Agenda

PB AGENDA_02.05.2020.PDF

Staff Report

STAFF REPORT TEXT AMENDMENT SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS_2ND PB VERSION.PDF

2/05/2020 PB Minutes

02 05 2020 PB MINUTES.PDF

1.

Documents:

1.I.

Documents:

1.I.i.

Documents:

IREDELL COUNTY PLANNING BOARD

Harry Tsumas, Chairman Doug Holland Raymond Burnette Kristi Pfeufer, Vice Chair Mark Davis Melissa Neader, Alt. Jerry Santoni Tracy Jenkins Scottie Brown, Alt. Chris Carney Robert Palmes

February 5, 2020

Commissioners Meeting Room Iredell County Government Center

Statesville, North Carolina 7:00 p.m.

A G E N D A

Call to Order Consideration of Text Amendments (For Recommendation)

Iredell County Land Development Code Chapters 2 & 3 – Solar Farms Other Business Approval of the January 8, 2020 Meeting Minutes Committee Assignments – Site Visits: Friday, February 14, 2020 Adjournment

IREDELL COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING STAFF REPORT

Proposed Text Amendment – Require Conditional District Rezoning

for Solar Farm Use and update decommissioning process within

Performance Requirements: R65 Solar Farms

EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST

Staff is proposing amendments to Chapters 2 and 3, of the Iredell County Land

Development Code, concerning Solar Farms. Major amendments include updating use

terminology to Solar Energy Systems, calling for a Conditional District Rezoning process vs.

Special Use Permit (BOA), and more stringent bonding and decommissioning

requirements. The following text amendments to the Land Development Code are being

presented for recommendation at this time.

Existing text that is bold and with strike through is text to be removed. Text in red and

underlined is new text to be added and was reviewed at the May 1st Planning Board

meeting. Text in blue is revised while text that is strike-through is proposed to be removed

since the last meeting.

STAFF COMMENTS

Chapter 3 deals with specific land uses and provides additional requirements for those

uses above the basic standards of the code.

With interest in solar energy facilities continuing to grow, the Iredell County Board of

Commissioners discussed the current solar farm requirements per the Land Development

Code at their Fall Retreat, and requested that Planning Staff research plausible updates.

These type solar farm facilities are currently allowed in the AC and RA residential districts

through the Special Use Permit process, as well as by right in the M-1 and M-2

manufacturing districts. Currently, we have had six applications for such facilities

throughout the County: 1 was denied (~400 ac.), 5 have been permitted but never built

(ranging from 5 to 250 ac.), with only 1 built and operating (~39 ac.).

Staff is recommending a more contemporary name change, from “Solar Farm” use to

“Solar Energy System” that require a conditional rezoning in the AC and RA residential

districts, with both Planning Board and Board of Commissioner hearings. Plus,

performance requirements in the M-1 and M-2 districts, as amended for Section R65 Solar

Energy Systems. Conditional rezoning hearings and revised Section R65 performance

requirements will provide for more County and public input involvement regarding the

placement and long-term maintenance of such sites, as well as allowing for additional

site-specific conditions. The official definition of the use, per Chapter 16, will not change.

Above all, in order to safeguard against neglect and/or abandonment of such facilities,

it was felt that the code needed to further address provisions for decommissioning and/or

the restoration of such sites upon reaching the end of their intended life span.

“Decommissioning” refers to removing solar components and restoring the project site to

prior conditions when the solar farm stops operating. Staff compared county regulations

across the State and noted standard requirements for solar farm decommissioning plans

that include a monetary bonding/ performance guarantee for a value determined by a

licensed engineer or a licensed contractor, as well as periodic re-evaluation of these

values into the future. It was also found that officially recording decommissioning plans,

with the Register of Deeds as part of the land record, is common practice.

TEXT AMENDMENTS

Performance Requirements (Chapter 3)

R65 Solar Energy Systems

Solar Energy Systems shall meet the following criteria. In the AC and RA zoning districts

a Conditional District Zoning is required. Solar collection devices attached to rooftops

or buildings are allowed in all zoning districts and are exempt from these requirements.

A. The applicant must include a site plan drawn to scale that meets the requirements of

Section 9.2.1 and the requirements below.

A.B. Solar collection devices shall be designed and located to avoid glare or reflection

onto adjacent properties and adjacent roadways and shall not interfere with traffic or

create a safety hazard.

