09-08-2020 Meeting Minutes BOC
September 8, 2020
1
PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEPTEMBER 8, 2020
MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
B. Ray Jeffers Heidi York, County Manager
Jimmy B. Clayton Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board
Kyle W. Puryear C. Ronald Aycock, County Attorney
Gordon Powell
C. Derrick Sims
The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in
regular session on Tuesday, September 8, 2020 7:00pm in the Person County Office
Building Auditorium.
Chairman Jeffers called the meeting to order. Vice Chairman Powell offered an
invocation and Commissioner Sims led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. County
Attorney, Ron Aycock attended the meeting via telephone conference.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 5-0 to approve the
agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PETITION SUP-01-20 - A REQUEST BY DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW 58.5-ACRE INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL (ASH BASIN
LANDFILL), ACCESS ROADS, SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE, AND
LEACHATE POND AT THE DUKE ENERGY MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC
PLANT ON LAND WITHIN 224.74 ACRES DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 134
PAGE 17 TRACT 21 AND 145.94 ACRES DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 148
PAGE 177 TRACT 22 LOCATED AT 10660 BOSTON ROAD IN THE RURAL
CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 5-0 to open the duly
advertised public hearing for a request by Duke Energy Progress, LLC to construct a new
58.5-acre Industrial Landfill (Ash Basin Landfill), Access Roads, Supporting
Infrastructure, and Leachate Pond at the Duke Energy Mayo Steam Electric Plant on land
within 224.74 acres described in Deed Book 134 Page 17 Tract 21 and 145.94 acres
described in Deed Book 148 Page 177 Tract 22 located at 10660 Boston Road in the
Rural Conservation Zoning District.
September 8, 2020
2
The public hearing set to hear a Special Use Permit request by Duke Energy
Progress, LLC to construct a new 58.5-acre Industrial Landfill (Ash Basin Landfill),
Access Roads, Supporting Infrastructure, and Leachate Pond at the Duke Energy Mayo
Steam Electric Plant on land within 224.74 acres described in Deed Book 134 Page 17
Tract 21 and 145.94 acres described in Deed Book 148 Page 177 Tract 22 located at
10660 Boston Road in the Rural Conservation Zoning District required a quasi-judicial
zoning decision whereby witnesses are to be sworn in and subject to cross examination,
no ex parte communication and requires findings of fact. Chairman Jeffers administered
the Oath of Sworn Testimony to the following individuals who would offer testimony
during the public hearing:
Ms. Lori Oakley, Ms. Kayla DiCristina, Ms. Tanya Evans, Mr. Ken Daly, Mr.
Toby Coleman, Ms. Kimberlee Witt, Mr. Donald Long, Ms. Patricia “PJ” Gentry, and
Mr. Howard Eastwood.
Planning Director, Lori Oakley introduced County Planner, Kayla DiCristina to
introduce this SUP-01-20 request to the Board of Commissioners.
Ms. DiCristina stated all state statutes and planning ordinance requirements have
been met for this public hearing. She shared the following presentation with the group:
September 8, 2020
3
Ms. DiCristina noted the current use contains portions of the Mayo Plant, ash
basin, and wooded areas and the land to the west of the property contains vacant
September 8, 2020
4
properties and a few businesses. She further noted all land zoned RC on the tracts for the
proposed development and the land surrounding those tracts.
The tracts are located on Boston Road adjacent to the VA/NC border.
September 8, 2020
5
September 8, 2020
6
September 8, 2020
7
September 8, 2020
8
September 8, 2020
9
Speaking in favor of the request by Duke Energy Progress, LLC to construct a
new 58.5-acre Industrial Landfill (Ash Basin Landfill), Access Roads, Supporting
Infrastructure, and Leachate Pond at the Duke Energy Mayo Steam Electric Plant on land
within 224.74 acres described in Deed Book 134 Page 17 Tract 21 and 145.94 acres
described in Deed Book 148 Page 177 Tract 22 located at 10660 Boston Road in the
Rural Conservation Zoning District were the following:
Ms. Tanya Evans of 84 Flat River Circle, Timberlake and the District Manager
for Duke in the Government Community Relations Department noted Mr. Toby
Coleman, an attorney with Smith Anderson Law Firm of 150 Fayetteville St., Suite 2300,
Raleigh representing Duke Energy has expertise in land use and zoning matters was
helping Duke Energy prepare and submit its applications before the Board. Ms. Evans
further noted Mr. Ken Daly, a principal engineer for environment infrastructure solutions
with Wood PLC; she said Mr. Daly and his team developed the landfill designs and
specifications for the requested permits and were available to answer questions. Ms.
Evans introduced Kim Witt, who works at Duke Energy as the environmental lead for
solid waste permitting and compliance; she is also available to answer any questions.
Ms. Evans said Mr. Toby Coleman would walk through the specifics for each site.
Ms. Evans provided some background about the permit. Last year, state regulators, the
environmental community and Duke Energy agreed to a plan to permanently close the
company’s remaining coal ash basins by excavating the ash into lined landfills in a
manner that continues to protect people, communities and the environment. Ms. Evans
stated this plan recognizes that drinking and recreational water supply are safe now and
ensures that they remain protected. This plan has been approved by NCDEQ and in
accordance with a Consent Order from the state and follows rules and regulations
outlined under state law within the Coal Ash Management Act. Ms. Evans stated the
landfill locations that are before the Board are a result of a detailed analysis that includes
prioritizing the environmental protection, minimizing disruption to the communities,
Duke’s ability to comply with state and federal law, Duke’s ability to meet regulatory
deadlines, minimizing impacts to natural resources and minimizing costs for customers.
Ms. Evans said it was important to note that as a result of this analysis, Duke is seeking
permits to construct landfills at both Roxboro and Mayo on plant property and adjacent to
or even within the existing footprint of the current ash basin.
Ms. Evans turned the presentation over to Mr. Toby Coleman to present the
specifics about the projects and how they meet the required criteria for the permit.
Mr. Toby Coleman, attorney with Smith Anderson Law Firm in Raleigh
representing Duke Energy Progress said Ms. Evans has summarized why they were
before the Board for a plan triggering to close the existing ash basin. Mr. Coleman said it
would involve a major undertaking involving the excavation and relocation of about
6.6M tons of coal ash that is currently in the ash basin for the safest and best option both
for the community and public to an onsite landfill.
September 8, 2020
10
September 8, 2020
11
September 8, 2020
12
Mr. Coleman stated the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 and an environmental
group Consent Order required closures by 2029 to protect public health and safety. The
ash basin will be drained, excavated and placed into a new landfill that is subject to
oversight and review by DEQ in the design, permitting, construction phases as well as
management and operation phases. Mr. Coleman said Ms. DiCristina mentioned an
existing Monofill that was permitted about a decade ago, when the Mayo Plant was still
in operation; the area where Duke is currently proposing a landfill was not really an
option in 2010 when Duke came before the Board to build a 100+ acre landfill for a place
to send coal ash from existing operations. Mr. Coleman noted the ash basin was full with
the goal to get it to a dry basin; creating a landfill on the existing ash basin was not an
option at that time. Mr. Coleman explained what has changed from that time is the
operations of burning coal and creating coal ash is going to stop as part of this process.
