The Greene County Board of Adjustments reconvened at the courthouse on Thursday night to continue its quasi-judicial hearing on NextEra Energy’s proposed solar facility, following a recess from their January meeting.

County Attorney Gay Stanley clarified the board's limited, quasi-judicial role: "They do not have the ability to change that ordinance. They don't have the ability to make any additions or pin deletions to it. They will just need to apply the four questions that are stated in the ordinance." She emphasized that the board was a fact-finding body, bound by the existing ordinance.

The four criteria, outlined by Stanley, were:

1. Will the use materially endanger public health or safety if located as proposed and developed according to the plan?

2. Does the use meet all required conditions and specifications, if used as permitted?

3. Will the use substantially injure the value of adjoining property or be a public nuisance?

4. Will the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan, be in harmony with the area?

NextEra had presented its initial evidence in January. This reconvened hearing allowed the public to present evidence specifically related to these four criteria. Stanley explained the rules: each speaker would be sworn in, and while general rules of evidence applied – "Hearsay, if you can, please try and refrain from that," she advised – the chairman would guide the proceedings, recognizing that most attendees were not legal professionals. She also noted the possibility of objections and cross-examination, while assuring the public that the board would disregard incompetent or irrelevant testimony.

The first speaker, a local real estate broker, expressed strong concerns about the facility's potential negative impact on property values. "I looked at what they sold for compared to what similar homes sold for within the same time period," the broker explained, detailing her comparative market analysis (CMA). Her research focused on home sales near existing solar farms in Greene County, comparing those prices to similar properties further away. She asserted a correlation between proximity to solar farms and decreased sale prices, citing specific examples and percentage differences. For instance, she highlighted a property near a solar farm that sold for only 2.34% over asking, while comparable properties outside the designated radius achieved an average of 4.41% over asking.

She presented data comparing specific sales near solar farms with comparable sales in other areas, attempting to demonstrate a pattern of lower values for properties proximate to existing solar facilities. However, she acknowledged that her analysis did not account for other factors influencing property values, such as the age or condition of the homes, lot sizes, or other nearby amenities or disamenities.

NextEra's attorney, Nick Tosco, began his cross-examination, focusing on the broker's qualifications and methodology. "Have you conducted appraisals before...do you have any certifications for appraising values of homes, other than being a licensed real estate broker?" he asked. He further inquired, "Have you done any appraisals in Greene County, or have you done any price comparables in Greene County, aside from this?" and "Did you have anybody peer review any of your comparable sales?"

Tosco underscored that the broker was not a licensed appraiser and that her analysis lacked formal peer review. He questioned her methodology, specifically her approach to comparing properties without adequately accounting for other variables. The broker conceded, "I do comparative market analysis, but I'm not a licensed appraiser. I guess you would say that each one was a CMA, comparing markets," confirming her work was a comparative market analysis, a tool used by realtors, not a formal appraisal.

Tosco then asked, "I know you pulled the sales, but did you conduct any methodology to account for the differences in those houses?" The broker responded, "I pulled the sales. The sales I pulled were comparable. So they were similar. Homes built within… most of them were built pretty close together, as far as… built within 10 to 20% of the square footage, same number of bedrooms, same number of bathrooms, very similar lot sizes.”

Tosco further questioned, "You mentioned that you looked at some columns, is that right, to see what the home values were nearby solar farms in Greene County versus not near solar farms? And do you know what other uses were with those home sales that were near the solar farm? What were the uses besides the solar farm?" The broker replied, "I don't recall seeing anything unusual. I mean, it's just like all of Greene County – homes and agriculture. I did look to see if I noticed any like poultry farms, hog farms. I did not notice any of those."

She also acknowledged that her analysis was not peer-reviewed, and that she had not conducted any prior appraisals specifically related to solar farms. Tosco pressed further, asking about the specific criteria she used to select comparable properties and whether she had considered factors beyond just proximity to solar farms.

NextEra then called their expert witness, Nick Kirkland, a state-certified general appraiser. Kirkland emphasized the importance of unbiased analysis in property valuation and detailed the methodologies used in professional appraisals, including matched pair analysis and sale resale analysis. He explained how these methods account for variables like property size, age, and location, which simple sales comparisons do not. "We're not allowed to just say, well, solar facilities don't have the impact...The details matter," Kirkland stressed. He presented data from a neighboring, comparable county, showing minimal to no impact on property values near an existing solar facility.

Kirkland also addressed the LSU study, which was previously referenced saying that they had already covered that topic earlier in intonation packet that they had presented to the board earlier. “ it’s on pagers 26 to 31. It's not actually a university study. It's a literature review done by an LSU professor, where they looked at other university studies that were done by other people and kind of put it all together in one.”