B C. Solar farms Solar Energy Systems shall not be located within an airport primary

approach zone as described in Section 4.6.1.

C.D. All related equipment must be enclosed by a fence at least six (6) feet in height and

must have clearly visible warning signage concerning voltage.

D.E. An emergency shut-off mechanism is required and notice of its location should be

submitted to Iredell County Emergency Management. The mechanism shall be clearly

identified and unobstructed and shall be noted clearly on the site plan.

E.F. No business signs, billboards, or other advertising shall be installed on a solar device.

F.G. Removal of Solar Energy System equipment and site restoration:

1. The property owner or responsible party shall have six (6) months to complete

decommissioning of the solar facility if no electricity is generated for a

continuous period of twelve (12) months, unless the responsible party provides

substantial evidence (updated every six (6) months after twelve (12) months of

no energy production) to the Zoning Administrator of the intent to maintain

and reinstate the operation of the facility. A project is properly

decommissioned when all structures and equipment are removed and the site

is re-vegetated.

Applicant must submit decommissioning plans that describe the anticipated

life of the solar project, the party responsible for decommissioning, the

estimated decommissioning costs in current dollars, and the method for

ensuring that funds will be available for decommissioning and restoration.

2. A decommissioning plan shall be required as part of the Conditional District

Zoning application. This plan shall be prepared by a third party engineer and

must be signed off by the party responsible for decommissioning. The

following items are required to be addressed or included:

a.) The identification of the party currently responsible for

decommissioning.

b.) All costs for the removal of solar panels, buildings, cabling, electrical

components, roads, fencing, and any other associated facilities down to

36 inches below grade.

c.) All costs associated with provisions to restore the land to a condition

reasonably similar to its condition before development; including but not

limited to: for stabilizing the soil, restoring the ground cover, and disposal

of all materials per good management practices that are in effect at the

time of decommissioning,

3. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the decommissioning plan shall be

recorded by the applicant in the Iredell County Register of Deeds.

4. The decommissioning plan and estimated cost of removal shall be updated

every five (5) years or upon change of ownership of either the property or the

project’s owner. Any changes or updates to the plan shall be recorded in the

County’s Register of Deeds.

5. The owner of the solar energy system shall provide a bond, cash escrow, or

irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the County in an amount equal to 1.25

times the estimated decommissioning cost prior to the issuing of a zoning

permit.

6. The full amount of the bond, certified check, or letter of credit must remain in

full force and effect until the solar farm is decommissioned and any

necessary site restoration is completed.

7. The landowner or tenant must notify the county when the site is abandoned.

G.H. The applicant shall be required to provide a written affidavit documentation

stating that the facility is in compliance with all applicable Federal and State

regulations.

H.I. Setbacks

1. A solar device All related equipment within a solar farm solar energy system

may not be closer than 500 feet to any existing residential dwelling, excluding

any dwellings on the same parcel of land as the device.

2. Solar collection devices All related equipment must be set back fifty (50) feet

from any existing residentially zoned property line or perennial stream, and ten

(10) feet from any existing commercial or industrially zoned property at time of

application.

I. Solar collection devices attached to rooftops or buildings are exempt from

requirements C and H above.

J. This section does not pertain to solar devices generating energy solely for on-site use,

or rooftop mounted systems.

K. Screening requirements may be added to address site specific and neighbor

concerns as part of the Conditional Rezoning Process.

L. The Planning Director shall examine the progress made toward developing the

property per Section 11.6 (K).

Zoning Districts (Chapter 2)

Section 2.21.5 Public Works Facilities, Utilities, & Infrastructure Uses

USES AC RA RUR RR R20 R12 R8 RO OI NB HB GB M1 M2 R

Solar

Energy

System

Rezoning to a

Conditional

District required in

these districts;

See R #

R R 65

Definitions (Chapter 16)

Section 16.4 Definitions

Solar Energy System. An array of solar collection devices (including all related

equipment) to generate solar energy for collection and distribution, predominantly off-

site use.

ACTION NEEDED:

TO APPROVE: Motion to recommend approval the zoning text amendments and to make

a finding that the approval is consistent with the adopted 2030 Horizon Plan and that said

approval is reasonable and in the public interest and furthers the goals of the 2030 Horizon

Plan because it aims to mitigate future development concerns, and addresses changes

in the alternative-energy industry within a developing county.

