Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
32 <br /> 1 Michael Fox: So you have an opinion, but you didn't test it. <br /> 2 <br /> 3 Bob Thomas: The only thing that I could think of to test it against would be with solar farms <br /> 4 that would be in similar subdivisions, and I don't know of any of those. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Michael Fox: Did you look for any of those? <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Bob Thomas: No, I did not. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Michael Fox: I don't have any further questions. Thank you. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 David Rooks: At this time, we would call Mr. John Petranka. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 John Petranka referred to the following items, as submitted to the clerk, in his testimony: <br /> 15 <br /> 16 May 27, 2014 <br /> 17 <br /> 18 To the Planning Board and County Commissioners: <br /> 19 <br /> 20 My name is John Petranka and my wife is Sally Gewalt. We have lived in the Falls of New <br /> 21 Hope Neighborhood on the corner of Falls Drive and Cascade Drive since 1991. We chose to <br /> 22 live in this neighborhood intentionally and specifically because it is located within the Rural <br /> 23 Buffer where we believed that thoughtful zoning regulations would work to preserve the rural <br /> 24 qualities of Orange County. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 We are writing to express our strongest opposition to granting a Class A Special Use Permit for <br /> 27 the solar power development proposed to be built directly across the street from our home at <br /> 28 2531 Falls Drive. We think that a development of this size (ca. 20 acres of panels) is not in <br /> 29 harmony with the existing neighborhood and its surroundings. The fact that it is sited directly <br /> 30 adjacent to the gateway to our long-established neighborhood will cause us (and our neighbors) <br /> 31 to unjustly bear a large penalty in terms of noise, visual blight and reduced property values. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 My general objections to the proposed development are: <br /> 34 <br /> 35 1. A development of this size and industrial nature is inappropriate within the Rural Buffer, and <br /> 36 does not serve to promote the values for which the Buffer was established. In addition I question <br /> 37 whether this project is truly a public necessity, or whether it is more properly seen as an <br /> 38 investment opportunity for the developers to take advantage of before tax incentives expire. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 2. Even if one argues that such a development could be appropriate within the Rural Buffer, the <br /> 41 siting of this proposed project is inappropriate, being directly adjacent to a long-established ca. <br /> 42 100 home neighborhood. More personally, it is within 75 feet or so from our property (and even <br /> 43 closer to some of our neighbors) and will almost certainly result in our and our neighbors' <br /> 44 property values decreasing. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 3. The process thus far has been skewed heavily towards the applicants. From the date that the <br /> 47 certified letters from Orange County arrived on Saturday May 10, we have had only eleven <br /> 48 business days (Monday the 26th being Memorial Day) to digest the information in the <br /> 49 application, attempt to hire legal representation, and obtain appraisals and other credible <br /> 50 evidence with which to advocate against the project. Of course, this is in addition to trying to <br /> 51 balance work and family life. On the other hand, the applicants submitted the application in early <br />