Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA agenda 031317 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning (919) 245-2575 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) www.orangecountync.gov 131 W. Margaret Lane Suite 201 P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2nd floor meeting room - Whitted Building 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, North Carolina Monday March 13, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – December 12, 2016 REGULAR MEETING January 23, 2017 RECONVENED MEETING 4. PUBLIC CHARGE: The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial administrative body established in accordance with the provisions of local regulations and State law to perform specified functions essential to the County’s planning program. Action(s) taken by the board are based solely on competent, substantial, and material evidence presented during a previously scheduled and advertised public hearing on a specific item. As detailed within Section 2.12.2 of the 1 UDO the Board chair reserves the right to exclude evidence and testimony that is deemed: ‘incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious’ and therefore fails to reasonably address the issues before the Board of Adjustment. While it should be noted there is no time limit on the presentation of evidence, the Chair asks that the presentation of evidence be consistent with established policies, rules of procedure, and acceptable levels of decorum to ensure a fair and equitable hearing for all parties. No. Page(s) Agenda Item 5. A-1-17 – Appeal of a decision concerning a parcel of property located at the intersection of Morrow Mill and Millikan Roads (PIN: 9729-50-7168). In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.11 and 2.26 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) the applicants have appealed the decision of the Zoning Officer as articulated within a November 7, 2016 letter addressed to Michael Rettie, Orange County Building Official, related to the Zoning Compliance Permit review for building permit number CB16-0020. This aforementioned permit involved development on a parcel of property identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9729-50-7168 owned by Southeast Property Group LLC care off Ms. Kara Brewer. Specifically the applicants allege staff erred in determining the property, and the structure being erected on same consistent with building permit application CB16-0020, is being used for bona fide farm purposes. 6. ADJOURNMENT IF UNABLE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT (NUMBERS LISTED BELOW – PRESS 1 PLUS EXTENSION 2575 OR 2585). STAFF CAN THEN DETERMINE IF A QUORUM WILL BE PRESENT FOR THE MEETING. HILLSBOROUGH – (919) 732-8181 ; MEBANE – (919) 227-2031 CHAPEL HILL – (919) 967-9251 ; DURHAM – (919) 688-7331 2 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 1 of 156 MINUTES 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2 DATE DECEMBER 12, 2016 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Samantha Cabe (Chair) 6 Karen Barrows (Vice-Chair) 7 Matt Hughes 8 Barry Katz 9 Susan Halkiotis 10 11 STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 12 Patrick Mallet, Planner II 13 Elaina Cheek, Board Secretary 14 James Bryan, Staff Attorney 15 Anne Marie Tosco, Staff Attorney 16 17 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 18 19 Samantha Cabe called the meeting to order. 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 22 There were no additions to the agenda. 23 24 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES-OCTOBER 10, 2016 AND OCTOBER 24, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 25 26 Samantha Cabe requested that the Minutes reflect that rather than absent she was recused for conflict. Karen Barrows 27 noted that on page 102, line 45 it was herself that had asked that question. 28 29 MOTION to approve Minutes as modified made by Susan Halkiotis. Seconded by Karen Barrows. 30 VOTE: Unanimous 31 32 33 AGENDA ITEM 4: PUBLIC CHARGE 34 Karen Barrows read the public charge 35 36 The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct 37 themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any 38 member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the 39 meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 40 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, 41 pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. 42 43 The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial administrative body established in accordance with the provisions of local 44 regulations and State law to perform specified functions essential to the County’s planning program. Action(s) taken by the 45 board are based solely on competent, substantial, and material evidence presented during a previously scheduled and 46 advertised public hearing on a specific item. As detailed within Section 2.12.2 of the UDO the Board chair reserves the 47 right to exclude evidence and testimony that is deemed: ‘incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious’ and 48 therefore fails to reasonably address the issues before the Board of Adjustment. While it should be noted there is no time 49 3 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 2 of 156 limit on the presentation of evidence, the Chair asks that the presentation of evidence be consistent with established 1 policies, rules of procedure, and acceptable levels of decorum to ensure a fair and equitable hearing for all parties. 2 3 AGENDA ITEM 5: A-2-16 – Class B Special Use Permit application proposing to 4 erect a telecommunication facility at 1941 MT. CARMEL 5 CHURCH ROAD (PIN(s) 9796-09-9658 and 9797-00-5005) 6 In accordance with Section(s) 2.7 Special Uses, 5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses, 5.3.2 7 Application of Use Standards – Special Uses, and 5.10 Standards for Telecommunication 8 Facilities of the UDO, TowerCom IV, LLC has submitted a Class B Special Use Permit 9 application seeking a permit to erect a 199 ft. tall (195 ft. tall tower with a 4 ft. lighting pole 10 at the top for a combined total height of 199 ft.) monopole telecommunication facility (i.e. a 11 telecommunication tower) on a parcel of property located at 1941 Mt. Carmel Church Road, 12 further identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9796-09-9658. 13 The parcel, owned by the Buckner Family Farm Trust, is zoned Rural Buffer (RB) and 14 Jordan Lake Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District and is approximately 18 acres 15 in area (hereafter ‘the property’). 16 As detailed within the application, the applicant wishes to erect a telecommunication 17 tower within a 100 foot by 100 foot leased area on the property. There will be an 18 equipment cabinet at the base of the tower to house equipment for the various communication 19 providers utilizing the tower within a 60 foot by 60 foot fenced compound. 20 The proposed facility will be accessed via an existing private roadway, specifically 21 Wilbuck Lane, through a driveway extending across an approximately 2 acre parcel of 22 property owned by Edwards Williams (PIN 9797-00-5005). This parcel is a part of this 23 application and review process. 24 25 Samantha Cabe: Now moving to the last item on the Agenda prior to adjornment the Board will 26 entertain a Class B SUP application proposing to erect a telecommunication facility at the address 27 of 1941 Mount Carmel Church Road. Does staff have a presentation for the Board? 28 29 Michael Harvey: Yes ma’am. Prior to our presentation we would ask that all individuals intending 30 to offer testimony at tonight’s hearing to stand up, come forward, and be sworn in by the clerk. 31 32 All individuals were sworn in. 33 34 Michael Harvey: When you presenting please stand up, state your name and address for the 35 record and indicate that you have been sworn. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: Thank you Mr. Harvey. 38 39 Michael Harvey: Madame Chair the item on tonights agenda is case A-2-16 meeting it’s in the 40 16th year of 2000. And it’s the second SUP we’ve receveived, therefore A-2-16. It’s for a SUP 41 being reviewed in accordance with the provisions of section 2.7, 5.2.2, 5.3.2, 5.10 of the UDO. 42 Calls to the erection of a 199 foot tall telecommunications facility, also known as a 43 4 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 3 of 156 telecommunication tower, on a parcel of property located at 1941 Mount Carmel Church Road 1 zoned Rural Buffer, Jordan Lake Protected Watershed protection overlay district. As detailed 2 within the application in our abstract package the applicant wishes to erect the proposed tower 3 within a 100 by 100 foot leased area of the property. There will be an equipment cabinet at the 4 base of the tower to house the various communication infrastructure necessary to support the 5 tower and will be enclosed by a fenced in area. The property will be accessed via a private 6 driveway off of Willbuck Lane. There will be a driveway extending across a 2-acre parcel of 7 property that is owned by Edward Williams, identified using Orange County parcel identification 8 number 9797-00-5005. This application is part of this review process. 9 As part of your agenda packet you have beginning on page 117 staff abstract. That includes 10 attachment 1 on page 124 which is a property map. Attachment 2 the notification materials and 11 certifications for this project beginning on page 125. The SUP permit findings of fact beginning on 12 page 144. Staff comments beginning on page 165. A balloon test and photo simulation report 13 provided from the applicant beginning on page 171. And under separate cover this booklet which 14 is the application packet submitted by the applicant. As a housekeeping measure I have a couple 15 of items to add. We have additional comments, staff comments, received from our 16 telecommunications consultant and I have listed these additional attachment 4, which I’d like to 17 hand out. And Ms. Hicks is here this evening and she can offer testimony on this documentation. I 18 also have… I’ve received an email yesterday. Comments from Mr. John Price concerning this 19 tower. This is not being included as attachment 4, these are not staff comments but this is 20 information we have received. Madame Chair before I begin my very brief presentation I ask that 21 the Board have a motion accepting pages 117 through 210, including Staff’s abstracts, attachment 22 1 property map, attachment 2 notification materials, attachment 3 SUP findings of fact, attachment 23 4 Staff’s comments, attachment 5 balloon test and photo simulation report, as well as the 24 application binder into the record. 25 26 MOTION to accept the abstract and all its attachments, including the additional attachment 4 27 together with the application into evidence and also accept into evidence a letter dated December 28 11th, 2016 on the letterhead of Calhoun, Bella & Seacrest LLP from Mr. John Price made by Matt 29 Hughes. Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. 30 VOTE: Unanimous 31 32 Michael Harvey: I further ask the Board to have a Motion entering into record a copy of the 33 Orange County UDO as it exists on the day of this hearing as well as a copy of the adopted 34 comprehensive plan as adopted by the County Commissioners on November 18th, 2008. 35 36 Motion to enter the Orange County UDO as it exists on the day of this hearing and a copy of the 37 adopted comprehensive plan as adopted by the County Commissioners on November 18th, 2008 38 made by Matt Hughes. Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. 39 VOTE: Unanimous 40 41 Samantha Cabe: Any questions to Staff from the Board? (none) 42 43 Michael Harvey: Ms. Laura Goode is represetning the applicant here this evening. 44 5 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 4 of 156 1 Laura Goode: Good evening. My name is Laura Goode. I’m with Baker Donaldson. My business 2 address is 1501 Main Street Suite 600, Columbia, South Carolina. However, I live and work in 3 Raleigh, North Carolina. Baker Donaldson represents telecom and their application for a SUP for 4 a new wireless telecommunitcations tower. Micahel has done a great job of explaining to you our 5 overall plan for the proposed tower. This is a copy of the overall site plan that was included in your 6 packets. This shows the general location of the facility in relation to the subject property and Mt. 7 Carmel Church Road. The property owner is the Butner Family Farm Trust, however a portion of 8 the access road will be going over in adjacent property owned by the Williams’. Both of these 9 properties are zoned rural buffer. Additionally, the type of monopole telecommunication tower that 10 is being proposed is permitted as a Class B Special Use in the rural buffer district. This is to give 11 you another aerial view, giving you an idea of where the proposed center of the tower will be 12 located on the property. At this time I’m going to talk to you about the network objective for the 13 need for the proposed tower. And before I get into that, a couple of things: First, you’l see that 14 Verizon’s logo is on this side. That’s because Verizon Wireless will be the anchor tenant and will 15 immediately co-locate on the tower as soon as it’s constructed by Towercom. Therefore, 16 Towercom is going to build this tower to meet the network objective of Verizon Wireless. Also, I 17 wanted to point out to you, as I’m sure that your attorney has advised you, that North Carolina law 18 does not require the applicant to provide a need or justification for the tower and does not require 19 the applicant to provide any propreitary or confidential business information. However, in an effort 20 to be as transparent as possible and to explain why it is that we’re asking for this permit we have 21 provided some information about the network objective for this tower. And the main purpose for 22 this tower is that there is a significant gap in coverage along Mt. Carmel Church Road, in between 23 the Governers’ Club area to the South and the UNC main campus to the North. So this towers’ 24 primary purpose is to fill a large portion of that signifcant gap in coverage along that road. Another 25 purpose of the tower is to provide a capacity offload for surrounding sites that are already in 26 existence. If you see this map up here, the red circle is there; those are existing Verizion Wireless 27 sites already serving the area. The main focus of the capacity offload is to use the campus site, 28 which is up at the top of the map. It’s the second one from the left. So it’s a double use to provide 29 that increase coverage as well as to provide capactity offload. And what that means is the 30 demand for wireless service in that area is exceeding the capacity of the existing sites to handle 31 that traffic. What that means in real world terms is that you’re dropping calls in that area, not able 32 to send and receive text messages in that area, and you’re not able to browse the internet at 33 optimal speeds in that area. So the second map you see here; the prior one was what the 34 coverage and capacity looked like without the proposed Clearwater Lake site. The second map 35 shows what the coverage will look like if this Board grants the SUP for this propsed tower. And to 36 bring down what this means, the red and green is really really good service. That means that 37 inside a building just like this one you should be able to use your wireless device to make calls 38 and surf the internet. Blue areas is not such great coverage and capacity. That means that you’re 39 really only going to be able to use your cell phone when you’re in your car or outdoors. And if you 40 get down to the gray or white areas, that’s where it’s very hit or miss and you may not be able to 41 make a phone call or use the internet on your wireless device. So red and green is what we’re 42 shooting for and this second map shows how the proposed tower will fill a significant portion of 43 that significant gap in coverage, and provide that additional needed capacity. Now based on this 44 network objective, this is the search area map that was determined. Which means this is the area, 45 the red circle, in which a new wireless facility is needed in order to meet that network objective 46 that I just discussed with you. So we needed to find a place within this search area to locate the 47 facility. Now the first thing that we do when we’re looking in a search area is we look for 48 opportunities to co-locate. That’s required by this ordinacne but it’s also a best business practice 49 for Verizon Wireless because it is much faster to co-locate on an existing tower or inaudible than 50 6 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 5 of 156 it is to build a tower. And it’s also much cheaper to co-locate than it is to build a tower. So it’s the 1 preference to co-locate. Unfortunately, within this search area there were not existing towers and 2 there were not existing other structures as sufficient in height to meet that network objective that I 3 discussed earlier. Now, in addition to there not being other structures to co-locate on Orange 4 County Planning Department brought to our attention an additional candidate. There was another 5 candidate that the Planning Department brought to our attention. They call it the Mellot Candidate. 6 My understanding is that the property owner for that site is their last name is Mellot. And so they 7 asked Verizion Wireless, “Can you put your facility here and meet your network objective?” 8 Verizon Wireless was happy to do that, they analyzed it, and the results of that analysis is that this 9 candidate could not meet the network objective. And what this is, it shows… David Haughney, the 10 engineer for Verizon Wireless, is here to explain this a little bit better. But essentially the distance 11 between the Mellot candidate and the proposed Clearwater Lake site, there is a topography and 12 foliage obstruction that makes it so that Verizon would not be able to meet it’s network objective at 13 this proposed site. So given that there were no opportunities to co-locate and we could not go on 14 this Mellot candidate a need for a new tower at the subject property was determined. In terms of 15 the proposed tower it would be a 195 foot monopole with a 4-foot lightning rod. This is the tower 16 design that was shown in the application. As you can see here, it will be a monopole structure 17 which means it will not be lattice. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the 3-leg lattice structure, it will 18 not have big lines that go out from the tower. Also, it will not be lit and it will be… The type of pole 19 that they use for these monopoles is the same type of pole they use for power lines, it’s just taller. 20 But that’s what you can expect. It’s galvanized steel. It will be designed to accommodate 3 future 21 co-locators as required by the ordinance. So that means this is going to reduce the need for 22 towers in this area, and when this is implemented it won’t only help Verizon Wireless’ customers, 23 it will not only help the Orange County residents in this area who have Verizon, it will also help the 24 residents who have AT&T, Tmobile, to the extent that they come and co-locate on this tower. And 25 again, it will be a requirement that any carriers that want to go in this area, they will have to prove 26 an inability to co-locate on this tower. So they will have to first try to co-locate on this tower. There 27 are 3 findings of fact that this Board must consider in determining to grant this SUP and we have 28 addressed those findings of fact in pages 59-64 of the narrative, which is exhibit 1. I just wanted to 29 briefly go over a few of those points with you here tonight. The first finding of fact that the Board 30 must consider is whether the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, and welfare. 31 So there’s two ways that this use will promote good public health, safety, and welfare. First, it’s a 32 public necessity and second, it will follow and be in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, 33 and Local regulations. As to the first part of it being a public necessity, the reason this is a public 34 necessity is currently almost half of American households are wireless only households. And that 35 number is only increasing. That means that for about half of Americans, their only means of 36 communicating by phone is on their cell phone. So they need that wireless service on a day to day 37 basis. That becomes even more crucial in an emergency situation. If your only way of 38 communication is on a cell phone you need that wireless coverage in the event of an emergency. 39 And then that goes both ways as well. The wireless coverage not only helps for people making a 40 911 call but it helps the emergency responders be able to respond to those emergency phone 41 calls. Wireless service also aids in public responders in other ways. For example, police officers 42 have computers in their cars. They’re using those computers and they’re using wireless service to 43 access things like criminal records, driving records, or warrants for arrest. So that’s crucial for 44 them to have in their vehicles. And they rely on wireless for that. The second finding of fact that 45 the Board must consider is whether the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous 46 property. Unless the use is a public necessity then there’s no need to enhance or maintain the 47 property value. Now I’ve just discussed with you how this will be a public necessity. However, in 48 addition to that Towercom has retained David Smith. He’s a North Carolina certified real estate 49 appraiser MAI and SRA, he has prepared a report that was submitted as Exhibit 32 of the 50 7 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 6 of 156 application as well as a supplemental report that should be in your materials as supplemental 1 evidence item G, and he is here tonight to give his expert testimony that in his opinion the tower 2 will maintain or enhance the property values. The third finding of fact the Board must consider is 3 that the use will be in harmony with the area and in compliance with the development of the 4 County as embodied by the Comprehensive plan. So in terms of the use being in harmony with 5 the area the first main way that it’s in harmony with the area is that the subject property is zoned 6 rural buffer as are the majority of properties in the search area. All of the adjacent properties are 7 zoned rural buffer and therefore the proposed tower would be permited as a special use on all of 8 those properties. North Carolina courts have held that the fact that a use is permitted, even with 9 special conditions, in a zoning district that evidences that the use is in harmony with the area. 10 That’s been held by the North Carolina Supreme Court in Mann Media vs. Randolf County, 11 Woodhouse vs. Town and Nags Head. In addition to being in harmony in the area because it is 12 zoned appropriately for this use, the faciltiy will further be in harmony with the area based on how 13 the facility will be located on the subject property. So it will be set back approximately 1,000-feet 14 from the closest public right of way, Mt. Carmel Church Road. Additionally, the property is 15 currently wooded, heavily wooded. However, if that natural vegetation is ever moved for any 16 reason, for timbering of the property, or a hurricane or tornado comes in and wipes it out, Telecom 17 has agreed to install the Type C 40-foot wide vegetative buffer that is required for Class B special 18 use towers. This is what’s required when a tower is built on a property that isn’t wooded already. 19 So this is what Towercom will agree to install so that it would be in compliance with the ordinance 20 in the event that that vegetation is ever removed. And that has been submitted as part of the 21 application as well. 22 23 Samantha Cabe: Can I stop you one second? Is that one of the conditions that is included on the 24 recommendations? 25 26 Michael Harvey: I’m assuming you’re talking about the findings of fact that came in attachment 3? 27 28 Samantha Cabe: Yes, sir. 29 30 Michael Harvey: The condition is number 2, that existing vegetation be maintained. If something 31 happens to the vegetation, if it is removed for whatever reason, they’re obligated under the 32 ordinance to establish a Class C buffer. Otherwise we revoke their SUP. And the ordinance 33 already mandates that as a condition. 34 35 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you. 36 37 Barry Katz: Just to carry on with that, this is a contingent plan? But not something that goes 38 intially, and this vegetation buffer has to be maintained, right? 39 40 Laura Goode: Correct. 41 42 8 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 7 of 156 Barry Katz: You would also have an irrigation plan, some way to maintain this vegetation? Not 1 simply put the vegetation in? 2 3 Laura Goode: I’m not sure that there is an irrigation per se but it definitely has to be maintained. If 4 the vegetation dies we have to go in there and ranstall it. It has to be maintained in order to 5 maintain our SUP. 6 7 Barry Katz: Alright. You know when they go in they’re not big enough to actually obscure anything. 8 They have to grow and have to live. Is there any plan for suppressing the inevitable poison ivy and 9 sumac and things that come in there so that you can actually sustain these plants? 10 11 Samantha Cabe: May I clarify, did I understand you correctly that this is a heavily wooded area 12 now that you’re only putting this in if the current trees die? 13 14 Laura Goode: That’s correct. Yes. And I believe that Towercom would agree to any additional 15 conditions that you want to place on the SUP to make sure that it is maintained appropriately. 16 17 Barry Katz: My sense though is that if the natural vegetation is lost and you make the effort to put 18 in this landscape plan and it’s not sustained that the Planning Department will hear from the 19 neighbors. 20 21 Michael Harvey: Well actually the Planning Department will revoke the SUP. 22 23 Barry Katz: Right, ok. I understand. 24 25 Samantha Cabe: Ok. I didn’t mean to interrupt, I just wanted to make sure that that agreement 26 was documented in what we were going to be improving. 27 28 Barry Katz: You said at the top of this tower there’s a 4-foot lightning rod? 29 30 Laura Goode: Yes. 31 32 Barry Katz: And there’s not little red light at the top? 33 34 Laura Goode: Correct. It is not required to be lit by Federal and Aviation administration. So that’s 35 how we satify all three findings of fact for the Board. In addition to the three findings of fact there 36 are SUP standards that this Board must consider. The first being that there’s adequate sewage, 37 solid waste, and water for the facility. This will be an unmanned facility that will not require those 38 services. The second special use standard that the Board must consider is that there be adequate 39 police, fire, and rescue squad protection. According to the staff report they state that the Orange 40 9 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 8 of 156 County emergency staff and the sheriff have reviewed our plan and have indicated that they can 1 serve this facility adequately. The third SUP standard is that there be vehicular access and 2 address traffic conditions. There will be an improved access to the site that Towercom 3 understands they’re under the obligation to maintain throughout the duration of the SUP. 4 Additionally, there will be no increase in traffic after construction. Construction ususally is about 45 5 days. After that we anticipate on average one employee per month will come out to do routine 6 maintenance and make sure that everything is working appropriately at the facility. 7 8 Karen Barrows: Let me ask you, Chuck Edwards the DOT person put in his report that they need 9 a driveway permit. Is that part of what we’re going to get? Because I didn’t see it. 10 11 Laura Goode: So a driveway permit, I don’t believe, is a requirement for the SUP but it will be 12 something that we will have to get before we can construct the tower. 13 14 Karen Barrows: Do you have it? 15 16 Michael Harvey: On page 163, condition 8 per section 5.10.8 B4J in section 2.5 of the UDO the 17 applicant shall obtain all necessary development permits from the County prior to the initiation of 18 and land disturbing activity associated with the construction of the telecommunication facilities 19 including, but not limited to: Building permit, Erosion Control permit, Solid Waste Management 20 permit, Zoning compliance permit. The Zoning Compliance permit requires the DOT signify that 21 they’ve issued any and all permits that are necessary to allow the project to move forward. That’s 22 part of the UDO as it currently exists. 23 24 Karen Barrows: The only other thing I noticed, Michael, was on page 165. John Kase said that he 25 needs a permit and some money to look into residence at 1801 Mt. Carmel Road. I didn’t know if 26 that had been addressed. 27 28 Michael: On page 165, this is in Attachment 4, the memo we got for Environmental Health. 29 Environmental Health has reviewed the site plan for this particular project and there are no 30 proposed septic systems. There’s an existing septic system and well that serves the residence 31 1811 Mt. Carmel Church Road but it is approximately 600 feet, the proposed tower should not 32 impacted by the project. Additionally, a residence exists at 1801 Mt. Carmel Road according to the 33 Orange County JS records but it could not be located pertaining to a well or septic system on the 34 property. The site plan for the proposed project shows that there is a wide access and utility right 35 of way to access the tower site. There will need to be an exisiting permit application for 1801 to 36 ensure that the site impact, that that’s handled at the Zoning Compliance Permit stage. 37 38 Laura Goode: So that is how we meet each of those 3 SUP standards. Now, there have been 39 concerns about the proposed facility that have been brought to Towercom’s attention and I want 40 to briefly address a few of those concerns. One concern that was raised was access to the 41 proposed facility as I stated. There will be an improved access road that will be improved by 42 Towercom. Towercom recognizes that it has an ongoing obligation to maintain that access road 43 throughout the duration of this facility. In addition, Towercom recognizes that it needs to have 44 10 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 9 of 156 legal access to the site and has acquired that legal access. Any issue regarding the legal access 1 to the site would not be something that this Board needs to determine as part of the Special Use 2 process. Other concerns were raised. There are people who I believe are here in opposition to 3 this tower facility tonight. And you will hear from them. We did receive the letter dated December 4 11th, last night, and read through that. Looking at their concerns, it does appear that these are the 5 same concerns that you all are fully familiar with we see often with these tower applications. 6 They’re concerns about health, about impact of property values, and aesthetics. So in terms of 7 health, Exhibit 17 in the application is a certification from the Verizion engineer stating that the 8 facility will at all times be maintained and in compliance with SCCU regulations. And again, as I’m 9 sure your attorney has advised you, Federal Law is pretty strict about what can be the basis of 10 denial for a construction of placement of a tower and health affects and concerns of that nature 11 are not a basis for determining location of any wireless facility. In terms of impact to property 12 values, again, David Smith performed his impact study that was part of the application and he is 13 here to give his expert opinion as to the impact of property values. In terms of concerns about 14 aesthetics, again, they’ve raised concerns that the property may be timbered in the future. I’ve 15 already addressed how this facility will be in harmony with the area and what steps Towercom will 16 take in the event that timbering occurs. However, I did want to just underscore again the fact that 17 this will be an innoculous use. It’s a monopole tower without the lattice or the guywires, it’s going 18 to be galvanized steel gray in color without painting or marking, it’s not going to be lit, it’s not 19 going to be emitting noise, there’s not going to be dust, there’s not going to be odor. Those are 20 the things that are usually the biggest impact to property. Now, is it going to be visibile from some 21 properties? Yes. A 195-foot pole is not going to be invisible, but we have taken steps to make this 22 as minimally visible as possible given that it is a 195-foot tower. Overall, there is a signifcant gap 23 in coverage. This tower is needed to fill that gap in coverage, and provide capacity offload and the 24 staff has determined as well as the staff’s consultant, Jackie Hicks, has determined that this 25 application as submitted met all of the ordinance requirements and therefore we would 26 respectfully request that this Board approve the SUP. And at this time I would be happy to answer 27 any questions. I also have some witnessed to call to support the application. 28 29 Karen Barrows: I have a couple for Ms. Goode. Under tab 28 …. According to tab 28 it looks like 30 the bond is going to be for $75,000. 31 32 Laura Goode: Yes, Ma’am. 33 34 Karen Barrows: In our packet it said that the bond had to be a total of 110% of what it’s actually 35 going to cost to remove this (the tower). And one of your tabs showed a cost of $74,000 and 36 change to remove it, so does that meet the obligation? 37 38 Laura Goode: So there are two bonds that are required. The performance bond and the tower 39 removal bond. So I believe that 28 is the performance bond. 40 41 Michael Harvey: I’m sorry, let me interrupt. If you’ll go back to the main portion of the application, 42 (tab) 28 is the draft performance bond, and then tab 24 establishes the costs of removing the 43 tower. That (tab 24) establishes the cost to remove the tower and tab 23 is the removal bond in 44 the sum of $81,537.50. 45 11 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 10 of 156 1 Karen Barrows: I saw that figure but then elsewhere it says $75,000 so I was confused. 2 3 Michael Harvey: It would seem to me that they’re providing you the cost to remove it in tab 24, 4 and then in tab 23 is the bond necessary to comply with the provisions of the UDO. 5 6 Laura Goode: If I could just add, I think there’s two separate bonds that are required. There’s a 7 performance bond of $75,000, which we will provide. And then there’s a removal bond, and that’s 8 based on the estimated cost removals, so that’s where there’s two different bond amounts in 9 there. 10 11 Karen Barrows: Thank you. 12 13 Matt Hughes: I have one question. You mentioned that Verizon looks for other structures where 14 they could possible co-locate. What types of structures would have been looked for before 15 deciding to build a tower? 16 17 Laura Goode: Sure. First, other towers within the search area. That’s the easiest thing to co-locate 18 on, that’s usually going to be where we can meet our height requirement. Other than that we will 19 look for water towers, tall buildings, those types of structures that are going to give you the type of 20 height you need for a macro type cell, this is going to be a macro cell. We’re filling in a big 21 coverage out here. So those are the types of structures you’re going to look at for co-location for 22 this type of a macro site. 23 24 Barry Katz: It just occurred to me. I believe you said that health issues are not germaine to this 25 hearing, right? 26 27 Laura Goode: Correct … If there are no other questions at this time I will respectfully request that I 28 be able to call my first witness. 29 30 Samantha Cabe: Any other questions from the Board? You may call your first witness. 31 32 David Smith: Good evening. My name is David Smith and I live at 3 Morristown Circle, in Durham, 33 North Carolina and I have been sworn. 34 35 Laura Goode: Great. Mr. Smith, could you tell us your occupation? 36 37 David Smith: I’m a commercial real estate appraiser. 38 39 12 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 11 of 156 Laura Goode: Do you have any licenses, certifications, or memberships pertinent to that 1 occupation? 2 3 David Smith: I’m a state certified general real estate appraiser. I also hold the MAI and SRA 4 designations from the inaudible. 5 6 Laura Goode: Can you explain what those are? 7 8 David Smith: They’re additional requirements that you have to have. Sort of a step up from just a 9 general appraiser. A sort of vocation that the state has. As a matter of fact, when they started 10 licensing people in the state they just automatically gave it to people that had a MAI designation. 11 You have to take a series of courses, have your experience reviewed by other appraisers, and 12 you have to take something that’s called an in-depth report to show that you’re capable of being 13 an appraiser. 14 15 Laura Goode: And how long have you been a certified real estate appraiser? 16 17 David Smith: Ever since they started it, I’ve been an appraiser for 35 years. 18 19 Laura Goode: How did you become involved in this particular site? 20 21 David Smith: I was contacted by Michael Hurst. 22 23 Laura Goode: Was that with Towercom? 24 25 David Smith: Yeah, I guess. 26 27 Laura Goode: What were you asked to do? 28 29 David Smith: To do an impact analysis on this tower, on the surrounding properties. 30 31 Laura Goode: Will you be paid as part the work you did for this site? 32 33 David Smith: Yes I will. 34 35 Laura Goode: Will the payment that you receive be contingent upon the opinion you give here 36 tonight at this hearing? 37 38 13 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 12 of 156 David Smith: No. I would lose my license if I were to have a contingent fee. 1 2 Laura Goode: Can you please briefly talk to us about your education, your training, and you 3 experience in this field. 4 5 David Smith: Well, again, I had to take, I think there were 8 at this time, of my courses to get my 6 MAI designation. And since then I have to go to numerous seminars. An average of about two a 7 year. In addition to other courses that I’ve taken over the 35 years I’ve had my designation. 8 9 Laura Goode: Have you done real estate impact studies before? 10 11 David Smith: I have, yes. 12 13 Laura Goode: Approximately how many? 14 15 David Smith: I would say somewhere around 20. 16 17 Laura Goode: Ok. Of any type of these, not just cell phone towers? 18 19 David Smith: Cell towers, and schools, and churches. 20 21 Laura Goode: Ok. Have you done any real estate impact studies in Orange County? 22 23 David Smith: I have. 24 25 Laura Goode: Have you ever been accepted as an expert in a real estate appraisel and 26 determining impact to property values of adjacent properties? 27 28 David Smith: I have. 29 30 Laura Goode: At this time I would respectfully request that this Board accept David Smith as an 31 expert in real estate appraisel and the determination of the impact of land uses on surrounding 32 property values. 33 34 Samantha Cabe: Does anyone have any objection to being qualified? No objection. 35 36 14 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 13 of 156 Laura Goode: So earlier you testified that you retained by Towercom to do a real estate analysis 1 of the impact of the cell tower on adjacent properties. Did you prepare a report for that? 2 3 David Smith: I did. 4 5 Laura Goode: Is Exhibit 32 of the application, as well as supplemental item G, are those your 6 report in your supplemental reports? 7 8 David Smith: I asssume so. Yes, that looks like my report. 9 10 Laura Goode: What is the difference between those two reports? 11 12 David Smith: One does an analysis of just a subdivision in Wake County and the other includes 13 two announces that I did in Orange County. 14 15 Laura Goode: And did you come to an opinion based on the analysis that you did in a report that 16 you prepared about what any impact the proposed tower will have to contiguous property values? 17 18 David Smith: I didn’t think it’d have any adverse impact on property values of the adjacent parcels. 19 20 Laura Goode: So let’s talk about the basis of that opinion. What were the methods you used in 21 preparing these reports? 22 23 David Smith: I did a match pair analysis, and in that you find one property that has been adjacent 24 to a tower and you compare it to one that’s away from a tower. Inaudible Sunrise Road, just 25 North of Chapel Hill, and I compared with a property on Kelly Court to the West of Chapel Hill and 26 there were some in those respects and I adjusted many differences and then got a per square foot 27 value and they were comparable. So I didn’t see any impact from the one that had the tower and 28 the one that didn’t. 29 30 Laura Goode: When you say a match pair analysis, is that an accepted method for evaluating the 31 impact to property values or proposed use? 32 33 David Smith: That is the accepted practice by the appraisel institute. 34 35 Laura Goode: Ok. Were there any other methods that you used in your report? 36 37 David Smith: I also looked at two subdivisions. One was in Lake Hogan Farms in Carrboro and it 38 was a large tower next to that, it was a lattice tower that had a light on it and it was clearly visible 39 15 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 14 of 156 from about half of the neighboring and not from the rest. So again, I did the same sort of thing. I’ve 1 made adjustments for differences in age and date of sale, and anything like that and then got per 2 square foot value. And the ones that could see the tower, there was about less than 1% difference 3 in their sales prices verus the ones that could not see it. And again, this was a much more 4 intrusive cell tower since it was lattice and lit. And that less than 1% is within range of error. 5 6 Laura Goode: Ok. What percentage difference in value to properties would lead you to conclude 7 that a use impacts negatively then the property values? 8 9 David Smith: I would say somewhere around 5%. 10 11 Laura Goode: Were there any other towers or subdivisions that you looked at as part of your 12 analysis? 13 14 David Smith: I located one in Holly Springs in Lake County, and in this subdivision one of the lots 15 had a cell tower and it was a monopole, very similar to this subject one. But it was lit and I studied 16 the impact of the properties that were adjacent to the tower as well as those right across the street 17 that had a clear view of it and I compared those with properties that were further away that had a 18 much lesser view of it and there seemed to be no impact. Then I also went to another similar 19 subdivision that couldn’t see the tower at all and again I did the same analysis where I make an 20 adjustment for any differences and per square foot there was no indication that there was a lower 21 value due to the presence to the tower. 22 23 Laura Goode: And are the data that you’re talking about tonight, is that contained in your report 24 that you submitted? 25 26 David Smith: Yes it is. 27 28 Laura Goode: And what was the reason for doing the match pair as well as doing the subdivision? 29 30 David Smith: Well the match pair I just felt like that is sort of the standard, but I thought the other 31 two methods gave good support to that. So that’s why I prepared those. 32 33 Laura Goode: Now, have you had a chance to look at the report that the opposition presented? 34 35 David Smith: I have. 36 37 Laura Goode: Is it done by Michael Ogburn? 38 39 David Smith: Yes. 40 16 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 15 of 156 1 Laura Goode: Is he MAI certified? 2 3 David Smith: Not to my knowledge, no. 4 5 Laura Goode: Ok. Did he do a match pair analysis in his report? 6 7 David Smith: No, he did not. 8 9 Barry Katz: What are we looking at? 10 11 Laura Goode: I’m sorry, this is not in evidence yet. And I have hold my questions on this until it’s 12 in evidence. 13 14 John Price: We’d be happy to place it in evidence. 15 16 Samantha Cabe: Do you want to go ahead and mark it and distribute it just so that we know what 17 he’s comparing? 18 19 John Price: Yes. 20 21 Samantha Cabe: So for the record the applicant is stipulating to the opposition’s submission of 22 their first Exhibit into evidence? 23 24 John Price: No. 25 26 Samantha Cabe: Clarify for me then, what you’re doing. 27 28 John Price: The document she is referring to an appraisel report prepared by our expert witness. 29 30 Samantha Cabe: Right. So they’re stipulating to the opposition putting in their first Exhibit before 31 the Board, is that correct? 32 33 John Price: That’s my understanding. 34 35 Laura Goode: We’re stipulating to it coming into evidence but not necessarily to the opinions or 36 conclusions that are on it. 37 17 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 16 of 156 1 Samantha Cabe: Exactly. So that we may look at it while your expert is testifying and compare. 2 3 Michael Harvey: We’ll call this the Op Exhibit 1. 4 5 Samantha Cabe: And just for clarification, we will not be asking this witness questions about this 6 report because he did not prepare it. 7 8 Laura Goode: Ok, now I’m looking at what is tabbed as page 19 of 48 in Mr. Ogburn’s report. Is 9 this an article regarding the impact of cell phone towers on house prices in residential 10 neighborhoods? 11 12 David Smith: Yes it is. 13 14 Laura Goode: Did you review this article? 15 16 David Smith: I looked at it briefly. I only saw it when I came tonight, so I haven’t had a chance to 17 read it thoroughly. 18 19 Laura Goode: Ok, was this article written by certified real estate appraisers? 20 21 David Smith: No, it does not appear to be so. 22 23 John Price: I object to that statement, as a speculation of opinion and not a fact. 24 25 Laura Goode: And what was the date of this article? 26 27 David Smith: 2005. 28 29 Laura Goode: So how many years ago was that? 30 31 David Smith: About 11 years. 32 33 Laura Goode: In what, did you see from your review, what was the overall conclusion of this 34 article? 35 36 David Smith: Well it was. 37 18 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 17 of 156 1 John Price: I object. I think the article speaks for itself. Mr. Smith who has not even reviewed the 2 article in order to comment. 3 4 Samantha Cabe: Does anyone from the Board have an opinion about that objection? I would say 5 we can read the article for ourselves. 6 7 Barry Katz: We haven’t had any time to prepare this. So this is a survey? Ok. May I ask? Who’s 8 being surveyed? Property owners or people who are considering purchasing property? 9 10 John Price: My expert when he testifies… 11 12 Barry Katz: Ok, he’ll answer those questions. 13 14 Samantha Cabe: At this time I think I would ask you to limit Mr. Smith’s testimony just to his report 15 and we can refer to this for differences but I believe it might be more appropriate to have the 16 oppostion put in their report to evidence and then you can cross examine all these points. That 17 would be more… Thank you. 18 19 Laura Goode: So based on the review that you did in your study in your report, what was your 20 opinion at the conclusion of this study? 21 22 David Smith: It has no adverse impact effect on value. 23 24 Laura Goode: Thank you. Do you have any questions? 25 26 John Price: Are you offering into the record his impact analysis? Or has it been offered? 27 28 Laura Goode: Yes, it’s part of the application that’s already been entered into the record. 29 30 John Price: Ok, I have several objections to that analysis. Statements contained in the analysis. 31 And I’d like to start if I may by questioning the witness regarding those questions ……….. those 32 issues. 33 34 Samantha Cabe: Yes, and if you could just state your name for the record, your position and who 35 exactly you represent. 36 37 19 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 18 of 156 John Price: Yes, I’m sorry. I’m John Price, I’m will Calhoun, Bhelia, and Seacrest. A law firm here 1 in Durham. I represent, in this matter, several clients. One is Mr. Owen Gwen, individually, who is 2 a property owner on a property in the area of where this cell tower will be located. Mr Gwen is also 3 the member of Dove Field LLC, that’s about a 220-acre piece of property that’s situated next to 4 where this cell tower will be constructed. I’m also representing Evan and Erin Gwen, who reside 5 on a piece of the Dove Field LLC property. 6 7 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 8 9 John Price: Mr. Smith, in your analysis you have several statements that contained in it that I’d 10 like to ask you about. One is, you state that cell towers are in harmony with the area in the same 11 way that other utilities are. Does your expertise include landscape design? 12 13 David Smith: No. 14 15 John Price: Real estate development planning? 16 17 David Smith: No. 18 19 John Price: Master planning? 20 21 David Smith: No. 22 23 John Price: Aesthetic designer analysis? 24 25 David Smith: No. 26 27 John Price: Have you even been engaged as an expert to impigne on what is or is not in harmony 28 with a particular community? 29 30 David Smith: Yes, in front of a place like this I have. Yes. 31 32 John Price: Is there anything in your background that qualifies you in such matters anymore that 33 any other citizen? 