TO DENY: Motion deny the zoning text amendments and to make a finding that though

the denial is inconsistent with the adopted 2030 Horizon Plan, said denial is reasonable

and in the public interest and does not further the goals of the 2030 Horizon Plan

because….

Page | 1

IREDELL COUNTY PLANNING BOARD

The Iredell County Planning Board met on Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. in

the Commissioners Meeting Room of the Iredell County Government Center (Old

Courthouse) at 200 S. Center Street in Statesville, NC.

MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT

Harry Tsumas, Chairman Matthew Todd

Doug Holland Leslie Meadows

Robert Palmes Cindy Nicholson

Chris Carney

Tracy Jenkins

Raymond Burnette

Jerry Santoni

Melissa Neader

Scottie Brown

Absent

Kristi Pfeufer

Mark Davis

Chairman Tsumas called the meeting to order.

CONSIDERATION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS (For Recommendation)

Mr. Matthew Todd, Planning Director, presented the following text amendments for

recommendation based on proposed text amendments to Chapters 2 & 3 of the Iredell

County Land Development Code:

Solar Farms

Mr. Todd states the county has had solar farms in the code for over 10 years and there

has been a couple of amendments during that time. The most recent was a few years

ago when the county added some phrasing for decommissioning and updating what is

referred to as the model ordinance for the state. As always, staff looked at surrounding

counties and counties throughout the state to see how Iredell County’s setbacks

compared to what other counties are doing.

At the time, it went through and the Board approved it. Right after it was approved, the

commissioners asked that it be sent back to this group to reconsider if these should be

allowed with a special use permit in rural areas. The Planning Board voted yes, leave it

as it was. It has stayed in that form for a couple of years.

Page | 2

Back at the Commissioners fall retreat, the Commissioners directed staff to move forward

with some specific amendments which include changing it from a special use permit

process which goes through the Board of Adjustment for approval. Thus, a quasi-judicial

process becomes a legislative process which would come through the Planning Board

and then to the County Commissioners. The other change the Commissioners specifically

asked for was the decommissioning and bonding requirements that were in the code.

Mr. Todd said with it being with the Board of Adjustment, staff asked that they have a

decommissioning plan which they have to prove to the Board of Adjustment how they

will actually decommission rather than just saying they will. With changing it to a

legislative process, it does make sense that the county has something where we have

that financial security that the county can basically step in if for some reason the

owner/operator does walk away from the project.

Mr. Todd said those are the two major things that have been requested. Staff has looked

to see what else could be changed by again going back to the model ordinance

and researching surrounding counties’ solar ordinances, to come up with this text

amendment. Also, from the last meeting, there were a few changes that are in blue in

the staff report. This is really intended to have regulations specifically for a solar farm. This

would not regulate someone that is looking to put solar panels on their roof top for

residential or commercial.

Mr. Todd reminded the Board that a couple of years ago, with a conditional rezoning

process, the code was changed to say you didn’t have to do a site plan, which gave a

lot more flexibility for someone coming through the process. With a solar farm, the county

does want a site plan provided. The first (A) on the staff report is basically saying the

exemption exists for other conditional rezonings, but it will not pertain to solar farms. A

site plan that shows how the property will be developed will have to be provided for solar

farms.

Mr. Todd states that all related equipment has to be enclosed by a fence. Specifics on

removal of solar energy systems are provided; they have 6 months to complete the

decommissioning if it goes without power for 12 months, the ordinance requires some

type of third party engineer to come in and estimate what the cost would be for removal

and then that cost is used for the financial guarantee. Also, the amendment to restore

the land to a condition reasonably similar to its original state before development, which

is something that may happen 25 years or more from now.

Chairman Tsumas asked if there is a site plan requirement for Board of Adjustment

process.

Mr. Todd said yes.

Page | 3

Mr. Todd states something else that is new, is recording at the Register of Deeds of the

decommissioning plan that has to be updated every 5 years to help alleviate the cost

changes over that time frame. The rate is 1.25 times over the actual cost to make up for

any inflation that would occur. Mr. Todd also noted the setbacks stayed the same at

500 feet from any existing residential dwelling, which from comparison, is pretty high by

looking at other jurisdictions. It was added that they do 50 feet from perennial streams

after previous meeting discussions.

