Let me know if you interpret this differently.

Again, based on your interpretation of the situation, it seems like they are being unreasonable. 

You should also spend time at your local LTB hearing to get a better picture of how the board interprets the RTA and how landlords are treated.The most important advice is never waste a single day hesitating to issue LTB notices but make sure you do it right.

Any loan officers, or underwriters or even attorneys that can speak to creative ways that I may be able to meet this requirement, or if it is even applicable (based on how I am reading/interpreting it)?

I interpret your original post as the property was listed for 150k but ARV is only 70k.

Many CPAs are interpreting that to be the whole roof as without re-roofing - you cannot make the section of roof viable for the solar system on its own.

Am I interpreting you correctly?

The fact that you get a spread between what you offered and what you sold the contract for, can be considered a "fee" depending who is interpreting the law. good luck. 

You're getting everyone's narrow interpretations, which are all over the map.

But more importantly the bright line test appears to be the "intent' of the tax payer.If your intent was primarily to resell (most interpret that as a forced appreciation/value add/low ball purchase scenario where the desired equity is present at the time of purchase) then you are treating the property as inventory and 1031 is not appropriate.If your intent was to hold to use or to generate income from, or to take advantage of longer term appreciation then you are treating it as an investment and 1031 is appropriate.