34 35 David Smith: In matters of harmony? 36 37 John Price: Yes. 38 20 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 19 of 156 1 David Smith: I am a real estate professional so, yes. 2 3 John Price: So would any real estate agent have just as much knowledge as you regarding what’s 4 at harmony? 5 6 David Smith: I would say so. 7 8 John Price: Does it require expertise of a particular person to make that determination? 9 10 David Smith: No. 11 12 John Smith: Thank you. We object to that statement in Mr. Smith’s report for the reason that he is 13 not qualified to offer an opinion as to whether or not the cell tower is in harmony with the 14 community and contiguous property. You also say in the report that cell towers are needed, Mr. 15 Smith. Do you recall that? 16 17 David Smith: Yes. 18 19 John Price: Do you consider yourself qualified as an expert on the types of structures or systems 20 that are needed or required for particular areas? 21 22 David Smith: No. 23 24 John Price: Are you an expert on cell towers? 25 26 David Smith: No. 27 28 John Price: We object to that statement in his report, as being that he is not qualified to offer an 29 opinion on need. 30 31 Samantha Cabe: Could you point out the specific statement that you’re speaking of? 32 33 John Price: I’m sorry, yes. The first statement with regard to being in harmony with the area was 34 on page 12 of his report. 35 36 Michael Harvey: That’s tab 32, page 12. 37 21 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 20 of 156 1 John Price: Thank you. And with regard to the need, I can’t remember where that was exactly, I 2 didn’t have that written down. I also have an objection on page 11, the first paragraph of the 3 analysis where you state, “based on the plans of the proposed tower and conversations of those 4 associated with it, there will be no environmental hazards.”. That statement is solely based on 5 what someone else told you, correct? 6 David Smith: Correct. 7 8 John Price: That’s hearsay and we object to that statement to the extent that it would try to be 9 used as evidence as any kind and with respect to whether there are or not environmental hazards. 10 11 Samantha Cabe: And Mr. Price, can I stop you for just one moment? Do we need to be ruling on 12 each of these? 13 14 James Bryan: I wouldn’t think so. I think, like we discussed… First of all, it’s already in the record 15 so it could be that he’s asking you to strike that from record but I don’t think that is what we’re 16 doing. I think these are arguments that this is not a competent material or substantial evidence. I 17 think we can take that into consideration and give it it’s due weight in your deliberations. 18 19 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 20 21 Laura Goode: And if I may just comment to that objection on his point, experts are allowed to base 22 their opinions on hearsay and that is what he’s done. He’s not said specifically whether people 23 said inaudible. 24 25 John Price: It is a recognized exeption to the hearsay when the hearsay is within the specialty and 26 expertise of the witness. In this case the hearsay has nothing to do with his opinion with respect to 27 value of property. This solely goes to the question of environmental hazard, and the exception 28 does not apply. 29 30 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 31 32 Barry Katz: Did we hear that according to statutes that we’re not considering health hazards in the 33 substance of this? Isn’t that what you said? Health issues are not a part of this hearing? 34 35 James Bryan: So yeah, if that becomes an issue I would advise you to ask the attorney’s to further 36 argue that. There are Federal Laws that apply here that are to only apply to cell towers. I’m not 37 particularly an expert at that. My frank advice is that I don’t think that’s going to be what they’re 38 asking you to base your decision on, either party. 39 40 22 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 21 of 156 Susan Halkiotis: I have a question because I was a little confused as to how that can’t be part of 1 the decision since one of the findings of fact mentions public health. It seems contradictory. 2 3 Michael Harvey: I think part of it might be a comment made by Ms. Goode at the beginning of the 4 meeting and part of it may also be I want to remind you what’s on page 122 of the staff packet 5 where we stick concerns. Questions were asked during the balloon test about the impacts of 6 electromagnetic radiation. And staff’s comment is the Federal Government has found there is no 7 conclusive evidence demonstrated that telecommunication towers generate harmful radiation or 8 have an impact with individuals overall health. Section 5.10.8.4 sub section V requires all SUP to 9 include a condition that the “Electromagnetic radiation levels maintain compliance with 10 requirements to the FCC, that’s Federal Communications Commission, regarding an emission of 11 electromagnetic radiation” This is a mandatory condition of the telecommunication tower permit. 12 So we will respond to a question about electromagnetic radiation. I won’t speak for what Ms. 13 Goode was talking to, but I think Mr. Katz had gleamed on what we said on page 122, which is 14 consistent with our UDO. I wanted to make sure everyone remembered that. 15 16 Barry Katz: Yes, exactly. 17 18 Laura Goode: I want to just clarify that statement I made earlier. I’m referring to 47 USC 332, 19 specifically sections C7 and it states that no state or local government or instrumentality thereof 20 may regulate the placement, construction, and modification or personal wireless facilities on the 21 basis of environmental effects, of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities 22 comply with commissions regulations concerning such emissions. I was talking to the specific 23 health concerns raised in the letter submittal. 24 25 Matt Hughes: So basically that piece of Federal Law is basic civics. The Federal government says 26 we can’t do it, therefore no matter what we say locally we can’t do it. 27 28 Laura Goode: As to definition, that’s correct. 29 30 John Price: I have a little different take on that. I don’t think this Board can deny to permit on the 31 basis of enviromental hazard or health hazards on that basis. That does not mean the Board is 32 restricted from considering that in reaching this decision in so far as the policies and goals of the 33 Board are stated. 34 35 Michael Harvey: And we also state that State law says the same thing. You cannot establish a 36 regulatory standard for something that you’re preempted from doing. The FCC has preempted you 37 essentially from doing that. They have established what the gauge level is, as Mr. Price is correct, 38 that can’t be a basis for decision for denial, which is why it’s a mandatory condition from our UDO. 39 And as referenced under State law. 40 41 Barry Katz: So were there any other environmental hazards that you are eluding to with that 42 statement? Was there anything else besides the electromagnetic wave radiation? Are there other 43 23 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 22 of 156 environmental hazards you want to bring up to us, besides potential electromagnetic wave 1 radiation? 2 3 John Price: No. Well, yes. 4 5 Samantha Cabe: Ok, can we reserve that for your case in chief? Right now we’re just on the 6 objection for his testimony, correct? 7 8 John Price: I have additional questions for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith, are you a residential or 9 commercial appraiser? 10 11 David Smith: I started out as a residential appraiser and I’m currently a general appraiser, 12 primarily commercial meaning non single family dwelling properties. 13 14 John Price: And in the last 10 years, predominantly has your work been commercial property? 15 16 David Smith: Non single family residential property, yes. 17 18 John Price: Are you aware that the Clearwater Lake area includes single family residences? 19 20 David Smith: I am. 21 22 John Price: And that it does not include commercial or industrial? 23 24 David Smith: Yes… Including large tracks of land of which have residents on them. 25 26 John Price: Were you engaged to perform an appraisel with any of the property in Clearwater 27 Lake area? 28 29 David Smith: An appraisel, no sir. 30 31 John Price: Have you ever appraised any property in that area to determine the value now as 32 opposed to the value if the proposed tower’s constructed? 33 34 David Smith: No. 35 36 24 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 23 of 156 John Price: In analyzing the real estate values of any given property is it important to take into 1 consideration any conditions which are unique, such as large structures within the view of the 2 property? 3 4 David Smith: Yes. 5 6 John Price: Potential hazards? 7 8 David Smith: Yes. 9 10 John Price: Perceived hazards? 11 12 David Smith: Yes. 13 14 John Price: Eye sores. 15 16 David Smith: Yes. 17 18 John Price: Why? Why is it important to take it into consideration? 19 20 David Smith: Because they have a potential of having an adverse effect on property values. 21 22 John Price: Thank you. In connection with performing your impact analysis did you do any search 23 to determine whether there were any published industry studies, reports or surveys regarding the 24 impact of cell towers on property values? 25 26 David Smith: The only ones I found were old. 27 28 John Price: So you did do a search? 29 30 David Smith: I searched the appraisal institute information, like Mr. Ogburn had. 31 32 John Price: Did you find the article in the study that was attached to Mr. Ogburn’s appraisal? 33 34 David Smith: Again, I got it tonight and I looked at it briefly. 35 36 25 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 24 of 156 John Price: No, I’m asking.. In the course of performing your service in this case, did you review 1 any published industry study, or reports, or surveys regarding the potential impact on value of cell 2 towers? 3 4 David Smith: I am aware of the 2005 study. 5 6 John Price: You’re aware of it from looking at it? Today? 7 8 David Smith: No. I’ve seen it before. 9 10 John Price: You have seen it before? 11 12 David Smith: Yes I have. 13 14 John Price: Any other reports, or analysis’? 15 16 David Smith: No. 17 18 John Price: Were you aware of the survey study behind it in Mr. Ogburn appraisel? 19 20 David Smith: The study that he did, or the study …… 21 22 John Price: The study that was performed by. 23 24 David Smith: You mean the survey that they did? 25 26 John Price: Yes. 27 28 David Smith: No. I didn’t look at it that closely. 29 30 John Price: To the extent that there are published industry studies, reports, and surveys dealing 31 with the potential impact of the cell towers on the value of properties is that somehting that would 32 be important to review and take into consideration when entering an opinion such as yours? 33 34 David Smith: That’s secondary information. It’s much better to go on the ground and find your own 35 data. Because these are nationwide studies and each place is different. Especially when they’re 36 11 years old. 37 26 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 25 of 156 1 John Price: Is it your testimony that both of those are 11 years old? 2 3 David Smith: I’m not sure what other one you’re talking about. 4 5 John Price: Are you saying that age has an impact on whether you consider it or not? Age of the 6 report or the study? 7 8 David Smith: I’m saying people’s opinions change. 9 10 John Price: Are you aware of any studies or reports in addition to those attached to Mr. Osburns 11 appraisel reports, dealing with impact of cell towers on value property? 12 13 David Smith: No. 14 15 John Price: Have you searched for any? Looked for any? 16 17 David Smith: Not recently but I have in the past, yes. 18 19 John Price: In connection with the services in this instance did you? 20 21 David Smith: No. 22 23 John Price: At the time that you prepared the report did you know from where within the 24 Clearwater Lake area the contiguous property the cell tower would be visible? 25 26 David Smith: I don’t exactly know, I have a pretty good idea of it. I was not there for the balloon 27 test. 28 29 John Price: As matter of fact you prepared the report before the balloon test, didn’t you? 30 31 David Smith: Yes. 32 33 John Price: So you had no idea whether that tower would be visible did you? 34 35 David Smith: No. 36 27 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 26 of 156 1 John Price: Would you agree that the visibility of that tower is a significant factor in assessing 2 possible impact on property? 3 4 David Smith: The announces I did showed that visual impact of the tower does not affect property 5 value. 6 7 John Price: So you’re saying because you did a study that shows it’s not, therefore it doesn’t 8 matter? 9 10 David Smith: Yes. 11 12 John Price: On page 11, second paragraph of your report it says, “The ony potential adverse 13 effect is the visual impact on the tower itself on the adjoining properties”, that’s your statement, is 14 it not? 15 16 David Smith: Correct. 17 18 John Price: And you don’t know what properties the tower would be visible do you? 19 20 David Smith: Correct … inaudible 21 22 John Price: You further state on the same page that, “The type of property with the greatest 23 potential for adverse effect from visibilty is on single family dwellings.”. That’s your statement, 24 correct? 25 26 David Smith: Correct. 27 28 John Price: Do you know or did you know at the time you prepared the report that the Dove Field 29 LLC property was the nearest property to where the tower would be constructed? 30 31 David Smith: Yes. 32 33 John Price: On page 11 of your report you say, “The tower site is completely surrounded by 34 mature trees.”. Do you recall that? 35 36 David Smith: Yes. 37 38 28 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 27 of 156 John Price: Is that important to you in accessing the impact? 1 2 David Smith: No. 3 4 John Price: That’s not important to you? 5 6 David Smith: No. As long as it’s screened by trees or a buffer. 7 8 John Price: As long as it’s… Repeat that please. 9 10 David Smith: As long as there’s some screen from the trees or from a buffer, I don’t think it 11 impacts the property values. 12 13 John Price: Well if there are mature trees and you made a note that it’s completely surrounded by 14 mature trees, aren’t you saying because of that there’s less impact? 15 16 David Smith: I’m describing the property. 17 18 John Price: You also note in the report that the area between the least area and the tower site are 19 heavily wooded. 20 21 David Smith: Yes. 22 23 John Price: You also make the statement in your report, “If the trees are removed a 40-foot wide 24 landscape buffer would be installed.”. 25 26 David Smith: Yes. 27 28 John Price: Were you aware at the time you prepared your analysis that the Butner family that 29 owns the property on which the cell tower was going to be constructed was going to be 30 considering timbering this property? 31 32 David Smith: No. 33 34 John Price: No one advised you of that with Towercom? 35 36 David Smith: No. 37 29 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 28 of 156 1 John Price: Ms. Goode referred to a Type C landscape that would be performed on the property, 2 would be established on the property in the event and I think an answer to the question that was 3 asked to you in the event any of the trees died, I assume that Type C landscaping would also be 4 placed on the property in the event it was timbered. Do you know how long it would take for the 5 trees within a Type C landscape to mature to the same size as the trees that are currently on that 6 property? 7 8 Laura Goode: I would object at this point in time. As that’s outside of his expertise. 9 10 John Price: Am I correct that you used Cobble Ridge and Holly Springs as a comparable for 11 comparison purposes in your analysis? 12 13 David Smith: Yes. 14 15 John Price: And also Sunset Ridge? 16 17 David Smith: Yes. That is one of my analysis. 18 19 John Price: Are either Cobble Ridge or Sunset Ridge zoned rural buffer? 20 21 David Smith: Not to my knowledge, no. 22 23 John Price: Do you know what that means, rural buffer? 24 25 David Smith: Well I have a vague idea but I don’t feel comfortable providing specifics. 26 27 John Price: Didn’t you include a specific definition of it in your analysis? 28 29 David Smith: I can read you my report if you’d like, but off the top of my head I don’t know all the 30 specifics and I would hate to make that assumption. 31 32 John Price: Ok, we’ll go on. Were the homes in Cobble Ridge on minimum 2-acre lots? 33 34 David Smith: Minimum 2-acre lots? No, I don’t believe so. 35 36 John Price: You don’t believe so or you know for a fact that they were not? 37 30 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 29 of 156 1 David Smith: I know for a fact they are not. 2 3 John Price: As matter of fact, do you recall any lot within Cobble Ridge where there was a home 4 on a 2-acre lot? 5 6 David Smith: No. 7 8 John Price: Same with Sunset Ridge? 9 10 David Smith: Yes. 11 12 John Price: Did the area within Cobble Ridge or Sunset Ridge include creeks or ponds? 13 14 David Smith: I don’t know. 15 16 John Price: Wildlife habitats? 17 18 David Smith: I don’t know. 19 20 John Price: I’m correct, am I not, that the maximum value on any of the homes in Cobble Ridge 21 and Sunset Ridge that the top value of any of them was $400,000? 22 23 David Smith: I don’t know. You mean the selling price, is that what you are referring to? 24 25 John Price: Yes, selling price. 26 27 David Smith: I don’t know. I could look at it. You need to know the ones I used? 28 29 John Price: Yes, correct. 30 31 David Smith: I’ll take a look. 32 33 John Price: Are you aware the value of the properties of the homes in the Dove Field property? 34 35 31 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 30 of 156 David Smith: I have the tax values of adjacent properties in my report but I don’t have… That’s all 1 I have. 2 3 John Price: Tax values are not the same as the actual market value of the property? 4 5 David Smith: Theoretically they are, but no. 6 7 John Price: Are there many of those properties where the value is above $400,000? 8 9 David Smith: I don’t know. 10 11 John Price: Are you aware that Mr. Gwen’s home site on the property that that home site sits on 12 was valued well in excess of $1,000,000? 13 14 David Smith: No. 15 16 John Smith: Are there significant view sheds or were there significant view sheds in Cobble Ridge 17 or Sunset Ridge? 18 19 David Smith: What do you mean by view shed? 20 21 John Price: I guess what I mean when I use that term is locations where you have views that are 22 natural landscapes or natural environment. Views of forest, views of nature, views of the 23 environment. 24 25 David Smith: I’m not aware, I’m not sure what you mean and I don’t know if they did or not. 26 27 John Price: What was the terrain of Cobble Ridge or Sunset Ridge, was it Hope Rolling Hills? 28 29 David Smith: Yes. 30 31 John Price: Do you have an opinion based on your experience whether the presence of a visible 32 199-foot cell tower in an area would have a greater or lesser impact on a community zoned rural 33 buffer with large lots, large expensive homes, heavily wooded with beautiful views, nearby wildlife 34 habitats, golf courses, as opposed to more densily populated residential areas with smaller homes 35 on smaller lots? 36 37 32 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 31 of 156 David Smith: I would think the larger lots would have a lesser impact because there’s more 1 between the property and the tower. 2 3 John Price: You mean in terms of the square foot? 4 5 David Smith: If you have a 2-acre lot, you’ve got a lot more trees and screen than a half acre lot 6 would. So I would think that the half acre lot would be impacted more. 7 8 John Price: Wouldn’t you also think that someone who’s paying a higher price for a property that’s 9 located in a community like that is going to be… that the impact of a visible cell tower in that area 10 is going to be greater than it would be in other communities? 11 12 David Smith: I don’t think cell towers impact any properties. 13 14 John Price: I understand that’s your opinion… On page 8 of your report you state that the area, 15 and you’re referring to the Clearwater Lake area, it’s popular and property values should increase 16 at a rate greater than inflation. Why is that? 17 18 David Smith: Just the overall Orange County is more popular than the country in general and 19 property values increase. 20 21 John Price: So you were referring to Orange County as opposed to the property contiguous to 22 where the cell tower’s going to be constructed? 23 24 David Smith: Yes ….. all of Orange County. 25 26 John Price: How about the propert contiguous to where the cell tower’s going to be? 27 28 David Smith: Yes, I think it would increase higher than inflation. 29 30 John Price: Am I also correct that the opinion that you expressed in your report that the presence 31 of the cell tower will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties is based solely on the 32 data you collected with respect to the selling prices of homes in these other locations? 33 34 David Smith: Yes. 35 36 John Price: And nothing else? 37 38 33 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 32 of 156 David Smith: No. Just based on that. 1 2 John Price: I don’t have any further questions. 3 4 Laura Goode: I have a few follow up questions, thank you… And you did your report based on the 5 requirements of the Orange County code, is that correct? 6 7 David Smith: Correct. 8 9 Laura Goode: And the specific priming effect is that the use would maintain or enhance the value 10 of contiguous property, is that correct? 11 12 David Smith: That’s correct. 13 14 Laura Goode: Did you evaluate the contiguous properties to the Butner family farm property? 15 16 David Smith: Yes. 17 18 Laura Goode: Is that an evaluation contained in your report? 19 20 David Smith: It wasn’t an evaluation of his property’s, it was an effect of value of the cell tower on 21 his properties. 22 23 Laura Goode: Ok. Contiguous meaning that you looked at the properties adjacent to the Butner 24 family farm trust property? 25 26 David Smith: Yes. 27 28 Laura Goode: Ok so …... You’ve been asked about properties owned by the Gwen family that 29 were valued at $1,000,000, was that part of the contiguous properties that you reviewed as part of 30 your report? 31 32 David Smith: No, I believe they’re further away. 33 34 Laura Goode: You were also asked about your statement in your report that you stated that the 35 greatest potential for impact from visibility of the tower is on single family residences, is that right? 36 37 34 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 33 of 156 David Smith: Yes. 1 2 Laura Goode: Ok. And what was your conclusion as to impact of a cell phone tower on single 3 family residences? 4 5 David Smith: It would have no adverse effect. 6 7 Laura Goode: You also testified about doing a match pair analysis as a part of your evaluation? 8 9 David Smith: Yes. 10 11 Laura Goode: Can you explain what a match pair analysis means? Matched to what? 12 13 David Smith: You compare two similar properties. Ideally you would want one difference to find 14 out what the difference in value for that one item is. It’s very rare you find an absolute match to 15 pair so what you have to do is adjust the differences until the only difference left is that one item. 16 In this case I did it for a cell tower. 17 18 Laura Goode: Ok. Now in that match pair analysis what properties were you trying to match to? 19 20 David Smith: I was trying to match a property on Sunrise Drive that backs up to a cell tower with 21 the one of Kelly Court that’s similar in most respects but did not have the cell tower. So they 22 were….. I adjusted the Kelly Court until it was essentially equal with the Sunrise, except for the 23 cell tower. 24 25 Laura Goode: And were those homes similar in nature to the homes found on the properties 26 adjacent to the Butner family farm trust property? 27 28 David Smith: A few of them. It was a fairly small house. 29 30 Laura Goode: Now, you’ve been asked about Mr. Gwen’s home being valued at or above 31 $1,000,000. Does the fact of the selling prices in different areas you examined are lower versus 32 the appraisel value of Mr. Gwen’s property, does that change you conclusion? 33 34 David Smith: No. 35 36 Laura Goode: Taking into account all the information that you’ve been asked about, what is your 37 overall conclusion? 38 35 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 34 of 156 1 John Price: This is redundent. 2 3 David Smith: That the cell tower would have no adverse impact on property values of contiguous 4 property. 5 6 Laura Goode: I don’t have any further questions. 7 8 John Price: On those properties that you did the match pair you said you compared similar 9 properties other than the fact that there was a cell tower on the other properties what else was 10 similar? 11 12 David Smith: They were similar in size and design, one wasn’t 2-story, they were both traditional 13 ranch buildings. 14 15 John Price: You’re talking about the similarity between the other properties in your analysis, you’re 16 not talking about similarity to the property contiguous to the cell tower, correct? 17 18 David Smith: That’s correct. These are two properties that were in different areas, correct. 19 20 John Price: No further questions. 21 22 Samantha Cabe: Do any members of the Board have questions for this witness? 23 24 Barry Katz: You were talking about properties on Sunrise, right? Is Sunrise in a rural buffer? 25 26 Michael Harvey: Yes. 27 28 John Price: Sunrise or Sunset? You said in your report Sunset, I thought? 29 30 David Smith: Sunrise. 31 32 Barry Katz: It is in a rural buffer. 33 34 Michael Harvey: I’m going to answer that questions following that it is. A telecommunications 35 tower that was reviewed in 2004 and 2005 when my tenure with the County started on Sunrise 36 Road. And it is in the rural buffer. It’s on the outskirts of Chapel Hill. 37 36 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 35 of 156 1 Samantha Cabe: Any other questions? 2 3 Barry Katz: I just wondered if there are any published analysis’ of comparables related to cell 4 towers that you could actually identify and use at evidence one way or the other, in the United 5 States? 6 7 David Smith: W ell that’s what I did. I used properties next to cell towers… 8 9 Barry Katz: You did individually but you couldn’t go to some journal and find boat loads of 10 comparisons? 11 12 David Smith: The only journal that I’m aware of is in this report that’s 2005, and it was actually 13 done in New Zealand. 14 15 Barry Katz: It was done in New Zealand? 16 17 David Smith: Yes. 18 19 Barry Katz: Are there any in the United States? 20 21 David Smith: Not that I’m aware of. 22 23 Barry Katz: Ok. I’m surprised. 24 25 Samantha Cabe: Ok, your next witness? 26 27 Laura Goode: Good Evening. Could you please state your name? 28 29 David Haughney: My Name’s David Haughney. 30 31 Laura Goode: What’s your business address? 32 33 David Haughney: My business address is 3020 Hammond Road in Raleigh. 34 35 Laura Goode: Have you been sworn in? 36 37 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 36 of 156 1 David Haughney: Yes, I’ve been sworn. 2 3 Laura Goode: And what do you do for a living? 4 5 David Haughney: I’m an RF engineer for Verizon Wireless. It stands for radio frequency. 6 7 Laura Goode: And can you explain what your job involves? 8 9 David Haughney: I’m specifically a design engineer in the Triangle area for Verizon, it involves 10 identifying new coverage and capacity including so needed where the demand is highest, where 11 they would benefit us the most, and then design and work into the deploy those projects. 12 13 Laura Goode: How long have you been doing this job? 14 15 David Haughney: A very long time. In the Triangle area alone 17 years or RF Engineering and 16 technical work. 17 18 Laura Goode: What other experience, training, or education do you have that prepared you for 19 this job? 20 21 David Haughney: My entire career, basically. I was trained in electronics technology in high school 22 and graduated high school with a full time job repairing electronic circuit boards at the component 23 level. And then went on to further my training and experience in the United States Army, in military 24 communications. And have worked in the wireless industry my entire career. 25 26 Laura Goode: At this time I respectfully request that this Board accept David Haughney as an 27 expert in the area of radio frequency engineering and determining network objectives in the 28 explore of new wireless telecommunications facilities… So we’ve talked a little bit already about 29 the network objective for this site and the propegation maps. The propegation maps that were 30 submitted as Exhibit 7 to the application, did you prepare those maps? 31 32 David Haughney: Yes I did. 33 34 Laura Goode: And can you explain a little bit about what those propegation maps mean? 35 36 David Haughney: The propegation maps are generated from a highly specialized tool that’s really 37 only used by people with my title, in my industry, to predict how the network is performing and to 38 38 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 37 of 156 make adjustments to that network and predict what future enhancements or changes you can 1 effect on network using that tool. 2 3 Laura Goode: And can you explain or move to what was Exhibit 5 of the application. The search 4 area map. Is this something you created? 5 6 David Haughney: Yes, absolutely. We design the search areas for the network based on 7 coverage, capacity, demands, customer complaints, input from sales. 8 9 Laura Goode: And is the search area map that’s shown as Exhibit 5 of the application, is that the 10 maximum search area in which the proposed telecommunication equipment for the Clearwater 11 Lake site can function as it’s intended to meet that network objective? 12 13 David Haughney: Yes it is. This is the optimal search area to improve that huge coverage hole 14 that exists in that area and along Mt. Carmel Church Road. 15 16 Laura Goode: And in terms of the network objective Exhibit 4 of the application is a document 17 titled “Network Objective Statement: Clearwater Lake Site”, it has your signature on it. Is that a 18 true and accurate copy of your statement regarding the network objective for the site? 19 20 David Haughney: Yes it is. 21 22 Laura Goode: To your knowledge were there any existing towers or other structures within the 23 search area that were possible for co-location of the equipment? 24 25 David Haughney: No. 26 27 Laura Goode: Are you familiar with what was known as the Mellot candidate? 28 29 David Haughney: Yes. 30 31 Laura Goode: How did you become aware of this Mellot candidate? 32 33 David Haughney: Through the general search area process. After we go through that analysis and 34 design to determine where the optimal search area is we then submit that to our real estate teams 35 for their review and they’re the experts in that department of real estate. And we’ll go out and 36 taking all things into consideration, including ordinances, the best candidates to fulfill the need. 37 And one of the priorities is to look for existing structures first to fulfill the need. And then where 38 identified ….. but these two raw link candidates …… one of them being Mellot as it is known and 39 the primary candidate that we eventually selected. 40 39 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 38 of 156 1 Laura Goode: Did you evaluate Mellot candidate for whether it would meet the network objective 2 for Verizon Wireless with this site? 3 4 David Haughney: Yes, absolutely, I did. 5 6 Laura Goode: And I’m showing you what was introduced as Exhibit 11 to the application. Did you 7 create Exhibit 11, the Mellot candidate analysis? 8 9 David Haughney: Yes. 10 11 Laura Goode: Ok. And is this a true and accurate copy of what you created? 12 13 David Haughney: Yes it is. 14 15 Laura Goode: Ok. Can you explain the analysis you did for the Mellot candidate? As to whether it 16 would meet the network objective for Verizon? 17 18 David Haughney: Yes, absolutely. One of the primary objectives as stated is to improve that dead 19 zone on Mt. Carmel Church Road between about the Orange County line and North towards 15-20 501 it goes into Chapel Hill. That whole road is a dead zone. You’re either going to have no 21 service or very poor, and unreliable service. And that being the primary objective, filling in the 22 coverage hole, in my analysis of Mellot candidate I was not seeing any coverage get over there 23 when I ran it through my prediction inaudible and I had digged deeper into the reasons why; why 24 do we have a simulated a 200-foot structure at this location and it’s not reaching distance away to 25 the road that it should and identify the terrain of structure. There’s basically a 200-foot terrain 26 increase a short distance away from the proposed location and the location sits at the bottom of a 27 200-foot hill and we’re only proposed a 200-foot tower. So these radio signals we’re using do not 28 penetrate through earth. In addition to the 200-foot terrain obstruction there’s another 100-foot of 29 dense foliage, average height. And the radio signals we’re using don’t penetrate through dense 30 foliage very well either. So an optimal location has to take in consideration of the terrain in the 31 area to meet the objective. And this did not. Because of that obstructure. It will not reach Mt. 32 Carmel Church Road. 33 34 Laura Goode: Now turning to the proposed Clearwater Lake site; were there any alternatives 35 technologies available that would provide the needed increase coverage in capacity offload in the 36 Clearwater Lake area without the proposed 195 foot tower? 37 38 David Haughney: No, this is a very optimal design for this area. 39 40 40 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 39 of 156 Laura Goode: Would small cell or DAS technology work to meet the network objective for the 1 proposed site? 2 3 David Haughney: No. I’ll expand on that just a little bit. We use macrocells, small cells, microcells, 4 picocells. Verizon is on the forefront of using those technologies on ….. we’ve actually 5 implemented a very well developed network of small cells and DAS on UNC campus becusae that 6 is the areas where they are appropriate. Where you have a very high concentration of users and 7 you don’t need a really tall structure to an exhaust of the carrier because there’s so many users 8 just right in one area. That’s where small cells and DAS are appropriate. And they work and 9 Verizon deploys those technologies. In a rural area, this is where you’re trying to cover a very 10 large area, let’s call it 4 square miles to connect between the surrrounding sites at least, and more 11 sparse usage without concentrated usage a macrocell is the appropriate feasible and practical 12 solution. 13 14 Laura Goode: Is it possible, using the monopole, for Verizon Wireless to meet this network 15 objective for this site but flush mounting the antennas to the structure? 16 17 David Haughney: The optimal design for the site is the one that we proposed and it does include 18 more than one antenna per sector and it includes towercomp radio electronics to enhance and 19 improve the coverage. And using flush mount design takes away those advantages from it. It 20 limits you to one antenna per sector, it limits the amount of towercomp radio electronics that you 21 can mount, and then greatly diminishes the overall coverage and capacity benefit of the solution. 22 23 Laura Goode: Exhibit 27 of the application is a document labeled “Technolgical Invisibility of Flush 24 Mounted Antennas: Clearwater Lake site” has your signature on it. Is that a true and accurate 25 copy of your statement? 26 27 David Haughney: Yes it is. 28 29 Laura Goode: And finally, will Verizon Wireless’ proposed equipment for the tower comply with all 30 Federal, State, and Local RF emissions requirements? 31 32 David Haughney: Yes, absolutely. 33 34 Laura Goode: In Exhibit 17 of the application is a document labeled “Non-Interference Statement 35 for Clearwater Lake” with your signature. Is that a true and accurate copy of your statement? 36 37 David Haughney: Yes. 38 39 Laura Goode: I don’t have any further questions at this time. 40 41 41 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 40 of 156 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price? 1 2 John Price: Yes, I have a few. Mr. Haughney, you prepared two letters. One to Michael Harvey at 3 the Planning Department, and one to your counselor Laura Goode that were attached to the 4 application, is that correct? One is tab 21, and one is tab 30. Is that correct? 5 6 Laura Goode: (tab) 21 is not his statement. That’s John Yeagley’s statement. 7 8 John Price: Have you reviewed Mr. Yeagley’s letter of September 28th to counsel? 9 10 David Haughney: I’m not sure what letter you’re referring to. 11 12 John Price: It’s a letter that addresses the issue of section 5.10.8 (b)(4) of the Orange County 13 Unified Development Ordinance setting forth the priorities for location of telecommunication 14 facilities. 15 16 David Haughney: If I could see that specific letter I could tell you if I reviewed it or not but I’m 17 familiar with what you’re speaking about … (Attorney Goode handed Mr. Haughney a copy of the 18 letter) I have not seen this particular letter but I have seen this, the outline of the section of 19 priorities. I’m familiar with it. 20 21 John Price: You were not consulted by Mr. Yeagley? 22 23 David Haughney: Mr. Yeagley’s an expert in that field and he knows that part of his job very well. 24 It’s a given communication between inaudible and Mr. Yeagley. 25 26 John Price: So you are not offering any opinion with respect to whether there are other locations, 27 including within the priority locations set forth by Orange County the Planning Department on 28 which your cell tower could be located? Is that right? 29 30 David Haughney: Could you rephrase that …. Or summarize …..? 31 32 John Price: You’re not expressing any opinion with regard to whether the cell tower structure or 33 facilities could be located anywhere else other than the location selected on the search rank? 34 35 David Haughney: Um …… I guess I would answer that yes. 36 37 John Price: You are or are not? 38 42 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 41 of 156 1 David Haughney: I am not a real estate expert. I submit a search ring and a real estate and site 2 acquisition experts return with candidates from that ring. I am familiar with the area, if there was a 3 water tank somewhere in the ring I might even suggest it as part of my search ring submission to 4 Mr. Yeagley. When I submit that ring for evaluation I might say there’s a known tower in here, in 5 this ring, and we like it. So in that respect, no, I didn’t have any familiarity with any existing 6 structures and I leave it up to them to be professional with site analysis. 7 8 John Price: What are the reasons this new cell tower is needed? 9 10 David Haughney: The coverage hole that exists on Mt. Carmel Church Lake Road needs 11 coverage improvement and all of the surrounding sites around it will greatly benefit from the 12 capacity improvement that it offers. 13 14 John Price: And the other sites around it, does that include the UNC campus? 15 16 David Haughney: Well, absolutely yes. 17 18 John Price: I understand that the proposed tower will create cells using 700 megahertz, AWS, and 19 PCS spectra. Is that right? 20 David Haughney: Correct. 21 22 John Price: Are there different business cases developed for the different spectra? 23 24 David Haughney: I don’t think in the context that we’re speaking, no. Each one of those bands 25 may indeed be used on this structure and they are used on microcell structures in the network, in 26 this area. 27 28 John Price: I understand but 700 Megahertz travels about 3 times the distance of AWS and PCS 29 spectra. Are output powers of the different spectra adjusted to adjust the covering area so all are 30 equal? 31 32 David Haughney: No, they’re not all equal. So the lower band frequencies have better coverage 33 and better penetration but there’s a limited amount of bandwith we have in lower band frequency. 34 We use AWS and PCS and we’re exploring other frequency bands for use, because we need 35 more spectra. The lower bands are great. I wish I had an unlimited amount of low band spectra, 36 but we don’t. We have to use the higher band spectra. 37 38 John Price: If output powers are not adjusted AWS and PCS cell sites would be smaller in area, 39 wouldn’t they? 40 43 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 42 of 156 1 David Haughney: A correct answer to that question is ….. we optimize our network for optimal 2 coverage and performance on all our bands. 3 4 John Price: Would these be focused on different service or market than the 700 megahertz 5 spectrum cell tower? 6 7 David Haughney: Not in particular. That’s why earlier I said not in this context. I’ll put out an 8 example that might answer your question a little more or maybe what you are alluding to… Small 9 cells, for instance, since they’re focused on gererally a hot spot area of coverage, like a building or 10 a shopping center or stadium, we use the higher bands AWS and PCS at those locations 11 sometimes because we know we have a very well defined small coverage area we don’t use the 12 low bands. That’s an example but I’m not sure about the question or the intent because we do use 13 all bands on microcells. All the bands that are mentioned, they will be used. 14 15 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price, before you go on I want to just… I don’t know if my Board agrees with 16 me but I think we’re going into the weeds here. If you could remind us how what you’re 17 questioning him about is relevant to the questions before this Board, which are the standards that 18 we have yet to ultimately decide. Maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general 19 welfare, maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, user will be in harmony with the 20 area and complies with the comprehensive plan. I think we’re getting into some detail that is 21 beyond the scope here and I want to remind everyone we have a standing rule that this Board 22 adjourns at 10:30 unless we vote to stay open. So I just don’t want you to spend your time asking 23 questions that are not relevant to what we’re deciding. 24 25 John Price: Well the questions I’m asking have to do with laying a foundation for my expert 26 witness’ testimony, which has to do with whether or not there are in fact alternatives to the single 27 cell tower that is being proposed in this case by Towercom for solving and addressing the specific 28 needs along Mt. Carmel Road and the UNC Campus that would not involve putting up a large cell 29 tower that has other impacts on the community. That is one of the requirements… 30 31 Samantha Cabe: Ok, I’m just telling you how much time we have left and I am saying your 32 testimony is going into an area that we do not have to consider as a Board. It’s not our decision as 33 to whether there are alternatives. Our decision is about the application before us. So if you could 34 just proceed with cross examining this witness on the relevant evidence. 35 36 John Price: I do think… 37 38 Samantha Cabe: I’m not arguing with you, I’m just asking you to go forward. 39 40 John Price: Right, ok I’ll move forward. What is your call completion rate in the area along Mt. 41 Carmel Road? 42 44 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 43 of 156 1 Laura Goode: At this point in time I would object to that being proprietary confidential business 2 information. 3 4 John Price: That goes directly to the issue of whether or not this cell tower is needed or not. 5 6 David Haughney: And we presented a prop map showing no coverage in the area. 7 8 John Price: The entire Mt. Carmel Road has no coverage? Is that your testimony? 9 10 David Haughney: As indicated on the propegation map, obviously I didn’t testify to that, I testified 11 to the map. 12 13 John Price: How has the completion rate changed over the years on Mt. Carmel Road? 14 15 Laura Goode: Again I would object to this being confidential proprietary business information that 16 the applicant is not required to provide pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes. 17 18 John Price: You’re not going to answer the question? 19 20 Laura Goode: Correct. 21 22 John Price: On average, how long would it take a driver to traverse the section of the road that 23 has bad coverage? 24 25 Laura Goode: Again I would object to this being proprietary and confidential business information 26 that is not required to be presented pursuant to the NCGS. 27 28 John Price: What is your goal for capacity and call completion? 29 30 Laura Goode: Again this is proprietary and confidential business information that is not required to 31 be presented pursuant to the NCGS. 32 33 John Price: Mr. Haughney, you do recall your September 28th letter … I am sorry ….. Are you 34 only involved in the site selection for this cell tower opposed to the need for the cell tower? 35 36 David Haughney: No, I did determine the need. 37 45 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 44 of 156 1 John Price: And you came to the conclusion I assume, am I correct, that the only way to address 2 the issue of coverage along Mt. Carmel Road and the offload capacity at UNC Campus was to 3 build a single tower …… a199-foot tower in this particular location? Is that right? 4 5 David Haughney: You’re reading a little bit into the statements. The UNC Campus site is not even 6 in the jurisdiction you’re speaking of and there are other capacity improvements that we have 7 designed for that site. You’re interpreting it as if that’s the only capacity improvement in that area 8 or for that site and Ive already stated that we use small cell and DAS appropriately in that campus 9 environment to help. But this is an additional effort to improve our coverage and capacity in this 10 area. 11 12 John Price: Well I guess the reason that I came to that conclusion or opinion was because in your 13 application you specifically state that one of the purposes of this cell tower was for capacity 14 offload on the UNC Campus. 15 16 David Haughney: It is. It is not the only one. 17 18 John Price: I didn’t say it was the only one. 19 20 David Haughney: I thought you did. I thought you were implying that. 21 22 John Price: No. I am implying, asking …… There were two primary reasons that you say you need 23 this cell tower. One in because of the coverage gap along Mt. Carmel Road. Correct? 24 25 David Haughney: Yes sir. 26 27 John Price: The other one was for capacity offload in UNC Campus. 28 29 David Haughney: Absolutely. 30 31 John Price: And the Verizon tower that we’re talking about is on the UNC Campus, is it not? 32 33 David Haughney: It’s a water tank, owned by OWASA, on the Campus. Yes. 34 35 John Price: And is it a Verizon facility? 36 37 David Haughney: It is a water tower with antennas on it, yes. 38 46 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 45 of 156 1 John Price: Verizon antennas? 2 3 David Haughney: Operated by Verizon, yes sir. That seems obvious. 4 5 John Price: And you are, or are you not, of the opinion that the only way to address those two 6 issues is to build a single cell tower? 7 8 David Haughney: No sir. That’s why I’m disagreeing with you. We employ a lot of other measures 9 to help our UNC Campus. So it sounds to me like you’re saying …… this is the only solution for 10 capacity to those surrounding sites, including UNC Campus. It’s not. We are employing other 11 solutions, in particular some of the ones you’ve asked about. Which are small cell dats, this is an 12 additional needed solution as for the testimony. This is a needed solution. 13 14 John Price: So is this cell tower not needed for capacity offload in UNC Campus? 15 16 David Haughney: No. It is absolutely needed. As testified. 17 18 John Price: In conjuntion with something else or in and of itself? 19 20 David Haughney: In conjunction with other efforts we’re taking on UNC Campus and at all of our 21 sites to improve capacity. Yeah, absolutely. 22 23 John Price: Did you consider alternatives along Mt. Carmel Road that would address the issue of 24 the coverage or the coverage gap along that road? 25 26 David Haughney: We always consider alternatives when creating a search ring. We created the 27 search ring and that search ring is a solution for that problem. 28 (Unintelligible comments) 29 John Price: Are you aware of the fact that Mr. Yeagley who works with, according to the letter, for 30 the same company as you do? Chase Real Estate Services. 31 32 David Haughney: I do not work for Chase. 33 34 John Price: Ok. 35 36 David Haughney: I work for Verizon. I am a Verizon employee. 