Mr. Todd said screening has also been a topic for these sites. Most applicants coming

through this process have always been willing to add screening as part of the

requirement. Our code does have screening requirements for commercial uses but not

necessarily for a use that is allowed in a residential zoning district. The county felt like

through a conditional rezoning process, being able to allow the screening on a site by a

case-by-case basis specific to a site and specific to neighbor’s concerns would be best

rather than having a blanket screening requirement.

The county has seen previously where solar farms come through the process and are

approved and never move forward. With this process, if someone rezoned it to a

conditional zoning district for a solar farm and then that falls through, that property really

is only allowed to do a solar farm. The ordinance for our conditional process, that was

done years ago, basically requires the county to look back at those properties that have

been rezoned conditional, and if no progress has been made on the development, it is

supposed to be brought to the attention of the Commissioners and let them decide to

rezone it back or leave the conditional zoning in place. Therefore, a cross reference was

added to hopefully take care of some of those issues and have a mechanism in place

to flag it and go back through the process to rezone it back to its original zoning.

Chairman Tsumas asked if that would be involuntary

Mr. Todd said it could be involuntary. It would be brought back to the Board of

Commissioners and noted that it was not developed like it had been petitioned to, and

ask what the Board wants to do. If they choose to take it back through the process, that

would not mean that they would approve or deny, but it would go back through the

process.

Mr. Santoni asked if those permits have a time expiration on them.

Chairman Tsumas said no, it is not like a Special Use Permit, it is a conditional zoning, you

use it or lose it.

At this time, the Board had discussions about solar panel life expectancy and time frames

regarding number of years of operation without issues, etc.

Mr. Carney then spoke about actually seeing the contracts with some solar farm projects

and states they are all 20 years guaranteed, and renewable for 20 years whether it be

with Duke Energy (which bids 40% of the projects currently) or whomever. They almost

all have some kind of bonding requirement included for cleanup. The reason you see

Page | 4

them in cycles is because there are 2 year tranches and you will see a big push and then

a little slow down. Contractually, the landowner is contracted for 20 years with a renewal

at 20 years and is specifically based on the idea that the solar panel has a 20-year life

expectancy. From the point of this Board, the real argument is does the county have the

stopgap in place that requires the landowner to have it cleaned up to specified

requirements.

During this time, the Board discussed requiring a Special Use Permit versus a conditional

rezoning, and the differences of each when dealing with site plan specifics and time

frames. Mr. Carney said he loved the idea of having a 2-year time frame to begin work

once approved, either doing the project or not being able to complete it, and return

through the process again.

Mr. Brown asked if there were a set number of acres involved.

Mr. Todd replied no.

Mr. Carney asked if there is a tool that sets an expiration date.

Mr. Todd said that question has come up a lot of times with other uses also, it’s been

debated that the Board of Adjustment can set it as a condition. Typically, a Special Use

Permit does not have a timeframe, they are good permanently. He does not recall ever

setting conditions for a timeframe on one. It has been debated, but can’t answer that

question other than it has been an issue in the past with others uses and it has never been

figured out with a legal mechanism to guarantee that would happen.

Mr. Palmes asked to clarify the list of uses that are allowed for whatever zoning, when it is

put under a conditional zoning, isn’t that limiting uses allowed? He feels this seems as

though we are expanding but not limiting, which would not be a conditional use, that

would be a special use. Do the Commissioners look at a case after it goes through Board

of Adjustment?

Mr. Todd said no.

Mr. Palmes said this seems as if it is a Special Use Permit but going through a legislative

process rather than the Board of Adjustment.

Mr. Todd said he understands Mr. Palmes point and it is confusing, but the county attorney

has vetted this from a legal standpoint. Other uses in the county code like the Planned

Unit Development (PUD), which allows for a mixture of a subdivision and commercial uses,

is setup the same way. This has been in the code for 30 years, and other jurisdictions have

the same thing and there are no issues with it.

Mr. Palmes asked about making its own zoning for Special Use because it is restricting a

Residential Agriculture (RA) property to a solar use. Can a house be put on this

afterward?

Page | 5

Mr. Todd said it would depend on how the applicant submitted their application like any

other conditional use. The county encourages applicants to not submit only one use, but

narrow the list down to give themselves some flexibility.

Mr. Brown asked if you change RA to solar, does the RA goes away?

Mr. Todd said it would be RA with conditional zoning, then you would look at the file to

see specifically what the conditions were.

Mr. Carney clarified they could still say they wanted to do agricultural as well as solar if

that time comes.

