staff report text amendment solar energy …
TRANSCRIPT
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