37 38 47 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 46 of 156 John Price: Ok. And so it was Verizon that selected the search ring? 1 2 David Haughney: Yes, we did design the search ring. 3 4 John Price: If you aren’t granted this application that’s pending before Orange County what will 5 you do to address the needs along Mt. Carmel Road? 6 7 Laura Goode: I would object to that as argumentative, he is an RF manager and he has not been 8 hired or at this time evaluated alternative solutions at this point in time. 9 10 John Price: And that’s …. That’s the whole point. The purpose for the question is to illicit what the 11 options are for building this single cell tower, 199-foot cell tower, on this location. Is there an 12 alternative that would solve and address the problem along Mt. Carmel Road? And they know 13 there is and they know what that alternative is but they’re unwilling to testify. 14 15 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price, this is not the time for an argument. I understand the point you’re 16 making, I think we all understand your point. We have a set of questions to answer per our UDO. 17 And we understand your questioning and you’ll be given a chance to argue at the end if you’re 18 finished with your cross examination. I’m just trying to keep this on track because again we have 19 an hour left and I think there’s still a lot of people here that want to be heard. 20 21 John Price: Yes. Maybe staff can assist on this. But it’s my understanding that the burden of proof 22 is upon Towercom. We’ve established that it meets all the requirements, and it has met all the 23 requirements of the ordinance, including consideration of alternatives. 24 25 Samantha Cabe: And we’re going to discuss all of that in our deliberation. But we’re ruling on 26 summary judgement here, we have to collect all the information and make our decision at the end 27 and we get your point. You’ve made it. 28 29 John Price: But I can’t illicit the information that would assist you in the deliberation because they 30 won’t answer the question. 31 32 Michael Harvey: Madame Chair ……. can I ask for your indulgence and ask our 33 telecommunications consultant to address the Board on this line of questioning? 34 35 Samantha Cabe: Absolutely. 36 37 Michael Harvey: Thank you. This is Mr. Rusty Monroe. 38 39 Rusty Monroe: Thank you Michael. 40 48 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 47 of 156 1 Michael Harvey: Rusty before we begin you have been sworn but you are here as the County’s 2 telecommunication consultant, correct? 3 4 Rusty Monroe: That’s Correct. My name’s Rusty Monroe, I am a consultant to Carolina 5 Telecommunication Services. I’ve been before the Board a number of times on other applications. 6 And I think one of the things that’s really underlying this whole issue is State Law and what the 7 State says that the County may or may not do as regards to type of information that’s being 8 discussed. Specifically, (North Carolina General Statutes) 153a-349.52 (c) says in relevant part: a 9 county may not require information that concerns the specific need for the wireless support 10 structure including if the service to be provided from the wireless support structure is to add 11 additional wireless coverage or additional wireless capacity. A county may not require proprietary, 12 confidential, or other business information whereas to find the need for the new wireless support 13 structure including propegation maps, and telecommunication traffic studies. I just wanted the 14 Board to clearly understand what it may and may not use in its deliberation as regards of making 15 a decision. The discussion is interesting, I have had numerous discussions like that myself in 16 hearings, but in this particular instance you cannot make a decision that involves this information. 17 It’s pretty simple from there. 18 19 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 20 21 Rusty Munroe: I shouldn’t say you cannot, you may not make a decision based upon that 22 information. 23 24 John Price: Is it your decision Mr. Haughney that the cell tower that’s proposed here, the 199-foot 25 cell tower, will solve the needs identified? 26 27 David Haughney: Yes. 28 29 John Price: Is it your testimony that there are no other alternatives that could be utilized to 30 address the individual needs identified, namely the Mt. Carmel Road coverage issue and second 31 the UNC Campus capacity offload? 32 33 Laura Goode: At this point I’m going to object as asked and answered ….. and already explained 34 the need in whether there’s other solutions and other technologies they’re employing in addition to 35 this solution. 36 37 John Price: You may answer the question. 38 39 Samantha Cabe: We have heard him. 40 41 49 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 48 of 156 John Price: Once you determined what the search ring was for this cell tower did you consider any 1 other alternatives? For locations, alternative technologies? 2 3 Laura Goode: Again I feel like at this point in time we’ve already been over this answer. He’s 4 already explained his evaluation of candidates and other technologies and whether they would 5 work for this network objective. 6 7 Samantha Cabe: Do you have any further questions Mr. Price? 8 9 John Price: I don’t think so, give me a minute …….. I don’t believe I do. 10 11 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you. Does the Board have any questions for this witness? Ok thank 12 you. Do you have any other witnesses? 13 14 Laura Goode: One more witness very quickly. Good evening, could you please state your name? 15 16 John Yeagley: John Yeagley. 17 18 Laura Goode: What is your business address? 19 20 John Yeagley: 10612 D Providence Road, Charlotte, North Carolina. 21 22 Laura Goode: Have you been sworn to testify tonight? 23 24 John Yeagley: Yes. 25 26 Laura Goode: Ok. Can you please explain what your job is? 27 28 John Yeagley: Real estate site acquisition. We find land, and find cell sites for Verizon Wireless 29 and other wireless carriers. 30 31 Laura Goode: Did you search for a potential location for the wireless facility for the Clearwater 32 Lake site? 33 34 John Yeagley: Yes. 35 36 Laura Goode: Ok. Did you use the search area issued by Verizon Wireless? 37 50 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 49 of 156 1 John Yeagley: Yes. 2 3 Laura Goode: Ok. Within that search area did you find any structures that were capable of co-4 location? 5 6 John Yeagley: Nope. 7 8 Laura Goode: Ok. Exhibit 21 of the record …… of the application is labeled as Application for 9 Zoning Approval by Towercom LLC for construction of the new telecommunication tower and 10 related apparatuses. It has your signature on it. Is this a true and accurate copy of your statement 11 about the facility priorities of the Orange County UDO? 12 13 John Yeagley: Yes it is. 14 15 Laura Goode: Ok. Excuse me, I’m sorry. Exhibit 21, does this address the search that you did to 16 try to find facilities to co-locate within the search area? 17 18 John Yeagley: Correct. There were no towers to co-locate on in the search area. That’s the first 19 thing we look for, as David mentioned. And a lot of times he gives us co-locations to go after if 20 that’s what he prefers. 21 22 Laura Goode: Exhibit 30 of the application that’s in the record …. is a document titled Clearwater 23 Lake facility siting certification with your signature. Is that a true and accurate copy of the 24 statement that you prepared? 25 26 John Yeagley: Yes it is. 27 28 Laura Goode: Ok. And this discusses the facility priority requirements of the ordinance. Are you 29 familiar with those requirements? 30 31 John Yeagley: Yes I am. 32 33 Laura Goode: Ok. Did you evaluate the search area for whether there were County owned 34 facilities within the search area? 35 36 John Yeagley: Yes I did and there were none. 37 38 51 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 50 of 156 Laura Goode: What about for exisiting facilities without increasing the height of the tower? 1 2 John Yeagley: I did, and there were none. 3 4 Laura Goode: What about County owned properties or facilities? 5 6 John Yeagley: There were none. 7 8 Laura Goode: What about areas zoned for commercial or industrial use? 9 10 John Yeagley: There were none. There were two small areas that are commercial but they don’t 11 meet any of the setback requirements and they’re right out on Mt. Carmel Chruch Road so they 12 really weren’t considered after discussing it with Planning. 13 14 Laura Goode: What about properties within the search area zoned agriculture residential or AR? 15 16 John Yeagley: There were none in that area. 17 18 Laura Goode: And Exhibit 31 of the application which is in the record. This is labeled as 19 Clearwater Lake Tower Separation Certification with your signature. Is this a true and accurate 20 copy of the facility or the tower separation certification that you prepared? 21 22 John Yeagley: Yes, that is my letter and my signature. 23 24 Laura Goode: Are there any existing towers within ½ mile of the proposed Clearwater Lake tower? 25 26 John Yeagley: No. 27 28 Laura Goode: Thank you. I don’t have any additional questions. 29 30 John Price: Excuse me. Mr. Yeagley? 31 32 John Yeagley: Yes. 33 34 John Price: On Exhibit 21 that you were just inquired about that recites the provisions of section 35 5.10.8.B.4 (b) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance setting forth the priority 36 locations, does it not? First page. 37 52 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 51 of 156 1 John Yeagley: I think we’re talking about a different letter. Are you on? 2 3 John Price: What I am marked 21, which I thought according to the application was 21. Dated 4 September 28th. A letter from you to Laura Goode. 5 6 John Yeagley: I think you’ve got them flip flopped. 7 8 John Price: Ok, let’s go to 30 then. 9 10 John Yeagley: Thank you. Ok. 11 12 John Price: First page of that letter you specifically set forth the requirements of the section of the 13 Unified Development Ordinance pertaining ….. that states applicants for a facility shall locate site 14 in erect set facilities according to the following priorities in the following order. Correct? 15 16 John Yeagley: That’s what the ordinance states, yes. 17 18 John Price: You see it lists from A through F the priority sites, correct? 19 20 John Yeagley: Correct. 21 22 John Price: Anywhere in that ordinance does it state within the search area? 23 24 John Yeagley: I don’t see it in this ordinance. 25 26 John Price: And at the bottom of your first page you recite the fact that under section 4 an 27 applicant may not bypass sites of higher priority merely because the site proposed is the only site 28 leased or selected, correct? 29 30 John Yeagley: That’s what the ordinance states, yes. 31 32 John Price: On the second page of your report, in certifying that you complied with this 33 requirement, am I correct that in each instance with respect to each of the localities within the 34 priority listing you say there are none within the search ring? 35 36 John Yeagley: Right. It says in review of the search area. That is correct. 37 53 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 52 of 156 1 John Price: Each and every instance for priority A there are none within the search ring, correct? 2 3 John Yeagley: That is correct, yes. 4 John Price: And the same for B, C, D, and E. All are limited to within the search ring, correct? 5 6 John Yeagley: Yes. 7 8 John Price: And you are not arguing …. oh pining …. on whether there are other locations outside 9 of the search ring that would fit within the priorities? 10 11 John Yeagley: That is not my job. 12 13 John Price: That is not your job? 14 15 John Yeagley: No. That is not what this letter states. 16 17 John Price: In your Exhibit 21 that you were asked about it recites the provisions of section 5.10.8 18 B 3 (d) of the ordinance. It refers to a listing of wireless communication support structures within a 19 2-mile radius, including utility poles and other structure in the vicinity of the proposed facility that 20 are technically feasible. Is that right? 21 22 John Yeagley: That’s what this states, yes. 23 24 John Price: In responding to this section of the requirement am I correct that you limit your 25 statements to within the search ring? 26 27 John Yeagley: This is actually a 2-mile radius, so we also look at because this ordinance states a 28 2-mile radius there’s no high powered transition lines, there’s nothing out there to co-locate on. 29 30 John Price: Is Mt. Carmel Road within 2-miles of the proposed site? 31 32 John Yeagley: Yeah. 33 34 John Price: And does it include structures such as utility poles and other structures? 35 36 54 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 53 of 156 John Yeagley: I’m sure there’s utility poles, but we don’t co-locate on utility poles when we’re 1 looking for 190-foot tower. We look for a high power electric transmission towers to meet that 2 need. 3 4 John Price: Does this regulation state it’s limited to co-location? Would you typically co-locate on a 5 utility pole? 6 7 John Yeagley: Ok. Can you define utility pole? 8 9 John Price: A power line pole. 10 11 John Yeagley: When I’m assigned a search ring, I look for parameters. The parameters for this 12 search were for a 190-foot tower and there are no structures that are even close to that height in 13 that area that could meet that need. Or within 2-miles. 14 15 John Price: So it’d be in responding as to whether you have or had not complied with these 16 ordinance as I’ve been reciting are you limited your search solely to places that 195-foot cell tower 17 could be located? Or on which all of the equipment could be co-located to a tower of a similar 18 size? 19 20 John Yeagley: Not fully 195-feet. Sometimes we look for something, you know 170. But in this 21 case 190 was our goal. 22 23 John Price: So you just did not consider at all other structures? 24 25 Laura Goode: Again, at this point in time I would object to asking an answer he’s already testified 26 to what searches he looked at and what were available within the search area. 27 28 Samantha Cabe: For clarification, the testimony I heard is that you looked for other structures that 29 are required by the ordinance and if there’s anything close you will investigate that but here there 30 was nothing close to that height requirement. 31 32 John Yeagley: Correct. 33 34 Samantha Cabe: That’s what I interpreted from what you said. 35 36 John Yeagley: Yes. 37 38 55 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 54 of 156 John Price: So you limited it to a height requirement that you were told was required by Verizon, is 1 that correct? 2 3 Laura Goode: Again I would object to ask an answer. 4 5 Samantha Cabe: We need to move along Mr. Price. 6 7 John Price: I have no further questions of this witness. 8 9 Samantha Cabe: Does the Board have any further questions? Do you have any? 10 11 Laura Goode: I have no further questions. Those are all of my witnesses. 12 13 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. Mr. Price, do you have witnesses? 14 15 John Price: Yes I do. 16 17 Samantha Cabe: If you’ll call your first please? 18 19 John Price: If I might, before I call on my first witness I had a few other preliminary matters I’d like 20 to cover if that’s alright? 21 22 Samantha Cabe: What type of preliminary matters? 23 24 John Price: First I would like to have the opportunity to present to the members of the Board 25 petitions that have been signed by local residents in the area of where the cell tower is going to be 26 situated. 27 28 Samantha Cabe: Sure, if you want to hand those out. 29 30 Laura Goode: At this time I would respectfully object, just because this is heresay. Statements out 31 of court, statements offered to prove a truth of matter and we have no opportunity to cross 32 examine these individuals. 33 34 Samantha Cabe: Anybody here object if we take it and give it its due rate? 35 36 Laura Goode: And we would be fine with that. 37 56 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 55 of 156 1 Michael Harvey: This is Op Exhibit 2, which includes pre-petitions. 2 3 John Price: I would also ask if I could present to the members of the Board and place it into the 4 record sworn affidavits of two individuals who were unable to attend regarding the impact of the 5 proposed tower on each of their proceeding with negotiations for the potential purchase of tracks 6 of land within Dove Field LLC’s property. And each of them states in their affidavit that they were 7 unable to attend, one is actually in California. 8 9 Laura Goode: Again, I’d just respectfully object to these as being hearsay and we’re not able to 10 cross examine these witnesses. 11 12 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. We’ll receive them into the record. 13 14 John Price: And finally, I’ll offer into the record correspondence between me and Ms. Goode 15 pertaining to the issue of timbering on the Buckner property. 16 17 Michael Harvey: So the November 29th letter is Opposition Exhibit 4. 18 19 John Price: Were the affidavits? 20 21 Michael Harvey: Opposition Exhibit 3. 22 23 Samantha Cabe: Collectively it’s number 3? 24 25 Michael Harvey: Yes, the two affidavits are both 3. The November 29th letter is 4. And 2 are the 26 three petitions and 1 is the appraisal report. 27 28 John Price: And before calling a witness I would like to, with permission of the Board, ask some 29 questions of Ms. Goode as counsel for the applicant. 30 31 Samantha Cabe: I don’t believe you can call opposing counsel as a witness. 32 33 John Price: I’m not calling her as a witness, but I have some questions I would like to inquire of 34 her pertaining to the issue of the timbering which is addressed in these letters. 35 36 Samantha Cabe: I would say no. I’m going to defer to our counsel before, I should not say no. 37 38 57 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 56 of 156 James Bryan: Yeah, I think that’s an extraordinary request. I don’t think it has to be granted. 1 2 Samantha Cabe: Does any of the Board want to hear questions from attorney for the other sides 3 attorney? If you do, that’s fine. I’m just trying to keep this on track and it’s not typical that 4 attorney’s ask each other questions. 5 6 John Price: The reason for the questioning is to find out why information pertaining to the 7 timbering is not included in the application that was prepared by Ms. Goode, and submitted by Ms. 8 Goode to the Board for the permit. 9 10 Samantha Cabe: And given that explanation does that change anyone’s mind? Then, no sir. Go 11 ahead and proceed with your witness. 12 13 John Price: Could I tender for the record …. for purposes of the record the questions I would have 14 asked? That’s what’s typically done in court. 15 16 Samantha Cabe: Sure. Typically in court attorney’s aren’t allowed to question other attorneys’. 17 18 John Price: Correct. 19 20 Samantha Cabe: You can tender your questions. If you have a piece of paper we don’t need to sit 21 here and listen to them all. Am I out of line counsel? 22 23 James Bryan: A copy should be given to the clerk. 24 25 Samantha Cabe: Do we have access to make a copy of those for him, if he wants to tender them 26 on paper? 27 28 Michael Harvey: Yes. 29 30 Samantha Cabe: Ok. Would you like us to make you copies so you can submit those in writing? 31 32 John Price: The purpose of this is to find out why this was not disclosed to the Board in this 33 application. And I don’t know anyone else I can call as a witness for the applicant who can answer 34 that question. 35 36 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price, with all due respect we don’t need you to argue with us. That is not a 37 requirement of what we are being asked to consider. Whether or not the owner of this property 38 plans to timber their property some time in the future is not related to their application. 39 58 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 57 of 156 1 John Price: It’s related to.. 2 3 Samantha Cabe: Do not …… I’m telling you it’s not related, it’s not before us. Can we move on to 4 what is, because I want everyone here to have a chance to be heard. And I don’t want everyone 5 to have to come back on another night. 6 7 John Price: Yes, I would call as my first witness Mr. Owen Gwen. State your name. 8 9 Owen Gwen: Owen Gwen. I was sworn. 10 11 John Price: What is your resident address Mr. Gwen? 12 13 Owen Gwen: It’s 1700 Clearwater Lake Road. 14 15 John Price: How long have you lived there? 16 17 Owen Gwen: I built in 1988. 18 19 John Price: How large is your property? 20 21 Owen Gwen: 4,800 square feet. 22 23 John Price: I mean the property on which your home site is located? 24 25 Owen Gwen: My home site is adjacent to the property which I also own, which is Dove Field LLC. 26 Dove Field is 220, my track is separated for mortgage purposes, is 13.5 acres. 27 28 John Price: What is your relationship to Dove Field LLC? 29 30 Owen Gwen: I’m the managing part. 31 32 John Price: Managing member? 33 34 Owen Gwen: Managing member, yes. 35 36 59 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 58 of 156 John Price: And are you authorized to act on behalf of Dove Field LLC? 1 2 Owen Gwen: I am. 3 4 John Price: Was the property now owned by Dove Field LLC once your family’s farm? 5 6 Owen Gwen: It was. We’ve had it for over 50 years. 7 8 John Price: Would you describe the property in terms of terrain, foliage, wildlife, and so forth? 9 10 Owen Gwen: It’s ……. It’s …… Cub creek runs basically through the center of it, which is part of 11 the Jordan Lake watershed. We’ve got many springs, and several ponds. At one time, it is 12 interesting, we were going to propose a resovoir for the property as a water supply for Chapel Hill. 13 We would’ve supplied a little over a weeks worth of water at the current use but the impact factors 14 on to meet the environmental impact were going to cost over $4,000,000 just in impact fees so we 15 couldn’t do that project, so instead we looked towards setting up an area for a wildlife corridor. 16 17 John Price: Do your son and daughter also live on the Dove Field Property? 18 19 Owen Gwen: That’s true. They manage the farm. 20 21 John Price: Do you currently hold any positions of any boards or commissions for environmental 22 organizations? 23 24 Owen Gwen: Well I’m a family member of the National Trust Real Estate Program. It’s not really 25 inaudible. Also the chair person at the Global Housing Foundation, which builds affordable 26 housing and I’ve been a real estate agent in Orange County for 40 years. So I’m Board of 27 Realtors and that sort of thing. 28 29 John Price: What caused you to become involved with other organizations? 30 31 Owen Gwen: I was a familiy member of the North Carolina Traveling Tourism Board and part of 32 the mandate of the Board was to preserve the State’s estuaries and forests, wetlands, open lands, 33 and that endoctrined into me towards that. I have to admit I’ve never met an appraiser that didn’t 34 understand what a view shed was but I’m just saying view sheds are an intrical part of valuation in 35 my mind of any property. 36 37 John Price: How would you describe the geography character aestheics of the properties? 38 39 60 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 59 of 156 Owen Gwen: The topography is up and down, they’ve talked about between the Mellot site and 1 this particular subject property. The 200-foot obstuction is my house, which is built on top of 2 what’s called High Hill, which is a northern part of Edward’s Mountain, which is the northern 3 remedy inaudble forest, which many geologists think is one of the oldest geological features in 4 North America. 5 6 John Price: Is this the first time that there’s been a proposal for constrcution of a cell tower in the 7 area where you reside? 8 9 Owen Gwen: No, we had one 17 years ago proposed on Clearwater Lake Road. 10 11 John Price: Did you object to that? 12 13 Owen Gwen: I objected for the same reason on this one. The impact of property values, the view 14 shed destruction, I could talk about that all day but I know we’re short on time, and I appreciate 15 everyone’s time here. 16 17 John Price: Was that application for permit granted? 18 19 Owen Gwen: No. 20 21 Laura Goode: I object to the relevance of that as to the findings of fact that the Board needs to 22 make whether another tower was approved or denied. 23 24 John Price: Have you ever considered developing the Dove Field Property? 25 26 Owen Gwen: Just low density residential and once we found out the reservoir …. the impact was 27 too great for the resevoir. When I mean low density we had a track of land that was 90 plus acres, 28 1 at about 40 acres, that ……. certainly nothing less than 10 acres in area. 29 30 John Price: Did you ever gauge anyone to prepare a master plan? 31 32 Owen Gwen: I did. Randall Arndt whose is a national recognized rural planner for open space 33 development, we hired him. He came out and did a study on the sites …. possible sites for 34 proposed homes and we had a professional go out and do the perk testing to see if the sites 35 would conform to Randall’s location of the homes. The total for the 220 was about 12 sites. 36 37 John Price: When was that done? 38 39 61 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 60 of 156 Owen Gwen: Last year. 1 2 John Price: At that time did you know anyone was proposing building a cell tower? 3 4 Owen Gwen: No, I didn’t. 5 6 John Price: Describe for the Board what that master plan consisted of, in terms of the Dove Field 7 Property? 8 9 Owen Gwen: Well, we have a couple of ponds and creek so the idea was to create a wildlife 10 corridor through the center and then have some sites that overlook those features. We’ve got 11 creeks and streams, stuff like that. So we wanted to develop sites that fit into the topography and 12 the landscape and that they were all self contained types of homes. It could be enjoyed without… 13 Low density homes. 14 15 John Price: And from your view point is the Towercom cell tower consistent with the masterplan? 16 17 Owen Gwen: The cell tower, to me, is here’s a company from South Carolina wants to build a 18 tower wants to build a tower and lease it with Verizon, it’s all about… Wish I had a team of 19 attorneys and I could come and prepare a defense. But no, I don’t think there’s anything about it 20 that should be in the rural buffer, or in the Jordan Lake watershed. 21 22 John Price: Why are opposed to the application? 23 24 Owen Gwen: Well several reasons. Obviously, the eye sore part of it. The fact that why is it 195-25 feet, well because if any higher it has to have a light on it because of aviation systems, and if it 26 had a light it would then not kill the birds but without a light it does kill birds, not as bad as a guide 27 tower would but there are reasons behind why this is done. This is optimized based on what the 28 RDU requirements are. It has nothing to do with the fact that it’s in Clearwater Lake, in the rural 29 buffer. To me it’s just throw it down and go over to the next tower. These guys build them all over 30 the country. 31 32 John Price: Have you ever engaged in services of an appraiser to appraise your property? Both 33 without the proposed tower and in the event the tower is built? 34 35 Owen Gwen: I did. 36 37 John Price: Who was that? 38 39 Owen Gwen: Mike Ogburn. 40 62 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 61 of 156 1 John Price: And when was that? 2 3 Owen Gwen: Recently, within the last several weeks. As soon as I found out about the proposal. 4 5 John Price: Have you reviewed that appraisel evaluation report provided? 6 7 Owen Gwen: I did. 8 9 John Price: As a long time real estate agent yourself do you agree with it? 10 11 Owen Gwen: I do. I think that it’s very well done. 12 13 John Price: Why, in your opinion, would having the proposed tower on the Buckner Family Farm 14 Trust property have an adverse impact on your property and Dove Field Property? 15 16 Owen Gwen: Well as you can see from the map… 17 18 Laura Goode: Respectfully, I would object to this testimony, they have not tendered him as an 19 expert witness, North Carolina Law states that an expert witness testimonies are followed to give 20 an opinion about impact property values from their proposed use. 21 22 Samantha Cabe: I believe we did just discuss that requirement in some detail. 23 24 Owen Gwen: Ok, what’s next? 25 26 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price, I don’t mean to interupt your questioning but could you question your 27 witness about the evidence that he’s going to present that shows that he has standing to be a 28 party in this proceeding? 29 30 John Price: I think the evidence regarding standing has been placed in the record. He’s the 31 property owner himself and he is the managing member of the Dove Field LLC property which is 32 located adjacent to where this tower’s being built. 33 34 Samantha Cabe: And we understand that standing in this type of proceeding requires a showing 35 of special damages. If you could question him about the special damages that he would incur if 36 this cell tower is built. 37 38 63 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 62 of 156 John Price: Alright, that was the question I thought I just asked. If you could in your own words 1 say what you think the damage is to your property if this property is built. 2 3 Owen Gwen: I think it’s financial, from the stand point of the evaluation of the property value. I 4 think it’s visual from the view shed corridor destruction. I think it’s not in harmony with the fact that 5 I’ve got a really nice pond and now I’ve got a really nice pond with a great view of a cell tower. It 6 changes the whole setting, the whole environment, to me, of what being located where I am has 7 to do with being where I am. If I wanted to be around cell towers, and I’ve seen this happen where 8 one tower’s approved and the next thing you know there’s a cluster. But if people wanted to live 9 near them they could, but as far as the value I think the value… I think Mike Ogburns’ appraisal.. 10 He can explain the impact financially. And I totally concur with his findings. If anything, I think 11 they’re more damages because there’d be something that I would be forced to deal with everyday. 12 13 Samantha Cabe: Is he here? Mr. Ogburn? 14 15 John Price: Yes he is. 16 17 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 18 19 John Price: Those are the only questions I have for Mr. Gwen. 20 21 Laura Goode: I just have one question for you. Do you reside at 1700 Clearwater Lake Road? 22 23 Owen Gwen: Yes I do. That little yellow line stops at my house on the hill. 24 25 Laura Goode: This is your house right here? 26 27 Owen Gwen: That’s my house. 28 29 Laura Goode: Ok, and this is a clip from Google Earth showing that your house is approximately 30 ½ mile from the proposed Clearwater Lake site. Is that correct? 31 32 Owen Gwen: You know, that I don’t know but I can get a gps and tell you. 33 34 Laura Goode: I don’t have any further questions. 35 36 John Price: How close is the Dove Field property to the proposed tower? 37 38 64 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 63 of 156 Owen Gwen: The driveway is as close as you can get. Not even a setback. It’s interesting that you 1 say that because I’ve been trying to acquire property adjacent to this to recombine this property 2 and when I purchased some property from Mr. Williams earlier when they gave me the approval 3 the County has setbacks. I don’t see any setbacks on their Verizon map, maybe they’re there but 4 the point is the road is adjacent to our property. It’s just another factor. I’m not as disturbed about 5 a road as I am about a tower. 6 7 Laura Goode: I just have one follow up question. You don’t reside on the Dove Field property 8 adjacent to the Butner Family Farm Trust property, do you? 9 10 Owen Gwen: I own everything from that little pin to the end of that yellow line. 11 12 Laura Goode: But you don’t reside on the property adjacent to the Butner Family Farm Trust 13 property? 14 15 Owen Gwen: It’s all adjacent. I’m not sure what the point is… If I want to go out and put a tent up 16 then I could say I reside there. I mean… It’s a distance. What you don’t see from this photgraph 17 os the fact that that’s a hill. That house is on a hill. It’s called High Hill. So I look over it. 18 19 John Price: I now have a couple of questions. What is the elevation of the High Hill property? 20 21 Owen Gwen: It’s about 560 feet about sea level. It’s about the same as Chapel Hill. 22 23 John Price: Does it look down on the location of where this cell tower would be built? 24 25 Owen Gwen: It does. Amazingly enough I can see the light tower at the Raleigh/Durham airport 26 from my yard. You can see a long way. 27 28 John Price: Can you see any sky lines from your property? 29 30 Owen Gwen: Oh sure. I can see to Raleigh. But I don’t see a cell tower right there adjacent to my 31 property. 32 33 John Price: If the cell tower is built will you see that as part of the skyline? 34 35 Owen Gwen: Well, from different places I probably would. If I decided to do a few things then it 36 would be. One of my biggest concerns is the view from the lakes. You can see it from the lakes. 37 That’s where you go for serenity. 38 39 65 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 64 of 156 John Price: No further questions. 1 2 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 3 4 John Price: I would next like to call Mr. Evan Gwen. 5 6 Evan Gwen: I’m Evan Gwen and I have been sworn in. 7 8 John Price: Mr. Gwen, where do you and your wife reside? 9 10 Evan Gwen: We live at 1645 Mt. Carmel Church Road. 11 12 John Price: And what is your relationship with the location of the property and home site where 13 you reside. What is it’s relationship to the proposed cell tower site? 14 15 Evan Gwen: Our home is on the Dove Field LLC property. It is identifiable on that map by the 16 open field with the dirt patch just to the north of the small pond. 17 18 John Price: Could we go Michael to the photos? Are you familiar with this map? 19 20 Evan Gwen: I am. 21 22 John Price: Did you create this map? 23 24 Evan Gwen: I added the color and the numbers to that Google Map. 25 26 John Price: Ok and it says Map showing locations of Owen Gwen home property and home 27 property of Evan and Erin Gwen, as well as location of proposed cell tower. 28 29 Evan Gwen: Correct. 30 31 John Price: And Legend number one in what I’ll call an Orange color, is that your fathers home 32 property? 33 34 Evan Gwen: It is. 35 36 66 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 65 of 156 John Price: And legend number two, is that the property you and your wife live on? 1 2 Evan Gwen: Legend number two represents the entirety of the blue area which is the Dove Field 3 LLC property. 4 5 John Price: Ok. And Legend number three then is your property? 6 7 Evan Gwen: Yes. 8 9 John Price: Can you walk up there and show where that is? It’s hard for me to see it. 10 11 Evan Gwen: We live right here where my finger is and spend the vast majority of our time outisde 12 maintaining, enjoying this area outlined in black, which runs around the larger of the two ponds 13 and towards the eastern edge of the Dove Field Property going closer to the Towercom proposed 14 tower location. 15 16 John Price: Ok, thank you. Would you describe the improvements on your property? 17 18 Evan Gwen: We have a small one bedroom cabin and an unheated utility barn. 19 20 John Price: How would you describe the geopgraphy character aesthetics of the Dove Field 21 Property that your proeprty resides on? 22 23 Evan Gwen: It ranges in elevation from just over 200-feet along Cub Creek to over 600-feet on the 24 Chatham County side, the southside of here. And there’s half a dozed springs and small 25 tributaries to Cub Creek. 200 creeks flowing in and multiple ponds on the property. So it’s very 26 diverse. 27 28 John Price: And the red dot that reperesents the tower location and the property between that dot 29 and the property that you and your wife reside on; what’s the nature of that property? 30 31 Evan Gwen: That was an acquisition that Dove Field made a few years ago in the 2000’s and it’s 32 currently a potential onsite for a family friend who has expressed his interest in purchasing that to 33 build a home for his future family. 34 35 John Price: What’s the name of that family friend? 36 37 Evan Gwen: His name is Stanford Benjamin Rudnik. 38 67 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 66 of 156 1 John Price: And is that one of the affidavits that was entered into the record? 2 3 Evan Gwen: It is. 4 5 John Price: Is there any other portion of the Dove Field property that you’ve been considering 6 selling? 7 8 Evan Gwen: The southside of the property, everything south of the Cub Creek corridor running 9 south up Edwards Mountain to an elevation of just over 600-feet. An area approximately 100 10 acres. 11 12 John Price: And Michael, if you could show the other slide? Is the area that’s orange to me, that’s 13 next to the tower, is that the 40 plus acre property that you considered selling to Mr. Rudnik? 14 15 Evan Gwen: Correct. The Orange represents the potential home site. The 40-acres would also 16 include some of, if not all of the pond and some of the Cub Creek area. But the home site is just to 17 the left of the red dot, which has already had soil test done and proved to be suitable for a septic 18 system in that location. 19 20 John Price: And has Mr. Rudnik indicated to you an interest in purchasing that property? 21 22 Evan Gwen: Informally, yes. Many times. 23 24 John Price: And with respect to the 100 plus acres does the Orange represent the entire 100-25 acres? 26 27 Evan Gwen: Yes. 28 29 John Price: Were you present during the balloon test? 30 31 Evan Gwen: Yes. 32 33 John Price: Were you able to determine whether the cell tower would be visible from your 34 property? 35 36 Evan Gwen: From my home, no. From my property, yes in many places. 37 38 68 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 67 of 156 John Price: Would it be visible from the 40-acre track that Mr. Rudnik is interested in purchasing? 1 2 Evan Gwen: It would be visible from everywhere except indoors, underneath a roof. It would cast 3 a shadow upon that property. 4 5 John Price: Would it be visible through the woods? 6 7 Evan Gwen: Above the trees and through the woods, yes. It’s proposed 200-feet away from the 8 property line. So it would most definitely be visible through the woods. 9 10 John Price: With respect to the 100 plus acres, I don’t think I asked this, is Mr. Anylan the other 11 person who submitted an affidavit? 12 13 Evan Gwen: Yes. 14 15 John Price: And do you know whether the tower would be visible from that property? 16 17 Evan Gwen: I can confirm that it would be visible from that property. 18 19 John Price: What are the views like from the 100 plus acre property? 20 21 Evan Gwen: 270 degrees from west to south going clockwise. From west of Chapel Hill to 22 Durham/Raleigh skyline and the majority of Jordan Lake. 23 24 John Price: And in the views of the skylines, would the cell tower be an obstruction of those views 25 in any way? 26 27 Evan Gwen: The cell tower would be an obstruction of those views and would be visible from that 28 home site all four seasons year round. 29 30 John Price: Have you had any discussions with Mr. Anylan with respect to the price of the 100 31 plus acre property? 32 33 Evan Gwen: We’ve discussed the price of $2,500,000. 34 35 John Price: I believe that’s also stated in the affidavit. At the time of the balloon test were you and 36 your wife both present? 37 38 69 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 68 of 156 Evan Gwen: Yes. 1 2 John Price: Did you have any difficulty finding the balloon initially? 3 4 Evan Gwen: We did. 5 6 John Price: If we could go back to the beginning photo on the power point? There are a number of 7 photos that were taken of this nature. Who took the photos? 8 9 Evan Gwen: My wife and I took these photos. 10 11 John Price: And were you present when the photograph was taken? 12 13 Evan Gwen: I was. 14 15 John Price: Would you describe what that shows? 16 17 Evan Gwen: I will. This and the next six photos from various angles show that the balloon test was 18 a misrepresentation of the height of the balloon as it was snagged at multiple locations in the pine 19 trees. We were standing at the very base where the string was tied, saw the string hit a pine 20 branch and then horizontally, if not downward, for what I paced out to be an estimation of 100 feet 21 before it hit another snag and went straight up into the very low winds that day. So I do not 22 attribute personally the wind being a factor but the visbile snags in the trees holding that line 23 down, my guess around 100-feet. 24 25 John Price: Would you go to the next slide, please? And would you describe what this is? 26 27 Evan Gwen: It’s a different angle of the balloon line. The arrow on the left and then the oliptical 28 red shape is showing that line in a snag and then how far away the actual balloon is that you can 29 see through the trees inside the red circle the red balloon. 30 31 John Price: Next slide please. 32 33 Evan Gwen: Similar situation. The balloon line is running horizontally to the ground in that oliptical 34 shape to misrepresent the height of the proposed tower. 35 36 John Price: Next slide please. What does this show? 37 38 70 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 69 of 156 Evan Gwen: That’s very dark. It shows myself in the red circle, wearing a blue jacket. I’m 100-feet 1 away. It was about 35 paces from the anchor point which is on the right side of the photo. You can 2 see the white line tied to the small tree. And I am standing directly below the balloon in the air. 3 4 John Price: Are you familiar with this photo? 5 6 Evan Gwen: I am. That’s from Carmel Market on Mt. Carmel Church Road. That’s the balloon 7 above the treeline. 8 9 John Price: And did you take this photograph? 10 11 Evan Gwen: Yes. 12 13 John Price: Is that anywhere close to your property? 14 15 Evan Gwen: It’s the opposite side of the proposed location that my property is. 16 17 John Price: Ok. What is this photograph? 18 19 Evan Gwen: This photograph is on my property looking across the pond showing the balloon 20 above the treeline. Again at the same time that the snag was still in the trees to misrepresent the 21 height of the proposed tower. 22 23 John Price: So this shows the balloon when it was snagged? 24 25 Evan Gwen: Correct. 26 27 John Price: Do you know how many feet that snag would have resulted in? 28 29 Evan Gwen: My guess is 100 based upon my 35 paces. 30 31 Laura Goode: Objection. That’s speculation. 32 33 John Price: Next slide please? Now as I understand it this picture is the same as the prior one but 34 it shows the cell tower itself that someone had put in there instead of just the balloon? 35 36 Evan Gwen: Correct. 37 71 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 70 of 156 1 John Price: Did you do that? 2 3 Evan Gwen: I did that to have a visualization of what that tower would look like across the pond. 4 5 Laura Goode: I’ll object to this. They have not layed the foundation that he has any experience or 6 education that would allow him to accurately depict what a cell phone tower would look like in a 7 photo simulation. 8 9 John Price: Again, is the height of that cell tower with the balloon fully extended? 10 11 Evan Gwen: No. 12 13 John Price: The next slide? 14 15 Evan Gwen: Its another angle across the same pond with the balloon above the treeline. 16 17 John Price: Was the balloon still snagged? 18 19 Evan Gwen: Yes. 20 21 John Price: Where did you discover that the snag in the line was occuring? 22 23 Evan Gwen: After attending the hearing at the Mt. Carmel Baptist Church and then proceeding to 24 walk into the woods to the location of the proposed tower? 25 26 John Price: Was that the neighborhood meeting you’re talking about? 27 28 Evan Gwen: Yes. 29 30 John Price: And who did you advise? 31 32 Evan Gwen: I advised the Towercom employees who were at the hearing who heard my advice 33 and promptly attended to the correction of the snag. 34 35 72 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 71 of 156 Michael Harvey: Madame Chair, if I could also state, that we were at the site. I was at the site, the 1 telecommunications consultant for the County as at the site, and Mr. Gwen is correct. He informed 2 everybody on the property, which included non Towercom employees. Just for the record. 3 4 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 5 6 John Price: In addition to what is shown in these photos did you also determine whether there 7 were other locations on the Dove Field property and more generally in the area from which the 8 proposed tower would be visible? 9 10 Evan Gwen: There are multiple locations. 11 12 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price, could I stop you? I just have one quick question for Mr. Harvey. Was 13 the snag corrected and do you know whether or not the photographs submitted were taken before 14 or after that snag was? 15 16 Michael Harvey: I can’t answer when the photgraph was taken as articulated in attachment 5 but I 17 will say when I got out there there was no snag in the balloon early in the morning. When I went 18 back out to the site to address Mr. Gwen’s concern it had become bound by a tree limb. Mr. 19 Herring who was the balloon operater pulled on it and attempted to free it. Whether or not that’s 20 going to be a bone of contention’s Mr. Herring’s going to answer. But I will stipulate that when I 21 was out there the balloon was straight up. I believe the depiction of attachment 5 does show 199-22 foot tall representation of a telecom tower. 23 24 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you. 25 26 John Price: What other locations in the community were you able to determine the tower would be 27 visible from? 28 29 Evan Gwen: In addition to the multiple locations on the Dove Field property, the Aquaduct 30 Conference Center across the street would have an excellent view of the tower, in addition to 31 various properties in the Governers Club that are north facing on Edwards Mountain, as well as 32 some of the higher floor condos and apartments of the Governers Village. 33 34 John Price: And how about the Edwards Mountain? 35 36 Evan Gwen: On Edwards Mountain anybody looking north down on that area would see that 37 tower. Including the proposed Anylan home site. 38 39 73 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 72 of 156 John Price: In the discussions at the neighborhood meeting did any representative of Towercom 1 advise you or any other people who were at that meeting that there was going to be timbering on 2 the Buckner Family Farm property? 3 4 Evan Gwen: I only heard that as a whisper or rumor. But that day was the first day that I’d heard 5 about it and it was from nobody official with Towercom, to my knowledge. 6 7 John Price: Was that mentioned by anyone at the meeting? 8 9 Evan Gwen: It was being discussed at that meeting, in that parking lot at the Baptist Church. 10 11 John Price: Discussed by who? 12 13 Evan Gwen: Discussed by residents, my wife and myself, but I didn’t ever have somebody tell me 14 for sure that that was going to happen. 15 16 John Price: Just to make sure, did anyone from Towercom tell anyone at that meeting that there 17 could be timbering down on the Buckner property? 18 19 Laura Goode: Objection as to that personal knowledge about what Towercom disclosed with other 20 people other than Mr. Gwen. 21 22 John Price: I’ll limit to when you were in attendance… 23 24 Evan Gwen: I did hear that question asked and it was not denied or confirmed by the Towercom 25 employees. 26 27 John Price: What was said by the Towercom employees? 28 29 Evan Gwen: I don’t remember exactly. It was not confirmed or denied. 30 31 John Price: Is that important to you? That timbering may be occurring on that property? 32 33 Evan Gwen: It would definitely be a negative to me. 34 35 John Price: Why? 36 37 74 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 73 of 156 Evan Gwen: Well, some of the trees you see in that photo right there would be removed and it 1 would obstruct the wildlife that come through, which we enjoy thoroughly. And it obstruct the views 2 and it would diminish the property values for potential buyers. 3 4 John Price: And when you talk about the wildlife, did the wildlife actually come through anywhere 5 on the Buckner property? 6 7 Evan Gwen: They do. We have a draw that comes north to south for the deer, coyotes, other 8 wildlife to drink at this pond. 9 10 John Price: Do you know how close they would be coming through relative to where the tower’s 11 going to be built? 12 13 Evan Gwen: They would be crossing the proposed access road. 14 15 John Price: Ok. Could you describe for the Board the surrounding area outside of Dove Field of 16 the property of this community in terms of what it consists of, in terms of schools, hiking trails? 17 18 Evan Gwen: It’s mostly low density residential single family homes. One of the witnesses earlier 19 said there were two commercial sites along Mt. Carmel Church, those are both very, very small 20 markets right on the road. Other than that the only commercial space is the Governers Village 21 about a mile down the road. So it’s large lots, single family homes, and lots of trees and wildlife. 22 23 John Price: Are there dog parks? 24 25 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price, can I ask you how many more questions you have, because it’s 10:38 26 and we will need to take a vote to extend the time. If you’ve got just a couple more questions I’ll let 27 you finish up before we do that, for this witness. 