Loading...
09-07-2021 Agenda Packet BOCPERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AGENDA 304 South Morgan Street, Room 215 Roxboro, NC 27573-5245 336-597-1720 Fax 336-599-1609 September 7, 2021 7:00pm This meeting will convene in the County Office Building Auditorium. CALL TO ORDER………………………………………………….. Chairman Powell INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING: ITEM #1 (pgs. 4-142) Petition CD-01-21 is a request by Plateau Solar, LLC on behalf of the property owners, Thomas and Rachel Puckett, W. Ruffin Woody Jr. Revocable Trust and Samuel Cates, for a Conditional District Rezoning from R (Residential), RC (Rural Conservation) and B1 (Highway Commercial) to CD-RC (Conditional District – Rural Conservation), for a Level 3, (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System on Tax Map and Parcel numbers A41-1, A31-16, A31-42 and A42-5, consisting of approximately 798 acres located on Hurdle Mills Road and Satterfield Road …………………………..…. Lori Oakley ITEM #2 Consideration to Grant or Deny request by Plateau Solar, LLC on behalf of the property owners, Thomas and Rachel Puckett, W. Ruffin Woody Jr. Revocable Trust and Samuel Cates, for a Conditional District Rezoning from R (Residential), RC (Rural Conservation) and B1 (Highway Commercial) to CD-RC (Conditional District - Rural Conservation), for a Level 3, (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System on Tax Map and Parcel numbers A41-1, A31-16, A31-42 and A42-5, consisting of approximately 798 acres located on Hurdle Mills Road and Satterfield Road ……………………………………………………… Chairman Powell 1 PUBLIC HEARING: ITEM #3 (pg. 143) Public comments whether the Board of Commissioners should consider to adopt a resolution to change the Organization and Governance of the current Departments of Social Services and Health ………………………………………………………………… Chairman Powell ITEM #4 Consideration to authorize staff to draft a resolution to change the Organization and Governance of the current Departments of Social Services and Health ……………………………………….. Chairman Powell INFORMAL COMMENTS The Person County Board of Commissioners established a 10-minute segment which is open for informal comments and/or questions from citizens of this county on issues, other than those issues for which a public hearing has been scheduled. The time will be divided equally among those wishing to comment. It is requested that any person who wishes to address the Board, register with the Clerk to the Board prior to the meeting. ITEM #5 DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes of August 2, 2021 (pgs. 144-153),B.Home & Community Care Block Grant Final Reports FY 2020-2021 (pgs. 154-156), andC.Person County Health Department Fee Requests for Immunization Administration of the 3rd Dose COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna (pg. 157) NEW BUSINESS ITEM #6 (pgs. 158-159) Resolution Authorizing Reconveyance of School Property …………… Ellis Hankins CHAIRMAN’S REPORT MANAGER’S REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS/COMMENTS Note: All Items on the Agenda are for Discussion and Action as deemed appropriate by the Board. 2 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Person County Board of Commissioners’ regular scheduled meeting on September 7, 2021 at 7:00pm, will be conducted in-person as well as remotely, as allowed by the Board’s Rules of Procedure during a Governor’s State of Emergency; in this case Executive Order for COVID-19. To join the meeting remotely, use the following link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87064895200?pwd=cWtxQ0RaT2tTd21ydERYY3JxKzJnQT09 Passcode: 283262 Or One tap mobile : US: +19292056099,,87064895200#,,,,*283262# or 13017158592,,87064895200#,,,,*283262# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 Webinar ID: 870 6489 5200 Passcode: 283262 International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kctvVtKCfM The meeting will include public comments in-person and/or via Zoom; anyone interested in addressing the Board may appear in-person at the Person County Office Building Auditorium located at 304. S. Morgan Street, Roxboro or contact the Clerk to the Board by noon on September 7, 2021 to request access information to speak remotely. Contact the Clerk to the Board at 336-583-0835 and provide your name, address, phone number and email to receive the remote access link information. In lieu of providing public comments in-person or via remote access, written comments will be accepted at comments@personcountync.gov; this written comments inbox will collect comments up to 24-hours prior to the public hearing (the comments email will close on Monday, September 6, 2021 at 7:00pm) To view the meeting without the need to address the Board, the County Commissioners’ meeting is streamed live via the Live Meeting link on the Commissioners’ web page at www.personcountync.gov. Face coverings are required in all county facilities. Sanitizer stations will also be available at the entrances. Brenda B. Reaves, NCMCC, MMC Clerk to the Person County Board of Commissioners 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Person County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of the Person County Office Building at 304 South Morgan Street, Roxboro, North Carolina, to hear the following: Petition CD-01-21 is a request by Plateau Solar, LLC, on behalf of the property owners, Thomas and Rachel Puckett, W. Ruffin Woody Jr. Revocable Trust and Samuel Cates, for a Conditional District Rezoning from R (Residential), RC (Rural Conservation) and B1 (Highway Commercial) to CD-RC (Conditional District - Rural Conservation) for a Level 3 (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System on Tax Map and Parcel numbers A41-1, A31-16, A31-42 and A42-5, consisting of approximately 798 acres located on Hurdle Mills Road and Satterfield Road. The public is invited to attend the meeting. Substantial changes may occur to the request based on comments from the public hearing. The Board of Commissioners reserves the right to recess the public hearing at another place and time. For further information on the case(s) listed above, please contact the Person County Planning and Zoning Department at (336) 597-1750 4 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 7, 2021 Agenda Title: Petition CD-01-21 is a request by Plateau Solar, LLC on behalf of the property owners, Thomas and Rachel Puckett, W. Ruffin Woody Jr. Revocable Trust and Samuel Cates, for a Conditional District Rezoning from R (Residential), RC (Rural Conservation) and B1 (Highway Commercial) to CD- RC (Conditional District - Rural Conservation), for a Level 3, (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System on Tax Map and Parcel numbers A41-1, A31-16, A31-42 and A42-5, consisting of approximately 798 acres located on Hurdle Mills Road and Satterfield Road Summary of Information: The applicant is requesting to construct a Level 3 (10 acres of greater) solar energy system on approximately 798 acres in separate ownership. Currently, the subject properties are a combination of woodlands, pasture/farm land and single-family dwellings. The properties are zoned RC (Rural Conservation), R (Residential) and B1 (Highway Commercial). The proposed Solar Energy System will consist of approximately 205,000 solar panels with a generating capacity of 65 Mega Watts of power combined. The panels will not exceed 15’ in height. The Person County Land Use Plan identifies the site as Rural Residential/AG and Suburban Residential. Rural Residential/AG is defined as: Allowing for low-density residential (single site-built and manufactured homes); agriculture, forestry, churches; very limited commercial, office or public/institutional uses meeting locational criteria. Most of the land within protected water supply watersheds should be placed in this category. Locational criteria for non-residential uses within this land use category would include frontage and access to a major State highway or secondary road, proximity to similar uses and spatial separation from non-compatible uses such as existing residential development. Land uses within this category would be expected to develop without public sewer, i.e., with private septic tank systems. Suburban Residential is defined as: Residential land uses including subdivisions and manufactured home parks at densities of 1-3 dwelling units per acre; commercial, office, industrial, public/institutional uses meeting locational criteria. Locational criteria for nonresidential uses within this land use category would include frontage and access to a major State highway or secondary road, proximity to similar uses and spatial separation from non- compatible uses such as existing residential development. Land uses within this category could develop with or without public sewer. 5 Appendix O of the Land Use Plan lists goals and objectives for the county including the following:  1.0 - To promote an orderly and efficient land use development pattern, which allows for a variety of land uses while being sensitive to environmental concerns. Planning Staff Summary: Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional District Rezoning/Level 3 Solar Energy System based on the Person County Land Use Plan and the Future Land Use Map contained within the Land Use Plan. Staff has determined that all regulations and standards set forth in the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance have been applied to the site plan for this proposed CD Rezoning case and have either met or exceeded those regulations and standards. This zoning is a Conditional District Rezoning request, and conditions can be placed on the approval, provided that they comply with the Person County Planning Ordinance and Solar Energy System Ordinance and are agreed upon by the applicant. Planning Board Action: The Planning Board, at their regularly scheduled meeting, August 12, 2021, voted not to recommend the Conditional District Rezoning to the Board of Commissioners, stating that the request was not consistent with the Person County Land Use Plan, was not reasonable and was not in the public interest and did not meet the goals of the Person County Land Development Plan. The Board stated the request was denied for the following reasons: 1. That the community did not support the requested use. 2. That the use would reduce the amount of land available for agricultural use. 3. That there would be a reduction in the availability of jobs and income to farmers. Since the Planning Board meeting, the applicant has submitted revisions to their site plan. The applicant has reduced the solar panel height from the maximum of 15’ to 10’. The applicant has also increased the landscaping and buffering requirement of 3’ minimum height at planting, to 12’ to 14’. Recommended Action: Vote to approve, approve with conditions or deny the requested conditional district rezoning. The Board shall also approve a brief statement describing whether its action is consistent or inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan and a brief statement of reasonableness. Reasonableness and Consistency Statement: The request is consistent with the Person County Land Use Plan and future-planning goals of the county, is reasonable, and in the public interest as it meets the goals of the Person County Land Development Plan specifically: 1.0 – To promote an orderly and efficient land use development pattern, which allows for a variety of land uses while being sensitive to environmental concerns. Submitted by: Lori Oakley, Planning Director 6 CD‐01‐21  BOC 9‐7‐21  Staff Analysis  1     Conditional District Rezoning – CD‐01‐21  Hurdle Mills and Satterfield Roads  Plateau Solar, LLC  EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST  Petition CD‐01‐21 is a request by Plateau Solar, LLC on behalf of the property owners, Thomas and Rachel  Puckett, W. Ruffin Woody Jr. Revocable Trust and Samuel Cates, for a Conditional District Rezoning from  R (Residential), RC (Rural Conservation) and B1 (Highway Commercial) to CD‐RC (Conditional District ‐  Rural Conservation), for a Level 3, (10 acres or greater) Solar Energy System on Tax Map and Parcel  numbers A41‐1, A31‐16, A31‐42 and A42‐5, consisting of approximately 798 acres located on Hurdle Mills  Road and Satterfield Rd.  LOCATION & CURRENT LAND USE  Currently, the subject property (A41‐1) is a 353.56‐acre tract located to the west and east of Hurdle Mills  Rd, and North and South of Rogers Whitfield Rd.  The property is zoned R (Residential) and RC (Rural  Conservation).  Condition and land use of the surrounding properties are: To the West – Pasture/Farmland and a few single family dwellings, zoned R (Residential). To the North – Woodlands, small amount of pasture/farm lands and a few single family dwellings, zoned R (Residential) and RC (Rural Conservation). To the East – Mainly woodlands, some pasture/farmland and a few single family dwellings, zoned RC (Rural Conservation) and R (Residential). To the South – Mainly woodlands, a few single family dwellings, zoned R (Residential) and RC (Rural Conservation). Currently, the subject property (A31‐16) is a 98.16‐acre tract located to the east of Hurdle Mills Rd and to  the North of Satterfield Rd. The property is zoned R (Residential), RC (Rural Conservation) and B1 (Highway  Commercial).  Condition and land use of the surrounding properties are: To the West ‐ a mixture of woodlands and pasture/farm land with a few single family dwellings, zoned R (Residential) and B1 (Highway Commercial). To the North ‐ Mainly woodlands, zoned R (Residential) and RC (Rural Conservation). To the East – Mainly woodlands, zoned RC (Rural Conservation). To the South – Bordered by Satterfield Rd, then a mixture of woodlands and pasture/farmland with a few single family dwellings, zoned B1 (Highway Commercial) and R (Residential). Currently, the subject property (A31‐42) is a 218.82‐acre tract located to the east of Hurdle Mills Rd and  to the North of Satterfield Rd. The property is zoned R (Residential) and RC (Rural Conservation).  Condition and land use of the surrounding properties are: To the West – Across Hurdle Mills Rd, single family dwellings, between property line and Hurdle Mills are a mixture of pasture/farmland and woodlands, zoned R (Residential). 7 CD‐01‐21  BOC 9‐7‐21  Staff Analysis  2  To the North – A mixture of woodlands and planted tree farms, zoned R (Residential) and RC  (Rural Conservation).   To the East – A mixture of woodlands, planted tree farms and some pasture/farmland, zoned  RC (Rural Conservation).   To the South – A mixture of woodlands, plated tree farms and a few single family dwellings,  zoned RC (Rural Conservation) and B1 (Highway Commercial).  Currently, the subject property (A42‐5) is a 126.83‐acre tract located to the North of Satterfield Rd. The  property is zoned RC (Rural Conservation).   Condition and land use of the surrounding properties are:   To the West – Woodlands, zoned RC (Rural Conservation).   To the North – Woodlands and planted tree farms, zoned RC (Rural Conservation).   To the East – A mixture of woodlands and pasture/farmland, zoned RC (Rural Conservation).   To the South – Across Satterfield Rd, mainly woodlands with a small amount of  pasture/farmland and few single‐family dwellings zoned R (Residential).    EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE     The properties are currently zoned R (Residential), RC (Rural Conservation) and B1 (Highway  Commercial). According to Article VII Section 70 of the Person County Planning Ordinance:    The purpose of R (Residential) district is to provide for single‐family residential uses and  compatible development.     The purpose of RC (Rural Conservation) district is to provide for only limited land use controls in  areas with limited nonagricultural development.    The purpose of B1 (High Commercial) district is to provide for commercial and light industrial  development which operate in a relative quiet, clean and non‐noxious manner.     The properties are a mix of woodlands, pasture/farmlands, planted tree farms and single‐family  dwellings.    COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN    The Person County Land Use Plan identifies the proposed site as Rural Residential and Suburban  Residential.    Rural Residential/AG is defined as:    Low‐Density residential (single, site built and manufactured homes); agriculture, forestry,  churches; very limited commercial, office, or public/institutional uses meeting locational criteria.  Most of the land within protected water supply watersheds should be placed in this category.  Locational criteria for non‐residential uses within this land use category would include frontage  8 CD‐01‐21  BOC 9‐7‐21  Staff Analysis  3 and access to a major State highway or secondary road, proximity to similar uses and spatial  separation from non‐compatible uses such as existing residential development. Land uses within  this category would be expected to develop without public sewer, i.e., with private septic tank  systems.     Suburban Residential is defined as:    Residential land uses including subdivisions and manufactured home parks at densities of 1‐3  dwelling units per acre; commercial, office, industrial, public/institutional uses meeting locational  criteria. Locational criteria for nonresidential uses within this land use category would include  frontage and access to a major State highway or secondary road, proximity to similar uses and  spatial separation from non‐compatible uses such as existing residential development. Land uses  within this category could develop with or without public sewer.    Appendix O of the Land Use Plan lists goals and objectives for the county including the following:    1.0 – Promote an orderly and efficient land use development pattern, which allows for a variety  of land uses while being sensitive to environmental concerns.      PLANNING STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION    The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property from R (Residential), RC (Rural Conservation) and  B1 (Highway Commercial) to CD‐RC (Conditional District ‐ Rural Conservation), in order to allow  development of an approximately 798‐acre, Level 3, Solar Energy System on contiguous parcels in  separate ownership.    The proposed development would be comprised of approximately 205,000 mono‐crystalline solar panels,  not to exceed 15’ in height. The generating capacity is to be 65 MW.     A 150’ vegetative buffer (existing or planted) is required along all exterior property lines, with the  exception of those participating parcels sharing property lines, which will be exempt from buffering  requirements, provided each property owner signs and submits a waiver per Article 2 of the Person  County Solar Energy Ordinance. These waivers have been submitted and are on file.    There is at least one blue line stream on 3 out of the 4 parcels requiring a 50’ buffer on each side and this  has been shown on the site plan.    A 300’ setback from the nearest solar panel to the nearest dwelling is required and has been delineated  on the site plan.    Solar Energy Systems proposed within five (5) nautical miles of an airport operation must submit  documentation from Article 2, Section 2.5(B)(2) of the Person County Solar Energy Ordinance, which are:  Map analysis results, Determination of whether the airport is in the National Plan of Integrated Airport  Systems (NPIAS), Documentation/certification that the project will not interfere with airport/aircraft  communications systems, and proof that intent to construct a Solar Energy Systems was sent to the NC  Commanders Council at least 30 days prior to the hearing. These items have been submitted and are on  file.   9 CD‐01‐21  BOC 9‐7‐21  Staff Analysis  4 Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional District Rezoning/Level 3 Solar Energy  System based on the Person County Land Use Plan and the Future Land Use Map contained within the  Land Use Plan. Staff has determined that all regulations and standards set forth in the Person County Solar  Energy System Ordinance have been applied to the site plan for this proposed CD Rezoning case and have  either met or exceeded those regulations and standards.  This zoning is a Conditional District Rezoning request, and conditions can be placed on the approval,  provided that they comply with the Person County Planning Ordinance and Solar Energy System Ordinance  and are agreed upon by the applicant.      REASONABLENESS AND CONSISTENCY STATEMENT    The Board is required to make a motion and include a Reasonableness and Consistency statement with  the motion.     Proposed Reasonableness and Consistency Statement:    The request is consistent with the Person County Land Use Plan and future planning goals of the county,  is reasonable, and in the public interest as it meets the goals of the Person County Land Development Plan  specifically 1.0 – To promote an orderly and efficient land use development pattern, which allows for a  variety of land uses while being sensitive to environmental concerns.    PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION    At the August 12, 2021 meeting of the Person County Planning Board, the Board voted 4 to 2 to deny case  CD‐01‐21, Conditional Rezoning to the Board of Commissioners, stating that the request was not  consistent with the Person County Land Use Plan and future planning goals of the county, that it was not  reasonable and was not in the public interest as it did not meet the goals of the Person County Land  Development Plan.     The Board stated the request was denied for the following reasons:  1. That the community did not support the requested land use.  2. That the use would reduce the amount of land available for agricultural use.  3. That there would be a reduction in the availability of jobs and income to farmers.    Since the Planning Board meeting, the applicant has submitted revisions to their site plan. The applicant  has reduced the solar panel height from the maximum of 15’ to 10’. The applicant has also increased the  landscaping and buffering requirement of 3’ minimum height at planting, to 12’ to 14’.        Submitted by: Angie Blount, Planner 1  10 $8,53006/28/2021 CD-01-21 11 267859 ($8,330) & 267865 ($200) Sarah Moore, Planning Tech06/28/2021 - full paymentreceived 6/30/21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P O I N D E X T E R R O A D ( S R - 1 1 3 7 ) ROGERS W H I T F I E L D R O A D ( S R - 1 1 3 6 ) SATTERFIELD ROAD DIXIE LONG ROAD (SR-1135)TERRY ROAD (SR-1181)HURDLE MILLS R OAD (SR-1001) APPROXIMATE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE (TYP.) APPROXIMATE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EASEMENT (TYP.) 300' DWELLING SETBACK (TYP.) NWI WETLAND (TYP.) NWI STREAM (TYP.) 150' PROPOSED VEGETATIVE BUFFER (TYP.) 150' EXISTING VEGETATIVE BUFFER (TYP.) APPROXIMATE PROPOSED SITE ACCESS APPROXIMATE PROPOSED SITE ACCESS APPROXIMATE PROPOSED SITE ACCESS NWI STREAM (TYP.) 300' DWELLING SETBACK (TYP.) FEMA 100 YEARFLOODPLAIN GU E S S R DHURDLE MILLS ROAD (SR-1001)EXISTING RESIDENCE (TYP.) INTERNAL PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) 50' RIPARIAN BUFFER (TYP.) APPROXIMATE POI 36°17'8.80"N, 79° 2'29.53"W APPROXIMATE 30' WIDE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR APPROXIMATE 30' WIDEWILDLIFE CORRIDOR APPROXIMATE 30' WIDEWILDLIFE CORRIDOR ©NORTH CAROLINAPERSON COUNTY06/24/2021LCLJSLAMS013434010PLATEAU SOLARVICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE SITE HWY 57HW Y 8 6 SITE DATA TABLE PROJECT AREA ± 797.37 ACRES TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBER A41 1, A31 42, A31 16, A42 5 APPROXIMATE POWERCAPACITY ± 65 MW ZONING JURISDICTION PERSON COUNTY RIVER BASIN NEUSE/FALLS ZONING RURAL CONSERVATION (RC), RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R), HIGHWAYCOMMERCIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (B1) CURRENT LAND USE AGRICULTURAL, FORESTED PROPOSED LAND USE SOLAR ENERGY SETBACKS/BUFFERS(PERSON COUNTY) 300' MIN. DWELLING SETBACK150' LANDSCAPE BUFFER50' RIPARIAN BUFFER MAXIMUM BUILT UPONAREA 24% LANDSCAPE BUFFERS COUNTY REQUIREMENTS(SECTION 2.4 PERSONCOUNTY SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM ORDINANCE) SOLAR COLLECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT SHALL BESCREENED FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES AND RIGHT-OF-WAYS WITH A 150' VEGETATIVE BUFFER. EXISTING VEGETATION MAY BECOUNTED TOWARD THE REQUIRED PLANTINGS WHEN IDENTIFIED ONA LANDSCAPE PLAN AND CERTIFIED BY AN ARBORIST, LANDSCAPEARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE DESIGNER. PLANTS IDENTIFIED FOR THE BUFFER MUST BE PROTECTED FROM ALL LAND DISTURBINGACTIVITIES AND CONSTRUCTION AT A DISTANCE EQUAL TO THE DRIPLINE OF THE PLANT(S) TO BE USED TOWARD THE BUFFER. PROPOSED BUFFER REQUIREMENTS:1) EVERY 500 SQUARE FEET OF BUFFER SHALL INCLUDE ONE EVERGREEN OR DECIDUOUS TREE THAT SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3'AT PLANTING AND HAVE A HEIGHT AND SPREAD OF AT LEAST 30'WITHIN 10 YEARS. 2) 5 EVERGREEN SHRUBS OR 3 EVERGREENS AND 2 DECIDUOUSSHRUBS, THAT SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3' AT PLANTING AND HAVE AHEIGHT AND SPREAD OF AT LEAST 5' IN 10 YEARS. FINAL PLANTINGS TO BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SUBMITTAL. 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS INCLUDING PARCEL BOUNDARIES, COUNTY LINES,ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, AND UTILITY LINES ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION OFPUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA INCLUDING NCONEMAP (ACCESSED 06/08/21), PERSON COUNTY GIS (ACCESSED 06/08/21), NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY (ACCESSED06/08/21), GOOGLE EARTH (ACCESSED 06/02/21) AND AERIAL IMAGERY. EXACT SETBACKAND BUFFER LOCATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON ALTA SURVEY AND FIELD-DELINEATED ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. 