He critiqued the study’s methodology, arguing that it conflated numerous factors, such as high-voltage power lines and other industrial development, and incorrectly attributed any negative impact solely to the solar facilities. "They don't address any other potential uses that could be causing that impact within a mile," he argued. Kirkland explained the rigorous process appraisers use, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant factors and making appropriate adjustments for accurate valuations. He detailed the steps involved in a professional appraisal, including market research, property inspection, and analysis of comparable sales, emphasizing objectivity and thoroughness.

Board member Jessica Byrd inquired about the local fire department's readiness to handle potential incidents at the solar facility. Chelsey Lucas, NextEra's lead project developer, stated that NextEra Energy representatives had reached out to the local fire chief and would provide ongoing training to the fire department. Before she could continue, Tosco stood up and called NextEra's fire safety expert Evan Balcombe forward.

Balcombe, a 20-year FDNY veteran and captain of Engine 239 (Brooklyn, NY), testified as a consultant for Fire & Risk Alliance, outlining the comprehensive safety measures incorporated into the facility's design and operation.

He explained that the local fire department would receive annual, specialized training on the battery energy response plan, covering hazard mitigation analysis and the site-specific fire response plan. "The fire department's role will likely be non-intervention," he stated, explaining that the battery systems are designed with built-in safety mechanisms to self-extinguish or deactivate once the state of charge is reduced. "The need is the state of charge," he clarified, adding, "Once the energy is released, there's nothing left to burn on that." He emphasized that "exposure protection" would be the fire department's primary focus, ensuring nearby containers or structures are not impacted by a potential battery failure. "The fire department's task would be maybe to monitor the area with meters for gas… even carbon monoxide," he explained.

Balcombe also noted that the facility is designed and constructed to NFPA 855 standards, which include crucial safety features and spacing requirements to minimize risk and prevent extensive fire department intervention. "When built to NFPA 855, and the spacing is correct and the cabinets are far enough apart, you do not have exposure… any exposure to products," he asserted. He detailed the specific training firefighters would receive, including how to identify potential hazards, monitor gas levels, and manage potential incidents. He also discussed the facility's built-in safety features, such as automatic shut-off systems and temperature sensors, designed to prevent and mitigate potential fire hazards.

Chelsey Lucas, NextEra's lead project developer, then provided updates on community engagement and the decommissioning plan. She explained the financial assurance mechanisms, including bonding requirements, that would guarantee site restoration.

Tommy Hardy, a Lenoir County resident who owned a solar facility in Jones County for over eight years, spoke in favor of the project, citing his positive experiences. He emphasized it had been a "real plus plus" for him and his community, highlighting the tax revenue it generated. "It's been a plus plus for Jones County because of the tax money that it created that they would not have if it hadn't been put out," he explained. He further stated, "I can't imagine why it would be a big problem to have a solar farm. If it were, I would not be standing here. It's a good thing for the county and for everything we need – electricity, jobs, and the economy."

He shared his firsthand experience with the positive impact of a solar facility on his property and the surrounding area, emphasizing the lack of any negative effects. “I've had it for about 8 years and I haven't seen where it has impacted anything. I mean the hunting is still as good as it ever was. I still got plenty of animals out there.

Tosco delivered a closing statement, asserting that NextEra had presented "competent, material, and substantial evidence" supporting their application, and that no credible rebuttal had been offered. He reiterated the legal standard for special use permits, emphasizing the expert testimony. "Under North Carolina law, the board is obligated to issue a special use permit," Tosco argued, if the applicant meets the evidentiary burden.

Chairman Leslie Van Mooring then closed the finding of evidence portion of the hearing to allow the board time to begin its deliberations. They discussed the testimony presented, focusing primarily on the conflicting evidence regarding potential impacts on property values. Several board members expressed reservations about the reliability of the comparative sales data presented by the local real estate broker, citing her lack of formal appraisal credentials, the absence of any peer review of her analysis, and the acknowledged limitations of her methodology in accounting for other factors influencing real estate prices. They noted the discrepancies between her findings and the data presented by NextEra's expert appraiser, Nick Kirkland, who had emphasized the rigorous methodology used in professional appraisals and presented data suggesting minimal impact on property values in comparable areas.

The board also discussed the testimony from the fire safety expert, noting the comprehensive safety measures incorporated into the facility's design and the assurances of ongoing training for the local fire department.

After a thorough review of the evidence and testimony, the board concluded that NextEra had presented sufficient evidence to meet the requirements for a special use permit. They determined that the applicant had addressed the four key criteria outlined in the ordinance, including public health and safety, compliance with regulations, impact on property values, and harmony with the surrounding area. While acknowledging the concerns raised about property values, the board ultimately found the testimony of the expert appraiser, Nick Kirkland, to be more persuasive and credible than the comparative sales data presented by the real estate broker.