28 29 John Price: I just have a few more questions. 30 31 Evan Gwen: We have a YMCA camp. Camp Clearwater adjacent to our property which is 32 adjacent to the site. There’s a Montessori school. There’s a daycare. There’s dog parks. There’s 33 churches. Lots of communal activities. 34 35 John Price: Why are you opposed to the proposed tower? 36 37 Evan Gwen: Negative effects on property value, view shed, and increased destruction of wildlife 38 and construction traffic, and potential health hazards for me, neighbors, and children. 39 75 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 74 of 156 1 Laura Goode: I would object to his opinion that it will impact property values as they have not 2 designated him as an expert witness qualified to testify to that and I ask it be stricken from the 3 record. 4 5 John Price: I think he’s describing his concerns. He’s not testifying as an expert. 6 7 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Bryan, do we have to rule on a motion to strike from the record? Or do we let 8 stand in the record and? 9 10 James Bryan: Perhaps the attorney could reconsider and just ask the Board to take that in mind 11 during its deliberations. 12 13 Laura Goode: Yes, I would just respectfully let you use your judgement on it and how you take 14 that. 15 16 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 17 18 John Price: Have you ever experienced any problems with cell service at your home? 19 20 Evan Gwen: I have experienced problems but I get cell service at my home and I can tell you that 21 I can complete a cell phone call up and down Mt. Carmel Church and I do so on a daily basis. 22 Calls drop but that happens to me on Franklin Street sometimes as well. 23 24 John Price: I have no further questions of this witness. 25 26 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 27 28 Evan Gwen: Thank you. 29 30 Matt Hughes: I have a question of Mr. Harvey. Mr. Gwen just mentioned some properties that are 31 not contained within Orange County as possibly being negatively impacted. Particularly Governers 32 Club. That’s not something that we should even weigh in this decision, is that right? 33 34 Michael Harvey: I think that you can accept Mr. Gwen’s expressed concern, but from my stand 35 point the properties are in Chatham County and since they are not subject Orange County Land 36 Use Policy or Regulatory Standard, unless they’re individuals here tonight with evidence 37 demonstrating how it will impact those properties you can only take it as face value. 38 39 76 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 75 of 156 Evan Gwen: I guess another concern while I’m here would be that the proximity of the proposed 1 location to the Chatham County line is such that the increase cell service would benefit Chatham 2 County almost as much as it would Orange County and that would be somehting for the Board to 3 take into consideration as well. 4 5 Michael Harvey: Just for the Board’s edification, the Aquaduct Conference Center has been 6 mentioned twice. The Aquaduct Conference Center operates under a Class B SUP issued by this 7 body approximately 20 or some odd years ago. 8 9 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. At this time I think, due to our standing rules, this Board must take a 10 vote whether to continue in session or adjourn and set a date for continuation of this hearing. 11 12 (Unknown resident, not sworn): Ms. Counsel woman, I’d just like to pose to at this time ….. there 13 are at least myself, I’m here and I’m not represented by either attorney but it being a public 14 hearing it would be nice for, and I don’t want to be first I don’t want to jump in line of anyone else 15 here, but I think it would be nice for us to at least be heard tonight if there is a reconvene at 16 another time. 17 18 Samantha Cabe: We’ll take that into consideration. Thank you sir. 19 20 Barry Katz: Well how many more witnesses do you have? 21 22 John Price: I have two witnesses. I have Mr. Ogburn who will testify regarding the impact on 23 value. And I have Dan Levinson who is an electrical engineer who will testify regarding the cell 24 tower. 25 26 Laura Goode: Just to let the Board know we plan to object to the testimony of the person who’s 27 going to testify about the need for the tower pursuant to the North Carolina General Statutes. 28 29 Samantha Cabe: At this time do I have a motion from the Board, let me ask Mr. Bryan here what 30 the correct procedure would be. Should we just have a motion to adjorn or may we discuss? 31 32 James Bryan: You certainly may discuss. I think that what you should consider is practical matters 33 of decision fatigue. Just how tired you all are. I think you need to consider due process 34 consideration so everybody has an opportunity to be heard fully vetter. And keep in mind that you 35 guys are going to, after everybody’s done, have to deliberate. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: Do I have a motion from anyone on the Board or discussion about the proposal 38 from the citizen here to hear private citizens brief comments out of order? 39 40 77 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 76 of 156 Susan Halkiotis: I’d just make a couple of comments about that. First of all, I probably won’t 1 support extending this meeting. If you do consider extending this meeting I would highly 2 recommend, having served on other Boards that went late into the evening, putting a deadline on 3 what your extension is so that it’s not overended. 4 5 Matt Hughes: Actually, my comment was that I was going to make a motion that the meeting could 6 extend by no more than 45 minutes, and would give us ample time to hear from the next two 7 witnesses and possibly citizens, if we are efficient and if our Chair intends to keep people on task. 8 9 James Bryan: If I could chime in that you can’t put a hard deadline for time. You can’t say you’ve 10 only got ten minutes but it could be a strong advisory… 11 12 Samantha Cabe: We will vote again in 45 minutes, can we say that? 13 14 James Bryan: You can do that. You can also say that we’ve granted everybody extreme 15 leniencies thus far, we will not in the future. That sort of thing. And come down on relevancy, 16 repetitous, materiality, things like that. 17 18 Samantha Cabe: Does anyone else on the Board have an alternate proposal to Matt? Are you 19 making that as a motion Mr. Hughes? 20 21 Matt Hughes: Yes. I move that we extend our meeting 45 minutes and we can revisit that at the 22 end of that period and that we remind our folks to be efficient in their testimony. 23 24 MOTION made by Matt Hughes to extend meeting 45 minutes and then decide at that time to 25 continue or reconvene. Seconded by Barry Katz. 26 VOTE: 2-3 (Susan Halkiotis, Karen Barrows, and Samantha Cabe opposed) 27 28 Samantha Cabe: So we’ll adjorn this meeting, do we need to set a new time? 29 30 James Bryan: The default would be to the next meeting but it’s the Boards’ preogative if they want 31 to set something else. 32 33 Michael Harvey: Given the holiday schedule there is no way to call a special meeting in my 34 opinion. Your next scheduled meeting is on January the 9th. 35 36 Barry Katz: Do we have any applications for the January 9th meeting? 37 38 Michael Harvey: There is an application that has been submitted but it is not technically slated for 39 presentation at that hearing. That is something the Board would have to determine. 40 41 Matt Hughes: Really? 42 78 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 77 of 156 1 Michael Harvey: Yes. 2 3 Samantha Cabe: I believe we have already adjourned. 4 5 Michael Harvey: There has been no motion of adjourn the meeting as of yet. You all have agreed 6 not to accept any more testimony. Right now the question is are you moving to adjourn to your 7 next regularly scheduled meeting on January 9th or to a special meeting. My recommendation is 8 that you adjourn to a date time certain on January 9th so you do not have to re-advertise. My only 9 question for the Board is do you all want to convene the meeting earlier to accommodate 10 additional testimony. 11 12 Susan Halkiotis: I really think we should start earlier. 13 Samantha Cabe: Does anyone here have a problem with getting here earlier? Say 6:30 p.m.? 14 Do I have a motion? 15 MOTION by Barry Katz to adjourn and reconvene the meeting at 6:30pm on January 9th, 2017 at 16 the same location. Seconded by Matt Hughes. 17 18 (Unknown Resident not sworn): Along with that will there be an opportunity for people not 19 represented by an attorney to speak? Perhaps at the beginning of the meeting? I don’t know due 20 process with this. I’m just wondering how I’m not represented by an attorney, I don’t have an 21 attorney, I assume there are others who have an opinion and don’t want to hear the same 22 question asked 30 times before being able to provide our input. And I’m a resident. 23 24 Samantha Cabe: I understand sir, and I apologize for your having to wait and not gettting heard 25 tonight. Our typical procedure is to have the parties be heard first and then interested parties be 26 heard after the presentation of evidence. Certainly if the parties agree for you to be heard 27 beforehand we’ll consider that at the next meeting. 28 29 Meeting adjorned. 30 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 31 DATE JANUARY 23, 2017 32 RECONVENED REGULAR MEETING 33 34 MEMBERS PRESENT: Samantha Cabe (Chair) 35 Karen Barrows (Vice-Chair) 36 Matt Hughes 37 Barry Katz 38 Susan Halkiotis 39 40 STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 41 Elaina Cheek, Board Secretary 42 James Bryan, Staff Attorney 43 Anne Marie Tosco, Staff Attorney 44 45 Meeting was called to order by Samantha Cabe. 46 47 79 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 78 of 156 Samantha Cabe: Alright, the January 23, 2017 meeting of the Orange County Board of 1 Adjustment will come to order. I apologize for being here a few minutes late. Do we have a new 2 agenda or do we pick up right where we left off? 3 4 Michael Harvey: Well, before we call or reconvene the public hearing we need to make the Board 5 aware of a couple of things. 6 7 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 8 9 Michael Harvey: The first thing is at your place this evening you have your Orange County Board 10 Member Disclosure forms. It’s that time of year again. If you could fill that out and get them back 11 to me as quickly as you can Tom Freeman would appreciate it. And I will appreciate you in helping 12 to get Tom Freeman off my case. Second of all, you have before you the Board of Adjustment 13 calendar for the year. This lays out when we’re going to be having meetings. Per your rules and 14 procedure in the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance you typically meet the second 15 Monday of the month, unless there’s a conflict. There are a couple of conflicts this year where the 16 meetings fall on a public hearing date with the County Commissioners per County Commissioner 17 Policy you are to move to the following Monday so there’s no conflicts and the Staff doesn’t have 18 to try to figure out how to be at two places at once. And the first thing I’d like this Board to do per 19 your rules and procedure is acknowledge and adopt the calendar. 20 21 Samantha Cabe: Do I have a motion to adopt the calendar that’s been presented to us as our 22 calendar for the upcoming year 2017? 23 24 Motion made by Matt Hughes to adopt the calendar for the upcoming year 2017. Seconded by 25 Barry Katz. 26 27 VOTE: Unanimous 28 29 Samantha Cabe: We adopt the calendar presented by Staff as the Board Of Adjustment calendar 30 for the year 2017. 31 32 Michael Harvey: We currently have no February meetings scheduled, so if you’d like to have a 33 motion to cancel the February regular meeting. 34 35 Motion made by Barry Katz to cancel the February 28th meeting. Seconded by Karen Barrows. 36 37 VOTE: Unanimous 38 39 Samantha Cabe: Alright, no February meeting. 40 41 Michael Harvey: You have a March meeting. That March meeting is the review of appeal 42 submitted by neighbors of the Barn of Chapel Hill challenging the determination made by Staff 43 concerning the status of the property as a farm. This is slighted to be presented at your March 13th 44 meeting. As you know your regular Chair Samantha Cabe is recused from acting on this particular 45 request Karen Barrows will be serving as Chairperson. The question has come up whether or not 46 this venue, this location, was appropriate to handle the crowd at the meetings. Per the rules and 47 procedure the Chair person of the Board of Adjustment has the ability to move the meeting if they 48 determine it necessary to accommodate crowds, to accommodate any change or potential issue 49 that may come up. So at this time if the Board would like to have a quick discussion on the need 50 80 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 79 of 156 to move or change the meeting venue to a larger facility, preferably the wooded meeting facility, 1 where the County Commissioners meet. Do you think it’s necessary? 2 3 Barry Katz: Well remember last time. It was packed. People were standing. Do you anticipate the 4 same kind of crowd? 5 6 Michael Harvey: I do. 7 8 Barry Katz: Did you get a request for a larger room? 9 10 Michael Harvey: No, but the rules and procedure give the Chair… Yeah, and we wanted to bring it 11 up now since we can actually get ahead of the game. 12 13 Matt Hughes: Is the facility available that day? 14 15 Michael Harvey: We believe it is. 16 17 Matt Hughes: I see no reason not to. 18 19 Barry Katz: Yeah, sure. 20 21 Matt Hughes: Only because it got quite hot the last two times. 22 23 Barry Katz: I remember the facility. Acoustically it’s as good or better than here? 24 25 Michael Harvey: I’m not going to say that, but there is an audio system that we’ll be taking 26 advantage of. It’s a larger space so obviously acoustically… 27 28 Barry Katz: I can remember attending meetings there and having a little challenge. 29 30 Samantha Cabe: I would just suggest if everyone wants to do that we make sure they can actually 31 sit in the actual chairs. The last meeting we had there we were sitting down with sort of, not 32 functional where the screens were. 33 34 Michael Harvey: I agree totally. 35 36 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 37 38 Michael Harvey: So if it’s, Ms. Barrows, if you’re amendable to it... 39 40 Karen Barrows: Mm-Hmm. 41 42 Michael Harvey: Ok. Then we will work to facilitate that and keep Board members apprised of 43 where we are. The only other item before we reconvene is I have placed an item at your desk. It is 44 a set of three emails that the Planning Staff received on Sunday January the 22nd from Ms. Amber 45 Corbin concerning this project. We will address them at the appropriate time. Madame Chair, 46 thank you. 47 48 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. Alright, so we will pick up our hearing. I believe we were hearing 49 evidence from the opposition and, forgive me, do you recall which witness we were hearing from? 50 81 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 80 of 156 1 John Price: Yes I think the last witness was Evan Gwen. 2 3 Samantha Cabe: I’m sorry? 4 5 John Price: Evan Gwen. 6 7 Samantha Cabe: Yes. 8 9 John Price: And we finished with Mr. Gwen. 10 11 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 12 13 Michael Harvey: Madame Chair, if we could have a formal motion to reconvene the public hearing. 14 15 Samantha Cabe: Oh, sure. Can I have a motion to reconvene the public hearing? 16 17 Motion made by Karen Barrows to reconvene the public hearing. Seconded by Matt Hughes. 18 19 VOTE: Unanimous 20 21 Samantha Cabe: Alright, we will reconvene. 22 23 Michael Harvey: And I will ask was there anybody who signed up this evening that was not sworn 24 at the December regular meeting? If I could get those who would like to speak to come forward so 25 we can swear you in at this time. And those who have already been sworn just remember you will 26 need to restate for the record your name, that you were sworn, and that you were sworn at the 27 December meeting. 28 29 Michael Harvey swore in a member of the public. 30 31 Michael Harvey: Again, when you come up to speak just state your name, your address, and that 32 you were sworn for the record. 33 34 Karen Barrows: Before we start I have a question for Mr. Price if that’s ok. 35 36 Samantha Cabe: Sure. 37 38 Karen Barrows: Mr. Price, I was reading over some of the material you submitted to Michael or 39 someone after we met last time where you said you thought the meeting was not conducted 40 properly. Do you mind telling the Board what you were thinking about? 41 42 John Price: All I was referring to on that was that I was not allowed to cross-examine the experts 43 for Verizon and TowerCom with respect to the alternatives considered and why certain 44 alternatives were not considered technical issues. And I think the primary objection was that under 45 the North Carolina statutes you’re not allowed to require an applicant to disclose confidential 46 information so one of my… 47 48 Laura Goode: It was not confidential. It’s proprietary information. 49 50 82 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 81 of 156 John Price: Yeah, proprietary, right. And the information I was seeking I didn’t believe was 1 confidential. Proprietary, but it went to issues of whether they had considered properly alternatives 2 and taken those into consideration… I have a couple of housekeeping matters, if you don’t mind. 3 Mr. Evan Gwen, when he testified regarding certain photographs that were taken of the balloon 4 test and also several maps if we could have those entered into the record. 5 6 Samantha Cabe: All of these were the ones that we saw on the computer but we didn’t have 7 physical copies of? 8 9 John Price: Correct. And also, reference was made to the letters that I had… The supplemental 10 submission that I had made by letter of January 3rd and there was a response and I filed a reply 11 on January 7th, and also filed our bonus position to on applicants compliance and I was requested 12 to file with the Board, prepare and file with the Board sending forth our proposed findings of fact. 13 I’ll request that those be made part of the record not for evidentiary purposes but really setting 14 forth our legal position. 15 16 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. Are these paper copies of those because we got them via email, I 17 believe? 18 19 Michael Harvey: Now we’re calling the pictures Opposition 5. 20 21 Barry Katz: Is this all going to be number 6? 22 23 Michael Harvey: This is all going to be number 6. So both letters and the findings of the opposites. 24 25 John Price: Mr. Ogburn, would you state your name and you residence please? 26 27 Michael Ogburn: Michael Ogburn, I live at 3236 Trenton Road in Raleigh. 28 29 John Price: What is your occupation? 30 31 Michael Ogburn: I am a real estate appraiser. 32 33 John Price: Are you licensed by the state of North Carolina as a real estate appraiser? 34 35 Michael Ogburn: I have a State Certificate, yes. 36 37 John Price: How long have you been licensed or certified? 38 39 Michael Ogburn: Ever since they started in 1991. 40 41 John Price: How many years have you been involved in performing appraisals? 42 43 Michael Ogburn: Full time for 33, prior to that probably an additional 6 or 7 on a part time basis. 44 45 John Price: How many appraisals over the years would you estimate you performed? 46 47 Michael Ogburn: 10-12,000. 48 49 83 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 82 of 156 John Price: What percentage of those have been residential properties as opposed to 1 commercial? 2 3 Michael Ogburn: Probably 99%. 4 5 John Price: You previously testified as an expert appraiser in court proceeds and in ministry and 6 new proceedings including before Board of Adjustment’s? 7 8 Michael Ogburn: Yes. 9 10 John Price: Approximately how many times? 11 12 Michael Ogburn: How many times have I testified? 50-60 times, I would guess. 13 14 John Price: Have you ever been denied qualification as an expert witness? 15 16 Michael Ogburn: No. 17 18 John Price: Have you performed appraisal services for any North Carolina cites or counties? 19 20 Michael Ogburn: Yes. Let’s see here, Wake County, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, Currently engaged 21 with Town of Morrisville, Garner, it’s not unusual for me to engage municipalities. 22 23 John Price: Have you ever previously testified on the potential impact on the value of residential 24 properties of external influences or a contingent circumstances? 25 26 Michael Ogburn: Yes. 27 28 John Price: Can you give any examples? 29 30 Michael Ogburn: Most recent one was down in Johnston County. They had built a ball field in 31 these peoples back yard and put the light poles right in their back yard, it was brighter than noon 32 in their backyard at nighttime. I understand why they were upset. 33 34 John Price: Are you aware of any conflicts that you would have with any parties to this 35 proceeding? 36 37 Michael Ogburn: Not that I’m aware of. 38 39 John Price: Do you have a personal stake in the outcome of this proceeding? 40 41 Michael Ogburn: I do not. 42 43 John Price: What I’m going to have marked is Opposition 7 and ask you if that is your CB? 44 45 Michael Ogburn: Yes. 46 47 John Price: Everything stated in your CB is true and correct. 48 49 Michael Ogburn: Yes. As far as I know, yes sir. 50 84 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 83 of 156 1 John Price: I’ll move for the admission into the record Opposition 7. We ask that Mr. Ogburn be 2 allowed to testify in this proceeding as an expert appraiser and evaluation expert witness. 3 4 Samantha Cabe: Any objection? 5 6 Laura Goode: No. 7 8 John Price: Mr. Ogburn, did you perform an appraisal property owned by Owen and Roxanne 9 Gwen? 10 11 Michael Ogburn: I did. 12 John Price: Would you describe the nature of the engagement, specifically what you were asked 13 to appraise or value? 14 15 Michael Ogburn: Most recently, the question was whether or not a proposed cell tower down the 16 hill from him would have an adverse effect on his property value. 17 18 John Price: And did you prepare the appraisal report that was previously entered into the record in 19 this case that you have before you? 20 21 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir. 22 23 John Price: Did you arrive at an opinion regarding the current value of Mr. and Mrs. Gwen’s 24 property? 25 26 Michael Ogburn: I did. 27 28 John Price: And what was that opinion? 29 30 Michael Ogburn: $1,290,000. 31 32 John Price: And did you arrive at opinion as to the value of that property in the event that the 33 TowerCom cell tower was constructed as proposed? 34 35 Michael Ogburn: I did. 36 37 John Price: And what was that value? 38 39 Michael Ogburn: $1,135,200. 40 41 John Price: And what’s the difference between the two values? 42 43 Michael Ogburn: A differential of 12%. 44 45 John Price: What amount? 46 47 Michael Ogburn: $154,800. 48 49 85 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 84 of 156 John Price: Would you describe what you did and took into consideration in arriving at your 1 evaluation? 2 3 Michael Ogburn: Yeah, sure. Anytime you’re engaged to do an appraisal what you’re supposed to 4 do is put yourself into the mindset of a prospective buyer so when I’m looking at the property then 5 I’m supposed to look as if I am a typically motivated buyer. So obviously, in this instance, the first 6 question you have: if I’ve got two properties, both of them are in my opinion equal, one of them 7 you’ve got a 200-foot metal pole and the other one you don’t, which one are you going to buy? It 8 seems pretty clear to me that you’re going to buy the one that doesn’t have the 200-foot metal 9 pole. So since that seemed to be reasonable and logical then you start looking for data to either 10 support or to dis-sway your preconceived concept as to whether or not it would have an adverse 11 effect. So I ran across an article where they had pulled people about their opinion as to whether or 12 not it would have an adverse effect. Well it did, and as I recall it was somewhere in the 13 neighborhood of about 78% would have a negative view towards being approximate to a cell 14 phone tower. That seems reasonable to me. Then, I found a study that had been published by the 15 Appraisal Journal where they had done a much more humanistic study on the effects and 16 proximity of cell phone towers. And again, their conclusions seemed to mirror what they did. So 17 we understand then if this proximity to view a 200-foot metal pole is going to affect the opinion of 18 potential buyers. We’re going to have a downward shift of the demand curve and from EC 101 first 19 day if your demand curve goes down you’ve got fewer potential buyers, the price has to come 20 down. That’s just a fact. So it seems reasonable then that this is what the effects are going to be. 21 You can argue about how much but it’s almost inarguable that it’s not going to have an adverse 22 effect on value. So then the next thing was to find instances of proximity to cell phone towers and 23 their effect on value. There’s a neighborhood in Holly Springs called Cobble Ridge that had a cell 24 phone tower built on one of the lots in the neighborhood. So the first thing I did was, ok let’s look 25 at the map and we’ll pick out the houses that are immediately next to that and we’re going to 26 compare what those houses sold for versus what the rest of the neighborhood sold for to see if 27 there’s an impact. What we found was that these houses that were immediately adjacent to the 28 cell phone tower were approximately 12% smaller than the median house in the neighborhood. So 29 they were less expensive and they were smaller. We also found that they sold for the same price 30 per foot as the rest of them. Well all things being equal, a smaller house is going to sell for more 31 per foot, not the same amount. I’ll give you a real quick example I can do in my head. I’ve got two 32 properties. They’re side by side. They both have a $50,000 lot. House A is a 1,000 square feet. 33 That’s $50 a square foot. House B is 2,000 square feet. That’s $25 a square foot. All things being 34 equal, the smaller the house the more per foot it should sell for. If it’s not selling for more per foot 35 then we understand that there is an adverse influence. Additionally, when you look in the MLS you 36 see that the realtors that have those properties listed noted on those properties that were adjacent 37 to the cell phone tower that the cell phone tower was there and that they believe they had already 38 adjusted the price downward to account for that. So we understand that they have been getting 39 some feedback so they were trying to be pro-active in marketing these and saying that, hey we 40 understand it’s got a cell phone tower and we’ve already accounted for it. Yes sir? 41 42 Barry Katz: I have a couple questions. You mentioned this Journal article. 43 44 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir. 45 46 Barry Katz: It seems pretty significant that there might be a Journal article. Is this …… It would be 47 good to have an opportunity to see this Journal article and actually look at it and see what it is that 48 they’re saying. It could be highly significant; not only for this case but for whenever we have to 49 consider this. 50 86 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 85 of 156 1 Michael Ogburn: Ok. It is readily online. Yes sir. 2 3 Barry Katz: Alright, you’ll let us know. And also …… 4 5 John Price: Also a copy is attached to the appraisal report. 6 7 Barry Katz: Oh ok, it is. Then you mentioned you went then to look for the comparables to see 8 adjacent to a cell phone tower and not adjacent, etcetera, but weren’t any of the examples 9 included in the Journal article? 10 11 Michael Ogburn: No. The article that was done in the Appraisal Journal was actually a study that 12 was done in New Zealand. 13 14 Barry Katz: Ok, we’ve heard about that one. 15 16 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir. 17 18 Barry Katz: That’s good to know. And just a semantic thing, you mentioned two lots $50,000. You 19 mean that those lots were not just the value of the lot but the value of the lot and the house was 20 $50,000? 21 22 Michael Ogburn: No, no sir. Just the lots are $50,000. On house number one I build a 1,000 23 square foot house. That’s going to be $50 a square foot, just for the lot. I haven’t done anything 24 else. For house B I’ve got a 2,000 square foot house. That’s going to be $25. Now, I continue 25 on… I’ve got a two-car garage on each of them. It’s $20,000 for the two-car garage. For house A 26 that’s $20 a square foot. For house B that’s $10 a square foot. I continue… I’ve got two 27 bathrooms. Each bathroom is $5,000. For house A that’s $5 a square foot. For house B it’s going 28 to be $10. So we understand that the smaller the house, all things being equal, it has to be 29 greater. If you divide a number by a smaller number it has to be greater. 30 31 Barry Katz: I just don’t think that listening to this you’re talking about hypothetical houses that, in 32 my experience, it’s not a realistic comparable because you’re not building the same house, you’re 33 not building the same value, you have no idea what goes into this, what the size of these 34 bathrooms are, or any of these things. I mean there’s so much that goes into valuing a house. 35 36 Michael Ogburn: If I confine it to a neighborhood, which I did, then we’re going to expect that most 37 of these houses are going to have a great deal of conformity. That’s why most of these 38 subdivisions have got restrictive covenant to say that you have to build a house to such a size and 39 use perhaps a certain type of architecture, etcetera. So we would anticipate that yes there’s going 40 to be variables, but that being said the smaller the house the greater per foot it’s going to sell for. 41 It just has to, there’s no way around it. Yes ma’am? 42 43 Samantha Cabe: I have a question for you. So would a cell tower have less of an effect? You’re 44 study dealt with sort of a cookie cutter neighborhood with same size lots, similar houses, I believe 45 Mr. Owen testified in his testimony at our last hearing that he had a very unique property, he had 46 the highest point east or west of such and such, that it’s a custom built home, so let’s say that 47 there is no other property, per Mr. Owen’s testimony, like this property anywhere in Orange 48 County. So how can you say that someone would go and choose another property? How can you 49 say that the cell phone tower being there outweighs the unique properties that Mr. Owen testified 50 87 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 86 of 156 to? Someone might want to live on the highest peak and I don’t remember his sphere but with that 1 view and so on and so forth? 2 3 Michael Ogburn: We understand that somebody that purposely selects a lot on one of the highest 4 points in Orange County is buying it to catch that vista view. Otherwise you’re going to build down 5 it on the bottom of the hill. You’re going to be on top of the mountain because you want a top of 6 the mountain experience. 7 8 Samantha Cabe: I wouldn’t call this a mountain. 9 10 Michael Ogburn: Well, technically it is. I won’t argue with you but technically it is a mountain. So 11 you’re going to build it up there. Now, let’s face it, in excess of $1,000,000 you’re talking about 12 something that’s relatively rare. So these people that may consider purchasing a like property, 13 their number one competition is not of the houses that are currently on the market. His point of 14 buying a piece of dirt and building it just the way they want to. But I’ll buy yours if I can get it for 15 the right price and adapt it to my taste, so they are marketable. They often have a loss between 16 value in use and value in exchange, they do. But, if I have this period discretionary buyer that’s 17 looking for this top of the mountain it is going to affect them the same or greater than somebody 18 that’s buying a subdivision house. I would argue it’s going to affect them a great deal more. They 19 have the discretionary income to go any doggone place they want to. Why pick one with a 200-20 foot pole in view? I can’t name a single reason. 21 22 Samantha Cabe: Except that it’s the highest point in Orange County. 23 24 Michael Ogburn: Well, you can go over to the next ridge, which is Governor’s Club, and that’s 25 where the build their estate homes up on top of that. Not on golf course, they’re up on top of the 26 ridge so you can get that 40-mile vista. Ok. 27 28 John Price: The property that you’re talking about that you studied the sales prices of those 29 properties, that’s the same development as David Smith used in his report, is that correct? 30 31 Michael Ogburn: That’s correct. Yes, sir. And so the first thing then is, ok let’s see what immediate 32 proximity to that cell phone tower is, does it have an affect? And then the next logical thing, to me, 33 would be, ok does it have an affect on that neighborhood versus a near by neighborhood. So 34 when you look in the MLS for the same time frame period new construction the majority of the 35 new construction was in the development immediately west on Holly Springs Road, Sunridge. And 36 so I did a study where I pulled all of the new construction, same time frame from the properties in 37 Sunset Ridge and the ones in Cobble Ridge. And found that the difference between those two 38 neighborhoods was a difference of 1-square foot, on median. But the difference in sales price on a 39 per foot basis was something like 16-17% difference for the same size house. I looked a little 40 more and it turns out that the lots inside of Sunset Ridge, on average, were selling for more than 41 the ones in Cobble Ridge. So I adjusted down for that and then the differential between those two 42 was 12%. 43 44 John Price: When you say all things being equal, smaller houses going to sell for larger square 45 foot price, when you say all things being equal does that include lot size? 46 47 Michael Ogburn: So then what we’re expecting is that the smaller houses got a similar value site, 48 it’s got similar amenities, two car garage, 2 and a half baths, kitchen, HVAC, porch, deck, 49 whatever, the amenities happen to be whatever is standard for that particular market area, so yes 50 88 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 87 of 156 that’s what we’re trying to do. We understand that if I were in Cobble Ridge and then I went to a 1 higher priced neighborhood, that one that was $600,000, that the amenities that the market would 2 expect in this higher priced neighborhood would not be similar to what my expectations would be 3 in Cobble Ridge. That wouldn’t be a fair comparison. But if I compare just that neighborhood, we 4 want to have a reasonable amount of conformity. There’s going to be some variances, yes. But 5 we anticipate that most of that’s going to be washed out by using a broader study instead of just 6 one particular dwelling. 7 8 Samantha Cabe: I have two questions that are related to Cobble Ridge. First, what is the average 9 lot size in Cobble Ridge that you looked at? Oh it’s .23. It looks like less than half-acre lots. 10 11 Michael Ogburn: Yes ma’am, that’s correct. 12 13 Samantha Cabe: And the houses that were in direct proximity of the cell tower; how far were 14 they? 15 16 Michael Ogburn: In other words these were the lots next door. Here’s cell phone tower 1 and 2, 17 just like that. 18 19 Samantha Cabe: And how far away is the proposed tower in this case from Mr. Owen’s 20 residence? 21 22 Michael Ogburn: I don’t have… but I would say probably a quarter of a mile. 23 24 Samantha Cabe: And were the cell phone towers in Cobble Ridge closer or further than a quarter 25 of a mile? 26 27 Michael Ogburn: So they would be closer. Right. 28 29 Samantha Cabe: Right. Thank you. 30 31 Michael Ogburn: Yes ma’am. So that’s why I include the study of comparing the two 32 neighborhoods to see if that cell phone tower had an impact on all of the properties in that 33 neighborhood, not just the ones that are immediately adjacent. My conclusion, based on the 34 information I pulled up, was that the entire neighborhood was adversely affected. Even though 35 those that were not immediately adjacent, so what appears to be absolutely true is that the more 36 approximate you are to the cell phone tower the more adversely your value will be affected. It 37 seems to be fairly reasonable to me. 38 39 John Price: Is there a range of impact in terms of the closer to proximity, the more visible? 40 41 Michael Ogburn: So what we would find then if we used those properties that were immediately 42 adjacent to the cell phone tower and then went across the street and compared them to like size 43 houses in Sunset Ridge that differential would have been probably in the 20 plus range. Now, that 44 also seemed to be very consistent with the study that was done in New Zealand where they found 45 a range of 2-21% depending on the proximity to cell phone towers. So that seems then to be 46 supportive of the information that I gathered. 47 48 Barry Katz: You’re comparing the two developments, and the development that’s not directly 49 associated with the cell tower, can you see the cell tower from that subdivision? 50 89 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 88 of 156 1 Michael Ogburn: Not from most of it. There’s a few back up to Holly Springs Road that you would 2 be able to but the majority of the neighborhood is far enough removed that you cannot. 3 4 Barry Katz: Ok. 5 6 John Price: What else, if anything else, did you take into consideration in arriving at the impact on 7 the value of… 8 9 Michael Ogburn: Ok… What seemed to me for this instance could be the most similar was that 10 differential between Sunset Ridge and Cobble Ridge because I’m not immediately adjacent to the 11 cell phone tower. And we found that to be 12%, so that seems to be a reasonable conclusion. If 12 we’re up here… 13 14 Matt Hughes: I’m sorry; I’m trying to check out the source that you have in your report. Apparently 15 it plays music. 16 17 Michael Ogburn: Pardon? It’s attached… Ok. So, he’s up on top of the hill… I was driving out to 18 Jordan Lake the other day. I was up on top of the hill. The next ridge down I could see the cell 19 phone tower. That was 5-miles away. I mean, 200-feet is probably 100-150 above most trees? It 20 sticks out a long way. They’re tall. You can see them a long way if you have the vantage point. 21 22 John Price: With respect to the article in the survey report, attached to your own report? 23 24 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir. 25 26 John Price: Is that the type of information, based on your experience, an expertise real estate 27 evaluation that you and other real estate appraisers would take into consideration in performing 28 this type of appraisal? 29 30 Michael Ogburn: Yes. Now I didn’t rely on them, but I certainly believe that they’re supportive, 31 those conclusions were similar to the conclusions that I drew from looking at the market place. So 32 it seems reasonable to include them that somebody else found similar data that I did. 33 34 John Price: At my request did you review the impact analysis report prepared by David Smith? 35 Michael Ogburn: I did. 36 37 John Price: As well as the attachments to the report? 38 39 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir. 40 41 John Price: Do you agree or disagree with his opinion that the proposed development will 42 maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties? 43 44 Michael Ogburn: I do not agree. 45 46 John Price: Aside from what you have already related, has it been in you experience in all the 47 years you’ve been involved in appraising and valuing properties, has it throughout that experience 48 been your experience that the square foot price of a smaller home, all things relatively being 49 equal, will be larger at a higher sales price? 50 90 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 89 of 156 1 Michael Ogburn: That’s correct. 2 3 Samantha Cabe: We’ve heard that. We got that. 4 5 John Price: In your opinion does the potential value on property value if construction of the cell 6 tower is here vary depending upon the particular nature and character of the surrounding 7 community, home size, lot size, terrain? 8 9 Michael Ogburn: I would believe it would seem reasonable that in a more urban locale you’re 10 going to have more towers and all of that, it’s going to be part of the infrastructure…. I’m not 11 saying it would have an impact but it would be part of the landscape, as it were. As you get 12 suburban you’re going to see very few, and they’re mostly going to be centered on major 13 thoroughfares close to some type of commercial development. Then when you get into a more 14 rural locale you don’t expect to see them hardly at all, I mean, it’s very unusual. 15 16 John Price: Do you know what county Cobble Ridge and Sunset Ridge are located in? 17 18 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir. They’re both in Wake County. 19 20 John Price: Are those developments zoned rural buffer? 21 22 Michael Ogburn: No sir. 23 24 John Price: Do you know what zoning category in Wake County would correspond to rural buffer? 25 26 Michael Ogburn: The closest that we have, we don’t have a rural buffer, the closest were be 27 R80W, that would be the largest site required to build a single-family dwelling. 28 29 John Price: Are either Cobble Ridge or Sunset Ridge zoned R80W? 30 31 Michael Ogburn: No, sir. 32 John Price: Are you familiar with and have you reviewed the Dove Field LLC property in relation of 33 that property the proposed cell tower? 34 35 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir. 36 37 John Price: Based upon the appraisal you performed for Mr. Gwen, in your experience, do you 38 have an opinion as to whether the values of the Dove Field property, including the home occupied 39 by Evan and Erin Gwen, the 40-acre home site adjacent to the cell tower location, a 100-acre 40 home site looking down on the proposed cell tower will or will not be impacted by the 41 construction? 42 43 Michael Ogburn: So we would anticipate that closer proximity will adversely affect the values of 44 those properties also. 45 46 John Price: And with respect to those properties would it also be in your opinion the same as 47 before that the impact will vary depending upon proximity and visibility of the tower somewhere 48 between 12-20%? 49 50 91 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 90 of 156 Michael Ogburn: Yes. That would seem reasonable. 1 2 John Price: In the event there’s timbering around the proposed cell tower make it an even more 3 visible, what impact, if any, would that have on property values? 4 5 Michael Ogburn: Well, again, we would think that that would be adverse. I think the other 6 possibility that timbering around the site may bring in to some of the potential market there. Maybe 7 a concern of EMT? Whether it’s real or not real… 8 9 Samantha Cabe: Over What? 10 11 Michael Ogburn: EMT’s. Electronic Transmission Magnetics. 12 13 Laura Goode: And at this point in time I would like to object to that as not being grounds for… 14 15 Michael Ogburn: So we understand that. 16 17 Samantha Cabe: Sustained. 18 19 Michael Ogburn: Whether it is real or not, I’m not saying one way or the other, if a portion of the 20 market believes or perceives that there may be a problem then, again, what we’ve done is we 21 have downward shifted our demand curve and we understand that that has to impact the value. 22 23 John Price: Do you have an opinion as to whether it would be a requirement for the sellers 24 property located in an area where a cell tower is going to be built for that sellers agent to disclose 25 the existence of that proposed cell tower? 26 27 Michael Ogburn: I don’t know that it’s a requirement. 28 29 Laura Goode: I’m going to object to this. 30 31 Samantha Cabe: That’s a legal opinion. 32 33 Michael Ogburn: Yeah. What I would say is just like the listing agents of those properties in 34 Cobble Ridge… Any good real estate agent would certainly disclose it and make everyone aware 35 in advance that, oh there is or there may be a cell phone tower. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: Well if that were the case wouldn’t you have to say that every single property 38 there’s the chance that there could be a cell phone tower? Because anybody can apply to have a 39 cell phone tower. 40 41 Michael Ogburn: Well, yes, but in this instance there’s an application in with the County and that 42 would not be true most other places. 43 44 John Price: I have no further questions for the witness. 45 46 Matt Hughes: I have maybe two questions for you. This report that you submitted… Just going 47 through it there’s a few questions I have as I read a good portion of that. And one of the things I’m 48 kind of stuck on is this electromagnetichealth.org whatever it is, I can’t tell what kind of group it is, 49 but why did you include that in here? Like for example, there’s a survey that it lists but, maybe it’s 50 92 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 91 of 156 scientists in me, it was a survey circulating through online email and social networking sites. So 1 it’s not a scientific poll. 2 3 Michael Ogburn: I do not believe that it is either. I think it’s an opinion poll, much like probably the 4 pre-election polls, and it’s probably just as accurate. That said… 5 6 Matt Hughes: Well technically those types of polls people don’t seek them out though. 7 8 Michael Ogburn: Ok. Let’s… 9 10 Matt Hughes: It’s not a random sample… 11 12 Michael Ogburn: That’s fine. Let’s assume that in fact it is biased, ok, that’s fine. Again, somebody 13 took the time to at least do a survey. And I believe, if I recall correctly, their findings were 14 something like it had an impact on 78% of potential buyers. Right, let’s say that they missed it by a 15 factor of four. That’s still 20%. We understand that whether you agree with their numbers the 16 conclusion is that people don’t want to look on a big metal pole. I don’t find that to be difficult to 17 agree with. 18 19 Michael Harvey: Madame Chair, just for the record, we’re dealing with Opponents Exhibit 1. 20 21 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you. 22 23 Matt Hughes: The other question about this material was regarding inaudible 55:11 and their 24 perceived health affects from this and I was wondering… You said that... How do you account for 25 that when you appraise things, I mean, there’s things out there. Let’s say vaccines, for example, 26 people believe that vaccines can cause all sorts of diseases or afflictions including the current 27 occupant of the White House but that has no basis. So how does that? 28 29 Michael Ogburn: Ok, again, so… 30 31 Matt Hughes: So how do you account for things that where people are making an opinion of 32 something or it influences them. How do you? 33 34 Michael Ogburn: What is real, for those people, what it really is or what they perceive for it to be. 35 Well in their instance it may be perception, it really doesn’t make any difference as long as a 36 portion perceive it might be a problem. We understand if it’s one out of ten, if it’s one out of a 37 hundred, we’re still going to have a downward shift in that demand curve. 38 39 Matt Hughes: Let’s say, do you weight that downward shift differently versus someone who just 40 doesn’t want to look at a metal pole versus those who think there’s some sort of health issue? 41 42 Michael Ogburn: My personal opinion is that it’s much more of an eyesore factor than it is 43 because of the EMT’s. The only place that I’m aware of where proximity to tall metal poles is a 44 bonus is in New England it appears that snowmobilers like to be next to high power transmission 45 easement so they can zip up and down the hills. But other than that I haven’t found anywhere else 46 where they like to be next to big poles. 47 48 Matt Hughes: The other thing was the Journal Article you mentioned. 49 50 93 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 92 of 156 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir. 1 2 Matt Hughes: It focuses mostly on New Zealand, there’s some reference to some other places as 3 well but, work me through how appraisals… How could appraisals be different in another country? 4 Does that make sense? 5 6 Michael Ogburn: Oh yeah, so. 7 8 Matt Hughes: Is there some sort of professional standard no matter where you are, let’s say 9 between the United States and Canada and New Zealand would not adhere to those? 10 11 Michael Ogburn: What we would anticipate is the same economic factors are going to be in play in 12 New Zealand as they are in the United States, but what I have generally found to be true 13 regardless of where you live most people are pretty doggone much the same. And if they don’t 14 like to look at metal poles in New Zealand they probably don’t like to look at them in Orange 15 County either. Ok, so, did I rely on this as a basis for my conclusions? No sir. I believe that it is 16 supportive of those conclusions that I drew, yes sir. What I’m saying is I’m not the only one out 17 there that came to this conclusion. Now, they did a much more thorough study than I did. They 18 don’t pay appraisers to do studies… I do a lot of preservation easements on historic properties 19 and that type of thing. The articles that were written for it were 40 and 50 years ago. They’re still 20 the only articles out there where they’ve measured the effects, so this is not unusual for us then to 21 use something that was published in, for appraisers the Journal, and this is a good stay. And there 22 just hasn’t been anything else. Oh, these same people did write some others but this was the one. 23 24 Barry Katz: Well as far as the EMF stuff goes, the magnetic field varies with the distance from the 25 source. 