance"
with a comprehensive plan objective of"sustainable use of a non-polluting renewable energy
resource." However, this project has nothing to do with how the energy produced would be
used and should not be described as if it did.
The cited DOER report states that it works to "ensure that solar PC and other clean
energy technologies are sited in a way that minimizes impacts on scenic, natural, and historic
areas." A memo from Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and
Recreation dated February 10, 2013 to the Orange County Planning Department says "The site
plan as now presented appears to locate the majority of the solar panels and the north end of
the property, thereby preserving the open fields and rural character visible from Mount Sinai
Road. The project appears to be consistent with the historic preservation goals in the Orange
County Comprehensive Plan Goal, which is preservation of historical, cultural, architectural, and
archeological resources and their associated landscapes." However, this proposed project does
not even abut Mount Sinai Road. It is almost a half a mile from Mount Sinai Road. Instead, this
project devastates the eastern side of Cascade Drive, which is also a public road. There is no
mention of this effect on Cascade Drive anywhere in this memo or anywhere in the planning
department assessment.
For all of the above stated reasons, I respectfully request that this application be denied.
David Rooks: Any questions, Mr. Fox?
Michael Fox: No questions for this witness.
David Rooks: I'm going to call Ann Oliver.
Ann Oliver provided a disk with the information mentioned below, and it is included in public
record by reference.
Ann Oliver: Hello, my name is Ann Oliver, and I have been sworn. I am Ann Oliver, and I live
with my husband, Jim Spainhour at 5502 Cascade Drive, and I have been asked by my
neighbors to provide to you some studies, reports and other documents I believe are relevant
and will assist in your consideration of the permit application for a solar power plant that will be
proposed for our backyard. And I could read to you this list. I think you are all gonna get it.
Maybe save some time— I'll just sort of go through what they are. I had noticed —and this was
all I could find online about this project, and I noticed that they used some kind of
Massachusetts study and a lot of links to some reports. And I decided I might do my own
research and find some reports that might help you all. And these sort of cover some of our
concerns.
There is a report about heat island effects from some scientists from Columbia
University. There is a report that just came out recently in April of this year by the National Fish
and Wildlife forensics laboratory about avian mortality at solar plant farms. Two of the things I
have included are some tax records from Clay County where they reduced the property taxes of
properties that adjoin solar plants by as much as 20 to 40 percent. I have also included the
Clay County solar farm ordinance, which in the ordinance itself it says they recognize that these
things reduce the value of properties that abut them, and they also recognize that there are
health issues. I have also included a study by Dr. Tolley from the University of Colorado, and it
has to do with property values, land use and revenues for similar types of facilities, and this one
I found really important because it sort of— He talks about the fact that when you put a facility
like this in a community when it's not consistent with what's already there, it just starts bringing it
down. It becomes like a sort of blight on the neighborhood. It sort of- people lose the incentive
to keep their property up and the whole thing becomes a downward spiral. So, I really
recommend that you look at that.
One of the things that I am most concerned about, I think Jim talked about it already,
that we live on lot 1 right here. And actually this little dot is slightly bigger than our own home,
but I did that for the purpose that you all could see. It's a Google map that it appears that they
use. But one thing that I noticed — I just—when I think about how many of those little dots I
could fit into this whole area, it just sort of put it into perspective how big this facility is gonna be.
And then the other thing that I'm really concerned about— I want to get back to this thing — is
that the orientation of these solar panels, from what I've understood and what I can tell, is that
the east west orientation could present a very serious glare problem for us. And we are facing
due east. The sun will rise every day directly across from our bedroom window. I don't care
how many trees and plants they are gonna put here. I don't think I'll be living there long enough
for them to block that view, and I don't know how tall they would have to get. We're pretty high
up, and I just— I'm concerned that we're gonna have a glare issue from the time the sun rises till
the time the sun sets.
I've included some glare studies. I know that the ones that are in here have to do with
glare at airports for pilots, but we're on the ground. So, I've included some studies about the
risk for people that are on the ground and looking at these panels. I've also included a report
from Adam Lovelady from the UNC School of Government that's called Planning and Zoning for
So/ar in North Carolina, and it's a great report. I recommend that you all take a look at that. It
covers a lot of the issues that we've brought up tonight and how to address them. There is
another report about glare. Let's see, I found another report. This is very interesting. It's a law
review article from Boston College, and it's The Environmental Implications of Emerging Energy
Technology's Photovoltaic So/ar Cells in a Study of Toxic Aspects. This is a fairly old report, but
it's very telling about what could happen if you install one of these. And then the last is World
Health Organization Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise.
Any questions? No, I'm not an expert.
Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness, but I would object to all the portions of
her testimony except for her personal testimony about what she will see from her home on the
basis that all of this is —all the documents that you've been handed presumably, the links on the
disks are hearsay, and there is no one here to testify about them, and also as to their relevance
for some of them.
David Rooks: Barry Katz
Barry Katz: It's a very cold room. I've been shivering over there for the last God knows how
long. I'll try to heat this up a little bit.
Okay, my name is Barry Katz and I am here to talk about whether the proposal before
you would be in harmony with the land and adjacent properties. As part of my education, I
receive a Masters degree in Botany in 1974, and a Doctoral degree in Botany in 1979, both from
UNC Chapel Hill. As you might expect, I received a great deal of training on plants and what is
called plant community ecology. The research and my professional career were focused on a
specialized are in plant community ecology and had me working on plant communities in North
Carolina and around the world. Furthermore, I have slaved away at gardening in Orange
County for most of the last 44 years, and I am sure many of you can relate to that.
The site of the proposed solar array is a working farm field and appears as rolling
meadowland. It is surrounded by Hickory, Oak, Maple, and Tulip poplar trees of respectable
age, that to most of you would be characterized as beautiful and serene.
The proposal before you would introduce approximately 18,000 solar panels over
approximately 20 acres and surround it with an 8 foot high chain link security fence topped with
barbed wire. They are all topped with barbed wire and/or razor wire.
So, how does the applicant propose to mitigate this industrial ugliness? The applicant
proposes vegetation screening around the facility. So this 8 foot chain link fence is only going to
mask a fraction, a small fraction of the solar array from any southward aspect of this proposed
project. The primary purpose of the vegetation plan that has been suggested is to hide the ugly
security fence, which if left unprotected would clearly not be in harmony with the existing setting.
Their vegetation screening plan consists of three rows of evergreen nursery plants
evenly spaced in row of progressive height. Now if I were driving past an industrial park I would
expect to see such an arrangement of plants, which is so linear and tedious that I would not
spend a millisecond looking at it. So picture these rows of identical trees, shrubs and
groundcover going on repetitively for hundreds of feet with solar panels peeking out above,
surrounded by rolling meadow and mature hardwood trees. Does this meet the criterion of
harmony with surrounding land?
Now for a reality check. That industrial park, which would have this kind of screening
vegetation, works very hard to maintain those evergreen trees and shrubs hiding their security
fence. They have an irrigation system to keep the plants alive and a grounds crew to do
moving, week and pest control and prune to keep up appearances. That's what it takes to
maintain even an unnatural industrial fa�ade.
When we spoke on the phone to Keith Colson, who is head of the operations for
Sunlight, and the boss of these people, I asked him what they were going to do for the plants
around the security fence. I asked if they planned to water the newly planted trees and shrubs.
No. They have no capacity at all to water in even the freshly planted shrubs and trees. They
have no maintenance crew to regularly mow and control weeds and pests. All they have is a
site plan with a diagram of screening plants, and they are relying on your imagination to fill in
the glorious and lush vegetation you would hope would block the vast industrial ugliness that will
occur without the considerable work and expense to maintain even an industrial planting.
I expect these professional developers will reassure you that they have a plan in place
and ask you to trust them. But actually it's the rosy suggestion of healthy plants that will
someday grow to 30 feet which is the most speculative part of everything you heard tonight.
Mr. Colson indicated that Sunlight's previous work was in California, presumably in
desert and chaparral habitats where screening in non residential settings would be impossible
and unnecessary. What do they know about growing plants in North Carolina? Do they know
that typically three out every five years Orange County experiences a drought during some of
the growing season? Have they factored in the effort and expense of maintaining even an
industrial fa�ade? Is such a plan in their presentation? Where is the essential irrigation
system? Do you think they have demonstrated a weight of consideration about the actual
appearance of this project except as it might affect their projected bottom line? Mr. Colson
acknowledged they don't even own a hose.
When Mimi Cherney and Daniel Mattingly, whose house is 25 feet from the field, look
out from their house they see a field and a backdrop of tall trees. If the project is built, they will
see shabby plants, dead plants, honeysuckle, poison ivy and a security fence. Commissioners,
please look Daniel and Mimi in the eye and tell them that the harmony they now experience will
not change. Tell them their property values will not suffer from this ugliness.
When it comes to whether this project meets the harmony standard, take a sober look at
what is offered. This proposal utterly fails your standard. If, as the applicant has asserted,
there are really no actual comparables regarding the economic effect of this project on proximal
residences, why would you want to let a neighborhood of approximately 90 homes with a
composite value in excess of 30 million dollars be the guinea pigs and risk it gaining the
reputation as that neighborhood next to this massive piece of ugliness under consideration
tonight. I urge you to reject this project.
Do you have any questions for me?
Michael Fox: I didn't, and I have actually decided I do. Are you aware that the ordinance here
in Orange County requires the landscaping buffer to be maintained?
Barry Katz: I do. I understand that, but if you put in plants and you don't water them around
here, they die.
Michael Fox: Are you aware that the planning department can enforce the maintenance of the
buffer?
