Opponents ask Denton commissioners to pause solar‑farm hearing; applicant counsel urges proceeding tonight

Valerie Adams, an attorney representing several nearby property owners, asked the Denton board to pause action on a special‑use permit for a proposed solar facility so opponents can secure counsel, experts and relevant documents. "We are asking for three things today: a motion to stay, the other is a motion to continue, and the third is a motion for production of documentary evidence," Adams said, presenting a written motion and copies of case law.

Adams told the board she filed the motions in light of recent appellate litigation she said raises a split in authority about the applicable standard of proof. She cited a Court of Appeals matter involving Coastal Pines and Pender County and said parts of the published opinion were withdrawn pending rehearing; Adams said opponents need time to assemble expert testimony and to review materials referenced at earlier meetings. "The motion to stay is based on the case law that I handed out, which is Coastal Pine Solar versus Pender County," she said.

Applicant counsel pushed back. Ben Eatsy, an attorney with Tuggle Duggins representing the applicant, told the board there is "no legal precedent that you can't hear a case while there's an appeal pending" and said stopping the local hearing whenever an appeal exists would paralyze boards. Eatsy noted that the planning board previously recommended approval and that the applicant held community meetings, arguing there has been adequate notice and opportunity to participate.

Mike Fox, another attorney for the applicant, described handing a motion at the hearing without prior notice as an "ambush" and said the applicant has experts ready to testify. Fox said statutes governing quasi‑judicial procedures do not authorize discovery or orders compelling applicants to produce their documents to opponents before a hearing; he urged the board to deny the continuance and document‑production requests and to hear the application tonight.

Adams said opponents had limited time and resources to retain counsel and experts and that some potential attorneys had conflicts. She also told the board that a report discussed at previous meetings, including one held by Cypress Creek, had not been produced to the public and that opponents wanted access to any environmental or technical reports in advance so they could prepare expert responses. Adams gave a North Carolina bar number, 29075, when asked about her standing to file the motion.

The parties also debated whether a formal environmental impact statement is required. Applicant counsel and others said such statements typically are required only when federal funding or governmental project thresholds apply and are not mandated for private developments; they said the applicant had commissioned other studies and had experts available to discuss environmental concerns at the hearing.

The transcript ends with applicant counsel repeating a request that the board deny the motions and proceed; no vote or ruling on Adams's motions to stay, continue or compel production is recorded in the provided transcript.