26 27 Michael Ogburn: That is what I understand also. 28 29 Barry Katz: To the fourth power, which means if you double the distance there’s 10,000 times less 30 influence, and you’re talking about a quarter of a mile away. You’re getting more from holding your 31 phone to your ear. It’s not really relevant to this, in reality. Your point is what people’s impressions 32 are. 33 34 Michael Ogburn: That’s correct. 35 36 Barry Katz: That’s all it is. 37 38 Michael Ogburn: That’s all it is. 39 40 Barry Katz: And your opinion about this. 41 42 Michael Ogburn: So again, all I’m saying is if there are people out there that perceive that to be 43 true, I’m not saying it is, but if it is it’s going to adverse affect our demand curve. 44 45 Barry Katz: I have a question about demand and your opinion about this. 46 47 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir. 48 49 94 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 93 of 156 Barry Katz: If you work at a place and you have an opportunity to buy a house that’s an easy drive 1 to your place at work and it’s one mile away and you have another opportunity to buy a house 2 that’s five miles away or ten miles away, would there be an appeal to buy the house that’s one 3 mile away, or not? 4 5 Michael Ogburn: There are more factors, which is why it’s location, location, location. 6 7 Barry Katz: Right. 8 9 Michael Ogburn: So would being closer to work be nice? Yes sir. But if it’s not in the right schools, 10 if I don’t have… 11 12 Barry Katz: You’ve got all these variables. That’s exactly right. You’ve got all these variables. And 13 what you have here is an unique property that’s located in proximity to the University, the hospital, 14 to Research Triangle Park, to all of these factors that make it an appealing place, while it’s still 15 kind of a wilderness place. It’s an extraordinary place and it’s location… there may not be a 16 comparable place around on this side of Raleigh that could compare with the location of this 17 place. 18 19 Michael Ogburn: I would not disagree. 20 21 Barry Katz: So I just don’t know when you put in all the variables and the appeal of this location 22 how significant this pole will be when you have the option of doing two things. Siting your house 23 so you don’t see it, or recognizing for nine months out of the year you don’t see it. So tell me, how 24 is this that significant? 25 26 Michael Ogburn: Ok. Again, what my opinion would be is that because we’re dealing with a 27 market segment that is only a fraction of a percentage, I mean we’re talking rare air… In a typical 28 year those properties that will go on the open market and will transact for a greater amount than 29 $1,000,000 will typically be somewhere in the neighborhood of four tenths of one percent of the 30 entire marketplace. 31 32 Barry Katz: Just property, not value of house right? Just property? 33 34 Michael Ogburn: So in other words real property i.e. Improved residential real estate that has a for 35 sale sign that goes in the front yard and is openly transacted in the marketplace for excess of a 36 million you’re talking about a fraction of one percent. 37 38 Barry Katz: I’m still not clear. Do you mean this is a property with a house on it? 39 40 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir. 41 42 Barry Katz: That few? Because there are a lot of million dollar houses around here. 43 44 Michael Ogburn: There are a lot of houses that cost a million dollars, how many transacted for a 45 million dollars. What you find is in a typical year it’s a fraction of one percent. So you’re dealing 46 with a very, very small segment of the market. That’s one. Two, people that can afford property 47 like this have the discretionary income where they can make choices, where they… I don’t have to 48 settle for this, I can go over here and build one the way I want to, where I want to. That’s really the 49 competition for most of these houses. 50 95 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 94 of 156 1 Barry Katz: We don’t want to spend any more time than we have to on this but all I’m saying is as 2 you say location, location, location this is a particularly unique location and we’re talking about an 3 opinion about what the value of that property, and how it’s affected by that pole. 4 5 Michael Ogburn: That is correct, that’s what an appraisal is, an opinion of value. That’s correct. 6 Yes sir. 7 8 Barry Katz: Ok, fine. 9 10 Samantha Cabe: Any questions from you Karen? Alright, does that applicant have questions? 11 12 Laura Goode: I have a few questions, thank you… Good evening, I’m Laura Goode. 13 14 Michael Ogburn: I’m sorry, Margo? 15 Laura Goode: Laura Goode. 16 17 Michael Ogburn: Ok. Nice to meet you Mike Ogburn. 18 19 Laura Goode: Ok. So your opinion was that the erection of a cell phone tower adjacent to a 20 subject property would create a loss of twelve percent? Is that correct? 21 22 Michael Ogburn: So what we found was then those properties that were most immediately 23 adjacent to the cell phone tower in Cobble Ridge were twelve percent smaller than the median 24 size of houses sold the same price per foot. Therefore the conclusion would be that there was an 25 adverse effect there and if you do the math it probably works out to be somewhere in the 26 neighborhood about ten percent as compared to the entire neighborhood. If you then compare 27 Cobble Ridge to the neighborhood across the street that does not have the cell phone tower that 28 differential was twelve percent. 29 30 Laura Goode: And you state in your report that as such it would my opinion that the erection of a 31 cell phone tower adjacent to the subject property would create a loss of twelve percent? 32 33 Michael Ogburn: Yes. 34 35 Laura Goode: Ok. But this property, Owen Gwen’s property, is not adjacent to the proposed tower 36 property, is that correct? 37 38 Michael Ogburn: Yes. 39 40 Laura Goode: And in fact there are approximately five properties in between Mr. Gwen’s property 41 and the subject property, and I’ll show you on the map of this. 42 43 Michael Ogburn: Ok…. Yeah, four or five depending on how you count, that’s correct. 44 45 Laura Goode: Ok. And I would introduce this into the record. I’m not sure what number we’re on. 46 47 Michael Harvey: For applicants exhibits we’re Applicant 2. 48 49 96 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 95 of 156 Laura Goode: And earlier you testified that Mr. Owen Gwen’s property at 1700 Clearwater Lake 1 Road is approximately a quarter mile from the subject tower? 2 3 Michael Ogburn: That would be my supposition, yes. 4 5 Laura Goode: Ok, I’m going to show you a Google Earth image. 6 7 Michael Ogburn: Ok. 8 9 Laura Goode: Showing Mr. Gwen’s property at 1700 Clearwater Lake Road and the proposed 10 tower center that we did with latitude and longitude of the tower, and does this show that there’s 11 about a half mile between those two sites? 12 Michael Ogburn: Could be, I can’t read it it’s too small. 13 14 Laura Goode: Ok. 15 16 Michael Ogburn: If you’ve got a magnifying glass I’d be happy to look at it again, but I’m sorry, the 17 prints too small. 18 19 Laura Goode: Ok, alright fair enough. And I would enter this into the record as Applicants number 20 3… And then also earlier you testified about comparing home sales prices between homes in the 21 Cobble Ridge and Sunset Ridge subdivision? 22 23 Michael Ogburn: Yes. 24 25 Laura Goode: Ok, and the data of those home sales that you used are on pages 43-48 of your 26 report, is that correct? 27 28 Michael Ogburn: Perhaps… No. I think… 29 30 Laura Goode: 43-48 is labeled at the top right hand corner of the report. 31 32 Michael Ogburn: Here, it’s in the… 33 34 Samantha Cabe: The last five pages of your report. 35 36 Michael Ogburn: The last how many? 37 38 Samantha Cabe: The last five. 39 40 Michael Ogburn: Five, yes. 41 42 Laura Goode: So those are the home sales you used in your comparison? 43 44 Michael Ogburn: I believe that is correct. 45 46 Laura Goode: Alright. And those home sales have not been adjusted for things such as the 47 number of bedrooms? 48 49 Michael Ogburn: That is correct. 50 97 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 96 of 156 1 Laura Goode: Number of bathrooms? 2 3 Michael Ogburn: That is correct? 4 5 Laura Goode: Whether there’s a garage? 6 7 Michael Ogburn: They all have garages. 8 9 Laura Goode: Or other factors that you discussed in your testimony? 10 11 Michael Ogburn: So, what I did on this was these are the five immediately adjacent properties to 12 the cell phone tower that sold through the open market. There were additional properties that are 13 also adjacent that had not been offered in the open market. They were what we typically call a 14 pre-sale, so there was no interaction on the market place, I did not include those. 15 16 Laura Goode: Understood. I’m just trying to verify that the sales prices that you have, which is the 17 data that you worked with, did not have adjustments to those sales prices for… 18 19 Michael Ogburn: I did not make any adjustments, other than use the raw data. That is correct. 20 21 Laura Goode: Ok. 22 23 Michael Ogburn: Yes ma’am. 24 25 Laura Goode: Alright. And then we’ve talked about the articles that were contained as part of your 26 report. And the one article from New Zealand, that was an article that was published in 2005? 27 28 Michael Ogburn: That’s probably correct, yes. 29 30 Laura Goode: And that was based on data from studies done in 2003? 31 32 Michael Ogburn: That is correct. 33 34 Laura Goode: And that of course was in New Zealand, so this did not deal with properties in the 35 United States? 36 37 Michael Ogburn: No it does not. 38 39 Laura Goode: Ok. And are you aware of any articles that criticized this article? 40 41 Michael Ogburn: I am not. 42 43 Laura Goode: Alright. And you aware of any studies or articles that used data from the United 44 States instead of from other countries? 45 46 Michael Ogburn: I did not find one. 47 48 98 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 97 of 156 Laura Goode: Ok. I’m going to show you an article that is published by the American Bar 1 Association. It’s dated May-June issue of 2016. And it’s titled probate and property. And the title of 2 the article is, “Cell Phone towers do not affect property values”. 3 4 Michael Ogburn: Ok. 5 6 Laura Goode: Did I read that correctly? 7 8 Michael Ogburn: That’s what I see. 9 10 Laura Goode: Ok. And you’re not familiar with that article? 11 12 Michael Ogburn: No. I am not. Is this an appraisal organization? 13 14 Laura Goode: It’s the American Bar Association, is the publisher. 15 16 Michael Ogburn: Ok. Alright. Well …………… 17 18 Laura Goode: Correct …… And their credentials ……. Yes. At this time I would enter into the 19 record. 20 21 John Price: I object to… that particular one is written by lawyers and not experts in appraisal by 22 any means, or evaluation of property values. 23 24 Samantha Cabe: Well we’ll accept for whatever probative value it is given, we recognize it’s not 25 attached to a qualified expert to give their opinion but I think we have a little bit of relaxed rules so 26 we’ll accept it but we’ll recognize that probative value may be different than an opinion by a 27 qualified expert. 28 29 Laura Goode: Certainly. We were just presenting this to contradict because it directly addresses 30 the New Zealand study that’s offered by their expert. And it also uses U.S. data, specifically data 31 in North Carolina. 32 33 Michael Harvey: This is Applicant Exhibit 4. 34 35 Laura Goode: I don’t have any additional questions. 36 37 John Price: I just have two additional questions that I’d ask. With respect to the properties 38 between Mr. and Mrs. Gwen’s property and the cell tower does most of that property belong to 39 Dove Field? 40 41 Michael Ogburn: That’s correct. 42 43 John Price: And was the percentage impact that you applied to the evaluation of Mr. and Mrs. 44 Gwen’s property the low range of what you found to be? 45 46 Michael Ogburn: Yes, so in other words it was the differential then between Cobble Ridge and 47 Sunset Ridge, not the differential between those properties adjacent but most immediately 48 adjacent to the cell phone tower. So yes, it was the lower of the two, as were not immediately 49 adjacent to this. We’re still going to have it in our horizon but we’re not immediately next to it. 50 99 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 98 of 156 1 John Price: And are you aware of the proximity of the 40-acre property within Dove Field and the 2 proximity of that to the cell tower? 3 4 Michael Ogburn: She had a nice little map… I think the 40-acres… Without it labeled it’s difficult 5 for me to tell. I believe it’s one of these but I’m not sure which one, I’ll be honest with you. If I had 6 PIN numbers it would help ….. 7 8 John Price: Are you aware of the fact that the 100-acre piece of property for which the prospective 9 buyer of that property signed an affidavit that was entered into the record? 10 11 Michael Ogburn: I did hear that, yes. 12 13 John Price: Are you aware of the close proximity and elevation of that property to Mr. and Mrs. 14 Gwen’s property? 15 16 Michael Ogburn: It’s in between the two, yes. 17 18 John Price: Is it a high elevation looking down on the proposed cell tower? 19 20 Michael Ogburn: Yes. It’s not as high as Owen’s but it’s got some nice topo to it, yeah. 21 22 John Price: Ok. I have nothing further. 23 24 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 25 26 John Price: Thank you. 27 28 Michael Ogburn: Thank you. 29 30 Samantha Cabe: I have one question and you may or may not know this, can you see the Sharon 31 Harris power plant from this property? 32 33 Michael Ogburn: Can you see the Sharon Harris tower? No. 34 35 Samantha Cabe: And a neighbor’s saying no, ok. 36 37 Michael Ogburn: No, I don’t think so. 38 39 Samantha Cabe: Ok, I’m just curious. 40 41 Michael Ogburn: I suspect on a day when it’s not windy you might be able to see the steam but I 42 truly don’t know because I haven’t been there on that occasion. I know from a number of the 43 estate sites in the Governors’ Club you can see Raleigh, so I’m guessing you got a 30-mile vista. 44 Something in that range. 45 46 Samantha Cabe: Ok. I was just curious. 47 48 Michael Ogburn: On a clear day you can see forever. 49 50 100 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 99 of 156 Samantha Cabe: Alright, thank you sir. 1 2 John Price: I have two other witnesses. If I might, I’d like to put on Mr. Owen Gwen again, very 3 briefly, just to identify one map. 4 5 Samantha Cabe: Ok, and I will, for the record, note that there were some neighbors at the last 6 hearing who asked if it would be possible if you would be willing to yield your time to let them 7 speak and be heard because they waited the entire time last time and didn’t get a chance to 8 speak. So if you would just be cognizant of the fact you have other people here wanting to talk. 9 10 John Price: I am very aware of that. We definitely want them to be able to voice their opinion. 11 12 Samantha Cabe: We’re still under the same standing rule that we have to adjourn at 10:00, so 13 please keep that in mind. It’s 7:48. 14 15 John Price: Yes. Mr. Gwen, you testified previously you own property near the tower? 16 17 Owen Gwen: Yes. 18 19 John Price: Ok. On the Dove Field master plan power point, if you could put that up? Would this 20 be Opposition 8? 21 22 Michael Harvey: Yes sir. 23 24 Elaina Cheek: Sir, can you state your name? 25 26 Owen Gwen: Owen Gwen. 27 28 Elaina Cheek: Owen Gwen? 29 30 Owen Gwen: Mm-Hmm. That is correct. 31 32 John Price: Mr. Gwen, what is showing on the screen I have in front of you has been marked as 33 Opposition number 7. Are you familiar with this? 34 35 Owen Gwen: Yes. 36 37 John Price: Would you describe briefly what it is? 38 39 Owen Gwen: There is a nationally known planner Randall Arndt who has written several books on 40 low impacts and low-density housing developments. And so being in the rural buffer and being 41 part of what’s going on in trying to keep the community in the rural setting we went out, he went 42 out and to look at the land and figure out a way lightly find some home sites that were roughly the 43 smallest one being 10-acre track up to about a hundred acre track to try to keep the density down. 44 We found these locations. 45 46 John Price: Is this the master plan that he prepared? 47 48 Owen Gwen: Yes. He prepared this master plan and it shows in the middle of the Cub Creek line 49 running through the center of my property and that’s a proposed wildlife corridor and some other 50 101 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 100 of 156 interesting concepts, there’s a couple of ponds and lakes there and you’ve got numerous springs, 1 and as I testified last time my initial thought was a small reservoir there but because of the impact 2 fees it was $5,000,000 in fees, I couldn’t afford the development. So we went to something along 3 these lines. Track label number one is the one adjacent to the cell tower. 4 5 John Price: Is that the 40-acre home site? 6 7 Owen Gwen: Yeah. It’s right next to it. You’d be able to throw a hard boiled egg right into the pole 8 from my property there. So all of these… 9 10 Samantha Cabe: That’s Dove Field Property? 11 12 Owen Gwen: Dove Field LLC. All of this is impacted and it flies in the face as far as I’m concerned 13 of my concept of trying to keep the rural buffer intact and keep the idea being in a rural zone. 14 Now, that’s the way I see it. And as far as value we talked about there are three properties across 15 the street, Mount Carmel Church Road, there are at least three that I know of for a fact because I 16 sold one of them as a real estate agent that are over a million dollars in value. These are highly 17 sensitive. It’s a highly sensitive neighborhood. It has a certain feature. The pond on the lake in 18 that little L that you can see, that’s the Y Camp, there are children playing there all summer, it’s 19 just a nice neighborhood thing going on and we want to keep it that way. I certainly don’t have to 20 do that. If I see cell towers going up and of course once one’s approved you see them in 21 clusters… to me, it just changes the flavor of something that’s been in the family for over 50-22 years. 23 24 John Price: What does yellow represent? 25 26 Owen Gwen: That’s the wildlife corridor. Proposed wildlife corridor. 27 28 John Price: And the green? The blue? 29 30 Owen Gwen: On the bottom, that is… the idea there would be to be open space. 31 32 John Price: Ok. 33 34 Owen Gwen: Part of the… we have a lot of deer in the area, a lot of wildlife. That’s the facts the 35 way they stand so I know we want to move this along, I appreciate everybody’s contribution and 36 help here but you know there’s a group here that’s getting money, they want to rent it, they’re 37 being paid as the attorney’s, the whole thing, the only guy in opposition that comes out and writes 38 the check is me, and I’ll continue to do it because it means a lot to me and I don’t think it’s right. 39 We had this hearing before when they tried to put a cell tower on the other side. It cost me a lot of 40 money. But the County Board here disallowed it, for the same reason. It’s an impact. It destroys 41 the view shed. It’s, as far as I’m concerned, it’s visual pollution. Any other questions? 42 43 Samantha Cabe: I have a quick question. They have the right to cross-examine, but what is that 44 neighborhood that you can see on that map that is kind of in the crook of your property? 45 46 Owen Gwen: That’s Nature Trail. It’s been there forever. It’s a mobile home area. 47 48 Samantha Cabe: That whole big area right there is all mobile homes? All that white that’s… 49 50 102 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 101 of 156 Owen Gwen: And then below that little… Where it says proposed tower all of those properties 1 there are Governors’ Club properties. So it runs… my property runs from Mount Carmel up to the 2 edge of Governors’ Club, with Governors’ Club on the bottom on the right and then the bottom 3 and the middle, and then Nature Trail Trailer Park in between. They have their own… 4 5 Samantha Cabe: This is all Nature Trail Trailer Park? 6 7 Owen Gwen: Yes it is. 8 9 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 10 11 Owen Gwen: And that’s a discussion that is not appropriate for this meeting but I can tell you 12 they… I’ve had the County look at their discharge and it’s an interesting concept. 13 14 Samantha Cabe: I was just curious as to what it was. 15 16 Owen Gwen: Yeah. Yeah. 17 18 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 19 20 Owen Gwen: It is what it is. Do you have any questions? 21 22 Laura Goode: I don’t have any questions. 23 24 John Price: Thank you Mr. Owen. 25 26 Samantha Cabe: Thank you Mr. Gwen. 27 28 Owen Gwen: I appreciate your time, thank you so much. 29 30 John Price: And I would move to have admitted into the record Opposition number 7. I call Mr. 31 Ben Levitan… 32 33 Michael Harvey: I’m sorry; this is Opposition 8. 34 35 John Price: Thank you. (long pause) Mr. Levitan… 36 37 Samantha Cabe: Would it not be Opposition 9? Because I think that group of letters was 8, wasn’t 38 it? 39 40 Michael Harvey: Let me look …….. 41 42 John Price: I think that was 6. 43 Barry Katz: The CD was 7. 44 45 Samantha Cabe: Got it, thanks. 46 47 John Price: Mr. Levitan, were you previously sworn? 48 49 Ben Levitan: Yes I am. My name is Ben Levitan. I live at PO Box 58781 Raleigh, North Carolina. 50 103 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 102 of 156 1 John Price: Thank you. I’d like to show you what will be marked as Opposition Exhibit number 9. 2 I’d like to ask you if this is your personal CB? 3 4 Ben Levitan: Yes sir, this is my CB. 5 6 John Price: Did you prepare it? 7 8 Ben Levitan: Yes sir. 9 10 John Price: Is the information contained in your CB true and correct? 11 12 Ben Levitan: Yes I believe it is. 13 14 John Price: I’d offer into the record Opposition Exhibit number 9. If the Board would give me the 15 opportunity I’d like to summarize the CB so we wouldn’t have to spend as much time going over it. 16 Mr. Levitan is an engineer with the specialty in telecommunications and cellular technology. He 17 has 30 years experience in the design and development of cell phone networks and systems. He 18 holds 32 patents and patents pending. His patents include technology that prevents texting and 19 driving from the network as opposed to a PAS. He has provided consulting services to many 20 telecommunications companies over the years and served as an engineer for most of the major 21 carriers including Verizon. One of his main roles was in the development of the worldwide 22 standard design for cell phone networks Sprint, Nextel, Alkatell, and Verizon. He was on the 23 industry committee and personally involved in the development of 911 for cell phones. He 24 represented the United States on the U.N.’s International Telecommunications Committee. He’s 25 testified as an expert witness on numerous occasions and has been qualified as an expert in 26 federal and state courts approximately 32 times, including North Carolina. Mr. Levitan, are you 27 aware of any conflicts with any of the parties in this matter that you have? 28 29 Ben Levitan: I have no known conflicts sir. 30 31 John Price: Do you have any personal or professional stake in the outcome of this proceeding? 32 33 Ben Levitan: I have no stake in the outcome sir. 34 35 John Price: We would ask that Mr. Levitan be allowed to testify in this matter as an expert witness. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: Do you have any objection Ms. Goode? 38 39 Laura Goode: I’m sorry? 40 41 Samantha Cabe: Do you have any objection to him being declared an expert in? Specifically what 42 area would you like him to be declared as? 43 44 John Price: Engineering with a specialty in telecommunications and cellular technology. 45 46 Laura Goode: Could you be more specific about what type of engineering and what qualifications 47 he has as an engineer? 48 49 104 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 103 of 156 John Price: Well I think I covered it. He’s been involved in developing networks and systems for 1 major providers, including Verizon. 2 3 Laura Goode: I would just ask that you clarify what type of engineer you want him to be titled as. 4 5 John Price: Mr. Levitan? 6 7 Ben Levitan: I’m an electrical engineer and my specialty has been telecommunications. I’m an 8 expert in the systems and methods of cell phone. I’m one of the people who developed 2G, 3G, 9 4G, and LTE as well as you know developing... standing on the standards committees for Verizon 10 itself. So, I represented Verizon at the (inaudible) meetings. 11 12 Samantha Cabe: So I do have a question about you CB, I see that you’re degree was obtained in 13 July of 2012 but a lot of this work was done noted prior to that. 14 15 Ben Levitan: Yes ma’am. I was in school in 1980… 16 17 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 18 19 Ben Levitan: If I can explain it. Engineers were in an extremely high demand when I was in my 20 junior year I was recruited. 21 22 Samantha Cabe: In 1980? 23 24 Ben Levitan: In about… In 1981 I was recruited by six different companies to just come work for 25 them, and I did. I was 20-something. I went to work for Hughes Aircraft doing satellite 26 communication designs for telecommunication. The answer is I never completed my degree. 27 28 Samantha Cabe: Until 2012? 29 30 Ben Levitan: I still have not completed it. I’m in progress now, since 2012. 31 32 Barry Katz: Where were you in school in 1980 when you were recruited out? 33 34 Ben Levitan: The University of Connecticut, Storrs Connecticut. Cold, that’s all I remember. 35 36 Barry Katz: Ok… It was cold. 37 38 Samantha Cabe: I’m not ruled, we’ve not ruled… I don’t know if there’s any… Does anyone object 39 to him being qualified as an expert? 40 41 Laura Goode: I don’t have an objection. I just wanted clarification on what type of engineering 42 experience he had. 43 44 Samantha Cabe: Ok. Alright, proceed. 45 46 John Price: At my request did you have the opportunity to review the TowerCom application, the 47 Special Use Permit? 48 49 Ben Levitan: Yes. 50 105 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 104 of 156 1 John Price: Including all of the other documents referred to and attached to that application? 2 3 Ben Levitan: Yes sir. 4 5 John Price: Have you also had an opportunity to review the Orange County Unified Development 6 Ordinance with respect to Class B Special Use Permits for telecommunication facilities? 7 8 Ben Levitan: Yes sir, I have. 9 10 John Price: For the purposes of your testimony, Mr. Levitan, I have asked that you accept as a 11 fact that there is a gap in Verizon’s coverage along Mount Carmel Road and there is a need by 12 Verizon to offload capacity in the UNC Campus area. The needs identified in TowerCom’s 13 application. 14 15 Ben Levitan: I accept that. 16 17 John Price: Did you prepare a power point presentation for use of conjunction with your 18 testimony? 19 20 Ben Levitan: Yes I did. 21 22 John Price: And , I asked that this be marked as Opposition Exhibit number 10… Is that the power 23 point presentation? 24 25 Ben Levitan: Yes sir it is. 26 27 John Price: I’d ask to have admitted as part of the record Opposition Exhibit 10. 28 29 (Pause) 30 31 Samantha Cabe: And before… Well, I’ll wait until it is handed out. Mr. Price, if I may ask you 32 before we get started with this witness, specifically what finding or conclusion is this witness 33 intended to refute. Because… 34 35 John Price: The majority of the ones that are contained in the Opposition… a chart that I was 36 asked to prepare and submit is part of Opposition Exhibit number 6. He’s not here to testify with 37 regard to property values, or enhancement, or maintenance of property values. He’s not here to 38 testify about harmony, he’s not here to testify regarding the public health and safety, he’s here to 39 testify regarding the technical issues of alternatives for… 40 41 Samantha Cabe: So specifically I want to ask, and maybe Mr. Harvey can help me with the 42 specific Unified Development Ordinance reference that I think he’s going to refute about the co-43 location requirements. 44 45 John Price: That’s one aspect. 46 47 Samantha Cabe: Right but there’s… Mr. Harvey, do you know which reference that is? 48 49 106 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 105 of 156 Michael Harvey: According to what’s been submitted my Mr. Price this opposition comes to the 1 findings of section 5.3.2 (a)(2) the general findings of fact of Special Use Permits. The use will, will 2 not maintain, or promote the public health safety general welfare. These will not maintain or 3 enhance the value of contiguous property. The location and character of the use, if developed 4 according to the plan submitted, will not be in harmony with the area in question. 5 6 John Price: I think I designated Mr. Levitan on the right-hand side. 7 8 Michael Harvey: Let me finish ….. 9 10 John Price: Ok. 11 12 Michael Harvey: Section 5.10.8 (A) Applicant burdened to establish application meets 13 requirements for approval. Sub section (a)(1)(s) Applicant presented by need an established new 14 alternative site for technologies available. Ben Levitan. Board Of Adjustment should not approve 15 application; the proposed tower’s not substantially necessary. 5.10.8 (A)(3)(A) Ben Levitan. 16 Applicant utilized alternatives to new tower including co-location. 5.10.8(B)(1)(A) Ben Levitan. 17 5.10.8(B)(1)(b) Applicant to minimize visual impact to the extent not technologically or 18 commercially impractical, including use to stealth technology. Ben Levitan. 5.10.8(B)(3)(D)(1) 19 Applicant can list all wireless support structures, utility poles, and other structures in the vicinity. 20 Ben Levitan will testify they did not. Applicant to locate site and erect wireless facilities in 21 designated priority locations per 5.10.8(b)(4)(1) and (2). Applicant Ben Levitan will testify, 22 according to this, that they have not complied with this provision. Section 5.10.8(B)(4)(b) sub prin 23 3: Applicant shall not be approved unless applicant demonstrates wireless supports equipment 24 cannot be sited at priority one site because commercial impractical. Ben Levitan. 5.10.8(A)(1)(f) 25 Applicant required to demonstrate structure sited at least visually intrusive effect. 26 27 Samantha Cabe: Alright, thank you. 28 29 Michael Harvey: Thank you. 30 31 John Price: Mr. Levitan, in your opinion, is the proposed the TowerCom 199-foot monopole cell 32 tower necessary for Verizon telecommunications identified needs, or a public necessity? 33 34 Ben Levitan: Verizon identified two needs to improve coverage along Mount Carmel Church Road 35 and to provide offload for the existing UNC Campus. This tower does neither of those. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: It does neither of those? 38 39 Ben Levitan: It does not fulfill neither of those needs ma’am. 40 41 John Price: This letter of August 11, 2016 to TowerCom’s application Mr. David Haughney states 42 the proposed Clearwater Lake new telecommunications tower will provide the needed solution to 43 the coverage gap in the Clearwater Lake area and “will also provide the needed capacity offload 44 solution for the existing UNC Campus Verizon Wireless site”, do you agree? 45 46 Ben Levitan: No sir, I don’t. 47 48 John Price: And why not? 49 50 107 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 106 of 156 Ben Levitan: Ok, do you want me to show…if you could put up this slide please, it’s the first 1 colored slide… We can start with the… Ok, let me stop at this slide first. Wireless demand has just 2 started crazy, we all know that. The largest growth is in video, number one. It’s just blowing 3 everything away and it’s expected to continue so with that in matter understand Mount Carmel 4 Road does not need improvements for video. I think we got enough people driving and using their 5 devices ….. we certainly don’t need to improve video performance on Mount Carmel Road. Ok so 6 that aside let’s go to the next slide. Ok the two stated goals like I said, there’s one we’re going to 7 improve coverage over on Mount Carmel Church Road between the Governors Club area and 8 Chapel Hill. Second stated goal is provide an offload for UNC Campus where, yes, the demand is 9 growing, mostly because young people are sitting around watching videos. Ok so let’s go on that 10 slide. And we can just stop briefly… When we have gaps in areas there’s a couple things we do. 11 We add an extra cell tower. We can go to the next slide. And so that would be the Mount Carmel 12 area. And when we have incredible demand in one area, what we call a macro cell, a lot of times 13 you’ll find that there’s a very small area within that macro cell that needs extra capacity so we can 14 put in small cells to cover that. Student union, what do you call it? The gathering area. There’s 15 certain areas that you can offload by putting in small cells. Ok go on… 16 17 Samantha Cabe: What do you mean putting in small cells? 18 19 Ben Levitan: Ok… There’s basically two types of cell towers that exist. There’s what we call macro 20 cell, 191-foot tower. It puts out… A cell tower’s just like a radio station. When you’re under the 21 coverage of that cell tower, that radio station, that 191-foot cell tower, it essentially goes out, 22 technically, out to 25-miles. It could cover everybody in a 25-mile radius, which is no (inaudible). 23 Generally, in an area like Chapel Hill we’re only going to go out of like 2-miles and if you guys 24 remember your algebra from high school and remember pie r squared you thought you, you 25 thought you’d never use that, you get to use it today. A cell tower that goes out 2-square miles 26 to… it covers 12-square miles. So a typical cell tower in like a suburban area like Chapel 27 Hill/Raleigh, it’s going to cover about 12-square miles. Ok so that’s a macro cell. This is what 28 we’re talking about, small cells, which is something that’s new, it’s not new, it’s something that’s 29 rolling out very rapidly. It’s rapidly going to take over. A couple years from now you won’t see a 30 cell tower, this will not even be an issue anymore. The cell tower’s are going from those large cell 31 towers to much small cell towers. These are about the size of a Rubik cube. They’re very 32 inexpensive, about $400 a piece, and generally we’re putting them on every lamppost in town. So 33 instead of covering 12-square miles you’re only covering one block, but it’s got tremendous 34 advantages because for number one, those little cell towers provide better coverage for smaller 35 areas, obviously you need a lot more of those, sixty to cover the same area that this cell tower is. 36 Overall, they’re a lot cheaper for the companies and greater service. So one of the greatest 37 benefits is 911 service. When you call 911, I was one of the people who developed 911, I have 38 patents in that area… when you call 911 a tall cell tower and get you to about a half a football 39 field. We can locate you 65% of the time to 150-feet. That’s what we’re requiring cell towers to do. 40 These new cell towers, since they’re only going to be a block, they’re going to be able to locate 41 people to a matter of 50-feet. And so for a lot of reason, one for financial reasons, one for safety 42 reasons, we’re all going to these smaller cells. This is going to be more efficient. And the FCC 43 back 2015 just cracked up the accuracy that we need to provide for 911. And these small cells are 44 lower power. The other big benefit for us, a lot of them are using an unlicensed frequency. Think 45 of them as like Wi-Fi. They’re totally unlicensed. So instead of doing all the things we have to do 46 for a tall tower to use the licensed frequency… It just makes life a lot easier. One of the greatest 47 benefits is when you’re in a high rise. Instead of having one cell tower outside that power is 48 providing coverage to everybody inside. You can put one of these small cells on every floor of a 49 tall structure. And one of the greatest benefits is if someone calls 911 on the 15th floor you know 50 108 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 107 of 156 exactly where they are. Today you don’t know that. So it’s the technology that you’re going to see 1 pretty much from now on. 2 3 Samantha Cabe: And is it currently available? 4 5 Ben Levitan: Very available. Verizon uses them very broadly themselves. And in fact we’re even 6 into the second phase: the advanced small cells. And Verizon themselves have special 7 permission to test these in Oklahoma, Cary, and Raleigh so these are not speculative. 8 9 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you. 10 11 Barry Katz: I have two questions. First is, is your initial point that since video is what’s increasing 12 the demand… 13 14 Ben Levitan: That’s the biggest increase in demand for bandwidth. 15 16 Barry Katz: That this cell tower is not significant in terms of the justification of the safety or 17 imperative need? 18 19 Ben Levitan: That’s one factor. I mean, clearly, the stated goals …. I take people on there word, 20 where they say they want to improve coverage on Mount Carmel Church Road. A cell tower like 21 this is going to increase capacity quite a bit. Mount Carmel Church Road, we put up cell towers 22 when there’s a demand. Clearly on the UNC Campus there’s a demand because more video. I 23 don’t think there’s a lot more people using video on Mount Carmel Church Road, so I don’t think 24 that’s a justification. But this is not my main justification. 25 26 Barry Katz: Ok. And then the micro cells, you call them micro cells, they can go on lampposts, 27 etcetera, which you would find in an urban area but not necessarily out in the country. Would 28 these be cell phone providers specific corporate, I mean would each like AT&T have to put one up 29 and then Verizon put up one? 30 31 Ben Levitan: Yes sir. 32 33 Barry Katz: It’d be duplicating… 34 35 Ben Levitan: Exactly. Think of them of mini cell towers, that’s exactly what they are. 36 37 Barry Katz: Ok. 38 39 Ben Levitan: It’s the way everything’s moving now. 40 41 John Price: I would like to focus on the propagation maps. 42 43 Ben Levitan: Yeah, so let’s go to the next one, the color propagation map. And these are... this is 44 what Verizon presented to us. So number one, and this might be a little bit of an eye test for you 45 guys, but number one is Verizon saying, “We’re going to provide better coverage for Mount 46 Carmel Church Road from Chapel Hill to the Governors Club area” and that’s… 47 48 Samantha Cabe: And these are behind tab number 7 in our applicant’s book… 49 50 109 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 108 of 156 Ben Levitan: This is from the application. Ok, and the left is the before of the existing condition 1 and the right is what improvement the tower is going to provide. You can see the yellow line on 2 the left chart, that’s Mount Carmel Church Road. And you can see red is really good coverage, 3 green is pretty good coverage, blue and gray that’s pretty spotty coverage. That certainly could 4 use some improvement. Alright now, on that same chart look, there’s another road to the left, just 5 a black line. That’s 15-501. You can see when you’re driving off 15-501 that’s pretty good 6 coverage up and down that road. Ok so, this is what’s existing. Go to the right side of the page 7 and what you can see is this is what’s going to change. Alright, look at the yellow line. We would 8 like that yellow line, we would like the coverage to look like it does on 15-501. We still have major 9 gaps. This new cell tower that’s been added here provides so good coverage right around the 10 tower itself, but you’re driving along Mount Carmel Church Road and you’ve still got big gaps in 11 service. It’s not fulfilling the goal. The way to fulfill the goal here would be to put three 27-50-foot 12 towers along this road. Especially where that big blue gap is and that would solve the problem 13 from Mount Carmel Church Road. This tower’s obviously not solving the problem. You can see 14 right from their own propagation survey. You’re in that spot with still that power. Ok so that’s the 15 number one reason I don’t think this tower fulfills goal number one. Let’s go to goal number two: 16 offload UNC’s cell tower. Ok look at the coverage on the left side. We’ve got this valley of 17 coverage pretty much where Mount Carmel Church Road still is. You can see south of the UNC 18 Campus it’s blue, it’s gray, it’s light blue. Kind of poor coverage there. Look at the right. You still 19 have that valley of coverage. You basically… you can see the lower, you can see where the UNC 20 Campus coverage starts in green. That does not change substantially. I mean, this is a big 21 investment. Putting up a cell tower is a million bucks and it’s going to be $20,000-$30,000 a year 22 to maintain. About $20,000 on leases and electricity is what? $500 a month, by itself. Broadband 23 is going to be about $1,500 a year. If you’re going to invest in coverage you’re going to make sure 24 it actually fulfills the goal. It does not fulfill either of these goals, and that’s my argument here. 25 26 John Price: (Inaudible) 27 28 Ben Levitan: Ok. So that’s… I can stop there. And those are my two major points I want to bring 29 out. The technical design to solve these problems is completely different than what’s being 30 proposed. 31 32 John Price: Which brings me to my next question, which is in this letter of August 11, 2016, again, 33 Exhibit 4 to the application. Mr. Haughney states, “There are no alternative technologies available 34 which could provide the needed increase to coverage and capacity offload in the Clearwater Lake 35 area without the proposed new telecommunication tower”. Do you agree? 36 37 Ben Levitan: It’s absolutely wrong. That’s incorrect. You can see from this that it does not solve 38 the problem. The alternatives, I’ve already stated: For UNC I would put small cells or enhanced 39 coverage within the campus, and for Mount Carmel Church Road you want smaller, targeted cell 40 towers. Cell towers, like I said, is like a radio station. Normally they put up the cell tower and it 41 provides coverage in a circular area around it. So on highways where you have specific problems, 42 like I-40, any highway, you don’t make a circular cell tower. You put up a cell tower and you focus 43 it to go up and down the road because that’s where you need the coverage. If you’ve got a lawn 44 sprinkler at home you understand this, you’ve got that strip at the front of your house that you 45 want to cover. You don’t put a circular sprinkler on that because that water’s going to mostly go 46 out in the street. On that strip you point these little sprinklers that point left and right that are going 47 to cover just the strip. So what’s really needed for Mount Carmel Church Road is maybe one or 48 two smaller cell towers. I’d say 27-foot to 50-foot maximum and they can be stealth that are just 49 pointed straight up and down that road to provide focused coverage on that. On top of that can be 50 110 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 109 of 156 stealth. The other thing is when you put up smaller cell towers that are below the tree line you’re 1 going to get better coverage. Just remember cell tower… a cell phone works best when you’ve got 2 line of sight from the phone right to the cell tower. When you’ve got 191-foot cell tower and then 3 you’ve got all this foliage growing in the summer below it, it actually interferes with the signal. 4 Especially after heavy rain and you’ve got these trees full of water that are between your phone 5 sitting in the passenger seat and that cell tower. So the design you want is smaller cells, that are 6 not circular patterns, they’re strip patterns, they’re focused up and down on the road, and they’re 7 below the tree line. 8 9 John Price: Also in that same letter in Exhibit 4 Mr. Haughney states, “There are evolving 10 morphological applications that include micro cell, small cell, and DAS but those technologies are 11 not appropriate for large covering area situations… 12 13 Samantha Cabe: What are you reading from? 14 15 John Price: Mr. Haughney’s August 11, 2016 letter to Mr. Harvey. Exhibit 4 of the application of 16 TowerCom. 17 18 Samantha Cabe: Oh, ok. 19 20 John Price: “Or we’ve a feasible number of installations that make it impossible to provide 21 seamless high quality service over a large geographic area, such as Clearwater Lake area.” 22 23 Ben Levitan: I disagree again. And I think I’ve laid that out. On top of that, these are not evolving 24 technologies. These are technology that Verizon, themselves, is using today… I’ll give you one 25 example, San Antonio, Texas, which is probably relatively the same size as we are. And last year 26 Verizon signed with an agreement with San Antonio to install these small cells on lampposts, 27 utility poles, buildings, all over San Antonio and their stated goal is to have a better visual impact, 28 basically, to be less intrusive and they signed that agreement with the City of San Antonio so that 29 they will pay $1,500 a small cell for the next 25-years. Verizon just signed this, has been doing 30 this for a year in San Antonio… 31 32 Laura Goode: At this point in time I’m going to object to this line of testimony, in terms of it just 33 being discussions about facts not in evidence. There has not been any of this factual... talking 34 about their small cell plans in other cities, and what contracts they have signed has not been 35 provided to us, it’s not been provided to the Board. 36 37 Ben Levitan: Alright, well I’m just saying the letter implies that this is kind of voodoo or paper wear 38 technology. It’s absolutely incorrect. On top of that, Verizon and Telecom are working on 39 advanced small cell, the next generation small cell. They’ve got special permission from the FCC 40 to test that in three cities. Oklahoma City, Cary, and Raleigh. So clearly, this is an appropriate 41 technology to use… this is one of the best alternatives you could use. This 191-foot cell tower is 42 basically, I hate to say it, obsolete technology, or obsoleting technology. We’re moving away from 43 this, Verizon’s moving away from this. 44 45 John Price: In your opinion, are there existing facilities or alternative existing structures of 46 sufficient height within the Clearwater Lake area that could be used for co-location to provide the 47 proposed telecommunications service needs using available technologies without building a new 48 cell tower? 49 50 111 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 110 of 156 Ben Levitan: Absolutely. Worst-case scenario that I can see is you put up a 27 to 30-foot 1 monopole cell tower and you camouflage it as a tree. That’s the most… otherwise I think this 2 probably, I haven’t driven the whole area and I haven’t done a site survey, but I believe just from 3 my general knowledge there’s sufficient buildings, lampposts, utility posts, water towers that you 4 could use. And if you take the search ring 5-miles there’s plenty of existing cell towers already in 5 that search that could be focused towards providing this coverage. I don’t see the necessity, I’m 6 talking from a technical point of view, I don’t see… If I’m Verizon and I’m asked or one of my guys 7 brought me this design I would tell them no, go back to where from. 8 9 Samantha Cabe: Let me ask you this. Does your opinion take into account that, essentially, 10 Verizon would have to get permission from somebody to put these, whatever kind of cell tower it 11 is, whether it’s the tall one, the medium one, or the small cell? Essentially they can’t put anything 12 where someone’s not willing to lease them the property or allow them to? 13 14 Ben Levitan: Verizon has a department that does nothing but manage landlords. Every cell phone 15 company does. And that’s all they do. They go out and…. Yeah, so I mean, this is part of the 16 business. I mean, they’re sitting here trying to... just as they have to sit here and get permission 17 from the city to do that, it’s part of the business. 18 19 Matt Hughes: So in your expert opinion, why would TowerCom and Verizon want to go this route? 20 21 Ben Levitan: I’m not privy to… Either they’ve just made a mistake, I don’t… For me, looking at 22 this, I cannot see why you would design it this way. I just don’t see it. I don’t think it’s going to be 23 cheaper. I can’t speculate. 24 25 Matt Hughes: Were you here at the last hearing? 26 27 Ben Levitan: Oh yes, until 11:35. 28 29 Matt Hughes: So you heard their expert go through what they were considering, why it wasn’t 30 appropriate, and… 31 32 Ben Levitan: The bottom line is if you look at this chart, this solution doesn’t fix the problem. You 33 want Mount Carmel Church Road to have coverage just like 15-501. Why would you put this up if 34 it’s not going to solve your problem? I heard everything you said but it doesn’t solve the problem. 