Barry Katz: Maintaining a buffer requires irrigation. If you have absolutely no evidence that
you intend to put in any kind of watering system to maintain these plants, these plants will die,
and you will be re-planting plants that will never get higher than 8 feet tall. There are no 30 foot
trees in this.
Michael Fox: That's all the questions I have.
David Rooks: Belinda Novik
Belinda Novik: I appreciate the opportunity for this hearing, and thank you to the
Commissioners and planning board members, citizens and guests.
My name is Belinda Novik. I have been sworn in. I live at 5801 Cascade Drive, directly
on the blind curve of the street. I can point to it, or blind myself, take your choice. Anyway, I
live on the blind curve of the street. I also walk for two hours a day in our neighborhood and I
know our streets and our neighbors extremely well. The uniform development ordinance
speaks to the necessity of the health, safety and general welfare of citizens for any proposed
project requiring a special use permit. There are significant dangers inherent in this proposal
which have not been addressed and that I would like to clarify.
My qualifications for speaking about health and safety include an MD, a PhD in
psychology and a post-doctoral master's degree in clinical psychopharmacology. I've served
more than 35 years as a clinician and educator. I currently train educators at Duke University
Medical School, and since my clinical retirement, also volunteer at Lincoln Community Center in
Durham. Health care is my field of expertise.
I believe there are three important points that the application fails to address, and that
the planning staff and the applicant may have failed to consider. The first one is the health
impact of heavy construction traffic on Cascade Drive. Thankfully, we do not have a long
document of accident reports on our small street. We all share the road for driving, walking,
biking. There are no sidewalks. We walk on the road because the grassy shoulders are risky,
home to copperheads, ticks and poison ivy. Cascade Drive is a narrow, rural residential road.
The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour, which is too fast. Cascade Drive, between Mount
Sinai Road and Falls Drive has a blind curve. You can see the road curving there on the left
side of the map. Each lane of the road is 8 feet 4 inches wide. From my driveway on that blind
curve, to see a vehicle approaching from the top, one has less than 2.65 seconds to get out of
the way. This is assuming that the oncoming vehicle driver sees you, is not distracted, and can
slow or stop if necessary. If the oncoming vehicle is going faster or carrying a heavy load that's
hard to slow or stop, or is otherwise preoccupied, this neighborhood road becomes a potential
death trap. Now one might argue that school buses and delivery trucks safely use the road, and
that's true. But a school bus routinely carries children in and out of residential neighborhoods
once a day at predictable times. One busload of children a day, or a delivery truck making its
rounds is orders of magnitude different than 3 months of near constant heavy construction traffic
with their loads on a road which also serves as our sidewalk.
The proposed use of Cascade Drive as a construction access point is also dangerous for
other reasons. Our neighbors on streets connecting to Cascade have raised concerns about
construction vehicles causing road blocks. Remembering that there is no other ingress or
egress to the neighborhood, heavy construction vehicles pose dangers to those who might need
to enter or exit in a timely fashion. Within the last year, a trailer with one resident's heavy load
got stuck on my driveway on that blind curve blocking the road. A handicap neighbor needing
dialysis had to be carried by a good Samaritan from one vehicle on one side of the blockage to
a waiting vehicle on the other. If there were a house fire, or a lightning strike, or a fire in the
solar array, and the egress was blocked, the entire neighborhood could be endangered. If there
were an emergency again and construction vehicles were causing delay or blocking the road,
there is simply no other way out.
Falls of New Hope is a residential neighborhood, and logic would dictate that it remain
so. Everyone on the eastern side of the New Hope Creek in Falls of New Hop must use
Cascade Drive for all of our activities. There is no other way for us. But there are other, safer
roads for construction vehicles to access which cause less disruption and eliminate the very
dangerous conditions for cars and the constant stream of pedestrians that depend on Cascade
Drive for their physical and emotional health.
This brings me to the second health issue, which is more hidden but no less important.
Besides the danger inherent in any construction project, especially one of this size, there are
important health issues to consider. As a medical psychologist, I have to speak up for those
whose voices go unheard. Our homeowners have sought solace in a quiet part of the country
amongst fields, trees and the New Hope Creek. We are veterans and firemen, teachers,
scholars, public servants, doctors, nurses and PA's. We are business owners, parents, and
retirees. Due to confidentiality and respect for the privacy of personal medical information told
to me, I won't reveal names, but I do have permission to use the following data with identities
protected.
In just two weeks, since this notice of this hearing was posted, symptoms of dangerous
levels of stress are in evidence. Homeowners have reported to me problems with insomnia,
anxiety, and PTSD, which are normal reactions to a perceived threat. There are two residents
who have confided in me that for the first time in their lives, they have asked for help from their
doctors to manage the symptoms of this stress with prescribed medications. Additionally, there
are reports of increased irritability, marital tension, muscle aches, fatigue and distractibility.
There are problems with appetite and high blood pressure made worse by this stress.
Depressive symptoms of hopelessness and helplessness have been reported to me. This is
understandable when one considers the invasion of privacy, prolonged and constant
construction noise, the mess and commotion, and many unwanted strangers in view all day
long during the months of construction. Homeowners have also told me about their fears of the
unknown, specifically the impact of another hurricane on this site, or a tornado. Falls of New
Hope was hit hard by Hurricane Fran, and our residents have concerns about panels of glass
and metal objects becoming dangerous projectiles. These are sensible concerns, and function
as significant stressors already causing harm to our citizens.
Aside from my own reports, we have letters from the resident's doctors documenting the
harm that could come from these stressors and urge you to consider how this proposal violates
the standards of health and safety when considering these less visible, but no less important
mental health and emotional factors.
My third point involves the proposed large fences which have ironic and contradictory
purposes. They are supposed to act as a pleasant screen with plantings, and also as a
formidable security barrier with posted signs saying KEEP OUT, DANGER, HIGH VOLTAGE.
Most of the community has been here for many years. Over 35 years, I've built two
houses in the Falls of New Hope as my family expanded. This project will change the nature of
the main intersection at Cascade and Falls Drive from rural residential to industrial utility. We
will be greeted by a locked security gate and prominent warning signs. The applicant might
argue that these signs and fence are there to protect us and their facility. However, the security
fences communicate that we are unwelcome intruders in our own neighborhood. I ask you,
should residents of their own established community have to feel like intruders in their own
homes and streets? The 8 foot high security fence connotes a prison camp, not a
neighborhood.
It's my professional opinion that the County will be harming its citizens if it allows this
array in this residential neighborhood. Falls of New Hope was hit hard by Hurricane Fran. No
one voted for that disaster. Unlike Hurricane Fran, this is a disaster that you can stop.
Thank you for your attention.
David Rupp: Questions?
Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness.
David Rupp: Thank you. Sharon Ryan.
Sharon Ryan: Commissioner Jacobs, Orange County Commissioners, Mr. Hallenbeck, Orange
County Planning Board, thank you for allowing me to address you this evening.
My name is Sharon Ryan. I live at 5701 Cascade Drive in Falls of New Hope. I would
like to give a brief introduction, address two points, and make my conclusion.
I have lived in Durham and Chapel Hill since 1970. I have rented or bought eight
different houses during that period of time. Falls of New Hope is by far my favorite area that I
have lived.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I grew up on a farm in Connecticut, I have been interested
in environmental issues for more than twenty years, and I was the first Chapel Hill
representative for the solar company called Citizenre.
According to the online research I performed and from speaking with local planning
departments, there are seven existing solar utilities in Orange, Durham, Wake and Chatham
Counties, six built by Strata Solar in Chapel Hill and one built by FLS Energy based in Asheville.
There are two solar utilities in Orange, two in Durham, one in Wake and two in Chatham. And I
have material that displays this.
All seven of these commercial solar utilities are located in rural areas. None of them are
adjoining a subdivision, pre-existing or newly constructed, and in fact none of them are even
adjoining individual houses. I am submitting aerial photographs of these seven solar utilities for
your review.
The only other solar utility that Sunlight Partners, who is requesting this special use
permit today, is proposing in the Triangle is in a rural area off Red Mill Road in Northern Durham
County near Falls Lake. There are no houses nearby.
The second point I would like to address is 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) the section of the Orange
County unified development ordinance that relates to the granting of special use permits: "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."
I would like to examine that standard. From the evidence I presented a few moments
ago, it is clear that siting a commercial solar utility directly adjoining a 50 year old subdivision
will be a first for Triangle jurisdictions. Given that fact, I would hope that the Orange County
Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board will proceed slowly and cautiously in
this matter with due reflection.
Common wisdom holds that a picture is worth a thousand words. I believe that no
number of photographs could adequately convey the character of Falls of New Hope, a fifty year
old subdivision that backs up to New Hope Creek and is located across the street from the
Triangle land Conservancy's Johnston Mill Preserve. I would suggest that the County
Commissioners and the Planning Board cannot make a fully informed decision in this matter
without first visiting Cascade Drive in Falls of New Hope. I would posit that "the character of the
area in question" cannot be correctly ascertained without first visiting Cascade Drive in Falls of
New Hope and that therefore the Board and the Commissioners cannot intelligently determine
whether or not the proposed solar utility will be in harmony with the surrounding area without
first visiting the area.
I would further suggest that the Board and the County Commissioners should also visit the
existing solar utility at White Cross off of Highway 54 in Chapel Hill to see what a commercial
solar utility looks like up close and that perhaps they should visit that solar utility before they visit
Falls of New Hope.