2. BASED ON FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) FIRM PANELS 3710998100K AND 3710998200K (DATED 12/06/2019), THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN FLOOD ZONE X (AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD) AND OUTSIDE OF SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD ZONES OR OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD. 3. THE LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:FENCING, SOLAR ARRAY RACKING, INVERTER/TRANSFORMER PADS, OVERHEAD POLESAND LINES, VEGETATIVE BUFFERS ETC., SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION DUE TO SITE CONDITIONS, ADDITIONAL PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS,EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS, AND/OR OTHER CONSTRAINTS. 4. EXISTING NATURAL VEGETATION WHERE IDENTIFIED ON SITE PLAN FOR USE AS 150'VEGETATIVE BUFFER WILL BE CERTIFIED BY AN ARBORIST, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ORLANDSCAPE DESIGNER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL ZONING PERMITS. 5. PROPOSED PANEL MODULE IS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO CANADIAN SOLARBiHiKu MODULE BASED ON MARKET AVAILABILITY. SEE PANEL SPEC SHEET FOR MORE INFORMATION. GENERAL NOTES LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY GIS PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE EXISTING OVERHEADTRANSMISSION LINE MAXIMUM ARRAY EXTENTS APPROXIMATE EXISTING ELECTRICEASEMENT NWI STREAM 300' DWELLING SETBACK 150' PROPOSED VEGETATIVE BUFFER 150' EXISTING VEGETATIVE BUFFER 50' RIPARIAN BUFFER NWI WETLANDS PARCEL INFORMATION NO.TAX MAP ANDPARCEL NUMBER OWNER ADDRESS CALCULATEDACREAGE 1 A41 1 W RUFFIN WOODY JRREVOCABLE TRUST PO BOX 381 ROXBORO NC27573-0381 353.56 2 A31 42 PUCKETT THOMASBARRY 40 PECAN TRL LEASBURGNC 27291-9018 218.82 3 A31 16 CATES SAMUEL KEVIN 8131 MABEL MARSHALL RDSUMMERFIELD NC 27358 98.16 4 A42 5 CATES SAMUEL KEVIN 8131 MABEL MARSHALL RD SUMMERFIELD NC 27358 126.83 EX-01ZONING SITE PLANNORTH PERSON COUNTYAIRPORT PERSON COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY DURHAM COUNTYCASWELL COUNTY5 MILE RADIUS FEMA 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN U S 5 0 1 PLATEAU SOLAR: ANTICIPATED PANEL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.1(E)(4) NUMBER OF PANELS APPROXIMATELY 205,000 DIMENSION OF PANELS 2132 X 1048 X 30 MM (83.9 X 41.3 X 1.2 IN) HEIGHT OF PANELS NOT TO EXCEED 15' TYPE OF PANELS (ARRAY)MONO-CRYSTALLINE GENERATING CAPACITY 420-445 WATTS (TOTALING 65 MW AC) 30' WIDE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR 26 ROGERS W H I T F I E L D R O A D ( S R - 1 1 3 6 )HURDLE MILLS ROAD (SR-1001) APPROXIMATE EXISTING OVERHEADPOWER LINE (TYP.) APPROXIMATE OVERHEADELECTRIC EASEMENT (TYP.) NWI STREAM (TYP.) 150' PROPOSED VEGETATIVE BUFFER (TYP.) 150' EXISTING VEGETATIVEBUFFER (TYP.) APPROXIMATE PROPOSED SITE ACCESS APPROXIMATE PROPOSED SITE ACCESS APPROXIMATE PROPOSED SITE ACCESS 300' DWELLING SETBACK (TYP.) 50' RIPARIAN BUFFER (TYP.) NWI WETLAND (TYP.) SEE SHEET EX-03 APPROXIMATE 30' WIDEWILDLIFE CORRIDOR APPROXIMATE 30' WIDE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR EX-02ENLARGED ZONINGSITE PLANNORTH ©NORTH CAROLINAPERSON COUNTY06/24/2021LCLJSLAMS013434010PLATEAU SOLARLEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY GIS PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE EXISTING OVERHEADTRANSMISSION LINE MAXIMUM ARRAY EXTENTS APPROXIMATE EXISTING ELECTRICEASEMENT NWI STREAM 300' DWELLING SETBACK 150' PROPOSED VEGETATIVE BUFFER 150' EXISTING VEGETATIVE BUFFER 50' RIPARIAN BUFFER NWI WETLANDS FEMA 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN 30' WIDE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR 27 ROGERS WHITFIE L D R O A D ( S R - 1 1 3 6 ) SATTERFIELD ROAD TERRY ROAD (SR-1181)300' DWELLING SETBACK (TYP.) NWI WETLAND (TYP.) 150' EXISTING VEGETATIVEBUFFER (TYP.) NWI STREAM (TYP.)HURDLE MILLS ROAD (SR-1001)EXISTING RESIDENCE (TYP.) INTERNAL PROPERTYLINE (TYP.) 50' RIPARIAN BUFFER (TYP.) APPROXIMATE POI36°17'8.80"N, 79° 2'29.53"W APPROXIMATE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE (TYP.) APPROXIMATE OVERHEADELECTRIC EASEMENT (TYP.) SEE SHEET EX-02 APPROXIMATE 30' WIDEWILDLIFE CORRIDOR EX-03 NORTH ©NORTH CAROLINAPERSON COUNTY06/24/2021LCLJSLAMS013434010PLATEAU SOLARENLARGED ZONINGSITE PLANLEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY GIS PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE EXISTING OVERHEADTRANSMISSION LINE MAXIMUM ARRAY EXTENTS APPROXIMATE EXISTING ELECTRICEASEMENT NWI STREAM 300' DWELLING SETBACK 150' PROPOSED VEGETATIVE BUFFER 150' EXISTING VEGETATIVE BUFFER 50' RIPARIAN BUFFER NWI WETLANDS FEMA 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN 30' WIDE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR 28 P O I N D E X T E R R O A D ( S R - 1 1 3 7 ) ROGERS W H I T F I E L D R O A D ( S R - 1 1 3 6 ) SATTERFIELD ROAD DIXIE LONG ROAD (SR-1135)TERRY ROAD (SR-1181)HURDLE MILLS R OAD (SR-1001) GU E S S R DHURDLE MILLS ROAD (SR-1001)©NORTH CAROLINAPERSON COUNTY06/24/2021LCLJSLAMS013434010PLATEAU SOLAREX-04EXISTINGCONDITIONS PLANNORTH LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY 10' GIS CONTOUR 1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS ARE BASED ON PUBLICLYAVAILABLE DATA INCLUDING NORTH CAROLINA'S SPATIAL DATA DOWNLOAD (ACCESSED 06/13/21) 2. PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND ASSOCIATED BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE BASED ON PERSON COUNTY GIS PARCELS (ACCESSED 06/11/21). GENERAL NOTES APPROXIMATE EXISTING OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE APPROXIMATE EXISTING ELECTRIC EASEMENT 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 PROPOSED VEGETATIVE BUFFER - ESTIMATEDPlateau SolarJULY 2021PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA10 YEARS GROWTH100'150'24'(TYP).11'-6"(TYP).RIGHT OF WAY/PROPERTY LINETREESQTYCOMMON NAMECONT.HEIGHTAT PLANTING15 EVERGREEN TREE CONT. 3` MIN.OR B & B15 DECIDUOUS TREE CONT. 3` MIN.OR B & BSHRUBSQTYCOMMON NAMECONT.HEIGHTAT PLANTING150 EVERGREEN SHRUB CONT. 36" HT. MINPLANT SCHEDULE FOR TYPICAL 100' LENGTHNotes:1. Proposed planting plan and illustration have been developed pursuant to the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance adopted October 5, 2020.2. Plant material may be substituted with species that have similar characteristics and meet the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance requirements.51 52 53 54 55  July 27, 2021 Mr. Rex Young Oakhurst Energy 606 Wade Avenue, Suite 102 Raleigh, NC 27605 RE: Plateau Solar Farm, Hurdle Mills, Person County, NC Mr. Young, At your request, I have considered the impact of a solar farm proposed to be constructed on a portion of a 797-acre tract on Hurdle Mills Road, Hurdle Mills, Person County, North Carolina. Specifically, I have been asked to give my professional opinion on whether the proposed solar farm will have any impact on adjoining property value and whether “the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located.” To form an opinion on these issues, I have researched and visited existing and proposed solar farms in North Carolina, researched articles through the Appraisal Institute and other studies, and discussed the likely impact with other real estate professionals. I have not been asked to assign any value to any specific property. This letter is a limited report of a real property appraisal consulting assignment and subject to the limiting conditions attached to this letter. My client is Oakhurst Energy, represented to me by Mr. Rex Young. My findings support the conditional use application. The effective date of this consultation is July 27, 2021. Conclusion The matched pair analysis in the attached report shows no impact in home values due to abutting or adjoining a solar farm as well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or agricultural land where there are sufficient setbacks and buffering as identified in the analysis. The criteria that typically correlates with downward adjustments on property values such as noise, odor, and traffic all indicate that a solar farm is a compatible use for rural/residential transition areas and that it would function in a harmonious manner with this area. Very similar solar farms in very similar areas have been found by hundreds of towns and counties not to have a substantial injury to abutting or adjoining properties, and many of those findings of no impact have been upheld by N.C. Courts or overturned by N.C. Courts when a board found otherwise (see, for example Dellinger v. Lincoln County). Similar solar farms have been approved adjoining agricultural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments. Industrial uses rarely absorb negative impacts from adjoining uses. This same pattern of development has been identified in this report showing that this is not a local phenomenon, but found in Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Tennessee, and Florida as representative of the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern U.S. Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI 9408 Northfield Court Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Phone (919) 414-8142 rkirkland2@gmail.com www.kirklandappraisals.com Kirkland Appraisals, LLC 56 Based on the data and analysis in this report, it is my professional opinion that the solar farm proposed at the subject property will have no impact on the value of adjoining or abutting property and that the proposed use is in harmony with the area in which it is located. I note that some of the positive implications of a solar farm that have been expressed by people living next to solar farms include protection from future development of residential developments or other more intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and chemicals from former farming operations, protection from light pollution at night, it’s quiet, and there is no traffic. If you have any questions please call me any time. Sincerely, Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI State Certified General Appraiser Nicholas D. Kirkland State Certified General Appraiser 57 3 Table of Contents  Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 1  I. Proposed Project and Adjoining Uses ....................................................................................... 4  II. Methodology and Discussion of Issues .................................................................................... 7  III. Research on Solar Farms ....................................................................................................... 9  A. Appraisal Market Studies ......................................................................................................... 9  B. Articles ................................................................................................................................... 10  C. Broker Commentary .............................................................................................................. 11  IV. University Studies ................................................................................................................ 12  A. University of Texas at Austin, May 2018 ................................................................................ 12  B. University of Rhode Island, September 2020 ......................................................................... 13  C. Master’s Thesis: ECU by Zachary Dickerson July 2018 ........................................................ 15  D. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, December, 2019 ........................... 16  V. Market Analysis of the Impact on Value from Solar Farms ................................................. 17  A. North Carolina Data ............................................................................................................... 17  B. Southeastern USA Data – Over 5 MW .................................................................................... 49  C. Summary of National Data on Solar Farms ........................................................................... 54  D. Larger Solar Farms ................................................................................................................ 56  E. Solar Farms Around Guilford County .................................................................................... 60  VI. Distance Between Homes and Panels ................................................................................. 61  VII. Topography ........................................................................................................................... 61  VIII. Potential Impacts During Construction ............................................................................. 61  IX. Scope of Research ................................................................................................................ 62  X. Specific Factors Related To Impacts on Value ...................................................................... 63  XI. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 66  58 4 I. Proposed Project and Adjoining Uses Proposed Use Description This solar farm is proposed to be constructed on a portion of a 797-acre tract on Hurdle Mills Road, Bushy Fork, Person County, North Carolina. Adjoining land is a mix of residential and agricultural uses, which is very typical of solar farm sites. Adjoining Properties I have considered adjoining uses and included a map to identify each parcel’s location. The closest adjoining home is proposed to be 450 feet, the average distance is 594 feet. The subject property is planned to maintain existing tree buffers where possible and supplement as needed to provide a visual screen between solar panels and adjoining properties. The breakdown of those uses by acreage and number of parcels is summarized below. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 20.37% 72.50% Agricultural 79.51% 25.00% Religious 0.13% 2.50% Total 100.00% 100.00% 59 5 60 6 Surrounding Uses GIS Data Adjoin Adjoin Distance (ft) # MAP ID Owner Acres Present Use Acres Parcels Home/Panel 16751 Hawkins 103.55 Agricultural 6.57% 2.50% N/A 2 26601 Elliott 34.18 Residential 2.17% 2.50% 450 36754 Clayton 5.46 Residential 0.35% 2.50% 450 45604 Fuquay 0.97 Residential 0.06% 2.50% 450 55901 Laws 3.60 Residential 0.23% 2.50% 450 65816 Horton 239.37 Agricultural 15.19% 2.50% N/A 76453 Whitfield 40.00 Residential 2.54% 2.50% 509 86251 Cox 3.10 Residential 0.20% 2.50% 450 9 25248 Perez 60.36 Agricultural 3.83% 2.50% N/A 10 5314 Hatfield 102.31 Agricultural 6.49% 2.50% N/A 11 5487 Hatfield 63.11 Agricultural 4.01% 2.50% N/A 12 3396 Hicks 3.00 Residential 0.19% 2.50% 450 13 5763 Hicks 35.65 Agricultural 2.26% 2.50% N/A 14 5489 Hatfield 57.20 Agricultural 3.63% 2.50% N/A 15 5317 Crank 2.74 Residential 0.17% 2.50% N/A 16 5316 Crank 2.75 Residential 0.17% 2.50% 450 17 17313 Mccowan 2.78 Residential 0.18% 2.50% 450 18 10003 Bradsher 1.19 Residential 0.08% 2.50% 450 19 6629 Bradsher 171.25 Agricultural 10.87% 2.50% N/A 20 8871 Paylor 1.16 Residential 0.07% 2.50% 450 21 18747 White 1.00 Residential 0.06% 2.50% 450 22 7403 White 4.34 Residential 0.28% 2.50% 450 23 10916 Carter 17.48 Residential 1.11% 2.50% 450 24 17493 Whitfield 14.13 Residential 0.90% 2.50% N/A 25 7241 Rimmer 1.00 Residential 0.06% 2.50% 450 26 28026 Rimmer 1.00 Residential 0.06% 2.50% N/A 27 6796 Dowell 1.99 Residential 0.13% 2.50% 450 28 7169 Nichols 1.00 Residential 0.06% 2.50% 450 29 6783 Crute 1.65 Residential 0.10% 2.50% 450 30 7092 Crute 0.65 Residential 0.04% 2.50% 450 31 7328 Porterfield 1.00 Residential 0.06% 2.50% N/A 32 6553 Porterfield 1.00 Residential 0.06% 2.50% N/A 33 6552 Bass 81.91 Agricultural 5.20% 2.50% N/A 34 6562 Foushee 14.84 Residential 0.94% 2.50% N/A 35 6948 Foushee 5.46 Residential 0.35% 2.50% 450 36 7266 Bible Baptist 1.97 Religous 0.13% 2.50% N/A 37 6793 Dixon 122.00 Residential 7.74% 2.50% 2,165 38 487 Rimmer 21.00 Residential 1.33% 2.50% 930 39 21221 Wrenn 10.39 Residential 0.66% 2.50% 1,500 40 7427 Whitfield 337.95 Agricultural 21.45% 2.50% N/A Total 1575.490 100.00% 100.00%594 61 7 II. Methodology and Discussion of Issues Standards and Methodology I conducted this analysis using the standards and practices established by the Appraisal Institute and that conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The analyses and methodologies contained in this report are accepted by all major lending institutions, and they are used in Virginia and across the country as the industry standard by certified appraisers conducting appraisals, market analyses, or impact studies and are considered adequate to form an opinion of the impact of a land use on neighboring properties. These standards and practices have also been accepted by the courts at the trial and appellate levels and by federal courts throughout the country as adequate to reach conclusions about the likely impact a use will have on adjoining or abutting properties. The aforementioned standards compare property uses in the same market and generally within the same calendar year so that fluctuating markets do not alter study results. Although these standards do not require a linear study that examines adjoining property values before and after a new use (e.g. a solar farm) is developed, some of these studies do in fact employ this type of analysis. Comparative studies, as used in this report, are considered an industry standard. The type of analysis employed is a Matched Pair Analysis or Paired Sales Analysis. This methodology is outlined in The Appraisal of Real Estate, Twelfth Edition by the Appraisal Institute pages 438-439. It is further detailed in Real Estate Damages, Third Edition, pages 33-36 by Randall Bell PhD, MAI. Paired sales analysis is used to support adjustments in appraisal work for factors ranging from the impact of having a garage, golf course view, or additional bedrooms. It is an appropriate methodology for addressing the question of impact of an adjoining solar farm. The paired sales analysis is based on the theory that when two properties are in all other respects equivalent, a single difference can be measured to indicate the difference in price between them. Dr. Bell describes it as comparing a test area to control areas. In the example provided by Dr. Bell he shows five paired sales in the test area compared to 1 to 3 sales in the control areas to determine a difference. I have used 3 sales in the control areas in my analysis for each sale developed into a matched pair. Determining what is an External Obsolescence An external obsolescence is a use of property that, because of its characteristics, might have a negative impact on the value of adjacent or nearby properties because of identifiable impacts. Determining whether a use would be considered an external obsolescence requires a study that isolates that use, eliminates any other causing factors, and then studies the sales of nearby versus distant comparable properties. The presence of one or a combination of key factors does not mean the use will be an external obsolescence, but a combination of these factors tends to be present when market data reflects that a use is an external obsolescence. External obsolescence is evaluated by appraisers based on several factors. These factors include but are not limited to: 1) Traffic. Solar Farms are not traffic generators. 2) Odor. Solar farms do not produce odor. 3) Noise. Solar farms generate no noise concerns and are silent at night. 62 8 4) Environmental. Solar farms do not produce toxic or hazardous waste. Grass is maintained underneath the panels so there is minimal impervious surface area. 5) Appearance/Viewshed. This is the one area that potentially applies to solar farms. However, solar farms are generally required to provide significant setbacks and landscaping buffers to address that concern. Furthermore, any consideration of appearance of viewshed impacts has to be considered in comparison with currently allowed uses on that site. For example if a residential subdivision is already an allowed use, the question becomes in what way does the appearance impact adjoining property owners above and beyond the appearance of that allowed subdivision or other similar allowed uses. 6) Other factors. I have observed and studied many solar farms and have never observed any characteristic about such facilities that prevents or impedes neighbors from fully using their homes or farms or businesses for the use intended. Relative Solar Farm Sizes Solar farms have been increasing in size in recent years. Much of the data collected is from existing, older solar farms of smaller size, but there are numerous examples of sales adjoining 75 to 80 MW facilities that show a similar trend as the smaller solar farms. This is understandable given that the primary concern relative to a solar farm is the appearance or view of the solar farm, which is typically addressed through setbacks and landscaping buffers. The relevance of data from smaller solar farms to larger solar farms is due to the primary question being one of appearance. If the solar farm is properly screened, then little of the solar farm would be seen from adjoining property regardless of how many acres are involved. Larger solar farms are often set up in sections where any adjoining owner would only be able to see a small section of the project even if there were no landscaping screen. Once a landscaping screen is in place, the primary view is effectively the same whether adjoining a 5 MW, 20 MW or 100 MW facility. I have split out the data for the matched pairs adjoining larger solar farms only to illustrate the similarities later in this report. Steps Involved in the Analysis The paired sales analysis employed in this report follows the following process: 1. Identify sales of property adjoining existing solar farms. 2. Compare those sales to similar property that does not adjoin an existing solar farm. 3. Confirmation of sales are noted in the analysis write ups. 4. Distances from the homes to panels are included as a measure of the setbacks. 5. Topographic differences across the solar farms themselves are likewise noted along with demographic data for comparing similar areas. There are a number of Sale/Resale comparables included in the write ups, but most of the data shown is for sales of homes after a solar farm has been announced (where noted) or after a solar farm has been constructed. 63 9 III. Research on Solar Farms A. Appraisal Market Studies I have also considered a number of impact studies completed by other appraisers as detailed below. CohnReznick – Property Value Impact Study: Adjacent Property Values Solar Impact Study: A Study of Eight Existing Solar Facilities Patricia McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, CRA and Andrew R. Lines, MAI with CohnReznick completed an impact study for a proposed solar farm in Cheboygan County, Michigan completed on June 10, 2020. I am familiar with this study as well as a number of similar such studies completed by CohnReznick. I have not included all of these studies but I submit this one as representative of those studies. This study addresses impacts on value from eight different solar farms in Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Virginia and North Carolina. These solar farms are 19.6 MW, 100 MW, 11.9 MW, 23 MW, 71 MW, 61 MW, 40 MW, and 19 MW for a range from 11.9 MW to 100 MW with an average of 31 MW and a median of 31.5 MW. They analyzed a total of 24 adjoining property sales in the Test Area and 81 comparable sales in the Control Area over a five-year period. The conclusion of this study is that there is no evidence of any negative impact on adjoining property values based on sales prices, conditions of sales, overall marketability, potential for new development or rate of appreciation. Christian P. Kaila & Associates – Property Impact Analysis – Proposed Solar Power Plant Guthrie Road, Stuarts Draft, Augusta County, Virginia Christian P. Kaila, MAI, SRA and George J. Finley, MAI developed an impact study as referenced above dated June 16, 2020. This was for a proposed 83 MW facility on 886 acres. Mr. Kaila interviewed appraisers who had conducted studies and reviewed university studies and discussed the comparable impacts of other development that was allowed in the area for a comparative analysis of other impacts that could impact viewshed based on existing allowed uses for the site. He also discussed in detail the various other impacts that could cause a negative impact and how solar farms do not have such characteristics. Mr. Kaila also interviewed county planners and real estate assessors in eight different Virginia counties with none of the assessor’s identifying any negative impacts observed for existing solar projects. Mr. Kaila concludes on a finding of no impact on property values adjoining the indicated solar farm. Fred Beck, MAI, CCIM – Impact Analysis in Lincoln County 2013 Mr. Fred Beck, MAI, CCIM completed an impact analysis in 2013 for a proposed solar farm that concluded on a negative impact on value. That report relied on a single cancelled contract for an adjoining parcel where the contracted buyers indicated that the solar farm was the reason for the cancellation. It also relied on the activities of an assessment impact that was applied in a nearby county. Mr. Beck was interviewed as part of the Christian Kalia study noted above. From that I quote “Mr. Beck concluded on no effect on moderate priced homes, and only a 5% change in his limited 64 10 research of higher priced homes. His one sale that fell through is hardly a reliable sample. It also was misleading on Mr. Beck’s part to report the lower re-assessments since the primary cause of the re-assessments were based on the County Official, who lived adjacent to the solar farm, appeal to the assessor for reductions with his own home.” In that Clay County Case study the noted lack of lot sales after announcement of the solar farm also coincided with the recession in 2008/2009 and lack of lot sales effectively defined that area during that time. I further note, that I was present at the hearing where Mr. Beck presented these findings and the predominance of his argument before the Lincoln County Board of Commissioner’s was based on the one cancelled sale as well as a matched pair analysis of high-end homes adjoining a four-story call center. He hypothesized that a similar impact from that example could be compared to being adjacent solar farm without explaining the significant difference in view, setbacks, landscaping, traffic, light, and noise. Furthermore, Mr. Beck did have matched pairs adjoining a solar farm in his study that he put in the back of his report and then ignored as they showed no impact on property value. Also noted in the Christian Kalia interview notes is a response from Mr. Beck indicating that in his opinion “the homes were higher priced homes and had full view of the solar farm.” Based on a description of screening so that “the solar farm would not be in full view to adjoining property owners. Mr. Beck said in that case, he would not see any drop in property value.” NorthStar Appraisal Company – Impact Analysis for Nichomus Run Solar, Pilesgrove, NJ, September 16, 2020 Mr. William J. Sapio, MAI with NorthStar Appraisal Company considered a matched pair analysis for the potential impact on adjoining property values to this proposed 150 MW solar farm. Mr. Sapio considered sales activity in a subdivision known as Point of Woods in South Brunswick Township and identified two recent new homes that were constructed and sold adjoining a 13 MW solar farm and compared them to similar homes in that subdivision that did not adjoin the solar farm. These homes sold in the $1,290,450 to $1,336,613 price range and these homes were roughly 200 feet from the closest solar panel. Based on this analysis, he concluded that the adjoining solar farm had no impact on adjoining property value. Conclusion of Impact Studies Of the four studies noted two included actual sales data to derive an opinion of no impact on value. The only study to conclude on a negative impact was the Fred Beck study based on no actual sales data, and he has since indicated that with landscaping screens he would not conclude on a negative impact. I have relied on these studies as additional support for the findings in this impact analysis. B. Articles I have also considered a number of articles on this subject as well as conclusions and analysis as noted below. Farm Journal Guest Editor, March 22, 2021 – Solar’s Impact on Rural Property Values Andy Ames, ASFMRA (American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers) published this article that includes a discussion of his survey of appraisers and studies on the question of property value related to solar farms. He discusses the university studies that I have cited as well as Patricia McGarr, MAI. 65 11 He also discusses the findings of Donald A. Fisher, ARA, who served six years at the Chair of the ASFMRA’s National Appraisal Review Committee. He is also the Executive Vice President of the CNY Pomeroy Appraiser and has conducted several market studies on solar farms and property impact. He is quoted in the article as saying, “Most of the locations were in either suburban or rural areas, and all of those studies found either a neutral impact, or ironically, a positive impact, where values on properties after installation of solar farms went up higher than time trends.” Howard Halderman, AFM, President and CEO of Halderman Real Estate and Farm Management attended the ASFMRA solar talk hosted by the Indiana Chapter of the ASFMRA and he concludes that other rural properties would likely see no impact and farmers and landowners shown even consider possible benefits. “In some cases, farmers who rent land to a solar company will insure the viability of their farming operation for a longer time period. This makes them better long-term tenants or land buyers so one can argue that higher rents and land values will follow due to the positive impact the solar leases offer.