Franklin County A Natural Settingfor Opportumity AGENDA FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GOVERNMENT CENTER BOARDROOM, 1255 FRANKLIN STREET, ROCKY MOUNT VA TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2025, at 3:00 PM Citizens wishing to submit a public comment may contact Amy Renick, Clerk to the Board, via email at musaeiasrsarwaes or at (540) 483-3030 before 5:00 PM on June 16, 2025. 3:00 Call to Order, Chairman Ronnie Thompson 3:01 Invocation, Supervisor Tim Tatum 3:04 Pledge of Allegiance, Supervisor Dan Quinn 3:05 Approval of Agenda 3:06 CONSENT AGENDA (REQUIRES ACTION) Approval of Appropriations and Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2025, and May 22, 2025. 1. Housing Application Grants Request (Attachment #1) 2. Landfill Equipment Bids Approval (Attachment #2) 3. Permitting and Budgeting Software (Attachment #3) 4. Old Chapel Road Collection Site Bid Award (Attachment #4) 5. Comprehensive Plan Adoption (Attachment #5) 6. FY: 25-26 Budget Appropriation Resolution (Attachment #6) 7. Virginia Make Ready Initiative (VMRI) Grant Acceptance (Attachment #7) 8. Polystyrene Food Service Container Ban (Attachment #8) 3:13 Brian Casella, VDOT Resident Engineer 1. Monthly Report (Attachment #9) 3:20 Brian Carter, Deputy County Administrator 1. Monthly Finance Report 3:30 School Updates - Dr. Kevin Siers (Attachment #10) 1. State Literacy Act Grant Carry Over Appropriation 2. State Supported Bonus Request 3. FY 23- 24 Carry Over 3:40 [BREAK] 3:45 Village Plan Updates Steven Sandy, Deputy County Administrator and Lisa Cooper, Director of Planning and Development Services 4:00 Parks and Recreation Project & Facilities Updates- Brandy Rosser, Assistant County Administrator and Paul Chapman, Director of Parks & Recreation 4:20 County Administrator Report, Christopher Whitlow 1. Upcoming Events 2. Other Matters 4:25 County Attorney Report, Jim Guynn Jr. 4:30 Other Matters by Supervisors 4:40 Request for Closed Meeting in Accordance with 2.2-3711, (A)(1), Personnel Discussion of appointments to County Boards, Commissions, etc.; (A) (3) Discussion of the acquisition of real property or the disposition of real property; (A) (5) discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry; (A)(8) Consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel; (A) (29) discussion of the terms of a public contract, of the Code of Virginia, as Amended. Certification of Closed Meeting in Accordance with 2.2-3712 (d), of the Code of Virginia, as Amended. Recess for Dinner 6:00 Call to Order, Chairman Thompson 6:01 Public Hearings SECONDARY SIX YEAR PLAN - VDOT (Attachment #11) APPLICATION for SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Application of Edwards Solar Farm, LLC, Applicants, and Penny Edwards Blue, Ronald B Edwards, and Ruby E Penn, Owners, requesting a special use permit on an approximate 109 acres of property zoned A-1, Agricultural District. The parcels are located on Edwardsway Road in the Union Hall Election District of Franklin County and further identified by real estate records as Tax Map/Parcel #0660010100 and 0660003900. The purpose of this special use permit request is to construct and operate a solar generator facility, utility scale with a maximum nameplate capacity up to 5-Megawatts alternating current (MWac). This property has a future land use designation of Agriculture; Forestry/Rural Residential (SPEC-03-25-18247. (Attachment #12) APPOINTMENTS (Attachment #13) Public Comment Period (if any citizen wishes to speak) Adjournment Recess until the June 24, 2025, Board of Supervisors Regular Work Session at 2:00 PM (June 19, 2025 is a Holiday) Franklin County ANanrafsetingfer Opportunity AGENDA FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GOVERNMENT CENTER, ROOM B75, 1255 FRANKLIN STREET, ROCKY MOUNT VA TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2025, 2:00 PM 3:00 Call to Order, Chairman Ronnie Thompson 3:01 Invocation, Supervisor Mike Carter 3:04 Pledge of Allegiance, Supervisor Nick Mitchell 3:06 Approval of Agenda 3:10 WORK SESSIONS Capital Improvement Facilities Planning Recess until Tuesday, July 15, 2025, at 2:00 PM for the Broadband Authority meeting followed by the 3:00 p.m. regular Board of Supervisors Meeting. - 1 Franklin County A Natural Settingfor Opportunity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: June 17, 2025 Housing Application Grants Request CONSENT AGENDA: Yes UNECIEROPOANREQLEST: BOARD ACTION: Yes Authorization to apply for housing grants to benefit INFORMATION: No the Westlake DGA ATTACHMENTS: No STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUS AREA: Dynamic Community Safety STAFF CONTACT(S): M Strategic Economic Development Dani Poe, Director of Economic Development & Steven Sandy, Deputy Enhanced Educational Opportunities County Administrator Responsible Government Operations Conserve & Promote Natural Assets REVIEWED BY: M Well Planned Growth Christopher L. Whitlow, County Administrator BACKGROUND: Franklin County has identified several Villages, also known as Designated Growth Areas (DGAs) as part of long-range planning to strategically guide future development. These areas, located along Route 220 corridor, Westlake, Ferrum and Union Hall, were selected based on their existing infrastructure, proximity to employment centers, and potential to support compact, sustainable growth. These DGAS serve as a focal point for targeted investment and development, including housing, infrastructure, and economic opportunities. Aligning with state and regional priorities, Franklin County seeks to use these areas to proactively address housing needs and expand general housing with an intentional focus on workforce housing options. DISCUSSION: To support the planning and implementation of housing in the Westlake DGA, Franklin County is actively pursuing state and regional partnerships and funding opportunities: Virginia Housing Planning Grants: The County is working in collaboration with the West Piedmont Planning District Commission (WPPDC) to apply for Virginia Housing's planning grants. These funds, if awarded, will support the development of site-specific housing strategies in the Westlake designated growth area, with a focus on housing type, infrastructure capacity, zoning, and community input. This grant program requires no local funding match. Future Grant Opportunities: As the planning process advances, the County will evaluate and pursue additional funding sources, including: o The Tobacco Region Revitalization Commission's (TRRC) Pilot Housing Development Grant, which supports site development and infrastructure improvements for new housing in eligible localities. The Governor's Housing Development Grant, designed to catalyze shovel-ready housing projects and encourage public-private partnerships across the Commonwealth. These grants, when leveraged together, will allow the County to better prepare and position key parcels for development, improve infrastructure readiness, and support the creation of mixed-income housing developments aligned with local needs. Iti is anticipated that any required local match funding for such grants can be provided through the existing budgeted Village Improvement Funds (available FY 25-26 $453,166.00) and Infrastructure Development Funds (available FY 25-26 $691,284.00) within the Planning and Economic Development capital budgets. It is also anticipated that private investment will be leveraged against these state and local funds. Through this multi-pronged approach, Franklin County is taking proactive steps to prepare for responsible growth. The integration of targeted planning, regional partnerships, and external grant funding will strengthen the County's capacity to deliver affordable, accessible, and high-quality housing in designated growth areas-supporting long-term economic vitality and community well- being. RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully requests approval from the Board to apply for grants from the following agencies as the project planning continues; Virginia Housing Planning Grants, Tobacco Region Revitalization Commission Pilot Housing Development Grant, the Governor's Housing Development Grant and other grants as applicable in partnership with the West Piedmont Planning District Commission. This action will support the County's continued efforts to plan for housing development in the DGA's and position the County to pursue additional funding opportunities as planning progresses. As specific applications requiring local matching funds are developed, staff will bring the applications back before the board for funding authorization. POSSIBLE BOARD ACTIONS: MOTION to APPROVE: I move that the Franklin County Board of Supervisors authorize staff to apply for the VA Housing Planning Grant in partnership with the West Piedmont Planning District Commission, to support housing development efforts in the Westlake designated growth area. No local match for this specific grant is required at this time. MOTION to TABLE: I make a motion to table the request until further information is provided. MOTION to DENY: make a motion to deny the request to apply for the VA Housing Planning Grant in partnership with the West Piedmont Planning District Commission, to support housing development efforts. - 2 Franklin County A. Mmral Serting for Opportity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: June 17, 2025 Landfill Equipment Purchase CONSENT AGENDA: Yes BUBIECTEROPOSALREQUESTE BOARD ACTION: Yes Approval of the purchase of Landfill Equipment INFORMATION: No through the Sourcewell Contract ATTACHMENTS: No STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUS AREA: STAFF CONTACT - Dynamic Community Safety Messrs. Sandy, Sink, Gauldin Strategic Economic Development Enhanced Educational Opportunities REVIEWED BY: V Responsible Government Operations Christopher L. Whitlow, County Administrator - M Conserve & Promote Natural Assets N R Well Planned Growth BACKGROUND: Franklin County maintains a closed and an open landfill at 9340 Virgil Goode Highway (Route 220 South) in Rocky Mount, Virginia. This landfill is permitted by DEQ (SWP-072) and DEQ(SWP-577). The landfill accepts waste from both industrial and residential sources in Franklin County. It must maintain the necessary equipment to process waste efficiently, in accordance with the regulations of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DISCUSSION: The work of processing approximately 300 tons of refuse a day requires various pieces of heavy equipment. In order to purchase reliable equipment under the rules of procurement, the County has used the Cooperative Procurement agreement, Sourcewell, for large equipment purchases in the past. Sourcewell allows the County to participate in the bid process while also relying on the product knowledge that Sourcewell provides. The County also implemented an equipment rebuild program to preserve the equipment we can without having to buy new equipment. Unfortunately, the Cat 325 excavator we have at the landfill has passed its useful life, and it would cost more to rebuild it than to purchase a new one. The cost for the new Excavator is $349,494, and staff would also like to purchase a Caterpillar H130 Hydraulic Hammer to fit the new excavator under the same Source Well Contract for $53,512. The landfill will keep the Cat 325 excavator and use it for handling tires; this excavator will be able to handle the light load of moving tires. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors authorize staff to purchase a new CAT 330 excavator and a Caterpillar H130 Hydraulic Hammer to fit the CAT 330 excavator through Sourcewell Contract #011723-CAT. Funds have been budgeted and are available in the 2024-2025 Landfill Equipment Capital Account 00.00036-0004-57001, POSSIBLE BOARD ACTIONS: MOTION to APPROVE: I make a motion to authorize staff to purchase a new CAT 330 excavator and a H130 Hydraulic Hammer to fit the CAT 330 excavator through Sourcewell Contract #011723-CAT. Funding is budgeted and will come from the 2025-2026 Landfill Equipment Capital Account (30-00-036-0004- 57001). MOTION to TABLE: I move to table the purchase of a new CAT 330 excavator and a H130 Hydraulic Hammer to fit the CAT 330 excavator through the Sourcewell Contract #011723-CAT. Funding will come from the 2024-2025 Landfill Equipment Capital Account 0000036004-57001, MOTION to DENY: I move to deny the purchase of a new CAT 330 excavator and a H130 Hydraulic Hammer to fit the CAT 330 excavator through Sourcewell Contract #011723-CAT. Funding will come from the 2024- 2025 Landfill Equipment Capital Account 8000.036-00457001, Carter CAT Jun 10, 2025 FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1255 FRANKLIN: ST, STE 112 ROCKY MOUNT, VA 24151 Attention: BARRY SINK RE: Quote 216275-03 On behalf of Carter Machinery Company, Inc., thank you for the opportunity lo offer this quote for your consideration. Sourcewell Contract #011723-CAT Member Discounts Included Cat Mode!: 330-07CF10 Excavator with all standard equipment in addition to the additional specifications ID# : 1063100 SERIAL NUMBER : OWCH60294 YEAR . HOURS : MACHINE SPECIFIÇATIONS Description Reference No List 330 07H HEX AM-N CFG1 651-5807 $334,410.00 TRACK, 31"TG 516-8657 $5,170.00 GUARD, TRACK GUIDING.SEGMENTED 346-7150 $2,250.00 BOOM, REACH. 20'2" 577-5867 $10,640.00 STICK, R10'6" 635-9398 $5,970.00 LINKAGE, BKT CB2 W/EYE GRADE 521 8015 $3,735.00 CYLINDER, STICK 635 2974 $4,780.00 CYLINDER, BUCKET CB2 635-2971 $3,055.00 HYDRAULIC PKG, COMB ADV 597-0955 $12,380.00 CONTROL, QC 517-4758 $1,120.00 LINES, HP, REACH BOOM 562-6221 $1,460.00 LINES, QC, REACH BOOM 516-7688 $1,585.00 LINES-HP, R10'6" STICK 356-8134 $1,465.00 LINES-QC, R10'6" STICK 321-0150 $1,515.00 COUPLER, PG WIO PIN CB 455-3912 $10,875.00 JOYSTICKS, VERTICAL SLIDER 528-6835 $1,540.00 WIPER, RADIAL W/LOWER 484-8022 $375.00 CAMERA, 360 VISIBILITY 578-7636 $2,820.00 LIGHTS, CAB, W/RAIN PROTECTOR 577-8973 $910.00 LIGHTS PKG, REACH & SLR BOOM 581-1525 $372.00 MIRROR, CAB, W/O GUARD 580-8628 $138.00 GRADE 2D ASSIST & PAYLOAD 624-7796 $0.00 GRADE SENSOR, R10'6" STICK 621-6785 $0.00 PROD LINK, PLE643/PLE743 RADIO 594-9052 $0.00 JOYSTICK STEER AUX RELAY PKG 617-0334 $1,335.00 GUARD, BOTTOM HD 576-9456 $2,270.00 STORAGE TRAY 576-9461 $60.00 Page 1 of 2 Description Reference No List BATTERIES, 4 636-1106 $1,170.00 SCREEN, RADIATOR 549-2633 $279.00 INTEGRATED RADIO, W/O DAB 502-7166 $725.00 ROLL ON-ROLL OFF OG-4202 $171.00 CYLINDER, BOOM 516-8457 $8,260.00 BKT HD 48" 1.74YD3 CB 541-1748 $13,722.00 TIP, HEAVY DUTY ADVANSYS 505-4002 $925.00 SIDECUTTERS, HEAVY DUTY 357-2698 $1,451.00 PIN GROUP, SPARE 268-4450 $1,882.00 THUMB GROUP 559-5518 $19,125.00 BRACKET GP 385-9614 $1,215.00 CONNECTOR LINES, THUMB 418-0310 $1,507.00 SELL PRICE $353,494.00 EXT WARRANTY Included CSA Included LESS TRADE ALLOWANCE ($4,000.00) NET BALANCE DUE $349,494.00 TRADE-INS Model Make Serial Number Year Trade Allowance 963b CAT (AA) 9BL03218 1999 $4,000.00 WARRAMTYIEXTENDED COVERAGE Standard Warranty: 12 Months/Unlimited Hours Extended Warranty: 330-84 MO/5000 HR POWERTRAIN + HYDRAULICS + TECH, TT&M 84/5000 CSA FILTER KITS THRU 3000HR F.O.B/TERMS : Customer Site Thank you for the opportunity to provide you a quote for your equipment needs. This quotation is valid for 30 All machines subject to prior sale. If there are any questions, please do not hesitale to contact me. days. are Sincerely. Michael G. Hunt Governmental Machine Sales Direct Dial 804-823-1036 Page 2 of 2 CATERPILLAR MACHINE PRICE LIST 330 330 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR AKASHI, JAPAN Ship Weight LIST PRICE lbs AT DEALER Standard Equipment: POWERTRAIN SAFETY AND SECURITY C7.1 Twin Turbo U.S. EPA TIER 4 FINAL RH hand rall and hand hold EU STAGE V AND JAPAN 2014, (ISO 2867 compliant) diesel engine Service platform with anti-skid plate Electric fuel priming pump and countersunk bolts Reversible electric cooling fans Hydraulic lock out lever neutralizes Two-stage fuel fltration system with all controls water separator and indicator Ground level accessible secondary engine 2x115 amp. dual altemnator shutoff switch in cab Sealed double element air flter with Signaling / warning hom integrated pre-cleaner Blodiesel capable (up to B20) OTHER STANDARD EQUIPMENT Side entry to service platform UNDERCARRIAGE Grouped location for engine oll Grease lubricated track link and fuel Aiters Tie down points on base frame Ground level 2nd dipstick for engine oil (ISO 15818 compliant) Sampling ports for scheduled oil Sampling (S.O.S) HYDRAULICS Electronlc main control valve Auto warm up Tandem type electronlc main pump (165cc/rev) Electric boom regeneration circuit Stick regeneration circuit Automatic two speed travel Boom and stick drift reduction valve Element type main hydraullc Alter ELECTRICAL Maintenance free battery Centralized electrical disconnect switch CAT product link After engine shut down, programmable time delay LED working lights: One chassis mounted, one LH boom mounted OPERATOR ENVIRONMENT Sound suppressed ROPS cab (ISO 12117-2 compliant) with viscous mount Increased rear window size as emergency exdt 2" (51MM) orange seat belt Tut up left side console Automatic bi-level air conditioner with pressurized function Washable floor mat Roller front sunscreen Beacon ready 2x 12V DCoutlet Dome and lower LED Interior lghts, coat hook, cup holder, console storage, rear storage with net, and overhead storage with net CATERPILLAR SOURCEWELLI MACHINE QUOTATION: MODEL CAT 330 Contract Agency: FRANKLIN COUNTY Date Quoted: 6/10/2025 RFQ/Solicitation #: Quote Expires: 7/10/2025 Contracting Officer: Phone: Quote Prapared by: Email: Michael Hunt Customer/End User: BARRY SINK Governmental Machine Sales Phone: Carler Machinery Co., Inc Fax: 804-823-1036 E-Mail: 804-730-4866 Address: PartNumber Description ListPrice 651-5807 33007HHEX AM-N CFG1 $334,410.00 516-8657 TRACK. 3TG $5,170.00 346-7150 GUARD, TRACK GUIDINGSEGMENTED $2.250.00 577-5867 BOOM, REACH2 202 $10,640.00 635-9398 STICK, R106" $5.970.00 521-8015 LINKAGE, BKTCB2V WIEYE GRADE $3,735.00 635-2974 CYLINDER. STICK $4,780.00 635-2971 CYLINDER, BUCKETCB2 $3,055.00 597-0955 HYORAULIC PKG. COMBA ADV $12,380.00 517-4758 CONTROL, QC $1,120.00 562-6221 LINES, HP, REACH BOOM $1,460.00 516-7688 LINES, QC. REACH BOOM $1,585.00 356-8134 LINES-HP, R106 STICK 51,465.00 321-0150 LINES-QC. R10'6" STICK $1.515.00 455-3912 COUPLER, PG WIOPINCB $10.875.00 528-6835 TOISTOSVEICARIOE $1,540.00 484-8022 WIPER. RADIAL WILOWER 5375.00 578-7636 CAMERA, 360 VISIBILITY $2.820.00 577-8973 LIGHTS. CA8, WIRAIN PROTECTOR $910.00 581-1525 LIGHTS PKG. REACH & SLR BOOM $372.00 580-8628 MIRROR. CAB. WIO GUARD $138.00 624-7796 GRADE 20 ASSIST &PAYLOAD $0.00 621-6785 GRADE SENSOR, R10'6" STICK $0.00 594-9052 PRODLINK, PLI E643/PLE743 RAOIO $0.00 617-0334 JOYSTICK STEER AUX RELAYPKG $1.335.00 576-9456 GUARD, BOTTOMI HD $2.270.00 576-9461 STORAGE TRAY $60.00 636-1106 BATTERIES, $1,170.00 549-2633 SCREEN. RADIATOR $279.00 502-7166 INTEGRATED RADI0., WIO DAB $725.00 OG-4202 ROLLON-ROLLOFF $171.00 516-8457 CYLINDER, BOOM $8.260.00 541-1748 BKTHD 48" 1.74YD3 CB $13,722.00 505-4002 TIP,HEAVY DUTYADVANSYS $925.00 357-2698 SIDECUTTERS HEAVY DUTY $1,451.00 268-4450 PINGROUP, SPARE $1,882.00 559-5518 THUMB GROUP 519,125.00 385-9614 BRACKETGP $1,215.00 418-0310 CONNECTOR LINES. THUMB $1,507.00 Total List Price (USD): s 460,662 Less ou well Oiscount 28.0 .00% $ (128.985) Net Price Factory ttems: $ 331,677 Open Market Items Rem No. Description 1 NetPrice frem Faclory Freigh e ltem 2 330-84 MO/5000 HRF POWERTRAIN EHYORAULCSITECHO TT&M 84/5000 20,512 5,055 em3 FILTER KITS THRU 3000HR llem 4 S 2.860 llem 5 Trade In 1999 Cat 963B SN 9BL03218 S [tem 6 (4.000) Item 7 Cuslomer Loyally/FRANKLI LIN COUNTY) $ (6,610) Total Net Price F.O.B. Dellvered 3 349,494 Stendard Waranbptenrs /0 Unlimited Hours This quote is made ina accordance with Sourcewell 330 Quole #011723-CAT. 6-10-25.xis Cat Inc. is the sole contract Contract hoider E #011723-CAT and retains all obligations fore contract compliance pertaining to potential delivery orders for associated with this quote mada on behalf of Cat Inc. by Carter Machinery Co. Inc. Carter CAT Jun10, 2025 FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1255 FRANKLIN ST, STE 112 ROCKY MOUNT, VA 24151 Attention: Jeff Gauldin RE: Quote 214666-02 On behalf of Carter Machinery Company, Inc., thank you for the opportunity lo offer this quote for your consideralion. Sourcewell Contract #011723-CAT Member Discounts Included Cat Model: WT-HAMR Work Tools with all standard equipment in addition to the additional specifications ID# : SERIAL NUMBER : YEAR : HOURS MACHINE SPECIFICATIONS Description Reference No List H130GC S FLAT TOP HAMMER 609-2819 $61,069.00 BRACKET, MOUNTING CB 567-1406 $4,167.00 LINES, CONNECTING 615-5288 $722.00 TOOL, MOIL 565-8766 $1,292.00 SELL PRICE $53,512.00 NET BALANCE DUE $53,512.00 WARRANTYIEXTENDED COVERAGE Standard Warranty: 24 Months/2000 Hours F.O.B/TERMS : Delivered Thank you for the opportunity to provide you a quote for your equipment needs. This quotation is valid for 30 All machines are subject to prior sale. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. days. Sincerely. Michael G.Hunt Governmental Machine Sales Direct Dial 804-823-1036 Page 1 of 1 CATERPILLAR MACHINE PRICE LIST WT-HAMR WORK TOOLS HAMMERS Ship Weight List Price Ibs At Factory Standard Equipmenc : THIS IS THE WORK TOOLS PRICE LIST FOR HYDRAULIC HAMMERS. FOR ORDERING PLEASE FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS STATED PER GROUP OF PRODUCTS. ALL ORDERS MUST BE DONE THROUGH CMOPS. FOR AMERICAS NORTH: FOR QUESTIONS, SUPPORT AND 9UOTATIONS PLEASE CONTACT THE SALES SUPPORT TEAM IN AMERICAS NORTH VIA EMAIL AT WORKTOOLSBCAT.COM FOR. AMERICAS SOUTH: FOR gUESTIONS, SUPPORT AND gUOTATIONS PLEASE CONTACT THE SALES SUPPORT TEAM IN AMERICAS NORTH VIA DOCS STABILITY Always check the machine configuration with the desired work tool combination on stabilty. This price list only Indi- possible tool-machine combinations WARNING: Demolition tools can create a hazard from flying objects. Caterpillar recom- mends installing front guards on the cabs of the excavators. Failure to do so can lead to injury or death. CANCELLATION: Custom made work tools can not be cancelled. Cancellation can only be done after written approval by CWTS. Without approval the cancellation will not be accepted. RETURN POLICY: No custom made products can be returned For all other products you require approval by CWTS before returning. After approval a Return Goods Authorization will glven. Products send to CWTS without this RGA can be returned to shipper freight collect. PLEASE CONSULT DWING FOR ACTUAL AVAILABILITY. Supersedes 27MAR2025 Subject to change without notice Elfective Caterpillar: Confidential Green Printedin USA 22MAV2025 United States D U. S. DOLLAR CURRENCY WT-HAMR-001 CATERPILLAR MACHINE PRICE LIST WT-HAMR WORK TOOLS - HAMMERS Ship Weight List Price lbs At Factory HYDRAULIC HAMMERS PERFORMANCE SERIES HAMMERS -Life Cycle Performance (Premium) -High pressure accumulator (H110-H180) -Slip ft thrust ring -Slip At upper and lower toot bushing -Sound suppression (Silenced hammers) -Shock absorption (Buffer systems) -Auto Shut off (against blank Aring) -Wear plates (H110-H180) -Optional wear package (HI40-H180) -Pre-drilled for Optional Autolube -greasing (H110-H180) GC S-SERIES HAMMERS -Life Cycle Value (Mid-tier hammer) -Simplifled product design -Reliable performance -Large tool dlameter -Low Owning and Operating cost -Fleld replaceable lower tool bushing Supersedes 27MAR2025 Subject to change without notice Caterpillar: Confidential Green Printed in USA Eflective 22MAY2025 United States D U.S DOLLAR CURRENCY WT-HAMR-002 CATERPILLAR SOURCEWELL MACHINE QUOTATION: MODEL CAT H130GC Hammer Contract Agency: FRANKLIN COUNTY Date Quoted: 6/10/2025 RFQ/Solicitation #: Quote Expires: 7/10/2025 Contracting Officer: Phone: Quote Prepared by: Email: Michael Hunt Customer/End User: Jeff Gauldin Governmental Machine Sales Phone: Carter Machinery Co., Inc Fax: 804-823-1036 E-Mail: 804-730-4866 Address: michael huntpcatemachisanxcon Part Number Description List Price 609-2819 H130GC S FLAT TOP HAMMER $61,069.00 567-1406 BRACKET, MOUNTING CB $4,167.00 615-5288 LINES, CONNECTING $722.00 565-8766 TOOL, MOIL $1,292.00 Total List Price (USD): $ 67,250 Less Sourcewell Discount 25.00% $ (16,813) Net Price Factory Items: $ 50,438 Open Market Items ltem No. Description Net 1 Price lem Freight, Prep and Delivery $ Item 2 24 Months/2000 Hours Warranty Included 4,583 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 llem 6 Item 7 Customer Loyally ( FRANKLIN COUNTY) $ (1,509) Total Net Price F.O.B. . Delivered $ 53,512 Standard Warranty 24 Months / 2000 Hours This quote Is made In accordance with Sourcewell Contract #0T723-CAT. Cat Inc. is the sole contract Contract #011723-CAT and retains all obligations for contract compliance pertaining to potential delivery holder orders for associated with this quote made on behalf of Cat Inc. by Carter Machinery Co., Inc. Page 1 of 1 130GC Hammer Sourcewell Quote 6-10-25.xls 3 Franklin County A NawalSetting/ far Oppartnity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: June 17, 2025 Permitting and Budgeting Solutions Contract Approval CONSENT AGENDA: Yes SUBJECT/PROPOSALREQUEST: BOARD ACTION: Yes Request Board approval of contract with Vertosoft for INFORMATION: No the implementation of the Permitting and Budgeting solutions with OpenGov ATTACHMENTS: Yes STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUS AREA: STAFF CONTACT(S): Dynamic Community Safety Sandy, Carter, Cooper, Broughton Strategic Economic Development REVIEWED BY: Enhanced Educational Opportunities Christopher L. Whitlow, County Administratgn à - Responsible Government Operations Conserve & Promote Natural Assets Well Planned Growth BACKGROUND: In 2008, the County decided to utilize a permitting software system known as Energov for building permits, inspections and zoning functions. This system was updated several times over the past several years and Energov was ultimately purchased by Tyler Technologies, Inc. Staff has utilized this software since that time and paid for an annual support contract as well as additional support features for more expedited review and resolution of issues with the system. In the past couple years, staff has continued to experience issues with the system and/or response times to resolve issues. This has oftentimes resulted in added approval times for permit applications. Earlier this year, building and planning staff began to explore the possibilities of a new development review permitting system for the County. At the same time, the County Finance Office was exploring proposals for a new budgeting software system. Efforts for both focused on one firm that had the ability to provide both products and could offer a cost-effective solution. The Planning, Building, and Finance Departments had the unique opportunity to collaborate on this software implementation project that will gain efficiencies in operations and provide additional resources to serve the citizens of Franklin County. DISCUSSION: After months of research, the team identified the products from OpenGov, Inc. as the products that would best meet the needs of all departments while also being cost-effective. OpenGov Inc. is a government technology company that offers cloud software for public sector accounting, planning, budgeting, citizen services, and procurement, As of February 2024, OpenGov serves 1,900 government entities, including state agencies, city governments, school districts, and other special districts. OpenGov's permitting solution was determined to be significantly more user friendly for staff than the current system. There is no coding required and staff can make updates instantly, without waiting for a vendor or writing a single line of code. Another very positive aspect of the solution is seamless collaboration. Departments can work together in real time, cutting out bottlenecks that often cause delays during the review process. This solution also allows much more user control where owners and contractors can take care of their permitting needs entirely through the web portal, By utilizing the online portal, paper needs are greatly reduced which helps reduce costs but also review times. Staff from Building and Planning have researched this system and spoken to several other Virginia localities using this system which include; Towns of Blacksburg and Wytheville, Richmond County, Isle of Wight County and City of Winchester. These localities all reported greater efficiencies and greater customer and staff satisfaction with OpenGov. OpenGov's Budgeting solution will provide a more efficient process for County departments to review and submit their budget information annually. Significant time and efficiency savings are anticipated in the overall budget process given the time departments spend formatting and submitting budget requests, the overall analysis of various budget scenarios, and the ultimate completion of the budget and creation of the adopted budget book for the GFOA award. The software will allow staff to eliminate using spreadsheets that are copied, pasted, and merged to create the ultimate line-item budget. These spreadsheets are insufficient for a budget the size of Franklin County and create several hours of staff time to manage and format before the Board can review. The software will offer more real-time data for staff and the Board to review in the analysis of the annual budget process. In addition, staff will be able to utilize the software to better design departmental performance measures and to track progress towards the accomplishment of the Board's strategic plan and the comprehensive plan. Rather than sit on a shelf, the County's strategic plan and comprehensive plan can be integrated into the annual budget process. As mentioned earlier, staff from Planning, Building, GIS, Information Technology, and Finance reviewed various options to accomplish the needs of each department during the FY 2026 budget process. As a result of this analysis, staff ultimately decided that OpenGov provided the best solution to satisfy all the identified requirements at the best financial value. The OpenGov software for Permitting and Budgeting is being procured through cooperative procurement through Sourcewell contract # 060624-VTO to implement the OpenGov software through the local partner Vertosoft. By combining one-time and recurring funding from the Planning, Building, and Finance departments, staff can accomplish both projects with no additional increase to the County's budget. No additional budgeted funds are needed or being requested from the Board. If approved, the development of this new system would begin July 1st and is anticipated to take approximately 6-9 months to complete. The current permitting system will continue to be used until the new OpenGov system is fully operational. At that point citizens and contractors will be able to begin utilizing the online portal for their permitting needs and the old system, Energov, will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests the Board of Supervisors approve the cooperative procurement through Sourcewell contract #060624-VTO with Vertosoft for the implementation of the Permitting and Budgeting solutions with OpenGov and authorize the County Administrator, County Attorney, and Deputy County Administrators to execute any contract documents necessary to complete the project. POSSIBLE BOARD ACTIONS: MOTION to APPROVE: Imake a motion to approve the cooperative procurement through Sourcewell contract #060624-VTO with Vertosoft for the implementation of the Permitting and Budgeting solutions with OpenGov and authorize the County Administrator, County Attorney, and Deputy County Administrators to execute any contract documents necessary to complete the project. MOTION to TABLE: I make a motion to table the proposed request until additional information can be provided. MOTION to DENY: I make a motion to deny the request to approve the cooperative procurement through Sourcewell contract #060624-VTO with Vertosoft for the implementation of the Permitting and Budgeting solutions with OpenGov. 4 Franklin County A Natural Settingfor Opportuity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: June 17, 2025 Development of Old Chapel Road Collection Site CONSENT AGENDA: Yes UBAECIPROPOSALREQUET: BOARD ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: Yes Request to award the Bid to develop the Old Chapel Road Collection site ATTACHMENTS Yes STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUS AREA: STAFF CONTACTIS): R Dynamic Community Safety Sink, Gauldin, Sandy - Strategic Economic Development Enhanced Educational Opportunities REVIEWED BY: Responsible Govemment Operations Christopher L. Whitlow, County Administratpn Conserve & Promote Natural Assets R Well Planned Growth BACKGROUND: Franklin County maintains a landfill at 9340 Virgil Goode Highway (Route 220 South) in Rocky Mount, Virginia. This landfill is permitted by DEQ (SWP-577). Landfill collections operate 24 unmanned sites, 11 manned sites in the County, and compactor sites at all schools and Franklin County government buildings. In an effort to locate compactor sites in strategic areas around the County, staff have been reviewing different sites for viability. Franklin County owns three acres of land on Old Chapel Road, which currently houses a medium-sized green box site. Staff feel this site will make an excellent manned compactor site and will be convenient for residents to use. DISCUSSION: Staff have identified the Old Chapel Road site as a potential compactor site. Staff received permission from the Board to advertise for bids to convert the green box site to a manned compactor site at the April 15th board meeting. Staff have prepared the necessary invitation for bids and held a mandatory pre-bid meeting on Monday, June gh. Six (6) contractors were present. Staff are scheduled to receive bids back on June 16th. Staff will provide updated bid information on Tuesday before action is requested. The lowest bid was for TBD from TBD The funding for this project is available from capital account 30360044 -57001. The County's design engineer has reçeived the bids and determined that TBD was the lowest responsible bidder and has met all the bidding criteria and qualifications. Funding for daily staffing of this site is currently budgeted in the Public Works operating budget. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests authorization to award the construction contract to construct a compactor site on the three acres at 100 Old Chapel Road to TBD. POSSIBLE BOARD AÇTIONS: MOTION to APPROVE: In move to award the construction contract to TBD in the amount of $ TBD to construct a compactor site on the three acres at 100 Old Chapel Road. Furthermore, I authorize the County Administrator, or designee, and County Attorney to sign the necessary documents to execute the contract. MOTION to TABLE: I make a motion table discussion on the Old Chapel Road Collection site until additional information can be provided. MOTION to DENY: I make a motion to deny the request to award a bid to construct the Old Chapel Road Collection site. - 5 Franklin County A Natural Sertingfor Opportnity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: June 17, 2025 Franklin County 2045 Comprehensive Plan CONSENT AGENDA: Yes SUNIECIEROPOALRIEQLEST. BOARD ACTION: Yes The Adoption of the Franklin County 2045 INFORMATION: No Comprehensive Plan ATTACHMENTS: No STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUS AREA: n Dynamic Community Safety STAFF CONTACT(S): Strategic Economic Development Sandy, Cooper Enhanced Educational Opportunities REVIEWED BY: Responsible Government Operations Christopher L. Whitloy, County Conserve & Promote Natural Assets Administrator Well Planned Growth BACKGROUND: On May 20th the Board of Supervisors held their public hearing for the 2045 Franklin County Comprehensive Plan. County staff presented the Plan to the Board with a recommendation for approval of the 20-year Plan from the Planning Commission with a vote of 6-0-1. After the public hearing the Board delayed action on the Plan for further review and discussion of the Plan. The Board stated more discussion would take place at the Board's work session on Thursday, May 22nd. DISCUSSION: Staff would like to remind the Board of the structure of the Plan: The Plan's Framework includes a Vision Statement, Vision Themes, Components, and Implementation. Each of these elements work in concert to create the "who, what, where, when, why, and how" of the Plan. Comprehensive Plans are not regulatory documents but are rather used as visioning documents and as a general guide to help steer decision making. Using the Vision and Vision Themes as a north star, Franklin County: 2045 organizes policy into nine (9) Component Chapters. Aside from guiding the County's future growth and decision-making, the Component Chapters inform the Plan's Strategies. As presented, there are nine (9) overarching goals, one for each Component Chapter. Each goal is further supported by various objectives and strategies. The included strategies are actionable steps to be taken to reach the goal(s). Each strategy has identified the responsible parties and/or necessary partners, the type of tool required to better prioritize and plan for execution, and a timeline that speaks to implementation within 5 years, 5-10 years, and 10+ years. The purpose of a Comprehensive Plan as a visioning document is not to sit on a shelf but rather inspire and instigate actions to move forward on a range of community goals. This will require the coordinated, transparent, and continued efforts of the Board of Supervisors, various Franklin County departments, and local and regional partners. Specifically, the Franklin County Board of Supervisors and Departments must refer to this Plan (in concert with the Village/Area Plans) on an annual basis when prioritizing initiatives, creating budgets, and drafting the County's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Additionally, the Planning Commission should strive for an annual review to ensure that the goals and strategies are being met, and provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, as needed, to continue making progress. On May 22nd work session of the Board, the Board of Supervisors discussed the comprehensive plan and the majority of the Board moved to vote on the Plan at their regular scheduled meeting on Tuesday, June 17, 2025. Staff requested comments concerning the Plan before their next meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Franklin County 2045 Comprehensive Plan, which includes the solar siting policy. POSSIBLE BOARD ACTIONS: MOTION to APPROVE: - - make a motion to recommend approval of Franklin County: 2045 as the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan, as presented, for public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice. MOTION to TABLE: I find that the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan materials are insufficient or incomplete. Therefore, I move to delay action until further information is submitted. MOTION to DENY: I find that the presented Franklin County Comprehensive Plan does not serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice. Therefore, move to deny the recommendation of the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan. Renick, Amy From: Quinn, Daniel Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 12:04 PM To: Sandy, Steve; Cooper, Lisa Cc: Whitlow, Christopher; evansfemiys@comcasinet Crouch, Lori; Renick, Amy; Carter, Mike; Jamison, Marshall; Mitchell, Nick; Smith, Lorie; Tatum, Tim; Thompson, Ronnie Subject: FW: Comprehensive Plan Comments Importance: High Steve and Lisa, My comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are provided in this email. Ahead of reviewing the Plan, reviewed the Code of Virginia regulations covering Plan development. I believe the Planning Department and Planning Commission did an excellent job of following the regulations, collecting data, engaging the public and writing the Plan. Like the Village Plans, the Plan does not provide firm, actionable objectives with timelines, mitestones and responsible personnel. This serious shortcoming has very negative implications: It makes it unlikely that initiatives will flow from the Plan with purposeful execution. Anything that gets done will be more of a coincidence rather than resulting from execution of the Plan. The Plan will become shelfware instead of being integrated with County day-to-day operations. In my nearly 1.5 years on the BOS the only reference I have seen to the Plan is the boilerplate text in Special Use Permits (SUPs): "will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan". These plans that ultimately become shelfware are incredibly demotivating to bright staffers like Stephanie Mathena. You might be able to attract good people into these roles, but you will not be able to keep them. Your best and brightest will not find professional satisfaction in working on shelfware and will quickly leave for more rewarding roles. believe development of this Plan took thousands of hours of County staff and Planning Commission time. In the future these hours would be better utilized on true value-add initiatives that will move the County forward. Fortunately, we will not need to update this Plan for another 20 years, however Village Plan updates are in the offing. While am reluctant to recommend investing more time in this Plan, would encourage you to make future planning initiatives like village plan updates truly actionable. believe you can help make this Plan relevant by: Integrating it with other planning activities. For example, during the budget process do a crosswalk between the Plan and various budget initiatives, especially the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Demonstrating your commitment to this Plan by purposefully selecting 2-3 initiatives from this Plan to complete in the upcoming year. Annually reporting to the BOS what you completed in the Plan and what you Plan to complete in the following year. Ifound it interesting that the Code of Virginia regulations covering Plan development goes into great detail on Plan development however it is silent on using the Plan once it is complete. The regs actually allow you to simply puti it on the shelf once it is complete. 1 Dan Quinn Board of Supervisor Union Hall District From: Crouch, Lori tmnensisamoase Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 10:07 AM Cc: Sandy, Steve <Steve. smaelanimoumwaeP Cooper, Lisa <Lisa. CooperPlantinoumtvasep Subject: Comprehensive Plan Comments Importance: High Good morning, Board! hope everyone had a lovely weekend and are ready for the coming week. wanted to send a quick reminder to you all that the Comprehensive Plan Comments are due to Steve and/or Lisa by Wednesday, June 4th. Thank you!! Lori A. Crouch Executive Assistant Phone: (540) 483-3030, ext. 2320 Address: 1255 Franklin St., St 112 Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151 Franklin County Web: Franklin County, VA Official Website Macralbeinng far Opparunry frankineountyvagov) 2 2045 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT REMARKS JUNE 7.2025 *Page 73 - Stormwater Stormwater infrastructure maintenance = private and public we should ensure our zoning ordinances require 'regular maintenance' to mitigate the negative impacts of stormwater runoff. -The BOS should require staff to perform a by-annual review with VDOT of our 371 bridges, designating priorities. Fifty percent (187) are in 'fair' condition. Some of our bridges are vital components to our transportation system. The Hales Ford bridge is over 60 years old and in 'fair' condition. This bridge is of regional significance. -Page 113 - typo - under 'walk audit' first sentence - techniçal". -Page 159 - required BOS discussion on ADU's (accessory dwelling units). -Page 160 = STR's (short term rentals) - articulates the need for public engagement. Ensure we schedule this exercise. -Page 191 - Data Centers - first paragraph, last sentence - "Virginia has emerged as a hotspot" recent research indicates VA has the largest concentration of data centers in the world. -Page 211 - Identify station names with their enumerated designations. -DGA's = bring all DGA-related topics in the section beginning on Page 241 even if the information is duplicated. -Page 243 - Discussion needed on 'future land uses'. -Page 247 - Character Guidelines' - last bullet referencing private roads - would like to see zoning ordinances reflect the requirement for a formal agreement - not a condition potentially added. -Page 253 - Would like to see our four 'rural villages' officially articulated, if not already in place. -Page 259 - Timing - would like to ensure that the articulated review periods are tracked and brought before the Planning Commission and BOS during those designated periods. -Page 262 - Objective 3.1.3 - what is Heritage 96? -Page 262 = Objective 3.2.1 - Is this the appropriate document to articulate needed positions? -Page 263 - Objective 4.1.6 - Add SMLA and TLAC to responsible parties. -Page 266 - Objective 6.1.1 - add after grant funding' add /district secondary roads and unpaved roads increased funding. -Chapter 6 - add 'Work closely with VDOT and CTB to advocate SMART Scale scoring changes to promote rural localities to qualify for funding as we haven't gotten a project for two years since changes were implemented. -Page 271 - Objective 8.3 - Add to a current objective or add one that talks about overcoming business seasonality at SML and potential mitigations. -Page 273 - Objective 10.1.1 - Is this the appropriate instrument to talk about creating a department or dedicated role? Just not sure.. -Page 274 = Objective 10.3.1 - again questioning establishing positions? -Page 274 - Add an objective that talks about proactively addressing a prioritized list of areas that are underserved with high call volumes. -Page 275 - Objective 10.4.2 - Don't like continue to understand". Would like consideration of wording change 'Continue to work closely with the SB to evaluate ADM (average daily membership), trends and projections to ensure informed decision-making: -Page 277 - Objective 11.2.4 - Don't like 'as often as needed'. Change to annually aligned with capital planning. -Page 277 - Objective 11.3 - Section requires discussion. -Page 278 - Primary Land Use Types - Don't want manufactured homes in DGA's. -Page 279 - Description - Second sentence beginning 'lf developed correctly' - this is extremely subjective; we should not leave any vulnerability to things not being developed correctly. Respectfully submitted, Lorie Smith RESOLUTION # AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE FRANKLIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2025 WHEREAS, after due legal notice as required by Section 15.2-2204/2205 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors did hold public hearings on April 9, 2025, and May 20, 2025, respectively, at which time all parties in interest were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after full consideration, the Franklin County Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL of the 2045 Franklin County Comprehensive Plan as presented; and WHEREAS, after full consideration, the Franklin County Board of Supervisors determined that the 2045 Franklin County Comprehensive Plan should be adopted for public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice and APPROVED the 2045 Franklin County Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission with minor changes discussed by the Board. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the Clerk of the Planning Commission, and the Franklin County Zoning Administrator, and that the Clerk be directed to reflect this action to APPROVE the 2045 Franklin County Comprehensive Plan in the reçords of Franklin County. On the motion by to approve the 2045 Franklin County Comprehensive Plan, and seconded by said motion was APPROVED by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Amy Renick, Clerk Franklin County Board of Supervisors Date 6 Franklin County A/ NatralSeringfor Opportumity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: June 17, 2025 FY 2026 Budget Appropriation CONSENT AGENDA: Ves SUBIECIEROPOANREQUEST: BOARD ACTION: Yes Request of the Board of Supervisors to adopt the FY INFORMATION: No 2026 Appropriation Resolution for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026 ATTACHMENTS: Ves STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUS AREA: STAFF CONTACT(S): Dynamic Community Safety Brian Carter, Deputy County Administrator Strateglc Economic Development REVIEWED BY: Enhanced Educational Opportunities Christopher L. Whitlow, County Administratpn M Responsible Government Operations Conserve & Promote Natural Assets Well Planned Growth BACKGROUND: The County must annually adopt a resolution of appropriation of funds for the upcoming fiscal year. Fiscal year 2026 begins July 1, 2025 and ends on June 30, 2026. The Board of Supervisors adopted the FY 2025-26 budget on April 15, 2025. The State budget has been finalized, and there were no reductions in funding that requires an amendment. Therefore, staff have updated the appropriation resolution with the final amounts adopted by the Board of Supervisors on Aprit 15!h. DISCUSSION: The appropriation resolution is attached for the Board's review. The total budget to be appropriated is $232,999,216. Subtracting the transfers between funds results in a net budget of $183,443,373. There are no one-time funds (fund balance) proposed to be used for on-going operations. The Board did adopt using $750,000 from the budget stabilization fund to balance the FY 2026 Capital Improvement Plan. These are one-time funds and are already appropriated. No further action is needed by the Board to use the budget stabilization fund. Staff has attached the resolution and Exhibits A and B for revenue and expenditures. There are no changes since the Board's adopted budget from the April 15, 2025 meeting. REÇOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully requests the Board of Supervisors adopt the resolution to appropriate the FY 2026 budget with a total appropriation amount of $232,999,216. POSSIBLE BOARD ACTIONS: MOTION to APPROVE: make a motion to adopt the FY 2026 appropriation resolution and adopt the revised FY 2025-2026 budget in the total amount of $232,999,216 as presented in this summary. MOTION to TABLE: I make a motion to table the FY 2026 budget appropriation until additional information can be provided. MOTION to DENY: I make a motion to deny the FY 2026 budget appropriation. - ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION OF THE COUNTY OF FRANKLIN FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2025 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2026 A resolution to appropriate designated funds and accounts from specified estimated revenues for FY. 25-26for the operating budget and the Capital Improvements Program for the County of Franklin and to authorize and empower County officers to expendfunds and manage cash assets, and lo establish policies under whichfunds will be expended and managed. The Franklin County Board of Supervisors does hereby resolve on this 17th day of June, 2025 that, for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2025, and ending on June 30, 2026, the following sections are hereby adopted. Section 1. The cost centers shown on the attached table labeled Appropriations Resolution, Exhibit B, are hereby appropriated from the designated estimated revenues as shown on the attached table labeled Appropriations Resolution, Exhibit A. Section 2. Appropriations, in addition to those contained in this general Appropriations Resolution, may be made by the Board of Supervisors only if deemed appropriate and there is available in the fund unencumbered or unappropriated sums sufficient to meet such appropriations. Section 3. The School Board and the Social Services Board are separately granted authority for implementation of the appropriated funds for their respective operations. By this resolution the School Board and the Social Services Board are authorized to approve the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one classification of expenditure to another within their respective funds in any amount. Section 4. The County Administrator is expressly authorized to approve transfers of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one classification of expenditure to another within the same cost center for the efficient operation of government. - Section 5. All outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, at June 30, 2025 shall be reappropriated to the 2025-2026 fiscal year to the same cost center and account for which they are encumbered in the previous year. Section 6. At the close of the fiscal year, all unencumbered appropriations lapse for budget items other than those involving ongoing operational projects, or programs supported by grants or County funds, which must be preapproved by the County Administrator or his designee. Such funds must be applied to the purpose for which they were originally approved. Section 7. Appropriations previously designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion ofthe project if funding is available from all planned sources, or until the Board ofs Supervisors, by appropriate ordinance or resolution, changes or eliminates the appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, the County Administrator is hereby authorized to close out the project and return to the funding source any remaining balances. This section applies to all existing appropriations for capital projects at June 30, 2025 and appropriations as they are made in the FY 25-26 Budget. The County Administrator is hereby authorized to approve construction change orders to contracts up to an increase not to exceed the budgeted project contingency and approve all change orders for reduction of contracts. Section 8. The approval of the Board of Supervisors of any grant of funds to the County shall constitute the appropriation of both the revenue to be received from the grant and the County's expenditure required by the terms of the grant, ifany. The appropriation of grant funds will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until completion ofthe project or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate resolution, changes or eliminates the appropriation. The County Administrator may increase or reduce any grant appropriation to the level approved by the granting agency during the fiscal year. The County Administrator may approve necessary accounting transfers between cost centers and funds to enable the grant to be accounted for in the correct manner. Upon completion of a grant project, the County Administrator is authorized to close out the grant and return to the funding source any remaining balance. This section applies to appropriations for grants outstanding at June 30, 2025 and appropriations in the FY 25-26 Budget. Section 9. The County Administrator may reduce revenue and expenditure appropriations related to programs funded all or in part by the Commonwealth of Virginia and/or the Federal Government to the level approved by the responsible state or federal agency. Section 10. The County Administrator is authorized to make transfers to the various funds for which there are transfers budgeted. The County Administrator shall transfer funds only as needed up to amounts budgeted or in accordance with any existing bond resolutions that specify the matter in which transfers are to be made. Section 11. Appropriations are hereby authorized for the Courthouse Maintenance Fund, the Forfeited Assets Program Fund, the Law Library Fund, the E911 Fund, the Debt Service Fund, the Utility Fund and EMS Billing Revenue equal to the total cash balance on hand at July 1, 2025, plus the total amount of receipts for the fiscal year 2025-2026. The County Administrator is also authorized to appropriate carryover funds from any designated revenues or donated funds. Section 12. The Treasurer may advance monies to and from the various funds of the County to allow maximum cash flow efficiency. The advances must not violate County bond covenants or other legal restrictions that would prohibit an advance. Section 13. All procurement activities with funds appropriated herein shall be made in accordance with the County purchasing ordinance and applicable state statutes. Section 14. It is the intent of this resolution that funds be expended for the purpose indicated in the budget; therefore, budgeted funds may not be transferred from operating expenditures to capital projects or from capital projects to operating expenses without the prior approval from the Board of Supervisors. Also, funds may not be transferred from one capital project to another without the prior approval oft the Board of Supervisors. Section 15. The County Administrator is authorized, pursuant to State statute, to issue orders and checks for payments where funds have been budgeted, appropriated, and where sufficient funds are available. A listing of vendor payments shall be presented to the Board of Supervisors not less frequently than monthly. Section 16. Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues - collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportions as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. Section 17. All revenues received by an agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board not included in its estimate of revenue forthe financing ofthe fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board without the consent ofthe Board ofSupervisors being first obtained, and those sums appropriated to the budget. Any grant approved by the Board for application shall not be expended until the grant is approved by the funding agency for drawdown. Nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation. Section 18. Allowançes out of any ofthe appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments, commissions, bureaus, or agencies under the control ofthe Board ofSupervisors to any oftheir offiçers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates. Section 19. All previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Section 20. This resolution shall become effective on July 1, 2025. Franklin County A Natural Setting for Opportunity APPROPRIA TIONS RESOLUTION EKHIBIT A County of Franklin Adopted Revenues Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Real Estate $ 46,451,441 Shared Expenses Sheriff $ 4,555,006 Public Service Corp 2,000,000 Shared Expenses Comm of Revenue 267,460 Personal Property 18,552,755 Shared Expenses Treasurer 246,047 Machinery and Tools 1,152,687 Shared Expenses Registrar 120,894 Merchanis Capital 905,000 Shared Expenses Clerk of Court 480,373 Penalties and Interest 828,000 Grantor Tax on Deeds 240,000 Recordation Taxes 0 Sales Tax 8.250,000 Public Assistance Grants 8,792,626 Communications Tax 1,350,000 VJCCCA Grant 21,332 Consumer Utility Taxes 1,002,442 Sheriff Grants 703,500 County Business License 5,000 Family Resources Grants 269,437 Franchise License Tax 201,654 Comprchensive Services Grant 5,952,990 Motor Vehicle License Fees 2,099,764 Franklin Center Grants 53,550 Bank Stock Taxes 325,000 Victim Witness Grant 71,400 Tax on Deeds 700,000 Personal Property Tax Relief 2,626,618 Hotel/Motel Trans Occupancy Tax 4% 237,317 Hotel/Motel Trans Occupancy Tax 3% 179,285 Library Granis 256,686 Meals Tax 1,600,000 Aging Services Grants 107,547 DEQ Lilter Control Grant 26,119 Licenses and Fees 636,448 Park Land Pymt in Lieu of Tax 23,000 Public Safety Grants 36,498 Court Fines and Costs 75,000 Interest on Bank Deposits 2,000,000 Total General Fund 121,630,456 Rent, Miscellaneous 883,993 Capital Fund 5,346,288 Asset Forfeiture Fund 10,000 Clerk of Court Fees 115,284 E911 Fund 1,708,865 Commonwealth. Attorney Fees 6,000 School Capital Fund 0 Off Duty Pay for Sheriff Deputies 20,000 Law Library 10,000 Debt Service Fund 5,349,966 Animal Control Fees 17,000 Utilities 24,000 Landfill Fees 1,425,000 Courthouse Maintenance Fund 44,000 Aging Services Local Revenue 11,000 Total Other Funds 12,493.119 Family Resource Center Donations 9,000 Recreation Fees 225,000 Schools: Local (Cafeteria, Miscellaneous) 1,152,700 Fire Prevention Inspection Fees 6,500 State 50,642,364 EMS Billing Revenue 2,200,000 Federal 9,531,212 Library Fines and Fees 25,000 County 37,511,946 Franklin Center Fees 10,000 Canneries (County Funds) 37,419 Sale ofl Maps and Code 0 Total School Funds 98,875,641 Recovered Costs 2,047,405 Total Budget 232,999,216 Motor Vehicle Carriers Tax 40,619 Less Transfers Between Funds (49,555,843) Mobile Home Titling Tax 175,902 Motor Vehicle Rental Tax 50,000 Tolal Net Budgel $ 183,443,373 APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION. EXHIBIT B County of Franklin Adopted Expenditures Fiscal Vear 2025-2026 General Government Administration Family Resource Center $ 475,459 Board of Supervisors $ 588,599 Aging Services 270.370 20,733,681 General and Financial Administration County Administrator 750.837 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Commissioner of Revenue 1,040,966 Parks and Recreation 2,219,121 Reassessment 300,000 Library Administration 1,229,351 Treasurer 724,774 3,448,472 Finance 626,852 Risk Management 659,560 Community Development Human Resources 298,244 Planning Agencies 803,412 Information Technology 2,075,143 Planning & Community Development 900,809 Registrar 513,734 Economic Development 1,477,551 7,578,709 GIS and Mapping 282,636 Franklin Center 375,763 Judicial Administration Tourism Development 312,566 Circuit Court 147,670 Virginia Cooperative Extension 163,876 General District Court 8,488 4,316,613 Magistrate 1,500 Juvenile and Domestic Rel Court 16,750 Nondepartmental 744,645 Clerk of the Circuit Court 932,094 Sheriff - Courts 936,069 Transfers to Other Funds Juvenile Court Services 1,104,036 Schools Operations 37,120,071 Commonwealth Attomey 1,341,651 Schools Debt Service 391,875 4,488,258 Schools Canneries 37,419 County Capital 5,346,288 Public Safety Utilities 15,000 Sheriff Law Enforcement 7,845,485 Debt Service 5,166,325 Correction and Detention 6,841.886 E911 1,478,865 Building inspections 653,493 Subtotal 49,555,843 Animal Control 502,325 Public Safety 8,799,892 Total General Fund 121,630,456 24,643,081 Other Funds: Public' Works E911 1,708,865 Public Works 304,990 Debt Service 5,349,966 Solid Waste and Recycling 4,069,592 Capital Fund 5,346,288 General Buildings and Grounds 1,746,572 Law Library 10,000 6,121,154 Courthouse Maintenance 44,000 Utilities 24,000 Health and Welfare School Capital 0 Health Department 406,746 Forfeited Assets 10,000 Community Services 185,000 Schools 98,875,641 Social Services 11,134,179 232,999,216 CSA 8,261,927 Less Transfers Between Funds (49,555,843) Total Net Budget $ 183,443,373 7 Franklin County A Natural Settingfor Opportumity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: June 17, 2025 Virginia Make Ready Initiative (VMRI) Grant Acceptance CONSENT AGENDA: Yes BUBIECIEROPOALREQUESTL BOARD ACTION: Yes Board Acceptance of VMRI Grant Award INFORMATION: No STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUS AREA: ATTACHMENTS: Yes Dynamic Community Safety STAFF CONTACTIS): n Strategic Economic Development Sandy, Carter r Enhanced Educational Opportunities P Responsible Govemment Operations REVIEWED BY: r Conserve & Promote Natural Assets Christopher L. Whitlow, County AdministratoA r Well Planned Growth BACKGROUND: Franklin County was successfully awarded a FY 2022 Virginia Telecommunications Initiative (VATI) grant for a broadband wireline expansion project in partnership with Shentel to serve 3508 additional premises. The VATI funding awarded was $11,832,456. Much of this project was engineered utilizing aerial fiber which requires attachment to American Electric Power (AEP) utility poles. This resulted in over 10,000 poles in Franklin County which require permitting from AEP involving analysis and possible replaçement before attachment can occur. This volume of pole analysis and replaçement has added time delays and extra costs to the project. This issue is being experienced by many localities across the state who are working on broadband expansion projects. The Virginia Make Ready Initiative (VMRI), administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), provides funding supplements to current Virginia Telecommunication Initiative (VATI) grant projects for "make ready" costs. Eligible VATI projects include those funded from the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund or the Capital Projects Fund of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which were awarded during the fiscal year 2022 grant round. This program will provide reimbursement for make-ready costs, which are defined as utility pole replacements and mid-span pole installations, and in certain instances, undergrounding costs. Funding for undergrounding projects previously planned as aerial networks will also be considered. Funding under this program that is unexpended by June 30, 2025, will revert to the general fund. The 2024 General Assembly allocated up to $30 million in funding to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) for this program. DISCUSSION: Shentel prepared requests for supplemental funding through the VMRI program in multiple rounds for the Franklin County 2022 VATI grant for three project areas of the Franklin County grant. The funding requests were for costs related to make-ready work that exceeded the original estimates that were paid directly by Shentel. Franklin County - Shentel - Round 7 Shentel May $154,680.38 Franklin County - Shentel - Round 6 Shentel February $46,437.00 Franklin County = Shentel - Round 5 Shentel January $584,010.89 Franklin County - Shentel - Round 4 Shentel November $704,392.99 Franklin County - Shentel - Round 3 Shentel September $180,919.67 Franklin County - Shentel - Round 2 Shentel September $82,433.85 Franklin County - Shentel - Round 1 Shentel September $29,821.94 The total amount received through the VMRI funding is $1,782,696.72. This funding will be issued to the County and then paid to Shentel to reimburse these costs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending board action in the form of acceptance of VMRI grant awards, and appropriation of the total funding in the amount of $1,782,696.72. POSSIBLE BOARD ACTIONS: MOTION to APPROVE: I make a motion to authorize the County Administrator, or designee, to accept the Virginia Make Ready initiative funding in the total amount of $1,782,696.72, execute necessary contract documents, and further appropriate these funds into the County's broadband capital account. MOTION to TABLE: I make a motion to table this request for Virginia Make Ready Initiative grant acceptance until additional information may be obtained and clarifiçations returned to this board. MOTION to DENY: I make a motion to decline the Virginia Make Ready Initiative grant acceptance and authorize county staff to notify VA DHCD of the county's rejection of the grant and associated funds. - 8 Franklin County ANatm/Settingfor Opportunity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: June 17, 2025 Polystyrene Food Service Container Ban Extension CONSENT AGENDA: Yes SUBJECT/PROPOSALREQUEST: BOARD ACTION: Yes Approval of an extension of 6 months for undo financial INFORMATION: No hardship ATTACHMENTS: No STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUS AREA: STAFF CONTACT(S): Dynamic Community Safety Crouch, Snead Strategic Economic Development Enhanced Educational Opportunities REVIEWED BY: Responsible Government Operations Christopher L. Whitlow, County Administratofy Conserve & Promote Natural Assets Well Planned Growth BACKGROUND: House Bill 1902 (HB1902), enacted in 2021, amended the Virginia Waste Management Act to prohibit the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS) food service containers by certain public institutions, including school divisions, as part of the Commonwealth's broader environmental sustainability efforts. Codified under Virginia Code S 10.1-1424.3, the legislation required school divisions to cease using EPS trays and containers by July 1, 2025. However, the law provides that local governing bodies may grant temporary exemptions of up to six months if compliance would create an undue economic hardship. This provision ensures flexibility while supporting the transition to environmentally responsible alternatives. DISCUSSION: Franklin County Public Schools are seeking an exemption for not more than 6 months to continue to use the remaining EPS inventory they currently have on hand to avoid unnecessary waste and financial loss to the school system. Once the existing supply is exhausted the school system will transition to a complaint alternative. This exemption is being requested due to undue economic hardship, as the school system is currently unable to absorb the significant increased costs associated with transitioning to alternative materials. The County supports the school system's commitment to identifying environmentally responsible alternatives and recognizes the importance of adhering to state guidelines. This temporary exemption will allow the necessary time to procure cost-effective substitutes that meet both fiscal limitations and regulatory expectations. The Coordinator of School Nutrition has already scheduled meetings with vendors to move toward compliance. RECOMMENDATION: The County respectfully supports the school system's intent to fully comply with S 10.1-1424.3 following this temporary exemption period, for not more than 6 months which shall end no later than December 31, 2025, POSSIBLE BOARD ACTIONS: MOTION to APPROVE: I make a motion to approve an exemption for not more than 6 months to continue to use the remaining EPS inventory they currently have on hand to avoid unnecessary waste and financial loss to the school system. MOTION to TABLE: I make a motion table an exemption for not more than 6 months to continue to use the remaining inventory they currently have on hand to avoid unnecessary waste and financial loss to the school system for more information. MOTION to DENY: I make a motion deny an exemption for not more than 6 months to continue to use the remaining inventory they currently have on hand to avoid unnecessary waste and financial loss to the school system. 6/9/202 Code ofVirginia Title 10.1. Conservation Chapter 14. Virginia Waste Management Act $10.1-1424.3. Expanded polystyrene food service containers prohibited; civil penalty. A. Beginning July 1, 2023, no food vendor that is a restaurant or similar retail food establishment and is part of a chain with 20 or more locations offering for sale substantially the same menu items and doing business under the same name, regardless of the form of ownership of such locations, shall dispense prepared food to a customer in an expanded polystyrene food service container. Beginning July 1, 2025, no food vendor of any type shall dispense prepared food to a customer in an expanded polystyrene food service container. B-Any-foodyendor: yasthonchsaly whichit is located an exemption from the provisions of - subsection A. The locality may grant the exemption if the food vendor demonstrates to the satisfaction ofthe locality that.compliance with subsection A would impose an undue economicl hardship on the food vendor. For the purposes ofthis subsection, "undue economic hardship" means a situation in which (i) a food vendor has no reasonable alternative to the expanded polystyrene food service containers in use by that food vendor and (ii) compliance with subsection A would cause significant economic hardship to that food vendor. A locality may sO exempt a food vendor for a period of not more than one year from the date of the exemption. A food vendor granted such an exemption may reapply to the locality before the expiration of the exemption, and the locality may grant an additional exemption from the provisions of subsection A not to exceed one year for each such reapplication ifthe food vendor demonstrates a continuing undue economic hardship at the time of reapplication to the satisfaction of the locality. C. Any person who violates any provision of this section, upon such finding by an appropriate circuit court, shall be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $50 for each day of such violation. Any civil penalties assessed pursuant to this section in a civil action brought by the Attorney General in the name of the Commonwealth shall be paid into the state treasury and deposited by the State Treasurer into the Litter Control and Recycling Fund. Any civil penalty assessed pursuant to this section in a civil action brought by a locality shall be paid into the treasury of the locality, except where the violator of this section is the locality or its agent, in which case the civil penalty shall be paid into the state treasury and deposited by the State Treasurer into the Fund. D. The Department shall post to its website information on how to comply with this section and how to file a complaint for a violation of this section. 2021, Sp. Sess. I, c. 262. Bedford Residency VDOT Brian Casella = Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation VDOT Call Center = 1-800-FOR-ROAD (1-800-367-7623) To: Franklin County Board of Supervisors Subject: June 2025 Franklin County VDOT Monthly Updates MAINTENANCE Maintenance Activities for Previous 30 Days: Ordinary maintenance - Pavement (pothole) repair, gravel road repair, right of way brush cutting operations (County wide), shoulder repairs (County wide), storm water culvert repairs and cleaning (County wide) and guardrail repairs. Slurry seal schedule; COMPLETED. Primary mowing; COMPLETED Maintenance Activities for Next 60 Days: Ordinary Maintenance - Pavement (pothole) repair, gravel road repair, right of way brush cutting operations (County wide), shoulder repairs (County wide), storm water culvert repairs and cleaning county wide, guardrail repair. Secondary routes Brush removal and shoulder work in preparation for FY25 schedules; patching operations in preparation for FY25 schedules. Primary and secondary routes - Tree and brush removal from recent storms. Secondary routes Mowing in progress. Route 636 (Lost Mountain Rd.) - Pipe replacement; detour in place. Work will begin on June 16th and tentatively scheduled to be completed by July 2nd. Route 640 (Six Mile Post Rd.) - Box culvert replacement; detour in place. Work will begin on June 23rd and to be completed by July 23rd. Route 756 (Old Forge Rd.) - Pipe replacement; detour will be in place. Tentatively scheduled to begin July 7th and to be completed by July 18th. Route 744 (Webster Corner Rd.) - Pipe replacement; detour will be in plaçe. Tentatively scheduled to begin July 21st and to be completed by July 315t. Surface treatment schedule tentatively scheduled to begin in July. Plant mix (PM2H) schedule to begin on the following primary routes: Route 40 (Old Franklin Turnpike) - from Town limits to Rte. 706 (Woodman Rd.) Route 220N (Virgil Goode Hwy.) -1 from Rte. F-614 (Northside Rd.) to Rte. F-611 (Cornell Rd.) Page 1 of3 Maintenance Activities for Next 60 Days (cont.): Plant mix (FY25) schedule to begin on the following secondary routes: Route 635 (Bonbrook Mill Rd.) - COMPLETED Route 945 (Kemp Ford Rd.) - COMPLETED Route 705 (Chestnut Hill Rd.) - COMPLETED Route 1036 (Willow Creek Rd.) - COMPLETED Route 619 (Pleasant Hill Rd.) : COMPLETED Route 9122 (Middle School Rd.) Route 619 (Fanny Cook Rd.) - COMPLETED Route 602 (Callaway Rd.) Route 1235 (Lakemount Dr.) - COMPLETED Route 1240 (Village Lane) - COMPLETED Route 1241 (Aspen Way) COMPLETED Route 1236 (Lakemount Circle) - COMPLETED Route 951 (Redbud Lane) - COMPLETED Route 1480 (Chestnut Creek Dr.) - COMPLETED Route 1483 (Par Five Lane) - COMPLETED Route 1484 (Breeden Ct.) - COMPLETED Route 1481 (North Church Dr.) COMPLETED Route 1482 (Cambridge Ct.) COMPLETED Route 1250 (Indian Pointe Dr.) - COMPLETED Route 1251 (Arrow Lane) - COMPLETED Route 1253 (Maiden Lane) - COMPLETED Route 1252 (Chestnut Pointe Dr.) - COMPLETED Route 616 (Morewood Rd.) - COMPLETED Route 1245 (Hales Point Dr.) - COMPLETED Route 1234 (Long Island Dr.) - COMPLETED - Page 2 of 4 LAND DEVELOPMENT & PERMITS 277 Active permits to include: 90 utilities, 170 private entrances, 7 commercial entrances, 1 private utility, 4 roadside memorials, 1 maintenance of traffic permit, 1 grading permit, 2 road construction (1-LAP) and 1 environmental spill cleanup. Of these, 21 were issued in May to include 10 private entrances and 11 utility permits. 