As a result of the closure, the proposed landfill became a viable option. In doing the
analysis, Duke found a number of things to make this a more viable option to use the
approximately 60-acre area than expanding and using up the remaining 80-acres on this
landfill. Mr. Coleman said this would reduce the amount of large trucks carrying coal
ash that needed to cross Boston Road either by the construction of a new bridge or just
driving across the road multiple times a day carrying tons and tons of coal ash. Mr.
Coleman noted an environmental benefit noting both areas have an impact on streams but
a lesser impact in the proposed area. In addition, construction will be under state
regulations that ensure safety but in the event something happens, the surface impacts
would go into the ash basin area which will be reclaimed as opposed to going into surface
streams.
September 8, 2020
13
Mr. Coleman stated the staff report established that the proposed use meets the
required conditions and specifications set out in the ordinance and Duke has more than
exceeded the required setbacks, a use permitted by Special Use criteria and the request
was in harmony with the area, on the power plant’s land.
September 8, 2020
14
Mr. Coleman said the proposed 300 ft. property line setback doubles the required
150 ft. setback.
Mr. Coleman said he and the team are happy to answer any questions.
September 8, 2020
15
Chairman Jeffers asked if there were any homes in the Mayo community with the
water treatment systems like the ones in the Hyco community. Ms. Evans said the water
treatment systems were installed on any home that requested it and was within the one-
half mile radius of the ash basin. Ms. Evans said she did not know the exact number but
she could find out how many.
Mr. Ken Daly of 2113 Climbing Rose Lane, Matthews said he was available to
questions related to the engineering design.
Commissioner Puryear asked if this was considered a subtitle D landfill. Mr.
Daly stated yes, that it actually exceeds the subtitle D requirement in that it has a double
liner system which includes two geo-membranes with a leak detection system in between
it. Mr. Daly said it is going above and beyond an ordinary municipal solid waste landfill
regulated under subtitle D.
Chairman Jeffers stated the request is for an industrial landfill (ash basin landfill)
and asked what are other permitted items that can go into an industrial landfill. Ms.
Kimberlee Witt of 7615 Middle Drive, Greensboro and Duke Energy employee said the
ash basin landfill is just a name of the landfill noting it is an industrial landfill permitted
under the industrial landfill rules of the state and the CCR rule with the EPA. Chairman
Jeffers said he understood that but noted his question was what are other permitted items,
other than coal ash, that can go into an industrial landfill. Ms. Witt said the industrial
landfill is permitted for the same general waste that is permitted in the current Monofill
that is across the road which is essentially waste produced during the power production
process, i.e., it could be FGD, soil comingled with ash, sludge from the waste water
treatment system; that list of waste materials as defined in the permit application.
Ms. Oakley stated per the County’s Zoning Ordinance, it is anything non-
hazardous and non toxic.
Vice Chairman Powell asked Mr. Coleman to clarify monitoring for decades. Mr.
Coleman stated he would let the experts answer that question. Ms. Witt stated the state
and federal rules for groundwater monitoring for closing a landfill facility is post closure
monitoring for 30 years. After 30 years, depending on what is being seen in the
groundwater, if anything, the state will decide if monitoring will be continued or if
monitoring will be ceased. Mr. Coleman added the deadline for closure of this landfill is
2029 and from today, an approximately 10-year process for constructing, filling and
closing the landfill. After the closure, Mr. Coleman stated there would be another 30
years of monitoring.
Chairman Jeffers asked if the current Monofill was at capacity to which Mr.
Coleman stated only one phase of 31-acres had been built and therefore was not at
capacity.
September 8, 2020
16
Chairman Jeffers asked what was the frame of thought of not just using the
current Monofill at the Mayo plant where there is far less homes at least on the Boston
Road area when this one was permitted, and just using one in the county instead of trying
to permit another in the county in the Hyco area. Mr. Daly said the general answer was
frankly that millions and millions of tons in coal ash; the goal is to transport it as short a
distance as possible both for issues of traffic and environmental safety as you don’t want
coal ash dust spraying on homes, on roads, on cars and rather than attempting to haul coal
ash from one power plant to another, the idea was to let’s use the existing facilities. Mr.
Daly said the ponds would have to be drained as part of the pond’s cleanup, so the coal
ash is to go into a landfill on both of these sites.
Mr. Donald Long of 9741 Virgilina Road, Roxboro, a lifelong native of Person
County with education said he holds certification in storm water, waste water I, sub
surface waste water certification, physical chemical waste water certification, and has
made application of residual certification. He said Duke Energy, formerly CP&L,
requested a permit and was given a permit when these facilities were built and built it
based it on the permit that the state of NC gave them which was based on the best science
at that time. Of course, now the science has changed and Duke has been a good
corporate citizen of Person County and for the state of NC. The Division of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) has done an exhaustive study and directed Duke on the
expansion of this landfill. Mr. Long said he went to the two hearings that the DEQ had
here, back earlier this year. Mr. Long believed it was brought up there were millions of
tons of ash at the Hyco Plant, which is one reason you can’t move from one location to
another, across the county. Mr. Long requested that the permit as requested by Duke
Energy be approved.
Ms. Patricia “PJ” Gentry of 541 Byrd Creek, Hurdle Mills thanked the Board for
working for the county and noted her appreciations. She said she didn’t have the
credentials that Donald Long has but supported him in his statements. Ms. Gentry said
Duke Power has been an excellent corporate partner in the county and they have done
everything that has been requested of them trying to minimize the disruption of coal ash,
doing it responsibly according to what the directives they have been given. Ms. Gentry
stated support that they are doing the right things and she asked the Board to support
them in their endeavors.
Mr. Coleman stated out of an abundance of caution, as this was a quasi-judicial
procedure, moved that the Staff Report and all other documents that were provided to the
Board related to this be entered into the record as evidence.
Speaking in opposition to the Duke Energy Progress, LLC to construct a new
58.5-acre Industrial Landfill (Ash Basin Landfill), Access Roads, Supporting
Infrastructure, and Leachate Pond at the Duke Energy Mayo Steam Electric Plant on land
within 224.74 acres described in Deed Book 134 Page 17 Tract 21 and 145.94 acres
described in Deed Book 148 Page 177 Tract 22 located at 10660 Boston Road in the
Rural Conservation Zoning District was the following:
September 8, 2020
17
Mr. Howard Eastwood of 309 Eastwood Long Lane, Roxboro stated he was not
one of the friends of Duke cause they haven’t really treated them too decent on that end.