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory – Top Five Large-Scale Solar Myths, February 3, 2016 Megan Day reports form NREL regarding a number of concerns neighbors often express. Myth #4 regarding property value impacts addresses specifically the numerous studies on wind farms that show no impact on property value and that solar farms have a significantly reduced visual impact from wind farms. She highlights that the appearance can be addressed through mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts of solar farms through vegetative screening. Such mitigations are not available to wind farms given the height of the windmills and again, those studies show no impact on value adjoining wind farms. North Carolina State University: NC Clean Energy Technology Center White Paper: Balancing Agricultural Productivity with Ground-Based Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Development (Version 2), May 2019 Tommy Cleveland and David Sarkisian wrote a white paper for NCSU NC Clean Energy Technology Center regarding the potential impacts to agricultural productivity from a solar farm use. I have interviewed Tommy Cleveland on numerous occasions and I have also heard him speak on these issues at length as well. He addresses many of the common questions regarding how solar farms work and a detailed explanation of how solar farms do not cause significant impacts on the soils, erosion and other such concerns. This is a heavily researched paper with the references included. North Carolina State University: NC Clean Energy Technology Center White Paper: Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics, May 2017 Tommy Cleveland wrote a white paper for NCSU NC Clean Energy Technology Center regarding the health and safety impacts to address common questions and concerns related to solar farms. This is a heavily researched white paper addressing questions ranging from EMFs, fire safety, as well as vegetation control and the breakdown of how a solar farm works. C. Broker Commentary In the process of working up the matched pairs used later in this report, I have collected comments from brokers who have actually sold homes adjoining solar farms indicating that the solar farm had no impact on the marketing, timing, or sales price for the adjoining homes. I have comments from 12 such brokers within this report including brokers from Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina. I have additional commentary from other states including New Jersey and Michigan that provide the same conclusion. 66 12 IV. University Studies I have also considered the following studies completed by four different universities related to solar farms and impacts on property values. A. University of Texas at Austin, May 2018 An Exploration of Property-Value Impacts Near Utility-Scale Solar Installations This study considers solar farms from two angles. First it looks at where solar farms are being located and concludes that they are being located primarily in low density residential areas where there are fewer homes than in urban or suburban areas. The second part is more applicable in that they conducted a survey of appraisers/assessors on their opinions of the possible impacts of proximity to a solar farm. They consider the question in terms of size of the adjoining solar farm and how close the adjoining home is to the solar farm. I am very familiar with this part of the study as I was interviewed by the researchers multiple times as they were developing this. One very important question that they ask within the survey is very illustrative. They asked if the appraiser being surveyed had ever appraised a property next to a solar farm. There is a very noticeable divide in the answers provided by appraisers who have experience appraising property next to a solar farm versus appraisers who self-identify as having no experience or knowledge related to that use. On Page 16 of that study they have a chart showing the responses from appraisers related to proximity to a facility and size of the facility, but they separate the answers as shown below with appraisers with experience in appraising properties next to a solar farm shown in blue and those inexperienced shown in brown. Even within 100 feet of a 102 MW facility the response from experienced appraisers were -5% at most on impact. While inexperienced appraisers came up with significantly higher impacts. This chart clearly shows that an uninformed response widely diverges from the sales data available on this subject. 67 13 Furthermore, the question cited above does not consider any mitigating factors such as landscaping buffers or screens which would presumably reduce the minor impacts noted by experienced appraisers on this subject. The conclusion of the researchers is shown on Page 23 indicated that “Results from our survey of residential home assessors show that the majority of respondents believe that proximity to a solar installation has either no impact or a positive impact on home values.” This analysis supports the conclusion of this report that the data supports no impact on adjoining property values. B. University of Rhode Island, September 2020 Property Value Impacts of Commercial-Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island The University of Rhode Island published a study entitled Property Value Impacts of Commercial- Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island on September 29, 2020 with lead researchers being Vasundhara Gaur and Corey Lang. I have read that study and interviewed Mr. Corey Lang related to that study. This study is often cited by opponents of solar farms but the findings of that study have some very specific caveats according to the report itself as well as Mr. Lang from the interview. While that study does state in the Abstract that they found depreciation of homes within 1-mile of a solar farm, that impact is limited to non-rural locations. On Pages 16-18 of that study under Section 5.3 Heterogeneity in treatment effect they indicate that the impact that they found was limited to non-rural locations with the impact in rural locations effectively being zero. For the study they defined “rural” as a municipality/township with less than 850 population per square mile. 68 14 They further tested the robustness of that finding and even in areas up to 2,000 population per square mile they found no statistically significant data to suggest a negative impact. They have not specifically defined a point at which they found negative impacts to begin, as the sensitivity study stopped checking at the 2,000-population dataset. Where they did find negative impacts was in high population density areas that was largely a factor of running the study in Massachusetts and Rhode Island which the study specifically cites as being the 2nd and 3rd most population dense states in the USA. Mr. Lang in conversation as well as in recorded presentations has indicated that the impact in these heavily populated areas may reflect a loss in value due to the scarce greenery in those areas and not specifically related to the solar farm itself. In other words, any development of that site might have a similar impact on property value. Based on this study I have checked the population for the Flat River Township of Person County, which has a population of 7,580 population for 2020 based on SiteToDoBusiness by ESRI and a total area of 47.081 square miles. This indicates a population density of 161 people per square mile which puts this well below the threshold indicated by the Rhode Island Study. I therefore conclude that the Rhode Island Study supports the indication of no impact on adjoining properties for the proposed solar farm project. 69 15 C. Master’s Thesis: ECU by Zachary Dickerson July 2018 A Solar Farm in My Backyard? Resident Perspectives of Utility-Scale Solar in Eastern North Carolina This study was completed as part of a Master of Science in Geography Master’s Thesis by Zachary Dickerson in July 2018. This study sets out to address three questions: 1. Are there different aspects that affect resident satisfaction regarding solar farms? 2. Are there variations in satisfaction for residents among different geographic settings, e.g. neighborhoods adjacent to the solar farms or distances from the solar farms? 3. How can insight from both the utility and planning sectors, combined with knowledge gained from residents, fill gaps in communication and policy writing in regard to solar farms? This was done through survey and interview with adjacent and nearby neighbors of existing solar farms. The positive to neutral comments regarding the solar farms were significantly higher than negative. The researcher specifically indicates on Page 46 “The results show that respondents generally do not believe the solar farms pose a threat to their property values.” The most negative comments regarding the solar farms were about the lack of information about the approval process and the solar farm project prior to construction. 70 16 D. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, December, 2019 The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis This study addresses wind farms and not solar farms but it is a reasonable consideration. The activity on a wind farm is significantly different in terms of the mechanics and more particularly on the appearance or viewshed as wind farms cannot be screened from adjoining property owners. This study was commissioned by the Department of Energy and not by any developer. This study examined 7,500 home sales between 1996 and 2007 in order to track sales prices both before and after a wind energy facility was announced or built. This study specifically looked into possible stigma, nuisance, and scenic vista. On page 17 of that study they conclude “Although the analysis cannot dismiss the possibility that individual homes or small numbers of homes have been or could be negatively impacted, it finds that if these impacts do exist, they are either too small and/or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact.” Given that solar farms are a similar use, but with a lower profile and therefore a lower viewshed than the wind farms, it is reasonable to translate these findings of no impact to solar farms. 71 17 V. Market Analysis of the Impact on Value from Solar Farms I have researched hundreds of solar farms in numerous states to determine the impact of these facilities on the value of adjoining property. This research has primarily been in North Carolina, but I have also conducted market impact analyses in Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Oregon, Mississippi, Maryland, New York, California, Missouri, Florida, Montana, Georgia, Louisiana, and New Jersey. Wherever I have looked at solar farms, I have derived a breakdown of the adjoining uses to show what adjoining uses are typical for solar farms and what uses would likely be considered consistent with a solar farm use similar to the breakdown that I’ve shown for the subject property on the previous page. A summary showing the results of compiling that data over hundreds of solar farms is shown later in the Scope of Research section of this report. I also consider whether the properties adjoining a solar farm in one location have characteristics similar to the properties abutting or adjoining the proposed site so that I can make an assessment of market impact on each proposed site. Notably, in most cases solar farms are placed in areas very similar to the site in question, which is surrounded by low density residential and agricultural uses. In my over 750 studies, I have found a striking repetition of that same typical adjoining use mix in over 90% of the solar farms I have looked at. Matched pair results in multiple states are strikingly similar, and all indicate that solar farms – which generate very little traffic, and do not generate noise, dust or have other harmful effects – do not negatively impact the value of adjoining or abutting properties. On the following pages I have considered matched pair data specific to North Carolina. In the next section I have considered matched pair data throughout the Southeast of the United States as being the most similar states that would most readily compare to North Carolina. This includes data from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Maryland. I focused on projects of 5 MW and larger though I have significant supplemental data on solar farms just smaller than that in North Carolina that show similar results. This data is available in my files. I have additional supporting information from other states in my files that show a consistent pattern across the United States, but again, I have focused on the Southeast in this analysis. A. North Carolina Data The following pages detail the matched pairs and how they were derived. 72 18 1. Matched Pair – AM Best Solar Farm, Goldsboro, NC This 5 MW solar farm adjoins Spring Garden Subdivision which had new homes and lots available for new construction during the approval and construction of the solar farm. The recent home sales have ranged from $200,000 to $250,000. This subdivision sold out the last homes in late 2014. The solar farm is clearly visible particularly along the north end of this street where there is only a thin line of trees separating the solar farm from the single-family homes. Homes backing up to the solar farm are selling at the same price for the same floor plan as the homes that do not back up to the solar farm in this subdivision. According to the builder, the solar farm has been a complete non-factor. Not only do the sales show no difference in the price paid for the various homes adjoining the solar farm versus not adjoining the solar farm, but there are actually more recent sales along the solar farm than not. There is no impact on the sellout rate, or time to sell for the homes adjoining the solar farm. I spoke with a number of owners who adjoin the solar farm and none of them expressed any concern over the solar farm impacting their property value. The data presented on the following page shows multiple homes that have sold in 2013 and 2014 adjoining the solar farm at prices similar to those not along the solar farm. These series of sales indicate that the solar farm has no impact on the adjoining residential use. The homes that were marketed at Spring Garden are shown below. The homes adjoining the solar farm are considered to have a light landscaping screen as it is a narrow row of existing pine trees supplemented with evergreen plantings. 73 19 Matched Pairs As of Date:9/3/2014 Adjoining Sales After Solar Farm Completed TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600195570 Helm 0.76 Sep-13 $250,000 2013 3,292 $75.94 2 Story 3600195361 Leak 1.49 Sep-13 $260,000 2013 3,652 $71.19 2 Story 3600199891 McBrayer 2.24 Jul-14 $250,000 2014 3,292 $75.94 2 Story 3600198632 Foresman 1.13 Aug-14 $253,000 2014 3,400 $74.41 2 Story 3600196656 Hinson 0.75 Dec-13 $255,000 2013 3,453 $73.85 2 Story Average 1.27 $253,600 2013.4 3,418 $74.27 Median 1.13 $253,000 2013 3,400 $74.41 Adjoining Sales After Solar Farm Announced TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 0 Feddersen 1.56 Feb-13 $247,000 2012 3,427 $72.07 Ranch 0 Gentry 1.42 Apr-13 $245,000 2013 3,400 $72.06 2 Story Average 1.49 $246,000 2012.5 3,414 $72.07 Median 1.49 $246,000 2012.5 3,414 $72.07 Adjoining Sales Before Solar Farm Announced TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600183905 Carter 1.57 Dec-12 $240,000 2012 3,347 $71.71 1.5 Story 3600193097 Kelly 1.61 Sep-12 $198,000 2012 2,532 $78.20 2 Story 3600194189 Hadwan 1.55 Nov-12 $240,000 2012 3,433 $69.91 1.5 Story Average 1.59 $219,000 2012 2,940 $74.95 Median 1.59 $219,000 2012 2,940 $74.95 Nearby Sales After Solar Farm Completed TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600193710 Barnes 1.12 Oct-13 $248,000 2013 3,400 $72.94 2 Story 3601105180 Nackley 0.95 Dec-13 $253,000 2013 3,400 $74.41 2 Story 3600192528 Mattheis 1.12 Oct-13 $238,000 2013 3,194 $74.51 2 Story 3600198928 Beckman 0.93 Mar-14 $250,000 2014 3,292 $75.94 2 Story 3600196965 Hough 0.81 Jun-14 $224,000 2014 2,434 $92.03 2 Story 3600193914 Preskitt 0.67 Jun-14 $242,000 2014 2,825 $85.66 2 Story 3600194813 Bordner 0.91 Apr-14 $258,000 2014 3,511 $73.48 2 Story 3601104147 Shaffer 0.73 Apr-14 $255,000 2014 3,453 $73.85 2 Story Average 0.91 $246,000 2013.625 3,189 $77.85 Median 0.92 $249,000 2014 3,346 $74.46 Nearby Sales Before Solar Farm Announced TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600191437 Thomas 1.12 Sep-12 $225,000 2012 3,276 $68.68 2 Story 3600087968 Lilley 1.15 Jan-13 $238,000 2012 3,421 $69.57 1.5 Story 3600087654 Burke 1.26 Sep-12 $240,000 2012 3,543 $67.74 2 Story 3600088796 Hobbs 0.73 Sep-12 $228,000 2012 3,254 $70.07 2 Story Average 1.07 $232,750 2012 3,374 $69.01 Median 1.14 $233,000 2012 3,349 $69.13 74 20 I note that 2308 Granville Drive sold again in November 2015 for $267,500, or $7,500 more than when it was purchased new from the builder two years earlier (Tax ID 3600195361, Owner: Leak). The neighborhood is clearly showing appreciation for homes adjoining the solar farm. The Median Price is the best indicator to follow in any analysis as it avoids outlying samples that would otherwise skew the results. The median sizes and median prices are all consistent throughout the sales both before and after the solar farm whether you look at sites adjoining or nearby to the solar farm. The average size for the homes nearby the solar farm shows a smaller building size and a higher price per square foot. This reflects a common occurrence in real estate where the price per square foot goes up as the size goes down. So even comparing averages the indication is for no impact, but I rely on the median rates as the most reliable indication for any such analysis. I have also considered four more recent resales of homes in this community as shown on the following page. These comparable sales adjoin the solar farm at distances ranging from 315 to 400 feet. The matched pairs show a range from -9% to +6%. The range of the average difference is -2% to +1% with an average of 0% and a median of +0.5%. These comparable sales support a finding of no impact on property value. Matched Pair Summary Adjoins Solar Farm Nearby Solar Farm Average Median Average Median Sales Price $253,600 $253,000 $246,000 $249,000 Year Built 2013 2013 2014 2014 Size 3,418 3,400 3,189 3,346 Price/SF $74.27 $74.41 $77.85 $74.46 Percentage Differences Median Price -2% Median Size -2% Median Price/SF 0% 75 21 I have also considered the original sales prices in this subdivision relative to the recent resale values as shown in the chart below. This rate of appreciation is right at 2.5% over the last 6 years. Zillow indicates that the average home value within the 27530-zip code as of January 2014 was $101,300 and as of January 2020 that average is $118,100. This indicates an average increase in the market of 2.37%. I conclude that the appreciation of the homes adjoining the solar farm are not impacted by the presence of the solar farm based on this data. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 103 Granville Pl 1.42 7/27/2018 $265,000 2013 3,292 $80.50 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 385 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 103 Granville Pl $265,000 -2% Not 2219 Granville $4,382 $1,300 $0 $265,682 0% Not 634 Friendly -$8,303 -$6,675 $16,721 -$10,000 $258,744 2% Not 2403 Granville -$6,029 -$1,325 $31,356 $289,001 -9% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 104 Erin 2.24 6/19/2017 $280,000 2014 3,549 $78.90 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 315 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 104 Erin $280,000 0% Not 2219 Granville -$4,448 $2,600 $16,238 $274,390 2% Not 634 Friendly -$17,370 -$5,340 $34,702 -$10,000 $268,992 4% Not 2403 Granville -$15,029 $0 $48,285 $298,256 -7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2312 Granville 0.75 5/1/2018 $284,900 2013 3,453 $82.51 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 400 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2312 Granville $284,900 1% Not 2219 Granville $2,476 $1,300 $10,173 $273,948 4% Not 634 Friendly -$10,260 -$6,675 $27,986 -$10,000 $268,051 6% Not 2403 Granville -$7,972 -$1,325 $47,956 $303,659 -7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2310 Granville 0.76 5/14/2019 $280,000 2013 3,292 $85.05 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 400 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2310 Granville $280,000 1% Not 2219 Granville $10,758 $1,300 $0 $272,058 3% Not 634 Friendly -$1,755 -$6,675 $16,721 -$10,000 $265,291 5% Not 2403 Granville $469 -$1,325 $31,356 $295,500 -6% 76 22 Initial Sale Second Sale Year % Apprec. Address Date Price Date Price Diff Apprec. Apprec. %/Year 1 103 Granville Pl 4/1/2013 $245,000 7/27/2018 $265,000 5.32 $20,000 8.16% 1.53% 2 105 Erin 7/1/2014 $250,000 6/19/2017 $280,000 2.97 $30,000 12.00% 4.04% 3 2312 Granville 12/1/2013 $255,000 5/1/2015 $262,000 1.41 $7,000 2.75%1.94% 4 2312 Granville 5/1/2015 $262,000 5/1/2018 $284,900 3.00 $22,900 8.74%2.91% 5 2310 Granville 8/1/2013 $250,000 5/14/2019 $280,000 5.79 $30,000 12.00% 2.07% 6 2308 Granville 9/1/2013 $260,000 11/12/2015 $267,500 2.20 $7,500 2.88%1.31% 7 2304 Granville 9/1/2012 $198,000 6/1/2017 $225,000 4.75 $27,000 13.64%2.87% 8 102 Erin 8/1/2014 $253,000 11/1/2016 $270,000 2.25 $17,000 6.72% 2.98% Average 2.46% Median 2.47% 77 23 2. Matched Pair – Gastonia SC Solar, Gastonia, NC 78 24 This 5 MW project is located on the south side of Neal Hawkins Road just outside of Gastonia. The property identified above as Parcel 4 was listed for sale while this solar farm project was going through the approval process. The property was put under contract during the permitting process with the permit being approved while the due diligence period was still ongoing. After the permit was approved the property closed with no concerns from the buyer. I spoke with Jennifer Bouvier, the broker listing the property and she indicated that the solar farm had no impact at all on the sales price. She considered some nearby sales to set the price and the closing price was very similar to the asking price within the typical range for the market. The buyer was aware that the solar farm was coming and they had no concerns. This two-story brick dwelling was sold on March 20, 2017 for $270,000 for a 3,437 square foot dwelling built in 1934 in average condition on 1.42 acres. The property has four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The landscaping screen is light for this adjoining home due to it being a new planted landscaping buffer. I also considered the newer adjoining home identified as Parcel 5 that sold later in 2017 and it likewise shows no negative impact on property value. This is also considered a light landscaping buffer. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 609 Neal Hawkins 1.42 3/20/2017 $270,000 1934 3,427 $78.79 4/2 Open 2-Brick Not 1418 N Modena 4.81 4/17/2018 $225,000 1930 2,906 $77.43 3/3 2-Crprt 2-Brick Not 363 Dallas Bess 2.90 11/29/2018 $265,500 1968 2,964 $89.57 3/3 Open FinBsmt Not 1612 Dallas Chry 2.74 9/17/2018 $245,000 1951 3,443 $71.16 3/2 Open 2-Brick Unfin bath Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 609 Neal Hawkins $270,000 225 1418 N Modena $7,319 $2,700 $32,271 -$10,000 $257,290 5% 363 Dallas Bess $746 -$27,081 $33,179 -$10,000 $53,100 $262,456 3% 1612 Dallas Chry $4,110 -$12,495 -$911 $10,000 $235,704 13% 7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Adjoins 611 Neal Hawkins 0.78 7/6/2017 $288,000 1991 2,256 $127.66 5/3 2-Gar 1.5 Brick Not 1211 Still Frst 0.51 7/30/2018 $280,000 1989 2,249 $124.50 3/3 2-Gar Br Rnch Not 2867 Colony Wds 0.52 8/14/2018 $242,000 1990 2,006 $120.64 3/3 2-Gar Br Rnch Not 1010 Strawberry 1.00 10/4/2018 $315,000 2002 2,330 $135.19 3/2.5 2-Gar 1.5 Brick Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 611 Neal Hawkins $288,000 145 1211 Still Frst $1,341 $2,800 $697 $284,838 1% 2867 Colony Wds $7,714 $1,210 $24,128 $275,052 4% 1010 Strawberry -$4,555 -$17,325 -$8,003 $5,000 $290,116 -1% 2% 79 25 3. Matched Pair – Summit/Ranchlands Solar, Moyock, NC 80 26 This project is located at 1374 Caritoke Highway, Moyock, NC. This is an 80 MW facility on a parent tract of 2,034 acres. Parcels Number 48 and 53 as shown in the map above were sold in 2016. The project was under construction during the time period of the first of the matched pair sales and the permit was approved well prior to that in 2015. I looked at multiple sales of adjoining and nearby homes and compared each to multiple comparables to show a range of impacts from -10% up to +11% with an average of +2% and a median of +3%. These ranges are well within typical real estate variation and supports an indication of no impact on property value. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance 48 Adjoins 129 Pinto 4.29 4/15/2016 $170,000 1985 1,559 $109.04 3/2 Drive MFG 1,060 Not 102 Timber 1.30 4/1/2016 $175,500 2009 1,352 $129.81 3/2 Drive MFG Not 120 Ranchland 0.99 10/1/2014 $170,000 2002 1,501 $113.26 3/2 Drive MFG Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 129 Pinto $170,000 -3% Not 102 Timber $276 $10,000 -$29,484 $18,809 $175,101 -3% Not 120 Ranchland $10,735 $10,000 -$20,230 $4,598 $175,103 -3% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 105 Pinto 4.99 12/16/2016 $206,000 1978 1,484 $138.81 3/2 Det G Ranch Not 111 Spur 1.15 2/1/2016 $193,000 1985 2,013 $95.88 4/2 Gar Ranch Not 103 Marshall 1.07 3/29/2017 $196,000 2003 1,620 $120.99 3/2 Drive Ranch Not 127 Ranchland 0.00 6/9/2015 $219,900 1988 1,910 $115.13 3/2 Gar/3Det Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 105 Pinto $206,000 980 111 Spur $6,747 $10,000 -$6,755 -$25,359 $177,633 14% 103 Marshall -$2,212 $10,000 -$24,500 -$8,227 $5,000 $176,212 14% 127 Ranchland $13,399 $10,000 -$10,995 -$24,523 -$10,000 $197,781 4% 11% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance 15 Adjoins 318 Green View 0.44 9/15/2019 $357,000 2005 3,460 $103.18 4/4 2-Car 1.5 Brick 570 Not 195 St Andrews 0.55 6/17/2018 $314,000 2002 3,561 $88.18 5/3 2-Car 2.0 Brick Not 336 Green View 0.64 1/13/2019 $365,000 2006 3,790 $96.31 6/4 3-Car 2.0 Brick Not 275 Green View 0.36 8/15/2019 $312,000 2003 3,100 $100.65 5/3 2-Car 2.0 Brick Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 318 Green View $357,000 4% Not 195 St Andrews $12,040 $4,710 -$7,125 $10,000 $333,625 7% Not 336 Green View $7,536 -$1,825 -$25,425 -$5,000 $340,286 5% Not 275 Green View $815 $3,120 $28,986 $10,000 $354,921 1% 81 27 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance 29 Adjoins 164 Ranchland 1.01 4/30/2019 $169,000 1999 2,052 $82.36 4/2 Gar MFG 440 Not 150 Pinto 0.94 3/27/2018 $168,000 2017 1,920 $87.50 4/2 Drive MFG Not 105 Longhorn 1.90 10/10/2017 $184,500 2002 1,944 $94.91 3/2 Drive MFG Not 112 Pinto 1.00 7/27/2018 $180,000 2002 1,836 $98.04 3/2 Drive MFG Fenced Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 164 Ranchland $169,000 -10% Not 150 Pinto $5,649 -$21,168 $8,085 $5,000 $165,566 2% Not 105 Longhorn $8,816 -$10,000 -$3,875 $7,175 $5,000 $191,616 -13% Not 112 Pinto $4,202 -$3,780 $14,824 $5,000 $200,245 -18% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 358 Oxford 10.03 9/16/2019 $478,000 2008 2,726 $175.35 3/3 2 Gar Ranch 635 Not 276 Summit 10.01 12/20/2017 $355,000 2006 1,985 $178.84 3/2 2 Gar Ranch Not 176 Providence 6.19 5/6/2019 $425,000 1990 2,549 $166.73 3/3 4 Gar Ranch Brick Not 1601 B Caratoke 12.20 9/26/2019 $440,000 2016 3,100 $141.94 4/3.5 5 Gar Ranch Pool Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 358 Oxford $478,000 5% Not 276 Summit $18,996 $3,550 $106,017 $10,000 $493,564 -3% Not 176 Providence $4,763 $38,250 $23,609 -$10,000 -$25,000 $456,623 4% Not 1601 B Caratoke -$371 $50,000 -$17,600 -$42,467 -$5,000 -$10,000 $414,562 13% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Nearby 343 Oxford 10.01 3/9/2017 $490,000 2016 3,753 $130.56 3/3 2 Gar 1.5 Story Pool 970 Not 287 Oxford 10.01 9/4/2017 $600,000 2013 4,341 $138.22 5/4.5 8-Gar 1.5 Story Pool Not 301 Oxford 10.00 4/23/2018 $434,000 2013 3,393 $127.91 5/3 2 Gar 1.5 Story Not 218 Oxford 10.01 4/4/2017 $525,000 2006 4,215 $124.56 4/3 4 Gar 1.5 Story VG Barn Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 343 Oxford $490,000 3% Not 287 Oxford -$9,051 $9,000 -$65,017 -$15,000 -$25,000 $494,932 -1% Not 301 Oxford -$14,995 -$10,000 $6,510 $36,838 $452,353 8% Not 218 Oxford -$1,150 $26,250 -$46,036 -$10,000 -$10,000 $484,064 1% 82 28 4. Matched Pair – Tracy Solar, Bailey, NC 83 29 This project is located in rural Nash County on Winters Road with a 5 MW facility that was built in 2016 on 50 acres. A local builder acquired parcels 9 and 10 following construction as shown below at rates comparable to other tracts in the area. They then built a custom home for an owner and sold that at a price similar to other nearby homes as shown in the matched pair data below. The retained woods provide a heavy landscaped buffer for this homesite. The comparables for the land show either a significant positive relationship or a mild negative relationship to having and adjoining solar farm, but when averaged together they show no negative impact. The wild divergence is due to the difficulty in comping out this tract of land and the wide variety of comparables used. The two comparables that show mild negative influences include a property that was partly developed as a residential subdivision and the other included a doublewide with some value and accessory agricultural structures. The tax assessed value on the improvements were valued at $60,000. So both of those comparables have some limitations for comparison. The two that show significant enhancement due to adjacency includes a property with a cemetery located in the middle and the other is a tract almost twice as large. Still that larger tract after adjustment provides the best matched pair as it required the least adjustment. I therefore conclude that there is no negative impact due to adjacency to the solar farm shown by this matched pair. Adjoining Land Sales After Solar Farm Completed # Solar Farm TAX ID Grantor Grantee Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/AC Other 9 &10 Adjoins 316003 Cozart Kingsmill 9162 Winters 13.22 7/21/2016 $70,000 $5,295 & 316004 Not 6056 Billingsly 427 Young 41 10/21/2016 $164,000 $4,000 Not 33211 Fulcher Weikel 10533 Cone 23.46 7/18/2017 $137,000 $5,840 Doublewide, structures Not 106807 Perry Gardner Claude Lewis 11.22 8/10/2017 $79,000 $7,041 Gravel drive for sub, cleared Not 3437 Vaughan N/A 11354 Old 18.73 Listing $79,900 $4,266 Small cemetery,wooded Lewis Sch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Acres Location Other Adj $/Ac % Diff $5,295 $0 $400 $0 $0 $4,400 17% -$292 $292 $0 -$500 $5,340 -1% -$352 $0 $0 -$1,000 $5,689 -7% -$213 $0 $0 $213 $4,266 19% Average 7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Completed #Solar Farmn Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GLA $/GLA BR/BA Style Other 9 &10 Adjoins gs 9162 Winters 13.22 1/5/2017 $255,000 2016 1,616 $157.80 3/2 Ranch 1296 sf wrkshp Not ow 7352 Red Fox 0.93 6/30/2016 $176,000 2010 1,529 $115.11 3/2 2-story Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Acres YB GLA Style Other Total % Diff $255,000 $0 $44,000 $7,392 $5,007 $5,000 $15,000 $252,399 1% 84 30 The dwelling that was built on the site was a build-to-suit and was compared to a nearby homesale of a property on a smaller parcel of land. I adjusted for that differenced based on a $25,000 value for a 1-acre home site versus the $70,000 purchase price of the larger subject tract. The other adjustments are typical and show no impact due to the adjacency to the solar farm. The closest solar panel to the home is 780 feet away. I note that the representative for Kingsmill Homes indicated that the solar farm was never a concern in purchasing the land or selling the home. He also indicated that they had built a number of nearby homes across the street and it had never come up as an issue. 85 31 5. Matched Pair – McBride Place Solar Farm, Midland, NC This project is located on Mount Pleasant Road, Midland, North Carolina. The property is on 627 acres on an assemblage of 974.59 acres. The solar farm was approved in early 2017 for a 74.9 MW facility. 86 32 I have considered the sale of 4380 Joyner Road which adjoins the proposed solar farm near the northwest section. This property was appraised in April of 2017 for a value of $317,000 with no consideration of any impact due to the solar farm in that figure. The property sold in November 2018 for $325,000 with the buyer fully aware of the proposed solar farm. The landscaping buffer relative to Joyner Road, Hayden Way, Chanel Court and Kristi Lane is considered medium, while the landscaping for the home at the north end of Chanel Court is considered very light. I have considered the following matched pairs to the subject property. The home at 4380 Joyner Road is 275 feet from the closest solar panel. I also considered the recent sale of a lot at 5800 Kristi Lane that is on the east side of the proposed solar farm. This 4.22-acre lot sold in December 2017 for $94,000. A home was built on this lot in 2019 with the closest point from home to panel at 689 feet. The home site is heavily wooded and their remains a wooded buffer between the solar panels and the home. I spoke with the broker, Margaret Dabbs, who indicated that the solar farm was considered a positive by both buyer and seller as it ensures no subdivision will be happening in that area. Buyers in this market are looking for privacy and seclusion. The breakdown of recent lot sales on Kristi are shown below with the lowest price paid for the lot with no solar farm exposure, though that lot has exposure to Mt Pleasant Road South. Still the older lot sales have exposure to the solar farm and sold for higher prices than the front lot and adjusting for time would only increase that difference. The lot at 5811 Kristi Lane sold in May 2018 for $100,000 for a 3.74-acre lot. The home that was built later in 2018 is 505 feet to the closest solar panel. This home then sold to a homeowner for $530,000 in April 2020. I have compared this home sale to other properties in the area as shown below. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 4380 Joyner 12.00 11/22/2017 $325,000 1979 1,598 $203.38 3/2 2xGar Ranch Outbldg Not 3870 Elkwood 5.50 8/24/2016 $250,000 1986 1,551 $161.19 3/2.5 Det 2xGar Craft Not 8121 Lower Rocky 18.00 2/8/2017 $355,000 1977 1,274 $278.65 2/2 2xCarprt Ranch Eq. Fac. Not 13531 Cabarrus 7.89 5/20/2016 $267,750 1981 2,300 $116.41 3/2 2xGar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Acres YB Condition GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff $325,000 $7,500 $52,000 -$12,250 $10,000 $2,273 -$2,000 $2,500 $7,500 $317,523 2% $7,100 -$48,000 $4,970 $23,156 $0 $3,000 -$15,000 $330,226 -2% $8,033 $33,000 -$3,749 $20,000 -$35,832 $0 $0 $7,500 $296,702 9% Average 3% Adjoining Lot Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/AC $/Lot Adjoins 5811 Kristi 3.74 5/1/2018 $100,000 $26,738 $100,000 Adjoins 5800 Kristi 4.22 12/1/2017 $94,000 $22,275 $94,000 Not 5822 Kristi 3.43 2/24/2020 $90,000 $26,239 $90,000 87 33 After adjusting the comparables, I found that the average adjusted value shows a slight increase in value for the subject property adjoining a solar farm. As in the other cases, this is a mild positive impact on value but within the typical range of real estate transactions. I also looked at 5833 Kristi Lane that sold on 9/14/2020 for $625,000. This home is 470 feet from the closest panel. The average difference is 0% impact and the differences are all within a close range with this set of comparables and supports a finding of no impact on property value. I have also looked at 4504 Chanel Court. This home sold on January 1, 2020 for $393,500 for this 3,010 square foot home built in 2004 with 3 bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, and a 3-car garage. This home includes a full partially finished basement that significantly complicates comparing this to other sales. This home previously sold on January 23, 2017 for $399,000. This was during the time that the solar farm was a known factor as the solar farm was approved in early 2017 and public discussions had already commenced. I spoke with Rachelle Killman with Real Estate Realty, LLC the buyer’s agent for this transaction and she indicated that the solar farm was not a factor or consideration for the buyer. She noted that you could see the panels sort of through the trees, but it wasn’t a concern for the buyer. She was not familiar with the earlier 2017 sale, but indicated that it was likely too high. This again goes back to the partially finished basement issue. The basement has a fireplace, and an installed 3/4 bathroom but otherwise bare studs and concrete floors with different buyers assigning varying value to that partly finished space. I also reached out to Don Gomez with Don Anthony Realty, LLC as he was the listing agent. I also looked at the recent sale of 4599 Chanel Court. This home is within 310 feet of solar panels but notably does not have a good landscaping screen in place as shown in the photo below. The plantings appear to be less than 3-feet in height and only a narrow, limited screen of existing hardwoods were kept. The photograph is from the listing. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 5811 Kristi 3.74 3/31/2020 $530,000 2018 3,858 $137.38 5/3.5 2 Gar 2-story Cement Ext Not 3915 Tania 1.68 12/9/2019 $495,000 2007 3,919 $126.31 3/3.5 2 Gar 2-story 3Det Gar Not 6782 Manatee 1.33 3/8/2020 $460,000 1998 3,776 $121.82 4/2/2h 2 Gar 2-story Water Not 314 Old Hickory 1.24 9/20/2019 $492,500 2017 3,903 $126.18 6/4.5 2 Gar 2-story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 5811 Kristi $530,000 5% Not 3915 Tania $6,285 $27,225 -$3,852 -$20,000 $504,657 5% Not 6782 Manatee $1,189 $46,000 $4,995 $5,000 $517,183 2% Not 314 Old Hickory $10,680 $2,463 -$2,839 -$10,000 $492,803 7% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Nearby 5833 Kristi 4.05 9/14/2020 $625,000 2008 4,373 $142.92 5/4 3-Car 2-Brick Not 4055 Dakeita 4.90 12/30/2020 $629,000 2005 4,427 $142.08 4/4 4-Car 2-Brick 4DetGar/Stable Not 9615 Bales 2.16 6/30/2020 $620,000 2007 4,139 $149.79 4/5 3-Car 2-Stone 2DetGar Not 9522 Bales 1.47 6/18/2020 $600,000 2007 4,014 $149.48 4/4.5 3-Car 2-Stone Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 5833 Kristi $625,000 470 4055 Dakeita -$9,220 $5,661 -$6,138 -$25,000 $594,303 5% 9615 Bales $6,455 $1,860 $28,042 -$10,000 -$15,000 $631,356 -1% 9522 Bales $7,233 $1,800 $42,930 -$5,000 $646,963 -4% 0% 88 34 According to Scott David with Better Homes and Gardens Paracle Realty, this property was under contract for $550,000 contingent on the buyer being able to sell their former home. The former home was apparently overpriced and did not sell and the contract stretched out over 2.5 months. The seller was in a bind as they had a home they were trying to buy contingent on this closing and were about to lose that opportunity. A cash buyer offered them a quick close at $500,000 and the seller accepted that offer in order to not lose the home they were trying to buy. According to Mr. David, the original contracted buyer and the actual cash buyer never considered the solar farm as a negative. In fact Mr. David noted that the actual buyer saw it as a great opportunity to purchase a home where a new subdivision could not be built behind his house. I therefore conclude that this property supports a finding of no impact on adjoining property, even where the landscaping screen still requires time to grow in for a year-round screen. I also considered a sale/resale analysis on this property. This same home sold on September 15, 2015 for $462,000. Adjusting this upward by 5% per year for the five years between these sales dates suggests a value of $577,500. Comparing that to the $550,000 contract that suggests a 5% downward impact, which is within a typical market variation. Given that the broker noted no negative impact from the solar farm and the analysis above, I conclude this sale supports a finding of no impact on value. 89 35 6. Matched Pair – Mariposa Solar, Gaston County, NC This project is a 5 MW facility located on 35.80 acres out of a parent tract of 87.61 acres at 517 Blacksnake Road, Stanley that was built in 2016. I have considered a number of recent sales around this facility as shown below. The first is identified in the map above as Parcel 1, which is 215 Mariposa Road. This is an older dwelling on large acreage with only one bathroom. I’ve compared it to similar nearby homes as shown below. The landscaping buffer for this home is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Adjoins 215 Mariposa 17.74 12/12/2017 $249,000 1958 1,551 $160.54 3/1 Garage Br/Rnch Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 1974 1,792 $85.38 4/2 Garage Br/Rnch Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 1962 2,165 $76.67 3/2 Crprt Br/Rnch Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 1980 2,156 $112.48 3/2 Drive 1.5 Not 1201 Abernathy 27.00 5/3/2018 $390,000 1970 2,190 $178.08 3/2 Crprt Br/Rnch 90 36 The average difference after adjusting for all factors is +9% on average, which suggests an enhancement due to the solar farm across the street. Given the large adjustments for acreage and size, I will focus on the low end of the adjusted range at 4%, which is within the typical deviation and therefore suggests no impact on value. I have also considered Parcel 4 that sold after the solar farm was approved but before it had been constructed in 2016. The landscaping buffer for this parcel is considered light. The average difference after adjusting for all factors is +6%, which is again suggests a mild increase in value due to the adjoining solar farm use. The median is a 4% adjustment, which is within a standard deviation and suggests no impact on property value. I have also considered the recent sale of Parcel 13 that is located on Blacksnake Road south of the project. I was unable to find good land sales in the same 20-acre range, so I have considered sales of larger and smaller acreage. I adjusted each of those land sales for time. I then applied the price per acre to a trendline to show where the expected price per acre would be for 20 acres. As can be seen in the chart below, this lines up exactly with the purchase of the subject property. I therefore conclude that there is no impact on Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Time YB Acres GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Adjoins 215 Mariposa 17.74 12/12/2017 $249,000 $249,000 Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 -$5,583 -$17,136 $129,450 -$20,576 -$10,000 $229,154 8% Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 $7,927 -$4,648 $126,825 -$47,078 -$10,000 $239,026 4% Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 -$5,621 -$37,345 $95,475 -$68,048 -$10,000 $5,000 $221,961 11% Not 1201 Abernathy 27.00 5/3/2018 $390,000 -$4,552 -$32,760 -$69,450 -$60,705 -$10,000 $212,533 15% Average 9% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 242 Mariposa 2.91 9/21/2015 $180,000 1962 1,880 $95.74 3/2 Carport Br/Rnch Det Wrkshop Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 1974 1,792 $85.38 4/2 Garage Br/Rnch Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 1962 2,165 $76.67 3/2 Crprt Br/Rnch Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 1980 2,156 $112.48 3/2 Drive 1.5 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Time YB Acres GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Adjoins 242 Mariposa 2.91 9/21/2015 $180,000 $180,000 Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 -$15,807 -$12,852 $18,468 $7,513 -$3,000 $25,000 $172,322 4% Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 -$3,165 $0 $15,808 -$28,600 $25,000 $175,043 3% Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 -$21,825 -$30,555 -$15,960 -$40,942 $2,000 $25,000 $160,218 11% Average 6% Adjoining Residential Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Tax/Street Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/Ac Time $/Ac Adjoins 174339/Blacksnake 21.15 6/29/2018 $160,000 $7,565 $7,565 Not 227852/Abernathy 10.57 5/9/2018 $97,000 $9,177 $38 $9,215 Not 17443/Legion 9.87 9/7/2018 $64,000 $6,484 -$37 $6,447 Not 164243/Alexis 9.75 2/1/2019 $110,000 $11,282 -$201 $11,081 Not 176884/Bowden 55.77 6/13/2018 $280,000 $5,021 $7 $5,027 91 37 Finally, I have considered the recent sale of Parcel 17 that sold as vacant land. I was unable to find good land sales in the same 7-acre range, so I have considered sales of larger and smaller acreage. I adjusted each of those land sales for time. I then applied the price per acre to a trendline to show where the expected price per acre would be for 7 acres. As can be seen in the chart below, this lines up with the trendline running right through the purchase price for the subject property. I therefore conclude that there is no impact on Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm. I note that this property was improved with a 3,196 square foot ranch built in 2018 following the land purchase, which shows that development near the solar farm was unimpeded. Adjoining Residential Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Tax/Street Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/Ac Time Location $/Ac Adjoins 227039/Mariposa 6.86 12/6/2017 $66,500 $9,694 $9,694 Not 227852/Abernathy 10.57 5/9/2018 $97,000 $9,177 -$116 $9,061 Not 17443/Legion 9.87 9/7/2018 $64,000 $6,484 -$147 $6,338 Not 177322/Robinson 5.23 5/12/2017 $66,500 $12,715 $217 -$1,272 $11,661 Not 203386/Carousel 2.99 7/13/2018 $43,500 $14,548 -$262 -$1,455 $12,832 92 38 7. Matched Pair – Candace Solar, Princeton, NC This 5 MW solar farm is located at 4839 US 70 Highway just east of Herring Road. This solar farm was completed on October 25, 2016. 93 39 I identified three adjoining sales to this tract after development of the solar farm with frontage on US 70. I did not attempt to analyze those sales as they have exposure to an adjacent highway and railroad track. Those homes are therefore problematic for a matched pair analysis unless I have similar homes fronting on a similar corridor. I did consider a land sale and a home sale on adjoining parcels without those complications. The lot at 499 Herring Road sold to Paradise Homes of Johnston County of NC, Inc. for $30,000 in May 2017 and a modular home was placed there and sold to Karen and Jason Toole on September 29, 2017. I considered the lot sale first as shown below and then the home sale that followed. The landscaping buffer relative to this parcel is considered medium. Following the land purchase, the modular home was placed on the site and sold. I have compared this modular home to the following sales to determine if the solar farm had any impact on the purchase price. The best comparable is 1795 Bay Valley as it required the least adjustment and was therefore most similar, which shows a 0% impact. This signifies no impact related to the solar farm. The range of impact identified by these matched pairs ranges are therefore -3% to +26% with an average of +8% for the home and an average of +4% for the lot, though the best indicator for the lot shows a $5,000 difference in the lot value due to the proximity to the solar farm or a -12% impact. Adjoining Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Other Time Site Other Total % Diff 16 Adjoins 499 Herring 2.03 5/1/2017 $30,000 $30,000 Not 37 Becky 0.87 7/23/2019 $24,500 Sub/Pwr -$1,679 $4,900 $27,721 8% Not 5858 Bizzell 0.88 8/17/2016 $18,000 $390 $3,600 $21,990 27% Not 488 Herring 2.13 12/20/2016 $35,000 $389 $35,389 -18% Average 5% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other 16 Adjoins 499 Herring 2.03 9/27/2017 $215,000 2017 2,356 $91.26 4/3 Drive Modular Not 678 WC 6.32 3/8/2019 $226,000 1995 1,848 $122.29 3/2.5 Det Gar Mobile Ag bldgs Not 1810 Bay V 8.70 3/26/2018 $170,000 2003 2,356 $72.16 3/2 Drive Mobile Ag bldgs Not 1795 Bay V 1.78 12/1/2017 $194,000 2017 1,982 $97.88 4/3 Drive Modular Adjoining Residential Sales Af Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Parcel Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 16 Adjoins 499 Herring $215,000 488 Not 678 WC -$10,037 -$25,000 $24,860 $37,275 -$5,000 -$7,500 -$20,000 $220,599 -3% Not 1810 Bay V -$2,579 -$20,000 $11,900 $0 $159,321 26% Not 1795 Bay V -$1,063 $0 $21,964 $214,902 0% 8% 94 40 8. Matched Pair – Innovative Solar 46, Roslin Farm Rd, Hope Mills, NC This project was built in 2016 and located on 532 acres for a 78.5 MW solar farm with the closest home at 125 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 423 feet. I considered the recent sale of a home on Roslin Farm Road just north of Running Fox Road as shown below. This sale supports an indication of no impact on property value. The landscaping buffer is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 6849 Roslin Farm 1.00 2/18/2019 $155,000 1967 1,610 $96.27 3/3 Drive Ranch Brick 435 Not 6592 Sim Canady 2.43 9/5/2017 $185,000 1974 2,195 $84.28 3/2 Gar Ranch Brick Not 1614 Joe Hall 1.63 9/3/2019 $145,000 1974 1,674 $86.62 3/2 Det Gar Ranch Brick Not 109 Bledsoe 0.68 1/17/2019 $150,000 1973 1,663 $90.20 3/2 Gar Ranch Brick Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 6849 Roslin Farm $155,000 5% Not 6592 Sim Canady $8,278 -$6,475 -$39,444 $10,000 -$5,000 $152,359 2% Not 1614 Joe Hall -$2,407 -$5,075 -$3,881 $10,000 -$2,500 $141,137 9% Not 109 Bledsoe $404 $10,000 -$4,500 -$3,346 -$5,000 $147,558 5% 95 41 9. Matched Pair – Innovative Solar 42, County Line Rd, Fayetteville, NC 96 42 This project was built in 2017 and located on 413.99 acres for a 71 MW with the closest home at 135 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 375 feet. I considered the recent sales identified on the map above as Parcels 2 and 3, which is directly across the street these homes are 330 and 340 feet away. Parcel 2 includes an older home built in 1976, while Parcel 3 is a new home built in 2019. So the presence of the solar farm had no impact on new construction in the area. The matched pairs for each of these are shown below. The landscaping buffer relative to these parcels is considered light. Both of these matched pairs adjust to an average of +3% on impact for the adjoining solar farm, meaning there is a slight positive impact due to proximity to the solar farm. This is within the standard +/- of typical real estate transactions, which strongly suggests no impact on property value. I noted specifically that for 2923 County Line Road, the best comparable is 2109 John McMillan as it does not have the additional rental unit on it. I made no adjustment to the other sale for the value of that rental unit, which would have pushed the impact on that comparable downward – meaning there would have been a more significant positive impact. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2923 County Ln 8.98 2/28/2019 $385,000 1976 2,905 $132.53 3/3 2-Car Ranch Brick/Pond 340 Not 1928 Shaw Mill 17.00 7/3/2019 $290,000 1977 3,001 $96.63 4/4 2-Car Ranch Brick/Pond/Rental Not 2109 John McM. 7.78 4/25/2018 $320,000 1978 2,474 $129.35 3/2 Det Gar Ranch Vinyl/Pool,Stable Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2923 County Ln $385,000 3% Not 1928 Shaw Mill -$3,055 $100,000 -$1,450 -$7,422 -$10,000 $368,074 4% Not 2109 John McM. $8,333 -$3,200 $39,023 $10,000 $5,000 $379,156 2% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2935 County Ln 1.19 6/18/2019 $266,000 2019 2,401 $110.79 4/3 Gar 2-Story 330 Not 3005 Hemingway 1.17 5/16/2019 $269,000 2018 2,601 $103.42 4/3 Gar 2-Story Not 7031 Glynn Mill 0.60 5/8/2018 $255,000 2017 2,423 $105.24 4/3 Gar 2-Story Not 5213 Bree Brdg 0.92 5/7/2019 $260,000 2018 2,400 $108.33 4/3 3-Gar 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2935 County Ln $266,000 3% Not 3005 Hemingway $748 $1,345 -$16,547 $254,546 4% Not 7031 Glynn Mill $8,724 $2,550 -$1,852 $264,422 1% Not 5213 Bree Brdg $920 $1,300 $76 -$10,000 $252,296 5% 97 43 10. Matched Pair – Sunfish Farm, Keenebec Rd, Willow Spring, NC This project was built in 2015 and located on 49.6 acres (with an inset 11.25-acre parcel) for a 6.4 MW project with the closest home at 135 feet with an average distance of 105 feet. I considered the 2017 sale identified on the map above, which is 205 feet away from the closest panel. The matched pairs for each of these are shown below followed by a more recent map showing the panels at this site. The average difference in the three comparables and the subject property is +3% after adjusting for differences in the sales date, year built, gross living area, and other minor differences. This data is supported by the comments from the broker Brian Schroepfer with Keller Williams that the solar farm had no impact on the purchase price. The landscaping screen is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Adjoins 7513 Glen Willow 0.79 9/1/2017 $185,000 1989 1,492 $123.99 3/2 Gar BR/Rnch Not 2968 Tram 0.69 7/17/2017 $155,000 1984 1,323 $117.16 3/2 Drive BR/Rnch Not 205 Pine Burr 0.97 12/29/2017 $191,000 1991 1,593 $119.90 3/2.5 Drive BR/Rnch Not 1217 Old Honeycutt 1.00 12/15/2017 $176,000 1978 1,558 $112.97 3/2.5 2Carprt VY/Rnch Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 7513 Glen Willow $185,000 Not 2968 Tram $601 $3,875 $15,840 $10,000 $185,316 0% Not 205 Pine Burr -$1,915 -$1,910 -$9,688 -$5,000 $172,487 7% Not 1217 Old Honeycutt -$1,557 $9,680 -$5,965 -$5,000 $5,280 $178,438 4% 3% 98 44 11. Matched Pair – Camden Dam, Camden, NC This 5 MW project was built in 2019 and located on a portion of 49.83 acres. Parcel 1 noted above along with the home on the adjoining parcel to the north of that parcel sold in late 2018 after this solar farm was approved but prior to construction being completed in 2019. I have considered this sale as shown below. The landscaping screen is considered light. The comparable at 548 Trotman is the most similar and required the least adjustment shows no impact on property value. The other two comparables were adjusted consistently with one showing significant enhancement and another as showing a mild negative. The best indication is the one requiring the least adjustment. The other two sales required significant site adjustments which make them less reliable. The best comparable and the average of these comparables support a finding of no impact on property value. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 122 N Mill Dam 12.19 11/29/2018 $350,000 2005 2,334 $149.96 3/3.5 3-Gar Ranch Not 548 Trotman 12.10 5/31/2018 $309,000 2007 1,960 $157.65 4/2 Det2G Ranch Wrkshp Not 198 Sand Hills 2.00 12/22/2017 $235,000 2007 2,324 $101.12 4/3 Open Ranch Not 140 Sleepy Hlw 2.05 8/12/2019 $330,000 2010 2,643 $124.86 4/3 1-Gar 1.5 Story Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 122 N Mill Dam $350,000 342 548 Trotman $6,163 -$3,090 $35,377 $5,000 $352,450 -1% 198 Sand Hills $8,808 $45,000 -$2,350 $607 $30,000 $317,064 9% 140 Sleepy Hlw -$9,258 $45,000 -$8,250 -$23,149 $5,000 $30,000 $369,343 -6% 1% 99 45 12. Matched Pair – Grandy Solar, Grandy, NC This 20 MW project was built in 2019 and located on a portion of 121 acres. Parcels 40 and 50 have sold since construction began on this solar farm. I have considered both in matched pair analysis below. I note that the marketing for Parcel 40 (120 Par Four) identified the lack of homes behind the house as a feature in the listing. The marketing for Parcel 50 (269 Grandy) identified the property as “very private.” Landscaping for both of these parcels is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 120 Par Four 0.92 8/17/2019 $315,000 2006 2,188 $143.97 4/3 2-Gar 1.5 Story Pool Not 102 Teague 0.69 1/5/2020 $300,000 2005 2,177 $137.80 3/2 Det 3G Ranch Not 112 Meadow Lk 0.92 2/28/2019 $265,000 1992 2,301 $115.17 3/2 Gar 1.5 Story Not 116 Barefoot 0.78 9/29/2020 $290,000 2004 2,192 $132.30 4/3 2-Gar 2 Story 100 46 Both of these matched pairs support a finding of no impact on value. This is reinforced by the listings for both properties identifying the privacy due to no housing in the rear of the property as part of the marketing for these homes. Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 120 Par Four $315,000 405 102 Teague -$4,636 $1,500 $910 $10,000 $20,000 $327,774 -4% 112 Meadow Lk $4,937 $18,550 -$7,808 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $320,679 -2% 116 Barefoot -$12,998 $2,900 -$318 $20,000 $299,584 5% 0% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 269 Grandy 0.78 5/7/2019 $275,000 2019 1,535 $179.15 3/2.5 2-Gar Ranch Not 307 Grandy 1.04 10/8/2018 $240,000 2002 1,634 $146.88 3/2 Gar 1.5 Story Not 103 Branch 0.95 4/22/2020 $230,000 2000 1,532 $150.13 4/2 2-Gar 1.5 Story Not 103 Spring Lf 1.07 8/14/2018 $270,000 2002 1,635 $165.14 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Pool Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 269 Grandy $275,000 477 307 Grandy $5,550 $20,400 -$8,725 $5,000 $10,000 $272,225 1% 103 Branch -$8,847 $21,850 $270 $243,273 12% 103 Spring Lf $7,871 $22,950 -$9,908 $5,000 -$20,000 $275,912 0% 4% 101 47 Conclusion – NC Data The solar farm matched pairs shown above have similar characteristics to each other in terms of population, but with several outliers showing solar farms in farm more urban areas. The median income for the population within 1 mile of a solar farm is $54,845 with a median housing unit value of $206,862. Most of the comparables are under $300,000 in the home price, though I have matched pairs in multiple states over $1,000,000 adjoining solar farms. The adjoining uses show that residential and agricultural uses are the predominant adjoining uses. These figures are in line with the larger set of solar farms that I have looked at with the predominant adjoining uses being residential and agricultural and similar to the solar farm breakdown shown for the southeast as shown later in this report. Based on the similarity of adjoining uses and demographic data between these sites and the subject property, I consider it reasonable to compare these sites to the subject property. I have pulled 32 matched pairs from the above referenced solar farms to provide the following summary of home sale matched pairs and land sales next to solar farms. The summary shows that the range of differences is from -10% to +10% with an average of +2% and median of +2%. This means that the average and median impact is for a slight positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. However, this +2% to rate is within the typical variability I would expect from real estate. I therefore conclude that this data shows no negative or positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. While the range is seemingly wide, the graph below clearly shows that the vast majority of the data falls between 0% and +5%. There were only 2 indicators showing an impact below zero and they were -1% and -10%. The other thirty results ranged from zero to +10%. I therefore conclude that these matched pairs support a finding of no impact on value at the subject property for the proposed project, which as proposed will include a landscaped buffer to screen adjoining residential properties. Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2020 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com Pop. Income Unit Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 38 5.00 2 38% 23% 0% 39% 1,523 $37,358 $148,375 Light 2 Gaston SC Gastonia NC 35 5.00 48 33% 23% 0% 44% 4,689 $35,057 $126,562 Light 3 Summit Moyock NC 2034 80.00 4 4% 94% 0% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 4 Tracy Bailey NC 50 5.00 10 29% 71% 0% 0% 312 $43,940 $99,219 Heavy 5 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 78% 10% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 6 Mariposa Stanley NC 36 5.00 96 48% 52% 0% 0% 1,716 $36,439 $137,884 Light 7 Candace Princeton NC 54 5.00 22 76% 0% 24% 0% 448 $51,002 $107,171 Medium 8 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 0% 83% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 9 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 0% 59% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 10 Sunfish Willow Spring NC 50 6.40 30 35% 30% 35% 0% 1,515 $63,652 $253,138 Light 11 Camden Dam Camden NC 50 5.00 0 17% 11% 72% 0% 403 $84,426 $230,288 Light 12 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 0% 24% 21% 949 $50,355 $231,408 Light Average 337 30.08 30 34% 32% 26% 9% 1263 $55,312 $194,322 Median 52 5.70 10 34% 23% 17% 0% 759 $54,845 $206,862 High 2,034 80.00 140 76% 94% 83% 44% 4,689 $84,426 $281,731 Low 35 5.00 0 4% 0% 0% 0% 312 $35,057 $99,219 Plateau 1-Mile 818 65.00 50 20% 80% 0% 0% 215 $57,449 $208,446 3-Mile 818 65.00 50 20% 80% 0% 0% 2239 $56,530 $200,442 102 48 103 49 B. Southeastern USA Data – Over 5 MW I have also considered a number of projects throughout the southeast which includes a number of solar farms much larger than those considered in just North Carolina. I have shown the results below. The full write-ups similar to the NC write-ups are available in my files. Conclusion – Southeast Over 5 MW The solar farm matched pairs shown above have similar characteristics to each other in terms of population, but with several outliers showing solar farms in farm more urban areas. The median income for the population within 1 mile of a solar farm is $60,037 with a median housing unit value of $231,408. Most of the comparables are under $300,000 in the home price, with $483,333 being the high end of the set, though I have matched pairs in multiple states over $1,000,000 adjoining solar farms. The adjoining uses show that residential and agricultural uses are the predominant adjoining uses. These figures are in line with the larger set of solar farms that I have looked at with the predominant adjoining uses being residential and agricultural and similar to the solar farm breakdown shown for Virginia and adjoining states as well as the proposed subject property. Based on the similarity of adjoining uses and demographic data between these sites and the subject property, I consider it reasonable to compare these sites to the subject property. I have pulled 56 matched pairs from the above referenced solar farms to provide the following summary of home sale matched pairs and land sales next to solar farms. The summary shows that the range of differences is from -10% to +10% with an average of +1% and median of +1%. This means that the average and median impact is for a slight positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. However, this +1 to rate is within the typical variability I would expect from real estate. I therefore conclude that this data shows no negative or positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. Southeast USA Over 5 MW Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2020 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Pop. Income Unit Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 38 5.00 2 38% 0% 23% 39% 1,523 $37,358 $148,375 Light 2 Mulberry Selmer TN 160 5.00 60 13% 73% 10% 3% 467 $40,936 $171,746 Lt to Med 3 Leonard Hughesville MD 47 5.00 20 18% 75% 0% 6% 525 $106,550 $350,000 Light 4 Gastonia SC Gastonia NC 35 5.00 48 33% 0% 23% 44% 4,689 $35,057 $126,562 Light 5 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 6 Tracy Bailey NC 50 5.00 10 29% 0% 71% 0% 312 $43,940 $99,219 Heavy 7 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0%48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 8 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 9 Mariposa Stanley NC 36 5.00 96 48% 0% 52% 0% 1,716 $36,439 $137,884 Light 10 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1% 578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 11 Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 71 1% 63% 36% 0% 203 $76,155 $269,922 Medium 12 Candace Princeton NC 54 5.00 22 76% 24% 0% 0% 448 $51,002 $107,171 Medium 13 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0% 203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 14 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 15 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 16 Sunfish Willow Spring NC 50 6.40 30 35% 35% 30% 0% 1,515 $63,652 $253,138 Light 17 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0%74 $51,410 $155,208 Light 18 Camden Dam Camden NC 50 5.00 0 17% 72% 11% 0% 403 $84,426 $230,288 Light 19 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 24% 0% 21% 949 $50,355 $231,408 Light 20 Champion Pelion SC 100 10.00 N/A 4% 70% 8% 18% 1,336 $46,867 $171,939 Light 21 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 22 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0% 127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 23 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Md to Hvy Average 485 57.04 38 24% 48% 22% 6% 923 $63,955 $237,700 Median 234 20.00 20 17% 59% 11% 0% 467 $60,037 $231,408 High 3,500 617.00 160 76% 98% 94% 44% 4,689 $120,861 $483,333 Low 35 5.00 0 1% 0% 0% 0%48 $35,057 $99,219 104 50 While the range is seemingly wide, the graph below clearly shows that the vast majority of the data falls between -5% and +5% and most of those are clearly in the 0 to +5% range. This data strongly supports an indication of no impact on adjoining residential uses to a solar farm. I therefore conclude that these matched pairs support a finding of no impact on value at the subject property for the proposed project, which as proposed will include a landscaped buffer to screen adjoining residential properties. 105 51 Residential Dwelling Matched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms Approx Adj. Sale Veg. Pair Solar Farm City State MW Distance Tax ID/Address Date Sale Price Price % Diff Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600195570 Sep-13 $250,000 Light 3600198928 Mar-14 $250,000 $250,000 0% 2 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600195361 Sep-13 $260,000 Light 3600194813 Apr-14 $258,000 $258,000 1% 3 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600199891 Jul-14 $250,000 Light 3600198928 Mar-14 $250,000 $250,000 0% 4 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600198632 Aug-14 $253,000 Light 3600193710 Oct-13 $248,000 $248,000 2% 5 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600196656 Dec-13 $255,000 Light 3601105180 Dec-13 $253,000 $253,000 1% 6 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600182511 Feb-13 $247,000 Light 3600183905 Dec-12 $240,000 $245,000 1% 7 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600182784 Apr-13 $245,000 Light 3600193710 Oct-13 $248,000 $248,000 -1% 8 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600195361 Nov-15 $267,500 Light 3600195361 Sep-13 $260,000 $267,800 0% 9 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 400 0900A011 Jul-14 $130,000 Light 099CA043 Feb-15 $148,900 $136,988 -5% 10 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 400 099CA002 Jul-15 $130,000 Light 0990NA040 Mar-15 $120,000 $121,200 7% 11 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 480 491 Dusty Oct-16 $176,000 Light 35 April Aug-16 $185,000 $178,283 -1% 12 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 650 297 Country Sep-16 $150,000 Medium 53 Glen Mar-17 $126,000 $144,460 4% 13 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 685 57 Cooper Feb-19 $163,000 Medium 191 Amelia Aug-18 $132,000 $155,947 4% 14 Leonard Rd Hughesville MD 5.5 230 14595 Box Elder Feb-16 $291,000 Light 15313 Bassford Rd Jul-16 $329,800 $292,760 -1% 15 Neal Hawkins Gastonia NC 5 225 609 Neal Hawkins Mar-17 $270,000 Light 1418 N Modena Apr-18 $225,000 $242,520 10% 16 Summit Moyock NC 80 1,060 129 Pinto Apr-16 $170,000 Light 102 Timber Apr-16 $175,500 $175,101 -3% 17 Summit Moyock NC 80 980 105 Pinto Dec-16 $206,000 Light 127 Ranchland Jun-15 $219,900 $198,120 4% 18 Tracy Bailey NC 5 780 9162 Winters Jan-17 $255,000 Heavy 7352 Red Fox Jun-16 $176,000 $252,399 1% 19 Manatee Parrish FL 75 1180 13670 Highland Aug-18 $255,000 Heavy 13851 Highland Sep-18 $240,000 $255,825 0% 20 McBride Place Midland NC 75 275 4380 Joyner Nov-17 $325,000 Medium 3870 Elkwood Aug-16 $250,000 $317,523 2% 21 McBride Place Midland NC 75 505 5811 Kristi Mar-20 $530,000 Medium 3915 Tania Dec-19 $495,000 $504,657 5% 22 Mariposa Stanley NC 5 1155 215 Mariposa Dec-17 $249,000 Light 110 Airport May-16 $166,000 $239,026 4% 23 Mariposa Stanley NC 5 570 242 Mariposa Sep-15 $180,000 Light 110 Airport Apr-16 $166,000 $175,043 3% 24 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 20 1230 833 Nations Spr Jan-17 $295,000 Light 6801 Middle Dec-17 $249,999 $296,157 0% 25 Candace Princeton NC 5 488 499 Herring Sep-17 $215,000 Medium 1795 Bay Valley Dec-17 $194,000 $214,902 0% 26 Walker Barhamsville VA 20 250 5241 Barham Oct-18 $264,000 Light 9252 Ordinary Jun-19 $277,000 $246,581 7% 27 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 385 103 Granville Pl Jul-18 $265,000 Light 2219 Granville Jan-18 $260,000 $265,682 0% 28 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 315 104 Erin Jun-17 $280,000 Light 2219 Granville Jan-18 $265,000 $274,390 2% 29 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 400 2312 Granville May-18 $284,900 Light 2219 Granville Jan-18 $265,000 $273,948 4% 106 52 Residential Dwelling Matched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms Approx Adj. Sale Veg. Pair Solar Farm City State MW Distance Tax ID/Address Date Sale Price Price % Diff Buffer 30 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 400 2310 Granville May-19 $280,000 Light 634 Friendly Jul-19 $267,000 $265,291 5% 31 Summit Moyock NC 80 570 318 Green View Sep-19 $357,000 Light 336 Green View Jan-19 $365,000 $340,286 5% 32 Summit Moyock NC 80 440 164 Ranchland Apr-19 $169,000 Light 105 Longhorn Oct-17 $184,500 $186,616 -10% 33 Summit Moyock NC 80 635 358 Oxford Sep-19 $478,000 Light 176 Providence Sep-19 $425,000 $456,623 4% 34 Summit Moyock NC 80 970 343 Oxford Mar-17 $490,000 Light 218 Oxford Apr-17 $525,000 $484,064 1% 35 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 78.5 435 6849 Roslin Farm Feb-19 $155,000 Light 109 Bledsoe Jan-19 $150,000 $147,558 5% 36 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 71 340 2923 County Line Feb-19 $385,000 Light 2109 John McMillan Apr-18 $320,000 $379,156 2% 37 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 71 330 2935 County Line Jun-19 $266,000 Light 7031 Glynn Mill May-18 $255,000 $264,422 1% 38 Sunfish Willow Sprng NC 6.4 205 7513 Glen Willow Sep-17 $185,000 Light 205 Pine Burr Dec-17 $191,000 $172,487 7% 39 Neal Hawkins Gastonia NC 5 145 611 Neal Hawkins Jun-17 $288,000 Light 1211 Still Forrest Jul-18 $280,000 $274,319 5% 40 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 20 1230 833 Nations Spr Aug-19 $385,000 Light 2393 Old Chapel Aug-20 $330,000 $389,286 -1% 41 Sappony Stony Creek VA 20 1425 12511 Palestine Jul-18 $128,400 Medium 6494 Rocky Branch Nov-18 $100,000 $131,842 -3% 42 Camden Dam Camden NC 5 342 122 N Mill Dam Nov-18 $350,000 Light 548 Trotman May-18 $309,000 $352,450 -1% 43 Grandy Grandy NC 20 405 120 Par Four Aug-19 $315,000 Light 116 Barefoot Sep-20 $290,000 $299,584 5% 44 Grandy Grandy NC 20 477 269 Grandy May-19 $275,000 Light 103 Spring Leaf Aug-18 $270,000 $275,912 0% 45 Champion Pelion SC 10 505 517 Old Charleston Aug-20 $110,000 Light 1429 Laurel Feb-19 $126,000 $107,856 2% 46 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 765 465 Papaya Jul-19 $155,000 Medium 1132 Waterway Jul-20 $129,000 $141,618 9% 47 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 750 455 Papaya Sep-20 $183,500 Medium 904 Fir Sep-20 $192,500 $186,697 -2% 48 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 690 419 Papaya Jul-19 $127,500 Medium 865 Tamarind Feb-19 $133,900 $124,613 2% 49 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 690 413 Papaya Jul-20 $130,000 Medium 1367 Barefoot Jan-21 $130,500 $139,507 -7% 50 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 690 343 Papaya Dec-19 $145,000 Light 865 Tamarind Feb-19 $133,900 $142,403 2% 51 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 710 335 Papaya Apr-18 $110,000 Light 865 Tamarind Feb-19 $133,900 $110,517 0% 52 Miami-Dade Miami FL 74.5 1390 13600 SW 182nd Nov-20 $1,684,000 Light 17950 SW 158th Oct-20 $1,730,000 $1,713,199 -2% 53 Spotsylvania Paytes VA 617 1270 12901 Orange Plnk Aug-20 $319,900 Medium 12717 Flintlock Dec-20 $290,000 $326,767 -2% 54 Spotsylvania Paytes VA 617 1950 9641 Nottoway May-20 $449,900 Medium 11626 Forest Aug-20 $489,900 $430,246 4% 55 Spotsylvania Paytes VA 617 1171 13353 Post Oak Sep-20 $300,000 Heavy 12810 Catharpin Jan-20 $280,000 $299,008 0% 56 McBride Place Midland NC 75 470 5833 Kristi Sep-20 $625,000 Light 4055 Dakeita Dec-20 $600,000 $594,303 5% Avg.Indicated MW Distance Impact 64.91 612 Average 1% 20.00 479 Median 1% 617.00 1,950 High 10% 5.00 145 Low -10% 107 53 I have further broken down these results based on the MWs, Landscaping, and distance from panel to show the following range of findings for these different categories. Most of the findings are for homes between 201 and 500 feet. Most of the findings are for Light landscaping screens. Light landscaping screens are showing no impact on value at any distances, including for solar farms over 75.1 MW. MW Range 4.4 to 10 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 1192012001 Average 5% 2% 3% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% Median 5% 1% 3% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% High 5% 10% 4% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% Low 5% -5% 3% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% 10.1 to 30 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 032001000 Average N/A 4% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A Median N/A 5% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A High N/A 7% 0% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A Low N/A 0% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A 30.1 to 75 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 023004000 Average N/A 1% 0% N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A N/A Median N/A 1% 0% N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A N/A High N/A 2% 2% N/A N/A 9% N/A N/A N/A Low N/A 1% -2% N/A N/A -7% N/A N/A N/A 75.1+ Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 025002001 Average N/A -3% 2% N/A N/A 1% N/A N/A 0% Median N/A -3% 4% N/A N/A 1% N/A N/A 0% High N/A 5% 5% N/A N/A 4% N/A N/A 0% Low N/A -10% -3% N/A N/A -2% N/A N/A 0% 108 54 C. Summary of National Data on Solar Farms I have worked in 19 states related to solar farms and I have been tracking matched pairs in most of those states. On the following pages I provide a brief summary of those findings showing 37 solar farms over 5 MW studied with each one providing matched pair data supporting the findings of this report. The solar farms summary is shown below with a summary of the matched pair data shown on the following page. Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2020 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Popl. Income Unit Veg. Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 38 5.00 2 38% 0% 23% 39% 1,523 $37,358 $148,375 Light 2 Mulberry Selmer TN 160 5.00 60 13% 73% 10% 3%467 $40,936 $171,746 Lt to Med 3 Leonard Hughesville MD 47 5.00 20 18% 75% 0% 6%525 $106,550 $350,000 Light 4 Gastonia SC Gastonia NC 35 5.00 48 33% 0% 23% 44% 4,689 $35,057 $126,562 Light 5 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2%382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 7 Tracy Bailey NC 50 5.00 10 29% 0% 71% 0%312 $43,940 $99,219 Heavy 8 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0%48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 9 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0%398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 10 Grand Ridge Streator IL 160 20.00 1 8% 87% 5% 0%96 $70,158 $187,037 Light 11 Dominion Indianapolis IN 134 8.60 20 3% 97% 0% 0% 3,774 $61,115 $167,515 Light 12 Mariposa Stanley NC 36 5.00 96 48% 0% 52% 0% 1,716 $36,439 $137,884 Light 13 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1%578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 14 Flemington Flemington NJ 120 9.36 N/A 13% 50% 28% 8% 3,477 $105,714 $444,696 Lt to Med 15 Frenchtown Frenchtown NJ 139 7.90 N/A 37% 35% 29% 0%457 $111,562 $515,399 Light 16 McGraw East Windsor NJ 95 14.00 N/A 27% 44% 0% 29% 7,684 $78,417 $362,428 Light 17 Tinton Falls Tinton Falls NJ 100 16.00 N/A 98% 0% 0% 2% 4,667 $92,346 $343,492 Light 18 Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 71 1% 63% 36% 0%203 $76,155 $269,922 Medium 19 Candace Princeton NC 54 5.00 22 76% 24% 0% 0%448 $51,002 $107,171 Medium 20 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0%203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 21 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 22 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0%568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 23 Demille Lapeer MI 160 28.40 10 10% 68% 0% 22% 2,010 $47,208 $187,214 Light 24 Turrill Lapeer MI 230 19.60 10 75% 59% 0% 25% 2,390 $46,839 $110,361 Light 25 Sunfish Willow Spring NC 50 6.40 30 35% 35% 30% 0% 1,515 $63,652 $253,138 Light 26 Picture Rocks Tucson AZ 182 20.00 N/A 6% 88% 6% 0%102 $81,081 $280,172 None 27 Avra Valley Tucson AZ 246 25.00 N/A 3% 94% 3% 0%85 $80,997 $292,308 None 28 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0%74 $51,410 $155,208 Medium 29 Camden Dam Camden NC 50 5.00 0 17% 72% 11% 0%403 $84,426 $230,288 Light 30 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 24% 0% 21%949 $50,355 $231,408 Light 31 Champion Pelion SC 100 10.00 N/A 4% 70% 8% 18% 1,336 $46,867 $171,939 Light 32 Eddy II Eddy TX 93 10.00 N/A 15% 25% 58% 2%551 $59,627 $139,088 Light 33 Somerset Somerset TX 128 10.60 N/A 5% 95% 0% 0% 1,293 $41,574 $135,490 Light 34 DG Amp Piqua Piqua OH 86 12.60 2 26% 16% 58% 0% 6,735 $38,919 $96,555 Light 45 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 36 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0%127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 37 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hvy Average 362 42.05 32 24% 52% 19% 6% 1,515 $66,292 $242,468 Median 150 17.80 10 16% 59% 7% 0%560 $62,384 $230,848 High 3,500 617.00 160 98% 98% 94% 44% 7,684 $120,861 $515,399 Low 35 5.00 0 1% 0% 0% 0%48 $35,057 $96,555 109 55 From these 37 solar farms, I have derived 94 matched pairs. The matched pairs show no negative impact at distances as close as 105 feet between a solar panel and the nearest point on a home. The range of impacts is -10% to +10% with an average and median of +1%. While the range is broad, the two charts below show the data points in range from lowest to highest. There is only 3 data points out of 94 that show a negative impact. The rest support either a finding of no impact or 9 of the data points suggest a positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. As discussed earlier in this report, I consider this data to strongly support a finding of no impact on value as most of the findings are within typical market variation and even within that, most are mildly positive findings. Avg. MW Distance Average 44.80 569 Median 14.00 400 High 617.00 1,950 Low 5.00 145 Indicated Impact Average 1% Median 1% High 10% Low ‐10% 110 56 D. Larger Solar Farms I have also considered larger solar farms to address impacts related to larger projects. Projects have been increasing in size and most of the projects between 100 and 1000 MW are newer with little time for adjoining sales. I have included a breakdown of solar farms with 20 MW to 80 MW facilities with one 617 MW facility. The breakdown of adjoining uses, population density, median income and housing prices for these projects are very similar to those of the larger set. The matched pairs for each of these were considered earlier and support a finding of no negative impact on the adjoining home values. I have included a breakdown of solar farms with 50 MW to 617 MW facilities adjoining. The breakdown of adjoining uses, population density, median income and housing prices for these projects are very similar to those of the larger set. The matched pairs for each of these were considered earlier and support a finding of no negative impact on the adjoining home values. The data for these larger solar farms is shown in the SE USA and the National data breakdowns with similar landscaping, setbacks and range of impacts that fall mostly in the +/-5% range as can be seen earlier in this report. Matched Pair Summary - @20 MW And Larger Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2019 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Popl. Income Unit Buffer 1 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 2 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0%48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 3 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 4 Grand Ridge Streator IL 160 20.00 1 8% 87% 5% 0%96 $70,158 $187,037 Light 5 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1% 578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 6 Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 71 1% 63% 36% 0% 203 $76,155 $269,922 Medium 7 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0% 203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 8 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 9 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 10 Demille Lapeer MI 160 28.40 10 10% 68% 0% 22% 2,010 $47,208 $187,214 Light 11 Turrill Lapeer MI 230 19.60 10 75% 59% 0% 25% 2,390 $46,839 $110,361 Light 12 Picure Rocks Tucson AZ 182 20.00 N/A 6% 88% 6% 0% 102 $81,081 $280,172 Light 13 Avra Valley Tucson AZ 246 25.00 N/A 3% 94% 3% 0%85 $80,997 $292,308 None 14 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0%74 $51,410 $155,208 None 15 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 24% 0% 21% 949 $50,355 $231,408 Medium 16 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 17 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0% 127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 18 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hvy Average 640 76.03 19% 64% 17% 4% 721 $69,501 $262,659 Median 335 29.20 12% 68% 2% 0% 293 $72,579 $273,135 High 3,500 617.00 75% 98% 94% 25% 2,446 $120,861 $483,333 Low 121 19.60 1% 0% 0% 0%48 $36,737 $110,361 Matched Pair Summary - @50 MW And Larger Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2019 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Popl. Income Unit Buffer 1 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 2 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0%48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 3 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 4 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 5 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 6 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 7 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0% 127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 8 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hvy Average 1,142 143.19 19% 58% 23% 1% 786 $73,128 $289,964 Median 580 75.00 15% 67% 0% 0% 390 $69,339 $279,039 High 3,500 617.00 41% 97% 94% 3% 2,446 $120,861 $483,333 Low 347 71.00 2% 0% 0% 0%48 $36,737 $143,320 111 57 On the following page I show 81 projects ranging in size from 50 MW up to 1,000 MW with an average size of 111.80 MW and a median of 80 MW. The average closest distance for an adjoining home is 263 feet, while the median distance is 188 feet. The closest distance is 57 feet. The mix of adjoining uses is similar with most of the adjoining uses remaining residential or agricultural in nature. This is the list of solar farms that I have researched for possible matched pairs and not a complete list of larger solar farms in those states. 112 58  Output Total Used Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre Parcel # State City Name (MW) Acres Acres to home Home Res Agri Ag/R Com 78 NC Moyock Summit/Ranchland 80 2034 674 360 4% 94% 0% 2% 133 MS Hattiesburg Hattiesburg 50 1129 479.6 650 315 35% 65% 0% 0% 179 SC Ridgeland Jasper 140 1600 1000 461 108 2% 85% 13% 0% 211 NC Enfield Chestnut 75 1428.1 1,429 210 4% 96% 0% 0% 222 VA Chase City Grasshopper 80 946.25 6% 87% 5% 1% 226 VA Louisa Belcher 88 1238.1 150 19% 53% 28% 0% 305 FL Dade City Mountain View 55 347.12 510 175 32% 39% 21% 8% 319 FL Jasper Hamilton 74.9 1268.9 537 3,596 240 5% 67% 28% 0% 336 FL Parrish Manatee 74.5 1180.4 1,079 625 2% 50% 1% 47% 337 FL Arcadia Citrus 74.5 640 0% 0% 100% 0% 338 FL Port Charlotte Babcock 74.5 422.61 0% 0% 100% 0% 353 VA Oak Hall Amazon East(ern sh 80 1000 645 135 8% 75% 17% 0% 364 VA Stevensburg Greenwood 100 2266.6 1800 788 200 8% 62% 29% 0% 368 NC Warsaw Warsaw 87.5 585.97 499 526 130 11% 66% 21% 3% 390 NC Ellerbe Innovative Solar 34 50 385.24 226 N/A N/A 1% 99% 0% 0% 399 NC Midland McBride 74.9 974.59 627 1,425 140 12% 78% 9% 0% 400 FL Mulberry Alafia 51 420.35 490 105 7% 90% 3% 0% 406 VA Clover Foxhound 91 1311.8 885 185 5% 61% 17% 18% 410 FL Trenton Trenton 74.5 480 2,193 775 0% 26% 55% 19% 411 NC Battleboro Fern 100 1235.4 960.71 1,494 220 5% 76% 19% 0% 412 MD Goldsboro Cherrywood 202 1722.9 1073.7 429 200 10% 76% 13% 0% 434 NC Conetoe Conetoe 80 1389.9 910.6 1,152 120 5% 78% 17% 0% 440 FL Debary Debary 74.5 844.63 654 190 3% 27% 0% 70% 441 FL Hawthorne Horizon 74.5 684 3% 81% 16% 0% 484 VA Newsoms Southampton 100 3243.9 - - 3% 78% 17% 3% 486 VA Stuarts Draft Augusta 125 3197.4 1147 588 165 16% 61% 16% 7% 491 NC Misenheimer Misenheimer 2018 80 740.2 687.2 504 130 11% 40% 22% 27% 494 VA Shacklefords Walnut 110 1700 1173 641 165 14% 72% 13% 1% 496 VA Clover Piney Creek 80 776.18 422 523 195 15% 62% 24% 0% 511 NC Scotland Neck American Beech 160 3255.2 1807.8 1,262 205 2% 58% 38% 3% 514 NC Reidsville Williamsburg 80 802.6 507 734 200 25% 12% 63% 0% 517 VA Luray Cape 100 566.53 461 519 110 42% 12% 46% 0% 518 VA Emporia Fountain Creek 80 798.3 595 862 300 6% 23% 71% 0% 525 NC Plymouth Macadamia 484 5578.7 4813.5 1,513 275 1% 90% 9% 0% 526 NC Mooresboro Broad River 50 759.8 365 419 70 29% 55% 16% 0% 555 FL Mulberry Durrance 74.5 463.57 324.65 438 140 3% 97% 0% 0% 560 NC Yadkinville Sugar 60 477 357 382 65 19% 39% 20% 22% 561 NC Enfield Halifax 80mw 2019 80 1007.6 1007.6 672 190 8% 73% 19% 0% 577 VA Windsor Windsor 85 564.1 564.1 572 160 9% 67% 24% 0% 579 VA Paytes Spotsylvania 500 6412 3500 9% 52% 11% 27% 582 NC Salisbury China Grove 65 428.66 324.26 438 85 58% 4% 38% 0% 583 NC Walnut Cove Lick Creek 50 1424 185.11 410 65 20% 64% 11% 5% 584 NC Enfield Sweetleaf 94 1956.3 1250 968 160 5% 63% 32% 0% 586 VA Aylett Sweet Sue 77 1262 576 1,617 680 7% 68% 25% 0% 593 NC Windsor Sumac 120 3360.6 1257.9 876 160 4% 90% 6% 0% 599 TN Somerville Yum Yum 147 4000 1500 1,862 330 3% 32% 64% 1% 602 GA Waynesboro White Oak 76.5 516.7 516.7 2,995 1,790 1% 34% 65% 0% 603 GA Butler Butler GA 103 2395.1 2395.1 1,534 255 2% 73% 23% 2% 604 GA Butler White Pine 101.2 505.94 505.94 1,044 100 1% 51% 48% 1% 605 GA Metter Live Oak 51 417.84 417.84 910 235 4% 72% 23% 0% 606 GA Hazelhurst Hazelhurst II 52.5 947.15 490.42 2,114 105 9% 64% 27% 0% 607 GA Bainbridge Decatur Parkway 80 781.5 781.5 1,123 450 2% 27% 22% 49% 608 GA Leslie-DeSoto Americus 1000 9661.2 4437 5,210 510 1% 63% 36% 0% 616 FL Fort White Fort White 74.5 570.5 457.2 828 220 12% 71% 17% 0% 621 VA Spring Grove Loblolly 150 2181.9 1000 1,860 110 7% 62% 31% 0% 622 VA Scottsville Woodridge 138 2260.9 1000 1,094 170 9% 63% 28% 0% 625 NC Middlesex Phobos 80 754.52 734 356 57 14% 75% 10% 0% 628 MI Deerfield Carroll Road 200 1694.8 1694.8 343 190 12% 86% 0% 2% 633 VA Emporia Brunswick 150.2 2076.4 1387.3 1,091 240 4% 85% 11% 0% 634 NC Elkin Partin 50 429.4 257.64 945 155 30% 25% 15% 30% 113 59  Output Total Used Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre Parcel # State City Name (MW) Acres Acres to home Home Res Agri Ag/R Com 638 GA Dry Branch Twiggs 200 2132.7 2132.7 - - 10% 55% 35% 0% 639 NC Hope Mills Innovative Solar 46 78.5 531.87 531.87 423 125 17% 83% 0% 0% 640 NC Hope Mills Innovative Solar 42 71 413.99 413.99 375 135 41% 59% 0% 0% 645 NC Stanley Hornet 75 1499.5 858.4 663 110 30% 40% 23% 6% 650 NC Grifton Grifton 2 56 681.59 297.6 363 235 1% 99% 0% 0% 651 NC Grifton Buckleberry 52.1 367.67 361.67 913 180 5% 54% 41% 0% 657 KY Greensburg Horseshoe Bend 60 585.65 395 1,394 63 3% 36% 61% 0% 658 KY Campbellsville Flat Run 55 429.76 429.76 408 115 13% 52% 35% 0% 666 FL Archer Archer 74.9 636.94 636.94 638 200 43% 57% 0% 0% 667 FL New Smyrna BeaPioneer Trail 74.5 1202.8 900 1,162 225 14% 61% 21% 4% 668 FL Lake City Sunshine Gateway 74.5 904.29 472 1,233 890 11% 80% 8% 0% 669 FL Florahome Coral Farms 74.5 666.54 580 1,614 765 19% 75% 7% 0% 672 VA Appomattox Spout Spring 60 881.12 673.37 836 335 16% 30% 46% 8% 676 TX Stamford Alamo 7 106.4 1663.1 1050 - - 6% 83% 0% 11% 677 TX Fort Stockton RE Roserock 160 1738.2 1500 - - 0% 100% 0% 0% 678 TX Lamesa Lamesa 102 914.5 655 921 170 4% 41% 11% 44% 679 TX Lamesa Ivory 50 706 570 716 460 0% 87% 2% 12% 680 TX Uvalde Alamo 5 95 830.35 800 925 740 1% 93% 6% 0% 684 NC Waco Brookcliff 50 671.03 671.03 560 150 7% 21% 15% 57% 689 AZ Arlington Mesquite 320.8 3774.5 2617 1,670 525 8% 92% 0% 0% 692 AZ Tucson Avalon 51 479.21 352 - - 0% 100% 0% 0% 81 Average 111.80 1422.4 968.4 1031 263 10% 62% 22% 6% Median 80.00 914.5 646.0 836 188 7% 64% 17% 0% High 1000.00 9661.2 4813.5 5210 1790 58% 100% 100% 70% Low 50.00 347.1 185.1 343 57 0% 0% 0% 0% 114 60 E. Solar Farms Around Person County I have also considered the following solar farm activity in Person and adjoining counties. Total Used Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre Solar # Name County City Output Acres Acres to home Home Res Agri Agri/Res Com (MW) 4 White Cross Orange Chapel Hill 5 121.21 45 5% 51% 44% 0% 16 Wagstaff Person Roxboro 5.5 594.22 30 7% 89% 4% 0% 17 Roxboro Person Roxboro 6 478.71 34.83 1% 93% 5% 1% 20 Stout Orange Mebane 52.66 52.66 52% 38% 0% 10% 21 Mile Durham Rougemont 6.473 78.5 42.99 0% 36% 45% 25% 29 Star Solar Durham Durham 49.98 39.18 6% 94% 0% 0% 33 Binks Orange Chapel Hill 5.6 54.97 50.3 15% 78% 6% 0% 55 Thomas 2 Person Roxboro 116.27 71.86 636 296 12% 88% 0% 0% 56 Mattress Orange Mebane 26.73 26.73 N/A N/A 22% 0% 0% 78% 75 White Cross Farm Orange Chapel Hill 34.41 19.8 994 230 24% 76% 0% 0% 86 Yanceyville 3 Caswell Yanceyville 122.96 875 300 39% 0% 56% 5% 135 Meriweather Granville Oxford 5 67 25.3 984 215 8% 47% 8% 36% 173 Perkins Person Roxboro 86.7 1,022 350 39% 54% 0% 37% 184 Caswell Caswell Yanceyville 45.62 45.62 490 490 19% 49% 24% 18% 186 Oakwood Orange Mebane 4.996 53.74 931 460 72% 28% 0% 0% 208 Whitt Town Person Roxboro 43.22 462 201 22% 43% 35% 0% 266 Woodsdale Person Roxboro 594.22 15.75 3,443 585 9% 77% 14% 0% 271 Sun Person Roxboro 0.8 7 223 160 100% 0% 0% 0% 384 Tarpey Granville Butner 63.52 32.65 814 250 1% 0% 99% 0% 774 Berea Person Rougemont 80 911.5 911.5 300 300 8% 84% 8% 0% 20 Average 13.3 180.2 96.3 931 320 23% 51% 17% 11% Median 5.5 65.3 39.2 845 298 14% 50% 6% 0% High 80.0 911.5 911.5 3443 585 100% 94% 99% 78% Low 0.8 7.0 15.8 223 160 0% 0% 0% 0% 115 61 VI. Distance Between Homes and Panels I have measured distances at matched pairs as close as 105 feet between panel and home to show no impact on value. This measurement goes from the closest point on the home to the closest solar panel. This is a strong indication that at this distance there is no impact on adjoining homes. However, in tracking other approved solar farms across North Carolina and other states, I have found that it is common for there to be homes within 100 to 150 feet of solar panels. Given the visual barriers in the form of privacy fencing or landscaping, there is no sign of negative impact. I have also tracked a number of locations where solar panels are between 50 and 100 feet of single- family homes. In these cases the landscaping is typically a double row of more mature evergreens at time of planting. There are many examples of solar farms with one or two homes closer than 100- feet, but most of the adjoining homes are further than that distance. VII. Topography As shown on the summary charts for the solar farms, I have been identifying the topographic shifts across the solar farms considered. Differences in topography can impact visibility of the panels, though typically this results in distant views of panels as opposed to up close views. The topography noted for solar farms showing no impact on adjoining home values range from as much as 160-foot shifts across the project. Given that appearance is the only factor of concern and that distance plus landscape buffering typically addresses up close views, this leaves a number of potentially distant views of panels. General rolling terrain with some distant solar panel views are showing no impact on adjoining property value. VIII. Potential Impacts During Construction Any development of a site will have a certain amount of construction, whether it is for a commercial agricultural use such as large-scale poultry operations or a new residential subdivision. Construction will be temporary and consistent with other development uses of the land and in fact dust from the construction will likely be less than most other construction projects given the minimal grading. I would not anticipate any impacts on property value due to construction on the site. I note that in the matched pairs that I have included there have been a number of home sales that happened after a solar farm was approved but before the solar farm was built showing no impact on property value. Therefore the anticipated construction had no impact as shown by that data. 116 62 IX. Scope of Research I have researched over 750 solar farms and sites on which solar farms are existing and proposed in North Carolina Virginia, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky as well as other states to determine what uses are typically found in proximity with a solar farm. The data I have collected and provide in this report strongly supports the assertion that solar farms are having no negative consequences on adjoining agricultural and residential values. Beyond these references, I have quantified the adjoining uses for a number of solar farm comparables to derive a breakdown of the adjoining uses for each solar farm. The chart below shows the breakdown of adjoining or abutting uses by total acreage. I have also included a breakdown of each solar farm by number of adjoining parcels to the solar farm rather than based on adjoining acreage. Using both factors provide a more complete picture of the neighboring properties. Both of the above charts show a marked residential and agricultural adjoining use for most solar farms. Every single solar farm considered included an adjoining residential or residential/agricultural use. Percentage By Adjoining Acreage Closest All Res All Comm Res Ag Res/AG Comm Ind Avg Home Home Uses Uses Average 19% 53% 20% 2% 6% 887 344 91% 8% Median 11% 56% 11% 0% 0% 708 218 100% 0% High 100% 100% 100% 93% 98% 5,210 4,670 100% 98% Low 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%90 25 0% 0% Res = Residential, Ag = Agriculture, Com = Commercial Total Solar Farms Considered: 705 Percentage By Number of Parcels Adjoining Closest All Res All Comm Res Ag Res/AG Comm Ind Avg Home Home Uses Uses Average 61% 24% 9% 2% 4% 887 344 93% 6% Median 65% 19% 5% 0% 0% 708 218 100% 0% High 100% 100% 100% 60% 78% 5,210 4,670 105% 78% Low 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%90 25 0% 0% Res = Residential, Ag = Agriculture, Com = Commercial Total Solar Farms Considered: 705 117 63 X. Specific Factors Related To Impacts on Value I have completed a number of Impact Studies related to a variety of uses and I have found that the most common areas for impact on adjoining values typically follow a hierarchy with descending levels of potential impact. I will discuss each of these categories and how they relate to a solar farm. 1. Hazardous material 2. Odor 3. Noise 4. Traffic 5. Stigma 6. Appearance 1. Hazardous material A solar farm presents no hazardous waste byproduct as part of normal operation. Any fertilizer, weed control, vehicular traffic, or construction will be significantly less than typically applied in a residential development and even most agricultural uses. The various solar farms that I have inspected and identified in the addenda have no known environmental impacts associated with the development and operation. 2. Odor The various solar farms that I have inspected produced no odor. 3. Noise Whether discussing passive fixed solar panels, or single-axis trackers, there is no negative impact associated with noise from a solar farm. The transformer reportedly has a hum similar to an HVAC that can only be heard in close proximity to this transformer and the buffers on the property are sufficient to make emitted sounds inaudible from the adjoining properties. No sound is emitted from the facility at night. The various solar farms that I have inspected were inaudible from the roadways. 4. Traffic The solar farm will have no onsite employee’s or staff. The site requires only minimal maintenance. Relative to other potential uses of the site (such as a residential subdivision), the additional traffic generated by a solar farm use on this site is insignificant. 5. Stigma There is no stigma associated with solar farms and solar farms and people generally respond favorably towards such a use. While an individual may express concerns about proximity to a solar farm, there is no specific stigma associated with a solar farm. Stigma generally refers to things such as adult establishments, prisons, rehabilitation facilities, and so forth. Solar panels have no associated stigma and in smaller collections are found in yards and roofs in many residential communities. Solar farms are adjoining elementary, middle and high schools as well as churches and subdivisions. I note that one of the solar farms in this report not only adjoins 118 64 a church, but is actually located on land owned by the church. Solar panels on a roof are often cited as an enhancement to the property in marketing brochures. I see no basis for an impact from stigma due to a solar farm. 6. Appearance I note that larger solar farms using fixed or tracking panels are a passive use of the land that is in keeping with a rural/residential area. As shown below, solar farms are comparable to larger greenhouses. This is not surprising given that a greenhouse is essentially another method for collecting passive solar energy. The greenhouse use is well received in residential/rural areas and has a similar visual impact as a solar farm. The solar panels are all less than 15 feet high, which means that the visual impact of the solar panels will be similar in height to a typical greenhouse and lower than a single-story residential dwelling. Were the subject property developed with single family housing, that development would have a much greater visual impact on the surrounding area given that a two-story home with attic could be three to four times as high as these proposed panels. Whenever you consider the impact of a proposed project on viewshed or what the adjoining owners may see from their property it is important to distinguish whether or not they have a protected viewshed or not. Enhancements for scenic vistas are often measured when considering properties that adjoin preserved open space and parks. However, adjoining land with a preferred view today conveys no guarantee that the property will continue in the current use. Any consideration of the impact of the appearance requires a consideration of the wide variety of other uses a property already has the right to be put to, which for solar farms often includes subdivision development, agricultural business buildings such as poultry, or large greenhouses and the like. Dr. Randall Bell, MAI, PhD, and author of the book Real Estate Damages, Third Edition, on Page 146 “Views of bodies of water, city lights, natural settings, parks, golf courses, and other amenities 119 65 are considered desirable features, particularly for residential properties.” Dr. Bell continues on Page 147 that “View amenities may or may not be protected by law or regulation. It is sometimes argued that views have value only if they are protected by a view easement, a zoning ordinance, or covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), although such protections are relatively uncommon as a practical matter. The market often assigns significant value to desirable views irrespective of whether or not such views are protected by law.” Dr. Bell concludes that a view enhances adjacent property, even if the adjacent property has no legal right to that view. He then discusses a “borrowed” view where a home may enjoy a good view of vacant land or property beyond with a reasonable expectation that the view might be partly or completely obstructed upon development of the adjoining land. He follows that with “This same concept applies to potentially undesirable views of a new development when the development conforms to applicable zoning and other regulations. Arguing value diminution in such cases is difficult, since the possible development of the offending property should have been known.” In other words, if there is an allowable development on the site then arguing value diminution with such a development would be difficult. This further extends to developing the site with alternative uses that are less impactful on the view than currently allowed uses. This gets back to the point that if a property has development rights and could currently be developed in such a way that removes the viewshed such as a residential subdivision, then a less intrusive use such as a solar farm that is easily screened by landscaping would not have a greater impact on the viewshed of any perceived value adjoining properties claim for viewshed. Essentially, if there are more impactful uses currently allowed, then how can you claim damages for a less impactful use. 7. Conclusion On the basis of the factors described above, it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm will not negatively impact adjoining property values. The only category of impact of note is appearance, which is addressed through setbacks and landscaping buffers. The matched pair data supports that conclusion. 