Mr. Todd said yes, if they noted that in their application to say they at some point wanted

to do a major subdivision on their property for example.

Chairman Tsumas asked would they have to list subdivision as a use? If they had

conditional zoning on the property, is it restricted to solar?

Mr. Todd said if they put that on their application, yes, that is all they would be able to

do. If they specifically noted other uses that were allowed in an RA district, they could

do other uses if they are specifically in the table of what is allowed.

Chairman Tsumas asked about including all those uses on a site plan if it is site specific.

Mr. Todd said other uses on the table would not require a site plan, only a solar farm in

that district requires a site plan.

Mr. Carney verified that agriculture is always applicable, even if they said solar,

agricultural would still be ok.

Mr. Todd said yes, they could do anything agricultural.

Mr. Carney said just not build houses.

At this time, Mr. Santoni presented his research (see attachment with the staff report) he

had gotten together and provided the Board. He states he will also have an addendum

next week that he will be added (see attachment with the staff report). He reiterated his

concern for potentially contaminated water and spoke about Currituck County drilling

wells 20 feet deep for ground water monitoring wells to test every 2 years.

Mr. Carney said that is not saying the water is contaminated.

Mr. Santoni said that is correct, it only says you have to monitor it. The point he says is

there is enough concern that they are encouraging testing of the ground. No longer just

stabilizing it, but making sure the ground is not contaminated, and if it is, what will be

done about it. There are mechanisms to report results, and safety precautions that are

being put in place after 15 – 20 years of experience. Mr. Santoni states NC has created

Page | 6

a commission to look at decommissioning that will be coming out by 2022. He feels it

would benefit the county if we looked at what different counties have done and we

learn from them.

Ms. Neader asked Mr. Santoni of all the counties he researched, only 1 has had a

moratorium on solar facilities. What was the reasoning behind it?

Mr. Santoni said yes, Currituck County, the moratorium was just lifted last month after 2

years. This county found the same types of issues that he has outlined in his research,

such as contamination of the property, unsightliness with neighbors not wanting to look

at these panels, etc.

Mr. Holland asked Mr. Todd about the mention of the state looking into a plan to

decommission these sites, is that correct?

Mr. Todd read an article on what the state of NC is saying. Mr. Todd said it is his

understanding, that the state will be pulling together true experts in this field because

they have the means to pull in the right people to craft something that will address all

those concerns. The county has to put a lot of emphasis in the NC Clean Energy Group,

because our legislatures fund them. It is the NC model ordinance that the county has

used for years to look at when amendments have been made. They are looking for

alternative energy options and claim they are neutral and present neutral facts. They

have a 15-page document that states the negative health and safety impacts of these

facilities are nonexistent. Yes, there are hazardous chemicals in these panels, but they

are at levels that does not make a difference. They also have another document that

talks specifically about solar and agriculture with no issues. Just a couple years ago, they

came to Statesville and did a presentation to the farming community and anyone else

that was interested in the region, about how well the two go together.

Mr. Todd said anyone can read articles from all over the country, yes other counties are

doing things, example with Currituck County, they have 2,000 acre facilities and had

political push due to having a lot of solar farms in the area. They felt the need to slow

down, and look more closely at solar development, being a coastal tourism county

having a high water table, etc. A completely different scenario.

Mr. Holland said from the standpoint of decommissioning, if the state will be coming out

with a set of rules in 2 years, the county will be covered under the new rules.

Chairman Tsumas said in the meantime, we have to address this now prior to when the

state comes out with theirs. There are several things to be addressed: the unsightliness of

these sites, the water runoff/contamination potential, and the legislative side.

Chairman Tsumas said he would like to hear the opinions of the Board on the unsightliness.

Is the normal screening with 100’ setbacks enough?

Mr. Holland said he thought that could be addressed site specific, with conditions.

Page | 7

Mr. Todd said the county wanted to reiterate that screening requirements may be added

to address site specific neighbor concerns as part of the conditional rezoning process.

Even though that could have been a condition anyway, the county wanted to draw

attention and show that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners have to

consider site specific screening requirements on these requests because of the terrain

around this area. A set height may not be applicable in all cases. The county has also

run into issues where farmers do not want certain types of screenings used because of

shade issues. Therefore, it gives the flexibility to be site specific.

Mr. Carney said he likes that it be site specific instead of set. It would be horrible to require

a berm and demolish natural acres of hardwood trees for that berm. He would prefer to

keep a natural barrier to begin with if possible.