Mr. Eastwood said his property, 300 ft. to 500 ft. away with several wells with systems;
he said his neighbor and people in Virginia don’t even get a letter saying what’s
happening, and several houses on the other side of the dirt road. Mr. Eastwood stated the
biggest thing they’ve been fighting the last few years with Southern Environmental
Group, the group out of Virginia, and everywhere with the only reason they doing this
now is that they sued them as they wanted to just put dirt on top of it, and leave it laying.
He said he has been to several things and depositions to make them get the coal ash up.
Mr. Eastwood said they begged them 10-years ago to please have the landfill across the
road; they have 100s of acre over there, a whole lot farther away and 501 as you saw the
300 ft. barrier; the new 501 has to go through that crack. With 300 ft. when they come
through there, you’ll be looking at the landfill and have to listen to all this traffic, all
beeping noise, all fly-ash for ten more years is sorta a slap in the face. He said the half-
mile radius with his six tracts of land, three rental houses down there, two of his house
was 130 ft. from the half-mile radius and they wouldn’t talk to him about putting in the
system. He said you always hear Duke is your friend and the only reason he heard they
didn’t want to be the safety of the road. Last year, they took over Mayo Lake Road
construction area and it was hundreds of trucks all day long, dusting 501, dusting my
property, and didn’t have no problem with that. They were going up and down 501, now
they just got to go one straight stretch with the wood yard right up the road, hundreds of
trucks a day don’t have no problem pulling in and pulling out on 501. Mr. Eastwood said
he would like for Duke to carry it across the road where they have only used a section of
it anyway with the same permits to add on and do on that side as they are doing on this
side. Mr. Eastwood stated they haven’t said how deep this is going to be; if they go down
enough to put six million cubic yards of ash, and if their wells go dry, is anyone going to
be responsible. Mr. Eastwood said no one said how deep they would have to go to put
6.5M tons of ash in it. Mr. Eastwood thought a better system could be worked out when
they have hundreds of acres but they want to put it right up on the corner where
everybody else is close around.
Ms. DiCristina assisted Mr. Eastwood to put the map back up on the screen to
illustrate his property. Mr. Eastwood said he might not live to see the 501 built but it
takes a 300 ft. right-of-way and if anything has to be moved, who is liable to pay to
change any of that. Mr. Eastwood said he didn’t see how the state could turn over the
Mayo Lake Road to contractors. He said he has called Ms. Evans and asked if anybody
was going to stop and pay for washing houses when dust come across 501. He said that
was dangerous noting he had to threaten two or three times before they finally started to
watering the road. The only deal they seem to be worried about is crossing the road and
keep dragging it on and ten years is a long time to listen to the noise and stuff to do. Mr.
Eastwood said it is on the corner of property lines of the state of VA and NC noting over
800 acres on the other side with a landfill and a road going through it. Just the dangers of
crossing the road over a 10-year period; companies work at night when not much traffic
on the road. Mr. Eastwood said in 10-years you can safely cross 501 and use the landfill.
If a new park comes, Mr. Eastwood said they would look at how many coal ash landfills
September 8, 2020
18
is Person County going to have and how many chances of leaks in the future. Mr.
Eastwood said to put one anywhere you want noting you change from one field and build
another over here. Is anybody said if Duke leaves in nine years and still have those
landfills, are stuff from other places to be dumped since they have a designated dump.
Does anybody got anybody’s word when it ends that it closes up with nothing in the
future coming rom other counties and other states cause you leave an open door, nobody
said with this one closed – need to ask a lot more questions.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Powell and carried 5-0 to close the public
hearing for a request by Duke Energy Progress, LLC to construct a new 58.5-acre
Industrial Landfill (Ash Basin Landfill), Access Roads, Supporting Infrastructure, and
Leachate Pond at the Duke Energy Mayo Steam Electric Plant on land within 224.74
acres described in Deed Book 134 Page 17 Tract 21 and 145.94 acres described in Deed
Book 148 Page 177 Tract 22 located at 10660 Boston Road in the Rural Conservation
Zoning District.
September 8, 2020
19
CONSIDERATION TO GRANT OR DENY REQUEST BY DUKE ENERGY
PROGRESS, LLC TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 58.5-ACRE INDUSTRIAL
LANDFILL (ASH BASIN LANDFILL), ACCESS ROADS, SUPPORTING
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND LEACHATE POND AT THE DUKE ENERGY
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT ON LAND WITHIN 224.74 ACRES
DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 134 PAGE 17 TRACT 21 AND 145.94 ACRES
DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 148 PAGE 177 TRACT 22 LOCATED AT 10660
BOSTON ROAD IN THE RURAL CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 4-1 to approve SUP-
01-20, a request by Duke Energy Progress, LLC to construct a new 58.5-acre Industrial
Landfill (Ash Basin Landfill), Access Roads, Supporting Infrastructure, and Leachate
Pond at the Duke Energy Mayo Steam Electric Plant on land within 224.74 acres
described in Deed Book 134 Page 17 Tract 21 and 145.94 acres described in Deed Book
148 Page 177 Tract 22 located at 10660 Boston Road in the Rural Conservation Zoning
District with the following conditions:
1. The applicant is to combine Tracts 21 and 22 following issuance of the Special
Use Permit.
2. The applicant is to obtain all permits necessary from the following Person County
Departments Environmental Health, Planning and Zoning, and Building
Inspections.
3. The applicant is to obtain all permits necessary and provide copies to the Planning
and Zoning Department for the following agencies US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ).
The Board of Commissioners determined SUP-01-20 met the following findings of fact:
1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located
where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved;
2. That the use meets all of the required conditions and specifications;
3. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting
property, or that the use is a public necessity;
4. That 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 and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Jeffers stated there were too many landfills in Person County: one in
the southern part of the county and he voiced concern of permitting an industrial landfill
with other items permitted to dump in this landfill. Chairman Jeffers said he was on the
Board ten years ago when the Monofill was approved and with the Monofill not being at
capacity in phase I, he said he was not in favor of granting a SUP to construct a new
landfill. Chairman Jeffers cast the lone dissenting vote.
Commissioner Sims stated with the comments Duke has made and covered the
environmental issues. He noted his concern was with the water and wells around the ash
basin facility. Commissioner Sims said Duke would be monitoring the ground water.