120 66 XI. Conclusion The matched pair analysis shows no negative impact in home values due to abutting or adjoining a solar farm as well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or agricultural land. The criteria that typically correlates with downward adjustments on property values such as noise, odor, and traffic all support a finding of no impact on property value. Very similar solar farms in very similar areas have been found by hundreds of towns and counties not to have a substantial injury to abutting or adjoining properties, and many of those findings of no impact have been upheld by appellate courts. Similar solar farms have been approved adjoining agricultural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments. I have found no difference in the mix of adjoining uses or proximity to adjoining homes based on the size of a solar farm and I have found no significant difference in the matched pair data adjoining larger solar farms versus smaller solar farms. The data in the Southeast is consistent with the larger set of data that I have nationally, as is the more specific data located in and around North Carolina. Based on the data and analysis in this report, it is my professional opinion that the solar farm proposed at the subject property will have no negative impact on the value of adjoining or abutting property. I note that some of the positive implications of a solar farm that have been expressed by people living next to solar farms include protection from future development of residential developments or other more intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and chemicals from former farming operations, protection from light pollution at night, it’s quiet, and there is no traffic. 121 67  _____________________________________________________________________________________________ PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, Raleigh, N.C. 2003 – Present Commercial appraiser Hester & Company, Raleigh, N.C. Commercial appraiser 1996 – 2003 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS MAI (Member, Appraisal Institute) designation #11796 2001 NC State Certified General Appraiser # A4359 1999 VA State Certified General Appraiser # 4001017291 SC State Certified General Appraiser # 6209 FL State Certified General Appraiser # RZ3950 IL State Certified General Appraiser # 553.002633 OR State Certified General Appraiser # C001204 GA State Certified General Appraiser # 321885 MI State Certified General Appraiser # 1201076620 EDUCATION Bachelor of Arts in English, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 1993 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ CONTINUING EDUCATION Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2020 Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book) 2019 The Cost Approach 2019 Income Approach Case Studies for Commercial Appraisers 2018 Introduction to Expert Witness Testimony for Appraisers 2018 Appraising Small Apartment Properties 2018 Florida Appraisal Laws and Regulations 2018 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2018 Appraisal of REO and Foreclosure Properties 2017 Appraisal of Self Storage Facilities 2017 Land and Site Valuation 2017 NCDOT Appraisal Principles and Procedures 2017 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2016 Forecasting Revenue 2015 Wind Turbine Effect on Value 2015 Supervisor/Trainee Class 2015 Business Practices and Ethics 2014 Subdivision Valuation 2014 Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI 9408 Northfield Court Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Mobile (919) 414-8142 rkirkland2@gmail.com www.kirklandappraisals.com Kirkland Appraisals, LLC 122 68 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2014 Introduction to Vineyard and Winery Valuation 2013 Appraising Rural Residential Properties 2012 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2012 Supervisors/Trainees 2011 Rates and Ratios: Making sense of GIMs, OARs, and DCFs 2011 Advanced Internet Search Strategies 2011 Analyzing Distressed Real Estate 2011 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2011 Business Practices and Ethics 2011 Appraisal Curriculum Overview (2 Days – General) 2009 Appraisal Review - General 2009 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2008 Subdivision Valuation: A Comprehensive Guide 2008 Office Building Valuation: A Contemporary Perspective 2008 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate 2007 The Appraisal of Small Subdivisions 2007 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2006 Evaluating Commercial Construction 2005 Conservation Easements 2005 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2004 Condemnation Appraising 2004 Land Valuation Adjustment Procedures 2004 Supporting Capitalization Rates 2004 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, C 2002 Wells and Septic Systems and Wastewater Irrigation Systems 2002 Appraisals 2002 2002 Analyzing Commercial Lease Clauses 2002 Conservation Easements 2000 Preparation for Litigation 2000 Appraisal of Nonconforming Uses 2000 Advanced Applications 2000 Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis 1999 Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches 1999 Advanced Income Capitalization 1998 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate 1999 Report Writing and Valuation Analysis 1999 Property Tax Values and Appeals 1997 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, A & B 1997 Basic Income Capitalization 1996 123 P O I N D E X T E R R O A D ( S R - 1 1 3 7 ) ROGERS W H I T F I E L D R O A D ( S R - 1 1 3 6 ) SATTERFIELD ROAD TERRY ROAD (SR-1181)HURDLE MILLS ROAD (SR-1001)HURDLE MILLS ROAD (SR-1001)NORTH 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 7 9 54 6 2 31 8 KEY MAP # DIRECTION OF VIEW IMAGE REFERENCE NUMBER EXISTING VEGETATIVE BUFFER PROPOSED VEGETATIVE BUFFER LEGEND PLATEAU SOLAR JULY 2021 PERSON COUNTY, NC EXISTING VEGETATIVE BUFFER 0 N 1000250500 124 P O I N D E X T E R R O A D ( S R - 1 1 3 7 ) ROGERS W H I T F I E L D R O A D ( S R - 1 1 3 6 ) SATTERFIELD ROAD TERRY ROAD (SR-1181)HURDLE MILLS ROAD (SR-1001)HURDLE MILLS ROAD (SR-1001)NORTH C A B SITE B SITE C SITE A PROPOSED BUFFER PROPOSED BUFFER PROPOSED BUFFER EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE C EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE B EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE A KEY MAP # DIRECTION OF VIEW IMAGE REFERENCE NUMBER EXISTING VEGETATIVE BUFFER PROPOSED VEGETATIVE BUFFER LEGEND PLATEAU SOLAR JULY 2021 PERSON COUNTY, NC PROPOSED VEGETATIVE BUFFER - 10 YR GROWTH 0 N 1000250500 125 A31 142A31 142 A41 28A41 28A41 28A41 28 A32 228A32 228 A41 75A41 75 A41 152A41 152 A31 96A31 96 A41 49A41 49 A42 316A42 316 A41 11A41 11 A31A31116116 A31 46A31 46 A42A423636 A31 39A31 39 A31A313232 A31 32A31 32 A31 32A31 32 A31 32A31 32 A31 6A31 6 A31 179A31 179 A31 42A31 42 A32 105A32 105 A42 43A42 43 A41 57A41 57 A42A42221221 A31 67A31 67 A41 9A41 9 A31 84A31 84 A41A4113C13C A42 145AA42 145A A41 67A41 67 A31 1A31 1 A31 38A31 38 A31 38A31 38 A31 41A31 41 A31A31108108 A31 70A31 70 A31 186A31 186 A42A423030 A31 185A31 185 A42 22A42 22 A31 157A31 157 A31 22A31 22 A42 2A42 2 A31 107A31 107 A31 52A31 52 A42 10A42 10 A31 120A31 120 A41 10AA41 10A A41 19A41 19 A42 44A42 44 A41 13A41 13 A41 13A41 13 A41 13A41 13 A31 145A31 145 A31 2A31 2 A41 79A41 79 A31 180A31 180 A42 28A42 28 A41 7A41 7 A31A311212 A31 12A31 12 A31A312020 A42 73A42 73 A42A423131 A42 5A42 5 A41A416060 A31 169A31 169 A31 40A31 40 A42 21A42 21 A32 104A32 104 A31 147A31 147 A42A426767 A31 43AA31 43A A41 4A41 4 A31 43A31 43 A31 43A31 43 A31A31194194 A31 16A31 16 A41 2A41 2 A42A427777 A42A42222222 A41A414545 A42A42320320 A31 106A31 106 A42A421111A31 21A31 21 A41 59A41 59 A41 10A41 10 A31A31114114 A31 187A31 187 A32A32227227 A31A3199 A31 57A31 57 A42 23A42 23 A41A4113B13B A41 13AA41 13A A41 1A41 1 A41 1A41 1 A41 1A41 1 A42A421515 A42 40A42 40 A31A316262 A42 33A42 33 A41 68A41 68 A31 93A31 93 A41A411212 A42 25A42 25 A42 25A42 25 A31A3177 A31A31110110 A41 8A41 8 A41 8A41 8 A31 79A31 79 A41 78A41 78 A31 5A31 5 A41 69A41 69 A31 11A31 11 A41 6A41 6 A42A421616 A31A31191191 A41 145A41 145 A31 181A31 181 A31 153A31 153 A31A312929 A41 73A41 73 A31 183A31 183 A41 58A41 58 A41 7AA41 7A A42A4288 A31 80A31 80 A31 86A31 86 A42 29A42 29 A31 81A31 81 A41 146A41 146 A42 3A42 3 A52 38A52 38 A41 10CA41 10C A41 154A41 154 A31 168A31 168 A41 153A41 153 A31 59A31 59 A31 14A31 14 A31 14A31 14 A31 170A31 170 A31A31170170 A32 24A32 24 E l e c t r i cAv e R u ssellS h opDrAr nezL nTerry RdHurdle Mills RdDixieLongRdHu r d l e Mills R d Cl a y L o n g R d Satte r fi e l d R d Poi n d e x t e r R d Zacks RdCC White Cir A r nezLnHortonFarmRd JohnRogers R d Satterfield Rd RogersWhitfieldRd GuessR d Terr y Rd DixieLongRdClayLongRd Po i n d e x t e r R d Aerial MapCD 01-21Plateau Solar LLC ¯ Plateau Solar Parcels Primary Local Private Person Parcels Lakes 1 inch = 1,500 feet 126 A31 142A31 142 A41 28A41 28A41 28A41 28 A32 228A32 228 A41 75A41 75 A41 152A41 152 A31 96A31 96 A41 49A41 49 A42 316A42 316 A41 11A41 11 A31A31116116 A31 46A31 46 A42A423636 A31 39A31 39 A31A313232 A31 32A31 32 A31 32A31 32 A31 32A31 32 A31 6A31 6 A31 179A31 179 A31 42A31 42 A32 105A32 105 A42 43A42 43 A41 57A41 57 A42A42221221 A31 67A31 67 A41 9A41 9 A31 84A31 84 A41A4113C13C A42 145AA42 145A A41 67A41 67 A31 1A31 1 A31 38A31 38 A31 38A31 38 A31 41A31 41 A31A31108108 A31 70A31 70 A31 186A31 186 A42A423030 A31 185A31 185 A42 22A42 22 A31 157A31 157 A31 22A31 22 A42 2A42 2 A31 107A31 107 A31 52A31 52 A42 10A42 10 A31 120A31 120 A41 10AA41 10A A41 19A41 19 A42 44A42 44 A41 13A41 13 A41 13A41 13 A41 13A41 13 A31 145A31 145 A31 2A31 2 A41 79A41 79 A31 180A31 180 A42 28A42 28 A41 7A41 7 A31A311212 A31 12A31 12 A31A312020 A42 73A42 73 A42A423131 A42 5A42 5 A41A416060 A31 169A31 169 A31 40A31 40 A42 21A42 21 A32 104A32 104 A31 147A31 147 A42A426767 A31 43AA31 43A A41 4A41 4 A31 43A31 43 A31 43A31 43 A31A31194194 A31 16A31 16 A41 2A41 2 A42A427777 A42A42222222 A41A414545 A42A42320320 A31 106A31 106 A42A421111A31 21A31 21 A41 59A41 59 A41 10A41 10 A31A31114114 A31 187A31 187 A32A32227227 A31A3199 A31 57A31 57 A42 23A42 23 A41A4113B13B A41 13AA41 13A A41 1A41 1 A41 1A41 1 A41 1A41 1 A42A421515 A42 40A42 40 A31A316262 A42 33A42 33 A41 68A41 68 A31 93A31 93 A41A411212 A42 25A42 25 A42 25A42 25 A31A3177 A31A31110110 A41 8A41 8 A41 8A41 8 A31 79A31 79 A41 78A41 78 A31 5A31 5 A41 69A41 69 A31 11A31 11 A41 6A41 6 A42A421616 A31A31191191 A41 145A41 145 A31 181A31 181 A31 153A31 153 A31A312929 A41 73A41 73 A31 183A31 183 A41 58A41 58 A41 7AA41 7A A42A4288 A31 80A31 80 A31 86A31 86 A42 29A42 29 A31 81A31 81 A41 146A41 146 A42 3A42 3 A52 38A52 38 A41 10CA41 10C A41 154A41 154 A31 168A31 168 A41 153A41 153 A31 59A31 59 A31 14A31 14 A31 14A31 14 A31 170A31 170 A31A31170170 A32 24A32 24 E l e c t r i cAv e R u ssellS h opDrAr nezL nTerry RdHurdle Mills RdDixieLongRdHu r d l e Mills R d Cl a y L o n g R d Satte r fi e l d R d Poi n d e x t e r R d Zacks RdCC White Cir A r nezLnHortonFarmRd JohnRogers R d Satterfield Rd RogersWhitfieldRd GuessR d Terr y Rd DixieLongRdClayLongRd Po i n d e x t e r R d FLU MapCD 01-21Plateau Solar LLC ¯ Plateau Solar Parcels Primary Local Private Person Parcels Lakes Land Use Description Industrial O&I/Commercial Rural Res/AGPoorSoil Rural Residential/AG Suburban Residential 1 inch = 1,500 feet 127 A31 142A31 142 A41 28A41 28A41 28A41 28 A32 228A32 228 A41 75A41 75 A41 152A41 152 A31 96A31 96 A41 49A41 49 A42 316A42 316 A41 11A41 11 A31A31116116 A31 46A31 46 A42A423636 A31 39A31 39 A31A313232 A31 32A31 32 A31 32A31 32 A31 32A31 32 A31 6A31 6 A31 179A31 179 A31 42A31 42 A32 105A32 105 A42 43A42 43 A41 57A41 57 A42A42221221 A31 67A31 67 A41 9A41 9 A31 84A31 84 A41A4113C13C A42 145AA42 145A A41 67A41 67 A31 1A31 1 A31 38A31 38 A31 38A31 38 A31 41A31 41 A31A31108108 A31 70A31 70 A31 186A31 186 A42A423030 A31 185A31 185 A42 22A42 22 A31 157A31 157 A31 22A31 22 A42 2A42 2 A31 107A31 107 A31 52A31 52 A42 10A42 10 A31 120A31 120 A41 10AA41 10A A41 19A41 19 A42 44A42 44 A41 13A41 13 A41 13A41 13 A41 13A41 13 A31 145A31 145 A31 2A31 2 A41 79A41 79 A31 180A31 180 A42 28A42 28 A41 7A41 7 A31A311212 A31 12A31 12 A31A312020 A42 73A42 73 A42A423131 A42 5A42 5 A41A416060 A31 169A31 169 A31 40A31 40 A42 21A42 21 A32 104A32 104 A31 147A31 147 A42A426767 A31 43AA31 43A A41 4A41 4 A31 43A31 43 A31 43A31 43 A31A31194194 A31 16A31 16 A41 2A41 2 A42A427777 A42A42222222 A41A414545 A42A42320320 A31 106A31 106 A42A421111A31 21A31 21 A41 59A41 59 A41 10A41 10 A31A31114114 A31 187A31 187 A32A32227227 A31A3199 A31 57A31 57 A42 23A42 23 A41A4113B13B A41 13AA41 13A A41 1A41 1 A41 1A41 1 A41 1A41 1 A42A421515 A42 40A42 40 A31A316262 A42 33A42 33 A41 68A41 68 A31 93A31 93 A41A411212 A42 25A42 25 A42 25A42 25 A31A3177 A31A31110110 A41 8A41 8 A41 8A41 8 A31 79A31 79 A41 78A41 78 A31 5A31 5 A41 69A41 69 A31 11A31 11 A41 6A41 6 A42A421616 A31A31191191 A41 145A41 145 A31 181A31 181 A31 153A31 153 A31A312929 A41 73A41 73 A31 183A31 183 A41 58A41 58 A41 7AA41 7A A42A4288 A31 80A31 80 A31 86A31 86 A42 29A42 29 A31 81A31 81 A41 146A41 146 A42 3A42 3 A52 38A52 38 A41 10CA41 10C A41 154A41 154 A31 168A31 168 A41 153A41 153 A31 59A31 59 A31 14A31 14 A31 14A31 14 A31 170A31 170 A31A31170170 A32 24A32 24 E l e c t r i cAv e R u ssellS h opDrAr nezL nTerry RdHurdle Mills RdDixieLongRdHu r d l e Mills R d Cl a y L o n g R d Satte r fi e l d R d Poi n d e x t e r R d Zacks RdCC White Cir A r nezLnHortonFarmRd JohnRogers R d Satterfield Rd RogersWhitfieldRd GuessR d Terr y Rd DixieLongRdClayLongRd Po i n d e x t e r R d General MapCD 01-21Plateau Solar LLC ¯ Plateau Solar Parcels Primary Local Private Person Parcels Lakes 1 inch = 1,500 feet 128 A31 142A31 142 A41 28A41 28A41 28A41 28 A32 228A32 228 A41 75A41 75 A41 152A41 152 A31 96A31 96 A41 49A41 49 A42 316A42 316 A41 11A41 11 A31A31116116 A31 46A31 46 A42A423636 A31 39A31 39 A31A313232 A31 32A31 32 A31 32A31 32 A31 32A31 32 A31 6A31 6 A31 179A31 179 A31 42A31 42 A32 105A32 105 A42 43A42 43 A41 57A41 57 A42A42221221 A31 67A31 67 A41 9A41 9 A31 84A31 84 A41A4113C13C A42 145AA42 145A A41 67A41 67 A31 1A31 1 A31 38A31 38 A31 38A31 38 A31 41A31 41 A31A31108108 A31 70A31 70 A31 186A31 186 A42A423030 A31 185A31 185 A42 22A42 22 A31 157A31 157 A31 22A31 22 A42 2A42 2 A31 107A31 107 A31 52A31 52 A42 10A42 10 A31 120A31 120 A41 10AA41 10A A41 19A41 19 A42 44A42 44 A41 13A41 13 A41 13A41 13 A41 13A41 13 A31 145A31 145 A31 2A31 2 A41 79A41 79 A31 180A31 180 A42 28A42 28 A41 7A41 7 A31A311212 A31 12A31 12 A31A312020 A42 73A42 73 A42A423131 A42 5A42 5 A41A416060 A31 169A31 169 A31 40A31 40 A42 21A42 21 A32 104A32 104 A31 147A31 147 A42A426767 A31 43AA31 43A A41 4A41 4 A31 43A31 43 A31 43A31 43 A31A31194194 A31 16A31 16 A41 2A41 2 A42A427777 A42A42222222 A41A414545 A42A42320320 A31 106A31 106 A42A421111A31 21A31 21 A41 59A41 59 A41 10A41 10 A31A31114114 A31 187A31 187 A32A32227227 A31A3199 A31 57A31 57 A42 23A42 23 A41A4113B13B A41 13AA41 13A A41 1A41 1 A41 1A41 1 A41 1A41 1 A42A421515 A42 40A42 40 A31A316262 A42 33A42 33 A41 68A41 68 A31 93A31 93 A41A411212 A42 25A42 25 A42 25A42 25 A31A3177 A31A31110110 A41 8A41 8 A41 8A41 8 A31 79A31 79 A41 78A41 78 A31 5A31 5 A41 69A41 69 A31 11A31 11 A41 6A41 6 A42A421616 A31A31191191 A41 145A41 145 A31 181A31 181 A31 153A31 153 A31A312929 A41 73A41 73 A31 183A31 183 A41 58A41 58 A41 7AA41 7A A42A4288 A31 80A31 80 A31 86A31 86 A42 29A42 29 A31 81A31 81 A41 146A41 146 A42 3A42 3 A52 38A52 38 A41 10CA41 10C A41 154A41 154 A31 168A31 168 A41 153A41 153 A31 59A31 59 A31 14A31 14 A31 14A31 14 A31 170A31 170 A31A31170170 A32 24A32 24 E l e c t r i cAv e R u ssellS h opDrAr nezL nTerry RdHurdle Mills RdDixieLongRdHu r d l e Mills R d Cl a y L o n g R d Satte r fi e l d R d Poi n d e x t e r R d Zacks RdCC White Cir A r nezLnHortonFarmRd JohnRogers R d Satterfield Rd RogersWhitfieldRd GuessR d Terr y Rd DixieLongRdClayLongRd Po i n d e x t e r R d Zoning MapCD 01-21Plateau Solar LLC ¯ Plateau Solar Parcels Primary Local Private Person Parcels Lakes R: Residential B-1: Highway Commercial B-2: Neighborhood Shopping GI: General Industrial R-C: Rural Conservation AP: Airport Overlay 1 inch = 1,500 feet 129 Person CountyBoard of CommissionersSeptember 7, 2021130 Conditional District RezoningCD-01-21131 Conditional District RezoningCD-01-21– Explanation of Request• Petition CD-01-21 is a request by Plateau Solar, LLC, on behalf of theproperty owners, Thomas and Rachel Puckett, W. Ruffin Woody Jr.Revocable Trust and Samuel Cates, for a Conditional District Rezoning fromR (Residential), RC (Rural Conservation) and B1 (Highway Commercial) toCD-RC (Conditional District - Rural Conservation) for a Level 3, (10 acres orgreater) Solar Energy System on Tax Map and Parcel numbers A41-1, A31-16, A31-42 and A42-5, consisting of approximately 798 acres located onHurdle Mills Rd and Satterfield Rd.132 133 134 Planning Board August 8th, 2019135 Conditional District Rezoning RequestCD-01-21 – Planning Staff Analysis• The proposed development would consist of approximately 205,000 mono-crystalline solar panels. The applicant The generating capacity is to be 65 Mega Watts. • A 150’ vegetative buffer (existing or planted) is required along all exterior property lines, with the exception of those participating parcels sharing property lines, which will be exempt from buffering requirements provided each property owner signs and submits a waiver per Article 2 of the Person County Solar Energy Ordinance. These waivers have been submitted and are on file.136 • There is at least one blue line stream on each parcel, a 50’ buffer, each side, has been shown on the site plan.• A 300’ setback from the nearest solar panel to the nearest dwelling is required and has been delineated on the site plan.• Solar Energy Systems proposed within five (5) nautical miles of an airport operation must submit documentation from Article 1, Section 2.5, 2., i. through iv. (a)., of the Person County Solar Energy Ordinance, which are: Map analysis results, Determination of whether the airport is in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), Documentation/certification that the project will not interfere with airport/aircraft communications systems, and proof that intent to construct a Solar Energy Systems was sent to the NC Commanders Council at least 30 days prior to the hearing. These items have been submitted and are on file. Board of Commissioners – September  7th, 2021Conditional District Rezoning RequestCD-01-21 – Planning Staff Analysis137 138 Planning Board RecommendationCD-01-21 • The Person County Planning Board, at their last regularly scheduled meeting, August 12, 2021, voted 4-2 to deny the request for a Conditional District Rezoning, stating that the request was not consistent with the Person County Land Use Plan and future planning goals for the county, that it was not reasonable and was not in the public interest as it did not meet the goals of the Person County Land Development Plan. The board stated they denied the request for the following reasons:1. That the community did not support the requested land use.2. That the use would reduce the amount of land available for agricultural use.3. That there would be a reduction in the availability of jobs and income to farmers. Since the Planning Board meeting, the applicant has submitted revisions to their site plan. The applicant has reduced the solar panel height from the maximum of 15’ to 10’. The applicant has also increased the landscaping and buffering requirement of 3’ minimum height at planting, to 12’ to 14’.139 Conditional District Rezoning Request CD-01-21 – Planning Staff Recommendation• Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional District Rezoning/Level 3 Solar Energy System based on the Person County Land Use Plan and the Future Land Use Map contained within the Land Use Plan. Staff has determined that all regulations and standards set forth in the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance have been applied to the site plan for this proposed CD Rezoning case and have either met or exceeded those regulations and standards.• This zoning is a Conditional District Rezoning request, and conditions can be placed on the approval and site plans can be approved with the request. 140 Conditional District Rezoning RequestCD-01-21 – Statement of Reasonableness and Consistency• Reasonableness and Consistency Statement: The request is consistentwith the Person County Land Use Plan and future planning goals of thecounty, is reasonable, and in the public interest as it meets the goals of thePerson County Land Development Plan, specifically:• 1.0 - To promote an orderly and efficient land use development pattern,which allows for a variety of land uses while being sensitive toenvironmental concerns.141 Person County Board of CommissionersSeptember 7, 2021142 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to applicable provisions of the NC General Statutes, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Person County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. in the Person County Office Building at 304 South Morgan Street, Roxboro, North Carolina 27573. The hearing will be held in Room 215 or the Auditorium, to be determined by the Board as provided by law. Interested citizens are invited to offer comments at the public hearing about whether the Board should adopt a resolution to change the organization and governance of the current Departments of Social Services and Health, potentially including: (1) Board of Commissioners abolish the County Social Services Board, or the Board of Health, or both, and assume the governance powers and duties directly; (2) combine the two departments into a new Consolidated Human Services Agency, with oversight by an appointed board and potential delegation of authority to the County Manager; (3) Board of Commissioners create a new consolidated agency and assume the governance powers and duties directly, and potential delegation of authority to the County Manager; and (4) other options authorized by law. 143 August 2, 2021 1 PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AUGUST 2, 2021 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Gordon Powell Heidi York, County Manager Kyle W. Puryear Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board C. Derrick Sims S.Ellis Hankins, County Attorney Charlie Palmer Patricia Gentry The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in regular session on Monday, August 2, 2021 at 7:00pm in the commissioners’ boardroom 215 in the Person County Office Building. Chairman Powell called the meeting to order. A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to relocate the meeting to the County Office Building Auditorium. Chairman Powell announced a brief recess at 7:01pm to allow transition of the meeting. Chairman Powell reconvened the meeting at 7:05pm and offered an invocation. Vice Chairman Puryear led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to approve the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: Public Hearing July 12, 2021 continued to August 2, 2021 PETITION SUP-02-21 - A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT, BEREA SOLAR, LLC, ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, ELIZABETH CHRISTIAN AND CATHERINE PHELPS, JOHN AND LINDA MANGUM, MALCOLM MANGUM, JR. AND MARY SUSAN WILLIAMS, MATTHEW MOORE, JEFFRY HENDRIKS AND EM & RM LLC, (ELVIN MANGUM) ON TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBERS A110-7, A110-2, A110-31, A110-29, A110-6, A111-5 AND 0961- 06-5906 (GRANVILLE COUNTY PIN), TOTALING 920 ACRES LOCATED ON BEREA, BETHANY CHURCH AND ISHAM CHAMBERS ROADS, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A LEVEL 3 (10 ACRES OR GREATER) SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: Commissioner Gentry said the only thing that hasn’t happened was that she was not able to view the property as she had requested. She said she was told in no uncertain terms that she could not go view the property without being escorted by the attorneys for the solar company. 