Mr. Holland said every request will be different and the conditional zoning process will

allow for site specific recommendations.

Mr. Carney said he understands Mr. Santoni’s concerns but, if we can’t do solar, nuclear,

coal, etc., every time the county comes into the discussion of energy, it comes with

concerns of the what-if’s of new technology, so where are we going to go from here. He

too has looked at studies that say there is a negligible risk to it, but he does think there is

a massive visual risk. If the county decides to make this so restrictive, Raleigh will let the

county know that they do not agree with us. We might not love what we have been

handed, but the county has to accept clean energy. This is the cleanest energy that

people are putting on the table in front of us. We need to deal with what is in front of us

right now. Solar energy will come whether it is on our rule system or Raleigh’s system either

way.

Chairman Tsumas wanted to clarify if this will fall under the ordinance that the county has

in place concerning containment and runoff.

Mr. Todd said the applicant would have to go through the Erosion Control review process

for the development of the site and will have to have Erosion Control measures in place.

Chairman Tsumas asked if it would count as impervious.

Mr. Todd said no, the state does not consider solar panels impervious. The county doesn’t

really have storm water control. Yes, the county has generic statements, but these sites,

will be large acreage sites for the most part. The natural contour will prevail of where

the water is running. They will stay vegetative under the panels, and not have runoff like

a parking lot or roof of a building.

Mr. Santoni said you can have stormwater runoff coming off but not causing erosion, but

still diverting more water on the other properties.

Page | 8

Chairman Tsumas said Mr. Santoni was talking about contaminants. Stormwater rules are

different. They are designed for contaminant control. They catch in a basin and release

it slowly and is designed for that. If you have the natural flow, that is where they put the

basin.

Mr. Palmes states with stormwater retention or detention, it has to do with the amount of

concentrated flow you put on somebody and also the contaminants because the

contaminants get in the pond, theoretically go to the bottom of the pond, the water is

skimmed off the top, and let it go. Erosion control does not trigger a stormwater review,

it is two separate subjects. They only get lumped together because a civil engineer does

both of them on the same project. When you increase the impervious area is when it

triggers Raleigh. They are related, but not the same thing. By requiring an erosion control

plan does not constitute a stormwater study.

Mr. Holland said the site will have vegetation under these panels. There will not be a lot

of runoff, the grass will filter the water.

Mr. Carney said the streams, in his opinion, are really the main point of what information

Mr. Santoni provided. The streams are what triggered his concern. The county should

really keep solar farms away from streams. Therefore, you have extra ground between

the site and the stream.

Mr. Palmes said vegetation will slow down the flow, but his point is a stormwater review is

not going to be triggered if this gets approved. Mr. Palmes said not to change the

subject, but also does a Special Use Permit require a site plan right now?

Mr. Todd said yes.

Mr. Palmes asked if a Special Use Permit requires a site plan, that site plan triggers an

erosion control plan, then why does this need to be in a legislative process if the Board of

Adjustment process already has a site plan?

Mr. Todd said because the Board of Commissioners wants to make the final decision on

these.

Mr. Palmes asked how long do they have to decommission, 6-months? If they are given

a timeframe to decommission and it’s not within that timeframe, are they penalized and

does that need to be in the amendment?

Mr. Todd said at that point, it would turn into zoning violation which would have fines

associated with it.

Chairman Tsumas asked if it is a fine or does the county pull the bond.

Page | 9

Mr. Todd said there would be a point when the county would pull the bond. This would

depend on how much progress was being made during their 6-month timeframe, are

they actually making progress. It would be like any other violation, the county might work

with them, because if the county has to go through that process, you don’t know how

long that would take and the county does not have the staff to go out and

decommission. It would have to be put out for bids to get it taken care of, so there is a

balance there in that process.

Chairman Tsumas said if the applicant is the one that went out of business, the county

would have to pull the bond, correct?

Mr. Santoni asked what would happen on the ones that would take a year to build and

then they abandon this project halfway through?

Mr. Todd said it’s in there as a requirement that the landowner and tenant must notify the

county when the site is abandoned whether it be during construction or 5 years after

being constructed if for some reason they walk away.

Mr. Santoni asked can abandonment be defined in the amendment if it’s not been in

use for a certain amount of time.

Chairman Tsumas said in theory, what would happen if they had a timeframe to

complete the project and for some reason it takes longer to complete.