2 plan reviews and 4 special use/rezoning applications: Westlake Restaurant - Review of concept plan for restaurant in the Westlake area. Bishop = Review of disposal area plan. Wisler - Review of special use application for a variance of a setback. US Cellular - Review of special use application for cell tower in Henry area. Brams Review of special use application for a proposed RV/boat storage units in Burnt Chimney area. Fowler - Review of special use application for a short-term rental. **Ongoing review and issuance of permits to support the VATI program to include submittals from Riverstreet, Zitel and Shentel. CONSTRUCTION Franklin County Summit View Business Park - Connector Rd.; restoration efforts in progress. (Franklin County locally administered project - UPC 111362) Route 220/Route 635 (Bonbrook Mill Rd.) - Smart Scale project for improvements at the intersection; in progress. (UPC 119463) Route 220/Route 697 (Wirtz Rd.) = Corridor intersection improvements that consist of thru- cut configurations; in progress. (UPC 115455) Route 220/Route 619 (Sontag)/619 (Pleasant Hill)/816 (Cassell) - Corridor intersection improvements that consist of thru-cut configurations and safety improvements at Route 220/Route 619 (Pleasant Hill Dr.); in progress. (UPC 115455) Route 705 (Chestnut Hill Rd.) - Bridge replacement; in progress. Fixed completion date November 2026. (UPC 110597/117019). Page 3 of 4 TRAFFIC STUDIES/SPECIAL REQUESTS Requested Safety Studies (for previous 30 days): N/A Completed Safety Studies: N/A PROJECT STATUS Route 220/Route 919 (Grassy Hill Rd.) - Smart Scale project for improvements at the intersection. Advertisement scheduled for late 2025. (UPC 115456) Route 220/Route 613 (Naff Rd.) - Smart Scale project for improvements at the intersection. Advertisement scheduled for mid-2026. (UPC 119467) - Page 4 of 4 10 Franklin County A Natural Setting for Opportunity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: June 17, 2025 School Updates (Carryover, State Bonus) CONSENT AGENDA: No SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST: BOARD ACTION: Yes Staff analysis of the schools' appropriation request to INFORMATION: No approve FY 2024 Carryover funds and One-Time State Supported Bonus Request ATTACHMENTS: Yes STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUS AREA: STAFF CONTACT(S): Dynamic Community Safety Dr. Kevin Siers, Superintendent, FCPS Strategic Economic Development Sharon Tuttle, Director of Business and Finance, FCPS M Enhanced Educational Opportunities Brian Carter, Deputy County Administrator Responsible Government Operations Conserve & Promote Natural Assets REVIEWED BY: Well Planned Growth Christopher L. Whitlow, County Administrator BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has requested that County staff review appropriation requests from the Franklin County Public Schools. DISCUSSION: The Franklin County Public Schools (FCPS) have made two appropriation requests from the Board of Supervisors. First, is a reappropriation of FY 2024 carryover funds remaining from the Virginia Literacy Act. FCPS is requesting FY 2024 carryover from funds received and not spent by June 30, 2024 from the Virginia Literacy Act. These funds were provided in advance by the State for a 3-year program implementation in FY: 2024, FY 2025, and FY 2026. The Board of Supervisors appropriated a total amount of $2,445,640 in Virginia Literacy Act Funds in FY 2024. Of this amount, FCPS spent $289,778 by June 30, 2024. Therefore, FCPS is requesting the Board of Supervisors re-appropriate the remaining state funds from the Virginia Literacy Act of $2,155,862 to FY 2025. No additional local funds are requested. Second, please note the State budget includes funding for a $1,000 bonus for FCPS SOQ funded positions. The Schools would like to provide a $1,000 bonus to all non-SOQ full-time employees and a $500 bonus to part-time employees. Providing the bonus to all non-SOQ employees will require an additional $660,164. FCPS has requested this additional appropriation from the Board of Supervisors. The bonuses must be paid in June 2025. Dr. Siers' request letter is attached to this summary. FCPS has a remaining local carryover from FY 2024 of $367,370. FCPS would like to request this carryover amount to be used for either the one-time bonus or for additional capital needs pending Board of Supervisors action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully requests the Board of Supervisors approve the Schools' appropriation request for FY 2024 state carryover funding from the Virginia Literacy Act in the amount of $2,155,862. No additional local funds are requested. Staff respectfully requests the Board of Supervisors consider the Schools' FY 2024 local carryover request by appropriating $367,370 to assist with either the one-time bonus or to be used for capital needs pending future School Board action. Dr. Kevin Siers, Superintendent, FCPS and Sharon Tuttle, Director of Business and Finance, FCPS will be at the BOS meeting to present these items and answer any questions. POSSIBLE BOARD ACTIONS: MOTION to APPROVE: I make a motion to appropriate FY 2024 remaining state carryover funds of $2,155,862 for the Virginia Literacy Act and appropriate FY 2024 local carryover funding in the amount of $367,370 to the Franklin County Public Schools to assist with funding the one-time bonus for all School employees or for identified capital needs. MOTION to TABLE: I make a motion to table the Schools' appropriation requests until additional information can be provided. MOTION to DENY: I make a motion to deny the Schools' appropriation requests. FRANKLIN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office of Superintendent 25 Bernard Road . Rocky Mount, VA 24151-6614 (540) 483-5138 . FAX 540) 483-5806 June 10, 2025 Mr. Brian Carter Franklin County Deputy Administrator 1255 Franklin Street, Suite 111 Rocky Mount, VA 24151 Dear Brian: I am writing to request that the Franklin County Board of Supervisors consider approving an appropriation request for the 2024-25 fiscal year in the amount of $2,155,862. This amount represents remaining funds designated by the Virginia Department of Education for the Virginia Literacy Act and received by the Franklin County School in the 2023-24 school year. The Virginia Literacy Act was passed to ensure that all Virginia's early learners have the necessary skills to become successful readers with critical thinking skills and to address chronic absenteeism. In the 2023-24 fiscal year, the State of Virginia appropriated and disbursed to Franklin County Schools $2,445,639.88 to be used over the 3-year implementation of this program. and the schools spent $289,778.11 in Fiscal Year 2023-24 to begin the implementation of this program. Leaving a remaining amount of $2,155,862 to be spent in fiscal years 2024-25 and 2025-26. In fiscal year 2024-25 Franklin County Public Schools has spent $1,043,838.88 to implement and to maintain the Virginia Literacy Act. The remainder of the Virginia Literacy Program funds will be expended in the Fiscal Year 2025-26. We respectfully request that the Franklin County Board of Supervisors give its approval for this request at their meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 17, 2025 to fund years two and three of the Virginia Literacy Plan. Both myself and Dr. Siers will be attending the meeting in the event any further information is needed. Sincerely, Janflke Sharon Tuttle Director of Business & Finance Cc: Dr. Kevin Siers, Division Superintendent FRANKLIN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office of Superintendent 25 Bernard Road . Rocky Mount, VA 24151-6614 (540) 483-5138 . FAX (540) 483-5806 May 9, 2025 Mr. Brian Carter Franklin County Deputy Administrator 1255 Franklin Street, Suite 111 Rocky Mount, VA 24151 I am writing to ask that Franklin County Board of Supervisors consider an appropriation request for the 2024-25 fiscal year in the amount of $660,164.00 for funding a bonus for all county employee Governor Youngkin's budget provided $661,863 in funding to provide all SOQ funded positions within Franklin County Public Schools to receive a $1,000 bonus (regular part-time employees to receive $500). In order to provide all employees within FCPS the bonus, an additional $660,164 in funding is needed. We respectfully request that the Franklin County Board of Supervisors give its approval for this request at their regular scheduled meeting in May or June 2025. Please don't hesitate to reach out should you, the county administrator, or the Board ofs Supervisors have any additional questions. Sincerely, 2 K Dr. Kevin Siers Superintendent cc: Ms. Sharon Tuttle, Director of Business & Finance Mr. Tim Overstreet, Assistant Superintendent Ms. Dawn Lawson-Wright, Assistant Director of Business & Finance Mr. Christopher Whitlow, County Administrator FRANKLIN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office of Superintendent 25 Bemard Road . Rocky Mount, VA 24151-6614 (540) 483-5138 . FAX (540) 483-5806 June 11, 2025 Mr. Brian Carter Franklin County Deputy Administrator 1255 Franklin Street, Suite 111 Rocky Mount, VA 24151 Dear Brian: I am writing to request that the Franklin County Board of Supervisors consider approving an appropriation request for the 2024-25 fiscal year in the amount of $367,000. This amount represents the remaining cash balance at the end of the 2023-24 fiscal year. Upon direction of the School Board these funds will either be used to help fund bonuses for the non-SOQ funded positions or to address additional capital needs of the schools system. We respectfully request that the Franklin County Board of Supervisors give its approval for this request at their meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 17, 2025. Both myself and Dr. Siers will be attending the meeting in the event any further information is needed. Sincerely, à Aictile anot Sharon Tuttle Director of Business & Finance Cc: Dr. Kevin Siers, Division Superintendent Mr. Tim Overstreet, Assistant Superintendent Ms. Dawn Wright-Lawson, Assistant Director of Business & Finance Mr. Christopher Whitlow, County Administrator 11 Franklin County A Natunal Setting for Opportimivy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: June 17, 2025 FY2026-2031 Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP) CONSENT AGENDA: No SUBJECTPROPOSALREQUEST: BOARD ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: No Secondary System Construction Program for State Secondary Roads in Franklin County ATTACHMENTS: No STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUS AREA: STAFF CONTACT/S): Dynamic Community Safety Sandy, Cooper, VDOT Staff - Strategic Economic Development - Enhanced Educational Opportunities REVIEWED BY: - Responsible Government Operations Christopher L. Whitlow, County - Conserve & Promote Natural Assets Administrator I r Well Planned Growth BACKGROUND: The Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP) is updated annually based on funds allocated to counties by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) for the purpose of performing construction work on the secondary roadway system. Allocations are based on state revenue projections provided by the Department of Taxation. The State of Virginia requires the Board of Supervisors to review and adopt by resolution the Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP) annually. On April 15, 2025, the Board of Supervisors authorized staff to advertise for a public hearing to be held at its May regularly scheduled meeting for consideration and adoption of the FY2026-2031 Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP), the public hearing was postponed until June 17th. At the April meeting, Brain Casella, Residency Engineer, discussed the process and funding for the FY2026- 2031 Secondary Six Year Program with the Board of Supervisor. Mr. Casella advised the Board that no new roads would be added to the SSYP and that potentially several roads may have to be removed from the current SSYP. The Board advised both County staff and VDOT staff to keep all current roads on the Plan, if possible, especially fully funding Red Valley Road. DISCUSSION: The following is a brief summary of the updated Franklin County FY2026-2031 SSYP. The draft Franklin County FY2026-2031 SSYP totals $2,083,821 allocated at the residency level including seven (7) rural rustic road projects and one (1) counywdetransportaton services. The countywide transportation services are utilized for various activities related to secondary construction but not related to a specific project. No roads were removed from the Plan and no new roads could be added to the Plan due to funding. Priorities and Projects are listed below for the draft FY2026-2031: Priority 1 - Red Valley Road, Route 657/9699,000/.06 mi N Rte 635 (Bonbrook Mill Rd) to 0.66 mi N Route 635 to 0.1 mi S Route 684 (Boones Mill Rd) to 0.55 mi S Route 684 Priority 2 = Novella Road, Route 635/9214,500/From 0.026 mi S Rte 678 (Truman Hill Rd) to 0.234 mi S Rte 678 (Truman Hill Rd) Priority 3 - Webster Corner Road, Route 744/5750,000/From 0.7 mi N Rte 643 (Dillons Mill Rd) to 1.45 mi N of Rte 643 (Dillons Mill Rd) Prioity 4 - Timberline Road, Route 865/9800,000/From 0.33 mi S Rte 623 (Ingramville Rd) to 1.35 mi S Rte 623 (Ingramville Rd) Priority 5 - Stave Mill Road, Route 795/9400,000/From 0.2 mi E Rte 40 (Franklin St) to 0.31 mi E Rte 640 (Five Mile Mountain Rd) Priority 6 - Narrows Road, Route 881/9204,000/From 0.75 mi E of Rte 692 (Harmony Rd) to the end of state maintenance Priority 7 - Clark Road, Route 755/5450,000/From Rte 619 (Pleasant Hill Rd) to US 220 (Virgil H. Goode Highway) RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors adopt by resolution the FY2026-2031 Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP). POSSIBLE BOARD ACTIONS: MOTION to APPROVE: I make a motion to adopt by resolution the SSYP (Secondary Six Year Plan) for FY2026-2031. MOTION to TABLE: Imake a motion to table the presented resolution of the SSYP (Secondary Six Year Plan) for FY2026- 2031 until additional information is provided. MOTION to DENY: I make a motion to deny the presented resolution for the SSYP (Secondary Six Year Plan) for FY2026-2031, 1 a Boones (16) Mill 122) 220 (122) Rocky' Mount - GOE) Gow 220 (690) PRIORITY PROJECTS Red Valley Rd Franklin County, VA 1.05 Miles for $699,000 Secondary Six-Year Plan Boone Election District Novella Rd 0.2 Miles for $214,500 Boone Election District Webster Corner Rd 0.75 Miles for $750,000 Blackwater Election District Project Roads US Hwy Timber Line Rd County Boundary US Hwy (Bus.) 1.02 Miles for $800,000 Blue Ridge Election District Towns State Hwy Stave Mill Rd Lakes State Routes 0.4 Miles for $400,000 Railroads Blue Ridge Election District Narrows Rd 0.34 Miles for $300,000 nfomons Thed datek layers sysiem provises (01S) or hereins hes prmaryy wen SA Fmr various Counly souroes Thed within pruvided s geognphic herein Boone Election a Deliovedi le bes socurale buls p provieak lor nference puposes These Gis deta District ani digence. innow wayn Nog gusranee. meante asa ar expressedor rplacements impled, loraN legals is survey. meda garing! "gad deserption, their scourcy. or suandardd cumency. due Clark Rd adequacy County nori useliness. ks employees or shalb rehebiy bei heis These responsble data ss fort provided their inappropriste es ia" and wse. sether Prankin 0.55 Miles for $500,000 Last Seved. 6/10/2025 11:18 AM Snow Creek Election District RESOLUTION # AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE FRANKLIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2025 APPROVING THE SECONDARY SIX YEAR PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2026 THROUGH 2031. WHEREAS, Section 33.2-331 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) provides the opportunity for Franklin County to work with the Virginia Department of Transportation in developing the Secondary Six Year Plan; and WHEREAS, the Board had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of the Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP), in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation policies and procedures; and WHEREAS, the Board had previously agreed and approved the Construction Priority List as follows: Priority Road Name Scope of Work 1 Red Valley Road/Route 657 Resurfacing 2 Novella Road/Route 635 Resurfacing 3 Webster Corner Road/Route 744 Resurfacing 4 Timber Line/Route 865 Resurfacing 5 Stave Mill Road/Route 795 Resurfacing 6 Narrows Road/Route 881 Resurfacing 7 Clark Road/Route 755 Resurfacing WHEREAS, a public hearing which was duly advertised on the proposed Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP) for fiscal years 2026-2031 was held on June 17, 2025, to receive comments and recommendations on Franklin County's Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP) for fiscal years 2026 through 2031 and Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocation of $346,649 for fiscal year 2026 ($2,083,821 for FY2026-2031); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Franklin County, Virginia that the Board of Supervisors hereby adopts the advertised FY2026-2031 Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP) as submitted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Franklin County, Virginia that the Board of Supervisors hereby adopts the Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for fiscal year 2026; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Residency Engineer. MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: VOTING ON THE MOTION WAS AS FOLLOWS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ATTEST: Amy Renick Clerk, Franklin County Board of Supervisors - - i I I I I I I - & - 6 * & 8 3 & 8 a a 3 - a E 8 : a & - & # * 2 I : 3 3 a I & a li 1 o - & I I 6 - - - 8 8 I 1 a 3 E a 3 I ls. a E > a B 1 I I I : 3 E I A 5 8 B S - & - € * & E do - * 3 1 & - $ a # b5 : a I à 3 a I I - 12 Department of Planning & Community Development Franklin County A. Natural Settingfor Opportunity Transmittal of Planning Commission Action Date: June 6, 2025 Item: Case # SPEC-03-25-18247 Prepared by: Tina H. Franklin, Planner II Date of Commission Action: May 13, 2025 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: APPLICATION for Edwards Solar Farm, LLC, Applicants, and Penny Edwards Blue, Ronald B Edwards, and Ruby E Penn, Owners, requesting a special use permit on an approximate 109 acres of property zoned A-1, Agricultural District. The parcels are located on Edwardsway Road in the Union Hall Election District of Franklin County and further identified by real estate records as Tax Map/Parcel #0660010100 and 0660003900. The purpose of this special use permit request is to construct and operate a solar generator facility, utility scale with a maximum nameplate capacity up to 5-Megawatts alternating current (MWac). This property has a future land use designation of Agriculture; Forestry/Rural Residential SPEC-03-25-18247, Edwards Solar Farm, LLC is proposing to construct and operate a distribution scale solar power generation facility with a maximum nameplate capacity up to 5 Megawatts alternating current (MWac) on approximately 108.87 acres combined on two (2) parcels identified as # 0660003900 and 0660010100, located on Jacks Creek Road and currently used for pasture and timberland. The project's buildable area is 38 acres, with approximately 25 acres of solar panels and project infrastructure. During the operation of Edwards Solar, there will be approximately 84 acres of open green space, forestland, and other vegetation unused by the project. A portion of the land will be used for required setbacks and buffers, while the remainder will be retained and used by the landowner. The project will deliver clean and cost-competitive energy through a distribution circuit that crosses Jacks Creek Road next to the project site and connects to Appalachian Power Company's Penhook substation. The project is approximately 108.87 acres about 15 acres will be used for pasture and hay production and the remaining approximately 89 acres are forested. The forest land was logged in 2011 and has grown back as mostly monoculture pine. American Electric Power has cleared and occupies about 6 acres as a right of way for transmission lines and the Mountain Valley Pipeline. The proposed land use is a solar farm consisting of photovoltaic (PV) panels. The PV panels produce clean and affordable energy that flows into the local grid, powering homes and businesses. There will be no batteries for this project. The project proposes a fence along the perimeter (36.5 acres) of the project area as shown on the concept plan. The applicant stated that during the operation and maintenance, the facility produces no vibration, emissions, odor, or fumes; and during construction, there will be limited noise and equipment emissions, which will be mitigated as required by the ordinance, including limiting the hours of operation of post-driving and other construction equipment from sunrise to sunset. This project does not use public utilities therefore there will be no impact on public infrastructure. The setback for the project will be a minimum of 150 feet from public rights-of- way and 300 feet from any residence. In addition, the project will utilize the dense existing vegetation for screening and during the construction process if more trees are removed than anticipated there will be re-planting oft trees. The application supplied additional information in the packet narrative pertaining to glint and glare, economic impacts, environmental and cultural considerations, preliminary site plan and project designs, and community engagement. The packet also includes exhibits for the following: preliminary site exhibits, traffic analysis and VDOT correspondence, decommissioning plan, glint and glare study, impact on adjacent property values, community meeting summary, site control, natural heritage and wildlife study, and Edwards solar 2232 analysis. There are three (3) residential parcels that adjoin this project to the northeast, one (1) being parcel id # 0660010000 owned by a landowner participating in the project. The parcels directly east and west of the project are parcel ID#'s 0660010106 and 0660004300 and owned by the landowners participating in the project and their relatives. Parcel ID#'s 0660010700 and 0660004100 are vacant and used primarily for silviculture and pastureland and parcel ID# 0690000100 to the south is used as an active quarry by the Rockydale Corporation. On January 22, 2025, CEP Solar held one (1) community meeting at the Glade Hill Fire/EMS Department to present the project to the community and listen to the feedback from residents and citizens of the community concerning the project. In addition, a representative ofCEP Solar went door to door to adjoining property owners to introduce the project and answer questions. The County requested a third party (Berkley Group) to review the application to determine if the application was complete as well as compliant with respect to applicable requirements of the Franklin County Zoning Ordinance. The consulting firm found no deficiencies in the application and offered conditions. (Please see memorandum attached) Following the Berkley Group review, the applicant revised the prime farmland map concerning the acreage of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. The changes were from Prime Farmland from 6.2 acres to 9.2 acres and Farmland of Statewide Importance from 26.6 acres to 25.0 acres for the total increasing from 32.8 acres to 34.2 acres. The application was advertised, site posted, and notifications sent to all adjacent property owners. The Development Review Team (DRT) has reviewed the application at its April meeting. As of the date of this report, staff have received one (1) phone call inquiring about the application and how the project would impact her property. Additional comments and concerns may be raised as a result ofthe public hearings. 2 COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION At the end of the staff's presentation, there was a period for applicant comments and citizen's comments. Mr. Paul Cozens, applicant with CEP Solar, stated that this project is a way for the landowners to keep their family land and put it to good use. He feels as though the use fits into the land well and has 150' of vegetation around the proposed location, which will conceal the project from the road. He addressed Mr. Evans' concern about agricultural use of the land and explained that there are certain types of vegetation that are required by the County and the state which will keep the soil in good condition if the landowners ever want to go back to agricultural use. Mr. Cozens explained the differences between solar projects and that this project is distributed locally and not a large-scale project. These projects are important for grid stability. He stated that he will thoroughly cover the solar permitting process at the next public hearing for the Board of Supervisors. He also stated that the tributary crossing will need to be permitted for. Mr. Cozens explained the construction, operation, and decommissioning plans for the project and he explained that the construction will take about 9-12 months with 20-25 personnel on site. The operation will take place remotely with occasional landscaping maintenance visits. Mr. Cozens explained what solar panels are made of: aluminum frame, tempered glass, encapsulant, solar cells, back sheet, and a junction box. He stated that the panels for this project have not been procured for this project yet as the market is always fluctuating. Mr. Cozens highlighted conditions 20 and 31 to highlight the solar project's safety and County regulations for damaged solar panels as well as disposal. He also stated that stormwater and erosion control is a popular topic when discussing solar projects. DEQ is implementing more regulations for solar projects. He explained that there is only one tributary crossing that their Edwards Solar project will need to cross, but they are working on obtaining the proper permits. He called attention to conditions 7, 12, 13, 14, 21, and 29 to highlight the project's safety and compliance with erosion and stormwater requirements Mr. Cozens explained that they would like to add condition 35: Soil testing shall be conducted on the Site. He stated that this is a common condition that other localities have to ensure the soil is not being contaminated. Mr. Cozens highlighted that this project will draw up to $2 million in economic revenue for the County, a 116-fold increase in County revenue and that the project will not draw on County 3 resources. All the extra third-party reviews are all paid for by the developer. He explained their goal of having engaged neighbors and that CEP Solar held a community meeting at the Glade Hill Fire Station in January. They used community feedback to inform their site design and address concerns that community members had for keeping the project out of sight. He stated that CEP Solar has a community benefits program to further benefit the County in which they reached out to STEP, Inc., Franklin County Parks and Recreation, SML & Rocky Mount Rotary Clubs, and local schools. Chairwoman Mitchell asked when the applicants meet with the rotary club, will they be discussing this project specifically. Mr. Cozens replied that the community groups will hear more about the community benefits program and more general information in addition to the small projects they are working on. Ms. Ruby Penn, one of the owners of the properties, stated that she grew up and worked on the family farm that was on the subject land, and she looks forward to working with CEP Solar and providing assistance to the county as a whole. She indicated she has no intention of using the land for agricultural purposes in the future and that she feels the panels will not be an eye sore as they are to be placed SO they are hidden by natural growth. Mr. Clif Wade spoke for Penny Blue, one of the property owners, stating this property was purchased with the future in mind for generations to come and explained that farming was not enough to take care of the family. He indicated the land will not perk because of the quarry, SO there is no possibility of a housing development, and the farm will still continue to contribute to the family and community through this project. Mr. Ben Wilson stated there must be a balance between agriculture with the future of the County and encourages the Planning Commission to allow landowners to explore opportunities. He also stated that solar projects are a great way to protect the past while looking forward to the future. He concluded that there is a need to find ways to localize our energy. Mr. Victor Evans stated that it was impressive how the plan for the proposed use of land meets the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan review and that the community and neighbors were well- informed. He indicated he was happy with the discussion of economic development, the best use of targeted land, and the planned continued research and that this was a model for future solar projects. Chairwoman Mitchell asked staff if the County was near their 1500-acre solar maximum and if the county is only counting land used for solar panels or the whole property. Mrs. Lisa Cooper stated the County is a long way from reaching the solar capacity of 1500-acres, and the county only counts the leased area occupied by the solar developer. 4 Mr. Evans asked if only 25 of 109 acres would be under the solar panel. Ms. Cooper stated that it would be the leased area. Mr. Cozens explained that the entire parcel is under the option to lease. When it is time to build, they will discuss agreements with landowners for the actual leased area. Mr. Cozens stated that a memo is recorded with County after this agreement. It would be smaller than 109 acres total. Mr. Ron Jefferson asked if the 1500 acres included approved and built land for solar projects. Mr. Chris Dadak explained that 1500 acres of land is both approved and built land. Mr. Jefferson questioned whether the project should be considered a public utility or public facility. Mr. Dadak explained that the 2232 analysis does consider it a public utility. Chairwoman Mitchell asked what the statute actually says. John Cuvack, attorney representing CEP Solar, explained that the solar farm is a public utility. The Planning Commission determined that such use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties, that the character of the zoning district will not be changed thereby, and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the County Code with the uses permitted by right in the zoning district and with the public health, safety, and general welfare to the community, and recommended APPROVAL with the following thirty-five (35) conditions: 1. The project applicant shall develop, construct, operate, and maintain the site in substantial conformance with the conceptual plans (titled "Edwards Solar Land, LLC, Preliminary Site Layout C3.0, dated April 9, 2025"), all assurances and commitments made within the application materials, and the conditions imposed on the issued special use permit, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 2. Project capacity shall be limited to a maximum of5 MW, alternating current. 3. The developed area of the site, within the fence line, shall be limited to 36.5 acres; inverters, along with panels, shall be within the fence line. 4. The applicant shall give the County written notice of any change in ownership or entities responsible for operations or asset management ofthe project within sixty (60) days after the change. 5. Prior to or in conjunction with final site development plan review, the applicant shall submit details on the utility connections between noncontiguous portions of the project including secured easements, to the Zoning Administrator for approval. Approval of the site plan or subsequent permits shall not be granted without prior approval of these connections by the Zoning Administrator, or without the existence of executed easements for the connections, if required. 6. Prior to or in conjunction with the final site development plan review, the applicant shall submit an additional viewshed analysis depicting visibility of developed site conditions along Jacks Creek Road, near Old Franklin Turnpike. Where installed equipment or 5 portions thereof are anticipated to be visible above required buffer plantings based upon site topography, the applicant shall submit an alternative buffer plan for these areas that accommodates additional screening and/or berming to reasonably screen equipment from view, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 7. A separate security shall be posted for the ongoing maintenance of the project's land cover and vegetative buffers in an amount deemed sufficient by the Zoning Administrator as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto and provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party). 8. As part ofthe site plan review, the applicant shall be required to submit a construction mamagementcomirnuction mitigation plan, to be reviewed and approved by VDOT and the Zoning Administrator. At a minimum, this plan shall address and/or include: a. Traffic control methods for all public roads to be used for ingress/egress (in coordination with the VDOT prior to initiation of construction) shall include, at ai minimum, plans and procedures for lane closures, signage, and flagging. b. Coordination with VDOT prior to initiation of construction on the appropriateness of the speed limit on any public access road and support a speed limit reduction, if necessary. C. Site access planning, including procedures for directing and coordinating employee and delivery traffic. Construction traffic shall be limited to 7:00 am to 9:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, or as may be approved by the Zoning Administrator upon good cause shown by the applicant. d. Site security. e. Lighting; during construction of the facility, any temporary construction lighting shall be positioned downward, inward, and shielded to eliminate glare from all adjacent properties. Emergency and/or safety lighting shall be exempt from this construction lighting condition. f. Hours of construction. g. Coordination with erosion and sediment plans to mitigate dust and dirt on the roadways. h. Mitigation of burning operations. Issuance of permits by Franklin County Fire Marshal. i. Plans for staging and storage of materials and parking. During construction, the setback may be used for the staging of materials and parking. No material and equipment laydown area, construction staging area, or construction trailer shall be located within 200 feet ofany property containing a residential dwelling. 9. The applicant shall submit a traffic management plan to include entrances and comply with all Virginia Department of Transportation conditions for the traffic management plan during construction and decommissioning ofthe Solar Facility. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for repairing any damage to roadways occurring during construction or following commissioning of the project, or any portion thereof. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, VDOT, the County, 6 and the applicant shall agree to the existing state of applicable roadways, to be documented by video furnished by the applicant to VDOT. During construction, the roadways shall be monitored for damage, and the applicant, once notified by VDOT of damages, shall make repairs caused by construction traffic at the direction of VDOT. After construction activities are completed, the roadways will be evaluated for damage as measured against the condition prior to construction activity; the applicant will be required to restore such roadways to equivalent or better condition as existed prior to commencement of construction activity. 11. The applicant shall coordinate with the County's Sheriff Department prior to initiation of construction on speed monitoring plans and devices. 12. As part ofthe site plan review, the applicant shall be required to submit a grading plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. A bond or other surety, from an issuer and in a form approved by the Zoning Administrator, will be posted for the grading operations. The project shall be constructed in compliance with the grading plan. At a minimum, this plan shall address: a. Clearly show existing and proposed contours. b. Note the locations and amounts of topsoil to be removed (if any) and the percentage ofthe site to be graded. C. Limit grading to the greatest extent practicable by avoiding steep slopes. d. An earthwork balance will be achieved on-site with no import or export of soil except for importing specific quality soils required for construction. e. In areas proposed to be permanent access roads which will receive gravel or in any areas where more than a few inches of cut are required, topsoil will first be stripped and stockpiled on-site to be used to increase the fertility of areas intended to be seeded. f. Take advantage of natural flow patterns in drainage design and keep the amount ofimpervious surface as low as possible to reduce storm water storage needs; and g. Provide for the installation of all storm water and erosion and sediment control infrastructure ("Stormwater Infrastructure") at the outset of the project to ensure protection of water quality. Once all Stormwater Infrastructure is complete and approved by the VESCP authority, no more than 50% of the land disturbance areas as reflected on the Site Plan shall be disturbed without soil stabilization at any one time. Stabilization, for purposes of erosion and sediment control, shall mean the application of seed and straw to disturbed areas, which shall be determined by the VESCP authority. 13. The Erosion and Sediment Control plan shall comply with the most recent version ofthe Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook at the time of construction. The County will have a third-party review with corrections completed prior to the County review and approval. The owner or operator shall construct, maintain, and operate the project in compliance with the approved plan. An E&S bond (or other surety) shall be posted for the construction portion of the project to be provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party) as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto. 7 a. To the maximum extent practicable, trees and stumps removed during the course of development shall be mulched on site, with such mulch to be used to mitigate and control storm water runoff during construction. b. To the maximum extent practicable, topsoil from the site should be maintained on site for areas where grading occurs that exposes unsuitable soils where erosion and sediment control vegetation will not take; soil analysis shall be performed to assess the adequate seed mix for exposed soils. 14. The stormwater control plan shall comply with the most recent State policies and regulations at the time of design and construction. The county will have a third-party review with corrections completed prior to submittal to the County for review and approval. The owner or operator shall construct, maintain, and operate the project in compliance with the approved plan. A storm water control bond (or other surety) provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator or Program Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party) shall be posted as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto. 15. Ground cover shall be native vegetation where compatible with site conditions and, in all cases, shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator, as part of the final site development plan review, who may rely on the assistance of a third-party reviewer. 16. Only EPA-approved herbicides shall be used for vegetative and weed control at the solar energy facility by a licensed applicator. No herbicides shall be used within 150 feet of the location of an approved ground water well. The applicant shall submit an herbicide land application plan prior to approval of the certificate of occupancy (or equivalent). The plan shall specify the type of herbicides to be used, the frequency of land application, the identification of approved groundwater wells, wetlands, streams, and the distances from land application areas to features such as wells, wetlands, streams, and other bodies of water. The operator shall notify the County prior to application of pesticides and fertilizers. The County reserves the right to request soil and ground and/or surface water testing. 17. For permanent security fencing, a performance bond reflecting the costs anticipated for fence maintenance shall be posted as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto, provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party). 18. No fence or similar barrier shall impede the flow of the main channel of any stream or through a wetland identified on the final site development plan. 19. Permanent entrance roads, parking areas, and maintenance access roads as designated in the erosion and sediment and stormwater management plan, will be stabilized with gravel, asphalt, or concrete to minimize dust, and impacts to adjacent properties. Roads internal to the site that are not part ofingresslegress and maintenance access roads to the site may be compacted dirt. 20. All physically damaged panels or any portion or debris thereof shall be collected by the solar facility operator and removed from the site or stored on site in a location protected from weather and wildlife and from any contact with ground or water until 8 removal from the site can be arranged; the County must be notified of damaged panels and/ or debris and storage of damaged panels or portion or debris thereof shall not exceed thirty (30) days beyond any required period for insurance, warranty claim or in event of force majeure, for which reasonable documentation shall be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator. For the purposes of the foregoing, force majeure shall be defined to include strikes, lockouts or other labor disturbances, inability to secure labor or materials in the open market, acts of God or other element of nature or accidents, delays or conditions arising from or relating to acts of war, domestic or international terrorism, pandemic, civil disturbances or riots, or any other matter or condition that is beyond the reasonable anticipation and control of the applicant. 21. Subject to the requirement that the County provide the applicant with an estimate of the third-party costs prior to the expense being incurred (when applicable County permit fees do not cover assumed costs), the applicant shall reimburse the County its reasonable costs in obtaining independent third-party reviews as required by these conditions and for the review of the site plan (including all specific plans thereof), Erosion and Sediment Control plan, decommissioning cost estimates, and biannual inspections during operations to verify compliance with all permits and approvals. The applicant shall also fully fund any temporary or permanent signage as requested or required by the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), as well as any costs associated with traffic planning or traffic mitigation. 22. The design, installation, maintenance, and repair of the Solar Facility shall be in accordance with the most current National Electric Code (NFPA 70) available (2014 version or later as applicable) and State Building Code at the time of construction. 23. Inspections. a. The applicant will allow designated County representatives or employees access to the facility at any time during and after construction and for inspection purposes during normal business hours and after construction a 24-hour notice before an inspection. b. The applicant shall hire an independent third-party to conduct inspections required by local and state laws and regulations. 24. Emergency Access, Response, and Training. a. The applicant shall submit an Emergency Response Plan (the "ER Plan") with the submission ofthe site plan. The ER Plan shall include fire suppression methods that can be immediately deployed during both the construction and operation of the project. The ER Plan shall also include a program of education and training to be provided for County emergency response staff covering onsite emergency response, as well as information on how the facility will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to allow for access by County emergency response staffin the event ofan emergency. b. Prior to the end of construction of the Project Site, the applicant shall hold training classes with the County's first responders (Fire and Rescue) to provide materials, 9 education, and training on responding to on-site emergencies, to include the provision ofinformation and any necessary equipment to allow first responders to gain access to any part of the facility in the event of an emergency. The training classes shall be scheduled with the assistance of the County's Public Safety Coordinator or designee. C. The applicant shall provide refresher training at the request of Franklin County Public Safety, up to once every five years. d. In the event any upgrades or changes in technology associated with the Solar Facilities results in any change in emergency procedure, including the manner of access to the facility, the applicant will notify the County Public Safety Coordinator, who may, at their discretion, schedule additional training on the new equipment. 25. Compliance. The Solar Facilities shall be designed, constructed, and tested to meet relevant local, state, and federal standards as applicable. The applicant must provide document(s) that the project has met all national standards. 26. The Special Use Permit shall be terminated if the solar facility does not commence the project in three (3) years. 27. If the Solar Facilities are declared to be unsafe, due to a violation of building or electrical codes, as determined by the fire marshal or building official, and the applicant of the Facilities fails to respond in writing to such official within seven (7) days, the County may revoke the right for the Facilities to continue operation until the unsafe condition is brought into compliance with the applicable building or electrical code. If the unsafe condition cannot be remedied within six (6) months, the Conditional Use Permit shall be terminated, and the Solar Facilities shall be decommissioned. 28. The applicant shall provide the County with a list of capital equipment, including but not limited to solar photovoltaic equipment proposed to be installed, whether or not it has yet been certified as pollution control equipment by the State Corporation Commission or Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and lists of all other taxable tangible property. Thereafter, on an annual basis, the applicant shall provide the County with any updates to this information. Further, any information that is provided to the Virginia State Corporation Commission in the future, for the Commission's use in valuing such property for taxation purposes, shall also be provided to the County in a timely manner. 29. The applicant is required to provide an onsite SWM and ESC manager who is responsible for daily inspections of site SWM/ESC practices, as well as weekly status reports to be filed with Franklin County site inspector. The person serving as the onsite manager should have a current certification from DEQ for Erosion and Stormwater Inspector. The use of a qualified third-party inspection service may be used in conjunction with onsite personnel. A detailed management plan as to how this requirement of the agreement will be satisfied to be submitted to the County's Development Review Manager. 30.Inverters will be set back a distance of three hundred (300) feet from all exterior property lines. 10 31.All solar panels shall be "BloombergNEP" Tier 1 rated and have passed the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, as administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 32.Initial planting of new vegetative buffer shall occur within three (3) months of substantial completion oft the fencing installations. Vegetative buffer punch list and repairs may continue during project construction. 33.The applicant shall make payments to the County, in the amounts and at such times as set forth below (each a "Payment" and collectively, the "Payments"). The Payments may be used for any lawful purpose. a. One-Time Payment. The applicant, and if different than the applicant, the facility owner and/or operator, shall provide the substantial cash payments set forth in this condition for substantial public improvements in compliance with Virginia Code 15.2-2288.8. The applicant and the County acknowledge and agree that the County may identify in future budget years qualifying substantial public improvements that will be funded by these substantial cash payments to be provided by the applicant, facility owner, and/or operator. The substantial cash payments set forth in this condition are in addition to any other taxes under the Code of the County of Franklin, Virginia or revenue share ordinance that the County may adopt under Virginia Code Section 58.1-2636 and real estate taxes that the applicant, facility owner, and/or operator must pay on the site and the facility. The substantial cash payments incorporated into this condition assume an estimated project nameplate capacity of up to 5 MWac, and the following payment shall be adjusted proportionally down if the nameplate capacity of the constructed Project differs from such estimate. The applicant shall make a payment to the County in the amount of $24,000 per megawatt AC on or before the County's approval of the Final Site Plan for the Project. b. Voluntary Supplemental Tax Payments. The Project will be subject to machinery and_tools tax as provided by state law and local ordinances, including Virginia Code Section 58.1-3660 ("M&T Taxes"). Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-2636, the County may adopt an ordinance assessing a revenue share of up to $1,400.00 per megawatt, as measured in alternating current (AC) generation capacity of the nameplate capacity of the Project ("Revenue Share Ordinance"). As of the approval of the SUP, the County has not adopted a Revenue Share Ordinance but may choose to do SO at a later date. If the County adopts a Revenue Share Ordinance, the Project will no longer be subject to M&T Taxes and will be subject to Revenue Share. The applicant shall be responsible for the "Voluntary Supplemental Tax Payment, 9 which is an annual supplemental payment to be made only when M&T tax is less than Revenue Share rate in any given year as provided by Virginia Code Section 58.1-2636 (the "Revenue Share Equivalent"). The amount of the Voluntary Supplemental Tax Payment is 11 determined by subtracting the M&T taxes payable in a given year from the Revenue Share Equivalent for the same year. For the avoidance of doubt: i. During the operational life of the Project the M&T Taxes are higher than the Revenue Sharing Equivalent. Applicants will pay only their annual M&TTaxes. ii. During the operational life of the Project when the Revenue Share Equivalent is higher than the M&T Taxes, applicant will pay its annual M&T Taxes plus a Voluntary Supplemental Tax Payment in order to provide the County a total annual payment that equates to the Revenue Share Equivalent regardless of whether the County adopts a Revenue Share Ordinance or not. 111. Any supplemental voluntary payments to be paid by the applicant will be invoiced by the County within sixty (60) days after the determination of the amount. The applicant will make any supplemental voluntary payments to the County within sixty (60) days after the County's invoice. 34. Engineered decommissioning plan and decommissioning cost estimated will be required at final site development plan review. Schedule A Security (Surety) of Performance Summary of Securities (Surety) Condition Performance Being Secured Security amount of Estimated Duration Reference Costs 12 Grading 11 10% Construction 13 Erosion & Sediment Control 10% Phase 14 Stormwater Management 11 10% Construction Phase 7 Land cover & vegetative buffer 100% first growing season maintenance (two growing 50% second growing season Full lifecycle seasons) 17 Security fencing 25% oft replacement cost Posting and release of bonds shall be in accordance with the terms of the bonds and the procedures set forth in the applicable County Ordinances and Code and the Code of Virginia. 1. Estimated costs serving as the basis for surety amounts shall be determined by a third-party engineer and/or contractor and provided to the County. 2. The amount of the surety shall be determined by multiplying the estimated cost of the scope of work by the applicable percentage listed above. 3. For any Construction phase surety requirements, bonds posted by the project contractor can satisfy the requirement for bonds in the Construction category. 12 35. Soil testing shall be conducted on the Site as follows: a. Testing shall be conducted in no less than three (3) locations on the Site, at least one location being within proximity to panels of each different type or manufacturer. Samples will be collected from a depth ofs six inches below ground surface. b. Testing shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit and annually thereafter. Testing also shall be conducted immediately prior to Decommissioning and immediately following the termination of Decommissioning. C. Samples shall be analyzed for Priority Pollutant 13 Metals (arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc) in accordance with EPA methods SW 6020, SW 6020A, SW1312, and 200.8. d. Testing shall be performed by a service provider retained by the project owner but approved by the County. e. A test report for each testing event, including an executive summary, shall be provided to the Franklin County zoning administrator within ten (10) days of the completion ofs such report. f. No costs shall be incurred by Franklin County for soil testing or reports of soil testing provided to the County. After deliberations, Victor Evans, Union Hall Planning Commissioner, made a motion to approve the request with thirty-four (34) conditions recommended by staff and the one (1) additional condition requested by the applicant. The motion was seconded by David Pendleton, Blackwater Planning Commissioner. The vote was 7-0-0-0. A Roll Call Vote was held with the following recorded vote. Motion to Approve: Evans Seconded: Pendleton AYES: Doss, Pendleton, Mitchell, McGhee, Jefferson, Clements, Evans NAYES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUGGESTED MOTIONS: 13 (APPROVE) I find that the use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties, that the character of the zoning district will not be changed thereby, and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the County Code with uses permitted by right in the zoning district and with the public health, safety, and general welfare to the community. Therefore, I move to recommend approval of the applicant's request for a special use permit to allow for a 5MW utility-scale solar generation facility as recommended by the Planning Commission in accordance with the thirty-five (35) conditions. OR (DENY) I find that such use will be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties, that the character oft the zoning district will be changed thereby, and that such use will not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the County Code with the uses permitted by right in the zoning district and with the public health, safety, and general welfare to the community. Therefore, I move to recommend denial of the applicant's request for a special use permit to allow for a 5MW utility-scale solar generation facility. OR (DELAY ACTION) I find that the required information for the submitted petition is incomplete. Therefore, I move to delay action until all necessary materials are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. 14 RESOLUTION # APPLICATION for SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Application of Edwards Solar Farm, LLC, Applicants, and Penny Edwards Blue, Ronald B Edwards, and Ruby E Penn, Owners, requesting a special use permit on an approximate 109 acres of property zoned A-1, Agricultural District. The parcels are located on Edwardsway Road in the Union Hall Election District ofl Franklin County and further identified by real estate records as Tax Map/Parcel #0660010100 and 0660003900. The purpose ofthis special use permit request 1s to construct and operate a solar generator facility, utility scale with a maximum nameplate capacity up to 5-Megawatts alternating current (MWac). This property has a future land use designation of Agriculture; Forestry/Rural Residential (SPEC- 03-25-18247). WHEREAS, Edwards Solar Farm, LLC, Applicants, and Penny Edwards Blue, Ronald B Edwards, and Ruby E Penn, Owners, did file an application requesting a special use permit, with conditions, on 109 acres, and located in the Union Hall Election District, and WHEREAS, after due legal notice as required by Section 15.2-2204/2205 ofthe Code ofVirginia of 1950, as amended, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors did hold public hearings on May 13, 2025, and June 17, 2025, respectively, at which time all parties in interest were given an opportunity to be heard, and WHEREAS, after full consideration, the Franklin County Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL of the special use permit request, with the following thirty-five (35) conditions, and 1. The project applicant shall develop, construct, operate, and maintain the site in substantial conformance with the conceptual plans (titled "Edwards Solar Land, LLC, Preliminary Site Layout C3.0, dated April 9, 2025), all assurances and commitments made within the application materials, and the conditions imposed on the issued special use permit, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 2. Project capacity shall be limited to a maximum of 5 MW, alternating current. 3. The developed area ofthe site, within the fence line, shall be limited to 36.5 acres; inverters, along with panels, shall be within the fence line. 4. The applicant shall give the County written notice of any change in ownership or entities responsible for operations or asset management of the project within sixty (60) days after the change. 5. Prior to or in conjunction with final site development plan review, the applicant shall submit details on the utility connections between noncontiguous portions oft the project including secured easements, to the Zoning Administrator for approval. Approval ofthe site plan or subsequent permits shall not be granted without prior approval ofthese connections by the Zoning Administrator, or without the existence of executed easements for the connections, if required. 6. Prior to or in conjunction with the final site development plan review, the applicant shall submit an additional viewshed analysis depicting visibility of developed site conditions along Jacks Creek Road, near Old Franklin Turnpike. Where installed equipment or portions thereof are anticipated to be visible above required buffer plantings based upon site topography, the applicant shall submit an alternative buffer plan for these areas that accommodates: additional screening and/or berming to reasonably screen equipment from view, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 7. A separate security shall be posted for the ongoing maintenance oft the project's land cover and vegetative buffers in an amount deemed sufficient by the Zoning Administrator as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto and provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (who may rely on the opinion ofa third-party). 8. As part ofthe site plan review, the applicant shall be required to submit a construction mamgementconsrnuetion mitigation plan, to be reviewed and approved by VDOT and the Zoning Administrator. At a minimum, this plan shall address and/or include: a. Traffic control methods for all public roads to be used for ingress/egress (in coordination with the VDOT prior to initiation of construction) shall include, at a minimum, plans and procedures for lane closures, signage, and flagging. b. Coordination with VDOT prior to initiation of construction on the appropriateness of the speed limit on any public access road and support a speed limit reduction, ifn necessary. C. Site access planning, including procedures for directing and coordinating employee and delivery traffic. Construction traffic shall be limited to 7:00 am to 9:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, or as may be approved by the Zoning Administrator upon good cause shown by the applicant. d. Site security. e. Lighting; during construction of the facility, any temporary construction lighting shall be positioned downward, inward, and shielded to eliminate glare from all adjacent properties. Emergency and/or safety lighting shall be exempt from this construction lighting condition. f. Hours of construction. g. Coordination with erosion and sediment plans to mitigate dust and dirt on the roadways. h. Mitigation of burning operations. Issuance of permits by Franklin County Fire Marshal. i. Plans for staging and storage of materials and parking. During construction, the setback may be used for the staging of materials and parking. No material and equipment laydown area, construction staging area, or construction trailer shall be located within 200 feet of any property containing a residential dwelling. 9. The applicant shall submit a traffic management plan to include entrances and comply with all Virginia Department of Transportation conditions for the traffic management plan during construction and decommissioning ofthe Solar Facility. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for repairing any damage to roadways occurring during construction or following commissioning ofthe project, or any portion thereof. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, VDOT, the County, and the applicant shall agree to the existing state of applicable roadways, to be documented by video furnished by the applicant to VDOT. During construction, the roadways shall be monitored for damage, and the applicant, once notified by VDOT of damages, shall make repairs caused by construction traffic at the direction of VDOT. After construction activities are completed, the roadways will be evaluated for damage as measured against the condition prior to construction activity; the applicant will be required to restore such roadways to equivalent or better condition as existed prior to commencement of construction activity. 11. The applicant shall coordinate with the County's Sheriff Department prior to initiation of construction on speed monitoring plans and devices. 12. As part ofthe site plan review, the applicant shall be required to submit a grading plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. A bond or other surety, from an issuer and in a form approved by the Zoning Administrator, will be posted for the grading operations. The project shall be constructed in compliance with the grading plan. At a minimum, this plan shall address: a. Clearly show existing and proposed contours. b. Note the locations and amounts oftopsoil to be removed (ifany) and the percentage ofthe site to be graded. C. Limit grading to the greatest extent practicable by avoiding steep slopes. d. An earthwork balance will be achieved on-site with no import or export of soil except for importing specific quality soils required for construction. e. In areas proposed to be permanent access roads which will receive gravel or in any areas where more than a few inches ofcut are réquired, topsoil will first be stripped and stockpiled on-site to be used to increase the fertility of areas intended to be seeded. f. Take advantage ofi natural flow patterns in drainage design and keep the amount of impervious surface as low as possible to reduce storm water storage needs; and g. Provide for the installation of all storm water and erosion and sediment control infrastructure ("Stormwater Infrastructure") at the outset of the project to ensure protection of water quality. Once all Stormwater Infrastructure is complete and approved by the VESCP authority, no more than 50% of the land disturbance areas as reflected on the Site Plan shall be disturbed without soil stabilization at any one time. Stabilization, for purposes of erosion and sediment control, shall mean the application of seed and straw to disturbed areas, which shall be determined by the VESCP authority. 13. The Erosion and Sediment Control plan shall comply with the most recent version of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook at the time of construction. The County will have a third-party review with corrections completed prior to the County review and approval. The owner or operator shall construct, maintain, and operate the project in compliance with the approved plan. An E&S bond (or other surety) shall be posted for the construction portion of the project to be provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party) as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto. a. To the maximum extent practicable, trees and stumps removed during the course of development shall be mulched on site, with such mulch to be used to mitigate and control storm water runoff during construction. b. To the maximum extent practicable, topsoil from the site should be maintained on site for areas where grading occurs that exposes unsuitable soils where erosion and sediment control vegetation will not take; soil analysis shall be performed to assess the adequate seed mix for exposed soils. 14. The stormwater control plan shall comply with the most recent State policies and regulations at the time of design and construction. The county will have a third-party review with corrections completed prior to submittal to the County for review and approval. The owner or operator shall construct, maintain, and operate the project in compliance with the approved plan. A storm water control bond (or other surety) provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator or Program Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party) shall be posted as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto. 15. Ground cover shall be native vegetation where compatible with site conditions and, in all cases, shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator, as part of the final site development plan review, who may rely on the assistance of a third-party reviewer. 16. Only EPA-approved herbicides shall be used for végetative and weed control at the solar energy facility by a licensed applicator. No herbicides shall be used within 150 feet of the location of an approved ground water well. The applicant shall submit an herbicide land application plan prior to approval of the certificate of occupancy (or equivalent). The plan shall specify the type of herbicides to be used, the frequency of land application, the identification of approved groundwater wells, wetlands, streams, and the distances from land application areas to features such as wells, wetlands, streams, and other bodies ofwater. The operator shall notify the County prior to application of pesticides and fertilizers. The County reserves the right to request soil and ground and/ or surface water testing. 17. For permanent security fencing, a performance bond reflecting the costs anticipated for fence maintenance shall be posted as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto, provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party). 18. No fence or similar barrier shall impede the flow of the main channel of any stream or through a wetland identified on the final site development plan. 19. Permanent entrance roads, parking areas, and maintenance access roads as designated in the erosion and sediment and stormwater management plan, will be stabilized with gravel, asphalt, or concrete to minimize dust, and impacts to adjacent properties. Roads internal to the site that are not part ofingress/egress: and maintenance access roads to the site may be compacted dirt. 20. All physically damaged panels or any portion or debris thereof shall be collected by the solar facility operator and removed from the site or stored on site in a location protected from weather and wildlife and from any contact with ground or water until removal from the site can be arranged; the County must be notified of damaged panels and/ or debris and storage of damaged panels or portion or debris thereof shall not exceed thirty (30) days beyond any required period for insurance, warranty claim or in event of force majeure, for which reasonable documentation shall be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator. For the purposes of the foregoing, force majeure shall be defined to include strikes, lockouts or other labor disturbances, inability to secure labor or materials in the open market, acts of God or other element of nature or accidents, delays or conditions arising from or relating to acts of war, domestic or international terrorism, pandemic, civil disturbances or riots, or any other matter or condition that is beyond the reasonable anticipation and control of the applicant. 21. Subject to the requirement that the County provide the applicant with an estimate of the third-party costs prior to the expense being incurred (when applicable County permit fees do not cover assumed costs), the applicant shall reimburse the County its reasonable costs in obtaining independent third-party reviews as required by these conditions and for the review of the site plan (including all specific plans thereof), Erosion and Sediment Control plan, decommissioning cost estimates, and biannual inspections during operations to verify compliance with all permits and approvals. The applicant shall also fully fund any temporary or permanent signage as requested or required by the County or the Virginia Department ofTransportation (VDOT), as well as any costs associated with traffic planning or traffic mitigation. 22. The design, installation, maintenance, and repair of the Solar Facility shall be in accordance with the most current National Electric Code (NFPA 70) available (2014 version or later as applicable) and State Building Code at the time of construction. 23. Inspections. a. The applicant will allow designated County representatives: or employees access to the facility at any time during and after construction and for inspection purposes during normal business hours and after construction a 24-hour notice before an inspection. b. The applicant shall hire an independent third-party to conduct inspections required by local and state laws and regulations. 24. Emergency Access, Response, and Training. a. The applicant shall submit an Emergency Response Plan (the "ER Plan") with the submission ofthe site plan. The ER Plan shall include fire suppression methods that can be immediately deployed during both the construction and operation of the project. The ER Plan shall also include a program of education and training to be provided for County emergency response staff covering onsite emergency response, as well as information on how the facility will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to allow for access by County emergency response staff in the event of an emergency. b. Prior to the end of construction of the Project Site, the applicant shall hold training classes with the County's first responders (Fire and Rescue) to provide materials, education, and training on responding to on-site emergencies, to include the provision ofinformation and any necessary equipment to allow first responders to gain access to any part of the facility in the event of an emergency. The training classes shall be scheduled with the assistance of the County's Public Safety Coordinator or designee. C. The applicant shall provide refresher training upon request ofFranklin County Public Safety, up to once every five years. d. In the event any upgrades or changes in technology associated with the Solar Facilities results in any change in emergency procedure, including the manner of access to the facility, the applicant will notify the County Public Safety Coordinator, who may, at their discretion, schedule an additional training on the new equipment. 25. Compliance. The Solar Facilities shall be designed, constructed, and tested to meet relevant local, state, and federal standards as applicable. The applicant must provide document(s) that the project has met all national standards. 26. The Special Use Permit shall be terminated if the solar facility does not commence the project in three (3) years. 27. Ifthe Solar Facilities are declared to be unsafe, due to a violation ofbuilding or electrical codes, as determined by the fire marshal or building official, and the applicant of the Facilities fails to respond in writing to such official within seven (7) days, the County may revoke the right for the Facilities to continue operation until the unsafe condition 1s brought into compliance with the applicable building or electrical code. If the unsafe condition cannot be remedied within six (6) months, the Conditional Use Permit shall be terminated, and the Solar Facilities shall be decommissioned. 28. The applicant shall provide the County with a list of capital equipment, including but not limited to solar photovoltaic equipment proposed to be installed, whether or not it has yet been certified as pollution control equipment by the State Corporation Commission or Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and lists of all other taxable tangible property. Thereafter, on an annual basis, the applicant shall provide the County with any updates to this information. Further, any information that is provided to the Virginia State Corporation Commission in the future, for the Commission's use in valuing such property for taxation purposes, shall also be provided to the County in a timely manner. 29. The applicant is required to provide an onsite SWM and ESC manager who is responsible for daily inspections of site SWM/ESC practices, as well as weekly status reports to be filed with Franklin County site inspector. The person serving as the onsite manager should have a current certification from DEQ for Erosion and Stormwater Inspector. The use of a qualified third-party inspection service may be used in conjunction with onsite personal. A detailed management plan as to how this requirement of the agreement will be satisfied to be submitted to the County's Development Review Manager. 30.Inverters will be set back a distance of three hundred (300) feet from all exterior property lines. 31.All solar panels shall be "BloombergNEP" Tier 1 rated and have passed the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, as administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 32.Initial planting of new vegetative buffer shall occur within three (3) months of substantial completion oft the fencing installations. Vegetative buffer punch list and repairs may continue during project construction. 33.The applicant shall make payments to the County, in the amounts and at such times as set forth below (each a "Payment" and collectively, the "Payments"). The Payments may be used for any lawful purpose. a. One-Time Payment. The applicant, and if different than the applicant, the facility owner and/or operator, shall provide the substantial cash payments set forth in this condition for substantial public improvements in compliance with Virginia Code 15.2-2288.8. The applicant and the County acknowledge and agree that the County may identify in future budget years qualifying substantial public improvements that will be funded by these substantial cash payments to be provided by the applicant, facility owner, and/or operator. The substantial cash payments set forth in this condition are in addition to any other taxes under the Code of the County of Franklin, Virginia or revenue share ordinance that the County may adopt under Virginia Code Section 58.1-2636 and real estate taxes that the applicant, facility owner, and/or operator must pay on the site and the facility. The substantial cash payments incorporated into this condition assume an estimated project nameplate capacity of up to 5 MWac, and the following payment shall be adjusted proportionally down if the nameplate capacity of the constructed Project differs from such estimate. The applicant shall make a payment to the County in the amount of $24,000 per megawatt AC on or before the County's approval of the Final Site Plan for the Project. b. Voluntary Supplemental Tax Payments. The Project will be subjectto machinery andtools tax as provided by state law and local ordinances, including Virginia Code Section 58.1-3660 ("M&T Taxes"). Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-2636, the County may adopt an ordinance assessing a revenue share of up to $1,400.00 per megawatt, as measured in alternating current (AC) generation capacity of the nameplate capacity ofthe Project ("Revenue Share Ordinance"). As ofthe approval ofthe SUP, the County has not adopted a Revenue Share Ordinance but may choose to do SO at a later date. Ifthe County adopts a Revenue Share Ordinance, the Project will no longer be subject to M&TTaxes and will be subject to Revenue Share. The applicant shall be responsible for the "Voluntary Supplemental Tax Payment," which is an annual supplemental payment to be made only when M&T tax is less than Revenue Share rate in any given year as provided by Virginia Code Section 58.1-2636 (the "Revenue Share Equivalent"). The amount of the Voluntary Supplemental Tax Payment is determined by subtracting the M&T taxes payable in a given year from the Revenue Share Equivalent for the same year. For the avoidance of doubt: i. During the operational life of the Project when the M&T Taxes are higher than the Revenue Sharing Equivalent. Applicants will pay only their annual M&T Taxes. ii. During the operational life of the Project when the Revenue Share Equivalent is higher than the M&T Taxes, applicant will pay its annual M&T Taxes plus a Voluntary Supplemental Tax Payment in order to provide the County a total annual payment that equates to the Revenue Share Equivalent regardless of whether the County adopts a Revenue Share Ordinance or not. 111. Any supplemental voluntary payments to be paid by the applicant will be invoiced by the County within sixty (60) days after the determination ofthe amount. The applicant will make any supplemental voluntary payments to the County within sixty (60) days after the County's invoice. 34. Engineered decommissioning plan and decommissioning cost estimated will be required at final site development plan review. Schedule A Security (Surety) of Performance - Summary of Securities (Surety) Condition Performance Being Secured Security amount of Estimated Duration Reference Costs 12 Grading I 10% Construction 13 Erosion & Sediment Control 1 10% Phase 14 Stormwater Management 1 10% Construction Phase 7 Land cover & vegetative buffer 100% first growing season maintenance (two growing 50% second growing season Full seasons) lifecycle 17 Security fencing 25% of replacement cost Posting and release ofbonds shall be in accordance with the terms oft the bonds and the procedures set forth in the applicable County Ordinances and Code and the Code of Virginia. 1. Estimated costs serving as the basis for surety amounts shall be determined by a third- party engineer and/or contractor and provided to the County. 2. The amount of the surety shall be determined by multiplying the estimated cost ofthe scope of work by the applicable percentage listed above. 3. For any Construction phase surety requirements, bonds posted by the project contractor can satisfy the requirement for bonds in the Construction category. 35. Soil testing shall be conducted on the Site as follows: a. Testing shall be conducted in no less than three (3) locations on the Site, at least one location being within proximity to panels of each different type or manufacturer. Samples will be, collected from a depth of six inches below ground surface. b. Testing shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit and annually thereafter. Testing also shall be conducted immediately prior to Decommissioning and immediately following the termination of Decommissioning. C. Samples shall be analyzed for Priority Pollutant 13 Metals (arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc) in accordance with EPA methods SW 6020, SW 6020A, SW1312, and 200.8. d. Testing shall be performed by a service provider retained by the project owner but approved by the County. e. A test report for each testing event, including an executive summary, shall be provided to the Franklin County zoning administrator within ten (10) days ofthe completion of such report. f. No costs shall be incurred by Franklin County for soil testing or reports of soil testing provided to the County. WHEREAS, after full consideration, the Franklin County Board of Supervisors determined that the request will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties, that the character of the zoning district will not be changed thereby, and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the County Code with the uses permitted by right in the zoning district, and with the public health, safety and general welfare to the community, and APPROVED the special use permit with the thirty-five (35) conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a copy oft this Resolution be transmitted to the Clerk of the Planning Commission, the Franklin County Commissioner of Revenue and the Franklin County Zoning Administrator, and that the Clerk be directed to reflect this action to APPROVE the special use permit with thirty-five (35) conditions in the records of Franklin County. On the motion by to approve the requested special use permit, and seconded by said motion was APPROVED by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Amy Renick, Clerk Franklin County Board of Supervisors Date STAFF REPORT Case # SPEC-03-2025-18247 Franklin County A Natural Settingfor Opportunity To: Franklin County Planning Commission From: Tina Franklin, Planner II Date: May 2, 2025 Tax #s: 0660010100 and 0660003900 District: Union Hall Election District Applicant: Edwards Solar Farm, LLC Owner: Penny Edwards Blue, Ronald B. Edwards, and Ruby E. Penn APPLICATION for SPECIAL USE PERMIT = Application of Edwards Solar Farm, LLC, Applicants, and Penny Edwards Blue, Ronald B Edwards, and Ruby E Penn, Owners, requesting a special use permit on an approximate 109 acres of property zoned A-1, Agricultural District. The parcels are located on Edwardsway Road in the Union Hall Election District of Franklin County and further identified by real estate records as Tax Map/Parcel #0660010100 and 0660003900. The purpose ofthis special use permit request is to construct and operate a solar generator facility, utility scale with a maximum nameplate capacity up to 5-Megawatts alternating current (MWac). This property has a future land use designation of Agriculture; Forestry/Rural Residential (SPEC-03-25- 18247). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the special use permit for a 5 MW utility-scale solar generation facility with the following thirty-four (34) conditions: 1. The project applicant shall develop, construct, operate, and maintain the site in substantial conformance with the conceptual plans (titled "Edwards Solar Land, LLC, Preliminary Site Layout C3.0, dated April 9, 2025), all assurances and commitments made within the application materials, and the conditions imposed on the issued special use permit, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 2. Project capacity shall be limited to a maximum of5 MW, alternating current. 3. The developed area of the site, within the fence line, shall be limited to 36.5 acres; inverters, along with panels, shall be within the fence line. 4. The applicant shall give the County written notice of any change in ownership or entities responsible for operations or asset management of the project within sixty (60) days after the change. 5. Prior to or in conjunction with final site development plan review, the applicant shall submit details on the utility connections between noncontiguous portions of the project including secured easements, to the Zoning Administrator for approval. Approval of the site plan or subsequent permits shall not be granted without prior approval of these connections by the Zoning Administrator, or without the existence of executed easements for the connections, if required. Franklin County Planning Commission 6. Prior to or in conjunction with the final site development plan review, the applicant shall submit an additional viewshed analysis depicting visibility of developed site conditions along Jacks Creek Road, near Old Franklin Turnpike. Where installed equipment or portions thereof are anticipated to be visible above required buffer plantings based upon site topography, the applicant shall submit an alternative buffer plan for these areas that accommodates additional screening and/or berming to reasonably screen equipment from view, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 7. A separate security shall be posted for the ongoing maintenance of the project's land cover and vegetative buffers in an amount deemed sufficient by the Zoning Administrator as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto and provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (who may rely on the opinion ofa a third-party). 8. As part of the site plan review, the applicant shall be required to submit a construction mamagemenlcomsruction mitigation plan, to be reviewed and approved by VDOT and the Zoning Administrator. At a minimum, this plan shall address and/or include: a. Traffic control methods for all public roads to be used for ingress/egress (in coordination with the VDOT prior to initiation of construction) shall include, at a minimum, plans and procedures for lane closures, signage, and flagging. b. Coordination with VDOT prior to initiation of construction on the appropriateness of the speed limit on any public access road and support a speed limit reduction, if necessary. C. Site access planning, including procedures for directing and coordinating employee and delivery traffic. Construction traffic shall be limited to 7:00 am to 9:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, or as may be approved by the Zoning Administrator upon good cause shown by the applicant. d. Site security. e. Lighting; during construction of the facility, any temporary construction lighting shall be positioned downward, inward, and shielded to eliminate glare from all adjacent properties. Emergency and/or safety lighting shall be exempt from this construction lighting condition. f. Hours of construction. g. Coordination with erosion and sediment plans to mitigate dust and dirt on the roadways. h. Mitigation of burning operations. Issuance of permits by Franklin County Fire Marshal. i. Plans for staging and storage of materials and parking. During construction, the setback may be used for staging of materials and parking. No material and equipment laydown area, construction staging area, or construction trailer shall be located within 200 feet of any property containing a residential dwelling. SPEC-03-25-18247 2 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission 9. The applicant shall submit a traffic management plan to include entrances and comply with all Virginia Department of Transportation conditions for the traffic management plan during construction and decommissioning of the Solar Facility. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for repairing any damage to roadways occurring during developmenlcomstnuction or following commissioning of the project, or any portion thereof. Prior to the commencement of evelopmentcomsrnuction activities, VDOT, the County, and the applicant shall agree to the existing state ofapplicable roadways, to be documented by video furnished by the applicant to VDOT. During developmenlconsinuction, the roadways shall be monitored for damage, and the applicant, once notified by VDOT of damages, shall make repairs caused by construction traffic at the direction of VDOT. After construction activities are completed, the roadways will be evaluated for damage as measured against the condition prior to construction activity; the applicant will be required to restore such roadways to equivalent or better condition as existed prior to commencement of construction activity. 