Finally, given the fact that this solar utility, if approved, will be the first commercial solar
utility located adjacent to any existing subdivision in the Triangle, I would suggest that the
Orange County Commissioners and the Orange Planning Board must, in order to do due
diligence and carry out the obligation and trust of their positions, visit the solar farm at White
Cross and Cascade Drive in Falls of New Hope.
This will be a first. None of us, I am certain, including Sunlight Partners, want it to be the
last. As to the specifics of the site visits, whether the Commissioners and the planning board
visit singly in small groups or a quorum with or without a stenographer present and with or
without communication with residents of Cascade Drive while they are there, I leave that
decision to the Commissioners, the Chair of the commission, the planning board, the Chair of
the Board and the County attorney. During the past week I have heard from certain County
officials directly and indirectly that it would be inappropriate for Board members and County
Commissioners to visit Falls of New Hope. I maintain in this case, and for the aforementioned
reasons, it would be irresponsible for them not to visit Falls of New Hope.
In closing, I would like to quote from an article by John Downey, senior staff writer in the
March 29, 2013 edition of the Charlotte Business Journal, which I submitted to you now for your
consideration and also for the record: "Arizona based Sunlight Partners is in a rush to get into
North Carolina's solar market. In the last two months it has applied for 19 proposed solar
projects, all 5 megawatts or smaller. Added to half a dozen or so projects the company had
already proposed in the state, it shows how ready Sunlight is to jump in with both feet. Keith
Colson, Sunlight's Director of Development for the eastern United States, admits it's a
scattergun strategy. `We will lose quite a few of those,' he says `The deals are pretty
speculative, but we want to move fast into the state."' End of quote, and end of the first half of
the article.
Commissioner Jacobs, Orange County Commissioners, Mr. Hallenbeck, Orange County
Planning Board, Orange County has been making wise planning decisions for decades,
decisions that make Orange County the kind of place it is, a place we all treasure. If you
approve this special use permit, and Sunlight Partners builds a commercial solar utility adjoining
the Falls of New Hope subdivision, it will not only be the first commercial solar utility adjoining a
subdivision in the Triangle, it will be the first commercial solar utility Sunlight Partners builds in
North Carolina. Please don't move fast without due consideration of this matter. Please don't let
Sunlight Partners speculate with one of Orange County's most unique subdivisions. Please
don't let Orange County and Falls of New Hope be the ones who lose.
Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness.
David Rooks: Mr. Chairman, one last witness, Kathy Bolte.
Kathy Bolte: My name is Kathy Bolte, and I was sworn in. I live at 5505 Cascade Drive, and I
do have a few questions to pose.
First of all, if you approve this, will you guarantee that this proposed power plant will not
adversely affect our property values, health and overall well being? When it does, what
measures will you take to compensate all of us, for a decision you clearly made for us against
our will? As elected officials, we expect you to make decisions that protect the citizens of this
County. Allowing a company to operate a business in the middle of our neighborhood does not
meet the expectations that we have. Are you willing to vote yes for this?
Second, will you guarantee that Sunlight Partners will maintain the property in the
manner in which this community is accustomed to living? In my household, we eat organic
food, recycle, and don't use harsh chemicals, pesticides and herbicides. We choose to live in
such a manner that we do no harm to our environment or ourselves. Our home is situated
where we receive the runoff from the land in question, and that runoff flows into New Hope
Creek, which is in our backyard. Who is willing to guarantee us that no chemicals, pesticides
and herbicides will flow through our yard, seep into our groundwater, contaminate the creek and
our wells. When it does, what recourse will we have, and who will be accountable for it.
Third, in the limited amount of time that we have had to research this company, we have
found no evidence of previous projects that Sunlight Partners has completed. Why is a
company from Arizona being considered to do a project in the middle of our neighborhood?
What proof do you have that guarantees they will do exactly what they say they will do? I have
commercial property in Guilford County that I do lease to a cell tower company, Crown Castle.
Guilford County requires a buffer similar to what Orange County does, a natural buffer. When
Crown Castle was required to do the plants, and the plants did not meet the screening
standards, the gentlemen in charge of zoning in Guilford County had full authority to
immediately turn the power off to the cell tower and shut it down until Crown Castle complied.
When these plants and shrubs die due to inadequate care, who will be accountable for
enforcing Orange County requirements? How long will we have to suffer to see this monstrosity
in our neighborhood, and what recourse and what compensation will we have when this
happens?
These sites have not been around long enough to know the damage they can and will
cause on humans and animals living in such close proximity to an electrical field of this size. I
realize that sensitivity to this field will vary between individuals. I happen to live with someone
that is highly sensitive to these frequencies. We have neighbors that are also sensitive to these
frequencies. In our home, we keep appliances unplugged. We don't watch television. We take
every precaution we can to ensure the wellbeing of everyone in our home. If you approve this,
who will take responsibility for taking our well being from us?
The bottom line is, are you willing to vote yes on something that is already causing harm
to citizens of this community? Orange County is one of the best places to live in in North
Carolina. Everyone here chose to live here, except for the company that is proposing to build a
power plant in our neighborhood. Would they like to buy all of our homes on Cascade Drive and
live beside what they are proposing to build? Would you?
David Rooks: Mr. Fox.
Michael Fox: I don't have any questions for this witness.
David Rooks: Those are all of our witnesses Mr. Chairman. At this point I will make a brief
closing statement. I'll focus really on two findings, two of the three findings you have to make.
The first one being that the proposed use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous
properties. You've heard evidence on that.
I submit to you that when it comes time to make a decision, you need to ask yourself
whether in your own mind if you were going to buy the property owned by Bob Cantwell and
Lydia Wegman, which is right there—that first property in the right coming in —would you
discount it because there is a solar array behind it that is visible to you? If the answer to that is
yes, then you have to answer no to the second finding. You have to say the property—the use
will not maintain or enhance contiguous property values.
The third finding is actually a little more interesting because we have competing valuable
interests here. Obviously everybody values single family residential use and home ownership.
Everybody values energy efficiency and solar power. In your ordinance, you have said both can
exist in the rural buffer. However, you have decided that a solar utility has to be a class a
special use permit, and it has to come to you, and you have to make the findings that let it be
there. And one of those findings is that it be in harmony. When you decide whether that use is
in harmony with the uses in the area, you have to figure out a way how to resolve conflicts
between those two uses. I would look, quite frankly, to the law of uses where you have
competing, valid, lawful uses that conflict with each other. The law says —gives you a road map
for resolving those conflicts, and the law is; you give precedence to the first use, and that's
exactly what you should do here.
You have a residential neighborhood that's been here for 50 years. You should honor
that. And then you should resolve the conflict between these otherwise valuable uses, and
favor the neighborhood.
Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you very much. Just so everybody knows, here is what's
going to happen next. We will allow the Board of Commissioners to ask any questions. We will
then ask the planning board if they have any questions. We still have some people who have
signed up to speak. We will ask if they still wish to put any comments on the record with the
three minute limit. So with that, I'll turn it over to the—or ask if there are any Commissioners
that have questions for the applicants. Commissioner Gordon.
Commissioner Gordon: Just a couple of things, one, I just want to make sure that we
understand where the chain link fence is vis a vis the buffer and the panels. I believe the
applicant has stated that; first there are the solar panels; then there is the fence; and then there
is the landscaping. But, in our handout it says the eight foot high chain link security fence shall
surround the perimeter of the array field outside of proposed land use buffer. Would someone
clarify that for me?
Pete Hallenbeck: Mike, you want to come up?
Mike Wallace: Your statement first was correct. The fence will be located after the solar
panels. Then the buffer comes after that. So the purpose of the buffer is for the residents to not
see the fence or the solar panels.
Commissioner Gordon: And the second question is; in this property, what of the total acreage
—what number of acres will have trees cut down?
Mike Wallace: On the site plan, we define the total land disturbance—that includes trees, or
when we put in the gravel road as well -we would consider that as 8.7 acres. So if you do the
math on the 50 acre site, that's roughly 17 percent.
Commissioner Gordon: The 8.47 acres is the total disturbance?
Mike Wallace: Yes. Yes ma'am.
Commissioner Gordon: Do you have any idea what percentage, what amount—the number
of acres though? It was asserted by someone who came to the podium that it was five. Is that
correct?
Mike Wallace: That's what was asserted. I would have to double check that. I do not know
that offhand.
Commissioner Gordon: I would be interested in knowing how many acres of trees are cut
down, thank you.
Michael Fox: If-With the Commissioners' permission we can determine the amount of trees
that would be removed and submit that to the planning board. I mean, I'm sorry, the planning
department.
Commissioner Gordon: That would be helpful.
Michael Fox: Yes.
Commissioner Gordon: Because it was asserted, and I think it's important that we know.
Pete Hallenbeck: Alright. Commissioner Price.
Commissioner Price: Yes, I had a question about water. I was trying to find it in the— in my
packet, but I couldn't find it. You were mentioning — I don't recall seeing anything about drilling
a well or water on the property, but then you mentioned —well I'm think of in case there is an
emergency, or just the fact that you said you had to clean these panels twice a year with water.
But, are you going to be drilling a well.
Michael Fox: Mike, you want to address that?
Mike Wallace: No ma'am, no well. So the use of water only is to protect the environment, and
that will be done with a water truck or a local company to come in and complete that with a
squeegee or a rag apparatus that would do that.
Commissioner Price: Okay, and then just following up on what one of the people in the
audience has said; what about—you might as well stay up there—watering the plants and
making sure that this buffer doesn't die when it becomes a hundred degrees here.