Mr. Carney recalled that happened in housing where they got started and then the

permit had to be extended. The county needs to be reasonable or else someone will tell

us that the county is unreasonable.

Mr. Todd said it is kind of like building a house, all they have to do is to keep the permit

active and can take as long as they want. In reference to this, how do we set a

timeframe that they have to have it completed by a certain time.

Mr. Carney said before they start putting a solar panel in, they have an agreement with

Duke Energy to take this much energy, they go and they shop it, Dukes agrees to take

an X amount of megawatts from them, and then have a 20-year agreement and then

go build it.

Chairman Tsumas said if they wait around for 3 years they’ve lost 3 years of income

because they didn’t finish it.

Ms. Neader said and then they are also paying a landowner.

Mr. Carney said yes, they had already sunk cost into it at that time.

Chairman Tsumas said he feels there is a lot more to it than we realize, but we have to

deal with what is in front of us now.

Page | 10

Mr. Carney said he would like to see the vegetative buffer increased for perennial

streams.

Mr. Todd said there was nothing in place and the county put it at 50 feet by looking

through the code at other uses, but can set it at whatever the Board suggests.

At this time, John Allen, Iredell County Board of Adjustment member asked to speak. Mr.

Allen said the Board of Adjustment has dealt with these solar farms over the last several

years, and has spent hours listening to official testimony and there are a lot of

unanswered questions that the Board of Adjustment does not get answers to. The first

being, there has never been any opposition attorney under oath say there was toxicity

in removal. Nobody in the ordinance is required to have panels up front or have samples

of panels up front, therefore, there is never anyway of testing the panels. So there really

is no evidence that exists because they never really had samples. Next, licensed

appraisers under oath, have never shown any loss of value to adjoining owners.

Chairman Tsumas asked Mr. Allen if they were to say there may be a loss of property

value, wouldn’t it be the neighbor’s responsibility to bring an appraiser to give that

evidence with the Board of Adjustment? With the Planning Board, anyone can say that.

Mr. Allen said yes, and licensed appraisers have been brought in, and the licensed

appraisers have never said it damages the value of adjoining properties.

Mr. Carney verified with Mr. Allen that the Board of Adjustment has had full-fledged

lawyers from both sides to argue this point.

Mr. Allen states yes, for months at a time.

Mr. Allen also spoke regarding the question if this is the best use of the land. He said he

is not sure if that is a question the Board can answer or not. There are many potential

uses for the land, do you want that and is there a size limit or not.

Mr. Brown made the statement, is that the Board’s choice, or is that the land owner’s

choice.

Mr. Allen said that is something this Board will have to decide.

Mr. Holland said, in most cases, there is not another use that would generate the income

that solar energy generates for that farmland.

Mr. Allen questions if you can require the panels to be raised higher in order for animals

to graze under them to have a dual purpose.

Mr. Brown said he has seen they are doing that in a couple of other countries. Therefore,

dual purpose.

Page | 11

Mr. Allen said few cases that have come before the Board of Adjustment, are for tracking

panels that follow the sun. The panels that are stable, per testimony, says they are only

able to make energy one hour a day, so can you require them to be trackable? The one

that was turned down in the county previously, was basically oversized. People in the

community that were related with government, came and testified that 400 acres was

too big and did not fit the character of the area proposed. Although, as far as he can

tell, there has never been anything about size as a pre-requisite. Mr. Allen said those are

just some of the observations he made while listening to the discussions tonight.

Mr. Santoni asked what the average sizes with solar farms previously being brought before

the Board of Adjustment.

Mr. Allen said they have ranged from 50 – 200 acres.

Mr. Holland said he does not think you can limit the size.

Mr. Sanotni said it’s interesting how other counties he has researched, put new

ordinances in to limit size.

Mr. Allen said everyone that has gone to the state for appeal after being denied, has

always been overturned and received approval.

Mr. Holland asked Mr. Todd either way it goes, Board of Adjustment versus Legislative, it

can still go to court?

Mr. Todd said yes.

Mr. Santoni asked Mr. Allen with those coming before the Board of Adjustment being

owners, lawyers, stakeholders, etc., did they ever talk about technology?

Mr. Allen said all those that came before the Board were asked all kinds of questions.