11. The applicant shall coordinate with the County's Sheriff Department prior to initiation of construction on speed monitoring plans and devices. 12. As part of the site plan review, the applicant shall be required to submit a grading plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. A bond or other surety, from an issuer and in a form approved by the Zoning Administrator, will be posted for the grading operations. The project shall be constructed in compliance with the grading plan. At a minimum this plan shall address: a. Clearly show existing and proposed contours. b. Note the locations and amounts of topsoil to be removed (if any) and the percent of the site to be graded. C. Limit grading to the greatest extent practicable by avoiding steep slopes. d. An earthwork balance will be achieved on-site with no import or export of soil except for importing specific quality soils required for construction. e. In areas proposed to be permanent access roads which will receive gravel or in any areas where more than a few inches of cut are required, topsoil will first be stripped and stockpiled on-site to be used to increase the fertility of areas intended to be seeded. f. Take advantage of natural flow patterns in drainage design and keep the amount of impervious surface as low as possible to reduce storm water storage needs; and g. Provide for the installation of all storm water and erosion and sediment control infrastructure ("Stormwater Infrastructure") at the outset ofthe project to ensure protection of water quality. Once all Stormwater SPEC-03-25-18247 3 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission Infrastructure is complete and approved by the VESCP authority, no more than 50% of the land disturbance areas as reflected on the Site Plan shall be disturbed without soil stabilization at any one time. Stabilization, for purposes of erosion and sediment control, shall mean the application of seed and straw to disturbed areas, which shall be determined by the VESCP authority. 13. The Erosion and Sediment Control plan shall comply with the most recent version of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook at the time of construction. The County will have a third-party review with corrections completed prior to the County review and approval. The owner or operator shall construct maintain and operate the project in compliance with the approved plan. An E&S bond (or other surety) shall be posted for the construction portion of the project to be provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party) as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto. a. To the maximum extent practicable, trees and stumps removed during the course of development shall be mulched on site, with such mulch to be used to mitigate and control storm water runoff during construction. b. To the maximum extent practicable, topsoil from the site should be maintained on site for areas where grading occurs that exposes unsuitable soils where erosion and sediment control vegetation will not take; soil analysis shall be performed to assess the adequate seed mix for exposed soils. 14. The stormwater control plan shall comply with the most recent State policies and regulations at the time of design and construction. The County will have a third-party review with corrections completed prior to submittal to the County for review and approval. The owner or operator shall construct, maintain, and operate the project in compliance with the approved plan. A storm water control bond (or other surety) provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator or Program Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party) shall, be posted as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto. 15. Ground cover shall be native vegetation where compatible with site conditions and, in all cases, shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator, as part of the final site development plan review, who may rely on the assistance of a third- party reviewer. 16. Only EPA approved herbicides shall be used for vegetative and weed control at the solar energy facility by a licensed applicator. No herbicides shall be used within 150 feet oft the location of an approved ground water well. The applicant shall submit an herbicide land application plan prior to approval of the certificate of occupancy (or equivalent). The plan shall specify the type of herbicides to be used, the frequency ofl land application, the identification of SPEC-03-25-18247 4 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission approved groundwater wells, wetlands, streams, and the distances from land application areas to features such as wells, wetlands, streams, and other bodies of water. The operator shall notify the County prior to application of pesticides and fertilizers. The County reserves the right to request soil and ground and/or surface water testing. 17. For permanent security fencing, a performance bond reflecting the costs anticipated for fence maintenance shall be posted as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto, provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party). 18. No fence or similar barrier shall impede the flow of the main channel of any stream or through a wetland identified on the final site development plan. 19. Permanent entrance roads, parking areas, and maintenance access roads as designated in the erosion and sediment and stormwater management plan, will be stabilized with gravel, asphalt, or concrete to minimize dust, and impacts to adjacent properties. Roads internal to the site that are not part of ingress/egress and maintenance access roads to the site may be compacted dirt. 20. All physically damaged panels or any portion or debris thereof shall be collected by the solar facility operator and removed from the site or stored on site in a location protected from weather and wildlife and from any contact with ground or water until removal from the site can be arranged; the County must be notified of damaged panels and/ or debris and storage of damaged panels or portion or debris thereof shall not exceed thirty (30) days beyond any required period for insurance, warranty claim or in event of force majeure, for which reasonable documentation shall be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator. For the purposes of the foregoing, force majeure shall be defined to include strikes, lockouts or other labor disturbances, inability to secure labor or materials in the open market, acts of God or other element of nature or accidents, delays or conditions arising from or relating to acts of war, domestic or international terrorism, pandemic, civil disturbances or riots, or any other matter or condition that is beyond the reasonable anticipation and control of the applicant. 21. Subject to the requirement that the County provide the applicant with an estimate of the third-party costs prior to the expense being incurred (when applicable County permit fees do not cover assumed costs), the applicant shall reimburse the County its reasonable costs in obtaining independent third-party reviews as required by these conditions and for the review of the site plan (including all specific plans thereof), Erosion and Sediment Control plan, decommissioning cost estimates, and bi annual inspections during operations to verify compliance with all permits and approvals. The applicant shall also fully fund any temporary or permanent signage as requested or required by the County SPEC-03-25-18247 5 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission or the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT"), as well as any costs associated with traffic planning or traffic mitigation. 22. The design, installation, maintenance, and repair of the Solar Facility shall be in accordance with the most current National Electric Code (NFPA 70) available (2014 version or later as applicable) and State Building Code at the time of construction. 23. Inspections. a. The applicant will allow designated County representatives or employees access to the facility at any time during and after construction and for inspection purposes during normal business hours and after construction a 24-hour notice before an inspection. b. The applicant shall hire an independent third-party to conduct inspections required by local and state laws and regulations. 24. Emergency Access, Response, and Training. a. The applicant shall submit an Emergency Response Plan (the "ER Plan") with the submission of the site plan. The ER Plan shall include fire suppression methods that can be immediately deployed during both the construction and operation of the project. The ER Plan shall also include a program of education and training to be provided for County emergency response staff covering onsite emergency response, as well as information on how the facility will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to allow for access by County emergency response staffi in the event of an emergency. b. Prior to the end of construction of the Project Site, the applicant, shall hold training classes with the County's first responders (Fire and Rescue) to provide materials, education, and training on responding to on-site emergencies, to include the provision of information and any necessary equipment to allow first responders to gain access to any part of the facility in the event of an emergency. The training classes shall be scheduled with the assistance of the County's Public Safety Coordinator or designee. C. The applicant shall provide refresher training upon request of Franklin County Public Safety, up to once every five years. d. In the event any upgrades or changes in technology associated with the Solar Facilities results in any change in emergency procedure, including the manner of access to the facility, the applicant will notify the County Public Safety Coordinator, who may, at their discretion, schedule an additional training on the new equipment. SPEC-03-25-18247 6 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission 25. Compliance. The Solar Facilities shall be designed, constructed, and tested to meet relevant local, state, and federal standards as applicable. The applicant must provide document(s) that the project has met all national standards. 26. The Special Use Permit shall be terminated if the solar facility does not commence the project in three (3): years. 27. If the Solar Facilities are declared to be unsafe, due to a violation of building or electrical codes, as determined by the fire marshal or building official, and the applicant of the Facilities fails to respond in writing to such official within seven (7) days, the County may revoke the right for the Facilities to continue operation until the unsafe condition is brought into compliance with the applicable building or electrical code. If the unsafe condition cannot be remedied within six (6) months, the Conditional Use Permit shall be terminated, and the Solar Facilities shall be decommissioned. 28. The applicant shall provide the County with a list of capital equipment, including but not limited to solar photovoltaic equipment proposed to be installed, whether or not it has yet been certified as pollution control equipment by the State Corporation Commission or Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and lists of all other taxable tangible property. Thereafter, on an annual basis, the applicant shall provide the County with any updates to this information. Further, any information that is provided to the Virginia State Corporation Commission in the future, for the Commission's use in valuing such property for taxation purposes, shall also be provided to the County in a timely manner. 29. The applicant is required to provide an onsite SWM and ESC manager who is responsible for daily inspections of site SWM/ESC practices, as well as weekly status reports to be filed with Franklin County site inspector. The person serving as the onsite manager should have a current certification from DEQ for Erosion and Stormwater Inspector. The use of a qualified third-party inspection service maybe used in conjunction with onsite personal. A detailed management plan as to how this requirement of the agreement will be satisfied to be submitted to the County's Development Review Manager. 30. Inverters will be setback a distance of three hundred (300) feet from all exterior property lines. 31. All solar panels shall be BloombergNEP" Tier 1 rated and have passed the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, as administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 32. Initial planting of new vegetative buffer shall occur within three (3) months of substantial completion of the fencing installations. Vegetative buffer punch list and repairs may continue during project construction. SPEC-03-25-18247 7 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission 33. The applicant shall make payments to the County, in the amounts and at such times as set forth below (each a "Payment" and collectively, the "Payments"). The Payments may be used for any lawful purpose. a. One-Time Payment. The applicant, and if different than the applicant, the facility owner and/or operator, shall provide the substantial cash payments set forth in this condition for substantial public improvements in compliance with Virginia Code 15.2-2288.8. The applicant and the County acknowledge and agree that the County may identify in future budget years qualifying substantial public improvements that will be funded by these substantial cash payments to be provided by the applicant, facility owner, and/or operator. The substantial cash payments set forth in this condition are in addition to any other taxes under the Code of the County of Franklin, Virginia or revenue share ordinance that the County may adopt under Virginia Code Section 58.1-2636 and real estate taxes that the applicant, facility owner, and/or operator must pay on the site and the facility. The substantial cash payments incorporated into this condition assume an estimated project nameplate capacity of up to 5 MWac and the following payment shall be adjusted proportionally down if the nameplate capacity of the constructed Project differs from such estimate. The applicant shall make a payment to the County in the amount of $24,000 per megawatt AC on or before the County's approval of the Final Site Plan for the Project. b. Voluntary Supplemental Tax Payments. The Project will be subject to machinery and tools tax as provided by state law and local ordinances, including Virginia Code Section 58.1-3660 ("M&T Taxes"). Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-2636, the County may adopt an ordinance assessing a revenue share of up to $1,400.00 per megawatt, as measured in alternating current (AC) generation capacity of the nameplate capacity of the Project ("Revenue Share Ordinance"). As of the approval of the SUP, the County has not adopted a Revenue Share Ordinance but may choose to do SO at a later date. Ift the County adopts a Revenue Share Ordinance, the Project will no longer be subject to M&T Taxes and will be subject to Revenue Share. The applicant shall be responsible for the "Voluntary Supplemental Tax Payment" which is an annual supplemental payment to be made only when M&T tax is less than Revenue Share rate in any given year as provided by Virginia Code Section 58.1-2636 (the "Revenue Share Equivalent"). The amount of the Voluntary Supplemental Tax Payment is determined by subtracting the M&T taxes payable in a given year from the Revenue Share Equivalent for the same year. For the avoidance of doubt: SPEC-03-25-18247 8 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission i. During the operational life of the Project when the M&T Taxes are higher than the Revenue Sharing Equivalent. Applicant will pay only its annual M&T Taxes. ii. During the operational life of the Project when the Revenue Share Equivalent is higher than the M&T Taxes, applicant will pay its annual M&T Taxes plus a Voluntary Supplemental Tax Payment in order to provide the County a total annual payment that equates to the Revenue Share Equivalent regardless of whether the County adopts a Revenue Share Ordinance or not. 111. Any supplemental voluntary payments to be paid by the applicant will be invoiced by the County within sixty (60) days after the determination of the amount. The applicant will make any supplemental voluntary payments to the County within sixty (60) days after the County's invoice. 34. Engineered decommissioning plan and decommissioning cost estimated will be required at final site development plan review. Schedule A Security (Surety) of Performance Summary of Securities (Surety) Condition Performance Being Secured Security amount of] Estimated Duration Reference Costs 12 Grading 110% Construction 13 Erosion & Sediment Control 110% Phase 14 Stormwater Management 110% Construction Phase 7 Land cover & vegetative buffer 100% first growing season maintenance (two growing 50% second growing season Full lifecycle seasons) 17 Security fencing 25% ofreplacement cost Posting and release of bonds shall be in accordance with the terms of the bonds and the procedures set forth in the applicable County Ordinances and Code and the Code of Virginia. 1. Estimated costs serving as the basis for surety amounts shall be determined by a third party engineer and/or contractor and provided to the County. 2. The amount ofthe surety shall be determined by multiplying the estimated cost ofthe scope of work by the applicable percentage listed above. 3. For any Construction phase surety requirements, bonds posted by the project contractor can satisfy the requirement for bonds in the Construction category. SPEC-03-25-18247 9 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission OVERVIEW: Edwards Solar Farm, LLC is proposing to construct and operate a distribution scale solar power generation facility with a maximum nameplate capacity up to 5 Megawatts alternating current (MWac) on approximately 108.87 acres combined on two (2) parcels identified as # 0660003900 and 0660010100, located on Jacks Creek Road and currently used for pasture and timberland. The project's buildable area is 38 acres, with approximately 25 acres of solar panels and project infrastructure. During the operation of Edwards Solar there will be approximately 84 acres of open green space, forestland, and other vegetation unused by the project. A portion of the land will be used for required setbacks and buffers, while the remainder will be retained and used by the landowner. The project will deliver clean and cost-competitive energy through a distribution circuit that crosses Jacks Creek Road next to the project site and connects to Appalachian Power Company's Penhook substation. The project is approximately 108.87 acres of land about 15 acres will be used for pasture and hay production and the remaining approximately 89 acres are forested. The forest land was logged in 2011 and has grown back as mostly monoculture pine. American Electric Power has cleared and occupies about 6 acres as a right of way for transmission lines and the Mountain Valley Pipeline. The proposed land use is a solar farm consisting of photovoltaic (PV) panels. The PV panels produce clean and affordable energy that flows into the local grid, powering homes and businesses. There will be no batteries for this project. The project proposes a fence along the perimeter (36.5 acres) ofthe project area as shown on the concept plan. The applicant stated that during the operation and maintenance, the facility produces no vibration, emissions, odor, or fumes; and during construction, there will be limited noise and equipment emissions, which will be mitigated as required by the ordinance, including limiting the hours of operation of post-driving and other construction equipment from sunrise to sunset. This project does not use public utilities therefore there will be no impact on public infrastructure. The setback for the project will be a minimum of 150 feet from public rights-of-way and 300 feet from any residence. In addition, the project will utilize the dense existing vegetation for screening and during the construction process if more trees are removed than anticipated there will be re-planting oftrees. The application supplied additional information in the packet narrative pertaining to glint and glare, economic impacts, environmental and cultural considerations, preliminary site plan and project designs, and community engagement. The packet also includes exhibits for the following: preliminary site exhibits, traffic analysis and VDOT correspondence, decommissioning plan, glint and glare study, impact on adjacent property values, community meeting summary, site control, natural heritage and wildlife study, and Edwards solar 2232 analysis. There are three (3) residential parcels that adjoin this project to the northeast, one (1) being parcel id # 0660010000 owned by a landowner participating in the project. The SPEC-03-25-18247 10 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission parcels directly east and west ofthe project are parcel id#'s 0660010106 and 0660004300 and owned by the landowners participating in the project and their relatives. Parcel id#'s 0660010700 and 0660004100 are vacant and used primarily for silviculture and pastureland and parcel id# 0690000100 to the south is used as an active quarry by the Rockydale Corporation. On January 22, 2025, CEP Solar held one (1) community meeting at the Glade Hill Fire/EMS Department to present the project to the community and listen to the feedback from residents and citizens of the community concerning the project. In addition, a representative of CEP Solar went door to door to adjoining property owners to introduce the project and answer questions. The County requested a third party (Berkley Group) to review the application to determine if the application was complete as well as compliant with respect to applicable requirements of the Franklin County Zoning Ordinance. The consulting firm found no deficiencies in the application and offered conditions. (Please see memorandum attached) Following the Berkley Group review the applicant revised the prime farmland map concerning the acreage of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. The changes were from Prime Farmland from 6.2 acres to 9.2 acres and Farmland of Statewide Importance from 26.6 acres to 25.0 acres for the total increasing from 32.8 acres to 34.2 acres. The application was advertised, site posted, and notifications sent to all adjacent property owners. The Development Review Team (DRT) has reviewed the application at its April meeting. As of the date of this report, staff have received one (1) phone call inquiring about the application and how the project would impact her property. Additional comments and concerns may be raised as a result of the public hearings. SITESTATISTICS: Location: Jacks Creek Road Size: +/- 108.87 total acres Existing Land Use: Agricultural Adjoining Zoning: A-1, Agricultural Adjoining Land Uses: Residential and Vacant Adj Future Land Uses: Agricultural Forestry/Rural Residential SPEC-03-25-18247 11 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Franklin County 2007 comprehensive plan has a utility chapter with a goal, objectives and strategies concerning renewable energy, which includes utility-scale solar generation facilities. The following is from the utility chapter: Goal: Develop and implement a long-range countywide utility infrastructure plan which assures equitable level of access for all County citizens including but not limited to water, sewer, solid waste, telecommunications, electrical power, television access, broadband access, and natural gas that supports and complements the County's long-range plan for transportation, residential, commercial and industrial development; and community facilities. This plan will also be consistent with the County's plan for environmental quality and the Commonwealth's goals for renewable energy. Objective: 36.0 To promote the use of residential, commercial, and utility scale renewable energy in the way of solar generator facilities and wind turbines while minimizing the impact of such facilities on Franklin County's view shed and the County's natural, agricultural, scenic, tourism, and cultural resources. Strategies: 36.0a Avoiding the impact of solar facilities and wind turbines on available farmland, including prime farmland and farmland of statewide significance. To help minimize the impact, the County desires to have no more than 1,500 cumulative acres ofleased area occupied by utility scale solar projects throughout the County. 36.0b Solar facilities should be screened from all public rights-of-way and all adjacent properties. 36.0c Solar facilities should not visually impact scenic and cultural resources, including the view shed from residential areas and event venue spaces. 36.0d Promote sustainable building design and management practices to serve current and future generations. 36.0e Assist local businesses to lower financial and regulatory risks and improve their economic, community, and environmental sustainability. 36.0f Promote Agrivoltaics (APV) for farmers to still use the area of their land where solar facilities are located. 36.0g Solar facilities should not generally be located within Designated Growth Areas (DGAs) 36.0h Proposed project shall be evaluated for compliance with the most recently adopted Solar Energy Facility Siting Policy document to assist the County in making substantial accord determination under Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia. This policy shall serve as guidance for County staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors to evaluate whether the proposal is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The County had a third party (Berkley Group) review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for compliance with Section 15.2-2232 of the Virginia State Code. SPEC-03-25-18247 12 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission It was determined that the project was in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. (See Berkley Group document attached) The future land use map has parcels identified with the solar project designated Agriculture Forestry/Rural Residential. These two (2) Future Land Use designations primarily focus on policies regarding residential development in the rural areas of the County, as well as agricultural and forestal development/uses and does not speak to policy for public facilities in these designations but is inherent that some public facilities will be required, and expected, within all areas of the County. The project will not have a substantial detriment to adjacent properties, land uses, and environment with reasonable conditions. There are areas of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance; however, through revegetation and the land is not currently farmed impacts will be avoided. The project's visually impact on scenic and cultural resources, which includes viewshed from residential shows, the screening proposed, and the topography of the land should provide sufficient mitigation on the adverse impacts. In summary, the staff's opinion is that the special use permit for solar facility meets the criteria ofthe goal, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan pertaining to solar development along with conditions proposed by staff. ZONING ORDINANCE: Special uses for the A-1 district are set forth in Sec. 25-179. The requested use is referenced as "Utility-Scale Solar Generation Facility". Utility-Scale Solar Generation Facility has supplementary regulations in Section 25-147 of the County's Zoning Ordinance for utility scale solar projects to adhere to prior to the public hearing for the special use permit... Sec. 25-638 ofthe Zoning Ordinance sets forth the County's authority to issue special use permits for certain uses. In order to issue a special use permit, the Board of Supervisors must find that such use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties, that the character of the zoning district will not be changed thereby, and that such use will be in harmony with the uses permitted by-right in the zoning district, and with the public health, safety, and general welfare to the community. Sec. 25-640 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the County's authority to impose conditions for the issuance of special use permits. The ordinance states that the Board of Supervisors "may impose upon any such permit such conditions relating to the use. for which such permit is granted as it may deem necessary in the public interest... 33 Conditions associated with a special use permit must be related to the particular land use which required the permit and must be related to some impact generated by or associated with such land use. SPEC-03-25-18247 13 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission Sec. 25-641 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a special use permit shall expire eighteen (18) months from the date ofi issuance if "no commencement of use, structure or activity has taken place. The ordinance states that "commencement" shall consist of" "extensive obligations or substantial expenditures in relation to the project," including engineering, architectural design, land clearing, and/or construction. ANALYSIS In accordance with Section 25-638, the proposed special use permit is evaluated to determine ifi it will be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties, change the character of the zoning district, and be in harmony with the uses permitted by-right in the zoning district, and the public health, safety, and general welfare to the community. The County had a third party (Berkley Group) review the application for completeness and compliance with respect to the Franklin County Zoning Ordinance for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for the special use permit for a solar facility at this location. It was the opinion of the third party "that with imposition of reasonable conditions and current adjacent land uses, the proposed use may not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character ofthe subject zoning district may not be changed by the proposed use, and that such use may be in harmony with the purposed and intent of the ordinance and with the permitted uses by right in the zoning district." The project area has AEP transmission line and mountain valley pipeline crossing the property and Rockydale Quarry is located at the end of the road. This area has been impacted by other utilities and businesses that will be less detrimental to the adjoining area. The project after construction will not generate noise, traffic, or other environmental impacts like other land uses allowed in the zoning district. Staff recommendations for approval due to the fact that the project will not be in substantial detriment to the adjacent properties, visual and environmental impacts will be minimal The character of the zoning district will not be changed by the proposed use and in harmony with the intent of the ordinance and with other permitted uses by right in the zoning district. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM (DRT) COMMENTS: AEP: Elijah Meador had no comments or concerns due to the nature ofthe application. VDOT: Lisa Lewis states the following comments: 1. Please provide a traffic narrative. 2. This land use can be permitted as a private entrance; however, sight distance shall be denoted on the plan. 3. Provide drainage calculations for any impacts to the VDOT maintained right of way. VDH: Darin Doss had no comments or concerns due to the nature ofthe application. SPEC-03-25-18247 14 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission WVWA: Gabriel Inigaray had no comments or concerns other than fire protection. STORMWATER / E&S: Bill Raney, Development Review Manager, stated if disturbing 3,000sf within 200' of an active waterway or 10,000sf, an engineered plan for erosion and sediment control and if disturbing 1 acre or more, a storm water management plan would be required to be submitted to our office for review and approval. BUILDING: John Broughton stated the solar project will have to obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction." FIRE & EMS: D. Allen Jackson, Deputy Fire Marshal had no comments or concerns regarding the application. GIS: Eric Schmidt, GIS Coordinator, stated the address that exists on the property now is for a MVP point. If the applicant builds something new, a new address will be needed. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The following suggested motions are sample motions that may be used. They include language found in Section 15.2-2283, Purpose of zoning ordinances of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. (APPROVE) I find that the use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties, that the character of the zoning district will not be changed thereby, and that such use will be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the zoning district, and with the public health, safety, and general welfare to the community. Therefore, I move to recommend approval of the applicant's request for a special use permit to allow for a 5MW utility-scale solar generation facility in accordance with Section 25-179 and Section 25-147 of the Zoning Ordinance, with thirty-four (34) conditions recommended by staff. OR (DENY) I find that such use will be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties, that the character ofthe zoning district will be changed thereby, and that such use will not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the uses permitted by right in the zoning district, and with the public health, safety, and general welfare to the community. Therefore, I move to recommend denial of applicant's request for a special use permit for a 5MW utility-scale solar generation facility. OR (DELAY ACTION) I find that the required information for the submitted petition is incomplete. Therefore, I move to delay action until all necessary materials are submitted to the Planning SPEC-03-25-18247 15 May 2, 2025 Franklin County Planning Commission Commission. SPEC-03-25-18247 16 May 2, 2025 FRANKLIN COUNTY SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION I/We Edwards Solar Farm, LLC as Owner(s), Contract Purchasers, or Owner's Authorized Agent of the property described below, hereby apply to the Franklin County Board of Supervisors for a special use permit on the property described below: Petitioner': s Name: Edwards Solar Farm, LLC Petitioner's Address: 2201 W Broad Street Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23220 Petitioner': s Phone Number: 804-789-4040 Ext. 715 Petitioner's Email Address: auicoens@cepsoarcon Property Owner's Name: Ronald Edwards Property Owner's s Address: 280 Edwardsway Road Union Hall, VA 24176 Property Owner's s Phone Number: N/A Property Owner's s Email Address: N/A Property Information: A. Proposed Property Address: B. Tax Map and Parcel Number: 0660003900 C. Election District: UNION HALL D. Size ofl Property: Approximately 42.68 Acres E. Existing Zoning: A1 F. Existing Land Use: Silviculture and Pasture Land G. Is thej property located within any ofthe following overlay zoning districts: Corridor District Westlake Overlay District Smith Mountain Lake Surface District H. Is any land submerged under water or part of Smith Mountain Lake? YES NO I. Ifyes, please explain: Proposed Special Use Permit Information: J. Proposed Land Use: Distribution Scale Solar Power Generation Faculity K. Size of Proposed Use: Please see attached project narrative Page 5 of8 June 13, 2023 L. Other Details of Proposed Use: Checklist for Completed Items: Application Form Letter of Application Concept Plan Application Fee Id certify that this application for a special use permit and the information submitted is herein complete and accurate. Petitioner' s Name (Printed): Petitioner' s Signature: Date: Mailing Address: Phone Number: Email Address: Owner' s consent, if petitioner is not property owner: Owner's Name: Ranaa B.Elrrds Owner's s Signature: SAR.Sl Date: olao/25 Date Received by Planning Staff: Page 6 of8 June 13, 2023 CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Cover Letter Edwards Solar Farm 1 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Franklin County Edwards Solar Farm, LLC Planning and Community Development 2202 W. Broad St, Suite 200 1255 Franklin Street Tel: 804-789-4040 Suite 103 Email: paulcozms@polar.com Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151 To: Franklin County Planning & Community Development From: CEP Solar CEP Solar is pleased to present the following Special Use Permit (SUP) and Comprehensive Plan Conformance Review applications, on behalf of Edwards Solar Farm, LLC (the Applicant"), for the Edwards Solar Farm (the "Project"). The applications are for a distribution-scale solar energy facility located on portions oftwo parcels in the Union Hall District of Franklin County. The Project will be capable of generating up to 5-megawatts alternating current (MWac) of clean energy delivered to the local distribution system within Appalachian Power Company's service territory. This is enough power to meet the energy needs of about 560 Virginia homes, based on U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. The Project will not require the construction of a new substation or a battery storage system. The Project will be developed on land that is currently used for transmission towers and was partially developed as part of the Mountain Valley Pipeline. Additionally, the Project adjoins an active quarry to the south. The Project will utilize approximately 35 percent of the total acreage ofthe properties, allowing it to exceed the county's setback standards. The Project is not expected to be seen or heard once operational. The Project will utilize less than one one-hundredth of a percent (0.01%) of the total land area of Franklin County. Edwards Solar Farm is substantially in accord with the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan. The Project will be fully screened from public rights-of-way and adjacent properties and will not visually impact scenic and cultural resources. It is also not located in a Designated Growth Area of Franklin County. The Project meets the County's objective of promoting the use of solar facilities while minimizing impacts on the County's natural, agricultural, scenic, tourism, and cultural resources. The Project will provide a substantial increase in economic benefit to Franklin County compared to the current revenues generated by the project parcels. It will also not place a burden on public services or infrastructure, while generating environmental and economic benefits to the community through emission-free and affordable energy generation. We look forward to working with Franklin County on this project and developing Edwards Solar Farm in a1 manner that benefits the County's citizens and preserves land use options for future generations. Ifyou have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Paul Cogens Paul Cozens aulcozms@epsolarcon 804-789-4040 ext.715 Edwards Solar Farm 2 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Project Narrative Supplement to Application for Special Use Permit Edwards Solar Farm 3 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Project Narrative -Table of Contents 1. Project Details 6 2.0 Planning Considerations 7 2.1 Current Use and Proposed Use 7 2.2 Conformity with Comprehensive Plan.. 7 3.0 General Development Considerations 7 3.1 Compatibility with the Community and Adjacent Properties 7 3.2 Glint and Glare / Airport Operations 8 3.3 Sound 8 3.4 Fire Safety 9 4.0 Economic Impacts 9 5.0 Environmental and Cultural Considerations: 10 5.1 Environmental Preservation. 10 5.2 Considerations of Air Quality 10 5.3 Surface and Groundwater Quality 10 5.4 Wildlife Resources. 11 5.5 Cultural and Historical Resource Analysis 11 6.0 Preliminary Site Plan and Project Design. 12 6.1 Project Interconnection 12 6.2 Facility Construction. 12 6.3 Panel Materials and Construction 12 6.4 Lighting 13 6.5 Setbacks and Buffers.. 13 6.6 Traffic and Site Access 14 6.7 Decommissioning 14 6.8 Landscaping and Screening Plan 15 7.0 Community Engagement 15 8.0 Exhibits 16 8.1 List of Project Parcels 16 8.2 List of Adjacent Parcels 16 Edwards Solar Farm 4 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8.3 Preliminary Site Exhibits 17 8.4 Anticipated Traffic Analysis and VDOT Correspondence 18 8.5 Decommissioning Plan 19 8.6 Glint and Glare Study 20 8.7 FAA Notice Criteria. 21 8.8 Impact on Adjacent Property Values 22 8.9 Community Meeting Summary. 23 8.10 Site Control 24 8.11 Edwards Solar Natural Heritage and Wildlife Management Study 25 8.12 Edwards Solar 2232 Analysis 26 Edwards Solar Farm 5 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 1. Project Details Edwards Solar Farm, LLC (the "Applicant") is seeking approval ofa Special Use Permit (SUP) to enable it to construct and operate a solar energy facility with a maximum nameplate capacity up to 5-Megawatts alternating current (MWac). The Edwards Solar Farm (the "Project") will be situated on portions of two parcels owned by Ronald B Edwards, Penny Blue Edwards, and Ruby Edwards. The parcels numbers are 0660003900 and 0660010100. The land is currently used for pasture and timberland. The Project will be along Jacks Creek Road near Old Franklin Turnpike. The two project parcels are approximately 108.87 acres combined. The Project's buildable area is 38 acres, with approximately 25 acres of solar panels and Project infrastructure. Thus, while Edwards Solari is in operation, there will be approximately 84 acres of open green space, forestland, and other vegetation unused by the project. Aj portion ofthis land will be used for required setbacks and buffers, while the remainder will be retained and used by the landowner. Approximately 108.87 acres for two privately owned The Project site is approximately 13 miles east parcels ofRocky Mount int the Union Hall District. Site control has been secured through an option to lease agreement as demonstrated in Exhibit 8.10 Site Control. The Project will deliver clean and cost-competitive energy through a Approximately 25 acres for distribution circuit that crosses Jacks Creek the solar field Road next to the project site and connects to Appalachian Power Company's Penhook substation. The Project developeri is CEP Solar, a Virginia- Approximately 84 acres are based renewable energy development company reserved for setbacks, 97 focused on providing sustainable energy buffers and use by the solutions in the Commonwealth of Virginia. - landowners. CEP Solar submits this Application, on behalf of Edwards Solar Farm, LLC, in compliance with the County Zoning Ordinance requirements for a utility-scale solar energy facility. We share the County's commitment to ensure that the best practices in solar development are being implemented in Franklin County, and we look forward to demonstrating that commitment with this Project. The Project's S final site plan will be completed after field studies and advanced engineering have been conducted, and it will be submitted to the County along with construction plans at the time of final site plan application. Edwards Solar Farm 6 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 2.0 Planning Considerations 2.1 Current Use and Proposed Use Ofthe approximately 108.87 acres of project land about 15 acres are used for pasture and hay production and the remaining approximately 89 acres are forested. The forest land was logged in 2011 and has grown back as mostly monoculture pine. American Electric Power has cleared and occupies about 6 acres as a right of way for transmission lines and the Mountain Valley Pipeline. The proposed land use is a solar farm consisting of photovoltaic (PV) panels. The PV panels produce clean and affordable energy that flows into the local grid, powering homes and businesses. 2.2 Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Va. Code $15.2-2232 provides that the County's Comprehensive Plan controls "the general or approximate location, character, and extent of each feature shown on the plan." 9 For any "public utility facility" that is proposed after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the County's Planning Commission is tasked with determining whether the "general location or approximate location, character; and extent thereof [oft the public utility. facility) is substantially in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof" Because the Project is considered a public utility facility pursuant to Va. Code S 56-232, the Planning Commission is called upon to determine if the proposed "general location or approximate location, character, and extent" oft the Project is "substantially in accord" with the Plan. This analysis can be found in Exhibit 8.12] Edwards Solar 2232 Analysis 3.0 General Development Considerations 3.1 Compatibility with the Community and Adjacent Properties Due to the passive nature of solar energy facilities, there are no anticipated adverse impacts to the public health, safety, or welfare of the citizens ofl Franklin County. During operation and maintenance, the facility produces no vibration, emissions, odor, or fumes; during construction, there will be limited noise and equipment emissions, which will be mitigated as required by the ordinance, including limiting the hours of operation of post-driving and other construction equipment from sunrise to sunset. Because the Project does not use any public utilities, there is no impact on public infrastructure. The Project will be set back a minimum of150 feet from public rights ofway and 300 feet from residences. Solar projects also make good neighbors they generate minimal sound during operation and are screened effectively with vegetative buffers and existing vegetation given their minimal height. Solar is a low-impact land use, providing benefits to the County and the community with Edwards Solar Farm 7 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS minimal-to-no impact on the County's resources. Other forms of development (commercial, residential housing, etc.) require additional services such as roads, utilities, schools, and law enforcement. The Project is compatible with the existing use of the project land and the adjoining parcels. The project land is bisected by a cleared transmission line easement used by American Electric Power and the Mountain Valley Pipeline. There are three residential parcels that adjoin the project parcel to the northeast. One of those three parcels (0660010000) is owned by a landowner participating in the project. The project will be set back over 300 feet from these residences and will utilize the dense existing vegetation to screen the project from view. The parcels directly east and west of the project land (0660010106 and 0660004300) are owned by landowners participating in the project and their relatives. Other adjoining parcels (0660010700 and 0660004100) are vacant and used primarily for silviculture and pastureland. The parcel directly south (0690000100) is used as an active quarry by the Rockydale Corporation. 3.2 Glint and Glare / Airport Operations The Federal Aviation Administration's ("FAA") Obstruction Evaluation / Airport Airspace Analysis Notice Criteria Tool was used to determine the impact of the project on airways. The notice criteria tool is a tool provided by the FAA to determine ift the project needs to be filed for a hazard study with the FAA. Ifthe tool determines that the project is eligible, the FAA will further evaluate the project for its impact on the surroundings. Ifthe project is deemed ineligible by the criteria tool, no further steps are required by the FAA. The tool determined that the Edwards Solar Project did not exceed the agency's criteria, and the project does not need any further FAA study. Therefore, the Edwards Solar Project poses no potential hazard for, and will not interfere with, airport operations. The notice criteria tool results are attached as Exhibit 8.7FAA Notice Criteria in the application. Additionally, to further demonstrate "that the panels will be sited, designed, and installed to eliminate glint and glare effects on airport operations" (Sec. 25-147. (b)(5) (1)), DARE Strategies LLC used ForgeSolar software to evaluate glint and glare on the final approach to Runway 05 at Smith Mountain Lake Airport, approximately 11 miles northeast of the site. The software results predict zero glint and glare effects on operations at the airfield. This report can be found in Exhibit 8.6 Glint and Glare Study. 3.3 Sound During operation, the Edwards Solar Farm will not produce sound outside ofthe Project boundaries. Project components that produce sound, such as inverters, will be set back from the Project boundary SO they will not be heard from adjacent properties. Additionally, the Project Edwards Solar Farm 8 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS will only be operating during the day, SO there will be no sound produced at night. During construction, there will be a temporary increase in sound levels due to the operation of construction equipment. The construction period is expected to last 6: months or less, during which construction activities will be limited in accordance with permit conditions and applicable sections ofthe Franklin County Land Development Ordinance. Once the Project is constructed, the inverter sound shall not exceed 50 dBA from the fence line, which is equivalent to the normal operational sound of a consumer refrigerator. 3.4 Fire Safety While electrical fires are an extremely rare occurrence at solar facilities, they may occur in the event of an improper connection. These concerns are addressed by testing and safety standards required of solar panels, inverters, and associated equipment. In addition, the Project will follow safety standards set in the National Electric Code (NEC) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) code to ensure safe design, construction, and operation of the facility. The Project owner or operator will, in coordination with the Franklin County Public Safety, provide education and training on how to respond in the event of a fire or other emergency on the premises. Prior to construction, per the Franklin County Zoning Ordinance, a post-construction safety plan will be made available to public safety agencies and will include optional training on the equipment to be located on the site. 4.0 Economic Impacts The Edwards Solar Farm will provide a substantial increase in economic benefit to Franklin County compared to the current revenues generated by the project parcels. The Project will also generate environmental and economic benefits to the community through emission-free and affordable energy generation. Unlike other forms of development, the Edwards Solar Farm will not place a burden on the County's public services or infrastructure, limiting costs sO that the revenues generated are added directly to Franklin County's bottom line for the benefit of the community. Many corporations are beginning to require access to renewable energy when deciding where to locate their facilities. The adoption oft this growing field can lead to direct economic boosts during construction, long-term economic gains by the local economy, and serve to attract further business development to the region. Funds raised from Project tax revenue will reduce the burden of the County to raise taxes on its citizens and support the County in making capital investments today. Edwards Solar Farm 9 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 5.0 Environmental and Cultural Considerations Solar facilities are impermanent uses that maintain land use flexibility for the future. Unlike a subdivision or industrial facility, if the solar facility is permanently discontinued, it will be decommissioned, and the land returned to its previous state or transitioned to another use residential, agricultural, industrial, or otherwise. This impermanence effectively banks the land for up to 40 years, at which point the land use needs of County may be different than today. During the land banking period, the County will benefit from the revenues produced by the Project while retaining long range land use flexibility. Solar facilities conform to the physical characteristics ofthe land, including wetlands and topography. The Project will minimize impact to the County's environmental resources including wetlands and steep slopes. 5.1 Environmental Preservation Compared to other forms of development, such as residential or commercial, solar is a low impact and temporary use ofland. The footprint ofthe facility is limited to steel pilings in the ground to support the panels, limited instances of concrete pads for mounting inverters and substation equipment, fencing, and gravel access roads. Upon discontinuance of the use oft the land for solar, these improvements will be removed, and the land can be returned to silvicultural or agricultural uses. 5.2 Considerations of Air Quality Clean and renewable energy sources like solar farms produce emissions-free electricity and reduce dependence on carbon-based fuel sources. The reduction of airborne pollutants acts to preserve and improve the regional air quality. Additionally, as a passive solar generation facility, the Project will reduce land disturbance activities such as tree thinning and discing. Reducing these activities acts to regenerate the soil and the land overall. 5.3 Surface and Groundwater Quality To protect Franklin County's water and soil resources, the Applicant will comply with all applicable erosion and sediment control laws and regulations. Temporary and permanent best management practices on site will be designed to prevent the discharge of sediment and other pollutants into nearby waterways during construction and once the project is in operation. The Applicant will coordinate with Franklin County as well as an Erosion and Sediment Control program ("VESCP") Authority for submission and review ofthe Project's erosion and sediment control plans. The applicant is also required by the Ordinance to submit an Environmental Impact Report prior to construction. In this report, the applicant is required to address potential impacts on soil, including erosion, siltation, toxicity, productivity, and suitability for agriculture. Edwards Solar Farm 10 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Additionally, the applicant must assess potential impacts on water, including quantity, quality, and flow of streams, and groundwater. The streams within the project footprint are part ofthe Pigg River / Leesville Lake watershed. The project is not anticipated to have any impact on the water quality of Smith Mountain Lake. A watershed exhibit is included as part of Exhibit 8.3 Preliminary Site Exhibit that shows the project area in relation to the Upper Pigg River Watershed. The exhibit also shows the flow distance from the project site to Leesville Lake, and the distance from the mouth ofthe Pigg River to the Smith Mountain Dam via Leesville Lake. The Applicant has met with the Water Quality Monitoring Program team at Ferrum College and intends to collaborate with them to create a water quality monitoring plan for the project prior to construction commencing. The Project will minimize impact to wetlands and surface waters and will provide the required buffers for onsite wetlands and intermittent streams. The site will not require water during operation and no new wells or water connections will be required. There is no anticipated impact on groundwater recharge. The operation of the Project does not produce wastewater, nor is it expected to degrade the quantity or quality of surface water from sedimentation. 5.4 Wildlife Resources A desktop analysis of wildlife and wildlife habitats was conducted for the Edwards Solar Farm by the Timmons Group, an industry expert. A threatened and endangered species review was conducted to gain insight regarding the potential presence of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species as well as State listed species onsite or in the vicinity of the Site. According to the desktop analysis, there is no potential presence for federally endangered species to occur on site. If state or federal permits are necessary, the Applicant will coordinate with agencies to ensure the protection and avoidance of T&E species. This report can be seen in Exhibit 8.11 Edwards Solar Natural Heritage and Wildlife Management Study. 5.5 Cultural and Historical Resource Analysis The Timmons Group has also conducted a Virginia Department of] Historic Resources (VDHR) database search that encompasses the Project site and one-half mile buffer surrounding the Project site. There is one known architectural resource (VDHR ID # 033-5310) within the parcel limits, and it has been determined to be not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR). If state or federal permits are necessary, the Applicant will coordinate with agencies to ensure the protection and avoidance of cultural and historical resources This report can be seen in Exhibit 8.11 Edwards Solar Natural Heritage and Wildlife Management Study. Edwards Solar Farm 11 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 6.0 Preliminary Site Plan and Project Design 6.1 Project Interconnection The Applicant has submitted an application for interconnection to Appalachian Power Company's electrical grid, and the Project has been assigned a queue position. The Project will supply power to the existing Penhook substation located off ofLiberty Road, north of Old Franklin Turnpike and will flow to Appalachian Power Company's electrical grid via distribution lines adjacent to the site. The Project will add up to 5 MWac of renewable energy to the grid, enough to meet the energy needs of about 560 Virginia homes, based on U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. There will be one Point ofInterconnection (POI), as indicated on Exhibit 8.3 Preliminary Site Exhibit. Interconnection for the Project will not require the construction of a new electrical substation as is the case with larger-scale transmission interconnected projects. The Project is a smaller-scale distribution project and will be integrated into existing infrastructure and will require few modifications. Distribution projects interconnect at the distribution level which directly benefits the local grid by improving grid stability and reducing transmission losses. 6.2 Facility Construction The Applicant estimates that construction could start as soon as 2026 and the Project may commence operations as early as 2026 or 2027. It is estimated that construction of the Project will require between 6-12 months, though the project may be required to align with the utility grid interconnection process. Construction and operational activities will conform to ordinance requirements and SUP conditions. The Project is expected to be in operation for at least 40 years and the electric solar system components will be Underwriters Laboratory (UL), listed or equivalent. The solar panel area is approximately 25 acres and within that area, the Project will utilize approximately 12, 037 solar panels. The current proposed equipment will be 540-watt photovoltaic (PV) modules or equivalent, but depending on advancements in technology, the panel rating may exceed 540 watts. The PV panels are anticipated to be secured to single axis trackers on a racking system. The axis of rotation is horizontal, usually orientated North-South with the modules facing toward the East in the morning and the West in the afternoon. 6.3 Panel Materials and Construction Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels typically consist of glass, polymer, aluminum, copper, and semiconductor materials that can be recovered and recycled at the end of their useful life. There Edwards Solar Farm 12 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS are two PV technologies used in PV panels at utility-scale solar facilities, silicon, and thin film. Most panels used in Virginia use silicon technology. While there are differences in the components and manufacturing processes of these two types of solar technologies, many aspects oftheir PV panel construction are very similar. PV cells in PV panels are encapsulated from air and moisture between two layers of plastic. The encapsulation layers are protected on the top with a layer of tempered glass and on the backside with a polymer sheet. Crystalline silicon technology consists of silicon wafers which are made into cells and assembled into panels. By weight, over 80% of the components ofa crystalline silicon PV panels are tempered glass and aluminum. Most oft the remaining portions are common plastics, including polyethylene terephthalate in the backsheet, EVA encapsulation ofthe PV cells, polyphenyl ether in the junction box, and polyethylene insulation on the wire leads. The active, working components of the system are the silicon photovoltaic cells, the small electrical leads connecting them together, and to the wires coming out of the back ofthe panel. The electricity generating and conducting components make up less than 5% of the weight of the panels. The PV cell itself is nearly 100% silicon. The refined silicon is converted to a PV cell by adding extremely small amounts oft boron and phosphorus, both of which are common and of very low toxicity. Thin film technologies consist ofthin layers of semiconductor material deposited onto glass. The semiconductor layer in is generally composed of Cadmium Telluride (CdTE). The semiconductor layer is -3% the thickness of a human hair and is encapsulated between heat strengthened front glass and tempered back glass and bonded together with an industrial laminate. CdTe is a stable, solid compound that is insoluble in water which limits its ability to leach in the event ofbreakage. There are no vapors or liquids that can leak even if panels break. All panels, racking, and associated facilities will have a non-reflective finish or appearance. 6.4 Lighting Lighting for the project will be limited to the minimum reasonably necessary for security purposes and will be designed to minimize off-site effects. All lighting on site will be dark sky compliant. 6.5 Setbacks and Buffers A preliminary site plan is shown in Exhibit 8.3 Preliminary Site Exhibit. The preliminary site plan design shows perimeter setbacks, buffers, and avoidance ofwetlands. While the panel layouts in the development envelope are preliminary and may change based on further technical analysis and refinement, the development envelope in the site plan shows approximate boundaries for the solar facility installations. Additional clearing or grading may be required outside oft the development envelope for ingress, egress, and other infrastructure. If existing trees Edwards Solar Farm 13 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS and vegetation are disturbed within the area required for buffer compliance, new plantings shall be provided for the buffer. Setbacks will comply with the County's requirements for utility-scale solar energy facilities outlined in Sec. 25-147 (b). The facility area shall be set back a distance of at least a minimum 150 feet from all property lines and public right of way. Increased setbacks ofover 150 feet and additional buffering may be included in the conditions for a permit as required to reduce the visual impact of the facility. Access, erosion and stormwater structures, and interconnection to the electrical grid may be made through setbacks area if such are generally perpendicular to the property line or underground." 9 6.6 Traffic and Site Access A study was performed for the Project based on anticipated site entrance locations and can be found in Exhibit 8.4 Anticipated Traffic Analysis and VDOT Correspondence. The study identifies preferred routes to the Project and concludes that they have sufficient capacity to accommodate the period ofincreased traffic during the construction period. Once the Project is in operation, site visits will be limited to a few times per month, resulting in a negligible impact on traffic in the area. Ifit is determined during final site plan review that alternate points ofi ingress and egress are needed, the design will comply with applicable VDOT regulations. Moreover, a parking area for vehicles, construction equipment, staging, and other needs will be placed near the access point of the Project. The Project owner will be responsible for maintaining the Project's access roads. The Ordinance requires written confirmation from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) that all entrances satisfy applicable VDOT required. The pertaining correspondence with VDOT can be found at the end of Exhibit 8.4 Anticipated Traffic Analysis and VDOT Correspondence. 6.7 Decommissioning A preliminary Decommissioning Plan has been developed to outline the decommissioning processes that will be used for the Project. The plan details the process for removing the solar energy facility equipment and restoring the land to its previous use and has been designed to comply with applicable state regulations and Franklin County ordinance. As per County ordinance Sec. 25-147 (d) (2), the Applicant will provide "assurance of decommissioning in the form of certified funds, cash escrow, bond, letter of credit, or parent guarantee, based upon an estimate of a professional engineer licensed in the Commonwealth, who is engaged by the applicant, with experience in preparing decommissioning estimates and Edwards Solar Farm 14 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS approved by Franklin County. The preliminary Decommissioning Plan can be found in Exhibit 8.5. The final Decommissioning Plan will be submitted for review with the final site plan of the Project. 6.8 Landscaping and Screening Plan Timmons Group has prepared a landscape and screening plan for the Edwards Solar Farm. The plan includes the location, size, and type of planting yards including the use of existing and newly installed vegetation to screen the facility. A significant portion of the setback areas surrounding the project will consist of retained dense natural buffer. A Solar Farm Seed Mix of low-growing clover and grasses and a Native Pollinator will be used beneath solar panels. Seasonal maintenance will maintain healthy growth and weed control. Wetlands and stream corridors will remain preserved, ensuring continued benefits for wildlife and pollinators. The landscape design aligns with county ordinances and prioritizes environmental sustainability. A detailed landscaping and screening plan with plant species, size, number, spacing, and height will be required at the time of Site Plan review. 7.0 Community Engagement The Applicant has conducted community outreach and engagement in several ways. Mailers were sent out 14 days prior to the community meeting to all adjacent landowners, as shown in Exhibit 8.2 List of Adjacent Parcels. Mailers included an invitation to the community meeting, an Edwards Solar Farm Project Overview, an informational company overview, frequently asked questions, and contact information. The Edwards Solar Farm community meeting was held at Glade Hill Fire/EMS - Station 4 on January 22nd, 2025, from 6:00 to 8:00 PM.Sign-in cards with contact information were encouraged to be filled out upon entrance ofthe community meeting. The sign-in cards offered attendees an opportunity to request follow-up meetings with CEP Solar. During the community meeting, the Applicant provided posterboards of The Project. The posterboards included a preliminary site plan map, a county map depicting the location of The Project in Franklin County, and an existing buildings map. Informational sheets included in the mailed packet were also available at the community meeting along with a one pager describing the difference between distribution and transmission level projects for community members to take with them. The Applicant continues community outreach efforts post community meeting and encourages community members to reach out with any questions. A Summary of the community meeting, the sign in sheet, and the mailed invitation can be seen in Exhibits 8.9 Community Meeting Summary. Edwards Solar Farm 15 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8.0 Exhibits 8.1 List of Project Parcels Parcel Id Owner Name Acreage Zoning 0660003900 EDWARDS RONALD B 42.68 Al BLUE PENNY EDWARDS & EDWARDS 0660010100 66.19 Al RONALD B & PENN RUBY E 8.2 List of Adjacent Parcels Parcel Id Owner Address Zoning MUSE PATRICIA ANN 2336 JACKS CREEK RD 0660010105A ARRINGTON & A1 UNION HALL, VA 24176 OTHERS 148 NEWTON AVE 0660004402 CLEMENTS ANN C Al NORWALK, CT 06851 MUSE PATRICIA ANN 2336 JACKS CREEK ROAD 0660010105B A1 ARINGTON & OTHERS UNION HALL, VA 24176 148 NEWTON AVE 0660004403 CLEMENTS ANN C A1 NORWALK, CT 06851 148 NEWTON AVE 0660010102 CLEMENTS ANN C A1 NORWALK, CT 06851 2473 ROOSEVELT AVE 0660004400 HALL TAMEKA A A1 SPRINGFIELD, MA 01104 EDWARDS 9384 OLD FRANKLIN TURNPIKE 0660004300 A1 PROPERTIES LTD UNION HALL, VA 24176 ROCKYDALE 2343 HIGHLAND FARM RD NW 0690000100 A1 QUARRIES CORP ROANOKE, VA 24017 HAMBRICK RONALD 960 THREE QUARTER POINT RD 0660004100 A1 & SANDRA WIRTZ, VA 24184 DAVIS MONDRAGO MINOR & TERESCITA 4514 CHENWOOD LN 0660010700 A1 M & SHEATUN LOUISVILLE, KY 40299 WHITESIDE BLUE PENNY EDWARDS & 300 EDWARDSWAY RD 660010106 A1 EDWARDS RONALD B UNION HALL, VA 24176 & PENN RUBY E Edwards Solar Farm 16 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8.3 Preliminary Site Exhibits Edwards Solar Farm 17 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit EDWARDS SOLAR 5 MWac SOLAR ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION FACILITY SPECIAL USE PERMIT FRANKLIN COUNTY, VIRGINIA VICINITYMAP TABLE OF CONTENTS SHEET DESCRIPTION C1.0 COVER SHEET C2.0 PARCEL ANDZONING MAP C3.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN C4.0 LANDSCAPING MAP C4.1 LANDSCAPING NOTES AND DETAIL C5.0 AREAI MAP C6.0 EXISTING BUILDINGS MAP C7.0 EXISTING LAND USE MAP C8.0 PRIME FARMLAND MAP C9.0- C9.1/WATERSHED MAP 11/ WA AR ISTICKLEY CEP SOLAR, LLC TIMMONS GROUP REVISIONS DEVELOPER ENGINEER 2201 W BROAD STREET, SUITE 200 1001 BOULDERS PARKWAY, SUITE 300 RICHMOND, VA 23220 RICHMOND, VA 23225 COVER SHEET TEL 804.789.4040 TEL 804.200.6500 WWWCEPSOLAR.COM WWW.TIMMONS.COM CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS PREPARED BY TIMMONS GROUP BELANEPRINTED AEEANE REVISED APRIL 9, 2025 C1.0 147661.040-Edwards SolarGIS TOADCUPATBTODCUPARN Legend Project Limits 108.87 Acres Franklin County Tax Parcels Zoning Classification A1: Agricultural B1: Limited Business District B2: General Business District R1: Residential Suburban Subdivision 11/2 AR ISTICKLEY REVISIONS PARCEL AND ZONINGI MAP FEET) 250 500 DATAF FROMF FRANKL LINCOUNTY GIS. ara EFEEN E ANDEOVPGDAT VGIN. -250 C2.0 85214 CUR 761.040.CUPAP PROJECT PARCEL INFORMATION MAP PARCEL OWNER ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE IDENTIFIER IDENTIFIER 1 0660003900 EDWARDS RONALD B 280 EDWARDSWAY ROAD UNION HALL VA 24176 BLUE PENNY EDWARDS & EDWARDS RONALD 2 0660010100 300 EDWARDSWAY RD UNION HALL VA 24177 B & PENN RUBY E ADJACENT PARCEL INFORMATION MAP PARCEL OWNER ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE IDENTIFIER IDENTIFIER 3 0660010105A MUSE PATRICIAANN ARRINGTON & OTHERS 2336 JACKS CREEK RD UNION HALL VA 24176 4 0660004402 CLEMENTS ANN C 148 NEWTONAVE NORWALK CT 06851 5 0660010105B MUSE PATRICIA, ANN ARINGTON & OTHERS 2336 JACKS CREEK RD UNION HALL VA 24176 6 0660004403 CLEMENTS ANN C 148 NEWTON AVE NORWALK CT 06851 DWAR 7 0660010102 CLEMENTS ANN C 148 NEWTON. AVE NORWALK CT 06851 ISTICKLEY 8 0660004400 HALL TAMEKAA 2473 ROOSEVELT. AVE SPRINGFIELD MA 01104 9 0660004300 EDWARDS PROPERTIES LTD 9384 OLD FRANKLIN TURNPIKE UNION HALL VA 24176 10 0690000100 ROCKYDALE QUARRIES CORP 2343 HIGHLAND FARM RD NW ROANOKE VA 24017 11 0660004100 HAMBRICK RONALD & SANDRA 960 THREE QUARTER POINT RD WIRTZ VA 24184 DAVIS MONDRAGO MINOR & TERESCITA M & 12 0660010700 4514 CHENWOOD LN LOUISVILLE KY 40299 SHEATUN WHITESIDE BLUE PENNY EDWARDS & EDWARDS RONALD REVISIONS 13 660010106 300 EDWARDSWAY RD UNION HALL VA 24177 B & PENN RUBY E PARCEL INFORMATION SHEET AEEANE C2.1 1852147661. 040-Edwards SolarGIS147661 DMPCUPATETONDCUPARA Legend Project Limits 108.87 Acres Property Setbacks 150' Buildable Area 37.9 Acres * Entrance Point of Interconnection Inverters Mountain Valley Pipeline Electric Transmission Line Streams Internal Roads Panels 25.4 Acres Under Panels Fence 36.3 Acres Proposed Vegetative Buffer 11/2 Retained Vegetative Buffer 661 National Wetlands Inventory RDS SOLAR ISTICKLEY Wetland and Stream Buffer 50' 008 FEMA Flood Zone- Not Present Tra ransmission Line Easement Mountain Valley Pipeline Easement Main Buildings Main Buildings Buffer 300' Edwards Family Cemetery REVISIONS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ISF NPURPOSES NOT FOR GE. ZONE DATAF AFROME FEMAIS FLOOD DHAZARD - 4. IMAGERY ARE COUNTY FEET) -WAY, LINES, ue BUILDINGS ON 200 400 LANSPRNTED AREMAIFECANE THE PERIMET TER OF ADJACENT RESIDENT PARCELS WILL BE RETAINEDA AS BUFFER WHERE IT EXISTS. 200 C3.0 6040.CUPap E Legend Project Limits 108.87 Acres Property Setbacks 150' Streams Panels 25.4 Acres Under Panels Da Fence 36.3 Acres Native Pollinator Seed Mix Solar Farm Seed Mix Proposed Vegetative Buffer Retained Vegetative Buffer Wetland and Stream Buffer 50' 000 FEMA Flood Zone Not Present 12/11/20 661 RDS SOLAR ISTICKLEY REVISIONS LANDSCAPING MAP FEET) 1. 4.1 LANDSCAPINGI NOTESA ANDDETAILS. 2. JNTY 200 400 E FRON FEMAIS NATGNAL FLOOD HAZARD EMEPNTDN EFECNE IMAGERY FROM VGIN. 200 C4.0 E 661.040/CUPapn VEGETATIVE BUFFER NOTES RECOMMENDED COVER CROPS (TEMPORARY SEEDING) RECOMMENDED GROUNDCOVER SEED MIXES PROVIDE 30-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER CONSISTING OF STAGGEREDI ROWS OF TREES BOTANICALI NAME POLLINATOR ANDOTHER VEGETATIONPERA ARTICLEI II, SEC. 25-147E)OFF FRANKLING COUNTY ORDINANCE. COMMONNAME SEEDSF RATE: POUNDS PERA ACRE SOLAR NATIVE MIX SEEDPOLLINATORI MEADOWV WITH SOLARP POLLINATORE RBUFFERMIX AVENAS SATIVA GRAINOATS 50-100 FORUSENPANELZONE NONANVASIVE EPLANTS SPECIESA ANDP POLLINATORFRENDLY, ANDV WILDLIFEF FRIENDLYNATIVE VA SOLAR POLLINATOR: 3MIX- ERNMX-622 PLANTS. SHRUBS. TREES, GRASSES. FORBS. WILDFLOWERS MUSTE BE USEDINT THE SETARIAI ITALICA GERMANI MILLET 50 VEGETATIVEE BUFFERFOLLOWINGV VIRGINIA ES SMART PROGRAME BEST PRACTICES. PRESERVEE EXISTINGW WETLANDS ANDWOODLANDST TO SERVE ASA AMINIMUM 150' VEGETATIVE SECALEC CEREALE GRAINRYE 50-100 Ernst Conservation: Seeds TREESA ANDV SHRUBS TE WITHINAF NEWE BUFF PROPOSED FER ERNST 8884 Mercer Pike BE FIELD-LOCATED AND PLANTED AS Meadvlle, PA 16335 THEE VEGETATIVE SCREENING. (800) 873-3 3321 Fax (814) 336-5191 E - REQUIREMENTS SEEDS ENSURET ALLI PLANT MEETS IN FRANKLINO COUNTY www.ernstseed.com - THAT TMATERIAL THEF ORDINANCE. RECOMMENDED BUFFER PLANT LIST THE BUFFERN MUST BE ATL LEAST SIX (6)FEET AT TIME OF PLANTING. Date: Dece ember 10, 2024 ERAD TREEST TOI PLANTEDS SHALL MEET THE SPECIFICATIONSOFI ANLA AMERICAN ASSOCIATION EVERGREENT TREES GN NURSERYMEN. VA Solar Pollinator 3' Mix ERNMX- -622 VARYT THE SPECIESU USEDEVERY 100LINEARFEET. BOTANICAL NAME/ ICOMMONNAME FENCINGN MUSTE BEI INSTALLED ON THE SOLA LARI PANEL SIDE OF THE BUFFER (SEE PL ANTING ILEXOPACA JUNPERUSVIRGNANA AMERICAN HOLLY Botanical Name Common Name Price/Lb TEMPLATE BELOW). VEASTERNE REDCEDAR 91.00% Bad River Grama, Bad River FACILITY AREA SHALL BES SEEDEDF PROMPTLY WITHF OU LINATOR-F -FRIENDL Y VEGETATION PINUS VIRGINIANA/ /VIRGINIAPINE 4s NC VIkveed NC Ecotype FOLLOWINGO COMPLETION NOF CONSTRUCTION. PINUS TAEDAI /LOBLOLLY PINE Bs PAL Eroope Ecobype PAI Ecotype E THE OF THE TPLANTINGS SEASONT THE EFACILITY AREA, SETBACKS AND 050% Penstenon Misats Beardt dtongue 480.00 BE WITH APPROPRIATEF POLLI LINATOR- -FRIENDL NATIVE PLANTS, CANOPY DECIDUOUS TREES E AS SHRUBS. ANDWILDFLOWERS FOLLOWING VIRGINIA BOTANICALNAME/ 100.00 % Mix Price/Lb Bulk: $61.19 - POLLINATOR SMART PROGRAME ICOMMONNAME - BESTF PRACTICES. QUERCUS RUBRA /REDOAK Seeding! Rate: Seedats Ibsfacrev with 301 Ibsacred ofacover NYSSA SYL LVATICA BLA LACKO GUM For use ( QUERCUS PALUSTRISI PIN OAK E to3 3 rgrainrye(1 BIDe -like Species Herbaceous - VEGETATIVE BUFFER PLANTING TEMPLATE UNDERSTORY DECIDUOUS TREES ESACNN Sites Herbaceous Perennial; Herbaceous Flowering Species Perennial; Pollinator Favorites; BOTANICAL LNANE/COMMONNANE AMELANCHIER ARBOREAI DOWNY SERVICEBERRY 00 CERCIS CANADENSISI /EASTERNE REDBUD APPLY THIS MIX AT8 8LBS PLS/ACRE WITHA COVER CROP. MAGNOLIA VIRGINIANA/ SWEETBAYI MAGNOLIA FORA AC COVER CROP USE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: OATS (30LBSIACRE: 1JAN TO3 30 APR), BROWN TOP MILLET (10LBSIACRE; 1MAY TO31 AUG), OR GRAINF RYE (30LBSIACRE: 15 SEP TO31 DEC). AERAVS PROJECT AREA DIAGRAM NATIVE POLLINATORI BUFFER MIX PROPOSED6H FORUSEINOPEN IAREA ANDBUFFER SECURITY FENCE DEFINITIONS ERNST SOLARF RFARMS SEEDMIX OPENAREA - SNON OpenAres NY yarab beyondt the arie zone, rop poundary. /11/20 8 000000 - FENCELINE Panelz Zone The rea Ernst Seeds y5, nclud ginen owspachg Conservation E a W 8884 Mercer Pike WA AR DooS C VG 6 Scr reening Zone: Avegetatedy visu barrier ERNST Meadville, PA 16335 E 9 5 Solar Mative Plant Finder Thevignie SEEDS (800)8 873-3321F 1Fax(819)3365 -5191 ISTICKLEY Eh t Geve pedby theD link. nonlire stural www.erstseed.com PANEL ZONE HettagePicgan. Date: Dece mber 10, 2024 UsedbyPallinators Plan tspedes witha eladie atn Paen theVirgini Solar Ernst Solar Farm Seed Mix ERNMX- 186 FOURTEEN (14)L LARGE EVERGREENT TREES VIRGINIA Botanical Name Common Name Price/Lb THREE (3) CANOPY COMPREH SOURCE HENSIMVEPLAN POLLINATOR.SMART 45504: Feshca nba 3.30 DECIDUOUS TREES % estuca Slurgen PROPERTY FOUR (4)UNDERSTORY OPEN Svord, E LINE DECIDUOUS TREES commu uta Fesque CREENT SeS Navy E wienose wichose E E repens, Dutch .40 E - 100.00% Mix Price/LbB Bulk: $4.17 E REVISIONS Seeding! Rate: 4lb oper 1,000sqt Grasses aGrassilikes Species -Herbaceous Perennial; Lawn& Turfgrass Sites; Solar Sites a2 dearance between the ground andt solar panels. Mixf formulations are subject too changewithoutr notice E avallability yofexistinga and new products. MACE thet formula may change, the guiding philiosophya andf function of Cmas ther mix not. LANDSCAPING APPLY THIS MIX AT 10LBSF PLS/ACRE WITHA COVER CROP. NOTESAND FOR COVER CROP USE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: OATS (30L LBSIACRE; JAN TO 30A APR), BROWN TOP DETAILS MILLET (101 LBS/ACRE; MAY TO 31 AUG). OR GRAIN RYE (30 LBS/ACRE; SEP TO: 31 DEC). AEEANE C4.1 1852147661. 040-Edwards SolarGIS147661 OMDCUPATRETOIDCUPAP Bedford 3 County S - O - Legend Project Limits 108.87 Acres Five eMileE Buffer Designated Growth Areas Not Present Airports- Not Present Electric Substations Electric Transmission Line Mountain Valley Pipeline - J Virginia Counties VCRIS Historical Resources - A Architecture Resources - A Individual Historic District Properties a Archaeological Resources Franklin, DHR Easements- Not Present County 11/2 Archaeology Phase 1Survey - 661 Local, State, Federal, and Other Protected Lands RDS SOLAR State ISTICKLEY Private Local Park State andF Federal Lands Statel Natural Area Preserve Pittsylvania County REVISIONS AREA MAP FEET) - ACOPOVER LANSPR 3,000 AEAP 6,000 ALERAET DAPGEONL C5.0 .040-CUP = Legend Project Limits 108.87 Acres Property Setbacks 150' Buildable Area 37.9 Acres Existing Buildings Distancef fromt the Project Limits D 100' E 200' D 300' AR ISTICKLEY REVISIONS EXISTING BUILDINGSI MAP FEET) FROMF FRANKL IN COUNTY SOLAR ORDINANCE. 2 ARE FROM ADJACENT PROPERTYL LINES. 250 500 FROM VGIN. EMEPNTDN AEMECN 4. ECT AERIAL IMAGERYF VGIN. E 250' C6.0 61.040.CUPapn Legend Project Limits 108.87 Acres Existing Forests 88.7 Acres Cultivated Lands 14.7 Acres Cleared Lands 5.5A Acres 12/11/20 661 RDS SOLAR ISTICKLEY REVISIONS EXISTING LAND USE MAP FEET) GENERATEDF FROMA AERIAL IMAGERY. LANSPRNTED 200 400 IMAGERY FROM VGIN. AREMAIFECANE E 200' C7.0 6040.CUPapn Soils withintheFence Mapunit Symbol Mapunit Name EgERDEE tslopes CIiffordfine esandy loam,15t025 percent slopes Cliford-Hickoryknob complex, 2 251045percentsiopes Colescreek- Delanco complex, 2lo8percentslopes rarely flooded Minn eville- Orenda- -Redbrush complex, 8to15percent slopes 8D Minni eville- Orenda- DAr Legend Project Limits 108.87 Acres E3 Fence- 36.3 acres Farmland Class AII Areas Are Prime Farmland 9.2A Acres Farmland of Statewide Importance 25.0A Acres Not Prime Farmland 2.1 Acres 12/11/20 661 28D RDS SOLAR ISTICKLEY 28C REVISIONS PRIME FARMLAND MAP FEET) LANSPRNTED 200 AREMAIFECANE 400 E 2. DATAF IMAGERYF FROM FROM ISSURGO. VGIN. 200 C8.0 661.040/CUPapn 4o W / DuTNO BDNes 7 Legend * Approximate Site Location atta IEN O Smith Mountain Dam - DeR CIET Riverflow from Site tol Leesville Lake Riverflow from Leesvillel Lake to Smith Mountain Dam Jacks Creek Pigg River Roanoke River Leesville Lake Smith Mountainl Lake Hydrologic Unit Code 8 Su basin Hydrologic Unit Code 10- Watershed Project Watershed Upper PiggF River County Boundary 02/21/ 66 040 WA DS SOLAR MLHILL nS tainba Dam Laketi REVISIONS A WATERSHEDI MAP D # Caeaes pu@au E ES) ELMEPINTEDAS 3 AREMAIFECANE NOTESRO OLOGICU CUNITCODESA SANDN NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHYE DATASET TFROMUSGS 3mi C9.0 E 47661.0 .040-Edwar Solaric 040-CUPK 1.040-CUP Legend D Project Limits 108.87 Acres O Smith Mountain Dam Riverflow from Site tol Leesville Lake Riverflow from Leesville Lake to Smith Mountain Dam Jacks Creek Pigg River Roanoke River National Hydrography Dataset Streams Leesville Lake Smith Mountain Lake Hydrologic Unit Code 8 Subbasin Hydrologic Unit Code 10- Watershed Project Watershed Upper Pigg River 02/21/2 County Boundary 66 040 WA RDS SOLAR MLHILL REVISIONS Flowf MEomsesall sat WATERSHEDI MAP EET) 6,000 12,000 LANSPRNTED eN NOTESRO OLOGICU CUNITCODESA SANDN NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHYE DATASET TFROMUSGS =6,000 C9.1 E 147661.040-E Edv Solarc 766 TOBRBCUPATSTONBCUPEN CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8.4 Anticipated Traffic Analysis and VDOT Correspondence Edwards Solar Farm 18 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit Traffic & Route Evaluation Study Edwards Solar Project Franklin County, Virginia December 2024 Prepared For: CEP Solar, LLC Contact: Scott Dunn, AICP, PTP TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. 1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 e Richmond, VA 23225 (804) 200-6500 phone e (804) 560-1438 fax www.timmons.com Traffic & Route Evaluation Study Edwards Solar Project Franklin County, Virginia Prepared For: CEP Solar, LLC 2201 W. Broad St. Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23220 Prepared By: Timmons Group 1001 Boulders Parkway Suite 300 Richmond, Virginia 23225 (804) 200-6500 December 2024 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-1 EXISTING ROADWAYS 2-1 EXISTING INTERSECTIONS 2-2 3 SITE ACCESS. 3-1 SITE ENTRANCES 3-1 TRAFFIC MITIGATION 3-1 4 CONCLUSIONS 4-1 5 FIGURES. 5-1 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA, ROADWAY NETWORK & HAUL ROUTE 5-1 FIGURE 2: PRELIMINARY SITE LAYOUT. 5-2 FIGURE 3: TRAFFIC CONDITIONS MAP 5-3 FIGURE 4: INTERSECTION OF OLD FRANKLIN TURNPIKE (ROUTE 40) AND E EDWARDSWAY ROAD/BUCKSCRAPE ROAD 5-4 FIGURE 5: INTERSECTION OF E EDWARDSWAY ROAD AND JACKS CREEK ROAD. 5-5 FIGURE 6: INTERSECTION OF OLD FRANKLIN TURNPIKE (ROUTE 40) AND E EDWARDSWAY ROAD. 5-6 FIGURE 7: CRASHES BY TYPE ALONG PROPOSED HAUL ROUTE 5-7 FIGURE 8: CRASHES BY SEVERITY ALONG PROPOSED HAUL ROUTE. 5-8 FIGURE 9: SITE ACCESS #1 AND #2 - JACKS CREEK ROAD 5-9 I December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW Timmons Group, at the request of CEP Solar, LLC completed a transportation assessment for the proposed Edwards Solar Project, located in Franklin County, Virginia. This work has been prepared in conjunction with the site's evaluation to identify any potential transportation issues and recommend solutions. The tasks associated with this assessment included: Review of data and documents provided by the Client relative to the project; Coordination with the Client on access, schedule, and other parameters that are reflected in the traffic assessment; Obtaining available geometric (roadway widths, intersection control, etc.) and speed limit data that is readily available via a review of available aerial imagery through Google Earth, Bing, or County GIS systems; Obtaining available VDOT traffic data for those roads adjacent to the site; Preparing a crash analysis history for the past five (5) years along the traffic route via available VDOT crash history; and Preparing a narrative summarizing existing intersection conditions, traffic along the adjacent roadway network, and anticipated impacts associated with the site-related traffic along with potential mitigation measures. 1-1 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Timmons Group compiled existing roadway conditions and crash data for facilities adjacent to the proposed Edwards Solar Project located in Franklin County, Virginia. The proposed site is located south of Smith Mountain Lake in Franklin, Virginia. Vehicles are anticipated to access the property via Route 40 (Old Franklin Turnpike), Route 794 (E Edwardsway Road), Route 622 (Jacks Creek Road). The project location is shown on Figure 1 (all figures are located at the end of the report) and a preliminary site plan can be found in Figure 2. For the purposes of this work, it was assumed that all vehicles will utilize the proposed haul route as shown in Figure 1. EXISTING ROADWAYS Route 40 (Old Franklin Turnpike) is a two-lane, undivided minor arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. According to VDOT ADT data services, Route 40 has a current ADT of 6,100 vehicles per day (vpd). Route 794 (E Edwardsway Road) is a two-lane, undivided local roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph and a current VDOT ADT of 490 vpd to the west of Jacks Creek Road and 60 vpd to the east of Jacks Creek Road. Route 662 (Jacks Creek Road)_is a two-lane, undivided local roadway with an unposted speed limit. The speed limit is assumed to be a statutory 55 mph. Route 662 has a current VDOT ADT of 240 vpd. A summary of the available ADT volumes, heavy vehicle percentages and typical pavement widths along the haul route can be found in Figure 3. Existing Structures The VDOT-maintained Bridge and Culvert Database indicated that there are no bridges or culverts present along the proposed haul route. 2-1 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project EXISTING INTERSECTIONS The following three (3) key intersections are located within the study area and shown on Figure 1: 1. Route 40 (Old Franklin Turnpike) and Route 794/819 (E Edwardsway Road/Buckscrape Road); 2. Route 794 (E Edwardsway Road) and Route 662 (Jacks Creek Road); and 3. Route 40 (Old Franklin Turnpike) and Route 794 E Edwardsway Road. Route 40 (Old Franklin Turnpike) and Route 794/819 (E Edwardsway Road/Buckscrape Road) At the unsignalized intersection of the Route 40 (Old Franklin Turnpike) and E Edwardsway Road/Buckscrape Road, the eastbound and westbound approaches operate as free flow. The northbound and southbound approaches of E Edwardsway Road and Buckscrape Road are stop- controlled. The eastbound and westbound approaches both consists of one (1) dedicated left, one (1) through, and one (1) right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches both consist of a single lane approach that accommodates all eft/through/right traffic movements. The travel lanes on Route 40 (Old Frankling Turnpike) are typically 11'wide. The travel lanes on E Edwardsway Road are typically 10' wide. Photos of the area can be found in Figure 4. Route 794 (E Edwardsway Road) and Route 662 (Jacks Creek Road) At the unsignalized intersection of E Edwardsway Road and Jacks Creek Road, the eastbound and westbound approaches operate as free-flow while the northbound approach is stop-controlled. The eastbound approach on E Edwardsway Road and the northbound approach on Jacks Creek Road both consist of a single lane approach that accommodates all traffic movements; the westbound approach on E Edwardsway Road contains no pavement markings. The pavement width of E Edwardsway Road west of Jacks Creek Road is 19 = 20' wide, while pavement width to the east of Jacks Creek Road, is approximately 16', without pavement markings. The pavement width of Jacks Creek Road is approximately 18 - 19. Photos of the intersection are shown in Figure 5. Route 40 (Old Franklin Turnpike) and Route 794 (E Edwardsway Road) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 40 (Old Franklin Turnpike) and E Edwardsway Road, the eastbound and westbound approaches operate as free flow. The minor street approach of E Edwardsway Road is stop-controlled. The eastbound and westbound approaches consist of a single lane and operate as shared thru/right - left/thru approach lanes. The northbound approach on E Edwardsway Road is a single lane and unmarked; it accommodates all left/right movements. The travel lanes on Old Franklin Turnpike are approximately 11' wide and the pavement width on E Edwardsway Road is approximately 16' wide in the vicinity of the intersection. Photos of the intersection are shown on Figure 6. 2-2 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project Crash Analysis Based on crash data obtained from VDOT for the past five (5) years, there have been eight (8) crashes along the proposed haul route and in the vicinity of the study intersections. Six (6) crashes resulted in property damage only (PDO), one (1) crash resulted in a visible injury and one (1) crash resulted in a severe injury. Four (4) of the crashes (50%) were the result of a fixed object - off road, three (3) of the crashes (38%) were due to deer, and one (1) crash (13%) was caused by a rear end. Overall, the crash history in this area is typical for the roadway types and surrounding area. The location and crash types are shown in Figure 7 and the crash severities are shown in Figure 8. 2-3 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project 3 SITE ACCESS SITE ENTRANCES Access to the site will be provided via two (2) driveways on Route 662 (Jacks Creek Road) as shown in Figure 1. The northern access is located approximately 0.3 miles (1,580 feet) to the south of the intersection of E Edwardsway Road and Jacks Creek Road. This access driveway is not currently constructed. The southern entrance is located approximately 0.5 miles (2,640 feet) to the south of the intersection of E Edwardsway Road and Jacks Creek Road. There is currently a gravel, fenced-off driveway at the location of the southern entrance. There is approximately 1,350 feet between the two (2) proposed site access points. The pavement width on Jacks Creek Road is approximately 21' in the vicinity of both the north and south access points. The access points are shown in Figure 9. TRAFFIC MITIGATION Throughout construction of the site, CEP Solar, LLC will coordinate with the representatives from Franklin County and VDOT to determine appropriate transportation management procedures which may include, but are not limited to, traffic control, road access restrictions, truck restrictions, and temporary/lshort-term road closures. Based on the existing roadway conditions, the locations for the proposed access point, and the available average daily traffic numbers for the agreed upon access roads, the anticipated construction traffic volumes will not exceed available roadway capacities. It should be noted that the Rockydale = Jacks Mountain Quarry is located about 0.44 miles south of the proposed solar site and is an attractor/generator of heavy vehicle traffic. The haul route for the quarry is similar to that of the proposed site, therefore, the roadways in the vicinity already witness large/heavy vehicles; the roadways should not be significantly impacted by standard construction traffic. During operation and maintenance, the facility will not generate a significant volume of traffic with the anticipation of only a few pickup trucks each day. Construction-related traffic will access the site via state-maintained roadways. Temporary traffic control (TTC) measures may be necessary considering the existing posted speeds and anticipated slower entering/exiting traffic. Pertinent signage should be installed prior to the site preparation work and removed when mechanica/electrical work/inspections begin. It is not anticipated that daily vehicular traffic following construction will disrupt local traffic flows during normal peak hours. Outside of the previously noted mitigation efforts, should a traffic issue arise during construction, CEP Solar, LLC will work the County and VDOT appropriately address the specific concern. 3-1 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project 4 CONCLUSIONS Based on our review of the available data relating to the site, existing conditions, and estimated traffic, the following is offered: The proposed Edwards Solar site is located south of Smith Mountain Lake in Franklin County, Virginia (see Figure 1). Access to the site will be provided via Route 40 (Old Franklin Turnpike), Route 794 (E Edwardsway Road), Route 622 (Jacks Creek Road). The Route 662 roadway facility has the available capacity to accommodate site generated traffic, both during construction and operatons/maintenance activities based on existing ADT's. A review of available crash data indicated crashes are sparse and spread out along the higher speed/higher volume Route 40 corridor. A majority (75%) of the reported crashes resulted in property damage only; only two (2) crashes resulted in injury. No "hot spots" or patterns were readily identified by the available crash data. Assuming site-traffic is restricted to the Old Franklin Turnpike and E Edwardsways Road facilities, with optimal circulation patterns, no improvements are necessary/anticpated to accommodate site-generated traffic. However, the potential exists for temporary traffic control measures to be implemented for the duration of the site preparaton/onstructon phase. 4-1 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project @ 8 - B'S GA APAIGE HOP vepanens Old Franklin Tnpk Eawards Southerncrace BnB 1 & 1 & LEGEND: Anticipated Haul Route Proposed Site Study Intersection Site Entrance Existing Structure Edwards Solar NOT TO SCALE TIMMONS GROUP Franklin o County, Virginia YOUR OUGH ou Figure 1: Study Area, Roadway Network & Haul Route 5-1 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project e E 9 : - 3 2 I 1 a I I & 3S S E a a I 8 a 1 2 3 - & S I e I 1 B - : o 85 I E I 6 1 3 ! 9 33 1 * : ? 1 3 I I 833 d - e a 1 I I - E 5 3 E à - I I à I 1 1 3 : 2 - : % 55 a 39 Edwards Solar NOT TO SCALE TIMMONS GROUP Franklin County, Virginia UR SIC ED THROUGH OURS Figure 2: Preliminary Site Layout 5-2 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project & rOLF Franklin Tnpk UB'SGAPAGE HOP - Southerncrace BnB & & LEGEND: 60 vpd, 16' wide 240 vpd, 18-19' wide 490 vpd, 19-20' wide 6,100 vpd, 7%HV, 22-26' wide Proposed Site Study Intersection Edwards Solar NOT TO SCALE TIMMONS GROUP Franklin Virginia OUR ISION County, Figure 3: Traffic Conditions Map 5-3 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project East along Old Franklin Tnpk West along Old Franklin Tnpk North along E Edwardsway Rd South along Buckscrape Rd - a Old Franklin Tnpk (Rte 40) EEdwardswayl Rd hws Edwards Solar NOT TO SCALE TIMMONS GROUP Franklin County, rOUR SION Virginia HROUGH OURS Figure 4: Intersection of Old Franklin Turnpike (Route 40) and E Edwardsway Road/Buckscrape Road 5-4 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project North along Jacks Creek Rd East along E Edwardsway Rd West along E Edwardsway Rd E FPTENerN Edwards Solar NOT TO SCALE TIMMONS GROUP Franklin County, rOUR SION Virginia HROUGH OURS Figure 5: Intersection of E Edwardsway Road and Jacks Creek Road 5-5 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project Northeast along E Edwardsway Rd West along Old Franklin Tpnk (Rte 40) - East along Old Franklin Tpnk (Rte 40) E2 e FEInT Old 7 Edwards Solar NOT TO SCALE TIMMONS GROUP Franklin County, rOUR SION Virginia OUGH OURS Figure 6: Intersection of Old Franklin Turnpike (Route 40) and E Edwardsway Road 5-6 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project e Du OldFranklinTnpk, & LEGEND: & Anticipated Haul Route B Crash Type: Deer Crash Type: Fixed Object - Off Road Crash Type: Rear End Edwards Solar NOT TO SCALE TIMMONS GROUP Franklin County, YOUR SION Virginia OUGH OURS Figure 7: Crashes by Type along Proposed Haul Route 5-7 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project B D oldFranklin-Inpk a LEGEND: 8 Anticipated Haul Route B Crash Severity: Severe Injury Crash Severity: Visible Injury Crash Severity: Property Damage Only (PDO) Edwards Solar NOT TO SCALE TIMMONS GROUP Franklin VE County, YOUR ISION H Virginia UGI OURS Figure 8: Crashes by Severity along Proposed Haul Route 5-8 December 2024 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Edwards Solar Project Northern Site Entrance Southern Site Entrance SouthernGrace BnB * & B LEGEND: Anticipated Haul Route Proposed Site Site Entrance Edwards Solar NOT TO SCALE TIMMONS GROUP Franklin County, YOUR ION Virginia HROUGH DURS Figure 9: Site Access #1 and #2 = Jacks Creek Road 5-9 VDOT Correspondence 2/18/25, 12:56 PM Mail Paul Cozens Outlook Note from Scott below on Edwards! Lauren Wheeler GIS Analyst TIMMONS GROUP www.timmons.com Office: 804.433.2996 I Fax: 804.560.1648 Mobile: 732.859.6476 To send me files greater than 20MB click here. From: Scott Dunn <scott. dunn@timmons.com> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 9:31 AM To: Rick Thomas eaThomaieimmonson, Lauren Wheeler KlaurenWheelerQtimmons.com> Cc: Megan Lowther <Megan.lowther@ltmmons.com> Subject: FW: Edwards Solar VDOT Input for SUP Approval Rick/Lauren, Please share the email below as you feel necessary re: VDOT review of the proposed construction entrances. Scott Scott Dunn, AICP, PTP TIMMONS GROUP Office: 804.200.6955 - Mobile: 804.402.0830 To send me files larger than 20 MB, click on this link From: Lewis, Lisa D VDOT) <Lisa.Lewis@VDOTVirginia.gov> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 7:01 AM To: Scott Dunn <scott. dumn@timmons.com> Subject: Re: Edwards Solar - VDOT Input for SUP Approval I did not have any revisions or additions. I concur with your summary of our discussion. Lisa Lewis Land Development Engineer Bedford Residency/Franklin County Virginia Department of Transportation 540-493-4127 lisa. EMis@vDOTMrpna.gos From: Scott Dunn satumelimmonscon Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:25 PM To: Lewis, Lisa D (VDOT) BlcsecoNmnaee Subject: RE: Edwards Solar - VDOT Input for SUP Approval htpslloutlokofice.com'malinboxldAAMRAGEOMDBINY/LTO2M2UINGMAMIhZIA2LWEZ,MAONDgAYçIMgBGAMAMMAB/MP3NOYUTa751942B0. 2/7 2/18/25, 12:56 PM Mail Paul Cozens - Outlook Lisa = wanted to follow up on last week's email to see if you had any revisions/adaitions or if everything was covered. Thanks, Scott Scott Dunn, AICP, PTP TIMMONS GROUP Office: 804.200.6955 - Mobile: 804.402.0830 To send me files larger than 20 MB, click on this link From: Scott Dunn Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 3:05 PM To: Lewis, Lisa D (VDOT) <lisalewis@VDOTMirginia.gov> Cc: Keeler, Robin M (VDOT) Robin.KeelerQVDOTVirginia.gov; Casella, Brian, PE, LS (VDOT) Brian.Casella@vdotvirginia.gov Subject: RE: Edwards Solar VDOT Input for SUP Approval Lisa, Thanks for your time last week to discuss the Edwards Solar project and steps moving forward. Based on our conversation = Solar entrances are viewed as private in the Salem District. With this classification, it is not required that stopping sight distance (SSD) or intersection sight distance (ISD) is met. That being noted, it is preferred that sight distance is optimized at each proposed entrance: o Sight distance evaluation should be made on posted speed (assumed statutory 55 mph for Jacks Creek Road; SSD 495', ISD - 610'). The primary focus is during construction when traffic is heaviest: o In such cases where sight distance is not available, contractors are typically required to implement TTC 63.2 (logging operations) and post appropriate signage and flaggers. Proposed entrance locations are typically discussed with the County at regularly scheduled at Development Review Team (DRT) meetings. Per our discussion on the proposed entrances on Jack Creek Road: o Northern Entrance - Preliminary review indicates that sight distance is available and the entrance should be ok. Southern Entrance - Located adjacent to a curve with vegetation on both sides. Sight distance in the area may be limited but that can be addressed through clearing and possibly signage to alert drivers to vehicles enteringlexiting the site. o Jack Creek Road itself is suited for accommodate construction traffic and currently accommodates heavy vehicles due to the adjacent quarry. o Iti is not anticipated that the proposed entrances will be problematic. With respect to entrance plans, full design will be required at site plan stage including sight lines, profiles, drainage calcs, etc. Entrance plans will ultimately need VDOT approval. In addition to the entrance plans, the owner will provide a cost estimate for potential work within the ROW (associated with the entrance and truck traffic); this is anticipated to be in the $20-25k range and serve as a basis for a bond to cover any potential roadway damage adjacent to the entrance. htpslloutlokofice.com'malinboxldAAWPAGEOMDBINY,ITO2M2UNGM,MINZIA2LWEZMAIND9-YAhMBGAAAMAB/MP3NOYUTa751942B0. 3/7 2/18/25, 12:56 PM Mail Paul Cozens - Outlook Please review the information above and let me know if anything is incorrect or needs to be added. Iti is my intention to share this information with the Client to satisfy the County requirements. Thanks again and I look forward to your response. Scott Scott Dunn, AICP, PTP TIMMONS GROUP Office: 804.200.6955 - I Mobile: 804.402.0830 To send me files larger than 20 MB, click on this link From: Scott Dunn sctaumetmmonscone Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 4:33 PM To: Casella, Brian, / PE, LS (VDOT) <Brian.Casella@ydotvirginia.gov> Cc: Lewis, Lisa D (VDOT) <lisa.lewis@yDOTVirginia.gov; Keeler, Robin M (VDOT) n/stspoDarae Subject: RE: Edwards Solar VDOT Input for SUP Approval Brian - Thanks for the quick response and sharing the information. Lisa - regarding the southern entrance Brian noted below. The proposed entrance aligns with an exiting driveway. That being noted, we have not done a sight distance evaluation at this entrance. Based on available imagery (2024) there may be a need to trim some existing vegetation and or move the entrance. - look forward to hearing from you. Scott Aerial View Looking to the north htpslloutlokofice.com'malinboxldAAMRAGEOMDBINY/LTO2M2UINGMAMIhZIA2LWEZ,MAONDgAYçIMgBGAMAMMAB/MP3NOYUTa751942B0. 4/7 2/18/25, 12:56 PM Mail Paul Cozens - Outlook Looking to the south Scott Dunn, AICP, PTP TIMMONS GROUP Office: 804.200.6955 I Mobile: 804.402.0830 To send me files larger than 20 MB, click on this link From: Casella, Brian , PE, LS (VDOT) <Brian.Casella@ydotvirginia.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 4:21 PM To: Scott Dunn sotcaumelimmorsicon Cc: Lewis, Lisa D (VDOT) dlalesPpOnamassup, Keeler, Robin M (VDOT) htpslloutlokofice.com'malinboxldAAMRAGEOMDBINY/LTO2M2UINGMAMIhZIA2LWEZ,MAONDgAYçIMgBGAMAMMAB/MP3NOYUTa751942B0. 5/7 2/18/25, 12:56 PM Mail Paul Cozens Outlook anlstrdoameaee Subject: Re: Edwards Solar VDOT Input for SUP Approval CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon Scott, I am forwarding this information to Lisa Lewis and Robin Keeler but Lisa will be your primary point of contact. We can certainly take a look at what you have submitted and provide feedback. quickly scanned the screen shot and noticed the southern entrance appears to be in a curve SO we will want to check on the availability of sight distance. Lisa and Robin are in our Rocky Mount office and cover Franklin County for our Residency. Let me know if you need any additional assistance. Thanks, Brian Brian Casella, PE, LS Resident Engineer Bedford Residency Virginia Department of Transportation WDOT I 540-682-7000 office 540-525-9240 cell brian.casella@VDOTVirginia.gov From: Scott Dunn satdumeltimmonscom Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 4:10 PM To: Casella, Brian, , PE, LS (VDOT) Brian.Casella@ydotvirginia.gov> Subject: Edwards Solar VDOT Input for SUP Approval Brian, Timmons Group is working with a client on a proposed utility scale solar project in Union Hall (Franklin County) along Route 622 (Jacks Creek Road). A screen shot of the parcel boundaries and two (2) proposed entrance locations are shown below. have also attached a PDF of the preliminary site plan. Based on Franklin County's Solar Ordinance, written confirmation is required from VDOT that all entrances satisfy applicable VDOT requirements. The ordinance language states - 'Existing and proposed access roads, permanent entrances, temporary construction entrances, drives, and other areas requiring access to parking, including written confirmation from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) that all entrances satisfy applicable VDOT requirements. Since we are currently working toward SUP approval, full entrance design has not been completed at this point. It is understood that VDOT will have full review and approval control at the site plan stage, at which time the entrance locations will need to be compliant with respect to design parameters (including sight distance). htpslloutlokofice.com'malinboxldAAWPAGEOMDBINY,ITO2M2UNGM,MINZIA2LWEZMAIND9-YAhMBGAAAMAB/MP3NOYUTa751942B0. 6/7 2/18/25, 12:56 PM Mail Paul Cozens - Outlook Other VDOT residencies we've worked with have issued letters/emails indicating that the proposed entrances are generally compliant with respect to location and function and that final approval is contingent up site plan/entrance design review. am unsure if you have done something similar for other projects in your area. With all this being said, I'm hoping we can coordinate on a path forward SO that we can provide you the information you need and keep the solar project moving forward. If you have any input you'd like to share via email, - would appreciate the feedback.. ..or we can coordinate a time for a call next week to talk through next steps. Thanks in advance for your assistance and I look forward to your reply. Scott Scott Dunn, AICP, PTP Senior Project Manager TIMMONS GROUP www.timmons.com 1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 I Richmond, VA: 23225 Office: 804.200.6955 I Fax: 804.560.1016 Mobile 804.402.0830 I scaltidumn@limmons.con Your Vision Achieved Through Ours To send me files larger than 20 MB, click on this link htpslloutlokofice.com'malinboxldAAMRAGEOMDBINY/LTO2M2UINGMAMIhZIA2LWEZ,MAONDgAYçIMgBGAMAMMAB/MP3NOYUTa751942B0. 7/7 CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8.5 Decommissioning Plan Edwards Solar Farm 19 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit Edwards Solar TIMMONS GROUP Decommissioning Plan ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY Franklin County, VA Date: 12/13/2024 This cost estimate was not based on detailed construction drawings but is typical for a project of this size and type. The listed equipment quantities are subject to change based on the actual installed facilities. Prepared For: CPSOLAR COMMONWIALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Edwards Solar CEPSOLAR Plan COMMONWIALTH Decommissioning ENERGY PARTNERS Edwards Solar Decommissioning Plan CLIENT NAME CEP Solar, LLC PROJECT NAME Edwards Solar 2199 Jacks Creek Road, Union Hall, VA 24176 LOCATION Franklin County, VA PROJECT Solar PV Electric Generating Facility Rev. Date Description Prepared Checked Approved 0 12/13/2024 Released for Client Use NBF KJ AC TIMMONS GROUP REV 0 2 I Page YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS Edwards Solar CEPSOLAR Decommissioning Plan COMMONWIALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 4 2 PROJECT COMPONENTS. 4 3 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE 5 5 MATERIALS, RECYCLING, AND DISPOSAL .6 6 SITE RESTORATION 6 7 DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE. 7 7.1 OPINION OF PROBABLE DECOMMISSIONING COST 7 7.2 DECOMMISSIONING ASSUMPTIONS. 8 8 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE 10 APPENDIX A = SITE PLAN 12 TIMMONS GROUP REV 0 3 I Page YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS Edwards Solar CEPSOLAR Plan COMMONWIALTH Decommissioning ENERGY PARTNERS 1 Introduction Edwards Solar referred to as "Edwards" is proposing to construct an up to 5 MWac solar photovoltaic (PV) electric generating facility at 2199 Jacks Creek Road, Union Hall, VA 24176, Franklin County, Virginia (Facility). The facility will span approximately 108.87 acres total area (36.5 acres fenced) and will connect to an existing medium voltage (151 kV) electrical transmission line located adjacent to project site. The interconnecting medium voltage transmission line or Point of Interconnection (POI), and any associate Utility modificationupgrade is owned and operated by the Interconnecting Utility will not be covered by this decommissioning report and will be left to Interconnecting Utility to address as needed. The operational life of the Facility is anticipated to be approximately 40 years. This Decommissioning Methodology (Plan) describes the procedures associated with decommissioning the Facility and has been created to support the Facility's application in seeking the Special Exception Permit (SEP). This Plan lays out the procedures for restoring the site to its original use, based on the recent historical land use of the property or other economical land uses as desired by the relevant landowner, at the end of the Facility's operational life. The Plan describes procedures for the removal of Facility components. The components of the Facility are described in the Appendix A. 2 Project Components Appendix A provides information regarding the anticipated location and description of the Facility components. The Facility generally consists of the equipment and infrastructure listed below: Steel Piers and Racking PV Panels Inverters Electrical Collection System Access Roads Fencing, Gating, and Safety Features Weather Stations Data Accusation System (DAS) and Balance of Plan Control Gen-tie Transmission Line Interconnecting Transmission Facility TIMMONS GROUP REV 0 4 - Page YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS Edwards Solar CEPSOLAR Plan OMMONWEALTH Decommissioning ENERGY PARTNERS 3 Regulatory Compliance Prior to the commencement of decommissioning. Edwards will perform the appropriate due diligence requirements and obtain the necessary Franklin County, state, and federal approvals to complete decommissioning activities. To mitigate any environmental impact from decommissioning. Edwards will assess the necessary permits and approvals in the future regulatory environment to maintain regulatory compliance. Anticipated types of evaluations may include the following: Review of on-site jurisdictional status and potential impacts to wetlands and waterbodies to comply with the Clean Water Act. Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate compliance with the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and any other relevant regulations at the time of decommissioning. Consultation with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality for compliance with any pertinent state regulatory requirements. Completion of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in support of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) protection. Development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Franklin County building, road, discharge, or erosion control permits (as necessary). Special state or local hauling permits (as necessary). 4 Decommissioning The Project will be decommissioned at the end of its useful life. Once solar facility has been removed, it is expected that the site will be returned to as close to its original conditions as possible. Some minor grading may be required; topsoil (if removed) will be reapplied to allow for reseeding and growth. Site restoration will occur no more than twelve (12) months after notification of decommissioning. Decommissioning Sequence: 1. Obtain required site permits from Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) 2. Disconnect all utility grid power 3. Move all disconnects to the off position 4. Disconnect all above ground wirings, cables, and electrical connections 5. Remove all PV Modules 6. Remove Inverters, mounting equipment, and posts 7. Remove all electrical equipment, and their foundations 8. Remove DAS equipment, feeders, and conduit 9. Remove all above ground mounting equipment components and posts 10. Excavate and remove Underground feeders and conduit TIMMONS GROUP REV 0 5 I Page YOUR ISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS Edwards Solar CEPSOLAR Decommissioning Plan COMMONWIALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 11. Remove all MV feeders and utility poles 12. Remove access road 13. Remove all fencing 14. FIll/Grade/Seed as needed For This Project all materials will be removed regardless of depth. However, some components may be left in place under certain circumstances. Electrical lines that will not impact future use of the Project Area may be left in place per renewable industry practices. Steel piles, where full removal is unattainable, may be cut and left in place at a depth of 3 feet or greater below the ground surface. Additionally, landowners may desire that private access roads remain in place for their use. Edwards will obtain a written request from the landowner for a road or structure (such as the O&M building) to remain in place. 5 Materials, Recycling, and Disposal Many components of the Facility, such as racking, wiring, piles, and panels, retain value over time. Panels, while slightly less efficient, may be reused elsewhere, or components may be broken down and recycled. Recycling of solar panels and equipment is rapidly evolving and can be handled through a combination of sources such as certain manufacturers, PV Cycle (an international waste program founded by and for the PV industry), or waste management companies. More than 90 percent of the semiconductor material and glass can be reused in new modules and products. Other waste materials that hold no value will be recycled or disposed of via a licensed solid waste disposal facility. If recycling of solar panels is not feasible, disposal will be accomplished in accordance with AHJ requirements, and the salvage value will be adjusted. 6 Site Restoration Following the completion of decommissioning activities, it is anticipated that the site will primarily be converted back to the pre-construction land uses. Decommissioning of the Facility, including the removal of materials followed by site restoration, should be completed in approximately 12 months. TIMMONS GROUP REV 0 6 I Page YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS Edwards Solar CEPSOLAR Plan OMMONWIALTH Decommissioning ENERGY PARTNERS 7 Decommissioning Cost Estimate 7.1 OPINION OF PROBABLE DECOMMISSIONING COST Detailed Project Description: Edwards Solar is a 5 MWac at 2199 Jacks Creek Road, Union Hall, VA 24176, Franklin County, Virginia (Long, Lat): 36.9864224" 79.7117878 Table 7-1: Estimated Decommissioning Cost: PV Module Removal QUANTITY UNITS Unit Total Comment Cost # Solar Panels trina W540 EA $9 $108,333 Disassembly, Haul off-site 12,037 SUBTOTAL $108,333 Unit Foundations Structural Removal QUANTITY UNITS Total Comment Cost # Panel Support Steel Piles 2,229 EA $15 $33,435 Disassembly, Haul off-site # Panel Racks 446 EA $400 $178,400 Disassembly, Haul off-site SUBTOTAL $211,835 Unit Electrical Equipment Removal QUANTITY UNITS Total Comment Cost Inverter, SMA Sunny Central 840 kW 6 EA $1,500 $9,000 Disassembly, Haul off-site MV Transformers, 2,750 KVA 2 EA $8,500 $17,000 Disassembly, Haul off-site Tracker Motor 45 EA $20 $900 Disassembly, Haul off-site SUBTOTAL $26,900 Unit Electrical Wires Removal QUANTITY UNITS Total Comment Cost MV Conductor Overhead FT $45 $900 Removal, Excavation 200 MV Conductor Underground FT $25 $152,000 Removal, Excavation 6,080 Removal, Non/+ DC/LC Conductor 38,900 FT $5 $194,500 Excavation SUBTOTAL $347,400 Unit Interconnect Facility Removal QUANTITY UNITS Total Comment Cost Circuit Breakers 15 kV Int, Facility 1 EA $9,500 $9,500 Disassembly, Haul off-site New Pole/Disconnect Switch Installation 1 EA $15,000 $15,000 Disassembly, Haul off-site Control Enclosure/nterface Facility 1 LOT $25,000 $25,000 Disassembly, Haul off-site Fence/Foundation SUBTOTAL $49,500 Unit Fencelland, Removal/Restoration QUANTITY UNITS Total Comment Cost Fence Perimeter 8,123 FT $2 $16,246 Disassembly, Haul off-site Civil Site Remediation (disturbed area) 36.5 Acre $6,000 $219,000 Restoration and Seeding Storm Water Management Ponds 3 EA $4,000 $12,000 Restoration Mobilization, Engineering & Permitting $55,000 Budgeted SUBTOTAL $302,246 TIMMONS GROUP REV 0 7 Page YOUR ISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS Edwards Solar CEPSOLAR Plan COMMONWIALTH Decommissioning ENERGY PARTNERS Summary of Estimate PVI Module Removal $108,333 Foundations Structural Removal $211,835 Electrical Equipment Removal $26,900 Electrical Wires Removal $347,400 Collector Facility Removal $49,500 Fence/land, RemoyalRestoration $302,246 ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL $1,046,214 Data Sources: 1. Material List and Quantities: Based on schematic design. 2. Unit Price Values: Based on R.S. Means and typical quantities for various components. 7.2 DECOMMISSIONING ASSUMPTIONS To develop a cost estimate for the decommissioning of the Edwards Solar Project, Timmons Group made the following assumptions and costs were estimated based on current pricing, technology, and regulatory requirements. The assumptions are listed in order from top to bottom of the estimate spreadsheet. We developed time and materials-based estimates considering composition of work crews. When materials have a salvage value at the end of the project life, the construction activity costs, and the hauling/freight cost are separated from the disposal costs or salvage value to make revisions to salvage values more transparent. 1. Decommissioning year is based on a 5-year initial period for the financial security. The projected life of the project is 40 years. 2. This Cost Estimate is based on the Timmons Group data request forwarded September 2024. 3. Common labor will be used for the majority of the tasks except for heavy equipment operation. Pricing is based on local Southeast US labor rates. 4. Permit applications required include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) and a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. 5. Road gravel removal was estimated on a time and material basis using a 16 foot width and an 8 inch thickness for the access roads. Substation aggregate is included in the substation quantities. Since the material will not remain on site, a hauling cost is added to the removal cost. Road aggregate can often be disposed of by giving to landowners for use on driveways and parking areas. Many landfills will accept clean aggregate for use as "daily cover" and do not charge for the disposal. 6. Grade Road Corridor reflects the cost of mobilizing and operating light equipment to spread and smooth the topsoil stockpiled on site to replace the aggregate removed from the road. 7. Erosion and sediment control along road reflects the cost of silt fence on the downhill side of the road and surrounding all on-site wetlands. TIMMONS GROUP REV 0 8 I Page YOUR ISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS Edwards Solar CEPSOLAR Decommissioning Plan COMMONWIALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8. Topsoil is required to be stockpiled on site during construction, therefore this topsoil is available on site to replace the road aggregate, once removed. Subsoiling cost to decompact roadway areas is estimated as $750 per acre (based on previous bid prices), and revegetation on removed road area, which includes seed, fertilizer, lime, and care until vegetation is established is $2,750 per acre. The majority of the project area is "over-seeded" since the decommissioning activities are not expected to eliminate the existing grasses and vegetation under the arrays or heavily compact the soils. Over- seeding does not include fertilizer and lime and is estimated at $6,000 per acre. 9. Fence removal includes loading, hauling, and recycling or disposal. Fences and posts weigh approximately 2.3 pounds per foot. 10. Array support posts are generally lightweight "!" beam sections installed with a piece of specialized tracked equipment. Crew productivity is approximately 240 posts per day, and the same crew and equipment should have a similar productivity removing the posts, resulting in a per post cost of approximately $15. We assume a cost of $15.00 per post to include hauling fees and contingencies. 11. A metal recycling facility (FEA Salvage and Recycling) is located in Virginia and is relatively close to the project site. Steel scrap pricing was acquired from wwwscapmonstercon. 12. The solar panels rated 540 watts can easily be disconnected, removed, and packed by at three-person crew at a rate we estimate at 12 panels per hour. 13. No topsoil is planned to be removed from the site during decommissioning and most of the site will not have been compacted by heavy truck or equipment traffic, SO the site turf establishment cost is based on RS Means unit prices for applying lime, fertilizer, and seed at the price of per acre plus an allowance for some areas to be decompacted. 14. There is an active market for reselling and recycling electrical transformers and inverters with several national companies specializing in recycling. We have assumed a 20% recovery of these units based on field experience with used transformers as opposed to trying to break them down into raw material components. 15. The underground collection lines are assumed to be aluminum conductor. 16. Care to prevent damage and breakage of equipment, PV modules, inverters, capacitors, and SCADA must be exercised, but removal assumes unskilled common labor under supervision. If required a Salvage Value could be provided: he estimated salvage values will be derived from years of experience decommissioning and uprating electric substations, overhead transmission and distribution hardware and underground distribution hardware that would include but not be limited to substation and pad mounted transformers, overhead and underground conductors, poles, fencing, ground grid conductors, control housings, circuit breakers (high and medium voltage), protective relaying, and other hardware items. These individual items have high salvage value either as stand-alone components to be reused or recycled and sold as used items. These items also have a relatively high salvage value as pure scrap for steel, copper and other commodities. For all medium voltage transformers, breakers and other items, Southeastern Transformer Company in Dunn, NC provides complete repair, upgrading and recycling and resale for all items mentioned above. Their website is: https/www.setransformer.com. They have a national TIMMONS GROUP REV 0 9 I Page YOUR ISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS Edwards Solar CEPSOLAR Decommissioning Plan COMMONWIALTH ENERGY PARTNERS presence. For any and all recycling and upgrading, Solomon Corporation offers the same set of services for transformer repair and recycling and complete substation decommissioning services. With seven different locations, Solomon is one of several vendors that can decommission and recycle the components as noted above. Their website is: https/www.solomoncorp.com), Solomon Corporation is only one of many transmissions and distribution recycle and decommissioning shops that do this mainly to harvest the components. For recycling conductor, General Cable and Southwire both utilize extensive scrap procurement programs to reuse copper and aluminum conductor harvested from projects such as this one to supplement and reduce their raw material costs. Here is the link to the General Cable program which only increases the salvage values found in this Plan: General Cable Recycling htipsles.generalcable.com/nalus- can/socialresponsbliysustainability/recycling As for solar panels, they are in demand as salvageable items either in whole or for their raw material. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), more than 90% of all the materials are high grade silicon, aluminum and glass and are typically harvested to produce new panels. This is far less expensive than buying unprocessed raw materials for production. The base industry assumption is that since solar panels are expected to retain about 75% of their production capability after 40 years of use, a salvage value of 10% of original cost is a low estimate of their expected value and as we note in assumption. This considers possible technology improvements and undervalues the anticipated salvage value of the panel's raw materials. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) has an approved set of PV recycling vendors that specialize in doing this today and they can be found at: ntps/wwwsenorintaesantonipeereoycingeroran First Solar, which has been active in the solar industry since its inception, takes solar modules and recycles 90% of the semiconductor material which is then reused in new modules. 90% of the glass product can be reused as new glass products, including panels and fiber optic cable. We can conclude that realistically the estimated 10% salvage value is low and reflects a conservative figure. Information about First Solar's recycling program is at: itip:/www.frstsolar. cmen.odueyegcing 8 Financial Assurance The full decommissioning cost, without salvage value, will be guaranteed by escrow at a federally insured financial institution, irrevocable letter of credit, or surety bond before a building permit is issued to the project. The decommissioning cost guarantee will remain valid until the solar energy system has been fully decommissioned. If the Project Owner fails to remove the installation in accordance with the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit or within the proposed date of decommissioning. the County may collect the bond or other surety and the County or hired third- party may enter the property to physically remove the installation. Based on industry trends, the projected and actual costs of decommissioning are expected to go down over time based on improvements both to best practices in calculating these costs and the decommissioning process itself. Project Owner will reevaluate decommissioning costs with a qualified engineering consultant every five years during the life of the Project. If the recalculated estimate exceeds the TIMMONS GROUP REV 0 10 - I Page YOUR ISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS Edwards Solar CEPSOLAR Decommissioning Plan COMMONWIALTH ENERGY PARTNERS original estimated decommissioning cost by 10 percent or more, the Project Owner will increase the guarantee to meet the new cost estimate. If the recalculated estimate is less than 90 percent of the original estimated cost of decommissioning. the County may approve reducing the guarantee. TIMMONS GROUP REV 0 11 Page YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS Edwards Solar CEPSOLAR Plan COMMONWIALTH Decommissioning ENERGY PARTNERS Appendix A - Site Plan TIMMONS GROUP REV 0 12 I Page YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS Legend Project Limits 108.87 Acres Property Setbacks 150' Buildable Area 38.3A Acres * Entrance Point of Interconnection Hybrid Inverters Mountain Valley Pipeline Electric Transmission Line National Hydrography! Dataset Streams Internal Roads Panels 25.0 Acres Under Panels Fence 36.5 Acres Proposed Vegetative Buffer 11/2 Retained Vegetative Buffer 661 National Wetlands Inventory RDS SOLAR ISTICKLEY Wetland and Stream Buffer 50' 008 FEMA Flood Zone- Not Present Tra ransmission Line Easement Mountain Valley Pipeline Easement Main Buildings Main Buildings Buffer 300' Edwards Family Cemetery REVISIONS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TISF PURPOSES NOT FOR 2 ZONE DATAFROME IFEMAIS NATIONAL FLOODHAZARD IMAGERY FROM VGIN. MAY HAVE BATTERY STORAGE FEET) -WAY, INES 0e BUILDINGS ON LANSPRNTED 200 400 AREMAIFECANE PERIMETER OF ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL 200 WILLE RETAINEDA AS BUFFER WHERE IT EXISTS. C3.0 6040.CUPap E CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8.6 Glint and Glare Study Edwards Solar Farm 20 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS Project: Edwards Solar Site configuration: Edwards Smith Mtn Lake Client: CEP Solar Created 02 Jan, 2025 Updated 06 Jan, 2025 Time-step 1 minute Timezone offset UTC-5 Minimum sun altitude 0.0 deg DNI peaks at 1,000.0 W/m2 Category 1 MW to 51 MW Site ID 137840.23351 Ocular transmission coefficient 0.5 Pupil diameter 0.002 m Eye focal length 0.017 m Sun subtended: angle 9.3 mrad PV: analysis methodology V2 Google 2025T Terr Metri Summary of Results No glare predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy min hr min hr kWh PV array 1 western SA SA 0.0 0.0 7,404,000.0 tracking tracking PV array 2 eastern SA SA 0 0.0 0 0.0 7,175,000.0 tracking tracking Total glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple retlective surfaces. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr FP 1 - Rwy 05 0.0 0 0.0 CEP Solar, LLC, is proposing a 5 MW solar project in Franklin County, Virginia. To comply with local requirements to demonstrate "that the panels will be sited, designed, and installed to eliminate glint and glare effects on airport operations, ' DARE Strategies LLC used ForgeSolar software to evaluate glint/ glare on the final approach to Runway 05 at Smith Mountain Lake Airport, approximately 11 miles northeast of the site. As shown in the charts above and below, the software predicts zero glint and glare effects on operations at the airfield. ForgeSolar Page 1 of 8 Component Data PV Arrays Name: PV: array 1 western Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Backtracking: Shade-slope Tracking axis orientation: 180.0° Max tracking angle: 60.0° Resting angle: 0.00 Ground Coverage Ratio: 0.5 Rated power: 2500.0 kW Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Google, 02025A Airbus, CNES/ Airbus. Commonweath ofVirginia, Maxar Technologies Vertex Latitude () Longitude () Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 36.990445 -79.715698 966.31 3.00 969.31 2 36.990153 79.714046 1011.65 3.00 1014.65 3 36.985989 -79.713445 880.08 3.00 883.08 4 36.982149 -79.712158 1037.61 3.00 1040.61 5 36.982218 -79.714883 994.41 3.00 997.41 6 36.982338 -79.716750 926.74 3.00 929.74 7 36.983812 -79.717222 892.48 3.00 895.48 8 36.983846 -79.716278 873.76 3.00 876.76 9 36.984515 -79.715892 867.87 3.00 870.87 10 36.984652 -79.714668 859.14 3.00 862.14 11 36.984583 -79.714325 857.65 3.00 860.65 12 36.986074 -79.714347 879.95 3.00 882.95 13 36.987051 -79.715012 913.79 3.00 916.79 14 36.987840 -79.714754 918.45 3.00 921.45 15 36.989057 -79.714904 947.34 3.00 950.34 E ForgeSolar Page 2 of 8 Name: PV: array 2 eastern Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Backtracking: Shade-slope Tracking axis orientation: 180.0° Max tracking angle: 60.0° Resting angle: 0.00 Ground Coverage Ratio: 0.5 Rated power: 2500.0 kW Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Googley 02025 Airbus, CNES/ Airbus, Commonwealth of VirginiaMaxar Technologies Vertex Latitude () Longitude () Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 36.990496 -79.714046 1009.22 3.00 1012.22 2 36.991302 -79.712673 1027.91 3.00 1030.91 3 36.990119 -79.711922 1002.35 3.00 1005.35 4 36.989194 -79.712480 965.57 3.00 968.57 5 36.988868 -79.712372 950.80 3.00 953.80 6 36.988868 -79.711407 959.84 3.00 962.84 7 36.988680 -79.711342 954.26 3.00 957.26 8 36.988731 -79.710463 976.45 3.00 979.45 9 36.988097 -79.710227 948.42 3.00 951.42 10 36.986794 -79.709583 898.57 3.00 901.57 11 36.985097 -79.709411 846.13 3.00 849.13 12 36.984943 -79.709132 843.82 3.00 846.82 13 36.984772 -79.709197 842.84 3.00 845.84 14 36.983880 -79.708875 846.58 3.00 849.58 15 36.981995 -79.709390 1013.26 3.00 1016.26 16 36.982149 -79.712158 1037.61 3.00 1040.61 17 36.985989 -79.713402 880.49 3.00 883.49 Flight Path Receptors Name: FP 1 Rwy 05 @ Smith Mtn Lake Description: Threshold height: 50 ft Direction: 45.0° Glide slope: 3.0° Pilot view restricted? Yes Vertical view: 30.0° Azimuthal view: 50.0° Googley 02025 Arbus, CNES/Airbus, Commonwealth ofVirginia, Maxar Technologies Point Latitude () Longitude () Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) Threshold 37.105209 -79.595585 857.04 50.00 907.04 Two-mile 37.084764 -79.621250 797.24 663.22 1460.47 E ForgeSolar Page 3 of 8 Obstruction Components Name: Fence NE Top height: 8.0 ft Google, 02025Airbus, CNES/ Airbus, Commonwealth ofVirginia, Maxar Techno Vertex Latitude () Longitude () Ground elevation (ft) 1 36.988690 -79.711320 956.82 2 36.988889 -79.711375 962.13 3 36.988894 -79.712346 950.76 4 36.989202 -79.712448 965.13 5 36.990123 -79.711879 1002.14 6 36.991332 -79.712651 1028.52 7 36.990522 -79.714073 1009.48 8 36.990183 -79.714041 1010.77 9 36.990479 -79.715747 961.46 10 36.989048 -79.714937 948.16 E ForgeSolar Page 4 of 8 Name: Fence NW Top height: 8.0 ft Googley 02025 Airbus, CNES/ Airbus, Commonwealth ofVirginia, Maxar Technologies Vertex Latitude () Longitude () Ground elevation (ft) 1 36.989052 -79.714942 948.16 2 36.987853 -79.714781 917.88 3 36.987047 -79.715044 914.61 4 36.986057 -79.714379 880.33 5 36.984609 -79.714347 858.41 6 36.984682 -79.714663 860.36 7 36.984549 -79.715897 867.82 8 36.983872 -79.716288 873.34 9 36.983850 -79.717254 890.99 Name: Fence SE Topl height: 8.0 ft Google, 02025A Airbus, CNES/ Airbus, Commonw th of Virginia, Maxar Technologi Vertex Latitude () Longitude () Ground elevation (ft) 1 36.982128 -79.712158 1040.84 2 36.981978 -79.709379 1013.91 3 36.983885 -79.708843 846.23 4 36.984776 -79.709175 843.00 5 36.984947 -79.709089 844.24 6 36.985114 -79.709395 846.11 7 36.986803 -79.709567 898.52 8 36.988105 -79.710216 948.64 9 36.988757 -79.710441 977.45 10 36.988697 -79.711321 955.70 ForgeSolar Page 5 of 8 Name: Fence SW Top height: 8.0 ft Googley 02025 Airbus, CNES/ Airbus, Commonwealth ofVirginia, Maxar Technologies Vertex Latitude () Longitude () Ground elevation (ft) 1 36.983842 -79.717265 891.94 2 36.982312 -79.716787 942.33 3 36.982192 -79.714883 998.02 4 36.982136 -79.712163 1039.23 E ForgeSolar Page 6 of 8 Glare Analysis Results Summary of Results No glare predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy min hr min hr kWh PV array 1 western SA SA 0 0.0 U 0.0 7,404,000.0 tracking tracking PV array 2 eastern SA SA 0.0 0.0 7,175,000.0 tracking tracking Total glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr FP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 PV: PV array 1 - western noglare_found Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr FP 1 0.0 0 0.0 PV array 1 - western and FP: FP 1 No glare found PV: PV array 2 - eastern noglarefound Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr FP 1 0.0 0 0.0 PV array 2 - eastern and FP: FP 1 No glare found E ForgeSolar Page 7 of 8 Assumptions "Green" glare is glare with low potential to cause an: after-i -image when observed prior to ai typical blink response time. "Yellow" glare is glare with potential to cause an after-image when observed prior to ai typical blink response time. Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour. The algorithm does not rigorously represent the detailed geometry of a system; detailed features such as gaps between modules, variable height of the PV: array, and support structures may impact actual glare results. However, wel have validated our models against several systems, including a PV array causing glare to the air-traffic control tower at Manchester-Boston! Regional Airport and several sites in Albuquerque, and the tool accurately predicted the occurrence and intensity of glare at different times and days of the year. Several V1 calculations utilize thel PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm limitations. This may affect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide additional information on expected glare. This primarily affects V1 analyses of path receptors. Random number computations are utilized by various steps of the annual hazard analysis algorithm. Predicted minutes of glare can vary between runs as a result. This limitation primarily affects analyses of Observation Point receptors, including ATCTS. Note that the SGHAT/ ForgeSolar methodology has always relied on an analytical, qualitative approach to accurately determine the overall hazard (i.e. green VS. yellow) of expected glare on ana annual basis. The analysis does not automatically consider obstacles (either man-made or natural) between the observation points and the prescribed solar installation that may obstruct observed glare, such as trees, hills, buildings, etc. The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub-array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.) The variable direct normal irradiance (DNI) feature (if selected) scales the user- prescribed peak DNI using a typical clear- -dayi irradiance profile. This profile has a lower DNI in the mornings and evenings and a maximum at solar noon. The scaling uses a clear- -day irradiance profile based on a normalized time relative to sunrise, solar noon, and sunset, which are prescribed by a sun-position algorithm and the latitude and longitude obtained from Google maps. The actual DNI on any given day can be affected by cloud cover, atmospheric attenuation, and other environmental factors. The ocular hazard predicted by the tool depends on a number of environmental, optical, and human factors, which can be uncertain. We provide input fields and typical ranges of values for these factors sO that the user can vary these parameters to see if they have an impact on the results. The speed of SGHAT allows expedited sensitivity and parametric analyses. The system output calculation is a DNI-based: approximation that assumes clear, sunny skies year-round. It should not be used in place of more rigorous modeling methods. Hazard zone boundaries shown ini the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actual ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum. Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ. Refer toi the Help page at w.oigesolr.comhep for assumptions and limitations not listed here. Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only): Analysis time interval: 1 minute Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5 Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters Eyef focal length: 0.017 meters Suns subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians Simsl Industries d/bla ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. E ForgeSolar Page 8 of 8 CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8.7 FAA Notice Criteria Edwards Solar Farm 21 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit Edwards FAA2 Edwards FAA 1 Edwards FAA3 Edwards FAA6 Edwards FAA 7 as Jacks Creek - Edwards FAA5 Edwards FAA4 Image @ 2025 Airbus 1/17/25, 1:32 PM Notice Criteria Tool Federal Aviation < OE/AAA Administration Notice Criteria Tool Notice Criteria Tool Desk Reference Guide V_2018.2.0 The requirements for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration for proposed structures vary based on a number of factors: height, proximity to an airport, location, and frequencies emitted from the structure, etc. For more details, please reference CFR Title 14F Part 77.9. You must file with the FAA: at least 45 days prior to construction if: your structure will exceed 200ft above ground level your structure will be in proximity to an airport and will exceed the slope ratio your structure involves construction of a traverseway (ie. highway, railroad, waterway etc.. -) and once adjusted upward with the appropriate vertical distance would exceed a standard of 77.9(a) or (b) your structure will emit frequencies, and does not meet the conditions of the FAA Co-location Policy yours structure will bei in ani instrument approach area and might exceed part 77 Subpart C your proposed structure will be in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception your structure will be on an airport or heliport fling has been requested by the FAA Ify you require additional information regarding the filing requirements for your structure, please identify and contact the appropriate FAArepresentative using the Air Traffic Areas of Responsibility mapi for Off Airport construction, or contact the FAAAirports Region / District Office for On Airport construction. The tool below will assist in applying Part 77 Notice Criteria. * Structure Type: SOLARI Solar Panel V Please select structure type and complete location point information. Latitude: 36 Deg 59 M 26.02 S N V Longitude: 79 Deg 42 M 55.90 S W V Horizontal Datum: NAD83 V Site Elevation (SE): 974 (nearest foot) Structure Height : 15 (nearest foot) Is structure on airport: C No Yes Results You do not exceed Notice Criteria. htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 1/2 1/17/25, 1:32 PM Notice Criteria Tool htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 2/2 1/17/25, 1:39 PM Notice Criteria Tool Federal Aviation < OE/AAA Administration Notice Criteria Tool Notice Criteria Tool Desk Reference Guide V_2018.2.0 The requirements for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration for proposed structures vary based on a number of factors: height, proximity to an airport, location, and frequencies emitted from the structure, etc. For more details, please reference CFR Title 14F Part 77.9. You must file with the FAA: at least 45 days prior to construction if: your structure will exceed 200ft above ground level your structure will be in proximity to an airport and will exceed the slope ratio your structure involves construction of a traverseway (ie. highway, railroad, waterway etc.. -) and once adjusted upward with the appropriate vertical distance would exceed a standard of 77.9(a) or (b) your structure will emit frequencies, and does not meet the conditions of the FAA Co-location Policy yours structure will bei in ani instrument approach area and might exceed part 77 Subpart C your proposed structure will be in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception your structure will be on an airport or heliport fling has been requested by the FAA Ify you require additional information regarding the filing requirements for your structure, please identify and contact the appropriate FAArepresentative using the Air Traffic Areas of Responsibility mapi for Off Airport construction, or contact the FAAAirports Region / District Office for On Airport construction. The tool below will assist in applying Part 77 Notice Criteria. * Structure Type: SOLARI Solar Panel V Please select structure type and complete location point information. Latitude: 36 Deg 59 M 28.76 S N V Longitude: 79 Deg 42 M 45.47 S W V Horizontal Datum: NAD83 V Site Elevation (SE): 1031 (nearest foot) Structure Height : 15 (nearest foot) Is structure on airport: C No Yes Results You do not exceed Notice Criteria. htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 1/2 1/17/25, 1:39 PM Notice Criteria Tool htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 2/2 1/17/25, 1:40 PM Notice Criteria Tool Federal Aviation < OE/AAA Administration Notice Criteria Tool Notice Criteria Tool Desk Reference Guide V_2018.2.0 The requirements for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration for proposed structures vary based on a number of factors: height, proximity to an airport, location, and frequencies emitted from the structure, etc. For more details, please reference CFR Title 14F Part 77.9. You must file with the FAA: at least 45 days prior to construction if: your structure will exceed 200ft above ground level your structure will be in proximity to an airport and will exceed the slope ratio your structure involves construction of a traverseway (ie. highway, railroad, waterway etc.. -) and once adjusted upward with the appropriate vertical distance would exceed a standard of 77.9(a) or (b) your structure will emit frequencies, and does not meet the conditions of the FAA Co-location Policy yours structure will bei in ani instrument approach area and might exceed part 77 Subpart C your proposed structure will be in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception your structure will be on an airport or heliport fling has been requested by the FAA Ify you require additional information regarding the filing requirements for your structure, please identify and contact the appropriate FAArepresentative using the Air Traffic Areas of Responsibility mapi for Off Airport construction, or contact the FAAAirports Region / District Office for On Airport construction. The tool below will assist in applying Part 77 Notice Criteria. * Structure Type: SOLARI Solar Panel V Please select structure type and complete location point information. Latitude: 36 Deg 59 M 19.92 S N V Longitude: 79 Deg 42 M 37.87 S W V Horizontal Datum: NAD83 V Site Elevation (SE): 985 (nearest foot) Structure Height : 15 (nearest foot) Is structure on airport: 0 No Yes Results You do not exceed Notice Criteria. htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 1/2 1/17/25, 1:40 PM Notice Criteria Tool htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 2/2 1/17/25, 1:42 PM Notice Criteria Tool Federal Aviation < OE/AAA Administration Notice Criteria Tool Notice Criteria Tool Desk Reference Guide V_2018.2.0 The requirements for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration for proposed structures vary based on a number of factors: height, proximity to an airport, location, and frequencies emitted from the structure, etc. For more details, please reference CFR Title 14F Part 77.9. You must file with the FAA: at least 45 days prior to construction if: your structure will exceed 200ft above ground level your structure will be in proximity to an airport and will exceed the slope ratio your structure involves construction of a traverseway (ie. highway, railroad, waterway etc.. -) and once adjusted upward with the appropriate vertical distance would exceed a standard of 77.9(a) or (b) your structure will emit frequencies, and does not meet the conditions of the FAA Co-location Policy yours structure will bei in ani instrument approach area and might exceed part 77 Subpart C your proposed structure will be in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception your structure will be on an airport or heliport fling has been requested by the FAA Ify you require additional information regarding the filing requirements for your structure, please identify and contact the appropriate FAArepresentative using the Air Traffic Areas of Responsibility mapi for Off Airport construction, or contact the FAAAirports Region / District Office for On Airport construction. The tool below will assist in applying Part 77 Notice Criteria. * Structure Type: SOLARI Solar Panel V Please select structure type and complete location point information. Latitude: 36 Deg 58 M 55.71 S N V Longitude: 79 Deg 42 M 35.56 S W V Horizontal Datum: NAD83 V Site Elevation (SE): 995 (nearest foot) Structure Height : 15 (nearest foot) Is structure on airport: 0 No Yes Results You do not exceed Notice Criteria. htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 1/2 1/17/25, 1:42 PM Notice Criteria Tool htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 2/2 1/17/25, 1:43 PM Notice Criteria Tool Federal Aviation < OE/AAA Administration Notice Criteria Tool Notice Criteria Tool Desk Reference Guide V_2018.2.0 The requirements for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration for proposed structures vary based on a number of factors: height, proximity to an airport, location, and frequencies emitted from the structure, etc. For more details, please reference CFR Title 14F Part 77.9. You must file with the FAA: at least 45 days prior to construction if: your structure will exceed 200ft above ground level your structure will be in proximity to an airport and will exceed the slope ratio your structure involves construction of a traverseway (ie. highway, railroad, waterway etc.. -) and once adjusted upward with the appropriate vertical distance would exceed a standard of 77.9(a) or (b) your structure will emit frequencies, and does not meet the conditions of the FAA Co-location Policy yours structure will bei in ani instrument approach area and might exceed part 77 Subpart C your proposed structure will be in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception your structure will be on an airport or heliport fling has been requested by the FAA Ify you require additional information regarding the filing requirements for your structure, please identify and contact the appropriate FAArepresentative using the Air Traffic Areas of Responsibility mapi for Off Airport construction, or contact the FAAAirports Region / District Office for On Airport construction. The tool below will assist in applying Part 77 Notice Criteria. * Structure Type: SOLARI Solar Panel V Please select structure type and complete location point information. Latitude: 36 Deg 58 M 56.07 S N V Longitude: 79 Deg 43 M 0.77 S W V Horizontal Datum: NAD83 V Site Elevation (SE): 995 (nearest foot) Structure Height : 15 (nearest foot) Is structure on airport: 0 No Yes Results You do not exceed Notice Criteria. htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 1/2 1/17/25, 1:43 PM Notice Criteria Tool htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 2/2 1/17/25, 1:46 PM Notice Criteria Tool Federal Aviation < OE/AAA Administration Notice Criteria Tool Notice Criteria Tool Desk Reference Guide V_2018.2.0 The requirements for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration for proposed structures vary based on a number of factors: height, proximity to an airport, location, and frequencies emitted from the structure, etc. For more details, please reference CFR Title 14F Part 77.9. You must file with the FAA: at least 45 days prior to construction if: your structure will exceed 200ft above ground level your structure will be in proximity to an airport and will exceed the slope ratio your structure involves construction of a traverseway (ie. highway, railroad, waterway etc.. -) and once adjusted upward with the appropriate vertical distance would exceed a standard of 77.9(a) or (b) your structure will emit frequencies, and does not meet the conditions of the FAA Co-location Policy yours structure will bei in ani instrument approach area and might exceed part 77 Subpart C your proposed structure will be in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception your structure will be on an airport or heliport fling has been requested by the FAA Ify you require additional information regarding the filing requirements for your structure, please identify and contact the appropriate FAArepresentative using the Air Traffic Areas of Responsibility mapi for Off Airport construction, or contact the FAAAirports Region / District Office for On Airport construction. The tool below will assist in applying Part 77 Notice Criteria. * Structure Type: SOLARI Solar Panel V Please select structure type and complete location point information. Latitude: 36 Deg 59 M 13.04 S N V Longitude: 79 Deg 42 M 54.15 S W V Horizontal Datum: NAD83 V Site Elevation (SE): 912 (nearest foot) Structure Height : 15 (nearest foot) Is structure on airport: C No Yes Results You do not exceed Notice Criteria. htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 1/2 1/17/25, 1:46 PM Notice Criteria Tool htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 2/2 1/17/25, 1:48 PM Notice Criteria Tool Federal Aviation < OE/AAA Administration Notice Criteria Tool Notice Criteria Tool Desk Reference Guide V_2018.2.0 The requirements for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration for proposed structures vary based on a number of factors: height, proximity to an airport, location, and frequencies emitted from the structure, etc. For more details, please reference CFR Title 14F Part 77.9. You must file with the FAA: at least 45 days prior to construction if: your structure will exceed 200ft above ground level your structure will be in proximity to an airport and will exceed the slope ratio your structure involves construction of a traverseway (ie. highway, railroad, waterway etc.. -) and once adjusted upward with the appropriate vertical distance would exceed a standard of 77.9(a) or (b) your structure will emit frequencies, and does not meet the conditions of the FAA Co-location Policy yours structure will bei in ani instrument approach area and might exceed part 77 Subpart C your proposed structure will be in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception your structure will be on an airport or heliport fling has been requested by the FAA Ify you require additional information regarding the filing requirements for your structure, please identify and contact the appropriate FAArepresentative using the Air Traffic Areas of Responsibility mapi for Off Airport construction, or contact the FAAAirports Region / District Office for On Airport construction. The tool below will assist in applying Part 77 Notice Criteria. * Structure Type: SOLARI Solar Panel V Please select structure type and complete location point information. Latitude: 36 Deg 59 M 10.54 S N V Longitude: 79 Deg 42 M 43.77 S W V Horizontal Datum: NAD83 V Site Elevation (SE): 877 (nearest foot) Structure Height : 15 (nearest foot) Is structure on airport: C No Yes Results You do not exceed Notice Criteria. htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 1/2 1/17/25, 1:48 PM Notice Criteria Tool htps.loeaaafaagowloaaaextemalgsTols.gisAction.jsp 2/2 CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8.8 Impact on Adjacent Property Values Edwards Solar Farm 22 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI Kirkland 9408 Northfield Court Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Phone (919) 414-8142 LLC Appraisals, kirkland2@ymailcom imislsn December 10, 2024 Mr. Paul Cozens CEP Solar 2201 W. Broad Street, Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23220 RE: Edwards Solar, LLC, Franklin County, VA Mr. Cozens At your request, I have considered the impact of a 5 MW solar farm proposed to be constructed on a portion of a 108.87-acre assemblage of land in Franklin County, Virginia. 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 Virginia as well as other states, 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 CEP Solar, represented to me by Mr. Paul Cozens. My findings support the Application. The effective date of this consultation is December 10, 2024. I. Conclusion The adjoining properties are well set back from the proposed solar panels and much of the site has good existing landscaping for screening the proposed solar farm. Where the landscaping is not mature it is proposed to be supplemented. The matched pair analysis shows no impact on 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 the solar farm is properly screened and buffered. 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. Data from the university studies, broker commentary, and other appraisal studies support a finding of no impact on property value adjoining a solar farm with proper setbacks and landscaped buffers. Very similar solar farms in very similar areas have been found by hundreds of towns and counties not to have a substantial negative effect 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 with adjoining agricultural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments. 2 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 properties 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 is quiet, and there is minimal traffic. Ifyou have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, G. / APPRE B 2 Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI NC Certified General Appraiser #A4359 VA Certified General Appraiser # 4001017291 3 II. Table of Contents I. Conclusion 1 II. Table of Contents 3 III. Proposed Project and Adjoining Uses. 4 IV. Methodology and Discussion of Issues 10 V. Research on Solar Farms 13 A. Appraisal Market Studies 13 B. Articles 15 C. Broker Commentary. 16 VI. University Studies 18 A. University of' Texas at Austin, May 2018. 18 B. University of Rhode Island, September 2020 19 C. Georgia Institute of Technology, October 2020 20 D. Master's Thesis: ECU by Zachary Dickerson July 2018. 20 E. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, March 2023. 21 F. Loyola University Chicago by Simeng Hao and Gilbert Michaud, 2024 26 VII. Assessor Surveys.. 27 VIII. Summary of Solar Projects In Virginia 29 IX. Market Analysis of the Impact on Value from Solar Farms 34 A. Virginia Data 35 Southeastern USA Data - Over 5 MW 73 B. Summary of National Data on Solar Farms 75 X. Distance Between Homes and Panels 78 XI. Scope of Research 78 XII. Specific Factors Related To Impacts on Value. 80 XIII. Conclusion 83 XIV. Certification. 84 Professional Experience 85 Professional Affiliations 85 Education 85 Continuing Education. 85 4 III. Proposed Project and Adjoining Uses Proposed Use Description This 5 MW solar farm is proposed to be constructed on a portion of a 108.87-acre assemblage of land in Franklin County, Virginia. Adjoining Properties I have considered adjoining uses and included a map to identify each parcel's location. The closest adjoining home will be greater than 300 feet from the nearest panel based on the minimum adjoining home setback of 300 feet. The breakdown of those uses by acreage and number of parcels is summarized below. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 5.04% 58.33% Agricultural 38.01% 25.00% Industrial 42.97% 8.33% Agri/Res 13.97% 8.33% Total 100.00% 100.00% 5 Aerial Map of Subject Property R 280 10180 096 - 256 51 196. 12 0 > 496 3 3 9552 % 11 a S 9 60 76 CKST 10 1 Surrounding Uses GIS Data Adjoin Adjoin MAP ID Owner Acres Present Use Acres Parcels 1 660004400 Hall 15.27 Residential 2.67% 8.33% 2 660004403 Clements 3.80 Residential 0.66% 8.33% 3 660004402 Clements 1.00 Residential 0.17% 8.33% 4 660010102 Clements 1.80 Residential 0.31% 8.33% 5 0660010105A Muse 5.00 Residential 0.87% 8.33% 6 0660010105B Muse 1.00 Residential 0.17% 8.33% 7 0660010105C Arrington 1.00 Residential 0.17% 8.33% 8 660010106 Blue 33.85 Agricultural 5.91% 8.33% 9 660010700 Davis 125.11 Agricultural 21.85% 8.33% 10 690000100 Rockydale 246.00 Industrial 42.97% 8.33% 11 660004100 Hambrick 80.00 Agri/Res 13.97% 8.33% 12 660004300 Edwards 58.67 Agricultural 10.25% 8.33% Total 572.500 100.00% 100.00% 6 Demographics Around Subject Property I have pulled demographic data around a 1-mile, 3-mile and 5-mile radius from the middle of the project as shown on the following pages. Point sport o mie pgross pra des Sego, 7 esri Housing Profile THE SCIENCE OF WHERE 24176 Prepared by Esri 24176, Union Hall, Virginia latitude, 3695529 Ring: 1 mile radius Lomirude 29 71267 Population Households 2020 Total Population 41 2024 Median Household Income $41,637. 2024 Total Population 41 2029 Median Household Income $52,011 2029 Total Population 40 2024- 2029 Annual Rate 4.55% 2024-2029 AnnualRate -0.49% Census 2020 2024 2029 Housing Units by Occupancy Status and Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Housing Units 18 100.0% 18 100.0% 18 100.0% Occupied 17 94.4% 18 100.0% 18 100.0% Owner. 14 77,8% 15 83.3% 15 83.3% Renter 3 16.7% 3 16.7% 3 16.7% Vacant 2 11.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2024 2029 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Number Percent Number Percent Total 17 100.0% 14 100.0% <$50,000 7 41.2% 3 21.4% $50,000-$99,999 5.9% 0 0.0% $100,000-$149,999 5.9% 0 0.0% $150,000-$199,999 11.8% 0 0.0% $200,000-$249,999 5.9% 28.6% $250,000-$299,999 5.9% 0 0.0% $300,000:$399,999 2 11.8% 0 0.0% $400,000-$499,999 1 5.9% 0 0.0% $500,000:$749,999 0 0.0% 4 28.6% $750,000-$999,999 5.9% 3 21.4% $1,00,00-$1499,9 0.0% 0 0.0% $1.500000-$1,999,999 0.0% 0 0.0% $2,000,0004 0.0% 0.0% Median Value $125,000 $375,000 Average Value $191,176 $435,714 Census 2020 Housing Units Number Percent Total 18 100.0% Housing Units In Urbanized Areas o 0.0% Rural Housing Units 18 100.0% Census 2020 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status Number Percent Total 14 100.0% Owned with al Mortgage/Loan 7 50.0% Owned Free and Clear 50.0% Datal Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. Source: Esri forecasts for 2024 and 2029. U.S. Census Bureau 2020 decennial Census data. November 26, 2024 Bape ahe 6 8 esri Housing Profile THE SCIENCE OF WHERE 24176 Prepared by Esri 24176, Union Hall, Virginia latitude, 3695529 Ring: 3 mile radius Lomirude 29 71267 Population Households 2020 Total Population 1,274 2024 Median Household Income $61,701 2024 Total Population 1,249 2029 Median Household Income $69,703 2029 Total Population 1,251 2024- 2029 Annual Rate 2,47% 2024-2029 AnnualRate 0.03% Census 2020 2024 2029 Housing Units by Occupancy Status and Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Housing Units 634 100.0% 642 100.0% 642 100.0% Occupied 478 75.4% 485 75.5% 488 76.0% Owner. 377 59.5% 393 61.2% 402 62.6% Renter 101 15.9% 92 14.3% 86 13.4% Vacant 141 22.2% 157 24.5% 154 24.0% 2024 2029 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Number Percent Number Percent Total 392 100.0% 403 100.0% <$50,000 96 24.5%. 38 9.4% $50,000-$99,999 12 3.1% 2 0.5% $100,000-$149,999 28 7.1% 5 1:2% $150,000-$199,999 32 8.2% 9 2.2% $200,000-$249,999 27 6.9% 64 15.9% $250,000-$299,999 29 7.4% 6 1.5% $300,000-$399,999 48 12.2% 10 2.5% $400,000-$499,999 31 7.9% 8 2.0% $500,000:5749,999 26 6.6% 76 18.9% $750,000-$999,999 53 13.5% 147 36.5% $1,00,00-$149,9 4 1.0% 14 3.5% $1.500000-$1,999,999 1.0% 17 4.2% $2,000,0006 2 0.5% 7 1.7% Median Value $251,724 $695,724 Average Value $347,768 $658,995 Census 2020 Housing Units Number Percent Total 634 100.0% Housing Units In Urbanized Areas o 0.0% Rural Housing Units 634 100.0% Census 2020 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status Number Percent Total 376 100.0% Owned with al Mortgage/Loan 209 55.6% Owned Free and Clear 167 44.4% Datal Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be ofa any race. Source: Esri forecasts for 2024 and 2029. U.S. Census Bureau 2020 decennial Census data. November 26, 2024 Bane 5 OHE 9 esri Housing Profile THE SCIENCE OF WHERE 24176 Prepared by Esri 24176, Union Hall, Virginia latitude, 3695529 Ring: 5 mile radius Lomirude 29 71267 Population Households 2020 Total Population 4,399 2024 Median Household Income $78,719 2024 Total Population 4,469 2029 Median Household Income $89,608 2029 Total Population 4,492 2024- 2029 Annual Rate 2,63% 2024-2029 AnnualRate 0.10% Census 2020 2024 2029 Housing Units by Occupancy Status and Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Housing Units 2,949 100.0% 3,019 100.0% 3,019 100.0% Occupied 1,877 63.6% 1,923 63.7% 1,943 64.4% Owner. 1,531 51.9% 1,607 53.2% 1,647 54.6% Renter 346 11.7% 316 10.5% 296 9.8% Vacant 1,046 35.5% 1,096 36.3% 1,076 35.6% 2024 2029 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Number Percent Number Percent Total 1,606 100.0% 1,646 100.0% <$50,000 174 10.8% 70 4.3% $50,000-$99,999 27 1.7% 6 0.4% $100,000-$149,999 83 5.2% 11 0.7% $150,000-$199,999 87 5.4% 20 1.2% $200,000-$249,999 84 5.2% 105 6.4% $250,000-$299,999 94 5.9% 25 1.5% $300,000-$399,999 202 12.6% 51 3.1% $400,000-$499,999 134 8.3% 74 4.5% $500,000:5749,999 266 16.6% 267: 16.2% $750,000-$999,999 325 20.2% 699 42.5% $1,00,00-$149,9 69 4.3% 152 9.2% $1.500000-$1,999,999 43 2.7% 127 7.7% $2,000,0006 18 1,1% 39 2.4% Median Value $438,806 $819,385 Average Value $535,710 $830,635 Census 2020 Housing Units Number Percent Total 2,949 100.0% Housing Units In Urbanized Areas 2 0.1% Rural Housing Units 2,947 99.9% Census 2020 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status Number Percent Total 1,531 100.0% Owned with al Mortgage/Loan 877 57.3% Owned Free and Clear 654 42,7% Datal Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be ofa any race. Source: Esri forecasts for 2024 and 2029. U.S. Census Bureau 2020 decennial Census data. November 26, 2024 Bane 5 dHE 10 IV. 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 minimal noise and are even quieter at night typically with no noise above ambient sounds outside of the fence line. 11 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/Viswahed. 