September 8, 2020
20
PUBLIC HEARING:
PETITION SUP-02-20 - A REQUEST BY DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC TO
EXPAND THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL BY 80 ACRES AT THE
DUKE ENERGY ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT LOCATED AT 1700
DUNNAWAY ROAD ON LAND WITHIN 231.13 ACRES DESCRIBED IN DEED
BOOK 98 PAGE 90 TRACT 31, 244.74 ACRES DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 98
PAGE 39 TRACT 32, 187.88 ACRES DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 98 PAGE 605
TRACT 38, AND 28.25 ACRES DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 98 PAGE 279
TRACT 91 IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Powell and carried 5-0 to open the duly
advertised public hearing for a request by Duke Energy Progress, LLC to expand the
existing industrial landfill by 80 acres at the Duke Energy Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
located at 1700 Dunnaway Road on land within 231.13 acres described in Deed Book 98
Page 90 Tract 31, 244.74 acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 39 Tract 32, 187.88
acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 605 Tract 38, and 28.25 acres described in Deed
Book 98 Page 279 Tract 91 in the Residential Zoning District.
The public hearing set to hear a Special Use Permit request by Duke Energy
Progress, LLC to expand the existing industrial landfill by 80 acres at the Duke Energy
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant located at 1700 Dunnaway Road on land within 231.13
acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 90 Tract 31, 244.74 acres described in Deed Book
98 Page 39 Tract 32, 187.88 acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 605 Tract 38, and
28.25 acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 279 Tract 91 in the Residential Zoning
District required a quasi-judicial zoning decision whereby witnesses are to be sworn in
and subject to cross examination, no ex parte communication and requires findings of
fact. Chairman Jeffers administered the Oath of Sworn Testimony to the following
individuals who would offer testimony during the public hearing:
Ms. Lori Oakley, Ms. Kayla DiCristina, Ms. Tanya Evans, Mr. Ken Daly, Mr.
Toby Coleman, Ms. Kimberlee Witt, Mr. Donald Long and Ms. Patricia “PJ” Gentry
Planning Director, Lori Oakley introduced County Planner, Kayla DiCristina to
introduce this SUP-02-20 request to the Board of Commissioners.
Ms. DiCristina stated all state statutes and planning ordinance requirements have
been met for this public hearing.
September 8, 2020
21
Ms. DiCristina stated the tracts are located off of Dunnaway Road within the
Roxboro Plant, and currently contain portions of the Roxboro Plant, ash basin, and
woodlands. Properties east of the site contain vacant land and scattered single-family
residences (over 1,000 ft. away).
September 8, 2020
22
Tracts to the north of Dunnaway Road are zoned R (residential) (Tract 31, 32, part
of 38, and 91). Tracts to the south of Dunnaway Road are zoned GI (Part of Tract 38).
RC zoning is present east of the site.
September 8, 2020
23
September 8, 2020
24
September 8, 2020
25
September 8, 2020
26
September 8, 2020
27
Chairman Jeffers requested Ms. DiCristina to illustrate on the aerial map if
occupied residental homes were located within Tracts 32 and 38 to which she replied
affirmatively. Chairman Jeffers asked what was the required buffer to which Ms.
DiCristina stated the required buffer is 150 ft. from the landfill noting the occupied
residential homes were over 1,000 ft. away which exceeds the buffer requirement. She
added the proposed landfill and the accessory structures, i.e., storm water basins and the
gravel road go onto Tract 38. Chairman Jeffers asked if there were structures on both
sides of the road and Ms. DiCristina stated no noting Tract 38 goes across Dunnaway
Road and the proposed structures are all above Dunnaway Road.
Speaking in favor of the request by Duke Energy Progress, LLC to expand the
existing industrial landfill by 80 acres at the Duke Energy Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
located at 1700 Dunnaway Road on land within 231.13 acres described in Deed Book 98
Page 90 Tract 31, 244.74 acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 39 Tract 32, 187.88
acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 605 Tract 38, and 28.25 acres described in Deed
Book 98 Page 279 Tract 91 in the Residential Zoning District were the following:
Ms. Tanya Evans of 84 Flat River Circle, Timberlake and the District Manager
for Duke in the Government Community Relations Department said her previous
comments are reflective of what she had to say.
Mr. Toby Coleman, attorney with Smith Anderson Law Firm of 150 Fayetteville
Street, Suite 2300, Raleigh and representing the applicant, Duke Energy Progress moved
that the Staff Report and all documents in the packet be entered into evidence in this
quasi-judicial hearing.
Mr. Coleman stated this hearing was very similar situation as Mayo, a coal plant
with a coal ash pond that needs to close under state law. The Roxboro Plant has
approximately 16.9M tons of coal ash for closure and relocation of two ash basins located
on the facility. Mr. Coleman said the goal was to move the coal ash in as short of a
distance as possible. He stated there was an existing landfill onsite so the goal was to
expand the existing landfill.
September 8, 2020
28
Mr. Coleman stated the two ash basins, known as the West Ash Basin and the
East Ash Basin/Landfill were south of the Roxboro Hyco Plant.
September 8, 2020
29
As part of the Ash Basin Management Act 2014, closure of the ash basins are
overseen by the state (DEQ) with specific requirements that are to be met regarding the
design of the new facility, i.e., geographic size, ground water studies to meet and protect
public safety.
September 8, 2020
30
Mr. Coleman illustrated on the below slide how the landfill barely touches Tract
38. The SUP will be associated with the Site Plan boundaries with the goal to not use all
of Tract 38.
September 8, 2020
31
Mr. Coleman noted it has been established that the request has met the required
conditions and specifications of the County ordinance as set out in the Staff Report and
adjoining to an existing landfill on power plant property noting it is in harmony in the
area and zoned for this use as a SUP.
September 8, 2020
32
Mr. Coleman said the large trucks will be able to move between the existing coal
ash basins on the facility rather than hauling coal ash out a residential road, which is a
primary access to this property.
Commissioner Clayton asked if the current coal ash was in a pond that is flooded,
with water standing to which Mr. Coleman stated there are two wet ponds.
Commissioner Clayton said by moving from wet storage to dry storage with draining and
protection should cut down on the lechtate to which Mr. Coleman affirmed noting that is
why state law requires the closure of the existing coal ash ponds for the purpose to
improve environmental protections. Commissioner Clayton noted he had been around a
long time and remember when coal ash got in the lake and caused a silinem problem in
the late 70’s or 80’s which took quite a while to get straightened out. He added he knew
you can get things out of coal ash and understood Chairman Jeffers’ concern about it
being within a certain distance of houses and roads. Commissioner Clayton stated it
appears to him that what Duke is fixing to do is better than what has been done in the past
so it should be an improvement. Commissioner Clayton opined this was a different
landfill and not like a landfill that takes garbage and everything including coal ash. He
added the Duke landfill will include one product with the assumption that Duke was not
putting something else in this landfill unless permitted for it to which Mr. Coleman
affirmed. Commissioner Clayton noted it’s on Duke’s property, entirely owned by Duke
and should be an improvement from what is out there now. Commissioner Clayton stated
he understood the gentlemen’s comments about dust and different things but Duke’s site
is close enough by to cut down on a lot of transportation to haul that many millions of
tons of coal ash. He pointed out the lined bottom and lined top and built according to
specifications should be okay and be an improvement to the groundwater and the area to
the well. Mr. Coleman wholeheartedly agreed with Commissioner Clayton’s statement.