Some of the companies that came in brought attorneys, appraisers, experts on

engineering, electrical, solar, FAA and reflectivity, etc., in order to answer any type of

questions. Mr. Allen said the Board of Adjustment has to listen to the experts, and there

has never been any testimony given to show any toxicity (never had a physical sample

either to show of where purchased or manufactured) or loss of property value.

Mr. Todd said the experts have shown there is no toxicity, again, that is only for what is

existing now. There may be a brand new panel out 2 years from now that we possibly

won’t know anything about. It is an evolving technology.

Mr. Brown said this will be a continuing thing as years go on and solar energy gets bigger

and bigger.

Page | 12

Mr. Todd reminded the Board the state is also working on some things along with what is

being proposed here tonight. It can be tabled but he needs clear direction of what this

Board is looking for or if the Board is comfortable with making small changes, and send

this part through as asked, or leave it as a special use permit process.

Mr. Todd said we are here looking at solar use, just the same as a residential or

commercial use. The county is not looking at what materials are being used on those

sites either.

At this time, the Board discussed what Mr. Allen had spoken about in reference to how

things are presented and whom presents to the Board of Adjustment. Also, the

differences in this use staying with Board of Adjustment or changing to a legislative

process with pros and cons of each.

Mr. Carney made a motion to approve the solar farm text amendments with the increase

for buffer on streams from 50 feet to 100 feet.

After Mr. Carney made the motion, more discussion ensued.

Mr. Carney then asked Chairman Tsumas at 9:00 p.m. if it were reasonable to take a 5-

minute recess.

Chairman Tsumas agreed to a 5-minute recess.

At 9:05, the Board reconvened and Chairman Tsumas asked if there was any further

discussion on this motion and said there had been a motion made.

Mr. Santoni states he would recommend to table this motion and share all the information

he has collected from other ordinances and give time to look at best practices. At the

next meeting, come forward and propose technology and devices that can be added,

along with how to communicate this information. He suggested including Mr. Allen and

other Board of Adjustment members if they so choose.

Mr. Brown asked if a motion can be tabled after a motion has been made?

Chairman Tsumas reminded Mr. Santoni there has already been a motion made, would

Mr. Santoni need to accept a substitute motion?

Mr. Carney said Mr. Santoni’s is a procedural motion and it could supersede the original

motion that was made. Mr. Carney said he appreciates what Mr. Santoni is saying,

however, feels this motion has been heard by nine Board members thoroughly already

and if one person is changed for next month, it would have to be presented all over

again. In his opinion, it would be unfair to the process. Mr. Carney recommended taking

Mr. Santoni’s notes and pass them to the Planning staff and have the notes incorporated

in the report that goes to the County Commissioners for them to discuss. The decision will

go to them regardless.

Page | 13

Chairman Tsumas said since Mr. Santoni is asking for the motion to be tabled, he would

need a second motion.

No one seconded motion made by Mr. Santoni to table.

Chairman Tsumas advised Mr. Santoni to prepare what he wants to write up and forward

to Mr. Todd to be included in the report to the Commissioners.

Chairman Tsumas at this time, clarified that the Board will be voting on the package that

has been presented tonight with one addition, which is to increase the buffer on streams

to 100 feet.

After no further discussion, Mr. Carney made a Motion to recommend approval of the

zoning text amendments with one addition being to increase the buffer on streams to

100 feet and make a finding that the approval is consistent with the adopted 2030

Horizon Plan and that said approval is reasonable and in the public interest and furthers

the goals of the 2030 Horizon Plan because it aims to mitigate future development

concerns, and addresses changes in the alternative-energy industry within a developing

county. Mr. Holland seconded said motion, vote was 6-3, those opposed Tsumas, Palmes,

& Santoni.

VOTE: 6-3 Tsumas – would prefer Board of Adjustment to hear this type of case.

Palmes – Board of Adjustment can take presented factual information and make a

subjective decision on something that is allowed in the zoning for a special use permit.

Santoni – feels some issues need to be addressed that the Board of Adjustment can’t

address and incorporate those in as other best practices and learn not to re-create

something we don’t know anything about. Also, have solid footing based on other

counties experiences from the last decade or two.

OTHER BUSINESS: None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None

MINUTES: Mr. Santoni made a motion to approve the January 8, 2020 meeting

minutes, seconded by Mr. Burnette. All were in favor.

MONTHLY COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: None

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Chairman Tsumas declared the

meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m.

_______________________ ______________________

Cindy Nicholson Date Read and/or Approved

Administrative Assistant