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. Market Imperfection Throughout this analysis, I have specifically considered the influence of market impertection on data analysis. Market imperfection is the term that refers to the fact that unlike a can of soup at the supermarket or in your online shopping cart, real estate cannot be comparison shopped for the best price and purchased at the best price for that same identical product. Real estate products are always similar and never identical. Even two adjacent lots that are identical in almost every way, have a slight difference in location. Once those lots are developed with homes, the number of differences begin to multiply, whether it is size of the home, landscaping, layout, age of interior upfit, quality of interior upfit, quality of maintenance and SO on. Neoclassical economics indicates a perfectly competitive market as having the following: A large number of buyers and sellers (no one person dominates the market), no barriers or transaction costs, homogeneous product, and perfect information about the product and pricing. Real estate is clearly not homogeneous. The number of buyers and sellers for a particular product in a particular location is limited by geography, financing, and the limited time period within a property is listed. There are significant barriers that limit the liquidity in terms of time, costs and financing. Finally, information on real estate is often incomplete or partial - especially at the time that offers are made and prices set, which is prior to appraisals and home inspections. So real estate is very imperfect based on this definition and the impact of this are readily apparent in the real estate market. What appear to be near-identical homes that are in the same subdivision will often sell with slight variations in price. When multiple appraisers approach the same property, there is often a slight variation among all of those conclusions of value, due to differences in comparables used or analysis of those comparables. This is common and happens all of the time. In fact, within each appraisal, after making adjustments to the comparables, the appraiser will typically have a range of values that are supported that often vary more than +/-5% from the median or average adjusted value. Based on this understanding of market imperfection, it is important to note that very minor differences in value within an impact study do not necessarily indicate either a negative or positive impact. When the impacts measured fall within that +/-5%, I consider this to be within typical market variation/mperiection. Therefore it may be that there is a negative or positive impact identified if the impact is within that range, but given that it is indistinguishable from what amounts to the background noise or static within the real estate data, I do not consider indications of +/-5% to support a finding of a negative or positive impact. Impacts greater than that range are however, considered to be strong indications of impacts that fall outside of typical market imperfection. I have used this as a guideline while considering the impacts identified within this report. 12 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. 13 V. Research on Solar Farms A. Appraisal Market Studies IH 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, Michigan, 2020 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 of24 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, 2020 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, North Carolina, 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 research of higher priced homes. His one sale that fell through is hardly a reliable sample.' 14 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." Mr. Beck indicated in the interview if landscaping screens were employed he would not see any drop in value. NorthStar Appraisal Company Impact Analysis for Nichomus Run Solar, Pilesgrove, New Jersey, 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. MR Valuation Consulting, LLC = The Kuhl Farm Solar Development and The Fischer Farm Solar Development - New Jersey, 2012 Mr. Mark Pomykacaz, MAI MRICS with MR Valuation Consulting, LLC considered a matched pair analysis for sales near these solar farms. The sales data presented supported a finding of no impact on property value for nearby and adjoining homes and concludes that there is no impact on marketing time and no additional risk involved with owning, building, or selling properties next to the solar farms. Mary McClinton Clay, MAI - McCracken County Solar Project Value Impact Report, Kentucky, 2021 Ms. Mary Clay, MAI reviewed a report by Kirkland Appraisals in this case and also provided a differing opinion of impact. Having testified opposite Ms. Clay, she has stated that she does not confirm her data and does not use an appropriate method for time adjustments. The comments throughout this study are heavy in adjectives, avoids stating facts contrary to the conclusion and shows a strong selection bias. Kevin T. Meeks, MAI = Corcoran Solar Impact Study, Minnesota, 2017 Mr. Kevin Meeks, MAI reviewed a report by Kirkland Appraisals in this case and also provided additional research on the topic with additional paired sales. The sales he considered are well presented and show that they were confirmed by third parties and all of the broker commentary is aligned with the conclusion that the adjoining solar farms considered had no impact on the adjoining home values. Mr. Meeks also researched a 100 MW project in Chisago County, known as North Star Solar Garden in MN. He interviewed local appraisers and a broker who was actively marketing homes adjoining that solar farm to likewise support a finding of no impact on property value. John Keefe, Chisago County Assessor, Chisago County Minnesota Assessor's Office, 2017 This study was completed by the Chisago County Minnesota Assessor's Office on property prices adjacent to and in close vicinity of a 1,000-acre North Star solar farm in Minnesota. The study concluded that the North Star solar farm had "no adverse impact" on property values. Mr. Keefe further stated that, "It seems conclusive that valuation has not suffered." Tim Connelly, MAI = Solar Impact Study of Proposed Solar Facility, New Mexico, 2023 15 This study is a detailed review of an Impact Study completed by Kirkland Appraisals, LLC for Rancho Viejo Solar. It goes through all of the analysis and confirms the applicability and reliability of the methods and conclusions. Mr. Connelly, MAI concurs that "the proposed solar project will not have a negative impact on market value, marketability, or enjoyment of property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project." Donald Fisher, ARA, 2021 Donald Fisher has completed a number of studies on solar farms and was quoted in February 15, 2021 stating, "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 the installation of solar farms went up higher than time trends." Jennifer N. Pitts, MAI - Study of Residential Market Trends Surrounding Six Utility-Scale Solar Projects in Texas, 2023 This study was completed by Real Property Analytics with Ms. Pitts along with Erin M. Kiella, PhD, and Chris Yost-Bremm, PhD. This analysis considered these solar farms through different stages of the market from announcement of the project, during construction, and after construction. They found no indication of a negative impact on sales price, the ratio of sales price to listing price, or the number of Days on Market. They also researched individual sales and interviewed local brokers who confirmed that market participants were knowledgeable of the solar projects and did not result in a negative impact on sales price or marketing time. Michael S. MaRous, MAI, CRE Market Impact Analysis Langdon Mills Solar, Columbia County, Wisconsin, 2023 This study was completed by MaRous & Company and singed by Machael S. MaRous. This analysis included consideration of solar projects in 13 states and including 7 solar projects in Wisconsin. This includes 22 matched pairs with a conclusion on Page 70 that states "there does not appear to have been any measurable negative impact on surrounding residential property values due to the proximity of a solar farm." This analysis was further supported by Assessor Surveys including assessors in Wisconsin which found no instance of an assessor in Wisconsin identifying any negative impacts from solar farms on adjoining property values. Conclusion of Impact Studies Of the 11 studies noted 9 included actual sales data to derive an opinion of no impact on value. The two studies to conclude on a negative impact includes 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. The other study by Mary Clay shows improper adjustments for time, a lack of confirmation of sales comparables, and exclusion of data that does not support her initial position. 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 16 value related to solar farms. He discusses the university studies that I have cited as well as Patricia McGarr, MAI. 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." More recently in August 2022, Donald Fisher, ARA, MAI and myself led a webinar on this topic for the ASFMRA discussing the issues, the university studies and specific examples of solar farms having no impact on adjoining property values. 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 included 17 comments from brokers within this report where they discussed specific solar projects 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. 18 VI. 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. Chart B.2 - Estimates of Property Value Impacts (%) by Size of Facility, Distance, & Respondent Type Have you assessed a home near a utility-scale solar installation? 5 -5 -10 -15 Yes 1.5MW Yes 20MW Yes 102MW No 1.5MW No 20MW No 102MW -20 1001 feet 500 feet 1000 feet 1/2mile 1 mile 3miles 19 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 municpalty/lownahp with less than 850 population per square mile. 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 Union Hall District of Franklin County, which has a population of 8,167 for 2024 based on SiteToDobusiness.com and a total area of 94.97 square miles. This indicates a population density of 86 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 a finding of no impact on adjoining properties for the proposed solar farm. 20 Union Hall District Data & Demographics (As of July 1, 2024) POPULATION HOUSING Total Population 8,167 (100%6) Total HU (Housing Units) 5,176 (100%) Population in Households 8,167 (100.096) Owner Occupied HU 2,915 (56.3%) Population in Families 6,718 (82.3%) Renter Occupied HU 610 (11.8%) Population in Group Quarters' 0 Vacant Housing Units 1,651 (31.9%) Population Density 86 Median Home Value $361,781 Diversity Index? 29 Average Home Value $500,309 Housing Affordability Index? 90 INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Median Household Income $79,032 Total Households 3,525 Average Household Income $115,658 Average Household Size 232000000000 % ofl Income for Mortgage* 29% Family Households 2,403 Per Capita Income $49,920 Average Family Size 3 Wealth Indexs 136 C. Georgia Institute of Technology, October 2020 Utility-Scale Solar Farms and Agricultural Land Values This study was completed by Nino Abashidze as Post-Doctoral Research Associate of Health Economics and Analytics Labe (HEAL), School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology. This research was started at North Carolina State University and analyzes properties near 451 utility- scale ground-mount solar installations in NC that generate at least 1 MW of electric power. A total of 1,676 land sales within 5-miles of solar farms were considered in the analysis. This analysis concludes on Page 21 of the study "Although there are no direct effects of solar farms on nearby agricultural land values, we do find evidence that suggests construction of a solar farm may create a small, positive, option -value for land owners that is capitalized into land prices. Specifically, after construction of a nearby solar farm, we find that agricultural land that is also located near transmission infrastructure may increase modestly in value. This study supports a finding of no impact on adjoining agricultural property values and in some cases could support a modest increase in value. D. 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? 21 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. 100% 90% 25% 28% 21% 80% 9% 46% 46% 48% 70% 13% 15% 60% 50% 8% 9% 5% 40% 30% 62% 57% 70% 20% 46% 45% 47% 10% 0% Total Distanced Adjacent Total Distanced Adjacent About the solar farm About their neighborhood sitting near a solar farm =Positive - Negative a Neutral Figure I1: Residents' positive/negative word choices by geographic setting for both questions E. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, March 2023 Shedding light on large-scale solar impacts: An analysis of property values and proximity to photovoltaics across six U.S. states This study was completed by researchers including Salma Elmallah, Ben Hoen, K. Sydny Fujita, Dana Robson, and Eric Brunner. This analysis considers home sales before and after solar farms were installed within a 1 mile radius and compared them to home sales before and after the solar farms at a 2-4 mile radius. The conclusion found a 1.5% impact within 0.5 mile of a solar farm as compared to homes 2-4 miles from solar farms. This is the largest study of this kind on solar and addresses a number of issues, but also does not address a number of items that could potentially skew these results. First of all, the study found no impact in the three states with the most solar farm activity and only found impacts in smaller sets of data. The data does not in any way discuss actual visibility of solar farms or address existing vegetation screens. This lack of addressing this is highlighted by the fact that they suggest in the abstract that vegetative shading may be needed to address possible impacts. Another notable issue is the fact that they do not address other possible impacts within the radii being considered. This lack of consideration is well illustrated within the study on Figure A.1 where they show satellite images of McGraw Hill Solar Farm in NJ and Intel Folsom in CA. The Folsom image clearly shows large highways separating the solar farm from nearby housing, but with tower office buildings located closer to the housing being considered. In 22 no place do they address the presence of these towers that essentially block those homes from the solar farm in some places. An excerpt of Fig. A.1. is shown below. a 160 Meters Mc Graw Hill Solar Farm Intel Folsom 160M Meters For each of these locations, I have panned out a little further on Google Earth to show the areas illustrated to more accurately reflect the general area. For the McGraw Hill Solar Farm you can see there is a large distribution warehouse to the west along with a large offices and other industrial uses. Further to the west is a large/older apartment complex (Princeton Arms). To the east there are more large industrial buildings. However, it is even more notable that 1.67 miles away to the west is Cranbury Golf Club. Given how this analysis was set up, these homes around the industrial buildings are being compared to homes within this country club to help establish impacts from the solar farm. Even considering the idea that each set is compared to itself before and after the solar farm, it is not a reasonable supposition that homes in each area would appreciate at the same rates even if no solar farm was included. Furthermore the site where the solar farm is located an all of the surrounding uses not improved with residential housing to the south is zoned Research Office (RO) which allows for: manufacturing, preparation, processing or fabrication of products, with all activities and product storage taking place within a completely enclosed building, scientific or research laboratories, warehousing, computer centers, pharmaceutical operations, office buildings, industrial office parks among others. Homes adjoining such a district would likely have impacts and influences not seen in areas zoned and surrounded by zoning strictly for residential uses. 23 I 8 9 - 3 E 0 > f € W 24 8 E a S 25 On the Intel Folsom map I have shown the images of two of the Intel Campus buildings, but there are roughly 8 such buildings on that site with additional solar panels installed in the parking lot as shown in that image. I included two photos that show the nearby housing having clear and close views of adjoining office parking lots. This illustrates that the homes in that 0.5 mile radius are significantly more impacted by the adjoining office buildings than a solar farm located distantly that are not within the viewshed of those homes. Also, this solar farm is located on land adjoining the Intel Campus on a tract that is zoned M-1 PD, which is a Light industia/Manulacturing zoning. Furthermore, the street view at the solar farm shows not only the divided four-lane highway that separates the office buildings and homes from the solar farm, but also shows that there is no landscaping buffer at this location. All of these factors are ignored by this study. Below is another image of the Folsom Solar at the corner of Iron Point Road and Intel West Driveway which shows just how close and how unscreened this project is. - 5 a Compare that image from the McGraw Hill Street view facing south from County Rte 571. There is a distant view and much of the project is hidden by a mix of berms and landscaping. The analysis makes no distinction between these projects. The third issue with this study is that it identifies impacts following development in areas where they note that "more adverse home price impacts might be found where LSPVPS (large-scale photovoltaic project) displace green space (consistent with results that show higher property values 26 near green space. The problem with this statement is that it assumes that the greenspace is somehow guaranteed in these areas, when in fact, they could just as readily be developed as a residential subdivision and have the same impacts. They have made no effort to differentiate loss of greenspace through other development purposes such as schools, subdivisions, or other uses versus the impact of solar farms. In other words, they may have simply identified the impact of all forms of development on property value. This would in fact be consistent with the comments in the Rhode Island study where the researchers noted that the loss of greenspace in the highly urban areas was likely due to the loss of greenspace in particular and not due to the addition of solar panels. Despite these three shortcomings in the analysis the lack of differentiating landscape screening, the lack of consideration of other uses within the area that could be impacting property values, and the lack of consideration of alternative development impacts - the study still only found impacts between 0 and 5% with a conclusion of 1.5% within a 0.5-mile radius. As discussed later in this report, real estate is an imperfect market and real estate transactions typically sell for much wider variability than 5% even where there are no external factors operating on property value. I therefore conclude that the minor impacts noted in this study support a finding of no impact on property value. Most appraisals show a variation between the highest and lowest comparable sale that is substantially greater than 1.5% and this measured impact for all it flaws would just be lost in the static of normal real estate transactions. F. Loyola University Chicago by Simeng Hao and Gilbert Michaud, 2024 Assessing Property Value Impacts Near Utility-Scale Solar in the Midwest This was originally part of the Master's Thesis by Simeng Hao in 2023 but updated for publication. This study considered 70 utility-scale facilities built in the Midwest from 2009 to 2022 using data from the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory. Using the litference-ndiferences, method he found that proximity to solar project increased property values by 0.5% to 2.0%. Furthermore, the research in this project shows that solar farms tend to be located in places with lower average home values by 2 to 3% compared to other random adjoining zip codes. This is not to say those areas are depressed, but those rural areas on average have lower prices than more suburban or urban areas nearby. This highlights the problem with a number of the studies on this issue in that they compare home values near the solar project to homes further from the solar project, but they are largely identifying the difference between rural and less-rural areas. The impact range identified by the Berkeley Study for example is exactly in line with that random difference identified by Simeng Hao. The original Master's Thesis included a summary of seven other studies including many of those noted above that considered a total of 3,296 projects with results ranging from 1.7% decline in value to no impact. Only 2 of the studies identified found negative results that ranged from 0.82% to 1.7% impact on property value, while the other five studies found no consistent negative impact. Given that 5 of the 7 studies identified show no negative impact and the analysis by Mr. Hao shows a positive relationship up to 2%, I consider this analysis to support my conclusions on no impact on property value. While statistical studies note impacts of +/- 2%, as noted earlier in this report, market impertection is generally greater than that rate and supports a conclusion of no impact. Essentially, while the statistical studies are showing minor variation, applying that to any one particular property whether plus or minus, would be unsupportable given that market imperfection is greater than that purported adjustment. 27 VII. Assessor Surveys I have been working on a survey of Virginia Assessors regarding property values related to solar farms and whether or not the local assessors have found any data to support any changes to value on property adjoining solar farms. In this process I have contacted every assessor's office by email and I have received responses by email and by phone from a number of these counties. Many of the counties in Virginia rely on outside firms to assist in gathering data for the assessments and where that is the case, we have contacted the outside firms regarding the question of whether or not the assessors are currently making any adjustments to properties adjoining solar farms. I currently have response from 16 counties that have solar farms in them and of those 16 responses none of the assessors are currently applying a negative impact on property value. One response suggested that adjoining values may go up. I also spoke with Randy Willis with Pearson Assessors. His company assists in the assessments in many of the counties south of Richmond. He indicated that they had found no data to suggest a negative impact on property value and they have looked as they were concerned about that issue. He indicated that they would make no negative impact adjustments and that he recognizes that there are a number of agricultural adjoining uses that have a greater impact on adjoining properties in terms of noise, dust and odor than a solar farm would have. He did indicate that there could be situations where an individual home might have a greater visual impact and those should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but he also agreed that many allowed agricultural uses could have similar visual impacts on such properties as well. VIRGINIA Commissioner of the Revenue County Assessor Name Number of Farms in Operation Change in adjacent property value Appomattox Sara Henderson 1, plus one in process No Augusta W.. lean Shrewsbury no operational No Buckingham Stephanie D. Love 1 No Charlotte Naisha Pridgen Carter 1, several others in the works No Clarke Donnal Peake 1 No Frederick Seth T. Thatcher none, 2appoved for 2022 No, assuming compatible with rural area Goochland Mary Ann Davis No Hanover Ed Burnett 1 No Louisa Stacey C. Fletcher 2operational by end of year No, only if supported by market data Mecklenburg Joseph E. "Ed" Taylor No Nottoway Randy Willis with Pearson Assessors No Powhatan Charles Everest 2approved, 1 built Likely increase in value Rockingham Dan Cullers no operational Likely no Southampton Amy B. Carr 1 Not normally Surry Jonathan F.. Judkins 1 None at this time Westmoreland William K. Hoover 4 No Responses: 16 Negative Impact on Adjoining Value : Yes: 0 Negative Impact on Adjoining Value - No: 16 28 I have completed similar surveys in a number of states and I have shown the breakdown of those responses below. I have not had any assessor indicate a negative adjustment due to adjacency to a solar farm in any state. These responses total 189 with 172 definitively indicating no negative adjustments are made to adjoining property values, 17 providing no response to the question, and 0 indicating that they do address a negative impact on adjoining property value. Summary of Assessor Surveys No Yes No State Responses Impact Impact Comment North Carolina 39 39 Virginia 17 17 Indiana 31 31 Colorado 15 8 7 Georgia 33 33 Kentucky 10 6 4 Mississippi 4 2 2 New Mexico 5 5 Ohio 24 20 4 South Carolina 11 11 Totals 189 172 0 17 29 VIII. Summary of Solar Projects In Virginia I have researched the solar projects in Virginia. I identified the solar farms through the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) Major Projects List and then excluded the roof mounted facilities. I focused on larger solar farms over 10 MW though I have included a couple of smaller solar farms as shown in the chart below. Below I have an excerpt from that map showing the area around Virginia. 0 ) A o d % Morgantown 0 0 Frederi N Parkersburg Remiss : Centreville dy 0 Harrisonburg Charleston a A Char ottesville 8 8 ichmondo Lynchburg Project Status - Operating 1 C0O 5 ach . Under Development a Under Construction Project Capacity 666 000000 1-100+MW linsto on Salem I was able to identify and research 85 additional solar farms in Virginia as shown below. These are primarily over 20 MW in size with adjoining homes as close as 100 feet and the mix of adjoining uses is primarily agricultural and residential. Many of the solar farms near the end of this list are still in the proposed process. 30 Total Used Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre Solar # Name State County City Output Acres Acres to home Home Res Agri Agri/Res Com (MW) 1151 Buckingham: I VA Buckingham Cumberland 19.8 481.18 N/A N/A 8% 73% 18% 0% 121 Scott VA Powhatan Powhatan 20 898.4 1,421 730 29% 28% 44% 0% I 204 Walker-ComectionalVA New Kent Barhamsville 20 484.65 516 103 13% 68% 20% 0%' 205 Sappony VA Sussex Stony Creek 20 322.68 2% 98% 0% 0% 216 Beetle VA Southampton Boykins 40 422.19 1,169 310 0% 10% 90% 0% 222 Grasshopper VA Mecklenburg Chase City 80 946.25 6% 87% 5% 1% 226 Belcher/Desper VA Louisa Louisa 88 1238.1 150 19% 53% 28% 0%' 228 Bluestone Farm VA Mecklenburg Chase City 4.99 332.5 0% 100% 0% 0% 257 Nokesville VA Prince William Nokesville 331.01 12% 49% 17% 23% 261 Buckingham) II VA Buckingham Buckingham 19.8 460.05 6% 79% 15% 0% 262 Mount. Jackson VA Shenandoah Mount Jackson 15.65 652.47 21% 51% 14% 13% 263 Gloucester VA Gloucester Gloucester 20 203.55 508 190 17% 55% 28% 0%' 267 Scott II VA Powhatan Powhatan 701 41% 25% 34% 0% 270 TWE Myrtle VA Suffolk Suffolk 15 258.97 120 1,115 150 34% 48% 17% 0%' 272 Churchview VA Middlesex Church View 20 567.91 9% 64% 27% 0% 303 Turner VA Henrico Henrico 20 463.12 N/A N/A 21% 37% 0% 42% 311 Sunnybrook: Farm VA Halifax Scottsburg 527.88 340 N/A N/A 15% 59% 26% 0% 312 Powell Creek VA Halifax Alton 513 N/A N/A 7% 71% 22% 0% 339 Crystal Hill VA Halifax Crystal Hill 628.67 218 1,570 140 6% 41% 35% 18%' 353. Amazon East(em shVA Accomack Oak Hall 80 1000 645 135 8% 75% 17% 0%' 354 Alton Post VA Halifax Alton 501.96 749 100 2% 58% 40% 0%' 357 Water Strider VA Halifax Nathalie 1134 960 821 250 7% 55% 38% 096' 363 Remington VA Fauquier Remington 20 277.2 125 2,755 1,280 10% 41% 31% 18%' 364 Greenwood VA Culpepper Stevensburg 100 2266.6 1800 788 200 8% 62% 29% 0%' 366 Culpeper Sr VA Culpeper Culpeper 12.53 N/A N/A 15% 0% 86% 0% 369 Cherrydale VA Northampton Kendall Grove 20 180.17 N/A N/A 5% 0% 92% 3% 370 Clarke VA Clarke White Post 10 234.84 N/A N/A 14% 39% 46% 1% 371 Bedford VA Bedford Bedford 3 101 20 N/A N/A 8% 0% 66% 26% 372 Woodland,VA VA Isle of Wight Smithfield 19.7 211.12 606 190 9% 0% 91% 0%' 373 Whitehouse VA Louisa Louisa 20 499.52 1,195 110 24% 55% 18% 4%' 406 Foxhound VA Halifax Clover 91 1311.8 885 185 5% 61% 17% 18%' 483 Essex Solar Center VA Essex Center Cross 20 106.12 693 360 3% 70% 27% 0%' 484 Southampton VA Southampton Newsoms 100 3243.9 3% 78% 17% 3% 494 Walnut VA King and Queen Shacklefords 110 1700 1173 641 165 14% 72% 13% 1% 496 Piney Creek VA Halifax Clover 80 776.18 422 523 195 15% 62% 24% 0% 500 Rappahannock VA Lancaster White Stone 2 184 25 831 560 30% 0% 70% 0% 510 UVA Puller VA Middlesex Topping 15 120 120 1,095 185 59% 32% 0% 10% 516 Dogwood VA Page Stanley 20 360.7 110 2,207 225 12% 22% 65% 0% 518 Fountain Creek VA Greensville Emporia 80 798.3 595 862 300 6% 23% 71% 0% 557 Winterpock 1 VA Chesterfield Chesterfield 518 308 2,106 350 4% 78% 18% 0% 559 Wood Brothers VA Middlesex Hartfield 5 60.61 38.67 878 205 12% 86% 0% 2% 577 Windsor VA Isle of Wight Windsor 85 760.87 760.87 459 160 8% 71% 21% 0% 579 Spotsylvania VA Spotsylvania Paytes 500 6412 3500 9% 52% 11% 27% 586 Sweet Sue VA King William Aylett 77 1262 576 1,617 680 7% 68% 25% 0% 591 Warwick VA Prince George Disputanta 26.5 1090.1 564.53 555 115 12% 67% 21% 0% 621 Loblolly VA Surry Spring Grove 150 2181.9 1000 1,860 110 7% 62% 31% 0% 622 Woodridge VA Albemarle Scottsville 138 2260.9 1000 1,106 215 9% 63% 28% 0% 624 Reams VA Dinwiddie Dinwiddie 5 64.1 37.8 873 270 28% 40% 32% 0% 633 Brunswick VA Greensville Emporia 150.2 2076.4 1387.3 1,091 240 4% 85% 11% 0% 642 Belcher 3 VA Louisa Louisa 749.36 658.56 598 180 14% 71% 14% 1% 649 Endless Caverns VA Rockingham New Market 31.5 355 323.6 624 190 15% 27% 51% 7% 664 Watlington VA Halifax South Boston 20 240.09 137 536 215 24% 48% 28% 0% 672 Spout Spring VA Appomattox Appomattox 60 881.12 673.37 836 335 16% 30% 46% 8% 31 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) 704 Midway Albemarle Batesville 8 136 90 858 340 20% 46% 34% 0%' 749 Martin Goochland Richmond 5 114.2 114.2 1,491 470 7% 54% 39% 0%' 750 Palmer Fluvanna Zion Crossroads 5 57 41 525 165 31% 55% 0% 14%' 755 Danville Pittsylvania Danville 6 72.08 72.08 616 135 22% 63% 15% 0%' 756 Martin Trail Halifax Clover 6 43 37 254 115 6% 13% 81% 0%' 757 Route 360 Halifax Clover 5.65 110 40 1,957 1,275 6% 18% 76% 0%' 769 Cavalier Surry/Isle of Wight Elberon 240 5050 3323 1,231 215 2% 78% 20% 0%' 772 Riverstone Buckingham Arvonia 149.5 1939 1193 814 355 4% 90% 6% 0%' 773 Sunfish Orange Culpeper 80 1131.5 679.5 1,121 120 4% 13% 38% 44%' 776 West Lake Franklin Harrisburg 20 592.82 592.82 3,280 1,260 11% 18% 49% 22%' 777 Aditya Louisa Louisa 11 94.67 60 614 350 15% 85% 0% 0%' 781 Waller Lancaster Burgess 1400 1400 880 125 28% 72% 0% 0%' 795 Harris Staunton Halifax South Boston 47 697 697 352 185 3% 89% 8% 0%' 803 Hickory Chesterfield Chesterfield 4.7 95.21 22 1,286 325 8% 22% 70% 0%' 809 Mountain Brook Franklin Wirtz 20 427 195 24% 21% 54% 1%' 812 Prince Edward Prince Edward 25 369.2 369.2 1,275 660 0% 55% 45% 0%' 813 Redbud Frederick Winchester 30 262.99 262.99 529 150 29% 55% 17% 0%' 829 OFW Shenandoah Mount Jackson 20 126.64 126.64 504 110 6% 57% 31% 6%' 831 Knight Rockingham Shenandoah 70 461.59 461.59 833 240 0% 100% 0% 0%' 833 Dayton Wayland Rockingham Dayton 4 50.7 50.7 684 100 45% 53% 2% 0% 834 Firefly Pittsylvania 3143 3143 200 12% 73% 15% 0%' 854 Reeve Prince Edward Pamplin 5 164.7 164.7 2,232 1,195 7% 71% 22% 0%' 858 360 Solar Center Chesterfield Skinquarter 100 2000 410 2,036 235 1% 97% 2% 0%' 864 Purdy Greensville Purdy 65 596 596 825 250 5% 66% 29% 0%' 865 Clover Creek Halifax Clover 90 1472 1472 1,691 310 10% 89% 1% 0%' 870 Pineside Buckingham Scottsville 74.9 2242 2242 2,484 500 22% 51% 27% 0%' 872 Rosalind Greensville Emporia 160 1795 1795 654 500 8% 86% 7% 0%' 879 Wheelhouse Lunenburg Victoria 912.47 60 60 2,071 900 7% 41% 51% 0%' 880 Elam Prince Edward Pamplin 138.9 3 3 1,066 425 22% 66% 12% 0% 881 Helios Pulaski Pulaski 11.45 141.76 141.76 734 225 48% 28% 24% 0% 882 Enon Stafford Stafford 3 36.76 36.76 289 120 37% 63% 0% 0% 900 Land of Promise Chesapeake Chesapeake 5 134.66 134.66 1,338 785 44% 48% 8% 0% 901 Pocaty Chesapeake Chesapeake 2 27.22 27.22 632 445 21% 79% 0% 0% 936 Willow Franklin Rocky Mount 12 149 149 543 230 33% 58% 9% 0% 937 Carver Isle of Wight Windsor 71 1584.6 1584.6 857 130 5% 50% 45% 0% 938 Alameda Fauqiuer Bealeton 70 810 810 626 160 14% 47% 23% 16% 939 White Oak Fluvanna Kidds Store 43 434.7 347 724 400 7% 63% 30% 0% 940 Plank Road Cumberland Farmville 10 143.96 143.96 798 100 21% 69% 0% 11% 941 Skyline Rockingham Keezletown 73 733 733 596 155 10% 41% 48% 0% 947 Arvonia 1 Buckingham Arvonia 79.8 538.74 538.74 659 135 13% 66% 21% 0% 948 Arvonia 2 Buckingham Arvonia 47.5 339.42 339.42 475 140 21% 74% 5% 0% 951 Fork Union Fluvanna West Bottom 116 781.54 781.54 745 390 13% 68% 5% 14% 955 Piney River Amherst Piney River 50 431 431 985 350 9% 18% 62% 11% 967 Augusta Augusta Lyndhurst 100 1536.7 1536.7 585 280 10% 70% 13% 7% 968 Swallotail Fluvanna West Bottom 16 241.28 241.28 480 285 13% 68% 19% 0% 972 Moonlight Isle of Wight Smithfield 44 236.75 236.75 382 165 5% 92% 3% 0% 974 Confroy Halifax Halifax 5 226.91 226.91 2,171 1,125 25% 35% 40% 0% 980 Fisherville Augusta Fisherville 2 24.09 24.09 617 115 28% 72% 0% 0% 982 Solomons Creek Powhatan Powhatan 5 152.9 152.9 1,274 300 67% 13% 17% 3% 990 Perrin Creek Halifax South Boston 3 86.25 86.25 1,232 640 20% 47% 33% 0% 999 Sinai Halifax South Boston 9.9 104.93 43.8 546 220 25% 29% 0% 47% 1004 Bealeton Fauqiuer Bealeton 14 161.69 161.69 1,151 225 3% 33% 24% 40% 1010 Caledon King George Berthaville 22 1331.3 1331.3 4,668 585 7% 90% 4% 0% 1047 Elliott Energy Tazewell Elliott 5 157.17 157.17 1950 1950 28% 70% 0% 3% 1048 High Bridge Prince Edward Farmville 12 172.58 172.58 570 225 5% 26% 66% 3% 32 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) 1049 Springfield Hanover Ashland 80 955.21 955.21 624 205 42% 58% 0% 0%' 1050 Timber Creek Prince Edward Farmville 5 38.46 38.46 630 600 5% 87% 8% 0%' 1051 Miller Lake Prince Edward Burkeville 4 43.6 43.6 930 635 2% 74% 24% 0%' 1052 Piney Grove VA Prince Edward Burkeville 8 380.83 380.83 1394 185 9% 55% 36% 0%' 1053 Peach Tree Prince Edward Green Bay 24 420.74 420.74 1011 500 48% 52% 0% 0%' 1054 Gabriel Prince Edward Meherrin 80 1516.7 1516.7 1100 145 7% 82% 11% 0%' 1058 Penick Cumberland Farmville 5 48 48 1222 455 20% 19% 62% 0%' 1059 Orange Road Orange Orange 5 70.85 70.85 980 980 15% 74% 5% 6%' 1060 White Southampton Franklin 20 305.85 305.85 1544 605 13% 66% 15% 6%' 1076 Halifax Halifax Alton 142 1100 1100 353 100 8% 75% 17% 0%' 1094 Reedy VA Washington Bristol 250 2433 2433 237 100 26% 60% 8% 6%' Total Used Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre Output Acres Acres to home Home Res Agri Agri/Res Com (MW) Solar Farms 120 Average 58.1 737.7 591.3 1036 347 15% 55% 26% 4% Median 20.0 431.0 323.6 832 225 11% 59% 20% 0% High 912.5 6412.0 3500.0 4668 1950 67% 100% 92% 47% Low 2.0 3.0 3.0 237 100 0% 0% 0% 0% I also specifically searched the following solar projects due to proximity to the subject property, but found no adjoining sales for analysis. Sadler Solar - 100 MW - Emporia, VA - Built in 2021 - River 33 Greensville County Solar - 80 MW - South of Emporia - Built in 2020 a tures 303 Meherrin Solar = 59.6 MW - Southwest of Emporia Built in 2022 Round nll Cemetery OEountaind Creek Baptist.Church - estl DBeptistC 34 IX. 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 1,000 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 Virginia and Kentucky. 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 Virginia. 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. IH 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. 35 A. Virginia Data I have identified matched pairs adjoining the solar farms noted above. I have also included data from a solar farm in Kentucky that does a good job of illustrating distant views of solar panels in relation to adjoining housing. The following pages detail the matched pairs and how they were derived. 36 1. Matched Pair - Clarke County Solar, Clarke County, VA a & 1 5 26-29 23-25 12 13 15-21 4 11 LORD FATREAX 52259 670. Socgle Google This project is a 20 MW facility located on a 234-acre tract that was built in 2017. 37 Ihave considered two recent sales of Parcel 3. The home on this parcel is 1,230 feet from the closest panel as measured in the second map from Google Earth, which shows the solar farm under construction. This home sold in January 2017 for $295,000 and again in August 2019 for $385,000. I show each sale below and compare those to similar home sales in each time frame. The significant increase in price between 2017 and 2019 is due to a major kitchen remodel, new roof, and related upgrades as well as improvement in the market in general. The sale and later resale of the home with updates and improvements speaks to pride of ownership and increasing overall value as properties perceived as diminished are less likely to be renovated and sold for profit. I note that 102 Tilthammer includes a number of barns that I did not attribute any value in the analysis. The market would typically give some value for those barns but even without that adjustment there is an indication of a positive impact on value due to the solar farm. The landscaping buffer from this home is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 3 Adjoins 8331 Nations Spr 5.13 8/18/2019 $385,000 1979 1,392 $276.58 3/2 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Not 167 Leslie 5.00 8/19/2020 $429,000 1980 1,665 $257.66 3/2 Det2Gar Ranch Not 2393 Old Chapel 2.47 8/10/2020 $330,000 1974 1,500 $220.00 3/1.5 Det Gar Ranch Not 102 Tilthammer 6.70 5/7/2019 $372,000 1970 1,548 $240.31 3/1.5 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $385,000 1230 -$13,268 -$2,145 -$56,272 -$5,000 $50,000 $402,315 -4% -$9,956 $25,000 $8,250 -$19,008 $5,000 $50,000 $389,286 -1% $3,229 $16,740 -$29,991 $5,000 $366,978 5% 0% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 3 Adjoins 833 Nations Spr 5.13 1/9/2017 $295,000 1979 1,392 $211.93 3/2 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Not 6801 Middle 2.00 12/12/2017 $249,999 1981 1,584 $157.83 3/2 Open Ranch Not 4174 Rockland 5.06 1/2/2017 $300,000 1990 1,688 $177.73 3/2 2 Gar 2-story Not 400 Sugar Hill 1.00 6/7/2018 $180,000 1975 1,008 $178.57 3/1 Open Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $295,000 1230 -$7,100 $25,000 -$2,500 $24,242 $5,000 $50,000 $296,157 0% $177 $16,500 -$42,085 -$10,000 $50,000 $281,592 5% -$7,797 $3,600 $54,857 $10,000 $5,000 $50,000 $295,661 0% 1% Another home located at 3508 Front Royal Pike just west of this solar farm sold on July 10, 2023 for $800,000 for this 3 BR, 2 BA, 1,394 s.f. home originally built in 1904 on 35 acres with a large barn and material shed. Given the age, renovations and the acreage I have not attempted to pair this sale out, but it does show a strong value for the location. 38 2. Matched Pair - Walker-Correctional Solar, Barham Road, Barhamsville, VA 10 n 12 a 5 A 13 2-5 39 Gumbert land ( * 30 NEW KENT Gr acincs SCHOOL DISTRICT 14 18 WERGREEK 19 EXRVEFAECEISTET 14 6 15 20-26 28 9 30 34 36 32 31 tuler Line Path Polygon Grde 3Dpath 3Dpolygon Measure the distance between twop points on theg ground. Maplength: 246.78 Feet Groundlength: 249. 46 Heading: 264. 55 degrees Mouse avi igation Save Çlear 20186coge This project was built in 2017 and located on 484.65 acres for a 20 MW with the closest home at 110 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 500 feet. I considered the recent sale identified on the map above as Parcel 19, which is directly across the street and based on the map shown on the following page is 250 feet from the closest panel. A 39 limited buffering remains along the road with natural growth being encouraged, but currently the panels are visible from the road. Alex Uminski, SRA with MGMiller Valuations in Richmond VA confirmed this sale with the buying and selling broker. The selling broker indicated that the solar farm was not a negative influence on this sale and in fact the buyer noticed the solar farm and then discovered the listing. The privacy being afforded by the solar farm was considered a benefit by the buyer. I used a matched pair analysis with a similar sale nearby as shown below and found no negative impact on the sales price. Property actually closed for more than the asking price. 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 Adjoins 5241 Barham 2.65 10/18/2018 $264,000 2007 1,660 $159.04 3/2 Drive Ranch Modular Not 17950 New Kent 5.00 9/5/2018 $290,000 1987 1,756 $165.15 3/2.5 3 Gar Ranch Not 9252 Ordinary 4.00 6/13/2019 $277,000 2001 1,610 $172.05 3/2 1.5-Gar Ranch Not 2416 W Miller 1.04 9/24/2018 $299,000 1999 1,864 $160.41 3/2.5 Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist Adjoins 5241 Barham $264,000 250 Not 17950 New Kent -$8,000 $29,000 -$4,756 -$5,000 -$20,000 -$15,000 $266,244 -1% Not 9252 Ordinary $8,310 -$8,000 $8,310 $2,581 -$10,000 $15,000 $246,581 7% Not 2416 W Miller $8,000 $11,960 $9,817 -$5,000 -$10,000 -$15,000 $279,143 -6% Average Diff 0% I also spoke with Patrick W. McCrerey of Virginia Estates who was marketing a property that sold at 5300 Barham Road adjoining the Walker-Correctional Solar Farm. He indicated that this property was unique with a home built in 1882 and heavily renovated and updated on 16.02 acres. The solar farm was through the woods and couldn't be seen by this property and it had no impact on marketing this property. This home sold on April 26, 2017 for $358,000. I did not set up any matched pairs for this property since it is a unique property that any such comparison would be difficult to rely on. The broker's comments do support the assertion that the adjoining solar farm had no impact on value. The home in this case was 510 feet from the closest panel. Another home located at 5600 Mount Nebo Road, Barhamsville sold on March 29, 2024 for $338,500 for a 3 BR, 3 BA, 1,456 s.f. home built in 1945 on 2 acres. The home is heavily updated and includes a large outdoor shed/detached garage/workshop. The updates and stainless steel kitchen give this a very new look. I reached out to Holly Miller the sales broker about this home. The extensive home upfit makes it difficult to compare this home and it is 800 feet and well screened from the solar farm. Itherefore have not delved deeper into this sale. 40 3. Matched Pair - Sappony Solar, Sussex County, VA This project is a 30 MW facility located on a 322.68-acre tract that was built in the fourth quarter of 2017. I have considered the 2018 sale of Parcel 17 as shown below. This was a 1,900 s.f. manufactured home on a 6.00-acre lot that sold in 2018. I have compared that to three other nearby manufactured homes as shown below. The range of impacts is within typical market variation with an average of -1%, which supports a conclusion of no impact on property value. The landscaping buffer is considered medium. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 12511 Palestine 6.00 7/31/2018 $128,400 2013 1,900 $67.58 4/2.5 Open Manuf Not 15698 Concord 3.92 7/31/2018 $150,000 2010 2,310 $64.94 4/2 Open Manuf Fence Not 23209 Sussex 1.03 7/7/2020 $95,000 2005 1,675 $56.72 3/2 Det Crpt Manuf Not 6494 Rocky Br 4.07 11/8/2018 $100,000 2004 1,405 $71.17 3/2 Open Manuf Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $128,400 1425 $0 $2,250 -$21,299 $5,000 $135,951 -6% -$5,660 $13,000 $3,800 $10,209 $5,000 $1,500 $122,849 4% -$843 $4,500 $28,185 $131,842 -3% -1% 41 4. Matched Pair - Spotsylvania Solar, Paytes, VA 1-4 90 49-54 185 82- 89 145 55-65 66-81 146- 160 143-14 14 161- 165 142 141 111 184 112-121 166-1 172 140 122 139 173- 183 138 123 125 124 126- 137 42 61 so Miller Farms Market Fawn Lake t NewHopef Baptist Church es Spotsylvania Solar - 500 MW built in 2020 and 2021 Spotsylvania County, VA Pop. Density by Township is 356 people per sq mi Adjoins Fawn Lake Country Club (Golf course lots on north side of lake) Bobbie's Pit Bull Rescue This solar farm is being built in four phases with the area known as Site C having completed construction in November 2020 after the entire project was approved in April 2019. Site C, also known as Pleinmont 1 Solar, includes 99.6 MW located in the southeast corner of the project and shown on the maps above with adjoining parcels 111 through 144. The entire Spotsylvania project totals 500 MW on 3500 acres out of aj parent tract assemblage of 6,412 acres. I have identified three adjoining home sales that occurred during construction and development of the site in 2020. The first is located on the north side of Site A on Orange Plank Road. The second 1s located on Nottoway Lane just north of Catharpin Road on the south side of Site A and east of Site C. The third is located on Post Oak Road for a home that backs up to Site C that sold in September 2020 near the completion of construction for Site C. 43 Spotsylvania Solar Farm Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 12901 Orng Pink 5.20 8/27/2020 $319,900 1984 1,714 $186.64 3/2 Drive 1.5 Un Bsmt Not 8353 Gold Dale 3.00 1/27/2021 $415,000 2004 2,064 $201.07 3/2 3 Gar Ranch Not 6488 Southfork 7.26 9/9/2020 $375,000 2017 1,680 $223.21 3/2 2 Gar 1.5 Barn/Patio Not 12717 Flintlock 0.47 12/2/2020 $290,000 1990 1,592 $182.16 3/2.5 Det Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 12901 Orngl Pink $319,900 1270 8353 Gold Dale -$5,219 $20,000 -$41,500 -$56,298 -$20,000 $311,983 2% 6488 Southfork -$401 -$20,000 $61,875 $6,071 $15,000 $283,796 11% 12717 Flintlock -$2,312 $40,000 -$8,700 $17,779 $5,000 -$5,000 $326,767 -2% Average Diff 4% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 9641 Nottoway 11.00 5/12/2020 $449,900 2004 3,186 $141.21 4/2.5 Garage 2-Story Un Bsmt Not 26123: Lafayette 1.00 8/3/2020 $390,000 2006 3,142 $124.12 3/3.5 Gar/DtG 2-Story Not 11626 Forest 5.00 8/10/2020 $489,900 2017 3,350 $146.24 4/3.5 2 Gar 2-Story Not 10304 Pny Brnch 6.00 7/27/2020 $485,000 1998 3,076 $157.67 4/4 2Gar/Dt2 Ranch Fn Bsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 9641 Nottoway $449,900 1950 26123 Lafayette -$2,661 $45,000 -$3,900 $4,369 -$10,000 $5,000 $417,809 7% 11626 Forest -$3,624 -$31,844 -$19,187 $5,000 $430,246 4% 10304 Pny Brnch -$3,030 $14,550 $13,875 -$15,000 $15,000 -$10,000 $470,396 -5% Average Diff 2% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 13353 Post Oak 5.20 9/21/2020 $300,000 1992 2,400 $125.00 4/3 Drive 2-Story Fn Bsmt Not 9609 Logan Hgt 5.86 7/4/2019 $330,000 2004 2,352 $140.31 3/2 2Gar 2-Story Not 12810 Catharpian 6.18 1/30/2020 $280,000 2008 2,240 $125.00 4/2.5 Drive 2-Story Bsmt/Nd Pnt Not 10725 Rbrt Lee 5.01 10/26/2020 $295,000 1995 2,166 $136.20 4/3 Gar 2-Story Fn Bsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 13353 Post Oak $300,000 1171 9609 Logan Hgt $12,070 -$19,800 $5,388 $15,000 $15,000 $327,658 -9% 12810 Catharpian $5,408 -$22,400 $16,000 $5,000 $15,000 $299,008 0% 10725 Rbrt Lee $849 -$4,425 $25,496 $10,000 $305,222 -2% Average Diff -4% All three of these homes are well set back from the solar panels at distances over 1,000 feet and are well screened from the project. All three show no indication of any impact on property value. There are a couple of recent lot sales located along Southview Court that have sold since the solar farm was approved. The most recent lot sales include 11700 Southview Court that sold on December 29, 2021 for $140,000 for a 0.76-acre lot. This property was on the market for less than 2 months before closing within 6% of the asking price. This lot sold earlier in September 2019 for $55,000 based on a liquidation sale from NTS to an investor. 44 A similar 0.68-acre lot at 11507 Stonewood Court within the same subdivision located away from the solar farm sold on March 9, 2021 for $109,000. This lot sold for 18% over the asking price within 1 month of listing suggesting that this was priced too low. Adjusting this lot value upward by 12% for very strong growth in the market over 2021, the adjusted indicated value is $122,080 for this lot. This is still showing a 15% premium for the lot backing up to the solar farm. The lot at 11009 Southview Court sold on August 5, 2019 for $65,000, which is significantly lower than the more recent sales. This lot was sold by NTS the original developer of this subdivision, who was in the process of liquidating lots in this subdivision with multiple lot sales in this time period throughout the subdivision being sold at discounted prices. The home was later improved by the buyer with a home built in 2020 with 2,430 square feet ranch, 3.5 bathrooms, with a full basement, and a current assessed value of $492,300. I spoke with Chris Kalia, MAI, Mark Doherty, local real estate investor, and Alex Doherty, broker, who are all three familiar with this subdivision and activity in this neighborhood. All three indicated that there was a deep sell off of lots in the neighborhood by NTS at discounted prices under $100,000 each. Those lots since that time are being sold for up to $140,000. The prices paid for the lots below $100,000 were liquidation values and not indicative of market value. Homes are being built in the neighborhood on those lots with home prices ranging from $600,000 to $800,000 with no sign of impact on pricing due to the solar farm according to all three sources. New areas of newl lot constructions starteda after approval of solar farmi in 2019 outlinedi in green. Future development to the shown with = road dearing outlined inl blue. FawreL - 45 Ryan Homes I 8 Parcel Al has a home site 470 feet from ther nearest solar panel and adjoins the solar farm. GoodleEart Fawn Lake Lot Sales Parcel Solar? Address Acres Sale Date Sale Price Ad. For Time % Diff A Adjoins 11700 Southview Ct 0.76 12/29/2021 $140,000 1 1 parcel away 11603 Southview Ct 0.44 3/31/2022 $140,000 $141,960 -1.4% 2 Not adjoin 11507 Stonewood Ct 0.68 3/9/2021 $109,000 $118,374 15.4% 3 Not adjoin 11312 Westgate Wy 0.83 10/15/2020 $125,000 $142,000 -1.4% 4 Not adjoin 11409 Darkstone PI 0.589 9/23/2021 $118,000 $118,000 15.7% Average 7.1% Median 7.0% Least Adjusted 15.7% 2nd Least Adjusted -1.4% (Parcel 1 off solar farm) Time Adjustments are based on the FHFA Housing Price Index 46 I have identified additional home sales after construction was complete. I looked at 11710 Southview Court that sold on May 5, 2022. I have compared that to three similar homes built and sold in the same time frame in the same community but not near the solar farm. The first two comparables are in close proximity to Fawn Lake and may have some mild enhancement from that proximity, but I made no adjustment for that factor. Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 11710: Soutview 0.89 5/5/2022 $767,945 2022 3,740 $205.33 5/4.5 2Gar 2-Story UnBsmt Not 11305 Hidden 0.57 2/18/2022 $789,905 2022 3,750 $210.64 4/3.5 2Gar 2-Story PrtFinBsmt Not 10501 Ridge Cv 0.57 12/30/2021 $737,119 2021 3,535 $208.52 6/4 2Gar 2-Story UnBsmt Not 10919 Grn Lf 0.39 6/16/2022 $739,990 2022 3,768 $196.39 4/4.5 2Gar 2-Story UnBsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %1 Diff Dist 11710: Soutview $767,945 435 11305 Hidden $18,092 $0 -$843 $15,000 -$20,000 $802,155 -4% 10501 Ridge Cv $27,990 $0 $17,099 $10,000 $792,208 -3% 10919 Grn Lf -$9,366 $0 -$2,200 $728,424 5% Average Diff -1% I identified a sale at 11708 Southview Court that sold on September 1, 2021 for $623,345. The first comparable required a significant adjustment for the unfinished basement, but otherwise required the least adjusting. In this time of rapid home value increase, I consider the sale closest in time to be the best indicator for this paired sale. Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 11606. Aprils 0.73 9/7/2023 $711,400 2023 2,745 $259.16 4/3 2Gar 2-Story UnBsmt Not 11701 Quail Rn 0.44 7/26/2023 $650,000 2020 2,588 $251.16 3/2.5 2Gar 2-Story Not 11809 Pheasant 0.36 10/3/2022 $629,510 2022 2,612 $241.01 3/2 2Gar 2-Story UnBsmt Not 10908 Grn Lf 0.43 2/16/2023 $774,760 2023 2,927 $264.69 5/4 2Gar 2-Story UnBsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 11606. Aprils $711,400 410 11701 Quail Rn $5,360 $9,750 $15,773 $10,000 $32,500 $723,383 -2% 11809 Pheasant $40,927 $0 $12,822 $15,000 $698,258 2% 10908 Grn Lf $30,163 $0 $19,270 -$15,000 $770,653 -8% Average Diff -3% I have considered a home sale at 9811 Deer Park Drive, Spotsylvania that sold on June 16, 2022 for $455,000. This home is located to the south in a small neighborhood off W Catharpin Road. This home is within 1,252 feet of the nearest panel and is well screened from the site. This home is a 3 BR, 3 BA, 2,240 s.f. two-story home with an attached garage built in 1995 on 5 acres. It has a partially finished basement, detached workshop/garage and a decked-in above ground pool. The purchase price works out to $203.13 per s.f. I have compared this to 8109 Newton Lane, Spotsylvania that sold on March 1, 2022 for $450,000. This home is to the south away from the solar farm. This home is a 3 BR, 2 BA, 2,090 s.f. ranch with two-car garage, built in 2005 on 10 acres. The kitchen was totally remodeled in 2021. The purchase price works out to $215.31 per s.f. Adjusting the sales price upward by $15,000 for the lack of a 3d bathroom, upward by $12,900 for the difference in square footage, downward by $10,000 for the extra garage, downward by $20,000 for the difference in age, I derive an adjusted indication of value for this home compared to the 9811 Deer Park Drive home of $447,900, or $199.96 per s.f. This is +2% lower than the home price near the solar farm and supports a finding 47 of no impact on property value. Especially when you note that I made no adjustment for the additional 5 acres at this comparable. Any adjustment for that would only increase the suggested positive impact of the solar farm from the comparable. As noted earlier this is within the typical market imperfection and supports a finding of no impact on property value. I have considered a home sale at 13000 W Catharpin Road that sold on June 7, 2022 for $450,000 for a 5 BR, 3 BA, 2,968 s.f. ranch built in 2000 on 5.06 acres. It includes a 2-car attached garage and a 2-car detached garage with an upstairs ready to be finished as well as another garage/workshop. The purchase price works out to $151.61 per s.f. This home was listed for $435,000 and sold for $450,000 within 37 days of going to market. This home is 1,020 feet from the nearest panel and is well screened by the trees on this lot. I have compared this home to 14207 Cedar Plantation Road, Spotsylvania that sold on July 24, 2023 for $473,800 for a 5 BR, 3 BA, 2,800 s.f. ranch with finished basement built in 2023 on 5 acres. The purchase price works out to be $169.21 per s.f. Adjusting this downward by 5% based on the FHFA HPI for this being a more recent sale, the adjusted indication of value is $450,110. Adjusting this downward by 11% for the newer age of this home, the adjusted value is $400,598. I adjusted this upward by 10% for half of the space being in daylight basement for an adjusted indication of value of $440,658. Adjusting this upward by $11,357 for the difference in size and upward by $20,000 for the lack of garages, I derive an adjusted indication of value of $472,015. This indicates an impact of -5% due to proximity to the solar farm. As noted earlier this is within typical market imperfection and supports a finding of no impact on property value. Furthermore, this paired sale required a significant amount of adjusting, which diminishes the reliability of this comparable. I considered a sale at 12819 Faulconers Court, Spotsylvania that sold on October 12, 2023 for $538,000 for a 4 BR, 3 BA, 2,364 s.f. 2-story home, with a 2-car garage built in 2023 on 3.7 acres. This home is 1,060 feet from the nearest solar panel. The purchase price works out to $227.58 per s.f. I have compared this to 9811 Catharpin Road, Spotsylvania that sold on November 30, 2023 for $480,000 for a 4 BR, 3.5 BA, 2,696 s.f. 2-story home, with a 2-car garage built in 2017 on 2 acres. This includes 868 s.f. below ground. The purchase price works out to $178.04 per s.f. Adjusting this upward by 3% for the difference in year built the comparable adjusts to $494,400. Adjusting this upward for the inferior daylight basement space based on that space having a 25% reduction in value that works out to 32% of the property being valued at 75%, or an impact to be reversed of 8%. To reverse that impact, I divide the indicated value by 0.92 for an adjusted indication of value of $537,391. Adjusting this downward by $5,000 for the additional half-bathroom and downward by $23,638 for the difference in size, I derive an adjusted indication of value of $508,753. This indicates a market impact of +5%, which supports a finding of no impact due to adjacency to the solar farm. I considered a sale at 11239 Chancellor Meadows Lane, Locust Grove sold on March 30, 2023 for $499,900 for a 2-story, 4 BR, 2.5 BA, 2,542 s.f. with 2-car garage built in 2022 on 5.06 acres. The purchase price works out to $196.66 per s.f. It has an unfinished walk-up basement. This home was built after the solar farm was developed. This home is 395 feet from the nearest solar panel. I have compared this to 9651 Meadows Road, Mine Run on July 3, 2023 for $515,000 for a ranch, 3 BR, 3 BA, 2,734 s.f. with 2 car garage built in 2017 on 3 acres. This home includes a full unfinished basement. The purchase price works out to $188.36 per s.f. Adjusting this downward by $10,000 for the difference in bathrooms, downward by $14,438 for the difference in square footage, but upward by 3% for the difference in age ($15,450), the total adjusted indication of value is $506,012. I did not adjust for the difference between this being a ranch versus the Chancellor Meadows Lane being a 2-story structure. Typically, a ranch will sell for a slight premium over a 2- story structure SO I would expect this to come in slightly higher than the 2-story dwelling. This 48 comes in at 1% less than the home next to the solar farm which strongly supports a finding of no impact on property value. 49 5. Matched Pair - Crittenden Solar, Crittenden, KY 47-53 54-67 - & 91 This solar farm was built in December 2017 on a 181.70-acre tract but utilizing only 34.10 acres. This is a 2.7 MW facility with residential subdivisions to the north and south. I have identified five home sales to the north of this solar farm on Clairborne Drive and one home sale to the south on Eagle Ridge Drive since the completion of this solar farm. The home sale on Eagle Drive is for a $75,000 home and all of the homes along that street are similar in size and price range. According to local broker Steve Glacken with Cutler Real Estate these are the lowest price range/style home in the market. I have not analyzed that sale as it would unlikely provide significant data to other homes in the area. Mr. Glacken has been selling lots at the west end of Clairborne for new home construction. He indicated in 2020 that the solar farm near the entrance of the development has been a complete non-factor and none of the home sales are showing any concern over the solar farm. Most of the homes are in the $250,000 to $280,000 price range. The vacant residential lots are being marketed for $28,000 to $29,000. The landscaping buffer is considered light, but the rolling terrain allows for distant views of the panels from the adjoining homes along Clairborne Drive. The first home considered is a bit of an anomaly for this subdivision in that it is the only manufactured home that was allowed in the community. It sold on January 3, 2019. I compared that sale to three other manufactured home sales in the area making minor adjustments as shown on the next page to account for the differences. After all other factors are considered the adjustments show a -1% to +13% impact due to the adjacency of the solar farm. The best indicator is 1250 Cason, which shows a 3% impact. A 3% impact is within the normal static of real estate transactions and therefore not considered indicative of a positive impact on the property, but it strongly supports an indication of no negative impact. 50 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 250 Claiborne 0.96 1/3/2019 $120,000 2000 2,016 $59.52 3/2 Drive Manuf Not 1250 Cason 1.40 4/18/2018 $95,000 1994 1,500 $63.33 3/2 2-Det Manuf Carport Not 4101 Reeves 1.02 11/27/2018 $80,000 2000 1,456 $54.95 3/2 Drive Manuf Not 315 N Fork 1.09 5/4/2019 $107,000 1992 1,792 $59.71 3/2 Drive Manuf Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %1 Diff %1 Diff Distance Adjoins 250 Claiborne $120,000 373 Not 1250 Cason $2,081 $2,850 $26,144 -$5,000 -$5,000 $116,075 3% Not 410 Reeves $249 $0 $24,615 $104,865 13% Not 315 N Fork -$1,091 $4,280 $10,700 $120,889 -1% 5% I also looked at three other home sales on this street as shown below. These are stick-built homes and show a higher price range. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 300 Claiborne 1.08 9/20/2018 $212,720 2003 1,568 $135.66 3/3 2-Car Ranch Brick Not 460 Claiborne 0.31 1/3/2019 $229,000 2007 1,446 $158.37 3/2 2-Car Ranch Brick Not 2160 Sherman 1.46 6/1/2019 $265,000 2005 1,735 $152.74 3/3 2-Car Ranch Brick Not 215 Lexington 1.00 7/27/2018 $231,200 2000 1,590 $145.41 5/4 2-Car Ranch Brick Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %1 Diff %1 Diff Distance Adjoins 300 Claiborne $213,000 488 Not 460 Claiborne -$2,026 -$4,580 $15,457 $5,000 $242,850 -14% Not 2160 Sherman -$5,672 -$2,650 -$20,406 $236,272 -11% Not 2151 Lexington $1,072 $3,468 -$2,559 $5,000 $228,180 -7% -11% This set of matched pairs shows a minor negative impact for this property. I was unable to confirm the sales price or conditions of this sale. The best indication of value is based on 215 Lexington, which required the least adjusting and supports a -7% impact. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 350 Claiborne 1.00 7/20/2018 $245,000 2002 1,688 $145.14 3/3 2-Car Ranch Brick Not 460 Claiborne 0.31 1/3/2019 $229,000 2007 1,446 $158.37 3/2 2-Car Ranch Brick Not 2160 Sherman 1.46 6/1/2019 $265,000 2005 1,735 $152.74 3/3 2-Car R/FBsmt Brick Not 215 Lexington 1.00 7/27/2018 $231,200 2000 1,590 $145.41 5/4 2-Car Ranch Brick Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %1 Diff %1 Diff Distance Adjoins 350 Claiborne $245,000 720 Not 460 Claiborne -$3,223 -$5,725 $30,660 $5,000 $255,712 -4% Not 2160 Sherman -$7,057 -$3,975 $5,743 $248,225 -1% Not 2151 Lexington -$136 $2,312 $11,400 $5,000 $239,776 2% -1% The following photograph shows the light landscaping buffer and the distant view of panels that was included as part of the marketing package for this property. The panels are visible somewhat on the left and somewhat through the trees in the center of the photograph. The first photograph is from the home, with the second photograph showing the view near the rear of the lot. 51 This set of matched pairs shows a no negative impact for this property. The range of adjusted impacts is -4% to +2%. The best indication is -1%, which as described above is within the typical market static and supports no impact on adjoining property value. 52 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 370 Claiborne 1.06 8/22/2019 $273,000 2005 1,570 $173.89 4/3 2-Car 2-Story Brick Not 2160 Sherman 1.46 6/1/2019 $265,000 2005 1,735 $152.74 3/3 2-Car R/FBsmt Brick Not 2290 Dry 1.53 5/2/2019 $239,400 1988 1,400 $171.00 3/2.5 2-Car R/FBsmt Brick Not 125 Lexington 1.20 4/17/2018 $240,000 2001 1,569 $152.96 3/3 2-Car Split Brick Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %1 Diff %1 Diff Distance Adjoins 370 Claiborne $273,000 930 Not 2160 Sherman $1,831 $0 -$20,161 $246,670 10% Not 2290 Dry $2,260 $20,349 $23,256 $2,500 $287,765 -5% Not 125 Lexington $9,951 $4,800 $254,751 7% 4% This set of matched pairs shows a general positive impact for this property. The range of adjusted impacts is -5% to +10%. The best indication is +7%. I typically consider measurements of +/-5% to be within the typical variation in real estate transactions. This indication is higher than that and suggests a positive relationship. The photograph from the listing shows panels visible between the home and the trampoline shown in the picture. twIY 570 53 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 330 Claiborne 1.00 12/10/2019 $282,500 2003 1,768 $159.79 3/3 2-Car Ranch Brick/pool Not 895 Osborne 1.70 9/16/2019 $249,900 2002 1,705 $146.57 3/2 2-Car Ranch Brick/pool Not 2160 Sherman 1.46 6/1/2019 $265,000 2005 1,735 $152.74 3/3 2-Car R/FBsmt Brick Not 215 Lexington 1.00 7/27/2018 $231,200 2000 1,590 $145.41 5/4 2-Car Ranch Brick Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff %1 Diff Distance Adjoins 330 Claiborne $282,500 665 Not 895 Osborne $1,790 $1,250 $7,387 $5,000 $0 $265,327 6% Not 2160 Sherman $4,288 -$2,650 $4,032 $20,000 $290,670 -3% Not 215 Lexington $9,761 $3,468 $20,706 $5,000 $20,000 $280,135 1% 1% This set of matched pairs shows a general positive impact for this property. The range of adjusted impacts is -3% to +6%. The best indication is +6%. I typically consider measurements of +/-5% to be within the typical variation in real estate transactions. This indication is higher than that and suggests a positive relationship. The landscaping buffer on these is considered light with a fair visibility of the panels from most of these comparables and only thin landscaping buffers separating the homes from the solar panels. I also looked at four sales that were during a rapid increase in home values around 2021, which required significant time adjustments based on the FHFA Housing Price Index. Sales in this time frame are less reliable for impact considerations as the peak buyer demand allowed for homes to sell with less worry over typical issues such as repairs. The home at 250 Claiborne Drive sold with no impact from the solar farm according to the buyer's broker Lisa Ann Lay with Keller Williams Realty Service. As noted earlier, this is the only manufactured home in the community and is a bit of an anomaly. There was an impact on this sale due to an appraisal that came in low likely related to the manufactured nature of the home. Ms. Lay indicated that there was significant back and forth between both brokers and the appraiser to address the low appraisal, but ultimately, the buyers had to pay $20,000 out of pocket to cover the difference in appraised value and the purchase price. The low appraisal was not attributed to the solar farm, but the difficulty in finding comparable sales and likely the manufactured housing. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 250 Claiborne 1.05 1/5/2022 $210,000 2002 1,592 $131.91 4/2 Drive Ranch Manuf Not 255 Spillman 0.64 3/4/2022 $166,000 1991 1,196 $138.80 3/1 Drive Ranch Remodel Not 546 Waterworks 0.28 4/29/2021 $179,500 2007 1,046 $171.61 4/2 Drive Ranch 3/4 Fin B Not 240 Shawnee 1.18 6/7/2021 $180,000 1977 1,352 $133.14 3/2 Gar Ranch N/A Avg Solar Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %1 Diff % Diff Distance Adjoins 250 Claiborne $210,000 365 Not 255 Spillman -$379 $9,130 $43,971 $10,000 $20,000 $208,722 1% Not 546 Waterworks $1,772 -$4,488 $74,958 -$67,313 $184,429 12% Not 240 Shawnee $1,501 $22,500 $25,562 -$10,000 $219,563 -5% 3% The photograph of the rear view from the listing is shown below. 54 - The home at 260 Claiborne Drive sold with no impact from the solar farm according to the buyer's broker Jim Dalton with Ashcraft Real Estate Services. He noted that there was significant wood rot and a heavy smoker smell about the house, but even that had no impact on the price due to high demand in the market. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 260 Claiborne 1.00 10/13/2021 $175,000 2001 1,456 $120.19 3/2 Drive Ranch N/A Not 355 Oakwood 0.58 10/27/2020 $186,000 2002 1,088 $170.96 3/2 Gar Ranch 3/4 Fin B Not 30 Ellen Kay 0.50 1/30/2020 $183,000 1988 1,950 $93.85 3/2 Gar 2-Story N/A Not 546 Waterworks 0.28 4/29/2021 $179,500 2007 1,046 $171.61 4/2 Drive Ranch 3/4 Fin B Avg Solar Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %1 Diff % Diff Distance Adjoins 260 Claiborne $175,000 390 Not 355 Oakwood $18,339 -$930 $50,329 $10,000 $69,750 $173,988 1% Not 30 Ellen Kay $31,974 $11,895 -$37,088 $10,000 $179,781 -3% Not 546 Waterworks $8,420 -$5,385 $56,287 -$67,313 $171,510 2% 0% The photograph of the rear view from the listing is shown below. 55 These next two were brick and with unfinished basements which made them easier to compare and therefore more reliable. For 300 Claiborne I considered the sale of a home across the street that did not back up to the solar farm and it adjusted to well below the range of the other comparables. I have included it, but would not rely on that which means this next comparable strongly supports a range of 0 to +3% and not up to +19%. djoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 300 Claiborne 0.89 12/18/2021 $290,000 2002 1,568 $184.95 3/3 2-Car Br Rnch Bsmt Not 405 Claiborne 0.41 2/1/2022 $267,750 2004 1,787 $149.83 3/2 2-Car Br Rnch Bsmt Not 39 Pinhook 0.68 3/31/2022 $299,000 1992 1,680 $177.98 3/2 2-Car Br Rnch Bsmt Not 51 Pinhook 0.70 4/7/2022 $309,900 1992 1,680 $184.46 3/2 2-Car Br Rnch Bsmt Avg Solar Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %1 Diff % Diff Distance Adjoins 300 Claiborne $290,000 570 Not 405 Claiborne $3,384 $2,678 $26,251 $235,437 19% Not 39 Pinhook -$8,651 $14,950 $15,947 $289,352 0% Not 5F Pinhook -$9,576 $15,495 -$16,528 $299,291 -3% 5% The photograph of the rear view from the listing is shown below. 56 This same home, 300 Claiborne sold again on October 14, 2022 for $332,000, or $42,000 higher or 15% higher than it had just 10 months earlier. The FHFA Home Price Index indicates an 8.3% increase over that time for the overall market, suggesting that this home is actually increasing in value faster than other properties in the area. An updated photo from the 2022 listing is shown below. 57 The home at 410 Claiborne included an inground pool with significant landscaping around it that was a challenge. Furthermore, two of the comparables had finished basements. I made no adjustment for the pool on those two comparables and considered the two factors to cancel out Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 410 Claiborne 0.31 2/10/2021 $275,000 2006 1,595 $172.41 3/2 2-Car Br Rnch Bsmt/Pool Not 114. Austin 1.40 12/23/2020 $248,000 1994 1,650 $150.30 3/2 2-Car Br Rnch Bsmt Not 125 Liza 0.29 6/25/2021 $315,000 2005 1,913 $164.66 4/3 2-Car Br Rnch Ktchn Bsmt Not 130 Hannahs 0.42 2/9/2021 $295,000 2007 1,918 $153.81 3/3 2-Car Br Rnch Fin Bsmt Avg Solar Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %1 Diff % Diff Distance Adjoins 410 Claiborne $275,000 1080 Not 114. Austin $3,413 $14,880 $6,613 $20,000 $279,680 -2% Not 125 Liza $11,945 $1,575 $41,890 $10,000 $252,740 8% Not 130 Hannahs $83 -$1,475 -$39,743 $10,000 $243,864 11% 6% The nine matched pairs considered in this analysis includes five that show no impact on value, one that shows a negative impact on value, and three that show a positive impact. The negative indication supported by one matched pair is -7% and the positive impacts are +6% and +7%. The two neutral indications show impacts of-5% to +5%. The average indicated impact is +2% when all nine of these indicators are blended. Furthermore, the comments of the local real estate brokers strongly support the data that shows no negative impact on value due to the proximity to the solar farm. 58 6. Matched Pair - White House Solar, Louisa, VA This project was built in 2016 for a solar project on a 499.52-acre tract for a 20 MW facility. The closest single-family home is 110 feet away from the closest solar panel. The average distance is 1,195 feet. 1 - I have identified one recent adjoining home sale to the north of this project that sold in 2020. I spoke with the broker, Stacie Chandler, who represented the buyer in that transaction. She indicated that the solar farm had no impact on the price that they negotiated on that home. That is supported by the matched pair shown below. The adjustments shown below make no adjustment for the difference in acreage for the smaller parcels. One of these is on a smaller lot, but located in a golf course community with rear exposure to the golf course. The other is in Mineral and while the lots are not the same size, they are similarly valued. I also adjusted this property upward by $50,000 for the condition/lack of renovation. This adjustment is based on the fact that this home was renovated following the 2020 purchase and then resold in 2021 for $75,000 more than the 2020 value. Comparing the 2021 renovated price at $144/s.f. to the subject property and adjusting on the same rates would require a downward adjustment to the comparable of $10,400 for time, upward by $8,325 for year built, and downward by $5,000 for the extra half bathroom for an indicated adjusted value of $252,925 which suggests a 5% reduction in value due to the solar farm. Either way this comparable requires significant adjustments and suggests a range of -5% to 0% impact. The Woodger comparable required less 59 adjustment and suggests an 11% enhancement due to proximity to the solar farm and that is without any consideration of this home having a superior exposure to a golf course which would typically increase that indication of enhancement. Wh hitehouse Solar Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 127 Walnut Wds 4.09 3/27/2020 $240,000 1984 1,824 $131.58 3/2 Gar Br Rnch Reno Not 126 Woodger 0.63 4/29/2019 $240,000 1992 1,956 $122.70 3/2+2 2 Gar Br Rnch Golf Not 808 Virginia 0.51 3/16/2020 $185,000 1975 1,806 $102.44 3/2.5 2 Gar Br Rnch Not 273 Carsons 3.94 9/29/2018 $248,500 1985 2,224 $111.74 4/3 Drive Ranch Not Brck Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 127 Walnut Wds $240,000 1400 126 Woodger $6,569 -$9,600 -$12,957 -$10,000 $214,012 11% 808 Virginia $167 $8,325 $1,475 -$5,000 $50,000 $239,967 0% 273 Carsons $11,131 $1,243 -$35,755 -$10,000 $15,000 $12,425 $240,059 0% Average Diff 4% These matched pairs are generally challenging in that one is shown before and after a renovation suggesting impacts of-5% to 0%. The comparable requiring the least adjustment is on a golf course but it also was not recently renovated which makes it less reliable. Finally, the Carsons property was similar, but older and is not brick. While I adjusted for those factors it really does not make for a great matched pair. The best indication by the matched pairs is -5% to 0%. The broker involved in the transaction indicated that the solar farm had no impact on property value. Given those comments and the range of impacts shown, I conclude that this home sale near the White House solar project indicates no impact on property value. 2 - I have identified one recent nearby home sale to the north of this project located at 751 Chalklevel Road sold on April 22, 2024 for $260,000 for a 4BR, 2BA, 1,248 s.f. built on 1994 on 0.99 acre lot. The home is 1,780 feet from the nearest solar panel. This comes to $208. per s.f. I have compared this to three other nearby sales as shown below with an average indicated impact of 0% and a range of -4% to +4%. This paired sale supports a finding of no impact on property value. Whitehouse Solar Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Solar Address Acres Date Sold Price Built GLA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Nearby 751 Chalklevel 0.99 4/22/2024 $260,000 1994 1,248 $208.33 4/2 None Rnch Not 1101 Pine Ridge 0.40 7/22/2022 $243,000 1989 1,056 $230.11 3/2 None Rnch Barn Not 2307 Davis Hwy 1.50 7/1/2024 $330,000 2008 1,344 $245.54 3/2 None Rnch Renov Not 1404 Jefferson 2.39 5/10/2024 $219,700 1992 1,040 $211.25 3/1 None Rnch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %1 Diff %1 Diff Distance 751 Chalklevel $260,000 1,780 1101 Pine Ridge $13,106 $6,075 $17,673 $10,000 $269,853 4% 2307 Davis Hwy $1,947 -$23,100 -$9,429 -$33,000 $262,525 1 1% 1404 Jefferson -$333 $5,000 $2,197 $17,576 $15,000 $249,140 4% 0% 60 7. Matched Pair - Whitehorn Solar, Gretna, Pittsylvania, VA - a - E on A Vadens Miml This project was built in 2021 for a solar project with 50 MW. Adjoining uses are residential and agricultural. There was a sale located at 1120 Taylors Mill Road that sold on December 20, 2021, which is about the time the solar farm was completed. This sold for $224,000 for 2.02 acres with a 2,079 s.f. mobile home on it that was built in 2010. The property was listed for $224,000 and sold for that same price within two months (went under contract almost exactly 30 days from listing). This sales price works out to $108 per square foot. This home is 255 feet from the nearest panel. I have compared this sale to an August 20, 2020 sale at 1000 Long Branch Drive that included 5.10 acres with a 1,980 s.f. mobile home that was built in 1993 and sold for $162,000, or $81.82 per square foot. Adjusting this upward for significant growth between this sale date and December 2021 relied on data provided by the FHFA House Pricing Index, which indicates that for homes in the Roanoke, VA MSA would be expected to appreciate from $162,000 to $191,000 over that period of time. Using $191,000 as the effective value as of the date of comparison, the indicated value of this sale works out to $96.46 per square foot. Adjusting this upward by 17% for the difference in year built, but downward by 5% for the much larger lot size at this comparable, I derive an adjusted indication of value of $213,920, or $108 per square foot. This indicates no impact on value attributable to the new solar farm located across from the home on Taylors Mill Road. 61 8. Matched Pair - Altavista Solar, Altavista, Campbell County, VA EIS a a / lo ae Maxar VITA, ESri,HERE, Garmin, PC I Campbell C This project was mostly built in 2021 with final construction finished in 2022. This is an 80 MW facility on 720 acres just north of Roanoke River and west of Altavista. Adjoining uses are residential and agricultural. I have done a Sale/Resale analysis of 3211 Leesville Road which is approximately 540 feet from the nearest solar panel. There was an existing row of trees between this home and the panels that was supplemented with additional screening for a narrow landscaped buffer between the home and the solar panels. This home sold in December 2018 for $72,500 for this 1,451 s.f. home built in 1940 with a number of additional outbuildings on 3.35 acres. This was before any announcement of a solar farm. This home sold again on March 28, 2022 for $124,048 after the solar farm was constructed. This shows a 71% increase in value on this property since 2018. There was significant growth in the market between these dates and to accurately reflect that I have considered the FHFA House Price Index that is specific for the Lynchburg area of Virginia (the closest regional category), which shows an expected increase in home values over that same time period of 33.8%, which would suggest a normal growth in value up to $97,000. The home sold for significantly more than this which certainly does not support a finding of a negative impact and in fact suggests a significant positive impact. However, I was not able to discuss this sale with the broker and it is possible that the home also was renovated between 2018 and 2022, which may account for that additional increase in value. Still give that the home increased in value SO significantly over the initial amount there is no sign of any negative impact due to the solar farm adjacency. 62 Purchase Quarter Valuation Quarter X 2018 Quarter 4 2022 Quarter 1 Percentage Change Purchase Value Estimated' Value for MSA 33.8% $72,500 $97,000 Virginia Lynchburg, VA $105,000 $100,000 2022 Q1 $95,000 $90,000 $85,000 $80,000 $75,000 201804 $70,000 & & & 8 & 8 & & & 8 & 8 & # Similarly, I looked at 3026 Bishop Creek Road that is approximately 600 feet from the nearest solar panel. This home sold on July 16, 2019 for $120,000, which was before construction of the solar farm. This home sold again on February 23, 2022 for $150,000. This shows a 25% increase in value over that time period. Using the same FHFA House Price Index Calculator, the expected increase in value was 29.2% for an indicated expected value of $155,000. This is within 3% of the actual closed price, which supports a finding of no impact from the solar farm. This home has a dense wooded area between it and the adjoining solar farm. Purchase Quarter Valuation Quarter X 2019 Quarter 2 2022 Quarter 1 Percentage Change Purchase Value Estimated Value for MSA 29.2% $120,000 $155,000 Virginia Lynchburg. VA $160,000 $155,000 $150,000 $145,000 $140,000 $135,000 $130,000 $125,000 $120,000 2019.02 & & & & & & & # & & & 8 63 I also considered 2049 Bishop Creek Road that sold on July 3, 2023. This home included a pool and in the analysis I made no consideration positive or negative for the pool among the comparables. The comparable at 3270 Wards has a partially finished basement instead of a fully finished basement, but I was unable to determine how much that partial indicated. I will focus on the other two paired sales which range from -5% to +4% impacts and support a finding of no impact on property value. Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Nearby 2049 Bishop Crk 3.72 7/3/2023 $375,000 1970 3,966 $94.55 3/3 2Gar Br Rnch FinBsmt/Pool Not 56 Whisper. Pn 1.02 2/29/2024 $375,000 1988 3,548 $105.69 5/3 2Gar Br Rnch FinBsmt Not 1900 Woodhaven 1.90 8/31/2022 $355,000 1969 3,643 $97.45 3/2/2 2Gar Br Rnch FinBsmt Not 3270 Wards 3.60 9/21/2023 $325,000 1960 3,564 $91.19 3/2.5 2Gar Br Rnch PrtFn Bsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %1 Diff Dist 20491 Bishop Crk $375,000 745 56 Whisper. Pn $17,332 $20,000 -$33,750 $17,672 $361,590 4% 1900 Woodhaven $20,833 $10,000 $1,775 $12,590 -$5,000 $395,198 -5% 3270 Wards -$4,986 $16,250 $14,663 $10,000 $360,927 4% Average Diff 1% 64 9. Matched Pair - Solidago Solar, Windsor, Isle of Wight County, VA This 20 MW solar farm was completed in March 2024. The closest adjoining home is 350 feet away. The home located just north of this solar farm at 17479 Courthouse Highway, Windsor on December 28, 2023 for $555,000 for this 4 BR, 2.5 BA with 2,775 s.f. built in 2001 on 3.62 acres with a 2-car garage. This also includes a 4 bay barn and large metal storage building, which complicates using this home for paired sales analysis. The purchase price works out to $200 per s.f. The tax card allocates $23,000 to the two outbuildings (assessed value), which I will use in adjusting the comparables. This home is 610 feet from the nearest solar panel. I have compared this to 15414 Trump Town Road, Windsor that sold on September 22, 2023 for $463,000 for a 4 BR, 2.5 BA home with 2,583 s.f. built in 1998 on 1.88 acres with a 2-car garage. The purchase price works out to $179.25 per s.f. Adjusting the price upward by $18,000 for the additional acreage and 23,000 for the outbuildings, the indicated price becomes $514,000, or $198.99 per s.f. I made no adjustment for the difference in frontage but Courthouse Highway is a busier road than Trump Town Road, which is inferior. IfI adjusted for that road frontage difference, the Trump Town Road sales price would go even lower. The adjusted sales price is 1% less than the price of the home next to the solar farm sold for and supports a finding of no impact on property value. Applying that per s.f. rate to the home size at Courthouse Highway indicates an adjusted value of $552,197, which is also just 1% less than the sales price of the home adjoining the solar farm. I also considered 11497 Dews Plantation Road, Ivor, which the broker Anna Boyer suggested was a good comparable. This home sold on October 19, 2023 for $640,000 for a 3 BR, 2.5 BA with 2,684 65 s.f., built in 2003 with a 2-car garage on 15.20 acres. This home includes a powered horse barn with 4 stalls and a tack room, an additional 2-car detached garage with a finished room over it and fenced pasture. Adjusting the price downward by $58,000 for the much larger acreage and $41,000 for the outbuildings (difference in assessed value of relative outbuildings) the adjusted sales price is $541,000, or $201.56 per s.f. This is 1% more than the home at Courthouse Highway without making any adjustment for the difference in frontage, which supports a finding of no impact on property value. Applying that per s.f. rate to the home size at Courthouse Highway indicates an adjusted value of $559,329, which is also just 1% more than the sales price of the home adjoining the solar farm. I consider both of these reasonable comparisons, but the Trump Town Road comparable 1s closer and required less adjusting, which makes it a more reliable comparable. I reached out to Anna Boyer with Howard Hanna Smithfield as the listing broker for this home. She indicated that she believed that the solar farm was a big issue for a number of folks who came to look at this home and it could have impacted the sales price. However, she also indicated that while she initially listed the property for $625,000, her internal analysis suggested a value of $550,000 and she only listed it at the higher price due to the owner's insistence. She noted that $550,000 was her opinion assuming no impact from the solar farm. When they later dropped the asking price to $559,000, they received an offer quickly and the property appraised and sold for $555,000. She noted that the appraiser indicated that the solar farm would not impact the value and assigned no impact on the appraisal. The closing price was slightly above the broker's opinion of value and supported by the appraisal with no impact from the adjoining solar farm. Ms. Boyer indicated that she currently has a listing at 6568 Beechland Road, Elberon that is asking $585,000 for a 4 BR, 3.5 BA with 2,800 s.f. built in 2000 on 9.33 acres with a 2-car garage and a detached garage with a workshop. This has been on the market for 55 days sO far and she has had a number of potential buyers express concern over the adjoining solar farm. This llustrates that for some buyers the solar farm will be a deterrent, but she also noted that some potential buyers have indicated that the solar farm is protection from future development nearby. The home located at 12256 Redhouse Road sold on February 8, 2024 for $671,650 for this 2,640 s.f. home with 3 BR, 2 full BA and 2 half BA built in 2002 on 21 acres, or $254.41 per s.f. Given that this home includes an updated kitchen, bar/entertainment room, 4-stall barn with feed and wash stalls and stable room with electrical fencing for pastures, riding ring and other horse features this becomes a difficult home to use for a paired sales analysis. I reached out to Anna Hansen with Surry Side Realty about this sale. She said that while she expected a certain amount of pushback from the solar farm she did not have any negative comments or impacts from the solar farm and it therefore did not impact the sales price or marketing of this home. This home is 640 feet from the nearest panel. While it is challenging to find a good comparable, I considered 11497 Dews Plantation Road, Ivor, which has similar pasture and a horse features. This home sold on October 19, 2023 for $640,000 for a 3 BR, 2.5 BA with 2,684 s.f., built in 2003 with a 2-car garage on 15.20 acres. This home includes a powered horse barn with 4 stalls and a tack room, an additional 2-car detached garage with a finished room over it and fenced pasture. Adjusting the price upward by $25,000 for the smaller acreage and assuming that the horse features balance out, the adjusted sales price is $665,000, or $247.76 per s.f. This is 3% less than the home at Redhouse Road, which supports a finding of no impact on property value. Interestingly, Ms. Anna Boyer indicated that she did bring a prospective buyer to view 12256 Redhouse Road. That buyer visited the site 3 times before deciding that the solar farm would be the reason she did not want to purchase that home. So while there clearly are purchasers in the market that would not purchase a home next to a solar farm, there are enough other buyers that do not see it as a negative to keep the prices stable as illustrated by the paired sales above. 66 10. Matched Pair - Buckingham Solar, Cumberland, Buckingham County, VA 628 Buckingnam.Solar Farm mage 02024: Airbus Buckingham Solar is a 19.8 MW project east of 628 shown above, while Energix Buckingham is a 20 MW project west of 628 shown above. The closest adjoining home is 125 feet from the nearest panel. 1 - I identified 24081 E James Anderson Highway sold on June 2, 2023 for $160,000 for a 3 BR, 2BA, 1,248 s.f. manufactured home built in 1999 on 1 acre. This home is 380 feet from the solar panels south of US 60 and 760 feet from the solar panels to the north. The sales price works out to $128.21 per s.f. I compared that to 755 High School Road that sold on September 8, 2023 for $190,000 for a 3 BR, 2BA, 1,296 s.f. manufactured home built in 2007 on 2.04 acres and including a detached workshop with power. Adjusting this sale downward by $5,000 for the difference in lot size, $7,600 for difference in building age (based on 0.5% per year difference in age), and $15,000 for the detached workshop for an adjusted indication of value of $162,400, or $125.31 per s.f. This supports a finding of no impact on property value for the home at 24081 E James Anderson Highway due to the solar farm proximity. 67 2 - I also identified 23225 E James Anderson Highway that sold on June 30, 2023 for $180,000 for a 2 BR, 1 BA, 1,076 s.f. home built in 1958 on 1.50 acres with a 2-car garage and a full unfinished basement. This home is 560 feet from the nearest solar panel. I compared that to 17534 E James Anderson Highway that sold on January 24, 2024 for $205,000 for a 3 BR, 2 BA, 1,218 s.f. home built in 1968 on 2 acres with a carport and detached 2 car garage and a full unfinished basement. Adjusting this sale downward by $10,000 for the extra bathroom and $9,560 for the larger size of this home (based on 40% of the per s.f. value for the difference in s.f.), the adjusted indication of value is $185,440, which is within 3% of the property next to the solar farm. This difference is more likely attributable to the extra 0.50 acres at this site that I did not adjust for, but either way is within typical market impertection and supports a finding of no impact on property value. 68 11. Matched Pair - Bedford Solar, Chesapeake, Chesapeake County, VA This is a 70MW solar facility located in Chesapeake that went operational in 2021. The closest adjoining home is 390 feet from the nearest panel. I identified 1407 Whittamore Road sold on December 22, 2022 for $293,500 or $214 per square foot, for a 3 BR, 2BA, 1,372 s.f. one-story, single family home built in 1962 on a 0.69 acre lot. This home is 560 feet from the closest panel. This home last sold on December 14, 2015 for $176,000. Using the FHFA HPI to increase the earlier sale based on the typical appreciation, that home price was expected to appreciate to $276,145. Based on this sale/resale analysis, the solar farm is showing no impact on the property value or appreciation of this home adjoining the solar project. Estimated Value for MSA: $276,145 Estimated Value for State: $286,899 MSAP Percentage Change: 56.9% VA Virginiat Beach Norfolk Newport News, VA- NC 300k 250k I 200k 150k e o e 6 e e e o e e e Quarter 69 12. Matched Pair - Westmoreland Solar, Warsaw, Westmoreland County, VA This is 19.9MW solar facility located in Warsaw in Westmoreland County, went operational in 2021. The closest adjoining home is 220 feet from the nearest panel. I identified 232 Woodbine Road sold on August 26, 2022 for $649,000 for a 3 BR, 3BA, 2,612 s.f. one-story, single-family home built in 1993 on a 91.55 acre. This home is 1,725 feet from the nearest solar panel. This comes to $248 per square foot. The home sits on a 7-acre homesite and remaining acre is on conservation easement. I spoke with Jeff Brooks, listing agent for this property, who indicated that they did not take into account that the property is nearby a solar farm during the listing process. He also noted that the solar panel are visible from the house but this didn't affect the sale at all. The substation lies between the solar farm and the home. Given the adjacent substation, I did not do further analysis on this home as the substation is closer to the home than the solar panels. 70 Conclusion 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 far more urban areas. The predominate adjoining uses are residential and agricultural. 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, I consider it reasonable to compare these sites to the subject property. Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2023 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Population Income Unit 1 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1% 578 $81,022 $374,453 2 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0% 203 $80,773 $320,076 3 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0% 74 $51,410 $155,208 4 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 500.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0% 74 $120,861 $483,333 5 Crittenden Crittenden KY 34 2.70 40 22% 51% 27% 0% 1,419 $60,198 $178,643 6 White House Louisa VA 500 20.00 N/A 24% 55% 18% 3% 409 $57,104 $209,286 7 Whitehorn Gretna VA N/A 50.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 166 $43,179 $168,750 8 Altavista Altavista VA 720 80.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 $50,000 $341,667 9 Solidago Isle of Wight VA 193 20.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 62 $88,375 $312,500 10 Buckingham Cumberland VA 240 39.80 50 4% 6% 90% 0% 120 $59,445 $251,562 11 Bedford Chesapeake VA N/A 70.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 993 $127,047 $509,365 Average 692 76.59 80 16% 53% 30% 1% 373 $74,492 $300,440 Median 322 20.00 60 14% 52% 20% 0% 166 $60,198 $312,500 High 3,500 500.00 160 37% 98% 90% 3% 1,419 $127,047 $509,365 Low 34 2.70 40 2% 6% 0% 0% 7 $43,179 $155,208 Augusta 1 Mile Radius 1,268 100.00 40 11% 72% 14% 3% 310 $58,467 $427,439 31 Mile Radius 1,268 100.00 40 11% 72% 14% 3% 10,065 $62,094 $318,177 51 Mile Radius 1,268 100.00 40 11% 72% 14% 3% 33,003 $67,342 $302,061 On the following page is a summary of the matched pairs for all of the solar farms noted above. They show a pattern of results from -7% to +7% with an average of 0% and a median finding of -1%. This variability is common with real estate and consistent with market "static. > I therefore conclude that these results strongly support an indication of no impact on property value due to the adjacent solar farm. Only 1 of the 31 data points show a negative impact greater than the typical variability due to market imperfection, while 3 of the 31 data points show a positive impact. This leaves 27 of the 31 indications showing no impact and within the typical market variablitv/mperiection that would be expected for any property. This can also be expressed as 30 out of31 data points show a neutral to positive indication of impact due to the proximity of a solar farm. 71 Indications of Impact 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0 5 20 25 30 35 -2% -4% -6% -8% Avg. MW Distance % Dif Average 196.60 824 Average 0% Median 20.00 630 Median -1% High 617.00 1,950 High 7% Low 2.70 250 Low -7% 72 Residential Dwelling M: atched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms Approx Sale Pair Solar Farm City State Area MW Distance Tax ID/Address Date Sale Price Adj. Price %1 Diff 1 Spotsylvania Paytes VA Rural 617 1270 12901 Orange Plnk Aug-20 $319,900 12717 Flintlock Dec-20 $290,000 $326,767 2% 2 Spotsylvania Paytes VA Rural 617 1950 9641 Nottoway May-20 $449,900 116261 Forest Aug-20 $489,900 $430,246 4% 35 Spotsylvania Paytes VA Rural 617 1171 13353 Post Oak Sep-20 $300,000 12810 Catharpin Jan-20 $280,000 $299,008 0% 4 Walker Barhamsville VA Rural 20 250 5241 Barham Oct-18 $264,000 9252 Ordinary Jun-19 $277,000 $246,581 7% 50 Clarke Cnty White Post VA Rural 20 1230 833 Nations Spr Jan-17 $295,000 6801 Middle Dec-17 $249,999 $296,157 0% 60 Clarke Cnty White Post VA Rural 20 1230 833 Nations Spr Aug-19 $385,000 2393 Old Chapel Aug-20 $330,000 $389,286 -1% 7 Sappony Stony Creek VA Rural 20 1425 12511 Palestine Jul-18 $128,400 6494 Rocky! Branch Nov-18 $100,000 $131,842 -3% 8C Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 373 250 Claiborne Jan-19 $120,000 3151 N Fork May-19 $107,000 $120,889 -1% 9Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 488 300 Claiborne Sep-18 $213,000 1795 Bay Valley Dec-17 $231,200 $228,180 -7% 10 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 720 350 Claiborne Jul-18 $245,000 2160 Sherman Jun-19 $265,000 $248,225 -1% 11 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 930 370 Claiborne Aug-19 $273,000 1251 Lexington Apr-18 $240,000 $254,751 7% 12 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 365 250 Claiborne Jan-22 $210,000 240 Shawnee Jun-21 $166,000 $219,563 -5% 13 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 390 260 Claiborne Oct-21 $175,000 355 Oakwood Oct-20 $186,000 $173,988 1% 14 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 570 300 Claiborne Dec-21 $290,000 39 Pinhook Mar-22 $299,000 $289,352 0% 15 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 1080 410 Claiborne Feb-21 $275,000 114. Austin Dec-20 $248,000 $279,680 -2% 16 Whitehouse Louisa VA Rural 20 1400 126 Walnut Mar-20 $275,000 126 Woodger Apr-19 $248,000 $279,680 -2% 17 Whitehorn Gretna VA Rural 50 255 1120 Taylors Mill Dec-21 $224,000 1001 Long Branch Aug-20 $162,000 $213,920 5% 18 Altavista Altavista VA Rural 80 600 3026 Bishop Crk Feb-22 $150,000 3026 Bishop Crk Jul-19 $120,000 $155,000 -3% 19 Solidago Windsor VA Rural 20 610 17479 Courthouse Dec-23 $555,000 15414 TrumpTown Sep-23 $463,000 $552,197 1% 20 Solidago Windsor VA Rural 20 630 6568 Beechland Feb-24 $671,500 114971 Dews Plant. Oct-23 $640,000 $665,000 1% 21 Spotsylvania Spotsylvania VA Rural 617 435 11710 Southview May-22 $767,945 10919 Green Leaf Jun-22 $739,990 $728,424 5% 22 Spotsylvania Spotsylvania VA Rural 617 410 11606. Aprils Sep-23 $711,400 11701 Quail Run Jul-23 $650,000 $723,383 -2% 23 Spotsylvania Spotsylvania VA Rural 617 1252 9811 Deer Park Jun-22 $455,000 8109 Newton Mar-22 $450,000 $447,900 2% 24 Spotsylvania Spotsylvania VA Rural 617 1020 13000 W Catharpian Jun-22 $450,000 14207 Cedar Plant. Jul-23 $473,800 $472,015 -5% 25 Spotsylvania Spotsylvania VA Rural 617 1060 12819 Faulconers Oct-23 $538,000 9811 Cathrapin Nov-23 $480,000 $508,753 5% 26 Spotsylvania Spotsylvania VA Rural 617 395 11239 Chancellor M Mar-23 $499,900 9651 Meadows Jul-23 $515,000 $506,012 -1% 27 Altavista Altavista VA Rural 80 745 2049 Bishop Crk Jul-23 $375,000 1900 Woodhaven Aug-22 $355,000 $395,198 -5% 28 Buckingham Cumberland VA Rural 40 380 24081 EJames And Jun-23 $160,000 755 High Sch Sep-23 $190,000 $162,400 -2% 291 Buckingham Cumberland VA Rural 40 560 23225 EJames And Jun-23 $180,000 17534 EJames And Jan-24 $205,000 $185,440 -3% 30 White House Louisa VA Rural 20 1780 751 Chalklevel Apr-24 $260,000 1404 Jefferson May-24 $219,700 $249,140 4% 31 Bedford Chesapeake VA Rural 70 560 1407 Whittamore Dec-22 $293,500 1407 Whittamore Dec-15 $176,000 $276,145 6% 73 Southeastern USA Data = Over 5 MW Conclusion - Southeast Over 5 MW Southeast USA Over 51 MW Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2022 Data Topo Med. Avg. Housing Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Pop. Income Unit 1 AMI Best Goldsboro NC 38 5.00 2 38% 0% 23% 39% 1,523 $37,358 $148,375 2 Mulberry Selmer TN 160 5.00 60 13% 73% 10% 3% 467 $40,936 $171,746 3 Leonard Hughesville MD 47 5.00 20 18% 75% 0% 6% 525 $106,550 $350,000 4 Gastonia SC Gastonia NC 35 5.00 48 33% 0% 23% 44% 4,689 $35,057 $126,562 5 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 6 Tracy Bailey NC 50 5.00 10 29% 0% 71% 0% 312 $43,940 $99,219 7 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0% 48 $75,000 $291,667 8 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 9 Mariposa Stanley NC 36 5.00 96 48% 0% 52% 0% 1,716 $36,439 $137,884 10 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1% 578 $81,022 $374,453 11 Candace Princeton NC 54 5.00 22 76% 24% 0% 0% 448 $51,002 $107,171 12 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0% 203 $80,773 $320,076 13 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 14 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 U 41% 59% 0% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 15 Sunfish Willow Spring NC 50 6.40 30 35% 35% 30% 0% 1,515 $63,652 $253,138 16 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0% 74 $51,410 $155,208 17 Camden Dam Camden NC 50 5.00 0 17% 72% 11% 0% 403 $84,426 $230,288 18 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 24% 0% 21% 949 $50,355 $231,408 19 Champion Pelion SC 100 10.00 N/A 4% 70% 8% 18% 1,336 $46,867 $171,939 20 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 ) 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 21 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0% 127 $90,909 $403,571 22 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0% 74 $120,861 $483,333 23 Whitehorn Gretna VA N/A 50.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 166 $43,179 $168,750 24 Altavista Altavista VA 720 80.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 $50,000 $341,667 25 Hattiesburg Hattiesburg MS 400 50.00 N/A 10% 85% 5% 0% 1,065 $28,545 $129,921 26 Solidago Isle of Wight VA 193 20.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 62 $88,375 $312,500 27 Buckingham Cumberland VA 240 39.80 50 4% 6% 90% 0% 120 $59,445 $251,562 28 Twiggs Dry Branch GA N/A 200.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 $55,000 $50,000 29 Kings Bay Kings Bay GA N/A 30.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 721 $102,293 $364,808 30 Dougherty Albany GA N/A 120.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 30 $60,354 $204,167 31 Mustang Robbins NC 50 5.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 941 $54,430 $369,398 32 Bedford Chesapeake VA N/A 70.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 993 $127,047 $509,365 Average 464 60.83 37 23% 47% 24% 6% 786 $64,484 $246,854 Median 234 25.00 20 17% 56% 11% 0% 458 $59,067 $241,485 High 3,500 617.00 160 76% 98% 94% 44% 4,689 $127,047 $509,365 Low 35 5.00 0 2% 0% 0% 0% 7 $28,545 $50,000 The solar farm matched pairs pulled from the solar farms shown above have similar characteristics to each other in terms of population, but with several outliers showing solar farms in more urban areas. The median income for the population within 1 mile of a solar farm is $59,067 with a median housing unit value of $241,485. Most of the comparables are under $300,000 in the home price, with $509,365 being the high end of the set, though I have matched pairs in multiple states over $1,600,000 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 77 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%. 74 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. As noted earlier in this report, real estate is an imperfect market and this 5% variability is typical in real estate. This data strongly supports an indication of no impact on adjoining residential uses to a solar farm. Only 2 of the data points supports a negative impact on property value, while 7 support a positive impact. So out of 75 out of 77 data points support a finding of no impact or a positive impact on property value. 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. Indicated Impacts SE USA Arranged Smallest to Largest 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 -5% -10% -15% 75 B. Summary of National Data on Solar Farms I have worked in over 25 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 38 solar farms over 5 MW studied with each one providing matched pair data supporting the findings of this report. Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage Topo Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 38 5.00 2 38% 0% 23% 39% 2 Mulberry Selmer TN 160 5.00 60 13% 73% 10% 3% 3 Leonard Hughesville MD 47 5.00 20 18% 75% 0% 6% 4 Gastonia SC Gastonia NC 35 5.00 48 33% 0% 23% 44% 5 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2% 6 Tracy Bailey NC 50 5.00 10 29% 0% 71% 0% 7 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0% 8 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0% Grand Ridge Streator IL 160 20.00 1 8% 87% 5% 0% 10 Dominion Indianapolis IN 134 8.60 20 3% 97% 0% 0% 11 Mariposa Stanley NC 36 5.00 96 48% 0% 52% 0% 12 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1% 13 Flemington Flemington NJ 120 9.36 N/A 13% 50% 28% 8% 14 Frenchtown Frenchtown NJ 139 7.90 N/A 37% 35% 29% 0% 15 McGraw East Windsor NJ 95 14.00 N/A 27% 44% 0% 29% 16 Tinton Falls Tinton Falls NJ 100 16.00 N/A 98% 0% 0% 2% 17 Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 71 1% 63% 36% 0% 18 Candace Princeton NC 54 5.00 22 76% 24% 0% 0% 19 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0% 20 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 21 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0% 22 Demille Lapeer MI 160 28.40 10 10% 68% 0% 22% 23 Turrill Lapeer MI 230 19.60 10 75% 59% 0% 25% 24 Sunfish Willow Spring NC 50 6.40 30 35% 35% 30% 0% 25 Picture Rocks Tucson AZ 182 20.00 N/A 6% 88% 6% 0% 26 Avra Valley Tucson AZ 246 25.00 N/A 3% 94% 3% 0% 27 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0% 28 Camden Dam Camden NC 50 5.00 0 17% 72% 11% 0% 29 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 24% 0% 21% 30 Champion Pelion SC 100 10.00 N/A 4% 70% 8% 18% 31 Eddy II Eddy TX 93 10.00 N/A 15% 25% 58% 2% 32 Somerset Somerset TX 128 10.60 N/A 5% 95% 0% 0% 33 DG Amp Piqua Piqua OH 86 12.60 2 26% 16% 58% 0% 34 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 35 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 U 26% 74% 0% 0% 36 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0% 37 Whitehorn Gretna VA N/A 50.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 38 Altavista Altavista VA 720 80.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 39 Hattiesburg Hattiesburg MS 400 50.00 N/A 10% 85% 5% 0% 40 Bremen Bremen IN 37 6.80 15 40% 60% 0% 0% 76 Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage Topo Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind 41 North Rock Fulton WI 472 50.00 N/A 3% 40% 57% 0% 42 Wood County Saratoga WI 1,200 150.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 43 Solidago Isle of Wight VA 193 20.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 44 Buckingham Cumberland VA 240 39.80 50 4% 6% 90% 0% 45 Crane Burns City IN 182 24.30 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 46 Kokomo 1 Kokomo IN 83 5.40 5 30% 36% 0% 34% 47 White Tail 1 Mowersville PA 135 13.50 20 2% 73% 25% 0% 48 Twiggs Dry Branch GA N/A 200.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 49 Kings Bay Kings Bay GA N/A 30.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50 Dougherty Albany GA N/A 120.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 51 Whitetail 2 St Thomas PA 293 20.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 52 Elk Hill 1 Mercersburg PA N/A 20.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 53 Elk Hill 2 Mercersburg PA N/A 15.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 54 Cottontail 1 York PA N/A 20.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 55 Cottontail 2 York PA N/A 20.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 56 Grazing Yak Calhan CO 272 35.00 N/A 0% 97% 3% 0% 57 San Luis Vlly Hooper CO 308 35.00 N/A 5% 95% 0% 0% 58 SR Jenkins Ft. Lupton CO 142 13.00 N/A 2% 90% 8% 0% 59 Big Horn 1 Pueblo CO 2,760 240.00 N/A 0% 44% 2% 54% 60 Bison/Raw Wellington CO 1,160 52.00 N/A 0% 93% 7% 0% 61 Alamosa Mosca CO 163 30.00 N/A 0% 87% 13% 0% 62 Pioneer Bennett CO 611 110.00 N/A 3% 81% 16% 0% 63 Sandhill/SunE Mosca CO N/A 10.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 64 Bellflower 1 Lewisville IN N/A 152.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65 Riverstart Winchester IN N/A 200.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 66 Mustang Robbins NC 50 5.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 67 North Star North Branch MN 1,099 100.00 N/A 18% 73% 7% 2% 68 Logansport Logansport IN N/A 6.80 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 69 Anderson 6 Anderson IN N/A 6.80 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 70 Dunns Brdge Wheatfield IN N/A 435.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 71 Bedford Chesapeake VA N/A 70.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Average 421 55.63 33 20% 56% 19% 6% Median 182 20.00 18 12% 66% 7% 0% High 3,500 617.00 160 98% 98% 94% 54% Low 35 5.00 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 77 From these 71 solar farms, I have derived 138 data points. The data shows no negative impact at distances as close as 145 feet between a solar panel and the nearest point on a home. The range of impacts is -10% to +14% with an average and median of +1%. Avg. MW Distance % Dif Average 79.17 608 Average 1% Median 20.00 440 Median 0% High 617.00 2,020 High 14% Low 5.00 145 Low -10% While the range is broad, the two charts below show the data points in range from lowest to highest. There are only 3 data points out of 130 that show a negative impact. The rest support either a finding of no impact or 17 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. National Impact Data on Solar Farms Over 5 MW Arranged Smallest to Largest 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 0 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 -5% -10% -15% 78 X. 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 Virginia, 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. XI. Scope of Research I have researched over 1,000 solar farms and sites on which solar farms are existing and proposed in Virginia, Illinois, Tennessee, North Carolina, 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. Percentage By Adjoining Acreage Closest All Res A1l 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 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. 79 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 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 residentia/agriculturl use. 80 XII. 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 potential 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. Even less 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 oft the solar farms in this report not only adjoins 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. 81 Isee 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. 1 - 1 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 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 82 uncommon as a practical matter. The market often assigns significant value to desirable views rrespective 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 impactiul uses currently allowed, then how can you claim damages for a less impactful use. 83 XIII. 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 Ihave nationally, as is the more specific data located in and around Virginia. 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 is quiet, and there is no traffic. 84 XIV. Certification I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct; 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved; 4. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment; 5. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results; 6. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of the appraisal; 7. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the. Appraisal Institute; 8. My analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives; 10. I have not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report, and; 11. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification. 12. As of the date of this report I have completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute; 13. I have not completed any other appraisal related assignments regarding this project within the three years prior to engagement in this current assignment. Disclosure of the contents of this appraisal report is governed by the bylaws and regulations of the Appraisal Institute and the National Association of Realtors. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this appraisal report shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, or any other public means of communications without the prior written consent and approval ofthe undersigned. * - Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI State Certified General Appraiser 85 Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI Kirkland 9408 Northfield Court Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Mobile (919) 414-8142 LLC Appraisals, kirkland2@emallcom imislsn Professional Experience Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, Raleigh, N.C. 2003 - Present Commercial appraiser Hester & Company, Raleigh, N.C. Commercial appraiser 1996 - 2003 Professiona. Afflliations 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 KY State Certified General Appraiser # 5522 TN State Certified General Appraiser # 6240 FL State Certified General Appraiser # RZ3950 GA State Certified General Appraiser # 321885 MI State Certified General Appraiser # 1201076620 PA State Certified General Appraiser # GA004598 OH State Certified General Appraiser # 2021008689 IN State Certified General Appraiser # CG42100052 IL State Certified General Appraiser # 553.002633 LA State Certified General Appraiser # APR.05049-CGA TX State Certified General Appraiser # 1380528 G Education Bachelor of Arts in English, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 1993 Continuing Education Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2024 ASFMRA Integrated Approaches to Value (A360) 2024 ASFMRA Best in Business Ethics 2023 Appraising Natural Resources Series - Oil, Gas & Minerals 2023 Appraisal of Industrial and Flex Buildings 2023 Commercial Land Valuation 2023 Fair Housing, Bias and Discrimination 2023 Pennsylvania State Mandated Law for Appraisers 2023 What NOT to Do (NCDOT Course) 2023 The Income Approach - A Scope of Work Decision 2023 Valuation of Residential Solar 2022 Introduction to Commercial Appraisal Review 2022 Residential Property Measurement and ANSI 2022 Business Practices and Ethics 2022 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2022 Sexual Harassment Prevention Training 2021 86 Appraisal of Land Subject to Ground Leases 2021 Florida Appraisal Laws and Regulations 2020 Michigan Appraisal Law 2020 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/Traine Class 2015 Business Practices and Ethics 2014 Subdivision Valuation 2014 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 Supervisor/Traines 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 87 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 CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8.9 Community Meeting Summary Edwards Solar Farm 23 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit Commonwealth Energy Partners, LLC CEPSOLAR 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200 COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Richmond, VA 23230 Edwards Solar Community Meeting Summary 1/22/2025 A community meeting was held on Wednesday, January 22nd, 2025, at 6pm for the Edwards Solar Project. The meeting was held at the Glade Hill Fire and EMS Station which is roughly a half of a mile north of the proposed project location. Adjoining property owners were notified by mail, and the meeting was advertised in the Franklin News-Post seven days prior to the meeting. Per the Franklin County Zoning Ordinance, information about the materials and components for the construction, maintenance, and decommissioning of solar panels was available. Project maps and materials were on display along with informational flyers and a binder containing the proposed application materials. The meeting was well attended with roughly 30 guests. The project landowners as well as Union Hall District Supervisor Dan Quinn and Planning Commissioner Victor Evans were in attendance. Supervisors Mike Carter and Lorie Smith were also in attendance as well as four Franklin County staff members. There were members of the surrounding community in attendance. There were no adjacent landowners in attendance. Included below is a summary of the topics discussed at the community meeting, the community meeting sign in sheet, the invitation that was mailed to adjoining landowners, and an affidavit for the advertisement of the community meeting. Table of Contents 1. Summary of Public Discussion at Community Meeting 2 2.0 Exhibits 5 2.1 Community Meeting Sign in Sheet 5 2.2 Community Meeting Invitation mailed to Adjoining Landowners 6 2.3 Affidavit for the Advertisement of the Community Meeting 7 1 Commonwealth Energy Partners, LLC CEPSOLAR 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200 COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Richmond, VA 23230 Below is a summary of the discussions held and input received at the community meeting. 1. Will this project impact Smith Mountain Lake? The project is in the Leesville Lake watershed not Smith Mountain Lake. There are not anticipated impacts to Leesville Lake or Smith Mountain Lake Edwards solar will be designed to properly manage stormwater and control erosion. The project will be designed to meet current DEQ handbook standards. The project's stormwater and erosion control plans will be reviewed by a third party chosen by Franklin County prior to site plan approval The project is in the Leesville Lake watershed 2. Will the project be visible? The project will be fully screened from the public view. Due to the existing landscape, the majority of the project buffer will consist of existing dense evergreen natural buffer. 3. What is a distribution project and how is that profitable? A distribution scale project generates power at the distribution level of the grid. This means that the power is used locally. Distribution scale projects generally require minimal upgrades to the grid and do not require the developer to build a new substation. There are several ways of commercializing the project including selling the project to the utility, a power purchase agreement, or participating in Appalachian Power's upcoming shared solar program. 4. What will the construction timeline be? The duration of construction depends on the megawatt capacity and the acreage of the solar farm. A typical project construction will require between 6-12 months Construction may take place in a phased approach 2 Commonwealth Energy Partners, LLC CEPSOLAR 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200 COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Richmond, VA 23230 5. How big is the project / how much land is needed? The project parcels total 108.87 acres. The proposed fenced area is 36.5 acres The proposed area under panels is 25 acres 6. Where are the panels produced? At this stage, the project does not have a panel supplier lined up. Per the zoning ordinance, the equipment used for the facility will be fully up to national standards. We will need to submit the panels and other equipment types to the county as part of our final site plan review before any construction can take place. Panel specifications and warranties are included in the site plan review submission. 7. How long will the project last? The life of the project will have an operational lifetime of approximately 40 years 8. What happens at the end of the project's life? As a condition of project permitting, a decommissioning bond or other form of financial security will be established to ensure timely removal of the project Upon removal of the equipment, the land will be returned to the landowner for whatever use they see fit. 9. Will there be any chemical runoff / leaching? There will be no chemical runoff or leaching from the panels. Solar panels contain inert materials encapsulated in hardened glass. If panels were to be damaged or malfunctioning, they would be removed and recycled or returned to the manufacturer. 10. What makes CEP different from other developers? CEP is a Virginia based company that only works in the Commonwealth. CEP prides itself on building strong relationships with community members and elected officials. 11. Has CEP constructed any projects? CEP has partnered with utilities to commercialize all of their projects to this point. However, CEP does plan to build, own and operate projects in the future. CEP's team 3 Commonwealth Energy Partners, LLC CEPSOLAR 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200 COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Richmond, VA 23230 has over 70 years of combined experience of developing and constructing solar farms. 12. Will this project increase my power bill? No, developing and building this project will not increase your electric bill CEP Solar is developing and financing the project through private investment. CEP does not have control over how Appalachian Power Company sets their prices. 4 Commonwealth Energy Partners, LLC CEPSOLAR 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200 COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Richmond, VA 23230 2.1 Community Meeting Sign in Sheet 5 Commonwealth Energy Partners, LLC CEPSOLAR 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200 COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Richmond, VA 23230 2.2 Community Meeting Invitation Mailed to Adjoining Landowners 6 2201 W. Broad St. Suite #200 CEPSOLAR Richmond, VA 23220 www.CEPSolar.com COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS [Name] [Street Address] [City, State, Zip Code] Dear Neighbor, - am contacting you to introduce myself and to share information about Edwards Solar Farm, a project that we are proposing to develop in Franklin County. The entrance to the project will be off of Jacks Creek Road between East Edwardsway Road and the Rockydale Jacks Mountain Quarry (Parcel IDs: 0660003900, 0660010100). have included the following documents to provide more details about the project, who we areas a company, and general information about solar projects. Project Overview - Provides basic project details including size, location, and community benefits. Company Overview Provides an overview of CEP Solar's purpose and mission. Frequently Asked Questions - Provides answers to frequently asked questions about solar farms. As the project manager, Ia am dedicated to ensuring that Edwards Solar Farm works in the best interest of the community. My colleagues and will be hosting a community meeting to discuss the project with local landowners and other stakeholders. You are invited to attend, and your feedback and questions are appreciated. Edwards Solar Farm Community Meeting Wednesday, January 22nd from 6:00-8:00PM Glade Hill Volunteer Fire Department 9825 Old Franklin Turnpike, Union Hall, VA, 24176 If you have any questions or comments ahead of the meeting or if you are unable to attend, feel free to reach out to me by phone or email any time using the contact information below. look forward to meeting with you. Best, Paul Ca Paul Cozens I Project Manager CEP Solar, LLC 804-398-0628 I allcorensecepidlar.con 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200, Richmond, VA: 23220 www.cepsolar.com CEPSOLAR Empowering Virginia's COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Clean Economy Edwards Solar CEP Solar is a Virginia-based company that partners with landowners, communities, and customers to develop solar and storage projects across Virginia, delivering long-term economic and environmental benefits to the Commonwealth. We share Franklin County's commitment to ensure that the best practices in solar development are being implemented in the County and we look forward to demonstrating that commitment with this Project. Project Overview * 5 MWac capacity, enough to power roughly 674 homes Electrons generated will be sent to the Penhook Substation Located on two privately owned parcels of land The estimated project area is 36.5 acres. The entire panel area will have minimal external visibility from the public roads magee and 2024 using existing proposed vegetative buffers. 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200 . Richmond, VA 23220 . www.cepsolar.com CEPSOLAR Empowering Virginia's COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Clean Economy Community Benefits Solar farms generate affordable and emission-free electricity. At the end of the project's operational life, the solar panels are removed and the land will be returned to its original use. Solar farms support agriculture-based communities and have no material burden on the county's resources. Some benefits include: Local job generation Significant investment for local economy hl Increased tax revenue for the county 'Land Banking' preserves parcels for future agriculture, silviculture, or another use 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200 . Richmond, VA 23220 . www.cepsolar.com CEPSOLAR Empowering Virginia's Clean COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Economy We partner with landowners, communities, and customers to develop solar and storage projects across Virginia, delivering long- term economic and environmenta! benefits to the Commonwedlth. Our Purpose Our Mission CEP Solar develops solar farms to: to develop responsibly sited sustain local communities and designed solar projects generate carbon free electricity that will quietly generate deliver local economic benefits economic and environmental create clean economy jobs benefits for decades to come! 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200 . Richmond, VA 23220 . www.cepsolar.com Empowering Virginia's CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY Clean PARTNERS Economy Frequently Asked Questions Why Solar Energy? Solar Energy is the most abundant renewable energy resource available today. A solar farm produces cost effective and emission free electricity. It also contributes to our energy independence, and E benefits host communities through additional jobs and revenues for new infrastructure projects and local government services. How are we protecting the community's rural character? Solar farms generally do not exceed fifteen feet in height and are easily screened from view by vegetative buffers. A project site plan will include measures to add buffers to provide screening where there is not pre-existing vegetation. Who uses/buys the electricity? Electricity produced by a solar farm is typically sold to a dedicated customer or utility, and as such can support local demand and nearby communities. 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200 . Richmond, VA 23220 . www.cepsolar.com Empowering Virginia's CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY Clean PARTNERS Economy How are solar sites selected? Due to a variety of constraints, there are a limited number of viable locations for solar in any county or municipality. Some site-specific factors include accessibility, topography, wetland areas, and proximity to existing infrastructure. Broader considerations include minimizing impacts on environmental and historic resources. How long will construction take? The duration of construction depends on the megawatt capacity and the acreage of the solar farm. A typical project construction will require between 6- - 12 months, while some larger projects may take longer, and they are usually constructed in a phased approach. What will happen at the end of project life? As a condition of project permitting, a decommissioning bond or other form of financial security will be established to ensure timely removal of the project at no cost to taxpayers. Upon removal of the equipment, the underlying ground will be available for its original use. 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200 . Richmond, VA 23220 . www.cepsolar.com Commonwealth Energy Partners, LLC CEPSOLAR 2201 W Broad St. Suite 200 COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS Richmond, VA 23230 2.3 Affidavit for the Advertisement of the Community Meeting 7 Che jfranklin els Dost See Proof on Next Page AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Florida, County of Broward, SS: Rachel Cozart, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That (s)he is a duly authorized signatory of Column Software, PBC, duly authorized agent of Franklin News-Post, a newspaper printed and published in the Town of Rocky Mount, County of Franklin, State of Virginia, and that this affidavit is Page 1 of 2 with the full text of the sworn-to notice set forth on the pages that follow, and the hereto attached: PUBLICATION DATES: Jan. 15,2025 NOTICE ID: Aa5GBy563WTBCOA7 PUBLISHER ID: COL-1500231 NOTICE NAME: Edwards Solar Public Notice Publication Fee: 78.89 Ad Size: 2 X: 13 L Category: General Legal Notice Under penalty of perjury, I, the undersigned affiant swear or affirm that the statements above are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. Racheb Boyant (Signed)_ SHERI SMITH Notary Public State ofFlorida Commission # HH269383 VERIFICATION Expires on May3 1,2 2026 State of Florida County of Broward Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me on this: 01/15/2025 88itl Notary Public Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Propf. Edwards Solar Public Notice - Page 1 of 2 Edwards Solar Community Meeting Edwards Solar Farm, LLC will hold a Community Meeting house fort the Edwards Solar Farm. Ther meeting, will take 61 seie January 22nd, 2025f from to 8 PM att the new Ese PM Fire / EMS Station locateda at 9825 Old Franklin Turnpike Union Hall, VA24176. The purpose of the Community Meeting is to provide information an- swer questions regarding the proposed Solar Farm. Edwards E is MWac distributions scale located Parcel D 0660003900, 8 & Ros int the Lmen Hall district ofFranklin CountyForr more information on the meeting please call Paul Cozens at 804-789-4040 ext. 715 or send an e-mail to paul. cozens@cepsolar.com. COL-1500231 Edwards Solar Public Notice - Page 2 of 2 CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8.10 Site Control Edwards Solar Farm 24 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit OPTION TO LEASE This Option to Lease (this "Agreement") is entered into as of the 29th day of August, 2022 (the "Effective Date"), by and between Penny E. Blue, Ruby E. Penn and Ronald B. Edwards ("Landlord") and CEP Solar, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company ("Tenant"). Tenant and Landlord are sometimes referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." 99 RECITALS: A. WHEREAS, Landlord is the owner of that certain real property located in Franklin County, Commonwealth of Virginia, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein (the "Property"); and B. WHEREAS, the Landlord is willing to enter into a definitive ground lease and easement agreement for the construction and operation of a Solar Energy System, as hereafter defined, on the Property under the terms agreed to in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency whereof are hereby mutually acknowledged, and in consideration of the mutual benefits and obligations of the parties hereunder, the parties agree as follows: 1. Lease and Easement Option. Landlord hereby grants Tenant an exclusive option (the "Option' n")(i) to enter into a Ground Lease and Easement Agreement for the purpose of constructing, installing, and operating any equipment and facilities used to harness sunlight for photovoltaic or solar thermal energy generation and to store such energy, including but not limited to solar energy collection cells, panels, and mirrors, utility scale energy storage facilities and batteries, and any support structures, braces, wiring, plumbing, and related equipment (collectively "Solar Facilities"), (ii) to enter into easements on, over, and across the Property for electrical transmission facilities and unobstructed access to solar energy resources, and (ini) to enter into any other easements and rights necessary or useful in the construction and operation of the Solar Facilities. Such lease shall be in significant compliance with the terms set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and made aj part hereof, subject to modifications as contemplated herein or as agreed by the parties. Landlord understands that this Agreement is not an offer or commitment by Tenant to conclude any lease, and until such time as a definitive lease is executed between the Parties, this Agreement shall govern. 2. Option Period. The lease option period commences on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of three (3) years ("Option Period"). Tenant may extend the Option Period for an additional one (1), one (1) year period (up to a maximum of four (4) years after thel Effective Date) by providing notice to Landlord no later than prior to the expiration of each annual Option Period. 3. Execution of] Documents: Exercise ofOption. Concurrently with the execution and delivery ofthis Agreement, Landlord shall execute and deliver the Memorandum of Option to Lease attached hereto as Exhibit C (the "Memorandum of Option"). Tenant may record the Memorandum of Option at any time in its sole discretion. Tenant may exercise the Option at any time during the Option Term by delivering a Lease and Easement Agreement in a form prepared by Tenant (the "Lease") substantially containing the terms set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto plus other commercially reasonable and customary terms for a solar energy lease. Landlord shall in a timely manner respond to Tenant with any objections or proposed modifications to the Lease, for which the Parties shall negotiate in good faith and in accordance with commercially reasonable and customary practices within the solar energy industry. The Lease shall 1 concurrently terminate the Option with respect to a portion of the Property pursuant to Section 7 below, at Tenant' S sole discretion, by designating the Option Premises subject to the Lease, as defined below. 4. Exclusivity. Landlord grants Tenant exclusive rights, during the Option Term, to assess the feasibility ofl locating Solar Facilities on the Property. During the Option Term (defined below), Landlord shall not make the Property or any portion of the Property available for purchase, lease, or other encumbrance (collectively, Interfering Activity") to any Party other than Tenant (or Tenant's successors and/or assigns), without the express written consent of Tenant, except to the extent that such Interfering Activity shall not materially affect the rights granted to Tenant upon execution of the Lease. 5. Studies and Testing. Tenant and its representatives, agents and contractors shall have the right to enter upon the Property to perform inspections and conduct such testing as Tenant may reasonably require for the purposes of determining the suitability of the Property for the Solar Facilities including, but not limited to, surveying, biological and cultural studies, and conducting soil and geotechnical testing of the Property. Tenant will provide prior notice ofrequired site access and will coordinate scheduling and testing activities with Landlord. All data, analyses and other proceeds from such inspections and testing shall be the sole property of Tenant. Tenant shall restore the Property to its substantially original condition after any such inspections or testing performed by Tenant or its representatives, agents and contractors are completed, excepting reasonable wear and tear, including reimbursement for crop damage at market commodity rates. If Tenant terminates this Agreement for any reason rather (other than Landlord's default), Tenant shall deliver to Landlord at no cost to Landlord all tests, surveys and/or studies undertaken by" Tenant (excluding, however, any and all materials and information deemed privileged and confidential) (the "Reports"). Landlord specifically disclaims any reliance on the Reports, Landlord makes no warranty of any kind with respect to the Reports, express or implied, including any implied warranty of merchantability OI fitness for a particular purpose. Landlord agrees that Tenant and its officers, directors, employees, agents or contractors are not liable for any indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages by Landlord's use of or access to the Reports, by you or any third party, whether in an action in contract or tort or based on a warranty. Prior to any inspection being undertaken hereunder, Tenant shall deliver a certificate of insurance evidencing the existence of a general liability insurance policy naming Owner as an additional insured with policy limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in the aggregate. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant shall indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities and/or obligations for injuryto person or damage to property to the extent resulting from or arising out of the activities of Tenant, its representatives and agent on the Property, excluding, however, claims arising out of any loss, liability, cost or expense to the extent solely arising from or relating to the acts or omissions of] Landlord OI Landlord's representatives or agents. All of Buyer's obligations set forth in this Section 5, including, without limitation, indemnification and/or restoration obligations shall survive termination ofthis Agreement. Tenant shall provide Landlord with periodic updates as to the status ofi its efforts to obtain all governmental authorization and approvals necessary for the Solar Facilities. 6. Compensation. 7. Termination 2 a. Tenant shall have the right to terminate this Agreement as to all or any part of the Property at any time, effective upon written notice to Landlord from Tenant. If such termination 1S as to only part of the Property, Tenant must contemporancously deliver a site plan clearly delineating which portion of the Property remains subject to this Agreement (the "Option Premises"), and this Agreement shall remain in effect as to the Option Premises, and Tenant may record an amendment to the Memorandum ofOption to provide for definition ofthe Option Premises which shall remain subject to the terms of this Agreement. b. This Agreement shall terminate: i. Upon Tenant': s delivery of written notice of termination to Landlord; ii. If Tenant fails to deliver the Notice of Exercise on or before the expiration of the Option Period; ili. IfTenant fails to make an Option Payment when due, and fails to cure such breach within thirty days after written notice from Landlord; or iv. Upon the expiration of the Option Period, as extended. 8. Landlord's Representations and Warranties. Landlord hereby represents and warrants that: a. Landlord holds 100% of the ownership interest in and to the Property, is the sole owner of the Property and holds fee simple title to the Property. b. Landlord has listed all known mortgages, deeds oftrust or other foreclosable instruments, leases, options to lease, purchase agreements, options to purchase, easements, security interests, licenses, liens and other encumbrances applicable to the Property on Exhibit D hereto (collectively, the "Existing Encumbrances"). C. To Landlord's reasonable knowledge, the Existing Encumbrances will not materially interfere with the rights granted to Tenant under this Agreement or with Tenant's S intended use oft the Property for the generation, delivery, storage and sale of solar energy. d. To Landlord's reasonable knowledge, Landlord has provided to Tenant all information in its possession regarding the zoning classification of the Property. e. To Landlord's reasonable knowledge, the Property is not in violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation, whether related to zoning, environmental matters, or otherwise. Landlord has not received any communication from any governmental authority that the Property may be in violation of any of the foregoing. f. To Landlord's knowledge, after due inquiry, there have been no releases of any hazardous materials (as defined by applicable law) on or affecting the Property. 9. Documentation Relating to the Property. Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, Landlord shall provide to Tenant copies of all title reports, environmental studies and reports, engineering reports, surveys, soil or geological tests, permits, contracts, agreements, and approvals from governmental authorities relating to the Property that are within Landlord's s possession or control. 10. No Commissions. No real estate commissions or any other commissions shall be paid in connection with this transaction. 11. Successors and Heirs. This Agreement shall run with the Property while the. Agreement remains in effect and shall be binding upon the Landlord, its respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives. 12. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received: ifhand- 3 delivered to the party to whose attention it is directed; three days after mailing if sent, postage prepaid by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested; or on the next business day when delivered via overnight delivery by a nationally recognized courier service, return receipt requested; and addressed as follows: Ifintended for Tenant: CEP Solar, LLC Attn: Richard H. Wright 1310 Roseneath Rd, Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23230 Phone: (804) 912-7999 Ifintended for Landlord: Penny E. Blue, Ruby E. Penn, & Ronald B. Edwards Attn: Penny Edwards Blue 10440 Old Franklin Tpke Union Hall, VA 24176 Or at such other address or to such other party as either party may designate in writing. 13. Assignment. Tenant may assign all or part of its interests in this Agreement to one or more assignees or sub assignees without the consent of Landlord. 14. Confidentiality. Landlord shall maintain in confidence all information pertaining to the financial terms of or payments under this Agreement. Landlord shall not publish or otherwise disclose such information to others except to accountants, lawyers, or other professionals who receive such information under an obligation of confidentiality; buyers of the Property; lenders that have a security interest in the Property; or family members who agree to keep such information confidential. The provisions of this Section 10 shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 15. Memorandum. Neither Tenant nor Landlord shall record this Agreement in its entirety. Tenant shall be responsible for the cost of preparing and recording the Memorandum ofOption to be filed with the County Recorder in lieu of recording a full copy of this Agreement. 16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and all prior or contemporancous agreements are merged herein. 17. Amendment. This Agreement may: not be amended, enlarged, modified, or altered except in writing signed by the parties hereto and identified as an amendment of this Agreement. 18. Specific Performance. In light of the unique nature of the Property, Tenant shall have the right to seek injunctive relief and specific performance of Landlord's obligations hereunder, including the obligation to enter into a Lease Agreement in accordance with Section 3. 19. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without regard to its conflict ofl laws principles. 20. Attorneys' Fees. IfLandlord or Tenant institutes legal proceedings against the other arising out of the terms oft this Agreement or thej performance hereunder, the prevailing party may recover from the other all reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in any such action. 4 21. Further Assurances. Landlord will, whenever reasonably requested by Tenant, execute, acknowledge and deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered, all instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary in order to complete the transactions herein provided and to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement. In the event of any inaccuracy in the description of the Property (or any portion thereof), or in the description of the parties in whom title to the Property (or any portion thereof) is vested, Landlord and Tenant shall amend this Agreement to correct such inaccuracy in order to accomplish the intent of Landlord and Tenant. 22. Lease Controlling. In the event a conflict arises between the terms and conditions of the Lease (when executed) and this Agreement, the Lease shall control. Landlord acknowledges that this Agreement is not an offer or commitment by Tenant to execute any lease with Landlord, and until such time as a definitive lease is executed between the Parties, this Agreement shall govern. 23. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number ofc counterparts, each ofwhich shall be an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same document. Transmission by facsimile or electronic transmission by pdf of an executed counterpart of this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute due and sufficient delivery of such counterpart. 24. Waiver. Ifeither Party fails to require the other to perform any term of this Agreement, that failure does not prevent the Party from later enforcing that term. If either Party waives the other Party's breach of at term, that waiver is not treated as a continuing waiver or otherwise as waiving a later breach ofthat term. 25. Waiver of Consequential Damages. IN NO EVENT SHALL TENANT BE LIABLE TO LANDLORD FOR ANY SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR INDIRECT DAMAGES OR LOST PROFITS, HOWEVER CAUSED, ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY EVEN IF ADVISED OF SUCH A POSSIBILITY. 26. Waiver of Jury Trial. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, EACH OF THE PARTIES KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVES THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY INI RESPECT OF ANYLITIGATION ARISING OUTOF, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS LEASE AND ANY OTHER AGREEMENT CONTEMPLATED TO BE EXECUTED IN CONJUNCTION HEREWITH. THIS PROVISION IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO EACH OF THE PARTIES FOR ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT. 27. No Third Party Beneficiaries. No provision oft this Agreement is intended to nor shall it in any way inure to the benefit of any third party SO as to constitute any such person a third party beneficiary under this Agreement, or of any one or more of the terms of this Agreement, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any person not a party to this Agreement. 28. Rights and Remedies Cumulative. To the extent permitted by law, the rights and remedies in this Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive of any other right or remedy that might be available under this Agreement, at law or in equity. [SIGNATURES FOLLOW] 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Lease as of the date first written above, each intending the same to be a sealed instrument. LANDLORD: PENNY E. BLUE By: Name: Title: RUBY E. PENN By: Ruoy fenn Name: Ruhs Pem Title: Co-Dwner RONALD B. EDWARDS By: Benl Buent Elala Name: Bencd Brent Idles ole . Title: Go- Dwryer 6 TENANT: CEP SOLAR, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company By: Name: Richard H. Wright Title: Manager 7 EXHIBIT. A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The Property is all of the following tracts or parcels of land, situated in Franklin County, Commonwealth of Virginia consisting of approximately 100.4 acres, more particularly described as follows: Parcel Number(s) and acreage: 1. 0660010100 and approximately 100.4 acres Most recent deed of record: Deed, Dated February 1, 2017, recorded in the Clerk' s Office for Franklin County, Virginia in Deed Book 1118, at page 1083. In the event ofinaccuracies in the foregoing legal description, Landlord and Tenant shall amend this Lease to correct such inaccuracies. 8 OPTION TO LEASE This Option to Lease (this "Agreement") is entered into as of the 29th day of August, 2022 (the "Effective Date"), by and between Ronald B. Edwards ("Landlord") and CEP Solar, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company ("Tenant"). Tenant and Landlord are sometimes referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties. 3 RECITALS: A. WHEREAS, Landlord 1s the owner of that certain real property located in Franklin County, Commonwealth of Virginia, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein (the "Property"); and B. WHEREAS, the Landlord is willing to enter into a definitive ground lease and easement agreement for the construction and operation of a Solar Energy System, as hereafter defined, on the Property under the terms agreed to in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency whereof are hereby mutually acknowledged, and in consideration of the mutual benefits and obligations of the parties hereunder, the parties agree as follows: 1. Lease and Easement Option. Landlord hereby grants Tenant an exclusive option (the "Option' n")(i) to enter into a Ground Lease and Easement Agreement for the purpose of constructing, installing, and operating any equipment and facilities used to harness sunlight for photovoltaic or solar thermal energy generation and to store such energy, including but not limited to solar energy collection cells, panels, and mirrors, utility scale energy storage facilities and batteries, and any support structures, braces, wiring, plumbing, and related equipment (collectively "Solar Facilities"), (ii) to enter into easements on, over, and across the Property for electrical transmission facilities and unobstructed access to solar energy resources, and (ini) to enter into any other easements and rights necessary or useful in the construction and operation of the Solar Facilities. Such lease shall be in significant compliance with the terms set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and made aj part hereof, subject to modifications as contemplated herein or as agreed by the parties. Landlord understands that this Agreement is not an offer or commitment by Tenant to conclude any lease, and until such time as a definitive lease is executed between the Parties, this Agreement shall govern. 2. Option Period. The lease option period commences on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of three (3) years ("Option Period"). Tenant may extend the Option Period for an additional one (1), one (1) year period (up to a maximum of four (4) years after thel Effective Date) by providing notice to Landlord no later than prior to the expiration of each annual Option Period. 3. Execution of] Documents: Exercise of Option. Concurrently with the execution and delivery ofthis Agreement, Landlord shall execute and deliver the Memorandum of Option to Lease attached hereto as Exhibit C (the "Memorandum of Option"). Tenant may record the Memorandum of Option at any time in its sole discretion. Tenant may exercise the Option at any time during the Option Term by delivering a Lease and Easement Agreement in a form prepared by Tenant (the "Lease") substantially containing the terms set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto plus other commercially reasonable and customary terms for a solar energy lease. Landlord shall in a timely manner respond to Tenant with any objections or proposed modifications to the Lease, for which the Parties shall negotiate in good faith and in accordance with commercially reasonable and customary practices within the solar energy industry. The Lease shall 1 concurrently terminate the Option with respect to a portion of the Property pursuant to Section 7 below, at Tenant' S sole discretion, by designating the Option Premises subject to the Lease, as defined below. 4. Exclusivity. Landlord grants Tenant exclusive rights, during the Option Term, to assess the feasibility ofl locating Solar Facilities on the Property. During the Option Term (defined below), Landlord shall not make the Property or any portion of the Property available for purchase, lease, or other encumbrance (collectively, Interfering Activity") to any Party other than Tenant (or Tenant's successors and/or assigns), without the express written consent of Tenant, except to the extent that such Interfering Activity shall not materially affect the rights granted to Tenant upon execution of the Lease. 5. Studies and Testing. Tenant and its representatives, agents and contractors shall have the right to enter upon the Property to perform inspections and conduct such testing as Tenant may reasonably require for the purposes of determining the suitability of the Property for the Solar Facilities including, but not limited to, surveying, biological and cultural studies, and conducting soil and geotechnical testing of the Property. Tenant will provide prior notice ofrequired site access and will coordinate scheduling and testing activities with Landlord. All data, analyses and other proceeds from such inspections and testing shall be the sole property of Tenant. Tenant shall restore the Property to its substantially original condition after any such inspections or testing performed by Tenant or its representatives, agents and contractors are completed, excepting reasonable wear and tear, including reimbursement for crop damage at market commodity rates. If Tenant terminates this Agreement for any reason rather (other than Landlord's default), Tenant shall deliver to Landlord at no cost to Landlord all tests, surveys and/or studies undertaken by" Tenant (excluding, however, any and all materials and information deemed privileged and confidential) (the "Reports"). Landlord specifically disclaims any reliance on the Reports, Landlord makes no warranty of any kind with respect to the Reports, express or implied, including any implied warranty of merchantability OI fitness for a particular purpose. Landlord agrees that Tenant and its officers, directors, employees, agents or contractors are not liable for any indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages by Landlord's use of or access to the Reports, by you or any third party, whether in an action in contract or tort or based on a warranty. Prior to any inspection being undertaken hereunder, Tenant shall deliver a certificate of insurance evidencing the existence of a general liability insurance policy naming Owner as an additional insured with policy limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in the aggregate. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant shall indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities and/or obligations for injuryto person or damage to property to the extent resulting from or arising out of the activities of Tenant, its representatives and agent on the Property, excluding, however, claims arising out of any loss, liability, cost or expense to the extent solely arising from or relating to the acts or omissions of] Landlord OI Landlord's representatives or agents. All of Buyer's obligations set forth in this Section 5, including, without limitation, indemnification and/or restoration obligations shall survive termination ofthis Agreement. Tenant shall provide Landlord with periodic updates as to the status ofi its efforts to obtain all governmental authorization and approvals necessary for the Solar Facilities. 6. Compensation. 7. Termination 2 a. Tenant shall have the right to terminate this Agreement as to all or any part of the Property at any time, effective upon written notice to Landlord from Tenant. If such termination 1S as to only part of the Property, Tenant must contemporancously deliver a site plan clearly delineating which portion of the Property remains subject to this Agreement (the "Option Premises"), and this Agreement shall remain in effect as to the Option Premises, and Tenant may record an amendment to the Memorandum ofOption to provide for definition ofthe Option Premises which shall remain subject to the terms of this Agreement. b. This Agreement shall terminate: i. Upon Tenant': s delivery of written notice of termination to Landlord; ii. If Tenant fails to deliver the Notice of Exercise on or before the expiration of the Option Period; ili. IfTenant fails to make an Option Payment when due, and fails to cure such breach within thirty days after written notice from Landlord; or iv. Upon the expiration of the Option Period, as extended. 8. Landlord's Representations and Warranties. Landlord hereby represents and warrants that: a. Landlord holds 100% of the ownership interest in and to the Property, is the sole owner of the Property and holds fee simple title to the Property. b. Landlord has listed all known mortgages, deeds oftrust or other foreclosable instruments, leases, options to lease, purchase agreements, options to purchase, easements, security interests, licenses, liens and other encumbrances applicable to the Property on Exhibit D hereto (collectively, the "Existing Encumbrances"). C. To Landlord's reasonable knowledge, the Existing Encumbrances will not materially interfere with the rights granted to Tenant under this Agreement or with Tenant's S intended use oft the Property for the generation, delivery, storage and sale of solar energy. d. To Landlord's reasonable knowledge, Landlord has provided to Tenant all information in its possession regarding the zoning classification of the Property. e. To Landlord's reasonable knowledge, the Property is not in violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation, whether related to zoning, environmental matters, or otherwise. Landlord has not received any communication from any governmental authority that the Property may be in violation of any of the foregoing. f. To Landlord's knowledge, after due inquiry, there have been no releases of any hazardous materials (as defined by applicable law) on or affecting the Property. 9. Documentation Relating to the Property. Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, Landlord shall provide to Tenant copies of all title reports, environmental studies and reports, engineering reports, surveys, soil or geological tests, permits, contracts, agreements, and approvals from governmental authorities relating to the Property that are within Landlord's s possession or control. 10. No Commissions. No real estate commissions or any other commissions shall be paid in connection with this transaction. 11. Successors and Heirs. This Agreement shall run with the Property while the. Agreement remains in effect and shall be binding upon the Landlord, its respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives. 12. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received: ifhand- 3 delivered to the party to whose attention it is directed; three days after mailing if sent, postage prepaid by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested; or on the next business day when delivered via overnight delivery by a nationally recognized courier service, return receipt requested; and addressed as follows: Ifintended for Tenant: CEP Solar, LLC Attn: Richard H. Wright 1310 Roseneath Rd, Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23230 Phone: (804) 912-7999 Ifintended for Landlord: Ronald B. Edwards Attn: Ronald B. Edwards 280 Edwards Way Road Union Hall, VA 24176 Or at such other address or to such other party as either party may designate in writing. 13. Assignment. Tenant may assign all or part of its interests in this Agreement to one or more assignees or sub assignees without the consent of Landlord. 14. Confidentiality. Landlord shall maintain in confidence all information pertaining to the financial terms of or payments under this Agreement. Landlord shall not publish or otherwise disclose such information to others except to accountants, lawyers, or other professionals who receive such information under an obligation of confidentiality; buyers of the Property; lenders that have a security interest in the Property; or family members who agree to keep such information confidential. The provisions of this Section 10 shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 15. Memorandum. Neither Tenant nor Landlord shall record this Agreement in its entirety. Tenant shall be responsible for the cost of preparing and recording the Memorandum ofOption to be filed with the County Recorder in lieu of recording a full copy of this Agreement. 16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and all prior or contemporancous agreements are merged herein. 17. Amendment. This Agreement may: not be amended, enlarged, modified, or altered except in writing signed by the parties hereto and identified as an amendment of this Agreement. 18. Specific Performance. In light of the unique nature of the Property, Tenant shall have the right to seek injunctive relief and specific performance of Landlord's obligations hereunder, including the obligation to enter into a Lease Agreement in accordance with Section 3. 19. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without regard to its conflict ofl laws principles. 20. Attorneys' Fees. IfLandlord or Tenant institutes legal proceedings against the other arising out of the terms oft this Agreement or thej performance hereunder, the prevailing party may recover from the other all reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in any such action. 4 21. Further Assurances. Landlord will, whenever reasonably requested by Tenant, execute, acknowledge and deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered, all instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary in order to complete the transactions herein provided and to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement. In the event of any inaccuracy in the description of the Property (or any portion thereof), or in the description of the parties in whom title to the Property (or any portion thereof) is vested, Landlord and Tenant shall amend this Agreement to correct such inaccuracy in order to accomplish the intent of Landlord and Tenant. 22. Lease Controlling. In the event a conflict arises between the terms and conditions of the Lease (when executed) and this Agreement, the Lease shall control. Landlord acknowledges that this Agreement is not an offer or commitment by Tenant to execute any lease with Landlord, and until such time as a definitive lease is executed between the Parties, this Agreement shall govern. 23. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number ofc counterparts, each ofwhich shall be an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same document. Transmission by facsimile or electronic transmission by pdf of an executed counterpart of this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute due and sufficient delivery of such counterpart. 24. Waiver. Ifeither Party fails to require the other to perform any term of this Agreement, that failure does not prevent the Party from later enforcing that term. If either Party waives the other Party's breach of at term, that waiver is not treated as a continuing waiver or otherwise as waiving a later breach ofthat term. 25. Waiver of Consequential Damages. IN NO EVENT SHALL TENANT BE LIABLE TO LANDLORD FOR ANY SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR INDIRECT DAMAGES OR LOST PROFITS, HOWEVER CAUSED, ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY EVEN IF ADVISED OF SUCH A POSSIBILITY. 26. Waiver of Jury Trial. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, EACH OF THE PARTIES KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVES THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY INI RESPECT OF ANYLITIGATION ARISING OUTOF, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS LEASE AND ANY OTHER AGREEMENT CONTEMPLATED TO BE EXECUTED IN CONJUNCTION HEREWITH. THIS PROVISION IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO EACH OF THE PARTIES FOR ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT. 27. No Third Party Beneficiaries. No provision oft this Agreement is intended to nor shall it in any way inure to the benefit of any third party SO as to constitute any such person a third party beneficiary under this Agreement, or of any one or more of the terms of this Agreement, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any person not a party to this Agreement. 28. Rights and Remedies Cumulative. To the extent permitted by law, the rights and remedies in this Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive of any other right or remedy that might be available under this Agreement, at law or in equity. [SIGNATURES FOLLOW] 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Lease as of the date first written above, each intending the same to be a sealed instrument. LANDLORD: RONALD B. EDWARDS By: oraes B. Elisanks Name: Remela BaEhwop Title: Ownes 6 119.2"D TENANT: CEP SOLAR, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company By: Name: Richard H. Wright Title: Manager 7 EXHIBIT. A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The Property is all of the following tracts or parcels of land, situated in Franklin County, Commonwealth of Virginia consisting of approximately 42.68 acres, more particularly described as follows: Parcel Number(s) and acreage: 1. 0660003900 and approximately 42.68 acres Most recent deed of record: Deed, Dated recorded in the Clerk's s Office for Franklin County, Virginia in Deed Book at page In the event ofinaccuracies in the foregoing legal description, Landlord and Tenant shall amend this Lease to correct such inaccuracies. 