35 36 Matt Hughes: Remind me on this, up here… Where’s 15-501? 37 38 Ben Levitan: You see that? See how nicely that’s… 39 40 Matt Hughes: I’m not as familiar with below the UNC Campus area. 41 42 Ben Levitan: I agree with you, of course. That’s a heavily trafficked road. And so the coverage is 43 real good. Mount Carmel Church Road I can tell you all the carriers. I researched all the carriers 44 and what their coverage is like on that road. It’s all similar, kind of low. But the fact is, the fact that 45 they all have not put in improvements just shows that it’s not a priority. It’s a low cell phone traffic 46 road. What’s there is probably sufficient for everybody. Certainly AT&T said yeah, that’s sufficient. 47 Sprint has said the coverage we have there is sufficient. 48 49 112 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 111 of 156 John Price: We spent a lot of time on the coverage of Mount Carmel Road. I’d like to ask you 1 about the capacity offload at UNC Campus. Are there alternative technologies and structure 2 designs that could be used to better address the needs that’s been identified for the capacity 3 offload? 4 5 Ben Levitan: Absolutely. And those alternatives are better for the students. Like remember, this 6 cell tower is using licensed frequency and that translates to 18-year olds phone data. He’s going 7 to spend data on this. If you want to provide a benefit to UNC Campus, you’re going to put as 8 much on the license spectrum. Ideally, a kid would love to be on Wi-Fi, not a cell. LTE. LTE 9 unlicensed these small cells come in an unlicensed form that basically it wouldn’t cost you 10 anything on your data plan. This cell tower is actually going to harm students. 11 12 Matt Hughes: How so? 13 14 Ben Levitan: Ok, you know on most data plans you get Wi-Fi for free? 15 16 Matt Hughes: Mm-Hmm. 17 18 Ben Levitan: This cell tower doesn’t provide anything free. You would be paying for data charges. 19 You can hook up to the Internet two different ways: like a Wi-Fi type service, or from a cell tower. 20 When you use your data plan… what Verizon’s or ATT is charging you for is use of a cell tower 21 like this. Your phone normally tries to switch you to a cheaper connection, like Wi-Fi, or what 22 we’re calling an unlicensed LTE, which is free. There’s no…. it’s free sir. 23 24 Matt Hughes: Ok. I’m not following. As a student at UNC I’m not following. 25 26 Ben Levitan: Ok. Just think about your data plan. You know that sometimes you get charged for 27 data. 28 29 Matt Hughes: That’s right. 30 31 Ben Levitan: Sometimes you don’t. 32 33 Matt Hughes: That’s right. 34 35 Ben Levitan: When you use this tower you get charged. 36 37 Matt Hughes: That’s right. 38 39 Ben Levitan: When you use Wi-Fi you don’t get charged. 40 41 Matt Hughes: Right. 42 43 Ben Levitan: The new technology we’re talking about, these small cells, you don’t get charged. 44 45 Samantha Cabe: So is that actually in use? Because I’ve never had free non-cell phone service... 46 47 Ben Levitan: Your phone normally tries to push you to Wi-Fi. 48 49 Samantha Cabe: Right, but this isn’t Wi-Fi that you’re talking about. 50 113 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 112 of 156 1 Ben Levitan: I’m just saying Wi-Fi to make it simpler to understand. It’s called un-licensed LTE. 2 3 Samantha Cabe: But is it currently in use? 4 5 Ben Levitan: Yes, it is. 6 7 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 8 9 Ben Levitan: Obviously not in UNC. You probably wouldn’t know. You wouldn’t know. You’d just 10 look at your bill and be like, “I’m over my data plan again”. 11 12 Samantha Cabe: And, oh… How much longer do you anticipate with this witness? There’s… 13 14 David Barnes: We’ve got members that have been here for the whole thing. We’d like to make 15 some brief statements. 16 17 John Price: Yeah, why don’t you go ahead? 18 19 Samantha Cabe: Do you want to finish with this witness and then… how much longer do you 20 have? 21 22 Ben Levitan: I’m happy to stand aside and let them go. 23 24 John Price: Not very long, but I’ll… 25 26 David Barnes: Inaudible. 27 28 Samantha Cabe: Ok. That’s all you had to say. Alright. Thank you for deferring to them. 29 30 David Barnes: My name is David Barnes. I was sworn in. I live at 1725 Mount Carmel Church 31 Road. I am within, probably, 400-yards of the cell tower site. It is directly in my vision. I go out my 32 back door, my garage door, look to the left, and it would be sticking me in the eye. Now, I know 33 some of the Buckner family members, I hope they make a million dollars already. I also 34 understand there’s a high probability that in the next few years there is going to be logging in that 35 area. There needs to be logging time port, in terms of the life of the plants. But that means I will 36 have nothing in between me and the tower. Other than this 40-foot buffer, which is going to be a 37 zero buffer as far as I’m concerned. I have not heard this gentleman’s ideas about these other 38 towers or… I was wondering too, why does it need to be 200-feet? Is there other technology, 39 asked you guys to look into potential other technologies? Because this will be a visual ugliness of 40 200-foot tower for my house. And I cannot sit here and argue about whether my home values are 41 going to go up or down, I can’t argue that. But it will be an ugly factor. And yes, there needs to be 42 improvement. I don’t even own a cell phone but trust me… My wife, my kids, and everybody that 43 ever comes to my house will sit there and complain about it. So something needs to be done in 44 that Mount Carmel, but I am very, very close to this tower. Another thing I would ask you, I know 45 the applicant is a cell phone company. But I was wondering, is it appropriate for you guys to ask 46 the land owners of this property whether they can connect to maybe a larger buffer, or whatever? 47 And my other concern is the new road and access that is not even coming from the Buckner 48 property. It’s coming from a Buckner family member in an adjacent property. One that’s directly 49 114 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 113 of 156 between me and the tower. Those are my statements, if you would just kind of listen to that and 1 put that in your system. Thank you for listening to me. 2 3 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Barnes, can I ask you a quick question? 4 5 David Barnes: And I can point out my house. 6 7 Samantha Cabe: Yeah, that’s what I was going to ask you. 8 9 David Barnes: Not a problem. My house is this one, right here. You want me to circle it? 10 11 Samantha Cabe: Yes, please. And I’ll share with everyone else just so we can get a visual. 12 13 David Barnes: Ok. That is my house. I think the tower. That’s my house. I am within one, two, 14 maybe three houses or closer. 15 16 Samantha Cabe: Ok. Alright, thank you. 17 18 David Barnes: Ok, thank you. 19 20 John Duncan Williams Jr: Can I speak as well? Thank you for your time. My name is John Duncan 21 Williams Junior. I live at 112 Hunters Ridge Road. 22 23 Samantha Cabe: Can you tell me your name again? 24 25 John Duncan Williams Jr: John Duncan Williams Junior. I go by Dunc. D-U-N-C. Please refer to 26 me by my first name, I’m pretty casual. 27 28 Samantha Cabe: And have you been sworn? 29 30 John Duncan Williams Jr: Yes. I was sworn prior. 31 32 Samantha Cabe: You were sworn Friday? 33 34 John Duncan Williams Jr: Prior. I also have a strong accent… After attending the 12/12/2016 35 meeting I heard concerns with proposed related to health, property values, and the environment. I 36 will address the first two of those from my own personal opinion, my non-professional, non-work 37 opinion. Regarding health: I understand the Board is not allowed to consider health concerns 38 related to a cell tower directly, because the FCC deems cell towers not harmful to our health. 39 However, because one of the witnesses at the 12/12 meeting and then an appraisal witness this 40 evening brought up the issue of health concerns related to a cell phone tower, and I did, I typed a 41 direct quote at the time from the 12/12 meeting, I’m sure it’s in the Minutes, of the witness who 42 spoke to it at that time. And also, since it is possible some of the opposition to the tower is driven, 43 at least in part, by the potential health concerns I’m going to briefly respond for those of us who do 44 not see any link between cell towers and health effects. Based on the recommendations from 45 well-recognized sources, such as the American Cancer Society, The World Health Organization, 46 and Health Canada, because some refuting parties believe that these are U.S. sources promoting 47 that cell towers are not linked to health concerns. Health Canada as well, to name a few, a 48 growing body of evidence does not support the belief that cell towers are harmful to our health. 49 Not only do these sources suggest a type of radiation, RF, which is admitted by the cell towers, is 50 115 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 114 of 156 not harmful to humans. They also point to what one of the Council County members said earlier, 1 that even if it were harmful other sources such as the Wi-Fi in this room, the cell phones in this 2 room, the microwaves in the rooms over, and TV’s and radios expose us to much higher levels of 3 RF radiation than even homes in the near vicinity. As a father of two very young children living in 4 the area I wouldn’t support it if I thought it was hazardous to the health of my children and my 5 neighbors. Now, speaking to the concerns of health hazards of not approving the cell tower: the 6 reason I came to this meeting was because the Friday night before the last meeting on December 7 the 9th, three nights before the meeting, I had a potential emergency and I needed to call 911 for 8 my home. There were, over a 20-minute period, my cell phone dropped a call four times, I 9 attempted many more times to call 911, and I’m very fortunate one, the emergency was ok, and 10 two, the 911 operator was able to continue returning the call to my phone until we were able to get 11 through and pair a conversation together. My point is the lack of cell coverage could’ve harmed, 12 not only my young children, but also my neighbors. I consider it a blessing that this situation did 13 not harm anyone, however, if it’s not my situation it would be another, another, another. Now, it 14 could be argued that I need a home cell phone booster. I have one. It was on that night, flashing 15 that it worked, and it didn’t work. Cell phone boosters, in my opinion, are not reliable where I live 16 and I see this as a benefit. One could also argue I need a landline. Based on my demographics, 17 we do not have landlines. If I get one, it’s the new folks across the street and they’re not going to 18 get one either so if we fail to allow this cell tower to come into the area I see it as us, as a 19 community, choosing to continue propagating with unnecessary risks for our residents to 20 accessing emergency services. Now, two, the property value piece: I’ve heard the detailed 21 accounts from appraisers from both sides. I’m aware there are the studies from the mid 2000’s in 22 New Zealand, and I think both sides have vetted those as well as you probably need to. I have not 23 heard introduced the 2016 U.S. based peer reviewed research article, which I would consider to 24 be a more legitimate source. An article about the cell service needs of western Kentucky, which 25 used property analysis and weighted samples for determining how housing values are affected in 26 western Kentucky, over a much larger sample and a longer time frame than some of the studies 27 we’ve heard presented here. Those findings can be debated, I think the concern that seems to be 28 the case is what are property value between 1,000-feet directly from the radius of the cell tower up 29 to potentially 4,000-feet. I think considering those findings, which I’m not getting into, and I’m 30 listing only my personal opinion here, with the findings that are being presented are directly 31 related to houses very close to the cell tower. After skimming TowerCom’s Special Use Permit 32 application I counted no more than 42 different property holding entities within a 1,000-foot radius 33 of the proposed tower. So in that application there’s well more than 42 entities that own property 34 within 1,000-feet but it’s only 42 different at most. And I did that on my cell phone sitting at this 35 meeting so it’s not an exact science there but, if the tower cannot only benefit Verizon customers 36 as well as potentially other customers, as we heard from testimony that can be debated, and if 37 there are no adverse health effects caused by the tower I hope the opposition, by few, does not 38 prevent the Board from approving what I believe can benefit many. The second piece of property 39 values, and my final point is: Basically I’m going to get to eyeball a home, three years ago, where 40 we are. Cell phone coverage was a big reason I would’ve bought. My wife talked me into buying it 41 despite the fact that I thought cell coverage wasn’t because I talked to Verizon and they said 42 they’d give me a home booster. I work from home a lot and I have some letters here in support of 43 the cell phone tower. And I also have links to these different sources that I can also provide from 44 my Google document. But in responding to the last witness who, and I quoted, said, “That the 45 increase, mostly because young people are sitting around watching videos” I personally can attest 46 that I work from home and the ability to have calls. It’s not acceptable. I have to go other places to 47 do my own work and I didn’t even ask someone who also wrote a letter, but ironically a couple 48 that just moved in across the street, both who work in healthcare IT as consultants, are very 49 concerned that they’ve moved in and bought a house where cell phone coverage is not reliable 50 116 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 115 of 156 and their citation is Time Magazine reported a June 2nd 2015 that 76% of home buyers consider 1 cell coverage important in their home buying decision. So, I am justifying this that I am not alone 2 in being concerned that the broader housing property value, if we take it as a whole for Orange 3 County, will be positively affected by increasing cell phone coverage. So I appreciate your time, 4 and I wish you well on your decision-making. I’ll leave these letters with you as well. 5 6 Samantha Cabe: Alright, what was your third? 7 8 John Duncan Williams Jr: My third was the aesthetics. I can’t professionally… I can’t cordially 9 respond to the aesthetic concerns I’ve heard and so I’ve decided it’s not important for me to 10 respond to those at this time. 11 12 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 13 14 John Duncan Williams Jr: Sure. Can I give you all these letters? Ok. 15 16 Barry Katz: That letter for citation was Blomquist, did you say? 17 18 John Duncan Williams Jr: Yeah. Let me tell you. I had it in Google document on my phone. I have 19 the link to it. Actually, I usually embed them so if it was email, but I can tell you a link or honestly, 20 would you like to take a picture or write it down right here? So this would be like a general internet 21 search. In reviewing the health literature, I’m glad in the last meeting I heard the Board say we’re 22 not acknowledging that, because I spent a good bit of time looking at that, and I have several 23 different pieces I would pull into it, but I think where I’m concerned is there are these sites that I 24 find are making money off of the alarmist mentality that there are health concerns related to it by 25 selling anti-EMF radiation or anti-RF radiation things and then publishing reports and then these 26 reports I have found sited on more than one website. I don’t feel a need to get into that. American 27 Cancer Society is one enough, but you add the World Health Organization and Health Canada, 28 which is the state run Canadian source. I feel like I had those three and I could provide the 29 citations. They’re also publically available. I mean, I found them on my cell phone. Again, sitting in 30 this meeting the last time. So ok, is that it? 31 32 Barry Katz: Have a good evening. 33 34 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 35 36 Barry Katz: I’ve got a question for Mr. Harvey. You can shake your head, you don’t have to… on 37 these 50-foot towers, or whatever they are, the short towers, do they need Special Use Permits 38 for those as well as the same as these 199-foot towers? 39 40 Michael Harvey: No sir. 41 42 Barry Katz: Ok. 43 44 Ben Levitan: I think we found our location for our first lamppost mounted small cell in Chapel Hill. 45 46 John Price: Mr. Levitan, your opinion is that the search ring identified by TowerCom the area 47 where a wireless support structure must be located to meet Verizon’s service needs? The search 48 ring identified by Verizon. Is that the area where a wireless support structure or structures must be 49 located to meet the service needs? 50 117 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 116 of 156 1 Ben Levitan: I don’t believe so. I think there’s plenty of alternatives. There are existing towers 2 already in that area, there are plenty of alternatives. 3 4 John Price: TowerCom’s experts testify… 5 6 Samantha Cabe: Ok, hang on one second. If we could look at the map that had the actual search 7 ring, can you tell me which tab it is? 8 9 Laura Goode: Sure. That’s Exhibit or tab 5. 10 11 Samantha Cabe: And is the search ring the red? Are you sure that’s it? 12 13 Laura Goode: I have it labeled as Exhibit 5. 14 15 Samantha Cabe: Is this it? 16 17 Laura Goode: Correct. 18 19 Samantha Cabe: And so the search ring is red? 20 21 Laura Goode: Yes ma’am. 22 23 Samantha Cabe: So would you look at that picture and tell me if there’s an existing? Because you 24 just said, “No, there’s plenty of existing towers there” but I want you to look at what the search ring 25 actually was. Because I’m not sure… It’s in their application. 26 27 John Price: This is their search ring ….. 28 29 Samantha Cabe: W e’re talking about the search ring. 30 31 Ben Levitan: They’re saying this is the only place you could… 32 33 Samantha Cabe: This was their search ring based on whatever their reasons for doing it that are 34 proprietary. 35 36 Ben Levitan: There’s certainly a ton of infrastructure in here that… Where’s Mount Carmel Church 37 Road? There it is. There’s plenty of infrastructure, like water towers, buildings… 38 39 Samantha Cabe: You know that sir? Can you see water towers on there? I mean, I’m just… I 40 appreciate what you’re saying but also, I felt like what you just said was a little off the cuff without 41 actually looking at the search ring. 42 43 Ben Levitan: I’m looking now and there’s gotta be lampposts in here, I see buildings, I see 44 structures, I see what looks like barn and utilities and things like that. 45 46 Matt Hughes: Well it just seemed like, for example I believe when they presented the search ring 47 that their database or whatever has an inventory of structures that could meet this need and there 48 didn’t seem to be one within that search ring. 49 50 118 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 117 of 156 Ben Levitan: I did a search of cell towers within 5-miles of this cell tower, I found about 14 existing 1 structures. Like I said, a cell tower can go out 22-miles and you can focus it. So I don’t see why 2 you couldn’t co-locate on any of those existing towers. Why does it have to be a new tower built in 3 this location? 4 5 Michael Harvey: I think just for clarification purposes the engineer can’t quote a section of the 6 Unified Development Ordinance requiring a 5-mile search ring. The Unified Development 7 Ordinance requires a 2-mile search ring. 8 9 John Price: I think… 10 11 Michael Harvey: So I think we need to stick with the facts of the Unified Development Ordinance 12 under which this application’s being reviewed. 13 14 John Price: I think he misunderstood. 15 16 Ben Levitan: I ……… 17 18 Samantha Cabe: I just wanted to make sure… we can move on, I just felt like you were making 19 statements about what was and wasn’t there without actually looking at it or knowing what the 20 search ring was. 21 22 John Price: As I understand your testimony Mr. Levitan is that the tower being proposed within 23 that search ring will not satisfy the needs identified, is that correct? 24 25 Ben Levitan: It still doesn’t identify… yeah. If you put the cell tower here, with this technology, it’s 26 not going to solve the problem. Period. 27 28 John Price: Let me restate my question. This search ring TowerCom identified as the search ring, 29 the area of where a wireless support structure must be located to meet their service needs. 30 31 Ben Levitan: It’s not going to meet their service needs. 32 33 John Price: But what would be the appropriate search ring on a search rings in order to satisfy the 34 needs that they’ve identified? 35 36 Ben Levitan: Well it looks like up and down Mount Carmel Road is where you need to… 37 38 John Price: Well that is within that search ring exactly. 39 40 Ben Levitan: Yeah. 41 42 John Price: How about the UNC Campus? 43 44 Ben Levitan: The search ring has to be around UNC if you’re trying to find a place to provide 45 coverage for UNC. That’s stands to reason. Ideally, you’d want to be in the middle of UNC. I 46 would put a point right at the place where you’re using the most, put a circle around that, it’s going 47 to end up inside the UNC Campus. Why would you come from outside the UNC Campus to cover 48 inside the UNC Campus? 49 50 119 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 118 of 156 Matt Hughes: Maybe I’m a layman but I’m willing to look at being devils advocate here. 1 2 Ben Levitan: That’s ok, yeah. 3 4 Matt Hughes: Maybe, I mean, I could conceivably see how it could help the capacity at UNC 5 because let’s say there’s folks who live in this area where they’d like to put this cell tower and 6 they’re getting service in some way shape or form from the tower that’s at UNC and if they had 7 one closer to them then that could help UNC, and if they had one closer to them then that could 8 help where the tower is. I mean, is that an incorrect assumption on my part? 9 10 Ben Levitan: No, no, I see what you’re saying. And you are technically right. You see where the 11 big red blotches are on this? 12 13 Matt Hughes: Mm-Hmm. 14 15 Ben Levitan: The big is the center of every… that’s the strongest signal. UNC is at the top of this 16 graph. If you want to cover UNC why be 5-miles away? I mean, if you’re going to use a cell tower 17 that’s 5-miles away I’ve identified 14 other cell towers that you could use that are existing. So the 18 search ring to provide additional coverage at UNC has to be within UNC. 19 20 Samantha Cabe: I… Well, I’m not going to go down that path. 21 22 Ben Levitan: I mean, you can ask me anything you want. 23 24 Samantha Cabe: Yeah, can you hand that back? I believe they’re stated objected was not to 25 provide more coverage for UNC because we can see that it is coverage but rather to offload some 26 of their coverage onto a different cell tower so that they can provide better service there. 27 28 Ben Levitan: Offload is done and you know… 29 30 Samantha Cabe: It just means that people who would live closer to this particular tower that 31 they’re wanting to place there would use that tower instead of the UNC tower, freeing up stuff 32 there. Right? 33 34 Ben Levitan: It’s not the way you design it. When you have… You identify where your high-density 35 is, like for example UNC, high-density is going to be the stadiums on any given Saturday, right? 36 That’s when the biggest density is. I’ll bet you there’s a number of what we call DAS. 37 38 Samantha Cabe: I understand what you’re saying. 39 40 Ben Levitan: You know what I’m saying. And what you do is you look for where your worse 41 problem is and that’s where you put the fix. You don’t put the fix 5-miles away. 42 43 John Price: There was also testimony by TowerCom that… 44 45 Samantha Cabe: Hey, hold on one second, Mr. Harvey… 46 47 Michael Harvey: No, I thought Mr. Price was finished. I apologize. 48 49 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 50 120 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 119 of 156 1 John Price: There has also been testimony by TowerCom’s experts that the Mellot site is not 2 appropriate because of terrain obstructions. 3 4 Ben Levitan: This one really confused me. If you’ll go forward please to that, there we go, thank 5 you. Alright, the top… You see the circle towards the top. That’s this hill that we’re talking about. 6 This hill, if you are at the Mellot site… You can see where the Mellot site is on the far right. The 7 Mellot site, if it’s pointed to UNC yeah, that hill may block the signal a bit, ok… the thing is this 8 Mellot site, that hill will block it but look… the new proposed UNC site is off the map below it. That 9 hill is also in line of site between this new tower and UNC. So… 10 11 Samantha Cabe: I think the point was in their prior testimony was that the new proposed site was 12 higher itself so the signal went up over the hill, whereas the Mellot site was lower, if I’m 13 remembering correctly. Would that make a difference if that was? 14 15 Ben Levitan: It does to a level, but you’ve got to understand that hill is there so everything behind 16 the hill, I don’t care how high this cell tower is, everything behind the hill is in a shadow. Ok? So 17 both these sites, in fact the Mellot site is actually off to the right, you can see it’s further off to the 18 right so it kind of gives you a better line of sight around that hill. This new site is more in line with 19 that hill. So no matter what, if you’re behind the hill you’re not going to get coverage from this new 20 cell tower. This, you know… it’s desirable……. How about the top of that hill for one? 21 22 John Price: In your opinion, based on your experience and expertise, are the alternatives you 23 have outlined for meeting the identified telecommunication service needs more in line with today’s 24 technology? 25 26 Ben Levitan: Absolutely. We’re rapidly, and Verizon is one of the leaders in this, rapidly going 27 away from what we call those macro cells and going to smaller cells. It’s financially, for Verizon, it 28 makes more sense. For public safety it makes a lot more sense. And for the customer experience 29 it makes a lot more sense. 30 31 John Price: In your opinion are the alternatives you’ve identified all commercial and feasible? 32 33 Ben Levitan: Verizon just signed a 25-year contract in San Antonio. I suspect they do think it’s 34 commercially viable. 35 36 John Price: I believe those are all the questions I have at this time. 37 38 Laura Goode: I have one question… Could you go back to the propagation maps that you just… 39 thank you. Yes, that’s fine, thank you. So you were talking earlier about these circles that were on 40 these propagation maps, is that right? 41 42 Ben Levitan: Yes. 43 44 Laura Goode: Ok, as identified as coverage gap areas? 45 46 Ben Levitan: Yeah, there are coverage gaps there. Anything white. These are your maps, so I 47 don’t want to re-explain what you know better. 48 49 121 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 120 of 156 Laura Goode: Absolutely, so the maps we provided. But those circles were not placed on those 1 maps by Verizon. 2 3 Ben Levitan: No, I apologize. Everything in color was what came out of the application. The circles 4 and explanations I did put there myself and I do apologize for not explaining that but I did that, you 5 understand why I did that. 6 7 Laura Goode: I don’t have any further questions. 8 9 Barry Katz: I have a question. TowerCom and Verizon are two separate businesses, correct? 10 11 Laura Goode: Correct. TowerCom is a tower building company and so they’re building it to 12 Verizon’s needs. 13 14 Barry Katz: Right, so you contracted TowerCom to build yours? 15 16 Laura Goode: Correct. 17 18 Barry Katz: Before I came to this meeting one of the questions that I had in my mind, not knowing 19 an answer at all, was were there alternatives to building this 199-foot tower that would be 20 effective? What we’re hearing is that Verizon has considered this kind of question in way in a 21 different context for other purposes and everything and it may be apples and oranges, I don’t 22 know. But, do you have a witness or somebody that could explain to us why, in this circumstance, 23 putting this tower in would be better than existing alternatives that would not require this 24 approach? 25 26 Laura Goode: Sure, so I think there’s two ways to answer that question. Yes, we do have a 27 witness and I can call him right now. But it’s a little bit… If you want to hear it, that’s what I’m 28 hearing from you and we can just address it in a couple short questions if that’s what you would 29 like to hear, but in terms of looking at other structures within the search area North Carolina 30 General Statutes says that the applicant only has to prove an inability to co-locate within their 31 search area, which is identified in Exhibit 5, or tab 5 of the application. 32 33 Samantha Cabe: And what does that Statute reference, do you have that? 34 35 Laura Goode: Sure, it is… yes, I have it right here. That is North Carolina General Statutes 153A-36 349.52 and we have provided an inability to co-locate statement because the first thing that 37 Verizon tries to do when they have a search ring, they want to go out and find an existing 38 structure, like a water tower, a building, anything that they can co-locate on because it is so much 39 less expensive and so less time consuming to co-locate. And so there is a signed statement from 40 John Yeagley, who testified at the last hearing about this. His statement, his inability co-locate 41 statement is tab 21 and he testified to the fact that he went out in that search area and there were 42 no structures within the search area to co-locate. Now, in terms of your second question, we do 43 have a witness who could explain why small cells or other technologies would not work for this 44 network agenda. 45 46 Barry Katz: Is this germane? Am I asking a question that’s pertinent to this because what I just 47 heard was we’re talking about within that circle and everything and the Statute says such and 48 such and it may not be even relevant. 49 50 122 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 121 of 156 Michael Harvey: Well before we go on to the applicant’s witness I’d like our telecommunications 1 consultant to reiterate the testimony that was offered at the December hearing, concerning not 2 only our ordinance but state law requirements, with respect to processing location for 3 telecommunication towers. If it pleases the Board. 4 5 Samantha Cabe: Ok. Would you state your name and that you’ve sworn for the record? 6 7 Rusty Monroe: Yeah, I was sworn in last time. 8 9 Samantha Cabe: And your name? Just for the transcript. 10 11 Rusty Monroe: Rusty Monroe. 12 13 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 14 15 Rusty Monroe: I commend the opposition on their choice of experts whose reputation precedes 16 him. Well known. The problem or the issue really is what the state law allows. I understand the 17 desire and in point of fact I might, in certain circumstances, agree that the state law prohibits the 18 community from requiring the company to investigate the feasibility of attaching to anything other 19 than existing or previously approved wireless support structures. And that’s in 352… it’s going to 20 be 153A-349.52(c)(2). 21 22 Samantha Cabe: (c)(2) you said? 23 24 Rusty Monroe: The other thing that I wanted to point out, and by the way as I said I might prefer it 25 differently, I totally disagree with state law on a personal basis, but the law is what the law is. The 26 issue of them providing, the company providing, proof to counter this; the County does not have 27 the authority to, under the same provision effectively, to require that kind of evidence or proof. I 28 might like it personally, I might prefer it personally, but if you don’t like it talk to your legislatures. 29 30 John Price: May I ask a question? 31 32 Rusty Monroe: Yes. 33 34 John Price: I don’t know if you’re finished or not, but what is the definition of a wireless support 35 structure? 36 37 Rusty Monroe: I’d have to look it up on the County Ordinance to see what their definition is. 38 39 John Price: I believe that the County Ordinance is broad enough to encompass any structure that 40 will support the wireless facility necessary in order to satisfy the need. 41 42 Samantha Cabe: Is it any support structure or previously approved wireless support structure? 43 44 45 Rusty Monroe: That’s the issue, is no existing or previously approved wireless support structure… 46 As I said, I happen to personally disagree with that. 47 48 Jackie Hicks: And I think where we have some issues is the Unified Development Ordinance 49 doesn’t necessarily coincide with the state law. 50 123 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 122 of 156 1 John Price: Then this is a matter of legal interpretation, but I would put to you the case law has 2 normally sided on the favor of state law trumping local law, especially in North Carolina. 3 4 Rusty Monroe: I’m not an attorney. I’m not trying to practice law. I just know a lot of case law on 5 this issue. 6 7 John Price: I think in our filing, a simple note on filing I made, I include all those citations. Including 8 how the state defines a wireless support structure, not just the County. And I don’t have it in front 9 of me or I’d recite it to you. 10 11 Samantha Cabe: I didn’t bring my computer in to access that ….. 12 13 (General conversation amongst multiple people) 14 15 Rusty Monroe: I was just given a copy of the Ordinance and it says it defines a 16 telecommunications facility wireless support structure: A new or existing structure, such as a 17 monopole, lattice, or guide tower that is designed to support or capable of supporting wireless 18 facilities. A utility pole is not a wireless support structure. 19 20 John Price: I think that is clear a utility pole is not, but transmission power lines, water towers, 21 buildings. 22 23 Michael Harvey: Madame Chair, I’m going to testify for the record as the Zoning Enforcement 24 Officer Current Planning Supervisor to Orange County. There are no water towers in this area 25 under the County’s jurisdiction. 26 27 John Price: I understand. I’m just trying to tell you what the alternatives are. They include 28 buildings, transmission towers… 29 30 Jackie Hicks: Can I say one thing? I understand in the state law it also says that the County can’t 31 try to design the applicant’s network and I think what you’re trying to do… 32 33 Samantha Cabe: Ma’am? 34 35 Jackie Hicks: Oh, I’m sorry. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: No, no, that’s ok, no, no, you’re fine, but state your name for the record. 38 39 Jackie Hicks: Jackie Hicks. Sorry. I was sworn in at the last meeting. 40 41 Samantha Cabe: And what is your position, just so everyone… 42 43 Rusty Monroe: She’s the owner of the firm. 44 45 Samantha Cabe: You’re the new Rusty Monroe? 46 47 Jackie Hicks: We are together. We’re both consultants. And the County can’t design Verizon’s 48 network, so by saying you could do this and you could do that, the County can’t do that. 49 50 124 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 123 of 156 John Price: Well I think what the County does require is that the tower that’s built will satisfy the 1 needs identified. 2 3 Rusty Monroe: That it satisfy the needs of… 4 5 Barry Katz: Identified. 6 7 John Price: Identified. 8 9 Rusty Monroe: That’s true. 10 11 John Price: And my client has just told me, Mr. Harvey, I don’t know, that there’s a water tower in 12 Governors Club. 13 14 Michael Harvey: That’s in Chatham County sir, that’s not in Orange County’s planning jurisdiction. 15 16 John Price: I didn’t know that. 17 18 Rusty Monroe: And I know in talking with the company’s attorney, processing this application, I 19 specifically asked the question, “What is the greatest priority for this site, is it a need?” and he said 20 capacity is number one, coverage is, I believe the word he used is, “incidental”. I believe that’s the 21 word. It’s not this gentleman, it’s his partner. 22 23 Barry Katz: And this capacity, this is primarily for offloading from UNC? 24 25 Rusty Monroe: I do not recall the specifics of that. I believe… I don’t recall the specifics so I’d 26 rather not answer incorrectly. 27 28 Laura Goode: If I could just remind the Board, there is a network objective statement that is in tab 29 4 of the application that states the network objective. 30 31 Rusty Monroe: Please understand I’m not speaking for or against this, I just want you making an 32 informed decision. 33 34 Laura Goode: And then the first paragraph of Exhibit or tab 4, it talks about the network objective 35 and starting on the second sentence it says, Verizon’s wireless objecting in connection with the 36 proposed site is to improve coverage along Mount Carmel Church Road between the Governors 37 Club area and Chapel Hill, we call it the Clearwater Lake area, as well as to provide capacity for 38 the existing UNC Campus Verizon Wireless site. 39 40 John Price: It’s my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that the 41 expert for TowerCom with respect to co-location was referring to there were no other structures on 42 which they could co-locate the antenna equipment that would be on this tower. It was not talking 43 about DAS or small cells, or micro cells, or any technological alternative. 44 45 Laura Goode: So we had two experts. We had one expert that talked about inability to co-locate 46 on existing structures, and we had another expert that testified and drafted a statement that’s 47 contained in this notebook testifying and stating that other technologies, such as DAS and other 48 facilities will not meet the network objectives of this site and he testified at the hearing last time 49 125 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 124 of 156 that they are using small cell facilities at UNC to try to address those capacity issues, and it’s not 1 sufficient, and this site is needed for that. 2 3 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Do you have any? Let’s see, where were we before we interjected with 4 Mr. Monroe… Did you have any further questions for? You were finished with Mr. Levitan? 5 6 John Price: Yes. 7 8 Samantha Cabe: Did you have any other witnesses? 9 10 John Price: No, I don’t. 11 12 Samantha Cabe: And did you… We were going to… Do you still… 13 14 John Price: I did want to raise one other thing, especially in light of the last statement that was 15 made… 16 17 Samantha Cabe: If you’re going to make argument can you wait until the end? 18 19 John Price: No, no, it’s not argument. 20 21 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 22 23 John Price: We support the introduction into the record of Amber Corbin’s witness statement that 24 she submitted, along with documents she submitted, especially in light of the last statement that 25 was made by the other member of the public. 26 27 Samantha Cabe: From Mr. Williams? 28 29 John Price: That’s correct. 30 31 Samantha Cabe: I think we typically... 32 33 Michael Harvey: We typically, I was going to handle that when everybody finished with the experts 34 and the public and we’ll be entering the record at that point in time. 35 36 Samantha Cabe: We’ll include those. 37 38 John Price: Ok, thank you. 39 40 Samantha Cabe: Who requested to hear… Barry, you requested to hear, do you still want to hear 41 their expert to answer your question about the small cell? 42 43 Barry Katz: Correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as the way the rules work that’s not pertinent to this 44 hearing, is it? 45 46 Samantha Cabe: In fact, if we asked them to give us that information that could be a basis for 47 appeal if we rule in the Opponents favor if we ask them to provide that information. 48 49 126 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 125 of 156 Michael Harvey: In my humble opinion, potentially yes. I will also tell you as I have told you before, 1 admitting other iterations from any other meetings the Board needs to ask the questions it feels 2 are necessary and vital in order to make an informed decision regardless if it’s of Mr. Price or the 3 applicant. We are here to provide you with as much feedback as what state and law and Unified 4 Development Ordinance requires. 5 6 Barry Katz: But is it pertinent to… 7 8 Michael Harvey: I believe that some of the information that you are potentially looking for, I don’t 9 want to read your mind or put words in your mouth could potentially be viable to the discussion, 10 yes. And I certainly don’t want to deny this good an opportunity to get those questions answered 11 for you. 12 13 Barry Katz: Please, if you have a response… 14 15 Laura Goode: Can I just ask what the specific question, because I want to…if you just have a 16 specific question I can call him up right here to answer that question. 17 18 Barry Katz: Ok, it had to deal with whether there was alternative technologies, and then we had a 19 suggestion of these small towers along, let’s say, Mount Carmel Church Road as a very 20 productive potential option. So if you wouldn’t mind addressing that. 21 22 David Haughney: Hello, I’m David Haughney. I was sworn in the last time. I work for Verizon. And 23 my work address is 3020 Hammond Road, in Raleigh. And then the question… Do you want to 24 restate or be specific about? 25 26 Barry Katz: My question had to do with whether there were alternatives to building a 199-foot 27 tower to achieve the goals that Verizon had. And Mr. Levitan had suggested that there might be 28 small towers along Mount Carmel Church Road that would, in fact, achieve a greater coverage, 29 etcetera. So what is your opinion? 30 31 David Haughney: The design that we propose is the optimal and feasible, and commercially 32 practical solution for this very large, weak coverage area. There is approximately 4-miles between 33 sites in this area, and the sites that are surrounding it that have been mentioned, we’re on most of 34 them. There’s none in this search ring, or at the epicenter of this 4-mile coverage hole. Verizon 35 Wireless uses, we are the leader in the advancement of wireless technology as they stated many 36 times, and we used micro cells and small cells and DAS where they’re appropriate. We are using 37 them to solve our capacity issues at UNC Campus. They’re part of the solution. This is also an 38 enterable part of the solution, is to design this tower as it’s been proposed in this area to provide 39 seamless coverage in capacity of, not only, Mount Carmel Church Road but the entire 40 surrounding area. And it would be completely infeasible and impractical to try and solve that large 41 cover gap with an innumerable amount of small cells at very low height that only covers as far as 42 you see. If we put a transmitting device on a 30-foot pole on Mount Carmel Road it would only 43 cover as far as you see it. And this terrain, with the foliage, and the hills, they minute you turn off 44 the road you would drop. So this entire 4-mile square area we’d be talking about… It’s not 45 practical, not feasible, no other commercial company as proposed such a thing. 46 47 Karen Barrows: Can I ask you David, so the opponents are saying there’s still a large area of 48 Mount Carmel that is not going to get ideal service. So you’re saying they will? 49 50 127 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 126 of 156 David Haughney: Yes, it will. And the plots show that. I disagree with his interpretation of it. As 1 you can see on the plots, we don’t have them pulled up right now but… 2 3 Samantha Cabe: It’s on tab 7. 4 5 David Haughney: Green and blue colors cover the entirety of Mount Carmel Church Road now, as 6 compared to without the site you see a lot of gray, black, and white, which are no service and 7 dropped calls. No service, and very poor service. And contrary to one thing they were saying, it is 8 all green and blue now on Mount Carmel. They conveniently drew a yellow line along that road, 9 which covered up the colors. That yellow line that was on their plot was not mine; they added that. 10 It covers up the colors on Mount Carmel. If you look at the plot without the yellow line you will see 11 that green and blue, it’s complete coverage up and down the road. They only provide the only 12 connections we need to those surrounding sites. 13 14 Barry Katz: So you’re saying that actually smaller towers won’t give you the same effective 15 coverage that this large tower will? 16 17 David Haughney: Not at all. They cover very small footprints. 18 19 Barry Katz: I understand, but it would mean not putting in one but… In your research you weren’t 20 calculating how many small towers it would take to give the coverage that this large tower did and 21 what the cost benefits would be, etcetera? Was that part of your consideration? Or was your 22 consideration merely what will you get out of this 199-foot tower? 23 24 David Haughney: It’s always a part of our consideration because we do deploy those 25 technologies, and it’s just not practical and feasible, and it’s not applied anywhere. There’s no 26 example of a small cell or DAS network that’s been spoken up to cover a huge, 4-square mile, 27 rural, sparse suburban, and that’s what this area is. 28 29 Samantha Cabe: Are those types of technologies typically used in more urban areas or higher 30 density areas like UNC where you’re using them? 31 32 David Haughney: Yes ma’am, we are using there and other places, airports, malls, arenas, we 33 have an installation inside the game dome, we have another DAS installation inside Keenan 34 Stadium, to handle that huge amount of capacity of a converging area. It’s just not practical for 35 this kind of large, open, rural, and kind of light suburban mix area. And that’s why another provider 36 in the past has proposed a similar solution and it’s come to my attention, I don’t know if it’s been 37 submitted but, another service provider is interested in… has noted interest in signing on to this 38 tower. But no service provider has… in the record whatsoever has proposed what they’re talking 39 about for this area. 40 41 Matt Hughes: And I believe most of what you just mentioned you covered in our previous… 42 43 David Haughney: It is sir, I believe that most of what we’re talking about is covered in both the 44 written and previous statements. Yes sir. 45 46 Barry Katz: I understand. I’ve got a question for Mr. Harvey. The Mount Carmel Church Road, part 47 of it, certainly the area where the cell tower would be, is in the rural buffer? 48 49 Michael Harvey: Yes sir. 50 128 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 127 of 156 1 Barry Katz: How much of Mount Carmel Church Road is in the rural buffer that we’re talking about 2 as far as providing cell service with this tower? Can you make a statement about that? 3 4 Michael Harvey: I don’t know if I can make a statement of that. What I’ll remind the Board is that 5 there’s a portion of Mount Carmel Church Road located within the extra-territorial jurisdiction 6 boundary of the Town of Chapel Hill going up to Old Lystra. 7 8 Barry Katz: Old Lystra? 9 10 Michael Harvey: And then you have approximately three, three and a half, or four miles or so, 11 three miles going towards the Chatham County line that is obviously all rural buffer. 12 13 Barry Katz: It’s all rural buffer? 14 15 Michael Harvey: Yes sir. 16 17 Barry Katz: My point was to consider whether or not there would be an increase in residential 18 density in that area that would be justified as one thing or another but there is not, as long as the 19 buffer exists. 20 21 Michael Harvey: I can only answer that question based on the Ordinance, as it currently exists. 22 Density in this portion of the rural buffer is essentially one dwelling unit for every 2-acres of 23 property per the current Orange County Unified Development Ordinance and the joint planning 24 land use plan and joint planning land use plan agreement adopted and enforced by the Towns of 25 Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County in a cooperative venture. 26 27 John Price: I have just a couple of questions for Mr. Haughney. Mr. Haughney, am I 28 understanding you correctly that you’re not saying that small cell towers along Mount Carmel 29 Road would not solve every problem along Mount Carmel Road? I’m not talking about small cells 30 now. I’m talking about small cell towers along Mount Carmel Road. Would that provide all of the 31 coverage necessary? 32 33 David Haughney: No, it would not. 34 35 John Price: Along Mount Carmel Road, not the offload capacity of UNC, I’m just talking about 36 Mount Carmel Road. 37 38 David Haughney: No sir, it would not meet our objectives and goals of standards. 39 40 John Price: Along Mount Carmel Road? 41 42 David Haughney: No sir. It’s not a practical, feasible solution that we would pursue. 43 44 John Price: And you’re saying that this 199-foot monopole tower, where you proposed to build it, 45 is going to… and that’s the only way to solve your offload capacity at UNC Campus and in 46 between, is that correct? 