Mike Wallace: Yeah, that's a great question. We do have a plan for that. So, our plan is
again, to hire a local landscaping company that would be located here in the County, in the
area, that would be responsible for not only planting the trees but making sure of the wellbeing
of the trees and that they take, as well as any care of the property during the 20 to 25 year life of
the facility.
Commissioner Price: Okay, and one more follow up. Storm water; what is the risk of the
runoff, I mean if there is a slope?
Mike Wallace: So what we would do typically in these installations is we would install a silt
fence to protect any areas such as the creek and the property, to ensure that no runoff made it
into any area that was of concern.
Michael Fox: And if I might add to that, as the commission is probably well aware, you know
state law prohibits a developer from putting any more runoff on a neighbor's property than
already exists. So, those types of actions would be enforceable by numerous water quality
agencies and would have to go through the jurisdiction of your planning department as well to
be able to enforce that, along with the landscape buffer requirements. Your planning
department would have the authority to issue a - you know basically - an N.O.V., a notice of
violation for failure to comply with the requirements of your ordinance, which the company would
have to address; hence, their plan to contract with a local company to ensure that the buffer is
maintained.
Pete Hallenbeck: Commissioner Rich.
Commissioner Rich: I have two questions, one for Mr. Harvey. You talked about White Cross
and that it does have a buffer plan in place. Clearly something went awry there. In your
opinion, was the buffer planted and then not maintained and died? Is that what happened there,
or was the buffer never planted?
Michael Harvey: It would be best if I said that the buffer was partially planted. Some of it died,
and we have issued a notice of correction in accordance with the approved special use permit.
And let me expand on that answer by stating the following; they have not been issued a final
certificate of occupancy by the planning department yet, meaning occupying using the site.
They have to plant additional trees and replace the dead landscaping. If this project is
approved, or even using the White Cross example, we have the authority under the permit that's
been issued by this Board to revoke the special use permit and force them to shut down
immediately. And as this Board already knows from past individuals coming to speak before
you, the planning department has no qualms about exercising that option.
And let me also just make another comment. If this project is approved, there are notes
on the site plan indicating that there will be quarterly inspections completed on the landscaping.
We obviously require that all landscaping that is required be maintained in perpetuity for the life
of the project. The applicant is holding themselves to these standards, because the site plan
becomes part of the special use permit approval. Any violation of the special use permit, any
violation of the ordinance, or any violation of the site plan gives the County the authority to
revoke the special use permit.
Commissioner Rich: Thank you. And my second question is to Mr. Kirkland. So we just got
this tonight, so I didn't have a good chance to examine it. But, my question is; when you are
talking about value of homes, and people moving into homes that are near these solar farms,
most to the people that I see here, and correct me if I'm wrong —that you're giving values of
homes—the solar farm existed first and then the subdivision came second. Is that correct?
Rich Kirkland: Yeah. I try to clarify each category, so yeah, that top set there shows adjoining
sales after the solar farm was announced, and then I have a couple more after that, after the
solar farm was built.
Commissioner Rich: So people clearly knew when they were buying these homes that they
were moving next to a solar farm.
Rich Kirkland: Yes. And when I talked to some of the homeowners, there was one homeowner
who told me that she did not know. But, she actually didn't care after the fact anyway.
Commissioner Rich: Okay, that's fine. That's for her to decide. I'm just wondering have you
— Is there anything in here that would represent a similar situation that we're talking about
tonight? Is anything in your evidence here? Are any neighborhoods that represent something
that we're doing here?
Rich Kirkland: Again, I think this—Again, it is a similar— It is —These are homeowners.
These are owner occupants. These are not rental units. The price range in Spring Gardens is
240 to 260 range. The MLS shows that for this neighborhood, the average price, well the price
since 2010 —that's as far back as I looked —they range from 160 thousand to 550, averaging
around 320. So, again it's a slightly higher price point at this location, but within a reasonable
range I'd say, as far as looking at impacts for what a homeowner is looking at. Even at different
price points, a homeowner, someone who is going to live there as opposed to a rental, they are
going to be motivated by the same factors.
Commissioner Rich: Okay, except for the fact that they are moving into a subdivision that they
know that the farm is there. And this, the property owners here lived there for 25 years, and
they didn't choose to have the farm there. So they didn't have the option of whether or not they
were going to buy their house next to the farm.
Rich Kirkland: And then there's the next two categories down in my chart, where it shows you
before that solar farm was announced, what sales were doing in that neighborhood at that time
too. So that would have been before any awareness of the solar farm. So you can see that's
still consistent.
Commissioner Rich: Thank you.
Chair Jacobs: I more had comments, but I will ask one request, I guess for Mr. Harvey. I
would like to see in the materials that go forward a subdivision plat that shows the affected area
along Cascade Drive, with the names of the owners. Using this map is pretty useless for me,
and when people are referring to it I would actually like to see how it lays on the ground. And I
think I could, referring to people's comments, have a better understanding of what it is they are
referring to than this map.
And for Mr. Fox, whether we consider the person who spoke a competent authority, why
would I not want to request that you do a noise study. There was sufficient question raised in
my mind about whether in fact there was no —there was going to be no noise generated. Are
you wedded to the assertion that there will be noise offsite of a measurable amount? How do
you regard that?
Michael Fox: It's our position as Mr. Wallace testified that the noise, any noise that would be
offsite would be well within your County ordinance for noise limits. For both —and obviously
there would be—you have a different daylight and nighttime limit, and these fans, you know
generally the noise is being generated by the cooling fans in the inverters, and those would
typically not be operating at night when the sun is not shining, generating electricity. So there
would be no noise at night, and then the noise of the fans operating would be, you know, well
within your County noise ordinance during the day at maximum, whatever sound they were.
Commissioner McKee: I guess my question would be for Mr. Wallace, I believe. And then I
have another question. I'm not exactly sure who to address it to. Did I understand that you said
it would be mowed twice a year?
Mike Wallace: That's the initial plan, yes sir.
Commissioner McKee: Then how do you intend to maintain a good appearance on the
property when some weeds, such as Johnson grass, pigweed will grow 6 to 8 feet tall in a
matter of about 30 to 45 days.
Mike Wallace: So we would evaluate that based on what we saw as the site was laid out and
set up. So if we noticed that that effort needed to be more than twice a year, like once a month,
then we would do that accordingly.
Commissioner McKee: Okay. Also, on the buffers that mention the trees. Do you have a
timeline before these 8 foot trees will become 15 foot trees, 20, 30 foot. Because in my mind it's
a radical difference between waiting a year, or 3 years, or 30 years to get these, this buffer in
place.
Mike Wallace: I understand. That is not my area of expertise. That is something that.
Commissioner McKee: I didn't know if there was a study or if you all have figures on that.
Michael Fox: If the Commissioner would like, I know that the landscaping plan and the
company that they hire can provide projections on average of what a typical tree species will
grow over a certain period year. It's not exact for a particular tree in a site, but we can provide
that along with the other information that we were going to provide to Mrs. Gordon. We can
provide that to the planning director or the planning staff for the Commissioners' consideration.
Commissioner McKee: And then one more question, I guess to you since you're the attorney.
Michael Fox: Yes sir.
Commissioner McKee: It was mentioned that if at the end of the lease or end of the lifespan
the equipment could be disassembled and removed from the meadow, and it would revert to a
meadow. Who would do that, and what would happen in a case of this company either folding
or dissolving, or for some reason this facility not being used? Is there a plan in place as to the
end of the life, the end of the lease, or the disruption of the company, the removal of this—of all
of this equipment. And who does that, and who pays?
Michael Fox: Yes sir. I'd like to address one part of that question and then I'll ask Mr.
Cleveland to come up and address a second part of the answer. To answer your first part of the
question of who's responsible; it's the company. Sunlight is responsible in the event that the
lease terminates. They have a short period of time to come in and remove essentially
everything. And the only thing that would be troublesome at all to remove would be you know
the pads on which the inverters sit. They are about the size of a pickup truck bed of concrete,
and those are the only things that are really semi-permanent, but they could be removed as
well. In the event— now that's the contractual obligation —and in the event that let's say some
disaster befell Sunlight and no one wanted to step in and own this project, which is unlikely. It is
generating energy for Duke Energy and that's who the contract is with to sell the energy to. So
there are a lot of folks who would be interested in a site like this. But let's just say worst case
scenario, nobody out there wants it. There has been a study out there, which Mr. Cleveland can
discuss, which indicates that the salvage value even using average salvage prices of the
materials in a solar farm for exceed the cost of the salvage. So the bottom line is that it wouldn't
be difficult to get someone to come in and take it all out, essentially for free. So it's not
something that's gonna be—that's not gonna be left there— an eyesore for the neighborhood.
Mr. Cleveland, could you talk a little bit about that study and who did it.
Tommy Cleveland: I can tell you a little bit about that study. That was done by a developer
with significant experience developing and building very similar 5 megawatt sites in North
Carolina. And they went to a general contractor and said; what would you charge us today with
your going labor rates to come and remove all this equipment from the site. And they got that
number and then they went and looked at salvage markets for steel, copper, aluminum and
used solar panels at something like two cents on the dollar of the current price for the panels,
and the salvage value of all that equipment was roughly double the cost of hiring a general
contractor to come and remove the equipment.
Pete Hallenbeck: Did you have a comment, Mr. Harvey.
Michael Harvey: Yes, actually I do. I'd like to remind the Board, and the applicant has a
statement on the site plan, section 5.9.6 (c) (3) deals with decommissioning. The applicant has
a responsibility according to sub-section e. I apologize. "The owner shall provide financial
security in form and amount acceptable to the County to secure the expense of dismantling and
removing said structures." So the County ordinance has a plan in place that if Sunlight folds,
they still have to provide us a financial bond that would cover the cost of removal if necessary.
Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you. We'll continue with the questions.
Commissioner porosin: So I want to follow up on I think Commissioner Jacob's question, and
I think this would be for— I can't remember your name, but—
Mike Wallace: Mr. Wallace
Commissioner porosin: Mr. Wallace, yeah. I wonder if you could specifically answer the
question posed by Mr. Petranka about the noise. So the, in the image that's in the application
that show the circles kind of scattered across the site on the slide that's titled Binks Solar Noise.
There was testimony from Mr. Petranka that actually these noise producing units are going to be
concentrated in one area of the site. So I want to know is that accurate, and if so, what is the
significance of that for having these concentrations of converters or trans— I can't remember
now -?
Mike Wallace: Yeah, inverters.
Commissioner porosin: - of having three of them concentrated on the western edge of the
property, I guess?
Mike Wallace: Yeah, so what took place in that particular case; initially the project was slated
to have 500 kilowatt inverters scattered throughout the solar array. What ended up happening
was we were able to get units that were 1500 kilowatt inverters, which are essentially just larger
units, to replace those. Which from a cost standpoint, was more—was a benefit to us. So
that's what was done there. So our studies are based off those units from the companies on
studies that they have done, and what they are telling us. And that's where that information
comes from. So the initial study that was given was before that change had been made.
Commissioner porosin: And so are you going to provide some revised study that more
accurately reflects what the noise is going to look like.
Mike Wallace: So, we absolutely can. And it—yeah it doesn't multiply from 68 to 77. That
study was done on the unit itself, so it doesn't quite work like that, but yes, we absolutely can
provide you with the necessary information from the manufacturer.
Commissioner porosin: Is the 1500 one noisier than the 500 one?
Mike Wallace: We've been told it's at 68 decibels. That's what we've been given for a number.
Commissioner porosin: I have a question for Mr. Harvey, also based on Mr. Petranka's
testimony about the soil report. And, is what he said accurate, that a soil report is not being
required at this time?
Michael Harvey: As I had indicated during my original presentation, the applicant, as part of
their environmental assessment application, which is actually contained in attachment 1, and it
begins on page 69, provided topographical, hydrological and slope maps, and indicated not only
in their presentation this evening, but indicated to staff that the Georgeville soil, which we have
verified through the Orange County soil report, will handle the project. What the applicant has
requested that they don't want to do geotechnical date, which is the actual engineering data
showing compaction, until they have the special use permit, because of the cost involved.
That's consistent with other similar projects we've done in the past. We believe that they have
met their obligation to provide sufficient documentation demonstrating that this project can fit
and work on this property. The condition we've recommended is that the full geotech report be
done once the special use permit is issued.
What I will remind the Board is the ordinance only calls for a soils report. It does not
require a geotechnical report. It requires compaction data, and again the applicant's request is
that they not be required to submit that until they do the formal geotechnical report.
Commissioner porosin: Just to clarify, the —this site that says the submittal requirements
includes "a soil report, including detail of compaction necessary." Are you saying that's been
provided to the planning department's satisfaction, or are you saying that that requirement is
actually going to be put off until after the decision is made.
Michael Harvey: I am saying that they have submitted sufficient documentation that the staff
believes that this site can support the project. What they've asked is to provide the detailed
engineering data, and we have agreed to the imposition of the condition at the appropriate time,
if this project is approved, that the geotechnical report that they have already agreed to submit
will contain additional data.
Commissioner porosin: I am not sure I understand that answer exactly. I just—so, I just
want— so it says, "a soil report denoting the types of soil on the property including detail on the
compaction necessary to support the proposed development." Are you saying that you —that
has—you've got that to your satisfaction?
Michael Harvey: I've gotten an update, and to my satisfaction I believe they've met the
requirement, yes sir.
Commissioner porosin: Is Mrs. Davis still here? Alright, well I had a question for Mrs. Davis,
but I guess I'll — It will go unanswered. It really is cold in here. Mr. Katz was right on with that.
It's freezing in here.
David Rooks: I can relay it to Mrs. Davis if you wish.
Commissioner porosin: Well, unless her answer is going to be given under oath, I'm not sure
that it's— I mean I appreciate that, but I want to ask a question about her assessment, her
report.
And I have another question for the applicant, and I am not sure who should answer this.
But, the design of the fence being, having being chain link and having barbed wire or razor wire
on the top of it; is that at your initiative, or is that what is required by the County ordinance?
Michael Wallace: It is required by the ordinance to have an 8 foot fence, which is what we are
proposing. There is no barbed wire or razor wire on our proposal or on the site plan.
Commissioner porosin: That is all I have for right now.
Commissioner Pelissier: I have a couple of additional questions. On the site view, I still don't
understand, and I'd like it explained. So, before trees can grow, given the slope of the land,
what will people see? How much above whatever bushes and the fence? What will they
actually see, and how much above will the solar panels show?
And related to that is, could you address the issue of glare? If people are going to see
the panels - and I understand I guess that some of the panels can have materials there to
prevent glare. So could you address those two things? I guess that's probably for Mr. Wallace,
or.
Michael Fox: Correct, and I'll give an introduction and then get Mr. Wallace and then Mr.
Cleveland up here. To some degree, and I'm gonna ask Mr. Wallace to come up and tell you to
the best of his knowledge, but to some degree what you see will depend on where you are and
— and how far back you are. So, for a particular piece of property it might not be the same.
With that, I'll let Mr. Wallace talk about the landscaping buffer, and in general the topography of
the site. And then Mr. Cleveland can talk about the glare issue.
Commissioner Pelissier: And let me just clarify; I guess my question is really related to the
folks who testified and said they live right near and just sort of downhill and their concern about
the view going uphill. So, I realize that it's going to be different from a lot of different properties,
but-
Michael Fox: Thank you, that's helpful to understand which one you're asking about.
Commissioner Pelissier: Sure, I should have said that initially. Thank you for prompting me.
Mike Wallace: Yes ma'am you are correct that the site does slope from roughly at 470 at the
bottom. It goes to 500 feet in the top right hand corner. So, it is the intent of that buffer to
shade completely so that they can't see it. As Mr. Fox stated, it will depend on where you are.
It will depend on the age of the trees, the growth pattern of those trees for that site to happen,
but it is the full intent of our plan to shade that so that you cannot see into the solar panel.
Commissioner Pelissier: But if you don't mind, I guess I don't' feel like my question is
answered. It's like, what are you going to see initially, before any trees grow I guess is what I
want to know? Like from some of those adjacent properties.
Mike Wallace: Right, right. The - To comply with the ordinance is the reason that we use the
8 foot trees for upper canopy, lower canopy and then the shrubs. So, I can't tell you, again,
unless I'm standing at a particular point on the property, or somebody's concern on what exactly
they are going to see. But, that is in there to shade them from being able to see. So, it depends
on where I would be standing to be able to answer that question, or at what point in the field
they may be looking at.
So, one of the things that we've discussed too, depending on the view and the vantage
point that you're at, we could provide a 10 foot or a 12 foot tree to help shade some of those
areas more if it ended up being an issue that we did not know at the time. We would deal with
the situation as we got to it if there was a problem and we didn't know.
Michael Fox: And obviously they work with your planning staff in terms of compliance with the
buffering impact. And I think one of the things you struggle with, with any landscape buffering,
no matter whether it's a residential subdivision or an industrial use is there is a -to some degree
- a maturity period where plants need to take root, and they need to grow. And so what Sunlight
is willing to do is, obviously they are starting out with a minimum of an 8 foot all the way around.
But if there is a spot on the particular piece of property where 8 foot is insufficient, they will work
with the planning staff to try to get the trees as large as possible to provide a buffer as soon as
possible.
Mike Wallace: Tommy do you want to talk about the lack of glare.
Tommy Cleveland: Yeah, the solar panels are designed and built to absorb as much sunlight
as possible. So when that sunlight is hitting them, they absorb 98 percent of the sunlight.
They've got an anti-reflective coating on the top of that glass, so they do a great job of
absorbing the sunlight, which means there is very little sunlight left to bounce off and cause any
glare trouble. The one exception is when the sunlight hits it at a very low angle, like might
happen right at sunrise or sunset, and then you can have some glare, but at that point it's no
more reflective than water and at an angle that's less inducive to glare than like water. Like a
pond - a pond would generally have more glare in that condition than a solar array.
Commissioner Pelissier: I have another condition related to storm water, and maybe this is
for our planning staff, or actually, maybe it is for Mr. Wallace. What percent of—wherever the
panels are, what percent of the land is considered impervious with the panels there? I mean the
cover. Because obviously you are saying that lot of the rain can be absorbed in between the
panels, and I guess -what is really considered the impervious surface?
Michael Harvey: Well let me try to answer that question the following way. Our ordinance
requires the applicant to provide the level of detail and to count everything covered by a panel
as impervious. In fact our ordinance mandates that specifically. This particular parcel of
property is not located in a protected or critical watershed, so there is no impervious surface
limit. Having said that, it's already been testified to, but I'll reiterate; this project will have to go
through a storm water review process with the Orange County Erosion Control division. They
are not going to be allowed to have any more water generated off site than is currently being
generated off site now under the current conditions of the property. That will require storm
water features to re-direct water to ensure that it is not flowing off site any more than it currently
is. Now that may not address everybody's concerns, and I understand that; but I am going to at
least provide you the answer of what the ordinance states and what state law gives us the
authority to do.
So if there is an inch - and this is just an example - then if there is an inch currently
falling off this property, after this development there can only be an inch falling off the property.