8 CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8.11 Edwards Solar Natural Heritage and Wildlife Management Study Edwards Solar Farm 25 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit 1001 Boulders Parkway P804.200.6500 TIMMONS GROUP Suite 300 F804.560.1016 YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. Richmond, VA 23225 www.timmons.com MEMORANDUM TO: Franklin County Planning and Zoning Department FROM: Timmons Group on behalf of Edwards Solar DATE: January 10, 2025 RE: Edwards Solar Natural Heritage and Wildlife Management Study Timmons Group, on behalf of Edwards Solar, has conducted a limited environmental review of resources that may be present within a two-mile radius of the proposed project location. This environmental review includes wildlife management areas, threatened and endangered species, and cultural and historic resources. Threatened and Endangered Species Timmons Group has conducted a threatened and endangered (T&E) species review of the Edwards Solar project. The following databases were reviewed for the potential presence of T&E species: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) - Natural Heritage Review Service Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (VDWR) = Wildlife Environmental Review Map Service (WERMS) Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (VDWR) - Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS) US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Based on the queried databases, there is the potential for three threatened and endangered species and one candidate species to occur near the project. See Table 1. Table 1. Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially Present at Edwards Solar Common Name Scientific Name Status Agency Source Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus Federal Proposed USFWS Endangered State Endangered Roanoke Logperch Percina rex Federal Endangered VDWR State Endangered Orangefin Madtom Noturus gilberti State Threatened VDWR Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Federal Proposed USFWS Threatened According to the USFWS IPac results, the federal proposed and state endangered tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) has the potential to occur on the Site. Based on the VDWR database search, this species has not been observed on the Site or within the two-mile buffer around the Site. There is potential CIVIL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYING I GIS I LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES suitable habitat for the tricolored bat on the Site, as a portion of the land is forested. VDWR guidance provides that if the project area is outside of a documented hibernaculum or roost tree, project proponents may proceed with activities at their own discretion, though authorization of purposeful or incidental take of the species is not provided. The proposed reclassification may require USFWS consultation and/or a time of year restriction (TOYR) for tree clearing, unless a survey determines the likely absence of the species. Based on VDWR search results, the federally and state endangered Roanoke logperch and the state threatened orangefin madtom have been observed within the Pigg River, which is located 1.2 miles south oft the Site. The potential TOYR for instream work is March 15 June 30. The Site will adhere to stormwater and erosion and sediment control guidelines, SO adverse impacts to aquatic resources are not expected. According to the USFWS IPac results, the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) has the potential to occur on the Site. Monarch butterflies are found across North America and are broken into two populations separated by the Rocky Mountains. Milkweed is the host plant of this species, and the monarch butterfly relies on this plant to complete its lifecycle. The species is proposed to be listed as threatened under the ESA. Currently, there is no TOYR for this species, but the USFWS recommends protective measures to enhance the butterfly habitat, including planting pollinator habitat. The USFWS may release additional guidance with the final ruling. According to VDCR, the Jacks Creek Conservation Site is located with the project area. The natural heritage resources of concern at this site are the following: Southern Piedmont Ultramafic Barren, Piedmont fameflower, and Prairie dropseed. None of the species associated with the Southern Piedmont Ultramafic Barren are federally or state listed. If state or federal permits are necessary, the Applicant will coordinate with agencies to ensure the protection and avoidance of T&E species. Cultural and Historical Resources There is one known architectural resource (VDHR ID # 033-5310) within the project, and it has been determined to be not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR). There is one known architectural resource located adjacent to the project. VDHR ID# 033-5340 has been determined to be not eligible for listing on the NRHP or VLR. There are ten architectural resources and five archaeological resources within one half mile of the project. These resources have either been determined not eligible or have not yet been evaluated for listing on the NRHP and VLR. If state or federal permits are necessary, the Applicant will coordinate with agencies to ensure the protection and avoidance of cultural and historical resources. Wetlands and Streams Wetlands and streams are present on site. As the project progresses, more precise locations of wetlands and streams will be delineated and verified by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If wetland or stream impacts are unavoidable, the Applicant will obtain the appropriate USACE permit for any impacts to USACE jurisdictional wetlands and streams. Wildlife Corridors and VDWR Guidance Guidance from the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources' regarding wildlife corridors for solar facilities provides recommendations to protect and preserve the passage of wildlife species during development and operation of such facilities. Wetlands and streams form a natural wildlife corridor and, as they will generally not be impacted by the project, will remain as interior corridors for wildlife utilization. Wetlands and streams are generally outside 1 htps./dwr.virginia.gnagowwp-contentuploads/medalSoaSolar-Energ/-Faehlyty-Guidance,pdr the fenced area sO free passage of wildlife will be allowed for the duration of the project. The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources advises that interior passages through solar projects helps reduce potential impacts to wildlife, to which this project will adhere. These recommendations may be considered in site development. Attachments Attachment 1 T&E Species Database Reviews Attachment 2 Cultural Resources Review Attachment 1: Threatened and Endangered Species Database Reviews Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (VDWR) - Wildlife Environmental Review Map Service (WERMS) belly 12/13/2024 47661 040 DWAR RDS SOLAR MLHILL NOTES dataf fromDWR. mensd Virgini E big-e ared Gray ybat, and E Aerial from VGIN. Legend Project Study Limits- 108.87 Acres TwOM Mile Buffer REVISION NLEBF Roost Trees Not Present Threatened/Endangered) Waters Trout Streams Not Present WILDLIFE Anadromous Fish Use Not Present EN NVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAP BaldE Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts Not Present Colonial Water Birds Not Present Federal or State Listed Observation Area &X Bat Hibernacula (0.5Mle Buffer)- Not Present Bat Hibernacula (5.5 Mile Buffer)- Not Present Federal Status, State Status ET Non- -Threatened, Non-Endangered 1,300 2,600 HEET FEMNEFSCAL Federal Endangered, State Endangered 300 - oaparch .040- ERIAa U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) - Information, Planning and Consultation system (IPaC) 12/13/24, 11:16 AM IPac: Explore Location reso ces IPac U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPac resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/specles surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. - Location Franklin County, Virginia 3 A0-Franklin-st CDIRP - - - - 4 acks Cred oA 1364ft Local office Virginia Ecological Services Field Office & 304) 593-6694 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061-4410 ntpslpacecosphere.wgowicatoncyGrw2ZOYNNALCI3NUUPSLMFVresources 1/14 12/13/24, 11:16. AM IPac: Explore Location resou rces Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPac (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/revew, please return to the IPac website and request an official species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do SO). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries2). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under theirj jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPac also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing. status page for more information. IPac only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). https-lipac.ecosphere.fws.govlocation/CVGFW2ZOYNAMXJGL3JVUPSLHFl/resources 2/14 12/13/24, 11:16. AM IPac: Explore Location resou ce S 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location: Mammals NAME STATUS Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus Proposed Endangered Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. tpsy/ecoswsgoV/ecpispedes/10515 Insects NAME STATUS Monarch Danaus TION Butterfly plexippus Proposed Threatened Wherever found There is proposed critical habitat for this species. tips/ecos.w5gov/egoV/ecplspecles/9743 Critical habitats Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the eis endangered species themselves. There are no critical habitats at this location. You are still required to determine if your oroject(s) may have effects on all above listed species. Bald & Golden Eagles Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act' and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act?. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats3, should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. https-lipac.ecosphere.fws.govlocation/CVGFW2ZOYNAMXJGL3JVUPSLHFl/resources 3/14 12/13/24, 11:16 AM IPac: Explore Location resources Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https/www.w.ws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds nttps/www.fws.gollprany/rolectionslavolding.ad-minimizing.incidenta-take- migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds ntips/www.fwsgoVsies/defaut/les/documentsnatonwdestandart-conservation: measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPac https/ww.fwsgowisgv/medlafsupplemental-information-migratonebirds-and-bald-and. golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting. and Sensitivity to Human Activity For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME C BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to Jul 31 This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities noffshore areas from certain types of development or activities. tps/ecostwsgovlecplspedles/1626 Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey https-lipac.ecosphere.fws.govlocation/CVGFW2ZOYNAMXJGL3JVUPSLHFl/resources 4/14 12/13/24, 11:16. AM IPac: Explore Location reso es effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence,at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion SO that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate ofthe time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The numberof surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data (-) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. - probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC https-lipac.ecosphere.fws.govlocation/CVGFW2ZOYNAMXJGL3JVUPSLHFl/resources 5/14 12/13/24, 11:16. AM IPac: Explore Location resources Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable What does Pac use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL). Tool. What does Pac use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding. and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birdst that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, pleasevisit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What if have eagles onmy list? Ifyour projecthas the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if you have questions. Migratory birds Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act' and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act?. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats3 should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". https-lipac.ecosphere.fws.govlocation/CVGFW2ZOYNAMXJGL3JVUPSLHFl/resources 6/14 12/13/24, 11:16. AM IPac: Explore Location resour rces 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https/www.fws.gowsgo/program/eagee-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds ttps//www.w5.goV/lbrary/collections/avolding-and-minimizing-ncidental-take- migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds Itps/wwAwSgOVSIes/defautrles, documents/nationationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdr Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPac nttps/www.fwsgovmeda/supplementa-information-mgratonepirds-and-bald-and- oden.eagles-mavcoccurprolectaction The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to Jul 31 This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. ntps/eroswsgovlecplspecles/1626 Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Breeds May 15 to Oct 10 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. htips/ecos.wsgovleerplspecies/9399 ittpslipac.ecosphere.fws.govlocation/CVGFW2ZOYNAMX)GL3JVUPSLHFl/resources 7/14 12/13/24, 11:16. AM IPac: Explore Location reso ces Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 20 perpallidus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRS) in the continental USA Atips/ecos.wsgovlegovV/ecp/spedles/8329 Prairie Warbler Setophaga discolor Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. - - Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocepnalus Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. - - 1 Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10 to Aug 31 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our bestunderstanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your projectarea. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read Sumpleymegaliptomation on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted ittpslipac.ecosphere.fws.govlocation/CVGFW2ZOYNAMX)GL3JVUPSLHFl/resources 8/14 12/13/24, 11:16 AM IPac: Explore Location reso ces Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion SO that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort (I) Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10kmgrid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. - probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Black-billed Cuckoo BCC Rangewide (CON) Chimney Swift BCC Rangewide (CON) https-lipac.ecosphere.fws.govlocation/CVGFW2ZOYNAMXJGL3JVUPSLHFl/resources 9/14 12/13/24, 11:16 AM IPac: Explore Location resources Grasshopper Sparrow BCC - BCR Prairie Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Red-headed 1- Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breedingin the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding inyour project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPac use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern_(BCC. and other species that may, warrantspecial attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network( (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What does IPac use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network(AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets. https-lipac.ecosphere.fws.govlocation/CVGFW2ZOYNAMXJGL3JVUPSLHFl/resources 10/14 12/13/24, 11:16. AM IPac: Explore Location resources Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If' "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPac fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are, Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and theVirgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimizeimpacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For moreinformation on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAAI NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping. of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving. Bird Study. and the nanotag. studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if - have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. https-lipac.ecosphere.fws.govlocation/CVGFW2ZOYNAMXJGL3JVUPSLHFl/resources 11/14 12/13/24, 11:16. AM IPac: Explore Location resour n rces Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPac use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands BUEIN Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. There are no refuge lands at this location. Fish hatcheries There are no fish hatcheries at this location. https-lipac.ecosphere.fws.govlocation/CVGFW2ZOYNAMXJGL3JVUPSLHFl/resources 12/14 12/13/24, 11:16 AM IPac: Explore Location res C ces Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. This location overlaps the following wetlands: FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND PEM1C RIVERINE R3UBH R4SBC A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory. website NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below. Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland poundaries or classification established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions ntpslpacecosphere.wgowicatoncyGrw2ZOYNNALCI3NUUPSLMFVresources 13/14 12/13/24, 11:16. AM IPac: Explore Location resources Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. - FOR NOT https-lipac.ecosphere.fws.govlocation/CVGFW2ZOYNAMXJGL3JVUPSLHFl/resources 14/14 Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (VDWR) - Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS) 12/13/24, 11:09 AM VaFWIS Map VAFWIS - Department of Wildlife Resources VIRGIN DWR 36.98672 -79.71312 back Refresh Browser Page is the Search Point Map an Map In Zoom Screen Small Size Submit Cancel Click Scale - Out Size Big Help] Search Point O Changet to' "clicked" map point Fixed at 36.98672 -79.71312 Show Position Rings Yes O No mile and 1/4: mile at the Search Point Show Search Area O Yes O: No 2 Search distance miles buffer Search Point is at map center Base Map Choices BW Aerial Photography V Map Overlay Choices Current List: Anadromous, TEWaters, BAEANests, BECAR, Trout, TierlI, Habitat, Search Map Overlay Legend T&E Waters Federal State Predicted Habitat WAP Tier I&II Aquatic Terrestrial Trout Waters Class I-M Class V-VI Anadromous Fish Reach Confirmed Potential 323 Impediment mmonilth of sh a N 41 Klomatars 2n mile radius 1 - - - 2 Miles SearchA Area Bald Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts Point of Search 36.98672 -79.71312 Bald Eagle nests Map Location 36.98672 -79.71312 660 and: 3301 foot Select Coordinate System: Degss,MinuesSeona: Latitude Longitude management: zones Data O Decimal Degrees Latitude Longitude Ohsarvatinn Siha Meters UTM NAD83 East North Zone Meters UTM NAD271 East North Zone Base Map source: Black & White USGS. Aerial Photography (see Mimaftemnstasiaunt for details) httpslIservices.dwr.virginia.govfwis/maps/2MapFormjava.asp?v-121311 1/2 12/13/24, 11:09 AM VaFWIS Map Mapi projection is UTM Zone 171 NAD 1983 with left 606524 and top 4102173. Pixel size is 12.. Coordinates displayed are decimal Degrees North and West. Mapi is currently displayed as 1000 columns by 1000 rows for al total of 1000000 pixles. The map display represents 16000 meters east to west by 16000 meters north to south for a total of 256.0 square kilometers. The map display represents 52502 feet east to west by 52502 feet north to south for a total of 98.8 square miles. Topographic maps and Black and white aerial photography for year 1990+- are from the United States Department oft the Interior, United States Geological Survey. Color aerial photography aquired 2002 is from Virginial Base Mapping Program, Virginia Geographic Information: Network. Shadedt topographic maps aref from TOPO! 02006 National Geographic htp:/www.national, geographic. com/topo All other mapi products aret from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department ofWildlife Resources. map assembled 2024-12-13 11:09:15 (ga/qc March 21, 2016 12:20 tn-3090153 dist-32181 I Spoi-36.9908200- -79.7124000 OIRMACAmmeNeIN, of Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources IDWRI ICredits |Disclaimer IContact WebPolicyl httpslIservices.dwr.virginia.govfwis/maps/2MapFormjava.asp?v-121311 2/2 12/13/24, 11:10. AM VAFWIS Seach Report VaFWIS Initial Project Assessment Report Compiled on 12/13/2024, Help 11:10:47 AM Known or likely to occur within a 2 mile buffer around polygon; center 36.9908200 -79.7123999 in 067 Franklin County, VA View Mapof Site Location 433 Known or Likely Species ordered by Status Concern for Conservation (displaying first 20) (20 species with Status* or Tier [** or Tier II** ) BOVA Common Status* Tier** Scientific Name Confirmed Database(s) Code Name 050022 FEST Ia Bat, northern Myotis BOVA long-eared. septentrionalis 010214 FESE Ila Logperch, Percina rex Yes OVATEAlahuspos Roanoke 030061 FTSE Ia Turtle, Bog. Glyptemys BOVA muhlenbergii 060173 FTST Ia Pigtoe, Fusconaia masoni BOVA Atlantic 050020 SE Ia Bat, little Myotis lucifugus BOVA brown 050027 FPSE Ia Bat, tri-colored Perimyotis BOVA subflavus Falcon, 040096 ST Ia Falco peregrinus BOVA peregrine Shrike, Lanius 040293 ST Ia loggerhead. ludovicianus BOVA Madtom, 010127 ST IIb Noturus gilberti Yes BOVA,TEWAters.Habiat orangefin Lanius 040292 ST Shrike, migrant ludovicianus BOVA loggerhead migrans Rattlesnake, 030012 CC IVa Crotalus horridus BOVA timber Ambloplites 010174 Ia Bass, Roanoke cavifrons BOVA,Habitat Allohistium 010343 Ib Darter, ashy_ BOVA cinereum 010341 IIa Logperch, Percina burtoni BOVA blotchside Duck, 040052 IIa American Anas rubripes BOVA black 040036 Ila Night-heron, Nyctanassa BOVA yellow- violacea violacea mtpslisenicesdwrviginagpuhwnePagenarwis_Cagapha-SeleclOpionsasp 1/4 12/13/24, 11:10. AM VAFWIS Seach Report crowned Warbler, 040320 IIa Setophaga cerulea BOVA cerulean Woodcock, 040140 IIa Scolopax minor BOVA American Cuckoo, black- Coccyzus 040203 IIb BOVA billed erythropthalmus 040105 IIb Rail, king. Rallus elegans BOVA To view All 433 species View 433 *FE-Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FP=Federal Proposed; FC=Federal Candidate; CC-Collection Concern **I-VA Wildlife Action Plan Tier I Critical Conservation Need; II-VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier II - Very High Conservation Need; III-VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier III - High Conservation Need; IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier IV Moderate Conservation Need Virginia Widlife Action Plan Conservation Opportunity Ranking: a- - On the ground management strategies/actions exist and can be feasibly implemented.; b- On the ground actions or research needs have been identified but cannot feasibly be implemented at this time.; C- No on the ground actions or research needs have been identified or all identified conservation opportunities have been exhausted. Bat Colonies or Hibernacula: Not Known Anadromous Fish Use Streams N/A Colonial Water Bird Survey N/A View Map Threatened and Endangered Waters 61 Reaches ) OfAII Threatened and Endangered Waters T&E Waters Species View Stream Name Highest * * ** Map TE" BOVA Code, Status 9 Tier 9 Common & Scientific Name Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River (0185452 orangefin gilberti FESE ) Yes 010214 FESE Ila Logperch, Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River (0188979 orangefin gilberti FESE Yes ) Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River (0189853 orangefin gilberti FESE Yes 010214 FESE Ila Logperch, Percina rex Roanoke mtpslisenicesdwrviginagpuhwnePagenarwis_Cagapha-SeleclOpionsasp 2/4 12/13/24, 11:10. AM VAFWIS Seach Report Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River (0191756 orangefin gilberti FESE Yes 010214 FESE Ila Logperch, Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River (0201321 orangefin gilberti FESE ) Yes 010214 FESE Ila Logperch, Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River (0203820 orangefin gilberti FESE Yes ) Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke Managed Trout Streams N/A Bald Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts N/A Bald Eagle Nests N/A Habitat Predicted for Aquatic WAP Tier I & II Species (2F Reaches ) View MapCombined) Reaches from] Below ofHabitat] Predicted for WAP Tier I& MIAquaticSpecies Tier Species View Stream Name Highest * * ** Map TE BOVA Code, Status 9 Tier 9 Common & Scientific Name Glade Creek 010127 ST IIb Madtom, orangefin Noturus gilberti FESE Yes (30101011) 010214 FESE Ila Logperch, Roanoke Percina rex Madtom, 010127 ST IIb Noturus gilberti orangefin Pigg River Ambloplites FESE 010174 Ia Bass, Roanoke Yes (30101011) cavifrons Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke mtpslisenicesdwrviginagpuhwnePagenarwis_Cagapha-SeleclOpionsasp 3/4 12/13/24, 11:10 AM VAFWIS Seach Report Madtom, 010127 ST IIb Noturus gilberti orangefin Pigg River Ambloplites FESE 010174 Ia Bass, Roanoke Yes (30101011) cavifrons Logperch, 010214 FESE IIa Percina rex Roanoke Habitat Predicted for Terrestrial WAPTier I & II Species N/A Public Holdings: N/A Compiledo on 12/13/2024, 11:10:47AM 13090153.0 report-IPA searchTypep dist- 3218 poi- 36.5 9908200- 79. 7123999 siteDD- 36.9 9908265- -79. 7124017:36.9 9902143. -79. 7121049;3 36. 9895526 -79.7 7124148;3 36.9 9893725. 79.7 7125586;36.5 9890669. 79. 7124521;36.9 9890504- -79.7 7116948;3 36.5 .9888329- 79. 7116696;3 36. 9888778 79. 7104845;3 36.9 .9887829- 79. 7104711;36. 9887153- 79. 7104575;:3 36. 9886495 -79. 7104433;36.9 9885838- -79.7 7104281;36.9 98851 80 79. 7104120;3 36. 9884528- -79. 7103950;3 36.9 9884093- 79. 7103826;36. 9883672- 79.7 7103698;3 36. 9883249- -79. .7103560;36. 9882833- -79. 7103415;36.5 9882419 79.7 7103264;36.9 9882003 -79. 7103103;36.9 9881585- 79. 7102932;36.9 .9881171 79. 7102755;36.9 9880768- 79. 7102573;36. 9880362- 79.7 7102381;36. 9879176- -79.7 7101805;36. .9876939- 79. 7100605;36.9 .9875023 79.7 7099610;36.9 9872894 -79. 7098465;36.9 9870542- 79. 7097312;36. 9869013- 79.7 7096610:36.5 9868712- 79. 7096477;36. 9868411- 79.7 7096351;36. 9868112- -79. 7096233;36. .9867498 -79.7 7096012;36.9 9867194 -79. 7095914:36.9 9866887 79. 7095821;36.9 9866578- 79. 7095736;36.9 9866268- 79.7 7095656;36. 9865956- 79.7 7095584;36.5 9865643. 79.7 7095518;36.9 9864555- -79. 7095309;3 36. 9862786- -79. 7095088;36.9 9857855 -79.7 7094631;36.5 9855946- 79. 7094417:36. 9854475 79. 7094247;36.5 9854223 79.7 7094212;36.5 9853958- 79. 7094167 36.5 9853456- 79.7 7094060;3 36. .9852973 79. 7093929; 36. 9852950 -79. 7093922;36.9 9852708 79.7 7093845;36. 9852222 79. 7093667;36. 9851968. 79. 7093563;36. 9851735 79.7 7093459;3 36.5 9851503- 79. 7093349;3 36.5 9851250- 79. 7093219; 36. 9851032 79. 7093100;36. 9851005- 79. 7093085;36. 9850755 79.7 7092922;36. 9850305 79. 7092605;36.9 9850065- 79. 7092422;36.9 9849851 79.7 7092251; 36.9 9849840- 79. 7092243;36.9 9849418 79. 7091880;3 36. 9849394 -79. 7091858;36. 9848973 -79. 7091461;36. 9847937 79.7 7092241;3 36. 9839343 79. 7091513;36. 9821323. 79.7 7098570;36.9 9822600- -79.7 7121 1728; 36.9 9821022 79. 7147885:3 36.5 9822109- 79. 7168982; 36. 9837626 -79. 7172181; ;36. 9838754 -79. 7163463;36. 9843043 79. 7161147;3 36. 9843696 -79.7 7160382;36. 9844783 79. 7160112; 36. 9844065 -79. 7158204; 36. 9844696 79. 7157323;36.9 9845588 -79. 7155786;3 36.9 9846557- 79. 7153445;3 36. 9846881 79. 7151180; 36. 9847220 -79.7147334:36.9 9846016 -79.7 7145562;36.9 9845663 -79.7 7144091;36.9 9846814- -79.7 7144253;36.5 9851563. 79.7144243;365 9853350- -79.7145306:365 9855612. 79. 7145055;36.9 9855920 79.7144284;36.9 9861220 -79.7144484:3 36. 9864423 79.7 7146834:3 36.9 9864686- 79.7 7148189;3 36.5 9866393. -79. 7148044;36.9 9868388- 79.7 7149082;36.5 9868494. 79.7 7150032;3 36.9 9869267- -79. .7151050;36.9 9871150. -79. 7149500;36.9 9872070 -79.7 7149716;36.9 9872585- 79.7 7147786;36.5 .9874381 79.7 7146965;36.9 9874669- 79.7 7148120;3 36. 9877189- 79. 7147413;36.9 9877478- 79. 7148423;36.9 9879296- -79. 7148711;36.9 9880838 -79. 7151207;36.9 .9883183 79.7149578:36.9 9887771 -79.7 .7149623;36.9 9888434- 79.7150093:36 9889591 79.7 7149652;36.9 9890246- 79.7 7150985;36.5 9892353- 79.7 7152340;3 36. 9894658 -79. 7153097;36.9 9896300- -79.7 7154072;36.5 .9898649 79.7157090;3 36.9 9899468- 79.7156724:365 9899953 -79.7157607:36 9903263. -79.7 .7158493;3 36.9 9904296- 79.7 7156670;36.5 9904074- 79.7 7155862;36.9 9904450- -79.7155207;36.5 9905599. -79.7155513;365 9905558 79.7155024;36.9 9902480 -79. 7141084;36.5 9905848- 79.7 .7141982;36. 9909666- 79.7 7133592369913595- 79. 7126363;36.9 9908265. -79.7124017; PixelSize-64;A Amadromous-0.022973: BECAR-0,0188341 Bats-0.017 7942; Buffer-0.098978: County-0.060244: Impediments-0.017 7842; Init-0.150188;1 PublicLa ands- -0.023031; SppObs-0.57; TEWAters-0.032646 TierReaches-0,06039, Tertemstial-010.29, Total-1.272458; Tracking.BOVA-0.1 164132; Trout-0.021485 mtpslisenicesdwrviginagpuhwnePagenarwis_Cagapha-SeleclOpionsasp 4/4 12/13/24, 11:13 AM VaFWIS Map 1 Species Observations where Logperch, VIRGIN Roanoke (010214) DWR observed back Refresh Browser Page Map Pan Map In Zoom Out Screen Small Size Big Help] 36.99082 -79.71239 Click Scale Size is the Search Point Show Position Rings 0 Yes O No mile and 1/4: mile at the Search Point Show Search Area O Yes 0 No 2 Search distance miles buffer Display Searchl Point is not atc center ati map center Base Map Choices BW Aerial Photography V Map Overlay Choices Current List: Search, SppObs Map Overlay Legend 2 mile radius Search Area Data Observation Site @ Commenvaalthe ofVirginla Deparmento of Gamo and Inland Asherlos Dacamber 13, 2024 N 3 41 Klometars 1 - ksg 2 Miles Point of Search 36.99082 -79.71239 Map Location 36.98371 -79.72881 Select Coordinate System: Degss,MinuesSeona: Latitude Longitude O1 Decimal Degrees Latitude Longitude Meters UTM NAD83 East North Zone Meters UTM NAD271 East North Zone Base Map source: Black & White USGS. Aerial Photography (see Mimaftemnstasiaunt for details) ttps:/services.dwr.vrgina.gov/maps/z,MapFormjava.asp7autoscale-148.coord-LL&cisplay_only-1édist-32188dp-agapeap-ain-timmonseopoi-&over.. 1/2 12/13/24, 11:13. AM VaFWIS Map Mapi projection is UTM Zone 171 NAD 1983 with left 605132 and top 4101821. Pixel size is 12.. Coordinates displayed are decimal Degrees North and West. Mapi is currently displayed as 1000 columns by 1000 rows for al total of 1000000 pixles. The map display represents 16000 meters east to west by 16000 meters north to south for a total of 256.0 square kilometers. The map display represents 52502 feet east to west by 52502 feet north to south for a total of 98.8 square miles. Topographic maps and Black and white aerial photography for year 1990+- are from the United States Department oft the Interior, United States Geological Survey. Color aerial photography aquired 2002 is from Virginial Base Mapping Program, Virginia Geographic Information: Network. Shadedt topographic maps aref from TOPO! 02006 National Geographic htp:/www.national, geographic. com/topo All other mapi products aret from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department ofWildlife Resources. map assembled 2024-12-13 11:12:47 (ga/qc March 21, 2016 12:20 tn=3090153.1 dist-3218 I) Spoi-36.9908200- -79.7123999 OIPRZNACANNEIRS of Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources IDWRI ICredits |Disclaimer IContact WebPolicyl ttps:/services.dwr.vrgina.gov/maps/z,MapFormjava.asp7autoscale-148.coord-LL&cisplay_only-1édist-32188dp-agapeap-ain-timmonseopoi-&over.. 2/2 12/13/24, 11:12 AM VaFWIS Map Threatened and Endangered Waters VIRGIN where Logperch, DWR Roanoke (010214) back Refresh Browser Page observed Map Pan Map In Zoom Out Screen Small Size Big Help] Click Scale Size 36.99082 -79.71239 is the Search Point Show Position Rings Yes O No 1 mile and 1/4 mile at the Search Point Show Search Area 0 Yes O: No 2 Search distance miles buffer Display Search Point is not atc center atr map center Base Map Choices BW Aerial Photography V Map Overlay Choices Current List: Search, TEWaters Map Overlay Legend T&E Waters Federal State 2 mile radius Search Area @ Common 1 valth of Virginla De Ament of Gamo and Inlant Fsher nes Dacamber 13, 2024 N 3 41 Klometars 1 - - 2 Miles Point of Search 36.99082 -79.71239 Map Location 36.98357 -79.72863 Select Coordinate System: Degss,MinuesSeona: Latitude Longitude O1 Decimal Degrees Latitude Longitude Meters UTM NAD83 East North Zone Meters UTM NAD271 East North Zone Base Map source: Black & White USGS. Aerial Photography (see Mimaftemnstasiaunt for details) ttps:/services.dwr.vrgina.gov/maps/z,MapFormjava.asp7autoscale-148.coord-LL&cisplay_only-1édist-32188dp-agapeap-ain-timmonseopoi-&over.. 1/2 12/13/24, 11:12 AM VaFWIS Map Mapi projection is UTM Zone 171 NAD 1983 with left 605148 and top 4101805. Pixel size is 12.. Coordinates displayed are decimal Degrees North and West. Mapi is currently displayed as 1000 columns by 1000 rows for al total of 1000000 pixles. The map display represents 16000 meters east to west by 16000 meters north to south for a total of 256.0 square kilometers. The map display represents 52502 feet east to west by 52502 feet north to south for a total of 98.8 square miles. Topographic maps and Black and white aerial photography for year 1990+- are from the United States Department oft the Interior, United States Geological Survey. Color aerial photography aquired 2002 is from Virginial Base Mapping Program, Virginia Geographic Information: Network. Shaded topographic maps aref from TOPO! 02006 National Geographic htp:/www.national, geographic. com/topo All other mapi products aret from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department ofWildlife Resources. map assembled 2024-12-13 11:12:05 (ga/qc March 21, 2016 12:20 tn=3090153.1 dist-3218 I) Spoi-36.9908200- -79.7123999 OIPRZNACANNEIRS of Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources IDWRI ICredits |Disclaimer IContact WebPolicyl ttps:/services.dwr.vrgina.gov/maps/z,MapFormjava.asp7autoscale-148.coord-LL&cisplay_only-1édist-32188dp-agapeap-ain-timmonseopoi-&over.. 2/2 12/13/24, 11:11 AM VAFWIS Seach Report Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources 12/13/2024 11:11:04AM Fish and Wildlife Information Service VaFWIS Search Report Compiled on 12/13/2024, 11:11:04 AM Help Known or likely to occur within a 2 mile buffer around polygon; center 36.9908200 -79.7123999 in 067 Franklin County, VA where (010214) Logperch, Roanoke observed. View Mapof Site Location Threatened and Endangered Waters where Logperch, Roanoke (010214) observed (61 Reaches ) View Map of All Threatenedand) Endangered Waters T&E Waters Species Stream Name Highest BOVA Code, Status * Tier ** View 9 9 Map TE* Common & Scientific Name Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River orangefin. gilberti FESE Yes (0185452 Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River orangefin gilberti FESE ) (0188979) Yes 010214 FESE IIa Logperch, Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River orangefin gilberti FESE Yes (0189853) Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River orangefin gilberti FESE Yes (0191756) Logperch, 010214 FESE IIa Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River orangefin gilberti FESE Yes (0201321 Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke ttps:/Iservices.dwr.virginiagovlwis/NewPagesaFwiS_report.search.asp?pt-18Tite-VaFWIS+Reporte Search&commonName-Logperch,+Roanok. 1/3 12/13/24, 11:11 AM VAFWIS Seach Report Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River orangefin gilberti FESE Yes (0203820 Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke *FE-Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FP=Federal Proposed; FC=Federal Candidate; CC-Collection Concern **I-VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier I- Critical Conservation Need; II-VA Wildlife Action Plan Tier II - Very High Conservation Need; III-VA Wildlife. Action Plan Tier III - High Conservation Need; IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan Tier IV Moderate Conservation Need Virginia Widlife Action Plan Conservation Opportunity Ranking: a On the ground management strategiesactions exist and can be feasibly implemented.; b- On the ground actions or research needs have been identified but cannot feasibly be implemented at this time.; C- No on the ground actions or research needs have been identified or all identified conservation opportunities have been exhausted. Species Observations where Logperch, Roanoke (010214) observed (1r records , 1 Observation with View Map of All Query Results Threatened or Endangered species ) Species Observations where Logperch, Roanoke (010214)observed N Species Date View obsID class Observed Observer Different Highest Highest Map ** Species TE* Tier Angermeier & 312879 SppObs Sep 7 2001 10 FESE II Yes Rosenberger Displayed 1 Species Observations where Logperch, Roanoke (010214) observed Habitat Predicted for Aquatic WAP Tier I & II Species where Logperch, Roanoke (010214) observed (21 Reaches ) View Map Combined] Reaches from Below of] Habitat] Predicted for WAPTier] I& IIA Aquatic Species Tier Species View Stream Name Highest * ** Map TE* BOVA Code, Status 9 Tier 9 Common & Scientific Name Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Glade Creek orangefin gilberti FESE Yes (30101011) Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, 010127 ST IIb Noturus gilberti orangefin Pigg River Bass, Ambloplites FESE 010174 Ia Yes (30101011) Roanoke cavifrons Logperch, 010214 FESE IIa Percina rex Roanoke htpslIiservices.dwrvigniagowhwsNewPagesMaFwis.reportlsearchaspPpsp7pH-1aTle-VAFWIS-Repont-SearehscommonName-Logperch,+Roanok. 2/3 12/13/24, 11:11 AM VAFWIS Seach Report Madtom, 010127 ST IIb Noturus gilberti orangefin Pigg River Bass, Ambloplites FESE 010174 Ia Yes (30101011) Roanoke cavifrons Logperch, 010214 FESE IIa Percina rex Roanoke Habitat Predicted for Terrestrial WAPTier I & II Species where Logperch, Roanoke (010214) observed N/A Compiled on 12/132024,1:1:04AM 13090153.1 report-BOVA searchType-F P dist- 3218 poi- 36.9908200- -79.7123999 audit no. 3090153 12/13/2024 11:11:04AM Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service 1998-2024 Commonwealth ofVirginia Department of Wildlife Resources ttps:/Iservices.dwr.virginiagovlwis/NewPagesaFwiS_report.search.asp?pt-18Tite-VaFWIS+Reporte Search&commonName-Logperch,*Roanok. 3/3 12/13/24, 11:13. AM VaFWIS Map Threatened and Endangered Waters VIRGIN where Madtom, DWR orangefin (010127) back Refresh Browser Page observed Map Pan Map In Zoom Out Screen Small Size Big Help] Click Scale Size 36.99082 -79.71239 is the Search Point Show Position Rings Yes O No 1 mile and 1/4 mile at the Search Point Show Search Area 0 Yes O: No 2 Search distance miles buffer Display Search Point is not atc center atr map center Base Map Choices BW Aerial Photography V Map Overlay Choices Current List: Search, TEWaters Map Overlay Legend T&E Waters Federal State 2 mile radius Search Area omm nwaalth of Mrginie D 1 artnen of Gamo and InlandF Fishe res Decamber13), 2024 N 3 4 Klometars 1 k 2 Miles Point of Search 36.99082 -79.71239 Map Location 36.98326 -79.72738 Select Coordinate System: Degss,MinuesSeona: Latitude Longitude O Decimal Degrees Latitude Longitude Meters UTM NAD83 East North Zone Meters UTM NAD271 East North Zone Base Map source: Black & White USGS. Aerial Photography (see Mimaftemnstasiaunt for details) ttps:/services.dwr.vrgina.gov/maps/z,MapFormjava.asp7autoscale-148.coord-LL&cisplay_only-1édist-32188dp-agapeap-ain-timmonseopoi-&over.. 1/2 12/13/24, 11:13. AM VaFWIS Map Mapi projection is UTM Zone 171 NAD 1983 with left 605260 and top 4101773. Pixel size is 12.. Coordinates displayed are decimal Degrees North and West. Mapi is currently displayed as 1000 columns by 1000 rows for al total of 1000000 pixles. The map display represents 16000 meters east to west by 16000 meters north to south for a total of 256.0 square kilometers. The map display represents 52502 feet east to west by 52502 feet north to south for a total of 98.8 square miles. Topographic maps and Black and white aerial photography for year 1990+- are from the United States Department oft the Interior, United States Geological Survey. Color aerial photography aquired 2002 is from Virginial Base Mapping Program, Virginia Geographic Information: Network. Shadedt topographic maps aref from TOPO! 02006 National Geographic htp:/www.national, geographic. com/topo All other mapi products aret from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department ofWildlife Resources. map assembled 2024-12-13 11:13:41 (ga/qc March 21, 2016 12:20 tn=3090153.1 dist-3218 I) Spoi-36.9908200- -79.7123999 OIPRZNACANNEIRS of Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources IDWRI ICredits |Disclaimer IContact WebPolicyl ttps:/services.dwr.vrgina.gov/maps/z,MapFormjava.asp7autoscale-148.coord-LL&cisplay_only-1édist-32188dp-agapeap-ain-timmonseopoi-&over.. 2/2 12/13/24, 11:13. AM VAFWIS Seach Report Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources 12/13/2024 11:13:27AM Fish and Wildlife Information Service VaFWIS Search Report Compiled on 12/13/2024, 11:13:27 AM Help Known or likely to occur within a 2 mile buffer around polygon; center 36.9908200 -79.7123999 in 067 Franklin County, VA where (010127) Madtom, orangefin observed. View Mapof Site Location Threatened and Endangered Waters where Madtom, orangefin (010127) observed (61 Reaches ) View Map of All Threatenedand) Endangered Waters T&E Waters Species Stream Name Highest BOVA Code, Status * Tier ** View 9 9 Map TE* Common & Scientific Name Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River orangefin. gilberti FESE Yes (0185452 Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River orangefin gilberti FESE ) (0188979) Yes 010214 FESE IIa Logperch, Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River orangefin gilberti FESE Yes (0189853) Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River orangefin gilberti FESE Yes (0191756) Logperch, 010214 FESE IIa Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River orangefin gilberti FESE Yes (0201321 Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke ttps:/Iservices.dwrvirginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/arwIS_report.search.asp?pl-18Ttle-VaFWIS+Report* Searehscommoname-"adom,sorangetn. 1/3 12/13/24, 11:13. AM VAFWIS Seach Report Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Pigg River orangefin gilberti FESE Yes (0203820 Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke *FE-Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FP=Federal Proposed; FC=Federal Candidate; CC-Collection Concern **I-VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier I- Critical Conservation Need; II-VA Wildlife Action Plan Tier II - Very High Conservation Need; III-VA Wildlife. Action Plan Tier III - High Conservation Need; IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan Tier IV Moderate Conservation Need Virginia Widlife Action Plan Conservation Opportunity Ranking: a On the ground management strategiesactions exist and can be feasibly implemented.; b- On the ground actions or research needs have been identified but cannot feasibly be implemented at this time.; C- No on the ground actions or research needs have been identified or all identified conservation opportunities have been exhausted. Species Observations where Madtom, orangefin (010127) observed N/A Habitat Predicted for Aquatic WAP Tier I & II Species where Madtom, orangefin (010127) observed (2F Reaches ) View MapCombined Reaches from Below of] Habitat Predicted for WAPI Tier I& IAquatic Species Tier Species View Stream Name Highest * ** Map TE* BOVA Code, Status 9 Tier 9 Common & Scientific Name Madtom, Noturus 010127 ST IIb Glade Creek orangefin gilberti FESE Yes (30101011) Logperch, 010214 FESE Ila Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, 010127 ST IIb Noturus gilberti orangefin Pigg River FESE 010174 Ia Bass, Ambloplites Yes (30101011) Roanoke cavifrons 010214 FESE Ila Logperch, Percina rex Roanoke Madtom, 010127 ST IIb Noturus gilberti orangefin Pigg River Bass, Ambloplites FESE 010174 Ia Yes (30101011) Roanoke cavifrons 010214 FESE Ila Logperch, Percina rex Roanoke ttps:/Iservices.dwrvirginia.gov/wis/NewPagesNVaFwIS_report-search.asp?pt-18Tite-VarWIS+Report* SearhscommonName-Madom.orangein. 2/3 12/13/24, 11:13. AM VAFWIS Seach Report Habitat Predicted for Terrestrial WAP Tier I & II Species where Madtom, orangefin (010127) observed N/A Compiledo on 12/13/2024, 11:13:28 AM 13090153.1 report-BOVA searchType-P dist- 3218 poi- 36.5 9908200- -79.7123999 audit no. 3090153 12/13/2024 11:13:28AM Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service 1998-2024 Commonwealth ofVirginia Department ofWildlife Resources ttps:/Iservices.dwrvirginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/arwIS_report.search.asp?pl-18Ttle-VaFWIS+Report* Searehscommoname-"adom,sorangetn. 3/3 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) - Natural Heritage Data Explorer (NHDE) Natural Heritage Screen Layer Jacks Creek Conservation Site yaccour unt og DCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Home 1 Map MySubscription 4 Species/Communitie: Search Terms 5 Conditions About Us Contact US Help a Switch Basemap o AddResources o CreateP Project bp0le2m000 Finda address or place 9 Layers Make a Map Feature Search S Details (1 of 1): Documented NH * - Natural Heritage Resources AV Screening Layer Conservation Site a E Documented! NH: Screening Layer Layer: Documented NHS Screening Layer Conservation: Site ID: 338 - Predicted Habitats AV Conservation: Site Name: JACKS-CREEK a L Predicted Suitable Habitats Summary Biodiversity Rank: B2 a - Diabase Screening Layer Legals Status: NL a Karst Spelaea Screening! Layer Acres: 680 a Predicted Suitable Habitats By Taxa Description: This' "Irreplaceable" conservation: site delineates an area thatp provides habitat andb buffer - Managed Conservation! Lands A V forc one or more natural heritage resources/NHRS: = rare plants, animals, animal assemblages, a D Managed Conservation Lands significant natural communities or geologic - ConserveVirginia v3.0 AV - features) including: Irreplaceable! NHR and 1High Priority NHR. a D Conservevirginia v3.0 Type: Conservation: Site Essential Conservation Site?: YES- Irreplaceable - Wildlife Corridor Action Plan A V a D Wildlife Corridor Action Plan Zoom Flash 1 Conservation Planning AV 1 Tasks a D Potential Freshwater Mussel Richness a L Potentiall Rare Species Richness a D Ecological Cores a D Natural Land Network a Forest Conservation Values a J Watershed Impact Model a D Nature- -based Recreation. Access Model a D Cultural Resource Preservation Index a D Agricultural Model a D Development Vulnerability Model -Karst Research A V 1209ft a J Dye Inputs a - Monitor Points 9,028 a Dye Trace Vectors 9 Longitude: 79.7202 EPTREUESTATNCERET Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FVASMACMSAAYRtEZS Predicted Suitable Habitat Model Piedmont Fameflower yacount logout DCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Home - Map My Subscription 1 Specic/Communitic: Search Terms Conditions About Us Co JS Help D SwitchE Basemap e AddR Resources CreateP Project b0 918Pmooob address or place 9 Layers Makea a Map Feature Search Details (1 of Predicteds Suitable $ - A violer viola renuisecta Habitats By Taxa 1): 168: Piedmont Addison's Leatherflower fameflower Phemeranthus Appalachian Hedge- nettle piedmontanus Basill Mountain- mint Layer: Predicted Suitable Habitats By Taxa Bentley's coralroot Sub-layer: 168: Piedmont fameflower Blue Panic Grass PSH_VERSION: phempied 19July2019 Caper Fears Spatterdock SCIEN_ NAME: Phemeranthus piedmontanus Eastern Prairie White-t fringed Orchid COMMONNAME: Piedmont fameflower Foge'se goosefoot TAXGRP: Vascular Plant Fraser Fir PREDICTION: Predicted Suitable Habitat Harper's Fimbry Lasti update: Fri. Jul 19 2019 00:00:00 GMT-0400 Harperella (Eastern Daylight Time) Juniper sedge Shape_ length: 720981.871285 Lance -leaf Goldenrod Shape_Area: 54942170.342842 Long Beach See dbox Long stalked Holly Michaux' Sumac Millboro Leatherflower Zoom Flash Tasks - Mountain Doll's-daisy New Jersey Rush Northeastern Bulrush Peters Mountain mallow V Piedmont fameflower Raven's Seedbox Reclining Bulrush Roan mountain bluet Running Glade Clover sandhills bog lily Seabeach Amaranth Seaside Thoroughwort Sensitive. Joint -vetch Shale barren rock cress Shriver's frilly orchid Small Whorled Pogonia 1:9,028 Small- anthered Bittercress - - Smar anth Conafl AMAIREPVV Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS_FEMAI Esric Community Maps Contributors, VGIN, Esri, Tomom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, no Attachment 2: Cultural Resources Review DHRID Prope 033-5310 JacksCreel 033-5340 and Tobacc Cco rns Ruins 200 Franklin Turnpike ligi 33-02 POgHOLS Bap acK 033-0171 School, Rt662 132 33-026 uran, Martha, phesusChu 033-5308 use Holiday ane HR Staff NotEligible bac CCO 033-5342 uins Old Franklin Turpike (Route 40) DHRStaff NotEligible creFamily 33-5403 wards Cemetery, HollidayL Nearby DHRS Staff NotEligible 033-5627 Lme 2295 Jacks sCreek Road NotE ArchapeRes SiteName Sorth 12/13/2024 47661 040 DWAR RDS SOLAR MLHILL DTES urce lata from rom VGIN. REVISION CULTURAL RESOURCE MAP Legend Project Study Limits 108.87 Acres Half Mile Buffer (FEET Architecture Resources 600 1,200 BAEPATE AEENE Archaeological Resources 600 040- ERIAa Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5310 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, Jacks Creek Road DHR Staff: Not Eligible Property Addresses Current Jacks Creek Road Route 662 Countylndependent City(s): Franklin (County) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 24176 Magisterial District(s): Union Hall Tax Parcel(s): 0660010100 USGS Quad(s): PENHOOK Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Rural Acreage: 100 Site Description: May 2015: This abandoned and deteriorated log house is located on a 100-acre parcel on both sides of. Jackson Creek Road. The circa 1890 house faces west and is surrounded by encroaching vegetation except on the north side. It is immediately adjacent to aj power line transmission corridor on its north side. There are no outbuildings. Surveyor Assessment: May 2015: This is a common vernacular house that is in poor condition with low integrity. The resource is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource' Type: Single Dwelling NRI Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Noi Data Date of Construction: Ca 1890 Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Time Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 1916) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: Noi Data Architectural Style: Vernacular Form: Rectangular Number of Stories: 2.0 Condition: Poor Threats to Resource: Neglect, Structural Failure, Vacant Cultural Affiliations: Noi Data Cultural Affiliation Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: May 2015: This is a two-story log house with a side gable metal roof and log walls. The foundation is not visible. The roof is partially collapsed December 05, 2024 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5310 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data and there is vertical plank siding in the gable ends. There is a one-story rear metal shed addition on the west elevation. There are: no visible doors or windows. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Structural System and Horizontal Log Log Not Visible Exterior' Treatment Structural System and Other Other Siding Exterior Treatment Roof Side Gable Metal No Data Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: Noi Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: DHR Staff: Not Eligible DHR ID: 033-5310 Staff Name: Marc Holma Event Date: 1/6/2016 Staff Comment VDHR File #2014-1194. Event Type: Survey:Phase /Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2014-1194 Investigator: Ellen Turco Organization/Company: New South Associates Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 5/19/2015 Dhrl Library Report Number: FR-041 Project Staff/Notes: Ellen' Turco, David Price, Robbie. Jones Phase. I Reconnaissance. Architectural Survey for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Franklin County, Virginia New South. Associates, Inc. September 2015 2014-1194 FR-041 Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data December 05, 2024 Page: 2 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5340 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House and' Tobacco Barns Ruins, 9200 Old DHR Staff: Not Eligible Franklin Turnpike Property Addresses Current 9200 Old Franklin Turnpike Route 40 County/ndependent City(s): Franklin (County) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 24176 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): PENHOOK Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Rural Acreage: 58 Sitel Description: May 2015: Located off the: south side of Old Franklin Turnpike (Route 20), this resource consists of the ruins of a house and tobacco barns. The 58-acre parcel includes the remnants of fivel buildings, including the poured concrete foundation of a dwelling, and the collapsed ruins of three circa 1900 log tobacco barns. Surveyor Assessment: May 2015: The resource consists of the ruins of a dwelling and tobaccol barns. These buildings are no longer standing therefore lack distinctive architecture and materials integrity. The resource is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Agriceulure/Subaistenc: Resource' Type: Tobacco Barn NRI Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: No Data Date of Construction: Ca 1900 Date: Source: Site Visit Historic' Time. Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 1916) Historic Context(s): Subsistence/Agieulure Other ID Number: Noi Data Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: Noi Data Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Ruinous Threats to Resource: None Known Cultural. Affiliations: Noi Data Cultural Affiliation Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: December 05, 2024 Page: 1 of 4 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5340 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data May 2015: Barn 1:A ruinousl log tobacco barn consisting of no mo e than a pile of logs, cedar posts and som ne concrete. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Structural System and Horizontal Log Log Not Visible Exterior' Treatment Secondary Resource Information Secondary Resource #1 Resource Category: Agrieulure-Subistence Resource Type: Tobacco Barn Date of Construction: 1900Ca Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Time Period: Reconstruction: and Growth (1866 1916) Historic Context(s): Subsistence/Agnculure Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: No Data Condition: Ruinous Threats to Resource: Neglect, Structural Failure Cultural. Affiliations: No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: May 2015: Barn 3: A ruinous log tobaccol barn consisting of aj pile of cut framing limber and some stones. Number of Stories: 1 Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material' Treatment Structural System and Horizontal Log Log Not Visible Exterior Treatment Secondary Resource #2 Resource Category: AgnculureSubsistence Resource Type: Tobaccol Barn Date of Construction: 1900Ca Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Timel Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 1916) Historic Context(s): Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: No Data Condition: Ruinous Threats to. Resource: Neglect, Structural Failure Cultural Affiliations: No Data Cultural. Affiliation. Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: May 2015: Barn 2: This collapsed tobacco barn was built of saddle notched logs and mud daubing. On top of the debris pile is a metal roof. Number of Stories: 1 Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Structural System and Horizontal Log Log Other Exterior Treatment Roof Front Gable Metal No Data December 05, 2024 Page: 2 of 4 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5340 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Secondary Resource #3 Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling Date of Construction: 1900Ca Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Timel Period: Reconstruction: and Growth (1866 1916) Historic Context(s): Architecture/andscape Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: No Data Condition: Ruinous Threats to Resource: Demolition, Neglect, Structural Failure Cultural Affiliations: No Data Cultural Affiliation. Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: May 2015: This ruin consists of a rectangular concrete foundation. No framing members or building materials remain to discern the construction techniques materials, style or form. Number of Stories: No Data Secondary Resource #4 Resource Category: AgnculureSubsistence Resource' Type: Agricultural Bldg. Date of Construction: 1900Ca Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Timel Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 1916) Historic Context(s): Subsistence/Agriculure Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: No Data Condition: Ruinous Threats to Resource: Demolition, Neglect, Structural Failure Cultural Affiliations: No Data Cultural Affiliation. Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: May 2015: This ruin consists of a small foundation of uncut stones. Number of Stories: No Data Historic District Information Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: Noi Data CRM Events Event Type: DHR Staff: Not Eligible DHR ID: 033-5340 Staff Name: Marc Holma Event Date: 1/6/2016 Staff Comment December 05, 2024 Page: 3 of 4 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5340 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data VDHRI File #2014-1194. Event Type: Survey:Phase Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2014-1194 Investigator: James Marine Organization/Company: New South Associates Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 6/1/2015 Dhr Library Report Number: FR-041 Project Staff/Notes: Historic resources identified' by TetraTech archaeological staff Ellen Turco, David Price, Robbie. Jones Phase I Reconnaissance. Architectural Survey for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Franklin County, Virginia New South Associates, Inc. September 2015 2014-1194 FR-041 Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: May 2015: The resource is not accessible from the public right-of-way and was documented by Tetra Tech during the archaeological survey. December 05, 2024 Page: 4 of 4 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0172 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location Log House, Jacks Creek Road Not Evaluated Property Addresses Current Jacks Creek Road Route 662 Countylndependent City(s): Franklin (County) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 24176 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): PENHOOK Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Rural Acreage: No Data Site Description: April 2023: The house is located on the east side of Jacks Creek Road/State Route 662 in east. Franklin County. The house is set back approximately 201 feet from Jacks Creek Road and stands on a grassy, gently sloping parcel. There are no secondary resources associated with this property. Surveyor Assessment: April 2023: This ca. 1964 house on. Jacks Creek Road does not conform to an established architectural style. The building retains its historic form, log construction, and al historic window. Thel house is in fair condition and retains moderatei integrity. This house does not! possess remarkable architectural features and is not the work of an architect. Therefore, it is not recommended individuallye eligible for thel NRHP under Criterion C. Thel house has no known association with a significant event or person and is not recommended individually eligible for listing to the NRHP under Criteria A or B. As an architectural: resource, this property was not evaluated under Criterion! D. Based on the above criteria, the resource does not appear toj possess sufficient architectural or historical significance for individual listing and does not appear to contribute to a potential historic district. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling NRI Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Noi Data Date of Construction: Ca 1966 Date Source: Site Visit Historic Time. Period: The New Dominion (1946 1991) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other IDI Number: No Data Architectural Style: Other Form: Rectangular Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Good Threats to Resource: Neglect, Vacant Cultural Affiliations: Indeterminate Cultural. Affiliation Details: December 05, 2024 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0172 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Nol Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, 1970: One-story log cabin. Logs chinked with lime mortar. Weatherboard in the gable ends. Door and windows! have wood surrounds. April 2023: This one-story house is rectangular in form with a front gable roof. The exterior walls are constructed of saddle-notched, hewn logs. The roofing is corrugated metal. The double-hung wood sash windows are 4/1 and feature wood trim and wood sills. The central front entrance and window openings are covered with plywood. A double-hung 6/6 wood sash window remains intact on the north side elevation. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Structural System and Log Wood Other Exterior' Treatment Roof Gable, Front Metal Standing Seam Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood 6/6 Foundation Solid/Continuous Concrete Block Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: Noi Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No. Data Investigator: Kate Kronau Organization/Company: Hill Studio Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 4/18/2023 Dhrl Library Report Number: No. Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data Event Type: Survey:Phase /Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No. Data Investigator: Lee, M. Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media: No. Data Survey Date: 10/1/1970 Dhr Library Report Number: No. Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data December 05, 2024 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0172 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Notes: No Data December 05, 2024 Page: 3 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0261 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Current Primitive Baptist Ephesus Church Not Evaluated Property Addresses Current Gladehill & Union Hall, Between. Countylndependent City(s): Franklin (County) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): No Data Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): PENHOOK Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Noi Data Acreage: No Data Site Description: Nol Data Surveyor Assessment: Nol Data Surveyor Recommendation: Noi Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Religion Resource' Type: Church/Chapel NRI Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Noi Data Date of Construction: Date Source: Noi Data Historic' Time Period: Noi Data Historic Context(s): Religion Other ID Number: Noi Data Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Fair Threats to Resource: Deterioration Cultural Amliations: Noi Data Cultural Affiliation! Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: 3-bay nave Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Structural System and Frame Wood Other Exterior Treatment Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood 6/6 Chimneys Other Brick Other December 05, 2024 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0261 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Roof Gable, Front Metal Standing Seam Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: Noi Data Local Historic District Name: Noi Data Historic District Significance: Noi Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: Nol Data Investigator: Lee, Margaret Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media: No. Data Survey Date: 10/1/1970 Dhr Library Report Number: No. Data Project Staff/Notes: Nol Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data December 05, 2024 Page: 2 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0171 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location Rosenwald. School, Rt 662 Not Evaluated Historic Ephesus School Property Addresses Alternate Route 662 County/ndependent City(s): Franklin (County) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): No Data Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): PENHOOK Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Noi Data Acreage: Noi Data Sitel Description: Nol Data Surveyor Assessment: Nol Data Surveyor Recommendation: Nol Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Education Resource Type: School NRI Resource Type: Building Historicl District Status: No Data Date of Construction: Ca 1917 Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Time Period: World Warl Ito World War II (1917- 1945) Historic Context(s): Education Other ID Number: Noi Data Architectural Style: Other Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Poor Threats to Resource: None Known Cultural. Affiliations: No. Data Cultural Affiliation Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: One-story abandoned school house. Roof has overhanging eaves; small rectangular louvered vents in the gable peaks. Cornerboards: and wood surrounds around the door and window openings. Centrale entrance marked by shed roof hood with exposed rafter tails. Doors are missing; windows arel boarded over. Window openings vary; some are 9/9 sash, others appear to be 2/2 sash. Off-center rear entrance with shed roof hood similar to the front. Paneled wood entrance door. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment December 05, 2024 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0171 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Foundation Piers Stone Not Visible Roof Gable, Front Metal Standing Seam Structural System and Frame Wood Weatherboard Exterior Treatment Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: Noi Data Local Historic District Name: Noi Data Historic District Significance: Noi Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: Nol Data Investigator: Lee, M. Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media: No Data Survey Date: 10/1/1970 Dhr Library Report Number: No. Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data December 05, 2024 Page: 2 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0132 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Current Fralin Place Not Evaluated Property Addresses Current Route 40 Countylndependent City(s): Franklin (County) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): No Data Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): PENHOOK Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Noi Data Acreage: No Data Site Description: Nol Data Surveyor Assessment: Nol Data Surveyor Recommendation: Noi Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource' Type: Single Dwelling NRI Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Noi Data Date of Construction: 1845 Date Source: Noi Data Historic' Time Period: Antebellum Period (1830 1860) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: Noi Data Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: No Data Threats to Resource: No Data Cultural Amliations: No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: Nol Data Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Gable Metal Standing Seam Foundation Solid/Continuous Stone Not Visible Porch 1-story, 3-bay Wood Posts, Turned Chimneys Other Stone Other December 05, 2024 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0132 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Structural System and Log Wood Weatherboard Exterior Treatment Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood Other Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: Noi Data Local Historic District Name: Noi Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No. Data Investigator: WPA of Virginia Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media: No. Data Survey Date: 1/1/1937 Dhr Library Report Number: No. Data Project Staff/Notes: Nol Data Event Type: Survey:Phase Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: No. Data Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media: No. Data Survey Date: No Data Dhr Library Report Number: No. Data Project Staff/Notes: VHLC - Architectural Survey Form Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data December 05, 2024 Page: 2 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0262 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Current New Primitive! Baptist Ephesus Church Not Evaluated Property Addresses Current Between Gladehill & Union Hall County/ndependent City(s): Franklin (County) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): No Data Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): PENHOOK Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Noi Data Acreage: No Data Site Description: Nol Data Surveyor Assessment: Nol Data Surveyor Recommendation: Noi Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Religion Resource' Type: Church/Chapel NRI Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Noi Data Date of Construction: 1970 Date Source: Noi Data Historic' Time Period: The New Dominion (1946 1991) Historic Context(s): Religion Other ID Number: Noi Data Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Good Threats to Resource: None Cultural Amliations: No Data Cultural Affiliation! Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: -being built at time of survey. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Gable Asphalt Shingle Foundation Solid/Continuous Concrete Block Chimneys Other Brick Other Windows Casement Unknown Other December 05, 2024 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0262 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Structural System and Masonry Brick Bond, Stretcher Exterior Treatment Windows Sash, Double-Hung Unknown Other Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: Noi Data Local Historic District Name: Noi Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No. Data Investigator: Lee, A.C. Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media: No. Data Survey Date: 10/1/1970 Dhr Library Report Number: No. Data Project Staff/Notes: Nol Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data December 05, 2024 Page: 2 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0263 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Current Duran, Martha, House Not Evaluated Property Addresses No Address Provided. CountylIndependent City(s): Franklin (County) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): No Data Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): PENHOOK Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Noi Data Acreage: No Data Site Description: Secondary resource is an outbuilding. Surveyor Assessment: Nol Data Surveyor Recommendation: Noi Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource' Type: Single Dwelling NRI Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Noi Data Date of Construction: Ca 1800 Date Source: Site VisitPhotograph Historic' Time Period: Early National Period (1790 1829) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: Noi Data Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Number of Stories: 2.0 Condition: Fair Threats to Resource: Deterioration Cultural Amliations: Noi Data Cultural Affiliation! Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: 3-bay facade Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Gable, Side Metal Standing Seam Porch 1-story, 3-bay Brick Other Chimneys Exteriorl End Stone Other Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood 6/6 December 05, 2024 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-0263 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Foundation Solid/Continuous Stone Not Visible Structural System and Log Wood Weatherboard Exterior Treatment Secondary Resource Information Secondary Resource #1 Resource Category: Other Resource Type: Other Date of Construction: Ca Date Source: No Data Historic' Timel Period: Early National Period (1790 1829) Historic Context(s): Domestic Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Condition: Poor Threats to Resource: Deterioration Cultural Affiliations: No Data Cultural. Affiliation. Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: V-notchl log outbuilding with gable shake roof. Historic District Information Historic District Name: Noi Data Local Historic District Name: Noi Data Historic District Significance: Noi Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: Nol Data Investigator: Lee, Margaret Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media: No Data Survey Date: 10/1/1970 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Statl/Notes: No date of construction provided on survey. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data December 05, 2024 Page: 2 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5308 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, Holliday Lane DHR Staff: Not Eligible Property Addresses Current Holliday Lane County/ndependent City(s): Franklin (County) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 24176 Magisterial District(s): Union Hall Tax Parcel(s): 0660010500 USGS Quad(s): PENHOOK Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Rural Acreage: 1.8 Site Description: May 2015: Located on the west side of Holliday Lane is this 1.8-acre parcel that contains an abandoned and deteriorated log house. Overgrown by woods, the circa 18901 house faces east and is located on a sloping hillside immediately: next to aj power line corridor and clearing. There: is a modern farmstead immediately south that includes a mobile home, barn, and farm fields. Surveyor Assessment: May 2015: This is a common vernacular farmhouse that is inj poor condition with low integrity. The resource is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource' Type: Single Dwelling NRI Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Noi Data Date of Construction: Ca 1890 Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Time Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 1916) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: Noi Data Architectural Style: Vernacular Form: Rectangular Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Poor Threats to Resource: Neglect, Structural Failure, Vacant Cultural Affiliations: Noi Data Cultural Affiliation Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: May 2015: This is a one-story log farmhouse with a metal gable roof and asphalt siding over weatherboard siding. The foundation is not visible. December 05, 2024 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5308 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data There is an interior central brick chimney and there are no remaining doors or windows. There are: no outbuildings or other associated reso ces. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Chimneys Interior Central Brick Not Visible Structural System and Horizontal Log Log Other Exterior Treatment Structural System and Other Asphalt Siding Exterior Treatment Roof Front Gable Metal No Data Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: Noi Data Local Historic District Name: Noi Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: DHR Staff: Not Eligible DHR ID: 033-5308 Staff Name: Marc Holma Event Date: 1/6/2016 Staff Comment VDHR File #2014-1194. Event Type: Survey:Phase /Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2014-1194 Investigator: Ellen Turco Organization/Company: New South Associates Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 5/19/2015 Dhr Library Report Number: FR-041 Project Staff/Notes: Ellen' Turco, David Price, Robbie. Jones Phase I Reconnaissance. Architectural Survey for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Franklin County, Virginia New South. Associates, Inc. September 2015 2014-1194 FR-041 Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data December 05, 2024 Page: 2 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5342 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location Barn Ruins, Old Franklin Turnpike (Route 40) DHR Staff: Not Eligible Property Addresses Current Old Franklin Turnpike Route 40 Countylndependent City(s): Franklin (County) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 24176 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): PENHOOK Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Rural Acreage: 80 Site Description: May 2015: Located on an 80-acre parcel on the south side of Old Franklin Turnpike (Route 40) at thei intersection with Brooks Mill Road (Route 834), this property contains three 20th C. ruins: a house ruin, a stone tobaccol barn foundation, and a shed ruin. Surveyor Assessment: May 2015: The resource consists of the ruins of three buildings. The buildings do not possess enough physical integrity for evaluation under NRHP Criteria. A, B, or C. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling NRI Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Noi Data Date of Construction: Ca 1900 Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Time. Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 1916) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: Noi Data Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: Rectangular Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Ruinous Interior Plan: Other Threats to Resource: Neglect, Structural Failure Cultural Affiliations: Noi Data Cultural Affiliation! Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: May 2015: The house ruin consists of a standing stone chimney, stone piers, and hand-hewn, notched timber beams. An ell is indicated by December 05, 2024 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5342 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data foundation stones and the remains of a second chimney. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Foundation Piers Stone Uncoursed Secondary Resource Information Secondary Resource #1 Resource Category: Agriaulure-Subistence Resource Type: Agricultural Bldg. Date of Construction: 1900Ca Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Timel Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 1916) Historic Context(s): Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: Square Condition: Ruinous Threats to. Resource: Neglect, Structural Failure Cultural Affiliations: No Data Cultural. Affiliation. Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: May 2015: The tobacco barn foundation consists of an uncut stone foundation with a furnace opening. Number of Stories: 1 Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Foundation Solid/Continuous Stone Uncoursed Secondary Resource #2 Resource Category: Agriceulure-Subsistence Resource Type: Shed Date of Construction: 1900Ca Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Time Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 1916) Historic Context(s): Subsistence/Agnculure Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: Rectangular Condition: Ruinous Threats to Resource: Neglect, Structural Failure Cultural Allliations: No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: May 2015: The shed ruini is al log structure with an intact roof with metal over skip sheathing and weatherboarded gable ends Number of Stories: 1 Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material' Treatment Roof Front Gable Metal No Data Structural System and Horizontal Log Wood Weatherboard Exterior Treatment December 05, 2024 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5342 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Historic District Information Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: DHR Staff: Not Eligible DHR ID: 033-5342 Staff Name: Marc Holma Event Date: 1/6/2016 Staff Comment VDHR File #2014-1194. Event Type: Survey:Phase Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2014-1194 Investigator: James Marine Organization/Company: New South Associates Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 6/1/2015 Dhr Library Report Number: FR-041 Project Staff/Notes: Historic resources: identified' by TetraTech archaeological staff Ellen' Turco, David Price, Robbie. Jones Phase I Reconnaissance. Architectural Survey for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Franklin County, Virginia New South Associates, Inc. September 2015 2014-1194 FR-041 Bibliographic Information Bibliography: New South Associates Phase IArchitecture Survey for Mountain Valley Pipeline. 2015. Property Notes: May 2015: This resource is not accessible from the public right-of-way and was documented by Tetra Tech during the archaeological survey. December 05, 2024 Page: 3 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5403 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location Edwards Cemetery, Holliday Lane DHR Staff: Not Eligible Property Addresses Current Holliday Lane County/ndependent City(s): Franklin (County) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 24176 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): 660009502 USGS Quad(s): PENHOOK Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Rural Acreage: .13 Site Description: Jan. 2017: This 0.13-acre family cemetery is in a cleared field on the south side of Holliday Lane. Surveyor Assessment: Jan. 2017: The cemetery does not exhibit distinctive: funerary artistic work or design features nor is it known to be associated with a particular historic event or persons of transcendent importance. Therefore, the cemetery does not meet NRHP Criterion Consideration D: andi is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criteria. A, B or C. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Funerary Resource Type: Cemetery NRI Resource Type: Site Historic District Status: Noi Data Date of Construction: 1960 Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Time. Period: The New Dominion (1946 1991) Historic Context(s): Funerary Other ID Number: Noi Data Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: Noi Data Number of Stories: No Data Condition: Fair Threats to Resource: Public Utility Expansion Cultural Affiliations: No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: Jan. 2017:1 Four graves were observed in this small family cemetery, dating between 1960 and 2005. Two of the graves are marked with two commercially produced upright inscribed markers and four flush footstones. The inscriptions read as follows. December 05, 2024 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5403 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Edwards: Edmon King Edwards; Feb. 15 1886-June 23, 1960; Sallie M; 18, 1894-May 15, 1975. Edwards: Charles Abron Sr.; Nov. 20, 1912; Helen Mariel Holladay: May Apaill 1919-Janaury 17, 2004. One metal temporary funeral home marker was observed. The cemetery lacks any borders or enclosures. Cemetery Information Current Use: Family Historic Religious Affilitation: unknown Ethnic. Affiliation: No Data Has Marked Graves: True Has Unmarked Graves: False Enclosure Type: None Number Of Gravestones: 0-5 Earliest Marked Death Year: 1960 Latest Marked Death Year: 2005 Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: Noi Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: DHR Staff: Not Eligible DHR ID: 033-5403 Staff Name: Roger Kirchen Event Date: 6/27/2017 Staff Comment DHR File No.: 2014-1194 Event Type: Survey:Phase Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2014-1194 Investigator: Gail Hellman Organization/Company: New South Associates Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 3/16/2016 Dhr Library Report Number: VA-136 Project Staff/Notes: Turco, Ellen Addendum to the Phasel I Reconnaissance Architectural Survey for the Mountain Valley Pipeline: Summary Report, Pittsylvania, Franklin, Roanoke, Montgomery, Craig, and Giles Counties, Virginia - April 2017 New South Associates, Inc. DHR Report No. VA-136 Project Bibliographic Information: Phase I Reconnaissance) Historic. Architecture Survey for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, 2016 December 05, 2024 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5403 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: Phase I Historic Survey For Mountain Valley Pipeline, 2016 Property Notes: This resource was not visible: from the public right-of-way and was recorded by Tetra' Tech's archaeological field crew. This record has been supplement with information from the archaeological field crew, Google Earth maps, and county tax assessor's website, when available. December 05, 2024 Page: 3 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5627 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, 2295. Jacks Creek Road Not Evaluated Historic Arrington House Property Addresses Current 2295. Jacks Creek Road County/ndependent City(s): Franklin (County) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 24176 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): PENHOOK Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Rural Acreage: Noi Data Sitel Description: April 2023: The house is located on the west side of] Jacks Creek Road/Statel Route 662 in east Franklin County. The house is set back approximately 55 feet from Jacks Creek Road andi is oriented north. The house stands on a relatively flat, heavily wooded parcel. A semi-circular gravel driveway is located east of the house. A small cemetery stands in front of the house at the north end oft the parcel. A shed stands behind the house. Surveyor Assessment: April 2023: This ca. 19101 house at 2295. Jacks Creek Road is an example of the. American Foursquare form. The house is owned, and was likely built, by the Arrington family. The. house retains a relatively high level of integrity with all most ofi its historic materials and features remaining intact. The house is in fair condition with some of its windows missing. This house does not! possess remarkable architectural features and is not the work of an architect. Therefore, iti is not recommended individually eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C.1 Thel house has no known association with a significant event or person andi is not recommendedi individually eligible for listing to thel NRHP under Criteria. A or B. As an architectural: resource, this property was not evaluated under Criterion D. Based on the: above criteria, the resource does not appear toj possess sufficient architectural or historical significance for individual listing and does not appeart to contribute to aj potentiall historic district. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling NRI Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Noi Data Date of Construction: Ca 1910 Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Time. Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 1916) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: Noi Data Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: American Four-Square Number of Stories: 2.0 Condition: Fair Threats to Resource: Neglect, Vacant December 05, 2024 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5627 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Cultural Affiliations: Euro-American Cultural Affiliation Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: April 2023: This two-story house is rectangular in form with al hipped roof. The house stands on a concrete block foundation. Weatherboard siding sheathes the exterior walls. The roofingi is standing-seam metal. A hipped dormer protrudes form the front roof plane. The dormer features aj paired window opening, which is empty. Ani interior brick chimney and an exterior concrete block chimney extend above the roof. A one-story, full-width porch spans the front elevation. Thel hipped roof is supported by Tuscan columns, one of which is missing. The double- hung wood sash windows are 4/1 and feature wood trim and wood sills. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Hipped Metal No Data Structural System and Wood Frame Wood Weatherboard Exterior' Treatment Foundation Solid/Continuous Concrete Block Dormer Hipped Wood No Data Chimneys Interior Slope Brick Coursed Chimneys Exterior End Concrete Block Porch 1-Story Full-Width Wood Tuscan Windows Double-hung Wood No Data Secondary Resource Information Secondary Resource #1 Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Shed Date of Construction: 1950Ca Date Source: Site Visit Historic' Time Period: Thel New Dominion (1946 1991) Historic Context(s): Domestic Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: Rectangular Condition: Fair Threats to Resource: Neglect, Vacant Cultural Allliations: Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details: Nol Data Architectural Description: April 2023: The one-story shed! has ai front gable roof covered with standing-seam metal. The concrete block walls are painted. The shed is in fair condition. Number of Stories: 1 Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Front Gable Metal No Data Structural System and Masonry Concrete Block Exterior Treatment Secondary Resource #2 Resource Category: Funerary Resource Type: Cemetery Date of Construction: 1960Ca Date Source: Plaque/Sign Historic' Timel Period: The New Dominion (1946 1991) Historic Context(s): Domestic, Funerary Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: No Data Condition: Good December 05, 2024 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 033-5627 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Threats to Resource: None Known Cultural. Affiliations: Euro-American Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: April 2023: The Arrington family cemetery contains 6 graves. The cemetery is located north of the house with granite markers. The cemetery is in good condition. Current Use: Family Historic Religious Allilitation: NA Ethnic. Affiliation: European Descent Has Marked Graves: True Has Unmarked Graves: False Enclosure Type: None Number Of Gravestones: 6-10 Earliest Marked Death Year: No Data Latest Marked Death Year: No Data Historic District Information Historic District Name: Noi Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase /Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No. Data Investigator: Kate Kronau Organization/Company: Hill Studio Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 4/18/2023 Dhrl Library Report Number: No. Data Project Staff/Notes: Nol Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data December 05, 2024 Page: 3 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FR0358 Archaeological Site Record Snapshot Date Generated: December 05, 2024 Sitel Name: No Data Site Evaluation Status Site Classification: Terrestrial, open air Year(s): No Data DHR Staff: Not Eligible Site' Type(s): Artifact scatter Other DHR ID: Nol Data Temporary Designation: VA-FR-007/.VA-FR-006 Locational Information USGS Quad: PENHOOK County/Independent City: Franklin (County) Physiographic Province: Nol Data Elevation: Nol Data Aspect: Nol Data Drainage: Roanoke Slope: Nol Data Acreage: 0.700 Landform: Sideslope Ownership Status: Private Government Entity Name: Nol Data Site Components Component 1 Category: Domestic Site Type: Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation: Indeterminate Cultural. Affiliation! Details: No Data DHR' Timel Period: Reconstruction and Growth, World War I to World War II Start Year: No Data End Year: No Data Comments: No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data Archaeological site data is protected under the. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FR0358 Archaeological Site Record CRM Events Event Type: DHR Staff: Not Eligible DHR ID: 44FR0358 Staff Name: Roger Kirchen Event Date: 12/30/2015 Staff Comment 2014-1194 Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: Sitel Noted during shovel tests along pipeline survey area Project Review File Number: 2014-1192 Sponsoring Organization: No Data OrganrationCompany: Tetra Tech, Inc. Investigator: Robert Jacoby Survey Date: 5/4/2015 Survey Description: Archaeological sites surveyed along aj pipeline route through Franklin County, Virginia Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Agricultural field 5/12/2015 12:00:00. AM Abandoned Threats to Resource: Development Site Conditions: Subsurface Integrity Survey Strategies: Subsurface Testing, Surface Testing Specimens Collected: Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Glass window shards, nails (wire and cut), wood screw, glass vessel body shards, glass jar lid, semi-porcelain candy dish sherds (base, body, molded rim), stoneware sherds, whiteware sherds, whiteware cup base, whiteware bowl base sherd, Kaolin pipel bowl sherds, plastic 4 hole button, quartz primary flake. Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: Nol Data Current Curation Repository: Tetra Tech Permanent Curation Repository: Virginia Museum of Natural History Field Notes: No Field Notes Repository: No Data Photographic Media: Digital Survey Reports: Yes Survey Report Information: Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Phase 1 B Archaeological Survey Franklin County Survey Report Repository: VDHR DHR. Library Referencel Number: FR-040 Significance Statement: No Data Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations: No Data Surveyor's! NR Criteria Recommendations, : No Data Surveyor'sl NR Criteria Considerations: No Data Archaeological site data is protected under the. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 2 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FR0359 Archaeological Site Record Snapshot Date Generated: December 05, 2024 Sitel Name: No Data Site Evaluation Status Site Classification: Terrestrial, open air Year(s): No Data DHR Staff: Not Eligible Site' Type(s): Lithic scatter Other DHR ID: Nol Data Temporary Designation: VA-FR-0I1VA-FR-007 Locational Information USGS Quad: PENHOOK County/Independent City: Franklin (County) Physiographic Province: Piedmont Elevation: Nol Data Aspect: Nol Data Drainage: Roanoke Slope: Nol Data Acreage: 0.040 Landform: Sideslope Ownership Status: Private Government Entity Name: Nol Data Site Components Component 1 Category: npyPocinghtncin Site Type: Lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Native. American Cultural. Affiliation! Details: No Data DHR' Timel Period: Pre-Contact Start Year: No Data End Year: No Data Comments: dense woodlot with high sensitivity in proximity to wetland and stream. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data Archaeological site data is protected under the. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FR0359 Archaeological Site Record CRM Events Event Type: DHR Staff: Not Eligible DHR ID: 44FR0359 Staff Name: Roger Kirchen Event Date: 12/30/2015 Staff Comment 2014-1194 Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: Sitel Noted during shovel tests along pipeline survey area Project Review File Number: 2014-1192 Sponsoring Organization: No Data OrganrationCompany: Tetra Tech, Inc. Investigator: Robert Jacoby Survey Date: 5/4/2015 Survey Description: Archaeological sites surveyed along aj pipeline route through Franklin County, Virginia Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Forest 5/14/2015 12:00:00. AM No. Data Threats to Resource: Development Site Conditions: Subsurface Integrity Survey Strategies: Subsurface Testing, Surface Testing Specimens Collected: Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Quartz tertiary flakes, secondary scatter and biface Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: Nol Data Current Curation Repository: Tetra Tech Permanent Curation Repository: Virginia Museum of Natural History Field Notes: No Field Notes Repository: No Data Photographic Media: Digital Survey Reports: Yes Survey Report nformation: Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Phase 1 B Archaeological Survey Franklin County Survey Report Repository: VDHR DHR. Library Referencel Number: FR-040 Significance Statement: No Data Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations: No Data Surveyor's! NR Criteria Recommendations, : No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations: No Data Archaeological site data is protected under the. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 2 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FR0389 Archaeological Site Record Snapshot Date Generated: December 05, 2024 Sitel Name: No Data Site Evaluation Status Site Classification: Terrestrial, open air Year(s): No Data Not Evaluated Site' Type(s): Lithic scatter Other DHR ID: No Data Temporary Designation: VA-FR-039 Locational Information USGS Quad: PENHOOK County/Independent City: Franklin (County) Physiographic Province: Piedmont Elevation: Nol Data Aspect: Nol Data Drainage: Roanoke Slope: Nol Data Acreage: 0.100 Landform: Terrace Ownership Status: Private Government Entity Name: Nol Data Site Components Component 1 Category: npyPocinghtncin Site Type: Lithic scatter Cultural Affiliation: Native. American Cultural. Affiliation! Details: No Data DHR' Timel Period: Pre-Contact Start Year: No Data End Year: No Data Comments: No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data Archaeological site data is protected under the. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FR0389 Archaeological Site Record CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: Sites Noted along Phase IB work in Montgomery County Project Review File Number: 2014-1194 Sponsoring Organization: No Data Orgmizatiom/Company: Tetra Tech, Inc. Investigator: Gail Hellman Survey Date: 4/16/2016 Survey Description: Phase IB. Archaeological Survey in Franklin County Virginia Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Forest 4/11/2016: 12:00:00. AM No Data Threats to Resource: Development, Other Site Conditions: Site Condition Unknown Survey Strategies: Subsurface Testing, Surface' Testing Specimens Collected: Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Quartz: 20 flakes, 5 shatter Quartzite: 1 flake Fire Cracked Rock: I Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: Nol Data Current Curation Repository: Tetra Tech Permanent Curation Repository: Virginia Museum of Natural History Field Notes: No Field Notes Repository: No Data Photographic Media: Digital Survey Reports: Yes Survey Report Information: Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Archaeological Survey,Franklin County Phasel IB Addendum 1 Survey Report Repository: VDHR DHR: Library Reference Number: No Data Significance Statement: No Data Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations: No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, : No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations: No Data Archaeological site data is protected under the. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 2 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FR0494 Archaeological Site Record Snapshot Date Generated: December 05, 2024 Sitel Name: Edwards Family Cemetery North Site Evaluation Status Site Classification: Terrestrial, open air Year(s): 1960 2021 Not Evaluated Site' Type(s): Cemetery Other DHR ID: No Data Temporary Designation: Edwards Family Cemetery North Locational Information USGS Quad: PENHOOK County/Independent City: Franklin (County) Physiographic Province: Piedmont Elevation: 990 Aspect: Flat Drainage: Roanoke Slope: 2-6 Acreage: 0.020 Landform: Bench Ownership Status: Private Government Entity Name: Nol Data Site Components Component 1 Category: Funerary Site Type: Cemetery Cultural Affiliation: African American Cultural. Affiliation! Details: No Data DHR' Timel Period: Post Cold' War, The New Dominion Start Year: 1960 End Year: 2021 Comments: 2023: Start and end years based on observed headstone inscriptions. Further survey is needed. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data Archaeological site data is protected under the. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FR0494 Archaeological Site Record CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: 2023: DHR archaeologist Thomas Klatka Project Review File Number: No Data Sponsoring Organization: No Data Orgmizatiom/Company: DHR Investigator: Tom Klatka Survey Date: 8/23/2023 Survey Description: 2023: Field identification and documentation of sites based informant reports and recognized surface evidence. Surface collection and subsurface testing not conducted. Field methods relied by visual inspection and images. Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Cemetery 8/23/2023 12:00:00. AM No Data Dwelling, single 8/23/2023 12:00:00. AM 2023: Lawn and residence borders the north side of the cemetery. Threats to Resource: None Known Site Conditions: Intact Cultural Level, Surface Deposits, Surface Deposits Present But Subsurtace Not Tested, Surface Features Survey Strategies: Observation Specimens Collected: No Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Nol Data Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: Nol Data Current Curation Repository: No Data Permanent Curation Repository: No Data Field Notes: No Field Notes Repository: No Data Photographic Media: Digital Survey Reports: No Survey Report Information: Nol Data Survey Report Repository: No Data DHR Library Reference Number: No Data Significance Statement: 2023: the location of this cemetery was provided by a descendant of the. Edwards family. Thel Edwards Family Cemetery North is a small family cemetery bordering the southwest side of Holliday Lane (Private), and it is registered in thel Franklin County real estate records as a 0.13 acre parcel with parcel ID 0660009502. This parcel is located between two other Franklin County parcels ID 0660009501A and IDC 0660009503. Interested readers should review the site record and description for the neighboring cemetery named thel Edward Family Cemetery South. Existing surface evidence suggests there are seven graves oriented to the east and orderly alignedi in two rows. Death dates on the markers range from 1960 through 2021. Observed grave markers include two granite double markers, one single polished black granite marker, one military tablet markers and one grave marked with plastic flowers and what appears to be a deteriorated wood cross. The cemetery is covered with mowed grass that merges with the lawn of the adjacent parcel (Tax Ma # 066 000 9501A). White wooden fences marker the northeast and southeast corners of the cemetery. According to the family descendant, this cemetery (Edwards Family Cemetery North) and the cemetery on the neighboring parcel to the south (Edwards Family Cemetery South) were once a single cemetery, but land grading pushed away a series of graves to createt the appearance of two separate cemeteries. The descendant said the areal between the two cemeteries once held a group of graves marked with uninscribed fieldstones. Two attempts tos speak with the owner oft the neighboring parcel were unsuccessful. Non-intrusive geophysical survey of this cemetery, augmented by professional archaeological testing of a sample or all detected subsurface soil anomalies is needed to evaluate thei internal structure oft thel Edwards Family Cemetery North,t to review the validity of its boundaries and to assess thej possibility of other graves may exist between the Edwardsl Family Cemetery North and the Edwards Family Cemetery South, Archaeological site data is protected under the. Archaeological Resource! Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FR0494 Archaeological Site Record Surveyor's Eligibility Kecommendations: Recommended forl Further Survey Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations; : No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations: No Data Archaeological site data is protected under the. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 3 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FR0495 Archaeological Site Record Snapshot Date Generated: December 05, 2024 Sitel Name: Edwards Family Cemetery South Site Evaluation Status Site Classification: Terrestrial, open air Year(s): 1938 2022 Not Evaluated Site' Type(s): Cemetery Other DHR ID: No Data Temporary Designation: Edwards Family Cemetery South Locational Information USGS Quad: PENHOOK County/Independent City: Franklin (County) Physiographic Province: Piedmont Elevation: 1000 Aspect: Flat Drainage: Roanoke Slope: 2-6 Acreage: 0.020 Landform: Bench Ownership Status: Private Government Entity Name: Nol Data Site Components Component 1 Category: Funerary Site Type: Cemetery Cultural Affiliation: African American Cultural. Affiliation! Details: No Data DHR' Timel Period: Post Cold' War, The New Dominion, World' War 11 to World War II Start Year: 1938 End Year: 2022 Comments: 2023: Start and end years based on observed headstone inscription. Additional research is needed. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data Archaeological site data is protected under the. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FR0495 Archaeological Site Record CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: 2023: DHR archaeologist Thomas Klatka Project Review File Number: No Data Sponsoring Organization: No Data Orgmizatiom/Company: DHR Investigator: Tom Klatka Survey Date: 8/23/2023 Survey Description: 2023: Field identification and documentation of sites based informant: reports and recognized surface evidence. Surface collection and subsurface testing not conducted. Field methods relied by visual inspection and images. Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Cemetery 8/24/2023 12:00:00. AM No Data Forest 8/24/2023 12:00:00. AM 2023: Small cemetery is in a woodlot with young deciduous and pine trees. Threats to Resource: Neglect, Other Site Conditions: Intact Cultural Level, Surface Deposits, Surface Deposits Present But Subsurface Not Tested, Surface Features Survey Strategies: Observation Specimens Collected: No Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Nol Data Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: Nol Data Current Curation Repository: No Data Permanent Curation Repository: No Data Field Notes: No Field Notes Repository: No Data Photographic Media: Digital Survey Reports: No Survey Report Information: Nol Data Survey Report Repository: No Data DHR Library Reference Number: No Data Significance Statement: 2023: The location of this small family cemetery was provided by family descendant. Surface evidence consists of markers for two in a wooded area; however, other unmarked graves reportedly exist. The central paro of the cemetery is an open area covered with low grasses surrounded on four sides by a narrow band of deciduous and pine tree saplings with the light to moderate understory of scrub brush. Two small push piles of earth and tree debris in the southwest of the cemetery suggest the central of the cemetery was cleared with machinery int tper recent past. Thet two documented E consist of the grave of Bob O'Neal (1960-1922) marked by a temporary marker issued by Flora Funeral Home and four posts of cut PVC driven into the ground at the corners of a rectangular area, and a metal marker nearby PARe was issued by "Kimball Undertaking Co." for the grave of Andrew Edwards (1887- 1938). The Andrew Edwards marker is affixed to the ground! by a thin metal rod. This marker appears to be displaced from it associated grave and reset in the ground. According tot the family descendant, this cemetery (Edwards Family Cemetery South) and the cemetery on the neighboring parcel to the north (Edwards Family Cemetery North) were once a single cemetery, but land grading pushed away a series of graves to create the appearance of two separate cemeteries. The descendant said the area between the two cemeteries once helda a group of marked with uninscribed fieldstones. Furthermore, the land grading continuedi into EEN Edwards Family Cemetery South, cleared vegetation and, in thej process, disturbed a group of marked and unmarked graves that were in the central and northern part of this cemetery. Two attempts to speak with the owner of the neighboring parcel were unsuccessful. Nonintrusive geophysical survey oft this cemetery, augmented by professional archaeological testing ofa sample or all detected subsurface soil anomalies is needed to evaluate the internal structure of thel Edwards Family Cemetery South to review the validity Archaeological site data is protected under the. Archaeological Resource! Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FR0495 Archaeological Site Record ofi its boundaries and to assess thej possibility of other graves between the two cemeteries. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations: Recommended forl Further Survey Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, : No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations: No Data Archaeological site data is protected under the. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979). Page: 3 of 3 CEPSOLAR COMMONWEALTH ENERGY PARTNERS 8.12 Edwards Solar 2232 Analysis Edwards Solar Farm 26 Franklin County, Virginia Special Use Permit I. Va. Code $15.2-2232 "Substantially in Accord" Determination Va. Code $15.2-2232 provides that the County's Comprehensive Plan controls "the general or approximate location, character, and extent of each feature shown on the plan. ? For any "public utility facility" that is proposed after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the County's Planning Commission is tasked with determining whether the "general location or approximate location, character, and extent thereoflofthe, public utility. facility/.. is substantially in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof (emphasis added)." 99 Because the Project is considered a public utility facility pursuant to Va. Code $ 56-232, the Planning Commission is called upon to determine ifthe proposed "general location or approximate location, character, and extent" of the Project is "substantially in accord" with the Plan. In this context, substantially in accord" is interpreted to mean "largely, but not wholly." >1 II. The Project's Location is in Conformity with the Plan The Project Complies with the Zoning Ordinance The Franklin County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") is the primary tool used to implement the Plan. As a result, when evaluating a solar facility for conformity with the Plan, a foundational question to consider is how and whether the facility is permitted within the zoning district where it is proposed. The Ordinance defines a "utility-scale solar generation facility" as a renewable energy project that generates electricity from sunlight, consisting of one (1) or more photovoltaic systems and other appurtenant structures and facilities within the boundaries of the site, and is designed to interconnect with the electrical grid and/or to serve facilities that are not adjacent or under common use, ownership, or control."2 Importantly, the Ordinance permits utility-scale solar generation facilities on land zoned in the Agricultural District ("A-1") with a Special Use Permit ("SUP").3 Here, the Project would meet the utility-scale solar generation facility definition due to its planned interconnection with the electrical grid to serve facilities that are not adjacent or under common use, ownership, or control. The Project parcels are currently zoned A-1. Consequently, pursuant to the negotiated terms of a Special Use Permit, constructing and utilizing a utility-scale solar generation facility is an acceptable use of the parcels within the A-1 zoning district and therefore, conforms to the Ordinance and, by extension, the Plan. The Project is not Located in a Town, Village or Growth Area Here, the Project is not located in a Town, Village or Designated Growth Area, which is a requirement ofthe Plan. 4 By avoiding these areas, the Project will not occupy area the County has reserved for concentration of future growth. 1 The Albemarle County Land Use Law Handbook Kamptner/une 2016, p. H-2. 2 See, Franklin County, Va., Code ofOrdinances Ch. 25, $ 25-40 (further stating that in the context oft this ordinance, the acreage and boundary representing a utility scale solar generation facility includes the entirety of the area leased for use as a solar generating site). 3j Franklin County, Va., Code of Ordinances Ch. 25, $ 25-179. 4 Franklin County 2025 Comprehensive Plan at Chapter 11 (as amended by Franklin County Board of Supervisors Resolutions #19-07-2022 and #10-02-2023). 2611314039112383367v1 The Project will not adversely affect the County's soil, water or air One goal the Plan provides is preserving and improving the quality of the County's soil, water and air. 5 Strategically, the County aims to fully evaluate any new development proposal that intends to introduce hazardous waste into the atmosphere, soil or water, and ensure appropriate protective measures are incorporated into the construction process. 6 Importantly, the Project will not introduce any hazardous wastes into the atmosphere, soil or water. Except for second hand vehicle air emissions created during the construction phase of the Project, the Project will not create any airborne emissions nor will it utilize any ground or surface water. Regarding soil, the Project effectively 'saves' or 'banks' the underlying land by allowing it to lie fallow for the full life of the Project. This time allows the soil, and the microbes within it, to replenish, which ultimately improves the soil quality. The Project will also utilize the planting of native grasses and pollinator habitat under the panels and within the Project area to help improve rainwater absorption rates and improve local water quality. Pursuant to the stormwater management strategy in the Plan, the Project will have a stormwater management plan that includes low impact development techniques to equate pre- and post- development runoff, and the permit for the project will contain specific stormwater management terms and procedures. 7 The Project meets the County's Goals, Objectives and Strategies for Renewable Energy The County's amendments to Chapter 11 of the Plan provides goals, objectives and strategies for utility scale renewable energy in the County. 8 The main objective 1s to promote the use of utility scale solar generating facilities, while simultaneously minimizing the impact ofthose facilities on the County's natural, agricultural, scenic, tourism and cultural resources. 9 Some strategies for implementing that objective are: (I) avoiding impact of solar facilities on available farmland, including prime farmland and farmland of statewide significance; (II) screening facilities from public rights-of-way and adjacent properties; (III) avoiding visual impacts from the facilities on scenic and cultural resources; (IV) promoting agrivoltaics for farmers to still use certain areas of their land where solar facilities are located and (V) avoid allowing solar facilities in Designated Growth Areas. 10 As previously mentioned, the Project is not located within any of the three Designated Growth areas. The Project will also have 150 foot setbacks from roads and 300 foot setbacks from 51 Franklin County 2025 Comprehensive Plan at 11-9. 6 Franklin County 2025 Comprehensive Plan at 11-9. 71 Franklin County 2025 Comprehensive Plan at 11-9. 8 Franklin County 2025 Comprehensive Plan at Chapter 11 (as amended by Franklin County Board of Supervisors Resolutions #19-07-2022 and #10-02-2023). 9 Franklin County 2025 Comprehensive Plan at Chapter 11 (as amended by Franklin County Board of Supervisors Resolutions #19-07-2022 and #10-02-2023). 10 Franklin County 2025 Comprehensive Plan at Chapter 11 (as amended by Franklin County Board of Supervisors Resolutions #19-07-2022 and #10-02-2023). 2 2611314039112383367v1 all adjacent residences. A buffer will also be planted around the Project where there is no existing vegetation. These setbacks and buffers will provide adequate screening which will reduce visual impacts from the Project on the surrounding landscape. The Project land is not currently being used for agricultural purposes. Only a small fraction of the Project area includes prime farmland (9.2 acres). An additional 25 acres ofland classified as farmland ofstatewide importance are within the project area. The total Project area considered prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance is 34.2 acres which is approximately 0.013% of the land under those designations in Franklin County". The Project's Character, and Extent are in Conformity with the Plan. The Project will not Contribute to the County's Solid or Hazardous Waste The Plan makes note that the County must ensure long term capability to dispose of solid and hazardous waste. 12 Here, the Project will not create any solid or hazardous waste until decommissioning. Recycling and disposal of the decommissioned Project are outlined in the decommissioning section. The Project will Provide Direct and Indirect Economic Benefit to the County A major goal for the County is promoting a County economy that is expanding, diverse, environmentally sensitive and that creates more and betterjobs and business opportunities for local residents. 13 Here, the Project would contribute to the local tax base and would support local workers through construction jobs and ongoing operations and maintenance jobs without any offsetting demands for County services like schools or public utilities. The Project will provide significant revenue to the County both via local taxation and voluntary payments by the Applicant, which can be used to support core County services or other economic development efforts, as the Board of Supervisors may direct. 11 Hazler, K.R. and T.Tien. 2015. Virginia ConseryationVision: Agricultural Model, 2015 Edition. Natural Heritage Technical Report 15-13. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia. 43 PP 12 Franklin County 2025 Comprehensive Plan at 11-15. 13 Franklin County 2025 Comprehensive Plan at 11-6. 3 2611314039112383367v1 MEMORANDUM BERKLEY G R P Community Development Division To: Lisa Cooper, Director of Planning Franklin County, VA From: Michael Zehner, AICP, CFM, ENV SP, Director of Planning and Community Development Linds Edwards, ENV SP, Planner II Date: March 26, 2025 Subject: Zoning completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY As requested, on behalf of Franklin County we are providing a review to determine whether the application submitted by Edwards Solar Farm, LLC, Commonwealth Energy Partners ("the Applicant") for a 5 MW solar facility located along Jacks Creek Road near Old Franklin Turnpike (cover letter dated February 26, 2025; the Application") is complete, as well as compliant, with respect to applicable requirements of the Franklin County Zoning Ordinance ("FCZO"). Additionally, as requested, we are providing our review of the Special Use Permit Application to offer our opinion as to whether the Application meets the requisite findings allowing for the issuance of a Special Use Permit. ZONING COMPLETENESS AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW The Application has been reviewed for completeness and compliance with respect to the sections and subsections of the FCZO identified below. Based upon our review, and detailed below, it is our opinion that the Application is complete and compliant. The Application may proceed to consideration of the Application by the County's Planning Commission. Please note, this review has been performed to determine whether the Application includes all required materials and information, as well as materials and information necessary to conduct a complete review pursuant to S 15.2- 2232, Legal status of plan, of the Code of Virginia and the FCZO, and to determine that the project meets applicable and objective requirements and standards of the FCZO. Regulations applicable to the Application, as set forth in the FCZO and relevant to the completeness and compliance of the Application, are as follows, with the Berkley Group's interpretation of application completeness and/or compliance noted in bold underlined type: Page 1 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 Sec. 25-147. - Utility-scale solar generation facility. (a) Commencing on July 19, 2022, and continuing until amended by the board of supervisors utility-scale solar generation facility may be allowed in Franklin County by issuance of a special use permit by the board of supervisors in the A-1, M-1, M-2, PCD, and REP. (1) The cumulative acreage for all Utility-Scale Solar Generation Facility located in the zoned areas of Franklin County shall be 1,500 acres. Compliance anticipated; the Applicant has submitted an application for a solar facility as a primary use, and the subject property is zoned A-1. (b)Application. An application for a ulilify-scale solar generation facility shall contain: (1) Project narrative. A narrative identifying the applicant, facility owner, site owner, proposed operator, and describing the proposed facility including an overview of the facility and its location; the size of the site and the facility area; the current use of the site; the estimated time for construction and proposed date for commencement of operations; the planned maximum generated capacity of the facility identified as AC and/or DC; the approximate number, representative types and expected footprint of solar equipment to be constructed, including, without limitation, photovoltaic panels; ancillary facilities, if applicable; and how and where the electricity generated at the facility will be transmitted, including the location of the proposed electric grid interconnection; and a statement that addresses how the facility will be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The statement shall address the following: Complete; a Project Narrative has been provided and addresses all required information. (2) Concept plan. The concept plan shall include the following information: Page 2 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 Complete; a Concept Plan has been provided, however, it does not address the following. With respect to written confirmation from VDOT regarding the compliance of proposed entrances. we understand that both the Applicant and the County have been in communication with VDOT and have received preliminary comments, but that it is not the practice of the VDOT Residency to submit Final written comments at this stage of review. (3) Generalized landscaping and screening plan. The applicant must submit a landscaping and screening plan with the location, size, and type of planting yards including the use of existing and newly installed vegetation to screen the facility. A detailed landscaping and screening plan with plant species, size, number, spacing, and height will be required at the time of site plan review. Complete; a Landscaping and Screening Plan has been provided and includes all required information. (4) Identification of environmental and cultural resources. The applicant must submit the following: Complete and Compliant; environmental and cultural resources have been identified and analysis includes all required information. (5) Performance standards. The application shall comply with the following criteria: Complete and compliant; the Application meets required performance standards. (a) Visual impacts. The solar facility shall minimize impacts on view sheds, including from residential areas and areas of scenic, historical, cultural, archeological, and recreational significance. The facility shall utilize only panels that employ anti-glare technology, antireflective coatings, and other available mitigation techniques, all that meet or exceed industry standards, to reduce glint and glare. Complete and Compliant; a visual impacts analysis was provided and includes all required information. Page 3 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 (b)National standards. Facilities shall comply with generally accepted national environmental protection and product safety standards for the use of solar panels and battery technologies for solar photovoltaic (electric energy) facilities, such as those developed for existing product cerfifications and standards including the National Sanitation oundation/Amencon National Standards Institute No. 457, International Electro lechnical Commission No. 61215-2, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard 1547, and Underwriters Laboratories No. 61730-2. A site development plan shall refer to the specific safety and environmental standards being met. Complete and Compliant the Application includes the specification of panels and equipment to be used in the Project. (c)Setbacks. The facility area shall be set back a distance of at least a minimum one hundred fifty (150) feet from all property lines and public rights of way. A minimum setback of 300 feet is required from above ground solar infrastructure to any adjacent off-site residential structure. Exceptions to this distance may be made for adjoining parcels owned by the applicant. Increased setbacks over one hundred fifty (150) feet and additional buffering may be included in the conditions for a permit as required to reduce the visual impact of the facility. Access, erosion and stormwater structures, and interconnection to the electrical grid may be made through setback areas if such are generally perpendicular to the property line or underground. Complete and Compliant: setbacks are identified with dimensions on the Concept Plan and all required information is provided. (d)Fencing. The facility area shall be enclosed by security fencing not less than eight (8) feet in height and equipped with appropriate anticlimbing device such as strands of barbed wire on top of the fence. The height and/or location of the fence may be altered in the conditions for a particular permit. Fencing must be installed on the interior of the Page 4 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 vegetative buffer required SO that it is screened from the ground level view of adjacent property Owners. The fencing shall always be maintained while the facility is in operation. and posted with appropriate safety messaging. Fencing height and design shall be coordinated with the department of wildlife resources regarding wildlife fencing that would allow ingress and egress. Complete and Compliant: all fencing requirements are addressed, and Plans include all required information. (e) Vegetative buffer. A vegetative buffer sufficient to mitigate the visual impact of the facility as approved by the zoning administrator is required. The buffer shall consist of a landscaping strip at least thirty (30) feet wide, shall be located within the setbacks required under subsection (3) above, and shall run around the entirety of the area proposed for development. The buffer shall consist of existing vegetation and as needed, an installed landscaped strip consisting of multiple rows of staggered trees and other vegetation. This buffer should include vegetation a minimum of six (6) feet high at planting and reasonably expected to grow to full maturity within three (3) years. The planning commission or board of supervisors may require increased setbacks and additional or taller vegetative buffering in situations where the height of structures or topography affects the visual impact of the facility. Non-invasive plant species and polinator-friendly and wildlife-friendly native plants, shrubs, trees, grasses, forbs, and wildflowers must be used in the vegetative buffer following Virginia Pollinator-Smart Program best practices. Screening and/or buffer creation requirements may be waived or altered for alternative designs such as landscaped berms, existing wetlands, or woodlands, if the berms, wetlands, or woodlands are permanently protected and maintained for use as a buffer. Existing trees and vegetation must be maintained within such buffer areas except where dead, diseased, or as necessary for development or to promote healthy growth, and such trees and vegetation may supplement or satisfy landscaping requirements as applicable and approved by the zoning administrator. If existing trees and vegetation are disturbed, new plantings shall be provided for the buffer at least six (6) Page 5 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 feet tall at planting. The vegetative buffer shall be maintained for the life of the facility. Complete and Compliant; all vegetative buffer requirements and landscaping renderings include all required information. (f) Pollinator habitats. The facility area shall be seeded promptly with polinator-friendly vegetation following completion of construction in such a manner as to reduce invasive weed growth and trap sediment within the facility area. At the beginning of the next planting season the facility area, setbacks and buffers will be overseeded with appropriate pollinator-friendly native plants, shrubs, trees, grasses, forbs, and wildflowers following Virginia Pollinator-Smart Program best practices. Once these pollinator habits are established, maintenance of the site shall follow Virginia Pollinator-Smart Program best practices unless Agrivoltaics (APV) are employed. Complete and Compliant; the vegetation will meet all the pollinator-friendly requirements as outlined by the ordinance. The Project will have an agrivoltaics component and sheep grazing information has been provided. (g) Height. Ground-mounted solar energy generation facilities shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet, which shall be measured from the highest natural grade below each solar panel. This limit shall not apply to utility poles and the interçonnection to the overhead electric utility grid that meet state corporation commission requirements. Complete and Compliant; equipment will not exceed 15 feet from the highest grade and at maximum panel tilt. (h) Lighting. Lighting shall be limited to the minimum reasonably necessary for security purposes and shall be designed to minimize off-site effects. Lighting on the site shall be dark sky compliant. Compliance anticipated: lighting is planned only where necessary for security and shall be dark sky compliant. Page 6 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 (i) Density; location. Solar facilities shall not be located within one (1) mile of an airport unless the applicant submits, as part ofits application, written certification from the Federal Aviation Administration that the location of the facility poses no hazard for, and will not interfere with, airport operations. The applicant must also provide a glint and glare study that demonstrates that the panels will be sited, designed, and installed to eliminate glint and glare effects on airport operations. The study must be conducted by qualified individuals using appropriate and commonly accepted software and procedures. Complete and Compliant; FAA certifications and a glint and glare study have been provided and include all required information. () Panel materials. Applications shall describe all materials included in the proposed solar panels for the facility. All solar energy facility structures, racks and associated facilities shall have a non-reflective finish or appearance. Complete and Compliant; specific solar panel materials and technology are provided and include all required information. (c)Processing and approval standards. (1) Community meeting. A public meeting shall be held prior to the public hearing with the planning commission to give the community an opportunity to hear from the applicant and ask questions regarding the proposed facility. The meeting shall be held under the following guidelines: Compliance presumed; the reviewer is not aware of the date of the pre-application meeting, but presumes that the required meeting was held. (3) Designated growth areas. Utilify-scale solar generation facilities shall be excluded from designated growth areas (DGA). Compliant: the Projectis not located within designated growth areas. Page 7 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW The Application has been reviewed relative to the requisite findings contained in the FCZO allowing for the issuance of a Special Use Permit. Specifically, pursuant to Section 25-638, ssuances reserved for board of supervisors, "Special use permits for uses as provided in this chapter may be issued upon a finding by the Franklin County Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the zoning district will not be changed thereby, and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter, with the uses permitted by right in the zoning district, with additional regulations provided in sections 25-111 through 25-137, supplementary regulations, and amendments, of this chapter, and with the public health, safety and general welfare." Further, since the project constitutes a public utility subject to Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, Section 25-645, Review of public used for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, of the FCZO is relevant with respect to the review of the Application. Section 25-645 states, in part, that "No... .public utility. shall be constructed, established, or authorized, unless or until the general location or approximate location, character and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by the commission as being substantially in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. In connection with any such determination, the commission may establish such conditions of approval as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the comprehensive plan." Relevant Comprehensive Plan Citations Chapter 11 (Utilities) Goals: "This plan will also be consistent with the County's plan for environmental quality and the Commonwealth's goals for renewable energy." Objectives: 36. 0- To promote the use of residential, commercial, and utility scale renewable energy in the way of solar generator facilities and wind turbines while minimizing the impact of such facilities on Franklin County's viewshea and the County's natural, agriculturai, scenic, tourism, and cultural resources. Strategies: a) Avoiding impact of solar facilities and wind turbines on available farmland, including prime farmland and farmland and statewide significance. To help minimize the impact, the County desires to have no more than 1,500 cumulative acres Page 8 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 of leased area occupied by utility scale solar projects throughout the County. b) Solar facility should be screened from all public rights of way and all adjacent properties. c) Solar facilities should not visually impact scenic and cultural resources including the viewshed from residential areas and event venue spaces. d) Promote sustainable building design and management practices to serve current and future generations. e) Assist local business to lower financial and regulatory risks and improve their economic, community, and environmental sustainability. f) Promote Agrivoltaics (APV) for farmers to still use the area of their land where solar facilities are ocated. g) Solar facilities should not generally be ocated within designated growth areas (DGAS). h) Proposed project shall be evaluated for compliance with the most recently adopted Solar Energy Facility Siting Policy document to assist the county in making substantial accord determinations under section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia. This policy shall serve as guidance for County staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors to evaluate whether the proposal is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis and Comments The reviewers have reviewed and analyzed the Application and the above referenced Comprehensive Plan citations to determine whether the project is substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Please consider the following: With respect to the Utilities policy area, the reviewers are of the opinion that the proposed facility can be characterized as safe development that generally minimizes, or will minimize through reasonable conditions, impacts to land uses, properties, and the environments. With respect to the Chapter 11, Objectives, the reviewers are of the opinion that significant areas of the project will remain undeveloped, and the project is designed to minimize environmental impacts, to coexist with the natural environment, and/or such impacts will be minimized through reasonable conditions. Page 9 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 With respect to Chapter 11 Strategies, (a), the reviewers are of the opinion that the project will avoid impacts to prime agricultural soil through revegetation, and is not currently farmed, nowever a small portion of the project area includes prime farmland (6.2 acres). An additional 26.6 acres of land classified as farmland of statewide importance are within the project area. The total project area considered prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance is 32.8 acres, which is 0.012% of the land under those designations in Franklin County. Additionally, the Project does not result in the leased area, occupied by Utility scale solar projects throughout the County, exceeding 1,500 cumulative acres. With respect to Chapter 11 Strategies, (b, c), screening is proposed, and the reviewers are of the opinion that the topography of the site and the project design provides sufficient mitigation for any adverse visual impacts to public rights-of-way, adjacent properties, natural and historic resources, and scenic viewshed from the project. The reviewers have included a recommended condition that is intended to reinforce this (Condition #6). There are 17 known Architecturai and Archaeological resources located within 1 mile of the project area, including the Edwards Family Cemetery. It is important to note that the project will entirely encompass a Historic House, Jacks Creek Road (DHR ID 033-5310) and is directly adjacent to Historic House and Tobacco Barns Ruins, Old Franklin Turnpike (DHR ID 033- 5340). With respect to Chapter 11 Strategies, (d, e, f), the proposed project will generate renewable energy for future generations. Additionally, the project will generate revenue for the County and increase the community's environmental sustainability. With respect to Chapter 11 Strategies (g), the proposed solar facility is not located within a Designated Growth Area. With respect to Chapter 11 Strategies (h), the proposed solar facility has been evaluated to determine if the location, extent, surrounding uses, and benefits are substantially in accord with the County's Comprenensive Plan. Additionally, the reviewers have reviewed and analyzed the Application relative to the findings for Special Use Permits. The reviewers are of the opinion, that with the imposition of reasonable conditions and current adjacent land uses, the proposed use may not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the subject zoning district may not be changed by the Page 10 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 proposed use, and that such use may be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the FCZO and with the uses permitted by right in the zoning district, and that the use complies with applicable supplementary regulations. Open questions relate to whether the Applicant has sufficiently accounted for ESC and stormwater management in the design of the Project, given the exclusion of these features from the Concept Plan. While the County's Ordinance does not explicitly require the inclusion of ESC and stormwater management information as part of plans and information submitted for an SUP application, Sec. 25-147.(b)(2)(K) allows for additional information to be required as determined by the Zoning Administrator, planning commission, or board of supervisors. It would seem prudent to require additional information, especially plan elements, given concerns regarding viability of the design without anticipated features and practices depicted. Special Use Permit Recommended Conditions The reviewers recommend consideration of the following conditions if the Application is to be approved: 1. The project Applicant shall develop, construct, operate, and maintain the site in substantial conformance with the conceptual plans (titled "Edwards Solar Land, LLC, Preliminary Site Layout C3.0, dated December 11, 2024), all assurances and commitments made within the Application materials, and the conditions imposed on the issued special use permit, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Substantial conformance will be determined by the Zoning Administrator based on their review of the record. Deviations determined not to be in substantial conformance with the conceptual plans shall require review and approval as an amendment to the special use permit, following the process for the granting of a special use permit. As used in these conditions, the term Applicant" shall include the terms Applicant, Owner, Developer, or Operator, 1 and the successors and assigns thereof, and the term "Zoning Administrator" shall include the designee of Zoning Administrator. 2. Project capacity shall be limited to a maximum of 5 MW. 3. The active developed area of the site, within the fenceline, shall be limited to 36.5 acres; inverters, along with panels, shall be within the enceline. 4. The Applicant shall give the County written notice of any change in ownership or entities responsible for operations or asset management of the project within thirty (30) days after the change. Page 11 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 5. Prior to or in conjunction with site plan review, the Applicant shall submit details on the utility connections oetween noncontiguous portions of the project, including secured easements, to the Zoning Administrator for approval. Approval of the site plan or subsequent permits shall not be granted without prior approval of these connections by the Zoning Administrator, or without the existence of executed easements for the connections. 6. Prior to or in conjunction with the site plan review, the Applicant shall submit an additional viewshed analysis depicting visibility of developed site conditions along Jacks Creek Road, near Old Franklin Turnpike. Where installed equipment or portions thereof are anticipated to be visible above required buffer plantings based upon site topography, the Applicant shall submit an alternative buffer plan for these areas that accommodates additional screening and/or berming to reasonably screen equipment from view, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 7. A separate security shall be posted for the ongoing maintenance of the project's land cover and vegetative buffers in an amount deemed sufficient by the Zoning Administrator as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto, and provided by an issuer in a form and amount, acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party). 8. As part of the site plan review, the Applicant shall be required to submit a construction monogemen/coninvcion mitigation plan, to be reviewed and approved by VDOT and the Zoning Administrator. At a minimum this plan shall address and/or include: a. Traffic control methods for all public roads to be used for ngress/egress (in coordination with the VDOT prior to initiation of construction) shall include, at a minimum, plans and procedures for lane closures, signage, and flagging. b. Coordination with VDOT prior to initiation of construction on the appropriateness of the speed limit on any public access road and support a speed limit reduction, if necessary. C. Site access planning, including procedures for directing and coordinating employee and delivery traffic. Construction Traffic shall be limited to 7:00 am to 9:00 pm, Monday through Page 12 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 Saturday, or as may be approved by the Zoning Administrator upon good cause shown by the Applicant. d. Site security. e. Lighting; during construction of the facility, any temporary construction lighting shall be positioned downward, inward, and shielded to eliminate glare from all adjacent properties. Emergency and/or safety lighting shall be exempt from this construction lighting condition. f. Hours of construction. g. Coordination with erosion and sediment plans to mitigate dust and dirt on the roadways. h. Mitigation of burning operations. Issuance of permits by Franklin County Fire Marshal. i. Plans for staging and storage of materials and parking. During construction, the setback may be used for staging of materials and parking. No material and equipment laydown area, construction staging area, or construction trailer shall be located within 200 feet of any property containing a residential dwelling. 9. The Applicant shall submit a traffic management plan to include entrances and comply with all Virginia Department of Iransportation conditions for the traffic management plan during construction and decommissioning of the Solar Facility. 10. The Applicant shall be responsible for repairing any damage to roadways occurring during development/Construction or following commissioning of the project, or any portion thereot. Prior to the commencement of evecpmen/cominuction activities, VDOT, the County, and the Applicant shall agree to the existing state of applicable roadways, to be documented by video furnished by the Applicant in coordination with VDOT. During development/Cent/construction, the roadways shall be monitored for damage, and the Applicant, once notified by VDOT of damages, shall make repairs caused by construction traffic at the direction of VDOT. After construction activities are completed, the roadways will be evaluated for damage as measured against the condition prior to construction activity; the Applicant will be required to Page 13 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 restore such roadways to equivalent or better condition as existed prior to commencement of construction activity. 11. The Applicant shall coordinate with the County's Sheriff Department prior to initiation of construction on speed monitoring plans and devices. 12. As part of the site plan review, the Applicant shall be required to submit a grading plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. A bond or other security, from an issuer and in a form approved by the Zoning Administrator, will be posted for the grading operations. The Project shall be constructed in compliance with the Grading Plan. At a minimum this plan shall address: a. Clearly show existing and proposed contours; b. Note the ocations and amounts of topsoil to be removed (if any) and the percent of the site to be graded; C. Limit grading to the greatest extent practicable by avoiding steep slopes; d. An earthwork balance will be achieved on-site with no import or export of soil except for importing specific quality soils required for construction; e. In areas proposed to be permanent access roads which will receive gravel or in any areas where more than a few inches of cut are required, topsoil will first be stripped and stockpiled on-site to be used to increase the fertility of areas intended to be seeded; f. Take advantage of natural flow patterns in drainage design and keep the amount of impervious surface as low as possible to reduce storm water storage needs; and g. Provide for the installation of all stormwater and erosion and sediment control infrastructure "Stormwater Infrastructure) at the outset of the project to ensure protection of water quality. Once all Stormwater Infrastructure is complete and approved by the VESCP authority, no more than 50% of the land disturbance areas as reflected on the Site Plan shall be disturbed without soil stabilization at any one time. Stabillzation, for purposes of erosion and sediment Page 14 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 control, shall mean the application of seed and straw to disturbed areas, which shall be determined by the VESCP authority. 13.The Erosion and Sediment Control plan shall comply with the most recent version of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook at the time of construction. The County will have a third-party review with corrections completed prior to the County review and approval. The owner or operator shall construct, maintain, and operate the project in compliance with the approved plan. An E&S bond (or other security) shall be posted for the construction portion of the project, to be provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party) as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto. a. To the maximum extent practicable, trees and stumps removed during the course of development shall be mulched on site, with such mulch to be used to mitigate and control stormwater runoff during construction. b. To the maximum extent practicable, topsoil from the site should be maintained on site for areas were grading occurs that exposes unsuitable soils where erosion and sediment control vegetation will not take; soil analysis shall be oerformed to assess the adequate seed mix for exposed soils. 14.The stormwater control plan shall comply with the most recent State policies and regulations at the time of design and construction. The County will have a third-party review with corrections completed prior to submittal for DEQ review and approval. The owner or operator shall construct, maintain, and operate the project in compliance with the approved plan. A storm water control bond (or other security) provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator or Program Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party) shall, be posted as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto. 15.Ground cover shall be native vegetation where compatible with site conditions and, in all cases, shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator, who may rely on the assistance of a third-party reviewer. 16.Only EPA approved herbicides shall be used for vegetative and weed control at the solar energy facility by a licensed applicator. No nerbicides shall be used within 150 feet of the location of an approved ground water Page 15 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 well. The Applicant shall submit an herbicide land application plan prior to approval of the certificate of occupancy (or equivalent). The plan shall specify the type of nerbicides to be used, the frequency of land application, the identification of approved groundwater wells, wetlands, streams, and the distances from land application areas to features such as wells, wetlands, streams, and other bodies of water. The operator shall notify the County prior to application of pesticides and fertilizers. The County reserves the right to request soil and ground and/or surface water testing. 17.For permanent security fencing, a performance bond reflecting the costs anticipated for fence maintenance shall be posted as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto, provided by an issuer in a form and amount acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (who may rely on the opinion of a third-party). 18.No fence or similar barrier shall cross the main channel of any stream or through a wetland flagged by County staff on a site plan. 19.Permanent entrance roads and parking areas, as designated in the erosion and sediment and stormwater management plan, will be stabilized with gravel, asphalt, or concrete to minimize dust, and impacts to adjacent properties. Roads internal to the site that are not part of ingress/egress to the site may be compacted dirt. 20.All physically damaged panels or any oortion or debris thereof shall be collected by the solar facility operator and removed from the site or stored on site in a location protected from weather and wildlife and from any contact with ground or water until removal from the site can be arranged; the County must be notified of damaged panels and/ or debris and storage of damaged panels or portion or debris thereof shall not exceed thirty (30) days. 21.Subject to the requirement that the County provide the Applicant with an estimate of the third-party costs prior the expense being incurred (when applicable County permit fees do not cover assumed costs), the Applicant shall reimburse the County its reasonable costs in obtaining independent third-party reviews as required by these conditions and for the review of the site plan (including all specific plans thereof), Erosion and Sediment Control plan, decommissioning cost estimates, and bi- annual inspections during operations to verify compliance with all permits and approvals. The Applicant shall also fully fund any temporary or Page 16 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 permanent signage as requested or required by the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"), as well as any costs associated with traffic planning or traffic mitigation. 22. The design, installation, maintenance, and repair of the Solar Facility shall be in accordance with the most current National Electric Code (NFPA 70) available (2014 version or later as applicable) and State Building Code at the time of construction. 23.Inspections. a. The Applicant will allow designated County representaives or employees access to the facility at any time during and after construction and for inspection purposes during normal business hours with 24-hour notice. b. The Applicant shall reimburse the County its reasonable costs in obtaining an independent third-party to conduct inspections required by local and state laws and regulations when those costs exceed the Applicant's building permit fee. 24.Emergency Access, Response, and Training. a. The Applicant shall submit an Emergency Response Plan (the "ER Plan") with the submission of the site plan. The ER Plan shall include fire suppression methods that can be immediately deployed during both the construction and operation of the project. The ER Plan shall also include a program of education and training to be provided for County emergency response staff covering onsite emergency response, as well as information on how the facility will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to allow for access by County emergency response staff in the event of an emergency. b. Prior to the end of construction of the Project Site, the Applicant, shall hold training classes with the County's first responders (Fire and Rescue) to provide materials, education, and training on responding to on-site emergencies, to include the provision of information and any necessary equipment to allow first responders to gain access to any part of the facility in the event of an emergency. The training classes shall be scheduled with the assistance of the County's Public Safety Coordinator or designee. Page 17 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 C. The Applicant shall provide on-going training as deemed necessary by the Public Safety Coordinator or designee. d. In the event any upgrades or changes in technology associated with the Solar Facilities results in any change in emergency procedure, including the manner of access to the facility, the Applicant will notify the County Public Safety Coordinator, who may, at their discretion, schedule an additional training on the new equipment. 25. Compliance. The Solar Facilities shall be designed, constructed, and tested to meet relevant local, state, and federal standards as applicable. The Applicant must provide document(s) that the Project has met all national standards. 26. The Special Use Permit shall be terminated if the solar facility does not receive a building permit within 24 months after the Applicant receives any approvals of the regional transmission organization for interconnection to the power grid. The Board of Supervisors, with a written request from the Applicant detailing the reasons for a requested extension, may approve a one-time extension of the 24 months to 36 months. 27.lf the Solar Facilities are declared to be unsafe, due to a violation of building or electrical codes, as determined by the fire marshal or building official, and the Applicant of the Facilities fails to respond in writing to such official within seven (7) days, the County may revoke the right for the Facilities to continue operation until the unsafe condition is brought into compliance with the applicable building or electrical code. If the unsafe condition cannot be remedied within six (6) months, the Conditional Use Permit shall be terminated, and the Solar Facilities shall be decommissioned. 28.The Applicant shall provide the County with a list of capital equipment, including but not limited to solar photovoltaic equipment proposed to be installed, whether or not it has yet been certified as pollution control equipment by the State Corporation Commission or Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and lists of all other taxable tangible property. Thereafter, on an annual basis, the Applicant shall provide the County with any updates to this information. Further, any information that is provided to the Virginia State Corporation Commission in the future, for Page 18 of 19 Berkley Group - Memorandum Zoning Completeness Review - Edwards Solar, 5 MW Franklin County, VA March 26, 2025 the Commission's use in valuing such property for taxation purposes, shall also be provided to the County in a timely manner. 29.The County may engage a professional construction project manager with demonstrated experience in the development of utility-scale solar facilities during the corainvcion/devacpment of the project, with the requirement that reasonable costs of such engagement shall be reimbursed by the Applicant. The role of this project manager will be to serve as a primary point of contact oetween the County and the Applicant with respect to all aspects of the construction and development of the facility and to assist the County and its staff and any associated third-party consultants in coordinating the compliant development of the facility consistent with all applicable local, state, and federal permits, ordinances, codes, regulations. Schedule A Security of Performance = Summary of Securities Condition Performance Being Secured Duration Reference 12 Grading Construction phase 13 Erosion & Sediment Control 14 Stormwater Management 7 Land cover & vegetative buffer maintenance Full lifecycle 17 Security fencing Posting and release of bonds shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in the applicable County Ordinances and Code. Page 19 of 19 33 24 ourg Cave Spring YNVILL MOUNTAL Shawsville air lashinglo mith Mountain ke Airport Mow GR HILL ASSY o Rocky Mount Union Hall - - : retna Rd Gretna 568 'Ferrum Airpo 220 vou Callands Rd 57) Chatham d - HO Bassett Tax Map #: 0660010100; 0660003900 SPEC-03-25-18247 Subject Property Location Edwards Solar Farm, LLC 1.5 3 12 Date: 4/9/2025 Miles 0660004201 0660004401 0660009900 - 0660009601 0660100200 0660100700 a 0660004301 0660004400 0660010101 0660009501 0660009502: 0660100100 0660100600 L 0660009501A 0660100400 0660003802 0660004403 0660010103 0660009502A 0660004404 0660010000 0660009503 0660004200 0660010000 0660101200 0660004402 0660009500 o 0660010104 0660009504 2 0660010102 S4 / 0660009505 0660003801 K 0660010105 - 0660009400, 0660010200 0660009200 a 0660010105A - 0660010105C 0660010300 0660009300 0660010105B 0660010400 0660010106 0660010602 0660004300 0660010500 0660010601 0660010600 0660004100 0660010600 0660010100 0660010601 0660004000 ) 0660003900 0660010700 0660004001 0690000100 0660010900 0700009201 Manar Legend Tax Map #: 0660010100; 0660003900 Tax Parcels SPEC-03-25-18247 Road Centerlines 2020 Pictometry Imagery Edwards Solar Farm, LLC Subject Parcel 400 800 1,600 Ft Date: 4/9/2025 0660004201 0660004401 0660009900 0660009601 0660100200 0660100700 0660004301 0660010101 0660009502 0660100109 0660100600 0660003802 0660004400 D 0660009502A: 0660009501A. 0660100400 0660004404 0660004403 0660010103 0660010000 0660009503 0660004200 0660010000: 0660009501 0660101200 0660004402 0660009500 0660009504 0660010104 OPA 0 0660010102: A / 0660003801 0660009505 0660010105 0660009400 z 0660009200 0660010105A 0660010200: 0660010105C 0660010300: 0660009300 0660010105B 0660010400 0660010106 0660010602: 0660004300 0660010500 0660010600. 0660004100 0660010600 0660010100 0660010601 0660010601 0660004000 0660003900 0660010700 0660004001 0690000100: 0660010900 0700009201 Tax Parcels B2 General Business District Tax Map #: 0660010100; 0660003900 : a A1 Agricultural R1 Residential Suburban Subdivision SPEC-03-25-18247 B1 Limited Business District Subject Parcel Edwards Solar Farm, LLC 200 400 800 1,200 1,600 Date: 4/9/2025 Ft 0660100200 00 03802 0660004400 0660004404 00 00 0660101200 7 6 06600 U ) T ) 99 yU 6000 0 6600 4000 a 06600 9000 00h0 @660010900 Tax Map #: 0660010100; 0660003900 Tax Parcels Agriculture Rural Residential SPEC-03-25-18247 Low Density Residential Road Centerlines Edwards Solar Farm, LLC Subject Parcel 400 800 1,600 Ft Date: 4/9/2025 FRANKLIN COUNTY CENTRAL OFFICE 200 Dent Street Rocky Mount, VA 24151 Phone: 540-483-5142 STEP www.stepincva.com Empowering People... Changing Lives PATRICK COUNTY OFFICE Our mission: STEP, and our partners, facilitate solutions that empower 4559 Road Wayside people to overcome their barriers to economic, educational and Stuart, VA: 24171 developmental success within the communities we serve. 276-694-2239 May 6, 2025 Franklin County Board of Supervisors 1255 Franklin Street, Suite 112 Rocky Mount, VA 24151 RE: CEP Solar's Edwards Solar Project Dear Franklin County Board of Supervisors, We are pleased to offer our endorsement of CEP Solar, LLC and the Edwards Solar Project. We have had the pleasure of collaborating with CEP Solar to serve our community and identify educational opportunities that will benefit our LIFES Academy student though career exploration activities. We are confident that CEP Solar will continue its exceptional work in our community, and we intend to be long-term partners in this endeavor. Iti is clear that CEP is committed to thoughtfully developing their project while genuinely considering the well-being of Franklin County. We have been impressed by CEP Solar's professionalism and dedication to being a responsible partner in our community. We extend our support for the Edwards Solar Farm and look forward to its positive impact in Franklin County. With Appreciation, Michael R. Armbrister Executive Director Head Start & Housing & Senior & Supportive Youth EarlyHead: Start Weatherization Food Services Services Services Re: Edwards Solar Farm Project Dear Franklin County Board of Supervisors, want to express my strong support for the Edwards Solar Farm Project. As a resident of Franklin County, I believe this project offers significant benefits for our community and contributes to a cleaner, more sustainable future. It also substantially meets the objectives of the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan, and the State of Virginia actively supports solar farms through policies and programs that encourage solar energy development. The Edwards Solar Farm Project aligns with the growing need for renewable energy sources and will help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. This project will generate clean energy, reduce emissions, help with the impact of blackouts, and contribute to a healthier environment for our community. Furthermore, the project's economic impact is noteworthy. It will create jobs during construction and maintenance, inject funds into the local economy, and potentially lead to long-term economic benefits for our community. am confident that this solar project will be a positive addition to Franklin Couty. I encourage you to consider the benefits it offers and champion your approval for its development. Sincerely, Clifton D. Wade 32 Niblicks Circle Penhook, VA 24137 13 THE FOLLOWING TERMS ARE UP FOR APPOINTMENT/RE-APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE/BOARD NAME DISTRICT TERM TERM EXPIRATION STEP VACANT BOS Member or Rep No Limit DAN RIVER ASAP Lt. Justin D. Hylton Law Enforcement member 3-Year 6/30/2025 LIBRARY BOARD William Mitchell Snow Creek 4-Year 6/30/2025 LIBRARY BOARD Ruth Cook Rocky Mount 4-Year 6/30/2025 LIBRARY BOARD Shawn Davis Union Hall 4-Year 6/30/2025 PIEDMONT COMMUNITY SERVICES VACANT Rep. 3-Year 6/30/2025 PIEDMONT COMMUNITY SERVICES Bettye Buckingham Citizen Appt. 3-Year 6/30/2025 PIEDMONT COMMUNITY SERVICES VACANT Citizen Appt 6/30/2025 RECREATION COMMISSION Jessica Gawor At Large 3-Year 6/30/2025 RECREATION COMMISSION Reba Dillon At Large 3-Year 6/30/2025 RECREATION COMMISSION Joshua Gibson At Large 3-Year 6/30/2025 RECREATION COMMISSION VACANT Rocky Mount 3-Year 6/30/2026 RECREATION COMMISSION VACANT Blue Ridge 3-year 6/30/2026 RO. VALLEY ALLEGHANY REGIONAL COMMISSION Lorie Smith BOS Rep 3-Year 6/30/2025 RO. VALLEY ALLEGHANY REGIONAL COMMISSION Mike Carter BOS Rep 3-Year 6/30/2025 RO. VALLEY ALLEGHANY REGIONAL COMMISSION VACANT Citizen 3-Year 6/30/2026 SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD Barry Ferguson Boone 4-Year 6/30/2025 SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD VACANT Gills Creek 4-Year 6/30/2028 AGING SERVICES Benny Russell Boone 4-Year 7/1/2025 AGING SERVICES John L. Smith Rocky Mount 4-Year 7/1/2025 AGING SERVICES Vivian Washburn Doyle Snow Creek 4-Year 7/1/2025 AGING SERVICES Pauline Nickelston AT LARGE MEMBER 4-Year 7/1/2025 AGING SERVICES Linda C. Handy AT LARGE MEMBER 4-Year 7/1/2025