47 48 129 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 128 of 156 David Haughney: I feel that I’ve already testified that we do have other solutions for UNC 1 Campus, including some of the technologies that you mentioned. It’s an integral part of the 2 solution. 3 4 John Price: So you don’t need the tower… 5 6 David Haughney: This tower is an integral part of that solution. It is going to be necessary yes. 7 8 John Price: So are you saying that the tower is not needed for the offload capacity at UNC 9 Campus? 10 11 Samantha Cabe: I think he’s testified earlier that it’s all part of a plan with the tower and the small 12 cells, as what I’ve heard him say at least three or four times. That it’s all part of their plan to solve 13 these two problems that they’ve identified. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what I’ve heard him 14 say three or four times at this point, that the tower and the small cells are part of their plan. Am I 15 wrong? Did you hear that? 16 17 (General multiple comments) 18 19 Samantha Cabe: And I’m just trying to cut to the chase and not keep repeating the same things. 20 21 John Price: Well it seemed to be… there’s a contradiction here between on the one hand saying 22 that… 23 24 Samantha Cabe: Do you have any further questions for him? 25 26 John Price: Yes, yes. The proposed tower, as I understand the statements that have been made 27 into the record, TowerCom says in support of this proposed tower is that this proposed tower will 28 satisfy the needs, all the needs that you’ve identified. Is that correct? 29 30 David Haughney: Yes sir. 31 32 John Price: The tower by itself will do that? 33 34 David Haughney: Yes sir, it would. This is needed for identified service needs. I believe I already 35 explained that it’s not the one and only solution for the UNC Campus area, obviously. 36 37 John Price: I think we’re just disagreeing with the definition of service needs …. 38 39 Ben Levitan: If you look at Mount Carmel Church Road… 40 41 Samantha Cabe: Ok, hang on one second. We’re getting a little back and forth here. We’ve 42 already addressed you, you’ve testified, we’ve cross-examined you, do you have any further 43 questions for Mr. Haughney. 44 45 John Price: I have not further questions for Mr. Haughney. 46 47 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Does the Board have any questions for Mr. Haughney? Alright, thank 48 you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to be heard? Either in support of or 49 opposition? 50 130 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 129 of 156 1 Karen Barrows: Can we take a short break? 2 3 Samantha Cabe: Alright, we’re going to take a short recess to go to the restroom and then we’ll 4 hear our closing arguments, if you want to do closing arguments. Is there any more evidence for 5 either? 6 7 Laura Goode: I’m just going to enter some documentary evidence to rebut some of the statements 8 that were made by the opponent. 9 10 Samantha Cabe: Ok, we’ll address that when we get back. Thank you. 11 12 Break 13 14 Samantha Cabe: Ok are we ready to get started? Alright and before we do get started I have the 15 opponents position on applicant’s compliance with the County Unified Development Ordinance 16 requirements where they’ve set out their proposed findings I believe on all of your requirements. 17 Does the applicant have an opposing document like this? 18 19 Laura Goode: I do, and if I could… 20 21 Samantha Cabe: Just so I could have them both so we can all have them both. 22 23 (General multiple comments) 24 25 Samantha Cabe: Before we get started with closing we do have Board member Katz has a 26 clarification problem regarding the statement submitted by Amber Corbin that we had allowed into 27 the record earlier in the proceeding. 28 29 Barry Katz: There seemed to be an ambiguity in communications from Ms. Corbin about whether 30 or not the right of way road had to pass through her property or was adjacent to her property. And 31 my first impression was that she actually had property adjacent to that access road and then she 32 implies that she has to approve right of way and she’s absolutely denying right of way, so it would 33 be important to know, in fact, whether she has any kind of leverage in this situation. 34 35 Michael Harvey: Well I don’t know if I’m going to be able to answer your question from a leverage 36 stand point, what I will tell you is that based on the information that I have at my disposal sitting 37 here, this is a private road. The property goes to the center line of the private road. You have 38 three emails from Ms. Corbin that we handed you. One dated January the 22nd of 2017, 2:48 PM. 39 Essentially making several arguments that there’s a public safety issue, I know that’s not your 40 question but just to summarize the information to the proposed use of the driveway along that 41 property is contrary to not in harmony with the area that the tower’s proposed to be located. And 42 then finally I think your question; TowerCom does not have legal access of my property… private 43 property access to the proposed tower. The argument being made is that this is private access 44 easement, which she is a co-owner of that easement. The easement was granted for a very 45 specific purpose. The second email is same day with a time stamp of 2:58 PM that shows or 46 provides a summary of various emails between TowerCom enterprises, Staff, and Ms. Corbin on 47 access management issues where obviously they have an opinion and she has an opinion that 48 differs. It is her research in that they don’t have a right to use her portion of the right of way for 49 access. 50 131 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 130 of 156 1 Barry Katz: Ok. 2 3 Michael Harvey: I’ll let TowerCom speak to that but the emails are pretty… Emails are what they 4 are. They assert they have the right, she asserts they don’t. That’s going into being a legal 5 question, but you are correct, as a private road she essentially has half the right of way. And what 6 she’s’ arguing in these emails that we have put into the record is essentially in order for 7 TowerCom to use it there has to be a modification to the existing agreement, which hasn’t 8 occurred, and she’s not amenable to allow that to happen. 9 10 John Price: It also states that it’s an eyesore and will adversely impact her property. 11 12 Barry Katz: I understand that, but… do you have a comment about this? 13 14 Laura Goode: Yes, and I believe I already spoke to this at the previous hearing that there had 15 been a concern raised to TowerCom about this access road in terms of whether there was 16 access. Respectfully, I would put to you that whether TowerCom has legal access to this property 17 or not is not an issue that this Board has to determine in terms of whether to approve the Special 18 Use Permit. But, nevertheless, has obtained a legal opinion. Their attorney has reviewed that 19 document that she has provided and has the legal opinion that they do have legal access to that 20 road and, as Mr. Harvey stated, any dispute about that is a civil matter between those two parties 21 that would be outside of the scope of this hearing. 22 23 James Bryan: Madame Chair, if I could just have a second, I’m trying to find out… we do have a 24 standard for access. I don’t recall what exactly it is. It you give me a minute I could probably find it. 25 26 Samantha Cabe: Sure. 27 28 (Inaudible exchange amongst Board members) 29 30 Laura Goode: You know, if while they’re looking for that provision we could go ahead and enter 31 some of this into the record to kind of speed things along. 32 33 Samantha Cabe: Sure. 34 35 Laura Goode: Ok. The first thing I would enter into the record since there was testimony from Mr. 36 Gwen and his son about the impact to wildlife and the natural area, I have… The first document is 37 the NEPO report that TowerCom obtained, which is required for all FCC license organizations, 38 and so this report basically details how it will not impact a critical wildlife habitat, will not adversely 39 impact a list of endangered or threatened species, will not be a negative impact to migratory birds, 40 all of that information is contained in this report. And I would ask that it be entered into the record. 41 42 Samantha Cabe: What number are we on? 43 44 Michael Harvey: 6. 45 46 Samantha Cabe: Ok. That’s Applicant number 6. 47 48 Michael Harvey: Correct. 49 50 132 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 131 of 156 Laura Goode: To supplement that document I would also move into the record the biological 1 assessment that was further done as part of this, just again detailing how the proposed facility will 2 not negatively impact, and identify wildlife, critical habitat, or species in the area. 3 4 Samantha Cabe: And that will Applicant number 7. 5 6 Laura Goode: And additionally, as part of the neighbor process there is a review by the state 7 historic preservation office. We have this letter from the state historic preservation office stating 8 that it will not affect any historic properties in the area. I’ll ask that that be moved into the record 9 as well. And then as a further supplemental piece of evidence to contradict claims that the tower’s 10 not needed, the tower height is not needed, things of that nature that have been argued, we have 11 a letter from T-Mobile who states that they too have a need for a facility in this area that this tower 12 would meet their needs, specifically at a proposed height of 180-feet due to the topography 13 changes in the area. And then I did, just for housekeeping purposes I meant to do this later time 14 but we ran over, I wanted to make sure that the application that’s been entered into the record is 15 the application that has supplemental evidence items A through I, just to double check on that. 16 17 Samantha Cabe: Mine does. 18 19 Laura Goode: Ok. Thank you. 20 21 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 22 23 James Bryan: Madame Chair, if I could briefly ….. 24 25 Samantha Cabe: Sure. 26 27 James Bryan: So, in your agenda packets its 155, and it’s a table that Michael put together and 28 that cites access standards of the Unified Development Ordinance it’s 5.10.8(b)(4)(d) d is access 29 and it’s got four subparts. So part one is: at a wireless telecommunication support structure site an 30 access road, turn around space, and parking shall be provided to assure adequate emergency 31 service access. Two: maximum use of existing use, whether public or private, shall remain to the 32 extent practical. Three: road construction shall, at all times, minimize ground disturbance and the 33 cutting of vegetation. Four: road grates shall closely follow natural contours to ensure minimal 34 visual disturbance and reduce soil erosion. Those are the four standards that this Board has 35 regarding access. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: And that is the four standards that the applicant has to show in their application 38 so that doesn’t necessarily address the legal access, but they’ve addressed that what they’re 39 planning for their road will have the turnaround, will have the width, will do all of those things, but 40 does not have to address whether or not they can legally put the road where they’re saying they’re 41 going to put it. Is that? I didn’t hear anything in our standards that addressing whether or not they 42 have to have a legal easement before they came to us. 43 44 James Bryan: Right, so there’s two parts I’m supposed to go by. The plan must identify. They 45 cannot vary from the plan, unless they come back to this Board and ask for a change, an 46 amendment. What you can do, I think if it shows access it’s applied that it has to be legal, it can 47 be a condition. Some evidence… I don’t know what they can prove today or what they can prove 48 at subsequent meetings. 49 50 133 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 132 of 156 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 1 2 Karen Barrows: So can I just ask, we have this letter from Patricia Williams saying they give 3 permission for the use of the road. 4 5 (Inaudible exchange amongst Board members) 6 7 James Bryan: And if I may also, so there’s one about soil erosion, stuff like that. That’s about 8 something else. The other one is safety, and I believe this is already forward off to the fire 9 marshal, and the sheriff, and stuff like that. That’s normally what you would have plans and 10 responses so you would assume that’s fine, as long as they’ve got access to it. 11 12 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 13 14 (Inaudible exchange amongst Board members) 15 16 Samantha Cabe: Alright, would you like to make your… does either party want to make sort of a 17 closing statement or argument before we begin deliberations? 18 19 Laura Goode: Yes. Thank you for your time, and all of your consideration, I will just make a couple 20 of points that I wanted to highlight for you before you make your deliberations. The first is to 21 address a couple of things in terms of real estate impact. For differing expert opinions, using 22 differing… Well one person has cited the real estate impact or the article on property values from 23 New Zealand that was from 2005, and did not address properties in the United States, the 24 testimony provided by David Smith, which accompanied his real estate impact study that was 25 prepared and submitted as part of the application used not only analysis of the Cobble Ridge and 26 Sunset Ridge neighborhoods that Mr. Ogburn looked at, he also made adjustments for those 27 sales prices based on differences in the homes, in terms of better things about them that Mr. 28 Ogburn did not make. He also did a match pair analysis, which he testified to as the standard for 29 accessing real estate impact values, and that was done in Orange County for a tower, with 30 properties zoned rural buffer, which is the same zoning classification as the subject property and 31 surrounding properties and found that no impact to property value occurred as a result of that 32 proximity of that tower. Also, introduced tonight as part of rebuttal of the article that was attached 33 to Mr. Ogburn’s study there was an updated study or an article published from the American Bar 34 Association talking about, and looking at, real estate impact studies in North America. Not only in 35 North America, but specifically in Chatham County, North Carolina and cited one of the studies 36 done by Mr. Smith, our expert, that was corroborated by another expert in North Carolina, Tom 37 Keith and Associates. And they cited that as some of the evidence that cell phone towers do not 38 negatively impact property values. That same article, I would ask that you read it and consider it. 39 They called into question the validity of that New Zealand study for a number of reasons. And 40 finally, talked about how there was an actual case study where a cell phone tower company had 41 applied for a Special Use Permit, just like in this situation, they got their approval, it was appealed, 42 and the appeals process took approximately three or four years. During that time period they were 43 able to erect a temporary tower. And they were able to study what the impact of that temporary 44 tower, through duration of that appeal, what that impact was to property values. And they found 45 that there was no negative effect to property values from that. That was a recent case in the 46 United States. Now, you’ve also heard a lot of testimony about what the need for this tower is, 47 what the purpose is, whether other technologies can adequately address the need that has been 48 identified by Verizon. And what this really all boils down to is what the opponents are asking me to 49 determine is that Verizon and TowerCom and all of the witnesses have come here to testify is that 50 134 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 133 of 156 they looked for looked for other places to co-locate, they looked at other opportunities to use other 1 alternative technologies, they’ve looked at that Malot candidate. They’re asking you to believe that 2 we are here and we have spent years on this process, thousands of dollars in applications fees, in 3 environmental assessments. We’ve done all that for a tower that is not needed and won’t solve 4 the problem. That’s what they’re asking of you guys. And I believe that the evidence shows that 5 we need that tower, even though we don’t have to prove it, and that it will address the problem 6 that is identified. In terms of any concerns about timbering, we have shown an alternative 7 landscape in the event that that happens, and I believe that the Buckner’s’ are willing to work to 8 make sure there is some type of a buffer that would remain on the property, in the event that that 9 did happen, although that’s not certain. And finally, I’ll just end by saying that the County, Mr. 10 Harvey, has gone through the application, determined that we met each of the standards. The 11 consultant, Jackie Hicks, with Carolina Telecommunications has determined that we meet all the 12 standards and they recommend approval. I would respectfully request that this Board approve as 13 well. 14 15 Samantha Cabe: And do you have proposed findings to submit? 16 17 Laura Goode: I believe I gave those to Mr. Harvey. 18 19 Samantha Cabe: Oh, did you hand those out already? Ok, sorry. Thanks. 20 21 John Price: I’d like to thank the Board for their time and attentiveness as well. I’ll be brief in my 22 summation statement. The burden is on TowerCom to establish that this proposed tower will 23 maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, unless it was a public necessity it would 24 have been there showing a public necessity in this case. As I read that standard, either maintain 25 or enhance and if the value of the contiguous property is diminished in any way that is not a 26 maintenance or enhancement of that property value. We have in this case the testimony and 27 appraisal report of Mr. Ogburn, who testified this evening, who is a residential appraisal expert, 28 unlike David Smith, who is primarily a commercial appraisal expert. Testimony of Evan and Owen 29 Gwen, the affidavits of Ben Rudnick and William Hamlin the prospective purchasers of properties 30 located within Dove Field. And I would submit that the report prepared by David Smith, which is 31 the only evidence provided in support of TowerCom’s burden to prove maintenance or 32 enhancement of value, that Mr. Smith’s report is inadequate in that it relies upon comparisons of 33 values without appraising the actual value of any property that’s located in the immediate 34 contiguous area where this proposed tower’s going to be built. I’ve cited two North Carolina cases 35 in the two letters that were submitted as part of opposition number 6 this evening where reports 36 almost identical to Mr. Smith’s were rejected as being not substantial and not sufficient to meet 37 the burden of proof. In those cases it was not a burden of proof of maintain and enhance, it was a 38 stronger version a higher version, where they actually had to prove no substantial adverse impact. 39 I would also submit that in Mr. Smith’s report, if you read Mr. Smith’s report, there are three 40 different occasions of that report where he specifically says, “indicates there will be damage to 41 property where the tower will be visible from that property”. Yet he doesn’t appraise any of the 42 properties that will, in fact, have a clear view of this tower. So it’s our position that TowerCom has 43 failed to meet its burden of proving maintenance and enhancement of value. In addition, although 44 there may be a prima facia case for this being in harmony with the surrounding area because of 45 the rural buffer definition of what is and is not permitted, and it does permit cell towers, we would 46 submit that the testimony of Mr. Owen Gwen, Even Gwen, the Dove Field master plan, maps, and 47 photos all support our clients position, which Amber Corbin also agrees with, and the other 48 gentlemen who spoke tonight, I can’t remember his name, that… 49 50 135 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 134 of 156 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Barnes. 1 2 John Price: That having a 199-foot tower in this type of community, given the nature of the 3 community, and use being made of the property of the community is clearly not in harmony with 4 that property. We also submit, and it’s set forth in our proposed findings of fact, that as supported 5 by the testimony of Mr. Levitan that TowerCom did not adequately consider alternatives, co-6 location alternatives, as well as technology alternatives that would satisfy the needs that they’ve 7 identified. Mr. Levitan also testified that contrary to the testimony of TowerCom’s experts this one 8 single tower will not satisfy either one of the needs identified by TowerCom and Verizon. Yet there 9 are other alternatives, which are not visually intrusive, that are the least adverse visual effect, and 10 those alternatives include the smaller cell towers, small cells, the micro cells, the DAS systems 11 that, according to Mr. Levitan, can in fact be used both along the Mount Carmel Road and also at 12 the UNC Campus, in order to satisfy the capacity overload need and the lack of coverage along 13 the Mount Carmel. In this case, there has been no attempt to utilize any stealth technology or 14 camouflage techniques whatsoever. Testimony has been, not the testimony, the evidence they 15 shared that it’s the intent of Buckner Family Trust to timber the property. We don’t know whether 16 that’s going to incorporate all of the timber on the property, all the trees being depicted on the 17 map. If that is what’s intended then as soon as that is done it’s going to dramatically increase the 18 visual impact of the property in this area of that cell tower. Also, as Mr. Levitan testified, building 19 this type of cell tower will not even… that all likelihood will not be occurring within another year or 20 two. It’s our position the Board should not be allowing construction of this 200-foot cell tower with 21 other technologies and new technologies are here, additional technologies are coming along, 22 which will easily satisfy all of these needs that have been identified in this case. Without the 23 necessity of building that 200-foot eyesore, which for those people who live in the area, it may not 24 seem that way to others who don’t live there, but I can assure you and I’m sure you all know 25 this… W hen you own property, when you bought that property you didn’t expect there to be a 200-26 foot tower visible from your home. No one would anticipate that, would expect that. And that’s 27 exactly what’s going to happen if the Board approves this application, and common sense tells 28 everyone that there is going to be an adverse impact on these properties. It’s amazing to me that 29 any expert could take the position that it will not have an adverse impact. I don’t know anything 30 about this article that appeared in the lawyers publication, I do know that lawyers don’t voluntarily 31 go out and write articles, unless they’re being paid by someone. And I would suggest that in all 32 likelihood these lawyers are representing either those that who construct cell towers or that 33 provide them to the cell services. They’re certainly not experts. So it’s our position and our request 34 that the application for the Special Use Permit be denied on its face. 35 36 Samantha Cabe: Alright, any questions from the Board before we close the public hearing and 37 enter deliberations? Oh, actually… It’s 10 o’ clock, do we have a motion to extend the hearing to 38 deliberate and render a decision? 39 40 Motion made by Barry Katz to extend hearing 30 minutes to include deliberations. Seconded by 41 Karen Barrows. 42 VOTE: Unanimous 43 44 Samantha Cabe: So currently this meeting will be extended to 10:30 pm. Now do I have a motion 45 to close the hearing and begin deliberations? 46 47 Matt Hughes: Ms. Goode, something that the opposing council mentioned was camouflage things. 48 Like I know it could be in this big binder of why that’s not possible or if it was considered. But I do 49 know there are cell towers I’ve noticed in the area of 15-501 in Durham, for example, near the 50 136 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 135 of 156 Home Depot where’s there’s a cell tower that is camouflaged as a tree. You wouldn’t notice it at 1 first until you realize it’s a really tall tree and the other trees aren’t so tall. Was that something that 2 was considered? 3 4 Laura Goode: So there was a statement in here, and I apologize; my brain is a little bit fried at this 5 point in time. I’m not sure exactly which tab this is in. I believe it is either in tab 4… And tab 27 6 also talks about the inability to flush mount antennas. Essentially, there’s two different ways to 7 approach this. So first, in terms of stealthing there’s other ways of stealthing than just the tree that 8 you’ve seen, the mono-pine as what we may refer to it as. We can also do slick poles, church 9 bells, church steeples, things of that nature. The problem with that is it limits, significantly, the 10 number of antennas and radios and types of either… You know, whether you can do fiber at the 11 site. So those are types of stealthing would not work to meet the network objective for this site as 12 stated in these statements because we need a certain number or antennas, a certain number of 13 radios, the fiber line, in order to make it perform and meet that network objective that we’re trying 14 to meet. And you start to do stealth, I’m not talking about mono-pine, the other types of stealth 15 technology, it reduces the ability to use that technology. And that’s why that’s not feasible. In 16 terms of mono-pine, it was not something that was considered for this site. Typically, again, what 17 you run into with mono-pines is when the tower is going to be significantly taller that the existing 18 tree cover what you end up getting is a visual of a really tall pipe cleaner instead of a tree that 19 blends in with its surroundings. So typically we try to do mono-pine designs where you’ve got 20 trees where the tower is more similar to the height to the tree levels so that’s it’s not 100-feet over 21 the trees, it’s more like 30-feet over the trees, if that makes sense. So does that answer your 22 question? 23 24 Matt Hughes: That does. And it’s something that came to mind earlier and I just completely forgot 25 to ask it. So that satisfies my answer. 26 27 Samantha Cabe: And I have a question that may be for our attorney. I’ll just pick someone… If we 28 made all the findings to say that we must grant this Special Use Permit, could we impose a 29 condition that as a condition of the issuance of the permit that TowerCom obtained a contract or 30 an agreement with the Buckner’s’ that they will not timber a certain area around the tower? That 31 they will leave intact the trees in a certain perimeter? As a condition of granting the permit. If we 32 make all of the findings. 33 34 James Bryan: Right, so I would recommend no. I would only recommend that you only make 35 conditions if there is a lacking of finding. If they can’t meet the requirement. But if they’ve already 36 offered evidence that is substantial, competent material that they can meet the evidence with the 37 plan presented then there’s no need for the condition. If they’re agreeable to it that’s another 38 matter. The other issue that I would say that it would meet a certain level of specificity, what 39 exactly. 40 41 Samantha Cabe: Like with the 40-feet? 42 43 James Bryan: Yeah I’m not sure. Michael probably could help. You could say like our Type C, 44 whatever. But I think the factors are the width of it, 40-feet, and then the type of tree so not those 45 you know small bushes. And then I imagine there’s got to be another fact about density, but I 46 don’t… 47 48 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 49 50 137 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 136 of 156 Michael Harvey: Ordinance requires a Type C land use buffer per section 6.8.7 of the Unified 1 Development Ordinance. You’re looking at having to comply with the minimum amount of 2 plantings for every 100-foot of linear distance that makes up this buffer. I’m not going to sit here, 3 and it’s in my Staff report twice, and tell you that a 40-foot wide buffer is going to shield a 199-foot 4 tall telecommunication tower. That’s already identified as… You’re not going to be able to shield 5 that if the site is totally timbered. What the Ordinance requires is what the Ordinance requires. 6 7 Samantha Cabe: And they’re entitled to do it however they are proposing in their plan? We can’t 8 have a condition that they do it a certain way? 9 10 Michael Harvey: Well, I will point out to the Board, and I think that Ms. Goode and her submittal for 11 your all’s consideration this evening alters my condition to as currently with, so if I can call your 12 attention to page 162. 13 14 Samantha Cabe: Of our Agenda? 15 16 Michael Harvey: Agenda packet. We have recommended the imposition of 17 conditions. In the 17 instance that this Board makes a determination the applicant has met their burden then you can 18 issue the permit. I’ll go over these incredibly briefly. Number one is it can only be 199-foot tall 19 tower, as detailed in the application package. Number two; existing vegetation as detailed on the 20 improved site plan as acted upon this Board shall be maintained as indicated in the applicaiton. I 21 think you’ll see what Ms. Goode has asked you all to modify my condition to say that it will be 22 maintained in the event in the event it’s removed it’ll have to comply with the provision of the 23 Unified Development Ordinance. 24 25 Samantha Cabe: So we can choose to not modify that condition? I just want to be sure that we’re 26 not imposing something… If we get through the findings of fact, I know we’re talking hypothetical 27 now but if we find that they’ve met all of the required findings and we get to the conditions I just 28 want to make sure that if we decide to impose such a condition as number two, as you have it 29 drafted here, that we’re not imposing a condition that we cannot legally impose. 30 31 Michael Harvey: I’m going to let James weigh in on that before I answer. 32 33 James Bryan: And Laura might be in a good position because she’s offered an alternative. She 34 might be able to explain why she’s offered that alternative, what the distinction is. 35 36 Laura Goode: Sure. So we’re only leasing a 100 by 100-foot piece of this property. And so in 37 terms of the way I look at it is the Special Use Permit is for our use of that property and our use of 38 that leased area and our easement area and any conditions y’all put on that, that’s on us. But 39 we’re not leasing the rest of the property so we would just ask that you not put the burden on the 40 property owner, that is not part of the Special Use Permit, that they can’t do any timbering to their 41 property because we have gotten them to agree to grant us an easement around the perimeter of 42 the property so that if they ever do timber. I mean, it’s not certain. I think it’s just been discussed. 43 But if it ever is then we would have the room around the facility to install that landscape buffer that 44 is required by the Unified Development Ordinance on sites where there is an existing vegetation. 45 And that’s how we would meet that. So that’s why I wanted to take that, “We shall maintain the 46 natural vegetation and perpetuity” because we’ve provided for that alternative. Also, again, the 47 property owners have graciously agreed since there are concerns about the potential for timbering 48 that they would consent to maintaining a 25-foot wide buffer around the perimeter of the property 49 138 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 137 of 156 if it’s ever timbered. In addition to, we have to still install that landscaping if they timber that area 1 around our facility. 2 3 James Bryan: If I may… I don’t know what Michael requires or what the Unified Development 4 Ordinance requires about whether it’s the parcel that’s applying for this Special Use Permit and is 5 required to be buffer or if it’s their leased area. Whatever the Unified Development Ordinance 6 says, whatever Michael’s interpretation of the UDO. However, and so… there is the case law 7 about harmony with the area, and what it says is that if it’s in the Unified Development Ordinance 8 it’s the prima facia argument you already made that it is sufficient. So if you have this in an area 9 where the BOCC have said an Special Use Permit is possible that’s a prima facia case that it is in 10 harmony with the area. So likewise, the BOCC brought in to our Unified Development Ordinance 11 the Type C buffer. That’s the prima facia of arguments that it is sufficient. Where that goes, that’s 12 Michael’s… Whatever the Unified Development Ordinance says has to be addressed. 13 14 Matt Hughes: So you’re saying a way, or the way, to interpret the question of in harmony with the 15 area is because the Unified Development Ordinance allows for the construction of a 16 telecommunication structure within the rural buffer that that means that it would be… because 17 that’s a permissible use it would be in harmony with the area? 18 19 James Bryan: Yeah. 20 21 Matt Hughes: Ok. 22 23 Laura Goode: Could I just? Sorry. Could I just add one more thing that I just thought of? Just to 24 say it another way. Say this property didn’t have any type of timber on it whatsoever, no natural 25 vegetation. Because we’re allowed to build it here with Special Use Permit all we would be 26 required to do is to install this vegetation. So instead of removing the vegetation that’s there and 27 installing it immediately we’re just going to clear as much space as we need to and leave those 28 trees. Now, what the property owners do with the rest of the land that’s not under our lease 29 control, we don’t really have control of that. But we would be held to the same standard if they 30 remove that vegetation. We would still have to include that Type C buffer around the perimeter of 31 the facility, which we have an easement for and we would do immediately, if that ever happens. 32 So we would be meeting the standards, regardless of anything that happens to the rest of the 33 property. 34 35 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Harvey, do you have anything to add before we close? 36 37 Michael Harvey: No. I sit at the pleasure of the Board. 38 39 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Any other questions before we close the hearing and go into 40 deliberation? 41 42 Matt Hughes: I have one more question for James. I’m just reading the standards. Could you job 43 my memory what public necessity means? 44 45 James Bryan: I don’t know what public necessity means. 46 47 Matt Hughes: Or Michael if you… 48 Michael Harvey: Well, what I will you it’s my humble opinion this is not a public necessity. 49 50 139 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 138 of 156 Matt Hughes: Alright. I was just curious. It says unless, I was just… 1 2 Michael Harvey: A public necessity is a land use that is essential to provide for the public safety 3 and general welfare. It could be argued that a school, in my humble opinion, is a public necessity. 4 We have had a major gas line company argue that it didn’t have to provide an impact analysis 5 because it is providing a public necessity as dictated by the state utilities commission. 6 Telecommunication facilities are, in my humble opinion, not a public necessity which is why the 7 applicant was obligated to provide an impact assessment demonstrating this would not have an 8 impact on the value of adjacent property. The unfortunate part of my answer to you is you know it 9 when you see it. And that’s …... 10 11 Matt Hughes: Thank you. 12 13 Samantha Cabe: So I don’t have a copy of TowerCom’s proposed findings. I can share with Barry. 14 I know you handed them out but mine was either buried or… 15 16 James Bryan: Can I give a little bit more on public necessity? I think you need to look to the UDO 17 ….. so we don’t define it. It is not you know it when you see it. That cannot be your standard. Your 18 standard can be either case law, and I don’t know of any, and then the dictionary, just go to the 19 dictionary and say this is what public necessity is. So it’s the normal meaning of the words, that’s 20 what you’re supposed to give it. 21 22 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. Alright. Any other questions before we close the public hearing. 23 Alright do I have a motion to close the hearing and begin deliberations? 24 25 Motion made by Barry Katz to close hearing and begin deliberation. Seconded by Matt Hughes. 26 27 VOTE: Unanimous 28 29 Samantha Cabe: Alright. This Board will move now into the deliberation phase. Before we get to 30 the standards that are actually in Opposition, TowerCom’s proposal and the Opponents Proposal, 31 why don’t we go through the general submittal requirements and make a decision on those 32 because I don’t believe we’ve received any objection to the general submittal requirements under 33 the Unified Development Ordinance for section 2 and all of it’s subparts, which are reflected on 34 pages 145 and 146. Do we have a motion to adopt the recommendations of Staff as to the 35 general submittal requirements application components and notification components set forth on 36 page 145 and 146 of the Agenda. 37 38 Motion made by Matt Hughes to adopt the recommendations of Staff as to the general submittal 39 requirements application components and notification components set forth on page 145 and 146 40 of the Agenda. Seconded by Barry Katz. 41 42 VOTE: Unanimous 43 44 Samantha Cabe: And none of those appeared in either of the proposed findings for either party. 45 So getting to page 147 the use specific submittal requirements for telecom facilities. I’m just going 46 to go down. There does not appear to be any conflicting proposals with regard to sections 5.10.8 47 and all of its subparts or 5.10.8 and all of its subparts. I just want to make sure I don’t have any. 48 49 James Bryan: And Chair, I think there’s one on page 148. 50 140 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 139 of 156 1 Samantha Cabe: Page 148. Oh, ok. 2 3 James Bryan: The second one, (a)(1)(f). 4 5 Samantha Cabe: Alright. So with regard with the finding set forth on page 147 there appears to be 6 no opposition to those findings. Do I have a motion to approve the recommendations of Staff for 7 those use specifics submittal requirements set forth on page 147? 8 9 Motion made by Karen Barrows to approve the recommendations of Staff for those use specifics 10 submittal requirements set forth on page 147. Seconded by Barry Katz. 11 12 VOTE: Unanimous 13 14 Samantha Cabe: And the motion would be from Ms. Barrows and the second from Mr. Katz. 15 Alright, on page 148 we do have an objection to the third one down, I believe. Second one down. 16 A statement indicating how the proposed tower will minimize visual intrusiveness to surrounding 17 properties in the area. The abstract attachment 5, the application packets tabs 8 and 13, and 18 narrative tab 1 include the evidence that support the Staff recommendation of a finding of yes. So. 19 20 James Bryan: If I may? It’s Opponents page 5, his last one there. The last item is the one that 21 correlates. 22 23 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. And the opponent proposes that the correspondence between 24 council for opponents and council for TowerCom on plans timbering, not disclosed anywhere in 25 the application, have a potentially dramatic impact on visibility of proposed tower and impact on 26 property values. Testimony of Owen and Evan Gwen and Mike Ogburn would support a finding of 27 no. Does anyone on the Board have a motion with regard to what they believe the finding should 28 be, and the basis for that finding? 29 30 Barry Katz: What I hear is that the timbering is not really germane to this application. Because it 31 has to do with property that’s not being asked for right of way or for the use of this cell company. 32 So whatever happens with the timbering potential application has no bearing on whether the 33 approval or disapprove of this finding. Does anyone have anything else to say about that? 34 35 Matt Hughes: I agree with your assessment Barry. 36 37 Barry Katz: Yeah, that’s what my understanding was, of what we heard. So I would propose that 38 we accept the Planning Department’s Staff yes on 5.10.8(a)(1)(f). 39 40 Samantha Cabe: And as a basis for that finding of yes, what would you propose the supporting 41 evidence would be? 42 43 Barry Katz: That it’s a rumor that deals with property that’s not being applied for or influenced by 44 the application for the tower. 45 46 Samantha Cabe: Anyone, anything further? Do I have a motion? 47 48 James Bryan: If I may? Just for clarification, are you saying that the evidence presented by the 49 opposition is speculative in nature? 50 141 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 140 of 156 1 Barry Katz: First it was speculative, and second; most of that property is not pertinent to the 2 application from the cell tower, from TowerCom or Verizon. So it’s not germane to this hearing. 3 4 Samantha Cabe: And while I understand the concern over whether or not the property may or not 5 be timbered, I understand why that’s a concern of this whole community, but I did not hear in this 6 hearing any evidence, even under our relaxed rules, that someone said this property that, “I am 7 the Buckner’s and I have personal knowledge of our intent to timber, or not” or anything close to in 8 relationship with the Buckner’s in knowledge of their intent. So it’s really difficult I think to find a 9 finding about timbering when it’s just been based upon rumors or maybe it will, maybe it won’t. I 10 do think that there is the requirement if we get there of having the 40-foot buffer. I would like to 11 impose the condition they would have to remain but I also understand we can’t impose a condition 12 upon someone that doesn’t have the authority to control the property we’re talking about. So I 13 would support a finding of yes for this particular finding because I do think that they have met the 14 standards of how they would propose to minimize the visual intrusiveness to surrounding 15 properties in the area. That they’ve met our standard of proposing a Class C buffer. Do I have a 16 motion? 17 18 Barry Katz: I move that we accept Staff’s finding of yes. 19 20 Samantha Cabe: Alright and find that they have met that specific submittal requirement? Ok. So 21 with regard to including the second statement down on page 148 of the abstract do I have a 22 motion for the Board to adopt the recommendations of Staff on these Use Specific submittal 23 requirements, including the one we just deliberated? 24 25 Motion made by Barry Katz to adopt the recommendations of Staff on the Use Specific submittal 26 requirements. Seconded by Karen Barrows. 27 28 VOTE: Unanimous. 29 30 Samantha Cabe: And I believe that was the only one on that page that was opposed with 31 opposition to. Alright, on page 149 of the Use Specific submittal requirements, Mr. Bryan have you 32 identified which ones of these? 33 34 James Bryan: Yeah, I found the second to last one (s). And that’s on page 4 of the opponent 35 proposal, the second one there. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: Ok. And this is one we’ll probably have a lot of… So we must find that a written 38 affidavit… That there must have been submitted a written affidavit stating why the proposed site is 39 necessary for their communication service. So is this just the requirement that the submitted the 40 affidavit, not whether or not it establishes the need and no alternative? 41 42 James Bryan: That is correct. So the Unified Development Ordinance is big, cumbersome, and 43 confusing but it has… You can break it up into. I’m sorry, if I can… It’s like a triangle and the 44 bottom is you’ve got submittal requirements and they’ve got general submittal requires. That’s 45 every single Special Use Permit is going to give you a site plan, stuff like that. And then they have 46 uses, specific submittal requirements. So a daycare is going to tell you about buses, towers are 47 going to tell you about your fall zones, and then you’re going to have standards of evaluation, 48 general, and then use specific. And then you’re going to have the big three: welfare, property 49 142 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 141 of 156 value, and harmony for the area. So the submittal requirement should correlate some standard of 1 evaluation. So… 2 3 Samantha Cabe: So in this particular finding that is in the submittal requirements on page 149 that 4 finding only relates to whether or not the statement was submitted. Not whether it actually meets 5 one of the big three? But just that we received that affidavit in the application package? Am I? 6 7 James Bryan: I would agree with that. 8 9 Samantha Cabe: So with regard to finding the second from the bottom on page 149 with 10 5.10.8(a)(1)(s) the opponent is asking that we find no with regard to that. But I believe, as a 11 submittal requirement we are determining whether or not a written affidavit stating why the 12 proposed site is necessary was received, not necessarily that we’re evaluating the substance of 13 that affidavit at this point. So behind application tabs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 21 and Narrative tab 1 Staff 14 has indicated that those are the documents that were received with the application. 15 16 James Bryan: If I may? So the… In your chart it says about the affidavit. There is more text from 17 the Unified Development Ordinance. If you’d like I could read that entirely so that you could 18 determine for yourself what standard would be applied. 19 20 Samantha Cabe: Sure, that might be helpful. 21 22 James Bryan: Your written affidavit stating why, “the proposed site is necessary for the 23 communication service” for example, for coverage, capacity, offloading, etcetera. And a statement 24 that there are no existing alternative sites within the provided search ring and there are no 25 alternative technologies available, which would provide the proposed telecommunication service 26 need without the tower. 27 28 Samantha Cabe: Do I have a motion as to whether or not they have met the standard of providing 29 such statements? 30 31 Motion made by Karen Barrows that applicant has complied with the submittal requirement of 32 providing the documents that Mr. Bryan read into the record. Seconded by Matt Hughes. 33 34 VOTE: Unanimous. 35 36 Matt Hughes: It’s 10:30. 37 38 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Do I have a motion to extend the meeting an additional 30 minutes? 39 40 Motion made by Barry Katz to extend meeting an additional 30-minutes. Seconded by Matt 41 Hughes. 42 43 VOTE: Unanimous. 44 45 Samantha Cabe: Alright, the meeting is extended to 11:00 pm. So the Board has found the 46 second finding from the bottom on page 149 that the Applicant has met that specific submittal 47 requirement with regard to the other submittal requirements listed on page 149. Do I have a 48 motion that the Board find in the affirmative that they have met those obligations based upon the 49 recommendations of Staff in the noted documents in the application? 50 143 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 142 of 156 1 Motion made by Barry Katz to accept Staff’s recommendations on page 149 of specific submittal 2 requirements. Seconded by Karen Barrows. 3 4 VOTE: Unanimous 5 6 Samantha Cabe: On page 150. Are there any of those Unified Development Ordinance Submittal 7 requirements that the Opponent contends have not been met? 8 9 James Bryan: Yeah, I found the Applicant is supplementing the first one. The opponent has an 10 alternative for the fifth one. 11 12 Samantha Cabe: The first one and the… Alright, so the Opponent has submitted a supplement 13 with regard to application for the co-location of antennas. 14 15 James Bryan: The Applicant. (long pause) It looks like they’re saying. They’re adding letters 16 dated December 12th between Carolina Telecommunications Services LLC, Michael Harvey …... 17 18 Samantha Cabe: And was that submitted at some point? 19 20 James Bryan: I don’t know. The December 12th one from Carolina Telecommunications. 21 22 Laura Goode: It was introduced into the record in the first hearing. 23 24 Jackie Hicks: Yes. 25 26 Samantha Cabe: On December the 12th? At our prior hearing? Oh yes, ok. Additional affidavit 27 number 4. Do you know about that? Ok. Staff has recommended a finding of yes, that they have 28 met that submittal requirement pending condition of numbers 8 and 9 in the abstract, which are on 29 pages 163. Do I have a motion to find that the Applicant has met their burden of submitting the 30 submittal requirement under 5.8.10(a)(2), which relates to applications for the co-location of 31 antennas? 32 33 Motion made by Barry Katz that the Applicant has successfully complied with the co-location 34 requirement obligation in 5.8.10(a)(2). Seconded by Matt Hughes. 