He said he has been around a while and usually oppose landfills for the neighborhood but
in this situation, he thought it would be an improvement over what we have now.
Chairman Jeffers noted as a permitted industrial landfill he asked Mr. Coleman to
say his intent was to only have coal ash but it is permitted for other uses. Mr. Coleman
stated that was correct. Chairman Jeffers added non hazardous and non toxic items can
go in it as it does not say just coal ash.
Commissioner Sims asked if the water treatment system was requested, would
they would receive it to which Ms. Evans stated by law they had to provide water
treatment systems to any residents that requested who live within that half-mile radius.
She said if she had known about the question, she would have been able to provide the
Board with the numbers of residents who had received the water system; she said she
would certainly follow up. Commissioner Sims stated with the expanding landfill and
should someone come to you for the water treatment system, would Duke still do that.
Ms. Evans noted this landfill is still within that half-mile boundary so it does not extend
the boundary from what was originally used to determine who was eligible for a water
treatment system. Commissioner Sims asked her if they came now and was eligible and
September 8, 2020
33
didn’t request a system earlier but now wanted one, could they get one, to which Ms.
Evans stated she did not know.
Chairman Jeffers voiced concerns from the community in that area who were
outside the half-mile boundary that did not get a water treatment system and was
supposed to trust their water when their neighbor inside that boundary received a water
treatment system. Ms. Evans stated she hears the concern but at some point, the line has
to stop; she added she would assure those who are concerned that based on the
groundwater studies that the water is flowing away from the ponds anyway so the data
does not support that the ash basins are affecting wells with Duke’s neighbors but they
provided the water treatment systems nonetheless.
Mr. Ken Daly, a principal engineer for environment infrastructure solutions with
Wood PLC of 2113 Climbing Rose Lane, Matthews and Ms. Kimberlee Witt of 7615
Middle Drive, Greensboro and works at Duke Energy as the environmental lead for solid
waste permitting and compliance both stated they were available for questions.
Mr. Donald Long of 9741 Virgilina Road, Roxboro stated his previous comments
were reflective of his support of Duke Energy’s request. He said he agreed with
Commissioner Clayton as the science has improved and it will be a great improvement
over what is there now. He urged the Board to approve the request.
Ms. Patricia “PJ” Gentry of 541 Byrd Creek Lane, Hurdle Mills stated her
previous comments were reflective of her support of Duke Energy’s request.
There was no individuals appearing before the Board to speak in opposition to the
request by Duke Energy Progress, LLC to expand the existing industrial landfill by 80
acres at the Duke Energy Roxboro Steam Electric Plant located at 1700 Dunnaway Road
on land within 231.13 acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 90 Tract 31, 244.74 acres
described in Deed Book 98 Page 39 Tract 32, 187.88 acres described in Deed Book 98
Page 605 Tract 38, and 28.25 acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 279 Tract 91 in the
Residential Zoning District. Chairman Jeffers noted that the commissioners had at their
seats a letter that was mailed to Ms. DiCristina from Mr. Phillip Bentjey of 3781
McGhees Mills Road, Roxboro.
September 8, 2020
34
A motion was made by Commissioner Sims and carried 5-0 to close the public
hearing for a request by Duke Energy Progress, LLC to expand the existing industrial
landfill by 80 acres at the Duke Energy Roxboro Steam Electric Plant located at 1700
Dunnaway Road on land within 231.13 acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 90 Tract
31, 244.74 acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 39 Tract 32, 187.88 acres described in
Deed Book 98 Page 605 Tract 38, and 28.25 acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 279
Tract 91 in the Residential Zoning District.
CONSIDERATION TO GRANT OR DENY REQUEST BY DUKE ENERGY
PROGRESS, LLC TO EXPAND THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL BY
80 ACRES AT THE DUKE ENERGY ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
LOCATED AT 1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD ON LAND WITHIN 231.13 ACRES
DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 98 PAGE 90 TRACT 31, 244.74 ACRES
DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 98 PAGE 39 TRACT 32, 187.88 ACRES
DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 98 PAGE 605 TRACT 38, AND 28.25 ACRES
DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 98 PAGE 279 TRACT 91 IN THE RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 4-1 to approve SUP-
02-20, a request by Duke Energy Progress, LLC to expand the existing industrial landfill
by 80 acres at the Duke Energy Roxboro Steam Electric Plant located at 1700 Dunnaway
Road on land within 231.13 acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 90 Tract 31, 244.74
acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 39 Tract 32, 187.88 acres described in Deed Book
98 Page 605 Tract 38, and 28.25 acres described in Deed Book 98 Page 279 Tract 91 in
the Residential Zoning District with the following conditions:
1. The applicant is to combine Tracts 31, 32, 38, and 91 following issuance of the
Special Use Permit.
2. The applicant is to obtain all permits necessary from the following Person County
Departments Environmental Health, Planning and Zoning, and Building
Inspections.
3. The applicant is to obtain all permits necessary and provide copies to the Planning
and Zoning Department for the following agencies US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ).
The Board of Commissioners also found that the request met the following Findings of
Fact:
1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located
where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved;
2. That the use meets all of the required conditions and specifications;
3. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting
property, or that the use is a public necessity;
4. That 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 and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
September 8, 2020
35
Chairman Jeffers stated his previous comments were reflective of his opposition
to the permitting more landfills in Person County. He added that the Mayo Plant has the
waterline going out on Boston Road noting there was no waterline anywhere near
McGhees Mill and Ceffo communities. Chairman Jeffers said the Mayo Plant was in a
Rural Conservation District and he noted his opposition to approve this request in a
Residential Zoning area. Chairman Jeffers cast the lone dissenting vote.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PETITION TA-03-20 – A REQUEST BY THE PERSON COUNTY PLANNING
DEPARTMENT STAFF ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS TO REPEAL THE EXISTING SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM
REGULATIONS IN THE PERSON COUNTY PLANNING ORDINANCE NOTE
#2 INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS AND NOTE #10
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND ENACT A FREE-STANDING SOLAR
ENERGY SYSTEM ORDINANCE:
A motion was made by Commissioner Clayton and carried 5-0 to open the duly
advertised public hearing for a request by the Person County Planning Department staff
on behalf of the Person County Board of Commissioners to repeal the existing solar
energy system regulations in the Person County Planning Ordinance Note#2 Industrial
and Manufacturing Operations and Note #10 Solar Energy Systems and enact a free-
standing Solar Energy System Ordinance.
Planning Director, Lori Oakley introduced County Planner, Kayla DiCristina to
introduce this TA-03-20 request to the Board of Commissioners.
