Commissioners deny conditional rezoning for 40‑acre Mahler Family/ICAST community solar project after extended public hearing

The Iredell County Board of Commissioners on July 15 denied a conditional rezoning application to allow a 5‑megawatt community solar facility on about 40 acres of the Mahler family property along Wilkesboro Highway. The denial followed an extended public hearing in which neighbors, environmental groups, industry representatives and the applicant presented competing testimony.

County Planning and Zoning staffer Jake Lohman introduced the request as a conditional rezoning from Residential Agricultural (RA) to a Residential Agricultural Conditional District that would add a solar energy facility as an allowed use on approximately 40 acres (a portion of a larger 192‑acre parent parcel). Lohman said the applicant revised an earlier 192‑acre proposal to limit the facility to 40 acres, and that staff supported the request as consistent with the county’s land‑use rules for rural areas and with the 2045 Horizon Plan’s allowance for utility uses in certain tiers. He said the planning board recommended approval in a split 5–4 vote.

Finance for Impact representative Monica Paichi described the Mahler Family Solar Project as a 5‑megawatt facility designed to serve Energy United members and asserted community benefits including long‑term Iocal tax revenue, construction jobs and an “agrivoltaics” plan to introduce sheep grazing and beehives under and around panels. Paichi said the project would occupy “20 to 30 acres of the 192 acre Mauler property” and claimed the installation would serve roughly 650–700 homes over a 20‑year offtake commitment.

Opponents raised concerns about site suitability, water and flood risks, wildlife and habitat disruption, toxic materials, fire risk, electromagnetic fields and property values. Speakers who objected included long‑time New Hope community residents and local subject‑matter commenters: Randy Cass described steep slopes to Rocky Creek and cautioned about runoff; Donna Galena and others cited studies and claim panels contain hazardous materials; well driller Jason Wood warned about contamination reaching Rocky Creek; and multiple residents described potential effects on wildlife, noise and neighborhood character. One speaker, Isaac Bickford, presented financial analysis arguing the project’s developer lacked reliable federal funding and questioned the developer’s balance sheet and ability to finance construction and decommissioning. Other opponents cited decommissioning cost estimates and liability concerns.

Supporters included representatives from the Southern Environmental Law Center (Hannah Klaus and Nick Jimenez), a state‑level conservative clean‑energy group and some nearby residents who told the board they supported landowner rights and the plan’s agrivoltaic components. Environmental lawyers cited state regulatory oversight, a nearby panel‑recycling facility in Salisbury and Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) processes that address decommissioning and disposal.

Commissioner discussion noted the competing public‑interest claims: property‑owner rights, preservation of rural character in the county’s Agricultural and Rural Conservation Tier 1, floodplain and topographic concerns, and the role of federal and state incentives in project finance. Planning staff said proposed setbacks, a 500‑foot separation where applicable from adjacent homes and required stream buffers (100 feet) were part of the conditional plan; Lohman added the proposed array area was roughly 200 feet above the flood plain and top‑of‑bank for Rocky Creek — about a 50‑foot elevation change from the array to the creek on the conceptual plan.

After deliberation, a motion to deny the amendment carried. The board recorded the motion to deny the rezoning map amendment as "not reasonable nor in the public interest" and inconsistent with the 2045 Horizon Plan (agricultural and rural conservation tier). The motion passed on a vote reported as 5 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 absent. Commissioner Howe moved the denial.

The planning board’s split recommendation (5–4) and the large turnout — dozens of public commenters representing both support and opposition — were noted by commissioners as evidence of community interest. The denial means the applicant may pursue other lawful options but, as of this meeting, the county did not enact the conditional rezoning requested.