35 36 VOTE: Unanimous 37 38 Samantha Cabe: Ok, motion carries. And then the fifth one down, that the Applicant has provided 39 evidence that the Applicant has investigate the possibilities of placing the proposed equipment on 40 an existing wireless support structure, and the Opponent has proposed that… I’m not sure, do you 41 see that they? I’m not seeing where they opposed that one or had an alternate finding, they 42 certainly argued it but. 43 44 James Bryan: So it’s on page 5 I believe, the second line of page 5 5.10.8(b)(3)(d). 45 46 Samantha Cabe: Ok and the Opponent has asked us to find no with the regard to that arguing that 47 there is no listing in the application of other structures capable of handling wireless equipment 48 such as electrical transmission towers, water towers, buildings, or other structures. The testimony 49 of Ben Levitan, the opponents expert on such structures and the use thereof to satisfy identified 50 144 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 143 of 156 needs are the evidence that they propose support the finding of no. And they have also set forth 1 the General Statute that we discussed earlier I believe. 2 3 James Bryan: And Madam Chair, if you’d like I’ve got the Unified Development Ordinance, which 4 is a little lengthy. 5 6 Samantha Cabe: Sure, if you would read the Unified Development Ordinance for us? 7 8 James Bryan: And so Michael’s just does it to (b)(3)(d) the opponent specifying (d) subsection for 9 that so… Evidence that the Applicant has investigated the possibilities of placing the proposed 10 equipment on existing wireless support structure. Such evidence shall consist of the listing of all 11 wireless telecommunications support structure within a 2-mile radius of the proposed wireless 12 support structure site and a listing of all wireless support structure, utility poles, and other 13 structures in the vicinity in the proposed vicinity that are technically feasible for utilization by the 14 Applicant to fill all or a substantial portion of the telecommunication service need identified by the 15 Applicant pursuant to section 5.10.8(a)(1)(s). Documents shall be submitted at the time of 16 application filing that indicates the Applicant’s ability or inability to co-locate on the identified 17 towers and reasons why. 18 19 Samantha Cabe: Alright, and Staff’s recommendation of finding that the Applicant has complied 20 with that provision of the Unified Development Ordinance are the application package tabs 4, 5, 6, 21 7, and 21 and Narrative tab 1. So that would include the network objective statement, Mr. 22 Haughney, who we also heard testimony from, the search ring photographs are tab 5, the 4G 23 capacity trigger sectors behind tab 6, and the… I can’t remember what you call these but the 24 maps that show change in coverage with the proposed tower behind tab 7, and then 21, which is 25 a letter from Chase Real Estate Services. It has a copy of the Unified Development Ordinance 26 that Mr. Bryan just read. So the letter behind tab 21 states, “No tower or other suitable facility 27 exists within the area where the equipment is to be placed on the tower will function in its intended 28 manner. There is one wireless telecommunication support structure within a 2-mile radius of the 29 proposed site” and that was their search ring that they spoke about in the paragraph above the, 30 “This wireless telecommunication support structure is not within the search area for the tower. 31 Verizon Wireless is already co-located on this wireless telecommunication support structure 32 shown as the Farrington Mill Site in the map of existing Verizon Wireless sites. There are no 33 wireless telecommunications support structures within the search area and no alternative 34 structures of sufficient height within the search area feasible for co-location. Therefore, a new 35 telecommunication tower is required. Please refer to the search ring map attached here too as 36 Exhibit 5. Please also refer to the map of existing Verizon Wireless site attached here too as 37 Exhibit 6”. So that is the statement that the Applicant contends is evidence that they have 38 investigated the possibilities of placing the proposed equipment. And our Ordinance says that they 39 shall provide those lists. This letter behind number 22 states that they are providing this 40 information but that they are also submitting that they. It remains their position that the North 41 Carolina General Statutes control the review of this application but they’re submitting the 42 information requested pursuant to the Unified Development Ordinance in the interest of time. So it 43 sounds like they’re arguing that the Statute may not require this such specifics but they provided 44 us with this letter. Does anyone have any discussion or? 45 46 Barry Katz: I proposed that we accept the Staff’s recommendation on 5.8.10(3)(d) based on the 47 evidence that the Applicant provided so listed. 48 49 145 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 144 of 156 Samantha Cabe: I have amendment to that motion. I would move to amend that motion to also 1 include, based upon not only the evidence listed by Staff that we approve. That we find yes, that 2 that submittal requirement has been met based upon the Staff’s list of supporting evidence but 3 also on the testimony that we heard at both hearings from Mr. Haughney. 4 5 Motion made by Barry Katz to accept Staff’s recommendation on 5.8.10(3)(d) based on the 6 evidence that the Applicant so listed and also on Mr. Haughney’s testimonies. Seconded by Karen 7 Barrows. 8 9 VOTE: Unanimous 10 11 Samantha Cabe: So the two items on 150 that had some dispute have now been approved by the 12 Board. Do I have a motion to approve all findings? To accept Staff recommendations on all 13 findings listed on page 150? 14 15 Motion made by Karen Barrows to accept Staff’s recommendation on all finding on page 150. 16 Seconded by Matt Hughes. 17 18 VOTE: Unanimous 19 20 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Moving to page 151. Mr. Bryan did you find? 21 22 James Bryan: I didn’t find any on 151, 2, or 3. 23 24 Samantha Cabe: Did you want to talk about (inaudible)? 25 26 (General inaudible conversation amongst the Board). 27 28 Samantha Cabe: Are there any items listed on page 151, 152, or 153 that a Board member would 29 like to discuss before we consider accepting Staff recommendations or making those specific 30 findings? Alright, do I have a motion to accept Staff Recommendations with regard to the 31 submittal requirements and the Special Use Permit specific standards that are set forth on pages 32 151, 152, and 153 of the abstract? 33 34 Motion made by Barry Katz to accept Staff Recommendations with regard to the submittal 35 requirements and the Special Use Permit specific standards that are set forth on pages 151, 152, 36 and 153 of the abstract. Seconded by Matt Hughes. 37 38 VOTE: Unanimous 39 40 Samantha Cabe: Alright, those are accepted. Page 154, continuation Use Specific Standards for 41 telecommunications facilities. Mr. Bryan did you identify those? My brain is broken down at this 42 point. 43 44 James Bryan: Yeah so one, two, and the last one. 45 46 Samantha Cabe: So let’s start with number one. 47 48 James Bryan: And that’s going to be on page 4 of the opposition’s sheet. The last item there, 49 5.10.8(b)(1)(a). 50 146 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 145 of 156 1 Samantha Cabe: Alright. The Use Specific Standards for telecommunications facilities, we must 2 make a finding that the overall policy and desire goals of promoting and encouraging alternatives 3 to constructing new wireless support structure would be met. And I know that there’s more specific 4 language in the Unified Development Ordinance. I think that’s a paraphrasing. The Opponent… 5 You said it’s on page 4 or page 5? 6 7 Matt Hughes: Four. 8 9 James Bryan: Four, the last item. 10 11 Samantha Cabe: Oh. The Opponents argue that we should find that this Use Specific Standard 12 has not been met based upon the testimony of the opponents expert, Ben Levitan, on 13 commercially practical co-location of wireless equipment on existing structures capable of locating 14 equipment to satisfy identified needs, failure of application to even consider non-tower structures. 15 And if Mr. Bryan, could you just read the section of the Unified Development Ordinance that 16 addresses that Use Specific standard so we know exactly what we are looking for? 17 18 James Bryan: Yeah and if I may preface with… So I’m going to read (b) and then (1) and then (a). 19 They all sort of flow together. It’s going to mention that it’s a submittal requirement but also reads 20 as an evaluation and I think the Board needs to make a call on that. I think we’re possible err on 21 the side of making a decision of whether it meets it or not… In addition to the general submittal 22 requirements detailed herein and these specific submittal requirements for all Special Use Permit 23 applications details within section 2.7 of these Ordinance Applicant’s shall be required to adhere 24 to the following. One; the overall policy and desired goals for the Special Use Permits for wireless 25 telecommunication support structures shall be promoting and encouraging, wherever possible, the 26 following: A.) Alternatives to constructing new wireless support structures including but not limited 27 to the co-location of wireless telecommunication equipment and mitigated the visual affect of a 28 wireless telecommunication support structure to an extent not commercially impractical. And if I 29 may? Because it’s got the extent commercially impractical I think that’s a clear standard of 30 evaluation. We call this a middle requirement but it doesn’t sound like it, it sounds ….. 31 32 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Is there any discussion on that? I think we need to make a finding that 33 they have or they have not submitted evidence before us that would support a finding that there 34 are not wireless telecommunication towers or alternative structures that are commercially feasible 35 to meet their objectives for co-location within their search area, leaving no alternative to 36 constructing a new tower. So we would either find that they have or they have not met that 37 burden. 38 39 Matt Hughes: How is this? This requirement seems duplicative to what we approved. 40 41 James Bryan: Oh yeah. So there’s lots of overlap with this. 42 43 Matt Hughes: I just don’t want to seem like I’m going crazy. 44 45 James Bryan: No, you’re not. You’re going to see it again with the standards evaluation, and then 46 all those standards of evaluation. Remember those big three, the public health, safety, welfare, 47 property values, stuff like that. Those usually encompass all the other ones. So if you’ve got 48 something that says, I’m sorry I can’t think of any examples but the buffers. That might fall into 49 property values. So there is a lot of duplication. Here in particular, but always. 50 147 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 146 of 156 1 Barry Katz: Well I propose that we submit Staff’s recommendation and approve that the Applicant 2 has met this particular standard. 3 4 Samantha Cabe: Ok, and the Staff’s proposed finding is that there are currently no wireless 5 telecommunication towers or alternative structures of sufficient height for co-location in search 6 area, leaving no alternative to constructing a new tower. Is that the proposed finding? 7 8 Barry Katz: That’s the proposed finding. Ok. Sure, that is my proposed finding. 9 10 Motion made by Barry Katz to accept Staff’s recommendation and approve that the Applicant has 11 met the burden under 5.10.8 (b) (1) (a) Seconded by Matt Hughes. 12 13 VOTE: Unanimous 14 15 Samantha Cabe: Same analysis under the next section. That the Applicant has met the burden of 16 showing that its plan to build the tower is promoting and encouraging placement to minimize 17 adverse aesthetic impacts. Staff’s proposed finding is that it will be under 200-feet and will be 18 made of material intended to blend with the sky, will be located at the rear of the large property, 19 it’s set back 1,000-feet from the adjacent public right of way, will be located on a densely wooded 20 property, in a not densely populated area that is separated from large residential developments. 21 The Opponent argues that we should find no in regard to that finding and is that in the same? 22 23 James Bryan: That’s in page 5. The first one. 24 25 Samantha Cabe: The Opponent proposes that the Applicant doesn’t utilize any stealth technology 26 or camouflage techniques and cites the testimony of Ben Levitan on commercially practical use of 27 alternative structures and technologies avoiding necessity for having to erect the tower. Is there 28 any? 29 30 Barry Katz: Well we heard expert witness opposing Mr. Levitan’s observation for this particular 31 site. Mr. Levitan made very good points but as we see, well, as was proposed by the Applicant, 32 there really was no practical way aside from building this 199-foot tower. 33 34 Karen Barrows: Well I think we heard Mr. Gwen. We heard the expert. And we’ve heard neighbors 35 that have said, aesthetically, they don’t think it’s positioned to minimize visibility. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: We did hear that the testimony how it is not aesthetically pleasing that will not be 38 aesthetically pleasing we also heard testimony regarding the infeasibility of the stealth technology 39 for this particular tower and the problems with the mono-pine, that it would look even worse. 40 41 Matt Hughes: I think it is what it is and they’re doing what’s possible given the specifications of the 42 cell tower and how much you would possibly camouflage it. 43 44 Samantha Cabe: Let’s see if TowerCom addressed this in their… This is TowerCom’s sort of 45 response but they didn’t address this one on theirs. Mr. Bryan, could you read the section of the 46 Unified Development Ordinance to be 5.10.8 (b)(1)(b)? 47 48 James Bryan: Yes ma’am. Would you like the (B) and the (1) again for a refresher? 49 50 148 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 147 of 156 Samantha Cabe: You can summarize the (B) and the (1) that you’ve already read in the. The Big 1 (B) 1. 2 3 James Bryan: Alright. It’s that the Applicants shall be required to adhere to the following overall 4 policies and desired goals; Promoting and encouraging wherever possible the following: B) the 5 placement, height, and quantity of wireless telecommunication towers and equipment in such a 6 manner including but not limited to the use of stealth technology or camouflage techniques to 7 minimize adverse aesthetics and visual impacts on the land, property, buildings, and other 8 facilities adjacent to surrounding and in generally the same area as the requested location as 9 such wireless telecommunication support structure, which shall mean using the least visually and 10 physically intrusive facility that is not technologically or commercially impractical under the facts 11 and circumstances. Again, I would urge the Board that it’s also past the circumstances it talks 12 about commercial technology that so applied as a standard. 13 14 Barry Katz: Ms. Goode addressed this issue tonight, in that in order for it to be commercially 15 practical there was no way on a 199-foot tower that you could make this tower any prettier than it 16 is. But they made an application, we’ll see whether it’s a valid application, but they’ve made an 17 application to put this tower up and I can’t imagine this tower could be rejected because there is 18 no way to make this thing prettier than it is. 19 20 Samantha Cabe: I think we would reject it if there was a way to make it prettier and they didn’t do 21 it. Or if it was commercially feasible and they didn’t do it. 22 23 Barry Katz: Right. 24 25 Samantha Cabe: I would say we heard testimony or there’s evidence within the application that 26 the stealth technology, mono-pine, just were not feasible. That they did consider it and it was not 27 technologically feasible or commercially practical to implement either of those technologies and 28 standard does say that they must do it wherever possible, and technologically feasible and 29 commercially practical. Does anyone have a motion for me whether to find that they have met this 30 burden or not? 31 32 Motion made by Barry Katz to adopt staff’s recommendation in regards to 5.10.8 (B)(1)(b) based 33 upon the Applicants presentation that it considered stealth technology and it was not logically 34 feasible or commercially practical. Seconded by Matt Hughes. 35 36 VOTE: Unanimous 37 38 Samantha Cabe: We will find that the Applicant has met that burden. Going down to the last item 39 on this page. Location of wireless support structures 5.10.8(B)(4)(b). The... If you could help… 40 41 James Bryan: That’s on, you’re like where the abundance one… 42 43 Samantha Cabe: Yes, on page 5, the third one down. Is that it? 44 45 James Bryan: It’s the third and the fourth one so. And Michael ‘s stops at (B)(4)(b). 46 47 Samantha Cabe: Which includes all the little subsections? 48 49 James Bryan: Yeah, and he split it up into (B)(1)(2) and then (B)(3). 50 149 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 148 of 156 1 Samantha Cabe: Alright. And if you could just read that section of the Unified Development 2 Ordinance so we know exactly what we’re deciding here? 3 4 James Bryan: Sure. So the little (b) is location of wireless support structures, and then (i) has 5 applicants for facilities shall locate site and erect site facilities according to the following priorities, 6 in the following order: A) on existing County owned facilities without increasing the height of the 7 tower or structure. B) On existing facilities without increasing the height of the tower or structure. 8 C) On County owned properties or facilities. D) On properties and areas zoned for commercial or 9 industrial use E) on properties and areas zoned agricultural residential, AR. F) on properties and 10 areas zoned for residential use. The second one (i) is: If an applicant proposes to place 11 telecommunications equipment at a location that is not on a preferred priority one site then the 12 applicant must provide a detailed explanation as to why a higher priority site is not proposed. The 13 explanation shall be in the form of a written report, demonstrate the applicant’s review of the 14 above locations in order of priority and the reasons for the site selection. The explanation shall, at 15 a minimum, include the information required by section 5.10.8(B)(3)(t). 16 17 Samantha Cabe: So this is the… The staff recommends that the Applicant has met this specific 18 standard based upon application package tab 30 and 31, and Narrative tab 1. This would also, I 19 believe, include that letter. The letter stating that there were no, in tab 21. That there were no 20 facilities existing in the area where the equipment could be placed on the tower, and they went 21 through the one wireless telecommunication support structure within a 2-mile radius at the 22 proposed site even though that site was not in their search ring. They did identify that and explain 23 why that particular site was not available, but I believe there’s also the letter stating that there 24 were no co-location sites within their search ring. I believe we talked about in our hearing the 25 Statute that says that we cannot require them to co-locate on a telephone pole or… and our 26 Statute specifically says that… Or our Unified Development Ordinance says that a telephone pole 27 is not a wireless support structure. And I believe the opponents position is that they didn’t provide 28 a specific list of things that were there and that they turned down. But I’m not sure if they’re saying 29 that there weren’t any that you could provide a list of the negative, but their list was saying there 30 were not any that met the standard. And staff has proposed that we find, that the 31 telecommunication structure is located on property zoned rural buffer i.e., property zoned for 32 residential use. Facility siting is not possible at the locations identified in the subsection as there 33 are no existing mono-pole, lattice, or guide wireless telecommunications structures within one half 34 mile of the proposed wireless support structure. Do I have a motion with regard to whether we 35 should find yes or no that they have met this requirement? 36 37 Motion made by Karen Barrows to adopt Staff’s recommendation in regard to 5.10.8(B)(4)(b) 38 based the evidence in the application package. Seconded by Barry Katz. 39 40 VOTE: Unanimous 41 42 Samantha Cabe: That motions carries. On to page 155. Are there any of page 155 Mr. Bryan? 43 44 James Bryan: I didn’t find any. 45 46 Samantha Cabe: That is where the access provision is located. Does anyone have a motion with 47 regard to the findings on page 155, or would anyone like to discuss any of those? It would be a 48 finding that they’ve met their use specific requirements for fall zone setbacks, access, landscape, 49 and buffer type C land use buffer. 50 150 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 149 of 156 1 Karen Barrows: Can I just ask? And we did say that Ms. Corbin still has concerns that …... 2 3 Barry Katz: That’s (inaudible) 4 5 Motion made by Barry Katz of finding that the Applicant has met its responsibilities under the 6 Unified Development Ordinance provision set forth on page 155. Seconded by Karen Barrows. 7 8 VOTE: Unanimous 9 10 Motion made by Barry Katz to extend meeting another 20-minutes. Seconded by Samantha 11 Cabe. 12 13 VOTE: Unanimous 14 15 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Page 156 of the abstract includes use specific standards 16 5.10.8(B)(4)(f)(g)(h)(i)(m)(j). Are any of those? 17 18 James Bryan: I didn’t find any the general standards on 160. 19 20 Samantha Cabe: Alright, so we can consider the use specific standards. Do I have a motion to 21 adopt Staff recommendations with regard to use specific standards set forth on pages 155, 156, 22 157, 158, and 159? Or if there’s any discussion we can… 23 24 Karen Barrows: Didn’t we just do 155? 25 26 Barry Katz: Yeah, just 156 through 159. 27 28 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 156 through 159. Is there a motion to accept Staff with regard to use specific 29 standards? 30 31 Motion made by to adopt Staff recommendations with regard to Use Specific Standards on pages 32 156, 157, 158, and, 159 based on the comments in our records that the use and evidence. 33 Seconded by Karen Barrows. 34 35 VOTE: Unanimous 36 37 Samantha Cabe: And now, the ultimate questions. The general standards, with regard. Let’s do 38 these one at a time. We are required to find that the use will or will not maintain or promote the 39 public’s health, safety, and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and 40 operated according to the plan as submitted. Is there any discussion as to whether the Applicant 41 has met this burden? I will read to you the Opponents position on that. The Opponent states that 42 petitions in opposition to the application for telecommunications facility Special Use Permit made 43 part of the record, these are the supports for finding no, and testimony of Evan Gwen regarding 44 potential adverse impact on wildlife and plant life along adjacent wildlife corridor, as well as 45 unknown long term health hazards. Without necessarily finding that they have met that burden I 46 will say that I do believe we’ve received into evidence impact statements on the environment and 47 the wildlife, as well as the Statute prohibits us from finding that there’s a health hazard with regard 48 to the EMT’s related to the cell tower. But otherwise, does anyone have a motion or want to 49 discuss whether the Applicant has met their burden? 50 151 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 150 of 156 1 Karen Barrows: I think the use will maintain, promote the public health, safety, and general 2 welfare. 3 4 Samantha Cabe: And specifically what evidence that we heard makes you believe that it will 5 maintain or promote the health and general welfare? 6 7 Karen Barrows: We heard Dunc say that he thinks would allow for better communication for 8 emergencies. We have speculative heard there might be some adverse health effects ….. 9 10 Barry Katz: We have the impact statements also that was submitted by the Applicant. We have 11 these environmental statements that support the fact that there will be no long-term adverse 12 effects to putting this in. Those were the basis for why we had this proposed, uh …. proposal that 13 we accept this. 14 15 Samantha Cabe: Do I have a? Is there a motion to find that the Special Use Permit would, that the 16 use will maintain and promote the public, health, safety, and general welfare if located where 17 proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted? 18 19 Motion made by Karen Barrows that the use will maintain and promote the public, health, safety, 20 and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan 21 as submitted. Seconded by Barry Katz. 22 23 VOTE: Unanimous 24 25 Samantha Cabe: So the second question. The use will or will not maintain or enhance the value of 26 contiguous property, unless the use is a public necessity, which I think we’ve talked about that it’s 27 not, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous property. So 28 Mr. Bryan, is there any case law or is there any more detail in the Unified Development Ordinance 29 about what it means to maintain the value, does it just mean to not cause it to decrease? 30 31 James Bryan: That would be my assumption, just by the plain meaning of the words. If you’re 32 looking at not the negative, zero, or positive. 33 34 Samantha Cabe: The Opponent ….. the opponent asks us to find that the Applicant has not met 35 their burden to prove that they’ve met this standard based upon the testimony and appraisal 36 report of Mike Ogburn who is a residential appraisal expert, the testimony of Evan and Owen 37 Gwen, affidavits of Ben Rudnik and William Anylne, letters between council for opponents and 38 TowerCom regarding timbering of Buckner Family Farm Trust property, inadequacies of applicant 39 expert report on this issue, and failure of the applicant to establish a public necessity for the tower. 40 41 Karen Barrows: I think the opponents established the project would not maintain or enhance the 42 value of contiguous properties …... 43 44 Samantha Cabe: You believe that the opponents have. That their evidence. 45 46 Karen Barrows: They had the appraiser who was pretty clear …. 47 48 Samantha Cabe: So are making a motion that the Board finds that the Applicant has not met the 49 requirement that the use will maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous property? 50 152 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 151 of 156 1 Karen Barrows: Well, it might be premature to say that …. 2 3 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 4 5 Matt Hughes: Well, and I’m not sure if this was ever. I guess this was entered into the record and I 6 know the opposing council was calling to question who pay for it and whatnot, and in my opinion 7 calling into question the American Bar Association and folks who write for the publication, just 8 doing a quick Google search of two or three folks who wrote them, the article that appeared in this 9 publication. I know these are attorney’s who, seemingly, were experts in real estate and in land 10 use and so I wouldn’t necessarily discount that. That’s not like some company hired them to write 11 this, necessarily. I’m not an expert on how these things come about but there definitely seems to 12 me to be conflicting evidence as to whether or not a tower could enhance the value of, or at least 13 diminish the value of, contiguous property. The expert, Mr. Ogburn, gave us a report that included 14 a Journal article that included a study that was done in New Zealand and I would’ve felt better 15 about that article if it was in… If that study had been conducted in the United States. In part 16 because of land use policies and practices that are more in line with that you see in the United 17 States. 18 19 Samantha Cabe: And it was twelve years old. 20 21 Matt Hughes: And it was twelve years old. So I don’t think I can say that it will necessarily 22 negatively affect the contiguous property. The other thing is that Mr. Ogburn did present us with a 23 study that he did that, Samantha pointed out, was largely conducted using homes that were very 24 similar and it seems like the homes in this area are unique and I. You know, there could be other 25 factors that could possibly drive whether or not that property has diminished or enhanced value. 26 And I believe also the American Bar Association did point out something that was in Chatham 27 County, and also in Holly Springs, where there was some dispute as to whether or not a cell tower 28 would diminish the value of property. I think it’s, maybe in some ways it’s beauty is in the eye of 29 the beholder. I think a lot of people may look for good cell reception when they purchase a home, 30 maybe some don’t. But I’m not convinced that the tower itself will diminish the value of the 31 property, just based on what I’ve heard tonight and what I heard last month. 32 33 Barry Katz: Well I listened to the testimony of the appraisers and I did not find the testimony all 34 that convincing on either side. Not at all. I mean really, I was troubled by it all. I didn’t find the 35 Opponents evaluation to be convincing to me at all. And again, there are multiple factors that add 36 to maintaining or enhancing value of property. We’re here in 2017 and we’re still. We’re at this 37 point where cell towers. They’re not like part of the landscape. And this is why we’re having this 38 meeting and why we’re having such difficulty. I just don’t know whether or not, based on the 39 testimony I heard I couldn’t make a decision that a cell tower would diminish the property values. I 40 have to say that I can’t say that it would. And that’s painful for me to say but I believe that so. I 41 didn’t hear any persuasive evidence that it was going to diminish property values. 42 43 Samantha Cabe: And I think this is the hardest one for me because our reality is now that cell 44 towers are a necessity in somebody’s back yard in order to provide cell service in rural areas that 45 somebody in a rural area has to have a cell tower in their yard, and it’s hard to weigh the effect on 46 the property values of the way it looks with the benefit that you get from having the good cell 47 service in those areas. And I don’t know. I don’t think either of our experts really spoke to the 48 weighing of those two issues. Probably because there’s not really a good way to weigh that. But I 49 would tend to agree that if we define maintain in the absence of a negative I did not find. I would 50 153 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 152 of 156 say that Mr. Parkers report and testimony would support a finding that the use would maintain the 1 value. And I didn’t find that Mr. Ogburn’s testimony was convincing that it would diminish it. And I 2 always think about power lines when I think about these things. You know, just from the little 3 wooden power poles that are around every neighborhood and how they were probably once 4 subject of similar discussions and now people don’t even notice them. This is… It’s troubling 5 because I understand that nobody wants a cell tower near their property. 6 7 Barry Katz: It’s painful. 8 9 Samantha Cabe: But on the other hand, I don’t know that they diminish the value. Particularly a 10 property that has so many other benefits to it. And it’s unique by the testimony that we heard 11 given. 12 13 Karen Barrows: Well I think that’s part of the point. It is unique. And that’s why they don’t want to 14 have to see the tower. And also I think the appraiser looked at the comparable(s) that, as was 15 stated already, had towers there in the subdivision already in existence. This is a very different 16 situation. 17 18 Barry Katz: My understanding of what you’re saying is that the comparison were made in 19 subdivisions and this is an entirely different situation. Is that what you’re saying, and that the 20 uniqueness of the rural quality is affected by this cell tower? 21 22 Karen Barrows: Well …. 23 24 Barry Katz: I can’t say that I’m convinced that property values will be diminished when the time 25 comes when property is sold. I just, I’m not convinced that I can say that it would. Because of the 26 factors that that location is so appealing people will want to live there. This is as cold blooded a 27 thing to talk, in a way to talk about an area that’s beautiful, it breaks my heart, but the area is so 28 desirable that I think property values will be maintained. This is not an aesthetic issue. This is just 29 a dollars and cents thing. From what I heard there was no compelling evidence to say that 30 property values would not be maintained and just trying to make a statement that going forward I 31 think that the cell tower issue will not be as consequential as other variable to the property there, 32 as far as maintaining value. Is that permissible, for me to state it that way? 33 34 James Bryan: Well to clarify, you all are relying on the expert opinion that you heard. Whichever 35 expert you choose is the expert opinion that you’re relying upon. Only an expert can give an 36 opinion on property value and all evidence must be substantial, competent, and material. This is 37 obviously material. Both were introduced without objection as being competent. And now it’s 38 whether it is substantial. Would it persuade the average person to make a certain conclusion? 39 Which is your conclusion to believe Smith or Ogburn. 40 41 Samantha Cabe: And I believe I called Mr. Smith Mr. Parker earlier, sorry about that. 42 43 Matt Hughes: So I mean, in my opinion, Mr. Smith presented evidence that properties would not 44 be negatively impacted. I guess in the absence of a positive, even zero is positive I guess you 45 could say. I was just not convinced at all by Mr. Ogburn’s testimony regarding how the properties 46 would be negatively impacted. I guess to some extent you could say, I can’t remember how the 47 saying goes, there are no knowns and no unknowns and etcetera, etcetera. But, I just. I believe at 48 worst, based on what we’ve received, that there may be no impact. At worst. 49 50 154 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 153 of 156 Samantha Cabe: I’m just looking back at Mr. Parkers report. 1 2 Matt Hughes: Mr. Smith? 3 4 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Smith, sorry… I guess one difference in the expert opinions; Mr. Smith’s 5 report did include a subdivision that’s within Orange County, in the rural buffer. So it was more 6 similar. Even though it’s still not exactly like this property. I don’t think we’re going to find a direct 7 comparison with this particular property. But it is within Orange County so it has a lot of the same 8 factors in determining value as far as location and amenities and that kind of thing. I don’t know 9 if… I’m happy to discuss this more. If anybody has a motion either way? 10 11 Matt Hughes: I move that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. That 12 we accept the Staff recommendation. 13 14 Samantha Cabe: And just for clarification, what is the finding based upon? 15 16 Matt Hughes: That the finding is based upon the Application package as well as… The finding’s 17 based on the above findings, Applicant’s Narrative and Staff report, as well as the testimony of the 18 experts. 19 20 James Bryan: To clarify, part of it Samantha’s point about Mr. Smith’s including the property in 21 Orange County versus Wake County? 22 23 Matt Hughes: That’s right. 24 25 Motion made by Matt Hughes to adopt Staff recommendation in regard that the use will maintain 26 or enhance the value of contiguous property, based upon Applicant’s Narrative and Staff’s report 27 as well as the testimony of the experts, and the expert Mr. Smith’s inclusion of the Orange County 28 properties. Seconded by Barry Katz. 29 30 VOTE: 3-1(Barrows) 31 32 Karen Barrows: I’m opposed for the reasons I have stated …. 33 34 Samantha Cabe: So that’s three for yes, and one for no… The third and final finding is that the 35 location and character of the use is developed according to the plan submitted will or will not be in 36 harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for 37 the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations, or the comprehensive 38 plan or portion thereof adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. So this is the. Would this, 39 if developed, this plan be in harmony with the area? 40 41 Barry Katz: Am I right, Mr. Harvey, that the submittal and the recommendations we would get to 42 the point that the submission getting as far as a Special Use Permit implies that this application is 43 in harmony? I know I heard something along those lines so please clarify that. 44 45 James Bryan: Yeah so that the BOCC has allowed an Special Use Permit as a use in this area is 46 the prime facie case that it is in harmony. 47 48 Barry Katz: That’s what I heard. 49 50 155 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 154 of 156 James Bryan: So it’s an implication that they’ve… If you’ve heard anything contrary to that you 1 could still find an opposing end to that. Also, remember that this standard is more than just in 2 harmony. It’s also and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the 3 County as embodied in these regulations or the comprehensive plan or portion thereof. 4 5 Samantha Cabe: So essentially, the fact that the County Commissioners have allowed this to be 6 an approved use that’s the Prima facie case that it’s in harmony but we could find that something 7 makes this out of harmony? 8 9 James Bryan: Oh definitely, yeah. The one inclusion is that you can’t say no matter what you 10 showed me you wouldn’t be in harmony. That you can’t do. But if you had opposing evidence that 11 was substantial, competent material you could definitely that this is not in harmony or not with the 12 comprehensive plan. 13 14 Samantha Cabe: And the opponents position, with regard to finding that the Applicant has not met 15 this burden, is the testimony of Owen Gwen and Even Gwen, Dove Field property maps, photos 16 regarding visibility of the tower, and petitions in opposition to the new tower. Also, Dove Field 17 master plan map and testimony of Erin Gwen with regard to the tower. TowerCom contends the 18 supporting evidence for voting yes is the application package inclusive or but not limited to the 19 Narrative of tab 1, the impact analysis of tab 32 and 35 G, the site plan of tab 8, tabs 13, 33, and 20 35B, the balloon test results, which is abstract attachment 5, the location and character of the 21 proposed wireless telecommunication facility if developed according to the plan submitted will be 22 in harmony with the area in which it is to be located. Subject property and majority of surrounding 23 properties in the area are all zoned rural buffer or existing commercial. Five new free standing 24 telecommunication towers over 75-feet high and under 200-feet in high are permitted in the rural 25 buffer and EC5 districts as a Class B Special Use. It goes on to say the proposed tower will be 26 under the 200-feet limitation in height and will be a monopole type design without lattice or guide 27 wires and will be made of galvanized steel to blend with the changing color of the sky. The tower 28 will not lit or marked. The proposed tower will be located toward the rear of the large, over 18-29 acre, property set back over 1,000-feet from the adjacent Mount Carmel Church Road public right 30 of way. The subject property upon which the tower will be located is currently densely wooded. As 31 much as the existing vegetation as possible will be maintained around the access road and tower. 32 They go on to talk about the landscape buffer and that the facility will be unmanned and will not be 33 an employment center requiring only periodic maintenance on a monthly basis on average. 34 Therefore, traffic in the area should not be impacted. The subject property is in a largely rural area 35 with surrounding properties that are also densely wooded and not densely populated, and 36 separated from large, residential developments. They contend that they are in compliance with the 37 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to their Narrative in tab 1. And propose the finding, that based on 38 the above findings, Applicant’s Narrative and Staff’s report, the location and nature of the use if 39 developed according to the plan submitted will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be 40 located. And the use in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as 41 embodied by these regulations and Comprehensive Plan… I think this Board is in a position of, 42 essentially, we can’t say that. The County Commissioners have determined that the erection of 43 this type of tower is a permitted use with a Special B Use Permit in a rural buffer zone. And 44 showing other than it’s not in harmony regardless of what they do we have to find that it is in 45 harmony. And I think probably every neighbor in here would say there’s nothing you could do to 46 make it in harmony. Because nobody wants it in their yard. But I don’t know. We’re not permitted 47 to make that finding. We have to be specific about why it’s not in harmony. Because the County’s 48 determined this is appropriate use in a rural buffer zoned area. 49 50 156 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 155 of 156 Barry Katz: They should’ve used a different word beside harmony. 1 2 Samantha Cabe: Is that from the statute or our Unified Development Ordinance? 3 4 James Bryan: Statute or case law, I cannot remember. 5 6 Barry Katz: This is a legal issue, essentially. Not a purely aesthetic issue in our opinions. We have 7 to have some material basis for making an aesthetic judgment. 8 9 James Bryan: Ok so, the Board definitely has discretion, but like everything else it must be based 10 upon substantial, competent, and material evidence. 11 12 Matt Hughes: So my thing is, I think we can look at harmony… Me, not being a lawyer, not know 13 case law. I think most people would read harmony and make the assumption it means, does it fit? 14 Is it not going to be out of sync with the rest of the area? And I think you’ve laid it out a few times 15 for us tonight that harmony has already been, in a way, established because the County 16 Commissioners, through the Unified Development Ordinance, have said this is an acceptable use 17 within the rural buffer, which I assume in order for them to have reached that conclusion they 18 would also have had to consult with the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Since they help 19 maintain the rural buffer through their joint planning jurisdiction. And so, therefore, I feel that 20 particularly how our local leaders tend to make policy that everything is thought out to the enth 21 degree, and that to get all of those jurisdictions onboard with allowing something like this within 22 the rural buffer had to jump through several hoops, in terms or whether or not this could be an 23 acceptable use in the rural buffer. Especially since the rural buffer is viewed to be very sacred to a 24 lot of people, for very understandable reasons. But because it is allowed by the County 25 Commissioners for the rural buffer and it’s not disallowed I believe it is in harmony with the rules. 26 And of course, like anything, if folks are really not happy about it or don’t like those uses then you 27 have County Commissioners who can make those changes. But, based on the rules that we have 28 today in front of us, I think it is in harmony with the area. 29 30 Barry Katz: I agree with Matt, based on the constraints that we have as a Board. Not merely as 31 casual residents of the County or people that might frequent Mount Carmel Church Road, and 32 experience, etcetera. I don’t see how we could reject this. Based on this standard. I don’t see that 33 we have the evidence to reject this. 34 35 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Is there a motion to find that the location and character. Well I’ll tell you 36 what; I’ll just make the motion. I move that this board find that the location and character of the 37 use, if developed according with the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is 38 to be located, and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the 39 county as embodied in these regulations or the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof adopted by 40 the BOCC. That finding would be based upon the evidence submitted in the application package, 41 including Narrative at tab 1, the impact analysis in tab 32, the site plan at tab 8, the balloon test 42 results at abstract attachment 5, as well as the fact that the prima facie case has been established 43 for the use being in harmony and there’s not been sufficient evidence to refute that prima facie 44 case. I move that the Board find that the Applicant has met this burden. 45 46 47 Motion made by Samantha Cabe to find that the location and character of the use, if developed 48 according with the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and 49 the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the county as embodied in 50 157 DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 156 of 156 these regulations or the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof adopted by the BOCC. That 1 finding would be based upon the evidence submitted in the application package, including 2 Narrative at tab 1, the impact analysis in tab 32, the site plan at tab 8, the balloon test results at 3 abstract attachment 5, as well as the fact that the prima facie case has been established for the 4 use being in harmony and there’s not been sufficient evidence to refute that prima facie case. And 5 that the Applicant has met this burden. Seconded by Matt Hughes. 6 7 VOTE: Unanimous. 8 9 Samantha Cabe: So the Staff is recommending that the ultimate issuance of the Unified 10 Development Ordinance be subject to conditions that are set forth on pages 162 and 163 of the 11 packet. Any Discussion? 12 13 Barry Katz: Didn’t the applicant disagree with one of these …… 14 15 Matt Hughes: The buffer condition about trees ….. 16 17 Samantha Cabe: I think we have the ability to modify or not. Having said that I think we have 18 recommendations from staff and I am not sure I have heard compelling reasons to deviate ….. 19 20 Barry Katz: Yeah but can we really … I mean the buffer standard is what the Ordinance says. 21 Susan Halkiotis: I think the conditions are reasonable. 22 23 Matt Hughes: I ….. hang on …. I think the conditions address some of the concerns we have 24 heard. 25 26 Samantha Cabe: Do I have a motion? 27 28 Motion made by Barry Katz to approve the permit and impose the conditions recommended by 29 staff. Seconded by Matt Hughes. 30 31 VOTE: Unanimous. 32 33 34 AGENDA ITEM : ADJOURNMENT: 35 36 MOTION by Barry Katz to adjourn. Seconded by Susan Halkiotis 37 38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 39 40 41 _________________________________________ 42 NAME OF CHAIR, CHAIR 43 158 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT CASE A-1-17 Meeting Date: March 13, 2017 Agenda Item No. A-1-17 SUBJECT: CASE A-1-17: Appeal of a Decision made by the Zoning Officer DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Appeal Application Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 PURPOSE: To convene the hearing and begin review of an appeal application submitted by several local property owners concerning a November 7, 2016 letter from the Zoning Officer, a copy of which can be found in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND: On October 24, 2016 the Orange County Board of Adjustment (hereafter ‘Board’) referred a case back to the Orange County Planning Department requesting a binding determination with respect to the processing of a Zoning Compliance Permit associated with building permit application CB16-0020. The permit involved the erection of a structure on a parcel of property identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9729-50- 7168 owned by Southeast Property Group LLC care off Ms. Kara Brewer (hereafter ‘the property’). This is commonly referred to as the Barn of Chapel Hill project. The Board directed the Planning Director through his designee (hereafter ‘Staff’) to: ‘make a determination as to whether the structure being proposed for the property will be used for a bona fide farm purpose and whether the use as a wedding and event center is related to or incidental to such farm purposes’. On November 7, 2016 staff issued a letter making a final, binding, determination which is now being appealed as detailed in Attachment 1. With respect to the review of an appeal application the Board needs to remember the following: a. The intent of the meeting is to allow the applicant to present testimony detailing how staff erred with respect to the interpretation/enforcement of the UDO. b. Per Section 2.26.4 of the UDO all decisions of the Board of Adjustment are: ‘… subject to review at the request of any person who has standing as detailed within NCGS 160A-393 (d) by the Superior Court by proceedings in the nature of certiorari’. This appeal must be filed within 30 days of the availability of the notice of decision in accordance with the UDO. 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192