June 17, 2026
Listen to this story (9 minutes)
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled for a second time in favor of Pender County in a dispute over a proposed 2,300-acre solar farm.
The decision released Wednesday arrived more than a year after the court agreed to revisit a decision handed down on the final day of 2024. The court’s initial ruling also favored the county, which had rejected a special use permit for the solar farm project.
“The record shows that Petitioner failed to meet the mandatory standards to establish a prima facie entitlement to the requested SUP,” Judge Michael Stading wrote in the latest decision. “Therefore, the Board properly denied the SUP. Thus, the superior court ultimately did not err in affirming the Board’s decision. And after careful review of the record, Petitioner’s due process argument is overruled.”
Judge Thomas Murry joined Stading’s opinion. Judge Donna Stroud concurred “in result only,” meaning she agreed with the decision without endorsing Stading’s legal analysis.
The court delivered an unpublished opinion. That type of opinion has limited value as a precedent for future cases.
A January 2025 order blocked the Appeals Court’s initial decision favoring the county over the solar farm developer.
A three-judge panel handed down the original decision on Dec. 31, 2024, the last day in office for appointed Judge Carolyn Thompson. The Democrat Thompson lost a November election to keep her seat for another eight years.
Murry, a Republican, defeated Thompson with 51% of the. Murry joined Stading and Stroud on the panel addressing a motion to reconsider the case Coastal Pine Solar v. Pender County.
“It is hereby ordered that the opinion filed in this case on 31 December 2024 be withdrawn. The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is hereby directed not to certify said opinion. This cause is retained by this Court for disposition by the panel to which it is assigned,” according to the January 2025 order.
The original unpublished Appeals Court opinion determined that plaintiff Coastal Pine Solar had failed to prove that it complied with local ordinance requirements.
To secure a special-use permit for the solar operation, Coastal Pine Solar required “production of competent, substantial, and material evidence demonstrating compliance” with Pender’s unified development ordinance, Stading wrote in his original opinion.
“Though Petitioner presented expert testimony, the Board found this testimony inadequate due to the witnesses’ lack of personal knowledge of the specific site conditions,” Stading added.
“Considering all of Petitioner’s evidence — its experts, their testimony and submissions — it remains insufficient to establish a prima facie case of conformity,” the majority opinion explained. “For instance, UDO § 3.12.2(B)(6) requires detailed evidence of ‘[e]xisting topography and all proposed changes’ along with ‘calculations to show total acreage of area to be graded or disturbed.’”
“The record contains no competent, site-specific engineering or technical data fulfilling these criteria,” Stading wrote. “While Petitioner’s appraiser mentioned topography, his report addressed only the potential effect on adjoining property values rather than providing the mandated calculations of acreage disturbance. Petitioner identifies no other record evidence — and our review reveals no other record evidence — establishing the essential, technical details required by the UDO.”
“Petitioner cannot demonstrate that it satisfied the underlying zoning standards without showing these foundational prerequisites. In other words, failing to produce the information required under section 3.12.2(B) means Petitioner did not carry its initial burden of production. Consequently, Petitioner’s assertion that ‘conformity is not really in dispute’ is unsupported,” the opinion added.
The Appeals Court also cited a lack of evidence that the solar farm demonstrated “adequacy of utilities, access roads, drainage, sanitation, and other necessary facilities.”
“Although Petitioner repeatedly asserted that it would comply with ‘all statutory and local requirements,’ it offered no specific, competent evidence explaining how these requirements would be met,” Stading wrote. “Rather than presenting definitive drainage plans, engineering reports, or other concrete documentation, Petitioner merely stated that it ‘will’ ensure compliance at some future point. Such conclusory statements fall short of the evidentiary standard imposed by the UDO.”
“[T]he Board’s denial of Petitioner’s SUP rested on competent, material, and substantial evidence, reflecting that Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie entitlement under the UDO. As a result, the decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and the trial court properly affirmed the Board,” Stading explained.
Thompson joined Stading’s original opinion. Stroud supported the case’s result without endorsing Stading’s arguments.
The original three-judge appellate panel heard oral arguments in October 2024. Coastal Pine Solar asked the court to reverse a trial judge’s decision in the case. The trial court sided with Pender County commissioners, who rejected the solar operation in 2022.
The solar company met its burden to secure a county permit, lawyer Thomas Terrell argued. “An applicant who has met the burden of production automatically wins … if no contrary evidence is offered,” Terrell said. “And in this case, we don’t have any contrary evidence.”
Coastal Pine Solar also believes Pender County “really stepped outside of what its role is” in assessing the company’s permit application, Terrell argued. “What is not proper is for the county to become its own advocate — at any level, at any stage — where the county is looking for a certain outcome, which is clearly what was happening here,” he said.
“They have to be an impartial decision-maker,” he added. “Not the case — What happened here, we had the county was an aggressive prosecutor.”
John Cooke, arguing for Pender County, pointed to evidence supporting county commissioners’ decision.
“We have all this evidence from neighbors — adjoining property owners familiar with the property,” Cooke said. “It floods. It’s already flooding, and it’s going to make it worse. And the applicant has offered nothing to improve it or address it.”
“This is a massive speculative, inchoate venture and nothing more,” Cooke added.
“Neighbor after neighbor said this doesn’t fit,” he argued.
The North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation is siding with Pender County in the legal fight. The Farm Bureau filed paperwork in April 2024 to submit a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
“Farm Bureau’s members know which tracts have the best soils for growing certain crops and how their farms absorb and drain water,” according to a motion from Farm Bureau lawyers. “Farm Bureau’s members are also keenly aware that North Carolina is losing farmland to development at an alarming rate and they frequently engage with their local leaders to help preserve the farmland on which they are so dependent.”
“Farm Bureau’s interest in this case is focused on Coastal Pine Solar, LLC’s (‘Coastal’) argument that the Superior Court erred below in concluding that Pender County’s denial of Coastal’s special use permit application was ‘supported by competent, material and substantial evidence that is contrary to Coastal Pines Solar LLC’s evidence,’” the motion continued. “To be clear, Farm Bureau does not oppose the siting and operation of solar facilities per se. However, it is concerned that adopting Coastal’s reasoning to reverse the Superior Court, would hinder the ability of farmers and landowners to effectively engage with county leaders when they are considering whether to issue special use permits for development.”
“The Record shows the farmers and landowners who spoke against Coastal’s proposed development possessed considerable knowledge about the farmland and weather in Pender County and how the development will change the way water flows off the property and into nearby waters,” Farm Bureau lawyers wrote.
The proposed farm was larger than any North Carolina solar farm identified by the company’s expert. It was “nearly twenty (20) times larger than the largest solar farm found in this Court’s precedents, raising a serious policy question unencountered by this Court,” Pender County lawyers added.
North Carolina’s second-highest court has agreed to publish its recent decision in a case involving local Outer Banks business restrictions. Publication gives the decision greater weight as a precedent for future cases in state court.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently revived an entrepreneur’s lawsuit against a Kill Devil Hills ordinance that limits her economic rights.
The North Carolina Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving a dispute over Montreat’s approval of a new lodge.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals will allow a lawsuit to move forward challenging Kill Devil Hills’ restrictions against “itinerant vendors.”
Copyright 2026 John Locke Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

source