144 August 2, 2021 2 Commissioner Gentry said they were not able to arrange a date that worked so that didn’t happen. A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to continue this process until the next meeting because she has not had the ability to complete her due diligence. County Attorney, Ellis Hankins reminded commissioners and interested citizens that application with respect to the proposed solar farm was not the traditional, usual agenda item that you are used to. He said it is not a legislative action; it is a quasi-judicial action, more like a court proceeding than the typical agenda item. What that means, Mr. Hankins said, as his law partner explained at the last meeting, the Board is required to decide on that application based on, only, competent material, relevant evidence introduced during the public hearing. Mr. Hankins said what that meant was there can’t be ex parte communications. He noted citizens are used to picking up the phone and talking to commissioners, and you can’t do that with respect to one of these quasi-judicial hearings – just wanted to remind everyone of that. Chairman Powell said item #2 was no longer relevant. Chairman Powell asked if the Board should close the public hearing at this time or was that necessary. Chairman Powell said he would need a motion to continue if you want to do that. A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to make a continuance of that meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO ADD MCKENZIE CHANDLER DR., A PRIVATE ROADWAY, TO THE DATABASE OF ROADWAY NAMES USED FOR E-911 DISPATCHING: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to open the duly advertised public hearing for a request to add McKenzie Chandler Dr., a private roadway, to the database of roadway names used for E-911 dispatching. GIS Manager, Sallie Vaughn requested Board consideration to add McKenzie Chandler Dr., a private roadway, to the database of roadway names used for E-911 dispatching. Mr. Vaughn said two private residences (1793 and 1301 Stoney Mountain Rd.) are currently located on a private driveway off Stoney Mountain Rd. A potential third private residence is being added to this driveway. In accordance with Article IV, Section 402 H of the “Ordinance Regulating Addresses and Road Naming in Person County,” the driveway must be named. The addition of this road will require occupants of the existing residences to change their addresses to reflect the new roadway name. 145 August 2, 2021 3 North Carolina General Statute 153A-239.1(A) requires a public hearing be held on the matter and public notice be provided at least 10 days prior in the newspaper. The required public notice was published in the July 22, 2021 edition of the Roxboro Courier- Times. A sign advertising the public hearing was placed at the proposed roadway location on the same date. Ms. Vaughn stated the adjacent property owners were contacted in person and via certified mail. The majority of individuals responded and agreed upon a single road name, McKenzie Chandler Dr., which is compliant with all naming regulations in the Ordinance. There were no individuals appearing before the Board to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request to add McKenzie Chandler Dr., a private roadway, to the database of roadway names used for E-911 dispatching. A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 5-0 to close the public hearing for a request to add McKenzie Chandler Dr., a private roadway, to the database of roadway names used for E-911 dispatching. CONSIDERATION TO GRANT OR DENY REQUEST TO ADD MCKENZIE CHANDLER DR., A PRIVATE ROADWAY, TO THE DATABASE OF OADWAY NAMES USED FOR E-911 DISPATCHING: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to approve the request to add McKenzie Chandler Dr., a private roadway, to the database of roadway names used for E-911 dispatching. INFORMAL COMMENTS: The following individuals appeared before the Board to make informal comments: Mr. Ray Jeffers of 1138 Concord-Ceffo Rd., Roxboro and Chair of the Department of Social Services (DSS) Board said he was there to speak on Commissioner Gentry’s agenda item noting he did not know what she will present, but if consolidation was what she was presenting, he wanted the Board of Commissioners to know that the DSS Board, at its meeting last week, voted 4-0 not in favor of consolidation. He added Commissioner Gentry recused herself from the vote. Mr. Jeffers stated the entire DSS Board was present in the audience, as well as the DSS Director, Carlton Paylor, should the Board have any questions that they may be of any assistance. 146 August 2, 2021 4 Mr. John Seepe of 277 Barefoot Landing Ln, Semora stated he asked three months ago for an update on the shell building, a shell building that has been discussed over 10 years in Person County noting to date he has not received a current status and wanted to know why. Mr. Seepe said the shell building was not in construction because construction costs came in so far over what was guessed at noting he asked what that number was but was not given the answer. Mr. Seepe apologized for his tone when he approached this topic at the last Board meeting. He said the citizens deserve answers. Mr. Seepe reiterated that 10-minutes for a public comment period was insufficient and not in alignment with the other counties of NC. Ms. Anderson Clayton of 546 Flat River Church Rd., Roxboro, and Chair of the Person County Democratic Party extended an invitation to the commissioners to the next Democratic Party meeting on August 16, 2021 at 100 N. Main St. Ms. Clayton also extended an invitation to the Word of Life Food Pantry located on Hill Street on Tuesdays and Fridays from 7:00am – 11:00am serving people that need food. Ms. Cynthia Lynch of 395 Union Grove Church Rd, Hurdle Mills asked a question related to the quasi-judicial solar application; was there a time limit in which the Board of Commissioners had to make a determination noting when she served on the Board of Adjustment in other places, they had to make a decision within a certain amount of time and suggested the Board look at it carefully and not to allow the time to run out and the application to be automatically approved. She noted the Board would be considering looking at the solar ordinance again noting some folks had expertise in areas, i.e. the need to control battery storage noting the applicant has said the solar panels themselves are relatively benign and as long as they stay intact, that is probably true. She said if there was damage, that was another issue. Ms. Lynch said she did not think battery storage was addressed in the application that is before the Board, but she said her husband received a letter from Fox Rothschild, from Tom Terrell, referring to battery storage for another application and was referencing that. Ms. Lynch urged the Board, among the many areas to look at, battery storage as it was crucial because it has a lot of environmental impacts containing materials that require careful handling with fire a big problem. DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to approve the Consent Agenda with the following item: A. Budget Amendment #2 147 August 2, 2021 5 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: CONSIDERATION OF THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE FOR COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES: The NC Legislature approved in 2012 a law expanding the options for consolidating human services agencies in county government (S.L.2012-126). Person County currently operates with two separate agencies: Public Health Department and the Department of Social Services (DSS). Each department is governed by an appointed Board: the Board of Health and the DSS Board. The 2012 law provides County Commissioners some additional options for the organizational structure and the governance of human services. Commissioner Gentry, the commissioner representative on the DSS Board, requested consideration to conduct a public hearing on consolidating the organization and governance structure for the County’s human services agencies. Commissioner Gentry said audits of 2017 and 2019 showed deficiencies and missing documentation, not eligible or over payment of eligible benefits, and denial notices to the NC FAST reporting system. She added some of the auditor reports stated errors regarding budget calculations in income verifications, ineffective case review process; cases did not have correct budget calculations for Medicare eligibility among other things. Commissioner Gentry stated the recommendations to correct was for the county to train and monitor employees on the eligibility determination process as well as NC FAST processes and to consider internal control deficiencies. Commissioner Gentry stated that in 2020, the DSS was placed in a corrective action on the intake side which resulted in hiring an outside consultant, the REAL Academy, at a cost of $68,000 for oversight in creating communication strategies to ensure employees know what is going on across the agency; creating an agency plan for cross training; implementing annual training on professional communication; creating a plan for professional development and creating an inter-agency team to assist leadership in measuring workload. She added the final report from the REAL Academy in April 2021 presented to the DSS Board noted nine of the ten corrective action elements had been met. Commissioner Gentry noted an employee survey reflected employees highly satisfied with their jobs but satisfaction plummeted in some instances 40 to 50% related to trust in leadership, communications, employee value and employee input. Commissioner Gentry surmised a big disconnect between the employees loving their jobs and working well with each other and their communication with the management team. 148 August 2, 2021 6 Commissioner Gentry said leadership, the Director and another high-level manager, was on leave and absent in 2020 for a period up to six months to a year. In another example, another top management position hired in 2020 was on leave and teleworked. Commissioner Gentry said from August 2019 to August 2020 there was essentially no management team in a highly demanding and emotional environment with a lack of internal control. Commissioner Gentry said the DSS Board awarded the DSS Director, Carlton Paylor, with outstanding performance from 2017 to 2020 and when she brought up her concerns, the other board members said they went through similar processes when they were new on the board. She said COVID did not create employee dissatisfaction and errors in records keeping, however, it has exposed it. Commissioner Gentry stated the DSS provides services to one in four households in Person County, essentially one-quarter of the approximately 16,000 households. She opined that DSS is a Band-Aid noting there are several drug and economic dysfunctions, which are huge contributing factors, and they are not addressed. She further noted this is an indication of the county’s overall county health. Commissioner Gentry said public health is affected, yet none of this information was listed on the 2020 Person County state of health profile on the county website. Commissioner Gentry said to provide for more local oversight and streamlining of services, she recommended the Board to consider a consolidated human services agency. She named four options: 1) status quo with no change, 2) abolish the Health and DSS board and the Board of Commissioners would assume those governing powers, 3) create a new consolidated human services agency with the commissioners appointing a new human services board, and 4) consolidating with governance from the commissioners rather than an appointed board. Commissioner Sims asked Commissioner Gentry if the DSS Board has heard her report to which she replied that they did not want to hear it. Former commissioner and current DSS Board chairman, Ray Jeffers was asked to address Commissioner Gentry’s report; he said it was hard to rebut something that he just heard and said Commissioner Gentry was incorrect in answering Commissioner Sims question that the DSS Board did not want to hear her presentation because prior to the DSS Board voting not to be in favor of consolidation, the DSS Board asked her if she wanted to share what she would be presenting at the Board of Commissioners’ meeting and she responded she would be presenting her case on Monday (at the Board of Commissioners’ meeting). Mr. Jeffers stated that was when he asked her if she would like to recuse herself. Mr. Jeffers stated the Board of Commissioners in 2012 looked at consolidation and found no benefit to the county at that time. Mr. Jeffers noted a consolidation would require the county to hire a supervisor to be over both the DSS Director and the Health Director to which Commissioner Gentry countered that it was possible that the County Manager would be over the new consolidated department and another director would not be needed. 149 August 2, 2021 7 Mr. Jeffers stated his disagreement with the option to have the County Manager run a consolidated department noting his opinion that it was not a favored option for Person County. He also noted his disagreement that the DSS Director was absent for six months as presented by Commissioner Gentry. When asked, Mr. Jeffers said he was not aware of any disconnect between the employees and management; he added the commissioners do not handle personnel issues for human service agencies. Mr. Jeffers stated the DSS and health department employees are covered by county and state personnel policy. He added that employees have several ways to present a complaint without fear of repercussions. Mr. Jeffers said consolidation would take away the protection of the state personnel policy from these employees. A motion was made by Commissioner Gentry and carried 3-2 to schedule a Public Hearing on September 7, 2021, providing a 30-day notice to begin the process for consolidation of the Health and Social Services Departments with a new, expanded human services board with many more health care professionals that could add a lot more guidance to the DSS. Voting in favor of the motion was Commissioners Gentry, Palmer and Chairman Powell. Voting in opposition to the motion was Vice Chairman Puryear and Commissioner Sims. NEW BUSINESS: DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM PROCESS: County Attorney, Ellis Hankins stated the Board of Commissioners was authorized to enact a development moratorium on development activity pursuant to the Solar Energy System Ordinance (SESO). Mr. Hankins said the Board’s authority and the process for implementing a development moratorium under the provisions of NC General Statues 160D-107 includes a public notice to conduct a public hearing prior to enacting a moratorium on development activity. Mr. Hankins added the Board should also be sure to conduct a robust discussion of the required findings during the legislative hearing. The Board’s findings should be supported by facts rather than speculation. Mr. Hankins noted that if the County proposes to enact a moratorium that is 61 days in duration or longer, i.e., six months, the Board of Commissioners must hold a legislative hearing and must cause a notice of the hearing shall be given once a week for two successive calendar weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the area. The first notice must be published at least 10 days and not more than 25 days before the hearing date. Related to the required findings, Mr. Hankins said an ordinance enacting a development moratorium must include four specific statements. N.C. General Statute § 160D-107(d) requires that: 150 August 2, 2021 8 “Any development regulation establishing a development moratorium must include, at the time of adoption, each of the following: (1) A statement of the problems or conditions necessitating the moratorium and what courses of action, alternative to a moratorium, were considered by the local government and why those alternative courses of action were not deemed adequate. (2) A statement of the development approvals subject to the moratorium and how a moratorium on those approvals will address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium. (3) A date for termination of the moratorium and a statement setting forth why that duration is reasonably necessary to address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium. (4) A statement of the actions, and the schedule for those actions, proposed to be taken by the local government during the duration of the moratorium to address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium.” Mr. Hankins stated the purpose of these required statements was to ensure that the Board of Commissioners have provided adequate public justification for the moratorium. It is critical that these statements are thoroughly discussed during the legislative hearing and that the moratorium ordinance clearly summarizes the basis for the Board of Commissioners’ decision. In addition, Mr. Hankins said it was important to note that any moratorium enacted by the Board of Commissioners on development pursuant to the SESO would not apply to special use permit applications for solar farms that have already been submitted and accepted as complete. The practical result of these laws is that development regulations amended during a moratorium do not automatically apply to complete development permit applications, which were submitted prior to the effective date of the moratorium ordinance where the property owner has acquired what the law regards as vested rights. Mr. Hankins recalled the Board of Commissioners imposed a moratorium in March 2020 citing a need for an updated and clear regulatory system to ensure that business and residential activities are properly coordinated, compliant with all federal laws including Federal Aviation Administration regulations and compliant with all state laws, including environmental regulations was assured. Mr. Hankins said the previous moratorium also stated the county’s regulations may not have adequately addressed federal and state regulations and a moratorium would allow the county to research all applicable considerations necessary for the proper enactment of regulations on solar energy systems in a manner that is fair and equitable to all interests and a piecemeal revision of the 151 August 2, 2021 9 regulation would result in inconsistent, and sometimes unlawful, development decisions that would be avoided by a comprehensive review. The new and current solar ordinance, which was approved in October 2020, separates solar energy systems into categories based on size. Level one are systems that are panels mounted on a roof, covering a permanent parking lot or other hardscape area, a building-integrated system and ground-mounted panels under a half acre and are allowed in all the county’s zoning districts and approved at staff level. Mr. Hankins noted that there are state laws that restrict jurisdictions’ ability to prohibit or restrict rooftop placements. Level two systems are ground-mounted between a half acre and 10 acres. They are permitted in all of the county’s zoning districts which a special use permit issued by the county commissioners. Level three systems are ground- mounted panels more than 10 acres and are not permitted in the county’s residential and neighborhood shopping districts but are permitted with a special use permit in highway commercial, general industrial and rural conservation districts. A motion was made by Commissioner Palmer and carried 5-0 to direct staff to publish a Public Hearing Notice to consider a moratorium at the Board’s August 16, 2021 meeting. Planning Director, Lori Oakley asked for specific guidance on preparing the proposed moratorium ordinance. Mr. Hankins stated he and county staff would work to draft a moratorium ordinance including a statement of the problems or conditions necessitating the moratorium, what courses of action other than a moratorium were considered by the local government, and why those alternatives were not deemed adequate; a statement of the development approvals subject to the moratorium and how a moratorium on those approvals will address the problems that led to its imposition; a date for termination of the moratorium and a statement setting forth why that duration is reasonably necessary to address the problems that led to its imposition; and a clear statement of the actions, and the schedule for those actions, proposed to be taken by the local government during the moratorium to address the problems that led to its imposition. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT: Chairman Powell reported a recent groundbreaking ceremony on July 22, 2021 at the Raleigh Regional Airport at Person County to kick off the construction of the new hangar. Chairman Powell stated the furniture on the stage was placed there to commemorate Polywood’s recent announcement to expand its operations in Person County bringing 300 new jobs, which upon completion will make them the largest corporate citizen. MANAGER’S REPORT: County Manager, Heidi York had no report. 152 August 2, 2021 10 COMMISSIONER REPORT/COMMENTS: Commissioner Palmer said he was pleased with the Polywood announcement; he noted his concerns related to the bald head eagles sustainability in Person County and across the country. Commissioners Palmer said he was supportive of the solar moratorium. Commissioner Sims thanked all the individuals that participated in public comments; he encouraged people to be aware of the virus and to do what was best, wear a mask as there are people dying. Vice Chairman Puryear had no report. Commissioner Gentry had no report. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Puryear and carried 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 8:04pm. _____________________________ ______________________________ Brenda B. Reaves Gordon Powell Clerk to the Board Chairman (Draft Board minutes are subject to Board approval). 153 154 155 156 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 7, 2021 Agenda Title: Person County Health Department Fee Requests Summary of Information: The Person County Health Department’s proposed new fees are associated with COVID-19 vaccinations. The proposed fees are for the administration of the COVID-19 third dose vaccinations only and will be utilized to submit claims to insurance companies in an attempt to cover the cost of the vaccine administration. The proposed new fees will allow PCHD to bill the administration fee for the additional third dose of both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Individuals will not be charged a fee. Medical providers are not allowed to bill for the vaccine as it is provided by the federal government. The Board of Health approved the Fee Schedule Amendments on Monday, August 23, 2021, and in accordance with the North Carolina General Statute 130A-39(g), the Board of Health requests the approval of the Board of Commissioners to implement the proposed fees which are below. Description CPT Code Medicaid Rate Proposed Updated Notes Immunization administration 3rd dose- COVID-19 Pfizer 0003A $ 40.00 $ 50.00 Charge is consistent with current admin fee Immunization administration 3rd dose- COVID-19 Moderna 0013A $ 40.00 $ 50.00 Charge is consistent with current admin fee Recommended Action: Approve recommended fees. Submitted By: Janet Clayton, Health Director 157 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RECONVEYANCE OF SCHOOL PROPERTY WHEREAS, the Person County Board of Education (the “School Board”) and the County of Person, North Carolina, by and through the Person County Board of Commissioners (the “Board of Commissioners”), previously agreed to cooperate in a plan to finance the cost of necessary and appropriate improvements to Woodland Elementary School, using the installment financing method as authorized by NC General Statutes §160A-20 and related statutes; and WHEREAS, the transaction was set forth in detail in the Agreement Concerning Various Projects for the Person County School Administrative Unit (the “Agreement”), dated May 16, 2006, and duly authorized and executed by the School Board and the County; and WHEREAS, to accomplish the financing it was necessary for the School Board to sell and convey the Woodland Elementary School real property (the “Woodland Elementary School property”) to the County, so the County could grant a security interest to the lender to secure repayment of the loan, as authorized by law; and WHEREAS, the School Board did sell the Woodland Elementary School Property to the County for nominal consideration for that sole and express purpose, and conveyed the real property to the County by Warranty Deed, signed by its then-Chairman Gordon Powell, recorded in Book 587, Page 114, Person County Registry; and WHEREAS, the County recorded a Deed of Trust granting a security interest in the Woodland Elementary School property to secure the loan, in Book 587, Page 116, Person County Registry; and WHEREAS, the Agreement provided that the County would lease the Woodland Elementary School property to the School Board during the term of the financing agreement, and the School Board and County entered into a lease agreement on or about May 16, 2006 (the “Lease”), which was recorded in the Person County Registry in Book 587, Page 130; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Lease, the School Board has an option to purchase the Woodland Elementary School property at the end of the lease term upon payment by the County of all of the installment financing payments, and upon payment to the County of a purchase option price of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00); and WHEREAS, the County made its final loan payment on or about June 1, 2021, and the County received satisfactory notice of final payment and satisfaction of the promissory note from the lender, and the lender, PNC Bank, as successor to RBC Centura Bank, the original lender, recorded in the Person County Registry a discharge and release of the Deed of Trust under which the County pledged the Woodland Elementary School property as security for repayment of the loan, on June 25, 2021, in Book 1083, Page 725; and 158 WHEREAS, the School Board sent notice of its desire to exercise its purchase option pursuant to the Lease, by letter dated June 15, 2021, along with the School Board’s adopted Resolution Taking Appropriate Action Related To Exercising the Purchase Option for the Woodland Elementary School Site (the “School Board Resolution”); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Person County Board of Commissioners: 1. The School Board Resolution shall be construed as a written offer to purchase the Woodland Elementary School property, and the Board of Commissioners hereby accepts the offer by means of this written Resolution, such that the offer and acceptance together constitute a written purchase and sale agreement with respect to the real property; and 2. Gordon Powell, Chair of the Board of Commissioners, is authorized to execute a Warranty Deed to convey the Woodland Elementary School property to the School Board, upon receipt of the School Board’s check for $100.00, the mutually agreed purchase price; and 3. All actions of Person County officers and employees in connection with the Agreement, Lease and other documents with respect to the installment financing and real property transactions are hereby authorized and ratified. 4. This Resolution is effective upon adoption. ADOPTED this the 7th day of September, 2021. PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS _____________________________________________ Gordon Powell, Chairman (SEAL) ATTEST: _____________________________________ Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board 159