Ms. DiCristina stated all state statutes and planning ordinance requirements have
been met for this public hearing.
September 8, 2020
36
September 8, 2020
37
September 8, 2020
38
Ms. DiCristina clarified that Solar would be governed by the free-standing
ordinance. The Planning Ordinance would direct people to where to find information and
references when the text was removed.
September 8, 2020
39
September 8, 2020
40
September 8, 2020
41
September 8, 2020
42
September 8, 2020
43
September 8, 2020
44
September 8, 2020
45
September 8, 2020
46
September 8, 2020
47
Ms. DiCristina stated there were additional comments from the Airport’s
consultant after the Planning Board meeting; those comments are in the Board’s packet.
September 8, 2020
48
PERSON COUNTY SOLAR REGULATIONS COMPARISON
SES = Solar Energy System
SUP = Special Use Permit
Current Planning Ordinance Regulations (Appendix C Note 2 and Note 10)
- SESs are prohibited in R (Residential) Zoning District.
- SESs are allowed by right (approved at staff level with no public hearing) in all other
Zoning Districts UNLESS within 250’ of a residence measured from solar panel to
wall. If within 250’ of a residence, the SES requires a SUP.
- SESs are required to buffer 50’ with evergreen and deciduous plants between public
roads and residences.
- Decommissioning plan and bond required.
Proposed SES Ordinance
- SESs are divided in to three levels based on the acreage of panels NOT lot size.
Level 1 < ½ acre
Level 2 ½-10 acres
Level 3 > 10 acres
- Level 1 SESs are allowed by right (approved at staff level with no public hearing) in
all Zoning Districts.
- Level 2 SESs are allowed by right (approved at staff level with no public hearing) in
B-1, GI, and RC Zoning Districts. Requires a SUP in R and B-2 Zoning Districts
(SUP has two opportunities for public comment and the BOC may attach conditions
with their approval).
- Level 3 SESs are prohibited in R and B-2 Zoning Districts. Requires a SUP in B-1,
GI, and RC Zoning Districts (SUP has two opportunities for public comment and the
BOC may attach conditions with their approval)
- Setbacks are standard with the model ordinance and other freestanding ordinances in
similar and surrounding counties. Additionally, 50’ is the largest setback currently
required for all structures in the county. Primary structures have setbacks between 8’
and 40’. However, if the structure is on a property in the B-1, B-2, or GI Zoning
Districts that abuts a property zoned R, the setback is 50’.
- Buffers:
Level 1 SESs require no buffer.
Level 2 and 3 SESs match what is required by Planning Ordinance for light
industrial uses. 50’ with evergreen and deciduous plants between public roads
and residences.
o ****For all SES requiring an SUP, the SUP process encourages
community members to ask the BOC for larger requirements on a case by
case basis****
September 8, 2020
49
- Aviation Notification
Comes from model ordinance. Requires documentation sent to appropriate
department confirming there are no impacts to the local airport for SESs
within 5 miles of airport. Standard language.
- Decommissioning plan and bond required.
MAJOR CHANGES
When SESs are allowed by right (approved at staff level with no public hearing) and
when SUP and public comment are required.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1) Provides more opportunities for public comment than Planning Ordinance
regulations and more opportunities for decision makers to require more intense
conditions on a case-by-case basis rather than overall while still enabling solar
development to be a viable business and property owners to have the option of
applying for SESs on their land.
2) SUP process requires notification of landowners within 500’ of the property,
signage of a zoning proposal, placed on the property for at least two months, and
legal advertisements run in the local newspaper.
Commissioner Sims asked about the decommissioning plan for the half-acre
Level 1 to which Ms. DiCristina stated the intent for Level 1 SES is a smaller, roof-
mounted system on homes, more like an accessory use. Ms. Oakley stated the Level 1
are single-family homeowners noting they did not want to require a bond for that use.
Ms. DiCristina said the Levels 2 and 3, much larger SES where the bond and
decommissioning requirement in the ordinance would protect the County.
Vice Chairman Powell voiced concerns whereby a homeowner disposes the SES
panels on their property may impact adjoining property owners. Ms. DiCristina said that
would be a violation of the Junkyard Ordinance. Ms. Oakley stated as staff have
exempted Level 1 from the decommissioning plan to which the Board may require
decommissioning plans on all three levels or reduce the size of Level 1 to something even
smaller, i.e. rooftop only, Level 2 up to 10-acres on the ground.
Commissioner Puryear asked what two areas are prohibited for Level 3 SES to
which Ms. DiCristina stated (R) Residential and (B-2) Neighborhood Shopping.
Commissioner Sims asked about SES regulations at the Airport. Ms. DiCristina
stated Section 2.5 Aviation states that if within five nautical miles for Level 2 or 3 SES,
language is written that addresses the glare from the panels do not impact the airport.
Level 1 is exempt from this section. Vice Chairman Powell asked Mr. Bill Tougas, FBO
Operator at the Airport if he agreed to which he replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Clayton noted the FAA rules are incorporated into the ordinance.
September 8, 2020
50
Commissioner Clayton asked if a request comes to the county for 300-acres, a
SUP will be required to which Ms. DiCristina stated a public hearing for the SUP will be
required at both the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners. In addition there
are mailed notices to surrounding property owners for each public hearing, signage and
legal ads. Commissioner Clayton confirmed that the Board of Commissioners could
modify the request or place conditions to which Ms. Oakley stated any such changes in
the request or conditions on the SUP, the applicant has to agree or the Board may deny
the request if it did not meet the findings of fact or be in harmony with the surrounding
area.
Chairman Jeffers asked for the appeal process should the SUP be denied to which
Ms. Oakley said the applicant must wait one-year unless there are significant changes
with the action by the Board of Commissioners final. Commissioner Clayton asked if the
Board of Commissioners desired to modify the SUP request and the applicant does not
agree, what is the appeal process to which County Attorney, Ron Aycock stated he was
not sure there was an appeal to Superior Court.
Commissioner Sims asked how many Level 2 and Level SES are in Person
County to which Ms. DiCristina stated Person County currently has six SES considered a
Level 3 and three that are considered a Level 2. Based on panel acreage the largest SES
currently contains 37 acres.
There were no individuals appearing before the Board to speak in favor of the
request to repeal the existing solar energy system regulations in the Person County
Planning Ordinance Note #2 Industrial and Manufacturing Operations, and Note #10
Solar Energy Systems and enact a freestanding Solar Energy System Ordinance.