Commissioner Pelissier: Thank you.
Michael Fox: If I could, as a point of personal order. I know it's late, and thus far, until about a
half an hour ago, the decorum was excellent, and it was easy to hear everyone, and there were
no distractions. But, in the last 30 minutes or so, it's become more difficult to hear your
questions, and for us to answer when there is noise from the audience. So, I would ask the
Chair if you could just remind the audience of your rules of decorum, please.
Pete Hallenbeck: I believe you did that, and I agree. Even though it's late, we should all try to
be civil and do our best to help everybody communicate. Do we have other questions?
Commissioner Gordon: I just have a procedural question for the attorney. So, you mentioned
that if we wanted to have sworn testimony we could continue the hearing. What would be your
recommendation in terms of if we wanted to do that? To what date certain would we continue
it? How would we go about that?
James Bryan: If you wanted to have more sworn testimony, you will want to allow both
attorneys there to cross examine them. You will want to continue this with both boards,
because this is a joint hearing. So, you would continue to the next quarterly public hearing
would be my recommendation.
Commissioner Gordon: Because I was just making kind of a list of all the things that we said
we wanted, and some of it would require getting sworn testimony and then giving a person the
chance to then cross examine, if we really wanted that. So I think that that would mean we
would then continue the public hearing. The date certain would be the next quarterly public
hearing, which is in September.
James Bryan: I believe so.
Commissioner Gordon: Okay. Well I would suggest that we consider that, because we've got
— I've just got a list of a number of things here that we said we wanted and I can't see how we'd
get it reliably unless we had sworn testimony and a chance to cross examine.
Pete Hallenbeck: Commissioner Jacobs. Oh, sorry.
Commissioner Jacobs: I'll go after Commissioner Rich.
Pete Hallenbeck: Commissioner Rich.
Commissioner Rich: So, I'm going to actually follow up with Alice. I think that we should also
continue the hearing. I don't' think that we should end it. I think there is too much information
out there that we don't have.
But I have another procedural question, and that is - I don't quite understand — I mean
there were a couple of statements tonight that were that the applicant had been involved with
this process for quite some time, yet the neighbors have only been involved with it for about 2
weeks or 10 days. And I'm just wondering if— I'm just wondering if that's fair. I'm wondering if
it's a way that we move forward with all of our procedures, and if—with these hearings —and if it
is, I would down the road petition the Board to change it. Because I don't think that making
people, our citizens of Orange County, who have lived here and paid taxes for 25, 30 years to
only have 2 weeks to gather themselves together, while the applicant has months to talk to you
and use your knowledge of the UDO and everything else. I just don't know that that's fair and
balanced.
Michael Harvey: My only response, Commissioner is going to be that that is the process as
embodied in the unified development ordinance, and that is the process that has been in place
during my tenure with Orange County. There's only two exceptions to that; when you have a
telecommunications tower, reviewed either as a Class B or a Class A special use permit, the
applicant is required to notify everybody of a balloon test, which is typically conducted 14 weeks
or so prior to the public hearing. There are also major subdivisions where we are required to
hold a neighborhood information meeting. And in those instances where a major subdivision
qualifies as a Class A special use permit, being more than 20 lots of proposed development, we
hold a neighborhood information meeting. But, those are the only two exceptions to the rule.
So class A special use permits, from schools, to solar facilities, to quarry operation, would follow
the same procedure.
Commissioner Rich: And how does one go about petitioning the Board to change that
procedure?
Michael Harvey: Well the current Board policy is, obviously you can petition the Board during a
work session to study, particularly request or ask the Chair/Vice Chair to respond to a particular
petition. I would, at risk of maybe annoying one of my colleagues, suggest that your next item
this evening is discussing the revision to the quarterly public hearing process, and while I don't
think this falls into that category, it conceivably would be a point of discussion during that item
as well.
Commissioner Rich: I daresay, with the number of people still to speak and the hour, we are
not going to be considering the public hearing item tonight. The next public hearing's date is
September 8th, just for information. And also, for information, we found in the siting of satellite
facilities for fire departments, that there was no public notification process, and we changed the
UDO to require a public information meeting. So, it would certainly be consistent with even
what this Board has done within the last year to do no less for items like this.
My question is for our attorney though. A point was made when the second appraiser
for the neighborhood spoke, that he had — he was only making verbal comments, and he had
not submitted anything in writing. What is the—We're getting a lot of material. I understand
people are submitting writing —writings. What is the effect of testifying without having a written
report? Does that make it lesser testimony, not admissible testimony, equivalent testimony?
What's that about?
James Bryan: Oh, I could go on for so long. This is great. So the shortest answer, I think, is
nothing. That what you want is the oral testimony. The written is just for ease of looking at it
afterward. The only thing that truly matters is what they are saying and what they are testifying
to. And there is going to be —when they give something written, they may refer you to it. So,
you have an appraiser that says "look at this chart." So they don't have to read every numeral
out there. But that's what matters. Written statements, if they've got an affidavit, if somebody
has to leave, that's not competent evidence. It has to be competent material and substantial
evidence. Competent evidence is somebody here testifying before you, that the opposition gets
to cross examine. Pieces of paper offer very little for that.
Pete Hallenbeck: Any other questions for the Commissioners? Okay, next are planning board
questions. Indulgence to my colleagues, I have a few questions. I'll read them, and then we'll
see if we have any more.
For Mr. Wallace, you mentioned the sound levels that are put out by the inverters, and I
believe the figure was on the order of by the time it hit the house it was 45 db. Two questions
on that; one, do you have any information on the spectral characteristics of the noise that comes
out of the inverters? There is a huge difference between a 45 db sound level at 60 hertz and at
480. It's a subjective way to figure out, is this a 45 db that is going to keep you up at night, or
can you ignore it. The second thing is; do you know the weighting algorithm that was used to
come up with that 45 db figure, so that if it wishes to be verified later, or citizens wish to make
measurements, they will know how set their noise meters?
Mike Wallace: The answer to the second question; I do not. That would have to come from
the manufacturers of the inverters. The answer to the first question is; there is that out there
published. We do have some of it, and I can get that for you, so you can see what frequencies
these db's are coming at.
Pete Hallenbeck: That would be great. The planning board meets the first Wednesday of the
next month. And for Mr. Cleveland; are these panels gonna—are they amorphous silicon, or it
is pure crystalline silicon? Do you know.
Tommy Cleveland: No, they are not amorphous. I'm not sure if they are poly-crystalline or
mono-crystalline, but they are—those two are very similar, and amorphous is somewhat
different. They are not amorphous.
Pete Hallenbeck: Okay, I'm just curious if you could find out. It's always interesting to see with
the trade-offs people are making on panel costs versus the area of the farm. And as I'm sure
you know, the poly-silicone crystal —well mono-crystal: smallest, best efficiency; poly: higher;
amorphous: higher still. So, I was just curious to see what that trade-off was.
Tommy Cleveland: Amorphous silicon is significantly less efficient, and there is very little
amorphous— sorry, as far as area. I thought you were referring to efficiency, and you said size.
So, you were correct.
Pete Hallenbeck: If you can find out exactly what kind of panel it is, that would be interesting.
The second thing is, with regard to the glare, do you know what the Brewster angle is on the
cover glass, because that would pretty much determine the glare the residents would see, who
are due west of the site?
Tommy Cleveland: I don't know that, but I could reference you to Sandia National Labs and an
FAA glare calculator built specifically for airports and solar sited at airports. They've got a
calculator where you can put in, on a Google earth map, the location of the panels and a
location of interest and determine if there is glare any hours of the year.
I don't like the Brewster angle for those -
Pete Hallenbeck: I'd still like to see that Brewster angle. I have panels at home. From
mowing around during different times of the day, I have some idea of what the glare is. But the
situation that we're talking about here is one that comes very close to the equinox. The sun is
rising. It's going to hit the panels, and it doesn't matter what the coatings are. As soon as that
angle is under the Brewster angle for the glass, it's going to bounce off, and that will be the
glare. So, that would be an interesting number that would let us be able to figure out how many
days per year there will be glare during the morning.
Tommy Cleveland: And that is included in the Sandia model, so you can consider exactly the
tilt of the panels.
Pete Hallenbeck: Is that something you can get for us?
Tommy Cleveland: Yes.
Pete Hallenbeck: That would be great. Thank you. Yes, Michael.
Michael Harvey: Just a point of clarification. There is obviously some potential with this to be
delayed till the September quarterly public hearing. If that is the motion, this will not go to your
June planning board meeting. It will go to the September quarterly public hearing.
Pete Hallenbeck: Is the height of the inverters less than 6 feet? Is it less than the height of the
panel, or will the structures with the inverters be taller than the panels?
Mike Wallace: Yeah, I'm going to have to get that to you. I think it's a 6 foot inverter, but I don't
want to state that clearly until I look at the drawing from the manufacturer.
Pete Hallenbeck: Ok, that would be great to clarify. And then, Commissioner Jacobs asked
about getting a, the big picture of both the solar farm area and the surrounding houses, and I
would add to that; it would be great if we had a topo map and elevation for that. Because it
seems to me that a lot of assessing the visual impact and just how high the trees have to go is
going to come down to figuring out how much that panel is going to go up, how much it is going
to go down in relation to the houses, and the only thing in this report just shows the topo map for
around the field, so it's hard to make that assessment.
And finally, I'll just echo Commissioner McKee's concern. I wish I had the luxury at my
house of being able to just declare that I would mow every certain amount of time, but you tend
to mow when the grass gets tall. So, I wondered if there is some way in the application to say, if
it's taller than this much, it gets mowed. Food for thought.
