The Yadkin County Board of Adjustments deliberates on a conditional use permit for a proposed solar farm on Shady Grove Church Road.
A conditional use permit for a proposed solar farm on Shady Grove Church Road in the Smithtown community was denied by the Yadkin County Board of Adjustments on Monday. The three to two vote against the conditional use permit came after nearly an hour and half of testimony from neighbors opposed to the project. On Sept. 14 proponents and representatives for the company proposing the solar farm presented in favor of the project. Both public hearings were evidentiary hearings with those speaking for or against the project sworn in as in a court of law.
During Monday’s meeting some speakers were cut short by Board of Adjustments Chairman Richard Foster when they began to present opinions rather than facts, but others were allowed to speak uninterrupted.
Dale Poindexter who owns neighboring property to the proposed project was the first to speak, expressing concern that deforestation to create the solar farm would lead to flooding in the creek that passes through his property. Poindexter claimed that deforestation of another parcel of land nearby in 2017 has lead to an increase in the swelling of the creek during heavy rains.
“It made a difference. We’re about to get more deforestation,” Poindexter said, referencing the map of the proposed solar farm project.
Attorney for the solar farm project Tom Terrell noted his objection to Poindexter’s testimony as he was not qualified as an engineer. Poindexter added that he did have engineer training from Wingate and had worked as an engineer.
Also addressing concerns about erosion and water was Dr. Brian Fannon with the Yadkin River Keeper organization who completed his PHD research on rivers.
“Coming to this in my capacity is a little unusual,” Fannon noted. “Solar farms are not usually something we contend with with water quality.”
Fannon explained that a four-year study on water quality of the Yadkin had recently been completed with findings that sedimentation from runoff was one of the primary concerns with water quality for the Yadkin River. He also noted that more than 800,000 people in the river basin use water out of the Yadkin River. While Fannon said the solar farm industry had been good for North Carolina he added that many of the prime spots to locate such facilities have been taken and spots now being considered for solar farms were perhaps functional but not ideal with steeper terrain involved that could funnel water and create runoff issues.
“My primary concern with this plan is that it is worded very much like an older application where they were dealing with land that was very well suited to solar facilities where runoff could be controlled very easily,” Fannon said.
Allen Poindexter, another neighbor with engineering and project management experience, also spoke to concerns that the proposed plans did not seem as “buttoned up” and thorough as they should be and lacked clarity.
“What I’ve seen so far would be what I consider a rough draft,” he said.
Foster noted that it was the industry standard to begin with a rough draft version of the plan prior to final approval for the zoning so as to avoid the expense of more detailed designs until there was authorization to proceed with the project.
Emily Hazen was next to speak, sharing some of her background growing up near the property in question and moving back to the area to raise her three children. She was interrupted by Foster and told she must speak on areas of expertise or certification.
“I understand you live there but that really doesn’t pertain to this hearing,” Foster said.
“I would have to disagree, it changes the fundamentals of your lifestyle,” Hazen replied before returning to her seat.
Several additional neighbors spoke in opposition to the proposal noting again concerns about the creek, as well as concerns about the visibility of the site from neighboring properties. Danielle Summerfield, a former realtor and neighbor to the property in question, contended that some of the real estate data shared at the September meeting did not accurately match with the Shady Grove Church Rd. property for proper comparison.
Terrell again objected to Summerfield’s testimony as she was not a land appraiser, but Foster noted that Summerfield was not discussing appraisals but comps that realtors regularly pull to determine a price.
Another neighboring property owner, Linda Wayne claimed not to be “an expert on anything” though said she had worked with the EPA. Though not sharing any facts for testimony she was allowed to proceed, during which time she began to directly question representatives for the solar farm asking them questions regarding the heat index, issues with reflection from the panels and possible noise from alarms on the entrance gate to the farm.
“Is the vinyl siding on my house going to curl? Somebody, hearsay, told me that they couldn’t go down their driveway two times a day because the reflection was so strong,” said Wayne.
Representatives for the solar farm assured Wayne none of those concerns would be an issue.
Amie Brendle gave a closing statement on behalf of the neighbors opposed to the project. Though not sharing an expert testimony on the matter, Brendle was allowed to proceed.
“I along with quite a few others never imagined ourselves in these positions, a position that puts us in the middle and in opposition of friends, family and neighbors. Going forward however, our greatest fear is watching these discussions and decisions dividing and tearing apart our small community of Smithtown,” said Brendle.
She also referenced the county seal with its imagery of farmland and grapes.
“Not so sure tourism would be attracted to the industrial solar facilities,” said Brendle. “Exactly how much do want to fundamentally change the literal landscape and identity of our county?”
As the proponents of the project testified at the Sept. 14 hearing, they spoke very little during Monday’s proceedings though they did answer a few questions from the board and other meeting attendees.
At the close of the meeting, Board of Adjustments member Scott Pipes motioned and Charles Collins seconded approval of the conditional use permit. Pipes and Collins voted for the permit with Foster, Bud Matthews and Ricky Roberts voting against.
Foster declined to announce the reason for the denial during the meeting though a specific reason will be required to note on the paperwork denying the conditional use permit, said Dawn Vallieres of the Yadkin County Planning Department.
The applicants can appeal to superior court or they can reapply, Vallieres said. Terrell said neither he nor his clients would comment at this time on the denial of the permit.
Kitsey Burns Harrison may be reached at 336-258-4035 or on Twitter and Instagram @RippleReporterK.