Speaking in opposition of the request to repeal the existing solar energy system
regulations in the Person County Planning Ordinance Note #2 Industrial and
Manufacturing Operations, and Note #10 Solar Energy Systems and enact a freestanding
Solar Energy System Ordinance were the following:
September 8, 2020
51
Mr. Paul Lynch of 395 Union Grove Church Road, Hurdle Mills disclosed he has
professional experience with solar projects with the design and installation of equipment
commonly used. Mr. Lynch stated he was not against solar energy however urged the
Board to be careful as there are many serious environmental concerns, economic
concerns that will impact the community particularly with Level 2 and Level 3 scale
projects. Mr. Lynch said there were issues that need to be addressed in the ordinance
under consideration. He noted he did not have time to go into detail, i.e. site
maintenance, onsite energy storage, security, etc. that should be adopted into a land use
ordinance. Mr. Lynch noted he would like to put these concerns in the form of a letter to
the Board or the Planning officials for consideration. He asked if there would be more
public hearings to which Chairman Jeffers said the ordinance could be adopted as
presented or brought back at a later board meeting for public input. Mr. Lynch requested
the Board to not adopt the ordinance as presented; he stated his support of the two-month
extension moratorium.
Mr. Ray Foushee of 8930 Hurdle Mills Road, Hurdle Mills stated his was not
against solar farms or their concept but supported adopting more significant guidelines to
establish in particular to the larger solar farms to help in blending into the community. In
Hurdle Mills, the community consists of woodlands and farm land not larger solar farms.
Mr. Foushee said he respects what land owners would like to do with their property but
opposed any landowner negatively affecting the community. He described a proposed
800-acre solar farm for the Hurdle Mills community that would run 1.8 linear miles down
the Hurdle Mills Road, and at times, on both sides of the roadway. Mr. Foushee stated
his son resides at 8019 Hurdle Mills Road which landed him in the middle of the 800-
acres and could have solar panels on all four sides of his property and within 100 ft. of
this home. Mr. Foushee noted the 800-acres solar farm proposal has rescinded some of
the property down to the current proposal containing 376-acres which would be located
on three sides of his son’s home and within 100 ft. Mr. Foushee further noted he did not
want to prohibit solar farms but to include guidelines to help co-exist in the community.
Mr. Foushee stated the proposed solar ordinance before the Board calls for a decision on
a case by case and asked the Board if they wished to consider each as a case by case or
consider modify the ordinance to take care of some of the cases up front. Mr. Foushee
asked the Board to consider including the following in the ordinance:
Areas currently zoned residential that would have to be rezoned for a solar farm be
restricted to 50-aces or less on any parcel or property,
All solar farms greater than 10-acres, increase the vegetative buffer from 50 ft. to 100
ft., and
All solar farms greater than 10-acres, make the minimum distance between the solar
panels and any residential structure at least 300 ft.
September 8, 2020
52
Mr. Anthony Horton of 7233 Hurdle Mills Road, Hurdle Mills stated he was in
agreement with much of what Ray Foushee stated. He stated support of size limits
especially in the residential area, if the residential area has to be rezoned. Mr. Horton
requested a larger buffer between adjoining properties of at least a minimum of 150 ft.,
which is the standard buffer for landfills. He equated a solar energy system to a landfill
as it harbors toxic chemicals. Mr. Horton said if these chemicals leach into the land, a
larger buffer would help the adjoining properties barring streams and creeks. He asked
who is responsible for cleanup and compensating the landowners for land deemed
inoperable due to leached toxics. He wondered the impact a natural disaster to spread the
panels and its contents on adjacent properties. Mr. Horton asked for a 500 ft. buffer from
houses to protect water sources from leached solar panels. He noted the 376-acres
proposed solar farm is currently in the NC Utilities Commission. Mr. Horton provided
logistic examples of an 800 mega watts would consist of 400,000 solar cells; he
supported regulations as he opined solar farms would not be in harmony with residential
or rural conservation. He asked the Board to delay a vote on the solar ordinance and to
consider limiting the size and scope of the solar energy systems to protect the
surrounding areas.
Ms. Patricia “PJ” Gentry of 541 Byrd Creek Rd., Hurdle Mills asked the Board to
consider putting an industrial facility in a residential area using the example of not letting
Duke put in a landfill for coal ash in a residential agricultural community so why would
solar panels that are large and toxic be allowed. Ms. Gentry said solar has been around
since 1973 and its getting better but to subject the community of Hurdle Mills to the test
to see what this technology yield is a disservice at this time. Hurdle Mills is a rural,
residential community and to consider and industrial process which need to be in an
industrial park or land already zoned for commercial/industrial use.
Mr. Rex Young, Development Attorney with Oakhurst Energy located at 606
Wade Avenue, Suite 102, Raleigh stated he previously submitted comments to the Board
for consideration but wanted to appear before the Board to highlight the following:
o 2017 legislation provided for solar project sizes to increase and for the most
economically competitive projects to be built.
o Streamline the ordinance to reflect changes in the industry to be more straight-
forward for developers and administration of the SUP process.
o Screening requirement of planting or preserving 50’ ft. vegetative buffer adequate
from adjoining landowner.
o Eliminate the requirement to preserve trees by bringing in an arborist or a landscape
architect/designer to sign off on plan.
o Duplicating the regulations already under the purview of the FAA which extend the
development timeline. For Section 2.5 where the proposal ordinance addresses the air
space and the FAA requirements, he recommended taking out entirely as it duplicates
the job of the FAA or to expand that requirement to all types of construction.
September 8, 2020
53
o Decommissioning is enforced through a bond; the ground lease agreement with land
owners requires the site to be restored. The Environmental Management Commission
is currently drafting rules for disposal of solar panels.
o Urged the Board to remove the bond requirement of Section 2.6.
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 5-0 to close the
public hearing for a request by the Person County Planning Department staff on behalf of
the Person County Board of Commissioners to repeal the existing solar energy system
regulations in the Person County Planning Ordinance Note #2 Industrial and
Manufacturing Operations, and Note #10 Solar Energy Systems and enact a freestanding
Solar Energy System Ordinance.
CONSIDERATION TO GRANT OR DENY REQUEST BY THE PERSON
COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO REPEAL THE EXISTING
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM REGULATIONS IN THE PERSON COUNTY
PLANNING ORDINANCE NOTE #2 INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING
OPERATIONS AND NOTE #10 SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND ENACT A
FREESTANDING SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM ORDINANCE:
A motion was made by Chairman Jeffers and carried 5-0 to table consideration
of this item until the Board’s regular schedule meeting on October 5, 2020 at 7:00pm.
September 8, 2020
54
PUBLIC HEARING:
EXTENSION OF SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
MORATORIUM ORDINANCE FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS:
A motion was made by Commissioner Powell and carried 5-0 to open the duly
advertised public hearing for an Extension of Solar Energy Systems Development
Approval Moratorium Ordinance for a period of two months.
Planning Director, Lori Oakley presented an Extension of Solar Energy Systems
Development Approval Moratorium Ordinance to further extend the moratorium by a
period of two months (60 days) due to COVID-19 and the County’s Cyber Incident. Ms.