Mike Wallace: Yeah, again, it just was an evaluation based off the site on what we needed.
So, if we notice that that needed to be done more than once a month, once every couple of
months, we would do that.
Chair Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, may I? We are going to have to leave the building by 12. I
would suggest that we entertain comment from people who signed up to speak till quarter of 12,
and then the Board will decide. The Board of Commissioners can decide whether or not to
continue the public hearing or refer this to the planning board. And hopefully we can do that in
enough time to leave the building in 15 minutes.
Pete Hallenbeck: That sounds good to me. Those were all my questions. Did the other
planning board members have any questions?
Lisa Stuckey: I have two quick questions. Lisa Stuckey, planning board member. But I wasn't
sworn, but I think I'm not required, right? Okay.
I shared Bernadette's question. If you have like a 30 to 35 foot rise, I wonder if a
landscape architect or landscape engineer might be more helpful in determining the size of
trees and so forth than us just sitting around guessing. It seemed to me maybe that would be
an appropriate endeavor.
And my second question is for Michael. Michael, what kind of uses, just in general, can
be made on land that's zoned rural buffer/RB?
Michael Harvey: From a permitted use standpoint obviously you have single family residential
land uses. There are several uses allowed through the issuance of a special use permit. We
are talking about one obviously. Schools. Per the code you can have a Class 2 kennel with the
issuance of a Class B special use permit. You can have a church, developed as a permitted use
of property, going through administrative site plan review and approval. You can have any
myriad of government uses as permitted uses of property. And you can have a farm operation,
which is not regulated by local zoning, because state law says we can't regulate them. So,
there are myriad of different uses.
Lisa Stuckey: And some of those uses might disrupt the view?
Michael Harvey: Yes ma'am.
Andrea Rohrbacher: I'm Andrea Rohrbacher, a planning board member, and I don't know who
this question would go to. But, the current meadow as it exists now; what is the maintenance
that is provided for that meadow in the way of mowing and upkeep?
Bob Thomas: The hay has been taken off of that field for all of the years that we have lived
here.
Pete Hallenbeck: Okay, so the answer to the question of how is the field is currently mowed is;
the field is in hay that is harvested.
Bob Thomas: Currently, in the last year or two years. It's been —the hay has been taken off
all of the years we have lived there. This last year, except— last year or two years? Right now
it's growing up. It hasn't been hayed this year.
Barry Katz: You all know Bob Strayhorn. Bob Strayhorn uses that field -that hay off of that - to
feed his bulls. Now Bob has been sick, so he's had friends of his getting together and mowing
that field when they can. It's been Strayhorn's hay for many years, but before that it was corn
and it was real agricultural crop.
Pete Hallenbeck: Okay, so the field has been in hay. Little disruption, but people are cutting it.
Barry Katz: Oh yes.
Pete Hallenbeck: Okay, thank you . Alright, we have some people who have signed in to
make a comment for three minutes. I'll read out the names that I have signed down here, and if
you wish to comment, come on up. If you are happy with what you've heard and don't want to
comment, that's okay too. First name I have on the list is Chris Chinchar.
Pete Hallenbeck: Does she need to be sworn in, or if it's public -
Chris Chinchar: I was sworn in. Hi, my name is Chris Chinchar, and I have been sworn in.
Thank you for being here tonight and especially so late. My partner Pam Lindroos and I bought
our land on Cascade Drive in the fall of 2004. We fell in love with the neighborhood and its
proximity to New Hope Creek and the common land surrounding it. This was exactly where we
sought to create a home. It was close to everything, yet so perfectly in the country, bordered by
New Hope Creek and a beautiful farm in the other side of Cascade. This was paradise to us.
Since purchasing our land, we have declined purchase offers for the much desired
property, knowing that we were soon going to build. Recently, we have revisited our plans, our
ideas, and our timeline for building.
On Tuesday, May 13, we returned home after visiting family, to a notice that a certified
letter was waiting for us at the post office. This letter stated that there would be a hearing two
weeks later, on May 27th, tonight, the day after Memorial Day. Plans for a solar array were
being considered for the beautiful farm on the other side of Cascade Drive, and these plan
indicated that the access road for the solar farm and the inversion station were to be directly
across the street from our property.
We kept our minds open. We read and re-read the letter and studied the included map.
We drew up a list of questions, studied the GIS. We googled solar arrays in North Carolina and
Sunlight Partners, LLC, the company proposing to lease the site. We found out that Sunlight
Partners is a firm in Arizona that has approached a myriad of farms in North Carolina over the
past few years.
I was surprised to see the scale of these farms, the visual density—a seemingly endless
sea of panels propped on disturbed soils, and fences warning of high voltage. It was very
industrial. This is when the reality set in, that a solar farm is actually a power utility - more
attractive in theory and not adjacent to an established neighborhood.
Do I want to live across from a public utility? The entrance to the 20 foot access road
will not allow for screening vegetation there. So, I am sure we will have an unobstructed view of
the rising field of solar panels. Am I just mourning the open fenceless fields of golden hay, or
frightened by the unknown and unanswerable questions? Is it safe?Will it hum or make noise?
Will it be lit up at night, or too reflective or hot during the day? What sort of vegetation or fence
will there be, and what will it actually end up looking like? What about the rules regarding
impervious surface? Everything drains through our property to the New Hope Creek watershed.
What about the wildlife? Do we really want to build a house and live here? And if we don't,
who will?
I wonder if there are more appropriate sites for a public utility—areas where established
neighborhood are not affected. I wonder if the best possible practices are being considered. I
wonder what this fight will be to keep our neighborhood unaffected and what this is going to cost
us.
It seems unfortunate that while the utilities profit, undue burden is placed on the
neighboring citizens. It seems unfair and disappointing. I sincerely hope that our voices are
heard. Thank you.
Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you. The next person I have on the list that did not give
testimony. Keith Kirkland.
Keith Kirkland: Good evening. My name is Keith Kirkland and I've been living in Orange
County all my life. My family has been in Orange County due to a land grant from the King of
England, right up here. They've been here a long time. My concern is mostly the devaluation of
the property and land surrounding it. And over the years we have always tried to be
harmonious with the community and try to keep the property in farm use. I struggle with it every
day. I own the horse farm or the farm right across the pasture that most people can see from
across Cascade Drive. It's been really difficult to keep it. I was approached by this company
too. We got some letters in the mail here not too long ago. I read about it and looked it up
online and decided that I was firmly against taking my farm and putting it into a commercial
operation, especially when I knew that we were in the buffer zone. And I just can't - it seems
kind of contradictory about what we're trying to do in the County. And some of us have
struggled for so many years to try to keep family farms and things like this from going on and on
and on and on. I know how difficult it is, and I know how fast Johnson grass grows and how
much you've got to keep it mowed. So, I'm already there on board with that.
The maintenance— I also know what kind of maintenance is going to go into taking care
of bushes and trees. Now we have felled some trees about 30 years ago back there on the
back side of our property. Replanted some pines, and now it's been a little over 30 years now,
and those pines are just probably in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 feet and about ready to be
trimmed. So, it's been 30 years, and the pine is one of the fastest growing trees that we can
have — pines and black gum, unfortunately, and cottonwood. It takes many years to get a tree
high enough to cover up these so called —these fence lines they are going to have, especially
with the rise and the fall of the land.
Now in a few years when I get ready to maybe retire and maybe build a little house that
would maybe be a little bit more easily maintained —the house I live in was built around in 1851.
It's been there a long time. It's difficult for me to maintain when I may be 65 or 70 years old. I
had a place picked out. This place would be above a rise, and I would definitely see all of the
field of panels. I do not have any pictures to show, but I would be glad to invite everybody here
at any time to come by my place. And you are welcome to come by and walk around and take a
look. Thank you.
Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you. Next on our list, Judith Kramer.
Judith Kramer: Hello, I am sworn in. My name is Judith Kramer. I put my name on the list
because of the short time frame. I wasn't able to attend a meeting of the neighbors in the Falls
of New Hope area. I am a resident of the Falls of New Hope Community, although my street
does not directly abut the field. But, I certainly defer to what all of the residents have testified
about tonight, and the veracity of what was stated very eloquently by them. I would only like to
add a couple of points. Personally, as a very strong supporter of renewable energy, I found this
a tremendous conflict, and this hearing this evening very disappointing, not in terms of how
you've conducted the hearing, but the reality that we don't have a balanced situation where we
are balancing community good and the interests of the individuals affected.
I'd like to point out something that hasn't been pointed out. It's been skirted around.
People have talked about how long it would take for the trees to grow, but one of the realities
around that is many of the members of our community have been there awhile. As you know,
it's been there 50 years, and many of us are retiring. And when you retire and your paycheck
stops, you start thinking about what is going to support you in your retirement. And the value of
your home is not just a theoretical value to entertain profit, but it could be the source of your
income and your ability to move on, if you need additional care, to a different alternative living
situation. So, please consider this, and hopefully if you stand by the ordinance or the rule that
says you need to maintain property value, it won't be the issue. But, I'm very concerned after
listening to the testimony tonight.
Also, very disappointed to hear the confusing — I'd like to articulate a summary of this
testimony on the owner and the confusing partnerships and relationships and the lack of
reliability potential in the future that the promises on the application would be maintained. And
that's all I'd have to add that's any different than what's been said.
And I would say that the fact that Mr. Petranka was able to calculate what he did as non-
expert— it's very disappointing that the applicant couldn't adjust their plan to the fact that they
chose a different array for their inverter that would be cheaper for them; but that they didn't
reassess the sound, even to the extent to the extent that Mr. Petranka as a non- expert did.
Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you very much. Next on the list, Melanie Maupin.
Melanie Maupin: Hi everybody. My name is Melanie Maupin, and thank you so much for
being here so late. I'm not happy to be here this late either. It's past my bedtime.
I think the main thing I want to impress upon you all is the short amount of time that
we've had and the incredible amount of work that my friends and neighbors have done to
present what has been presented tonight. I feel that our studies are, as much as we've done, is
still inadequate. I haven't had time to have my house appraised. Though I have contacted
appraisers, there hasn't been time to do that. I live at 5609 Cascade Drive, and if you look at
what the materials that were sent out to us, that exact address was given as the approximate
address for the site—their office. So you can imagine the shock and dismay when I received
this certified letter in the mail, and my address was given as the site for your office. I began to
shake. It's terrifying to me what could happen to all of us, and I just want to — I can't speak as
eloquently to the issues as most of my friends have. But, I'm grateful for what they've done and
how they've supported me and my wellbeing in terms of being able to stay in my house. If this
were to be a reality, I would have to move, because I wouldn't be able to— My bedroom literally
overlooks the field. My house is directly across from where the driveway would be. I have
significant health problems and issues around the noise and the electromagnetic field. I would
have to sell my house and move. Thank you.
Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you. Carol Blackmore.
Carol Blackmore: I previously spoke.
Pete Hallenbeck: Oh, okay. I missed that. I'm sorry.
Pete Hallenbeck called the names of several residents who had signed up, but were no longer
present. Tom McQuiston.
Tom McQuiston: I won't keep you long. I don't have a lot to add, but I do live in this
neighborhood. I have a degree in metallurgical engineering and material science and studied
semi-conductors long time ago. I am a industrial hygienist and I know about noise levels and
the issues that need to be addressed that have not, from what I've heard, adequately been
addressed, both in terms of what the noise levels will be when the installation occurs, but what
the noise levels will be after it has been running for some time. And they will certainly be higher
than when the machinery comes out of the box. That's, that's a fact.
I also know that it will be possible to calculate site views and what neighbors will have to
look at, and I recommend that there be a map drawn that clearly indicates, not"it will be as good
as we can make it" or "we'll do our best" or "we're meeting our site plan," but what will be the
reality for the neighbors from various points of view. These are all things that could be
calculated and known and not spoken of in terms of generalities and double talk.
Our neighborhood has demonstrated tonight what being in harmony means. And I
suggest that this proposal would only seem to be in harmony with our community and
neighborhood if someone were tone deaf. We have spoken with a unified voice, with a
harmonious voice. We are strong supporters of the idea of progressive good energy for our
community, our nation, and the globe. It is urgent that we do that, but we have not heard here
tonight a good argument for doing it in this way. And, so please hear our voices clearly, and
think about the issue of the harmony of our community and our County and how we should
approach these issues.
Pete Hallenbeck: Alright, thank you. We'll have one more opportunity here if the
Commissioners have any questions for the applicants. If not, the planning board portion of this
meeting is done.
Chair Jacobs: Well then we at this point could, as I mentioned previously, consider whether or
not we want to continue the public hearing or refer the item to the planning board. If we are
going to continue the public hearing, then the question is, do we want to identify particular items
of information that we request be provided on September 8th, should we continue it to the next
quarterly public hearing. So that, that's the issue before us at the moment.
Commissioner Gordon: Well I'd like to move that we continue the public hearing until
September gtn
Commissioner Rich: Second.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
continue to the public hearing to the September 8th Quarterly Public hearing.
Chair Jacobs: Do we want to articulate. I know there were some things like the storm water
issue and the bonding issue that can just be referred to in the ordinance just for reference
purposes since they have come up as part of an amalgamation of the items that have been
raised this evening. But there are other issues that were raised that would require additional
work.
And I don't know if you've been keeping a list. I`m sure Commissioner Gordon has been
keeping a list. I have kept a partial list.
Michael Harvey: Yes sir. The direct answer to your question is the planning staff has been
keeping a list. We also will have the benefit of hopefully having the minutes and the tape to
review. My suggestion to you is going to be what we typically do with all of these types of
projects, where we summarize questions, concerns, and comments; provide them to the
applicant, as well as to Mr. Rooks in this case, the opposing counsel; and indicate which
questions we believe staff is best suited to answer, specifically questions on the unified
development ordinance and what not; and obviously ask them to respond to your concerns
comments and questions in preparation for the September 8th meeting.
Chair Jacobs: And so some of those information requests might require the applicant to do
additional work on specific topics.
Michael Harvey: Yes sir.
Chair Jacobs: Okay.
Commissioner Gordon: I just thought of something. We also ought to enter into the record, all
of the things that Mr. Harvey asked us to enter into the record, plus all of the things that people
have submitted to us. Because he asked us at the beginning to do that, and we never did. So, I
suppose I should put that into my motion, or somebody should.
Michael Harvey: I think it might be appropriate for you at this juncture to reiterate not only
entering everything that I asked to be entered in to the record; including the abstract, which
contains the application, attachment 1, the vicinity map, staff comments, neighborhood
information meeting notices; as well as the copies of the unified development ordinance, the
comprehensive plan, the Joint Planning Land Use Plan, and the Orange County soil survey; as
well as the attachments that I provided you this evening from emails. But, I would also urge the
motion include that all evidence submitted from both the applicant and adjacent property owners
be entered into the evidence; so all documentation submitted to the clerk be so entered.
Chair Jacobs: That was part of your motion, wasn't it?
Commissioner Gordon: Actually, I said it in abbreviated form. I said all of the things that he
submitted and all the things that were submitted to us, but that's a better way of saying it.
Chair Jacobs: Seconder agrees. Is there a discussion of this motion?
Commissioner porosin: Well I'd like to—So there is going to be another, or a continuation of
this public hearing. So, I would like to request that the applicant and Mr. Rooks make sure all of
the witnesses who testified today are here. So, I would like to ask some follow up questions to
some of the folks and so, just for some clarification based on some of the testimony. I know we
went a long time and people left. But, if those folks that you brought, Mr. Rooks, and all the
folks that you brought would be back again, even if they don't plan on presenting new testimony,
so we can ask questions that we didn't get to tonight.
Chair Jacobs: And to be clear, it will not be in this room. It will be in the Whitted Building,
downtown, in our new meeting room, which will be not as cold hopefully, and more
commodious. Any other questions or comments before we vote?
Commissioner McKee: It may have already been asked, but I would also be interested in — it's
been mentioned on the storm water— I would be interested in knowing, particularly in looking at
this site plan with the elevations, where this water is going, because it's obvious that not all of it
is going to the development. There is a fairly, evidently a fairly steep draw that goes in one
direction. I'd be interested in knowing where this water is going and in what percentages the
water is running off, and in what direction.
Commissioner Pelissier: Yeah, that was part of my question.
Chair Jacobs: Okay we have a motion that's been seconded to continue this item.
James Bryan: Mr. Chair, may I interject just a reminder about ex-parte evidence, that this, as
a quasi-judicial hearing, and this is good information for the many witnesses, that the only
evidence that this Board can hear is the evidence presented during the actual hearing. So, if
you see them in the grocery store, please do not mention this. Don't send them emails. Don't
call them, anything like that. Everything must be done in the hearing.
Chair Jacobs: And I must say, although I understand through staff that we were invited to
come out to the community to discuss this, that's the reason that staff recommended that we not
do that. It's not that we are not interested in what the community has to say. And I think
testimony that we're all still here is at least partial evidence that we are interested, but we are
trying to follow the rules to the best of our ability. And especially as the state legislature works
to constrict what we do, it's even more important for us to follow the rules that we have, so we
don't give them more ammunition to attack our authority even more.
So we have a motion that's been seconded. All in favor say, aye. Opposed. Motion
carries unanimously.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Jacobs: Mr. Benedict has a comment before we adjourn.
Craig Benedict: Good evening. Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning and Inspections
Director. I've heard a lot of comments tonight about procedure, public hearing procedure. As
you know, we did have another item tonight to talk about how we could provide more
information and opportunities.
So, even the Commissioners tonight spoke of how much notice people get before
specific items. Well, presently the unified development ordinance lists certain uses and the time
frames involved. I think now that this, you've decided to delay this to the September gtn
meeting, staff could begin working on kind of an adjunct process to what Perdita Holtz will be
working on - about how to re-do our public hearing process.
So, we'll try to get to the Commissioners in June, kind of what we heard you talking
about tonight, about having more opportunity timeframe for residents to be involved in what
happens in their community. And that might be an idea for uses such as this or other uses that
we may identify, how the Commissioners can review and how the public can be involved with a
neighborhood information meeting. As was mentioned by Commissioner Jacobs, with public
uses such as even a fire station, the Commissioners recognized that that was something that
the community might be interested in, positive or negative.
So this can be an opportunity that we can bring back in September, if that's a time frame
that my staff can develop. It would be an item that occurs after, you know, the adjudication of
this specific item. But, if the Board would like planning staff, through the manager's office and
the attorney's office to pursue this, we'll see what we can come up with in the next few weeks.
Chair Jacobs: I think the Board would like you to do that, and we appreciate your offering that
improvement.
So, with that, if there is no further item — Mr. Manager, you have anything? Mr.
Attorney? I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to change the existing public hearing process for
Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related items/amendments.
DEFERRED
A. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, second by Commissioner Price to
adjourn the meeting at 11:43 pm.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Barry Jacobs, Chair
David Hunt
Deputy Clerk