Oakley noted Planning staff desired to have a proposed solar energy systems ordinance
before the Board of Commissioners earlier than this date for consideration but due to
unforeseen circumstances, it was delayed to September. She added the proposed
extension was drafted and reviewed by the County Attorney.
Chairman Jeffers noted the Board’s action to table action on the proposed solar
ordinance until its October 5, 2020 meeting which was 27 days and asked Ms. Oakley
should the extension moratorium ordinance coincide with the October 5th date or should
the Board consider the 60 days. Ms. Oakley recommended the extension period be 60
days as it was advertised that way but confirmed should the Board adopt its ordinance
regulating solar energy systems, the extension moratorium could be rescinded at the date
the ordinance is effective.
Speaking in favor of the Extension of Solar Energy Systems Development
Approval Moratorium Ordinance for a period of two months were the following:
Mr. Paul Lynch of 395 Union Grove Church Road, Hurdle Mills stated support of
the extension of solar energy systems moratorium ordinance for two months.
Ms. Patricia “PJ” Gentry of 541 Byrd Creek, Hurdle Mills stated support of the
extension of solar energy systems moratorium ordinance for two months.
There were no individuals appearing before the Board to speak in opposition to
the Extension of Solar Energy Systems Development Approval Moratorium Ordinance
for a period of two months.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sims and carried 5-0 to close the public
hearing for an Extension of Solar Energy Systems Development Approval Moratorium
Ordinance for a period of two months.
September 8, 2020
55
CONSIDERATION TO GRANT OR DENY REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL MORATORIUM
ORDINANCE:
A motion was made by Chairman Jeffers and carried 5-0 to approve an
Extension of Solar Energy Systems Development Approval Moratorium Ordinance for 60
days.
September 8, 2020
56
INFORMAL COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA:
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 5-0 to approve the
Consent Agenda with the following items:
A. Approval of Minutes of August 17, 2020, and
B. Budget Amendment #4
NEW BUSINESS:
REQUEST FOR COUNTY ASSISTANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL WELL ISSUES
AT 24 VICTORIA LANE, ROXBORO:
County Manager, Heidi York stated the Board at its August 3, 2020 meeting
heard from Ms. Anita Banks who requested County assistance for her residential well
issues of very low flow. Ms. York stated Ms. Banks requested assistance from the
County including an extension of a City waterline to her residence at 24 Victoria Lane.
Ms. York noted the County does not provide water, however the County has a long-
standing agreement with the City of Roxboro to partner on extending waterlines. Ms.
York further noted the City was not able to send a representative to the meeting; however
the City has provided a tentative cost estimate for running a waterline although they do
not extend a waterline for a single residence. The tentative cost estimate for running a 6"
water line to the house on Victoria Lane includes installation of 500' of 6" DI water line
along Dee Long Rd and a 60' bore under NC 49 plus engineering and permitting by a
private contractor would be approximately $110,000. There would be water quality issues
due to the distance and limited flow for usage.
Ms. York said the Agreement between the City and County details the process for
extensions. The applicant would have to submit an application to the City Manager. City
Council and the Board of Commissioners would have to approve any such waterline
extension.
Ms. Banks noted her willingness to go through the process. She said her
neighbors who built their home less than a year ago were present in the audience and
experience the same issues. Based upon the size of their lots, Ms. Banks said they do not
have the availability to do more drilling. Ms. Banks stated her neighbors located in the
Landmark North and Landmark South have indicated similar issues noting that of the 17
homes within that neighborhood, 10 have wells produce around two gallons of water per
minute.
September 8, 2020
57
Al & Melissa Salisbury of 68 Victoria Lane said they moved into their house in
March this year. Ms. Salisbury said they drilled their well to 690 ft. with no water,
continued to drill to 1,240 ft. as well as fracked the well with a result of about a gallon
per hour, all costing $26,000.
Commissioner Clayton requested the Health Department staff present at the
meeting to provide their assessment. Environmental Health Director, Harold Kelly told
the group the residents have described the situation accurately. Mr. Kelly stated,
according to the well log, three homes have barely enough water to live off with a half-
dozen homes with less than two gallons per minute.
Vice Chairman Powell asked approximately how many lots are having issues to
which Ms. Banks stated approximately 10-12 with another 10-12 in the Landmark
community.
Chairman Jeffers asked Ms. York if a Water and Sewer Construction Fund
currently exists to which she replied affirmatively. Chairman Jeffers stated in last year’s
budget there was an appropriation of $1M for waterline extension; he asked if any of
those funds be used to which Ms. York stated by action of the Board, those funds could
be used.
Chairman Jeffers asked Ms. York to outline the application process to the City
and County. Ms. York stated an application is made to the City Manager. The City
Manager will make a recommendation to City Council and to the Board of
Commissioners. Ms. York said the City would approve all engineering and contract
documents. The City and County each approves all plans authorizing an extension. No
commitment can be made unless both governing boards by resolution approve the
extension.
Chairman Jeffers recommended to Ms. Banks to complete the application and for
Ms. York to check on the Water Fund and/or Water and Sewer Construction Fund
balances and how to transfer from one fund to another, if needed.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT:
Chairman Jeffers stated he met with the President and Vice Chair of the new
board for the Woodsdale Volunteer Fire Department (WVFD). He requested to add this
topic to the Board’s October 5, 2020 agenda for a request to appropriate monthly funding.
Chairman Jeffers said currently invoices are brought to the County and the County will
review and pay. He noted some invoices have been paid late and incurred late fees.
Chairman Jeffers said he asked the WVFD board members to provide a budget of the
funding needs for this fiscal year as they pursue recertification. That budget request was
delivered to the Clerk today and he asked the Clerk to share a copy with all the
commissioners. Chairman Jeffers further noted in the adopted budget there was
approximately $99,000 in unspent funds from the fire tax revenue. He stated a
September 8, 2020
58
Memorandum of Understanding would be needed between the County and the WVFD
board to outline any unspent funds would revert to the county.
MANAGER’S REPORT:
County Manager, Heidi York introduced the newly hired Assistant County
Manager, Katherine Cathey. Ms. Cathey’s first day was on August 24, 2020 and she will
oversee the County’s Public Safety, Cultural Arts and Development services.
COMMISSIONER REPORT/COMMENTS:
Commissioner Sims thanked those in the audience for staying for the Board’s
long meeting and thanked the Board of Commissioners for working together on the issues
before them.
Commissioner Clayton urged everyone to be counted in the Census 2020. He
explained how funding was connected to the population. Commissioner Clayton asked if
the Health Department should consider a moratorium on the development in the
subdivision until the water issues are resolved.
Commissioners Puryear and Powell had no report.
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Sims and carried 5-0 to adjourn the
meeting at 9:22pm.
_____________________________ ______________________________
Brenda B. Reaves B. Ray Jeffers
Clerk to the Board Chairman